| 23. | Pindar | Hermann. |
| 24. | Nibelungen | Haupt. |
| 25. | Nala | Brockhaus. |
| 26. | History of Oriental Literature | The same. |
| 27. | Arabic Grammar | Fleischer. |
| 28. | Latin Society | Haupt. |
| 29. | Plauti Trinumus | Becker. |
Winter term, 1842.
Summer term, 1843.
| 42. | Greek and Latin Seminary | Hermann & Klotze. |
| 43. | Philosophical Society | Drobisch. |
| 44. | Philosophical Society | Weisse. |
| 45. | Soma-deva | Brockhaus. |
| 46. | Hitopadesa | The same. |
| 47. | History of Greeks and Romans | Wachsmuth. |
| 48. | History of Civilization | The same. |
| 49. | History after the Fifteenth Century | Flathe. |
| 50. | History of Ancient Philosophy | Niedner. |
Winter term, 1843-4.
| 51. | Rig-veda | Brockhaus. |
| 52. | Elementa Persica | Fleischer. |
| 53. | Greek and Latin Seminary | Hermann & Klotze. |
Here my Collegien-Buch breaks off, the fact being that I was preparing to go to Berlin to hear the lectures of Bopp and Schelling.
It will be clear from the above list that I certainly attempted too much. I ought either to have devoted all my time to classical studies exclusively, or carried on my philosophical studies more systematically. I confess that, delighted as I was with Gottfried Hermann and Haupt as my guides and teachers in classics, I found little that could rouse my enthusiasm for Greek and Latin literature, and I always required a dose of that to make me work hard. Everything seemed to me to have been done, and there was no virgin soil left to the plough, no ruins on which to try one’s own spade. Hermann and Haupt gave me work to do, but it was all in the critical line—the genealogical relation of various MSS., or, again, the peculiarities of certain poets, long before I had fully grasped their general character. What Latin vowels could or could not form elision in Horace, Propertius, or Ovid, was a subject that cost me much labour, and yet left very small results as far as I was personally concerned. One clever conjecture, or one indication to show that one MS. was dependent on the other, was rewarded with a Doctissime or Excellentissime, but a paper on Aeschylus and his view of a divine government of the world received but a nodding approval.
They certainly taught their pupils what accuracy meant; they gave us the new idea that MSS. are not everything, unless their real value has been discovered first by finding the place which they occupy in the pedigree of the MSS. of every author. They also taught us that there are mistakes in MSS. which are inevitable, and may safely be left to conjectural emendation; that MSS. of modern date may be and often are more valuable than more ancient MSS., for the simple reason that they were copied from a still more ancient MS., and that often a badly written and hardly legible MS. proves more helpful than others written by a calligraphist, because it is the work of a scholar who copied for himself and not for the market. All these things we learnt and learnt by practical experience under Hermann and Haupt, but what we failed to acquire was a large knowledge of Greek and Latin literature, of the character of each author and of the spirit which pervaded their works. I ought to have read in Latin, Cicero, Tacitus, and Lucretius; in Greek, Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, and Aristotle; but as I read only portions of them, my knowledge of the men themselves and their objects in life remained very fragmentary. For instance, my real acquaintance with Plato and Aristotle was confined to a few dialogues of the former and some of the logical works of the latter. The rest I learnt from such works as Ritter and Preller’s Historia Philosophiae Graecae et Romanae ex fontium locis contexta, and from the very useful lectures of Niedner on the history of ancient philosophy. However, I thought I had to do what my professors told me, and shaped my reading so that they should approve of my work.