CHAPTER IV.

THE MISSIONARY JOURNEY OF BARNABAS AND SAUL

1 CYPRUS AND SALAMIS.

(XIII 4) THEY ACCORDINGLY, BEING SENT FORTH BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, CAME DOWN TO the harbour SELEUCEIA, AND THENCE SAILED AWAY TO CYPRUS; (5) AND WHEN THEY REACHED SALAMIS THEY BEGAN TO PROCLAIM THE WORD OF GOD IN THE SYNAGOGUES OF THE JEWS; AND THEY HAD JOHN ALSO AS A SUBORDINATE. (6) AND THEY MADE A missionary PROGRESS THROUGH THE WHOLE ISLAND UNTIL they reached PAPHOS.

The harbour is mentioned, according to Luke’s common custom (XIV 25, XVIII 18, XVI 11). When he has once mentioned the harbour of any city, he omits it on a subsequent occasion (cp. XX 6 with XVI 11). The failure to name the harbour of Berea is remarkable (XVII 14); doubtless there is some reason for it.

As they were able to make the harbour of Salamis, on the south coast, they were not impeded by westerly winds, which commonly blew throughout the summer (see p. 298). With such winds, they would have run for the Cilician coast, and worked along it westward with the aid of land breezes and the current (p. 299), till they could run across to the north coast of Cyprus, as Barnabas had to do on his next journey (if the Periodoi Barnabæ can be trusted). But they probably started on the opening of the sailing season (March 5).

John Mark is brought before the reader’s notice here in a curiously incidental way. He came with Barnabas and Saul from Antioch (see XII 25); why should he not be mentioned at the outset? A superficial view might see want of method in this apparently haphazard reference to the third traveller. But surely the object is to emphasise the secondary character of John Mark, in view of what was to happen in Pamphylia: he was not essential to the expedition; he had not been selected by the Spirit; he had not been formally delegated by the Church of Antioch; he was an extra hand, taken by Barnabas and Saul on their own responsibility. This obviated the criticism that the delegation consisted of three persons, and that Mark’s retirement from Pamphylia was fatal to the official and representative character of the rest of the mission—a criticism which may probably have been actually used in the subsequent rather bitter controversy described in XV. This might have been formally and. expressly set forth at an earlier stage; but the historian briefly expresses it by saying nothing about John Mark until he appears incidentally as a supernumerary and subordinate. The silence is singularly expressive, and therefore carefully calculated.

There must have been a large Jewish colony in Salamis, with more synagogues than one. Cypriote Jews are often mentioned in Acts IV 36, XI 20, XXI 16); and Barnabas himself was a Cypriote. The practice of Saul always had been to go first to the synagogues; and up to the present time there is no reason to think that he had directly addressed the Gentiles except as hearers in the synagogue.

His procedure here is exactly as at Damascus, where he proceeded to preach in the synagogues immediately after his conversion (IX 20). It was right that the first offer should be addressed to the Jews (XIII 46). Moreover he was always sure of a good opening for his Gentile mission among the “God-fearing,” who formed part of his audience in every synagogue.

In v. 6 how briefly the work of a considerable period is summed up! Four Greek words (διελθόντες ὅλην τὴν νῆσον) contain all that is said about a missionary journey throughout the island. We understand from this brevity that there was no important fact for the historian’s purpose. The passage is a typical one: the same formula occurs with slight variations in many later parts of the narrative; and in this first case its meaning is specially clear, so that it throws its light on all the subsequent examples (which is, of course, intended by the historian). Doubtless the process which has just been described at Salamis is intended to apply everywhere. In each city where there was a settlement of Jews, the missionaries preached in the synagogue.

Further, the Cypriote Jews were not unfavourable to the new teaching. The influence and example of Barnabas were naturally effective with his fellow-countrymen. Moreover, the Word had already been preached in Cyprus not long after Stephen’s martyrdom XI 19, and converts had been made. There was therefore a small audience ready to listen to the travelling preachers in several, perhaps in all, of the Cyprian cities. Finally, the doctrine that was preached was probably not such as to rouse strong feeling among the Jews; and, so long as the Gentiles were not specially appealed to and set on an equality with the Jews, the early Pauline teaching is not said to have caused more ill-will than the preaching of the older Apostles.

But we may also probably make some negative inferences. There was no specially marked effect; no sign of the Divine guidance or power was manifested; and the address was made only through the synagogues and nowhere directly to the Gentiles. These are the points on which the historian always lays special stress; signs of the Divine power were the guarantee of Paul’s Divine mission, and the steps by which Paul turned more and more decidedly to the Gentiles marked the stages in history as Luke conceived it.

We conclude, then, that the silence observed with regard to the Cyprian evangelisation is not due to mere ignorance on the part of the historian or to want of authorities, but to deliberate plan. On the scale on which his work was planned, and his incidents selected, there was nothing more to say.

The Apostles are said to have made a preaching tour through the whole island. In a writer so sparing of words as Luke, the addition of the word “whole” is important. We cannot press it so far as to suppose that they went through every place in the island. Its force may probably be best seen by supposing it were omitted: in that case the Greek (διελθόντες τὴν νῆσον ἄχρι Πάφου) would permit the interpretation that after landing at Salamis they went along the direct road to Paphos, preaching at convenient places. The word “whole” is probably intended to bring out clearly that they made a complete tour of the Jewish communities in the island, preaching in each synagogue.

2. PAPHOS.

(XIII 6) AND WHEN THEY HAD GONE THROUGH THE WHOLE ISLAND UNTO PAPHOS, THEY FOUND A CERTAIN MAN, MAGlAN, PROPHET OF LIES, JEW, BY NAME BAR-JESUS, (7) WHO WAS IN THE COMPANY OF THE PROCONSUL, SERGIUS PAULUS, A MAN OF UNDERSTANDING. THE PROCONSUL SUMMONED TO HIS PRESENCE BARNABAS AND SAUL, AND SOUGHT¹²¹²In classical Greek the meaning would be “put questions to them”; and perhaps that is the sense here. TO HEAR THE WORD OF GOD. (8) AND THERE STOOD FORTH AGAINST THEM THE MAGlAN, ETOIMAS (Son Of the Ready), FOR SO IS THIS NAME TRANSLATED, SEEKING TO DIVERT THE PROCONSUL FROM THE FAITH. (9) BUT SAUL, OTHERWISE PAUL, FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, LOOKED FIXEDLY AT HIM, (10) AND SAID, “O FULL OF ALL GUILE AND ALL VILLANY, THOU SON OF THE DEVIL, THOU ENEMY OF ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS, WILT THOU NOT CEASE TO PERVERT THE RIGHT WAYS OF THE LORD? (11) AND NOW, BEHOLD THE HAND OF THE LORD IS UPON THEE, AND THOU SHALT BE BLIND, NOT SEEING THE SUN FOR A SEASON.” AND IMMEDIATELY THERE FELL ON HIM A MIST AND A DARKNESS; AND HE WENT ABOUT SEEKING SOME TO LEAD HIM BY THE HAND. (12) THEN THE PROCONSUL, WHEN HE SAW WHAT WAS DONE, BELIEVED, BEING STRUCK TO THE HEART AT THE TEACHING OF THE LORD.

We notice, first, the accuracy of the title proconsul, applied to the governor of Cyprus. The remarkable incident that follows is connected with a definite individual, who is named and characterised. He was Sergius Paulus, a man of ability.¹³¹³ξυνετός (in Attic) “of practical ability,” σοφός “cultivated”. Greek inscription of Soloi¹⁴¹⁴Found and made known by General Cesnola: but more accurately and completely published in Mr. D. G Hogarth’s Devia Cypria, p. 114. on the north coast of Cyprus is dated “in the proconsulship of Paulus,” who probably is the same governor that played a part in the strange and interesting scene now to be described.

The order and style of narrative adopted in this incident is noteworthy in itself, and instructive in regard to the author’s plan and his conception of history. He directs the reader’s attention first to the prominent figure round whom the incident is centred: “in Paphos they found a certain Bar-jesus”. Nothing is said about the length of residence in Paphos, nor about the conduct of the missionaries in the earlier part of their visit. Before anything else is mentioned about Paphos, Bar-jesus is named, and then it is explained who he was and how the missionaries came in contact with him. The order of narrative does not follow the order of time, but is guided by the special interest felt by the author, i.e., he seizes first the detail or the personage that is most important in his eyes.

If we attempt, to follow the order of development in time, the incident might be thus described. The missionaries came to Paphos. There they began preaching in the synagogues as they had done in other cities. They soon acquired notoriety and were talked about through the city; and the report about these strangers who were teaching a new kind of philosophy reached the Roman governor’s ears. The governor was a highly educated man, interested in science and philosophy; and his attention was caught by the report of the two strangers, who were giving public teaching in rhetoric and moral philosophy (p. 271).

Travellers of that class were well known at the time. Those who aimed at high rank and fame as teachers of philosophy often travelled through the great cities of the Empire, giving public demonstrations of their skill: thus they became famous, and were accepted finally in some of the great universities as established teachers and Professors of Philosophy or Morals.

The governor, Sergius Paulus, then invited or commanded a Roman proconsul’s invitation was equivalent to a command—the two travellers to his court, and sought to hear a specimen of their skill and a demonstration of their philosophy on the subject which, as he had been informed, was their favourite topic, the nature of God and His action towards human beings. The exposition which they gave seemed to him striking and excellent; and the marked effect which it produced on him was apparent to all who were in his train (who in Roman language would be termed his comites). Among these was a Jew, Etoimas Bar-jesus by name, a man skilled in the lore and the uncanny arts and strange powers of the Median priests or magi. On v. 6 see p. 115.

It is often said that the governor was “under the influence of” the Magian; implying the view that the mind of Sergius Paulus was dominated by Bar-jesus, but that the Roman, deeply impressed by the way in which Paul seemed to overpower the Magian, recognised the new master as more powerful than the old, and thus passed under the influence of a better teacher. This account seems to me not to be consistent with the text, and to give a far too unfavourable conception of the governor’s character; while it certainly conveys rather a vulgar idea of the way in which Paul’s teaching first affected the Roman world. According to the conception of Luke’s method as a historian, which guides us in this attempt to realise the facts, the words of Acts require a different interpretation. The author, who is singularly delicate, concise, and appropriate in his use of language, would not have praised Sergius Paulus as “a man of understanding,” when describing the relation in which the Magian stood to him, if he had understood that the Roman was “under the influence of” the false prophet. Either we must say that the author scatters his words heedlessly on the page, or we must understand that these words of praise coming at that precise point exclude any idea of weak submission to the strong personality of the Magian. Moreover the Greek words express the simple fact that the Magian was one of the train of comites who always accompanied a Roman governor. Some of these were personal friends who came with him from Rome, others were young Romans of rank who thus gained an insight into administrative life (which as yet they were too young to enter on), others were in official attendance on the governor, and others were provincials, men of letters or of scientific knowledge or of tastes and habits that rendered them agreeable or useful to the great man.

There is also no reason to think that the Magian was an inmate of the proconsul’s house. The words do not imply that; and the facts in no way suggest it.

3. THE MAGIAN AND THE APOSTLE.

To us the Roman governor is the prominent figure in this scene; and his attitude towards the new teaching is what interests us most. But in the estimation of Luke, the Magian is the most important character, next to Paul; and therefore the reader’s attention is directed first upon him. His prominence is perhaps due to different estimate of historical importance: ancient views on this subject differ from modern. But is it not more probable that Luke is justified in his view? It is clear that the Magian was here the representative of a System and a religion; and that his discomfiture was in itself a wide-reaching triumph. He is Commonly said to be a magician, a mere “Jewish impostor”; and he is compared to the modern gipsy teller of fortunes. Such comparisons, while having a certain element of truth, are misleading, and give a false idea of the influence exerted on the Roman world by Oriental personages like this Magian. The Magian represented in his single personality both the modern fortune-teller and the modern man of science; and he had a religious as well as a merely superstitious aspect to the outer world.

No strict line could then be drawn between lawful honourable scrutinising of the secret powers of Nature and illicit attempts to pry into them for selfish ends, between science and magic, between chemistry and alchemy, between astronomy and astrology. The two sides of investigation passed by hardly perceptible degrees into one another: and the same man might be by times a magician, by times the forerunner of Newton and Thomson (Lord Kelvin). It was not possible in the infancy of knowledge to know where lay the bounds between the possible and the impossible, between the search for the philosopher’s stone or the elixir of life and the investigation of the properties of argon or the laws of biology. It was not possible then: he would be rash who would say that it is possible now. A writer may venture on many prophecies about the future of science today, for which he would have been ridiculed as an impostor or a dreamer twenty years ago; and doubtless there are things he must not say now, which will be said soon.

It is certain that the priests of some Eastern religions possessed very considerable knowledge of the powers and processes of nature; and that they were able to do things that either were, or seemed to be, marvellous. Which of these alternatives was true is a point on which individual judgments will vary widely; but ray own experience makes me believe that, so far as influence over human or animal nature and life was concerned, their powers were wonderful. It is natural that the Magian’s knowledge and powers should have made him a striking and interesting personality; and a person like the proconsul, keenly interested in nature and philosophy, would enjoy his society.

The influence of this Eastern religion—one nature with many varieties—was widely spread; and it was inevitable that the new religion, which was strongly opposed to its methods of dominating its votaries and crushing their personality and individuality, should often be brought in collision with its teachers. Bar-jesus represented the strongest influence on the human will that existed in the Roman world, an influence which must destroy or be destroyed by Christianity, if the latter tried to conquer the Empire. Herein lies the interest of this strange scene; and we cannot wonder that to Luke, familiar with the terrible power of that religion, the Magian seemed the prominent figure round whom the action moved.

At Philippi, and at Ephesus also, collisions took place between the two influences, of slavery and of freedom for the human mind; but neither was so impressive as this at Paphos.

It is characteristic of the simple and natural evolution of the incidents, that no calculation of these great issues is represented as influencing the drama. Human action is swayed for the most part by trivial motives; and the Magian here was actuated chiefly by the fear of losing his prominent place in the governors train. His position as friend and associate (amicus and comes were the technical terms to denote his position) of the governor was an honourable one, gratifying at once to ambition, to vanity, and to worse passions. In this position he could learn a great deal about people and events. In the East it is always believed that the governor’s friend may influence his judgment; and every suppliant, every litigant, and every criminal tries to propitiate or to bribe the friend. We cannot tell in what proportion the more noble and the baser motives were mixed in the Magian’s mind; but they all lie on the surface of the situation, and each had doubtless some effect on him. He saw in the new teachers mere rivals trying to supplant him; and human nature could not accept defeat without a struggle.

Another point of method to note in the narrative is that no reason is stated for the Magian’s opposition. It is a general rule throughout Acts that facts alone are stated, and causes left to the reader to gather from the facts: the author sees the causes so clearly that he does not think of stating them. In this case he even omits part of the sequence of facts: he does not say that the Apostles expounded their views, but leaves the reader to understand that the proconsul’s desire was obeyed; and the words of verses 8, 10 (“seeking to turn aside the proconsul from the faith,” and “pervert the right ways of the Lord”) imply that the exposition was made. Then we may be certain that the Magian would not so far violate politeness and the respect due to the proconsul as to interrupt them, unless he had seen that a marked effect was produced on the governor’s mind; and he interfered from fear that, if he did not put the strangers down or turn them into ridicule, they might supplant himself in the governors society.

This view of the situation lies implicit in the text; and it is put explicitly by the Bezan Reviser, who makes Bar-jesus “stand forth in opposition to them, seeking to divert the proconsul from the faith, because he was listening with much pleasure to them”. If the added words are a gloss, they are inserted with great skill and judgment. But to me they appear to be an addition, inserted to make the narrative simpler and easier: the author, as usual, left the reason unstated.

4. SAUL, OTHERWISE PAUL.

The name Paul, here applied for the first time by the historian to the person whom he has hitherto called Saul, has given rise to much discussion and many theories. We shall not begin by theorising as to the names of this individual, but by inquiring what was the meaning of that very common formula, “Saul, otherwise Paul” in the society of the Eastern provinces; and shall then apply the results to this case.

The custom which was thus expressed seems to have originated in the bilingual governments and countries of the later centuries B.C. (or, at least, to have become common and familiar then). At that time Greece had gone forth to conquer the East; and a varnish of Greek culture was spread over many non-Greek races, affecting the richer and the educated classes of the natives, but hardly reaching the mass of the people. Then it was the fashion for every Syrian, or Cilician, or Cappadocian, who prided himself on his Greek education and his knowledge of the Greek language, to bear a Greek name; but at the same time he had his other name in the native language, by which he was known among his countrymen in general. His two names were the alternative, not the complement, of each other; and the situation and surroundings of the moment, the rôle which he was playing for the time being, determined which name he was called by. In a Greek house he played the Greek, and bore the Greek name: in a company of natives, he was the native, and bore the native name. He did not require both to complete his legal designation, as a Roman required both nomen and prænomen. His Greek name, taken alone, was a full legal designation in a Greek court.

This has an obvious bearing on the case of Saul, otherwise “Paul”. In the earlier part of this book he has been a Jew among Jews; and we have seen only his Hebrew name. Nothing has hitherto transpired to show that he was anything but “Hebrew sprung from Hebrews”. In Cyprus he went through the country city by city, synagogue by synagogue: and he was the Jew in all. But here he is in different surroundings: he stands in the hall of the proconsul, and he answers the questions of the Roman official. The interview, doubtless, began, as all interviews between strangers in the country still begin, with the round of questions: What is your name? (or who are you? ) Whence come you? What is your business? The type is seen in the question of the Cyclops to Ulysses (Odyssey IX 252): “Strangers, who are ye? Whence sail ye over the wet ways? On some trading enterprise, or at adventure do ye rove? “

To these questions how would Saul answer? After his years of recent life as a Jew, filled with the thought of a religion that originated among Jews, and was in his conception the perfected form of Jewish religion, did he reply: “My name is Saul, and I am a Jew from Tarsus”? First, let us see what he himself says as to his method of addressing an audience (I Cor. IX 20 f.), “to the Jews I made myself as a Jew that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law as under the law (though not myself under the law); to them that are without the law as without the law; I am become all things to all men; and I do all for the Gospel’s sake”. We cannot doubt that the man who wrote so to the Corinthians replied to the questions of Sergius Paulus, by designating himself as a Roman, born at Tarsus, and named Paul. By a marvellous stroke of historic brevity, the author sets before us the past and the present in the simple words: “Then Saul, otherwise Paul, fixed his eyes on him and said”

The double character, the mixed personality, the Oriental teacher who turns out to be a freeborn Roman, would have struck and arrested the attention of any governor, any person possessed of insight into character, any one who had even an average share of curiosity. But to a man with the tastes of Sergius Paulus, the Roman Jew must have been doubly interesting; and the orator or the preacher knows how much is gained by arousing such an interest at the outset.

Coming forward in this character and name, Paul was taking a momentous step, the importance of which was fully marked in the narrative. In the first place, he was taking the leading place and guiding the tone of the interview instead of being, as heretofore, the subordinate following Barnabas. Hence in the narrative we find that Barnabas introduced Saul to the Apostles; Barnabas brought Saul to Antioch; Barnabas and Saul carried the Antiochian aims to Jerusalem; Barnabas and Saul brought back John Mark with them from Jerusalem; Barnabas was first and Saul last in the body of prophets and teachers of the Church at Antioch; Barnabas and Saul were selected by the Spirit; and Barnabas and Saul were invited to the proconsul’s presence. But now Paul took this new departure, and Paul and his company sailed away from Paphos to Pamphylia; Paul and Barnabas addressed the Gentiles in Antioch; Paul and Barnabas disputed with the Judaising party on their return to Syrian Antioch; and henceforth the regular order places Paul first. There are only two exceptions to this rule, and these serve to bring out its true character more clearly.

(1) In the Council at Jerusalem, and in the letter of the Apostles and Elders, XV 12, 25, the order is Barnabas and Paul; but there we are among Jews, who follow the order of seniority and Jewish precedence. The only surprising thing here is that they use the name Paul, not the Hebrew Saul. We can only infer from that that the Greek-speaking Jews generally used the name Paul (compare p. 169), and that the historian’s use of the name Saul in the earlier part of this narrative was deliberately chosen to emphasise the contrast between Paul’s earlier and his later manner.

(2) In the episode where the two Apostles were worshipped at Lystra, Barnabas is named first as Zeus the chief god, and Paul next as Hermes the messenger. But the same qualities which mark out Paul to us as the leader, marked him out to the populace of Lycaonia as the agent and subordinate. The Western mind regards the leader as the active and energetic partner; but the Oriental mind considers the leader to be the person who sits still and does nothing, while his subordinates speak and work for him. Hence in the truly Oriental religions the chief god sits apart from the world, communicating with it through his messenger and subordinate. The more statuesque figure of Barnabas was therefore taken by the Orientals as the chief god, and the active orator, Paul, as his messenger, communicating his wishes to men. Incidentally, we may notice both the diametrical antithesis of this conception of the Divine nature to the Christian conception, and also the absolute negation of the Oriental conception in Christ’s words to His Disciples, “whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant” (Matt. XX 26).

How delicate is the art which by simple change in the order of a recurring pair of names, and by the slight touch at the critical. moment, “Saul, otherwise Paul,” suggests and reveals this wide-reaching conception in Luke’s mind of historical development!

In the second place, when Paul thus came forward under his new aspect and personality, he was inaugurating a new policy. He was appealing direct for the first time to the Græco-Roman world as himself a member of that world. This is put plainly in XIV 27 as the great innovation and the great fact of the journey: as soon as Paul and Barnabas returned to Syrian Antioch, they made a report to the assembled Church “of all things that God had done with them, and how He had opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles”. The first Stage in the admission of the Gentiles to the Christian Church was taken long before this journey. But the full implication of the Apostolate to the Gentiles was not even by Paul himself realised for many years. The second stage was achieved on this journey, and the historian fixes the psychological moment precisely at the point where the Apostles faced the Magian in the presence of the proconsul of Cyprus. Amid the conflict of the two religions before the Roman governor, Paul stepped forward in his character of citizen of the Empire; and his act was followed by that transport of power, which attested the grace that was given to the bold innovator, and the Divine approval and confirmation of his step. On former occasions the grace that was evident in Antioch confirmed the high character of the Antiochian Brotherhood in the eyes of Barnabas (Acts XI 23, and the grace that was given Paul had justified his apostolate in the eyes of James, Peter and John (Gal. II 9).

Such is the situation in which we stand when we transport ourselves in thought to the time and the country where the events took place, and take the few brief words of Luke in the sense which they bore to the men of his time. But now let us turn from this picture to see what is made of the scene by the critic, who sits in his study and writes as if the men of this book were artificial figures and not real human beings. Weizsäcker, one of the most distinguished of modern German scholars, finds in this delicacy of language nothing but a sign of double authorship. The late author, he says, used two earlier authorities, one of whom employed the name Saul, while the other designated the Apostle as Paul, and by a mere conjecture he puts the change at this point. Weizsäcker emphasises this view that the point was selected by an arbitrary conjecture, and that any other point might have been chosen equally well. It might almost seem that, in a statement like this, the learned professor is taking his fun off us, and is experimenting to see how much the world will accept at the mouth of a deservedly famous scholar without rebelling.

Mr. Lewin states better than almost any other the force of this passage when he says: “The dropping of the Jewish, and the adoption of a Roman name, was in harmony with the great truth he was promulgating—that henceforth the partition between Jew and Gentile was broken down”. He then asks, “Why is not the name of Paul introduced when he first left Antioch to commence his travels?” and after he has in a rather hesitating way suggested some quite unsuitable occasions as possible for the change, he rightly concludes, “It occurs more naturally immediately afterwards when Saul stands forth by himself and becomes the principal actor” The marvels described in Acts concern my present purpose only in so far as they bear upon the historical effect of the narrative. In themselves they do not add to, but detract from its verisimilitude as history. They are difficulties; but my hope is to show first that the narrative apart from them is stamped as authentic, second that they are an integral part of it. To study and explain them does not belong to me. Twenty years ago I found it easy to dispose of them; but now-a-days probably not even the youngest among us finds himself able to maintain that we have mastered the secrets of nature, and determined the limits which divide the unknown from the impossible. That Paul believed himself to be the recipient of direct revelations from God, to be guided and controlled in his plans by direct interposition of the Holy Spirit, to be enabled by the Divine power to move the forces of nature in a way that ordinary men cannot, is involved in this narrative. You must make up your own minds to accept or to reject it, but you cannot cut out the marvellous from the rest, nor can you believe that either Paul or this writer was a mere victim of hallucinations. To the men of that age only what was guaranteed by marvellous accompaniments was true; to us unusual accompaniments tend to disprove truth. The contrast between the ages is himmelweit.

The marvellous is indissolubly interwoven—for good or for bad—with this narrative, and cannot be eliminated. Do the marvellous adjuncts discredit the rest of the narrative, or does the vividness and accuracy of the narrative require us to take the marvels with the rest and try to understand them? Every one must answer the question for himself.