A

JOURNAL

OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

September 1983

Volume 11 Number 3

275

Barbara

Tovey

Shakespeare's Tempest
and

Apology

for Imitative Poetry: The

The Republic

317

Anne M. Cohler

Montesquieu's Perception

of

his Audience for the

Spirit of
333
A.

the

Laws

Anthony

Smith Smi

Ethics

and

Politics in the Work

the Ass: a

of

Jurgen Habermas
the Book

353

Robert Sacks

The Lion
of

and

Commentary

on

Genesis (Chapters 38 & 39)

Discussion
383 Thomas West

Defending
a

Socrates

and

Response to Stewart

Defending Umphrey

Politics:

Book Review
399
Michael A. Gillespie
Heidegger' Time"

of Political

"Being and Philosophy by

and the

Possibility

Mark Blitz

Short Notices
401

Will

Morrisey

by Ronna Burger; Aristotle on Political Reasoning by Larry Arnhart; Rousseau's Emile Introduction, Translation and Notes by
s

Plato'

"Phaedrus"

Translation, Preface, Notes and Interpretive Essay by Charles E. Butterworth; The Political Philosophy of the
Frankfurt School

Allan Bloom; Rousseau's Reveries

by George Friedman

407

Robert L. Stone

Index to Interpretation, Volumes 1-10

interpretation
Volume
1 1

,.

number

Editor-in-Chief

Hilail Gildin
Hilail Gildin

Editors

Seth G. Benardete

Robert Horwitz

Howard B. White (d.1974)

Consulting

Editors

John Hallowell

Wilhelm Hennis

Erich Hula

Arnaldo Momigliano Sandoz

Michael Oakeshott
Kenneth W

Ellis

Leo Strauss (d.1973)

Thompson Christopher A. Colmo

Associate Editors

Larry Arnhart
Jensen
Will

Patrick

Coby

Maureen Feder

Joseph E.

Goldberg

Pamela

Morrisey Grey

Bradford Wilson

Assistant Editors

Marianne C.

Laurette G. Hupman

Design & Production

Martyn Hitchcock

annual subscription rates

individual

$13;

institutional

$16;

student

(3-year
three times a

limit) $7.
year.

interpretation

appears

Address for
correspondence

interpretation, Queens

College, Flushing,

N.Y

11367, U.S.A.

Authors submitting Style Sheet

of

manuscripts

for

publication

in

interpretation are requested to

follow the MIA

and to send clear and readable copies

their work.

Copyright 1983

Interpretation

Medicine
III!

Moral

Philosophy
MARSHALL COHEN, THOMAS NAGEL, THOMAS SCANLON, Editors

Responding

to increased public interest in the

practice, this
collection

moral aspects of medical

of essays addresses questions of

justice

and

in

justice in the
conceptual
medical

delivery

and

distribution
and social

of medical

care and patient rights.

Included

are essays on

issues, health

policies,

paternalism, and euthanasia.

Philosophy & Public Affairs

Reader

Cloth, $22.50. Paper, $6.95

Princeton Box EX 41 William Street

University

Press

Princeton, NJ 08540
Please
send me.
.

copies of

Medicine

and

Moral

Philosophy Cloth, $20.00.

.

ISBN 0-691

-07268-X.

Paper, $6.95. ISBN 0-691-02020-5.

.Subtotal

Tax:Nj,5%;CA, 6%
$1.75
.

Postage &
TOTAL

Handling

Name
Institution

Street

City
Please
enclose payment

State
(check
or

Zip.
with order.

money order)

Pirfim^ta CI Einw^irgfiSw Pir(s

Chicago
ROUSSEAU'S SOCIAL CONTRACT
The Design
Gildin
of

the Argument

Hilail Gildin
provides a

Contract, relating
conception.

step-by-step development of Rousseau's argument in the Social the argument's parts to each other and to the work's overall Rousseau's conclusions, Gildin shows, are not only coherent but follow

from

a conscious

design.

"The product of a long-meditated and intimate familiarity with the text and with great themes the nature of the contract, the Rousseau's thought. significance of the legislator, the relation between sovereign and government, the General Will are illuminated here in ways and to a degree that I think is Thomas L. Pangle, University of Toronto
. .

.The

unprecedented."

Cloth

$22.50

240

pages

(est.)

LEGISLATURE
California's School for Politics

William K. Muir, Jr.

What is a legislature and what do its members do? Under what circumstances does a legislature make its members competent? From his observations of the 1975-76 session of the California State Legislature, Muir proposes that a good legislature is a good school, educating its members in the science of public policy and the art of politics. At its best, it also provides an education in patriotism, love of justice, and wisdom, thereby shaping its members into true statesmen.
Cloth $19.00
232
pages

THE SOCIOLOGY OF THE STATE

Bertrand Badie
Badie
and

and

Pierre Birnbaum

Translated by Arthur Goldhammer

is a social fact and that it arose within the Western Europe. Drawing on historical materials and bringing sociological insights to bear, the authors lay the foundations for a strikingly original theory of the birth and subsequent diffusion of the state.
argue that the state
peculiar sociohistorical context of

Birnbaum

A Chicago Original Paperback Also a vailable in do th $24 00

.

$10.95

176

pages

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS

5801 South Ellis Avenue

Chicago, IL

60637

Shakespeare's
The Tempest

Apology

for Imitative Poetry:

and

The Republic

Barbara Tovey

University

of New Hampshire

So

all

my best is

dressing

old words spent:

new,

spending

again what

is already

Sonnet

lxxvi

1. PLATO'S CHALLENGE TO THE IMITATIVE POET

There is

itly

attests at

between philosophy and poetry. Socrates to that fact in Book X of Plato's Republic (607b). Yet
an ancient quarrel as expressed

explic

Socrates'

in

tent,

least

in Book III
of

of

that

dialogue, is
to
an

not

to banish or de the best

stroy poetry but to strip it

polity, poetry
and

its

autonomy.

According

Socrates, in

music, especially the

to the
not education of

latter, have
young.

important function to
and music are allowed

fulfil

with respect

the

Poetry

to exist,

however,
of

for their

own

sakes,

nor

for the

pleasure

tedly
make,
what

capable

affording, but because

disposition"

of

the contribution

they are admit they are able to

production of

when under

the tutelage of a wise

legislator,

toward the

Socrates forms

calls

"good

or virtuous character.

Consequently

only

poetry and music that serve the purposes of such a legislator are to be permitted. In Book III a famous distinction is made between the narrative
those
of and the

imitative

poetic styles.

Imitative poetry (dramatic art)

directly

presents,

rather than recounts, actions and speeches.

According
when actions.

to what is said in Book

speech and

III, imitative poetry is

of

to be allowed, but only their praiseworthy

it imitates the
Imitation

emotions of good men and

of the actions

bad

or ridiculous

characters, or even of good persons momentarily

decent"

doing

something unworthy, is forbidden. In the words of Adeimantus, the only poet (397d).' admitted into the best city will be "the unmixed imitator of the The practical consequence is the outlawing of both comedy and tragedy. Not only is it forbidden to imitate base or will not be permitted to imitate the behavior
noble than their own. wicked
of

men; the soldier-guardians

any

persons

having

natures

less

Specifically, they

are not allowed

to imitate women (par

ticularly
not

in love), slaves, bad men, madmen or craftsmen, the for bidden types being enumerated in that order. Examples of craftsmen who are
women

to be imitated

are

smiths, the rowers of triremes and those who call time to

word
row-

such rowers.
"Kekevoxr\q,"

The lexicographers, Liddell and Scott, translate the Greek employed by Plato to designate those who call time to the
to The Republic are based
on

1
sic

All

references

the translation

by

Allan Bloom (New York: Ba

Books,

1968).

276
ers,
as

Interpretation
"boatswain."

The Socratic

prohibitions continue.

It is

also

forbidden to

imitate

noises made

der,

the sounds made

by animals, the sounds of natural phenomena such as thun by inanimate objects (axles and pulleys, for example), as
instruments.

well as

the sounds of musical

Let us now turn to a preliminary consideration of some superficial aspects of Shakespeare's Tempest. In the first place, an imitation of each of the forbidden
human types figures conspicuously in the play. Miranda is a woman in Caliban is a slave, and Antonio and Sebastian are unequivocally bad
whom, along
with ship's crewmen

love,
men

Alonso, Ariel claims to have made mad in Act I, scene i, are examples of craftsmen possessing
similar

(m.iii.57-60).2

The

and ex

ercising

a skill

very

to that of the

oarsmen of a

swain who gives

who calls

them orders is clearly the

trireme, and the boat counterpart of Plato's boatswain

or

time to the rowers. Perhaps there is nothing remarkable

coincidence. of

surprising
to con

about sider

this

It is

different story, however,

when we come

the details

the

prohibit
nomena.

his

guardians

nonhuman auditory phenomena which Socrates would from imitating. Socrates presents two lists of these phe

The first list (396b) includes the following:

horses neighing bulls lowing

the noise of rivers the crashing of the sea thunder (and

everything

of that

sort)

The

second

list (397a)

specifies:

thunder the noise of wind and

hail

the noise of axles and pulleys

the notes of the cries of

trumpets, flutes, pipes dogs, sheep and birds

and

the sounds of all the instruments

In The Tempest Shakespeare

performs a

remarkably thorough job

most

of vio

lating
list

these prohibitions. Storm noises figure

sounds and

that the

poet

is

not to

imitate,

thunder

the initial item on the second list. It is

of

being hardly

prominently the final item

on

the lists of
on

the

first

necessary to point out the

imitating such sounds in any production of The Tempest. Stage beginning of Act I, scene i, as given in the First Folio read "a tempestuous noise of thunder and In Act III, scene iii, stage lightning directions again call for thunder and lightning when Ariel appears before "the
directions
at

importance

the

heard."

sin"

three
at of

men of

in the form

the time of Trinculo's the roaring of wind

it is thundering in Act II, scene ii, discovery of the prostrate Caliban. Vivid descriptions and waves, both figuring on the list of forbidden sounds,
of a

harpy,

and

2.

All

references

to The

Tempest

are

based

on

the sixth edition

of

the Arden

Tempest,

edited

Frank Kermode (London: Methuen,

by

reprinted 1975).

Shakespeare's
abound

Apology for Imitative Poetry

scenes of the play.

277
the sounds made

in the first two

the pulling

Imitating
i,

by

the

rig

ging

and

of ropes

in Act I,

scene

would

auditorily close to the sounds of axles and pulleys be imitated. With regard to "the sounds of all the
that the storm noises
master's whistle.
as a means of of

probably produce noises that Socrates says should not

instruments,"

we

may

note

the

first

scene are punctuated

by

the sound of the

ship

In Act III,
pool"

scene

ii, Ariel

plays a tune on a tabor and a pipe

the

charming Stephano, Trinculo and Caliban into following him to "filthy-mantled in which they are ignominiously immersed (iv.
of animal sounds also

1.175-84)-

The imitation have

the
seen that
of

figures prominently in The Tempest. We

Socrates specifically interdicted

imitating
and

lowing

bulls,

and

the

cries of

dogs, sheep
are

the neighing of horses, birds. Horses seem to be

are neither seen nor

absent

from Prospero's island.

scene
bulls,"

Sheep

mentioned, but

heard. In Act II, bellowing / Like

i, Sebastian pretends to have heard "a hollow burst of but this noise is not directly imitated on stage. How ever, the play does feature most conspicuously a direct imitation both of bark ing dogs and crowing cocks. Ariel's song in Act I, scene ii, goes in part:
Foot it And

featly

here

and

sweet sprites

there, bear

The burthen. Hark, hark.

Now the

chorus of sprites

imitates the

barking

of

dogs.

[Burthen
ariel

dispersedly] Bow-wow.
watch

The

dogs bark:
Bow-wow.

[Burthen
ariel

dispersedly]

Hark, hark! I hear

strain of

The

Cry
So far
as

strutting chanticleer [Burthen dispersedly] Cock

diddle dow (i.ii. 381-9).

know,

there is no parallel to this direct imitation of animal cries in

more

any because the imitated

plot,

other part of

the Shakespearean opus. It is the

and

barking

crowing

appear of

in

no

way

relevant

striking in this context to what is occurring

of

on stage nor

to the development
the end of Act
and

the plot. The

barking

dogs is presumably
wine-

again at

IV,

this time in a way that is relevant to the

when

Prospero

Ariel

prepare

to drive

out

the murderous trio of

loving
vers

servants.

Stage directions
shape

specify:

"A

noise

of hunters heard. Enter di

them

Spirits, in

of dogs

and

hounds, hunting
on"

[that is, the servants]

about; prospero and ariel

The play

setting

them

(iv.i.254).3

3.

cocks, and

chattering
played

fairly teems with references to animal sounds. In addition to barking dogs, crowing bellowing bulls, we have the howling of wolves, the roaring of lions, the mowing and of apes, the hissing of adders, the crying of owls and the lowing of a cow. i.ii. 288;
11.

i.i. 315-16;

ii. 9, 13-14;

v.i. 90;

iv.i. 179.

More broadly, it is hard to The play begins

overestimate

the role
and

in The Tempest

by

nonhuman sounds.

with the noise of

thunder, wind,

278

Interpretation
no more

So far I have done

imitation forbidden

than to point out that many kinds of dramatic

make an appearance

by Socrates
evidence

in The Tempest. As

yet

have

not

developed

to support the hypothesis that

Shakespeare, in
even

composing this play, had in mind the relevant Republic passages. But the reader is indulgent enough to grant, for the sake of argument, that
the case,

if

such and

is
to

it

will

surely

appear

that

Shakespeare's intention Socrates

in
on

was

to

defy

ridicule the restrictions

imposed
is

by

the exercise of dramatic art. I

do

not wish to

deny

that there

a sense

which

Shakespeare

was

teasing his
far be

formidable
yond

philosophical critic.

Yet I believe that his

another

purpose extended

simple

mockery.

There is

conceived of the relation

deeper way in which he may have between The Tempest and The Republic. It is this pos

sibility that I wish to explore. In Book X of The Republic Socrates both broadens
criticism of pears

and

deepens his

earlier

imitative poetry or dramatic art. In contrast to Book III, it now ap that no imitative poetry of any kind is to be admitted into the best city
conclusion of

(595a)- At the

his discussion Socrates

"

says:

only

so much of

poetry into a

as

is hymns to the
(607a). It is

gods or celebration of good men should

be

admitted

city"

not

entirely

clear whether

it is

permissible

to celebrate
po

good men

by imitating

them.

Having

concluded the criticism of

imitative

his justification for its banishment, Socrates raises the etry that the criticism might be refuted either by the poets themselves, possibility or by the lovers of poetry making "an apology in lyrics or some other
which constitutes
meter,"

(not themselves poets), giving "an argument without meter on its (607c). He admits that there might be counterarguments capable of showing that poetry is not only pleasant "but also beneficial to regimes and human
life."

behalf"

To

such

arguments, he says, ".

.we

shall

shall gain other

if it

should turn out to

be

not

listen benevolently. For surely only pleasant but also

of

we

beneficial."

In

words, he intimates that there may be imitative

the
philosopher-

poets who are allies and

servants of

ruler, instead

his

enemies.

suggest

that Shake

speare responded pest

to the

Socratic

challenge.

I believe that he intended The Tem

to exemplify precisely the kind of poetry of

which

poetry
man

is

not

merely
of

pleasant

but

which

Socrates here speaks, is "beneficial to regimes and hu

which

life."

He

conceived of

and poetic

imitation

ourselves of the simile

The Tempest, I shall further argue, as a dramatic The Republic itself. It may be appropriate to remind of the divided line in Book VI of The Republic. The

roaring waves, ing description

punctuated of

by

the ship-master's whistle. At

of

its

close the

boatswain

gives the

follow

Ariel's awakening
were

the ship's crew:

We And how
we

dead
not

of

sleep,

know

all clapp'd under

hatches;

Where, but

even

now, with strange and several noises

Of roaring, shrieking, howling, jingling chains, And no diversity of sounds, all horrible, We were awaked; (v.i. 230-5)

Shakespeare'

Apology for Imitative Poetry

279
objects

play bears to the dialogue the same relation that the lowest quarter of the line bear to those of the quarter Tempest is
produced

belonging to the immediately above. The

as

kind

of reflection or

image

of

The

Republic, just

"appearances

in

water and

in

all

close-grained, smooth, bright

things"

(509e)

are

images

of actual physical

objects,

including

artifacts.

In his apology for imita

that the existence of such

tive poetry, spoken

an

in meter, Shakespeare
forbidden forms
of

will show

image is indeed beneficial to "regimes

employment of the

and

human

life."

His

deliberately

lav

ish
of

imitation I

regard as

the consequence

that, using the guidelines set down by Socrates himself, he has defended the right of imitative poetry to exist in the best polity. successfully What he has legitimated, he produces in full measure.
claim

his

The

criticism of

which cannot

poetry developed in Book X has several parts, be discussed here. One famous argument attempts to

most of

establish

that the ontological status of poetry, and of

imitative

art

in general, is low. The

imitative
employs

artist

is

said to

for his

model
an

copy the artifact produced by a craftsman who in turn the form or idea of the thing. Thus the couch made by
of

the carpenter

is

imitation As

the form of the couch (the real couch, the couch

that is in nature) and the couch as portrayed

carpenter's couch.
such

by

the painter

is

an

imitation

of

the
ex

it

exists at two removes

from

reality.
of

Socrates

plicitly
poets,

says

that the status of the tragic poet is the same as that

the painter of

the couch (596a-597e). But the

whether comic or

analogy is obviously false. In the first place,

tragic,

are not

typically
are

concerned with
beings.4

the representa

tion of artifacts; their objects of

imitation

human

is

a sense

in

which

Plato

might regard particular

Of course, there human beings as images or

copies of

the form of humanity.

Consequently
to imitate
an

the artist who paints a portrait of

imitation. But the dramatic poet, as opposed to the historical biographer, is not primarily interested in individu als. His characters are representations of human types or kinds, such as the
a particular person could said

be

brave
seeks

man or

the avaricious

man.

As the

poet

in Timon of Athens tells us, he

presumably them

to depict "... all kinds of natures, / That labour on the bosom of this

sphere"

(i.i. 66-7). For Plato these types

Socrates'

or natures would

selves
moved

be forms. So

stricture against

the

poet as an

imitator twice

re

from reality appears to be unjust. However, if I am correct in thinking that Shakespeare conceived of The Tempest as an imitation of The Republic
there

is

a sense

ontological status accorded

in which, half playfully perhaps, he accepted for his work the to imitative art by Socrates. For The Republic is in
("a
pattern

deed

a man-made artifact a

in

city,"

speech of a good

imitates
ality.

form

or

forms,

and an

imitation

of

it

will

472c) which be twice removed from re

that

Shakespeare has the task

of an

of

his imitation

imitation is

not

convincing his to be despised. poetry

philosophical opponent

Perhaps the

most serious attack on

which

is developed in Book X

of

4.

This

point

is

made

by

Bloom in his "Interpretive

Essay,"

op. cit., p. 429.

280

Interpretation
an ethical one.

The Republic is

It

consists of the claim that the

imitative
part

artist

describes,

appeals

to and nourishes the lowest part of the soul, the

that

is
so

the seat of the passions, the wellspring of grief, laughter and

sexuality.

In

doing, he
soning way
of a

starves and weakens

the higher element that alone is capable of rea

dering
his

by presenting in an attractive hero mourning over his great misfortunes. Such a spectacle, by engen pity and fear in the spectator, has the effect of numbing the higher part
and calculation.

The tragedian does this

soul.

His

reason under

ordinary

circumstances would prevent

him from

giving way to public expressions of his own grief. But it is put off its guard
the fact that the mourning

by

is

being

done

by

someone else.

Given

an

opportunity

the

shamelessly to bewail the misfortunes of another, the irrational, pitying part of soul is soon emboldened to do the same when the misfortunes are its own. vicariously and pleasurably the sufferings of understanding; it leads to moral weakness. In just the

Suffering

another same

does

not

lead to

way, the

laughing

and sexual parts of

the soul are encouraged

ashamed

by

the comic poet to laugh at jokes

the person would

have been

to make himself. Thus both the tragic and

the comic poet foster and water the baser desires that ought, for the sake of

achieving excellence, rather to be starved and dried up (605c -6o6d). Does Shakespeare, in presenting to us The Tempest, play the role of either the tragic or comic poet, as described by Socrates? The answer appears to be
that he does not. Whatever may be said of other plays, in this drama Shake
speare seems to

have foregone

eroticism and erotic

jokes. The Tempest is

not

the work of a comic poet in Plato's sense. Nor is it the work of a tragic poet, as
conceived part of

by

Plato. This play

affords almost no occasion

the spectator. The only exception is the very

spectator

tempest is depicted. Here the

peril.

for pity or fear on the first scene, in which the believes he observes a ship and its pas

sengers in dire However, the degree of pity and fear he is capable of ex periencing is severely limited by the fact that the characters are as yet unknown to him, so that he has had no opportunity to develop sympathy for them. More over, they are not presented as being particularly attractive. From the second scene

onward, the play is remarkable for its lack of dramatic excitement. In

that scene we learn that everything that happens on and in the immediate vicin

ity

of

the

island, including
also

the seeming

tempest, is
his
magic

under

the control of Pros

pero

who, through the

instrumentality
of

of

art,

possesses superhuman

powers.

We

learn that Prospero is both

sought to take

a wise and a good no

man,

who

like

the just

man of

Book I

The Republic does harm to

one,

not even

to the

enemies who

had

his

own

life (i.ii. 15). All

concern over the

safety of the ship's mariners and passengers is dissipated so far as the audience is concerned. Ferdinand believes his father to be drowned, his father entertains
the same opinion concerning his son, but we know that both well,
and
of

them are alive,

danger. Ferdinand and Miranda believe that, due to Prospero's seeming animosity, the future course of their love is most uncertain, but the spectators are not in suspense. In asides directed to the audience Prospero has
no

in

Shakespeare'

Apology for Imitative Poetry

281

indicated that he desires nothing more than to see the young people united, after they have been properly prepared. It is a singular tribute to Shakespeare's
genius

that

play

so

lacking
of

not

to arouse the emotions

in dramatic suspense, so deliberately calculated pity or fear in the spectator, is nevertheless ca

as

pable of so

engrossing his interest. Thus Shakespeare exonerates himself, insofar

charges

this play is concerned,

poet.

from the

Socrates brings

against

the tragic and the comic

In

addi

tion, Shakespeare sorts of imitations

poses

seems concerned to show us that at

least

some of

the

various

that are forbidden in The Republic can be made to serve pur

approval. awakened

Socrates'

worthy of cially the thunder,

penitence.

Alonso

reports

that the storm noises, espe

him to

a sense of

his guilt, thus preparing him for

O, it is

monstrous,

monstrous!

Methought the billows spoke, and told me of it; The winds did sing it to me; and the thunder, That
The

deep

and

dreadful organ-pipe,
i'
th'

pronounced

name of

Prosper: it did bass my trespass.

Therefore my son ooze is bedded; and I'll seek him deeper than e'er plummet sounded,

And

with

him there lie

mudded (m.iii.95 102).

In the

same scene

Ariel imitates

harpy

that are his

ministers

imitate

other strange

clapping its wings and the lesser spirits half- animal. shapes, half-human and

All these imitations

of

are shown as
sin."

instrumental in

bringing

about

the

humbling

We have already seen that Ariel's song in Act I, scene ii, includes direct imitation of the barking of dogs and the crowing of cocks, thus breaking two Socratic prohibitions simultaneously. But it has an
the "three
men of

effect upon the soul of

Ferdinand

quite opposite to that which,

poetry.

Plato, typically
it
calms them. sumed

results

from imitative

Instead

of

inflaming

according to his passions,

over

Rather than

inciting

him to further lamentation

a state of tranquility.

the pre

loss

of

his father, it leads him into

Sitting Weeping
This
again

on a

bank,
wrack,

music crept

Allaying
With its

both

King by me upon the waters, their fury and my passion

the

my father's

sweet air:

(i.ii. 392 -6)

2. PROSPERO AND SHAKESPEARE

The Epilogue to The Tempest is

spoken

by Prospero,

who

has just

renounced

his

magic powers and

for the first

time appears to the audience as an

ordinary

mortal.

The

magic seems also

to have departed from

Shakespeare's

poetry.

282

Interpretation
charms are all o'erthrown,

Now my

And

what strength
most

I have's

mine

own,

Which is I
must

faint: now, 'tis true,

confined

be here

by

you,

Or

sent

to Naples. Let

me

not,

Since I have my dukedom got, And pardon'd the deceiver, dwell In this bare island
But
release me

by

your

spell;

With the

help

from my bands of your good hands:

my
sails

Gentle breath Must

of yours

fill,

or else

my

project

fails,
want

Which

was

to

please.

Now I

Spirits to enforce, Art to enchant, And my ending is despair, Unless I be relieved by prayer, Which
pierces

so, that it

assaults

Mercy itself,
As Let
you your

and

frees

all

faults.

from

crimes would pardon'd

set me

be,

indulgence

free.

The Epilogue has been

Timeless Theme, the
pretation of

analyzed

in depth

second

half

of which

Colin Still in his book, The is devoted to a most interesting inter

by

The

Tempest.5

Still

regards

the play as an allegorical

religions and

expression of

ideas

contained

both in the

pagan

mystery

in the

mysteries of

the

Christian

religion.

Although I

cannot agree with

with regard

his

debt to him is
me to

great.

Specifically,

to the

overall interpretation, my Epilogue, there is little for

do

except

to summarize his commentary.

Still

points out that there are

is

"plaudite."

a mere conventional
audience

many difficulties in the view that the Epilogue Its ostensible theme is a plea addressed to
must

the

by

Prospero to liberate him from the island. "I

Naples."

be here

confined

by

you, / Or

sent to

Still

inquires,

"But is it true? It certainly

home."

Prospero, in his aspect as the Duke of Milan, is prevented in any He "has already from quitting the Island, in its aspect as his exile way
is
not

true that

promised

the travellers a speedy voyage to Naples

. . .

and signified

his intention to
we

accompany them think of him as

speaks

But

Prospero'

s statement of the author.

becomes intelligible if his

a representative

In the Epilogue Shakespeare

us that artistic work all
enchant;"

directly
can.

to us, his audience,

want

his

readers.

He tells

is finished. "Now I
that

/ Spirits to enforce, Art to

fails."

He has done

he

It is

now

up to us to do our part. "Gentle breath of yours my sails /

project

Must fill,
5.
244.

or else

my

Illumination is

shed upon

the metaphorical

The

Colin Still, The Timeless Theme (London: Ivor Nicholson & Watson, 1936), pp. 127epilogue is discussed at pp. 240-4. Still does not link The Tempest with The Republic.

Republic.

6. Ibid.,

p. 241.

Shakespeare'

Apology for Imitative Poetry

by
the

283
several

meaning

of

these

words

fact that "Shakespeare

upon the
water."7

times describes
lxxxvi sails
us

the work of

his

pen as a

bark

floating
and

In Sonnet

are employed as a metaphor sails

for

poetic verse.

So Shakespeare tells

that "the
with the

of his

verse are own

spread,

it is for
can we

us

(his readers) to fill them

breath of our

genius.''''*

How

do that?

By interpreting

the play,

by

penetrating to the meaning that lies below the

the Epilogue for the express purpose
terpretation."9

surface.

"Shakespeare designed

If

we

fail to

respond

pleading for release in the sense of in to that plea Shakespeare will be forced to
of

dwell "in this bare

island"

by

our spell.

All I

can add

to Still's interpretation

of

the Epilogue is the

will

suggestion

that the island on

with

which

Shakespeare fears he
upon which

be forced to dwell is to be identified

enacted.

the stage

the play the

has just been

properties

It is bare

now

because

at the end of

the

performance

have been

removed.

Shakespeare intimates that if

we

do

not release

the inner meaning of the play through an act of interpretation the

main a stage spell

work will re

by

which

play only, a mere piece of theater, a charming entertainment. The we, his readers, could confine him to the island is "our uncom

literalism"

prehending his nominal story, There

are

imprisoning

him "within the bare

and narrow

limits

of

an exile

from his intellectual

kingdom."10

many place, both of them speare is clearly not

the tempest
raised

parallels

between Shakespeare

and

Prospero. In the first

created

are creators of tempests. a natural

The Tempest

by

Shake

by

Prospero'

phenomenon; it is a dramatic illusion. What of s magic powers? Is it a real storm at sea? Does

he
the

bring

about a real shipwreck?

Certainly
its

the passengers and

crew go

through
vessel

experience of a

terrible storm; at

climax

it

seems

to them that the

splits (i.i. 60- 1). also sea

Those
the

who arrive on

the island believe that she sank; Miranda

pieces"

thinks she

saw

ship "Dash'd
makes

all

to

and

then swallowed

by

the

(i.ii. 5-

13).

But Ariel

it

clear that this never

actually happened. He

reports

to Prospero:

Safely
Thou
call'dst me

in harbour

Is the King's ship; in the up From the

deep

nook,

where once

at midnight to

fetch dew hid: (i.ii. 226-9)

still-vex'd

Bermoothes,

there she's

Significantly he
.

adds:
o'

th'

for the

rest

fleet,
again,

Which I dispers'd, they

all

have

met

And

are upon the

Mediterranean

flote,

Supposing

Bound sadly home for Naples; that they saw the king's ship wrack'd, And his great person perish (i.ii. 232-7; italics mine).
7.

Ibid.,

p. 242.
p.

8. Ibid.,
9.

243.

Ibid., p. 241. 10. Ibid., p. 242.

284
Both

Interpretation
incorrect. In
/ We first

suppositions are end of

At the

the play the

fact, the ship suffered no harm whatsoever. boatswain testifies that it "Is tight and yare and
sea"

bravely
make

rigg'd as when

put out

to

(v.i. 224-5). Alonso is led to

the appropriate comment: "These are not natural events;".

account of

Furthermore,
lightning.

Ariel's

the St. Elmo's

ship

was

in the

possession of

fire, devils, plainly

the

that caused the passengers to think the

shows

there was

no real

/ boarded the king's ship;

now on

beak,

Now in the waist, the deck, in every cabin, / flam'd amazement: sometime I'd divide,
And burn in many places;
on

the topmast,

The

yards and

boresprit,

would

/ flame

distinctly, (i.ii. 196-200; italics

mine)

What the

passengers

took to be
of

pearing to them in the form Prospero is

over

lightning was nothing more than Ariel ap St. Elmo's fire. The tempest was an illusion.
winds; he casts his spells
of of

not a sorcerer who works upon waves and

the

minds of men.

The tempest,
art of

course, is only the first

Prospero's
are

many brought to
and and

exercises

in the

illusion

making.

Alonso

and

his followers

apparitions; Caliban by the drunken servants are set upon by spirits appearing in the shape of dogs hounds. For the benefit of Ferdinand and Miranda, Prospero, like his cre
penitence means of all manner of strange makes use of

ator,

his
and

powers of enchantment

to stage a theatrical performance. the art

of

Both Shakespeare

Prospero

are masters of

illusion.
to accomplish all his

So

great are

Prospero's

magic powers

that

he is
The

able

purposes within
pressed

the play is com four-hour period, lasting from two in the afternoon until six (i.ii. 239-41; v.i. 3-5). Elizabethan plays were usually staged in the afternoon and, with intermissions, took approximately that length of time to perform.

the space of

a single afternoon.

action of

into

Thus the internal dramatic time

of

the play is identical

with

the performance

time, a circumstance differentiating The Tempest from every other work in the Shakespearean dramatic opus. Both the spectators in the theater and the island
ers of

the play spend an afternoon,

from two

until

six,

under

the spell of a mas

unified.

ter magician. The Tempest is spatially as

well as

temporally

The

action

in its entirety takes place on, or near, Prospero's island. I have already sug gested that the island may symbolize the stage. This hypothesis, if correct,
would

link the

scene of

Prospero's

magic

making

with

that of

Shakespeare's.

last plays, and is probably the last play Shakespeare wrote, many commentators have suggested that Prospero's renunciation of his magic art stands for Shakespeare's abandon
view of ment of

In

the fact that The Tempest is certainly among the

the theater. I do not think that this

significance of

hausts the
analogies

interpretation by any means ex Prospero's renunciation, but I do believe that the between Shakespeare and Prospero are sufficiently numerous to jus
one of the

tify

us

in thinking that it is

intended

meanings.

It is

an

interesting

Shakespeare'

Apology for
as

Imitative

Poetry

285

fact that in the

something that

speech

he,
my

Prospero claims to have done abjuring his "rough a character in The Tempest, could hardly have performed.
magic"

graves at

command

Have

waked

their sleepers, op'd, and let 'em forth

By

my

so potent

Art (v.i. 48-50).

But only
open

one person

died

on

Prospero's island

that was

Sycorax, Caliban's

evil mother.

It

her

grave.

the author of
graves and

have wished to exceedingly it makes good sense to of Shakespeare, However, perfectly say the history plays, that by his "so potent he opened many
seems

unlikely that Prospero would

art"

let forth their

sleepers.

In this speech,

as

in the Epilogue,

Shake-

spear seems

to substitute himself for Prospero.

and

Another similarity between Prospero

Shakespeare is to be found in

their

seemingly ambivalent attitudes toward their respective powers of enchantment. In his great renunciation speech (v.i. 33 -57) Prospero eloquently testifies to his
appreciation of

the enormous potency of his art. Just so, Shakespeare in the

Sonnets
Not

expresses

deep

confidence

in the abiding

greatness of

his

poetry.

marble nor

the

gilded monuments

Of

princes shall outlive this pow'rful rhyme

(Sonnet

lv).
magic"

Yet Prospero
subordinate

belittles his art, calling it "rough ministers (other than Ariel) as "weak
also

and

masters,"

referring to his "meaner

fellows,"

"rabble."

and

He

speaks of

the

masque which

is

about to

be

performed

before

Ferdinand

riously
ages

"some vanity enough, the Sonnets also contain

and

Miranda

Art"

as

of mine
passages

(v.i. 41;

iv.i. 35-41).

Cu

in

which

Shakespeare dispar

his

own

dramatic

art.

Alas 'tis true, I have

And
made myself a
mine own

gone

here

and

there,
what

motley to the view,

sold

Gored
Made

thoughts,

cheap

is

most

dear.

old offences of affections new.

Most true it is,

Askance
and

that

I have looked

on truth

strangely (Sonnet ex).

O for my sake do you with fortune chide, The guilty goddess of my harmful deeds, That did not better for my life provide
Than
public means which public manners

breeds.

Thence

comes

it that my
my

name receives a

brand,
cxi).

And To

almost thence

nature

is

subdued

what

it

works

in, like
suggest

the dyer's

hand (Sonnet

The last two lines

tive poetry
was

that Shakespeare believed the composition of that

imita

was not

his

proper work and

his involvement

with

the theater

deflecting

his

nature

from its highest

activity.

Like Prospero, Shakespeare

286

Interpretation
at

apparently abandoned the practice of his art while ers. We shall return to this puzzling topic later.

the very peak of his pow

3. THE TEMPEST WITHIN THE TEMPEST

The first

scene of the

play,

which

depicts Prospero's

illusory
it

microcosm of

the larger

Shakespearean Tempest in

which

occurs.

tempest, is a It is not
of

surprising, then, that it should contain

principal

an enunciation of at

least two

the

themes of the play. The scene opens with an exchange between the

ship-master crew. mast.

boats.

(the

captain of

the ship) and the

boatswain,

who

is in

charge of

the

Boatswain!

Here,
Good:

master: what cheer?

th'

mast.

speak

to

mariners; fall to 't, yarely, or

we run ourselves aground:

bestir,
The
master

bestir (i.i.

1-4).

then exits and,

although

he

makes a stage appearance

in Act V,

speaks not another word swain

for the

remainder of

the

play.

Meanwhile the boat

begins to

give orders

to the mariners, commanding them to take in the

topsail.

It is
a

always useful

to pay particularly close attention to the opening lines of

Shakespearean

play.

The Tempest is

no exception.

Why

does Shakespeare drama

the
ex

choose

to begin his play in just this

way?

Why, in
at

particular, does he go to the

trouble of
seems

introducing
nil?

the master at all, since his subsequent role in the

virtually change between the

a superior to an

The answer, I
master and

believe, has

least two

parts.

First,

the boatswain consists of a

command given

by

inferior,

and of the acceptance of that command

by

the inferior.

The very first

conveyed

word of

the play is an utterance of command. The suggestion is

will somehow part

to us that The Tempest

will

be

concerned with

ruling
of

and

that
a

its theme

be

at

least in

political.11

Traditionally,

course,

ship is a metaphor for the state. It is interesting to recollect that it was Plato who coined this metaphor in a very famous passage in The Republic (488a-489a). The introduction of the ship-master serves a second purpose. We
see

that the crew members receive their orders

over the
ture"

boatswain there

stands a yet

higher

authority.

from the boatswain, but that So the "political struc

of

the ship has a tripartite character. We shall see that the notion of three

orders or course

three classes

will

become

dominant theme in The

Tempest,

as of

it is in The Republic. In the very first lines of the first scene, then, a link, albeit a small one, is forged between Shakespeare's play and Plato's dialogue. The boatswain's labors
11.

are

interrupted

by

the arrival on deck of

Alonso,

Measure for Measure, which is also concerned with politics and ruling, begins in exactly the same way. Measure for Measure in many ways is closely related in theme to The Tempest.

Shakespeare'

Apology for Imitative Poetry

his
entourage.

287
with

King
with

of

Naples,

and

They
at

pester

him

questions,

interfering

the performance of his

not

low. When they do

to in such a tone
rank.

first politely requests them to keep be comply, he becomes annoyed and commands them in

duties. He

the strongest terms to return to their cabins.

They

are angered at reminds

being
of

spoken

by

a social

inferior,

and

Gonzalo

him

their

high

The boatswain
will not

responds with

contempt, pointing
King?"

out to the courtiers that

their titles
cares

help

them to cope
of

with the storm and the waves.

"What

these roarers for the name

he asks, adding, ".

(i.i. 16-23).
rain

.if

you can we

command
will not

these elements to silence, and work the peace of the presence,

authority:"

hand

a rope

more;

use your

Thoroughly
on

infur

iated,
swain.

three members of the royal party proceed to

invectives

the boat

his character is clearly destined to die on be impossible for him to be drowned. In fact, according to Gonzalo, this certainty that the boatswain was born to be hanged rather than drowned constitutes their greatest hope of coming safely through the storm.
says that a person of

Gonzalo
it

the gallows;

would

Gonzalo

makes

that point three times in this scene and,

when

he

reencounters

the boatswain in the last act, repeats it a fourth time (i.i. 28-33, 46-8 and

57-9;

"cur", "whoreson", "inso lent noisemaker"; Sebastian addresses him as "you bawling, blasphemous, in(i.i. 40-5), and in Act V Gonzalo says to him: charitable Now, blas
v.i. 216-20).
calls
dog"
"

Antonio

the boatswain

phemy, / That

shore?"

swear'st grace

o'erboard,

not

an

oath on

(218-19).

Strangely
appears

enough, the fact is that the boatswain

at

never utters

What is

issue in this

exchange

between the boatswain

and

any blasphemies. the courtiers? It

to be a

contest over

the right to rule.

On the

one side we

have the boat

swain who

has

no rank or title whatsoever.

run

What the boatswain has is knowl

edge of

how to

the ship. If anyone can save the ship,

it is he. He is the
of the

"true

pilot"

mentioned

by

Plato in the

context of
of

his description On the

ship

of

state, the true

pilot who

is the image

the true ruler.

other side we

have

people who

bear

royal titles and who wield political

authority, but who

opposi qualifi

know nothing about running a ship. Shakespeare is setting up for us an tion between knowledge and authority, between the natural ruler whose
cation whose

is his knowledge
qualification

of

how to

rule

the state
or

and

the conventional ruler

mandate.

is his inherited title

title to
rule

his

electoral of

Questions indi

concerning the Republic

cates
and

natural

occupy the center

scene

the stage both in The

in The Tempest. In this little

the Platonic
or

Shakespeare

indirectly
inherited

his in

agreement with on

teaching

that the natural or genuine claim

to rule is based
tained

knowledge
way.12

skill, and
well

not on

title,

whether

or ob

some other

It is

to remember that this play was written

12. Since writing this essay, I have read Paul A. Cantors "Prospero's Republic: The Politics of in Shakespeare as Political Thinker edited by John Alvis and Thomas Shakespeare's The
Tempest"

G. West (Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 1981), pp. 239-56. Despite many important differences, there is a considerable affinity between our interpretations of the play. In particular, Cantor
gives an analysis of i.i

(pp. 24 if.)

which

is very

similar to

the one I offer here.

288

Interpretation
the
reign of

during

King James,

a monarch not

inclined to look

favorably

upon

any disparagement of the divine right of kings. The shocking quality of the as sertion that the right to rule is based on knowledge, rather than on title, is in dicated

by

the

reaction of calls

the members

of

the king's party to the boatswain's

not

statements.

Sebastian

him

blasphemous,
asserts

because he

utters sacrilegious

oaths, but because he undermines the philosophical foundation

gimes

of political re

based

on convention.

Gonzalo
in

he is fated

not

to drown but to

hang.

Why
But

should

he be hanged

rather than

that a death caused

nature. swain

by drowning
on

a sea storm

drowned? The answer, I suggest, is is a death due to the power of

death

the gallows is the antithesis of a natural death. The boat

has

not offended against

nature; his

offense

is
at

against conventional politi

cal authority.

Therefore it is

proper

for him to die

the

hands

of

that authority.

Two themes, then, emerge from the initial scene of the play. The first is the conflict between natural or genuine title to rule, based on knowledge, and con
ventional perior pest

title, based
will

on

inheritance

or social rank.

The former is

shown as su

to the latter. The second theme is only

faintly

foreshadowed in the tem

scene, but

become highlighted
us as

as

the play unfolds. The best or natural

political order

is depicted to

tripartite in character. To put it in another

way, there are two levels of rulership; the true ruler, the highest master, re
quires an auxiliary.

Lacking

such an

auxiliary, the best

political order will

"run

aground."

The Platonic

character of

both

of

these themes

hardly

needs

pointing

out.

4. PROSPERO AND HIS HOUSEHOLD

Prospero
The
second scene

begins
which

with

conversation

between Prospero

and

his

daughter, Miranda, in
course of

he

relates

to her the story of his earlier life. In the

this narration several very

at one

interesting

points

emerge.

Prospero had early

time been

an

period of

his reign, he

says

extremely successful ruler. of his Milanese Dukedom:

Apparently Speaking of the

Through
In

all the signories prime

And Prospero the

it was the first, duke, being so reputed

dignity,

and

for the liberal Arts

(i.ii. 71-4).
governing.

Without

a parallel

Then Prospero lost interest in

. . .

Referring

to the

liberal arts, he

says:

those

being

all

my study,

The

my brother, And to my state grew stranger, being transported And rapt in secret studies (i.ii. 74-7).
government

cast upon

Shakespeare'

Apology for
logic)

Imitative

Poetry

289
to consist of the trivium

In the Middle Ages the liberal

arts were considered

(grammar,

rhetoric and

and

the

quadrivium with

(arithmetic,

music, geometry
which

and astronomy).

The

quadrivium

is identical

the set of studies

Plato

in The Republic
lectic

regards as a prelude and preparation

for the highest study, dia

that the secret studies the pursuit of

or philosophical

inquiry. It has been

of magic

suggested

upon which

Prospero

embarked while

in Milan

constituted not

philosophy, but the study

to perform the
mies on

the very same

magic which enabled

him

feats

of

sorcery

that brought about the subjugation of his ene

one piece of evidence that tends to support this
magical powers at

the island. Now there is

hypothesis. Prospero apparently did possess some of his arrival on the island, for he says to Ariel:
Thou best know'st

the time

What torment I did find thee in; thy groans Did make wolves howl, and penetrate the breasts Of
To
ever-

angry bears: it

was a torment
which

lay

upon the

damn'd,
it

Sycorax

Could

not again undo: arriv'd and and

was mine

Art,
gape

When I

The pine,

heard thee, that made let thee out (i.ii. 286-93).

Other evidence, however, strongly indicates that the study of magic was not Prospero's primary preoccupation while in Milan. In the first place, he clearly
that he abandoned the governance of his dukedom in order to study the liberal arts, and the latter can hardly be identified as magic. Second, it is clear that in Milan Prospero lacked the magical powers he possessed on the island.
states

This is demonstrated Antonio

and

by

the

fact that he
him
and

was

impotent to

oppose

the

ministers of

Alonso

who set

his little daughter

adrift upon

"A

rotten

carcass of a
pero's

butt,
with

not

rigg'd, / Nor tackle, sail, nor

mast;"

(i.ii. 146-7). Pros

inability

to defend himself and Miranda

against

their abductors

in Milan

is

contrasted

his

power on

the island to paralyze and disarm Ferdinand

of

(i.ii. 465-95) and, through the

ous purposes of

instrumentality

Ariel,

to

frustrate the
the

murder

Antonio

and

Sebastian (11. i. 292 -300).

Awakening

Gonzalo to the danger these unsavory to him:

characters present to

sleeping his life, Ariel says

My

master you

through

his Art foresees the danger

are

That

his friend,

in;

In Milan, however, Prospero is utterly unable to foresee any of the dangers threatening both his rulership and his life. The Duke of Milan, however learned he may have been, was certainly no magician. It seems reasonable, then, to assume that the
designed to
prepare secret studies

in

which

Pros

pero was transported and rapt were either of a philosophical nature or at

least
pas-

him for

philosophy.

In

other

words,

he

gave

up

practical

affairs and political

life for the

sake of

pursuing theoretical wisdom.

This

290

Interpretation

sage cannot

help

but

remind us of cave

losopher's
sents not
also

ascent

from the

the myth of the cave and the story of the phi into the light. In The Republic the cave repre
which

only the intellectual darkness in

associated with

the

mass of mankind

lives; it is
hold

closely

the city and with political life. The

men who

up the

artifacts

that are shadowed on the wall of the cave may be

opinion.13

regarded as

the politically authoritative molders of

Like the

philosopher

in The
no

Republic,
desire to
burden he

once

liberated from the

to it.

shadow world of politics,

Prospero had
of

return

Ruling irresponsibly "cast

to him had the

become

burden. To rid himself

that

government"

upon

his

all

too

eager

brother. in

Unlike the Duke in Measure for Measure, he did

vestigate

not even

trouble himself to

the manner in

which

his

deputy
says

was

performing the ducal duties. In

men refuse

Book I
will

of

The Republic, Socrates

that if the best

to rule,

they

have to pay the penalty of being themselves ruled Prospero soon felt the full weight of this terrible penalty.
Miranda At the ".
. .

by

inferiors (347c).

beginning

of

their conversation,
who

Prospero

addresses
art"

Miranda
17-

as:

thee, my daughter,
of

/ Art ignorant

of what

thou

(i.ii.

18).

The

superficial rank.
of

meaning But the deeper meaning is that she does not know herself; she is ignorant her own nature. Prospero has to educate her. Educating her consists in ask her
a series of questions

these lines is that she does not realize her high

social

ing

designed to

reawaken

her latent

memories of

her

past.
pros.

Canst thou

remember

A time before
I do
not

we came unto

this cell? then thou wast not

think thou canst,

years old.

for

Out three
mir.

Certainly,

sir, I can.

pros.

by any other house or person? Of any thing the image tell me, that Hath kept with thy remembrance. By
what?

mir.

'Tis far off,

rather

And Four
pros.

like

dream than

an assurance

That my remembrance warrants. Had I not or five women once that tended me? Thou hadst
and

more, Miranda (i.ii. 38-48).

Prospero

goes on to tell

her that is

she was

formerly

princess, the

daughter
the

of

the Duke of

Milan, himself

a prince of power and ruler of the

first

of

signo-

ries. The
which

resplendent past

contrasted with the wretchedness of the

Prospero is

no more than we

the "master of a full

a reflection of the

cell"

poor

present, in (i.ii. 20).

recollec-

In this passage,
13.

may find

Platonic

myth of

For

fuller discussion

of this point see

Bloom, "Interpretive

Essay,"

op.

cit., p. 404.

Shakespeare'

Apology for

Imitative

Poetry

291
a

tion. In its glorious past the

directly
body, is
sessed.

upon a

human soul, unencumbered by the intelligible forms. Being born, becoming

of

body,

once gazed

encased

in

a mortal

form

descent in
consists

which

the soul forgets the knowledge it once pos the soul to

remember

Education

in

helping

that which

it has

forgotten.

Learning

is

recollection.

The task

of education

is best

accomplished par ex

by

the Socratic technique of asking questions, a technique exemplified

cellence

In
as

by interpreting

Socrates'

questioning dramatic work

be

of

the ignorant slave

boy

in the Meno.
complex

so

artistically
to

and

philosophically

The Tempest, it

would

a mistake

try

to

attach a single symbolic mean symbol

ing
that

to each of the characters or to seek a single

for

each of

the ideas

being leading ideas

play is to

is

represented.

Shakespeare's technique is

multirepresentational.

The

are represented

symbolize more than one thing. symbolize

in many different ways and some of the characters I suggest that one of Miranda's functions in the
soul.

the human
case

The

glorious past existence of the soul

is

represented

in Miranda's in

by

her

resplendent

life

as

Princess

of

Milan. Her

trip

to the island

represents

the soul's descent from the intelligible heaven to its

questioning, she

encasement

a mortal of

body. Under Prospero's

marvellous past. not

begins to

rec

ollect
and

something

her

It

should

be

observed

that

life in Milan
as

the expulsion

from Milan do

have the

same significance

for Miranda

they have for Prospero.

Caliban

When Prospero habitants. One

and

Miranda

arrived at the

island they found there two in

manifold, and
sorceries

of them was

Caliban,
. .

the son of the hideous witch Sycorax who

mischiefs

had been deported from Algiers "For

/ To
enter

terrible
as

human

hearing

(i.ii. 264-5). Caliban is described

half-

human

and

half-monster,
he did
not

with

distinct fish-like Caliban is

characteristics.

Prior to Pros
repre

pero's arrival sented

not possess the

subhuman.

gift of speech and

his intelligence is
dominated

as

low, if
my
to

a creature

by bodily

appetites and

impulses. One
dinner"

of

his first

"I

must eat

(i.ii. 332). Much

the favor of
all

food.

Seeking
let

win

is: appearing his talk throughout the play turns on the servants, Stephano and Trinculo, he
statements upon on stage

of

offers to procure

for them

kinds

of

tasty

eatables:

prithee,

me

bring

thee

where crabs

grow;

my long nails will dig thee pig-nuts; Show thee a jay's nest, and instruct thee how And I
with

To

snare

the

nimble

marmoset;

I'll

bring

thee

To clustering filberts, and sometimes I'll get thee Young scamels from the rock (11. ii. 167-72).

When Stephano
and

offers

him liquor, Caliban

immediately becomes

addicted

to it

is

prepared

in

sexual

to worship Stephano as a god. His complete lack of self-control matters is demonstrated by his attempt to rape the child, Miranda.

292

Interpretation

sex.

Caliban's nature, then, is dominated Prospero repeatedly refers to him as

Aristotle had in in
whom

by

the appetites for

a slave.

In Act

that appellation to Caliban no less than six times.

example of what
mind when

I, Indeed, Caliban is
scene of

food, drink and ii, he applies

a perfect

he talked

the natural slave.

Cal

iban is

a person

the rational

and who

is

ruled

by

the

bodily
him.

faculty is weak, if not altogether absent, desires. As such, he lacks the capacity to rule
misery according to the
nature of

himself. He
the

will experience contentment or

person who rules over

In Act I,

ing
16).

words:

ii, Prospero summons Caliban to his presence by "What, ho! slave! Caliban! / Thou earth, thou!
scene

the follow

speak"

(i.ii. 315-

Now Shakespeare
out of

frequently

uses earth as a symbol of

the body. One ex

ample,

net cxlvi:

many "Poor soul, the

possible

illustrations, may be found in

earth,"

the

first line

of

Son

center of

clearly
stands

stands

for the
of

"my sinful body or for that

represents

for

body."

my "my I suggest, then, that in this play Caliban lowest part of the soul which, according to the
sinful where sinful seat of

earth"

teaching
of

The Republic, is the

bodily

appetites.14

At the

same

course, Caliban
such appetites.

that considerable portion of mankind

time, dominated

by
of

Shakespeare
this type.

echoes

the severe attitude taken

by

Plato toward human beings

of

Many

commentators
with

have

accused

Prospero

ness

in his dealings

Caliban. But Shakespeare

goes out
with

cruelty and harsh of his way to show

that at the outset of their relationship Prospero dealt

Caliban

kindly,

even

indulgently. Caliban
.

says:

When thou
strok'st
with

cam'st

first,
me

Thou

me, and made much of me; wouldst give

Water

To

name

berries in 't; and teach me how the bigger light, and how the less,

That burn

by day

and night:

(i.ii. 334-8)

And Prospero
...

replies:

I have

us'd

thee,

Filth that thou art, with human care; and lodg'd thee In mine own cell, till thou didst seek to violate The honour
of

my

child

(i.ii. 347 -50).

That

experience taught

take"

goodness wilt not made

the

discovery
the

a nature "which any print of he subsequently changed his methods. Prospero that the body, and the human type which is governed by the and

Prospero that Caliban had

desires "Thou
Rule
potic.

of

body,

cannot

be

ruled

by

reason,

by

persuasion or
kindness"

by kindness.
(i.ii. 346-7).
must

most

over

the

lying body

slave, / Whom
cannot

stripes

may move, not

be

rule

by

consent of the governed.

can

It

be des
phys-

Caliban
Cantor

and what

he

stands

for

be

governed

only

by

the fear of

14.

(op

cit., pp. 244f.) gives a similar analysis of

Caliban.

Shakespeare'

Apology for Imitative Poetry

the value
says:
and

293
for Caliban is strictly

ical

pain.

Furthermore,

of

"higher

education"

limited. Caliban himself

You taught
me

language;

my

profit on

't

Is, I know how

For

to curse. The red plague rid you

teaching

me your

language! (i.ii. 365-7)

a

Nevertheless, Caliban has

Miranda

function to
not

perform.

He is indispensable. When

complains that she

does

like

to

look

at

him, Prospero

replies:

But,
We
Fetch in That
our

as

'tis,
him: he does
make our

cannot miss

fire,

wood, and serves in offices

profit us

(i.ii. 312-

15).

Caliban is The
of

not without

charm,

when obedient

to

Prospero
The
It

and
or

in

a good mood.

difficulty

is that he is

frequently
even

rebellious.

body

the

desiring
in

part

the soul resents to live for

being
to
can

ruled,

for its

own good.
wishes.

wants

to be indepen
a state of

dent,
the

itself,

rebellion, Caliban

satisfy its desires as it be vicious. An example

And

when

instruction he Why,
I'
th'

gives

his capacity for ugliness is Stephano concerning the best way to murder Prospero.
of
a custom with

as

I told thee, 'tis

seiz'd

him brain him,

afternoon to sleep: there thou mayst

his books; or with a log Batter his skull, or paunch him with a stake, Or cut his wezand with thy knife (m.ii.85 9).

Having

first

The

body

is

not attractive when a member of

it

rebels against the rule of reason. a

That Caliban is

Prospero's household is
mine"

fact

of great

impor

tance. When he appears on the stage in the last act, Prospero says of him: "this

thing
of

of

darkness I / Acknowledge

(v.i. 275-6). Caliban is

a part of

Prospero. Even the

most perfect man cannot extinguish

in himself the demands

the body. He can,

however, bring
must own

them

under

the control of reason. Pros

pero's

harshness to Caliban his

ward an element of

be understood, at least in part, as severity to soul. In the final scene of the play Caliban volun

tarily

accepts

governance

Prospero's rule, recognizing that he is better off under Prospero's than he is under the control of the drunken Stephano and Trinculo. in dramatic terms
(432a).
of

This is higher

figuring
of

of

the virtue

of

temperance,

as explicated

in

Book IV

The Republic. The lower

and

higher

parts of

the soul agree that the

part should rule

There is evidence, moreover, that Prospero's treatment characterized exclusively by punitive severity. In the second
act

Caliban is

not

scene of the third

Stephano

and

Trinculo have been frightened

reassures them with
of

by

the music played to them

by

the invisible Ariel. Caliban

the

following

speech:

Be

not

afeard; the
and sweet

isle is full

noises,

Sounds

airs, that give

delight,

and

hurt

not.

294

Interpretation
a thousand

Sometimes Will hum

twangling instruments

about mine

ears; and sometime voices,

That, if I
Will The

then had

wak'd after again: and

long

sleep,

make me

sleep
upon

then, in dreaming,
show riches

clouds methought would

open, and
when

Ready
I
cried

to

drop

me;

that,

I wak'd,

to dream again (m.ii. 133-41).

It

seems clear

that the "sounds and sweet

airs"

that delighted Caliban

made

did

not

have

a natural cause.
rather

He

was not and

listening

to the noises

by

winds and

Prior to "a thousand twangling the shipwreck, the only inhabitants of the island, besides Caliban himself, were Prospero, Ariel and Miranda. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the mu
waves, but to
sic

"voices"

instruments."

heard

by

Caliban

was a product of

Prospero's his

magic

art,

provided perhaps

through the
seems

instrumentality

of

Ariel

or

subordinate

spirits.

Likewise, it
of

improbable that Caliban's brutish dream images

mind would which

be capable, unaided,

producing the marvellous

he describes. Left to

himself,

Caliban thinks chiefly of sensual satisfactions. Prospero, I suggest, brings to Caliban pleasures that the latter would not be able to provide for himself, plea
sures which are sures of which

Caliban's

indeed sensuous, but not sensual. These are the highest plea nature is capable. The services rendered to Caliban by

Prospero may be thought of as analogous to those provided dramatist, to the least educated members of his audience.
If Caliban
stands

by Shakespeare,
his deceased

the

for the body,

what are we

to

make of

witch-

mother, Sycorax? Sycorax had much the same nature as her son, but with this difference. She was far cleverer and much more powerful. In one respect, she
resembled character
magic.

Prospero. She

was a sorceress of no mean ability.

in the play, besides Prospero and Ariel, to The result of her greater knowledge and power dangerous than that
represents of

possess a

She is the only knowledge of far

more

was a character

evil and

Caliban. If Caliban in its

stands

for the
aspect,

body
as

simply,

then

Sycorax

the

body

most malignant

possessing
power will

the power to

control

the intelligence. That Sycorax possessed such a

with

be

evidenced

in her relationship

Ariel.

Ariel It is
not clear

from Shakespeare's text

or whether

alone on the

island

he

was

Ariel had originally lived brought there from Algiers by Sycorax.

whether

But the text does Sycorax

prior s servant.

make

clear

that for an indefinite period of time

period

he

was

Whether this

included

time

of servitude

in Algiers,

to Sycorax's
. .

deportation, is
too

obscure.

Because Ariel

was

a spirit

delicate

To

her earthy and abhorr'd commands, Refusing her grand hests (i.ii. 272-4),
act

Shakespeare'

Apology for

Imitative

Poetry

295
pine, in
on
which condition arrival released

Sycorax

punished

him

by imprisoning

him in

a cloven

he did

him. Prospero,
twelve years

"painfully remain a dozen however, also put

in the
cloven pine

years"

until

Prospero

his

Ariel in

a condition of servitude. matched

Ariel's

have been exactly

by

twelve years of

serving Prospero (i.ii. 53 -5). There is a curious fact about Ariel. He

can

possesses superhuman powers. one place to

He

transport himself

instantaneously
can assume

from
shape

himself

invisible; he

any

he

pleases.

another; he can make Yet, despite these ex

nor

traordinary
pero

abilities, it seems he is easily

enslaved. servitude.

Neither Sycorax

Pros

has any
of

difficulty
his

in reducing him to
Prospero

It is important to
so

note that con

both

these periods of servitude are strictly

involuntary
under

far

as

Ariel is

cerned.

Certainly
was

service to

must

have been far less distasteful to

Prospero's rule, how

him than

his

enslavement

by

Sycorax. Even

ever, he is constantly restless, always longing for his liberty. There is some thing that he has in common with Caliban, namely the desire to be independent
and

to live for himself as he himself

chooses.

Prospero

frequently
of

calls

Ariel

by

the name

"spirit"

of

and

in the Folio's list

In this play the

ing

of

the names

the actors he is described as "an airy

specific meaning.

spirit."

term

"spirit"

has

very

It is

used

to designate immaterial in

telligences,
shape.

not themselves human, although capable of appearing in human Thus Ferdinand, watching the masque, inquires about the actors: "May I be bold / To think these (iv.i. 1 18- 19). The force of the question is in
spirits?"

tended to
aside

be: "Am I

right

in thinking these

are not real

human

beings?"

Quite

from terming Ariel a spirit, the text makes it clear that Ariel is less than a full human being. Obviously the appetitive element is entirely absent in him. To be sure, he has desires, but they are not bodily appetites. He is not in
capable of

emotion; he

suffers under

the torments laid

upon

him

by

Sycorax
soul

and rejoices not all

in his

forthcoming

freedom. But the

of

appetitive part of

the

is

that is missing in Ariel. He lacks many

the most

basic human
not

emo

tions. As Prospero tells us,

he is

not one of our

kind; he does
says

"passion"

as

humans do (v.i. 23 -4). In Act V Ariel himself indicates to Prospero that he has
no affections.

Speaking

of

Alonso
Your

and

his followers, he
strongly
works

to Prospero:

charm so

'em,

That if

you now

beheld them,

your affections

Would become tender.

pros.
ariel

Dost thou think so,

spirit?

Mine would, sir,

to Ariel.

were

I human (v.i.

17-20).

Pity is

alien

Presumably

so

is its

opposite

emotion, anger. Here we

see the chief

difference in the

emotional constitutions of

Ariel

and

Prospero.
suffered

Prospero feels both pity and anger. When he recalls the wrongs
at the

he has

hands
wrath.

of evildoers

he

quite

teous

Apparently

not so

naturally experiences a certain degree of righ with Ariel. In Act I, scene ii, Prospero with an-

296 gry

Interpretation
him
of

eloquence reminds

the atrocities Sycorax

committed

against

him.

Listening
he
gives

but listless, Ariel

responds to the
sir."

story

of

his

own torments with an

occasional

"No,

sir"

or

"Ay,
This

At

one

point, to Prospero's

deep

annoyance,

an

absent-minded
-4).

answer apparent

dreaming
sign of

(i.ii. 281

clearly indicates he has been day incapacity to feel justified indignation is a

that

that the

spirited element of

the soul, according to Plato the seat and source

anger, is also missing in Ariel.

Caliban

and

Ariel

each represent a

part, but
the

a part

only,

of the

human

soul.

Significantly
two, it
sents was

Prospero tells

us

that

when

island

"not honour'd

with

/ A human

shape"

inhabited only by these (i.ii. 281 Caliban repre

was
-4).

bodily

desire. What does Ariel

the

symbolize?

His

name suggests

that he is

somehow connected with

element of air.

rather than a

clouds"

walking being, and 1S (i.ii. 191 -2). Just as Prospero Ariel

as

Indeed, he seems to be a flying, he describes himself as riding "on the curl'd

called

Caliban

by

"earth,"

the name
names

so

he

addresses
"bird"

"thou,

which art

but

air"

(v.i.21). Pet

for him in

(v.i. 3 16). (iv. i. 184) and What does the element, air, signify for Shakespeare? Sonnets xliv and are our most helpful source of information, for they deal with the four
clude
ments:

"chick"

xlv
ele of

fire,

air, water,

earth.

In Sonnet

xlv there

is

an explicit

identification

the element, air, with thought.

"slight

fire"

air and

purging
desire"

"the first my thought, the

other

my

Furthermore, in Sonnet

xliv some of the attributes

Ariel

possesses are asserted

to be properties of thought.

If the dull

substance of

my flesh

were

thought,

Injurious distance For then, despite No

should not of

stop

my way; be

space, I

would

brought,
stay.

From limits far remote,

matter then although earth

where thou

dost

Upon the farthest

my foot did stand removed from thee;

For
As

nimble thought can

jump

both

sea and would

land,
be.
stood

soon as think the place where

he
as

I think
sents

we

may

conclude

that,

Caliban

for the

body,

so

Ariel

repre

thought, namely the intelli If this interpretation is correct, it explains why Ariel lacks passions, for according to Platonic psychology the passions belong to a part of the soul
gence.16

thought or the agency which is capable of

which

is

separate

from

reason or

intelligence. It

also enables us

to explain the

curious

ily

fact previously noted that Ariel, despite his superhuman powers, is eas enslaved. For it is a striking characteristic of the intelligence that it can be
It be said, however, that he is also able to move in the other three elements. He into the fire (i.ii. 191) and does Prospero's business in the veins of the earth (i.ii. 255). For a different interpretation of Ariel's significance see Cantor, op. cit., pp. 245-7.
must

15.

swims, dives
16.

Shakespeare'

Apology
as a

for Imitative
whole,
or

Poetry
its

297
part, is
capable of em

enslaved

by

desire. The

soul as a

desiring
ends.

ploying the freedom

goal.

intelligence
a

tool to serve its own

suggests that the

intellect does have its

which
well

own

Yet Ariel's yearning for proper activity, its own itself. These
charac

It has
of

kind

of

nonbodily desire
wisdom.

is
to

specific to

teristics

Ariel its

seem to conform

very

Plato's

analysis of the

intelli

gence and

eros

for

How, then,
tude?

shall we explain

the meaning

of

Ariel's two
the

periods of servi
of

Ariel's

enslavement

by

Sycorax

must represent

imprisonment

the

intelligence
tellect can

by

the

body

and

the

bodily

appetites.

This is
of

represented

by

Shake

speare as the most

terrible,
suffer.

the most

agonizing kind

incarceration that the in

possibly
and

Prospero

Ariel

The meaning

of

Ariel's

subjection to

Prospero is

not so

following
pero's

reflection might
and

be helpful. Like
a part of

Caliban,

easy to discern. The Ariel is a member of Pros

household,

hence

lect

per

se; specifically he
suggests that

stands

not only represents intel for Prospero's intellect. Ariel's service to

Prospero. Ariel

Prospero

Prospero is

Prospero's

severe rule over

somehow enslaving his own intellect, just as Caliban indicates that Prospero is curbing his own

bodily
its

desires. Prospero is

forcing

his intellect to

work at

something

other

than

proper activity.

about the

study of Prospero did

state.

something activity his intellect prefers. In Milan Prospero devoted himself to the the liberal arts, or more generally, to philosophical investigation. What
not wish

From Prospero's behavior in Milan

we can gather

to do was to continue to bear the burden of ruling the

was given

In Milan Prospero's intellect

do

and

nothing

else.

free play; it did what it wanted to On the island, it is denied its liberty; it labors for the be
of

nefit of others. yet

While recognizing the justice

(i.ii.247-300).17

the

demands

made upon

it, it
ac

longs for freedom

If this interpretation is correct, I think

tivities on the island
pertain

we

may

conclude

that Prospero's

to ruling and to the political responsibilities which

of

he

in Milan. For Prospero, Milan is the site land is the site of political rule. The situation is the
shirked might

philosophizing; the is

exact reverse of what we

have

expected.

This

reversal

is the seal, the lock, that Shakespeare

placed over

the inner meaning of the play. When the seal is

broken,

we see

that
sea

Prospero's compulsory voyage to the island, with drops full and "under his burthen
salt"

during

which

he "deck'd the

groaned"

(i.ii. 155-6) is the

exact

counterpart of the philosopher's

Book VII
17.

of

forced descent into the cave, as described in The Republic. That this is so, Shakespeare indicates to us by caushave thought that Ariel
stands

Many

commentators

for the

creative

imagination, specifically
be
a

Shakespeare's. The
ative

composition of poetic

drama, however,

would seem

to

function

of

the cre

imagination

and

it is difficult to
represents

proper work.

But if Ariel

why the latter would desire to be released from its the intellect, its proper work would be philosophy or theoreti
understand activity.

cal understanding.

Prospero is preventing Ariel from engaging in this

298

Interpretation
"cell"

ing

Prospero to
iv.i.

live,

while on

the

island,
cell

in

what

is

referred

to as a
makes

(i.ii. 20, 349;

quite clear

161, 216;

v.i. 84).

The

is

not a as

house. Caliban Prospero has kind only be to "the

this

when

in Act III he is

states

that

yet

no

house

(m.ii.95). But Now

a cell which

not a

house

must

be

some
can

of natural cell.

a natural cell capable of

cell

housing

human beings
out

a cave.

That
the

Prospero's
cell"

is in fact

a cave

is borne

by

a reference

mouth of

(iv.i. 2 1 6).
a cave.

On the island, Prospero lives in

original ascent
cluded abandonment of political

The island is the

represents

cave.

Prospero's

from the

activity life and politically determined opinion. His se life in his Milanese study stands for the period of the philosopher's edu
cave of political part of

the young philosopher's

cation, the first

his

day

in the

sun.

Prospero's life

and

activity His

on

the

island

correspond

to the period of political rulership

that,

according to The
return

Republic, every
to Milan at the
partial

mature philosopher must end of

be

compelled

to undergo.

the

play

represents

the philosopher's release (or at least

reascent

release) from

political

activity, his

from the

cave

back into the

sunlight of philosophy.

From these Prospero

on

premises we

may infer that the study

of magic art

that occupied

the island

represents

sophical or prephilosophical

something entirely different from the philo studies in which he engaged during his Milanese
own

days. Prospero

pursued

philosophy for his

all

benefit.

I,

thus neglecting worldly ends,

closeness and the

dedicated
mind

To

bettering

of

my

(i.ii. 89 -90).
create
magic

We already know that Prospero's

illusions,
for the
speare ate

to

control men's

chiefly of the power to imaginations. Prospero studied and practiced

magic consisted power of magic prime

sake of others.

The

to

ruling.18

Ariel is the

making is clearly linked by Shake instrument that Prospero employs to cre

that Prospero's
renunciation of nor

illusions

and apparitions.

It is

no accident

his

magic art and

his

emancipation of

Ariel

occur

simultaneously,

that

they

both

coincide with

Prospero's departure from the island.

there is an

interesting contrast between Prospero's book of he drowns in Act V, and the volumes from his Milanese library furnished to him by Gonzalo at the time of his exile. These volumes, Prospero tells Miranda, "I prize above my (i.ii. 168). are the books in
connection

In this

magic,

which

dukedom"

They

which

he immersed himself
with

while

in Milan. But it

seems

they

are not to

be
as

identified
opposed

the book

of magic.

The latter is

a single

volume,

"my

book,"

to the several or many volumes that

Gonzalo

retrieved

from Prospero's

library.

Appropriately

enough, the book

of magic appears

to be of

instrumental
Miranda
use

value only.
with

Once Prospero has

of

subjugated

his

enemies and

has
no

united

Ferdinand the task

The
passages

rulership is
the
noble

completed and
of

he has

further

for
to

18.

dealing

with

lie in Book III

The Republic

are most relevant

this analysis.

Shakespeare's

Apology for Imitative Poetry

for drowning.

299
no reason whatso

the book. Not so with the volumes

ever

from his library. There is

to think

they
in

are slated
a position

We
pero

are now

to understand the ambivalence displayed

by

Pros his

toward his magic

as well as

that which

Shakespeare

exhibits toward

theatrical art. Both appreciate the

chantment; both recognize

potency of their respective powers the benefits they are able to confer upon
practice the

of en others

through the exercise of these powers. Each of them regards the practice of his
art as a
which

form

of ruling. capable.

Neither finds this

suggest

highest form

of

he is

that

Shakespeare, like Prospero,

of philosophizing.

considered

activity of his

true

function, his

proper

activity, to be that

5. THE THREE CLASSES

Let

us

turn to a consideration of the way in

which

Prospero's

magic art

is

exercised and

the effects which it produces. The initial event is

Ariel's transfor
of

mation of

the ship on which Alonso 's party is

to Ariel:

travelling into

literal likeness

hell.

According
.

All but

mariners

Plung'd in the Then

foaming brine,

and quit

the vessel,

all afire with me:

the King's son,

With hair

up-staring,
man

then like reeds, not

Ferdinand, hair,

Was the first

And
all the

that
are

leap'd;
here"

cried, "Hell is empty,

devils

(i.ii. 210-15).
succeeded experience

Thus the

experience

of

hell is
one

by

kind
all

of

baptism

or cathartic

purification.19

This is the

which

the passengers

have in

common. ceives a

Subsequently they

are separated
says:

distinctive treatment. Ariel be

into three groups, each of which re "In troops I have dispers'd them 'bout

the

isle"

after to
with nand.

(i.ii. 220). The first troop consists of Alonso and his entourage, here Party.20 referred to as the Court Stephano and Trinculo, together
make

Caliban,
It is

up the

second troop.

The third

consists

simply

of

Ferdi

interesting
other

to note that Ferdinand alone

under

is

supervised

directly by

Prospero. The

two groups are

the control of

his auxiliary, Ariel.

There is To the he heard

difference, however, in the way in which Ariel exercises this control. Court Party he shows himself, although in a disguise. For the courtiers
a

creates visual as well as

by Caliban, Stephano
inflict
upon

auditory apparitions. He allows himself only to be and Trinculo. Further, he employs a host of lesser
of

spirits to

them a variety the

never experienced

by

members of

physically painful the Court Party.

passengers was vessel.

sensations of a sort

This threefold division

of

the ship's

foreshadowed
of

by

the tri
corre-

partite structure of command on

19.
20.

board the
length

Each
op.

the groups

This

point

is discussed

at considerable

by

Colin Still,

cit., pp. 142-4.

I follow Still's terminology here.

300
sponds

Interpretation
to a basic human

type, to

a particular

kind

of nature.

Each, I

suggest,

represents one of

the classes of The Republic.

The Court When

we

Party
first
encounter

the Court

Party,

we

find its

members engaged

in

prolonged and

futile

search

for Ferdinand. Part

of their ordeal

is

constituted

by

fruitless wandering that terminates in despair. Alonso is plunged in grief over the apparent loss of his only son. His sorrow is to some extent shared by the kindly Gonzalo, his elderly counsellor, and by the courtiers, Adrian and Fran
The belief that they have irrevocably lost something infinitely precious is the first element in a long series of chastisements in store for the members of
cisco.

this

group.21

The
ates

central part of

their punishment
of a

is

meted out

to them

by Ariel,
no

who cre

for them the illusion

Their

banquet

served

up

by

a number of

shaped apparitions.

amazement at see

this

spectacle

knows

monstrously bounds. They

do do

not realize not

that what

they
are

is merely
only
the

an appearance produced
"spirits."

by

art.

They

know that they

looking

at
"

Gonzalo's
shows

exclamation:

"For,

certes, these

are people of

island,

(m.iii.30)

that he con

siders these creatures

to be human beings as

real as

he himself is. The Court

Party
which

members cannot effect of

distinguish between

appearance and reality.

cynicism and skepticism

The

the vision,

however, is

to undo the

had previously characterized the attitude of the two wicked brothers, Antonio and Sebastian. Now, they say, they will believe any stories of strange sights brought home by travellers. They will accept the existence of unicorns,
of

the phoenix and of other mythological

beings (in. iii. 21

to them

-7).

The

sight of a

the

incredible, in

other

words, disposes them to believe. For them this is

of achievement open

step

forward. The highest level

is faithful

service as

soldier-guardians, as auxiliaries to the philosopher-king. public, the chief test of a good soldier-guardian

According

to The Re
and

hold fast to the

correct

beliefs

prescribed

is his ability to for him by rulers who

and

receive

possess true
never

knowledge.
ruler

Unfortunately, Alonso, Antonio

Sebastian have

had

to prescribe correct

correct

beliefs, however,
humble their

beliefs for them. Even if they had been exposed to their high opinion of their own wisdom would have

prevented

them from accepting those

pride.

beliefs

as

true. The effect of the appari

tion is to

This

humbling

is

necessary

precondition of their

ultimate acceptance of

Prospero

as their ruler.

The
ment,
of a

second part of attempt

the apparition

they

to consume

begins when, recovering from their amaze the proffered banquet. Ariel appears in the guise
the
men of

harpy

and claps

his

wings upon

Ariel

next pronounces to the

"three

table, causing the banquet to disappear. a terrifying speech. He reminds

sin"

them of the crime

21.

they have
pp.

committed against

Prospero

and

Miranda

and

Cf. Still,

op.

cit.,

149-158.

Shakespeare'

Apology for Imitative Poetry

not

301

threatens them
"

with

once

And

if they do clear life

"Ling'ring perdition worse than any death / Can be at immediately repent and reform. Only "heart-sorrow /
can save

ensuing"

them

from the

most

ghastly

of

fates

(in. iii. 77-82).

his appalling guilt. It is a recog by desperation, but the desperation is in turn suc ceeded by the deepest remorse. Remorse will prove to be the cleansing agent that will purge him of sin and sinful ambition. It is not at all clear, however,
aware of
nition

For the first time Alonso becomes

followed

a state of

that Antonio and

Sebastian
says:

share

his

guilt and remorse.

Gonzalo

appears to

be

lieve that they do. He

All three Like
of them are

desperate;
spirits

their great guilt, after,

poison given to work a great time

Now 'gins to bite the

(m.iii.
out,

1046).

However,
Ariel's
only.22

as

Kermode

points

Gonzalo,
of

although
was

present, has

not

heard
ears

speech

to the "three men

sin",

which

designed for their

Consequently
It

he does

not understand

the reason for their desperation.

and

Neither in this
repentance.

scene nor

in Act V do Antonio

Sebastian

show

seems more makes of

likely

that their reaction is simply one

any signs of fear.

of

Shakespeare Gonzalo is

a man

distinctions among the members of the Court Party. benevolent disposition who does not willfully commit

wicked actions and who

edness of

others,

as

actively seeks to mitigate the evil effected by the wick is demonstrated by his kindness to Prospero and Miranda in Because
of this

their hour of need (i.ii. 160-8).

the punishment

inflicted
does

on and not

Gonzalo

by

Prospero is far

milder

than that suffered

by
a

Alonso, Antonio

Sebastian. He is
appear

not made to

believe that he has lost

son; the

harpy

to

him;

the island which seems to Antonio and Sebastian a barren place,

fen,"

"perfum'd

by

to him looks

luxuriantly
He

green

(11. i. 45-55).
the

Nevertheless,
whom

there are limits to

his

moral virtue.

continues to serve murder

king

he

knows to have

conspired with

Antonio to

Prospero

and

his daughter. In he

fact, he obediently carries out the orders to set of a butt, not rigg'd, / Nor tackle, sail, nor
does have the Prospero
political courage

them adrift on "A rotten carcass

mast;"

(i.ii. 146-7),
those orders

although

partially to

violate the spirit of

the unfortunate pair

with

prized above

food, water, clothing and, above his dukedom. Gonzalo's subservience to the
how
unjust

providing all, the books that

established

by

authority,

no matter

its acts, fits

well with

his extraordinary
be
ques

antagonism to

the boatswain. Gonzalo believes the right to rule is based exclu

and

sively

on

inherited title,
on

hence that the

anointed

king

should never

tioned.

Consequently

he thinks

anyone who asserts

that legitimate claim to rule

who

is founded

knowledge

rather

than title

is

blasphemer

deserves death
the

by

hanging. Yet the beliefs philosophy

which guide

his

actions appear at variance with

political
22.

contained

in his famous Golden Age speech,

op.

based,

as

has

Frank Kermode, ed., The Tempest,

cit.,

p.

92,

n. 99.

302
often

Interpretation
pointed

been

out,

on

Montaigne's Des Cannibales (n.i. 139-64). In that

nature

speech

he

maintains

that the best society would be a state of

in

which

there are no

laws,

no

sovereignty,
and
and

no

rulership

whatsoever.

The

apparent

dis

tellectual

crepancy between his practice deficiency. Antonio

his theory Sebastian

isle he

can

in

part

be

attributed

to his

in

poke would

fun

at

his inconsistency in
such perfection gov

claiming that
ern"

were

he the be

king

of the

"with

that there would

nection

no sovereignty.

between his

subservience

to conventional

But I think that there may be a con authority and his opinion that

an anarchical cal

rule,

at

society is best. Gonzalo does not understand the purpose of politi least as that purpose was conceived by a philosopher like Plato, and
not see

hence he does
states

that

it

requires

knowledge
will

or art.

In his speech, he twice

never mentions people of resisted

that the

people of

his

"kingdom"

be innocent. He

goodness or virtue.

Clearly

he identifies
not

virtue with

innocence. The

his society
cency.

will

behave decently,

because they have

knowingly

temptations to

behave otherwise, but because they know of no alternative to de In that respect, as in its lack of political institutions, Gonzalo's Golden
"healthy"

Age

resembles

the
a

public

(369c-372d),

city

which

city described by Socrates in Book II in that dialogue is destined to be

The Platonic view,
men cannot which

of

The Re

superseded

by

far different

sort of regime. and

between innocence
struction and

virtue, is that
the
most

distinguishes clearly become virtuous without in

kind. It is the

training

of

intensive

and all-pervasive

prime purpose of the state to provide that not

instruction.

Clearly

this purpose can

be

carried

out unless

the rulers possess knowledge of the highest

kind,
not

knowledge depend
rupted a

of what virtue

is,

together

with

the art to instill it in their subjects.

Unlike virtue, innocence does

on

not require to

be implanted in men; it does

men of

training

or

instruction. Gonzalo believes that if

trappings

are not cor

will exist

by laws,
of

commerce and other

and

civilization,

they
(It

in

state

innocence

purity, requiring
of

no

governance.

hardly
us

needs
with

remarking that in the

counterexample to cence and

character

Caliban Shakespeare

provides

naive equation of virtue with inno leads him, then, to believe that no government is the best government also to deprecate the role of knowledge in rulership. Hence in a community
political

this view.)

Gonzalo's

possessing
authority,

institutions he how

sees no alternative to the

or

legally

constituted

regardless of

It

seems

entirely

clear

unjustly that authority may behave. that Prospero adheres to the Platonic conception of

foolishly

the purpose of political rule and of what

is

required to

is the
more

polar opposite of

Gonzalo's placid,
actual

anarchic

carry it out. His regime utopia. Prospero's island is

the

intensively governed than any instrumentality of Ariel and the

constantly
under

lesser

community has ever been. Through spirits he is omnipresent; all of his

The
purpose of
of which

subjects are

his

surveillance and supervision.

his

rule

is to

bring

each of

them to the highest degree of virtue

he is

capable.23

23.
and

"Is there anything better for

city than the coming to be in it

of

the best possible women

men?"

Republic,

456e.

Shakespeare'

Apology

for Imitative

Poetry

303
repre would

Despite his intellectual failings

sented

and moral

imperfections, Gonzalo is
he
and

to us as

essentially

a good man.

It is

reasonable to assume that

have

resisted

the temptations to which

Alonso, Antonio
his

Sebastian

suc

cumbed even

if he had been
virtuous.

assured that

crimes would go unpunished.

In

that sense,

he is

Alonso is
But his

a man who could not resist

in that

sense

he is

vicious.

viciousness

is

curable. of

He

can

temptation, be led to

and

true

repentence; he can be genuinely reformed. The effect

Prospero's
we

magic upon

him is to lift him to the

moral

level

of

Gonzalo. In the future,

may believe,

he

will not require

the fear of punishment to restrain him from wickedness. It is

and

otherwise with gible.

Antonio

Sebastian.

They

are, in a sense, morally incorri

something.

But I think Prospero does

or at

succeed

in teaching them

They
reason

learn,

least

are made

to

believe,

that crime does not pay. For this

they, too,

will refrain

from future

wickedness.

They

will

be tractable to Pros

because they will fear his power. Alonso, Antonio and Sebastian are men who are chiefly motivated, not by desire for bodily gratifications, but by ambition, by a desire for power and
pero's commands

The Republic they are members of the class in which silver is the primary metal. The spirited element in their souls is excessively dominant and has caused them to become tyrannical. The purpose of the puni
glory.

In the language

of

tive justice inflicted

upon

them is to curb their spirited element and to render

accomplished

them gentle. When that has been

pero as

they

will

be fit to
most

serve

Pros

his

auxiliaries.

The

purpose of

the punishment is at
of

the reform of

character.

There is

never

any

question

providing them

with

intellectual

training.

The Servants: Stephano, Trinculo, The

second scene of

and

Caliban
the circumstances

Act II

presents a

hilarious

account of

under which

the

members of

this trio get together. Their meeting culminates in

which

the passing around of a bottle of sack,

Stephano
and

managed

to salvage

from the

ship.

First things first! Both Stephano

so

least, heavy drinkers. As for Caliban, he is

seems enthusiasm ner of giance

Trinculo are, to say the entranced by the delights of what

god.

to him a celestial liquor that he believes Stephano must be a

In his

he is ready to kneel, to kiss obeisances never expected of him

to Prospero and
accepts

Stephano'

foot

and

to

perform all man

by
as

Prospero. He
new

casts aside

his

alle
ac

Stephano

his

lord. In this in him

respect

his

tion parodies Antonio's

treachery
for
a sings

to Prospero in Milan.

Strangely
an

enough, this
of

trading

off of a good master

bad

one produces

acquired

freedom. He

a wonderful

newly song proclaiming his independence

illusion

from Prospero.
No

more

dams I'll

make

for fish;

Nor fetch in At requiring;

firing

304
Nor

Interpretation
scrape

trencher,

nor wash

dish:

'Ban, 'Ban, Cacaliban

Has
a new master: get a new man.

Freedom, high-day! high-day, freedom! high-day, freedom!

Freedom is
also a concern of a

(ii.ii. 180-6)
second scene of

Stephano it. It

and

Trinculo. In the

Act III they, too, sing

Flout 'em And
scout and scout
em and

song

about

goes:

'em,

flout

'em;

Thought is free (m.ii.i

19-21).

Caliban
of

points

out

that

they have

got

the tune

wrong.

To the

astonishment

Trinculo the melody is then correctly played on a tabor and pipe by the invisible Ariel, who is watching them. What is the meaning of this strange episode? I suggest the following answer. Stephano, Trinculo

Stephano

and

and

Caliban do

not

know

what

true freedom is.

They
who

mistake of

the emanci

pation of

the appetites
are said a

from the

rule of reason
wrong.

for freedom is

thought. This

is

why they
the

to get the tune

Ariel,

also concerned with

freedom, has
the

"freedom"

far better understanding of its meaning; consequently he plays tune correctly. For Ariel freedom means the emancipation of
the
rule of

intellect, first from

comprised

the

body,

and

second, from the requirements

of rulership.

The trio
parody
of

by Stephano,
made

Trinculo

and

Caliban is in
and

some ways a

the royal trio

the

up

of

Alonso, Antonio

Sebastian.

Clearly

the

members of

first threesome

are representatives of a

human type lower than

that exemplified
and

by

the members of the Court Party. Unlike

Alonso, Antonio
are

Sebastian,

who are concerned with power and

glory, the three servants

primarily directed toward the pleasures of food, drink and sex. They are men who are dominated by the appetitive part of the soul; as such they are members
of

Plato's lowest

class.

It is true that their clumsy

of

attempt to assassinate

Pros his

pero

is

a comic

imitation

the similar action undertaken

by

Antonio

and

Neapolitan allies, but

agree

we should observe

that what really motivates

possess

Stephano to
no

to the

murder plot

is his desire to

Miranda. There is
souls of

hope

on

Prospero's

part of ever

producing

moral virtue

in the

these individuals.

They

are

less

corrigible than the members of the royal party.

not suffice

imagination does
physical pain.

to rule

them; they

must

be

controlled

Influencing their by the fear of

They

will never

be

able to rule

free

of

the need for external control. Antonio and

not

themselves; they will never be Sebastian could be taught that

one

crime

does

pay in

a single

lesson. The servants,

require a powerful

sadly imagines,

will

always need

to have a stick held over them.

and

Clearly
of spirits

Prospero

Ariel

instrument to

control and to
a number ser

chastise the trio of murderous clowns.

For this

purpose

they employ
to

in the
the

shape of

dogs

and

hounds. The dogs

proceed

hunt the

vants across

island,

while goblins pinch

them and afflict them with various

Shakespeare'

Apology for Imitative Poetry

dogs (375d-376b).

305

sorts of cramps.

Now in The Republic Plato

makes a

famous

comparison

be it

tween the soldier-guardians and

plain

Furthermore, he
put

makes

that one of the

functions

of

the guardian class is to

down

rebellions

originating in the lower elements of the society. The spirits in The Tempest who assume the form of dogs play exactly the same auxiliary role in relation to Prospero and Ariel as is played by the soldier-guardians in relation to the
philosopher-rulers.

Within Prospero's
personifies

household,

Ariel is the
we

representative of no character ele

intellect

and

Caliban

bodily

desire. So far,
seems to

have had

representing ment in the

spirits.

the spirited part of the soul, the part which

soldier-guardians.
connection

is the dominant

That lack, it

me, is filled
and

by

the dogcall

In this
of

the names

by

which
of

Prospero
them:

Ariel

their

dogs

are

some

interest. There
We
recall

are

four

"Mountain,"

"Silver,"

"Fury,"

"Tyrant."

and
metal which

that according to The

souls of

Republic,

silver

is the

God has

mixed

into the

the auxiliaries. The name

"Fury"

possibly reflects the Platonic teaching that the spirited element in the soul, which is dominant in the soldier-guardians, is the seat and source of the emo
tion of anger.
expresses
"Tyrant"

might guardians

have been

selected

because

of

the concern Plato their savage

not

that the

may turn

upon

the citizens,

becoming

masters, if the (4i6a-b).

proper

educational

measures

to prevent this

are

taken

"Mountain"

seems a strange name

for

dog. It is

conceivable that

Shakespeare
will select

chose

it

with a view

to Plato's description of the site the guardians

for their

encampment.

It is to be

a site

from

which

the guardians can

anticipate and avert

a site would

both internal disobedience

and external attack

(4i5d). Such

some grounds
public's

naturally be an elevated location, a hill or a mountain. So there are for the speculation that all four names are derived from The Re
of the guardians and their
which

description
of

interpretation
this claim.

the play

am

way of life. Needless to say, the does not depend upon the truth of offering

Ferdinand

When

we

first

meet

Ferdinand

expressing
the

no

interest

at all

find him mourning his father's death and in the fact that he has just become, as he believes,
we sentiments are expressed

King

of

Naples. Since his

are sincere.

in

soliloquy,

we can

assume

they
not

Ferdinand, then,
seems

unlike most members of or

the court
same

party, is

dominated

by

the desire for power, honor

fame. At the

time, his intense love for Miranda

inated
of

by

the

bodily

appetites and vices

than that

by

way lustful. He is no more dom desire for kingship and glory. He is free

in

no

the imperfections

characterize

the other human beings who

fall

into Prospero's hands.

Prospero, however,
between Ferdinand
severe ordeals.

refuses

to

allow an

immediate

consummation of

the

love

and

Miranda. Instead, he

subjects

Ferdinand to

a series of
asceticism.

These

ordeals consist

in

part of a

training in bodily

306 He is
and

Interpretation
diet
of sea-water and
major

placed on a

"fresh-brook muscles,

wither'd

roots,

husks"

(i.ii. 465-6). The

longed

physical

emphasis, however, is on severe and pro labor. Prospero compels him to toil all afternoon carrying and
of

piling thousands
state of moral

logs. This

poses a problem.

perfection, why submit him to these

If Ferdinand is already in a severities? Since he has no

faults to atone, the discipline cannot be punitive in nature. Once again, I believe we can find our best interpretive clue in the teachings
of

Plato. In The Republic there

are

two entirely different

systems of education.

One is designed for the

cal and gymnastic

soldier-guardians.

It

consists of a combination of musi

training designed
It

to produce moral virtue. The other kind is

for the

potential philosophers. produce

consists virtue.

designed to
the Court

intellectual

primarily of intellectual training and is I suggest that Prospero's treatment of

Party

corresponds second.

to the first

kind

of

education, his treatment

of

Ferdinand to the

It is important to

note

that,

aside

from His

Caliban,
physical

Ferdinand is the only

person on

the island to do any real

work.24

labor, log

carrying,

corresponds

to the intellectual labor of the students of phi the prephilosophical education

losophy
proper

in The Republic. The

consists
with

subject matter of

in The Republic

primarily

of mathematics.
which

The

philosophical education

is identified

dialectic,

in logic. This is the discipline that

stresses

culminates

among in the

other

things

vision of

involves training the good; Plato

that it is the only route

candidates

by

which one can arrive at

that goal (533c).

Suitable

for the study of dialectic must be persistent and love hard for the discipline involves hard study and a labor of learning (535b-c). work, The scene in which we see Ferdinand carrying logs is the same scene in
which

he

and

Miranda

plight

their troth to each other. It is the

fifth

out of nine

scenes
scene.

that comprise the play.

Literally

as well as

In the

course of

it

much emphasis
and on

is

placed on the

figuratively, it is logs, on
Ferdinand

the central the

strenu-

ousness of

the task of piling them

were

the fact that

would

find the

task

intolerable,

it

not the case

sary condition for the "Am I this patient

attainment of

successfully completing it is a neces Miranda. "For your he says to her,

sake,"

that

log-man"

(m.i.66-7).

Why

does Shakespeare

choose

log

piling

as an appropriate

sess a symbolic

the words
nand's

"log"

training for Ferdinand? Is it possible that the logs pos significance? It has been suggested that there may be a pun on
and

"logic". If there is any

merit

in this speculation, Ferdi

labors

might

be

considered as an analogue to the

is

interesting

to note that
student

Socrates that the

tience with the dialectician.

training in dialectic. It in The Statesman the Eleatic Stranger teaches Young of dialectic must learn to overcome his natural impa
(286b). Patience is
an

lengthy

arguments

indispensable

virtue

for

There is, however,

consists of

a second and gentler part of

Ferdinand's
is

education that

witnessing the
op. cit., p.

masque

in Act IV. The

masque

perhaps the prime

24.

Cf. Still,

172.

Shakespeare'

Apology for Imitative Poetry

of

307

example

imitative poetry serving the function assigned to it the masque, which belongs to the species of the-play-within-a-play, is that is doubly imitative. It is performed by poetry actors who imitate spirits who, in turn, are imitating goddesses. The masque

in The Tempest

by

Socrates. This is

ironic, because

combines
cludes

imitative poetry with music, song and dance. Now Socrates con his discussion of poetry and music in Book III of The Republic by as serting that rhythm and harmony imitate or follow speech (poetry), while speech imitates and accompanies a certain kind of character or disposition of the soul. Not only speech and music, but all the crafts, painting,

including

weaving, embroidery,

housebuilding

and

furniture making

are said to

display
bad

either grace or gracelessness.

And gracelessness, clumsiness,

inharmoniousness,
to,
and

are akin to

bad

speech and

disposition,

while their opposites are akin

imitations of, the

opposite

moderate and good

disposition (401a).
statesman

Therefore it but

will

be necessary for the

which

to supervise, not only poets,

of

all craftsmen and

to compel them to

disposition
. . .

on

that

they

produce.

He

impress only the image must look for

the good

those craftsmen

whose good natural endowments make

them able to track

down the
were

nature of what

is fine

and

graceful,

so that the

young,
and

dwelling
a

as

it

in

healthy

place, will be benefited

by

everything;

from that

place

bringing

something of the fine works will strike their health from good places; (401c)
music

vision or their

hearing, like

breeze

But the rearing in

. .

is

most

sovereign,

because
part of

rhythm and

harmony

most of all

insinuate themselves into the inmost

of

the soul and most vigorously

lay

hold

it in

bringing

grace with

them;

and

they

make a man graceful

if he is correctly reared, if not, the

opposite

(40id).

It is hard to imagine any

the
characteristics of

poetry of harmonious
speare

perfectly embodies harmoniousness and rhythm than does the gracefulness, the masque, or which would be more likely to engender a graceful,
and

example of poetic art that more

temperate disposition in the hearer.

should
similar

Unquestionably

Shake
dance."

intended that the dance

rections call

attributes, for the stage di display Reapers to join with the Nymphs in "a graceful for the
says of

Ferdinand appropriately harmoniousness

this spectacle.
are

the

masque as a whole:

"This is

a most majes

tic vision, and / Harmonious

charmingly"

(iv.i.

118-

19).

Thus both

grace and

explicitly

asserted

by

Shakespeare to be

characteristics of

In terms
nature

of

content, the poetry of the

masque consists

chiefly

of a series of

images, nearly
most

all of them marked

by

extraordinary

beauty,

gentleness

and tranquility.

Ceres,

bounteous

lady, thy

rich

leas
and

Of wheat, rye, barley, vetches, oats,

pease;

308

Interpretation
mountains, where

Thy turfy
And flat

live nibbling sheep,

stover, them to

meads thatch'd with

with pioned and at

keep;

Thy
To

banks

twilled

brims,

Which spongy April

thy hest betrims,

crowns; (iv.i. 60-6)
places."

make cold nymphs chaste

Such poetry There is,

is, indeed, "a breeze bringing health from good however, an even more striking respect in which

the masque

fulfils
"har

one of the chief purposes attributed

musical education. men

by

Socrates to the is to

proper

kind

of poetic and or

The

"musical"

end of

that

education

produce

monious"

who

display

the virtue
who
will

of moderation or

temperance.
restrained

Specifi
sexual

cally,

it is to

produce

men

be

moderate

and

in

matters.

"Is the naturally

what's

right
fine?"

kind

of

love to love in

a moderate and musical

way

orderly he "Quite
so,"

and said.
mad or akin

"Nothing
love?"

that's

to

licentiousness

must approach

the

right

kind

of

"No, it
Socrates

mustn't"

(403a).

concludes the

discussion
it
ought

of music

by

saying:

At least it's love

matters

ended where

to end.

Surely

musical matters should end

in

that concern the

fair (403b-c).
sum

This

comment

may be

said

to

up the

action of

The Tempest

as a

whole, but the

masque

it has

particular application

to the

masque.

The

context

into

which

is introduced is Prospero's tending of Miranda's hand in marriage to Ferdinand and his subsequent stern admonition to his prospective son-in-law that his daughter's virginity be respected as inviolate until the day of the wedding festivities. Despite Ferdinand's firm assurances, Prospero finds it necessary to repeat the admonition prior to the beginning of the masque. An echo of
Socrates'

comment sounds

in Prospero's

concerning the maddening warning: ". the strongest

.

effect

of sexual

pleasure

re
i'

oaths are straw

/ To the fire

blood:"

the

(iv.i. 53-4).
as

Now insofar
volves about

the masque may be said to contain a story-line, the plot re

the defeat of Venus and her son,

and

Cupid, by

the more chaste god

desses, Iris, Ceres

consequently
an attempt

Juno. Venus

and

Cupid do

not make an appearance and

are not

directly
that,

to charm Ferdinand and Miranda

narrates

imitated. But they are said into paying

repulsed

by
an

Iris to have

made

illicitly

premature

bed-right. Iris
and

being
The

by

the

her

waspish-headed son

have fled in defeat

and

lovers, the humiliation,

erotic goddess and that

Cupid

has
love

renounced
of

his

vocation. and

masque celebrates

the moderate and musical

Ferdinand

Miranda

who refuse to allow

themselves to be defiled
celebration are

by

anything resembling licentiousness.

nymphs"

Participating

in this

"tem

perate

and

"cold

nymphs,"

wearing "chaste

crowns."

Shakespeare'

Apology for
or

Imitative

Poetry

309 creating terrifying appari Alonso, Antonio and

The

art of

Prospero

Shakespeare is
be

capable of

tions in order to cleanse the guilt of wicked men such as

Sebastian. This
pero's purposes

art can also

employed
masque

for higher

ends.

Clearly,

one of

Pros

in creating the
of

is to

educate

Ferdinand

and

Miranda in

the

musical

way

life, by moderating

their passions.

to prepare them for the sight of intellectual visions

It may also be intended that far surpass even the

goddesses.

lovely images
next see

of nature evoked and

by

the masque's

spirit-

For

when we

Miranda they are discovered in Prospero's cell, where they have been enjoying the fullest privacy. Despite their earlier inclination to ward amorous dalliance, now they are not making love. Instead, they are
playing
at

Ferdinand

chess,

a game that on this

is

an obvious symbol of

intellectual

activity.

Still

says, remarking scene, "Traditionally, it is said that chess symbolises ideal."25 Whether or not Still is correct the relation of the human spirit to the
on

this point, Webster's

went

Dictionary

attests to

the fact that an early form of the

game

by
that

the

name

"philosopher's

table."

masque

is intended to is

serve as a prelude perform

to and a

Perhaps the poetry of the preparation for philosophy. In The

fact,
of

we see

it does

this role in the

play.

fading

of

the

vision

the

masque

immediately

succeeded

by

and

becomes the

occasion

for Pros

pero's great philosophical speech addressed

to Ferdinand.

Our
Are

revels now are ended. were all

These

our actors

As I foretold you,
melted

spirits, and
air:

into air, into thin towers, the

And, like the baseless fabric

The The
cloud-capp'd

of this vision,
gorgeous

palaces,

itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
solemn

temples, the great globe

Leave

not a rack

behind. We
on;

are such stuff

As dreams Is

are made

and our

little life

rounded with a

sleep (iv.i.

148-58).

What Prospero

says

in this

speech

bears

in The Republic concerning the realm of stances in the whole Shakespearean opus
major philosophical

becoming.26

striking similarity to Plato's teaching There are few, if any, in

of such an explicit enunciation of a

doctrine.

It is time to
25. 26.
sophical

give

further

consideration

to Miranda's

significance

in the

play.

Ibid.,
For
a

p.

190.
of

different interpretation

the

speech see

Walter Clyde

Curry, Shakespeare's Philo

n.

Patterns (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1959), Ch. VI,

spirit."

57,
what

pp.

243f.

Curry says: "Shakespeare's great passage on the evanescence of the Curry is correct in pointing out that distinctly Christian and conventional in time. However, he neglects ceived of the world as beginning and passing away in
world and
anti-Christian significance of

is in it is
con

Christians

to consider the

the lines:
are such stuff

We As dreams Is

are made on; and our

little life

rounded with a sleep.

310
Her

Interpretation
means,

name

literally, "that

at."

which

is to be

wondered

Union

with

Miranda is the

goal and purpose of all of

of

Ferdinand's labors, both Ferdinand

and

as

the

vision of

the good is the object of the labors

vision of

the philosopher in The Republic. Like the

the good, Miranda is described

by

Prospero
live"

as su

premely beautiful and supremely desirable, far outstripping in value everything (iv.i.4). I else the world has to offer. For Prospero she is "that for which I

have

suggested

that one of Miranda's functions in the play

is to

represent

the

human

In her relationship with Ferdinand and Prospero, however, I be lieve that she stands for wisdom. Union with Miranda signifies attainment of
soul.

the truth. This

is

what

Ferdinand

means

has

received now

from Prospero
clear
Alonso'

a second

to say when he tells his father that he life (v.i. 194-5).

It
and

becomes

that Prospero's chief purpose in raising the tempest

in

bringing

When Ferdinand

and

s party to shore was to unite Ferdinand with Miranda. Miranda pledge themselves to each other, Prospero says:
more."

"My

rejoicing

as an old
cover a

In other words, as a philosopher, and nothing can be philosopher, his chief concern is to find a successor. He needs to dis
at

young, potential philosopher, to whom, after the proper

can

testing

and

training, he

transmit his most precious possession,

wisdom.

6. SHAKESPEARE'S IMITATION OF THE PHILOSOPHER-KING

Socrates'

contention that

the imitative poet feeds the lower part of the soul

starving the higher part is closely related to his claim that such a poet will inevitably be led to imitate the passionate person of mixed and variegated char
while

acter, the

person who

is typically

tossed soul makes a much more

by conflicts. The complicated, tempestinteresting subject for dramatic portraiture than

riven

does the simple, steady, tranquil

good.

character of

the man who is unqualifiedly

Now then, the irritable disposition easily imitated nor, assembly where imitation is of a

affords much and varied

the prudent and quiet character, which is always

when

nearly

equal to

imitation, itself, is

while
neither

imitated, easily
human beings is surely

understood, especially
are gathered

by

festive

all sorts of

in

theater. For the

condition that

alien to them

(604c).

Clearly, it is
nist a wisdom.

even more

difficult for the dramatic

a philosopher

poet to present as

his

protago

philosopher, especially

actively
art of

engaged

in the

pursuit of
not

What

was possible

for the imitative

theater.27

the Platonic dialogue is

possible

for the imitative

art of the

Within the limits

of artistic

possibility, Shakespeare in The Tempest

attempts

to answer this criticism. In the character of

who,
27.

at

least

by
is

the end of
made

Prospero he displays to us a man the play, has become perfectly virtuous. Prospero,
Essay,"

This

point

by

Bloom in his "Interpretive

op. cit., p. 360.

Shakespeare'

Apology for Imitative Poetry

been from
an

-311

of

course, had

always

the island he

suffered

essentially good man, but both in Milan certain imperfections that detracted from his

and on
virtue.

His

in Milan may be described as a kind of high-minded selfishness. His dedication to the betterment of his mind caused him to become forgetful of his
vice
obligations

to

his

subjects and

his

state.

He had
the

not yet

learned, in

the

words of

the drunken

Stephano,
when,

to "shift
on

for

rest"

all

(v.i. 256). This burdens

failing
of

was

largely

corrected

the

island,

he

accepted the

of rulership.

We

are made

to see,

however,

that vestigially the vice lingered on. First

with

all, in

the early period of his

mistake

relationship

Caliban he fell into the he

same sort of

that he had originally made with regard to his brother. In both cases,
recognize

failure to
caused

the native

depravity

of

those

with whom

was

dealing

him to be vastly overtrusting. Perhaps it is characteristic of to assume that others have natures similar to their own, at least until
perience

noble men painful ex

teaches them
came

otherwise.

After Caliban

attempted

to rape

Miranda,

Prospero

to understand very clearly

what sort of measures were required

in

order

to govern a

being
part

of

that sort.

Yet, in Act IV

we witness another

failure

on

Prospero's

to

exercise adequate control over

Caliban. This time his

vicious

the failure was not due to ignorance of Caliban's

nature or of

inten

tions; Ariel had been

servants'

keeping

Prospero
was

conspiracy.

The failure

enjoyment of

his

association with

advised concerning the progress of the due exclusively to inattention. Prospero's Ferdinand and Miranda, the beings to whom

spiritually akin, obliterated from his mind, at least temporarily, the ne coping with lower but more urgent matters. This was the mirror im cessity age of his original mistake in Milan. However, once having recalled Caliban's

he

was

of

the mutiny to mind, the vehemence of Prospero's reaction strongly indicates to audience that he would never again relapse into this kind of self-indulgence.

His

other moral

failing, if indeed it

should

be

reckoned as

such,

is

exhibited

by

have Prospero only on the island Many seen him as overirascible and excessively punitive, especially in his dealings with noble characters such as Ferdinand, Miranda and Ariel. Some have
and never

in Milan.

commentators

thought him also harsh in his treatment

of

Caliban,

who after all cannot

help

being
seem

the brutish to
confirm

thing he is. If

this

criticism of

Prospero is sound, it

would

Plato's

contention

that the dramatist

ble disposition
that the that Prospero's

an attractive object of

imitation! But it is
to Ferdinand

inevitably finds the irrita by no means certain

and

criticism

is justified. With

regard

Miranda it is

clear

anger

is merely feigned. his

Threatening

speeches

to Ferdinand and

stern admonitions
which

to Miranda are interspersed

with asides

to the audience in

Prospero

expresses were

joy

over

their

his true feelings

IV
when
love"

to remain, it
to

would

in love. If any doubt about be dispelled at the beginning of Act

falling

Prospero

says

Ferdinand,

"all

thy

vexations

thy
probably
needs

(iv.i. 5 -6).

The seeming

anger expressed

/ Were but my trials of by Prospero to Ariel is

command,"

no more genuine than that

directed to Ferdinand. Prospero knows he

to threaten Ariel

in

order to

keep

him "correspondent to

but

312
there can to Ariel's
ward

Interpretation
be
no

doubt that he loves his

"bird"

nor

that he is

deeply

sympathetic

desire for liberty. It is

characters when

notable

that Prospero

never expresses anger

to

these

speaking in soliloquy

or with other personages.

He

exhibits

anger,

or

the appearance of anger, only to their

faces,

and always

for
not

tactical reasons

which

he

either explains or are relations with

readily

explainable.

This is

the case,
ger

however, in his toward Antonio, and

the evil characters of the play. His an toward

to a lesser

extent

Alonso, is both deep

and

That is clearly rounding his deposition and by his (v.i. 25). I am struck to
genuine. revealed
th'
quick"

in his

narration

to Miranda of the events sur

admission

to

Ariel, "with

their high wrongs

The threats

and curses

Prospero directs to Caliban in Act I,

scene

ii,

might obedi

conceivably be interpreted merely as a means of ence, but Prospero's soliloquy in Act IV makes

frightening
plain

him into

the state of

his true

feelings toward Caliban.

A devil,
Nurture
a

born

devil,

on whose nature on whom

can never

stick;
all

my pains,

Humanely
And

taken, all,

lost,

quite

lost;
them all,

as with age

his

body
I

uglier

grows,

So his

mind cankers.

will plague

Even to roaring (iv.i.

188-93).

However, Prospero has

excellent cause

to be angry

with

Antonio

and

Caliban.
asks:

They

are, And

after

all, his

would-be murderers.

In The Republic Socrates

what about when a man case

believes he's
and

being

done injustice? Doesn't his

spirit

in this

boil

and

become harsh

form

an alliance

for battle

with what

seems

just? (440c)
no

There is

indication that

anger under

these circumstances is blameworthy. It

wicked

is the function

of the spirited part also

to throttle and frustrate

desires,

espe

cially in oneself, but

with

in

others.

In

so

doing

the spirit properly allies itself to Pla

the reason against the appetitive element.

Nevertheless, according

tonic

reason.

teaching, the It should be

it (440d).

spirited part of
obedient

the soul should itself be under the control of

to the reason as a

dog

is

obedient to the shepherd

that owns

At

one point

in Act IV it does This

occurs

appear

that Prospero has lost control the masque

when

of

his
re

spirited element. members

in the

middle of

Prospero
and

the plot against

his life that is

being

hatched

by

Caliban

his

confederates.

Ferdinand

says:

This is That

strange: your

father's in

some passion

works

him

strongly.

And Miranda

replies:

Never till this Saw I him touch'd

with

day

anger, so distemper'd (iv.i. 143-5).

Shakespeare'

Apology for
his

Imitative
to still
part

Poetry
his

-313

Prospero himself

refers to

need

his

"beating

mind."

Prospero's blame for

that

anger

may be

caused

in

by

realization

The extremity of that he himself is to

recognizes caused

letting

the conspiracy progress as far as it has. Perhaps he

he has

relapsed

into the indifference to

anger would

political urgencies

that had

his downfall in Milan. If so, his

be directed

at

least partially toward

himself,

and

this may

explain

its intensity.

In any case, at this point in the play Prospero's soul, as Miranda tells us, is clearly in a distempered state. But the disturbance is short-lived. By the begin
ning
of

Act V he has
Plato.

recovered

his

composure.

His

speech

to Ariel contains an

explicit recognition of understood

the proper relation

between

reason and

spirit,

as that was

by
my

Though Yet
with

with

their high wrongs I am struck to

th'

quick,

nobler reason

Do I take In

part:

the

rarer

'gainst my fury action is

virtue than sole a

in
of

vengeance:

they being

penitent,

The

Not

my purpose doth extend frown further (v.i. 25 -30; italics mine).

man soul

drift

At the end of the play Prospero fits perfectly the description of the just The Republic, the man who possesses a well-balanced, harmonious
which reason rules over

in in
of

the spirited and

desiring
to

elements.

Prospero's theory

punishment
out

is identical
those

with

Plato's. The

purpose of

the chastisements he the

metes

is to

reform

who are reformable and

restrain

incurably

wicked.

Prospero may be tempted by thoughts of revenge, but in the last analysis he never aims for vengeance. Even his anger toward Caliban has abated. The re
pentant monster

is

offered pardon and allowed

to seek

for

grace

(v.i. 292-5).

Prospero's
wise.

rule

over

his

subjects

He

not

only
of

corresponds

is both perfectly beneficent and perfectly to the just man as described in The Republic, he

is the image
is
without
law."28

the

philosopher-

law, it
is

aspires

to

king. Michael Piatt correctly remarks "his rule justice and goodness above mere positive human
us

In The Statesman the Eleatic Stranger tells

one without

that the truest and

best

constitution

laws. It is

patterned on

the

doctor's
crew.

supervision of

his

patients and on the

ship
a

captain's control over

his
a

The best

political

order
makes

is

one

in

which

wise

ruler,
of

unfettered

by

legal code, continually

whole.29

prevailing at the mo for the city as a ment as to what is best for each of his subjects and Continuing this theme, the Athenian Stranger of The Laws states that the best
the
circumstances

fresh decisions in the light

of constitutions

is born

when

"supreme

power

is

combined

in

one person with

wisdom

and

temperance."30

In the rulership

of

Prospero Shakespeare has

exemplified

perfectly

such a constitution.

28. 29. 30.

Michael

Piatt, "Shakespeare's Apology for Poetic

295b-297e.

Wisdom,"

p.

10 (unpublished).

Statesman, Laws,

712a.

314
As

Interpretation
this play, Shakespeare has accomplished
poet to
what seemed nearly do. Not only has he portrayed a perfectly Prospero he has given us a full-scale portrayal of of

author of

impossible for the imitative

good

man; in the

character of

the

philosopher.

In

fact,

the play provides three depictions

must also

the philosopher's

life, for Ariel

Tempest's includes
tion of the
quite

and

Ferdinand

be

reckoned

among the company of

The

philosophers.

Prospero's life

history,
in the

as revealed to us

a representation of
philosopher

four

phases

philosopher's career. cave of political

in the play, The educa

(his

ascent

from the

life) is depicted
his duke
is the
the

realistically by dom in order to devote himself to "the

Prospero's

withdrawal

from the
of

governance of
mind"

bettering
The

his

(i.ii. 90). Subse

quent phases are represented metaphorically. counterpart of the

involuntary

sea

journey

forced descent into the cave; the

the

exercise of magic art on

island

corresponds

to the period of political rule; the release from the cave

renunciation of magic and

is

symbolized

by

the

impending

return

to Milan. In

Prospero's
phase of on

case

the emphasis

is

on

the period of political rule. This is the only

stage.

his life actually imitated on the island, like that of Prospero,

The

case of

Ariel is

similar.

His life
emanci

represents political rulership.

His

pation

from

servitude symbolizes

the second ascent from the cave. His life his

tory, however, his story that period is simply

tion of prephilosophical

contains no phase

depicting
early

the education of the philosopher. In

substituted

omitted.

What is

for it is

a representa

life,

that

phase of the potential philosopher's ex

istence
of

during

which

he is

still enslaved

by

the

desires

of

the

body. This period,

course, is represented by Ariel's servitude under Sycorax and his imprison ment in the cloven pine. With respect to Ferdinand, however, the emphasis is

entirely

ceive an

first ascent, the period of philosophical education. But we re intimation that the succeeding phase of rulership will presently begin, for apparently Alonso is about to abdicate in his son's favor (v.i. 148-52).
on the

Three is the

critical number

in The Tempest,

as

it is in The Republic. Just

as

the play contains three depictions of a philosopher, so, I would suggest, there figure in it three representations of Shakespeare. I have put forward the
claim

that Prospero and

Shakespeare in
Ariel

some

already important ways

are

intersub-

stitutable.

I have

also argued that

with

symbolizes
and

Prospero's intellect. But if

Prospero is identified

Shakespeare,

follows that Ariel Prospero

as

also represents

Ariel with Prospero's intellect, it Shakespeare's intellect. When we think of

the stress
on

Shakespeare's

alter ego we put

the

former's

role as a
poetic

magician and we conceive of art.

his

magic as

the analogue of

Shakespeare's

Ariel, however, is
itself,
are

also a potent magician and a master of

the art of creating

illusions. In fact
tempest

most of

the apparitions and

produced

illusions
rather
of

of

the play,

including

the
su

directly
in

by him,
those

than

by

Prospero. His
abilities

perhuman powers

some ways exceed

Prospero. His

instan

taneously
other

pleases are

himself wherever he wishes and to assume any shape he particularly suggestive of Shakespeare's theatrical art. There is an way in which the two are linked. Shakespeare's complaint: "And almost
to transport

Shakespeare'

Apology for

Imitative

Poetry

315
the dyer's
hand"

thence my nature is subdued / To what it works

in, like

could

be

placed

in Ariel's

mouth even more

pero's renunciation of

his

magic

appropriately than in Prospero's. If Pros parallels Shakespeare's withdrawal from the

theater,

so

does Ariel's
of

emancipation.
as

Ariel, then, is

altogether as

legitimate

representative

the author

is Prospero.

According

to one

perspective

Shakespeare is to be identified What

we should not

with

Prospero; according

to another

he is Ariel.
per ego

spectives

do, however, is to attempt to view the play from both simultaneously. When we think of Ariel as Shakespeare's alter
Prospero in his
as aspect as

we

should regard

philosopher,

rather than

as

magician-poet.

Shakespeare

Ariel is

tinct from himself and to whom

he is

Prospero is Plato. Shakespeare

as

as

serving If Shakespeare is Ariel, then Prospero is philosopher and poet in one, just
subordinate.

a poet

a philosopher who

is dis

Prospero is both

a student of the

liberal

arts and a practitioner of magic.

That

he, too, is both of these things seems to be subtly implied by Shakespeare. It may be that there is another character in the play who, like Ariel, repre sents Shakespeare as an imitative poet in the service of a philosopher. Spe
cifically, this
character stands

The Tempest. He is the

the

lowly

boatswain

for Shakespeare in his capacity as the author of with whom we became acquainted in

first

scene.

To
an

use

the language of The

Republic,

the boatswain is repre

special

sented

as

being

auxiliary to the

ship-master.

It is his

function to

"speak to the
much as

mariners,"

transmitting

to them the commands of the master,

very
phi will

the auxiliary class in The Republic enforces the decrees of the losopher-rulers. Unless that office is performed, says the master, the ship
run aground. state. on

We

saw earlier

that the ship

can

be

regarded as a metaphor

for the

It

can also

be

viewed as a symbol of

the

subject of
auxiliary.

the state.

As the

author of

The Republic, Plato's greatest work The Tempest, Shakespeare serves as

mariners"

Plato's

He "speaks to the
a

by transmitting
than would ever

the teachings of

The Republic to

far

wider audience

be

comprised

by

the

means that he readership of that book. Inevitably this level as did Plato. There can be no discussion of the forms; the philosophical argumentation must be omitted. Appropriately enough, the boatswain gives the

cannot speak on

the same

topsail,"

orders:

"Take in the

"Down

with

the topmast! Yare!

great.

lower,

lower!"

Yet Shakespeare's

accomplishment

is very

in portraying the
them to his
of wisdom

philosopher and

the best

political

Not only has he succeeded order, he has represented

audience as

supremely

admirable.

The

absolute and unfettered rule

is depicted

the

greatest possible

as an extremely desirable state happiness for the ruled. Many

of affairs which results

persons

in

who

have

never

read

The Republic or,

having

read

it, have

best way of life and the best regime, are pest. Few can fail to admire Prospero; few
rule.

its teachings concerning the nevertheless enchanted by The Tem

rejected

could wish not

to

live

under

his

We

can

tative art

imagine Shakespeare saying to Plato: You ask me to justify my imi and to show cause why I should not be banished from your city. You

316 have be

Interpretation
that the philosopher-ruler

yourself admitted

him from his

your

enemies and to your

help

him

rule

auxiliary to defend the nonphilosophic multitude. I shall

requires an

guardian,

boatswain,
you

your

Ariel.

My

weapon will not

chant,
ments.

and

thereby

to persuade those who cannot or

is my power to en listen to your argu

In The Republic

say that
celestial your

cannot

look

directly directly
Those

at

the

emerging from the cave the neophyte bodies; he must first see them reflected in
upon

the water. In my watery play

cannot gaze coral made.

divine

appearance shall

shine, and those who

upon you will see your reflection

there.

Of

your

bones

are

are pearls

that

were your eyes.

Nothing

of you

that doth
you

fade, but doth

me,

suffer a sea-change

into something rich

and strange.

Do

love

master? no?

Montesquieu's Perception

of

his Audience

for the Spirit of the Laws

Anne M. Cohler
Chicago, Illinois

Of
the

what

obvious

is Montesquieu trying to persuade his reader? A brief summary of lesson might be: the good life is one of activity and freedom, nec
particular

essarily lived in
thought
portant

governments, climates,

and times.

Those

who

have he
im

thought and written about Montesquieu

have

argued over which government

best,

and whether

governments, climates,

or times were the most

good

determinants

of whether people achieved

that

life. If Montesquieu
wanted

was a good
readers

writer, these

lessons
If

and arguments would

be those he

his

to

have

and pursue.

we are to move

beyond

or

deeper than these les

people

sons

and

arguments, we
was

must revive

Montesquieu's audience, the

to

speaking and trying to persuade. This paper is primarily an at tempt to describe the opinions and characters of Montesquieu's audience for the
whom

he

Spirit of the Laws. My contention is that Montesquieu thought of his readers as Christian and that he thought that Christianity entailed an opinion about what is
virtuous and a

Christianity
saw

of

habit of mind resulting from that opinion. As we shall see, the Montesquieu's readers, in his opinion, presented both difficulties

and possibilities

his

audience and of what pattern

for his writing about political life. Once we know the way he he was trying to persuade them, we are then able
which

to see a

into

the pieces

of

the Spirit of the Laws can be fitted and

could

to see a
thought.

structure

beneath his teachings that

lead

us

deeper into this

This
tween

paper

is

not

directly
was

concerned with

the

question

of

the

relation

be

religion and politics or of revelation and political philosophy.

Although

it is

clear

now, as

it

to the

church of

view was not conventional, we

do

not

his day, that Montesquieu's point of need to know his final view of the rela life to
question

tion between

Christianity

and political

the effects of the

Chris

tian

he saw on the way he wrote about politics. Spirit of the Laws was based on the assertion that he was not writing a book of theology, but one about governments and laws. "One has seen in the first two parts (of the Defense) that all that results from so many bitter criti
opinion

Montesquieu's Defense

of the

cisms

is that the
the

author of

following

plans and views of

the Spirit of the Laws has the his critics

. .

not constructed

his

work

theologians."1

Only

if

one

of the American Po An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1978 Annual Meeting litical Science Association. the Laws will be to book and chapter numbers 1. Caillois, II, 1 1 60 (References to the Spirit of be. to the CEuvres Com references to Montesquieu's work will text. Other in the parentheses in 2 vols., 1949 and Editions Gallimard, (Paris: Bibliotheque de la Pleiade, pletes, ed. Roger Caillois

318
assumes

Interpretation
that there can be no Christian consideration
of political

things or that a

single regime
proach

follows from the belief in

his life. Rather,

Christianity

itself

answer the question of

view of

the relation between

does Montesquieu's ap Christian

question must

ity

and political

an effort

to answer this last

begin
of

with

the conclusions of this

opinion on

inquiry

into Montesquieu's
politics.2

view of

the effect

his writing about Books 24 and 25 in which religion is taken up explicitly are the evident places to begin an examination of the meaning to Montesquieu of Christian

Christian

opinion.

Paganism, Christianity,

and

Islam

are mentioned.

Paganism

refers pri reli

marily to the religions of ancient Rome and

gions of

Greece, but it
tribes,
from its

also

includes the
Buddhism

the American Indians and of African

as well as

and

Hinduism.

Christianity

is taken
If

as a whole

beginning,

with no regard

for its

schisms and sects.

one were

interested in his

finding

out

Montesquieu's

position

among those sects, one

would compare

account of

Christianity

to

theirs, but I am not concerned here with that question. Islam, or Mohammedan ism as Montesquieu calls it and I shall from now on in this text, is also taken as a whole with no regard for internal divisions.
Montesquieu
compares religions as

to whether

they

are concerned with

the

heart,

the spirit, or the

and

intellect,

and

then as to the generality of that concern.

whose

The heart

the spirit are notions

of

meaning is

not evident

to us. The

heart is the home

the passions (14. 1). People are subject to their passions. A

person with no other component to ward

his
the

soul would even

be

unable

to move to
or even

the objects of his passions

perfect subject of a

despotism,

perhaps a natural slave. all

be

passive easier

will

be

Of the hottest climates, he writes, "the inclinations will laziness there will be happiness; most chastisements there there; to bear than action of the soul, and servitude more tolerable than
conduct"

the force of spirit necessary to guide one's

the

(14.2). The passions,

and

heart,

are

identified here Other

with

the force

of

the physical world, with an ex

treme climate.

climates make possible, or even encourage, activity or the The passions, then, are in this understanding indeed passive things that happen to people; but the spirit is distinguished by activity, by the

thing

called spirit.

possibility of purposeful action. Spirit is more difficult for us to

mind, because it carries
with

see clearly.

it

an aspect of

thought

Its customary translation is and intelligence. For exam

pleasures and

ple, Montesquieu wrote that,

"Girls,
not

who are

led to

liberty

only

by

marriage,

whose spirit

dares

eyes

dare

not

see,

whose ears

think, whose heart dares not feel, dare not hear (23.9). The spirit
.

whose

thinks.

Some
1951),
a

other examples of this aspect of

its meaning

are to

be found in

remarks

referred

to hereafter as
prepared

translation
2.

being

by

Caillois. The translations of the Spirit of the Laws are from a draft Anne Cohler and Basia Gulati for the of Chicago

of

Cf. David Lowenthal

and

Joseph

Cropsey
the

Founding

of

Republic,"

in History of Political Philosophy, eds. Leo Strauss (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963) and W. B. Allen, "Theory and Practice in the Interpretation, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Winter 1974), 79-97.

"Montesquieu"

University

Press.)

Montesquieu'

Perception of his Audience

the spirit

319

about whether or not

is

open

to the meaning of certain words or opin

liberty"

ions (4.3, 4.8,

1 1. 2, 1 1. 3, 1 1.

6,

28.22).

(spirit)
ples of

what

independence is
when what

and what

For example, "one must have in mind (11.3). Then, there are exam
calls a spirit might elsewhere

instances

Montesquieu

be

called an opinion sition:

(3.3,

5.5, 5.6,

6.8,

9.3).

the spirit of acquisition carries

destruction"

For example, "Conquest is an acqui with it the spirit of preservation and use be in

not that of

(10.3).
spirit seems to
grounded
physi

But,
cal

one might

answer, Montesquieu's

existence, like the passions and virtually identical with them. A example is his remark that "One must, then, regard the Greeks as
athletes and warriors.

well-known

society

of

Now,

these exercises so appropriate for making people

tough and savage needed to

be tempered

by

others that might soften the mores.

Music,
able.

which enters a mean

the spirit through the organs of the

exercises of the

body,

was quite suit

It is

between the

body

that render men tough and

the sciences of speculation that render them

inspired virtue; that

ferocity
have

of

can not say that music be inconceivable, but it hampered the effect of the the institution and gave the soul a part in education that it would not
savage.

One

would

had"

(4.8). How

could music act on

the spirit through the organs

passion

of

the
and

body? Exercises cruelty

arouse

only

one

kind

of

roughness,

anger,

but "music

arouses them all and can make the soul

pleasure"

feel softness, pity,

(4.8). Then, if music enters the spirit through tenderness, and sweet the body, it does so by its capacity to arouse a great variety of passions. Only with more, and particularly the softer, passions aroused is there the possibility
of

tempering
of

the passions aroused

regarded

by

the

Montesquieu noted,

any

work

martial arts in a society which, in commerce, agriculture, or the arts

as as

destructive

their virtue. This was the only way available to them to temper

their passions.
effects on

the

As in Book 14, the connection between the spirit and physical body seems to be through the range of possibilities those effects
or shape.

produce,

not

in their direction

shall

begin here

spirit asked

by identifying the relation between the passions and the by Christianity and clarifying those of whom it is asked. The Chris
about virtue can

tian opinion

be

put

in the form

of a statement of a relation

be

tween the spirit and passions

asked of some view of virtue

habit if
to

of mind

tends to

put

any

group into this

of people. same

The Christian

Christianity

asserts that everyone ought

to

control all of

his

form. For example, passions in order

bad thing would take worship a spiritual god, the view that drunkenness is a the form of the opinion that no one ought to drink anything alcoholic and that there ought to be a law to this effect for the sake of a good public life. Second,
we shall

look

at some similarities and

differences between that

with

opinion about and republics.

virtue and those views

Montesquieu identifies

despotisms

Third,

we shall

be

able to

identify

some of

the difficulties Montesquieu sees

in

such an opinion

and watch of

him try to

sort

in his discussion

usury

and treason.

his way through those difficulties Fourth, and, in conclusion, then we

320
shall

Interpretation
a position to suggest that

be in

the form of his book and the

of

manner of

his

writing based

was a response

to his understanding
and

mind affect political on

life

thought and to

the way this opinion and habit of indicate the direction an inquiry

this understanding might take.

CHRISTIAN OPINION

Religion, according
speaks a religion that

to

Montesquieu,

speaks

to the

heart, just
jealous

as

human law

to the spirit (24.7).

Christianity

is different from is
no more

paganism

because it is
than of

"envelops

all

the passions; that

of acts

desires

thoughts"

and ought

(24.13).

Christianity
as

is the

religion most subject to the

in

junction that it
als rather than

to give counsels

rather

than precepts, advice to

individu

laws for groups,

what

its

rules are

"not for the good, but for the

and

better;

not

for

is good, but for

the passions.

what

is

perfect;"

"perfection does

not

things"

concern the

universality

of men or of

(24.7). Christian virtue, then, is

the perfect

control of

worship and without particular world. It thinks of itself as a universal

one

But, Christianity is a religion with a general dogmas (24.25-26) which can spread across the
religion and asks

its

perfection of

every
reli

(19.18). Montesquieu's warning that

of men

perfection

is

not concerned with the

universality
gion

to

speak

is particularly apt for Christians who intend for their to everyone and for whom perfection of the passions is an
in their dogmas in their demands

end.3

This

perfection of

the heart is for the sake of devotion to God. Religions

and general
can

which are abstract

be distin

guished, according to
preme spiritual

Montesquieu, between those

whose

which present us with a su

being

to worship and those which are intellectual (25.2). Chris

adherents
religion.

tianity is
medanism

religion an

is

intellectual

worship a spiritual god, and Moham Attachment is easier, but not as strong, to

the religions whose dogmas and demands are particular. In these two abstract
general

religions,

people

become

attached

by different

particular things.

For

Christianity,
call

some paganism

is needed,
In
an

some

tangible things through

which

people can move

toward their god.

God."

Mary, "Mother of made by the Divinity, of

medanism also

Montesquieu's example is the decision to intellectual religion, "the idea of a choice distinction between those who profess a religion and
attaches us

those who do not profess

attaches

it,
its

greatly to the

religion"

(25.2). Moham
which

adherents

by demanding

of

them practices

make religion a part of

The description

of

everyday lives. the Christian god as

their

spiritual cannot

but

remind us of

Montesquieu's

assertion that political

life

was of

the spirit and religious life of

the heart. His account of the

and
3.
says

Stoics indicates

a connection

between the

spirit

the heart which would make the spirit characteristic both of

objecting that Montesquieu his critics fell into this error and

Christianity
Montesquieu

By

the precepts of the Gospel as counsels, saw them all as precepts. Caillois, II, 1 140.
saw all

Montesquieu'

Perception of his Audience

Stoics'

321 had
as

and of political

life. The

control of their passions society.

its

end encour
considered

aging

men

devoted to their duties in

"While the Stoics

to

wealth, human greatness, suffering, sorrows,

and pleasures men's

be

vain

things,

they

occupied

themselves only in working for

happiness, in exercising
they
watching over room for their sa
the greater

the duties of society; it seemed that

they

regarded the sacred spirit which

believed to be in themselves
mankind"

as a

kind

of

favorable
for

providence made

(24.10). The This Christians

Stoics'

control of

their passions

cred spirit.
control of

control

led to their

concern

others.

Similarly,

could make room

of

a universal

other men or ual

community to God. This is in

believers. Spirit he

for the worship of a spiritual god and for points beyond the individual, to
is
a

contrast to virtue which

control

peculiarly individ

thing
.

it

asks of each person that

a counsel

his

passions.

Christianity is, first,

sions

to everyone to perfect the control of their pas

and

There is
of

tension between the generality of the demand

the individ
con

uality

its

accomplishment.

Christianity

asks of all
achieved

individuals that they

each

trol themselves altogether.

expects perfect

Self-control is
of everyone.

by

individual,

and

God

self-control
of our

From

such

an opinion

about virtue

follows the danger

danger
of

demanding

perfect self-control of everyone and

the

survival

abandoning God and asking no self-control of anyone while assuming due to the hard rule of a person of or some general rule of nature. Sec
proposes
within

ond,

Christianity
of

that we

thing
cal

that spirit

us, and

worship a that we do

spiritual

god, that

we

have

some

share

something

with others.

It is

the first of these aspects

of

life

and the rhetorical

Christianity which poses the great danger for politi difficulty for a writer about politics. The second may
a

well suggest a

way out of that difficulty. Montesquieu's Christian audience assumed that

everyone and passions

teaching

about virtue was

directed to
to
control

that

its

content was an exhortation

to each individual
rhetorical

altogether.

This

opinion

posed

Montesquieu's

difficulty. This
tween

difficulty can be illustrated by the relation Montesquieu saw be Christianity and some political things. My examples will be Christian
and the peculiar

ity's similarity to despotisms and to republics posed in regard to usury and treason.

difficulties it has

DESPOTISMS AND REPUBLICS

The similarity between religious rule, even of Christianity, and despotic rule is brought to our attention in a number of ways. Even while asserting that Christian rule, in contrast to Mohammedanism is not despotic, Montesquieu
claims this

is

so

because

of

Christianity's softness,

not

because
right and

of

its

struc of na

ture (24.3). We owe to that softness a certain tions "which results in victory's
things:

political

right

leaving
and

to the
always

vanquished people

these great

life, liberty, laws,

goods,

religion,

when

one

does

not

322 blind

Interpretation
oneself"

(24.3).

As

Montesquieu

does
not

mention

soft

despotisms
some

(14.5),
One
his

the

softness

of

Christianity does

preclude

its

having

similarity to despotism.
of

Montesquieu's

earliest examples of
. .

despotic

rule

is

of a pope who

"imbued

with

his

inadequacy

Finally, he

agreed and gave

up

all affairs

to

saying "I (2.5). He acted like the

eunuchs
church.

nephew,"

would never

have believed that it

voluptuous

could

be

easy"

so

lazy, ignorant, in despotisms (15.19) reminds

despots. The importance

of

the reader of the

clergy in
a

of

the

Catholic in

That similarity is made clear in the book The suggestion is that the rule of the Church and
some respect
analogous.

on population rule

(23.28-29).
are

despotism

Despotisms

act

by differentiating
is
at

ruler, or
rest of

his

agents

(whose

reappointment

the

the population, among whom significant

only between the despot's discretion), and the distinctions cannot be drawn.
as one can see

They
16,

are all

slaves, civil,

domestic,

or

political,

and 17.

Christianity,

as we

have seen, is

similar

in Books 15, in that it is a rule imposed

principle can

indiscriminately
source of
make

upon everyone.

But,
of

religion

in

despotism is the

any stability, some permanent laws

kind
as

deposit for

what

law there is (2.4). It higher

"the laws

of religion are part of a as

precept not

because they apply to the prince as well same for natural right; the prince is not
gions, then,
are prince as well as

to the subjects. to be
a

But, it is

the

man"

assumed

(3.10). Reli

distinguished from despotisms because they give laws to the the subjects. The last distinction in a despotism is obliterated.
uses

Religion, like despotism,

is
reduced
ciples"

fear

as a motive

(24.12). In despotisms

religion

to acquainting "the spirit with a few very simple religious prin

(4.3).

Montesquieu's descriptions Those laws

were

of the and

laws

of

Justinian illustrate this

end of

similarity.

both despotic
based
on

Christian. At the
of

them at the end of the

development
upon a

Book 27, he puts Roman inheritance law which moved

of

from

an arrangement one

familial division
and

land

established

by

po

litical law to

based

family feeling

then to one that was altogether in

dividualized. "Finally, Emperor Justinian

right on

removed the slightest trace of the old

inheritances; he
collateral,

established three orders of

heirs:

descendants,
and

ascen

dants,

and

without

any distinction between

remained"

men

women, be

tween relatives on the women's side and relatives on the men's side, and he ab rogated all those about it that (27.1). Roman laws moved from the
principles of political
which permitted

law to those

of religion.

An

example of this

is the law

divorce
was

when either

the

husband

or wife entered a religious or

der (26.9). This

based

upon

Christian

principles

alone, paying

no attention of a

to the protection of

families. Montesquieu
was an

remarked of the

Establishments
it formed

Saint Louis that "there

combined

internal

vice

in this

compilation:

code, in
were

which

French jurisprudence had been

of

mixed with

Roman for

law: things
tradictory"

brought together that (28.38). The Roman law

never were related and were often con

Justinian treated the

population

Montesquieu'

Perception of his Audience

as

323 individuals. This is

char

which

it legislated both
to

if it

were made of unconnected and

acteristic of

Christianity
he
called

despotism.
nature

According

Montesquieu, Justinian "believed he followed

the encumbrances of the old
no need

itself
(27.

by
1).

setting The worst despotisms feel

aside what

jurisprudence"

to make any general rules.

They

act upon

individuals through fear. Religion

a common rule
passions.

asserts the
could act

similarity

of

those individuals and

for their

actions.

It

to produce some regularity in the

concerned with
worst

Christianity

can

do this because it is

the individual

control of

the passions. As one moves

one continues

from the

despotism to the highest

Christian community, sions of individuals

.

to speak of ways of controlling the pas

The highest Christian laws he frugal

virtue

has
so

certain similarities

to republic

virtue.

"As

religion requires unsullied

hands

that one can make offerings to the gods, the

country"

wanted

mores so

that one could give to one's

(5.3).

Or,

as

writes

later,

while

explaining that
of
spirit?"

luxury

and public

incontinence
can you

go

to

gether, "If you leave the impulses the

weaknesses of

the heart at

liberty, how
is

hamper
sub

the

(7.14). Each

monk or citizen

individually

ject to

a rule which controls

love the group of which differences are in the circumstances in

drawn from
which

his passions, his heart, in order for him to come to he is a member and to strengthen his spirit. The
which

this

occurs.

Monks have

with

of a

they they accumulate the goods of the pious (25.5). Each citizen is the head family, including servants, and the family farms its parcel (5.5). Everyone
a
which

society to

give

the

example of

their virtue and from

in

Christian land is potentially

a

a member of a religious

order, but citizenship

belongs to
The

designated

portion of

the population

in

a republic.

account of virtue as control of the passions reduces and republican

differences between
self-

Athens, Sparta,
view even

Rome to the
rule of
model

question

of the amount of

control required to maintain of political

virtue

the the

these citizenries. Rousseau

built his

on

of

Montesquieu's
universal

virtuous

republics,4

to the extent of considering an analogy to

that such virtue

Christian If

virtue5

and
self-

arguing judged
moved

is properly

all

there is to
varies

politics.6

virtue

is

control, it is the

same everywhere and

by

a single standard.
direction.7

only in amounts so that it can be Rousseau objected to Montesquieu's not having

it

in this

Admiration

of republican virtue

Christian,
we ought

even monastic, virtue

has

not

to

emulate

it.

Many

readers of

on the analogy of conclusion that led to the necessarily Montesquieu have turned from the vir
resolution

tue of

ancient

republics, although perhaps with an inner

to

keep

their

4.

Leo Strauss, "On the intention

458-460.

Rousseau,"

of

Social Research, Vol. 14, No. 4 (December

1947),

and Marcel Raymond 5. Jean- Jacques Rousseau, CEuvres Completes, ed. Bernard Gagnebin 1959), Vol. Ill, 281-289. (Paris: Bibliotheque de la Pleiade, Editions Gallimard, 6. Rousseau, CEuvres Completes, III, 368-372 (Social Contract, II, 1-3).

7.

Rousseau, CEuvres Completes, IV, 836-837.

324

Interpretation
control.8

passions under

In

so

doing, they have

based
upon

also turned

away from Chris

rather

tian

virtue and

have turned toward

a consideration of

the variety of human pur than

poses, toward

a comparative politics could

differences in kind

in

degree.9

Variety

be found in the

ends

for

which self-control

is

prac

ticed. Montesquieu
ends.

has

suggested a

difference between
one or

religious and political wonder whether

But, if

that distinction can

enough

be made,
There

is led to

the

ends are
zens as

different

among republics,
are

regimes, to differentiate the

citi

different kinds

of people.

ing

the religious, in
are

Montesquieu, but

one

many spirits or characters, includ virtue in varying degrees.

as

Republics

similar

to despotisms insofar

they

punish

individually,
one case

harshly,
opinion and

and not

according to a rule (6.3). The difference

is

that

in

the

is that

people's passions will always will come

have to be

controlled

externally,

in the

other

to republics
who are
possible

they (8.16), made

makes

to control themselves. The small size peculiar

even smaller

by the

portion of men within

the country

citizens,

that

self-control possible.

If

Christianity

makes

it im

to differentiate a

small

citizenry, then the internalization of virtue of a

government would

small republic would also

become impossible. Republican despotic in their

then tend to use the external,

modes of punishment used effort

in ordinary
unless vir

despotisms to
virtue.

control

the
an

worst passions

to achieve republican

This

would

be

easy direction for

to

republican

governments,

tue

loses

some of

its

allure.

Christianity, according
sible.

Montesquieu, does

make ancient republics

impos

It does

so

because it demands that

that there can be no

God. This
the
rest of

means

virtuously and worship distinction between the free citizenry and

and

everyone act

the population,

between the free

the slave. "Plutarch tells us in

the life of Numa that there was neither master nor slave in the time of Saturn.

In

our

climates,

Christianity

has brought back that

age"

(15.7). Of Negro

slav

ery he wrote, "It is impossible for us to assume that those people are men, be cause, if we assumed they were men, one would begin to believe that we our
Christians"

selves were not

(15.5). We

cannot

have slaves,

recognize

in them

any

humanity,
He

and

noticed,

of a new

Christians. Montesquieu speaks, as we have international right which prohibits taking slaves in war (10.3
we are

believe

and 24.8).

speaks of this as characteristic of the conflicts

during

the dissolu the

tion of the Roman empire and the establishment of feudal monarchies time of the spread of

Christianity

(30.15).10

The

consequence was that

for

8. For contemporary examples of this movement see: Nanerl O. Keohane, "Virtuous Republics and Glorious Monarchies: Two Models in Mon Thought," tesquieu's Political Political Studies, Vol. XX, No. 4 (December 1973), 383-396.

Thomas L. Pangle,

Montesquieu'

Philosophy

of Liberalism (Chicago:

University
of

of

Chicago

Press,
1976).

1973).
and the

Mark Hulling, Montesquieu

9.

Old Regime (Berkeley:

University

California Press,

Aristotle, Politics II (1261a). Cf. Marc Bloch, Feudal Society, Press, 1974), Vol. I, 260-261).
10.

trans. S. A. Mahyon (Chicago:

University

of

Chicago

Montesquieu's Perception of his Audience

time laws were personal rather than territorial
personal subordination and

325
combination of

(28.2-4). The

inherited fiefs
Of Gothic

that characterize
government

feudalism developed

from this
was at

beginning

(31.25).11

first

mixed with

common people were slaves:

aristocracy and monarchy. it was a good government that had

Montesquieu wrote, "It Its drawback was that the

within

itself
cus

the capacity to tom.

.

become better.

Giving

letters

of emancipation

became the

(1 1. 8).
who go

Women
must

to the same church and receive the same sacraments as

men

have

some public a public

life. "The Christian religion,

and

by

the establishment of

charity,
seems solve

by

worship,

by

the participation in the same sacraments,

to require that everything be

united"

(19.18).

Christianity
peoples are

tends to

dis

the distinctions within a people, making the whole population equally

available

for

political rule.

The distinctions between

less

clear as

their citizenries
came

become

more

Christian

and

less

singular.

Since

Christianity

be is

prevalent,

republican rule

became

rule over all of a people whose size

indeterminate.

Christianity
trol of an

shares

both

with

despotisms There is

and republics a concern a certain arbitrariness

for the

con

individual's The

passions.

in the

rule

in

both

of them.

clearest

difference is in the applicability

shares with republics

of that rule

to the

citizens or

to

everyone.

the

control of one's

passions,

Christianity leading
altogether

the view that virtue is

to love of the community and some ex

pression of spirit.

It differs

from

republics on

the

question of

its ap

plicability, extending the expectation of

virtue

to everyone and to all passions.

by Montesquieu to have had the political effect of ending it difficult, if not impossible, to keep some of the people al slavery, of making together private. The availability of everyone for Christian virtue has implied
This
extension

is

said

the same for

political virtue.

Great

violence can result

dard too high

case,

and

inactivity

or weak spirits

one can see

the possibility for a treason shows his

from setting that stan from setting it too low. In either kind of despotism. Montesquieu's treat
to the danger of alternation

ment of

usury

and

response

be

tween

violence and weakness.

USURY AND TREASON

In considering

lending

with

interest Montesquieu

shows the

dangers he

sees

in the Christian

appropriation of an opinion of

the ancient

republics.12

"Once

the philosophy of Aristotle had been carried to the West it was very pleasing to the discerning spirits who, in times of ignorance, are those who make a show
of their

knowledge. Some
Ganshof,
is

scholastics were

infatuated
and

with

it

and

took from this

a modern
of

11.

Cf. F. L.

Feudalism (New York: Harper Montesquieu's.

objection

Row,

1964), for

study

feudal
12.
quence

relations which

congruent with

Cf. Caillois, II, 1185, where the of the importance of charity.

to usury in the Gospels is said to be a conse

326

Interpretation
many explanations about lending with interest, whereas its source in the Gospel; they condemned it indiscriminately and in every
calls

philosopher

was so natural
case"

(21.20).13

Aristotle
He does
the
not

usury the
a

most unnatural

of all

the

modes

of

acquisition.14

say that
as one

city

ought never permit

use

it. Rather, he

suggests that

it is

last

means

that a householder ought to

to provide for his family. That

a

householder,

learns in Book I

of

the

Politics, heads
slaves. a

household
a

made of
self-

his wife, his children, their servants, and their sufficient economic unit. It becomes less so in
tribe15

It is

largely

and

by

extension even

less

so

in the

city.

group of households or a The argument is that be

cause

the household has as its end providing for the livelihood of to acquire the resources essential to that livelihood
a

its members,
and out

it

should act

inside

side the

household. Such
end

household does

not

appropriately

engage or

in

retail

trade which has as its

at

interest

which uses

step removed In Montesquieu's

at

making money to acquire money with no from acquiring goods for the household's
view
upon

an unlimited amount of

money

in

lending

end and use.

is

yet another

this understanding of the place of trade and

lending
possi

interest is based

the notion that the acquisition of the variety of goods

within

necessary for life takes place ble because those producers family. The
trade
and number of

the

household. But, that is

no

longer

longer entirely private, entirely within a independent families has increased markedly, making
are no

interest

more prevalent

(23.15). That the

citizens of an ancient repub

lic

ought not engage goods

in forms

of acquisition which was

did

not

have

as

their

end

procuring
objection

for the household

transformed
was

by

the scholastics into a

general rule that all

lending

at

interest

to be condemned. Montesquieu's

to the Christian use of the ancients is that an

injunction to

some

to act
a

very

well

is transformed into
that same

a general rule

for

everyone.16

This happens in

situation where no clear

impulse

to universalize a rule

has led to there

being

group to which a more limited Montesquieu is reluctant to speak of

general rule might apply.

virtue

in

modern politics and

to condemn trade and usury. That reluctance and unwillingness seems to

result of

unwilling be a

his

perception of

quence of the erywhere and

sults

the difficulties for political life that are the conse Christian belief that the same virtue can be asked of everyone ev

from the universalizing tendency in theory

perceived that political
must

and practice which re was

from that belief. If Montesquieu

universalizing
life
was

difficult

for

political

life, he

have thought that

1939).
of the

in

some

important

13. Caillois, I, 1470 (Pensee Aristotle, I found all the principles

put

"I

was

astonished
on

when
word

theologians

usury,

for

word.

them there. I have spoken of it in the Spirit of the Laws. But these gentlemen do not like for

reading the Politics of I thought they had

me

to discover their sources:

they do
strongly

not

know themselves,
this."

as one

does

not

know the

source of the

Nile.

They

have

protested

against

14. 15.

16.

Aristotle, Politics I (1258b). Aristotle, Politics I (1257a). Caillois, II, 227-228 (Avertissement de l'Auteur).

Montesquieu'

Perception of his Audience

(4.4-8). It
must

327
as

respect particular or singular which are not

have

its

end some purposes

easily

comparable to each

other,

which are not on moves

the same scale.

In Book
sion of

12 on the

liberty
of

of

the citizen, Montesquieu

from

discus

treason in the context of considering problems raised heresy for the safety of citizens by punishments for particular crimes. The context of the discussion is Montesquieu's inquiry in Books 9 through 13 into the modern liberal regime, assuming its Christianity. Montesquieu suggests in this context to one
that the problems raised

for that

regime

by

treason

are

due to the

similarities an

between treason
which

could

heresy. That similarity could collapse the institution that had been
and
rule

make of treason

issue
the

constructed to reduce order

availability

liarity

of

individuals to direct, despotic political life.

of

in

to

protect

the pecu

Montesquieu esy is a crime lem with such

moves

from

heresy

to magic to
rulers

homosexuality
have tried to

to treason. Her

against

God

which

human

punish.

The

prob of

punishment

is that there is

disproportion between the human

nature

infinity
into
so.

God

and

the weakness,

ignorance,

and caprice of

(12.4). Govern
ac

ments count

must

take those weaknesses, that

expectations of

ignorance,

and

that caprice

in their

people, but God does

not

have to do

Two

follow from this difference. First, as men cannot measure up to the divine standard, there would be no end to the punishment. No man would
consequences

ever

be

good enough not

to

merit punishment.

Human

rulers

do
to

not

have God's

mercy.

Second,
extent

no external signs are sufficient

for

anyone

know the truth

about

the

to which people come close to the demands made upon them

so

by
to

God. This is

because the demands

made

by
the

God
soul.

go

beyond any behavior

governments

to the smallest movement of a

punish

passion within

For

to

try

heresies

would

be for them to

embark upon endless

terror.

In

regard

to magic,

people are open

to the accusation that

external

they have denied

behavior (12.5).

God

and turned

to magic, however impeccable their

cusations

Similarly, homosexuality by the jealous, or by children and servants. Magic and homosexuality are similar to heresy because they cannot be established by examining the pub
unseen and

is

therefore subject to conjecture or to ac

keep looking behind the public behavior for some evidence of By linking these crimes to heresy, Montesquieu suggests that it is their similarity to heresy which leads to a con tinuous search for some evidence of unseen wrongdoing. Any judgment by rul ers about things which are similar in structure to Christianity in regard to the
lic behavior
of people.

The impulse

occurs to

illicit

actions.

importance
In
that

of

things seen and unseen, especially

search

if their

content

rings

of

Chris

tian precepts, is open to an infinite

respect

for

wrongdoing.

to

heresy,

magic,

and

homosexuality, Montesquieu
governments

can also argue concern

punishment

is inappropriate because
This is

do

not

properly

themselves with such matters.

says

not possible

in

respect

to treason. Mon

it is necessary to be calm and moderate about treason, to tesquieu in respect to actions rather than thoughts or writings, and for define it carefully
that

328

Interpretation

the trial to maintain

dignity
or

actions, not thoughts

decorum. It is particularly in treason that only writings, must be taken into account.
and

Treason is

a crime against
of

the regime itself

which no

is

punished

by
a

the rulers,

the expression
court

the regime at that time. than

This is

less true for be

judge in

in

a modern republic are

it is in

an ancient republic where

judging

and

legislating
of

done

by

the same people.

or election

But, it
that

cannot are

said of

those who ac

quire an office

by

inheritance

they

the regime, as one could

the democrats or

aristocrats of

the ancient republics. There is a distance

be

tween the modern office holder and the law which

defines his

office.

The

ques

up to the standard established by the law is always open. That inevitable distance is difficult to distinguish from its greatest example,
tion
of who

is

living

treason, particularly if there is

pushes us

much suspicion and secrecy.

Christianity,
makes

which

to ask perfection of everyone in

living

up to

standard,

it

pe

culiarly important that treason be prosecuted for actions and with great care. The similarity between political and religious virtue makes it difficult to
prosecute

for treason. That

Christianity
for

demands

an

one's

passions, the

perfection of

the heart whose end

political

unending effort to control is the appropriate dedica

tion to

God, implies
in
life."

the same to

life. Montesquieu differentiates the

kinds

of virtue

order

keep

the demand for perfection whose end is God out

of

of political

In sum, because

the Christian

tendency

to universalize
of

any rule, Montesquieu objected to laws against usury. His consideration

the

difficulties

by

prosecuting for treason was shaped by the similarity understood Christians between political and religious virtue. Christianity, then, required
of

that Montesquieu

be extremely

careful

not

to advocate or even mention any

or

principles which might

mistakenly be applied,

to appeal to

an attractive po

litical

virtue.

CONCLUSION

ters

The Spirit of the Laws is a very difficult book to read. Its many small chap seem to be the pieces of a puzzle whose overall design remains unclear to

the reader.
put

Or,
us.

perhaps each chapter

is

a card

in

deck,

one of whose orders

is

before

Montesquieu invites We

us to

look for the

order

"If
of

one wants

to seek for the author's

are asked

design,

one can

in the book, writing, find it only in the design

which

the

work."18

to search for an order in what appears to be great

disorder. We
seems to

are us

asked

to look for the author's principles in a work the reasons for the

bury

in

a consideration of

differences between

known in his time. Montesquieu seems to promise us a great, uni design for understanding all regimes, and yet readers find themselves im mersed in and fascinated by some specific governments or problems. Mon
every
regime
versal

tesquieu's
17. 18.

fame

comes
1 152

from the impressiveness

of

his

effort and the wisdom of

(Defense). Caillois, II, Caillois, II, 229 (Preface).

Montesquieu'

Perception of his Audience

His
classification of

329
explanation of

some of ance of of

his

sections.

governments,

the bal

power, understanding of criminal law, and history of the development feudal law in France have all been read very carefully. People have argued over the relative importance of the considerations of climate, government,
commerce,
natural

and

history.

They

have

sought

recognizable

argument

for

right.
suggestion

My
used

is that Montesquieu

expected

just this

response

from his

readers.

His first

concern was ask

the

impulse to his

started on with

project.

to get the reader to see the variety of regimes. He for generalizations, for universals to get the reader Montesquieu does not confront his Christian audience
opinions and

the difficulties

its

habits his

of thought make

for

political

life.

Rather, he

attracts that audience with

agreements with

it

and then moves

it

away from the dangers he sees. He takes for his subject matter all regimes. "This work has for its object the laws, the customs, and the different usages of
all

the peoples of the

all the

earth.

One

can

say that the

men
. .

subject

is immense
not

as

it

em

braces

institutions in

received

by

But, he does
variety
of

follow that

universal

concern

with universal rules.

concert and

Rather,
a

the general considerations he

of regimes.

suggests produces
plex

do

not act

lead to his

That variety

further

contemplation and

the possibility

underlying

pattern.

He

agrees with

audience

recognizing a more com that virtue is control of the

ancient republics made

passions and puts virtue as a political principle

in those

impossible

by

Christian

universality.

The dangerous tendency

of

Christians to look
to

universalize

any demand for

virtue

leads Montesquieu to insist

upon our

ing

at circumstances,

at the peculiarities of

time, place,

and

regime,

and

avoid

the virtue of the citizenry as a way of comparing the excellence of re

not

gimes,

necessarily his
life.20

relativism or

his

adherence

to some

lower

standard

for

political

If this teaching is
anchor, the spirit, in
connect center of
contrast

one of prudence rather than relativism, then where

is the

his thought

and of

human

nature?

We have

seen that the a

to

virtue and

the passions,

suggests

in Montesquieu be

way to

the activity in God. If this was Montesquieu's

organized

of a people with a common central

end,

whether with each other or could over

concern, then he

expected

to have
the

his book

around

it. Let
parts

us

look

briefly

back

the Spirit of

Laws
19. 20.

and see

if its division into

137 (Defense).

is illuminated

by

this

suggestion.21

If

Caillois, II,

If this is so, then Montesquieu's

attention

to the

nonpolitical circumstances

is

not clear evi

dence for his standing as a sociologist, as has been argued by: Emile Durkheim, Montesquieu and Rousseau: Forerunners of Sociology (Ann Arbor, Michi
gan:

University

of

Michigan

Press,

1965);

in Main Currents of Sociological Thought (New York: Basic Vol. I, 13-56; Books, Inc., 1965), Indiana: Pur Henry J. Merry, Montesquieu's System of Natural Government (West Lafayette, due University Studies, 1970) is a more recent book in this tradition.
"Montesquieu"

Raymond Aron,

"Introduction"

21.

Cf.

of

Montesquieu, De

I'

Esprit des

Loix,

texte etabli et presente par

Jean

Brethe de La Gressaye (Paris: Societe les Belles

Lettres,

1950), 1-li.

330

Interpretation
of

so, then this discussion

Montesquieu's

rhetoric through

his

perception of

his

audience suggests another perspective on

the Spirit of the Laws.

introduction in Book i, takes up three re gimes, republican, monarchical, and despotic. They are compared in regard to their nature (or source of power), principle (or motive force), education, laws
Part One (Books 1-8),
after the of

the

legislator, judicial
of

process,
stressed

use of

wealth, and size. The

book

on size

exemplifies or

the differences

throughout

in the

small size and

singularity
and

peculiarity

republics, the indeterminate enormousness of

despotisms,

the middle-sized, moderate monarchies. These middle-sized regimes turn out

in

Part Two (Books 9-13) to have

a structure which permits them to range

from
the

monarchies to republics which are as

monarchies are

different from the

old republics as

from any rule by one man considered by Aristotle (11. 9). The differences between the two sets of regimes are emphasized by the books on in
ternational right and taxation. A pattern emerges in
which ancient republics and

both

modern republics and monarchies are compared to consider

despotisms. The

reader

is led to
and

the ground for the distinction between the two sets of regimes

their respective relations to despotism.

with

Only
the

Part Three (Books 14-19) is the

of one government over

reader offered an explanation

for

preferability do

another, among

either the ancients or

the moderns. Climates are distinguished between those which do and those
which with

not require

activity for

survival.

Despotisms

and

slavery

are

identified
without

the formlessness of endless passions. Even survival action,

without

is impossible

some

the action required to impose a

despotism

or slavery.

Ter

rain offers a model

valued,

peculiar

for shaping men by natural circumstances. Singular, highly ways of life are developed in small societies before Christian

ity. Book 19 brings modern France, Spain and England back to mind by comparing the differences in the implications for those peoples and for ancient
peoples of

vanity and pride. Part Four (Books 20-23) does

present

not present commerce as

something new, but

arranged.

it does

it

as

something

which

has become

differently

Like
mod

population, it
ern countries.

seems

to require indirect rather than direct management in

The

ground

has been laid for the discussion

of religion

in Part

Five (Books

is distinguished from other religions on the have discussed. This teaching about the heart and teaching spirit begs for a comparison with that in Part Three. The institution Mon tesquieu picks for his comparison is the family. In Book 26, he sorts out a divi sion of influence between modern governments and in life.
24-26).

Christianity
we

grounds of the

Christianity
"an

family

Part Six (Books 27-31) is once in the world and which

tesquieu says this of the the whole

detailed

exploration of

event that

happened

will perhaps never of

happen

again"

(30.1). Mon
could

development
as

feudalism, but it

be

applied

to
of

group the singular Roman law,

among the

of changes

that created the

modern monarchy.

The decline

it became universal, the

slow growth of a civil

law

Barbarians,

the principles of writing laws for such peoples, the

Montesquieu'

Perception of his Audience

and the revolutions of the

331
make

growth of

feudalism,

French monarchy
see an

up the

concluding part. From this brief

cern with rect

description,

one can

begin to

the change from ancient to

modern

emerging pattern of con governments, from direct to indi

from pagan, or natural, to Christian spirits. In describing the organization of this book in this way, we have seen the possibility arise of a distinction between ancient and modern spirits. The question we set aside at the
government,

beginning

of

this paper, the question of Montesquieu's own

belief,

arises again

here. Now, we are led to put the question of Montesquieu's intent in this way: Did Montesquieu turn toward the spirit as a way of moving Christian opinion toward another, even an ancient, view of the human soul and its relation to po
litical

life,

or

did he

see a

way

of

Thomistic

control of

the passions

with

combining a higher view of politics than the Christianity? The first step in answering between the
natural and

this question would

be to

work out a comparison

Chris

tian

spirit.

This

would require

Such from

a comparison would each spirit.

going back to Books 14, 18, 23, 24, 25, and 26. suggest the familial and political forms which follow
who emerges

The Montesquieu
who was

from this

approach

is

a thinker

of awesome

man excellence while

impartiality facing

trying

to

understand

the possibilities for hu

the

implications

of modernity.

Ethics

and

Politics in the Work

of

Jurgen Habermas

A. Anthony Smith
Iowa State

University

Political philosophy is
categories appropriate

more

than ethical theory. It must attempt to formulate

to partisan struggles for power, situations in which eth

ical

considerations cannot

be the

exclusive

focus

of attention.

What, then, is

the role of ethical

of

theory in

political philosophy?

Jurgen Habermas, the

on

most significant

This essay explores the view contemporary German political phi

losopher,
In
will

this

issue.
Habermas'

section

I,

ethical

be

sketched.

In

section

II the

theory, termed a "communicative ethics", problem for political theory of the relation
be introduced through
a

of

ship of ethics to power how this issue was

and

considerations will confronted

discussion

by

two earlier German political theorists,

will

G. F. W. Hegel
emerges within

Max Weber. It then

own

be

shown

how this

problem

Habermas'

theoretical

framework. Two

arguments

Haber

mas presents ations will

for the

"priority"

of section

his

communicative ethic over power consider

arguments attempt

be dissected in is
a

III. These

to show that the

exercise of power

tively

established norms. compelling.

derivative phenomenon, dependent upon communica It will be argued that neither of these arguments ulti
section a third argument

mately is
argument

In the final

is

considered.

This

differs from the

earlier two

factors. But it
mas'

concludes nonetheless

in granting the nonderivability of power that the principles formulated in Haber

communicative ethic provide a

foundation for is worthy

an adequate political
of our attention.

the

ory.

It is

suggested

that this final

argument

I.

HABERMAS'

COMMUNICATIVE ETHIC

Jurgen Habermas is the

"Frankfurt
School"

leading

of social
referred

theory.1

contemporary representative of the so-called The members of the Frankfurt School

work as

from the

to some standard. And the earlier thinkers of the only be face the question of normative standards adequately. Frankfurt School failed to therefore neglected to articulate a satisfactory foundation for their social

beginning made by reference

to their

"critical

theory"

But

criticism can

They

critiques.2

Jurgen Habermas has

realized

this and

has devoted
he has

great effort to-

I
this

would
article.

like to thank Professor Richard Howard, for the

discussion

help

given me

in the writing

of

i.
prior

For

of

Horkheimer, Adorno,
form
of

and

the other members of the

Frankfurt School

to Habermas see Martin Jay's The Dialectical Imagination (Boston:

Little, Brown, 1973.)

2.

Their

critique

took the

claim to fulfill values such as

liberty,

showing that liberal bourgeois society could not meet its own or equality. The problem with this procedure is that when

334
wards

Interpretation
working
out a normative

foundation for

critical

social

theory.

The

foundation, he claims, is to be found in a "communicative of this communicative ethic will be presented in the remainder
For Habermas, the
critical social normative standard which serves as the
"universalizable"

The
of

outline

this section.
a

foundation for

theory is that

"generalizable"

of the

or

interests

of the members of society.

This

option

for

a principle of

universalizability, he

claims, does

not rest on a subjective and

it is "built

into"

the

structure of

ultimately irrational decision. Instead communication. Briefly, Habermas derives this

claims,"

principle through an explication of conceptual connections notions:

"communicative
and

action,"

"discourse,"

"validity
of
universalizability."3

among the following "ideal speech

situation,"

"principle

In

communicative social ac

tion, validity
ground

claims are made.

The

acceptance of

these

claims

forms

"back

without which

the

language
only
as

game

in

question would cease

to

function. These

claims are accepted

long

as the participants

find it

plausible

to assume that

they

could

be

shown

to be worthy of recognition were

they

to be called into question. When this assumption

is

no

longer present, then

made to a

either the communication

breaks down

or an

immanent transition is it

discourse
mentation.

situation

in

which

the validity of the claims is tested through argu

If this

argumentation

is to be

rational

as and

must

be, if

the

distinc is to
un

tion

between "the force

discourse

of the

better

argument"

"argument

by

force"

be

respected

then an ideal speech situation

within which

is

anticipated.

And in

an

coerced

an

ideal

speech

situation

is

anticipated

only
the

those claims

which

embody

generalizable

interests
"

would

be

agreed

upon.
on

Hence
one ated

there

is

hand,

and

nonarbitrary link benveen "communicative the "principle of universalizability, on the other,

a

action,"

link

medi

by

an analysis of an made

immanent

connection

essarily discourse.

in

communication and

between the validity claims nec the testing of those claims in uncoerced
compelling.

Many
more

may

not

find this

argument

immediately
is
not

Let

us examine

closely the two

and

key

propositions which

Habermas

must establish:

(i) The

anticipation of an

ideal

speech situation

sion,

(2) The

ethical principle of

merely arbitrary deci is "built speech universalizability

on a
into"

based

which anticipates an

ideal

speech situation.

Proposition (2) is
pants would agree

unproblematic.

In

discourse

without coercion the partici

only to

proposals and evaluations

in their interest. And

so

any

consensus reached would

be

an expression of generalizable
Habermas'

interests. It is

proposition

(1), then,
a

upon which

argument rests.

Habermas'

efforts to establish proposition

(1)

rest on a unique sort of argu

with

ment,

with

unique

structure

and

most

importantly

conclusions

bourgeois society entered its positivistic phase in which these values were no longer referred to, the basis for the critique was lost. See Habermas' discussion of Adorno in Philosophisch-politische Profile (Frankfort: Suhrkamp, 1973).
3.

Cf.

Habermas'

article

"What is Universal
1979) for
a

Pragmatics?"

in Communication

and the

Evolution

of Society (Boston: Beacon

Press,

fuller discussion.

Ethics
which

and

Politics in

the

Work of Jurgen Habermas

can

335
("you

claim

a unique status.

We

term this argument

a tu quoque

argument."

also")

Let

us

suppose that someone some more or

imagining

is attempting to refute less involved counter-example (a typical

Habermas'

thesis

by

pastime of

philosophers!) in

which the ideal speech situation is not presupposed. Haber I mas, think, would claim that his thesis that an ideal speech situation is antici pated in all communicative speech can be defended and rationally affirmed

prior

to

hearing

the results of the

counter-examples.

This

can

be done

ingenuity simply by

of philosophers

in constructing
whereby
no

considering the

process

the philosophers who

vince their colleagues

had imagined the

counter-example would attempt to con

Habermas'

that it indeed constituted

a refutation of

tion of the ideal speech situation.

A It

refutation can
of

be

undertaken

only through the

a speaker
a

presentation of arguments. about a change

is,

course, always possible for

to

bring

in the

at

titude of his or her audience towards

thesis through the threat of force. Ordi

such a process of manipu as a refutation

nary usage, however, quite correctly refuses to term lation a An argument which is to count
"refutation."

brings

with

it

a claim

to be rationally compelling.

Or, in

other

words, it is

an argument

which ment which

would

be

accepted

in

situation

where

the force of the better argu

and not argument

by

force

prevails. an

the description

of

the structure of

And it is precisely this situation ideal speech situation attempts to

explicate. speech

Thus any

attempt at

refuting the

notion of an anticipation of an
must

ideal

situation

which, qua refutation,

anticipation.

be

presented

as

an

argument

itself presupposes that

mas'

Of

course

this does not

mean

that Haber
of

theory
open

of

the ideal speech situation cannot be revised in the sense

to proposals for clearer

formulations,
be

or conceptualizations which

being bring
to

out aspects neglected

Habermas'

in

Habermas'

account.

It

means

instead that the because any

general

point of

thesis cannot

revised or refuted

attempt

do

so

itself

presupposes what

it

set out to question.

So far,

all

that has been

established

through

Habermas'

tu quoque argument

is that rationally presenting an argument involves the presupposition of an an ticipated ideal speech situation. Could not one grant that on the level of argu
mentation

the ideal
of

speech situation

indeed is anticipated, but that the

a
nonrational

move to other

the

level

argumentation

itself involves be formulated

decision? In
that

words, a new

objection might

which might state

if

one

is in

of argumentation, then the ideal speech situation may in deed be anticipated, but in presupposing that we are in this language game Habermas has begged the question. For argumentation is surely not the only language game. And so the tu quoque argument has at best a restricted signifi

the language game

cance: other

it does

not establish the relevance of

game

the ideal

speech situation

to any

language
are

besides that
with

of argumentation.

We
4.

already familiar
used

Habermas'

reply to this

objection

from the

pre-

Habermas

this

term in the course of a discussion later printed in

ed.

Materialien

zur

Normendiskussion, Vol. I,

W. Oelmuller (Paderbom: Schoningh,

1978).

336

Interpretation

ceding discussion.
cation occurs sus

Any functioning

language

game

that

is, any language

consen

game within which an exchange of speech acts presupposes a

takes place such that communi

background

consensus.

That background

immutable order; for any number of reasons it may break down. When it does break down, if the communication is to be reestablished, that which was taken for granted before must then be made a subject for discus is
not part of an

sion and argument. nent

connection

Thus any

functioning
game

language

game always

has

an

imma
speech

to the language
"principle"

of argumentation.

The ideal
structure
"choice"

situation

and the

of universalization

built into its

does
that al

not rest upon

ways

any arbitrary choice that we make, beyond the has already been made for us to be communicating beings:
who

Anyone

does

not

participate, or is

not

ready to

participate

in

argumentation

"already"

stands nevertheless

in

contexts of communicative action.

In

doing

so,

he has already naively

raised sively.

recognized the

validity

claims

that are

contained would

in

speech acts and that can

however counterfactually be redeemed only discur

Otherwise he language

have had to detach himself from the communicatively everyday

practice.
s

established

game of

We may Premise

summarize

the discussion thus far

with

the

following
is
not

argument:

I:

The

anticipation of an

ideal

speech situation

based

on an

arbitrary decision. Premise 2: A

cation

"principle"

of

universalizability is built into the

communi

anticipating an ideal speech situation. Conclusion: Therefore the acceptance of a

not

principle of universaliz

ability is Premise
1

arbitrary

and

based

on mere

decision.
the

is justified

by

the fact that

an anticipation of

ideal
2

speech situa

tion is built into the structure of all communication.

Premise be

follows from the only to

what

fact that in
was

an uncoerced speech situation participants would agree

in their interest, eralizable interests. Armed

vided a
with

so

any

consensus reached would

an expression of gen

this principle of

universalizability Habermas feels he has

The
principle of

pro

foundation for

critical social theory.

universalizability interests
of

provides a standard which allows

which

the theorist to critique those social systems in

reasons

for

structural

(noncontingent)
(a
set which

the generalizable

its
all

members are not met class societies).

he

as a neo-Marxist

feels includes
be

The

ultimate

ined

here.6

cogency of Habermas communicative Instead we shall be concerned with

ethic will not

exam

Habermas'

attempt to extend

5.

Legitimation Crisis in Late Capitalism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1975)

and
Habermas,"

159 (henceforth
and

"LC").

icism,

6. See my "Values in the Social Science of Weber vol. 8 no. 1, for a detailed analysis of

Habermas'

Philosophy

Social Crit

communicative ethic.

Ethics
the
ory.

and

Politics in the Work of Jurgen Habermas

of

337

force

of

the principle
claims

universalizability beyond

the realm of ethical the

principle

For he

that his communicative ethic provides the first

for

philosophy as well. As was noted at the beginning of this paper, the political realm is intimately tied up with considerations of power. Therefore even if we grant for the sake of argument that communi
an adequate political
Habermas'

cative ethic as

is

adequate as an ethical

theory

further

question

is

posed as soon

Habermas
In the

claims a

specifically

political relevance

for his theory: How does

Habermas'

this

ethical viewpoint relate next section

to power considerations?
response

the attempt will be made to situate

to

this question within the

German tradition
and

of political theory. will

Two

of

his

prede

cessors, G. F. W. Hegel

the question of the relation

gent conclusions.
mas'

Max Weber, between ethics

be discussed.

They

both faced diver

Haber

and

politics, arriving

at quite

Then

we shall show

how this issue

emerges within

own

framework.

II. ETHICS AND POLITICS IN HEGEL AND WEBER

A. Hegel

A tension between

ethics and politics

is thematized in Hegel's

writings.

This

tension can be approached from two angles. On the one hand the politically
powerful often enough are

precisely those

with

the least developed

moral sensi

bility, for
Passions,
private aims, and the satisfaction of self

desires,

are

the most

effective springs of action.

Their
and

the limitations

which

justice

lies in the fact that they morality would impose on

power

respect none of

them.7

On the

other

hand the

most virtuous political

individuals

and peoples often enough

have "the

suffered

tragic

fates in

history, leading
victimized."8

Hegel to

call

history

slaughter-bench at which

the happiness of peoples, the wisdom of states, and

the virtue of individuals have been

affairs

Reflection

on

this state of

disgust"

easily leads to "intolerable

rejects

of

the

political realm.

Hegel, however,
that "it is
not

this

standpoint.

He

says of

this

feeling

of

disgust

the interest of such

sentimentalities

pressing emotions;
tions that

and to solve the enigmas of

really to rise above those de Providence which the considera it is this task
of

occasioned

them

present."9

In his

view

solving the

Providence"

"enigmas
cepts this
real
side

of
challenge:

that must

"Philosophy
idea,

wishes

be faced. And it is philosophy which ac to discover the substantial purport, the

of

the divine

and

to

justify

the so

much

despised reality
p. 20.

of

7.

G. F. W. Hegel, The
p.

Philosophy

of History (N.Y.: Dover, 1956),

8. Ibid.,
9.

21. 21.

Ibid.,

p.

338

Interpretation

things."10

Specifically, Hegel feels

of

that he has

resolved

these enigmas in

his

philosophy between ethics

history. When
and politics

history is properly grasped, he asserts, the tension is transcended: "The insight then to which phi
. . .

losophy is to lead us, is, that the real world is as it ought to be that the truly is not a mere abstraction, but a vital prin good the universal divine reason
ciple capable of

The

core of

How does Hegel justify this conclusion? realizing Hegel's philosophy is found in his dialectical metaphysics. The
metaphysics

itself."11

basic thought behind this

is that

realism

(the

view

that universals
opposed meta

have independent existence,

physical

are

"real")
are

and nominalism

(the

position

that universals

mere

names, that

concrete

individuals
which

alone are

real)

are

both equally

one-sided.

For Hegel, "the true is the whole",

that

is,

the true consists

of universals and

the concrete

individuals in is

they

are manifested

taken together as a dialectical unity-in-difference: "The union of

universal abstract existence

generally

with

the individual

truth."12

The

political realm

is

not an exception to
universal

this reconciliation of universal and

moment

individual. Hegel's term for the

in

history
in in this

is the "World history. The

the the

Spirit",

while

individuals here

are the particular epochs

world

thesis of the

unity
of

of universal and

individual thus
world

means

context that
.

development

the

history
has

of

the

"has been

a rational process

history
Spirit

in

question

constituted

the

rational

necessary

course of the World-

that Spirit whose nature

is

always one and

of

the same, but which unfolds

existence."13

this its one nature in the phenomena

the world's

From this
new

perspective

the

"tension"

between

ethics and politics

takes on

light. We
of

can return to

the two instances

of

that tension

mentioned at

the
vic

beginning
toriously
is
world

the present subsection. Hegel's term for those who have stood
the political stage while

upon

being

motivated
a

by

"immoral"

passions mistake

historical individuals. He insists that it is

to such people. With these
particular aims

category

to apply

moral categories

individuals,

the adequate

viewpoint

is to

see

how their "own

involve those large issues

may
often

which are

the will of the

noxious

World-Spirit."14

Their

conduct still

have been "ob

to moral

reprehension."15

But

nonetheless

they

were

thinking

men, who had an insight into the requirements of the time

. .

what was ripe

for development.

It

was

theirs to know

the necessary,

directly
There
naught
io. II. 12. 13141516.

sequent

step in progress,

which their world was to

it.16

take;

to make this their

aim, and to expend their

remains

energy in promoting

to be considered cases

in

which

in the
PP-

realm of political

activity.

ethically superior come to Here Hegel distinguishes a merely

the

Ibid.,
Ibid.. Ibid.. Ibid.. Ibid..
,

p. 36. 36

25
10

Ibid..

p.

P- 30

p. 32,
p. 30

Ibid.,

Ethics

and

Politics in the Work of Jurgen Habermas

a

339

"subjective"

from

"true

substantial"

and

standpoint.

If

one's ethical convic

tions are of merely

from the

political

individual significance, then one indeed can be alienated realm. But if one's principles are reconciled with the univer
world

sal principle existence

governing be
of

history,

then

they "will inevitably

will

attain actual

realized."17

Only
a

then is the subjective

will."18

"true", for
does

"Truth

is the unity
it
exists

the universal

and subjective

In summary, for Hegel

tension between

ethics and politics

exist.

But

only is

on

the

level

of the
a

the

level

of world

history,

merely level which is for Hegel

subjective attitudes of
"higher"

individuals. On
and

"truer",

this

tension

overcome:

They

who on moral

grounds,

and

that which the advance of the spiritual

moral worth

consequently with noble intention, have resisted idea makes necessary, stand higher in
have been turned into the
of
means

than those

whose crimes

under

the direction of a superior principle

realizing the

purposes of that principle.

But in

such revolutions

both

parties

generally
and
.

stand within the

limits

of the same

circle of
rectitude

transient and corruptible existence.

deserted

by

the

living

Spirit

Consequently it is only a formal by God which those who stand

claims that are

upon ancient right and order maintain. not

Moral

irrelevant,
and

must

be brought into
The

collision with world-historical

deeds

and their accomplish

ment.

litany

of private virtues

modesty,
them.19

humility, philanthropy

for

bearance

must not

be

raised against

B. Weber Weber's
sion. political

theory,

no

less than Hegel's, has

a metaphysical

dimen
reject

But the

metaphysics

implicit in Weber's

view

fundamentally

Hegel's belief in "Providence". It is based instead "the

ethical

upon what

Weber terms

irrationality
human

of

the

world".20

On this

view

the cosmos is ultimately that

indifferent to human

moral effects.

There

are no metaphysical guarantees

in the

course of

history

the

ethical and

the political ultimately will

be
an

reconciled.

In fact, just the

of

opposite

is the

case.

Ethical

irrationality

is

intrinsic feature
"Public
ments
.

the

political realm:
surrender of rigorous ethical require

political
.

activity leads to
to the

[great]

since political and

activity is
to the

oriented

to

average

human qualities, to
suspect
goals."21

com

promises, to craft, people, and

employment of other

ethically

devices

and

thereby

oriented

relativization of all

devices"

Chief among these "ethically suspect Weber it is violence which defines the political
17. 18. 19.
20. 21.

is the

use of

force. Indeed for

sphere:

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

Gerth

p. 24. p. 39p.

67.

and

Mills,

eds., From Max Weber (N.Y.: Oxford U.

and

Press, 1958),
1968),

p.

122.

Max Weber,

Economy

Society

(N.Y.: Bedminster

Press,

p. 593.

340

Interpretation
essential

It is absolutely
nal enemies.

violence of coercive means

for every political association to appeal to the naked in the face of outsiders as well as in the face of inter

sociation of the

in

our terminology.
use

It is only this very appeal to violence that constitutes a political as The state is an association that claims the monopoly
of violence,
and cannot

legitimate

be defined in any

other

manner.22

Since "the very

success of

force,

or

the threat of

force, depends ultimately

upon

power relations and not on ethical

"right',

even were one

to believe it possible

to discover objective criteria for such

'right',23

the conclusion that must

be

drawn from
apparatus
ethics."24

an ethical perspective

is "the theoretical insight that the

provide a place

political
rational

of

force

could

not

possibly

for

Based

upon

this analysis Weber concludes

with

(a)

that the political realm is in an

irresolvable tension
any

the ethical sphere, and

(b)

that

"power"

rather

than

ethical principle must

be the

ultimate

rizing.

In his

view one

is forced to

choose

category between

employed

in

political theo

an apolitical ethics or an

amoral politics: should not seek politics can

"He

who seeks

the salvation of the soul, of his own and others,

of

it along the avenue only be solved by

politics, for the

25

quite

different tasks

of

violence"

III. HABERMAS ON THE ALLEGED

"PRIORITY"

OF

COMMUNICATIVE ACTION OVER STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF POWER

Habermas follows Weber in his

rejection of

the idea of an immanent logic in

history unfolding itself with rational Hegelian idea that the tension between
tions is somehow
neither

necessity.26

He therefore

also rejects

the

ethical values and political power rela

automatically overcome on the level of world history. But Weber's dismissal of ethical considerations from the po litical realm. As was stated above, Habermas feels that his communicative ethic provides a foundation for a specifically political standpoint. How would he re
does he
accept spond to the priate

Weberian thesis that he is wrong

theory?
response

here,

that

"power"

is the

appro

first
a

principle of political

In

first

that the principle of

mentally.

reply that the tu quoque argument established universalizability cannot be rejected or even revised funda
might

he

But

a close re-examination of cannot

op.

gest

that this

defense

be

the tu quoque argument seems to sug made here. The tu quoque argument works only

22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

From Max Weber,

cit., p. 334.

Ibid.,

p. 334. and

Economy

Society,
op.

op. cit., p. 593.

From Max Weber,

Habermas'

cit., p. 126.
assertion of this point
und

most

explicit
urn

osophischen

Diskussion

Marx

den

Marxismus"

is found in "Literaturbericht zur philin Theorie und Praxis (Frankfort: Suhr

kamp,

1971).

Ethics
within

and

Politics in the Work of Jurgen Habermas

341

the context of communicative action.

of

municating

these claims

Someone who is authentically com necessity makes certain validity claims whose very sense is that could be defended in a discourse anticipating an ideal speech situa
to be
called

tion,
pants

were

they

into

question.

In

an uncoerced

discourse the
any

partici

would agree

only to

what was

in their

interest,

and so

consensus

reached would

embody

generalizable

interests. And
communication,

so a principle of univer even

salizability is

presupposed within all

the communication

of those whose

intention is to
It is

reject or revise that principle.

But in

power

strug

gles whatever communication might exist

is

not oriented

towards the attainment

of a rational consensus. not want

to convince

instead to success, to victory. One does the other, but to defeat him or her. Rather than implicitly
oriented

presupposing the principle of generalizable interests, the person or group en gaged in power struggles explicitly and consistently negates the interest of the
opponents

ment

has

no

in their victory and avoidance force in this context.

of

defeat. Hence the

tu quoque argu

It

often of a

is

asserted

that Habermas is not aware of this

'praxis'

difficulty,
were

that he is

guilty

"reduction

of

to

communication."27

If this

the case his

political

be worthy of further consideration. This inter pretation, however, is quite mistaken. For example, in referring to the institu tionalization of discourse which he advocates Habermas writes "that such insti philosophy
would not

tutionalizations
of

have

not

been themselves the

struggles, is

result of

discourses but

rather

struggles, normally
of what

of class

trivial."28

This fact

points to

the

necessity

Habermas terms
towards

strategic action

in the is

political

realm, an

action-type oriented

success rather

than

mutual understanding.

In the

formulation

of tactics

to attain success the

"other"

"other"

not one with whom one one struggles

with

communicates.

Here the
of

is

one

against whom

"declaration
strategic

...

the

temporary incapacity
strategic action

for dialogue
. . .

on

the part of the

excluded

opponent."29

In

"the

opponent

has been

by

the

breaking

off of

communication."30

Within

Habermas'

own

thought, then, the

the

tension emerges

between

power

consideration ethic).

(strategic action)

and ethical considerations

(his

communicative
order

This

presents

him

with

following

theoretical task. In

to main
a specif

tain that his

communicative ethic provides an adequate

foundation for

ically
action

political

theory, Habermas feels that he

must show

that communicative
next
con

shall

has priority over strategic action within the political realm. We discuss two arguments by means of which he attempts to draw this
one on a
microsociological

clusion,

plane

and

one

on

macrosociological

27. 108. 28.

Connerton, Paul: The Tragedy of

Enlightenment (N.Y.: Cambridge U.

Press,

1980),

p.

(Henceforth "RHM")
29.

Zur Rekonstruktion des historischen Materialismus (Frankfort: Translations from the German are my own.

Suhrkamp,

1976),

p.

331

Theory
Ibid.,

and

Practice (Boston: Beacon

Press,

1973).

P-

39 (henceforth "TP").

30.

p. 38-

342
level.31

Interpretation
Both
of these arguments maintain
point yet more

that strategic action is derived

from be

(or,

to put the

strongly, is

parasitic

upon)

communicative action.

On

a microsociological
. . .

level Habermas built

we

writes

that "the

family

cannot

action."

even pictured as a

network of strategic which are

gests

that "Life relations

around

This, he concludes, sug direct understanding in a cer

of an argument which might

tain sense are

fundamental."32

Here

have hints

be

reconstructed as

follows:
of the

The formation

identity

"self"

of a

can occur

only

within a con

text of communicative action (institutions such as the

context).

family

provide

this

2.

Since to

act

tion presupposes the

3.

strategically is to act in one's se//-interest, formation of the identity of a

"self."

strategic ac

Therefore,

communicative action

is in this

sense prior

to strategic

action.

The first

proposition

is

an

empirical

hypothesis

which

can

be

assumed

true

here. The
sion

second proposition

is

tautology. Given these premises the conclu

established

indeed follows. But

what

is

by

such an argument?

The

argu

ment provides

catively.

compelling reasons for parents to treat their children communi But does it provide reasons for these same parents to grant

"priority"

to communicative action when

situation
oriented

they

themselves act in the

world?

In

a conflict

among

adults

in

which with

a choice

is

required

between

communication

towards consensus

the other and strategies oriented towards suc

cess against the

other, this argument seems quite irrelevant.

In

other writings

Habermas

admits

as

much.

He

writes

that on a

micro-

sociological

level in

contexts outside

the private sphere of the

one can view

family

it

appears

that the "decisionism

problematic"

remains, that
action."33

tween consensual and strategic

But in his

simply "choose be "this appearance is

proceeds

an artifact of a manner of consideration which

individualistically

from
small

the modes of action

groups."

of

isolated individuals

and contractual

behavior in

His fundamental argument for the priority of communicative action, then, lies on the macrosociological plane: "that also individuals in situations rich in political consequences cannot arbitrarily choose between the orientation
of a consensual or a strategic actor

becomes

clear as soon as whole social sys

tems are taken as the point of reference for

cannot

analysis."

This is because "Societies

and norms of ac
ac-

indefinitely

replace

intersubjectively
legitimation

valid

institutions

tion

obviously in
The

need of

with maxims of purposeful -rational

31.

systematic employment of sociological considerations

is characteristic

Habermas'

of

political philosophy.

32. These remarks are found in Materialien, op. cit. They were made in response to queries from Thomas McCarthy, who was the first to remark on the importance of showing the priority of communicative action for the coherence of Habermas' position.

33.

RHM,

p. 340.

The

following

quotations are

from

the same passage.

Ethics
tion
.

and

Politics in
means

the
on

Work of Jurgen Habermas

the

343
possibility
of

This

that

level

of social

systems that

choice which exist:

to a certain extent we may grant to

of

individuals normally doesn't

forms

the

possibility

deciding

between

consensual and nonconsensual

regulation."

of conflict

With His
i

what

argument

does Habermas
in the in

attempt to establish this conclusion?

argument can
.

be

reconstructed

following
depends

steps.
upon power.

The

success sought

strategic action

This

proposi

tion may
2.

be

granted at political

once.34

On the

level

power

is

not the

fundamental
Power is

reality.

For "the

politi

cal system cannot

dispose

of power at will.

a good

for

which political a cer

groups compete and with which political

leadership disposes,

but both in

tain way
powerful

find this good, they do not produce it. That is they must borrow their power from the
"production"

the weakness of the

producers."35

3.

This

of power occurs

through the

bestowing

of recognition.

"Strategic disputes concerning political power have neither called forth nor con tinued the institutions in which they are anchored. Political institutions do not live from power, but from
recognition."36

4.

This

recognition

in turn depends
the

upon an acceptance of certain cultural

norms

in terms

of which are

political order can

be legitimated. For "When

binding
of
wise

decisions

legitimate,
force
carried
must

that

is,

when

they

are

made

independent
of those

concretely
regularly

exercised
can

and

manifestly threatened sanctions and like

even

be

through

against the
as

interests

concerned nized

then

they

be

able

to

count

the

fulfilling
realm.

of

recog

norms."37

5.

These

cultural norms

do

not reside

in

some

Platonic

"They have
the level

concrete significance
of

only for acting

on

subjects who meet one another on

intersubjectivity."38

6. Finally, to have validity

be thought to be
tive
and capable of

the level of
agreed upon

intersubjectivity
in

the norms must

being

communication.

"This

norma

validity distinct from power defend it against critique in

attempts

rests on a given

the belief that one can

case."39

justify

the norm

Habermas thus

to establish that communicative action is prior to

"power"

strategic action through

mental

"legitimation."

as

that of

is not showing that the reality of His conclusion follows from the

as

funda

above six

premises:

34.

In

strategic situations

the balance

of power

asymmetrically divided;
of

then one side can

or

hinder the

determines the results, for "normally, power is other in the (strategically effective) following
own

their

own

interests,
oder

the one side can

force their

interests

other."

on

the

Theorie der

Gesellschaft
35. 36. 37.
38. 39.

Sozialtechnologie? (Frankfort: Suhrkamp, 1971), p. 252 (henceforth "TdG"). Politik, Kunst, Religion (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1978), p. 120 (henceforth "PKR").
p.

Ibid.,

117.

TdG, Ibid.,
Ibid.
,

p. 244. p. p.

251.
244.

344
Social

Interpretation
systems therefore cannot

do

without

taking up

normative

validity

claims

(which according to their sense are only redeemable discursively alone) as need demands. They cannot repress the legitimation problems which result from the

implicitly
getting

rational structure of

linguistically

mediated

interaction

without

be

negative

consequences.40

On the

political

level, then,

the power required for successfully engaging in

strategic action ognition

is

not an ultimate phenomenon. communicative

.

It instead is derived from

argument

rec

begotten in

interaction If this

for the priority

of communicative action
political

works, then there

are good reasons rather

philosophy

within which

universalizability,

for constructing a than power, is the

Rather than

first

principle.

Habermas'

argument,

however, is
need

not sufficient

as

it

stands.

having
all

established

the priority of communicative action over strategic action,

that he has

shown

is the

for

justification

of

authority

within social

systems.

He has

not yet shown

that the principle of

especially

relevant

in this

context.

To the

extent an

that a normative

universalizability need be framework is

division
of need made stable as a result of
not

successfully
satisfaction,

established

which

legitimates

asymmetrical

structural power

is instituted

and can

be

functioning
play any
Structural
Structural

ideologies. Here the

ethical principle of

universalizability does

role.

As Habermas writes,
is
embedded

power

in

political not as

institutions (and

not

only in them). form

and grow

power manifests

itself

power; much more it unnoticeably blocks

convictions

those communications
. .

in

which

legitimation-effective

In systematically
produce

restricted communication

the participants

subjectively form

convictions without manifest

force, but

convictions which are as soon as

illusionary; thereby

they

communicatively

a power which

it is institutionalized

also can

be

applied against the participants

themselves.41

Thus

"legitimation"

while

"overt

power,"

Habermas'

level may be more fundamental than be a form "structural itself may of first reply to this turn of the argument would be that this achieve
on the political

it

power."

ment

is

always

potentially

unstable:

Were the

systematic restrictions on communication

loosened,

then the partici

pating individuals and groups could come to the consciousness that ersatz satisfactions are bound up with the accepted legitimations through which re pressed needs not licensed by the institutionalized values were

virtualized.42

But this

potential

is

not enough.

And

so

Habermas

points to what

he

considers

structural mechanisms

leading

to an actual

"loosening."

This

move

is found in
while

his theory
the
past

of

legitimation

crisis.

Briefly,

Habermas'

argument
might

is that

in

the structural power of

ideologies

have been effective, in

con-

40.
41. 42.

RHM, p. 341. PKR, p. 121. TdG, p. 259.

Ethics

and

Politics in the Work of Jurgen Habermas

there are reasons to think that this is
no

345 longer the

case.

temporary
The

societies

attempt

to construct a political
not

universalizability, therefore, is

contemporary
prone

social

system crisis.

philosophy whose operative principle is based on a merely arbitrary decision. For a based on any other principle is systematically
of

to

legitimation
presents

Habermas
of structural

his theory

legitimation

crisis within a general

a

theory
crisis-

tendencies to crisis in late capitalism,

and cultural

theory

which

distinguishes

economic, political,

forms

of crisis.

Neither

of the

first two

forms

need overcome structural power.

Habermas
rather

points out

that the present economic crisis has had a

members of

disciplining
conservative

radicalizing effect on the West Germany and the United States,

tendencies on the part of labor

than a

industrial

societies such as

an effect manifested
countries.43

in the

in these

He has
cies.

come to similar conclusions with respect to political crisis tenden

Caught between
the

the

the collective capitalist

conflicting demands of individual capitalist interests, interest in the continued functioning of the system as a

whole,

and

need

to

keep

up the

appearance that the state

functions "for the

people,"

the rationality of state administrative decisions breaks down. Rational

administrative

ity

deficits in
of

decisions then lead

to a

disorganization in the

lifespheres

the members of the polity. But:

and unemployment mark

Bankruptcy
risk

for the

nonfulfillment of

unambiguously recognizable thresholds of functions. The disorganization of areas of life moves, And it is difficult to say where the thresholds the perception of what is still tolerated and intolerable
can of

in contrast, along a tolerance lie and to is already disorganized

of what

continuum. what extent

experienced as

be

adapted

to

an

increasingly

environment.44

This brings
manifested

us

back to the be

notion of structural power.

It is
soon

structural as

power,

in

convictions,"

"illusionary
applied against whose workers

"which

as

it is institu It is
struc

themselves."

tionalized tural
power

also can
when

the participants
suffer

lives

from the

consequences

of

economic crisis are

disciplined in their

wage

demands
are

rather than radicalized.

"disorganized"

It is
as
a

structural power when those whose

result

lives

increasingly

of political

decisions

made

to further capital accumulation react

with

tolerance.45

Habermas'

theory
power

of

legitimation

crisis

is intended to

establish

that structural

quite
ment

in contemporary society. He presents a case. The presupposition of this argu this elaborate argument in making is that a legitimation crisis will result if the motives of social actors are

does

not

"have the last

word"

"dysfunctional"

sufficiently
43. 44.
45.

for the

social system

in

question.

Legitimation

cri-

Cf. the interview

with

Habermas

published

in Telos,

Spring

1979,

no. 39.

LC,

p.

26.
power'

What Habermas terms "structural

usually is termed "ideological

hegemony"

in

Marxist literature.

346
sis

Interpretation
upon
motivation
crisis.46

is based It

This

presupposition

being

granted, the

steps of the argument are as

follows.47

must

be

shown

that

established

forms in

of motivation which are

which structural power

"func

tional"

(that

convictions"

is,
are

the

manifested)
2.

"illusionary losing their force.

shown
not

has been

It

must

be

that new forms

of motivation

are are

being

established

which are not

only

functional for the

social system

but

actually dysfunc

tional, and 3. It must be

which are must

shown

that there are no other forms of motivation established

sense of

functional in the
that
even

maintaining existing
of

structural

power,

or

it

be

shown

if

convictions"

"illusionary
less than that

remain their

motivating

force is for
tablished in

structural reasons

the dysfunctional motivations es

step (2).
not space

There is

here to

examine

(1) in detail. An

Habermas'

example of of

argumentation

is the

claim

that the "achievement

of

ideology"

has broken down in the face

power rather education

the

increasing

recognition of the

early capitalism fact that social

school

than achievement

determines

market

success, that formal

is

mented and

in any direct correspondence to vocational success, that "frag monotonous labor processes are increasingly penetrating even those
not an

sectors

in

which

identity

could

previously be formed through the

occupa

role,"

tional tion

and status

that welfare measures have "weakened the spurs to competi

strata."48

for

in the lower

Proposition

(2)

also will

be

assumed
of

for the

sake of

the argument. Habermas

that moral

takes as established the

opment culminates

hypothesis
directed

Piaget

and

Kohlberg49

devel

in

"postconventional"

stage.

This

postconventional stage

is

characterized

by

action
and

by

universalistic principles.

Modern

natural

law,
For

utilitarianism,

Kantian be

ethics all provide such universalistic principles.

reasons that will not

explored

here, however, Habermas

incapable
of

asserts that

only

46.

"Only

rigid

sociocultural

system,

being
of

needs of

the administrative system, could explain a

gitimation crisis.
either with

A legitimation

crisis can

sharpening be predicted only if

must

randomly functionalized for the legitimation difficulties into a le be fulfilled

system, are

expectations that cannot

the available quantity of value or, generally, with rewards

produced.

conforming to the

systematically
a

A legitimation crisis, then,

need

be based

on a motivation crisis

that
and

is,
the
on

discrepancy

between the

for

motives

declared

by

the state, the educational system

occupational system on
other."

the one

hand,

and the motivation supplied

by

the sociocultural system til

under

the

LC,

pp.

74~75-

Both legitimation

crisis and motivation crisis

the

general

heading
47.

of cultural crisis

forms.
be
mentioned as well:

methodological presupposition should

"In coordinating

motiva

tional patterns with stable traditional cultural patterns, I start with the oversimplified assumption that attitudinal syndromes typical of a
effective cultural value systems.
of

society rely

must somehow

be

represented at the

level

of

also

on a correspondence of

meaning

structures at the

socially levels

interpreted
48. 49.

needs and cultural

p.

tradition."

Ibid.,

pp. 75-76.

Ibid.,
and

82.

"Stage

Cf. J. Piaget, The Moral Judgement of the Child (N.Y.: Free Press, 1965); L. Kohlberg, in D. Goslin, ed., Handbook of Socialization and Research (Chicago: Rand
Sequence"

McNally,

1969).

Ethics
a

and

Politics in
in

the

Work of Jurgen Habermas

347

"communicative

ethic,"

which universalizable principles are

satisfactory.50

derived

within

uncoerced

discourse, is fully
are

Motivations formed in

this man

ner, he claims,
subsystems of
particularistic

dysfunctional from the

standpoint of the political-economic

contemporary society because those subsystems are based upon a (class) distribution of goods, services, power, etc., that is, a dis
upon particular and private

tribution the

based

generality and autonomy demanded factors as the expanse of the educational

that adolescent crises

(class) interests. They therefore lack by communicative ethics. Since such

system make

it less

and

less

probable contin
crisis.51

do

not end

in

a universalistic of a

morality, Habermas

ues, it is

warranted to assert

the probability

He writes, "a legitimation for legitimation to

and

crisis can

be

avoided

coming legitimation in the long run only if the latent

transformed
or

class structures of advanced-capitalist societies are

sure which

if the
can

pres re

the administrative system is subject

be

moved,"52

the motivating force of universalistic moralities makes the latter

alternative

impossible.
cannot claim that universalistic moralities alone
"Nationalism,"

Habermas, however,
ues

have

motivating force in contemporary

to
motivate

society. social
agents.53

the

actions of

many

for instance, contin Hence it is upon proposi

But the
argument which

tion

(3)

that the weight of

presents over

Habermas'

claim rests.

Habermas

for the

predominance of universalistic moralities

"nationalism"

in

motive

formation,
In
a

the particularistic moralities

puts

of

seems

fallacious.

first step he

forth the

proposition that a universal

it is

on universal

principles, has

bourgeois formal right, based as scope which transcends the limits

of conflicts

among

particular states:

Since morality based ity of conscience, its

citizen,

on principles conflict with

is

sanctioned

only through the inner

still

author

the public morality,

tied to the concrete

is

embedded

in its

claim

to universality; the conflict is between the cos

and the

mopolitanism of

the 'human

being'

loyalties

of the citizen

(which

can-

50.
role

Cf. LC,

pp.

88ff. Thus the

social

universalistic

morality

of a communicative ethic plays a

dual
a

in Habermasian

theory. Qua normative principle this ethic

forms the foundation for

cultural tradition

critique of

contemporary institutional frameworks. Qua factually existing contemporary society, this

universalistic

up the

system of the members of

morality

can

making be dysfunc

tional to contemporary institutional frameworks by leading to a motivational and a legitimation cri sis. It is important to stress that these two arguments are clearly distinct; the validity of the one

does

not

51.

imply or Assuming

even suggest

the validity of the other. the

that

phenomena of

following

sort can

be

avoided:

"the

retreatist side

[of

the youth movement]

undermotivation

represented

in school,

etc."

by hippies, Jesus-people, Ibid., p. 92.

the

drug

subculture, phenomena of

52.
53.

Ibid.,

p. 93.

Habermas

also

is

well aware

that in contemporary society motives are

masquerade

formed in
to

a manner as

which allows
"objective"

the satisfaction of particular interests to

behind

a claim

function

imperatives demanded

on scientific-technical grounds.

Habermas, however, does

not

present an argument as

than

motivations

to why this form of motive formation systematically will be less significant formed in terms of universalistic moralities. He does attempt to do this with re

spect to

motivations

based

on

nationalism, and so I have limited my discussion to this example.

348
not

Interpretation
universalistic as

be

long

as

international

relations are subject to the concrete

morality

of the more

powerful).54

From this
olution of

Habermas'

argument precedes

to its second step. He asserts that "res

this conflict

is

conceivable

only if the

dichotomy

between the

in-

group

and

legally
cursive

regulated areas

out-group morally disappears, the opposition between morally and is relativized, and the validity of all norms is tied to dis

will-formation."55

We thus have the

Premise
conflict

following

argument:

i:

Since the introduction

of modern natural and

law there has been

between the "human

2:

being"

the "loyalties of the

citizen."

Premise

Only

a communicative ethic can overcome

this conflict.

Conclusion: Therefore, only

a communicative ethic can

have motivating

force

today.
premises are granted a

Even if both
reasons

the

argument

does

not

hold. There be

are

two

for this. First

third premise is required asserting that it is in some

conflict mentioned

sense

demanded that the

claim would would

in the first

premise

overcome.

This

itself

require a rather elaborate argument.

example,

insert

a quite

different

premise

into the

argument

A Weberian, for instead. A

Weberian 'human
clude

would assert and

that the tension between "the cosmopolitanism of the

citizen"

being'

the loyalties of the

that therefore

universalistic moralities should

is irresolvable, and would con have no motivating force in

contemporary societies, precisely because they abstract from this tension. But let us assume that Habermas can present compelling reasons for accepting the required third premise (for example, on the grounds that continuation of the di

chotomy between in-group and out-group morality threatens the continued sur vival of the human species, given the contemporary state of weapons technol
ogy).

The

conclusion still

does

not

the conclusion
of

is

read as an existential statement.

follow. Or, rather, it does not follow only if Within the immediate context
not

this

argument

it

seems

that this may

be the

proper reading.
example"

Habermas
to

ad

mits

that here he has "left the domain of historical

construct."

and moved no

what

is "at

present a mere

If this is the case, then

fallacy
clear

has been

committed.

But

within

the wider argumentative context it

is

that Haber

mas must make an existential claim

here. For it is

not enough

assert ment crisis

the

logical possibility
capitalism.

of a motivation crisis.

for him merely to Habermas uses this argu

a

in

support of

the empirical claim that there

is

tendency
of

to motivation

in late

But from this

point of view

he has

committed a

fallacy.
dys-

He
of

must prove

that on the empirical

are

level

motivations

in terms

the "loyalties

the

citizen"

for

structural reasons unable to compensate

for the

5455.

LC,

p.

87. 87.

Ibid.,

p.

Ethics
functional
ties.
then

and

Politics in the Work of Jurgen Habermas

from

349

motivations which result

an orientation to universalistic morali split ought

Assuming
working

that the

human being/citizen
Habermas'

to be overcome, and
not

out a

thought-construct

within which

it is overcome, does
crisis as well.

constitute such a proof.

argument argument

for

a motivation crisis

therefore

breaks

down, and with it his Habermas, then, has not

in late capitalism,
as the

for

legitimation

established a structural

tendency

to

legitimation

crisis

upon which

action over strategic action

salizability"

for the priority of communicative for the ethical principle of "univer (and, ultimately,
claim

his

first

principle of political
a

philosophy) depended. He may

crisis

claim with complete

justification that

legitimation

is

still possible.

But it

does

not

depend

upon structural

factors, but

upon the

thoroughly
of

contingent

ability

of radical critics

to present plausible

interpretations

contemporary

so

cial processes.

For us,
ated

as

Marxists,

there

is the in

problem of

interpreting

the experiences articul

by

these

movements56

a manner such that our

make

by

those

immediately

mobilized; how to

reading can be accepted credible our hypothesis according

to which these movements are phenomena caused

capitalist
development?"

by

politically

uncontrolled

Even if these interpretations

power considerations

are

fully

"credible"

("strategic action")

once again

in themselves, however, intrude. For power can be

to the popu to follow which can be

maintained

through preparing and

presenting

expressive symbols

lace,

symbols which create an unspecific preparedness

called upon at

need, to discredit

even

fully

"credible"

interpretations.

Familiar

strategies of this

kind

are the personalization of substantive

issues,

the

symbolic use of

hearings,

expert

judgments, juridical incantations,

from
oligopolistic

and also

the advertising techniques (copied

confirm and exploit

competition) that at once

existing
etc.58

structures of prejudice and that garnish certain

appeals

contents

positively, others negatively, through

to

feeling,

stimulation of

unconscious motives,

This has "above

of

all the

function

of

directing

attention

to topical areas

that

is,

pushing

other

themes, problems,
of

and arguments

below the threshold

of at

tention and,
extent

thereby,

that such

withholding them from strategies are successful a legitimation

opinion-formation."59

To the
avoided

crisis can

be

indefinitely.60

56. 57.

Habermas is referring to movements such Telos interview, op. cit,, pp. 165-66.

as that

for

women's

rights.

58.
59.

LC, p. 70. Ibid., p. 70.

writes that a cultural tradition

60. It is true that Habermas

as

loses its

legitimating

force "as

soon

employed"

it is objectivistically
mere wishful

prepared and

strategically
was

(ibid.,

pp. 70-71).

this is
phrase

thinking. For how many centuries

King"

the cultural

But unfortunately tradition embodied in the

employed"

"For God

and

"strategically

before

losing its

"force?"

350

Interpretation

CONCLUSION
this investigation must

The

conclusion of

be that power,

manifested

in

stra

tegic action, ultimately cannot

to, and is not derived from, the de mands of a communicative ethic. It may be true that the overt power required for successful strategic action ultimately is based upon acknowledgement de be
reduced

rived from
tained
selves
who

a view of

legitimating
be

world views.

justice fixed in communicatively established and main But these legitimating world views may them
of structural power

manifestations

benefit from

such power.

If

"legitimation"

strategically cannot be

employed shown

by

those

to be a more the
macro-

fundamental category than sociological level does not

gic

"power,"

Habermas'

then

argument on

show

that

communicative action

is

"prior"

to strate
of

action.

It

seems as

if

no good reason

for making the if the

ethical

category

universalizability the foundational category in political philosophy can be given

from the Habermasian

to make "power
choose

position.

It

seems as

political philosopher

is

as

free
to

interests"

the ultimate principle

or

in last

political

philosophy

as

"universalizability'

any

other ethical principle.

Before

drawing

this conclusion,

however,

one

point must

be

examined.

One indeed may construct a coherent political for as the fundamental category. Ethical
"power"

philosophy based
considerations
path

upon an option

be

excluded

from

consideration.

This

was

the

thinkers

such as

Thrasymachus, Machiavelli,
based

and

thereby would Weber, by following Nietzsche. Alternatively, one

taken

could construct a political position

upon an ethical principle which ab

stracted
and

from

questions of power.

Two

examples are

the pacifism of a

Tolstoy

the anarchism of a Kropotkin. It

is premature, however, to think that these

are two

are

the only

alternatives.

What this
cial

analysis

has

shown

is that there human in

distinct

modes of so of

action,

each with

its

own practical of

logic irreducible to that

existence appears

the other.

and the tragedy The complexity the tension between the demands cative context and could

to stem
a

from

of normative

justification in

communi

the

demands

of power

a context of struggle.

This tension
of an

be discussed in terms
politics

of an exclusive choice.

Both options, that

amoral

and

that of an apolitical ethics, resolve the tension.

But is

there not something artificial about both of these one-sided alternatives? Does
not each

in its

own

way

attempt to

oversimplify

the tragic complexities of hu

man existence?

Habermas versalizability

presents us with a
upon examination

third choice. The normative principle of

uni

does

not exclude considerations

of

power.61

61. Habermas,
account ethical

of

course, is not the only political philosopher who has attempted to take into
without

principles

losing

sight of partisan power struggles.

a

Aristotle
article

and

John

Rawls

are two examples of other

Habermas'

theorists who have taken this route. In

future

I hope to

contrast

manner of

combining

ethics and power with that of other

figures in

the

history

of political philosophy.

Ethics
It

and

Politics in the Work of Jurgen Habermas

that
this
provides
a

351

is

my

judgment

king

"universalizability"

rather

than

"power"

nonarbitrary reason for ma the first principle in politi

cal philosophy.

Imagine

group

engaged

in

a power struggle with certain

opponents,

and

that this group makes

"universalizability"

the principle of the policies

they

formulate. Within this group decisions will have to be made which take into ac count all the risks involved in any power struggle. How can such decisions be justified?
The
sole possible

justification

at

this level is consensus, aimed at in a practical

discourse, among
terests and their
and

the participants who, in the consciousness of their common in

of the are

knowledge

circumstances,

of

the predictable consequences

what risks

secondary consequences,

the only one who can know

expectations.62

they

are

willing to undergo and with

what

Further, it is

possible

to engage in

a power struggle against opponents while

interpreting
hypothetically
victory lar interest
the constellations
sought would not
against

the struggle, from the viewpoint that every (as is usual) lead to the assertion of one particu merely but instead would be a step toward the intended goal, another,
of

which would make universal

enlightenment, and

by

virtue of

it,

the

uninhibited

discursive formation merely those

of will, possible

for

all participants

(and thus

no

longer

affected).63

In this
within

manner

the members of the group are led to live and to act politically
ethics and power rather

the tension between

than

dissolving
the

that tension

in

an exclusive orientation

to one or the

other of

the two poles.

From this
i
.

Habermas'

perspective

position rests upon

following
situation.

claims:

The tension between

strategic) is

ethics and power

(between

communicative action

and

an essential characteristic of
political

the human

2.

Given (i) it follows that both

respect

theorists and political agents

should orient their theoretical and practical activities

to a

principle which al

lows them to
3.

this tension.
"power"

The

principle of

does

not allow those who

follow it to

respect as

this tension. It

attempts to resolve the tension

in

as one-sided a

fashion

does
4.

an apolitical ethic.

The

principle of

universalizability does

allow

those who orient their

make

theory

and actions

to it to

respect this tension.

Therefore to

it the

foundational

principle of a political

philosophy is

arbitrary decision. Good

reasons can

be

provided

not to make an ultimately for this decision.

62. TP,

p. 33p. 40.

63. Ibid.,

PHILO SOPHY SOCIAL GUTICI &

9:1

an

international quarterly journal

volume

9
1, 2

numbers

David M.

Rasmussen,

editor

BOSTON COLLEGE

DAVID M. RASMUSSEN, communicative action and philosophy / MICHEL FOUCAULT, is it really important to think?/ FERENC FEHER, adorno's philosophy of music /KAI NIELSEN, egalitarianism, socialism and just land use/ RICHARD DIEN WINFIELD, the in justice of human rights/ ROBERT R. WILLIAMS, hegel's jena philosophy in public beliefs and W. VER EEKE, ethics and economics: from classical economics to neo-liberalism/H. HANALKA, is it possible to change the laws of the social sciences: lebenswelt and critical reflection in habermas' theorie des kommunikativen handelns I PAUL REDDING, action language and text: dilthey's conception of the understanding
myths about nuclear war: misconceptions

9:2

WILLIAM C. GAY,

governmental plans/

special double issue still available: Philosophy and the Problem of Language. ROBERT E. INNES, in

tersections; KARL-OTTO APEL, understanding the sign revisited; meaning; UMBERTO ECO, WILLIAM GAY, analogy and metaphor; ERNSTWOLFGANG ORTH, reduction and language; FERRUCCIO ROSSI-LANDI, linguistic money; PAOLO

FACCHI,

certain communication.

$12 per year; individual $16 per year; institution $42 per year, single issues $3.95; double issues $5.95. Mall check or money order payable to Philosophy and Social Criticism, Department of Philosophy, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 021 67 USA.

subscription rates: student

The Lion
on

and the
of

Ass: A

Commentary
38

the Book

Genesis (Chapters

& 39)

Robert Sacks
St. John's College, Santa Fe

CHAPTER XXXVIII

I.

AND IT CAME TO PASS AT THAT

TIME, THAT

JUDAH WENT DOWN FROM HIS

BRETHREN,
WAS HIRAH.

AND TURNED IN TO A CERTAIN

ADULLAMITE,

WHOSE NAME

strongly connect the following chapter with what pre it. The last time they were used was in Chapter Twenty-one, Verse Twenty-two, after the birth of Isaac, where they introduced a second account of
words at that time ceded

The

Abimelech. As ligible
apart

we

remember, Abimelech *s

actions at

that point were not intel

a son.

from his knowledge that Abraham had had

Judah decided to leave his brothers. Unlike his father, he could no longer live with those men whom he had narrowly prevented from murdering their own brother.
point some clarity emerges concerning the difficulty raised by Gen. Benjamin was totally ignored. Judah's decision to live apart in which 37:2, from his brothers was repeated once more when the tribe of Judah decided to

At this

live tion,

apart

from their brothers

under

King

Rehoboam

after

Jeroboam's

revolu

and we shall see the strange role which

Benjamin

played at

that time in

the commentary to Gen. 49:27.

Judah first
sion sets

went

to Adullam

where

he had

friend

named

Hirah. This deci

the stage for Chapter Thirty-eight. The city of Adullam was later cap

tured

by

Joshua

and given

have

often spoken of

Judah (Josh. 12:15 and 15:35)- We David's early days in Ziklag, but even prior to those days
to the tribe
of

he had

an earlier camp.

One

day

evil

spirits came

to

King

Saul

and

David

was sent

for to

charm

them away with his harp, but Saul heaved a javelin at him. David escaped to the priest Ahimelech, who gave him the sword of Goliath, and from there he

fled to Adullam David's last his

soldiers

where

the dissident first

rallied around

him (I Sam.

22:1).

great act of

battle

came

risked their lives to

of water

cross

very late. The old man was faint, and through the lines in order to get their king
town of

a single

cup

from

a well

in the

his birth, Bethlehem. In the

have already discussed the dignity with which he commentary to Gen. 14:4 poured the water out as a libation. All this took place in the city of Adullam, which is never mentioned again. Judah's friend is from the city which holds to
we
gether

the active life of

his

most

famous descendant, David.

354
2.

Interpretation
CANAANITE, WHOSE

AND JUDAH SAW THERE A DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN NAME WAS

SHUAH;

AND HE TOOK

HER,
SON;

AND WENT IN UNTO HER. AND HE CALLED HIS NAME ER.

3.
4.

AND SHE

CONCEIVED,

AND BARE A

AND SHE CONCEIVED NAME ONAN.

AGAIN,

AND BARE A

SON;

AND SHE CALLED HIS

5.

AND SHE YET AGAIN

CONCEIVED,

AND BARE A

SON;

AND CALLED HIS

NAME SHELAH: AND HE WAS AT

CHEZIB,
a

WHEN SHE BARE HIM.

Chezib,
6.

or

Achzib,

will also

become

city in the tribe

of

Judah.

AND JUDAH TOOK A WIFE FOR ER HIS

FORSTBORN, WHOSE

NAME WAS

TAMAR. 7. AND

ER, JUDAH'S FIRSTBORN, WAS WICKED IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD;

AND THE LORD SLEW HIM.

8.

AND JUDAH SAID UNTO

ONAN, GO

IN UNTO THY BROTHER'S

WIFE,

AND

MARRY 9.

HER,

AND RAISE UP SEED TO THY BROTHER.

AND ONAN KNEW THAT THE SEED WOULD NOT BE

HIS;

AND IT CAME TO HE SPILLED IT

PASS,

WHEN HE WENT IN UNTO HIS BROTHER'S

WIFE, THAT

ON THE
IO.

GROUND,

LEST THAT HE SHOULD GIVE SEED TO HIS BROTHER.

AND THE THING WHICH HE DID DISPLEASED THE LORD: WHEREFORE HE

SLEW HIM ALSO.

The laws concerning Leverite marriage are given in Deut. 22:5-9. Accord ing to these laws it was the duty of a man to raise up a seed for his dead brother. The reason for this law is more than the desire for the immortality of
the individual family. It is closely
such an related

to the Jubilee Year which has

played

important

role

in the book. The

particular

kind

of political

freedom
of

en

visaged

by

Moses
son

presupposes

the direct

inheritance

of each parcel

land

from father to

in

order

that the distinction between the rich and the poor,

to

which causes most peoples

be divided into two camps,

to

not cause strife

in

Israel.

Onan's

actions were

displeasing

God for two

reasons.

It

was an attack on

his fundamental

political

duty. Personal

own name replaced communal

immortality through procreation of his immortality which was to have been ensured by
to Gen. 15:9). In addition, his act was a con
34:11).

the Jubilee Year (see

version of seed

commentary
chaos

into

(see commentary to Gen.

marriage will come role

The

subject of

Leverite

up

again

in the Book

of

Ruth,
in the

which will

play commentary to Verse Twenty-seven.

II.

an

important

in the

present

chapter,

as we shall see

THEN SAID JUDAH TO TAMAR HIS DAUGHTER IN

LAW, REMAIN

A WIDOW

AT THY FATHER'S

HOUSE,

TILL SHELAH MY SON BE GROWN: FOR HE SAID

LEST PERADVENTURE HE DIE

ALSO,

AS HIS BRETHREN DID. AND TAMAR

WENT AND DWELT IN HER FATHER'S HOUSE.

The Lion
12.

and the

Ass

355
DIED;

AND IN PROCESS OF TIME THE DAUGHTER OF SHUAH JUDAH'S WIFE

AND JUDAH WAS

COMFORTED,

AND WENT UP UNTO THE SHEEPSHEARERS

TO
13.

TIMNATH,

HE AND HIS FRIEND HIRAH THE ADULLAMITE.

AND IT WAS TOLD

TAMAR, SAYING,

BEHOLD THY FATHER IN LAW GOETH

UP TO TIMNATH TO SHEAR HIS SHEEP. 14. AND SHE PUT HER WIDOW'S GARMENTS OFF FROM

HER,

AND COVERED

HER WITH A

VAIL,

AND WRAPPED

HERSELF,

AND SAT IN AN OPEN

PLACE,

WHICH IS BY THE WAY TO

TIMNATH;

FOR SHE SAW THAT SHELAH WAS

GROWN,
15.

AND SHE WAS NOT GIVEN UNTO HIM TO WIFE.

WHEN JUDAH SAW

HER,

HE THOUGHT HER TO BE AN

HARLOT; BECAUSE

SHE HAD COVERED HER FACE.

refusing to allow the marriage between Shelah and Tamar, Judah also re jects the Jubilee Year. In other words he no longer sees the possibility of that kind of unity among the people. Partly based on his earlier experience with his

By

brothers,
of

and

partly based

on the experience of

his

own

son, he

sees

that kind

unity

as

being fatal,

given

the ways of
as we

men.

The

present chapter will contain was wiser than

the

education of

Judah who,

have

seen

before,

he

was

pious.

The

subject

of

harlots

as

opposed

to concubines

forms

curious

thread

which reveals

the tension that necessarily exists under law.

Harlotry is

illegal in
of

Israel

and

is

punishable

by

death (Deut.

22:21).

Throughout the books

symbol of

the

Prophets
of

and even

in the Torah itself

harlotry
the

is the
and

leaving
it is

the ways
often un

God.

Harlotry

was used

both symbolically

literally
25:1).

since

derstood to be the literal

ways

means

by

which

people could

be

enticed

into the
on

of other gods

(see Ex.

34:15,16 and

Num.

Concubines,

the

other

hand,

are

legal,
have

and therein
stated

lies the

problem. must consider

whom we

Now that
which

we

the

law,

we

the individual cases

appear

in the text. The first harlot

meet

is that

wonderful

woman,

Rahab,
The

of whom we shall speak at great

next

length in the commentary to

the whoreson,
we can

Gen.

38:26.

time the subject occurs

is

when we meet

Jephthah,

a strange man

but

one whose

final fate
12).

mentary to Gen. lah, the harlot Samson

who

33:12 and

Judg. Chap.

In

comparison with

surely pity (see com his wife, Deli The two harlots
also moved

met

did him little harm (Judg.

16:1).

both

claimed

the child in the famous case judged

by

Solomon

the

reader

the one more than

see

the other, to be sure, but even though the

rather crime

first fact

harlot is willing to
that she
wanted

the child killed

than admit

her lie, the

mere

the

child mitigates other

her

to some

extent.

Concubines

on

the

hand

always present

difficulties. Abraham's
25:2).

concu

bine, Keturah,
tary).

was

the

mother of

the Midianites (Gen.

concubine

Amalek,
Gideon

the

in

ternal enemy of

Israel,
not

was

the son of a
of

(Gen.

36:12 and commen

who was

Abimelech,

the first to

proclaim

Abraham, but the in himself king Israel, was also

the

friend

son of

the son of a concubine

356

Interpretation
grave

(Judg. 8:31). The

commentaries cause

difficulties

which

that led to were described in the

was

to Gen. 32:28
accused

and 34:8.

When Abner left Ishbosheth it

with

be

he had been

Absalom took

possession of

sleeping Jerusalem he finalized the

of

Saul's concubine,
capture

and

when with

by

sleeping

his father's

concubine.

The Old Testament is

wholesome

not unaware of and

the fact that the illegal is often more

political

than the

barely legal,
be

yet, if

independence is to be

maintained such

things can

appreciated

only

by
AND

private men.

l6.

AND HE TURNED UNTO HER BY THE LET ME COME IN UNTO

WAY,

SAID, GO TO, I PRAY

THEE,

THEE; (FOR

HE KNEW NOT THAT SHE WAS

HIS DAUGHTER IN

LAW.)

AND SHE

SAID,

WHAT WILT THOU GIVE

ME, THAT

THOU MAYEST COME IN UNTO ME?

17. AND HE

SAID,

I WILL SEND THEE A KID FROM THE FLOCK. AND SHE

SAID,

WILT THOU GIVE ME A 18.

AND HE

PLEDGE, TILL THOU SEND IT?

SAID,

WHAT PLEDGE SHALL I GIVE THEE? AND SHE SAID THY

SIGNET,

AND THY

BRACELETS,

AND THY STAFF THAT IS IN THINE HAND.

AND HE GAVE IT HIM. 19. AND SHE

HER,

AND CAME IN UNTO

HER,

AND SHE CONCEIVED BY

AROSE,

AND WENT

AWAY,

AND LAID BY HER VAIL FROM HER

AND PUT ON THE GARMENTS OF HER WIDOWHOOD.

20.

AND JUDAH SENT THE KID BY THE HAND OF HIS FRIEND THE

ADUL-

LAMITE,

TO RECEIVE HIS PLEDGE FROM THE WOMAN'S HAND: BUT HE

FOUND HER NOT. 21. THEN HE ASKED THE MEN OF THAT

PLACE, SAYING, WHERE IS THE

HAR

LOT, THAT WAS OPENLY BY THE WAY SIDE? AND THEY SAID, THERE WAS
NO HARLOT IN THIS PLACE.
22. AND HE RETURNED TO JUDAH AND
THE MEN OF THE PLACE

SAID,

I CANNOT FIND

HER;

AND ALSO

SAID,

THAT THERE WAS NO HARLOT IN THIS

PLACE. 23. AND JUDAH

SAID,

LET HER TAKE IT TO

HER, LEST WE

BE SHAMED: BE

HOLD,
24.

I SENT THIS

KID,

AND THOU HAS NOT FOUND HER.

AFTER, THAT IT WAS TOLD JUDAH, SAYING TAMAR THY DAUGHTER IN LAW HATH PLAYED THE

AND IT CAME TO PASS ABOUT THREE MONTHS

HARLOT;
JUDAH 25.

AND

ALSO, BEHOLD SHE

IS WITH CHILD BY WHOREDOM. AND

SAID,

BRING HER

FORTH,

AND LET HER BE BURNT.

WHEN SHE WAS BROUGHT

FORTH, SHE SENT

TO HER FATHER IN LAW

I WITH CHILD: AND SHE

SAYING, BY THE MAN WHOSE THESE ARE, AM SAID, RECOGNIZE

BRACELETS,
I PRAY

THEE, WHOSE

ARE

THESE,

THE

SIGNET,

AND

AND STAFF.

Recognize I pray thee: these words jar Judah's memory and cut more deeply had expected. He had heard them spoken once before. That was the time when his brothers brought Joseph's coat to his father, Jacob.
than even Tamar

They

The Lion
presented

and the

Ass

357
whether

the coat to Jacob and said Recognize I pray you

it be thy
to

son's coat or no

(Gen.

37:32).

Tamar

now uses

these same

words

Judah,

forcing
upon

him to

reflect upon

his

own actions

toward

her

and

in

consequence

the whole of his

feelings
past and

with regard

to the possibility

of political unity.

By bringing
force him to
chapter.

back the

recognize point

placing him in his father's position, her words the wisdom which Jacob displayed at the end of the last
realizes that

At this

Judah

he

cannot separate

himself but be he

must

learn to teach his brothers

seph who will
recognized

and

to lead them.

Eventually
of

it

will

and not

Jo

be forced to

accept

the duties

the first born. He

has

finally

the

wisdom which

Jacob displayed

at the end of the

an

last

chapter. and what

Now

we can

begin to

understand with

this chapter

has to do

why Judah's friend is David.

THEM,
AND

Adullamite

26.

AND JUDAH RECOGNIZED TEOUS THAN

SAID,

SHE HATH BEEN MORE RIGH

i;

BECAUSE THAT I GAVE HER NOT TO SHELAH MY SON. AND

HE KNEW HER AGAIN NO MORE.

27.

AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE TIME OF HER

TRAVAIL, THAT, BEHOLD,

TWINS WERE IN HER WOMB. 28. AND IT CAME TO

PASS, WHEN

SHE

TRAVAILED,

THAT THE ONE PUT OUT

HIS HAND: AND THE MIDWIFE TOOK AND BOUND UPON HIS HAND A SCAR LET
29.

THREAD, SAYING, THIS PASS,

CAME OUT FIRST.

AND IT CAME TO

AS HE DREW BACK HIS

HAND, THAT, BEHOLD, HIS

BROTHER CAME OUT: AND SHE

SAID,

HOW HAS THOU BROKEN FORTH?

THIS BREACH BE UPON THEE: THEREFORE HIS NAME WAS CALLED PEREZ.
30. AND AFTERWARD CAME OUT HIS

BROTHER, THAT HAD THE SCARLET

THREAD UPON HIS HAND: AND HIS NAME WAS CALLED ZARAH.

The

events which

bear light

on these verses are so complicated and

or where

inter up

twined that one

threads, We can

by

up up the first thread at the end of the Book of Ruth. Perez., who force became the chosen son, was the great-grandfather of Amminadab,
and pick
relation

let them

barely drop

knows how

to begin. We shall have to

again

pick

only to

be

picked

later.

Aaron's father-in-law. But his

we must continue on our way.

to the Levites was

only tangential,

and

Amminadab

was the great-grandfather of

royal

Boaz,

the
not

great-grandfather of

David. Perez took the

would

line

by force,

but had he Bab

done

so

the line of

kingship
the

have fallen
was

on

the shoulders of the only

Zarachite

mentioned

in the Bible. That

attack on

Achan,

the man who stole the

ylonian garment

during
be

Ai

and caused us

to

wonder

if the New

Way

could ever

established

among

men.

The

next thread which we must pick

was such a scarlet

up is the scarlet thread itself, since it harlot thread that Rahab the hung from her window to avoid
the seige of Jericho. Now Jericho
must will

being
role

captured

during

play

an

important from the

in

our

story,

so we

backtrack

bit

and give

its

history

beginning.

358

Interpretation
of

The Children

Israel

were camped on

the other side of the Jordan across

from Jericho,
spoken of

when the

forces

of

Balak

attacked

(Num.

22:1).

While be

we

have

the war with Balak and Balaam many

men were counted and were

times, it
had

should

added that

after

the battle the

and

it

was

discovered that Moses,

come out of

Aaron,
Egypt. but

Joshua,

Caleb
and

the

only

men

left

alive who

Since Joshua

Caleb

were

to reach the Promised

Land, nothing

remained

the deaths of Moses and Aaron before Israel could cross the river (Num.
26:3,63).

After the deaths river

of

Moses Joshua

and

was crossed and

sent spies

Aaron (see commentary to Gen. 49:8) the to the city of Jericho. Their presence
to capture

became known to the

were

king,

who sent soldiers

them, but
follower

their

lives

saved

by

the harlot named

2).

Rahab,

who

became

of

the New

Way
ever

(Josh. Chap.

As is commonly known, the battle for Jericho was the most dramatic battle fought in the Bible. It was fought neither with gun nor spear but with the

trumpets of Jubilee. And thus

it

was

that the Biblical love of freedom

won

the

battle. After the fall

no parallel

of

Jericho, Joshua

made a serious proclamation which

has

in the

works of

the author. He proclaimed a curse upon

any

man

who would ever rebuild

the city of Jericho (Josh.

6:26).

Jericho ery
sion once

was not mentioned a while

very

often after

in

in

order that we might

its destruction, but it turns up ev not forget about it. In the time of forlorn. David
once sent a mis

King

David, Jericho
to

still
of

lay

in ruins,

wild and

Ammonites, with a message of condolence over the death of his father, but Hanun, having been convinced by his counselors that David intended harm, shaved the beards of David's men and sent them back in
Hanun, King
the
shame.

beards

grew

When they arrived, David advised them to stay back (II Sam. 10:5 and commentary to Gen.
the reign of
rebuilt

at

Jericho

until

their

32:24).

During
named

Ahab,

the son of

Omri,

an

otherwise unknown man

Hiel

the city of Jericho. The whole story is told in one simple

verse:

In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho: he laid the foundation
the cost of Abiram
son son

thereof at
cost

his firstborn,

and set

up the

gates

thereof at
which

the

of his youngest spake by Joshua the

Segub, according

to the word of the

of

Lord,
Hiel's

He

of Nun (I Kings 16:34). The death

sons was

was fulfilled. While Hiel must have suffered, this verse is surely not sufficient to account for the great tension which is built up when a curse hangs in suspension for close to six hundred years. We must continue the search.

the first time the curse

It

will

take us down a

very

long

road.

We

will

be forced to
and

consider the
we will

last

two chapters of the Second Book of Kings in

detail,

then

find it

necessary to go back over them again with even greater care. In the commentary to Gen. 20:7 we spoke of the last glorious days of the state under King Josiah. At that time, we discovered that the was to have

been the final burst

of

light before the fall

of

the state,

glory but Hulda the

prophetess

The Lion
announced
would not

and

the Ass

359

that the state would continue

for

few

more years so that

Josiah
But

be forced to

witness

the

fall
the

of

Jerusalem (II Kings

22:14-20).

now we must consider

those latter days as

Twenty-four, because

that

is

where

described in Second Kings, Chapter scarlet thread has led us.

came up, and

In his days Nebuchadnezzar

servant

King

of Babylon

Jehoiakim became his

three years: then

he turned

and rebelled against

him. (II Kings 24:1)

name

Babylon
once since

we

have

almost turned

full

cycle.

The

the days in which

they built
which

the great Tower

once made

which

has only come up led to the disper

sion of man

(Gen.

11:9).
see

King

Hezekiah

the mistake of
and now

inviting

the

men of

Babylon to
to tear it

had

come

city down (II Kings

the

he had restored,

those same

men

20:12-17).

When

some men at

that

Shalmanesser, King of Assyria, conquered the north, he brought from Babylon, which was then under his rule, to live in Samaria, but time the imposition seemed minor. Now, here they were again, the de
of

scendants

Nimrod,

the mighty

hunter (Gen.

10:9).

The five kings

whom

Abram Let
2.

chased out of us return

the land had

finally

returned.

to the analysis on the twenty-fourth chapter of Second Kings.

sent against

And the Lord

him bands of the Chaldees,

word

and

bands of the Syri

and sent which

ans, and them

spake

bands of the Moabites, and bands of the against Judah to destroy it, according to the

children

of Ammon,

of the Lord,

He

by

His

servants

the

Prophets.

3.

Surely

at the commandment

of

the

Lord

came

this upon

Judah,

to remove them out of His sight,

4.

according to

all that

He did:

And

also

for the sins of Manasseh, for the innocent blood that he shed: for
the

he filled Jerusalem
Kings 24:2-4)

with

innocent blood;

which

Lord

would not pardon.

(II

The first
el's

revolution against

Nebuchadnezzar

was

successful, but
again.

all of

Isra
was

enemies,

now

servants

of

Nebuchadnezzar,

attacked

There

Syria,
were

the whip, and

not

Moab,
who

the

that had
the

been

mentioned

brother, but among the attackers was a name since the days of Abraham. The first to attack

Chaldeans,

father,
5.

Terah, left them

the rest

even

had only been mentioned once since Abraham and his before God first spoke to Abram (Gen. 1 1:28).
of Jehoiakim, of the Kings
son reigned and all that
ofJudah?

Now

of the

acts

he did,
7.

are

they

not written

in the book fathers:

of the chronicles Jehoiachin his any

6. So Jehoiakim
And
the

slept with

his

and

in his

stead.

King

of Egypt

came not again

more out

of his land: for

Euphrates
all

the

the river of Egypt unto the

river

of Babylon had taken from that pertained to the King of Egypt.

King

(II Kings 24:5-7)

In Verse Five the

ofJudah.

author mentions a

book

called

At this

point

the author

presents

himself

The Chronicles of the Kings as a redactor who has writ

to his own account

ten his

work

based

on earlier works.

However, according

he
ac-

did

not

feel

under

any

obligation

to repeat everything

contained

in the

older

360
counts.

Interpretation
This
will

be

of some

importance later

when we

discuss the

relation

be

tween the author and his source material.

The ical

irony
been

events.

Verse Seven is closely connected to the author's view of histor The first part of Verse Seven makes it seem as if freedom had
of

finally
/.

gained

from Israel's
price.

most ancient

enemy,

Egypt, but

the end of the

verse reveals

its high

The

next chapter continues as

follows:

And it

came

to pass in the ninth

year

tenth

day

of

the month, that

Nebuchadnezzar

of his reign, in the tenth month, in the King of Babylon came, he, and all

his host,
and

against

Jerusalem,
against

and pitched against

it;

and

they built forts

prevailed

it

round about. 2.

And the city

they built forts against it; was besieged unto the

famine

of King Zedekiah. 3. And on the ninth day of the fourth month the in the city, and there was no bread for the people of the land. 4. broken up, and all the men of war fled by night by the way of the the was And city s garden: (now the Chaldeans were gate between two walls, which is by the
eleventh year
King'

against

the city round about:) and the

King

went

the way toward the plain. 5.

And

the

army of the

Chaldeans

pursued after

the

King,

and overtook

him in

the

plains

of Jericho:

and all

his army

were scattered from

him. (II Kings 25:1-5)

as of

When the city was captured it was the Chaldeans who pursued the king, and we shall see in Verse Ten it was they who actually broke through the walls Jerusalem. We have returned to the beginning. The Chaldeans were only

mentioned once since

Abram left the city

of

Ur. The

passage reads as

follows:

7.

And He

said unto

dees,

to give thee this that

I know

shall

the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chal inherit it. 8. And he said, Lord God, whereby shall inherit it? (Gen. 15:7-8)

him, I
land

am

to

Chapter Fifteen began

servant,
sion
would which

with

Abraham's fears that Eliezer

answer came of war.

of

Damascus, his
of a vi

inherit the New Way. God's

saw

in the form

in

Abraham

the

inevitability

The

author connects the

beginning
failure

with

the end in

order

to reveal that the end was

the beginning. The attempt to spread the New

even

Way

via

already included in brothers was doomed to

before it had
took the

started.

6. So they
and

King,

and

brought him up him.

to the

King

of Babylon to Riblah;

they

gave

judgment

upon

In Verse Six the

rebuild

curse which

Joshua

proclaimed upon the man who would

Jericho

was

fulfilled. His
and

people's
as

last independent
understood

king

was

captured,
gone. man

the monarchy

destroyed,

freedom

it is

by

the book was

And

who was

this man that

dared

go against of

the curse? A nobody, a little

altar.

named

Hiel from Bethel, the city

Jeroboam's

7. And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him with fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon. 8.

And in the fifth month,

year

on the seventh

day

of the month,
came

which

is the

nineteenth

of King Nebuchadnezzar

King of Babylon,

Nebuzaradan,

captain

of

The Lion

and

the Ass

361

of the King of Babylon, unto Jerusalem: Q. And he burnt the house of the Lord, and the King's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and ev s house burnt he with fire. io. And all the army of the Chaldeans, ery great
the guard, a servant
man'

of the guard, brake down the walls of Jerusalem round of the people that were left in the city and the fugitives that fell away to the King of Babylon, with the remnant of the multitude, did Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carry away. 12. But the captain of the
that were with the captain
about.

11

Now the

rest

guard

pillars sea

of the poor of the land to be vinedressers and husbandmen. 13. And the brass that were in the house of the Lord, and the bases, and the brazen of that was in the house of the Lord, did the Chaldeans break in pieces, and car

left

ried

the

brass of them
away.

to

Babylon.

14.

And the pots, of brass

and

the shovels, and the

snuffers, and the spoons, and all the took

and one

vessels

wherewith

they

ministered,

they

15.

And the firepans,

and such things as were

away.

of gold, in gold,

of silver, in silver, the captain of the guard took sea, and the bases which Solomon had made for
these vessels was without weight. 17.
chapiter upon

16.

The two pillars,

the
was

brass of all
eighteen

house of the Lord; The height of the one pillar

the
and

cubits, and the

it

was

brass:

the

height of the

chapiter

three cubits; and the wreathen work, and pomegranates upon the chapiter round about, all
18.

of brass:

and

like

unto

these

had

the second pillar with

the

wreathen work.

And

the captain of the guard took

Seraiah

chief priest, and

Zephaniah the

second priest, and the three keepers of the door: 19. And out of the city he took an officer that was set over the men of war, and five men of them that were in the King's presence, which were found in the city, and the principal scribe of the host

which mustered

the people of the the

land,

and threescore men

of the

people

of the

land

that were
and

found in

city: 20.

And Nebuzaradan

captain

of the guard took

of Babylon to Riblah: 21. And the King of Babylon smote them, and slew them at Riblah in the land of Hamath. So Judah was carried away out of their land. 22. And as for the people that remained in the land ofJudah, whom Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon had left, even over them

these,

brought

them to the

King

he

made

Gedaliah the

son

of Ahikam, the

son

of Shaphan,

ruler.

(II Kings

25:7-22)

Gedaliah's grandfather, Shaphan, is ah 's reformation, but Gedaliah himself

collaborator, who
nian conquerers.
23.

one of seems

the men who was behind Hezeki to

be

portrayed

by

the author as a

for

personal

glory

was

willing to

sell

himself to the Babylo

And

when all the captains

King
pah,

even

of Babylon had made Ishmael the son of Nethaniah,

the son

of the armies, they and their men, heard that the Gedaliah governor, there came to Gedaliah to Mizand

Johanan the
and

Seraiah,
men,
the

of Tanhumeth the N
them, fear
not to

etophathite ,

son of Kareah, and Jaazaniah the son of a

Maachathite, they

and their men. 24.

And Gedaliah

sware

to them and to their

and said unto

be

the

servants

of

the

Chaldeans: dwell in
(II Kings

land,

and serve the

King

of Babylon;

and

it

shall

be

well with you.

25:23-24)

Gedaliah tried to
the
spirit

persuade

Israel to

give

in. He

seems

to lack any particle of

that made

Caleb willing to

stand

up to the giants.

362
25.

Interpretation
came

But it

to pass in the seventh month, that Ishmael the the

seed

son

of Nethaniah,
and smote

the son of Elishama,

Gedaliah,

that

of he died, and

royal, came, and ten men with

him,

the Jews and the

Chaldeans that

were with

him

at

Mizpah. (II Kings 25:25)

One
the

of

the king's

world of a man

Israel's

capital

showed the nobility of Caleb and was willing to rid Gedaliah. like Mizpah, the scene of the murder, had been until she decided to have a king, and now the king's descen

family

dants have
26.

struck their

last blow in that

both
small and

city.

And

all the people,

came

great, and the captains of the armies,

arose, and

to

Egypt: for they

thirtieth

were afraid

of the Chaldeans.

27.

And it

came

to pass in the

seven and

year

of the captivity of Jehoiachin

King

ofJu

dah, in

the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth

day

of the month, that

Evil-

merodach

of Jehoiachin
set

King King

of Babylon in the of Judah

out

year

that

he began

to reign
spake

did lift up

the

head
and

of prison; 28.

And he

his

throne above the throne

of the

kings

that were with

eat

him, him in Babylon;

kindly

to

29.

And
the

changed

his prison
30.

garments: and

he did

days of his life.

a

And his

allowance was a continual allowance given

bread continually before him all him

of the King, 25:26-30)

daily

rate

for every day,

all

the

days of his life. (II Kings

In the last

verses the author's

intention becomes
came

clear.

After the death

of

Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach
Jehoiachin. At the
role
end of

to power and did lift up the head of

words which

the

story those

had

played such a great

in the Book

of

Genesis

appear again.

discussed the

symbolism of

the word

In the commentary to Gen. 18:24 we lifted and showed that it meant to preserve
ends with a promise of

something on a the great defeat. Even though

was a time

higher

plane.

The book

hope

even after

we

may

respect

Ishmael,
and

the times were not right for action. It take another

for

waiting.

Perhaps it

would

forty

or

four hundred

years.

In the meantime, Gedaliah

author's

his

people could about

only

wait.

Our from
able

an

story reveals a great deal historical point of view, it is not

modern

the nature of the fall.

However,

quite accurate.

to do what

Biblical

critics would

In this chapter, we are have liked to have done for the

whole nal

Bible but for from

which

there are no means. In this particular case, the origi

source

which

the author took his material is two texts

will reveal

fully

available,
of

and a

careful comparison of the

to

us

something

the nature of

the

author's art.

For

purposes of easier comparison we shall place

the texts in

parallel columns.

The

reader will note

that the parallel passages are more in agreement than

would appear

from the
men

King

James translation.

fact that different

// Kings 24
18.

translated the passages for the

Presumably this King James

52

is due to the
Bible.

Jeremiah
was

Zedekiah

twenty

and one years and

old when

he began to reign,

he

old when

Zedekiah was twenty and one he began to reign, and he

years

The Lion
// Kings 24

and

the Ass

363
Jeremiah
52

reigned eleven years

in Jerusalem. And

reigned eleven years

in Jerusalem. And

his

mother's name was

Hamutal,
Libnah.

the

his
in

mother's name was

of

Hamutal,
Libnah.

the

daughter
19.

of

Jeremiah

of

daughter
2.

Jeremiah

of

And he did that

which was evil

And he did that

which was evil

in

the sight of the

Lord, according
anger of and

to all that

the sight of the

Lord, according
anger of and

to all that

Jehoiakim had done.

20.

Jehoiakim had done.

the Lord
3.

For through the

For through the

cast them out

the Lord it
until

it

came to pass

in Jerusalem

until

he had

cast them out

in Judah, from his pres

came to pass

in Jerusalem

Judah,

he had

from his presence,

ence that

Zedekiah

rebelled against the

that Zedekiah rebelled against the

king

of

king

of

Babylon.
Jeremiah
to pass
4.

Babylon.
2
came to pass

// Kings 25
1
.

Jeremiah 39
1
.

And it

came

And it

In the

ninth year of

in the

ninth year of

his

in the

ninth year of

his

Zedekiah

king

of

Judah, in

reign, in the tenth month,

reign, in the tenth month,

the tenth month,

in the tenth
month,

day

of the

in the tenth
month,
that
of

day

of

the

that Nebuchadnezzar
of all

king
and

Nebuchadrezzar

king

came of

Nebuchadrezzar
and all

king

Babylon came, he, his army,

Babylon came,

and all

Babylon

his

his army,
against

army,
and

Jerusalem, and he pitched against it; and they

against

Jerusalem,

built forts
about.

against

it

round

they pitched against it; and they built forts against it

round about.

Jerusalem, they besieged it.

against

and

2.

And the city

was

be
the

5.

And the city

was

be
2.
of

sieged unto

sieged unto year of

the eleventh

king
of
was

eleventh year of

king

In the

eleventh year

Zedekiah.
3.

Zedekiah.
ninth

Zedekiah,

In the

day

6. In the fourth month, in

the ninth

in the fourth month,

the ninth

the month, the famine

sore

day

of

the
was

in the city, so that there was no bread for the

people of the

month, the
sore

famine

day

of

the month,

land.

in the city, so that there was no bread for the

people of

4.
was

Then the city broken up,

the

land.
the

7.
was

Then the city broken up,

city was broken up.

3.

And

all

the princes of
came

the

king

of

Babylon

in,

and sat

in the

middle

gate, even

Nergalsharezer, Samgar-nebo, Sarsechin,

prince,
chief

chief

Nergalsharezer,
due
of

soothsayer, with the resi

the princes of the

king
4.

of

Babylon.
came to pass,

And it

that when

Zedekiah

king

of

364

Interpretation
Jeremiah
52

II Kings 25

Jeremiah 39

Judah
and all

saw

them war,

the

men of war

fled

and all the men of war,

and of

and all the men of

they fled
city

and went out

then

they fled
city

and went out

the

of the

by

night,

by

way

of

the

by

night,

by

way

of

the

by
the

gate

between the two

which was

gate

between the two

which was garden: were

walls, the

by
were

walls, the

by

by

by way of king's garden; the gate betwixt the two

night,

king's garden; now the Chaldeans

king's
the

walls:

now

the Chaldeans

by
he

the city
went

round about:

by
the

city

round about:

by

the way of the

they

went

by

the way

of

he left
plain.

by

the

way

of the

plain.

plain.

But the army of the Chaldeans pursued after

5.

8. But the army of the Chaldeans pursued after

the

5.

But the army

of

the

Chaldeans

pursued after

the

king,

and overtook

him
and

king,

and overtook

in the
all

plain of

Jericho,

Zedekiah in the

plain of

them, and overtook Zedekiah in the plain

Jericho.

of

his army from him.

was scattered

Jericho;
9.

and all

was scattered caught the carried

of

his army from him.

caught carried of

6. And they

And they
and

the

king,
up

and

they

him

king,
up

they

him
the

And they took him and they carried him up unto

Nebuchadrezzar

unto the

king

unto the

king

king

of

Babylon to Riblah;

Babylon, to Riblah, in land of Hamath;

and

Babylon, to Riblah, in land of Hamath,

and

the

and

they

gave

judgment

he
10.

gave

judgments

he

gave

judgments

upon

him.
And they killed the of Zedekiah

upon

him. Then the

of

upon

him.

king

of

6. Then the Babylon

king

of

7.
sons

Babylon
slew

the sons

Zedekiah he
also

slew the sons of

Zedekiah

in Riblah before his

eyes:

before his
slew

eyes:

before his

eyes: and the

the princes of Judah

king

of

Babylon
the princes of

in Riblah. Then he

slew all

Judah.
and put out

1 1

put out and and

7.

Then he

put out
and

the

eyes of

Zedekiah,

and

the eyes of

Zedekiah,
Babylon

the eyes of

Zedekiah,
chains

bound him in chains,

and carried

bound him in chains,

the

bound him in
to

king

of

him to

carried

him to
and put

carry him to Babylon.

Babylon.

Babylon,
death.

him in
of

prison till the

day

his

8. In the fifth
month,
of

12.

In the fifth in the tenth

in the

seventh

day
in

month,

day

of

the month, which was

nineteenth year of

the month, which was the nineteenth

year of

in

the

Nebuchadnezzar

king

of

Nebuchadrezzar

king

of

Babylon,

came

Nebuzar

Babylon,

came

Nebuzar
the guard,

adan, captain of the guard,

adan, captain

of

The Lion
// Kings 25
servant of

and

the Ass

365
Jeremiah
2

Jeremiah 39

the

king

of

who served of

before the
unto

king

Babylon,
9.

unto

Jerusalem.

Babylon,
13.

Jerusalem.
And they burned the
of

And they burned

of

8. The Chaldeans burned

the king's

house
the

the

Lord, and king's house, and all houses of Jerusalem,

the the houses of the
with

the

house

the the

Lord, and king's house, and all houses of Jerusalem,

the the houses of the
with

house,

and

the

houses
with and

of the

people,

and all

and all

great

he burned
And

fire.
of

great

he burned And
all

fire.

10.

all the

army

14.

the

Chaldeans,

of the

cap

the

Chaldeans,

the army of that were

fire; they

tain of the guard,

with

the captain of the

guard,

brake down the

Jerusalem.
1 1
.

walls of

brake down Jerusalem

15.

all

the walls

of

brake down the Jerusalem.

9.

walls of

round about.

Then Nebuzaradan
of

Then Nebuzar
captive

Then Nebuzaradan
carried

the captain
carried

the guard

adan the captain of the

the captain of the guard of

away

captive

guard carried

away

Babylon

away

certain of the poor of the

people,
the residue
of

and

the

the residue of the people

the residue of the

people that remained

people that remained

in the

that remained in the city,

and those that

in the

city, and those that fell away, that fell

to the

fell away,

city,

and

those that

fell

that fell

king

of

Babylon,
the

to the

king

of

Babylon,

to

him,

and the rest of multitude.

and the rest of the

multitude.

and the rest of the people

that remained.
10.

12.

But

16.

But Nebuzar-adan

But Nebuzar-adan,

the captain of the guard

the captain of the

guard

the captain of the

left

certain of the people

left

certain of the

guard, left of the poor of

the people,
which

people

had

nothing, in the land of Ju

for the
vineyards and

for the
for the
vineyards and

dah,
for the
same

and gave them

vineyards and

fields

at the

fields.
// Kings 25
13.

fields. Jeremiah
pillars of

time.

52
pillars of

Also the brazen

brass that
and the

were

17.

Also the
brazen
the

brass that
and the

were

in the house
and the

of the

Lord,

bases,
of

in the house
and the

of the

Lord,

bases,
of

sea that was

in the house

sea that was

in the house

the
the

Lord,
brass
14.

the Chaldeans
of them to

brake,

and carried

the
all

Babylon.

Chaldeans brake, and the brass of them to Babylon.

Lord,

carried

And the

caldrons also and the

18.

And the

caldrons also and the

shovels,

and the snuffers, and the

bowls, they

shovels, and the snuffers, and the

and the

bowls,
they

and the spoons, and all the vessels of

spoons, and

all

the vessels of

brass
away.

wherewith

they

ministered

took

brass
away.

wherewith

they

ministered took

19.

And the

bases,

366

Interpretation
Jeremiah
52
and the

II Kings 25
15.

And the

firepans,

and

the

bowls,

and

the

firepans,
and

bowls,

and

the

caldrons,

the candlesticks, and the

spoons, and the cups;

that which was of gold as gold, and that
which was of silver as captain of

that which was of gold as gold, and that

which was of silver as

silver, took the

silver, took the

the

guard away. one

captain of the guard away.

16.

The two pillars,

sea,

20.

The

two pillars, one sea, and

were under

twelve brazen bowls that

and

the

bases

which

Solomon had

made of all

the

bases,

which of

King

Solomon had

made

for the house

these

of the

Lord: the brass

for the house

these vessels
21.

the Lord: the brass of all

vessels was without weight.

was without weight.

17.

The height

of one pillar was eigh

And concerning the pillars, the height of one pillar was eighteen

cu com

teen cubits,

bits;
pass

and a cord of

twelve cubits

did

it;

and the thickness thereof was was

four

fingers: it
and the chapiter upon

hollow.
brass
was upon

it

was

brass:

and the

22.

And

a chapiter of

height

of the chapiter was three cubits,

it;

and

the height of one chapiter was

five

with network and pomegranates upon the chapiters round about, all of
second pillar also and

cubits,
upon

with network and pomegranates

brass. The

the chapiters round about, all of

second pillar also and the

the

pomegranates

brass. The

were

like

these.

pomegranates were

like these.
ninety
and six

23.

And there

were

pomegranates on each

side; and all the

pomegranates upon the network were an

hundred
18
.

round about. captain of the guard took

And the

captain of

the

guard

took

24.

And the

Seraiah the

chief priest and

Zephaniah the

Seraiah the door.

chief priest and

Zephaniah the keepers

of the

second priest, and the three

keepers
the

of the

second priest, and the three

door.
19.

And he took had the

also out of

city

an

25

And he took had the

also out of the

charge of
of

city

an

officer who

charge of the men of

officer who

the

men of

war; and five of them that were near the

war; and seven men

near

them that were

which were

king's prison,
city;
and

which were

found in the
the

the

king's prison,

found land:

the

principal scribe of

host,
and

who mustered

the people of the

land:

in the city; and the host who mustered

and

principal scribe of the

the people of the

three score

men of

the people of the

city.

land,

three score men of the people of the

that were

that were found

in the

land,
city. captain of

found in the

midst of the

20.

So Nebuzar-adan the

the

26.

So Nebuzar-adan the

captain of the

guard took

king

of
.

them, and brought them to the Babylon to Riblah.

guard took

king

of

them, and brought them to the Babylon to Riblah.

21

And the

king

of

Babylon

smote

27.

And the

king

of

Babylon

smote

them and put them to death in the

ried

Riblah, in
was car

them and put them to death in the land

ried
of

Riblah, in
was car

land

of

Hamath. Thus Judah his

own

Hamath. Thus Judah

out of

away

captive out of

land.

away captive 28. This is the

his

own

land. in

people whom

Nebuchadrezzar

carried

away

captive:

The Lion
// Kings 25

and the

Ass

367
Jeremiah
52

the seventh year three thousand Jews and

three and twenty.

29.

In the

eighteenth year of

Nebuchadrezzar he from Jerusalem

two persons.
30.

carried

eight

away captive hundred thirty and

In the three

and twentieth year of

Nebuchadrezzar, Nebuzar-adan the cap

tain of the guard carried away captive of the

Jews

seven

hundred

forty

and

five

per

sons: all and six

the persons were four thousand

hundred.
40

22.
mained

And

as

for the
of

people that re

in the land

Judah
of

whom

Jeremiah

Nebuchadnezzar
even over

Babylon had left, king them he made Gedaliah the son

the son
of

of

Ahikam,
23.

Shaphan,

ruler.

Now

when all

the captains of the

7.

Now

when all

the captains of the

forces, they
and the

forces
men, heard that the
made

which were

king

of

they

and

their

in the field, even men, heard that the king Gedaliah the
had
son of

of

Babylon had

Gedaliah

Babylon had

made

Ahikam
governor,
governor of the
unto and

land,

and

committed

him

men, and women, and

children,

the poor of the

land,

of

them that

there came to Gedaliah to Mizpah

even

Ishmael the Johanan

Nethaniah, and Jonathan, the sons of Kareah, and Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth, the Netophathite, and Jaazaniah the son of a Maachathite, they and their men.
son of
and

away captive to Babylon: 8. Then they came to Gedaliah to Miz pah, even Ishmael the son of Nethaniah,
were not carried and

Johanan
and

and

Jonathan,

the sons

of

Kareah,

Seraiah the

son of

Tanhumeth, and the sons of Ephai the Netophathite, and Jezaniah the son of a Maachathite, they and their men.
9.

24.

And Gedaliah he

And Gedaliah the Shaphan

son of

Ahikam the

son of

swore unto them and to their men, and said to

swore unto

them and to their men, saying.

them, Do not fear the servants of the Chaldeans: Dwell in the land and serve
the

Fear

not

to serve the

Chaldeans: Dwell in

the land and serve the

and

king

of

Babylon

king

of

Babylon

and

it

will

be

well

it
10.

will

be

well with you.

with you.

As for
to

me.

Mizpah,

serve

the

behold, I will dwell Chaldeans, which

gather ye and put

at

will come unto us: and summer

but ye,
and

wine,
them

fruits,

oil,

in

your

vessels, and

dwell in

your cities

that ye
1 1
were
.

have taken.
Likewise
when all

the

Jews that

in Moab,
and

ites,

among the Ammon in Edom, and that were in all the

and

368

Interpretation
Jeremiah 40
countries, heard that the

II Kings 25

king

of

Babylon he

had left
had

a remnant of

Judah,

and that

set over them

Gedaliah the

son of

Ahikam the
12.

son of all

Shaphan;
returned out of

Even

the Jews

they were driven, and came to the land of Judah, to Gedaliah, unto Mizpah, and gathered wine and sum
all places whither mer

13.

fruits very much. Moreover Johanan the

and all

son of

Kareah,
to

the

captains of

the

forces

that were in the

fields,

came to

Gedaliah
thou
cer

Mizpah,
14.

And

said unto

him, Dost

tainly know

that

Baalis the
sent

king

of the son of

Ammonites hath

Ishmael the

Nethaniah to slay thee? But Gedaliah the son of Ahikam believed them not.
1

Then Johanan the

son of

Kareah

spake to

ing,
shall

Gedaliah in Mizpah secretly, say Let me go, I pray thee, and I will slay
son of

Ishmael the

Nethaniah,

and no man

know it:

wherefore should

he slay
the

thee, that
unto

all the

Jews

which are gathered and

thee should

be scattered,
perish?

remnant

in Judah

16.

But Gedaliah the Johanan the Ishmael.

41

son of

Ahikam

said unto shalt not

son of

Kareah, Thou
speakest

do this thing: for thou

falsely

of

Jeremiah
25.
month

Now it

came

to pass

in the
royal

seventh

Now it

came to pass

in the

seventh

that Ishmael the

son of

Nethaniah
seed,

month that

Ishmael the

son of

Nethaniah

the son of

Elishama,
ten

of

the

the son of
and

Elishama,

of the royal seed,

the princes of the

came,

and

men with

him,

even

ten

men with

king, him, came

to Gedaliah
and there

the

son of

Ahikam to Mizpah
rose

they did
2
.

eat

bread together in Mizpah. Ishmael the

men

Then

son of

Neth him

aniah, and the ten

and smote

that were

with

Gedaliah that he died,

and smote

the son

Gedaliah the son of Ahikam of Shaphan with the sword and slew
the

him,
3.
and

whom

king

of

Babylon had

made

governor of the

land.
also slew

And Ishmael Jews that

the Jews

all the

were with

him,

even with

Gedaliah

The Lion
// Kings 25
and

and the

Ass

369
Jeremiah
41

the

Chaldeans that

were with

him

at

at

Mizpah,

and

the Chaldeans that

were

Mizpah.

found there, 4. And it

after

and the men of war.

came slain

to pass the second

day

he had

Gedaliah,

and no man

knew it, 5. That there

even

came certain and

from

Shechem, from Shiloh,

shaven,
cut
and

from Samaria, fourscore men, having their beards

their clothes rent,
and

having
incense

themselves,

with offerings and

in their hand, to of the Lord.

bring

them to the house

6. And Ishmael the

went

son of

Nethaniah

forth from Mizpah to

all

weeping

to pass, as

them, along as he went: and it came he met them, he said unto

meet

them, come to Gedaliah Ahikam.

7.

the son of

And it

was

so,

when

they

came

into
son

the
of

midst of

the city, that Ishmael the

slew

Nethaniah

them,

and cast them

into the
that

midst of

the pit,

he,

and the men

were with

him. found among

8. But ten
them that said

men were
unto

Ishmael, slay us not: for we have treasures in the field, of wheat, and of barley, and of oil, and of honey. So he forbare, and slew them not
among their brethren. 9. Now the pit wherein Ishmael had
cast all

the

dead bodies
because
of

of

the men, whom

was

he had
which

slain

Gedaliah,
made

it
of
son

Asa the

king

had

for fear

Baasha
of

king

of

Israel:

and with

Ishmael the

Nethaniah filled it

them that were

slain.

10.

Then Ishmael

carried

away

captive

all the residue of the people that were

in
all

Mizpah,
whom

even

the king's

the people that

daughters, and remained in Mizpah,

captain of

Nebuzar-adan the

the
son

guard

had

committed

to Gedaliah the
son of

of

Ahikam:

and

Ishmael the

Nethaniah

carried

them away captive,

and

departed to
1 1
.

go over to the
when

Ammonites.
son of

But

Johanan the

Kareah,
that

and all the captains of the

forces

were with

him, heard

of all

the evil

370

Interpretation
Jeremiah 41
that Ishmael the
son of

II Kings 25

Nethaniah had

done,
12.
sent

to

Then they took all the men, and fight with Ishmael the son of
and

Nethaniah,
13.

found him in Gibeon.

by

the great

waters that are

Now it

came

to pass, that when all

with

the people which were

Ishmael

saw

Johanan the

son of

Kareah,

and all the

captains of the

forces that

were with

him,

then

they
So

were glad.

14. carried

all the people that captive

Ishmael had
cast

away

from Mizpah

about and

returned,
son of

and went unto

Johanan the
15.

Kareah.
the son of

But Ishmael

Nethaniah
men, and

escaped
went

from Johanan

with eight

to the

Ammonites.
son of

26.

And

then arose

16.

Then took Johanan the

Kareah

and all the captains of the

forces
he had

that were with

all the people,

him,
son of

all the remnant of the people whom recovered

from Ishmael the

Nethaniah from Mizpah, after that he had slain Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, both
small and great even and

mighty

men of

war,

and

the women,

the children,

and the soldiers,

and

the officers whom he had brought

against

Gibeon:

And they departed and dwelt in the habitation of Chimham, which is Bethle
17.
and came to

Egypt;
Chaldeans.

hem,

to go to enter

for they

were afraid of the

18.

Because

were afraid of son of

son of

into Egypt, Chaldeans: for they them, because Ishmael the

of the slain

Nethaniah had

Gedaliah

the

Ahikam,

whom the

king

of

Babylon had Jeremiah

27.

made governor

in the land.

52
came to pass

And it

came to pass

in the

seven of

31.
and

And it

in the

seven

and thirtieth year of the

Jehoiachin
month

king

of

captivity Judah in the twelfth

twentieth

thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah in the twelfth

month

in the

seven and

the month, that

Evil-merodach
year

day of king of
reign of

in the five

and twentieth

day
of

of the

month, that Evil-merodach

king
his

Babylon in the

that

he began to

Babylon in the first

year of

reign of

lifted

lifted up the head of Jehoiachin Judah and brought him forth out

king
of

prison,

up the head of Jehoiachin and brought him forth out

king
of

Judah

prison,

The Lion
// Kings 25
28.
set

and the

Ass

371
Jeremiah
52
spake

And

spake

kindly

unto

him,
of

and

32.
set

And

kindly

unto

him,

and

his throne And

above the

throne

the

his throne
33.

above the throne of the

kings that
29.
and

were with

changed

him in Babylon; his prison garments:

kings that
and

were with

And

changed

him in Babylon; his prison garments:

him

he did continually eat bread before all the days of his life.
And for his diet there
given
was a contin

him
ual

he did continually eat bread before all the days of his life.
And for his diet there
given was a contin

30.
ual

34.

diet

him

of

every

day
all

a portion

king of Babylon, until the day of his

the

diet

him

of

every

day
all

a portion

king of Babylon, until the day of his

the

death,

the days of his life.

sole exception of

death,
II Kings 25:22,

the days of his life.

With the
section most

which paraphrases a rather of

long
al ma

from

Jeremiah,

the author has merely copied the Book

a

Jeremiah

verbatim,

deleting

few

passages

here

and there and

rearranging the

terial.

Nonetheless, if

we compare

the passages

with greater care we can see

that our book tells a very

different tale.
of

Jeremiah leaves the description

order

the conquered Temple to the very end in

present

to contrast it

with

Jehoiachin 's final deliverance. But in the

contrasted with
next

text

Jehoiachin 's final deliverance is

such as

the actions of particular men,

Gedaliah

and

cause

it deals

with

deletes Jer. 52:12-18, apparently be Jeremiah himself. This reason, however, is insufficient since

Ishmael. He

in

a parallel passage section

in II Kings, Chapters 18-20, the

which
author avoids

author

included

very
the

long

from Isaiah in

the name Isaiah often occurs.

By deleting
fact,
a

present verses

from Jeremiah the

our

mentioning the fact that Ge

close

daliah,
friend
The
which

whom

author presented

as

collaborator, was, in

of

Jeremiah.

author then

deletes the first

six verses of

Chapter

Forty

of

Jeremiah, in

Our author, to the contrary, often speaks of the sins of the kings, but rarely, if ever, mentions the sins of the people, except insofar as they were misled by their leaders.
the prophet berates the
people

for their

sins.

In Verse Seven he deletes the fact that Gedaliah

the shreds of the
poor who

was able

to draw together

had been left His

after the men of prominence

had been

captured and taken

miah 41:9.

away

as slaves.

quotation continues

down through Jere his

According
the
people

to the

original

text

in Jeremiah, Gedaliah

explained

plan

to

(Jer. 40:9-12)

and was then warned of the

impending danger, but

posed such a

his

own good nature would not allow

him to believe that Ishmael

all of

threat. In the Book of

Kings, however,
the

these things have been

41

deleted.

Our

author picks

up

with

first

verse of

Chapter

but deletes the fact that

Ishmael had

come

to Gedaliah as a friend and had even accepted an

enough of

invitation
clear

to dinner. However he does pick up

Verse Three to

make

it

that

Ishmael killed the Jews

erous

who collaborated with

Gedaliah,

as well as

the treach

Chaldeans. The

author

then deletes Verses

4 to 15 completely, which,

372
along
was

Interpretation
Verse 14
of

with

Chapter 40,

make

it

clear

that Ishmael

and not

Gedaliah Ishmael

the traitor

and was

He

picks

planned

up random to join forces

working together with words from Verses 1 6 to

with

Baalis, King
18

of

the

Ammonites.

in

order of

to show that

the Egyptians in hopes

passage earlier

defeating

the Babyloni

ans, but left

vised

out a rather not

long

in Jeremiah in

which

Jeremiah

ad

the

king

to join

forces

with

the Egyptians since Israel's only

hope

was

to wait for better days.

The

author

then picks up the last few verses of Jeremiah in Chapter 52, and the rise of

both from

authors conclude with

prison and gave

Evil-merodach,
text

who released

Jehoiachin

him

a place at

the king's table.

which

There

are almost no words

in

our author's

have

not

been taken

directly

from Jeremiah. have if the

Any

attempt

to analyze the passage

by

modern word

analysis would sages even can see count

more

established

the fact that Jeremiah had written these pas

passages we

passages

from Jeremiah had been lost. In these is

how the

author used older

texts to weave his story. In the factual ac

not

Ishmael

was a

traitor, but
the

our author

interested in facts. He is
Since he for

much

interested in the
that these
were

general ways of peoples and nations.

wished

to

show

days for waiting

and not

fighting

became Caleb in
giants.
upon

order

that we might see that the time was

Ishmael suddenly not ripe for slaying

Gedaliah's nobility was also dropped because times forced themselves Israel and it would have made no difference whether Gedaliah was noble

or

base. If
our author could take such

liberties left to

with

texts

dealing

with

times fresh in
of

the memory of the people we are

wonder

how he handled the times

Abraham

and

Joshua. Would it have been

given

possible to reconstruct the passages

from Jeremiah
tator could not
names of all

the passages in the Book of Kings? The present commen

what of

have done it. And

E,

and

J,

and

which are

the

those reconstructed texts

which modern scholars

take to be behind

the Book of Genesis? Are

they

not

idle

by

the

use of words

like redactor,

and

masquerading as science Deuteronomistic Code, and the Priestly

speculations

Codel While it is true that

must remember

modem science requires

intricate terminology

we

that strange words are also the tools of evil magicians.

In the final

original

text Jeremiah had contrasted the rape of the Temple with the

position given

contrast with

the contrast

one of the main

replacing this between Gedaliah and the king, the author indicated facets which distinguish him from the Prophets. In general the for the Prophets is the
unwillingness of men to
upon what

King Jehoiachin

at

the end of the

book.

By

root of political evil our author men

listen. For
to

do listen, but times depend

thread has

is

available

for them
it back

hear. At this
point our scarlet run out and we can chase no

further; but
prior

certain questions still remain.

Were there any texts

was

which glorified

the capture of Jericho or which pronounced a curse on the to the time when the last

man who rebuilt

it

independent king

killed

on

the way there?

The Lion
Did

and the

Ass

373

anyone ever suggest that

city?

Abraham
on

was

from Chaldea

until

the Chaldeans
made

destroyed the
archeological

clear

decision

these problems can only be

by

an

discovery

which would reach

far beyond the importance

such a

thing found in
before
us.

the caves of

Qumran. Until

time

we

any have only the text

of

These
are

speculations

to some extent

concerning the way in which our author writes, however, justified by the discoveries of modern science. According to

of Ur did not exist at the time of Abraham. This nothing as far as the author is concerned, but the author himself indicates that he is aware of the problem. The Hebrew word for Chal dean is chasdim, or in other words the sons of Chesed. However, the author modern

archeologists, the city

would prove

in itself

presents

Chesed

as

the son of

Nahor, Abraham's brother,

even after

and

is

rather careful

to point out that

Abraham had left Haran, and hence obviously after he had supposedly left Ur of the Chaldees. There are other ways in which our author uses history to say something
which

Chesed had been born

is

more

than

historical.
of

The

author's

way
the

ing

the length

of

dealing with history can only now be seen by calculat Davidic dynasty from the capture of Jerusalem to the last
was

moments of end of

Josiah since, according to Hulda's prophecy, that the kingdom.

to
understand

officially the

In

order

better these last

of

moments of

the state we must pay

close attention cussed years a

to the chronology
will

the kings. Several problems must be dis

states the number of

before the list

be intelligible. When the text

king ruled, both the first and last years of his reign are credited to him. Thus if two kings rule in succession and both are credited with 20 years the
combined total will equal

Another
cide.

difficulty

39 years rather than 40. is that the chronologies of the two kingdoms do
kingdom
was

not coin

Since the

northern

the

cause of

the split
until

we shall calculate

according to the dates given

for the

northern

kingdom

its fall

and not ac

cording to the dates given for the dom fell in the third
years after
year of

southern

kingdom. Since the

northern ruled

king
for
26

Hezekiah,

who ruled

for 29 years, he

the fall.
of

In the last days

the kingdom

all of

Israel's

past seemed

to come together.
at the same

The young Man of God's promise was fulfilled Israel felt the sting of Joshua's curse. But there Like Kronos
who ate

by

Josiah, but

time

was even a more ancient

threat.
re

his children, Abraham's grandfathers, the Chaldeans, Ever since the prophecy of the young Man children. devour the turned to God we had been waiting for the great moment when Josiah would come to
unite the country. rael's

Of
re

But the Chaldeans

as

were waiting, came

too. This ancient seed of Is

destruction bloomed
and

Israel
all

to flower. The

brothers

Moab,
had

Edom,
glory

the rest of

them, had

failed. The kingdom in its

proper sense
of

lasted four hundred years,

was

and what we

had thought to be the height

Israel's

merely

another

waiting

period.

374

Interpretation

THE KINGS OF ISRAEL

Number

Of
Years Ruled
32

Name David
Solomon Jeroboam

Years Given 33
40 22 2

Chapter

II Sam.

5:1

39
21
1

2:1
2:11-12 2:14-20

Nadab Baasha
Elah

24
2

23
1

2:15-25
16:8

Omri
Ahab

7
22 2
12

6
21 1
11

16:23 16:29
22:51

Ahaziah
Joram

II Kings

3:1 10:36 13:1 13:10

Jehu
Jehoahaz Joash Jeroboam II
Zachariah

28

27
16

17
16 4i

15
40
months

14:23
15:8

0 0

Shaloum
Menachem Pekahiah

1 month

15:13 15:17 15:23 15:27

17:1

10 2 20

9
1

Pekah Haseh

19
7*

9
Total

290

THE KINGS OF JUDAH FROM THE THIRD YEAR OF KING HEZEKIAH

Hezekiah Manassah Amon

26

18:2 21:1

55
2 31

54
1
29*

21:19
22:1

Josiah

Total Years
of the

no 290

Kings

of

Israel

Grand Total
?The last
partial year

400 years

has

not

been

counted.

The kingdom, from David in Jerusalem to Josiah at Beth-el, lasted four hun dred years. Like the Flood, the years in Egypt, the wanderings in the desert,
and

Moses

on

Sinai, like

the time of the

Judges, it, too, had been

a time of

preparing.

The

great promise through you all the people

was never

intended to

mean

Israel's

victory.

of the world will be blessed Israel had grown, but the roads
the

through the brothers had

been

closed.

The

return of

Chaldeans

meant that

Israel

would

be led into captivity

and could

only

help

the world

by being

tossed

The Lion
about

and

the Ass
men

375 like Evil-merodach did the

and

in it. Through
peace

Cyrus,

perhaps

Israel

could

bring

to the
what

world

through the example of

name

law

and the

New Way.

But what,
people could of

in heaven's
out

writer of

the books think that little

do

floating
not

there in that vast sea? This is the final question

nor

the

book. It's

the serpent's question

can no

nor even

little Isaac's. The book

longer

God's question, nor Sarah's help us; its pages seem to give
He
wrote:

no answer.

Was it Cyrus then? Isaiah

seemed to think so once.

that saith to the

deep, Be dry,
be built;
and

and

will

dry

up thy

rivers:

that saith of

Cyrus, He is My Jerusalem, Thou

Thus
saith

shepherd, and
shalt

shall perform all

and to the

My pleasure: even saying to temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

whose right

the

Lord

to

His anointed, to Cyrus,

I
will

hand I have holden,

to

subdue nations

before him:
and

loose

the

the two
make cut

leaved gates;
the

the gates shall not

loins of Kings, to open before him be shut; I will go before thee, and
pieces the gates

the crooked places straight:

sunder

I I

will

break in

of brass,

and

in

bars of iron:

and

will give thee

the treasures of darkness, and

which call and

hidden
thee

riches

by thy
hast

name, am the

of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, God of Israel. For Jacob My servant's sake,
even called am

Israel

Mine elect, I have

thou
not

thee the

known Me. I
girded

by thy Lord, and

name:

I have

surnamed

thee,

though
no

there

is

none

else, there that

is

God

beside Me: I from

the the

thee, though thou has

not

known Me:
there

Lord,

rising of the sun, and from the west, that and there is none else. I form the light,
create evil:

they may know is none beside Me. I am

darkness: I
make

and create

peace, and

I the Lord do

all

these things.

(Is. 44:27-45:7)

Maybe Cyrus
cannot make altar was

was

the answer and

maybe

not; the pages are

blank,

the reader

them speak. We have seen another dream at Beth-el. Jeroboam's

and all

gone,

the

world with

it. The

people were on their

of

Haran Man
the

and through no

Haran to Babylon. The Silent God

answer was

way back to Jacob had returned,

but Israel had

Magic Staff. Maybe the God

was

that there was no answer.

which

was alone now. was open.

their rock, the ground on

they stood, but

could

Way

A little

people

in

a vast

sea,

what

did he think they You

saw no

do? Do
. .
.

not

kill

Honor thy father

to
. .

and

thy

mother

likeness of

Bow

not

down

Is this the

wisdom and

the understanding which shall

be in the

sight of all the nations?

CHAPTER XXXIX

I.

AND JOSEPH WAS BROUGHT DOWN TO

EGYPT;
AN

AND

POTIPHAR,

AN OFFICER

OF PHARAOH, CAPTAIN OF THE

HANDS OF THE

GUARD,

EGYPTIAN, BOUGHT HIM OF THE

ISHMAELITES,

WHICH HAD BROUGHT HIM DOWN THITHER.

The
came

word

which

has been translated

officer

captain

originally

meant eunuch

but

to

mean

higher

because

of

the

lofty

position

that those men

376
were

Interpretation in Egypt. The

earlier

given

However if the

may be used simply in this later meaning. meaning is intended the actions of Potiphar's wife would
word

be

more

intelligible.
were

The Ishmaelites be
instance

mother and wife were

closely related to the Egyptians since both Ishmael's Egyptians (Gen. 16:1 and 21:21). This might appear to
plan

another

of

the failure of the original

through
not

which

the seed of

the New

Way Way

might grow.

However that is probably

alternative,
world

the case since the

Ishmaelites
the New
15:12).

were

intended

as a radical

rather than as a

link between
19:31
and

and

the rest of the

(see commentary to Gen.

2.

AND THE LORD WAS WITH

JOSEPH,

AND HE WAS A PROSPEROUS

MAN;

AND

HE WAS IN THE HOUSE OF HIS MASTER THE EGYPTIAN. 3. AND HIS MASTER SAW THAT THE LORD WAS WITH

HIM,

AND THAT THE LORD

MADE ALL THAT HE DID TO PROSPER IN HIS HAND.

4.

AND JOSEPH FOUND GRACE IN HIS

SIGHT,

AND HE SERVED HIM: AND HE

MADE HIM OVERSEER OVER HIS INTO HIS HAND. 5.

HOUSE,

AND ALL THAT HE HAD HE PUT

AND IT CAME TO PASS FROM THE TIME THAT HE HAD MADE HIM OVERSEER

IN HIS

HOUSE,

AND OVER ALL THAT HE

HAD,

THAT THE LORD BLESSED

THE EGYPTIAN'S HOUSE FOR JOSEPH'S

SAKE;

AND THE BLESSING OF

THE LORD WAS UPON ALL THAT HE HAD IN THE HOUSE AND IN THE FIELD.

Chapter Thirty-nine is devoted to

the first generation of
are all spoken of as
sons

description

of

Joseph. He is

a member of

properly speaking,
of

since

the first three generations

woven of

fathers. The fabric fortune

this chapter is therefore

from

threads
of

of

the preceding chapters. In Verse Three one can spot a

good

bit

the life
to

Isaac. Joseph's

and the phrase which reads all that

he did

prosper servant

in his hand is

a reference to

Chapter

Twenty-four, in

which

Abraham's

continually wondered if his way would prosper (Gen. 24:21,40,41). Verses Four and Five on the other hand remind the reader of Jacob's relation
30:27.

to

Laban, particularly in Gen.

again

The

mere

fact that he is

alone and

starting

life

in

a new

country

would

be

sufficient to remind us of

Abraham, but
develops.

there is a

more specific

kinship

which will emerge as

the chapter

6.

AND HE LEFT ALL THAT HE HAD IN JOSEPH'S HAND: AND HE KNEW NOT

OUGHT HE
GOODLY

HAD,

SAVE THE BREAD WHICH HE DID EAT. AND JOSEPH WAS A

PERSON, AND WELL FAVOURED.

charmed

Potiphar has been thoroughly

the phrase which refers to the
seph managed all of

by

bread is
affairs

unclear.

Joseph. However, the meaning of It has been suggested that Jo

private and public except

Potiphar's

both

for his
to in

food, because

of

the Egyptian

laws concerning

food,

which are referred

The Lion
Gen. had
43:34.

and

the Ass

377

But it

seems more

complete trust

in Joseph

and so

likely that the verse merely means that Potiphar long as he enjoyed his daily meal was well beauty
of

content.

Joseph inherited the

outward

his mother, Rachel (Gen.

29:17).

We

have already discussed the ambiguity of that virtue in the commentary to Gen. 23:2. At this point it serves as a transition between Joseph's good fortune in ac quiring the friendship Potiphar's wife.
of

Potiphar

and the

difficulties

which

he

will

have

with

7.

AND IT CAME TO PASS AFTER THESE CAST HER EYES UPON

THINGS, THAT HIS SAID,

MASTER'S WIFE

JOSEPH;

AND SHE

LIE WITH ME.

8.

BUT HE

REFUSED,

AND SAID UNTO HIS MASTER'S

WIFE, BEHOLD,

MY MAS

TER WOTTETH NOT WHAT IS WITH ME IN THE MITTED ALL THAT HE HATH TO MY

HOUSE,

AND HE HATH COM

HAND; I;
NEITHER HATH HE KEPT

9.

THERE IS NONE GREATER IN THIS HOUSE THAN BACK ANY THING FROM ME BUT THEN CAN I DO THIS GREAT

THEE,

BECAUSE THOU ART HIS WIFE: HOW AND SIN AGAINST GOD?

WICKEDNESS,

Joseph, from his

have
shown

own point of

view, stresses the ingratitude

which

he

would

had he

acquiesced to the

desires

of

Potiphar's
refer

wife.

Throughout the

chapter
uses

the author uses the tetragammenon to

word

the

which, had he been speaking in the

and

However, Joseph Egyptian language, would

to God.
remind

probably have been translated the gods the wife of Potiphar of her own duties
.

may have been intended to

IO.

AND IT CAME TO

PASS,

AS SHE SPAKE TO JOSEPH DAY BY

DAY,

THAT HE

HEARKENED NOT UNTO

HER,

TO LIE BY

HER,

OR TO BE WITH HER.

The story

of

Joseph

and

Potiphar's

wife

is

part of

the

melange of

the preced

ing

chapters.

It is Joseph's
which

counterpart of

Abraham's

relation

to Pharaoh and

the relationship
case of

both Abraham

and

Isaac had to Abimelech. As in the

reasons are

Isaac there

was no need

for divine intervention, but the

care and

very

different. In this
protect

case

Joseph's

human

decency

rather than

his

naivete

him.
TIME, THAT JOSEPH WENT INTO THE

II.

AND IT CAME TO PASS ABOUT THIS

OF THE HOUSE TO DO HIS BUSINESS; AND THERE WAS NONE OF THE MEN
HOUSE THERE WITHIN.

12.

AND SHE CAUGHT HIM BY HIS

GARMENT, SAYING, LIE WITH ME: AND HE

LEFT HIS GARMENT IN HER HAND, AND

FLED,

AND GOT HIM OUT.

13.

AND IT CAME TO

PASS,

WHEN SHE SAW THAT HE HAD LEFT HIS GARMENT

IN HER HAND, 14.

AND WAS FLED

FORTH,

THAT SHE CALLED UNTO THE MEN OF HER

HOUSE,

AND SPAKE UNTO

HEBREW UNTO US TO MOCK THEM SAYING, SEE, HE HATH BROUGHT IN AN

378
us;

Interpretation
he came in unto me to lie with

me,

and i cried with a loud

voice:

15.

and it came to
AND

pass,

when he heard that i lifted up my voice

CRIED,

THAT HE LEFT HIS GARMENT WITH

ME, AND FLED

AND GOT

HIM OUT.

In
word

recent

times there has been

rather

much

discussion
the

about

the meaning of the

Hebrew. A
with a

Hebrews

The

Hab/Piru'

to connect the scholarly Habiru can be found in the doctoral thesis known as the group by Moshe Greenberg. The problem has also been discussed by
account of modern attempt
Origins.2

Theophile James Meek in Hebrew Let

see
us

considering the passages in front of us, and then we their relationship to modern discoveries. The term Hebrew appears in begin

by

shall clus

ters in the Bible as

author's

well as

way
order

of

writing

we shall

appearing in single instances. In accordance with the first examine the passages in which it occurs
can shed on

often

in

to see

what

light they

the other passages.

By far
which

the

greatest use of

the word Hebrew occurs

between the thirty-ninth

other passages

chapter of

Genesis

and the seventh chapter of

Exodus. The

in

the

word occurs passages

4-14.

The

regularly in the latter

come

from the First Book

the Book of

of

Samuel,

Chaps.

part of

Genesis

continue

from the

present chapter

through the thirty-second verse of Chapter

Forty-three (Gen.
restricted to
never again will

39:14,17; Gen. 40:15; Gen. 41:12; and Gen. 43:32). The word is the time during which Joseph is either in bondage or in jail. It will

be

used after

Joseph is

placed

in high

office.

In the Book

of

Exodus it

be

used almost
after

from the very beginning of the book but will only be used once the Children of Israel have gained their freedom from Egyptian bondage.
will

In Genesis it

be

used

twice

by

Potiphar's

wife

to describe a

mere slave she

desperately
himself

loves

and

will speak of

violently hates because he dares to spurn her. Joseph the Hebrews in Gen. 40:15, and it will also be used once

in

a rather offhand

way

by

Pharaoh's butler to

refer

to a slave that he once

met

while

he

was

in

prison

(Gen. 41:12). It is

used once more

in the book to

refer

to those people

who are so with

lowly

that Egyptian law prevents the Egyptians

from

eating together In the early

them (Gen. 33:21).

chapters of

Exodus

one

finds both the terms Hebrew

and the

Sons of Israel. The two terms obviously refer to the same people, but they are used in very different ways. In Chapters One and Two the word Hebrew is used

by

the Egyptians to

refer

to

a mass of people whom

they

wish

to

destroy

(Ex.

1:15-19 and Ex. 2:6,7). It is also used for the Hebrew slave Moses saw being beaten by an Egyptian master, as well as the two Hebrews he saw fighting (Ex.
2:7,11).

1. 2.

Moshe Greenberg, The Hab/Piru, American Oriental Society, New Haven, Conn., T. J. Meek, Hebrew Origins, Harper & Row, New York, i960.

1955.

The Lion

and the

Ass
God

379
who

When Moses
referred

asks

He is

and

under what name

He

should

be

the

speaking with the children of Israel, God uses the name Lord God of your fathers the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob (Ex. 3:15). However, when God tells Moses under what name
,

to when he is

He

should

be

referred

to when

Moses is speaking

with

the

king

of

Egypt He

gives
uses

the name Lord of the Hebrews (Ex. 3:18), and Moses quite consistently the terminology when speaking with Pharaoh (Ex. 5:3, 7:16, and 9:1).
occurrences

Aside from these

refer

it is

never used again

in the Book

of

Exodus to

to the whole of the people.

next appears with great

The term Hebrew

frequency

in the First Book

of

Samuel, Chaps.

4-14.

In

all cases the passages concerned their wars against

of

their unconquerable enemy, the Philistines. Chapter Four

the First Book of

Samuel tells the story of the first attack when Israel, finding itself hard put, brought the Ark of God into the battle. The story of this grave misuse of the

Ark

was retold

in the commentary to Gen.

21:1.

On this

occasion the

Philis

tines in their confidence refer to the Israelites as Hebrews (I Sam. 4:6). Some
what

that

later they say Be strong and quit yourselves like men, oh ye Philistines, ye be not like slaves to the Hebrews as they have been slaves unto you:

quit yourselves

like

men and fight

(I Sam.

4:9).
placed

In this
reference refer

passage again the word

Hebrew is

in

opposition

to

men.

The

to a time

when

the Hebrews were once slaves to the Philistines may

of

to their slavish behavior at the time the Judges

when

Caleb,

or

it may actually

refer

to

the

period of

the Philistines

ruled part of

the conquered land

(see Judg.
Two
on the

10:6 and

Chaps.

13-15).

years after

the

Philistines. At the

beginning of his reign, King Saul planned his first attack beginning of the battle King Saul throws their words
reads as

back into their teeth. The text

follows: And Jonathan

and the

smote the garri

Philistines heard of it. And Saul son of the Philistines that was in Geba blew the trumpet throughout all the land saying Let the Hebrews hear (I Sam.
13:3).
caves

Despite this rousing cry the battle -went badly. Many of the men hid in and thickets. Those who were so cowardly as to go beyond the Jordan
and

into Gad

Gilead,

are referred to

by

the author as Hebrews (I

Sam.

13:7).

When the army finally regrouped itself the Philistines jeeringly said Behold the Hebrews come forth out of their holes where they had hid themselves (I Sam. 14:11). On that occasion Jonathan became the first meaningful hero. The hero
only potential, and the heroism of Samson remained private. After Jonathan's single-handed battle with the large company of Philistines the men regained their courage and the text reads: Moreover the Hebrews that

ism

of

Caleb

was

were

with the

Philistines before that time,

countryside

which went

up

with them with

unto

the

camp from
that

the

around, even

they
and

turned to

be

the

Israelites
the same

were with

Saul

and

Jonathan (I Sam.

14:21).

Here

again one sees

kind

of

distinction between the Hebrews

the Israelites that appeared

in the

380 early
to the

Interpretation
Exodus. Even in those
many of the Hebrews.
were

part of

chapters

in

which

the word Hebrew was

often used

there

references

to the elders of Israel

but

no references

elders

After

having
the

been trounced
except

by

Jonathan

the Philistines

never used

the word

Hebrew again,

During
Philistine,
and

period

wonderfully ironic passage. in which David was gathering forces

in

one

at

Ziklag, Achish

the

then

his mentor,

once

took

him to

meet

the other Philistine princes

fully realizing who David was they When Hebrews here? What do these said to him they discovered that the He brews were David, the slayer of giants and his men, their contempt turned to
to

join them in battle

against

Israel. Not

anger

(I Sam.

29:3).
also
used

The term Hebrew is

15:12.

in

parallel

verses

in Ex.

21:2

and

Deut.

the laws concerning a Hebrew slave, and in slavery are placed. According to both texts no Hebrew can be held in slavery by his brother for more than seven years against his will, and according to the Book of Deuteronomy the freed slave must be

Both

passages

deal

with on

both

cases

strong limitations

given sufficient

cattle,
this

feed,

and

land in

order to

begin life

on s solid

founda
the

tion.

The

sense of

is very

well grasped

by Jeremiah,

who proclaimed

freeing

of slaves after the attack of

Nebuchadnezzar.
the

This is the

word that came unto

Jeremiah from

Lord,

after that the

were at

King
to
and

Zedekiah had
proclaim man

made a covenant with all unto

the people which

Jerusalem,

liberty

them; that every

man should or a

let his manservant,

go

every

his

maidservant,

being

Hebrew

Hebrewess,

free;

that none should

serve

himself of them,

to wit, of a Jew

his brother. (Jer. 34:8,9)

Thus far every instance Since the word Hebrew is

word was ple

of

the

word

Hebrew

refers

to a slave or a

coward.

used

derogatorily
word

it is

more

than possible that the

in fact derived from the

Habiru.

They

were a mixed

lot

of peo

wandering through the

Middle East

at about the same

time. Its use in the

Bible, however, does

people who

not necessarily imply that the Hebrews were a separate joined the Children of Israel. It may have been used in the way that people use

many thoughtless
people who

the word

Gypsy today,
Even to this

even when not

belong

to the

Gypsy

nation.

day

no

referring to self-respecting Jew

ever calls

himself

Hebrew.
appears one more

The himself
were ern

word

Hebrew only

time in the whole of the

Bible,

and that a

is

difficult

passage

to understand. In Gen.

Hebrew

prior

to the

battle
to

against

14:13 Abraham called Chedorlaomer. Abraham's forces

northeast

successful,

and

he

was able

drive Chedorlaomer beyond the

strikes one as strange

border into Damascus. At first glance, it

should
must

that the term

Hebrew
ever,
came

be

used

during

Abraham's

most successful campaign. problem of

How

we

remember

that in

Chapter Fifteen the

Damascus

up again. Throughout the twelve books it is impossible to forget that Abraham merely chased Chedorlaomer into the countries of the north but was

The Lion
unable

and the

Ass

381
return of

to

defeat him. The

marked

these forces under Nebuchadnezzar

of a new period of slavery.

at

the

time of
of

Jeremiah

the

beginning

The

seeds
of

this final collapse may have been in the author's mind when he spoke
as a

Abraham
l6.

Hebrew.
HER, UNTIL HIS LORD CAME HOME. WORDS, SAYING, US, CAME IN
THE

AND SHE LAID UP HIS GARMENT BY

17.

AND SHE SPAKE UNTO HIM ACCORDING TO THESE

HEBREW

SERVANT,

WHICH THOU HAST BROUGHT UNTO

UNTO

ME TO MOCK ME: l8. AND IT CAME TO

PASS,

AS I LIFTED UP MY VOICE AND

CRIED,

THAT HE

LEFT HIS GARMENT WITH 19. AND IT CAME TO

ME,

AND FLED OUT. THE WORDS OF HIS

PASS, WHEN HIS MASTER HEARD

WIFE, WHICH SHE SPAKE UNTO HIM, SAYING,

THY SERVANT TO 20.

AFTER THIS MANNER DID

ME; THAT HIS WRATH WAS KINDLED. HIM,

AND PUT HIM INTO THE

AND JOSEPH'S MASTER TOOK

PRISON,

PLACE WHERE THE KING'S PRISONERS WERE BOUND: AND HE WAS THERE IN THE PRISON. 21.

BUT THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH AND SHEWED HIM

MERCY,

AND GAVE

HIM FAVOUR IN THE SIGHT OF THE CHIEF OF THE PRISON. 22. AND THE CHIEF OF THE PRISON COMMITTED TO JOSEPH'S HAND ALL THE

PRISONERS THAT WERE IN THE

PRISON;

AND WHATSOEVER THEY DID

THERE,
23.

HE WAS THE DOER OF IT.

THE CHIEF OF THE PRISON LOOKED NOT TO ANY THING THAT WAS UNDER

HIS

HAND;

BECAUSE THE LORD WAS WITH

HIM,

AND THAT WHICH HE

DID,

THE LORD MADE IT TO PROSPER.

Potiphar's

wife was a woman of excessive pride who could not

brook Jo
seems to

seph's spurning.

Love does

not turn

to hate in
of

all

men,

and

Potiphar

be

a perceptive person.

Verse Three

Chapter

Forty

makes clear

that the chief

of the prison referred to

in Verse Twenty-one is the Captain of the Guard, that is to say the chief of the prison was Potiphar himself (see Gen. 39:1). Poti phar's anger was not against Joseph but against his wife. He realized that nei
ther he
seph
nor

Joseph

could

have

acted

differently
be
an

but

was

forced to transfer Jo his

prisoner.

to a high

position

in the

prison under

the guise of

being

The

word used

for

prison

seems to
a

Egyptian

word which never

ap

pears again
once at

in the Bible, but there is

Hebrew
twice

word which appears

three times:

the end of First Kings the prophet

and

near

the end of
we

Second Kings. discussed in the

Micaiah,

during

the

reign of

King

Ahab that

threatened with jail. He was the prophet commentary to Gen. 20:7, was once who lied to King Ahab in order to trap him during the projected campaign against Syria. Again, many years later, when the Assyrians finally captured Is

rael,

King

Hosiah

was placed

in

prison

by

Shalmaneser. The last time

which we released

a prison com

is

mentioned

is in the

account of when

the final days

was

discussed in the
from
prison

mentary to

Gen. 38:27

Jehoiachin

by

Evil-

382

Interpretation
the king's table. Joseph's ultimate release
which are

merodach and given a place at

from
of

prison and

the hopes

of

freedom

implicit

at

the end of the

Book

Genesis may be

a reflection of

the author's understanding of the situation at the

of

conclusion of the

Second Book

Kings.
parallel

In many ways the end of If

our assertion

Genesis is

to the end of the Book of Kings.

is

correct

that the book was written in the early days of the Bab
redemption

ylonian

Exile

and

that Joseph's

from

prison

was

symbolic

of

Jehoiachin's release, then the Torah itself redemption from Babylon.

would

become

a promise of

Israel's

Discussion

Defending

Socrates

and

A Response to Stewart
Thomas G. West

Defending Umphrey

Politics:

University

of Dallas

Rarely is one's published writing treated with the care that Stewart Umphrey brings to his reading of my Plato's Defense of Socrates in his essay "Eros and Thumos."1 It can certainly be said of Umphrey's learned and spirited critique,
as

I trust

will also

be

said of

my response, that

ours

is

no

merely

personal ex philosophers

change, but

rather one

that addresses the principal question

all

facing

and political men

indeed,
to live.

human beings. As it fate may

afford

Socrates'

proper appreciation of

for Plato, so today the the best entry into the question
was

of

how

one ought

Because Umphrey's
pose of

review provoked a

rethinking

of

the content and

pur

my book,
what

the

present response

is

no mere rehearsal of old arguments.

there, I have found myself obliged to deepen (though not to change) my critique and defense of Socrates. Moreover, I have had to make explicit why that critique and defense were appropriate in light of the
In

defending

said

contemporary Umphrey's

crisis of

the West.

review presents

itself

as a

defense

of

Socrates

against

my

alleged

condemnation of

Socrates.
Athens'

philosophy, which, in his opinion, I

of

By defending Socrates, Umphrey seeks to defend am inadvertently attacking in my defense

the philosopher.

the justice of

condemnation of

maintain view

that the greatest enemy of

philosophy today is
to

not politics

On the contrary, I but the

and political

that there

is

no essential

conflict

between philosophy
uphold

life
of

the very

view which

Umphrey

seems compelled versions.

in his defense

Socrates. This historicism

or

view appears

today in two

The

most radical version

is

nihilism, according to the

world

about man and

which philosophy as quest for the truth is impossible. Therefore philosophy, being as arbi

trary
does

and groundless at
not

its

root as

any

historically conditioned
the

political

ideology,

differ in The

principle

from the

opinions at

base

munity.

more typical version of the current view

every political com holds that Plato's cave,

of

Thumos,"

I.

"Eros

and

Interpretation io
on

(May & Sept.

1982), 353-422. Pp. 354-382 address

"Lysis."

David Bolotin's Plato's Dialogue

Translation (Ithaca: Cornell

Friendship: An Interpretation of the

Socrates"

with a

New

University Press, 1979); PP- 382-422 address my essay Plato's : An Interpretation, with a New Translation Defense of Socrates, in Plato's "Apology of studied with Seth Benardete at the New School for So 1979). (Cornell University Press, Umphrey
cial

Research; I

studied with

Harry

V. Jaffa in Claremont.

384

Interpretation
to the

being
the
of

open

light,

can

be

enlightened.2

The illusion

of

the cave, the illusion of

Enlightenment, certainly
this

remains a

easy escape from dominant feature of

to an

West today. As
Leo Strauss, in
not

a consequence of a pit

view we

live, according

image
in the

beneath the cave, from

enemies.3

which we must ascend

first instance itics

and

to the sunlight but to the pre-Enlightenment cave in which pol

come to sight as are

philosophy
that

It

must

be

seen

that the typical

an evisceration

assumption

they

easily
needed

made compatible

leads in fact to

of of

the

political.

What is
rather a

today, then, is
of the

not and

in the first instance

authority

defense
life.

Socrates but

defense

dignity
of

of political

maintaining that Socrates is innocent

the charge brought against him

contributes

By by

Athens, Umphrey wittingly

prejudice.

or

unwittingly

to the prevailing liberal

I. SOCRATES WAS GUILTY

Let

us examine

Umphrey's defense

of

Socrates. We

will

focus

on what

take to be the two

that

leading
says that

points of

his

argument.

First, Umphrey

maintains

Socrates is innocent because I have

I
should

Athenian law. He

not proven him guilty according to have investigated the historical evidence

for laws
need

against me

impiety

in

ancient

Athens (391-392). But in fact there No one, least

was no

for

to conduct such an

investigation because the

existence of such ever

laws

was never questioned gests that

his
tes

Socrates, during sug impiety and corruption of the young are not illegal. Besides, later in review Umphrey even mentions evidence external to the Apology of Socra that impiety was against the law (419). Umphrey himself concedes that this
the trial.
of all

part of

his defense

of

The

second point

Socrates is unconvincing (392). of his defense involves a broad

Socrates'

comparison of

speeches and

no real conflict

way of life with the convictions and traditions of Athens. He sees between the two. I will speak to three of his chief contentions.
asserts that

(a) Umphrey

"West

misconceives

Socratic

irony by
(395). I

overestimat agree with

ing the openness or publicity of Socratic Umphrey that one must distinguish
praxis

philosophy"

Socrates'

own

in

which

it

occurs."

at

issue here. Was

opinions

not

cepted

about

But it is precisely Socrates famous for publicly contradicting generally ac "the greatest including the traditional stories
things,"

Socrates'

activity from "the public "public that is

praxis"

about the gods?

not

(Apology

2ic-23b, Republic 377b-383C, Euthyphro 6a). Did

Socrates

corrupt

the young
cave

Lysis,

as

is demonstrated

by Umphrey

himself

2.

It is true that Plato's

on

turns its back

that

light

and

is open to the light (Republic 514a), but the whole city literally denies that it is there at all. Umphrey overstates the cave's openness
will

and understates

its

closedness
and the

(p. 398). Citations in the text

be to Umphrey's
pp.

review.

3.

Persecution

Art of

Writing

(Glencoe: Free Press, 1952),

154-158.

Discussion
in his discussion

385
of

Bolotin's

book?4

Reading Umphrey,
the

one sometimes won

could ever

ders how the trial for

taken place.

impiety

and corruption of

young

have

One is

reminded of

Walter Berns's
various

Socrates,

who

politely "went
men"

down into the

who

cave to

learn from the

imperfect
while

opinions of

and

"lived quietly

with

his fellow Athenians

sounds more

hardly letting
junior

them

know his

he

philosophized."5

This

like

a cautious

professor on

way to tenure than the defiant challenger of Callicles, Anytus, and Meletus (Gorgias, Meno, Apology of Socrates). To be sure, Socrates did not blurt out his private opinions to just anyone at any time; I went to considerable lengths to
Socrates'

show

circumspection
reveal quite a

in my

account of

the

Apology

of Socrates. But

he did

lot,

and

that provided the legitimate occasion for his in

one would
defective.6

dictment

and condemnation.
measures seem

The least that

to have been

have to say is that Soc

things"

rates'

secrecy
Socrates'

philosophic quest

for knowledge

of

"the

greatest

necessar

ily

comes

up

against the authoritative opinions of the

Socrates'

Athenian tradition. Those

claims

opinions prove under

where

examination to

be boastful

to knowledge

there

is

no

knowledge. So Socrates

cannot accept those opinions.

Such

only morality but especially the gods of the city. There fore Socrates did not believe in the gods in which the city believed. Moreover, by conducting his arguments in public, in the presence of young people, he cor
opinions concern not
rupted

the young in the sense that the city

"belief"

understood corruption.

(b) Umphrey
important to less in
more concerned
. . .

denies that orthodoxy, the

holding
as

of correct

opinions, is

as

religious with

(vo\iit,eiv)
be the

I think it is. The law is

much

right

action than

right thought. "Civic

case

religion consists

holding
and

certain

things to

and cares

than in

performance of certain
oaths"

for example, that Zeus exists for ex practices (vopxt,6peva)

ample, making rect, it

misses the

(396). Even if Umphrey's argument is cor keeping point. Orthodoxy is the foundation of orthopraxy. Fear of
sufficient guarantor of right

punishment needed are

is

no

conduct;

what

is especially

deeply

held

convictions about

the just and unjust, good and

not

bad,

no

ble

and shameful.

Although

Umphrey
a

does

deny
they

the need

for

such convic

tions, his

argument

tempts the reader to think

are superfluous.

He leaves
of modern

one with the

impression that he is

follower

of

the political

theory

liberalism,
4.

which

did indeed

attempt

to discover a new

basis for Umphrey

Socrates'

political

life

Trying

to defend Socrates

from the
if
not

charge of

corrupting Lysis,
and that

concludes that

successful"

"These defenses
common with

are admirable even

and

entirely
dynamite"

investigation in 45 (re

Lysis

the others

is

"communal
Jaffa,"

(380).
p.
Berns,"

5.

Walter Berns, "A

Reply

to

Harry

National

Review, January 22, 1982,

pp.

Political Philosophy: A Letter to Walter sponding to Jaffa's "In Defense of upon the principal the same journal). This Jaffa-Berns exchange bears directly
tween

question

36-44 of at issue be

Umphrey
point

and me.

6. A

noted

by

Aristophanes in the Clouds:

1966),
p.

see

Leo Strauss, Socrates

and

Aristophanes

(New York: Basic

Books,

14.

386

Interpretation
which private opinion could

according to

be left
in

alone.

It is doubtful,

however,

whether modern

liberalism has enduring

succeeded

a single

foundation for
to the

an

political

order, for a

instance in providing the regime that remains indifferent invites

self-contempt and

moral convictions

of

its

citizens

is

one that

eventual self-destruction:

Weimar Germany, for

example.

The United States is

certainly
or

not a

liberal

regime of

this sort, as is shown above all

regime whose citizens

by

the speeches

and career of

Lincoln. A liberal

hold

opinions are

indifferent
the moral the Athe

hostile to free
the

government cannot

last. All the

more

important

opinions of nians were so

citizens of

other,

nonliberal polities.
Socrates'

For these duties

reasons

rightly
piety.

concerned about

opinions

regarding the gods, and

was

his habitual

performance of prescribed religious

hardly

enough

to

establish

his

(c) Umphrey
ize the Greek As
But
off

employs an esoteric

interpretation

gods and

thereby
account

to

make

Greek poetry to rational them compatible with Socratic inquiry.

of

poetic analysis

his

is

perhaps plausible

if

not

completely

convin

cing.

as an account of

the self-understanding of Athenian civic

'cosmos'

theology it
not

is far

the

mark.

For if "the

of

Ideas according to Plato is

dis

similar
claim

to the

pantheon

in itself
the

the

same as

an astounding enough (397) beautiful, remote gods of Homer are only nominally avenging gods of Athens, who affirm the authority of the laws

according to

Homer"

then these

and the

sanctity

of the

family. On behalf

of

these gods the Athenians engaged

in

frenzy lowing the mutilation

a cydides

of murderous recriminations against of

guilty
the

and

innocent

alike

fol

the Hermes-statues

during

war with

Sparta (Thu
did
not pick

VI). And the Athenians

condemned the ten generals who

up the dead bodies from the naval battle partly because they were thought to laws.7 have violated the sacred burial Because Umphrey underrates the degree
to
which

Athens

was rooted

in the

ancestral

(397), he
conflates

also underrates

the de

gree of

to

which

their gods were understood as

of

defenders

of ancestral

tradition and
accessible

the

sacredness

"one's

own."

Umphrey

the readily
same

with

the remote and implicit teachings of

Greek poetry in the

accuses me of

conflating the exoteric and esoteric teachings of

way as he Socrates. But

the

poets were

6a-b),

while

generally thought to speak the truth about the gods (Euthyphro Socrates was generally believed to deny the city's gods (Apology

i8b-c).

We may summarize Umphrey's defense of Socrates as follows: (a) Socrates keeps his true, subversive thoughts hidden, so there is no conflict between Socrates and the city; (b) since private convictions are barely relevant to lawabidingness, we should hesitate to conclude on the basis of his opinions alone that Socrates
was

guilty

of

impiety; (c) besides,

the

citizens'

opinions are

really

protophilosophic, more or less open to a rational account of the whole, like

Greek

poetry.

7.

Apology

of Socrates

32b-c and

my

note

to that passage.

Discussion
One

387 why

might wonder

Umphrey

bothers to

argue that

Socrates

concealed

his thought if there is

we

no conflict

between that thought

and the city.

Likewise,
Um

could continue our examination of

other, less important

aspects of

phrey's
could

defense. More

to the point, we could

be led to

ask what significance

possibly attach to the trial of Socrates if Umphrey is right in his conten tion that Socrates did not make public his thoughts, thoughts seemingly harm less in any event. Was the trial, then, merely the ganging-up of some demo
cratic politicians on a
of

former friend life

of

Critias

and

Alcibiades,

those former

enemies

the Athenian

democracy? From
was

the point of view of philoso

phy

the core of
nothing?

Socrates'

the trial only a tale told

by

an

idiot,
us of

signifying But it would be

know that he does Socrates Hobbes
truth the fifth
with said

pointless to pursue these questions.

not

For

Umphrey

lets

believe his

own arguments.

He

prefaces

his defense

this surprising admission: "One can say

of
candor"

with

bold

of [West's] book what Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise: it disseminates the (388). More particularly, Umphrey all but concedes in

and

final

section

of

his

review

that

Socrates

was

indeed guilty

of

violating the city's laws both in the narrow and in the larger sense. The conflict between Socrates and Athens was fundamental. There was a law against what

Socrates
within

was

doing,

Socrates'

and

activity did

cause

disrespect for authority

the city (419).

then does

Why
Socrates'

Umphrey

pretend

to disagree

guilt when

he really

agrees?

The

answer

indignantly with me about is that Umphrey wants to

the waspish,
standpoint of the philoso
a conflict or

defend philosophy
pher, [the
conflict

against what

he

regards as

its

principal enemy:

spirited pretentiousness of the political.

"From the

between Socrates

and

Athens] is
great

between

eros and

thumos, between human Umphrey's

whole

sophistry"

wisdom and which

essay,

is

entitled

very stupidity "Eros and he

(417).

Thumos,"

a sustained attack on

thumos
of

(spiritedness)

and on politics

may be in the name

read as

of phi on

losophy. In the first half

his essay, in

which

reviews

Bolotin's book

friendship, Umphrey
He takes

presents an extended analysis and critique of

friendship.

friendship

to be founded on spiritedness, on the ground that

satisfied with and

friendship
with and ac

and spiritedness

remain

being

oneself and

being

at

home

one's own

(family, friends,
good

city)

without concern

for aspiring to

(see especially 378-379). The latter concern, characteristic of philosophy, belongs according to Umphrey to the province of eros. Plato's por trayal of the trial gives us a picture of embodied Eros (Socrates) in elemental

quiring the

conflict with embodied

Thumos (Athens).
spirited attack of

Umphrey defends
and are

the erotic

Socra

tes, then,
guilty
of

against

the
the

West

Athens. Socrates may be

breaking
and

law, but Athens

of

and

West
the

guilty

of

being

enemies of

philosophy

hence
his

the

erotic pursuit of

good.8

8. Umphrey
an

amuses

readers

by

urgently

needed

defense

of

me, for since

suggesting that his defense I am a "Socratic

of

Socrates is

at the same time

condemns-

philosoph

my "explicit

388

Interpretation
directs his
spirited

Evidently Umphrey
cause
me

he is

Socrates'

convinced of

indignation (392) innocence but rather in

against me not order

be

to reprimand

for

letting

the cat

out of

the bag.

Umphrey

would prefer

to conceal the truth

about

Socrates in

order

to defend his own

"friend,"

philosophy.

There is

prece

dent for this Socrates

cient a

Plato wrote the Apology of Socrates as a defense of the deficiency of Socrates. But an showing "between the Athens is not modern America. Athens was a city in which philosophy as
procedure:
lines"

while

life known to the city was quite new. There was no public prejudice in its favor, and much against. In America today people are accustomed to defer to the claims of science and rational inquiry. Philosophy is publicly respect
way
of able.

common

dogma holds that in its

and political

open-mindedness

is

one of

the highest

vir

tues. Spiritedness

manifestations, on the other

are out of

hand, has fallen

makes peo en

into disrepute. War

ple uncomfortable.
emies

imperialism
notion

fashion. Patriotism

The

that the country is threatened

by

Communist

is derided. Nixon's

spirited

partisanship

was

acceptable

is Reagan's easygoing

nice-fellow manner.

roundly hated; Serious religious

and

much more

convic
who

tion is an embarrassment, particularly turn are

among teachers

journalists,

in

considered

encouraging young illiberal to express

all

people and older citizens concern over

to feel the same

way.

It is

the decline of traditional

morality. es

In short,
sential

those things which, according to Socrates and the ancients, are

political

to

healthy

life,

are

today

under attack.

Yet

I judge from the way he wrote his review, that the most urgent losopher today is to attack spiritedness and the political. The
tique
with

Umphrey thinks, as duty of the phi

practical problem of our

time is the victory of the modern liberal cri

of

politics, a critique which maintains that one can and ought to

do away

the intrusions of spiritedness into public life. An enlightened, sophisti

cated

citizenry

cern with

supposedly live together peacefully without any public con morality, religion, hatred of enemies, or any other of the lingering
can

relics of the

Dark Ages. Such

and

superstitions are to

be

relegated

to the arena of

private

life,

there

they

will

gradually be

doctrine that there is

over

no matter of right and

to the death. The Last Man will

by the spreading important enough to fight wrong live in John Rawls's bureaucratic utopia
rendered

harmless

in

perfect contentment.

Of course,

political

life did

not

transform

itself in the hoped-for

Instead
of

manner.

The

promises of

liberalism

proved to

be

empty.

the apolitical, purely

we

administrative politics of a new age of civilization and

peace,

in the

twenti-

tion of

Socrates is

implicitly a

[myself]"

condemnation of

(388). More

likely
the

to get me into trouble

in the contemporary world of liberal academia is my forthright, ical. Consider the case of Willmoore Kendall, a predecessor of
who was

"conservative"

defense
mine at

of

the

polit

University

of

Dallas,
versus

hardly

beloved for his defense

of

Athens

against

Socrates. See "The People

Socrates
1971).

Revisited,"

in Willmoore Kendall Contra Mundum (New Rochelle: Arlington House,

Umphrey's
useful

On Theme

spiritedness as the characteristic of the political, see also

of

essay "On the

Plato's

Laches,'

Interpretation 6 (Fall 1976),

1-10.

Discussion
eth and

389
in Communism
earlier ages.

century find ourselves subjected to a politics of bestiality Nazism bestial beyond the wildest dreams of tyrants of become far in
a
more

War

and partisan contention

parties

terrible than

ever

before because the

mission:

of

modernity

compete

common

apocalyptic

to

rid

the

world once and

for

all of

the remnants of

illiberalism,

of spiritedness.

Blind to

the political character of its crusade against politics and traditional morality,
modern

not only the survival of a civilized West but the itself. philosophy This, then, is why I attacked Socrates in my book: not because I am antiphilosophic, but because I wanted to defend against liberalism the dignity of
survival of
spiritedness and of political

liberalism threatens

life. From

a certain point of view

am even execut
spiritedness

ing

Umphrey's

project

more

faithfully
own

than he

does himself: if

causes one

to be content with one's own

the eros that turns away from one's

critique of

and eros leads one away from it, then calls in the first instance for a spirited

Socrates (who is
current

viewed as apolitical and

according to
agree, I

dogma)

and a spirited

defense

of politics.

hence self-evidently good, Umphrey and I

to be
protected.

trust,

that philosophy

is in danger

and ought

We dis

agree about where

the

current

politics, I
politics

infer,
the

while

see

danger to philosophy is strongest. He sees it in it in the pseudo-philosophical opinion that views

of
political

and

conditions

life

with

indifference

or

sovereign

contempt.

stands for beneath the easygoing in praise accorded him by our liberal age than my sympathetic critique of him. guilt in its full scope It is necessary to understand and face up to conventional opinion by philo of realm transcend the to before attempting is nothing such rarest cases, sophizing. Indeed, except in the

There is

more

hatred

of what

Socrates

Socrates'

"transcendence"

more than an exchange of one convention another

(that

of

the

political

community) for

(that

of a philosophic sect or of the

"Republic

of

Letters").

SOCRATES'

II.

WAY OF LIFE

But

what

is

philosophy?

Umphrey

seeks not central

also to understand

him. He devotes the

Socrates'

merely to defend Socrates, but section of his review of my book

"thing,"

(402-412)

to the

question of

his pragma, which,

as

he

says

essay (354). Umphrey ac at the outset, is really in Plato's Defense of Socrates, es cepts much of the argument that I developed "human character of pecially concerning the incomplete, questioning remain "must Socrates Odyssean, that agree radically Umphrey and I
the main theme of

his

whole

Socrates'

wandering (or

falling)
own,

between
mind

goal and

starting point,

wisdom and

ignorance,

virtue and one's

(or soul)
(which is

and

body

(or

city)"

(405). But

Umphrey
alogon,

disagrees

with

my

estimate

shared

according to

him

by

Leo Strauss

Socrates'

[405]),

that

way

of

life

makes sense.

Umphrey believes it is

390

Interpretation for "human

wisdom

nonrational,
purchase added):

is

suppositionless."

It "provides insufficient
crazy"

for any inquiry. Yet Socrates inquires like "there is madness in his Umphrey even
methodos."

(409,

emphasis

purports

to

discover

"the

religious

dimension in his
nonrational

thinking"

in

Socrates'

deference to his

daimonic

voice:

"To the

extent

allegedly unquestioning he is guided by it,

he

mindlessly."

operates remains
which

"Socrates

a problem

In light of all this, Umphrey cannot understand why outwardly resolute and serene. This is but one appearance of I, for one, am unable to resolve: By virtue of what does
else,

Socrates,

or anyone

keep

his head in
to

[perplexity]?"

aporia

(410).
of

One is certainly
philosophizing
pears posed after

surprised

encounter

this

disparagement

Socratic

that

Umphrey Umphrey is a sort of

of

has

gone

to such length to defend Socrates. It

noble no

Don Quixote: the

yet

enemy

beautiful Philosophia,

West is

ap knight battles the sup enemy to his lady, who,

a

alas, turns out, like

lusion"

Dulcinea, to be no fair lady (412). But in fact, Umphrey's essay

at all as a

but merely
whole

"beautiful il
well

goes

beyond

Quixotism. For
political

ceeds

after exploding the pretensions of spiritedness (and therefore of life generally) in the name of eros in his review of Bolotin, he pro to explode the pretensions of eros (and therefore of philosophy) in his re

view of

West.

Umphrey

is

no

Don

Quixote, but

rather a universal pulverizer.

After the dust clears,

stand

we seem

to be left

with nothing.

How

are we

to under

this strange turn of events?

In the Apology, Socrates gradually unveils his true self in the course of his speeches to the jury. Umphrey provides a useful and sympathetic summary of my
somewhat complicated explanation of no need

here to is this:

go over this ground again.

this unveiling (403-405). There is For the main point of Umphrey's di

and of

agnosis and rejection of

losophy

Socrates'

Socratic philosophy "human

of

wisdom"

my defense of Socratic phi (Apology 2od), limited as it is to

things"

knowledge

of one's

ignorance

"the

greatest

(22d),
is

cannot provide worth

knowledge that the is

Socrates'

philosophic

life

of conversational

inquiry

living. It

not

practice
Socrates'

Therefore
root. ment.

but his theory that is boastful or pretentious (410). affirmation and choice of his way of life is irrational at its
argu
whole"

Nor does

Umphrey shy away from the terrible implication of his In the end, he suspects, "one cannot know the whole and be
other

(411). In

words, knowledge

and

happiness

are

incompatible. It
in

must

be

understood

that this

is

not an

incidental

point made

by Umphrey
and

passing.

For

he

conceives

this opposition

between knowledge

happiness

as an expres
which strives

sion of

the opposition within the soul of eros and thumos.

and

Love,

ultimately for wisdom, implacable

enemies.

spiritedness,

which repels

one's own preservation and one's

being

comfortably

at

everything home with oneself,

oneself, alienating

that threatens
are
one of no

For

since

love takes

one outside of

from

oneself

in the

quest

for

knowledge,

spiritedness opposes

love

on

behalf be

"natural,"

man's

self-complacent, self-ignorant wholeness. There

war more or

can

peace, but only

less concealed, between

such opposite contenders

Discussion

391
soul.

for sovereignty in the

can restore man's

The

supposition that

the erotic quest for that the goal

wisdom and

natural,

thumotic wholeness

of eros

thumos

is

one

is false. So insofar
good

is the We So let

greatest

for

beautiful

illusion without

as Socrates holds that the life of philosophy human being, he is probably succumbing to "a which our life would appear (412).
a
unlivable"

are

familiar

with

Umphrey's

position.

Let

us not

hestitate to

call

it

by

its

true name: nihilism.

us address

Umphrey

rejects

Socratism, then, because he is

Socrates'

a nihilist.

the point in question: is

human

wisdom a sufficient

foundation for
one's

a rational
about

ignorance

life? We may begin from the fact that knowledge of the greatest things is not ignorance altogether. Such
one

knowledge implies that

knows

what

the greatest things are, that

is,

what

the most important problems or questions are. One knows this

on one's

by

a reflection

human

condition: one

and that choice

is

urgent and

is alive, one's way of life is a matter of choice, inexorable. How to live, or, in a typical Socratic
comes

formulation, "What is
how is this
question

virtue?"

to sight as life's primary question. But

to be answered? Since people hold different opinions about

it, Socrates
covers out

examines their opinions

by

conversing

with

them.

He quickly dis

that those opinions are incoherent. So he tries his own hand at

conversation with others

thinking

in

the

question of and

how to live. As he

pursues this

inquiry, he finds
always pleasant.

that

it is long, arduous,
problem.

He does
the

make some progress

though apparently inconclusive in clarifying and deepening his

a certain satisfaction

understanding
awareness of

of

He

even

derives

from his
that

this
of

progress.

But he

acquires no

final

answers.

In

spite of

fact,

or

because

it, he finds himself in

is
the best

possession of a

tentative answer to
cannot

his

question:

the best life is the life of inquiry. Of that this

will

course

Socrates

be

abso

lutely

certain

life;

as

long

as the

inquiry

remains

incom likeli

plete, his serenity

be tempered

by

a sober recognition that against all

hood his
We

whole

life

could

be

a mistake.
Socrates'

may consider the Republic Confronted at the beginning with

the authority of "divine
ent
contradiction

as

exemplary
paternal

of

procedure.

Cephalus'

Socrates
prescription.

points out to

authority and, behind it, Cephalus an appar

of continuing the discussion, laughter a sign of genuine superior his Cephalus abruptly departs, laughing. Is paltry logosl Or is it only a more or less conscious cover for his ity to

in its

Instead

Socrates'

Socrates'

inability
poses
would

to respond sensibly to

question?

For

almost all practical pur

Socrates

must assume that the latter

is the

correct

explanation, or else he

continue.

be left in helpless perplexity and the conversation could not reasonably Still, he cannot know that this is the case. Maybe against all odds,
Cephalus'

and

against

the evidence

of

character

(which

comes

to sight as

Cephalus'

"revealed"

defective),
truth. The memory of
subsequent

authoritative, poetic,
Cephalus'

brief

appearance and question mark.

is the way to exit, then, hangs over the

wisdom

discussion like

looming

But that does

as

not

intimi
asserts.

date

Socrates far

from it. He inquires,

not

"like

crazy,"

Umphrey

392

Interpretation
opinions of
of

but soberly, tentatively assuming that the

tors contain

himself

and are

his interlocu
seeking, and

divinations,

or partial

glimpses,
those

the truth

they

that the
the

refinement and enlargement of of

opinions will

bring

them closer to

justice. And that is exactly what seems to happen. For although the conversation reported in the Republic fails to provide a simple, unambiguous idea
definition lem
of

of

justice, it does

succeed

in showing forth the full

scope of the prob

tice we

justice. It does so, in brief, by showing that whenever we speak of jus have two different things in mind: complete dedication to the common
community,
and perfection of one's own soul.

good of one's own

If

we

take

the Republic as a whole, the Republic

including

the Cephalus episode, we may even

itself,

as

it is

read and thought

through

by

the reader, is the

say that idea of

justice. Through it itself in

all

we see what

justice

is, how

the problem of justice reveals

or

its

aspects.

Is that

achievement

knowledge

ignorance? It

cannot

be knowledge strictly speaking, because of the necessary reservations we have mentioned. But it is more than ignorance. And so, by virtue of his resourceful
ness
ity]"

(euporia) in inquiry, Socrates is able (410) when others are overwhelmed

prolongation
of

to

"keep

his head in

aporia

[perplex

and

dumbfounded

by

the prospect of

indefinite

the argument. For some Socrates may

be only
gadfly

torpedo-fish who stuns them

into lethargy, but for

think.9

others

he is

who

awakens and prepares them to

III.

SOCRATES, CLASSICAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY,

AND MODERNITY

Umphrey's verdict, in sum, is that "while the difference between his [Socra

tes'] philosophizing
the pretentiousness

and
of

his human
Socrates'

wisdom

is

greater than

West

makes

it seem,
seem"

practice

is less than West

while

makes

it

(410).

My

contention, of course, is just the opposite:

Socrates'

philoso

phizing is nothing more than the practice, his patent and persistent

continual exercise of

challenge

his human wisdom, his to the foundations of Athenian mo

rality
agrees

and

piety, is political dynamite. We have seen that

Socrates'

with

openly with At the foundation

9.

Umphrey secretly guilt; but I do not concur secretly or concerning Umphrey's nihilistic disparagement of the Socratic enterprise.
me of modern

liberalism lies the

conviction that there

is

noth-

He has the former

the

effect

on

Meno (Meno 8oa-b)

and

Critias (Charmides 169c), for

example.

The
other

whole of

present

essay, but especially the section just concluded, also responds to two
of whom objected

intelligent

critics,

both

to the absence of a thematic

discussion

Socrates'

of

"human

wisdom"

(Spring
152.

1981), 261-265; Michael

in my book: David L. Levine's review appeared in Philosophical Topics 12 in Independent Journal of Philosophy 3 (1979), 151
Davis'

The

quotation

from

Umphrey

in the

next sentence

is taken from his typescript. There

appears

to

be

an omission

in the

printed version on p. 410.

Discussion

393 in the
and quarrels of political

ing

serious at stake

life

and

that philosophy as the

account of

quest

for the Right

the Good

is

impossible.10

Umphrey's

Plato illu

appears

to agree, for according to

Umphrey

political

life is founded
might

on an

sion,

and

Socratic philosophy is

"madness"

(410). One
to

have

expected an effort not

assiduous student of

the classics like

Umphrey

enlist as an

ally in my
of

to counteract the reigning liberal prejudices of our day.

seem

Instead, he does
the

to

mind

placing the Is it

Socratic-Platonic

citadel at

the disposal

forces

of modernity.

not more

fitting

to defend

Socratic philosophy
both
else agree

and civic pi

ety
and

against

the liberal trivialization of both?

and

Socrates

Athens is right

philosophy

and politics

that

knowing
is
right

doing

what

matters more than

anything

in life,

while modern

liberalism denigrates both

by denying
up

publicly that the

with

question of what

is

answerable.

We have

all grown

these opinions, and we are infected

as well as the virtual collapse of

by

them.

The

political cowardice of

the

West,

political

opinions.

philosophy since Nietzsche, may both be traced to the victory of such For if life is meaningless at its heart, then there is no point either in
oneself or

defending

in thinking for

oneself.

that the victory of modernity means not

It is gradually dawning on people the joyful liberation of man from the

rather

last remaining chains of the Dark Ages, but significance from human life.
If
and

the

utter

disappearance

of

an

ideological liberalism I think, this

which reduces

to

nihilism

is the

current

view,
of

if,

as

view ought sake of

to be

attacked

for the due

sake of the

life

in

quiry down

as well as

for the

morality, then we should not

be told to look
We
are

on political concerns,

but

rather

to pay them

respect.

less in

need of reminders of

the

deficiency

of political

morality

than of

lessons in its

nobility little or

and strength.

We do

not need

to hear that classical natural

rather

right

gives

no guidance to

political

life, but
any

that natural

right is the indis

pensable

foundation
this
as

of sound politics. and not seems

gratuitous

It

was

concern

"taste for

manliness and subtle

thought,"

Umphrey

to think

(421)

that moved me to

try

to

under

stand

the

peculiar

way in
n.

which

Plato

portrays

Socrates in the

Apology

of

Socrates
mine

and elsewhere.

Sometimes 50);

Umphrey

seems unaware of

this concern of

(for example, 392,

at other

times he dismisses what I had to

say
own

about

it

rather

rudely (420-421);
relationship
of

elsewhere

Umphrey
grasped

presents

in his

own name

a view about the

Plato I

and

Socrates that

concurs with

my

(395,
ter, I Plato

399)will

Since
state

Umphrey

seems not

to

have

my intention in this

mat

more

and

Socrates, for
the

clearly this is

what

understand

to be the difference between

one of

the most distinctive features of Plato's

Defense of Socrates.

Plato
sion of
10.

wrote

Apology

of Socrates in
contradicts

such a

way that the

of

surface

impres

Socrates'

Socrates'

innocence

the true
Human

teaching

the work,
of

See, for

example,

Locke's

Essay

on

Understanding, II. 2 1 ("Of the Idea

Power").

394
guilt.

Interpretation
proceeded

Plato

life but

rather

to

lay

in this way not because he wished to denigrate political the foundation for a new political morality. Plato fashioned hero in
"poetry"

from Socrates

a new

new,

post-Homeric

in

order

to provide

the best of the Greek youth

sured and ordered.
pears to

with a standard

by

which politics could

be

mea

the

the readers.

In reading Plato it is necessary to contrast Socrates as he ap the dialogues with Socrates as he appears to us, To the jury before whom he speaks, Socrates is an ugly, offensive
characters within

old man who annoys

the citizens and threatens the city. To readers of

Plato's

Apology of Socrates, Socrates is a noble truth-seeker wrongfully condemned to death by ignorance and villainy. Plato rejuvenates and ennobles Socrates (Sec ond Letter 314c) by blunting his harsh edges, his persistent questioning of con
ventional opinions.

The Platonic Socrates

responsibility.11

comes

to sight

for

us as a

defender

of

morality For example, it is

and political

characteristic of

Plato that he (and

not

Socrates)

should

bring
in the
where

into the light

of

day

the reverential, almost patriotic speeches of

Socrates

Crito,
it
that

a most private

dialogue

conducted

otherwise would

have

remained.

secretly in For the Crito is

to

prison a

"performed"

in the dark, dia

logue,

is,

one

that Plato reports

directly

his readers; it is
effects of
spirit as

not narrated

by

Socrates

or anyone else.

When it is

read

together with the

Apology of Socrates,
Socrates'

the Crito mitigates for Plato's readers the

of

lingering
same

defiance
that
at

Athens in his defense

goes so real

speech.

In the

my

remarks

Alfarabi

far

as

to say that the Crito is the

speech

Apology

of Socrates

here, is,
the

Socrates'

defense

is the Crito,
renames

not the speech

he delivered

trial,

which

Alfarabi appropriately

the Protest of Socrates against the

Athenians."

The

key

to Plato's transformation of Socrates into a figure

of

impeccable
philosophy to be the
as

moral and political credentials

is to be found in the
philosophic

new

image

of

put

forward in the dialogues. The

of

life,

which might seem on

enemy

morality because
portrait of

of

its uncompromising insistence

as

knowledge

the only acceptable basis for thought and action, is painted in beautiful tones

by

Plato in his
color of

Socrates lovers

hero,

so an

that

morality.13

Philosophy becomes
of

philosophy itself takes on the object of respect and love in the becomes
the
as

pious eyes of spirited peak of moral

the noble.

Philosophy

it

were the
of mo

virtue,

including

in its sweep

all or most of

demands

rality in the traditional understanding. Plato proceeded as he did because of the danger to
to philosophy, that arises when philosophic

sound

politics,

as well as and

inquiry

is

conducted

openly

1 1

Umphrey,

p.

395,

mentions

that "Plato's

Socrates

comes to sight as a moral

man"

(my
Plato's

em

phasis). ers

But he does

not notice or rather admit

that the way

Socrates

comes to sight to

read

is

not the

way he
p.

comes to sight to the citizens of

Athens.

12.

Alfarabi's

Philosophy
63.
s

of Plato

and

Aristotle trans. Muhsin Mahdi (Ithaca: Cornell Univer

,

sity Press, 1969),

13.

West,

Plato'

Defense of Socrates,

pp.

220-221.

Discussion

395

continuously in any society. For all societies, even modern liberal societies, ex ist in the element of opinion. The bond that holds them together is the shared
convictions about not make
society:14

the things that

public.

truly

matter, the things

about which one

dares
civil

jokes in it

Undiluted Socratic philosophy is dynamite for

explodes

these convictions
except

by throwing
his

them and everything else

into

question

everything

the lightness of the philosophic life itself.

on

From the demanded

jury

that was about to vote

recognition of

condemnation

to

death, Socrates
Socrates
on

public

the philosopher as the city's greatest bene

corrected

factor.
point posed not

(According by omitting any

to

Alfarabi, Plato
provision
"virtuous"

his

predecessor

this

to exalting the
recognized as

for exalting the philosophers in the city, as op and the "princes. "1S) But the philosopher can philosophy itself. Here is the larger ground of his philosophizing endangers philoso Clouds shows how the Socratic critique

be

the greatest benefactor without undermining the moral

conditions of political
Socrates'

life

and of

guilt.

The
of

public expression of

phy, the best way

of

life.

Aristophanes'

the Athenian gods destroys the sanctity of the

family,

on which

the city de

pends

for the

moral education of presupposes

its

children.

Philosophy
stance that of no

morality,

there is nothing

more needful

for philosophy begins from the moral than justice and truth. Unless the souls

the young are imbued philosophy, for those

else
seriously.

with an ardent souls will

longing
will

for these things, there

of

will

be

be incapable

taking
as

themselves or any

thing
and

At their

core

they

be

frivolously
life

nihilistic, for al

though

they interesting, they

they
will not

will experience all sorts of will never ascend

things in

exciting, entertaining,

to the central question of philosophy

of the question of what

be

cause

feel the inescapable primacy

is the
pride
when

right way

of

life.

They

may study

philosophical

books,

and

they may
in

themselves on their

philosophic openness

to

all

the serious questions. But

will view

they

take up

works of political

philosophy,

they

those works

de

tached way, aesthetically, so to speak, as though

they

were

working

on an ele

gant sort of crossword puzzle or mathematical game. of a public critique of alism

The

ultimate consequence

morality is the
to

same as the effect of

in

academic

life, namely

eviscerate

easygoing

moral relativism presided over

others'

by

contemporary liber philosophy by turning it into an various in-groups of cognoscenti

of great

who applaud each

refined

interpretations

books

and

ideas

while

they live
achieved

the
a

quite

ordinary life
of
serious efforts

of

liberal intellectuals.

Ours is

time

through the

Strauss. But that

tion of

revival

of the study of classical philosophy, Jacob Klein, Heidegger, and above all Leo has occurred against the background and the opposi
revival

of

radical modernity.

Both Heidegger

and

Klein have been affected,

proba-

14.

The

expression

Chicago Press. 1953),

on p. 39515.

p.

is from Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of 153; Umphrey alludes to it on p. 380 (see my n. 4 above) and discusses it
37.

Alfarabi,

pp.

67,

396

Interpretation
their

bly

against

intentions, by

this radical

modernity.

The challenge, then, is to

persist

in this

revival

by

aspiring to liberate ourselves not from morality but

which all of us are most

from the

chains of

modernity in

bound from

childhood on.

Of the three thinkers mentioned, Strauss

ment,
and

successfully
never

resisted

this enslave

he

was able

to do so because he

forgot that

as a

Jew

living
de

among non-Jews he was ruled by those who, if it came to a fight, stroy him because of his political and religious heritage. Strauss
problem

would

called this

"the theologico-political
that
problem.

predicament"16

and

he devoted his life to the

the

study It

of

appears

that

few

of

Strauss's

students

or

students

of

his

stu

dents

are alive

to the primacy for

political

philosophy
students,

and political who

life

of

the

"theologico-political
ancient end

predicament."

One

set of

Epicureans, preoccupy
a pleasant

in itself

study of activity that is the best that life can

come

themselves with the

may be likened to Great Books as an

offer.

For them,

political with

philosophy has apparently

conditions of

to mean not thoughtful confrontation

world of radical

the

philosophizing in the

modernity, but

rather an

exceedingly private, scholarly concern with the texts in the history of philosophy. Another set of students,

exegesis of more

leading
against enlists

bold

and spir

ited,
the

continues

by

new means

the

long

war waged

politics and philosophy.

This group to which authority of Strauss's authority, classical political philosophy, in it modernity. Against the intention of Strauss's life work

by modern liberalism Umphrey may belong

and see

discovers

the tremendous attack on modern

marks on

liberalism in the Schmitt

preface17

review and

especially his re

that review
effect that

at

the end of the Spinoza

these scholars are

teaching in
eralism and

the one apparently serious alternative to modernity, clas

provides

sical political

philosophy,

in fact

a covert endorsement of modern

lib

One

of the typical

ultimately features

of nihilism. of

both these kinds

and

of

students, it

must

a secret or open contempt

for America
regime

American

politics.

This is
of

be said, is so in
the mod
on of

spite of the

fact that the American

One

is

one of

the few regimes

ern world whose principles

(rightly
must
...

understood)

and conduct are

defensible

the basis of the classics.

indeed

admit with

Strauss that "the theory

earlier

liberal

and that

democracy liberal democracy by

Nietzsche

originated

in the first

modernity"

and second waves of

cannot

be defended

by

"return to the

forms

of modern

thought: the critique of modern rationalism or of the modern belief

cannot

in

reason

be dismissed
not

forgotten."

or

Yet "the theoretical

necessarily lead to a practical crisis, for Stalinist or post-Stalinist, is obvious enough. And above all, liberal democracy, in contradistinction to communism and fascism, derives powerful support from a way of
crisis

[of liberal

democracy]
liberal

does

the superiority

of

democracy

to communism,

thinking
p.

which cannot
16. 17.

be

called modern at all:

the premodern thought of our Western

I.

Strauss, Spinoza's Critique of Religion (New York: Schocken Books, 1965), Preface, Spinoza's Critique of Religion, pp. 31 and 331-351.

Discussion
tradition."18

397
points

Strauss

here to the

most

important task

of

contemporary

American statesmanship,
plain and

whether practiced as a

by

scholars or political men: to ex

defend America

highest

purposes of

Western

civilization. end of

polity springing from and aspiring toward the For "the coming of the universal and
philosophy
on
earth."19

homogeneous

state will

be the

Modernity,"

18.
apolis:

Strauss, "Three Waves

of
p. 98.

in Political Philosophy,
1963),
p. 226.

ed.

Hilail Gildin (Indian

Bobbs-Merrill/Pegasus, 1975),

19.

Strauss, On Tyranny

(Glencoe: Free

Press,

Announcing the Canadian Supplementary Volume IX

Journal 1983:

of

Philosophy's

PLATO: New Essays

Plato and Pericles on Freedom and Justice J. MORAVCSIK The Craft of Justice R. PARRY Plato's Greatest Accusation Against Poetry E. BELFIORE Belief, Knowledge and Learning in Plato's Middle Dialogues M. MORGAN Plato's Timeaus: Mass Terms, Sortal Terms, and Identity Through Time in the Phenomenal World J. ZEMBATY Timeaus 48e-52d and the Third Man Argument W. PRIOR Plato's Parmenides Theory of Relations M. McPHERRAN Philebus 55c-62a and Revisionism R. MOHR Knowledge in Philebus 55c-62a: A Response R. SHINER
-

Edited

by

Francis Jeffrey Pelletier and John King-Farlow

Price:

CDN$ 13.00 (in Canada)

US$13.00 (out of Canada) Cheque or Money Order only.

This Supplementary Volume is free to individual and student subscribers to Volume XIII (1983).

Order from:

The

University

of

Calgary Press,

2500

University

Drive N.W., ISBN 0-919491-09-X

Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada.

ISSN 0229-7051

Book Review
Heidegger'

Mark Blitz.
cloth.)

"Being and (Ithaca, N.Y.:

Time"

and

the

Cornell

Possibility of Political Philosophy. By University Press, 1982. Pp. 260. $19.50

Michael Allen Gillespie

Duke

University

Like
and

an

idol to

some

dark

and mysterious

god, Martin Heidegger's

and

Being

Time

(BT) has

evoked

both the

adoration

loathing

of our century.

While

bow reverently before it, others condemn it as a work of malevo still others find it simply incomprehensible or meaningless. Mark lence, and Blitz's new book goes beyond mere acceptance or rejection to join those few
some
works

that soberly and seriously have Heidegger's thought.

attempted

to understand and evaluate

In this book Blitz life for

that despite
either

attempts

to determine the significance

concludes and

of

BT for

political

and political philosophy.

persuasively its novelty and brilliance BT does not provide an adequate ground that can rival that provided by the thought of Plato and Aristotle.
and

He

I believe correctly

This position, previously defended by Karl Lowith a new vigor and foundation by Blitz's critique. He

Werner Marx, is

given

shows that the problems of

dying, human finitude,

are

and wholeness which are central understood

to Heidegger's analysis
and can

only

insufficiently

in Heideggerian terms

better

and

completely be explained on the ancient model in terms of the idea of a possible but humanly unattainable perfection, such as the Platonic forms. He is particularly persuasive in his discussion of history and fate and offers a novel
more

interpretation
member of

of

their relationship to Heidegger's own political activity as a

party.

the Nazi

The book is

written

in

commentary

format, alternating
difficult. The

exposition

and

analysis with an occasional

summary
to

critique or

discussion. The

exposition

is

generally helpful but

compact

and often quite

political

analysis always

fastens

on those sections most relevant

philosophy.

It is

thought-

ingenious. Since it follows the text, however, the provoking and occasionally development of the argument seems at times overly obscure and tentative. All
the
various
strands

of

thought, however,

are

tied together

in Blitz's fine

conclusion.

My
Blitz's Blitz

reservations argument as

about

the book arise not so much

self-imposed

from the

substance of

from its

limitations.

First, it

seems to me

that

needs

to

consider more

completely the context of Heidegger s thought and

the place of BT

in this

thought.

In the first instance this

means more attention

to

400

Interpretation
is true that this in the
subject

the problem of nihilism. It

BT but it

plays such a crucial role

rest of

is not explicitly considered in Heidegger's thought and espe

cially in the works irrelevant. Without

and

immediately following
a consideration of

BT that it is difficult to believe it is

crucial conjunction of

nihilism, the

nothing,

which would

for

example

have illuminated the discussion

of

Being dy

ing, finitude,
sense

and

wholeness, remains unclear.

consider

This failure to

the relationship

of

Being

from the

rather

anthropological

character of

and nothing follows in a Blitz's interpretation. He

clearly

recognizes

that Heidegger's aim is the interpretation of

Being (Sein) in

but in trying to isolate and evaluate BT's meaning for political philosophy he concentrates on Heidegger's account of human Being (Dasein). From this perspective, BT seems fundamentally subjectivistic, taking its orien
terms of time

tation solely from Dasein. This tends to obscure the fact that Heidegger consid
ers

Dasein only
account of

as an entrance

to

Being

and

does

not

intend to

give an exhaust

ive

human life

or politics.

Blitz's demonstration that BT fails to

an account

provide such an account

thus does not prove that such

is impossible

in Heideggerian terms. It
out

the real
of

seems to me, however, that Blitz does correctly point difficulties in explaining politics on the basis of a radical disjunc
and entities.

tion

Being
it

Finally,
thought

seems to me that

Blitz's

argument

insufficiently

recognizes

the extent

for the supremacy of ancient to which Heidegger himself in his

such an

later

work

turns to this ancient

model.

It is true that

absent

in BT but in his later discussions

the gods and earth and

of the so-called seem to

understanding is four-fold (Geviert) of

man's

man and

heaven he does
of

define

and ethics
of

for

example

in terms

divine

immortality

and nature

mortality in the manner

the Greeks. In this way Heidegger perhaps provides a

political

more plausible ground

for

life

and political

philosophy than Blitz discovers in BT in a manner

recommends.

akin

to that

which

Blitz himself

Thus,

perhaps even

in Heidegger idols

discern the tendency of all men despite their fascination to return in the end to their ancient gods.
we can

with new

Short Notices
Will Morrisey

Plato's "Phaedrus": A Defense of a Philosophic Art of Writing. By Ronna Burger. (University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1980. Pp. 160.

$14.50 cloth.)
When naming this journal of political philosophy, the founders partook of an insight nearly as old as the activity they studied. As Ronna Burger states it, "Precisely through the acknowledgment of its own potential dangers, the Pla
tonic
. .

dialogue

sets

in

motion

the activity of

interpretation

as

its

own realization

Recognition

of

the potential dangers of

written statements

first

political philosopher's of

decision to

write nothing.

underlay the Those dangers include the

decay
their

heads

memory that writings can encourage in those who prefer not to use and the indiscriminate dissemination of thoughts to readers who
to think for themselves,
'selves'

prefer not

or who

think for themselves

'selves'

ineptly,

or who

define their
records

basely
those

and think

for those

shrewdly.

The Phaedrus
"written

thoughts

of

dangers, presenting

us with the paradox of a

writing."

condemnation of

Phaedrus himself
sophistical common
writing.

exemplifies

the "perfect

victim"

of

bad

in his case,

He

appears

self-indulgent, but he defines his 'self

by
For

opinion, that radically inconstant thing. The demagogues who victim

and

ize Phaedrus

his fellow-citizens
an

victimize

themselves as well,

in

a way.

they

must

try

to seduce

inconstant beloved, the demos; they differ from that

demos only in artfulness,

Philosophic

an elaborate pretense

hardly

worth

the prize.
problems

eros aims at unlike a

ideas,

which are constant.

Yet

remain,

for the human soul,

passion,

divine soul,

mixes pure mind with mere

opinion,
all-too-

and appetite.

How

can one

know the ideas

and also

know the

human
selves?

self

particularly, when one

is

an all-too-human

self, among other such

Dialectic,
shows

with

its capacity to
partial.
"that"

collect and at

divide in

accordance with

nature,

the way for one

whose eros aims

Being. Yet

even the

best human

speech remains

only

One

can transfer a

the uncertainty of thought to writ

of

ing

only in

a work

betrays

knowledge

its

own

lack

of

firmness,"

a work that
will

forces its

discerning
him

reader not

to be

'free'

clarity and but to think,

dialectically. It

thereby

remind

of

the "Socratic knowledge of

igno

knowledge. Such writing activates "the that famous and drama of allowing Socrates to die, immortally. Written words, demonstrably, have the potential for ambiguity and irony,
rance,"

paradoxical

thought,"

fences But

against

intruding

herds
with

as well as guideposts

for those

not of

the

herds.

one

may dispense

both ambiguity

and

irony

in saying that Ronna

402

Interpretation
her teacher. One may dispense with because the book contains its own, stoutly deterring all unto
subject and while

Burger's book honors both its

those guardians
ward attacks of

nympholepsy

encouraging interpretation.

Aristotle

on

Political Reasoning: A

"Rhetoric."

Arnhart. (DeKalb, Illinois:

Commentary on the Northern Illinois University Press,

By Larry
1981.

Pp.

230.

$18.00 cloth.)
"[C]an
son
rhetoric

be distinguished from defined

this

sophistry?"

What is "the

place of rea

in

political

life"? Modern thinkers

as

cannot make

up their minds. Some of

on

them want reason, usually ment, to rule.

induction based

the result of experi

Others

'rationalism,'

reject

saying that it cannot account for

the depth and

power of

human
and

passions and appetites.

By

studying Aristotle
the
modern

teaching
is

us the results of or at

his study,

Larry

Arnhart

shows that

dichotomy

false,
that

very least in

need of

important

qualifications.

Aristotle

understands

all

reasoning,

even scientific reason

ing, "depends
writes will say.

opinions,"

upon commonsense
political

not on sense perception alone.

"The Hobbesian
a polite

scientist

knows

more

than

he

admit,"

will

Arnhart

way

of

hinting

that said political scientist

knows less than he

Aristotelian
sion and mind.

enthymeme occupies a middle

ground, mediating between

pas

Neither

sophistical

fallacy

nor strict

demonstration, it
(not his

aims at

persuasion

(not

compulsion or

instruction);
of

conveys opinion

absolute

false
com and

hood

or absolute

bines pathos, logos. Pathos

minds

ethos

truth); (the

and gives

probability (not
the

chance or necessity).
and of

It

character

speaker

regime),*

must not

be

regarded as

purely irrational;

passion, Arnhart re

us, is always

about something.

It has (to

use modern

jargon)

objective as

well as subjective content.

"Reason

rules a passion not

passion,"

by
.

suppressing it, but

shame, the

by transforming

it into

a reasonable publicists of

often

by

means of

late modernity by Arnhart's commentary follows the text of Aristotle's Rhetoric as that text unfolds. While Aristotle demonstrates that the tension between reason and pas
sentiment most maligned sion need not overwhelm

us, Arnhart

simultaneously shows,
and concision.

by

example, that

richness

and

detail may

coexist with

clarity

tion and notes

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Emile, or On Education. Translated with an introduc by Allan Bloom. (New York: Basic Books, 1979. Pp. 501.
paper.)
Rousseau is
at the source of the tradition which replaces virtue and vice as

$7.95

the causes

of a man's

being

good or

bad, happy

or

miserable,

with such pairs as

*"Why is it only in the Rhetoric that Aristotle speaks of 'natural haps because the rhetorician appeals not directly to the 'just by
natural

justice'

as

'natural law'? Per

sense of

nature'

but instead to the

justice

embodied

in the customary

men."

moral standards of

Short Notices

403

sincere/insincere, authentic/inauthentic,
alienated self.
.

inner-directed/other-directed,

real self/

ironically

outlined

The wholeness, unity, or singleness of man a project in the Republic is the serious intention of Emile and almost Allan Bloom,
such a
"Introduction"

all that came afterward.

To has

understate

matters,

book deserves know

an accurate translation.

It

now

one.

Those

who encountered

the Emile in the Barbara

an

published

by

Everyman's

Library

talented

writer of uneven

brilliance. Not
a

lation ("Let

such readers will all

begin to know

Foxley interesting but confusing book by a long after they open the Bloom trans masterpiece by a philosopher.
translation

"[A]lmost

that came afterward":

childhood

ripen in

childhood,"

for example, Piaget's teaching is here Rousseau advises), and so is Dewey's

experience).

(Rousseau insists that the

praised

child

learn from

Sentiments

much

by contemporary educators, ruling sentiments of Rousseauan education. But Rousseau sees far more clearly than his epigones that to make those sentiments ruling sentiments involves a
egalitarianism and

compassion, are also the

difficult
mire

paradox. and

Socrates
to

Rousseau's variety of egalitarianism will lead Emile to Cato. As for his variety of compassion,

ad

prevent

pity from
to the

degenerating
.

into weakness, it
Then

must

...

be

general

ized

and extended

whole of mankind.

one yields to

it only insofar
cruelty to

as

it

accords with

justice.

[P]ity

for the

wicked

is

very

great

men.

'soft'

Many have
Rousseau,
achieve the
ern men.

seen that one strand of

another

while

late modernity has preferred the Rousseau. The project to has preferred the
'hard'

unity of man has resulted in a bifurcation Bloom's translation requires us to see the
accurately, the
whole

of sentiment whole

among mod Rousseau or, to

write more

Emile. In

doing that,

the translator brings a

genuinely

great

book into the English language.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Reveries of the Solitary Walker. Translated with Charles E. Butterworth. (Hardcover preface, notes, and an interpretive essay by
edition:

New York, New York University Press, 1979. Softcover edition: New pp. York, Philadelphia, Cambridge and San Francisco, Harper and Row, 1982,
xix

+ 268,

$5.95.)
to Rousseau's
edition of can:

manuscrip

"[Completely faithful
and

interpreter Charles E. Butterworth, this

philosopher

the Reveries does

according to translator justice him

speak "I" but as

to a

in the best way

on

most

of us

by letting
even

for

himself. Rousseau insists

that the

first

word of

the Reveries is

if to

confirm

its

author's

blackest

suspicions of

men,

the French editions

errors uncor

thought"

of this
rected

"final

statement of

his

contain numerous

errors,

in the two

centuries since

its

posthumous publication.

Butterworth

gives

us the real text of the

Reveries for the first time,

albeit translated.

404 "I
I?"

Interpretation
earth,"

am now alone on
or

Rousseau
than

begins, "no longer having any brother,

Detached from others, "what
am nature so as to assume man's natural
men's pity.

neighbor, friend

myself."

society

other

he

asks

posing the
while caution us of

question of

his

asociality,

simultaneously courting
this

Not for nothing does

the themes of the

Butterworth

philosopher's rhetoric.

Among

First Walk

are

hope

and

fear,

sentiments often associated with religious

faith.
to

Rousseau tells

us that

he has
now

undergone a

kind

of

creation,

falling

from

order

chaos to a new

order,

fear

both

created and

beyond hope and "unperturbed, like God Creator. In the Second Walk, Rousseau playfully de
unconscious.

Himself,"

scribes a

kind

of

fortunate fall that knocked him "I knew

neither who

He

awakened to neither

feel

as

if born

again:

was nor where

I was; I felt

injury, fear,
Hope
and

or

only "rapturous fear determine the content

worry,"

calm."

of one's

faith, Rousseau

argues

in the

Third Walk. While thus

implicitly

rejecting the

concept of

grace, he

also rejects

the Christian doctrine of divine punishment for erroneous

faith, thereby placing

walker,"

his

own sense of

justice

against that of

the Christian God. Butterworth observes

separate
even more

that "the

philosopher religion

from the
apparent

is necessarily something of a solitary that binds society. Rousseau makes this separation
most,"

in the Fourth Walk, which he begins by announcing Plutarch is "the author who grips and benefits me not, for example, Matthew, Mark, Paul, Luke, or John. On the question of truth and knowledge, his criterion is

justice,
so to

as

determined

by

"moral

instinct,"

not reason.

speak, evidently

yields results

different from those

Rousseau's conscience, of Christians; Butter

worth observes now

that Rousseau can prudently resolve to lie no more

because he

lives in

solitude.
a paradise.

Rousseau's faith includes St. Peter's Island, ists in this

timent of
and the

As fortune

would

have it, it is

named

Fifth Walk
and

contains

its description. This

paradise ex

requires only an appreciation of "the sen any striving for a telos beyond ourselves. Rev Indeed, Rousseau teaches that "we are sufficient to ourselves, like erie consists of a "thorough of fictions and realities, he also

life,

not

in the next,

it

existence"

to achieve, not

God."

conjunction"

teaches. Butterworth observes that this reason, traditional

sensual"

"passively

experience

discards

faith,

and action. applauds a

On this earth, Rousseau

sentiment

the third theological virtue, charity, in the

Sixth Walk. His charity has

treat men with "a

that society corrupts

natural, not divinely inspired character; it is a by transforming into a duty. Rousseau prefers to
benevolence,"

although perfectly disinterested he modestly declines to accept, even in fiction, the godlike power of the ring of Gyges to go with this godlike morality. Could one say that Rousseau's literary
universal and skill

is

a sort of while

ring

of

Gyges, making him

elusive

if

not

invisible
He

to many
ob

readers,
serves

granting him

near-creative power over others?

Butterworth
makes

that Rousseau teaches that

"By

good."

nature,

all men are

this

observation without

explicitly contrasting it

with

the

Christian teaching.

Short Notices

405

Walk the
body,"

Considering human nature can make us think of Eden, and in the Seventh botanizing Rousseau tells of his eating fruit that was supposed poison ous but in fact was not. No is harmful "to the "pleasant-tasting natural Rousseau teaches. He is silent concerning the soul. Botany "recalls to
product"

me

both my youth and my innocent pleasure"; one might call it the prelapserian science. Butterworth observes, "Because [Rousseau] does not think it possible
to explain the whole, he insists that all one can do
whole."

is to enjoy

being

part of

the

The far
as

Eighth, Ninth,

and

Tenth Walks

are unfinished

any
as

of us can tell. opinion.

The Eighth "I

no

concerns saw

fortune,
in [the

which

unintentionally so, as Rousseau calls the "interior disposi

with

basis

of public

longer

public's

tions"]
respect

anything but randomly

me."

moved

masses, destitute of all morality

to

Fortune,

of

course, is

not grace.

its

find "an earthly (civil contentment) is possible, it requires equality, according to the Rous seauan implication uncovered by Butterworth in his interpretation of the Ninth
opinions
can one

paradise."

Only away from society and Insofar as public happiness

Walk. As kind
of

all atoms are created a

equal,
of

one might add that

this equality has a

applies.

justice to it. For

Rousseau,

course,

different justice

He is

sufficiently bold to tell us that he writes his Tenth Walk on a Palm Sunday, the fiftieth anniversary of the day he first met his mistress, Madame de Warens. The final
pletes word of the

Reveries, by intention

or

fortune, is

"her."

This

com

his

reverie of paradise.
concludes

Butterworth
that his

that Rousseau embraced a refined nihilism.

of

Knowing

edition will

doubtless fall into the hands

terprets Rousseau's
reader

theology

with prudent restraint.

merely literary sorts, he in But he gives his faithful

many telling hints, in

the cause of justice for Rousseau.

The Political
and

of the Frankfurt School. London: Cornell University Press, 1981. Pp.

Philosophy

By

George Friedman. (Ithaca

312.

$22.50 cloth.)

ration

Auschwitz
systematic, thinkers as

symbolizes

the "modern

paradox":

"unreasonable

passionate

insanity. The Frankfurt

Benjamin, Adorno, Horkheimer,

brutality."

and

School, Marcuse, "set itself the

which consisted of such

task of
charac

defining
teristic

the relationship between

reason"

the

distinctively
that the

human

"and
paradox

The underlying image

of

they discovered
worse

was

humaneness,

yielded

horrors than those

reason
fact."

Enlightenment, that it eradicated. This,

even to the

they
to

contended, was

inevitable, because
"stands in

that aims at content, that wants

be

about something,

awe of the

It is positive,

extent of and

does

so with

affirms calling itself Positivism. It fatal inclusiveness and rigor:

the world, that

inhumane thing,

406
Like
own

Interpretation
all myths

[the

Enlightenment]
elements

could not

fail, for it had

set the terms

for its

dialectic. Those
elements

that

did

not conform were ruled out of existence.

Those

that

did

conform were

integrated into

a precreated structure of

thought.

This it

epistemological

tem. In the United

was racist

barbanty-as-systotality became political totalitarianism, is this barbarism was and States, commercial; in Germany,

terror; in this, Friedman observes, the School

and

echoes

Spengler's

thoughts on the modern duel between money

blood. In both countries, the

'progress,'

bourgeoisie,
kingdom
of

the

'enlightened'

class, believers in
of

brought down

darkness blacker than that

the Middle Ages.

of

To defeat modernity and its carriers, the Frankfurt School called for the use both reason and passion. The reason they invoked was not classical, how

ever;

indeed, it

was

distinctly

modern.

tematic, would revolutionize all rilla warfare, the warfare of irregulars language
alized of philosophic and

Critical reason, negative and unsys structures of thought. This "theoretical guer
itself,"

literary

regularity texts for fragments that

No interpretation

against

would raid express whole

the

"the

unre of

possibilities

inherent in

men."

of

texts,

course: that portends system.

The

passions

they invoked

were usual

ones,

of neither classical nor modern

pedigree.

Now that modernity has

what

conquered

nature,

they

argued,

men

have

no

passions'

need

to continue the

repression.

Liberated
calls as

passions would spirit of

bring

"the

gratification,"

joy

of

Friedman wittily
play,

"the

Nietzsche turned

egalitarianism."

Drug

use would also

help,

"the

faculty

of

fantasy

shatters

principle."

the reality

So

would

and a

complementary
and as
will

eschewal of work.

The

goal of politics
'history'

is "to transcend the

us

practical."

If

has brought

only money

blood,

we must

look

outside

'history'

archaic"

to such

"strangely
American blacks.

groups

students,
criticize

the people of the

and

'Third

World,'

and
of

They

impassion

our

way to the end Messiah. "The

realm of utter

'history';

ultimate

they nothing less than the hope is for the transfiguration of being itself into a
collectively,
constitute
autonomy."

negativity and In short, the Frankfurt School bosh. To interpret and assess this
gence

offers an

astounding

mixture of

insight
and

and

mixture takes not

all of

only
never

learning

intelli

but

good

judgment. Friedman has

concludes, tries "to

these virtues, at least one of

which the

Frankfurt School may have

the

provoked

but
the

deliberately

encour

aged.
and

Modernity, he

abolish

difference between
remarked.
of

becoming,"

distinction Plato back to

so

assiduously

[the Frankfurt he has

School] demonstrated
guides us

the
older

bankruptcy

modernity."

being "[B]y failing, By suc

ceeding, Friedman

thought. Am I wrong to suspect that

mind?

a more ancient

thought-system than Plato's in

Index
to

Interpretation, Volumes I
Robert Lee Stone

to X

Law-Clerk, United States District Court for

INDEX I
AUTHORS

the

Northern District of Illinois

OF

ARTICLES

PUBLISHED

IN

INTERPRETATION

Adams, Larry L. "Edmund Burke: The Psy

Citizenship."

chology of Allen, W. B. "Theory

Ill, ii/iii,
79.

191.

and

Practice in the Found

ing

of the

Republic."

IV, ii,

Alvis, John. "Coriolanus and Aristotle's Mag Reconsidered." nanimous Man VII, iii, 4.
Anastaplo,
George. "Notes 'Apologia

Blitz, Mark. "An Introduction to the Reading of Plato's V, ii, 185. Bloom, Allan. "An Interpretation of Plato's I, i, 43. Bolotin, David. "Response [to X, ii/iii, 423.
Laches." Ion."

Umphrey]."

from

Charles
52.
' "

Dickens's Christmas "Notes toward

an

Carol."

VII, i,

Brann. Eva. '"An Exquisite Platform': Ill, i, I. "The Offense of Socrates:

Apology."

Utopia."

Re

pro vita sua.

X, ii/iii, 319. Arnhart, Larry. "The Rationality

Speech: An Interpretation
141.
of
Rhetoric."

VII, ii, 1. reading of Plato's Brown, Warren R. "Aristotle's Art of Acquisi

tion and the
159-

of

Political

Conquest

Nature."

of

X, ii/iii,
and Self-

Aristotle's

IX, ii/iii,

Bruell, Christopher. "Socratic Politics

Knowledge:
Charmides."

An

Interpretation
141.

of

Plato's

Benardete, Jose A. "Macbeth's Last I, i, 63. Benardete, Seth. "On Plato's Timaeus and Science II, i, 21. "A Antigone: IV, iii, Reading of
Timaeus' Fiction."

Words."

VI, iii,

Canavan, Francis. "John Milton of VII, iii, 50. Carpino, Joseph. "Three
Expression."

and

Freedom

Cosmologies."

VI, i,
Polit

Sophocles'

I."

48.

Book Review:

Christianity

and

148.
II."

Reading of V, i, 1. "A Reading

III."

"A

Sophocles'

Antigone:
An

Sophocles'

of

tigone:

V, ii,

148.
Happiness."

Berger, Fred R. "Mill's Concept of VII, iii, 95. Berns, Laurence. "Gratitude, Nature, and Piety in King Ill, i, 27. "Political Philos V, iii, ophy and the Right to
Lear." Rebellion."

309.

"Francis Bacon

and

the Conquest of

VII, i, 1. Review of George Anastaplo, The Constitutionalist: Notes on the First Amendment. X, ii/iii, 322. Best, Judith. "What is law: The Minos Recon VIII, ii/iii, 102. Blits, Jan H. "Manliness and Friendship in Shakespeare's Julius IX, ii/iii,
sidered."

Nature.''

Philosophy, Frederick D. Wilhelmsen (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1978). VIII, ii/iii, 204. "Pleasure, Power, and Im X, i, 61. Carter, Richard B. "Volitional Anticipation and Popular Wisdom in VII, ii, 75. Caton, Hiram. "On the Induction of The Taming Ill, i, 52. of the Coby, Patrick. Book Review: The Spirit of Liberalism, by Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr.
ical
Descartes."
Shrew."

mortality."

(Cambridge:
1978).

Harvard
437.
of

University

Press,
of a

IX, ii/iii,

"The Education

Sophist: Aspects

Plato's

Protagoras."

X,

ii/iii, 139. Cochran, Clarke E. "Authority

The

and of

Freedom:

Caesar."

Democratic

Philosophy

Yves R.

Simon."

155-

VI, ii,

107.

N.B.: In this index, for the

sake of

brevity,

"passim"

notations such as

and

"et

seq."

have

been
the

omitted.

Also,

a reference

to the first page of an article may or may not be a reference to

entire article.

want

to thank my wife, Angela

Maria de Almeida Sampaio Lima Stone, for her faithful

assistance with

the

preparation of

this index.

408

Interpretation
"Alienation
and

Coffey, John W.
Science
of

the American

Politics."

VII, ii,

99.

Combee, Jerry H.
The Idea
of

"Nietzsche

as

Cosmologist:
as
a

the

Eternal Recurrence
and

Hobbes, Thomas. "The Life of Thomas Hobbes of X, i, 1. Hill, R. S. "Duncan Forbes's Hume's Philo sophical IX, i, 125.
Malmesbury." Politics."

Cosmological Doctrine
of

Some Aspects
of

its Relation to the Doctrine

Power."

the Will

to

IV, i,

38.
of

Cooper, Barry. "The Politics

An Interpretation
Theory."

Performance:

Jaffa, Harry V. "Tom Sawyer: Hero of Middle II, iii, 194. Jensen, Pamela K. "Nietzsche and Liberation:
America."

of

Bolingbroke's Political

The Prelude to

Philosophy

of

the

Future."

IX, ii/iii, Corngold, Stanley. "Dilthey's Essay The Poetic Imagination: A Poetics of IX, ii/iii,
245.
Force."

VI, ii, 79. Johnson, Lawrence J. "The 'Linguistic Imperi

alism'

of

Lorenzo Valla

and the

Renaissance

Humanists."

301.

VII, iii,

29.

Discourse on Cropsey, Joseph. "On I, ii, 130. "Leo Strauss: A Bib V, liography and Memorial,
Method."
1899-1973."

Descartes'

Kain, Philip J. "Labor,

the

State,
of

and

Aesthetic

Theory

in the Writings

Schiller."

IX,

. 133-

ii/iii, 263. Kirwan, Kent A. "Historicism

Wilson."

and

Statesman
Woodrow
Aeneid."

Diamond, Martin. "The Dependence of Fact upon II, iii, 226. "An Excerpt from 'Lincoln's VIII, ii/iii, 22.
'Value.'" Greatness.'"

ship in the Reform Argument

of

IX, ii/iii,

339.

Klein, Jacob. "The Myth of Virgil's II, i, 10. "About Plato's

157-

Philebus."

Emmert, Kirk. "Winston Churchill on Empire and the Limits of V, iii, 288. Engeman, Thomas S. "Homeric Honor and Thucydidean IV, ii, 65.
Politics." Necessity."

II, iii,

Kojeve, Alexandre. "Hegel, Marx and ChrisI, i, 21. "The Idea of Death in the Ill, ii/iii, 114. Philosophy of
tianty."

Hegel."

Flaumenhaft, Mera J. "Begetting

in Shakespeare's
dragola.'" Othello."

and

Belonging
197.

IV, iii,

Lampert,
Song."

Lawrence.

"Zarathustra's
141.

Dancing

"The Comic Remedy: Machiavelli's 'Man

VIII, ii/iii,

VII, ii,

33.

"The Undercover
Daylight."

Hero: Odysseus from Dark to

X,

i,

9-

Lemos, Ramon M. "Locke's Theory of Prop V, ii, 226. Lomax, J. Harvey. "Economics of Political
erty."

Philosophy: Which Should Prevail in Public

Galgan, Gerald J. Book review: Hannah Arendt's The Life of the Mind (N.Y.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978). VII, ii, 136. Gans, Steven. Book Review: The Truth of Free dom: An Essay on Mankind, by John M. Anderson (University Park, Pa.: The Dia logue Press, 1979). X, i, 133. Gebhardt, Jurgen. "Ideology and Reality: The
Ideologue's Persuasion in Modern
Politics.''

X, ii/iii, 251. Lowenthal, David. "The Design

quieu's

Policy?"

of

Montes

the
and

Considerations: Considerations on Causes of the Greatness of the Romans

their
Decline."

speare's

Caesar's

Plan."

I, ii, 144. "Shake X, ii/iii, 223.

Nights."

IX, ii/iii. 397. Gildin, Hilail. "Revolution

of

and the

Formation
Contract."

Political

Society

in the Social

Mahdi, Muhsin. "Remarks on the 1001 Ill, ii/iii, 157. Maneli, Mieczyslaw. "Three Concepts of Free dom: Kant Hegel VII, i, 27. Manicas, Peter T. "The Crisis of Contemporary
Marx."

V, iii, 247. Grady, Robert C, II.

the Christian
gument

Political
"The Law of Nature in
Hobbes'

Theory"

(A Review

of

Pride

and

Commonwealth:
Authority."

Ar

IV, iii, 217. "Bertrand de Jouvenel: Order, Legitimacy, and the Model of IX, ii/iii, 365.
Rousseau."

for Civil

Hartnett,

Edith.

"Sartre

and

the

Decadents."

VIII, ii/iii,

123.

Solace, by Norman Jacobson [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978]). IX, ii/iii, 427. Marty, William R. "Rawls and the Harried IX, ii/iii, 385. Maschler, Chaninah. "The Seven-Day VII, i, 90. Discussion: Paradoxes of Educa tion in a Republic, by Eva T H. Brann
Mother."

Story."

Index to Volumes I-X

(Chicago:
1979)-

409
Press,

University
113.

of

Chicago

X, i,

Mead, Walter B. "Christian Ambiguity and Social Ill, ii/iii, 221. Meyers, Marvin. "The Least Imperfect Govern
Disorder."

ment:

On Martin Diamond's 'Ethics

and

Politics.'"

VIII, ii/iii,

5.

VI, iii, 66. "On Sir William Temple's Political and Philosophical IX, ii/iii, 207. Perry, Marvin. "Arnold Toynbee: Nationalism as a 'False IV, i, 48. Peterman, Larry. "An Introduction to Dante's De II, ii/iii, 169. "Machiavelli
Teaching." God.'" Monorchia."

fax: The Complete Trimmer

Revisited."

Miller, Clyde Lee. "The Prometheus Story in Plato's VII, ii, 22. Mitias, Michael H. "Law as the Basis of the State: IX, ii/iii, 279. Morrisey, Will. Book reviews: The Moral Foun dations of the American Republic, edited by
Protagoras." Hegel."

versus

Dante: Politics
on

and

Language in the

Dialogue

Language."

Piatt, Michael.
staff

"Interpretation."

X, ii/iii, 201. V, i, 109. "Fal

Death."

in the

Valley

of the

Shadow

of

Robert H. Horwitz (Charlottesville: Univer

sity Press of Virginia, 1977). VII, ii, 120. In the Time Before Steamships: Billy Budd, The Limits of Politics, and Modernity, by Thomas J. Scorza (DeKalb: Northern Illinois

VIII, i, 5. Power, Susan. "John Locke: Revolution, Resis tance, or IX, ii/iii, 229. Prufer, Thomas. "Notes for a Reading of Augus tine, Confessions, Book X, ii/iii, 197.
Opposition?" X."

University Press,
Robert A. Goldwin

1979).

Political Parties in the

VIII, ii/iii, 223. Eighties, edited by

published

(jointly

by the

American Enterprise Institute for Public Pol Research and Kenyon College, Wash ington, D.C., and Gambier, Ohio, 1980). IX, ii/iii, 439. Motzkin, Aryeh L. "On Halevi's Kuzari as a Platonic IX, i, in. "Harry A.

icy

Dialogue."

Reinhardt, Karl. "Nietzsche's Lament of Ari VI, iii, 204. Rhodes, James M. "Pleasure and Reason: Marcuse's Idea of II, ii, 79. Rotenstreich, Nathan. "Human Emancipation and Ill, ii/iii, 205. "Aspects of VIII, ii/iii, 156. Identity and Rotstein, Abraham. "Lordship and Bondage in Luther and VIII, i, 75.
adne."

Freedom."

Revolution."

Alienation."

Marx."

Wolfson

as

Interpreter

of

Medieval

Thought."

IX, i,

137.

Sacks, Robert. "The Lion

mentary
on
1-10)."

and

the Ass: A Com

the Book of
29.
on

Genesis (Chapters
"The Lion
and

Neumann, Harry. "Atheistic Freedom

International

and

the
of

VIII, ii/iii,
1

the

Society

for the Suppression

of

Ass: A

Commentary

the Book of
1.

Genesis
and

Savage Customs: An Interpretation

rad's

Con

(Chapters

1-20)."

IX, i,

"The Lion

Nichols,
the

Heart of David K.
of

Darkness."

IV, ii,

107.
and

the Ass: A

Commentary

on

the Book of

"Aeschylus'

Oresteia

Genesis (Chapters
Lion
and

21-24)."

X, i, 67. "The
on

Origins

Political

Life."

IX, i, 83.
of
Angliae."

the Ass: A

Commentary

the

Nichols, Mary Pollingue. "An Interpretation

Fortescue's De Laudibus Legum

Book
271.

of

Genesis (Chapters

25-30)."

X, ii/iii,

VI, i,
of

11.

"The Winter's Tale: The Triumph

Tragedy."

Comedy

over

IX, ii/iii,

169.

Nielsen, Kai. "The Choice between Perfection VI, ii, ism and Rawlsian
Contractarianism."

132.

Nozick, Martin. Book

and the

review:

Human

Social World: Ortega's

Reality Philosophy
1975)-

Sassen, Robert F. "Freedom as an End of Poli II, ii, 105. Schaefer, David L. "Montaigne's Intention and his V, i, 57. Schambra, William. "The Writings of Martin Diamond: A VIII, ii/iii, 1.
tics."

Rhetoric."

Bibliography."

"Martin Diamond

on

'Lincoln's

Greatness.'

"

of History,

by
of

Oliver W. Holmes (Amherst:

Massachusetts

University
VII, ii,

Press,

VIII, ii/iii, 26. Schram, Glenn N. "Reinhold Niebuhr

temporary
Article."

and

Con

140.

Political

Thought:

Review
and

VI,

i,

65.

"Progressivism
of

Orr, Robert R.
Form
of

"Intellectual

Biography
IV, ii,

as

Political Science: The Case

Merriam."

Charles E.

Ideas."

the

History

of

98.

VIII, ii/iii, 174. Schrock, Thomas S. "Considering Crusoe: Part

I."

Parsons, John E., Jr. "On La Rochefoucauld: II, ii, 126. "Hali Preliminary
Reflections."

I, i, 76. "Considering Crusoe: Part I, ii, 169.

II."

410

Interpretation
and

Schwab, George. "Legality

struments of

Illegality

as

In

Amendment

[Dallas:

Southern

Methodist
188.

Revolutionaries in their Quest

for Power: Remarks Occasioned

look
of

by

the Out

VII, i, 74. Scorza, Thomas J. "Technology, Philosophy, and Political Virtue: The Case of Billy Budd, V, i, 91. "Tragedy in the State of Nature: Melville's VIII, i, 103.
Sailor."
Typee."

Herbert

Marcuse."

VIII, ii/iii, University Press, Trafton, Dain A. "On Comeille's iii, 183. Umphrey, Stewart. "On the Theme VI, i, 1. "Eros and ii/iii, 353.
Laches."

1971])."

Horace."

II,

of

Plato's

Thumos."

X,

"Comment:
mond's

The Politics

of

Martin Dia
16.

Velkley, Richard L. "Gadamer

Critique
of

and

Kant: The
353.

Science."

VIII, ii/iii,

Modern Aesthetic Consciousness

Method."

Sherlock, Richard. "The Theology of Leviathan: Hobbes on X, i, 43. Sherover, Charles M. "Rousseau's Civil Reli VIII, ii/iii, 114. Stern, Peter. "Marx's Critique of V, iii, 266. Strauss, Leo. "On the I, i, 1.
Religion."
gion."

in Truth

and

IX, ii/iii,

Philosophy."

Weiler, Gershon. "The Moral Legitimacy of VI, iii, 225. Weinberger, Jerry. "On Bacon's Advertisement
Governments."

Touching

Holy

War."

IX, ii/iii,
on the
Art."

191.
of

Euthydemus."

Wettergreen, John A. "Note

"On the End
93of

Intention

"Philosophy
ical
of

as

Rigorous Science

and

Polit

James Harrington's Political

Thucydides'

Narrative."

Philosophy."

II, i,

1.

"Note

on

the Plan

II, i, 64. IX,

Nietzsche's Beyond Good

97.

Evil."

and

Ill,
on

ii/iii,
the

"Preliminary
Thucydides'

Observations
Work."

Gods

of
Anabasis."

IV, i,
117.

1.

"Xenophon's

IV, iii,

"An
at

Unspoken Prologue to

Public Lecture

St. John's [In Honor

1978]."

of

Jacob Klein,

1899-

VII, iii,

1.

"Preface to Hobbes

i, White, Howard B. "Bacon's Wisdom of the I, ii, 107. "Macbeth and the Ty rannical II, ii, 143. "Rembrandt and the Human IV, i, 17. Wilson, John F. "Reason and Obligation in VIII, i, 30.
Ancients." Man." Condition."
Leviathan."

Wissenschaft."

politische

VIII, i,

1.

Thompson, Kenneth W. "Niebuhr's Concep

tion of

Zetterbaum, Marvin. "Self and Political I. ii, 233. Zuckert, Catherine. "'And in its Wake We
Followed': The Political Wisdom
Twain."

Order."

Politics in the United States

and

the

of

Mark

World."

VI, ii,

124.

Transnationalism."

and

"Science, Morality, IX, ii/iii, 415.

Ill, i,

59.

Zuckert, Michael P. '"And in its Wake We

Followed': The Political Wisdom
Twain."

Thurow, Glen E. Discussion: "The Defense of (A Review of George Anastaplo,

Liberty"

of

Mark

Ill, i,

59.

"An Introduction to

The Constitutionalist: Notes

on

the First

Locke's First

Treatise."

VIII, i,

58.

INDEX II
TITLES OF ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN

INTERPRETATION

"Aeschylus'

Oresteia

and

the Origins of Polit

"Atheistic Freedom Interpretation

ness."

and the of

International

Society

David K. Nichols. IX, i, 83. "Alienation and the American Science of Poli John W. Coffey. VII, ii, 99. "'And in its Wake We Followed': The Political Wisdom
of
tics."

ical

Life."

for the Suppression

of

Savage Customs: An

Conrad's Heart of Dark

Mark

Twain."

Michael P.

and

Harry Neumann. IV, ii, 107. "Authority and Freedom: The Democratic Phi Clarke E. losophy of Yves R.
Simon."

"Aristotle's Art
Nature."

Catherine Zuckert. Ill, i, 59. of Acquisition and the Conquest

of

Cochran. VI, ii,

107.

"Arnold
"Aspects

Toynbee:

Warren R. Brown. X, ii/iii, 159. Nationalism as a 'False

48.
Alienation."

"On Bacon's Advertisement

War."

God.'"

Marvin Perry. IV, i,

of

Identity

and 156.

Nathan

Weinberger. IX, "Bacon's Wisdom of the

Jerry

Touching a Holy ii/iii, 191.

Howard B.

Ancients."

Rotenstreich. VIII, ii/iii,

White. I, ii,

107.

Index to Volumes I-X

"Begetting
and

-411

Belonging
197.

in

Shakespeare's

"Edmund Burke: The

ship."

Psychology

of

Citizen

Othello."

IV, iii,

"Bertrand de Jouvenel:
the Model of

Order, Legitimacy,
Robert C.

and

L. Adams. Ill, ii/iii, 191. "The Education of a Sophist: Aspects of Plato's

Larry

Rousseau."

Grady
Rawls

Protagoras."

Patrick Coby. X, ii/iii,

Narrative."

139.

II. IX, ii/iii,

365.

"On the End

and

Thucydides'

of

John A.

Wettergreen. IX, i,
"The Choice between Perfectionism "Eros
Thumos."

93.

and

Stewart Umphrey.
Leo Strauss. I, i,
'Lincoln's
22. 1.

ian

Contractarianism."

X,

Kai Nielsen. VI, ii,

Social
221.
Disorder."

ii/iii,
"On the "An

353.

132.

Euthydemus."

"Christian

Ambiguity

and

Excerpt

from

Greatness.'"

Walter B. Mead. Ill, ii/iii, Book Review:

ophy,

Martin Diamond. VIII, ii/iii,

"'An Exquisite Platform':

Christianity

and

Political Philos

Utopia."

Eva Brann.

by Frederick D. Wilhelmsen (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1978). Joseph

J. Carpino. VIII, ii/iii,
gola.'"

Ill, i,

1.

204.

"The Comic Remedy: Machiavelli's 'Mandra

"Comment: The Politics
Science."

"Falstaff in the

Valley

of

the Shadow

Death."

of

Mera J. Flaumenhaft. VII, ii, 33. of Martin Diamond's

I."

Michael Piatt. VIII, i, 5. "Francis Bacon and the Conquest

"Freedom

Nature."

of

Thomas J. Scorza. VIII, ii/iii, 16. Thomas S. "Considering Crusoe: Part Schrock. I, i, 76. "Considering Crusoe:
Part Review
II."

Laurence Bems. VII, i, as an End of

Sassen. II,

1.
Politics."

Robert F.

ii,

105.

I, ii,

169.
on

of

The Constitutionalist: Notes

the

"Gadamer

and

Kant: The Critique

of

Modem
and

First Amendment, by George Anastaplo. Laurence Berns. X, ii/iii, 322. "Coriolanus

and

Aesthetic
Method."

Consciousness

in

Truth

Aristotle's Magnanimous Man

Horace."

Reconsidered."

"On Corneille's

John Alvis. VII, iii, 4. Dain A. Trafton. II, Political

Theory"

Richard L. Velkley. IX. ii/iii, "Gratitude, Nature, and Piety in King Laurence Berns. Ill, i, 27.

353.

Lear."

iii,

183.
of

"On Halevi's Kuzari

as a

Platonic
III.

Dialogue."

"The Crisis

Contemporary
of

Aryeh L. Motzkin. IX, i,

(A Review

Pride

and

Solace, by Norman
Los Angeles: Uni
1978]).

"Halifax: The Complete Trimmer

Revisited."

Jacobson

[Berkeley

and

versity of California Press, Manicas. IX, ii/iii, 427.

"The Defense
of

Peter T.

John E. Parsons, Jr. VI, iii, 66. Book Review: Hannah Arendt's The Life of the Mind (N.Y.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1978).

Liberty": A Review

of

George

Anastaplo, The Constitutionalist: Notes on the First Amendment, (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1971). Glen E. Thurow. VIII, ii/iii, 188.
"The Dependence
Descartes'

"Harry
"Hegel,

A. Wolfson

Gerald J. Galgen. VII, ii, 136. as Interpreter of Medieval Aryeh L. Motzkin. IX, i,
Christianity."

Thought."

137.

Marx

and

Alexandre

Kojeve. I,
"Historicism

i,

21.

and

of

Fact

'Value.'"

upon

Martin Joseph

Statesmanship
Woodrow

in the Reform Kent A.

Argument

Wilson."

of

Diamond. II, iii, 226. Discourse "On

Method."

on

Kirwan. IX, ii/iii, 339. "Homeric Honor and Thucydidean Thomas S. Engeman. IV, ii, 65. "Human Emancipation and
Rotenstreich. Ill, ii/iii, 205. Book review: "Human Reality World": Ortega's

Necessity."

Cropsey. I, ii, 130. "The Design of Montesquieu's Considerations: Considerations on the Causes of the Great
Decline."

Revolution."

Nathan
Social

ness

of the Romans and their David Lowenthal. I, ii, 144.

and the

"Dilthey's Poetics

Essay
of

Force."

The Poetic Imagination: A Stanley Corngold. IX,

Philosophy
1975).

of History

by
of

Oliver W. Holmes (Amherst:

University

Massachusetts Press,

Martin Nozick.

ii/iii,

301.

VII, ii,
or

140.

"Economics

Political

Philosophy:
Policy?"

Which

Should Prevail in Public

Lomax.

J.

Harvey

"The Idea

of

Death in the

Philosophy of
114.

Hegel."

X, ii/iii,

251.

Alexandre Kojeve.

Ill, ii/iii,

412 "Ideology
sion

Interpretation
and

Reality: The Ideologue's Persua

Politics."

"The 'Linguistic
and

Imperialism'

of

Lorenzo Valla Lawrence

M.

in Modem
397.

Jurgen Gebhardt.
Shrew."

the Renaissance

Humanists."

IX, ii/iii,

"On the Induction

"Intellectual
of

of

The

Taming
Form

of the
of

J. Johnson. VII, iii, "Locke's Theory of

29.
Property."

Ramon

Hiram Caton. Ill, i,

52.
as a

Biography

the

History

Lemos. V, ii, 226. "Lordship and Bondage in Luther Abraham Rotstein. VIII,

Marx."

and

Ideas."

"Interpretation."

Robert R. Orr. IV, ii, 98. Michael Piatt. V, i, 109.

of

i,

75.

"An Interpretation
Legum

Fortescue's De Laudibus

Angliae."

Mary
Plato's

Pollingue Nichols.
Ion."

"Macbeth

and

the Tyrannical
143.
Words."

Man."

Howard B.

VI, i,

11.
of

"An Interpretation

Allan Bloom.
Monorchia."

White. II, ii, "Macbeth's Last i,63.

"Machiavelli

Jose A. Benardete. I,
and

I, i.

43-

"An Introduction to Dante's De

versus

Dante: Language
on

Poli

Larry

Peterman. Ill,

ii/iii,

169.
Treatise."

tics in the Dialogue

Language."

Larry

"An Introduction to Locke's First Michael P. Zuckert. "An

Laches."

Peterman. X, ii/iii, "Manliness

and

201.

VIII, i,

58.
of

Friendship
on

in Shakespeare's
155.
Greatness.'"

Introduction to the

Reading
185.

Plato's

Julius

Caesar."

Jan H. Blits. IX, ii/in,

'Lincoln's
26.

Mark Blitz. V, ii,

"Martin Diamond

William Schambra. VIII, ii/iii, "Marx's Critique

Philosophy."

"John Locke:

sition?"

Revolution, Resistance, or Oppo Susan Power. IX, ii/iii, 229.

and

of

Peter Stem. David

V, iii,

266. and

"John

Milton

Freedom

Expression."

of

"Montaigne's Intention

his

Rhetoric."

Francis Canavan. VII, iii,

"On

50.

La Rochefoucauld:

Preliminary

Reflec

John E. Parsons, Jr. II, ii, 126. "Labor, the State, and Aesthetic Theory in the Writings of Philip J. Kain. IX,
Schiller."

tions."

L. Schaefer. V, i, 57. Book review: The Moral Foundations of the American Republic, edited by Robert H. Horwitz (Charlottesville:
of

University

Press

Virginia,

1977).

Will Morrisey. VII, ii,

Governments."

120.

ii/iii,
"Law
as

263.

the Basis of the

State:

Hegel."

Michael

"The Moral
shon

Legitimacy

of

Ger-

"The Law
ity."

H. Mitias. IX, ii/iii, 279. of Nature in the Christian Common

Hobbes'

Weiler. VI, iii, "Mill's Concept of

225.

Happiness."

Fred R. Berger.

wealth:

Argument for Civil Author

VII, iii,
"The Myth

95.
of

II. IV, iii, 217. "The Least Imperfect Government: On Martin

Robert C.

Grady

Virgil's

Aeneid."

Jacob Klein.

II, i,

21.

Diamond's 'Ethics Meyers.

Politics.'"

and

Marvin
"Niebuhr'

VIII, ii/iii,

5.
as

Conception
124.

of

Politics in the United Kenneth W.

"Legality

and

Illegality

Instruments

of

Revo

States
son.

and the

World."

Thomp
a

lutionaries in their Quest for Power: Remarks Occasioned

VI, ii,
and

by

the Outlook of Herbert Mar

"Nietzsche

Liberation: The Prelude to

of the
Future."

George Schwab. VII, i, 74. "Leo Strauss: A Bibliography and Memorial,

1899-1973."

cuse."

Philosophy
sen.

Pamela K. Jen
the Eter

VI, ii,
as

79.
of

Joseph Cropsey. V, ii,

of

133.

"Nietzsche
nal and

Cosmologist: The Idea

as a of

"The Life

of

Thomas Hobbes

Malmesbury."

Recurrence

Cosmological Doctrine
its Relation to the
Power."

"The Lion Book

Thomas Hobbes. X, i, I. and the Ass: A Commentary

of

Some Aspects
of

on

the

Doctnne

the Will to

Jerry

H.

Genesis (Chapters
29.
on

1-10)."

Robert
the

Sacks. VIII, ii/iii, Ass: A (Chapters

the Ass:
esis and

"The Lion
the Book of
1.

and

Combee. IV, i, 38. "Nietzsche's Lament of hardt. VI, iii, 204. "Note on the Intention

Ariadne."

Karl

Rein-

Commentary
A

Genesis
and

11-20)."

IX, i,

"The Lion

Commentary on the Commentary

Book of Gen Book

271.

Political
64.
"Note
on the

Art."

of James Harrington's John A. Wettergreen. II, i,

(Chapters

21-24)."

X, i, 67. "The Lion

on the
of

the Ass: A

Plan

of

Nietzsche's Beyond Good

Genesis (Chapters

25-30)."

X, ii/iii,

Evil."

and

Leo Strauss. Ill, ii/iii, 97.

Index to Volumes I-X

"Notes for a Reading Book "Notes
X."

-413

of

Augustine, Confessions,

"Reason

and

Obligation in
30.

Leviathan."

John F.

Carol."

Thomas Prufer. X, ii/iii, 197. from Charles Dickens's Christmas George Anastaplo. VII, i, 52.
an

Wilson. VIII, i,
"Remarks
on

the 1001
157.

Nights."

Muhsin Mahdi. Political

Ill, ii/iii,
Thought: "Rembrandt

"Notes toward

'Apologia

sua.'"

pro

vita

"Reinhold Niebuhr
A

and

Contemporary
Article."

George Anastaplo. IX, ii/iii, "The Offense Plato's

of

319.

Review

Glenn N.

Socrates: A

Re-reading
I.

of

Apology."

Eva Brann. VII, ii,

Howard B. White. IV, i, 17. Umphrey." "Response to David Bolotin. X,

Schram. VI, i, 65. and the Human

Condition."

Discussion: Paradoxes of Education in a Repub lic, by Eva T.H. Brann (Chicago: Univer sity of Chicago Press, Maschler. X, i, 113.
1979).

ii/iii,
"Review

423.
of

Hume's Philosophical Politics

Forbes."

by

Chaninah

Duncan "Revolution

and

R. S. Hill. IX, i, 125. the Formation of Political So

Contract."

"Philosophy

as

Rigorous Science
Philebus."

and

Political

ciety in the Social

Hilail Gildin.

Philosophy."

"About Plato's
157-

Leo Strauss. II, i, 1. Jacob Klein. II, iii,

Timaeus'

V, iii,
over.

247.
Religion."

"Rousseau's Civil

Charles M. Sher

VIII, ii/iii,

114.

"On Plato's Timaeus

tion."

and

Science Fic
"Sartre
of

Seth Benardete. II, i, 21. "Pleasure and Reason: Marcuse's Idea

dom."

and

the

Decadents."

Free

Edith Hartnett. VIII,

Transnationalism."

James M. Rhodes. II, ii,

79.

"Pleasure, Power, and Carpino. X, i, 61.

Immortality."

Joseph J.

ii/iii, 123. "Science, Morality,

"Self

and

Book Review: Political Parties in the Eighties, edited by Robert A. Goldwin (jointly pub

Kenneth W. Thompson. IX, ii/iii, 415. and Political Marvin Zetterbaum.

Order."

I. ii,
"The

233.
Story."

lished

by

the American Enterprise Institute

Seven-Day
90.

Chaninah Maschler.
Plan."

for Public

Policy

Research

and

Kenyon

VII, i,
thal.

"Shakespeare's Caesar's

David Lowen
Philo

College, Washington, D.C., and Gambier, Ohio, 1980). Will Morrisey. IX, ii/iii, 439.
"Political
lion."

X, ii/iii,

223.
and

Philosophy

and

the Right to Rebel

"On Sir William Temple's Political

Teaching."

sophical

"The Politics
of

Laurence Bems. V, iii, 309. of Performance: An Interpretation

Theory."

John E. Parsons, Jr.

IX, ii/iii,

207.
and

"Socratic Politics
pretation of

Self-Knowledge: An Inter
Charmides."

Bolingbroke's Political
245.

Barry

Plato's

Christopher

Cooper. IX, ii/iii, "Preface to Hobbes

Wissenschaft."

politische

Leo Strauss. VIII, i, 1. "Preliminary Observations

cydides'

on the

Gods in Thu

Bmell. VI, iii, 141. Book Review: The Spirit of Liberalism, by Har vey C. Mansfield, Jr. (Cambridge: Harvard

Work."

"Progressivism
of

and

Leo Strauss. IV, i, 1. Political Science: The Case Glenn N. Schram.

Protagoras."

University Press,
ii/iii,
437.

1978).

Patrick Coby. IX,

Charles E.

Merriam."

VIII, ii/iii,

174.

"The Prometheus

Story

in Plato's
22.

"Technology, Philosophy, and Political Virtue: Thomas J. The Case of Billy Budd,
Sailor."

Clyde Lee Miller. VII, ii,

"The

Scorza. V, i,
"On the Theme

91.
of

Plato's

Laches."

Stewart
Reli

Rationality
of

of

Political Speech: An Inter

Rhetoric."

pretation

Aristotle's
141.

Larry

Umphrey. VI, i, 1. "The Theology of Leviathan: Hobbes

gion."

on

Arnhart. "Rawls

IX, ii/iii,

Richard Sherlock. X, i, Practice in the

43.
of

Mother."

and the

Harried
385.
Sophocles'

William R.
I."

"Theory

and

Founding

the

Marty. "A

IX, ii/iii,
of

Reading

Antigone:

Seth
of

W. B. Allen. IV, ii, 79. "Three Concepts of Freedom: Kant Hegel

Marx."

Republic."

Benardete.
Sophocles'

IV, iii,
Antigone:

148.
II."

"A

Reading
1.

V, i,

"A Read
148.

"Three
48.

Cosmologies."

Mieczyslaw Maneli. VII, i, 27. Joseph Carpino. VI, i,

Sophocles'

ing

of

Antigone:

III."

V, ii,

414

Interpretation
"Volitional Anticipation
Descartes."

Essay-Review: In the Time Before Steamships:

and

Popular Wisdom in

Billy Budd, The Limits of Politics, and Mo dernity, by Thomas J. Scorza (Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1979).
Will Morrisey. VIII, ii/iii, 223. "Tom Sawyer: Hero of Middle
America."

Richard B. Carter. VII,

ii,

75.

"What is Law: The Minos Best. VIII, ii/iii, "Winston Churchill

Politics."

Reconsidered."

Judith

102.
on

Harry

Empire

and

the Limits

"Tragedy

V. Jaffa. II, iii, 194. in the State

Typee."

of

Nature:

Melville's

Kirk Emmert. V, iii, 288. "The Winter's Tale: The Triumph of Comedy
of
Tragedy."

Thomas J. Scorza. VIII, i, 103. Book Review: The Truth of Freedom: an Essay
on

over

Mary

Pollingue Nichols. IX,

ii/iii,

169.
of

Mankind, by John M. Anderson (Univer sity Park, Pa.: The Dialogue Press, 1979). Steven Gans. X, i, 133.

"The Writings

Martin Diamond: A

Bibliog
I.

raphy."

William Schambra. VIII,

ii/iii,

"Xenophon's

Anabasis."

"The Undercover Hero: Odysseus from Dark to

Daylight."

Leo Strauss. IV,

iii,

117.

"An Unspoken Prologue to St. John's [In Honor

1978]."

Mera J. Flaumenhaft. X, i, 9. a Public Lecture

of

at

Jacob Klein,
1.

1899-

"Zarathustra's
pert.

Dancing

Song."

Lawrence Lam

Leo Strauss. VII, iii,

VIII, ii/iii,

141.

INDEX III
AUTHORS OR WORKS INTERPRETED
IN

ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN INTERPRETATION

Adler, Mortimer J. II, ii, 108. Aeschylus. IX, i, 83. Anastaplo, George. VIII, ii/iii, 188; X, ii/iii, 319; X, ii/iii, 322. Anderson, John M. X, i, 133. Arabian Nights. Ill, ii/iii, 157. Arendt, Hannah. VII, ii, 136. Aristotle. VII, iii, 4; IX, ii/iii, 141; X, ii/iii,
159-

Diamond, Martin. VIII, ii/iii, 1, 5, Dickens, Charles. VII, i, 52. Dilthey, Wilhelm. IX, ii/iii, 301. Downie, R. S. VI, iii, 225. Engeman, Thomas. X, ii/iii,
353.

and 16.

Federalist. IV, ii, 79; VII, ii, Forbes, Duncan. IX, i, 125.

99.

Augustine. X, ii/iii,

197.

Fortescue, Sir John. VI, i,

11.

Bacon, Francis. I, ii, 107; VII, i, 1; IX, ii/iii,

191.

Bible. VII, i, 90;

VIII, ii/iii,

29;

IX, i,

1;

X,

i, 67; X, ii/iii, 271. Bolingbroke, Henry St. John, Viscount. X, ii/iii,

245-

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. IX, ii/iii, 353. God. VII, i, 90; VIII, ii/iii, 29; IX, i, 67; X, ii/iii, 271. Goldwin, Robert A. IX, ii/iii, 439.

1;

X, i,

Bolotin, David. X, ii/iii, 353. Brann, Eva. X, i, 113. Burke, Edmund. Ill, ii/iii, 191.
Churchill, Winston. V, iii, 288. Conrad, Joseph. IV, ii, 107. Comeille, Pierre. II, iii, 183.
Dante Alighieri. Ill, ii/iii, Defoe, Daniel. I, i, 76; I,
169.

X, ii/iii,
75.

201.

ii, 169.

Descartes, Rene. I, ii, 130; VII, ii,

Halevi, Judah. IX, i, 11 1. Halifax, Charles Montagu, Earl of. VII, iii, 66. Harrington, James. II, i, 64. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. I, i, 21; III, ii/iii, 114; VII, i, 27; IX, ii/iii, 279. Heidegger, Martin. II, i, 1; VIII, ii/iii, 156. Hobbes, Thomas. II, iii, 226; IV, iii, 217; VIII, i, 1 and 30; X, i, 1 and 43. Holmes, Oliver W. VII, ii, 140. Homer. IV, ii, 65; X, i, 9. Horwitz, Robert H. VII, ii, 120. Hume, David. IX, i, 125.

Index

to

Volumes I-X
i.

-415

Husserl, Edmund. II, i,

Plato. I, i,
185;

Jacobson, Norman. IX, ii/iii, 427. de Jouvenel, Bertrand. IX, ii/iii, 365.
Kant, Immanuel. VII, i, 27; IX, ii/iii, Klein, Jacob. VII, iii, 1.
La
353.

1 and 43; II, i, 21; II, iii, 157; V, i, VI, i, 1; VI, iii, 141; VH, ii, 1: VII, ii, 22; VIII, ii/iii, 102; X, ii/iii, 139, 353 and

423.

Publius. IV, ii, 79; VII, ii,

99.

Rawls, John. VI, ii,

132;

IX, ii/iii,

385.

Rochefoucauld, Francois, due de. II, ii, 126. Lincoln, Abraham. VII, ii/iii, 22 and 26. Locke, John. V, ii, 226; VIII, i, 58; IX, ii/iii,
229.

Rembrandt. IV, i, 17. Rousseau, Jean Jacques. V, iii, 247; VIH, ii/iii,
114;

IX, ii/iii,

365.

Luther, Martin. VIII, i,

75.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. VII, ii, 33; X, ii/iii, 201. Maclver, Robert M. II, ii, 105. Mansfield, Harvey C, Jr. IX, ii/iii, 437. Marcuse, Herbert. II, ii, 79; VII, i, 74. Marx, Karl. I, i, 21; III, ii/iii, 205; V, iii, 266; VII, i, 27; VII, ii, 99; VIII, i, 75; VIII, ii/iii, 156. Melville, Herman. V, i, 91; VII, ii, 103; VIII, i, 103; VIII, ii/iii, 223. Merriam, Charles E. VIII, ii/iii. 174. Mill, John Stuart. VII, iii, 95. Milton, John. VII, iii, 50. Montaigne, Michel Eyquem, seigneur de. V, i,
57-

Sartre, Jean Paul. VIII, ii/iii, 123. Schiller, Friedrich von. IX, ii/iii, 263. Scorza, Thomas J. VIII, ii/iii, 223. Shakespeare, William. I, i, 63; II, ii, 143; III, i, 27 and 52; IV, iii, 197; VII, iii, 4; VIII, i, 5; IX, ii/iii, 155 and 169; X, ii/iii, 223. Simon, Yves R. VI, ii, 107. Sophocles. IV, iii, 148; V, i, 1; V, iii, 148. Strauss, Leo. V, ii, 133.
Temple, Sir William. IX, ii/iii, 207. Thucydides. IV, i, 1; IV, ii, 65; IX, i, Toynbee, Arnold. IV, i, 48. Twain, Mark. II, iii, 194; III, i, 59. Umphrey, Stewart. X, ii/iii, Valla, Lorenzo. VII, iii,
Virgil. II, i,
10.

93.

423.

Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron de la Brede et de. I, ii, 144; IV, ii, 79. More, Sir Thomas. Ill, i, 1. Moses. VII, i, 90; VIII, ii/iii, 29; IX, i, 1; X, i, 67; X, ii/iii, 271.
Niebuhr, Reinhold. VI, i, 65; VI, ii, 124. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Ill, ii/iii, 97; IV, i, 38; VI, ii,
79;

29.

VI, iii,

204;

VIII, ii/iii,

141.

West, Thomas G. X, ii/iii, 353. Wilson, Woodrow. IX, ii/iii, 339. Wilhelmson, Frederick D. VIII, ii/iii, Wolfson, Harry A. IX, i, 137.
Xenophon. IV, iii,
117.

204.

Ortega y Gasset, Jose. VII, ii,

140.

INDEX IV
TOPICS

Abelard.

Abortions.

IX, i, 119 VII, ii,

and 123.

49. 5L

and

69; X, ii/iii,

347-8.

Adams, John. V, iii, 313. Adams, John Quincy. X, ii/iii, 337Aeschylus. Ill, i, 17; IV, iii, 157. 169. and 196; V, i, 3, 6, 19, and 31; VII, i, 52 and 70; VII, ii, 23 and 32; IX, i, 83; and X, i, 16. Aesop. VII, ii, 63; VIII, ii/iii, 24; X, ii/iii, 254.

i, I, 8, IV, ii, 65 and 69; V, i, 72 and 107; VI, i, 5; VI, iii, 141, 190, and 202; VII, iii, 16; VIII, ii/iii, 231; IX, i, 93, 96, and 100- 1 10; IX, ii/iii, 192 and 245; X, ii/iii, 141, 158, 393-4, 399, 401, and 419. Alfarabi. V, i, 73; V, ii, 138, 139, and 143; V, iii, 309; X, ii/iii, 210.
13,
and 15;

Afghanistan. X, ii/iii, 334 and 349. Alcibiades. I, i, 4; III, ii/iii, 107; IV,

416

Interpretation
and 235; IV, i, 17-19, 23-5, and IV, ii, 87, 92-4, and 100; IV, iii, 122, 141, 172, 188, 192, 219, and 237; V, i, 7, 9, 66, 68, 86, 100, no, 114, 121, and 130; V, ii, 163 and 175; V, iii, 309 and 312; VI, i, 4-5, 10, 18, and 75; VI, ii, 114, 121, and 137; VI, iii, 165; VII, i, 2, 5, 8-9, 13, 19, 23-6, and 71; VII, ii, 20, 42-45, 71, 121-4, and 132; VII, iii, 2 and 4; VIII, i, 103; VIII, ii/iii, 11, 19, 209, and 226; IX, i, 83, 89, 108-9, 118-9, 137, and 138; IX, ii/iii, 158, 186, 190, 195, 203, 213-17, 247,

de Alvarez, Leo Paul. VII, i, 71; X, ii/iii, 328,

341,
and 351-2.

169-190,

29;

ii, 198. Anastaplo, George. Ill, i, 33; V, iii, 314; VII, i, 52-73; VIII, ii/iii, 188; X, ii/iii, 270, 319,
Ambrosius. I,
and 384.

Anastaplo, In Re. VIII, ii/iii,

35i-

190-1;

X, ii/iii,
and

322, 330-2, 334, 339, 341, 344-6,

Anaxagoras. X, ii/iii, 419. Ancients and Modems. I, i, 75; I, ii, 107, 133,
161-2, 165, and 168; II, i, 69; II, ii, 143; II, iii, 162, 194, 224, and 226-8; III, i, 35, 40, 60, and 61; III, ii/iii, 101, 105, 113, and 174; IV, i, 17, 36, and 49; IV, ii, 78, 79, 88-9, and 90; IV, iii, 228; V, i, 107; VI, i, 11; VII, i, 18, 25, and 26; VII, ii, 33, 34,
36, 42, 49, 58, 107-8, 123, 126,
and

320, 353, 381, 398, 405, 427-9. 437. 445.

and

450;

X, i, 113, 119-21,

and

129;

X,

ii/iii,

148, 151, 159, 198-9, 202-15, 2i9.

358-

227, 252-3, 265, 319, 328, 342, 351,

127;

9, 361, 365, and 372. Art. I, i, 1,4, 7, 44, 47-8, 71, 75-6,

and

79;

I,

VII, iii, 27 and 28; VIII, i, 24; VIII, ii/iii, 189; IX, i, 137; IX, ii/iii, 205-6, 227, 263, 353, and 385; X, i, 113-14. H9> 123, 125, and 135; X, ii/iii, 152-3, 180, 202, 326,
329, 330, 340, 353, 365, and 387-8. Aphrodite. I, ii, 115 and 118-21; X, i,
and 34-5.

ii, 125, 129,

131, 134, 147, 149, 162, 217,

26

115; II, i, 11; III, i, 35; 6; IV, ii, 75; IV, iii, 123-4, 134, and 140; V, ii, 179; VII, ii, 64; IX, i, 84, 86, 88, and 98; IX, ii/iii, 174; X, i, 6, 7, 9, and 39; X, ii/iii, 403 and 406-8. Aquinas. I, ii, 176, 194, and 219; II, ii, 129 and 135; III, i, 29 and 34; III, ii/iii, 171, 176, 179, 180, 184, and 189; IV, ii, 104 and 107; V, i, 39 and no; V, ii, 140; V, iii, 309; VI, i, 11; VII, i, 26; VII, iii, 2, 11, and 26; VIII, i, 13, 64, and 69; VIII, ii/iii, 204; IX, i, 137 and 139; IX, ii/iii, 202, 232, and 241; X, i, 59; X, ii/iii, 198-9 and 201. Arabian Nights. Ill, ii/iii, 157; VII, i, 67; X, ii/iii, 271. Archimedes. I, ii, 243. Ares. X, i, 26, 34, and 36. Aristophanes. I, i, 16 and 17; II, i, 51; IV, iii, 126; V, i, 6, 41, and 55; V, ii, 145; VI, iii, 168; VII, ii, 8 and 60; VII, iii, 61; VIII, i, 13; VHI, ii/iii, 232; IX, i, 91; IX, ii/iii, 180; X, i, 2; X, ii/iii, 319, 328, 350-2, 356, 383,

Apollo. I, ii,

m and

IV, i,

and

234, and 239; II, ii, 128; II, iii, 194-5; III, i, 5 and 12; III, ii/iii, 222; IV, i, 17; VII, ii, 57; VII, iii, 28; VIII, ii/iii, 74; IX, ii/iii, 381; X, i, 6 and 36; X, ii/iii, 159 and 41 1. Artemis. I, ii, 1 14-15. Athena. I, ii, 115, 126, and 128; II, i, 11, 12, 25, and 30; III, i, 57; IV, i, 7; V, ii, 145 and 177; VII, ii, 22; VIII, ii/iii, 10; IX, i, 84, 86, and 88; X, i, 13, 20, 25-28, 30, 32, and 40-1; X, ii/iii, 398. Athens. I, i, 1-20, 58, and 61; II, i, 25 and 74; II, ii, 101; II, iii, 158, 166, and 232; III, i, 5 and 8; III, ii/iii, 101; IV, i, 1; IV, ii, 65 and 114; IV, iii, 122, 124, 129-31, 134, 142, 147, 161, 174, and 192; V, i, 25; V, ii, 185; VI, i, 1, 5, and 9; VI, ii, 141; VII, ii, 1, 6, 16, 18, 25, 27, 60, 70, and 73; VIII, ii/iii, 215; IX, i, 84 and 93; IX, ii/iii, 226; X, i, 118 and 130; X, ii/iii, 143-4, 148,

220, 333-5, 385-398, 401-4, 406, 12,

and 417-20.

410-

Augustine. I, i,

392, 396,

and 415. and

Aristotle. I, i, 9, 28,
and

69; I, ii,

109, no,

117-119, 122-3, I27. 131. 136, 149, 194,

54, and 69; II, ii, 101, II, iii, 157, 162, 167-8, 181, 187, 228, and 234; III, i, 5, 17, 22, 27-51, and 82; III, ii/iii, in, 127, 128,

ii, 153; II, ii, II, i, 13 and 14; III, ii/iii, 180, 187, 222, 225, and 229; IV, i, 20; IV, ii, 98; V, i, 119; VI, i, 75; VI, ii, 123; VII, ii, 45, 52, 71, and 74; VIII, ii/iii, 204 and 219; IX, ii/iii, 415 and 432; X, i, 57 and 63; X, ii/iii, 197, 379, and 381. Averroes. Ill, ii/iii, 170 and 174; VIII, ii/iii, 217; IX, i, 137. Avicenna. V, iii, 309; IX, i, 139.
and

87

102; I.

124, 138, 153,

and

155;

205;

II, i, 40,
and

129, 138,

144;

Bacon, Francis. I, ii, 107; II, i, 15, 23, 66, and 69; II, ii, 135; IV, i, 17, 25, 26, and 33; IV, iii, 202; V, i, 57; VI, i, 2, 5; VII, i,

Index to Volumes I-X

i;

-417

and

VII, ii, 58, 72-3, and 123; VII, iii, 26 69; VIII, ii/iii, 24; IX, ii/iii, 191 and 227; X, i, 116, 123, 125, and 129; X, ii/iii,
no, 168-9,
and 383.

Body

and

Soul. I, ii, 138-9

and

and

141-2;

2, 5, 17,

68; III, ii/iii,

108;

III, i, IV, i, 17;

X, ii/iii,

324-6 and 415.

r73.

r76-7> 180,

191, 351,

Bayle, Pierre. X, ii/iii, 343. Beauty/beautiful. I, i, 2, 7, and 50; II, i, 12, 26, 32, 34, 42, 55, 62, and 63; II, ii, 95 and 135; II, iii, 159, 161, and 176; III, i, 19, 68, and 73; III, ii/iii, 97, 194-5, and 235; IV, ii, 76; IV, iii, 117 and 166; V, i, 26 and 65; V, ii, 203; V, iii, 307; VI, i, 21; VI, iii, 141 and 155; VII, ii, 43; VIII, ii/iii, 8; IX, ii/iii, 183, 187, 215, 263, 278, 308, 335. 354. 357, 360, 363, and 364; X, i, 5, 40, 72, 91-4, 105, 117, and 121; X, ii/iii, 141, 149, 150, 156, 187, 254, 267,
304-5, 356-7, 362, 366, 372, 380, 382,

Boethius. VII, ii, 37. Brann, Eva. VII, ii, 1; VII, iii, 3; VIII, i, 3. Brazil. I, ii, 175, 203, 206, 212, 216-218, 2267, and 229; IV, ii, 99; VII, ii, 66. Bryce, Lord. I, ii, in; X, ii/iii, 323. Burke, Edmund. II, ii, 137; III, ii/in, 191; V, i, 92, 101, and 104; VI, ii, 118; VII, iii, 69 and 90; IX, ii/iii, 256 and 260. Busing of Schoolchildren. X, ii/iii, 347.

34-

Caesar. I, ii, 125, 128-9, T50-2, 156, 159; V,

384, 389, 392, 397-9, 411,

and 416-21.

Benardete, Seth. IV, ii, 67; IV, iii, 148, 157, 189, and 196; V, i, I and 8; V, ii, 148 and 156; VII, iii, 28; X, i, 1, 12, 24, 30, and 35; X, ii/iii, 355, 373, 378, 397. and 419. Bergson, Henri, VII, ii, 60. Bems, Laurence. Ill, i, 1, 35, and 42; V, 111, 309; VII, i, 1 and 25-6; VII, iii, 27; X, ii/iii, 322-4, 342, and 351. Bible. I, i, 45, 51, 71, 79, 80, 85, 89, 94, 95-6, 103, and 106; I, ii, 107, 114, 127, 133, 139,
140,
142-3,
and

iii, 258, 310; IX, ii/iii, 155. Calvin, Jean. I, ii, 219 and 224; VII, ii, 30; X, ii/iii. 232. Canada. X, ii/iii, 341. Caves. I, ii, 160, 200, 202, and 233; II, iii, 224; IV, i, 36; X, i, 133; X, ii/iii, 373, 396,
398, 401,
and 420.

Cervantes. I, ii, 189; II, iii. 213, III, i, 8, 33,

and

65; V, i,

122.

Chance/Fortune/Luck/Accident.

147.

151.

156,

158,

170-1,

III, 88; III, ii/iii, 101, 182, 196, and 231-2; IV, i. 26, 30, 33, and 53; IV, ii, 99 and 107-8; IV, iii,
196-8, 228;

II, i,

14;

II, ii,

123-4;

i,

17, 27, 34, 37, 41, 46, 70,

and

I, i, 8, 10, 65, I, ii, 115, 136, 146, 155, and 232; II, i, 66; II, iii, 185; III, i, 28 and 57; III, ii/iii, 158; IV, i, 47; IV, ii, 65; VII, ii, 56; X, ii/iii, 346. Chaerephon. X, ii/iii, 329 and 383. Chastity. VII, ii, 33 and 69. Christianity. I, i, 21, 74, and 76; I, ii, 107, 132. 67,
70, 72-74,
and

98-104;

136, 146-7, 151-156, 158, 161-168, 174,

182-4, 191, 197, 206, 213, 215, 219, 223,

217

and

219;

V, i, 102, 106, no,

14, 22,
and

and

119;

228,

and

230;

II, i,
and

2, 5,

16,

and

76;

II,

V, ii,
71-2,

136;

VI, i,
and

44;

VII, i,
52, 53.
76,
and

ii, 123, 138, 148,

204, 209-11, 14, 15. 26, 44, 47,

16, 53, 71,

and

90;

126;

VII, ii, 45, 47. VIII, i, 8, 22, 60,

II, iii, 195-6, 220; III, i, 2, 4, 6, 10, 52-4, 60-2, 73, and 80;
and

154;

ii/iii, 24, 29, 115, 177. 221, and IX, i, 1 and 122; IX, ii/iii, 196; X, i, 48-57, 66-112, 117, 123-4, 127, and 131;
90; VIII,
225;

III, ii/iii,
7, 34, 39,

101,

no,

120,
and

122,

148,

154,
25-

157, 169-70, 191, 205,

and

221;

IV, i,

X, ii/iii, 198, 200, 271, 338, and 379. Bickerstaff, Isaac. VIII, ii/iii, 189; X, ii/iii, Birth Control. X, ii/iii, 347Black, Hugo L. VIII, ii/iii, 188; X, ii/iii,
2 and 350.

324-

341-

VIII, ii/iii, 24. Bloom, Allan. I, i, 43; H, ii, 127 and 145; HI, i, 30; III, ii/iii, 133; IV, i, 36; IV, ii, 107; IV, iii, 204, 208-9, 213-14- and 216; VI,
Blackstone.

IV, ii, 98-9 and 107; IV, iii, 198 and 212-17; V, 1, 69 and 91; V, ii, 140 and 144; V, iii, 289; VI, i, 21 and 65; VI. ii, 80 and 124; VII, i, 16, 49, and 52; VII, ii, 3-5, 36-7, 42, 46-50, 52, 55-8, 66, 71, 73, 77, 125, and 128; VII, iii, 2, 5. 28, 58, and 82; VIII, i, 16, 70, 75, and 106; VIII, ii/iii, 8, 81, 115, 175, 204, and 223; IX i, 65, in, 113, 117, 119, 123, and 137; IX, ii/iii, 192-4, 197-200,
48;
204, 206, 213. 221, 251, 275, 295, 399,

ii, 85; VII, ii, 73; VIII, i, 28; IX, ii/iii, 163. Blunders, X, ii/iii. 319-20, 363, and 391. Boccaccio. VII, ii, 44. 58, 63, 68, 70-1, and
74-

405,

and

415;

X, i,

I, 5, 43-60, 117,

120-

23, 127-8,

and

131; X. ii/iii, 197-200, 205,

210-11, 218, 347, 379, and 381.

418
Churchill.

Interpretation
Confucius. X, ii/iii, 342. Congress, United States. X, ii/iii,
336.

V, iii, 288; VII, i, 1 and 23; IX, i, 15; X, ii/iii, 342. Cicero. I, ii, 114 and 126; II, i, 69 and 73; IV, i, 29; IV, iii, 153; V, i, 9; VI, i, 5; VII, ii, 20 and 36; VIII, i, 13; VIII, ii/iii, 204; IX, i, 130; IX, ii/iii, 155, 246, and 247; X, ii/iii, 342, 352, and 408.

321-2

and

Constitution. I, ii, 132, 133, 150,

City / Cityness / Citizen / Citizenship /

wealth/Polis.

Common-

I, i, 32, 43, 61,

and

100;

I, ii,

132, 138, 144, 147. 150, 153, 158, 163,

167, 187, 195, and 205; II, i, 1, 8, 21, and 69; II, iii, 183-4 and 227; III, i, 1, 2, and 5; II, 11/iii, 99, 146, 163, 167-8, 191, 10, and 221; IV, i, 1, 25, 48-9, 57, and 60; IV, ii, 65, 76, 79, 88, 94, 97, 100, and 107-8; IV, iii, 118, 135, 137, 169,
206-

and 237; II, i, III, i, 33 and 82; III, ii/iii, 201, 207, 213, 217; IV, ii, 79 and 97; IV, iii, 221; V, ii, 139; V, iii, 310 and 314; VI, iii, 226; VII, i, 34, 44, 45, 71-3, and 78-9; VII, ii, 13, 21, 99-135; VII, iii, 28; VIII, ii/iii, 23, 100, 117, 187-8, and 211; IX, ii/iii, 211, 224, 241-4, 251-2, 256, 261-2,

66; II, iii,

227;

285, 287-90, 296, 299, 335, 339-41,

344-

5, 348, 407, 442,

and

and

445; X, i, 116, 128,

133;

X, ii/iii, 210, 253, 260-2, 267,

319,

and 389.

171-2, 175,
and

181, 188, 190, 192-7, 200,

202; V, i, 33, 37, 38, 53, 71, 100; V, ii, 184; VII, i, 61; VII, ii, 2-3, 6, 13, 1820, 27, 30-1, 34-6, 45, 49, 52, 54, 57-8,

69,
127;

71, 95, 100, 106, no, 121, 124,

and

VII, iii, 4; VIII, i, 117; VIII, ii/iii, 85, 100, and 197; IX, i, 1-2, 10-12, 16, 46, 83, 95, 100, and 107; IX, ii/iii, 206, 264, 279, 359, 367, 415, 430, and 432; X, i,
1-3, 10, 15, 16, 19, 20, 28, 31, 35, 45, 47, 59,

and 225; V, iii, 247; VI, ii, in and 132; IX, ii/iii, 233; X, i, 135; X, ii/iii, 375Copernicus. I, ii, 150. Corporativism. IX, ii/iii, 297-8. Courage. I, i, 9, 66, and 68-9; I, ii, 148, 153, 163, and 232; III, i, 84; IV, iii, 148; VII, iii, 4; X, 1, 12, 17, and 93; X, ii/iii, 329-32,

Contracts. I, ii, 115, 216-17, 221,

339, 342, 416-18, and 429. Crime. I, ii, 177; III, ii/iii, 106; IV, iii, 148;

65, 68,
and

70, 74, 77,

86,

91, 93, 96-9,

101, 104, 113-14, 116, 118-20, 129, 131,

133, 136;

X, ii/iii, 142-8, 150,

206, 209-10,

156,

159-95,

198-99,

213-20,

253, 264, 268, 280, 296, 299-300, 310,

VII, ii, 52; X, 11/111, 188. Cropsey, Joseph. I, ii, 130 and 200; II, ii, 127 and 140; III, i, 35; IV, iii, 117, 196, and 228; V, ii, 133 and 147; VI, ii, 79; VII, i, 25; VII, ii, 116, 125-7, and 134; VII, iii, 27 and 92; VIII, ii/iii, 1; X, ii/iii, 148, 159,
169, 252-3,
and 265.

321-3, 327, 333, 341-2, 353, 355-8,

and 422.

383-

4, 387, 392-3, 396-8, 400-1, 404-7, 413, 416, 418-9,

Crosskey, William Winslow. X, ii/iii, 326,

345,
and 352.

342,

Clear

and

Present Danger. X, ii/iii, 322, 337,

Cyrus. II, iii, 185; III, i, 27; IV, iii, 117; VII,

347,

and 363.

ii,

43;

X, ii/iii,

220.

Coke. II, i, 70. Color, Men of. I, ii,

202 and 229; II, i, 1; II, III, ii/iii, 157-8 and 168; VII, ii, 133; X, ii/iii, 347 and 350. Comedy. I, ii, I, 17, and 23; II, iii, 157, 174, and 195; III, i, 59-61 and 92-3; III, ii/iii, 157; VI, iii, 217; VII, ii, 33 and 60-1, VII,

Dante. II, ii, 134; III, i, 34; III, ii/iii, 169; X,

iii,

235;

ii/iii,

201.

Darwin. IV, ii, 98 and 104; IX, ii/iii, 343. Death. I, i, 10-11, 28-9, 31-2, 36, 46, 59, 63, 69, 78, 85, and 95; I, ii, 140, 151, 169,
172, 177-86, 188-9, 192-6, 202, 204, 206,

iii,

VIII, ii/iii, 188; IX. i, 86; IX, ii/111, 169 and 176; X, i, 7, 34, 67, 71, 72, 97, 139, 153, and 201; X, ii/iii, 220, 267, 271,
25;
and 419.

213, 222, 226,

and

235-6;

II, i, 60,
and

115,

319, 349, 387, 392, 417,

the

Common Good. II, iii, 227-8; VI, ii,

and

no

112;

VII, ii,
and 418.

109;

X, i, 135; X, ii/iii,
321 and

II, ii, 85, 88, 92, 97, and 123; II, iii, 216; III, i, 4, 43, 60-1, 84-5, and 88; III, ii/iii, 99, 103, 114, 158-9, 162, and 228; IV, i. 2, 5, 44, 48, and 57; IV, 11, 74 and in; IV, iii,
142-3, 169, 179, 185, 192, 194; 22, 51, 154, 158-9, 162, 168, 175, 181, 37, 39, 48,

336, 351,
the

Common Law. I, ii, 225; X, ii/iii,

330;

IX, ii/iii, 249. Common Sense. I, i, 34; I, ii, 150 and 213; VII, iii, 1; IX, ii/iii, 153; X, ii/iii, 149, 159, 254,
and 319.

V, i, 3, 1 1 18, 24, V, ii, 149, 180, and 182; VII, i, 55, 67, 69, and 73; VII, ii, 2,
193, 196, 210,
and

233;

and

125;

4-7, 16-18, 21, 30, 38, 40-1, 45, 93, no,

and

115;

VII, iii, 27

and

28;

VIII, i,

5,

48

Index to Volumes I-X

and
and

-419

VIII, ii/iii, 84 and 92; IX, i, 12-13 IX, ii/iii, 155, 176-9, 181, 225-6, 235, and 270; X, i, 1-5, 9, 46-8, 50, 547, 61, 76-7, 80-1, 84-5, 87-8, 91-2, 946, 98-101, 107, and 112; X, ii/iii, 141, 173,
78;

Erasmus. Ill, i, 2; X, i,
Euclid. IV, ii, 200. Euripides. Ill, i, 17
193,
and

123.

90;

and

34;

196;

V, i,

45;

IV, iii, 148, 174, V, ii, 175; X, i, 2

131 and

and 16.

223, 267, 274-5, 277, 283, 286, 288, 293,

330,

333,

349,

353,

382-6,

388,

407,

Existentialism. II, i, 1; X, i, ii/iii, 330. Fame/Honor. I, ii, 123-5

136;

X,

411-16,

and 428. and 231; II, ii, 127-8; III, i, 72 and 92; IV, ii, 65; VII, ii, 38 and 40; VII, iii, 4; X, i, 9, 15, and 64-6; X, ii/iii, 417. Fascism. I, ii, 235; III, i, 68. Federalism. Ill, ii/iii, 178, and 213; IV, i, 58; IV, ii, 79; V, iii, 311 and 313; VII, ii, 119, 120, and 128; VII, iii, 84; VIII, ii/iii, 1, 5, 188, 192-4, and 203; IX, ii/iii, 142, 339, 340, 350, and 392; X, i, 116; X, ii/iii,

1-2 and 6; IV, iii, 123, 132, and 140; X, i, 7 and 28; X, ii/iii, 329, 384, 392-3, and 409. Dennis v. United States. X, ii/iii, 335 and 352. Descartes. I, ii, 130 and 161; III, ii/iii, 115 and 127; IV, i, 17, 20, 26, 33, 35-6, 41; V, i, 57; VII, i, 1; VII, ii, 75 and 126; IX, ii/iii, 212 and 411; X, i, 116 and 126; X, ii/iii, 200.

Delphic Oracle. I, ii, in; IV, i,

99-

the Devil.

II, ii, 89; VII, ii, 47. Dickens, Charles. VII, i, 52; X, ii/iii, 351. Diogenes Laertius. VI, i, 1; VII, ii, 2; VIII, i, 13; X, ii/iii, 343. Dionysus. I, ii, 122-4; II, i, 124; VI, ii, 103. Divine. I, i, 3 and 62; I, ii, in, 1 14-15, and 155; II, ii/iii, 192 and 221; III, i, 27; IV, i, 4; IV, ii, 108; X, ii/iii, 339 and 341-2. Divorce. Ill, i, 4; X, ii/iii, 348. Dogs. I, i, 17; III, ii/iii, 159; X, i, 15, 36, and 39; X, ii/iii, 370 and 382. Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. II, ii, 89. Dreams. I, i, 79; III, i, 61 and 66; X, ii/iii, 404
and 415.
and 244; II, iii, 159; III, i, 53-4; IV, iii, 146 and 203; VIII, ii/iii, 98; X, i, 17, 31; X, ii/iii, 355 and 369. Dryden. I, i, 75.

260, 321-2, 325, 332, 334-5,

the Federalist Papers.

and 344.

Ill, ii/iii, 178; IV, ii, 86 and 96; VII, ii, 99 and 120; VII, iii, 84; VIII, ii/iii, 15 and 191-200; IX, ii/iii, 142, 339, 35, and 392; X, i, 116; X, ii/iii, 3212, 325, 334-6, 344,
and 352.

Fields, W. C. X, ii/iii,
I, i,
18 and

346.

the Few and the Many/ Aristocracy/Democracy.

20;

I, ii,

112, 120, 126-7, 149,

Drink. I, ii, no, 123, 212,

and 240; II, i, 65; II, ii, 79, 127 and 144; II, iii, 194; III, i, 61, 80 and 84-5; III, ii/iii, 107, 113, 157 and 193; IV, i, I, 51-2, and 59; IV, ii, 65 and 79; VI, ii, 107; VII, ii, 49, 108, and 143; VII, iii, 7-8, 19, and 27; VIII, i, 26; X, i, 7, 116, 123-4, 130, and 135-6; X, ii/iii, 223, 225, 228, 229, 261, 265, 267,

152, 162, 233, 235-7, 239

299, 340, 343, 356, 398,

and 417-18.

Education. I, i, 5

I, ii, 185 and 242; II, ii, 80; II, iii, 195; III, i, 15, 53, and 83; IV, i, 39; IV, ii, 101; IV, iii, 217; V, iii, 310; VI, i, 10; VI, ii, 132; VII, ii, 140; VII, iii, 19; VIII, i, 25; VIII, ii/iii, 200; X,
and

20;

the First Amendment.

VII, iii, 50; VIII, ii/iii,

188; IX, u/iii, 319. Fortescue. V, ii, 139; VI, i, n; VIII, ii/iii, 208. Freedom/Liberty. I, i, 15, 25, 29, 32, 77, and 98-9;

I, ii,

136-7, 150, 179, 182, 186-7,

and

i,

113;

X, ii/iii, 139,

340-2, 386, 392, 404,

189, 193, 233-5,

411,

and 420.

II, ii,

76, 79,

and

105;

Eidelberg, Paul. II, ii, 84. Enlightenment. I, ii, 167 and 212; III, i, 60, 62, and 76; IV, i, 37 and 61-2; IV, ii, 108; VIII, i, 3. Engeman, Thomas S. IV, ii, 65. Epicums. I, ii, no, 120-22, 127, 145, and 149-51; III, i, 17; IX, ii/iii, 207.
Equality. I, ii, 130, 149, 229, 236,
75;
and

15, 17, 58, 74, 77,

II, i, 4 and 64; II, iii, 196; III, i, and 92; III, ii/iii, 98,
245;

no, 127-9, 141, J45. :53> :8o, 191, 201,

239;

III, ii/iii, 221; IV, ii, 97; V, iii, III, i, 250; VII, ii,.I08; VIII, i, 20; X, i, 71, "6, 130-1, and 135; X, ii/iii, 335-7, 342, 347,
and 349-50.

IV, i, 60-1; IV, ii, 66, 82, 90, 103, 108, and 112-13; IV, ni, 187 and 194; V, i, 58, 65, and 79; V, ii, 134, 215. 226, and 237; V, iii, 248, 261, 281, 287, and 315; VI, i, 70; VI, ii, 79; VII, i, 27; VII, ii, 1, 49, 67, 75, 93, 99-119, 123-4, and 127-8; VII, iii, 7, 50, 69, and 108; VIII, i, 30, 67, and 75; VIII, ii/iii, 114, 138, 188, 193, and 213; IX, i,
204-6, 208, 219-22, and 236;

30; IX,

ii/iii, 211, 218, 235, 238, 242-3,

420

'

Interpretation
Hamilton, Alexander. IX, ii/iii, 385; X, i, 120. Hannibal. X, ii, 148 and 230. Happiness. I, i, 15; I, ii, 128, 137, 192, 205, and 210; II, ii, 80; III, ii/iii, 157; VII, iii, 10; X, ii/iii, 362, 423, and 425. Harlan, John M. X, ii/iii, 321, 331, and 352. Hegel. I, ii, 1 1 1 ; II, ii, 79, 86, 97, 130, and 140; III, i, 34 and 82; III, ii/iii, no, 114, and 205-6; IV, ii, 106; V, ii, 138; V, iii, 274; VI, i, 69; VII, i, 18, 24, and 27; VII, ii, 3, 21, 100, and 126-7; VIII, i, 13, 64, 75, and 88; IX, ii/iii, 155, 263, 279, and 320. Heidegger. I, ii, 233; II, i, 1-9; III, i, 38; III, ii/iii, 148; IV, ii, 109 and 113; V, i, 114; VII, i, 73 and 99; VII, ii, 99 and 142; VII, iii, 2; VIII, i, 95; VIII, ii/iii, 154 and 156; IX, ii/iii, 315, 355, and 356; X, i. 121, 135,
and 136.

266, 268-70, 279, 305, 344, 349, 358, 361, 364, 370,

372-3, 395-6, 423, 437,

21,

and

443;

X, i, 5,

86, IOI, 124,

181,

and

133;

X,

ii/iii,

161-8,

174-9,

197-8,

200,

203-6, 228, 255, 257, 260, 262, 268-9,

271, 319, 355-7, 360-2, 363, 365-7, 397,

426-7,

and 429.

Speech. II, ii, 79; VIII, ii/iii, 188; X, i, 133 and 135; X, ii/iii, 319. Friendship. I, ii, 123, 127, 180-2, 190, 203, 208, and 235; III, i, 27; IV, i, 38; V, i, 66; VII, ii, 56; VII, iii, 7, 15, and 21; X, i, 11, 14, 27-8, 31, 33, and 120-1; X, ii/iii, Freedom
of

324, 353,

and 423-4-

Froude, James Anthony. IV, ii,

99.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. II, i, 3; II, iii, 181; IX, ii/iii, 153, 304, 310-13, 324, 327, 336, and
353-

Generalship. I, i, 3,

8, and 13; II, iii, 195; IV, i, 2; IV, iii, 197; X, ii/iii, 383. Gandhi, Mohandas K. VII, ii, 3. Giants. I, ii, 126; II, ii, 143; VIII, ii/iii, 81; IX, ii/iii, 288 and 311; X, i, 19, 32, 40, 69, 74, 87, and 91. Gibbon, Edward. X, ii/iii, 327. Gildin, Hilail. I, i, 21; III, i, 49; V, iii, 247; VII, i, 71. Goethe. II, ii, 128; IV, iii, 198; V, iii, 309; VII, ii, 142; IX, ii/iii, 323. Grammar. Ill, ii/iii, 97; VII, ii, 34 and 67; X, i, 67, 114-15, and 124-25; X, ii/iii, 201. Great Britain. I, i, 73 and 94; I, ii, 114, 162,
167-8, 169, 174, 186, 188, 206, 209, 13, 221-2, 224-5, 230,
and
212-

Hephaestus. VII, ii, 22; X, i, 34-8. Hera. I, ii, 113, 115, 118, 121, 126,

and

129;

X, i,

34-6.

Heraclitus. I, ii, 114; II,

232;

II, i,
288;

1 and

64; II, ii,

ii/iii
,

145;

III, i,
and

20, 54,

and

113, 191,

205;

V, iii,

11; VII, i, 85; IX, ii/iii, 245 and ii/iii, 322-3. Greece, Modem. X, ii/iii, 323, 332, 341, 346,
and 350.

III, VI, i, 340; X,

59;

i, 31, 53, and 114; III, ii/iii, 109; IV, iii, 192; VI, iii, 218; VIII, i, 17; VIII, ii/iii, 37, 49, 55, and 212. Herakles. IV, iii, 142; VII, iii, 25-6; VIII, ii/iii, 75; X, i, 27 and 33. Hermes. X, i, 26-7 and 31-2. Herodotus. Ill, i, 13; IV, iii, 157, 185, and 189; V, i, 17 and 37-8; V, ii, 156 and 163; VI, i, 6; VIII, ii/iii, 61 and 85; IX, ii, 67 and 80; X, ii/iii, 378 and 397. Hesiod. I, i, 44-5; I, ii, 107, 119, and 129; IV, i, 5; VI, i, 2; X, ii/iii, 397. Hinduism. II, i, 3; X, ii/iii, 342. History. I, i, 21-42; I, ii, 109-10, 131, 144, 160-1, 196, and 236; II, i, 1-2; II, ii, 92 and 154-5; II, iii, 183 and 194; III, i, 32, 39, 62, 66, and 80; III, ii/iii, 107, 109, 120,
124, 142, 145, 153, 156-7, 195, 207, 208, 217-22,
and

228;

IV, i, 35,

38,

and

48;

IV,

Greed. I,
134-

ii,

212;

VII, ii,

54;

X, i,

130 and

ii. 65, 82, and 98; V, ii, 133, 138, and 141; VII, i, 10, 24, 37, 75, and 98; VII, ii, 58-9,
70, 74, 92, 113, 117-18, 122, 126-8, 217;
and

Green, David. E. VI, ii, 100. Grotius. I, ii, 225; IV, iii, 178; V, iii, 259; IX,
1, 126.

IX, i.

93;

IX, ii/iii,
and

200, 260, 287, 301,

339, 358, 366, 397, 400, 404, 412, 415, 419, 432, 434, 450;

X, i, 44,

46, 50, 136;

Gunther, Gerald. X, ii/iii,

331.

64, 70, X, ii/iii,

and 331.

101, 121-2, 126-8, 134,

and

143, 148, 159, 191, 206, 226, 231,

and 422.

Habeas Corpus. X, ii/iii, 322. Habermas, Jurgen. IX, ii/iii, 328

262-3, 322, 391, 395,

Hobbes. I, i,
181,
231-2;

69

and

92;

I, ii. 120, 129, 173,

and

Halevi, Judah. V, ii, 139; IX, i, m and 137; IX, ii/iii, 447. Hallowell, John. VI, i, 75; X, ii/iii, 339 and 351; VI, 11, 112.

188-90, 194, 202, 204, 224-5,

II, i, 68-70 and 73-8; II, ii, in and 147; II, iii, 226; III, i, 34; III, ii/iii, 211; IV, i, 17; IV, ii. 66 and 88; V, i, no and 124;

Index to Volumes I-X

All Jaffa, Harry V. Ill, i, 30, 33, and 50; III, ii/iii, 184; IV, ii, 78 and 108; VII, i, 71; VII, iii, 26; VIII, ii/iii, 1, 204, and 212; IX, ii/iii, 163, 439, and 444; X, i, 116; X, ii/iii, 148,
159, 335, 342, 348-9,
and 351.

V, ii, 133, 137-8, and 141-2; V, iii, 311; VI, i, n and 75; VII, ii, 99, 108, no, 11617, and 125-6; VII, iii, 86; VIII, i, 1, 30, 59, and no; VIII, ii/iii, 12; IX, i, 93 and 107-8; IX, ii/iii, 151, 154, 214, 217, 227,
230, 241, 249, 258, 367-9, 375-6, 383,

432; X, i, 1, 43, 116, 128, 130, X, ii/iii, 160, 226-7, 358, and 388. Holidays. I, i, 7 and 43; I, ii, 116, 170, 182, and 187; II, i, 15; II, iii, 196, 201, 211, 215, and 217; III, i, 25-6 and 45; III, ii/iii, 157 and 184; IV, i, 5, 12, and 30; IV, ii, 73 and 75; V, ii, 145 and 147; VII, i, 16, 52-73, and 93; VII, ii, 66, 70, and 74; VIII, i, 72 and 104; VIII, ii/iii, n, 29, 47, 86, and 144; IX, i, 1, 24-5, 30-1, 34, and 38; IX, ii/iii, 156, 167, 173, 181, 208, and 401; X, i, 1, 31, 33-5, 39, 51, 71-2, 79, 80-1, 83, 86, and 96; X, ii/iii, 224-6, 230, 270, 272, 428,
and

and

135;

Jay, John. X, ii/iii, 331. Jefferson, Thomas. I, ii, 236; II, iii, 194; IV, ii, 108; V, iii, 305 and 313; VII, ii, in, 128, and 130-33; VIII, i, 105 and 119; VIII, ii/iii, n, 117, 189, 191, and 193; IX, ii/iii, 222, 229, 440, and 445; X, i, 115-21 and 124-30; X, ii/iii, 261-2, 321, 342, 346, and
350-2.

Jews. I, i, 1; I, ii, 151-154; II, i, 16; III, i, 17;

III, ii/iii, 101, 121-2,

27, 28, 32, 53,
and

157,

59;

and 205; IV, i, IV, iii, 213-4 and

285, 302, 306, 349, 355, 377,

and 396.

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr. X, ii/iii, 337. Home. I, ii, 132, 215-16, 234, and 240; IV, ii, 113; VII, iii, 19; X, i, 134. Homer. I, i, 43-62; I, ii, 107- 112, and 129; II, i, 10, 27, and 34; II, ii, 116; II, iii, 195 and 227; III, i, 7 and 11; IV, i, 23, 26, 29, and 33; IV, ii, 65, 67, and 78; IV, iii, 154, 159, 185, and 212; V, i, 40; V, ii, 209; VI, i, 2 and 9; VII, i, 71, 73, and 98; VII, ii, 63; VII, iii, 19 and 28; VIII, i, 20; VIII, ii/iii, 24, 32, and 51; IX, i, 89, 90, and 109; X, i, 2 and 9; X, ii/iii, 143, 150-3, 173,
385, 396-8, 403-5,
and 418-20.

217; V, i, 120; V, ii, 136, 139-41, and 147; VI, i, 14 and 25; VI, ii, 86; VII, i, 14, 16, and 90; VII, ii, 4; VIII, i, 72, 79, and 87; VIII, ii/iii, 9, 29, 138, and 213; IX, i, I, III, 114, 117, 120, 122, 128, and 137; IX, ii/iii, 295; X, i, 67, 71, 114, 120-2, and 128; X, ii/iii, 271. Jonson, Ben. VII, ii, 60-5 and 73-4. Josephus. I, ii, 151. Julian. I, ii, 153. Jury. VII, ii, 12, 14, and 21; VIII, i, 26; IX, i, 85-6; X, ii/iii, 390 and 421. Justice. I, i, 9, 17, 65-8, and 98-9; I, ii, 123, 158-9, 176-9, 181, 224, 233-9,
and

244;

Homosexuality. V, i, 28; X, ii/iii, 348. Honor. II, ii, 127-8; III, i, 72 and 92; IV, ii, 65and 183; IV, iii, 199 VII, ii/iii, 190; X, i, 3, 19, 24-5, and 33; X, ii/iii, 276, 338, 382, and 417. Hume. II, ii, 1 11; IV, ii, 98 and 105; IV, iii, 102; VII, ii, 102, 107, 109-10, 113, 117, and 124; VII, iii, 93; IX, i, 125; IX, ii/iii, 215; X, i, 41 and 46; X, ii/iii, 183 and 364. Husserl. II, i, 1-9; VII, ii, 142; X, i. 121.

II, i, 1; II, iii, 227-8; III, i, 28, 55, and 72; IV, ii, 117 and 218; V, ii, 221; VI, i, 70; VI, ii, 132; VII, ii, 57, 59, and 112; VII, iii, 10, 16, and 28; IX, ii/iii, 385. X, i, 3, 5, 7, 13, 15, 48, 57. 70, 78-9. 85, 88, 91, 101, in, 120, 122, and 135; X, ii/iii,
328, 337. 347. 350, 355. 366, 378, 387-9.
390-1, 393,
420.

Horses. I, i, 99; I, ii, 157

and

208;

397, 400-2, 408, 417, and

Justinian. I, ii, 146, 152-3,

and 189.

Kant. I, i, 9

Hutchins, Robert Maynard. Ill, ii/iii,

Impeachment.

213.

Kalven, Harry. X, ii/iii, 336 and 342. and 38; II, ii, 126; III, i, 32 and 49; III, ii/iii, 100, 115, 120, 206, 207, and 217; VII, i, 18 and 27; VII, iii, 94; VIII, i, 2-3; VIII, ii/iii, 114, 128, and 218; IX, ii/iii,
212, 265, 268, 274, 276, 281, 294, 327, 335,
and

X, ii/iii,

335.

Interpretation. I, i, 44; III, ii/iii, 100; IV, ii, 97;

353;

X, i,

123, 129,

and

130;

X,

V, i, 109; VIII, ii/iii, 189; IX, ii/iii, 364; X, ii/iii, 355. Islam. I.i, 111; I, ii, 154 and 187; III, ii/iii, 157; IV, iii, 212; IX, i, 113, 117-19, and 137; IX, ii/iii, 211; X, i, 114 and 117. Ivy. I, ii, 123.

ii/iii. 267 and 411. Kendall, Willmoore. X, ii/iii, 341 and 351. Kierkegaard, S0ren. I, i, 41; I, ii, 233; VII, ii, 15 and 21; VIII, i, 13; X, i, 75 and 76. Klein, Jacob. I, ii, 108; II, i, 10; II, iii, 157; III, i, 39; III, ii/iii, 173; V, ii, 146; VI, iii,

422
169

Interpretation
and

175;

VII, i,
3,
and

24-5, 71, and 73;

VII,

Law-School. II, iii, 194; X, ii/iii, 320, 327, 339,

and 345.

iii, 1; VIII, i,
and 42 1.

28;

X, ii/iii,

149, 355,

409, Knowledge. I, i, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 21-42,

43-

62,

and

97;

I, ii,

115, 117, 123, 132, 135,

and

140, 143, 171, 191,

217;

II, i, 1,
133;

42 and

65; II, ii,

and

108, 113, 127,

and

and

160, 178, 181, 219, 72;

234-5;

II, iii, III, i, 22

III, ii/iii, 108, 124, 159, 221-2, 240; IV, ii, 107 and 113; IV, iii, 127, 139, 149, 227, and 229-30; V, i, 66, 89, 95, 107, 120, 123, and 129; V, ii, 186, 191, 204, and 225; V, iii, 271; VI, i, 65; VI, ii, 96; VI, iii, 141; VII, ii, n, 17, 9. 3i. 54, 75, 93, 95-6, 109, and 113; X, i, 43, 48, 56, 61, and 125; X, ii/iii,
234,
and

ii/iii, 120; IV, ii, 106; VII, i, 99; VIII, ii/iii, 114. Lemer, Ralph. I, ii, 211; V, i, 73; V, iii, 309, VII, i, 71; VIII, ii/iii, 41; X, ii/iii, 210. Levi, Edward. X, ii/iii, 339. Lincoln, Abraham. I, ii, 236; II, iii, 189; V, iii, 311-12; VII, i, 71; VII, ii, 80, 122; VIII, ii/iii, 22, 26, 202-3, and 221; X, i, 116 and 123; X, ii/iii, 230, 323-4, 327, 335,
Leibniz. Ill,
and 351-2.

28-

139-

158, 169, 171, 197-9, 208, 253, 311, 355,

357, 365, 380-3, 402-5, 408-12, 416,
425and

Kojeve, Alexandre. I, i, 21; III, i, 82; III, ii/iii, 114; V, ii, 144.
Lambs. X, i, 74, 81, 82, and 91. Law/Legal. I, i, 1-20, 58, 73, 88,

Livius, Titus. II, i, 67 and 73; II, iii, 183 and 185; VII, ii, 33 and 70. Locke. I, i, 92; I, ii, 171-2, 181, 194, 198, 200, and 229; II, ii, m and 136; III, i, 69 and 82; III, ii/iii, 109 and 192; IV, ii, 103; IV, iii, 237 and 238; V, i, 57, 71, and 124; V, ii, 141-2, 145, and 226; V, iii, 309; VI, i, n and 74; VII, i, 24; VII, ii, 126-7; VII, iii, 80 and 86; VIII, i, 58 and no; Vm, ii/iii, 13 and 17; IX, ii/iii, 222, 227, 229, 432, and 437; X, i, 127 and 135; X, ii/iii,
164, 175, 179, 185, 252,
and 262-7.

and

90;

I,

ii,
3,

116, 127, 132-3, 136, 144, 148-9, 156-60, 163,

152-

Lomax, J. Harvey. VII, i,

352-

71;

X, ii/iii,

342 and

165, 168-72, 176, 178,

and

41, 54,

II, i, 13, 29, 33, and 78; II, ii, 97, 106-7, 121, 126, 129, and 136; II, iii, 174, 187, 196, 209, and 215; III, i, 1,3, 14-16, 44-6, 49, 55, 62, 82, and 92; III, ii/iii, 100, 105, 109, 157, 161, 168, 182, 185, 191 202, 205, and 213; IV, i, 4; IV, ii, 74 and 79; IV, iii, 134, 151-3, 156, 165,
190, 217, 224-5, 238;

60, 64, 66-7,

71-3,

Lowith, Karl. II, ii, 127; IV, i, 38-40. Lucretius. I, ii, 113, 114, 118, and 120-1; V, i, 5; V, ii, 146; IX, ii/iii, 207, 217-18; X, i, 16; X, ii/iii, 267. Lukacs, Georg. VIII, i, 101; IX, ii/iii, 269, 302,
and 309.

Lund, Sister Candida. X, ii/iii, Lycurgus. Ill, i, 1-2.

339.

172, 175, 180, 190-1, 194, 217, 220, 229,

and

237;

V, i,

2,
and

6,

12, 15, 21-4, 30, 33,

V, ii, 147, 152, 163, 180, 203, and 237; V, iii, 247, 256, 260, 299, and 309; VI, i, 8, 11, 23, and 58; VI, ii, 96 and 108; VI, iii, 225; VII, i, 9, 28-9, 32, 50, and 74; VII, ii, 5-8, 14, 17, 21, 37, 52, 62, 70, 75, 92, 118, 122, and 140; VII, iii, 19, 28, and 84; VIII, i, 103 and no; VIII, ii/iii, 3, 81, 102, 116, and 223; IX, i, 3, 5, 31-3, 47, 65, 72, and 120-1; IX, ii/iii, 151, 171-2, 195, 200-2,
38-9, 73, 79,

91;

Macaulay, Lord. IV, ii, 99; VII, ii, 62 and 67; IX, ii/iii, 207, 209, and 222-4. Machiavelli. I, i, 69-70, 73, and 91-2; I, ii,
no, 112, 126-9, T36, 149-50, 161, 167,
and 230; II, i, II, iii, 185, 1903, 197, 204, 209, and 224; III, i, 21, 57-8, and 80; III, ii/iii, 170-1; IV, i, 17-18, 31, and 49; IV, ii, 79, 82, 102-3, and 112; V, i. 57, 67, 73, 85-8, 107, 119, and 209; V, ii, 133, 139, 142-3, and 145-7; VI, i, 5 and 70; VII, i, 19; VII, ii, 33 and 126; VII, iii, 21, 23-4, 28, and 73; VIII, i, 20 and 64; VIII, ii/iii, 115 and 208; IX, i, 93 and 141; IX, ii/iii, 211, 227, 247, 251, 253, 261, 305, 428, and 432; X, i, 45-6, 51, 58, 65, 116, and 126; X, ii/iii, 328, 340-1, 352,

173, 181, 186, 190, 218, 225,

and

69

72-8;

II, ii,

137;

210, 218, 233-4, 239, 279, 309, 346, 361, 373, 386,
and

425;

71-2, 79, 101, 118-19, 124,

X, i, 4, 45, 53, 63-5, and 133; X,

ii/iii,

144-7, !56, 169, 174, 177-8, 188,

197, 210-11, 220, 228, 251, 255, 263-5, 271, 281, 288, 299, 302, 304, 306, 311,

319, 383, 387-9, 391, 394-5, 400-1,

418-19.

and

and 399.

McKeon, Richard. VII, iii,

26.

Index to Volumes I-X

423
VII, ii, 102, in, 112, 118, 122, VIII, ii/iii, 192 and 209; IX, ii/iii, 211, 214, and 427; X, ii/iii, 177-8 and 265. More, Thomas. Ill, i, 1; VII, ii, 5, 16, and 21; VIII, i, 17. Moses. I, ii, 228; II, i, 65; II, iii, 185; III, ii/iii, 182; V, iii, 250; VI, i, 14; VII, i, 14; VII, ii, 47; VHI, i, 79 and 87; VIII, ii/iii, 29; IX, i, 1 and 123; X, i, 49-55 and 67; X, ii/iii, 198 and 271. Music. I, ii, 239; VII, iii, 27; IX, ii/iii, 253; X,
ii,
79-97;
and

Madison, James. V, iii, 313; VII, ii, 99-119. and 124; VIII, ii/iii, 15; IX, ii/iii, 385 and 445; X, i, 116; X, ii/iii, 260. Madness. I, ii, 115 and 216; II, ii, 80 and 143; III, i, 27; X, ii/iii, 408-10. Magic. X, ii/iii, 312 and 315. Mahdi, Muhsin. I, ii, 211; III, ii/iii, 157; V, i, 72; V, iii, 309; VIII, ii/iii, 91. Maimonides. II, i, 37, 47, and 54; V, i, no; V, ii, 138, 142, and 145-6; V, iii, 309; VII, i, 99; VIII, ii/iii, 29; IX, i, 1 18-21, 137, and 140; X, ii/iii, 210. Mansfield, Harvey. II, i, 76; IV, iii, 225, and 237; VIII, ii/iii, 202; IX, ii/iii, 213, 249,
X, ii/iii, 343 Maritain, Jacques. VI, i, 71; VI, ii, 112 and 118; X, ii/iii, 280. Marcus Aurelius. I, ii, 153. Marshall, John. X, ii/iii, 335. Marsilius of Padua. Ill, ii/iii, 172 and 180; IV, ii, 102 and 105; V, ii, 144. Marx, Karl. II, i, 4; II, ii, 86, 96, and 133; II, iii, 199 and 210; III, i, 3; III, ii/iii, 102,
256,
and

124;

1,69.

437;

Nakedness. I, ii, 114; III, i, 2; X, i, 112. National Socialism. I, ii, 235 and 242; II, i, 2;

107, 112, 156, 205, 223-4, 237,

and

241;

IV, ii, 113; V, ii, 234; V, iii, 266; VI, i, 74; VII, i, 27, 74, and 84-6; VII, ii, 99-100, 127, and 136; VIII, i, 75; VIII, ii/iii, 121 and 156; IX, ii/iii, 212, 263, 434, and 438; X, i, 58; X, ii/iii, 252. McCulloch v. Maryland. X, ii/iii, 335 and 352. Medicine. I, i, 8; III, i, 58; IV, ii, 100; IV, iii, 203; V, ii, 216; VII, ii, 40, 54, 69-70, 82, and 96; VIII, i, 24; X, i, 26; X, ii/iii, 312,
356, 362, 368, 407, 419, 425, and 428. Melville, Herman. V, i, 91; VII, iii, 26.

II, ii, 81; IV, i, 54-6; IV, ii, 108 and in; VII, i, 89; VII, ii, 2-3. Natural Law. I, i, 96; I, ii, 169-72, 190, 217, 224, and 236; III, i, 46; III, ii/iii, 140 and 202; IV, ii, 96; IV, iii, 217 and 235; V, ii, 142-3 and 146; VII, i, 28; VII, ii, 75; VIII, i, 46; VIII, ii/iii, no, 204, 210, and 223; IX, i, 126; IX, ii/iii, 195, 202, 216, 229, and 243; X, i, 133 and 135. Natural Right. Ill, i, 39 and 79; III, ii/iii, 106; IV, i, 41-2; IV, iii, 217. 220, and 223; V, i, 57 and 92; V, ii, 133, 141-2, and 1467; VIII, i, 107; IX, ii/iii, 259; X, i, 44, 117, 118, 128, and 135; X, ii/iii, 143, 262-3,
266, 332, 341, 347, 349,
and 395.

Nature. I, i, 3, 5, 19, 21, 25-6, 31-3, 46,

66-

8,

70-5, 77-8,

86, 89,

91-2,

and

97;

I, ii,
208-

109, 117, 120-1, 125, 130, 136, 142, 153, 155, 158, 161, 169, 189, 194, 198-9,

9, 217, 224, 241,

and

and

243;

II, i,

1,3,

Meiklejohn, Alexander. X, ii/iii,

352.

326, 342,

19, 22-3, 28, 31, 34, 41, 52, 56, 59,

6-7, 61-3,
and

66-7

and

Mill, John Stuart. VII, ii, 195; VII, iii, 95. Miller, Eugene. VI, i, 67; IX, ii/iii, 152. Milton. II, i, 67; VI, i, 71; VII, i, 100; VII, iii, 50; VIII, ii/iii, 24 and 232. Miracles. Ill, i, 27 and 75; VIII, ii/iii, 29. Moliere. VII, iii, 55, 60, and 73. Money. I, i, 2, 4, 19-20, and 60; I, ii, 213; II, iii, 194 and 225; III. i, 3 and 70; IV, iii, 143 and 183; VII, i, 73; VII, ii, 19, and 5, 101, 115, 124, and 229; IX, ii/iii, 184 255; X, i, 99-100 and 105; X, ii/iii, 141-2,
152-3,
417.

131-2;

72; II, ii, II, iii, 167,

100, 106, 123, 129, 194,

and

219;

III, i,

2,

3, 13, 19, 25, 27-9, 39-40, 46, 50-1, 55, 72, 75, 78,

82,

and

90-2;

III, ii/iii,

105,

109, 112-16, 121-3, 127, 137, 148, 156, 165-8, 185, 192, 199, 202, 210-11, 221,
and 235; IV, i, 1,4, 19, 36, 51, and 60-1; IV, ii, 75, 83, 89, 93, 96, 98, 108, and 112; IV, iii, 134, 162, 189, 192, 204, 217, 223, 227, and 230; V, i, 52, 58, 79, 86, 89, 91, 92, 94, 104, and 106; V, ii, 133, 141-3, r53, and 225-6; V, iii, 253, 266, 279, and 282; VI, i, 2, 13, 19, 58, 65, and 73; VI, ii, 83 and 95; VI, iii, 205, 214, and 231; VII, i, 1, 28, 69-71, and 97; VII, ii, 6, 28, 34, 37, 40-2, 53, 61, 64-8, 71, 74-8, 82, 87-8, 90, 97, 100, no, 112, 118, 121, 123, 126, and 128; VII, iii, 59;

229,

51-

159. 251. 263, 333. 369-70, and

Montaigne.

IV. > I03; v> >. 57. VII, iii, 82; VIII, i, 13 125. and 113; IX, ii/iii, 208 and 227; X, i, Montesquieu. I, ii, 144; H, ii, 126 and 141; IV,

II, ii,
and

135;

101, 114,

124;

424

Interpretation
107; VIII, ii/iii, IX, i, 1, 85, 89-90, IX, ii/iii, 177, 182-4,
and

VIII, i, 33, 66, 103,

47, 99, 123, 122, 125,
188,
and and

223;

Orpheus. I, ii, 112 and 122-4. Ovid. I, ii, 1 13-14; VII, ii, 52; IX, ii/iii, 167;

136;

X, i,
Pan.

24.

193,

199, 207-9, 212-13, 218-19,

226, 233, 243, 247, 258, 260, 268, 276-7,

281, 306, 323, 330, 348, 360-4, 368, 370,

and 438; X, i, 3, 6, 26, 28-9, 35-7, 45-9, 53-4, 8, 62, 64-5, 74, 82-3, 94, 106, 1 13-15, 1 17-19, 124, 128-9, and 133-5; X, ii/iii,

373, 381, 404-5, 408-9, 432,

57-

140,

143-5, I5I-3, 156, 159, 200, 203,

210, 218, 228, 250-1, 253, 257, 261-4,

266, 269, 280, 313, 323-6, 332, 336-7, 347-51, 357-8, 362, 364-8, 372-3,
376-

I, ii, 1 16-18 and 120-2. Pangle, Thomas L. IX, ii/iii, 211. Parmenides. Ill, ii/iii, 1 15-16 and 128; VI, i, 49; VIII, ii/iii, 35, 49, and 212. Parnassus. X, i, 22-3. Pascal. I, ii, 154 and 161; II, ii, 128; III, ii/iii, 99; VI, ii, 103. The Pentagon Papers. X, ii/iii, 340- 1 and 351. Pericles. II, ii, 143; IV, i, 1; IV, ii, 65; X, ii/iii,
394, 398-9, and 419. Philosophy. I, i, 1, 9-11, 13, 19-20, 35, 40, 43,
and

8,

380-2, 386, 390-2, 398, 400-2, 406-8,

and 427-8.

411, 420, 423,

79;

I, ii, 109-113, 119-24,

and

129,

Newton, Sir Isaac. I, i, 73; I, ii, 160-1; VI, i, 52; VI, ii, 125. Nietzsche. I, i, 66; I, ii, 233, 236-40, 242, and 245; II, i, 4; II, ii, 127; III, i, 80; III, ii/iii, 97; IV, i, 17; IV, ii, 106-9; v, i> 64-107, 116, and 119; V, ii, 138 and 147; VI, ii, 79; VI, iii, 175 and 204; VII, i, 26; VII, ii, 2 and 142; VII, iii, 2 and 26; VIII, i, 13; VIII, ii/iii, 123, 141, and 227; IX, ii/iii, 212, 265, 301, 307, and 357; X, i, 131; X, ii/iii,
r39, 153, 262-4, 271,
and 407.

134, 136-7, 155, 161, 233,

1 and

239;

II, i,

III, i, 1, 2, 11, 16, 22, III, ii/iii, 98-99, 105, 108, 113, and 115; IV, i, 17-18, 36, and 60; IV, ii, 107-8; V, i, 107; V, ii, 222; VI, i, 48; VII, ii, 58, and 127; VII, iii, 2, 6, and 10; VIII, i, 17; VIII, ii/iii, 189-90; IX, ii/iii, 249; X, i, 3, 21, 30, 65, 114, 116-17, 21, 127, and 135-6; X, ii/iii, 327-8, 335,
22;

II, ii,

129;

51, 58,

and

98;

119

339-43, 352, 356-7, 362, 364-5, 369-70, 381-2, 385, 387-8, 390-400, 402-7, 14, 418-20,
and 422. and
411-

Nobel Peace Prize. X, ii/iii, 329. Numa Pompilius. I, ii, 127; X, i, 45. Numbers. I, i, 54 and 69; I, ii, 107, 112, 114,
116, 118, 122, 130, 134, 136, 142, 144-5, 225; II, i, 10, 21, 29, 39-40, 57, 67; II, ii, 153; II, iii, 157-182; III, ii/iii, 157; IV, i, 1; IV, iii, 188-9; V, ii, 149, 174, and 175; VII, i, 52 and 90; VII, ii, 52, 80, 87, 97, and 100; VIII, ii/iii, 29 and 90; IX, i, 1-80; X, i, 6, 9, 19, 67 and 114; X, ii/iii, 149, 152-3, 206, 271, 278, 182,
and and

Plato. I, i, 1, 43,

88; I, ii, no, 116, 1256, 138, 149, 233-5; H, i, 5, 14, 17, 21, and 66; II, ii, 89, 102, 145, 149; II, iii, 157, 203, 221, 224, and 232; III, i, 1, 5-6,
and 8

64,

n, 13-16, 20-1, 29, 34, 38, 44,

and

50;

III, ii/iii, 97, 105, 108-9, H3, and 227; IV, i, 22-4, 36, 46, and 59; IV, ii, 67, 71, 76, 78, 86, 90, 106-7, 112, and 114; IV,
iii, 123, 133-4, 136, 151, 153-4, 160-1,
165, 181, 192, 194, 218, 237,
and

238; 73,

314, 324, 326,

and 338.

i, 2, 15,
90, 102,

22, 25, 39-40, 54.

67,

V, 86,

Oakeshott,
and

Michael. II, i, 77; IV, iii, 221-3

VI, ii, 121; VHI, i, 119, 194, and IX, ii/iii, 249. Oaths. I, i, 48; I, ii, no, 113, 127, and 150; III, i, 54; IV, i, 2 and 5; IV, iii, 147; VIII, i, 22; X, i, 11, 27, 40, 79, and 102; X,
227; 224;

ii/iii,

396 and 406.

Obscenity. V, i, 77; VII, ii, 74; VII, iii, 50; X,

and 107; V, ii, 138-40, 143, 8, 163, 169, 185, and 207; VI, i, 1, 49, 59, and 75; VI, ii, 80, 103, and 121; VI, iii, 141 and 222; VII, i, 2, 5, 9, 13, 15, 17, 25, 71-3, and 98; VII, ii, 1, 22, 46, 56, 100, and 130; VII, iii, 2, 60, and 90; VIII, i, 12. 64, and no; VIII, ii/iii, 55, 85, 102, 183, 206, and 225; IX, i, 38, in, and 237; IX, ii/iii, 169, 206, 213, 354, 359-60, 381,

146-

i,

16;

X, ii/iii,

321-2. and

Odysseus. II, iii, 195 Oedipus. I, ii, 125.

227;

X, i,

9.

and 450; X, i, 59, 114, 118-122, 124, and 133; X, ii/ iii, 139, 170, 172, 174, 176-8, 182, 187,

383, 398, 405, 429, 431, 447,

Omens. IV, i, 4; VII, ii, 43, 49-50,

and

70;

X,

193, 209, 264, 319, 323, 329, 334, 340,

i,

28, 32,

and

67-112; X, ii/iii, 225

and 138.

and

343.352, 353.

and 423.

231.

Origen. VII, ii, 3; IX, i, 65, 67,

Piatt, Michael. IV, iii, 202; V, i, 109; VII, iii, 25.

Index to Volumes I-X

Plautus. VII, ii, 34, 60, 71,

425
65; VI, i, 70; VI, IX, ii/iii, 385, 427, 433, and 437. Religion. I, i, 70, 76, and 98; I, ii, 115 and 233; II, ii, 127; III, i, 3-4; III, ii/iii, 9, 157, 160, 168, and 193; IV, i, 48; IV, ii, 107; X, ii/iii, 343, 351, 396, and 398. Rembrandt. IV, i, 17. Republican Form of Government. I, ii, 126, ii,
132;
98-

and 73-4.

Rawls. Ill, ii/iii, 245; IV, i,

Playfulness. I, i, 10, 12, and 13; II, iii, 157; III, i, 58; X, ii/iii, 319-20, 324, 338, 350,
and 405.

Plinius, Caius. IV, iii, 191. Plotinus. II, iii, 157. Plutarch. I, ii, 117; II, ii, 126; III, i, 1; V, iii, 261, 264, and 310; VI, i, 1 and 10; VII, i, 24, and 73; VII, iii, 6, 16, 24, and 27-8; VIII, i, 20; VIII, ii/iii, 24 and 221; IX, i, no; IX, ii/iii, 157, 165, and 167; X, i, 120; X, ii/iii, 227-8, 230, 415, and 419. Poetry. I, i, 6, 43, 67 and 71; I, ii, 107, 109, and 122; II, i, 107 and 109; III, i, 2, 5, 58, 66, and 68; IV, i, 1; V, i, 107; VII, ii, 58; VII, iii, 12 and 27; IX, i, 107; IX, ii/iii, 301; X, i, 2, 9, 22, 65, 70, 72, 113-14, and 117; X, ii/iii, 384-5, 398-9, 406, and
420-2.

128, 145, 149-53, 156-7, 159. 162,

167-

8; II, i, 64; II, ii, 80 and 105; II, iii, 194 and 224; III, i, n, 61, and 83; III, ii/iii, 193; IV, ii, 79-97; VII, ii, 128; VII, iii, 4; X, i, 113 and 135; X, ii/iii, 321, 330,
348, 350,
and 389.

Revenge. I, ii, 177; IV, ii, 73-4; IV, iii, 200;

V, iii, 289; VII, iii, 15; IX, i, 84 and 87; IX, ii/iii, 218; X, i, 10 and 32; X, ii/iii, 378
and 418.

Pollingue, Mary. I, ii, 130; X, ii/iii, 325

352.

and

Reverse Discrimination. X, ii/iii, 350. Revolution. I, i, 20, 33, and 37; I, ii, no, 125,
150, 161-2, 165, 182,
and

233;

II, i,

2;

II,

Pollution.

IV, i, 2; X, ii/iii, 396 and 419. Polybius. I, ii, 125 and 150; II, i, 64; VII, iii, 28; IX, ii/iii, 247. Pompeius, Cneius. I, ii, 148 and 152; V, iii,
258.

ii, 80; III, i,

and

71 and

81; III, ii/iii,

158, 192,

205;

435;

IV, i, 17, 23, and 48; IX, ii/iii, X, i, 124 and 126; X, ii/iii, 312,
and 398.

332-

4. 337. 346, 35i. 382,

Poseidon. IV, i, 3; X, i, 34 and 40-1. Positivism. II, i, 1; II, iii, 226; V, ii, 133; VI,
1,67.

Rhetoric. VII, iii, 27-8. Rome. I, ii, 114-15, 121, 126-9,

Presidency. Ill, i, 71; X, ii/iii, 322 and 330. Pritchett, C. Herman. X, ii/iii, 345-6 and 352. Privacy. I, ii, 209-11 and 234-5; II, ii, 145;

III, i, 68; IV, ii, 99; VII, ii,

5, 38, and

69.

Procopius. I, ii, 146. Prometheus. I, ii, 118, 122, 125,

30;

and 234; V, i, VII, ii, 22 and 36. Prophecy. I, ii, 11, 115, and 226; II, iii, 184, 203, and 204; IV, iii, 135; IX, i, 72-3 and 79; IX, ii/iii, 433; X, i, 7, 12, 23, 48-50, 53~5, 67, 71, and 120. Protagoras. I, i, 12; I, ii, 234 and 236-7; VI,

and 144; II, i, 10, 64, 69, 72, and 75; II, iii, 183; III, i, 5 and 9; III, ii/iii, 169; IV, i, 49, 54, and 57-8; IV, ii, 85, 94, and 109; V, iii, 255, 259, 263, 301, and 305; VI, i, 30; VI, ii, 86; VII, i, 49; VII, ii, 33-68 and 136; VII, iii, 4 and 32; VIII, ii/iii, 71, 184, and 205; IX, i, 1 14 and 133; IX, ii/iii, 155, 192, 195, 202, 208, 210, 220, 249, 253, and 415; X, i, 45, 64, 89-90, 95-6, 122, 133-4, and 136; X, ii/iii, 182, 205-6, 210, 217-20,

223, 338,

and 347.

Romulus. I, ii,
191;

iii,

165.

Proust, Marcel. X, ii/iii, 326. Providence. I, i, 77, 98, 99,

325.

and

100;

X, ii/iii,
and

Pmdence. I, i, 104; I, ii, 148, 173, 178,

180;
and

II, i, 69 and 76; IV, ii, 97; VII, ii, 64 69; VII, iii, 12; X, i, 12. 21, and 65;
323, 328,
332-3, 336-7,
343,
and 417.

X, ii/iii,
347, 349,

Pufendorf. I,

ii,

225;

IX, i,

125.

126 and 147; II, iii, 185 and IX, ii/iii, 167; and X, i, 45. Rosen, Stanley. VII, ii, 32. Rousseau. I, ii, 115, 134, and 212; II, ii, 81, 1 ; III, ii/iii, 106 and in, 132, and 109; IV, i, 17-19; IV, iii, 219; V, i, 57, 72, 93, and 102-4; V, ii, 140 and 240; V, iii, 247; VI, i, 69-70; VI, ii, 116; VII, i, 71; VII, ii, 3, 61-3, 73, and 122-3; VIII, i, 113; VIII, ii/iii, 114, 201, and 225; IX, ii/iii, 312, 326, 360-2, 365-8, 374-6, 378, 381-2, 428, 432-4. 443. and 445; X, i, 43, 118, 129-30, and 135: X, ii/iii, 185, 219,
140-

Puzzles. I, ii, 125, 129,

202;

and

194;
319.

VIII, ii/iii,

252,

and 343.

IX, ii/iii, 385; X, ii/iii, I, ii, 148Pythagoras. X, ii/iii, 326.

Pyrrhus.

Saint John's College. I, ii, 130; II, i, 10; II, iii,

157;

III, i,

27;

V, ii,

133;

V, iii,

309;

VII,

426
i,

Interpretation
IV, iii, 48, 119, 122, 197, and V, i, 15-17, 28-30, 39, 48, and 124; V, ii, 180 and 225; V, iii, 153; VI, i, 11 and 35; VI, ii, 104; VI, iii, 143 and 212; VII, i, 25, 64, and 90; VII, ii, 33, 38, 41, 48-9, 53, 66, and 130; VII, iii, 7, 17-19, 26, 27, and 105; VIII, i, 10, 67, no, and 117; VIII, ii/iii, 43, 56, 65, and 146; IX, i, 2, 40, 43, 50, 54, 69-71, 83, and 88-91; IX, ii/iii, 155, 171-2, 176, 215, and 249; X, i, 9-10, 14, 17, 26-35, 39-40, 66-8, 71-2, 78-9, 86-7, 96, 101-112, 119-121, and 134-5; X, ii/iii, 141-2, 155, 162-70,
and

90; VII, ii, 1; VII, iii, 1; VIII, i, VIII, ii/iii, 29; IX, i, 1; X, i, 67 and 113; X, ii/iii, 322 and 423. Sartre, Jean-Paul. VII, ii, 143. Scales v. United States. X, ii/iii, 321 and 352. Schenck v. United States. X, ii/iii, 332, 337,
i and

101;

25-6;

215;

347,

and 352.

Scholem, Gerschom. X, i, 121. Science. I, i, 4, 14-15, 33-5,

242-3;

and

58;

I, ii,
and

107, 130-2, 149, 161-6, 172, 233-4,

II, i, 1, 3, 21, 26, 44, 50, 66-7, and 72; II, ii, IOI, 105, and 144; II, iii, 167, 194, 219, 226-8, and 231; III, i, 16 and 59; III, ii/iii, 108, in, 118, 123, 189, 222-3, 228-30, and 237; IV, i, 40-6, 50, 59-61; IV, ii, 101, 107-8, and 113; V, i, 92-3 and 102; V, ii, 133, 139, 141-6, and 205; V, iii, 271, 296, 305, and 313; VI, ii, 95 and 100; VI, iii, 179-80; VII, i, 1; VII, ii, 75~98, 99-119, and 126; VIII, i, 50 and 117; VIII, ii/iii, 174; IX, ii/iii, 141, 191,
202, 205-6, 305-6, 331, 336, 346, 353-5,
and 415; X, i, 1, 65, 114, 117, 119, 124-5, and 129; X, ii/iii, 139, 142, 168, 170, 177, 198, 200,

173, 178, 183, 253, 264, 271-8, 287, 294,

307-312, 347,
and 353.

Shakespeare.

I, i, 63 and 97; I, ii, 188; III, i, 2, 27, and 52; IV, i, 23 and 29; IV, iii, 197; V, i, 113, 118, 121, and 130; V, iii, 310; VII, i, 52, 70, and 71-2; VII, ii, 60, 63, 70, and 73-4; VII, iii, 4 and 61; VIII, i, 5 and in; VIII, ii/iii, 24; IX, ii/iii, 155 and 169; X, i, 65; X, ii/iii, 223, 271, 323, and
351-

364-6, 374, 399, 404-8, 411,

Shame. II, ii, 145; III, i, 27; X, i, 21. Sharp, Malcolm. X, ii/iii, 326, 329, 336, 342,
350,
and 352.

252-5, 265, 270, 352,

and 408.

Scipio. I, ii, 230. Self. I, ii, 120, 132, 174, 177-81, 187, 190,
and 233; II, ii, 107; IV, 61-2; IV, ii, 87 and 107; VII, iii, 10, 16, and 25; X, i, 121 and 129. Seneca. I, ii, 112 and 114; V, i, 66. Separation of Powers. I, ii, 154; IV, ii, 79; VII, ii, 103, no, and 118; IX, ii/iii, 286, 340,

210-12, 217, 221,

i,

21, 59,

and

and 345.

Seven. I,
220,

ii,

121,

148,

151,

197, 205, 207,

II, i, 12, 29, 67, and 126; II, ii, 123 and 126; IV, i, 8 and 12; IV, iii, 117, 147, 167, and 188-9; VI, iii, 141; VII, i, 55, 70, 73, and 90; VII, ii, 72; VIII, ii/iii, 29, 36, 38, 47, 90, 92, and 94; IX, i, 1, 24-5, 30-1, 34, 38, and 120; IX, ii/iii, 195-6; X, i, 2, n-12, 32, 68, 71, 74-5, 80, 82, 87, 93, 99, 103, 115, 118, 152, and 166; X, ii/iii, 262, 271, 283, 287, 306, 390,
and

225;

Shaw, George Bernard. VII, iii, 4. Sherman, Roger. X, ii/iii, 339. Shoemakers. Ill, i, 12. Simon, Yves R. V, ii, 141; VI, i, 66 and 72; VI, ii, 107. Slavery. I, i, 8, 32-3, 66, and 72-3; I, ii, 148, 183-7, 191-2, 212, 218, and 229-30; II, ii, 80, 105 and 117; III, i, 55, 58, and 60; III, ii/iii, 157-9; IV, i, 46; VII, iii, 22; X, i, 71, 75, 78, and 85-6; X, ii/iii, 355, 408, and 420; IX, ii/iii, 233. Sleep. Ill, i, 52; X, i, 9, 30, and 32; X, ii/iii,
414.

392, 394,

and 42 1. or

Sex

and

Politics (Gender

Eros). I, i, 4, 6,
and

9-

n, 29, 32,

63, 65-7,
22-5,

70-1, 74,

80; I,
an(l

ii,

119, 123-4, I28, 147, 195, 206-7,

226-7;

II, i,

and

62; II, ii,

79,

84,

91, 134, 139, 145-6,

174,-

and

148; II, iii, 159,

182-4,
and

61,

74,

192, 197,

and 226; III, i, 28, 41, 53-6, 84; III, ii/iii, 99, 104, 113, 157, and 221-2; IV, i, 31; IV, ii, 98

Smith, Adam. I, ii, 143. Socrates. I, i, I, 43, and 87; I, ii, 126, 234-5, and 241; II, i, 17, 21-63; H, ", I01; H, ', 157; III, i, 9, 11, 23, and 29; III, ii/iii, 98 and 105; IV, i, 22 and 60; IV, ii, 78, 86, 92, 107-8, 112, and 114; IV, iii, 121-3. 131, 134, 138-9, 147, 160, and 192; V, i, 2, 15, 25-6, 37, 41, 55, 62-4, 71, 84, 90, 107, 119, and 121; V, ii, 145-7, '63, 185, and 208; V, iii, 258; VI, i, 1; VI, ii, 141; VI, iii, 141; VII, i, 23 and 71; VII, ii, 1, 22, and 56-8; VII, iii, 26; VIII, i, 12; VIII, ii/iii, 49, 103, 204, 218, and 231; IX, i, in; IX, ii/iii, 169, 354, and 381; X, i, 65, 118-20, 133, and 135-6; X, ii/iii, 139,

Index to Volumes I-X

All
319, 333, 342, 349, 350-3, 355, 378, 383, 399, 405, 419-20,
"Straussian"

175-8, 182, 207, 252, 265-6, 319, 333-4,

350, 352-3,
and 423.
and

and 422.

Sophistry. I, i, 5, 7, 12,

I, ii, 153 and 234; II, ii, 107; II, iii, 157; VII, ii, 22 and 55; IX, ii/iii, 434; X, ii/iii, 224, 384, 402,
20;
and

407, 417-19, and 421. Sophocles. II, i, 168; III, i, 17, 27, 34,

VIII, ii/iii, 213; IX, ii/iii, 385. Suarez, Francisco. I, ii, 176; VII, ii, 144. Supreme Court of the United States. Ill, ii/iii, 213; VIII, ii/iii, 188; X, ii/iii, 329-30 and
347-

36;

IV, iii, 148; V, 1, 1; V, iii, 148; VI, iii, 211; VII, i, 71; IX, i, 89; IX, ii/iii, 179; X, i, 2. Sorel, George. VII, ii, 2. Soviet Union / Russia. I, ii, 164 and 166-7; H, i, 1; II, ii, 130; III, ii/iii, no and 113; IV, i, 58; IV, ii, 108 and in; V, iii, 293 and 297; VI, ii, 124; VI, iii, 229; VII, i, 35, 40, and 78; IX, ii/iii, 421-3; X, i, 142; X, ii/iii,
334, 339. 346, and 348-9. Sparta. I, i, 61; I, ii, 132 and 167;

Tacitus. I, ii, 114; IV, i, 32; V, i, 114; IX,

ii/iii,

247.

the Talmud.

X, ii/iii,

343.

Tarquinius. I, ii, 147; VII, ii, 38-9. Television. II, ii, 80; X, ii/iii, 328, 337, 351,
and 352.

Terence. VII, ii, 34, 36, and 60. Theophrastus. I, ii, no. Theseus. II, iii, 185; X, ii/iii, 220.
Thucydides.

II, i, 74; III, IV, i, 1; IV, ii, 66; 121, 125, 141, 147, and 157; V, ii, 138 and 195; V, iii, 263-4; VI, i, 5; VI, ii, 141; VII, ii, 6 and 128; VIII, i, 113; VIII, ii/iii, 109; IX, i, 93 and 120; IX, ii/iii, 211 and 375; X, ii/iii, 156-7, 177, and 179. Sphinx. I, ii, 125 and 129. Spinoza. I, i, 92; I, ii, 158 and 231; II, ii, 141; III, ii/iii, 115, 120, and 127; IV, i, 17 and 25; V, i, no; V, ii, 133, 136, 139-40, and 145; VII, i, 24; VII, ii, 89; VIII, i, 1; IX, i, 121-2 and 137; X, i, 127-9; X, ii/iii, 388 i, 1 and IV, iii,
5;

III, ii/iii,

107;

IV, ii, 65; IV, iii, 152, V, i, 3, 6, and 37; V, ii, 147 and 187; VI, i, 5; VII, ii, 70; VIII, ii/ iii, 109; IX, i, 93; IX, ii/iii, 142 and 415; X, i, 2 and 16; X, ii/iii, 144 and 422. Thurow, Glen. X, ii/iii, 319. de Tocqueville. I, ii, 238; II, iii, 194 and 197; III, i, 78, 82, and 85; V, iii. 314; VI, ii, 121; VII, ii, 104-5, 109-10, 1 1415, 117 19, and 124; VII, iii, 93; VIII, ii/iii, 16 and 23; X, i, 58-9 and 128; X, ii/iii, 268 and
1;

IV, i,
and

156, 158,

202;

335-

and 399.

Spiritedness. Ill, i, 55; X, ii/iii, 378-9 Stoicism. I, ii, 149, 153, and 159.

and 417.

Storing, Herbert J. II, iii, 231; V, ii, 133; VII, ii, 130, 133, and 135; VIII, ii/iii, 26, 187, and 203; IX, ii/iii, 152, 339, and 346; X, ii/iii, 252, 269, 338-9, 344, and 352. Strauss, Leo. I, i, 1; I, ii, 121, 127, 129, 132, 147, 181, 198, 200, and 231; II, i, 1 and 73; II, ii, 143-4; II, iii, 231; III, i, 35, 40, 44, and 50; III, ii/iii, 97, 172, and 195; IV, i, 1, 23-4, 31, 41, and 42; IV, ii, 656, 69-70, 76, 108, 112, and 113; IV, iii,
117, 160, 172, 190, 218, 220-3, 229,
236;
and

Tolkein, J. R. R. Ill, i, 6. Tragedy. I, i, 67, 71, and 116; II, iii, 183; III, i, 27 and 38; III, ii/iii, 222; V, i, 1, 11, 19, 103, and 107; VI, iii, 217; VII, iii, 4, 12, and 25; VIII, i, 114; VIII, ii/iii, 39; IX, i, 83; IX, ii/iii, 169, 176, 179, 181, 185-6, 189, and 192; X, i, 34 and 126; X, ii/iii,
223.

Trajan. I, ii, 151 and 153. Tmth. Ill, ii/iii, 99, 108, 115,

39-

and 171; IV, iii, 237. Twain, Mark. II, iii, 194; III, i, 59; X, i, 128. Tyranny. I, ii, 126, 128, 146, 153, 159, 163-7, and 239; II, ii, 76 and 143; IV, ii, 96; VII, ii, 33; X, i, 63 and 135-6; X, ii/iii, 329,

V, i, 3, 41, 55, 67, 71, 73, and 107; V, ii, 133 and 156; V, iii. 258, 261, and 265; VI, i, 10 and 75; VI, ii, 89; VI, iii, 200; VII, i, 24, 26, 70, 73, and 98; VII, ii, 32, 59, 70-3, and 1 1618; VII, iii, 1, 8, and 92; VIII, i, 13; VIII, ii/iii, I, 6, 29, 187, 212, 220, and 224; IX, i, 107, 109,
and and

332, 334-8, 348, 356, 382, 389, 414, and

419.

the Ultron.

27-

120-1; 433;

IX, ii/iii, 152. 241, 381, X, i, 43-5 and 49; X, ii/iii,

385,

143,

148, 159, 167, 216, 252, 262-3, 266, 271,

X, ii/iii, 350. Unamuno, Miguel de. VII, ii, 140. University of Chicago. I, ii, 130; III, 1, 50; IV, i, 25 and 52; IV, ii, 67;. V, i, 57 and 92; V, ii, 133; VI, i, 71; VI, ii, 79, 107, 109, and 1 18; VII, iii, 26 and 27; VIII, i, 3; VIII, ii/iii, 123; IX, ii/iii, 201, 339, and 351; X,

428

Interpretation
Wisdom. I, i, 2, 5-6, 8-12, 15,
107, 115, 123,
and
and 21; I, ii, II, i, 7-8, 25, 31, and 37; II, ii, 127; II, iii, 194; III, i, 46, 56, 171, and 176; III, ii/iii, 98, 124, 141, 145, 153, 160, and 226; IV, i, 19; IV, ii, 77-8; IV, iii, 119 and 187; V, i, 39, 95, and 106; V, ii, 151, 184, and 205; VI, i, 17; VI, ii, 80; VII, i, 37; VII, ii, n, 17, 19, 20, 22,

i, 113; X, ii/iii, 322-3, 325, 329, 333, 339,

and 344-5-

126;

University
349-

of Dallas. VII, iii, 4; VIII, i, 5; VIII, ii/iii, 188; X, ii/iii, 320, 328, 341, 343, and

Usury.

X, ii/iii,

193-5.

Venus. I, ii, 115. Vietnam War. X, ii/iii, 335 and 348. Virgil (Vergilius Maro, Publius.) I, ii,
and

24, 29, 31-32, 35- 75-98, 102,

1

and

114;

1315

129;

II, i,

10 and

65; II, iii,

184;

X, i,

VIII, i, 37 IX, i, 18,

2, 14, 16,

and 128-9.

Voegelin, Eric. IX, ii/iii, 398-9, 403, and 41112; II, ii, 103; IV, iii, 218; VI, i, 74-6; VIII, ii/iii, 175-6 and 184-5. Voltaire. I, ii, 189 and 225.
Walters, Ernest J. X, ii/iii, 339. Washington, George. II, iii, 194 and 195. Watergate. X, ii/iii, 335. Weaver, Richard B. X, ii/iii, 342. Whitehead, Alfred North. VII, ii, 1; IX, ii/iii,
153-

VIII, ii/iii, 29 and 142; 75, and 84; IX, ii/iii, 207, 219, 348, 365, 385, and 450; X, i, 7, 96, 109, and 128; X, ii/iii, 139, 143-4, 147-8, 150and

117;

3, 156-7, 172, 186, 197, 253, 265-6, 271, 286, 300, 355, 357, 362, 364-5, 370, 384,
387, 397-8, 404-10, 416-17,
and 420-1.

Witches.

I, i,
333.

13,

68,

and

72;

II, iii, 194; X,

153.

ii/iii,

Wittgenstein.

IV, ii,

98;

IX, ii/iii,

World War I. IV, i, 61.

Xenophon.

Whole. I, ii, 139; VI, i, 56. Will. I, ii, 189 and 214; II, ii, 79, 83, 98,
126;

and

III, i, 6; III, ii/iii, 99, 100, 158, 159, and 192; IV, i, 38; IV, ii, 106, 108, and 109; IV, iii, 198, 200, 202, 219, 235, and 238; V, i, 33; VI, i, 17; VI, ii, 82; VI, iii, 218; VII, ii, 29, 45, 52, 74, and 75-98; VII, iii, 102; VIII, ii/iii, 59 and 150; IX, i, 139; IX, ii/iii, 196, 212, 234, 273, 283-4,
291, 294, 297, 349, 356, 373, 378, 381;
121
and

I, i, 9, 15, 43, and 57; II, i, 26 and 69; II, ii, 143; III, i, 27 and 29; IV, i, 15; IV, iii, 117, 154, 158, 161, 174-5, 178, and 193; V, i, 6, 25, 40, and 84; V, ii, 138, 140, and 146-7; VI, i, 6; VI, ii, 89; VI, iii, 141, 160, 163, and 202; VII, i, 23; VII, ii, 2, 12, and 43; VIII, i, 13; IX, ii/iii, 149 and 211; X, ii/iii, 152, 160, 175, 179, 252,
333, 350, 352, 382, 393-4,
and 396.

Zeno. I, ii, no. Zeus. I, ii, 113, 115, 126, 128-9, 147,
235-8; 147;

and

X, i, 3, 6, 12, 45, 47-8, 62-5, 69, 98, and 135; X, ii/iii, 168, 197, 227, 322,
and 379.

II, i, 18-20; IV, i, 3 and 5; IV, iii, V, i, 90; VII, ii, 30-32, 47, and 74;
11

329. 350, 375.

X, i,

13, 26, 28, 32-4, 36,

and 39.

The

Journal

of

Libertarian

Studies

EJOURNALF

papers

LIBERTARIAN STUDIES
AN INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEW

intellectually stimulating relating to all aspects of human liberty. Its purpose is to seek a deeper
publishes
of human action, and the institutions and ethical foundations of a free society. Work published thus in

understanding

cludes

economics,
of

political and ethical

and

philosophy, sociology, psychology

the

history

ideas.

Murray

N.

Rothbard, Editor

Of

special note

in Volume Six

"American

Isolationism,
and

1939-1941,"

by Justus
by

D. Doenecke Peter J. Ferrara Mendilow

"Retribution

Restitution: A
of

Synthesis,"

"Shelley's Philosophy

Liberty,"

by Jonathan by

"An Economic Analysis

and

of

the Norris-LaGuardia
Industry,"

Act,

the Wagner

Act,

the Labor Representation

papers

Morgan O. Reynolds

In addition, the

presented on

at

the Eighth Libertarian

Scholars

Conference discussion
"Religion
with and

American
"

Politics,"

late-nineteenth-century and contemporary including an essay by Richard Jensen

on

the same title;

'Let the People See': Reflections

Ethnoreligious

by Joel H. Silbey; and a response by Paul Kleppner, "Religion, Politics, and the American Polity: A Dynamic
Forces in American
View
Relationships."

Politics,"

of

only.

JLS is published quarterly and Annual subscription rates

subscriptions

are accepted on a per-volume

and

are

$25 for institutions

basis $17 for individuals.

Non-U. S. subscribers please add postage as follows: $4 for surface delivery; airmail, $6 for Canada and Mexico, $10 for others. (U.S. dollars only, please.)
Address inquiries to: The Center for Libertarian Studies 200 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10003

PUBLIUS:
THE JOURNAL OF FEDERALISM
Published by the Center for the Study Temple
Federalism

of

University

Of The Commonwealth System Of Higher Education

Daniel J. Elazar, Editor John Kincaid, Associate Editor

PUBLIUS is a quarterly journal
editorial perspective reflects now

in its thirteenth

year of publication.

Its

the

orientation of

the Center for the

Study

of

processes.

which is dedicated to the study of federal principles, institutions and The journal publishes articles on the theoretical and practical dimensions of American federalism and other federal systems throughout the

Federalism

world.

Recent
such as political

special

issues have dealt

with

topics

of

contemporary importance,
special

decentralization,

suburbanization,

political

community, policy choice,

culture, covenant,

and state constitutions.

Forthcoming

issues

will concentrate on comparative

Australia, American
systems.

medium-size

cities, and ethnicity in

federal

A subscription to PUBLIUS includes membership in the Conference for Federal Studies, an international organization of scholars and practitioners who share an interest in the various aspects of federalism. Members of the Conference receive its newsletter, the CFS Notebook, and other publications. Members are also invited to participate in research projects, conferences and
periodic workshops.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD: Samuel H. Beer, Lewis A. Dexter, Ivo D. Duchacek, Max Frenkel, Irving Kristol, E. Lester Levine, William S. Livingston,

Neal R. Peirce, William H. Riker, Harry N. Scheiber, Ira Sharkansky, Donald V. Smiley, David B. Walker, Murray Weidenbaum, Deil S. Wright.

Inquiries regarding

subscriptions and manuscript submissions should

be

sent

to:

PUBLIUS Center for the Study of Federalism Temple University Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122

(215) 787-1480

Annals of Scholarship
METASTUDIES OF THE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Studies
the
of

history

and

current

development in

of

the disciplines

and

methodologies as well as the manner

which scholars and their

scholarship
structures

influence

and are

influenced

by institutional,

political and social

Review Essays

Ronald

Berman, University

of

California, San Diego,

past

Chairman

of

the

National Endowment for the Humanities: The Humanities in American Life, Report of the Commission on the Humanities
Joseph
an

Duffey, Chairman,

National Endowment for the Humanities: Twigs for

Eagle's Nest: Government and the Arts, 1965-1978

by Michael Straight by

Donald R.

Kelley, University

of

Rochester: La Renaissance de la Critique

Jean Jehasse

Edward Pessen,

City University of New

York: The Past Before Us,

edited

by

Michael Kammen

Msgr. Joseph N.

Moody,
and

Boston College: The

Making of Frenchmen:

Current

Directions in the Donald N. Baker

History

of Education in France, 1679-1979,

edited

by

Patrick J. Harrigan
of

Carville Earle,

University

Maryland, Baltimore: Wealth of a Nation

Eve
of the Revolution

to

Be:

The American Colonies

on the

by

Alice Hanson Jones

Stanley

L. Engerman,

University

of

Rochester:

Current Studies of

Demography
C.B. Strozier,
ed.:

Comments

on

Shrinking History: On Freud and the Failure

ofPsychohistory

with response

by

David E. Stannard

The Annals of
essays are

Scholarship is

published quarterly.

Single

articles and review and

$1.75. The
other

annual subscription price

for individuals is $18

the

for

libraries

and

institutions $27. For

of

countries outside

United States

please add

$4. Mail to Annals

Scholarship, Inc.. 201 East 36 Street, New

York, N.Y. 10016.

Distributed b\
the

Humanities Press, Inc.

social research
AN INTERNATIONAL QUARTERLY OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

A publication of the graduate faculty

NEW SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH
volume so, number 2 SUMMER 1983

Robert L Heilbroner
The Problem of Value in the Constitution of Economic Thought

Heiner Ganssmann
Marx Without the Labor of Value?

Theory

Philip Harvey
Marx's Theory of the Value of Labor Power: An Assessment

Joseph Halevi
Employment and

Planning

David Laibman
Capitalism and Immanent Crisis: Broad Strokes for a Theoretical Foundation

Edward Nell
On the Conception of the State of Macroeconomic Theory

Paolo Sylos Labini

Some Aspects of Economic Development in an Advanced Capitalist Country (Great Britain)

Claus-Dieter Krohn
An Overlooked Chapter of Economic Thought: The "New Effort to Salvage Weimar's Economy
School's"

Thomas Vietorisz
Planning
and

Political

Economy

Individual Subscriptions: $20; Institutions: $35 Single copies available on request Editorial and Business Office: 66 West 12th Street, New York, N.Y. 1001 1 Room GF341

Forthcoming
Ernest L. Fortin

Articles

An Interview: Gadamer

on

Strauss

Paul A. Cantor
Michael H. Mitias

Hamlet: The Cosmopolitan Prince

Hegel
the Source of Political

on

Authority
on the

Robert Sacks

The Lion
of

and

the Ass: a

Commentary

Book

Genesis (Chapters

40-43)

Discussion
Joel B. Lidov Nicholas Capaldi

Justice in Translation
the Limits
of

Exploring
a

of

Analytical Philosophy:

Critique

Nozick's Philosophical Explanations

Book Reviews
Joan Richardson
Character Names in
Dostoyevsky'

Fiction

by

Charles E. Passage
Alasdair

Will

Morrisey

After Virtue

by

Maclntyre; Nihilism: A
Rosen

Philosophical

Essay by Stanley

Short Notices
Will

Morrisey

Plato's

"Phaedo"

:
Averroes'

An Interpretation
"Rhetoric,"

by
and

Kenneth

Dorter;
on

Three Short Commentaries

"Topics,"

Aristotle's

"Poetics"; Dissidence
age:

et philosophie au moyen

Dante

et ses antecedents

by

E. L. Fortin

ISSN 0020-9635