Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 8.djvu/810

Rh E W A L D gymnasium at Wolfenbuttel; but soon afterwards (in the spring of 1824) he was, at the instance of Eichhorn, recalled to Gbtfcingen as repeteut, or theological tutor, and in 1827 (the year of Eichhorn s death) he became professor extra- ordinarius in philosophy, and lecturer in Old Testament exegesis. In 1831 he was promoted to the position of professor ordinarius in philosophy ; and in 1835 he entered tbe faculty of theology, taking the chair of Oriental languages. Two years later occurred the first important episode in his studious life, which until then had been uninterrupted in its even tenor except by journeys in 1826, 1829, and 1836 to Berlin, Paris, and Italy, for the purpose of consulting rare and important oriental manuscripts. In 1837, on the 18th November, along with six of his colleagues (Dahlmann the historian, Weber the electrician, Gervinus the critic, the brothers Grimm, and W. E. Albrecht) he signed a formal protest against the arbitrary proceeding of King Ernst August (duke of Cumberland) in abolishing the liberal constitution of 1833, which had been granted to the Hanoverians by his predecessor William IV. This bold action of the seven professors made them very popular and famous in the country ; but it led to their speedy expulsion from the university (14th December). Early in 1838 Ewald received a call to Tubingen, and there for upwards of ten years he held a chair as professor ordinarius, first in philosophy and afterwards, from 18-41, in theology. To this period belong some of his most important works, and also the commence ment of his bitter feud with F. C. Baur and the Tubingen critical school. In 1848, &quot;the great shipwreck-year in Germany, &quot; as he has called it, he was invited back to Gottingen on honourable terms, the liberal constitution having been restored. He gladly accepted the invitation, for though well treated in Witrtemberg (he had been en nobled by the king in 1841), he had never learned to re gard his sojourn there as anything else than a period of exile. In 1862-63 he took an active part in a movement for reform within the Hanoverian church, and he was a member of the synod which passed the new constitution. He had an important share also in the formation of the Protestantenverein, or Protestant association, in September 1863. But the. chief crisis in his life arose out of the great political events of 1866. His loyalty to King George (son of Ernst August) would not permit him to take the oath of allegiance to the victorious king of Prussia, and in conse quence of bis refusal to do so he was ultimately placed on the retired list, though with the full amount of his salary as pension. Perhaps even this degree of severity might have been held by the Prussian authorities to be unneces sary, had Ewald been less exasperating in his language. The violent tone of some of his printed manifestoes about this time, especially of his Lob des Konigs u. des Volkes, led to his being deprived of the venia legendi (1868), and also to a criminal process, which, however, resulted in his acquittal (May 1869). Then, and on two subsequent occa sions, he was returned by the city of Hanover as a member of the North German and German parliaments. In June 1874 he was found guilty of a libel on Prince Bismarck, whom he had compared to Frederick II. and Napoleon III. to the former in &quot; his unrighteous war with Austria and his ruination of religion and morality,&quot; to the latter in his way of &quot; picking out the best time possible for robbery and plunder.&quot; For this offence he was sentenced to undergo three weeks imprisonment. He died in his 72d year, of heart-disease, May 4, 1875. From the above brief sketch it will be seen that, even apart from his contributions to philological and biblical science, Ewald was no common man. In the whole course of his public life he displayed in a very high degree many noble characteristics, perfect simolicity and sincerity, in- tensest moral earnestness, sturdiest independence, absolute fearlessness. It would be difficult to say whether the intel lectual or the emotional side of his nature was most highly developed. He loved with peculiar intensity, loved free dom and truth in every domain, in politics as well as in science and in religion; and just because he loved them with all his great might, he could not help hating all that he believed to be opposed to them. It was impossible for him to be a mere critic j no reader can understand Ewald s posi tion who allows himself to forget that his whole being was possessed with a passionately devoted faith. It was natural that such a man should be frequently engaged in contro versy, and equally natural that in these circumstances the &quot; defects of his qualities &quot; should often become painfully apparent. It cannot be denied tliat in his manner of speak ing about his opponents he often overstepped the limits of charity and even of justice. The peculiar character of his intellect, which was rather intuitive than inductive, made him neither a very fair nor a very effective controversialist. No one equalled him in the power of comprehending in a single survey a vast circle of complicated facts, and almost instinctively divining their scientific unity ; but the results attained in this way presented themselves to his mind with such intuitive conviction that he was impatient of all ob jection, and little able to do justice to scholars of a different mental habit. Yet in controversy he probably received injustice more often than he inflicted it ; even his extremest views have generally been found to contain much that is true and valuable ; and the great Arabist Fleischer is almost the only scholar who gained a conspicuous victory over him on an unambiguous philological issue. As a teacher he had a remarkable power of kindling enthusiasm ; and he sent out many distinguished pupils, among whom may be mentioned Hitzig Schrader, No ldeke, Diestel, and Dillmann. His disciples have not been all of one school, any more than were those of Socrates ; but many eminent moderns who are apparently farthest removed from his influence are only developing some of the fruitful ideas which in the exuberance of his wealth he was wont to fling out by handfuls. Of no writings more truly than of his could it be said that they are the reservoirs into which, without any waste, the entire energy of a life has been stored. For more than half a century his pen was never idle; from 1823 onwards hardly a year passed which was not marked by the appear ance of some highly important contribution to the sciences he loved. By the publication of his Hebreiv Grammar he inaugurated a new era in biblical philology. All subsequent works in that department have been avowedly based on his. It has already been superseded in parts, especially in its accidence ; but the syntax still remains unexcelled for the sagacity with which dry rules are made intelligible and in teresting by continued reference to the fundamental laws of language and thought. But even when his Lehrbuch shall have become entirely antiquated, to him will always belong the honour of having been, as Hitzig has called him, &quot; the second founder of the science of Hebrew language.&quot; As an exegete and biblical critic no less than as a grammarian he has left his abiding mark. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the publication of his Gcschichte des Vollces Israel was epoch-making in that branch of research, as much as was the work of Niebuhr in relation to the history of Rome. In its final form, the result of thirty years labour, it is a noble monument to the genius of its author. No one can fail to be struck with the profundity of insight and patience of research which it displays. While in every line it bears the marks of Ewald s intense individuality, it is at the same time a highly characteristic product of the age, and even decade, in which it first appeared. If it is obviously the outcome of immense learning on the part of its author,