Слике страница

the clouds . . . no, I hardly think begins just little by little to understand about it."

God, because one feels as He does "Then tell me why you did this thing for these poor girls." today. I can't understand. Make me Lucilla put out her hand and sought see it, if you can."

Hermione's. Hermione walked beside her com “Hermione ... I think, I think,” panion in silence for a minute, then she said shyly, "that if I were very she spoke.

bad or very sad, I'd come to you. “I suppose," she said, "that it was a You wouldn't kick me away, would rather overwhelming sense of gratitude you?” that began it for me; I had so much Hermione held the hand tight. ... everything I wanted. Then I "No. If ever I can help you, Lucilla, noticed that some girls had nothing at under any circumstances, I will. Please all. It seemed to me unfair of God. believe that.” Then I thought that perhaps God "Very well! I shall remind you of wanted me to share my happiness, your promise.” just as we give children sweets, want. They walked on. The slight selfing them to share with others. Always, consciousness that follows great earalways it came upon me that love of nestness fell upon them. "I'm afraid God and love of one's neighbor are I've been talking big," said Hermione; the two aims of life. Christ said so, "you see this is my fête day. I'm didn't He? When you love your on the mountain top today, but of neighbors you've got to love Him too. course I shall have Saharas of dry I love human beings. It isn't good of dullness to explore. No doubt I shall me to try to serve them, because they wander in the wilderness forty years interest and amuse me the whole before I'm done. I think life is time. And this rescue work that we pretty fair to us all. Whatever we do do here interests me more than any we can't avoid discontent and barrenthing. Before I knew, I used to think ness of soul. I'm sure married people of ruined women as a class quite dis know that. I don't think the strictest tinct, made somehow differently from Religious Order on earth provides ourselves; I didn't realize them as discipline comparable to that endured girls like us. But when one knows by the average working man's wife them individually one begins to care with a large young family.” so much, and the more one loves the “Yes," Lucilla answered, "the samemore one begins to want God. Oh! ness of things ... that is what I what does Heaven matter? Who find hard to bear. Endless days, all would care to be in Heaven while the same before one . . . and then they could help God in His work on to get old and ill, and to be out of earth?"

things.” Hermione's eyes blazed with a blue “You'll have Laurence. He's such a light of enthusiasm.

dear. And I hope you'll have children. "It's that,” she said, “which is so “Yes, I wouldn't mind. It would be splendid. One begins in a groveling something to think about." way to try and make things better, and They had made the round of the suddenly one becomes aware that one garden; a bell was ringing. is doing an infinitesimal part of a vast "That's for Vespers,” said Herwork beside Christ Himself. The mione. “I suppose you will both be sense of being fellow-worker with coming. But I'll say good-bye to you Him is better than anything. One here."

She bent to kiss Lucilla.

“God bless you, pretty Lucilla,” she said.

Lucilla returned the kiss with more

warmth than she ever bestowed on her

own sex. “Dear, dear Hermione,” she an

swered, “I wish I were good like you.”

(To be continued.)


Of all international bonds, that of scholarship has perhaps been the most thorough. The sword has severed it, and the wound, sore and inflamed, will heal but slowly. Under no conditions can one imagine any speedy resumption of that friendly intercourse which the fellowship of knowledge requires. Germany owes an atonement too great for any short period to fulfil. Isolated by her own deeds, she must stand apart whilst time heals the wounds she has inflicted upon the body of Europe. The fissure cloven by this war in the fabric of European relations, commercial, civil, and scholastic, cannot be patched by a peace treaty. Germany has chosen deliberately to wage war with a ruthlessness that has often been revealed in theory, but is now manifest in practice, amid blood and cries and tears. Presuming that since war is destruction, its logic admits no restraint whatsoever, Germany has applied herself remorselessly to the simple aim of killing, as it is understood in the jungle, untrammeled by rules and unrestrained by sentiment. She has shown the lack of logic in the laudable attempts of the Hague to mingle the dictates of humanity with the practice of war, which is essentially inhumanity. But beyond all this, Germany has shown that, apart from the fear lest her methods react against herself, nothing weighs with her, neither treaty nor obligation, neither humanity nor mercy. Against every man, woman, and child her war is declared. Her Press, her people, and

her scholars endorse that policy. By so doing, they have rendered impossible the renewal of old relationships after the war, the interchange of students in the Universities, the desire for translation of German books, the commerce in thought and knowledge. It is clearer every day that the future progress of our learning and civilization must proceed in sharp separation from the Kultur of Germany, with which it was formerly so closely connected, but which now has become a by-word of reproach in our streets. Such separation, however, cannot be equally marked at all points. The modern fabric of civilization is too close a unity to admit of any entire isolation of one part from the rest. No useful invention of German science, for example, can be ignored. All that German research can contribute to the future progress of humanity will be but a part payment placed on account against the debt she owes. It is rather in the normative sciences, therefore, than in those which have issues directly practical and commercial, that the separation of Germany from Europe will be most marked. Our acquaintance with German scholarship in these directions will be almost entirely confined to whatever may pass to us through the medium of neutrals; and though German books and periodicals will come through once more, their numbers and influence will be greatly lessened. It is incontestable that the German hegemony in learning has departed, as far as this country is oncerned, for some generations. Least of all shall we be inclined to study German Philosophy, Ethics, and Theology. . No one in this country desires to learn morals or religion from present-day Germany. It would be an affectation to pretend that this loss of touch with German scholarship will be of no account; for Germany's contributions to knowledge have been brilliant and undeniable. A period now lies ahead of us in which the past influence of Germany will be at a great discount; the present almost entirely cut off; and the future small and uncertain. Yet, apart from the not unjust prejudices of the war, it may none the less be reckoned that the loss will by no means be without considerable compensations. Whilst the relations between this country and Germany were cordial, many expressed the view that the characteristic methods of German scholarship were defective; and to exempt this arvicle from the charge of war bias, it may be mentioned that its writer has always held and expressed that opinion. But, with our leading thinkers and Universities spellbound by the obsession that Germany was the pioneer on every path of progress, the originator of everything noteworthy, these suspicions received scant attention. Now that the glamor is gone, we are free to consider more impartially those defects, and to make a more candid estimate of the strength and weakness of German methods of scholarship. Freed from the intellectual domination of Germany, we shall be left to ourselves to discover whether a development on fresh lines may not prove more fruitful than the past has been. Speaking generally, one may say that the best characteristics of German scholarship have been patience, thoroughness, and industry; all of which have been specially manifest in

the close attention it has always given to details. Its defects, especially so far as Theology, Philosophy and like subjects are concerned, have been the tendency to give a wholesale application of one particular fact, rule, or method to all instances, and the prejudicing of critical investigations by conducting them, not with an open mind, but manifestly and sometimes even avowedly, with a view to establishing a previously adopted theory. A ready example of the first-named tendency is afforded by a reference to much recent German Biblical criticism. The first established and undoubted success of the application of critical principles to the Old Testament was the discovery of a plurality of sources in the earlier narrative, a fact which was subsequently proved to obtain also in regard to other books. But the German zeal to apply one method to every instance, has resulted in creating a veritable obsession which has seriously impaired the dignity and value of much modern Biblical research, namely, the fixed idea that every book in Scripture is capable of being partitioned between various sources and “redactors.” Of course, it is not to be denied that the conditions under which ancient documents were produced and transmitted make it always possible that they are composite in origin. Discrepancies, glosses, and interpolations may be suspected also. But, even with the plainest of cues, it is not easy to partition a book between its various sources with certainty; so that, even where composite authorship is probable, it is often improbable that the various portions can be accurately identified. The clue to the original Pentateuchal discovery, found by a French layman, was, of course, the distinct use of the terms “Yahweh” and “Elohim.” Other books have afforded no such patent hint, but German scholarship has exploited the original suggestion everywhere. An orgy of dismemberment has resulted, and much ancient literature has been torn to pieces, generally to different pieces, by each individual critic; for as confident allocation of various portions to various anonymous

sources have often been made on

purely subjective grounds, it is not surprising few agree as to the sources, their extent, and the division of the narrative between them. The only unanimity they have attained is in the desire to apportion every book to a panel of authors, and in the right they have assumed to expunge, revise or recast whatever does not coincide with their preconceived notions of what they would have set down, had they been in the writer's place. In a few instances, of course, the proof of composite authorship has been satisfying and illuminating. Unhappily, however, we have paid over and again for what we have satisfactorily acquired, by time and thought devoted to subjective theorizing concerning other books, which has added nothing to our knowledge, though much to our perplexities. It must be held that this German zeal for the ruthless application of one rule to all cases is primarily responsible for the comparative unproductiveness of recent Biblical criticism, and for the time and labor wasted without adding to our understanding of the character, contents, and meaning of the Scriptures. After its initial successes, the subsequent contributions of Biblical criticism have been disappointing. Indeed, it is not uncommonly said that the real gain lies in the establishment of the method and right of free criticism, rather than in specific results. Whilst that is an exaggeration, it is not an untruth. The reason is that critics have wasted their energies trying to divide the indivisible, or, at

least, that which is indivisible by us. Some books are probably an unalloyed unity. - The composite character of others, whilst it may be suspected, cannot be proved. Apart from distinct literary and historical evidence, subjective considerations are highly untrustworthy, and can only be applied in a very few instances. But German criticism has utilized them with dogmatic confidence, and much British scholarship has wasted itself in patiently assimilating or arguing upon these whimsies. It will be a distinct gain if our release from German influence in this respect allows a rest to criticism of the purely literary type; for it is probable that, until fresh information comes from other quarters, there is little to be gained by continuing to put emphasis upon criticism of this sort. No one who understands the situation thinks that we have come to the end of the subject. We are still much nearer to the beginning. It is simply that a certain method has been overworked, with disappointing results. If that method is suspended, whilst fresh information is gathered and fresh avenues of approach are opened out, it will be resumed later, and will have new and much richer veins to operate upon. For the present the old seam is not worth working further. Another prime defect of German scholarship has been its tendency to adopt a theory hastily, and then to force the facts within it. German logic has inclined to be deductive rather than inductive. An ingenious hypothesis has been received far too often as an established truth, and the facts have been cross-examined with the craft of a leading counsel to elicit evidence to support the approved standpoint. No doubt such theories bear some relation to the facts, but again and again German scholarship has betrayed itself by adopting views gained from hasty and superficial consideration of the data, and forcing an alleged proof of them by distorting or rejecting whatever is not favorable to their adoption. Years ago “the Tubingen school” seized upon the fixed idea that the key to the understanding of primitive Christianity was a radical opposition between St. Peter and St. Paul. The Acts of the Apostles did not lend itself to the support of that view, and thereupon much printers' ink was spilt to prove that it established the truth of the theory in that it was evidently an attempt to mediate between the rival apostles' adherents, and accordingly paralleled the deeds of the one by the doings of the other. The theory ran its course to obsolescence, but its after-effects are still calculable, and its method has remained fashionable in those works of German criticism which attracted most attention amongst us before the war. Schweitzer's Quest of the Historical Jesus was written, it will be remembered, under the influence of one dominant idea, namely, that Jesus was above all else an eschatological enthusiast who sacrificed Himself and His career to the belief in His speedy second advent. The belief was, as the facts have shown, unfounded; but, somehow, out of this abortion, Christianity spread and grew. Schweitzer started upon his quest with this conviction clearly established in his mind. After a long journey “from Reimarus to Wrede,” he finished as he had begun; having shaped everything he touched with much plausibility to show its harmony with his notion, or else its utter untenability. We were called upon by his British admirer to hail this exhibition of Teutonic acumen as a notable product of modern scholarship. Now Schweitzer had certainly made a point that needed consideration. The eschatological teaching of Jesus has been in

sufficiently studied, and in consequence not properly estimated. So far Schweitzer was justified. His error was the typically German one of thinking that the part, the part he knew and had studied best, was the whole. If the New Testament consisted of certain verses merely, it might be held that Schweitzer's was the master-key. But reading the New Testament as a whole, no one but Schweitzer or a disciple of his, could hold such a view. Schweitzer's method was, in essence, a repetition of Baur's, thoroughly German and highly misleading. As an example of the same thing, even more glaringly exhibited, Drew's Christ Myth may be recalled. Its inconsistencies and false judgment were palpable, and its vogue was brief. But its exaggerated absurdities were merely an intensified example of this common defect of German scholarship, the examination of the evidence to support a theory rather than to elicit from it candid conclusions. The same defect is as manifest in German philosophy as in German theology. The modern change of emphasis from theology to the philosophy of religion, has made philosophy more influential in all theological studies, and the German philosophers have been as guilty in this respect as their theological brethren. In this country we have only comparatively recently extricated our philosophy from the spell cast over it by Hegel and the Neo-Hegelians. Despite Hegel's genius, and the impetus his great brain gave to the world's thinking, it is open to question whether he gave any direct help to the quest for reality. Hegel fitted experience into the “Dialectic” in characteristically German fashion, relentlessly pushing it between the millstones of thesis and antithesis to bake the bread of synthesis. He elaborated a system viciously artificial, which in its day was worshipped as an

« ПретходнаНастави »