As the light which cast it was intense, even so intense was the shadow it cast beneath all it could not penetrate. Pa.s.sionate as was the saintliest man"s love of good, even so pa.s.sionate was his spiritual enemy"s love of evil. High as was the azure vault that mingled with his dreams of purity, so deep was the abyss beneath his lower nature. The superficial equalities of phenomena, painful and pleasurable, to his animal nature had cast the mould into which his theories of the inward and the moral phenomena must be cast; and thus man--in an august moment--surrendered himself to the dreadful conception of a supreme Principle of Wickedness: wherever good was there stood its adversary; wherever truth, there its denier; no light shone without the dark presence that would quench it; innocence had its official accuser, virtue its accomplished tempter, peace its breaker, faith its disturber and mocker. Nay, to this impersonation was added the last feature of fiendishness, a nature which found its supreme satisfaction in ultimately torturing human beings for the sins instigated by himself.
It is open to question how far any average of mankind really conceived this theological dogma. Easy as it is to put into clear verbal statement; readily as the a.n.a.logies of nature supply arguments for and ill.u.s.trations of a balance between moral light and darkness, love and hatred; yet is man limited in subjective conceptions to his own possibilities, and it may almost be said that to genuinely believe in an absolute Fiend a man would have to be potentially one himself. But any human being, animated by causeless and purposeless desire to inflict pain on others, would be universally regarded as insane, much more one who would without motive corrupt as well as afflict.
Even theological statements of the personality of Evil, and what that implies, are rare. The following is brave enough to be put on record, apart from its suggestiveness.
"It cannot be denied that as there is an inspiration of holy love, so is there an inspiration of hatred, or frantic pleasure, with which men surrender themselves to the impulses of destructiveness; and when the popular language speaks of possessions of Satan, of incarnate devils, there lies at the bottom of this the grave truth that men, by continued sinning, may pa.s.s the ordinary limit between human and diabolic depravity, and lay open in themselves a deep abyss of hatred which, without any mixture of self-interest, finds its gratification in devastation and woe." [8]
On this it may be said that the popular commentary on cases of the kind is contained in the very phrase alluded to, "possession,"--the implication being that such disinterested depravity is nowise possible within the range of simple human experience,--and, in modern times, "possessions" are treated in asylums. Morbid conditions, however, are of such varied degrees that it is probable many have imagined a Being in whom their worst impulses are unrestrained, and thus there have been sufficient popular approximations to an imaginative conception of a Devil to enable the theological dogma, which few can a.n.a.lyse, to survive.
It must not be supposed, however, that the moral and spiritual ideals, to which allusion has just been made, are normally represented in the various Devils which we have to consider. It is the characteristic of personifications, whether celestial or infernal, to supersede gradually the ideas out of which they spring. As in the fable of Agni, who is said to have devoured his parents when he was born, a metaphor of fire consuming the two sticks which produce it, religious history shows both deities and devils, by the flame of personal devotion or hatred they engender, burning up the ideas that originate them. When instead of unconscious forces and inanimate laws working to results called good and evil, men see great personal Wills engaged in personal conflict, the universe becomes a government of combat; the stars of heaven, the angels and the imps, men and women, the very plants and animals, are caught up in the battle, to be marshalled on one side or the other; and in the military spirit and fury of the struggle the spiritual ideals become as insignificant beneath the phantom-hosts they evoked as the violets and daisies which an army tramples in its march. There is little difference at last between the moral characteristics of the respective armies of Ormuzd and Ahriman, Michael and Satan; their strategy and ferocity are the same. [9] Wherever the conception is that of a universe divided into hostile camps, the appropriate pa.s.sions are kindled, and in the thick of the field, where Cruelty and Gentleness met, is seen at last a horned Beast confronted by a horned Lamb. [10]
On both sides is exaltation of the horn.
We need only look at the outcome of the gentle and lowly Jesus through the exigencies of the church militant to see how potent are such forces. Although lay Christians of ordinary education are accustomed to rationalise their dogmas as well as they can, and dwell on the loving and patient characteristics of Jesus, the horns which were attached to the brow of him who said, "Love your enemies" by ages of Christian warfare remain still in the Christ of Theology, and they are still depended on to overawe the "sinner." In an orthodox family with which I have had some acquaintance, a little boy, who had used naughty expressions of resentment towards a playmate was admonished that he should be more like Christ, "who never did any harm to his enemies." "No," answered the wrathful child, "but he"s a-going to."
As in Demonology we trace the struggles of man with external obstructions, and the phantasms in which these were reflected until they were understood or surmounted, we have now to consider the forms which report human progression on a higher plane,--that of social, moral, and religious evolution. Creations of a crude Theology, in its attempt to interpret the moral sentiment, the Devils to which we now turn our attention have multiplied as the various interests of mankind have come into relations with their conscience. Every degree of ascent of the moral nature has been marked by innumerable new shadows cast athwart the mind and the life of man. Every new heaven of ideas is followed by a new earth, but ere this conformity of things to thoughts can take place struggles must come and the old demons will be recalled for new service. As time goes on things new grow old; the fresh issues pa.s.s away, their battlefields grow cold; then the brood of superst.i.tion must flit away to the next field where carrion is found. Foul and repulsive as are these vultures of the mind--organisms of moral sewage--every one of them is a witness to the victories of mankind over the evils they shadow, and to the steady advance of a new earth which supplies them no habitat but the archaeologist"s page.
CHAPTER II.
THE SECOND BEST.
Respect for the Devil--Primitive atheism--Idealisation--Birth of new G.o.ds--New G.o.ds diabolised--Compromise between new G.o.ds and old--Foreign deities degraded--Their utilisation.
A lady residing in Hampshire, England, recently said to a friend of the present writer, both being mothers, "Do you make your children bow their heads whenever they mention the Devil"s name? I do," she added solemnly,--"I think it"s safer."
This instance of reverence for the Devil"s name, occurring in a respectable English family, may excite a smile; but if my reader has perused the third and fourth chapters (Part I.) of this work, in which it was necessary to state certain facts and principles which underlie the phenomena of degradation in both Demonology and Devil-lore, he will already know the high significance of nearly all the names which have invested the personifications of evil; and he will not be surprised to find their original sanct.i.ty, though lowered, sometimes, surviving in such imaginary forms after the battles in which they were vanquished have pa.s.sed out of all contemporary interest. If, for example, instead of the Devil, whose name is uttered with respect in the Hampshire household, any theological bogey of our own time were there mentioned, such as "Atheist," it might hardly receive such considerate treatment.
The two chapters just referred to antic.i.p.ate much that should be considered at this point of our inquiry. It is only necessary here to supplement them with a brief statement, and to some extent a recapitulation, of the processes by which degraded deities are preserved to continue through a structural development and fulfil a necessary part in every theological scheme which includes the conception of an eternal difference between good and evil.
Every personification when it first appears expresses a higher and larger view. When deities representing the physical needs of mankind have failed, as they necessarily must, to meet those needs, atheism follows, though it cannot for a long time find philosophical expression. It is an atheism ad hoc, so to say, and works by degrading particular G.o.ds instead of by constructing ant.i.theistic theories. Successive dynasties of deities arise and flourish in this way, each representing a less arbitrary relation to nature,--peril lying in that direction,--and a higher moral and spiritual ideal, this being the stronghold of deities. It is obvious that it is far easier to maintain the theory that prayers are heard and answered by a deity if those prayers are limited to spiritual requests, than when they are pet.i.tions for outward benefits. By giving over the cruel and remorseless forces of nature to the Devil,--i.e., to this or that personification of them who, as G.o.ds, had been appealed to in vain to soften such forces,--the more spiritual G.o.d that follows gains in security as well as beauty what he surrenders of empire and omnipotence. This law, ill.u.s.trated in our chapter on Fate, operates with tremendous effect upon the conditions under which the old combat is spiritualised.
An eloquent preacher has said:--"Hawthorne"s fine fancy of the youth who ascribed heroic qualities to the stone face on the brow of a cliff, thus converting the rocky profile into a man, and, by dint of meditating on it with admiring awe, actually transferred to himself the moral elements he worshipped, has been made fact a thousand times, is made fact every day, by earnest spirits who by faithful longing turn their visions into verities, and obtain live answers to their pet.i.tions to shadows." [11]
However imaginary may be the benedictions so derived by the worshipper from his image, they are most real as they redound to the glory and power of the image. The crudest personification, gathering up the sanct.i.ties of generations, a.s.sociated with the holiest hopes, the best emotions, the profoundest aspirations of human nature, may be at length so identified with these sentiments that they all seem absolutely dependent upon the image they invest. Every criticism of such a personification then seems like a blow aimed at the moral laws. If educated men are still found in Christendom discussing whether morality can survive the overthrow of such personifications, and whether life were worth living without them, we may readily understand how in times when the social, ethical, and psychological sciences did not exist at all, all that human beings valued seemed destined to stand or fall with the Person supposed to be their only keystone.
But no Personage, however highly throned, can arrest the sun and moon, or the mind and life of humanity. With every advance in physical or social conditions moral elements must be influenced; every new combination involves a recast of experiences, and presently of convictions. Henceforth the deified image can only remain as a tyrant over the heart and brain which have created it,--
Creatura a un tempo E tiranno de l"uom, da cui soltanto Ebbe nomi ed aspetti e regno e altari. [12]
This personification, thus "at once man"s creature and his tyrant," is objectively a name. But as it has been invested with all that has been most sacred, it is inevitable that any name raised against it shall be equally a.s.sociated with all that has been considered basest. This also must be personified, for the same reason that the good is personified; and as names are chiefly hereditary, it pretty generally happens that the t.i.tle of some fallen and discredited deity is advanced to receive the new anathema. But what else does he receive? The new ideas; the growing ideals and the fresh enthusiasms are a.s.sociated with some fantastic shape with anathematised name evoked from the past, and thus a portentous situation is reached. The worshippers of the new image will not accept the bad name and its base a.s.sociations; they even grow strong enough to claim the name and altars of the existing order, and give battle for the same. Then occurs the demoralisation, literally speaking, of the older theology. The personification reduced to struggle for its existence can no longer lay emphasis upon the moral principles it had embodied, these being equally possessed by their opponents; nay, its partisans manage to a.s.sociate with their holy Name so much bigotry and cruelty that the innovators are at length willing to resign it. The personal loyalty, which is found to continue after loyalty to principles has ceased, proceeds to degrade the virtues once reverenced when they are found connected with a rival name. "He casteth out devils through Beelzebub" is a very ancient cry. It was heard again when Tertullian said, "Satan is G.o.d"s ape." St. Augustine recognises the similarity between the observances of Christians and pagans as proving the subtle imitativeness of the Devil; the phenomena referred to are considered elsewhere, but, in the present connection, it may be remarked that this readiness to regard the same sacrament as supremely holy or supremely diabolical as it is celebrated in honour of one name or another, accords closely with the reverence or detestation of things more important than sacraments, as they are, or are not, consecrated by what each theology deems official sanction. When sects talk of "mere morality" we may recognise in the phrase the last faint war-cry of a G.o.d from whom the spiritual ideal has pa.s.sed away, and whose name even can survive only through alliance with the new claimant of his altars. While the new G.o.ds were being called devils the old ones were becoming such.
The victory of the new ideal turns the old one to an idol. But we are considering a phase of the world when superst.i.tion must invest the new as well as the old, though in a weaker degree. A new religious system prevails chiefly through its moral superiority to that it supersedes; but when it has succeeded to the temples and altars consecrated to previous divinities, when the ardour of battle is over and conciliation becomes a policy as well as a virtue, the old idol is likely to be treated with respect, and may not impossibly be brought into friendly relation with its victorious adversary. He may take his place as "the second best," to borrow Goethe"s phrase, and be a.s.signed some function in the new theologic regime. Thus, behind the simplicity of the Hampshire lady instructing her children to bow at mention of the Devil"s name, stretch the centuries in which Christian divines have as warmly defended the existence of Satan as that of G.o.d himself. With sufficient reason: that infernal being, some time G.o.d"s "ape" and rival, was necessarily developed into his present position and office of agent and executioner under the divine government. He is the great Second Best; and it is a strange hallucination to fancy that, in an age of peaceful inquiry, any divine personification can be maintained without this patient Goat, who bears blame for all the faults of nature, and who relieves divine Love from the odium of supplying that fear which is the mother of devotion,--at least in the many millions of illogical eyes into which priests can still look without laughing.
Such, in brief outline, has been the interaction of moral and intellectual forces operating within the limits of established systems, and of the nations governed by them. But there are added factors, intensifying the forces on each side, when alien are brought into rivalry and collision with national deities. In such a contest, besides the moral and spiritual sentiments and the household sanct.i.ties, which have become intertwined with the internal deities, national pride is also enlisted, and patriotism. But on the other side is enlisted the charm of novelty, and the consciousness of fault and failure in the home system. Every system imported to a foreign land leaves behind its practical shortcomings, puts its best foot forward--namely, its theoretical foot--and has the advantage of suggesting a way of escape from the existing routine which has become oppressive. Napoleon I. said that no people profoundly attached to the inst.i.tutions of their country can be conquered; but what people are attached to the priestly system over them? That internal dissatisfaction which, in secular government, gives welcome to a dashing Corsican or a Prince of Orange, has been the means of introducing many an alien religion, and giving to many a prophet the honour denied him in his own country. Buddha was a Hindu, but the triumph of his religion is not in India; Zoroaster was a Persian, but there are no Pa.r.s.ees in Persia; Christianity is hardly a colonist even in the native land of Christ.
These combinations and changes were not effected without fierce controversies, ferocious wars, or persecutions, and the formation of many devils. Nothing is more normal in ancient systems than the belief that the G.o.ds of other nations are devils. The slaughter of the priests of Baal corresponds with the development of their G.o.d into Beelzebub. In proportion to the success of Olaf in crushing the worshippers of Odin, their deity is steadily transformed to a diabolical Wild Huntsman. But here also the forces of partial recovery, which we have seen operating in the outcome of internal reform, manifest themselves; the vanquished, and for a time outlawed deity, is, in many cases, subsequently conciliated and given an inferior, and, though hateful, a useful office in the new order. Sometimes, indeed, as in the case of the Hindu destroyer Siva, it is found necessary to a.s.sign a G.o.d, anathematised beyond all power of whitewash, to an equal rank with the most virtuous deity. Political forces and the exigencies of propagandism work many marvels of this kind, which will meet us in the further stages of our investigation.
Every superseded G.o.d who survives in subordination to another is pretty sure to be developed into a Devil. Euphemism may tell pleasant fables about him, priestcraft may find it useful to perpetuate belief in his existence, but all the evils of the universe, which it is inconvenient to explain, are gradually laid upon him, and sink him down, until nothing is left of his former glory but a shining name.
CHAPTER III.
AHRIMAN: THE DIVINE DEVIL.
Mr. Irving"s impersonation of Superst.i.tion--Revolution against pious privilege--Doctrine of "merits"--Saintly immorality in India--A Pantheon turned Inferno--Zendavesta on Good and Evil-- Parsi Mythology--The Combat of Ahriman with Ormuzd--Optimism-- Parsi Eschatology--Final Restoration of Ahriman.
Any one who has witnessed Mr. Henry Irving"s scholarly and masterly impersonation of the character of Louis XI. has had an opportunity of recognising a phase of superst.i.tion which happily it were now difficult to find off the stage. Nothing could exceed the fine realism with which that artist brought before the spectator the perfected type of a pretended religion from which all moral features have been eliminated by such slow processes that the final success is unconsciously reached, and the horrible result appears unchecked by even any affectation of actual virtue. We see the king at sound of a bell pausing in his instructions for a treacherous a.s.sa.s.sination to mumble his prayers, and then instantly reverting to the villany over whose prospective success he gloats. In the secrecy of his chamber no mask falls, for there is no mask; the face of superst.i.tion and vice on which we look is the real face which the ages of fanaticism have transmitted to him.
Such a face has oftener been that of a nation than that of an individual, for the healthy forces of life work amid the homes and hearts of mankind long before their theories are reached and influenced. Such a face it was against which the moral insurrection which bears the name of Zoroaster arose, seeing it as physiognomy of the Evil Mind, naming it Ahriman, and, in the name of the conscience, aiming at it the blow which is still felt across the centuries.
Ingenious theorists have accounted for the Iranian philosophy of a universal war between Ormuzd (Ahuramazda) the Good, and Ahriman (Angromainyus) the Evil, by vast and terrible climatic changes, involving extremes of heat and cold, of which geologists find traces about Old Iran, from which a colony of Aryans migrated to New Iran, or Persia. But although physical conditions of this character may have supplied many of the metaphors in which the conflict between Good and Evil is described in the Avesta, there are other characteristics of that ancient scripture which render it more probable that the early colonisation of Persia was, like that of New England, the result of a religious struggle. Some of the G.o.ds most adored in India reappear as execrated demons in the religion of Zoroaster; the Hindu word for G.o.d is the Parsi word for devil. These antagonisms are not merely verbal; they are accompanied in the Avesta with the most furious denunciations of theological opponents, whom it is not difficult to identify with the priests and adherents of the Brahman religion.
The spirit of the early scriptures of India leaves no room for doubt as to the point at which this revolution began. It was against pious Privilege. The saintly hierarchy of India were a caste quite irresponsible to moral laws. The ancient G.o.ds, vague names for the powers of nature, were strictly limited in their dispensations to those of their priests; [13] and as to these priests the chief necessities were ample offerings, sacrifices, and fulfilment of the ceremonial ordinances in which their authority was organised, these were the performances rewarded by a reciprocal recognition of authority. To the image of this political regime, theology, always facile, accommodated the regulations of the G.o.ds. The moral law can only live by being supreme; and as it was not supreme in the Hindu pantheon, it died out of it. The doctrine of "merits," invented by priests purely for their own power, included nothing meritorious, humanly considered; the merits consisted of costly sacrifices, rich offerings to temples, tremendous penances for fict.i.tious sins, ingeniously devised to aggrandise the penances which disguised power, and prolonged austerities that might be comfortably commuted by the wealthy. When this doctrine had obtained general adherence, and was represented by a terrestrial government corresponding to it, the G.o.ds were necessarily subject to it. That were only to say that the powers of nature were obedient to the "merits" of privileged saints; and from this it is an obvious inference that they are relieved from moral laws binding on the vulgar.
The legends which represent this phase of priestly dominion are curiously mixed. It would appear that under the doctrine of "merits"
the old G.o.ds declined. Such appears to be the intimation of the stories which report the distress of the G.o.ds through the power of human saints. The Rajah Ravana acquired such power that he was said to have arrested the sun and moon, and so oppressed the G.o.ds that they temporarily transformed themselves to monkeys in order to destroy him. Though Viswamitra murders a saint, his merits are such that the G.o.ds are in great alarm lest they become his menials; and the completeness, with which moral considerations are left out of the struggle on both sides is disclosed in the item that the G.o.ds commissioned a nymph to seduce the saintly murderer, and so reduce a little the force of his austerities. It will be remembered that the ancient struggle of the Devas and Asuras was not owing to any moral differences, but to an alleged unfair distribution of the ambrosia produced by their joint labours in churning the ocean. The fact that the G.o.ds cheated the demons on that occasion was never supposed to affect the supremacy they acquired by the treachery; and it could, therefore, cause no scandal when later legends reported that the demons were occasionally able to take G.o.ds captive by the practice of these wonderful "merits" which were so independent of morals. One Asura is said to have gained such power in this way that he subjugated the G.o.ds, and so punished them that Siva, who had originally endowed that demon, called into being Scanda, a war-G.o.d, to defend the tortured deities. The most ludicrous part of all is that the G.o.ds themselves were gradually reduced to the necessity of competing like others for these tremendous powers; thus the Bhagavat Purana states that Brahma was enabled to create the universe by previously undergoing penance for sixteen thousand years.
The legends just referred to are puranic, and consequently of much later date than the revolution traceable in the Iranian religion; but these later legends are normal growths from vedic roots. These were the principles of ancient theology, and the foundation of priestly government. In view of them we need not wonder that Hindu theology devised no special devil; almost any of its G.o.ds might answer the purposes of one. Nor need we be surprised that it had no particular h.e.l.l; any society organised by the sanctions of religion, but irresponsible to its moral laws, would render it unnecessary to look far for a h.e.l.l.
From this cosmological chaos the more intelligent Hindus were of course liberated; but the degree to which the fearful training had corrupted the moral tissues of those who had been subjected to it was revealed in the bald principle of their philosophers, that the superst.i.tion must continue to be imposed on the vulgar, whilst the learned might turn all the G.o.ds into a scientific terminology.
The first clear and truthful eye that touched that system would transform it from a Heaven to an Inferno. So was it changed under the eye of Zoroaster. That ancient pantheon which had become a refuge for all the lies of the known world; whose G.o.ds were liars and their supporters liars; was now turned into a realm of organised disorder, of systematised wrong; a vast creation of wickedness, at whose centre sat its creator and inspirer, the immoral G.o.d, the divine devil--Ahriman.
It is indeed impossible to ascertain how far the revolt against the old Brahmanic system was political. It is, of course, highly improbable that any merely speculative system would excite a revolution; but at the same time it must be remembered that, in early days, an importance was generally attached to even abstract opinions such as we still find among the superst.i.tious who regard an atheistic sentiment as worse than a theft. However this may have been, the Avesta does not leave us in any doubt as to the main fact,--namely, that at a certain time and place man came to a point where he had to confront antagonism to fundamental moral principles, and that he found the so-called G.o.ds against him. In the establishment of those principles priests recognised their own disestablishment. What those moral laws that had become necessary to society were is also made clear. "We worship the Pure, the Lord of Purity!" "We honour the good spirit, the good kingdom, the good law,--all that is good." "Evil doctrine shall not again destroy the world." "Good is the thought, good the word, good the deed, of the pure Zarathustra." "In the beginning the two heavenly Ones spoke--the Good to the Evil--thus: Our souls, doctrines, words, works, do not unite together." These sentences are from the oldest Gathas of the Avesta.
The following is a very ancient Gatha:--"All your Devas (Hindu "G.o.ds") are only manifold children of the Evil Mind, and the great One who worships the Saoma of lies and deceits; besides the treacherous acts for which you are notorious in the Seven Regions of the earth. You have invented all the evil that men speak and do, which is indeed pleasant to the Devas, and is devoid of all goodness, and therefore perishes before the insight of the truth of the wise. Thus you defraud men of their good minds and of their immortality by your evil minds--as well by those of the Devas as through that of the Evil Spirit--through evil deeds and evil words, whereby the power of liars grows.
"1. Come near, and listen to the wise sayings of the omniscient, the songs in praise of the Living One, and the prayers of the Good Spirit, the glorious truths whose origin is seen in the flames.
"2. Listen, therefore, to the Earth spirit--Look at the flames with reverent mind. Every one, man and woman, is to be distinguished according to his belief. Ye ancient Powers, watch and be with us!
"3. From the beginning there were two Spirits, each active in itself. They are the good and the bad in thought, word, and deed. Choose ye between them: do good, not evil!
"4. And these two Spirits meet and create the first existence, the earthy, that which is and that which is not, and the last, the spiritual. The worst existence is for the liars, the best for the truthful.