Feeling Enthusiastic?

That is from “A Letter concerning ENTHUSIASM” by Anthony, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. It was the first essay in his Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times, a book, it is fair to say, of which very few people even know its existence, let alone have read it. Yet, the book, first published in 1711, was according to the editor of the Liberty Fund volume (Douglas Den Uyl), “the most reprinted book in English in that century.”

The essay is a bit jarring. Enthusiasm, that perfectly innocuous sentiment conjuring up the image of a sprightly lad or lass telling you about the Obsession of the Moment, does not come off very well in Shaftesbury’s account. Indeed, we really ought to be on guard against this Enthusiasm thing.

You are now naturally thinking Shaftesbury is one of those dour types who thinks we all ought to spend our days in morose reflection. You are wrong to think that. “I am sure the only way to save Mens Sense, or preserve Wit at all in the World, is to give Liberty to Wit.” Or consider this: “Gravity is of the very Essence of Imposture.” The plot thickens.

Fortunately the lexicographical equivalent of Holmes is at hand to solve the mystery of how Shaftesbury is simultaneously the Critic of Enthusiasm and the Enthusiastic Critic. The Oxford English Dictionary to the rescue. Enthusiasm does not mean what you think it means. There is an older meaning:

Enthusiasm, n. depreciative. False or pretended divine inspiration, or an instance of this; a belief in or emphasis on private divine revelation as opposed to revelation through scripture. From the 18th cent. also in wider sense: excessive religious emotion or fervour; mystical, fanatical, or radical religious delusion. Now historical.

Amazing, no? And, to think that Samuel Johnson in whose own dictionary defined a Lexicographer as “A writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the signification of words.” Let us pause and praise lexicographers for a moment. (Insert Pause.)

The most intriguing thing about that definition labeled “now historical” is that it might be time to bring it back.

To whom does the term apply? Shaftesbury’s essay is clearly addressing the Religious Enthusiasts of his day:

Nothing can persuade us of Sullenness or Sourness in such a Being [God], beside the actual fore-feeling of somewhat of this kind within our-selves: and if we are afraid of bringing good Humour into Religion, or thinking with Freedom and Pleasantness on such a Subject as God; ’tis because we conceive the Subject so like our-selves, and can hardly have a Notion of Majesty and Greatness, without Stateliness and Moroseness accompanying it.

In Shaftesbury’s age. enthusiasts were those who looked within themselves to understand God, and since they found no Good Humor within themselves, they saw none in God.

The use of the word “enthusiasm” in this sense is obviously obsolete. Does that mean the phenomenon has disappeared? Hardly. Indeed, we live in a time of great enthusiasm. Takes the sense in which the term was used in Shaftesbury’s time: “excessive religious emotion or fervour; mystical, fanatical, or radical religious delusion.” Replace “religious” with “political” in that definition. Now open up your favorite (or least favorite) news source and play the game: How many Enthusiasts can you spot?

Of course the enthusiasts of the day are instantly very annoyed about this comparison and will quickly explain that the Politics of the Day are a Serious matter, that we should not think with Freedom or Pleasantness on such a subject as Contemporary Politics, that Stateliness and Moroseness are indeed the only way to approach a subject with the Majesty and Greatness of Politics.

We should not be surprised at this. As Shaftesbury notes;

There is a Melancholy which accompanys all Enthusiasm. Be it Love or Religion (for there are Enthusiasms in both) nothing can put a stop to the growing mischief of either, till the Melancholy be remov’d, and the Mind at liberty to hear what can be said against the Ridiculousness of an Extreme in either way.

We live in an Age of Enthusiasm. That is not a compliment to our times. The cure is wit and raillery. People need to laugh more. And not that harsh pseudo-laughter which is just a cover for serious complaints. Laugh at oneself. Laugh at the extremes in one’s own beliefs. When you hear tell of things which insult you or your beliefs, how should you respond?

Shou’d we not, in good truth, be ridiculous to take offence at this? And shou’d we not pass for extravagantly morose and ill-humour’d, if instead of treating the matter in Raillery, we shou’d think in of revenging our-selves on the offending Partys, who, out of their rustick Ignorance, ill Judgment, or Incredulity, had detracted from our Renown?

It’s time to resurrect this historical sense of the word “enthusiasm.” It is sadly, a remarkably apt description of our time.