The Fall of Man: Biblical Parallels in "An Essay on Man" Natalie Batman
Man's departure from the state of nature has captured the interest of countless individuals, from laymen to philosophers, for centuries. Arguably the first and original account of man's fall from the state of nature is recorded in Genesis, the first book of the Bible and the Jewish Torah. In An Essay on Man, Pope presents a view of early man that seems to strongly resemble the Biblical one. Like the Bible, he depicts a very distinct break between Man in the state of nature (as he was created) and “man of the times to come” (3.4.161)—a fundamental shift in the character of Man, which will henceforth be referred to as “the fall.” Close examination of Pope's work casts doubt on the suggestion that Pope follows the Bible as a model for his story of the fall of Man. Is Pope's story of Man departing from the state of nature based on the Biblical account? The most notable similarities are in Pope's depiction of the relationships between God and Man, as well as Man and Animal, before and after the fall. It is not until we examine the proposed cause of the fall that the picture becomes complete. Pope's view of the fall of man differs fundamentally from the Bible's account, even though there are some superficial similarities between the two. Pope owes many of his less essential concepts to the Bible, but overall, his thoughts on the fall of man do not have their foundation in Scripture. There are a few strained similarities in the God-Man relationship as depicted by Pope and the Bible, but the differences are more pronounced. Pope shows Man before the fall submitting to the “reign of God,” which existed in the state of nature (3.4.148). In this surrounding, Man praised God alongside all other vocal beings in one temple—nature [“In the same temple, the resounding wood, / All vocal beings hymned their equal God” (3.4.155-156)]. Sacrifices were unnecessary and nonexistent, and God was worshiped at “the shrine with gore unstained” (3.4.157). There were no elaborate traditions associated with worship; however, there was a “blameless priest” whose duty was, presumably, to mediate the relationship between God and Man (3.4.158). Similar to Pope, the Bible shows pre-fall Man taking a submissive role in his relationship with God. It also, however, depicts the God-Man relationship as very personal in that they inhabited the same space in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:22). This stands in stark contrast to an impersonal relationship mediated by “the blameless priest” (3.4.158). Neither does the Bible contain any record of Man praising God before the fall. It agrees with Pope's argument in the fact that there were no sacrifices or rituals, but this similarity seems inconsequential because it proceeds from an aspect of the Bible's depiction that is very different from Pope's (i.e. the personal level of the God-Man relationship). Man's relationship with God after the fall is portrayed on two very different levels in An Essay on Man and the Bible. The following passage shows some of the nuances of Pope's argument: “Go, wiser thou! And in they scale of sense / Weigh thy Opinion against Providence…Yet cry, If Man's unhappy, God's unjust; If Man alone ingross not Heav'n's high care…Snatch from his hand the balance and the rod” (1.4.113-121). Post-fall Man believes himself a “wiser” judge whose thoughts and “opinion” are superior to those of his deity. Instead of submitting to the “reign of God,” he seeks to execute justice (“balance”) and institute his own authority (“rod”) when it appears that he is not the center of the universe (“…ingross not Heav'n's high care…”). In doing so, Man “inverts the laws / Of Order, sins against th' Eternal Cause” (1.4.129-130). He embraces his own “Reason” instead of his God-given “Instinct” (3.2.97) and rejects God's direction in favor of his own. Though it would not become quasi-idolized until the Enlightenment, the reason of mankind is treated in a rather non-traditional way by Pope. He depicts reason, which was and is frequently seen as a virtue, as something which Man perverted to such a point that it is tied somehow to pride and to the fall [“In Pride, in reas'ning Pride, our error lies” (1.4.123)] . The Bible describes Man's relationship with God after the fall in very different terms. God casts Man out of paradise because of his sin, putting up a boundary where before there was unbroken fellowship: “Therefore the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken” (Genesis 3:23). The break in their personal relationship was caused by man's actions (eating the fruit), but the consequences of separation were enacted by God. This view undermines any proposed Biblical parallels in Pope's emphasis on Man's actions. One of the only similarities between the two depictions of Man's post-fall relationship with God is that Man began incorporating animal sacrifice in religious practices. The introduction of ritual sacrifice is only implied in Pope—the “unstained” shrine was presumably stained at some later point in time—but is stated explicitly in the Bible: “And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering” (Genesis 3:3-4). This similarity is negligible in light of the completely different paradigms used by Pope and the Bible to describe the post-fall relationship between God and Man. Some slightly more convincing parallels can be seen in Pope's and the Bible's depictions of the pre-fall relationship between Man and animals, but they are still not enough to argue that Essay's story of the fall is founded on the Bible. The following excerpt from Pope's literary work provides much information on his viewpoint on this subject: Man walked with beast, joint tenant of the shade: The same his table, and the same his bed; No murder clothed him, and no murder fed. In the same temple, the resounding wood, All vocal beings hymned their equal God: The shrine with gore unstained, with gold undressed, Unbribed, unbloody, stood the blameless priest: Heav’n’s attribute was Universal Care, And Man’s prerogative to rule, but spare. (3.4.152-160) Here see that the relationship between Man and “beast” was very close and personal; they walked, lived, ate, slept, and worshiped God together (the latter applies if they are considered part of “All vocal beings,” as they are here). This close relationship, especially the nebulous reference to Man and animal sleeping together, elicits some sort of explanation. Rather than implying improprietous behavior, it signifies a world where Man and animal were unified in spirit and lived harmoniously together in what seems to be a forest (“the shade….the resounding wood”). Man in the state of nature did not use animal skin for clothing or “murder” animals for food. As discussed above, animals were not yet sacrificed to God. Man's role with regard to animals was to exercise authority, but to do so with care and respect (“to rule, but spare”). The Bible presents a picture of the Man-animal relationship before the fall that is similar in some ways to Pope's account, but also contains significant differences. The latter resembles the Bible most noticeably in Man's role as ruler and care-taker of the animals, seen in the following verse: “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28). Man was commissioned in the Bible to name every animal when God “brought [the animals] to Adam to see what he would call them… [which] was its name” (Genesis 2:19). Biblical Man dominating over and naming the animals looks much like the Man-Animal relationship depicted by Pope; however, the latter describes a much more intimate relationship between the two species than does the former. Those who would argue that Pope used the Bible as a model might find their strongest argument in this resemblance, but when considered as a part of the whole picture (especially the causal explanation for the fall of Man which is examined below), this evidence is unconvincing. The post-fall relationship between Pope's Man and “beast” differs significantly from the Biblical account. Pope's very negative depiction of this relationship is clear in the following quote: “Ah! how unlike the man of times to come! / Of half that live the butcher and the tomb; / Who, foe to Nature, hears the gen'ral groan, / Murders their species, and betrays his own” (3.4.161-164). Man's relationship with animals is fundamentally changed and “unlike” the peaceful cohabitation of pre-fall existence. It is now one of enmity and disharmony, where Man is an enemy of nature and a murderer of animals. Man's use of animals for sacrifice and clothing is implied in Pope's earlier reference to religious practices before the fall being “with gore unstained…unbribed, unbloody” and to Man as not being clothed by murder (3.4.154, 157-158). Pope distinctly conveys a clashing, quarrelsome relationship between the two species with descriptors like “butcher” and “foe.” In addition, Pope's Man is instructed by the example of animals, as seen here: “Go, from the Creatures thy instructions take: / Learn from the birds what food the thickets yield…” (3.4.172-173). He learns essential methods of survival and advancement from watching animals. On the other hand, the Biblical Man-animal relationship does not suddenly become disharmonious after the fall as it does in An Essay on Man. Humans began killing animals for clothing, food, and sacrifice after the fall (Genesis 3:21, 4:2, 4:4), but the relationship revolved around practical need instead of enmity. The Bible has no record of Man being instructed by animals in methods of survival like eating and construction—rather, he is superior to animals in every way. Differences are much more prominent than any perceived parallels in Pope's and the Bible's account of the post-fall relationship of Man and “beast.” The fundamental nature of the Man-animal relationship is depicted by Pope and the Bible in ways that, while not explicitly opposed, differ widely in focus and descriptive content. While significant, this difference pales in comparison to the rift between Pope and the Bible in answering this extremely central question: What caused Man to fall from the state of nature? Pope's distinctive point of view is visible in these selections from Section VI of Epistle III: Ere Wit oblique had broke that steady light, Man, like his Maker, saw that all was right; To Virtue, in the paths of Pleasure, trod, And owned a Father when he owned a God…. (3.6.231-234) For Nature knew no right divine in Men…. (3.6.236) Who first taught souls enslaved, and realms undone, Th' enormous faith of many made for one; That proud exception to all Nature's laws, T' invert the world, and counterwork its Cause? Force made Conquest, and that conquest, Law; Till Superstition taught the tyrant awe, Then shared the Tyranny, then lent it aid… (3.6.241-247) Man dwelt in virtue, pleasure, and fellowship with God, and had the proper view of the world before he exalted himself above “his Maker” and the “steady light” was broken by Man's shift to reliance on reason instead of god-given instinct (see reference to reason v. instinct on page 3). This idyllic state is the “realm” which would be “undone” by Man's fall from the state of nature. In lines 241-244, Pope asks who (or what) is responsible for this shift, using the question as a way of introducing his explanation of the fall. His answer comes in line 245: “Force” is responsible for the fall of mankind. Pope's use of the word “force” could be interpreted in a broad variety of ways, but I will attempt to follow the suggestions of context. The question he poses speaks to the meaning of “force”: it taught Man to turn the world upside down (“invert the world”) and to reverse the original order established by God (“counterwork its Cause”). Pope follows this word immediately with an action—“Conquest”—implying that “Force” is some kind of agent/actor. Instead of voluntarily learning, Man is compelled to unravel the order of his “realms” and to pervert the natural authority structure. Man is not responsible for the fall; rather, he is swept up by some outside power into departing from the state of nature. That power, that “force,” seems to be some kind of “tyrant,” as shown in the last two lines of the passage quoted above. Epistle I speaks of “reas'ning Pride” being the source of Man's “error” (1.4.123). Taking this early reference into consideration, we may speculate that the “force” or “tyrant” is inspired by pride and perverted reason to overthrown the natural order of the world. Since Pope has been speaking of Man as a race, it is unclear how there could exist an external tyrant to exercise influence over mankind. He offers no clues which might explain this paradox. Regardless of that ambiguity, however, it is clear that Pope blames something outside of Man for the fall. This is the crucial piece of evidence in explaining the nature of the relationship between Pope's work and the Bible. Scripture links the fall of man with his disobedience to God: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die….Then to Adam He said, “Because you have…eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, `You shall not eat of it': “Cursed is the ground for your sake”…” (Genesis 2:17, 3:17). Man was cursed as a result of his disobedience, and he fell from the state of nature because he did not heed the voice of his God. In the Bible, blame for Man's fall from the state of nature rests squarely on his own shoulders. An internal choice caused the fall of mankind, not the external “Force” on which Pope places the blame. This difference in causal explanation is central to defining the nature of Biblical parallels in An Essay on Man. We find that Pope's essential argument does not follow the Bible as a model, evidenced by his completely different depiction of the actual reason for Man's fall. The minor similarities which lead some to see strong parallels are on a much more superficial and non-essential level than the rift in causal explanation. Pope may have used imagery that resembles Genesis on a superficial level in order to gain the trust of his reading audience, because many in his day were heavily influenced by traditional Christian ideals. Having gained this trust, he could then advance his own view of Man's departure from the state of nature much more effectively. In sum, we see that Pope offers an explanation of Man's fall that is essentially independent from the Bible.
|