Eseuri decente

To my knowledge, “Gruber’s Journey” (Calatoria lui Gruber) is the first movie ever-made which approaches the issue of the Holocaust in Romania. It is based on the real story of Curzio Malaparte passing through Romania on his way to the Eastern front as a war correspondent. In June 1941, he went to Iasi to search for a famous doctor, Josef Gruber, in order to cure his allergy. The facts that he witnessed would be described in his 1944 novel, “Kaput”.

And these facts are the pogrom of Iasi, 29 June 1941, executed by Romanian authorities in collaboration with German troops stationed in the region. The main character is obsessed with his allergy, traveling from one place to another having no sense of smell- in fact a metaphor for his spiritual numbness related to what was happening. The Iasi that he sees is the stage of a tragedy which had happened one day earlier. With minimal means and very few scenes, the massacre is suggested discretely in two or three rides with the car through the city. The most powerful hint is the short trip to the countryside, where Malaparte reaches the train cars still crowded with bodies and dying survivors, crying for help, air, water. To this, the journalist can only reply “Let’s go.”, from the safety of his car. Scenes from city life evoke interwar nostalgia, picturesque details, elegant costumes, provincial tranquility, as the director skillfully touches one of the nervous centers of contemporary perplexities: that such a large community could disappear from one day to another with no emotion, no question, not the slightest shiver of consciousness. A director, Radu Gabrea,  from an older generation than the “Romanian New Wave”, with some resemblance concerning the minimal style and the ethical engagement (“banality of evil”), but revolutionary in the subject tackled. So far, the movie has a discrete reception. Good performance from “rebel” Florin Piersic Jr., powerful acting as expected from Claudiu Bleont and Razvan Vasilescu, and a subtle and unforgettably emotional appearance of Marcel Iures.

Talking about the easy destruction of a whole community. Without questioning the fundamental resemblances between Communism and Fascism/National-Socialism, which are in fact their differences? One striking, albeit terrifying fact comes into mind: Hannah Arendt writes in Eichmann in Jerusalem and it is further testified in the Final Report of International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania that the operations of Romanian troops against the Jews were so violent, spontaneous, erratic and sadistic that even the Germans intervened. Of course, the latter did not do this out of a humanitarian instinct, but because they wanted to have a “clean”, “rational”, “disciplined” program of extermination. On the Romanian part- and perhaps on the majority of all the other European authoritarian/fascist states and movements, the attitude and repression against the Jews frequently took incredibly appalling forms, ranging from banal everyday discrimination to humiliation, rape, torture, mass executions. But still, until the case of Nazi Germany, the idea of complete extermination through an industrial, efficient method never occurred in the minds of even the worst enemies of the Jews. It can be replied that Auschwitz, the paradigmatic place of mass killing, appears gradually, that Germany did travel in fact the same road as the other fascist movements and that the gas chambers are the logical step forward from the “traditional”, late 19^th century anti-Semitism. In other words, the Nazi extermination program commences as a historical necessity.

However, even after conceding this fact and after accepting the common sense statement that murder is murder regardless of its circumstances, can the comparison lead to some meaningful directions of reflection? Again, what was specific about traditional anti-Semitism is that it was frequently associated with moral degradation of the victims. Insults were first carried out in the media, than discrimination occurred in the relation with authorities; through legislation, the Jews gradually lost their fundamental rights. Insults cried out in public usually appeared in the later forms, when pressure increased, while deportation and rounding up in ghettos ensued. These physical measures, as they reached the most radical point, execution, were frequently associated with insults, beatings, humiliation, rape. The general feeling is that the perpetrators want to touch, even if the final point is physical elimination, the spiritual side of their victims. The purpose is inner degradation, a radical transformation of the very core of each person.

In Communism, the victim went through a similar hell. The great show trials, the memories of the Gulag point to diabolical measures of human engineering, experiments of completely enslaving the conscience through terror and reeducation.  The pervasive symbol is the concentration or labor camp, designed primarily for the transformation of the human being, even if this operation claimed the majority of the lives of the inmates; those who perished did not do so before they were subjected to the same ideology of the total transformation of reality. They were de facto extermination camps, but on paper they had economic and ideological purposes. The show trials ended with murder, but only after the victim, prosecutor, lawyer, judge repeated the magic formulas in a public gesture in order to demonstrate the transcending, divine force of the Idea. Even spontaneous executions, occurring with no trial or outside the camp, were preceded by beatings, curses, humiliation of the victim and his family. The murders themselves were usually committed through shooting, beating, starvation, thirst, cold. Terrifying, but not unusual for what was known to man since his existence.

But, until Auschwitz, gas was never used, neither in the history of anti-Semitism, nor in Communism. And I believe that here there is something more than just a gradual change or macabre variation. Auschwitz itself travels a history from a secondary camp for Polish political prisoners, through a stage of being a massive work camp associated with local I.G. Farben industry, to the final stage of death factory; this history alone, together with the extreme conditions of work preceding the build-up of the gas chambers in Birkenau, would seem to further demonstrate the idea of gradual change, from an unsophisticated instrument of killing to a more efficient one.

However, I believe that the difference between leaving someone to die or beating or starving him to death, on the other hand, and directly sending him to a gas chamber, incinerating his body, using his hair as raw material for the fabrication of textiles, on the other, is substantial; and it is constituted by the attitude: the first case denotes an unconscious acknowledgement that the victim is a person- a human being composed of flesh and spirit. When he is humiliated or tortured even with the price of his life, the torturer unknowingly or not has a statement: not only that the victim deserves to die, but he must disappear with his soul being enslaved, conquered or destroyed; the ones who do survive and are subjected to these measures without being murdered are deemed to have even a bigger price, a higher value with the condition that their soul is transformed. In fact, any violence which does not end immediately with death is directed at the inner, invisible dimension of the human being, whether one considers it as soul, consciousness or brain activity. Both the “traditional” antisemitic movements and the Communists were, ironically and unknowingly, acknowledging the transcendent dimension of humanity, its duality of flesh and spirit.

And the first stages of Auschwitz were also defined by this attitude, with extreme life conditions and random terror, thus turning the inmates into living corpses. It was meant as an experiment for the power of the ideology to transform human being. But when mass extermination by gas begins, the attitude changed. The victims went off the train; they were calmly selected by doctors and escorted with a neutral, almost polite attitude towards the gas chambers. At the infamous Wansee conference in January 1942, the officials frequently mention the words “clean”, “efficient” solution; the terms are borrowed from the euthanasia program, which was destined to provide a “dignifying” end to the mentally disabled. Individuals like Eichmann take their task seriously and work with “German efficiency” to accomplish this “great mission”. Meanwhile, the commander of Auschwitz leaves a happy life with his family within 50 meters away from one of the gas chambers. He recalls in his memoirs how he was looking with petrified heart at a mother, as she was begging him, on the way to death, to spare at least her children. The valuables are taken by the soldiers, the hair is used for textiles, the bodies are cremated. Soon it becomes routine. Few were the cases of truly sadistic killers, of individuals who lose control. The SS soldiers do what they can to accumulate wealth, get drunk from time to time and try to escape after the war, shamelessly disguising themselves or reconverting into decent, honest clerks in some quiet German town, being loving fathers and husbands. Himmler even wanted to negotiate with the Allies, on one occasion requesting 1 million trucks in exchange for the Hungarian Jews. As the deal did not go through, they were sent to Auschwitz.

In short, what is so characteristic, so disheartening and chilling is the feeling that with the Nazi extermination program a new attitude fully enters the stage of history: to regard human being as not having any invisible dimension. No duality, no feeling, nothing, absolutely nothing beyond appearance. I was once with a friend in a park in Krakow. Out of nowhere, an English man, obviously drunk, sat near us and began to chat. Strange enough, he began to talk on our main topic: God. What I still remember is the weight, which you almost felt right in your heart, of the word “nothing”: “There is nothing beyond death. Nothing. There is nothing.”, he kept repeating with paralyzing determination. So the neutrality with which the victims were escorted to death is so frightening because it goes beyond the duality flesh-spirit involuntarily admitted by a moral aggression: the duality is not recongnized. They simply felt no need to humiliate the Jews for the simple fact that they did not recognize that they were anything else than walking corpses, a vermin, a plague of humanity.  The commander of Auschwitz recalls his sense of relief when the gas facilities were installed. It wasn’t just the fact that logistics and bureaucratic efforts would have been streamlined, but something infinitely deeper: the very existence of these facilities signaled a break from all traces of remorse or at least embarrassment caused by bloody methods of killing; it is a break from a consciousness which still experiences some faint shivers when the existential stance still recognized the attribute of personhood to the victim; it is, in the end, an encouragement to leap into nothingness, where everything is possible because nothing exists.

Finally, a question: who should we fear more- does who want to enslave our soul or those who do not recognize its existence?

An important issue in the scholarship on Eusebius is the exact implication of his enthusiasm for his own time and the rule of Constantine. Does he believe that sacred and profane history are now united in the same blissful present-day and that Heaven is now on Earth? Is this a start for the tradition of justifying imperial rule through divine providence? My purpose is to show Eusebius in the light of his context- not so much “historical”, but personal. I will follow his line of thought and prove that these questions ignore the actual text and his inner spiritual and intellectual determination. My method is to develop a close reading of the text (in its own logic- from beginning to end; but it is a logic which reflects his inner life of questions and divine answers) in order to bring back a tiny glimpse of his world in order to present the controversial Book 10 of the History of the Church as an incidental product of a mind who had never lost its connection with the hidden, divine mechanism of history. It is an experiment which makes the reader feel, together with Eusebius the intensity of a Truth which did not behave in our familiar patterns and cannot answer in our own terms.

Beginning. The ultimate cause

It all starts with 2 types of visions: one of them strikes the eye of the mind, confuses all your previous common sense, shakes your beliefs, awakens your soul. The other one is right here, out in the open, in empirical reality, in the territory of history. It is an image of unimaginable suffering, of the infinite capacity of man to inflict harm on his brother, an image so striking that it sends you back to archetypal points of reference and which have been acquired through the first type of vision. Sorrow, tears, despair, fear, screams and quiet mourning are enough to make one fall on his knees. By now, salvation is possible now, here, in History. It has to be possible.

Eusebius is part of the Holy Temple, the body of Christ which has descended into Hell and has risen up so that fallen man may follow him. It is an invisible community, formed by bonds of faith, love and the everlasting presence of the incarnated Word.

This temple built of yourselves, a living temple of a living God, the greatest truly majestic sanctuary, I say, whose innermost shrines are hidden from the mass of men and are in truth a Holy Mace and a Holy of Holies, who would dare to examine and describe?

He embarks on the project of writing the history of the Church from the time of Jesus to his own time, very carefully tracing back the apostolic succession. This issue is vital for a Church historian, because, as Arnaldo Momigliano puts it, “A Church that consciously breaks with its original principles and its original institutions is inconceivable.”[1] Indeed, the advent of Christian historiography and ecclesiastical histories signals a radical shift on the emphasis on the point of origin: the singular event of the Incarnation means that, from now on our world is sanctified and history will evolve within this paradigm of the supreme theophany. The Sacrifice is a Revelation, an absolute truth which should be guarded at all costs, but it  is also a sign that humans are responsible to constantly reactivate this mystical union through action (worship, sacrament, behavior) and speech (theological inquiry, historical writing). You might even rush to praise his reliance on facts and documents and his refusal to invent speeches like the classical historians did.

But, of course, there is a gap between our historical sense and his. Heaven is the ultimate point of reference for Eusebius, the cause and purpose of all things, the perfect, eternal, model of our existence, and, in the end, the only thing that is real. Glen F. Chesnut, Jr. observes that in hist texts, although we are empowered with free will, the choices available come from God.[2] For it is Him who provides the architecture of the Universe and determines everything. Eusebius is, I would say, the first historian who restores, albeit at a higher level, the fundamental belief in a Being which discloses itself freely and in a way accessible through mere contemplation.[3] Sensual reality mirrors a divine order which, ever since Judaism manifests Itself frequently in historical time and gradually instructs humanity on an ultimate purpose. Christ means the final disclosure of this plan because He is the Truth, the Way and the Life. Eusebius will feel, from this point of the Revelation, compelled to trace back all those principles to the beginning of time and in the age of the patriarchs. He regards this inquiry as fundamental to demonstrating the eternal status of history as a reflection of Being and as an expression of divine commitment to lift man from the place where he has  fallen. However paradoxical it may sound, through archetype, Christ has been with us even before time existed:

Before anything was created and fashioned, visible or invisible, He was the first and only begotten of God; the commander-in-chief of the spiritual and immortal host of heaven; the angel of mighty counsel; the agent of the ineffable purpose of the father; the fashioner, with the Father, of all things; the second cause, after the Father, of the universe; the Child of God, true and only-begotten; of all begotten the Lord and God and King, who has received from the Father lordship and dominion, godhead, power, and honor.[4]

The Scriptures provide Eusebius with numerous examples of Christ’s intervention in the form of the Word, an angel or a prophetic vision. History had, from the beginning, the destiny to which he is now witness. A combination of divine economy- that is, God allowing a course of events which at times may seem mysterious in order to fulfill the ultimate purpose- and immediate intervention triggered by humanity’s mistakes bends history to His own will. And Eusebius realizes the importance of demonstrating the eternal presence of Christ in worldly affairs: “It is clearly not permissible to regard the recorded theophanies as visitations by subordinate angels and ministers of God.”[5] This work of interpretation connects people and cultures to an Absolute which, tragically enough, reveals itself in different ways. One people receives the Law and the prophecy of the Messiah in the midst of an infinite cycle of tragedies brought by their own weaknesses:

I watched until thrones were placed and an Ancient of Days was seated. His clothing was white like snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool. His throne was a flame of fire, its wheels flaming fire; a river of fire flowed before Him. A thousand thousand ministered to Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court of judgement sat, and the books were opened… I watched, and lo, with the clouds of heaven came One like a Son of Man, who came quickly to the Ancient of Days and brought face to face with him. To Him was given the dominion, the glory, and the kingdom, and all the peoples, tribes and languages shall serve Him. His authority is an everlasting authority, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom shall not be destroyed.[6]

Sanctification and denial of history

Another group will see the tenuous story of the Jews as an allegory for the story of man after the Fall, the story of tragedy, suffering and a divine will which is slowly breaking the mystery which surrounds It. It will no longer be just a story, but an eternal symbol, reactivated by faith and the wisdom of the Scriptures. And, more important, theophanies will be observed in the light of the Incarnation, as mere anticipations of this supreme act of love.

We live in an age of sacred glory and beauty arising from the darkest suffering. Faith opens your eyes to indescribable riches. Eusebius speaks about divine punishment for Herod’s murder of the infants- sacred history is once again mysteriously interlinked with profane history; but Flavius Josephus, however different his style and background is, speaks about the same thing. Man’s connection with the sacred reveals the hidden chain of events but, at the same time, a sense of urgency, of imminent end, of crossing a border between two worlds unites these witnesses in a common emotion. Historical inquiry is hopelessly weak and may never be capable of describing this array of spiritual experiences. Something is happening- the increasingly unbearable existence, the ever present suffering, the omens, point to a radical shift, a decisive quake in the architecture of the world, an invisible, metaphysical storm intuited from concrete facts. And when the Son enters history, the witnesses experience a perplexity of a varying degree according to their background. Flavius Josephus, in a combination of objectivity and faith, acknowledges Him as an extraordinary man and he also speaks about the resurrection.[7] Eusebius will from now on speak about the Church comprised of the believers’ souls and a history of this community. Needless to say, this is a sacred history, with concrete facts as little more than signs of a continuous divine presence.

The Great Persecution will come as a punishment for the first (and, given the original sin, utterly predictable) signs of human weakness. Almost three centuries had passed from the time of Christ, the last witnesses of His presence were by now dead and Christians started to quarrel with each other and modify the initial teachings. Divine punishment will be extremely harsh. Diocletian and Maximin will “distinguish” themselves in the most hideous of crimes; the local governors (we don’t learn from Eusebius how much did ordinary pagans contribute to this) will rush to win imperial favors by staging resolutions and massive campaigns of terror; elaborate torture techniques will be employed in order to rob the Christians of dignity. These are times of pure evil unleashed and Eusebius is an eye-witness for many of these crimes. He chooses not to speak of the shameful conduct of some Christians who accepted the pagan ritual to stay alive, but to emphasize the examples of the martyrs.

When these things were going on I was there myself, and there I witnessed the everpresent divine power of Him to whom they testified, our Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, visibly manifesting itself to the martyrs.[8]

A man is a witness to divine power- a sentence which puts us to a border which cannot be crossed by reason or empirical (historical) understanding. This theophany is a proof and will constitute itself as a landmark in the flow of time which will not be remembered, but rather mystically reenacted through ritual and thirst of God. Intense suffering is, for the martyr and Eusebius, the point in which God embraces the man who has decided to imitate the passions of Christ. Dark times have clouded Eusebius’ life, but every hero which challenges death helps the Church survive. A mystical entity is kept only through self-ignoring, uncompromising faith.

The problematic epilogue

And then the unexpected occurs. The ordeal ends, the churches are rebuilt, the Christian are free to worship God. Something unprecedented in Christian history happens right now, in this world: this religion is now in the open, favored by the rulers, with all its enemies doing no harm. As Averil Cameron shows, it is very likely that Eusebius started working on the “The History of the Church” well before Constantine’s rule.[9] Later on, he adds that Eusebius had to reformulate his vision because of the apparent “political” victory of Christianity.[10] Book 10 of “The History of the Church” gives a taste of what it means to actually live what you believe, of consuming yourself in the flame of love for mankind, of developing, through the Revelation, the strong faith and the lucidity which helps you describe the  recurring patterns of history. After all, not so long ago they were confronted with a beast:

And now, as a result of this wonderful grace and bounty, the envy that hates good, the demon that loves evil, bursting with rage, lined up all his lethal forces against us.[...] he directed his ferocious madness against the stones of the places of worship[...] Then he uttered terrible hissings and his own serpent-like sounds, at one time in the threats of godless tyrants, at another in the blasphemous decrees of impious rulers. Again, he vomited forth his own deadly venom, and my his noxious, soul-destroying poisons he paralyzed the souls enslaved to him, almost annihilating them by his death-bringing sacrifices to dead idols, and letting loose against us every beast in human shape and every kind of savagery.[11]

And when such an Evil is destroyed so rapidly, and when you see your Church free from oppression, again united in Christ, and when you look back and see that this had never happened before, will not your soul rejoice, happy to breath the fresh air of freedom? Will you not think that what you are living is, for the first time, a fulfillment of the prophecies?

These things were foretold in words long ago, and set down in sacred books; but the fulfillment has reached us no longer by hearsay but in fact.[12]

And when you see that the main historical cause for this blessing is this new emperor, Constantine, will you not think, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, that he is the instrument of God and that there has to be more than pure historical determination which, from such a dark age, has brought this unexpected peace? Jesus has entrusted this power to Constantine- to be able “to appreciate and evaluate the character of the souls entrusted to his care.”[13], to defeat the Church’s enemies, to restore peace.

In the end what is so touching about Eusebius and about so many intellectuals which, throughout history, have passionately lived to their innermost corners of their being both their times and their ideas, is this almost childish enthusiasm about the reign of Constantine which follows a time of Hell unleashed on earth. His profound faith and the personal experience of the Great Persecution makes him see divine providence in an emperor and an actual imitation of Heaven through the mystical unity of the Church. In the modern interpretation of Eusebius, the question of imperial theology proves to be stronger. But, as Frank S. Thielman points out, in Eusebius’s later thought, the problem of the eschatology and the second coming of Christ does not disappear. Thielman shows that, in works such as the Prophetic Extracts, the Commentary on Luke, the Theophany or the Proof of the Gospel, Eusebius shows an uneasiness with this present order which, although good, may be again disrupted by human weakness. Everybody, including the emperor, will have to account for their actions at the final judgement.[14] And also, in Book 10 of the “History…” we can find a clear distinction between this earthly order, and the divine archetype which inspires it.[15] This is not a “heaven on earth” ideology of the modern age, but rather an enthusiasm for the present situation which is fundamentally imperfect and fragile compared to the divine order. His followers and interpreters will claim this to be the first imperial theology. My claim is that this is the work of a pilgrim wandering between history’s tragedies and the ultimate Truth.

Bibliography

Cameron, Averil, “Eusebius of Caesarea and the Rethinking of History”,  in Tria corda. Scritti in inore di Arnaldo Momigliano, ed. E. Gabba, Como, 1983, pp. 71-88

Chesnut, Glen F.,  Jr., “Fate, Fortune, Free Will  and Nature in Eusebius of Caesarea”, in Church History, Vol. 42, No.2, (Jun 1973), pp. 165-182

Eusebius of Caesarea, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, Translated by G.A. Williamson, Revised and edited with a new introduction by Andrew Louth, Penguin Books, 1989

Momigliano, Arnaldo, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, with a foreword by Riccardo di Donato, University of California Press, Berkeley-Los Angeles-Oxford, 1990

Thielman, Frank S., “Another Look at the Eschatology of Eusebius of Caesarea”, in Vigilae Christianae, Vol. 41, No. 3, Sep. 1987, pp. 226-237

---

[1] Arnaldo Momigliano, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, with a foreword by Riccardo di Donato, University of California Press, Berkeley-Los Angeles-Oxford, 1990, p. 136

[2] Glen F. Chesnut, Jr., “Fate, Fortune, Free Will  and Nature in Eusebius of Caesarea”, in Church History, Vol. 42, No.2, (Jun 1973), pp. 165-182, p. 179

[3] In this respect, it is telling for our own principles of thought that we regard Thucydides as the first lucid, objective historian who did not let himself fooled by the naive thinking that preceded him. Although we do not like his invented speeches, we praise him for the analysis he makes on the causes of the Trojan War. It is a sad thing that both our praise and his analysis come from an attempt to find all sorts of historical- economic, political- determinations for an event which took place and, indeed, is taking place, in the space of symbols. Our great “innovation” is to search for an artificial, irrelevant “historical truth” whereas the only truth revealed by any great piece of art is both personal and universal, thereby transcending history.

[4] Eusebius, op. cit., p. 3

[5] Ibid., p. 5

[6] Dan., VII 9-10, 13-14 quoted in Eusebius, op. cit., p. 9

[7] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities XVIII, ii, 3 in Eusebius, op.cit., p. 29

[8] Eusebius, op. cit., p. 263

[9] Averil Cameron, “Eusebius of Caesarea and the Rethinking of History”,  in Tria corda. Scritti in inore di Arnaldo Momigliano, ed. E. Gabba, Como, 1983, pp. 71-88, p. 73-74

[10] Ibid., p. 87

[11] Eusebius, op. cit., p. 309

[12] Ibid., p. 313

[13] Ibid., p. 319

[14] Frank S. Thielman, “Another Look at the Eschatology of Eusebius of Caesarea”, in Vigilae Christianae, Vol.41, No. 3, Sep. 1987, pp. 226-237, passim.

[15] Eusebius, op. cit., p. 318