have been given us by the historians, there is not one strictly
authentic. Were there stenographers to fix these fleeting words? Was
there an analyst always present to note the gestures, the manners, the
sentiments of the actors? Let any one endeavor to get at the truth as
to the way in which such or such contemporary fact has happened; he
will not succeed. Two accounts of the same event given by different
eye-witnesses differ essentially. Must we, therefore, reject all the
coloring of the narratives, and limit ourselves to the bare facts
only? That would be to suppress history. Certainly, I think that if we
except certain short and almost mnemonic axioms, none of the
discourses reported by Matthew are textual; even our stenographic
reports are scarcely so. I freely admit that the admirable account of
the Passion contains many trifling inaccuracies. Would it, however, be
writing the history of Jesus to omit those sermons which give to us in
such a vivid manner the character of his discourses, and to limit
ourselves to saying, with Josephus and Tacitus, "that he was put to
death by the order of Pilate at the instigation of the priests"? That
would be, in my opinion, a kind of inexactitude worse than that to
which we are exposed in admitting the details supplied by the texts.
These details are not true to the letter, but they are true with a
superior truth, they are more true than the naked truth, in the sense
that they are truth rendered expressive and articulate--truth
idealized.

[Footnote 1: See, for example, John xix. 23-24.]

I beg those who think that I have placed an exaggerated confidence in
narratives in great part legendary, to take note of the observation I
have just made. To what would the life of Alexander be reduced if it
were confined to that which is materially certain? Even partly