LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
DR. ABBOTT ON CARDINAL NEWMAN.
[To ME ERMA OF THE " SPECTATOR."'
the violent attack made by Dr. Abbott on Cardinal Newman, there is an element which has escaped your notice. He has not only (as you point out) ludicrously misconceived the intellect and character he is assailing, but his book abounds in direct misrepresentation. Considering the reputation of the object of his unmannerly abuse (" slatternly," "conduct worthy of a bookseller's hack," "insolent aggressiveness," are speci- mens of his quality), and considering Dr. Abbott's own position as a scholar and critic, this fact is, fairly, astonishing ; but it is nevertheless true. I hope to have an opportunity of pointing out his misstatements at some length ; but perhaps you will allow me space for one or two instances, that readers may be on their guard against accepting his statements without verification.
I shall best express the misleading nature of Dr. Abbott's words by contrasting their effect when I first read them with the facts as they appeared after I had verified his references. I will take two cases within the first five pages of the- volume. Dr. Abbott (p. 4), after giving out that he is going to "catch our Proteus in a net from which he cannot extricate himself," proceeds :—" If, for example, you can show that while. he bitterly accuses Kingsley of ignoring the words 'it is said," it is reported,' in one of the Lives of the Saints, as indicating the legendary character of the story containing these expressions, Newman himself repeatedly ignores the same words in quoting Eusebius—this is an undeniable instance of culpable neglect.'
I naturally supposed from this, as other readers will have done, that Newman had narrated as positive statements of Eusebius what that historian gives as reports, and I proceeded to verify the instances cited by Dr. Abbott. The- first is from Eusebius's account (Book v., chap. 5) of the miracle of the "thundering legion,"—of the thunder- storm which was said to have come in answer to the prayers of the Christian soldiers. And undoubtedly the whole story is, as Dr. Abbott remarks, given by Busebiue, with the explanation "it is said," or "the story goes that (Xoyoc ixer); and this is further explained a little later by the statement that both "historians who are strangers to our doctrine" and "our own writers" relate it. On turning to Newman's pages, with the expectation of finding the whole incident related as a fact, and the "it is said "ignored," I found to my surprise that he gives it as Eusebius gives it, as a story, "it is said that," Sze., the only omission being a repetition of the phrase Aovo5. ixce in. the middle of the story. And further, the explanation is given by Newman, as by Eusebius, that Christian and pagan writers tell the story, though the latter do not consider the storm to have been an answer to prayer. I subjoin the whole- passage as translated and narrated by Newman, inserting in square brackets the omission complained of, that your readers, may judge of its importance:— " It is said that when Marcus Aurelius Cemar was forming his troops in order of battle against the Germans and Sarmatians, ha was reduced to extremities by a failure of water, Meanwhile the soldiers in the so-called Molitine legion, which for its faith remains to this day, knelt down upon the ground, as we are- accustomed to do in prayer, and betook themselves to supplica- tion. And whereas this sight was strange to the enemy, another [it is said still more strange happened immediately—thunder- bolts which caused the army's flight and overthrow ; and upon the army to which the men were attached, who had called upon God, a rain which restored it entirely when it was all but perishing by thirst.' He adds that this account was given by, heathens as well as by Christians, though they did not allow that. the prayers of the Christians wore concerned in the event." ("Essays on Miracles," 1890, p. 241.) Here is another instance given by Dr. Abbott in support of his charge (p. 5) :— " Newman relates two stories from a single section of Eusebius, the former essentially miraculous, the latter not. The former Eusebius introduces with they say that' (cpclo-t), which is main- tained throughout; the latter ho relates in the indicative on his own responsibility as a fact. But Newman, though he adds afterwards that 'Eusebius notices rather pointedly that it was the tradition of the Church,' ignores the marked distmetion made by the historian between the miraculous and the non-miraculous parts of the tradition."
Here, again, most readers will expect, as I did, to find that Newman has omitted words indicating a material difference in the nature of the evidence for the two stories, I turn to Newman's essay and find—(1), That be is not " quoting " at all, but giving the substance of the stories narrated by Eusebius in quite different words, and without inverted commas ; (2), that on the one critical question, however, the nature of the evidence
(i.e., that it was the tradition), he does give Eusebius's words in a footnote (p. 258) ; (3), that the "marked distinction"
between Eusebius's way of narrating the two stories amounts not to the distinction between relating one as a story and the
other " on his own responsibility as a fact," but purely to a difference in the form of expression, both stories being given as parts of the "tradition handed down from the brethren." The first is introduced thus :—" Many marvels are attributed to Narcissus by his countrymen as they received the tradition handed down from the brethren. Among these they relate (Lrpropeovoi) a wonderful event like the following. They say that," &c. The other runs :—" They relate lxgroadyovco) also many other matters worthy of note respecting the life of this man : among these such as the following;" and then the story is told in the indicative (" Eusebius," book vi., chap. 9). Had Newman been quoting, he would, no doubt, have indicated the difference of construction; but he accurately represents both as traditional stories, for neither of which does Eusebius vouch except for the fact that they were thus related; and this the historian does in the case of both. In each of these instances, then, Newman gives a true representation of Eusebias's account,—the slight omission in the first not affect- ing the sense of the passage ; while Dr. Abbott represents falsely in both cases Newman, in one Eusebius. Let me add that this scrupulous advocate of accuracy, in quoting in inverted commas a line and a half from Newman, makes two alterations. Whereas Newman emphasises that the stories were the tradition, italicising the word "tradition," and beginning, "Eusebius notices pointedly," Dr. Abbott, in quoting him, elects to omit the italics and to insert "rather" before " pointedly" (" Philomythus," p. 5, note). These are only a few instances out of many. I do not think that any comment will add to the sense of injustice which they produce, which is aggravated by the fact that they are gross instances of .attempting to establish a case by misleading treatment of the works under criticism, the very charge which Dr. Abbott is preferring against Cardinal Newman.—I am, Sir, &c.,
WILFRID WARD.
Previous page
