I know no duty more sacred than the education and training of a child. The chief duties of a guardian consist in knowing how to appreciate what is good, and in adopting a right course; then alone has proper attention been devoted to the welfare of his ward, whereas in opposing what is good he neglects his duty.
Indeed, keeping in view what is most for the benefit of the boy, I do not object to the mother in so far sharing in the duties of a guardian that she may visit her son, and see him, and be apprised of all the measures adopted for his education; but to intrust her with the sole guardianship of the boy without a strict guardian by her side, would cause the irrevocable ruin of her son.
On these cogent grounds I reiterate my well-founded solicitation, and feel the more confident of a favorable answer, as the welfare of my nephew alone guides my steps in this affair.[2]
LUDWIG VAN BEETHOVEN.
[Footnote 1: Schindler states that during these law proceedings the widow of Beethoven's brother had another child.]
[Footnote 2: The Court excluded Carl's mother from all share in his education, and from all direct influence over her son, and again restored to Beethoven the full authority of a guardian.]
288.
TO HIS HIGHNESS THE ARCHDUKE RUDOLPH.
From your obedient servant,
L. V. BEETHOVEN.
Jan. 12, 1820.