good mind, open to everything that requires first-rate attention, but for a
long time he was very childish and quite lacking in seriousness. He had a
desire for freedo mand independence that was expressed in his behavior in
the form of a good-natured, sometimes amusing lack of constraint, which
prevented hi mfro mgetting too involved with anything or fro mshowing
anygreaterinterestinthingsthanwouldkeephimfrombeingabletowith-
draw into himself again. His irresponsibility rarely permitted him to bring
his good intentions to fruition or to pursue a definite goal in a sustained
manner. When, in time, this trait diminishes, allowing his character to take
on more seriousness—and recognizable progress has been made in this di-
rectioninthepastyear—andhisfineintellectualabilitiesareabletodevelop
more freely and unconstrainedly at the university, he will certainly be
among the more capable students and in many ways will come to resemble
his oldest brother.” The comparison with Peter Christian was intended as
praise, but it was certainly an irritant to Søren Aabye as well.
In the Latin “school testimony” that was to accompany the gifted pupil
totheuniversity,Nielsenrepeatedthecomparisonandalsoprovidedapor-
trait of the esteemed father: “This man’s wisdom and piety can be seen in
all of his circumstances, and especially in child rearing, from which he [the
father] himself derived great benefit in the cultivation of his mind and in
intellectual enjoyment. Because the father’s home is thus such a model of
industriousness, patience, and moderation, and is arranged in conformity
withtheprinciplesbywhichchildrenaretrainedincivicvirtueandinGod-
given wisdom, he has enjoined his son to view all things in the light of the
fear of God and a sense of duty, and to seek the source of all things in God
as the fount of all wisdom. He has taught him, on the one hand, that God
does not listen to the prayers of do-nothings, and on the other hand, that
without prayer, acumen can achieve nothing except to ensnare the mind
in error.” And then, at last, Nielsen turned his attention to the son: “This
youngman,whohasthusbeenraisedandeducatedinthismanner,inkeep-
ing with the customs of our forebears and with the discipline that will pro-
mote the welfare of the state and good morals—and not in the rash and
rebellious spirit of the times—and who possesses many qualities that make
hi mwell-liked and win hi mfriends, I reco m mend to your attention,
learned men, in the highest fashion.”
If we place the two testimonials side by side, we could almost believe
that they do not describe the same person. The one document emphasizes
the intellect, the unseriousness, the irresponsibility, the hilarity, and the
cleverness,whiletheotherdocumentonlyspeaksofupbringing,God-fear-
ing devotion, responsibility, and a sense of duty. But Nielsen surely had a
sense of what lurked inside his student.
{1813–1834} 27