Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 8.djvu/770

Rh 734 E V E E V E logy, reserves the problem of tlie true meaning of the Mosaic narrative, but does not regard everything as strictly literal. Philo, the great representative of Alex andrian allegory, expressly argues that in the nature of things the trees of life and knowledge cannot be taken otherwise than symbolically. His interpretation of the creation of Eve is, as has been already observed, plainly suggested by a Platonic myth. The longing for reunion which love implants in the divided halves of the original dual man is the source of sensual pleasure (symbolized by the serpent), which in turn is the beginning of all transgres sion. Eve represents the sensuous or perceptive part of man s nature, Adam the reason. The serpent therefore does not venture to attack Adam directly. It is sense which yields to pleasure, and in turn enslaves the reason and destroys its immortal virtue. This exposition, in which the elements of the Bible narrative become mere symbols of the abstract notions of Greek philosophy, and are adapted to Greek conceptions of the origin of evil in the material and sensuous part of man, was adopted into Christian theology by Clement and Origen, notwithstanding its obvious inconsistency with the Pauline anthropology, and the difficulty which its supporters felt in reconciling it with the Christian doctrine of the excellence of the married state (Clemens Alex., Stromata, p. 174). These difficulties had more weight with the Western church, which, less devoted to speculative abstractions and more deeply influenced by the Pauline anthropology, refused, especially since Augustine, to reduce Paradise and the fall to the region of pure intelligibilia; though a spiritual sense was -admitted along with the literal (Aug., Civ. Dei, xiii. 21 ). 1 The history of Adam and Eve became the basis of anthropological discussions which acquired more than speculative importance from their connexion with the doctrine of original sin and the meaning of the sacrament of baptism. One or two points in Augustinian teaching may be here mentioned as having to do particularly with Eve. The question whether the soul of Eve was derived from Adam or directly infused by the Creator is raised as an element in the great problem of traducianism and creationism (De Gen. ad lit., lib. x.). And it is from Augustine that Milton derives the idea that Adam sinned, not from desire for the forbidden fruit, but because love forbade him to dissociate his fate from Eve s (ibid., lib. xi. sub Jin.). Mediaeval discussion moved mainly in the lines laid down by Augustine. A sufficient sample of the way in which the subject was treated by the schoolmen may be found in the Summa of Thomas, pars i., qu. xcii., De pro- ductione mulieris. The Reformers, always hostile to allegory, and in this matter especially influenced by the Augustinian anthro pology, adhered strictly to the literal interpretation of the history of the Protoplasts, which has continued to be generally identified with Protestant orthodoxy. The dis integration of the confessional doctrine of sin in last century was naturally associated with new theories of the meaning of the biblical narrative ; but neither renewed forms of the allegorical interpretation, in which everything is reduced to abstract ideas about reason and sensuality, nor the attempts of Eichhorn and others to extract a kernel of simple history by allowing largely for the influence of poetical form in so early a narrative, have found lasting acceptance. On the other hand, the strict historical interpretation is beset with difficulties which modern interpreters have felt with increasing force, and which there is a growing disposition to solve by adopting in one or other form what is called the Thus in mediaeval theology Eve is a type of the church, and her ormation from the rib has a mystic reason, inasmuch as blood and water (the sacraments of the church) flowed from the side of Christ on the crois (Thomas, Summa, par. i. qu. xcii.) &quot;mythical&quot; theory of the narrative. But interpretations pass under this now popular title which have no real claim to be so designated. What is common to the &quot; mythical &quot; interpretations is to find the real value of the narrative, not in the form of the story, but in the thoughts which it embodies. But the story cannot be called a myth in the strict sense of the word, unless we are prepared to place it on one line with the myths of heathenism, produced by the unconscious play of plastic fancy, giving shape to the impressions of natural phenomena on primitive observers. Such a theory does no justice to a narrative which embodies profound truths peculiar to the religion of revela tion. Other forms of the so-called mythical interpretation are little more than abstract allegory in a new guise, ignoring the fact that the biblical story does not teach general truths which repeat themselves in every individual, but gives a view of the purpose of man s creation, and of the origin of sin, in connexion with the divine plan of re demption. Among his other services in refutation of the unhistorical rationalism of last century, Kant has the merit of having forcibly recalled attention to the fact that the narrative of Genesis, even if we do not take it literally, must be regarded as presenting a view of the beginnings of the history of the human race (Muthmasslicher Anfang der Mcnschengeschichte, 178G). Those who recognize this fact ought not to call themselves or be called by others adherents of the mythical theory, although they also re cognize that in the nature of things the divine truths brought out in the history of the creation and fall could not have been expressed either in the form of literal history or in the shape of abstract metaphysical doctrine ; or even although they may hold, as is done by many who accept the narrative as a part of supernatural revelation, that the specific biblical truths which the narrative conveys are presented through the vehicle of a story which, at least in some of its parts, may possibly be shaped by the influence of legends common to the Hebrews with their heathen neighbours. It must, however, be remembered that speculation as to the affinities of Genesis with other and especially Babylonian legends has of late far outrun the bounds of scientific method; and this caution has a special application to the supposed Babylonian history of the fall. See Von Gutschmidt s Neue Beitrage, p. 146 (Leipsic, 1876). (w. R. s.) EVELYN, JOHN (1620-1706), the diarist and author of Sylva, was born at his father s seat at Wotton, in Surrey, on the 31st October 1620. He was the younger son of a country gentleman of large estate, and much respected throughout the counties of Surrey and Sussex, of which he was high sheriff, one high sheriff at that time serving for both counties. Notwithstanding the wealth and position of his family, John Evelyn was educated at the free- school of Lewes, where his maternal grandfather resided. While still at school, he was admitted into the Inner Temple ; and in the following month, at the age of sixteen, he entered Balliol College, Oxford, as a fellow-commoner. In July 1641, having lost his father during the previous year, he retired from England, which was then on the eve of civil war. Before proceeding with his travels, he expressed his sympathy with the cause of the queen of Bohemia, which was dear to all Protestant Englishmen, by serving in her army for a few days, &quot; according to the compliment.&quot; The ten following years he spent abroad, only making brief visits to England. It is with this period of travel that his famous Diary, which he had commenced in imitation of his father at eleven years of age, begins to be full and interesting. This diary is for many reasons of value to the student of history and manners. It comprises the long period, so rich in great events, between the outbreak of