the pillars of the world and strikes insanely at the heavens; he lashes
the stars, but it is not to silence them; it is to make them speak.
In the same way we may speak of the official optimists, the Comforters
of Job. Again, if the word pessimist means anything (which I doubt)
the comforters of Job may be called pessimists rather than optimists.
All that they really believe is not that God is good but that God is
so strong that it is much more judicious to call Him good. It would be
the exaggeration of censure to call them evolutionists; but they have
something of the vital error of the evolutionary optimist. They will
keep on saying that everything in the universe fits into everything
else: as if there were anything comforting about a number of nasty
things all fitting into each other. We shall see later how God in the
great climax of the poem turns this particular argument altogether
upside down.
When, at the end of the poem, God enters (somewhat abruptly), is struck
the sudden and splendid note which makes the thing as great as it
is. All the human beings through the story, and Job especially, have
been asking questions of God. A more trivial poet would have made God
enter in some sense or other in order to answer the questions. By a
touch truly to be called inspired, when God enters, it is to ask a
number more questions on His own account. In this drama of scepticism
God Himself takes up the rôle of sceptic. He does what all the great
voices defending religion have always done. He does, for instance, what
Socrates did. He turns rationalism against itself. He seems to say that
if it comes to asking questions, He can ask some questions which will
fling down and flatten out all conceivable human questioners. The poet
by an exquisite intuition has made God ironically accept a kind of
controversial equality with His accusers. He is willing to regard it
as if it were a fair intellectual duel: “Gird up now thy loins like a
man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.” The everlasting
adopts an enormous and sardonic humility. He is quite willing to be
prosecuted. He only asks for the right which every prosecuted person
possesses; He asks to be allowed to cross-examine the witness for the
prosecution. And He carries yet further the correctness of the legal
parallel. For the first question, essentially speaking, which He asks
of Job is the question that any criminal accused by Job would be most
entitled to ask. He asks Job who he is. And Job, being a man of candid
intellect, takes a little time to consider, and comes to the conclusion
that he does not know.
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