ers
and as interpreters of their observations. But it is evident that the
three authorities are not independent; that they have simply adopted a
legend of which there were two versions; and instead of their proving
its truth, it suggests their superstitious credulity; so that if
"Matthew," "Mark," and "Luke" are really responsible for the Gospels, it
is not the better for the Gadarene story, but the worse for them.

A wonderful amount of controversial capital has been made out of my
assertion in the note to which I have referred, as an _obiter dictum_ of
no consequence to my argument, that if Renan's work[71] were non-extant,
the main results of biblical criticism, as set forth in the works of
Strauss, Baur, Reuss, and Volkmar, for example, would not be sensibly
affected. I thought I had explained it satisfactorily already, but it
seems that my explanation has only exhibited still more of my native
perversity, so I ask for one more chance.

In the course of the historical development of any branch of science,
what is universally observed is this: that the men who make epochs, and
are the real architects of the fabric of exact knowledge, are those who
introduce fruitful ideas or methods. As a rule, the man who does this
pushes his idea, or his method, too far; or, if he does not, his school
is sure to do so; and those who follow have to reduce his work to its
proper value, and assign it its place in the whole. Not unfrequently,
they, in their turn, overdo the critical process, and, in trying to
eliminate error, throw away truth.

Thus, as I said, Linnaeus, Buffon, Cuvier, Lamarck, really "set forth the
results" of a developing science, although they often heartily
contradict one another. Notwithstanding this circumstance, modern
classificatory method and nomenclature have largely grown out of the
work of Linnaeus: the modern conception of biology, as a science, and of
its relation to climatology, geography, and geology, are, as largely,
rooted in the results of the labours of Buffon; comparative anatomy and
palaeontology owe a vast debt to Cuvier's results; while invertebrate
zoology and the revival of the idea of evolution are intimately
dependent on the results of the work of Lamarck. In other words, the
main results of biology up to the early years of this century are to be
found in, or spring out of, the works of these men.

So, if I mistake not, Strauss, if he did not originate the idea of
taking the mythopoeic