will for that; they had acted as their consciences dictated. In eighteen
months I should be ready to take my Magister examination; the old poet
thought he might venture to prophesy that I should do well. He was
surprised at his visitor's youth, could hardly understand how at my age
I could have read and thought so much, and gave me advice as to the
continuation of my studies.

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,