Mormonism by G K Chesterton from Uses of Diversity 1921
THERE is inevitably something comic (comic in the broad and vulgar style which all men ought to appreciate in its place) about the panic aroused by the presence of the Mormons and their supposed polygamous campaign in this country.
It calls up the absurd image of an enormous omnibus, packed inside with captive English ladies, with an Elder on the box, controlling his horses with the same patriarchal gravity as his wives, and another Elder as conductor callling out “Higher up,” with an exaulted and allegorical intonation. And there is something highly fantastic to the ordinary healthy mind in the idea of any precaution being proposed; in the idea of locking the Duchess in the boudoir and the governess in the nursery, lest they should make a dash for Utah, and become the ninety-third Mrs. Abraham Nye, or the hundredth Mrs. Hiram Boke.
But these frankly vulgar jokes, like most vulgar jokes, cover a popular prejudice which is but the bristly hide of a living principle. Elder Ward, recently speaking at Nottingham, strongly protested against these rumours, and asserted absolutely that polygamy had never been practised with the consent of the Mormon Church since 1890. I think it only just that this disclaimer should be circulated; but though it is most probably sincere, I do not find it very soothing. The year 1890 is not very long ago, and a society that could have practised so recently a custom so alien to Christendom must surely have a moral attitude which might be repellent to use in many other respects. Moreover, the phrase about the consent of the Church (if correctly reported) has a little the air of an official repudiating responsibility for unofficial excesses. It sounds almost as if Mr. Abraham Nye might, on his own account, come into church with a hundred and fourteen wives, but people were supposed not to notice them. It might amount to little more than this, that the Chief Elder may allow the hundred and fourteen wives to walk down the streeet like a girls’ school, but he is not officially expected to take off his hat to each of them in turn. Seriously speaking, however, I have little doubt that Elder Ward speaks the substantial truth, and that polygamy is dying, or has died, among the Mormons. My reason for thinking this is simple; it is that polygamy always tends to die out. Even in the east I believe that, counting heads, it is by this time the exception rather than the rule. Like slavery, it is always being started, because of its obvious conveniences. It has only one small inconvenience, which is that it is intolerable.
Our real error in such a case is that we do not know or care about the creed itself, from which a people’s customs, good or bad, will necessarily flow. We talk much about “respecting” this or that person’s religion; but the way to respect a religion is to treat it as a religion: to ask what are its tenets and what are their consequences. But modern tolerance is deafer than intolerance. The old religious authorities, at least, defined a heresy before they condemned it, and read a book before they burned it. But we are always saying to a Mormon or a Moslem—“Never mind about your religion, come to my arms.” To which he naturally replies—“But I do mind about my religion, and I advise you to mind your eye.”
About half the history now taught in schools and colleges is made windy and barren by this narrow notion of leaving out the theological theories. The wars and Parliaments of the Puritans made absolutley no sense if we leave out the fact that Calvinism appeared to them to be the absolute metaphysical truth, unanswerable, unreplaceable, and the only thing worth having in the world. The Crusades and dynastic quarrels of the Norman and Angevin Kings make absolutely no sense if we leave out the fact that these men (with all their vices) were enthusiastic for the doctrine, discipline, and endowment of Catholicism. Yet I have read a history of the Puritans by a modern Nonconformist in which the name of Calvin was not even mentioned, which is like writing a history of the Jews without mentioning either Abraham or Moses. And I have never read any popular or educational history of England that gave the slightest hint of the motives in the human mind that covered England with abbeys and Palestine with banners. Historians seem to have completely forgotten the two facts— first, that men act from ideas; and second, that it might, therefore, be as well to discover which ideas. The medievals did not believe primarily in “chivalry,” but in Catholicism, as producing chivalry among other things. The Puritans did not believe primarily in “righteousness,” but in Calvinism, as producing righteousness among other things. It was the creed that held the coarse or cunning men of the world at both epochs. William the Conqueror was in some ways a cynical and brutal soldier, but he did attach importance to the fact that the Church upheld his enterprise; that Harold had sworn falsely on the bones of saints, and that the banner above his own lances had been blessed by the Pope. Cromwell was in some ways a cynical and brutal soldier; but he did attach importance to the fact that he had gained assurance from on high in the Calvinistic scheme; that the Bible seemed to support him— in short, the most important moment in his own life, for him, was not when Charles I lost his head, but when Oliver Cromwell did not lose his soul. If you leave these things out of the story, you are leaving out the story itself. If William Rufus was only a red-haired man who liked hunting, why did he force Anselm’s head under a mitre, instead of forcing his head under a headsman’s axe? If John Bunyan only cared for “righteousness,” why was he in terror of being damned, when he knew he was rationally righteous? We shall never make anything of moral and religious movements in history until we begin to look at their theory as well as their practice. For their practice (as in the case of the Mormons) is often so unfamiliar and frantic that it is quite unintelligible without their theory.
I have not the space, even if I had the knowledge, to describe the fundamental theories of Mormonism about the universe. But they are extraordinarily interesting; and a proper understanding of them would certainly enable us to see daylight through the more perplexing or menacing customs of this community; and therefore to judge how far polygamy was in their scheme a permanent and self-renewing principle or (as is quite probably) a personal and unscrupulous accident. The basic Mormon belief is one that comes out of the morning of the earth, from the most primitive and even infantile attitude. Their chief dogma is that God is material, not that He was materialized once, as all Christians believe; nor that He is materialized specially, as all Catholics believe; but that He was materially embodied from all time; that He has a local habitation as well as a name. Under the influence of this barbaric but violently vivid conception, these people crossed a great desert with their guns and oxen, patiently, persistently, and courageously, as if they were following a vast and visible giant who was striding across the plains. In other words this strange sect, by soaking itself solely in the Hebrew Scriptures, had really managed to reproduce the atmosphere of those Scriptures as they are felt by Hebrews rather than by Christians. A number of dull, earnest, ignorant, black-coated men with chimney-pot hats, chin bears or mutton-chop whiskers, managed to reproduce in their own souls the richness and the peril of an ancient Oriental experience. If we think from this end we may possibly guess how it was that they added polygamy.
Mormonism by G K Chesterton from Uses of Diversity 1921
THERE is inevitably something comic (comic in the broad and vulgar style which all men ought to appreciate in its place) about the panic aroused by the presence of the Mormons and their supposed polygamous campaign in this country.
It calls up the absurd image of an enormous omnibus, packed inside with captive English ladies, with an Elder on the box, controlling his horses with the same patriarchal gravity as his wives, and another Elder as conductor callling out “Higher up,” with an exaulted and allegorical intonation. And there is something highly fantastic to the ordinary healthy mind in the idea of any precaution being proposed; in the idea of locking the Duchess in the boudoir and the governess in the nursery, lest they should make a dash for Utah, and become the ninety-third Mrs. Abraham Nye, or the hundredth Mrs. Hiram Boke.
But these frankly vulgar jokes, like most vulgar jokes, cover a popular prejudice which is but the bristly hide of a living principle. Elder Ward, recently speaking at Nottingham, strongly protested against these rumours, and asserted absolutely that polygamy had never been practised with the consent of the Mormon Church since 1890. I think it only just that this disclaimer should be circulated; but though it is most probably sincere, I do not find it very soothing. The year 1890 is not very long ago, and a society that could have practised so recently a custom so alien to Christendom must surely have a moral attitude which might be repellent to use in many other respects. Moreover, the phrase about the consent of the Church (if correctly reported) has a little the air of an official repudiating responsibility for unofficial excesses. It sounds almost as if Mr. Abraham Nye might, on his own account, come into church with a hundred and fourteen wives, but people were supposed not to notice them. It might amount to little more than this, that the Chief Elder may allow the hundred and fourteen wives to walk down the streeet like a girls’ school, but he is not officially expected to take off his hat to each of them in turn. Seriously speaking, however, I have little doubt that Elder Ward speaks the substantial truth, and that polygamy is dying, or has died, among the Mormons. My reason for thinking this is simple; it is that polygamy always tends to die out. Even in the east I believe that, counting heads, it is by this time the exception rather than the rule. Like slavery, it is always being started, because of its obvious conveniences. It has only one small inconvenience, which is that it is intolerable.
Our real error in such a case is that we do not know or care about the creed itself, from which a people’s customs, good or bad, will necessarily flow. We talk much about “respecting” this or that person’s religion; but the way to respect a religion is to treat it as a religion: to ask what are its tenets and what are their consequences. But modern tolerance is deafer than intolerance. The old religious authorities, at least, defined a heresy before they condemned it, and read a book before they burned it. But we are always saying to a Mormon or a Moslem—“Never mind about your religion, come to my arms.” To which he naturally replies—“But I do mind about my religion, and I advise you to mind your eye.”
Mormonismo di G K Chesterton da Uses of Diversity 1921
VI È inevitabilmente qualcosa di comico (comico nello stile largo e volgare che tutti gli uomini dovrebbero saper apprezzare al posto giusto) nel panico suscitato dalla presenza dei Mormoni e dalla loro supposta campagna poligama in questo paese.
Evoca l’immagine assurda di un enorme omnibus, stipato all’interno di dame inglesi prigioniere, con un Anziano a cassetta, che governa i suoi cavalli con la stessa gravità patriarcale delle sue mogli, e un altro Anziano come bigliettaio che grida “Più in alto,” con un’intonazione esaltata e allegorica. E c’è qualcosa di altamente fantastico, per la comune mente sana, nell’idea che si proponga una qualche precauzione; nell’idea di chiudere a chiave la Duchessa nel boudoir e la governante nella stanza dei bambini, per timore che facciano una fuga verso lo Utah, e diventino la novantatreesima signora Abraham Nye, o la centesima signora Hiram Boke.
Ma queste barzellette francamente volgari, come la maggior parte delle barzellette volgari, celano un pregiudizio popolare che non è se non la pelle irsuta di un principio vivente. L’Anziano Ward, parlando di recente a Nottingham, protestò con forza contro queste dicerie, e affermò in modo assoluto che la poligamia non era mai stata praticata con il consenso della Chiesa Mormone dal 1890. Credo sia giusto che questa smentita venga fatta circolare; ma per quanto sia molto probabilmente sincera, non la trovo molto rassicurante. L’anno 1890 non è poi così lontano, e una società che poteva aver praticato così di recente un costume tanto estraneo alla Cristianità deve sicuramente avere un atteggiamento morale che potrebbe ripugnarci sotto molti altri riguardi. Inoltre, la frase sul consenso della Chiesa (se riportata correttamente) ha un po’ l’aria di un funzionario che ripudia la responsabilità per eccessi non ufficiali. Suona quasi come se il signor Abraham Nye potesse, per conto suo, entrare in chiesa con centoquattordici mogli, ma la gente dovesse fingere di non notarle. Potrebbe non valere molto più di questo, che l’Anziano Capo può permettere alle centoquattordici mogli di scendere per la strada come un collegio di ragazze, ma non ci si aspetta ufficialmente che si tolga il cappello davanti a ciascuna a turno. Parlando seriamente, tuttavia, ho pochi dubbi che l’Anziano Ward dica la sostanziale verità, e che la poligamia stia morendo, o sia morta, tra i Mormoni. La mia ragione per pensarlo è semplice; è che la poligamia sempre tende a estinguersi. Persino in Oriente credo che, contando le teste, sia ormai a questo punto l’eccezione piuttosto che la regola. Come la schiavitù, viene sempre reintrodotta, per le sue ovvie convenienze. Ha un solo piccolo inconveniente, che è quello di essere intollerabile.
Il nostro vero errore in un caso simile è che non conosciamo né ci curiamo del credo stesso, da cui necessariamente scaturiscono i costumi di un popolo, buoni o cattivi. Parliamo molto di “rispettare” la religione di questa o quella persona; ma il modo di rispettare una religione è trattarla come una religione: chiederci quali siano i suoi dogmi e quali le loro conseguenze. Ma la tolleranza moderna è più sorda dell’intolleranza. Le antiche autorità religiose, almeno, definivano un’eresia prima di condannarla, e leggevano un libro prima di bruciarlo. Ma noi diciamo sempre a un Mormone o a un Musulmano: “Non badare alla tua religione, vieni tra le mie braccia.” Al che egli naturalmente risponde: “Ma io bado eccome alla mia religione, e ti consiglio di badare all’occhio tuo.”
About half the history now taught in schools and colleges is made windy and barren by this narrow notion of leaving out the theological theories. The wars and Parliaments of the Puritans made absolutley no sense if we leave out the fact that Calvinism appeared to them to be the absolute metaphysical truth, unanswerable, unreplaceable, and the only thing worth having in the world. The Crusades and dynastic quarrels of the Norman and Angevin Kings make absolutely no sense if we leave out the fact that these men (with all their vices) were enthusiastic for the doctrine, discipline, and endowment of Catholicism. Yet I have read a history of the Puritans by a modern Nonconformist in which the name of Calvin was not even mentioned, which is like writing a history of the Jews without mentioning either Abraham or Moses. And I have never read any popular or educational history of England that gave the slightest hint of the motives in the human mind that covered England with abbeys and Palestine with banners. Historians seem to have completely forgotten the two facts— first, that men act from ideas; and second, that it might, therefore, be as well to discover which ideas. The medievals did not believe primarily in “chivalry,” but in Catholicism, as producing chivalry among other things. The Puritans did not believe primarily in “righteousness,” but in Calvinism, as producing righteousness among other things. It was the creed that held the coarse or cunning men of the world at both epochs. William the Conqueror was in some ways a cynical and brutal soldier, but he did attach importance to the fact that the Church upheld his enterprise; that Harold had sworn falsely on the bones of saints, and that the banner above his own lances had been blessed by the Pope. Cromwell was in some ways a cynical and brutal soldier; but he did attach importance to the fact that he had gained assurance from on high in the Calvinistic scheme; that the Bible seemed to support him— in short, the most important moment in his own life, for him, was not when Charles I lost his head, but when Oliver Cromwell did not lose his soul. If you leave these things out of the story, you are leaving out the story itself. If William Rufus was only a red-haired man who liked hunting, why did he force Anselm’s head under a mitre, instead of forcing his head under a headsman’s axe? If John Bunyan only cared for “righteousness,” why was he in terror of being damned, when he knew he was rationally righteous? We shall never make anything of moral and religious movements in history until we begin to look at their theory as well as their practice. For their practice (as in the case of the Mormons) is often so unfamiliar and frantic that it is quite unintelligible without their theory.
I have not the space, even if I had the knowledge, to describe the fundamental theories of Mormonism about the universe. But they are extraordinarily interesting; and a proper understanding of them would certainly enable us to see daylight through the more perplexing or menacing customs of this community; and therefore to judge how far polygamy was in their scheme a permanent and self-renewing principle or (as is quite probably) a personal and unscrupulous accident. The basic Mormon belief is one that comes out of the morning of the earth, from the most primitive and even infantile attitude. Their chief dogma is that God is material, not that He was materialized once, as all Christians believe; nor that He is materialized specially, as all Catholics believe; but that He was materially embodied from all time; that He has a local habitation as well as a name. Under the influence of this barbaric but violently vivid conception, these people crossed a great desert with their guns and oxen, patiently, persistently, and courageously, as if they were following a vast and visible giant who was striding across the plains. In other words this strange sect, by soaking itself solely in the Hebrew Scriptures, had really managed to reproduce the atmosphere of those Scriptures as they are felt by Hebrews rather than by Christians. A number of dull, earnest, ignorant, black-coated men with chimney-pot hats, chin bears or mutton-chop whiskers, managed to reproduce in their own souls the richness and the peril of an ancient Oriental experience. If we think from this end we may possibly guess how it was that they added polygamy.
Circa metà della storia ora insegnata nelle scuole e nei collegi è resa vuota e sterile da questa angusta idea di tralasciare le teorie teologiche. Le guerre e i Parlamenti dei Puritani non hanno assolutamente alcun senso se tralasciamo il fatto che il calvinismo appariva loro la verità metafisica assoluta, inconfutabile, insostituibile, e l’unica cosa degna di essere posseduta al mondo. Le Crociate e le contese dinastiche dei Re normanni e angioini non hanno assolutamente alcun senso se tralasciamo il fatto che quegli uomini (con tutti i loro vizi) erano entusiasti della dottrina, della disciplina e delle dotazioni del cattolicesimo. Eppure ho letto una storia dei Puritani scritta da un moderno Nonconformista in cui il nome di Calvino non era neppure menzionato, il che è come scrivere una storia degli Ebrei senza menzionare né Abramo né Mosè. E non ho mai letto alcuna storia popolare o scolastica dell’Inghilterra che desse il minimo accenno dei moventi nella mente umana che coprirono l’Inghilterra di abbazie e la Palestina di vessilli. Gli storici sembrano aver del tutto dimenticato i due fatti: primo, che gli uomini agiscono in base alle idee; e secondo, che potrebbe, dunque, essere bene scoprire quali idee. I medievali non credevano in primo luogo nella “cavalleria,” ma nel cattolicesimo, in quanto produttore, tra le altre cose, della cavalleria. I Puritani non credevano in primo luogo nella “rettitudine,” ma nel calvinismo, in quanto produttore, tra le altre cose, della rettitudine. Era il credo a tenere in pugno gli uomini rozzi o astuti del mondo in entrambe le epoche. Guglielmo il Conquistatore era per certi versi un soldato cinico e brutale, ma dava importanza al fatto che la Chiesa sostenesse la sua impresa; che Aroldo avesse giurato falsamente sulle ossa dei santi, e che il vessillo sopra le sue stesse lance fosse stato benedetto dal Papa. Cromwell era per certi versi un soldato cinico e brutale; ma dava importanza al fatto di aver ottenuto certezza dall’alto nello schema calvinista; che la Bibbia parve sostenerlo: in breve, il momento più importante della sua stessa vita, per lui, non fu quando Carlo I perse la testa, ma quando Oliver Cromwell non perse la sua anima. Se togliete queste cose dal racconto, state togliendo il racconto stesso. Se Guglielmo il Rosso era soltanto un uomo dai capelli rossi cui piaceva la caccia, perché costrinse il capo di Anselmo sotto una mitra, invece di costringerne il capo sotto la scure del boia? Se John Bunyan si curava soltanto della “rettitudine,” perché era in terrore di essere dannato, quando sapeva di essere razionalmente retto? Non caveremo mai nulla dai movimenti morali e religiosi nella storia finché non cominceremo a guardare alla loro teoria oltre che alla loro pratica. Poiché la loro pratica (come nel caso dei Mormoni) è spesso così inconsueta e frenetica da risultare del tutto inintelligibile senza la loro teoria.
Non ho lo spazio, e nemmeno se ne avessi la conoscenza, per descrivere le teorie fondamentali del Mormonismo sull’universo. Ma esse sono straordinariamente interessanti; e una loro adeguata comprensione ci permetterebbe certo di veder chiaro attraverso i più sconcertanti o minacciosi costumi di questa comunità; e quindi di giudicare fino a che punto la poligamia fosse nel loro schema un principio permanente e auto-rinnovante o (come è assai probabile) un accidente personale e senza scrupoli. La credenza mormone di base è una di quelle che vengono dal mattino della terra, dall’atteggiamento più primitivo e persino infantile. Il loro principale dogma è che Dio è materiale, non che Egli sia stato materializzato una volta, come credono tutti i cristiani; né che sia materializzato in modo speciale, come credono tutti i cattolici; ma che sia stato materialmente incarnato da tutto il tempo; che abbia una dimora locale oltre a un nome. Sotto l’influenza di questa concezione barbarica ma violentemente vivida, queste persone attraversarono un grande deserto con i loro fucili e buoi, pazientemente, ostinatamente e coraggiosamente, come se seguissero un vasto e visibile gigante che avanzava a grandi passi per le pianure. In altre parole questa strana setta, immergendosi unicamente nelle Scritture Ebraiche, era davvero riuscita a riprodurre l’atmosfera di quelle Scritture come sono sentite dagli Ebrei piuttosto che dai Cristiani. Un certo numero di uomini ottusi, seri, ignoranti, in nera finanziera con cappelli a cilindro, barbe al mento o basette a costoletta, riuscirono a riprodurre nelle proprie anime la ricchezza e il pericolo di un’antica esperienza orientale. Se pensiamo da questo capo possiamo forse indovinare come mai essi vi aggiunsero la poligamia.