s nicole langelier came to the end of his reading, the birds heralded by giacomo boni filled the deserted forum with their friendly cries.
the sky was spreading over the roman ruins the ash-tinted veil of evening; the young laurel-bushes planted along the via sacra lifted up into the diaphanous atmosphere their branches black as antique bronzes, while the flanks of the palatine were clothed in azure.
“langelier,” spoke m. goubin, who was not easily deceived, “you did not invent that story. the suit brought by sosthenes against st. paul before gallio, proconsul of achaia, is to be found in the acts of the apostles.”
nichole langelier readily admitted the fact.
“the story is told,” he said, “in chapter xviii., and occupies verses 12 to 17 inclusively, which i am able to read to you, for i copied them on to a sheet of my manuscript.”
whereupon he read:
“‘12. and when gallio was the deputy of achaia, the jews made insurrection with one accord against paul, and brought him to the judgment seat,
“‘13. saying, this fellow persuadeth men to worship god contrary to the law.
“‘14. and when paul was now about to open his mouth, gallio said unto the jews, if it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, o ye jews, reason would that i should bear with you:
“‘15. but if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for i will be no judge of such matters.
“‘16. and he drove them from the judgment seat.
“‘17. then all the greeks took sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. and gallio cared for none of those things.’
“i have not invented anything,” added langelier. “little is known of ann?us mela, and of gallio, his brother. it is, however, certain that they were numbered among the most intelligent men of their day. when achaia, a senatorial province under augustus, an imperial one under tiberius, was restored to the senate by claudius, gallio was sent thither as proconsul. he was doubtless indebted for the post to the influence of his brother seneca; it is possible, however, that he was selected for his knowledge of greek literature, and as a man agreeable to the athenian professors, whose intellects the romans admired. he was highly educated. he had written a book on physiological subjects, and, it is believed, some few tragedies. his works are all lost, unless something from his pen is to be met with in the collection of tragic recitations attributed without sufficient reasons to his brother the philosopher. i have assumed that he was a stoic, and that he held in many respects the same opinions as his illustrious brother. but, while placing in his mouth words of virtue and rectitude, i have guarded against attributing any settled doctrine to him. the romans of those days blended the ideas of epicurus with those of zenon. i was not incurring any great risk of being mistaken, when investing gallio with this eclecticism. i have represented him as a kindly man. he was that, assuredly. seneca has said of him that no one loved him in a lukewarm fashion. his gentleness was universal. he aspired to honours.
“quite the contrary, his brother ann?us mela held aloof from them. we have on that point the testimony of seneca the philosopher, as well as that of tacitus. when helvia, the mother of the three senecas, lost her husband, the most famed of her sons indited a small philosophical treatise for her. in a certain part of this work, he exhorts her to consider, in order to reconcile her to life, that there remain unto her sons like gallio and mela, differing as to character, but equally worthy of her affection.
“‘cast thine eyes upon my brothers,’ he says, or words to that effect. ‘both shall, by the diversity of their virtues, charm thy weary moments. gallio has attained honours through his talents. mela has despised them in his wisdom. derive enjoyment from the regard in which the one is held, from the calm of the other, and from the love of both. i know the inner sentiments of my brothers. gallio seeks in dignities an ornament for thyself. mela embraces a gentle and peaceful life in order to devote himself to thee.’
“a child during the principality of nero, tacitus did not know the senecas. he merely collected what was currently said about them in his day. he states that if mela held aloof from honours, it was through a refinement of ambition, and, a simple roman knight, to rival the influence of the consular officers. after having administered in person the vast estates he possessed in boetica, mela came to rome, and had himself appointed administrator of nero’s estate. the conclusion was drawn therefrom that he was shrewd in matters of business, and he was even suspected of not being as disinterested as he wished to appear. that may be. the senecas, while parading their contempt for riches, were possessed of great wealth, and it is very hard to believe the tutor of nero when, amid the luxury of his furniture and his gardens, he represents himself as faithful to his beloved poverty. still, the three sons of helvia were not ordinary souls. mela had of atilla, his wife, a son, lucan the poet. it would seem that lucan’s talent reflected great lustre on his father’s name. letters were then held in high honour, and eloquence and poetry ranked above all things.
“seneca, mela, lucan, and gallio perished with the accomplices of piso. seneca the philosopher was already an aged man. tacitus, who had not been a witness of his death, has portrayed the scene for us. we know how nero’s tutor opened his veins while in his bath, and how his young wife paulina protested that she would die with him, and by a similar death. by nero’s order, paulina’s wrists, which had been opened at the veins, were bandaged. she lived, preserving thereafter a deathly pallor. tacitus records that young lucan, whilst under torture, denounced his mother. even if there were confirmation of this infamous deed, the blame for it should be laid to the tortures he underwent. but there is certainly one reason for not believing it. if indeed pain extorted from lucan the names of several of the conspirators, he did not pronounce that of atilla, since atilla was not molested at a time when every information was blindly credited.
“after the death of lucan, mela, with too great a haste and diligence, seized on the inheritance of his son. a friend of the young poet, who doubtless coveted the inheritance, became the accuser of mela. it was alleged that the father had been initiated into the secret of the conspiracy, and a forged letter of lucan was brought forth. nero, after having read it, ordered it to be shown to mela. following the example set by his brother and so many of nero’s victims, mela caused his veins to be opened, after having bequeathed a large sum of money to the freedmen of c?sar, in order to secure the remainder of his fortunes to the unhappy atilla. gallio did not survive his two brothers; he took his own life.
“such was the tragic end of these charming and cultured men. i have made two of them, gallio and mela, speak in corinth. mela was a great traveller. his son lucan, while yet a child, was on a visit to athens, at the time gallio was proconsul of achaia. there is therefore some show of reason for saying that mela was then with his brother in corinth. i have supposed that two young romans of illustrious birth, and a philosopher of the areopagus, accompanied the proconsul. in so doing, i have not taken too great a liberty, since the intendants, the procurators, the propr?tors, and the proconsuls whom the emperor and the senate respectively sent to govern the provinces, always had about themselves the sons of great families, who came to instruct themselves in the management of public affairs under their guidance, and that of men of keen intellect like my apollodorus, more frequently freedmen acting as their secretaries. lastly, i conceived the idea that at the moment st. paul was being brought before a roman tribunal, the proconsul and his friends were conversing freely about the most varied subjects, art, philosophy, religion, and politics, and that there pierced the various topics absorbing their interest a deep anxiety as to the future. there is indeed some likelihood that on that very day, just as well as on any other, they may have sought to discover the future destiny of rome and the world. gallio and mela stood among the most elevated and open intellects of the day. minds of such a calibre are at all times inclined to delve into the present and the past for the conditions of the future. i have noticed in the most learned and well-informed men whom i have known, to name but renan and berthelot, a pronounced tendency to interject at haphazard into a conversation outlines of rational utopias and scientific forecasts.”
“here then we have,” said joséphin leclerc, “one of the best educated men of his day, a man versed in philosophic speculation, trained in the conduct of public affairs, and who was of as open and broad a mind as could be that of a roman such as gallio, the brother of seneca, the ornament and light of his century. he is concerned about the future, he seeks to grasp the movement which is most affecting the world, and he tries to fathom the destiny of the empire and the gods. just then, by a unique stroke of fortune, he comes across st. paul; the future he is in quest of passes by him, and he sees it not. what an example of the blindness which strikes, in the very presence of an unexpected revelation, the most enlightened minds and the keenest intellects!”
“i would have you observe, my dear friend,” replied nicole langelier, “that it was not a very easy matter for gallio to converse with st. paul. it is not easy to conceive how they could possibly have exchanged ideas. st. paul had trouble in expressing himself, and it was with great difficulty that he made himself intelligible to the folk who lived and thought like himself. he had never spoken word of mouth to any cultured man.
“he was nowise capable of indicating a train of thought and of following those of an interlocutor. he was ignorant of greek science. gallio, accustomed to the conversation of educated people, had long since trained his reason to debate. he knew not the maxims of the rabbis. what then could these two men have said to each other?
“not that it was impossible for a jew to converse with a roman. the herods enjoyed a mode of expression which was agreeable to tiberius and caligula. flavius josephus and queen berenice discoursed in terms pleasing to titus, the destroyer of jerusalem. we know that bejewelled jews were at all times to be found in company of the antisemites. they were meschoumets (accursed unbelievers—anathema to paul). paul was a n?bi (prophet). this fiery and haughty syrian, disdainful of the worldly goods sought for by all men, thirsting after poverty, ambitious of insults and humiliations, rejoicing in suffering, was merely able to proclaim his sombre and inflamed visions, his hatred of life and of the beautiful, his absurd outbursts of anger, and his insane charity. apart from this, he had nothing to say. in truth, i can discover one subject only on which he might have agreed with the proconsul of achaia. ’tis nero.
“st. paul, at that time, could hardly have heard any mention of the youthful son of agrippina, but on learning that nero was destined to imperial power, he would immediately become a neronian. he became so later on. he was still one at the time nero poisoned britannicus. not that he was capable of approving of a brother’s murder, but because he entertained a profound respect for all government. ‘let every soul be subject unto the higher powers,’ he wrote to his churches. ‘for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.’ gallio might perchance have found these maxims somewhat simple and commonplace, but he could not have disapproved of them as a whole. but if there is a subject which he would not have felt tempted to approach while speaking with a jewish weaver, it is indeed the ruling of people and the authority of the emperor. once more, what could those two men well have said to each other?
“in our own day, when a european official in africa, let us say the governor-general of the sudan for his britannic majesty, or our governor of algeria, comes across a fakeer or a marabout, their conversation is naturally confined within restricted limits. st. paul was to a proconsul what a marabout is to our civil governor of algeria. a conversation between gallio and st. paul would have resembled only too much, i imagine, that held by general desaix with his famous dervish. after the battle of the pyramids, general desaix, at the head of twelve hundred cavalry, pursued into upper egypt the mamelukes of murad bey. on arriving at girgeh, he heard that an old dervish, who had acquired among the arabs a wide reputation for learning and sanctity, was living near that city. desaix was endowed with both philosophy and humanity. desirous of making the acquaintance of a man esteemed of his fellows, he caused the dervish to be summoned to headquarters, received him with honour, and entered into conversation with him through an interpreter.
“‘venerable old man,’ he said, ‘the french have come to bring egypt justice and liberty.’
“‘i knew they would come,’ replied the dervish.
“‘how did you come to know it?’
“‘through an eclipse of the sun.’
“‘how can an eclipse of the sun have informed you as to the movement of our armies?’
“‘eclipses are brought about by the angel gabriel, who places himself before the sun in order to announce to the faithful the misfortunes which threaten them.’
“‘venerable old man, you are ignorant of the true cause of eclipses; i shall impart the knowledge of it to you.’
“thereupon, taking a stump of pencil and a scrap of paper, he traced some figures:
“‘let a be the sun, b, the moon, c, the earth,’ and so forth...
“and when he had come to the end of his demonstration,
“‘such,’ he said, ‘is the theory governing eclipses of the sun.’
“and as the dervish was mumbling a few words,
“‘what does he say?’ asked the general of the interpreter.
“‘general, he says that it is the angel gabriel who causes eclipses, by placing himself in front of the sun.’
“‘the fellow is simply naught but a fanatic!’ exclaimed desaix.
“whereupon he drove the dervish out with well-administered kicks.
“i imagine that had a conversation been entered into between st. paul and gallio, it would have ended somewhat as did the dialogue between the dervish and general desaix.”
“it must, however, be pointed out,” said joséphin leclerc, joining issue, “that between the apostle paul and the dervish of general desaix, there is at the very least this difference: the dervish did not impose his faith on europe. and you will admit that his britannic majesty’s honourable governor of the sudan has doubtless not come across the marabout who is to confer his name on the biggest church in london; you must likewise admit that our civil governor of algeria has never come face to face with the founder of a religion which the majority of the french nation will some day believe and profess. these functionaries have not seen the future arise before them under a human form. the proconsul of achaia did.”
“it was none the less impossible for gallio,” replied langelier, “to carry on with st. paul a steady conversation on some important subject regarding morals or philosophy. i am well aware, and you yourselves are not ignorant of the fact, that towards the fifth century of the christian era, it was believed that seneca had known st. paul in rome, and had expressed admiration of the apostle’s doctrines. this fable owed its spread to the deplorable clouding of the human mind following so closely upon the age of tacitus and of trajan. in order to obtain credence for it, certain forgerers, who at that time swarmed in christian ranks, fabricated a correspondence which is mentioned respectfully by st. jerome and st. augustine. if these letters are those which have come unto us ascribed to paul and seneca, it must be that those two fathers did not read them, or that they greatly lacked discernment. it is the absurd work of a christian utterly ignorant of everything connected with nero’s time, and one totally incapable of imitating seneca’s style. is it necessary to say that the great divines of the middle ages firmly believed in the truth of the intercourse between the two men and in the genuineness of the letters? but the classical scholars of the renaissance had no difficulty in demonstrating the unlikelihood and the falsity of these inventions. it matters little that joseph de maistre should have garnered by the way this antiquated rubbish together with much of the same kind. no one any longer heeds it, and henceforth it is only in pretty novels written for society by skilful and mystical authors that the apostles of the primitive church converse freely with the philosophers and people of fashion of imperial rome and expound to the delight of petronius the novel beauties of christianity. the words of gallio and his friends, which you have just heard, are endowed with less charm and more truth.”
“i do not deny it,” replied joséphin leclerc, “and i believe that the personages of the dialogue are made to think and speak as they must actually have thought and spoken, and that the ideas entertained by them are those of their day. therein, it seems to me, lies the merit of the work, and therefore do i reason about it just as if i were basing my arguments on a historical text.”
“you may safely do so,” said langelier. “i have not embodied in it anything for which i have not the authority of a reference.”
“very well then,” resumed joséphin leclerc, “so we have been listening to a greek philosopher and several roman literati engaged in speculation as to the future destinies of their fatherland, of humanity, and of the earth, and seeking to discover the name of jove’s successor. the while they are absorbed in this perplexing quest, the apostle of the new god appears before them, and they treat him with contempt. i maintain that in so doing they plainly show a lack of penetration, and lose through their own fault a unique opportunity of becoming instructed concerning that which they felt so great a desire to know.”
“it seems self-evident to you, my good friend,” replied nicole langelier, “that gallio, had he known how to set about it, would have gathered from st. paul the secret of the future. such is perhaps the first idea that springs to the mind, and it is one that many have become imbued with. renan, after having recorded, according to the acts, this singular interview between gallio and st. paul, is not averse from discovering evidence of a narrow and thoughtless mind in the contempt experienced by the proconsul for this jew of tarsus who appeared before his tribunal. he seizes the opportunity thus offered to lament the poor philosophy of the romans. ‘what a lack of foresight,’ he exclaims, ‘is sometimes exhibited by intellectual men! in later times, it was to be discovered that the squabble between those abject sectarians was the great event of the century.’ renan seems to believe that the proconsul of achaia had merely to listen to that weaver in order to be there and then informed of the spiritual revolution in course of preparation throughout the universe, and to penetrate the secret of future humanity. and this is also no doubt what every one thinks at first sight. nevertheless, ere settling the point, let us look more closely into the matter; let us examine what both men expected, and let us find out which of the two was, when all is said and done, the better prophet.
“in the first place, gallio believed that the youthful nero would be an emperor of philosophic mind, govern according to the maxims of the portico, and be the delight of the human race. he was mistaken, and the reasons for his erroneous assumption are only too patent. his brother seneca was the tutor of the son of agrippina; his nephew, the boy lucan, lived on terms of intimacy with the young prince. both his family and his personal interests bound up the proconsul with the fortunes of nero. he believed that nero would make an excellent emperor, for the wish was father to the thought. his mistake arose rather from weakness of character than from lack of intellect. nero, moreover, was then a youth full of gentleness, and the early years of his principality were not to give the lie to the hopes of the philosophers. secondly, gallio believed that peace would reign over the world after the chastisement of the parthians. he erred owing to a lack of knowledge of the actual dimensions of the earth. he erroneously believed that the orbis romanus covered the whole of the globe; that the inhabitable world ended at the burning or frozen strands, rivers, mountains, sands, and deserts reached by the roman eagles, and that the germani and parthians peopled the confines of the universe. we know how much weeping and blood this error, shared in common by all romans, cost the empire. thirdly, gallio, pinning his faith to the oracles, believed in the eternity of rome. he was mistaken, if his prediction is to be taken in a narrow and literal sense. but he was not so, if one considers that rome, the rome of c?sar and trajan, has bequeathed us its customs and laws, and that modern civilisation proceeds from roman civilisation. it is in the august square where we now stand that from the height of the rostral tribune and in the curia was debated the fate of the universe, and the form of constitution which to the present day governs the nations. our science is based on greek science transmitted to us by rome. the reawakening of ancient thought in the fifteenth century in italy, in the sixteenth century in france and germany, was the cause of europe being born anew in science and in reason. the proconsul of achaia did not deceive himself: rome is not defunct, since she lives in us. let us, in the fourth place, examine gallio’s philosophical ideas. no doubt he was not equipped with a very sound natural philosophy, and he did not always interpret natural phenomena with sufficient precision. he applied himself to metaphysics as a roman, i.e., with a lack of acuteness. at heart, he valued philosophy merely because of its utility, and devoted himself mainly to moral questions. i have neither betrayed nor flattered him when placing his speeches on record. i have represented him as serious and mediocre, and a fairly good disciple of cicero. you may have gathered that he reconciled, by dint of the poorest of reasoning, the doctrine of the stoics to the national religion. one feels that whenever he indulges in speculation as to the nature of the gods, he is anxious to remain a good citizen and an honest official. but, after all, he thinks matters out, and reasons. the idea he conceives of the forces which govern the world is, in its principle, rational and scientific and, in this respect, it conforms to that which we have ourselves conceived of them. he does not reason as well as his friend the greek apollodorus. he does not argue any worse than the professors of our university who teach an independent philosophy and a christian antimaterialism. by his open-mindedness and his strength of intelligence, he seems our contemporary. his thoughts turn naturally in the direction followed by the human mind at the present moment. do not therefore let us say that he was unable to recognise the intellectual future of humanity.
“as to st. paul, he announced the future; none doubt the fact. and yet he expected to see with his own eyes the world come to an end, and all things existing engulfed in flames. this conflagration of the universe, which gallio and the stoics foresaw in a future so remote that they none the less announced the eternity of the empire, paul believed to be quite close at hand, and was preparing for that great day. herein he was mistaken, and you will admit that this misconception is in itself worse than all the united blunders of gallio and his friends. still more serious is it that paul did not base this extraordinary belief on any observation or any reasoning whatever. he was ignorant of and despised science. he gave himself up to the lowest practices of thaumaturgy and glossology, and had no culture whatsoever.
“as a matter of fact, in regard to the future, as well as to the present and the past, there was nothing the proconsul could learn from the apostle, nothing but a mere name. had he learnt that paul was of christ’s religion, he would not have been any the better informed as to the future of christianity, which was within a few years to disengage itself almost wholly from the ideas of paul and of the first apostolic men. thus it will be seen, if one does not pin one’s opinion to liturgical texts, and to the strictly verbal interpretations of theologians, that st. paul foresaw the future less accurately than gallio, and one will be inclined to think that were the apostle to return to rome nowadays, he would discover more cause for surprise than the proconsul.
“st. paul, in modern rome, would no more recognise himself on the column of marcus aurelius than he would recognise on the column of trajan his old enemy cephas. the dome of st. peter’s, the stanze of the vatican, the splendour of the churches, and the papal pomp, all would offend his blinking eyes. in vain would he look for disciples in london, paris, or geneva. he would not understand either catholics or reformers who vie in quoting his real or supposed epistles. nor would he understand the minds freed from all dogma, who base their opinion on the two forces he hated and despised the most: science and reason. on discovering that the son of man has not come, he would rend his garments, and cover himself with ashes.”
hippolyte dufresne interrupted, saying:
“whether in paris or in rome, there is no doubt that st. paul would be as an owl blinking in the sun. he would be no more fit than a bedouin of the desert to communicate with cultured europeans. he would not know himself when at a bishop’s, nor would he obtain recognition from him. were he to alight at the house of a swiss pastor fed upon his writings, he would astound him with the primitive crudity of his christianity. all this is true. bear in mind, however, that he was a semite, a foreigner to latin thought, to the genius of the germani and saxons, to the races from which sprung those theologians who, by dint of erroneous conceptions, mistranslations, and absurdities, discovered a meaning in his counterfeit epistles. you conceive him in a world which was not his own, which can in no wise become his, and this absurd conception at once gives birth to an agglomeration of incongruous presentments. we picture to ourselves, to illustrate what i say, this vagabond weaver sitting in a cardinal’s coach, and we make merry over the appearance presented by two human beings of so opposite a character. if you persist in resurrecting st. paul, pray have the good taste to restore him to his race and country, among the semites of the east, who have not greatly changed these twenty centuries, and for whom the bible and the talmud contain human science in its entirety. drop him among the jews of damascus or of jerusalem. lead him to the synagogue. there he will listen without astonishment to the teachings of his master, gamaliel. he will enter into disputation with the rabbis, will weave goat-hair, live on dates and a little rice, observe the law faithfully, and of a sudden undertake to destroy it. he will in turn be persecutor and persecuted, executioner and martyr, all with equal keenness. the jews of the synagogue will proceed with his excommunication, by blowing into a ram’s horn, and by spilling drop by drop the wax of black candles into a tub containing blood. he will endure without flinching this horrible ceremony, and will exercise, in the course of an arduous and continually menaced existence, the energy of a headstrong will. in such circumstances, he will probably be known to only a few ignorant and sordid jews. but it will be paul once more, and wholly paul.”
“that may be possible,” said joséphin leclerc. “yet you will grant me that st. paul was one of the principal founders of christianity, and that he might have imparted to gallio valuable information concerning the great religious movement of which the proconsul was entirely ignorant.”
“he who founds a religion,” replied langelier, “wots not what he does. i may say almost the same of those who found great human institutions, monastic orders, insurance companies, national guards, banks, trusts, trade unions, academies, schools of music and the drama, gymnastic societies, soup-kitchens, and lectures. generally speaking, these establishments do not for any length of time carry out the intentions of their founders, and it sometimes happens that they become diametrically opposed to them. it is as much as one can do to trace after many long years a few vestiges of their founders’ original intention. in the matter of religions, at any rate among nations whose existence is troublous and whose mind is fickle, they undergo so incessant and so complete a transformation, according to the feelings or interests of their faithful and their ministers, that in the course of a few years they preserve naught of the spirit which created them. gods undergo more changes than men, for the reason that their form is less precise and that they endure longer. some there are who improve as they grow older; others deteriorate with the years. it takes less than a century for a god to become unrecognisable. the god of the christians has perhaps undergone a more complete transformation than any other. this is doubtless attributable to the fact that he has belonged in succession to the most varied civilisations and races, to the latins, to the greeks, to the barbarians, and to all the nations sprung from the ruins of the roman empire. it is assuredly a far cry from the wooden apollo of d?dalus to the classical apollo belvedere. still greater a distance separates the youthful christ of the catacombs from the ascetic christ of our cathedrals. this personage of the christian mythology perplexes one by the number and variety of his metamorphoses. the flamboyant christ of st. paul is followed, as early as the second century, by the christ of the synoptic gospels, a poor jew, vaguely communistic, who becomes, with the fourth gospel, a sort of young alexandrine, a milk-and-water disciple of the gnostics. at a later period, if we only take into account the roman christs and tarry merely with the most famed of them, we have had the dominating christ of gregory vii., the bloodthirsty christ of st. dominic, the mob-leading christ of julius ii., the atheistic and artistic christ of leo x., the indeterminate and insipid christ of the jesuits, christ the protector of the factory, the defender of capital and the opponent of socialism, who flourished under the pontificate of leo xiii., and who still reigns. all those christs, who have but the name in common, were not foreseen by paul. in reality, he knew no more than gallio about the future god.”
“you exaggerate,” remarked m. goubin, who disliked exaggeration in whatever form.
giacomo boni, who venerates the sacred books of all nations, here pointed out that gallio and the roman philosophers and historians were to be blamed for not having a knowledge of the jews’ sacred scriptures.
“had they been better informed,” he said, “the romans would not have harboured unjust prejudices against the religion of israel; and, as your own renan has said, a little goodwill and a better knowledge would perhaps have warded off fearful misunderstandings in regard to questions of interest to the whole of humanity. there lacked not educated jews like philo to explain the laws of moses to the romans, had the latter been more broad-minded and possessed a more correct presentiment of the future. the romans experienced disgust and fear, when face to face with asiatic thought. even if they were right in fearing it, they were wrong in despising it. to despise a danger constitutes a great blunder. gallio displayed want of foresight when stigmatising as criminal fancies and profanities of the vulgar the syrian beliefs.”
“how then could the hellenist jews have taught the romans what they were themselves ignorant of?” inquired langelier. “how could that honest philo, so learned yet so shallow, have revealed to them the obscure, confused, and fecund thought of israel, of which he knew nothing himself? what could he have imparted to gallio concerning the faith of the jews except literary absurdities? he would have explained to him that the doctrine of moses harmonises with the philosophy of plato. then, as always, cultured men had no idea of what was passing through the minds of the multitudes. the ignorant mob is for ever creating gods unknown to the literati.
“one of the strangest and most notable facts of history is the conquest of the world by the god of a syrian tribe, and the victory of jehovah over all the gods of rome, greece, asia, and egypt. upon the whole, jesus was simply a n?bi, and the last of the prophets of israel. nothing is known about him. we are in the dark as to his life and death, for the evangelists are in nowise biographers. as to the moral ideas grouped under his name, they originate in truth with the crowd of visionaries who prophesied in the days of the herods.
“what is called the triumph of christianity is more accurately the triumph of judaism, and to israel fell the singular privilege of giving a god to the world. it must be admitted that jehovah deserved his sudden elevation in many respects. he was, when he attained to empire, the best of the gods. he had made a very bad beginning. of him it may be said what historians say of augustus, his heart softened with the years. at the time when the israelites settled in the promised land, jehovah was stupid, ferocious, ignorant, cruel, coarse, foul-mouthed, indeed the most silly and most cruel of gods. but, under the influence of the prophets, there came about a complete transformation. he ceased being conservative and formal, and became converted to ideas of peace and to dreams of justice. his people were wretched. he began to feel a profound pity for all poor wretches. and although he remained at heart very much a jew and very patriotic, he naturally became international when becoming revolutionary. he constituted himself the defender of the humble and oppressed. he conceived one of those simple ideas which captivate the world. he announced universal happiness, and the coming of a beneficent messiah whose reign would be peace. his prophet isaiah prompted him as to this admirable theme with words delightfully poetical and of unsurpassed softness:
“‘the mountain of the lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. and many people shall go and say, come ye and let us go up to the mountain of the lord, to the house of the god of jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the lord from jerusalem. and he shall judge among nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks.
“‘the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.’
“in the roman empire, the god of the jews set himself to capture the working classes and the social revolution. he addressed himself to the unfortunate. now, in the days of tiberius and claudius, there existed within the empire infinitely more unhappy than happy ones. there were hordes of slaves. one man alone owned as many as ten thousand. these slaves were for the most part sunk in wretchedness. neither jupiter, nor juno, nor the dioscuri troubled themselves about them. the latin gods did not pity their condition. they were the gods of their masters. when came from jud?a a god who hearkened to the complaints of the humble, they worshipped him. so it is that the religion of israel became the religion of the roman world. this is what neither st. paul nor philo could explain to the proconsul of achaia, for they themselves did not see it clearly. and this is what gallio could not realise. he felt, however, that the reign of jupiter was nearing its end, and he predicted the coming of a better god. from love of the national antiquities, he went for this god to the gr?co-latin olympus, and selected him of the blood of jupiter, through aristocratic feeling. thus it is that he chose hercules instead of jehovah.”
“for once,” said joséphin leclerc, “you will admit that gallio was mistaken.”
“less so than you think,” replied langelier with a smile. “jehovah or hercules, it mattered little. you may be sure of this: the son of alcmene would not have governed the world otherwise than the father of jesus. olympian as he might be, he would have had to become the god of the slaves, and assume the religious spirit of the new times. the gods conform scrupulously to the sentiments of their worshippers: they have reasons for so doing. pay attention to this. the spirit which favoured the accession in rome of the god of israel was not merely the spirit of the masses, but also that of the philosophers. at that time, they were nearly all stoics, and believed in one god alone, one on whose behalf plato had laboured and one unconnected by tie of family or friendship with the gods of human form of greece and rome. this god, through his infinity, resembled the god of the jews. seneca and epictetus, who venerated him, would have been the first to have been surprised at the resemblance, had they been called upon to institute a comparison. nevertheless, they had themselves greatly contributed towards rendering acceptable the austere monotheism of the jud?o-christians. doubtless a wide gulf separated stoic haughtiness from christian humility, but seneca’s morals, consequent upon his sadness and his contempt of nature, were paving the way for the evangelical morals. the stoics had joined issue with life and the beautiful; this rupture, attributed to christianity, was initiated by the philosophers. a couple of centuries later, in the time of constantine, both pagans and christians will have, so to speak, the same morals and philosophy. the emperor julian, who restored to the empire its old religion, which had been abolished by constantine the apostate, is justly regarded as an opponent of the galilean. and, when perusing the petty treatises of julian, one is struck with the number of ideas this enemy of the christians held in common with them. he, like them, is a monotheist; with them, he believes in the merits of abstinence, fasting, and mortification of the flesh; with them, he despises carnal pleasures, and considers he will rise in favour with the gods by avoiding women; finally, he pushes christian sentiment to the degree of rejoicing over his dirty beard and his black finger-nails. the emperor julian’s morals were almost those of st. gregory nazianzen. there is nothing in this but what is natural and usual. the transformations undergone by morals and ideas are never sudden. the greatest changes in social life are wrought imperceptibly, and are only seen from afar. christianity did not secure a foothold until such time as the condition of morals accommodated itself to it, and as christianity itself had become adjusted to the condition of morals. it was unable to substitute itself for paganism until such time as paganism came to resemble it, and itself came to resemble paganism.”
“granted,” said joséphin leclerc, “that neither st. paul nor gallio saw into the future. no one does. has not one of your friends said: ‘the future is concealed even from those who shape it’?”
“our knowledge of what the future has in store,” resumed langelier, “is in proportion of our acquaintance with the present and the past. science is prophetic. the more a science is accurate, the more can accurate prophesies be drawn from it. mathematics, to which alone appertains entire accuracy, communicate a portion of their precision to the sciences proceeding from them. thus it is that accurate predictions are made by means of mathematical astronomy and chemistry. one is able to calculate eclipses millions of years ahead, without fear of one’s calculations being found erroneous, as long as the sun, the moon, and the earth shall preserve the same relations as to bulk and distance. it is even permitted to us to foresee that these relations will be modified in a far distant future. indeed, it is prophesied, on the strength of the celestial mechanism, that the silver hornéd moon will not describe eternally the same circle round our globe, and that causes now in operation will, by dint of repetition, change its course. you may safely predict that the sun will become darkened, and will no longer appear except a shrunken globe over our icy seas, unless there should come to it in the interval some new alimentation, a thing quite within the possibilities, for the sun is capable of catching swarms of asteroids, just as a spider does flies. it is, however, safe to predict that it will become extinguished, and that the dislocated figures of the constellations will vanish star by star in the darkness of space. but what does the death of a star amount to? to the fading away of a spark. let all the stars in the heavens die out just as the grasses of the field wither, what matters it to universal life, so long as the infinitely tiny elements composing them shall have retained within themselves the force which makes and unmakes worlds? it is safe to predict an even more complete end of the universe, the end of the atom, the dissociation of the last elements of matter, the times when protyle, when the amorphous fog will have reconquered its illimitable empire over the ruins of all things. and this will form but a breathing-spell in god’s respiration. all will begin anew.
“the worlds will again be born to life. they will live again to die. life and death will succeed each other for all eternity. all sorts of combinations will become facts in the infinity of space and time, and we shall find ourselves seated once more on the flank of the forum in ruins. but as we shall not know that we are ourselves, it will not be us.”
m. goubin wiped his eye-glass.
“such ideas are disheartening,” he remarked.
“what then do you hope for, monsieur goubin,” asked nicole langelier, “to gratify your wishes? do you aspire to preserve of yourself and of the world an eternal consciousness? why do you wish to remember for all time that you are monsieur goubin? i will not conceal it from you: the present universe, which is far from nearing its end, does not seem to possess the property of satisfying you in this respect. do not place any more store in those which are to follow, for they will doubtless be of the same kind. do not, however, abandon all hope. it is possible that after an indefinite succession of universes, you shall be born anew, monsieur goubin, with a recollection of your previous existences. renan has said that it was a risk to be taken, and that at all events it would not be long in coming. the successions of universe will take place for us within less than a second. time does not count for the dead.”
“are you cognisant,” asked hippolyte dufresne, “of the astronomical dreams of blanqui? the aged blanqui, a prisoner in the mont-saint-michel, could get but a glimpse of the sky through his stopped-up window, and had the stars for his only neighbours. this made of him an astronomer, and he based on the unity of matter and the laws ruling it a strange theory in regard to the identity of the worlds. i have read a sixty-page pamphlet of his wherein he sets forth that form and life are developed in exactly the same manner in a large number of worlds. according to him, a multitude of suns, all similar to our own, have, do, or will shed light upon planets in every respect similar to the planets of our own system. there is, was, and will be, ad infinitum, venuses, mars, saturns, and jupiters, quite the counterpart of our saturn, mars, and venus, and worlds similar to our own. these worlds produce exactly what our world produces, and bear fruits, animals, and men resembling in all respects terrestrial plants, animals, and human beings. the evolution of life in them is the same as that on our globe. consequently, thought the aged prisoner, there is, was and shall be throughout the infinite space myriads of monts-saint-michel, each containing a blanqui.”
“we know but little of the worlds whose suns shine upon our nights,” resumed langelier. “we perceive, however, that subjected to the same mechanical and chemical laws, they differ from our own world and among themselves in extent and form, and that the substances burning in them are not distributed among all of them in the same proportions. these differences must produce an infinity of others which we do not suspect. a pebble is sufficient to change the fate of an empire. who knows? perchance, monsieur goubin, many times multiplied and disseminated through myriads of worlds, has wiped, wipes, and shall eternally wipe clean his eye-glass.”
joséphin leclerc did not suffer his friends to expatiate any further on astronomical dreams.
“i am,” he said, “like monsieur goubin, of the opinion that all this would be heartrending were it not too far from us to affect us. what is of paramount interest for us, what we are curious to know is the fate of those who will come immediately after us in this world.”
“there is no doubt,” said langelier, “that the succession of worlds only fills us with sad astonishment. we should welcome with a more fraternal and friendly eye the future of civilisation, and the immediate destiny of our fellow men. the closer at hand the future, the more we are concerned about it. unfortunately, moral and political sciences are inaccurate, and full of uncertainty. they have but an imperfect knowledge of the so far accomplished developments of human evolution, and can therefore not instruct us concerning the developments which remain to be completed. equipped with hardly any memory, they have little or no presentiment. this is why scientific minds feel an insurmountable repugnance to attempt investigations, the uselessness of which they know, and they dare not even confess to a curiosity which they entertain no hope of satisfying. willingly would the task be undertaken to discover what would happen, were men to become wiser. plato, sir thomas more, campanella, fénelon, cabet, and paul adam[a] have reconstructed their particular city in atlantis, in the island of utopia, in the sun, at salentinum, in icaria, in malaya, and established there an abstract social administration. others, like the philosopher sébastien mercier, and the socialist-poet william morris, dived into a far-off future. but they took their system of morals with them. they discovered a new atlantis, and it is a city of dreamland which they have harmoniously built there. shall i also quote maurice spronck?[b] he shows us the french republic conquered by the moors, in the 230th year of its foundation. he argues thus, in order to induce us to hand over the government to the conservatives whom alone he considers capable of warding off so great a disaster. meanwhile camille mauclair,[c] trusting in humanity to come, reads in the future the victorious resistance, of socialistic europe against mussulman asia. daniel halévy dreads not the moors, but, with greater show of reason, the russians. he narrates, in his histoire de quatre ans, the foundation, in 2001, of the united states of europe. but he seeks to show us more especially that the moral equilibrium of nations is unstable, and that a facility suddenly introduced into the conditions of life may suffice to let loose on a multitude of men the worst scourges and the most cruel sufferings.
[a] paul adam, journalist and playwright; contributor to the revue de paris and the nouvelle revue.
[b] maurice spronck, journalist and barrister; contributor to the journal des débats, the revue des deux mondes, the revue bleue, and the revue hebdomadaire.
[c] camille faust, dit camille mauclair, art critic and lecturer; author of works on greuze, fragonard, schumann, rodin, and of de watteau à whistler.
“few are those who have sought to know the future, out of pure curiosity, and without moral intention or optimistic designs. i know no other than h. g. wells who, journeying through future ages, has discovered for humanity a fate he did not, according to every indication, expect; for the institution of an anthropophagous proletariat and an edible aristocracy is a cruel solution of social questions. yet such is the fate h. g. wells assigns to posterity. all the other prophets of whom i have any knowledge content themselves with entrusting to future centuries the realisation of their dreams. they do not unveil the future, being satisfied with conjuring it up.
“the truth is that men do not look so far ahead without fright. many consider that such an investigation is not only useless, but pernicious; while those most ready to believe that future events are discoverable are those who would most dread to discover them. this fear is doubtless based on profound reasons. all morals, all religions, embody a revelation of humanity’s destiny. the greater part of men, whether they admit it to, or conceal it from, themselves, would recoil from investigating these august revelations, to discover the emptiness of their anticipations. they are accustomed to endure the idea of manners totally different from their own, if once those manners are buried in the past. thereupon they congratulate themselves on the progress made by morality. but, as their morality is in the main governed by their manners, or rather by what they allow one to see of them, they dare not confess to themselves that morality, which has continually changed with manners, up to their own day, will undergo a further change when they have passed out of this life, and that future men are liable to conceive an idea entirely at variance with their own as to what is permissible or not. it would go against the grain with them to admit that their virtues are merely transitory, and their gods decrepit. and, although the past is there to point out to them ever-changing and shifting rights and duties, they would look upon themselves as dupes were they to foresee that future humanity is to create for itself new rights, duties and gods. finally, they fear disgracing themselves in the eyes of their contemporaries, in assuming the horrible immorality which future morality stands for. such are the obstacles to a quest of the future. look at gallio and his friends; they would not have dared to foresee the equality of classes in the matter of marriage, the abolition of slavery, the rout of the legions, the fall of the empire, the end of rome, nor even the death of those very gods in whom they had all but ceased to believe.”
“’tis possible,” said joséphin leclerc, “but it is time for us to dine.”
and, leaving the forum bathed in the calm light of the moon, they wended their way through the populous streets of the city towards a famed but cheap eating-house in the via condotti.
