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！
； and in the face of them the public is quite excusable if it declares itself at a loss what to believe。
These； however； are cases in which criticism has at least made some show of ascertaining the truth and detecting the causes of the prevalent misconception。 That men like Catiline and Tiberius should have had their characters blackened is quite easily explicable。 President Johnson would have little better chance of obtaining justice at the hands of posterity； if the most widely read history of his administration should happen to be written by a radical member of the Rump Congress。 But the cases which Mr。 Delepierre invites us to contemplate are of a different character。 They come neither under the head of myths nor under that of misrepresentations。 Some of them are truly vexed questions which it may perhaps always be impossible satisfactorily to solve。 Others may be dealt with more easily； but afford no clew to the origin of the popularly received error。 Let us briefly examine a few of Mr。 Delepierre's 〃difficulties。〃 And first； because simplest； we will take the case of the Alexandrian Library。
Every one has heard how Amrou； after his conquest of Egypt； sent to Caliph Omar to know what should be done with the Alexandrian Library。 〃If the books agree with the Koran；〃 said the Caliph； 〃they are superfluous； if they contradict it； they are damnable； in either case； destroy them。〃 So the books were taken and used to light the fires which heated water for the baths； and so vast was the number that； used in this way； they lasted six months！ All this happened because John the Grammarian was over…anxious enough to request that the books might be preserved； and thus drew Amrou's attention to them。 Great has been the obloquy poured upon Omar for this piece of vandalism； and loud has been the mourning over the treasures of ancient science and literature supposed to have been irrecoverably lost in this ignominious conflagration Theologians； Catholic and Protestant； have been fond of quoting it as an instance of the hostility of Mahometanism to knowledge； and we have even heard an edifying sermon preached about it。 On seeing the story put to such uses； one feels sometimes like using the ad hominem argument； and quoting the wholesale destruction of pagan libraries under Valens； the burning of books by the Latin stormers of Constantinople； the alleged annihilation of 100；000 volumes by Genoese crusaders at Tripoli； the book…burning exploits of Torquemada； the bonfire of 80；000 valuable Arabic manuscripts； lighted up in the square of Granada by order of Cardinal Ximenes； and the irreparable cremation of Aztec writings by the first Christian bishops of Mexico。 These examples； with perhaps others which do not now occur to us； might be applied in just though ungentle retort by Mahometan doctors。 Yet the most direct rejoinder would probably not occur to them： the Alexandrian Library was NOT destroyed by the orders of Omar； and the whole story is a figment！
The very pithiness of it； so characteristic of the excellent but bigoted Omar； is enough to cast suspicion upon it。 De Quincey tells us that 〃if a saying has a proverbial fame； the probability is that it was never said。〃 How many amusing stories stand a chance of going down to posterity as the inventions of President Lincoln； of which； nevertheless； he is doubtless wholly innocent！ How characteristic was Caesar's reply to the frightened pilot！ Yet in all probability Caesar never made it。
Now for the evidence。 Alexandria was captured by Armrou in 640。 The story of the burning of the library occurs for the first time in the works of Abulpharagius； who flourished in 1264。 Six hundred years had elapsed。 It is as if a story about the crusades of Louis IX。 were to be found for the first time in the writings of Mr。 Bancroft。 The Byzantine historians were furiously angry with the Saracens； why did they； one and all； neglect to mention such an outrageous piece of vandalism？ Their silence must be considered quite conclusive。 Moreover we know 〃that the caliphs had forbidden under severe penalties the destruction〃 of Jewish and Christian books； a circumstance wholly inconsistent with this famous story。 And finally； what a mediaeval recklessness of dates is shown in lugging into the story John the Grammarian； who was dead and in his grave when Alexandria was taken by Amrou！
But the chief item of proof remains to be mentioned。 The Saracens did not burn the library； because there was no library there for them to burn！ It had been destroyed just two hundred and fifty years before by a rabble of monks； incited by the patriarch Theophilus； who saw in such a vast collection of pagan literature a perpetual insult and menace to religion。 In the year 390 this turbulent bigot sacked the temple of Serapis； where the books were kept； and drove out the philosophers who lodged there。 Of this violent deed we have contemporary evidence； for Orosius tells us that less than fifteen years afterwards； while passing through Alexandria； he saw the empty shelves。 This fact disposes of the story。
Passing from Egypt to France； and from the seventh century to the fifteenth； we meet with a much more difficult problem。 That Jeanne d'Arc was burnt at the stake； at Rouen； on the 30th of May； 1431； and her bones and ashes thrown into the Seine； is generally supposed to be as indisputable as any event in modern history。 Such is； however； hardly the case。 Plausible evidence has been brought to prove that Jeanne d'Arc was never burnt at the stake； but lived to a ripe age； and was even happily married to a nobleman of high rank and reputation。 We shall abridge Mr。 Delepierre's statement of this curious case。
In the archives of Metz； Father Vignier discovered the following remarkable entry： 〃In the year 1436； Messire Phlin Marcou was Sheriff of Metz； and on the 20th day of May of the aforesaid year came the maid Jeanne； who had been in France； to La Grange of Ormes； near St。 Prive； and was taken there to confer with any one of the sieurs of Metz； and she called herself Claude； and on the same day there came to see her there her two brothers； one of whom was a knight； and was called Messire Pierre； and the other 'petit Jehan；' a squire； and they thought that she had been burnt； but as soon as they saw her they recognized her and she them。 And on Monday； the 21st day of the said month； they took their sister with them to Boquelon； and the sieur Nicole； being a knight； gave her a stout stallion of the value of thirty francs； and a pair of saddle…cloths； the sieur Aubert Boulle； a riding…hood； the sieur Nicole Groguet； a sword； and the said maiden mounted the said horse nimbly； and said several things to the sieur Nicole by which he well understood that it was she who had been in France； and she was recognized by many tokens to be the maid Jeanne of France who escorted King Charles to Rheims； and several declared that she had been burnt in Normandy； and she spoke mostly in parables。 She afterwards returned to the town of Marnelle for the feast of Pentecost； and remained there about three weeks； and then set off to go to Notre Dame d'Alliance。 And when she wished to leave； several of Metz went to see her at the said Marnelle an