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.