Talk:Immortal Beloved

message: The article has now been rewritten to comply with NPOV criteria. John E Klapproth (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality dispute resolved

message: In the article Antonie Brentano, the birth/death date is given as May, not April. I don't know which is correct. -- œ™ 18:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistency

message: Per the discussion above, I've removed the lengthy analysis of certain phrases in the letter, which were all intended by their author to prove that they all point to Josephine as the intended recipient. In case anyone disagrees with me that they fit Wikipedia's description of original research, or think that there's worthy material that's been discarded, here's the text I've removed:
-----
*“My angel, my everything”: It is significant that Beethoven addressed her like this (without giving away her name), as he repeatedly used these terms in his most passionate earlier love letters to Josephine: "You, you, my everything, my happiness ... only you - forever you - to my grave only you - my solace - my everything."Beethoven to Josephine, first quarter of 1805, in Schmidt-Görg (1957), p. 15; "you, you, my everything, my happiness ... My solace - my everything, oh Lord watch over you ... would you not exist who binds me to life again, even without this you would be my everything."Beethoven to Josephine, first quarter of 1805, in Schmidt-Görg (1957), p. 15.; "Farewell, Angel – of my heart – of my life."Beethoven to Josephine, end of April 1805, in Schmidt-Görg (1957), p. 19; here the term "Farewell" (“leb wohl”) is clearly using the intimate German “Du” form of addressing, as opposed to the usual “Sie” (as in “Leben Sie wohl”). This peculiar “slip” seems to reveal that Ludwig and Josephine were already on intimate speaking terms, even though they usually adhered to tradition in their written communication.; - "Farewell Angel of my heart."Beethoven to Josephine, April/May 1805, in Schmidt-Görg (1957), p. 17..
*“with a pencil (with yours)”: At about that time, Josephine had started to write her diary with pencilSteblin (2007), p. 162..
*“love demands everything and completely”: a strong indication that their love had finally been consummated (Josephine gave birth to a daughter exactly nine months later)Kaznelson (1954), Tellenbach (1983) and Steblin (2007)..
*“Esterhazi”: The Hungarian Prince was well-known to the Brunsviks (but probably not to any other of the “candidates”)Beethoven had performed his Mass in C Major Op. 86 at Prince Esterházy’s castle in 1807..
*“language is nothing”: Again an allusion to a well-known theme, as referred to in letters to Josephine in 1805: "I am not too proud when I believe that notes are more willing to me than words ... not even in my musical notes can I express it, even though nature gifted me with some talents in this respect, it is still too little for you."Beethoven to Josephine, first quarter of 1805, in Schmidt-Görg (1957), p. 15; “what else I would like to tell you - how I am thinking of you - what I am feeling for you - but how weak, how paltry is this language - mine at least.”Beethoven to Josephine, March/April 1805, in Schmidt-Görg (1957), p. 14..
*“my faithful only darling”, “your faithful ludwig”, “you know my faithfulness to you, never can another own my heart, never – never”, “never misjudge the most faithful heart of your Beloved”: repeated reminders of his (and her) eternal faithfulness, as previously stressed, especially in the later love letters by Beethoven (which he wrote when Josephine began to withdraw from him, due to the pressure of her family): “Beloved, only J. ... farewell, beloved, dear J. ... your faithful Beethowen.”Beethoven to Josephine, May 1807, in Schmidt-Görg (1957), p. 25.; ”farewell beloved I love you so much as you do not love me. Your faithful L.”Beethoven to Josephine, probably 1807, in Schmidt-Görg (1957), p. 16.; “I am still hopeful ...  do not forget – do not condemn – your eternally faithful devoted Beethowen.”Beethoven to Josephine, 20 September [1807], in Goldschmidt (1977), p. 54.. Even in 1809, after Josephine returned from a long journey and was pregnant with Stackelberg’s child, she contacted Beethoven assuring him of her “intimate sympathy that I have for everything that concerns you, and will have as long as I live”; his reply letter closed with: “farewell beloved J. as always, eternally devoted to you.”Beethoven to Josephine, ca. Autumn 1809, in Schmidt-Görg (1957), p. 30.
*“You are suffering”: According to Diary entries by her as well as her sister Therese, Josephine had been in a desperate mood for most of the year 1812. The financial ruin caused by her husband’s failed purchase of a Moravian estate and the constant bickering which culminated in Stackelberg’s leaving her (probably in early June 1812) had caused her more grief than she could bearSee details in La Mara (1909), Czeke (1938), Kaznelson (1954), Tellenbach (1983), and Steblin (2007).. Things seemed to have come to a head definitely on 8 June 1812, when Josephine noted: “Today has been a difficult day for me. - The hand of fate is resting ominously on me – I saw besides my own deep sorrows also the degeneration of my children, and – almost – all courage deserted me -!!! ... Stackelberg wants to leave me on my own. He is callous to supplicants in need. ... I want to see Liebert in Prague [!]. I will never let the children be taken from me. ... On account of Stackelberg I have ruined myself physically, in that I have incurred so much distress and illness through him.”Steblin (2007), pp. 159-162. Josephine's clearly expressed intention to go to Prague is the closest to a proof that she was indeed there at the time of this letter.
*”never hide yourself from me”: A strong reminder that Beethoven had not forgiven Josephine that she was not at home when he tried to visit her in 1807.
*"the realm of the Spirits": a reference to the (ultimately) “platonic” (but eternal) character of their love relationship: ”O beloved J., it is not the drive to the opposite sex that attracts me to you, no, only you, your whole being with all your characteristics - has my respect - all my feelings - my whole sensibility enthralled by you ... Long - long - may our love last - it is so noble - so much founded on mutual respect and friendship - even great similarity in so many things, in thoughts and feelings. Oh you, let me hope that your heart will continue to beat for me for a long time - mine can only - stop - to beat for you - if - it beats no more - beloved J.”Beethoven to Josephine, March/April 1805, in Schmidt-Görg (1957), p. 14; “My love of you is unspeakable - like a pious mind loves another one.”Josephine to Beethoven, first quarter of 1805, draft, in Tellenbach (1983_, p. 74.. There are also some remarks in a draft Josephine wrote on 8 April 1818 (Minona's fifth birthday) that seems to have been addressed to Beethoven (she calls him "deaf"): "Spirits are silent ... Happy you are not - - - - - but deaf ... Melting into one can happen only when first we have been melted with Eternity ... this alone is union – forever ... If the Spirit could reveal itself to you completely..."Tellenbach (1983), p. 195..
Upon Beethoven's death in 1827, the letter was discovered by Schindler among his private papers, strongly suggesting that it was never sentIt has also been speculated that it was returned to him subsequently by the addressee or - more likely - not delivered, and Beethoven then picked it up from the post office (possibly in Karlsbad).. Schindler (1840) went on to write the first biography of Beethoven, full of errors, omissions and obvious attempts at self-aggrandizement. Probably prompted by Franz BrunsvikThe Brunsvik family went to great lengths to eradicate the memory not only of Josephine after her death but also any traces of her love relationship with Beethoven. (Tellenbach 1983, pp. 16-21.), Schindler speculated that the "Immortal Beloved" might have been Julie (Giulietta) Guicciardi, Josephine's cousin. Although it is true that Beethoven fell briefly in love with Julie in 1801/2, he was aware that he would not be able to marry her, as he confessed in a letter to his friend Wegeler: "After two years, I am again enjoying some moments of bliss, and for the first time I feel that – marriage might bring me happiness. Unfortunately, she is not of my class."Steblin (2009), p. 89. More important here is his reference to the "two years" that had passed since he first fell in love with Josephine Brunsvik, a love he had to suppress because she was married. Julie Guicciardi was also a piano pupil of Beethoven, whom he taught for free. When her mother gave him a precious gift, he felt so insulted that he dedicated his Piano Sonata Op. 27#2 ("Moonlight") to Julie, as a "retaliatory" measureSteblin (2009), p. 131.. Julie married Count Gallenberg in 1803 and moved with him to ItalyThe legend of the love between Beethoven and Julie has been made into a moving film Un grand amour de Beethoven (Beethoven's Great Love) by Abel Gance in 1936..
Therese Brunsvik, who was close to Josephine for most of her life, upon reading Schindler's conjecture, immediately wrote this into her diary: "Three letters by Beethoven, allegedly to Giulietta. Could they be hoaxes?"Therese’s Diary, 12 November 1840, in Tellenbach (1983), p. 15, and then: "3 letters by Beethoven ... they must have been to Josephine whom he loved passionately."Therese’s Diary, 15 November 1840, in Goldschmidt (1977), p. 295. Therese had herself been the subject of speculationsTenger (1890), a rather fictitious account, and La Mara (1909), a scholarly work, which also contains Therese's memoirs. See also Rolland (1928)., but the difficulties with dating the letter and her whereabouts ruled her out. La Mara then corrected her previous view and became "convinced ... that Josephine widowed Countess Deym was Beethoven's 'Immortal Beloved'"La Mara (1920), p. 1., based on documents discovered in the Brunsvik estate after the First World War. 
===More material removed===
The following "conclusion" was meant to clinch the case for Josephine. With it included, I felt the article crossed the line to advocating one side over the other. If anyone disagrees, feel free to incorporate material back into the article.
----
Of all the many "candidates" (besides Josephine) for the enigmatic "Immortal Beloved" all but one can be eliminated for the simple reason that none of them was in Prague, but rather - according to existing evidence - elsewhere. The only exception is Antonie; but: “There is no proof that Beethoven and Antonie met in Prague.”Solomon (1972), p.577. The compelling reasons for identifying Josephine (of whom it is at least known that she intended to go to Prague, and most likely did so - incognito) can be summarized thusSee Goldschmidt (1977), p. 308.:
*1. Josephine is the only woman whom Beethoven had provably loved, persistently and passionately. (No love letters exist to any other woman.)
*2. In the earlier love letters he mentions her four times as his “Only Beloved”. Doesn’t this rule out even to ask whether the “Immortal Beloved” of 1812 could possibly be a different one?
*3. Beethoven’s repeated assurances of his proven faithfulness.
*4. The strikingly matching, sometimes identical vocabulary of the earlier love letters and the later letter.
*5. The phrase in the 1812 letter "but never hide yourself from me" which fits exactly the humiliating situation of the love affair when it was interrupted five years before.
*6. Josephine was at this time (1812) suffering (and Beethoven did not know this until he met her in Prague). No other woman was known to be suffering that much (and at that time); in particular, Antonie – even though often sad due to her homesickness – was living happily together with her husband (and on 3 July 1812, she was pregnant again since four weeks).
*7. As a result of the breakdown of her second marriage Josephine had become an abandoned wife.
*8. Given the circumstances, she was now for Beethoven “allowed mine”On 27 July 1807, Beethoven wrote a brief note (which was found after his death together with the “Heiligenstadt Testament” and the “Letter to his Immortal Beloved”): “... oh God, let me finally find her ... who is allowed to be mine ... - When the M drove by and it was as if she looked at me.”  “The M” was most likely Josephine’s mother who strongly disapproved of her relationship with Beethoven – and let him know it..
Points 2 & 3 are the most important ones: Such a deep rooted and enduring passionate love relationship, even though interrupted due to external forces, cannot be considered to be forgotten after a few years. It was indeed for ever. It was "immortal"Goldschmidt (1977), p. 314..
----
Removing all of this is of course only the beginning of improving the article. These were just the most obvious places where the article violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH The article needs to be thoroughly restructured by clearly summarizing the scholarly debate over the evidence (i.o.w. who says what and why). I've outlined my position above at the beginning of the "Neutrality Redux" section. Also, the footnotes, which now take up more bulk than the actual article, will need to be streamlined. It seems that much of the argumentation in the footnotes needs to be either incorporated into the main text or cleaned up. Junggai (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material removed from article 

message: The following "conclusion" was meant to clinch the case for Josephine. With it included, I felt the article crossed the line to advocating one side over the other. If anyone disagrees, feel free to incorporate material back into the article.
----
Of all the many "candidates" (besides Josephine) for the enigmatic "Immortal Beloved" all but one can be eliminated for the simple reason that none of them was in Prague, but rather - according to existing evidence - elsewhere. The only exception is Antonie; but: “There is no proof that Beethoven and Antonie met in Prague.”Solomon (1972), p.577. The compelling reasons for identifying Josephine (of whom it is at least known that she intended to go to Prague, and most likely did so - incognito) can be summarized thusSee Goldschmidt (1977), p. 308.:
*1. Josephine is the only woman whom Beethoven had provably loved, persistently and passionately. (No love letters exist to any other woman.)
*2. In the earlier love letters he mentions her four times as his “Only Beloved”. Doesn’t this rule out even to ask whether the “Immortal Beloved” of 1812 could possibly be a different one?
*3. Beethoven’s repeated assurances of his proven faithfulness.
*4. The strikingly matching, sometimes identical vocabulary of the earlier love letters and the later letter.
*5. The phrase in the 1812 letter "but never hide yourself from me" which fits exactly the humiliating situation of the love affair when it was interrupted five years before.
*6. Josephine was at this time (1812) suffering (and Beethoven did not know this until he met her in Prague). No other woman was known to be suffering that much (and at that time); in particular, Antonie – even though often sad due to her homesickness – was living happily together with her husband (and on 3 July 1812, she was pregnant again since four weeks).
*7. As a result of the breakdown of her second marriage Josephine had become an abandoned wife.
*8. Given the circumstances, she was now for Beethoven “allowed mine”On 27 July 1807, Beethoven wrote a brief note (which was found after his death together with the “Heiligenstadt Testament” and the “Letter to his Immortal Beloved”): “... oh God, let me finally find her ... who is allowed to be mine ... - When the M drove by and it was as if she looked at me.”  “The M” was most likely Josephine’s mother who strongly disapproved of her relationship with Beethoven – and let him know it..
Points 2 & 3 are the most important ones: Such a deep rooted and enduring passionate love relationship, even though interrupted due to external forces, cannot be considered to be forgotten after a few years. It was indeed for ever. It was "immortal"Goldschmidt (1977), p. 314..
----
Removing all of this is of course only the beginning of improving the article. These were just the most obvious places where the article violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH The article needs to be thoroughly restructured by clearly summarizing the scholarly debate over the evidence (i.o.w. who says what and why). I've outlined my position above at the beginning of the "Neutrality Redux" section. Also, the footnotes, which now take up more bulk than the actual article, will need to be streamlined. It seems that much of the argumentation in the footnotes needs to be either incorporated into the main text or cleaned up. Junggai (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: More material removed

message: Dear 24.48.88.115 in Boisbriand (Québec):
1. If Beethoven had fathered a child with either Antonie or Josephine, how come there is never a single mention of that fact in his conversation books nor his diary, considering the fact that he wanted so much to be a father (real or imaginary) that he claimed to be his nephew's "biological father" at one point? I will argue that Beethoven never had any sexual relationship with either of them.
Not true: there is a remark by Oliva in a Conversation Book of late 1819, when Stackelberg was in Vienna with Minona, Beethoven talked continually about a woman whose husband might become suspicious that one of his children, the one with musical talent, might be Beethoven's. Needless to say, Beethoven never mentioned anything about his love of Josephine, not in 1799, not in 1821, not anytime in between. John E Klapproth (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on the enigma concerning the identity of the 'Immortal beloved"

message: Retired lawyer Edward Walden presents his "case that Bettina [Brentano] is Beethoven’s Immortal Beloved ... as would a lawyer attempting to prove that case in court" (p. xxxvi). He then asks the reader "to keep in mind two basic principles of Anglo-American common law.
"The first principle is the fundamental distinction between the proof required in a criminal as opposed to a civil case. In the former, the law requires the case to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, the burden can be satisfied if the trier of fact (judge or jury) is satisfied that the case has been proven on the balance of probabilities.
"The second principle is the law of 'similar fact' evidence. If evidence is admitted proving that a person has engaged in a certain unique and unusual behavior in past instances, it can be used to assist in reaching a conclusion that the person acted in the same or a similar fashion in the case at hand." (p. 13)
Walden (being attorney, judge and jury all in one) elects to follow the second option, even though after two centuries of fantasies, speculations and guesswork the discerned reader might be eager to finally see some evidence to settle the matter "beyond a reasonable doubt"! And what with the book's subtitle "Solving the Mystery"?
"The case’s theory is based on two crucial letters completely overlooked in previous scholarly analyses." (p. xxxvi).
But far from being "overlooked", these supposedly "crucial" letters are well-known since 1839 and were (still are) generally considered forgeries (or not authentic, to put it more mildly) – and this for good reason. In fact, no one (before Walden) has ever seriously considered Bettina even as a candidate for Beethoven’s "Immortal Beloved".
Let's start with a survey of what researchers so far thought of Bettina Brentano, starting with a contemporary's judgment – Varnhagen's diary note of 15 February 1856:
"Bettina is talking about Beethoven, and she says he had been in love with her, and he wanted to marry her! … Nothing but reveries and dreams! Beethoven had no intention to marry when he was acquainted with Bettina; and the song Song "Neue Liebe, neues Leben" [New Love, New Life] WoO 127, composed 1798/1799, published 1808; re-published as Op. 75#2 in 1810, ded. Princess Kinsky (Cooper 1991, pp. 264, 266). had already been published before 1808, before he knew anything of Bettina."In Goldschmidt (1977), p. 270; see also Tellenbach (1983), p. 101.
Comments Goldschmidt: "Maybe, the apodictic statement form was to be understood in such a way that Beethoven did not think of marriage with regard to Bettina."Goldschmidt (1977), p. 271.
 
"… there remains only one conclusion to be drawn [regarding to Beethoven]: that despite a profound sympathy, there was no passion involved." Goldschmidt (1977), p. 274.
"Her rather hysterical nature led her to romance about her life and even to distort the truth; and some letters she is supposed to have received from Goethe were certainly her own invention."Anderson (1961), p. 312, n. 1.
"Judging by the extent that Bettina rewrote the Goethe correspondence, it is possible that Beethoven never put these communications to paper at all."Forbes (1967), p. 498.
"… Bettina's fiction concerning the meeting between Beethoven and Goethe…"Forbes (1967), p. 536, n. 18.
"But Bettina has forged the [other two] Beethoven letters to her, that she published."Tellenbach (1983), p. 101.
"(Bettina) Brentano … was … slightly unbalanced and given to exaggeration."Albrecht (1996), vol. 2, p. 14, n. 4.
"Brilliant, well educated and beautiful, but slightly hysterical."Albrecht (1996), vol. 1, p. 244, n. 4.
Not surprisingly, Walden accuses these "Bettina detractors" (pp. 32, 64, 126) that they "were wrongly attacking her credibility" (p. 126). Among the few "Bettina supporters", he enlists the great Alexander Thayer, who had – among others – interviewed Bettina, but (as is well-known) was for a while believing that Therese Brunsvik might have been the "Immortal Beloved" – certainly not Bettina (a fact conveniently omitted by Walden).
Before dealing with some of the many incorrect and misleading details within the (mainly boring) 128 pages of this recent treatise:
The main reason why Walden's book is simply unacceptable as a scholarly contribution to Beethoven biography is that he does not know (nor even quote) any of the fundamental research literature;La Mara (1909, 1920), Kaznelson (1954), Goldschmidt (1977), Tellenbach (1983), and Steblin (2009), all in German. Also Massin (1955, 1970) in French, and Beahrs (1993), Altman (1996) and Steblin (2007) in English.  being mostly in German, this might be an explanation – but it is no excuse.In this regard, Walden is in good company with leading writers of the Anglo-American world, like Maynard Solomon and many others who parrot him without checking any original sources.
Even so, Walden's tedious presentation of his "case" is often tiringly repetitive in its arguments, and he consistently quotes out of context or fails to take the "whole picture" into consideration. – In more detail:
Walden opens his plea: "Although … Beethoven poured out his emotions countless times in his music, he did so in a significant way only twice through the medium of written words. The first time was in 1802, in the form of a will now known as the Heiligenstadt Testament… The second time was in 1812." (p. 1)
Obviously, this ("only twice") can only be true if one completely ignores the many passionate love letters Beethoven wrote to Josephine Brunsvik (there were no others), as well as various letters to friends like Wegeler and Amenda, or some notes (like that of 1807) and various remarks in his "Diary" between 1812 and 1818.
The reader who expects a lawyer to know the difference between a proof (of presence) and an alibi (and the lack thereof) will be disappointed: "Antonie was the only one … who actually was [!] in Karlsbad when Beethoven wrote his letter." (p. 2) And again: "Of the three front-runners … she was the only woman who was [!] in Karlsbad when Beethoven wrote his letter." (p. 2) And once more, for good measure: "Antonie Brentano, Bettina’s sister-in-law … was the only woman closely connected to Beethoven in 1812 who was [!] in Karlsbad when Beethoven wrote his letter." (p. 102)Goldschmidt (1977), p. 235.
However, all this is not really relevant as none of the "front-runners" (Josephine, Antonie and Bettina – in Walden's view) is validated or ruled out, regardless, whether she did or did not go to Karlsbad, or intended to go there but then changed her mind.
Walden first presents his "Case against Josephine" – with various misleading statements:
"Josephine Brunsvik was the only one … whose marriage was disintegrating when the letter was written, but she was nowhere near Karlsbad that summer and appears not to have had any plans [!] to go there." As stated before, there is (as yet) no proof that Josephine was (or was not) "near Karlsbad that summer"; however, had Walden read Goldschmidt (1977, p. 228), he would have known that the Brunsvik sisters had made plans to travel to Karlsbad in 1812 (as the year before), and Josephine did indeed do so a few weeks later after her husband returned.Goldschmidt (1977), p. 529 f.  And: "For short stays, residents were exempt from the requirement to register" (as opposed to foreigners – like Stackelberg who also went to Karlsbad in 1811).
"The marriage [to Deym] was an unhappy one." Wrong: even though not really relevant to the questions concerning the identity of Beethoven's "Immortal Beloved" in 1812, this is one of the many incorrect myths that are perpetuated again and again: Quite the contrary is true.There were over 100 love letters (Goldschmidt 1977, p. 484), indicating a healthy erotic relationship. Steblin (2007, p. 155, n. 41) announced a forthcoming publication of these letters.
Walden's repeated claim that "all [!] surviving signed letters from Beethoven to her [Josephine] use the formal 'Sie'" (p. 4; also pp. 14, 59 f., 103) is incorrect: Beethoven's letter to Josephine in April 1805in Brandenburg (1996), #219.  ends with "leb wohl Engel – meines Herzens – meines Lebens" (Farewell, Angel – of my heart – of my life), where "leb wohl" in the original (short for "leb du wohl") is clearly using the intimate "Du" form of addressing, as opposed to the usual "Sie" as in "Leben Sie wohl". And it is an all too obvious "Freudian slip", indicating that the two lovers must have been on very intimate terms!
"From unanswered or disregarded letters from Beethoven to Josephine in 1807, it appears that she rejected him in that year… The proponents of her candidacy contend that she and Beethoven continued their relationship after 1807 …, then revived it when her marriage to her second husband began to disintegrate. There appears to be no evidence of that by correspondence or otherwise, so it must remain purely speculative." (p. 4) First, there is no indication whatsoever, that any letters were "unanswered or disregarded" or not (they are difficult to date, anyway). Then, it can be discerned from Josephine's letters that she was forced to withdraw from him, and after her return from Switzerland in 1809/10, she did indeed "revive" their relationship by writing to Beethoven.
"Josephine and her second husband separatedThe neutral term "separated" implies some form of mutual agreement, when In fact, it was Stackelberg who left his family in June 1812, returned in August and left again shortly before or after the birth of Minona on 8 April 1813 – a daughter he was obviously not interested in. in 1813 or perhaps in the summer before, when the letter to the Immortal Beloved was written. Therefore, only she of the three leading candidates appears to have been separated or had a disintegrating marriage when Beethoven wrote his letter to the Immortal Beloved, and it is mainly for that reason that Josephine’s candidacy remains alive… There appears to be no evidence of that by correspondence or otherwise." (p. 4) Walden can say this only if he carefully avoids reading any of the "evidence of that by correspondence or otherwise" provided by Goldschmidt (1977), Tellenbach (1983) and in particular, most plentiful, Steblin (2007) (the latter in English), evidence that is too numerous to quote here!
"Another problem with Josephine’s candidacy is that there is no evidence that she was in, near, or even planned [!] to go to Karlsbad when Beethoven wrote his letter. To the contrary, all evidence [?] indicates that she remained in Vienna throughout the summer of 1812. She had gone to Karlsbad the previous summer, and her visit was routinely [?] reported in the police travel registrations required in those days, but there is no record of her traveling there in the summer of 1812." (p. 4) Not only is there no evidence at all that she remained in Vienna, there is clear evidence that she planned to go to Karlsbad and that she could have been there without being registered.Goldschmidt (1977), Steblin (2007).
"The strongest argument against her candidacy is that Beethoven had known her since 1799, so she could not be the woman Beethoven said in 1816 he had met five years earlier and whom he could not get out of his mind." (p. 4) This is rather the strongest argument in her favor (who else had Beethoven been pining for over a period of nearly two decades?): Had Walden read it, he would have found in Steblin (2007) more details of a plausble explanation for this remark in 1816, clearly indicating that Beethoven was thinking of "only one" woman all the time (i.e., from 1799 until 1816 at least).
"There is no question that Beethoven fell deeply in love with Josephine sometime between 1804 and 1807, and there even exists an unsigned copy made by her of a letter from him written in 1804 or 1805 that resembles some of the language and ideas contained in the letter to the Immortal Beloved." (p. 3) It is curious how Walden effectively argues against his own case: Indeed, this one letter in Josephine's hand is undoubtedly a copy of a love letter by Beethoven (whereas no one believes the 1812 letter by Beethoven in Bettina's handwriting to be authentic), however, not only this one, but also most of the other (at least 14) surviving letters by Beethoven to Josephine show striking similarities to the letter to the "Immortal Beloved" (as opposed to the Bettina letters).Again, these text analyses can be found in much detail in Massin (1970), Goldschmidt (1977), Tellenbach (1983), and Steblin (2007).
Having thus dismissed Josephine, Walden goes on to put the case for Bettina:
"Beethoven wrote to her in 1811, … a surviving letter in which he acknowledged her marriage with sadness, …, and used in one part the intimate German 'du', which, so far as is known, he never used in any letter to any woman." (p. 4)
Contrary to Walden's wishful thinking, Beethoven did not express "sadness" about Bettina's marriage – on the contrary, he congratuled her unequivocally, honestly and sincerely, and without any sign of "sadness" (or jealousy, for that matter)."… you are getting married, dear Bettine … now, may all the happiness flow towards you by which marriage blesses a married couple." (Beethoven to Bettina, 10 February 1811, in Brandenburg 1996, #485.)
"In the very last sentence, he addresses Bettina in the intimate German 'du'. So far as is now known, it is the only time Beethoven used this form in any letter to a woman with whom he was romantically connected other than the Immortal Beloved. He did not use that form in any of his surviving letters to Josephine." (p. 13)
As for the use of "du" in an intimate way, see above (the 1805 love letter to Josephine, which Walden did not – could not – read). However, this (indeed authentic) letter (not at all a love letter!) to Bettina, Beethoven finishes with these words:
"… dear, good B., I returned this morning at 4 clock from a Bacchanal, where I had to laugh a lot … – and now farewell, dear dear B., I kiss you on your forehead, and thus I impress on it, as with a seal, all my thoughts for you."Beethoven to Bettina, 10 February 1811, in Brandenburg (1996), #485. See also Anderson (1961), #296.
As can be seen (provided one understands the subtleties of the German language), Beethoven playfully fell into a jocular mood, and – after preparing his audacious change of tone by referring to a "bacchanal" as an excuse – he used the "du" form in a funny way, which he could be sure Bettina would understand likewise. (Or, by any stretch of the imagination, not at all an expression of true love.)
"Beethoven, depressed, continued to stay in Teplitz, writing to an acquaintance [Varnhagen] on July 14, 'There is not much to tell you about T[eplitz], for there are few people here and no distinguished ones among the small number. Hence I am living – alone – alone! alone! alone!'” (p. 10)
Walden omitted the following sentence: "Dear Varnhagen, I am sorry that I could not spend the last evening in Prague with you, and I myself found it impolite, but a circumstance that I could not foresee prevented me."Beethoven to Varnhagen, 14 July 1812, in Brandenburg (1996), #583.
Here "the last night in Prague" does not refer to the preceding day (13 July), but to the period when Beethoven and Varnhagen were both in Prague (up to 3/4 July). And everyone agrees, given the Letter of 6/7 July 1812 and all the surrounding circumstances, that on 3 July 1812 Beethoven must have met – most unexpectedly! – his "Immortal Beloved" (and spent the night with her).
And as Harry Goldschmidt painstakingly determined, of all the possible candidates that were ever considered as addressees of this Letter, only Antonie Brentano was actually in Prague on that day, and Josephine's whereabouts were unknown (meaning she had "no alibi").Goldschmidt (1977), p. 213 f.
The in parts of America still popular candidacy of Antonie has raised many doubts ever since it was first considered – and immediately dismissed as "absurd" – by Jean & Brigitte Massin:<ref?Massin (1955), p. 250.</ref> 
*Antonie, with husband, child and servant arrived during the day of 3 July 1812 in Prague, after an arduous two-day journey (in bad weather) by horse-drawn coach, had just enough time to get settled in a hotel, and they all departed the following morning at dawn. To contemplate even hypothetically the possibility that she and Beethoven had the time and opportunity, not to mention the physical and, more importantly, psychological, prerequisites to engage in any kind of tryst, is hard to imagine!
*Beethoven certainly knew that the Brentanos had planned a stopover in Prague, on their journey to Karlsbad: he was close to them during the time before and must have discussed their travel plans (as Beethoven was to meet them in Karlsbad after his stay in Teplitz). It is therefore much more likely that he met someone on 3 July whom he did not expect (as expressed in his letter to Varnhagen)!
*In the Letter, Beethoven discusses his intention to post it to "K" which is generally believed to mean Karlsbad. However, if it had been intended to be sent to Antonie, why did he want to send it at all, when he knew he would definitely meet her soon after and could have handed her the letter in person? (Not to mention the – unthinkable? – possibility that her husband could have intercepted such a letter if it had arrived in the mail!)
*In the case of Josephine, it was known long ago that she planned to go to Karlsbad (but she had to change her plans, therefore Beethoven did not send the Letter after all, but kept it), and more importantly, Steblin (2007) published new documents showing that Josephine definitely planned (in June 2012) to go to Prague, and – more importantly – that her husband was away in July 2012 (therefore he could not have been the father of Minona, born exactly 9 months after the Letter).
All this is not mentioned by Walden (because he did not read it), instead he provides us with a special chapter “Why Antonie Brentano could not have been the Immortal Beloved” (pp. 102-119). Here he rightly criticizes “Solomon’s Methodology in Support of Antonie” with general observations like "Maynard Solomon developed a skilful but specious methodology to lend his theory an aura of factual certainty… The flaw in this methodology was that he established requirements that he knew only his candidate could meet. They were therefore not independent objective requirements at all." (p. 104) However, his only disagreement with Solomon seems to be that Walden believes Beethoven might have known (or even met) Antonie well before 1809 – but this does not really contradict the (otherwise unfounded) possibility that she could have been the "Immortal Beloved" in 1812 (as Solomon conjectures).
Walden then speculates about what used to be interpreted as the letter "A" in the first entry of Beethoven's "Diary", where he manages to interpret it as being short for "Arnim" (Bettina's surname after her marriage). His justification: "One commentator has speculated that whatever the letter was, it might possibly refer to the woman’s husband." (p. 106) In a footnote, he mentions as his source for this "commentator" – Steblin (2007)!
Had he really read this fundamental article (it is in English!), instead of picking up some unqualified hearsay, he would have learned that Beethoven scholar Rita Steblin (being able not only to speak and read German, but also to decipher the old German "Kurrentschrift" handwriting – some truly detective work, as any lawyer will attest!) had identified this letter as probably meaning "St", for Stackelberg, Josephine's husband. In any case, what Beethoven originally wrote was most definitely not an "A" (thus neither Antonie nor Arnim).
Here is, in a nutshell, this whole story, condensed, as it percolates out of Walden's phantastic speculations: "Bettina never claimed to be the Immortal Beloved, and she may not have even known about the Immortal Beloved letter." (p. 37) 
*Bettina published her (invented) letters by Beethoven in 1839, when the term "Immortal Beloved" was not yet publicly known.
*In 1840, Schindler followed with his Beethoven biography, publishing the Letter of 6/7 July for the first time (and claiming, falsely, that Julie "Giulietta" Guicciardi was the "Immortal Beloved").
*Bettina must have been greatly embarrassed by Schindler's revelation: after all, now she knew for sure that there was some other woman (and only one!) whom Beethoven had indeed loved passionately, thus invalidating her claim.
*And, not surprisingly, when Schindler then visited her for an interview about this very topic, she was – to his astonishment – very tight-lipped!
One of the most blatant examples how Walden is carried away by his obsession, inventing statements like this: "Beethoven noted the place of writing and exact date of virtually all [!] of his letters at the head of the first page of the letter." (p. 74) "… his usual style of writing letters, which were for the most part fully dated." (p. 13) The truth: "More than 60 percent of Beethoven's letters are not dated or incompletely dated."Brandenburg (1996), vol. 1, p. XXXV.
"Because the Teplitz Letter was not found in Bettina’s possessions after her death, and because of the liberties that Bettina took with the letters between her and Goethe in her Goethe Correspondence book, most scholars today believe that it was concocted by her… I have attempted to show … that the reason it has not been found is that Bettina destroyed it." (p. 36) What if "most scholars" are right and the reason this "Teplitz Letter" was not found (und thus also not destroyed) was simply that it never existed?
A minor, but typical example is this letter by Franz Brentano to his brother Clemens where he complains about Bettina's obvious misconduct: "You are going to Berlin, greet everyone from me as warmly as I always felt towards them, but do tell Bettine occasionally and privately, that in Teplitz, in front of some friends, she could have talked about me and Toni much more lovingly – our whole life has been full of love and benevolence towards her, and it will remain thus – but I ask you, only in private."Franz Brentano to Clemens, 6 October 1812, in Kopitz (2001), n. 107.
Apparently, it was Bettina – not Beethoven – who disobeyed a few rules of courteousness…
Walden cunningly deals with his opponents by pinning them firmly in the "politically" wrong (namely, the anti-feminist) "camp": "The anti-Bettina camp … disbelieved Bettina and everything she wrote about Beethoven, possibly because of her politics, possibly because of her gender." (p. 51 f.) "Bettina came to acquire a reputation among a number of scholars as being at best a concocter of fiction about Beethoven in the guise of made-up letters from and about him, and at worst, a forger of handwritten communications from him to her. The negative views about Bettina of Riemann, Deiters, and Unger, possibly arrived at because of her political views or gender, and perhaps correct or not, came to be cited more and more frequently." (p. 67) "After Bettina’s death, her detractors began to gain the upper hand… A whole new generation of academics who did not know her, but possibly were biased because of her politics or gender… She was sometimes called 'hysterical'." (p. 126)
Again and again, Walden hammers his theses into his readers' minds by endless repetitions: Surely, all these "Bettina detractors" were biased by their anti-feminist stance – they were all against her because of her "gender". And who dares to call a woman "hysterical" these days?
Perhaps we should have saved us all the effort of reading this rather sorry effort to invent the mystery's "solution" out of thin air, by sticking to this introductory observation, as Walden himself admits (p. 5): "Max Unger, a leading German researcher on the question of the Immortal Beloved, concluded in 1910, after careful consideration of Bettina’s relationship with Beethoven, that the main reason she could not be the Immortal Beloved was that she loved her husband." And not Beethoven. Simple as that. End of story.
References
Sources
*Theodore Albrecht (1996, ed.): Letters to Beethoven & other Correspondence. 3 vols. University of Nebraska Press.
*Gail S Altman (1996): Beethoven: A Man of His Word – Undisclosed Evidence for his Immortal Beloved. Tallahassee: Anubian Press.
*Emily Anderson (1961, ed.): The Letters of Beethoven. 3 vols. London: Macmillan.
*Virginia Beahrs (1993): "Beethoven's Only Beloved? New Perspectives on the Love Story of the Great Composer." Music Review 54, no. 3/4, pp. 183–197.
*Sieghard Brandenburg (1996, ed.): Ludwig van Beethoven: Briefwechsel. Gesamtausgabe. [Ludwig van Beethoven: Letters & Correspondence. Complete Edition.] 8 vols. Munich: Henle.
*Barry Cooper (1991, ed.): The Beethoven Compendium. A Guide to Beethoven’s Life and Music. London: Thames & Hudson.
*Elliot Forbes (1967, ed.): Thayer’s Life of Beethoven. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Princeton: University Press.
*Harry Goldschmidt (1977): Um die Unsterbliche Geliebte. Ein Beethoven–Buch. Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag für Musik. In English: "All About the Beethoven's Immortal Beloved. A Stocktaking." CreateSpace 2013.
*Siegmund Kaznelson (1954): Beethovens Ferne und Unsterbliche Geliebte. [Beethoven's Distant and Immortal Beloved.] Zürich: Standard.
*Klaus Martin Kopitz (2001): "Antonie Brentano in Wien (1809–1812). Neue Quellen zur Problematik 'Unsterbliche Geliebte'." [Antonie Brentano in Vienna (1809–1812). New Sources to the Difficulties with the "Immortal Beloved".] Bonner Beethoven–Studien 2, pp. 115–146.
*La Mara (1909): Beethovens Unsterbliche Geliebte. Das Geheimnis der Gräfin Brunsvik und ihre Memoiren. [Beethoven's Immortal Beloved. Countess Brunsvik's Secret and her Memoirs.] Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
*La Mara (1920): Beethoven und die Brunsviks. Nach Familienpapieren aus Therese Brunsviks Nachlaß. [Beethoven and the Brunsviks. According to Family Documents from Therese Brunsvik's Estate.] Leipzig: Siegel.
*Jean & Brigitte Massin (1955): Ludwig van Beethoven. Paris: Fayard. (2nd ed. 1967.)
*Jean & Brigitte Massin (1970): Recherche de Beethoven. Paris: Fayard.
*Anton Schindler (1840): Biographie von Ludwig van Beethoven. Münster.
*Maynard Solomon (1972): "New Light on Beethoven's Letter to an Unknown Woman." The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 58/4, pp. 572–587.
*Maynard Solomon (2005, ed.): Beethovens Tagebuch 1812–1818. [Beethoven's Diary 1812–1818.] 2nd ed. (1st ed. 1990.) Bonn: Beethoven–Haus.
*Rita Steblin (2007): "'Auf diese Art mit A geht alles zugrunde'. A New Look at Beethoven's Diary Entry and the 'Immortal Beloved'." Bonner Beethoven–Studien 6, pp. 147–180.
*Rita Steblin (2009): "Beethovens 'Unsterbliche Geliebte': des Rätsels Lösung." [Beethoven's "Immortal Beloved": the Riddle Solved.] Österreichische Musikzeitschrift 64/2, pp. 4–17.
*Marie–Elisabeth Tellenbach (1983): Beethoven und seine 'Unsterbliche Geliebte' Josephine Brunswick. Ihr Schicksal und der Einfluß auf Beethovens Werk. Zürich: Atlantis. in English: "Beethoven and his 'Immortal Beloved' Josephine Brunsvik. Her Fate and the Influence on Beethoven's Œuvre. CreateSpace 2014.
*Max Unger (1910): Auf Spuren von Beethovens Unsterblicher Geliebten. [Traces of Beethoven's Immortal Beloved.] Langensalza.
John E Klapproth (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of ''Beethoven’s Immortal Beloved. Solving the Mystery'', by Edward Walden.

message: I have a question: when exacly the researches with the paper's watermark of the letter were made and by whom? In German Wikipedia it is said that it was made by Joseph Schmidt-Görg when he was director of Bonn Beethoven House, but I didn't find a precise reference, not even in his bibliography. --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis of the paper's watermark 

message: I have a question for the German scholars here. I realize that there are years of traditional translation to deal with here,
but it seems to me that a vastly superior translation of Unsterbliche Geliebte would be "undyingly beloved," or, if one insists on using over-the-top latinisms
instead of transliterations, "eternally beloved." I cannot believe that Beethoven felt that his beloved was immortal, and
I have never read any other lover of either sex or any nationality use a similar phrase, although countless artists
have described their love (though not the object of the love) as eternal. The letter itself is simply a loveletter, not a paean
to a goddess. So, is either of my alternate translations a correct interpretation of "unsterbliche"?
Can we rename the page and do a small bit to eradicate this distortion? Treethinker (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Change Page Title to Undyingly Beloved 

message: After wading through the article (with almost no familiarity with the scholarship beforehand), I was left with the following conclusion.  Please comment -- because either the article takes verbose effort to obscure this conclusion, or else I'm resurrecting the NPOV issue:
My understanding from this article is that much of the interest in the "IB" letter was historically (150, 100, and even 50 years ago) caused by the fact that:
# there was no apparent date and/or location associated with it [a hint of mystery]; 
# it made no mention of the beloved's name and contained only slight clues, suggesting that the name needed to be kept secret [more mystery]; and  
# Beethoven was not known to have written any other love letters to Josephine or 
anyone else [even more mystery], apart from some that were suspected to be forgeries.
Now that #1 has been resolved (150 or so years after his death), and #3 has been overturned with the publication of several other letters, my conclusion from this article is that much of the previous interest was simply caused by the mystery itself surrounding this artifact: Mystery piques interest.  But if his other love letters (and Josephine's) had been known, scholars would long ago have regarded this as a slightly interesting footnote to either the continuation of his relationship with her or a break from it into another lover's arms.
The key word there is slightly: My conclusion from this article is that what put most of the heat into the argument among scholars was the mystery, especially of his love life -- much of which has been resolved.
So am I correct in concluding that the long interest in this letter was caused mostly by the mystery that originally surrounded it?  In more detail:
* Did I understand the current state of knowledge about Beethoven's love life?   
* Did I understand how much mystery surrounded the letter in the beginning, and why it involved much more about his life than just the single letter itself? 
* Did I understand that most of that mystery (excluding a very short list of candidate names) has now been resolved?   
* And did I reach the correct conclusion about WHY this letter was worth so much effort (and so much heat) for so long?  
If I didn't, then (regardless of the identity of the person the letter was addressed to), I believe the article has an NPOV problem.
Conversely, if I did understand correctly, then we have a needlessly convoluted article that obscures the boldfaced point by reporting exhaustively on the history of the controversy, instead of the few remaining uncertainties. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the Mystery -- or just NPOV? 

message: This section looks very much like advocacy.  The reference to Klapproth 2016 is given at the beginning; a couple of sentences are in quote marks, and then the rest looks very much like Original Research.
So, what is the reference? An article on a self-publish internet site.  Not a reassuringly reliable secondary source.  Is the editor of this section in fact Klapproth himself? 115.64.142.162 (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Antonie: refuted by Beethoven himself

message: Is it just me and nobody else is bothered that the whole article doesn’t say WHAT the letter was about? Ten pages of small handwriting must had some content, didn’t it? Ceplm (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A facsimile of the ten pages is at Commons:Category:Unsterbliche Geliebte, a transcribed annotated German version at https://web.archive.org/web/20171201182127/https://www.beethoven.de/hallo-beethoven/extern/ug-orginaltext.pdf . A web search gives https://ludwig0van0beethoven.tripod.com/beetwritings2.html where an English translation is given. There are probably more such sites. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content of the letter