What you ask, my dear friend, is very perilous, for the question is not about my feelings, but about a family who anxiously interpret. The more striking and spirited your delineation is, particularly p. 10–15, (“He started from ideas.”... “That which many deny to him entirely.”)... it impresses me uncomfortably, the more because it is in so short an essay, and because it would appear less harsh in the description of a whole life which was, in a literary and political point of view, not unimportant. But this more complete description is impossible now; therefore, my wish is incessantly to secure his renown by the publication of his literary works. To leave out anything, or to alter anything in this fine essay of yours, would rob it both of its charm and vigor. You have written the whole in the noblest mood; but there are points (Reineke Fuchs, the relation to Frau von Humboldt), which it is not pleasant to allude to just now. Since you only demand of me to enumerate individual impressions, I will give you these. Often they are merely doubts. P. 5: “Foreign to abstract thinking.” The term “Conservative philosophy” points, I believe, to Kant, to whom he adhered most. He just believed that metaphysics, ante-Hegelian, had been the chief study of his youth. I only wished a more decided expression. P. 6: “In the proper sense not productive.” Philosophy of language according to entirely new views, genius of antiquity, treating of history, deep understanding of poetry—in all these branches he produced nothing that was not of importance. P. 8: “Style all ice;” make it somewhat milder. You do it yourself (p. 30), where the word “warms.” P. 13: “Thus the call is soon decided, and the name is Mephistopheles or Reineke.” One would wish the two significant names left out, since all is said before in the happiest, liveliest style. “Mephistopheles” reminds one of Duke Charles.
P. 14. The question about tender feeling, and the saying of Talleyrand, which I did not know before, and which can have a sense only by secondary relations of political irresolution, are not agreeable. “C’était un des hommes d’état dont l’Europe, de mon temps n’en a pas compté trois ou quatre,” was an expression heard from Talleyrand.
P. 15. “What many denied to him entirely,” very ingenious and fine. Old Princess Louise said of you: “You are most to fear when defending.”
P. 18. My brother often narrated that Stieglitz saved him; but those words, which would have sounded vain-glorious coming from his lips, I only just now learned from Stieglitz. They are very characteristic and true. Therefore, I wished only an explaining word, to prevent misunderstanding.
P. 23. That he admired Rahel infinitely, is very, very true!
P. 28. “Constitutional principles.” If you ever make use of these sheets, my dear, please add, at any rate: “Although he afterwards, in other essays, pressed in the most distinct manner the necessity of a general representative constitution.” This limitation is necessary. I myself had in my hands his plan for a constitution, and for the mode of election, and he died with these ideas.
P. 31. In place of “avarice,” say too great economy.
I read once more, with more peace of mind. I consider this your best effort.
Pp. 6, 7, 10–12! 13–20, 24–27, 30!! all—almost all; and you have treated with infinite consideration those things which you yourself, here and there, hardly approved of.
“Il n’y a rien de maudit,” said the great painter, Gérard, “que de consulter la famille sur la ressemblance du défunt. Il y a de quoi se prendre, telle est leur exigeance! Ils auraient fait bon marché du parent vivant.” Thus you will speak of me. I now ask myself, at the close, whether I am not depriving the brother whom I loved so tenderly and so watchfully, of a great renown, by asking you in the beginning not to print your article?