Introduction to Robert Browning [154]
that it ever actually took place. The author manifests, throughout, his ignorance of Jewish customs, and his antagonism to Jewish sentiments."
* * * * *
"The general purport of the poem can scarcely be doubted, as we look back upon it as a whole and consider its main conclusions. The tendency of the argument is to diminish the importance of the original events -- historical or traditional -- on which the Christian religion is based. `It is not worth while,' the writer seems to say to Strauss and his followers, `to occupy ourselves with discussions about miracles and events which are said to have taken place a long time ago, and can now neither be denied or proved. What we are concerned with, is, Christianity as it is now: as a religion which the human mind has through many generations developed, purified, spiritualized; and which has reacted upon human nature and made it wiser and nobler. Shall we give up this faith which has been so great a power for good in the world, and which, its whole past history justifies us in concluding, will continue its work of improvement, because our belief in certain events is shaken or destroyed? It would be vain, indeed, thus to build our religion on a foundation so unstable as material evidence. For human sensations are not infallible; they very often deceive us; we think we see objects, which are really the illusions of our own brain; others we see in part only, or distorted; others we fail to perceive at all. Our faith, essential as it is to the well-being of the deepest parts of our nature, must not be dependent on such controlling powers as these.'"
* * * * *
"He [Browning] was, we may suppose, offended by Strauss's ruthless attack on much that mankind has held sacred for ages. His religious sense was revolted by the assumption that there was nothing in Christianity which could survive the destruction of the miraculous and supernatural elements in its history. He desired to represent Christianity as an entirely spiritual religion, independent of external, material agencies. In order to make his argument as powerful as possible, he chose for his mouth-piece one of the personal followers of Christ, on whom, it might be supposed, the actual human life of his master had made a permanent and lively impression. With the details of Biblical criticism he had nothing to do; his principles were unaffected by discussions about the authenticity of the various parts of Gospels; so, in defiance of Strauss, the disciple he chose was that very John, whose personality, as recognized by long tradition, had been so much discredited. He showed how even in one of the disciples the recollection of wonders and signs could be transcended, and at last obliterated, by a spiritual faith which was sustained by the needs and faculties of the soul. The poem is, in effect, an eloquent protest in defence of `the breath and finer spirit of all knowledge'."
From Mrs. M. G. Glazebrook's paper on `A Death in the Desert', read before the London Browning Society.
A LIST OF CRITICISMS OF BROWNING'S WORKS.
(Selected from Dr. Frederick J. Furnivall's `Bibliography of Robert Browning', contained in `The Browning Society's Papers', Part I., with additions in Part II.)
1833. The Monthly Mag., N. S., V. 7, pp. 254-262: Review of `Pauline', by W. J. Fox.
1835. The Examiner, Sept. 6, pp. 563-565: on `Paracelsus', by John Forster.
1835. Monthly Repository, Nov., pp. 716-727: Review of `Paracelsus', by W. J. Fox.
1836. New Monthly Mag., March, Vol. 46, pp. 289-308: `Evidences of a New Genius for Dramatic Poetry. -- No. 1.' On `Paracelsus', by John Forster.
1837. Edinburgh Rev., July, Vol. 66, pp. 132-151: `Strafford'.
1848. N. A. Rev., April, Vol. 66, pp. 357-400: B.'s `Plays and Poems', by James Russell Lowell.
1849. Eclectic Rev., London, 4th S. V. 26, pp. 203-214: on 1. the `Poems', 2 vols. 1849, and 2. `Sordello', 1840. A sympathetic and excellent review.
1850. Massachusetts Quarterly Rev., No. XI. June, Art.
* * * * *
"The general purport of the poem can scarcely be doubted, as we look back upon it as a whole and consider its main conclusions. The tendency of the argument is to diminish the importance of the original events -- historical or traditional -- on which the Christian religion is based. `It is not worth while,' the writer seems to say to Strauss and his followers, `to occupy ourselves with discussions about miracles and events which are said to have taken place a long time ago, and can now neither be denied or proved. What we are concerned with, is, Christianity as it is now: as a religion which the human mind has through many generations developed, purified, spiritualized; and which has reacted upon human nature and made it wiser and nobler. Shall we give up this faith which has been so great a power for good in the world, and which, its whole past history justifies us in concluding, will continue its work of improvement, because our belief in certain events is shaken or destroyed? It would be vain, indeed, thus to build our religion on a foundation so unstable as material evidence. For human sensations are not infallible; they very often deceive us; we think we see objects, which are really the illusions of our own brain; others we see in part only, or distorted; others we fail to perceive at all. Our faith, essential as it is to the well-being of the deepest parts of our nature, must not be dependent on such controlling powers as these.'"
* * * * *
"He [Browning] was, we may suppose, offended by Strauss's ruthless attack on much that mankind has held sacred for ages. His religious sense was revolted by the assumption that there was nothing in Christianity which could survive the destruction of the miraculous and supernatural elements in its history. He desired to represent Christianity as an entirely spiritual religion, independent of external, material agencies. In order to make his argument as powerful as possible, he chose for his mouth-piece one of the personal followers of Christ, on whom, it might be supposed, the actual human life of his master had made a permanent and lively impression. With the details of Biblical criticism he had nothing to do; his principles were unaffected by discussions about the authenticity of the various parts of Gospels; so, in defiance of Strauss, the disciple he chose was that very John, whose personality, as recognized by long tradition, had been so much discredited. He showed how even in one of the disciples the recollection of wonders and signs could be transcended, and at last obliterated, by a spiritual faith which was sustained by the needs and faculties of the soul. The poem is, in effect, an eloquent protest in defence of `the breath and finer spirit of all knowledge'."
From Mrs. M. G. Glazebrook's paper on `A Death in the Desert', read before the London Browning Society.
A LIST OF CRITICISMS OF BROWNING'S WORKS.
(Selected from Dr. Frederick J. Furnivall's `Bibliography of Robert Browning', contained in `The Browning Society's Papers', Part I., with additions in Part II.)
1833. The Monthly Mag., N. S., V. 7, pp. 254-262: Review of `Pauline', by W. J. Fox.
1835. The Examiner, Sept. 6, pp. 563-565: on `Paracelsus', by John Forster.
1835. Monthly Repository, Nov., pp. 716-727: Review of `Paracelsus', by W. J. Fox.
1836. New Monthly Mag., March, Vol. 46, pp. 289-308: `Evidences of a New Genius for Dramatic Poetry. -- No. 1.' On `Paracelsus', by John Forster.
1837. Edinburgh Rev., July, Vol. 66, pp. 132-151: `Strafford'.
1848. N. A. Rev., April, Vol. 66, pp. 357-400: B.'s `Plays and Poems', by James Russell Lowell.
1849. Eclectic Rev., London, 4th S. V. 26, pp. 203-214: on 1. the `Poems', 2 vols. 1849, and 2. `Sordello', 1840. A sympathetic and excellent review.
1850. Massachusetts Quarterly Rev., No. XI. June, Art.