which everywhere meet us? They, in fact, tell their own tale, and
almost, as it were, proclaim of themselves that they are allegorical.
Wiseman, Newman (two of them, be it observed), Masterman, Philpotts,
Wilde. Who, that has been gifted with even a moderate share of
critical acumen, can fail to see that these are all fictitious names,
invented by the allegorist either to set forth certain qualities or
attributes of certain persons whose true names are concealed, or, as
I rather think, to embody certain tendencies of the times, or represent
certain party characteristics. Thus the name "Wiseman" is evidently
chosen to represent the proverbial craft which was attributed to the
Church of Rome; and Nicholas has also been chosen (as I apprehend)
for the purpose of indicating the sources whence that craft was derived.
In all probability the name was selected just in the same manner as
Bunyan in his immortal Pilgrim's Progress (which still delights the
world) has chosen "Worldly Wiseman" for one of his characters. It is
said that he was a Spaniard: but who so fit as a Spaniard to be
represented as the agent of the Holy See? while, as there never was
a Spaniard of that name, every one can see that historic probability
has not been regarded. The word "Newman" again (and observe the
significant fact that there were two of them) was, in all probability,
I may say certainly, designed to embody two opposite tendencies, both
of which, perhaps, claimed, in impatience of the effete humanity of
that age (a dead and stereotyped Protestantism), to introduce a new
order of things. These parties (if I may form a conjecture from the
document itself) were essaying to extricate the mind of the age
from the difficulties of its intellectual position; an age,
asserting inconsistently, on the one hand, the freedom of spiritual
life, and, on the other, claiming for the Bible an authorized
supremacy over all the phenomena of that spiritual life. One of these
parties sought to solve this difficulty by endeavoring to resuscitate
the spirit of the past; the other, by attempting to set human
intellect and consciousness free from the yoke of all external
authority. In all probability the names were suggested to the
somewhat profane allegorico-satitical writer by that text in the
English version, "Put on the Newman," the new man of the spirit.
We are almost driven to this interpretation, indeed, by the extreme
and ludicrous improbability of two men--brothers, brought up at
the same university--gradually receding, pari passu, from the same
point in opposite directions, to the uttermost extreme; one till
he had embraced the most puerile legends of the Middle Ages, the
other, till he had proceeded to open infidelity. Probably such a
curious coincidence of events was never heard of since the world
began; and this must, at all events, be rejected.
"'Similar observations apply to the name Masterman, which, in ancient
English, was applied to him who was not a "servant" or "journeyman,"
and is not unfitly used to indicate collectively the assemblage of
wealthy merchants who, like those of Tyre, were "princes"; as well
as to imply that the powerful class to which they belonged were the
"Mastermen" in the country, and, in fact, spoke in a potential voice
in all such crises as that supposed. It might also, perhaps, be
designed obliquely to intimate, that, 'whatever the clergy and the
theologians of different parties might wish to realize, it was,
after all, the powerful and independent class of the laity who were
the "mastermen," and would not succumb to any spiritual guides whatever,
even though called by the specious names of Wisemen and Newmen. The
mere singularity of the names alone ought to decide the point. And
what further confirms our view is, that it is impossible to point
out any Englishmen of any distinction who ever had any of these
names. Here we do not argue from conjecture, after merely looking
into the most recent biographical repertories (as, for example,
the "Bibliotheca Clarisimorum Virorum," in three hundred and fifty
volumes folio); for it is no argument that this meagre collection
makes no mention of any such names; since, in the successive
compilations of such works, (as the world grows older,) it has
been found necessary to extrude from time to time thousands of lesser
names, which had twinkled in preceding ages. But, deeply anxious to
establish truth, we have at infinite pains caused to be fished up,
from the depths of the archives of our national museums, very rare
reprints of some of the works of the age nearest that in which these
events are said to have occurred, and in none of these works is there
an individual mentioned of the name of Newman or Masterman, and
only one comparatively obscure person of the name of Wiseman,--a
presumptive proof that they were fictitious names. Is it possible
that these curious and varied coincidences can be the mere effect
of chance?'
"I shall spare you," said Harrington, "Dr. Dickkopf's learned
etymological disquisitions on the names Wilde and Philpotts, which,
aided by the imputed 'rashness' of the one, and the 'intoxicated zeal'
of the other, he clearly demonstrated to be fictitious.
"After which, I will suppose him to proceed thus:--
'We presume we have said enough to convince any acute and candid mind
of the extreme improbability of the document being designed to convey
to posterity a literal statement of facts; not that we for a moment
think it necessary to suppose that any evil design actuated the writer,
whoever he might be. It was most likely intended, as we have already
said, to be an allegorico-political caricature of certain events which
did undeniably occur, and which formed a slender basis of historic
fact on which to found it.
"'Nor is the particularity of some of the dates and alleged
circumstances of much weight in our judgment. He must be a miserable
inventor of fiction indeed, who cannot clothe a narrative in some
verisimilitude of this kind. It is said, that the historian makes a
seeming reference to those who were living at the very time.
"Some," he says, "still survive." But who does not see that the
word "survive" may refer to the accounts (which he, it appears,
knew little how to interpret), not the persons; though, be it observed,
that on such a supposition he does not vouch for having seen them,
and may have spoken merely from report. This very clause, too, has
undeniably much the appearance of an interpolation. There are many
other little circumstances, which, to those who have been accustomed
to detect unhistoric characteristics in ancient documents, and to
draw a sharp line between the mythic or allegoric and the historic,
sufficiently proclaim the origin of this supposed narrative of facts.
"'But the internal evidence, conclusive as it is, is as nothing to
the external. If we examine the document by the light of the facts
which contemporary history supplies, nay, even by the probability or
otherwise of its own contents, we shah see the extreme absurdity of
supposing that the account from which it was borrowed was ever meant
to be a record of facts. We hesitate not to say, that the political
facts of which it makes mention are many of them in the highest degree
incredible. That there may have been a rebellion at Rome is very
possible; but assuredly the only nation in Europe, (if we except
England,) that was not likely to take the Pope's part against a
republican movement, or resent him on his throne, was the French.
To suppose them thus acting is contrary to all that we know of the
history of that nation, and of human nature. The traces of the terrible
revolutions which in that century, and at the close of the preceding
one, shook France again and again to her centre, and the outlines of
which still live in authentic history, all show the extent to which
infidelity and democratic violence prevailed in France; nay, we know
that during the dominion of the Emperor Napoleon, if we are to regard
his history as literally true, and not a collection of fables and
legends,* as some even of that age maintained, that great conqueror
arrested and imprisoned the Pope. That France should have undertaken
the task of subduing a republican movement, just when she had come
out of a similar revolution, or rather many such,--and of reseating
the Pope on his throne, when she had been more impatient of the
restraints of all religion than any other nation in Europe,--is
perfectly incredible! Not less improbable is it that, supposing (as
may perhaps be true) that there was a basis of fact in the asserted
rebellion of the Romans, and Pio Nono's restoration to his dominions
(though not by France, that the intelligent reader will on
politico-logical grounds pronounce impossible, but more probably by
the Spaniards),--yet can we suppose that a power which was always
celebrated for its astuteness and subtlety would choose that very
moment of humiliation and ignominy to rush into an act so audacious
as that of reestablishing the Romish hierarchy in England,--in a
nation by far the most powerful in the world at that time,--a nation
which, if it had pleased, could have blown Rome into the air in
three months? It must needs have strengthened a thousand-fold the
strong antipathies of the English to the See of Rome. It would,
indeed, have justified that storm of indignation with which it is
said to have been met.
____
* Dr. Dickkopf may be here supposed to refer to the "Historic Doubts"
of Archbishop Whately, which may well deceive even more astute
critics.--Ed.
____
"'There is much that is palpably improbable in many other parts of
the statement (simple as it seems to be) when submitted to the
searching spirit of modern criticism. How ridiculous is the story of
Cardinal Wiseman's pretending that the oath in receiving the Pallium
had been modified for his convenience; little less so, indeed, than
his challenge to his Presbyterian antagonist to examine it, and that,
too, in the very book in which the contested clause was not cancelled!
All this is such a maze of absurdity, that it is impossible to believe
it. In the first place, do we not know that, throughout the whole
history of the Papal power, the inflexible character, not only of
its doctrines, but of its official forms and solemnities, was always
maintained, and that this pertinacity was continually placing it at
a disadvantage in the contest with the more flexible spirit of
Protestantism? It would not renounce, in terms or words, the very
things which it did renounce in deeds, and never could prevail upon
itself to get over this unaccommodating spirit! Yet here we are to
believe that, at the Cardinal's request a certain part of a most
solemn ceremonial--that of receiving the Pallium was remitted by the
Pope! If it were so, the Cardinal would certainly have desired to
conceal it. If he could not have done that, he would, at least, never
have given so easy a triumph to his adversary as to challenge him
to inspect the very copy of the Pontifical, in which, after all, the
oath was not cancelled, in order that he might be satisfied that it was!
Who can believe that a Cardinal of the Romish Church, Wiseman or fool,
would have been simple enough for such a step as this? It is plain that
the historian himself was not unaware that such an objection would
immediately suggest itself, and endeavors to guard against it,--a
suspicious circumstance in itself--which may serve to warn us how little
we can depend on the historic character of the document.
"'Again; what can be more improbable, than that, when a great nation
was convulsed from one end to the other, as the English are said to
have been, there should have been no violence, not even accidentally,
attending those huge and excited assemblages; a thing so natural, nay,
so certain! Who can believe that only one man was sacrificed, and he on
the predominant side? I have discovered in my laborious researches on
this important subject, that only seventy years before, when a cry of
the same nature, but much less potent, was raised, London was filled
with conflagration and blood-shed. Who ever heard, indeed, of commotion
such as this is pretended to have been, and its ending in vox et
praeterea nihil?
"'It is superfluous to point out the absurdity of supposing a Cardinal
of the Romish Church lecturing the people of England on "the claims of
religious liberty"; or so great a nation, in such a paroxysm, spending
many months in the concoction of a measure confessed to be a feeble one,
and suffered to be broken with impunity!
"'But, lastly, my laborious researches have led to the important
discovery, that, in this very year of pretended hot commotion,
England--in peace with all the world, profound peace within and
profound peace without--celebrated a sort of jubilee of the nations,
in a vast building of glass (wonderful for those times), called the
Great Exhibition, to which every country had contributed specimens
of the comparatively rude manufacture--of that rude age! London was
filled with foreigners from all parts of the earth; the whole kingdom
was in a commotion, indeed, but a commotion of hospitable festivity,
in which it shook hands with all the world!
This is a piece of positive evidence which ought to settle the whole
matter. In short, the external and internal evidence alike warrants
us in rejecting this absurd story as utterly incredible.'"
"Upon my word," said young Robinson, "you have said more than I thought
you could have said on such a theme. I really almost doubt whether
Dr. Dickkopf has not the best of it, and whether we ought not to
agree that the 'Papal Aggression' is a sheer delusion."
"O," said Harrington, "I have mot given you half the arguments by
which an historian, eighteen hundred years hence, might prove that
what has actually occurred never could have occurred, and that what
has not occurred must, in the very nature of things, have occurred,
by a necessity alike political, historical, ethical, logical, and
psychological. And no doubt Dr. Dickkopf is right on the principles
on which acute critics may argue; that is, the assumption that certain
probabilities will justify conclusions on such subjects. One might
naturally have supposed the Pope to have been more politic than to
take this step,--the French more consistent than to suppress the
Republican movement of Italy,--the English less moderate in
expressing their indignation,--and certainly that there would
never have been such an array of odd names to garnish one brief document.
And now, I bethink me, it is far from impossible that some Dr.
Dickkopf may even apply to Strauss's Leben Jesu, and Dr. Whately's
'Historic Doubts' similar reasoning, to prove that the first was
elaborate irony, and the second a sincere expression of scepticism."
"How can that be?"
"Thus: he will prove that the age was remarkably fond of such species
of ironical literature. As Strauss, in his preface, has expressly
admitted (though we all know what he means) that Christianity is true,
and has suggested an unimaginably absurd hypothesis as to its true
import, founded on the principles of the Hegelian philosophy, the
learned Dr. Dickkopf will say, that no one who so spoke of Christianity
could have intended seriously to discredit it, and yet certainly could
not possibly believe the absurd theory of it concocted out of German
philosophy; ergo, that we must regard the whole book as a piece of
prolonged irony,--a little too characteristic of German pedantry, it
is true, but sincerely designed to expose that extravagance of historic
criticism and Biblical exegesis which had so distinguished the
author's countrymen, by which Homer had been annihilated, a great
part of ancient history rendered doubtful, and the Bible turned into
a riddle-book; that this hypothesis is confirmed by the space which
Strauss gives to the exposure of the absurdities of the Rationalists,
which, in fact, occupies at least half his work. Dr. D. will even
very likely prove that Strauss himself is a fictitious name; Strauss,
in the German, meaning an ostrich, which, according to the proverb,
can digest any thing. On the other hand, as he will be able to show
that Strauss's work is a piece of prolonged irony, he will very likely
show that Whately's 'Historic Doubts' may be a sincere expression of
opinion (which, in fact, many have even in our day wisely believed
it to be), and he will argue it with a gravity worthy of one of the
commentators who interpret the irony of Socrates literally; he will
prove it from the air of sobriety and sincerity which pervades the
pamphlet. Nay, for aught I know, he may show that there was an
'historic place' for such a piece in the undoubted myths to which
the wondrous achievements of Napoleon had given rise; he will say that
these had produced a natural feeling of scepticism as to the greater
part of the facts, though he will think Dr. Whately has gone a little
too far in doubting his very existence; there being sufficient evidence
that such a man as Napoleon existed, though the world really knows
little more about him than about Semitamis or Genghis Khan!"
"Well," said I, "having proved that Dr. Strauss's work is irony, and
Whately's brochure a sincere expression of opinion, it would be hard
for even Dr. Dickkopf to go further. But, seriously, it is no
laughing matter. This is a strange power the future historian has
over us."
"O, be assured," said Harrington, "he can make of us just what he
pleases. Never was a question more unreasonable than that of the
Irishman, who, being conjured, on some occasion, to think of posterity,
said, 'I should like to know what posterity has done for us.' It will
do something for us, depend upon it. A future historian will not only
make us confess, with the Prayer-Book, 'that we have done the things
we ought not to have done, and have left undone the things we ought
to have done,' but 'that we have done the things that we have not
done, and have left undone the things that we have done.'"
"I wonder," said I, "that some of Dr. Strauss's countrymen have not
proved him to be an imaginary being,--a myth. It were very easy to do
it on such principles."
"It has been done long since," said Harrington, "by Wolfgang Menzel."
"Thank you," said I, in conclusion, "you have clearly proved that a
true history may plausibly be shown to be false."
"And therefore, my dear uncle, you will, I hope, justify my scepticism
in all such matters," said he archly. I acknowledge, as Socrates says,
that I felt for a moment as if I had received a sudden blow, and
hardly knew what to say. "No," said I at last, "unless you can justify
Dr. Strauss's theory of historical criticism, of which you yourself
acknowledge you have doubts. With that any thing may be proved false;
meantime it appears that the facts to which it is applied may be
undoubtedly true."
____
On retiring to my chamber, I mused for some time on the facility with
which man's ingenuity or inclinations can pervert any facts which he
resolves shall be otherwise than they are. "Dubious as is the EVIDENCE,"
Harrington was fond of saying, "I distrust the Judas still more"; an
admission, I told him, of which I should one day remind him. Tired at
last of this unpleasant theme, I took up a volume of Leibnitz's
Theodicee, which happened to lie on the table, and read those striking
passages towards the conclusion in which he represents Theodore (reluctant
to accept the iron theory of necessity) as privileged with a peep into
a number of the infinite possible worlds; from which he has the
satisfaction of seeing that, bad as is the lot of Sextus in the best
of all possible worlds, that lot, Sextus being what he is, could not
possibly be any better; a queer consolation, by the way, till we know
why Sextus must be what he is, or why Sextus must be at all.
I sank off to slumber in my chair, no doubt under the soporific effects
of this metaphysical morphine. While I slept, the previous discussions
of the day and the dose of Theodicee operating together suggested a very
strange dream, which I shall here record. It shall be entitled
THE PARADISE OF FOOLS.
Methought I saw a grave and very venerable old man with a long white
beard enter my chamber, and quietly seat himself opposite to me.
Instead of asking who he was and how he came there, nothing seemed
more natural and proper. We all know how easily in dreams the mind
dispenses with all ceremony; little or no introduction is required;
every one is at once on a most delightful footing of familiarity
with all the world; and the greatest possible incongruities appear
just comme il faut.
He told me that he had come from a very curious part of the "best of
all possible worlds,"--the "Paradise of Fools"; and on my looking
surprised, said,--
"Are you ignorant, then, that there is a spot in the universe where
a vicegerent of the Deity has at his disposal unlimited power and
wisdom to enable him to comply with the somewhat whimsical conditions
of the theories of those wonderful philosophers who have taken upon
them to say how the universe might have been constructed without any
supreme or presiding intelligence at all; or have modestly suggested,
that, had they been consulted, certain notable improvements might
have been effected in its fabrication or government; or, lastly, who
have complained of the revelation which God has vouchsafed to man,
or contended, that, if true, it might have been more unexceptionably
framed, and more skilfully promulgated?"
"And what is the result?" I asked.
"The result is a part of 'the everlasting shame and contempt' which
are the heritage of impiety."
"There must have been enough for the said vicegerent to do," I remarked.
"Not so much as you imagine," said he, smiling. "The conditions of their
theories, so far as even omniscience can comprehend or omnipotence
realize them, are indeed exactly complied with; but nevertheless, they
often baffle both. Sometimes the reproof, thus implied, obliquely
strikes more than its immediate objects; it alights even on some of the
profoundest philosophers, who never had it in their thoughts to call
in question the infinite superiority of Divine Power and Wisdom, but
who have delivered themselves a little too positively about 'monads'
and 'atoms,' and ultimate constituents of the universe. They have
sometimes been not a little scandalized, as well as laughed at, when
some half-witted, muddle-headed followers, glad to escape their trial,
pretended to have founded systems of Pantheism, or what is just the same
thing, Atheism, on some of their too obscure definitions. One man
declared that he could do nothing without the Monads of Leibnitz, each
of which, says that philosopher, 'is a mirror representing the universe,
though obscurely, and knows every thing, but confusedly,' which last
clause is unexceptionable enough. Another rogue asked for the archetypes
of Plato,--he had had a notion, he said, that a good deal might be made
out of them without Plato's Demiurgus; another, for the constituents
of the vital automata of Descartes: he had been misled to believe, that,
if animals could be mechanically produced, the whole universe might
have been so produced also. The Archangel assured them and others,
with much politeness, that, if the philosophers in question could in
any way make their meaning intelligible, Heaven would do its poor best
to realize their conceptions; but that it was impossible for even
omnipotence to execute commands which even omniscience could not
comprehend.
"Similarly, one man requested that he might be provided with a little
of Aristotle's 'Eternal Matter,' but he was told that there was no such
thing in rerum natura, and that it was unfortunately too late to make
it. He seemed to think himself very unjustly treated. Another demanded
some of the Atoms of Epicurus, to make a slight experiment with;
unexceptionably spherical, invisible, and so forth. These, he was told,
he might be accommodated with; and that all he had to do was to shake
them long enough, and doubtless the fortuitous jumble would come out
at last a miniature world.