16.
Berlin,Oct. 24, 1834.
Berlin,Oct. 24, 1834.
Berlin,Oct. 24, 1834.
Berlin,Oct. 24, 1834.
I begin the printing of my work (the work of my life). I have the extravagant idea of describing in one and the same work the whole material world—all that we know to-day of celestial bodies and of life upon the earth—from the nebular stars to the mosses on thegranite rocks—and to make this work instructive to the mind, and at the same time attractive, by its vivid language. Every great and sparkling idea must be noticed, side by side with its attendant facts. The work shall represent an epoch of the intellectual development of mankind in their knowledge of nature. The prolegomena are, for the most part, ready. They are my amended “discours d’ouverture” as they were delivered from memory, although immediately afterwards carefully written down; the picture of physical nature—incentives to the study of nature in the spirit of our age—these latter are threefold: 1. “Poesie descriptive” and vivid description of natural scenery in modern works of travels. 2. Landscape pictures, sensitive description of an exotic nature—when it originated, when it became a necessity and a pleasure to the mind; the reason why antiquity (too passionate) could not feel it. 3. Plants—grouping of them, according to the physiognomy of plants (no botanic gardens).—History of the physical description of the world. How the idea of the world—of the connexion of all the phenomena, became clear to the nations of the world in the course of centuries. These prolegomena are the most essential. They contain the general part of the work, which is followed by the special part, the particulars of which are arranged in systematic order. I send also a part of the tabular register; space of the universe; thewhole physical astronomy; our globe, its interior, exterior; electro-magnetism of its interior; vulcanism, that is, the reaction of the interior of a planet upon its surface; organization of the masses; a concise geognosy; ocean; atmosphere; climate; organic matter; vegetable geography; animal geography; human races and languages; the physical organization of which (articulation of sounds) is controlled by the intellect, the product and manifestation of which is language. In the special part all numerical results, the most minute, as in “Laplace’sExposition du Systéme du Monde.” As these particulars do not admit the same literary perfection of style as the general combinations of natural science, the simple facts are stated in short sentences, arranged in tabular order. The attentive reader will find condensed in a few pages all results on climate, magnetism of the earth, etc., which it would take years of application to learn by study. The intimate relations of the fundamental details, for the sake of literary harmony with the general plan, are effected by brief introductory remarks to each chapter. Otfried Mueller, in his ably written “Archæology,” has very successfully pursued the same method.
It was my wish that you, my dear friend, should get a clear perception of my undertaking from myself. I have not succeeded in concentrating the whole in one single volume, however magnificent the effect of such conciseness would have been. I hope, however, thattwo volumes will contain the whole. There will be no notes under the text, but at the end there will be notes appended, containing solid erudition, and minuteness of detail; these, however, may be left unread.
The work is not what is commonly called “Physical Description of the Earth.” It comprises heaven and earth—everything existing. I began to write it fifteen years ago in French, and called it “Essai sur la Physique du Monde.” In Germany I thought first of calling it “The Book of Nature;” a title already adopted in the middle age by Albertus Magnus. But all this is too vague. The title shall be“Kosmos,” Sketch of a Physical Description of the World, by A. v. H., enlarged outlines of his Lectures in 1827 and 1828. Cotta, Publisher.
I wanted to add the wordKosmos, and to force people to call the book by this name in order to avoid their calling it “Humboldt’s Physical Geography,” which would throw the thing in the class of Mittersacher’s writings. “Description of the World” (formed after History of the World) would, as a designation seldom used, always be confounded with “Description of the Earth.” I know that “Kosmos” sounds rather pretending, and the word is indeed not without a certain “Affetérie;” but this title says in one and the same striking word, “Heaven and Earth,” and is quite opposed to “Gaea,” the title of that rather imperfectdescription of the earth by Professor Zeune. My brother is also for the title “Kosmos.” I myself hesitated for a long time. Now, grant me a favor, my dear friend. I cannot prevail upon myself to send away the commencement of my manuscript without entreating you to cast a critical eye over it. You possess such an eminent talent for style, and you have at the same time so much genius and independence of judgment, that you do not quite discard the style of others because it differs from your own. Please read the “Discours,” and put in a little sheet on which you write—without giving any reasons.—“So ... I would better like, so ... instead of....” Do, however, not condemn withoutassistingme! and do also ease my mind as to the title.
With the utmost confidence, yours,
A. v. Humboldt.
A. v. Humboldt.
A. v. Humboldt.
A. v. Humboldt.
Monday.
Monday.
Monday.
Monday.
The principal faults of my style are an unhappy inclination to hyper-poetical forms, long constructions upon participles, and too much concentrating of manifold views and sentiments in one and the same period. I think, however, that these radical evils, founded in my individuality, are somewhat lessened by a grave simplicity and generalization, enabling me to contemplate my subject with a complete mastery of its details, if I may be permitted so much vanity. A book on nature should produce an impression like nature itself. I have beenalways careful, as in my “Views of Nature,” and in that work my manner is quite different from that of Forster and Chateaubriand. I have always endeavored to describe faithfully, to design correctly, and to be even scientifically true, without losing myself in the dry regions of knowledge.