In the science of criticism it is initially a difficult task to orient oneself appropriately in relation to the object of criticism.

If there were more time it would not be without interest if we tried to show how the task and the name of the science have been modified in the course of time. As it is we can only look at the present state of things.

If we consider the expression criticism etymologically, then two things come into consideration, one the one hand, that criticism is in some sense a court of judgement, on the other, that it is a comparison. Both sometimes coincide, but also sometimes diverge.

As it has become a technical expression the word is very difficult to consider as a real unity. We use it in relation to scientific works and to works of art. If we combine this double relationship, then for this kind of criticism an expression of Fr. August Wolf might not be inappropriate, namely that of doctrinal criticism. The real tendency is always to compare single products with their idea: that is the court of judgement, but also to consider details in relation to other details, and that is comparison. But both then go back together into One, form one doctrine. In this way the opposition between historical and philological criticism still persists. Summarising its unity as well as possible, the task of historical criticism is to construct the facts out of accounts, thus to determine how the account relates to the fact. Philological criticism is divided into higher and lower.