Pablo Massa wrote:

>Please, tell me what does that letter says!!!.  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.  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.

But you see, what Solomon does is to provide only those data that agree
with his theory.  Others are not mentioned.  I'm not saying he does it on
purpose - perhaps it's subconscious, simply wishful thinking.  So even if
all his data are right, the reader is unaware of other data, contradicting
what he writes.  You can have a look at both Thayer (even though it's
out-of-date) and Solomon, and in many cases you will find the same letters
quoted, but Thayer's quote will be longer and when you read the longer
quote, you may realize that it does not agree with Solomon's interpretation
of the shorter excerpt.  In other words, it's the old trick of taking words
out of context.  unfortunately, double-checking what he writes is too much
work for anybody but a really committed person.

Unfortunately, I can't agree with you that S.  makes "solid deductions".
His logic is so flawed - not only in this particular example - that it's
simply appalling.  What is persuasive is his style of writing.  He has a
way of presenting one possibility of many in a way that makes the reader
think there are no other options.  First time I read his book, years ago,
I was fooled - it sounded persuasive.  Later I read other literature on
Beethoven and realized that I was fooled.

-Margaret