Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 Translating the Correspondences between Wilhelm von Humboldt and August Wilhelm Schlegel (1793–1830) The two German polymaths Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835) and August Wilhelm Schlegel (1767–1845) had remarkably similar scholarly interests throughout their long careers working with diverse subjects such as linguistics, literary criticism, translation studies, aesthetics, and philosophy. As they were both born in the same year and were educated at the University of Göttingen in the late 1780s, their biographies intersected quite often and they maintained a cordial friendship extending far beyond their university years.1 This friendship and exchange of ideas between these two significant intellectuals is reflected in the letters they exchanged with each other during their adult lives as scholars. These letters, edited by the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften and made available as part of a digital collection called Wilhelm von Humboldt: Sprachwissenschaftliche Korrespondenz, are written in German and are as yet untranslated into other languages such as English.2 There are approximately thirty letters exchanged between Humboldt and Schlegel in this collection of more than five hundred correspondences between Humboldt and numerous other scholars. Most letters are authored by Humboldt, but there are some responses from Schlegel in the collection as well. My project translates four of these letters into English and illuminates their personal relationship and exchanges on the philosophy of language in particular. Humboldt and Schlegel are both influential for today’s poststructuralist theories of language and Schlegel is well-known for his still-widely-read translations of Shakespeare’s plays. The letters between Humboldt and Schlegel are mostly from their later scholarly life between 1818 and 1830, although there is one earlier letter from 1793 in the immediate aftermath of 1 Katia D. Hay, "August Wilhelm von Schlegel", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/schlegel-aw/>. 2 The link to the website for my source text is https://wvh-briefe.bbaw.de. There has also been a published German edition of these letters in 1908 by Halle Niemeyer entitled Briefwechsel zwischen Wilhelm von Humboldt und August Wilhelm Schlegel. !1 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 the French Revolution. Humboldt was born to a noble family in Berlin and Schlegel to a Lutheran clergyman in Hanover. Humboldt was mostly educated by private tutors at home, and so his first contacts with Schlegel occurred when he spent a year as a student in Göttingen in 1788. Schlegel was also a student there between 1786 and 1791. The two were also engaged in deep aesthetic discussions in Jena during 1792–97, alongside other illustrious figures like Goethe and Schiller. Schlegel and his brother were leaders in developing an early philosophical framework for the new aesthetic movement they called Romanticism. After 1797, Schlegel and Humboldt went along different paths. Schlegel translated Shakespeare with the help of his wife Caroline Böhmer and lectured on philosophical topics at Berlin and Vienna. After his divorce in 1803, Schlegel became a travel companion to the Swiss-French political theorist Madame de Staël and a tutor to her children until her death in 1818. Meanwhile, Humboldt became an influential diplomat for the Prussian state, serving in capitals such as Rome, Vienna, and London. There is no letter from this period between 1797–1818, though it is possible that some of their letters from then may have been lost. Following 1818, Humboldt retired from state service and devoted his attention to linguistics in his Berlin estate, while Schlegel became a professor of linguistics and Sanskrit at Bonn. This later stage of their lives is when we have the most letters and they concentrate on linguistics. Schlegel’s new journal Indische Bibliothek on Sanskrit literature was also a frequent subject of conversation. When reading these letters, one might benefit from having an overview of their linguistic and philosophical theories. Humboldt’s view of language was centred on the importance of language for all thought as a sensual component that accompanies abstract speculation.3 Language emerges from the inner mental capacity of humans and in turn also has a reverse effect on the kinds of thoughts humans have. Humboldt saw the underlying mental structures as universal to all 3 This brief summary of Humboldt’s linguistic thoughts is from Humboldt, On Language: On the Diversity of Human Language Construction and its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species, ed. Michael Losonsky, trans. Peter Heath (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) !2 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 humans, but each language has its own unique trajectory of historical evolution that produces different worldviews (Weltansichten) and national characters in different peoples. The implications of Humboldt’s thought for both universality and diversity made him a precursor to both Chomsky’s universal grammar and Whorf’s linguistic relativity. In addition, Humboldt was a liberal political theorist, an educationist who stressed a well-rounded humanistic curriculum, and a philosopher who argued for collaboration between reason and sensuality. Schlegel, on the other hand, was primarily a philosopher of aesthetics who advocated for the novel Romantic view of art, in which the artist was not to be bound by classical aesthetic norms.4 The individuality of the artist in exercising his/her imagination was key to Schlegel’s worldview. He conceived of nature as a dynamic and everchanging entity that artists might try to mirror in their works. Language was integrated into his aesthetics as a phenomenon that went together with human feelings and exhibited rhythm like poetry. Like Humboldt, Schlegel was attentive to the differences in languages, worldviews, and aesthetic norms across space and time. In translation theory, both Schlegel and Humboldt stressed foreignisation, but cautioned against too much strangeness as in Voss’ translation of Homer. The content of the four letters below reflects the principal intellectual concerns of both Humboldt and Schlegel. There are three letters by Humboldt, including an early one from 1793 and two post-1818, and one reply by Schlegel. Letters one and two touch on personal matters such as Humboldt’s inability in 1793 to help out Schlegel’s future wife Caroline, who was arrested by the conservative Archbishop of Mainz for her liberal views in support of the French Revolution. Humboldt also wrote his 1818 letter regarding Schlegel’s application for a university professorship in Berlin. Schlegel eventually became a professor of Sanskrit philology at Bonn rather than in Berlin. Nevertheless, these personal letters show the close friendship between these two renowned 4 Hay, “August Wilhelm von Schlegel.” !3 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 scholars. For the most part, these four letters deal with philosophy and linguistics. Humboldt composed what he called a “philosophical rhapsody” in his first letter on the historical evolution of cultures from a focus on imagination or sensuality in antiquity to intellect and practical reason in modernity. The highest of all unities is, for Humboldt, the “unity of reflection,” which is a synthesis of mental, moral, and sensual attributes. The third and fourth letters go back-and-forth between Humboldt and Schlegel on issues in Sanskrit linguistics, Schlegel’s translation of a poem from Sanskrit to German, and Humboldt’s publication of a book on the Basque language in 1821. Some interesting differences of opinion emerge here: Schlegel was a little less inclined to bring in literal foreignisations from Sanskrit into his German translations. Schlegel was also more suspicious of the antiquity of the Basque language and its influence on classical Indo-European languages like Latin. One main challenge in translating these letters was the preservation of the archaic styles of sentence structures, words, spellings, and meanings. Humboldt’s writings are especially known for their convoluted and demanding prose interspersed with Greek and Latin words, which the reader might miss if the translation adopts a simplified domesticating style as in today’s English. The complex writing style was a symbol of erudition among the educated classes then, which is a historical phenomenon that deserves to be emphasised to modern audiences. There are also many archaic words, including words spelt differently from modern German—such as “thun” instead of “tun” (to do). I mostly used footnotes to point out the archaic words rather than using corresponding archaisms in English. A second challenge is the filling-in of context for the letters so that readers might understand the place of each letter in the broader trajectories of Humboldt’s and Schlegel’s lives. These letters were not originally written for a public audience and thus make a lot of assumptions about what the intended reader (either Schlegel or Humboldt) already knows. In most cases, the context can be clarified through footnotes, but there may be times when a particular !4 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 phrase or sentence is too cryptic to be deciphered by someone today. Third, preserving the tone and emotional quality of the letters was also challenging. Humboldt and Schlegel mostly wrote formally using the formal second-person pronoun “Sie” or even “Your Excellency,” but more relaxed forms of address such as “dearest Schlegel” or “dearest friend” also occur. Also, these letters were collected from handwritten manuscript sources in which there were unclear words and crossed-out text. I tried to preserve the crossed-out words to give the reader a sense that one is reading an unpublished letter. In some cases, however, where Humboldt used the abbreviated conjunctions “u.” for “und” (and), I used the full form of the conjunctions in the translation for greater clarity. The theoretical framework I use is Friedrich Schleiermacher’s and Walter Benjamin’s foreignisation emphasis, which has notably been central to the same German philosophical tradition that Humboldt and Schlegel were part of. As Schleiermacher noted, translators have to choose between bringing the reader closer to the original while leaving the author in peace and bringing the original closer to the reader while leaving the reader in peace.5 He argued that perfect domestication of an original as if the author had written the text in the target language is impossible. Benjamin added that evoking the “echo of the original” by bringing in foreign styles from the source language could enrich the language of the target culture and point towards a higher “pure” language.6 Also, the expectation that translations ought to sound fluent as if written originally in the target language risks excessive ethnocentrism. As English is a dominant language in today’s world that tends to homogenise the differences among other cultures, a foreignising translation from German might enable an Anglophone audience to better empathise with the German tradition. My project recognises the importance of retention of foreign styles from both foreign and historical cultures, Friedrich Schleiermacher, “On the Different Methods of Translating,” in The Translation Studies Reader, ed. Lawrence Venuti (New York: Routledge, 2000), 49. 5 6 Walter Benjamin, “The Translator’s Task,” in The Translation Studies Reader, ed. Lawrence Venuti (New York: Routledge, 2000), 79. !5 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 such as those of the early-nineteenth-century German states. At the same time, my project recognises the limits of foreignisation as well. Imitating foreign styles in another language, as David Bellos recognises, could potentially be a way of mocking a foreign people and/or exoticising their traditions as an irreconcilable other.7 Foreignisation could also be used to denigrate the target culture or appropriate foreign traditions as one’s own without empathy for the other culture. As with any translation strategy, there are bound to be both gains and losses in this project. 7 David Bellos, “Fictions of the Foreign: The Paradox of Foreign-Soundingness,” in In Translation: Translators on their Work and What it Means, eds. Esther Allen and Susan Bernofsky (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), 42. !6 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 A Letter from Wilhelm von Humboldt to August Wilhelm Schlegel, 16.11.1793 Manuscript: Basis of the Edition: Dresden, SLUB, Mscr. Dresd. e 90, XIX, Bd. 11, p. 233–236, Number 56. Print: Klette, Anton (1868): Directory of A. W. v. Schlegel’s collected letters, selected samples of the correspondence with the Humboldt brothers, F. Schleiermacher, B. G. Niebuhr and J. Grimm, Bonn: M. Cohen & Sohn, p. IVf.; Mattson 2015, p. 197–199, Number 290; Mattson 1980, Number 284. Burg Oerner, 16th November, 1793 Your second letter, dear Schlegel, gave me warm delight, and I answer it all the more with a lighter heart, as the cause that it concerned, though without my contribution, has taken such a happy turn. Your friend enjoys her freedom again, and in a way, that is to her at the same time the most honourable.89 I would have been glad to have played a part in her release. But at the Maynzische Court, there was by no means anything to do at first, and the path that the brother took, although successful in the end, seemed to have so little promise (since all prisoners were dependent on the Elector alone) that one could hardly risk trying it without good local knowledge.10 I myself have never had the pleasure of meeting Mme. Böhmer, which I had so wished to do after all I heard about her from you, Mme. Forster, and others.11 But the three letters, which at this occasion I have received from her, could serve me in lieu of an acquaintanceship, in a manner of speaking. Especially her grand spirit, which you so beautifully describe, expresses itself in them, particularly in the first (since the from the <due to the> uncertain fate of a letter to a fortress causing coldness in my answer, which certainly did not hinder me from acting most warmly, might have made her restrained and perhaps even mistrustful) in an extremely characteristic manner. Extremely striking is everything that you, dearest friend, say about the account of the most beautiful and the highest. The most intimate respect for it indisputably leads one to never attempt it. The means of expression are and remain perpetually too weak, and even if they were sufficient to depict each individual thing right and true, they are never capable of giving a vivid picture of the whole. And yet it is just this unity of all individual beautiful and great things, sublimely impressing the mark of the true spirit, which is above all in the feminine character, and missing in the 8 The German scholar Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835) wrote to his friend and scholar August Wilhelm Schlegel (1767–1845) about Schlegel’s friend and later wife Caroline Böhmer (1763–1809), who was arrested by the Prussian troops in Mainz for her liberal political views in support of the French Revolution. The French Revolutionary Army had earlier occupied the German city of Mainz briefly, but the Prussian troops conquered the city, pushed out the French, and reinstated the Elector (the Archbishop) of Mainz. By the time of this letter, Böhmer was released from imprisonment, though Humboldt was unable to play a part in her release—which he regretfully mentioned in this letter. Böhmer was herself a noteworthy intellectual involved in the Jena Romantic movement and was a wife of Johann Böhmer, of A. W. Schlegel, and later of the philosopher Friedrich Schelling. 9 Humboldt used quite a few archaic spellings in his German source such as “theurer” (instead of “teurer” or dear), “Freundinn” (instead of “Freundin” or girlfriend), and “thun” (instead of “tun” or to do). 10 The letter is quite vague about who Humboldt was referring to with the word “the brother,” but it was likely a Catholic clergyman because Mme. Böhmer’s release had to be negotiated with the Archbishop of Mainz. 11 When addressing Schlegel, Humboldt used the German formal second-person pronoun “Sie” for “you.” The letter has a formal tone but suggests a cordial friendship. !7 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 masculine without limitations nearly always and in our time and in our upbringing. The ground on which this unity is based certainly lies endlessly deep and conceals itself from the eyes of even the lucky scouts. Very much lies indisputably in the great sensitivity and continuous occupation with the sensual powers. For just as the concept isolates and the you <contemplation> unites, so too do the powers that produce both. This unity is found for instance in all peoples, who first stand at the early stages of culture, and in whom aesthetic cultivation is predominant. You can easily guess that I am particularly thinking of the Greeks. One might name this the unity of imagination; before which however one other less noble unity goes first with the people whose sensual pleasure consists only in bodily feeling and not in aesthetic contemplation, and which not incorrectly could be called the unity of sensuality (rawness). From sensuality and imagination, cultivation passes over towards the intellect. The intell The cultivation of the intellect however never promotes the unity of characters, at least not directly, and therefore all nations where this is predominant are one-sided, dry, and cold. An example is our age. Reason, which gradually passes over to the highest powers, leads on the other hand to unity with it, because its business according to Aristotle, as according to Kant, actually is ἓν ποιεῖν. However, reason (the speculative) has the capability, that its cultivation, especially that which has an influence over the character, precedes the cultivation of the intellect. Because the intellect shows that its cultivation can only give regulative and not constitutive principles, its worth sinks in our eyes. Therefore, the unity of imagination in speculative minds is always bound with the unity of reason. An example is Plato. Should unity still be achieved after the cultivation of the intellect, one must turn to practical reason. Practical reason to be exact makes the enhancement of all powers in the same measure moralistic, i.e. a categorically-imperative matter, and so it prescribes unity as the purpose. Practical reason alone cannot fulfil this purpose, because it cannot theoretically decide how the purpose is to be achieved. To whom should it then turn? To an individual strength of mind? Each would decide for itself. Therefore, it turns to reflection, i.e. it us to the communal and free consultation of all powers, and so is the highest unity—which however still no nation, no age, and possibly no individual has reached—unity of reflection. Pardon me, dearest friend, for this philosophical rhapsody, or better this rhapsodic philosophy, which, so briefly thrown at you, can hardly make my idea clear. However, the interest that all investigations of this nature have for me carried me away.—Let us, dear Schlegel, not end our correspondence with a sad cause, I wish you heartily and hope you live very well in the meanwhile! Adieu! Yours, Humboldt. My address is where I would be: certainly Erfurt at Herr Praesidenten von Dacherröden or Berlin, on Jägerbrücke in Humboldt House. !8 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 A Letter from Wilhelm von Humboldt to August Wilhelm von Schlegel, 10.05.1818 Manuscript: Basis of the Edition: Dresden, SLB, Mscr. Dresd. e 90, XIX, Bd. 11, p. 241–244, Number 58. Print: Leitzmann 1908, p. 3–5, Number 1; Mattson 1980, Number 6586. London, 10th May, 1818 I am more ashamed than I can express to answer so infinitely late your kind letter, which, after so many long years of separation, was an extremely flattering sign of remembrance.12 I wish, most venerable friend, that I could credit myself a part in your vocation. I do not like however to take credit presumptuously given my absence at that time from the State Chancellor’s residence, and for what is due, so much as I know, to Herr Koreff and Herr Stegemann, or to the first alone.13 In any case, I wish for you from my heart that the plan would come into fulfilment. Besides the benefits that its implementation would bring to Berlin University, I would also receive through this the pleasant prospect of living in your proximity once more. The overview that you give me about your work and texts that you intend to deliver interested me to a great degree. Only by the extent of your scholarly knowledge and the diversity of your talents is it possible to grasp the resolve to do so many and so important works. Concerning Berlin, my first somewhat depressing thought was that literary help-materials could be very easily lacking there. The library is still very incomplete, and one must mostly rely on the books one possesses. Against French writing there may well be many bawlers now in Germany, but you might also prefer to ignore them, as, and with great right, my brother does.14 Indeed, I cannot deny that I too am of the opinion that the spirit of a writer has its whole abundance, dignity, and freedom only through the use of a language, namely the one which was one’s own from childhood, and that there is a double risk of loss when the German is exchanged for the French. With the good writers of this kind, one certainly notes no positive defect in the works themselves, but there arises the reasonable concern whether the work is not yet and much different from what it would have become without this sacrifice of a more natural and complete communication. Here alone is the concern perhaps There was a long gap between Humboldt’s earlier letter to Schlegel in 1793 and this present one in 1818 (although the two scholars did meet each other many times in between). At this stage of their lives, Humboldt had been serving for several years in the Prussian diplomatic service, while Schlegel had been a tutor to the political-theorist-in-exile Madame de Staël’s children and her travel companion to Italy, Switzerland, France, Russia, and Sweden. After de Staël’s death in 1818, Schlegel was planning to return to a university career in the German states. Although this letter shows Humboldt’s interest in Schlegel’s appointment in Berlin, Schlegel would eventually receive his professorship in literature at the University of Bonn later that year. Humboldt was briefly in London as a diplomat at the time of this letter, though most of his future life would be spent in Berlin in retirement. 12 The State Chancellor of Prussia at this time was Baron Karl August von Hardenberg, who was a prominent liberal statesman known for abolishing serfdom in Prussia, opening the civil service to all classes, and bringing about university reforms. Schlegel’s appointment as a professor and his salary might have depended on the consent of the chancellor. The other names mentioned are Dr. David Ferdinand Koreff, the personal doctor of Baron von Hardenberg, and Friedrich August von Staegemann, another Prussian statesman. 13 14 Humboldt’s famous younger brother Alexander von Humboldt was a geographer, explorer, and scientist, who was well-known for his cosmopolitan views. Alexander was open to living in Paris and writing in French, but Wilhelm emphasised the importance of writing in one’s native language more than Alexander. !9 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 driven too far, as there can also be external considerations that are even more important and therefore allow the eventual loss to be overlooked. I wish immensely to learn very soon that your employment in Berlin has fully fallen into place; let me know at once, I request you very much, and keep up your kind and friendly cast of mind. With the most respectful affection Your most devoted, Humboldt. To Herr von Schlegel, in Paris, rue de Bourbon, 76. PS: I have just now received a letter from my brother, in which I see that you are still without a definite answer from Berlin. I am convinced that it is simply because the university, with its many requirements for new teachers (which I at least know), does not have enough funds now to offer you such a salary, as the curator feels, that you might expect, and so the matter is brought before the State Chancellor, whose overwhelming business is delaying the processing. All writing helps little in such things. If you are, as it seems to me and as I exceptionally wish, determined to go to Berlin, insofar as only the point of salary can be properly corrected, I advise you to do one of the two, to travel either to Berlin or to the State Chancellor, as soon as he comes again to the Rhine provinces. Should you choose the first, you must be there in Junius.15 Then it is essential that you see the Chancellor (besides the Department Minister), as the Chancellor will be in Aachen in early Julius (although this is perhaps late). If you prefer the latter, you have time until the beginning of the meeting with the sovereign (end of September). I would, if your time allows it, choose the Berlin trip. You will see at the same time the place where you wish to live and make your plans better. You will need no recommendation; otherwise you will receive from me that which you wish with great pleasure by immediate post. Live very well! à Monsieur Monsieur de Schlegel à Paris. 15 Humboldt uses the Latin names for the months “June” and “July” (“Junius” and “Julius”) in the original, which I preserve in the translation. This is to convey the archaic feel of the text. Schlegel, too, can be found using the Latin names of the months in his letters. !10 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 A Letter from Wilhelm von Humboldt to August Wilhelm von Schlegel, 05.05.1821 Manuscript: Basis of the Edition: Bonn, ULB, Inv. p. 507: 1. Print: Leitzmann 1908, p. 6–11; Mattson 1980, Nr. 7103. I am indebted with gratitude to Your Excellency for sending me the Indische Bibliothek, which has interested me immensely.16 I wish for nothing more than that you might find the opportunity to continue it very soon and speedily. Since the beginning of this year, I have been able to proceed with my long-cherished wish to learn Sanskrit myself. I had to do so without any oral or spirited help, and so I have come of course only so far that I look up the individual words in books with literal translations (as the Nalus by Bopp is) and can analyse them mostly with the help of grammars and dictionaries.17 I think that I can progress faster through eager work. My goal in this study is more the language than the literature, as Sanskrit offers a very great interest in this regard. I am perhaps far from grasping some things clearly. So, for example, as to how it actually goes together with what one calls roots. These roots, the status absolutus (crude state) of words, lie as if they are outside the language, although the neuter is sometimes the same as the roots. Are they now developments by linguists or do they belong to an earlier condition of language? It is also curious that the moods other than the indicative have just one tense form, so that Wilkins, for instance, merges tense and mood together and names everything as tense.18 One does not find in its grammar that the language is actually like the Greek with complete tenses, true inflections, and helping verbs like µέλλω, which are demanded by the general linguistic teaching. Most curious of all it strikes me that today’s language teaching handles Sanskrit as a language just to be read, not to be spoken, as it does not put forth any accent theory. Wilkins says that the Vedas show the accent, and calls this similar to the Greek. But this scanty message limits everything that occurs to him. However, the most interesting questions can be raised here, and the matter is so important in Sanskrit, as only the accent can determine which syllables belong to a word and which do not, and as the Sanskrit also accounts for the orthographic discrepancies, which so often connect words that are separate in other languages by contracting their beginning and ending sounds or by changing them. Did these words have various accents or did they really become one under the same? Would it not also be interesting to know whether the acutus became the gravis, as in Greek in connection with speech? Humboldt is referring to the journal named Indische Bibliothek (Indian Library) that Schlegel began publishing since 1820 (until 1830). Schlegel was by then a professor of Sanskrit, literature, and art history at Bonn. Schlegel became one of the preeminent European scholars who developed the field of Indology in this decade through his essays and translations. Humboldt was spending his time in Berlin doing linguistic research after his retirement from politics in 1819. Humboldt would also do significant work on Sanskrit and many other languages within the framework of comparative linguistics. 16 A reference to Franz Bopp, another German comparative linguist of the time. He had translated an episode from the classical Indian epic poem Mahabaratha from Sanskrit into Latin, entitled Nalus Maha-Barati Episodium (1819). It is the mythical story of Nala and Damayanti. Humboldt often uses the abbreviated form of the conjunction “u.” for “und” (and) or possibly “und so weiter” (and so on). My translation uses the full forms of the conjunctions rather than the abbreviations as in the original. 17 18 Charles Wilkins was a British Indologist who had lived in India and was a member of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. He was known to have produced the first English translation of the Hindu scripture The Bhagavad Gita (1785). !11 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 I read your translation with the greatest pleasure.19 The hexameters are extremely beautiful. I would like to allow myself only two questions. I fully agree with you that a trochee in a hexameter is an absurdity, and that one cannot also avoid the trochees very well, even with such an extraordinary difficulty. Should the pronouns then that are not orthotonic not be counted as short ones and be banished from a foot that is not a dactyl? Auf mir lastet, for instance, still seems to me to be a trochaic beginning. This is what I think about the prepositions, that they are not exempted either before or after. It is indeed true that these words named here have a certain length when spoken, but these lengths which flow from the nature of the sounds are totally different from those which the sense gives and, as in auf mir lastet, do not seem sufficient to me to call a foot in hexameter as a spondee. Also, the end syllables are not enough to reach completion, as per my feelings. The second question is about the caesura after the first two syllables in the fourth foot, whether this is a dactyl. It occurs so purely only very rarely in the Greek, only 8–9 times in the entire Homer and a little more often in Latin, so that the two first syllables are the end syllables of a word and the last dactyl is the beginning syllable of a multi-syllable word. You have also avoided this position throughout. Only in a few cases have you retained this, in which it is really doubtful if it should not be permissible, and I would like to speak about these. An example is | beiden Ge | mahlinnen, and also, although the case is something other, Stamm | halter zu | seyn des Geschlechtes. Wolf, with whom I often talk about such things, considers both positions to be completely right, as both are very close and seem as if they belonged to the same word, to Gem. and also with zu seyn.20 I cannot however agree with it. The reason for this whole rule, which discards this fourth trochee as a caesura, seems to me to be that it is not pleasant to read after the fourth trochee when the rest of the verse rises again with a ⏑‒, and not a ‒ ‒ or ⏑⏑‒. This raising with the ⏑‒ is now however unavoidable in these two positions <positions>, so you may do whichever just as one naturally reads. The Ge and zu must always necessarily be bound together closer with ma and seyn, than can den and ter, which are, so to speak, only tints in the prefixes. Certainly, the hexameters must be infinitely correct, if one should come thereof to correct such small differences in them. I do this also only to know your judgments about the principles. Wherein these hexameters are so truly masterful, no rule can judge, but rather where the poetic feeling and talent are freely present, mix, and follow the feet and parts, without which even the highest correctness cannot guarantee a good sound. It is very desirable that you handle more pieces in the same way. However, I would like that you not reject the indigenous syllable measures. The hexameter always has against it however by in this usage, even if it is the reader’s fault, that it is too Greek in its sound, therefore harming the peculiarity. Under your treatment the indigenous syllable measures would appear as something else, since you would know how to give them diversity and good sound in the free positions. This was one of Schlegel’s translations of poetry in the Indische Bibliothek journal. It was a translation from Sanskrit to German of the text Schlegel entitled “Die Herabkunft der Göttin Ganga” (The Descent of the Goddess Ganga), a mythical story about the origin of the Ganges river. Schlegel translated the poem using hexameters, which Humboldt comments on here. Both Humboldt’s and Schlegel’s views on translation emphasise foreignising styles, but Humboldt pushes Schlegel even more to pay attention to indigenous rhythms in his translations, rather than a Greek-centric rigid hexameter. 19 20 Friedrich August Wolf was a German classicist and contemporary of Humboldt who was known for promoting the term “philology.” Wolf also authored the text Prolegomena ad Homerum in Latin on Homer. !12 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 You will receive a script very soon from me through my brother, which I request you to keep in my memory.21 It is an investigation on the original inhabitants of Spain carried out by means of the Basque language. I had the opportunity, since I also need to mention the earliest inhabitants of Italy, to mention your opinions as well, and I have integrated several of them, as you will see. But this text is just based on the comparison of place names and their etymology, not from the comparison of languages themselves, so I believe you will agree with me that it is clear from what has been developed in this respect that the Basque language is one of the oldest European languages, that it possesses many stem words in common with Latin, and that it is not at all true that it came from Africa, as Leibniz once speculated, or from America, as the more recent want to have it. I would have myself done an actual comparison of this language with other European ones, if I do not always keep waiting on it from year to year. Such comparisons are always better when one knows more languages, and bring profit when one does not remain idle. I also still wait gladly for the works of others, I especially wish that we only had the work you are preparing, which you point out several times in the Indische Bibliothek. I flatter myself with the hope that you will be in complete agreement with the results of my script. Also, it has only little <of> what one already finds in the writings of the most excellent on these objects, and also orders them better, determines them more precisely, and supports them on better and surer grounds. The one thing alone that might be required is the indulgence of the reader, and I recommend yours. When one has exclusively lived in this business for years, one misses so much what a script must not miss, and so one gets into much error. Perhaps I would have done better to wait with the script until a few years longer to take myself deeper into the study which I try to pursue and make myself more secure therein. However, since I intend to write about the Basque language now in true consideration of the language, I wish to know for the time being what one would say about the results of my current research, and if I had also ge postponed this, a greater part of life would pass by. I will spend the summer in Silesia, but please, if you would like to give me the pleasure that would be truly great to me, write to me addressing your letter only here. I can receive it this way equally soon and with greater surety. Keep in your kind memory the time that we spent together long years ago, which always remains very valuable to me, and have the assurance of my most excellent and friendliest respect. Humboldt. Berlin, 5th May, 1821. 21 Humboldt brings up his own text published in 1821, entitled Prüfung der Untersuchungen über die Urbewohner Hispaniens vermittelst der vaskischen Sprache (translated as Researches into the Early Inhabitants of Spain with the help of the Basque Language). !13 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 A Letter from August Wilhelm von Schlegel to Wilhelm von Humboldt, 23– 30.07.1821 Manuscript: Former Berlin, AST Print: Basis of the Edition: Leitzmann 1908, p. 12–28; Mattson 1980, Nr. 11652. Bonn, the 23rd of July, ’21 Your Excellency has pleasantly surprised me with your so rich and inspiring letter from the fifth of May. I received it in Paris during the confusion of my last errands: these, then my return trip, and the businesses I had here are to blame for the delay in my response, which I request you to please excuse. I believed that such a letter should not be answered briefly and superficially. Your Excellency has actually anticipated me: I had resolved long ago to write to you and claim your good-willing attention for my present endeavours. I consider it as a happy portent for the flourishing of Indian philology in Germany that you have devoted your inclinations towards Sanskrit. Had I been living close to you to lighten the tediousness of the first steps! Then by your strength in comparative linguistics and general grammar, you will soon or perhaps already need no help. I hope to contribute to making future studies pleasurable through the improved typography. Perhaps you have come across my specimen. Since then almost nothing has remained unchanged, and I flatter myself that the whole thing must have gained considerably. All the works needed for the establishment of an Indian printing house in Paris were accomplished under my supervision, except for the cast iron, whose expedient execution I think I have adequately ensured by the instructions given earlier and the left-behind models of cast letters. I expect the complete stock in a short time now, and then, on the order of Herr Minister von Altenstein, send the matrices and moulds to Berlin, where a second mould will be made complete.22 Who will however be the editor there? I will not tarry to put my hand to work, and I intend to first print the Bhagavad-Gîtâ. The edition from Calcutta is extremely rare and difficult to obtain, and that too everything printed there is uncomfortable for use. The conjectural critique has nothing to do with this work: the text is preserved in each syllable. I am able to correct the errors of the printed edition by comparing with the Parisian manuscripts. The grammatical interpretation is easy; I must save a philosophical commentary for the future; I have not been able to use the indigenous interpreters sufficiently. Soon, I think of going on with the Hitôpadêsa. This book is now quite different: the manuscripts deviate much, and, although already printed twice, the text is still very bad. The comparison of the only Parisian manuscript has already given me a considerable stock of better reading types. The book is important because it requires an entire literature. Subsequently, one will have to, following Colebrook’s advice, go back to the Panchatantra:23 because this is then the older edition of that fable book that was translated under the Nuschirvan into Pehlvi, and since all the writings from where the sayings are borrowed must have already been available earlier, nothing is suitable for us to help create at least a negative chronology of Indian literature. Schlegel refers to the Prussian minister of education Karl Sigmund von Altenstein, who was known for his liberal education reforms. Schlegel devotes the first part of this letter to describe his efforts to produce printed editions of various Sanskrit literary texts from antiquity. 22 23 Henry Thomas Colebrooke was one of the most important British Sanskritists in India during this period, known for his extensive works on the grammatical and philosophical aspects of Sanskrit. !14 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 Subsequently, if Heaven grants me a few more years of life and health, I would gladly like to organise an edition of the entire Râmâyana. In itself, this undertaking is not impossible to overlook: the mere text could be put together into 5 octave bands. It would be endless to add all the variants: one must be content with marking those that are strange in terms of content. One must not flatter oneself about conveying a single authentic text, which is perhaps only possible from those works where there are continuous commentaries repeating all the individual sentences. The manuscripts are much far apart from each other, judging from the few parts that I have been able to compare. We want to be satisfied if we have a text with the right language that is coherent, not incomplete, and not strikingly interpolated. To make it better, like the publishers of the first two books in Serampore, is indeed easy. So much for my plans. Now to your questions, which I will try to answer so well as I know and can. The status absolutus of the substantive and adjective is in my opinion by no means a fiction of grammatical theory, but a fact: because it is, with little exceptions, the form in which the word appears in the compositis.24 I find here a great misunderstanding in the teaching of Greek and Latin grammarians who take the nominative for the naked word itself, and recognise no nota nominativi, which is however clearly there. And indeed, the nota nominativi is in the mascul. in the Greek in the first, second, and third declination, in this, also in the femin. a Σ; just as in the Latin with the exception of the first declination, in which there is perhaps no other masculine other than Etruscan names and words. This is very important for the relationship of languages: in Indian, Greek, Latin, Gothic, and, as per Herodotus, in Old Persian, the S is a general sign of the nominative in mascul., sometimes also in femin. –– The visarga is just a fleeting sound, like the Romans said poplu. In Etruscan, there is a discarding of the no doubt original s in general (Hercle, Vtυχe), and I believe that traces can still be found in Homer (νεφεληγερέτα Ζεὺς – ἱππότα Νέστωρ), and it was equally used in certain cases before Greek. —I think that this is also already recognised from the etymologies through the fact: one knows that one does not have to derive e αἴξ, mons, but rather ΑΙΓ-ος, MONT-is. In the neuter, the nota nominativi is an n or an m, likewise as in the Indian. It is somewhat different with the root of verbs: it belongs to theory, but is however no fiction. It is a presentation of the basic parts, from which all the relationships and developments of words can be understood as from their principle. Somewhere, the root tends to come out as an unchanged component. If we are to come up with a green branch in Greek and Latin, I will not say with the etymology but rather with the grammatical analysis, so must we also try to put up with the roots of verbs, although the old grammarians were unfamiliar with this concept. This indicat. pres. had misled them more than the nom. sing., both of which they took for the word. The Sautradhatu, the Unadi affixes, are devised however out of a love for theory. Otherwise, the Indian grammarians when listing the roots have understood, as I think, the fact of language use as the greatest of conscientiousness. They differentiate the close relatives and take up many roots, where just a modification of meaning, the inflection or the pronunciation takes place. I would not like much to be taken for true roots, as for instance, all the verbs which only go after the 10th conjugation, because these are not, in my opinion, anything other than the causativum. Considering the tempora and modus, one must well admit that the Greek language is richer and more diverse in development than the Indian languages. It owes this in part to the revolutions that it suffered, and which in India was precluded through the earlier establishment. So it seems to me, for instance, that the Greek optative and subjunctive were originally just two different copies of 24 Schlegel responds here to Humboldt’s question in the previous letter about the extent to which grammatical roots are real facts of language, rather than theoretical constructions imagined by grammarians. !15 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 the same thing: the optative is derived from the older form µι in the same way as the subjunctive is from the younger form ω, εις, ει. Later this was used to freely indicate finer differences. Meanwhile, the Indians still abound in their peculiar train of thought, because various such types occur extremely rarely. The tempora of the indicative is however complete until the plusquamperfectum, Wilkins just named that wrong, as he is usually unlucky with his terminology. These tenses are praesens, imperfectum, praeteritum, perfectum, aoristus and two futura, a remotum and a proximum. —Sanskrit, Latin, and most languages have just one imperative: the nature of the thing seems that not more can be given. The Greeks have three or four imperatives. What do they make with them? I find no syllable about this in Matthiae’s extensive grammar.25 One must well admit that the grammatical striving for development can reveal apocryphal testimonies and this seems to have actually happened in the Greek language. —This form, which Wilkins named as potentialis, is used by the Indians in a comprehensive way, as dubitativus, concessivus, optativus, exhortativus etc. Instead of an actual coniunctivus, i.e. to express the dependence on a condition, they often use the indicativus with a particle; for example, instead of cura ut fiat: cura quomodo fiet. One should name the predicativus as the optativus. Also, the aorist is used as a negative optative with the particular averruncandi, freely with the omission of augments. Incidentally, with the missing tempora, the plusquamperfectum of the indicative and the subjunctive, all closer time determinants can, however, be replaced by periphrastic conjugation, namely by a participle with an auxiliary. Cf. Wilkins p. 656. On the pitch, I cannot give you any information. The artificial words acutus, gravis, circumflexus stand right at the beginning of Siddhâta Kaumudi; I have not yet found the rules on which syllables receive these various determinants.26 In my opinion, the Vedas are to be understood differently, namely as a type of canto fermo, with rises and falls in the voice after musical intervals, based on which the holy books are to be performed. In a similar way, our Otfrid accentuated his songs: the accents always agree with the grammatical ones, but stand only where the voice has reached the height, and begins again to sink itself. If the Indian grammarians are silent about the tone determination (what I however did not know), they treat Sanskrit too much as a living language, where the feeling does not need be led by rules. The Greeks themselves only worried themselves first with the accent when their διάλεκτος κοινή began to become a scholarly book language. The Romans wrote Latin with accents during the impoverishment of the Alexandrines at the time of Quintilian, but afterwards neglected them. With the words of the Javanese poetic language, which is mostly pure Sanskrit, Raffles did not signify the quantity of the vowels but rather the word accent, which then often falls off short.27 I cannot say if it was and is so in Sanskrit. The majestic sound of the language in the mouths of the Brahmins has often been praised by Englishmen. From Calcutta, a shortened and simplified grammar of Sanskrit has been announced to us by an English priest named Yates.28 I think the spelling S u n s k r i t is wrong, but the English are 25 August Heinrich Matthiae was a contemporary scholar of classical Greek grammar and literature. 26 Siddhâta Kaumudi was a grammatical treatise on Sanskrit authored by a native Indian linguist named Bhattoji Dikshita from the seventeenth century. 27 Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles was a contemporary British statesman known for his conquests of Malaya and Singapore to the British Empire. 28 Schlegel includes references to a contemporary Baptist missionary to India William Yates, a Danish philologist Rasmus Nyerup, and a French Sanskritist Antoine-Léonard de Chézy. !16 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 almost incurable. I do not know where Nyerup had got it from, that I disregard the Indian grammarians as dealers in subtleties. I have unlimited admiration for them, and I just wanted to understand them first completely. I have no doubt that it will give you great pleasure to follow the original works of these scientific minds yourself, because you are used to solving difficult puzzles. With Indian literature, one has broad choice. If one does not like the Puranas, one might find more taste in the richly artistic poetry from the time period of Kalidasa, to which also Colebrooke gives preference. I left Chezy in delight over the Amurataka, a collection of erotic epigrams or idyllics. I have not issued my “Herabkunft der Göttin Ganga” as a translation. I wanted to recapture faithfully the content and character of the old poetry, but otherwise in my own way and in indigenous and appealing forms. I cannot advise at all to do literal translations of old epic poetry, in part owing to the variations in the texts, in part owing to the endless abundance of words, which are always varied-sounding and winged in the original, but in our poverty degenerates endlessly into tireless repetitions. The attempts by Bopp and Kosegarten are examples that hold us back. Allow me Your Excellency one more request. I wish to know how many and what manuscripts are located in the Propaganda of Rome.29 Especially also in what typesets? I am worried mostly about Talinga, Tamul pp, because I can only need Dêvanâgari and Bengali. You can perhaps help me with this in another message. I do not like to turn to Niebuhr, as I hear that he is not friendly to me because of my review.30 Your text, which I am doubly delighted to possess as an honorary gift from your hand, leads us one sure step forward in the study of ancient peoples. To follow such an investigation is a true pleasure for me, regardless of the challenges. I have only read the script once, and I hardly dare to lay before you one and the other comment and question. You have now convinced me well that Basque is an old and genuine language: that you hold this conviction is in the end enough proof for me. Yet, so soon as there are similarities with neighbouring languages, I cannot set aside the suspicion that they might not have arisen originally but rather through foreign interferences. Because we can hardly avoid these with an unliterary people, who lived for centuries without written monuments and whose languages were pushed to a corner by superior nations. This is also my general view of Valais and Lower Brittany. For example, campoan is suspicious to me as of Romanesque origin. We also have échapper, scampare from ex-campare. Therefore, campoan with an indigenous suffix in campo, outside on the field. In the fragment of an old poem in Mithridates, I noted more of this kind. An investigation into the conditions and situations in which the Basques have lived through among the Goths, Arabs, Franks, and Roman provincials through the Middle Ages would be a welcome addition. They appeared first in the north of the Pyrenees in the last half of the Merovingian time period, and perhaps moved in when the Visigoths had vacated a part of this living place. If I am not mistaken, their military leaders sometimes have German names such as Fredegarius. As Gascony takes its name from them, although Romansh is spoken for the large part, a mixing of peoples must well have happened. And should this not have had an effect on the language of the Spanish Basques? Does not the name cagots derive from this region, which according to etymology can mean nothing other than Gothic dogs, i. e. possibly Goths who 29 This is the Propaganda Fide, a congregation of the Catholic Church in Rome. Humboldt had spent several years in the previous decade as a Prussian ambassador to Rome and had considerable experience with the manuscripts in the Papal libraries. 30 Barthold Georg Niebuhr was a contemporary German historian of ancient Rome. Schlegel does not seem to have a good relationship with Niebuhr, as is apparent from this letter. !17 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 remained Arian? It would now be a beautiful work to do that which would follow yours, namely to discard the words that are not Latin, not Gothic, and not Arabic, but rather are of Basque origins in the entire stock of the Spanish language. Without doubt, Latin was spoken indeed in the whole of Spain except the northwest coastal areas when the Sueves, Vandals, und Goths invaded; but the Romanesque of the peasants could have been mixed with words from the original language. With the Latin words that you are inclined to derive from the Basque, I would risk doing another try to find an indigenous root. Cūria a coëundo. The same sense as comitium. Coetus und coïtus just therefore. It should be noted that the Romans had no o ages ago, so the last word was written especially as cuitus. Mons a movendo, like pons a ponendo, fons a fundendo. We also have momentum instead of movimentum. Moveo is a derived form, movi comes from the original Μάω before ages ΜΑϝΟ. Mons would therefore be striving. Murus, a border, limitation, separation, ἀπὸ τοῦ µείρειν. In pomoerium, we recognise the old form moerus (like µοῖρα) or rather according to the Etruscan alphabet MVIRVS or MVERVS. The original verb is lost, but in the derived form mereri, to receive its proportion, the meaning of the Greek can still be proven. For Vertere, I do not know any Greek analogue, but a very exact corresponding Indian one: vrit, 3 p. praes. vartati, vertit. Then the Gothic vairthan, from where come vairths, versus. The word is therefore sufficiently authenticated as indigenous, because it is found in three languages belonging to this well-known family. It was perhaps also in the Etruscan language, if the name of the God Vertumnus did not change during his transplantation to Latium, what is not probable as the ending (das part. praes. medii oder passivi) also occurs in other Etruscan God names. About vrbs, I do not know anything other than what Varro and Festus say.31 Should the Basque cillarra rather not come from the Gothic silubr than vice versa? The last one sounds foreign, und this is often the case with metal names understandably; the word however must have been brought up very early on to the ancestors of the German language, because, so far as I know, it can be found in all dialects. The Spanish izquierdo seems to have come from the Basque Ezquerra. However, I would like to try a German derivation from both: twerch, obliquus; in Gothic it is possibly called: thvairh. The names of the left hand care to have come always from such figures. The ezquilla next to it in your glossary is undeniably Germanic-Romanish. In Italian, squilla; our (German) Schelle von schallen. Landa, the field, is also German – with Ammianus caucalandia, Gothic hauhaland, the high land (seven hills); in the neighbourhood of the Basques the name les landes stays standing as in memory of the Gothic inhabitants. You see what danger there is if one opens the locks of a hobby shop to an etymologist. I spare you from the rest. Just because you note that the Basque language misses the F like the American, I want to add that I have already noticed this in the language of the Gauls. I remember finding only one exception for all person and place names and other words, which is why it is suspicious. Also, the other adspiratae θ und χ are missing. This makes a sharp contrast with the German language stem. You touch Italy only in passing: I would like to request a further discussion of your perspective. Hellenic colonies cannot clarify the relationship of the Old Italian dialects with that of the Greeks; these colonies are all very young; the Trojans and the pre-Trojans are mera Graeculorum somnia; among the historical ones, the annals of Cumä are apocryphal. This goes back to a far earlier time before the separation of the Italian and Pelasgian stems. How else would 31 Marcus Terentius Varro and Sextus Pompeius Festus were were ancient Roman scholars and grammarians from the first century BCE and second century CE respectively. !18 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 Italy still have preserved so much of the pure Indian, which was lost in Greece? Are you not of the opinion that there were only two main languages in Italy, the later settlements, the Etruscan, and the other, only in diverse dialects, Umbrian, Latin, Sabine, Oscian, Siculian through the entire peninsula deep down into Sicily? I think this comes from all place and person names, individual words, inscriptions, and so forth. I count the Etruscan in the same family, but it stays much further down the line. In no piece have I found the work of Niebuhr more unsatisfactory than in relation to languages. I have earlier collected much on these things, but I do not know if I will ever come to write my Origines Italiennes. Lanzi’s book is however the only preparatory work we have until now. Who writes us an Italian Onomasticon?32 And a book on the geographical names of Italy like yours about Spain? If I only had the time, I would have perhaps got to the bottom of the Iguvinic tablets. It remains however one of the strangest monuments of antiquity. It makes me endlessly delighted that you approve of the construction of my hexameters as a whole. In theory, I would pass very bad: I think I guess the reason for this and that; but I content myself to follow the practice of the ancients exactly and then to consult my hearing. On the other hand, I think I can give a fairly precise account of the laws of quantity in our language. The gradation of our lengthening and shortening and their alternation is recognised; the influence of the prevailing rhythm and certain passages in verse is perhaps still not properly developed. In the wording, the appended speech particles must be brought into consideration: for we have them, both preceding and following, although neither Klopstock nor Voss talk about them.33 This is little to wonder because most of our Hellenists have no clear idea of the matter. I at least have experienced through the pronunciation of modern Greek what a particula enclitica is. Beyden Gemahlinnen, this is just like mollis amaracus; Stammhalter zu seyn | des Geschlechtes; here, I think, it is just through the inversion that the zu seyn is pulled with greater strength to the previous one. As far as the unauthorised Tmesis in the fourth dactyl is concerned, we can hardly resemble Homer: if we avoid only a section formed by the meaning, we can refer to the example of the Latin poets. Auf mir lastet. I am decidedly long because of the emphasis, it would therefore be naturally an Antispast; but it becomes long through the first arsis of the Hexameters, where each one-syllable word that is not a particula enclitica can become long. In aufwallendem Zorn is in my consideration a correct hexameter beginning. In the Middle Ages, when the grammatical importance was not so decisive, the subordinate principle was the material weight of the syllables, the strain of the vowels, and in certain cases the position. I would like to claim this even more than hitherto has been the case. All prepositions, even in und an can become long: auf, aus, vor I do not like to use as truncations; now completely through, which comes actually from two syllables, thuruh. Somewhere we must push these cursed medium-term words, and I will rather put up with incomplete lengths than forced cuts. In the last regard, Voss’ hexameters are still very much hard for me. He had brought forward the matter, but now he would like to gladly hold on to the points beyond which he could not have gone. His book on measuring time shows practical skill, but at the same time a complete absence of thought. So, for instance, he does not know to clarify, why un is sometimes short and unstressed, and at other times gets the length and the tone. And yet, the difference was very logical: the terms The Onomasticon was a text written by Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth century CE and used etymologies of place names as a source of geographical knowledge about Palestine. The Iguvinic tablets are seven bronze tablets written in the Umbrian alphabet from Italy in the third century BCE possibly. The other figure Schlegel mentions in this paragraph is Luigi Lanzi, an Italian historian in the eighteenth century. 32 33 Johann Heinrich Voss was a contemporary German translator of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey into German. Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock was a famous German poet in the eighteenth century. !19 Preetham Sridharan 05/17/2020 Final Translation Project RL 510 contradictorie are opposite, it stays short; if, on the other hand, it is a contrarie opposita, the negation becomes positive, so it becomes long. I left your brother happily und brightly: shortly before my departure, we dined very delightfully together in Palais royal. He promised me to give me something for the Indische Bibliothek: if only he holds his word! I would extend the same request to Your Excellency. There lies so much in the scope of your investigations that belongs to my journal, and a few pages of your hand would be for me a gift of the highest worth. I will immediately use the leisure of the next vacation for the third note. A large article will soon need corrections, because it has become the fashion in Germany that the Crethi und Plethi chatter not only of Indian antiquities but also of the Sanskrit, without knowing a word from that.34 I will not be able to avoid objectioning a lot against the lobby of the brave Ritter; I cannot let his Pre-Brahminic Buddhism go through. That Wolf was kind to me, I was happy to learn: I fear only that I will spoil everything through the Digamma, but I do not hope to do it the way Knight does.35 This time I met Abel Remusat in Paris, who without doubt is one of the most proficient investigators of language and history in Europe, and whose investigations closely touch on mine.36 The number of fully written papers reminds me not to put your patience to a strong test. The receipt of your letter vividly made me aware of the communications and suggestions that I lose by not living in Berlin. The beautiful Rhine ties me up here, the milder air, the almost rural tranquility and smallness and the convenient location for some travels; now also the habit and the fear of a new facility. But my conclusive settlement here has not yet been decided higher up, and I, for my part, have not lost sight of Berlin fully. In any case, I hope to meet you again soon, as I have been lucky in many cities and countries. I ask you [to recommend] Frau von Humboldt. And with the most excellent respect Your Excellency Most obedient AWvSchlegel. the 30th Julius ’21. The Crethi and Plethi were the names of two ethnic groups from the Bible, often referred to in relation with the Philistines. Schlegel seems to use these names to mock those who talk about Indian antiquities without any knowledge of the Sanskrit language. 34 35 Carl Ritter was a contemporary German geographer and Richard Payne Knight was an English archaeologist. 36 Jean-Pierre Abel Rémusat was a contemporary French Sinologist at the Collège de France in Paris. !20