für Allgemeine menschliche Bildung). The rapid growth of Keilhau gave
Froebel at the time no leisure for controversy. In 1827 began the cruel
persecutions which eventually compelled him to leave Keilhau. Now
whenever Froebel was under the pressure of outward difficulty, he always
sought for help from within, and from his inward contemplation derived
new courage and new strength to face his troubles. Out of such musings
in the present time of adversity the long-awaited reply to Krause at
length emerged. The disputative part, interesting in itself, does not
here concern us. We pass at once to the brief sketch of his life
contained in later parts of the letter, omitting what is not
autobiographical. The earlier of these passages relate more succinctly
the events of the same period already more fully described in the letter
to the Duke of Meiningen; but we think it better to print the passages
in full, in spite of their being to a great extent a repetition of what
has gone before. Certain differences, however, will be found not
unworthy of notice.

The Krause letter succeeded the other and more important letter (to the
Duke of Meiningen) by some few months. Its immediate outcome was a warm
friendship between Krause and Froebel; the latter, with Middendorff as
his companion, journeying to Göttingen to make the philosopher's
personal acquaintance, in the autumn of 1828. Long discussions on
education took place at this interesting meeting, as we know from
Leonhardi, Krause's pupil. Krause made Froebel acquainted with the works
of Comenius, amongst other things, and introduced him to the whole
learned society of Göttingen, where he made a great, if a somewhat
peculiar, impression.