OF IDOLATRY
BY VOLTAIRE
After having read all that has been written upon
idolatry, there is nothing that communicates a
precise idea of it. It seems that Locke was the
first who taught men to define the words they
used, and not to speak at random.
The term that answers to idolatry is not to be
found in any ancient language; it is an expression
of the Greeks of the last ages, which was never
in use before the second century of our era. It
signifies the adoration of images. It is a term
of reproach -- an expression of abuse. No people
ever took upon themselves the title of idolaters
-- no government ever ordained that the people
should adore an image as the supreme God of
nature.
The ancient Chaldeans, the ancient Arabians, the
ancient Persians, had, for a long time, neither
images nor temples. How could those who venerated
the emblems of divinity in the sun, the stars,
and fire, be called idolaters? They revered what
they saw. But revering the sun and the stars is
surely not adoring a graven image, made by a
workman. It is, undoubtedly, an erroneous
doctrine, but it is not idolatry.
Suppose that the Egyptians really adored the
dog Anubis, and the bull Apis -- that they were
ignorant enough to consider them not as animals
consecrated to the divinity, and as an emblem
of the good which their Isheth and their Isis
did unto man, but that they really believed
that a celestial ray had animated the consecrated
ox and dog, still it is evident that this belief
was not adoring a statue. A beast is not a idol.
Men had, no doubt, objects of devotion before they
had sculptors; and it is clear that those men who
were so ancient, could not be called idolaters. It
remains then to ascertain if those who afterwards
placed statues in the temples, and who ordained the
reverence of those statues, were called "worshipers
of images," and their people, also, " worshipers
of images." This certainly is not to be found in
any monument of antiquity.
But without taking upon themselves the title of
idolaters, were they really so in fact? Was it
ordained that they should believe that the brazen
statue, which represented the fantastical figures
of Bel and Babylon, was the master, the God, the
creator of the world? Was the figure of Jupiter,
Jupiter himself? Is it not, (if it be allowable
to compare the customs of our holy religion with
the customs of antiquity) like saying that we
adore the figure of the eternal Father with a
long beard, the figure of a woman and a child, the
figure of a dove? these forming the emblematical
ornaments in our temples. We adore them so little,
that if these images happen to be of wood, and
begin to decay, we use them for firewood, and
erect others in their places. They are merely
significant emblems appealing to the eyes and
the imagination. The Turks, and those of the
reformed church, think that the Catholics are
idolaters, but the Catholics loudly protest
against the accusation.
It is impossible really to adore a statue, or
to believe that any statue can be the supreme
God. There was but one Jupiter, but there are
a thousand statues of him. Now, this Jupiter,
who was supposed to dart his lightning, was
thought to inhabit the clouds, or Mount Olympus,
or the planet which bears his name. His emblems
did not dart lightning, and were neither in a
planet, in the clouds, nor upon Mount Olympus.
All prayers were dedicated to the immortal Gods,
and, assuredly, the statues were not immortal.
Knaves and impostors have asserted, and the
superstitious have believed that statues have
spoken. The ignorant are almost invariably
credulous; but these absurdities were never,
amongst any people, the religion of the state.
Some credulous old woman may not have distinguished
the statue from the god; but this is no reason
for maintaining that the government thought
like this old woman. The magistrates were
willing that the representation of the gods
they adored should be revered, and that the
attention of the people should be fixed by
these visible signs. If the ancients were
idolaters for having statues in their temples,
one half of Christendom are also idolaters;
and, if the latter were not so, neither were
the nations of antiquity.
In a word, there is not in all antiquity a
single poet, a single philosopher, a single
man of any rank, who has said that stone,
marble, brass, or wood should be adored; but
there are innumerable testimonies to the
contrary. Idolatrous nations are then like
sorcerers; they are frequently spoken of, but
they never existed.
A commentator has concluded that the statue
of Priapus was really adored, because Horace,
in making this bug-bear speak, causes it to
say -- " I was formerly the trunk of a tree;
the artisan undetermined whether he should make
a god, or a joint-stool of me, finally resolved
to make me a god," &c. This commentator cites
the prophet Baruch, to prove that in the time
of Horace, the statue of Priapus was worshiped
as a real divinity. He does not perceive that
Horace is making a jest, both of the pretended
god and his statue. It may be possible that,
one of the servant-maids, in seeing this enormous
figure, might conceive there was something
divine in it; but it will not, assuredly, be
pretended, that all those wooden figures of
Priapus, with which the gardens were filled
for the purpose of driving away the birds,
were regarded as the Creators of the world!
It is said that Moses, notwithstanding the
divine law which forbade the making of images
of men or animals, erected a brazen serpent,
which was an imitation of the silver serpent
carried by the Egyptian priests in procession;
but though this serpent was made to cure the
bites of real serpents, it was not, however,
adored. Solomon placed two cherubims in the
temple, but these cherubims were not looked
upon as gods. If, then, in the temple of the
Jews, and in our temples, statues have been
respected without idolatry, why should other
nations be so greatly reproached? We should
either absolve them, or they should accuse us.
|
