Read Ebook: A Short History of the Book of Common Prayer by Huntington William Reed

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 300 lines and 68105 words, and 6 pages

SOSIALISMIN HISTORIA

Uudemman sosialismin edelt?j?t

E. Bernsteinin, C. Hugon, K. Kautskyn, P. Lafarguen, Franz Mehringin ja O. Plechanowin kuvaamana.

Kirj.

KARL KAUTSKY

Suomennos

K??nn?ksen tarkistanut W?in? Jokinen

Tampereella, Tampereen Ty?v?en Sanomalehti O.Y:n kustannuksella, 1908.

SIS?LLYS:

Bernsteinin ja Kautskyn esipuhe. Johdanto.

I OSA. Platonilainen ja vanhin kristillinen kommunismi.

I luku. Platonin ihannevaltio.

II luku. Alkukristillinen kommunismi.

II OSA. Palkkaty?v?ki keskiajalla ja uskonpuhdistuksen aikakaudella.

I luku. Vapaan k?sity?l?iss??dyn synty kaupungeissa.

II luku. K?sity?l?iss?llit.

IV luku. P??oma ja ty? kutomateollisuudessa.

I luku. Luostarikommunismi.

II luku. Kerettil?iskommunismi. Sen yleinen luonne.

IV luku. Beghardit.

V luku. Englannin lollhardit.

VI luku. Taborilaiset.

Viiteselitykset.

Bernsteinin ja Kautskyn esipuhe.

Ensim?inen koe kirjottaa sosialismin historiaa tehtiin 1840-luvulla, silloin kun kartismi ja kommunismi tuottivat jo erityist? huolta valtiomiehille sivistyneemmiss? maissa ja her?ttiv?t kaikkialla suurta huomiota. Nyt jo n?hd??n erinomaista vilkkautta t?ll? alalla, sosialismin vastustajat ja kannattajat tutkivat sen esihistoriaa, toiset asettaen umpim?hk?? sen yhteyteen kaikki, mik? v?h?nkin n?ytt?? aatteeseen kuuluvalta, toiset taasen arvostelevammin tutkien m??r?ttyj? ajankohtia tai huomattavampia ilmi?it?. T?ss? sopii meid?n muistella seuraavia henkil?it?: Villegardellea ja Robert von Mohlea, Reybaudia ja Lorenz v. Steini?, Sudrea ja Karl Gr?ne? sek? viel? lis?ksi Sargantia.

Kansallis- ja parisilaiskommuni synnyttiv?t toisen aikakauden sosialismin historiassa. Silt? ajalta on meill? Rudolf Meyerin ja J?gerin, D?hringin ja Laveleyn teokset, ja sarjamme loppuu ?skenmainitulla Benoit Malonin tuotteella "Histoire du Socialisme" .

Syy t?h?n lienee osaksi siin?, ett? aine on kasvanut niin suunnattomasti, ett? yksityisen tutkijan on hyvin vaikea siihen syventy?. Mutta ei suinkaan t?m? syy yksin voi selitt?? sit? seikkaa, ett? sosialismin historia niin v?h?n vieh?tt?? kirjailijoitamme.

Ensim?isell? aikakaudella eritt?inkin vastustajat kirjottivat historiaa. Toisella ovat jo sen suunnan edustajat kadonneet. Muutamilla 1870-luvun kuluessa t?ll? alalla eritt?in huomattavilla miehill? on kohtia, jotka liitt?v?t heit? sosialismiin; t?m? ei koske ainoastaan D?hringi? ja Malonia vaan my?skin R. Meyeri? ja Laveleyta. Taloustiede oli jo silloin kadottanut kaiken halunsa sosialismin historian kirjottamiseen.

T?t? ei ole niink??n vaikea k?sitt??. Taloustieteilij?, joka on p??tt?nyt pit?? pystyss? nykyisen yhteiskunnan perustuksia, ei voi n?hd? sosialismissa mit??n muuta kuin t?ydellisesti k?sitt?m?tt?m?n hairahduksen. Sosialismin historian kirjottamisessa ei h?nell? ole p??m??r?n? tehd? sit? kehityksen mukaisesti selv?ksi, vaan pikemmin n?ytt?? sosialismin soveltumattomuus ihmisen ja yhteiskunnan olemukseen.

Niin kauan kuin kapitalistinen tuotantotapa oli yh? kehittym?ss?, oli sosialismi tosiaankin vastakkainen tuotantotavan vaatimuksille ja kerrassaan mahdoton olemaan pysyv?isen? yhteiskuntamuotona. Sen vuoksi 1840-luvun lopulla olikin sosialismin historialla osallaan joukko tosiasioita, joista herrat taloustieteilij?t osasivat ly?d? rahaa. Sosialistiset ajatukset sortuivat tyhjin? unelmina, yritykset k?yt?nn?llisesti toteuttaa sosialismia eiv?t tuottaneet tuloksena mit??n muuta kuin pitk?n rivin tappioita ja onnistumattomia kokeita.

T?m?n kaiken on sittemmin aika muuttanut. Sosialistisen ajatusten historia on meid?n p?ivin?mme historia, joka sis?lt?? "sosialismin kehityksen haaveesta tieteeksi". Ja sitten kun yhtyminen on tapahtunut sosialismin ja ty?v?enliikkeen v?lill?, muodostaa sosialismin k?yt?nn?llisen vaikutuksen historia ketjun mit? kauneimpia voittoja. N?m? edistykset ovat meid?n p?ivin?mme yht? yleisesti tunnettuja ja tunnustettuja kuin sosialismin tieteelliset perustukset. Lyhyesti sanottuna: sosialismin historialla on kyllin ilmeisi? todistuksia sosialismin varmasta edistymisest? eri aloilla, jotta tieteilij?tkin voisivat paremmin asiaan kiintyen antaa t?ydellisen esityksen siit?.

On pantava suurta merkityst? siihen, ett? Parisin ja Pragin yliopistot ovat nyt samanaikaisesti asettaneet ohjelmiinsa luennoita sosialismista, ja Pragissa saatiinkin t?ydellisesti sopiva henkil? niit? pit?m??n.

Mutta samassa m??r?ss? ja samasta syyst? kuin ihastus sosialismin historiaan pienenee taloustieteess?, kasvaa se sosialisteissa. T?st? huolimatta on heille kuitenkin mahdollista olla mit? t?ydellisimmin puolueettomia edelt?ji??n kohtaan.

Meid?n asianamme ei liene t?ss? n?ytt??, miss? suhteessa uudenaikaisempi sosialismi on sosialismin aikaisempiin muotoihin. Samaten voisimme joutua t?ss? liian kauas antautuessamme tutkimaan taloudellista historian k?sityst?, joka ly? leimansa uudempaan sosialismiin ja tekee objektivisen historian kirjottamisen mahdolliseksi. T?m? voisi olla samaa kuin, ett? takertuisimme sis?llykseen siin? ty?ss?, joka on edess?mme. Olkoon t?m? tarpeeksi viittaamaan siihen, ett? my?hemm?n ajan sosialisti on varsin vapaassa suhteessa edelt?jiins?. Heid?n sosialisminsa ei ole samaa kuin h?nen, ne olosuhteet, joista se sai alkunsa, ovat erilaisia kuin ne, jotka nykyajan sosialistia ymp?r?iv?t. Millaisen tuomion h?n edelt?jist??n lausuneekin, ei se kumminkaan kohtaa sit? sosialismia, johon h?nen oma personallisuutensa sis?ltyy.

Itsest??n on kuitenkin selv??, ettei h?n suinkaan ole v?linpit?m?t?n edelt?ji?ns? kohtaan, vaikka h?n niihin n?hden s?ilytt??kin itsen?isyytens? ja puolueettomuutensa. Syv? my?t?tuntoisuus yhdist?isi h?net kaikkiin, jotka tahtoisivat jotain samallaista, pyrkisiv?t samaa p??m??r?? kohti kuin h?n itsekin. Se, ett? he koettivat saavuttaa sosialistisia ihanteita aikana, jolloin yhteiskunta ei ollut viel? kehitt?nyt keskuudestaan n?iden toteuttamiseen tarvittavia edellytyksi?, ett? he siis pyrkiv?t mahdottomuuksiin eiv?tk? onnistuneet, se varmaankin yh? enemm?n vahvistaa sit? my?t?tuntoisuutta, jonka asian luonteen mukaan tulee aina kohdata sorrettuja, voitettuja. Ja jos h?nen viel? lis?ksi t?ytyy olla n?kem?ss?, kuinka niit?, jotka ovat kukistuneet, ei ainoastaan voittaja ole h?v?issyt, panetellut ja saattanut huonoon valoon, vaan ett? viel? t?n?kin p?iv?n? niit? puolueellinen historiankirjotus varsin pahoin k?sittelee luokkaharrastuksia palvellen, niin on suuttumus ja viha sortajia vastaan yh? enemm?n lis??v? h?nen my?t?tuntoisuuttaan paneteltuja kohtaan.

Mutta kuinka voimakkaita n?m? tunteet lienev?tkin, eiv?t ne suinkaan mill??n tavalla est? totuutta tutkimasta. Onpa selv??, ett? sosialistin on helpompi kuin tavallisen kirjailijan tunkeutua vanhempien sosialistein tunne- ja henkimaailmaan.

Jos ymm?rt?? t?ydellisesti sosialismin my?hemm?n muodon synnyn, samalla kun k?sitt?? sen aikaisemmat muodot, niin on toiselta puolen samoin totta, ett? paremmin ymm?rt?? molempia, jos itse on keskell? nykyajan sosialistisia liikkeit?. Lienee t?ss? paikallaan Heinen huomautus: "Silloin kun koettaa selitt?? nykyisyytt? menneisyydest?, huomaa samalla, ett? oikeastaan entisyytt? vasta nykyisyyden kautta k?sitt?? oikein ja ett? jokainen p?iv? luopi t?h?n menneisyyteen uutta valoa, josta meid?n lyhytn?k?isill? kirjailijoillamme ei ole ollut edes aavistustakaan".

N?in ollen voidaan v?itt??, ett? samalla kun taloustiede yh? enempi k??ntyy toimimasta sosialismin historian hyv?ksi, siirtyy t?m?n kirjottaminen luonnollisesti niille, jotka kuuluvat uudemman sosialismin kannattajien piiriin.

"Meid?n levottomalla ajallamme", kirjotti Engels kerran, "on samoin kuin 1500-luvulla, niin pian kuin asia koskee yleisi? harrastuksia, ainoastaan taantumuksen puolella miehi?, jotka ovat erikoistutkijoita". T?m? totuus koskee ennen kaikkea sosialidemokratiaa. Me emme voi meik?l?isist? mainita ket??n, jota voisi pit?? yksinomaan tieteellisen? tutkijana. Jokainen meid?n miehist?mme on samalla k?yt?nn?llinen sotilas, joka sanoineen ja kirjotuksineen, neuvoineen ja toimineen antautuu ty?v?est?n taisteluun. Yleisesti tunnettua on, ettei nykyisten sosialistisien perustelmien kumpikaan perustaja mill??n tavalla tehnyt t?ss? kohden mit??n poikkeusta.

Niiden kannattajien joukossa, jotka nyt koetsm of Holy Scripture seven appears as the number of perfection, it being the aggregate of three, the number of Deity, and four, the number of the earth. Accordingly we find in the theology of those times seven sacraments, seven deadly sins, seven contrary virtues, seven works of mercy, and also seven hours of prayer. These seven hours were known as Matins, Prime, Tierce, Sext, Nones, Vespers, and Complene. The theory of the hours of prayer was that at each one of them a special office of devotion was to be said. Beginning before sunrise with matins there was to be daily a round of services at stated intervals culminating at bedtime in that which, as its name indicated, filled out the series, Complene. To what extent this ideal scheme of devotion was ever carried out in practice it is difficult positively to say.

Probably in the monastic and conventual life of the severer orders there was an approximation to a punctual observance of the hours as they successively arrived. Possibly the modern mind fails to do full justice to the conception of worship on which this system was based. Those principles of devotion of which the rosary is the visible symbol do not easily commend themselves to us. They have about them a suggestion of mechanism. They remind us of the Buddhist praying wheel, and seem to put the Church in the attitude of expecting to be heard for her "much speaking."

"There was never anything by the wit of man so well devised or so surely established which, in continuance of time, hath not been corrupted, as, among other things, it may plainly appear by the common prayer, in the Church, commonly called divine service. The first original and ground whereof, if a man would search out by the ancient fathers, he shall find that the same was not ordained but of a good purpose, and for a great advancement of godliness, for they so ordered the matter that all the whole Bible, or the greatest part thereof, should be read over once in the year . . . But these many years past this godly and decent order of the ancient fathers hath been so altered, broken, and neglected by planting in uncertain stories, legends, responds, verses, vain repetitions, commemorations, and synodals that commonly, when any book of the Bible was begun, before three or four chapters were read out all the rest were unread. And in this sort the Book of Esaie was begun in Advent, and the Book of Genesis in Septuagesima, but they were only begun and never read through . . . And moreover, whereas St. Paul would have such language spoken to the people in the Church as they might understand and have profit by hearing the same, the service in this Church of England hath been read in Latin to the people, which they understood not, so that they have heard with their ears only, and their hearts, spirit, and mind have not been edified thereby . . . Moreover, the number and hardness of the rules called the Pie, and the manifold changings of the service was the cause that to turn the Book only was so hard and intricate a matter that many times there was more business to find out what should be read than it was to read it when it was found out. These inconveniences therefore considered, here is set forth such an order whereby the same shall be redressed."

Is not Cranmer's contemptuous mention of these uncertain legends and vain repetitions amply justified? And can we be too thankful to the sturdy champions of the Reformation, who in the face of no little opposition and by efforts scarcely appreciated to-day, cut us loose from all responsibility for such solemn nonsense?

There are some who feel aggrieved that chapters from the Apocrypha should have found admission to our new lectionary, and there are even those who think that of the canonical Scriptures, passages more edifying than certain of those appointed to be read might have been chosen, but what would they think if they were compelled to hear the minister at the lecturn say: "Here beginneth the first chapter of the Adventures of Philip the Fair"?

Certainly there must be a relation of cause and effect between this scene and the fact, which is a fact, that the most ancient fragments of primitive Christian worship now discoverable are forms for the due commemoration of the sacrifice of the death of Christ.

To sum up, the argument in behalf of an apostolic origin for the Christian Liturgy may be compactly stated thus: The very earliest monuments of Christian worship that we possess are rituals of thanksgiving, having direct reference to the sacrifice of the death of Christ. Going back from these to the New Testament we find there the narrative of the institution of the Holy Communion by Christ himself, and in connection with it the command, "This do in remembrance of me." It is, I submit, a reasonable inference that the liturgies in the main fairly represent what it was in the mind of the apostle to recognize and establish as proper Christian worship. I do not call it demonstration, I call it reasonable inference. There is a striking parallelism between the argument for liturgical worship and the argument for episcopacy. In both cases we take the ground that continuity existed between the life of the Church as we find it a hundred years after the last of the apostles had gone to his rest and the life of the Church as it is pictured in the New Testament.

That there were many changes during the interval must no doubt be granted, but we say that if those changes were serious ones affecting great principles of belief or order, those who maintain that such a hidden revolution took place are bound to bring positive evidence to the fact. This history of the Church during the second century has been likened with more of ingenuity than of poetical beauty to the passing of a train through a railway tunnel.

We see the train enter, we see it emerge, but its movement while inside the tunnel is concealed from us. Similarly we may say that we see with comparative distinctness the Christian Church of the Apostolic Age, and we see with comparative distinctness the Church of the Age of Cyprian and Origen, but with respect to the interval separating the two periods we are not indeed wholly, but, we are, it must be confessed, very largely ignorant. And yet as in the case of the tunnel we confidently affirm an identity between what we saw go in and what we see coming out, so with the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church, the usages of the third century, we argue, are probably in their leading features what the usages of the first century were. If reason to the contrary can be given, well and good; but in the absence of countervailing testimony we abide by our inference, holding it to be sound.

I am far from wishing to maintain that these considerations bind liturgical worship upon the Christian Church as a matter of obligation for all time. It might be argued, and I think with great force, that liturgical worship having been universal throughout the ancient world, heathen as well as Jewish, the apostles and fathers of the Christian Church judged it unwise to make any departure at the outset from a custom so invariable, trusting it to the spirit of the new religion to work out freer and less formal methods of approaching God through Christ in the times to come. This, I confess, strikes me as a perfectly legitimate line of reasoning and one which is strengthened rather than weakened by what we have seen happen in Christendom since the sixteenth century. Great bodies of Christians have for a period of some three hundred years been worshipping Almighty God in non-liturgical ways, and have not been left without witness that their service was acceptable to the Divine Majesty. Moreover, the fact that absolute rigidity in liturgical use never was insisted upon in any age of the Church until the English passed their Act of Uniformity, makes in the same direction. And yet even after these allowances have been made, there remains a considerable amount of solid satisfaction for those who do adhere to the liturgical method, in the thought that they are in the line which is apparently the line of continuity, and that their interpretation of the apostolic purpose with respect to worship is the interpretation that has been generally received in Christendom as far back as we can go.

VICISSITUDES.

Certain of the necromancers of the far East are said to have the power of causing a tree to spring up, spread its branches, blossom, and bear fruit before the eyes of the lookers-on within the space of a few moments.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet