A new philosophy invariably produces a new era in literature. In content and in form the new type of literary production is usually so radically different from the established order of things that the innovation is greeted with scathing reviews whenever it makes its appearance in the world of letters. To the student of literary history, therefore, it is not surprising that the masterpiece of Christian Science, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures," together with the other published works of its revered author, should be assailed by the critics of to-day — critics who hold to a philosophy diametrically opposed to that of Christian Science.
A glance at the past reveals much. When one recalls the reception accorded the works of the romanticists in English literature, especially the deeply religious writings of Wordsworth, it is easy to see how a kind of literary blindness prevents critics from recognizing the superior merit in a writer who voices a conception of man and the universe far in advance of his times. An age that was slowly shaking itself free from the grasp of the classicists was reluctant to accept the elevated sentiments expressed in the forceful, every-day English that ramp from a pen given to such utterances as
. . . trailing clouds of glory, do we come
From God, who is our home.
The critics of the old school would have none of such, for were they not looking for the polished verse of Pope and his followers, wholly oblivious of the fact that a greater, truer type of literature was struggling into existence in spite of their studied opposition?
How false to true standards was the dictum of the classicists! The literary lawgiver of the declining days of classicism was Dr. Samuel Johnson, whose errors of judgment may well supply food for thought to those who are following in his footsteps to-day. Dr. Johnson held in contempt works of Milton, who had almost ceased to be read. Johnson has this and much more to say of "Lvcidas": "Its form is that of a pastoral,— easy, vulgar, and therefore disgusting!" Unharmed by ridicule and contempt, Milton and the poets of the romantic period have taken their places in the world of letters, shining far above those who wished to consign their work to oblivion. Another type of literary blindness is due to the critic's never having entered the sphere from which the litterateur speaks. When Dante Gabriel Rossetti, with his Italian temperament and his English environment, attempted to peruse our beloved Longfellow's "Hiawatha," he threw the volume from him, exclaiming, "How I loathe Wishi-Washi!" Some critics who think of themselves as living in a world of things material, hurl Science and Health from them, because it comes from one who "dwells in the secret place of the most High" — the world of Spirit.
It is not necessary to multiply instances of mistaken verdicts resulting from a false view of letters. Rather is it profitable to remember that much of the great literature of the past has had its origin in the deep religious experiences of the age. The Arthurian epic, the work of Chaucer, the miracle plays from which the drama originated, the sublime utterances of Milton, the elevated conceptions of Tennyson, sprang from a profoundly spiritual attitude toward life — an attitude characteristic of the best thought of the period, and one finding its highest expression in these various classics. From even a cursory view of the past it is not surprising to find the literary results of Christian Science different in substance and in form from much that has preceded. Its style must conform to its substance. Nor is its highest expression linguistic. "God's essential language is spoken of in the last chapter of Mark's Gospel as the new tongue, the spiritual meaning of which is attained through 'signs following'" (Science and Health, p. 117). Who is ready to criticise adversely the "new tongue," whose statements bring health and holiness to man?
The literary lawgivers of to-day — what shall be said of them? Some are quoted as relegating Shakespeare — yes, Shakespeare — to an inglorious past, and exalting the works of authors whom they modestly forbear to name. Another eminent man of letters rises to declare the Lord's Prayer not original with Jesus. Does the critic in any department of human endeavor to-day ever ponder the lessons coming from the blunders of the past, remembering that one may be the despised of yesterday and the great of to-day.
These jottings are given in the hope that they may serve to correct the erroneous thought of any reader afflicted with literary blindness. They are not designed as a defense of the inspired writings of the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science. Who would attempt to shelter from the storm one who abides "in the cleft of the Rock"? Who would thrust himself in to protect one who can say:
And o'er earth's troubled, angry sea,
I see Christ walk,
And come to me, and tenderly,
Divinely talk.
Miscellaneous Writings, p. 397.
