# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1851 02 18_S100
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

100

lach's N. T., etc., is well known and would not be mentioned here at all, if an English quarterly in this country, to which we otherwise wish from the heart the best success, in well-meaning ignorance had not repeatedly extolled this Guericke as one of the greatest, if not as the first scholar of Germany, and as a right model theologian, especially worthy of study!!"

These words obviously have the purpose of lowering Guericke (the author of very serviceable, esteemed and widely circulated manuals, especially of a church history) in public opinion; but he is done as much wrong by them as they do their author little honor.

The author speaks in the passage in question of the decided aversion which Neander is said to have felt toward ecclesiastical orthodoxy, as it appears in the writings of Guericke and Rudelbach.

To this passage the opening words of the present note attach themselves. These words now stand in no connection with that passage. For in the latter the speech is of Guericke as a representative of ecclesiastical orthodoxy, in the former of Guericke as an author. To this it is to be added that the author cites those words, as appears from the whole of the note, not at all for a closer portrayal of Neander, but for the sake of a quite special purpose. He thus picks a quarrel, in order here to speak against Guericke.

But let us consider a little more closely what he says. The author heard Neander speak of Guericke as an ungrateful copyist. What is the matter, then, with the "ungrateful copyist"? First, with the "copyist." Neander's church history extends, as is well known, only to the time preparing the Reformation, while Guericke's church history is carried down to the most recent time; and the part which both treat takes up only about half of Guericke's church history. To this it is to be added that Neander has treated the same subject perhaps ten times more fully. This alone makes it already clear that of an actual copying of Neander by Guericke there can be no question. But then, has Guericke used Neander's works strongly, and yet neither acknowledged this, nor expressed to Neander, as his predecessor, the thanks due, so that he at least deserves the predicate "ungrateful"? Let us look once into Guericke's preface to his church history. There stands, p. V. (1833): "The informed reader will (in the manner of my treatment of church history) recognize just as little the pupil, as a by no means slavish pupil of Dr. Neander, whom I revere with heartfelt gratitude, a teacher to whom this whole presentation has very much to thank in contents and form," etc. So for this reason the reproach that he is an ungrateful copyist cannot possibly be made against Guericke, that he had copied straight out of Neander, or at least used him strongly, and neither acknowledged this nor expressed the due thanks toward his source. What, then, may lie at the bottom of that reproach? We need not seek long; for in Neander's following words we find a satisfying explanation. Neander calls G. so for this reason, because the latter misuses the hard labor of others for his ultra-Lutheran dogmatism and fanaticism. What would appear to an unprejudiced person as true love for the truth that has been recognized and for the Church which has and maintains it, seemed to Neander, from his standpoint and with his peculiarity, ultra-Lutheran dogmatism and fanaticism; and it vexed him that his researches in the field of church history were used by Guericke in his church history for the rebuilding of the Lutheran Zion. For this reason the author heard Neander speak of Guericke very seldom and then always quite in passing and with contempt as of an ungrateful copyist. This was certainly a great weakness, not to say sin, on Neander's part. A great weakness it certainly was. For what is it other than this: Hans is an armorer. Kunz buys a suit of armor from him and settles in his house. Then it occurs to Hans to fall upon Kunz, to rob him, and to destroy his house. Kunz takes up arms, and defends himself. But Hans takes that very ill; he turns back again, and speaks in future of Kunz only seldom, and then always quite in passing and with contempt as of an ungrateful man who uses weapons against him, though he himself made them. Nehemiah and those who with him rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, the royal city, also took up arms against the enemies of Israel, who sought in every way to hinder the building, perhaps the very arms which they had obtained from the latter; yet no one will on that account call the hero of faith and his companions ungrateful toward Israel's adversaries, unless his judgment be wholly blinded by passion.

If now the author did not recognize the foolishness of Neander's conduct and words, that does his understanding no credit. But if he did recognize it, and yet cites them, what are we then to think of his disposition? He must then have known that the point of Neander's words is directed rather against Neander himself than against Guericke. As for Neander, then, the author's recollections of Neander cannot have sprung from disinterested attachment to him; and as for Guericke, the author supposed that Neander's name was a great name, that what came from his mouth had much weight, and that the "well-meaning ignorance" which the author had already observed in the public here would take it for good coin, and so Guericke would hereby, in this country at least, have the staff broken over him.

Now after the author has thus picked a quarrel in order to speak against Guericke, and, under a borrowed cap, has by his own reckoning almost finished him off, he steps forward in his own person, in order to bring wholly to naught what still remains of Guericke's authorial standing.

Then it says, "the unworthy relation of dependence of Guericke's Kirchengeschichte upon, etc., is well known." About the relation of Guericke's church history to Neander's we have already spoken. As regards the assertion that Guericke's unworthy relation of dependence upon Hase is well known, the writer of this must say that such is not known to him, although he knows both works from his own use, and he also doubts whether it is known to others than the author. As regards the assertion that his unworthy relation of dependence upon "others" is well known, we cannot, to be sure, judge about that in particular, because those are not named, but we nevertheless hold in general that, since no one at all can serve two masters, it is also hardly well possible that an author should stand in an unworthy relation of dependence to several.

Then G. is said to have copied, in the general part of his Symbolik, Ullmann's college notebooks page by page and chapter by chapter almost word for word, without the slightest acknowledgment of the source. Let us look into the introduction to G.'s Symbolik. It says there, p. VI (1839): "Gratefully have I used the well-known fine symbolical works which the new and newest literature presents; for special thanks I feel myself bound also to the name of a revered man, whom I gladly acknowledge in the Symbolik as my teacher, and whose orally given exposition (in itself or in its sources) has served originally as the basis for individual parts of mine, so far as naturally these do not, etc." It is surely beyond doubt that by the "revered man" in G.'s preface Ullmann is meant. But if that is so, how can Ullmann say with truth that G. copied from him without the slightest acknowledgment of the source? And how can the author, if he said it, remain so long in error about it, when a glance into G.'s introduction to his Symbolik could have taught him better! That is surely believing what pleases one, and not investigating the truth, and is not the way of a reporter on whom one is to be able to rely.

But as to the accusation that G. copied passages from his authorities into his works almost word for word (which indeed is so, without G.'s ceasing on that account to be an independent author), he speaks of this in the preface to his christliche Archäologie. It says there, p. VII (1847), that his affinity with other writers who had worked the same field would not appear to be any closer than theirs among themselves, "only that I have not been anxious to conceal the affinity in subject matter by form or expressions." The case is therefore this: All writers