Demonology and Devil-lore Part 37

As usual, when the phrases, born of real struggles, had lost their meaning, they were handed up to the theologians to be made into perpetual dogmas. Out of an immeasurable ma.s.s of theories and speculations, we may regard the following pa.s.sage from Jerome as showing what had become the prevailing belief at the beginning of the fifth century. 'Let us say that which all ecclesiastical writers have handed down, viz., that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there will be ten kings, who will divide the Roman world among them; and there will arise an eleventh little king who will subdue three of the ten kings, that is, the king of Egypt, of Africa, and of Ethiopia; and on these having been slain, the seven other kings will submit.' 'And behold,' he says, 'in the ram were the eyes of a man'--this is that we may not suppose him to be a devil or a daemon, as some have thought, but a man in whom Satan will dwell utterly and bodily--'and a mouth speaking great things;'

for he is the 'man of sin, the son of perdition, who sitteth in the temple of G.o.d making himself as G.o.d.' [140]

The 'Little Horn' of Daniel has proved a cornucopia of Antichrists. Not only the christians but the Jews and the mussulmans have definite beliefs on the subject. The rabbinical name for Antichrist is Armillus, a word found in the Targum (Isa. xi. 4): 'By the word of his mouth the wicked Armillus shall die.' There will be twelve signs of the Messiah's coming--appearance of three apostate kings, terrible heat of the sun, dew of blood, healing dew, the sun darkened for thirty days, universal power of Rome with affliction for Jews, and the appearance of the first Messias (Joseph's tribe), Nehemiah. The next and seventh sign will be the appearance of Armillus, born of a marble statue in a church at Rome. The Romans will accept him as their G.o.d, and the whole world be subject to him. Nehemiah alone will refuse to worship him, and for this will be slain, and the Jews suffer terrible things. The eighth sign will be the appearance of the angel Michael with three blasts of his trumpet--which shall call forth Elias, the forerunner, and the true Messias (Ben David), and bring on the war with Armillus who shall perish, and all christians with him. The ten tribes shall be gathered into Paradise. Messias shall wed the fairest daughter of their race, and when he dies his sons shall succeed him, and reign in unbroken line over a beatified Israel.

The mussulman modification of the notion of Antichrist is very remarkable. They call him Al Dajjail, that is, the impostor. They say that Mohammed told his follower Tamisri Al-Dari, that at the end of the world Antichrist would enter Jerusalem seated on an a.s.s; but that Jesus will then make his second coming to encounter him. The Beast of the Apocalypse will aid Antichrist, but Jesus will be joined by Imam Mahadi, who has never died; together they will subdue Antichrist, and thereafter the mussulmans and christians will for ever be united in one religion. The Jews, however, will regard Antichrist as their expected Messias. Antichrist will be blind of one eye, and deaf of one ear. 'Unbeliever' will be written on his forehead. In that day the sun will rise in the west. [141]

The christians poorly requited this amicable theory of the mussulmans by very extensively identifying Mohammed as Antichrist, at one period. From that period came the English word mawmet (idol), and mummery (idolatry), both of which, probably, are derived from the name of the Arabian Prophet. Daniel's 'Little Horn' betokens, according to Martin Luther, Mohammed. 'But what are the Little Horn's Eyes? The Little Horn's Eyes,' says he, 'mean Mohammed's Alkoran, or Law, wherewith he ruleth. In the which Law there is nought but sheer human reason (eitel menschliche Vernunft).' ... 'For his Law,'

he reiterates, 'teaches nothing but that which human understanding and reason may well like.' ... Wherefore 'Christ will come upon him with fire and brimstone.' When he wrote this--in his 'army sermon' against the Turks--in 1529, he had never seen a Koran. 'Brother Richard's'

(Predigerordens) Confutatio Alcoran, dated 1300, formed the exclusive basis of his argument. But in Lent of 1540, he relates, a Latin translation, though a very unsatisfactory one, fell into his hands, and once more he returned to Brother Richard, and did his Refutation into German, supplementing his version with brief but racy notes. This Brother Richard had, according to his own account, gone in quest of knowledge to 'Babylon, that beautiful city of the Saracens,' and at Babylon he had learnt Arabic and been inured in the evil ways of the Saracens. When he had safely returned to his native land he set about combating the same. And this is his exordium:--'At the time of the Emperor Heraclius there arose a man, yea, a Devil, and a first-born child of Satan, ... who wallowed in ... and he was dealing in the Black Art, and his name it was Machumet.' ... This work Luther made known to his countrymen by translating and commenting, prefacing, and rounding it off by an epilogue. True, his notes amount to little more but an occasional 'Oh fie, for shame, you horrid Devil, you d.a.m.ned Mahomet,'

or 'O Satan, Satan, you shall pay for that,' or, 'That's it, Devils, Saracens, Turks, it's all the same,' or, 'Here the Devil smells a rat,'

or briefly, 'O Pfui Dich, Teufel!' except when he modestly, with a query, suggests whether those a.s.sa.s.sins, who, according to his text, are regularly educated to go out into the world in order to kill and slay all Worldly Powers, may not, perchance, be the Gypsies or the 'Tattern' (Tartars); or when he breaks down with a 'Hic nescio quid dicat translator.' His epilogue, however, is devoted to a special disquisition as to whether Mohammed or the Pope be worse. And in the twenty-second chapter of this disquisition he has arrived at the final conclusion that, after all, the Pope is worse, and that he, and not Mohammed, is the real 'Endechrist.' 'Wohlen,' he winds up, 'G.o.d grant us his grace, and punish both the Pope and Mohammed, together with their devils. I have done my part as a true prophet and teacher. Those who won't listen may leave it alone.' In similar strains speaks the learned and gentle Melancthon. In an introductory epistle to a reprint of that same Latin Koran which displeased Luther so much, he finds fault with Mohammed, or rather, to use his own words, he thinks that 'Mohammed is inspired by Satan,' because he 'does not explain what sin is,' and further, since he 'showeth not the reason of human misery.' He agrees with Luther about the Little Horn: though in another treatise he is rather inclined to see in Mohammed both Gog and Magog. And 'Mohammed's sect,' he says, 'is altogether made up (conflata) of blasphemy, robbery, and shameful l.u.s.ts.' Nor does it matter in the least what the Koran is all about. 'Even if there were anything less scurrilous in the book, it need not concern us any more than the portents of the Egyptians, who invoked snakes and cats.... Were it not that partly this Mohammedan pest, and partly the Pope's idolatry, have long been leading us straight to wreck and ruin--may G.o.d have mercy upon some of us!' [142]

'Mawmet' was used by Wicliffe for idol in his translation of the New Testament, Acts vii. 41, 'And they made a calf in those days and offered a sacrifice to the Mawmet' (idol). The word, though otherwise derived by some, is probably a corruption of Mohammed. In the 'Mappa Mundi' of the thirteenth century we find the representation of the golden calf in the promontory of Sinai, with the superscription 'Mahum'

for Mohammed, whose name under various corruptions, such as Mahound, Mawmet, &c., became a general byword in the mediaeval languages for an idol. In a missionary hymn of Wesley's Mohammed is apostrophised as--

That Arab thief, as Satan bold, Who quite destroyed Thy Asian fold;

and the Almighty is adjured to--

The Unitarian fiend expel, And chase his doctrine back to h.e.l.l.

In these days, when the very mention of the Devil raises a smile, we can hardly realise the solemnity with which his work was once viewed. When Goethe represents Mephistopheles as undertaking to teach Faust's cla.s.s in theology and dwells on his orthodoxy, it is the refrain of the faith of many generations. The Devil was not 'G.o.d's Ape,' as Tertullian called him, in any comical way; not only was his ceremonial believed to be modelled on that of G.o.d, but his inspiration of his followers was believed to be quite as potent and earnest. Tertullian was constrained to write in this strain--'Blush, my Roman fellow-soldiers, even if ye are not to be judged by Christ, but by any soldier of Mithras, who when he is undergoing initiation in the cave, the very camp of the Powers of Darkness, when the wreath is offered him (a sword being placed between as if in semblance of martyrdom), and then about to be set on his head, he is warned to put forth his hand and push the wreath away, transferring it to, perchance, his shoulder, saying at the same time, My only crown is Mithras. And thenceforth he never wears a wreath; and this is a mark he has for a test, whenever tried as to his initiation, for he is immediately proved to be a soldier of Mithras if he throws down the wreath offered him, saying his crown is in his G.o.d. Let us therefore acknowledge the craft of the Devil, who mimics certain things of those that be divine, in order that he may confound and judge us by the faith of his own followers.'

This was written before the exaltation of Christianity under Constantine. When the age of the martyrdom of the so-called pagans came on, these formulae became real, and the christians were still more confounded by finding that the worshippers of the Devil, as they thought them, could yield up their lives in many parts of Europe as bravely for their faith as any christian had ever done. The 'Prince of this world' became thus an unmeaning phrase except for the heretics. Christ had become the Prince of this world; and he was opposed by religious devotees as earnest as any who had suffered under Nero. The relation of the Opposition to the Devil was yet more closely defined when it claimed the christian name for its schism or heresy, and when it carried its loyalty to the Adversary of the Church to the extent of suffering martyrdom. 'Tell me, holy father,' said Evervinus to St. Bernard, concerning the Albigenses, 'how is this? They entered to the stake and bore the torment of the fire not only with patience, but with joy and gladness. I wish your explanation, how these members of the Devil could persist in their heresy with a courage and constancy scarcely to be found in the most religious of the faith of Christ?'

Under these circ.u.mstances the personification of Antichrist had a natural but still wonderful development. He was to be born of a virgin, in Babylon, to be educated at Bethsaida and Chorazin, and to make a triumphal entry into Jerusalem, proclaiming himself the Son of G.o.d. In the interview at Messina (1202) between Richard I. and the Abbot Joachim of Floris, the king said, 'I thought that Antichrist would be born at Antioch or in Babylon, and of the tribe of Dan, and would reign in the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem, and would walk in that land in which Christ walked, and would reign in it for three years and a half, and would dispute against Elijah and Enoch, and would kill them, and would afterwards die; and that after his death G.o.d would give sixty days of repentance, in which those might repent which should have erred from the way of truth, and have been seduced by the preaching of Antichrist and his false prophets.'

This belief was reflected in Western Europe in the belief that the congregation of Witches a.s.sembled on their Sabbath (an inst.i.tution then included among paganisms) to celebrate grand ma.s.s to the Devil, and that all the primitive temples were raised in honour of Satan. In the Russian Church the correspondence between the good and evil powers, following their primitive faith in the conflict between Byelbog and Tchernibog (white G.o.d and black G.o.d), went to the curious extent of picturing in h.e.l.l a sort of infernal Trinity. The Father throned in Heaven with the Son between his knees and the Dove beside or beneath him, was replied to by a majestic Satan in h.e.l.l, holding his Son (Judas) on his knees, and the Serpent acting as counteragent of the Dove. This singular arrangement may still be seen in many of the pictures which cover the walls of the oldest Russian churches (Fig. 9). The infernal G.o.d is not without a solemn majesty answering to that of his great antagonist above. The Serpent of Sins proceeds from the diabolical Father and Son, pa.s.sing from beneath their throne through one of the two mouths of h.e.l.l, and then winds upward, hungrily opening its jaws near the terrible Balances where souls are weighed (Fig. 10). Along its hideous length are seated at regular intervals nine winged devils, representing probably antagonists of the nine Sephiroth or aeons of the Gnostic theology. Each is armed with a hook whereby the souls weighed and found wanting may be dragged. The sins which these devils represent are labelled, generally on rings around the serpent, and increase in heinousness towards the head. It is a curious fact that the Sin nearest the head is marked 'Unmercifulness.' Strange and unconscious sarcasm on an Omnipotent Deity under whose sway exists this elaboration of a scheme of sins and tortures precisely corresponding to the scheme of virtues and joys!

Truly said the Epistle of John, there be many Antichrists. If this was true before the word Christianity had been formed, or the system it names, what was the case afterwards? For centuries we find vast systems denouncing each other as Antichrist. And ultimately, as a subtle hardly-conscious heresy spread abroad, the great excommunicator of antichrists itself, Rome, acquired that t.i.tle, which it has never shaken off since. The See of Rome did not first receive that appellation from Protestants, but from its own chiefs. Gregory himself (A.C. 590) started the idea by declaring that any man who held even the shadow of such power as the Popes arrogated to themselves after his time would be the forerunner of Antichrist. Arnulphus, Bishop of Orleans, in an invective against John XV. at Rheims (A.C. 991), intimated that a Pope dest.i.tute of charity was Antichrist. But the stigma was at length fixed (twelfth century) by Amalrich of Bena ('Quia Papa esset Antichristus et Roma Babylon et ipse sedit in Monte Oliveti, i.e., in pinguedine potestatis'); and also by the Abbot Joachim (A.C. 1202). The theory of Richard I., as stated to Joachim concerning Antichrist, has already been quoted. It was in the presence of the Archbishops of Rouen and Auxerre, and the Bishop of Bayonne, and represented their opinion and the common belief of the time. But Joachim said the Second Apocalyptic Beast represented some great prelate who will be like Simon Magus, and, as it were, universal Pontiff, and that very Antichrist of whom St. Paul speaks. Hildebrand was the first Pope to whom this ugly label was affixed, but the career of Alexander VI. (Roderic Borgia) made it for ever irremovable for the Protestant mind. There is in the British Museum a volume of caricatures, dated 1545, in which occurs an ingenious representation of Alexander VI. The Pope is first seen in his ceremonial robes; but a leaf being raised, another figure is joined to the lower part of the former, and there appears the papal devil, the cross in his hand being changed to a pitchfork (Fig. 11). Attached to it is an explanation in German giving the legend of the Pope's death. He was poisoned (1503) by the cup he had prepared for another man. It was afterwards said that he had secured the papacy by aid of the Devil. Having asked how long he would reign, the Devil returned an equivocal answer; and though Alexander understood that it was to be fifteen years, it proved to be only eleven. When in 1520 Pope Leo X. issued his formal bull against Luther, the reformer termed it 'the execrable bull of Antichrist.' An Italian poem of the time having represented Luther as the offspring of Megaera, the Germans returned the invective in a form more likely to impress the popular mind; namely, in a caricature (Fig. 12), representing the said Fury as nursing the Pope. This caricature is also of date 1545, and with it were others showing Alecto and Tisiphone acting in other capacities for the papal babe.

The Lutherans had made the discovery that the number of the Apocalyptic Beast, 666, put into Hebrew numeral letters, contained the words Aberin Kadescha Papa (our holy father the Pope). The downfall of this Antichrist was a favourite theme of pulpit eloquence, and also with artists. A very spirited pamphlet was printed (1521), and ill.u.s.trated with designs by Luther's friend Lucas Cranach. It was ent.i.tled Pa.s.sional Christi und Antichristi. The fall of the papal Antichrist (Fig. 13), has for its companion one of Christ washing the feet of his disciples.

But the Catholics could also make discoveries; and among many other things they found that the word 'Luther' in Hebrew numerals also made the number of the Beast. It was remembered that one of the earliest predictions concerning Antichrist was that he would travesty the birth of Christ from a virgin by being born of a nun by a Bishop. Luther's marriage with the nun Catharine von Bora came sufficiently near the prediction to be welcomed by his enemies. The source of his inspiration as understood by Catholics is cleverly indicated in a caricature of the period (Fig. 14).

The theory that the Papacy represents Antichrist has so long been the solemn belief of rebels against its authority, that it has become a vulgarised article of Protestant faith. On the other hand, Catholics appear to take a political and prospective view of Antichrist. Cardinal Manning, in his pastoral following the election of Leo XIII., said: 'A tide of revolution has swept over all countries. Every people in Europe is inwardly divided against itself, and the old society of Christendom, with its laws, its sanct.i.ties, and its stability, is giving way before the popular will, which has no law, or rather which claims to be a law to itself. This is at least the forerunning sign of the Lawless One, who in his own time shall be revealed.'

Throughout the endless exchange of epithets, it has been made clear that Antichrist is the reductio ad absurdum of the notion of a personal Devil. From the day when the word was first coined, it has a.s.sumed every variety of shape, has fitted with equal precision the most contrarious things and persons; and the need of such a novel form at one point or another in the progress of controversy is a satire on the inadequacy of Satan and his ancient ministers. Bygone Devils cannot represent new animosities. The ascent of every ecclesiastical or theological system is traceable in ma.s.sacres and martyrdoms; each of these, whether on one side or the other, helps to develop a new devil. The story of Antichrist shows devils in the making. Meantime, to eyes that see how every system so built up must sacrifice a virtue at every stage of its ascent, it will be sufficiently clear that every powerful Church is Adversary of the religion it claims to represent. Buddhism is Antibuddha; Islam is Antimohammed; Christianity is Antichrist.

CHAPTER XXII.

THE PRIDE OF LIFE.

The curse of Iblis--Samael as Democrat--His vindication by Christ and Paul--Asmodaus--History of the name--Aschmedai of the Jews--Book of Tobit--Dore's 'Triumph of Christianity'--Auca.s.sin and Nicolette--Asmodeus in the convent--The Asmodeus of Le Sage--Mephistopheles--Blake's 'Marriage of Heaven and h.e.l.l'--The Devil and the artists--Sadi's Vision of Satan--Arts of the Devil--Suspicion of beauty--Earthly and heavenly mansions--Deacon versus Devil.

On the parapet of the external gallery of Notre Dame in Paris is the carved form, of human size, represented in our figure (15). There is in the face a remarkable expression of pride and satisfaction as he looks forth on the gay city and contemplates all the wickedness in it, but this satisfaction is curiously blended with a look of envy and l.u.s.t. His elegant head-dress gives him the pomp becoming the Asmodeus presiding over the most brilliant capital in the world.

His seat on the fine parapet is in contrast with the place a.s.signed him in Eastern traditions--ruins and desert places,--but otherwise he fairly fulfilled, no doubt, early ideas in selecting his headquarters at Paris. A mussulman legend says that when, after the Fall of Man, Allah was mitigating the sentences he had p.r.o.nounced, Iblis (who, as the Koran relates, pleaded and obtained the deferment of his consignment to h.e.l.l until the resurrection, and unlimited power over sinners who do not accept the word of Allah) asked--

'Where shall I dwell in the meantime?

'In ruins, tombs, and all other unclean places shunned by man.

'What shall be my food?

'All things slain in the name of idols.

'How shall I quench my thirst?

'With wine and intoxicating liquors.

'What shall occupy my leisure hours?

'Music, song, love-poetry, and dancing.

'What is my watchword?

'The curse of Allah until the day of judgment.

'But how shall I contend with man, to whom thou hast granted two guardian angels, and who has received thy revelation?

'Thy progeny shall be more numerous than his,--for for every man that is born, there shall come into the world seven evil spirits--but they shall be powerless against the faithful.'

Iblis with wine, song, and dance--the 'pride of life'--is also said to have been aided in entering Paradise by the peac.o.c.k, which he flattered. [143]

This fable, though later than the era of Mohammed in form, is as ancient as the myth of Eden in substance. The germ of it is already in the belief that Jehovah separated from the rest of the earth a garden, and from the human world a family of his own, and from the week a day of his own. The reply of the elect to the proud Gentile aristocracy was an ascetic caste established by covenant with the King of kings. This att.i.tude of the pious caste turned the barbaric aristocrats, in a sense, to democrats. Indeed Samael, in whom the execrated Dukes of Edom were ideally represented, might be almost described as the Democratic Devil. According to an early Jewish legend, Jehovah, having resolved to separate 'men' (i.e., Jews) from 'swine' (i.e., idolaters, Gentiles), made circ.u.mcision the seal on them as children of Abraham. There having been, however, Jews who were necessarily never circ.u.mcised, their souls, it was arranged, should pa.s.s at death into the forms of certain sacred birds where they would be purified, and finally united to the elect in Paradise. Now, Samael, or Adam Belial as he was sometimes called, is said to have appealed to the Creator that this arrangement should include all races of beings. 'Lord of the world!' he said, 'we also are of your creation. Thou art our father. As thou savest the souls of Israel by transforming them that they may be brought back again and made immortal, so also do unto us! Why shouldst thou regard the seed of Abraham before us?' Jehovah answered, 'Have you done the same that Abraham did, who recognised me from his childhood and went into Chaldean fire for love of me? You have seen that I rescued him from your hands, and from the fiery oven which had no power over him, and yet you have not loved and worshipped me. Henceforth speak no more of good or evil.' [144]

The old rabbinical books which record this conversation do not report Samael's answer; nor is it necessary: that answer was given by Jesus and Paul breaking down the part.i.tions between Jew and Gentile. It was quite another thing, however, to include the world morally. Jesus, it would seem, aimed at this also; he came 'eating and drinking,'

and the orthodox said Samael was in him. Personally, he declined to subst.i.tute even the cosmopolitan rite of baptism for the discredited national rite of circ.u.mcision. But Paul was of another mind. His pharisaism was spiritualised and intensified in his new faith, to which the great world was all an Adversary.

It was a tremendous concession, this giving up of the gay and beautiful world, with its mirth and amus.e.m.e.nts, its fine arts and romance--to the Devil. Unswerving Nemesis has followed that wild theorem in many forms, of which the most significant is Asmodeus.

Asmodaus, or Aeshma-daeva of the Zend texts, the modern Persian Khasm, is etymologically what Carlyle might call 'the G.o.d Wish;' aesha meaning 'wish,' from the Sanskrit root ish, 'to desire.' An almost standing epithet of Aeshma is Khrvidra, meaning apparently 'having a hurtful weapon or lance.' He is occasionally mentioned immediately after Anro-mainyus (Ahriman); sometimes is expressly named as one of his most prominent supporters. In the remarkable combat between Ahuro-mazda (Ormuzd) and Anro-mainyus, described in Zam. Y. 46, the good deity summons to his aid Vohumano, Ashavahista, and Fire; while the Evil One is aided by Akomano, Aeshma, and Aji-Dahaka. [145] Here, therefore, Aeshma appears as opposed to Ashavahista, 'supreme purity'

of the Lord of Fire. Aeshma is the spirit of the lower or impure Fire, l.u.s.t and Wrath. A Sanskrit text styles him Kossa-deva, 'the G.o.d of Wrath.' In Yacna 27, 35, Sraosha, Aeshma's opponent, is invoked to shield the faithful 'in both worlds from Death the Violent, from Aeshma the Violent, from the hosts of Violence that raise aloft the terrible banner--from the a.s.saults of Aeshma that he makes along with Vidatu ('Divider, Destroyer'), the demon-created.' He is thus the leading representative of dissolution, the fatal power of Ahriman. Ormuzd is said to have created Sraosha to be the destroyer of 'Aeshma of the fatal lance.' Sraosha ('the Hearer') is the moral vanquisher of Aeshma, in distinction from Haoma, who is his chief opponent in the physical domain.

Such, following Windischmann, [146] is the origin of the devil whom the apocryphal book of Tobit has made familiar in Europe as Asmodeus. Aschmedai, as the Jews called him, appears in this story as precisely that spirit described in the Avesta--the devil of Violence and l.u.s.t, whose pa.s.sion for Sara leads him to slay her seven husbands on their wedding-night. The devils of l.u.s.t are considered elsewhere, and Asmodeus among them; there is another aspect of him which here concerns us. He is a fastidious devil. He will not have the object of his pa.s.sion liable to the embrace of any other. He cannot endure bad smells, and that raised by the smoke of the fish-entrails burnt by Tobit drives him 'into the utmost parts of Egypt, where the angel bound him.' It is, however, of more importance to read the story by the light of the general reputation of Aschmedai among the Jews and Arabians. It was notably that of the devil represented in the Moslem tradition at the beginning of this chapter. He is the Eastern Don Giovanni and Lothario; he plies Noah and Solomon with wine, and seduces their wives, and always aims high with his dashing intrigues. He would have cried Amen to Luther's lines--