A Study of History, Vol 7B

Title: A Study of History, Vol 7B – Universal Churches

Author: Arnold Joseph Toynbee

Publisher: Oxford University Press, 1985 (First published 1954)

ISBN: 978-0-19-215237-4

Pages: 403

In this second part of the seventh volume of Toynbee’s series on universal states and universal churches, the onus is on the latter. Whenever a society enters its path to disintegration, the possibility of conjuring up a universal state or church emerges. While state formation may be by the hands of internal elements or outer barbarians, universal churches are generally produced by the internal proletariat. Toynbee examines the arguments that treat religion as cancer on the societal body, or as chrysalis of a new civilization and ends up with the laughable postulate that divine love is that which moves the world and seeking union with god is the ultimate purpose of human life on earth! Even allowing for the zeitgeist of that time, it is really sad to observe such a ridiculous pose from a great scholar like Toynbee.

Religion, especially those ‘higher’ religions that roots on prophetic revelations, is a weak point of the author’s rationale. The readers wonder at the proclivity of the author to trumpet the praise of religion and god as the defining parameters of humanity, instead of merely as the stepping stones of man’s social progress, which is the place a rational mind ascribes to religion. To a modern intellectual, religion lies at the bottom of the social milieu, based on which the society still function, though deep chinks are seen in the solid foundation that counted time in millenia. But Toynbee places it at the top level of all human endeavours that might be accounted for, by his point of view which may be at odds with modern thinking. He begins this volume by attacking the argument that religion is a cancer that eats upon the vitality of a society. Before religion separated man from fellow man, his allegiance was to the society as a whole, in the form of family, tribe, clan, state or empire. His actions were governed by considerations of how his actions would be beneficial to his fellows. Primitive religions also followed this road, where rituals that ensured the participation of the whole tribe counted for all of god’s grace that flowed to a man. But when the ‘higher’ religions came into being, it placed man on a personal footing against god. His grace could theoretically flow direct from the godhead to the person according to a specific set of guidelines that didn’t accord much significance to such corporate entities as a state or kingdom. Hence man withdrew into a shell that housed god anyhow, and the society was the loser. It was only when the crab-like grip of religion was eased in the 17^th century did civilization once again started moving towards greater freedom and progress. Toynbee counters this unassailable piece of wisdom with weak homilies like god’s love of man inspiring the notion of brotherhood and universal love. The author’s arguments are not convincing.

Another breathtaking feat of acrobatics is the author’s equating the ‘higher’ religions of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism on a par as the paths of salvation open to mankind. Toynbee’s voice rings conciliatory, but unaccompanied by supporting evidence of the tie, that binds these varied religions through a common thread of ‘revealed’ information. Readers may doubt whether there is anything fundamental that differentiates between Hinduism and the ancient Greek religion that also adored numerous divinities of varied statures and equally variable moral standards. Both of them can rightly be called paganism, but Toynbee goes to great length to mitigate the taint of idolatry and paganism as far as Hinduism is concerned whereas the Greek religion earned his scorn at every turn. However, the author’s act seems to be in contrast to his earlier point of view as is evident from the previous volumes in which Hinduism was painted as the hotchpotch of practices of a society kept firmly under the British colonial empire. What apparently caused his volte face? The hint to this question lies in the year of publishing of this volume. This book came out in 1953 whereas the previous volumes saw light of the day in the 1930s. See the difference a country’s independence in the meantime forces on the evaluation of a learned scholar! India’s attainment of independence in 1947 must be seen as the reason behind the author’s graciousness of bracketing India’s ancient religion also in the elite club of ‘higher’ religions. But Toynbee’s classification and praise of such religions are so flimsy and illogical that I am constrained forever to put the word ‘higher’ only inside apostrophes! When the readers get really fed up at the end of the book, they would get some comic relief by learning the opinion of Martin Wight, whose comments are prominently incorporated and paraphrased by the author throughout the text. According to Wight’s ‘learned’ opinion, all other religions’ sole purpose in life is to pave the way for Christianity to conquer, because that alone is the true religion! He objects to Toynbee’s practice of equating the four prominent religions in the world on a footing of spiritual equality.

The book then presents another dull and predictable exposition of the roles of science and religion in the modern world and how they could live in harmony with each other by sticking on to the domains of intellect and revelation. Whenever they stepped on the domain of the other, havoc resulted in totalitarian dominance of one on the other. Religion reigned supreme for most of the time, but science regained its hegemony during the last two centuries. But if the author’s opinion is to be accepted at face value, the two devastating world wars has exposed the precariousness of letting science have its own way. Most readers, except the deeply devout, would disagree with this conclusion.

Annexes to the entire seventh volume including ‘Universal States’ and ‘Universal Churches’ are included with this book. One of them is a scholarly treatise on the administrative and fiscal geography of the Achaemenian Empire. Here, the author examines the errors and inconsistencies observed in the remains of official records unearthed by archeologists and found mentioned by Herodotus in his history. Not only the exposition is extraordinarily detailed, but the sieve with which he tries the assertions of the ancient authors is a very fine one. Do the readers need be subjected to such an elaborate display of erudition, but which does not contribute in any way to the readability of the book or relevance to the content? Toynbee applies generalization principles to historical events so as to present before us an overarching scheme of how things work out in the rest of the book, but in this annex, he unleashes his scholarship to magnify a finer point which does not donate any additional insight to the overall picture. As a result of this tiring exercise that carries more than hundred pages of the volume, tt may come as a surprise to many students of ancient Indian history to note that the Indus basin and Punjab plains had been under the domination of Persian kings in the pre-Alexandrine era. The rock edicts of Darius at Behistan evoke an urge to compare its style with Ashoka's edicts which differ in time by two centuries.

This volume was a great disappointment. We get frustrated for denying us the chance to learn about how religion occupied the world as it does today. Instead, they are forced to partake from the author’s laborious essays on spirituality, religious philosophy, and metaphysics. Some of them are outright childish, like “A crucified man would be the only kind of man that an Incarnate God could be” (p.567)! Toynbee loans concepts from science to apply them afresh to historical facts, like he did with the ocean current of Gulf Stream in trying to prove a historical point. This is unconvincing and is erroneous application of the idea. But on some aspects, he identifies the exact nature of things that happened, like “Sankara relieved Hinduism of the incubus of Indic scriptures (Vedanta, Upanishads) by professing to place these on a pedestal high enough to remove them conveniently out of the way” (p.454). Then again, his proposition that Jawaharlal Nehru becoming the administrator of modern India was because he was a Kashmiri Brahmin as a consequence of the rule that Brahmins decided the fate of the country is ridiculous and born out of ignorance of the conditions existing in India during the end of the 1940s.

The book is recommended.

Rating: 2 Star