says; "His inclination towards the liberal theology is inferred by his friends, from his sparing occasionally in his Bibliotheca, an insipid theologian, commending his writings and protecting him from reproach." Of Morus it speaks thus; "The liberals are very complaisant to this learned man, and would gladly have him for their leader. Will he be persuaded by them? I think not." Of Dathe it is said; "The liberal theologians are kindly disposed towards him, because he never came out against them." To the third generation of Leipsic theologians, formed under the influence of this second, belong Keil (from 1793 to 1818), and Tzschirner from 1809 to 1828.

Still longer did orthodoxy maintain its existence in Wittenberg. We may name Dresde from 1772 to 1805, and E. F. Wernsdorf from 1756, as its decided 'friends. A more pliant supernaturalism was introduced by K. C. Tittmann (from 1775 to 1789). Schröckh (from 1775 to 1808) and Reinhard (from 1780 to 1792, afterwards in Dresden till his death in 1812) occupied the same position in theology. With K. L. Nitzsch the Kantian philosophy entered Wittenberg, but under orthodox colors. Rationalism, properly speaking, first found admission there under Tzschirner (from 1805 to 1809; afterwards he was removed to Leipsic); not, however, without great moderation and caution. In the meantime orthodoxy found another warm friend in Heubner; and from 1809, also in Schott.

There remains to be noticed one more university whose theological faculty has entered with spirit into the movements of each successive period, and has not escaped without some modifications of its supernaturalism, and yet not one of its teachers has been a supporter of the historico-critical Rationalism! This is Tübingen. Among its theologians at the beginning and middle of the second half of the last century, viz., Sartorius, Uhland, Hegelmaier, Märklin, Cotta, Rössler (Schnurrer), there was not one, so far as we know, except perhaps Rössler, who did not belong to the orthodox party, in the sense of the word as used at that time. They were men who were attached to the creeds, and who felt a sufficient interest in them to comment on the old theologians, as Cotta in his admirable edition of Gerhard's Loci, and to defend the Lutheran doctrines against the Reformed church, and to attack the idol of toleration, as Hegelmaier in his work on

the subject. By means of the theological seminarium [a society or class of select students for higher culture], connected as it is there with the office of the Repetents [subordinate teachers for reviewing the studies under the charge of the professors], this university has a theological influence upon its students rarely to be witnessed elsewhere. This is probably a chief reason why the university teachers produce such effect upon the clergy of Wirtemberg. When we consider that the vacant professorships are supplied from the number of native students educated there, we can easily understand why there should be a kind of theological tradition in Wirtemberg, which has clung to the old orthodoxy even through the whole period of neology. On the other hand, the young Suabian theologians are kept in connection with the spirit which prevails in other German states, by their course of study in philosophy, which precedes that of theology. Thus the Wolfian, and still more the Kantian philosophy, had their day in Tübingen. Probably no university, at the commencement of the present century, had so many theologians, who were initiated into the Kantian philosophy, as this. And yet they retained great freedom of spirit, opposing or favoring different parties, according to their independent judgment. The celebrated men of this period are Storr, made ordinary professor in 1786, J. F. Flatt in 1798, K. C. Flatt in 1803, Süskind in 1804, and E. S. Bengel professor extraordinary in 1806. The last leaned to the historical results of Rationalism. With the excellent Steudel, the last vigorous shoot of supernaturalism, as maintained by the pious and learned Storr, has become extinct. But as the lamented Steudel entered somewhat into the new mode of theological science [the new evangelical school], in which his associates joined him, this theological faculty has been able to keep up an unbroken succession of teachers of evangelical truth.

We have thus seen the gradual change from church orthodoxy to unbelief. The change from this state to that of a faith won by a new examination of all the grounds of doubt, must be reserved for future examination, as it is now but a matter of hope and anticipation.

ARTICLE III.

MENZEL'S GERMAN LITERATURE.

German Literature. Translated from the German of WOLFGANG MENZEL. By C. C. FELTON. In three vols., 12mo. pp. 352, 428, 372. Boston. Hilliard, Gray & Company. 1840.

WOLFGANG MENZEL is a very peculiar man; and no one who is acquainted with the character of his extraordinary mind, will expect to meet in the review, which we now propose to ourselves, unqualified praise or blame. The work before us was published in 1828, when the author was thirty years of age; a second enlarged edition appeared in 1836. It is impossible to understand the design and character of this production, without some knowledge of Menzel's literary history. He was born in Silesia in 1798. He pursued the studies of the gymnasium at Breslau, and those of the university at Jena and Bonn, and then became a teacher in Aarau, in Switzerland. His first production was his "Streckverse" or blank verses, which created considerable sensation. The next year, 1824, he edited the "Europäischen Blätter," or European paper, at Zurich, in which he commenced that literary warfare to which his whole life has since been devoted. He became the leader of the exclusive admirers of Schiller, who were very numerous in the south of Germany, and, at the same time, arrayed himself against the admirers of Göthe, and the critical school of Schlegel. Next appeared the first edition of his "History of the Germans," where he also acts the part of a reformer; at least in the edition of 1837, the only one we have examined, his tone is that of a polemic. In 1825, while at Heidelberg, he took part in the controversy between Voss and Creuzer, and became the mortal enemy of the former. From this period his residence was Stutgard, where he formed a literary connection with Cotta, the celebrated bookseller, and soon after married into the family of Bilfinger, the philosopher. Here he prepared the first edition of his "German Literature," which made

him more extensively known as a writer of vast resources. But the tone of unsparing severity there manifested towards all the parties and individuals to whom he was opposed, called forth a host of assailants, who to this day have kept up the contest with much warmth, and of whom Strauss, his full match in controversy, gave him the last and most terrible cannonade in his "Streitschriften." In 1829, Menzel became chief editor of the "Literaturblatt," or Literary Journal, for which he had long written, and of which he had, in fact, been the anonymous editor, from the time that Müllner retired from it. This journal he now made his engine of war, and with it he fought out the battles of which his "German Literature" was the immediate occasion. Says a writer in the "Conversations-Lexicon of the Most Recent Times and Literature," whom we have chosen to follow in this sketch, "War is his element. He continues it with unwearied ardor, regardless of the reputation and number of his opponents, and of the ever-increasing hostility he meets with. We may apply to this deadly foe of all literary aristocracies what Livy says of Cato, the champion of democracy in Rome: "Simultates nimio plures et exercuerunt eum et ipse exercuit eas. Nec facile dixeris, utrum magis presserit eum nobilitas, an ille agitaverit nobilitatem." Without particularly mentioning his poetical productions, and various occasional writings, we will here only add, that his political passion, which always predominated in his writings, has of late years been gratified; and that his public career since he entered the Chamber of Deputies has involved him more and more in political discussions.

In speaking of the merits of the work now under consideration, while we shall cordially admit the high excellences that are generally attributed to it, we shall have occasion to point out more defects than most of our countrymen, so far as we have had the means of information, appear to discover in it.

We shall venture to characterize Menzel as a man of undoubted genius, though infinitely inferior to Göthe, whom he affects to despise, and as a scholar of the most extensive and various acquisitions, but, in no small degree, deficient both in the impartiality of a faithful historian and critic, and in the dignity of a true philosopher. He is, notwithstanding his general greatness and strength,

sometimes exceedingly small and weak, and his pages are too often stained with the language of vulgar abuse.

The title of the work, by creating the expectation that the author will confine himself to the subject of literature, is adapted to mislead. A more general title,-"The Germans," for example,-would better indicate the contents of the book; for it discusses the national character and institutions of the Germans quite as much as it does their literature. Still the author would be found stretching beyond his limits, for he has incorporated innumerable essays on subjects remotely connected with his professed object. What concern have we, for example, in the author's long disquisition on the liberty of the press,* in his fine spun psychological theory of religion,† his views of the Catholic church, his hatred of all the men and books that treat of the civil law, his notions of commerce,|| and a "whole forest" of other subjects, of which time would fail us to speak? Had he merely touched upon these as collateral topics, or thrown out remarks hinting at the principles by which he tested the merits of the works under review, he would only have been acting the part of a philosophical critic. But, as it is, he betrays, in innumerable instances, more interest in establishing and inculcating his own doctrines, than in illustrating the character and position of the writers with whom he was more properly concerned. His everlasting patriotism, and the party feelings growing out of his literary disputes, are perpetually obtruded upon us, where we should much prefer facts. We speak not now of the justness of his views on any of these topics, but of their pertinency. Is there any subject in the whole encyclopedia of human knowledge, or any interest connected with the well-being of society, that might not be discussed in such a work with equal propriety?

"in

Of the first chapter of the "German Literature," in which the author treats of the "quantity of the literature," we have little to say, except that it is half historic verity and half comedy. After breaking the silence with the words: "The Germans do little, but they write so much the more," words which, in their spirit and style, are

* Vol. I, pp. 84 and following.

§ Vol. II, pp. 127-139.

† 96-110.

|| 239-243.

133-138.