Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LQWKH6HYHQWHHQWK&HQWXU\
-RQDWKDQ6KHHKDQ
)RUDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKLVDUWLFOH
KWWSVPXVHMKXHGXDUWLFOH
* Many thanks to the Center for the Study of Religion, at Princeton University,
for supporting research and writing on this topic. I am also grateful to Constance
Furey, Anthony Grafton, Jonathan Israel, Carina Johnson, Martin Mulsow, Kate
Seidl, Dror Wahrman, and audiences in Chicago and Los Angeles for their help in
thinking through these materials.
1
Bronislaw Malinowski, Magic, Science, and Religion, in his Magic, Science,
and Religion and Other Essays, ed. Robert Redeld (Boston, 1948), 1.
2
Ibid., 1112.
3
Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion, trans. Willard
R. Trask (New York, 1959), 21.
36
NUMBER 192
thought, he declared, there exists no other example of two categories of things so profoundly differentiated as that of the sacred
and the profane.4
And the distinction has not gone away, either in ordinary speech
or in contemporary anthropology. Even for such a prominent
modern writer as Clifford Geertz, it is still active, if expressed
in epistemological rather than natural terms. The sacred, he
insists in a now famous essay, is what lies beyond a relatively
xed frontier of accredited knowledge that . . . sets ordinary
human experience in a permanent context of metaphysical concern. Without this frontier, without the distinction that the
frontier metaphorically represents, the empirical differentia of
religious activity or religious experience would not exist. Without
this frontier, in other words, religion would not be an object of
knowledge. On one side of the frontier are transcendent truths.
On the other side there are the common-sensical, the scientic,
and the aesthetic: precisely those aspects of human existence that
enable the researcher to differentiate, isolate and describe the
religious perspective.5 The profane operates here as an unstated
ideal, making the sacred legible to the anthropological eye.
But seen in the long term, these modern descriptions of the
sacred and profane are rather peculiar. In patristic or medieval
times, for example, the profane did not generally connote a space
of human behaviour neutral as to religion, or outside it. Instead, it
was a theological concept that described what was set against or in
opposition to (pro) the temple (fanum). Translating the Greek
bebylos (impure, unhallowed), it could be variously rendered as
irreligious, contrary to the sacred, and so on.6 This was especially true of the verb to profane, which in English and Latin alike
conveyed (and still conveys) a sense of desecration or violation of
the sacred. At times, the profane merely denoted what was for
men or human as opposed to for the gods or divine think
of the term sacred and profane letters. But even then, in the
4
mile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, trans. Joseph Ward
Swain (New York, 1915), 53.
5
Clifford Geertz, Religion as a Cultural System, in his The Interpretation of
Cultures: Selected Essays (New York, 1973), 102, 98, 111, 110. For a sustained and
provocative critique of this essay, see Talal Asad, The Construction of Religion as
an Anthropological Category, in his Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of
Power in Christianity and Islam (Baltimore, 1993).
6
For the complicated etymologies, see Thesaurus linguae latinae (Leipzig, 1900 ),
s.v. profanus.
37
38
NUMBER 192
Three months after the Jews escaped from their Egyptian bondage, the book of Exodus tells us, they crossed into the wilderness of Sinai. There God called Moses up to the thundering
mountain, where he remained for forty days, learning the commandments and hearing the laws that God expected his people
to obey. In the absence of their leader and fearful of their new
39
9
Tertullian, De idololatria, ed. and trans. J. H. Waszink and J. C. M. van Winden
(Leiden, 1987), 23.
10
Lactantius, Divine Institutes, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. and trans. Alexander
Roberts and James Donaldson, 10 vols. (New York, 18909), vii, 41.
40
NUMBER 192
41
Ibid., 441112.
Ibid.
19
Ibid., 4427.
20
Ibid., 4530.
21
For a general survey of the antiquarian literature on idolatry, see Guy
Stroumsa, John Spencer and the Roots of Idolatry, History of Religions, xli (2001).
Some erudite Catholics, like Athanasius Kircher, were also intrigued by these links
see his discussion of Apis and Serapis in his Oedipus Aegyptiacus: hoc est Universalis
hieroglyphicae veterum doctrinae temporum iniuria abolitae instauratio, 3 vols. (Rome,
16524), i, 201, where he derides the superstitious Hebrew people and their fascination with the cult of this idiotic god.
22
Hugo Grotius, Opera omnia theologica in tres tomos divisa: ante quidem per partes,
nunc autem conjunctim & accuratius edita, 3 vols. (London, 1679), i, 57. In seventeenthcentury sacred history, the Egyptians were nearly always given pride of place as the
rst worshippers of the stars.
23
Andr Rivet, Commentarius in Exodum, in Opera theologica, 3 vols. (Rotterdam,
165160), i, 1176.
18
42
NUMBER 192
24
Samuel Bochart, Hierozoicon: sive, Bipertitum opus de animalibus sacrae scripturae, 2 vols. (London, 1663), i, 345, 338.
25
Thomas Godwin, Moses and Aaron: Civil and Ecclesiastical Rites, Used by the
Ancient Hebrewes, 2nd edn (London, 1625, STC 1068:1), 191.
26
Thomas Fuller, A Pisgah-Sight of Palestine and the Connes Thereof: With the
History of the Old and New Testament Acted Thereon (London, 1650).
27
Henry Hammond, Of Idolatry (1646), in The Works of the Reverend and Learned
Henry Hammond, 2 vols. (London, 1684), i, 259.
28
John Selden, De diis Syris syntagmata: aduersaria nempe de numinibus commentitiis in vetere instrumento memoratis (London, 1617, STC 1116:8), 50, 56; Martin
Mulsow, John Seldens De Diis Syris: Idolatriekritik und vergleichende Religionsgeschichte im 17. Jahrhundert, Archiv fr Religionsgeschichte, iii (2001), 10; see also
Peter N. Miller, Taking Paganism Seriously: Anthropology and Antiquarianism in
Early Seventeenth-Century Histories of Religion, ibid.
The Idols of the Jews. From Thomas Fuller, A Pisgah-Sight of Palestine and the
Connes Thereof: With the History of the Old and New Testament Acted Thereon (London, 1650).
Courtesy of the Lilly Library, Indiana University, Bloomington.
43
44
NUMBER 192
45
the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the Ammonites (1 Kgs.
11:33). In the name of Jehovah, then, Jeroboam broke with
Jerusalem and instituted his own (idolatrous) worship.
If Aarons errors testied to the poisonous effects of idolatry
on the mind of the credulous, Jeroboams fall testied to its
poisonous effects on the political life of the nation. This was
particularly appropriate in the seventeenth century. Where the
sixteenth century had operated largely within the rhetoric of
heresy and schism (implying that Christian unity might return,
whether by violence or by reconciliation), by 1600 the diversity
of Christian churches was a stubborn feature of the political
and religious landscape. Like Israel and Judah long before, the
tribes of Europe were permanently divided. The seventeenthcentury obsession with Jewish idolatry thus had a compelling
logic in the light of the new immobility of Europes religious
division: Jeroboams deviance resonated with a period when,
perplexingly, the love of God was shared by all, but the ways to
show this love had become endishly divisive. And so, Calvinists
repeatedly noted that Jeroboams love of God did nothing to
exonerate his idolatrous behaviour. The anonymous author of
the Originall of Popish Idolatrie described how Jeroboam instituted strange Priests, corrupted the Law of God and began an
Idolatrie and corruption of sacrices that continued for more
then [sic] foure hundred yeers.37 Grotius offered a typically
laconic comment that princes are accustomed to twisting
sacred matters to their ends but declared it Gods will that
Jeroboam, like the Pharaoh, might be hardened more and
more in his idolatry.38 And Hammond insisted that the guilt
of Idolatry should be charged to Jeroboam and that the divine
censure, and character of Jeroboams sin (that stuck so close to
his posterity) importeth also.39
As an allegory, then, the story of Jeroboams crimes showed
clearly that recognition of God guaranteed neither the cohesion
of a political community nor the right practice of a religious
community. Indeed, the Jeroboam story, and Jewish idolatry
37
Anon., The Originall of Popish Idolatrie: or, The Birth of Heresies . . . Being a True and
Exacte Description of Such Sacred Signes, Sacrices and Sacraments as Have Bene Instituted
and Ordained of God since Adam, 2nd edn ([Amsterdam], 1630, STC 1130:8), 12.
38
Grotius, Opera omnia theologica, i, 1501 (commentary on 1 Kgs. 12:28,
13:24).
39
Hammond, Of Idolatry, in Works, i, 259.
46
NUMBER 192
II
A PERPETUAL MANUFACTORY OF IDOLS: IDOLATRY
AND THE END OF WORSHIP
Yet the Calvinist fascination with the Golden Calf also grew from
a more uncomfortable set of concerns, ones that began to unravel
any easy distinction between the chosen people and its enemies.
Since the middle of the sixteenth century, after all, Calvinists
had identied their Church with that of the Israelites. In particular, the emergence of the Jews from captivity, their defeat of
the Pharaoh, and their later battles against the Canaanites and
the Amorites all functioned as elaborate pregurations of the
history of the Calvinist Churches as they fought their way
across Europe over the later sixteenth century. These were, as
Christopher Hill and others have noted, extremely mobile stories: different prophets, different incidents and different morals
40
For this reason, Matthew Poole commented that it does not please the
Romans to think that Jeroboam retained the Mosaic Law: see his Synopsis criticorum
aliorumque S. Scripturae interpretum, 5 vols. (London, 166976), ii, 517. Monceauxs
Catholic exculpation of Aaron and Jeroboam might be understood as a desperate
effort to police this distinction. His argument that the calf was actually modelled on
the cherubim from the tabernacle (Aaron purgatus, ix, 4486, 4529) would, presumably, have made it an object of pious veneration, rather than of idolatrous worship.
The fact that his work was censured by the Church may be an indication of its own
discomfort with applying this distinction to the impiety of the murmuring Jews.
47
41
Christopher Hill, The English Bible and the Seventeenth-Century Revolution
(London, 1993); Charles H. Parker, French Calvinists as the Children of Israel:
An Old Testament Self-Consciousness in Jean Crespins Histoire des Martyrs before
the Wars of Religion, Sixteenth Century Jl, xxiv (1993). See also, more generally,
Sacvan Bercovitch, The American Jeremiad (Madison, 1978).
42
Michael Walzer, Exodus and Revolution (New York, 1985), 7, 64.
43
Aston, Englands Iconoclasts, i, 452.
44
Eire, War against the Idols, 60.
45
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Allen, i, 104.
48
NUMBER 192
the Two great Kettle-drums to the Protestant Guards. They were continually beating upon them with all their Force, and whenever they
found themselves at any Disadvantage with an Enemy . . . by making a
Noise upon these Two loud Engines, they could at pleasure drown the
Dispute.46
49
53
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan: or, The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil (London, 1651), 5, 7, 356.
54
Ibid., 359.
55
Ibid., 11.
56
Thomas Hobbes, Philosophicall Rudiments Concerning Government and Society
(London, 1651), 255, 259, 257.
50
NUMBER 192
57
51
The fourth chapter of Samuel Purchass 1613 Pilgrimage concerned the word Religion. Where the impious might, with the
Roman jurist Masurius Sabinus, identify religion as that which
is removed and withdrawn from us (relinquere); where the
Ciceronian would characterize it as the scrupulous study of all
the ritual involved in divine worship (relegere); where the early
Augustine might connect it to the idea of chusing again (religere):
Purchas himself offered a peculiar combinatory denition.
This is the effect of sinne and irreligion, that the name and practice of
Religion is thus diversied, else had there bin, as one God, so one religion,
62
52
NUMBER 192
and one language . . . For till men did relinquere, relinquish their rst
innocencie . . . they needed not religere, to make a second choice, or
seek reconciliation, nor thus relegere, with such paines and vexation of
spirit to enquire and practice those things which religare, binde them
surer and faster unto God.64
53
idolatry: it was only by showing what religion was not, that religion could be dened. Vossiuss 1,500-page treatise on the not,
on all the deviations from religion known to early modern scholarship, tried to crystallize the distinction between pious religion
and impious error. In his terms, then, false religion was a
meaningless idea. Either religion is true, or it is not religion.
And yet, as prodigious as Vossiuss scholarship was, this period
was largely unable to embrace this sharp distinction between
truth and error. The agitated and repetitive inquiries into the
origins of false religion testify as much. Although Adam stood
as the fount of religion among men, within a few short generations
mankinds impiety called down Gods homicidal rains. How
was God so easily forgotten? In a period sceptical of the powers
of the devil, scholars found the error in humanity itself. Thus in
1677, the jurist Matthew Hale declared as had Cicero
that religion was as connatural to Humane Nature as Reason,
and . . . as ancient as Humanity it self.67 If so, what was the
rst religion? For Hale, the question was easy:
as much as Truth is certainly more ancient than Errour, we have reason
to think that even before the ancientest Form of Idolatrous Worship in
the World, even that of the Heavenly and Elemental Bodies, there was a
True Worship of the True GOD.68
54
NUMBER 192
55
56
NUMBER 192
57
58
NUMBER 192
89
Ibid.
Ibid., 40, 81, 107.
91
Ibid., 36.
92
Ibid., 54.
93
Ibid., 40.
90
59
Edwardss repetitive distinction between religion and the profane, the holy and the obscene, and the true God and the
execrable, was a symptom of his deep suspicion that Spencers
analysis had, in fact, eroded these familiar oppositions. And
indeed, it had done so. Even the devilish customs of the Egyptians
were sacred, in Spencers terms, not for any prisca theologia, but
because they contained a functional structure for transacting
with the divine. True for Jews, true for gentiles and, most alarmingly, true even for Christians.99 In Spencers hands, religion
became something more than just a synonym for Christianity.
Instead, it became an anthropological category tout court, a
94
Ibid., 106.
Ibid., 149, 153, 82, 81.
96
Eire, War against the Idols, 200.
97
John Edwards, A Compleat History: or, Survey of All the Dispensations and Methods
of Religion (London, 1699), 249.
98
Ibid., 251.
99
Thus Edwards reacts viciously against the suggestion that one of the most
Solemn Ofces of Christianity is a pure Imitation of a Pagan Usage when Spencer
argued that Christ in Celebrating the Holy Sacrament of his Supper, referd to the
Custom of the Barbarous Scythians and other Savage Nations, who used to drink
Blood at their making of Covenants and Bargains: ibid.
95
60
NUMBER 192
IV
SACRED AND PROFANE: HUMAN SCIENCE CATEGORIES
61
103
[Charles Blount], Great Is Diana of the Ephesians: or, The Original of Idolatry,
together with the Politick Institution of the Gentiles Sacrices (London, 1680), 3 (my italics).
104
Ibid., 8; Lactantius, Divine Institutes, vii, 41.
105
Toland, Letters to Serena, 91.
106
David Hume, A Natural History of Religion, in Four Dissertations (1757; Bristol,
1995), 48.
107
Ibid., 3.
62
NUMBER 192
63
64
NUMBER 192
115
David W. Bates, Enlightenment Aberrations: Error and Revolution in France
(Ithaca, 2002), pp. x, 33.
116
Niklas Luhmann, The Differentiation of Society, trans. Stephen Holmes and
Charles Larmore (New York, 1982), 142.
117
Philippe Buc, The Dangers of Ritual: Between Early Medieval Texts and Social
Scientic Theory (Princeton, 2001), 194.
65
118
66
NUMBER 192
in its own regime, distinct from the quotidian. It is hardly surprising that the crucible of the seventeenth century, when Europes
peoples tore themselves apart trying to reconcile religion and
everyday life, rst made this distinction compelling to the scholarly imagination.
University of Michigan
Jonathan Sheehan