Letters of Alexander von Humboldt to Varnhagen von Ense. / From 1827 to 1858. With extracts from Varnhagen's diaries, and letters of Varnhagen and others to Humboldt

by Alexander von Humboldt

59.

Berlin, May 17th, 1841.

[Written at Varnhagen’s. With the preface to Wilhelm von Humboldt’s works.]

I am very sorry not to be enabled amid the annoyances of to-morrow’s departure (first to Potsdam, then to Paris, until October) to bid you farewell. I appeal to you once more as the source, until Rückert’s arrival, the only source of good taste, of pure language, and of a delicate appreciation of the appropriate sense. Tell me with all indulgence what I ought to strike out from the enclosed preface, but give me also your advice wherever you find fault. I wrote the two pages at night in a gloomy frame of mind. They show perhaps a too sentimental disposition to praise.

Page 1, line 2, “yet” because it happens during my life time. Line 10, “The highly gifted souls,” perhaps displeasing. Should it be men?

A. v. Humboldt.

On the 21st of November, Varnhagen wrote down the following about Humboldt:

“I read to-day the dispatches which Al. von Humboldt addressed to the King from Paris in the year 1835. They are not like Humboldt! Any body else could have written such dispatches—nay, what is still worse, nobody could have written them otherwise! Thus it is, however, with political business—it consists of mere trifles, not at all important in themselves, but becoming important because everybody has agreed to consider them so. Thus the established hypocrisy of forms, presumptions, and exaggerations drown the truth. I looked into myself and confessed that were I engaged in such affairs, I, too, would follow in the beaten track; and yet people wonder that in England and France editors of newspapers become ministers, as if it were not infinitely more easy to write the usual dispatches than good newspaper articles.”

60.
HUMBOLDT TO VARNHAGEN.

Friday, 3d December, 1841.

Of all that I have had to thank you for, dear friend, I like Hormayr’s manly letter best. Le style est tout l’homme. He is not like the people who surround us, the better ones of whom lose themselves in reticences, temporizations, in trimming, excitements, and irresolution. His belief in Muenster’s liberalism is perhaps only a misconception of Muenster’s motives. No doubt Count Muenster has nobly contributed to the liberation of Germany—but assuredly he never did it in order to open the path to “that light” which, even to-day, is feared like a spectre. “Bruno” (Bauer) has found me out to be a preadamite convert! When I was a boy the court preachers reasoned in this way: I was confirmed by one of them, who told me that the biographies of the Evangelists were finally manufactured out of memoranda made by themselves during their lifetime. Many years ago I wrote: All positive religions contain three distinct parts—First, a code of morals, very pure and nearly the same in all—next, a geological dream—and thirdly, a myth or historical novellette; which last becomes the most important of all. I enclose the pamphlet of Baron Seckendorf. He also calls for a “representation,” namely the “re puro,” the incarnation of the people, all explained in philosophical terms. It must be acceptable, for without being assured of this he would not have dared to publish it. Such people must not be left in doubt about our real opinions. I told him (he is vice-president) that I would read his essay attentively, although our political principles on popular constitutions differed very much.

The political atmosphere is to me thick, dark, and foreboding.

With the same old attachment, yours,

A. v. Humboldt.

On the 2d of December, the day before the above letter, Varnhagen wrote in his diary: “Humboldt called yesterday. Talked about Paris. How he finds things here. He thinks seriously of retiring. He knows that his name alone is of any value to the King, and that his active usefulness has long been superseded by that of others. Thiers told him, in Paris, that France is much talked about as being revolutionary; but he thought Prussia was pretty well agitated, too. A letter from Guizot to Humboldt spoke much in praise of the King; and when Humboldt read it to him, and came to the word ‘success,’ the King interrupted him with the words, ‘Ah me! there is not much of that; on that point we had best be silent.’ And really Humboldt thinks the public feeling here dreadfully changed for the worse. The King has enemies, and in the highest circles! Minister Eichhorn is generally hated, and makes but a poor figure at court. There seems scarcely a doubt that Bunsen will be Ambassador to England. Count Stolberg is almost the only one who speaks openly against Bunsen. Humboldt sneers at Bunsen’s little tract, ‘The Week of Meditation.’”

The 3d of December, 1841, Varnhagen observes: “I just received a note from Humboldt, inclosing a pamphlet of President Seckendorf’s, which also calls for a ‘representation’—the ‘re puro,’ an incarnation of the people. Humboldt observes: ‘Must be acceptable, for without such an assurance he would not have dared to publish it.’ He concludes with significant melancholy: ‘The atmosphere to me is gloomy and foreboding. It is hard to be Humboldt, and to be obliged to confess this, at the summit of honor, and in the fulness of glory.’ Indeed, he has but little pleasure, and his satirical humor alone can make life here at all supportable to him!”

61.
HUMBOLDT TO VARNHAGEN.

Berlin, Monday Night, Dec. 7th, 1841.

I have not the leisure, dear friend, to thank you as I ought to do for your spirited and historically thorough biography of Schwerin.[^[28]] A deep penetration into the individuality of this great man pervades the whole. Simplicity is the essential, vital element of description. A hasty word of advice to ride off, and the winning of the battle by himself alone,[^[29]] were constant stumbling-blocks in the path of this hero during his life. His end, the standard in his hand, amid the bloody massacre of thirteen thousand unsympathizing men, is a striking conclusion to the life of the old soldier, who, like Columbus, was at the same time great and unromantically avaricious. What does much honor to your talent as historian, and what is probably overlooked by many is, that you do not allow Schwerin’s death to interrupt the narrative of the strife of battle. I will bring you the “Collected Works” myself, and beg the second volume of Hormayr’s exquisitely spicy production. Your last favor, doing me so much honor, contains words about which I wish to prevent every mistake. “You are afraid to enjoy the exclusive possession of my impieties.” You may freely dispose of this sort of property after my not far distant departure from life. Truth is due to those only whom we deeply esteem—to you, therefore.

A. Ht.

On the 18th December, 1841, Varnhagen writes in his diary: “I heard to-day the quite incredulous, mysteriously-whispered story, that the King would go to England for the baptism of the Prince of Wales; that it had been agreed upon quite secretly, and that this flattering communication had contributed a great deal to make Bunsen’s appointment as Ambassador agreeable to the Court of St. James. The latter part of the story makes me suspect the truth of the whole. This is by no means the real diplomatic state of things. Should, however, the journey have been decided upon, or even only be under discussion, there can be no doubt that Bunsen had a hand in it; and then important events would result therefrom, and very dangerous events, too, in my opinion. A near alliance with England would in itself be hazardous; but to enter into close connexion with the Anglican Church and the Tories, sure ruin! And all Prussia, all Germany, all Europe would take it for granted that such a connexion was really established, even if it were not; and the supposition alone would damage us in a thousand ways; the king would lose more in the loyal attachment of his subjects than he can now afford. I hope the whole story will turn out a fable. Humboldt says the spirit of discontent, which he calls the howling mania, has largely increased here. When he left, a few were howling; but now they all howl. His sharp and witty remarks are really refreshing in our spiritless society.”

Before his departure for England Humboldt called on Varnhagen to take leave. On this occasion the following entry was made in the diary, on the 14th of January, 1842: “Humboldt called to take leave,—he starts to-morrow night. He came from Count Maltzan’s of whose life but little hope is left to-day. ‘His death will bring Canitz here—not Buelow’, said Humboldt dolefully. I comforted him with the suggestion, that Canitz too might be dropped, ‘And whose turn would it then be?’ ‘Bunsen’s.’ ‘That would be too frightful! But as it is, he accompanies the King on his return. That is already decided upon.’ Humboldt dislikes Canitz and cannot understand how I am not more afraid of him—of this arch-aristocratic, utterly bigoted—(and consequently preposterous, nay, stupid)—fanatically anti-French Canitz, with his malicious and vulgar sneers. ‘But then you are a Tory yourself!’ he added. ‘As to that,’ I replied, ‘that is still somewhat doubtful—but as for Canitz, he is honest, strict, and straightforward; he will do much, and as for the rest, business and circumstances will control him.’”

After Humboldt’s return, Varnhagen writes on the 24th of February, in his diary: “Humboldt gave me some very interesting descriptions of England. At court the greatest magnificence; the mode of living, however, plain and easy; conversation unrestrained; the tone very pleasant and cheerful, even between gentlemen and ladies of adverse parties. Peel pleases him as little as ever; looks like a Dutchman; is more vain than ambitious, and narrow in his views. Lord Aberdeen is invincibly taciturn, without being able to convince people that his taciturnity covers anything worth saying. Bunsen has shown the greatest want of tact; every one is against him, except the King, who likes him better than ever.” The whole visit of the King was an intrigue of Bunsen, and was so understood even by Englishmen.

“Our affairs here are the subject of much conjecture. As minister of foreign affairs the pious Arnim will, for the present, be recalled from Brussels; at some later day Canitz will be appointed,—or Bunsen, say I. Count Alvensleben is to go to Vienna; Radowitz first to Carlsruhe, until the embassy to the German Diet become vacant. Perhaps there is hardly courage enough as yet to take Bunsen and remove Buelow. Every month, however, every week must improve the courage, and then both these appointments will be done. There is no hope that Maltzan can recover; the better days have again been followed by the worse, and light gives way to renewed darkness. Sad state of things.”

62.
HUMBOLDT TO VARNHAGEN.

Berlin, Monday, 28th February, 1842.

I am anxious to hear a few words about your health, dear friend.

I have succeeded in procuring a pension of three hundred thalers, a miserable sum, but it is only a beginning, for the impoverished but talented poet Freiligrath at Darmstadt, involving no obligation on his part, and allowing him to live out of the country. Can you lend me his poems?

A. Ht.

Note by Varnhagen.—On Tuesday Humboldt wrote me with the feuilleton of the Journal des Debats, in which Philarète Chasles, in the most vulgar manner, abuses the literature of Germany, and sneers at the most distinguished German authors.

And this miserable fellow has been appointed under Guizot’s ministry Professeur des Langues du Nord (litt. anglaise, allemande) au College de France.

You need not return the silly, spiteful trash.

A. Ht.

63.
HUMBOLDT TO VARNHAGEN.

Berlin, 16th March, 1842.

Be comforted about the mishap. The King purchases Italian, but, under no circumstances whatever, French pictures. The portrait of Cherubini is, indeed, very fine, and if I remember aright, I saw it in Cherubini’s own house. As the author is not dead, and Ingres very rich, I cannot conceive how the portrait can be for sale? You can tell the sprightly “Child”[^[30]] that you sent me the feuilleton.

In the last number of the Journal des Débats there is a strong and very fine article against the abominable Jew Bill, with which we are threatened, and against which I have already protested in very impressive words.

Ever grateful, yours,

A. Ht.

Wednesday.

It was intended in the preamble of the law to speak of “the miracle which God performed in preserving the Jewish race amid other nations;” “of the will of God to keep the Jewish race separated.” I have replied thereto, that the bill is a violation of all the principles of a wise policy of unity; that it is a dangerous arrogance in short-sighted man to dare interpret the primeval decrees of God. The history of the dark ages ought to teach us what abnormities such doctrines lead to.

I live in apparent outward luxury, and in the enjoyment of the fanciful predilection of a generous Monarch, yet in a moral and mental seclusion, such as can only arise from the monotonous dulness of a country (a real steppe) which, though it is not wanting in erudition, is torn asunder by the opposing influences of similar “poles,” and becomes more and more contracted in its Eastern proclivities. May you be content with him, who, though standing alone, has the courage to avow his own opinions.

64.
HUMBOLDT TO VARNHAGEN.

Berlin, March 21st, 1842.

My dear friend, so happily restored to me! It is a source of infinite joy to me to learn, from your exquisite letter, that the really very delightful society at the Princess’s has benefited you physically, and, therefore, as I should say in my criminal materialism, mentally also. Such a society, blown together chiefly from the same fashionable world of Berlin (somewhat flat and stale), immediately takes a new shape in the house of Princess Pueckler. It is like the spirit which should breathe life into the state; the material seems ennobled.

I still retain your “Christliche Glaubenslehre,”[^[31]] I who long ago, in Potsdam, was so delighted with Strauss’s Life of the Saviour. One learns from it, not only what he does not believe, which is less new to me, but rather what kind of things have been believed and taught by those black coats (parsons) who know how to enslave mankind anew, yea, who are putting on the armor of their former adversaries. I shall gladly copy the passage concerning Spinoza. Will not the late date of the second volume of the “Glaubenslehre” (1841) he urged against it by these men who pretend to teach from ancient manuscript? It would seem to me a better plan to have published the wonderfully conflicting chronology with some remarks on the new faith in the whole “roman historique” of the apostolic collectors of myths. He who teaches so publicly has to subject himself to the publicity arising from the defence of those who differ from him in creed. A private statement, clothed in the mild language of complaint, makes the subsequent public one very difficult, and elicits only patronizing smiles and a denial. It is not the mishap of Spinoza, but this degradation of the noblest intellectual faculties in the service of the narrow doctrines of dark ages, that is really painful to me. The man[^[32]] himself had certainly nothing attractive for me, but I had a kind of predilection for him, because everything enthrals and enraptures me, in which, as in his lecture on Art, the gentle breath of imagination warms and enlivens the harmony of language. Now we are separated. In his last speech, not the one on art, amid the glare of torchlight, he spoke of his departure like a well-paid artist who had just accomplished a musical tour—probably only a sentimental figure of speech to frighten his listeners.

Now for an answer to enquiries for the biography, of which, after all, I think with some fear, not on account of its political contents, but on account of family considerations. I rely on your promise. The man certainly cannot want to afflict so many!

Wilhelm was born in Potsdam, because his father was Royal Chamberlain, and at the same time acting Chamberlain to the Princess Elizabeth of Prussia. He left Potsdam when the Princess was sent to Stettin. My father remained in high favor with the Prince of Prussia, who visited him frequently at Tegel. This explains to you the passage in the English despatch, running thus (I believe very early in 1775? Raumer’s Beitraege zur neuern Geschichte, vol. v., p. 297):—“Hertzberg, Schulenburg could form a ministry, but those have the greatest chance of success, who, although not of the same kind, are considered favorites of the Prince. Among the first of these stands Herr von Humboldt, formerly an official in the allied army, a man of sense and fine character; Herr von Hordt, an enterprising genius....” The expression “official” is a strange mistake. My father was major and aide-de-camp to Duke Ferdinand, of Brunswick: after long service in the Finkenstein dragoons, he was frequently sent to Frederick II., during the gloomiest period of the Seven Years’ War; thus Frederick II. writes in his letters on the Wedel disaster:—“I told Humboldt everything that can be told at such a distance.”—(Manuscript letters quite recently bought by the King in Eastern Prussia.)

My family comes from Northern Pomerania. My brother and I were for a long time the last of our name. My mother’s maiden name was Colomb, cousin of the Princess Bluecher, and therefore niece of the old President in Aurich (Ostfriesland). She was first married to a Baron von Holwede. From this marriage sprung my step-brother Holwede, formerly in the regiment of gensdarmes. To my mother belongs the merit of having procured for us, at the instigation of old privy-councillor Kunth, a thorough education. Wilhelm, for the first years, was educated by our tutor Campe. The foundation of his profound attainments in Grecian lore was laid by Loeffler, the author of a liberal book on the New Platonism of the Fathers of the Church; he then was a chaplain in the army, and afterwards chief ecclesiastical counsellor at Gotha. Fischer, of the Graue Kloster, instructed Wilhelm in Greek for many years; he had, what is little known, a profound knowledge of Greek, besides that of mathematics. That Engel, Reitemeier, Dohm, and Klein lectured to us for a long time on philosophy, jurisprudence, and political science, is known to you. When at the University of Frankfurt (for six months) we lived with Loeffler, who was Professor there. In Goettingen, both of us were members (for one year) of the Philological Seminary of Heyne.

To my father belonged Tegel (formerly a hunting chateau of the great Elector, and it was consequently only a leasehold property. Wilhelm first possessed the place in fee-simple, as a manor; therefore Schinkel added to it four towers, in order to preserve the old tower erected under the great Elector). Besides this, he owned Ringenwalde, near Soldin, in the Neumark. Ringenwalde afterwards belonged to me, then to the Counts Reeden and Achim Arnim. Wilhelm, at the time of his death, possessed Tegel, Burgoerner, and Auleben (acquired by his wife, as the fiefdom of the Dacheroeden family had been abolished), Hadersleben, in the Magdeburg country, and Castle Ottmachau, in Silesia, the dotation given to him after the Paris peace.

The Sonnet I., 394, refers to a second child, I believe, which Frau von Humboldt lost when at Rome. One was buried in Paris.

I conjure you do not mention to the author anything as coming from me. He would inevitably state it in the preface, and then I should become responsible for a great many things which I dread.

Pardon the stercoran-like[^[33]] loquacity.

A. Ht.

Note by Varnhagen.—He probably had just read of the Stercoranists in Strauss’s “Glaubenslehre.” Hence this allusion.

65.
HUMBOLDT TO VARNHAGEN.

Thursday, 31st March, 1842.

On my return from Potsdam with the King I received the “Loa-Tseu,” a work with a peculiar flavor of ante-Herodotian antiquity. Your note accompanying the Chinese philosopher impresses me painfully. I find that you have not yet received the courage arising from a consciousness of restored physical strength. That the vigor of your intellect never suffered is shown in each of your letters. I think I have not lost any of them. About a week ago I wrote you a long one of four pages about that “Christianly-dogmatising philosopher,” and my reply to the inquiries of the “Biographer,” who pestered me with his pietistic curiosity. Did that letter come to hand safely? It contained also much chit-chat on my brother’s first erudition. You don’t make any mention of my talkativeness. I trust it will not be a source of trouble to me. We have succeeded with Buelow. He may be here next Saturday. It may be the beginning of something good; or the end of it—le bouquet—the stage effect of foot-lights. I met with Tholuk and Bekedorff yesterday at Potsdam at dinner. No other occasion would have favored me with their apparition. With constant devotion yours,

A. Ht.

66.
HUMBOLDT TO VARNHAGEN.

Berlin, April 6th, 1842.

Since the inquisitorial sentence against Bruno (Bauer) has been so presumptuously published, I deem it my duty to retain your Strauss no longer. I return you that remarkable book, which caused me to indulge in much meditation. Accept my best thanks. The method of the author is excellent; it makes us acquainted with the whole history of the faith of our time, particularly so with the jesuitical trick of so many people who declare publicly their belief in and their adherence to all the dogmas of the Christian mythology, after the fashion of Schleiermacher, and after having “drained the chalice,” are followed to the grave by a solemn cortege of court equipages, although in fact they had always discarded the orthodox belief and substituted for it pseudo-philosophical interpretations.

What displeases me very much in Strauss is his frivolous manner of speaking of natural sciences, which makes him accept without hesitation the formation of organism from inorganisms, and which enables him to easily believe in the origin of man as springing from the primitive sod of Chaldea. That he seems to think very little of the blue regions on the other side of the grave I might cheerfully forgive him; the more so, as we are the more agreeably and willingly surprised when we expect little. As for you, you fortunate man, it could have caused no surprise. How purely Spanish and revolting in the present inquisitorial formula was the sentence that “The culprit would admit himself.” Neque aliud aut qui eadem saevitia usi sunt, nisi dedecus sibi atque reges illis gloriam peperere.

I send you a copy of “Don Juan.” It shows beauty of language, also a rich imagination. I am anxious to hear how you are pleased with it.

The constitutional Roi des Landes[^[34]] repeatedly said yesterday at dinner in the presence of forty people: The professors of Goettingen had talked of their patriotism in an address to him. Professors, he said, have no country at all. Professors, prostitutes, and dancers may be had every where for money; they go to the highest bidder. What a shame to call such a fellow a German Prince!

With faithful attachment, yours,

A. Ht.

Wednesday Night.

67.
HUMBOLDT TO VARNHAGEN.

Berlin, April 7th, 1842.

Our unknown friend is very amiable. I have lost all apprehension. You have a balm for every wound. I will show you, with pleasure, the few lines, which fell, as it was intended they should, into the King’s hands on the following morning. I chose that circuitous way, because it enabled me to write more freely, and to openly show my dissatisfaction. The thing is now in a better way, but it is not yet irrevocably dismissed. I must entreat you, therefore, most fervently, not to give the lines in question out of your hand. They would irrevocably be inserted in the papers, and that would seriously injure my efforts in a good and important cause.

The King sent for me at a very early hour; and his thanking me very cordially for my frank exposition does him much honor.

I did not go to Potsdam to-day, because I wished to advocate in the full board of the Academy the election of Mr. Riess, the Jewish philosopher, as a member. His election is very honorable to the Academy. There were only three black balls.

To-morrow I shall be with the King till Sunday. I will try to hunt up some interesting autograph—something poetical (by Wilhelm von Humboldt)—for Stuttgart. All that I possess are unfortunately but copies.

Take care of your health, dear friend, it is not firmly restored.

Yours,

A. v. Humboldt.

Thursday Night.

68.
HUMBOLDT TO VARNHAGEN.

Berlin, June 24th, 1842.

Your kind remembrance, honored and gifted friend, was very beneficial to me—the more so, as I have returned from Sans Souci rather unwell, affected by a cold; and as I am involved in all the miseries of moving into a detestable house in the Siberian ward of the city, the Oranienburger Strasse, I have not even an inkstand on my table.

At present, nothing more than my best thanks. I have told Marheineke myself how dear he is to me. A thunderstorm, in the form of a cabinet order, suddenly growling through the papers, and exhibiting a few flashes of censorial absurdities, would be preferable to that impracticable law, the assigning of a Grand Inquisitor to the liberty of the press. We have so much to say to each other, I hope to see you yet before your departure. Think only of the enlivening presence of four Crown-Princes and throne-successors—one lame in the knees, and pale; the other a drunken Icelander; the third blind, and politically raving; and the last capricious and infirm in intellect. And this is the approaching generation of the monarchical world.

Yours,

A. Ht.

I accompany the King to the Rhine. That I had no mind to become a mere color-stand at Petersburg will be understood by you. The Chancellor has always the pleasure of being the subject of vulgar recrimination on the part of those who are either not invited or refused admittance to the banquet. What an excitement glass beads, peacock plumes, and ribbons can stir up among men![^[35]]....

Note by Varnhagen.—Marheineke’s article on the Anglican church in the “Jahrbuecher fuer wissenschaftliche Kritik,” with a couple of censorial blunders.

On the 26th June, 1842, Varnhagen writes in his diary about the new order:—“Humboldt tells me much about the foundation of the new order. The King had at first composed a list, in which he had written the names with Sanscrit letters. This list was referred for advice to Humboldt, Eichhorn, Savigny, Thiele; then it was altered many times; new names were added and others stricken out—the indecision lasted six weeks. Originally the King had decided for forty-six members, to correspond with the number of years embraced by the reign of Frederick the Great. Afterwards he thought of adopting forty, but was afraid of doing so, on account of the ‘plaisanteries’ about the number ‘quarante’ in the French Academy; at last he limited the number to thirty. All was managed by the King in his own way. Arago was originally placed on the list by the King. He insisted upon Metternich as his particular choice. Rumohr was abandoned. Steffens was, in the opinion of the King, not deserving ‘enough—neither as philosopher nor as a naturalist.’ Liszt was decidedly favored by the King, and no objections could prevail. Spontini was thought of, but Savigny and the cabinet counsellor, Mueller, succeeded in displacing him. Moore was objected to as having written satirical verses on Prussia. ‘That is not at all my business,’ said the King. Melloni was opposed as being a Carbonaro, and having been at the head of a revolutionary Junta. ‘I do not care the least about that,’ said the King. ‘I would confer the order on O’Connell, if he possessed such scientific merits.’ The King proposed Raumer and Ranke. Eichhorn and Savigny assented only to Ranke, and thereupon both were dropped. Notwithstanding the view taken in Melloni’s, Moore’s, and Arago’s cases, Schlosser the historian was rejected on account of his political views(?). Metternich had railed at the ‘bishopric of Jerusalem.’ Now to insure the new order against the same fate, he was to be nominated a member of it—this is deemed the ‘secret motive,’ in Humboldt’s opinion. And for Metternich’s sake Uwaroff was left out, for with him the other would not have been the sole representative of his species. Link was weighed, but found wanting.”

On the 27th June, 1842, Varnhagen makes the following addition to his notes of yesterday: “Humboldt told me he had informed the King in advance of the intention of the Academy of Sciences to elect Mr. Riess, a Jew, one of their members, and that the King had replied he would confirm the election unhesitatingly. ‘I will hope,’ he added, ‘your brother has not committed the folly of writing in the by-laws a clause against Jews becoming members of the Academy?’ Minister Eichhorn knew that the King would not create any difficulty in the matter, but he himself disliked it, and he thought it likely that Thiele, Rochow, Stollberg, and others, would also be displeased at it; therefore he left the application of the Academy, to have their election confirmed by the King, unattended to for six weeks, and then wrote a letter, by which he inquired of the Academy, whether they were aware that Riess was a Jew? The Academy, indignant at this inquiry, replied unanimously, that they were only ruled by the by-laws, in concurrence with which the election had taken place, and they therefore repudiated the minister’s inquiry as inappropriate and impertinent. Eichhorn pocketed the insult, and reported the application to the King, who at once confirmed the election; feeling, however, a little disinclined to approve, at the present day, what Frederick the Great had refused. Frederick the Great had declined to confirm the election of Moses Mendelssohn, out of regard, as it is believed, for the Empress Catherine of Russia, who was a member of the Academy, and who was presumed to be averse to such a colleague.”

On the 30th of August, 1842, Varnhagen remarks in his diary: “Humboldt tells me miserable things of Eichhorn. Talks also much of the King, his amiability, good humor, jocoseness. He thinks, however, he will not relinquish his favorite views, even when he seems to abandon them. The King was more satisfied with Count Maltzan than with any one else of his ministers; he placed full confidence in him—believed him capable of anything. We had a dispute about the signification of the word ‘ingenious,’ and how far it could be applied to the King. Humboldt thinks the King intends going to Greece, and to extend his journey to Jerusalem. It was to be feared, however, that the parsons would at last get control of him, and destroy his cheerfulness. Humboldt goes to Eu on business, with the King of France; then to Paris. Will be back at Berlin in December.”

Varnhagen speaks of a call made by Humboldt after his return from Paris, in his diary of the 18th March, 1843, as follows: “Humboldt came to see me; he looks much older since I last saw him, but his spirit and courage are fresh. In Paris he was happy and gay; here his spirits sank at once. Things here were going on miserably, he says; the old beaten track—treating matters of dangerous character in a spirit of childish frivolity. And besides that, he is overrun with applications and requests; every one wishes to secure his influence! ‘Influence!’ said he; ’nobody has any! Even Bunsen and Radowitz, the King’s favorites, have none. All that they are capable of is to anticipate the weak fancies of the King, and obey them. Should they attempt anything beyond this, their overthrow is certain. The King acts just as he pleases. He follows the impulses of his early received and firmly rooted impressions, and the advice which he may now and then think worthy of hearing, is nothing at all to him. He speaks contemptuously of Eichhorn and Savigny, as hypocritical menials, who receive the word of command from Thiele, from Gerlach, and from Hengstenberg. The King has relinquished nothing whatever of his cherished designs, and may, at any time, come out again with them, as with his designs regarding the Jews’ observance of the Sabbath, the Anglican ordination of the bishops, and the new institutions of nobility, etc. He has projects which it would take a hundred years to accomplish. He contemplates immense constructions, outlaying of parks, enterprises in matters of art. There is already the question of going to Athens; in the background a pilgrimage to Jerusalem may be looming; triumphant promenades à la Napoleon; peaceable ones to London, to St. Petersburg, to the Orient; conquered scholars and artists, instead of countries. Love of art and imagination upon the throne, fanaticism and deceit all round, and hypocritical exaggeration in matters unworthy of attention. And with all this, the man is really ingenious, is really amiable, and inspired by the best intentions. What will come out of all this at last?”

69.
HUMBOLDT TO VARNHAGEN.

Berlin, April 3d, 1842.

If I have appeared slow in thanking you, my dear friend, for your delightful present, it is because all my leisure time at Potsdam was absorbed by the perusal of your biography, beginning with your early youth and terminating with your description of the Congress of Vienna. To have had such a development as yours is a gratifying advantage. It is instructive to follow the career of men like you and to behold them acting before our eyes.

How unjust we once were in our opinions of the men who undertook to rearrange Europe at that great Congress—I mean to say how much more did we then exact in our unjust views, while at present, on comparing the members of that Congress with the mediocre creatures of to-day, they appear great in our recollection. In their place we have now court-philosophers, missionary-devoted ladies of state ministers, court theologians, and sensation preachers......

Minister Buelow complains that you never came to see him en famille between the hours of 8 and 9. He will hold his public reception to-morrow, Tuesday evening, and you would be an ornament to his circle. He never sends letters of invitation to those who know how welcome they are to him.

A. v. Humboldt.

Monday.

70.
HUMBOLDT TO VARNHAGEN.

Tuesday, June 13th, 1843.

Excuse me, dear friend, for being prevented by the absence of Reimer, by my own eternal distractions and pendulum-like movements, as well as by some little preparations for an excursion to Pomerania, from sending you the two new volumes of Wilhelm’s works. I know that you are little pleased with the commentary on Hermann and Dorothea. It would have been preferable, to be sure, had he extended it into a pamphlet on epics; but you perceive even in the Kawi book how that great genius always deduced general law from special instances. The sonnets are full of grave pathos and depth of sentiment. I shall call to embrace you, and to ask you the surest way of sending a copy to Mr. Thomas Carlyle? A. seems unreliable, and Buelow’s despatches cannot be overloaded. I shall thank Mr. Carriere personally. The “fossil” minister, I am told, has given evidence of his vitality by an amiable letter to you! My life is also described “dans les biographies redigées par un homme de rien,” in which I am pictured as a socially-malicious beast. Such things will not kill, nor will they improve a man either.

Always faithfully yours,

A. v. Ht.