Beethoven biography | Beethoven Music Research Center www.lvbeethoven.org

The Enigma of Minona von Stackelberg: Was She the Illegitimate Daughter of Ludwig van Beethoven?

ew version of the article that originally appeared in French in the A.B.F. journal, and earlier on the website www.lvbeethoven.com

Therese Brunsvik de Korompa (1775–1861)

A life shaped by music, pedagogy, and silent devotion

The eldest daughter of Count Anton Brunsvik and Anna von Seeberg, Therese was born in 1775 into one of Hungary’s most influential noble families. Raised between the estates of Martonvásár and Korompa, she received a refined education and soon distinguished herself for intelligence, sensitivity, and a strong reformist spirit.

In 1799, together with her mother and her sister Josephine, she entered the Viennese salons where she met Ludwig van Beethoven. A deep friendship grew between them, nourished by mutual esteem and a shared educational ideal. Therese was briefly his pupil, and in 1810 Beethoven dedicated to her the Sonata in F‑sharp major, Op. 78.

Her correspondence and diaries — invaluable historical sources — reveal not only her bond with Beethoven but also the central role she played in protecting and supporting her sister Josephine, especially during the most difficult years of her life.

A passionate advocate of Pestalozzi’s educational principles, Therese devoted herself to early childhood education and to the promotion of women’s rights. She founded the first kindergartens in Hungary and fought for social equality in Budapest. She never married, but became a spiritual mother to many children, including the mysterious Minona, Josephine’s daughter, whom she raised with love and discretion.

Therese died in 1861, leaving behind a legacy of pedagogical innovation and a unique testimony to the inner world of Beethoven and his circle.

Josephine Brunsvik de Korompa (1779–1821)

The countess who loved Beethoven — and paid the price of her nobility

Born in 1779, the second daughter of Count Anton Brunsvik and Anna von Seeberg, Josephine grew up amid the splendor of Hungarian aristocracy and the constraints of a strict upbringing. Gifted with grace, intelligence, and deep musical sensitivity, she entered the Viennese salons in 1799 with her mother and sister Therese, where she met Ludwig van Beethoven.

Between them arose a bond that was profound, passionate, and tormented. Josephine was his pupil, muse, and confidante. After her marriage in 1800 to Count Joseph Deym — a union of convenience rather than affection — the correspondence with Beethoven ceased, only to resume intensely after Deym’s death in 1804. Their letters, filled with longing and sorrow, reveal a relationship that challenged social conventions and the rigid boundaries of class.

Widowed and mother of four, Josephine found herself torn between her love for Beethoven and the legal and familial pressures that prevented her from marrying a man of non‑noble birth. Her life was marked by imposed choices, including a second, unhappy marriage to Baron Christoph von Stackelberg, with whom she had additional children.

In 1813, Minona was born — a mysterious child never officially acknowledged. Therese, ever devoted, took her in and raised her. The circumstances of Minona’s birth — and even her name, an anagram of “Anonim” — have long fueled the belief that Beethoven was the father.

Josephine died in 1821, worn down by illness and a life of renunciation. Today she emerges as a woman divided between duty and passion, nobility and freedom, motherhood and an impossible love.

Adam (Ádám) von Stackelberg (1787–1841)

The Baltic baron who became Josephine’s second husband

Adam von Stackelberg, born in 1787 into a Baltic noble family, belonged to the cosmopolitan world of the imperial aristocracy that moved between Vienna, Livonia, and the courts of Central Europe. Young, polished, and ambitious, he quickly entered diplomatic and military circles, where he distinguished himself for elegant manners and a taste for social life.

In 1810 he met Josephine Brunsvik, already widowed from Count Deym and mother of four. Their marriage, celebrated the same year, was welcomed by both families: a “suitable” union that promised Josephine renewed social stability and offered Stackelberg a stronger position in Viennese and Hungarian society. Reality, however, proved very different.

Often absent due to travels and appointments, Stackelberg soon revealed an unsettled character and little inclination toward family responsibilities. His relationship with Josephine’s children was strained, and the couple’s financial situation deteriorated rapidly. Letters and diaries by Therese Brunsvik describe growing tensions, misunderstandings, and an emotional estrangement that became irreversible.

In 1813, Minona was born — the most enigmatic child of the Brunsvik family. Stackelberg never recognized her as his own, and shortly thereafter abandoned Josephine entirely, relinquishing any role in the household. The separation left Josephine in a state of material and emotional fragility, while Therese assumed responsibility for the children.

After leaving the family, Stackelberg continued his career through various administrative posts and travels in Eastern Europe. He died in 1841, far from the Brunsvik circle — an elegant yet elusive figure, more spectator than protagonist, but nonetheless decisive in shaping Josephine’s fate and the still‑debated story of Minona’s birth.

Therese Brunsvik and the Birth of Minona

In her memoir Mein halbes Jahrhundert, Therese von Brunsvik declared not only that she was the “godmother” of the child, but wrote quite literally: “Das Kind wurde mir förmlich geschenkt” (“the child was literally given to me”). The reason for this statement is clear: since Josephine was not yet legally divorced, Therese wished to prevent Count Christoph von Stackelberg from claiming any rights over this child of love. She also wanted to protect the newborn from the constant conflicts between Josephine and her husband, quarrels that had already deeply affected the other children.

Josephine never kept the secret from her sister. Therese was informed of the pregnancy from the very beginning. In her diary entry of 22 September 1812, she wrote:

“Josephines Kind will ich nicht als das meinige ansehen, sondern es für seine Eltern mit der größten Verleugnung und wie es Pflicht ist, erziehen…” (“Josephine’s child will not be as if it were my own, but I shall raise her for her parents, with the greatest self-denial, as duty requires…”)

As for von Stackelberg, he respected a tacit agreement to stay away from his wife. Therese later noted in her diary: “Wir sahen ihn sechs Monate nicht” (“We did not see him for six months”).

Yet on 4 December 1812, without warning, the count returned briefly to Vienna. His attitude toward Josephine remained unchanged: cold, distant, and devoid of any marital relationship.

Josephine’s Flight and the Birth of Her Child

Josephine, pregnant during this turbulent period, made a drastic decision: as Therese recounts, she “packed clothes and linen and decided to leave the house.” It is unclear whether von Stackelberg remained in Vienna in the following months; however, on 20 March 1813 — shortly before the birth — he drafted a new marital contract. Its final sentence was stark:

“Du bist frey – wie Du selbst mit Dir rechnen willst.” (“You are free — but you must rely solely on yourself.”)

A few days later, Stackelberg apparently left Vienna for good. No one in the Brunsvik household knew where he had gone. He considered himself so far removed from his family obligations that he no longer fulfilled even his duties toward his two elder children, nor did he assist his wife, who was close to giving birth.

On 9 April 1813, Josephine’s presumed natural daughter by Beethoven was born. She was given the name Maria Theresia Minona Selma Arria Cornelia. The name “Minona,” taken from Goethe’s Werther, is unusual; even more striking is its anagram, “Anonim,” suggesting a deliberately concealed identity.

Mystery Within Mystery

Anyone who speculates about Beethoven’s possible paternity can only add mystery to mystery. It must be remembered that the child was born in absolute secrecy, and that only Therese von Brunsvik stood by Josephine during those sorrowful hours.

At the beginning of 1814, Christoph von Stackelberg suddenly returned to Vienna and immediately went to the police to denounce his wife, alleging a “danger to the morality of their children.” His likely intention was to force Josephine to follow him to Estonia. She refused, choosing to remain in Vienna. The authorities, believing his accusations, entrusted the couple’s three daughters to Stackelberg.

Josephine’s Collapse

It is undeniable that the severe nervous breakdown that struck Josephine was directly linked to these painful events. With a broken and powerless heart, she watched as Stackelberg took away her three young daughters. She might have wished to fight for them, but she no longer had the physical or emotional strength to resist.

While Therese cared for the children from Josephine’s first marriage to Count Joseph Deym at the Deym castle in Hacking Zinzendorf, Josephine remained in the Deym residence in Vienna, ill and devastated. In this state of profound sorrow and isolation, she refused to see anyone — not even Beethoven, one of the dearest presences in her life.

Josephine’s Death and Minona’s Fate

This tragedy shattered Josephine completely. Her suffering was indescribable, and already weakened by grief for her daughters, she died on 31 March 1821 at the age of forty‑two, officially of “exhaustion.” At that very time Beethoven was suffering from a severe attack of jaundice that brought him close to death; all work on the symphony that would become the Ninth was halted. While little Minona found refuge with her aunt Therese at the Hacking‑Hütteldorf estate, the composer entered a period marked by worsening health and the painful legal struggle over his nephew Karl — a conflict that began in 1817 and culminated in the boy’s suicide attempt in 1826.

Taken to Estonia at eighteen months, Minona saw her mother again only years later, when she was brought to Josephine’s bedside as her condition deteriorated rapidly. She was six years old when Stackelberg returned her and her siblings, Theophile and Maria Laura, to Vienna. They had barely fulfilled their filial duties before their father forced them all back to Estonia.

When Therese saw Minona again — now six years old — she immediately noticed how unlike she was to the other children Josephine had had with Stackelberg. She could not fail to see it: Minona was, after all, her “secret.” Therese wrote in her diary:

“Merkwürdig hatte sich das Kind entwickelt. Ohne schön zu sein, war sie stark und imponierte dermaßen ihren älteren Schwestern, daß wir sie immer die Gouvernante nannten. Es zeigte sich auch später, daß sie das meiste Genie unter den Schwestern hatte.” (“The child had developed in a remarkable way. Though not beautiful, she was strong and impressed her older sisters so much that we always called her the Governess. It later became clear that she had the greatest talent among the sisters.”)

Minona, Music, and the Unspoken Secret

Minona lived for some time in Tallinn, where she studied music. She became an excellent pianist and also studied composition; many of her works were published during her lifetime.

It is said that Therese von Brunsvik eventually confided the truth of the story to a nephew — long after Beethoven’s death. The nephew later reported that in 1870 Minona appealed in vain to a distant relative of her mother’s family, asking him to hand over the correspondence between Josephine and Beethoven.

Author’s Note

I have been able to locate only two works attributed to a “Mlle. Stackelberg.” A more thorough investigation is needed to determine the true extent of Minona von Stackelberg’s musical output.

The two surviving Ecossaises are conventional pieces. The first, for solo piano in E‑flat major, is a lively, typical example of the genre. The second, in the unusual key of B‑flat minor, also bears the title Ecossaise and was published by Kühnel in Leipzig. It appears, however, to have been arranged by Friedrich Heinrich Himmel (1765–1814).

Thus, although attributed to a “Mlle. Stackelberg,” this work cannot be by Minona, born in 1813 — unless one assumes an extraordinarily precocious genius.

The Lost Letters and Minona’s Legacy

The letters Minona sought throughout her life remain untraceable. They seem to lie buried in a vast family archive, only recently made partially accessible to scholars. Lacking direct documents, Minona had to rely on vague recollections and on her aunt Therese’s diary when trying to uncover her origins.

From the few portraits and rare photographs that survive, Minona appears as a strong‑willed woman, bearing — especially in old age — a striking resemblance to the master from Bonn. Like her presumed father, she lived her entire life alone. The same fate befell her Deym half‑sisters Victoire and Sophie, and her Stackelberg half‑siblings Theophile and Laura Marie.

After the death of her stepfather in 1841, Minona returned to Vienna, settling in the still‑standing Palais Cavriani in the former Oberen Bräunergasse, now Habsburgergasse No. 5. She formed a close friendship with the owner, Count Luigi Cavriani (1758–1839), and his wife, both passionate music lovers, as were the Count and Countess de Bánffy, their intimate friends.

Minona’s proud temperament — perhaps inherited from her illustrious parent — manifested itself throughout her life. When the family’s financial situation later became precarious, she would often say:

“Das bin ich meiner Herkunft schuldig!” (“My only fault is what I have inherited.”)

The protagonists of this story, reinterpreted with the help of AI

The protagonists of this story, reinterpreted with the help of artificial intelligence, are not meant to replace history, but simply to bring these figures closer to us.

Stackelberg Minona von (1813-1897)

Brunswick Thérèse (1775-1861)

Brunswick Josephine e Charlotte (1782-1843)

Brunswick Josephine (1779-1821)

Stackelberg Adam Christoph Freiherr von (1777-1841)

Further information

Bibliography

Beahrs, Virginia (1986): “The Immortal Beloved Revisited.” The Beethoven Newsletter 1/2 (Summer), pp. 22–24.
Beahrs, Virginia Oakley (1988): “The Immortal Beloved Riddle Reconsidered.” Musical Times, Vol. 129, No. 1740 (Feb.), pp. 64–70.
Beahrs, Virginia (1993): “Beethoven’s Only Beloved? New Perspectives on the Love Story of the Great Composer.” Music Review 54, no. 3/4, pp. 183–197.
Brandenburg, Sieghard (1996, ed.): Ludwig van Beethoven: Briefwechsel. Gesamtausgabe. 8 vols. Munich: Henle.
Czeke, Marianne (1938): Brunszvik Teréz grófnő naplói és feljegyzései, vol. 1. [Countess Therese Brunsvik’s Diaries and Notes.] Budapest.
Dahlhaus, Carl (1991): Ludwig van Beethoven: Approaches to his Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldschmidt, Harry (1977): Um die Unsterbliche Geliebte. Ein Beethoven-Buch. Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag für Musik.
Kaznelson, Siegmund (1954): Beethovens Ferne und Unsterbliche Geliebte. Zürich: Standard.
La Mara (Ida Marie Lipsius) (1909): Beethovens Unsterbliche Geliebte. Das Geheimnis der Gräfin Brunsvik und ihre Memoiren. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
La Mara (1920): Beethoven und die Brunsviks. Nach Familienpapieren aus Therese Brunsviks Nachlaß. Leipzig: Siegel.
Massin, Jean & Brigitte (1970): Recherche de Beethoven. Paris: Fayard.
Schmidt-Görg, Joseph (1957, ed.): Beethoven: Dreizehn unbekannte Briefe an Josephine Gräfin Deym geb. v. Brunsvik. Bonn: Beethoven-Haus.
Skwara, Dagmar / Steblin, Rita (2007): “Ein Brief Christoph Freiherr von Stackelbergs an Josephine Brunsvik-Deym-Stackelberg.” Bonner Beethoven-Studien, vol. 6, pp. 181–187.
Solomon, Maynard (2005, ed.): Beethovens Tagebuch 1812–1818. Bonn: Beethoven-Haus.
Steblin, Rita (2002): “Josephine Gräfin Brunswick-Deyms Geheimnis enthüllt: Neue Ergebnisse zu ihrer Beziehung zu Beethoven.” Österreichische Musikzeitschrift 57/6 (June), pp. 23–31.
Steblin, Rita (2002): A History of Key Characteristics in the 18th and Early 19th Centuries. 2nd ed. University of Rochester Press.
Steblin, Rita (2007): “‘Auf diese Art mit A geht alles zugrunde.’” Bonner Beethoven-Studien, vol. 6, pp. 147–180.
Steblin, Rita (2009): “Beethovens ‘Unsterbliche Geliebte’: des Rätsels Lösung.” Österreichische Musikzeitschrift 64/2, pp. 4–17.
Tellenbach, Marie-Elisabeth (1983): Beethoven und seine ‘Unsterbliche Geliebte’ Josephine Brunswick. Ihr Schicksal und der Einfluß auf Beethovens Werk. Zürich: Atlantis.
Tellenbach, Marie-Elisabeth (1987): “Beethoven and the Countess Josephine Brunswick.” The Beethoven Newsletter 2/3, pp. 41–51.
Tellenbach, Marie-Elisabeth (1988): “Künstler und Ständegesellschaft um 1800: die Rolle der Vormundschaftsgesetze in Beethovens Beziehung zu Josephine Gräfin Deym.” Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 2/2, pp. 253–263.
Tellenbach, Marie-Elisabeth (1992): “Beethovens Schülerin Josephine Brunswick, oder warum seine ‘Unsterbliche Geliebte’ ihn nicht geheiratet hat.” In: Hoffmann, Freia & Rieger, Eva (eds.): Von der Spielfrau zur Performance-Künstlerin: Auf der Suche nach einer Musikgeschichte der Frauen. Kassel: Furore, pp. 61–75.
Tellenbach, Marie-Elisabeth (1993/1994): “Psychoanalysis and the Historiocritical Method: On Maynard Solomon’s Image of Beethoven.” The Beethoven Newsletter 8/3, pp. 84–92; 9/3, pp. 119–127.
Tellenbach, Marie-Elisabeth (1996): “Noch eine Geliebte Beethovens gefunden – oder erfunden?” Musica Germany 50/2, pp. 78–83.
Tellenbach, Marie-Elisabeth (1998): “Psychoanalyse und historisch-philologische Methode. Zu Maynard Solomons Beethoven- und Schubert-Deutungen.” Analecta Musicologica 30/II, pp. 661–719.
Tellenbach, Marie-Elisabeth (1999): “Die Bedeutung des Adler-Gleichnisses in Beethovens Brief an Therese Gräfin Brunswick.” Die Musikforschung.

“Beethovenian Thoughts”

by Curzio Vivarelli, Edizioni del Tridente, 2024

As the Author warns us, this brief yet dense book—81 pages with two illustrations—is neither a biographical nor a philological contribution to the life and works of Ludwig van Beethoven. Rather, it is a collection of reflections—philosophical, historical, and even landscape‑oriented—whose center of gravity invariably falls upon the figure of the Cyclops of Bonn, whose music is placed as the inspirer of such meditations. Written in an elegant prose, one immediately perceives the care devoted to style: the pages flow pleasantly, offering intriguing insights and at times reserving notable surprises.

Such as, for example, the almost Plutarchian parallels between the figure and the sentiments underlying Beethoven’s oeuvre—Tondichter, that is, “poet of sounds,” and, we may add, “tragédien” in the classical sense—and their equivalent in our own Giacomo Leopardi. Or again, the singular association of figures, pursued even to a brief physiognomic glance cast upon the statuary heads of two Giants—one of music, the other of medicine—who lived in the same era and perhaps had, albeit from afar, some awareness of one another.

This hypothesis is not far‑fetched even from the standpoint of simple chronology, given that Goethe—who at Teplitz had his celebrated encounter with Beethoven—was struck, in those same years, by the noise and fame surrounding the doctrine and therapeutic method inaugurated by Christian Friedrich Hahnemann, founder of Homeopathy. Here, if the author of our book seems almost hurled outward by the centrifugal force of his thoughts, we must not overlook that he grounds the launching ramps of his projections upon solid bases: Goethe went so far as to suggest to Prince Schwarzenberg that he entrust his ailments to Dr. Hahnemann’s science, and nothing prevents us from believing that the Poet, albeit with the circumspection born of his Menschenkenntnis—his swift ability to discern the character of those before him—might have whispered to the irritable great Deaf One the name of the great Physician…

Yet in our book—brief, as said, but exceedingly dense—many other figures come alive within these reflections, to which the author grants a coherent and controlled yet ample flow, a wide panorama explicitly attributed to the powerful, Schopenhauerian Will revealed by Beethoven’s music. From the outset, enthusiasts admired its proverbial and splendid Weiträumigkeit, that is—seeking to render the hidden sense of the German word—its “capacity to unveil to the mind immense spaces” (and here the parallel with Leopardi’s Infinito becomes almost obligatory, with the “interminable spaces” the Poet beholds from his “solitary hill”).

Thus suddenly appears the young Franz Grillparzer; we behold again the noble, pensive figures of Wilhelm Furtwängler and Willem Mengelberg; we see Carl Schuricht; we hear once more the self‑ironic and sorrowful voice of Giacomo Puccini who, pointing at the score of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony open upon his piano at Torre del Lago, says in his Lucchese dialect: E eh un c’è nnulla daffare, la vera musiha l’è qqui drento… And then, in the flow of these thoughts plastically shaped by the author’s walks through the Veronese countryside, on the Elban Calamita, on the Garda mountains, through the streets and seafront of Livorno’s Ardenza, many other figures appear—rightfully possessing something Beethovenian, whether for depth of thought or poetic inspiration: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and his emulator Heidegger, the Promethean and playful Albertazzi, and then the other Giants—Mozart, whose passage through the town of Ala between Verona and Rovereto the author recalls; Haydn, Wagner, Bach, Vivaldi…

Naturally, with an attentive reading—one that does not limit itself to the explicit word but also to the implicit—we easily discover the author’s source, at least regarding Beethoven’s biographical episodes: the monumental Beethoven by Piero Buscaroli. From this work our author also borrows and deepens, with affection and gratitude, the moving “cult” that many—illustrious artists or obscure sketchers—nurtured for the Viennese cottages where the Genius was hosted for shorter or longer periods. We see again, in drawing and in word, the cottage of Heiligenstadt at whose corner, upon the wall where the gas lamp is lit at dusk, stands the statuette of Saint Florian (and how can one’s thoughts not turn to the final hero of Bruckner’s symphony?); we see the villa of Gutenbrunn, the house in Probusgasse, and then that in Grinzingerstrasse where our surly Cyclops grew irritated upon seeing Franz Grillparzer’s mother seated on the staircase, enraptured by the piano music emanating from the apartment whose tenant was the great Deaf One!

It almost seems, in this book, that no guiding thread, no principal theme lies at its foundation or can be discerned; but when one listens to the piano sonatas of the Cyclops, when the mighty notes of the Fifth, the Seventh, and the Ninth resound, what guiding threads or themes can remain? When the Giant moves, one must hold one’s breath and admire!

The book contains, rather, a singular and graceful utopian tale. Perhaps it was born of the unquenchable nostalgia for the fact that the Cyclops of Bonn did not follow the path of Mozart first and Goethe later, and never crossed the Alps to come south of them. If the book recounts in a flash that Mozart played at Palazzo Pezzini in Ala, a flame of regret burns: how would the divine Beethoven have reacted upon seeing the Adige Valley as it narrows after Trento, closes at the ancient Chiusa Veneta, and then opens to the southern sun toward Verona, which had already welcomed Goethe with amused curiosity?

Thus one imagines that in October or November 1827 Beethoven’s strong constitution overcame the illness afflicting him and that, recovering, he undertook a journey along Lake Garda—still wild, mild in climate, rich in fruits and good fare. Beethoven is accompanied by his dear Viennese companions; Dr. Andreas Wawruch is present, watching over his convalescence; and there is no lack of sweet convivial moments and pleasant excursions on the newly inaugurated steamboat. From Malcesine or Limone, blessed with good waters, they depart for a visit to Salò, where a learned parish priest recounts to Beethoven the story of Gasparo, inventor of the violin, and shows him scores of ancient music…

Among the pages appears a warning that may even be perceived as ironic, when the author—who seems to have read with great attention the fourth volume of The World as Will and Representation—writes that Schopenhauer’s celebrated definition of Music seems perfectly tailored to the Eroica or the other Beethovenian symphonies! An irony, because Schopenhauer, though he heard Beethoven’s music, preferred that of Mozart… (But we also know that despite the Schopenhauerian cult that led Wagner to send scores and books to the philosopher of Frankfurt, the latter replied with utmost courtesy that, though admiring his talent, he would remain a devoted listener of his beloved Gioachino Rossini…)

A book, then, these Beethovenian Thoughts, to be read without expecting theories or doctrines, but to be explored attentively: one finds insights that may, for an expert, lend themselves to biographical developments or artistic interpretation.

A word now on the book’s two illustrations. It would have been a courageous undertaking had the author—who is also the draughtsman—added to the cottage of Heiligenstadt in Pfarrplatz and to Hahnemann’s birthplace a portrait of Beethoven. But, as Nietzsche says, am Anfang ist immer Barbarei, and attempting the portrait of the Cyclops is no easy task, for one does not portray a face alone but something Abyssal. Perhaps—and this would have been the apparently shorter path—one might have copied or even traced without fear (genius copies and the mediocre imitates, said Albertazzi, mischievous as always!) the celebrated profile drawn by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld.

From the mask taken of Beethoven at age forty—which therefore restores the real features of the Cyclops—emerges the portrait of a gentleman who, without being an Adonis and indeed being rather ordinary, was certainly not unpleasant. And, upon close inspection, from the features thus restored—more accurate than photographic ones—there shines forth a being of infinite sensitivity, whose traits are marked but never excessively, and possess an ineffable refinement and nobility. The same occurs in the profile drawn by Schnorr von Carolsfeld, much praised by Beethoven’s contemporaries: one sees a young gentleman, ordinary, with a faint ironic smile whose expression is extraordinarily interior and detached. Not judgmental, yet playful. The sign of one who carries within himself something luminous that others cannot even intuit.

Sources assure us that Schnorr von Carolsfeld sketched his drawing from life during a reception. Beethoven appears there as a flourishing and thoughtful being: his hair is beautiful, fine, and thick; the folds of his face show nothing diminished… One could not risk, in the book, producing an effigy with overly marked traits. Elly Ney said—from within the art she knew—that everywhere Beethoven is harsher, more tender, more delicate, more vigorous than anyone else (though the allusion was to Mozart), and one deduces the impossibility that he should have features not sculpted by thought, marked as those of a brewer might be. He was something entirely different, even in his ordinary appearance as a cultivated gentleman devoted to art.

The profile by Schnorr von Carolsfeld is beautiful and above all faithful, but tracing it would indeed have posed not a few artistic and contemplative challenges to anyone bold enough to attempt it. For this edition of the book, let us content ourselves with the cult of the houses: there is, as frontispiece, a pen drawing of a seagull with the celebrated cottage of Pfarrplatz in Heiligenstadt, and, as a sort of Plutarchian counterpoint, a pen‑and‑ink drawing on graph paper of the birthplace of the great Hahnemann. A symbolic dyad of Music and Health.

The masters of Ludwig van Beethoven and the figure of the composer Andrea Lucchesi

Article by Dr. Santi Notaro
The texts and documents on this page have been edited by Dr. Santi Notaro, a graduate in law from the University of Florence and a former magistrate, a lover and scholar of music and its history, regarding the great musicians of the early Vienna school (above all, Beethoven).

Ludwig van Beethoven[1] had a few genuine teachers who introduced him to the study of the piano, musical composition and counterpoint, and who encouraged him in publishing his earliest youthful works. These teachers succeeded one another both during his years in Bonn and after the young musician moved to Vienna, the city where he remained until his death.

However, discussing who might have been the young Beethoven’s first true teacher inevitably leads to consideration of the question (raised by some scholars) of the role played in this regard by the Italian musician Andrea Luchesi,[2] Kapellmeister of the Electoral Chapel of Bonn–Cologne at the time when the young Ludwig was a member of it.[3]

Most musicologists have regarded this Italian musician as having had little influence on the artistic formation of our composer, who instead would have been a pupil of his deputy, Christian Gottlob Neefe.[4] Others, however, have identified him as Beethoven’s true first teacher during the years when the young musician was active in Bonn.[5]

As will be seen, however, at present such a thesis appears to be based on mere suppositions, without adequate documentation to support it. The available documentation, by contrast, supports the majority view.

As for the facts (which are fairly well documented), it should be noted that:

– Andrea Luchesi was invited to Bonn by the then Elector Maximilian Friedrich von Königsegg-Rothenfels in 1771;

– by decree of the Elector dated 26 May 1774 he was appointed Kapellmeister, taking up the post on the following day, 27 May[6], a position he held almost uninterruptedly[7] until October 1794, when the Court (together with its Chapel) was dissolved by Napoleon Bonaparte;

– the young Ludwig van Beethoven entered the orchestra of the Bonn Court Chapel, as noted above, in June 1782,[8] initially as a violist and assistant organist without remuneration; later, in June 1784, also as harpsichordist, assisting and supporting Christian Gottlob Neefe in accompanying the works required by the Chapel,[9] with an annual salary of 150 florins[10];

– Beethoven remained in the service of the Prince in the Chapel until October 1792, when he left for Vienna, where he settled permanently, living exclusively from the proceeds of his art as a freelance artist.

The theses of the revisionists are essentially based on the following arguments:

when Beethoven joined the orchestra of the Chapel, it was directed by Andrea Luchesi[11];
Lucchesi’s task as Kapellmeister was to lead “the Chapel from an artistic and pedagogical point of view” and to define “the roles and responsibilities of its musicians”[12];
it was “difficult to imagine that, faced with a talented pupil, the Kapellmeister would have taken no interest in his training”[13];
as reported by a cellist of the Chapel, one Bernhard Joseph Maeurer, an early youthful work by Ludwig van Beethoven (the cantata on the death of the English minister George Cressner from 1781) would have been corrected by Andrea Luchesi and, at his request, performed in the Court Chapel[14];
the alleged attempt to obscure the figure of an Italian musician would have been the work of German musicology, which could not accept that Lucchesi (an Italian) might have played such an important role, both as the author of works today attributed to Joseph Haydn and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and as the teacher of the great Ludwig van Beethoven[15];
“the claim that Christian Gottlob Neefe was Beethoven’s teacher in Bonn was historically promoted by Neefe himself”; therefore the “sources on which historians have relied are the self-celebratory articles written by Neefe”[16]. And even though it is not known how reliable he was, “the fact remains that he himself proclaims himself Beethoven’s teacher, albeit citing a letter from Ludwig for which no trace exists in other sources”[17];
“in 1785 Andrea Luchesi entrusted Ludwig van Beethoven with performing the solo parts of harpsichord concertos and assigned Christian Gottlob Neefe the accompaniment”[18];
Beethoven never spoke of this musician as his teacher in his youth, “because Lucchesi had been the bête noire of his family in Bonn. In fact, Lucchesi had already displaced the old Kapellmeister Ludwig van Beethoven the Elder as early as 1771 and was then preferred to the tenor Johann van Beethoven in 1774…”[19];
probably the 264 conversation notebooks destroyed by Anton Schindler would have clarified something important on this matter.[20]

Christian Gottlob Neefe

Maximilian Friedrich von Königsegg-Rothenfels

To the arguments advanced in support of the alleged role of Andrea Luchesi, the following objections may be raised. The fact that he was Kapellmeister of the musical Chapel of Bonn for about twenty years, and that the young Ludwig van Beethoven served there as a musician, does not in itself mean that he was Beethoven’s first and true teacher.

Indeed, the musical Chapel, as it was conceived at the time, was a structure (linked to the nobility, the municipality, or the Church) organised and intended for the performance of music at the request of its patron and on specific occasions or celebrations.[21]

Within this organised structure there was, at the highest level, the Kapellmeister, who directed the group of singers and instrumentalists of the Chapel[22] and was responsible for its proper functioning. This meant that he determined the repertoire to be performed there from time to time; that he oversaw the artistic preparation and organisation of the performers; and that he composed works for the Chapel (or obtained copies of compositions from other chapels).[23]

Therefore, the principal task of the Kapellmeister was to be responsible for a musical production, and his conducting and organisational activity took place exclusively in the interests of that institution.

If this was the Kapellmeister’s role, it is quite evident that the presence of Andrea Luchesi in such a capacity could have influenced Ludwig van Beethoven through the type of music and the musical atmosphere that, so to speak, was “in the air” within that Chapel. In other words, it was one thing to be part of the so-called “musical workshop” headed by Luchesi, who determined which works were to be performed and how they should be executed; it was quite another to study and be regularly guided by a teacher who would place the appropriate tools in the hands of an individual pupil.

The assertion referred to in point 3), moreover, is based on mere conjecture, considering that there were several talented young musicians within the Chapel’s staff, and there is no evidence that they were personally supervised in their studies by Luchesi.[24]

As for the claim in point 4)—namely that Luchesi corrected a cantata composed by the young Ludwig van Beethoven—this may simply have been because the work was performed within the activities of the Chapel. It therefore seems natural that its Kapellmeister, responsible for the works performed there, should have felt the need to revise it, given that it was the work of a very young composer (Beethoven had written it in 1781, when he was eleven). But this single episode cannot in any way prove that he studied with Luchesi.[25]

Nor is the thesis convincing that German musicology deliberately sought to obscure the figure of an Italian musician (and, moreover, a supposed teacher of Beethoven). First of all, the hypothesis of a supposed hostility towards Italian musicians collapses if one recalls that, at the time, Italian musicians were in fact highly esteemed and frequently held important posts at European courts.[26]

As for the alleged hostility of Ludwig van Beethoven towards Luchesi because he was Italian, one should remember that the composer himself studied with the Italian Antonio Salieri. Not only did he never speak ill of him, but he even dedicated to him—out of friendship and esteem—the three sonatas for violin and piano, Op. 12, and composed ten piano variations on an aria from Salieri’s Falstaff. All this also served to demonstrate Salieri’s innocence regarding the rumour that he had supposedly poisoned Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

Anche la considerazione (punto 7) di affidare a Beethoven il compito di eseguire le parti solistiche nei concerti di cembalo, insieme a Neefe, rientrava precisamente nelle mansioni di un kapellmeister il quale, come visto, doveva organizzare l’orchestra di corte in vista della esecuzione di lavori e, quindi, definire i ruoli e curare le competenze dei musicisti.[27]

Ma questo non è elemento di prova circa l’esistenza di un rapporto diretto allievo-maestro.

The argument mentioned in point 7)—namely entrusting Beethoven with the task of performing the solo parts in harpsichord concertos together with Christian Gottlob Neefe—also falls precisely within the duties of a Kapellmeister who, as noted, had to organise the court orchestra for the performance of works and therefore assign roles and supervise the musicians’ responsibilities.[27]

But this does not constitute proof of the existence of a direct teacher–pupil relationship.

The claim that Ludwig van Beethoven never spoke of Andrea Luchesi as his teacher (point 8), because Luchesi would have been the bête noire of his family, appears to have no supporting evidence whatsoever, not even indirect indications.

As regards Beethoven’s grandfather, Ludwig van Beethoven the Elder, he had been appointed Kapellmeister in Bonn about a decade earlier in place of another Kapellmeister[28], and he died on 24 December 1773. Luchesi, by contrast, had been hired on a trial basis with a three-year contract in 1771; after the death of Ludwig senior, the Elector Maximilian Friedrich von Königsegg-Rothenfels appointed him Kapellmeister in May 1774, precisely to replace the late Ludwig senior, and he remained in that position until October 1794.

As for Beethoven’s father, the Court tenor Johann van Beethoven, it is well established that his voice was in poor condition (almost certainly due to drinking), so much so that by the end of 1772 he had been removed from the active ranks of the Chapel and employed solely as a teacher.[29] In this case as well, therefore, there is no connection with Luchesi’s appointment, which simply followed—entirely properly—the death of Beethoven’s grandfather in 1774.

Likewise, the assertion (point 9) that, had Anton Schindler not destroyed Beethoven’s approximately 264 conversation notebooks, they would “probably” have clarified something about the present question, is merely a conjecture without any evidentiary value.[30]

Further considerations should also be added. It was precisely Christian Gottlob Neefe who, evidently not considering his pupil’s musical education complete, asked the Elector that Beethoven be sent to Vienna to study with Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart—which indeed took place in April 1787.[31]

It is documented that on 2 November 1792[32] Ludwig van Beethoven left Bonn and its Court Chapel for good in order to study with Joseph Haydn; from that moment his presence in Vienna became permanent until his death on 26 March 1827. This demonstrates not only the marginal nature of any possible influence that Andrea Luchesi may have had on Beethoven’s musical knowledge, but also the insufficiency of such influence (as already noted, Luchesi remained Kapellmeister in Bonn until 1794) if Beethoven felt the need to go to Vienna to study with the great masters of the age.[33]

Nor should it be forgotten that Christian Gottlob Neefe was not, so to speak, an insignificant figure. He was a pianist, conductor and composer, and a musician of Bachian lineage.[34] It is true that Beethoven’s friend Gerhard von Breuning Wegeler, in his memoirs published more than a decade after Beethoven’s death, stated that Neefe had influenced “only modestly the musical education of our Ludwig.”[35] Yet he also added that Beethoven “complained of the criticisms that he expressed, with excessive severity, regarding his first attempts at composition.” This indirectly suggests that Neefe did in fact guide Beethoven and did not hesitate to criticise him when he took his first steps in composition.

To conclude on this point, a general consideration may summarise and clarify what has been said so far: namely, what should be meant by the term “teacher.”

In common terminology, a teacher is someone who instructs in an art or discipline (in our case, music). Teaching consists in transmitting elements of that discipline with method and continuity. Moreover, the teacher–pupil relationship is highly personal: it must consider the pupil’s personality, character, abilities, and level of learning and development, in order to guide their specific education and progress. It was precisely the presence of these elements that characterised the relationship between Neefe and the young Ludwig van Beethoven. For this reason, Neefe alone can rightly be regarded (as recognised by the most authoritative Italian and international historiography) as the first true teacher of the young Ludwig.

Indeed, it was he who, recognising the aptitude and abilities of his pupil, provided him with the technical tools of the craft necessary to progress in musical science[36]; he encouraged him (but also reproached him when necessary) in his studies, to the point of arranging the publication of his first compositions; and, no less importantly, he shaped him morally and intellectually as a complete artist. He introduced him to the Enlightenment principles of the time, helping him to understand the importance of the ideals of freedom, brotherhood, and solidarity among men[37], and instilling in him the concept of art as a mission.[38]

Such teaching was not provided by Andrea Luchesi, since his role as Kapellmeister, for which he had been called to Bonn, had objectives different from that of establishing a true teacher–pupil relationship—still less that of shaping the young Beethoven spiritually through the teaching of the Enlightenment ideals circulating in Bonn at the time. These ideals evidently did not interest the musician from Motta di Livenza, who does not appear to have belonged to the circle of Enlightenment thinkers in the city, whereas Neefe certainly did.

In short, the theses favourable to Luchesi rely on expressions such as “it is more probable”; “another consideration is also possible”; “it is difficult to imagine that, faced with a talented pupil, the Kapellmeister would have taken no interest in his training”; “…which presupposes, however…”[39]—that is, on mere indications and suppositions.

What contradicts the revisionist theses, however, as noted above, is the existence of unquestionable documentary evidence.[40]

First, the report by Carl Friedrich Cramer in a correspondence from Bonn dated 2 March 1783, published in the journal Magazin der Musik,[41] which stated verbatim: “Ludwig van Beethoven is a boy of eleven years[42] with very promising talent. He plays the piano with great skill and power, reads very well at sight and, in short, he plays for the most part Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier, which Mr Neefe has placed in his hands… Mr Neefe has also introduced him to thoroughbass. He is now giving him lessons in composition and, to encourage him, has had nine of his piano variations on a march theme engraved in Mannheim.[43] This young genius deserves support so that he may travel. He would certainly become a second Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart if he continues to progress at this rate.”[44]

The reference in another newspaper—the Litteratur und Theaterzeitung[45]—which reported a comment on the amateur musicians of Bonn and, among them, the young Beethoven, “who is making giant strides under his teacher Neefe.”

1 2 3 4 5

Magazin der Musik published in Hamburg by Carl Friedrich Cramer, 1783. Figures 1 to 5. (original document property of the Centro Ricerche Musicali Beethoveniane)

Furthermore: the Historisch-biographisches Lexicon der Tonkünstler[46], one of the most important music dictionaries, where in Volume I, pp. 156–157, Beethoven is listed as “son of the Court tenor of Bonn, born 1772[47], and pupil of Neefe.”
Also: the Berlinische musikalische Zeitung, which in 1793 published an article by Neefe referring to Beethoven as “second Court organist and has gone to Vienna at the expense of our Elector to study with Haydn, to improve his abilities.”[48]
Finally: a fragment of a letter from Beethoven to Neefe, in which he wrote:
“I thank you for all the advice you have generously given me so that I may advance in my divine art. If one day I become a great man, it will also be thanks to you, which will give you even more pleasure, as you can be sure of it.”[49]
This is extensive documentation, which directly contradicts the objections raised by the “revisionists,” who considered the statements attributed to Neefe as “self-praising.”
Indeed, regarding the alleged “self-promotion” of Neefe as a teacher, these statements do not appear at all to be casual remarks merely indicating that the young Beethoven was his pupil. They are concise accounts highlighting Beethoven’s abilities, progress, and early works (worthy of publication) and provide incontrovertible evidence of a structured course of study. Such observations could only have been made by a teacher who personally guided the young pupil.
Moreover, these statements were published in contemporary newspapers or specialised journals, accessible to the public. Circulating inaccurate or false information would have benefited neither Neefe nor the reputation of the Chapel, which was headed by Luchesi. It is particularly striking that, being publicly available, no one ever contradicted or even qualified these statements, starting with the directly concerned parties: Luchesi foremost, and Beethoven.
In fact, no direct or indirect citations from Beethoven have come down to us that recall Luchesi as one of his teachers.
Arguing otherwise would imply that Neefe orchestrated a false campaign against both Luchesi and Beethoven—a claim for which there is no evidence in the historical record.
Conversely, the fact that neither Luchesi, nor Beethoven, nor anyone else ever disputed the published accounts demonstrates the opposite: that it was precisely Luchesi who entrusted the young Beethoven to his deputy, Neefe, to oversee his comprehensive musical education.[50]
No conspiracy, therefore, against a respected Italian musician, but rather matters of normal organisational practice within the complex operations of a musical chapel, where a Kapellmeister’s duties naturally included delegating certain responsibilities to his collaborators.[51]

1 2 3

Litteratur- und Theaterzeitung, No. 34, dated August 23, 1783. Figures 6 and 7. and Magazin der Musik published in Hamburg edited by Carl Friedrich Cramer, 1787. Figure 8 (original document owned by the Beethoven Music Research Center)

Even the other revisionist theses—albeit in the commendable spirit of seeking the truth—do not appear, after all, to assert historically verified facts, limiting themselves to general observations.

In fact, the first tentative approaches on the subject came from the Italian musicologist Fausto Torrefranca,[52] who wrote: “Let us not forget that in Bonn there was an Italian musician, Luchesi… and… given the falsity of the historical approach followed so far, it is very probable that the true spiritual teachers of the childhood and youth of the great Flemish-German master [Beethoven] have not been properly investigated.”

With greater assertiveness, the German musicologist Theodor Anton Henseler[53] described Luchesi as “the most important exponent of the music at the court of the Prince of Bonn,” highlighting “his activity… and the influence that, through example and works—in opera, concert, and church—he had on the artistic development of the young Beethoven, who for many years served under him in the orchestra.”

Following Henseler, the musicologist Claudia Valder Knechtges[54] argued that Luchesi’s music contributed to Beethoven’s assimilation of those Italian achievements encountered by Christian Bach and Mozart in Italy.[55]

As can be seen, these studies speak, at most, of “influences” of Luchesi’s work that were “assimilated” by the young Beethoven; but from this to claiming that the Italian musician was his first true teacher is a completely different matter. One need only consider that any artist, in any field, certainly absorbs influences from others, which may be detectable in their own works. But this does not make those influencers their teachers or establish a teacher–pupil relationship.

Finally, other scholars[56] have also raised the question of Luchesi’s primacy as a teacher, yet there is no evidence that, beyond general statements, they provided certain or at least well-founded proof.[57]

It has rightly been observed[58]: “But was Luchesi truly the teacher of the titan’s youth? If the evidence exists, why has it not been sought or verified? If it does not exist, it is useless to insist on deductions: history is not written on the wings of angels.”

Undoubtedly, seeking the truth is a commendable endeavour. Yet to assert it convincingly, it must be based on reliable evidence and verifiable facts.

“The masters of Ludwig van Beethoven and the figure of the composer Andrea Lucchesi”.

Original Article disponible on “Flowpaper”

This flipbook was created in FlowPaper ↗

Notes from “The masters of Ludwig van Beethoven and the figure of the composer Andrea Lucchesi”.

Article by Dr. Santi Notaro

[1]) Unlike Mozart, whose first and only teacher was his father Leopold and whose artistic training was completed with the study of the works of the great musicians of the past and with contact with those of his time, whose characteristic features he was able to assimilate thanks to his prodigious memory: cf. Carli Ballola and Parenti-Mozart-Rusconi 1996 – pp. 13 ff; S. Durante- Mozart- Il Mulino 1991- pp. 30 ff; B. Paumgartner- Mozart- Einaudi 1978-pp. 21 ff.

2]) Andrea Lucchesi (or Luchesi), Italian composer (born in Motta di Livenza -Treviso- 23/V/1741 died in Bonn on 21/3/1801). He was active in Venice as a harpsichord master. He moved to Bonn shortly thereafter and, in 1774, was appointed Kapellmeister at the court of the Elector of Cologne, succeeding Beethoven’s grandfather. He remained in office until 1794.

He composed several theatrical works, some oratorios, over 30 Masses, 2 Requiems, 2 Te Deum, 19 Hymns, Vespers, Motets and other liturgical works; 8 Symphonies, a Concerto for harpsichord and orchestra, Sonatas for harpsichord (cf. Dictionary of Music and Musicians- UTET- 1986- vol. IV- pag. 511).

[3]) Beethoven was hired by Elector Maximilian Friedrich at the age of ten as a violist and in June 1782 was officially appointed court organist. He also played the harpsichord and was also in charge of supporting and replacing Neefe when he was absent.

At first, young musicians received no salary and had to pass a trial period. Then they put a question to the Prince Elector, receiving an answer. However, the death of Maximilian Friedrich, which occurred in April 1784, delayed the examination of Beethoven’s petition and only by decree of June 25, 1784 did his successor, Elector Maximilian Franz, grant him a salary of 150 fl per year. (cf. Piero Buscaroli- BEETHOVEN- Rizzoli- 2004-pag. 107 and Jan Caeyers- BEETHOVEN- Portrait of a genius- Mondadori 2020- pag. 47). Maximilian Franz officially took office as Elector on 5 August 1784 (cf. Caeyers op. cit. cit. p. 51).

[4]) [1]) Cf. among the various studies: Maynard Solomon – Beethoven-music-myth-psychoanalysis-utopia-Einaudi-1998 (see pp. 47); Id: Beethoven- La vita, l’opera, il romanzo familiare- Marsilio Editori- 1988. pag. 35); Id: The last Beethoven- music, thought, imagination- Carocci editore- 2010- pages 112- 160;

Walter Riezler –Beethoven- Rusconi- 1977- pp. 52- 53-54; Id: Beethoven essays – Edizioni Ghibli 2014 – on pp. 24-25;

H.C. Robbins Landon- Beethoven- His life and his world in documents and images of the period- Rusconi- 1997- p.32;.

Klaus Kropfinger- Beethoven- Ricordi Lim- 2006 – pp. 105-107-110-113;

Piero Buscaroli- BEETHOVEN- Rizzoli- 2004- pag. 91;

Jan Caeyers- BEETHOVEN- Portrait of a genius- Mondadori 2020- pp. 39- 41- 42-43-44- 581 note 4 chap.IV.

Giorgio Pestelli- BEEHOVEN- Il Mulino – 1988- pag. 86 and note 8); Id-History of Music- The Age of Mozart and Beethoven- EDT-2018 pp. 30 and 234;.

Alfredo Casella- Beethoven Intimo- Sansoni 1981- pag. 3;

Luigi Della Croce- Ludwig van Beethoven- The Nine Symphonies and Other Works for Orchestra- Edizioni Studio Tesi- 1990- pp. 32-34;

Sieghard Brandenburg- edited by- Luigi Della Croce- translation by- Accademia nazionale di Santa Cecilia- Ludwig van Beethoven Epistolario- SKIRA- 1999- vol. 1 pag. 98 note 1 and p. 106, note 1);

Harvey Sachs- Beethoven’s Ninth- Garzanti- 2011- pp. 52-53-54;

Lewis Lockwood- Beethoven’s Symphonies- An Artistic Vision- EDT- 2016- pag. 20;

Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia- van Beethoven- Le sinfonie e i concerti per pianoforte- edited by Annalisa Bini and Roberto Grisley- Skira-2001- pag. 314;

Fabrizio Della Seta- Beethoven: Sinfonia Eroica- Carocci editore- 2019- page 48;

Piero Rattalino- Le sonate per pianoforte di Beethoven- Guida all’ascolto- Il lavoro editoriale- 1989- page 27;

Quirino Principe- I quartetti per archi di Beethoven- Jaca Book- 2014- pag. 31-32; Id: Collana i Grandi della Musica- La vita e le opere- Beethoven- Supplement to the Corriere della Sera of 6 August 1991 – handout 3 – pag. 5;

Il romanzo della musica- Beethoven e il suo tempo- supplemento di Repubblica n. 124 del 27/5/1987- Interview with Roman Vlad by Corrado Augias – page 8;

Gaspare Scuderi- Beethoven- Le sonate per pianoforte- franco muzzio & c. editore- 1985- page 20;

De Seyfried- Notizie biografiche su Luigi van Beethoven- in Studi di Beethoven ossia Trattato d’Armonia e di Composizione- Arnaldo Forni Editore-. Anastatic reprint of Milan 1855- with notes by Fetis and Rossi- vol. I- pag. 12;

Benedetta Saglietti- Beethoven, ritratti e immagini- EDT- 2010- pagg 1-2 e nota 6;

Wegeler e F. Ries- Beethoven Appunti biografici dal vivo- a cura di Artemio Focher- Moretti & Vitali- 2002- page 29;

Giorgio Sanguinetti- Le Sonate per pianoforte di Beethoven- vol. 1- Libreria musicale italiana- 2020-page 84;

Alberto Basso- Storia della musica dalle origini al XIX secolo- UTET-2006- vol 2 pag. 845 e 930; Id: Dizionario Enciclopedico Universale della Musica e dei Musicisti- Le biografie- UTET-1988- vol. V page 339; Id: La Musica- Enciclopedia Storica- vol I- UTET- 1966- pages 395-396;

Della Corte- G. Pannain- Storia della Musica- UTET-1964- vol. 2- pag. 485;

Giovanni Carli Ballola- BEETHOVEN- Sansoni Accademia- 2^ edition- pages 15-16-17;

Franco Abbiati- Storia della musica- Garzanti 1967- volume secondo- pag.666.

Giovanni Guanti- Invito all’ascolto di Beethoven- Mursia 1995- pagg. 42-43-44-45- 50 e 51.

[5]) The revisionist theses (on which we will discuss later: see pp. 16-17) were timidly advanced with a paper of 1930 by the Italian musicologist Fausto Torrefranca and then were headed by the German musicologist Theodor Anton Henseler and the musicologist Claudia Valder Knechtges who, between 1983 and 1990, published works that were in the wake of those published by Henseler.

On Lucchesi’s birthright, as Beethoven’s teacher, Giorgio Taboga, Agostino Taboga, Luigi Della Croce and, lastly, Riccardo Di Pasquale, Luca Bianchini and Anna Trombetta, Luca Chiatore also argue in some works.

[6]) The official position was conferred, in fact, by Elector Maximilian Friedrich (after Lucchesi had completed the three-year probationary period from 1771) and succeeded Beethoven’s grandfather, who had died on 24 December 1773, as kapellmeister.

Lucchesi arrived in Bonn with the first violin (Konzertmeister) Gaetano Mattioli. While Lucchesi was appointed kapellmeister, the latter assumed the position of kepelldirektor (cf. J. Caeyers op. cit. pp. 27 and 49), that is, the one who supervised the administrative and disciplinary activity of the Chapel, because Lucchesi wanted the administrative activity to be separated from the artistic activity of the kapellmeister, so that he could devote himself and supervise only to musical tasks.

Sotto gli italiani Lucchesi e Mattioli, la Cappella musicale di Bonn pare fosse diventata una delle migliori della Germania (cfr. J. Caeyers cit. pag 49).

Non la pensa proprio così Carlo Vitali in Andrea Luca Luchesi: “Cattivi maestri, pessimi allievi” nella rivista “musica del marzo 2018.

[7]) Salvo l’assenza di un anno (“dall’aprile del 1783 al maggio del 1784”): cfr. B. Saglietti- Beethoven, ritratti e immagini- Edt 2010- page 2.

On the dissolution of the Court and its Chapel: cf. Silvia Gaddini- Lucchesi Andrea – in Dizionario biografico degli italiani- vol. 66- Roma- Istituto enciclopedico italiano- 2006.

[8]) See footnote 3 above.

[9]) Cf. B. Saglietti, op.cit., pp. 1-2; F.G.Wegeler and F.Ries-Beethoven, BEETHOVEN APPUNTI BIOGRAFICI DAL VIVO, edited by A.Focher-Moretti & Vitali, 2002, cit., p.190, note 27; G.C.Ballola op. cit. p. 17.

Neefe, as organist, had replaced the elderly Aegidius van der Aeden (cf. Giovanni Carli Ballola- BEETHOVEN- Sansoni Accademia- 2^ edition- pag. 15; G. Taboga in an essay of 2004 commenting on the book -Beethoven- by P. Buscaroli).

[10]) Cf. J. Caeyers – op. cit. cit. p. 47.

It should be noted that in the calendar of the court of the Electorate of Cologne, for the year 1790, we read that in the role of organists there were: “Organists: Christian Neefe- Ludwig van Beethoven” (cf. F.G.Wegeler and F. Ries-Beethoven, appunti biografici dal vivo, edited by A. Focher-Moretti & Vitali, 2002, cit., pp. 50-51).

[11]) See on the Internet- Riccardo Di Pasquale- La Proprietà intellettuale nelle Cappelle musicali del ‘700. Il caso Luchesi- page 109.

[12]) Cf. Di Pasquale, op. cit., 109.

[13]) Cf. Di Pasquale, op. cit. cit. p. 109.

[14]) Cf. Riccardo Di Pasquale op. cit. p.110.

[15]) Cf. Di Pasquale, op.cit. pp. 105 ff; L. Bianchini and A. Trombetta- Mozart The Fall of the Gods- Youcanprint Swelf-Publishing-2016.

In particular, the latter, in addition to arguing that A. Luchesi “the last Kapellmeister of Bonn… he was Beethoven’s true teacher until the latter’s departure for Vienna in 1792” (cf. op. cit. part two p. 448), hypothesize that the first classical school of Vienna “has nothing to do with musicological or historical research” and that it was used by Nazi propaganda (see part two p. 447).

[16]) Cf. Di Pasquale, op. cit. cit. p. 107.

[17]) Cf. Di Pasquale, op. cit. cit. p. 108.

[18]) Cf. Di Pasquale op. cit. cit. p. 110.

[19]) Cf. Di Pasquale op. cit. cit. pp. 110-111. In this sense also G. Taboga, in his 2004 review of the book “Beethoven” by Piero Buscaroli.

[20]) Cf. Di Pasquale, op. cit. cit. pp. 108-109-110.

[21]) Many nobles had their own personal musical chapel: think of the Esterhazy family where, as kapellmeister, F.J. Haydn worked there for a very long time; to the King of England George I, in whose service G.F. Handel worked; to various church institutions and municipalities at the service of which J.S. Bach worked.

[22]) As already mentioned, the Bonn Election was headed first by the Elector Maximilian Friedrich and then by his successor Maximilian Fanz. It was made up of several elements, including singers and instrumentalists (see below p. 15, note 51).

[23]) At the time, since there was no copyright, the works composed by the kapellmeister were anonymous – they did not bear the signature of the composer – and became the property of the chapel (and therefore of its owner) who could make use of them as he wished.

[24]) Among the talented young people were, in addition to Beethoven, also the hornist Nikolaus Simrock and the flutist Anton Reicha (cf. A. Zignani- Ludwig van Beethoven- a new interpretation of the life and the Works- Zecchini editore 2020- p. 14; J. Caeyers, op. cit. p. 71). The latter studied composition with Beethoven’s own teacher, namely with Neefe (see page 15 note 50 below).

[25]) Carlo Vitali also thinks in this sense in the article-interview “Cattivi maestri, pessimi allievi” pubblicato nella rivista “Musica” no. 294 of March 2018, cited above.

[26]) Suffice it to think of Lucchesi himself (called, as we have seen, to hold the position of kapellmeister at the court of Bonn), of musicians such as Antonio Salieri (a real musical authority, appointed court composer of the imperial family in Vienna), of Giuseppe Bonno (who was appointed master of the imperial chapel of Vienna), of Domenico Fischietti (of Neapolitan origin, who obtained the appointment as Kapellmeister in Salzburg, in place of Leopold Mozart).

[27]) It should not be forgotten that when Beethoven joined the Bonn Choir, he still had some studies behind him, albeit discontinuous and somewhat approximate, carried out under the guidance of some teachers (the organist van der Eaden – other organists of local churches – his father Johann and other teachers of the family circle, such as the violinist Franz Rovantini and a certain Tobias Pfeiffer: cf. J. Caeyers, op. cit. cit. pp. 37-38 and L. Chiantore, op. cit. cit. p. 32). So much so that he was included in the staff as deputy organist.

[28]) Cf. Di Pasquale op. cit. cit. p. 98. Ludwig grandfather succeeded Kapellmeister Joseph Touchemoulin (cf. Caeyers op. cit. cit. pp. 21 ff.) and remained in office, as we have seen, until his death. In the spring of 1784 Johann – Beethoven’s father – applied to succeed his father – Ludwig senior – in the role of Kapellmeister (cf. Caeyers, op. cit. cit. p. 27). But his curriculum was clearly inferior to that of Gaetano Mattioli and Andrea Lucchesi, “who became respectively director and maestro di cappella” (cfr. Caeyers, op. cit. cit. p.27). Among other things, the increasing consumption of alcohol (also due to the loss of his wife and only daughter, Maria Margaretha: cf. Caeyers, cit. op. cit. p. 28) caused a drop in the quality of Johann’s voice (see also Caeyers, op. cit. op. cit. p. 580, note 3, chap. II). So much so that with the decree of the elector dated November 20, 1789, he was “sent prematurely into retirement … and forced to hand over half of the maintenance money to the eldest son” (cf. Caeyers, op. cit. cit. pp. 27-28).

Johann was “granted a monthly increase of 15 florins, not for artistic merits but for Christian charity” (cf. Giovanni Guanti – Invitation to listen to Beethoven – Mursia 1995, p. 47). Moreover, as soon as he took office after the death of Maximilian Friedrich on April 15, 1784, the new elector Maximilan Franz had a “Pro-memoria” compiled in the summer of that year… on the merits and qualities of its singers and players” where it was said: “No. 8. The Tenorist Johan van Beethoven has an almost completely exhausted voice” (cf. P. Buscaroli op. cit. p. cit. p.106; G. Guanti op. cit. p. 46-47). Johann “will stay… in force in the chapel of the elector until his last days, more as an interpreter of the caricature of the musician than of the tenor repertoire” (cfr. Guanti cit. op. cit. cit. p. 47).

[29]) Cf. Di Pasquale, op. cit. cit. pp. 98-99-111. As has been rightly observed, Beethoven’s father “would not have been able to do so, and no doubt those responsible for appointing the new Kapellmeister were aware of this” (cf. Caeyers op. cit. cit. pp. 27-28).

See also note 28 back.

[30]) The author himself, who posed the question, cannot avoid making only probabilistic evaluations. In fact, he writes, regarding the destroyed conversation notebooks, “that probably on this point, as on others still controversial, they could have provided the necessary clarifications” leaving “room for another interpretation” (cf. Di Pasquale, cit. op. cit. cit. p. 110).

[31]) It seems, however, that the teaching lasted only a couple of weeks, Beethoven having been called back to Bonn because of the poor health of his mother, who died of consumption in July of the same year: cf. F.G.Wegeler and F. Ries- Beethoven, biographical notes from live, cit., edited by A. Focher- Moretti & Vitali, 2002- page 29.

[32]) Almost certainly on 2 November. In fact, Waldstein, on “Bonn, on 29 Oct. 792”, wrote in the Stammbuch [the album given to Beethoven by his friends in Bonn, when he left for Vienna] the wish to receive the spirit of Mozart from Haydn’s hands. In the same Stammbuch a certain Madame Koch, a friend of Bonn, wrote the sentence: “Bonn on 1 9mbre. 1792, on the evening of our farewell”. (cf. Piero Buscaroli, “BEETHOVEN”, ed., 2004, pp.217 and 219, and Walter Riezler, -Beethoven- Rusconi, cit., p.58).

[33]) Carlo Vitali also thinks in this sense in the article-interview “Bad teachers, bad students” published in the magazine “Musica” no. 294 of March 2018 and cited above.

[34]) It seems that he was a pupil of a pupil of Bach, a certain Gottfried August Homilius (cf. G.C.Ballola op. cit. p. 16 note 1) and of a certain J. A. Hiller (cf. Dictionary of Music and Musicians- UTET-1988- vol. V- pag. 339; A. Zignani- Ludwig van Beethoven- a new interpretation of life and works- Zecchini editore 2020- pag. 9; Maria Teresa Arfini- in Anton Reicha and Beethoven: a controversial relationship?- Il Saggiatore musicale- Year XVI- 2009 n. 1- pag. 6 note 5; J. Caeyers op. cit. cit. p. 39).

[35]) Cf. F. G. Wegeler-F. Ries- Beethoven, live biographical notes edited by A. Focher, cit.- p. 50.

[36]) He made him study, having been (as mentioned above, p. 10 note 34) of the Bach school, the Well-Tempered Clavier by Bach the Elder, the Versuch by C. Ph. E. Bach and the treatises of Fux, Marpurg (also his Art of Fugue) and Kirnberger (cf. Alberto Basso- History of music from the origins to the nineteenth century- UTET 2006- vol. 2 pages 938 and 760; Luca Chiantore- Beethoven at the piano- Il Saggiatore 2014-pp. 32-33; J. Caeyers, op. cit. cit. pp. 41-42). Beethoven spoke enthusiastically of the importance of the works of J.S. Bach, but especially of those for keyboard by his son C.P.E. Bach: “… there are some that every true artist should possess not only as a source of authentic enjoyment but also as an object of study” (cf. letter to Breitkopf & Hartel of 26 July 1809 in Epistolario Accademia nazionale Santa Cecilia-Skira 2000 – vol.II p. 95). Neefe, as a musician, seems to have been mediocre. But he knew how to teach. Cf. Jan Caeyers- Beethoven, portrait of a genius- op. cit. cit.- pp.39 ff.; Carli Ballola- Beethoven- Sansoni 2^ edition- pp. 15 ff; Walter Riezler- Beethoven – Rusconi 1977- page 52; Giorgio Pestelli- Beethoven- Il Mulino 1988-pag. 86 and note 8; H.C. Robbins Landon- Beehoven- Rusconi1997- p.32; Maynard Solomon-Beethoven– Marsilio1986- p.35. Among other things, the revisionists themselves admit (and this is documented) that Lucchesi, with a petition dated 26 April 1783, requested and obtained a one-year permit to come to Italy (he returned to Bonn in May 1784: see back page 3 note 7). During his absences, Lucchesi was replaced by deputy Neefe. It also seems that his absences from Bonn were frequent, so much so that the new elector Maximilian Franz reduced his salary. Franz abolished some privileges and abuses that some musicians of the chapel took, especially those related to the so-called “paid leave”. So he withdrew all authorizations to accept assignments elsewhere and the “directors Mattioli and Lucchesi were immediately recalled from abroad; the first was fired immediately and the second had to accept a drastic reduction in his generous salary…” (cf. J. Caeyers, op. cit., p. 57 and Buscaroli, op. cit., p. 92). This, which further demonstrates the lack of that assiduity that a teacher-student relationship must have.

[37]) For Beethoven, solo “Libertà e fraternità- ma non eguaglianza”: cf. M. Solomon- on Beethoven- Music myth psychoanalysis utopia op. cit. p. 235.

On the fact that in Bonn there was this circle of enlightened people of which Neefe was a member and that the “young Ludwig goes Beethoven… was formed in those enlightened circles”, Bianchini-Trombetta, op. cit. cit. part two pp. 442 and 444.

[38]) Beethoven considered music as the noblest and highest art, so it became his way of expressing and realizing his artistic and, at the same time, ethical mission. And these ethical principles find ample prominence in works such as the Eroica symphony, the Fifth, Fidelio, the Missa Solemnis, the Ninth, rightly considered as his symphonic fresco on the concept of human brotherhood and solidarity. And this idea of putting these values to music had matured in Beethoven from a young age, being already evident in works for preparatory CDs, such as the Lied Amore reciproca WvO 118 of the late 1700s and, subsequently, the Fantasia for choir and orchestra in C min op. 80 of 1808 (cf. L. Della Croce – Ludwig van Beethoven – Le nove sinfonia e alter opere per orchestra cit. pp. 498-499).

It is even the musician himself who highlights how this divine art has protected him from the idea of suicide. In the letter addressed to his brothers dated 6/10 October 1802 (better known as the Heiligenstadt Testament) Beethoven wrote: “I almost took my life” and, immediately after, added: “only art has kept me from doing it…” (cf. Epistolario- Accademia di Santa Cecilia- Skira 1999- vol. I- p- 221).

Later, in a letter addressed to a certain Emilie (probably a “little pianist who adored Beethoven”), the musician took up the concept of the importance of art, writing: “Persevere, do not limit yourself to making art an exercise but strive to penetrate its intimate essence; it deserves such an effort, because only art and science raise man to divinity” (cf. letter of 17 July 1812 in Epistolario cited above, Skira 2000- vol. II, p. 316).

[39]) Cf. Di Pasquale, op. cit. cit. pp. 104-107-108-109.

[40]) All the documents mentioned in succession are published on the website “The young Beethoven in the eyes of contemporaries – Collection of news from 1783 to 1800 – edited by Luigi Bellofatto, revised by Fiorella Romenzi.

[41]) Article published by Neefe in Cramer’s Magazin to demonstrate the esteem that the latter felt for his young pupil: cf. pp. 394-395.

[42] The misunderstanding of his father’s lowering of the age by two years still persisted, in an attempt to emulate the child prodigy Mozart. This was already highlighted in the notice of 26 March 1778 given by his father for a concert in Cologne (cf. P. Buscaroli- op. cit. p.82).

[43]) These are the WoO variations on a march by Ernest Christoph Dressler published in 1782.

[44]) See the documentation on the website indicated above in note 40.

[45]) Number 34 of 23 August 1783: cf. the documentation reported on the site indicated above in note 40.

[46]) Published in Leipzig in 1790, edited by Ernst Ludwig Gherrber: cf. the documentation reported on the site indicated above in note 40.

[47]) The error on the exact date of birth persisted.

[48]) The said journal was edited by Johann Goittlieb Carl Spazier and contained the text of a letter that B. wrote to Neefe: cf. the documentation reported on the site indicated above in note 40.

[49]) The present letter, which, as we have seen, also appeared in the Berlinische musikalische Zeitung, was probably written by Beethoven when his departure from Bonn at the end of October or the beginning of November 1792.

The passage from this letter is certainly based on a copy in the possession of the Neefe – cf. Beethoven’s Letters -Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia- Skira 1999- vol. 1- pp.105-106).

[50]) Neefe was “responsible for Beethoven’s education in Bonn” (cf. Beethoven edited by Giorgio Pestelli – il Mulino 1988- 86). “Neefe was not only Beethoven’s teacher, he was his mentor” (cf. A. Zignani- Ludwig van Beethoven- a new interpretation of the life and works- Zecchini editgore 2020- p. 14).

With Neefe, in addition to the young Beethoven, the flutist Anton Reicha also studied composition, and both were encouraged by that master to enroll in the faculty of philosophy in Bonn (cf. Maria Teresa Arfini- op. cit- pag. 6).

[51]) Delegation activities which, in a complex structure such as the one in question (the staff of the Chapel, at the time of Elector Maximilian Franz, included between 36 and 41 subjects including singers and musicians: cf. P. Buscaroli cit. op. cit. p. 106; R. Di Pasquale op. cit. cit. p. 102), seems completely normal, given that a Kapellmeister, already burdened with considerable commitments and institutional tasks (as specified above, p. 6), could certainly not solve in person all the others concerning the said musical institution. In fact, “When Neefe arrived in Bonn, he was asked to take care of Beethoven’s training, which the maestro did with conviction…”: cf. J. Caeyers, op. cit. cit. p. 43.

It is symptomatic that already at the time of his appointment as Kapellmeister, Lucchesi had obtained from the Elector to separate the administrative and disciplinary activity of the Chapel (which was entrusted to the collaborator Gaetano Mattioli) “from the strictly musical and didactic one” (cf. R. Di Pasquale, cit. op. cit. cit. p. 101).

[52]) Cf. Fausto Torrefranca- The Italian origins of musical Romanticism- published 1930, a work reported on the site “Andrea Luchesi: the forgotten Kapellmeister, the cancelled maestro. A disturbing silence in the life of Ludwig van Beethoven” curated by Agostino Taboga; as well as in R. Di Pasquale, cit. op. cit. cit. p. 130.

[53]) Cf. what is reported on the website edited by A. Taboga cited above.

[54]) In works published between 1983 and 1990: cf. the site of A.Taboga cited above.

[55]) Cf. R. Di Pasquale, cit. op. cit. cit. p. 130.

On the theses of Henseler and Valder-Knechtges see also Silvia Gaddini – Dizionario Biografico Treccani – entry Lucchesi Andrea – volume 66 – 2006 – where it is stated verbatim: “L.’s production for the court chapel would have had, according to Henseler, a particularly strong influence on the contrapuntal passages of Beethoven’s sacred music; Valder-Knechtges, on the other hand, believes that the influence of L. contributed in a decisive way to Beethoven’s assimilation of that “Italianizing” element that was recognized in his very first instrumental works”.

[56]) Cf. Giorgio Taboga – Music and mathematics – Andrea Luchesi, genius misunderstood between Riccati and Beethoven; Id: Andrea Luchesi, l’ora della verità – 1994; Agostino Taboga, on the website “Andrea Luchesi: the forgotten Kapellmeister, the cancelled master. A disturbing silence in the life of Ludwig van Beethoven”; L. Della Croce in- Andrea Luchesi, maestro di Mozart e Beethoven- conference of 25 January 2000 for Associazione Mozart in Italia- Brescia- pp.105-115 (contrary to what this author had maintained up to that moment: cfr. Ludwig van Beethoven- Epistolario- Skira 1999- vol. 1 pag. 98 note 1; Id Ludwig van Beethoven- The Nine Symphonies and Other Works for Orchestra- Chronology Section p. XVI- year 1781- and pp. 32-33); R. Di Pasquale – Intellectual property in the Musical Chapels of the ‘700 – The Luchesi case – pp. 107 ff; Luca Bianchini-Anna Trombetta– Mozart the fall of the gods- Youcanprint Self-Publishing- part two- pag. 448.

An intermediate position seems to be that of the scholar Luca Chiantore (in Beethoven at the piano- il Saggiatore- 2014-) who, while highlighting the circumstance that the young Beethoven and the kapellmeister Lucchesi frequented each other for a long time in the Court Chapel, specifies that “There is not, however, any document that certifies a possible didactic relationship between them” (p.32). He adds that “It is likely, however, that Neefe’s role in Beethoven’s training was amplified beyond his actual merits” and that “The sources do not allow us to define with certainty the repercussions that Neefe’s teaching… had on Beethoven’s subsequent activity, both in the compositional field and in the interpretative field” (p. 33). He concludes, as regards the position of the hand, that Beethoven’s tradition “knew it thanks to Neefe” (p.-39).

[57]) In this regard, what Luigi della Croce said in his essay – Andrea Luchesi, maestro di Mozart e Beethoven – conference of 25 January 2000 for the Mozart Association in Italy – Brescia – cited above note 56 appears symptomatic. The author, after premising that Luchesi held the position of kapellmeister in Bonn “from 1774 to 1801…”, states: “It cannot therefore fail to have played an essential active part in the events of Ludwig van Beethoven’s adolescence and youth… until the moment when Beethoven moved permanently to Vienna, in 1792”. And, on this point, he concludes by specifying: “It is not easy, however, to separate – from the accumulation of citations… – the element of certainty from what is still only hypothesis, often logical, but not corroborated by [by] concrete evidence”.

58]) Cf. Graziano Bianchi- Tempesta e Luce- Beethoven- Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura- Roma 2004- pag.-34.

[6]) L’incarico ufficiale veniva conferito, appunto, dall’Elettore Maximilian Friedrich (dopo che Lucchesi aveva svolto i tre anni di prova dal 1771) e succedeva come kapellmeister al nonno di Beethoven, che era morto il 24 dicembre 1773.

Lucchesi giunse a Bonn con il primo violino (Konzertmeister) Gaetano Mattioli. Mentre Lucchesi era nominato kapellmeister, quest’ultimo assunse l’incarico di kepelldirektor (cfr. J. Caeyers op. cit. pagg. 27 e 49), ossia di colui che sovrintendeva alla attività amministrativa e disciplinare della Cappella, perché Lucchesi volle che si separasse la attività amministrativa da quella artistica del kapellmeister, in modo che si potesse dedicare e sovrintendere alle sole incombenze musicali.

Sotto gli italiani Lucchesi e Mattioli, la Cappella musicale di Bonn pare fosse diventata una delle migliori della Germania (cfr. J. Caeyers cit. pag 49).

Non la pensa proprio così Carlo Vitali in Andrea Luca Luchesi: “Cattivi maestri, pessimi allievi” nella rivista “musica del marzo 2018.

[7]) Salvo l’assenza di un anno (“dall’aprile del 1783 al maggio del 1784”): cfr. B. Saglietti- Beethoven, ritratti e immagini- Edt 2010- pag. 2.

Sullo scioglimento della Corte e della relativa Cappella: cfr. Silvia Gaddini- Lucchesi Andrea – in Dizionario biografico degli italiani- vol. 66- Roma- Istituto enciclopedico italiano- 2006.

[8]) Cfr. sopra nota 3.

[9]) Cfr. B. Saglietti op.cit. pagg 1-2; F.G.Wegeler e F.Ries- Beethoven Appunti biografici dal vivo ByA.Focher- Moretti & Vitali 2002 cit. pag.190 nota 27; G.C.Ballola op. cit. pag 17.

Neefe, come organista, aveva sostituito l’anziano Aegidius van der Aeden (cfr.Giovanni Carli Ballola- BEETHOVEN- Sansoni Accademia- 2^ edizione- pag. 15; G.Taboga in un saggio del 2004 a commento del libro -Beethoven- di P. Buscaroli).

[10]) Cfr. J. Caeyers– op. cit. pag. 47.

Da notare che nel calendario della corte dell’Elettorato di Colonia, per l’anno 1790, si legge che nel ruolo di organisti vi erano: “Organisti: Christian Neefe- Ludwig van Beethoven” (cfr. F.G.Wegeler e F. Ries- Beethoven Appunti biografici dal vivo ByA. Focher- Moretti & Vitali 2002 cit. pagg. 50-51).

[11]) Cfr. su Internet- Riccardo Di Pasquale- La Proprietà intellettuale nelle Cappelle musicali del ‘700. Il caso Luchesi- pag. 109.

[12]) Cfr Di Pasquale cit. op cit. 109.

[13]) Cfr Di Pasquale op. cit. pag. 109.

[14]) Cfr. Riccardo Di Pasquale op. cit. pag.110.

[15]) Cfr. Di Pasquale, op.cit. pagg 105 ss; L. Bianchini ed A. Trombetta- Mozart La caduta degli dei- Youcanprint Swelf-Publishing-2016.

In particolare questi ultimi, oltre a sostenere che A. Luchesi “ultimo Kapellmeister di Bonn…fu il vero maestro di Beethoven fino alla partenza di quest’ultimo per Vienna avvenuta nel 1792” (cfr. op. cit. parte seconda pag. 448), ipotizzano che la prima scuola classica di Vienna “non ha nulla a che fare con la ricerca musicologica o storica” e che fu utilizzata dalla propaganda nazista (cfr. parte seconda pag. 447).

[16]) Cfr. Di Pasquale, op. cit. pag. 107.

[17]) Cfr Di Pasquale op. cit. pag. 108.

[18]) Cfr. Di Pasquale op. cit. pag. 110.

[19]) Cfr. Di Pasquale op. cit. pagg. 110-111. In tal senso anche G.Taboga, nella sua recensione del 2004 al libro “Beethoven” di Piero Buscaroli.

[20]) Cfr. Di Pasquale, op. cit. pagg. 108-109-110.

[21]) Molti nobili avevano una loro Cappella musicale personale: si pensi alla famiglia Esterhazy ove, in funzione di kapellmeister, vi operò per moltissimo tempo F.J.Haydn; al re d’Inghilterra Giorgio I, al servizio del quale operò G.F. Handel; a varie istituzioni chiesastiche e municipalità al cui servizio operò J.S. Bach.

[22]) Come s’è già detto, quella di Bonn faceva capo, prima al principe Elettore Maximilian Friedrich e, poi, al suo successore Maximilian Fanz. Era formata da parecchi elementi, fra cantanti e strumentisti (vedi avanti pag. 15, nota 51).

[23]) All’epoca, non sussistendo il diritto d’autore, le opere composte dal kapellmeister erano assolutamente anonime -non recavano la firma di chi le componeva- e diventavano di proprietà della cappella (e quindi del suo padrone) che ne poteva fare l’uso che voleva.

[24]) Fra i giovani di talento vi erano, oltre a Beethoven, anche il cornista Nikolaus Simrock ed il flautista Anton Reicha (cfr. A. Zignani- Ludwig van Beethoven- una nuova interpretazione della vita e delle Opere- Zecchini editore 2020- pag. 14; J. Caeyers, op. cit. pag. 71). Proprio quest’ultimo studiava composizione con lo stesso maestro di Beethoven, ossia con Neefe (cfr. avanti pag. 15 nota 50).

[25]) In tal senso la pensa anche Carlo Vitali nell’articolo-intervista “Cattivi maestri, pessimi allievi” pubblicato nella rivista “Musica” n. 294 del marzo 2018, sopra cit.

[26]) Basti pensare allo stesso Lucchesi (chiamato, come s’è visto, a ricoprire l’incarico di kapellmeister presso la corte di Bonn), a musicisti come Antonio Salieri (vera e propria autorità musicale, nominato compositore di corte della famiglia imperiale a Vienna), a Giuseppe Bonno (che fu nominato maestro della cappella imperiale di Vienna), a Domenico Fischietti (di origine napoletana, che ottenne la nomina a maestro di cappella a Salisburgo, al posto di Leopold Mozart).

[27]) Non bisogna dimenticare che quando Beethoven entrò a far parte della Cappella musicale di Bonn, aveva comunque degli studi alle spalle, anche se discontinui ed alquanto approssimativi, compiuti sotto la guida di alcuni maestri (l’organista van der Eaden- altri organisti di chiese locali- il padre Johann ed altri insegnanti della cerchia familiare, quali il violinista Franz Rovantini e tale Tobias Pfeiffer: cfr. J. Caeyers cit. op. cit. pagg. 37-38 e L. Chiantore cit. op. cit. pag. 32). Tanto, da essere inserito nell’organico come vice organista.

[28]) Cfr. Di Pasquale op. cit. pag. 98. Ludwig nonno succedette al kapellmeister Joseph Touchemoulin (cfr. Caeyers op. cit. pagg. 21 ss.) e rimase in carica, come visto, fino alla morte. Nella primavera del 1784 Johann -padre di Beethoven- si candidò a succedere a suo padre -Ludwig senior- nel ruolo di maestro di cappella (cfr. Caeyers cit. op. cit. pag. 27). Ma il suo curriculum era nettamente inferiore a quello di Gaetano Mattioli e di Andrea Lucchesi, “divenuti rispettivamente direttore e maestro di cappella” (cfr. Caeyers cit. op. cit. pag.27). Fra l’altro il crescente consumo di alcool (dovuto anche alla perdita della moglie e dell’unica figlia femmina Maria Margaretha: cfr.- Caeyers cit. op. cit. pag. 28) provocò un calo di qualità della voce di Johann (cfr. anche Caeyers cit. op. cit. pag. 580 nota 3 cap.II). Tanto che con decreto dell’elettore in data 20 novembre 1789, questi veniva “ mandato prematuramente in pensione…e costretto a consegnare la metà del denaro di mantenimento al primogenito” (cfr. Caeyers cit. op. cit. pagg. 27-28).

A Johann venne “concesso un aumento mensile di 15 fiorini, non per meriti artistici ma per cristiana carità” (cfr Giovanni Guanti- Invito all’ascolto di Beethoven- Mursia 1995, pag. 47). Inoltre, appena insediato dopo la morte di Maximilian Friedrich, avvenuta il 15 aprile 1784, il nuovo elettore Maximilan Franz si fece compilare, nell’estate di quell’anno, un “Pro-memoria”…sui meriti e qualità dei suoi cantanti e suonatori” dove si diceva: ”N. 8. Il Tenorist Johan van Beethoven ha una voce quasi del tutto esaurita” (cfr. P. Buscaroli cit. op. cit. pag.106; G. Guanti cit. op. cit.pag.- 46-47). Johann “resterà… in forza alla cappella dell’elettore sino ai suoi ultimi giorni, più come interprete della macchietta del musicista avvinazzato che del repertorio tenorile” (cfr. Guanti cit. op. cit. pag. 47).

[29]) Cfr. Di Pasquale, op. cit. pagg. 98-99-111. Come è stato giustamente osservato, il padre di Beethoven “non ne sarebbe stato in grado, e senza dubbio i responsabili della nomina del nuovo maestro di cappella ne erano consapevoli” (cfr. Caeyers op. cit. pagg. 27-28).

Cfr anche nota 28 retro.

[30]) Lo stesso autore, che ha posto la questione, non può esimersi dal fare solo valutazioni probabilistiche. Scrive infatti, con riguardo ai quaderni di conversazione distrutti, “ che probabilmente su questo punto, come su altri ancora controversi, avrebbero potuto fornire i chiarimenti necessari” lasciando “spazio ad un’altra interpretazione” (cfr. Di Pasquale cit. op. cit. pag. 110).

[31]) Pare, comunque, che l’insegnamento sia durato appena un paio di settimane, essendo stato Beethoven richiamato a Bonn per le pessime condizioni di salute della madre, che nel luglio dello stesso anno moriva di tisi: cfr. F.G.Wegeler e F. Ries- Beethoven appunti biografici dal vivo cit. ByA. Focher- Moretti & Vitali 2002- pag 29.

[32]) Quasi certamente il 2 novembre. Infatti Waldstein, in data “Bonn, il 29 Ott. 792”, scriveva nello Stammbuch [l’album donato a Beethoven dagli amici di Bonn, quando questi partì per Vienna] l’augurio di ricevere dalle mani di Haydn lo spirito di Mozart. Nello stesso Stammbuch tale madame Koch, un’amica di Bonn, scriveva la frase: “Bonn il 1° 9mbre. 1792, la sera del nostro addio”. (cfr. Piero Buscaroli “BEETHOVEN” ed. 2004 pagg.217 e 219 e Walter Riezler -Beethoven- Rusconi cit. pag.58).

[33]) In tal senso la pensa anche Carlo Vitali nell’articolo-intervista “Cattivi maestri, pessimi allievi” pubblicato nella rivista “Musica” n. 294 del marzo 2018 e sopra cit.

[34]) Pare fosse allievo di un allievo di Bach, tale Gottfried August Homilius (cfr. G.C.Ballola op. cit. pag. 16 nota 1) e di tale J. A. Hiller (cfr. Dizionario della musica e dei musicisti- UTET-1988- vol. V- pag. 339; A. Zignani- Ludwig van Beethoven- una nuova interpretazione della vita e delle Opere- Zecchini editore 2020- pag. 9; Maria Teresa Arfini- in Anton Reicha e Beethoven: una relazione controversa?- Il Saggiatore musicale- Anno XVI- 2009 n. 1- pag. 6 nota 5; J. Caeyers op. cit. pag. 39).

[35]) Cfr. F. G. Wegeler-F.Ries- Beethoven appunti biografici dal vivo ByA. Focher cit.- pag. 50.

[36]) Gli fece studiare, essendo stato (come detto sopra pag. 10 nota 34) di scuola bachiana, il Clavicembalo ben temperato di Bach padre, il Versuch di C. Ph. E. Bach ed i trattati di Fux, di Marpurg (anche la sua Arte della fuga) e di Kirnberger (cfr. Alberto Basso- Storia della musica dalle origini al XIX secolo- UTET 2006- vol. 2 pagg 938 e 760; Luca Chiantore- Beethoven al pianoforte- Il Saggiatore 2014-pagg. 32-33; J. Caeyers cit.op. cit. pagg. 41-42). Della importanza delle opere di J.S.Bach, ma soprattutto di quelle per tastiera del figlio C.P.E.Bach, Beethoven parlava con entusiasmo nel pieno della sua maturità: “…ce ne sono alcune che ogni vero artista dovrebbe possedere non soltanto come fonte di autentico godimento ma anche come oggetto di studio” (cfr. lettera a Breitkopf & Hartel del 26 luglio 1809 in Epistolario Accademia nazionale Santa Cecilia-Skira 2000- vol.II pag. 95). Neefe, come musicista, pare fosse mediocre. Però sapeva insegnare. Cfr Jan Caeyers- Beethoven ritratto di un genio- op. cit.- pagg.39 ss; Carli Ballola- Beethoven- Sansoni 2^ edizione- pagg. 15 ss; Walter Riezler- Beethoven – Rusconi 1977- pag.52; Giorgio Pestelli- Beethoven- Il Mulino 1988-pag. 86 e nota 8; H.C. Robbins Landon- Beehoven- Rusconi1997- pag.32; Maynard Solomon-Beethoven– Marsilio1986- pag.35. Fra l’altro, gli stessi revisionisti ammettono (e la cosa è documentata) che il Lucchesi, con istanza del 26 aprile 1783, chiese ed ottenne un permesso di un anno per venire in Italia (tornò a Bonn nel maggio del 1784: cfr. retro pag. 3 nota 7). Durante le sue assenze, Lucchesi era sostituito dal vice Neefe. Pare, anche, che le sue assenze da Bonn fossero frequenti, tanto che il nuovo elettore Maximilian Franz gli ridusse lo stipendio. Franz abolì alcuni privilegi ed abusi che alcuni musicisti della cappella si prendevano, specie quelli collegati alla cd “aspettativa remunerata”. Così ritirò tutte le autorizzazioni ad accettare incarichi altrove e i “direttori Mattioli e Lucchesi furono immediatamente richiamati dall’estero; il primo fu licenziato seduta stante e il secondo dovette accettare una drastica riduzione del suo lauto stipendio…” (cfr. J. Caeyers cit. op. cit. pag. 57 e Buscaroli op. cit. pag. 92). Cosa, questa, che dimostra ulteriormente la mancanza di quella assiduità che un rapporto maestro-allievo deve avere.

[37]) Per Beethoven, solo “Libertà e fraternità- ma non eguaglianza”: cfr. M. Solomon- su Beethoven- Musica mito psicoanalisi utopia op. cit. pag. 235.

Sul fatto che a Bonn vi fosse questo circolo di illuminati del quale faceva parte Neefe e che il “giovane Ludwig va Beethoven…si formò in quei circoli illuminati”, lo dicono anche Bianchini-Trombetta, op. cit. parte seconda pagg. 442 e 444.

[38]) Beethoven considerava la musica come l’arte più nobile ed elevata, per cui essa divenne il suo modo per esprimere e realizzare la sua missione artistica e, al contempo, etica. E questi principi etici trovano ampio risalto in opere come la sinfonia Eroica, la Quinta, Fidelio, la Missa Solemnis, la Nona, giustamente considerata come il suo affresco sinfonico sul concetto della fratellanza e della solidarietà umane. E questa idea di mettere in musica tali valori era maturata in Beethoven sin da giovane, essendo già ben evidente in lavori per cd preparatori, quali il Lied Amore reciproco WvO 118 della fine del ‘700 e, successivamente, la Fantasia per pf coro ed orchestra in do min op. 80 del 1808 (cfr.. L. Della Croce- Ludwig van Beethoven- Le nove sinfonie e le altre opere per orchestra cit. pagg 498-499).

Addirittura è lo stesso musicista ad evidenziare come questa divina arte lo abbia messo al riparo dalla idea del suicidio. Nella lettera indirizzata ai fratelli in data 6/10 ottobre 1802 (meglio nota come Testamento di Heiligenstadt) Beethoven scriveva: “poco ci mancò che non mi togliessi la vita” e, subito dopo, aggiungeva: “solo l’arte mi ha trattenuto dal farlo…” (cfr. Epistolario- Accademia di Santa Cecilia- Skira 1999- vol. I- pag- 221).

Più avanti, in una lettera indirizzata a certa Emilie (probabilmente una “piccola pianista che adorava Beethoven”), il musicista riprendeva il concetto della importanza dell’arte, scrivendo: “Persevera, non limitarti a fare dell’arte un esercizio ma sforzati di penetrarne l’intima essenza; essa merita tale sforzo, perchè soltanto l’arte e la scienza innalzano l’uomo fino alla divinità” (cfr. lettera del 17 luglio 1812 in Epistolario sopra cit- Skira 2000- vol. II pag. 316).

[39]) Cfr. Di Pasquale, op. cit. pagg. 104-107-108-109.

[40]) Tutti i documenti di cui si fa menzione in successione, sono pubblicati sul sito “Il giovane Beethoven agli occhi dei contemporanei- Raccolta di notizie dal 1783 al 1800- ByLuigi Bellofatto, revisione di Fiorella Romenzi.

[41]) Articolo fatto pubblicare da Neefe sul Magazin di Cramer a dimostrazione della stima che questi provava per il suo giovane allievo: cfr pagg 394-395.

[42) Ancora perdurava l’equivoco dell’abbassamento dell’età di due anni da parte del padre, nel tentativo di emulare il bambino prodigio Mozart. Cosa già evidenziata nell’avviso del 26 marzo 1778 dato dal padre per un concerto a Colonia (cfr. P. Buscaroli- op. cit. pag.82).

[43]) Si tratta delle variazioni WoO su una marcia di Ernest Christoph Dressler pubblicate nel 1782.

[44]) Cfr. la documentazione riportata nel sito indicato sopra in nota 40.

[45]) Il numero 34 del 23 agosto 1783: cfr. la documentazione riportata nel sito indicato sopra in nota 40.

[46]) Pubblicato a Lipsia nel 1790, ByErnst Ludwig Gherrber: cfr. la documentazione riportata nel sito indicato sopra a nota 40.

[47]) Ancora perdurava l’errore sulla esatta data di nascita.

[48]) Il detto giornale era ByJohann Goittlieb Carl Spazier e riportava anche il testo di una lettera che B. scrisse a Neefe: cfr. la documentazione riportata nel sito indicato sopra in nota 40.

[49]) La presente lettera che, come visto, apparve anche sul Berlinische musikalische Zeitung, fu scritta da Beethoven probabilmente in occasione della sua partenza da Bonn alla fine di ottobre o all’inizio di novembre 1792.

Il brano di detta lettera certamente si basa su una copia in possesso del Neefe -cfr. Epistolario beethoveniano -Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia- Skira 1999- vol. 1- pagg.105-106 ).

[50]) Neefe era il “responsabile dell’istruzione di Beethoven a Bonn” (cfr. Beethoven ByGiorgio Pestelli- il Mulino 1988- 86). “Neefe fu non solo il maestro di Beethoven, fu il suo mentore” (cfr. A. Zignani- Ludwig van Beethoven- una nuova interpretazione della vita e delle Opere- Zecchini editgore 2020- pag. 14).

Con Neefe, oltre al giovane Beethoven, studiò composizione anche il flautista Anton Reicha, ed entrambi furono incoraggiati da detto maestro ad iscriversi alla facoltà di filosofia di Bonn (cfr. Maria Teresa Arfini- op. cit- pag. 6).

[51]) Attività di delega che, in una struttura complessa come quella in questione (il personale della Cappella, ai tempi dell’Elettore Maximilian Franz, comprendeva tra i 36 ed i 41 soggetti fra cantanti e musicisti: cfr. P. Buscaroli cit. op. cit. pag. 106; R. Di Pasquale op. cit. pag. 102), appare del tutto normale, visto che un Kapellmeister, già gravato da notevoli impegni e compiti istituzionali (come specificato retro, pag. 6), non poteva certamente risolvere in prima persona tutti gli altri che riguardavano la detta istituzione musicale. Infatti “Quando Neefe arrivò a Bonn, gli fu chiesto di occuparsi della formazione di Beethoven, cosa che il maestro fece con convinzione…”: cfr. J. Caeyers cit. op. cit. pag. 43.

E’ sintomatico il fatto che già all’atto della nomina quale Kapellmeister, Lucchesi avesse ottenuto dall’Elettore di separare l’attività amministrativa e disciplinare della Cappella (che fu affidata al collaboratore Gaetano Mattioli) “da quella strettamente musicale e didattica” (cfr. R. Di Pasquale cit. op. cit. pag. 101).

[52]) Cfr. Fausto Torrefranca- Le origini italiane del Romanticismo musicale- edito 1930, lavoro riportato nel sito “Andrea Luchesi: il Kapellmeister dimenticato, il maestro cancellato. Un inquietante silenzio nella vita di Ludwig van Beethoven” ByAgostino Taboga; nonché in R. Di Pasquale cit. op. cit. pag. 130.

[53]) Cfr. quanto riportato nel sito ByA. Taboga sopra cit.

[54]) In lavori pubbicati fra il 1983 ed il 1990: cfr. il sito di A.Taboga sopra cit.

[55]) Cfr. R. Di Pasquale cit. op. cit. pag. 130.

Sulle tesi di Henseler e di Valder-Knechtges vedi anche Silvia Gaddini- Dizionario Biografico Treccani- voce Lucchesi Andrea- volume 66- 2006- ove si dice testualmente: “La produzione di L. per la cappella di corte avrebbe avuto, secondo Henseler, un influsso particolarmente forte sui passaggi contrappuntistici della musica sacra di Beethoven; Valder-Knechtges, invece, ritiene che l’influsso del L. abbia contribuito in modo determinante all’assimilazione, da parte di Beethoven, di quell’elemento “italianizzante” che è stato riconosciuto nelle sue primissime opere strumentali”.

[56]) Cfr. Giorgio Taboga– Musica e matematica- Andrea Luchesi, genio incompreso fra Riccati e Beethoven; Id: Andrea Luchesi, l’ora della verità- 1994; Agostino Taboga, nel sito “Andrea Luchesi: il Kapellmeister dimenticato, il maestro cancellato. Un inquietante silenzio nella vita di Ludwig van Beethoven”; L. Della Croce in- Andrea Luchesi, maestro di Mozart e Beethoven- conferenza del 25 gennaio 2000 per Associazione Mozart in Italia- Brescia- pagg.105-115 (contrariamente a quanto sostenuto, da questo autore, fino a quel momento: cfr. Ludwig van Beethoven- Epistolario- Skira 1999- vol. 1 pag. 98 nota 1; Id Ludwig van Beethoven- Le nove sinfonie e le altre opere per orchestra- sezione cronologia pag. XVI- anno 1781- e pagg. 32-33); R. Di Pasquale– La proprietà intellettuale nelle Cappelle musicali del ‘700- Il caso Luchesi- pagg. 107 ss; Luca Bianchini-Anna Trombetta– Mozart la caduta degli dei- Youcanprint Self-Publishing- parte seconda- pag. 448.

Una posizione intermedia sembra essere quella dello studioso Luca Chiantore (in Beethoven al pianoforte- il Saggiatore- 2014-) il quale, pur evidenziando la circostanza che il giovane Beethoven ed il kapellmeister Lucchesi si frequentarono a lungo nella Cappella di corte, precisa che ”Non sopravvive, tuttavia, alcun documento che certifichi un possibile rapporto didattico fra di loro” (pag.32). Aggiunge che “E’ probabile, tuttavia, che il ruolo di Neefe nella formazione di Beethoven sia stato amplificato al di là dei suoi effettivi meriti” e che “Le fonti non permettono di definire con certezza le ripercussioni che l’insegnamento di Neefe…ebbe sull’attività successiva di Beethoven, tanto in campo compositivo quanto in campo interpretativo” (pag. 33). Conclude, quanto alla posizione della mano, che la tradizione bachiana Beethoven la “conobbe grazie a Neefe” (pag.-39).

[57]) Al riguardo appare sintomatico quanto detto da Luigi della Croce nel suo saggio- Andrea Luchesi, maestro di Mozart e Beethoven- conferenza del 25 gennaio 2000 per Associazione Mozart in Italia- Brescia- sopra cit. nota 56. L’autore, dopo avere premesso che Luchesi ricoprì la carica di kapellmeister a Bonn “dal 1774 al 1801…”, afferma: “Non può quindi non avere avuto parte attiva essenziale negli avvenimenti dell’adolescenza e della giovinezza di Ludwig van Beethoven…fino al momento in cui Beethoven si spostò definitivamente a Vienna, nel 1792”. E, sul punto, conclude precisando: “Non è però facile separare- dal cumulo di citazioni…- l’elemento di certezza da quanto è ancora solo ipotesi, sovente logica, ma non corroborata del [da] prove concrete”.

[58]) Cfr. Graziano Bianchi- Tempesta e Luce- Beethoven- Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura- Roma 2004- pag.-34.

Unv. 5 – Frammento di un “Concertante” in do maggiore

1802 circa

Many times Beethoven began large‑scale works only to abandon the project later. This is the case with this concertante in C major, a double or triple concerto—perhaps for violin, violoncello (piano), and orchestra—which predates by several years the well‑known Triple Concerto, Opus 56.

Beethoven began working intensively on this concertante in the sketchbook known as the “Kessler,” which he used from the first half of 1802. Some sketches already appear on folios 38 verso and 38 recto, continuing densely up to folio 41 verso. From this point onward, the composer was probably becoming dissatisfied with the progress, rewriting the second half of the work in a manner far more disorderly than before.

At the same time, Beethoven also began preparing a complete orchestral score, written on paper bearing the same watermark as the Kessler sketchbook. This score, which has come down to us as a 12‑page fragment, has been catalogued as Artaria 183 and is preserved at the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin. The first pages have been lost, and what remains corresponds to bar 43 of the Kessler project, continuing with the solo entry up to bars 113–126.

Some ideas for further “solo” passages were found on folio 41r of the sketchbook, but the corresponding passages in the score are much more fully developed. What clearly emerges is that the Artaria 183 manuscript lacks its opening pages. Indeed, the very first surviving note is a viola bar with a slur that must necessarily have begun on a preceding (now lost) page.

Whether Beethoven continued writing after bar 126 remains an open question. The last bar of the solo violin part coincides with the end of the page, but from that point onward the score—which until then had been fairly polished (though not complete)—gradually declines into a sketch. Little was developed beyond the first exposition: a few conceptual ideas, only lightly worked out. It is important to note that one of these ideas is marked “for the Concertante,” specifying precisely the aesthetic form Beethoven had in mind for this composition.

The principal study of this material was carried out by Richard Kramer. His work was published in 1977 in the volume Beethoven Studies. Kramer observes:

“The very existence of a fragmentary score for the first movement of the concertante stands as evidence that Beethoven would work intermittently between sketchbook and score within a single movement… Much remained to be worked out in the sketchbook: the solo exposition is not sufficiently drafted; the development has not even been attempted; the recapitulation would surely require at least some sketching. With fundamental aspects of the first movement still unsettled, Beethoven has begun the transfer from sketchbook to score.”

Whether Beethoven continued writing after bar 126 remains an open question. The last bar of the solo violin part coincides with the end of the page, but from that point onward the score—which until then had been fairly polished (though not complete)—gradually declines into a sketch. Little was developed beyond the first exposition: a few conceptual ideas, only lightly worked out. It is important to underline that one of these ideas is marked “for the Concertante,” specifying precisely the aesthetic form Beethoven had in mind for this composition.

The principal study of this material was carried out by Richard Kramer. His work was published in 1977 in the volume Beethoven Studies. Kramer observes:

These considerations indeed prompt reflection on Beethoven’s compositional method. But why, then, did Beethoven ultimately abandon this project?

Kramer believes that the answer may be found in a letter dated 22 April 1802 from Beethoven’s brother Karl to Breitkopf & Härtel:

“My brother would have written in person, but he is unwilling to do so at the moment, since Baron van Braun is a stupid and coarse theatre director and has refused the use of the theatre for the Akademie, turning it instead into a stage for utterly mediocre performers.”

If Beethoven was preparing the concertante for this Akademie and for that theatre, the incident may have discouraged him.

We find Karl again in another letter to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 14 October 1803, offering a “Konzertant für alle Instrumente für Klavier, Violonzello und Violino.” Since the earliest known sketches of the Triple Concerto Op. 56 date from the first months of 1804, it is entirely plausible that Beethoven considered returning to work on this concertante.

Beethoven’s dissatisfaction with this first attempt at a concertante may be attributed to the limited potential of the chosen material. Even though the solo entries are beautiful and interesting, as Kramer notes, the principal theme is at once short and poor, and probably not suited to support a large‑scale composition.

Kramer sees the Triple Concerto as:

“at once a reaction to the failed attempt, and… a realization of images and concepts latent in the fragment. The muted opening bars, barely articulate in the low strings, are common to both works (though we must infer some of this quality from the inconclusive sketches in ‘Kessler’). In both cases, this initial idea is detached from, or introductory to, a principal thematic event, though in Opus 56 the two are motivically akin.”

The Concertante in C major thus seems to have been abandoned when the circumstances that justified its immediate realization ceased to exist. The bitter taste of that disappointment may have reinforced Beethoven’s dissatisfaction with the flaws in the conception of the work—flaws he may have considered irreparable.

Yet it is reasonable to view the Triple Concerto as a definitive stage in the gestation of the same project. The important and fundamental concepts of the earlier concertante are not simply rejected; rather, they are assimilated—consciously or not—into a work that embodies the completion of a temporarily set‑aside undertaking.

Composition

Composed in the first months of 1802, up to April at the latest. The orchestral works drafted in the “Kessler” notebook at the beginning of 1802 (see Brandenburg/Keßler vol. 1, pp. 32f) can almost all be seen in connection with an Akademie that Beethoven planned for April 1802 and which did not take place (see letter BGA 85). Among the unfinished works, the Concertante is the most advanced; Beethoven had already begun to elaborate the exposition of the first movement. There also exist brief sketches and ideas for the other movements.

Sieghard Brandenburg assumes that Beethoven probably would not have been able to complete the work in time, even if the Akademie had taken place (Brandenburg/Keßler vol. 1, p. 14). Perhaps for this reason he had already abandoned the Concertante. Richard Kramer postulates musical reasons for the abandonment, reinforced by the failed Akademie plan (Kramer/Concertante).

In 1803 Beethoven tried again with the same instrumentation in a Concertante in F major (see BGA 163 and Op. 56), and finally composed the Triple Concerto Op. 56 in 1804. For possible musical relationships between Op. 56 and Unv. 5, see Kramer/Concertante and Ferencz/Op56.

Sketches and Drafts

A‑Wgm, A 34 (“Kessler”), folios 38v–39r, 40v–43r, and 71r. Dating: from the first months to April 1802. Facsimiles and transcriptions: Brandenburg/Keßler, Kramer/Concertante.

Autograph Score, 1st Movement

Key: D major – B‑flat. Shelfmark: Mus. SM. autogr. Beethoven Artaria 183. Missing folios at the beginning and possibly at the end; the score is incomplete. Extent: 12 folios; 24 pages in score, 1r–12v. Paper: horizontal format, 23.5 × 32 cm, double‑spaced.

Provenance: Purchased by Artaria at auction in 1827. Artaria publishing house archive, Vienna. Erich Prieger, Bonn, from 1897. Acquired in 1901.

Facsimile of folios 1r and 10v and partial transcription: Kramer/Concertante. Complete facsimile: SBB.

Descriptions: Bartlitz/Catalogue; Johnson/Artaria p. 21ff.; Kramer/Concertante. Biography: Brandenburg/Keßler; Ferencz/Op56 pp. 134–145; Kramer/Concertante.

Unv. 5 – Frammento di un “Concertante” in do maggiore - Ricostruzione di Gerd Prengel

Johann Peter Keverich (1734-1807) Beethoven’s Only Uncle

Presented at “Musicology after Beethoven. XVII International Congress of the German Musicological Society (GfM)” by James F. Green

We know very little about some of Beethoven’s relatives, records are scant and while Beethoven himself was a busy letter writer it seems none of his relatives were. Beethoven had only one Uncle, his mother’s brother who, because he became a celibate priest, had no children. Beethoven never had a single first cousin. Johann Peter Kewerich was born in Ehrenbreitstein on 31 May 1734. The third child and second son of Johann Heinrich Kewerich and his wife Anna Klara Westorff. Beethoven’s mother, Maria Magdalena, born in 1746, would be their sixth and last child. The house in which they grew up still stands in Ehrenbreitstein.

I should like to mention something about Johann Peter Kewerich’s name. His father was named Johann and he had two brothers who were also named Johan, that is: Johann Jakob and Johann Balthasar. His paternal grandfather was also named Johann and he had an uncle named Johann Moritz Westorff and many cousins named Johann.. After his sister married, he got a brother-in-law named Johann, first it was Johann Leym and after his death a second brother-in-law named Johann van Beethoven. Essentially the name Johann was treated like as a prefix like Mister. It seems very probable to me that to avoid confusion and keep everyone straight within the family, he must have been called by his middle name, Peter. His sister and parents would have called him Peter and Beethoven would have called him Uncle Peter.

After settling in Bonn when she married Johann van Beethoven, Maria Magdalena made multiple visits to her relatives in Ehrenbreitstein and Koblenz, trips on which her son Ludwig often accompanied her. By then her mother and father were dead and her brother Peter would have been her closest relative there. Unfortunately, written records are missing for the connection between the nephew Ludwig and his uncle Peter.

Sappiamo molto poco sui parenti di Beethoven; i documenti sono scarsi e mentre Beethoven fu un assiduo scrittore di lettere, sembra che nessuno dei suoi parenti lo fosse. Beethoven ebbe un solo zio, il fratello di sua madre che, essendo diventato sacerdote e quindi celibe, non ebbe figli. Beethoven non ebbe mai un cugino di primo grado. Johann Peter Kewerich nacque a Ehrenbreitstein il 31 maggio 1734. Terzo figlio e secondogenito di Johann Heinrich Kewerich e di sua moglie Anna Klara Westorff. La madre di Beethoven, Maria Magdalena, nata nel 1746, sarebbe stata la loro sesta e ultima figlia. La casa in cui sono cresciuti esiste ancora e si trova a Ehrenbreitstein.

Vorrei fare una precisazione sul nome di Johann Peter Kewerich. Suo padre si chiamava Johann e aveva due fratelli che si chiamavano anch’ essi Johan, ovvero Johann Jakob e Johann Balthasar. Anche il nonno paterno si chiamava Johann che aveva uno zio di nome Johann Moritz Westorff, nonché molti cugini di nome…. Johann!. Dopo che la sorella si sposò, acquisì un cognato di nome Johann, prima Johann Leym e dopo la morte un secondo cognato di nome Johann van Beethoven. A farla breve, il nome Johann era usato comunemente come un nomignolo, come dire “Mister” (Signor). Sembrerebbe molto probabile che, per evitare confusione e riuscire a fare ordine all’interno della famiglia sia stato semplicemente chiamato con il suo secondo nome, Peter. Sua sorella e i genitori lo avrebbero chiamato Peter e Beethoven lo avrebbero chiamato “zio Peter”.

Maria Magdalena, quando sposò Johann van Beethoven si stabilì a Bonn e fece molte visite ai suoi parenti a Ehrenbreitstein e Coblenza. Durante questi viaggi fu spesso accompagnata dai figli, Ludwig compreso. A quell’ epoca la madre e il padre erano già morti e suo fratello Peter sarebbe stato il parente più stretto. Sfortunatamente, mancano documenti scritti per connettere il nipote Ludwig e lo zio Peter.

This house which you see here is now a house-museum and contains an interesting display of things relating to its occupancy by the Kewerich family and their famous grandson.

La casa natale dei Kewerich è adesso una casa-museo e contiene un’interessante esposizione di oggetti relativi alla sua occupazione da parte della famiglia Kewerich e del loro famoso pronipote.

This illustration shows the typical garments of a Carmelite priest in the 1790s. They wore a heavy coarse brown tunics while indoors and over that when they ventured out they wore natural colored or off-white linen hooded cloaks over the tunics.

Questa illustrazione mostra gli abiti tipici di un sacerdote carmelitano attorno al 1790. Indossavano una pesante e ruvida tunica marrone mentre erano all’interno del convento. Quando si avventuravano fuori indossavano mantelli con cappuccio di lino color naturale o bianco sporco sopra le tuniche.

Nothing is known about why Johann Peter would have chosen to the religious life for himself. It has been reported that his mother was a very pious woman who came from a religious family, the Westorffs. Many members of the Westorff family chose the spiritual life and entered religious orders including her own brother Johann Moritz Westorff. He became a Carmelite priest known as Father Beda. Priests, monks and nuns of the various Carmelite orders take new names upon entering the religious life as a way of forsaking their former secular life and connections. It was probably this uncle that influenced Johann Peter to enter the Carmelite order. Father Beda would have been Beethoven’s great uncle.

After ordination Johann Peter took the name of Father Hubertus. The Carmelite Order is still regarded as an extremely strict order today also suggests the religiosity of his Kewerich parents. The cloister at Koblenz to which Johann Peter seems to have been connected for a very long time followed the more relaxed rules of the Discalced order of Carmelites and not the harsher form of the Ancient Observance of Carmelites. He would have been permitted to wear shoes while the stricter order did not.

We don’t know exactly when Peter Kewerich was ordained, but by the 1790s he was so well regarded that he was elected Prior of the Carmelite Cloister in Koblenz. The Carmelites elected their leaders for three year terms and he seems to have had several terms as Prior. He would become the last Prior of the Cloister until it was dissolved in 1802. The invading French army took control of Koblenz and the surrounding area in 1794. At first they turned the monastery into a barracks and began to strengthen and fortify it with battlements. Its strategic usefulness along the edge of the Rhine just below the confluence of the Mosel river made it important. The Cloister in Koblenz was once very reputable and very much liked by the more elegant families; and because of the favorable situation, their church was highly spoken of.

The Monastery was located along the Rhine somewhere between the Electoral Palace and the point of land now called Deutsches Eck. You can see the Palace on the left with its circular enclosing wings and on the far right you can see the point of land where the Rhine and Mosel rivers meet.

Dr. Helmut Prößler relates a story about the French occupation of the Cloister, “After the French had seized the Cloister for the first time and had taken away the valuables, they killed the pigeons and rang the church bells for each pigeon killed with the saber. In the middle of the church they made a fire at which the pigeons roasted and consumed.” Although they were not always considerate of the Cloister they did pay rent for its use By 1802 its benefits as a barracks and a defensive fortification had faded and the priests and others living at the cloister were pensioned off and sent away. As Prior Father Hubertus signed the documents agreeing to the dissolution. At the time of its dissolution it was a very small cloister consisting of 5 priests, 4 lay-brothers and a person listed as a “Josephsman” which was probably some sort of carpenter or handyman. At the time of the dissolution the priests and brothers were so poor that they had to petition the Mayor of Koblenz for money enough to purchase civilian clothes so that they could leave the cloister.

As support, Father Hubertus got a pension from the State of Nassau that was disbursed to him at a rate of a little more than 37 Gulden per year, paid quarterly. The payment of the two last quarters of the year 1803 on the 9^th of September 1803 and on the 10^th of January 1804 is verifiable in old records. He stayed in the Ehrenbreitstein area. Where he lived exactly, or with whom, we do not know; both his parents and his only sister had by then been dead many years by 1802. He had other relatives in the area, but they were not close relatives; all of his close relatives were gone. He spent his last years of life in Ehrenbreitstein, where he died on the 24^th of September 1807. Father Hubertus was buried in the old Ehrenbreitstein graveyard behind the Church of the Holy Cross.

Non si sa perché Johann Peter avesse scelto la vita religiosa. Ci è stato tramandato che sua madre fu donna molto pia, proveniente da una famiglia religiosa, i Westorff. Molti membri della famiglia Westorff scelsero la vita spirituale ed entrarono negli ordini religiosi, tra cui il fratello Johann Moritz Westorff. Divenne sacerdote carmelitano con il nome Padre Beda. Come d’ uso ancor oggi, sacerdoti, monaci e monache dei vari ordini carmelitani prendono nuovi nomi quando entrano nella vita religiosa, quasi a sottolineare l’ abbandono della precedente vita secolare. Fu probabilmente questo zio che influenzò Johann Peter facendolo entrare nell’ordine carmelitano. Padre Beda sarebbe stato quindi prozio di Beethoven.

Dopo l’ordinazione, Johann Peter prese il nome di padre Hubertus. L’Ordine Carmelitano è ancor oggi considerato come un ordine estremamente severo, il che suggerisce anche la religiosità osservante dei Kewerich. Il chiostro di Coblenza, cui Johann Peter sembra essere stato collegato per molto tempo, seguiva le regole più elastiche dell’ordine dei Carmelitani Scalzi e non la forma più ortodossa dell’Antica Osservanza dei Carmelitani. Gli sarebbe stato permesso, ad esempio, di indossare scarpe.

Non sappiamo esattamente quando Peter Kewerich fu ordinato sacerdote, ma nel 1790 era già così ben inserito che fu eletto priore del chiostro carmelitano a Coblenza. I Carmelitani eleggono i loro capi per tre anni e sembra che abbia avuto diversi mandati come Priore. Sarebbe diventato l’ultimo priore del chiostro, fino a quando l’ ordine non fu sciolto nel 1802. L’esercito francese prese il controllo di Coblenza e dell’area circostante nel 1794. All’inizio i francesi trasformarono il monastero in una caserma e iniziarono a rafforzarlo e fortificarlo con mura. La sua utilità strategica lungo il Reno, appena sotto la confluenza con la Mosella, rese questo luogo strategicamente importante. Il Chiostro di Coblenza un tempo era molto rinomato e molto apprezzato dalle famiglie più in vista della regione; e conseguentemente la chiesa molto frequentata.

Il monastero si trovava lungo il Reno, vicino al palazzo elettorale ed un luogo chiamato Deutsches Eck. Si può vedere nell’ illustrazione il palazzo con le sue due ali circolari che lo circondano e all’estrema destra il punto summenzionato, dove si incontrano i fiumi Reno e Mosella.

Il Dr. Helmut Prößler racconta una storia sull’occupazione francese del chiostro: “Dopo che i francesi si impadronirono del chiostro e dopo che rubarono tutti gli oggetti di valore, cominciarono ad uccidere i piccioni, suonando le campane della chiesa per ogni piccione ucciso con la sciabola. . In mezzo alla chiesa fecero un fuoco, su cui misero ad arrostire questi piccioni mangiandoli in quel luogo sacro». Sebbene non fossero sempre rispettosi del chiostro, pagarono l’affitto per il suo utilizzo. Nel 1802 la sua importanza come come caserma e fortilizio difensiva cessò e i sacerdoti e tutti coloro che vivevano nel chiostro furono mandati in pensione ed allontanati. Come Priore Padre Hubertus firmò i documenti di accettazione allo scioglimento. Al momento della soppressione il chiostro era composto da 5 sacerdoti, 4 fratelli laici e una persona indicata come “Giuseppino” che probabilmente era una sorta di falegname o tuttofare. In quel momento i sacerdoti e i fratelli erano così poveri che dovettero chiedere al sindaco di Coblenza denaro sufficiente per acquistare abiti civili in modo da poter lasciare il chiostro.

Per sostenersi, padre Hubertus ottenne una pensione dallo Stato di Nassau, che gli fu erogata in ragione di poco più di 37 Gulden all’anno, pagati trimestralmente. Il pagamento degli ultimi due trimestri dell’anno 1803 il 9 settembre 1803 e il 10 gennaio 1804 è ancora rintracciabile in vecchi atti sopravvissuti. Hubertus rimase nella zona di Ehrenbreitstein. Dove abitasse esattamente, o con chi, non lo sappiamo; entrambi i suoi genitori e la sua unica sorella erano ormai morti da molti anni. Aveva certo altri parenti nella zona, ma non erano parenti stretti; tutti i suoi consanguinei deceduti. Trascorse i suoi ultimi anni di vita a Ehrenbreitstein, dove morì il 24 settembre 1807. Padre Hubertus fu sepolto nel vecchio cimitero di Ehrenbreitstein, dietro la chiesa della Santa Croce.

Kolbenz – Colbenza

This illustration shows the location of the Electoral Palace in Koblenz in the lower right. The Carmelite Cloister would have been located along the Rhine just north of the Palace near the bridge across the Rhine.

Questa illustrazione mostra la posizione del palazzo elettorale di Coblenza, in basso a destra. Il Chiostro dei Carmelitani sarebbe stato situato lungo il Reno, appena a nord del Palazzo, vicino al ponte sul Reno.

This part of the inventory made by the French for the contents of the Carmelite Cloister in Koblenz. Father Hubertus’ signature is clearly seen in the middle near the bottom. This catalog signed father Hubertus as Prior on the 19^th of August 1802.

Questo l’inventario che fecero i francesi circa il contenuto del chiostro carmelitano di Coblenza. La firma di Padre Hubertus è chiaramente visibile al centro, vicino al fondo. Padre Hubertus firmò come Priore il 19 agosto 1802.

Alte Heilig Kreuz Kirche Koblenz Ehrenbreitstein 1890

Unfortunately, the church which saton the side of a hill just a couple of blocks from the house where he grew up, was destroyed in a bombing raid during World War II. Also destroyed was the little church yard where he was buried.

Sfortunatamente la chiesa, che si trovava sul fianco di una collina a un paio di isolati dalla casa in cui crebbe, fu distrutta in un bombardamento durante la seconda guerra mondiale. Distrutto anche il piccolo cortile della chiesa dove fu sepolto.

A modern building replaces the original old church. It was deconsecrated in 2017 and today it is unused while local officials decide how the building should be used.

Un edificio moderno (Di ben dubbio gusto, N.d.A.) sostituì lì antica chiesa. È stato sconsacrato nel 2017 ed oggi è inutilizzato in attesa di trovare una nuova destinazione.

James F. Green was born in Michigan, where he studied fine art and history. He has a post graduate degree in Interior Design from the New York School of Interior Design. Mr. Green has been active in Beethoven research for nearly 50 years. Founder of the Michigan Beethoven Society, he presently serves on the Executive Board of the Ira F. Brilliant Center for Beethoven Studies in California. He is the author of the New Hess Catalog of Beethoven’s Works, which was awarded the Adele Mellen Prize. He has written several articles for European scholarly journals. Besides his Beethoven activities, Mr. Green is an International Award winning Interior Designer and President of Monument Records.

James F. Green è nato nel Michigan, dove ha studiato Belle Arti e storia. Ha una laurea post-laurea in Interior Design presso la New York School of Interior Design. Green si dedica alla ricerca su Beethoveniana da quasi 50 anni. Fondatore della Michigan Beethoven Society, attualmente fa parte del comitato esecutivo dell’Ira F. Brilliant Center for Beethoven Studies in California. È autore del Nuovo catalogo Hess delle opere di Beethoven, vincitore del Premio Adele Mellen. Ha scritto diversi articoli per riviste scientifiche ed europee. Oltre alle sue attività Beethoveniane, Green è un interior designer vincitore di un premio internazionale e presidente dell’ etichetta discografica Monument Records.

Luigi Bellofatto at the Beethoven Conference in Boston

December 12, 2020

On 12 December 2020, the international symposium on Beethoven biographies (International Symposium on Beethoven Biography) was held at the Beethoven Research Center of Boston University. The event brought together the most important Beethoven biographers at the international level. Among them was the moderator, Jeremy Yudkin. The speakers included Lewis Lockwood, Barry Cooper, Robin Wallace, William Kinderman, Jan Swafford, and other members of the Beethovenian “Gotha.”

The Beethoven Music Research Center www.lvbeethoven.org also took part in the event thanks to the contribution of our Luigi Bellofatto, co‑author of the website and scholar of the work of Alexander Wheelock Thayer, who in turn was the most important biographer of the Master of Bonn — and the only Italian among the speakers.

Luigi’s presentation illustrated his research “Beethoven’s Music and Biographies Published in Italy in the 18th Century.”

To Luigi goes the praise of the entire staff of the Beethoven Music Research Center. We are proud to have been able to participate — thanks to Luigi — in such a prestigious event.

Beethoven's Musicand Biographies published in Italy in the 18th Century

Letter to the Immortal Beloved – An inquiry ‘beneath every certainty’”

Teplitz, 6 and 7 July 1812

After Beethoven’s death on 26 March 1827, the letter was found in a drawer of the composer’s private bureau and preserved by Anton Schindler. It was published for the first time by the same “famulus” in his 1840 biography of Beethoven. True to his reputation as a falsifier, he omitted several lines, significant sentences, and altered many others.

The letter (written over three consecutive days) indicates only the date: Monday, 6 July. Since the year is missing, scholars initially assumed it had been written in 1801 or 1807, the only years in which 6 July fell on a Monday. The hypothesis of 1812 was first proposed by Unger (1909) and Thomas‑San‑Galli (1909), following the discovery of documents concerning Beethoven’s stay in Bohemia during that period.

Unger and San‑Galli examined the guest lists of the spa towns and were able to prove that Beethoven arrived in Teplitz (today Teplice) on 5 July 1812, coming from Prague, where he had stayed from 1 to 4 July. Another important clue in the letter is the reference to Prince Esterházy (1.11), who indeed arrived in Teplitz at the same time.

The fact that Beethoven addressed the problem of delivering the letter three separate times shows how preoccupied he was. In section 2.3 (Monday evening) he laments that the post to “K.” left on Mondays and Thursdays. Much speculation arose about the meaning of “K.” when the place of dispatch was still unknown. Today there is no doubt that Beethoven meant Karlovy Vary, about 100 km from Teplitz, reachable in one day by coach.

In 2.9 Beethoven expresses his distress (“ich weine” – “I am crying”) and notes that the recipient would “probably receive the message only on Saturday”. Since the coach from Teplitz reached Karlovy Vary on Thursday evening, the destination must have been another day’s journey further west, probably Eger (Cheb), a larger and nearer town about 50 km away.

The most important conclusion from these “logistical” considerations is that — from Beethoven’s perspective — the recipient had to be located two days’ travel from Teplitz at the time the letter was meant to be sent. This also invalidates the many unfounded speculations assuming that the recipient must have been in Karlsbad.

In section 3.12 (Tuesday morning) Beethoven discovers he has made a mistake and promises to send the letter immediately, so that the unknown woman could receive it as soon as possible (though still two days later). We cannot know whether the letter was actually sent; its discovery in Beethoven’s bureau leaves two possibilities: either it was never sent, or it was sent but returned to the composer as undeliverable because the addressee could not be found.

Thus, our inquiry “beneath every certainty” may be summarised as follows:

The letter was written on 6 and 7 July 1812 in Teplitz.
Beethoven had probably met the Beloved a few days earlier, unexpectedly.
The recipient was a woman Beethoven had loved for a long time and who reciprocated his feelings. He explicitly describes himself as her “Geliebter” (“lover”), reassures her of his “Treue” (“faithfulness”), and asks her to “remain faithful” to him (1.18, 3.8).
The letter was meant to be sent to a place two days’ travel from Teplitz, via Karlsbad (2.3, 2.9).
Beethoven may not have sent the letter because he learned that the Beloved was no longer where he thought, or he decided not to send it. Another possibility is that he sent it but it was returned.
The letter was undoubtedly important to him; otherwise he would not have kept it all his life.
“Wir werden uns wohl bald sehen” (“We shall probably see each other soon”, 1.14) has often been mistranslated as “Without doubt we shall meet soon”. In reality, Beethoven had no certainty about her location — how could they meet soon?
The letter makes clear that the Beloved lived (for some time) in Vienna, as Beethoven did.
It is the only letter to a woman in which Beethoven consistently uses the intimate “Du”.

Brief an die Unsterbliche Geliebte,

Teplitz, 6 and 7 July 1812

1.1 „am 6ten Juli Morgends.“1.2 „Mein Engel, mein alles, mein Ich.“

1.3 „nur einige Worte heute, und zwar mit Bleystift (mit deinem)“

1.4 „erst bis morgen ist meine Wohnung sicher bestimmt, welcher Nichtswürdiger Zeitverderb in d.g.“

1.5 „warum dieser tiefe Gram, wo die Nothwendigkeit spricht.“

1.6 „Kann unsre Liebe anders bestehn als durch Aufopferungen, durch nicht alles verlangen, kannst du es ändern, daß du nicht ganz mein, ich nicht ganz dein bin.“

1.7 „Ach Gott blick in die schöne Natur und beruhige dein Gemüth über das müßende.“

1.8 „die Liebe fordert alles und ganz mit Recht, so ist es mir mit dir, dir mit mir.“

1.9 „nur vergißt du so leicht, daß ich für mich und für dich leben muß, wären wir ganz vereinigt, du würdest dieses schmerzliche eben so wenig als ich empfinden.“

1.10 „meine Reise war schrecklich ich kam erst Morgens 4 uhr gestern hier an, da es an Pferde mangelte, wählte die Post eine andre Reiseroute, aber welch schrecklicher Weg, auf der vorlezten Station warnte man mich bey nacht zu fahren, machte mich einen Wald fürchten, aber das Reizte mich nur – und ich hatte Unrecht, der Wagen muste bey dem schrecklichen Wege brechen, grundloß, bloßer Landweg, ohne 2 solche Postillione, wie ich hatte, wäre ich liegen geblieben Unterwegs.“

1.11 „Esterhazi hatte auf dem andern gewöhnlichen Wege hierhin dasselbe schicksaal, mit 8 Pferden, was ich mit vier.“

1.12 „Jedoch hatte ich zum Theil wieder vergnügen, wie immer, wenn ich was glücklich überstehe.“

1.13 „nun geschwind zum innern vom aüßern.“

1.14 „wir werden unß wohl bald sehn,“

1.15 „auch heute kann ich dir meine Bemerkungen nicht mittheilen, welche ich während dieser einigen Tage über mein Leben machte – wären unsre Herzen immer dichtan einander, ich machte wohl keine d.g.“

1.16 „die Brust ist voll dir viel zu sagen“

1.17 „Ach – Es gibt Momente, wo ich finde daß die sprache noch gar nichts ist“

1.18 „erheitre dich – bleibe mein Treuer einziger schaz, mein alles, wie ich dir;“

1.19 „das übrige müßen die Götter schicken, was für unß seyn muß und seyn soll.“

1.20 „dein treuer ludwig.“

2.1 „Abends Montags am 6ten Juli“

2.2 „Du leidest du mein theuerstes Wesen“

2.3 „eben jezt nehme ich wahr daß die Briefe in aller Frühe aufgegeben werden müßen. Montags – Donnerstags – die einzigen Täge wo die Post von hier nach K. geht.“

2.4 „du leidest.“

2.5 „Ach, wo ich bin, bist auch du mit mir, mit mir und dir rede ich mache daß ich mit dir leben kann“

2.6 „welches Leben!!!! so!!!! ohne dich“

2.7 „Verfolgt von der Güte der Menschen hier und da, die ich meyne – eben so wenig verdienen zu wollen, als sie zu verdienen.“

2.8 „Demuth des Menschen gegen den Menschen – sie schmerzt mich – und wenn ich mich im Zusammenhang des Universums betrachte, was bin ich und was ist der – den man den Größten nennt – und doch – ist wieder hierin das Göttliche des Menschen.“

2.9 „ich weine wenn ich denke daß du erst wahrscheinlich Sonnabends die erste Nachricht von mir erhältst.“

2.10 „wie du mich auch liebst – stärker liebe ich dich doch“

2.11 „doch nie verberge dich vor mir.“

2.12 „gute Nacht – als Badender muß ich schlafen gehen.“

2.13 „Ach gott – so nah! so weit!“

2.14 „ist es nicht ein wahres HimmelsGebaüde unsre Liebe – aber auch so fest, wie die Veste des Himmels.“

3.1 „guten Morgen am 7ten Juli“

3.2 „schon im Bette drängen sich die Ideen zu dir meine Unsterbliche Geliebte,“

3.3 „hier und da freudig, dann wieder traurig, vom Schicksaale abwartend, ob es unß erhört.“

3.4 „leben kann ich entweder nur ganz mit dir oder gar nicht,“

3.5 „ja ich habe beschlossen in der Ferne so lange herum zu irren, bis ich in deine Arme fliegen kann,“

3.6 „und mich ganz heymathlich bey dir nennen kann, meine Seele von dir umgeben in’s Reich der Geister schicken kann.“

3.7 „ja leider muß es seyn.“

3.8 „du wirst dich fassen um so mehr, da du meine Treue gegen dich kennst, nie eine andre kann mein Herz besizen, nie – nie.“

3.9 „O Gott warum sich entfernen müßen, was man so liebt, und doch ist mein Leben in V.[ien] so wie jezt ein kümmerliches Leben.“

3.10 „Deine Liebe macht mich zum glücklichsten und zum unglücklichsten zugleich.“

3.11 „in meinen Jahren jezt bedürfte ich einiger Einförmigkeit Gleichheit des Lebens – kann diese bey unserm Verhältniße bestehn?“

3.12 „Engel, eben erfahre ich, daß die Post alle Tage abgeht – und ich muß daher schließen, damit du den B.[rief] gleich erhältst“

3.13 „sey ruhig, nur durch Ruhiges beschauen unsres Daseyns können wir unsern Zweck zusammen zu leben erreichen“

3.14 „sey ruhig – liebe mich – heute – gestern.“

3.15 „Welche Sehnsucht mit Thränen nach dir“

3.16 „dir – dir – mein Leben – mein alles“

3.17 „leb wohl – o liebe mich fort – verken[ne] nie das treuste Herz deines Geliebten L.“

3.18 „ewig dein ewig mein ewig unß.“

6 July, morning My angel, my all, my very self — only a few words today, written in pencil, yours. My lodging will not be settled before tomorrow; what a miserable waste of time for such trifles. Why this deep sorrow, when necessity itself speaks? Can our love endure except through sacrifice, through renouncing the desire to possess everything? What can we do, if you are not wholly mine and I not wholly yours? Look upon the beauty of nature, calm your heart with what must be. Love demands everything — and rightly so. You forget too easily that I must live for both of us. Were we completely united, you would feel this pain no more than I do. My journey was dreadful; I arrived only at four in the morning. The coach lacked horses and took another route — a terrible one. They warned me not to travel at night, spoke of a forest to frighten me, which only tempted me more — wrongly. The carriage nearly broke on that bottomless track. But enough of the outer world — now to the inner. We shall probably see each other soon. My heart is full of things to tell you. There are moments when words are nothing. Be cheerful; remain my faithful, my only treasure, my all, as I am yours. The rest the gods will send.

6 July, evening You are suffering, my dearest. I have just learned that letters must be posted early — Monday and Thursday — the only days the mail goes to K. Where I am, you are with me. I speak with you, live with you. What a life — without you. I weep to think you will probably not receive news from me before Saturday. However much you love me — I love you more. Never hide yourself from me. Good night — as a bather I must go to sleep. So near, so far. Is not our love a heavenly structure, firm as the vault of heaven?

7 July, morning Even in bed my thoughts press toward you, my Immortal Beloved — now joyful, now sorrowful, waiting to see whether fate will hear us. I can live only wholly with you or not at all. I have resolved to wander until I can fly into your arms and feel entirely at home with you, my soul enveloped by yours. You will gather strength, knowing my faithfulness. No other can ever possess my heart — never, never. Why must one be far from what one loves so deeply? My life in Vienna is miserable. Your love makes me the happiest and the unhappiest of men at once. They tell me the post leaves every day — I must close so that you may receive this at once. Be calm; only by contemplating our existence calmly can we reach our goal of living together. Love me — today, yesterday. What longing, with tears, for you — you — my life — my all. Farewell. Continue to love me; never doubt the faithful heart of your beloved. Forever yours, forever mine, forever ours.

Teplitz, Pension Zur golden Sonne, where Beethoven stayed on 6 and 7 July 1812. It was probably here that he wrote the letter to his immortal beloved.

Letter to the Immortal Beloved – An inquiry ‘beneath every certainty’”

Bibliography

Altman, Gail S.: Beethoven: A Man of His Word – Undisclosed Evidence for his Immortal Beloved. Tallahassee: Anubian Press 1996.
Anderson, Emily (Hg.): The Letters of Beethoven. 3 Bände. London: Macmillan 1961.
Beahrs, Virginia: The Immortal Beloved Revisited. In: The Beethoven Newsletter (1986), S. 22–24.
Beahrs, Virginia Oakley: The Immortal Beloved Riddle Reconsidered. In: The Musical Times (1988), S. 64–70.
Beahrs, Virginia: “My Angel, My All, My Self”: A Literal Translation of Beethoven’s Letter to the Immortal Beloved. In: The Beethoven Newsletter (1990), S. 29, 34–39.
Beahrs, Virginia: Beethoven’s Only Beloved? New Perspectives on the Love Story of the Great Composer. In: Music Review (1993), S. 183–197.
Brandenburg, Sieghard (Hg.): Ludwig van Beethoven: Briefwechsel. Gesamtausgabe. 6 Bände. München: Henle 1996.
Caeyers, Jan: Beethoven: Der einsame Revolutionär. Eine Biographie. Übers. Andreas Ecke. München: Beck 2012. Orig. in Niederländisch: Beethoven. Een Biografie. Amsterdam: De Bezige Bij 2009.
Cooper, Barry: Beethoven’s Immortal Beloved and Countess Erdödy: A Case of Mistaken Identity? In: The Beethoven Journal (1996), S. 18–24.
Czeke, Marianne: Brunszvik Teréz grófnő naplói és feljegyzései. Bd. I. Budapest: Kötet 1938.
Dahlhaus, Carl: Ludwig van Beethoven und seine Zeit. Laaber 1987.
Goldschmidt, Harry: Um die Unsterbliche Geliebte. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag für Musik 1977; auch als: Um die Unsterbliche Geliebte. Ein Beethoven-Buch. München: Rogner & Bernhard [1980].
Goldschmidt, Harry: „Auf diese Art mit A geht alles zu Grunde.“ Eine umstrittene Tagebuchstelle in neuem Licht. In: Goldschmidt (1988), S. 8–30.
Hess, Willy: Beethoven. 1. Aufl. Zürich 1956; 2. Aufl. Winterthur 1976.
Hornyák, Maria: „Mein Alles, meine Glückseeligkeit …“ Über die Liebe von Ludwig van Beethoven und Josephine Brunswick, Gräfin von Martonvásár. Martonvásár 1996.
Kaznelson, Siegmund: Beethovens Ferne und Unsterbliche Geliebte. Zürich 1954.
Kinderman, William: Beethoven. Berkeley: University of California Press 1995.
Klapproth, John E: Beethoven’s Only Beloved: Josephine! A Biography of the Only Woman Beethoven ever Loved. In Deutsch als: Beethovens Einzige Geliebte: Josephine! 2. Aufl. Charleston, SC: CreateSpace 2012 (1. Aufl. 2011).
Klapproth, John E: Preuves et épreuves du mystère de «l’Immortelle Bien-Aimée»: de la liste du Schindler au lac de Walden. In: Beethoven, sa vie, son œuvre 2012a, S. 55–68.
Klapproth, John E: Joséphine Brunsvik: le seul Amour de Beethoven. In: Beethoven, sa vie, son œuvre 2012b, S. 69–74.
Klapproth, John E: Handbuch: Unsterbliche Geliebte. Alles über die einzige Frau, die Beethoven je geliebt hat – und etliche andere. Original: The Immortal Beloved Compendium. Everything About the Only Woman Beethoven Ever Loved – And Many He Didn’t. Charleston, SC: CreateSpace 2016.
La Mara (Ida Maria Lipsius): Beethovens Unsterbliche Geliebte. Das Geheimnis der Gräfin Brunsvik und ihre Memoiren. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel 1909.
La Mara (Ida Maria Lipsius): Beethoven und die Brunsviks. Nach Familienpapieren aus Therese Brunsviks Nachlaß. Leipzig: Siegel 1920.
Ley, Stephan: Aus Beethovens Erdentagen. Siegburg: F. Schmitt 1957.
Lockwood, Lewis: Film Biography as Travesty: Immortal Beloved and Beethoven. In: The Musical Quarterly (1997), S. 190–198.
Lockwood, Lewis: Beethoven. The Music and the Life. New York: Norton 2003.
Massin, Jean & Brigitte: Ludwig van Beethoven. Biographie. Histoire des Œuvres. Essai. Paris 1955 [2. Aufl. 1967]. In Deutsch als: Beethoven. Materialbiographie, Daten zum Werk und Essay. München 1970a.
Massin, Jean & Brigitte: Recherche de Beethoven. Paris 1970.
Miebach, Manuela: Beethoven – Gott, welch’ Dunkel hier! Aspekte zwischen Spekulation und Wahrheit. 2015. ISBN 978-3-99010-776-8
Noering, Ulrich: Beethoven und Ungarn. Budapest: TóKa-PR-System 1995.
Pichler, Ernst: Beethoven. Mythos und Wirklichkeit. Wien: Amalthea 1994.
Riezler, Walter: Beethoven. 12. Aufl. Zürich: Atlantis 1983 (1. Aufl. 1936).
Schindler, Anton: Biographie von Ludwig van Beethoven. 1. Aufl. Münster: Aschendorff 1840. 2. Aufl. 1845. 3. Aufl. 1860.
Schmidt-Görg, Joseph (Hg.): Beethoven: Dreizehn unbekannte Briefe an Josephine Gräfin Deym geb. v. Brunsvik. Bonn: Beethoven-Haus 1957.
Schmidt-Görg, Joseph: Neue Schriftstücke zu Beethoven und Josephine Gräfin Deym. In: Beethoven-Jahrbuch 1965/68 (1969).
Schmidt-Görg, Joseph & Schmidt, Hans: Wasserzeichen in Beethoven-Briefen. In: Beethoven-Jahrbuch 5 (1961/64) 1966, S. 7–74.
Solomon, Maynard: New Light on Beethoven’s Letter to an Unknown Woman. In: The Musical Quarterly (1972), S. 572–587.
Stackelberg, Wolfhart von: Ohne Beethoven klänge Estnisch anders. In: Nachrichtenblatt der Baltischen Ritterschaften. Lüdenscheid 2001, S. 4–7.
Steblin, Rita: Beethoven’s Immortal Beloved: Evidence against Almerie Esterházy. In: Abstracts of Papers Read at the Meeting of the American Musicological Society, Sixty-Seventh Annual Meeting, November 15–18, 2001, S. 56 ().
Steblin, Rita: Josephine Gräfin Brunswick-Deyms Geheimnis enthüllt: Neue Ergebnisse zu ihrer Beziehung zu Beethoven. In: Österreichische Musikzeitschrift (2002), S. 23–31.
Steblin, Rita: „Auf diese Art mit A geht alles zugrunde.“ A New Look at Beethoven’s Diary Entry and the “Immortal Beloved”. In: Bonner Beethoven-Studien (2007), S. 147–180.
Steblin, Rita: “A dear, enchanting girl who loves me and whom I love”: New Facts about Beethoven’s Beloved Piano Pupil Julie Guicciardi. In: Bonner Beethoven-Studien (2009), S. 89–152.
Steblin, Rita: Beethovens „Unsterbliche Geliebte“: des Rätsels Lösung. In: Österreichische Musikzeitschrift (2009a), S. 4–17.
Tellenbach, Marie-Elisabeth: Beethoven und seine „Unsterbliche Geliebte“ Josephine Brunswick. Ihr Schicksal und der Einfluß auf Beethovens Werk. Zürich: Atlantis 1983.
Tellenbach, Marie-Elisabeth: Beethoven and the Countess Josephine Brunswick. In: The Beethoven Newsletter (1987), S. 41–51.
Tellenbach, Marie-Elisabeth: Künstler und Ständegesellschaft um 1800: die Rolle der Vormundschaftsgesetze in Beethovens Beziehung zu Josephine Gräfin Deym. In: Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte (1988), S. 253–263.
Tellenbach, Marie-Elisabeth: Beethoven e Josephine, contessa Brunswick: 1799–1821. In: Nuova rivista musicale italiana (1991), S. 355–374.
Tellenbach, Marie-Elisabeth: Psychoanalysis and the Historiocritical Method: On Maynard Solomon’s Image of Beethoven. Part 1. In: The Beethoven Newsletter (1993), S. 84–92.
Tellenbach, Marie-Elisabeth: Psychoanalysis and the Historiocritical Method: On Maynard Solomon’s Image of Beethoven. Part 2. In: The Beethoven Newsletter (1994), S. 119–127.
Tellenbach, Marie-Elisabeth: Noch eine Geliebte Beethovens gefunden – oder erfunden? Zu Klaus Martin Kopitz: „Sieben volle Monate“: Beethoven und Therese von Zandt. In: Musica (1996), S. 78–83.
Tellenbach, Marie-Elisabeth: Psychoanalyse und historisch-philologische Methode. Zu Maynard Solomons Beethoven- und Schubert-Deutungen. In: Analecta Musicologica (1998), S. 661–719.
Tellenbach, Marie-Elisabeth: Die Bedeutung des Adler-Gleichnisses in Beethovens Brief an Therese Gräfin Brunswick. Ein Beitrag zu seiner Biographie. In: Die Musikforschung (1999).
Thomas-San-Galli, Wolfgang A.: Die „unsterbliche Geliebte“ Beethovens, Amalie Sebald: Lösung eines vielumstrittenen Problems. Halle: Hendel 1909.
Unger, Max: Zum Problem von Beethovens „Unsterblicher Geliebten“. In: Musikalisches Wochenblatt [Neue Zeitschrift für Musik] (1909), S. 356–358.

Carattere, personalità, studi e cultura di Beethoven

Beethoven: The Intimate Side of a Lonely and Tormented Genius

Article – Review by Concetta De Mauro, published in the online magazine “il Deutsch Italia” on 27 March 2020

“To Doctor Joseph Wilhelm von Schaden, Augsburg Bonn, 15 September 1787

(…) the closer I came to my native city, the more numerous were the letters from my father that reached me, all urging me to hasten the journey.

I found my mother still alive but in a desperate state. She was ill with consumption and died seven weeks ago.

Your having lent me three carlini in Augsburg was an act of extraordinary kindness and friendship on your part, but I must beg you to have a little more patience with me; the journey has cost me much, and here I cannot hope for any remuneration, not even the smallest. Fortune does not favour me here in Bonn.”

With these heartfelt words, the seventeen‑year‑old Ludwig van Beethoven, shaken by the loss of his beloved mother, wrote to a lawyer in Augsburg who had befriended him during the period in which the German composer stayed in that city, on his return journey from Vienna to Bonn, where he had been born in 1770. It is precisely this letter — the first personal letter from Beethoven known to us — that sets the tone for the anthology “Ludwig van Beethoven – Autobiografia di un genio”, published by the Prato‑based publisher Piano B edizioni and edited by Michele Porzio, musicologist and professor at the “Giuseppe Verdi” Conservatory in Turin.

The volume gathers personal letters, pages from the Conversation Books, and reflections by the German composer, selected and carefully annotated by Porzio in numerous notes that the reader will inevitably consult, as they prove to be a necessary lantern illuminating the path through Beethoven’s complicated human dimension — his weaknesses, his anxieties, his daily life. Beethoven is commonly described as a rough misanthrope, always in a bad mood, but from this work emerges the portrait of a profoundly contradictory man: generous and grateful to those who stood by him even only through correspondence, yet often prey to despair caused by the progressive loss of hearing and by his rather fragile health.

Except for the first letter, most of the anthology refers to the period in which Beethoven had already moved to Vienna (1792) to continue his studies under the guidance of the great composer Joseph Haydn, introduced to him by Count Waldstein — his first patron and the one who proved to be a fundamental calling card for making his talent known in the elite salons of a Vienna that, at the end of the 18th century, was the European centre of music and opera par excellence.

When Viennese publishers began to take interest in his compositions, Beethoven’s fame as a gifted pianist had already spread throughout Germany, and he was eager to secure as many commissions as possible, having to provide for the support of his entire family in Bonn, since his brutal and violent father — a musician and tenor — had been prematurely retired due to alcohol abuse.

In his correspondence with his publishers, but also with musicians and his teachers such as Cherubini and Salieri, Ludwig wrote with gentle and polite manners, at times ironic, but above all with great humility in the way he regarded himself.

To F.A. Hoffmeister, Leipzig (music publisher) Vienna, 22 April 1821

“My dearest and worthy brother, you are right to complain about me — indeed, you have every reason. (…) The only trace of genius that perhaps exists in me is that my things are not always found in the most perfect order. And therefore no one but myself is capable of understanding anything about them.”

Despite his tireless work, the German composer still managed to find the time to write to his publishers also to intercede on behalf of people dear to him, such as Bach’s daughter, Regine Susanna, who was living in poverty: “A good friend of mine has informed me of the amount that has been collected for the daughter of the immortal son of Harmony: I was astonished at the meagerness of what Germany has offered for a person whom I revere for her father’s merits. What would happen if I were to publish, by subscription, some work for the benefit of this person? Let me know soon how and best to organise the matter, before this Bach dries up.” (Bach in German means “brook”.)

While reading the correspondence, one encounters many names of nobles who were his friends and patrons, but among them all stands out that “Your Excellency!” addressed several times to the giant of German poetry, Johann Wolfgang Goethe, whom Beethoven revered like no one else. Porzio explains that the poet and the composer met more than once, but although Goethe held Beethoven’s talent and cultivated personality in high esteem, he never granted him permission to set Faust to music.

From the early 1800s onward, his hearing problems began to worsen, as the composer himself confided to his lifelong friend, the physician F.G. Wegeler: “My compositions bring me much, and I can say that I have more commissions than I am able to fulfil. Only an envious demon, my poor health, has thrown a wrench into the works. My hearing has become increasingly weak.”

The drama of deafness forced him, against his will and from as early as 1815, to give up public performances and social occasions; and when he was obliged to appear in person, he adopted such a detached attitude that it fuelled the false myth of his being a man intolerant of others. In truth, he was simply afraid that his deafness would become public knowledge and that he would no longer receive any commissions: “I must live like a proscribed man; if I am in company, I am overcome by the fear of running the risk that my condition be noticed.” A balm for these torments was his constant erudition, through readings of the Latin and Greek classics (he especially loved the Homeric writings), the works of Shakespeare, Schiller, and his beloved Kant and Goethe, many quotations of whom appear in the section of the anthology dedicated to “Beethoven’s thoughts”.

His restless and introverted nature led him never to commit himself stably, often entangling himself with women mostly inaccessible because already married — a perfect psychological alibi to hide his inability (or perhaps fear) of lasting relationships. His romantic passions were indeed always tormented, as one reads in a letter addressed to an unidentified “Immortal Beloved”: “Even in bed my thoughts rush to you — joyful at times, then again sad, waiting to know whether fate will grant our wish. To face life, I must live only with you or never see you again.”

He never had children of his own, but he managed to have himself appointed sole guardian of his nephew Karl, the son of his brother Caspar, who died in 1815, forbidding the boy any contact with his mother. In the transitional period between the heroic style and the third style, he succeeded in composing many masterpieces, such as the “Eroica” (1802, inspired by Napoleon as a revolutionary hero — a dedication Beethoven later erased when he learned that Napoleon had proclaimed himself emperor) and the Ninth Symphony (1824, whose score and text have been declared “Memory of the World” by UNESCO). Especially in the last decade of his life, his compositions became fewer, and with them his financial resources, making Ludwig increasingly a tormented soul. The fear of loneliness and the desire to feel loved poured into his relationship with his nephew, toward whom he felt an excessively possessive affection, so much so that Karl, oppressed by his uncle’s possessiveness, attempted suicide in the summer of 1826.

In his last letters, sent only a few days before his death, Ludwig described himself as in very poor health and forced to ask for loans in order to survive and continue working on a new symphony, the Tenth, never written down and lost forever.

“Like when the last note dies away, vibrating under a delicate hand striking the strings of the harp” (quoting from his own written thoughts), Beethoven died in Vienna on 26 March 1827.

Concetta De Mauro

The author

Concetta De Mauro

Born in Taranto, she lives and studies in Rome. She’s a law graduate from La Sapienza University of Rome and loves the sea and respecting the environment. Her passions include art, literature, theater, and cinema.

Posts

Pages

The Enigma of Minona von Stackelberg: Was She the Illegitimate Daughter of Ludwig van Beethoven?

Therese Brunsvik de Korompa (1775–1861)

Josephine Brunsvik de Korompa (1779–1821)

Adam (Ádám) von Stackelberg (1787–1841)

Therese Brunsvik and the Birth of Minona

Josephine’s Flight and the Birth of Her Child

Mystery Within Mystery

Josephine’s Collapse

Josephine’s Death and Minona’s Fate

Minona, Music, and the Unspoken Secret

Author’s Note

The Lost Letters and Minona’s Legacy

The protagonists of this story, reinterpreted with the help of AI

Further information

“Beethovenian Thoughts”

The masters of Ludwig van Beethoven and the figure of the composer Andrea Lucchesi

“The masters of Ludwig van Beethoven and the figure of the composer Andrea Lucchesi”.

Notes from “The masters of Ludwig van Beethoven and the figure of the composer Andrea Lucchesi”.

Unv. 5 – Frammento di un “Concertante” in do maggiore

Composition

Sketches and Drafts

Autograph Score, 1st Movement

Johann Peter Keverich (1734-1807) Beethoven’s Only Uncle

In Memoriam: 1827 – On the Death of Ludwig van Beethoven

Luigi Bellofatto at the Beethoven Conference in Boston

Letter to the Immortal Beloved – An inquiry ‘beneath every certainty’”

Brief an die Unsterbliche Geliebte,

Letter to the Immortal Beloved – An inquiry ‘beneath every certainty’”

Beethoven: The Intimate Side of a Lonely and Tormented Genius

The author

Zweite Beethoveniana - Kapitel I - XXII

Zweite Beethoveniana - Kapitel XXIII - XLIV

Zweite Beethoveniana - Kapitel XLV - LXV

Gustav Nottebohm – Zweite Beethoveniana – XXXVIII – Ein Spesenbuch. (Seite 364)