[Back]          [Blueprint]         [Next]

————————

From The World’s Wit and Humor, Volume X, French — Rutebœuf to Balzac; The Review of Reviews Company; New York; 1906; pp. 117-122.


117

Blaise Pascal [1623-1662]


On Fasting


MY friend spoke with much concern, for he is seriously afflicted at these disorders. For my own part I applauded the excellence of Jesuitical policy, and went immediately to one of their best casuists, with whom I wished at this moment to renew a former acquaintance. Knowing how to proceed, I had no difficulty in introducing and conducting the subject. Retaining his attachment to me, he welcomed me with a thousand expressions of kindness, and after some desultory conversation, I took occasion to make an inquiry respecting fasting, for the purpose of leading insensibly to the particular object of my solicitude. I stated how difficult I felt it. He exhorted me to resist my own disinclinations; but I persisting in my complaints, he became compassionate, and began to frame some excuses for me. Many which he offered did not exactly accord with my taste, till at length he asked if I could not sleep without supper. “No,” said I; “in consequence of which I am obliged to breakfast at noon and to sup at night.” “I am very happy,’ answered he, “that I have discovered an innocent method of relieving your anxiety; go, go, you are under no obligation to fast. However, do not depend on my word; come with me into the library.”

I went. “Here, here,” said he, taking up a book, “is your proof, and oh, what a noble one it is — furnished by Escobar!” “Who is Escobar?” “What, are you ignorant of the name of Escobar, of our society, who has compiled this moral theology from twenty-four of our fathers, who in his preface 118 compares this book to ‘that of the Revelation, which was sealed with seven seals,’ and says that Christ delivered it thus sealed to the four, Suarez, Vasquez, Molina, and Valentia, in the presence of four-and-twenty Jesuits, who represent the four-and-twenty elders?” When he turned to the passage respecting fasting. “See, see!” he exclaimed: “ ‘Is he who cannot sleep without a supper obliged to fast? By no means.’ Are you now satisfied?” “Not entirely so,” replied I, “for I can fast pretty well by making a breakfast in the morning and a supper at night.” “Oho, then, look at what follows; there is not a single consideration omitted: ‘If a person can content himself with a breakfast in the morning and a supper at night’ ” — “That is exactly my case” — “ ‘he is not obliged to fast; for no one is under any obligation to disarrange the order of his meals.’ ” “Good reason!” “But,” continued he, “do you habitually drink much wine?” “No, father, I exceedingly dislike it.” “I said this,” added he, “simply to intimate that you might take it in the morning, or whenever you please without breaking your fast; and a glass of wine is always cheering.” “May a person, without breaking his fast, drink wine at any hour he pleases, and in considerable quantities?” “He may, and a dram too. I did not recollect the dram,” said he; “I must note it down in my memoranda.” “Truly this Escobar,” said I, “is a fine man.” “Oh,” rejoined he, “everybody admires him; he puts such lovely questions. Look again: ‘If a man doubt whether he be of age, is he obliged to fast? No. But suppose I should come of age to-night, at an hour after midnight, and to-morrow is to be fast, should I be obliged to fast to-morrow? No; for you may eat as much as you please from twelve to one, because you would not yet have completed twenty-one years; and so, having a right to break your fast, you are not obliged 119 to keep it.’ ” “Oh,” said I, “what an agreeable publication!” “Indeed it is — one is never tired of it. I pass whole days and nights in reading it: I can actually think of nothing else.”



— “Provincial Letters.





On Usury


“LET us,” said my friend the casuist, “now speak about men of business. You are aware that our greatest difficulty with them is to prevent usury, for which purpose our fathers have exerted the utmost care; for such is their utter detestation of this vice, that Escobar says, ‘that to affirm of usury it is no crime, is to be guilty of heresy’; and our Father Bauny, in his Summary of Sins, has filled a number of pages with an account of the punishments due to usurers. He pronounces them ‘infamous when alive, and unworthy of burial when dead.’ ” “Indeed!” said I, “is Father Bauny so severe? I could not have imagined it.” “It is so, however,” said he, “when it is necessary; but then this learned casuist, observing that men are only induced to usury by the desire of gain, adds, in the same place, ‘the world would be very much obliged if, guaranteeing them against the bad effects of usury, and at the same time against its guilt, some expedient could be adopted of legally procuring as much or more pecuniary profit than is obtained by usurious practises.’ ” “Undoubtedly, father; then we should not have any more usurers.” “This he has accomplished by furnishing ‘a general method for persons of every description, gentlemen, presidents, counselors,’ etc. — and so easy, that it consists simply in pronouncing certain words when the money is lent, in consequence 120 of which the profit may be taken without being guilty of a usurious transaction, which it would be without such a precaution.” “Pray, what are these mysterious words?” “Not at all mysterious; they are his own words, for you know that he wrote his Summary of Sins in French, as he says in his preface, ‘to be understood by all mankind.’ The person of whom you wish to borrow shall answer thus: ‘I have no money to lend, though I have some, to be sure, to place out for an honest and lawful profit. If you wish to improve the sum you request by honest industry, by a co-partnership of half and half, possibly I might be induced to accommodate you. But as it is a troublesome affair to settle the profits of trade, if you will insure me a certain gain and my whole principal, without any risk, we shall agree the sooner; and, in fact, you shall have the money immediately.’ Is not this an admirable method of acquiring money without committing sin? And has not Father Bauny good reason for saying in conclusion, ‘by this means, in my opinion, a great number of people who, by usury, extortion, and illegal contracts, provoke the Divine indignation, may save themselves, and acquire good, honest, and lawful profits’?”



— “Provincial Letters.





On Mental Reservations


I PROCEED to the facilities we have invented for the avoidance of sin in the conversation and intrigues of the world. One of the most embarrassing things to provide against is lying, when it is the object to excite confidence in any false representation. In this case, our doctrine of equivocals is 121 of admirable service, by which, says Sanchez, ‘it is lawful to use ambiguous terms to give the impression a different sense from that which you understand yourself.’ ” “This I am well aware of, father.” “We have,” continued he, “published it so frequently, that in fact everybody is acquainted with it; but pray, do you know what is to be done when no equivocal terms can be found?” “No, father.” “Ha, I thought this would be new to you: it is the doctrine of mental reservations. Sanchez states it in the same place: ‘A person may take an oath that he has not done such a thing, though in fact he has, by saying to himself, it was not done on a specified day or before he was born, or by concealing any other similar circumstance which gives another meaning to the statement. This is in numberless instances extremely convenient, and is always justifiable when it is necessary to your welfare, honor, or property.’ ”

“But, father, is not this adding perjury to lying?” “No; Sanchez and Filiutius show the contrary: ‘It is the intention which stamps the quality of the action;’ and the latter furnishes another and surer method of avoiding lying. After saying in an audible voice, I swear that I did not do this, you may add inwardly, to-day; or after affirming aloud, I swear, you may repeat in a whisper, I say; and then resuming the former tone — I did not do it. Now this you must admit is telling the truth.” “I own it is,” said I; “but it is telling truth in a whisper, and a lie in an audible voice; besides, I apprehend that very few people have sufficient presence of mind to avail themselves of this deception.” “Our fathers,” answered the Jesuit, “have in the same place given direction for those who do not know how to manage these niceties, so that they may be indemnified against the sin of lying, while plainly declaring they have not done what in reality 122 they have, provided ‘that, in general, they intended to give the same sense to their assertion which a skilful man would have contrived to do.’ ”

“Now confess,” he asked, “have not you sometimes been embarrassed through an ignorance of this doctrine?” “Certainly.” “And will you not admit, too, that it would often be very convenient to violate your word with a good conscience?” “Surely, one of the most convenient things in the world!” “Then, sir, listen to Escobar; he gives this general rule: ‘Promises are not obligatory when a man has no intention of being bound to fulfil them; and it seldom happens that he has such an intention, unless he confirms it by an oath or bond, so that when he merely says I will do it, it is to be understood, if he do not change his mind; for he did not intend by what he promised to deprive himself of his liberty.’ He furnishes some other rules which you may read for yourself, and concludes thus: ‘Everything is taken from Molina and our other authors — omnia ex Molina et aliis;’ it is, consequently, indisputable.”

“Father,” exclaimed I, “I never knew before that the direction of the intention could nullify the obligation of a promise.’ “Now, then,” said he, “you perceive this very much facilitates the intercourse of mankind.”

— “Provincial Letters.





————————

[Back]          [Blueprint]         [Next]