Evidences: Beethoven proposed to Magdalena Willmann around 1795 ??

[Quijote]

We don't know for sure.
For more info regarding the debate:
http://unheardbeethoven.org/jan-swaf...e-klapproth-2/

[Quijote]

And here's a robust critique of sloppy "scholarly" research on this subject by Michael Lorenz:
http://michaelorenz.blogspot.fr/2017...-countess.html

[JohnSpecialK]

Ignorance is no argument

Who is "We"? Pluralis majestatis? The attitude "We don't know (& we don't want to know)" is not helpful at all, it only encourages unfounded speculations (of which we got too many already) and leaves in Beethoven's life (and music!) unexplained what ought to be explicable.

Much more interesting than Swafford's "reply" (more of a primadonna playing the sorehead, punching below the belt) is my criticism of his many blunders http://unheardbeethoven.org/in-defence-of-josephine/ of which he did not mention (let alone rebut) a single point.

[JohnSpecialK]

200 Years of Uncertitude

Summarizing the reliable findings – not the, often wild, speculations – about the supposed "conundrum" or "mystery" surrounding Beetho*ven's "Immortal Beloved", these are the most obvious (mainly "exter*nal") facts:
(1) The Letter was written on 6-7 July 1812 in Teplitz.
(2) Beethoven had most likely met her a few days before, a woman whom he had not expected: on 3 July 1812 in the evening, when he missed a meeting with Varnhagen in Prague due to "a circumstance I could not foresee".
(3) The addressee must have been a woman whom Beethoven had loved for a long time, and she had reciprocated this love. In the Let*ter, he called himself specifically her "be*loved", assured her again of his "faithfulness" to her, and likewise asked her to "remain" faithful to him: "Remain my faithful only darling, my everything, as I for you." [L1.18]; "You know my faithfulness to you, never can another own my heart, never – never." [L3.8]
(4) The Letter was to be posted to a place two days away from Teplitz, via Karlsbad (one day away). Therefore, he must have expected her to be in such a place. "Mondays – Thursdays – the only days when the mail goes from here to K." [L2.3]; "You will probably not before Satur*day receive the first message from me." [L2.9]
(5) That he kept the Letter was most likely due to the intended ad*dressee being no longer in that place – either he had learned about this, or the posted Letter was returned as un*deliverable. This also indicates that he was not sure about her where*abouts.
(6) "Wir werden unß wohl bald sehen" [We will probably see each other soon] [L1.14] was often wrongly translated as "No doubt we shall meet soon" or "We will surely see each other soon". As in the previous point, the exact whereabouts of the Be*loved were uncertain at the time, and it was far from certain, that this reunion would occur any time "soon".
(7) From the Letter, it becomes clear that the Beloved was (and had been for some time) living in Vienna (like Beethoven).
(8) Beethoven had plans at the time to go to England, and this an*nouncement in the Letter implies that she was expected to be staying in Vienna: "I have resolved to stray about far away until I can fly into your arms" [L3.5].
(9) The following admonition implies that the woman had done precisely this in the past and could possibly do the same again: "But – never hide yourself from me" [L2.11].

If we review the above points of "external" evidence (i.e., disregarding for a moment the "internal" aspects like expressions of affection, love and/or devotion), then we can already answer the most important question "Who?" most confidently:

From points (1) and (2), it follows that only a woman could have been the addressee who had been in or near Prague in July 1812. Of all possible "candidates" who were ever suggested or imagined, only three women can seriously be considered: Antonie Brentano, who stayed with husband, child and servants in a hotel from 3 to 4 July and then moved on to Karlsbad; Josephine Brunsvik, who had been left by her husband (most likely) after an increasingly disastrous marriage and had intended to go to Prague; and Marie Erdödy whose exact whereabouts at that time are (so far) unknown, although she was probably in her summer residence in Hernals (near Vienna), where Beethoven visited her in October 1812.

The first "candidate", Antonie Brentano, had been put forward by So*lomon (1972, 1988, 1998), however, he ignored these points:
ad (2): Beethoven was well aware of the Brentanos' presence, as he had met them a few days before in Vienna, obviously also to discuss their (and his) travel plans.
ad (3): There were at most maybe eight months of – more or less – "intimate" contact between Beethoven and Antonie, with her husband present most of the time. This fact is hard to reconcile with the Letter.
ad (4): Due to Antonie having been in Karlsbad (one day away by post coach), and Beethoven definitely knew this (as well as the travel times), it follows that he could not have meant Antonie by these remarks.
ad (5): Regarding Antonie, this fact necessitates the awkward assum*ption that she must have returned the Letter – or one must suppose he did not intend to send it in the first place. Which, however, is contra*dicted by his desperate efforts to find out the exact departure times of the mail coach.
ad (6): The correct translation again rules out Antonie, as it was ab*solutely certain that Beethoven would meet her "soon" again (in Karlsbad, as planned beforehand and which indeed happened).
ad (7): Again, a point where assuming Antonie was the addressee is a bit of a stretch: She was no longer a Viennese since her marriage in 1798 (she was living in Frankurt), and at the time of the Letter, she was in Vienna only temporarily due to the death of her father.
ad (8): Antonie was the one who a few weeks later went away (back to Frankfurt); his intention to return to her after some time of "straying about" makes no sense.
ad (9): This is equally nonsensical with regard to Antonie. No incident is known that she ever concealed herself from him, and the admo*nition in his Letter presupposes her presence in the future.

Marie Erdödy was recently suggested by Gail Altman (1996) as a pos*sible "Immortal Beloved". However, she cannot match most of the points, especially:
ad (3): Even though (or rather: just because) Beethoven had lived in the same house as Marie for some time, had met her frequently, and wrote her several short letters, there is no indication anywhere of an "affair of the heart" or similar that could be reconciled with the tone of the Letter.
ad (9): Like Antonie, Marie had no history of going into hiding. On the contrary – apart from the short time when they had a quarrel and Beet*hoven moved out – she was always available to him, to such a degree that he referred to her as his "Father confessor"!

It should not have escaped the discerned student of the Letter that Josephine Brunsvik ticks all the boxes:
ad (2): Because there was no documentary proof of Josephine's pre*sence in Prague or elsewhere in Bohemia in July 1812, this was often held against her. However, as Massin & Massin (1955) showed, Jose*phine must be considered the most likely candidate without such a proof, indeed even without any knowledge of the "Thirteen Letters", simply because there are overwhelming arguments ruling out all other candidates. Meanwhile, a document has been found (by Steblin 2007) that shows Josephine's clear intention in June 1812, to go to Prague.
Meeting Josephine on 3 July 1812 must therefore have been an ex*tremely unforeseeable and unexpected event for Beethoven.
ad (3): Josephine was indeed a woman (the Only one) whom Beet*hoven had loved for a long time, and she had reciprocated his love.
ad (4): Josephine was probably in Franzensbad (two days by post coach from Teplitz, via Karlsbad), and she had planned to go there already in February 1812 (Goldschmidt 2014, p. 168).
ad (5): If he had posted the Letter, it was returned as undeliverable, because she had left Franzensbad already. (This is most likely be*cause on 5 July, the Emperor was in Franzensbad, but left the day after.)
ad (6): As indicated before, Beethoven was aware that meeting her again was anything but certain.
ad (7): Josephine had been living in Vienna (most of the time) since 1799.
ad (8): Josephine was staying in Vienna (most of the time) until her death in 1821.
ad (9): Josephine had done precisely this in the past and could possibly do the same again: go into hiding.
Thus, the evidence of "external" facts points almost exclusively to Jo*sephine, mainly because Marie Erdödy is an unlikely candidate any*way, and several points – (2), (4), (6), and (9), in particular – are ruling out Antonie. Even the fact that she actually was in Prague on 3-4 July does not convincingly support the notion she might have had a tryst with Beethoven, after an arduous journey of two days and her departure the next day at dawn.

(from "The Immortal Beloved Compendium")

[Quijote]

Who is "We"? Pluralis majestatis?

I suppose that would be the same "We" in the opening of your post #15.

[Quijote]

I have followed the debate between you and Swafford on the "Unheard Beethoven" site. I favour Swafford, not least for his disinterested academic approach to research as opposed to your style of "pamphleteering", for want of a better term.
Agreed, there are some good reasons out there why Josephine Brunsvik is a candidate for being the Immortal Belovèd, but you do the case no favour by your "Hyde Park corner stand on a soap box and shout" attitude.

[Quijote]

Your overall scholarly credibility is further undermined by Michael Lorenz (see article link in post #17 above), who questions your assumptions concerning Josephine's funeral and alleged abandonment by her family. Lorenz writes convincingly and is obviously well informed about (aristocratic) Vienese funeral formalities at that time. You have not addressed this.