a concrete statement of the absurdity, the
untruth, and untenableness of the present English conception of
inspiration. Do not call me to account too sharply for this hope, or it is
likely to evaporate simply in pious wishes. Moral earnestness is the only
thing that pleases me in this matter; the important thing now is to prove
it, in opposition to invincible prejudices. Your plan of publishing your
Introduction after you have talked it over with Lassen and Burnouf, and
drawn in fresh breath, and just in January too, pleases me very much. If I
may, all in the dark, give you some good advice, try to make yourself
clear on two points. First, as to the proper limits of language for the
investigation of past and prehistoric times. As yet, no one has known how
to handle these gigantic materials; what Jacob Grimm has lately attempted
with them is child's play. It is no longer of any use, as a Titan in
intention, but confused as to aim, and uncertain in method,--it is no
longer of any use to put down dazzling examples which demonstrate nothing,
or at most only that something ought to be there to be demonstrated. What
you have told me entitles one to the highest hopes; and these will be
realized, if you in the French, not the Teutonic manner, arrive at full
understanding of what is at present a mere instinctive intuition, and thus
arrive at the right method. You can do it. Only I have some anxiety as to
the second point, the historical proofs of the beginnings of nations. That
is the weak side, first of all etymologists and word-masters, and then
especially of all "Indologues," and of the whole Indian past itself. There
is an enormous difference between what _can_ have been, nay, according to
certain abstract theoretic views _must_ have been, and what _has_ been.
That, however, is the distinctive problem for historical investigation.
And here, above all, much depends on philological knowledge and sagacity;
but still more on that historical tact which understands how inferences
should be drawn. This demands much acquaintance with what is real, and
with purely historical material; much practice, and, as regards character,
much self-denial. In this _judicium subactum_ of the historian lies the
difference between Niebuhr and O. Mueller. To satisfy these demands, it is
only necessary, with your gifts and your character, that you should wish
to do so earnestly, and perseveringly wish it. Of course you will not
separate the inquiry as to