Page:Quest of the Historical Jesus (1911).djvu/190

This page needs to be proofread.


XIII


RENAN

Ernest Renan. La Vie de Jesus. 1863. Paris, Michel Levy Freres. 462 pp. E. de Pressense. Jesus-Christ, son temps, sa vie, son ceuvre. Paris, 1865. 684 pp.

ERNEST RENAN WAS BORN IN 1823 AT TREGUIER IN BRITTANY. INTENDED for the priesthood, he entered the seminary of St. Sulpice in Paris, but there, in consequence of reading the German critical theology, he began to doubt the truth of Christianity and of its history. In October 1845, shortly before the time arrived for him to be ordained a sub-deacon, he left the seminary and began to work for his living as a private teacher. In 1849 he received a government grant to enable him to make a journey to Italy for the prosecution of his studies, the fruits of which appeared in his Averroes et I'Averroisme (Paris, 1852) ; in 1856 he was made a member of the Academic des Inscriptions; in 1860 he received from Napoleon III. the means to make a journey to Phoenicia and Syria. After his return in 1862 he obtained the professorship of Semitic Languages at the College de France. But the widespread indignation aroused by his Life of Jesus, which appeared in the following year, forced the Government to remove him from his office. He refused a post as Librarian of the Imperial Library, and lived in retirement until the Republic of 1871 restored him to his professorship. In politics, as in religion, his position was somewhat indefinite. In religion he was no longer a Catholic; avowed free-thought was too plebeian for his taste, and in Protestantism the multiplicity of sects repelled him. Similarly in politics, in the period immediately following the fall of the Empire, he was in turn Royalist, Republican, and Bonapartist. At bottom he was a sceptic. He died in 1892, already half-forgotten by the public; until his imposing funeral and interment in the Pantheon recalled him to its memory.

Like Strauss, Renan designed his Life of Jesus to form part of a complete account of the history and dogma of the early Church. His purpose, however, was purely historical; it was no part of his