{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-11:ernest-renan",
  "slug": "ernest-renan",
  "title": "Ernest Renan",
  "subtitle": "A tribute on the death of the historian of the life of Jesus.",
  "excerpt": "A memorial tribute on the death of Ernest Renan — the French historian whose Vie de Jésus treated the founder of Christianity as a man and a historical subject for the first time.",
  "year": 1892,
  "volume": 11,
  "category": "Tribute",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/ernest-renan/",
  "wordCount": 10571,
  "body": "\"Blessed are those\n    Whose blood and judgment are so well co-mingled\n    That they are not a pipe for fortune's finger\n    To sound what stop she please.\"\n\nERNEST RENAN is dead. Another source of light; another force of\ncivilization; another charming personality; another brave soul, graceful\nin thought, generous in deed; a sculptor in speech, a colorist in\nwords—clothing all in the poetry born of a delightful union of heart\nand brain—has passed to the realm of rest.\n\nReared under the influences of Catholicism, educated for the priesthood,\nyet by reason of his natural genius, he began to think. Forces that\nutterly subjugate and enslave the mind of mediocrity sometimes rouse to\nthought and action the superior soul.\n\nRenan began to think—a dangerous thing for a Catholic to do. Thought\nleads to doubt, doubt to investigation, investigation to truth—the\nenemy of all superstition.\n\nHe lifted the Catholic extinguisher from the light and flame of reason.\nHe found that his mental vision was improved. He read the Scriptures\nfor himself, examined them as he did other books not claiming to be\ninspired. He found the same mistakes, the same prejudices, the same\nmiraculous impossibilities in the book attributed to God that he found\nin those known to have been written by men.\n\nInto the path of reason, or rather into the highway, Renan was led by\nHenriette, his sister, to whom he pays a tribute that has the perfume of\na perfect flower.\n\n\"I was,\" writes Renan, \"brought up by women and priests, and therein\nlies the whole explanation of my good qualities and of my defects.\"\nIn most that he wrote is the tenderness of woman, only now and then a\nlittle touch of the priest showing itself, mostly in a reluctance to\nspoil the ivy by tearing down some prison built by superstition.\n\nIn spite of the heartless \"scheme\" of things he still found it in his\nheart to say, \"When God shall be complete, He will be just,\" at the same\ntime saying that \"nothing proves to us that there exists in the world\na central consciousness—a soul of the universe—and nothing proves the\ncontrary.\" So, whatever was the verdict of his brain, his heart asked\nfor immortality. He wanted his dream, and he was willing that others\nshould have theirs. Such is the wish and will of all great souls.\n\nHe knew the church thoroughly and anticipated what would finally\nbe written about him by churchmen: \"Having some experience of\necclesiastical writers I can sketch out in advance the way my biography\nwill be written in Spanish in some Catholic review, of Santa Fe, in the\nyear 2,000. Heavens! how black I shall be! I shall be so all the more,\nbecause the church when she feels that she is lost will end with malice.\nShe will bite like a mad dog.\"\n\nHe anticipated such a biography because he had thought for himself, and\nbecause he had expressed his thoughts—because he had declared that \"our\nuniverse, within the reach of our experience, is not governed by any\nintelligent reason. God, as the common herd understand him, the living\nGod, the acting God—the God-Providence, does not show himself in the\nuniverse\"—because he attacked the mythical and the miraculous in the\nlife of Christ and sought to rescue from the calumnies of ignorance and\nfaith a serene and lofty soul.\n\nThe time has arrived when Jesus must become a myth or a man. The idea\nthat he was the infinite God must be abandoned by all who are not\nreligiously insane. Those who have given up the claim that he was God,\ninsist that he was divinely appointed and illuminated; that he was\na perfect man—the highest possible type of the human race and,\nconsequently, a perfect example for all the world.\n\nAs time goes on, as men get wider or grander or more complex ideas of\nlife, as the intellectual horizon broadens, the idea that Christ was\nperfect may be modified.\n\nThe New Testament seems to describe several individuals under the same\nname, or at least one individual who passed through several stages or\nphases of religious development. Christ is described as a devout Jew,\nas one who endeavored to comply in all respects with the old law. Many\nsayings are attributed to him consistent with this idea. He certainly\nwas a Hebrew in belief and feeling when he said, \"Swear not by Heaven,\nbecause it is God's throne, nor by earth, for it is his footstool; nor\nby Jerusalem, for it is his holy city.\" These reasons were in exact\naccordance with the mythology of the Jews. God was regarded simply as\nan enormous man, as one who walked in the garden in the cool of the\nevening, as one who had met man face to face, who had conversed with\nMoses for forty days upon Mount Sinai, as a great king, with a throne\nin the heavens, using the earth to rest his feet upon, and regarding\nJerusalem as his holy city.\n\nThen we find plenty of evidence that he wished to reform the religion\nof the Jews; to fulfill the law, not to abrogate it Then there is still\nanother change: he has ceased his efforts to reform that religion and\nhas become a destroyer. He holds the Temple in contempt and repudiates\nthe idea that Jerusalem is the holy city. He concludes that it is\nunnecessary to go to some mountain or some building to worship or to\nfind God, and insists that the heart is the true temple, that ceremonies\nare useless, that all pomp and pride and show are needless, and that it\nis enough to worship God under heaven's dome, in spirit and in truth.\n\nIt is impossible to harmonize these views unless we admit that Christ\nwas the subject of growth and change; that in consequence of growth and\nchange he modified his views; that, from wanting to preserve Judaism as\nit was, he became convinced that it ought to be reformed. That he then\nabandoned the idea of reformation, and made up his mind that the only\nreformation of which the Jewish religion was capable was destruction. If\nhe was in fact a man, then the course he pursued was natural; but if he\nwas God, it is perfectly absurd. If we give to him perfect knowledge,\nthen it is impossible to account for change or growth. If, on the other\nhand, the ground is taken that he was a perfect man, then, it might be\nasked, Was he perfect when he wished to preserve, or when he wished to\nreform, or when he resolved to destroy, the religion of the Jews? If\nhe is to be regarded as perfect, although not divine, when did he reach\nperfection?\n\nIt is perfectly evident that Christ, or the character that bears that\nname, imagined that the world was about to be destroyed, or at least\npurified by fire, and that, on account of this curious belief, he became\nthe enemy of marriage, of all earthly ambition and of all enterprise.\nWith that view in his mind, he said to himself, \"Why should we waste our\nenergies in producing food for destruction? Why should we endeavor to\nbeautify a world that is so soon to perish?\" Filled with the thought of\ncoming change, he insisted that there was but one important thing, and\nthat was for each man to save his soul. He should care nothing for the\nties of kindred, nothing for wife or child or property, in the shadow of\nthe coming disaster. He should take care of himself. He endeavored, as\nit is said, to induce men to desert all they had, to let the dead, bury\nthe dead, and follow him. He told his disciples, or those he wished to\nmake his disciples, according to the Testament, that it was their duty\nto desert wife and child and property, and if they would so desert\nkindred and wealth, he would reward them here and hereafter.\n\nWe know now—if we know anything—that Jesus was mistaken about the\ncoming of the end, and we know now that he was greatly controlled in\nhis ideas of life, by that mistake. Believing that the end was near,\nhe said, \"Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat or what ye\nshall drink or wherewithal ye shall be clothed.\" It was in view of the\ndestruction of the world that he called the attention of his disciples\nto the lily that toiled not and yet excelled Solomon in the glory of its\nraiment. Having made this mistake, having acted upon it, certainly we\ncannot now say that he was perfect in knowledge.\n\nHe is regarded by many millions as the impersonation of patience, of\nforbearance, of meekness and mercy, and yet, according to the account,\nhe said many extremely bitter words, and threatened eternal pain.\n\nWe also know, if the account be true, that he claimed to have\nsupernatural power, to work miracles, to cure the blind and to raise the\ndead, and we know that he did nothing of the kind. So if the writers of\nthe New Testament tell the truth as to what Christ claimed, it is absurd\nto say that he was a perfect man. If honest, he was deceived, and those\nwho are deceived are not perfect.\n\nThere is nothing in the New Testament, so far as we know, that touches\non the duties of nation to nation, or of nation to its citizens; nothing\nof human liberty; not one word about education; not the faintest hint\nthat there is such a thing as science; nothing calculated to stimulate\nindustry, commerce, or invention; not one word in favor of art, of music\nor anything calculated to feed or clothe the body, nothing to develop\nthe brain of man.\n\nWhen it is assumed that the life of Christ, as described in the New\nTestament, is perfect, we at least take upon ourselves the burden of\ndeciding what perfection is. People who asserted that Christ was divine,\nthat he was actually God, reached the conclusion, without any laborious\ncourse of reasoning, that all he said and did was absolute perfection.\nThey said this because they had first been convinced that he was divine.\nThe moment his divinity is given up and the assertion is made that he\nwas perfect, we are not permitted to reason in that way. They said he\nwas God, therefore perfect. Now, if it is admitted that he was human,\nthe conclusion that he was perfect does not follow. We then take the\nburden upon ourselves of deciding what perfection is. To decide what is\nperfect is beyond the powers of the human mind.\n\nRenan, in spite of his education, regarded Christ as a man, and did the\nbest he could to account for the miracles that had been attributed\nto him, for the legends that had gathered about his name, and the\nimpossibilities connected with his career, and also tried to account for\nthe origin or birth of these miracles, of these legends, of these myths,\nincluding the resurrection and ascension. I am not satisfied with all\nthe conclusions he reached or with all the paths he traveled. The\nrefraction of light caused by passing through a woman's tears is hardly\na sufficient foundation for a belief in so miraculous a miracle as the\nbodily ascension of Jesus Christ.\n\nThere is another thing attributed to Christ that seems to me conclusive\nevidence against the claim of perfection. Christ is reported to have\nsaid that all sins could be forgiven except the sin against the Holy\nGhost. This sin, however, is not defined. Although Christ died for the\nwhole world, that through him all might be saved, there is this one\nterrible exception: There is no salvation for those who have sinned, or\nwho may hereafter sin, against the Holy Ghost. Thousands of persons are\nnow in asylums, having lost their reason because of their fear that they\nhad committed this unknown, this undefined, this unpardonable sin.\n\nIt is said that a Roman Emperor went through a form of publishing his\nlaws or proclamations, posting them so high on pillars that they could\nnot be read, and then took the lives of those who ignorantly violated\nthese unknown laws. He was regarded as a tyrant, as a murderer. And\nyet, what shall we say of one who declared that the sin against the\nHoly Ghost was the only one that could not be forgiven, and then left an\nignorant world to guess what that sin is? Undoubtedly this horror is an\ninterpolation.\n\nThere is something like it in the Old Testament. It is asserted by\nChristians that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of all law and\nof all civilization, and you will find lawyers insisting that the Mosaic\nCode was the first information that man received on the subject of law;\nthat before that time the world was without any knowledge of justice or\nmercy. If this be true the Jews had no divine laws, no real\ninstruction on any legal subject until the Ten Commandments were given.\nConsequently, before that time there had been proclaimed or published\nno law against the worship of other gods or of idols. Moses had been on\nMount Sinai talking with Jehovah. At the end of the dialogue he received\nthe Tables of Stone and started down the mountain for the purpose of\nimparting this information to his followers. When he reached the camp\nhe heard music. He saw people dancing, and he found that in his absence\nAaron and the rest of the people had cast a molten calf which they were\nthen worshiping. This so enraged Moses that he broke the Tables of Stone\nand made preparations for the punishment of the Jews. Remember that\nthey knew nothing about this law, and, according to the modern Christian\nclaims, could not have known that it was wrong to melt gold and silver\nand mould it in the form of a calf. And yet Moses killed about thirty\nthousand of these people for having violated a law of which they had\nnever heard; a law known only to one man and one God. Nothing could be\nmore unjust, more ferocious, than this; and yet it can hardly be said to\nexceed in cruelty the announcement that a certain sin was unpardonable\nand then fail to define the sin. Possibly, to inquire what the sin is,\nis the sin.\n\nRenan regards Jesus as a man, and his work gets its value from the\nfact that it is written from a human standpoint. At the same time he,\nconsciously or unconsciously, or may be for the purpose of sprinkling\na little holy water on the heat of religious indignation, now and then\nseems to speak of him as more than human, or as having accomplished\nsomething that man could not.\n\nHe asserts that \"the Gospels are in part legendary; that they contain\nmany things not true; that they are full of miracles and of the\nsupernatural.\" At the same time he insists that these legends, these\nmiracles, these supernatural things do not affect the truth of the\nprobable things contained in these writings. He sees, and sees clearly,\nthat there is no evidence that Matthew or Mark or Luke or John wrote the\nbooks attributed to them; that, as a matter of fact, the mere title\nof \"according to Matthew,\" \"according to Mark,\" shows that they were\nwritten by others who claimed them to be in accordance with the stories\nthat had been told by Matthew or by Mark. So Renan takes the ground that\nthe Gospel of Luke is founded on anterior documents and \"is the work of\na man who selected, pruned and combined, and that the same man wrote the\nActs of the Apostles and in the same way.\"\n\nThe gospels were certainly written long after the events described, and\nRenan finds the reason for this in the fact that the Christians believed\nthat the world was about to end; that, consequently, there was no need\nof composing books; it was only necessary for them to preserve in their\nhearts during the little margin of time that remained a lively image of\nHim whom they soon expected to meet in the clouds. For this reason\nthe gospels themselves had but little authority for 150 years, the\nChristians relying on oral traditions. Renan shows that there was\nnot the slightest scruple about inserting additions in the gospels,\nvariously combining them, and in completing some by taking parts from\nothers; that the books passed from hand to hand, and that each one\ntranscribed in the margin of his copy the words and parables he had\nfound elsewhere which touched him; that it was not until human tradition\nbecame weakened that the text bearing the names of the apostles became\nauthoritative.\n\nRenan has criticised the gospels somewhat in the same spirit that he\nwould criticise a modern work. He saw clearly that the metaphysics\nfilling the discourses of John were deformities and distortions, full of\nmysticism, having nothing to do really with the character of Jesus. He\nshows too \"that the simple idea of the Kingdom of God, at the time the\nGospel according to St. John was written, had faded away; that the\nhope of the advent of Christ was growing dim, and that from belief the\ndisciples passed into discussion, from discussion to dogma, from dogma\nto ceremony,\" and, finding that the new Heaven and the new Earth were\nnot coming as expected, they turned their attention to governing the old\nHeaven and the old Earth. The disciples were willing to be humble for\na few days, with the expectation of wearing crowns forever. They were\nsatisfied with poverty, believing that the wealth of the world was to\nbe theirs. The coming of Christ, however, being for some unaccountable\nreason delayed, poverty and humility grew irksome, and human nature\nbegan to assert itself.\n\nIn the Gospel of John you will find the metaphysics of the church. There\nyou find the Second Birth. There you find the doctrine of the atonement\nclearly set forth. There you find that God died for the whole world, and\nthat whosoever believeth not in him is to be damned. There is nothing of\nthe kind in Matthew. Matthew makes Christ say that, if you will forgive\nothers, God will forgive you. The Gospel \"according to Mark\" is the\nsame. So is the Gospel \"according to Luke.\" There is nothing about\nsalvation through belief, nothing about the atonement. In Mark, in the\nlast chapter, the apostles are told to go into all the world and preach\nthe gospel, with the statement that whoever believed and was baptised\nshould be saved, and whoever failed to believe should be damned. But we\nnow know that that is an interpolation. Consequently, Matthew, Mark and\nLuke never had the faintest conception of the \"Christian religion.\" They\nknew nothing of the atonement, nothing of salvation by faith—nothing.\nSo that if a man had read only Matthew, Mark and Luke, and had strictly\nfollowed what he found, he would have found himself, after death, in\nperdition.\n\nRenan finds that certain portions of the Gospel \"according to John\" were\nadded later; that the entire twenty-first chapter is an interpolation;\nalso, that many places bear the traces of erasures and corrections. So\nhe says that it would be \"impossible for any one to compose a life of\nJesus, with any meaning in it, from the discourses which John attributes\nto him, and he holds that this Gospel of John is full of preaching,\nChrist demonstrating himself; full of argumentation, full of stage\neffect, devoid of simplicity, with long arguments after each miracle,\nstiff and awkward discourses, the tone of which is often false and\nunequal.\" He also insists that there are evidently \"artificial portions,\nvariations like that of a musician improvising on a given theme.\"\n\nIn spite of all this, Renan, willing to soothe the prejudice of his\ntime, takes the ground that the four canonical gospels are authentic,\nthat they date from the first century, that the authors were, generally\nspeaking, those to whom they are attributed; but he insists that their\nhistoric value is very diverse. This is a back-handed stroke. Admitting,\nfirst, that they are authentic; second, that they were written about\nthe end of the first century; third, that they are not of equal value,\ndisposes, so far as he is concerned, of the dogma of inspiration.\n\nOne is at a loss to understand why four gospels should have been\nwritten. As a matter of fact there can be only one true account of any\noccurrence, or of any number of occurrences. Now, it must be taken for\ngranted, that an inspired account is true. Why then should there be four\ninspired accounts? It may be answered that all were not to write\nthe entire story. To this the reply is that all attempted to cover\nsubstantially the same ground.\n\nMany years ago the early fathers thought it necessary to say why there\nwere four inspired books, and some of them said, because there were four\ncardinal directions and the gospels fitted the north, south, east and\nwest. Others said that there were four principal winds—a gospel for\neach wind. They might have added that some animals have four legs.\n\nRenan admits that the narrative portions have not the same authority;\n\"that many legends proceeded from the zeal of the second Christian\ngeneration; that the narrative of Luke is historically weak; that\nsentences attributed to Jesus have been distorted and exaggerated;\nthat the book was written outside of Palestine and after the siege of\nJerusalem; that Luke endeavors to make the different narratives agree,\nchanging them for that purpose; that he softens the passages which had\nbecome embarrassing; that he exaggerated the marvelous, omitted errors\nin chronology; that he was a compiler, a man who had not been an\neye-witness himself, and who had not seen eye-witnesses, but who labors\nat texts and wrests their sense to make them agree.\" This certainly is\nvery far from inspiration. So \"Luke interprets the documents according\nto his own idea; being a kind of anarchist, opposed to property, and\npersuaded that the triumph of the poor was approaching; that he was\nespecially fond of the anecdotes showing the conversion of sinners, the\nexaltation of the humble, and that he modified ancient traditions to\ngive them this meaning.\"\n\nRenan reached the conclusion that the gospels are neither biographies\nafter the manner of Suetonius nor fictitious legends in the style of\nPhilostratus, but that they are legendary biographies like the legends\nof the saints, the lives of Plotinus and Isidore, in which historical\ntruth and the desire to present models of virtue are combined in various\ndegrees; that they are \"inexact\" that they \"contain numerous errors and\ndiscordances.\" So he takes the ground that twenty or thirty years after\nChrist, his reputation had greatly increased, that \"legends had begun\nto gather about Him like clouds,\" that \"death added to His perfection,\nfreeing Him from all defects in the eyes of those who had loved Him,\nthat His followers wrested the prophecies so that they might fit Him.\nThey said, 'He is the Messiah.' The Messiah was to do certain things;\ntherefore Jesus did certain things. Then an account would be given of\nthe doing.\" All of which of course shows that there can be maintained no\ntheory of inspiration.\n\nIt is admitted that where individuals are witnesses of the same\ntransaction, and where they agree upon the vital points and disagree\nupon details, the disagreement may be consistent with their honesty,\nas tending to show that they have not agreed upon a story; but if\nthe witnesses are inspired of God then there is no reason for their\ndisagreeing on anything, and if they do disagree it is a demonstration\nthat they were not inspired, but it is not a demonstration that they\nare not honest. While perfect agreement may be evidence of rehearsal,\na failure to perfectly agree is not a demonstration of the truth or\nfalsity of a story; but if the witnesses claim to be inspired, the\nslightest disagreement is a demonstration that they were not inspired.\n\nRenan reaches the conclusion, proving every step that he takes, that\nthe four principal documents—that is to say, the four gospels—are in\n\"flagrant contradiction one with another.\" He attacks, and with perfect\nsuccess, the miracles of the Scriptures, and upon this subject says:\n\"Observation, which has never once been falsified, teaches us that\nmiracles never happen, but in times and countries in which they are\nbelieved and before persons disposed to believe them. No miracle ever\noccurred in the presence of men capable of testing its miraculous\ncharacter.\" He further takes the ground that no contemporary miracle\nwill bear inquiry, and that consequently it is probable that the\nmiracles of antiquity which have been performed in popular gatherings\nwould be shown to be simple illusion, were it possible to criticise them\nin detail. In the name of universal experience he banishes miracles\nfrom history. These were brave things to do, things that will bear good\nfruit. As long as men believe in miracles, past or present they remain\nthe prey of superstition. The Catholic is taught that miracles were\nperformed anciently not only, but that they are still being performed.\nThis is consistent inconsistency. Protestants teach a double doctrine:\nThat miracles used to be performed, that the laws of nature used to be\nviolated, but that no miracle is performed now. No Protestant will\nadmit that any miracle was performed by the Catholic Church. Otherwise,\nProtestants could not be justified in leaving a church with whom the\nGod of miracles dwelt. So every Protestant has to adopt two kinds of\nreasoning: that the laws of Nature used to be violated and that miracles\nused to be performed, but that since the apostolic age Nature has had\nher way and the Lord has allowed facts to exist and to hold the field.\nA supernatural account, according to Renan, \"always implies credulity or\nimposture,\"—probably both.\n\nIt does not seem possible to me that Christ claimed for himself what\nthe Testament claims for him. These claims were made by admirers, by\nfollowers, by missionaries.\n\nWhen the early Christians went to Rome they found plenty of demigods. It\nwas hard to set aside the religion of a demigod by telling the story of\na man from Nazareth. These missionaries, not to be outdone in ancestry,\ninsisted—and this was after the Gospel \"according to St. John\" had been\nwritten—that Christ was the Son of God. Matthew believed that he was\nthe son of David, and the Messiah, and gave the genealogy of Joseph, his\nfather, to support that claim.\n\nIn the time of Christ no one imagined that he was of divine origin. This\nwas an after-growth. In order to place themselves on an equality with\nPagans they started the claim of divinity, and also took the second step\nrequisite in that country: First, a god for his father, and second, a\nvirgin for his mother. This was the Pagan combination of greatness, and\nthe Christians added to this that Christ was God.\n\nIt is hard to agree with the conclusion reached by Renan, that Christ\nformed and intended to form a church. Such evidence, it seems to me,\nis hard to find in the Testament. Christ seemed to satisfy himself,\naccording to the Testament, with a few statements, some of them\nexceedingly wise and tender, some utterly impracticable and some\nintolerant.\n\nIf we accept the conclusions reached by Renan we will throw away, the\nlegends without foundation; the miraculous legends; and everything\ninconsistent with what we know of Nature. Very little will be left—a\nfew sayings to be found among those attributed to Confucius, to Buddha,\nto Krishna, to Epictetus, to Zeno, and to many others. Some of these\nsayings are full of wisdom, full of kindness, and others rush to such\nextremes that they touch the borders of insanity. When struck on one\ncheek to turn the other, is really joining a conspiracy to secure\nthe triumph of brutality. To agree not to resist evil is to become\nan accomplice of all injustice. We must not take from industry, from\npatriotism, from virtue, the right of self-defence.\n\nUndoubtedly Renan gave an honest transcript of his mind, the road his\nthought had followed, the reasons in their order that had occurred to\nhim, the criticisms born of thought, and the qualifications, softening\nphrases, children of old sentiments and emotions that had not entirely\npassed away. He started, one might say, from the altar and, during a\nconsiderable part of the journey, carried the incense with him. The\nfarther he got away, the greater was his clearness of vision and the\nmore thoroughly he was convinced that Christ was merely a man, an\nidealist. But, remembering the altar, he excused exaggeration in the\n\"inspired\" books, not because it was from heaven, not because it was\nin harmony with our ideas of veracity, but because the writers of the\ngospel were imbued with the Oriental spirit of exaggeration, a spirit\nperfectly understood by the people who first read the gospels, because\nthe readers knew the habits of the writers.\n\nIt had been contended for many years that no one could pass judgment\non the veracity of the Scriptures who did not understand Hebrew. This\nposition was perfectly absurd. No man needs to be a student of Hebrew\nto know that the shadow on the dial did not go back several degrees to\nconvince a petty king that a boil was not to be fatal. Renan, however,\nfilled the requirement. He was an excellent Hebrew scholar. This was a\nfortunate circumstance, because it answered a very old objection.\n\nThe founder of Christianity was, for his own sake, taken from the divine\npedestal and allowed to stand like other men on the earth, to be judged\nby what he said and did, by his theories, by his philosophy, by his\nspirit.\n\nNo matter whether Renan came to a correct conclusion or not, his work\ndid a vast deal of good. He convinced many that implicit reliance could\nnot be placed upon the gospels, that the gospels themselves are of\nunequal worth; that they were deformed by ignorance and falsehood, or,\nat least, by mistake; that if they wished to save the reputation of\nChrist they must not rely wholly on the gospels, or on what is found\nin the New Testament, but they must go farther and examine all legends\ntouching him. Not only so, but they must throw away the miraculous, the\nimpossible and the absurd.\n\nHe also has shown that the early followers of Christ endeavored to add\nto the reputation of their Master by attributing to him the miraculous\nand the foolish; that while these stories added to his reputation at\nthat time, since the world has advanced they must be cast aside or the\nreputation of the Master must suffer.\n\nIt will not do now to say that Christ himself pretended to do miracles.\nThis would establish the fact at least that he was mistaken. But we are\ncompelled to say that his disciples insisted that he was a worker of\nmiracles. This shows, either that they were mistaken or untruthful.\n\nWe all know that a sleight-of-hand performer could gain a greater\nreputation among savages than Darwin or Humboldt; and we know that the\nworld in the time of Christ was filled with barbarians, with people who\ndemanded the miraculous, who expected it; with people, in fact, who had\na stronger belief in the supernatural than in the natural; people who\nnever thought it worth while to record facts. The hero of such people,\nthe Christ of such people, with his miracles, cannot be the Christ of\nthe thoughtful and scientific.\n\nRenan was a man of most excellent temper; candid; not striving for\nvictory, but for truth; conquering, as far as he could, the old\nsuperstitions; not entirely free, it may be, but believing himself to be\nso. He did great good. He has helped to destroy the fictions of faith.\nHe has helped to rescue man from the prison of superstition, and this is\nthe greatest benefit that man can bestow on man.\n\nHe did another great service, not only to Jews, but to Christendom,\nby writing the history of \"The People of Israel.\" Christians for many\ncenturies have persecuted the Jews. They have charged them with the\ngreatest conceivable crime—with having crucified an infinite God.\nThis absurdity has hardened the hearts of men and poisoned the minds of\nchildren. The persecution of the Jews is the meanest, the most senseless\nand cruel page in history. Every civilized Christian should feel on\nhis cheeks the red spots of shame as he reads the wretched and infamous\nstory.\n\nThe flame of this prejudice is fanned and fed in the Sunday schools\nof our day, and the orthodox minister points proudly to the atrocities\nperpetrated against the Jews by the barbarians of Russia as evidences of\nthe truth of the inspired Scriptures. In every wound God puts a tongue\nto proclaim the truth of his book.\n\nIf the charge that the Jews killed God were true, it is hardly\nreasonable to hold those who are now living responsible for what their\nancestors did nearly nineteen centuries ago.\n\nBut there is another point in connection with this matter: If Christ was\nGod, then the Jews could not have killed him without his consent; and,\naccording to the orthodox creed, if he had not been sacrificed, the\nwhole world would have suffered eternal pain. Nothing can exceed the\nmeanness of the prejudice of Christians against the Jewish people. They\nshould not be held responsible for their savage ancestors, or for their\nbelief that Jehovah was an intelligent and merciful God, superior to all\nother gods. Even Christians do not wish to be held responsible for\nthe Inquisition, for the Torquemadas and the John Calvins, for the\nwitch-burners and the Quaker-whippers, for the slave-traders and\nchild-stealers, the most of whom were believers in our \"glorious\ngospel,\" and many of whom had been bom the second time.\n\nRenan did much to civilize the Christians by telling the truth in a\ncharming and convincing way about the \"People of Israel.\" Both sides are\ngreatly indebted to him: one he has ably defended, and the other greatly\nenlightened.\n\nHaving done what good he could in giving what he believed was light to\nhis fellow-men, he had no fear of becoming a victim of God's wrath, and\nso he laughingly said: \"For my part I imagine that if the Eternal in his\nseverity were to send me to hell I should succeed in escaping from it.\nI would send up to my Creator a supplication that would make him smile.\nThe course of reasoning by which I would prove to him that it was\nthrough his fault that I was damned would be so subtle that he would\nfind some difficulty in replying. The fate which would suit me best is\nPurgatory—a charming place, where many delightful romances begun on\nearth must be continued.\"\n\nSuch cheerfulness, such good philosophy, with cap and bells, such banter\nand blasphemy, such sound and solid sense drive to madness the priest\nwho thinks the curse of Rome can fright the world. How the snake of\nsuperstition writhes when he finds that his fangs have lost their\npoison.\n\nHe was one of the gentlest of men—one of the fairest in discussion,\ndissenting from the views of others with modesty, presenting his own\nwith clearness and candor. His mental manners were excellent. He was\nnot positive as to the \"unknowable.\" He said \"Perhaps.\" He knew that\nknowledge is good if it increases the happiness of man; and he felt that\nsuperstition is the assassin of liberty and civilization. He lived a\nlife of cheerfulness, of industry, devoted to the welfare of mankind.\n\nHe was a seeker of happiness by the highway of the natural, a destroyer\nof the dogmas of mental deformity, a worshiper of Liberty and the\nIdeal. As he lived, he died—hopeful and serene—and now, standing in\nimagination by his grave, we ask: Will the night be eternal? The brain\nsays, Perhaps; while the heart hopes for the Dawn.—North American\nReview, November, 1892.\n\nTolstoi and \"the Kreutzer Sonata.\"\n\nCOUNT TOLSTOI is a man of genius. He is acquainted with Russian life\nfrom the highest to the lowest—that is to say, from the worst to the\nbest. He knows the vices of the rich and the virtues of the poor. He is\na Christian, a real believer in the Old and New Testaments, an honest\nfollower of the Peasant of Palestine. He denounces luxury and ease, art\nand music; he regards a flower with suspicion, believing that beneath\nevery blossom lies a coiled serpent. He agrees with Lazarus and\ndenounces Dives and the tax-gatherers. He is opposed, not only to\ndoctors of divinity, but of medicine.\n\nFrom the Mount of Olives he surveys the world.\n\nHe is not a Christian like the Pope in the Vatican, or a cardinal in a\npalace, or a bishop with revenues and retainers, or a millionaire who\nhires preachers to point out the wickedness of the poor, or the director\nof a museum who closes the doors on Sunday. He is a Christian something\nlike Christ.\n\nTo him this life is but a breathing-spell between the verdict and the\nexecution; the sciences are simply sowers of the seeds of pride, of\narrogance and vice. Shocked by the cruelties and unspeakable horrors of\nwar, he became a non-resistant and averred that he would not defend his\nown body or that of his daughter from insult and outrage. In this he\nfollowed the command of his Master: \"Resist not evil.\" He passed,\nnot simply from war to peace, but from one extreme to the other, and\nadvocated a doctrine that would leave the basest of mankind the rulers\nof the world. This was and is the error of a great and tender soul.\n\nHe did not accept all the teachings of Christ at once. His progress has\nbeen, judging from his writings, somewhat gradual; but by accepting one\nproposition he prepared himself for the acceptance of another. He is\nnot only a Christian, but has the courage of his convictions, and goes\nwithout hesitation to the logical conclusion. He has another exceedingly\nrare quality; he acts in accordance with his belief. His creed is\ntranslated into deed. He opposes the doctors of divinity, because they\ndarken and deform the teachings of the Master. He denounces the doctors\nof medicine, because he depends on Providence and the promises of Jesus\nChrist. To him that which is called progress is, in fact, a profanation,\nand property is a something that the organized few have stolen from the\nunorganized many. He believes in universal labor, which is good, each\nworking for himself. He also believes that each should have only the\nnecessaries of life—which is bad. According to his idea, the world\nought to be filled with peasants. There should be only arts enough to\nplough and sow and gather the harvest, to build huts, to weave coarse\ncloth, to fashion clumsy and useful garments, and to cook the simplest\nfood. Men and women should not adorn their bodies. They should not make\nthemselves desirable or beautiful.\n\nBut even under such circumstances they might, like the Quakers, be proud\nof humility and become arrogantly meek.\n\nTolstoi would change the entire order of human development. As a matter\nof fact, the savage who adorns himself or herself with strings of\nshells, or with feathers, has taken the first step towards civilization.\nThe tatooed is somewhat in advance of the unfrescoed. At the bottom of\nall this is the love of approbation, of the admiration of their fellows,\nand this feeling, this love, cannot be torn from the human heart.\n\nIn spite of ourselves we are attracted by what to us is beautiful,\nbecause beauty is associated with pleasure, with enjoyment. The love of\nthe well-formed, of the beautiful, is prophetic of the perfection of the\nhuman race. It is impossible to admire the deformed. They may be loved\nfor their goodness or genius, but never because of their deformity.\nThere is within us the love of proportion. There is a physical basis for\nthe appreciation of harmony, which is also a kind of proportion.\n\nThe love of the beautiful is shared with man by most animals. The wings\nof the moth are painted by love, by desire. This is the foundation of\nthe bird's song. This love of approbation, this desire to please, to\nbe admired, to be loved, is in some way the cause of all heroic,\nself-denying, and sublime actions.\n\nCount Tolstoi, following parts of the New Testament, regards love\nas essentially impure. He seems really to think that there is a love\nsuperior to human love; that the love of man for woman, of woman for\nman, is, after all, a kind of glittering degradation; that it is better\nto love God than woman; better to love the invisible phantoms of the\nskies than the children upon our knees—in other words, that it is far\nbetter to love a heaven somewhere else than to make one here. He seems\nto think that women adorn themselves simply for the purpose of getting\nin their power the innocent and unsuspecting men. He forgets that\nthe best and purest of human beings are controlled, for the most part\nunconsciously, by the hidden, subtle tendencies of nature. He seems to\nforget the great fact of \"natural selection,\" and that the choice of one\nin preference to all others is the result of forces beyond the control\nof the individual. To him there seems to be no purity in love, because\nmen are influenced by forms, by the beauty of women; and women, knowing\nthis fact, according to him, act, and consequently both are equally\nguilty. He endeavors to show that love is a delusion; that at best it\ncan last but for a few days; that it must of necessity be succeeded by\nindifference, then by disgust, lastly by hatred; that in every Garden of\nEden is a serpent of jealousy, and that the brightest days end with the\nyawn of ennui.\n\nOf course he is driven to the conclusion that life in this world is\nwithout value, that the race can be perpetuated only by vice, and that\nthe practice of the highest virtue would leave the world without\nthe form of man. Strange as it may sound to some, this is the same\nconclusion reached by his Divine Master: \"They did eat, they drank, they\nmarried, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered\nthe ark and the flood came and destroyed them all.\" \"Every one that hath\nforsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife,\nor children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold,\nand shall inherit everlasting life.\"\n\nAccording to Christianity, as it really is and really was, the Christian\nshould have no home in this world—at least none until the earth has\nbeen purified by fire. His affections should be given to God; not to\nwife and children, not to friends or country. He is here but for a\ntime on a journey, waiting for the summons. This life is a kind of\ndock running out into the sea of eternity, on which he waits for\ntransportation. Nothing here is of any importance; the joys of life are\nfrivolous and corrupting, and by losing these few gleams of happiness in\nthis world he will bask forever in the unclouded rays of infinite joy.\nWhy should a man risk an eternity of perfect happiness for the sake of\nenjoying himself a few days with his wife and children? Why should he\nbecome an eternal outcast for the sake of having a home and fireside\nhere?\n\nThe \"Fathers\" of the church had the same opinion of marriage. They\nagreed with Saint Paul, and Tolstoi agrees with them. They had the same\ncontempt for wives and mothers, and uttered the same blasphemies against\nthat divine passion that has filled the world with art and song.\n\nAll this is to my mind a kind of insanity; nature soured or\nwithered—deformed so that celibacy is mistaken for virtue. The\nimagination becomes polluted, and the poor wretch believes that he is\npurer than his thoughts, holier than his desires, and that to outrage\nnature is the highest form of religion. But nature imprisoned,\nobstructed, tormented, always has sought for and has always found\nrevenge. Some of these victims, regarding the passions as low and\ncorrupting, feeling humiliated by hunger and thirst, sought through\nmaimings and mutilations the purification of the soul.\n\nCount Tolstoi in \"The Kreutzer Sonata,\" has drawn, with a free hand, one\nof the vilest and basest of men for his hero. He is suspicious, jealous,\ncruel, infamous. The wife is infinitely too good for such a wild\nunreasoning beast, and yet the writer of this insane story seems to\njustify the assassin. If this is a true picture of wedded life in\nRussia, no wonder that Count Tolstoi looks forward with pleasure to the\nextinction of the human race.\n\nOf all passions that can take possession of the heart or brain jealousy\nis the worst. For many generations the chemists sought for the secret by\nwhich all metals could be changed to gold, and through which the basest\ncould become the best. Jealousy seeks exactly the opposite. It endeavors\nto transmute the very gold of love into the dross of shame and crime.\n\nThe story of \"The Kreutzer Sonata\" seems to have been written for the\npurpose of showing that woman is at fault; that she has no right to\nbe attractive, no right to be beautiful; and that she is morally\nresponsible for the contour of her throat, for the pose of her body, for\nthe symmetry of her limbs, for the red of her lips, and for the dimples\nin her cheeks.\n\nThe opposite of this doctrine is nearer true. It would be far better to\nhold people responsible for their ugliness than for their beauty. It may\nbe true that the soul, the mind, in some wondrous way fashions the body,\nand that to that extent every individual is responsible for his looks.\nIt may be that the man or woman thinking high thoughts will give,\nnecessarily, a nobility to expression and a beauty to outline.\n\nIt is not true that the sins of man can be laid justly at the feet of\nwoman. Women are better than men; they have greater responsibilities;\nthey bear even the burdens of joy. This is the real reason why their\nfaults are considered greater.\n\nMen and women desire each other, and this desire is a condition of\ncivilization, progress, and happiness, and of everything of real value.\nBut there is this profound difference in the sexes: in man this desire\nis the foundation of love, while in woman love is the foundation of this\ndesire.\n\nTolstoi seems to be a stranger to the heart of woman.\n\nIs it not wonderful that one who holds self-denial in such high esteem\nshould say, \"That life is embittered by the fear of one's children, and\nnot only on account of their real or imaginary illnesses, but even by\ntheir very presence\"?\n\nHas the father no real love for the children? Is he not paid a thousand\ntimes through their caresses, their sympathy, their love? Is there no\njoy in seeing their minds unfold, their affections develop? Of course,\nlove and anxiety go together. That which we love we wish to protect. The\nperpetual fear of death gives love intensity and sacredness. Yet\nCount Tolstoi gives us the feelings of a father incapable of natural\naffection; of one who hates to have his children sick because the\norderly course of his wretched life is disturbed. So, too, we are told\nthat modern mothers think too much of their children, care too much for\ntheir health, and refuse to be comforted when they die. Lest these words\nmay be thought libellous, the following extract is given;\n\n\"In old times women consoled themselves with the belief, The Lord hath\ngiven, and the Lord hath taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.\nThey consoled themselves with the thought that the soul of the departed\nhad returned to him who gave it; that it was better to die innocent\nthan to live in sin. If women nowadays had such a comfortable faith to\nsupport them, they might take their misfortunes less hard.\"\n\nThe conclusion reached by the writer is that without faith in God,\nwoman's love grovels in the mire.\n\nIn this case the mire is made by the tears of mothers falling on the\nclay that hides their babes.\n\nThe one thing constant, the one peak that rises above all clouds, the\none window in which the light forever burns, the one star that darkness\ncannot quench, is woman's love.\n\nThis one fact justifies the existence and the perpetuation of the human\nrace. Again I say that women are better than men; their hearts are more\nunreservedly given; in the web of their lives sorrow is inextricably\nwoven with the greatest joys; self-sacrifice is a part of their nature,\nand at the behest of love and maternity they walk willingly and joyously\ndown to the very gates of death.\n\nIs there nothing in this to excite the admiration, the adoration, of a\nmodern reformer? Are the monk and nun superior to the father and mother?\n\nThe author of \"The Kreutzer Sonata\" is unconsciously the enemy of\nmankind. He is filled with what might be called a merciless pity, a\nsympathy almost malicious. Had he lived a few centuries ago, he might\nhave founded a religion; but the most he can now do is, perhaps, to\ncreate the necessity for another asylum.\n\nCount Tolstoi objects to music—not the ordinary kind, but to great\nmusic, the music that arouses the emotions, that apparently carries us\nbeyond the limitations of life, that for the moment seems to break the\ngreat chain of cause and effect, and leaves the soul soaring and free.\n\"Emotion and duty,\" he declares, \"do not go hand in hand.\" All art\ntouches and arouses the emotional nature. The painter, the poet, the\nsculptor, the composer, the orator, appeal to the emotions, to the\npassions, to the hopes and fears. The commonplace is transfigured;\nthe cold and angular facts of existence take form and color; the\nblood quickens; the fancies spread their wings; the intellect grows\nsympathetic; the river of life flows full and free; and man becomes\ncapable of the noblest deeds. Take emotion from the heart of man and\nthe idea of obligation would be lost; right and wrong would lose their\nmeaning, and the word \"ought\" would never again be spoken. We are\nsubject to conditions, liable to disease, pain, and death. We are\ncapable of ecstasy. Of these conditions, of these possibilities, the\nemotions are born.\n\nOnly the conditionless can be the emotionless.\n\nWe are conditioned beings; and if the conditions are changed, the result\nmay be pain or death or greater joy. We can only live within certain\ndegrees of heat. If the weather were a few degrees hotter or a few\ndegrees colder, we could not exist. We need food and roof and raiment.\nLife and happiness depend on these conditions. We do not certainly know\nwhat is to happen, and consequently our hopes and fears are constantly\nactive—that is to say, we are emotional beings. The generalization of\nTolstoi, that emotion never goes hand in hand with duty, is almost the\nopposite of the truth. The idea of duty could not exist without emotion.\nThink of men and women without love, without desires, without passions?\nThink of a world without art or music—a world without beauty, without\nemotion.\n\nAnd yet there are many writers busy pointing out the loathsomeness of\nlove and their own virtues. Only a little while ago an article appeared\nin one of the magazines in which all women who did not dress according\nto the provincial prudery of the writer were denounced as impure.\nMillions of refined and virtuous wives and mothers were described as\ndripping with pollution because they enjoyed dancing and were so well\nformed that they were not obliged to cover their arms and throats to\navoid the pity of their associates. And yet the article itself is far\nmore indelicate than any dance or any dress, or even lack of dress. What\na curious opinion dried apples have of fruit upon the tree!\n\nCount Tolstoi is also the enemy of wealth, of luxury. In this he follows\nthe New Testament. \"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a\nneedle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.\" He gathers\nhis inspiration from the commandment, \"Sell all that thou hast and give\nto the poor.\"\n\nWealth is not a crime any more than health or bodily or intellectual\nstrength. The weak might denounce the strong, the sickly might envy the\nhealthy, just as the poor may denounce or envy the rich. A man is not\nnecessarily a criminal because he is wealthy. He is to be judged, not\nby his wealth, but by the way he uses his wealth. The strong man can use\nhis strength, not only for the benefit of himself, but for the good of\nothers. So a man of intelligence can be a benefactor of the human race.\nIntelligence is often used to entrap the simple and to prey upon the\nunthinking, but we do not wish to do away with intelligence. So strength\nis often used to tyrannize over the weak, and in the same way wealth may\nbe used to the injury of mankind. To sell all that you have and give to\nthe poor is not a panacea for poverty. The man of wealth should help\nthe poor man to help himself. Men cannot receive without giving some\nconsideration, and if they have not labor or property to give, they\ngive their manhood, their self-respect. Besides, if all should obey this\ninjunction, \"Sell what thou hast and give to the poor,\" who would buy?\nWe know that thousands and millions of rich men lack generosity and have\nbut little feeling for their fellows. The fault is not in the money, not\nin the wealth, but in the individuals. They would be just as bad were\nthey poor. The only difference is that they would have less power. The\ngood man should regard wealth as an instrumentality, as an opportunity,\nand he should endeavor to benefit his fellow-men, not by making them the\nrecipients of his charity, but by assisting them to assist themselves.\nThe desire to clothe and feed, to educate and protect, wives and\nchildren, is the principal reason for making money—one of the great\nsprings of industry, prudence, and economy.\n\nThose who labor have a right to live. They have a right to what they\nearn. He who works has a right to home and fireside and to the comforts\nof life. Those who waste the spring, the summer, and the autumn of their\nlives must bear the winter when it comes. Many of our institutions are\nabsurdly unjust. Giving the land to the few, making tenants of the many,\nis the worst possible form of socialism—of paternal government. In\nmost of the nations of our day the idlers and non-producers are either\nbeggars or aristocrats, paupers or princes, and the great middle\nlaboring class support them both. Rags and robes have a liking for each\nother. Beggars and kings are in accord; they are all parasites, living\non the same blood, stealing the same labor—one by beggary, the other by\nforce. And yet in all this there can be found no reason for denouncing\nthe man who has accumulated. One who wishes to tear down his bams and\nbuild greater has laid aside something to keep the wolf of want from the\ndoor of home when he is dead.\n\nEven the beggars see the necessity of others working, and the nobility\nsee the same necessity with equal clearness. But it is hardly reasonable\nto say that all should do the same kind of work, for the reason that all\nhave not the same aptitudes, the same talents. Some can plough,\nothers can paint; some can reap and mow, while others can invent the\ninstruments that save labor; some navigate the seas; some work in mines;\nwhile others compose music that elevates and refines the heart of the\nworld.\n\nBut the worst thing in \"The Kreutzer Sonata\" is the declaration that a\nhusband can by force compel the wife to love and obey him. Love is not\nthe child of fear; it is not the result of force. No one can love on\ncompulsion. Even Jehovah found that it was impossible to compel the Jews\nto love him. He issued his command to that effect, coupled with threats\nof pain and death, but his chosen people failed to respond.\n\nLove is the perfume of the heart; it is not subject to the will of\nhusbands or kings or God.\n\nCount Tolstoi would establish slavery in every house; he would make\nevery husband a tyrant and every wife a trembling serf. No wonder that\nhe regards such marriage as a failure. He is in exact harmony with the\ncurse of Jehovah when he said unto the woman: \"I will greatly multiply\nthy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth\nchildren, and thy desire shall be unto thy husband, and he shall rule\nover thee.\"\n\nThis is the destruction of the family, the pollution of home, the\ncrucifixion of love.\n\nThose who are truly married are neither masters nor servants. The idea\nof obedience is lost in the desire for the happiness of each. Love is\nnot a convict, to be detained with bolts and chains. Love is the highest\nexpression of liberty. Love neither commands nor obeys.\n\nThe curious thing is that the orthodox world insists that all men and\nwomen should obey the injunctions of Christ; that they should take him\nas the supreme example, and in all things follow his teachings. This is\npreached from countless pulpits, and has been for many centuries. And\nyet the man who does follow the Savior, who insists that he will not\nresist evil, who sells what he has and gives to the poor, who deserts\nhis wife and children for the love of God, is regarded as insane.\n\nTolstoi, on most subjects, appears to be in accord with the founder of\nChristianity, with the apostles, with the writers of the New Testament,\nand with the Fathers of the church; and yet a Christian teacher of a\nSabbath school decides, in the capacity of Postmaster-General, that \"The\nKreutzer Sonata\" is unfit to be carried in the mails.\n\nAlthough I disagree with nearly every sentence in this book, regard the\nstory as brutal and absurd, the view of life presented as cruel, vile,\nand false, yet I recognize the right of Count Tolstoi to express his\nopinions on all subjects, and the right of the men and women of America\nto read for themselves.\n\nAs to the sincerity of the author, there is not the slightest doubt. He\nis willing to give all that he has for the good of his fellow-men. He\nis a soldier in what he believes to be a sacred cause, and he has the\ncourage of his convictions. He is endeavoring to organize society in\naccordance with the most radical utterances that have been attributed\nto Jesus Christ. The philosophy of Palestine is not adapted to an\nindustrial and commercial age. Christianity was born when the nation\nthat produced it was dying. It was a requiem—a declaration that life\nwas a failure, that the world was about to end, and that the hopes of\nmankind should be lifted to another sphere. Tolstoi stands with his back\nto the sunrise and looks mournfully upon the shadow. He has uttered many\ntender, noble, and inspiring words. There are many passages in his works\nthat must have been written when his eyes were filled with tears. He has\nfixed his gaze so intently on the miseries and agonies of life that he\nhas been driven to the conclusion that nothing could be better than the\neffacement of the human race.\n\nSome men, looking only at the faults and tyrannies of government, have\nsaid: \"Anarchy is better.\" Others, looking at the misfortunes, the\npoverty, the crimes, of men, have, in a kind of pitying despair, reached\nthe conclusion that the best of all is death. These are the opinions of\nthose who have dwelt in gloom—of the self-imprisoned.\n\nBy comparing long periods of time, we see that, on the whole, the race\nis advancing; that the world is growing steadily, and surely, better;\nthat each generation enjoys more and suffers less than its predecessor.\nWe find that our institutions have the faults of individuals. Nations\nmust be composed of men and women; and as they have their faults,\nnations cannot be perfect. The institution of marriage is a failure to\nthe extent, and only to the extent, that the human race is a failure.\nUndoubtedly it is the best and the most important institution that has\nbeen established by the civilized world. If there is unhappiness in that\nrelation, if there is tyranny upon one side and misery upon the other,\nit is not the fault of marriage. Take homes from the world and only wild\nbeasts are left.\n\nWe cannot cure the evils of our day and time by a return to savagery.\nIt is not necessary to become ignorant to increase our happiness. The\nhighway of civilization leads to the light. The time will come when the\nhuman race will be truly enlightened, when labor will receive its due\nreward, when the last institution begotten of ignorance and savagery\nwill disappear. The time will come when the whole world will say that\nthe love of man for woman, of woman for man, of mother for child, is the\nhighest, the noblest, the purest, of which the heart is capable.\n\nLove, human love, love of men and women, love of mothers fathers, and\nbabes, is the perpetual and beneficent force. Not the love of phantoms,\nthe love that builds cathedrals and dungeons, that trembles and prays,\nthat kneels and curses; but the real love, the love that felled the\nforests, navigated the seas, subdued the earth, explored continents,\nbuilt countless homes, and founded nations—the love that kindled the\ncreative flame and wrought the miracles of art, that gave us all there\nis of music, from the cradle-song that gives to infancy its smiling\nsleep to the great symphony that bears the soul away with wings of\nfire—the real love, mother of every virtue and of every joy.—North\nAmerican Review, September, 1890.\n\nTHOMAS PAINE.\n"
}