In his recent book on Orientalism Edward Said made it clear that the German relationship to the Orient has been different from that of the British or French. In Germany there was no sustained national interest in the Orient; the relationship was not “actual,” for it was almost exclusively “scholarly.” Said also argues, however, that Germany did have in common with other European nations a “kind of intellectual authority over the Orient” and that it, too, contributed to the Western invention of the term “Orientalism,” itself an act of dominance and superiority. In this point it seems that Said is correct, for the act of labeling not only suggests expertise but also exercises expressibility as a means of intellectual and cultural control. Yet recognition of the linguistic basis of authority and the power to dominate another culture with that authority is not new. German writers during the eighteenth century also felt that British and French dominance interfered with the development of the arts and sciences in their country. Indeed, Goethe recognized at least two forms of authority which shaped Oriental literature: one was the political forces within the Orient itself and the second one, a more subtle form of authority extrinsic to the Orient, was the scientific philology of Western culture which fostered a particular image of the Orient. That is, Goethe suggests in his critical writings on Oriental literature a departure from the norms of Western science and at the same time champions the need to understand the sociocultural forces at work in the Orient itself. Thus Goethe's critical writings in many ways anticipate Said's view that “Above all, authority can, indeed must, be analyzed”.