September 7, 2024

I’d like to continue my summary of Jewish history. Here’s what I’ve discussed so far:

1. Jewish History

A. Jews in Christian Europe

Cecil Roth says that St. Paul played a key role in the rise of Christianity. Paul dispensed with Jewish Law, Jewish dietary rules, and circumcision. Thus, he made Christianity more palatable to non-Jews. Christianity combined Jewish monotheism, Jewish moral principles like “Love thy neighbor,” Greek “philosophical conceptions,” and “mystical currents” that were flowing in the Roman Empire. Roth calls Christianity “a religion of comfort — one which offered boundless compensation in the next world in return for a simple faith and righteous living.” It spread rapidly.

The Church Fathers emphasized the differences between Christianity and Judaism, and tried to prevent Christians from “warming up” to Judaism; they regarded Judaism as a “dangerous rival.” This attitude became the attitude of the state. Jews were forbidden to possess Christian slaves, then they were forbidden to possess any slaves. Jews were forbidden to convert pagans, or to inter-marry with Christians. Roth writes,

The unending series of massacres at Christian hands began early in the fifth century with an outbreak against the ancient community of Alexandria; and all over the Empire zealous clerics stirred up mobs to destroy the synagogues and drive those who worshipped in them into the arms of the Church. It was now that the great Jewish population which had flourished under Roman rule at the beginning of the Christian era was reduced to numerical insignificance.

When the barbarians overran the Roman Empire, and converted to Christianity, Jews were “left out in the cold.” But the barbarians were attracted to “the Arian form of Christianity with its more rigid monotheism, in sharp contrast to the Trinitarian doctrines of the so-called ‘Catholics.’” This helped the Jews in two ways: it made the barbarian rulers more sympathetic to Jews, since Jews were also monotheists, and it made Arians want to have the support of Jews in their struggle with Catholics. (Later Roth discusses another “alliance” between Jews and Christian heretics: the one between Jews and Albigenses.1)

The Arian heresy was stamped out in the 6th century AD, and the Catholic Church set forth its “Jewish policy.” This policy continued the policy of the later Roman Empire: “Active persecution was discouraged.... Forced baptism was deprecated.” Jews could practice their religion in their synagogues, but not build new synagogues, or improve old ones. Jews were banned from owning Christian slaves, and from exercising political power.

In practice, Church officials treated Jews more harshly. In France, “there was a succession of attacks headed by the local bishops,” and in 626 AD, Jews were expelled from France unless they adopted Christianity. At about the same time, the Byzantines “went so far as to prohibit completely the public exercise of Judaism.” A similar prohibition was enacted in Spain. Spanish Jews were pushed to adopt Christianity; “their children were seized and taken away to be brought up in orthodox Catholic households.” Some Spanish Jews pretended to be converted to Christianity, but “in the privacy of the home, Jewish customs and rites continued to be observed as far as possible.”

B. Jews in the Islamic World

Muhammad started Islam around 620 AD. Jews were already settled in the Arabian Peninsula. “Several oases and cities (including, at one time, Medina itself) were entirely in their hands.” Muhammad’s new religion was akin to Judaism, and was influenced by Judaism. Islam “was similar to Judaism in its insistence upon strict monotheism, in essential rites such as that of circumcision, in its dietary laws, in its reverence for the Holy City of Jerusalem.”

Since Jews wouldn’t accept his new religion, Muhammad turned against them. Roth writes,

The Jews of Medina were suddenly attacked, and driven into exile. Subsequently, one after another of the independent Jewish tribes was assaulted and in most cases expelled, exterminated, or forced to embrace Islam. Those who remained were permitted to do so only on the condition of paying their conqueror a tribute of one-half of all their produce.

Muhammad continued persecuting the Jews until his death in 632 AD. As the Islamic realm expanded, Islamic rulers adopted a more tolerant policy toward Jews and other infidels, lest their realm be depopulated. Jews were forced to wear special clothes, and pay a special tax; they were not allowed to carry weapons, or ride horses. But these rules weren’t always enforced. On the whole, the Islamic world was rather tolerant toward Jews, probably more tolerant than Christian Europe. Jews were “at least suffered to exist, and permitted the exercise of their religion.... The essential tolerance of Islam, in practice more than in theory, was to remain one of the important factors in Jewish history for many centuries to come.”2

S. D. Goitein discusses the Muslim traveler Ibn Battuta, who “made his way from Morocco to China and back.” Battuta seems to have financed his travels by business ventures and by working as a judge. He was trained in Islamic law — more specifically, Maliki law (Maliki law is one of the four legal systems within Sunni Islam; Shia Islam also has several legal systems). So as he traveled, he would encounter Maliki communities who needed someone trained in Maliki law to act as judge.

Legal systems didn’t operate in territories, they operated in religions (or sects). Jews would be judged by Jewish law, Muslims by Muslim law, etc. As Goitein says, “An individual was judged according to the law of his religious community, or even religious ‘school’ or sect, rather than that of the territory in which he happened to be.... The states as such did not possess any law.”3 This may have made the Islamic world more hospitable for Jews than Christian Europe, where the government was more involved in law, and Jews enjoyed less legal autonomy. It seems that both Judaism and Islam had legal codes, whereas Christianity was a different kind of religion.

One of the themes of Islamic history is that Muslims weren’t homogenous — some were Berbers, some were Kurds, some were Turks, some were Arabs, etc. The greatest Muslim soldier may have been Saladin, a Kurd. Muslims were divided ethnically, linguistically, and also religiously — Sunni vs. Shia, and different sects within the Sunni and Shia camps.

One might suppose that, when the Crusaders first appeared in the Levant around 1100 AD, Muslims would have risen as one in resistance. But given their internal divisions, it was difficult for Muslims to act as one. Goitein says, “the most competent Muslim ruler of that time.... welcomed the Crusaders as his natural allies against the [Seljuk Turks].”4

Goitein says that the Islamic world fell behind Europe in sea-power. He says that, beginning in 1250, Egypt and Syria were ruled by the Mamluks, a soldier caste “which had its roots in central Asia, in the Russian steppes and the Caucasus.” The Mamluks had limited maritime experience, and didn’t try to compete with European sea-power. The Mamluks “turned their backs to the Mediterranean.... They dismantled... the seaports and laid waste much of the coastal region in order to discourage attacks by European navies.”5 European naval supremacy enabled European nations to establish far-flung colonies, and become dominant in many parts of the world.

Goitein says that the Mamluk regime was characterized by “bigotry and fanaticism.”6 He uses similar language to describe the Berber regime and the SeljukTurk regime. If someone said, “Islamic civilization was advanced and cultured,” Goitein might say, “Which Islamic regimes are you talking about? Some were cultured, some weren’t.”

C. Jews in Mesopotamia

One of the centers of Jewish culture in this period was Mesopotamia. The Jewish community in Mesopotamia was led by the “Exilarch,” meaning “head of the exile”; the Hebrew equivalent of Exilarch was Rosh HaGola (from Golah meaning exiles). After the Arab conquest of Mesopotamia around 640 AD, the Exilarch retained his royal pomp, and his legal authority over the Jewish community. “When he went to visit the Caliph, we are told, the Exilarch was accompanied by an escort of horsemen, Moslems as well as Jews, and heralds proclaimed his approach through the streets.” The position of Exilarch was hereditary.

The Jewish academies of Sura and Pumbeditha were led by Geonim (singular Gaon). The Gaon wrote responsa to questions about Jewish law and lore, questions that he received from the far-flung Jewish diaspora. These responsa are the source of most of our knowledge about “the history and literature of this age.”

The Gaon sometimes quarreled with the Exilarch. Roth compares these quarrels to “the fierce struggle between a medieval ruler like Henry II and his Archbishop of Canterbury.”

A question arose within Judaism: Should we follow the law as set forth in the Old Testament? Or should we follow the law as interpreted by generations of rabbis? In earlier times, the Sadducees favored following the old law books, while the Pharisees favored listening to the teachings of the rabbis. Around 770 AD, a schism arose within Judaism, the Karaite schism. The Karaites were “Scripturalists,” they didn’t want the ancient scriptures to be interpreted/modified by rabbis, they believed in a “literal interpretation of the Scriptures.”

I’m reminded of those Protestant sects who claimed to follow the Bible alone, and reject the accretions of the Catholic Church. I’m also reminded of conservatives on the Supreme Court, who try to follow the Constitution, and call themselves originalists. Roth is reminded of movements within Islam; he speaks of “Islamic sects, who scanned intensively the text of the Koran and rejected accretions.” Within the Islamic world, the Wahhabi and Salafi movements emphasized following the Koran, returning to “the pristine message of the Prophet.”

Many Jews followed the new Karaite sect. It was especially popular, Roth says, “amongst the less learned Jews,” who could understand the Bible, but couldn’t follow the elaborate arguments of the rabbis.

The struggle against the Karaite sect, and in defense of Rabbinic Judaism, was led by Saadia, also known as Saadia Gaon, or Saadia ben Joseph (“ben Joseph” meaning “son of Joseph”). Roth says that Saadia was one of the outstanding Jewish scholars, “the great pioneer in almost every branch of Hebrew scholarship.”

According to Wikipedia, “Saadia is the first important rabbinic figure to write extensively in Judeo-Arabic.” Roth says that Saadia, or his assistants, translated the Bible “into the vernacular.... No longer was it possible to say that the Jews who followed the Talmud were ignorant of the Bible.”

The Karaite sect petered out, but a few Karaites (Roth says in 1948) are still around today. If the Karaite movement was like the Reformation, Saadia’s camp was like the Counter-Reformation, and this Counter-Reformation re-invigorated Judaism.

After Saadia, the Jewish community in Mesopotamia, with its illustrious scholarly tradition, gradually died out. Around 1300 AD, there was “a general attack upon the Jews by their neighbors, as a result of which the ancient communities were completely overwhelmed.”

D. Jews in Spain

In 715 AD, the Arabs completed their conquest of Spain, which had been controlled by the Visigoths. Now the Arabs, followers of Islam, controlled Mesopotamia, the eastern Mediterranean, North Africa, and Spain. Of all the Jews in the world, the majority “became Arabized. They adopted Arab names, spoke only Arabic among themselves, followed Muslim intellectual fashions and standards, used the vernacular for their literature and even, to some extent, for their liturgy, and considered Europe north of the Pyrenees as a stronghold of barbarism.”

A Jewish merchant or scholar could travel “from Baghdad to the foot of the Pyrenees without being hampered by any change of government, culture, or language.” Arab rulers were somewhat hospitable to Jews and other infidels; “in return for a lucrative poll-tax they were prepared to grant ample toleration to all unbelievers, of whatever creed.”

One of the centers of Jewish learning (and Muslim learning) was Kairouan, in what is now Tunisia; Kairouan was “in the neighborhood of the ancient city of Carthage.” Today Kairouan is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Beginning around 750 AD, the Arabs in Spain established “an autonomous Caliphate.” Arabs were a fraction of the Spanish population, so they had to be somewhat tactful in order to maintain their power. Most of the population was “Christian or Visigothic,” and was “perennially disaffected.” So the Jewish minority could help the Arabs to control the country.

Spanish Jews were useful as diplomats, since they often spoke several languages. Spanish Jews also worked as doctors and astronomers, and sometimes “wielded a vast influence” at the Caliph’s court. Roth mentions a Jewish doctor-diplomat, Hasdai (915-970), who knew Hebrew, Arabic, and Latin.

In the time of Hasdai, the Spanish Caliphate (known as the Caliphate of Córdoba) was shrinking. When the Arabs first conquered Spain in 715 AD, they controlled almost the entire Iberian Peninsula. By the year 1000, Christian kingdoms had emerged in northern Spain, and were encroaching on the Caliphate. Below is a map of Spain around 1000 AD.

Two hundred years later, the Caliphate had shrunk further, as the map below shows.

Hasdai sometimes combined medicine and diplomacy, as when he treated the Christian King of Leon for an ailment, then brought him back to Córdoba for a visit. In 956, Hasdai met with Abbot John, the ambassador of the Holy Roman Emperor; Abbot John “frankly confessed that he had never encountered an equal intellect in his travels.”

Hasdai was a scientist and scholar, as well as a doctor and diplomat. When an ambassador from Byzantium visited Córdoba, he brought a book on botany by the ancient writer Dioscorides; the book was written in Greek. “A monk was found who read off passage after passage in an extemporized Latin version, which [Hasdai] turned into polished Arabic. It was through this polyglot channel that the work of the great Greek scientist became available to the medical schools of Moslem Spain, and ultimately to medieval Europe as a whole.”

Botany and medicine were closely related; plants were used for their medicinal qualities. Below is an Arabic version of Dioscorides.

When Hasdai met with a foreign dignitary, he always asked how Jews were faring in his country, and if they were faring poorly, Hasdai tried to help. “He used his influence to ameliorate the condition of the Jews in the south of France, and made representations at the court of Constantinople to avert a persecution which seemed imminent in the Byzantine Empire.” Roth compares Hasdai to those 19th-century Jews in Europe who used their influence to help Jews in Muslim countries.

Since the Arabs had conquered Spain in 715 AD, there had been divisions within their own forces. The Arabs themselves were small in numbers, and filled their ranks with Berbers from North Africa. The Arabs sent many Berbers to northern Spain, where they revolted against their Arab overlords; some Berbers even converted to Christianity, or allied themselves with Christians.

Around 1010 AD, the Berbers took the Arab capital, Córdoba, and the Caliphate was broken into separate kingdoms. Roth says that the Berbers had “sympathetic feelings towards the Jews,” and Jews generally flourished in the independent kingdoms that succeeded the Caliphate. One of the leading Jews of this period was Samuel ibn Naghrillah, who was born around 1000 AD. Samuel became the Prime Minister of Granada, and he assisted scholars throughout the Jewish world. Granada was then Muslim-controlled, it didn’t fall into Christian hands until 1492.

Samuel’s son, Joseph, succeeded his father as Prime Minister, and flaunted his power and wealth. In 1066, “a mob of Berber soldiers attacked his palace.” Joseph was killed, then Granada’s Jewish Quarter was attacked. Finally the Jews were expelled from Granada — a harbinger of what was in store for all Spanish Jews.

With the Muslim kingdoms under pressure from Christian kingdoms, they sought help from North Africa. Berber tribes from North Africa “poured into” Spain, and joined the Arabs. In 1086, the Muslim and Christian armies prepared for battle; “on both sides, Jewish levies figured in considerable number.” Since the Muslim holy day was Friday, the Jewish holy day Saturday, and the Christian Sunday, it was proposed (according to legend) that the battle be scheduled for Monday.

The Christians were defeated, and a new Berber dynasty, the Almoravids, united Muslim Spain; the Almoravid Dynasty lasted until about 1150. Roth says that the Almoravids were “fanatical,” with “a tendency to the primitive sternness and simplicity of Islam.” At first, Jews didn’t flourish under the Almoravids, but when the Almoravids were softened by power and wealth, Jews flourished once again.

Then the pattern was repeated: again Spanish Muslims were hard pressed by Christians, again they turned to North Africa for help, again a fanatical, puritanical sect was invited to Spain. This sect started their own dynasty, the Almohad Dynasty, which lasted until about 1250. The Almohads treated Jews harshly — forcing them to convert to Islam, destroying synagogues, etc. Some Jews took refuge in the Christian kingdoms of northern Spain.

2. Robert Louis Stevenson

I read a short memoir of Stevenson by his friend Edmund Gosse. Gosse was a critic, a translator, and a general man-of-letters. Gosse knew many of the literary people of his time — Stevenson, Hardy, Henry James, etc.

Gosse and Stevenson became friends when they were both about 26. Gosse writes, “That impression of ineffable mental charm was formed at the first moment of acquaintance, and it never lessened or became modified. Stevenson’s rapidity in the sympathetic interchange of ideas was, doubtless, the source of it.”

Gosse speaks of, “the gaiety of Stevenson. It was his cardinal quality in those early days. A childlike mirth leaped and danced in him; he seemed to skip upon the hills of life. He was simply bubbling with quips and jests.... He was often, in the old days, excessively and delightfully silly — silly with the silliness of an inspired schoolboy.”

Stevenson had the boyish, immature personality that is often found in genius. He also had the weak ego of genius, prompting people to “push him around,” or “roll over him,” or cheat him. Gosse writes,

In those early days he suffered many indignities on account of his extreme youthfulness of appearance and absence of self-assertion. He was at Inverness — being five or six and twenty at the time — and had taken a room in a hotel. Coming back about dinner-time, he asked the hour of table d’hôte, whereupon the landlady said, in a motherly way: “Oh, I knew you wouldn’t like to sit in there among the grown-up people, so I’ve had a place put for you in the bar.”

The male genius often becomes involved with an older woman. Stevenson married an American woman, Fanny Osbourne, who was ten years older than he was. Fanny had some literary ability, had published in magazines, and collaborated with Stevenson on a volume of stories.

According to one writer, Fanny was “the original ‘pistol-packing mama,’ known as ‘the wild woman’ or ‘her Majesty’ by the couple’s friends, some of whom despised her.” But Henry James, who visited Stevenson and Fanny daily when they lived at Bournemouth, felt that there was a rough beauty in Fanny’s personality: “If you like the gulch and the canyon, you will like her.” Stevenson himself said that Fanny gave him “honor, anger, valor, fire.”


The Stevenson Ménage in Samoa
left to right: Lloyd Osbourne (Fanny’s son by her first husband), RLS’s mother (standing), Isobel Stuart Strong (Fanny’s daughter by her first husband, looking to her right), RLS (seated above), Austin Strong (son of Isobel Stuart Strong, seated below), Fanny Osbourne Stevenson, Joseph Dwight Strong (standing far right)


Pearl Harbor, by Joseph Dwight Strong

Stevenson was fascinated by crime, violence, war, and military strategy. On one of Stevenson’s visits to London, Gosse says, Stevenson was “coursing a fresh literary hare, and set [his friends] busily hunting out facts about Jean Cavalier, the romantic eighteenth-century adventurer, whose life he fancied that he would write.” Jean Cavalier was a Huguenot leader, who rebelled against the French government. His rebellion was based in “the rugged and isolated Cévennes region.” Stevenson had a particular interest in this region, and wrote a book called Travels with a Donkey in the Cévennes.

Stevenson’s biography of Jean Cavalier was never completed. Stevenson wrote a story about the French poet-criminal, François Villon. The story is called “A Lodging for the Night,” and can be found in a volume called New Arabian Nights. The story contains graphic violence, as Stevenson’s writings often do. When I wrote about Stevenson’s “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” I said, “Surely one reason why the story made such an impression was its graphic violence — violence that had no cause, violence motivated by pure evil, satanic evil.”

Gosse recalls a dinner with Stevenson in 1886. Gosse speaks of,

the startling interest in the art of strategy which [Stevenson] had developed — an interest which delayed the meal with arrangements of serried bottles counterscarped and lines of cruets drawn up on horseback ready to charge. So infectious was his enthusiasm that we forgot our hunger, and hung over the embattled table-cloth, easily persuaded to agree with him that neither poetry nor the plastic arts could compete for a moment with “the finished conduct, sir, of a large body of men in face of the enemy.”

Gosse saw Stevenson for the last time in 1887, when Stevenson was in London, preparing to cross the Atlantic. It was Sunday, and Stevenson’s hotel was empty, all the employees having gone to church.

This set Louis off on a splendid dream of romance [Gosse writes]. “This,” he said, “is the way in which our valuable city hotels — packed, doubtless, with rich objects of jewelry — are deserted on a Sunday morning. Some bold piratical fellow, defying the spirit of Sabbatarianism, might make a handsome revenue by sacking the derelict hotels between the hours of ten and twelve. One hotel a week would suffice to enable such a man to retire into private life within the space of a year. A mask might, perhaps, be worn for the mere fancy of the thing, and to terrify kitchen-maids, but no real disguise would be needful to an enterprise that would require nothing but a brave heart and a careful study of the City Postal Directory.” He spoke of the matter with so much fire and gallantry that I blushed for the youth of England and its lack of manly enterprise. No one ever could describe preposterous conduct with such a convincing air as Louis could. Common sense was positively humbled in his presence.

Like D. H. Lawrence, Stevenson was always on the move, traveled widely, and spent considerable time in the U.S. The Stevenson Cottage at Saranac Lake is open to the public; there’s a Stevenson Museum in St. Helena, California, and another in Samoa. The RLS Website is a useful resource.

As he wandered the globe, Stevenson avoided acquiring “stuff.”

He was careful, as I have hardly known any other man to be, not to allow himself to be burdened by the weight of material things. It was quite a jest with us that he never acquired any possessions. In the midst of those who produced books, pictures, prints, bric-à-brac, none of these things ever stuck to Stevenson....

Stevenson’s friends, one after another, [were tied down by] a house, a fixed employment, a “stake in life;” he alone kept dancing in the free element, unattached. I remember his saying to me that if ever he had a garden he should like it to be empty, just a space to walk and talk in, with no flowers to need a gardener nor fine lawns that had to be mown. Just a fragment of the bare world to move in, that was all Stevenson asked for. And we who gathered possessions around us — a little library of rare books, a little gallery of drawings or bronzes — he mocked us with his goblin laughter; it was only so much more luggage to carry on the march, he said, so much more to strain the arms and bend the back.

Click here for my earlier remarks on Stevenson. Among the early biographies of Stevenson are those by his step-son, Lloyd Osbourne, and his cousin, Graham Balfour.

Stevenson wrote whenever his poor health permitted. He was never stuck on self-admiration or self-criticism.

He was never satisfied with himself, yet never cast down. There are two dangers that beset the artist — the one is being pleased with what he has done, and the other being dejected with it. Stevenson, more than any other man whom I have known, steered the middle course. He never conceived that he had achieved a great success, but he never lost hope that by taking pains he might yet do so.

Gosse is “hard put” to recall any fault in Stevenson.

What courage, what love, what an indomitable spirit, what a melting pity! He had none of the sordid errors of the little man who writes — no sick ambition, no envy of others, no exaggeration of the value of this ephemeral trick of scribbling. He was eager to help his fellows, ready to take a second place, with great difficulty offended, by the least show of repentance perfectly appeased.

Gosse concludes by calling Stevenson “the most exquisite English writer of his generation; yet those who lived close to him are apt to think less of this than of the fact that he was the most unselfish and the most lovable of human beings.”

* * * * *

Stevenson’s most explicitly philosophical work may be his essay “Pulvis et Umbra” (dust and shadow). The phrase comes from Horace’s pulvis et umbra sumus (we are dust and shadow). Not surprisingly, this essay was written in the latter part of Stevenson’s career — 1888, six years before he died at age 44. This essay ponders the meaning of human life, and the nature of man. It’s quite short, and it often rises (as many of Stevenson’s works do) to striking eloquence. Stevenson was proud of it, saying

I wrote it with great feeling and conviction: to me it seemed bracing and healthful, it is in such a world... that I am very glad to fight out my battle, and see some fine sunsets.... It is true, and I find it touching and beneficial, to me at least; and I think there is some fine writing in it, some very apt and pregnant phrases. “Pulvis et Umbra” I call it; I might have called it a Darwinian Sermon.7

Stevenson writes thus of Darwinism:

A new doctrine, received with screams a little while ago by canting moralists, and still not properly worked into the body of our thoughts, lights us a step farther into the heart of this rough but noble universe. For nowadays the pride of man denies in vain his kinship with the original dust. He stands no longer like a thing apart.

Stevenson has little use for moralizing, and little use for religion. He tries to find some understanding, some justification, for life, without recourse to the fictions of morality and religion. He speaks disdainfully of conventional morality, citing the old argument that morality isn’t universal: “The canting moralist tells us of right and wrong; and we look abroad, even on the face of our small earth, and find them change with every climate, and no country where some action is not honored for a virtue and none where it is not branded for a vice.” This was one of Nietzsche’s favorite arguments against morality; this argument was also made in ancient Greece by sophists like Gorgias. (Nietzsche and Stevenson were almost exact contemporaries, but they probably weren’t aware of each other. They take a similar attitude toward life. Great minds think alike, especially if they’re contemporaries.)

Stevenson goes deeper than conventional morality and religion, and like Nietzsche, Stevenson is rather upbeat. “Truth is of a rougher strain [than religions and moralities]. In the harsh face of life, faith can read a bracing gospel. The human race is a thing more ancient than the ten commandments; and the bones and revolutions of the Kosmos... more ancient still.”

The theme of Stevenson’s “Pulvis et Umbra” is contained in its first sentence: “We look for some reward of our endeavors and are disappointed; not success, not happiness, not even peace of conscience, crowns our ineffectual efforts to do well.” The striking thing about man, in Stevenson’s view, is that he continually tries, though he doesn’t obtain much result. This is consistent with Freud’s view (my view) that all organisms have a life-instinct that drives them on. Freud paired the life-instinct with a death-instinct, but the death-instinct is rarely visible, so we shouldn’t blame Stevenson for overlooking it.

We make a constant effort “to do well,” but this isn’t a moral effort, it’s an instinctive effort, hence we should call it a life-instinct, not a moral law. Our effort “to do well” isn’t unique to man, it’s shared with all creatures. The dog, Stevenson says, has the same “unattainable ideal, the same constancy in failure.” Even the humble ant keeps trying:

In his ordered polities and rigorous justice, we see confessed the law of duty and the fact of individual sin. Does it stop, then, with the ant? Rather this desire of well-doing and this doom of frailty run through all the grades of life.... The whole creation groaneth and travaileth together.... The browsers, the biters, the barkers, the hairy coats of field and forest, the squirrel in the oak, the thousand-footed creeper in the dust, as they share with us the gift of life, share with us the love of an ideal: strive like us — like us are tempted to grow weary of the struggle — to do well.

“But wasn’t Stevenson aware of evil? Wasn’t he aware that people don’t always try ‘to do well’?” Stevenson is aware of evil: “I shall be reminded what a tragedy of misconception and misconduct man at large presents: of organized injustice, cowardly violence and treacherous crime; and of the damning imperfections of the best. They cannot be too darkly drawn.” Nonetheless, he thinks the general tendency is a striving to accomplish something positive.

Man seems to have evil impulses that other organisms don’t have. Does Stevenson underrate these evil impulses? Did the Victorian era, of which he was a part, underrate them?

If his view of man is slightly too optimistic, his view of the universe seems to be too pessimistic. He says that the teachings of science are “appalling. There seems no substance to this solid globe on which we stamp.... Science carries us into zones of speculation, where there is no habitable city for the mind of man.” In my view, science isn’t “appalling.” If matter isn’t solid, that gives greater scope for will/intention. Quantum physics depicts a “habitable” world, a world where will counts. If Stevenson could be upbeat despite his grim view of the universe, it’s far easier for us to be upbeat, since we don’t view the universe as “appalling.”

Stevenson is content to say that Darwin showed our kinship with all organic life, perhaps even our kinship with the whole universe. Stevenson doesn’t criticize Darwin for emphasizing chance, and de-emphasizing will/intention; Stevenson doesn’t get involved in the Darwin-Lamarck debate. Indirectly, however, Stevenson may be bolstering Lamarck, insofar as Stevenson emphasizes will and effort, Stevenson doesn’t mention chance.

* * * * *

As I was thinking about Stevenson’s essay, it struck me that Carlyle had made a similar argument, Carlyle had preached a “religion of work,” Carlyle had said that man deserves respect because of his effort, though the result may be meager. Carlyle’s teaching probably influenced Stevenson.

Carlyle wrote, “Admirable was that [saying] of the old Monks, ‘Laborare est Orare, Work is Worship.’”8 Don’t focus on the fruits of work, focus on the work itself. Carlyle decries the “greedy grasping of wages, swift and ever swifter manufacture of semblances to get hold of wages.” Carlyle admires “wageless effort.” He says that a poet, for example, should focus on poetry, not the result of poetry; the poet fails if he has “looked merely to reviewers, copyrights, booksellers, popularities.”

One problem with the world today, Carlyle says, is that people focus on the results, the wages: “With all which, alas, this distracted Earth is now full, nigh to bursting. Semblances most smooth to the touch and eye; most accursed nevertheless to body and soul.”

When Carlyle speaks of work, he uses religious language, not biological language. Nonetheless, his argument reminds me of Freud’s argument for a life-instinct. Carlyle writes, “Labour is Life: from the inmost heart of the Worker rises his god-given Force, the sacred celestial Life-essence breathed into him by Almighty God.” Carlyle’s phrase “inmost heart” is close to what I would call the unconscious; his term “Force” is close to what I call instinct; his term “Life-essence” is close to what I call life-instinct.

3. Miscellaneous

A. They Shall Not Grow Old is a 2018 documentary about World War I. It consists of comments by men who were in the war (on the English side), combined with videos of actual soldiers, actual combat; some of these videos have been “colorized.” The documentary has high ratings; I recommend it; it makes the war come alive.

B. Can’t afford a long life? Worried that you might outlive your savings? Consider investing in a tontine. “Tontines enable subscribers to share the risk of living a long life.... Each subscriber pays a sum into a trust and thereafter receives a periodical payout. As members die, their payout entitlements devolve to the other participants, and so the value of each continuing payout increases. On the death of the final member, the trust scheme is usually wound up.”

C. When George Orwell was a student at Eton, he was friends with Steven Runciman, who later became an eminent medievalist. “A senior boy, Phillip Yorke, had attracted the disfavor of both Blair and Runciman so they planned a revenge. They fashioned an image of Yorke from candle wax and broke off a leg. To their horror, shortly afterwards, Yorke not only broke his leg but... died of leukemia. The story of what happened soon spread and [Orwell] and Runciman suddenly found themselves regarded as distinctly odd, and to be treated warily.”9

4. Politics

Nancy Pelosi recently said that she wanted undocumented immigrants to become documented, strengthening the argument I made earlier that Democrats are intentionally importing foreigners in order to win elections.

“But in the last six months, fewer illegals are entering the country. And it was Republicans who blocked a bill to reform immigration.” Both parties play politics with the border, but voters know which party is sincere about securing the border; voters know which party wants to deport illegals, and which party wants to turn illegals into voters.

Deporting illegals isn’t a radical idea, it was “standard procedure” for many years; even Democratic administrations, like the Obama administration, deported illegals on a large scale. But deporting seems radical now because the Democratic party has moved sharply to the Left. Importing illegals has become a key Democratic strategy; naturally Democrats don’t want to deport the people whom they intentionally imported.

I’ve talked to intelligent Americans who follow politics closely, and they don’t realize that the Democratic party is importing voters. It might be the most significant policy of our lifetime, yet many Americans don’t realize it’s happening; it’s such a Machiavellian scheme, such an audacious scheme, that it’s difficult to fathom. Importing voters is completely contrary to the spirit of democracy, to the spirit of the Constitution, to the intentions of the Founders.

Democrats are destroying the American political system with their hyper-partisan scheme. How will Republicans respond? Will they allow Democrats to bulldoze Republicans, and bulldoze democracy, by importing voters? Will Republicans devise a scheme of their own, similarly audacious, similarly Machiavellian? When Democrats smashed the filibuster for lower-court judges, Republicans were able to come up with a suitable response: they eliminated the filibuster for SupremeCourt justices, and confirmed three conservative justices.

Kamala Harris is proposing to build 3 million houses, to alleviate the housing shortage. If you import 10-15 million illegals, then build 3 million houses, you aren’t going to alleviate the housing crisis. It’s unlikely that Harris can really build 3 million houses, even if she’s President for eight years. Meanwhile, the number of Biden-Harris illegals will climb to 20-30 million, and the housing shortage will be significantly worse.

People often say, “Without immigrants, who’s going to pick lettuce? Who’s going to do the jobs that native-born Americans aren’t willing to do?” Many immigrants mow lawns, drive Ubers, build roofs — in other words, many immigrants do jobs that native-born Americans are willing to do, so immigrants often take jobs from native-born Americans. This is one reason why the Democratic policy of importing voters is broadly unpopular.

“You didn’t answer my question. Who’s going to pick lettuce?” We already have millions of illegals in the country, and millions of recent-immigrants, we don’t need more illegals. And if we decide, after careful consideration, that we need more unskilled labor (highly unlikely), then we should invite unskilled workers to enter the country in an organized way, we shouldn’t allow them to crash the border.

We certainly don’t need un-vetted immigrants. All immigrants should be vetted, in order to filter out criminals, spies, drug-dealers, etc. The most important question facing American voters in 2024 is, Should people enter the country after vetting, or without vetting? Should we invite immigrants who have the skills we need, or should we allow the most desperate foreigners to pour across our borders? Should immigration be planned and organized, or chaotic and helter-skelter?

The quality of democratic government may ultimately reflect the quality of voters. Are voters intelligent, educated, public-spirited? Do they want what’s best for the country as a whole? By importing the riff-raff of the world, Democrats are undermining American democracy. These new voters will have no connection to the norms, traditions, and history of the country. They’ll vote for the more demagogic candidate, they’ll sell their votes to the highest bidder. Democrats are confident they can win the “demagogue competition,” they can win the “vote auction,” they can win the race to the bottom.

First the quality of voters declines, then the quality of leaders declines, then the nation declines.

In 1994, Bill Clinton appointed the Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan to chair a commission on immigration. The Jordan Commission concluded that it was “a right and responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest.” The Commission recommended tight restrictions on “unskilled immigration.” Currently Democrats are allowing an influx of unskilled immigrants, not to promote the national interest or help the economy, but solely for political reasons.

If a wealthy person in The Hamptons thinks he needs immigrants to mow his lawn, he’s going to have a rude shock when these immigrants vote to confiscate his wealth. Harris is already proposing to tax unrealized capital gains. Confiscation is coming, if Democrats have their way.

The two favorite policies of demagogues have always been wealth-confiscation and debt-cancellation. The Democrats have already attempted debt-cancellation on a massive scale. Can wealth-confiscation be far behind?

In Nantucket, illegals are committing vicious crimes, such as child rape. How many rapes will be committed by illegals! These illegals have been intentionally brought into the country by the Democratic Party, which would have us believe that they’re the defenders of women!

Some illegals take over unoccupied houses. When a Harris supporter travels to his house in The Hamptons or Nantucket, and finds it occupied by armed illegals, perhaps he’ll start to understand why people like me support Trump, though we realize, as clearly as he does, that Trump is a bad person and a bad leader. Trump is terrible, but the Democrats are much worse.

Links to videos:

© L. James Hammond 2024
feedback
visit Phlit home page
become a patron via Patreon
make a donation via PayPal

Footnotes
1. See Ch. 19, p. 211. Roth writes, “The tenets of [Albigensianism], with its dualistic ideas and its conception of the Old Testament as being inspired by the Evil Spirit, were as a matter of fact more essentially opposed to Judaism than any orthodox form of Christianity could possibly be. But its adherents were tolerant, and the Jews of Languedoc not only flourished, but in some cases rose to positions of trust under their auspices.” back
2. S. D. Goitein writes, “Unlike later medieval Europe, where murderously discriminative economic restrictions confined the Jews to a few unproductive occupations, in the world reflected in the Geniza [i.e., in the Islamic world], we find them in practically all arts and crafts, including agriculture.”(A Mediterranean Society, Vol. 1, Ch. 1, #4, p. 72)

Goitein says that Jews had to pay a yearly poll tax, but Christians had to pay the same tax, so it wasn’t anti-Jewish, it was anti-non-Muslim.

Goitein says that the Arabs expanded across North Africa because they wanted quick profits, particularly gold and slaves.(Vol. 1, Ch. 1, #1, p. 30) back

3. A Mediterranean Society, Vol. 1, Ch. 1, #3, p. 66. What if a legal matter involved people of different faiths? For example, what if a Muslim was accused of robbing a Jew? Would the matter be tried in a Muslim court or a Jewish court? back
4. S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, Vol. 1, Ch. 1, #1, p. 35 back
5. S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, Vol. 1, Ch. 1, #1, p. 38 back
6. S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, Vol. 1, Ch. 1, #1, p. 38 back
7. For the sources of this quote, click here and here. back
8. Past and Present. The older Tolstoy developed a kind of religion, and one element in his religion was dedicating yourself to your work, regardless of the results. Was Tolstoy influenced by Carlyle?

James Allen, who may have been the father of self-help literature, urged people to have a goal and work steadily toward it. Allen may have been influenced by Tolstoy’s “religion of work.” Allen wrote, “Those who are not prepared for the apprehension of a great purpose should fix their thoughts upon the faultless performance of their duty, no matter how insignificant their task may appear. Only in this way can the thoughts be gathered and focused.”

The religion of work isn’t a 19th-century invention, it has ancient roots. In our discussion of Hinduism, I quoted the following passage:

“Karma yogis will try to do each thing as it comes as if it were the only thing to be done and, having done it, turn to the next duty in similar spirit. Concentrating fully and calmly on each duty as it presents itself, they will resist impatience, excitement, and the vain attempt to do or think of half a dozen things at once.... Once they have [tried their best], they will dissociate themselves from the act and let the chips fall where they may.

One to me is loss or gain,
One to me is fame or shame,
One to me is pleasure, pain. (Bhagavad-Gita, XII)

In one of the famous passages of the Gita, Krishna urges Arjuna, who is hesitating before a battle, to do his duty, regardless of the consequences. “To action alone hast thou a right and never at all to its fruits; let not the fruits of action be thy motive.” back

9. Wikipedia back