偶像,偶像崇拜者,偶像崇拜

“偶像”(Idol)一词源自希腊语εδο ,是形式之意;εïδωλον,形式的展现;λατε ειν,侍候、敬畏和崇拜。“崇拜”(adore)一词是拉丁文,也拥有其他很多不同的意思,它意味着将一只手靠近嘴,满怀敬意地诉说、鞠躬、下跪、致敬,向神表达最真挚的崇拜。这些意思除了模糊还是模糊。

这里值得注意的是,《特雷乌词典》(Dictionnaire de Trévoux )在开篇就说到所有的异教徒都是偶像崇拜者,印度人仍然崇拜偶像。首先,在狄奥多西二世之前,没有人被称作异教徒,此词是用来称呼那些居住在意大利城中、固守自己古老宗教的人;其次,印度斯坦人信奉穆罕默德,而穆罕默德是偶像和偶像崇拜的坚决反对者;再次,很多印度人都信奉帕西人(Parsees)的古老宗教,所以不应当称他们为偶像崇拜者,如同不应当实行根本没有偶像的种姓制度一样。

探寻是否存在过崇拜偶像的政府

看来世上没有人想被称作偶像崇拜者,这词是一种挑衅,一种辱骂,就像gavaches(懦夫)和maranes(摩尔人)一样,前者西班牙人用来侮辱法国人,而后者法国人用来招呼西班牙人。“你是偶像崇拜者吗?”如果有人就此问题询问过罗马元老院、希腊最高法院和波斯王国法庭的人,那么他们几乎听不懂这个问题。没有人会回答说:“我们崇拜偶像。”“偶像崇拜者”和“偶像崇拜”这些词汇,在荷马、赫西奥德(Hesiod)、希罗多德(Herodotus),以及基督教徒作者们的作品中遍寻不到。也从来没有任何法令和教条命令人们去崇拜偶像,像服侍神一样去服侍他们,视他们为神。

当罗马和迦太基的领袖们缔结条约之时,他们召唤出了所有的神祇,说道:“诸神见证,我们誓保和平。”此时此刻,数量众多的诸神像并不在将军们的帐篷里,因为他们认为诸神在人类的行动中充当的是见证者和裁判官。毫无疑问,虚幻的影像是无法代替神的。

那对于神殿中虚假的神祇造像,他们持怎样的看法呢?若我说,就与我们看待自身崇拜对象的造像的态度是一样的。崇拜一块木头或大理石并无错误,错的是去崇拜这木头或大理石所代表的虚假之神。他们与我们之间的区别,并不在于他们有偶像而我们没有,而是在于他们的偶像表现了他们宗教中神奇的存在,希腊人他们有赫拉克勒斯(Hercules)像,而我们有圣·克里斯托弗(saint Christopher)像;他们有埃斯科拉庇俄斯(Aesculapius)与他的羊,我们则有圣·罗克(saint Roch)与他的狗;他们有雷电武装的朱庇特,我们则有帕多瓦的圣·安东尼(saint Anthony of Padua)以及卡帕斯特拉的圣·詹姆斯(saint James of Compostella)。

执政官普林尼(Pliny)在图拉真(Trajan)的颂词里,向不朽的神灵们祈祷之时,他并未面向具体的神像,因为这样的神像并非永恒不朽。

异教的最后时光和远古时期都不存在能够让我们断定存在偶像崇拜的事实。荷马只提及居住在奥林匹斯山的诸神。尽管帕拉斯雅典娜的神像从天堂坠落人间,但那只是帕拉斯提供保护的一个神圣保证,人们尊敬的还是雕像代表的雅典娜。

然而,罗马人和希腊人在神像前下跪,给它们戴上王冠、焚香献花、在公众场合游行展示,庆祝胜利。我们将这些风俗习惯神圣化,但我们并不是偶像崇拜者。

在干旱时期,禁食的女人手捧诸神的造像,头发蓬乱,赤脚而行,立刻迎来倾盆大雨。正如佩特罗尼乌斯(Petronius)所言,“马上下起雨来(et statim urceatim pluebat)”。难道我们没有神圣化这一仪式吗?相同的仪式,异教徒举行起来就是非法,而我们举行则是正当合法。还有多少个村庄,是不存在人们赤着脚、手捧着圣徒的圣骨匣,祈祷通过圣徒的说情而得到上天的眷顾这样的现象呢?倘若一个土耳其人或受过教育的中国人看到了这样的仪式,在不熟悉的情况下,他首先会责怪我们轻信于神的图像,携带着图像列队行进。但是只要说句话就能使之明了。

各个时期,由于罗马和希腊的偶像崇拜而产生的反对言论,其数量巨大无比,人们会对此惊讶不已。但是,如果人们发现罗马人和希腊人根本就不是偶像崇拜者,就会感到更加惊讶了。

相较于其他神庙而言,有些神庙地位较高。以弗所的狄安娜大神庙比一座村野狄安娜神庙享有更高的声誉。埃皮达鲁斯(Epidaurus)在埃斯科拉庇俄斯(Aesculapius)神庙中创造的神迹数量远比他位于其他地方的神庙多。奥林匹亚的朱庇特神像所吸引的供奉也多于帕弗拉戈尼亚(Paphlagonian)的朱庇特神像。然而,既然我们总是将正统宗教和虚假宗教的习俗加以比较,难道在好几个世纪的时间里,我们就没有向某些特定的祭坛献出更多的供奉?难道我们就没有将更多的供奉送往拉瑞多圣母院(Notre Dame of Loretto)而不是雪中圣母院(Notre Dame of the snows)?我们自己决定这些事是否应该被人抓住当成借口,从而用来指控我们进行偶像崇拜。

人们心中只有一个狄安娜,一个阿波罗和一个埃斯科拉庇俄斯,数量并不及他们所拥有的神庙数量多。仅就历史这一点来说,这就可以证明古代人并不相信神像就是神,人对神的崇拜也不能转移到神像,即偶像身上。因而,古代人根本就不是偶像崇拜者。

一个下等人,他醉心于迷信,缺乏理性思维,不懂如何去质疑、否认和相信事物;他来到神庙只是由于无所事事,或是觉得在神庙里能贵贱平等;他携带供品只是出于习惯;他也可以喋喋不休地谈论神迹,可是自己却从未做过相关调查;他是一个不比祭祀牺牲品高贵多少的下等人。我要再一次重复,这个下等人,他一看见伟大的狄安娜和雷神朱庇特,也会被那种宗教性的神圣恐怖给吓蒙,从而在不知不觉中崇拜了神像本身。这种情况有时也会发生在前来我们神庙祭拜的粗野农夫身上,然后他们就被教导说:不是木像和石像,而是蒙上帝赐福者在替人祷告,这些永生之人已获准进入天堂。

希腊人和罗马人通过崇拜和赞美增加了他们神的数量。希腊人崇拜征服者们,比如巴克斯(Bacchus)、赫拉克勒斯和珀尔修斯(Perseus),罗马人为他们的皇帝建造了祭坛。而我们的崇拜则是另一种形式,我们崇拜圣徒,而不是像他们那样崇拜半神和二类神,高位和征服都不是我们崇拜的对象。我们多半会为一些籍籍无名、没有位列仙班、仅仅只是正直善良有道德的人建立神庙。奉承和谄媚可以赢得古人的崇拜,但善良与正直才能赢得我们的尊敬。

西塞罗在他的哲学作品中经常表露这样的怀疑,他认为神的造像会被人误解,会与神本尊相互混淆。他的对话者们严词谴责当时的宗教,但是没有一个人能让西塞罗产生想法去控诉罗马人,控诉他们视大理石和黄铜为神。卢克莱修(Lucretius)申斥各种迷信之事,但他也没有因为这种愚蠢之事去责备任何人。所以,再一次证明,偶像崇拜这种观点当时是不存在的,完全没有这种概念,根本就没有偶像崇拜者。

贺拉斯(Horace)为普里阿波斯(Priapus)造了一尊像:“我曾是一颗无花果树的树干。一个木匠犹豫着是要把我当成神还是做成一把椅子,最终还是决定把我当成神,等等。”从这个笑话里我们能得出什么结论呢?普里阿波斯,作为下级神祇中的一员,饱受嘲弄。而这一笑话本身,就强有力地证明了普里阿波斯那竖立在果菜园中、用来吓退鸟类的形象并未得到人们的崇拜。

达西耶采用一种评论者的态度,说到“造像只依工匠之所愿”,说出这句话时,就表明达西耶成功地指出了巴录(Baruch)早已预测到了这一事件。然而关于所有造像之事,他能说的都已说尽。那是否可以认为,巴录对贺拉斯的讽刺诗也有自己的看法呢?

将大理石打磨成洗脸盆,和将其雕刻成亚历山大、朱庇特或者更受尊敬事物的雕像,其难度其实一样。雕刻至圣所里的智天使们所用的材料,同样可以用来制作生活器具,满足生活基本需要。难道王座和祭坛所享受到的崇高会因为工匠们可以将其制作成餐桌而降低吗?

由此,达西耶应该得出结论说罗马人是在取乐,而不是得出罗马人崇拜普里阿波斯像、巴录也预测到了此事这样的结论。翻阅所有提及神像的作者的作品,你会发现没有人谈论过偶像崇拜,恰恰相反,在马提雅尔(Martial)的作品中,你会发现:



Qui finxit sacros auro vel marmore vultus,

Non facit ille deos;...

(用金或大理石制作的神像并不能成为神。)



奥维德:

Colitur pro Jove forma Jovis.

(通过朱庇特像,朱庇特受崇拜。)



斯塔提乌斯(Statius):

Nulla autem effigies, nulli commissa metallo

Forma del; mentes habitare ac numina gaudet.

(造像和金属不能固上帝之形,

上帝选择活在我们的脑海与心间。)



卢坎(Lucan):

Estne del sedes, nisi terra et pontus et aer?

(上帝的家,如果不是陆地,海洋,天空,

那会是什么呢?)



所有证明图像仅仅只是图像而已的段落,多得可以集结成册。

能让人产生神像体内有神存在的想法的只有那些内含神像显灵、发布神谕的例子。然而,盛行的观点肯定是认为神选择了特定的祭坛与影像,神偶尔居住在里面倾听人类的诉说并加以回复。

在荷马的作品,以及古希腊悲剧的颂词中,我们只发现向阿波罗祷告的祈祷文,阿波罗在群山中、在这座神庙里、在那个城市发布了神谕。古物中也发现很多遗迹表明祈祷者朝着造像祷告。

那些相信或假装相信巫术是科学并使用巫术的人声称他们懂得如何让神进入造像,这种神并非伟大的神,而是次等神,是魔仆。这就是墨丘利·特里斯梅季塔斯(Mercury Trismegistus)所谓的“创神”,就是圣·奥古斯丁在其《上帝之城》中所驳斥的东西。然而,既然需要巫师去激活,那么这本身也清楚地显示了造像之内并无真神存在。在我看来,巫术给予造像灵魂,让其开口说话,着实不太可能。

总之,神之像并非真神。猛掷惊雷的是朱庇特,而非其神像;翻卷大海的不是尼普顿之像;赋予我们光的也不是阿波罗之像。希腊人和罗马人是异教徒、是多神论者,但不是偶像崇拜者。

波斯人、赛伯伊人、埃及人、鞑靼人

和土耳其人是否是偶像崇拜者,

被称为偶像的仿像起源有多古老,

以及他们崇拜的历史

将崇拜太阳和星星的人描述为偶像崇拜者着实是个极大的错误。很久以来,这些国家既无仿像也无神庙。如果他们错了,那就错在他们应当崇拜星星的创造者,而非星星本身。无论如何,收集在《伤之伤》(Sadder )一书中,琐罗亚斯德(Zoroaster)或称泽达斯特(Zerdust)的教义颂扬一个赏善罚恶、至高无上的存在,这绝非偶像崇拜。中国政府没有过任何偶像,只保留了对天之主天帝的崇拜。鞑靼人中,成吉思汗不是偶像崇拜者,也没有任何仿像。充斥在希腊、小亚细亚、叙利亚、波斯、印度和非洲的穆斯林将基督教徒视作偶像崇拜者、异教徒,因为他们坚信基督教徒崇拜神像。他们还砸毁了好几座位于君士坦丁堡圣索菲亚大教堂(Santa Sophia)、圣徒教堂和其他一些已改建为清真寺教堂的造像。表面现象对他们的误导与对人类的误导如出一辙,基督教徒为曾是凡人的圣徒建造神庙,他们的形像享受着众人下跪朝拜的尊崇,神庙中实行的神迹,所有这些都让人们相信、都证明基督教徒实行绝对的偶像崇拜,这点毋庸置疑。然而事实并非如此,实际上,基督教徒只信奉一位神,崇拜蒙神赐福的人只是崇拜上帝赋予在他们身上的特质。同样反对教会、谴责偶像崇拜的反偶像崇拜者和新教徒也已给出了相同的答案。

由于人类对于偶像崇拜者这一名称几乎没有准确概念,更未曾用明确、毫不含糊的话语表达自己的看法,所以我们将此名称扣在异教徒,尤其是多神论者头上。我们为此还书写了大量的文献,来探究他们崇拜有可见形态的一神或多神的起源,与此相关的各种观点,说法不一,交杂转述。但是,浩如烟海的书籍与观点只印证了我们的无知。

谁发明了衣服鞋袜,我们不知道,但是我们想知道是谁首先创造了偶像。桑渠尼阿通(Sanchuniathon)所说的一段话很要紧吗?此人生活在特洛伊战争之前,他说是上帝依据自己的原则,用一口气在混沌天地之间创造了原始人类,同时让天空明亮;他说是风神考尔普(Colp)和他的妻子博乌(Bau)生下了伊恩(Eon),伊恩生下了吉诺斯(Genos),他们的后裔柯罗诺斯(Chronos)在脑袋前后都有两只眼睛,在他成神之后,就将埃及赐给了他的儿子萨伍特(Thaut),我们从中能得到什么启示呢?这可是古代最令人敬佩的不朽之作之一。

俄耳甫斯(Orpheus)生活时代早于桑渠尼阿通。大马士革乌斯(Damascius)帮我们留存了他的作品《诸神之谱》(Theogony ),但是此书也未带给我们更多的启示。俄耳甫斯所呈现的世界取形于一只双头龙,一为牛首,一为狮头,中间有一张被他称为“上帝之面”的脸,肩部拥有镀金的翅膀。

然而,我们从这些光怪陆地的想法中可以得出两个伟大的真理:一是明显可见的图形和象形符号起源于最远古的时代;二是所有的古代哲学家们都认同第一性原则。

至于多神论,良好的判断力会让你知道,人类是一种体弱的动物,拥有理智却也能行愚蠢之事,屈从于每一次事故、疾病和死亡。这些人类已经体会到了自己的虚弱和依赖性。于是,他们很快地就认识到存在一些事物比人类来得更强大。从供给人类食物的土地里、从时常带给他们毁灭性打击的天空中、从耗尽的火焰、浸入的水中,人类都感觉到了一种力量。还有什么比无知人类想象有一个特殊的存在统治着这些元素来得更自然的呢?还有什么比崇拜那能使太阳和繁星在我们眼中闪耀的无形力量来得更自然的呢?人类一旦形成观念,认为这些力量更加崇高,那他们以有形之物来代表这些力量不就最自然不过了吗?否则他们究竟能做什么呢?比我们基督教更早并由上帝亲自赐福的犹太教里充斥了以下这样一些代表上帝的图像:上帝身处灌木丛中屈尊讲着人类语言;上帝在一座高山中现身;所有经上帝派遣而来的神之灵魂均以人形现身;甚至充斥在至圣所里的小天使们都拥有人类身体,外加翅膀和动物脑袋。这就使得普鲁塔克、塔西佗(Tacitus)、亚庇(Appian)以及如此之多的人错误地责备了犹太人,谴责他们崇拜一头驴的头颅。上帝禁止人类为他画像或制作雕塑,然而尽管如此,他还是调整自身,屈尊为人形,而人形柔弱,需要借助形象去实现沟通。

《以赛亚书》第六章中,以赛亚看见上帝端坐在王座之上,长袍的裙裾遍及神庙。据这位先知所书的第一章中所言,上帝伸出手,触摸到了耶利米(Jeremiah)的嘴。《以西结书》第三章,以西结看见一座蓝宝石的王座,上帝以人形之态端坐在王座之上。这些图像并未腐蚀犹太教的纯洁性,他们从来不使用图像、造像和偶像来代表世人眼中的上帝。

受过教育的中国人、帕西人和古代埃及人都没有偶像,然而伊西斯(Isis)和奥西里斯(Osiris)的图像很快出现,天地之神贝尔(Bel)的巨像也出现在了巴比伦。在印度群岛,梵天是一个怪物。尤其是希腊人,他们为神命名、制作雕像、建造神庙,数量巨大,但是他们总将至高无上的力量归因于宙斯(Zeus),即拉丁语中的朱庇特,人类之神,神中之主。罗马人效仿了希腊人的做法。这些人总将所有的神都置于天空之内,但却不知天空之意。

罗马人有十二主神,六男六女,将其命名为:朱庇特、尼普顿、阿波罗、伏尔甘、玛尔斯、墨丘利、朱诺、维斯塔、密涅瓦、刻瑞斯、维纳斯、狄安娜。布鲁托当时被忘记了,维斯塔替代了他的位置。

其次就是次级神,包括:当地神灵;英雄人物,比如巴克斯、赫拉克勒斯和埃斯科拉庇俄斯(Aesculapius);地狱之神,布鲁托、普洛塞尔皮娜(Proserpine);海之神,比如西蒂斯(Thetis)、安菲特律特(Amphitrite)、涅瑞伊得斯(Nereids)和格劳克斯(Glaucus);护树女神德律阿得斯(Dryads)和水泽女神那伊阿得(Naiads);还有园艺、畜牧之神。每一个行业、每一种活动、孩童、待嫁少女、已婚妇女和分娩女子都有神照管。他们还有放屁之神。最终,他们尊皇帝为神明。然而,实际上,无论是这些帝王、放屁之神、性爱享乐女神普特腾达(Pertunda)、男性生殖神普里阿普斯(Priapus),还是乳房女神鲁米莉亚(Rumilia)、厕所之神斯特库蒂乌斯(Stercutius),他们都不是天地之主。人间帝王有时还有庙宇,主管日常生活的次级神则没有;但是他们全部都有自己的形象和偶像。这些偶像们其实就是小型造像,男人用它们来装饰书房,老妇和孩子们用它们来娱乐消遣,并未享受到公众崇拜。每个个体的迷信思想都太过骄纵放任了。这样的小偶像如今还能在古代城市的废墟中找到。

尽管无人知晓人类何时开始制造偶像,但是我们知道他们必定始于最古老的时期。亚伯拉罕的父亲他拉(Terah)在迦勒底的乌尔(Ur)制作偶像;拉结(Rachel)从继父拉班(Laban)处偷走偶像。除此之外,无法再追溯更早的时期了。

然而,古人对这些仿像到底拥有怎样确切的看法呢?赋予了它们怎样的品德和力量?人们是相信诸神屈尊从天堂下来,隐匿于这些造像之中,还是相信诸神将一部分的神魂让渡给了造像,或是认为诸神并未让渡任何东西给造像?这些问题也曾是很多无用之作的探讨主题。显而易见,每个人都是依据自身的理性、盲从和狂热程度做出判断。很显然,神职人员会赋予造像尽可能多的神性,用来吸引更多的供奉。我们知道,哲人斥责这些为迷信、勇士们采取取笑态度、执法官对此表示容忍,而总是荒谬可笑的普通人则不知到底为何物。简而言之,这就是所有尚不知神的国家的历史。

从埃及人崇拜公牛,一些城市的人崇拜狗、猴子、猫和洋葱的事例中,人们可以得出一个相同的看法。那就是,这些事物起先都只是徽章符号,然后某一头牛成了神牛埃皮斯(Apis),某一只狗成了墓穴神安努毕斯(Anubis),从而受到人们的崇拜。人们仍旧吃牛排和洋葱,但是很难想象古埃及女人是如何看待神圣的洋葱和公牛。

偶像们经常开口说话。将自然女神西布莉(Cybele)的造像从阿塔罗斯(Attalus)国王宫殿移走之时,神像所说的优雅言辞,在罗马还成为庆祝该女神节日时的纪念。



Ipsa peri volui; ne sit mora, mitte volentem:

Dignus Roma locus quo deus omnis eat.

(我想被搬走,赶紧把我搬走,罗马值得成为每个神的家园。)



命运之神(Fortune)的造像也说过话、显过灵。西庇阿斯(Scipios)、西塞罗和恺撒大帝不信此事是真的,但是接受恩可比乌斯(Encolpius)用王冠换鹅的老妇人以及众神可能会相信。

偶像们也发布神谕,但是,是由教士们藏在中空的造像内,以神的名义开口说话。

众神林立,神谱众多,外加一些个体教派,神的数量巨大而繁杂,然而为何在所谓的偶像崇拜者之间从未发生过任何宗教战争呢?这种和平是邪恶和错误自身的优秀产物。因为每一个国家自己都承认几个次等神,那么理所当然周边邻里国家也应该有他们自己神。除了杀死神牛埃皮斯而饱受斥责的冈比西斯(Cambyses),我们在世俗世界的历史上,没有发现任何征服者去凌辱被征服者的神明。异教徒们没有信奉唯一真神的宗教,所以教士们只能去增加供奉和祭品的数量。

祭品最初只是水果。不久之后,教士们的桌子需要动物了,他们自己动手,宰杀动物,他们成了屠夫,冷血而残忍。最终,他们引进了人祭那恐怖的仪式,祭品最好是孩童和处女。中国人、帕西人和印度人都未曾实施过这种令人憎恶的仪式,但是据波尔菲里(Porphyry)所言,人祭在埃及希拉波利斯(Hieropolis)实行过。

在陶里斯(Tauris),外邦人会成为祭品。幸运的是,陶里斯的教士们并未实施很多。早期希腊人、塞浦路斯人、腓尼基人、提尔人和迦太基人都信奉这种可憎的迷信。罗马人自己也陷入了这种宗教犯罪中,据普鲁塔克报告,他们生祭了两名希腊人、两名高卢人,来为三名处女的情爱之事赎罪。与法兰克人国王西奥多贝特(Theodobert)同时代的普罗科匹厄斯(Procopius)告诉我们,法兰克人与这位国君进入意大利之时将人献祭。高卢人和日耳曼人经常实行这种恐怖的人祭。阅读历史时,想要不读到人类所制造的恐怖之事,这几乎是不可能的。

犹太人中,杰弗瑟(Jephtah)将其女儿献祭、扫罗(Saul)打算牺牲其儿子,这是事实。献身于上帝却被上帝诅咒之人,不能像动物回归那样回归教门,而是应当永久消逝,这也是事实。犹太教教士撒母耳(Samuel)用一把神圣的短柄小斧将国王亚甲(Agag)砍成碎片。亚甲是一名战俘,已得到扫罗的原谅,但是扫罗却因遵守国家律法、原谅这位国王得受到谴责。然而,上帝,作为人之主,乐意之时便可夺走他们的生命,如何乐意,以及借谁之手都依上帝之意。人类无法将自身放置于主人的生死之地上,也无法篡夺上帝的权利。

为了就这种恐怖奇观、这些虔诚却悖理逆天的行为去安慰人类,我们一定要知道,几乎在所有被称为偶像崇拜者的国度里,都存在神圣神学和普遍错误,存在秘密祭礼和公开仪式,也存在智者之宗教与粗鄙之宗教。在秘密宗教仪式中,新入教徒被教导说只有唯一的真神,对此人们只需瞟一眼赞美诗就可得知。此诗被认为是俄耳甫斯所作,在刻瑞斯厄琉希诺斯(Ceres Eleusinus)的秘密宗教仪式上吟唱,在欧亚两洲闻名遐迩:“凝视神圣本性,照亮你的灵魂,支配你的内心,走上正义之路。愿天地之神与你常伴。上帝,独特唯一,单独自存,所有生灵均起源于他,受他供养。他从未在凡人面前露面,但他无所不知。”

也看看以下这段摘自马道拉斯的马克西姆斯(Maximus of Madaurus)写给圣·奥古斯丁的信件中的一段话:“存在这样一位神,他至高无上、亘古不变、无穷无尽,他是所有生灵之父、却未创造过任何类似于自己的东西。也不在什么样的人粗鄙、愚蠢到去怀疑此点。”

上千文献可以证明智者哲人不仅痛恨偶像崇拜,也憎恶多神论。

埃皮克提图(Epictetus)是苦难忍受与耐性之典范,他是如此地伟大以至于就算是在极端恶劣的情况下,都只谈上帝,不论其他。以下是他的格言之一:“上帝创造了我,他就在我体内,处处与我相伴。难道我要用淫秽之思、不公之行与可耻的欲望将他玷污吗?我的责任就是去感谢他,赞美他,祝福他,只有死亡能让我停止。”埃皮克提图的所有思想都围绕这一原则,那么他是偶像崇拜者吗?

在罗马皇帝中的伟大程度不亚于埃皮克提图在奴隶制中地位的马可·奥里利乌斯(Marcus Aurelius)常说,无论众神是遵从公认语言、还是求助于介于上帝与人之间的中间存在,这两者都是真实的。然而,有多少处地方都未表露他只承认一位亘古不变、无穷无尽的神!他说:“我们的灵魂是神性溢出之物。我的孩子、肉体和智慧都来自于上帝。”

斯多葛学派和柏拉图学派都承认存在一种神圣自然理法。伊壁鸠鲁派对此表示反对。罗马教宗在秘密宗教仪式上也只提到一名真神。那哪里存在偶像崇拜者呢?我们所有的词汇贩子都宣称存在偶像崇拜,就像小狗听见大狗狂吠之时也会学样。

至于其他,《莫雷里词典》(Moréri's dictionary)声称,在狄奥多西(Theodosius)时代,偶像崇拜只在遥远的亚洲和非洲国家存在。此等说法是该词典所犯的重大错误之一。甚至在7世纪之时,意大利仍有许多异教徒。查理曼大帝时代,德意志北部地区,威悉河(Weser)以北也不信奉基督教。波兰以及所有北部地区,在查理曼大帝之后很长一段时间都被认为实行偶像崇拜。半个非洲、所有恒河彼岸王国、日本、中国普通民众,以及鞑靼人上百个部落都保持着自己的传统祭祀仪式。而欧洲只有少量的拉普兰人(Laplanders)、萨莫耶德人和鞑靼人保留了他们的祖传宗教。

总之,我要提醒一下,中世纪时代,我们将信奉穆罕穆德的国家称之为异教国。我们自己完全符合偶像崇拜者的条件,是一群对偶像充满畏惧的人。我们必须再一次承认,当土耳其人看见我们的祭坛挂满了图像、摆满了雕塑之时,他们将我们视为偶像崇拜者着实更加情有可原。

约瑟夫

《约瑟夫的故事》被视为新奇之作和文学著作,是古时期留给我们的最宝贵的遗产。《约瑟夫的故事》是所有东方作家作品中的典范之作,比荷马的《奥德赛》更感人,因为一个宽恕的英雄比一个雪耻复仇的英雄更能触动人心。

人们一贯认为阿拉伯人第一个写就了那些绝妙精巧,被译作多国文字的故事。然而,我却无法从中找到一个冒险故事能与约瑟夫的故事媲美。在约瑟夫的故事里,几乎所有的事物都不可思议,故事的结局动人心弦。故事里有一个16岁的少年,因遭到兄弟的嫉妒被卖给一个以实玛利(Ishmaelite)商队,随后他被带往埃及,卖给一个服侍国王的阉人做奴隶。此阉人有一个妻子,这一点也不奇怪。科斯拉瑞卡(Kislaraga)是一个彻头彻尾的阉人,他那东西被切得彻彻底底,然而他在如今的君士坦丁堡却有一群妻妾,他失了眼,丢了手,却没有丧失内心源自天性的权利。而另外一些只切掉了两个生殖器伴随物的阉人却仍旧频繁地使用生殖器官,其中一个阉人很有可能是波提乏(Potiphar),也就是约瑟夫的买主。

波提乏的妻子爱上了年轻的约瑟夫,而约瑟夫出于对主人,同时也是恩人的忠诚之心,而拒绝了这女人的求爱。约瑟夫的拒绝触怒了这女人,于是她控告约瑟夫,诬陷他试图引诱自己。这故事就相当于希波吕托斯(Hippolytus)与菲德拉(Phaedra)、柏勒罗丰(Bellerophon)与斯忒涅玻亚(Stheneboea),海布罗斯(Hebrus)与达玛斯帕(Damasippa)、坦尼斯(Tanis)与佩雷比(Peribea)、马提尔(Myrtil)与希波达弥亚(Hippodamia),以及珀琉斯(Peleus)与德梅内特(Demenette)之间的故事。

这么多故事里,我们很难分辨出谁才是鼻祖。然而,在古阿拉伯作家的作品里,约瑟夫与波提乏妻子之间的冒险故事还是具有浓厚的原创色彩的。这位作家想象着:波提乏在妻子和约瑟夫之间举棋不定,他并不认为那被妻子自己扯开的束腰外衣是证明约瑟夫实行侵犯行为的证据。当时这女人的房间里还有一个坐在摇篮里的孩子。约瑟夫说是她自己扯开了衣服,脱掉了束腰外衣,当时这孩子也在。波提乏询问了这孩子,这孩子在这年纪已经十分聪慧,他对波提乏说到:“看看这束腰外衣到底是从前面脱掉的还是从后面脱掉的,如果是前者,那么这就证明约瑟夫试图侵犯她,而她自卫反抗;如果是后者,那么这就证明你妻子正在追求约瑟夫。”多亏这孩子机智,波提乏认定他的奴隶是清白的。这就是这位古阿拉伯作者在《古兰经》中所详述的约瑟夫的冒险经历。这孩子智力非凡、判断明智,可作者并不考虑告诉我们这个孩子到底是谁的。如果这孩子是波提乏妻子的儿子,那么约瑟夫就不是这女人追求的第一个人了。

尽管如此,据《创世纪》记载,约瑟夫被投入监狱,与埃及国王的酒侍和面包师关在一起。这两个犯人晚上做梦了,约瑟夫为他们解梦,并预测说三天之内,酒侍会重新受宠,而面包师会被吊死,后来事情果真如此。

两年之后,埃及国王也做梦了。他的酒侍告诉他说,在监狱里有个年轻的犹太人,是世界上最懂得解梦的人。国王召来这位年轻人,他预测了七年丰收与七年饥荒。

稍微打断一下这故事的发展线索,让我们来看看古代解梦的奇妙之处。雅各(Jacob)曾在梦中见到那神秘的、通往上帝所在的阶梯。他在梦中学到了一种繁殖羊群的方法,这种方法唯有他能成功使用。他也在梦中得知终有一天他会统治他所有的兄弟。很久以前,亚比米勒(Abimelech)曾在梦中被警告说萨拉是亚伯拉罕的妻子。

回到约瑟夫的故事。约瑟夫一解读出法老的梦境,就立刻被任命为总理大臣。我们可能会怀疑,如今就算是在亚洲,是否能够找到这样一个国王,仅仅因为解梦,就将如此重要的政府职位授予他人。法老让约瑟夫娶了波提乏的一个女儿为妻。据说波提乏是赫利奥波利斯(Heliopolis)的大祭司,所以这个波提乏并不是约瑟夫的第一个阉人主人,如果是,那么除了大祭司这一称呼外,波提乏肯定还有其他称谓,他的妻子也生过不止一个孩子。

与此同时,正如约瑟夫所预测的那样,饥荒如期到来。而约瑟夫完全对得起国王的厚爱,他迫使人们将自己的土地卖与法老,整个国家的子民为了换取粮食均沦为奴隶。显而易见,这就是专制权力的开端。但是必须承认,从没有一个国王做交易能做得如此漂亮,然而人民却无法由衷地祝福这位总理大臣。

后来,饥荒席卷了整个大地,约瑟夫的父亲和兄弟们也需要粮食。在这里,完全没有必要描述约瑟夫是如何接受、原谅并带领他的兄弟们发家致富的。所有组成一部有趣史诗的素材在这故事中都能找到:引子、困苦、赞誉、变迁和奇迹。东方天才的标记在这里彰显得无比显著。

约瑟夫的父亲雅各回答法老的话语,一定给所有能读能写之人都留下了深刻的印象。“你的生命能持续多少日,多少年?”国王问到。“我的朝圣之行持续了130年,而在这短暂的朝圣之旅中我从未有过快乐的一天。”

朱迪亚

感谢上帝,我从未去过朱迪亚(Judea),以后也决不会去。从那里回来的各个国家的人我都见过,他们告诉我说耶路撒冷这地方可怕极了,周边都是山石林立,山体裸露,闻名遐迩的约旦河也只有45英尺宽,这国家唯一环境较好的省份就是耶利哥。简而言之,他们都认同圣哲罗姆的看法。圣哲罗姆长久以来都居住在耶稣降生之地伯利恒(Bethlehem),他将这块地方描述为被自然抛弃之地,这里夏天的时候甚至都没有饮用水,然而,这地方对于刚从沙漠穿越而来的犹太人而言还是一块宝地。可怜的人们离开荒沙之地朗德省(Landes),定居到蓝珀尔丹(Lampourdan)(大约在巴约纳[Bayonne]附近)的群山里,他们会赞美自己的新家。倘若他们曾经想要继续前进,来到朗格多克(Languedoc)的富饶地区,那么他们会震惊不已,认为这就是应许之地。

这恰恰就是犹太人的历史。耶利哥和耶路撒冷就是图卢兹和蒙彼利埃,西奈沙漠就是横在波尔多和巴约纳之间的国度。然而,如果引导犹太人的上帝想赐予他们肥沃的土地,如果这些不幸之事在埃及实际存在,那么上帝为什么不把犹太人留在那里?关于此问题,仅有的解答就是一些神学术语。据说朱迪亚就是应许之地。上帝对亚伯拉罕说:“自埃及河流起至幼发拉底河之间的土地,我都将赐予你们。”

哎!我的朋友,你从未见识过幼发拉底河和尼罗河那些肥沃的河岸,他们欺骗了你。尼罗河和幼发拉底河的主人们轮流充当你们的主人,你们几乎总是奴隶。承诺和实践完全是两回事,可怜的犹太人。你们曾有一个老拉比阅读着那预告你们奶与蜜之地的明智预言之时,大声呼喊说在你们得到的许诺中黄油多于面包。你们意识到了吗?现在如果大土耳其(Grand Turk)授予我耶路撒冷统治者的地位,我会对此不屑一顾。

看着这个令人嫌恶的国家,腓特烈二世曾公开说,摩西带领那些别人惟恐避之不及的同伴们来到这里真是糊涂,“为什么他不去那不勒斯呢?”腓特烈二世说道。再见了,我亲爱的犹太人。我很抱歉那应许之地竟然是荒原之地。

享 乐

人们在诗词和散文里慷慨陈词了两千年,一再反对享乐,却又沉迷其中。

最早期的罗马人,是毁坏、掠夺邻居收成,摧毁沃尔西人(Volscians)和萨谟奈人(Samnites)的贫困村庄,只求缓解己方困难的强盗,关于他们,还有什么未被提及呢?那就是他们曾是公正无私、善良正直之人!那时他们都还没能力去偷窃金银宝石,因为受他们洗劫的所有地方没有这些东西。他们的树林和沼泽既不产鹧鸪,也不生野鸡,他们的温和节制受到了赞扬!

他们一点点地掠夺干净,偷光了亚得里亚海远端至幼发拉底河之间的所有财富,同时也有了足够的意识要去享受这累积了七八百年之久的掠夺之物。于是,他们发展各式的艺术,体验各种享乐,甚至也让被征服者们品尝一番。当他们做这些事时,有人说这些罗马人不再明智,不再正直。

所有的这些雄辩之词就是为了证明:一个小偷决不能吃他自己偷来的食物,穿他自己盗来的衣服,也不能用抢来的戒指装饰自己。据说,小偷们如果想做一个正直的人,那么所有的这些财物都应弃入江河。这还不如说人们不应该偷窃。强盗们掠夺之时要谴责他们,但是当他们在享乐自己夺来之物时,就不要辱骂他们是疯子了。老实说,很多英国水手通过掠夺本地治里(Pondicherry)和哈瓦那(Havana)大发横财,后来回到伦敦,尽情享乐,以犒劳自己在亚洲、非洲的危险情况下所遭受的苦痛,这难道错了吗?

难道空谈家是想埋葬那些通过战争、农业、贸易和工业而累积起来的财富吗?他们举了斯巴达的实例。那他们为什么不引用圣马里诺共和国的例子呢?斯巴达对希腊到底做出了怎样的贡献?他们有德摩斯梯尼(Demosthenes)、索福克勒斯(Sophocles)、阿佩利斯(Apelles)和菲狄亚斯(Phidias)吗?享乐的雅典各行各业里都涌现出了伟大的人物。斯巴达却只有少数的几个船长,其数量甚至比其他的一些城邦还要少。但是,就让它这样吧!就让斯巴达这样的小共和国持续它的贫困吧。穷困潦倒和惬意享乐都会迎来死亡。加拿大的野蛮人,与拥有五万基尼收入的英格兰公民,一样都活着,一样都会变老。但是谁又会去拿易洛魁人(Iroquois)的国家与英格兰相比呢?

就让拉古沙共和城邦(republic of Ragusa)和楚格州(canton of Zug)制定禁止享乐的律法吧。他们做得对,的确有必要让穷人避免入不敷出。但是我又在某个地方读到了这样的一段话:



Sachez surtout que le luxe enrichit

Un grand état, s'il en perd un petit.

(享乐成就大国,毁灭小国)



如果你眼中的享乐是过度之意,那么其实每个人都知道,凡事过度都是有害无益,正如暴饮暴食要节制,慷慨挥霍要节约。我不知道我所居住的村庄是怎么回事,这里土地贫瘠、赋税沉重,所收获的小麦严禁出口。然而,所有农夫都能穿上上等布料制作的衣服鞋袜,衣食无忧。如果这农夫身穿白色亚麻华服、头顶卷曲且经过精心修饰的发式,那么这肯定就是极致的奢侈,非常地不合时宜。但是如果一个巴黎或伦敦的资本家打扮成农夫的模样进入剧院,那么这资本家就是最无礼,最荒谬的吝啬鬼。



Est modus in rebus, sunt certi denique fines,

Quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum.

(所有的事情都有一个固定的衡量标准,

既不可逾越也不可不及)



剪刀肯定不是最伟大的古代遗产。发明剪刀之初,关于第一个使用它来修甲理发的人,还有什么是没被提到的呢?那时,毫无疑问,剪刀是代表名利与地位的工具,花花公子和浪荡子们高价购买,这是对造物主作品的糟蹋。我们的指尖末端是上帝让其生长的小角,剪短它们这是多大的罪过!这是对神的冒犯,这比发明衬衫、袜子更加恶劣。这下我们知道了那些从未穿过它们的老派议员,向那些已向这些致命奢侈品投降的年轻执法官叫嚷之时,是多么的愤怒。

殉 道

对于所有有关殉道者的谎言,我们只能捧腹大笑。这样的人包括提图斯(Titus)、图拉真和马可·奥里利乌斯,他们本是道德的典范,却被描述成残忍的野兽。洛克迪(Loc- Dieu)修道院院长弗勒里(Fleury)的神职生涯因为一些故事,一些凡是明白事理的女人都不会告诉小孩子的故事而蒙羞。

罗马人惩罚70人中的七位处女,要求每一位处女都必须让安卡拉城邦内所有的年轻男子享用一次,同样也是罗马人,他们会因为一点小小的情爱之事就判处处女死刑,这样的事情真的会再次重现吗?创作这一故事的人,是一个叫做狄奥多士(Theodotus)、信奉基督教的酒馆老板,他向上帝祈祷说与其让这七个处女丧失童贞,还不如处死她们。如果这样说,显然这会使酒馆老板们心情愉悦。上帝倾听了这一过分正经的酒店老板的祈祷,于是地方总督将这七名少女溺毙在湖中。这些少女一溺亡,就找到狄奥多士,抱怨他在她们身上使用诡计,但诚心恳求他帮忙,让她们的尸身免受湖中鱼虾吞食的命运。于是狄奥多士带上他酒馆中的三个酒徒,由神之火炬和神之骑士领路,一同前往那湖边,将这七人的尸身打捞上来,加以埋葬,最后狄奥多士自己却因此被绞死。

戴克里先(Diocletian)曾遇到一个叫圣·罗马,说话结巴的小男孩,他想烧死这孩子,因为这孩子是一个基督教徒。此时恰好有三个犹太人也在场,他们开始大笑,因为耶稣基督竟然允许一个皈依他的小男孩被人烧死。他们大声说道,他们的宗教要优于基督教,因为上帝将沙得拉(Shadrach)、米煞(Meshach)和亚伯尼歌(Abednego)投入了炙热的火炉。此时正包围着小罗马的火焰并未伤及他,而是立刻分散开来,将这三个犹太人烧死。皇帝戴克里先震惊了,说他不想与上帝有争执,但有一个不太认真负责的乡村法官判处这小结巴割舌的刑罚。皇帝的首席医生还亲自动手,堂而皇之地实施了这一手术。小罗马的舌头一被割掉,立刻就能流利地与人谈话,令在场的人无不感到钦佩。

这样的故事在殉教史中能找到成百上千个,他们想要让古罗马人显得可憎,却让自己变得荒谬。你想要实施完美、证据充分的暴行;想要真实性经过严格验证的大屠杀;想要看到血海真的横流;想要父亲、母亲、男人、女人和孩子们胸口受创,尸体成堆?热衷迫害的野兽们,只能去你们的编年史里寻找这些真相:你会在针对阿尔比派(Albigensians)的十字军战争中,会在梅兰多勒(Mérindol)和卡布里埃(Cabrières)大屠杀中,会在圣·巴多罗买(saint Bartholomew)的可怖一天中,也会在爱尔兰大屠杀和瓦勒度派(Waldenses)的山谷中找到的。是你这野蛮人将惨无人道的残暴行径归咎于最伟大的皇帝;是你让欧洲洪水泛滥,尸横遍野,要证明在顷刻之间可以到达成千上万个不同的地方,证明教皇可以兜售赎罪券!不要再诽谤中伤罗马人了,是他们让你制定了自己的律法,也是他们为不受你们先祖喜爱的人事向上帝祈求原谅。

你说,不是磨难造就了殉道者,而是原因。我承认你们的牺牲者不应该被冠以殉道者之名,殉道者意为见证者。但是,应该怎样称呼你们这些刽子手呢?法拉里斯(Phalaris)和布西里斯(Busiris),相较于你而言,是最绅士的名字。你那仍旧存在的宗教法庭难道不会让理性、人性和宗教战栗不已吗?伟大的上帝!如果这可憎的法庭归于尘土,那么你那有仇必报的凝视目光会不高兴吗?

奇 迹

奇迹(miracle),就其完全意义来说,是个极妙的事物。从这层意义上说,所有事物都是不可思议的。自然界的奇妙秩序、一亿个球体围绕一百万个太阳运转、光的运动,以及动物的生活都是永恒的奇迹。

通常,我们所说的奇迹,打破了这些神圣而永恒的定律。如果在月圆之时出现日食,如果一个死人手提脑袋,但还能双脚行走,那么我们把这些叫做奇迹。

几位自然哲学家认为,从这层意义上说,奇迹不可能存在,以下是他们的论证。

奇迹,是对神圣、不变且永恒的数学定律的违反。若依据此定义,那么奇迹,毫不含糊地说,就是一个矛盾体。一条定律不可能在保持不变的同时又被打破。然而,有人问他们,上帝可不可以让自己创造的定律暂时失效呢?他们底气十足地回答说毫无可能,拥有无限智慧的神不可能为了打破定律而去创造定律。他们说,上帝可以中断机器运转,但只是为了改进功能。如今,显而易见,这巨大无比的机器与上帝本身一样优秀。而他,作为上帝,能够创造这机器。如果发现物质的自然性导致缺陷出现,上帝就会从头再来,所以机器里的任何东西,上帝从不改变。

另外,上帝做事,事必有因,那是什么原因能让他去暂时损毁自己的作品呢?他们会被告知说那是为了人类的利益。他们则回复说,那就一定是为了全人类的利益,因为神性不为整个人类种族,而只为少数个人服务,这样的事情是不可想象的。但是无论怎样,人类种族其实也没有很多,这浩瀚无垠的空间内存在所有人类数量要远远小于一个小型蚁山中蚂蚁的数量。神,出于维护生存在这小泥堆上的三百或四百只蚂蚁的利益,选择去改变那维持整个宇宙运转的巨型引擎的永恒运转模式。现在设想一下这样的事情,难道不是愚蠢荒谬至极的吗?

然而,我们假设一下,上帝想偏爱某一小部分人:那么他需要对自己创造的永恒且无处不在的东西做出改变吗?他完全没有一丝必要去做这种改变,用这种反复无常去讨好他自己创造的生物。上帝的偏爱体现在那独特的戒律中,他为他们预测并安排所有事情,而这些人也都义无反顾地臣服于他的力量,受这种力量的影响深入骨髓。

那为什么上帝要行奇迹呢?是给少数一些人完成一个既定的计划吗?那么上帝会说:“通过创造宇宙,颁布神圣法令,制定永恒定律,我仍有一个计划没能完成。所以我将改变一些永恒不变的观念和定律,而去实施一些我不能借助它们来完成的事情。”这不是上帝力量的展示,而是软弱的告白,是他自身最不可思议的矛盾之处。所以,将奇迹归因于上帝其实是对上帝的侮辱(如果人类可以侮辱上帝的话),因为这等于对他说:“你是一个软弱无能,反复无常的存在。”因而,相信神迹,实在荒诞可笑,因为那是对神的羞辱。

这些窘迫的自然哲学家被告知说:“你们欢庆神的不变性,神之定律的永恒性,以及神之世界的规律性注定是徒劳无功的。我们这些小小的泥土堆已经见证了大量的奇迹发生,历史上神迹发生的频率并不亚于自然事件。大祭司安纽斯的女儿们,把她们拣选的所有东西都变成了大麦、葡萄酒和油;墨丘利的女儿艾萨丽达(Athalida)复活了好几次;埃斯科拉庇俄斯(Aesculapius)也让希波吕托斯(Hippolytus)复活了;赫拉克勒斯将阿尔刻提斯(Alcestis)从死亡线上拉回来;赫勒斯(Heres)在地狱中度过两星期后回到世界;罗穆卢斯(Romulus)和雷穆斯(Remus)的父母一个是神,一个是纯洁的处女;帕拉斯雅典娜的神像在特洛伊城从天堂落下;贝雷尼丝(Berenice)的毛发变成群星;鲍西丝(Baucis)和费莱蒙(Philemon)的破旧小屋变成了一座辉煌的神庙;俄耳甫斯的头颅死后还可宣读神谕;底比斯(Thebes)的城墙在希腊人的见证下,仅在一阵笛声中就拔地而起;埃斯科拉庇俄斯神殿中成功治愈的病人不计其数,我们还有记录,记载着埃斯科拉庇俄斯创造神迹时的见证人名单。

还有哪些人群没有行过难以置信的奇迹吗,特别是在很多人都不会读写的时代?请告诉我。

自由思想家,对于这些异议的回答,只有大声地嘲笑和不屑地耸肩。然而基督教哲学家则说:“我们相信自己神圣宗教里出现的奇迹,相信奇迹凭借的是信念而非理智,我们尽全力不去理会理智的声音,因为众所周知,信念说话时理智靠边站。发生在耶稣基督和他使徒们身上的神迹,我们坚定并且全心全意地相信,但是你必须允许我们对有些奇异之事保持一点点的怀疑态度。比如,有一个故事,其阐述者是一个享有伟大之名的普通人,他声称有一个小修道士非常善于行奇迹,以至于修道院院长最终禁止他运用自己这项才能。这小修道士遵照了指示。但是,当他看到一个可怜的砖瓦匠从房顶上跌落下来时,他在救人与神圣服从之间犹豫不决,于是他将这砖瓦匠停留在空中,他自己跑去问修道院院长该如何行事。这院长认定他未经允许就行奇迹,一开始就是罪过,但考虑到他中止实施并未再犯,就允许他将其完成。对于这样的故事,请允许我们持保留态度。我们同意自由思想家的看法,认为这个故事可信度不高。”

但是,他们会被问到,你怎敢否认圣·格瓦斯(saint Gervase)和圣·普罗泰西乌斯(saint Protasius)出现在圣·安布罗斯(saint Ambrose)的梦中,并告诉他哪里能找到他们的遗骸呢?怎敢否认圣·安布罗斯将他们挖掘出来,否认他们治好了一个盲人呢?当时,圣·奥古斯丁正在米兰,正是他报告了这一奇迹。“无数人充当了见证”(Immenso populo teste),他在《上帝之城》第22章写道。这是证据充分,可信度最高的奇迹之一。但是,自由思想家说他们一个字都不信,他们认为格瓦斯和普罗泰西乌斯并未出现在任何人面前,人类知不知道他们的尸骸到底在哪里一点都不重要,他们也不相信这个盲人,正如不相信维斯帕先(Vespasian)一样,认为这是个毫无用处的奇迹,但上帝从不做无用之事,也表明他们会坚定地坚持自己的原则。我对圣·格瓦斯和圣·普罗泰西乌斯的尊敬,不允许我与这些自由思想家持相同观点,我只是表述他们的怀疑。卢西安(Lucian)的很多文章都提起过他们,在其《异邦人之死》(Death of Peregrinus )中说到:“当一个玩杂耍的高手变成基督徒之时,他一定会找到自己的路。”但是,由于卢西安是一个世俗作家,那他对于我们而言,就无权威性可言。

这些自由思想家无法让自己相信发生在二世纪的奇迹。那么目击证人记载以下这些东西就是徒然无功的,士麦那(Smyrna)主教圣·波利卡(saint Polycarp)被判处火刑,扔进火焰时,他们听到一个来自天堂的声音大声喊道:“勇气,波利卡!坚强,像个男人一样。”柴堆上的火焰脱离了波利卡的身体,在头的上方形成了一道火幕,一只鸽子从火堆之间飞出。最终,他们不得不砍掉了波利卡的头颅。“这个奇迹有什么好?”怀疑者问道。“为什么火焰失去了它的特性,为什么不是刽子手的斧头着火?为什么殉道者能从滚烫的油锅中安然无恙地存活下来却死于剑刃之下?”他们回答说,这是神的旨意。但是自由思想家们还是偏向于自己亲眼所见后再相信。

那些依靠知识增强论据力度的人会告诉你说,教堂里的神父们自己都经常承认说,在他们的时代奇迹也久不曾出现。圣·克里索斯托(saint Chrysostom)明确地说:“神之所以将非凡的能力赋予平庸,是因为当时教会需要神迹;而现在他们之所以连非凡的人都不再赋予这种能力,则是因为教会已经没有需要。”随后,他还承认说,再没有人能使死人复活,甚至连救助伤病也已无可能。

虽然有格瓦斯和普罗泰西乌斯的神迹,圣·奥古斯丁在他的《上帝之城》也说道:“曾经出现过的奇迹为什么现在不出现了呢?”他给出了相同的原因:“‘Cur, inquiunt, nunc illa miracula quae praedicatis facta esse non fiunt? Possem quidem dicere necessaria prius fuisse quam crederet mundus, ad hoc ut crederet mundus.”(他们问:‘为什么那些你吹噓曾出现过的奇迹现在不出现了?’我会说,在这个世界还未相信之前,奇迹是有必要的,这样世界才会相信。)

除了以上的这个坦白之言,自由思想家们却不赞同圣·奥古斯丁提到的希波(Hippo)补鞋匠的故事。这鞋匠丢了衣服,随后到一个二十殉道者小型教堂做祈祷。回去后,他在一条鱼的体内发现了一枚金戒指,做鱼的厨师告诉补鞋匠:“这就是那二十个殉道者给你的礼物。”

对于这个故事,自由思想家们的回答是,这个故事与自然定律一点都不矛盾,一条鱼吞了一只金戒指丝毫不违背自然定律,厨师将这金戒指给补鞋匠也不是神迹。

倘若提醒一下这些自由思想家们,依据圣·哲罗姆在《隐士保罗的生活》(Life of the Hermit Paul )中所言,这位隐士与森林之神萨梯(satyrs)和农牧之神范恩(fauns)还有过几次对话,乌鸦每天都给他叼来半条面包作为饭食,圣·安东尼(saint Anthony)造访之日还叼来一整条面包,这前后持续了整整三十年。他们又会回答说,所有的这些事物并不会绝对地违反自然定律,萨梯和范恩也许存在过。这个故事尽管幼稚,但是无论如何,它与救世主和他的使徒们那样纯粹的奇迹是完全不同的。一些虔诚的基督徒已经不相信狄奥多勒(Theodoret)所讲的关于坐柱者圣·西蒙(saint Simon Stylites)的故事。很多在希腊被认为是可信的奇迹已经受到几个拉丁教会的质疑,同样地,一些拉丁的奇迹也引起了希腊教会的怀疑。紧接而来就是新教徒们,他们对两种教会的奇迹都不太相信。

一个在东印度群岛布道良久、知识渊博的耶稣会士抱怨说,他与同事们从来都不能行奇迹。泽维尔(Xavier)在他的几封信中悲叹道自己没有语言能力,他说身处日本人中间,除了是一尊哑巴雕像外,什么都不是。尽管如此,耶稣会士们也写到他使八个死人复活了,八个人着实很多,但是我们要考虑这八个人是他从距离此地5000格之远的地方复活成功的。从此以后,有人声称在法国废除耶稣会,相较于废除泽维尔和伊格内修斯(Ignatius)而言是个更大的神迹,这些人因为发表此言论而为人所知。

话虽如此,所有的基督徒仍相信耶稣基督和使徒们的神迹是千真万确的,但是我们也有权利运用我们的力量去质疑一些近当代发生的,还未经权威验证的奇迹。

因为一个真实完美的奇迹,人们会希望它能在巴黎科学院、伦敦皇家学会和医学院的见证下,能在卫兵军团派遣支队,防止拥挤人群的轻率行为妨碍神迹创造的支持下加以实践。

总有一天,自由思想家会被问到,如果发现太阳停止运动,换而言之,就是地球不再围绕太阳这一天体运转;如果所有死人都能复活;如果连绵的群山变为海洋,所有这些都是去证明一些重要的真理,比如万能的上帝恩宠。“那么我会说什么呢?”自由思想者问到。“我会成为摩尼教徒,我会说存在一条原理能将其他原理破坏。”

彼 得

彼得(Peter),在意大利语里,他的名字是皮埃罗(Piero)或皮埃特罗(Pietro),在西班牙语里,佩德罗(Pedro),拉丁语里,柏图斯(Petrus),希腊语里,彼特拉斯(Petros),而在希伯来语里,他则被称为刻法(Cepha)。

为什么彼得的继任者们在西方能有如此大的权力而在东方情况却并非如此?这就好像是在问为什么维尔茨堡(Wurzburg)和萨尔茨堡的主教们在混乱时期可以拥有王权而希腊的主教们却永远只有是臣民。时间,时机,某些人的野心以及另一些人的软弱总可以成就这个世界上所有已经发生或是将要发生的事情。

在这个混乱的时期,某种意见却得到了普遍的认同,这种意见统治着人们的思想;事实上并不是说这些人有着自己明确的意见,但是总有声音代替他们表达。

福音书中提到,上帝对彼得说“我将赐予你天国的钥匙”。而在11世纪,罗马主教的支持者们仍然认为赐予的东西越是宏大,也就越渺小,也认为天国包裹着大地;倘若彼得拥有天国之匙,那他也一定拥有开启大地之匙。如果说天国指的是所有的恒星和行星,那么根据托马修斯(Thomasius)的说法,显而易见,给西蒙·巴-乔那(Simon Bar-Jona)也就是彼得的钥匙是一把万能钥匙。如果天国指的是云层,大气,或是行星自转所需要的空间,那么根据默尔修斯(Meursius)的说法,也就没有锁匠可以为这样的门打造钥匙了。

过去,巴勒斯坦的钥匙是用带子绑在一块的一堆木钉。耶稣对巴-乔那说:“凡是你在人世间所受的束缚,到了天国也同样会绑住你”。而服务于教皇的神学家们,从这一条解读出,教皇们拥有让人民忠于他们自己国王的权利,也有解除这一关系的权力;与此同时,教皇按自己的意愿管理所有的王国。这是一个绝妙的结论。1302年,在法国的三级会议上,法国民众在给国王的请愿书上写道:“波尼法斯八世(Boniface VIII)认为上帝在天国所约束和囚禁的也是他自己所约束的东西。”德国的路德教教徒(我记得是叫墨兰顿[Melanchthon])觉得自己很难理解耶稣对西蒙·巴-乔那或称刻法所说的:“你是彼得(皮埃尔),在这块磐石(皮埃尔有石头之意)之上,我将筑造我的教堂,召集我的信徒。”他不相信上帝会在文字上做文章,会开如此特别的玩笑;更不相信教皇的权力原来只是基于一个语言的双关。

有人认为彼得是罗马的主教,但在当时以及之后的很长一段时间里,都没有人能够证实他在位。而基督教团体在公元2世纪末才成形。

彼得可能去过罗马,更有可能的是他被头朝下钉死在十字架上,虽然这在实际上不可行,也没有证据证明这点。我们有一封由他署名的信件,当中提到了他在巴比伦:明智的圣殿学者认为巴比伦即罗马。因此如果他有一封来自罗马的署有名字和日期的信件,我们就能得出信件是在巴比伦写的结论。很久之前就有过这样的推论,世界也一如既往地运行着。

曾经有一个虔诚的人在罗马花了大笔金钱买了一份圣职。这被称为圣职买卖行为。当时有人问他,相不相信西蒙·彼得在罗马。他回答说“我不知道彼得,但是西蒙是在罗马的。”

对于彼得这个人,必须承认的一点是,保罗并不是唯一一个被他的行为所震惊的人。他和他继任者们常常在公开场合被人排斥。保罗严厉斥责他食用禁肉,比如猪肉,黑布丁,兔子,鳗鱼,伊克西翁和格里芬。彼得在为自己辩护时则说,他曾在约是正午之时见到天国之门打开,有四个人携一块大布从天而降,布上有好多鳗鱼、四足动物还有鸟类。有一个天使的声音大声喊道:“杀死它们,吃了吧!”渥拉斯顿(Wollaston)说,很明显,这个声音也对教皇们说:“杀死一切,侵吞人民的财产!”

卡索朋(Casaubon)不认同彼得对待好人亚拿尼亚(Ananias)和他的妻子萨菲拉(Sapphira)的方式。卡索朋问道,经过哪场战役之后可以让一个犹太人——罗马人的奴隶有权命令或是允许那些相信耶稣的信徒们变卖家产并把所得的收益摆在他的脚下。如果伦敦的某个再洗礼派(Anabaptist)让他的同胞们将自己的财产放在他脚下,难道他不会因为叛教而下狱,且毋庸置疑地因掠夺信徒财产而被送往泰伯恩(Tyburn)刑场?那么对亚拿尼亚处以死刑难道没有太过分吗?他只是私藏了他和他妻子变卖田产所得的一小部分,而对彼得谎称奉献了全部家产。他的妻子赶来时,亚拿尼亚才刚刚死去。彼得并没有仁慈地警告她,他的丈夫因私藏价银而死于中风,让她好好照顾自己,而是让她掉入了另一个陷阱。他问她,她的丈夫是不是将所得的所有价银交给了圣徒。这个可怜的女人说是,于是当场死去。这是多么地残酷!

科尼利厄斯(Coringius)问彼得为什么处死那些捐献财产给他的人,却不处死那些对耶稣不止一次处以鞭刑,最后导致耶稣受难的神学家们。哦,彼得!你处死了两个捐献财物给你的基督徒,却允许那些迫害你主的人活着!

科尼利厄斯明显不是宗教法庭的人,所有才会问这些大胆的问题。伊拉斯谟注意到一件奇怪的事情,这件事与彼得有关:基督教的领袖在开始履行他们作为使徒的职责时,都不认主。犹太人的第一个主教开始履行职责时,打造了一个金牛犊,且对之敬如神明。

如果是这样,那么彼得只是一个盘问穷人的穷人而已。他就像那些秩序的创造者,自己为贫困所扰,而他的后继者们则成为了有钱的贵族。

教皇作为彼得的继任者,不管是处于鼎盛时期还是没落时期,除去他们周边的教民,在这个世界上还是有五亿人需要遵守他的教规。

认同一个与自己相距三四百里格的主人;直到这个人开始考虑事情,你不能去想只能等着;只有等到这个外国人所指派的专员同意,你才敢对你的公民做出最后判决;不付给这个外国主人一大笔钱,你就不敢占用属于某个国王的土地或是葡萄园;如果你违反某个国家的法律,娶了自己的侄女,可以给这个外国主人一大笔钱使得这样的行为合法化;某天因为这个外国人要求纪念某个由他送入天堂的人,一个不认识的人,你就必须将田地里的农活放在一边——认同教皇,就必须认同这些,这是法国天主教堂所要求的。

而另外一些人则进一步提出他们的意见。比如,如今我们可以看到某个君主请求教皇准许他的皇家法庭判处某些僧侣叛逆的罪行,这样的请求并未得到准许,于是他也不能对这些僧侣进行判决。

众所周知,以前教皇的权力更大。他们的权力远远超过远古时期的神明,因为这些神明赋予了教皇管理各个帝国的权力,而教皇真的做到了这一点。

斯特毕勒斯(Sturbinus)说,那些质疑教皇的神圣性和权威性的人,如果是从这些方面来考虑,这是可以得到原谅的:

40个分裂教会亵渎了主教之位,而其中有27个教会让主教之位染满鲜血。

斯蒂芬七世(Stephen VII),一个神父之子,掘出了他的前任教皇福尔摩苏斯(Formosus)的尸体,并将之斩首。

塞尔吉乌斯三世(Sergius III),犯下谋杀罪,并让他的情妇马洛吉亚(Marozia)之子继承了教皇之位。

约翰十世,狄奥多拉(Theodora)的情人,被勒死在他的床上。

约翰十一世,也就是塞尔吉乌斯三世的儿子,就是一个浪荡子。

约翰十二世被杀死在情人的房子里。

本笃九世(Benedict IX)买下教皇之位之后又将其出售。

格列高利七世发起了历时500年的内战,这场战争由他的继任者延续。

最后,在这么多有野心的、残暴而又风流的教皇之中,还有一个亚历山大六世,他的名字与尼禄、卡利古拉(Caligula)并列。

据说,虽然历经了这么多的罪恶,教皇之位的神圣性依旧保持着。但若是这样的话,哈里发岂不是要做出更残忍的事情才可以更加神圣。这是德米尔斯(Dermius)的推论,但是耶稣会的信徒给了他答案。

哲人朱利安——罗马君主

对一个人做出公正评价有时需要很长一段时间。两三个要么唯利是图,要么狂热盲从的作者说到野蛮而阴柔的康斯坦丁时往往崇之为神,而谈到公正明智的朱利安(Julian)大帝时则称之为恶棍。而其他的作者们则复写了这样的言论,重复这同样的奉承和诽谤。这些几乎都变成了他们的信条。终于,公开评论的时代到来了,在1400年以后,文明开化的人们开始反思这些人之所以这样评论的原因。康斯坦丁被认为是一个野心勃勃,嘲笑上帝和人类的人。他傲慢无礼地假装上帝给了他指示而确保让他取得了胜利。他让整个家族浴血,而自己却懒惰地睡在床上;可他是一个基督徒,且被封为圣徒。

朱利安冷静、纯洁、无私、勇敢而仁慈;但他不是基督徒,且长期被视为可怕的怪物。

如今,在对比了事实、史料、朱利安以及他的对手的手稿之后,我们不得不承认,虽然他不喜欢基督教,但恨一个沾满自己家族鲜血的教派却是情有可原的;野蛮的君主康斯坦丁在位期间,朱利安被基督徒迫害、监禁、流放,面临着死亡的威胁。但他从未处决过基督徒,相反,他原谅了十个密谋杀害他的基督徒士兵。

我们读他的信,会由衷地佩服他。“基督徒们,”他说,“在我的前任君主在位时期遭受流放和监禁。他们称彼此为异教徒,最后屠杀彼此。我已召回那些被流放者,并释放了囚犯。我已将他们的财产判回给他们。我让他们过回安宁的生活。但这正是令加利利人(Galileans)愤怒之处,他们抱怨,因为他们不能再吞并彼此。”写得多好!多好的哲学家对迫害狂热者的宣言!

总之,每个对事实有了公正研究的人,都会承认朱利安拥有图拉真的所有品质,除了他对希腊人和罗马人的纵容;他有卡托(Cato)的所有优点,但没有他的固执和坏脾气;他有我们钦佩的尤利乌斯·恺撒的优秀品质,却没有他的罪恶;他和西庇阿(Scipio)一样纯洁。总之,他与马可·奥里利乌斯一样,是一个伟大的人。

现在,我们再也不会重复诬告者狄奥多勒对朱利安的诽谤,说朱利安在卡集(Carrhae)的一座神庙杀死了一个女人作为祭品以抚慰众神。我们不再反复提及,他在垂死时用手把血液洒向天堂的方向,对耶稣基督说:“你胜利了,基督徒!”仿佛他对波斯人的战争是他对战耶稣的一场战争;仿佛这个哲学家,死时无奈地认可了基督的存在。仿佛他相信基督就在空气中,而周围的空气即是天堂。这些教父们的不恰当言论如今已不被重复。

他们最后只能像安提俄克的无聊的市民们那样嘲笑他。他们指责他蓬乱的胡子和走路的方式。但拉贝特(La Bletterie)大人啊,你并未看到他走路的方式,但你读了他写的信件、制定的法律、写满他的美德的纪念碑。只要他的心胸坦荡,所做的事情彰显着他的美德,那么他的胡子肮脏,或是走得匆忙又何妨?

今天仍然值得研究的一个重要事实是,朱利安被指责想要通过重建耶路撒冷的圣殿篡改耶稣基督的预言。据说,有大火冒出了地面,阻止了重建工作。据说,这是一个神迹,而这个神迹并没有使朱利安改变信仰,也没有让重建工作的负责人阿里皮斯(Alypius),以及宫廷成员的信仰发生改变。而神父拉贝特对此事评论说:“他和他宫廷的哲学家们无疑是依赖于自然哲学知识,才能否定如此惊人的神迹。而自然一直是怀疑的避难所,但他与宗教的关系如此密切,应该至少被怀疑是共谋者。”

首先,福音书中说的犹太圣殿将不再重建这一点是不正确的。马太福音中关于不会有一块这座圣殿的石头留给土买人的希律王(Idumaean Herod)的预言确实写于自提图斯对耶路撒冷的破坏之后。但没有福音传道者说它从未重建。而在提图斯对破坏圣殿之后没有一块石头被留下来这一点也是不正确的。他保留了所有的地基、一整面城墙以及安东尼亚塔(Antonia tower)。

其次,在犹太人屠杀公牛和奶牛的地方建一座犹太圣殿、火药库或是一座清真寺,这对神而言又有什么关系?

第三,不知道出自某些被烧工人之口的所谓的大火,究竟是源自于被城墙包围的城市还是源自犹太圣殿。然而,我们很难理解为什么耶稣火烧朱利安大帝的工人,却放过那些很久以后在废墟上建立清真寺的哈里发·奥马尔(caliph Omar)的信徒,以及那些之后重修了清真寺的萨拉丁王(Saladin)的工人。难道耶稣真的那么偏爱穆斯林的清真寺?

第四,耶稣预言没有一块石头将留给耶路撒冷的另一座圣殿,并未禁止圣殿被重建。

第五,耶稣预言的好几件事情并没有被上帝允许。他预言了世界末日的到来,届时他将驾云降临,在最后存活的人面前,显示其权力与威严。然而世界末日并未到来,并且这样的状态明显还将持续一段时间。

第六,如果朱利安描述了这一神迹,我只能说他被虚假而荒谬的报告所欺骗,我宁愿相信他的敌人,也就是基督徒不遗余力地反对他的计划,他们杀死了工人,还使人们相信那些工人是在神迹中被杀害。但朱利安对于此事并未发表言论,因为他忙于对波斯人的战争。他推迟了建筑圣殿的时间,而在这项工程开始之前,他已离世。

第七,报告这一神迹的是阿米安·马赛林纳斯(Ammianus Marcellinus),一个异教徒。那么这件事被基督徒篡改就是很有可能的了,他们因为这点被人指责已不止一次。但在那个人们都谈论神迹与巫术的故事的时代,阿米安·马赛林纳斯所说的这个故事被某些人所轻信,这也是有可能的。因为从提图斯·李维斯(Titus Livius)直到那个时代所有的历史总会被打上神迹的烙印。

第八,根据当代作家们的说法,当时叙利亚发生大地震。大火燃及好几个地方,许多城镇被吞噬。因此并没有所谓的神迹。

第九,如果耶稣能行神迹,那他为什么不阻止让他自己献上祭品以及受割礼的圣殿重建呢?他为什么不行神迹让那些嘲笑基督教的国家信奉基督?或者让他的基督徒,从阿里乌斯(Arius)和亚他那修(Athanasius)到罗兰(Roland)和塞文山脉(Cévennes)的骑士,让这些手上沾满鲜血的食人者们更加温和且有人性?

从这些我得出的结论是,自然并不为基督教服务,正如拉贝特所言。但是拉贝特所说的却与老妇人的荒诞之见不谋而合,正如朱利安所说:麻烦事都在愚蠢的妇人身上(Quibus cum stolidis aniculis negotium erat)。

在为朱利安的某些美德正名之后,拉贝特在这段历史的结尾,将他的死亡写成“神之复仇”。如果是这样,那么所有英雄们的英年早逝,从亚历山大到古斯塔夫斯·阿道弗斯(Gustavus Adolphus),都是受到了神的惩罚。朱利安则是以最好的方式死去,他与敌人战斗取得多次胜利后战死沙场。朱庇特,他的继任者,统治时间比他更短,且政绩平平。我并未看到神的复仇,拉贝特在我看来不过是一个不诚实的大发豪言壮语之人。但谁敢讲真话呢?斯多葛派的利巴涅斯(Libanius)是其中一个。他用残杀帖撒罗尼迦人(Thessalonians)的狄奥多瑟斯(Theodosius)来赞扬勇敢仁慈的朱利安,而勒布(Le Beau)与拉贝特都不敢对忠诚的教民们赞扬他。

朱利安曾因性命受到威胁放弃基督教而遭人指责。这就相当于是责备一个人,在他被人所劫,被贼人用刀架在脖子上逼着参加他们的团伙时,逃离了这群强盗。康斯坦(Constant)皇帝比他那残忍的父亲康斯坦丁有过之无不及,他的双手沾满了朱利安家族的鲜血。他已经杀了这个伟人的兄弟。乌萨比(Eusabia)皇后为了让年轻的朱利安活下来,费尽周折。为了不被谋杀,这位不幸的王子削发为僧,保证并接受了所谓的四条法令。他模仿朱尼厄斯·布鲁图斯(Junius Brutus),装疯以骗过塔奎因(Tarquin),躲过他的愤怒。他生活毫无意义,直到他发现自己变成了高卢军队的长官,才真正地活着,并成为一个伟大的人。这就是理性的叛教者所谓的叛教,如果一定要给这个从未定义过的行为做出一个定义的话。

孟德斯鸠说:“悲哉,在敌营生存下来的王子总有一个坏声誉!”让我们想象一下,倘若朱利安战胜了波斯人,且在他漫长而宁静的晚年目睹了古老宗教的复兴,基督教的毁灭,法利赛人、撒都该人、利甲族人(Rechabites)、艾赛尼派(Essenians)、赛拉普特人(Therapeutes)教派的消失、对叙利亚女神的崇拜和其他无迹可追的大事,那么历史学家会给朱利安多少溢美之词啊!那么他的绰号绝不会是叛教者,而毫不夸张的会是重建者这一神圣称号。

看看这些不称职的罗马历史学家们,都臣服在康斯坦丁和狄奥多瑟斯的脚下,帮他们掩饰自己的罪过,多么的卑鄙!尼禄也没有做过比屠杀帖撒罗尼迦人更可怕的事。坎塔布连的狄奥多瑟斯(Cantabrian Teodosius)假装原谅帖撒罗尼迦人,而在六个月后,他邀请他们去了竞技场。竞技场有至少有15000人的容量,当时一定座无虚席。人们对于这种大场面向来富有激情。父母带着几乎不能走路的孩子们来到这里。等到人们都已入场,基督教的皇帝派基督教的士兵屠杀男女老少,一个都没有留下。然而这个可怕的人在历史剽窃者的笔下却得到了颂扬。他们说,他忏悔了。上帝啊,什么忏悔!他一个奥波尔(obol)都没给死者的家庭,也没有去做弥撒。必须承认不做弥撒的人承受着巨大的痛苦,因为那是你该感激涕零的,那是上帝给你让你赎回所有罪行的机会。

劳伦·爱恰尔(Laurent Echard)的继承者,一个声名狼藉的国王,将狄奥多瑟斯下令的这场屠杀形容为一件快活事。

同样不幸的是有人乱写罗马史,用夸夸其谈的文风,充满文法错误的文字告诉你狄奥多瑟斯在与他的对手尤金战斗之前,看到圣·约翰和圣·菲利普穿着白色的衣服,他们向他保证他会取得胜利。让这等作家去给约翰和菲利普唱赞美诗吧,不要让他们写历史。

读者,问问你的良知。你钦佩爱戴亨利四世,但如果他在阿尔克(Arques)这场以一敌多的战争中失败,他的胜利只是因为历史学家们将他描述为一个英雄,你不会知道这个人:他只会是长胡子的游击队员,一个旧病复发的异端分子,一个异教徒。梅晏公爵(duc de Mayenne)则会是上帝派来的代表,教皇虽然染痘也会册封圣·菲利普为圣徒,圣·约翰会多次在他面前出现。而你,耶稣会士达尼埃尔,你将如何改写这段平淡无味的历史以取悦梅晏公爵?写成公爵如何“推着国王向前”,如何“彻底击败”这个大胡子?还是教会如何取得“胜利”的历史?



Careat successibus opto

Quisquis ab eventu facta notanda putaat.

(我恳求消灭那些以事情的结果论成败的人)

偏 见

偏见是非理性的观点。因此,在世界各地,孩子们被迫接受各种观点直至他们可以自己做出判断。

有些通用且必要的偏见本身便是美德。在任何一个国家,孩子们被教导承认有一位赏罚分明的神;敬爱他们的生身父母;视偷窃为罪行,视自私欺骗为恶习——直至他们可以认知何为善恶。

因此存在极善的偏见:当一个人能够理性思考时,其判断便会更正这些偏见使其成为美德。

感觉并非仅仅是偏见,而是更强大的东西。母亲爱她的儿子并非因为世俗要求她必须爱他:她幸福地爱着她的孩子更甚于自己。同理,你会去帮助一个即将掉入悬崖或被野兽吞噬的陌生孩子。

然而,你尊重一个衣着得体、举止庄重、言谈恰当的人却不属于上述情况。父母曾经告诉你需向此人鞠躬。甚至在了解此人是否值得尊重之前,你便尊重他。年龄和知识逐渐增长,你意识到这个人不过是一个毫无尊严、自私自利、阴险狡诈的小人。你鄙视你过往所尊敬的,此时偏见便服从于理性。由于偏见,你曾相信蛊惑你童年的寓言。寓言中讲到泰坦发起了诸神之战,维纳斯与阿多尼斯(Adonis)相恋。12岁的孩子信以为真,21岁的青年则把它们当作精妙的寓言。

让我们通过一些词汇审视不同类型的偏见,从而整理我们的思绪。或许我们会像约翰·劳体制 [1] 时代的人一样意识到原来他们一直以来指望的只是幻想中的财富。

感官偏见

我们的双眼常常欺骗我们,甚至是当我们看得很真切的时候——这难道不是一件奇特的事吗?但是反之,我们的双耳从不欺骗我们。如果你听力正常,听到有人说:“你真美,我爱你”时,显然你听到的不是:“我恨你,你真丑”。但是当你看到一面光滑的镜子时,你会发现你错了,其实镜面非常不平整。太阳的直径看起来比你的眼球宽两英尺,事实证明它比地球还要大几百万倍。

上帝似乎把真相注入你的耳朵而把谬误留给你的眼睛;但是研究光学你会发现,上帝并没有欺骗你,事物只能以现有的状态呈现给你。

物理偏见

日出月落,地球是静止的:物理世界里有许多自然偏见。因为煮熟后呈红色,所以小龙虾补血;因为鳗鱼机灵,所以会治愈瘫痪;因为从前在一次月缺时,一个病人的发烧加剧了,所以月球活动会影响疾病:数以千万计的类似观念只是古代愚者的错误,他们不假思索,妄加推断,以讹传讹。

历史偏见

很多历史故事未经证实便被轻信,这种轻信本身便是一种偏见。非比阿斯·皮科特(Fabius Pictor)告诉我们这样一个故事,在他之前的几个世纪,一个正要把水倒进水壶的艾尔巴城(Elba)处女被强暴了,然后她生下了罗穆卢斯和雷穆斯,被母狼抚养成人。罗马人相信了这个寓言。他们没有问那个时候拉丁姆(Latium)是否有处女,国王的女儿是否会带着她的水壶离开修道院,母狼是否会养育两个孩子而非把他们吃掉。偏见自成。

一个修道士写道,克劳维斯(Clovis)在托尔比亚克战役(battle of Tolbiac)中遭遇险境,此时他发誓,倘若能顺利渡过劫难,他将成为一名基督徒。然而,他在此时把自己托付于一个异教的神明是否合情合理呢?他生来就信仰的宗教不应该是最有力的么?在对抗土耳其人的战斗中,一个基督徒难道会向先知穆罕默德求救而非圣母玛利亚么?也有传言说,一只鸽子衔着圣油瓶给克劳维斯洗礼,举着旗帜的天使指引他的道路。偏见对诸如此类的轶闻都信以为真。熟知人类本性的人都知道,夺位者克劳维斯和夺位者罗隆(也叫罗尔)加入基督教只是想更好地控制基督徒,就像土耳其的夺位者加入伊斯兰教来更好地控制穆斯林一样。

宗教偏见

如果你的乳娘告诉你谷神星(Ceres)掌管粮食,或者毗瑟拏(Vishnu)和恰卡(Xaca)有时幻化成人形,或者萨摩诺克多姆(Sammonocodom)砍倒了一整座森林,或者欧丁神(Odin)在位于日德兰半岛的大厅等待着你,或者先知穆罕默德或其他什么人完成了去往天堂的旅程;如果你的导师之后给你灌输了一样的想法,那么你一生都会对此深信不疑。如果你的理性高于这些偏见,你那些智力高于妇女的邻居们便会高呼你信仰全无,并且对你施以恐吓。你的托钵僧害怕他的收入减少,一纸诉状把你告上法庭。法官想要操控愚者,相信他们更易管制,所以对你百般刁难。你会一直遭受窘境,直至你的街坊邻里、托钵僧人和下级法官开始意识到愚蠢毫无意义,迫害令人生厌。


[1]  约翰·劳(John Law),苏格兰裔金融家和投机家,18世纪早期法国财政总监。其主导的“金融创新”和“体制改革”被称为劳体制(Law's system)。——译者注

荣 耀

西塞罗在一封信中亲切地和他朋友谈到:“告诉我你想让我把高卢人交给谁。”在另一封信中,他又抱怨已厌倦了王子们写信感谢他把他们的行省提升为王国,而且补充道,他甚至不知道这些所谓的王国在哪。

事实也许是这样,备受古罗马人民的称赞和遵从、也曾受到不相识的国王感谢的西塞罗有获得荣耀和虚荣的冲动。

尽管这种感觉对于人类这种渺小的动物未必合适,然而我们也许可以原谅西塞罗、恺撒、西庇阿这样的伟大人物有这样的感受。但是,如果在半原始地方的遥远角落,一个人给自己置办了一件小办公室、印出一些平庸的诗句就深感自豪,这就足以贻笑大方了。

自 爱

一个流浪汉堂而皇之地在马德里附近要求救济品。一位路人问他:“在你还有能力工作的时候就这样做不觉得羞愧吗?”流浪汉答道:“先生,我向您要的是金钱,而不是您的建议。”然后转过身去,西班牙式的尊严保留无遗。这是一位自豪的乞丐;他的虚荣如此易碎。他出于不自爱而乞求施舍,却由于另一种自爱而无法忍受斥责。

一位传教士云游到印度,遇到一位枷锁缠身的苦行僧:他像猴子一样赤身裸体,趴在地上,正在为印度人所犯的罪行而鞭笞自己,而这些人也给了他一些法新(farthings)。一位围观者说道:“这是怎样的心神合一!”“心神合一!”苦行僧答道,“你们要知道我在现世鞭笞自己只是为了在另一个世界偿还你们的债,在那时你们将会变成马而我则会成为牧马人。”

那些说自爱是我们所有感觉和行为的基础的人,在印度、西班牙甚至在宜居的世界各地都是正确的:只是因为没人通过写作向世人证明人是有脸的,所以无需向世人证明人是有自爱的。自爱是我们谈话的工具,它像是使我们种族长存的一种工具:它是必要的,对我们来说无比珍贵,给予我们欢乐,同时也必须深藏。

邪 恶

人说人性本恶,人类是恶魔之子,是邪恶的。这说法着实极不妥当。原因在于,老朋友,你布道说整个世界的人类生来就是堕落的,这倒提醒了我,你就是这样的出身,所以你就像狐狸和鳄鱼那样不可信任。你跟我说:“绝对不是!我精神上得到了重生,我既不是异教徒,也不是无信仰者,你可以信任我。”然而,其余的那些你口中的异教徒或无信仰之人就只是一群野兽。想必每次你与路德教信徒或土耳其人谈话时,一定确信他们会抢劫或谋杀你,因为他们是恶魔之子,生而邪恶,你们得到了重生,他们则腐朽堕落。也许这样告诉人类会显得更加理性而优雅:人性本善,想想玷污人类的纯洁是多么的可怕。我们对待人类的态度本应与对待每个个体的态度相同。如果一个修道士过着丑陋而可耻的生活,那我们对他说:“你真的会让修道士的尊严蒙羞吗?”一位律师有幸成为一名皇家议员,那他就应该以身作则。为了鼓舞一名士兵,人们告诉他:“牢记你属于香槟军团。”我们应该告诉每个个体:“记住你做人的尊严。”

但是实际上,无论如何阐释,我们总会回到最初。追寻你的内心,这一各国普遍使用的说法到底是什么意思?如果你生来就是恶魔之子,本源就是罪人,体内的血液都是低贱的液体组成,那“追寻你的内心”的短语意思就会是:请教并追寻你那恶魔的本性,成为一个骗子、小偷、杀人犯,这都是你父亲的行事之风。

人性本不恶,只有患病才能让人变得邪恶。医生们一同出现并说到:“你生来就病了。”那毫无疑问,如果病人的病是与生俱来,天性使然的,那么不管这些医生们说什么、做什么,此病都无法治愈。同时,拥有这样想法的人本身也是得了病的。

将全世界的孩子聚集起来,在他们身上,你只会发现天真、柔弱和恐惧。倘若他们生来就是残忍邪恶并且作恶多端的,那么他们就应该展现出这样的苗头,就像幼蛇试图撕咬、稚虎显露利爪。但是人之本性并不比鸽子、兔子拥有更具攻击性的武器,不可在天性上就将人类摧毁。

所以人生来并不是邪恶的。那为什么有人会被人性本恶这场瘟疫感染呢?那是因为他们那些已被此病感染的领袖们将此病传染给其他的人类,就如同一个女人,感染了哥伦布从美洲带回的疾病,然后将这毒害从欧洲的一头传播至另一头。第一位野心勃勃的人败坏了整个地球。

你会说是这个始作俑者将所有人类固有的傲慢、掠夺、欺骗、残暴激发了出来。我承认,一般说来,人类的大多数都会有这样的特点,但是难道每个人都会患有令人厌恶的热病、都会有石头和砂砾,只是因为人人都能接触到他们吗?

整个民族都不是邪恶之人的例子也是存在的,比如费城人和印度人就从没杀过人;中国人、越南人、老挝人、暹罗人,甚至日本人都已经有超过100年没有战争了。震惊人类的残酷犯罪,近十年来,很难在罗马、威尼斯、巴黎、伦敦和阿姆斯特丹发现,尽管在这些城市里作为万恶源头的贪婪之心依旧横行无忌。

如果人性本恶,人生来就是恶魔的奴隶,一不开心,就会受到恶魔的蛊惑,用暴怒与残酷来为自己的痛苦复仇,那么每天早晨,我们就会看到妻子谋杀丈夫、孩子谋杀父亲,就像在黎明时分发现鼬鼠紧紧地勒住鸡,吸食它们的血液一样。

倘若地球上有十亿人口,这数量很大,那么就会有五亿的女人缝衣纺纱、喂养孩子、打扫住房,以及议论邻里琐事。我就没发现这些天真的人类做出了什么伤天害理之事。考虑到全球居住者的数量,那么至少有两亿的孩童,他们既不杀人也不劫掠,以及同等数目的老弱之人,他们也无力如此。至多只有一亿的青壮年,精力充沛,可以犯罪。而这一亿人中间,九千万人经常被繁重的劳动束缚,努力工作,让土地生产,供养衣食。这些人很难再有时间去作恶。

而这十亿人口中余下的人还包括:只图享乐的游手好闲、群居寄生之人,忙于事业的有才之人,以及至少在表面上追求纯净生活的执法官和与神职人员。所以剩下的真正邪恶之人,只是少数的一些政客以及几千个出卖自己为这些阴谋者服务的流氓。政客们不管是世俗的还是宗教性的,他们总是麻烦制造者。实际上,这样残暴的野兽,不可能同时存在一百万,这个数量还包括了拦路强盗。所以说,就算是在最动荡不安的年代,世界上也只有千分之一的人可以被称作是邪恶之人,况且他并不总是邪恶的。

因此,世界上的邪恶比所宣称的,所相信的要少得多。但是也还是太多了。可怕的不幸之事仍能看见,但是抱怨夸大邪恶的乐趣是如此之大,以至于最轻微的刮蹭也会被惊呼成血流成河。如果你被欺骗了,那所有人都是伪证者。一个遭遇过不公正待遇的忧郁之人会觉得世界上充满了该死之人,正如一个在观看歌剧后与女伴共饮的年轻酒色之徒无法想象世界上竟然还有不幸之事一样。

Voltaire



Miracles and Idolatry







TRANSLATED BY THEODORE BESTERMAN



























PENGUIN BOOKS — GREAT IDEAS

Table of Contents

Angel

Animals

Anti-trinitarians

Apocalypse

Atheist, atheism

Baptism

Cannibals

Certain, certainty

Character

Councils

Enthusiasm

Equality

Fatherland

Flood

Great chain of being

Hell

Idol, idolator, idolatry

Joseph

Judea

Luxury

Martyr

Miracles

Peter

The philosopher Julian, Roman emperor

Prejudices

Pride

Self-love

Wicked

返回分册总目录

Angel

Angel, in Greek, messenger ; we shall hardly know more of them when we learn that the Persians had Peris , the Hebrews Malakim , the Greeks their Daimonoi .

But what we shall perhaps find more instructive is the fact that one of mankind's first notions has always been to place intermediary beings between divinity and us. It is these demons, these genii that antiquity invented. Princes were seen to intimate their orders through messengers, therefore divinity also sends its couriers: Mercury, Iris were couriers, messengers.

The Hebrews, the only people guided by divinity itself, at first gave no names to the angels god finally deigned to send them. They borrowed the names given to them by the Chaldeans when the Jewish nation was captive in Babylonia, Michael and Gabriel were first named by Daniel, a slave of that people. The Jew Tobit, who lived at Nineveh, knew the angel Raphael, who travelled with his son to help him collect some money which the Jew Gabael owed him.

In the laws of the Jews, that is, Leviticus and Deuteronomy , there is not the slightest reference to the existence of angels, let alone their worship. Moreover, the Sadducees did not believe in angels.

But they are talked about a great deal in the histories of the Jews. The angels were corporeal. They had wings on their backs, as the Gentiles pretended that Mercury had on his heels. Sometimes they hid their wings under their clothes. How could they have lacked bodies since they drank and ate, and the inhabitants of Sodom wanted to commit the sin of paederasty with the angels who visted Loth?

The ancient Jewish tradition, according to Maimonides, acknowledges ten degrees, ten orders of angels:1. The chaios acodesh , pure, saintly. 2. The ofamin , swift. 3. The oralim , the strong. 4. The chasmalim , the flames. 5. The seraphim , sparks. 6. The malachim , angels, messengers, deputies. 7. The eloim , the gods or judges. 8. The ben eloim , children of the gods. 9. cherubim , images, 10. ychim , the animated.

The story of the fall of the angels is not in the books of Moses; the first reported witness to it is that of the prophet Isaiah, who, apostrophizing the king of Babylon, exclaimed: 'What has become of the extorter of tribute? The pines and the cedars rejoice in his fall; how are you fallen from heaven, oh Hellel, star of the morning?' This Hellel has been translated by the Latin word Lucifer ; then the name of Lucifer was given allegorically to the prince of the angels who battled in heaven; and finally this name, which means phosphorus and dawn, has become the name of the devil.

The Christian religion is based on the fall of the angels. Those who rebelled were thrown down from the spheres they inhabited into the hell at the centre of the earth, and became devils. A devil in the shape of a serpent tempted Eve, and damned mankind. Jesus came to redeem mankind and to triumph over the devil, who still tempts us. Nevertheless this fundamental tradition is found only in the apocryphal book of Enoch , and even there in a form quite different from the accepted tradition.

In his 109th letter saint Augustine does not hesitate to endow both good and evil angels with slender and agile bodies. Pope Gregory II reduced to nine choirs, nine hierarchies or orders, the ten choirs of angels recognized by the Jews: they are the seraphim, cherubim, thrones, dominations, virtues, powers, archangels and finally the angels who give that name to eight other hierarchies.

In their temple the Jews had two cherubim, each with two heads, one of an ox and the other of an eagle, with six wings. Today we paint them in the image of a flying head, with two little wings below the ears. We paint the angels and archangels in the image of youth, with two wings on their backs. As for the thrones and dominations, nobody has yet taken it into his head to paint them.

Saint Thomas, in the second article of question 108, says that the thrones are as close to god as the cherubim and seraphim because it is on them that god is seated. Scotus has counted a thousand million angels. The ancient mythology of the good and evil genii having passed from the east to Greece and to Rome we hallow this view in accepting that every man has a good and an evil angel, one of whom helps and the other harms him from his birth until his death; but we do not yet know whether these good and evil angels pass continuously from one post to another, or whether they are relieved by others. On this matter consult the Summa of saint Thomas.

It is not precisely known where the angels live, whether it is in the air, in the void, or the planets: god has not wished us to know it.

Animals

What a pitiful thing, what poor stuff it is to say that animals are machines deprived of knowledge and feeling, which always perform their operations in the same way, which learn nothing, which improve nothing, etc.!

What! this bird which makes its nest semi-circular when it is attached to a wall, which builds it in a quartercircle when it is in a corner, and makes it circular in a tree, this bird does everything in the same way? This gun dog you have trained for three months: does he not know more at the end of that time than he knew before your lessons? Does the canary immediately repeat the tune you are teaching him? Do you not spend much time in teaching him? Have you not seen that it makes mistakes and corrects itself?

Do you judge that I have feelings, memory, ideas because I speak to you? Well! I do not speak to you; you see me come home looking distressed, search anxiously for a paper, open the desk in which I remember having put it, find it, read it with joy. You judge that I have experienced the feeling of distress and that of pleasure, that I have memory and knowledge.

Judge in the same way this dog who has lost his master, who has searched for him with mournful cries in every path, who comes home agitated, restless, who runs up and down the stairs, who goes from room to room, who at last finds his beloved master in his study, and shows him his joy by the tenderness of his cries, by his leaps, by his caresses.

Barbarians seize this dog who so prodigiously surpasses man in friendship. They nail him to a table and dissect him alive to show you the mesenteric veins. You discover in him all the same organs of feeling that you possess. Answer me, mechanist, has nature arranged all the springs of feeling in this animal in order that he should not feel? Does he have nerves to be impassive? Do not assume that nature presents this impertinent contradiction.

But the leaders of this school inquire about the souls of animals. I do not understand this question: A tree has the faculty of receiving in its fibres the sap that circulates in it, of putting forth the buds of its leaves and of its fruit; will you ask me what is the soul of this tree? It has received these endowments; the animal has received those of feeling, of memory, of a certain number of ideas. Who has created all these endowments? Who has given all these faculties? He who has made the grass of the fields to grow, and who makes the earth gravitate towards the sun.

'The souls of animals are substantial forms,' said Aristotle; and after Aristotle the Arab school, and after the Arab school the angelic school, and after the angelic school the Sorbonne, and after the Sorbonne nobody at all.

'The souls of animals are material,' exclaim other philosophers. Those have had no greater success than the others. They were asked in vain what is a material soul; they had to agree that it is feeling matter: but what has given it this feeling? It is a material soul, that is, matter has given feeling to matter; they cannot break this circle.

Listen to other animals reasoning about animals. They allege that the soul is a spiritual being which dies with the body: but what proof have you of such a soul? What conception have you of this spiritual being which in reality has feeling, memory and its part of ideas and arrangements, but which will never know what a child of six knows? On what ground do you imagine that this being, which is not body, dies with the body? The greatest donkeys are those who have alleged that this soul is neither body nor spirit. There's a fine system! By spirit we can only understand something unknown which is not body: hence the system of these gentlemen comes down to this, that the soul of an animal is a substance which is neither body nor something which is not body.

What can be the cause of so many contradictory errors? It is the habit men have always had of examining what a thing is before knowing whether it exists. The mobile tongue, the valve of a bellows, is called the soul of the bellows. What is this soul? It is a name I have given to this valve which descends, lets the air in, raises itself, and pushes it through a tube when I agitate the bellows.

Here we have no soul distinct from the machine. But what operates the animals' bellows? I have already told you; he who operates the stars. The philosopher who said, 'Deus est anima brutorum ' [God is the soul of animals], was right; but he should have gone further.

Anti-trinitarians

There are heretics who might not be regarded as Christians. Nevertheless they recognize Jesus to be saviour and mediator; but they dare to maintain that nothing is more contrary to strict reason than what is taught among Christians about the trinity of persons in a single divine essence, the second of which was begotten by the first, and the third of which proceeds from the two others.

That this unintelligible doctrine is nowhere found in scripture.

That no passage can be produced that authorizes it and to which, without in any way departing from the spirit of the text, a clearer, more natural meaning cannot be given, one more consistent with common sense and the basic and immutable truths.

That to maintain, as do their adversaries, that there are several distinct persons in the divine essence, and that it is not the eternal who is the only true god, but that the son and the holy ghost must be added to them, is to introduce the crudest and most dangerous error into the church of Jesus Christ, since it manifestly encourages polytheism.

That it implies a contradiction to say that there is only one god and that nevertheless there are three persons , each of which is truly god.

That this distinction, one essence and three persons, was never in scripture.

That it is obviously false, since it is certain that there are no fewer essences than persons , nor persons than essences .

That the three persons of the trinity are either three different substances, or accidents of the divine essence, or that same essence without distinction.

That in the first case three gods are created.

That in the second case god is composed of accidents and one worships accidents and metamorphoses accidents into persons.

That in the third case an indivisible subject is uselessly and groundlessly divided, and what is not distinguished in itself is distinguished into three .

That if it is said that the three personalities are neither different substances in the divine essence, nor accidents of that essence, one would have to be at some pains to convince oneself that they are anything.

That it must not be believed that the most rigid and the most convinced trinitarians themselves have any dear idea of the manner in which the three hypostases subsist in god without dividing his substance and consequently without multiplying it.

That saint Augustine himself, after he had advanced a thousand reasonings as false as they are obscure on this subject, was obliged to admit that nothing intelligible could be said about it.

Then they quote this father's words, which are in fact very singular: 'When it is asked', says he, 'what are the three , human language is found inadequate, and there are no terms to express them: yet it is said that there are three persons , not in order to say something, but because we must speak and not remain silent. Dictum est tres personae, non ut aliquid diceretur, sed ne taceretur' (De Trinitate V. ix).

That the modern theologians have not elucidated this matter any better.

That when they are asked what they understand by this word person , they explain it only by saying that it is a certain incomprehensible distinction that causes one to distinguish in a numerically single nature a father, a son and a holy ghost.

That the explanation they give of the terms to beget and to proceed is not more satisfactory since it comes down to saying that these terms indicate certain incomprehensible relationships between the three persons of the trinity.

That from all this we can gather that the basic argument between them and the orthodox turns on the question whether there are in god three distinctions of which we have no notion and between which there are certain relationships of which we do not have any notion either.

From all this they conclude that it would be wiser to abide by the authority of the apostles, who never spoke of the trinity, and to banish from religion for ever all terms which are not in the scriptures, such as trinity, person, essence, hypostasis, hypostatic and personal union, incarnation, generation , procession, and so many more like them, which, being absolutely meaningless, since they have no real representative being in nature, can provoke only false, vague, obscure and incomplete ideas in the understanding.

Let us add to this article what dom Calmet says in his dissertation on this passage from the epistle of John the evangelist: 'There are three who bear witness on earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these three are one.' Dom Calmet admits that these two passages are not in any ancient Bible ; and it would indeed have been strange if saint John had spoken of the trinity in a letter, without saying a single word about it in his gospel. No trace of this dogma is to be found in the canonical gospels, nor in the apocryphal ones. All these reasons could excuse the anti-trinitarians had the councils not taken their decisions. But as heretics make light of councils, we are at a loss to know how to confound them. Let us simply believe and hope that they believe.

Apocalypse

Justin Martyr, who Wrote about the year 170 of our era, was the first who mentioned the Apocalypse [book of Revelation ]; he attributed it to the apostle John the evangelist. In his dialogue with Trypho, this Jew asks Justin whether he does not believe that Jerusalem would be restored one day. Justin replies that like all rightthinking Christians he thinks it will. 'There was among us', he says, 'a certain personage named John, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus; he predicted that the faithful would pass a thousand years in Jerusalem.'

This reign of a thousand years was an opinion long held by Christians. It was a period much favoured among the gentiles. The souls of the Egyptians recovered their bodies at the end of a thousand years. In Virgil souls in purgatory were tried during the same space of time, et mille per annos [and for a thousand years]. The new Jerusalem of a thousand years was to have twelve doors in memory of the twelve apostles; its form was to be square; its length, width and height were to be 12,000 stadia , that is, 500 leagues, so that the houses were also to be 500 leagues high. It would have been rather disagreeable to live on the top floor; still, this is what the Apocalypse says in Chapter XXI.

Justin is the first who attributed the Apocalypse to saint John, but some people have challenged his testimony because in this same dialogue with the Jew Trypho he says that according to the narrative of the apostles when Jesus Christ went into the Jordan he made the waters of this river boil, and set them on fire, though this is not found in any of the apostles' writings.

The same saint Justin confidently cites the oracles of the sybils. What is more, he claims to have seen in the Egyptian Pharos the remains of the madhouses in which the seventy-two interpreters were confined in Herod's time. The testimony of a man who had the misfortune to see these madhouses seems to indicate that the author should have been locked up in them.

Saint Irenaeus, who came later, and who believed also in the millennium, says that he learned from an old man that saint John had written the Apocalypse. But saint Irenaeus has been reproached for having written that there must be only four gospels because there are only four parts of the world and four cardinal winds, and because Ezekiel saw only four animals. He calls this reasoning a demonstration. It must be admitted that Irenaeus certainly demonstrated as well as Justin saw.

In his Electa Clement of Alexandria mentions only an Apocalypse by saint Peter, to which great importance was attached. Tertullian, a great partisan of the millennium, not only asserts that saint John predicted this resurrection and this reign of a thousand years in the city of Jerusalem, but he also claims that this Jerusalem was already beginning to form in the air; all the Christians of Palestine, and even the pagans, had seen it for forty successive days at the end of the night; but unfortunately the city disappeared as soon as the day broke.

In this preface to the gospel of saint John and in his Homilies Origen cites the oracles of the Apocalypse ; but he also cites the oracles of the sybils. Nevertheless saint Denis of Alexandria, who also wrote towards the middle of the third century, says in one of his fragments, conserved by Eusebius, that nearly all the doctors rejected the Apocalypse as a book devoid of reason; that this book had not been composed by saint John but by one Cerinthus, who borrowed a great name to give his dreams more weight.

The council of Laodicea, held in 360, did not include the Apocalypse among the canonical books. It was very singular that Laodicea, which was a church to which the Apocalypse was addressed, rejected a treasure destined for it, and that the bishop of Ephesus, who attended the council, also rejected this book by saint John, who was buried in Ephesus.

It was visible to all eyes that saint John still moved in his grave, and constantly made the earth rise and fall. Nevertheless the same people who were sure that saint John was not really dead were also sure that he had not written the Apocalypse . But those who believed in the millennium were unshakable in their opinion. Sulpicius Severus, in his Sacred history , book ix, calls insensate and impious those who did not accept the Apocalypse . Finally, after much hesitation, after opposition in council after council, the view of Sulpicius Severus prevailed. The matter having been elucidated, the church decided that the Apocalypse is incontestably by saint John: so there is no appeal.

Each Christian community has applied to itself the prophecies contained in this book; the English have found in it the revolutions of Great Britain; the Lutherans the troubles of Germany; the French protestants the reign of Charles IX and the regency of Catherine de Medicis. They are all equally right. Bossuet and Newton both wrote commentaries on the Apocalypse ; but on the whole the eloquent declamations of the one and the sublime discoveries of the other have done them greater honour than their commentaries.

Atheist, atheism

I

In former times anybody who possessed a secret in one of the crafts ran the risk of being taken for a sorcerer; every new sect was accused of butchering children in its mysteries; and every philosopher who turned aside from the jargon of the schools was accused of atheism by fanatics and rascals, and condemned by fools.

Anaxagoras dared to maintain that the sun is not guided by Apollo riding in a quadriga: and he was called an atheist and obliged to flee.

Aristotle was accused by a priest of atheism; and, not succeeding in having his accuser punished, retired to Chalcas. But what is most odious in the history of Greece is the death of Socrates. Aristophanes (whom the commentators admire because he was a Greek, forgetting that Socrates also was a Greek) was the first who accustomed the Greeks to regard Socrates as an atheist.

This comic poet, who was neither comic nor a poet, would not have been allowed in our society to write farces for the fair of Saint-Laurent: he appears to me to be lower and more contemptible than Plutarch depicts him. This is what the wise Plutarch says of this humbug: 'The language of Aristophanes betrays his wretched character: it consists of the lowest and most disgusting quips; even the people do not find him amusing, and to men of judgement and honour he is insupportable; his arrogance is unbearable and decent people detest his malignity.'

This then is the Tabarin [buffoon] whom, by the way, mme Dacier, the admirer of Socrates, dared to admire: this is the man who from afar prepared the poison with which infamous judges put to death the most virtuous man in Greece.

The tanners, cobblers and dressmakers of Athens applauded a farce in which Socrates was shown hoisted in the air in a basket, announcing that there was no god, and boasting that he had stolen a coat while teaching philosophy. An entire people, whose bad government authorized such infamous liberties, well deserved what happened to it: to become slaves of the Romans and today of the Turks.

Let us pass over the whole period of time between the Roman republic and ourselves. The Romans, much wiser than the Greeks, never persecuted any philosopher for his opinions. This cannot be said of the barbarian peoples which succeeded the Roman empire. As soon as the emperor Frederick II quarrelled with the popes, he was accused of being an atheist and of being the author, with his chancellor de Vineis, of the book of the Three Impostors .

When our great chancellor de L'Hospital declared himself against the persecutions, he was at once accused of atheism, Homo doctus, sed verus atheos . A Jesuit, as inferior to Aristophanes as Aristophanes is inferior to Homer, a wretch whose name has become ridiculous even among the fanatics, in a word, the Jesuit Garasse, found atheists everywhere: this is what he called all those against whom he burst out. He called Théodore de Bèze an atheist. It was he who misled the public about Vanini.

Vanini's unhappy end does not move us with indignation and pity like that of Socrates because Vanini was only a foreign pedant without merit, but after all Vanini was not an atheist, as has been alleged; he was precisely the opposite. He was a poor Neapolitan priest, a preacher and theologian by trade, a merciless argufier about quidities and universals, et utrum chimera bombinans in vacuo possit comedere secundas intentiones . But for the rest, there was not a drop of atheism in him. His notion of god was theologically most sound and correct. 'God is his principle and his end, father of the one and the other, and needing neither the one nor the other; eternal without being in time, present everywhere without being anywhere. No past or future exists for him, he is everywhere and beyond everything, governing everything, and having everything, immutable, infinite without parts; his power is his will', etc.

Vanini prided himself on reviving Plato's fine conception, embraced by Averroes, that god had created a chain of beings, from the smallest to the greatest, whose last link is attached to his eternal throne: an idea, in truth, more sublime than true, but which is as far removed from atheism as being is from nothingness.

He travelled to make his fortune and to engage in disputations; but unfortunately disputation is the road that leads away from fortune; one makes as many irreconcilable enemies as one finds learned men or pedants with whom to argue. The misfortune of Vanini had no other cause; his heat and rudeness in dispute earned him the hatred of some theologians; and having had a quarrel with one Francon or Franconi, this Francon, the friend of his enemies, of course accused him of being an atheist who taught atheism.

This Francon or Franconi, aided by a few witnesses, had the barbarity to maintain during the trial what he had asserted. When cross-examined about what he thought of the existence of god, Vanini answered that, like the church, he worshipped one god in three persons. Picking up a straw he said: 'This trifle is enough to prove that there is a creator.' Then he pronounced a very fine discourse on vegetation and motion, and on the necessity for a supreme being without whom there would be neither motion nor vegetation.

Grammont, the presiding judge, then at Toulouse, reports this discourse in his History of France , today quite forgotten; and this same Grammont, because of an incredible prejudice, alleges that Vanini said all this from 'vanity, or from fear, rather than from an inner conviction'.

On what can the président Grammont's rash and atrocious judgement be based? It is obvious that Vanini's answer should have secured his acquittal on the charge of atheism. But what happened? This unhappy foreign priest also dabbled in medicine. They found a big live toad which he kept at home in a vessel full of water, and of course he was accused of being a sorcerer. They alleged that this toad was the god he worshipped. An impious meaning was given to several passages in his books, which is very easy and very commonly done, by taking objections for replies, by interpreting malignantly some ambiguous phrases, by poisoning an innocent expression. The faction that oppressed him finally extoned from the judges the sentence that condemned the unhappy man to death.

To justify this death it was clearly necessary to accuse the wretched man of the most frightful things. The Minim and very minimal Mersenne pushed lunacy so far as to print that Vanini 'left Naples with twelve of his apostles to convert all the nations to atheism'. How pitiful! How could a poor priest have had twelve men in his pay? How could he have persuaded twelve Neapolitans to travel at great expense, at the peril of their lives, to spread everywhere this abominable and revolting doctrine? Would a king be powerful enough to pay twelve preachers of atheism? Nobody before father Mersenne had put forward so enormous an absurdity. But it has been repeated after him, the newspapers, the historical dictionaries have been infected with it; and the world, which loves sensations, has believed this legend without question.

Bayle himself, in his Pensées diverses , speaks of Vanini as an atheist; he used this example to support his paradox 'that a society of atheists can exist'. He assures us that Vanini was a very moral man and that he was the martyr of his philosophic views. He is equally mistaken on both these points. The priest Vanini tells us in the Dialogue he wrote in imitation of Erasmus that he had had a mistress called Isabella. He was as bold in his writings as in his conduct, but he was not an atheist.

A century after his death the learned La Croze and the writer who took the name of Philète sought to justify him; but as nobody takes any interest in the memory of an unhappy Neapolitan, a very bad author, hardly anybody reads these apologies.

In his Athei detecti , the Jesuit Hardouin, more learned than Garasse, accuses Descartes, Arnauld, Pascal, Nicole, Malebranche of atheism: fortunately they did not suffer Vanini's fate.

From all these facts I pass on to the ethical problem debated by Bayle, that is, whether a society of atheists could exist . Let us first observe on this point the enormous extent to which men contradict themselves when disputing: those who have argued with the greatest vehemence against Bayle's opinion, those who have denied with the greatest insults the possibility of a society of atheists, have since maintained with the same dauntlessness that atheism is the religion by which China is governed.

They are certainly mistaken about the Chinese government; all they had to do was to read the edicts of the emperors of this vast country, they would have seen that these edicts are sermons, which everywhere speak of a supreme being, ruler, avenger and remunerator.

But at the same time they are no less mistaken about the impossibility of a society of atheists; and I do not know how M. Bayle could have forgotten a striking example which could have made his cause victorious.

In what respect does a society of atheists seem impossible? It is because men who are unchecked are supposed to be incapable of living together; because the law is helpless against secret crimes; because a vengeful god is needed to punish in this world or the next the wicked who have avoided human justice.

It is true that the laws of Moses did not teach a future life, threatened no punishments after death, did not teach the first Jews the immortality of the soul; but the Jews, far from being atheists, far from seeking to avoid divine vengeance, were the most religious of all men. Not only did they believe in the existence of an eternal god, but they believed that he was always present in their midst; they were terrified of being punished in themselves, in their children, in their posterity to the fourth generation, and this check was very powerful.

But among the gentiles several sects had no such check: the sceptics doubted everything; the Academics suspended their judgement on everything; the Epicureans were convinced that the divinity could not meddle in human affairs, and at bottom acknowledged no divinity. They were certain that the soul is not a substance but a faculty that is born and perishes with the body; therefore they bore no yoke but that of morality and honour. The Roman senators and knights were true atheists, for the gods did not exist for men who neither feared them nor hoped for anything from them. Thus in Caesar's and Cicero's time the Roman senate was really an assembly of atheists.

In his harangue for Cluentius the great orator said to the assembled senate: 'What harm does death do him? We reject all the inept fables about hell. What then has death taken from him? Nothing but the feeling of pain.'

Caesar, Catalina's friend, wishing to save his friend's life from this same Cicero, did he not object that to put a criminal to death is not to punish him, that death is nothing, that it is only the end of our sufferings, that it is a happy moment rather than a disastrous one? Did not Cicero and the entire senate yield to this reasoning? The conquerors and legislators of the known world were thus clearly a society of men who had no fear of the gods, who were true atheists.

Bayle next inquires whether idolatry is more dangerous than atheism, whether it is a greater crime not to believe in the divinity than to have unworthy opinions about it. In this he shares the views of Plutarch: he believes that it is better to have no opinion than a bad one. But with all due deference to Plutarch it is obvious that it was infinitely better for the Greeks to fear Ceres, Neptune and Jupiter than to fear nothing at all. It is obvious that the sanctity of oaths is necessary, and that we must have confidence rather in those who think that a false oath will be punished, than in those who think that they can take a false oath with impunity. It is indubitable that it is infinitely more useful in a civilized city to have even a bad religion than none at all.

It would thus appear that Bayle should rather have inquired which is the more dangerous, fanaticism or atheism. Fanaticism is certainly a thousand times more baneful, for atheism does not inspire bloody passions, but fanaticism does; atheism does not discountenance crime, but fanaticism causes crimes to be committed. Let us suppose, with the author of the Commentarium rerum Gallicarum , that the chancellor de L'Hospital was an atheist. He enacted only wise laws and counselled only moderation and concord: the fanatics com-mitted the massacres of saint Bartholomew. Hobbes was taken for an atheist. He led a calm and innocent life: the fanatics of his time deluged England, Scotland and Ireland with blood. Spinoza was not only an atheist, but he taught atheism: it was certainly not he who shared the judicial assassination of Barneveldt, it was not he who tore to pieces the two brothers de Witt and ate them on the grill.

For the most part atheists are bold and misguided scholars who reason badly and who, unable to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other diffi-culties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of necessity.

The ambitious, the voluptuous, hardly have the time to reason, and to adopt a bad system; they have other things to do than to compare Lucretius with Socrates. This is the way things are nowadays.

It was not so in the Roman senate, which was almost entirely composed of men who were atheists in both theory and practice, that is, who believed neither in providence nor in the future life. This senate was an assembly of philosophers, voluptuaries and ambitious men, all very dangerous, and who destroyed the republic. Epicureanism persisted under the emperors: the senate's atheists had been sedition-mongers in the times of Sulla and Caesar; under Augustus and Tiberius they were atheist slaves.

I should want no dealings with an atheist prince who thought it useful to have me pounded in a mortar: I am quite sure that I would be pounded. If I were a sovereign I should want no dealings with atheist courtiers whose interest it was to have me poisoned: I should have to take antidotes at random every day. It is thus absolutely necessary for princes and peoples to have deeply engraved in their minds the notion of a supreme being, creator, ruler, remunerator and avenger.

There are atheist peoples, says Bayle in his Pensées sur les comètes . The Kaffirs, the Hottentots, the Topinamboos, and many other small nations have no god. That may be so, but it does not mean that they deny god. They neither deny nor affirm him: they have never heard of him. Tell them that there is one, and they will readily believe it. Tell them that everything happens in the nature of things, they also believe you. To allege that they are atheists is as relevant as to say that they are anti-Cartesians: they are neither for nor against Descartes. They are real children; a child is neither atheist nor theist, he is nothing.

What conclusion can we draw from all this? That atheism is a monstrous evil in those who govern; and also in learned men even if their lives are innocent, because from their studies they can affect those who hold office; and that, even if not as baleful as fanaticism, it is nearly always fatal to virtue. Above all, let me add that there are fewer atheists today than there have ever been, since philosophers have perceived that there is no vegetative being without germ, no germ without design, etc., and that grain is not produced by putrefaction.

Unphilosophical mathematicians have rejected final causes, but true philosophers accept them; and as a well-known author has said, a catechist announces god to children, and Newton demonstrates him to wise men.

If there are atheists, who is to be blamed if not the mercenary tyrants of souls who, in revolting us against their swindles, compel some feeble spirits to deny the god whom these monsters dishonour? How often have the people's leeches driven prostrated citizens to revolt against the king?

Men fattened on our substance cry out to us: 'Be sure that a she-ass spoke; believe that a fish swallowed up a man and threw him on the shore three days later safe and sound; don't doubt that the god of the universe ordered one Jewish prophet to eat shit (Ezekiel), and another prophet to buy two whores and to beget sons of whores on them (Hosea). These are the very words a god of truth and purity is made to pronounce. Believe a hundred things either obviously abominable or mathematically impossible: otherwise the god of mercy will burn you in the fires of hell, not only for millions of billions of centuries, but throughout all eternity, whether you have a body or whether you have no body.'

These inconceivable stupidities revolt feeble and reckless minds, as well as firm and wise minds. They say: 'Our masters depict god for us as the most senseless and the most barbarous of all kinds, therefore there is no god'; but they ought to say: 'Therefore our masters attribute to god their own absurdities and rages, therefore god is the opposite of what they proclaim, therefore god is as wise and as good as they allege him to be mad and wicked.' This is what wise men conclude. But if a fanatic hears them, he denounces them to a magistrate subservient to the priests; and this magistrate has them burnt on a slow fire, believing that he is avenging and imitating the divine majesty he violates.

Baptism

Baptism, Greek word meaning immersion. Men, who are always guided by their senses, easily imagined that what washes the body washes also the soul. There were great tanks for the priests and the initiates in the vaults under the Egyptian temples. From time immemorial the Indians have purified themselves in the water of the Ganges, and this ceremony is still in great vogue. It passed to the Hebrews: they baptized all the foreigners who embraced the Judaic law, and who would not submit to circumcision; above all the women, who were not made to undergo this operation except in Ethiopia, were baptized; it was a regeneration, which gave a new soul, as in Egypt. See, on this, Epiphanius, Maimonides and the Gemara .

John baptized in the Jordan, and he even baptized Jesus, who, however, never baptized anyone, but who deigned to hallow this ancient ceremony. Every symbol is meaningless in itself, and god attaches his grace to the symbol he is pleased to choose. Baptism soon became the chief rite and the seal of the Christian religion. Nevertheless the first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised; it is not certain that they were baptized.

This sacrament was misused in the first centuries of Christianity; nothing was so common as to await the final agony in order to receive baptism. The example of the emperor Constantine is pretty good proof of that. This is how he reasoned: baptism purifies everything; I can therefore kill my wife, my son and all my relations; after which I shall have myself baptized and I shall go to heaven; and in fact that is just what he did. This was a dangerous example; little by little disappeared the custom of waiting for death before taking the plunge into the sacred bath.

The Greeks always conserved baptism by immersion. The Latins, having extended their religion into Gaul and Germany towards the end of the eighth century, and seeing that immersion could kill children in cold countries, substituted simple aspersion, for which they were often anathemized by the Greek church.

Saint Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, was asked if those who had simply had their whole bodies sprinkled were really baptized. He answered in his seventy-sixth letter that 'several churches do not believe that these sprinkled people are Christians; that as for himself he thinks that they are Christians, but that they have infinite less grace than those who have been immersed three times according to custom'.

With the Christians a man was initiated as soon as he was immersed; before this was done he was merely a catechumen. To be initiated it was necessary to have guarantors, sureties, who were given a name corresponding to godfathers , so that the church could be sure that the new Christians would be faithful and would not divulge the mysteries. This is why in the first centuries the gentiles were usually as ill-instructed about the mysteries of the Christians as these were about the mysteries of Isis and Eleusis.

Cyril of Alexandria, in his tract against the emperor Julian, expresses himself thus: 'I would speak of baptism were I not afraid that my discourse might reach those who are not initiated.'

As early as the second century they began to baptize children; it was natural that the Christians should want their children to be provided with this sacrament, since they would have been damned without it. It was finally decided that it must be administered to them after a week because among the Jews this was the age at which they were circumcised. This is still the custom in the Greek church. Nevertheless in the third century the practice prevailed of being baptized only at death.

Those who died in the first week were damned, according to the strictest fathers of the church. But Peter Chrysologos, in the fifth century, invented limbo, a kind of mitigated hell, or, precisely, brink of hell, suburb of hell, where go little children who die without baptism, and where resided the patriarchs before the descent of Jesus Christ into hell; so that the view that Jesus Christ descended to limbo and not into hell has prevailed since then.

It has been debated whether a Christian born in the deserts of Arabia could be baptized with sand: the reply was he could not; whether it was permitted to baptize with rose water: and it was decided that pure water was necessary, but that muddy water could be used. It is obvious that all the regulations depended on the prudence of the first pastors who established them.

[…]

Baptism: An Addition

What a strange idea, inspired by the wash-pot, that a jug of water washes away all crimes! Now that all children are baptized because a no less absurd idea assumes them all to be criminals, they are all saved until they reach the age of reason and can become guilty. So butcher them as quickly as possible to assure them paradise. This conclusion is so logical that there existed a devout sect who went about poisoning or killing all newly baptized infants. These devotees reasoned perfectly. They said: 'We are doing these little innocents the greatest possible kindness; we are preventing them from being wicked and unhappy in this life, and we are giving them eternal life.'

Cannibals

I have spoken of love. It is hard to pass from people who embrace each other to people who eat each other. It is only too true that there have been cannibals. Some have been found in America. There may still be some, and the cyclops were not the only ones in antiquity who sometimes fed on human flesh. Juvenal reports that among the Egyptians, so wise a people, so famous for its laws, so pious a people, who worshipped crocodiles and onions, the Denderites ate one of their enemy who had fallen into their hands. He does not tell this story on hearsay: this crime was committed almost under his eyes; he was then in Egypt, not far from Dendera. In this connection he cites the Gascons and the Sagantines, who formerly fed on the flesh of their countrymen.

In 1725 four savages were brought from the Mississippi to Fontainebleau. I had the honour to converse with them. Among them was a lady of that country whom I asked whether she had eaten men. She replied very innocently that she had. I appeared a little scandalized. She excused herself by saying that it was better to eat one's dead enemy than to let him be devoured by beasts, and the victors deserved to have the preference. We kill our neighbours in pitched or unpitched battle, and for the meanest rewards prepare meals for the crows and the worms. There is the horror, there is the crime. When one has been killed what does it matter whether one is eaten by a soldier or by a crow or a dog?

We respect the dead more than the living. We ought to respect both. Nations called civilized are right not to put their vanquished enemies on the spit, for if we were permitted to eat our neighbours we would soon eat our fellow countrymen, which would be a mixed blessing for the social virtues. But the civilized nations have not always been civilized; all were for long savage; and in the infinite number of revolutions this globe has undergone, the human species has sometimes been numerous, sometimes very rare. What is happening today to elephants, lions, tigers, whose numbers have much decreased, once happened to mankind. In times when a region was little inhabited by men, they had few arts, they were hunters. The habit of feeding on what they had killed readily caused them to treat their enemies like their stags and their boars. It was superstition that caused human victims to be immolated, it was necessity that caused them to be eaten.

Which is the greater crime, piously to assemble to plunge a knife into the heart of a young girl adorned with fillets, in honour of the divinity, or to eat a villain who has been killed in self-defence?

Nevertheless we have many more examples of girls and boys who have been sacrificed than of girls and boys who have been eaten. The Jews immolated them. This was called the anathema. It was a real sacrifice, and it is commanded in the twenty-seventh chapter of Leviticus not to spare the living souls who had been devoted to god, but it is nowhere prescribed that they should be eaten, they are merely threatened with this fate. And Moses, as we have seen, said to the Jews that, if they did not observe these ceremonies, not only would they have the itch but mothers would eat their children. It is true that in Ezekiel's time the Jews must have been in the habit of eating human flesh, for in chapter xxxix he predicts to them that god would make them eat not only the horses of their enemies but also the horsemen and the other warriors. This is definite. And in fact why should the Jews not have been cannibals? It would have been the only thing the people of god lacked to be the most abominable on earth.

I have read in some anecdotes on the history of England in Cromwell's time that a tallow-chandler in Dublin sold excellent candles made of the fat of Englishmen. Some time after one of her customers complained that her candles were no longer so good. 'Alas,' she said, 'it's because we have been short of Englishmen this month.' I ask who were the guiltier, those who murdered Englishmen or this woman who made their grease into candles?

Certain, certainty

'How old is your friend Christopher?'

'Twenty-eight. I have seen his marriage contract and his baptismal certificate. I have known him since his childhood. He is twenty-eight; it is a certainty, I'm certain of it.'

Hardly had I heard the reply of this man, so sure of what he says, and of twenty others who confirmed the same thing, than I discovered that Christopher's baptismal certificate had been antedated by a strange trick for hidden reasons. Those to whom I spoke don't yet know about it. In the meanwhile they're still certain of something false.

If you had asked the entire world before the era of Copernicus: 'Did the sun rise today? did it set?' everybody would have answered you: 'We're absolutely certain of it.' They were certain, and they were mistaken.

Spells, divination, possession were for long the surest things in the world in the eyes of all peoples. What an innumerable crowd of people saw all these fine things and were certain of them! Today this certainty has somewhat diminished.

A young man who was beginning to study geometry called on me. He had not got beyond the definition of triangles. 'Aren't you certain,' I said, 'that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles?' He replied that not only was he not at all certain of it, but that he did not even have a clear idea of this proposition. I demonstrated it to him; he then became very certain of it, and will be so all his life.

That certitude is very different from the others: they were no more than probabilities, and these probabilities, once examined, became errors; but mathematical certitude is immutable and eternal.

I exist, I think, I feel pain. Is all this as certain as a geometric truth? Yes. Why? It is because these truths are proved by the same principle that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. I cannot at the same time exist and not exist, feel and not feel. A triangle cannot at the same time have and not have 180 degrees, which is the sum of two right angles.

The physical certainty of my existence and of my feelings, and mathematical certainty thus have the same value, although they are of a different kind.

This does not apply to the certainty based on appearances or to the unanimous reports made by men.

'But really!' you tell me, 'aren't you certain that Peking exists? Haven't we got fabrics from Peking? People from different countries, of different opinions, who wrote violently against each other while all preached the truth in Peking, haven't they assured you of the existence of this city?' I answered that it seems to me extremely probable that there was then a city of Peking; but I would not wish to bet my life that this city exists, and I would bet my life at any time that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles.

Something very droll has been published in the Dictionnaire encyclopédique . It is maintained there that if all Paris told one that marshal de Saxe had been resurrected, one should be as sure, as certain of it as one would be if told by all Paris that marshal de Saxe had won the battle of Fontenoy. Consider, I beg, how admirable is this reasoning: 'I believe all Paris when they tell me something possible in principle; therefore I must believe all Paris when they tell me something impossible in principle and physically.'

Apparently the author of this article wanted to have a good laugh, and the other author, who goes into raptures at the end of this article and writes against himself, also wanted to have a good laugh. As for me, who have undertaken this little Dictionary in order to put questions, I am far from being certain.

Character

From the Greek word impression, engraving . It is what nature has engraved in us. Can we efface it? Vast question. If I have a hooked nose and two cat's eyes I can hide them with a mask. Can I do better with the character nature has given me? A man born violent, choleric, presented himself before François I, king of France, to complain of an injustice. The prince's countenance, the respectful conduct of the courtiers, the very place in which he found himself, made a powerful impression on this man; he unconsciously lowered his eyes, his rough voice softened, he presented his request humbly. One would believe him to be naturally as gentle as are (at least at this moment) the courtiers in whose midst he is even disconcerted; but if François I is good at reading faces he will easily realize in his eyes, lowered but alight with hidden fire, in the taut muscles of his face, in his lips pressed against each other, that this man is not so gentle as he is obliged to appear. This man followed him to Pavia, was captured with him, and taken to prison in Madrid with him; the majesty of François I no longer made the same impression on him; he became familiar with the object of his respect. One day, while pulling off the king's riding boots, and pulling them badly, the king, soured by his misfortune, became angry: my man sent the king to the devil, and threw his boots out of the window.

Sixtus V was by nature petulant, obstinate, haughty, impetuous, vindictive, arrogant: his character appears to have been softened by the ordeal of his novitiate. As he began to enjoy some reputation in his order, he lost his temper with an attendant and felled him with his fist. When inquisitor in Venice he exercised his office with insolence. Become cardinal he was possessed della rabbia papale [by the furious ambition to become pope]. This rage subdued his nature; he buried his person and his character in obscurity; he shammed humility and ill-health; he was elected pope: in this instant was restored all the elasticity so long restrained by policy; he was the proudest and most despotic of sovereigns.

Naturam expellas furca, tamen ipsa redibit.
[Nature will always return even if you expel her with a pitchfork]
Chassez le naturel, il revient au galop .

Religion, morality put a curb on the power of nature; they cannot destroy it. The drunkard in a cloister, reduced to one glass of cider with each meal, will no longer get drunk, but he will always love wine.

Age weakens the character; it is a tree that produces nothing but a few degenerate fruits, but they are still of the same kind; it gets to be covered with knots and moss, it becomes worm-eaten, but it is still an oak or a pear tree. If we could change our character we would give ourselves one, we would be the masters of nature. Can we give ourselves something? Do we not receive everything? Try to arouse continuous activity in an indolent mass, to freeze with apathy the boiling soul of the impetuous, to inspire a taste for music and poetry into one who lacks taste and an ear: you will no more succeed than if you undertook to give sight to one born blind. We perfect, we mitigate, we hide what nature has placed in us; but we place nothing in ourselves.

A farmer was told: 'You have too many fish in this pond, they will not thrive; there are too many animals in your fields, there is not enough grass, they will lose weight.' After this exhortation it so happened that pike ate half my man's carp, and wolves half of his sheep; the rest fattened. Will he congratulate himself on his management? This countryman is you yourself; one of your passions devours the others and you think you have triumphed over yourself. Do we not really all resemble the old general of ninety who, coming across some young officers who were causing a disturbance with some women of the town, said in a temper: 'Gentlemen, is this the example I give you?'

Councils

All councils are undoubtedly infallible: for they are composed of men. It is impossible for passions, intrigues, the lust for dispute, hatred, jealousy, prejudice, ignorance ever to reign in these assemblies.

But why, it will be asked, have so many councils contradicted each other? It is to try our faith. Each was in the right in its turn.

Roman Catholics now believe only in councils approved by the Vatican; and the Greek Catholics believe only in those approved in Constantinople. Protestants deride them both. Thus everybody should be satisfied.

I shall refer here only to the great councils; the small ones are not worth the trouble.

The first one was that of Nicaea. It was assembled in325 of the common era, after Constantine had written and sent by the hand of Ozius this noble letter to the rather confused clergy of Alexandria: 'You are quarrelling about something very trivial. These subtleties are unworthy of sensible people.' The thing was to determine whether Jesus was created or uncreated. This has nothing to do with morality, which is the essential point. Whether Jesus was in time or before time, we must none the less be good. After many altercations it was finally decided that the son was as old as the father, and consubstantial with the father. This decision is hardly comprehensible, but it is all the more sublime on that account. Seventeen bishops protested against the decree, and an ancient chronicle of Alexandria, preserved at Oxford, says that 2,000 priests also protested; but prelates pay little attention to simple priests, who are usually poor. Be that as it may, there was no question whatever of the trinity in this first council. The formula reads: 'We believe Jesus consubstantial with the father, god of god, light of light, begotten and not made; we also believe in the holy ghost.' The holy ghost, it must be admitted, was treated pretty off-handedly.

It is reported in the supplement of the council of Nicaea that the fathers, being very perplexed to know which were the cryphal or apocryphal books of the Old and New Testaments, put them all pell-mell on an altar, and the books to be rejected fell to the ground. It is a pity that this elegant procedure has not survived.

After the first council of Nicaea, composed of 317 infallible bishops, another was held at Rimini, and this time the number of infallibles was 400, not counting a big detachment of about zoo at Seleucia. These 600 bishops, after four months of quarrels, unanimously deprived Jesus of his consubstantiality. It has since been restored to him, except among the Socinians; so everything is fine.

One of the great councils was that of Ephesus in431. Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, great persecutor of heretics, was himself condemned as a heretic for maintaining that in truth Jesus was really god, but that his mother was not absolutely the mother of god, but the mother of Jesus. It was saint Cyril who had Nestorius condemned; but then the partisans of Nestorius had saint Cyril deposed in the same council: which much embarrassed the holy ghost.

Note very carefully here, dear reader, that the gospel has never said a word about the consubstantiality of the word, nor about the honour Mary had had to be the mother of god, nor about the other disputes which have caused infallible councils to be assembled.

Eutyches was a monk who had much abused Nestorius, whose heresy did not fall short of alleging that Jesus was two persons: which is appalling. The better to contradict his adversary the monk asserted that Jesus had only one nature. A certain Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, maintained against him that it was absolutely necessary for Jesus to have had two natures. A numerous council was assembled at Ephesus in 449. This one was conducted with the quarter-staff, like the little council of Cirta in 355, and a certain conference at Carthage. Flavian's nature became black and blue, and two natures were assigned to Jesus. At the council of Chalcedon, in 451, Jesus was reduced to one nature.

I pass over councils held on account of minute details, and come to the sixth general council, of Constantinople, assembled to determine precisely whether Jesus, having only one nature, had two wills. It will be realized how important this is in order to please god.

This council was called by Constantine the bearded, just as all the others had been by the preceding emperors. The legates of the bishop of Rome sat on the left, the patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch on the right. I do not know whether the Roman toadies claim the left to be the place of honour. Be this as it may, Jesus obtained two wills from this affair.

The Mosaic law had prohibited images. Painters and sculptors had never done very well among the Jews. It does not appear that Jesus ever possessed any pictures, except perhaps that of Mary painted by Luke. At any rate,Jesus Christ nowhere enjoins the worship of images. Nevertheless Christians worshipped them towards the end of the fourth century, when they had familiarized themselves with the fine arts. This error went so far in the eighth century that Constantine Copronymus assembled in Constantinople a council of320 bishops, which anathemized the worship of images and branded it as idolatry.

The empress Irene, the same who later had her son's eyes torn out, assembled the second council of Nicaea in 787. In this the worship of images was restored. Nowadays it is sought to justify this council by saying that this worship was one of dulia [veneration of the saints] and not of latria [veneration of god].

However, be it latria or dulia , in 794 Charlemagne called another council, at Frankfurt, which stigmatized the second of Nicaea as idolatrous. Pope Adrian IV sent two legates to it but did not convoke it.

The first great council called by a pope was the first Lateran, in 1139. About a thousand bishops were there, but almost nothing was accomplished in it, except that those who said that the church was too rich were anathemized.

There was another Lateran council in 1179, held by pope Alexander III, in which the cardinals for the first time took precedence over the bishops. Only matters of discipline were discussed.

Another great council was the Lateran of 1215. In it pope Innocent III stripped the count of Toulouse of all his possessions, by virtue of excommunication. This was the first council in which there was any question of transubstantiation.

In 1245 took place the general council of Lyon, then an imperial city, during which pope Innocent IV excommunicated the emperor Frederick II, and in consequence deposed him, and forbade him fire and water. It was in this council that the cardinals were given red hats to remind them that they must bathe in the blood of the emperor's supporters. This council brought about the destruction of the house of Swabia, and led to thirty years of anarchy in Italy and Germany.

In the general council of 1311 at Vienne, in Dauphiné was abolished the order of the Templars, whose leading members had been condemned to the most horrible tortures on the most unsubstantiated accusations.

In 1414 was held the great council of Constance, which contented itself with deposing pope John XXIII, convicted of a thousand crimes, and in which John Huss and Jerome of Prague were burned for being obstinate, since obstinacy is a much greater crime than murder, rape, simony and sodomy.

The great council of Basle in 1431 was not recognized in Rome because it deposed pope Eugene IV, who did not consent to be deposed.

The Romans reckon the fifth Lateran council of1512 as a general council. It was called by pope Julius II against Louis XII, king of France, but this warrior-pope died, and the council went up in smoke.

Finally we have the great council of Trent, which does not have authority in France in matters of discipline. However, its dogma is unquestionable, since the holy ghost came every week from Rome to Trent in the courier's trunk, according to fra Paolo Sarpi; but fra Paolo Sarpi smelled a little of heresy.

Enthusiasm

This Greek word means disturbance of the entrails, internal agitation . Did the Greeks invent this word to express the shocks felt by the nerves, the dilation and tightening of the bowels, the violent contractions of the heart, the precipitate rush of the fiery spirits that mount from the entrails to the brain when one is deeply moved?

Or was the word enthusiasm , from disturbance of the entrails, first given to the contractions of that Pythia who, on the tripod at Delphi, received the spirit of Apollo through a part which seems made only to receive bodies?

What do we understand by enthusiasm? What nuances in our sentiments! Approval, sensibility, emotion, distress, shock, passion, frenzy, madness, fury, rage: these are all the states a wretched human soul can pass through.

A geometrician watches a touching tragedy: he sees only that it is well constructed. A young man by his side is moved and sees nothing. A woman weeps. Another young man is so carried away that, unhappily for him, he also decides to write a tragedy: he has caught the disease of enthusiasm.

The centurion or military tribune who looked on war simply as a trade in which a little fortune could be made, went calmly into battle like a thatcher climbing a roof. Caesar wept when he saw the statue of Alexander.

Ovid always spoke amusingly about love. Sappho expressed the enthusiasm of this passion; and if it is true that it cost her her life it is because in her case enthusiasm became madness.

The spirit of party marvellously encourages enthusiasm: no faction is without its fanatics.

Enthusiasm is above all the lot of misguided piety. The young fakir who sees the tip of his nose when praying gradually works himself up until he believes that if he loads himself with chains weighing fifty pounds the supreme being will be much obliged to him. He goes to sleep with his imagination filled with Brahma, and inevitably sees him in his dreams. Sometimes sparks even shine from his eyes in the state between sleep and waking: he sees Brahma glittering with light, he has ecstasies, and this disease often becomes incurable.

It is the rarest of things to unite reason with enthusiasm. Reason consists of always seeing things as they are. The drunkard is deprived of his reason when he sees things double. Enthusiasm is precisely like wine: it can excite so much tumult in the blood vessels, and such violent vibrations in the nerves, that the reason is entirely destroyed. It can cause only slight jolts, which merely produce a little more activity in the brain. This is what happens in great outbursts of eloquence, and above all in sublime poetry. Rational enthusiasm is the attribute of great poets. This rational enthusiasm is the perfection of their art. In other times it led to the belief that they were inspired by the gods, a thing that has never been said of the other artists.

How can reason govern enthusiasm? This is because a poet first sketches the structure of his canvas: the reason then holds the brush. But when he proceeds to animate his personages and to endow them with passions, then the imagination kindles, enthusiasm takes over: it is a race horse carried away headlong, but its course has been properly laid out.

Equality

What does a dog owe to a dog, and a horse to a horse? Nothing, no animal depends on his like; but man having received the ray of divinity called reason , what is the result? Slavery throughout almost the whole world.

Were this world what it seems that it should be, that is, if man found everywhere on it easy and assured subsistence and a climate appropriate to his nature, it is clear that it would have been impossible for one man to subjugate another. Let this globe be covered with wholesome fruit; let the air which must contribute to our life no longer give us illness and death; let man require no other lodging and no other bed than those of the deer and the stag: then the Genghis Khans and the Tamerlanes would have no other servants than their children, who would be upright enough to help them in their old age.

In this natural state enjoyed by all quadrupeds, birds and reptiles, man would be as happy as they, domination would then be a chimera, an absurdity which would occur to nobody: for why seek for servitors when you need no service?

If some individual with a tyrannical head and vigorous arm got the idea of subjugating a neighbour less strong than he, the thing would be impossible: the oppressed would be 100 leagues away before the oppressor could take action.

Thus all men would necessarily be equal if they were without needs. The poverty characteristic of our species subordinates one man to another. It is not inequality that is the real evil, but dependence. It matters very little that some man is called his highness, and another his holiness; but it is hard to serve one or the other.

A numerous family has cultivated good land. Two small neighbouring families have barren and obstinate fields. It is obvious enough that the two poor families must serve the opulent family or murder it. One of the two indigent families offers its labour to the rich to get bread; the other attacks it and is beaten. The former family originated servants and labourers, the defeated family slaves.

It is impossible on our wretched globe for men living in society not to be divided into two classes, one of oppressors, the other of the oppressed; and these subdivide into a thousand, and the thousand have further gradations.

All the oppressed are not absolutely unhappy. Most of them are born in that state, and continual work prevents them from feeling their condition too keenly; but when they feel it, then we have wars like that in Rome of the popular party against that of the senate, and those of the peasants in Germany, in England, in France. All these wars end sooner or later by the enslavement of the people because the powerful have the money, and in a state money is the master of everything: I say in a state, because it is not so in every nation. The nation making the best use of the sword will always subjugate that having more gold and less courage.

Every man is born with a powerful enough desire for domination, wealth and pleasure, and with much taste for idleness. Consequently every man would like to have other people's money and wives or women, to be their master, to subjugate them to all his caprices, and to do nothing, or at least to do only very agreeable things. Obviously, having such amiable dispositions, it is as impossible for men to be equal as it is impossible for two preachers or two professors of theology not to be jealous of one another.

Mankind cannot subsist at all unless there is an infinite number of useful men who possess nothing at all. For a prosperous man will certainly not leave his land to cultivate yours; and if you need a pair of shoes it is not a judge who will make them for you. Equality is thus at once the most natural and the most chimerical of things.

As men are extreme in everything whenever possible, this inequality has been exaggerated. In some countries it has been claimed that a citizen is not entitled to leave the country in which he is born by chance. The meaning of this law is obviously: This country is so bad and so badly governed that we forbid every individual to leave it, for fear that everybody leave it . Do better: make all your subjects wish to remain at home and strangers to come to you.

Every man has the right to believe himself, at the bottom of his heart, entirely equal to all other men. It does not follow from this that a cardinal's cook should order his master to prepare his dinner; but the cook can say: 'I'm a man like my master, like him I am born in tears; like me he will die with the same sufferings and the same ceremonies. Both of us perform the same animal functions. If the Turks capture Rome, and I am then a cardinal and my master a cook, I will take him into my service.' All this speech is reasonable and just; but until the Grand Turk captures Rome the cook must do his duty, or every human society is perverted.

As for a man who is neither a cardinal's cook nor endowed with any other public office; as for a private person of modest views, but who is annoyed because he is received everywhere with an air of patronage or disdain, who sees clearly that several monsignors have no more knowledge, no more intelligence, no more virtue than he, and who is sometimes wearied to find himself in their waiting rooms, what should he do? He should leave.

Fatherland

A fatherland is a composite of several families; and as we usually stand by our family out of self-love when we have no conflicting interest, so because of the same selflove we support our town or village, which we call our fatherland. The bigger the fatherland the less we love it, because divided love is weaker. It is impossible to love tenderly too numerous a family which we hardly know.

He who burns with ambition to become aedile, tribune, praetor, consul, dictator, cries out that he loves his country, and he loves only himself. Every man wants to be sure that he can sleep at home without another man arrogating to himself the power to make him sleep elsewhere. Every man wants to be sure of his fortune and his life. Thus, all having the same wishes, it turns out that private interest becomes the general interest: when we express our hopes for ourselves we are expressing them for the republic.

There cannot be a state on earth which was not first governed as a republic: it is the normal course of human nature. A few families first assembled against the bears and the wolves. The family which had grain exchanged it with that which had only wood.

When we discovered America we found all the tribes divided into republics. There were only two kingdoms in all this part of the world. Only two out of1,000 nations were found to be subjugated.

So it was in the ancient world. All was republican in Europe before the petty kings of Etruria and Rome. Republics are still seen today in Africa. Tripoli, Tunis, Algeria, towards the north, still live as men are said to have lived in the first ages of the world, free, equal among themselves, without masters, without subjects, without money, and almost without needs. The flesh of their sheep feeds them, their skins clothe them, huts of wood and earth are their shelters. They stink worse than any other men, but do not know it. They live and die more calmly than we do.

Eight republics without monarchs remain in our Europe: Venice, Holland, Switzerland, Genoa, Lucca, Ragusa, Geneva and San Marino. Poland, Sweden, England can be regarded as republics under a king; but Poland is the only one that takes the name.

Is it better today for one's country to be a monarchical or a republican state? This question has been debated for 4,000 years. Apply for a solution to the rich, they all prefer an aristocracy. Question the people, they want democracy. Only kings prefer a monarchy. How then is it possible that nearly the whole world is governed by monarchs? Ask the rats who proposed to hang a bell round the cat's neck. But in truth the real reason is, as I have said, that men are very seldom worthy to govern themselves.

It is sad that, to be a good patriot, one is often the enemy of the rest of humanity. The elder Cato, that good citizen, when speaking in the senate, always said: 'Such are my views, and let Carthage be destroyed.' To be a good patriot is to want one's city to be enriched by commerce and powerful in arms. It is obvious that a country cannot gain unless another loses, and that it cannot vanquish without causing unhappiness.

So it is the human condition that to wish for the greatness of one's fatherland is to wish evil to one's neighbours. The citizen of the universe would be the man who wishes his country never to be either greater or smaller, richer or poorer.

Flood

Has there ever been a time when the globe was entirely flooded? This is physically impossible.

It may be that the sea covered all parts of the earth one after the other, but that could have happened only by slow stages in a prodigious multitude of centuries. In a period of 500 years the sea has withdrawn from Aigues-Mortes, from Fréjus, from Ravenna, which were great ports, and has left about two leagues of dry ground. At this rate it is evident that it would take the sea 2,500,000 years to move round our globe. What is very remarkable is that this period is very near that taken by the axis of the earth to right itself and coincide with the equator. This movement, which is very probable, has been suspected for fifty years, and can only be completed in a period of more than 2,300,000 years.

The beds, the layers of shells which have been discovered on all sides, at several leagues from the sea, are incontrovertible proof that it has deposited its maritime products little by little on land that once formed the ocean shore. But that water once covered the entire globe at the same time is a chimera absurd in natural science, demonstrated impossible by the laws of gravitation, by the laws of fluids, by the insufficient quantity of water. I do not claim to undermine in any way the great truth of the universal flood reported in the Pentateuch. On the contrary, it was a miracle, therefore it must be believed; it was a miracle, therefore it was not performed by physical laws.

Everything is miraculous in the story of the flood. It was a miracle that forty days of rain inundated the four quarters of the earth, and that the water should have risen fifteen cubits above all the highest mountains. It was a miracle that there were cataracts, doors, openings in the sky. It was a miracle that all the animals should have proceeded to the ark from every part of the world. It was a miracle that Noah found enough to feed them for ten months. It was a miracle that all the animals found room in the ark with their provisions. It was a miracle that most of them did not die in the ark. It was a miracle that they found food on leaving the ark. It was also a miracle, but of another kind, that a certain Le Pelletier thought that he had explained naturally how all the animals fitted into the ark and fed themselves.

Now the story of the flood being the most miraculous thing we have ever heard of, it would be senseless to explain it. It is one of the mysteries we believe by faith, and faith consists in believing what the reason does not believe, which is another miracle in itself.

Thus the story of the universal flood is like that of the tower of Babel, Balaam's she-ass, the fall of Jericho by the sound of trumpets, water changed into blood, the passage of the Red Sea, and all the prodigies god deigned to perform for the benefit of his people's elect. These are profundities beyond human comprehension.

Great chain of being

The gradation of beings which ascends from the lightest atom to the supreme being, this ladder of the infinite, strikes one with wonder. But when one looks at it attentively this great phantasm vanishes, as formerly all apparitions fled at the crowing of the cock.

At first the imagination is gratified by the imperceptible passage from brute matter to organized matter, from plants to zoophytes, from these zoophytes to animals, from these to man, from man to spirits, from these spirits, dressed in little aerial bodies, to immaterial substances, and finally a thousand different orders of these substances which ascend from beauty to perfection and finally to god himself. This hierarchy much pleases decent folk, who liken it to the pope and his cardinals followed by the archbishops and the bishops, after whom come rectors, vicars, simple priests, deacons, subdeacons; then appear the monks, and the march-past ends with the capuchins.

But there is a rather greater distance between god and his most perfect creatures than between the holy father and the dean of the sacred college. This dean can become pope, but the most perfect of the spirits created by the supreme being cannot become god: there is infinity between god and him.

Nor does this chain, this alleged gradation exist among the vegetables and the animals which have been destroyed. There are no longer any murex. The Jews were forbidden to eat the griffin and the ixion. These two species have disappeared from the world, whatever Bochart may say. Where then is the chain?

Even if we had not lost several species, it is obvious that they can be destroyed. The lions, the rhinoceros are getting quite rare.

It is very probable that there have been races of men which are no longer found. But I hope that they have all survived, like the whites, the blacks, the Kaffirs, to whom nature has given a skin apron hanging from the belly half way down the thigh, the Samoyedes, whose wives have one beautifully black breast, etc.

Is there not obviously a gap between monkey and man? Is it not easy to imagine an animal with two feet and no feathers, intelligent without having also the power of speech or our appearance, which we could tame, which would answer our signals and serve us? And between this new species and man, could we not imagine others?

Divine Plato, you place in heaven a succession of celestial substances beyond man. For our part, we believe in a few of these substances, because this is taught by our faith. But you, what reason have you for believing in them? It would seem that you have not spoken to Socrates's demon, and good old Er who resuscitated specially to reveal to you the secrets of the other world, taught you nothing about these substances.

The alleged chain is no less interrupted in the physical universe.

What gradation, if you please, between your planets? The moon is forty times smaller than our globe. When you have travelled from the moon through space you come to Venus: it is about as big as the earth. Thence you go to Mercury, which revolves in an ellipse very different from the circle traversed by Venus. It is twenty-seven times smaller than we are, the sun a million times bigger, Mars five times smaller. This last makes its revolution in two years, his neighbour Jupiter in twelve, Saturn in thirty, even though Saturn, the most distant of all, is not as big as Jupiter. Where is the alleged gradation?

And then how can you expect there to be a chain that links everything in the great empty spaces? If there is one it is certainly that which Newton discovered: this is what makes all the globes of the planetary world gravitate towards one another in this immense void.

O Plato, so much admired, I fear that you have told us nothing but fables, and that you have never uttered anything but sophisms!

O Plato! You have done much more evil than you think. I shall be asked how, but I shall not answer.

Hell

As soon as men lived in society they must have noticed that some guilty men eluded the severity of the laws. They punished public crimes. It was necessary to create a check on secret crimes: only religion could be this check. The Persians, the Chaldeans, the Egyptians, the Greeks invented punishments after life; and the Jews alone among all the ancient peoples known to us approved only temporal punishments. It is ridiculous to believe, or to pretend to believe, on the strength of a few very obscure passages, that hell was recognized by the ancient laws of the Jews, by their Leviticus , by their decalogue, when the author of these laws does not say a single word that could have the slightest bearing on punishments in the future life. One would be entitled to say to the compiler of the Pentateuch : 'You are an irresponsible man, without probity and reason, very unworthy of the name of legislator that you arrogate. What! you know a dogma so repressive, and so necessary to the people, as that of hell, and you do not explicitly proclaim it? And, though it is accepted by all the nations around you, you are content to allow this dogma to be guessed at by some commentators who are to come 4,000 years after you and will torture some of your words to find in them something you have not said. Either you are an ignoramus, who are not aware that this belief was universal in Egypt, in Chaldea, in Persia; or you are very ill-advised, knowing this dogma, not to have made it the basis of your religion.'

The authors of the Jewish laws might at best reply: 'We admit that we are exceedingly ignorant; that we learned to write very late; that our people was a savage and barbaric horde which, as we have shown, wandered for half a century in uninhabitable deserts; that it finally usurped a small country by the most odious rapine and the most detestable cruelties ever recorded in history. We had no intercourse with civilized nations: how can you expect us (the most earthly of men) to have invented a wholly spiritual system?

'We used the word meaning soul only in the sense of life . We knew our god and his ministers, his angels, only as corporeal beings: the distinction between soul and body, the notion of a life after death, can be the fruit only of long meditation and a very subtle philosophy. Ask the Hottentots and the Negroes, who inhabit a country a hundred times larger than ours, whether they know about a future life. We thought we had done enough in persuading our people that god punishes evil-doers to the fourth generation, whether by leprosy, sudden death, or the loss of what little property it was possible for them to possess.'

One would reply to this defence: 'You have invented a system the absurdity of which is self-evident; for the malefactor who was in good health and whose family prospered would necessarily laugh at you.'

The apologist of the Judaic law would then answer: 'You are mis-taken; for there were a hundred criminals who did not reason at all, for every one who thought clearly. The man who, having committed a crime, felt unpunished in himself and in his son, feared for his grandson. Besides, if he did not have some stinking ulcer today, he would get one in the course of a few years, for we were much subject to them. Every family has misfortunes, and it was easy for us to inoculate the belief that these misfortunes were sent by a divine hand, the avenger of secret offences.'

It would be easy to respond to this answer, and to say: 'Your excuse is worthless, for it happens every day that very decent folk lose their health and their goods; and if there is no family that has escaped misfortune, and if these misfortunes are god's punishments, all your families must have been families of rascals.'

The Jewish priest could retort further. He would say that there are misfortunes attached to human nature, and others sent expressly by god. But one would make this argufier see how ridiculous it is to think that fever and hail are now a divine punishment, and now a natural effect.

Finally the Pharisees and the Essenes, among the Jews, accepted a belief in a hell in their manner. This dogma had already passed from the Greeks to the Romans, and was adopted by the Christians.

Several church fathers did not believe in eternal punishment: it appeared to them absurd to burn a poor wretch throughout eternity because he had stolen a goat. Virgil can say in the sixth book of the Aeneid :

...Sedet aeternumque sedebit
Infelix Theseus .
[Wretched Theseus sits and shall for ever sit.]

He implies in vain that Theseus is seated forever on a chair, and that this position constitutes his torment. Others believed that Theseus is a hero who is not seated in hell, but that he is in the Elysian fields.

Not long ago a good and decent Protestant minister preached and wrote that the damned would one day be pardoned, that the suffering should be proportionate to the sin, and that the error of a moment cannot deserve infinite punishment. The priests, his colleagues, dismissed this indulgent judge. One said to him: 'My dear fellow, I don't believe any more than you do that hell is eternal; but it's a good thing for your maid, your tailor, and even your lawyer to believe it.'

Idol, idolator, idolatry

Idol comes from the Greek ε δο , form; ε δωλον representation of a form; λατϱε ειν, to serve, revere, adore. This word adore is Latin, and has many different meanings: it signifies putting a hand to one's mouth when speaking with respect, bowing, kneeling, saluting, and finally, most generally, offering a supreme worship. Nothing but ambiguities.

It is useful to note here that the Dictionnaire de Trévoux begins its article by saying that all pagans were idolators, and that the Indians are still idolatrous peoples. First of all, no one was called a pagan before Theodosius the younger. This name was then given to the inhabitants of the Italian cities, pagorum incolae, pagani [rustics], who kept to their ancient religion. In the second place, Hindustan is Mohammedan, and the Mohammedans are the implacable enemies of images and idolatry. In the third place, many Indian peoples belong to the ancient religion of the Parsees and should not be called idolators, any more than certain castes which have no idols.

Inquiry Whether There Has Ever Been an Idolatrous Government

It would appear that no people on earth has taken this name of idolator. The word is an insult, a term of abuse, like that of gavaches [cowards], which the Spaniards once applied to the French, and that of maranes [Moors], which the French applied to the Spaniards. Had one asked the Roman senate, the Greek areopagus, the court of the kings of Persia: 'Are you idolators?' they would hardly have understood the question. None would have answered: 'We worship images, idols.' This word 'idolator', 'idolatry', is not found in Homer nor in Hesiod nor in Herodotus nor in any author of the religion of the gentiles. There has never been any edict, any law that ordered men to worship idols, to serve them as gods, to regard them as gods.

When the Roman and Carthaginian leaders made a treaty, they invoked all their gods. 'It is in their presence,' they said, 'that we swear peace.' Now the statues of all these gods, whose number was very great, were not in the generals' tents. They considered the gods to be present at men's actions as witnesses and judges. And it was certainly not the simulacrum that constituted the divinity.

What view did they then take of the statues of their false divinities in the temples? The same view, if I may say so, that we take of the images of the objects of our veneration. The error was not to worship a piece of wood or marble, but to worship a false divinity represented by this wood or marble. The difference between them and us is not that they had images and we have not: the difference is that their images showed fantastic beings in a religion: The Greeks had the statue of Hercules, and we have that of saint Christopher; they had Aesculapius and his goat, and we have saint Roch and his dog: they had Jupiter armed with thunder, and we saint Anthony of Padua and saint James of Compostella.

When the consul Pliny, in the opening of his panegyric of Trajan, addresses his prayers to the immortal gods , he does not address himself to images. These images were not immortal.

Neither the last days of paganism nor the most ancient offer a single fact enabling us to conclude that an idol was worshipped. Homer speaks only of the gods who inhabit high Olympus. The palladium, although fallen from heaven, was only a sacred pledge of Pallas's protection: it was she who was venerated in the palladium .

But the Romans and the Greeks kneeled down before statues, gave them crowns, incense, flowers, paraded them in triumph in public places. We have sanctified these customs, and we are no idolators.

In times of drought, women, having fasted, carried the statues of the gods. They walked barefoot, their hair dishevelled, and the rain at once came down in pailfuls, as Petronius says, et statim urceatim pluebat . Have we not consecrated this practice, illegal among the gentiles and undoubtedly legitimate with us? In how many villages are the reliquaries of the saints not carried barefoot to obtain the blessings of heaven through their intercession? If a Turk or an educated Chinese were to witness these ceremonies, he could, not knowing better, at first accuse us of putting our trust in the images we thus parade in procession: but a word would undeceive him.

One is surprised by the prodigious number of declamations poured out at all periods against the idolatry of the Romans and the Greeks; and then one is even more surprised when it is realized that they were not idolators.

Some temples were more privileged than others. The great Diana of Ephesus had a higher reputation than a village Diana. More miracles were performed in the temple of Aesculapius at Epidaurus than in some other of his temples. The statue of the Olympian Jupiter attracted more offerings than that of the Paphlagonian Jupiter. But, since here we must always contrast the custom of a true religion with those of a false religion, have we not had for several centuries more devotion at certain altars than at others? Do we not take more offerings to Notre Dame of Loretto than to Notre Dame of the snows? It is for us to determine whether this pretext should be seized on to accuse us of idolatry.

Only a single Diana, a single Apollo, a single Aesculapius had been conceived, not as many Apollos, Dianas and Aesculapiuses as they had temples and statues. It is thus proved, so far as a point of history can be, that the ancients did not believe that a statue was a divinity, that worship could be transferred to this statue, this idol. It follows that the ancients were not idolators.

A coarse and superstitious rabble which did not reason, which did not know how to doubt, to deny, to believe, which ran to the temples because it was idle and because there the humble were the equals of the great, which brought its offerings out of habit, which talked continually of miracles without having ever investigated one, and which hardly rose above the victims it brought, this rabble, I repeat, might well have been struck by religious dread at the sight of the great Diana and of Jupiter the thunderer, and have unknowingly worshipped the statue itself. This is what has sometimes happened to our rough peasants in our temples; and they are then instructed that it is the intercession of the blessed, the immortals received into heaven, they must seek, and not that of wooden and stone images.

The Greeks and Romans increased the number of their gods by apotheoses. The Greeks deified conquerors like Bacchus, Hercules, Perseus. Rome erected altars to its emperors. Our apotheoses are of a different kind: we have saints instead of their demi-gods, their secondary gods, but we respect neither rank nor conquests. We have raised temples to men who were simply virtuous, who for the most part would be unknown on earth were they not placed in heaven. The apotheoses of the ancients were procured by flattery, ours by respect for virtue.

In his philosophical works Cicero offers not the slightest suspicion that the statues of the gods could be misunderstood and confounded with the gods themselves. His interlocutors fulminated against the established religion, but not one of them took it into his head to accuse the Romans of regarding marble and brass as divinities. Lucretius does not reproach anyone with this foolishness, he also reproaches the superstitious with everything. Therefore, once again, this opinion did not exist, there was no notion of it, there were no idolators.

Horace makes a statue of Priapus say: 'I was once the trunk of a fig tree. A carpenter, doubtful whether to make me into a god or a bench, finally decided to make me a god, etc.' What should we conclude from this pleasantry? Priapus was one of those little subordinate divinities, given up to the mockers; and this pleasantry is itself the strongest evidence that the image of Priapus, which was erected in the kitchen garden to frighten the birds, was not highly revered.

Adopting the attitude of a commentator, Dacier did not fail to point out that Baruch had predicted this incident when he said: 'They will be only what the workman wishes'; but he might also have remarked that as much can be said of all statues. Is it to be supposed that Baruch had a vision about the satires of Horace?

A wash-basin can be just as easily drawn from a block of marble as an image of Alexander or of Jupiter or of something else more respectable. The material from which the cherubim of the holy of holies were formed could have served equally well for the basest functions. Is a throne or an altar less revered because the workman could have made it into a kitchen table?

Instead of concluding that the Romans worshipped the statue of Priapus, and that Baruch had predicted it, Dacier should therefore have concluded that the Romans made fun of it. Consult all the authors who refer to the statues of their gods. You will not find one who talks of idolatry. They say expressly the contrary. In Martial you find:



Qui finxit sacros auto vel marmore vultus,
Non facit ille deos;...
[He does not make gods who forms sacred images in gold or marble.]



In Ovid:



Colitur pro Jove forma Jovis .
[In the image of Jupiter, Jupiter is worshipped.]



In Statius:



Nulla autem effigies, nulli commissa metallo
Forma dei; mentes habitare ac numina gaudet.
[God's form is not fixed by statues or metal, he chooses to live in our minds and hearts.]



In Lucan:



Estne dei sedes, nisi terra et pontus et aer ?
[What is god's home if not earth and sea and air?]



One could make a volume of all the passages which testify that images were merely images.

Only those cases in which statues issued oracles might have given rise to the idea that these statues had something divine in them. But the prevailing opinion certainly was that the gods had chosen certain altars, certain simulacra, in which to dwell occasionally in order to give audience to humans, and to answer them.

In Homer and the choruses of the Greek tragedies we find only prayers to Apollo, who delivers his oracles on the mountains, in this temple, in that city. In all antiquity there is not the slightest trace of a prayer addressed to a statue.

Those who practised magic, who believed it to be a science or pretended to believe it, claimed to know how to make the gods descend into their statues - not the great gods, but the secondary ones, the genii. This is what Mercury Trismegistus called making gods , and what saint Augustine refuted in his City of God . But this in itself shows clearly that the simulacra had nothing divine in them, since it was necessary for a magician to animate them. And it seems to me that a magician very seldom had the skill to give a statue a soul, to make it speak.

In a word, the images of the gods were not gods. Jupiter, and not his image, hurled the thunder; it was not the statue of Neptune that raised the seas; nor that of Apollo which gave us light. The Greeks and the Romans were gentiles, polytheists, but not idolators.

Whether the Persians, the Sabaeans, the Egyptians, the Tartars, the Turks were Idolators, and How Ancient is the Origin of the Simulacra Called Idols.

History of Their Worship

It is a great mistake to describe as idolators peoples who worshipped the sun and the stars. For a long time these nations had neither simulacra nor temples. If they were in error it was in devoting to the stars what they should have devoted to the creator of the stars. In any case, the dogma of Zoroaster or Zerdust, collected in the Sadder , proclaims a supreme being, who avenged and rewarded, Which is very far from idolatry. The government of China has never had any idol; it has always preserved the simple worship of the master of heaven, King-tien. Among the Tartars Genghis Khan was not an idolator and had no simulacra. The Moslems who filled Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Persia, India and Africa, called the Christians idolators, giaours , because they believed that the Christians worshipped images. They smashed several statues they found in Constantinople in Santa Sophia, in the church of the holy apostles, and in others which they converted into mosques. Appearances misled them as they always mislead mankind, and led them to believe that temples dedicated to saints who had once been men, images of these saints revered on bended knee, miracles performed in these temples, were invincible proof of the most complete idolatry. Nothing of the kind. Christians in fact worship only one god, and revere in the blessed only the quality of god itself operating in his saints. Iconoclasts and Protestants have levelled the same reproach of idolatry against the church, and have been given the same answer.

As men have very seldom had precise ideas, and have even more rarely expressed their ideas in precise and unequivocal words, we applied the name of idolators to the gentiles, and above all to polytheists. Huge volumes have been written, varied notions have been retailed about the origin of this worship of god or of several gods in visible form. This multitude of books and opinions proves only ignorance.

We do not know who invented clothes and footwear, and we want to know who first invented idols. What does a passage in Sanchuniathon matter? He lived before the Trojan war. What does he tell us when he says that chaos, spirit, that is breath, in love with its principles, derived the primal clay from it and made the air luminous, that the wind Colp and his wife Bau begot Eon, that Eon begot Genos, that Chronos, their descendant, had two eyes at the back of his head as well as in front, that he became god, and gave Egypt to his son Thaut? Such is one of the most respectable monuments of antiquity.

Orpheus, earlier than Sanchuniathon, teaches us no more in his Theogony , preserved for us by Damascius. He presents the principle of the world in the shape of a dragon with two heads, one a bull's, the other a lion's, with a face in the middle which he calls god-face , and gilded wings at the shoulders.

But two great truths can be drawn from these bizarre ideas: one, that visible images and hieroglyphs date from the greatest antiquity; the other, that all the ancient philosophers recognized a first principle.

As for polytheism, good sense will tell you that ever since there have been men, that is, weak animals, capable of reason and folly, subject to every accident, to illness and to death, these men have felt their weakness and their dependence. They have readily recognized that there is something more powerful than they. They have felt a power in the earth that supplies their nourishment, one in the air that often destroys them, one in the fire that consumes and in the water that submerges. What more natural than for ignorant men to imagine beings who preside over these elements? What more natural than to revere the invisible power that makes the sun and the stars shine in our eyes? And, as soon as man sought to form an idea of these powers superior to him, what even more natural than to represent them in a visible manner? Could they ever have done otherwise? The Jewish religion, which preceded ours, and which was given by god himself, was filled with these images by which god is represented. He deigned to speak human language in a bush; he appeared on a mountain; the celestial spirits he sent all came in human shape; finally, the sanctuary is filled with cherubim, which are human bodies with the wings and the heads of animals. This is what led Plutarch, Tacitus, Appian and so many more wrongly to reproach the Jews for worshipping the head of an ass. Although he forbade the painting or carving of any image, god thus deigned to adapt himself to human weakness, which required images to speak to the senses.

Isaiah, in chapter vi, sees the lord seated on a throne, the train of his robe filling the temple. The lord extended his hand and touched Jeremiah's mouth in this prophet's first chapter. Ezekiel, in chapter iii, saw a sapphire throne, and god appeared to him as a man seated on this throne. These images did not corrupt the purity of the Jewish religion, which never used pictures, statues, idols to represent god to the eyes of the people.

The educated Chinese, the Parsees, the ancient Egyptians had no idols, but images of Isis and Osiris soon appeared, soon Bel became a great colossus in Babylon. Brahma was a bizarre monster in the Indian archipelago. Above all the Greeks multiplied the names of the gods, the statues and the temples, but always attributing the supreme power to their Zeus, called Jupiter by the Latins, master of the gods and of men. The Romans imitated the Greeks. These peoples always placed all the gods in the sky, without knowing what they meant by sky.

The Romans had their twelve great gods, six male and six female, whom they named dii maiorum gentium : Jupiter, Neptune, Apollo, Vulcan, Mars, Mercury, Juno, Vesta, Minerva, Ceres, Venus, Diana. Pluto was then forgotten. Vesta took his place.

Then came the gods minorum gentium: the local deities, the heroes, like Bacchus, Hercules, Aesculapius; the infernal gods, Pluto, Proserpine; those of the sea, like Thetis, Amphitrite, the Nereids, Glaucus; then the Dryads, the Naiads; the gods of the garden, those of the shepherds. There was a god for every profession, for every activity, for children, for nubile girls, for married women, for women in childbed. They had the god Fart. Finally they deified the emperors. But in fact neither these emperors, nor the god Fart, nor the goddess Pertunda, nor Priapus, nor Rumilia the goddess of tits, nor Stercutius the god of the privy, were regarded as the masters of heaven and earth. The emperors sometimes had temples, the minor household gods had none; but all had their images, their idols. These were little figurines with which a man decorated his study. They were the amusements of old women and children, not authorized by any public worship. The superstition of every private person was indulged. These little idols are still found in the ruins of ancient cities.

Though nobody knows when men started to make idols, we know that they are of the highest antiquity. Terah, Abraham's father, made them at Ur in Chaldea. Rachel stole and carried off the idols of her father-in-law Laban. It is impossible to go further back than that.

But what precise notion did the ancient nations have of all these simulacra? What virtue, what power, was attributed to them? Was it believed that the gods descended from heaven to hide themselves in these statues, or that they communicated to them a part of the divine spirit, or that they communicated nothing at all to them? This too has been the subject of much useless writing. It is obvious that each man judged it according to the degree of his reason or his credulity or his fanaticism. It is evident that the priests attached as much divinity as they could to their statues in order to attract more offerings to themselves. We know that the philosophers condemned these superstitions, that the warriors made fun of them, that the magistrates tolerated them, and the people, always absurd, did not know what it was doing. This, in a few words, is the history of all the nations to whom god has not made himself known.

One can gather the same notion about the worship all Egypt gave to an ox, and that several cities gave to a dog, to a monkey, to a cat, to onions. It would seem that these were at first emblems. Then a certain ox Apis, a certain dog called Anubis, were worshipped. They still ate beef, and onions, but it is hard to know what the old women of Egypt thought of sacred onions and oxen.

The idols spoke quite often. The elegant words spoken by the statue of Cybele when it was removed from the palace of king Attalus were commemorated in Rome on the feast day of that goddess.



Ipsa peti volui; ne sit mora, mitte volentem:
Dignus Roma locus quo deus omnis eat .



I wanted to be carried off, take me quickly away;
Rome is worthy to be the home of every god.



The statue of Fortune had spoken. It is true that the Scipios, the Ciceros, the Caesars did not believe this, but the old woman to whom Encolpius gave a crown to buy geese and gods may well have believed it.

The idols also uttered oracles, and the priests, hidden in the hollow statues, spoke in the name of the divinity.

In the midst of so many gods and so many different theogonies and individual cults, why is it that there was never any war of religion among the peoples called idolators? This peace was a good born of an evil, of error itself. For each nation, recognizing several inferior gods, thought it right that neighbouring peoples should also have theirs. Except Cambyses, who is reproached for having killed the ox Apis, we do not find in profane history any conqueror who maltreated the gods of a vanquished people. The gentiles had not a single exclusive religion, and the priests thought only of multiplying the offerings and the sacrifices.

The first offerings were fruits. Soon after, animals were needed for the priests' table; they slaughtered them themselves; they became butchers, and cruel; finally they introduced the horrible practice of sacrificing human victims, and above all children and virgins. Neither the Chinese nor the Parsees nor the Indians were ever guilty of these abominations, but according to Porphyry men were immolated at Hieropolis, in Egypt.

In Tauris foreigners were sacrificed. Fortunately the priests of Tauris could not have much practice. The first Greeks, the Cypriots, the Phoenicians, the Tyrians, the Carthaginians had this abominable superstition. The Romans themselves fell into this religious crime, and Plutarch reports that they immolated two Greeks, and two Gauls to expiate the love affairs of three vestals. Procopius, contemporary of the king of the Franks Theodobert, tells us that the Franks immolated men when they entered Italy with this prince. The Gauls, the Germans commonly made these frightful sacrifices. It is hardly possible to read history without conceiving a horror of mankind.

It is true that, among the Jews, Jephtah sacrificed his daughter, and Saul was prepared to immolate his son. It is true that those who were dedicated to the lord by anathema could not be bought back as animals were bought back, and had to perish. Samuel, a Jewish priest, chopped into pieces with a sacred hatchet king Agag, a prisoner of war whom Saul had pardoned, and Saul was condemned for observing the law of nations with this king. But god, master of men, can take their lives when he pleases, how he pleases, and by the hand of whom he pleases; and it is not for men to put themselves in the place of the master of life and death, and to usurp the rights of the supreme being.

To console mankind for this horrible spectacle, these pious sacrileges, it is important to know that among nearly all the nations called idolators there was sacred theology and popular error, the secret cult and public ceremonies, the religion of the wise and that of the vulgar. Only one god was taught in the mysteries to the initiates. One has only to glance at the hymn, attributed to the ancient Orpheus, which was sung in the mysteries of Ceres Eleusinus, so famous in Europe and Asia: 'Contemplate divine nature, illuminate your spirit, govern your heart, walk in the path of justice. May the god of heaven and earth be always present to your eyes. He is unique, he exists in himself alone. All beings derive their existence from him. He sustains them all. He has never been seen by mortals, and he sees all things.'

Read also this passage from the philosopher Maximus of Madaurus in his Letter to Saint Augustine : 'What man is gross and stupid enough to doubt that there is a supreme, eternal, infinite god who has begotten nothing like himself, and who is the common father of all things.'

A thousand passages testify that wise men abhorred not only idolatry, but also polytheism.

Epictetus, this model of resignation and patience, this man who was so great in so low a condition, never speaks of anything but a single god. Here is one of his maxims: 'God has created me, god is within me, I bear him everywhere. Could I soil him by obscene thoughts, unjust actions, infamous desires? My duty is to thank god for all, to praise him for all, and to cease from blessing him only when I cease to live.' All the ideas of Epictetus turn on this principle. Is he an idolator?

Marcus Aurelius, perhaps as great on the throne of the Roman empire as Epictetus in slavery, often speaks, it is true, of the gods, whether to conform to accepted language, or to refer to beings intermediate between the supreme being and men. But in how many places does he not show that he recognizes only one eternal, infinite god! 'Our soul,' he says, 'is an emanation of the divinity. My children, my body, my wits come to me from god.'

The Stoics, the Platonists acknowledged a divine and universal nature. The Epicureans denied it. The pontiff spoke of only one god in the mysteries. Where then were the idolators? All our phrase-mongers proclaim idolatry as little dogs yap when they hear a big dog bark.

For the rest, it is one of the great mistakes of Moréri's dictionary to say that at the time of Theodosius idolators were left only in the distant countries of Asia and Africa. Even in the seventh century there were still many gentile peoples in Italy. North Germany, beyond the Weser, was not Christian in Charlemagne's time. Poland and all the north remained long after him in what is called idolatry. Half of Africa, all the kingdoms beyond the Ganges, Japan, the common people of China, a hundred hordes of Tartars preserved their ancient cult. In Europe only a few Laplanders, Samoyedes, Tartars have persevered in the religion of their ancestors.

I conclude by noting that in the times we name the middle ages, we called the country of the Mohammedans heathendom. We qualified as idolators, imageworshippers, a people who have a horror of images. We must admit once more that the Turks would be more pardonable to take us for idolators when they see our altars loaded with images and statues.

Joseph

The story of Joseph, considered merely as a curiosity and as literature, is one of the most precious monuments of antiquity to have come down to us. It appears to be the model for all oriental writers. It is more affecting than Homer's Odyssey , for a hero who pardons is more touching than one who avenges himself.

We regard the Arabs as the first authors of those ingenious fictions that have passed into all languages; but I see in them no adventure comparable to Joseph's. Nearly everything in it is marvellous, and the end brings a lump to the throat. Here we have a young man of sixteen whose brothers are jealous. They sell him to a caravan of Ishmaelite merchants, he is taken to Egypt, and bought by one of the king's eunuchs. This eunuch had a wife, which is not at all surprising. The Kislar-aga, a complete eunuch, who has had everything cut off, has a harem today in Constantinople. He was left his eyes and his hands, and nature has not lost its rights in his heart. The other eunuchs, who have had cut off only the two accompaniments of the organ of generation, still use that organ frequently, and Potiphar, to whom Joseph was sold, may very well have been one of those eunuchs.

The wife of Potiphar fell in love with the young Joseph, who, faithful to his master and benefactor, rejected the woman's attentions. This irritated her, and she accused Joseph of trying to seduce her. It is the story of Hippolytus and Phaedra, Bellerophon and Stheneboea, Hebrus and Damasippa, Tanis and Peribea, Myrtil and Hippodamia, Peleus and Demenette.

It is difficult to know which of all these stories is the original. But in the ancient Arabic authors the adventure of Joseph and Potiplsar's wife contains a very ingenious touch. The author imagines that Potiphar, undecided between his wife and Joseph, did not consider Joseph's tunic, which his wife had torn, to be proof of the young man's attack. There was a child in a cradle in the woman's room. Joseph said that she had torn and removed his tunic in the child's presence. Potiphar consulted the child, whose intelligence was very developed for its age. The child said to Potiphar: 'See whether the tunic is torn in front or behind: if in front this is evidence that Joseph tried to violate your wife, who defended herself; if behind it is evidence that your wife was running after him.' Thanks to this child's genius, Potiphar recognized the innocence of his slave. This is how the adventure is recounted in the Koran after the ancient Arabic author. He is not concerned to tell us to whom belonged the child who judged with so much intelligence. If it was the son of Potiphar's wife, Joseph was not the first she had pursued.

Be that as it may, according to Genesis Joseph was imprisoned, and found himself in company with the Egyptian king's cup-bearer and baker. These two prisoners of state dreamed during the night. Joseph explained their dreams, predicting that in three days the cup-bearer would be restored to favour, and the baker hung: which is what came to pass.

Two years later the king of Egypt also dreamed. His cup-bearer told him that there was a young Jew in prison who understood dreams better than anyone else in the world. The king sent for the young man, who predicted seven years of plenty and seven years of want.

Let us here briefly interrupt the thread of the story to consider how prodigiously ancient is the interpretation of dreams. Jacob had seen in a dream the mysterious ladder that led to god himself. He learned in a dream a way to multiply his flocks, a way that succeeded only for him. Joseph himself had learned in a dream that he would one day dominate his brothers. Long before, Abimelech had been warned in a dream that Sarah was the wife of Abraham.

Let us return to Joseph. As soon as he had explained Pharaoh's dream, he became prime minister on the spot. We may doubt whether a king could be found nowadays, even in Asia, who would bestow such an office for the explanation of a dream. Pharaoh made Joseph marry one of Potiphar's daughters. It is said that this Potiphar was the high priest of Heliopolis. So this was not his first master the eunuch, or if it was he, he was certainly entitled to be called something else in addition to high priest, and his wife had been a mother more than once.

In the meanwhile famine came as Joseph had predicted, and Joseph, to deserve the marked favour of his king, obliged everybody to sell their land to Pharaoh, and the entire nation enslaved itself to get grain. This was apparently the origin of despotic power. It must be admitted that never had a king made a better bargain, but the people can hardly have blessed the prime minister.

Finally Joseph's father and brothers also needed grain, for 'the famine was sore in all the earth'. It is hardly necessary to relate here how Joseph received his brothers, how he forgave and enriched them. All that constitutes an interesting epic poem is found in this story: exposition, crux, recognition, vicissitudes and marvels. Nothing bears more clearly the hallmark of oriental genius.

What old Jacob, father of Joseph, replied to Pharaoh, must strongly impress anyone who can read. 'How many are the days of the years of thy life?' asked the king. 'The days of the years of my pilgrimage are 130 years, and I have not yet had one happy day in this short pilgrimage.'

Judea

I have not been to Judea, thank God, and will never go. I have met people of all nationalities who have come back from it. They have all told me that the site of Jerusalem is horrible, that all the surrounding country is stony, that the mountains are naked, that the famous river Jordan is only forty-five feet wide, that the only good province in this country is Jericho. In short, they all repeat saint Jerome, who lived for so long in Bethlehem, and who depicts this land as the scrap-heap of nature. He says that in the summer there is not even water to drink. Nevertheless this country must have appeared to the Jews a delightful spot in comparison with the deserts they had come from. Wretches who had left the Landes to live on the mountains of the Lampourdan[around Bayonne] would praise their new home, and if they hoped to penetrate into the good parts of the Languedoc these would strike them as the promised land.

This is precisely the history of the Jews. Jericho and Jerusalem are Toulouse and Montpellier, and the Sinai desert is the country between Bordeaux and Bayonne. But if the god who conducted the Jews wanted to give them good land, and if these unfortunates had in fact lived in Egypt, why did he not leave them there? The only answers given to this question are theological phrases. Judea, it is said, was the promised land. God said to Abraham: 'I will give you all this land from the river of Egypt unto the Euphrates.'

Alas! my friends, you have never seen these fertile banks of the Euphrates and the Nile. They fooled you. The masters of the Nile and the Euphrates were, each in his turn, your masters. You have nearly always been slaves. To promise and to perform are two things, my poor Jews. You had an old rabbi who, reading the wise prophecies that foretell for you a land of milk and honey, exclaimed that you had been promised more butter than bread. Do you realize that if the Grand Turk offered me today the lordship of Jerusalem I would spurn it?

On seeing this detestable country Frederick II said publicly that Moses was very ill-advised to lead his company of lepers to it: 'Why didn't he go to Naples?' said Frederick. Good-bye my dear Jews; I am sorry that the promised land should be waste land.