MEMOIR OF FLEISCHER. 511 



last-meutioned scholars prove that the increased interest in Arabic 

 subjects can not be traced entirely to outward causes, but shouhl be 

 connected with the renascence in Germany of philological studies from 

 an historical point of view. On the other hand, the efforts of the tirst 

 set of scholars depend entirely upon the work of De Sacy, who had 

 been the teacher of Kosegarten and Freytag, and indirectly through 

 the latter, also of Vullers and llengstenberg. Even Ewald, inde- 

 pendent though he was, and striving to master for linguistic purposes, 

 the material bequeathed by Arabian grammarians, had to lean upon 

 De Sacy in the development of the main features of his plan. 



The times have been when it was customary, if not with Fleischer 

 himself, at any rate with a few of his disciples, to treat somewhat con- 

 tem[)tuously the efforts of men like Freytag and Hammer-Purgstall in 

 behalf of Arabic philology. I myself must confess to the youthful folly 

 of having, in my first very imperfect essay, spoken of Hammer in away 

 which even vivid remembrance of Ahlwardt's Chalaf could not excuse, 

 certainly not justify. Deservedly, I was at once reproved by a more 

 sensible fellow- worker.* Freytag was also j udged unkindly, though per- 

 haps not with equal severity. Even the numberless corrections which 

 had to be made in his lexicon, and will of necessity ever continue to be 

 made, cannot alter the fact that it was an eminent performance at the time 

 of its compilation, and still remains an exceedingly useful work. iSat- 

 urally, neither Hammer nor Freytag, neither Kosegarten nor Yullers 

 can bear comparison with the master mind at Paris. The last three are 

 docile disciples, who praiseworthy for industry, and estimable for at- 

 tainments, do no more than follow in the footsteps of their master, with- 

 out reaching him, even in their happiest moments. Hammer, on the 

 other hand, was never more than a highly gifted dilettante, whose desire 

 for novelties stifled the faculty of maturing ideas. His capacity for 

 work wa^ unbounded ; its results ho wever laid down in numerous volumes, 

 but apparently Solve the vast problems of history and literature. On 

 his bold excursions, he often paved the way to fields hitherto inaccessi- 

 ble, but keenly discovered by him to be worthy of cultivation. It will 

 always remain his distinction that he made it possible for us to gain a 

 bird's-eye view ovfer such fields, and cursory though it was, it is still 

 valuable on all points in which detailed research has iu)t replaced his 

 superficial statements by more reliable data. Hence it is not astonish- 

 ing that the Vienna Orientalist enjoyed undisputed fame and exerted 

 great intiuence in the first third of this century. Tiius the danger was 

 imniinent, that his virtues being inseparable from his personality, his 

 pupils and imitators might after his death seize only upon his weak 

 points and develop them into a radically false and highly dangerous 

 system. It is doubtful whether any of the German representatives of 

 DeSacy would have been able successfully to combat this method. De- 

 spite their merits, not one of the investigators named was distinguished 



* See H. Dereubourg, Revue critique, X6ti9, No, 35, p. 138. 



