Berlin, February 7th, 1846.
Yesterday afternoon poor Buelow was released from his sufferings. Thursday night, at eleven o’clock, on going to bed, he fell lifeless into the arms of his servant. An apoplexy! He closed his eyes never to open them again. In the morning a hundred and forty pulses were counted; bleeding had no effect. His end was, as lately his life was, unconscious. The family is deeply affected; the event, however, is beneficial. His excellent wife would have been sacrificed. Next Tuesday morning we will carry him, without pageantry, to Tegel, and bury him under the column of the “Statue of Hope.” Under the pressure of business, caused by this event, and in the midst of letters which I have still to write to Guizot, Metternich, and Aberdeen, I can only briefly reply to the heartfelt letter of Madame von Arnim. I have but little hope, that the old folks now reigning at Weimar will appoint either Prutz or Fallersleben. I had formerly thought of Guhrauer, for whom you will also have some predilection to be sure. You know how happy I would have been if Prutz were appointed. I am not personally acquainted with Fallersleben. The whole passage, however, in the “Wochenstube,”[[43]] alluding to the King and to me, must be changed. It is based on a false rumor. I never have shown the book to the King, and I never applied to the King to quash the indictment, as he is always rather irritated against Prutz, on account of the old cousin from Kulmbach.[[44]] It was Minister Bodelschwingh who showed it to the King. On this Minister Prutz had personally made a very favorable impression, which it was easy to improve. Prutz had applied to have the indictment quashed, and besides he would hardly have been found guilty on all the counts. It was thought advisable, as he made the first advances to the Government, not to rebut him. The passage “that our King should be asked,” must also be discarded, as it would give offence to the Grand-Duchess, who likes to show her independence of Prussia at every opportunity. So she protected, not long ago, the Chancellor Mueller, when the Court of Weimar was diplomatically reproached for allowing a journal here prohibited to be read in a reading-room at Weimar. The Court of Weimar replied with dignity. But that Prutz or Fallersleben could be appointed seems highly improbable to me. Credat Judæus Apella. Excuse to-day my confused writing, dear friend!
Yours,
A. v. Ht.
Saturday.
107.
HUMBOLDT TO VARNHAGEN.
Berlin, Feb. 20th, 1846.
Do you guess, my dear friend, who sent me this strange article? Do you guess anything from the seal and the name on the envelope, “M.?” Is that the author, and to what journal may the article belong? Profound, of enlarged political views, it certainly is not. The passage on p. 8 is underscored by the author himself, and it contains a contradiction! Prussia is to have unity in an American confederacy. His remarks, p. 3, on Frederick II. and on his works, and on “Kant a guillotine,” p. 5, are as Minister Thiele would write them. I am indignant at both. The author knows all the news, all the names, all the gossip, of the “Eckensheher,”[[45]] and is touched by the liberalism of Bodelschwingh, p. 14, who still defends every day the expulsion of the Baden Representatives. He does not dare to name Eichhorn with censure. The last line only is grand and fine.
With unalterable devotion,
Yours,