4 io LECTURES AND ESSAYS [1874- 



figures in that literature stand before us in sharply defined 

 outline. But much remains obscure, and, even those 

 results of recent criticism which seem most certain are 

 far from being universally admitted. While it is still 

 denied by influential critics that a single Psalm can safely 

 be ascribed to David, 1 while competent judges dispute 

 whether the Song of Solomon is a drama or a collection of 

 lyric fragments, and while the dates assigned to the Book 

 of Job in the critical school itself differ by many centuries, 

 it is obvious that if there is not much room for new 

 theories there is at least a call for much new proof. Such 

 proof must for the most part consist of an examination of 

 minutise, in which only theologians can be expected to 

 take much interest. Instead, therefore, of wearying our 

 readers by introducing them to the conflicts of detail 

 which at present occupy the arena of criticism, we shall 

 endeavour to set before them some of those results in which 

 all are agreed, and from which every one may find assist 

 ance towards an intelligent study even of the English 



Bible. 



There are two marks which characterise every real work 

 of fine art. The first of these marks is that it must embody 

 a creative thought, that it must exhibit the power of the 

 human spirit to seize, shape, vivify, and subdue under its 

 own dominion the dead matter of unformed impression 

 presented to the mind in the two universes of external 

 nature and internal feeling. And then, in addition to this 

 character of creativeness, a second mark is required to 

 distinguish aesthetic from scientific production. While 

 science values each new thought only as a fresh step 

 towards the intellectual comprehension of the whole 



i This position was maintained by Hupfeld, mainly, one is compelled 

 to judge from the general bluntness of his historic sense, which made 

 him partly indifferent and partly sceptical in questions of authorship. 

 When the same thing is maintained by Kuenen, the explanation must 

 be sought not in indifference to the chronology of the Psalms, b 

 rather in the partiality of this critic for a peculiar historical (or un- 

 historical) theory of the religion of Israel. 



