In Berlin lives a young poet, Karl Grün, of whom I have these 
days read a Buch der Wanderungen which is very good. But he is 
said to be twenty-seven already, and at that age he should be able 
to write better. Now and again he has very striking thoughts, but 
often dreadful Hegelian phrases. What does this mean, for 

instance: “Sophocles is the highly moral Greece which lets its 
titanic outbursts break against the wall of absolute necessity. In 
Shakespeare the concept of absolute character made its appear- 
ance.” * 

The night before last I had a great booze-up in the wine cellar 
on two bottles of beer and two and a half bottles of 1794 Ru- 
desheimer. My prospective publisher and diverse philistines were 
with me. Specimen of an argument with one of these philistines 
on the Bremen constitution: I: In Bremen the opposition to the 
government is not of the right kind since it consists of the money 
aristocracy, the aldermen who oppose the aristocracy of rank, the 
Senate. He: You cannot really maintain that, can you? I: Why not? 
He: Prove your assertion.— That sort of thing passes for argu- 
ment here! Oh, you philistines, go and learn Greek, and come 
again. Anyone that knows Greek also knows how to argue rite. I 
can argue six such fellows to death at once, even if I am 
half-seas over and they are sober. These people cannot follow a 
thought through to its necessary conclusions for three seconds, but 
everything goes in spasms; you only need let them speak for half 
an hour, throw in a few seemingly innocent questions, and they 
contradict themselves splendidamente. They are dreadfully stolid 
people, these philistines; I began to sing, but they resolved 
unanimously against me that they would eat first, and then sing. 
They stuffed themselves with oysters, while I went on angrily 
smoking, drinking and shouting without taking any notice of 
them, until I fell into a blissful slumber. I am now a large-scale 
importer of banned books into Prussia; Bérne’s Franzosenfresser in 
four copies, the Briefe aus Paris by the same, six volumes, 
Venedey’s Preussen und Preussenthum, most strictly prohibited, in 
five copies, are lying ready for dispatch to Barmen. The last two 
volumes of the Briefe aus Paris I had not yet read; they are 
magnificent. King Otto of Greece is given a terrible going-over; 
thus he says on one occasion: 

“If 1 were God I would have great fun: I would let all the great Greeks rise 

Then comes a very fine description of how these Hellenes 
walk about in Athens, Pericles, Aristotle and others. Then it 
is announced: King Otto has come. Everybody gets up, Dio- 

genes trims his lamp, and all hurry to Piraeus. King Otto has 
landed and is making the following speech: 

“Hellenes, look up. The sky has taken on the Bavarian national colour.” (This 
speech is really too good, I must copy it out in full.) “For in the most ancient 
times Greece belonged to Bavaria. The Pelasgians lived in the Odenwald, and 
Inachus was born in Landshut. I have come to make you happy. Your dem- 
agogues, seditionists and journalists have brought your beautiful land to ruin. 
The fatal freedom of the press has thrown everything into confusion. Just see what 
the olive-trees look like. I would have come to you long ago, but I could not do so, 
for I have not yet been long in this world. Now you are a member of the Deutsche 
Bund; my ministers will inform you of the latest decisions of the Bund. I shall know 
how to safeguard the rights of my crown and by and by make you happy. For my 
civil list” (salary of the king in a constitutional state) “you shall annually give 
me 6 million piastres, and I allow you to pay my debts.” * 

The Greeks become confused, Diogenes shines his lamp in the 
king’s face, and Hippocrates has ordered six cartloads of hellebore 
to be fetched, etc., etc. This whole ironical poem is a masterpiece 
of biting satire and written in a style that is divine. The reason 
why you like Borne less is because you are reading one of his 
weakest and earliest works, the Schilderungen aus Paris. The Drama- 
turgische Blatter, the criticisms, the aphorisms, but above all the 
Briefe aus Paris and the marvellous Franzosenfresser stand infinitely 
higher. The description of the collection of paintings is very bor- 
ing, there you are right. But the grace, the Herculean strength, 
the depth of feeling, the devastating wit of the Franzosenfresser 
are unsurpassable. I hope we shall meet at Easter or else in the 
autumn in Barmen, and then you shall get a better idea of 
this Bérne.— What you write about Torstrick’s duel is indeed 
different from his own version, but in any case he is the one 
who had the most unpleasantness from it. He is a good fel- 
low, but he lives in extremes, now drunk, then a little pedantic. 

Continuation. If you are of the opinion that German literature 
has gradually fallen asleep, you are greatly mistaken. Don’t think 
that because you hide your head from it like an ostrich and don’t 
see it, it has ceased to exist. Au contraire, it is developing quite 
appreciably, as would be clear to you if you paid more attention to 
it and didn’t live in Prussia, where the works of Gutzkow, etc., 
first require a special and rarely granted permission.— You are 
equally mistaken in thinking I should return to Christianity. Pro 
primo, it is ridiculous to me that I no longer count with you as a 
Christian, and pro secundo, that you think anyone who for the sake 
of the Idea has stripped off what is fantastical in orthodoxy could 

submit to that strait jacket again. A true rationalist can perhaps do 
so by acknowledging that his natural explanation of miracles and 
his shallow moralising are insufficient; but mythicism and specula- 
tion cannot again descend from their dawn-reddened snow-capped 
peaks into the misty valleys of orthodoxy.— For I am on the point 
of becoming a Hegelian. Whether I shall become one I don’t, of 
course, know yet, but Strauss has lit up lights on Hegel for me 
which make the thing quite plausible to me. His (Hegel’s) 
philosophy of history is anyway written as from my own heart. Do 
see that you get hold of Strauss’ Charakteristiken und Kritiken, the 
essay on Schleiermacher and Daub is wonderful.?!* Nobody else 
writes so penetratingly, clearly and interestingly as Strauss. By the 
way, he is not at all infallible; even if his entire Leben Jesu should 
be discovered to be a collection of sheer sophistries, still the first 
thing that makes this work so important is its basic idea of the 
mythical in Christianity; and the discovery would not damage this 
idea, for it can always be applied anew to biblical history. And that 
he has not only conceived the idea but also carried it out with such 
undeniable excellence raises Strauss’ merit still higher. A good 
exegetist may be able to convict him here and there of a mistake 
or of falling into extremes, just as Luther was in detail open to 
criticism; but that, of course, does not matter. If Tholuck has ever 
said anything good about Strauss? that is either a sheer accident or 
an apt reminiscence; Tholuck’s scholarliness is too diffuse and 
with that he is merely receptive, not even critical, much less 
productive. The good ideas Tholuck has had can easily be 
counted, and he himself destroyed any belief in the scientific 
character of his polemics as far back as ten years ago by his 
controversy with Wegscheider and Gesenius. Tholuck’s scientific 
effect has in no way been lasting, and his time is long past. 
Hengstenberg did at least once have an original, even if absurd 
thought: that of the prophetic perspective.— It is incomprehensi- 
ble to me that you care for nothing that goes beyond Hengsten- 
berg and Neander. With all due respect for Neander, he is not 
scientific. Instead of setting intellect and reason solidly to work in 
his writings, even if at some point he should come into Opposition to 
the Bible, whenever he fears that might happen he lets science take 
care of itself and comes out with empiricism or pious sentiment. 
He is much too pious and amiable to be able to oppose Strauss. Pre- 
cisely by these pious outbursts in which his Leben Jesu abounds 
he blunts the point even of his genuinely scientific arguments. 

To Friedrich Graeber, December 9, 1839-February 5, 1840 487 

A propos—a few days ago I read in the paper that Hegelian 
philosophy has been banned in Prussia, that a famous Hegelian 
lecturer in Halle has been induced by a ministerial rescript to 
suspend his lectures and that it has been intimated to several 
junior Halle lecturers of the same colour (presumably Ruge, etc.) 
that they cannot expect appointments. It is said that by this same 
rescript the definitive ban on the Berlin Jahrbiicher ftir wis- 
senschaftliche Kritik has been decided. I have not yet heard 
anything further. I cannot believe even the Prussian Government 
capable of such an unheard-of act of violence, although Borne 
prophesied it as long as five years ago, and Hengstenberg, an 
intimate friend of the Crown Prince,’ as well as Neander, is said to 
be a declared enemy of the Hegelian school. If you hear anything 
of the business, write to me about it. Now I'll study Hegel over a 
glass of punch. Adios. Expecting a letter from you soon, 

Friedrich Engels