Talk:Johann Wolfgang von Goethe/Archive 2

Introduction about list of professional activities.
I have just edited the sentence wrongly containing "biologist, theoretical physicist, and polymath". I am very surprised to read this, it is really not rigorous. He was certainly a polymath, a personal quality but not a professional title, not in the good sentence, I have written it in another sentence. He was not a scientist, never earned any qualifications or titles, in particular "biologist and physicist", even though he was well interested and was a huge amator of sciences and more precisely natural sciences history. As I did not write anything in this article, please tell me or fix after me the correction I have proposed. Thank you. (You can refer to the article about its works and his French and Deutsch Wikipedia's articles.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docteur Tomate (talk • contribs) 15:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is full of misinformation and needs to be rewritten from the ground up. Goethe should absolutely be considered a scientist. He was an honorary member of the society of natural science in Jena and an official member of Jena's professional botanical institute. He attended lectures in comparative anatomy throughout the 1780s and 1790s, collected hundreds of mineralogical specimens, consulted with experts in engineering and geology on a regular basis as part of the project to reopen Ilmenau's silver mines, toured a number of mines throughout Germany and inspected two of the first steam engines in use on the continent. He's a published scientist, other scientists have written books about his scientific works. Plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.104.57 (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have reverted your bold changes to the introduction, because I feel that the existing introduction gives a better overview of Goethe's lasting contributions to intellectual, literary and cultural history. But perhaps you are right and there should be more biographical data in the intro. I will try to move the intro in that direction without losing some of the positive features of the currently existing intro. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The introduction as it is is very bad. It's terribly subjective, the material that it includes is fairly arbitrary. The intoduction I wrote uses plain language, sticks to the facts, and mentions a number of his important accomplishments in politics and administration that the original introduction ignores. It's not just "biographical data", but as Boyle says, essentially an independent sphere of his artistic production. I think the introduction I wrote is much more fitting for an actual biography. The current one asserts too strongly the existence of weimar classicism, the paragraph on his political opinions is of questionable importance, and it seems pointless to cling to the assertion that he was a polymath. Of course he was a polymath. Goethe is not a great man because the wikipedia article on him calls him a polymath. My version also more greatly elaborates on his career as a privy councillor.

I know a considerable amount about Goethe, and wanted to rewrite this biography to bring it up to par. I'd be willing to do so, and to collaborate with the keepers on this page. But I very much dislike contributing to wikipedia because people are so protective of their own material. This article is bad, and it needs to be rewritten and it doesn't seem like you're objective enough to make the cuts that need to be made here. I'm going to continue editing it, and instead of just deleting all of my changes and trying to lord over what this article says, why not just post suggestions here, recommend the material that I should go back and include, and correct any mistakes I make along the way. Please don't hold this article back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.104.57 (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you took offense to my edit. I'm not "protecting my own writing" --- I didn't wrote the current intro, I just prefer it to yours. And I disagree with you that such things as re-opening salt mines are more important to mention than founding multiple literary movements.


 * Please follow WP:LEAD:
 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
 * &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

He didn't found any literary movements actually, and besides that I actually give a better description of weimar classicism than the original introduction. So I'm not sure what your issue is. The various administrative duties I listed are covered extensively in Boyle. Goethe never would have turned to science if he didn't open up those *silver* mines (not salt). His administration at Jena paved the way for the ascendency of Kantian philosophy. He secured the posts of both Schiller and Fichte as lecturers at the university. His various projects, like the roman villa, still stand today as important world heritage sites. He was a politician, and his career as a politician is of utmost importance in his life. I suppose it's pointless to try and make corrections to this article as I have no standing here. But the introduction I wrote is clearly backed up by some of the major academic works on Goethe, the current one is more speculative and doesn't really reflect his "contributions" to world history as much as you say it does. But I guess you're the boss of the article, and don't really have to cite any sources to back your view up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.104.57 (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Everyone's welcome to contribute, and articles don't technically have 'keepers'. But in general, new material has a better chance of remaining in the article if it's done in a certain way; as tedious as it seems, it usually works a lot better to expand the body of the article first than to jump straight to the lead. Once the body of the article has been filled out with material based on good use of reliable sources, the lead can be modified to reflect this. I share your opinion that this article needs a lot of work, and it would be great to see it get to good or even featured article status. Sindinero (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Archiving
Anyone here opposed to setting up automatic archiving for this increasingly unwieldy talk page? Also, what would be the best way to integrate the manually-established archive with one that would be handled by Miszabot? I'm not terribly experienced with these things. Sindinero (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes
I've just undid some recent changes by User:66.191.104.57 - not because I think they weren't helpful changes, but because they resulted in a corruption of the notes section. (See before and after. 66.191.104.57, please keep editing, but be careful that the notes already in place aren't broken by the changes. (And if you're interested in contributing to this article and others on a longer-term basis, I'd encourage you to consider registering a user name - helps with continuity.) Cheers, and happy editing, Sindinero (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed from lead
The following was removed: ''Thoughout his life Goethe kept friendships, and corresponded with, many significant individuals. He provided encouragement to Thomas Carlyle, met with Hegel throughout the early portion of that philosopher's career, and, on one occasion, was granted an audience with Napoleon Bonaparte.'' -- Should it not go back in? hgilbert (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I had second thoughts about it, I think the introduction should be kept succinct.

Hiebel
'Goethe's Message of Beauty in Our Twentieth Century World, by Friedrich Hiebel is cited in the section Scientific work. Qexigator is proposing a new article for Hiebel at [], and help would be welcome.Qexigator (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

O Tannenbaum
Goethe was the first to include the Christmas tradition of a tree in a literary text: see this [books.google.com/books?id=uFhFf0qj2yUC&pg=PA174 article in Folk-Lore]. This did not arise through "research"; he simply encountered the tradition, which was still common, and included it in his first novel. It's thus a bit of an exaggeration to say that "by researching folk traditions, he created many of the norms for celebrating Christmas".

I have removed the passage until further evidence of a larger context is given. If someone wants to include him being the first to mention Christmas in a literary text in this article, I have no great objection, but nor do I see that it has great significance here. hgilbert (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Goethe's IQ
Goethe's IQ was assigned by a notable American Psychologist Catherine Cox (PhD from Stanford University). I have cited the link of her book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahully2j (talk • contribs) 01:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Goethe and Beethoven
The article mentions that Beethoven idolized Goethe, yet Beethoven's article makes no mention of Goethe whatsoever. Darktangent (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead section needs an overhaul
The lead section of this article strikes me as being way too long and not in keeping with what a lead should be as per the MoS. All that unending blue name-throwing that I don't think should be found in a lead section. The lead could be reduced by half.

Just one example of what, IMO, should be in the body of the article, and not in the lead: "There are frequent references to Goethe's various sayings and maxims throughout the course of Friedrich Nietzsche's work".--Lubiesque (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Take a look at the last paragraph of the lead of the Shakespeare article. It discusses Shakespeare's changing reputation over he centuries. The final paragraph of the lead of this article similarly discusses Goethe's reputation, but with reference to various writers who have appropriated Goethe's writings. If you come up with an alternative paragraph that abides by Wikipedia's manual of style, I'll consider supporting it. &mdash; goethean 08:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Kant in influences
My understanding (from Boyle) is that Goethe's understanding of Kant was mediated through Schelling. If so, wouldn't it be more accurate to add Schelling rather than Kant? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 11:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Boyle talks about Kant's influence on Goethe throughout the whole of the second volume. Schelling doesn't enter the picture until the end of the book. Goethe understood and adapted both, you could add both Schelling and Kant to the influences. I added Kant simply to indicate Goethe's general engagement with the critical philosophy. I believe Oliver Goldsmith should also be added to the influences as well.

The introduction is much better now I think, for the last paragraph I chose some obvious examples. Could probably use work. But I think overall the opening is more accurate now than it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.104.57 (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Faust, as appears from the opening monologue, is a rather explicit answer to Kant's restrictions of reason as in the "Critic of the pure reason", and sharply opposing with a slight touch of despair. ("And see now that we cannot not a thing, which sheerly burns my heart.")--93.135.33.195 (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

1970 exhumation
Maybe deserves a mention. . --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Goethe nominated for vital article
I just nominated Goethe to be added to the list of vital articles on writers. See: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles.MackyBeth (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Extremely debatable
"considered by many... one of the most important thinkers in Western culture." I don't know anybody who thinks this. What about such philosophers as Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Descartes, even Bertrand Russel more so then him. Among literary scholars Shakespeare, Eliot, Kafka, Dostoevsky, etc are all also typically considered greater. Even amongst mathematicians he is not quite as notable as someone like Newton. Either way it seems strangely WP:PEACOCK for the lead of an article, especially unsourced. I'm bringing this here instead of just editing, but this should be removed or greatly toned down. --AerobicFox (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but Bertrand Russell? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, I know. --AerobicFox (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Goethe is considered up there among literary scholars--he would be to German what Shakespeare is to English--at least in my experience as a literature student. As for being one of the most important thinkers, I think his claim to fame is that he's the last great polymath. Notice the phrase is "thinker" and not "philosopher".... Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you don't know very much about Goethe; in Cattell's list of 1,000 most eminent persons, Goethe was ranked number seven, placing him ahead of Newton, Milton, Luther, Caesar, Alexander the Great, and others. You also mention Goethe's mathematical achievements, yet I am not familiar with any work that Goethe had completed in this field. You cannot determine a great intellectual's standing among geniuses based solely on the general public's knowledge of that individual. More people are familiar with da Vinci and Newton than they are with Voltaire or Francis Bacon, yet it is quite arguable that the former are more salient in their achievements than the latter. Goethe's remarkable achievements to the world literature as a playwright and poet, his aptitude as a statesman and exquisite scientific achievements would certainly rank him among the likes Edmund Burke, Immanuel Kant, Spinoza, Hegel, and Galileo in the history of European thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Goethe Religion and Politics
Editors on this page seriously need to quit undoing information that disagrees with what they want people to believe about historical figures of great eminence. The accounts I posted of Goethe's youth precede later, embellished atheistic leanings of those already used. When you continually reject them under false pretexts you betray your actual reasons for editing them.

If I am propagating false information, if there is an objective, meritorious reason for editing my contribution, than I offer the challenge to anyone to explain with cogent and coherent reasons why my contribution was undone. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your contribution  does not add to the article. An article of this size doesn't need three sentences about the Lisbon earthquake sourced to 88-year old scholarship along with your speculation that Goethe was actually an orthodox Christian. &mdash; goethean 23:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You obviously have not learned from your last mistake; older accounts are more reliable than newer accounts because they are less susceptible to embellishment. This is a simple fact. Nowhere did I write that Goethe was an orthodox Christian, I merely posted reliable information that may be regarded as pro-Christian. I don't even know what you were trying to say in the last part of your sentence; undoubtedly some new atheist claptrap to be sure. Moreover, you have insisted upon deleting pro-Christian information in the past because it attempts to "portray" Goethe in a particular way, and in doing so betrayed your ignorance of history once again; history is an art, not a science, and all historians will undoubtedly portray any even or person in a certain way merely by writing about it or them. In the very same way, you portray Goethe at best as an extremely unorthodox Christian, or one who held a strong aversion to Christianity. Nowhere do learned, honest historians arrive at the consensus that Goethe was not a Christian, so you your claim that this is a widely held view is fictitious. The last sentence I wrote also had nothing to do with the Lisbon Earthquake, but instead was a simple historical fact, yet it was deleted too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:RS. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL: I have treated you with respect throughout the entire process up until you explicitly ignored my attempts at arriving at common ground and inexplicably undid my writing. After trying to communicate with you about the matter further, you ignored me repeatedly, made no attempt to hear me out, but were very hasty in editing anything I wrote. So who is the one being inconsiderate and uncivil?

WP:RS: here is the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Studies_of_Genius. Very early and reliable and is an ACCOUNT, not "SCHOLARSHIP," as Gothean attempted to say. Considering people often post the most ridiculous, laughable articles as sources on this webpage without anyone batting a second eye, the claim that this renown scientific study is insufficient to meet a reliability criteria would at once engender a need to delete virtually all material on any article on this webpage in order to remain consistent to your thesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Heinrich Rottner??
An unsigned user added the following to the first paragraph:


 * All historians agree that the majority (about 67%) of his work is original, but there are some who think he relied heavily upon previous work by noted German poet and philosopher Heinrich Rottner (born Henryk Rottner) of Polish-Jewish origin. Some argue that he plagiarized as much as three-quarters of Rotter's original work.

I have no trouble believing that Goethe was guilty of plagiarism (we know he "annexed" and "adapted" the work of others for the East-Western Divan), but the text is unsigned in the first paragraph, and added in a way that made it unclear as to what parts of his work were plagiarized (Letters, poems, drawings, scientific works, or diaries?) and a cursory look through scholarly journals doesn't make the controversy immediately clear, especially for one that would appear to cover the majority of Goethe's work. If there is such a case of plagiarism, it certainly belongs here, but with citation, and not in the first pargraph.Artimaean (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Films about Goethe could me mentioned
For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Goethe_in_Love — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcin862 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Mishmash..."
The quote is from the Goethe poem cited in the reference. Sources are quoted that give fuller details. The quote should be restored.HGilbert (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"hodgepodge..."
As requested in edit summaries, the work of Goethe in which the quote appears needs to be clearly identified as such, both in original German and English translation, and if the quote is retained, the context in which it was made. Alternatively, leave it out as adding nothing particular to the content, and maybe undue. Qexigator (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * When there is a citation, you should check it before reverting. Twice you have asked for something that already was supplied in the citations given.
 * Do you know the tag? If you still felt the article needed more information about the provenance of the quote, this would have been a good use of it.
 * Actually, however, the quote and work from which the quote was drawn were clearly identified and supported by both the citations I had already added. In response to your first "request" (read: revert), I further added the title of the poem to clarify. You nevertheless reverted again. I have now cited the poem from which the quote is drawn to a collection of his poems. But why was it not sufficient to have two sources that already clearly supported this?
 * Translations may be made from other languages by editors so long as they are accurate. But in this case I was using the translation from the cited text. HGilbert (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Eroticism not resolved
The eroticism section is extremely unbalanced; there are whole books written on Goethe's relations with women, but the section focuses on pure speculation about references and/or encounters with homosexuality. Some balance should be restored here! hgilbert (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The section that you object to consists of two sentences. It does not seem excessive. Definitely, more should be added about Goethe's relationship with women. But I don't see the urgent need to remove anything. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia says everyone in history was a homosexual.HeinrichMueller (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Rufname?
What was Goethe's Rufname? I would gather that "Johann" is a religious honorary name, and probably not the Rufname. I have read several places that called him "Wolfgang von Goethe". This makes complete sense. Is it accurate? If so, it should be noted. I notice English wikipedia does not mark Rufname? HeinrichMueller (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

English pronunciation
How is his name pronounced in English? AuraMeter, , ? And is it that obvious to native speakers, that it's not even mentioned in the article?--F. F. Fjodor (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's more like "ger-ta" which more accurately would be: or something close to that. In other words, something similar to the German pronunciation. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So they are using the phoneme which doesn't even exist in English? That sounds untypical for the English language to me. But  would sound even more strange in rhotic accents.-F. F. Fjodor (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, how about or more simply, "ger-ta" with "er" as in "herd". --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I heard "góthee".--77.4.70.195 (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As the article currently states - strange as it may be but it's indeed ; I guess BrE was the primary form, which Americans approximated as, and now it's the one that even some of the most educated speakers use. See: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Khb1wXNVj_Q 89.132.227.156 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. How does everyone pronounce his Wolfgang von Goethe's name so wrong? It is pronounced " goo-ta' "HeinrichMueller (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Broken reference
Reference 21 links to 1911encyclopedia.com, which is defunct. A functioning link exists at http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/SOU_STE/STEIN_CHARLOTTE_VON_1742_1827_.html but I do not have the knowledge to properly edit the source. I would be much obliged if anybody could properly fix this reference. --81.82.208.30 (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Goethe & Islam
It is interesting that this article does not explain the complex relationship between Goethe and the Islamic world. It does not once mention Goethe's sympathy for Islam, his love for Hafez' poetry, and even his obvious message that he rejected Christianity in favour of Islam:


 * Jesus fühlte rein und dachte
 * Nur den Einen Gott im Stillen;
 * '''Wer ihn selbst zum Gotte machte
 * Kränkte seinen heil'gen Willen.
 * Und so muß das Rechte scheinen
 * Was auch Mahomet gelungen;
 * Nur durch den Begriff des Einen
 * Hat er alle Welt bezwungen.
 * Und nun kommst du, hast ein Zeichen
 * Dran gehängt, das unter allen ...
 * Mir am schlechtesten will gefallen
 * Diese ganze moderne Narrheit
 * Magst du mir nach Schiras bringen!
 * Soll ich wohl, in seiner Starrheit,
 * Hölzchen quer auf Hölzchen singen?

(WA I, 6, 288 ff)

He continues with a much more powerful statement:


 * '''Mir willst du zum Gotte machen
 * Solch ein Jammerbild am Holze!?

It is very obvious that Goethe had left the teachings of Christianity in favour of Hafez' Islam and Sufism. He even began his later writings with the Arabic Shahada:

see picture

In his last poems, he propagated the Quranic teaching that Jesus was a prophet - the main difference between Islam and Christianity:


 * '''Ephesus gar manches Jahr schon,
 * '''Ehrt die Lehre des Propheten - Jesus. (Friede sei dem Guten!)

(WA I, 6, 269)

It is also very clear that Goethe wrote about the ISlam of Hafez, not the general Islam of the normal people.

The "dialogue'' between Hafez (14th century) and Goethe (19th century) is one of the most interesting themes. This "dialogue" continued with the poetry of Muhammad Iqbal.

Someone should add a few paragraphs about this.

--82.83.134.219 02:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the very interesting comment. However, any content about Goethe and Islam must be sourced to a secondary work. Original research is not allowed. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 03:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, how about English translations for the rest of us? El_C 03:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Goethe was no more a fundamentalist Christian than Hafez was a fundamentalist Moslem. Both were considered somewhat heretical by their respective circles. That Goethe was inspired by the ghazels of Hafez is beyond dispute; but to say that Goethe left Christianity to convert to Islam is as riduculous as to say that he worshiped the Greek gods because he alluded to greek mythology in the second part of Faust. Goethe was eclectic and I think his sympathy for Hafez was that he recognised in him a kindred spirit: above sectarian strife, a lover of women(the eternal feminine) and wine.

I have no issue with mentioning this in a section about Goethe's West-Ostlicher Divan but it is revisionist history to say that Goethe "converted" to Islam.Master Cranky Hucklebubble (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Master Cranky Hucklebubble



Now the problem is that a lot of references and sources are primaly avaible in german. For example from Prof.Katharina Mommsen, who studied more then anyone else the relationship of goethe to islam. i am trying to give the english readers more transparency to this topic, but first i have to find some english sources. also, i will give you the english translation to the quotes of 82.83.134.219. greetings from germany.--The Benvolio 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no proof that Goethe really converted to the Islam. He was fascinated by old persian poetry. Prof. Mommsen read Goethes works, especially the "West-Östliche Diwan", but this is just poetry. He never behaved like a muslim, he loved to drink wine, he married his wife in a church, his children were baptized in a church. He was regarded as a pantheist.--Frances K. (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Eroticism
Does anybody else besides me find the Eroticism section to be not NPOV? I was personally always raised with the fact that Goethe's works _did_ have erotic tones... but that this was not unsual for writers of his time (or any time, really). The article seems to insinuate that this is not really the case... and also seems to focus exclusively on homosexual overtones (I have always seen _both_ heterosexual and homosexual discussed in readings of Goethe). I think the whole business about Italian homosexuality during Goethe's time should either have a citation or a link to an article, this is the first I hear of it. Finally, the section seems to insinuate that the "uproar" was because people couldn't accept the fact that Goethe might've been a homosexual-- instead of, say, simply responding to the poor scholarship of the research work and disagreement with its conclusions. Any thoughts? -DWRZ 17:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ganymed is explicitly homoerotic (which, need I say it, proves a precise amount of nothing about whatever Goethe might have thought generally or felt himself about the subject), and that's that about homoerotic tones. Nevertheless, Ganymed is primarily the (pantheist) "second side of the medal" to (Promethean) Prometheus. It might be wise to remember that Goethe was a poet...--93.135.33.195 (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Rosa von Praunheim's Männerfreundschaften
Rosa von Praunheim's Männerfreundschaften 2018 film addresses the issue of Goethe's and other contemporary figures probable homo/bisexuality:

«Les héros de la littérature classique allemande, Goethe et Schiller en tête, étaient-ils homosexuels ? Figure du cinéma gay outre-Rhin, Rosa von Praunheim fouille leurs écrits et leur vie en quête d’indices.

"Je n’aurais jamais imaginé tourner un film sur Goethe et Schiller. Goethe, surtout, me semblait coupé du réel et arrogant. Et tout ce verbiage sur ses conquêtes féminines me barbait", confie, en habits d’époque, le facétieux Rosa von Praunheim, figure du cinéma gay outre-Rhin, en ouverture de son documentaire. La découverte d’ouvrages traitant de l’homosexualité d’un certain nombre d’écrivains classiques allemands l'a amené à scruter leurs écrits, saturés d’allusions, et leurs biographies. Les relations privilégiées que Goethe – qui n’aurait goûté à l’amour charnel qu’à l'âge de 30 ans – a entretenues avec le duc Charles-Auguste de Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, son page Philipp Seidl ou encore Schiller intriguent ainsi les spécialistes. D’autres cas suscitent leur intérêt, de l’historien de l’art Johann Joachim Winckelmann, qui a chanté la beauté du corps masculin dans la sculpture grecque, au duc Auguste de Saxe-Gotha-Altenbourg, auteur du premier roman gay de la littérature germanique et adepte du travestissement, en passant par le poète Heinrich von Kleist, qui a adressé une lettre d’amour passionnée au général Ernst von Pfuel avant de se suicider plus tard aux côtés d’une femme. Amitiés améliorées ? À une époque qui vouait un culte aux amitiés masculines (et féminines), et alors que l’homosexualité n’avait pas encore été définie ni criminalisée, ces effusions faisaient-elles simplement partie des mœurs ou relevaient-elles d’amours consommées ? Entremêlant, dans un extravagant et instructif montage, saynètes reconstituées teintées de volupté, discussions animées sur le sujet entre les comédiens et entretiens éclairants avec des experts, Rosa von Praunheim renouvelle notre regard sur le classicisme de Weimar en explorant l’homoérotisme qui l’imprègne.» https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/072441-000-A/amities-masculines/ —AnnaBruta (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Time in Karlsbad
I was directed to this article from Karlsbad. There is a sort of uncited anecdote about Mozart and Goethe spending time in Karlsbad/Karlovy Vary and was hoping to learn more from the biographical entry, but no luck. ExtremeSquared (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethe never talked to Mozart. In 1763, Mozart, seven years old and already a celebrated "Wunderkind" gave a concert in Frankfurt/ Main. Goethe, fourteen years old at the time, was there too.

There is indeed an anecdote about Goethe and Beethoven. The met in Teplice (Goethe visited all the famous czech spas, not only Karlovy Vary). When the had a walk through the park the met the austrian emperor with his courtiers. Bettina von Arnim later told:"Bleibt nur in meinem Arm hängen, sie müssen uns Platz machen, wir nicht!", habe Beethoven gesagt, während Goethe "mit abgezogenem Hut" beiseitegetreten und daraufhin von Beethoven gescholten worden sei: "Auf Euch hab’ ich gewartet, weil ich Euch ehre and achte, wie Ihr es verdient, aber jenen habt Ihr zu viel Ehre angetan!"

My Translation: "Hang on my arm, they have to move aside, not we!" Beethoven said, whereas Goethe with removed hat stepped aside and was scolded by Beethoven. "I waited for you because I respect and honour you how you deserve it, but you honored them too much!"--Frances K. (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)