NOTE OF VARNHAGEN.—Unfortunately Spiker’s translation is bad in every
respect.
56.
HUMBOLDT TO VARNHAGEN.
MONDAY NIGHT, _May 3, 1841_.
I am afraid, my dear friend, that I shall be obliged to go to Potsdam
again on Thursday, and thence to Paris on the 10th or 12th. I am to send
Cotta more copy before I go. Let me not be suspended so long between
condemnation and indulgence. Pray send me a few words with the parcel.
Yours,
A. V. HUMBOLDT.
57.
HUMBOLDT TO VARNHAGEN.
TUESDAY, _May 4th, 1841_.
MY DEAR FRIEND:—Even after deducting the kind expressions written
expressly for my tranquillity, there still remains more than enough in
your letter of to-day to comfort me. The penance,[27] therefore, which I
assign you is to receive me to-morrow morning at 11 o’clock, for a few
moments, to accept my thanks. The “_schmeichle mich_” must be a clerical
error; as for me I am unconscious of it. The false use of the accusative
case at p. 44, you will have to show me. It cannot be “_Einsicht in den
Zusammenhang?_” because it is looking _into_. I shall expunge Mr.
Spiker. I had a presentiment of the end, and would rather even omit the
English as well, which, after all, is rather a praise of ignorance, than
indicative of the increase of enjoyment to be derived from science.
I see that you give me full liberty concerning the “Saturnalia.”
Speaking of the Dane, you say: “I only mention, I do not object.”
I did not wish to mention Steffens, however much he might deserve a
reproach for his utter barrenness in experimental science, and for his
vain and criminal idleness. “Saturnalia” I call that merry but short
farce, of which lately I gave you some specimens, but which are not from
Steffens; they are by some of his worshippers several degrees lower
down. Were Steffens a poor savan, oppressed by the powerful, I would be
more careful; but as you are an amateur of autographs, I will give you
one from which you will see how northern kings believe that there exists
in Berlin a Steffensian philosophy, which is consoling to the
theologians, _et qui n’est pas celle de Hegel_! Steffens will believe
that he is included among those deep and powerful thinkers, whose advice
has been disregarded. Besides the dangerous passage is immediately
followed by another: “Abuse of youthful talents; for serious minds,
devoted equally to philosophy and to observation, have kept aloof from
those Saturnalia.” Such a sentence is a _défense_, a _fort detaché_, and
Steffens certainly thinks that he, too, devoted himself to observation,
when he once descended into a mine at Freiburg. By softening anything I
should spoil the whole, and we ought in writing to show the same courage
as in speaking, but should do both in the same easy and cheerful manner.
Did you find out from Steffens’s tiresome biography, with which I was
bored at Sans Souci, how his pietism and aristocracy is explained by the
twofold inoculation of his old grandparents, performed by an archbishop
and a king,—_ce sont des heritages_!