68.
HUMBOLDT TO VARNHAGEN.
BERLIN, _June 24th, 1842_.
Your kind remembrance, honored and gifted friend, was very beneficial to
me—the more so, as I have returned from Sans Souci rather unwell,
affected by a cold; and as I am involved in all the miseries of moving
into a detestable house in the Siberian ward of the city, the
Oranienburger Strasse, I have not even an inkstand on my table.
At present, nothing more than my best thanks. I have told Marheineke
myself how dear he is to me. A thunderstorm, in the form of a cabinet
order, suddenly growling through the papers, and exhibiting a few
flashes of censorial absurdities, would be preferable to that
impracticable law, the assigning of a Grand Inquisitor to the liberty of
the press. We have so much to say to each other, I hope to see you yet
before your departure. Think only of the enlivening presence of four
Crown-Princes and throne-successors—one lame in the knees, and pale; the
other a drunken Icelander; the third blind, and politically raving; and
the last capricious and infirm in intellect. And this is the approaching
generation of the monarchical world.
Yours,
A. HT.
I accompany the King to the Rhine. That I had no mind to become a mere
color-stand at Petersburg will be understood by you. The Chancellor has
always the pleasure of being the subject of vulgar recrimination on the
part of those who are either not invited or refused admittance to the
banquet. What an excitement glass beads, peacock plumes, and ribbons can
stir up among men![35]....
NOTE BY VARNHAGEN.—Marheineke’s article on the Anglican church in the
“Jahrbuecher fuer wissenschaftliche Kritik,” with a couple of
censorial blunders.
On the 26th June, 1842, Varnhagen writes in his diary about the new
order:—“Humboldt tells me much about the foundation of the new order.
The King had at first composed a list, in which he had written the names
with Sanscrit letters. This list was referred for advice to Humboldt,
Eichhorn, Savigny, Thiele; then it was altered many times; new names
were added and others stricken out—the indecision lasted six weeks.
Originally the King had decided for forty-six members, to correspond
with the number of years embraced by the reign of Frederick the Great.
Afterwards he thought of adopting forty, but was afraid of doing so, on
account of the ‘plaisanteries’ about the number ‘quarante’ in the French
Academy; at last he limited the number to thirty. All was managed by the
King in his own way. Arago was originally placed on the list by the
King. He insisted upon Metternich as his particular choice. Rumohr was
abandoned. Steffens was, in the opinion of the King, not deserving
‘enough—neither as philosopher nor as a naturalist.’ Liszt was decidedly
favored by the King, and no objections could prevail. Spontini was
thought of, but Savigny and the cabinet counsellor, Mueller, succeeded
in displacing him. Moore was objected to as having written satirical
verses on Prussia. ‘That is not at all my business,’ said the King.
Melloni was opposed as being a Carbonaro, and having been at the head of
a revolutionary Junta. ‘I do not care the least about that,’ said the
King. ‘I would confer the order on O’Connell, if he possessed such
scientific merits.’ The King proposed Raumer and Ranke. Eichhorn and
Savigny assented only to Ranke, and thereupon both were dropped.
Notwithstanding the view taken in Melloni’s, Moore’s, and Arago’s cases,
Schlosser the historian was rejected on account of his political
views(?). Metternich had railed at the ‘bishopric of Jerusalem.’ Now to
insure the new order against the same fate, he was to be nominated a
member of it—this is deemed the ‘secret motive,’ in Humboldt’s opinion.
And for Metternich’s sake Uwaroff was left out, for with him the other
would not have been the sole representative of his species. Link was
weighed, but found wanting.”
On the 27th June, 1842, Varnhagen makes the following addition to his
notes of yesterday: “Humboldt told me he had informed the King in
advance of the intention of the Academy of Sciences to elect Mr. Riess,
a Jew, one of their members, and that the King had replied he would
confirm the election unhesitatingly. ‘I will hope,’ he added, ‘your
brother has not committed the folly of writing in the by-laws a clause
against Jews becoming members of the Academy?’ Minister Eichhorn knew
that the King would not create any difficulty in the matter, but he
himself disliked it, and he thought it likely that Thiele, Rochow,
Stollberg, and others, would also be displeased at it; therefore he left
the application of the Academy, to have their election confirmed by the
King, unattended to for six weeks, and then wrote a letter, by which he
inquired of the Academy, whether they were aware that Riess was a Jew?
The Academy, indignant at this inquiry, replied unanimously, that they
were only ruled by the by-laws, in concurrence with which the election
had taken place, and they therefore repudiated the minister’s inquiry as
inappropriate and impertinent. Eichhorn pocketed the insult, and
reported the application to the King, who at once confirmed the
election; feeling, however, a little disinclined to approve, at the
present day, what Frederick the Great had refused. Frederick the Great
had declined to confirm the election of Moses Mendelssohn, out of
regard, as it is believed, for the Empress Catherine of Russia, who was
a member of the Academy, and who was presumed to be averse to such a
colleague.”
On the 30th of August, 1842, Varnhagen remarks in his diary: “Humboldt
tells me miserable things of Eichhorn. Talks also much of the King, his
amiability, good humor, jocoseness. He thinks, however, he will not
relinquish his favorite views, even when he seems to abandon them. The
King was more satisfied with Count Maltzan than with any one else of his
ministers; he placed full confidence in him—believed him capable of
anything. We had a dispute about the signification of the word
‘ingenious,’ and how far it could be applied to the King. Humboldt
thinks the King intends going to Greece, and to extend his journey to
Jerusalem. It was to be feared, however, that the parsons would at last
get control of him, and destroy his cheerfulness. Humboldt goes to Eu on
business, with the King of France; then to Paris. Will be back at Berlin
in December.”
Varnhagen speaks of a call made by Humboldt after his return from Paris,
in his diary of the 18th March, 1843, as follows: “Humboldt came to see
me; he looks much older since I last saw him, but his spirit and courage
are fresh. In Paris he was happy and gay; here his spirits sank at once.
Things here were going on miserably, he says; the old beaten
track—treating matters of dangerous character in a spirit of childish
frivolity. And besides that, he is overrun with applications and
requests; every one wishes to secure his influence! ‘Influence!’ said
he; ’nobody has any! Even Bunsen and Radowitz, the King’s favorites,
have none. All that they are capable of is to anticipate the weak
fancies of the King, and obey them. Should they attempt anything beyond
this, their overthrow is certain. The _King_ acts just as he pleases. He
follows the impulses of his early received and firmly rooted
impressions, and the advice which he may now and then think worthy of
hearing, is nothing at all to him. He speaks contemptuously of Eichhorn
and Savigny, as hypocritical menials, who receive the word of command
from Thiele, from Gerlach, and from Hengstenberg. The King has
relinquished nothing whatever of his cherished designs, and may, at any
time, come out again with them, as with his designs regarding the Jews’
observance of the Sabbath, the Anglican ordination of the bishops, and
the new institutions of nobility, etc. He has projects which it would
take a hundred years to accomplish. He contemplates immense
constructions, outlaying of parks, enterprises in matters of art. There
is already the question of going to Athens; in the background a
pilgrimage to Jerusalem may be looming; triumphant promenades _à la_
Napoleon; peaceable ones to London, to St. Petersburg, to the Orient;
conquered scholars and artists, instead of countries. Love of art and
imagination upon the throne, fanaticism and deceit all round, and
hypocritical exaggeration in matters unworthy of attention. And with all
this, the man is really ingenious, is really amiable, and inspired by
the best intentions. What will come out of all this at last?”
69.
HUMBOLDT TO VARNHAGEN.
BERLIN, _April 3d, 1842_.
If I have appeared slow in thanking you, my dear friend, for your
delightful present, it is because all my leisure time at Potsdam was
absorbed by the perusal of your biography, beginning with your early
youth and terminating with your description of the Congress of Vienna.
To have had such a development as yours is a gratifying advantage. It is
instructive to follow the career of men like you and to behold them
acting before our eyes.
How unjust we once were in our opinions of the men who undertook to
rearrange Europe at that great Congress—I mean to say how much more did
we then exact in our unjust views, while at present, on comparing the
members of that Congress with the mediocre creatures of to-day, they
appear great in our recollection. In their place we have now
court-philosophers, missionary-devoted ladies of state ministers, court
theologians, and sensation preachers......
Minister Buelow complains that you never came to see him _en famille_
between the hours of 8 and 9. He will hold his public reception
to-morrow, Tuesday evening, and you would be an ornament to his circle.
He never sends letters of invitation to those who know how welcome they
are to him.