her an invalid all this time, though I try to think myself
tolerably well. I deeply regret to hear of Y.R.H.'s attack, especially as I
knew nothing of it, or I certainly should have hastened to inquire whether
it was in my power in any way to alleviate your sufferings. To-morrow, in
compliance with Y.R.H.'s wish, I shall certainly enjoy the pleasure of
seeing my own most dear and illustrious master.

[K.]

287.

TO THE ROYAL AND IMPERIAL HIGH COURT OF APPEAL.

Jan. 7, 1820.

GENTLEMEN,--

On the plea of the Decree A, I sought to have transferred to myself the
guardianship of my nephew, Carl v. Beethoven, but was referred by the
magistracy to the previous decision. On my consequent remonstrance the same
result ensued.

I find myself the more aggrieved by this, inasmuch as not only are my own
rights set at naught, but even the welfare of my nephew is thus utterly
disregarded. I am therefore compelled to have recourse to the highest Court
of Appeal to lay before them my well-founded claim, and rightfully to
demand that the guardianship of my nephew should be restored to me.

My reasons are the following:--

1st. I am entitled to the guardianship of my nephew, not only by his
father's will, but by law, and this the Court of Justice confirmed to the
exclusion of the mother. When business called me away from Vienna, I
conceded that Herr Nussboeck should act for me _ad interim_. Having now,
however, taken up my residence here, the welfare of my nephew demands that
I should again undertake the office of his guardian.

2d. My nephew has arrived at an age when he requires to be trained to a
higher degree of cultivation. Neither his mother nor his present guardian
are calculated to guide the boy in the pursuit of his studies. The former,
in the first place, because she is a woman; and as to her conduct, it has
been legally proved that, to say the least of it, she has no creditable
testimonials to bring forward,[1] on which account she was expressly
prohibited from acting by the Court of Justice. How the Honorable
Magistracy could nevertheless again appoint her is quite incomprehensible.
The latter is unfit; because, on the one hand, his office as sequestrator
and administrator of houses and lands, occupies his time too much to enable
him properly to undertake the duties of guardian to the boy; and, on the
other, because his previous occupation as a paper manufacturer, does not
inspire me with any confidence that he p