• 2016 American Election
  • 2016-2017 Trump transition
  • 2017-2021 Trump Presidency
  • about this site
  • AUTUMN IMAGES
  • BIGFOOT/SASQUATCH
  • books of note
  • cinemagic
  • commonplace book
  • cooking for poor poets
  • creepy sci-tech
  • depression
  • Dispatches
  • fictions by S.A. Bort
  • films of note
  • Four Blood Moons
  • FREE JUSTINA !
  • Future Shock
  • global chessboard
  • gratitudes
  • homes and destinations
  • honors of heart, mind and courage from the great OZ
  • let’s dance!
  • liberte!
  • living cheaply with style
  • love & marriage
  • Parkinson Disease Journal
  • people of note
  • po’try by s.a.bort (and others)
  • Readings
  • Scalia cover up?
  • self-improvement
  • songs of note
  • SPRING IMAGES
  • Summer Images
  • TAYLOR CALDWELL
  • TEXAS!
  • the sixties
  • watch your language!
  • WINTER IMAGES
  • word therapy
  • words of note
  • zen of writing

when is a party not a party ?

~ when you're not invited

when is a party not a party ?

Tag Archives: faith

Pilgrim tenacity and the first Thanksgiving

30 Sunday Nov 2014

Posted by essaybee2012 in history, Pilgrims, Thanksgiving

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

America, anglicization, beer, Between Two Worlds: How the English Became Americans (2014), Captain John Smith, Catholics, charity, Chesapeake Colony Maryland, Christian virtues, Church of England, City Upon a Hill (1630), colonial character, Dutch New Netherland, Eden, Edward Winslow, English settlers, enslaved Africans, faith, George Percy, God, J.L.G. Ferris, Jamestown Virginia, John Higginson, John Rolfe, John Winthrop, Kennebec Maine, Leiden Holland, liberty, London alehouses, Malcolm Gaskill, Mary Rowlandson, Mayflower, myth, Native Americans, New England, New Plymouth Massachusetts, Philadelphia, Pilgrims, pioneers, Pocahontas, Protestants, Puritans, Rebecca Rolfe, religion, resiliance, revolution, Richard Frethorne, scripture, secularism, separation of church and state, social relations, Thanksgiving, The Wall Street Journal, Thomas Eames, tobacco, University of East Anglia - Norwich, Virginia Company, William Bradford

The Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/articles/pilgrims-and-the-roots-of-the-american-thanksgiving-1417029561
The Saturday Essay

Pilgrims and the Roots of the American Thanksgiving

English settlers of the 17th century were a diverse lot, and they became Americans despite themselves

Colonial character was driven by a creative tension between lofty ideals and mundane desires. Illustration of ‘The First Thanksgiving 1621,’ after a painting by J.L.G. Ferris.
Colonial character was driven by a creative tension between lofty ideals and mundane desires.  Illustration of ‘The First Thanksgiving 1621,’ after a painting by J.L.G. Ferris.  GraphicaArtis/Corbis
~
By

Malcolm Gaskill

Nov. 26, 2014 2:19 p.m. ET

In the fall of 1621, 50 English men and women and 90 Native Americans gathered at New Plymouth in Massachusetts.  The colonists had arrived a year earlier on a leaky wine ship, the Mayflower, and built a hillside settlement overlooking the ocean, little more than a few wooden huts in a stockade.  The first winter had been terrible:  Half their number had perished from malnutrition and disease.  They had struggled to farm the land, were poorly supplied from England and relied on their Indian hosts for expertise and food.

But in the end, they did it.  According to Edward Winslow, who had buried his wife that March, “Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling so that we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruits of our labor.”  The Pilgrims, as they would later be known, celebrated for three days—an event immortalized in American history as the first Thanksgiving.

The story has been heavily mythologized, and the numerous depictions of it that have come down to us are mostly patriotic romances, full of errors about the dress, technology and general atmosphere of the day.  What we most tend to overlook in the Thanksgiving tale, however, is the wider context of settlement.  English colonists—350,000 of them in the 17th century—were a diverse lot, and more English than you might imagine.  Having left the Old World for the New, they clung to their old identities and tried to preserve them.  In this, they failed, and yet from that failure, a new national character was born—the primary traits of which are still visible in Americans today.

The first colonists actually arrived more than a decade before the Mayflower, establishing themselves on the steamy river plantations of Virginia and the rocky coasts of Maine.  The northern colony failed within a year.  The Virginia settlements fared better, and thousands of young, mostly male apprentices poured into the tobacco fields to toil alongside growing numbers of enslaved Africans.  A similar pattern developed in the other Chesapeake colony, Maryland.  In the 1630s, successive waves of Puritan ships reached Massachusetts, their passengers settling in Boston and its satellite communities.

After this great migration came the “great reshuffle.”  Settlers relocated to Rhode Island, New Hampshire and the lush plains of the Connecticut Valley, which in turn attracted newcomers from England.  Meanwhile, the French settled in Canada and the Dutch in present-day New York.  By 1660, there were 58,000 colonists in New England and the Chesapeake, compared with 3,000 in New France and 5,000 in Dutch New Netherland.  Most English migrants—190,000 of them—went to the West Indies, where slave-owning planters specialized in sugar production and sustained New England by importing its food crops.

Virginia began life in 1607, at a quasi-military outpost called Jamestown. Captain John Smith, its leader and savior, described “pleasant plain hills and fertile valleys, one prettily crossing another…a plain wilderness as God first made it.”  But this was no Eden.  Appalling conditions—hostile natives, polluted water and rampant disease—were made worse by infighting and political chaos.

Unable to grow enough food, the colonists faced starvation by the winter of 1609.  They ate vermin and leather—even the starch from their collars. “Nothing was spared to maintain life,” recalled George Percy, “and to do those things which seem incredible, as to dig up dead corpses out of graves and to eat them.”  Nine out of 10 died, and the survivors and their often clueless replacements still had to find exports like timber, furs and pitch to pay their way.  In the end, a farmer named John Rolfe cracked the problem with a new strain of sweet tobacco.  A year later, there were wooden vending machines for tobacco in London alehouses.  Virginia was in business.

Colonists always needed more land, but they had to tread carefully.  Rolfe married an Indian princess named Pocahontas, which delighted the Virginia Company.  The union meant ethnic peace in America and made for good propaganda at home.  Renamed Rebecca Rolfe, she was received at the royal court in London, where, Smith noted, those clamoring to meet her “had seen many English ladies worse favored, proportioned and behaviored.”

Pocahontas’s death as she prepared to return home, probably from tuberculosis, destabilized relations with her people, and a dark cloud passed over Virginia.  In 1622, a native uprising killed 347 colonists—a third of all English people in America.  Even those who had come over to spread the gospel hardened their hearts.  Now the English would take what they wanted.  “Our hands, which before were tied with gentleness and fair usage,” remarked the Virginia Company secretary, “are now set at liberty.”

A year later, Virginia was still in a bad way.  A youth named Richard Frethorne begged his parents to bring him home.  “You would be grieved if you did know as much as I do,” he sobbed, “when people cry out day and night—Oh! That they were in England.”  A few months later, he was dead.

Robert Neubecker

~

By this time, 600 miles to the north, Plymouth had been established.  Prospective adventurers had learned from colonists there, and from the disasters at Jamestown, the importance of building colonies on firm foundations of family, authority, law, trade and a division of labor.  Jamestown had underestimated the importance of women, whose work was invaluable and who allowed a colony to grow.  So when the Puritan John Winthrop assembled his first fleet to sail to Massachusetts in 1630, the emphasis was on relocating households, even whole communities.

The first passenger ashore at Boston was a 9-year-old girl, who later remembered a land “very uneven, abounding in small hollows and swamps, and covered with blueberry and other bushes.”  The migrants, ravaged by scurvy, were forced to shelter in burrows that they dug into the riverbank, where they ate fish and dried peas.  From that modest start, however, they not only survived but thrived.

Gradually, across the eastern seaboard, colonies assumed their own forms and flavors.  Massachusetts was repressive and, to England, seemed disloyal.  Connecticut was tolerant, Rhode Island even more so.  Maryland welcomed Catholics, which scandalized the ultra-Protestant Puritans.  Maine seemed godless and ungoverned:  One report alleged that Kennebec fishermen believed that “as many men may share in a woman as they do in a boat.”

There was variety even among the 102 passengers of the Mayflower, half of whom were “strangers” of dubious piety and morality.  The Pilgrims were united by the religious community that they had formed in Leiden, Holland.  The rest, who came from all over England, had little in common.  Regional identities were strong, and there was little love lost between East Anglians and West Countrymen.  And that was just one ship.

Life in the early colonies was unbelievably hard.  Most colonies failed, and even in the promising ones, thousands of settlers died.  Of the 10,000 people transported to Virginia after 1607, only a fifth were still alive in 1622.  Many, in remote plantations dotted along the eastern seaboard, simply disappeared.  Communications were poor and loneliness endemic.  Wolves were a persistent menace, although colonists learned to kill them with fishhooks wrapped in fat.

Even when food was plentiful, it was monotonous:  Settlers mostly ate cornbread and vegetable stew.  Imported beer soured, and domestic brews were impossible without malt.  At first, there were no shops, and Winthrop’s migrants were advised to take everything with them, including window glass.

New England’s soil was stony and hard to plow; crops were ruined by floods and droughts and caterpillars.  The ice and snow exceeded anything experienced in England.  There were few doctors, and remedies ranged from the bizarre to the dangerous.  A Maine man who sucked an infection from his wife’s breast lost his teeth from the arsenic that had been previously applied.

The greatest trial was conflict with Native Americans.  In the 1670s, New England was almost wiped off the map by what was, in proportion, the most devastating war in American history.  Townships were overrun, their inhabitants killed or spirited away.  Twelve settlements were destroyed, and 2,000 colonists died, including one-in-10 able-bodied men.

In February 1676, Thomas Eames, a farmer at Framingham, itemized his losses:  a house, a barn, grain, tools and, at the top of the list, “a wife and nine children.”  That same month, Mary Rowlandson, a minister’s wife at Lancaster, Mass., was seized during an Indian raid and endured three months of privation in freezing conditions.  She ate “filthy trash” with her captors, whom she called “barbarous creatures.”  Such terrifying experiences make it hard to understand why anyone stayed in America.

But then why had anyone come in the first place?  Their reasons were manifold.  The Pilgrims wanted to worship freely outside the Church of England.  Others wanted to reform English religion.  Most Virginians simply wanted to find land where they could make a living.

All of the colonists were trying to recreate a better version of the Old World rather than inventing something new.  In society and economy, politics and religion, England was changing, many felt for the worse, and nostalgia for a golden age of faith—based on scripture, healthy social relations and charity among neighbors—was a powerful incentive to emigrate.

Winthrop’s “city upon a hill” speech, beloved of modern presidential speechwriters, was more of a reactionary manifesto than a radical one.  It spoke of values that had decayed in English life to be resurrected across the Atlantic.  This was revolution 17th-century style:  a return to the status quo ante.

So the colonists set about building English houses, mixing arable farmland with pasture, approximating English meals and wearing their warm woolens, regardless of the weather.  They behaved, so far as possible, as if nothing had changed.  They imposed familiar hierarchies, enforced English laws and appointed magistrates and constables.

Wherever they went, they anglicized Indian place-names.  Dozens of English towns and villages—Dorchester, Ipswich, Springfield—were reborn in America:  Boston had been, and still is, a small Lincolnshire port.  Long Island became “Yorkshire,” split into three parts or “ridings,” just like the English county.

America was the child, conceived and raised in the image of the parent—an extension of England, not its replacement.  Writing in 1697, John Higginson, a minister at Salem, Mass., desired only “that the Little Daughter of New England in America may bow down herself to her Mother England.”

In the end, however, pretending to be in England, like turning expectantly to a lost golden age, was futile.  Many succumbed to homesickness.  One woman faked an inheritance that, she said, had to be collected in person, just so that her husband would let her go home.  Some returned for good—one in five New Englanders by 1640.

Nor were the English alone in America.  The varied character of their colonies was due not just to the pressures of landscape and ecology but to tense relations with Native Americans and European neighbors.

Failing to retain a recognizably English identity caused anxiety and disappointment.  But from failure emerged something truly striking, a spirit that resonates in America across the centuries.  Colonial character was driven by a creative tension between lofty ideals and mundane desires.  Trying to remain the same, it turned out, demanded a constant effort of industry and reinvention.

The liberties that many migrants felt were being abused at home, by royal contempt for the rights of freeborn Englishmen, ended up being defended in America through the bondage of others—both indentured servants and slaves—and the disinheritance and dispersal of Native Americans.  And for all their inward-looking community spirit, the fortunes of many New England communities depended on their expansion.  The Puritan idea of a “sufficiency”—having just enough land to be comfortable—was compromised by commercial greed and voracious land grabs.

American religion also evolved in a surprising way.  In Philadelphia—“the city of brotherly love”—and other economic centers, Christian virtues were extolled in an expanding world of litigiousness and competition.  The secularism in civil government propagated in Rhode Island has its legacy today in the constitutional separation of church and state, but this coexists with an intense religiosity in politics that the Pilgrim fathers would have recognized and admired.

Still, for all their diversity and contradictions, English migrants to America tended to conform to a single recognizable type:  the intrepid, resilient, undaunted pioneer.  In every colony, similar challenges were met with the same determination and optimism.

Here we might return to Plymouth in 1621 and to the true story of the first Thanksgiving, which is richer and more edifying than the familiar holiday version.  When the Pilgrim William Bradford said, “They began now to gather in the small harvest they had…being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty,” he was bearing witness to the fact that, in their first crucial year, they had barely survived.

The Pilgrims were not typical settlers in the new land, but they still exemplify the extraordinary imagination and belief, fortitude and courage, shown by colonists across early America—qualities shared today by all manner of Americans, regardless of their ancestry.

Dr. Gaskill is professor of early modern history at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, U.K.  This essay is adapted from his new book, “Between Two Worlds:  How the English Became Americans,” published this month by Basic Books.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

C.S. Lewis: His November birth and death; his legacy of “belief”

29 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by essaybee2012 in C.S. Lewis, faith, Grief

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

A Grief Observed (1961), Anthony Burgess, atheism, belief, C.S. Lewis, C.S. Lewis and the Crisis of a Christian (2014), California State University - Chico, Christian conversion, Christian orthodoxy, Christianity, Chronicles of Narnia, crisis, death, devils, Douglas Gresham, emotions, English academics, faith, fundamentalism, God, Great Depression, Gregory Cootsona, imagination, Jesus Christ, John F. Kennedy, Joy Lewis, literary interpretation, literature, Medeival literature, myth, Renaissance literature, stress, struggle, suffering, The Allegory of Love (1936), The Bible, the crisis of belief, the crisis of feeling, The Screwtape Letters (1942), The Silver Chair (2016), Wall Street Journal, World War I, World War II, writing

Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/articles/gregory-cootsona-c-s-lewis-and-the-crises-of-belief-1417123023
Houses of Worship

C.S. Lewis and the Crises of Belief

Despite tragedies, the scholar and ‘Chronicles of Narnia’ author came down on the side of faith.

~
By

Gregory Cootsona

Nov. 27, 2014 4:17 p.m. ET

This is a notable month for fans of C.S. Lewis :  He was born on Nov. 29, 1898, and left the world on the 22nd of the same month in 1963.  The passing of this major figure in Christian thinking thus became a footnote to the day of President Kennedy’s assassination.

Lewis deserves to be remembered as one of the great lights of English academics for his scholarship on Medieval and Renaissance literature.  But he is deservedly best known as a spokesman for Christianity.  If anything, Lewis’s work is more widely read now than during his lifetime, thanks in part to the Hollywood films based on his landmark fantasy series, “The Chronicles of Narnia.”  A fourth movie, based on “The Silver Chair” in Lewis’s Narnia series, is poised for production and scheduled for a 2016 release.

His nonfiction books—such as “The Screwtape Letters,” in which devils discuss how to corrupt a well-meaning human—have broad appeal because they defend Christian belief by answering questions that a doubting public might be struggling with.  Author Anthony Burgess once wrote that “Lewis is the ideal persuader for the half-convinced, for the good man who would like to be a Christian but finds his intellect getting in the way.”

C.S. Lewis.
C.S. Lewis. Getty Images

~

Lewis grappled with crisis and struggle, and he came down on the side of faith.  It was his honesty and intellectual rigor in describing his trials that help make him so compelling.

The crises that Lewis faced were substantial—his mother’s death when he was 9; being sent to a series of boarding schools that he detested; fighting and being wounded in World War I; living through the Great Depression and World War II; caring for his alcoholic brother; and, finally, the death of his wife, Joy.

How did he work through those crises?  His son-in-law, Douglas Gresham, comments on Lewis’s response to Joy’s death, “He did what he always did under extreme stress.  He sat down at his desk, and looking into himself and carefully observing what was happening deep in his mind where we keep our inmost secrets, he picked up his pen and an old exercise book and began to write.”

He wrote about the crises he faced with atheism, with the Christian faith and the crises he faced simply because he was human.  Lewis tells us that he became an atheist around age 14, but that he sought something more.  “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy,” he wrote, “the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.”

In his early 30s he became “the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England,” as he put it.  He struggled on his way to prominence as a champion of Christian orthodoxy, and that struggle animates his writing.

As he pondered conversion, Lewis grappled with his love of myth, which he called “at its best, a real unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination.”  How could he believe in the Bible in light of all the other myths he treasured?

Here his love of literature helped him.  “There is nothing in literature which does not, in some degree, percolate into life,” Lewis determined in his 1936 academic study, “The Allegory of Love.”

He believed that the Bible was a book full of narratives and meaningful stories that “carries” the word of God and that derives its authority from Jesus Christ.  He was not a fundamentalist, who believes every word from scripture contains literal truth.  Instead, Lewis interpreted the Bible as a literary text.

Finally, Lewis took on crises that no human being can avoid—suffering, death and what one might call “the crisis of feeling.”  The latter is that problem everyone faces when emotions simply don’t lead us to contentment.  If life is supposed to feel good, what happens when it doesn’t?  Feelings—particularly the emotional rush of life—remain for many the final arbiter of truth.

Yet Lewis found his own wisdom hard to take when his wife died.  Not only had he lost a cherished spouse, but he saw his own life replayed—Joy had two young sons whom she left behind at almost the same age as Lewis and his brother at their mother’s death.  His searing honesty remains the most arresting feature of “A Grief Observed,” the book he wrote after Joy’s death:  “Not that I am (I think) in much danger of ceasing to believe in God.  The real danger is of coming to believe such dreadful things about Him.”

But later in the book he resolved that even God does not respond to every inquiry:  “When I lay these questions before God I get no answer.  But a rather special sort of ‘No answer.’  It is not the locked door.  It is more like a silent, certainly not uncompassionate, gaze.  As though He shook His head not in refusal but waiving the question.  Like, ‘Peace, child; you don’t understand.’ ”  Accepting that not every question receives an answer brought Lewis the resolution and peace that lie beyond human understanding.

Mr. Cootsona teaches at California State University at Chico and is the author of “C.S. Lewis and the Crisis of a Christian” (Westminster John Knox Press, 2014).

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Taylor Caldwell’s Dialogues With The Devil (1967) #8 of 22

21 Tuesday Feb 2012

Posted by essaybee2012 in Dialogues With The Devil (1967), evil, God, good, Heaven, hell, Lucifer, Michael the Archangel, Taylor Caldwell

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Adam, adultery, Alexander, angels, archangels, beauty, becoming, charity, contemplation, damned, Damon, death, democracy, demons, desire, Dialogues With the Devil, dreams, ennui, equality, eternal life, Eve, evil, existence, faith, flesh, forbidden tree, free will, freedom, God, goodness, happiness, Heaven, Helen of Troy, hell, injustice, intellectuals, Judas, Julius Caesar, knowledge, labor, life, Lilith, Lucifer, lust, mankind, Michael the Archangel, nature, Pandara, Pericles, perversion, philosophers, philosophy, pleasure, poetry, power, reality, saints, sameness, satiety, seduction, self-denial, sensuality, sin, sophistication, soul, spirit, suffering, Taylor Caldwell, Terra, triviality, Truth, variety, worship

Thomas Greenall & Jordan Hodgson 2.18.2012 WSJ

[Caldwell, Taylor.  Dialogues With The Devil.  New York:  Doubleday & Co., 1967. pp 34-45.]  Please see Taylor Caldwell’s Dialogues With The Devil (1967) #1 of 22 for an introduction to this serialization.

GREETINGS to my brother, Michael . . .

. . . There is a strange similarity between Heaven and hell: . . . Each morning my damned say, “This is another day!”  But they discover that it is the same as the day before.  In Heaven, there is no time.  Surely that is a greater weariness.  My damned do not attain, for there is nothing to attain.  Your holy souls do not attain, for total attainment is not possible.  The soul strains, whether in Heaven or hell.  If there is a singular difference I have yet to discern it. . . . But if even archangels are not to know its supreme secrets, wherein lies the satisfaction?  To know that one can never know all appears to me, at times, to be hell, itself.  At least my damned know all there is to know of hell, and my nature.  There are no hidden corners, and if there are no fresh delights there are no fresh mysteries and no terrors, however sublime.  This condition has always seemed the most desirable among men — and have I not given it to them?

There is an answer for every question in hell.  My demons are solicitous.  No soul asks without a reply.  If the reply is mundane and possesses no novelty — did not man wish that for himself during the time of his mortal life?  Nothing affrights these miserable wretches more than a hint that a strangeness is about to appear, yet they bewail — after a space — the sameness of hell.  On all their worlds they struggle for the very condition they find in my hells — no disturbing variety, no uncertainty, no danger, no test of courage, no challenge, and no enigmas.  They considered this the most marvelous of existences.  Once assured of it in hell, however, they are agonized.  I have always said that human souls were pusillanimous [lacking courage] and blind, and contradictory.

Certainly, in hell, there is no free will, for the damned relinquished it on their worlds.  This torment has been denied them by me.  Therefore, they cannot will to climb to Heaven by self-denial, by contemplation, by worship, by dedication, by acts of faith and charity.  These attributes shriveled in them during their lives, or were rejected scornfully by them in moods of risible sophistications.  They can desire to possess them now, but I would keep them safe and warm, as Our Father never kept them so!  So, they can will nothing.  They can only accept the pleasures — and the pains — I bestow on them.

In Heaven, however, free will is fully released.  The ability to reject, to deny, remains with archangels, angels and the souls of the saved.  The gift of repudiation is still with them and the possibility of disobedience.  Is that not most frightful?  What insecurity!  What danger!  My damned remain with me in eternal slavery because in life they desired only safety, and lacked the fire of adventure, though, God knows, they protested enough on their worlds!  But what did they protest?  Inequality, which is the variety of God.  Instability, which is the light of the universes.  Uneasiness of mind, which is the soul of philosophy.  Apparent injustices, which are the goad of the spirit.  Vulnerability to life and other men, which is a charge to become invulnerable through faith in God.  The presence of suffering or misfortune — but these are a call for the soul to put on armor and serenity.  They demanded of their rulers that they remain in constant cocoons, silky and guarded by earthly authority.  They did not ask for wings to soar into the sunlight, and the ominous threats of full existence.  They rejected freedom for hell.  Certainly, they cried for freedom on their worlds, but it was freedom only to live happily without the freedom to be divinely unhappy.

I have satisfied all these lusts of men.  Strange, is it not, that my hells, though the ultimate success of the dreams of men, are filled with weeping?  And strange, is it not, that they still do not believe in the existence of God?  But then, they never did; they believed only in me.  They cannot will to believe in God.  They see absolute reality about them now, which was their will in life.  I will not pretend that I do not understand them, for was it not I who promised them all without work and without striving?

But lately I asked of a newly descended soul which had much acclaim on Terra:  “What was your greatest desire on your world, you who were applauded by rulers and admired by your fellowmen?

He replied, “Justice for all,” and put on a very righteous expression.

That was admirable, for who does not admire justice, even I?  But I probed him.  He declared that in his earthly view all men deserved what all other men possessed, whether worthy or not.  “They are men, so they are equal, and being born they have a right to the fruits of the world, no matter the condition of their birth or the content of their minds, or their capacities.”  I conducted him through the pleasures of my hell, and he was delighted that no soul was lesser in riches than another, and that every soul had access to my banquets and my palaces, no soul was distinguishable from another, none possessed what another did not possess.  Every desire was immediately gratified, he discovered.  He smiled about him joyfully.  He said, “Here, justice is attained!”

Then he saw that no face was joyful, however mean or lofty its features.  He remarked, wonderingly, on the listlessness of my damned, and how they strolled emptily through thoroughfares filled with music and through streets wherein there was not a single humble habitation.  He heard the cries of pleasure over my laden tables, and then heard them silenced, for there was no need now for food and where there is no need there is no desire and no enjoyment.  He saw that the poorest on earth were clothed in magnificence and jewels, yet they wept the loudest.  He was no fool.  He said, “Satiety.”  [Satisfied to excess.]  True, I answered him, but satiety can live only in the presence of total equality.  He pondered on this while I led him to the seat of thousands of philosophers, and he sat down among them.  But, as there is no challenge in hell, and no mystery, there can be no philosophy.  That night he came to me on his knees and begged for death.  I struck him with my foot, and said, “O man, this was the hell you made, and this was the desire of your heart, so eat, drink, and be merry.”

He attempted to hang himself, in the manner of Judas, and I laughed at his futility.  I meditated that above all futility is the climate of hell.

He said to me, in tears, “Then, if you are, then God exists.”

“That does not follow,”  I replied to him.  “But, did you not deny Him on Terra?  Did you not speak of supra-man, and man-becoming, and the ultimate glorification of man on earth, without God?”

“I did not see God among men,” he said, wringing his hands.

“You did not look,” I said.  “You were too dull in your human arrogance and too enamored of humanity.  You never denounced your fellows for their lusts and their cruelties.  You told them they were only ‘victims.’  You refused to look upon their nature, for you denied the infinite variety and capacities of nature.  To you, one man was as good as any other man, and equally endowed, for the foolish reason that he had been born.  You saw no saints, and no sinners.  It was only a matter of environment, though the proof was all about you that environment is a mere shading or tint on the soul, and is not destiny.  You denied that men have gifts of the spirit, often above those of other men.  In truth, you denigrated those gifts of striving and wonder.  You denied free will.  Everything evil that happened to a man was only the result of his fellowmen’s lack of justice.  You denied the reality of good and evil, the ability to make a choice.  In short you denied life, itself.”

“Then God in truth does exist?” he asked, after a moment’s miserable thought.

“That you will never know,” I said.  “But rejoice!  All your dreams are fulfilled here.  Delight yourself.  Behold, there are beautiful female demons here, and banquets and sports and pleasures and soft beds and lovely scenes and all whom you had wished, in life, you had known.  Converse with them.”

“There is no desire in me,” he said.  “I want nothing.”

“You are surely in hell,” I replied, and I left him weeping.

God pursues them even in hell.  Or, does He, my beloved Michael?  Grief is the gift of God.  But He will not have my damned!  For they have no will to rise to Him. . . .

But let us speak of your new worlds, which you mentioned in your last letter.

Pandara, among the dozen about the enormous and fiery blue sun, interests me.  Our Father struck six women and six men from the jeweled dust, and gave them the Sacrament of marriage.  I must congratulate God, for these creatures are fairer than many others.  Their flesh resembles rosy alabaster, and their hair is bright and sparkling, and their eyes are green and full of light.  They will have eternal youth if they do not fall.  They frolic and work in the warm and turquoise radiance, where there are no seasons because Pandara moves upright in her long slow orbit about her parent sun.  There will be no fierceness of storm or calamities of nature — unless these creatures fall.  There will be joyous labor and eager participation in life, and life without end in the forests full of red and purple and golden flowers, and about the lucent rivers and the mother-of-pearl lakes.  There will be cities of song and learning.  There will be adventure and delight.  I have seen the red peaks of mountains, and the dawns like benedictions and the sunsets like Heaven, itself.  There is no disease here, no hunger, no sorrow, no pain, no death.  There is knowledge of God, and God moves among them, and they feel His presence and His love.

Alas, God has also endowed them with free will.

That is my opportunity.

The women and the men are as young as life.  I can bring them age and evil and disease and death and violence and hatred and lusts.  Six women, and six men.  What shall I do?

Shall I introduce a seventh man, my Damon, who seduced so many on other worlds, and on miserable Terra, where he seduced Eve and Helen of Troy and millions of other women?  He is a beautiful angel, full of gaiety and subtlety and delectabilities.  His conversations are absorbing and delicious.  His inventions of the flesh are luscious and charming; his concupiscences [sexual desires] are sweeter than any fruit.  Few women have ever rejected him.  His very touch, his smile, is beguiling, and he is all that is male.  How can any woman resist him?

If introduced on Pandara the women will reflect that he is far more beautiful than their husbands, and that he does not toil in the fields and that his discourses are wondrous and mysterious, and that he hints of joys they have never experienced before.  Sad, is it not, that even Our Father stands at bay before a woman?  Who can know the intricacies of a female heart, and its secret imaginings?  Damon knows these intricacies, and winds them about his fingers like silver or darksome threads.  He can persuade almost any woman into adultery.

It needs but Damon to destroy Pandara.

Or, perhaps, I will send Lilith, my favorite female demon, to the men of Pandara, that beautiful planet.  She seduced Adam and Pericles and Alexander and Julius Caesar and so many rulers on Terra now.  Who is so lovely as Lilith?  Once she graced the Courts of Heaven and all looked on her beauty with awe.  She has a thousand astounding forms, and each one more gorgeous than another.  She is never oppressive, never demanding.  She is yielding and soft and attentive.  She follows; she never leads.  When she speaks her voice is like celestial music.  Each attitude resembles a stature of sublime glory.  She says to men, “How wondrous you are, how unique, how intellectual, how far above me in understanding!”  She is femininity itself, easily conquered, easily overcome by flattery, easily induced to surrender.  She has only to beckon and men rush to her with cries of lust and desire.

Damon or Lilith?

Strange to remark, men are less susceptible to determined seduction than women.  Damon can offer women mysteries and endless amusement, and what woman can spurn mystery or amusement?  They love the secret dark places, the moon, the whispered hotness, the promise of uniqueness and adoration.  Women do not crave power; they are not objective.  Truth to them is relative.  Is this evil or good?  Women in their minds can create a confusion, and this, on so many worlds, they have bequeathed to their sons.  A woman can resolve all things in her mind and make so many splendid compromises.  If the women of Pandara look upon Damon there will be rivalries for his smiles and attention, the lonely male they will yearn to take to their breasts when their husbands are absent.  There is a certain doggedness in husbands which women find full of ennui.

On the other hand, there is Lilith, who is always ambiguous and never captured.  Men seek after the uncaptured, the unattainable, which, alas, is the climate of Heaven.  Lilith is always pursued but never caught.  What man can resist Lilith, who never argues, never complains, is always complaisant and always fresh and dainty?  Her conversation never demands that a man ponder, or question.  Men, I have discovered, detest women who pose challenges of the mind and the soul.  They are engrossed in the flesh to the deepest extent, therefore they are simple, however their pretensions to intellect.  They dislike women who ask “Why?”  They turn from women with serious faces and furrowed brows.  They wish only to play, to gratify themselves in moments of leisure.  They find their wives always at hand, and women’s conversation is usually concerned with children and the dull affairs of daily living.  The women say, “How are the crops, or the cattle?  How is our present treasure?”

But Lilith says, “Let us frolic and rejoice in the sun and weave garlands of roses and drink wine and laugh and discover comedies.  Above all, let us embrace each other.”  This is the exact opposite of the conversation of wives, and so is irresistible.

Too, women are sedulous [persevering] in the seeking of God, which is the other side of their nature.  Men can endure just so much of God, and just so much discussion of Him.  After that, they seek love and physical activity or their little philosophies.  Or sleep.  Men love slumber, though women resist it.  Man reasons, woman conjectures.  Therefore, man wearies first.  He is always yawning in the very midst of feminine discourse.

Considering this, I believe Damon will be the most potent in Pandara, as he was in the majority of worlds.  Women do not fall lightly.  Eve gave much thought before she ate of the Forbidden Tree.  (Adam was merely vaguely aware of it, and, as it was forbidden, he usually ignored it.  Men are slaves to law.)  Damon adores the struggle in the female spirit, for while seductible it thinks of God.  Lilith often complains that men are so easily the victims of their flesh, so there is no serious enticement, no arduous pursuit.  In concupiscence, men never think of God at all.

I shall send Damon, the beautiful, the most alluring of male demons.

(If I seem contradictory concerning the nature of humanity . . . Michael, it does not follow that I am inconsistent.  I have written that men are less susceptible than women to seduction, but that is on the score of sensibility.  A woman cannot be seduced by raw sensuality; her mind and spirit must be engaged also, and she must be convinced that in some fashion the purity of love is involved.  She must feel the wings of her soul expand, so that all is well lost for love, itself.  It takes on itself, in her mind, the aspect of the eternal, the immutable.  So, women are an excitement to Damon.  But the purely female, like Lilith, cannot be resisted by men, who see nothing eternal in marital love, nothing sanctified, however the words they repeated by rote.  A woman is just an encounter to a man.  She can be successfully resisted only if she is intelligent and only if she asks questions, and only if she demands that the situation be permanent.  Woman must be seduced through her most delicate emotions.  Man alone can be seduced if no spiritual emotions are present at all.  Damon was forced to converse with Eve to the point of exhaustion before she ate of the fruit which was forbidden.  Had Lilith approached Adam, the deliciousness of the fruit would have needed only to be described. . . .

Yes, my choice will be Damon.  He will be elegant to the women of Pandara.  He will not openly seduce.  He will treat them as equals, yet not so equal that it diminishes his masculine power.  He will declare that their souls and their minds entrance him, that above all women they are the most ravishing.  He will talk poetry with them hour after hour; he will never be bored, as husbands are bored.  He will indicate the beauties on their world, and will strike attitudes, but not effeminate ones.  He will tenderly entwine flowers in their bright hair.  He will kiss their hands, and show his muscles at the same time.  If they leap with enjoyment, he will leap higher.  He will pursue, and offer them ardent embraces.  He will discuss their natural problems with them, with manly indulgence.  If they become pettish, in the way of women, he will seize them in his strong arms and quiet their mouths with his own.  At the last, as if tired of play, he will lift them up and run with them to some silent glade and forcibly take them, ignoring their hypocritical cries and their beating hands.  Above all, he will pretend that they, themselves, seduced him with their beauty and reduced him to distraction.  What woman can believe that she is without allurement, either of the body or the mind?

I am sad for you, Michael, my brother.  Pandara is already lost.  I am sending Damon tonight to the women of your beautiful planet.  I will reserve Lilith for later, when the race is fallen.  She will convince men that lust is more delightful than reason, and feminine charms more to be desired than sanctity, or duty.  The flesh, she will say, has its imperative, but where is the imperative of the soul — if it exists at all?  The flesh is tangible and lovely.  Who would forego it for the transports of the spirit?  The man who would do that, she will inform her victims, is no man at all and is not potent.

In short, he is a eunuch.  What man does not believe that with a perceptive woman he will be forever virile, despite age or change?  Lilith will introduce man to perversions and to atrocities.  She will guide him into cruelties which women can never imagine.  She will cloud his mind.  She will darken his soul against God, while he basks in her arms.

I anticipate Pandara and her sister worlds, for they are now inhabited with a new race, fairer and more intelligent than Terra, among others.  Terra, in particular, has always had a certain and sickening mediocrity of intellectual climate, now stimulated by those who designate themselves as “intellectuals.”  Terra dutifully conforms to what her race calls non-conformity.  Rare has been the man in her history who was truly individual, and those men were either murdered for their purity of soul or, in despair at the race, became its glorious assassins.  In general, the history of Terra has been stupid if frightful, predictable if dreadful.  The souls of Terra which descend to me give even hell disagreeable moments, for they are ciphers.  Yet, on the other hand, they form a special torment to those souls from other worlds who are more intellectually endowed, and it is very amusing.  The men from other worlds have even, in hell, attempted to lift up the intelligence of the men of Terra, to no avail, but to much comedy for my demons.  There have been desperate but fruitless classes in the sciences and the arts for the men of Terra, and they have always failed, and there have been cries, “These souls are not truly human!  They are impermeable!  True, but I always discourage such outcries with the formula of “democracy.”  This ritualistic word silences the souls of other worlds, if it tortures them, for was it not their own invention?

My dear brother.  In the golden twilight of Pandara I visited your magnificent planet.  There I discovered you in a great purple garden, conversing with Our Father, and your voice was full of laughter and gaiety and innocent abandon, for you were rejoicing in the beauty of where you found yourself and were exchanging jests with Him. . . . I did not see Our Father, but He saw me.  I felt His majestic presence, and I covered my face with my wings.  But still, I knew His penetrating eyes and how can I bear them, so full of reproach and sorrow?  It is not my fault.  He does not understand, and, alas, it is possible that He never will.  He did not speak to me, but He spoke to you, and I heard your voices and your mirth.  The green dolphins of the seas appeared to be amusing you.

I have had another thought:  When Pandara has fallen I will send one of my favorite demons to her, whose name is Triviality.  You know him well.  You have seen him in his activity on thousands of planets, and he is more deadly than Damon and Lilith combined. . . .

. . .

Your brother, Lucifer

Taylor Caldwell’s Dialogues With The Devil (1967) #9 of 22

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...
Newer posts →

RECEIVE INSTANT NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW POSTS

Join 81 other followers

What’s being read now

  • No Wind Blows in Favor of a Ship Without Direction?
  • Alvin Toffler's "Future Shock:" The 800th Lifetime

From newest to earliest

  • The Twelve Days Of Epstein
  • Something Touched Me Deep Inside
  • The last day of Spring / Ten photos
  • Doing the math
  • What five books would you preserve (in case of digital erasure)?

Previous by year

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Blog Stats

  • 75,982 hits

Blogroll

  • Abe Books
  • AMAC/Association of Mature American Citizens
  • AXS-TV
  • Carter, Sara/Investigative Reporter
  • Catholic Herald
  • diGenova, Joe & Victoria Toensing/Op-Eds
  • Dylan, Bob
  • Film Noir Foundation
  • Gatestone Institute
  • Hanson, Victor Davis/Writer
  • Hemingway, Mollie/The Federalist
  • Hillsdale College/Free online courses
  • Hoover Institution
  • Imprimis/Hillsdale College free periodical
  • Judicial Watch/Tom Fitton
  • KLVZ 810 AM Pop Classics in HD
  • Levin, Mark/Commentator, writer
  • Middle East Forum
  • NeilMed Sinus Rinse
  • Old Farmer's Almanac – Since 1792
  • Premiere Collectibles/signed, just-published books
  • RADIOHEAD
  • Solomon, John/The Hill
  • Souls of Animals
  • Strassel, Kimberley/Wall Street Journal
  • Tea Party
  • Turner Classic Movies (TCM) Database
  • Uncle Sam Cereal – Since 1908
  • Walking Dead
  • Whatfinger
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 81 other followers

LIKE on FACEBOOK

LIKE on FACEBOOK

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Cancel
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: