Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review Volumes 32 and 33.djvu/601

 The Origin of Monotheism. 291

attention. A multitude of facts is a burden to the mind, and a multitude of interests is a worry. When these grow too numerous men seek to reduce them, and if they delay too long, they do so violently and with enthusiasm, sweeping away suddenly the prolonged tyranny of accumulated tradition. Such a movement was the French Revolution, which made a fetish of simplicity and system, because both had been unduly neglected in the past. It is difftcult to serve more than a limited number of gods, it is especially difficult when the attributes of those gods are hopelessly mixed, when every god is the same as every other. It is only necessary to read a treatise on the religion of the Vedas to realize how dull and annoying a religion may become when the personalities of the various gods cease to be clearly distinguished. Some minds are content with confusion, but others rebel against it and embrace with enthusiasm any movement that would sweep it away.

It is difficult, however, to understand the tremendous success of monotheism if we look upon it merely as an abstract doctrine ; as such it might stir up strife among philosophers, and those who quarrel about mere ideas ; but the mass of mankind has too much sense for that, and they would not take all the trouble they have taken to assert that there is only one God, and no more, if behind that dogma there was not a tendency, a new spirit, which was worth fighting for. Men at first sight do look hope- lessly foolish killing and getting killed for the sake of pure abstractions ; but when we look at it closely we find that they are not so much foolish as unable to express them- selves, and therefore unable to do justice to their cause. They feel a great deal which they cannot put into a few clear words, yet they require a few clear words as a war cry to rally their forces ; so we hear a great deal in history about the shibboleths of dogma and ritual that distinguish parties, and very little about the aspirations that impel them. But we must judge the past by the present. If we