ABSTRACT
The public at large, with its vulgar and superficial standards, has nothing but disdain for the whole of critical scholarship. Some of its votaries are inclined to exalt it unduly. But there is a happy medium between these extremes of over-appreciation and contempt. The crude opinion of those who pity and despise the minute analysis of external criticism hardly deserves refutation. Formerly the professions of “critical scholar” and “historian” were, in fact, clearly distinguished. The “historians” cultivated the empty and pompous species of literature which then was known as “history,” without considering themselves bound to keep in touch with the work of the scholars. Profound instincts, and, for all the childish or ridiculous perversions which they may exhibit in certain individuals, of the highest utility! After all, these are forms, the most rudimentary forms, of the scientific spirit. Those who are devoid of them have no place in the world of critical scholarship.
