e temple. We all see that this history, not indeed as
to the succession of its outward events, but as to its interior reality,
must be grounded in the eternal truth and necessity of the universe.
What wonder, that, having been so fully penetrated by the scientific
spirit, modern minds should look with great longing toward these earths
and skies of human history, coveting some knowledge of the law by which
the thoughts and faiths of man perform their courses?

Nor any longer can "negative criticism" enlist the utmost interest. It
is construction that is now desired; and he who studies history only
that he may vanquish belief in the interest of knowledge cannot command
the attention of those whose attention is best worth having. That fable
is fable and mythus mythus no one need now plume himself on informing
us, provided he has nothing further to say. Of course, we raise no
childish and sentimental objection to what is called "negative
criticism." It may not be the best possible policy to build the new
house in the form of certain stories superimposed upon the old one,
which, perhaps, is even now hardly strong enough to sustain its own
weight. Let there be due clearing away; let us find foundations.

But the essence of the new point of view in the contemplation of history
consists in this, that we no longer seek these foundations in the mere
outward and literal history of man; we look, on the contrary, to his
inward history, to perennial hopes and imaginations, to the evidence of
his spiritual impulses and attractions, and just here find not only his
_real_ history, but also the basis for theoretical construction.

We see, indeed, as clearly as any Niebuhr or Strauss of them all, that
the imagination so pours itself into history as to supersede, or to
disguise by transfiguration, the literal facts. The incessant domination
of man's inward over his outward history is apparent enough. What then?
Does that make history worthless? Nay, it infinitely enhances the value
of history. Who are more deserving of pity than the distracted critics
that discriminate the imaginative element in the story of man's
existence only to cast it away? "Facts" do they desire? These _are_ the
facts. What is the use of always mousing about for coprolites? Give us
in the present form the product of man's spirit, and this to us shall
constitute his history. Let us know what pictures he painted on the
skies over his head, and he who desires shall be