GROWTH AND DIFFUSION OF CRITICAL SPIRIT. 99 



cannot find in modern German literature the source or 

 origin of any definite branch of criticism, we nevertheless 

 are justified in selecting the modern literature of 

 Germany as exhibiting more than that of any other 

 country the working in a comprehensive style of the 

 critical methods, the triumphs as well as the ravages of 

 the critical spirit. 1 



1 To those who have been brought 

 up in the centre of the thought and 

 learning of Germany during the 

 nineteenth century it may appear 

 as if criticism exhibits there two 

 very different aspects, being, on the 

 one side, eminently sympathetic and 

 constructive (as manifested in the 

 great edifice of classical philology), 

 and, on the other side, unsympa- 

 thetic and destructive (as shown by 

 much of biblical criticism since the 

 time of Strauss and the Tiibingen 

 school) : accordingly, they might 

 object that two such opposite ten- 

 dencies cannot be brought together 

 as manifestations of the same, the 

 critical spirit. In defence of the 

 position I have taken up, and after 

 fully considering the pertinence of 

 this remark, I have to urge that I 

 regard the whole of German thought 

 from an extraneous or international 

 point of view. Now, not only do 

 foremost representatives of German 

 criticism in all its different branches 

 use the term " Kritik," without any 

 special definition, as quite intelli- 

 gible to their readers, but there are 

 also notable instances in which de- 

 struction and construction are taken 

 for granted as being two essential 

 sides of the same critical process. 

 As an example, I refer to the writ- 

 ings of Eduard Zeller, one of the 

 few who displayed his great critical 

 ability as much in his theological 

 as in his philological writings. 

 Notably in his collected Essays, 

 where he discusses at great length 



the critical writings of Strauss, 

 Baur, and the Tubingen school (see 

 ' Vortrage und Abhandlungen,' vol. 

 i. ), there is no indication that there 

 is any difference between the criti- 

 cism employed by them in biblical 

 matters and that employed by 

 himself in his ' Philosophy of the 

 Greeks.' Mr Whittaker also remarks 

 that with philological criticism, 

 when dealing with literary crea- 

 tions, the origins of which, like those 

 of the biblical records, have to be 

 traced, not in the full daylight, but 

 in the twilight of history such as 

 the poems of Homer, Hesiod, The- 

 ognis, and the beginnings of Greek 

 and Roman history similar disin- 

 tegration and unsettlement of opin- 

 ion has resulted. The fact that, in 

 reviewing the labours of English 

 and French scholars and historians, 

 German authorities have so fre- 

 quently stigmatised them as un- 

 scientific and uncritical, has done 

 more than anything else to identify, 

 in the English mind, the historical 

 and philosophical literature of Ger- 

 many with a critical tendency which 

 sometimes as, e.g. , when dealing 

 with the Scriptures or with the 

 creations of polite literature and 

 art has missed the essence of its 

 subject and become unsympathetic 

 through excessive minuteness or 

 preconceived ideas. Evidence of 

 this opinion among English writers 

 may be found, e.g., in many pass- 

 ages of Prof. Saintsbury's ' History 

 of Criticism and Literary Taste.' 



