Bacon
Copernicus
Galileo
|
Chronological snobbery is the presumption, fueled
by the modern conception of progress,1
that all thinking, all art, and all science of an earlier time are inherently
inferior, indeed childlike or even imbecilic, compared to that of the present.
Under the rule of chronological snobbery, the West has convinced itself
that "intellectually, humanity languished for countless generations in
the most childish errors on all sorts of crucial subjects, until it was
redeemed by some simple scientific dictum of the last century" (HEW
164). It has become to believe that "anything more than a hundred years
old is ancient" and "in the world of books, or opinions about books, the
age at which senility sets in has now been reduced to about ten" (WA
148).2
The young physicist Ranger in Worlds Apart
epitomizes chronological snobbery. See, for example, the following pontification:
"You see, I have the advantage of
knowing something of what is actually going on. I don't know much about
the history of science and still less about the history of pre-scientific
thought. What I do know is, that three or four hundred years ago for some
reason or other the human mind suddenly woke up. I don't know who started
it--Bacon,
Copernicus,
Galileo,
or someone--and it doesn't seem to me to matter. The point is, that for
some reason people began to look at the world around them instead of accepting
traditional theories, to explore the universe instead of just sitting around
and thinking about it. First of all they discovered that the earth wasn't
flat . . . and that it was not the centre of the universe, as they had
been dreaming, but a rapidly revolving and whirling speck of dust in empty
space. Almost overnight about half the ideas men had had about the universe
and their own place in it, turned out to be mere illusions. And the other
half went the same way, when scientists began applying the new method--practical
exploration--to other fields of inquiry--mechanics, chemistry, physiology,
biology, and, later on, animal and human psychology and so forth. Everything
that had been thought before, from the beginnings of civilization down
to that moment, became hopelessly out of date and discredited. I suppose
it still has an interest for antiquarians and historical specialists and
similar types, but apart from that. . . ." [WA 13-14)
See in particular
History, Guilt and Habit,
passim
and History in English Words,
passim. |
1"But this
sense of the past as 'something different' is almost inseparable from another
element in our own concern with history, namely, the habit of looking on
the past as a sort of seed, of which the present is the transformation
or fruit. This 'developmental' view of the nature of time past seems to
us so obvious as to make it almost nonsensical to put it into words; for
whether we think of history in general as a meaningful process or as a
meaningless one, we just cannot help thinking of it as the old gradually
giving way to the new. Yet that whole way of thinking is hardly more than
two or three centuries old. It began only when another important change
had just been taking place in the West in man's ideas about the relation
between the past and present . . .: the abandonment of the medieval and
classical conviction that the history of mankind as a whole was a process
of degeneration, and the substitution therefore of the conviction that
the history of man is one of progress. Hitherto it had been thought of
as a descent from a Golden Age in the past; now it began to be thought
of as an ascent into a golden age in the future" (SM 15-16). |
2G. B. Tennyson
offers the following first-hand account of chronological snobbery in action:
A personal experience I had recently brought home to me how rare
Barfield's attitude [seeking to "enter imaginatively into other eras"]
is in these enlightened times. I was attending a lecture with a varied
but exclusively university-oriented audience of some five hundred when
the lecturer, a Ph.D. in physics. said, almost in passing, "Remember that
only three hundred years ago men actually believed the world was flat!"
Considerable knowing laughter greeted this astonishing misrepresentation
(or, should I say, falsehood?), and the assembled all murmured a kind of
self-congratulatory hum of satisfaction with their own superior knowledge.
At another point the lecturer dropped a reference to the onetime belief
that the sun revolved around the earth. More laughter. The physicist, it
was apparent, was merely offering burnt incense at the altar of some of
our twentieth-century idols. (OBRM)
|
|