Part 1 (2/2)

The story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, Gen. x.x.xix., 7-18, I have heard read in church to the manifest discomfort of some of the congregation, and the amus.e.m.e.nt of others, while Joseph flying from temptation and leaving his garment with Potiphar's wife is a picture often seen in Sunday schools. Thus twelve out of the fifty chapters of Genesis are undeniably obscene, and if there is any justice in England, Genesis ought to be suppressed. We pa.s.s to Exodus. Ex. i., 15-19 is surely indecent. I am not dealing with immoral teaching, or G.o.d's blessing on the falsehood of the midwives (20, 21) would need comment. Ex. iv., 24-26, is very coa.r.s.e; so also Ex. xxii., 16, 17, 19. Leviticus is coa.r.s.e throughout, but is especially so in chaps. v., 3; xii.; xv.; xviii., 6-23; xx., 10-21; xxii., 3-5. The trial of jealousy is most revolting in Numb. v., 12-29. Numb. xxv., 6-8 is hardly a nice story for a child, nor is that of Numb. x.x.xi., 17, 18. Deut. xxi., 10-14 is not pure teaching for soldiers. Deut. xxii., 13-21 is extremely coa.r.s.e; the remainder of the chapter comes also within the Chief's ruling, as do also chaps. xxiii., 1, 10, 11; xxv., 11, 12; xxvii., 20, 22, 23; xxviii., 57. The fault of the book of Joshua lies chiefly in its exceeding brutality and bloodthirstiness, but it, also, does not quite escape the charge of obscenity, as may be seen by referring to the following pa.s.sage: chap. v., 2-8. Judges is occasionally very foul, and is utterly unfit for general reading, according to the late definition; Ehud and Eglon, Judges, iii., 15-25, would not bear reading aloud, and the story might have been told equally well in decent language. Or take the horribly disgusting tale of the Levite and his concubine (Judges xix.), and then judge whether a book containing such stories is fit for use in schools. Dr. Carpenter's book may do good there, because, with all its plain speaking, it conveys useful information; but what good--mental, physical, or moral--can be done to a young girl by reading Judges xix.? And the harm done is intensified by the fact that the ignorance in which girls are kept surrounds such a story with unwholesome interest, as giving a glimpse into what is, to them, the great mystery of s.e.x. The story of Ruth iii. 3-14 is one which we should not like to see repeated by our daughters; for the virtue of a woman who should wait until a man was drunk, and then go alone at night and lie down at his feet, would, in our days, be regarded as problematical. 1 Sam. ii. 22, and v. 9 are both obscene; so are 1 Sam. xviii. 25-27 and xxi. 4, 5. 1 Sam. xxv. 22, 34 are disgustingly coa.r.s.e, and there are many similar coa.r.s.e pa.s.sages to be found in ”holy” writ. 2 Sam. vi. 14, 16, 20, is a little over-suggestive, as is also 2 Sam. x. 4. The story of David dancing is told in 1 Chron. xv. 27-29 without anything offensive in its tone. The story of David and Bathsheba is only too well known, and as told in 2 Sam. xi. 2-13 is far more calculated to arouse the pa.s.sions than is anything in Knowlton. The prophecy in 2 Sam. xii.

11, 12, fulfilled in xvi. 21, 22, is repulsive in the extreme, more especially when we are told that the shameful counsel was given by Ahithophel, whose counsel, ”which he counselled in those days, was as if a man had inquired at the oracle of G.o.d.” If G.o.d's oracles give such counsel, the less they are resorted to the better for the welfare of the state. We are next given the odious story of Amnon and Tamar (2 Sam.

xiii. 1-22), instructive for Lord Sandon's boys and girls to read together, as they go through the Bible from beginning to end. 1 Kings i.

1-4 conveys an idea more worthy of George IV. than of the man after G.o.d's own heart. In 1 Kings xiv. 10, the coa.r.s.eness is inexcusable, and verse 24 is only too intelligible after Judges xix. 2 Kings ix. 8, xviii. 27, are thoroughly Biblical in their delicacy. 1 Chron. xix. 4 repeats the unpleasant story of 2 Sam. x. 4; but both 1 and 2 Chronicles are, for the Bible, remarkably free from coa.r.s.eness, and are a great improvement on the books of Kings and Samuel. The same praise is deserved by Ezra and Nehemiah. The tone of the story of Esther is somewhat sensual throughout: the drunken king commanding Vashti to come in and show her beauty, Esther i. 11; the search for the young virgins, Esther ii. 2-4; the trial and choice, Esther ii. 12-17, these are scarcely elevating reading; Esther vii. 8 is also coa.r.s.e. To a girl whose safety is in her ignorance, Job iii. 11 is very plain. Psalm x.x.xviii. 5-7 gives a description of a certain cla.s.s of disease in exact terms. Proverbs v. 17-20 is good advice, but would be condemned by the Lord Chief Justice; Proverbs vi. 24-32 is of the same character, as is also Proverbs vii. 5-23. The allusion in Ecclesiastes xi. 5 would be objected to as improper by the Solicitor-General.

The Song of Solomon is a marriage-song of the sensual and luxuriant character: put Knowlton side by side with it, and then judge which is most calculated to arouse the pa.s.sions. It is almost impossible to select, where all is of so extreme a character, but take i. 2, 13; ii.

4-6, 17; iii. 1, 4; iv. 5, 6, 11; v. 2-4, 8, 14-16; vii. 2, 3, 6-10, 12; viii. 1-3, 8-10. Could any language be more alluring, more seductive, more pa.s.sion-rousing, than the languid, uxorious, ”linked sweetness long drawn out” of this Eastern marriage-ode? It is not vulgarly coa.r.s.e and offensive as is so much of the Bible, but it is, according to the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice, a very obscene poem. One may add that, in addition to the allusions and descriptions that lie on the surface, there is a mult.i.tude of suggestions not so apparent, but which are thoroughly open to all who know anything of Eastern imagery.

After the Song of Solomon, it is a shock to come to the prophets; it is like plunging into cold water after being in a hothouse. Unfortunately, with the more bracing atmosphere, we find the old brutality coming again to repel us, and coa.r.s.e denunciation shocks us, as in Isaiah iii. 17.

How would the Lord Chief Justice have dealt with Isaiah if he had lived in his day, and acted as is recorded in Isaiah xx., 2-4? He clearly would have put him in a lunatic asylum (Trial, p. 168). If it were not that there are so many worse pa.s.sages, one might complain of the taste shown in the comparison of Isaiah xxvi. 17, 18; the same may be said of Isaiah x.x.xii. 11, 12. In Isaiah x.x.xvi. 12 we have a repet.i.tion of 2 Kings xviii. 27, which we could well have spared. In Isaiah lvii. 8, 9, we meet a favourite simile of the Jewish prophets, wherein G.o.d is compared to a husband, and the people to an unfaithful wife, and the relations between them are described with a minuteness which can only be fitly designated by the Solicitor-General's favourite word. Isaiah lxvi.

7-12 would be regarded as somewhat coa.r.s.e in an ordinary book. The prophets get worse as they go on. Jeremiah i. 5 is the first verse we meet in Jeremiah which the Solicitor-General would take exception to. We next meet the simile of marriage, in Jeremiah ii., 20, iii. 1-3, 6-9, verse 9 being especially offensive. Jer. v. 7, 8, is coa.r.s.e, as are also Jer. xi. 15 and xiii. 26, 27. Ought the girls' schools to read Jer. xx.

17, 18? But, perhaps, as Ezekiel is coming, it is hypercritical to object to Jeremiah. Lamentations i. 8, 9, is revolting, and verse 17 of the same chapter uses an extremely coa.r.s.e simile. Ezekiel is the prophet who ate a little book and found it disagree with him: it seems a pity that he did not eat a large part of his own, and so prevent it from poisoning other people. What can be more disgusting than Ez. iv. 12-15?

the whole chapter is absurd, but these verses are abominable. The prophet seems, like the drawers of the indictment against us, to take pleasure in piling up uncomfortable terms, as in Ez. vi. 9. We now come to a chapter that is obscene from beginning to end, and may, I think, almost claim the palm of foulness. Let any one read through Ez. xvi., marking especially verses 4-9, 15-17, 25, 26, 33, 34, 37, 39, and then think of the absurdity of prosecuting Knowlton for corrupting the morals of the young, who have this book of Ezekiel put into their hand. After this, Ez. xviii. 6, 11, and 15 seem quite chaste and delicate; and no one could object to Ez. xxii. 9-11. Ez. xxiii. is almost as bad as chapter xvi., especially verses 6-9, 14-21, 29, 41-44. Surely if any book be indictable for obscenity, the Bible should be the first to be prosecuted. I know of no other book in which is to be found such utterly unredeemed coa.r.s.eness. The rest of Ezekiel is only bloodthirsty and brutal, so may, fortunately, be pa.s.sed over without further comment.

Daniel may be left unnoticed; and we now come to Hosea, a prophet whose morals were, to speak gently, peculiar. The ”beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea,” was the Lord's command as to his marriage, related in Hosea i. 2; we then hear of his children by the said wife in the remainder of the chapter, and in the next chapter we are told, Hosea ii.

2, that the woman is not his wife, and from verse 2-13 we have an extremely indecent speech of Hosea on the misdeeds of the unfortunate creature he married, wherein, verse 4, he complains of the very fact that G.o.d commanded in chap. i. 2. Hosea iii. 1-3 relates another indecent proceeding on Hosea's part, and his purchase of another mistress; whether girls' morals are improved by the contemplation of such divine commands, is a question that might fairly be urged on Lord Sandon before he next distributes Bibles to little children of both s.e.xes. The said girls must surely, as they study Hosea iv. 10-18, wonder that G.o.d expresses his intention not to punish impurity in verse 14. It is impossible, in reading Hosea, to escape from the prevailing tone of obscenity; chaps. v. 3, 4, 7; vi. 9, 10; vii. 4; viii. 9; ix. 1, 10, 11, 14, 16; xii. 3; xiii. 13, every one of these has a thought in it that all must regard as coa.r.s.e, and which comes distinctly within the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice as to obscenity; there is scarcely one chapter in Hosea that does not, with offensive reiteration, dwell on the coa.r.s.est form of wrongdoing of which women are capable. Joel iii. 3 is objectionable in a comparatively slight degree. Amos, although occasionally coa.r.s.e, keeps clear of the gross obscenity of Hosea, as do also Obadiah and Jonah. Micah i. 7, 8, 11, would scarcely be pa.s.sed by Sir Hardinge Giffard, nor would he approve Micah iv. 9, 10. Nahum iii.

4-6 is almost Hoseatic, and Habakkuk ii. 5, 16 runs it close. The remaining four prophets are sometimes coa.r.s.e, but have nothing in them approaching the abominations of the others, and we close the Old Testament with a sigh of relief.

The New Testament has in it nothing at all approaching the obscenity of the Old, save two pa.s.sages in Revelation. The story of Mary and Joseph is somewhat coa.r.s.e, especially as told in Matt. i. 18-25. Rom. i. 24-27 is distinctly obscene, and 1 Cor. v. 1, vi. 9, 15, 16, 18, would all be judged indelicate by Her Majesty's Solicitor-General, who objected to the warnings given by Knowlton against s.e.xual sin. The whole of 1 Cor.

vii. might be thought calculated to arouse the pa.s.sions, but the rest of Paul's Epistles may pa.s.s, in spite of many coa.r.s.e pa.s.sages, such as 1 Thess. iv. 3-7. Heb. xiii. 4 and 2 Peter ii. 10-18 both come into the same category, but it is useless to delay on simple coa.r.s.eness.

Revelation slips into the old prophetic indecency; Rev. ii. 20-22 and xvii. 1-4 are almost worthy of Ezekiel.

Can anyone go through all these pa.s.sages and have any doubt that the Bible--supposing it to be unprotected by statute--is indictable as an obscene book under the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice? It is idle to plead that the writers do not approve the evil deeds they chronicle, and that it is only in two or three cases that G.o.d appears to endorse the sin; no purity of motives on the writers' parts can be admitted in excuse (Trial, p. 257). These sensuous stories and obscene parables come directly under the censure of the Lord Chief Justice, and I invite our police authorities to show their sense of justice by prosecuting the people who circulate this indictable book, thereby doing all that in them lies to vitiate and corrupt the morals of the young. If they will not do this, in common decency they ought to drop the prosecution against us for selling the ”Fruits of Philosophy.”

The right way would be to prosecute none of these books. All that I have intended to do in drawing attention to the ”obscene” pa.s.sages in the Bible, is to show that to deal with the s.e.xual relations with a good object--as is presumably that of the Bible--should not be an indictable misdemeanour. I do not urge that the Bible should be prosecuted: I do urge that it is indictable under the present ruling; and I plead, further, that this very fact shows how the present ruling is against the public weal. Nothing could be more unfortunate than to have a large crop of prosecutions against the standard writers of old times and of the present day, and yet this is what is likely to happen, unless some stop is put to the stupid and malicious prosecution against ourselves. With one voice, the press of the country--omitting the _Englishman_--has condemned the ”foolish” verdict and the ”vindictive” sentence. When that sentence is carried out, the real battle will begin, and the blame of the loss and the trouble that will ensue must rest on those who started this prosecution, and on those who s.h.i.+eld the hidden prosecutor. The Christians, at least, ought to join with us in reversing the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice, since their own sacred book is one of those most easily a.s.sailable. The purity that depends on ignorance is a fragile purity; the chast.i.ty that depends on ignorance is a fragile chast.i.ty; to b.u.t.tress up ignorance with prison and fine is a fatal policy; and I call on those who love freedom and desire knowledge, to join with us in over-ruling by statute the new judge-made law.

<script>