CHAPTER XII THE WRITER AND HIS TIMES AN important factor in the ascertainment of Moral Atmostruth is the effect on the writer of the general moral phere. standards of his times. Aside from the peculiarities of nationality or class there are influences due to the moral atmosphere in which an author lives. If this is characterized by austerity and matter-offact views of conduct, the writer is likely to conform to the ideal, as may be seen in the books written by the New England Puritans. In the middle ages, on the contrary, there appears an incredible amount of careless statement and downright falsehood. Reasons for this have been sought by the historians of literature, and they find one cause in the low moral standard. If the literature is taken as evidence it would appear that treason and faithlessness were regarded in the tenth century as the highest forms of wisdom. To laugh at a person who had been deceived and betrayed was looked upon as the most exquisite form of pleasure, if the most natural conclusions are to be drawn from a study of the poetry and prose of that period.1 Other investigators have reached a similar verdict, not only for the tenth century, but the same causes have been 1 Scherer, Geschichte d. deut. Literatur, 64. Gesch. der deut. Dichtung im XI, XII, Jahrh., 4. Mediæ val extended also over the eleventh and twelfth centuries, where the type of literary character which is most admired is Reynard the Fox. His adventures and successful tricks are invariably praised in the literature of the period. In fact, the poem itself originates and developes during those centuries. To explain the connection of these phenomena with the medieval conception of truth and falsehood the writer of a painstaking modern inquiry has formulated a theory of causes. Whether one accepts the results in full or not, the study brings to view the elements which need to be carefully weighed in such a case, and for that reason the argument may be profitably recapitulated here.' The author believes that the facts indicate that this period looked upon lying, not as dishonorable, but as a sin easily forgiven, and in the popular view it depended upon circumstances whether falsehood ought even to be reproved. The same sentiment was felt, though not in so strong a degree, toward perjury, or rather the breaking of an oath. The tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries believed that a solemn oath or promise was completely fulfilled when it was kept simply according to the letter, notwithstanding that the meaning or content of it was disregarded. For instance, it was a very solemn act to take oath upon a casket of relics, but if the relics had been surreptitiously taken out of the casket, the person so swearing was released from his oath. Treason 1 G. Ellinger, Das Verhältniss der öffentlichen Meinung zur Wahrheit und Lüge im X, XI, und XII Jahrhundert, 8vo. Berlin, 1884. and deception were not considered as matters which every one must in all cases and under all circumstances keep far from himself. These were instrumentalities which might be used without dishonor on suitable occasions. How shall we estimate these matters in getting a Evidence of Literature. conception of the period? Truth and falsehood are to be found in all ages, but in estimating the amount to which they prevail we must see how they were regarded by the people. If it is found that in literature lying is spoken of with disdain or as a grievous transgression we have public sentiment in favor of truth. If the traitor is spoken of with disgust we have reason to think that treason to the state is not so common that it may be lightly forgiven. But, on the other hand, if poetry, ballads, history, and biography are filled with cases where trickery triumphs, and writers take occasion, directly or indirectly, to uphold, or praise, the trickster and oath-breaker, it is evident that the atmosphere is not favorable to truth. We shall find in this environment that history is likely to be perverted, that documents will be forged or falsified, and partisan views will be expressed with evident intent to deceive. We find many noble things in Greek literature, and we have, in general, a great admiration for Greek civilization, but we get occasionally very painful impressions of the moral stability of the Greeks, who seem to have at times very little fidelity to their native states. In the middle ages, again, we have a still more unpleasant state of things. It is from this period that the chief distortions of history come. Moral Causes. The monumental forgeries of historical and legal documents which emanate from these centuries are appalling. Indeed, it is astounding to find that persons of such eminence would commit such deeds, and again, that it was possible for such crude deceptions to be believed in any age. The The argument in explanation of these conditions sets forth first1 that the general belief that the end justified the means was a cause of much looseness of conscience in the matter of truth. The literature of the middle ages gives evidence of this. general credulity of the age and the lack of a critical spirit afforded exceptional opportunities to persons inclined to deceive. We have noted in other connections how this age has been called the age of authority. People not only received their religious opinions from the rulers of the church, or from some one higher than they, but they were inclined to accept whatever was told them provided it was somewhere written down. Little inquiry was made into the assertions of lawyers or historians. Their statements and writings were copied without hesitation. We may find it difficult to explain why this was so, but the credulity is unquestionably there. Under these circumstances the temptation was enormous to lie or, at least, to deceive in part. The very fact that there was little danger of detection would lead men to fabricate documents and statements in their writings. Plain forgeries went for centuries without being detected, as in the case of the Isidorean decretals. 1 1 Ellinger, p. 88. The scholastic sophisms of the time helped to befog Scholasticism. the public conscience. The dialectic sparring of the middle ages went on without any regard to real facts. Starting out with a hypothetical case, the schoolmen would argue out what seemed to them realities, for if the first statement was granted there could be no answer to their logic. Men's thoughts for a large part moved in a realm of unreality. The terms nominalism and conceptualism are expressions which explain somewhat the intellectual atmosphere of the time. Conceptualism declared among other things that thought could never obtain the right expression of words. That is true, because language does not keep up with the imagination, but when applied to conduct the consequences of the doctrine to public morals might be serious. The conclusion from that definition was easy to reach. It was not necessary to speak the absolute truth, since no matter how hard one tried it would be impossible to be perfectly accurate. The struggle between church and state caused Church and a confusion of ideas which brought about a divided State. loyalty. The citizen was told, on the one hand, that he must be obedient to the church and the pope, and if he were not he would receive the curses of religion. On the other hand, the empire demanded loyalty, and appealed to the instincts of patriotism. If the subject was disobedient to the empire he ran the risk of being outlawed. Left to himself he had to decide between two evils, and to choose one side was to make him a traitor to the other. But he was not left to himself. In the quarrels between pope and |