The social contract & discoursesRousseau, Jean-Jacques
Philosophy
The social contract & discourses
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques
Economics; Political science -- Early works to 1800; Social contract
If it is asked how in pagan times, where each State had its cult
and its gods, there were no wars of religion, I answer that it was
precisely because each State, having its own cult as well as its
own government, made no distinction between its gods and its laws.
Political war was also theological; the provinces of the gods were, so
to speak, fixed by the boundaries of nations. The god of one people had
no right over another. The gods of the pagans were not jealous gods;
they shared among themselves the empire of the world: even Moses and
the Hebrews sometimes lent themselves to this view by speaking of the
God of Israel. It is true, they regarded as powerless the gods of
the Canaanites, a proscribed people condemned to destruction, whose
place they were to take; but remember how they spoke of the divisions
of the neighbouring peoples they were forbidden to attack! "Is not
the possession of what belongs to your god Chamos lawfully your due?"
said Jephthah to the Ammonites. "We have the same title to the lands
our conquering God has made his own."[1] Here, I think, there is a
recognition that the rights of Chamos and those of the God of Israel
are of the same nature.
But when the Jews, being subject to the kings of Babylon, and,
subsequently, to those of Syria, still obstinately refused to recognise
any god save their own, their refusal was regarded as rebellion against
their conqueror, and drew down on them the persecutions we read of
in their history, which are without parallel till the coming of
Christianity.[2]
Every religion, therefore, being attached solely to the laws of the
State which prescribed it, there was no way of converting a people
except by enslaving it, and there could be no missionaries save
conquerors. The obligation to change cults being the law to which the
vanquished yielded, it was necessary to be victorious before suggesting
such a change. So far from men fighting for the gods, the gods, as in
Homer, fought for men; each asked his god for victory, and repayed him
with new altars. The Romans, before taking a city, summoned its gods
to quit it; and, in leaving the Tarentines their outraged gods, they
regarded them as subject to their own and compelled to do them homage.
They left the vanquished their gods as they left them their laws. A
wreath to the Jupiter of the Capitol was often the only tribute they
imposed.
Finally, when, along with their empire, the Romans had spread their
cult and their gods, and had themselves often adopted those of the
vanquished, by granting to both alike the rights of the city, the
peoples of that vast empire insensibly found themselves with multitudes
of gods and cults, everywhere almost the same; and thus paganism
throughout the known world finally came to be one and the same religion.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account