280 GERMANIC LANGUAGES 



guage, and both employ the historical-comparative method. Lan- 

 guage-history on the whole is really synonymous with language 

 differentiation, and it is furthermore characteristic of this language 

 differentiation that only a limited portion of common language 

 property resting on the older basis of greater unity is ever handed 

 down to the younger, more strongly specialized linguistic divisions. 

 Again, it is self-evident that conditions possessed in common, 

 even in later periods, are prerequisite for drawing conclusions about 

 earlier forms. The language-investigator conducting his researches 

 along historical lines must from the nature of things begin in every 

 case with the common element and determine its originality. Not 

 until this preliminary investigation has been completed can he turn 

 with the expectation of ultimate reward to the comparative examin- 

 ation of differences in form and structure and their history. The fact 

 that both activities must frequently be combined in practical detail 

 work, the more so the more delicate and detailed the form the pro- 

 blems take, has nothing to do with the matter in hand. Moreover, 

 the student of language seeks to recognize common elements in forms 

 which have been proved not to be original, and to differ from one 

 another, by drawing conclusions from the similarity of changes 

 about the similarity of the processes mainly psychical that have 

 produced the changes. Going still another step further, from the 

 similarity of those processes he can draw conclusions as to the 

 normalcy of the changes under consideration a matter which 

 depends upon the similarity of the psychical organization of the 

 various peoples and speakers. It is this latter similarity, finally, 

 which alone can give to the investigator of linguistic conditions 

 the necessary faith in the correctness of his views and explanations. 

 This much is therefore established, that the scholar who approaches 

 the study of language from the historical-comparative standpoint 

 is compelled to work chiefly with that portion of the language which 

 we may designate as the collective attainment, or, at least, as the 

 collective possession of the speaking masses. It is entirely different 

 with the critical philologist, for whom language represents primarily 

 only that fraction of the general conception of language which has 

 been preserved as literature literature in the widest sense of the 

 term. In one respect, therefore, he conceives of language as the 

 means of expression for certain thoughts and contents which he 

 investigates. On the other hand, so far as he takes any interest 

 whatever in form, he regards language partly as the foundation upon 

 which the various artistic forms of human speech are erected, partly 

 as a means of differentiation between individuals or between stages 

 of art. Disregarding the question of content, this is equivalent to 

 the statement that the philologist must be attracted in language 

 primarily by the production of the individual, just as the student of 



