صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

neoclassical revival seemed to lay emphasis on automorphic postulates and included many farfetched predications which were mere personifications, apotheoses, or diabolizations of human moods and passions. The early Hebraic motto of revenge, eye for eye and tooth for tooth had come to flourish all too luxuriantly; the pagan polymonstrosity of Euhemerist theory (that the gods and devils of mythology were but exaggerations of human power and mischief) had come to an all too actual fruition, often lacking in the proper element of deification and noble temperament. And so, even to this day of vast carnage, Billy Sundays and Lyceum Lectures, is it any wonder that the popular pragmatic religions have more about Hell and the Devil than about Heaven and God in them? Persuasion through promise of power and plenty having failed, resort is had to bloodcurdling scenes of eternal torment depicted with all the rhetoric of coercive vengeance. The everlasting carouse of umbrage, imputed sin and malicious accusation, wicked assumption and impassioned condemnation, is enough to make anyone disheartened and disgusted, if not susceptible in time to actual sin or mischief and soon hellbent on the very debauchery and depravity of vision against which he has heard so much preachment and prophesy. The whole program and eternal picturing is meant to be persuasive, the glory and satiety of Heaven being supposedly more desirable, a more potent catch-phrase, policy or scheme of salvation than plain example or exhortation to virtue or commonsense; the misery and insatiable appetites of Hell being supposedly more dreadful, more appalling and more to be avoided than ordinary folly, vice, meanness and mischief. It may be alright to capitalize the world's rancor and revenge, but why exaggerate them in the name of religion and morality? Why take advantage of people's innate cupidity and selfishness to play the role of custos morum to their better natures? Such tactics as these make our religious programs look suspicious and insincere.

After long centuries of bickering and bloodshed the notion of a halfway station was devised and acknowledged as necessary to accommodate the great majority of spiritual Laodiceans who were neither devilish nor devout. Those who were only partly mean and wicked still had a chance of recovery, so it was found necessary to invent Purgatory, a probationary period between Death and Eternity in which judgment was suspended or rather delayed for further evidence, as Spencer says, while the probationer awaited the final verdict with dread and uncertainty. It was certainly a manoeuver more encouraging than outright condemnation, but whatever actual purification could thereby be had was left to the indefinite imaginings of sorcerers and soothsayers. Pope Pius IV confirmed the conception of Purgatory as part of the traditional machinery of religious revenge at the Council of Trent in 1564, and ever since then the Catholic world has been cursed and abused by all sorts of mercenary nuncios, “practical” Devil's advocates, hypocritical Angelos, and other ad captandum tactics of self-advancement, the worst of which is that corrupt traffic in Papal Bulls and Indulgences which has all too nearly made protestants and modernists out of every honest thinker or pious hero throughout the world. Predestination and Purgatory are the two members of a shyster opportunist firm long since outlawed as vicious and arbitrary spiritual brokers. They cannot do legal business with intelligent people because they lack the references and credentials of free moral choice, commonsense and social amiability. They are ghouls of a graveyard long since deserted and grown desolate.

Religions whose ambition is the mere numerical increase of congregational attendance, and the acquisition of political power or economic influence, or whose procedure rests on the subtle tactics of coercive hypocrisy, pragmatic persuasion or casuist equivocation, always preach about rewards and punishments, they always argue redemption for credulity and damnation for doubt, rosaries for the righteous and our vengeance for the wrong. Little is said to reveal their true motives, the actuating will that dictates how their propaganda shall run; and even less is intimated to show the monstrous lies on which they thrive. There is still no scientific proof under test conditions of the truth supposed to underly either theosophy or spiritism; there is no non-casuist conciliation between modernism and the new papal Syllabus, between Unitarian Nature-love and the Baptist "fundamentals” of pseudo-science. That there is going on right now an internecine conflict of religious opinion affecting the very life and prestige of sectarian institutionalism, witness the recent religious socialism in Germany and England, modernism in France, Fascisti concessions in Italy, the Ghandi non-cooperative revolt in India, and in our own contemporary America the Episcopal panic over Bishop Manning's charge of heresy against Dr. Percy Grant and Rev. John Holmes for denouncing the clerical hypocrisies of today. Since when did it become a crime, heresy or taboo for anyone to reveal the fallacies, profits and follies of "sacred” church power if its theory and practice are really innocent and clear of such culpability? Presumptious power resisted gives rise to retaliation and revenge; it seems to forget the Arminian maxim that even those who resist or relapse from Divine Grace are still entitled to redemption through regeneration of mind and heart. This is not the age of Inquisition or Amende Honorable; nor is it timely now-a-days to conceive devotion or piety in terms of demonology from Zoroaster. Ukert or Eschnmayer. Hedonism, happiness, sophistry, eudaemonism, hypocrisy, pragmatic rituals, casuist codes and rhyomistic propaganda are in full swing and style these days, and anyone who has the temerity to tamper with any of the “Follies of 1923” might as well have also the patience and fortitude to bear all sorts of persecution and malicious mockery. We must remember that Nietzsche's Anglophobia was significantly centered on Carlyle instead of Gladstone or Tennyson.

In many of the Greek myths we find expressions of their notion of religious vengeance; Sisyphus, the Danaides, Tithyos are three examples of eternal expiation through useless toil in the hereafter ; the Furies, Fates, Homer's demonology and Hesoid's description of Tartarus were conceptions devised to presage the tortures of the wicked and corrupt. Right here and now we have Chaos, Hades, Gehenna, El Araf, Purgatory, Hamast Gehan or whatever verbal label you wish to pin on the world, but we have not yet tasted the bitter belladonna of Tartarus, Sheol, Hell or Kismet. In Rome, before the civil strife ending plebian subjection and punishment for debt, laws were always favorable to the aristocracy because the aristocracy made them, political power being vested in the patrician families who alone had ancestral gods and hence authority to govern(?). It was several centuries later, during the last years of the republic that the plebians found measures of relief and obtained a voice in the way they were to be governed. It was partly through the patrician decadence, the growth of the new merchant class into a more democratic plutocracy and the Marian confidence in yeomanry as the backbone of the whole state preservation, but principally through the simple fact that the plebians had been wise enough (or at least fortunate enough in having leaders capable enough) to establish moral and ritual relationship with the divinities of the public pantheon.

Another phase of the subject is this: Seventeen years ago, when a separation of the Church and State was effected in France, much umbrage and imputation of ulterior motives were in evidence on both sides of the controversy. Both the Papal Encyclical of Pius X and the manifesto of Cardinal Gibbons voiced loud protest and condemnation of the action with arguments that American examples of pragmatic religion were really expressions of hatred and revolt against Catholicism. But the automorphic judgments did not avail, and Paul Sabatier's Lettre Ouverte offered the very effective rebuttal that clericalism within the Church itself was more dangerously radical and subversive of the progressive Cultus than any secular body because they made merchandise of their office and sold their sanctuary to gain favorable governmental decision of property rights, increased appropriations and sovereignties. Boutroux says this shows that religion proceeds not from power to duty but from duty to power, taking for granted that the problem of evil is solveda chimerical assumption, indeed!

Dostoievsky confesses naively that “Reality has caught me on a hook," and writes whole volumes to describe how the same hook has also caught narodniki and intelligentzia alike. It was his literary ambition to lay before us the significance of all cynical subjects, and as much of our difficulty is in moral heaviness, so does his treatment of this significance and difficulty become ponderous and voluminous. However, his mystical terror is to him the supreme reality behind all novel situations of dramatic significance. The eventual, , the actual, be it pleasure or pain, happiness or horror, virtue or vice. is the great absorbing objective of his mental curiosity and character-analysis; and this objective aim, even, is actualized, included and solidified into a supplement to the cosmic chronicle of facts, calamiites, laws and events. But Gogol, Pushkin and Tyutchev were his predecessors in this refinement of actualism; even some metaphysical relation might be established or recognized between Dostoievsky and Duhring. Both had a double-edged but non-scientific psychology, both were extremely anti-religious, anti-historical thinkers ; they differed only on the question of mysticism, value and destiny in man's life. The former was too self-conscious, too much a slave to the fearsome introspections of a soul-fascinated epileptic, to let the world retain its aesthetic aloofness and cultural continuity; that is. its rare moments of ecstatic beauty-thoughts, its exaltation of "special spirituality and sudden idealities,” were too stimulating, too narcotic for his religious equilibrium. Hence, he divided history into two eras: one from savagery to the annihilation of God, and the other from God's annihilation to the ultimate transcendence and transfiguration of man. But these climacteric epochs, even, are yet only members to his spasmodic train of peirastic efforts at being and loving, thinking and doing; they are the dreamy work of a

sleepy but insomniac world. Dostoievsky's is a purely racial (i. e Russian) type of religion, and hence is full of the Slavic abruptness and obtuse soul-chaos of simple spiritual desire. To be either angel or beast depends on whether we seek civilization and progress or delinquency and atavism, whether we live inwardly and upwardly on outwardly and backwardly. With life presented in a vast moral dilemma, as it was to Kierkegaard, Dostoievsky finds that we are up against a sort of Schopenhauerian problem of choice; to either assert selfishly or deny resignedly the will to live, the will to think, and even the will to suffer. Thus angel or beast is the only alternative allowed in his Gadarean answer to the problem of good and evil, or as they are in his ethical superlativism, Super-good and Infra-evil. Holy aspirations jog along side by side with the basest desires and the ficklest, most absurd convivialities. This is what discomposes the philosophies and disaffects the glamor, disenchants the fascination and disgusts the passion with which we of less chaotic notions look around at life and Nature, religion and morality. "The Idiot." "The Possessed," "Crime and Punishment," "Injured and Insulted" -all breathe (or as it would rather seem to our own literary sense suffocate) in a close, gruesome atmosphere of absurdity and insipidity, doubt and debauchery, sclerosis of heart and paresis of mind Not atheistic rebellion but merely the indifferent irreverence of "something else" is often at the bottom of many of our derelict religions; they see only the rancor and wreck of a starving world, and make preachment from the meagre observation.

The world may well be the same old “Devil's Vaudeville” that it was in Balzac's day, perceived only by the pernicious sniffers after trouble and applauded only by those devotees of malicious mysticism who thrive on vengeful self-consciousness and crimson wills to power. The life of man as cockroach opportunist is aimless and precarious, narrow and despicable; but the life of man as hero and divine aspirant is clear and true and aims straight toward the heavenly gate. Constance Garnett, who has translated many of Dostoievsky's works into English, says that his religion is largely a recapitulation and recital of the various phases (from the Russian viewpoint) of that eternal conflict between the humble and the proud, between the mystic and the machine, between original genius and academic tradition, dreams and despotism, just freedom and mandatory exploitation. This reminds us of Tolstoi's apologetic for violence on the ground that it frees us from the strain of dreary attention and from the wearying labor necessary to overcome an obstacle or solve some dif

« السابقةمتابعة »