Bertrand Russell investigates Early Christianity

 Bertrand Russell on Early Christianity

“The Christian religion, as it was handed over by the late Roman Empire to the barbarians, consisted of three elements: first, certain philosophical beliefs, derived mainly from Plato and the Neoplatonists, but also in part from the Stoics; second, a conception of morals and history derived from the Jews; and third, certain theories, more especially as to salvation, which were on the whole new in Christianity, though in part traceable to Orphism*, and to kindred cults of the Near East.

The most important Jewish elements in Christianity appear to me to be the following:

• I. A sacred history, beginning with the creation, leading to a consummation in the future, and justifying the ways of God to man.

• II. The existence of a small section of mankind whom God specially loves. For Jews, this section was the Chosen People; for

Christians, the elect.

• III. A new conception of ‘righteousness’. The virtue of almsgiving, for example, was taken over by Christianity from later Judaism. The importance attached to baptism might be derived from Orphism or from oriental pagan mystery religions, but practical philanthropy, as an element in the Christian conception of virtue, seems to have come from the Jews.

• IV. The Law. Christians kept part of the Hebrew Law, for instance the decalogue, while they rejected its ceremonial and ritual parts. But in practice they attached to the Creed much the same feelings that the Jews attached to the Law. This involved the doctrine that correct belief is at least as important as virtuous action, a doctrine which is essentially Hellenic. What is Jewish in origin is the exclusiveness of the elect.

• V. The Messiah. The Jews believed that the Messiah would bring them temporal prosperity, and victory over their enemies here on earth; moreover, he remained in the future. For Christians, the Messiah was the historical Jesus, who was also identified with the Logos of Greek philosophy; and it was not on earth, but in heaven, that the Messiah was to enable his followers to triumph over their enemies.

• VI. The Kingdom of Heaven. Other-worldliness is a conception which Jews and Christians, in a sense, share with later Platonism, but it takes, with them, a much more concrete form than with Greek philosophers. The Greek doctrine — which is to be found in much Christian philosophy, but not in popular Christianity — was that the sensible world, in space and time, is an illusion, and that, by intellectual and moral discipline, a man can learn to live in the eternal world, which alone is real. The Jewish and Christian doctrine, on the other hand, conceived the Other World as not metaphysically different from this world, but as in the future, when the virtuous would enjoy everlasting bliss and the wicked would suffer everlasting torment. This belief embodied revenge psychology, and was intelligible to all and sundry, as the doctrines of Greek philosophers were not.

To understand the origin of these beliefs, we must take account of certain facts in Jewish history, to which we will now turn our attention ...“

— Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), Book Two. Catholic Philosophy, Part. I. The Fathers, Ch. I: The Religious Development of the Jews, pp. 307-09

Learn Russian!

 Start to learn the Russian alphabet with the help of Tolkien! 

I'm sure that everyone will be able to transliterate the first two lines of this book cover! But notice how several Russian letters bear a misleading resemblance to ours (which are taken from the Roman alphabet) but are pronounced quite differently. (The Russian letter, not included here, that looks like a backward R is actually pronunced "ya"). Note that the Russian language has no "J" sound, so two letters are used here to give a rough equivalent, which is pronounced "D-ZH". Neither is there an "H" sound: the letter looking like an X is pronounced something like the Scottish word "loCH". Also note the odd fact that the simple word "the" has no equivalent in Russian. It was also absent in Latin.

  This book cover was the work of Denis Gordeev (more correctly, Gordeyev), a  very good Russian fantasy artist little known in the West. If you enter his name into Google, you'll discover a huge selection of his work, illustrating Tolkien and many other writers. 

Postscript: Overheard on the streets of Moscow some years ago, from two British tourists in search of somewhere to eat: "There's what we want: one of those pecktopah places!" No prizes are offered for using the picture above to help in transliterating the Russian PECTOPAH!

 

Politics: Court versus Country

The oldest and most fundamental political division can be called “Court vs. Country”. It was first used by Sir Lewis Namier in his investigations of British politics in the 18th century, but can be applied to almost all modern political and social structures.

The Court = Those who are more or less permanently in power. Their opponents sometimes dub them "the King's Friends", because of their alleged servile and self-seeking support for whoever happens to be the present leader. 

The Country = Those who are, or see themselves as being, permanently excluded from power, and whose interests are being ignored. Often, they are people with local power and influence, who resent interference by central government. But, at the same time, they often have no intention of actually taking responsibility at the centre: they prefer to grumble.  

The fundamental ideology of the Court is that government must be carried on to protect against lawlessness, and without proper leadership there will be chaos. There is often a snobbish contempt for the Country

The Country tends to harbour a set of discontented attitudes: that government is corrupt, that its leaders are entirely self-seeking and that there is far too much interference in ordinary people’s lives: taking their hard-earned money and undermining theirfreedom with new and unwelcome innovations. Govenrment should get off our backs!

The Politicians are a separate group, defined by Namier as those who are sometimes in power, sometimes not. When out of power, they ally themselves with the Country in order to stir up trouble, wih the aim of either getting themselves recruited to the Court, or of replacing the current Court entirely. When in power, the Politicians often abandon their Country slogans and start to behave like a new Court, to the bitter disillusion of their erstwhile Country supporters! A genuinely "Country" government is so are as to be almost a contradiction in terms.

  The English Parliament, from the earliest times, provided a meeting-place for Court and Country. But, unless the Court maintained a majority there, trouble was likely to follow, as shown most spectacularly in the troubles of Charles I!

The Court vs. Country theme can be detected almost everywhere. In the 18th century, both the campaign for American independence began as typical "country" movements, though they soon developed into something different.

In the early days of Nazi Germany, the rank and file stormtroopers were increasingly restive about ahving gained nothing from Hitler's rise to power, and Soviet Russia in the early 1920s witnessed the grumbling of the "workers' opposition" and the armed rising. of the Kronstadt sailors. All these "Country" revolts had to be violently crushed before full dictatorship could be established 

 In Britain, the prpoganda of both the Brexit campaign and Boris Johnson's appeal in 2019 were strongly "Country", successfully appealing to "the people" against the "ruling liberal elite". Donald Trump's appeal to the voters is entirely "Country", constantly attacking a mysterious and unnamed "elite" who are conspiring firstly to destroy him and then to bring the entire nation to ruin by destroying the people's liberty. 

  To my mind, Trump, with his lack of any cultural pretensions and his love of Macdonald's hamburgers, is a far more convincing "man of the people" than the highly educated, would-be academic Johnson. 

 . 

Annunciation

 March 25th is the Feast of the Annunciation, when the Archangel Gabriel appeared to the Virgin Mary. It was a very popular subject for artists, and these illustrations from the Book of Hours of Anne Boleyn show how mediaeval illumination techniques continued in England well nto Tudor times.

England: Old St. Chad's; Shrewsbury

 This church fell down at the end of the 18th century, leaving only a small side-chapel standing.

 Repairs to the fabric of this are currently under way, and this week I was able to persuade the workmen to let me in for a brief look round. Here are some phographs I was able to take. The font is ancient and very simple, and the heraldic hatchments are particularly fine, though some are ruined beyond repair.

Many  of these hatchments feature a raven, or crow, which was the coat of arms of the Corbet family, who were powerful in north Shropshire. Since the name for this bird in old English or Scots was a "corbie", this is an example of a "canting" coat of arms, which make a pun on the family's name.

Fortunately, the finest work at old St Chad's was removed in 1788, before the building collapsed, and installed at the nearby church of St. Mary the Virgin. This is the great mid-14th century Jesse window.

The architect George Stewart was commissioned to build a replacement church (see an earlier post)

Spring in Clive churchyard

 

Spring in Clive churchyard

Lord Staines fights a duel

(This is an episode from my online historical novel, "The memoirs of Charles Huntingdon", set in Britain in the 1760s. The complete novel can be found by following the link to the right, through "view my complete profile"

    One day that spring I was seated at a table in Brown’s club when Staines entered in a state of great agitation. He brandished a paper at me, and asked me whether I had read it. He was in such a fury I had never seen in him before, so that his hands shook as I took it from him.

   I found that it contained a scandalous attack on him, or rather on a certain L**d S*****s, who was further described as “the catamite of L**d G****e S*******e”, “the coward of Minden”. Although the names were disguised in this manner, anyone who was acquainted with public affairs could have no doubt as to whom was meant. I remembered what Lord Staines had told me, at our very first meeting, about the unfortunate events at Minden, in consequence of which Lord George Sackville had been publicly disgraced and Staines had resigned his commission. So much had befallen me since that it all seemed a very long time ago.

    I asked if he knew who had written it. He told me that it was anonymous, but he was certain that the author was Mr John Wilkes, whose name he pronounced with great anger. “He libels anyone who dares attack Pitt, and he knows I am for a swift conclusion to the war. Scoundrel!” he added.

  I knew Wilkes as the silent Member of Parliament for Aylesbury, though everyone had heard rumours that he frequented a notorious assembly known as the Hellfire Club.

   I told Lord Staines that such low degraded stuff was beneath his attention, and best ignored; and that I was sure that his father would have given the same advice. But he told me that he had approached Wilkes, demanding an apology for this insult to his honour; and, not having received a satisfactory reply, he had issued a challenge to a duel. Staines requested me to be his second. I was reluctant to accede to this, but nothing I could say deterred him.

   Accordingly, soon after sunrise a few days later we took a coach out to Putney Heath. It was a bright morning, but cold. Dew lay heavy on the grass, and glittered on cobwebs on the bushes. There was no-one in sight except our opponent and his second, and another man I did not know. I was told his name was Doctor Blake, who was there in the event of any serious injury.

   It was my first sight of Mr Wilkes, who was shortly to become a most celebrated person; loved by some but hated by others. He was well dressed and slender of build, but his face was disfigured by the most violent squint, which caused his eyes to point in clean different directions. I wondered how, with this handicap, he could ever aim a pistol with any accuracy. He talked merrily, and appeared entirely unperturbed by the peril of his situation. His second was a large, burly fellow; and I was astonished to discover that under his cloak he wore a clergyman’s gown. I was informed that this was the Reverend Charles Churchill, the popular poet. Hogarth once depicted him as a bear, clutching a foaming pot of beer and an immense club, which I thought very apt.

   Doctor Blake then asked whether the two gentlemen were determined to proceed with the duel. Lord Staines replied, with no little heat, that his honour had been most grossly traduced, and that nothing but the most profuse and abject apology would satisfy him. He kept muttering violent epithets under his breath, whereas Mr Wilkes appeared to make light of the whole matter. He said that Lord Staines had produced no evidence that he, Wilkes, was the author of the offending article, but having read it, his opinion was that it contained more than a grain of truth; and, furthermore, since Lord Staines had seen fit publicly to dub him a liar and a scoundrel, he was the one entitled to an apology. These words angered Lord Staines even more, which was undoubtedly Wilkes’s intention.  

   A case was produced and opened, containing a brace of very fine silver-mounted pistols. Churchill and I checked that they were properly loaded. I attempted to hold my hands steady: it was the first time I had ever witnessed a duel and I was alarmed; for if someone was killed, might I be held to be an accessory to murder?  

   Lord Staines and Mr Wilkes walked twelve paces apart, then turned and presented their pistols. Lord Staines fired first, and grazed his opponent’s coat, but did no further harm. Mr Wilkes then raised his pistol and aimed it steadily at Staines’s breast, for what seemed like an age. Staines looked pale in the face, but did not flinch. Suddenly Wilkes laughed, lowered his pistol and deliberately fired at the ground, so that his bullet skipped across the earth some distance from Lord Staines’s feet. He then advanced towards his opponent with his hand extended.

   “Sir,” he said, “You have shown yourself to be a gentleman of courage, as befits an officer of the crown. I regret that you might feel I have offended you, and would be honoured if I might now be considered your friend.” 

   Staines, however, was by no means reconciled. He said this was no kind of apology, refused to take Wilkes’s proffered hand and ordered the pistols to be reloaded for a second firing. Mr Churchill now announced that, in his decided opinion, sufficient satisfaction had been given and that the business had been ended with perfect honour to both parties. I agreed with this, and so did Doctor Blake; but Lord Staines, ignoring Wilkes, departed forthwith, without giving me a glance. While I admired my friend’s courage, I could only be disappointed by his surly conduct afterwards.

   Doctor Blake did not stay long, but I remained at the tavern with Wilkes and Churchill for the remainder of the morning. Wilkes, aware of how alarmed I had been, told me that it was rare for duels these days to lead to any bloodshed. I asked him how the challenge to the duel had come about. He told me:

   “Lord Staines burst into my room in an agony of passion, brandishing the paper and demanding to know whether or not I was the author. I said that I was a free and independent English gentleman and that I refused to be catechised in this fashion. He then produced a brace of pistols and demanded immediate satisfaction. Finally, he calmed to the extent of agreeing to postpone the duel until three days later, with the result that you know.”

   He recounted how he had recently fought a duel with Lord Talbot, who, like Staines, had felt that he had been insulted.

   “We met at Bagshot. We both fired, but happily there was no shedding of blood, for neither took effect. I walked up immediately to Lord Talbot and said that I regretted that I had offended him. His lordship paid me the highest compliments on my courage, said he would declare everywhere that I was a noble fellow, and desired that we should now be good friends and retire to the inn to drink a bottle of claret together, which we did with great good humour. That is how duels should end. It is a pity that your young friend could not show the same magnanimous spirit.”

  I found Mr Wilkes the most engaging of companions. For his part, on discovering that I was new to political life, he suggested that I might enjoy reading a certain weekly paper known as the “North Briton”. I promised to look for it, and we shook hands and parted.

 

                                           (John Wilkes, by Hogarth)