Man is a collection of atoms through which pass the moods of God…” T.F.Powys, “Soliloquy of a Hermit,” (Hardpress Publishing, Miami. Originally by G. Arnold Shaw, N.Y., 1916)
On first read, this work comes off as obtuse commentary on the nature of man, the appeal of simplicity, and the misguided desire for immortality…with some incomprehensible Jesus language tossed in. I was unsurprised that both it and Powys are little known to modern readers. Finding its core, if core there were, would take patience. Who has time for that these days?
But I’d come to the book via John Gray, a British political philosopher. Gray spends several pages in “The Soul of the Marionette” discussing Powys. So I explored what Gray and others had to say about him, then gave the book a second read. At some point (and with much help from Gray, on whom I draw for this review) I began to understand it. Once I did, I found it so insightful I had to read it yet again. It’s so full of pithy and even humorous commentary, I want to break it into chapter and verse and quote it like the Bible: Powys 6:23, or the like.
The book’s original publisher calls it “religious psychology.” Gray and others speak of Powys’ as being “deeply but unconventionally religious.” I presume, they mean religious from the monotheistic perspective. In “Soliloquy,” references to Christ, God the Father, and immortality recur throughout. But his God is inconsistent, with his “getting mood,” his “hating moods,” his “loving moods,” his “cruel moods.” And towards the end, Powys suggests a tired and depressed God who has given up on his clay creations and their quest for immortality, a God who seems himself wanting to expire into nothingness.
I’m more inclined to suggest Powys was a Buddhist with deistic leanings. He introduces himself early in the book as a priest, the main point of confusion on the first read. But the key to finally understanding the book is that his “priest” is a metaphor for someone who is different (who is “awake,” as the Buddha put it). He embraces his oneness with God through his own emotions, which he sees as the moods of a fallible, inconsistent and regretful God who vacillates between disgust and anger at his creations and pity and sorrow for them. Powys neither believes in nor wants immortality. Rather, he relates to God by being in touch with with the passage of time, with the bittersweet moments that can only be special in a life that ends…in touch perhaps, with entropy.
To appreciate “Soliloquy,” you have to accept a couple of things up front: First, Powys spiritual philosophy (if that’s what it is) is not entirely coherent. But this was an early work, and I gather his thinking comes together in later ones. Second, while other writers on Powys don’t suggest it, I wonder if he wasn’t mildly manic-depressive. A preoccupation of the book is “the moods of God,” which loosely equate with human desires and emotions, and he speaks more than once of waiting for God’s moods within himself to pass. I may be off the mark, but it’s worth keeping in mind.
Powys presents himself as a priest living alone in a small rural British village. Again, he isn’t literally a priest, but a sentient, awake individual surrounded by others who are different from himself. He speaks lovingly of having children, but only in the context of emotions they stir in him. He embraces emotions as they come and does not deny them or try to immunize himself against the more painful ones, unlike his fellow townsfolk, all of whom look look askance at him and his simple ways.
A recurring theme of the book is mortality versus immortality, but not in the ethereal “immortality of the spirit” espoused by the monotheistic religions. He seems to imply that what man wants is immortality of the body, for physical life to never end, because in the body they find so much physical enjoyment. And in their shortsighted preoccupation with the physical and material, they overlook the truly beautiful and precious in life, the bittersweet moments that are special only because they will come but once. Powys instead embraces mortality by embracing the worn-out things of the earth, like old chairs and played out farm implements, or his decayed wooden yard railings. He finds solace in mending the railings with string, despite constant counsel of townsfolk to put up iron railings because they do not decay. He, unlike them, knows that is only an illusion.
The most remarkable thing about this book is Powys honesty in the face of his forthright and honest love of the earth and of simple things, of his alienation from other humans, and of the constant vacillation in his feelings about God and Christ, about life and death. It is not our way to admit such profound feelings, often hiding instead behind our social masks. Powys, however, freely admits his confusion and despair at the confounding and ever changing “moods of God.” He simply opens himself to them, but always while falling back on the simple, honest and emotionally in touch man of the earth to which he anchors himself.
This work is highly subject to personal interpretation. But for me, a glimmer of Powys philosophy emerges towards the close: A fallible God invested himself in Man as a means of playing out and dissipating his own disparate emotions. But He sees that He failed. Instead of release, he created a self-obsessed creature that embraces only the baser moods, a creature that wants never to die, never to give up the visceral enjoyment they bring. Christ, in a flash of visionary truth, understood this, understood God’s lament and Man’s loss. He pitied Man for his lack of understanding. He suggested that Man eschew his preoccupation and infatuation with emotions and immortality. He wanted men to understand that the meaning of life was joy in the moment, appreciation of beautiful simplicity, of acceptance and tolerance and love. Man at first saw him as a diversion, an entertainer or a comic…but when they realized he was serious, they became afraid and killed him.
Isaiah 44: 10-20. 10 Who would fashion a god or cast an image that can do no good? 11 Look, all its devotees shall be put to shame; the artisans too are merely human. Let them all assemble, let them stand up; they shall be terrified, they shall all be put to shame. 12 The ironsmith fashions it and works it over the coals, shaping it with hammers, and forging it with his strong arm; he becomes hungry and his strength fails, he drinks no water and is faint. 13 The carpenter stretches a line, marks it out with a stylus, fashions it with planes, and marks it with a compass; he makes it in human form, with human beauty, to be set up in a shrine. 14 He cuts down cedars or chooses a holm tree or an oak and lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest. He plants a cedar and the rain nourishes it. 15 Then it can be used as fuel. Part of it he takes and warms himself; he kindles a fire and bakes bread. Then he makes a god and worships it, makes it a carved image and bows down before it. 16 Half of it he burns in the fire; over this half he roasts meat, eats it and is satisfied. He also warms himself and says, “Ah, I am warm, I can feel the fire!” 17 The rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, bows down to it and worships it; he prays to it and says, “Save me, for you are my god!” 18 They do not know, nor do they comprehend; for their eyes are shut, so that they cannot see, and their minds as well, so that they cannot understand. 19 No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, “Half of it I burned in the fire; I also baked bread on its coals, I roasted meat and have eaten. Now shall I make the rest of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?” 20 He feeds on ashes; a deluded mind has led him astray, and he cannot save himself or say, “Is not this thing in my right hand a fraud?”
How can anyone actually BELIEVE in a God he has synthesized himself, whether out of physical materials or out of concepts? How utterly benighted do you have to be not to acknowledge it as your own creation? Do you simply want to employ the word “God” for any reason whatsoever, on any justification whatsoever, however transparent the synthesis may be?
I suggest that, in your zeal to find fault, you overlook (or simply choose to obviate…is that a good word here) human nature. You want it to be rational, but making an idol and worshipping it is not a rational act, nor are people (except perhaps with the most extreme practiced training) rational beings. It is in our nature to WANT a “god” of some sort, whatever name or nature one ascribes to it. I respectfully suggest that you lack either sympathy or empathy for this character of human nature, though you might be closer to sympathy than you want to be. You pretty much answer your own point with your last sentence (or question). Man’s irrational reply would be ,”Yes, because it,s better than the alternative.”
Do you remember the acrylic, poured paperweights we used to see as kids, usually with a leaf or butterfly or trinket inside? Believe it or not, I have a “new age” friend and entrepreneur selling these (and yes, there are people buying) poured with a heart or hand or the like inside, or in the shape of a heart or pyramid, or whatever. And each is supposed to have healing power and give insights associated with the trinket. I’m like, come on,,,! But then, it’s not my concern or right to disabuse them of a belief or my acquaintances of a business. From an objective stance, it is damn sure a commentary on our rational (or not) natures.
Habakkuk 2:18-20. 18 What use is an idol once its maker has shaped it— a cast image, a teacher of lies? For its maker trusts in what has been made, though the product is only an idol that cannot speak! 19 Alas for you who say to the wood, “Wake up!” to silent stone, “Rouse yourself!” Can it teach? See, it is gold and silver plated, and there is no breath in it at all. 20 But the Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him!
You can embrace the God of your own cultural tradition or those of other cultural traditions or work out a variation on traditional conceptions or make up a God out of whole cloth. In the latter two instances precisely what status is your handiwork supposed to have? Myth, theology, art, fictional character, truth, what? How can you not acknowledge and assume responsibility for your creation?
One other thing: I’m a bit surprised by the nature of your commentary. Powys book was easily the most difficult to review and comment on than any I’ve ever read. It took me some three weeks to get a handle on the book and figure out what to say about it. And I’m definitely reading more of Powys. Yet you seem to have minimized both the book and my review.
Frankly, I think you have a lot in common with Powys regarding your thinking. No one says directly that he was an atheist, but he lived in a time when atheism was on its formulative era, so he still used a lot of deistic metaphor. But clearly he had problems with traditional religion, and if you were to take his references to god as metaphor or sarcasm, it opens up entirely different ways of interpreting him. Clearly he had a low opinion of his fellow man (Remind you of anyone we know?), and he revered his mortality.
You should read the book, keeping my commentary in mind. It’s a short read. Let me know what you think after.