Download PDF | (Cambridge Library Collection - History) G. G. Coulton - Ten Medieval Studies_ with Four Appendices-Cambridge University Press (2010).
318 Pages
PREFACE TO FIRST EDITIO N (1906)
THESE essays, mostly reprinted from the Reviews, are J. intended to defend the moderate Anglican position against the misrepresentations of writers who disparage modern civilization in comparison with a purely imaginary and unhistorical idea of medieval life. The author attempts to show how much is lost, even from the purely picturesque point of view, by thus sacrificing plain truth to false sentiment; for we shall never see the great men of the past in their full greatness until we realize the difficulties under which they lived and worked. Although the Studies are necessarily controversial to this extent, they are written entirely from orthodox pre-Reformation sources, no others being quoted except here and there in corroboration of facts already established: since the curse of Church history is the too frequent habit of writing from second-hand or partisan documents.
As the plan of these pamphlets renders it impossible to give a crowd of references which would only weary the general reader, the author is glad to give a definite guarantee of his good faith by offering four pages in each pamphlet to any competent critic who will undertake to convict him of serious error. If his statements are inaccurate, he thus undertakes to supply their refutation at his own expense. He has already made a similar offer in vain to many Romanist controversialists, including all the writers of the Catholic Truth Society; and he now repeats the offer, in order to enable the general reader to realize how strongly Anglicanism is supported on many important points by the most incontrovertible medieval testimony.
PREFACE TO SECOND EDITIO N (1915)
THESE papers, though occasional and to a great extent controversial, have one general purpose in view—to justify the main trend of modern culture. Strongly as the author sympathizes with the triumph of medieval over classical civilization, he is equally convinced of the necessity of outgrowing the Middle Ages. St Augustine had to combat a formidable reactionary party which attributed all the evils of the fifth century to Rome's abandonment of her old gods; we, in the twentieth century, have still to combat a similar reaction towards institutions which have lost the universal obedience which they once commanded. Whatever may be our attempts to solve the riddle of the universe, whether in the religious or in the secularist sense, much must depend upon the appeal to history. To a great extent, our theory of life and our hopes for the future must be based upon the facts of the past; and any falsification of those facts must therefore, in the long run, impede true social progress.
Opinions will always differ widely and legitimately; but many facts of history might be established with practical certainty, if only we were willing to take a little more trouble. The difference between a Roman Catholic, a Protestant, and an agnostic is often even more philosophical than historical. And those differences could be far more tolerantly discussed if only all parties could agree more nearly on matters of ascertainable fact: the widest dividing gulf is the suspicion, on one side or the other, of careless mis-statements, or even of literary dishonesty. This is the main reason for a second edition of these essays; though the author, when the question was raised early in 1914, had decided against republication. In the first edition, he merely exposed such mis-statements of Abbot Gasquet's as came directly in his way. To these exposures, though supported by unexceptionable documents of the Middle Ages, the Abbot never directly replied; and now he publicly claims his promotion to the Cardinalate as an Apostolic testimonial to his historical scholarship.1
To abstain from republication might therefore have encouraged the impression, openly expressed in many quarters, that the Cardinal's main contentions are in general based upon actual documentary evidence, and that the points on which that evidence fails him are few and negligible. The author has therefore added to this new edition a rough list of such blunders and mis-statements of facts as he has noted during a far from exhaustive study of the Cardinal's books and of their professed sources. These fifty-four pages of criticism may enable students to realize the true meaning of Cardinal Manning's famous dictum, that the appeal to History is a treason and a heresy; or again of Cardinal Newman's despairing answer to the suggestion of founding a Catholic Historical Review. "Who would bear it?" wrote Newman: "unless one doctored all one's facts, one would be thought a bad Catholic". In short, just as these Studies were first printed because some plain protest seemed necessary against the habitual distortion of historical facts by Ultramontane writers, who profess to rely upon actual documents, so they are now reprinted because that protest seems still necessary, and because the author's silence, in the face of claims recently made by, and in behalf of, the new Cardinal, might seem like allowing judgment to go by default. The English official historian seems sometimes a little excessive in his disregard of the general public. Even our professors had not always realized, until a few months ago, how successfully the ideas of millions can be moulded by the steady influence of teachers who preach plausible untruths systematically ex cathedra; and, in this direction,
Ultramontanism has exploited our indolence as steadily as Imperialist Militarism. It was of the Ultramontanes that Pascal complained "they find it easier to produce monks than reasons "; and the same Pope who promoted Abbot Gasquet to the purple had previously put Loisy and Duchesne upon the Index. Here, in a nutshell, is the key to the furious anti-clericalism of France, Italy, and Spain; it is the inevitable reaction of a long-poisoned public opinion. Moreover, even our official historians are more truly products of contemporary public opinion than they themselves always realize; for they pick up many of their ideas in Clubland, which in its turn owes them to the man in the street. English historians of the highest rank have lately lent themselves, whether through neglect or ignorance, to the comedy of exploiting a political honour as proof presumptive of historical accuracy.
They have looked aside from the high interests entrusted to them, and have publicly condoned, in their own domain of History, what would never have been forgiven by men of equal distinction in the domain of Natural Science. If any zoologist of repute had based an important theory upon the alleged total absence oifelidae from the fauna of Borneo, and if another zoologist had replied by producing thirteen visible and tangible specimens of different felidae, there might indeed have been much curious speculation concerning the causes of the original error. But one thing is certain; the peccant theorist would never have dared to republish, without a single word of apology, his original mis-statement of fact, and his original theories based upon that falsehood. Or, even if it were remotely conceivable that he should have done so, we may at least feel assured that his speculations would have been tabooed in all serious scientific circles until he had repented and made public amends. If, moreover, for political reasons, some Prime Minister had presently raised him to a peerage, certainly the President of the Royal Society, with two other equally distinguished scientists, would not have joined a committee formed for the purpose of offering him a public testimonial.
In the realm of Natural Science, public opinion is too strong and too healthy to permit such things; and, if it be true that History cannot purge herself of her own dross by the same straightforward methods, then History is irrevocably doomed to that hopelessly inferior rank to which too many readers are already inclined to relegate her. Let us, however, have faith in the ultimate victory of the public conscience.
A century hence, the facts to which I am here calling attention will very likely seem almost incredible— almost as incredible as it seems to us that Pitt should have been the first Paymaster who refused to enrich himself by robbing the army officers of £30,000 a year. But, in the meantime, it is difficult to trace any definite and immediate sign of an awakening conscience. We can scarcely assert that the tone of literary morality is higher in this field than it was fifty years ago; and this is my main reason for deciding upon a republication which might otherwise have been postponed altogether. One essay has been omitted, because I have since published its contents in From St Francis to Dante; another has been added in its place (No. 2).
Minor alterations have been made to bring the essays up to date, and small slips have been corrected. My inferences from Bishop Nicke's visitations (p. 3) were vehemently attacked at the time by a Roman Catholic theologian in a letter to a common friend; but I was not permitted to publish this, and in fact his severest criticisms rested upon certain popular theories, as to the nature of medieval visitation documents, which are now abandoned by the majority of competent students.1 I have, however, revised Nicke's evidence in the light of these criticisms, and find that I had rather understated than overstated my case.
On no other point, so far as I am aware, have my facts been questioned, though a good many scholars may disagree with my deductions. Appendix i1 is designed to raise my criticisms as much as possible out of the sphere of scattered detail. The piecemeal character of the papers here reprinted might otherwise encourage the notion, expressed by the late Mgr Benson, that I am a pedant who has found a few mistakes in Cardinal Gasquet's work, and who cannot look beyond these small flaws to the main issues involved.
I contend, on the contrary, that we have here one of the broadest and most vital of historical issues. Is History to be written without documentary references, or even with indefensibly false references, by authors who are under every personal and professional temptation to see only one side? or, on the other hand, must we not all gain by submitting our prepossessions to the wholesome pressure of outside opinion, by giving full and accurate references, and by imitating at least the formal honesty of the children of this world, who know that their whole public credit depends upon the soundness of their business vouchers? I have therefore put together, in this Appendix I, a rough list of nearly 200 blunders and mis-statements noted during a perusal, sometimes cursory and sometimes detailed, of most of the Cardinal's books. The list could probably be made far longer if this were worth while; but for most readers it will probably suffice as it stands, and will tell its own tale plainly enough.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق