RELATIONS OF GERMAN LINGUISTICS 281 



language should be attracted by the collective production of the 

 masses. 



Of course the philologist must also occasionally resort to compar- 

 isons, at least whenever he wishes to individualize artistically; and 

 if his comparisons are to be correct, he, too, must follow the historical 

 method. But the historical conclusions drawn from his sources and 

 the differences established, no matter whether they be differences 

 of individuals or groups, do not, as in the case of the student of lan- 

 guage, serve him primarily in the determination of connections, 

 even if only in the general psychology of language-change, but, 

 conversely, they aid him in his separation of elements, and in de- 

 taching the individual from the general. Or if he be attracted more 

 directly to the general, he will turn rather to fields of language- 

 aesthetics than to those of language-psychology. 



An exaggerated conception of this tendency is of course fraught 

 with manifold dangers. The one-sided philologist, particularly, 

 who does not know how to profit by the viewpoint and the methods 

 of the language-investigator, will neglect a series of methods which 

 would aid him in his researches, and moreover he will be apt to 

 regard observed facts in a false light, because they appear to him as 

 unconnected dots and not as links in a definite chain of development. 



The corresponding dangers which confront the one-sided linguist 

 lie in the opposite direction. Without the necessary philological 

 control, he is apt to regard separate elements as too closely related 

 and to see connections and possibilities, the acceptance of which 

 would be absolutely prohibited by philological determinations. 

 Moreover, inasmuch as his whole method of investigation leads him 

 first of all to the search for direct courses of development, such as 

 are furnished in rich measure by the natural speech of every-day 

 life, it will not always be easy for him to follow the zigzag path of 

 development produced by the influence of individual forces and by 

 the intentionally artistic development of the written language. 



It has been amply demonstrated that a mutual rapprochement 

 and an interchange of ideas and methods is absolutely essential to the 

 satisfactory progress of both philology and linguistics. While the 

 philologist needs the science of language for the broadening of his 

 horizon in general linguistic matters, the linguist, conversely, can- 

 not get along without philological criticism in the arrangement and 

 accurate determination of his material of comparison. 



The general recognition of the necessity for this union, evident 

 as it would seem to be in theory, has been slow to gain ground in 

 practice. The linguists have made the earliest and most vigorous 

 efforts in this direction. To be sure many sins may still be committed 

 here by the individual; in principle, however, the modern science 

 of language does demand that all its representatives be philologists 



