Volume 3, Part 1, Slice 1 Part 21 (1/2)

Further, he has no systematic works; his doctrines exist for the most part in short detached essays, in comments on the writings of Boehme and Saint Martin, or in his extensive correspondence and journals. At the same time there are salient points which mark the outline of his thought. Baader starts from the position that human reason by itself can never reach the end it aims at, and maintains that we cannot throw aside the presuppositions of faith, church and tradition. His point of view may be described as Scholasticism; for, like the scholastic doctors, he believes that theology and philosophy are not opposed sciences, but that reason has to make clear the truths given by authority and revelation. But in his attempt to draw still closer the realms of faith and knowledge he approaches more nearly to the mysticism of Eckhart, Paracelsus and Boehme.

Our existence depends on the fact that we are cognized by G.o.d (_cogitor ergo cogito et sum_). All self-consciousness is at the same time G.o.d-consciousness; our knowledge is never mere _scientia_, it is invariably _con-scientia_--a knowing with, consciousness of, or partic.i.p.ation in G.o.d.

Baader's philosophy is thus essentially a theosophy. G.o.d is not to be conceived as mere abstract Being (_substantia_), but as everlasting process, activity (_actus_). Of this process, this self-generation of G.o.d, we may distinguish two aspects--the immanent or esoteric, and the emanent or exoteric. G.o.d has reality only in so far as He is absolute spirit, and only in so far as the primitive will is conscious of itself can it become spirit at all. But in this very cognition of self is involved the distinction of knower and known, from which proceeds the power to become spirit. This immanent process of self-consciousness, wherein indeed a trinity of persons is not given but only rendered possible, is mirrored in, and takes place through, the eternal and impersonal idea or wisdom of G.o.d, which exists beside, though not distinct from, the primitive will. Concrete reality or personality is given to this divine _Ternar_, as Baader calls it, through _nature_, the principle of self-hood, of individual being, which is eternally and necessarily produced by G.o.d. Only in nature is the trinity of _persons_ attained. These processes, it must be noticed, are not to be conceived as successive, or as taking place in time; they are to be looked at _sub specie aeternitatis_, as the necessary elements or moments in the self-evolution of the divine Being. Nor is _nature_ to be confounded with created substance, or with matter as it exists in s.p.a.ce and time; it is pure non-being, the mere otherness (_alteritas_) of G.o.d-his shadow, desire, want, or _desiderium sui_, as it is called by mystical writers.

Creation, itself a free and non-temporal act of G.o.d's love and will, cannot be speculatively deduced, but must be accepted as an historic [v.03 p.0088]

fact. Created beings were originally of three orders--the intelligent or angels; the non-intelligent natural existences; and man, who mediated between these two orders. Intelligent beings are endowed with freedom; it is possible, but not necessary, that they should fall. Hence the fact of the fall is not a speculative but an historic truth. The angels fell through pride--through desire to raise themselves to equality with G.o.d; man fell by lowering himself to the level of nature. Only after the fall of man begins the creation of s.p.a.ce, time and matter, or of the world as we now know it; and the motive of this creation was the desire to afford man an opportunity for taking advantage of the scheme of redemption, for bringing forth in purity the image of G.o.d according to which he has been fas.h.i.+oned.

The physical philosophy and anthropology which Baader, in connexion with this, unfolds in various works, is but little instructive, and coincides in the main with the utterances of Boehme. In nature and in man he finds traces of the dire effects of sin, which has corrupted both and has destroyed their natural harmony. As regards ethics, Baader rejects the Kantian or any autonomic system of morals. Not obedience to a moral law, but realization in ourselves of the divine life is the true ethical end.

But man has lost the power to effect this by himself; he has alienated himself from G.o.d, and therefore no ethical theory which neglects the facts of sin and redemption is satisfactory or even possible. The history of man and of humanity is the history of the redeeming love of G.o.d. The means whereby we put ourselves so in relation with Christ as to receive from Him his healing virtue are chiefly prayer and the sacraments of the church; mere works are never sufficient. Man in his social relations is under two great inst.i.tutions. One is temporal, natural and limited--the state; the other is eternal, cosmopolitan and universal--the church. In the state two things are requisite: first, common submission to the ruler, which can be secured or given only when the state is Christian, for G.o.d alone is the true ruler of men; and, secondly, inequality of rank, without which there can be no organization. A despotism of mere power and liberalism, which naturally produces socialism, are equally objectionable. The ideal state is a civil community ruled by a universal or Catholic church, the principles of which are equally distinct from mere pa.s.sive pietism, or faith which will know nothing, and from the Protestant doctrine, which is the very radicalism of reason.

Baader is, without doubt, among the greatest speculative theologians of modern Catholicism, and his influence has extended itself even beyond the precincts of his own church. Among those whom he influenced were R. Rothe, Julius Muller and Hans L. Markensen.

His works were collected and published by a number of his adherents--F.

Hoffman, J. Hamberger, E. v. Schaden, Lutterbeck, von Osten-Sacken and Schluter--_Baader's sammtliche Werke_ (16 vols., 1851-1860). Valuable introductions by the editors are prefixed to the several volumes. Vol. xv.

contains a full biography; vol. xvi. an index, and an able sketch of the whole system by Lutterbeck. See F. Hoffmann, _Vorhalle zur spekulativen Lehre Baader's_ (1836); _Grundzuge der Societats-Philosophie Franz Baader's_ (1837); _Philosophische Schriften_ (3 vols., 1868-1872); _Die Weltalter_ (1868); _Biographie und Briefwechsel_ (Leipzig, 1887); J.

Hamberger, _Cardinalpunkte der Baaderschen Philosophie_ (1855); _Fundamentalbegriffe von F. B.'s Ethik, Politik, u. Religions-Philosophie_ (1858); J. A. B. Lutterbeck, _Philosophische Standpunkte Baaders_ (1854); _Baaders Lehre vom Weltgebaude_ (1866). The most satisfactory surveys are those given by Erdmann, _Versuch einer Gesch. d. neuern Phil._ iii. 2, pp.

583-636; J. Claa.s.sen, _Franz von Baaders Leben und theosophische Werke_ (Stuttgart, 1886-1887), and _Franz von Baaders Gedanken uber Staat und Gesellschaft_ (Gutersloh, 1890); Otto Pfleiderer, _Philosophy of Religion_ (vol. ii., Eng. trans. 1887); R. Falckenberg, _History of Philosophy_, pp.

472-475 (trans. A. C. Armstrong, New York, 1893); Reichel, _Die Sozietatsphilosophie Franz v. Baaders_ (Tubingen, 1901); Kuno Fischer, _Zur hundertjahrigen Geburtstagfeier Baaders_ (Erlangen, 1865).

BAAL, a Semitic word, which primarily signifies lord, owner or inhabitant,[9] and then, in accordance with the Semitic way of looking at family and religious relations, is specially appropriated to express the relation of a husband to his wife and of the deity to his wors.h.i.+pper. In the latter usage it indicated not that the G.o.d was the lord of the wors.h.i.+pper, but rather the possessor of, or ruler in, some place or district. In the Old Testament it is regularly written with the article, _i.e._ ”_the_ Baal”; and the baals of different tribes or sanctuaries were not necessarily conceived as identical, so that we find frequent mention of Baalim, or rather ”_the_ Baalim” in the plural. That the Israelites even applied the t.i.tle of Baal to Yahweh himself is proved by the occurrence of such names as Jerubbaal (Gideon), Eshbaal (one of Saul's sons) and Beeliada (a son of David, 1 Chron. xiv. 7). The last name appears in 2 Sam. v. 16 as Eliada, showing that El (G.o.d) was regarded as equivalent to Baal; cf. also the name Be'aliah, ”Yahweh is _baal_ or lord,” which survives in 1 Chron.

xii. 5. However, when the name Baal was exclusively appropriated to idolatrous wors.h.i.+p (cf. Hos. ii. 16 seq.), abhorrence for the unholy word was marked by writing _b[=o]sheth_ (shameful thing) for _baal_ in compound proper names, and thus we get the usual forms Ishbosheth, Mephibosheth.

The great difficulty which has been felt by investigators in determining the character and attributes of the G.o.d Baal mainly arises from the original appellative sense of the word, and many obscure points become clear if we remember that when a t.i.tle becomes a proper name it may be appropriated by different peoples to quite distinct deities. Baal being originally a t.i.tle, and not a proper name, the innumerable baals could be distinguished by the addition of the name of a place or of some special attribute.[10] Accordingly, the baals are not to be regarded necessarily as local variations of one and the same G.o.d, like the many Virgins or Madonnas of Catholic lands, but as distinct _numina_. Each community could speak of its own baal, although a collection of allied communities might share the same cult, and naturally, since the attributes ascribed to the individual baals were very similar, subsequent syncretism was facilitated.

The Baal, as the head of each wors.h.i.+pping group, is the source of all the gifts of nature (cf. Hos. ii. 8 seq., Ezek. xvi. 19); as the G.o.d of fertility all the produce of the soil is his, and his adherents bring to him their tribute of first-fruits. He is the patron of all growth and fertility, and, by the ”uncontrolled use of a.n.a.logy characteristic of early thought,” the Baal is the G.o.d of the productive element in its widest sense. Originating probably, in the observation of the fertilizing effect of rains and streams upon the receptive and reproductive soil, baalism becomes identical with the grossest nature-wors.h.i.+p. Joined with the baals there are naturally found corresponding female figures known as Asht[=a]r[=o]th, embodiments of Asht[=o]reth (see ASTARTE; ISHTAR). In accordance with primitive notions of a.n.a.logy,[11] which a.s.sume that it is possible to control or aid the powers of nature by the practice of ”sympathetic magic” (see MAGIC), the cult of the baals and Asht[=a]r[=o]th was characterized by gross sensuality and licentiousness.

The fragmentary allusions to the cult of Baal Peor (Num. xxv., Hos. ix. 10, Ps. cvi. 28 seq.) exemplify the typical species of Dionysiac orgies that prevailed.[12] On the summits of hills and mountains flourished the cult of the givers of increase, and ”under every green tree” was practised the licentiousness which in primitive thought was held to secure abundance of crops (see Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2nd ed. vol. ii. pp. 204 sqq.). Human sacrifice (Jer. xix. 5), the burning of incense (Jer. vii. 9), violent and ecstatic exercises, ceremonial acts of bowing and kissing, the preparing of sacred mystic cakes, appear among the offences denounced by the Israelite prophets, and show that the cult of Baal (and Astarte) included the characteristic features of heathen wors.h.i.+p which recur in various parts of the Semitic world, although attached to other names.[13]

By an easy transition the local G.o.ds of the streams and springs which fertilized the increase of the fields became identified with [v.03 p.0089]

the common source of all streams, and proceeding along this line it was possible for the numerous baals to be regarded eventually as mere forms of one absolute deity. Consequently, the Baal could be identified with some supreme power of nature, _e.g._ the heavens, the sun, the weather or some planet. The particular line of development would vary in different places, but the change from an a.s.sociation of the Baal with earthly objects to heavenly is characteristic of a higher type of belief and appears to be relatively later. The idea which has long prevailed that Baal was properly a sky-G.o.d affords no explanation of the local character of the many baals; on the other hand, on the theory of a higher development where the G.o.ds become heavenly or astral beings, the fact that ruder conceptions of nature were still retained (often in the unofficial but more popular forms of cult) is more intelligible.

A specific Baal of the heavens appears to have been known among the Hitt.i.tes in the time of Rameses II., and considerably later, at the beginning of the 7th century, it was the t.i.tle of one of the G.o.ds of Phoenicia. In Babylonia, from a very early period, Baal became a definite individual deity, and was identified with the planet Jupiter. This development is a mark of superior culture and may have been spread through Babylonian influence. Both Baal and Astarte were venerated in Egypt at Thebes and Memphis in the XIXth Dynasty, and the former, through the influence of the Aramaeans who borrowed the Babylonian spelling Bel, ultimately became known as the Greek Belos who was identified with Zeus.

Of the wors.h.i.+p of the Tyrian Baal, who is also called Melkart (king of the city), and is often identified with the Greek Heracles, but sometimes with the Olympian Zeus, we have many accounts in ancient writers, from Herodotus downwards. He had a magnificent temple in insular Tyre, founded by Hiram, to which gifts streamed from all countries, especially at the great feasts.

The solar character of this deity appears especially in the annual feast of his awakening shortly after the winter solstice (Joseph. _C. Apion._ i.

18). At Tyre, as among the Hebrews, Baal had his symbolical pillars, one of gold and one of smaragdus, which, transported by phantasy to the farthest west, are still familiar to us as the Pillars of Hercules. The wors.h.i.+p of the Tyrian Baal was carried to all the Phoenician colonies.[14] His name occurs as an element in Carthaginian proper names (Hanni_bal_, Hasdru_bal_, &c.), and a tablet found at Ma.r.s.eilles still survives to inform us of the charges made by the priests of the temple of Baal for offering sacrifices.

The history of Baalism among the Hebrews is obscured by the difficulty of determining whether the false wors.h.i.+p which the prophets stigmatize is the heathen wors.h.i.+p of Yahweh under a conception, and often with rites, which treated him as a local nature G.o.d; or whether Baalism was consciously recognized to be distinct from Yahwism from the first. Later religious practice was undoubtedly opposed to that of earlier times, and attempts were made to correct narratives containing views which had come to be regarded as contrary to the true wors.h.i.+p of Yahweh. The Old Testament depicts the history of the people as a series of acts of apostasy alternating with subsequent penitence and return to Yahweh, and the question whether this gives effect to actual conditions depends upon the precise character of the elements of Yahweh wors.h.i.+p brought by the Israelites into Palestine. This is still under dispute. There is strong evidence at all events that many of the conceptions are contrary to historical fact, and the points of similarity between native Canaanite cult and Israelite wors.h.i.+p are so striking that only the persistent traditions of Israel's origin and of the work of Moses compel the conclusion that the germs of specific Yahweh wors.h.i.+p existed from his day. The earliest certain reaction against Baalism is ascribed to the reign of Ahab, whose marriage with Jezebel gave the impulse to the introduction of a particular form of the cult. In honour of his wife's G.o.d, the king, following the example of Solomon, erected a temple to the Tyrian Baal (see above). This, however, did not prevent him from remaining a follower of Yahweh, whose prophets he still consulted, and whose protection he still cherished when he named his sons Ahaziah and Jehoram (”Yah[weh] holds,” ”Y. is high”). The antagonism of Elijah was not against Baalism in general, but against the introduction of a rival deity. But by the time of Hosea (ii. 16 seq.) a further advance was marked, and the use of the term ”Baal” was felt to be dangerous to true religion. Thus there gradually grew up a tendency to avoid the term, and in accordance with the idea of Ex. xxiii. 13, it was replaced by the contemptuous _b[=o]sheth_, ”shame” (see above). However, the books of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah (cf. also Zeph. i. 4) afford complete testimony for the prevalence of Baalism as late as the exile, but prove that the clearest distinction was then drawn between the pure wors.h.i.+p of Yahweh the G.o.d of Israel and the inveterate and debased cults of the G.o.ds of the land.

(See further HEBREW RELIGION; PROPHET.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--W. Robertson Smith, _Relig. Semites_, 2nd ed. pp. 93-113 (against his theory of the introduction of Baal among the Arabs see M. J.

Lagrange, _etudes d. relig. sem._ pp. 83-98). For the reading ”Baal” in the Amarna tablets (Palestine, about 1400 B.C.) see Knudtzon, _Beitr. z.

a.s.syriol._ (1901), pp. 320 seq., 415; other cuneiform evidence in E.

Schrader's _Keilinsch. u. Alte Test._ 3rd ed. p. 357 (by H. Zimmern; see also his _Index_, sub voce). On _Baal-Shamem_ (B. of the heavens) M.

Lidzbarski's monograph (_Ephemeris_, i. 243-260, ii. 120) is invaluable, and this work, with his _Handbuch d. nordsemit. Epigraphik_, contains full account of the epigraphical material. See Baethgen, _Beitr. z. semit.

Religionsgesch._ pp. 17-32; also the articles on Baal by E. Meyer in Roscher's _Lexikon_, and G. F. Moore in _Ency. Bib._ (On _Beltane_ fires and other apparent points of connexion with Baal it may suffice to refer to Aug. Fick, _Vergleich. Worterbuch_, who derives the element _bel_ from an old Celtic root meaning s.h.i.+ning, &c.)

(W. R. S.; S. A. C.)