a study of bible-第21节

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！




＇1＇　Strong；　The　Theology　of　the　Poets。


Any　one　familiar　with　Milton　will　recognize　that　as　a　typical　instance　of　the　way　in　which　a　seed　idea　from　the　Scripture　comes　to　flower　and　fruit　in　him。　The　result　is　that　more　people　have　their　ideas　about　heaven　and　hell　from　Milton　than　from　the　Bible；　though　they　do　not　know　it。

It　seems　hardly　fair　to　use　John　Bunyan　（1628…1688）　as　an　illustration　of　the　influence　of　the　English　Bible　on　literature；　because　his　chief　work　is　composed　so　largely　in　the　language　of　Scripture。　Pilgrim's　Progress　is　the　most　widely　read　book　in　the　English　language　after　the　Bible。　Its　phrases；　its　names；　its　matter　are　either　directly　or　indirectly　taken　from　the　Bible。　It　has　given　us　a　long　list　of　phrases　which　are　part　of　our　literary　and　religious　capital。　Thackeray　took　the　motto　of　one　of　his　best…known　books　from　the　Bible；　but　the　title；　Vanity　Fair；　comes　from　Pilgrim's　Progress。　When　a　discouraged　man　says　he　is　〃in　the　slough　of　despond；〃　he　quotes　Bunyan；　and　when　a　popular　evangelist　tells　the　people　that　the　burden　of　sin　will　roll　away　if　they　look　at　the　cross；　〃according　to　the　Bible；〃　he　ought　to　say　according　to　Bunyan。　But　all　this　was　only　the　outcome　of　the　familiarity　of　Bunyan　with　the　Scripture。　It　was　almost　all　he　did　know　in　a　literary　way。　Macaulay　says　that　〃he　knew　no　language　but　the　English　as　it　was　spoken　by　the　common　people；　he　had　studied　no　great　model　of　composition；　with　the　exception　of　our　noble　translation　of　the　Bible。　But　of　that　his　knowledge　was　such　that　he　might　have　been　called　a　living　concordance。〃＇1＇


＇1＇　History　of　England；　vol。　III。；　p。　220。


After　these　threeShakespeare；　Milton；　and　Bunyanthere　appeared　another　three；　very　much　their　inferiors　and　having　much　less　influence　on　literary　history。　I　mean　Dryden；　Addison；　and　Pope。　It　is　not　necessary　to　credit　the　Scripture　with　much　of　Dryden's　spirit；　nor　with　much　of　his　style；　and　certainly　not　with　his　attitude　toward　his　fellows；　but　it　is　a　constant　surprise　in　reading　Dryden　to　discover　how　familiar　he　was　with　the　King　James　version。　Walter　Scott　insists　that　Dryden　was　at　heart　serious；　that　〃his　indelicacy　was　like　the　forced　impudence　of　a　bashful　man。〃　That　is　generous　judgment。　But　there　is　this　to　be　said：　as　he　grows　more　serious　he　falls　more　into　Bible　words。　If　he　writes　a　political　pamphlet　he　calls　it　〃Absalom　and　Ahithophel。〃　In　it　he　holds　the　men　of　the　day　up　to　scorn　under　Bible　names。　They　are　Zimri　and　Shimei；　and　the　like。　When　he　is　falling　into　bitterest　satire；　his　writing　abounds　in　these　Biblical　allusions　which　could　be　made　only　by　one　who　was　very　familiar　with　the　Book。　Quotations　cannot　be　abundant；　of　course；　but　there　is　a　great　deal　of　this　sort　of　thing：

　〃Sinking；　he　left　his　drugget　robe　behind；　　Borne　upward　by　a　subterranean　wind；　　The　mantle　fell　to　the　young　prophet's　part；　　With　double　portion　of　his　father's　art。〃

In　his　Epistles　there　is　much　of　the　same　sort。　When　he　writes　to　Congreve　he　speaks　of　the　fathers；　and　says：

　〃Their's　was　the　giant　race　before　the　flood。〃

Farther　on　he　says：

　〃Our　builders　were　with　want　of　genius　curst；　　The　second　temple　was　not　like　the　first。〃

Now　Dryden　may　have　been；　as　Macaulay　said；　an　〃illustrious　renegade；〃　but　all　his　writing　shows　the　influence　of　the　language　and　the　ideas　of　the　King　James　version。　Whenever　we　sing　the　〃Veni　Creator〃　we　sing　John　Dryden。

So　we　sing　Addison　in　the　paraphrase　of　Scripture；　which　Haydn's　music　has　made　familiar：

　〃The　spacious　firmament　on　high；　　With　all　the　blue　ethereal　sky。〃

While　Dryden　yielded　to　his　times；　Addison　did　not；　and　the　Spectator　became　not　only　a　literary　but　a　moral　power。　In　the　effort　to　make　it　so　he　was　thrown　back　on　the　largest　moral　influence　of　the　day；　the　Bible；　and　throughout　the　Spectator　and　through　all　of　Addison's　writing　you　find　on　all　proper　occasions　the　Bible　pressed　to　the　front。　Here　again　Taine　puts　it　strikingly：　〃It　is　no　small　thing　to　make　morality　fashionable；　Addison　did　it；　and　it　remains　fashionable。〃

If　we　speak　of　singing；　we　may　remember　that　we　sing　the　hymn　of　even　poor　little　dwarfed　invalid　Alexander　Pope。　He　was　born　the　year　Bunyan　died；　born　at　cross…purposes　with　the　world。　He　could　write　a　bitter　satire；　like　the　〃Dunciad〃；　he　could　give　the　world　The　Iliad　and　The　Odyssey　in　such　English　that　we　know　them　far　better　than　in　the　Greek　of　Homer；　but　in　those　rare　moments　when　he　was　at　his　better　self　he　would　write　his　greater　poem；　〃The　Messiah〃；　in　which　the　movement　of　Scripture　is　outlined　as　it　could　be　only　by　one　who　knew　the　English　Bible。　And　when　we　sing

　〃Rise；　crowned　with　light；　imperial　Salem；　rise〃

it　is　worth　while　to　realize　that　the　voice　that　first　sung　it　was　that　of　the　irritable　little　poet　who　found　some　of　his　scant　comfort　in　the　grand　words　and　phrases　and　ideas　of　our　English　Bible。

With　these　sixShakespeare；　Milton；　Bunyan；　Dryden；　Addison；　and　Popethe　course　of　the　Jacobean　literature　is　sufficiently　measured。　There　are　many　lesser　names；　but　these　are　the　ones　which　made　it　an　epoch　in　literature；　and　these　are　at　their　best　under　the　power　of　the　Bible。

In　the　Georgian　group　we　need　to　call　only　five　great　names　which　have　had　creative　influence　in　literature。　Ordinary　culture　in　literature　will　include　some　acquaintance　with　each　of　them。　In　the　order　of　their　death　they　are　Shelley　（1829。）；　Byron　（1824）；　Coleridge　（1831）；　Walter　Scott　（1832）；　and　Wordsworth　（1850）。　The　last　long　outlived　the　others；　but　he　belongs　with　them；　because　he　was　born　earlier　than　any　other　in　the　group　and　did　his　chief　work　in　their　time　and　before　the　later　group　appeared。　Except　Wordsworth；　all　these　were　gone　before　Queen　Victoria　came　to　the　throne　in　1837。　Three　other　names　could　be　called：　Keats；　Robert　Burns；　and　Charles　Lamb。　All　would　illustrate　what　we　are　studying。　Keats　least　of　all　and　Burns　most。　They　are　omitted　here　not　because　they　did　not　feel　the　influence　of　the　English　Bible；　not　because　they　do　not　constantly　show　its　influence；　but　because　they　are　not　so　creative　as　the　others；　they　have　not　so　influenced　the　current　of　literature。　At　any　rate；　the　five　named　will　represent　worthily　and　with　sufficient　completeness　the　Georgian　period　of　English　literature。

Nothing　could　reveal　more　clearly　than　this　list　how　we　are　distinguishing　the　Bible　as　literature　from　the　Bible　as　an　authoritative　book　in　morals。　One　would　much　dislike　to　credit　the　Bible　with　any　part　of　the　personal　life　of　Shelley　or　Byron。　They　were　friends；　they；　were　geniuses；　but　they　were　both　badly　afflicted　with　common　moral　leprosy。　It　is　playing　with　morals　to　excuse　either　of　them　because　he　was　a　genius。　Nothing　in　the　genius　of　either　demanded　or　was　served　by　the　course　of　cheap　immorality　which　both　practised。　It　was　not　because　Shelley　was　a　genius　that　he　married　Harriet　Westbrook；　then　ran　away　with　Mary　Godwin；　then　tried　to　get　the　two　to　become　friends　and　neighbors　until　his　own　wife　committed　suicide；　it　was　not　his　genius　that　made　him　yield　to　the　influence　of　Emilia　Viviani　and　write　her　the　poem　〃Epipsychidion；〃　telling　her　and　the　world　that　he　〃was　never　attached　to　that　great　sect　who　believed　that　each　one　should　select　out　of　the　crowd　a　mistress　or　a　friend〃　and　let　the　rest　go。　That　was　not　genius；　that　was　just　common　passion；　and　our　divorce　courts　are　full　of　Shelleys　of　that　type。　So　Byron's　personal　immorality　is　not　to　be　explained　nor　excused　on　the　ground　of　his　genius。　It　was　not　genius　that　led　him　so　astray　in　England　that　his　wife　had　to　divorce　him；　and　that　public　opinion　drove　him　out　of　the　land。　It　was　not　his　genius　that　sent　him　to　visit　Shelley　and　his　mistress　at　Lake　Geneva　and　seduce　their　guest；　so　that　she　bore　him　a　daughter；　though　she　was　never　his　wife。　It　was　not　genius　that　made　him　pick　up　still　another　companion　out　of　several　in　Italy　and　live　with　her　in　immoral　relation。　In　the　name　of　common　decency　let　no　one　stand　up　for　Shelley　and　Byron　in　their　personal　characters！　There　are　not　two　moral　laws；　one　for　geniuses　and　one　for　common　people。　Byron；　at　any　rate；　was　never　deceived　about　himself；　never　blamed　his　genius　nor　his　conscience　for　his　wrong。　These　are　striking　lines　in　〃Childe　Harold；〃　in　which　he　disclaims　all　right　to　sympathy；　because；

　〃The　thorns　which　I　have　reaped　are　of　the　tree　　I　planted；they　have　torn　me　and　I　bleed。　　I　should　have　known　what　fruit　would　spring　from　　　　　　such　a　tree。〃


Shelley's　wife　would　not　say　that　for　him。　〃In　all　Shelley　did；〃　she　says；　〃he　at　the　time　of　doing　it　believed　himself　justified　to　his　own　conscience。〃　Well；　so　much　the　worse　for　Shelley！　Geniuses　are　not　the　only　men　who　can　find　good　reason　for　doing　what　they　want　to　do。　One　of　Shelley's　critics　suggests　that　the　trouble　was　his　introduction　into　personal　conduct　of　the　imagination　which　he　ought　to　have　saved　for　his　writing。　Perhaps　we　might　explain　Byron's　misconduct　by　reminding　ourselves　of　his　club…foot；　and　applying　one　code　of　morals　to　men　with　club…feet　and　another　to　men　with　normal　feet。

If　we　speak　of　the　influence　of　the　Bible　on　these　men；　it　must　be　on　their