Men of intellect and science fall naturally into two groups, the subjectively creative and the objectively reproductive. Thefirst group comprises those thinkers who,after a thorough research of a definitefield in all its details, free themselves, asit were, from their material, giving theirideas and often even their fantasies freeplay, and constructing systems of thoughtwhich they invariably present accordingto their individual disposition and ability.The goal at which they aim in their laborsis chiefly to establish the subjectively conceived coherence, the unity amidst the complexity of things, and in this way to convince the reader of the logic and truthof their ideas. The scientific measure ofvalues for such productions is always thedegree of objectivity that comes to lightin them, regardless of their subjectivetone. The highest type of this bent ofmind is exemplified by the genuine philosopher, who tries to work up the inner andouter experiences into a self-evident portrayal that is in keeping with reality. Onthe lowest rung of the ladder, in this respect, is the gushing Euphuist, who, because he is wanting in power and thoughtand analysis, fails to see clearly the subject to be treated, and therefore lacksobjectivity.
To the second class of investigators belong those who do not separate themselves perceptibly from their material in order to examine it subjectively, but who rather let it speak for itself, critically classified and arranged. They do not set out to state and solve philosophic problems, so much as to bring the manifold objects of knowledge from obscurity into light. The scientific measure for the valuation of their performances is here exactly re-
(Translated from the German by Leon A. Kohn.)
versed. It is the degree of individuality which expresses itself, despite all objectivity in the manner of their arrangement and treatment of the subject. The highest type of this class is the universal scholar, who, despite the rich profusion of his material, makes everything luminous through his critical genius, and knows how to make that which is seemingly most insignificant, fruitful for science. His antipode is the scientific small-dealer, the quibler, the collector of old manuscripts, who, because he is without genius or individuality, must content himself with the roll of dull statistician.
In antiquity, both classes which we have here delineated, had already attained to their highest manifestation in Plato and Aristotle. The decision as to which of these two types should be esteemed the more highly for its advancement of knowledge will always depend on the individual bent of the judge, according as he is more inclined to view things in the abstract or the concrete. Both parties must, after all, supplement each other in the endeavor to discover truth.
Moritz Steinschneider is indisputably,representative of the highest type of theobjective investigator. He is the most universal Jewish scholar that the present daycan show. In the manysidedness of hisscientific researches, in the multifairous-ness of his literary interests, in themastery of foreign languages, he standsincomparable. In wealth of knowledgeand creative power he overtops all otherJewish scholars of the Nineteenth Century.For even the most eminent among themapplied themselves to a more or less narrowly limited field of research in Jewishliterature or even in the literature of the