close application to his studies. Though a finished performer, he knew
but little of counterpoint, and the more purely scientific side of his
art had been neglected. That he applied himself with all the ardor of
his nature to his studies we know. They were given precedence over
everything else. He even delayed for a long while writing a rondo which
he had promised to Eleonore von Breuning and when he finally sent it, it
was with an apology for not sending a sonata, which had also been
promised.

It is characteristic of Beethoven that his teachers in general were not
greatly impressed by him. We have seen how it was in the case of Haydn.
Albrechtsberger was more pronounced in his disapproval. "He has learned
nothing; he never will learn anything," was his verdict regarding
Beethoven. This was surely small encouragement. Beethoven's original and
independent way of treating musical forms brought on this censure. As he
advanced in musical knowledge he took the liberty to think for himself;
a very culpable proceeding with teachers of the stamp of
Albrechtsberger. The young man's intuitive faculties, the surest source
of all knowledge according to Schopenhauer, were developed to an
abnormal degree. By the aid of this inner light he was able to see truer
and farther than his pedantic old master, with the result that the pupil
would argue out questions with him on subjects connected with his
lessons which subverted all discipline, and well-nigh reversed their
relative positions. Beethoven's audacity--his self-confidence, is
brought out still more strongly when we reflect on the distinguished
position held by Albrechtsberger, both as teacher and composer. He was
director of music at St. Stephen's and was in great demand as a teacher.
Some of his pupils became distinguished musicians, among them Hümmel,
Seyfried and Weigl. He excelled in counterpoint, and was a prolific
composer, although his works are but little known at the present day. He