1860-61.--EDITOR.] and of its tendency to jeopardise the
simplicity of pure sentiment. I have previously mentioned that he
displayed so much personal animosity against me during the latter
part of the time we were together in Riga that he vented his
hostility upon me in every possible way. Up to that time I had
felt inclined to ascribe it to the divergence of our respective
views on artistic points.

To my dismay I now became aware that personal considerations
alone were at the bottom of all this, and I blushed to realise
that by my former unreserved confidence in a man whom I thought
was absolutely honest, I had based my knowledge of human nature
on such very weak foundations. But still greater was my
disappointment when I discovered the real character of my friend
H. Dorn. During the whole time of our intercourse at Riga, he,
who formerly treated me more like a good-natured elder brother,
had become my most confidential friend. We saw and visited each
other almost daily, very frequently in our respective homes. I
kept not a single secret from him, and the performance of his
Schoffe van Paris under my direction was as successful as if it
had been under his own. Now, when I heard that my post had been
given to him, I felt obliged to ask him about it, in order to
learn whether there was any mistake on his part as to my
intention regarding the position I had hitherto held. But from
his letter in reply I could clearly see that Dorn had really made
use of Holtei's dislike for me to extract from him, before his
departure, an arrangement which was both binding on his successor
and also in his (Dorn's) own favour. As my friend he ought to
have known that he could benefit by this agreement only in the
event of my resigning my appointment in Riga, because in our