Memorials and Other Papers — Volume 1 — John Shaqi
Memorials and Other Papers — Volume 1De Quincey, Thomas
General
Memorials and Other Papers — Volume 1
De Quincey, Thomas
English essays
Had I, then, really all that originality on this subject which for
many years I secretly claimed? Substantially I had, because this great
distinction between the modern (or Christian) idea of "a religion" and
the ancient (or Pagan) idea of "a religion," I had nowhere openly
seen expressed in words. To myself exclusively I was indebted for it.
Nevertheless, it is undeniable that this conception must have been long
ago germinating in the world, and perhaps bearing fruit. This is past
all denial, since, about thirteen or fourteen years ago, I read in some
journal (a French journal, I think) this statement: namely, that some
oriental people--Turks, according to my present impression, but it might
have been Arabs--make an old traditional distinction (so said the French
journal) between what they call "religions of the book" and all other
religions. The religions of the book, according to them, are three, all
equally founded upon written and producible documents, namely: first,
the Judaic system, resting upon the Pentateuch, or more truly, I should
imagine, upon the Law and the Prophets; secondly, the Christian system,
resting upon the Old and New Testaments; thirdly, the Mahometan system,
resting confessedly upon the Koran. The very meaning, therefore, of
styling these systems, by way of honorable distinction, _religions of
the book_, is, not that accidentally they had written vouchers for
their creed, whereas the others had only oral vouchers, but that they
severally offer to men's acceptance a large body of philosophic truth,
such as requires and presupposes a book. Whereas the various religions
contradistinguished from these three--namely, the whole body of Pagan
idolatries--are mere forms of adoration addressed to many different
divinities; and the brief reason why they are essentially opposed to
religions of the book is, not that they _have_ not, but logically that
they _cannot_ have, books or documents, inasmuch as they have no truths
to deliver. They do not profess to teach anything whatsoever. What they
profess, as their justifying distinction, is, to adore a certain deity,
or a certain collective Pantheon, according to certain old authorized
forms--authorized, that is to say, by fixed, ancient, and oftentimes
local traditions.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account