PROFESSOR AT KONIGSBERG 81 



' I have found even more people to visit here than I ex- 

 pected, and Institutes where no money has been grudged 

 on the equipment. The physiologist Wagner, an old man, 

 who is conscious of his own importance, and evidently appre- 

 ciates the notice taken of him by the King (the title Hofrath 

 counts for more here than Professor), is not quite up to the 

 level of the physical knowledge required nowadays, but he 

 feels that, and is careful not to give himself away. The 

 physicist Weber, who, next to Neumann, is certainly the 

 greatest mathematical physicist in Germany, showed me a 

 great deal of very interesting and very perfect physical 

 apparatus, but with less apparent cordiality than his brother 

 in Leipzig. I also met a young anatomist and physiologist 

 Bergmann ; an oculist Ruete, who has done important work 

 on the physiology of the eye; an accomplished surgeon 

 Baum, recently imported from Greifswald; a mathematical 

 optician Listing, whom I had not heard of before, but who 

 certainly deserves to be known ; and lastly a philosopher 

 Lotze, who has worked a great deal at the principles of 

 pathology and physiology, but is unfortunately too hypochon- 

 driacal and self-centred for one to get any exchange of ideas 

 out of him in such a short time. All these people received 

 me with the greatest sympathy and cordiality, and gave me 

 all the time they could spare; it was agreeable to find that 

 they were in touch with my somewhat intricate nerve work, 

 and approved of it, or at least had apparently sufficient 

 confidence in my physical knowledge (for which Weber is 

 responsible) to accept my results. The ophthalmoscope is 

 a splendid toy to travel with ; I demonstrated it this morning, 

 and it is making quite a sensation here. This evening several 

 of them are going to take me out walking, if they are not 

 summoned to the King. On the other hand, I was surprised 

 to find that they do not take kindly to du Bois-Reymond's 

 conclusions: they query here and there, and do not see the 

 importance of the work, and I have had to stand up for it. 

 Their objections are based on the opinion of the Weber who 

 is here, and on the Paris Commission, and are also due to 

 imperfect comprehension of the subject. Little inventions 

 like the ophthalmoscope make a better impression. I am 

 demonstrating my frog-curves everywhere.' 



