按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
The Lights of the Church and the Light of Science
by Thomas Henry Huxley
There are three ways of regarding any account of past
occurrences； whether delivered to us orally or recorded
in writing。
The narrative may be exactly true。 That is to say； the words；
taken in their natural sense； and interpreted according to the
rules of grammar； may convey to the mind of the hearer； or of
the reader an idea precisely correspondent with one which would
have remained in the mind of a witness。 For example； the
statement that King Charles the First was beheaded at Whitehall
on the 30th day of January 1649； is as exactly true as any
proposition in mathematics or physics； no one doubts that any
person of sound faculties； properly placed； who was present at
Whitehall throughout that day； and who used his eyes； would have
seen the King's head cut off； and that there would have remained
in his mind an idea of that occurrence which he would have put
into words of the same value as those which we use to
express it。
Or the narrative may be partly true and partly false。 Thus； some
histories of the time tell us what the King said； and what
Bishop Juxon said； or report royalist conspiracies to effect a
rescue； or detail the motives which induced the chiefs of the
Commonwealth to resolve that the King should die。 One account
declares that the King knelt at a high block； another that he
lay down with his neck on a mere plank。 And there are
contemporary pictorial representations of both these modes of
procedure。 Such narratives； while veracious as to the main
event； may and do exhibit various degrees of unconscious and
conscious misrepresentation； suppression； and invention； till
they become hardly distinguishable from pure fictions。
Thus； they present a transition to narratives of a third class；
in which the fictitious element predominates。 Here； again； there
are all imaginable gradations； from such works as Defoe's quasi…
historical account of the Plague year； which probably gives a
truer conception of that dreadful time than any authentic
history； through the historical novel； drama； and epic； to the
purely phantasmal creations of imaginative genius； such as the
old 〃Arabian Nights〃 or the modern 〃Shaving of Shagpat。〃 It is
not strictly needful for my present purpose that I should say
anything about narratives which are professedly fictitious。
Yet it may be well； perhaps； if I disclaim any intention of
derogating from their value； when I insist upon the paramount
necessity of recollecting that there is no sort of relation
between the ethical； or the aesthetic； or even the scientific
importance of such works； and their worth as historical
documents。 Unquestionably； to the poetic artist； or even to the
student of psychology； 〃Hamlet〃 and 〃Macbeth〃 may be better
instructors than all the books of a wilderness of professors of
aesthetics or of moral philosophy。 But； as evidence of
occurrences in Denmark； or in Scotland； at the times and places
indicated； they are out of court； the profoundest admiration for
them； the deepest gratitude for their influence； are consistent
with the knowledge that； historically speaking； they are
worthless fables； in which any foundation of reality that may
exist is submerged beneath the imaginative superstructure。
At present； however； I am not concerned to dwell upon the
importance of fictitious literature and the immensity of the
work which it has effected in the education of the human race。
I propose to deal with the much more limited inquiry： Are there
two other classes of consecutive narratives （as distinct from
statements of individual facts）； or only one？ Is there any known
historical work which is throughout exactly true； or is there
not？ In the case of the great majority of histories the answer
is not doubtful： they are all only partially true。 Even those
venerable works which bear the names of some of the greatest of
ancient Greek and Roman writers； and which have been accepted by
generation after generation； down to modern times； as stories of
unquestionable truth； have been compelled by scientific
criticism； after a long battle； to descend to the common level；
and to confession to a large admixture of error。 I might fairly
take this for granted； but it may be well that I should entrench
myself behind the very apposite words of a historical authority
who is certainly not obnoxious to even a suspicion of
sceptical tendencies。
Time wasand that not very long agowhen all the relations of
ancient authors concerning the old world were received with a
ready belief； and an unreasoning and uncritical faith accepted
with equal satisfaction the narrative of the campaigns of Caesar
and of the doings of Romulus； the account of Alexander's marches
and of the conquests of Semiramis。 We can most of us remember
when； in this country； the whole story of regal Rome； and even
the legend of the Trojan settlement in Latium； were seriously
placed before boys as history； and discoursed of as
unhesitatingly and in as dogmatic a tone as the tale of the
Catilline Conspiracy or the Conquest of Britain。 。。。
But all this is now changed。 The last century has seen the birth
and growth of a new sciencethe Science of Historical
Criticism。 。。。 The whole world of profane history has been
revolutionised。 。。。
If these utterances were true when they fell from the lips of a
Bampton lecturer in 1859； with how much greater force do they
appeal to us now； when the immense labours of the generation now
passing away constitute one vast illustration of the power and
fruitfulness of scientific methods of investigation in history；
no less than in all other departments of knowledge。
At the present time； I suppose； there is no one who doubts that
histories which appertain to any other people than the Jews； and
their spiritual progeny in the first century； fall within the
second class of the three enumerated。 Like Goethe's
Autobiography； they might all be entitled 〃Wahrheit und
Dichtung〃〃Truth and Fiction。〃 The proportion of the two
constituents changes indefinitely； and the quality of the
fiction varies through the whole gamut of unveracity。
But 〃Dichtung〃 is always there。 For the most acute and learned
of historians cannot remedy the imperfections of his sources of
information； nor can the most impartial wholly escape the
influence of the 〃personal equation〃 generated by his
temperament and by his education。 Therefore； from the narratives
of Herodotus to those set forth in yesterday's 〃Times；〃 all
history is to be read subject to the warning that fiction has
its share therein。 The modern vast development of fugitive
literature cannot be the unmitigated evil that some do vainly
say it is； since it has put an end to the popular delusion of
less press…ridden times； that what appears in print must be
true。 We should rather hope that some beneficent influence may
create among the erudite a like healthy suspicion of manuscripts
and inscriptions； however ancient； for a bulletin may lie； even
though it be written in cuneiform characters。
Hotspur's starling； that was to be taught to speak nothing but
〃Mortimer〃 into the ears of King Henry the Fourth； might be a
useful inmate of every historian's library； if 〃Fiction〃 were
substituted for the name of Harry Percy's friend。
But it was the chief object of the lecturer to the congregation
gathered in St。 Mary's； Oxford； thirty…one years ago； to prove
to them； by evidence gathered with no little labour and
marshalled with much skill； that one group of historical works
was exempt from the general rule； and that the narratives
contained in the canonical Scriptures are free from any
admixture of error。 With justice and candour； the lecturer
impresses upon his hearers that the special distinction of
Christianity； among the religions of the world； lies in its
claim to be historical； to be surely founded upon events which
have happened； exactly as they are declared to have happened in
its sacred books； which are true； that is； in the sense that the
statement about the execution of Charles the First is true。
Further； it is affirmed that the New Testament presupposes the
historical exactness of the Old Testament； that the points of
contact of 〃sacred〃 and 〃profane〃 history are innumerable；
and that the demonstration of the falsity of the Hebrew records；
especially in regard to those narratives which are assumed to be
true in the New Testament； would be fatal to Christian theology。
My utmost ingenuity does not enable me to discover a flaw in the
argument thus briefly summarised。 I am fairly at a loss to
comprehend how any one； for a moment； can doubt that Christian
theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness
of the Jewish Scriptures。 The very conception of the Messiah； or
Christ； is inextricably interwoven with J