Sibbern was as cordial as Hauch had been polite and cautious. It was
very funny that, whereas Hauch remarked that he himself had wished to
give me the prize with an _although_ in the criticism, but that
Sibbern had been against it, Sibbern declared exactly the reverse; in
spite of all its faults he had wanted to award the medal, but Hauch had
expressed himself adverse. Apparently they had misunderstood one
another; but in any case the result was just, so there was nothing to
complain of.
Sibbern went into the details of the treatise, and was stricter than
Hauch. He regretted that the main section of the argument was deficient;
the premises were too prolix. He advised a more historic, less
philosophical study of Literature and Art. He was pleased to hear of the
intimate terms I was on with Broechner, whereas Hauch would have
preferred my being associated with Rasmus Nielsen, whom he jestingly
designated "a regular brown-bread nature." When the treatise was given
back to me, I found it full of apt and instructive marginal notes from
Sibbern's hand.
Little as I had gained by my unsuccessful attempt to win this prize, and
unequivocally as my conversation with the practical Sibbern had proved
to me that a post as master in my mother tongue at a Grammar-school was
all that the Magister degree in Aesthetics was likely to bring me,
whereas from my childhood I had made up my mind that I would never be a
master in a school, this conversation nevertheless ripened my
determination to give up my law studies, but of course only when by
successfully competing for the prize the next year I had satisfactorily
proved my still questionable ability.
Pages:
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194