John Dalmas wrote:

>I haven't seen any reference to William Kinderman's recent biography in
>which he suggests obliquely that the "Immortal Beloved" is Art itself.
>Now how's that for an answer, that the composer's eternal feminine is none
>other than his muse!  It certainly raises the subject above the level of
>country matters.

Very true, but that's not what I said.  Nevertheless some biographers do
think indeed she was Art herself, Beethoven's muse.  I don't agree.  It's
more than one step too far to suggest that Beethoven was nothing without
her.  Also without his many love troubles he would have been Beethoven.
However, as a man, as a human being he did suffer quite of lot of this
unknown woman.  For a biographer that's something that should not be
overlooked.  I am, BTW, not an admirer of Kinderman's biography.  Too
much "Solomonized", this man.

Mark Ehlert wrote:

>In another post from this thread, Joyce wrote:
>
>>These last 20 years I've done my utmost to write a reliable [biography on
>>Beethoven] and it can be read on my website, but who reads Dutch?
>
>Have you considered publishing this biography in the traditional medium of
>pressed and bound sheets of papyrus? I'd be interested in a copy (if it
>were also in English).

Of course I've considered publishing it as a book.  However, Dutch
publishers are not interested.  Too long, too difficult, too specialized,
no market, because the Dutch are not very interested in biographies of
composers in general, let alone in a 100 pages biography of Beethoven.
Publishers want to earn money, not lose it.  And a translation into English
is impossible, because I don't have the money to pay a professional.  And
I DO need a professional!  So it will stay in Dutch and only available as
a website.  Pity.

William Strother asked:

>Joyce Maier wrote:
>
>>...  Thayer's digressions on the Immortal Beloved are as wrong as
>>Solomon's!  And IMHO the new hypothesis is also nonsense.
>
>Sounds like you have a theory of your own.  Care to tell us about it?

No, for I don't have a theory.  Oh yes, I have a favorite candidate,
because I consider the evidence for this woman more convincing than the
evidence for others.  But that's all.  The problem is that to this day
there's simply no evidence enough, not for Antonie, not for Josephine, not
for Marie, not for Dorothea, not for Almerie, et cetera, et cetera.  So I
prefer to state that the identity of the Immortal Beloved is still unknown.
I don't like far-fetched speculations, like Solomon's.  Oh yes, at first
sight his reasoning looks convincing, but at second sight it crumbles into
pieces.  The problem is that most people are not aware of all the ins and
outs of this very complex riddle and therefore they are unable to judge
it.  The result: they believe him.  Very regrettable.  I've done my own
research.  I've travelled to Prague and Bohemia.  I've followed Beethoven's
tracks on his journey of summer 1812.  That was enough to put a huge
question mark behind Solomon's theory.  And over the years, studying it
over and over again, I began to realize that it's high time to put his
hypothesis aside.

Richard Todd writes:

>As for a letter in the possession of a mysterious nobleman, but
>unavailable to anyone else . . .  come on now!

Well, you're completely entitled to think that I'm nuts, but that's your
problem.  The publication of long-term unpublished and very important
Beethoven letters happened in 1957 by Schmidt-Goerg, at the time director
of the Beethoven-Haus in Bonn.  What happened then, could happen again and
some day it will.  For believe me, it is TRUE, the existence of those
letters (3 to be exact).  I happen to know a member of this family.  She
has access to the letters, but she's not allowed to publish them, since
they are not hers.  But not only in Paris there's unpublished evidence.
This is also the case elsewhere and this evidence is in this or another way
connected to Beethoven's life and/or music.  But it's property of old noble
families, who are unwilling, for various reasons, to publish it.  Shortly
one of those families finally decided to show their archives to the world.
Very interesting indeed.  As I already wrote to Pablo: research is still
going on and right so.

Pablo Massa asked:

>>... I know -by inside information- that there's an unpublished Beethoven
>>letter in which he wrote some striking and amazing lines about the
>>Brentano family.
>
>Please, tell me what does that letter says!!!.

Beethoven writes that the Brentanos are such useful friends because of
their money.  He only needs to "pull the tails of these sheep" and yes,
money again!  Imagine, such a sentence about the woman who is supposed to
be the woman of his life, his One and Only True Love.  It makes me giggle.

>I know that Solomon's book have many weak points --the Freudian blab
>among them--, but I find the chapter devoted to the "Immortal beloved"
>still convincing.  He makes solid deductions after a large series of data.

No, that's an error.  Sly Solomon left out all the counter proofs, like,
for instance, the letters written by Beethoven to Antonie in the years
1816/18 and, also far from unimportant, Antonie's pregnancy, already
present when Beethoven wrote his famous love letter.  However, Beethoven
never showed any interest in the child, not even when the kid fell ill and
very seriously indeed.  He stayed a cripple, mentally and physically
strongly handicapped for the rest of life.  But Beethoven stayed in Vienna
and focussed completely on his substitute-son, his nephew Karl.  Very
amusing is a particular line in one of his letters to Antonie, written in
1816: "you will know that I've become a father." Imagine, to the woman who
had given birth to a boy who may have been his son...  Giggle again.

>Standard readers (among which I count myself) have few possibilities
>to know if all data provided by Solomon are wrong or right; so, his
>deduction appears to be very persuasive.

Please, write "seems"  instead of "appears" and I fully agree...

>I'm curious to know what are the weak points of his theory about the
>"Immortal beloved".

See above.  There's more, of course, but I think that's too specialized for
this list.  If you want to know all the ins and outs, write me off-list.

>I hope that these lines are not another sample of the temporary anger
>of Beethoven against his close friends, because that wouldn't work as an
>argument against Solomon's theory.

See above.  It had nothing to do with angriness and therefore these lines
really have something to say.  But until the publication of those letters
they prove nothing and that's why it's so annoying that the owner is not
interested in a publication.  BTW, one of the letters points into the
direction of another candidate, namely Josephine Brunswick.  IMHO the lines
in that letter cannot be seen as the proof we're waiting.  However, it
surely is strong circumstantial evidence in her favor.  In contrast to what
most people seem to think the research on the mysterious beloved is still
going on and I'm almost sure that one day the riddle will be solved.

Joyce Maier
www.ademu.com/Beethoven