I

Winter 1996 Volume 23 Number 2

127

Leo Strauss

The Origins Problem

of

Political Science

and

The

of

Socrates: Six Public Lectures

209

Abraham Anderson

Descartes Contra Averroes? The Problem Faith

and

of

Reason in the Letter

of

Dedication

to the Meditations

223

John Alvis

Moby

-Dick

and

Melville's Quarrel

with

America

Discussion

249

Thomas K.

Lindsay

Antiquing

America: Reflections

on

Rahe's

Republics
Book Reviews 297 Mark Lilla
Ni

Socrate,

ni

Jesus, Review
and

of

Pourquoi

nous

ne sommes pas

nietzscheens, edited

by

Alain Renaut

Luc

Ferry

303

Will

Morrisey

The Rhetoric of Morality and Philosophy: Plato's Gorgias and Phaedrus, by

Seth Benardete 307

Susan Orr

Jew

and

Philosopher: The Return to

the

Maimonides in

Jewish Thought of Leo

Strauss, by

Kenneth Hart Green

Interpretation
Editor-in-Chief Executive Editor
General Editors
Hilail

Gildin, Dept.

of

Philosophy, Queens College

Leonard

Grey

Seth G. Benardete Charles E. Butterworth Hilail Gildin Robert Horwitz (d. 1987) Howard B. White (d. 1974)
Christopher Bruell Joseph Cropsey Ernest L. Fortin John Hallowell (d. 1992) Harry V. Jaffa David Lowenthal Muhsin Mahdi Harvey C. Mansfield Arnaldo Momigliano (d. 1987) Michael Oakeshott (d. 1990) Ellis Sandoz LeoStrauss (d. 1973) Kenneth W. Thompson
Terence E. Marshall

Consulting

Editors

International Editors Editors

Heinrich Meier
=

Wayne Ambler Maurice Auerbach Fred Baumann Michael Blaustein Patrick Coby Thomas S. Engeman Edward J. Erler Maureen Feder-Marcus Steven Harvey Pamela K. Jensen Ken Masugi Grant B Mindle Will Morrisey Susan Orr Charles T. Rubin Leslie G. Rubin Susan Shell Richard Velkley Bradford P. Wilson Michael Zuckert
.

Catherine Zuckert

Manuscript Editor Subscriptions

Lucia B. Prochnow Subscription rates per volume (3 issues): individuals $25 libraries and all other institutions $40 students (four-year limit) $16

Single

copies available. outside

Postage
or

elsewhere

U.S.: Canada $4.50 extra; $5.40 extra by surface mail (8 longer) or $1 1 by air.
.00

weeks

Payments: in U.S. dollars and payable by a financial institution located within the U.S.A. (or the U.S. Postal Service).

The Journal Welcomes Manuscripts

in

in

Political Philosophy

as

Well

as

Those

Theology, Literature,

and

Jurisprudence.

contributors should

follow The Chicago Manual of Style, 13th ed. or manuals based on it; double-space their manuscripts, including notes; place references in the text, in endnotes or follow current journal style in printing references. Words from languages not rooted in Latin should be transliterated to English. To ensure impartial judgment
other

their manuscripts, contributors should omit mention of their the title page only, their name, any affiliation desired, address with postal/zip code in full, and telephone. Contributors using computers should, if possible, provide a character count of the entire manuscript. Please send three
of

work; put,

on

clear

copies,

which will not

be

returned.

by Eastern Composition, Inc., Binghamton, N.Y. 13905 U.S.A.

Composition Printed
and

bound

by

Wickersham

Printing Co.,

Lancaster, PA 17603 U.S.A.

Inquiries:

(Mrs.) Guadalupe S. Angeles, Assistant to the Editor, interpretation, Queens College, Flushing, N.Y. 11367-1597, U.S.A. (718)997-5542

Interpretation
Winter 1QQ6
-A

Vnlnmp Volume 9^ 23

Mumhpr 9 Number 2

Leo Strauss

The Origins

of of

Political Science

and

The 127

Problem Abraham Anderson

Socrates: Six Public Lectures

of

Descartes Contra Averroes? The Problem

Faith

and

Reason in the Letter

of

Dedication

to the Meditations

209
with

John Alvis

Moby-Dick

and

Melville's Quarrel

America

223

Discussion Thomas K.

Lindsay

Antiquing

America: Reflections

on

Rahe's

Republics Book Reviews

Mark Lilla Ni

249

Socrate,

ni

Jesus, Review
and

of

Pourquoi

nous

ne sommes pas

nietzscheens, edited

by
297

Alain Renaut

Luc

Ferry

Will

Morrisey

The Rhetoric of Morality and Philosophy: Plato's Gorgias and Phaedrus, by

Seth Benardete Susan Orr

Jew
and

303

Philosopher: The Return to Maimonides

in the Jewish Thought of Leo

Strauss, by
307

Kenneth Hart Green

Copyright 1996

interpretation

ISSN 0020-9635

Interpretation
Editor-in-Chief Executive Editor
General Editors Hilail Gildin, Dept. Leonard
of

Philosophy, Queens College

Grey

Seth G. Benardete Charles E. Butterworth Hilail Gildin Robert Horwitz (d. 1987) Howard B. White (d. 1974) Christopher Bruell Joseph Cropsey Ernest L. Fortin John Hallowell (d. 1992) Harry V Jaffa David Lowenthal Muhsin Mahdi Harvey C. Mansfield Arnaldo Momigliano (d. 1987) Michael Oakeshott (d. 1990) Ellis Sandoz Leo Strauss (d. 1973) Kenneth W. Thompson Terence E. Marshall Heinrich Meier

Consulting

Editors

International Editors

Editors

Wayne Ambler Maurice Auerbach Fred Baumann Michael Blaustein Patrick Coby Thomas S. Engeman Edward J. Erler Maureen Feder-Marcus Steven Harvey Pamela K. Jensen Ken Masugi Grant B Mindle Will Morrisey Susan Orr Charles T. Rubin Leslie G. Rubin Susan Shell Richard Velkley Bradford P. Wilson Michael Zuckert Catherine Zuckert
.

Manuscript Editor Subscriptions

Lucia B. Prochnow Subscription rates per volume (3 issues): individuals $25 libraries and all other institutions $40 students (four-year limit) $16

Single

copies available. outside

U.S.: Canada $4.50 extra; $5.40 extra by surface mail (8 weeks or longer) or $1 1.00 by air. Payments: in U.S. dollars and payable by a financial institution located within the U.S.A. (or the U.S. Postal Service).

Postage

elsewhere

The Journal Welcomes Manuscripts

in

in

Political Philosophy

as

Well

as

Those

Theology, Literature,

and

Jurisprudence.

contributors should

follow The Chicago Manual of Style, 13th ed. or manuals based on it; double-space their manuscripts, including notes; place references in the text, in endnotes or follow current journal style in printing references. Words from languages not rooted in Latin should be transliterated to English. To ensure impartial judgment of their manuscripts, contributors should omit mention of their
with

other

work; put, on the title page only, their name, any affiliation desired, address postal/zip code in full, and telephone. Contributors using computers should, if
provide

possible,
clear

a character count of the entire manuscript.

Please

send three

copies,

which will not

be

returned.

Composition

by Eastern Composition, Inc.,

by Wickersham Printing Co.,
to the

Binghamton, N.Y. 13905 U.S.A.

Printed
and

bound

Lancaster, PA 17603 U.S.A.

Inquiries:
interpretation, Queens

(Mrs.) Guadalupe S. Angeles, Assistant

11367-1597, U.S.A. (718)997-5542

Editor,
N Y

College, Flushing

The Origins
Problem
of

of

Political Science

and

the

Socrates

Six Public Lectures

Edited
by

by

Leo Strauss

David Bolotin
St. John's College, Santa Fe

Christopher Bruell
Boston College

Thomas L. Pangle

University

of Toronto

The

following
which

lectures

are part of a series

undertaken

of

lectures

by

the

late Leo

Strauss

Interpretation has

to publish. The editors of these

lectures for Interpretation have been

the lectures from
various

able

to obtain copies or transcripts of the

sources: none of

lectures

was edited

fessor Strauss for the

purposes of publication nor even

left

by Pro behind by him

his
part

among his papers in a state that would have it be published posthumously. In order to

suggested a wish on underline

that

this

fact,

the editors
mini

have decided to
These 27
and

present

them as

they have found them,

with

the bare

mum of editorial changes.

six

lectures

were

delivered
at the

November

7, 1958,

by Professor Strauss between October University of Chicago. They were avail

typescript, which was ap on a tape recording. The original typescript can be found in based parently the Strauss archives at the University of Chicago. The typescript contains
some

able to the editors as copies of a mimeographed

handwritten

additions and own with

corrections,
we are

and although

these are

not

in

Professor Strauss's
who worked

hand,

told

by

Professor Joseph

Cropsey,
is
now

closely

his

literary Partly for this

executor, that reason,

Professor Strauss for many they might well have been

years and who made at seem

his direction.

and also

because the

revisions

do

to be improve

ments, we have chosen to present the revised version in the

indicating
for
a

what

the revisions

were

in footnotes. We have few

also

text, while indicated in

in
punctua-

the footnotes any

editorial changes

that we have made on our own (except

small changes

few

corrections of misspellings and a

interpretation, Winter

1996, Vol. 23, No. 2

128

Interpretation
are
grateful

tion, which we made without comment). We Stauffer for his secretarial assistance.
The last five
more of these six

to

Mr. Devin

lectures

were published

previously, in a

somewhat

heavily

edited

form,

under

the title "The Problem of Socrates: Five Lec

tures,"

in The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism: An Introduction to the Thought of Leo Strauss, edited by Thomas L. Pangle (Chicago: University of
[

Chicago Press, 1989

1989

by

The

University

of

Chicago]),

pp.

103-183.

Lecture Series: The Problem

Leo Strauss

of

Socrates

(OCTOBER 27, 1958)

I begin

with a word of

thanks to my colleague
said

and

friend Herman Pritchett. I

of an orphan.

feel

much

happier
would

after

he
I

these

words

because I feel less

Otherwise I
own glad

have
and

presented a series of public am glad

responsibility,

lectures entirely on my that this responsibility is shared. I am also

political

that the introduction implied that I am a bona fide

scientist, be
are1

cause quite a
marginal as

few

passages

of

these lectures

someone might think

far

as political science

is concerned,

an opinion with which

very I do not

agree.

By

political science we understand such a

study

of political

things as is not
or

subject to

any authority, The

nor

simply

a part of political

lary
cal

to political activity.
philosophy.

Originally
distinction

political science was

activity simply ancil identified with politi

science and
political

between

political

philosophy is a consequence of the distinction between science in general and philosophy in general, and that distinction is of fairly recent date. Political philosophy or political science was originally the the best society, or the doctrine regarding the best
pursuit which quest

for the best

regime or

regime or

the best society, a

includes the study

to
speak

of all

kinds

of regimes.

The

political philosopher was

ity

who attempted

originally a man not engaged in political activ about the best regime. If we seek, therefore, for the
we

origins of political gaged

science,

merely have to

identify

the first

man not en

in

political

activity

who attempted to speak about

the best regime. No

man.

less

a man

than Aristotle himself informs us about that

regime

His

name was

Hippodamus from Miletus. Hippodamus 's best

teristics. His citizen the fighters. The land

had three

chief charac

body belonging

consisted of

three parts, the artisans, the

consisted of

farmers,

and

to his city

three parts, the sacred,

of

the common, and everyone's own. The laws too consisted only

three parts,

laws regarding outrage, laws regarding damage, and laws regarding homicide. The scheme is distinguished by its apparent simplicity and clarity. But, as Aris
totle observes, after

having

considered

it, it involves

much confusion.

The

con

fusion is

caused

by

the desire for the utmost clarity and simplicity.

Outstanding

among the particulars which Hippodamus suggested is his proposal that those who invent something beneficial for the city should receive honors from that

1996

by

The

University

of

Chicago. All

rights reserved.

interpretation, Winter

1996, Vol. 23, No. 2

130
city.

Interpretation

When examining this proposal, Aristotle brings out the fact that Hippo damus hadn't given thought to the tension between political stability and tech
nological change.

On the basis
the

observations2

of some
connection

we

have

made closer

to

home,
bridled but to
of

we

suspect

existence of a

between Hippodamus 's

un

concern with

nological progress.
permanent

clarity and simplicity and his unbridled concern with tech His proposal as a whole seems to lead not only to confusion
or permanent revolution.
an

confusion,

The

unusual strangeness

the unusually man who had fathered it. I quote, "He also invented the division of cities into planned parts and he cut up the harbor of Athens. In his other activity too he the thought induces Aristotle to give
extensive account of was

led

by

ambition

to be somewhat eccentric so that some thought

he lived in
warm3

too overdone a
adornment of clothes

way. He attracted attention by the quantity and expensive his hair, and also by the adorned character of his cheap but which he wore not only in winter but in summer periods as well. And

he

wished

to be known as learned in giving an

a peculiar account of nature as a

whole

account of nature as a

It

looks
build

as

if

whole,

an account which used

the

number

three as the

key

to all

on

it his

triadic plan of the

elaborated

things, enabled or compelled Hippodamus to best city. It looks as if Hippodamus had

to political things in the

applied a

formula

in

a mathematical physics

hope thus to

achieve

the

utmost

clarity

and simplicity.

But in fact he

arrives at

utter confusion since cal

he has

not paid attention to the specific character of politi

things. He did not see that political things are in a class

by

themselves.

Our

mortifying and somewhat Hippodamus been the first political scientist; his result. have may disappointing cannot have been the origin of political science or political philosophy.
search
thought4

for the

origin of political science

has led to

We may
raised raised

wonder whether

this

is

not5

deserved

punishment

for the fact that

without

we

the question regarding the

origin

of political

science

having

the previous question as to why the

inquiry

into the

origin of our science

is

relevant or necessary.

Every

concern

for the
the
no

past which

is

more

than idle curiosity is rooted in a

case

dissatisfaction

with

present.

In the best

that dissatisfaction proceeds

from the fact that

wisdom of

present

is

self-sufficient.

Given the

extreme

rarity

of

wisdom, the wisdom of the wise men of any present needs for
the wise men of the past. But the

its

support the

dissatisfaction

with

the present
reason.

may have Let us cast

more peculiar or more

distressing

reasons

than the general

a glance at the present state of political science. concerned with what

What I

am

say is less
than with

the majority of

political scientists

going to in fact do

what

the prevalent or at any

rate most vocal at

to do. The majority of empirical political scientists,

methodology tells them least at the University of from every

superseded

Chicago,

are engaged

in

studies which are meaningful and useful

methodological point of view. non-philosophic political

Political philosophy has been

by

science,

by

a positivistic political science.

which

That politi
to the

cal science

is

scientific

to the extent to

it

can predict.

According

The Origins of Political Science

positivistic view political
political

131

possesses.

philosophy It will do it

remains alive.
no

philosophy is impossible. Yet the It retains the evidence

we remind ourselves of with

question raised which

by

it naturally If it

harm if is

that evidence.
or change.

All

political

action

concerned

either preservation

preserves

means to prevent a change

bring
of
some

about some and

for the worse; if it changes it means to betterment. Political action is then guided by considerations
one cannot think of

better

worse, but

better

or worse without

implying

thought of good or bad. All political action

is

then guided
appear

by

some notion
character of

of good or

bad. But these

present

notions as

they primarily

have the
on

opinion;
prove to

they
be
bad

themselves as unquestionable, but

reflection

they
of

questionable.

good and and

as are no

As such, as opinions, they point to such longer questionable, they point to knowledge
point

thoughts6

of good

bad. Or

more

precisely they

to knowledge of the complete political the good society. If all

political action

good,

i.e.,

of

the

essential character of

points to the

fundamental

question of political

philosophy,

and

if therefore the

fundamental

question of political

ical philosophy is a constant science is certain that that fundamental

philosophy retains its original evidence, polit temptation for thinking men. Positivistic political
question cannot cannot

be

answered

rationally,

but only emotionally, that is to say, that it

tic political science

be

answered at all.

Positivis

is therefore constantly
compelled

endangered

by

both the

urgent and

the evident character of the fundamental question

phy.

raised

by

political philoso

It is therefore

to pay constant polemical or critical attention to

political philosophy.

The

most elaborate as a

form

which

that attention can take is a the

history
cal

of political

philosophy

detailed

proof of

philosophy,
show

see

Sabine,
political

in any

manner or

form. That

impossibility of politi history fulfills the

more

function to
obsolete.

that

philosophy is impossible, or,

political philosophy.

precisely,

Prior to the

emergence of non-philosophic political science men

justi

fiably

dedicated themselves to for

inevitable before the human philosophy is then

still

mind

had

reached

Political philosophy was its present maturity. Political

all practical purposes

indispensable in the form

political

of su

history
begin

of political philosophy.

Or, in

other

words,

philosophy is
would

perseded

at the

by history beginning
with

of political and

philosophy.

Such

history
degree

naturally
of

therefore raise the question as to the

with some of

identity

the

first
will

political philosopher.

If it does its job

of

competence, it
that beginning.

begin

Hippodamus

Miletus

and

be

satisfied with

One may, however, wonder whether this kind of history is of any value. If we know beforehand that the history is the
study.

of political of political

philosophy

history

of a capital no reason

error,

One has

philosophy lacks the necessary incentive for dedicated for entering into the thought of the past with sympa
one

thy, eagerness, or respect, or for taking it seriously. Above all the necessary and sufficient proof of the

impossibility

of political

philosophy is provided not by the history of political science but by present day logic. Hence people begin to wonder whether an up to date training in political

132

Interpretation
in any way the study, however perfunctory, of the history of They would argue as follows: The political scientist is is
which

science requires

political philosophy.

concerned with the political scene of the present age, with a situation which

wholly unprecedented,

therefore

calls

for

unprecedented

solutions, not to

say for

an

entirely

new

kind

of

politics, perhaps a judicious

mixture of politics

and psychoanalysis. situation can think

Only a man intelligently

contemporary with that wholly unprecedented about it. All thinkers of the past lacked the

minimum requirement of

for speaking

intelligently

about what

the political scientist, namely, the present

political situation.

is the only concern Above all, all

earlier political thought was

fundamentally

unscientific; it has the status of folk

lore;
not

it the better; let us therefore make a clean sweep. I do believe that this step is advisable. It is quite true that we are confronted
the

less

we

know

of

with an unprecedented political situation.

Our

political situation

has nothing in

common with

The human

race

any is

earlier political situation except that still

it is

a political situation. political societies

divided into is

a number of

independent

which are separated

from

one another still a

by

unmistakable and sometimes

formida

ble frontiers, but of kinds

and there

of governments.

variety not only of The distinct political

societies and societies

governments,
and

have distinct

by no means necessarily harmonious interests. A difference of kinds of govern ments, and therefore of the spirit more or less effectively permeating the differ
ent

societies,

and

therefore the image which these societies have

altogether

of

their

future,

hope for, from the harmony point of view of our part of the globe, is uneasy coexistence. But one can only hope for it. In the decisive respect we are completely ignorant of the future.
makes one can

impossible. The best

However

unprecedented our political situation

may
most

be, it has
important

this in common
respect political

with all political situations of action

the past. In the

is ignorant

of

the outcome. Our scientific political science is as

incapable

reliably to predict the outcome as the crudest mythology was. In former times
people thought that

the

outcome of conflict

is

unpredictable

because

one cannot or

know in

advance

how

long

this

or

that outstanding man is going to

live,

how

the opposed armies will act in the test of battle. We have been brought to

believe that issues

of7

chance can

be

controlled or

does
said

not

seriously

affect the

broad

of society. chance

Yet the

science which

is

to have rendered possible this

control

has itself become the locus

of chance.

Man's fate depends

technology, hence on discoveries and in ventions, hence on events whose occurrence is by their very nature unpredict able. A simply unprecedented political situation would be a situation of vitally
now more than ever on science and

important dicted
in

political conflict whose outcome and

its

consequences could

be

pre

with perfect certainty.

In

other

words, the victory

of

science would require a word, the

the

disappearance

disappearance

of situations

of predicting political vitally important political conflict, of political interest.

But let
sound.

us assume

that the positivistic notion of political science

when

We

see

already today

that science

is

still

in its

infancy

that there

is entirely is

The Origins of Political Science

a gulf
cal

133
politi

between the

political scientist's and

the citizen's understanding of

things.

They literally

do

not speak
clearer of

the same language. The

more political perspective of

science

becomes scientific, the

the perspective the
more

becomes the fact that the

the

citizen and

the political scientist differ. It therefore be

comes all

perform the transition

necessary to understand the difference of perspective and to from the primary perspective, the perspective of the citi
or

zen, to the secondary scientist,

not

derivative perspective, the dogmatically and haphazardly, but in

purpose one requires an articulate

perspective of the political

an

orderly

and responsible of

fashion. For this

the

understanding
of

the citi

zen's perspective as such.

perspective of

Only

thus can one

understand of

the essential genesis of

the political scientist out

the perspective

the citizen.

The

safest empirical

basis for
or

such

an

inquiry
how

is the study

of the

historical

genesis of political

science,

the study of the origin of political science. In

political science emerged

this way

we can see with our own eyes and

for the

first time,
scientific emerge

therefore,
out of

of course

in

a still primitive

form,

out of

the pre

understanding

of political

things. Positivistic political science did not

directly

the citizen's understanding of political things. Positivis

tic political science came into

of modern emerged political

being by

virtue of a

very

complex

transformation

philosophy,

and modern

political

philosophy in its turn

science,
as

by

virtue of a adequate

very

complex transformation of classical political phi of positivistic political

losophy. An
guished of

understanding Plato
and

distin

from

a mere use of
writings of

that science, is not possible except through a study

the political

Aristotle, for

these writings are the the

most

important documents
tific understanding of the
most

of

the emergence of

political science out of

pre-scien-

political

things. These writings of Plato and Aristotle are

of

important documents striking

the

origin of political science.

The

most

characteristic of positivistic political science

is the distinc
in

tion between facts

and values.

The distinction be
settled

means

that only questions of fact

and no questions of value can

general. good as equal.

by

science or

by

human

reason

Any

end which a man

may pursue,

is, before

the tribunal of reason, as

any other end. Or, before the tribunal of human reason, all ends are Reason has its place in the choice of means for pre-supposed ends. The
question regarding the ends, does not lie within A bachelor without kith and kin who dedicates his

most

important question, the

the

province of reason at all.

whole

life to the amassing

benefactor
of of

of

the largest possible

most efficient

amount of

money,

provided

he
the

goes about this pursuit greatest

in the

way, leads as rational a life as

race.

his country

or of

the human

The denial
and

of

the

rationality, distinguishing possibility ends, leads naturally to the denial of the possibility of a common good. As a consequence, it becomes impossible to conceive of society as a genuine whole
which

between legitimate

illegitimate

is

capable

to

act.

Society

is

understood as a

kind

of

receptacle,

or a

pool,

within which

individuals individuals

and groups
and groups.

the

actions of

act, or, society becomes the resultant of In other words political society, which is

134

Interpretation
qua

society

acting, namely acting through its

society.

government or as

government,
an append all

appears as

derivative from
Since

Hence

political science

becomes

age of sociology. conduct

a choice of ends
non-rational.

is

not

and cannot

be rational, any

is, strictly
a

speaking,

Political

science as well as other

other

science, is
science

study

of non-rational

behavior, but like any

behavior.
the study.
of

science,

political

is
us

a rational

study
at

of non-rational

Let

then look

the rationality

Scientific knowledge

of

political

things is

preceded

by

what

is

loosely

called common sense

knowledge

of political things. mon sense

From the

point of view of positivistic political science com

knowledge

of political

things is suspect

prior

to examination;

i.e.,

prior to transformation

into

scientific

knowledge, it has

the status of folklore.

must

This leads to the

order

consequence that much

toil and money

be invested in is thor

to

establish

facts

with

which, to say the

least, every

sane adult

oughly familiar. But this is not all and not the most important point. According to the most extreme, but yet by no means uncharacteristic view, no scientific

finding
and all

of

any kind

can

be definitive. I
no

quote:

"Empirical

propositions are one common sense

hypotheses;
subject to

there are

final

propositions."

For

the

proposition, "Hitler's
no

regime was revision

way

future

destroyed in 1945", is a final proposition, in or in no way a hypothesis. If propositions of

and and

this kind

and nature must

be

understood as

further testing,
ever8

political science

hypotheses requiring further is compelled to become ever more empty

cannot as

more remote

from

what

the citizen

issues. Yet
tion;9

science cannot rest satisfied with

it

consists

the

discovery
in

that there can

ceeds

in inductive reasoning, or As regards causality, present-day positivism teaches be no other justification for inductive reasoning than that it suc
of causes.

help regarding establishing facts of its observa it is concerned with prediction, or

the important

practice.

In

other

words,

causal

laws

are no more

than laws of proba

bility.

Probability

statements are
same

derived from frequencies

will

observed and

include

the assumption that the

frequencies
no rational

ture. But this assumption has

hold approximately for the fu basis. It is not based on any evident

no rational objection not

necessity; it is

a mere assumption.

There is

tion that the universe will

absolute

disappear any moment,

that this

nothingness,

and

happening

will

to the assump into thin air, but into only be a vanishing not only into

nothing, but through nothing as well. What is true of the possible end of the world must apply to its beginning. Since the principle of causality has no evi dence, nothing prevents us from assuming that the world has come into being out of nothing and through nothing. Not only has rationality disappeared from
the behavior studied
come

by

the science, the

radically

problematical.

All

coherence

rationality has

of

that study itself has be

gone.

Rationality

may be

thought to survive

by

virtue of

the retention of the principle

of contradiction as

a principle of necessary and universal validity. But the status of this principle has become wholly obscure since it is neither empirical nor dependent on any agreement, convention, or logical construction. We are then entitled to say that

The Origins of Political Science

positivistic
science

135

in

general10

and

therefore positivistic political science in

of

particular are characterized

by

the abandonment

reason,

or

by

the flight

from

reason.

The flight from

scientific reason which

rational

has been

noted with some regret

in

certain quarters

reason.

is the perfectly However this may be, the

not

abandonment of

reply to the flight of science from reason, hitherto discussed,

is only the weak, academic,

to say anemic reflection, but

of a much

by

no means

an"

uninteresting and unimportant cess whose fundamental character Present

origins to
place:

reflection,12

broader

and

deeper

pro

we must

try

to indicate.

day

positivism

is logical

positivism.

With

some

justice it traces its In the first

Hume. It deviates from Hume in two decisive

respects.

deviating

is

not a

from Hume's teaching, it is a logical teaching, that is to say, it psychological teaching. The supplement to the critique of reason in is
symbolic
and natural

logical
is

positivism

logic

and

theory

of probability.

In Hume that
positivism

supplement
a

is belief

instinct. The

sole concern of

logical

logical

analysis of science.
of

It has learned from

of science

Kant,

the great critic of

Hume,

that the question

the validity

is radically different from the

its psychological genesis. Yet Kant was enabled to transcend psy because he recognized what he called an a priori, let us say, act of chology pure reason. Hence science was for him the actualization of a potentiality natu
question of ral

to man. Logical positivism rejects the

a priori.

Therefore it

cannot avoid

becoming

involved in psychology, for it is impossible to avoid the question, science? On the basis of the positivistic premises, science must be under why stood as the activity of a certain kind or organism, as an activity fulfilling an important function in the life
organism,
the most
science ons which cannot
efficient

of or

this kind

of organism.

In

brief,

man

is

an

live,
of

form

live well, without being able to predict, and prediction is science. This way of accounting for
questionable.

has become extremely it

In the

age of thermo-nuclear

weap

the positive

relation of science

to human

survival

has lost

all

the apparent

evidence which

formerly

opment of science requires

societies renders ever more or pre-industrial societies.

may have industrial

possessed.
society;9

Furthermore,

the high devel

the predominance of industrial

difficult the
still

survival of underdeveloped

societies,

dares to say that the development of these their that is to transformation, that is to say, the destruction of societies, say their traditional manner of living, is a necessary prerequisite for these people's Who

living,
without

or

living
kind

well?

Those

people

survived

and

sometimes

lived

happily

any

science.

of a certain

of

While it becomes necessary to trace science to the needs organism, it is impossible to do so. For to the extent to be
shown

which science could

to have a necessary function for the life of man,

one would

in fact
are

pass a rational value

judgment

on

science,

and rational value

judgments

declared to be impossible

by

this same school of thought.

By

this remark we touch on the second decisive respect

in

which

positivism

deviates from Hume. Hume

are

was still a political philosopher.

present-day He still
rules

taught that there

universally

valid rules of

justice,

and

that those

may

136

Interpretation

properly be called natural law. This means from the point of view of his present day followers that his thought antedated the discovery of the significance of
cultural

diversity

or of

historical

change.

As

everyone

knows,

the most popular

valid value present

argument for proving the impossibility of rational or universally judgments is taken from the fact of such diversity and change. All

thought is

separated

from Hume

by

what

is

sometimes called change

the

day discovery of
proposition:

history. The
man

vulgar expression of

this decisive

is the trite

does

not think

in

a vacuum.

All thought is

said

to be essentially

dependent
only to itself must
a

on

the specific historical

of

situation

in

which

it

occurs.

This

applies not

the content

be

understood as a

thought, but to its character as well. Human science historical phenomenon. It is essential not to man but to
of man.

certain
not

historical type
supplied

Therefore the full understanding

analysis of

of science can

be
of

by
or

the logical

science,

or

by

psychology.

The

prem

ises

science,

the essential

character of

science,
or

as

it is laid down

by

the

logical
since

analysis of

science, owe their evidence,

meaningfulness, to
of of

history,

everything which can possibly become the object dependent on the structure of thought, or, if you wish,

thought is as such

logical

constructs.

The fundamental
science cannot must

science will

be

historical is in

psychology.

But this fundamental

have its locus

outside of

history. It is itself historical.

History
it is
not

be

conceived as a process which unpredictable.

principle unfinishable and whose

course

is

The historical

process

is

not completed and

hence the fundamental science, which is histor ical psychology in particular, is located within the process. It depends on prem ises which are not evident to man as man but which are imposed on specific
rational.

Science in

general and

men,

on specific

historical types, drew this

by

history.

The first

man who

conclusion

from the

discovery

of

history

was

Nietzsche. He
mental

was

therefore confronted with this basic difficulty. The

claims as science

funda
It is
us

science, historical psychology,

to be objective, but
subjective.

owing to its radically historical easy to say that Nietzsche never

saw an abyss where
with unrivaled more

character solved

it

cannot

help being

this problem. It is most important

for

to note that he was distinguished from all his contemporaries the

others saw

by

the

fact that he
He
saw

only

a reason

for

self-complacency.

clarity the problem of the twentieth century, because

he had

diagnosed

the crisis of

clearly than anyone else, prior to the World Wars at any rate, modernity. At the same time he realized that the necessary, al
was a return

though not the sufficient reason

human

future,

to the origins.

movement

toward a goal, or
at

for the overcoming of this crisis, or for a Nietzsche regarded modernity as a the project of a goal, which might very well be

reached, but only

the price of the most extreme

degradation

of man.

He

described that

goal most

forcefully
has

in Zarathustra's

speech on the

Last Man.
all

The Last Man is

a man who

achieved

happiness. His life is free from

suffering, misery, insoluble riddles, conflicts, and

inequality,

and therefore

free

from

all great

tasks, from

all

heroism,

and

from

all

dedication. The

characteris-

The Origins of Political Science

tic proximate condition
of

137

this

call psychoanalysis and tranquilizers.

life is the availability of what we are entitled to Nietzsche believed that this life was the
anarchism, socialism,
and

intended
nism. of

or unintended goal of and

communism,

and

that

democracy
conflict,

liberalism

were

only
and

half-way

houses

on

the road to commu the perpetuity

Man's

possible

humanity
evils

greatness, he
therefore

held,

requires

of

suffering;

one must

reject

the very desire for the re

demption from these

The in

modern project

in this life, to say nothing of a next. stands or falls by science, by the belief that loosen
all

science can
of3

principle solve all riddles and

fetters. Science
appears as

being

the activity

reason par

excellence, the

modern

project14

the final form of ration

and

alism,

of

the belief in the

unlimited power of reason

in the essentially
was origi noth

beneficent

character of reason.

Rationalism is

optimism.

Optimism be

nally the doctrine that the

actual world

is the best

possible world

because

ing

exists of whose existence a sufficient reason cannot

given.

Optimism

became eventually the doctrine that the actual world can and will be trans formed by man into the best imaginable world, the realm of freedom, freedom
from oppressions, scarcity, ignorance, and egoism, heaven on earth. The re action to it calls itself pessimism, that is to say, the doctrine that the world is necessarily evil, that the essence of life is blind will, and that salvation consists in negating world or life. Politically speaking this meant that the reply to the
atheism of atheism

the

left,

communism,

was

an atheism of

the right, an unpolitical

with

political

implications,

the pessimism of

Schopenhauer, Nietz

sche's teacher.

Schopenhauer's he

pessimism

did

not

Schopenhauer
and

was compelled called

by his

premises to understand the

satisfy Nietzsche because negating of life

world,
and

or what

saintliness,

as a work or product of

life

and world.

World

life

cannot

ness and salvation.

legitimately if they are the cause of saintli Schopenhauer's pessimism did not satisfy Nietzsche for the
be
negated which

further
call

reason

that the approaching crisis of the twentieth century seemed to

position

for

counter

was

no

less militant,
give

no

less

prepared

to

sacrifice
passive

everything for
pessimism of

a glorious

future,

than communism in

Schopenhauer had to

its way was. The to Nietzsche's active way

reason,
most of which

pessimism.

It

was

in Nietzsche's thought that the

attack on

the flight from

reason

is only

pale

reflex,

reached

its

intransigent

form.
Nietzsche first presented his thought in a book called The Birth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Music. This book is based on the premise that Greek culture is the highest of all cultures, and that Greek tragedy, the tragedy of Aeschylus
and

Sophocles, is

the

peak of

that

peak.

The

decay

of

tragedy begins

with

Euripides. Here

we are confronted with a strange self contradiction

in the tradi

tional admiration for classical Greek antiquity. The tradition combines the high

for Socrates, for the tradition believed in the harmony of the true, the good, and the beautiful. Yet according to the clearest pieces of evidence, among which a Delphic Oracle is
est admiration

for Sophocles

with the

highest

admiration

138
not

Interpretation

the least

important, Socrates belongs

a

together not with

Sophocles, but tragedy

tragedy.

with

Euripides. There is

gulf,

an unbridgeable

gulf, between

classical

at

its

height

and

Socrates. Socrates did

not understand classical

others

Socrates

through his influence on Euripides and

order

destroyed

classical

tragedy. In
a

to achieve this

supreme act of

destruction, Socrates

must

have had

truly

demonic power, he must have been a demi-god. Not his knowledge, but his instinct compelled him to regard knowledge and not instinct as the highest, to
prefer

the

lucidity

of

knowledge
to

the

precision of

dialectics,
Socrates'

and insight, the awakeness of criticism, instinct, divining, and creativity. As a genius,

and and

even the

incarnation

of critical

par excellence.

thought, he is the non-mystic, and the non-artist praise of knowledge means that the whole is intelli
the
whole

gible and that

knowledge

of

knowledge

and that the virtue which

of tragedy.

is the remedy for all evils, that virtue is is knowledge is happiness. This optimism
proto-type and

is the death

Socrates is the for

whom

first

ancestor of not a

the

theoretical man, of the man

or a profession

science, the quest for truth, is

which enables

job

but

way
not

of

life,

that

him to live

and

to die.

Socrates is therefore but "the

In
one

only the

most problematic phenomenon of

antiquity
origina

turning

point and vortex

in the

history

mankind"

of

shrill and youthful accents of

Nietzsche

proclaims

Socrates to be the be less

an

tor of rationalism, or

the belief in reason, and to see in rationalism the most

of mankind.

fateful

strand

in the

history

We
we

shall make

repelled

by

Nietzsche's partly indefensible statement if Nietzsche fails to make and to which he does
tes made, the
assumption

assumption
which

which

not even

refer, but
of

Socra

that the thesis of the

intelligibility

the

whole means

the following. To understand something means to understand it in the light of

purpose. of

Rationalism is indeed optimism, if

or

rationalism

implies the

assumption

the initial

rationalism

final supremacy of the good. Rationalism is indeed optimism if demands a teleological understanding of the whole. There is good
assertion

evidence

for the

that Socrates originated philosophic teleology.

,

According
who

to the tradition it was not Hippodamus from Miletus

political philosophy.

but Socrates have fre

concerned

founded

In the

words

of

Cicero,

which

quently been quoted, "Whereas philosophy

Socrates
cities,
was

prior to

Socrates

was

with numbers and motions and with whence all

things came and where

they

go,

the

and even
about

philosophy down from heaven and to to introduce it into the household, and to compel
call
and manners and about good and make
bad."

first to

place

it in
to

philosophy

inquire

life

In

other

words, Soc

rates was

the first to
purposeful

the central theme of

and

philosophy human action, that

as a

is to say,
whole.

activity,

hence to understand purpose

key

to the

I have tried to

show

of political science.

study the problem Socrates is ultimately the

why it has become necessary for us to study the origin This means, as appears now, that it is necessary for us to of Socrates. A few words in conclusion. The problem of
question of

the worth of the

Socratic

position.

But it

The Origins of Political Science

is primarily
a more

1 39

never wrote a

technical question, a merely historical question. Socrates line. We know Socrates only from four men who were more or less contemporary with him. Aristophanes 's comedy the Clouds, Xenophon's Socratic writings, the Platonic dialogues, and a number of remarks by Aristotle
are

the chief and most

important
first four

sources.

Of these four

sources

Xenophon's

Socratic
phon

writings appear at
of

glance the most

is the only

these

men who was a

important ones, because Xeno contemporary of Socrates and at

was able and
Thucydides'

the same time the

write

man

who15

has

shown

in deed that he

history, for Xenophon

follow
I

wrote

the

famous

continuation of

willing to His

tory. But I shall not in my

shall

discussion begin

with an analysis of

Xenophon, but I
Socrates

the chronological order,

because the

oldest statement on

which we possess which will

in

completeness

is Aristophanes 's comedy, the Clouds, to

devote the

next meeting.

(OCTOBER

29, 1958)
chief sources on which we

Of the four
thought
of

depend if

we wish

to understand the

Socrates,

Aristophanes 's Clouds is the first in time. The first impres

receive of

sion which anyone

may

Socrates from the Clouds

was expressed

by
of of

Nietzsche in terms like these. Socrates belongs to the outstanding seducers the people who are responsible for the loss of the old Marathonian virtue

body decay

and

soul,

or

for the dubious

enlightenment which

is

accompanied and

by

the

of virtue of

body

and soul.

Socrates is in fact the first

foremost
the great

sophist, the

mirror and embodiment of all sophistic

tendencies. This presenta

tion of Socrates

fits perfectly into the

whole work of

Aristophanes,

things, reactionary be it the democracy, the Euripidean tragedy or the pursuit of Socrates. The point of view from which Aristophanes looks at contemporary life is that of
who opposed with all means at all new-fangled

his disposal

justice,
not

old-fashioned

justice. Hence that

novel phenomenon

Socrates

appears

to him as a teacher of

injustice

and even of atheism.

Aristophanes 's Socrates is

but extremely foolish as well and hence utterly ridicu only extremely lous. He meets his deserved fate: a former disciple whose son had been com
evil

pletely

corrupted

by

lucky

and

ridiculous

Socrates burns down Socrates 's thinktank, and it is only a accident if Socrates and his disciples do not perish on that
to
perish.

they deserve The Platonic Socrates,

occasion;
almost goes so

The Clouds

are

then an attack on Socrates.

when

defending

himself

against

his

official

accusation,

far

as to call the

tes, the first accusation which and final accusation. But even this

Aristophanean comedy an accusation of Socra became the model and the source of the second
expression

if the comedy is its wholly unfounded character, one must describe Aristophanes 's action as a Ariscalumny. As Plato says in his Apology, he did none of the things which

Especially
of

viewed

in the light

may well appear to be too mild. of its apparent consequences and

140

Interpretation
appears as a sophist and a

tophanes attributed to him. In the Clouds Socrates

natural was
of

philosopher,
course

whereas sworn

Socrates knew nothing

of sophistry.

of natural

the

enemy

And, finally,

philosophy and Aristophanes 's

utmost

comic

treatment of

Socrates,

a treatment characterized

by

the

levity,

must appear

to be shocking to the highest degree if one looks forward to Socra

tes 's tragic

end.

To

speak

first

of the

striking

dissimilarity

between
we

Aristophanes'

Socrates
and

and the

true

Socrates, i.e.,

the Socrates

whom

know through Plato

Xenophon,

there is Platonic and Xenophontic evidence to the effect that Socra

tes was not always the Socrates whom these disciples have celebrated. Plato's

Socrates tells
ophy in does not
an

on

the

day

of

his death that he

was concerned with natural philos

amazing way and to an amazing degree when he was young. He give any dates, hence we do not know for how long this preoccupation

with natural which

whether it did not last till close to the time at philosophy lasted the Clouds were conceived. As for Xenophon's Socrates, he was no
when

longer young
air"

or as a man

already notorious as a man who was "measuring the resembling Aristophanes 's Socrates, and had not yet raised the
was

he

question of what a perfect gentleman

seems phy.

is, i.e.,

the

kind

of question

to which he

to have dedicated himself entirely

not altogether

after

his break

with natural philoso

It follows that it is Socrates

as

the fault of Aristophanes if

he did

not

present

the same kind

always

of philosopher as or

did Plato

and

Xenophon.

Besides, if Socrates had

selection stand:

been the Platonic his

Xenophontic Socrates his become hard to

as under

by

Aristophanes for
would

one of

comedies would

Socrates

And

while

a comic poet

have been politically in the same camp is perhaps compelled to caricature have

Aristophanes.

even

his fellow

partisans, the caricature must

caricatured.

some correspondence with

wonder whether

the man to be

After

we

have begun to
there

there was not perhaps a

little bit
whether

of

fire

where

was so much

smoke,

we go on and of

begin to

wonder

accuser, enemy only one Platonic dialogue in which Aristophanes participates, the Banquet. The dialogue is presented as having taken place about seven years after the
performance of the

Aristophanes

was after all an

an

Socrates. There is

Clouds. The

occasion was a

banquet

at

the end

of which

only three men were still sober and awake, two of them

being

Aristophanes

and

Socrates. The three

agreement about a

men

were engaged

in

friendly
was

conversation

subject

than

which

none

more

ending in important to Aris

of

tophanes,

the subject of comedy. The agreement was an agreement

a

Aris is the

tophanes to

thesis propounded

by

Socrates. In

accordance with this

given

Platonic Socrates 's

the condition
strand. of

complicated and strange

analysis,

the soul at comedies. In that analysis we

in the Philebus, of discern the following

the pleasure about

The

condition of the soul at comedies

is

a mixture of

the misfortunes of one's

wisdom with

friends

or about

their

innocuous
The

overestimation of their

the pain of envy.

of one's

Envy

of what?

most natural explanation wisdom

would seem

to be envy

friend's16

wisdom.

The friend's

may

The Origins of Political Science

not

141

he believes and therefore he may be somewhat ridiculous, but be substantial enough to afford cause for envy. This analysis may of comedy is monstrously inadequate as an analysis of comedy in general, but it makes sense as Socrates's explanation of one particular comedy, the comedy
as great as

be

his

wisdom

par

excellence, the Clouds. In

brief,

on

the basis

of

the Platonic evidence it is

no more plausible

to say that the Clouds are an accusation of Socrates than to

say that they

are a

friendly

warning

addressed to
of

by
is

a mixture of admiration and

compatible with the

not

envy possibility that the primary object of Aristophanes 's envy Socrates's wisdom but Socrates's complete independence of that popular

Socrates a warning informed Socrates. This interpretation is perfectly

applause on which the comic poet

freedom. As in
proceed or

necessarily depends, or Socrates's perfect kind, the differences of interpretation ultimately less from the consideration or the neglect of this or that particular fact
all cases of

this

passage, than from a primary and fundamental disagreement. In our case the fundamental disagreement concerns tragedy. According to the view which is
now

predominant,
since

tragedy

at

its highest is truer

and

highest,
fate

appears to

life is essentially tragic. In the light of be simply tragic. On the basis of this

deeper than comedy at its this assumption Socrates's

assumption

scholarship
with

tends to see

much more

clearly the connection of the Platonic dialogues into the

with

tragedy
whether as

than their connection with comedy. We need not go

question question

this assumption is sound; we can be content

raising the
with

to

whether

it

was

Plato's

assumption.

Plato

was

familiar

the assump

tion; the
art.

prejudice

in favor Plato

of of

tragedy is
not

not peculiar

to modem times. No one

was more aware than

the fact that

But from this, he

art.

held, it does
opposes

tragedy is the most deeply moving follow that tragedy is the deepest, or the
for tragedy. He
suggests

highest

He silently

the

popular preference

that the same

man must

be tragic

and comic poet.

When his Adeimantus had

simply

equated correct

trusively

dramatic poetry with tragedy he makes his Socrates unob Adeimantus by imputing to Adeimantus the assertion that dra

matic poetry embraces comedy as well. If we do not disregard the fact that the difference between tragedy and comedy corresponds somehow to the difference between weeping and laughing, we can bring out the issue involved in this way.

One

of

the deepest students of Plato's Republic in

says

modem

times, Sir
. .

Thomas
prove

More,
saviour

that this life is no

to in his Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation: ". but rather the time of we find weeping, laughing time,
wept

that our

himself I

twice or thrice, but never

find
at

we

that he laughed

so much as once.
us no example of

will not swear on

that he

never

did, but

the leastwise he left

of

it. But

the other side he left us an example

one can

weeping.

Of the Platonic

and

Xenophontic Socrates
never

say exactly the

an

opposite.

Socrates laughed once, but

us no example of

find

we

that he wept so

much as once.

He left

weeping, but on the other side he left us

example of

laughing. He left

His

irony is

us many examples of his joking, and none of his indignation. byword. He is not a tragic figure, but it is easy to see how he can

142

Interpretation
a comic

become
the

figure. The

philosopher who

falls into

ditch

while

observing

ordinary as course his in is of find ridiculous, it, life, way Plato's Socrates himself points out. Viewed in the perspective of the non-phi
philosopher

heavenly
returns

things or the

who,

having

left the

cave of

to it and

cannot

losophers,
tive
of

the philosopher is necessarily

ridiculous,
are

and viewed

in the

perspec

the philosopher the

non-philosophers

necessarily

ridiculous;

the

meeting It is, as

of philosophers and non-philosophers

we shall

is

the natural theme of comedy.

see, the theme

of

the Clouds. It is then not altogether an

accident that our oldest and

a comedy.

hence

most venerable source

regarding Socrates is

These

remarks

prejudices.

merely made for the purpose of counteracting certain The decision of the question under discussion can be expected only
are of

from the interpretation

the Clouds itself. Such an

a consideration of

interpretation

will

be facili

tated,

to say the

least, by

the Aristophanean comedy in

general.

In glancing
struck
and

at modem

interpretations

of

the Aristophanean comedies, one is

with

by

the preoccupation of modem scholars

the

political

background When

the

political

to

forget,

or

meaning had already forgotten, that they

cross a picket

of

the comedies. It is as
are

if these

scholars were about

dealing

with comedies.

about to enter a place at which we are meant

we must

to laugh and to enjoy ourselves,

first

line

of

black

coated ushers

exuding

deadly

and

deadening
comedies.

seriousness.

Still, it is
and

simpler

No doubt they unwittingly contribute to the effect of the to remember what Hegel has said about the Aris

tophanean comedies: "If one has not read Aristophanes one can

hardly

know

how robustly
be."

inordinately

gay,

of what

beastlike contentment,

man can

Hegel's
when

statement reminds us of

the obstacles which one

has to

overcome

appreciate,

reading the Aristophanean comedies. For if we desire to understand, to and to love the Aristophanean comedy, it is necessary that we should first be repelled by it. The means which Aristophanes employs in order
or

to make us laugh include gossip

slander, obscenity, parody

mist we see

and

blasphemy.
rustics

Through this

ill-looking
their best

and

ill-smelling

free

and as

sturdy

in

their cups, good-natured, sizing up women,

and

free
the

or

slave,

they

size

up

cows

horses, in

and gayest moments

fools

of no
at17

one, be he

god or

wife or glorious

captain, and yet less angry than amused often,

having

been fooled

by
the

them

ever so

loving

the

country

and

its

old and a

tested ways,

despising
and

new-fangled

and rootless

which

shoots

up for

day
so

in the city
that

its

boastful boosters; amazingly familiar every

allusion

with the

beautiful

they

can
and

enjoy

to any of the many tragedies of

Aeschylus, Sophocles

amazingly experienced in the beautiful so that they will not stand for any parody which is not in its way as perfect as the original. Men of such birth and build are the audience of Aristophanes or (which is the same for any noncontemptible poet) the best or authoritative part of his audience. The audience

Eurip

ides;

and

The Origins of Political Science

to which

143
as

Aristophanes

appeals or which

he

conjured

is the best

democracy

Aristotle has described it: the

tion.

democracy

whose

backbone is the its freest

and

rural popula

Aristophanes

makes us see

this audience at

gayest, from its

we

crude and vulgar

periphery to its

center of sublime

delicacy;

do

not see

it

equally well, although we sense it strongly, in its bonds and bounds. We see only half of it, apparently its lower half, in fact its higher. We see only one half
of

humanity, apparently its lower half, in fact its higher. The

tragedy.
a

other

half is the

preserve of

Comedy

and

tragedy

together show us the whole of man,

but in

such

way that the comedy

must

be

sensed

in the tragedy

and the

tragedy in the comedy. Comedy which begins at the lowest low, [ascends to the highest height,]18 whereas tragedy dwells at the center. Aristophanes has com
pared

the comic Muse or rather the Pegasus of the comic poet to a

dung-beetle,

a small and contemptible which seems

beast

which

is

attracted

by

to combine conceit with utter remoteness

everything ill-smelling, from Aphrodite and the

Graces

which,

however,
eagle of

when

it

can

be induced to

arise

from the earth,

soars

higher than the

Zeus: it

enables

the comic poet to enter the

world of

the gods, to see with his own eyes the truth about the gods and to communicate this truth to his fellow mortals.

Comedy

rises

higher than any

other art.

It

transcends every other art; it transcends in particular tragedy. Since it tran

scends scends

tragedy, it presupposes tragedy. The fact that it presupposes and tran tragedy finds its expression in the parodies of tragedies which are so
the Aristophanean comedy.

characteristic of

Comedy

rises higher than tragedy.

the comedy can present wise men as wise men, like Euripides and Socra tes, men who as such transcend tragedy. This is not to deny that the Aristophanean comedy abounds with what is ridiculous19 ridiculous on the lowest level. But that comedy never presents as

Only

what

what

only is by

perverse men could nature

find ridiculous. It keeps

occur spankings

within

the bounds

of

ridiculous. There

but

no

torturings and kill

ings. The genuinely

Therefore there
noble.

fear-inspiring fear-inspiring, death, i.e., dying

must

must

as

be absent, and hence that which is most distinguished from being dead in Hades.

is causing compassion. Also the truly Whereas in Aristophanes 's Frogs Aeschylus and Euripides are presented be
absent also what

as engaged

in

violent

name-calling, Sophocles

remains silent

throughout. The

Aristophanean comedy while abounding with what is by nature ridiculous on the lowest level, always transcends this kind of the ridiculous; it never remains
mere

buffoonery. That
to sight
worth within

which

is

by

nature

not

ridiculous is

not

omitted; it

comes

the

comedy.

and

its

to the presence

The Aristophanean comedy owes its depth within it of the solemn and the serious. We must

try

to find the

proper expression

for that regarding

arises.

which

Aristophanes is

se

rious. The

proper

expression,
a

i.e.,

the authentic expression, Aristophanes 's

own expression.

Here

difficulty

In

drama,
of

the author never speaks in

his

own

name.

The dramatic
play.

poet can express avails

what

he is

driving

at

by

the

outcome of

his

Aristophanes

himself

this simple possibility: he

144
makes

Interpretation
those human beings or those causes victorious
given which

in his

view ought
unpleas-

to be victorious,

the premises of the plot. For the triumph of the

ing

and

the defeat of the the

comedy.

effect of

pleasing is incompatible with the required gratifying However this may be, a drama is a play; certain human
be
other

beings,
way in

the actors, pretend to

which

those other human

beings

human beings, they speak and act in the would act. The dramatic effect requires

that this play or pretending be consistently maintained. If this effect is disturbed

because the

actors cease

to act their parts and become recognizable as actors in

characters

contradistinction

to the

they

are meant except

to represent,

or

because the

poet ceases to

be invisible

or

inaudible

through his characters, this is

of

annoying or ridiculous. Hence, whereas the destruction is fatal to the tragic effect it may heighten the comic
then able in his comedies to speak to the audience
characters possible

the dramatic illusion

effect.

Aristophanes is
chorus or

directly;

his

his

may

address not

only

one another

but the

audience as well.

It is

even

that the hero of a comedy, e.g., Dicaiopolis in the

comic poet

Acharnians,

reveals

himself to be the
chorus or

himself. At any

rate

Aristophanes

can use

his

his

characters

his intention. Thus he tells

for stating to the audience and hence also to his readers us that it is his intention to make us laugh but not has
raised

through buffoonery. He claims that he is a comic poet who to its perfection. But much as he is concerned
concerned with the
with

the

ridiculous, he is
on

comedy no less
of

serious,

with

making

men

better

by fighting
what

behalf

the
or

city

against

its

enemies and

corruptors,

is simply the best, and by being and justice have become allies. He
what wise element of

for the city by teaching what is just. Through his work, saying
good also makes a

is

well-

distinction between the

the

his

comedies and their

ridiculous

element:

former

should

appeal to the wise,

the latter to the laughers. These ipsissima

of

verba poetae

compel us to wonder

identical he

or

regarding the relation different? The problem is clearly

just things
a matter

justice

and wisdom:

are

they
that

expressed

in the

poet's claim

made the

for

comedy.

However
on

much

the poet may

succeed

in reconciling the
the other, or
of

claims of

the ridiculous
on

the one hand and the

serious on

the

ridiculous

the one hand and

a

justice

on

the

other,

fundamental tension it
consists on

must remain.

In

word, justice as Aristophanes

understands

quality
of

of a

comedy

in preserving or restoring the ancestral or the old. The the other hand depends very much on the inventiveness

the poet, on his conceits

being

novel.

qualified

reactionary in

political

things;

as a comic poet

Aristophanes may have been an un he was compelled to be

and

a revolutionary.

While the tension between the ridiculous Aristophanean comedy, the

the serious that

is

essential to the

being
must plete

the total

pervasive:

comedy consists in its in the fact that in that comedy comedy the comical is all the serious itself appears only in the guise of the ridiculous. This
peculiar greatness of or

be

intelligently

understood.

Just
of

as

falsehood,

given the

primacy

literally speaking there can be no com truth, there cannot be a ridiculous speech

The Origins of Political Science

of some

145
of

length

which

does

not contain serious

passages,

given

the primacy

the serious. Within these

in

integrating

the serious

or

inevitable limitations Aristophanes succeeds perfectly the just into the ridiculous. The comical delusion is

never

destroyed or even impaired. How does he achieve this feat? It is easy to see how the castigation of the unjust can be achieved by ridi cule. For showing up the sycophants, the demagogues, the over-zealous ju rymen, the would-be heroic generals, the corrupting poets and sophists, it is
obviously useful to make a judicious use of gossip or slander about the ridicu lous looks and the ridiculous demeanor of the individuals in question. Further
more, one can hold up a mirror to the prevailing bad habits by exaggerating them ridiculously, by presenting their unexpected and yet, if one may say so,

logical

consequences:
run

for

instance, by presenting
is
characterized

an

entirely

new-fangled

Athens,
women

by

women,

which

by

communism of

property,

and children as complete

the

final form

of extreme

democracy;

one can show

how the

equality

of the communist order conflicts with the natural

natural

inequality between the young and beautiful and the old and ugly; how this inequality is corrected by a legal or conventional equality in accordance with which no youth can enjoy his girl before he has fulfilled the onerous duty
of scene

satisfying is too

a most repulsive obvious and

hag;

the serious conclusion

from this ridiculous

to be pointed out. The very fact that the injustice of the

demagogues little
clever

the other types mentioned is publicly revealed shows how

those fellows are; it reveals their injustice as stupid and hence

ridiculous. The ridicule is heightened

are

by

the fact that the ridiculed individuals

probably

present

in the

audience.

For the

folly

ridiculed

by

Aristophanes is
of

contemporary folly. The contemporary good old times, of the ancestral polity
rural and pious victors of pides.

vices are seen as vices

in the light

the

in the
of

perspective of
who prefer

the simple,

brave,

Marathon,
with

those

Aeschylus to Euri

Contemporary
Greek

injustice

might arouse

indignation

and not

laughter if it
means: as

were not presented as

defeated

ease,

as

defeated

by

ridiculous

the

war-like

manhood

is defeated

wives'

by

their
with

abstinence

from inter

course and the super-demagogue still

Cleon is defeated

his

own means

by

the

baser

sausage

seller who

is boosted

by

the upper class people, Cleon's

mortal enemies. means without

Yet how

can one present the

defeat

of

the unjust

by

ridiculous

how

can

one

making ridiculous the victorious justice? Or, in other words, present the just man without destroying the effect of the total
solves

comedy?

Aristophanes

this

difficulty
toward the

as of

follows. The victory

of

the just

or

the

movement

from the ridiculousness

ancient soundness

is

a movement

contemporary folly to ridiculous of a different kind. The

political

just

man

is

a man who minds

his

own

business,
life.

the opposite of a
at

man who
enjoys

loves the retired, quiet,

private

Living
and,
gives

the

simple natural pleasures: enjoys

food, drink

love. He
wholly

these pleasures

frankly. He He

busybody, the his farm, he last but by no means least, his enjoyment a frank, a home,
on

unrestrained expression.

calls a spade a spade.

If he does this

as a

146

Interpretation
stage, he
says

character on the propriety: and this

in

public what cannot

be

said

in

public with

he

publishes that private which cannot with

propriety be published;
presented as a

is

ridiculous.

Hence the victory

private: of

of

justice is comically

movement

from the ridiculousness

the

of public

folly

to the ridiculous

of

the pub

lication

of

essentially
enjoys

the

improper

utterance of things which

everyone

because they are by nature enjoyable. A major theme, the first theme of the Aristophanean comedy, is then the tension between the city, the political community, and the family or the house privately
of

hold. The bond

and

the

family

is love,
of

and

in the first

place

the love of husband

wife, legal

eros.

The love

the parents for the children appears most

characteristically in the case of the mother who suffers most when her sons are sent into wars by the city. No such natural feelings bind mothers to the city. Thus
one might think that the

family

should

be the

model

for the

city.

In his

Assembly of Women Aristophanes has shown the fantastic character of this thought; there he presents the city as transformed into a household, therefore

lacking

private

ertheless the

property of the members and therefore ruled by women. Nev importance which Aristophanes assigns to the tension between
one

family
polity.

and

city leads

to surmise that his critique is directed not only against

the decayed city of his time but extends also to the

healthy

The hero

the

poet

Acharnians, Dicaiopolis, himself, privately makes peace with the enemy

of the who

city or the ancestral is clearly identified with

one else
war

is

at war.

He is

persecuted

for this

act of

of the city while every high treason not only by the

old spirit of the

with

party but precisely by his rustic neighbors who are wholly imbued with the Marathon fighters. Dicaiopolis makes a speech in his defense his head
on the executioner's
Euripides;9

using devices which he had in splitting his persecutors into two parties and therewith in stopping the persecution; as a consequence he enjoys the pleasures of peace, the pleasures of farm life, while everyone else remains
and while

block

borrowed from

he thus

succeeds

It is only another way Aristophanes that it was not,

at war.

of as

expressing the same thought, if one says with Aeschylus and Euripides agree in the Frogs,
par

the

ancient

Aeschylus,

the political tragic poet

excellence, but the

says

modem

Euripides

who gave

her due to Aphrodite, for,

to
whom

as

Socrates

in Plato's Ban

quet, Aphrodite is
nean

a goddess

together with Dionysus the

Aristopha

comedy wholly Aristophanes and Euripides

is

devoted.
and

this

Incidentally, this agreement between disagreement between Aristophanes and

Aristophanes
was aware of

Aeschylus essentially of at least

confirms our previous contention that

novel or some of

the

revolutionary his comedies expresses this

character of

his

whole enterprise.

The

action

characteristic of

Aristophanes 's
is
achieved

thought. In the
and
by21

Knights, the Wasps, the the Assembly of Women, the restoration

ridiculous
means

Peace,20

the

Birds,

Thesmophoriazusae,
politics

of soundness

in

by

radically

novel

means,

by

means which are

incom
politi-

patible with the end: the ancestral

not

polity

and

its

spirit.

Aristophanes did, then,

his

have any delusions

about the

politically

problematic character of

The Origins of Political Science

cal message. of which

147

But to return to the argument at hand, the phenomenon in the light Aristophanes looks critically at the city as such is the family or the household. His comedies may be said to be one commentary on the sentence in
the Nicomachean Ethics which reads: "Man is
than a political one,
and

by

nature a

for the

the

than

begetting living in
poles

and

family is earlier bearing of children is

which the

and more more

pairing animal rather necessary than the city, common to all animals (sc. have hith
the other

herds)."

The two

between

Aristophanean comedy
one

moves

erto appeared

to be

the retired and

of

contemporary public folly on the easy life of the household as a life of

from the
one pole or

hand,
is

and on

enjoyment of

the pleasures

the body. The transition

to the other

effected

in the

comedies

by

means which are

ridiculous

wholly

unprecedented or extreme.
a

In the Peace the hero, Trygaeus, who is the comic poet himself in disguise, succeeds in stopping the horrors of an insane, fratricidal war

thin
as

by

cending to heaven on the back of a dung-beetle. He believes that Zeus is re sponsible for the war and he wants to rebuke him for this unfriendly conduct.

Having
not

arrived war

for the

in heaven, he finds out from Hermes that Zeus is responsible, itself, but for the continuation of the war: Zeus has put savage

War in charge, War has interred Peace in a deep pit, and Zeus has made it a capital crime to disinter her. The hero bribes Hermes with threats and promises, the chief promise being that Hermes will become the highest god, into assisting him in

disinterring

Peace. Trygaeus, acting

against the express command of the

highest god, succeeds in disinterring Peace and thus brings peace to all of Hellas. He does nothing, of course, to perform his promise to Hermes. Hermes
is
superseded

completely

by Peace,

who

alone

is

worshipped.

By

rebelling
the

against

Zeus

and

the other gods, Trygaeus becomes the saviour. The just and

pleasant
gods.

life

of ease and quiet cannot

be brought

about except

by dethroning

The

same

theme

is treated from

a somewhat

different

point of view

in the

Wasps. In that comedy a zealous old juryman is prevented by his sensible son, first through force and then through persuasion, from attending the sessions of the law court and from acting there unjustly. The son wishes his father to stay
at
of

home

and

thus

not

to hurt his fellow men, to feast and to enjoy the pleasures

refined,

modem society.

The

son succeeds partly.

The father is

prevailed not

upon to refined

stay away from the court and to go to a party. But he is enjoyments: he merely gets drunk, becomes entangled with

fit for
girl

flute

and enjoys
can

himself in committing acts of assault and battery. His savage nature be directed into different channels but it cannot be subdued. The father is

not a typical

juryman,
on

the typical juryman

being

a poor

fellow

who

depends for is
ex

his livelihood

the pay which the jurymen received in Athens. He

tremely

eager

to attend the court because

an a

he loves to

condemn

people.

He

traces his inhuman desire to

injunction

of

the Delphic Oracle. When his son

afraid of

deceives him into acquitting

against

defendant, he is
him
savage

having
of

committed a sin

the gods. What makes

is then his fear

the savagery of the

148
gods.

Interpretation

It is surprising that the gods should be more punitive than men, for, as Trygaeus finds out when he had ascended to heaven, men appear to be less evil
than

they

are when

they

are viewed

underlying Wasps. To
gods.

notion of

the savagery

of

from above, from the seat of the gods. The the gods is nowhere contradicted in the humane
one must

make men somewhat more puts are

free them from the

most philan

As Plato's Aristophanes
god.

thropic

The

other

gods

it in the Banquet, Eros is the not characterized by love of how Euripides is

persecuted

men.

In the

Thesmophoriazusae the
nian women

poet shows

by

the Athe

because he had
of what

maligned women so much. said about

There is

no question as

to the truth

Euripides had

expresses the same view

throughout his plays.

female sex; Aristophanes But the women are a force to be

the

reckoned with.

To

save

himself, Euripides,
It is
not

who

is

said

to be an atheist, com

mits an enormous act of sacrilege.

followed

only

concession which

he is

compelled

to make

by any punishment. The is that he must promise the

them. In contradistinction

women

that he will no

longer say nasty things

a

about

to the
where

Clouds,

the Thesmophoriazusae has

happy

ending;

a poet succeeds

the philosopher fails.

we see
which

In the Birds
sick of soft

two Athenians who have left their city because

they

are

lawsuits

they do
they

not wish

to pay, and are in search for a quiet,

not

and

happy

city

where

a man

does

have to be

busybody.

Having
one of

arrived at

the place where

expect

to get the necessary

a

information,
all

the Athenians hits upon the thought of

democratic

world state.

the rulers of all men

a founding city comprising That city, he explains to the birds, will make the birds and all gods, for all traffic between men and gods (the

birds

sacrifices) has to
posal
new

pass

through the region

gods are starved

in

which

the

birds dwell. The

pro

is adopted; the

gods;

they

take the place of

must

into submission; the birds become the the gods. The ruler of the birds is our clever
to the universal

Athenian. But he
birds. The birds
wisest of all
men.

make concessions

democracy

of

the

praise

themselves as the tme gods:

are

they

are the oldest and

beings; they

all-seeing, all-ruling
what

and altogether

friendly

to

Their life is

altogether

pleasant;

is "base

by

convention"

is

noble

among the birds:

of one's

desertion,

abolition of

slavery, and

among men last but not least

to
to

the

beating

father

wishes

father. However, when a to join the city of the birds in

man who order

is be
are

given able

beating

his

to

indulge his

inclination

with

impunity

for the laws

of

the

birds

said to permit the

of one's father he is told by the Athenian founder of the city of the birds that according to those laws the sons may not only not beat their fathers but must feed them when they are old. This is to say, it is possible to establish

beating

a universal

democracy

and

hence

universal

happiness

provided one preserves the prohibition against one preserves the

by dethroning the gods, beating one's father, provided

of

family. Eros,

which

inspires the generating

men, requires

in the

case of men

the sacredness of the family. The

family

rather than the

city

The Origins of Political Science

is
natural.

149

While the city

of

the birds

is in the

process of

Athenian founder is
soothsayer,
spanked,
wishes to

visited

by

five

men:

by

a poet who receives or

being founded, the gift, by a

a22

a supervisor and a seller of

decrees

laws

who are

thrown

out and
who

and

in the

central
air"

place

by

the Athenian astronomer

admires

Meton,
Thales

"measure the
warns

The founder
the

Meton

as another

and

loves him; but he in fact beaten up

tion and

him

of

fact that the

of

by

the citizens

beat him, and he is course, the birds. The founder's admira

citizens will

love

cannot protect the astronomer against the popular

dislike. Even in

the perfectly

happy city, in the city which seems to be in every respect the city according to nature, one cannot be openly a student of nature. Both obscenities and blasphemies consist in publicly saying things which
ridiculous and hence pleasing propriety is sensed as a burden, as something imposed, as something owing its dignity to imposition, to convention, to nomos. In the background of the Aristophanean comedy we discern the distinction between
cannot

be

said

publicly

with propriety.

They

are

to the extent to which

nomos and physis.

Hitherto

we

have

recognized step. as

the locus

of nature

in the fam

ily. But Aristophanes takes

non-indignant references to

further

adultery
uses

That step is indicated by the frequent well as by facts like these: the hero of
son who corrects

the Birds is
some extent

pederast,

and

the sensible

his foolish father to

in the Wasps
not

force

against

his

aged

tophanes does
tempted to say

that

stop his

at

the sacredness or naturalness

father. In brief, Aris of the family. One is

as

comedies celebrate the

of the noble itself in the pleasant, over convention or and the just. Lest this be grossly misunderstood, one must add immediately two points. In the first place, if nomos is viewed in the light of nature, the Aris

victory of nature, law, which is the locus

it

reveals

tophanean comedy is based on knowledge of nature and therefore on conscious

ness of the sublime pleasures

Aristophanes has
of nomos.

no

doubt

as

to the

accompanying knowledge of nature. Above all, fact that nature, human nature, is in need

Aristophanes does

not reject nomos

but he

attempts

to

bring

to light the

its

problematic

and precarious

status, its

status

in between the
not understand

needs of

body

and

the needs of the mind,

for if

one

does

the precarious

status of

nomos, one

is bound to have

unreasonable expectations modem

from

nomos.

The

profoundest student of

Aristophanes in

times was Hegel. His

section of

interpretation

of

the Aristophanean comedy occurs in the

which

the Phe

nomenology of the Mind (the "The

Art-Religion"

is

"Religion"

entitled

in the

subsection entitled

religion

Art-Religion Hegel it

means

expressing itself completely by art). By the the Greek religion, which he regarded as the highest

religion outside of revealed religion.

The Art-Religion finds its

end and cul

mination, or

achieves

full self-consciousness, in the Aristophanean

consciousness
power."

comedy.
cer

In that comedy, Hegel says, "The individual tain of itself presents itself as the absolute
gods, the city, the

having become Everything objective

the

family, justice

have become dissolved into the

self-con-

150

Interpretation
taken back into it. The comedy presents
of and celebrates

sciousness or plete

the com

insubstantiality

everything

alien

to the self-consciousness, the complete

freedom from fear brates the triumph himself the

of of

everything transcending the individual. The comedy cele "the subjectivity in its infinite Man has made
security."

complete master of

substantial content of
one of

the most

everything which he formerly regarded as the his knowledge or action. This victory of subjectivity is important symptoms of the corruption of Greece. For our pres
not

ent purpose aesthetics

it is

necessary to dwell
not

on

the fact that in his lectures on this

view.

Hegel does

consistently

maintain

But

we must note

that
nean

what

Hegel

calls

the triumph of subjectivity is achieved in the Aristopha

virtue of us

comedy only comedy

by

the knowledge of nature,

i.e.,

the opposite of

self-consciousness.

Let

then turn to Plato's interpretation of the Aristopha

speech

nean

which we

find in the

he

puts

into the

mouth of

Aris

tophanes at the banquet.

Only

few

points can

be

mentioned

here.
of

Aristophanes Pausanias had

was

supposed

to make

his

speech

in honor

Eros

after not

made a pause.

But Aristophanes

got a

hiccough
and

he did

possess perfect control of

his

body,
place.

or perfect self-control

the physician

Eryximachus had to take his do

Aristophanes in have

proves

to

be interchangeable
the

with a physician who was a student of nature with

general.

Aristophanes begins
power of

the remark that

men

not seem to

experienced

Eros,

for if they had, they would build for him the greatest of temples and altars and bring him the greatest sacrifices, since Eros is the most philanthropic of all
gods.

He then tells the

what

following
now.
four23

story.

In the

olden

times human nature

was

different from

it is

Each human
ears,
etc.

being

consisted of two

human be
exceeding
to attack
since

ings; it had four hands,

strength and pride so that

In this

state men were of

they

undertook what

to ascend to

heaven in
could not

order

the gods. The gods did not

know

to

do, for they

of

kill man,

by doing
covered

so

they

would out:

deprive themselves
After this

honors

and sacrifices.

Zeus dis

this way
as

to weaken men

became This

they

are now.

by cutting them into two so that they incision, each half is longing for the other.
for
a

longing for
from

the original unity,

wholeness,

is24

eros.

The

original

whole was either androgynous or male or

who stem of original androgynes seek

female. Those

present
an

human beings

the opposite sex;

them are the adulterers. Those present human

beings
are the

who

outstanding part stem from an

who stem

original

female

are

female homosexuals. Those

present

human beings

from

an original male are male

homosexuals; they

and youths statesmen.

because they are the most manly; they are This is the story to which the Platonic Aristophanes
But taken

best among the boys bom to become tme

appends an

explanation of perfect propriety. virtue of eros

condition

by

itself the

myth

teaches that

by

man, and especially the best

part of

the male sex, will approach a

gods.

in

which

they
of

become25

a serious

danger to the in

We

record

here in

the fact that the hero

the

Birds,

who succeeds

dethroning

the gods and

The Origins of Political Science

-151

becoming

the

ruler

of

the

universe

through

the

birds, is

the

pederast

Peisthetaerus.26

(OCTOBER 31, 1958)

tes. The oldest

[we must] go back to the origins of rationalism, and therefore to Socra document regarding Socrates is Aristophanes 's comedy, the Clouds. For an adequate understanding of the Clouds it is necessary to consider
. . .

the Aristophanean comedy

repeat a

few

points

made

in general, or to understand the spirit of his comedy. last time. Aristophanean comedy has a two-fold
laugh
and

function, the function to be ridiculous, and

tice,
or

to

make us

to teach us

justice. The function is

Hence
only injus
such a

to be serious. Yet at the same time the Aristophanean

comical

comedy is the total comedy; the contemporary

public

is

all pervasive.

not

way opportunity to laugh. How does Aristophanes achieve this feat? The just life, as he sees it, is the retired life, life on the farm, enjoying the
as to afford pleasures of

folly, but justice itself is

presented

in

farm life,

love. These
The

pleasures are given

characters use

body, especially of in the comedy a frank, unrestrained expression. the language of what, as I have learned through my frequent
enjoyment of the pleasures of the

readings

language

in the American Journal of Sociology, is called in this country the of the stag party. The movement from the ridiculous of public folly to from the ridiculous
of

the praise of public soundness is therefore a movement

public

folly
this

to the ridiculous of

impropriety,

not

to say obscenity. If one an

alyzes
a

state of

things one recognizes as the basis of Aristophanes 's thought

of

polarity, the polarity

the polis, the city, and the

polis.

family,

and

in this

context

the

family

appears
whole

to be more natural than the

to be one

appeal

from the

polis

The comedy may be said to the more natural family. In other

this fundamental distinction he ques

words, Aristophanes
and

presupposes

the fundamental distinction between nature

of

law

or convention.

On the basis
not

tions the

family itself,

only the city. For

point of view of

father,

the crime

from the

the

instance, the beating of one's family, is presented as not

absolutely wrong in one of the comedies, in the Wasps. Hence the more proper description of the fundamental polarity would be this: the conflict between the pleasant on the one hand and the just and noble on the other. Now this life of
gaiety, peace,
and

enjoyment,

the natural

life,

requires, according to Aris-

tophanes's presentation, the successful revolt against the gods,

punitive and

for the

gods are

harsh. This

Here is I

a place

clearly in the Birds and in the Peace. Aristophanes.27 for the famous blasphemies in
comes out most
general

concluded

my

interpretation

of

the Aristophanean comedy

by

con

trasting it with the interpretation given by the greatest mind who has devoted himself in modem times to Aristophanes, and that is Hegel. Hegel sees in the

152

Interpretation
of

Aristophanean comedy the triumph

and

subjectivity
morality,

over and

everything
gods.

objective

substantial,

over

the city, the

family,

the

The subject,

the autonomous subject, recognizes itself as the origin of everything objective,

and

takes the objective back into

except to one or

itself. This does justice

of

in Aristophanes
this

thing

to almost everything The basis of importance. indeed decisive

of this

taking back,

however

we call

it,

subjectivism, is in Aristophanes
of

not the self-consciousness of the

subject, but knowledge

nature,

and

the very

opposite of self-consciousness.

Aristophanes has brought this

out most

clearly

in

a scene

in the Birds in
a student of

which

the founder of a natural city is confronted

and

by

an

astronomer,
admires and

nature,

the founder of this city according to nature

cannot protect case

loves that

student of

nature, but he

him

against

the

enmity
of

of the citizen

body,
or

or the populace.

In this

the populace consists

birds, but

the

application

to human

beings does

not require a

very

great

effort of the

intelligence

the imagination. The basis of Aristophanean com

ancients philosophy.

edy is knowledge of nature, and that means for the philosophy is a problem, philosophy does not have
tence. Here is
where

But

a political or civic exis

the problem of the Clouds comes

which

in,

to which I turn now.

meeting.

repeat a of

few things
the Clouds

said at

the end of the last

of

At the

beginning
sleep.

it is dark. Strepsiades, the hero

the comedy, the

man who causes

Socrates's downfall, is lying on his couch and cannot find He longs for the day, for light in the literal sense. We may take this as a Socrates
owes

clue to the comedy. most

his downfall to

a man who seeks

light in the

literal sense, to a kind of Sancho Panza, to a rustic who has lost his bearings or has gone astray. It will do no great harm if this comparison sug
gests siades crook. a

similarity between Aristophanes 's Socrates and Don Quixote. Strep is not an embodiment of stem, old-fashioned justice, he is rather a

He is

a simple rustic, a man of the common people who

has

married a

patrician

lady. The offspring of the marriage, their son Pheidippides, has inher ited the expensive tastes of his mother's line. He is a passionate horseman. He
run

has

his father into

exorbitant

debt. In

order

to get

rid

of

his debts,

Strep

siades

had decided to

send

his

spendthrift son to

Socrates,

the owner and man

ager of a at

thinktank, so that he might learn how to talk himself out of his debts lawcourts. Strepsiades knows this much of Socrates, that Socrates talks about

the

heavens, and besides, teaches people for money how they can win every lawsuit, by fair means or foul. But although he lives next door, Strepsiades
does
not
matter of course.

know Socrates's name, whereas his sophisticated son knows it as a His son refuses to become Socrates's pupil. The elegant

young horseman has nothing but contempt for Socrates and his companions, "those pale-faced and ill-dressed boasters and beggars", hence Strepsiades him
self

is

compelled to
as

become Socrates's

pupil.

Let

us reflect

for
of

a moment about

this situation,

common people

do know

of

Clouds. The beginning know nothing of Socrates, not even his name. The patricians Socrates, but they despise him as a ridiculous sort of beggar.
comes to sight right at the

it

the

The Origins of Political Science

153

Socrates does
ety.

not run any danger from the two most powerful sections of soci If Strepsiades had remained within his station, Socrates would never have gotten into trouble. Socrates does get into trouble through a certain inbetween

type

of

man,

who

is

not

distinguished

by honesty.
who

Here

we remind ourselves of

the fact that the old juryman of the

Wasps,

is

such a savage condemner

because he believes that the

askance at acquittals, is also socially an inbetween type. Needless to say that the demagogues too belong to the inbe tween type. Strepsiades then sends his son to Socrates so that he might leam gods

look

dishonest

practices

corruption of

his son,

for him. Strepsiades is ultimately responsible for a possible and yet this will not prevent him from making Socrates
or school.

alone responsible.

word about says

Socrates's thinktank

Misled

by

what

the Platonic

Socrates

ing

all

in his apology addressed to the Athenian people about his spend his time in the market place, some people think that the school house of
a pure or

Socrates is

impure invention

of

Aristophanes. Yet there is Xenophon

with

tic evidence to the effect that Socrates used to sit together

his friends

and

to study

with

them the books of the wise men of old, and that he never ceased

considering with them what each of the beings is. Given the fact that Socrates was the leader in these gatherings, and that the activities mentioned cannot well in28 be engaged in the market-place, Xenophon tells us then in effect that Socra
tes was a teacher, if a
perfect

teacher. And a teacher

munity of teachers and pupils, rather Strepsiades enters then Socrates's thinktank in is
received

has pupils, and the than the building, is a school.

order considerable

com

to become his pupil. He time before

by

a pupil of

Socrates. It takes easy

he

meets

Socrates. Socrates is

not as

of access as

Euripides in

a comparable scene

in the Acharnians. The

pupil

tells Strepsiades that what

is going
pupil

on

in the
s

thinktank may not be divulged to anyone except to pupils. But

mere all

Strepsiades'

declaration that he intends to become

secrets

a pupil

induces the

to blurt out

the

leam

through the pupil that

he knows. Socrates's security arrangements are most inept. We Socrates and his pupils study mathematics and
a

natural science.

can

For example, they investigate how many feet of its own jump. They need not leave the tank in order to catch the flea. Then
becomes
aware of

flea

Strep
air,

siades
and

Socrates aloft,

suspended

in

basket, walking

on

looking

over

the sun, or
and

looking

down

on

it. At Strepsiades's request,

out

Socrates descends
of ment's thought to
siades

leams

of

Strepsiades's desire to leam to talk himself

without

his debts. Socrates initiates him immediately

the
question of pay.

having

given a mo

has knocked

at

In fact, nowhere in the play, after Strep Socrates's door, do we find any reference to Socrates

taking any pay for his

some sort of gift which

teaching.

Only

once

is there

very

casual reference

to

Strepsiades

offers

to Socrates
no

out of gratitude.

Socrates

is

not

sophist

in Aristophanes. Socrates is his

companions

fellow,
his

who makes

too needy and yet

money maker, but a needy is insensitive to his and

to Strepsiades had

neediness.

Socrates's first

words addressed

154

Interpretation
one?"

been, "Why do
money.

you

call

me,

you ephemeral

Socrates

shows

himself

throughout as the despiser of everything ephemeral, and hence in

particular of

He is induced to
a

converse with
which

Strepsiades
either

not

by

greed or

vanity, but

rather

by

desire to talk,

is

prompted29

by

the desire to reduce the

volume of

stupidity in the world, or else Socrates teaches two things, natural

corresponds

by

sheer enthusiasm

for his The

pursuit.

science

and rhetoric.

duality

of

natural science and rhetoric

to a

duality

of principles.

The first
cosmic
and

principle

is aether,
and

which

is the

original

whirl or

chaos, the highest

principle,
power of

the other principle

and

is the clouds,
choruses.

which give

understanding

speech,
can

inspire the
shape

The

clouds correspond

to rhetoric,
or

since
since

they they

take any

they like,

or since

they

can

imitate everything,

can reveal

the nature of all

conceal

things,

and since at the same time

or

they

conceal rhetoric

the sky,

they

the aether, or

heaven,

the

highest reality, for

the only

is essentially both revealing

and concealing.

The

clouds are

gods recognized and worshipped gods

by

Socrates.

They

are worshipped

by

him

as

because they
cosmic

are

the

origin of

the greatest benefit to men, whereas the

responsible

highest
clouds cises.

principle, aether, is
or

for both

good and evil.

The
exer

love

lazy

inactive
not

people and

demand

abstinence

from

bodily

Socrates does

hesitate to

make clear what not

only the clouds. I quote, "Zeus does that he no longer recognize the gods
mind

exist."

worshipping He demands from Strepsiades

he

means

by

worshipped

by

the city, and

Strepsiades,
thing

you,

complies with

this request without any hesitation. The strange

shocking things before he has tested Strepsiades regarding his worthiness to hear of them and his ability to understand them. The Aristophanean Socrates is characterized by an amazing lack of phronesis,

is that Socrates blurts

out these

of practical wisdom or prudence.

Still,

since

Strepsiades has

no

interest beyond

cheating his creditors, Socrates limits himself to teaching him speech, gram mar, et cetera. He does not even attempt to teach him natural science. But Strepsiades
proves

to be too stupid even for the

compelled

lower

or easier

branch

of

knowledge. He is therefore
pupil.

to

force his

son to

become Socrates's

He is particularly anxious that Socrates should teach Pheidippides the Unjust Speech, the Unjust Argument Just and Unjust Argument are personi

fied in the Clouds

speeches, the Just Speech

absent while

Socrates merely replies that Pheidippides will hear both and the Unjust Speech. Socrates himself will be

the two speeches have their exchange.

exposes

Socrates does

not

teach
and

injustice, he merely
injustice. He
own cannot

his

pupils

to the arguments

between justice
cannot

be held

responsible

for the fact that justice

hold her

by

argument against

injustice.
existence of

The Unjust Speech denies the

not

right

on

the grounds that

justice is

"with the

gods."

Zeus did

not perish

for

having

done

violence to this

father,

but

rather was rewarded

for it. The Just Speech is

that30

unable

to reply to this point.

The Just Speech

points out

the Unjust

the city feeds the Unjust Speech. It

praises old-fashioned

Speech does harm to the city, while temperance. The Un-

The Origins of Political Science

just Speech
replies

155
to the

in the

spirit of the

Aristophanean
than the

comedy.

It

refers

necessities of

nature, to

which are stronger make use of

demands

of temperance. regard

It

encourages people

nature, that is to say, to

base, for

one cannot

help being

defeated

by
a

eros and

by by

women.

nothing as The proof is

again supplied

by

the

conduct of

Zeus. In

word, the

ancestral

morality, the

standard of the external

on which

Aristophanes, is
end of

contradicted

the ancestral

theology

it is based. At the

the exchange the Just Speech admits its

defeat,

deserts to the camp of the Unjust Speech. Pheidippides leams the art of speaking. Trusting in his
and refuses on

son's accomplish

ments, Strepsiades
tors. He
gods.

heaps ridicule
a

his debts, and, in addition, insults his credi his former oaths regarding his debts and on the very
to pay

Then

controversy

arises

between father

and son.

The

son

despises Aes

chylus and

the father admires him. The

son prefers a

Euripides,

who, he says,

is

the wisest poet, and

he

quotes

from Euripides

description
The

of

incest between far

as

brother his

and sister.

Strepsiades is
proves

deeply

shocked.

son goes so

to

beat

father, but he

that he acts that he

can

justly

in

his father's satisfaction, through the Just Speech, beating his father. But then, when Pheidippides declares
to

also prove

by

the Unjust Speech that he is

snaps.

entitled

to beat his

mother, Strepsiades's patience

Cursing
and

himself

and

his dishonesty, he

repents, rums passionately

tence of Zeus and the

against

Socrates
and

other

gods,

his school, recognizes the exis bums down Socrates's thinktank. He

justifies this

action as
was

the

punishment

for the

impiety

of

Socrates. But let

us not

forget that it

not

Socrates's

impiety

or

lessons, but Socrates's

alleged

teaching
stand

that a

unquenchable

may beat his own mother, which aroused Strepsiades's ire, and brought about Socrates's downfall. If we wish to under
son

Aristophanes 's
to
this31

case against of

Socrates,
and raise

we must overcome our natural re

vulsion

kind

subject,
to

the

question

as to the particular

significance of

the

permission

beat

one's mother as

distinguished from beat

was already incest between

ing

one's

father. An indication is he heard

We

given

by

the

fact that Strepsiades

Euripides'

about to rebel when

of

s presentation of

brother
that the
and

and sister.

shall express

the underlying thought

the city, yet the the
city.

as

follows. Granted
cannot

family is
the

more natural than

family
The

be

secure
against

flourish

except

incest
city.

compels

by becoming family to transcend itself,

incest is
the
against

a part of

prohibition expand

and, as it were, to

into the

The

prohibition against

a quasi-natural

bridge between the

family

By rebelling Strepsiades merely acts in the spirit of his love for his son, which has inspired his escapades into dishonesty. Given the delicate and complicated character of and city, and ultimately between nature and con the relation between
and the city.

alleged outrageous

teaching

of

Socrates,

family

poles can only be bridged if convention is vention, the gulf between the two reference to the gods. For the reason I indicated, the gods can consecrated

by

not

fulfill their function

and

without

harshness. Yet

since

the

gods are not which

they32

human
subject

beings

therefore cannot

be bound

by

the laws to

156
men must

Interpretation
Hera is both Zeus's do
what wife and sister a great
not33

difficulty

remains.

Men

the gods tell them to

do, but

what

the gods do. This is not

altogether
gods.

satisfactory for those

who

long

with all

their heart to imitate the

It is necessary to consider the conduct of Socrates's goddesses, the Clouds. The Clouds do not express Socrates's sentiment regarding the non-existence of
the other gods

very far from it.

with

They

present

themselves as

being

on

the

friendliest terms
nial of

the other gods. But

the existence of the other gods.

they listen silently to Socrates's de They are highly pleased with Socrates's

worshipping the Clouds. They congratulate Strepsiades on his desire for great wisdom and promise him perfect happiness, provided he has a good memory,

indefatigable dedication to study, and extreme continence. And last but not least, if he honors the Clouds. They promise him in particular that he will
surpass all public

Greeks in the
which

art of public needs

speaking,

and

over to send

speaking Socrates. When Strepsiades

son

he

in

order

to get rid of his debts. to be too

certainly in that kind of They hand him

advise

proves

dumb, they

him to

his

to Socrates in his

stead.

While Strepsiades fetches Pheidippides

they
rates

remind

Socrates

of their great

to take the
says.

fullest
A

advantage of

generosity toward Socrates and advise him Strepsiades's willingness to do everything Soc

change makes

itself felt

during

the exchange between the

Just

Speech

and

the Unjust Speech. When the Just Speech praises the ancient sys

tem of education, the Marathonian system,

they

applaud.

They

never applaud

the Unjust Speech. When Strepsiades scoffs at his creditors and

insults them in

every way, the Clouds express the direst warnings regarding Strepsiades's fu
ture

fate,

and

cated son.

especially as to what he may have to After Strepsiades has come to his senses,

expect and

from his

sophisti

repented, the Clouds

tell him that he got only what was coming to him because he had turned to

dishonesty. Strepsiades replies, with some justice, that the Clouds had encour aged him. But the goddesses reply that it is their constant practice to guide men
on evils into misfortune, so that they may leam to fear the gods. Need less to say, the Clouds do not raise a finger, if Clouds can raise a finger, in defense of Socrates and his thinktank. I suggest this explanation. The
Clouds'

intent

only

worshipper

in Athens up to
claim

now

is Socrates. Hence they favor him for the

the city more than all other gods, al

time being. though

They
are

that

they help
Either34

they

the only gods

which are not worshipped

in Athens. There is
as35

this alternative before them.

Socrates,

whom

they favor

their sole

worshipper, becomes a success

the Clouds will be worshipped

by

the

whole

city destruction. The

use a

or

Socrates fails

they
will

will

be instrumental, if only

by

permission, in his

Clouds36

be

worshipped again

by

the whole city. If

I may

very vulgar expression, they are sitting pretty. After Socrates has introduced the new divinities into the city they desert him when they see how unpopular he is bound to become. They change their posi

tion as soon as

they

see

how the Strepsiades case, the test case, is developing.

The Origins of Political Science

Their
conduct proves their

157

divinity.

They

are wiser

than Socrates. The Clouds

virtue and

are wise vice.

because they
virtue

act with prudent regard to

both Socrates's

his

His

consists
not

in his daring, his intrepidity, his non-conformity,

which enables

him

to worship the divinities worshipped

worshipped or prudence.
unjust.

by

the city, and to

vice

worship

new

divinities
wisdom,

by

no one

but himself. His

is his lack

of practical

For it

tophanes's Socrates that he is

be wrong to say of ArisHe is indifferent to justice. The fact that

would

he does

not rebuke

Strepsiades for his

dishonesty

you enter use

who cheat of

the life

of

business

and action you

may very well mean that once have already made a decision to
the creditors
and expensive chariots

dishonest
sold

means.

Besides, it is by
expensive
place. on

no means clear whether

Pheidippides the it is

horses
not

did

not

him in the first

as

And it is

Socrates's fault if the

common view open plea

justice, based

mythology, is

intellectually

inferior to the

for injustice. If

all men

dedicated themselves to the

pursuit

to which the Aris

would

tophanean Socrates is
slightest

dedicated,

the study of nature, no one

have the

incentive for

hurting

anyone else.

Yet,

and

this

seems37

to be the be

ginning to wholly

Socrates's error,
the

not all men are capable

to lead a life of contempla

tion. As a consequence of this grave oversight the Aristophanean Socrates

unaware of

is

devastating

effect38

which

his indifference to

practical

matters must

have

on

the city, if

non-

theoretical men should

unaware of

become influenced from

by

Socrates's

sentiments.

Socrates is

the setting within which his

of prudence proceeds

thinktank exists. He lacks

self-knowledge.

His lack

his lack
so

of self-knowledge.
unpolitical.

It is because

of

his lack

of self-knowledge

that he

is

radically dies are dedicated to the

eros, one
observes
wine and

If

one remembers

the fact that the Aristophanean come

and

praises of

Aphrodite

Dionysus,

or

to the praise
complete

of

immediately,
that he

with great

surprise, Socrates's

im

munity to linked

to love. The Aristophanean

Socrates is

altogether unerotic.

It is for this
with

reason

Euripides,

there

is thoroughly amusic. However closely he may be is a gulf between him and Euripides precisely

because Socrates has nothing in common with the poetic Muse. As a necessary consequence of this, when Euripides is persecuted in the Thesmophoriazusae,

he is

capable

to save

himself,

whereas

when

Socrates is

persecuted

in the

Clouds, he has
nature and of

no means of

rhetoric, is

not a public

defense. Socrates's pursuit, the precise study of power, whereas poetry is a public power. Socrates is the
most

Aristophanes 's
of

comical presentation of

important

statement of

the case

for poetry in that

speaks at

secular contest of

which

Plato

the

beginning
said

between poetry and philosophy the tenth book of the Republic.

par excellence on

Plato's Republic may be

to be the reply

to Aristophanes.

The

political proposals

of

the Republic are based

the conceits underlying

communism

Aristophanes 's
not

Assembly of Women. The

complete39

communism,

only regarding property, but regarding women and children as well, is introduced in Plato's Republic with arguments literally taken from Aris
tophanes 's

Assembly

of Women. There is this

most

important difference

be-

158

Interpretation
best city
of

tween the

the

Assembly

of Women

and that of
its40

the Republic. Plato

contends that complete communism requires as

capstone or

its foundation

the rule of philosophy, about

which

difference
tion

corresponds

to a difference

Aristophanes is completely silent. This indicated in Plato's Banquet. According

to Aristophanes the direction of eros is horizontal.

of eros

According
important

to Plato the
use of

direc

is

vertical.

While the Republic

makes

the Assem

bly of Women, it is at least equally much directed against, and indebted to, the Clouds. Thrasymachus represents the Unjust Speech, and Socrates takes the
place of the

The

chief

interlocutors in the Republic

Just Speech. And the Just Speech is in Plato, of course, victorious. are the erotic Glaucon and the musical

Adeimantus. As for music, Socrates demands in the name of justice that the poet as free poet be expelled from the city. As for eros, the tyrant, injustice

incarnate, is
his

revealed

to be

eros

incarnate. The Socrates

of

the Republic reveals

kinship

with

the unerotic and the amusic Socrates of the Clouds.

we

What, then, do
science?

Aristophanes

leam from Aristophanes regarding the origin of political presents Socrates in about the same light in which Aris

totle

Hippodamus from Miletus, as a student of nature as a whole who fails to understand the political things. The concern of philosophy leads beyond
presents

the city in spite,

rhetoric. mon

or

because,
is
unable

of

the fact that philosophy is

concerned

with

Philosophy
and

to persuade the non-philosophers, or the com

not a political power.

people,

hence philosophy is
poetry,

Philosophy, in
it

contradistinction to

cannot charm

the multitude. Because philosophy

transcends the human and ephemeral, it is radically unpolitical, and therefore

is

amusic

and unerotic.

It

cannot

teach the just

supplemented

things,

whereas

Philosophy

is then in

need of

being

by

a pursuit which

poetry is political

can.

because it is

music and

erotic, if philosophy is to become just.

self-knowledge. problem
man

Poetry

is

self-knowledge.

Plato did

not

Philosophy lacks deny that there is a

to a political
cheap."

here. In the Laws his Athenian Stranger

gives occasion race

To which very the Stranger, the philosopher, replies, "Marvel not, but forgive me; for having looked away toward the god and having made the experience going with this, I said what I just said. But if you prefer, be it granted that our race is not
to say to
you

him, "Stranger,

hold

our

human

despicable but worthy of the fact that the human

political

seriousness."

some race

The

recognition

by

is worthy

of some seriousness

philosophy is the origin

of of

philosophy

or political science.

If this

recognition

is to be philosophic,

however,
of

things, are decisive importance for understanding nature as a whole. The philosopher who was the first to realize this was Socrates, the Socrates who emerged out of Xenophon
and

this must mean that the political

things,

the merely human

the Socrates of the Clouds. Of this Socrates we know through

Plato. I

shall speak glance

first

of the

Xenophontic Socrates.
writings appear

At first
source

Xenophon's Socratic
character of

to be the most reliable

for establishing the

the Socratic teaching.

Among

the four

authors of

the chief sources regarding

Socrates, Xenophon

alone combined

the

The Origins of Political Science

two
most

159
he

important

qualifications.

He

was an acquaintance of

Socrates,

and

has

shown

by

deed that he

was able and

willing to be a historian. In spite of

this, Xenophon's testimony does not enjoy in our time the respect it so patently deserves. The reason for this anomaly can be stated as follows. Xenophon is not very intelligent, not to say that he is a fool. He has the mind of a retired
colonel rather than of a philosopher.

horses, battles,
of the most extreme

and recollections of

outstanding scholars form and therefore in a particularly enlightening form. Bumet con tended that Xenophon did not know Socrates well, seeing that Xenophon him
self

by dogs, battles, than by the truth. John Bumet, one in this field, has stated this view in the most
was much more attracted

He

practically says that he was a youth in 401, that is to say, when he had already left Athens for good and was with Cyrus in Asia Minor. Bumet sug
gests that

Xenophon

was attracted

by Socrates,

not on account of

Socrates's

Socrates's military reputation. The most obvious difficulty for this theory is the fact that we owe all our specific information about Socrates's military exploits to Plato, and even in the case of
wisdom or on account of

intelligence, but

Plato the

most

detailed

report

is

given

by

an

intoxicated

man.

Xenophon he does

barely

alludes to these things.

mention

In his two lists

of

Socrates's

virtues

not even

Socrates's military virtue, his courage, or manliness. He leaves it at an occasional reference to Socrates's having shown his justice, both in civil life
and

in

campaigns.

Besides,

the term youth

of

or

young man,
means

which

is

applied

to

Xenophon
clever

by

an

man."

young Xenophon had The but

emissary The term is

the Persian
used

king,

in the context, "you

of

in

order to counteract a remark which

made.

It

cannot

be

used

for

fixing

Xenophon's date
study
of

birth.

prejudice against
on

Xenophon is

based,

not on a sober
of

his writings,
the specific

the fact that the prevailing notions

the greatness of a man and the

recognition of

greatness of an author greatness of

do

not

leave

room

for the

the man and the author Xenophon.

Romanticism, in

all

its

forms,

has

impossible the tme understanding of Xenophon. As for Bumet in dissatisfaction with Xenophon had a special reason. He was un his particular, commonly sensitive to the presence in Socrates's thought of natural science,
rendered and

Xenophon

flatly

ence.

While the
us

modem criticism of

denies that Socrates had anything to do with natural sci Xenophon is of no value, its sheer power

may incline
phon was a

to reconsider our first impression. Despite the fact that

an exaggeration.

Xeno

work, the

historian, this was Hellenica, but his

itself
as a
as a

Xenophon

wrote one

historical

which presents

been regarded,
was

most extensive book, the Education of Cyrus, historical book, is rightly regarded, and has always work of fiction. Xenophon's achievement as a historian

only

a part of

his his

literary

activity.

In

order to

describe his
which

literary

as a whole

it is

wise

to make use of a description

writings.

is

sometimes

activity found in

the

manuscripts of

There he is

sometimes called

the Orator Xeno

phon.

As for the
to
refer

suffices

relationship between oratory and history in antiquity, it to Cicero's rhetorical writings. The expression, the Orator Xeclose

160

Interpretation
means

nophon,
who

less that Xenophon

was a public speaker

but

that

he

was a man

fully

possessed

the art of public speaking, or that

means

one can

leam that

art

by
or

studying his writings. The expression Demosthenes than the art of Isocrates.
shall
that41

here less the

art of

Pericles

Anticipating
Socratic

the result of this

lecture, I
an of

say The art

Xenophon's

rhetoric was

rhetoric. art of

writing.

in Xenophon's writing is speaking Tradition tells us that Xenophon was a bashful man, a man
of public exhibited

sense of shame.

phon's art of

strong This description certainly fits the writer Xenophon, or Xeno writing. A man who possesses a strong sense of shame will re

frain
evil,

as much as possible and

from hearing, seeing, and speaking of the ugly, the the bad. To quote his own words, "It is noble and just and pious and
to remember the good things rather than the bad
would prefer
ones."

more pleasant

For

instance,

Xenophon
was

to say of a given town that it was

big,

rather

than that it

big, deserted,

and poor.

But

of a

town in a good condition

he
He

would without

say of he was a brave

as much of

would

any hesitation say that it was big, a given individual that he was brave
and shrewd crook.

inhabited,

and well-off.

and shrewd rather

than that

He

expects

the reader of his praises to think

those virtues about which

the virtues which he

of their absence.

mentions as of

he is

silent
nable

because

Lest

we

traitor was

highly

rewarded

by

the

treason, Xenophon
throughout a
not to shock our

would suggest

that

by king who was benefited by the act of that king had the traitor tortured to death
shocked an abomi

be

the fact that

whole year

for his
that

treason.

But

since

Xenophon desires
will add

not

only

feelings, but
certain

also

to indicate the truth, he

the remark
treason
a

that he cannot be

such a

fitting

retribution

for the
place.

act of

actually further in the

said to

took place. He says this act

same
as

is

said to
would

have taken say

Going

direction,
for his

Xenophon

of a man

that his father

step is

be X, but

mother

there is agreement that she was Y. One of

why he entitled his so-called Expedition of Cyrus, Anabasis, Cyrus's Ascent, is that the only part of the story which was happy as far as Cyrus was concerned was the ascent, the way up from the coast to the interior,
the
reasons as

distinguished from the battle

was most

which took place after

the completion of the

unhappy for Cyrus. These examples must here suffice for showing that Xenophon's maxim regarding the preferability of re membering the good things rather than the bad ones circumscribes what is now
ascent and which

generally known as irony. The ironical is a kind of the ridiculous. In one of Xenophon's Socratic writings Socrates describes the general ion is
about

opin

present

himself in terms reminding in Xenophon's work. One

and

of the of

Clouds. In

some

way Aristophanes
between42

the most striking

differences

Xenophon's Socrates
and

Aristophanes 's Socrates is that the former is

urbane
of ur

patient,

whereas

the Aristophanean Socrates shows a complete

and also of patience.
most

lack

banity
phon's occurs

and even

politeness,
ever

Socrates

addresses

impolitely

The only man whom Xeno is Xenophon himself. This

and

in the only

conversation

between Xenophon

Socrates

which

is

re-

The Origins of Political Science

corded

'161

in Xenophon's Socratic

writings.

Xenophon's Socrates

calls

Xenophon,

"You
phon,
treats

fool!", "You and only Xenophon,

Strepsiades. In

wretch!"

That is to say, Xenophon's Socrates treats Xeno in the same way in which Aristophanes 's Socrates

the Clouds Pheidippides says in a dream to a

when you of

friend,

"Take the horse home he has

him

have

given

him

roll."

a good slave

In Xenophon's

Oeconomicus the interlocutor

when given

Socrates says, The

"My

takes the horse home

of

roll."

a good

same meter.

Could the interlocutor

Socrates in the Oeconomicus, the perfect gentleman Ischomachus, be Xeno phon's substitute for Aristophanes 's Pheidippides? Pheidippides comes to sight in the Clouds
as

Socrates's

pupil

in injustice. Ischomachus, however, is Socra

takes43

tes's teacher in
which of

the place justice, just as in Xenophon's work Xenophon in the Clouds was throughout occupied by Strepsiades. Through the use
things

ridiculous

Socrates is
city,

shown and

by

Xenophon to be in

harmony

with

respectability
might

and with the

to contribute through his activities to civic

order.

or political excellence of

the highest

Xenophon's Socratic writings,

s

one

dare to say,

constitute a

reply to

Aristophanes'

Clouds

on

the level of

the
use

Clouds,

and with a most subtle use of

the means of Aristophanes. We could

this observation as a clue to Xenophon's Socratic writings if we were not

averse and

wholly
surface,

to

paradoxes.

Let

us rather

turn to the

most

obvious, to the

cling to it as have

much as we can.

Fifteen
them are
cation

writings

come

down to

us as writings of

Xenophon. Four

of

the Socratic writings, then there is the Expedition of the Greek

of some

Cyrus,

the Edu

of Cyrus,

History,
of

or rather
writings

Hellenica,
are

and the

Minor Writ
of

ings.

The titles

these

strange.

The title

the

Expedition of Cyrus, The bulk of the work deals

the Ascent of
not

Cyrus, fits only the first part of the work. with the ascent of Cyrus but with the descent of

Xenophon,

the44

descent

originated and organized on

by

Xenophon
of

of

the Greek

mercenaries who

had followed Cyrus

his

ascent.

The title

the Education

of Cyrus fits only the first book

with

of the work.

The bulk

of the work

deals

not

Cyrus's education, but

completed.

with

the exploits of

Cyrus

after

his

education

had

been

The title

of

the largest of the Socratic writings, Memorabilia

also somewhat strange.

in the Latin translation, Recollections, is

ness was recognized

This

strange

by

some editors as well as

translators,

who called the

book

Memorabilia Socratis, Recollections of Socrates, for the book is entirely de voted to what Xenophon remembered of Socrates. By calling the book Recol

lections simply, Xenophon indicated that his recollections simply, or his recollections par excellence, are not his recollections of his deeds in Asia

Minor,

which are recorded name

Socrates. The

of

Socrates

in the Expedition of Cyrus, but his recollections of occurs only in the title of one of his four
of the

of Socrates, just as the name of Socrates occurs only in the title of one of Plato's works, again, the Apology of Socrates. The Socratic writings constitute, as it were, one pole of Xenophon's
Socratic writings, in the title

Apology

work.

The

other pole

is

constituted

by

the Education of Cyrus. A reference

by

162

Interpretation
shows that

Xenophon's Socrates to Cyrus Socratic

the
writings.

Cyrus is

not absent

from Xenophon's

It

could not
and

be

otherwise.

Cyrus is

presented

by

Xenophon

as

model of a

mler,

especially

of a captain.

But Xenophon's Socrates

Plato's Socrates the

possesses perfect command of

the art of the captain, as Xenophon shows. And

since

according to

a principle of

both Xenophon's

and

necessary

and sufficient condition

for

being

a perfect captain

is

one's possess

ing
sive

perfect command of the art of the

captain, Xenophon's Socrates too is a

present

perfect captain.

On the

other

hand, Socrates is

in the three
the

most exten

Xenophontic

writings which are not

devoted to

Socrates,

Hellenica,
these

the

Expedition of
there
teristic

Cyrus,
of

and

the Education of Cyrus. In

explicit or

each of

writings

occurs a single

reference,

allusive, to Socrates. The

charac

feature

Xenophon's

work as a whole can

be

said to

be the

presence

in

it

of

the two poles, Cyrus and Socrates.

a radical

There is
that both

difference between Cyrus

captains,
a

and

Socrates in

spite of the

fact

are excellent

difference

which on reflection proves

to be

an opposition. mention

Xenophon indicates this difference

or

most

courage,

military virtue, among the

not

virtues of

simply by failing to Socrates. Cyrus exer

art,
since

cises,
eager

and

Socrates does

exercise, the

royal or political wish

Cyrus is

to exercise it and Socrates does not

to exercise

it. Since there is,

then, an opposition between Cyrus and Socrates, there is needed a link between Cyrus and Socrates. This link is Xenophon himself. Xenophon can be a link
between Cyrus
sophists. and

Socrates because he is
was

a pupil of

Socrates

and not of

the

Xenophon
builder

great empire

induced to accompany Cyrus, the namesake of the Cyrus, by his friend Proxenus, who had been a pupil of
rhetoric.

Gorgias,
wealth

the famous teacher of

was able

Proxenus left the

school of

Gorgias in

the belief that he

to acquire a great name, great power, and great

by just

and noble means alone. and was

But he had the defect that he

make

could rale

only gentlemen, he believed that

men.

incapable to

himself feared

by

the soldiers, for

governance of

praise and

withholding

praise sufficed

for the
or of

He did

not

appreciate the power of

punishment,

harshness. But
those

Xenophon,
and

the

pupil of

Socrates,
He

was able to rule

both

gentlemen and

who were not gentlemen.

was as excellent at

castigating the bad and

base,

beating them,

as

he

have become the

he
could

sole

praising the good and the noble. Hence he could commander of the Greek army if he had desired it. Hence
was at

phon shows

seriously desire to become the founder of a city in Asia Minor. Xeno by his deeds the radical difference between Socrates and the other his
age.

wise men of

Socrates

was

the

political educator par excellence.

Socra

tes was the opposite of a mere speculator about the things in heaven and be
neath

the earth.

Socrates,

and

not

Gorgias, for

example,

was

the political

educator par excellence

which

because he had

recognized the power of that

in

man

is

recalcitrant to reason and which must

therefore cannot be persuaded into

understands the nature of polit

submission, but

be beaten into it. Socrates simply

rational.

ical things,

which are not

Therefore,

the student of politics can

The Origins of Political Science

163

leam something important by observing the training of dogs and of horses. Therefore there exists a relation between Xenophon's Socratic writings and
those
of

his

minor writings

which

deal

with

dogs

and

horses. It is perfectly
or rather on

fitting, with dogs,

ophers.

for

more

than one reason, that his writing on

dogs,

hunting

almost ends with a

blame

of

the sophists, and a praise of the philos

must

now

turn to a more detailed analysis of the

political

teaching

of

Xenophon's

Socrates,
giving

but

we

few

remarks

some

have the time for that. Therefore, I make a conclusion to this lecture. There are four Socratic do
not

writings, the

Memorabilia,
will

the

Oeconomicus,

the

Banquet,

and the

Apology

of

Socrates. Next time I

presentation of

try Socrates's justice,

to show that the Memorabilia are meant to be a that the three other Socratic writings present

Socrates simply, without a limited regard to his justice. The Oeconomicus pre sents Socrates as a speaker, the Banquet presents Socrates as a doer, and the

Apology of Socrates literary principle of

indicate the
considers

presents

Socrates

as a silent

deliberator,
not see

or

thinker. The

the

Memorabilia,

the largest of these four

books, is

to

Socrates's true activity, but these indications carefully, one comes to

character of not

to set it forth. If one that the Xenophontic

Socrates did
cerned,
as

limit himself to the study

other

of

the human

every
are

philosopher,

with

the whole, only

things, but was con he thought that the

as well as

human things

the clue to the

whole.

For Xenophon's Socrates,

for the Platonic Socrates, the

that the whole
state

key for the understanding of the whole is the fact is characterized by what I shall call noetic heterogeneity. To
by
the
not

it

more

simply,

fact that the

become

whole consists of classes or clear

kinds the It is

character of which

does
For

fully

through sense

perception.

for this

reason

that Socrates could become the founder of political philosophy,

political

or political science.

philosophy, or political science, is based on

the

premise

that

political

things are in a class

political

by themselves,

that there is an

essential

difference between

things,

and things which are not political.

Or

more

specifically, that there the private or

claim of

is

an essential

difference between the is in fact

the

common

good and

sectional good.

Socrates is the first

which

philosopher who raised

did
the
of

justice to the
polis, the
that
claim.

the political, the claim

by

political society.

This

means

that

he

also realized ways of

limitations

Hence he distinguished between two

the political life and

life,

the political

life,

and one which transcends

which

is the highest. Now

while

according to Xenophon

and

his Socrates the transpolitical life is higher in

dig
with
well

nity than the political for the in

claims of

life, they did everything in

characteristic

their power to instill respect

of

the city and of political life and

it. Moderation proves to be the

as
other

everything connected quality of Socrates. Here as

respects,

recognition of

the essential difference between the political

and the
essential

non-political, or,

more

differences,

or of

fundamentally, recognition of the existence of noetic heterogeneity, appears as moderation as op

philosophers

posed

to the

madness

of the

preceding Socrates. But Socratic

164

Interpretation
also,
and

moderation means

in

a sense even

primarily, the

recognition of opin

ions
did deed

which are not not separate not

tme but salutary to political life.

Socrates,

from

each other wisdom and moderation.

The

Xenophon says, political is in

the

highest, but it is

the

first, because it is
is
related

the most urgent. It

is

related to

philosophy tion, the indispensable could be presented in

as continence condition.

to virtue proper. It is the founda

we can understand

From here

a popular presentation as
and political

study, entirely to the human

are

why Socrates limited himself, his having things. The human or political things

or

indeed the clue to all things, to the whole of nature, since they are the link bond between the highest and the lowest, or since man is a microcosm, or
the human
or political
. .

since

things and their correlatives are the form in

of

which

the highest

principle

[end

tape]

(NOVEMBER

3, 1958)
presentation of

Plato's

and

Xenophon's
replies

Socrates

can

understood,
tophanes's

as

to

Aristophanes 's

presentation

be understood, can be Arisof Socrates.

goes

presentation

is

not a piece of

buffoonery, but it
fact
that

to the root of

the matter, not in spite, but because of the

read and

it is

a comedy.

The Clouds
the Birds

in

conjunction with

the other plays of

are one of

Aristophanes, especially
documents
are

Thesmophoriazusae ,

the

greatest

of the contest

be

tween philosophy and poetry for

of

supremacy.

They

the

greatest

documents

the case

for the supremacy

of poetry.

the fundamental distinction between

nature

The Aristophanean comedy is based on and convention. It is therefore

based
Greek

on philosophy. sense of the

Philosophy,

or

the science of nature, or

word,

as represented

by

Socrates is

allied with rhetoric.

physiology in the It

recognizes

two

principles

the one hand and

corresponding to the difference of natural science on rhetoric on the other. These principles are Aether and the
this alliance
and
with

Clouds. Now in
tion of
what

spite of

rhetoric, philosophy, the investiga

unpolitical. of

is in heaven

simply transcends the

yet

political.

beneath the earth, is radically It is oblivious of man, or rather

not understand

It

human life,
self-

human life is its basis. Hence it does

therefore it lacks practical
unerotic and amusic.

itself. It lacks

knowledge,
into

wisdom.

Because it is
must

unconcerned with

human life it is

a whole which

is

ruled

by

poetry.

Philosophy Poetry is

therefore

be integrated
and

both the foundation

the

capstone of wisdom within which

philosophy is especially the

protected and at

philosophy finds its place, or through which the same time perfected. The Xenophontic, and

Platonic,

thesis asserts

deed the physiology of Platonic psychology let

wisdom within which

exactly the opposite. the Aristophanean Socrates, but a

us

Philosophy,
certain

not

in

psychology,

say, is both the foundation

place or

and

the capstone of

poetry finds its

through

which

poetry becomes
self-knowl-

good.

Socrates

was

eminently

political.

He

was the philosopher of

The Origins of Political Science

edge,
and

165

therefore
general

of practical wisdom. and

He

was

the erotician

par excellence. remains

This is the
a question

reply of Plato whether Socrates was

who

Xenophon to Aristophanes. Yet it

as music as

the greatest poets. Perhaps it was

and

only Plato

decided the

contest

between poetry

philosophy in favor

of

philosophy through the Platonic dialogue, the greatest of all works of art. I shall speak first of Xenophon. The great theme of Xenophon may be
political as no philosopher ever

said

to be this. Socrates was the citizen, the statesman, the captain. Socrates was

tes is only

one pole

founder
panied

of

was, nay as no statesman ever was. Yet Socra in Xenophon's thought. The other pole is Cyms, be it the the Persian Empire or the younger Cyms whom Xenophon accom
ascent while

in his

to Asia Minor. The difference between Socrates and Cyms

indicates that
I
stated

writing.

Socrates is profoundly political he was also something else. last time what I believe to be characteristic of Xenophon's way of To put it very colloquially and provisionally one can compare Xeno
to that of Jane
about

phon's manner

Austen,

not

to speak about the sad and terrible

things to
of

not

exactly

remember

the good

but at any rate match-making in Xenophon's case things rather than the bad ones. It is preferable to speak
term. Good may mean to be what

the good things rather than the bad ones, as Xenophon explicitly says. Now

good

is, however, here

or good

an ambiguous

is truly

is generally thought to be good. In the defense good, may of Socrates especially by Xenophon, Xenophon is very anxious to show that Socrates was good according to the general notion of goodness, and that is
mean what

perhaps not the

deepest in Socrates

as we shall see.

Now Xenophon's Socratic

the

writings consist of

Oeconomicus,
which

the

orabilia, the largest part, in

of

Banquet, and the Apology these books, it consists of

refutes
which

four pieces, the Memorabilia, of Socrates. As for the Mem

two main parts, a short first

Xenophon
part, in

the indictment of

Socrates,

and a much more

extensive second

Xenophon

shows

that Socrates greatly bene

as Plato in his Apology of from Xenophon refrains Socrates, quoting the indictment with com explicitly effect that "Socrates commits an indictment was to the plete literalness. The

fited

everyone who came

into

contact with

him. Just

unjust act

by

duces

other

recognizing the gods divinities which are new. He

not

which45

the city recognizes, but intro

also commits an unjust act shows

by

corrupt

young."

ing

the

By

refuting the He

indictment, Xenophon
the commission of

that Socrates did

was

not commit these unjust acts of

which

he

accused,

nor

any justice. In the bulk

benefited
men with

other unjust act.

proves that

Socrates

acted

justly

in the

sense of

legal

of

the Memorabilia Xenophon proves that Socrates greatly

everyone who came

into

contact with with

him. But to benefit

one's

fellow

is, according

to

Xenophon, identical

being just,

although perhaps not

being
is to

whole

prove

merely legally Socrates's

other

just. Hence the

purpose of

the Memorabilia as a

justice, both legal

to his

and translegal.
with

The three simply

Socratic

writings can

then be expected to deal

with

Socrates
Now the

without special regard

justice,

his activity

simply.

166

Interpretation
of man or

activity

thinking
these
with

consists, according to deliberating. In accordance

smaller

Xenophon,
with

of

speaking,

doing,

and

this

divided his three

writings.

Socratic writings,

as can

tri-partition, Xenophon has be seen from the openings of

The Oeconomicus deals

and

with

Socrates's speaking, the Banquet

his deeds,
not

the

special remarks are

Apology of Socrates with his silent deliberation. Two indispensable at this point. The Banquet deals with the
of a number of other gentlemen as well.

deeds

only

of

Socrates, but
deeds
We
are

More

over, it deals

with

not performed

in

earnest or with

seriousness, but

performed playfully.

therefore

entitled

to look somewhere for Xeno

phon's presentation of clined

deeds
we

which gentlemen performed presentation

in

earnest.

am

in

to believe that

have this

in his Greek history, the

Hellenica. In
occur

accordance with

this he treats his narratives of

tyrants,
as

which

in the Greek history,

as parts not

and

only the narratives of

tyrants,

excursuses,

that is to say,

properly Socratic

belonging

to the work, for the tyrant

is,

of

course, the

opposite of a gentleman. other

Secondly,

the Memorabilia on the one

hand,
three
and

and

the three

writings on

the other, fulfill the

fundamentally
Socrates,
the

different functions. The Memorabilia

others

established

justice

of

deal

with

Socrates

simply.

Now the

Apology

shortest, is to a considerable extent a repetition of

are46

of Socrates, the last the last chapter of the

of which some editors

Memorabilia. There

a number of minor

divergences
of

have tried to based

get

rid

by

assimilating the text

text of the last chapter of the

on

Memorabilia,

the complete disregard of

of

the Apology of Socrates to the dangerous undertaking since it is the possibility that subtle stylistic differ
a required one

ences, to say nothing

of the

two

writings.

others, may be To illustrate this

are used

by

the two different purposes

sections of the

Hellenica

many

minor stylistic changes. sections of

the fact that certain may Xenophon in his by writing Agesilaus, with The differences between the Agesilaus and the
adduce

corresponding
college

the Hellenica must be viewed in the light of the fact

and

that the Hellenica

is

history

the Agesilaus is a eulogy. And as every the style required for

editors also

boy knows,
required

or should eulogy.

know,

history

differs from

the style

for

And the

in this

case correct the text of

the Agesilaus because this simple idea did not occur to some of them.

and

The Memorabilia, to repeat, are devoted to the subject of Socrates's justice, their first part Socrates's legal justice. The accuser had charged Socra
to47

tes with corrupting the young. He had specified this somewhat vague charge

by

contending, among

other

things,

that

Socrates induced his

to them that

companions to

look

down

on the established

laws, by saying
lot. No

it is foolish
pilot,
a

to elect the
a flutecom

magistrates of player

the city
and yet

by

one would choose a

builder,

by lot,

these kinds of people can not do any serious

rulers of

harm

pared with accuser

the harm which the

the city can do. to look

By

such

speeches, the
them men of

said, Socrates induced his

companions

down

with contempt on

the established regime, that is to say, on the

violence.

democracy,
show

and made

Xenophon

goes out of

his way to

that a man like

Socrates

was

The Origins of Political Science

bound to be
opposed to the use of

167
to

violence, but he does

not even attempt

deny
on
not

the charge that Socrates made

regime and

his

companions

look down

with contempt

the established

deny

this charge

because he

its accompaniment, the established laws. He does cannot deny it. Socrates was an outspoken

critic of the

Athenian democracy. If legal justice includes full

loyalty

to the

established political order,

utmost

Socrates's legal justice

was

deficient in

a point of

importance. He

was not

The

accuser also referred

unqualifiedly just then. to Socrates's relation with two

age, Critias the tyrant
no and

of

the most out

standing
after

political criminals of the

Alcibiades. Xeno
these men did

phon shows that

Socrates

was

in

way

responsible

for

what

they had left Socrates,

of their ways.

whom order

they had left precisely because Socrates

to show the wickedness of Alcibiades in

disapproved
tion

In

particular, Xenophon
which

records once

Alcibiades is
a

many other things and among them the conversa had with his guardian, Pericles. Alcibiades asked

Pericles,

what

law? Pericles
Law is
not48

fittingly

defines law in

such a

way

as to
as

fit
to

democratic law
what should

as such.
or

an enactment of

the assembled multitude

be done
of

be done. Alcibiades forces Pericles to

grant that are

the enactments

the ruling few in an oligarchy or of a tyrant in a the other hand that the law merely

tyranny

equally law,
the ruled,

and on

imposed

by

the rulers on

and

therefore in particular a law merely imposed

by

the democratic

majority
origin

on

the minority is an act of violence rather than a law. A law owes its
not

lawfulness,
never raises raised

to its democratic origin, but to its goodness. The democratic

no

in itself is

better than the tyrannical

origin.

Xenophon's Socrates
law. This
question

the grave and

dangerous question,
and rash

what

is

is

only Alcibiades
not yet

by

Xenophon's young

who raises

this question

Alcibiades. Yet the young and rash in the style characteristic of Socrates had

left Socrates, but was still a this Socratic question. The accuser

companion of

Socrates

at

the time

he

raised

also charged

Socrates

with

frequently

quot

ing ing

the verses from the Iliad in which Odysseus is described as using

when

different

language
to

speaking to outstanding
the
common people on charge.

men on

the one

hand,

and when speak

men of

the other. Xenophon does not even at

tempt to

deny

this

Yet the first

and most

important

part of

the charge against Socrates concerns

his

alleged

impiety. As Xenophon
the charge of

makes or of

clear, the charge

of

graver than
Athenians"

injustice,

corrupting the
the young,

young.

impiety was Only "some

"the Athe

believed that Socrates

corrupted

whereas

nians"

believed that Socrates

more than

was not sound as regards

much space

the gods. Yet Xenophon

devotes
corrupt

three times as

to proving that Socrates did not

was pious.

the young as to proving that

was pious

Socrates

In

order

to prove that

Socrates

Xenophon
was

mentions

the fact that Socrates was sacrificing

on

frequently

and

that he

relying

on

divination, especially

his "demonic in
private

thing". Lest there be any suspicion that Socrates acted

differently

than in public, he adds the remark that Socrates was always in the open, in

168

Interpretation
where

places49

largest number of people. Still, a man may and yet have private thoughts. Xenophon adds, kind, any privacy Socrates was always in the open and talked almost constantly, that therefore,
could meet the

he

have

no

of

yet no one ever

ever, he
through

admits
what

heard him say anything impious. Immediately afterwards, how that Socrates's thought would not necessarily become known
said

There is one, and only one, univer sally known fact which according to Xenophon proves Socrates's piety. This is Socrates's conduct at the trial of the generals after the battle of the Arginusae, he in the
market place.

where
clear prove

Socrates
that

alone upheld

his

sworn

duty

not

to permit an illegal vote. It

is

while

this action proves Socrates's

of sincere

justice,

it does

not

necessarily
the gods

Socrates's piety in the sense worshipped by the city of Athens. At the

end of

belief in the

existence of

Xenophon's

refutation of

the indictment of
and

Socrates,

we

have
be

come to realize that

Socrates's legal justice fact that he

men.

his legal piety

could not

proven,

or

that Socrates was not unqualifiedly just.

possessed

compatible with the

This, however, is perfectly translegal justice, which consists in

men

benefiting one's fellow degree by leading them

degree
ence

Socrates benefited his fellow individual in

to the highest

to excellence or to virtue, that

question

of virtue of which the

men

is to say, to that kind or was capable. For the differ

crucially important to Socrates as he indi cated by frequently quoting the Homeric verses in which Odysseus is presented as having conducted himself in an entirely different way when confronted with among
respect was

in this

entirely different kinds of people. The bulk of the Memorabilia is meant to show how beneficent Socrates was. The fourth book of the Memorabilia is the only
part of

the

work which can

be

said to present

Socrates

as a

teacher rather

than as

an advisor or exhorter. who spent

The fourth book

their time with

opens with the remark that

not

Socrates helped those

him

but
He

by joking
was

as

well,

and

that he did not approach all

only by being serious men in the same manner.

naturally

attracted

by

the good natures, that is to say,

by

the

most

gifted,

who revealed

themselves as such through the quickness

with which

they

learned,

through their memory, and through their

desire for

all worth-while enumerates

subjects of some other

learning. Not

all men possess good natures.

Xenophon

human types. The

gifts, but
engaged

greatest part of

the

fourth book is devoted

to

Socrates's
was,
not

conversations with
natural

the handsome

Euthydemus,
refrains

whose characteristic

conceit.

Xenophon

teacher Socrates as
not

in

conversation with who

from presenting the first-rate men. Hence we do

leam from Xenophon how Socrates, kinds of people, talked to first-rate men.
word50

talked

differently

to

different

Socrates taught only by conversation. His art consisted in the art, or the for the skill of conversation is dialec skill, of conversation. The Greek
tics.

As for Socrates's dialectics

someone contradicted

we

leam from Xenophon that it

was

two-fold.

When
to

Socrates, Socrates brought back

raised

the subject matter

is?"

its basic presupposition, that is to say, he

the question "what

The Origins of Political Science

regarding the
of

169

subject under

discussion,

and

he

answered with the participation

came

the contradictor. Thus the

we

contradictor

himself

to see the truth clearly.

This

may say is the higher form of dialectics. But, Xenophon goes on, when Socrates discussed something on his own initiative, that is to say, when he talked to people who merely listened, he did not raise the question "what
is"

but

proceeded

through generally accepted opinions, the listeners to an extraordinary

and

thus

he

produced

agreement

among
which

degree. This latter kind

of

dialectics,
important
seus.

leads to

agreement as

part of the political art.

It is the

distinguished from truth, is the most art which Homer ascribes to Odys dialectics
when

Socrates

applied the scientific

kind

of

he talked to

contra

dictors,
Socrates

that is to say, to

men capable

to contradict

intelligently,

to people who

are capable to go
applied

beyond the

accepted

opinions,

or who possess good natures. conversations with

the political or

rhetorical

dialectics in his

the majority of people. Xenophon gives us

hardly

any

specimen of

Socrates's

exhibiting the higher kind of dialectics. For it goes without saying that the mere use of the formula, "what is", does not yet guarantee that the question will be

handled

appropriately.

If

we want

to find the serious thought of Socrates as

Xenophon

understood

it

we must translate

Socrates's

statements ad

hominem

into the form they

would

take if

they

were addressed

to contradictors, or to men

possessing good natures. Xenophon is very sparing in his explicit praise of Socrates. And when he praises Socrates, he shrinks from using superlatives. The strongest expression
which

he

ever uses

in this

connection

is his

statement

that when he heard

blessed."

Socrates
ment
of

make a certain

statement, "he

seemed

to me to be
others good

The

state

Socrates
or

was

to the effect that

while

derived

pleasure

from
with

horses, dogs,

birds, he derived

pleasure

from

friends, "together

I51 scan the treasures of the wise men of old which they have left my friends behind in writing and if we see something good, we pick it out, and we regard

it

as a great gain when we

with

become

another."

useful

to one

Of Socrates's study

ing

his friends the

works of

the wise men of old and of their selecting the

best from them, Xenophon does not give us a single example. He draws our attention to what he regarded as Socrates's most praiseworthy activity, but he demands from
a certain

kind

of

his

readers

that

they

transform the intimation

speaks of

into

clear

knowledge. In the

passage quoted

Socrates

his friends,
"friends"

or

his good friends. We may say that Xenophon never records conversations be is an tween Socrates and his friends in the strict sense. Of course,
ambiguous term. mere

It may be applied to friends strictly speaking, as well as to acquaintances, and hence also to the intermediate forms of relationship.
chapters of

Seven

the Memorabilia are devoted to the subject, Socrates and

records
conversations

friendship. Xenophon

between Socrates
but

and

acquain

tances, interlocutors, Socrates and a friend

between Socrates

and comrades of of

Socrates,
most

no conversation

between

Socrates. The

instructive

case

is

a conversation

and

Crito. The wealthy Crito

complains to

Socrates

about

170

Interpretation
blackmailed
a

being
that

by

informers. Socrates draws Crito's

uses

attention

to the fact

Crito,

landed gentleman,
way, he says, he
property.

dogs to
the

keep

wolves

In the

same

should use

informers

to

away from his sheep. keep other informers

away from his

worth-while

Crito would, of course, have to make the arrangement to the protecting informer. Crito acts on Socrates's advice. They
Archedemus
who

find

certain

is

excellent and was

Archedemus
Crito."

was one of

Crito's friends

for this purpose; "Henceforth honored by the other friends of

We have here

Socrates's friends,
gest

and

that

we choose

between saying that Crito did not belong to saying that Socrates honored a useful informer. I sug the former alternative.
a choice

The third book

who

of

the Memorabilia shows how Socrates dealt with those

long

and strive

for the fair

or noble.

It

ascends

from

conversations

of

Socrates

with anonymous
with52

a conversation

individuals, via conversations with acquaintances, to Glaucon, the hero of Plato's Republic, the son of Ariston,
benevolent for the
sake of

to

whom

Socrates

was

Charmides the

son of

Glaucon

and

for the for the

sake of

Plato.

Immediately
Socrates took

after the conversation with

Glaucon,
one of

Xenophon
men

records a conversation with sake of whom next

Charmides, Charmides being

an and

the

interest in Glaucon. We thus

the other
man

expect

to

be treated

to a

conversation

between Socrates

for the

sake of whom

Socrates took

an

tion between Socrates and Plato. Instead we

interest in Glaucon, this is to say, a conversa get a conversation between Socra

tes and another philosopher, Aristippus. Thereafter the

descent begins,
sickly youth,
argument

which

leads

us via

outstanding craftsmen,

a venal

beauty,

and a

again

to

anonymous people.

That is to say, Xenophon builds up the

in

such a

way very

as

to point toward a peak, to suggest a peak

anonymous people

close people and then again

down to

anonymous people.
of

gests a peak of

the third

book,

or, for that matter,

and

the whole

up to Xenophon sug work. He points

to that peak, a

conversation

between Socrates
can not

Plato, but he does

to
visible or

it. The

peak

is

missing.

This formula

be

applied

not supply Xenophon's Socratic

writings as a whole.

The highest does

become

audible, but it

can

be divined. The
means

unsaid

is

more

important than

what

is

said.

For the

reader

this

that he must be
all

Among
chief

the passages in which

most

extremely attentive, or extremely Xenophon subtly important

one

careful.

alludes to

Socrates's
that

preoccupation, the

is that in
the

which
is."

he
It

says

Socra
things

tes "never ceased considering

context that

what each of

beings

appears

from the

this Socratic consideration is connected with

distinguishing

according to their kinds or classes. But, to say the least, Xenophon gives very few examples of this constant preoccupation of Socrates. It is also hard to see

how Socrates
same

constantly consider what each of the beings is, and, at the time, constantly be in public places and almost constantly talk about subjects other than what each of the beings is. At any rate Socrates's constant
could

preoccupation was the concern with

"what is",

with

the essence of all things. It

en-

is tme, the

same

Xenophon tells

us also that

Socrates limited his interest

The Origins of Political Science

'171

tirely
the that

to the human things, but

makes

one must consider

the context within which

Xenophon

the latter

assertion.

He

asserts

that Socrates did not discuss

nature of all no one

had

things, or what the sophists call the cosmos, in order to prove ever heard Socrates say something impious or irreligious, for
suspect as

the study

of nature was

the presumptuous attempt to pry into the

secrets of the gods.

the legal piety

of

But I have already indicated what one has to think about Xenophon's Socrates. When asserting that Socrates limited

his study
called

to

students of

human things, Xenophon makes his Socrates wonder whether the nature, that is to say, the philosophers preceding Socrates, now
not realize

the pre-Socratics, did

that

man cannot

discover the truth

re

garding nature, for the

other and

various

philosophers,

says

Socrates,

contradict each

behave like

madmen.

Some

of

them believe that

being

is one, but

infinitely many beings. Some say that all things change, but others, that nothing changes. Some say that everything comes into being and perishes, but others say that nothing comes into being or perishes. The
others that there are characterization of these contentions as mad permits us to see contentions about the whole

clearly

which

Socrates

regards as sound and

sober, namely, that

there is a finite number of

changeable
and perish.

beings,

that there are some unchangeable and some

which

things,

and

that there are some things

remark about

do

not come

into

being

Xenophon's

Socrates's

chief preoccupation permits us

to render this implication more precise. While there are

infinitely

many things,

there is only

finite

number of

kinds

or classes of

things,

that is to say, of the

beings

which we

intend

when we raise

the question "what is". Those kinds or

are unchangeable and

classes,

as

distinguished from the individual things,

do

not come

into

being

or perish. all philosophers who preceded

noetic

Socrates is distinguished from

is

him

by

the fact

that he sees the core of the whole, or of nature, in

whole not

heterogeneity. The

is

not sensible

example,

homogeneous, but heterogeneous. Yet the heterogeneity heterogeneity, like the heterogeneity of the four elements, for but noetic heterogeneity, essential heterogeneity. It is for this reason
one,
nor could

that Socrates

become the [originator

can

of]53

political science.

Only

if there
political

is

essential and

heterogeneity
things

there be an
not

essential

difference between

things,
geneity
sion

which

are

political.

The
are,

discovery
and common.

of noetic

hetero

permits one

to let things be what

they

takes away the compul

to

reduce essential

differences to something
the
vindication

The

discovery

of

noetic sense.

heterogeneity
Socrates

means

of what

one could call common

or

called

it

a return

from

madness

to sanity

sobriety, or, to

use

the Greek

term,
or

sophrosyne, which I would translate

by

moderation.

Socrates
most54

discovered the
obvious

paradoxical

fact that, in

way, the

most

important

truth

is the

truth,
of

the truth of the

the sense of

surface.

Furthermore,
classes,
means

the fact that there

that there cannot

is
be

a a

variety
single

being, in

kinds

or

total

experience of

being,

whether

that experience is understood mysti

assertion

cally

or romantically,

the specifically romantic

being

that

feeling,

or

172

Interpretation
or a certain

sentiment,

kind

of

sentiment, is this total

of

experience.

There is
h-

indeed
many

mental mental

vision,

or

perception,
mental

this or that kind or pattern, but the

must

patterns, many

perceptions,

be

connected

by

gismos,

putting two and two together. By recognizing the fact that the political is irreducible to the non-political, that the political is sui generis, Socrates does justice to the claim raised on
reasoning,
of

by

by

behalf
nity,

the political, or
polis.

by

the political

itself,

namely

by
far

the political commu

above

by

the

The

polis presents

itself

as exalted

the

household

and the

individual. Yet
the
polis

the

claim of

necessarily mean that Socrates recognized to be the highest simply, or, which amounts to the same
this
not

does

thing,
the
of

to be the authoritative interpreter of the highest simply, or to be beyond

peak.

The judgment

on

the status of the political

will

depend

on

the result

the analysis of the

start

political.

to

from the

phenomenon of

political phenomenon.
minion of

may be said for laws appear to be the law, specifically The reason is this. The political appears to be the do
analysis of the political

Socrates's

the most resplendent activity of adult

freemen
law

and who

is

more

resplendent than adult

freemen?

and

that

which gives adult

freemen

as such means

their character, or that which limits

them, is law,

and

alone.

Law

primarily the utterance of the assembled citizens which tells everyone, includ ing the full citizens, what they ought to do and what they may not do, not until

further notice, or for a given time, but forever. The well-being of the city, nay, its being, depends on law, on law-abidingness, or justice. Justice in this sense
is the is
political virtue par excellence.

Justice

as

law-abidingness

comes to sight
and

as a virtue

by

the consideration of the alternatives, which are to law that the distinction between

force in

law. It

with a view

legitimacy

and and

illegitimacy

is

primarily
with

made.

"Kingship

is

mle over

willing human beings This

accordance

the laws

of

the city, whereas the rale over unwilling human beings and

according

to the will of the ruler

is

tyranny."

remark seems

to apply only

to monarchs, but Socrates goes on to say, "The regime in which the magis tracies are filled from among those
aristocracy.
who complete

the

laws

or

the customs is

The

regime

in

which

the magistracies are

filled

on

the basis of

property qualification is filled from all is

can

plutocracy.

The

regime

in

which

the magistracies are

democracy."

be

either royal or

This may be thought to mean that republics too tyrannical, the decisive point being whether the mlers are Yet there is this
obvious

limited

by
be

law

or not.

difficulty,

that the mlers who

ought to
and

subject

to the law are themselves the cause or the origin of the

of

law,
the
act

the cause or origin

problem
of

the law cannot as such be subject to the

modem

law

famous

sovereignty in
to

times.

Still lawgivers
we

cannot

arbitrarily. a

They

are supposed

enact good

laws. Hence
and

may have to
regimes.

make

distinction

other than that

make a

between legitimate
good

illegitimate

One

may have to

distinction between
and

regimes,

as regimes most

likely
good

to produce good

laws,

bad regimes,
men

as regimes most

likely

to produce bad

laws. If the quality enabling

to make good

laws is wisdom, the

The Origins of Political Science

regime will

173

be the
not

rale of

the wise. In other words, the only sound title to rale

nor

is

knowledge,
of

inheritance,
is

election,

nor

force,

nor

fraud, but only

The
man of

knowledge
highest
be the

how to

rale can make a man a

superior

king
not

or a ruler.

the

political wisdom

origin of excellent

law, only because he alone can laws, but likewise because he has a flexibility which
to any

laws however
a

wise

seeing law,
guided

whereas

necessarily lack. The man of the highest political wisdom is every law proper is blind to some extent. The justice of
then in

the tme

ruler cannot consist

lawabidingness
the habit of to

or

in legal justice. He

must

be
He

by

translegal

justice, by
as good as

helping
to be
a

them to

become
is

possible,

and

benefiting live as happily

human beings,

of

as possible.

must assign

to everyone not necessarily what a possibly

good or

foolish law declares

his, but

what

fitting

for him. To

use a

Xenophontic example, if

big boy owns a small coat and a small boy owns a big coat, we must take away the big coat from the small boy and give it to the big boy, and vice versa. That is to say, by questioning the ultimacy of law, we question also the
ulti-

macy of legal property. At the beginning of Xenophon's Oeconomicus Socrates leads the

argument via or

from the

view

that the property of a man is the

man

totality
of

of

his possessions,
possessions,

the view that the property of a

possessions useful

is the totality

his

useful

to

him,

to the

view

that only that

can

be

regarded as a man's

property
could

which

not

he knows how to use, that is to say, how to use well. So heroin possibly be the property of a juvenile delinquent. We are thus
against

brought up

the question as to whether unwise the strictest supervision of the

view of

men

can possess

any

property formula expressing the

with

except under

wise.

There is

a simple

that the political art at its highest transcends law as

such, namely, the thesis

the
economic

Socrates that the

political or royal art

is identical
the

art, that

is to say, the

art

by

means of which

father,
eo

his children, wife, and husband, rates nor Xenophon himself ever speaks of
master rules
nomine.

slaves.
natural

Neither Xenophon's Soc

law,

or natural

right,

But his Socrates

once speaks of unwritten

which are without

law. One

example of un

written

law,

that is to say, of laws

gression

damages the transgressor

against

self-enforcing since their trans any human intervention, is the

children.
refer

prohibition

incest between

parents

and

As little

as

Plato's

Socrates in the Republic does Xenophon's Socrates

in this

crucial context

to the prohibition against incest between brothers and sisters.

Summarizing
analysis given

the analysis of the political given

by

Xenophon's Socrates,

we

may say that there is fundamental agreement between that analysis and the in the Platonic dialogues, especially the Republic and the States man, only Xenophon is much more laconic, reserved, or bashful than Plato. Now we have followed Xenophon's Socrates up to the point where the absolute
rale of the wise appeared

to be the only

wise solution
man

to the political problem.

which

The
use,

wise would assign and

to every unwise

the

thing

he is best fitted to

the

work which

he is best fitted to do. He

would exercise

his

rule

by

174

Interpretation
his wisdom,

virtue of would

i.e.,

of

the recognition of his

wisdom will

by

the

unwise.

He
to

sway the unwise

by

persuasion alone.

But

the

unwise

be

able

recognize the wisdom of the wise?

Is there

no

limit to the

persuasive power of

he thought, illustrates this difficulty by his relation to the city of Athens. Socrates failed to persuade the city of Athens of his goodness. He illustrates it in a more homely way by his relation to his wife
the wise?

Socrates,

who

lived

what

Xanthippe. In Xenophon's Banquet, Socrates is asked by did not educate Xanthippe, but had a wife who, of all the
and

a companion
women

why he

present, past,

future, is probably
become

the most difficult. Socrates replied that just as a man

good at

who wants to spirited

handling

horses

will

leam to handle the be

able

most

horse, for if he

can

handle

such a

horse he

will

horse, in the same way he, Socrates, desiring to live with quired Xanthippe, well knowing that if he could control her, he
along
with all other

handle any human beings ac

to

human beings. The

in

utmost one could

succeeded somehow

living

with

Xanthippe;9

could easily get say is that Socrates he certainly did not succeed in

educating her, angry with his

of

in ruling her by persuasion. When his son Lamprocles was mother because of the abominable things she had said to him out
or

her

wild

temper, Socrates
wise can rule

talked to Lamprocles and silenced him. He did not

even

try

to silence, to say nothing of appease, Xanthippe. If it is then impossi the unwise

ble that the

by

persuasion,

and since

it is equally
very

impossible, considering
the
wise should rale

the

numerical relation of

the wise and the unwise, that

satisfied with a

the unwise

by force,

one

has to be

indirect

rale of the wise.

This indirect

rale of the wise consists

in the

rale of

laws,

on

the making of which the wise have had some influence. In other
unlimited rale of undiluted wisdom must

words, the
wisdom

be

replaced

by

the

rule of

diluted

by

consent.

Yet laws

cannot

be the

mlers

they

must

be applied,

interpreted,

administered,

and executed.

strictly speaking, The best solu

tion of the political problem is then the rale of men who can best complete the

laws,

supplement equity.

the essential

deficiency
the

of

the law. The completion

of

the

laws is

The best

solution of

political problem

is then the

regime

in

which power rests with the

equitable, in

Greek,

the epieikeis, which means in

Greek

at

the same time the better people, and this means for all practical pur

poses the

landed

gentry.

Xenophon has
of

given a sketch of what

he

regarded as

his Education of Cyrus, his political work par excellence. Xenophon claims that he has found the best regime in tacitly Persia, prior to the emergence of Cyrus, the founder of the Persian Empire. The best regime is a greatly improved Sparta. Every free man is a citizen and has
access to all

the best regime in the first book

offices,

with

the exception of

hereditary kingship,
public
a

under the condi

tion that he has successfully attended the

schools,

public schools

in the

American

sense.

The

regime seems then

to be

democracy. But, unfortunately,

and

the poor need their young sons on their small

of the well-to-do are office.

farms,

therefore only the

sons

in

a position

to acquire the right to the

holding

of public

The best

regime

is then

an

aristocracy disguised

as

democracy. The

The Origins of Political Science

principle

175

destroy

animating this best regime comes to sight when Cyras is about to it, or to transform it into an absolute monarchy. Cyras urges the gentle
no

men, the ruling class, to think virtue, but to say,

of above all of

longer merely
principle of

of

decency,

excellence,

or

the things
wealth.

which one can acquire

through virtue, that is

increasing

their

The

the best regime

is

then the

cultivation of

human excellence,

as opposed

to the increase of wealth.

by presenting his utopia in a work of fiction, the Education of Cyrus, he does not believe that the best regime as he understood it ever was actual, and thence that it is likely ever to become actual, in spite of its

As Xenophon indicates

being
or

possible.

Political life

as

it

always

was, and as it always

will

be, is

more

less imperfect. For

all practical purposes political greatness a

is

generous and

effective

leadership

in

tolerably
is that

good republic.

The

greatest example which

Xenophon himself
cessor called

exhibits

of

the Spartan general,

Dercylidas,

the prede

in Asia Minor

of the somewhat pompous

with a view

Dercylidas Sisyphus

martinet, Agesilaus. People to his outstanding resourcefulness. He

was once punished

by

the Spartan authorities for what

they

regarded as

lack

of

discipline,
sibility

and

he

always

other compromise
of the

loved to be away from home. Xenophon indicates solutions which are important given the practical impos
There is
no question

best

regime. of

for him that the life his Socrates has

most

fitting
that

a gentleman

is that

is to say,

one's

administering inherited landed estate. But

emphasis, he

one's wealth rather than after

increasing it,
set

forth this

view with all possible

reports

the divergent practice of an Athe

nian whose son was

that

gentleman55

son

particularly well known as a gentleman. In the opinion of the father was an enthusiastic lover of farming. He could
without

not see a run

down farm
the son,

buying
when

it he

and

this story

by

Socrates asks, "Did

sell
Zeus!"

your

making it flourish. When told father keep all the farms which
money?"

he cultivated, or did he replied, "He sold, by

restraint

them, The

could get much

The

son

compromise

farming
extreme

regarding money, on the one hand, and and trade, is trading in farms. It is not necessary to discuss here the concession to human frailty, which Xenophon considered, namely,

between the gentlemanly selfgreed on the other, or between

beneficent tyranny.
principle of pelled or

Generally
as

speaking,

saying

little

as possible

acting consistently on his literary about the highest, Xenophon was com

by

enabled,

more than

any

other

classic, to

pave

the way for Machia

velli, who,

incidentally, generously
a principle of

acknowledged

this

debt.

Only

what

in

Xenophon had been

thinking.

writing became in Machiavelli

analysis of

a principle of

The
sents

crucial result of

Socrates's

the political, as Xenophon pre

essence of

it, is

that the political

is essentially imperfect, the

the political

being
peak,

the dilution of
of wisdom

wisdom

by

consent

on

the part of the unwise, or the to be beyond the

dilution
or

by

folly. Hence the

claim of the political

to be simply the

highest,

proves

to be
or

unfounded.

Man's true

excel Soc-

lence

or virtue exists

beyond the political,

is transpolitical. Xenophon's

176
rates

Interpretation
is the
representative of man's transpolitical excellence, whereas

his Cyrus

is the Cyrus
polis.

representative of that

life

which

is highest if the

principle characteristic of

the political is adhered to and thought through. The polarity of Socrates and
corresponds

Xenophon has

political and

fundamental tension between philosophy and the presented the tension between the two ways of life, the the transpolitical most clearly in the Oeconomicus, which is his
to the
a conversation

Socratic

speech par excellence.

The Oeconomicus is
obulus,
a

between Socrates
well.

and

Crito's

son

Crit

young

man who

did

not

do too
of

Socrates

encourages

Critobulus

to dedicate himself to the management

the

household,
general.

of which

farming

is

distinguished, if

subordinate,

part.

Socrates

acts as a teacher of the art of

farm

ing

or of

the art of managing the household

when

in

This

contrasts with what

he does
general.

he is

confronted with a appears

young

man eager

to

leam the

art of a

Xenophon's Socrates
to teach
whereas

to possess the art of the general, but

he

he is perfectly willing to teach the peaceful art of declines it, farming. Socrates had acquired his command of the art of farming, not by

farming, but by having had,

gentleman
which

once

in his life,
temple in

an extended conversation with a art

farmer

called

Ischomachus. He had learned that

in

one

sitting,

took place in the

of

cloister of a

Athens,

rather

far away from any

farm. His teaching

man a

the art of

farming
in
what

teaching
as

which

he had

acquired

ing. Yet,
which

has been

indicated,

in transmitting to a young in one sitting, just by listen day, Socrates teaches is not merely the art of
consisted one

farming, but
wife,
an

the whole economic art, or the art of managing the

above

household,
one's
with

includes

art which

everything Socrates had

what

else the art of also

educating
at

and

managing

learned

that single session

Is
of

chomachus.

More than this,

art,

Socrates teaches young Critobulus is the way

life

of

the perfect gentleman, or perfect gentlemanship, a subject which

and which was

com

prises the economic

the primary and comprehensive theme

regarding

which

Socrates

consulted

the gentleman

farmer, Ischomachus,
Socrates did
not

on

the

occasion of

that single session once upon a time.

learn

perfect

gentlemanship
transmits this

by thinking
not a

or

by dialectics,
nor

but merely
man who

by listening, just

as

he

art of

gentlemanship
science,

to a young

merely listens. Perfect

gentlemanship is
opinions

is it based

on a

science, but it is guided

by

alone,

by

things which you understand

effort

fully by

listening. In
of

other

words,

no

intellectual

is

required

morality.

Ordinary

morality

consists

for grasping the principles not in knowing, but in doing,

ordinary

whereas as

regards the

The first
cerns,
as

highest morality, the transpolitical morality, virtue is knowledge. part of the teaching which Socrates transmits to Critobulus con
education and management of one's wife.
which

I said, the

Ischomachus is
know
at

very
time

proud of at which

the way in

he has

educated

his. He

could not

that

he his

gave wife

had
with

educated

Socrates his glowing report about the way in which he that in later years this woman would have a love affair

their son-in-law

Callias,

the son of

Hipponicus, less

than

year after

The Origins of Political Science

Callias had
as married

111

their

daughter,

and

that

as a consequence of

this Callias

had Ischomachus's Pluto

or

Ischomachus's daughter together in his house, just Hades had Demeter and her daughter Persephone together in his
wife and

house. He was, therefore, called Hades in Athens, and Plato's Protagoras is based in its setting on this story, the Protagoras taking place in the house of Callias, and there are quite a few allusions to the fact that we are there in Hades. But this only in passing. Now this is not merely a joke, but indicates
the great problem
of

the

relation

between theory

and

practice,

or

between

knowledge
do is
a

and virtue.
story.

Ischomachus teaches his

confrontation of the

wife

theory. What she will

different

occupied

by

direct

However this may be, the center of the Oeconomicus is life of the perfect gentleman, Is
of

chomachus,

and the

life

Socrates. The two

ways

of

life

are presented as

incompatible. One
one must order to

most obvious
as

difference between the two

puts
one must

ways of

life is that

be

well

off, or,

Aristotle

be

a perfect

gentleman,

whereas

be properly equipped, in it, Socrates was rather poor. Since these

must raise

remarks occur

in

a work on of

economics, one

the question regarding

the economic basis

Socrates's life, Socrates's means of support. The answer conveyed through the work is that Socrates did not have to worry since he had friends. There is this nice passage in which the question comes up that from all
the preceding things it follows that friends
are

money, and the answer given

is,

"By Zeus, they

Yet
while

are."

according to Xenophon
than the political
claims of

and

his Socrates the transpolitical life is

higher in instill

dignity

respect

for the

the

life, they did everything in their power to city, and of political life, and of everything
be the
characteristic recognition of the essential

connected with
of

it. Here

again moderation proves to

Socrates. We have

shown

before that

quality difference

between the

political and

the non-political or, more generally, recognition of

the existence of essential

moderation

differences,

or of noetic

heterogeneity,

appeared as

in

opposition

to the madness of the philosophers preceding Socra

tes. But Socratic moderation means also, and in a sense primarily, the recogni tion of opinions which are not

political

Xenophon says, did not separate is indeed not the highest, but it is first because it is the

tme, but salutary to political life. Socrates, from each other wisdom and moderation. The
most urgent.

It

is

related to

dation,
could

the

philosophy indispensable

as continence
condition.

is

related

to virtue proper, it is the

foun

be

presented as

things. The human or

whole of

why Socrates having limited his study entirely to human or political political things are indeed the clue to all things, to the
we can understand

From here

nature, since

they
a

are the

link

or

bond between the highest

and

the

lowest,
and

or since man

is

microcosm, or since the human or political

which

things,

their

corollaries are

the form in
of

the highest principles first come to

a

sight, or,
error.

since

the false estimate

Philosophy

is primarily

political

ascent

from the obvious, the

most

fundamental and primary because philosophy philosophy is the massive, the most urgent, to what is highest

human things is

178

Interpretation

in dignity.

Philosophy is primarily political philosophy because political philos is required for protecting the inner sanctum of philosophy. ophy This lecture has been a bit longer than I would have wished, and also my
plan

has

gone

wrong for

some other

reasons,
and the

so

will

devote the

next

lecture to

the main thread of Plato's

Republic,

last

one on

Friday

to the subject,

Plato

and

the Poets. I think you have seen

by

now

that this is an absolutely

crucial subject phy.

for Plato, the

not other

relative relation or status of

poetry

and philoso

One

could venture to

say that the alternative to philosophy, to Platonic

philosophy, be it that
and

philosophy, is

any

of

the

pre-Socratics or of

Aristotle,
issue

or

what-not, but poetry,

question of

therefore we

really deal

with

the crucial

by

raising the

how Plato

conceives of

the relation

between

philosophy

and poetry.

(NOVEMBER 5, 1958)
those who approach Plato in order to become enlightened

Among
about

by

him

Socrates, it has become customary to pay the greatest attention to certain dialogues called the early dialogues, and especially to the Apology of Socrates.
The

Apology

of Socrates may be

said

to

be Socrates's

own

account,

given on

the most solemn occasion, of his way of to be increased

given

life;

and

its solemnity may be thought

a public

by

the

fact that that

the

account

is

account,

an account

in

public of

to the
which

public par

excellence, whereas Socrates's own account of

his way
eration,
presses

life

he

gave on

day

of

his death in the Phaedo lacks the

own writing.

solemnity

of

the public, and, in addition,

consideration of

is Plato's
suffers

This

consid ex

or

any

this

kind,

from the defect that it

a plausible thought which cannot we

Plato's thought. For

Apology of Socrates is as The Apology of Socrates

with

lay claim to be in conformity with know the Platonic Socrates only through Plato. The much a Platonic writing as any other Platonic writing.
is
even a

Platonic Platonic

dialogue,
work of

the dialogue of Socrates

not a report.

the people

of

Athens. It is

art, and

We

must pass through

Plato's thought in

order

to understand the thought of the

Platonic Socrates. And Plato has

art and not

presented

in treatises. What

must one understand

his thought exclusively in works of by a work of art? We remind he

painted grapes
man

ourselves of so

the story told in praise of the Greek painter that

peck

perfectly that birds flew to

the work of art
creates

at

them. The

who

told this story

of

characterized and the

by

two

features. It is

an

imitation

something,

imitation if it
of

the delusion that it is the

is

perfect

makes

one

thing imitated. The imitation forget the delusion. The delusion consists in the

disregard
Painted

grapes cannot

something essential, the abstraction from something essential. be eaten, to say nothing of the fact that they are not

three-dimensional. But grapes are not painted for the sake of

straction

birds. The

ab

from something

essential which characterizes

the work of art serves

The Origins of Political Science

the purpose of

179

bringing
In

out

more essential.

works

something more essential, of heightening something like the Platonic dialogues abstraction is made in the

first

place

speaking,

see them.

happening
visible and

We merely hear people talk. We do not, strictly And secondly abstraction is made from chance. Everything in the work is meaningful or necessary. The abstraction from the
visibility.

from

the fortuitous serves the

purpose of

making

us concentrate on

the

audible and

the necessary, on the necessity of the speech, and in the speech.

The

problem of

the Platonic dialogue the meaning

is, in

way, insoluble. There

exists no

Platonic

utterance about

of

the Platonic dialogues.

Still, Plato's

Socrates

gives us a most

of all writings.

important hint, when he speaks of the essential defect A writing, as distinguished from a wise speech, says the same

things to all men. The essential defect of writings is inflexibility. Since

Plato,

in

contradistinction

to

Socrates, did

produce

writings,

one

is

entitled

to assume

that the Platonic dialogues are meant to be writings which are free from the
essential

defect

of writings.

themselves to possess the

They are writings which, if properly read, reveal flexibility of speech, and they are properly read if the
becomes
detail
clear.

necessity
and

of

every

part of them

The Platonic dialogues do say,

men.

they

are

meant

to say, different things to different

great
without

This thought,

which can one

be developed in

too great

difficulty, has only

defect. At any rate, as it was stated it is based on the premise that Plato's Socrates is Plato's spokesman. Yet what entitles us to accept that premise? Socrates is
not always

Plato's
the

spokesman.

He is

not

Plato's
the

spokesman

in the
the

Timaeus,

the

Critias,

Sophist,

the

Statesman,

Parmenides,

and

Laws. What does Plato signify by making Socrates a silent listener to other men's speeches? As long as we do not know this we cannot have clarity regard

ing
tes

Socrates's

alleged spokesmanship.

Certainly
of

Plato

never said

that his Socra

is his

spokesman.

When

speaking

dramas

as

distinguished from

narratives

his Socrates

says

that in a drama the author conceals

himself,

that is

to say, the author does

dialogue is
would

sort of

not say a word in his own name. And the Platonic drama. In the case of Shakespeare, for instance, who

full

of

dare to say that according to Shakespeare life is a tale told by an idiot, sound and fury, signifying nothing? Everyone would say that these are
not of

the words,
can

Shakespeare, but
view

of

Macbeth,
these

and no conclusion whatever

be drawn from the fact that Shakespeare

wrote

these words as to Shake

speare's prove

holding
and

the

expressed

by

words.

Perhaps

one can

even

that Shakespeare did not hold the view the

situation of

by

considering the
uttered

character of

the speaker

the speaker when he

utterances.

them. Perhaps the

poet re

action of the veals

play

refutes

Macbeth's

Perhaps the dramatic

his thought exclusively by the play as speech, that is to say, the speeches of his
are more

a whole,

by

the action, and not

much can we

by
say

characters.

This
and

safely, that the distinction between the deeds

of works

speeches and

deeds,
are

the implication that

trustworthy

than the speeches, is basic for the understanding the clue to the meaning of

like the Platonic dialogues. The deeds

180

Interpretation
which

the speeches. More precisely, perhaps, the unthematic, that

center of attention of

is

not

in the

the

speakers as

speakers, is the

clue

to the thematic, to

that which is in the center of attention of the speakers as

speakers.

No doubt it

is

paradoxical
of

to say that an utterance of the Platonic Socrates

is

no

more of

revealing
thought
us

Plato's thought

than the quoted utterance of Macbeth

us

is

the

of

Shakespeare. Let
as

then retract this

spokesman.

paradoxical suggestion, and

let

take Plato's Socrates

Plato's

But this

will

be

of no

help, for

Plato's Socrates is famous for his irony. To have for his

is

a spokesman who

is famous

irony is tantamount ily dissimulation. It comes

aware of

to

having

no spokesman at all.

Irony

means primar

to mean noble dissimulation. The

superior man who

many,"

his superiority is "ironical in his relations to the says Aris totle. That is to say, he does not let his inferiors feel their inferiority, or his superiority. He conceals his superiority. But if his superiority consists in wis

dom, his

noble dissimulation must consist in concealing his wisdom, that is to in say, presenting himself as less wise than he is, or in not saying what he knows. And given the fact that there is a great variety of types of unwisdom, his irony will consist in speaking differently to different kinds of people. Irony comes ent

to mean to answer general questions

of

differently

when

speaking to differ
raising,
questions.
wonder.

kinds

people,

as well as never

answering, but
of

always

The
Wonder

beginning
means

of

understanding

the

Platonic dialogues

is

here

not

merely

admiration of

beauty, but

also and above all

perplexity,

recognition of

the sphinx-like character of the Platonic dialogues. than the outward appearance which one
one

To begin
must

with we

have

no other clue
with

try

to describe. To begin

the Platonic dialogue is

big

question

mark,

and

nothing

else.

The very

manyness and

logue,

and

hence

sheds

But, fortunately, there are many Platonic dialogues. variety is an articulation of the theme, Platonic dia some light. The student of the Platonic dialogues is in

the position of a zoologist confronted

of animals. with

by

an unknown

species,

or rather

genus,

His first task is to classify in accordance with the most obvious, the visible appearance. I mention three classifications which are evidently In the first
as

necessary.

place

the distinction between Socratic and non-Socratic

dialogues,

the distinction between

and

dialogues in

which

Socrates

conducts the
conducts

conversation,
conversation.

dialogues in
the

which someone other

than Socrates

the

Secondly,

distinction between

performed and narrated

dia

logues,

the performed

dialogues
no

looking
a

like dramas. In the

case of the per

formed dialogues there is

the reader.
account reader.
of

bridge between the dialogues

characters of the

dialogue
gives

and
an

In the

narrated

participant

in the dialogue

the conversation to a non-participant, and hence also to us, the

In

a narrated

tell us the reason why he said what

observations

dialogue the narrator, who may be Socrates himself, can he said to a participant, as well as his
the participants which

regarding

he

could not with

propriety

make

to the participants. For

we could not

instance,

if the Republic

were not a narrated

dialogue,

know that

at a given moment

Thrasymachus

was red

in his face

The Origins of Political Science

not

-181

because he

was

ashamed, but because he

can make us

was

hot from the day. In

a nar

rated

dialogue Socrates

into

people who are

in the know together

with

him,

or even

his

accomplices.

untary

and

compulsory

Thirdly, there is a distinction between vol dialogues, voluntary dialogues being dialogues which
are

Socrates spontaneously seeks, while compulsory dialogues Socrates cannot with propriety avoid.
If
this
we

dialogues

which

look

at

Plato's

Apology

dialogue between Socrates

nor

and

of Socrates from this point of view we see that the Athenian people, or his accusers, is a

performed and

conversation,
observations

compulsory dialogue. Socrates did not spontaneously seek this does he tell us the reason why he says what he said, or his

to the
order

participants'

regarding the participants, which he could not with propriety make face. We would have to turn to the Gorgias, for instance, in
an answer

to find

to the question regarding this

background
that in his

of

the Apol

ogy of Socrates,
accused

where we

find that Socrates

not give them
with

explains

position as an

he

was

in the

position of a physician accused

by

the cook before a

tribunal

of children that

he did

the nice candies which

of

they

would

like to have, which he could not Apology of Socrates. Accordingly

propriety say

the Athenians in the

we note

that the way in which the Platonic

Socrates

the Athenian

compulsory conversation with differs from the way in which the Platonic assembled, Socrates is presented by Plato in the dialogues as a whole. The Apology of
people makes us expect

presents

himself in his

performed and

Socrates
tions
in56

to find
with

Socrates

presented as engaged

in

conversa

anybody Platonic Socrates in deed, as distinguished from his compulsory self-presenta tion in public, is extremely selective. He talks with youths who are promising,
sophists, rhetoricians, rhapsodes, or soothsayers, extremely rarely
generals or and still more
with

the market-place

who

just happened to be there. But the

with retired

politicians, rarely ordinary citizens as such. He is famous, or ridiculed, for using the examples of shoemakers and other crafts men, but in contradistinction to Xenophon's Socrates, the Platonic Socrates
never

has

discussion

with a craftsman.

He

always speaks about

we

shoemakers,

but

never with shoemakers.

On the is

other

hand

find him

never engaged

in

conversation with a man who

when

Timaeus

explains

clearly his inferior. He is silently present the cosmos, and he silently observes the Eleatic
not

Stranger training Theaetetus we find Socrates engaged in

or the
a

young Socrates. It is tme, in the Parmenides conversation with Parmenides, but there Parmen

ides is clearly the superior, Socrates still being very young. To summarize, the Platonic Socrates, outside of the Platonic Socrates's self-presentation in his sole
public one

speech,

converses

only
to

with people who are not common

people,

who

in

way

or other

belong

an

elite, although

never

to the elite in the highest

refutes

sense,
tes's

with

inbetween

people.

The Platonic dialogue

the Platonic Socra

public self-presentation. observation

This

induces

us

to pay the greatest attention, to begin with, to

narrated

the Republic. The Republic is the only dialogue

by

Socrates

which

is

182

Interpretation
Socrates is compelled, not indeed by the Athenian demos, but by young companion, to stay in the Piraeus, and this compulsory stay sup the occasion for an extensive conversation on justice, in the course of Socrates founds

compulsory.
some plies

a perfectly just city, not in deed, but in speech. Before Platonic dialogue, one must consider the fact that there are considering any Platonic dialogues, or that Plato's work consists of many dialogues be many which

cause

imitation is
chapter
of

it imitates the manyness, the variety, the heterogeneity of being. The not a simple reproduction. The individual Platonic dialogue is not a

from the Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences or from a system philosophy, nor is it the product of an occasion, or the relic of a stage of
characterized

Plato's development. The individual dialogue is

matter than

less

by its

subject

by

the

manner

in

which

it treats the

subject matter.

Each^dialogue hence in
while
a

treats its
specific

subject

matter

by

means of a

specific

abstraction,
with

and

distortion. For

instance,

the Euthyphro deals

piety

being

silent about

the soul, or in abstraction from the phenomenon of the soul.

To

understand a

dialogue means, therefore, to

recognize

the principle guid

question.

ing

the

specific abstraction which characterizes

the

dialogue in

This
char

principle

is

revealed

acters,

action.

primarily by The discussion taking

the setting of the

place

dialogue, time,

place,

with a view which chosen

to the character, not of

dialogue is necessary primarily the subject matter, but of the setting in in

a

the dialogue takes place. It is reasonable to expect that the setting was

by

Plato

as most appropriate with a view

to the subject matter, but

matter comes

on

the other hand what Plato thought about the subject

to

our sight

first

through the medium of the setting. takes place

conversation
Athens'

As for the setting of the Republic, the in the Piraeus, the harbor of Athens, the seat of
power, in the house
of a

naval and commercial

day

in

which a new and strange religious procession

wealthy metic, on a took place for the first

bespeak

time.

The

surroundings

are

then at the opposite pole of old and patrician

spirit of the ancestral.

Athens,
what

which

lives in the
of

The

surroundings

in the light

the tradition

would appear as political

decay. Yet Piraeus

had

also another connotation.

tioned

by

name.

in the Republic ten companions, men Ten in the Piraeus. This is a reminder of the rale of the Thirty
are

There

Tyrants, during
thus
reminded of

which

there were ten men in control of the Piraeus. We are

of the attempt, with which Plato was himself somehow con putting down the democracy and restoring an oligarchic or aristo cratic regime. Yet the characters of the Republic have nothing in common with the oligarchic reaction. The family of Cephalus, in whose house the conversa

nected,

tion takes place, as

as the chief and

well as

Niceratus,

were victims of

the

Thirty

Tyrants. Just

interlocutors in Plato's dialogue

on courage are

the chief

interlocutors in his dialogue

the
made

on moderation

defeated generals, are future tyrants, at

are

any

rate some of

individuals in his dialogue

in the
name of not

on

justice

innocent

victims

of a rebellion performs

justice. The

restoration which

Socrates

in the Republic is then

likely

to be a political restoration, it rather

The Origins of Political Science

will

183

be

a restoration on a

different

plane. and

The

spirit of this

Socratic

restoration

is indicated

by

the fact that Socrates

the other participants, from uptown

Athens,
race
race or

are

kept in the Piraeus

of a goddess.

by

the promise of a

dinner,

as well as of a

torch

in honor

But

we

the dinner. Torch race and

hear nothing further dinner are replaced

about either

the torch

justice. The

feeding

of

the

body

is

replaced

by

the

by a conversation on feeding of the soul. The very

a

extended conversation on

justice

constitutes

in itself

training in
or

self-control

regarding the pleasures and even the needs of the

of asceticism. much

body,

it
of

constitutes an act

When Thomas More

wrote,57

in the imitation

the

Republic, his

less

ascetic

Utopia, he

arranged

that the description of his perfect com

monwealth

be

given after

luncheon.

The

antagonist of
clear of

As becomes
and a

Socrates in the Republic is Thrasymachus, the rhetorician. from a brief exchange between a follower of Thrasymachus
which

follower

Socrates, by

the

discussion between Thrasymachus

and

Socrates is interrupted, Thrasymachus starts from the quite unparadoxical view that the just is identical with the legal. Since what is legal or not depends in
each case on the

decision

of

the lawgiver or the government, the just is then

which

identical
behaves
and

with

the will of the stronger. The manner in

Thrasymachus
answers,

he demands
as

he forbids to say certain things, or forbids to a fine from Socrates for payment, for
Plato himself
on vouches

give certain
which

Plato's brother

vouches, just

for

a payment of another

kind demanded
which

from Socrates
symachus

the

day

of
us

his
of

accusation

the

manner

in

Thra

behaves

reminds

the behavior of the city of Athens towards that the just is the

Socrates. The thesis

the actual polis,

of

Thrasymachus,
does He
plays

legal, is

the thesis of
a sense
polis

which

not permit an appeal

beyond its laws. In

able

Thrasymachus is the because he

and

polis.

the

polis.

He is

to play the

possesses the art of rhetoric. Socrates succeeds easily in crashing in silencing Thrasymachus, but Thrasymachus continues to play a role in he58 has been silenced. At the beginning of the fifth book the Republic after

there

occurs a scene which reminds us of

the scene

with which

the Republic
an or

opens. of

In both
action

scenes we

have

the

of the city. not

deliberation ending in a decision, But whereas in the first deliberation,

a

imitation

decision,

Thrasymachus does

take part, he does take part in the

second.

By

the

beginning
The into the

of the

fifth book Thrasymachus has become

the city in
speech

a member of of

the city.

restoration of city.

includes the integration

on

Thrasymachus
the

The

restoration of

justice

the

new plane requires

help

of

Thrasymachus's art, the art of rhetoric. In Aristophanes 's Clouds, we may recall, Socrates had been
the
revelation of was

responsible

for

the weakness of the Just Speech. The Just Speech was weak
on mythology, on

because it
gods.

based principally
show

the

stories

told about the

The gods, the

alleged guardians of

Socrates is to

the

strength of

the Just
must

justice, were manifestly unjust. If Speech, and this is naturally his

justice from

primary function in the Republic, he

therefore wholly divorce

184

Interpretation
all ancient

mythology, from

hearsay

or

tradition. The Platonic Socrates shows,

shows

then, in deed the

strength of unheard

the Just

Speech, but he

the

strength of an

entirely new, novel,

consists

of, Just Speech. The Platonic Socrates transcends

notion of

the generally accepted and impure

justice, according

to which

justice

in giving to everyone what is his due, for what is a man's due is determined by custom, law, positive law, and there is no necessity that the
positive

law itself be just. What the

positive

law declares to be just is

as such

just merely by virtue of positing, of convention, therefore one must seek for what is just intrinsically, by nature. We must seek a social order which as such is intrinsically just, the polis which is in accordance with nature. Of such a city
there is
no example.

It is wholly

novel.

It

must

be founded in

order

to be. In

the Republic it is founded in

speech.

Yet

what guidance

do

we possess after we

have been

compelled to question

the view that justice consists in giving everyone his due?

accepted

According

to the

view, justice is not merely the habit of giving everyone what generally is due to him, it is also meant to be beneficial. We shall then say that justice is the habit of giving to everyone what is good for him. According to Aristotle the

first impression he is

received

from the Republic is the is the habit

philanthropic character of

the scheme presented therein. If justice

good

of

for him, justice is the preserve of the wise. what is truly good for the body of a man, only the physician of the soul, knows what is truly good for the whole
alone

giving to everyone what For just as the physician

wise man.

knows

man, the

Further

more,

as

the habit

selfless.
whole.

It is

selfless a

Since in

giving to everyone what is good for him, justice is utterly devotion to others, pure serving others, or serving the just city everyone is supposed to be just in the sense that he
of

be dedicated to the

service of
own.

others,

no one will

think of

himself,

of

his

own

happiness,
women,

of

his

Total communism,

communism

regarding property,

and

children, is merely the institutional

with

expression of

justice. But is its

mem

the well-being of the whole not identical

the well-being

of all

bers? In
The is

other

answer

words, why is everyone to dedicate himself entirely to the polisl is this. The good city is the necessary and sufficient condition for

the highest
a

according to his capacity. The just city city in which being a good citizen is simply the same as being a good man. Everyone is to dedicate himself, not to the pursuit which is most pleasant or
excellence or virtue of each

attractive to

him, but
some

to that which makes him as good a man as possible. Yet

justice implies city in

which

reciprocity of giving and taking. The just city is then the everyone does that which he is by nature fitted to do, and in
that which is
a

which everyone receives

by

nature

good,

not attractive or pleas

ant, for him. The just city is

noble, nothing even is sacred

perfectly

rational society.

Nothing

is fair

or

or

holy,

except what

is

useful

for that city, that is

to say, in the last resort, for the greatest possible perfection or virtue of each member. To mention only the most shocking and the
and

the sacred prohibitions against incest

striking example, family between brothers and sisters must

The Origins of Political Science

give

185
every

way to the demands

obedience on

of eugenics.

The

whole scheme presupposes on

point the absolute rale of

the

wise or of

the philosophers. But

how

are

the wise

to

find
the

the part of the

unwise?

You

see this

is the be

same problem

which we

found in Xenophon. The loyal

obedience would not

wise need can

out

use of

force. Therefore the few

auxiliaries.

the support of a

number of

But how

the

wise

auxiliaries, sion, and

who as such are not wise?

The

wise rale

forthcoming with fairly large secure the loyalty of the the auxiliaries by persua

by hampered by
rational out a

persuasion alone.

For in the

the laws. Persuasion

is

not

city the auxiliaries will not be demonstration. The unwise, and espe
good

cially the auxiliaries, are persuaded fundamental

untruth.

by

means of a noble and

deception. Even the

not possible with

society, the society according to truth

nature, is

That fundamental
replacement of

untruth consists of two parts.

Its first

part consists

in the

the earth as the common mother of all men, and therewith of the

fraternity
tory,
or

of all

men,

by
of

a part of

the earth, the

land,

the

fatherland,
part of

the terri

the

fraternity

only the fellow

citizens.

The first

the funda

mental untruth consists

then in assigning the

natural status of

the human species

to a part of the human species, the citizens of a given city. The second part of the fundamental untruth consists in ascribing divine origin to the existing social
hierarchy59

hierarchy,
not

or more

with the natural

generally stated, in identifying the existing social hierarchy; that is to say, even the polis according to
most rational of

nature

is

simply natural, or even the Hence the crucial importance for it

recurs

society is is

not

simply
how

rational.

the art of persuasion. This

raised as to

difficulty
one can would

in

an even sharper

form

when

the question
polis.

transform an actual polis

into the best

This transformation
that is to say,

be

wholly impossible if the

citizens of an actual polis,

men who

have
the

not undergone

the specific
w

education prescribed

in the Republic for the

the

citizens of

the best city

this transformation would be wholly impossible if

citizens of an actual polis could not

be

persuaded would

to bow to the

rale of

philosophers.

The

problem of

the best city to

be

altogether

insoluble if the
It is in the
.

multitude context of
. .

were not amenable

persuasion

by

the

philosophers.

the
.

assertion that
. .

the

multitude

is

persuadable

by

the philosophers,

(unclear)

that Socrates declares that he and Thrasymachus just have

must be integrated into the best city because the best city is not possible without the art of Thrasymachus. To the best of my knowledge the only student of the Republic who has understood this crucial fact was Farabi, an Islamic philosopher who flourished around 900 and who was the

become friends. Thrasymachus

founder
which

of medieval
appropriate

Aristotelianism.

According
which

to Farabi the way of

Socrates,
be
philoso

is

only for the

of

philosopher's62

dealing
is

with

the elite, must

combined with
pher's62

the way
with

Thrasymachus,

appropriate

for the

dealing
one

the

multitude.

The first

reason

why the

noble

delusion is society human be-

required

is the tension between the

hand
universal

impossibility

of a universal political all

on

the

is

meant

here literally, embracing

186
ings
other.

Interpretation
and the essential

defect

of

the particular

or closed political

society
natural

on

the

society nity of all men. Political society in one way or another draws an arbitrary line between man and man. Political society is essentially exclusive or harsh. The discussion of justice in the first book of the Republic may be said to culminate in the
suggestion that of

The

particular or closed political

conflicts with

the

frater

the just

man

this line
cence.

thought we arrive at
whole

do any harm to anyone. Pursuing the conclusion that justice is universal benefi
not

does

But this

line

of

thought is

in Socrates's strong speech are compared to dogs who

on

behalf

of

dropped silently, yet not unnoticeably, justice. The guardians of the just city
acquaintances,
makes or

are gentle to their

friends,

and

harsh to enemies,
same view which

or strangers.

In this way Plato

his Socrates

express the

Xenophon

expresses
gentlemen

tes, into

was as good at obedience.

guiding Both the Xenophontic

limitation63

by indicating by praise as
and

that

he,

the pupil of

Socra base

he

was at

beating
and

the

the Platonic Socrates have under

stood the essential

of reason and of speech

generally,

therewith

the nature of

political

things.

bringing64

As I have indicated, the action of the Republic consists in Socrates's first into the open his latent conflict with Thrasymachus, then in his si
and

in reconciling Thrasymachus by assigning to him an important, if subordinate, place in the best city. To express it somewhat differently, the action of the Republic turns around the strength and the weak

lencing Thrasymachus,

finally

ness of rhetoric.

We

noticed

that in the course of the conversation the expecta

tion

from

rhetoric who

the people

in its

ways will

is greatly increased. To begin with it is only expected that have already grown up in the best city and have been educated believe in the noble lie. Later on it is expected that the people
can

of an actual

city
on

be

persuaded of

the need to submit to the rule of philoso

phers.

Only

will not cease

philosophers

the basis of this expectation does it make sense to say that evils from the city if the philosophers do not become kings. That the can become kings depends on their ability to persuade the multi

tude of their ability to

which

be kings. But

at

the

end of

this part of the

Republic,
reformu

is its

central

part, the condition

will

of political

bliss is

drastically

lated. Political bliss

when older than of

follow,

not

if the

philosophers

become kings, but

rusticated everyone whatever

the philosophers have become kings and if

they have

ten,

and
on

if they be

bring

up the

children without

any influence

the parents

the children.

Socrates does

not even

try

to show that the

with

multitude can ever

persuaded to submit to the rale of

the philosophers

the understanding that the philosophers will expel the multitude

and

from

keep

only the

children

in the

city.

The majority
regard as

of men cannot

city be brought

the

by

persuasion alone

to undergo what

they

rest of

their days so that all

future

generations will

the greatest misery for the be blessed. There are abso

lute limits to persuasion, and therefore the best city as sketched in the Republic is not possible. The best city would be possible if a complete clean could

sweep

be made,

yet

there is always

a powerful

heritage

which cannot

be

swept

away

The Origins of Political Science

and whose power can

187

only be broken by sustained effort of every individual by himself. The best city would be possible if all men could become philosophers,
that is to say, if

human nature were miraculously transformed. Now the best city was founded in speech in order to prove the strength of the Just Speech. Hence it would seem to follow that not only the traditional just
speech,65

but the

novel

just

speech65

as well

is weak,

or

that

Aristophanes

was

right.

The Platonic Socrates

of

the justice

the city

and vice versa.

doing
In
which of

one's

job

by conceiving of being strictly parallel to the justice of the individual, Accordingly he defines justice as doing one's job, or rather as well. A being is just if all its significant parts do their job well.
provides against
as not necessary that a man should do well the job have to fulfill in the perfectly just city. It suffices if the parts

this conclusion

order

to be

truly just it is

he

would

his

powers who

do their jobs well, if his reason is in control and his sub-rational obey his reason. But this is strictly possible only in the case of a man has cultivated his reason properly, that it is to say, of the philosopher.
soul and
which

Hence the philosopher,

of will not

the quality of the city in

only the philosopher, can be simply just, regardless he lives, and vice versa, the non-philosopher

Socrates
which

be simply just regardless of the quality of the city in which he lives. speaks less of doing one's job well than simply of doing one's job,
a common or to

has

busy-body, life, the retired life

manifest written
said secret small of

lead

a retired

meaning of minding one's own business, not to be a life. To lead the just life means to lead a retired
excellence, the life
of of

par

the philosopher. This is the the individual is said to

the Republic. The

justice

be

in

to consist

letters, but the justice of the city is in large letters. Justice is in minding one's business, that is to say, in not serving others.
other cities.

Obviously

the best city does not serve

and

It is

self-sufficient.

Justice is has

self-sufficiency,

hence

philosophy.

Justice thus

understood

is

possible re

gardless of whether

the best city

is

possible or not.

Justice thus

understood

the further advantage that the question as to

own sake cannot arise.

whether

Whereas justice in the

vulgar

it is choiceworthy for its sense can well be a bur

den,

the philosopher's minding his own

business,

that is to say,
somewhat

his

philoso

phizing, is

intrinsically

pleasant.
whole

To

exaggerate

for the

sake

of

clarity, in the best city the

the philosophers are

is happy, and burdened with the duties of

individual is happy, since administration. Outside of the

no

point we may begin to distinction between compulsory and voluntary dialogues means, and why the Republic is the only dialogue narrated by Socrates which is compulsory. But all this does not mean more than that the individual is capable

city the

philosophers as philosophers are

happy. At this

understand what the

of a perfection of which the

city is

not capable.
which

Political life derives its

life. This
ent ways.

essential

dignity from something limitation of the political can be

or

transcends political

understood

in three differ

According

to Socrates the transpolitical to which the political owes

its

dignity

is philosophy,

theoria, which, however, is

accessible

only to

what

188
he

Interpretation
natures, to human beings
to the
who possess a certain natural

calls good

equip but

ment.

According
faith,

teaching
not

of revelation

the transpolitical is

accessible

through
on

which

does

depend
election.

on specific natural presuppositions,

divine

grace or

God's free

According

to liberalism the transpoliti

cal consists other

in something which every human being possesses as well as any human being. The classic expression of liberal thought is the view that

political

society

exists above all

for the

sake of

rights
as of

which every human being possesses his achievements, to say nothing of divine

protecting the rights of man, the regardless of his natural gifts as well
grace.

To

return

to the argu

ment of

the

Republic, by

realizing the essential

limitations

of

the political, one

is indeed liberated from the

charms of what we now would call political

ideal

ism, or what in the language of Socrates might have to be called the charm of the idols, the imaginative presentation of justice, with the understanding, how
ever, that it is better
not

to be bom than never to have

felt that

charm.

(But the

liberation from that

ical

charm will not weaken

but

strengthen stands

the concern for polit

or

life,

or political responsibility.

Philosophy
work, the
present of

falls is

by

the city.)
political possible

Hence Plato devoted his

work of

most extensive

Laws,

which

the66

Plato,

to politics. And the Laws

the

best city

which

is

for beings

who are not gods nor sons not of

gods,

whereas

the Republic

is his

presentation,

the

best city, but, in the

guise of such a

presentation, his

exposition of the ratio rerum civilium, of the essential character of political

things,
of

as

tonic character who

Cicero has wisely said. This being so it is remarkable that the Pla is the chief interlocutor in the Laws is not Socrates. In light

cal

everything that has been said before, this fact forces us to raise the paradoxi question, is then not Aristophanes 's presentation of Socrates in a decisive

respect confirmed

by

Plato? This

doxes. The Platonic Socrates, as tes, is characterized by phronesis, blind to

acts
political

any para distinguished from the Aristophanean Socra

question can

be

answered without

by

practical wisdom.

He is

so

far from
and

being

things that he has

realized

their

essential

character,

that he

consistently in

accordance with

this realization. things to be below that perfection of

It

is, then,

of

the

essence of political capable.

which the
which

individual is

If the

perfection of

the city never reaches,

what

is the

flooring
when

individual is the ceiling beneath which the city cannot

the

fall

without

becoming

inhuman

or

degraded? The Platonic Socrates begins his he describes the first city, that
pigs, but which Socrates calls the true city, This is a city which does nothing but satisfy

discussion city
which

of

these minimum requirements

calls

Glaucon

the city

of

the city which is nothing but city. the primary wants, the wants of the
which

body, food,

clothing,

and

shelter,

and

in

emerged.

nothing It is

good or evil a state of

that goes beyond these

elementary things has

yet

lost,
or

a state of

innocence, which, because it is innocent, is so easily dormancy, a state characterized, not by virtue, but by simplicity
and

good-naturedness,
the human

by
is

the absence of the need

for

government.

In the

moment

faculty

developed,

the need for government arises,

for,

to

The Origins of Political Science

1 89

the

say the least, there is no necessity whatever that the faculties should develop in right direction. The need for government is identical with the need for
restraint and the need of

for

virtue.

Virtue thus beneath

understood

is

required

for the

sake

living together,

the

flooring

which

the city cannot fall without be

of

coming degraded. It is
popular or political

serious concern

for this kind it

virtue,

called

by

Plato
or

virtue.67

We may

call

utilitarian virtue.

Its rationale,

root, is the need

of

the city.

Yet there is
virtue.

another root of virtue and

hence

another

kind

of

virtue,

genuine

The Socratic formula for it

genuine virtue

is,

virtue

is knowledge. This is

another manifest secret of the

Platonic in the
the

as well as of

the Xenophontic Socrates.

The formula
edge or course
virtue and

means what

says.

Virtue in the

strict sense

understanding,
or

and vice

strict sense

is nothing but knowl is nothing but ignorance, of

of

knowledge
in the

ignorance
both

of

akra

physeos,

the peaks of

being. This

strict sense

presupposes and produces

courage, moderation,

justice,
moral

the other virtues. If we may use the Aristotelian

term,
The

virtue,

we can state

the

view of

term, not Platonic the Platonic Socrates as follows.

ends

moral virtues

have two different

roots.

The

for the

sake of which

they

exist are the

city

on

the one hand and the life of the

mind on

the other. To the

extent to which the moral virtues are rooted

are

only in the

needs of

only
such

popular or political virtues and

they

are acquired

only

by

society they habituation.

As

they have

no solidity.

his former life

as a good citizen chooses

by

philosophy

a well-ordered city in in virtue participating by habituation and not the greatest tyranny for his next life, as Plato states
man who

has lived in

towards the

end of

the Republic. Popular or political virtue is acquired

by

habituation in
which

accordance with a

reasoning

or

calculation, the starting

point of

for society or the needs of the body, whereas the is inclined to virtue and does not need a calculation for that. In
is the
need

philosopher
our

century

Bergson has
the other
root

spoken of

the two roots of morality, one of them

being

the city,

being

the open or universal society. What Bergson said about the first
agreement with

is in fundamental

the Socratic teaching. All the

more strik

ing is the disagreement regarding the second root. The place occupied in Socra tes's thought by philosophy is occupied in Bergson's thought by the open and
universal

society inspired by a kind of mysticism. Yet if morality has two radically different roots, how
can

can

there be a unity of

morality, how

there be a unity of man, and how is it possible that the moral

on

requirements of of

society

the one hand and the moral requirements of the life

the mind

extent? which which

whole

on the other agree completely, or at any rate to a considerable The unity of man consists in the fact that he is that part of the whole is open to the whole, or in Platonic language, that part of the whole has seen the ideas of all things. Man's concern with his openness to the

is the life

of

the

mind.

The dualism

of

being

part,

and
man.

being
both

open

to

the whole, and therefore in a society,

and

sense

being

the whole

itself, is

Furthermore,
wholes68

the whole simply, have this

in common, that they

are

190

Interpretation
the

transcending

individual,

inducing69

the individual to rise

above and

above and

beyond
such

himself. All nobility

consists

in

such

rising

beyond oneself, in

dedicating

oneself to

something

greater than oneself.

that the question of the unity

of man

We shall tentatively say is discussed in the Republic in the form of

the question of the unity of the human soul. This implies the Republic abstracts

from the body.

tion tion

Every dialogue,
of

I suggest, is
to the

characterized

by

a specific abstrac abstrac

from something
characteristic

most relevant

subject matter

discussed. The

the Republic

is the

abstraction

from the body. The

characteristic political proposal of the

Republic is

complete communism. and man cannot

But

the

body

constitutes the absolute

share

limit to communism,

speaking
observed
where

his

body

with

thoughts and

desires

with others.

anybody else, whereas he can well The same abstraction from the body

strictly share his

can

be

in the discussion

of

the equality of men and women in the

Republic,
and

the difference between men and women is treated as if it had the same

status and significance as the

men who are not of

difference between
same

men who are

revealed

baldheaded

baldheaded. The

intention is

by

the provisions
children and

the Republic regarding

children.

The blood

relation

between

parents, this

bodily

relation, is

to be rendered

the argument of the Republic as a whole

invisible. Also, and above all, is based on the parallelism of man, the
man and

individual,
replaced

and

the polis, but this parallelism between

parallelism

the

polis

is

soon

by

the

between the individual's

soul and

the

polis.

The

body
more,

provide

is silently dropped. With the same connection belongs Plato's failure to for the dinner promised at the beginning of the conversation. Further
we understand

from here the fact that Socrates

almost

forgets to

mention

among the studies to be pursued

etry, geometry
of

by

future
not

philosophers

the

field
the

of solid geom

bodies. Last but

least,

we mentioned

exaggeration of

the rhetorical power of the philosophers, which is only the reverse side of the
abstraction phers.

from the

bodily

power of the philosophers to

force the

non-philoso

At any rate, the question of the unity of man is discussed in the Republic in the form of the question of the unity of the soul. The question arises because
of

the

evident

reason on

necessity to admit the essential difference between intelligence or the one hand and the sub-rational powers of the soul on the other.
the unity of man thus

The

question of

becomes the
soul.

question of

the bond be

tween the highest and the

lowest in the human

In the Republic Plato

spiritedness, est,
or and

suggests a partition of

the soul into three parts, reason,

desire. Of the two

sub-rational parts spiritedness

obedient

is the high

noblest, because it is essentially

to reason, whereas desire

revolts against reason.

a

To use the terms employed by Aristotle in his Politics in kindred context, reason rales spiritedness politically or royally, by persua sion, whereas it rules desire despotically, by mere command. It appears, then,
that spiritedness is the bond between the
which gives man unity.

highest

and

the

lowest in man,

or

that

We

shall venture

to say that the

characteristically hu
is translated broader meaning,

man, the

human-all-too-human, is
or

spiritedness.

The

word which a much

by

spiritedness, thymos

thymoeides, has originally

The Origins of Political Science

and this

191

meaning occurs also in the Platonic dialogues. We may say that spir itedness is a Greek equivalent of the biblical Especially in the Republic
"heart."

Plato

prefers of

the narrow meaning

by

desire,
as

course, belongs

as much to thymos

opposing spiritedness and desire, whereas in the original sense, to the heart,

Plato's preference, especially in the Repub from the fact that desire includes eros, erotic desire in the highest and lowest sense. Spiritedness in the sense of the Republic is radically distin is70 guished from eros. It anerotic or anti-erotic.
spiritedness.
understand

does

To

lic,

we start

By
eros.

assigning to
second

spiritedness a

higher

status

than to desire Plato depreciates

This depreciation

appears most
needs

in the he in the

book the
and

clearly in two facts. When Plato indicates for the satisfaction of which men live in society,
silent about procreation.

mentions

food

drink but is

When he describes

absolutely under the sway of incarnate. The is injustice as eros eros, tyrant, however, incarnate, or the incar nation of that which is destructive of the city. Spiritedness, we should then say,
ninth
presents

book the tyrant he

him

as

as opposed

to eros, is meant to be the political

presents

passion.

It is for this

reason

that

Xenophon

unerotic man.

his Cyrus, the most successful of all rulers, as a thoroughly Yet how can this be understood? Unerotic spiritedness, the polit itself
as a

ical passion, glory. But is

shows
the71

desire for victory, superiority, rule,

also,
and even

honor,

and

political passion not

primarily,

attachment

to

the polis, to the

or

fatherland,

and

hence love? Is

not the model of

the guardian,

the citizen, the

dog
The

who

loves his

acquaintances or citizen must

this model shows that the guardian or

citizen or stranger.
attachment.

friends? But precisely also be harsh on the non-

political

passion,

The harsh,

exclusive

element

This harshness is
another without

not essential

to

eros

then, cannot be understood merely as is equally essential to patriotism. because two human beings can love one
This harshness is
not essential

but is
shows

supplied

being by spiritedness.

harsh to

others.

to eros,

There

remains a greater

difficulty. Spiritedness

itself

not also a

desire for victory, superiority, rule, honor and glory. Is it then kind of desire? With what right can it be distinguished from desire,
as

or even opposed

to it? The

answer

is implied in the traditional distinction be

a

tween the
of

concupiscible and

the

irascible,

distinction

which

is the

outgrowth

the Platonic distinction between desire

not

and spiritedness.

But the Platonic

distinction is
two-fold
of

identical

with

the traditional distinction. I have spoken of the

of

root of

morality, the needs the

needs of of

society,

the

body,

and

the

mind.

which are ultimately the needs To these two kinds of needs there

desires. Desire is directed toward its good, the good but spiritedness, of which anger is the most obvious form, is directed simply, towards a goal as difficult to obtain. Spiritedness arises out of the desire proper
correspond

two kinds

being
to the

resisted or thwarted.
satisfaction eros

of

for overcoming the resistance the desire. Hence spiritedness is a desire for victory.
Spiritedness is
needed

is primarily the desire to generate human beings, spiritedness is Whereas the derivative willingness to kill and to be killed, to destroy human beings. spiritedness is in the service of secondary in comparison with desire,

Being

192

Interpretation

desire. It is essentially obedient while looking more masterful than anything else. But as such it does not know what it should obey, the higher or the lower. It bows to it knows
ence.72

Yet

qua

desires, which the look-out, or

self.

It divines something higher, it is aidos, rever deferential it is of higher dignity than the bodily essentially lack that deference. The spirited man is, as it were, always on
not what.
on

the search, for something for

which

he

can sacrifice

him He is

He is

prepared to sacrifice

himself

and

as anxious

for

honoring

as

he is for

being
is

everything honored. While

else

for

anything.

being
and

most passion

ately
most

concerned with
self-

self-assertion, he is
spiritedness

at the same

time

in the

same act

forgetting. Since

undetermined as

to the

the goods of the

body
. .

or
.

the good of the mind, it is in a way

primary end, independent of

word

them,

or oblivious

(tape
not

being

changed)

thymos, the I in

for As

spiritedness, thymos does

have this

outward pointedness which

which mention

desire has.

But this is purely

of

etymological
neutral

speculation,

passing.

such, spiritedness is

to the difference between the two kinds

of objects

desire,

the goods of the

body,

and

the good of the mind. It is therefore

radically ambiguous, and therefore it can be the root of the most radical confu sion. Spiritedness thus understood is that which makes human beings interest

ing. It is therefore the theme

his theme in the Iliad is the
return of

of tragedy.

Homer is the father

and

of

tragedy because
the
thwarted1*

wrath of

Achilles,
together,

in the

Odyssey

Odysseus. Spiritedness is the

region of

ambiguity,

a region

in

which

the lower and the higher are bound

where

the lower is transfigured

of a clear

into the higher,

and vice

versa,

without a

possibility

distinction be

tween the two. It is the locus of morality in the ordinary sense of the term.

Philosophy
book
ness. of the

is

not spirited.

When

joining issue

with

the atheists in the tenth

Laws,

the philosopher addresses them explicitly without spirited

must

Spiritedness

be

subservient

to philosophy, whereas

desire,

eros, in
agree

its highest form is

ment

philosophy.

Here

we

touch on the point of the deepest

between Plato

and

becomes in the

case of

Aristophanes. As desire for superiority, spiritedness sensible men the desire for recognition by free men. It is
to political

therefore essentially

related

liberty, hence

to

law,

and

hence to

justice. Similarly, as essentially deferential, it is a sense of shame, which as such bows primarily to the ancestral, the primary manifestation of the good.
it is essentially related to justice. Spiritedness in its normal for justice, or moral indignation. This is the reason why spirited ness is presented as the bond through which man is one, in Plato's dialogue on justice, the Republic. And the action of the Republic can be said to consist in
reasons

For both

form is

a zeal

first arousing spiritedness or the virtue belonging dedicated to non-understood justice, that is, what

to

it,

that is to say, zeal

idealism,
tiveness

and

then in purging it.

the fundamental ambiguity

or punitiveness.

mean by political By understanding spiritedness we understand of moral indignation, which easily turns into
vindic-

we now

The ambiguity

of spiritedness

is

not

exhausted, how

ever,

by

the

ambiguity

of moral

indignation.75

It

shows

itself

most

strikingly in

The Origins of Political Science

the shift

193
stated

from justified indignation to

unjustified

indignation. No
soliloquy.

one

has

this more
seven

directly

than Shakespeare in Hamlet's

Hamlet

enumerates

things which make life almost impossible to bear. Almost

all of

them are

objects of moral
center

indignation,

the oppressor's wrong, and so on, but in the

he

mentions

the pangs of despised love. The justified indignation about

injustice
This is

shifts

insensibly

into the

unjustified

indignation

about unrequited

love.

perhaps

the deepest secret of spiritedness and therefore at least one of

the deepest secrets of Plato's Republic.

The Republic
tion
ness

could not show

the

purification of

spiritedness, that

purifica

which consists

in its

submission

to philosophy, without making spirited

world of

the center, the

center of man.

The In

the Republic is a the Republic

akin

world of abstracts

spiritedness, unpurified and purified.

other
which

words

from charis,
The

grace

in the

classic sense

in

it is essentially

to eros.

world of spiritedness

is

not

the

world of charis or eros.

How these two

worlds are related

in Plato's view,

whether

they

are not related as charis and

anangke, as grace and compulsion, this question coincides with the question of

the

relation

between the Republic

and

the

Banquet, between

the

most com

pulsory
cannot

and the most voluntary of the Platonic dialogues. But this question be conveniently discussed today, nor, for that matter, in any lectures devoted to political science.

(NOVEMBER 7, 1958)

to consider the
extent

from the contemporary whole issue of

which

collapse of rationalism.
rationalism.

This

collapse

induces

us

to

it is

an empirical

nalism.

For

a number of reasons or

The first step in this inquiry, to the is the question of the origin of ratio inquiry, this question can be identified with the prob
classical political contrast

lem
no

of

Socrates,
of

the problem of

philosophy in

general.

It is

doubt
the

the

utmost

importance to
to it

classical

political

philosophy

with

philosophic alternatives

which are presented one must

by

modem political classical

philosophy.

But before

one can

do that

have

understood

political

philosophy

by

itself. I limit

myself

to the

question

concerning the

character and claim of classical political philosophy, to

the

question

the

problem which

it tried to solve, concerning the

that
obstacle appeared
unpolitical

obstacle

concerning it tried to over

come.

That

problem and

sentation of

Socrates. Socrates is

clearly in Aristophanes 's pre because he lacks self-knowledge.

philosophy
exists.

He does is does his

not understand

the political

context within which

He

unaware of

the

essential

not understand

the

political

difference between philosophy and the polis. He in its specific character. The reason for this is

being

unerotic and amusic.

To this

accusation

Xenophon

and

Plato

give one

and the same reply.

Socrates is

political and erotic.

He

understands

the political

in its

non-rational character.

He

realizes

the

critical

importance

of

thymos,

of

194

Interpretation
as

spiritedness,

the bond between the philosophers

and

the

multitude.

He

un

derstood the
For he
whole
was

political

in its

specific character.

In

fact,

no one

before him did.

the fact that the

the first to

grasp

the significance of the

idea,

of

is

characterized

be

understood of

only
not

by by thought,

articulation

into

classes or

kinds,

whose character can

and not

by

sense perception.

Whatever

we

think
quate.

the adequacy of this reply, in one point the reply is manifestly

may inade

It does

reply to the
wide-spread

charge that

Socrates

was amusic.
or

According
political

to a

view, the opposite,

the

opponent of classical

sophists.

philosophy is sophistry, the teaching and the practice of the Greek This view deserves the reputation which it enjoys. A single superficial

reading of the first book of the Republic, of the Gorgias, or of the Protagoras, is sufficient for producing it. In the nineteenth century this view came to be understood as follows. Classical political philosophy is related to the sophists German idealism, especially Hegel, is to the theorists of the French revolu tion, and in particular to the French philosophes. Both the adherents and ene
as
mies of

the principles of 1789 have adhered, and still adhere, to this view.
are

Liberals favor

inclined to favor the

does

sophists and conservatives are

inclined to
most sim

classical political philosophy. no

The

most

up to date merely
of

and

hence

plistic version of this view

longer
that

assert a

proportional

equality,

but

a simple equality.

For the

view

classical political

to the sophists as German idealism

is to the theorists is only

philosophy is related the French revolution

thought and
modem

implied that there is

all modem

fundamental difference between

therefore that there
an

all classical

thought,
and

and

analogy between
we are

liberalism
sophists

the sophistic doctrines.

were

Now, however,

told that the

simply

liberals

or

theorists of democracy. It is necessary to know

powerful

this opinion and to examine it carefully, for it embodies the most

obstacle to an
sophists.

understanding But this is not the proper

myself to

of either classical political

philosophy
criticism of

or of

the

place

for

such an examination.

Here I limit

the

following
teaching

remarks.

Plato's

the soph

ists is directed less

specific

against

the

peculiar to the sophists than against a

way
us name

of

life. He had in
the name of the

mind a phenomenon similar

to that

which

is

known to For the

by

intellectuals,
sake,
and

a most ambiguous phenomenon. who

intellectual

conceals the
own

decisive difference between those

cultivate their

intellect for its

In

those who do it for the sake of

a

gain, power,
scription,
a

or prestige.

other

words, intellectual is

merely

external

de

description

good enough perhaps

for

certain

bureaucratic purposes,

say tax declarations. Intellectuals

reading,
yet

are men who earn

their

living by

writing

and

by writing something ill-defined. Intellectuals form

not and

reading tax
a

declarations, for

example, but

profession, but in

all other profes

sions there are standards

physicians and sion of

fake

physicians.

allowing the There

profession to

exists no such

distinguish between, say, possibility in the profes

intellectuals. One

could perhaps

say that the

profession of

intellectuals

is distinguished from

all other professions

by

the vagueness, as well as the

The Origins of Political Science

enormity,
and

195

of

its

claims.

Its ambiguity, bom

of

confusion, increases

confusion

therefore it is a
return

menace not

to morality, but to clarity.

To

to the sophists, in the very Republic Plato

defends the
young.

sophists

against the common charge that

are

they

are corruptors of

corrupted, Plato says,

not as

the many charge,

or

by

The young the sophists, but by the

the

many themselves
always will
cians.

who make

that charge,

by

the

polis as

it actually is
the

and

be. The
and

sophists are mere

imitators
and

of the polis and of

politi

Gorgias

Polus in the Gorgias

Thrasymachus in the Republic

are

not sophists another

oric,
was

or

philosophy is opposed not to political philosophy, but to rhetoric, that is to say, to autonomous rhet to the view that the highest art, the political art, is rhetoric. This view
rhetoricians.
political on a

but

Classical

indeed based

philosophy, but

on a

philosophy

which excluded

the

possibility of political philosophy. Plato has given a clear sketch of this philos ophy in the tenth book of the Laws. It started from the premise that the funda
mental phenomena are arrived at

the conclusion that

bodies, whereas soul and mind are merely derivative. It justice, or right, is in no way natural or in accor

dance is

with

nature, but is only

by

virtue of convention or of opinion. or as

Hence in

principle

any convention, any opinion,

any
other.

as good as

There is

no

they say today, any value system, no nature, truth, in this kind of thing, and

therefore there cannot be a science of these things. The true art or science

dealing
interest,
than of

with such matters

is the

art of

influencing

opinions with a view

to one's

that is to say, the art of rhetoric. But in the Republic at any rate Plato

speaks much

less emphatically of the enmity between philosophy and rhetoric the enmity between philosophy and poetry. This enmity is so grave
poets and not the rhetoricians or
master"

because the
as

the sophists abuse the philosophers to classical political

"bitches

barking

at their

The

great alternative

philosophy is poetry. Let us state at the outset how in philosophy

and poetry.

our opinion

Plato

settles the quarrel

between

He

emphasizes

the need for the noble

delusion, he

Philosophy as philosophy is unable to provide these noble delusions. Philosophy as philosophy is unable to per suade the non-philosophers or the multitude and to charm them. Philosophy needs then poetry as its supplement. Philosophy requires a ministerial poetry.
therewith emphasizes the need for poetry.

This implies Plato

us

quarrels

only

with autonomous poetry.

If he is to

convince

in poetry is lost if poetry is understood as ministerial. In the Republic Plato discusses poetry twice. The first discussion, in the second and third books, precedes the discussion of phi

he

must show

that nothing which

is

admirable

losophy. The discussion is in

more than one respect prephilosophic.

The

second

discussion, in the tenth book, follows the discussion of philosophy. The first discussion takes place between Socrates and Adeimantus, whose characteristic
is
moderation or

sobriety, not to say austerity, rather than courage and erotic

shown a profound second

desire,

and who

has

dissatisfaction

with what

the poets teach

and

regarding justice. The

discussion takes

place

between Socrates

196

Interpretation
whose characteristic

Glaucon,

is

courage and erotic

of

desire

rather

than sobriety

or austerity.

more poetry promises to be infinitely daring than the first. The prephilosophic discussion of poetry is identical with the discussion of the education of the non-philosophic soldiers. The first theme

The

second

discussion

of

that discussion is myth,

of

or

untrue

speeches

to

be told to

children.

The
with

makers

the myth are the poets. The poets are entirely

unconcerned

fit to be told to children, that is to say, to immature human beings regardless of their age. The distinction between fit and unfit
whether their stories are

stories

has therefore to be
be

made

by

people other than the

poets,

by

the political

authorities, in the best

authorities must

case

by

the wise founders of the best city. The political

with whether

concerned

the stories are conducive to the

goodness of men and citizens. poetic qualities.

They

are not

concerned, it seems,

with

their

As
In

regards

the poetic qualities the poets are

likely

to be

better

judges than the

censor such a

political authorities. particular

can

The

political authorities must supervise and

the

poets.

they
be

must compel
models of

the poets to present the gods in

and civic excellence. on

way that the gods

suffices

human

The

presentation must

be left to the
to think
of

poets.

The task imposed

the poets

is formi
not

dable. It say
of a

Aphrodite
of

as a model of civic

excellence,

to

housewife. The founders

The

the city can

calls

general principles of what

such principles. of evil.

Adeimantus

down the outline, or the theology. Socrates mentions two

lay

gods must

be

presented as

the cause only of good and not

and as never

And the

gods must

be

presented as

simple,

deceiving.

Adeimantus has later in the

no

somewhat perplexed on

difficulty by the second

context.

whatever

to accept the first proposition, but he is

proposition.

The If the
man's

reason

for this

appears

same

For it

appears that the

of ruling. men

only

noble motive

for
can

deceiving
they
striking

is that implied in the function

the necessity of

gods rule men

how

avoid

deceiving

for

benefit? But the

most

rale

laid down

by

Socrates is the

prohibition against

presenting the
when

terrors of death and the suffering from the loss of a man's dearest. The poets
are not permitted

to state in public what

made

they

alone can state

adequately
or sorrow.

everyone else
must
write

is

speechless through

suffering, grief,

They

poetry on the principle that a good man, by virtue of his selfsufficiency, is not made miserable by the loss of his children, his brothers, or his friends. The poets may present the lamentations of inferior women and still
more

inferior men,

so that

the best part of the young generation will leam to

despise lamentation. Autonomous poetry

gives expression

to the passions

by poetically imitating

the passions, it consecrates the passions. The ministerial poetry on the other hand helps man in learning to control the passions. It is necessary to consider this contention also as
a

poets are wise men who as such teach weakens

with

reply to Aristophanes. According to Aristophanes the justice. Plato denies that claim.

Poetry
right

the respect for right in the very act of

and

teaching right. The

poets present

sympathy

force the

powers

in

man which make man act against

The Origins of Political Science

and against propriety.
mands

197

Appealing

to the claim raised

by

Aristophanes Plato de

that the poets be teachers of justice pure and simple, that

they do

not

give
must

their audience any relief, so to speak, from this salutary teaching. Poets

be nothing but the

of

severe and austere servants of

all

justice. Plato turns the

tables on

Aristophanes; he draws
critique of

the conclusions from Aristophanes 's in

dictment

Euripides in the Frogs

against

Aristophanes.
as such

Especially
name of

convinc

ing,

or

amusing, is the

comedy

in the

the polis, a

critique which occupies of men who whether

the

center of

the respective discussions. The imitation

ridicule

one another and use

foul language
permitted

against one

another,

they

are sober or

drank, is
convey.

not

to be

in the just

city.

The

levity

fostered

by

comedy is bound
and

to counteract

the comedy may otherwise

any lessons of justice which All the devices of comedy, slander, ob explicitly
or

scenity,

blasphemy,

parody,
of all

are

implicitly

rejected

by

Plato.

In

spite of or

because
no

this no doubt is left as to the necessity of

poetry.

Yet there is likewise

permitted

doubt

left,

and

in fact it is explicitly stated, that the

something
of great worth

excluded poetry.

poetry is rather austere We are expected to

we shall miss
which

and

therefore less delightful than the best

abandon

for the

sake of

justice. What
verse

is

most

the Homeric

in

Achilles

expresses

of clearly his contempt for his chief, the stated

in the discussion

king

Agamemnon.

Hearing
in
no

such

insults

of mlers

by

subjects, Socrates says, "is

yields some other

not conducive

to obedience at any
would

rate".

And he adds, "if it Now

pleasure, this
appears

way be

surprising"

what that other pleasure

is

from

brief

consideration

drunkard,
we

who possess

the eyes of

of the verse in question, which reads, "You a dog and the heart of a deer". The pleasure

derive from
insult

hearing

this verse is two-fold. In the first place it is a most

perfect of a

which can

be hurled

against a

king

or a captain. a

He has the heart

graceful
animal;9

deer, he
he is

thinks only of flight. But a

compared

deer is
fight

noble,

therefore

to a
a

dog,

to the eyes

of a

dog,

an

ignoble,

slavish,
com

crawling
pared

expression.

But

dog

can attack and

back;9

therefore

he is

to a

deer,
an

which can

Secondly
men,

it is

only insult hurled by

run

away,

and so on.

It is

a perfect circle.

a noble subject against an

of

unworthy king. It
rulers.

expresses a noble about

feeling,

the

feeling
bom
we

indignation,

about

the rule of unworthy

the

oppression

of

rulers

by

merely factual
miss

Socrates We
the
shall

understandably76

deplores that
all,
all

should

have to

such gems.

have to

miss above

tragedy

and

comedy,

for,

says

Socrates, in

best

to one job, and the dramatic poet city each man must dedicate himself entirely people. In must imitate and hence, in a sense, be many different kinds of
particular no one must and can

be both

a comic and a
when

tragic

poet. not

This latter
to the puri

point

tan

is by Adeimantus, but to
suggested

the same Socrates who,

a comic and a also a good who

he speaks,
versa.

tragic poet, compels them to admit that

the

good comic poet

is

tragic poet, and vice

It is

suggested

by

this

same

Socrates,

highest kind according to

demands that in the just city one kind of man, the him, must have two jobs, that of the philosopher and

198

Interpretation
other men

that of the administrator, and who demands of all

single

that

they

perform a

their

job, or mind business, but

an of

their own to be

business, but
We
another

poets77

urges

the

comic

"not to

mind

serious."

are therefore not surprised

to see that

Socrates leaves
discussion

opening for

discussion, for beautiful,

completely different
argument until

poetry
of

someone persuades us
such a

by by

saying, "We must obey our

present

argument."

another,

more

The necessity for

that

re-opening

the discussion appears from the simple

consideration

one cannot

teach control of the passions if one does not know the passions, and

one cannot convince other people of one's able

knowing

the passions unless one

is

to present, to

imitate,

or

to express, the
even

passions.

In

accordance with

this

Plato himself imitates the passions;

the78

the meanest capacities can see this in

anger

case of

Plato's

presentation of

Thrasymachus's

in the first book

contradicts

of

the Republic. Plato's deed

speech of

contradicts

his speech,

or

rather, it

the

his Socrates, or to be still more precise, it contradicts the speech of Plato's Adeimantus. We are, then, in need of another argument, a more beauti ful argument, regarding poetry. The first step in that argument is dictated by
the most obvious flaw of the
contest
what

first argument,
poets.

of

the first

round as

it were, in the

between Plato

and

the

In the first
what

argument we were not told

poetry is. The

crucial

question,

is,

was not even raised

regarding

poetry.

Poetry

came

to sight as the making of myths, or untrue tales about

and the things

gods,
to

demons, heroes,
must

political

control, to pruning in the

in Hades. As such, poetry was subjected name of justice or morality. Henceforth

course

poetry
of

tell edifying stories rather than charming stories. But in the

whether

the argument it became unclear

gods and

the canons with which poetry must

comply in presenting the

at

the things in Hades consist of untrue or of

true opinions about the gods and the things in Hades.

One cannot leave it, then, from the point of view of the considering poetry city, or of morality. The ultimate judgment on morality will depend on how poetry is related to truth.
The first discussion
the
of

founding

of

the best

city.

poetry takes place at the The second, and in

earliest possible moment

a sense

in
of

final, discussion

poetry takes

place after

the completion of the political part of the Republic. For

the political part of the Republic is not concluded, as some people seem to

think,

somewhere

in the fifth book

of

fore. The discussion

argument.

Philosophy

lishing
mary
the

the good city.

philosophy comes to the philosophy in the Republic is a part of the political is introduced in the Republic as a mere means for estab Hence Aristotle, the most competent interpreter of Plato
when

the subject of

that ever was, does not even refer to the rale of the philosophers in
and criticism of

his

sum

the Republic. The political part of the

Republic

ends at

end of

the ninth book.

At that

place

best city as described before is not only vant. It makes no difference, Socrates justice
presented

impossible,
says

it has become perfectly clear that the but in a sense, even irrele

there,

whether the

in speech, exists,

or will

exist,

on earth or

in

heaven,

best city, or for it is

certain that

it

can exist within

the soul of the

individual.

The Origins of Political Science

The
great question which must still and punishments
of

199

be

settled concerns either

the possible rewards

or after

for justice

for

injustice,

during
of of

life

death. The

final discussion
and

poetry introduces the discussion the punishment for injustice. At the beginning

the rewards for justice the final discussion of

poetry Socrates says that the necessity of rejecting especially dramatic poetry has in the meantime become so much clearer, for in the meantime the differ ence between the various kinds or forms of the soul has been brought out. By
this he does not merely mean the exposition regarding the tripartite division of the soul

and above

into the reasoning, the spirited, and the desiring part. He means also, all, the various forms of badness of the soul, the timocratic, oligar
and

chic,
and

democratic,
ninth of

tyrannical
after

forms

which

had been discussed in the

eighth

books.

Only

the philosophic analysis of both goodness and

badness
place. much

final discussion of poetry take For poetry is79 concerned with the goodness and badness of the soul as as is philosophy. Only now, in the second and final discussion of poetry,
the soul has been completed can the
raise

does Socrates

the question, what

we

regarding imitation. Imitation, which look like the original but is

not a

is, regarding poetry, or leam, is the production

made

more of

precisely,

appearances a painted

are not the original.

For example,

bed

bed in

which one can

sleep, like the bed

by

the carpenter. Yet

even of

the bed made

by

the carpenter

is

not

the tme bed. The true the carpenter the true

bed is the idea

the

bed,
is

the model with a view to

which

makes visible and

tangible beds. There are, then, three

which

beds,

bed,

the bed in nature,

painted

made

by

god; the visible bed made

by

the carpenter; and the

bed
the

made

by

the

painter.

The

painter

does

not reproduce

the true proportions of

bed; he reproduces the bed as it appears perspectively. He imitates not the visible bed, but the phantasm of the bed. Imitation is then the reproduction of
something
which

is

at the

third remove from nature or truth. It is the imitation

which

of a phantasm of

something

in its

turn

is

modeled after

the

truth,

or

in

imitation

of

the truth. Now in order to imitate the phantasm, the

not

mere appear

ance, one does

for example, who ship. He does not

presents a general

have to know the original, the thing itself, truth. The poet, does not know the general in his general
the
art of

possess

the

general.

Up
rates

to this point the

poet

is

compared poet

by

Socrates to

other makers or pro

ducers. Hence the

replaces
user of

relation of

the

to the philosopher remains obscure. Soc

therefore the triad of makers, god, carpenter, painter,

by

the

triad,

the

bed,

carpenter, painter, and contends, generalizing from this,

that the only

who can who

one who possesses genuine

knowledge,

that is to say, the only one

judge things from

the point of view of goodness is a user, the man

poetry is at the third common remove, not only from the truth, but from philosophy as well. The or to quote to the and wisdom in superior poets, are craftsmen understanding

does

not make or produce at all.

Hence

we conclude

by

from the Phaedrus, "Even the lovers of bodily toil or of gymnastic training are far superior to the poets, for they are not concerned with mere phantasms at

200

Interpretation
things."80

any rate, that is to say with merely imagined and absurd description and denigration of poetry
absurd, for the questions,
men who were as

What does this

extreme

signify?

It

cannot

be simply

listen to Socrates, or answer his somewhat leading intelligent as I or most of you, and not one of them protests.
concerned with said to

Philosophy, it
or the

appears, is

nature, that is to say,

with

the

forms,
are

ideas. Poetry, however, is

consists of

imitate

artifacts.

Even the ideas

here
the

presented as artifacts.

ideas,

The very summit and cause of the world of poetry, artifacts. For the poets do not possess knowledge of the only
opinions.

nature of things.

They imitate

They

imitate

opinions

especially

regarding virtue, or they imitate phantasms of virtue, and therefore also opin ions about and phantasms of the divine. They imitate the human things as they
appear

in the light

of

opinion,

of authoritative opinion.

Or,

to use a Platonic

image, poetry lives in

cave, to the
or
city.

the world of artificiality

praises and

because it entirely belongs to the

the city, what society, praises

Poetry

blames

what

blame

blames. The city praises and blames what it has been taught to praise and by its legislator or founder. The legislator laid down the moral order of

the city

by looking
with

at

the idea

of

justice, just

as a carpenter makes a

bed

by
the

looking

his

mind's eye at

the model of a

bed. The

poet remains within

boundaries drawn Nietzsche has

by

the legislator. He therefore imitates the

legislator,

who

in

his turn imitates in

some

way

or another

the idea

of

justice.

unwittingly given a perfect interpretation of what Plato conveys. The artists, Nietzsche says, have at all times been the valets of a morality or a religion. But, as Nietzsche knew, for a valet there is no hero. If
perhaps

the poets are the valets

of a

morality,

they

are

in the best

position

to

know the

defects

which

their

master conceals

in

public and

in daytime. The poets, that is

the severest

to say, the decent ones among them, come indeed to sight as valets of the

morality to
critics of

which

they

are

subject.

In truth,

however, they

are

cizes

any in the tenth book

established

of

morality or any established order. When Plato criti the Republic the poets as imitators of imitators, he
constituted

criticizes the poets as

he had

them,

as

he himself had

made

them in

his first

critique of

poetry in the
completed

second and

third

book

of

the Republic. For

nature of

there he had
poetry.

subjected

the poets to the city and its order against the

After he has

the

political part of

the

the last remaining

poetry.

part of

the

scaffolding
of

by letting

Republic, he takes away us divine the nature of

This interpretation firmed

sion of

of

the

teaching
book
of

the Republic

by

the

teaching

conveyed through

regarding poetry is con Plato's Laws. In the thematic discus poetry is

are

poetry in the

second

the Republic it is made clear that

necessarily

subject to political or moral control.

The legislator

must persuade or

compel the poets to present

only

good

men, to teach that only the good

happy,
wine

and

only the bad are miserable. But in the

and an old

Laws
of

where an old

Athenian
not

tries to convince an old Spartan

Cretan

the

desirable

character of

drinking

it is

made clearer

than in the

Republic that morality is

the

The Origins of Political Science

only
criterion with which

201

excellence which must also

poetry must comply. There are standards of poetic be considered. Grace or pleasure in their way are as

important as morality, and of this element the poets themselves are the best judges. That is to say, Plato did not favor ill written pious tracts. The relation between legislator and poet is entirely reversed, however, in a later discussion
in the Laws, in the fourth book,
and narrow sense comes
where

the problem of legislation in the strict

to the fore. The first question here

state

is, how

should the

legislator

state

his laws? Should he

them simply as mere commands, rely

ing

entirely

on compulsion and

force,

or should

he

state the

law doubly, that is

a prooemium or a

to say, both as mere commands and

prelude which persuades men of

justifying

them

by

the wisdom of the laws? The

double

statement

is

much

to be preferred. Yet this doubleness or to be persuaded is not

duplicity

is

not

sufficient, for

the

audience

homogeneous
and81

or uniform.

Very
the

roughly,
prelude

every
to the
on

audience consists of an

intelligent

an unintelligent part. must persuade

The

law

must

therefore fulfill a dual

function. It

intelligent

the one hand and the unintelligent on the other. Yet intelligent people are

sometimes persuaded

by

different

arguments

than unintelligent people, and the

a contradiction.

difference may very

a prelude must
man who

well go so

far

as to

become

The

author of

then be a man of great versatility and flexibility. He must be a

speak

has learned to
competence

shows

his

in this

respect

differently to different kinds of people by his ability to make different

be the legislator
as

and who

kinds

of

people speak province of

differently. This

man cannot

legislator, for the

same

the legislator is

simple and unambiguous

speech, saying the

thing

to all.
man who can write

Who then is the discussion

the

proper prelude?

Plato introduces the legislator "on be

which

of preludes

half he

poets."

of

the

by making his spokesman He refers first to the ancient

inspiration
and

address the
myth

according to
what

the

poets speak through goes on to

hence do

not

know

they

say.

But then

say that the irrationality of the poet consists, not in ignorance of what he says, but in self-contradiction. Since the poet imitates human beings, he creates characters of contradictory moods who contradict one another, and in
this way

in this way
statements

82he

contradicts

himself does

without

knowing
contradict

which of

the to

contradictory identify himself

speaks

is tme
poet.

and which

is false. The
not

philosopher goes on

with

the

The

poet

truly

himself. He

not

ambiguously by impersonating contradictory characters, so that one can know which, if any, of the characters through which he speaks comes he thinks. The legislator
But this is
no on

closest to what

the

other

hand

must speak unam

biguously
very

and simply.

easy

matter.

The legislator wishes, for

funeral depends example, that funerals be moderate, but what is a moderate whether be people to of the means buried, much on the they are rich or
poor or of moderate means. ciates

Each

station

has its

peculiar

dignity. No
can praise

one appre

that peculiar

dignity

better than the poet,

who

with

equal

felicity

the tomb of

excessive

grandeur, the simple

tomb,

and the

modestly

202

Interpretation
because the
on

adorned tomb

poet

knows best
people.

and

interprets best the

wishes

moods of

the

rich,
late

the poor, and the

inbetween

If the legislator

then to legis
and

intelligently

human things he

must understand

the human things,

he

is helped in acquiring that understanding by sitting at the feet of the poets, for the poets, we may add, understand the human things not only as they appear in
the light
of

the

law,

or established

morality, but as
men's

they

are

in

themselves.
poet

The
who

poet rather than the

legislator knows

souls.

Since it is the

teaches the
a

legislator,

the poet is so far from

being

the valet of a

theology

or of

morality that he is rather the creator of them. According to Herodotus, Homer and Hesiod created what we would call Greek religion. Plato has expressed this
thought
as

clearly

as

he

could

in his

simile of

the cave. The cave-dwellers, that

is to say,
of

we

humans,

see

nothing, that is to say, nothing the human beings

higher,

than shadows

artifacts, especially

of reproductions of men and other not see

living

beings moving carry these delusion, he

around on
artifacts.

high. We do
as

who make and

But

is

shown

clearly

by

Plato's demand for the

noble

himself is far from

the poets

disapproving

altogether of

the poet's activity. In principle

do exactly the same thing as Plato himself. The discussion of poetry in the Laws leads us to
poets possess genuine

realize and

that according to therefore that po

Plato the
etry is

knowledge

of the

soul,
of

psychohgia

kai psychagogia, understanding

the soul and guiding of

more precisely, just as Platonic philosophy is every philosophy psychology in the Platonic sense. The neces although not sufficient condition for philosophy being psychology in the sary Platonic sense is that the soul is not regarded as derivative from body or as

the soul, just as philosophy

itself,

itself, for

not

secondary in relation to the body. A materialistic philosophy is indeed radically different from poetry. It would need poetry, understanding of the life of the
soul as we

know it

as

human

beings, only in
when

the form of a dubious sentimental

supplement.

We

see this and a

clearly today

poetry

appears as the

only

refuge

psychology sociology its fullness and depth because they are constitutionally ignorant of the differ ence between the noble and the base, for that psychology and that sociology of materialistic origin. Platonic on the other hand, which regards philosophy
are83

from

which are unable

to articulate human life in

the soul as the primary phenomenon and the

subject matter as poetry.

This

cannot

be

body as derivative, has the same literally tme of course, for philosophy
and not

is

concerned with the whole, with all

things,

soul of man.

soul,

with

Philosophy body and number

is necessarily
entrusts

also concerned with

everything is soul, the that which is not

and the relation of

the soul to these other things.

of

But Plato characteristically

stranger

the treatment

that other

thing
as a

to the

Timaeus,

who presents

cosmology,

a mathematical

physics,

likely

tale. The core, or the arche, the the doctrine of the soul,
poetry. an
and

initiating

principle of

this core,

or arche,

Platonic philosophy is is identical with the theme of

Yet is it

not obvious manner

that even Platonic

poetry?84

entirely different

than does

philosophy treats its subject in The poet sets forth his vision of

The Origins of Political Science

the soul, he does
organ
not

203

try

to prove that vision or to refute alternative visions. His

is

a vision with

poetry

expresses

expresses

logismos. Therefore itself in poems, epic, dramatic, or lyric, whereas philosophy itself in treatises. In the treatise proper names do not occur except Treatises
"impersonal."

the mind's eye, nous, not reasoning,

accidentally.

them,

They are not lifeless, but what lives in dies in them, what undergoes various kinds of fate in treatises is not human beings but logoi, assertions with their accompanying reasoning. Plato refers frequently to this life and fate of the logoi most clearly perhaps in
are or what

the

Phaedo,

where

Socrates
that

assertions,
tes himself.
presses

might

die,

theme of the Phaedo is not

expresses the fear that his logoi, let us say his is to say, prove to be refutable. Yet the primary the death of Socrates's logoi but the death of Socra

More generally stated, it is not true that Platonic philosophy ex itself in the form of treatises. Platonic philosophy is incompatible with

the form of the treatise. It expresses itself in the form of the

of

dialogue,

of a

kind

drama,

of the

imitation. Not only is the subject matter of poetry the same as that fundamental part of Platonic philosophy, likewise the treatment is funda
of of

mentally

the same character in both cases. Neither the Platonic dialogue nor
men

the poetic work is autonomous, both are ministerial, both serve to lead the understanding of the human soul.

to

But is this

not a preposterous assertion?

Did

we not admit

that the poet sets

forth his
refuting
present

vision of
alternative

the

human85

soul without

visions,

whereas

supporting reasoning and without Plato does nothing, so to speak, except to

to refute alternative visions? Homer's vi
poets'

his supporting reasoning

and

strikingly differs, so it seems, from Dante's, and both visions strikingly differ again from Shakespeare's. The very question as to which vision is the most adequate cannot be raised, let alone answered, in the
sion of the soul element of poetry.

However,

the reasoning is in Plato's dialogues integrated

into the human drama. The reasoning is frequently, not to say always, faulty, deliberately faulty, as it should be within an imitation of human life. And on
the other

hand

with what

right

can one

were not able not set

to support their visions

surely.

say that Shakespeare, Dante, and Homer of the human soul by reasoning? They did include Homer's

forth that reasoning,

Nor did Plato. Plato indicates that Homer's

thoughts. These thoughts

poems contain
reasoning.

hidden, Furthermore,

unexpressed

we must

two sides, a poetic and a

non-poetic side.

say that every human phenomenon has its For example, love has its poetic and

its

medical side.
of

Philosophy

alone will consider

true. Think

the way in

which

both. But this is obviously not Goethe presented in the Faust the two sides of

by contrasting Faust's and Mephistopheles's remarks on Faust's love for Gretchen. Poetry does justice to the two sides of life by splitting itself, as it
love
were, into

tragedy
not

and

comedy, and precisely Plato

says said

that the tme poet

is

both

a tragic and a comic poet.

Finally, philosophy is
whereas

to appeal only to our

understanding,
passion.86

to our

passion,86

poetry

works

This

would

be true if philosophy

were

entirely

a science

primarily like

on

our

mathe-

204

Interpretation
the solu therefore

But philosophy in the Platonic sense is a solution and in fact tion to the human problem, the problem of happiness. Philosophy is
matics.
not

merely a teaching, but a way of life. Therefore the presentation of philoso phy is meant to affect and in fact affects our whole being, just as poetry and perhaps more than poetry. In the words of Plato, "We ourselves to the best of
our power are
best."

the authors

of

the

tragedy

which

is

at once

the fairest and the

Is there then
etry,
or rather

between Platonic philosophy and po between the Platonic dialogue and other poetry? Other poetry, or
no whatever mean

difference

what we

ordinarily

by

poetry simply, does

not

imitate,

Plato

says

in the

tenth book of the

prefers

Republic,

the sensible and quiet or reposed character, but

it

the

multicolored and complicated characters which as

such are more

interesting
not the

and therefore the natural themes of poetry.

good man or

The theme

of

poetry is

simply

the good life. But is there a simply good man? Will

the good man not feel grief at the loss of his son, for instance? Will torn between

he

not

be

his

grief and

his

duty
if

and

hence be two-fold
will

and not simple?

Socrates says, "When left

which

alone

I believe he

dare to

utter

he

would

be

ashamed of

another would

hear them,

and

many things he will do That

many things
which

which

he

would not consent to

have

another see

him

doing."

the good man cannot

help feeling, but

Poetry

which

he

conceals

from others, is
propriety legit
gives
we

the major theme of poetry.

what

expresses with

adequacy
to

and with

the non-poet cannot express adequately and

with propriety.

imately

brings to light
from
our

what

the law forbids to

as

bring

light.
our

Poetry Poetry alone

us relief

deepest suffering just

it deepens

happiness. Yet

must understand

the expression, the good man, not only in the common sense

but
man

also and above all

in the Platonic is the

sense.

Virtue is knowledge. The It

goes without

good

in the Platonic
is
not an

sense

philosopher. myself or

saying that the

philosopher

individual like

like

other professors of political

philosophy or of philosophy tout court or tout long. Plato means then by saying that poetry does not
the
good of

present

the good man and

life
yet

life that poetry does not present the philosopher, the thinker and the thought. I quote from the Phaedrus, "The superheavenly place has not
praised and will never
here,"

be properly praised by any of the poets that is to say, by any of the poets in the ordinary and narrow sense. But is not the poet too a thinker? And does not poetry present also the poet as poet, for example Hesiod in his Works and Days, Dante, and Shakespeare in his Tem
pest, to say nothing
of

been

Aristophanes. And
while

Still, it is
of

not essential

to poetry that it
order

should present the poet.

Plato

presents the

life

of

thought in

to

instill his

readers with

love

of the

life

sophic life, poetry does not present become themselves poets. But be this

thought, or to call them to the philo poetry in order to induce its hearers to
as of

inferior to the

philosopher

and ways

it may, poetry as poetry presents men life inferior to the philosophic life.

Poetry

presents ways of

life

characterized

by

fundamental

choice which

ex-

The Origins of Political Science

eludes87

205

philosophy
piness.

as

the solution to the human problem, the

as

problem of

hap

For according to Plato as well human problem cannot be solved by

philosophy,

to

Aristotle,

to the extent to which the

by

and

through the

who are not good or who are more

only by way of life. Plato too presents men then bad, but he does this only to present all the
political means can solved philosophic

it

be

clearly the

character of the good such

men,

and

this is his chief theme.

Poetry,
is

however,
either

presents

a possibility.

only From Plato's

human beings for

whom

the philosophic life is not

point of view

the life

which

is

not philosophic

obviously incapable of solving the human the human problem in a wholly inadequate or in
case

problem or else

it does

solve

an absurd manner.

In the first

it is the theme
we

of

tragedy. In the second case it is a theme of comedy.

From here

may delegate to poetry a cannot fulfill. Poetry

understand ministerial

why it is according to

nature that

philosophy

function,

presents

human life

as

philosophy itself human life appears if it is not seen

which

function

to be directed toward philosophy. Autonomous poetry presents non-philosophic

life

as autonomous.

Yet

by

articulating the

cardinal problem of

human life

as

it

comes sophic
which

life, poetry prepares for the philo legitimate only as ministerial to the Platonic dialogue in its turn is ministerial to the life of understanding. Autonomous poetry
to sight
within

the non-philosophic

life.

Poetry is

is blind in the decisive

passion,
of passionate

respect.

It lives in the
of passion passion. not

element of

imagination

and of which

images,

expressing itself in images

end

arouse passion and yet sion.

But

autonomous

purification of

modify poetry does passion is required.

It

ennobles passion and purifies pas

know the

for the

sake of which

the

NOTES

1.
2. 3.

"are"

substituted
"observations"

by

editors

for "that this

editors

is"

of the ms.
reasons"

substituted
"warm"

by

for "of the

of the ms.

4. 5. 6.

"thought"

"not"

"thoughts"

by editors for "well substituted by editors for inserted by hand above the line. substituted by editors for
substituted

worn"

of the ms.

See Aristotle, Politics 1267b26.

"though"

of

the ms.

"thought"

of

the

ms.
of"

7. The

words

"science

which

is

said

to

have

rendered possible

this control

have been

added

by

hand
8.

at the

bottom

of the page,

with an asterisk above

the line

indicating

their proper place

in

the text.
"ever"

substituted

by

editors

for

"every"

of

the ms. the ms.

9. Semicolon 10. "in 11. 12.

"an"

substituted

general"

inserted

by by

editors

for

comma of

hand

above

the line.

inserted

by

hand

above

the line.
above

"reflection"

inserted

by
by

hand

the line.
removed
"product"

13. The

"the"

word

after
substituted

"of has been

editors

by

the editors.

14.
15.
16. 17.

"project"

for

of the ms.

"who"

added
"friend's"

by

editors.

substituted
"at"

by

editors

for

"friends"

of the ms.

substituted

by

editors

for

"as"

of the ms.

206

Interpretation
height,"

apparent

words "ascends to the highest have been added by the lacuna in the ms., though there is no visible sign of anything being 19. The word after has been removed by the editors. 20. substituted by editors for of the ms.
"but"

18. The

editors

to remedy an

missing.

"ridiculous"

"Peace"

"Bees"

21. "is
22.
"a"

achieved

substituted
"four"

23. 25.

by by editors for inserted by hand to fill a

substituted
"this"
"is"

by"

editors of

for "the
the ms.

chief of the ms.

"the"

lacuna in the
removed

ms.

24. The 26. "the 27. This 28. 30. 31. 32.
not"

word

after substituted

has been

by
at

the editors.

"become"

by

editors

for

"became"

of the ms.

Peisthetaerus"

pederast sentence

inserted

by hand
the

the end of the

paragraph.

has been inserted

by

hand
of

at the end of the paragraph.

ms. removed ms.

"in"

substituted
"by"

by

editors

for

"on"

29. The

"prompted"

word

after

has been
of

by

the editors.

"that"

"this"

"they"

by editors for substituted by editors for substituted by editors for

substituted
"not"

"the"

the

"his"

of the ms.
of

"the"

the

ms. words

33. This 34. The 35. 36. 37.

39.
"as"

word

has been hand

crossed out

have been inserted

"the"

by

after

"Either"

word substituted

after editors

by hand in the ms. and the the following words "what the has been removed by the editors.
"is"

"themselves do

gods"

"Clouds"

"seems"

for of the by inserted by hand above the line substituted by editors for
"to"
"effect"

ms.

to replace
of

"gods"

which

has been

crossed out.

"seem"

the ms.

38. The
40.
41. 42. 43. 44.
"its"

word

after

has been

removed

by
of

the editors. the ms.

"complete"

substituted substituted

by

editors

for

"compete"

45.
46. 47.
48.

of the ms. by editors for of the ms. substituted by editors for substituted by editors for of the ms. substituted by editors for of the ms. substituted by editors for "Xenophon. "Xenophon, inserted by hand above the line. substituted by editors for of the ms. substituted by editors for of the ms. The word after has been removed by the editors.
"that"
"hat"

"it"

"between"

"in"

"takes"

"take"

the"

The"

of the ms.

"which"

"are"

"is"

"to"

"with"

"to"

"not"

49. 50.

"places"

substituted
"word"

substituted
"I"

by editors for by editors for

for
editors of

"place"

of

the

ms.

"words"

of the ms.
of

51.
52. has

substituted
"with"

by

"I'll"

editors

the ms.
of

substituted
words

by

for "of

the ms.

53. The
room

"originator

have been

added

by

the editors to

fill

lacuna in the ms.,

which

for

some words that are

impossible to
the

read.

54.

"most"

inserted

by

hand

above

line. for
of
"gentleman's"

55. 56. 57. 58.

been

"gentleman"

substituted
"in"

by

editors
"on"

of

the ms.

by editors for Comma added by editors. substituted by editors for

substituted
"he"

the ms.

"has"

of

the ms.

59. The
added

words

"or
at

more

by

hand

generally stated, in identifying the existing social hierarchy" have the bottom of the page, with an asterisk above the line their

proper place

in the text.
substituted

indicating

60. Dash 61. 62.

"

by

editors

for

comma of

the

ms.

(unclear)

is

what appears

here in the for

"imitation"

ms. of
of

"philosopher's"

substituted
"limitation"

by

editors

"philosophers"

the ms.

63.
64.

substituted
"bringing"

substituted
"speech"

by editors for by editors for

above the

the ms.

"bring"

of

the ms.
previous word was

65.

inserted

by

"justice", but

the final

"ice"

line. Also, the has been crossed out by hand.

hand

originally

written as

The Origins of Political Science

66. The
"the"

201

word

has been be
a

underlined
at

by

the editors.

67. There
sign of

seems to

lacuna

the end of this sentence in the ms., though there is no visible

"whole"

anything

being

missing. of the ms.

68. 69. 71. 72.

73.

"wholes"

substituted
"inducing"

by editors for substituted by editors for

"is"

"in

using"

of the ms.

70. The

"an"

word

after

has been for

"a"

removed of

by

the editors.

"the"

substituted
"reverence"

by

editors

the ms.
"reverent"

substituted
"

by

editors

for is

of the ms.
what appears

(tape

being

"

changed)
of

here in the

ms.

In the

omitted

section,
or

Professor Strauss
thymos.

was

probably speaking

desire,

or epithymia as contrasted with

spiritedness,

74. The 75. The

"thwarted"

word words

has been

underlined

by

the editors.

"which easily turns into

vindictiveness or punitiveness.

itedness is
hand
text.
at

not

exhausted,

however, by

the

indignation."

ambiguity

of moral

The ambiguity of spir have been added by

the bottom of the page,

"understandably"

with an asterisk above

the line

indicating

their proper place in the

76. 77. 78.

substituted
"poets"

by

editors

for

"understandingly"

of the ms.

substituted
"the"

by

editors

for

"poet,"

of

the

ms.

added
word word

by

editors.
"is"

79. The

"as"

after
"things"

has been

removed

by

the editors.

80. The
81.

(followed

by

a period and a quotation

mark) has been

added

by

hand

at

the end of the line.

"and"

82. 83. 84.

85. 87.

of the ms. by editors for Dashes substituted by editors for commas of the ms. substituted by editors for of the ms. Question mark substituted by editors for period of the inserted by hand above the line. substituted
"are" "is"

"or"

ms.

"human"

86. The

manuscript

has

"passions,"

with

the final

"s"

crossed out of the ms.

by

hand.

"excludes"

substituted

by

editors

for

"excluded"

Descartes Contra Averroes?

The Problem
of

Faith

and

Reason in the Letter

of

Dedication to the Meditations

Abraham Anderson

University

of New Mexico

What is the any

Descartes'

purpose of

Meditations?'

Is it

Christian work,

or at

rate a work written

in

support of

Christianity? Or is its intention

assertion of submission and

rather

to

justify

the

Descartes'

new

science,

and

devotion to

the Church a piece of hypocrisy? Even if that claim is not a mere piece of

hypocrisy, is
sian science

the Meditations

nevertheless

treatment of
some
other

theologically natural theology

and

respectable? and of

primarily an attempt to make Carte Or (a third possibility) does

Descartes'

the relation between soul and

body

have

perhaps

more

philosophical

intention,

so

that

it is

neither

merely Christian
acceptable

apologetics nor

simply

to the Church? To answer

with which

making the new science this question, it may be useful to consider

a means of

the letter of dedication

which

is directed to the Dean

asks

and

Doctors

Descartes introduces the Meditations, and of Theology of the Sorbonne. In this

support

letter, Descartes
the cause which
confident that once

theologians'

the
offer

for his

enterprise.

So righteous is
and

impels him to

his

work

to them, he

says

he is

they they have understood

means

too will regard it as so

righteous

as to take

the plan of his undertaking

state

up its defense, that "there is here no

I have
sought

better

of

commending it than to
states

briefly
of

what

to

achieve

in this

work."

First, Descartes
theology,
although

that it is

with

the aid

philosophy, rather than of

that the

questions of

God

and of

the soul should

on

be demonstrated. For

it

suffices

for believers to believe

persuaded of proven

the basis of

faith, "no

unbeliever

seems capable of

being
first

any

religion

or even

unless these two are

to him
vices

by

natural reason.

virtue, any And since in this life

what

moral

there

are often more rewards

what

for

than

is right to

is

useful,

if they

neither

feared God
the

for virtues, few would prefer nor hoped for an

of

afterlife."

Descartes'

reason

for

"demonstrating
is

questions"2

God

and

the soul, in

other words

the

reason which

the theologians will regard as so

political:

righteous that
persuaded

they
from

will

take

up its defense

human beings

must

be

that

there

is

God

and an afterlife so

that

they

will observe moral

virtue,

or abstain

crime.

Faith,

Descartes reiterates, is a

sufficient

basis

of

belief for believers; God's

interpretation,

Winter

1996, Vol. 23, No. 2

210

Interpretation
is to be believed in because Scripture
source.

existence

testifies to

it,

and

Scripture is to

be believed because God is its be

a circle.

But

unbelievers would

take this proof to

In saying this Descartes seems to be speaking from a sense that the attempt to prove the existence of God is a problematical business, which needs justi

fication before the

of view of the

authorities and perhaps the people.

one ought

believe) simply
it is

theologians, on the basis

found be

For really, from the point to believe (or at least laymen ought to
But unfortunately, he
on seems

of authority.

to

imply,

not possible to

religion

only

faith

or on

authority, for there are

some who will not

convinced

by

authority.

after first giving us a political reason for proving the existence of it is necessary to sustain religion so as to prevent crime and perhaps disobedience generally Descartes here gives us a logical reason why unbe

Thus

God

lievers

must

be

addressed

through reason:

they

are not subject to the

intellectual

authority of religion. That, of course, is why they must be persuaded. But the religious authorities have a difficulty when confronted by the

unbe

lievers;

properly speaking, their authority should be

authorities'

founded

on

faith

it is

only faith which licenses the ability to threaten and demand obe dience. But the necessity of persuading the unbelievers requires that the Church
seek

to

found faith
of

on reason.

But to found faith

on reason

is to

subvert

the

primacy

faith,

to grant a

kind

of recognition and on

unbelief, for

one who

believes only
of

the

basis

of reason cannot

intellectual authority to be said to be

subject to the

authority

faith,

or

the authority licensed

by faith;

he

continues

to be

"unbeliever"

an on

insofar

as

his

assent

to the existence of God is not

founded

belief but

on reason or

knowledge. founded
on

The Church,
political aim of

we might put

it,

would prefer an assent

the will, on

unreasoned submission

to

authority.3

securing
the

obedience

It is only such an assent that satisfies the to law; for someone who believes only
either.

insofar

as

his

reason of

tells him

to,

will not

not be based on fear and trembling, free reasoning; the God to whose existence he assents will be the conclu sion of his own process of reasoning rather than a being who overwhelms his independent use of his reason and direction of his will.

simply because since his assent

on

dictates

of

to the existence of

authority God will

be morally or politically obedient He will not be afraid of God,

but

In fact this

preference of

the Church's is actually embodied in

philosophical

doctrine

or at

least in

philosophical

tendency, in the
sixteenth and
and

attraction of

important

sections of

the French

Church,

in the

into the

seventeenth centu

ries,

to skepticism.

Many theologians,
and

particularly many
moral

Jesuits, found it
inter
the

useful

to attack human reason, in matters of

of natural

theology,
Church

of scriptural

pretation,

submission of

theology, human reason to the authority

many
of

in general,

with a view

to

encouraging

of

the

and of

the Catholic

State. In the

case of

the relevant thinkers it is possible to

and possible

doubt the
regarding

sincerity

of their religious

belief,

to

interpret them

as

Descartes Contra Averroes?

religion not political

-211

just

as without cognitive

content, but

as

important

above all as a

device
and not

and a support

for

moral and political authority: a matter

for the

temple,
views

for the schools,

course,

as

Hume's Philo

was

to put it. These skeptical

never,

of

supplanted

rivals, among
them,
were

the theologians of the

Thomist scholasticism, or its Augustinian Sorbonne, but they, and those who held
scene,
and

important

elements on the

in

particular

for

Descartes'

Beralle.4 And of course Descartes had been familiar early admirer, the Cardinal with such skeptical views from the time of his education with the Jesuits at La

Fleche. His
the

own account of of

faith

and

its

relation

to reason and to institutions in the views of the skep

views adapted

beginning
of

the Discourse is filled

with echoes of

tics,
the

Montaigne,

and perhaps of other politique own purposes on custom

authors,

by
the
of

skeptical

Counter-Reformers to their
and

(as

Descartes'

account of

morale provisoire

his

remarks

are much colored

with of

by
deal

skeptical

[Academic]
on

notion

of the

probable, a
and

notion

a great

influence

Jesuit

moral

theology

dogmatics). Some

Descartes'

most

determined

critics were

to be skeptical Jesuits or other skeptical allies of abso

lutist order, like

Gassendi.5

Still,
and

the

Church is because

compelled otherwise

to permit demonstrations
will

with regard

to

God

the soul,

there

lievers;

the unbelievers, that these subjects.

is,

give

way Descartes license for the

be

no

of

persuading the unbe

public exercise of

reason on

And truly I have

noticed that

you, along with all other theologians, affirm not

only that the existence of

God

can

be

proven

by

natural

reason, but also that one

much easier

may infer from the Holy Scriptures that the knowledge of him is so than the manifold knowledge that we have of created things, and is
that those
without

so

this

knowledge it is

are

worthy

of

blame. For this is

clear

utterly easy from

Wisdom, Chapter 13
capacity for knowing that they did not find
it is
said that

where

said:

"They
they

are not to

were so great

that

could appraise the

be excused, for if their world, how is it

And in Romans, Chapter 1,
same

the

Lord

of

it

easily?"

even more

they

are "without excuse".

And
of

again

in the

text we seem to

be

warned

by

these

words:

"What is known

God is

manifest

that can be known

about

God

can

be

made manifest reason

by

in them": everything reason drawn from a source

thought it unbecoming

none other than our own mind.

For this

I have
and

not

for

me to

inquire how it is that this is the case, easily

and with greater

by

what path

God may be
world.6

known

more

certainty than the things of this

The
reason.

theologians affirm that the existence of

God

can

be

proven

by

natural

Descartes does

not

say

that

proven require

by

natural

reason, nor that

they they prove

in the

prove

that the existence of God can

be

the

existence of

God. Does faith

one to

believe that it is

possible

to

prove

the existence of God

paragraph

by

reason?7

Descartes himself tells

under

us

following
dies

that the Lateran

Council held
man

Leo

X, in

Session

8,

condemned

those who hold that "hu

reasoning

convinces

them that the soul

and

with

the

body

and

that the
philoso-

alone,"

contrary to be held

on

faith

"explicitly

enjoined

Christian

212

Interpretation

phers to refute their arguments and to use all their abilities to make the truth
known,"

which seems soul can

to

make

it

an article of

faith that the

immortality
reason

of

the
not

be

shown

by

human reason,

or at

least that human

course, is that

does

oppose

it.8

The

difficulty

with such

declarations,
to
solve.

of

they

emphasize

the

very they faith that there exists

problem

are meant

If it is necessary to
the existence of

make

it

an article

of

a rational proof of

God,

that suggests that

the existence of such a proof is not very obvious or very easy to

demonstrate.

For if it
not so?

proof, why rather than it an article of faith that it is do make possible to do so, simply The latter proceeding is especially odd when no example of a valid proof is
obvious,
although of course

were

or

easy to

demonstrate,

that there is

such a

provided,
proofs

it is the very fact that the validity

even

of

the existing

is

subject to

dispute,

among the
to

most

orthodox,

which made

it

necessary This dogma has

made

to make it a dogma that there was such a proof.

another aspect

it, however: it

points

to the distinction
and

by

the

Counter-Reformation Catholic Church between laymen

epistemic relation
charged with

priests, especially theologians, in their

and more

to religion.

Priests,
to

particularly theologians,

were

using their

reason

combat unbelief and

heresy; they

therefore had license to consider arguments the

for

and against all were on

the dogmas

of

faith, including

the existence of God.

Laymen
ters

the whole discouraged from prying too

deeply

into these

mat

even

from reading the Scriptures

on submission

without permission.

Their faith

was

to

be founded

to authority.

The theologians
natural

affirm not

reason, but also that one can infer

only that the existence of God can be proven by from Holy Scriptures that the knowl

edge of

him is

much easier

than the manifold

an article of

knowledge

we

have

of created

things. That

is, they

make

it

faith that
of

reason allows us to
easier

infer

from

revelation that

the

rational

knowledge

God is

than the knowledge

things; they declare, by their authority, that reason, reflecting on the they hold to be authoritative, can infer from those writings that those writings declare, by divine authority, that reason can more easily know
of created writings which

God than This is

reason

created

things.

an odd and paradoxical

to know God is

made a

nesting of assertions. Here the capacity of matter of faith and authority, and what is more,

Authority has to declare that reason can infer from authority that reason can know God. Here is further license for Descartes to offer his demonstrations, but also further demonstration of the
of a second-order sort of authority.

embarrassing and paradoxical situation authority finds itself in found itself through an appeal to reason, or to make reason
authority.

when
a

it tries to for

guarantor

The knowledge
are

worthy

of

utterly easy that those without this knowledge blame, the theologians say. And indeed, how could one blame
of so

God is

Descartes Contra Averroes?

anyone

-213

for

doubting the
that our

dogmas
is

of

the Church unless will,

they

It is

not clear so

assent

subject to our

and

obviously true? if the knowledge of yet,

were who

God is

easy, if God's

existence

is

so

obvious, why blame those

do

not

perceive

it?

Surely they
alternative

But this
established

deserve pity and instruction rather than blame. places the Church in a cleft stick, for Christianity

as an

Church

and perhaps

tianity in
angry

a particularly marked beings to believe certain things, to hold them

with

any human society, but established Chris depends on being able to require human way
as

them

for

not

doing

so.

But how

can one

tme, on its being possible to be be angry with someone for

making a mistake in reasoning, or for not perceiving something? The authority of the Church, in other words, depends on certain things
and

being

discemably obviously true, and in order to maintain this authority, the Church has to be able to demand that people hold these things true. But if it has
to demand that people hold these things true, then surely true.

they

are not

obviously

The tension this

opinion

difficulty
thereby

points

towards is a tension
one

within

the nature of the the

itself,
truth,

as

Socrates

often

indicated. On the

hand,

opinion claims on

status of
other

and

exposes

itself to the demand for justification;

must

hand,

opinion claims

the status of the obvious, and

therefore

repel

the demand for justification on the grounds that it subverts that claim.
opinion claims
moral

Further,

the status of the obligatory, since it founds and is necessary to

can assent

obligation; but how

to a theoretical proposition be obligatory?

To
not

suppose

that it is is to suppose that the tme is reducible to the this

just; but it is

just to God

suppose

because it is

not true.

"'What is known in God is

about
can

manifest

be

made manifest

by

in them': everything that can be known reason drawn from a source none other
assertion

mind."

than our own

Descartes takes this

from Romans

as a

license

for assuming that the knowledge of God is founded simply in our own minds, or in the knowledge of our own minds, and not in that of outer things; "For this reason I have not thought it unbecoming for me to inquire how it is that this is
the case,
and

by
not

what path

certainty is manifest is
ness to seek

than the things of outer

God may be known more easily and with greater The meaning of the assertion that God
sense."

itself manifest; Descartes takes license from its mysteriousfor a way in which God many be known more easily than outer him to
attack common

things;
things

this

will require

sense,

and the

certainty

of

the

of common sense. so

In

passage

doing, he is surely playing off from Wisdom; for if according

manifold wonders

the passage

from Romans

against the of

to Wisdom "the
we

knowledge

him is
this is

much easier than the

knowledge
of

have

things,"

of created

presumably because the

our

his

works refer us

to their maker without

having

to

understand

those works; our wonder at the world,

rally

precedes our

understanding of

it,

and

may

perhaps

in fact, natu be diminished by our

214

Interpretation

understanding of it. Descartes, in rendering doubtful the existence of outer things, will also be subverting the movement by which common sense arrives
at
God.9

of easy many have regarded its nature as incapable convinces them human that far as to inquiry, reasoning say that the soul dies with the body, and that the contrary is to be held on faith alone; nevertheless, because the Lateran Council under Leo X, in Session 8, condemned

And

as to the soul: although

and some

have

gone so

these people and explicitly enjoined Christian

and to use all their abilities to make the truth

philosophers

to

refute not

their arguments

known, I too have

hesitated to

go

forward

with this.

What does Descartes

the arguments
of

mean?

Would he

not

have dared to

attempt to refute

the Averroists if the Lateran Council had not enjoined

Chris

tian philosophers to do so? Would he otherwise have accepted the assertion that the nature of the soul is not capable of easy
shows

inquiry,
says said

or

that human reasoning

that the soul dies

say"

with

the body? When he

that "some have gone so

far

that many have held the have done is not to think that daring thing they the soul is mortal, but to say it? Does he mean, in other words, that while it is not surprising that someone would hold that human reasoning shows that the
as

to

the

latter,

whereas

he had only

former, does he

mean

that the

is mortal, it is audacious to say it? If so, what is his own view? Insofar as (according to his own declaration) he only dares to reject the assertion that human reason shows that the soul is mortal, and that only faith requires us to
soul

believe it immortal, because of a decision of a Council, does he not accept and implicitly confirm the doctrine he is undertaking to refute? In other words, is
not

he himself saying that,

the
soul

while

human

reason would

have led him to this, faith,

regard
which

the soul as mortal, or not to

asserts that
so?

dare to

answer

those who say

use reason

is immortal,

requires

him to

to show that this is

The confusing nature of the latter possibility reveals the confusing situation the Church finds itself when it is compelled to rely on faith to ground the assertion that reason, and not merely faith, licenses the assertion that the in
which soul

is immortal.
that there are many

"Moreover, I know
believe that God
reason than

irreligious

people who refuse to

exists and

that the soul is distinct from the

body, for

no other

that

they

say that these two doctrines have up to this time not been
anybody"

able to

be

proved

by

by

the

Council, is founded
nobody has

on

belief

(AT 3). Irreligion, like the religion propagated or opinion; in the case of irreligion, on the

opinion that seem

advanced a proof.

These

"many irreligious
preceding paragraph,

to be distinct from those people, referred to in the

who claim

that human reason shows that the soul dies with the

body,

and that

the

contrary is to be held

by

faith

alone.

The latter people

proven,

are not moved

reason-

opinion or report about what others

have

by

but

by

their own

and

Descartes Contra Averroes?

215

they

are not said to

be

"irreligious."

Even those does

who

say that they

the

are con

vinced

by

human

reason that the soul

not survive

body,

and

that the

contrary is to be held on faith alone, do not perhaps go so far as to say that they reject faith and adhere to their own convictions; they are reasonable enough to bow to the
proclamation of the

Council that the

soul

is immortal,

even

if they

do

not

say that reason convinces them of this.

which

The task proving that

someone

these irreligious
of

people set

the philosopher is not that of

God exists, but distinction between soul the

setting forth arguments for God's existence and and body in such a light that they will believe that
other

has demonstrated these things. In

opinion or

words, the task

they

set

him is

one of

managing Descartes believes that he has

belief

about the accomplishments of reason.

provided

the best possible proofs, "so that I

demonstrations"

now

dare to

propose

these as most certain and evident

arguments to

(AT 4).
am not

"But

although

I believe my

be

certain and

obvious,

still

therefore convinced that

they have been

accommodated

to everyone's

power of

apprehension."

selves

may

not

As in geometry, proofs that are obvious and certain in them be so to everyone, "both because they are quite lengthy, one
on

thing depending
quite

another,

and also a mind

free from

prejudices
senses."

because they particularly demand a that can easily withdraw itself from
Descartes'

mind com

merce with the

This
to

seems

like

a stiff

requirement;

proofs,

which are supposed

sway the

opinion of

those who believe no one has offered adequate proofs as

who

well as

to convince the unbelievers

rely

on

reason,

can

only be

appre

hended lect.

by

a mind

both

attentive and capable of

seeing the things of the intel

Certainly
study
convinced

one

is less

apt to

find

people competent to

study

metaphysics than to

geometry.

Moreover,

there is a difference that in geometry everyone is

that nothing is customarily written without there being a certain demonstration for it, so that the inexperienced err on the side of assenting to is false, wanting as they do to give the appearance of understanding it, more
than of

what often

denying

what

is true. But it is the

reverse

in

philosophy: since

nothing is

believed concerning which there cannot be a dispute regarding at least one part, few look for truth, and many more, eager to have a reputation for profundity, dare
to challenge
whatever

is the best. 10
Descartes'

There is thus
such

a problem about
are more afraid

proofs: people

do

not

have faith in

proofs, and

to appear foolish

for accepting

than

for

deny

ing

them.

because they And therefore, however forceful my proofs might be, nevertheless through them will accomplished I have what expect belong to philosophy I do not not I do patronage. your with doubt, I me assist significant unless you be very
...

say, that

if

this

should come

to pass,

all

the

errors

that have

ever

been

entertained

216

Interpretation

regarding these questions will in a short time be erased from the minds of men. For the truth itself easily brings it about that the remaining men of intelligence and

learning
atheists,

subscribe to your

judgment;

and your

who are more accustomed

to

being
know

authority will bring it dilettantes than brilliant

and also

about or

that the

learned
will

men, shall put aside their spirit of contrariness,

that

perhaps

they

defend the
of

arguments which

they

will

are

taken to be demonstrations

by

men

intelligence, lest they

seem not to understand them.

And finally, be

all

the others

easily believe in so many testimonies, and dare call into doubt either the existence of God
will

there will
or

no one who would of

the real

distinction

the soul

from the body. Just how

best
of all

great

the usefulness

of

this

thing is,

you yourselves can me

be the judge, in been the

virtue of your singular

wisdom; nor does it behoove

to commend the cause of God and religion to you at any greater

length,

you who

have

always

greatest pillar of the

Catholic

Church"

(AT 5-6).

The force

Descartes'

of

proofs will not accomplish much unless assisted

by

the prestige of the

proofs are valid.

Sorbonne, whose support If it does, "all the errors

in

will

lead

men

to believe that the

that have ever been entertained

regarding these questions will in a short time be erased from the minds of
men."

But the
of

sort of errors

question are not errors of of

reason, but errors

will not

at

the

level

opinion; for the effect

the Sorbonne's support

be to
who

make the proofs more perspicuous are

to those capable of evaluating them

fewer than those this,

competent at

geometry
of errors of

but to

make

those incapable of

doing

and accustomed

to accepting the judgment of others, believe that the

proofs are valid.

And it

is, indeed,

opinion,

rather

than of errors of

reason, that it is most appropriate to say that

minds of
who

they

will

be "erased from the

minds of those

men"; for the errors

of reason are not erased who reasons must

from the

reason, but only resolved; one

remember, understand,
"erased,"

and meditate on

the errors of reason, insofar as there can be such things. The

on are

errors of

opinion,
errors

the other

hand,
in the

are

the sort of

thing
or

that

can

be

for these
in

merely
"erased"

impressions, habits,

remembered

strings

of

words; these can be

planted men's

measure that new opinions can

be im

souls."

"The truth easily brings it

about

that the remaining

that

men of

intelligence

and

authority
those
of

subscribe to your

judgment"

is,

presumably, the unbelievers, or

them,
and

them who are competent to evaluate the arguments; and along with "intelligent" those who are in a political, rather than speculative sense
who are men of and who

those

ligence
will

authority rather than, or follow the Sorbonne for political

atheists,

as well

as,

men of

intel

reasons.

bring

it

about that the

or

who are more accustomed

"Your authority to being dilet

will

tantes than brilliant

and also that perhaps

learned men, shall they will defend the

put aside

their spirit of contrariness,

arguments which

they

know

are

taken to be
stand
will

demonstrations

by

men of

intelligence, lest they

seem not to under

them."12

"They

will put aside submissive.

their spirit of contrariness": that

become politically

Will they do this

is, they because, like Naude or La

Descartes Contra Averroes?

Mothe le Vayer, they believe in the necessity
among the
either
of political and

-217

theological

tion on the part of the authorities, out of a Machiavellian pleasure in

decep being

knowing

many testimonies, The

result of

and

liars? "And finally, all the others will easily believe in so there will be no one who would dare call into doubt
soul

the existence of God or the real distinction of the

Descartes'

from the
a

body."

collaboration, in

other

words,

will

be

success,
to what

not
men

with regard

to the thoughts of those who reason, but

which of course was

with regard

"dare to

say,"

is precisely the starting

those who "dare to

point

for

Descartes'

project, since it
convinces

inspired

by

say"

that

human

reason

them that the soul depends on the

alone
great a

body,

and

that the opposite

is to be

held

by

faith

daring

which was condemned

by

the Lateran Council.

"Just how

the usefulness of this

thing is,

you yourselves can

best

of all

be the

judge, in

wisdom."

virtue of your singular

The

"usefulness"

of a situa of

tion in which no one dares call

can

into

question

the dogmas

the

Church;

what

that be but a political usefulness, of the sort Descartes spoke of at the

of

beginning
judge"

the Letter? The theologians usefulness, "in

of

the Sorbonne can "best of all

be the

of such a wisdom?

virtue of your singular wisdom":

a political

It is surely political wisdom that is the judge of political usefulness. "Nor does it behoove me to commend the cause of God and religion to you at

any greater length, you who have always been the Church": who more than a "pillar of the Catholic
see

greatest pillar of
Church"

the Catholic

would more

clearly
an

the

usefulness of question

conserving the authority of the

merely ironical. It
spoken of earlier, and politique

Catholic Church?
be taken
as

This

is

perhaps not

can

involving
implied
at

allusion to what skeptical

I have

the view defended

religious

or

by

Counter-Reformer is

authors, that
or

belief,

least
will,

that of the many,

and

without cognitive

content,

is simply

an act of the prevent

that this

sort of

chy

promised

by

faith is necessary for the Protestant assertion

that Descartes

political of

reasons, to

the anar
of

the right to examine the truths

theology by
It is

the light of individual

reason. rejects

not at all clear

this

claim,13

and much that

he

says

in the Discourse

seems to confirm

that he shares the

view of popular religion or

belief
chief

as a matter of custom, without cognitive content

("above reason"),

whose

importance is
since the

political, but

which

is,

politically, quite
wishes

important,
retain

although

it is

not so clear

from the Discourse that he best

commonwealths

simply to

the existing

theology,

are those governed

by

a single plan seems

and religion

is

an essential part of commonwealths.

In the Discourse he
and not

to give up the idea

religion

of

reforming the
of
things.14

commonwealth

therefore perhaps the

would not

simply on grounds desirable to do these

difficulty

and

risk,

because it

be

I have

suggested

that he may be undertaking to

what one might call the

do indirectly,
overtly It is

by

encouraging imitation
and

and

founding
with

religion of science

the society

associated

it,

what

he does

not

do

and explicitly.

thus not

clear

that Descartes simply rejects the skepticism either of

218

Interpretation
or of skeptical

Montaigne
could

Counter-Reformers
order

about popular religion or or theological

the pos

sibility be

of

founding

political

in

reason

argued that skepticism will

be

of considerable

truth; indeed, it importance for Des

cartes

beyond its

bearing

on

religion

and popular opinion,

in

informing his
the
cosmos.15

departure from Averroism,

with

its Aristotelian-Platonic

view of

NOTES

A full

consideration of

the relation between faith

and reason

in the Meditations

would

have

to consider many things besides the Letter of the Replies to the Second Set
passages
of

Dedication, in

particular, the discussions of faith in

and

Objections AT 142-43
numbers refer

147-49,

as

well as

many

other

in the Replies to Objections. (AT

and

to the page on

which a passage occurs

in

the

Adam

Tannery

Descartes'

edition of

works.) A full

consideration of

the relation between

faith

and reason

in Descartes

would require careful attention

correspondence.

to the Discourse this

on

Method is
not

as a whole

as well as

to the Principles and the

The

purpose of

paper

to provide a

comprehensive

discussion of this sort, but merely to open the question. 2. A striking turn of phrase. What is it to demonstrate a question strate that there is a question, to display a difficulty? 3. It is this
preference

except perhaps

to demon

that especially

characterized and

the Catholic

Church, in

the

view of

Prot

estant

theologians, in
will,
a
rather

contrast

to their own;

it is because Descartes treated faith

as a mere accused view of

matter of

than as a product of understanding

of the

illuminated
Jesuit

by

grace, that Voetius

him

of as

being

friend

Jesuits

and an

enemy
of

of ecclesiastical and political

conception of

liberty. The

faith
as

unreasoning
as

submission was of course allied to the

priesthood were

Church

government

the spiritual rule of the

(and

Catholic monarchs)
attracted

over

the laity. (That is why the

Jesuits,

observe

below,

particularly

to philosophical skepticism:

they

thought

it
a

served their conception of religion as a matter of rule

by

priests.) A

Protestant,

and

Calvinist
sound

necessarily depended for its unity on the educated consensus of understanding of doctrine and Scripture. For the clash between Descartes
church
Universities" "Voetius."

especially the faithful in

Voetius

and

see

Thomas J. McGahagan, "Cartesianism in the Dutch of History, University of Pennsylvania, 1976, index
Wall for making me aware of this work. 4. On Jesuits and skepticism, see Richard H.
to

under

Ph.D. dissertation, Department I thank Ernestine van der

Spinoza (Berkeley:

University
and

Pierre Bayle, Historical

anapolis:

Popkin, The History of Scepticism from Erasmus California Press, 1979), index under Huet, Maldonat, etc.; Critical Dictionary: Selections, translated by Richard H. Popkin (Indi
of under

Hackett, 1991), index

175-76.
attack

Arriaga,

etc.

On Berulle's

response

to skepticism see

Pop

kin,

pp.

5. See Pascal's
moral

theology.

almost as

in the Provincial Letters, passim, on the Jesuit rule of the in See also Descartes, letter to Mersenne, 5 October 1637, ATI 450: "I consider false whatever is only a matter of probability"; compare Rules for the Direction of the
"probable"

Mind, Rule Two. Consider in

Letter to Mersenne, End
probable, from the

the

light

Descartes'

of

this

remark at

Discourse AT45 that it is far

of the

more probable that the world was created as the

Bible

says than as the method tells us; compare

of page). not

May 1637,

AT1367

(beginning

Faith belongs to the level

point of view of

ideas. Consider
was a

Descartes'

following
of

human reason; that is, remark for the light it

to the

level

of clear and

distinct
he

sheds on

the question of

whether

Christian

or a

believer.
the court

Descartes'

rival at skeptic

Christina, Gabriel Naude,

was a

"libertin

erudit"

allied with the

La Mothe le Vayer
political seems

as well as with
rather

Gassendi. Naude's

philosophical thought

is

absolutist
of politi

Machiavellian
cal

doctrine

than epistemological skepticism, but his

advocacy

lying

to presuppose a

radical criticism of

the truth-claims of religion, a criticism which

could

find

support

in

skepticism even

if

not skeptical

itself. La Mothe is generally supposed to have

shared

Naude's

political views and

intentions.

Descartes Contra Averroes?

Compare
Descartes'

219

remark on the circularity of which the unbelievers would accuse the faith ful if they were simply to defend belief in God from Scripture, and Scripture from belief in God, with Montaigne's famous remarks about the circle of judgment in the "Apologie de Raimond
Sebond."

6. ATVII
First

p. 2.

Quoted from

the translation of Donald A. Cress

as reprinted

from Descartes, Meditations

on

in Steven M. Cahn, editor, Classics of Western Philosophy, 3d ed., (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1990), p. 405. The use of Cress's translation does not express a dislike of the Cottingham, Stoothoff, and Murdoch edition, on which I have
relied

Philosophy (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1979),

for my
note

references

to the correspondence and Rules

in

note

and

for the

quotation

from the

Rules in

9, below (The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985]).
7. That the
existence of

God

can

be

proved

dogma,
Letter it

to judge from
seems

Denzinger,

until the nineteenth

to be asserted

by

Romans
in

and

was not clearly announced as century (though as Descartes points out in the Wisdom): see nos. 2751, 3004, and other passages

by

natural reason

dei"

cited as relevant

to "Exsistentia

the index. See Henricus

Denzinger, Adolfus Schoenmetzer

S. I., Enchiridion Symbolorum, 32d ed. (Barcelona: Herder, 1963). 8. See Denzinger, no. 1440, and for the full text, Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, Cen tre di Documentazione Istituto per le Scienze Religiose, Bologna (Basel: Herder, 1962).
nature

9. See Averroes, The Decisive Treatise, where he seeks to defend the philosophical study of through the injunction to praise the Lord for his works, thereby indicating the tension be

tween the pious attitude, which

has

an

immediate

experience of

the

Deity

through the wonder at

his

creation, and the philosophical or scientific attitude, which knows God not through humble wonder
at

the marvels of creation, whose nature and possibility surpasses our understanding,
which

but through

the understanding of those works, an enterprise

which

implies the overcoming

of

the submission

is

a natural companion

to pious wonder and reverence.

in this paragraph, compare the remark by Pamphilus in the introduction to Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: "Any point of doctrine which is so obvious that
earlier remarks

To the

it scarcely
cated,

admits of

dispute, but

at

the same time so important that it cannot be too often incul

seems to require some such method of

handling it;

where

the novelty of the manner may

compensate the triteness of the

and where

subject,

where

the vivacity of conversation

may

enforce the

precept,
neither

the variety of

lights,

presented

by

various personages and

characters, may appear

tedious

nor redundant.

"Any
lead
us

question of

philosophy,

on

the other

hand,

which

is

so obscure and uncertain should

that human
seems
allowed

reason can reach no

fixed determination
style of

with regard

to

it

if it

be treated
men

at all

to
to

naturally into the

dialogue

and conversation.

Reasonable

may be

differ

where no one can

afford an agreeable
a

reasonably be positive: Opposite sentiments, even without any decision, amusement; and if the subject be curious and interesting, the book carries us, in
and unites

manner, into company,

the two greatest and purest pleasures

of

human life

study

and

society.

"Happily,
so

these circumstances are all to be found in the certain,

as the

subject of natural religion.

What truth

obvious,
which

so

being

of a

God,

which

the most ignorant ages have acknowledged,

striven

for

the

most refined geniuses

have ambitiously

to

produce new

proofs an

and argu

See David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, edited, with Norman Kemp Smith (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1947), pp. 127-28. 10. AT 5. It
would

ments?"

introduction
"dare"

by
the

be

worth

Letter.
course,
tion."

They

might also

be

compared with

comparing the different occurrences the different occurrences of

that
work which comes

of the verb
"presumption"

in

in the Dis
presomp-

and with the

first

sentence of

from Montaigne's "De la

See also Rules, Rule Two, AT363: "Therefore, concerning all such matters of probable presumptuous to hope that opinion we can, I think, acquire no perfect knowledge, for it would be
achieve"

we could gain more

knowledge than
vol.

others

have

managed

to

(Cottingham, Stoothoff,

and

Murdoch translation,
11

1,

p.

11).

of Republic 429d-e on true opinion as a sort of dye which can be One is tempted to ask, what are the errors in question? Are they the made to the ones it supports? If the Sorbonne supports Descartes, will it opinions the Sorbonne opposes, or

Compare the language

color men's souls.

220
gain

Interpretation

victory for the opinions it supports, or will it be accepting a Trojan horse? See Replies to the Second Set of Objections to the Meditations, AT 142-43 and 147-49; compare letter to Mersenne, End May 1637, cited in n. 5.
12. Implied in this passage,
of as the reader will

Dedication, is the view that there are thinking things out for themselves and
assertions on the

three sorts
who are

have noticed, as well as in the rest of the Letter of minds. There are those who are capable of
unwilling to
proofs are
accept

the truth of philosophical

when

basis

of appeals

to authority. This class is

referred

to

Descartes

speaks of

that small number who

are capable of

following
wise.

in metaphysics,

when

he

speaks of

the

unbelievers,
tion

and when

he

speaks of

the

There

those

who are concerned with

their reputa
and
are

for

wisdom.

This

class

is

referred

to when Descartes speaks of the atheists and

libertines,
There

may
also

also

include the theologians to

who go

whom

he

speaks

in

an

apparently

flattering

manner.

those

along

with what others

believe,

or what

authority tells them.

to correspond rather
men who

The
well

view that

humanity

breaks down into these three

orders of men seems

to the Averroist grouping of human beings into philosophers, prophets and other their imaginations to gain authority among others, and believers. to the distinction Descartes makes

make use of corresponds

Further, it clearly in Discourse Part Two, AT 15-16, between three

composed of

sorts of minds.

The world, he

says

there, "is
are

largely

two sorts

of minds

for

whom

[the
are,

doubt] is

quite unsuitable.

First,

there

those who,

believing
of

themselves cleverer than

they

cannot avoid precipitate

judgements

and never

have the

patience

to direct all their thoughts in an

the principles

orderly manner; consequently, if

and of

they

once took the

liberty

doubting

they

accepted
a

straying from the

and

common

path,

they
are

could never stick

to the track that must be taken as

there are those who

short-cut,
reason or

they

would remain

lost

all

their lives.

Secondly,

have

enough

modesty to

recognize that
whom

they
can

less

capable of

distinguishing

the true from the

content to

false

than certain others

opinions of

by

they

these others rather than seek

would never

be taught; such people should be better opinions themselves.

follow the

"For myself, I teacher or if I had

learned"

undoubtedly have been counted among the latter if I had had only one known the differences that have always existed among the opinions of the
and

most

(Cottingham, Stoothoff,

Murdoch translation).

The third class, that is,

compelled

consists of those who are capable of

thinking for

themselves

or who are

to attempt this
(Descartes'

by

their

discovery
he

of the actual

incompetence

or

lack

their teachers.

assertion that

would

been

exposed

to disagreements among the

principle that

learned

have been among the can be taken both derived from his

mere

unanimity of followers had he not

of

as

an

ironical

gesture of

deference to the Jesuit

an

laymen

ought not to engage

in theological

speculation, and as

indication that his departure from this

principle

own education at

the hands of

the

Jesuits.)

Apology,

This typology is of course far older than Averroes. One finds a typology related to it in Plato's where Socrates distinguishes three types: the poets, politicians, and Sophists, who think that they know a great deal about many things, but who in fact know nothing; the craftsmen, who do know something
and about their craft

but

suppose

that

they know

more than

they do in knowing this;

himself,
custom,

who alone

knows that he knows

of

the people, are

as

not praised

and

those who

which is to say the men for their modesty and submission to the authority of religious teachers follow the opinions of others are praised by Descartes. But that there is a
nothing.

Here the craftsmen,

close relation

between

Socrates'

poets, politicians, and than

Sophists,
(see

Descartes'

and

class of those who

and

think

they

are cleverer

they

are, seems

clear enough

also

Discourse Part One AT 9

passim).

And there is

much

in the

Apology

to

imply

that

Socrates thinks that the

craftsman class

is

characterized

conventionality or acceptance of tradition. For agreement with Socrates that craftsmen know more than those with more elevated claims to dom, see AT 9-10 together with AT 5-9.
moral and religious

by

its

Descartes'

wis

13.
see e.g.

Certainly

he

accepts the view that

faith is

a matter of

the

will rather

than of the

intellect;

Rule Three AT 370, Principles I, No. 76, Letter to Father Dinet, AT 598, etc. As to the political indispensability of preserving established beliefs, consider Discourse Part Two, AT 1415, as well as Part Three AT 24 and Part Two AT 12.
good sense

14. See Discourse Part Two, AT 24: "For these reasons I thought I would be sinning against if I were to take my previous approval of something as obliging me to regard it as good

Descartes Contra Averroes?

later on,
when

221
to

it had

perhaps ceased to adherence to

be

good or

no

longer

regarded

it

such."

as

This

seems

suggest that

Descartes'

country"

among the "laws and customs of my (AT 23), an adherence which is that merely provisional insofar as it is part of a is merely provisional, may have to be abrogated if he finds that this custom has ceased to be good or that he no longer regards it as such. The suggestion is confirmed by AT 27-28: "Besides, the sole basis of the and foregoing three maxims [which include the maxim of obedience to
as
one
"morale"

Christianity

Christianity

other

"laws

and

given each of
obliged

customs"] was the plan I had to continue my self-instruction. For since God has us a light to distinguish truth from falsehood, I should not have thought myself
the opinions
of others

to

rest content with

for

a single moment

if I had

not

intended in due

course about

to examine them using my own these opinions, if I had

judgement;
not

and

could not no

have

avoided

having

scruples

opportunity to discover better ones, in case there were any. Lastly, I could not have limited my desires, or been happy, had I not been following a path by which I thought I was sure to acquire all the knowledge of which I was capable in this way all the true goods within my tion). Note the anti-ascetic implications of the last
and
reach"

following

hoped to lose

(Cottingham, Stoothoff,
remark.

and

Murdoch transla

call

15. Epicureanism too may have been important for him. Cyrano de Bergerac goes so far as to Descartes an Epicurean, adding that he differed from other Epicureans because he had the

vanity to wish to give to Epicureanism a new founding principle. See Cyrano de Bergerac, Les Oeuvres Libertines de Cyrano de Bergerac, Parisien (1619-1655), introduction by Frederic Lachevre

(Geneva: Slabkin Reprints, 1968),

vol.

1, Les Estats

et

Empires du Soleil,

p.

184.

Moby

-Dick

and

Melville's Quarrel

with

America

John Alvis

University

of Dallas

Melville

works out

his thoughts

on

America's

political character

in his fifth

novel, White-Jacket and in his sixth, Moby-Dick. The latter meditation is re lated to the former as antithesis to thesis; a hopeful confidence in his country's
national purpose gives

way to

skeptical reflections on a

dilemma inseparable

from those
ened and sion

founding

principles

that for Melville had

once promised an enlight

morally improved public life. In between the substantive and formal

a conception of

Moby

-Dick

Melville

confronts a ten

principles of

the American regime,

between
the

the maintenance of human rights founded in nature, the formal requirement of sovereignty, the demo

nation's

final cause, in the

and

cratic

imperative

of popular consent. course of

The

problem

suppose

Melville to have

puzzled over

this: How

other

than

by

producing his nearest approach to a masterwork is appeal to Christian tradition does modem democracy

produce needful restraints upon

democratic

will?

To

see

why

one can speak of needful restraints on a popular sovereign

of the political

it is

pertinent

to appreciate Melville's radicalizing

issue

as

he

passed

from White-Jacket to Moby-Dick. Both

that sustain despotism
points mizes
aboard

novels acquaint us with the mechanisms

ship.

an

American

Yet the

specific

difference
anato

to an

enlargement

of subject.

The military despotism Melville

and remediable

in

White-Jacket even

is

circumscribed

by

act

of

Congress,
to an

possibly

by

executive

directives. Troubles

on the

Neversink

amount

excrescence upon an seems to consider usages

American

body

politic

which,

as such

essentially healthy. The

assumption

earlier novel

bodies go, Melville exposes bad military

not give of

evidently

their

consent

informed citizenry will to unnecessarily harsh navy discipline once they know
on the

that an

these

My

for the grant which supported my research in preparing thanks to the Earhart Foundation

this article.

interpretation,

Winter 1996, Vol.

23, No. 2

224

Interpretation
With

abuses.

Moby-Dick, however,
the consent
of
will

we are presented with a men whose

despotism

over

the

spirit that relies on

of

the very

lives, liberty,

and pursuit

happiness

be

sacrificed to the will of their

leader.

By

thus raising the

within

stakes

the later

novel calls attention

to a conflict of

principle

latent

that

Lockian-Jeffersonian Jacket had

attached

political creed to which the

redemption.1

youthful

narrator of White-

his hope

of world

Locke is

mentioned

by

name

in the

chapter

(79)

that recounts

Stubb

and

Flask killing a Right whale, then attaching its head to the Pequod's hull so as to balance a Sperm whale's head already depending from the opposite side. The
whaleman's practice
with

inspires Ishmael

with an academic plan

to balance Kantian

Lockian

Concerning
skeptical

Ishmael evidently has in mind the Locke of the Human Understanding with its materialist skepticism that
philosophy.

Essay
might

balance Kantian idealism. But Melville may have

epistemology
subserves

also

been

aware that

Locke's
con-

revolutionary

political

teaching.

His

tractarian

theory

rejects

the assumption of

ancient and

Christian

political philos citizens. upon

ophy that government ought to aim at forming the moral character of Locke's explanation of the origins and nature of civil society rests solely self-interested material calculation. Lockian rights reduce at bottom to
guarantees

civil

for freedoms

conducive

to

self-preservation.

Government
of virtue

no

longer
upon

rests on a claim

to divine favor or on the natural superiority

governed.

but

the

consent of

the

That
to

consent

depends in turn his life

and

upon

the individual's
against a

estimate of what nature and

he

will need

preserve

property
that to

hostile

hostile

men.

Yet it is

quite conceivable

subdue

stepdame

nature one might

would make

it necessary to animate men with a them indifferent to safeguarding the freedom

think
of consent promotes a

collective zeal of

that

their

neighbors.

Locke's doctrine
regime,

tension within the secular, democratic

examines through

a conflict of purposes which rale over

Melville

his

portrayal of

Ahab's

the Pequod.
successful subjugation of a crew

By depicting
read

Ahab's
the

among

whom we

find

representatives of

nation's religious

heritage

as well as an

in the

philosophic which

founding
consent.

creed

tradition, Melville dramatizes a rests upon Jefferson's espousal

of

Ishmael widely problem implicit in that

of

Locke's doctrine

of

Whereas for the Melville

through the Declaration of the Melville of

alienable
upon

White-Jacket Lockian reasoning mediated Independence provides adequate political guidance,

Moby

-Dick

discerns in Jefferson's two

arch-principles of

in

rights

and consent an unresolved

tension: legitimate government

rests

the consent of the governed, its formal principle, and secures

rights, its

substantive principle. prove to

Yet

what

if the formal

and substantive principles should

Cannot the majority consent to laws that infringe rights of the minority or of individuals? Jefferson certainly thought so in his first inau gural address when he warned that Americans should "bear in mind this sacred

be

at odds?

principle, that though the to be rightful must be

will of

the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will

reasonable."

The

same

difficulty

beset Locke,

who

had

Moby-Dick
grounded

and

Melville's Quarrel
origin of civil

with

America
upon

225

his doctrine

of

the contractual

society

the neces

sity

of

protecting rights, but had subsequently

without

stipulated

majority
respect

indicating
of man. of

how democratic Melville

majorities

sovereignty for the could be relied upon to

the

the

rights
this

perceived

lying

at

heart

of

American

democracy

dilemma

to more evidently
shadow over

obligatory

reconciling evidently necessary democratic means moral ends. Moreover, Moby-Dick throws another

the sunny political messianism voiced in White-Jacket.

By

the

time he completed his greater work, Melville seems to have

become

aware of

the despotic

potential

implicit in the Lockian

concept of

society

as an engine

for overcoming nature's scarcity and violence. To appreciate the scope of the Lockian issues implicit in the
should epics

novel

we

begin

by

than to

modem prose

noting how Melville works up emotions more fiction. In the chapter "The
with

proper

to heroic

Advocate,"

Ishmael

exhorts readers

to agree

he details

merits

literary

him that the commercial-manufacturing enterprise treatment traditionally reserved for loftier subjects. At
and

times the claim is put forward

harpooners

and so

forth. Plot

facetiously, Perseus and Vishnoo as archetypal incident, however, establish heroic creden

tials for the seamen.

and

family

for

Resembling armies on campaign, whalemen leave home lengthy intervals of hardship and strenuous action. If hunting
to risks nearly comparable
with

ordinary

whales exposes men

hazards

of war

fare,

an antagonist equipped with

the white whale's cunning malignancy justi

fies the heroic terms Ishmael

adopts when and squires. addition

he

refers

to the

ship's mates and whales

their harpoon bearers as knights

requires prowess.
virtues of

Furthermore, slaughtering

leadership
killer

in

to feats of individual courage and

The

whale

needs to make sure of

Beowulf had to
quently, like the
novels and

secure the assistance of

classical and must

his

comitatus

loyal subordinates, just as following. Ahab, conse

mentions

Renaissance

epic

heroes Melville

in his

poems,

fulfill

an administrative as well as a combatant's role.

Even so, the opportunities whaling affords for depicting quest, combat and leadership do not reassure the narrator he will accomplish heroic amplitude by

incorporating
Oh, Ahab!
and

these

vivid activities.

When Ishmael complains,

must needs

what shall

be

grand and

in thee, it

be

plucked at

from the skies,

dived for in

the

deep,

featured in the
to elevate

unbodied

air2

we

hear Melville's

own exertion

mundane

material.

The

material

seems more

refractory than it

need

have been precisely because Melville has

whaling
makes

chosen to present a

documentary

on

as

industry

rather

solely
tions
tic

on

its

adventurous aspects.

He

Ishmael

complain of a
on

appears

in large

part

to have brought on himself

by insisting
and

focussing difficulty he minute descrip

than

of provisioning the ship, rendering

blubber,

considerations

impelled

him, Melville
confine

could avail attention

cleaning up. If only artis himself of a poet's liberty

Who faults Homer for

to ignore ship
attendant

business and to
and

his

to exciting chases with their

psychological

metaphysical

soundings.

226

Interpretation
Achaean sumptering and latrine? Yet probably Melville overcoming the inertia of his materials because his theme is the
of

withholding details
makes much of

straggle of a commercial

the terms of life are set

society to escape routine, illiberal by the balance sheet.

drudgery

wherein

Putting

aside

Southern slaveholders, the nineteenth-century Americans toiled

for their livelihood, and, if they cultivated aristocratic virtues relating to war, command, sanctity, literature or other liberal arts, they did so in the course of
gainful employment.

So in this
no

novel set at

midcentury, Bohemian Ishmael

and

Faustian Ahab have

eccentric aspirations.

choice

but to

earn their

daily bread,

whatever

their

(Ishmael's epithet) cannot indulge a Socratic leissure except during the few days he decides to spend awaiting death. Nineteenth-century authors had to write for cash, as the hard-pressed

"Socratic"

Queequeg

author of

South Sea

turning
effort

an

literary vendibles attests in his letters. We observe Melville apparent literary liability into an asset by taking as his subject the
Ahab
of sublimating an economic activity, trans into spirit-challenging undertakings. with capitalism, one construes it too narrowly.

his

narrator shares with

forming
If A
more

commercial necessities

one

identifies this

subject

avoided

uncompromisingly its catastrophe. No Sperm

capitalist management of capitalist at all attentive

the Pequod

would

have

to

his interests

would pur

sue a particular

whale.

On

such grounds

Starbuck

challenges

Ahab's
. .

his contract, "How many barrels will thy vengeance yield thee fidelity (36. 163). New England's whaling industry seems, moreover, to operate principle of employee profit-sharing (granted labor's share is as small
to
market permits). avid

on as

the the

Melville does brood

new

over

the absence of

moral restraint

in

society tion, but he seems indifferent to whether the means of production be in hands or collectively owned. Instead, the issue for him is whether an standing resting partnership in acquisition, self-preservation, secure political justice and freedom.
Ill
of political obligations

for

technologies to multiply securities and material gratifica

private
under

upon no other

basis than

calculations of will suffice

and mutual

security

to

epic

Melville may find himself balked before the task of inventing the American because he senses that assumptions apparently necessary for an audience's
the kind
of

reception of

heroism

proper

to epic poetry ran counter to American

beliefs. Such misgiving

other, the predominantly

seems warranted

if

we consider

the

distance between

traditional views of the grounds for civil society, on the one

modem

hand,

and,

on

the

liberal democratic
argument of the

perspective adopted

in the

Declaration
some

of

Independence. The

Declaration

rests

partly

say it

rests altogether

on a modem version of

the contractarian

theory

of civil
on

society elaborated by Locke in his Second Treatise. A brief Locke's thought will display its nonheroic tendency.

reflection

Moby-Dick
Locke hypothesized
characterized

and

Melville's Quarrel
existing
prior

with

America

227

a state of nature

to any civil order and

by

such

equality

that no man

was subject

to the will of any other.

order to escape

Aboriginal

men produced civil government with

of

its laws in

the

inconveniences
ger

their primal atomistic condition.

They desired

to make them
of stron order

selves more secure

individuals,
equal

protecting themselves but they also needed to find

by

against the

depredations

means of

cooperating in

to

wrest a more certain and more abundant and

livelihood from

natural resources.

Free

surrendered to a commonly ac knowledged authority some of their primordial liberty for the sake of enjoying greater security for themselves and their property. According to Locke's view,

individuals thus banded together

therefore,

organized

wise vulnerable

society exists because it offers a good bargain for other individuals. The bargain consists in their retaining as much of
and

the original
comfort.

freedom

equality
of

as

they deem
and

compatible with

their

safety

and

Locke's balance

sheet

revenue

costs

looks to

self-preservation

through generating and protecting property. One's allegiance to the civil order

is,

and ought to

be,

utilitarian

in outlook,

provisional

in temper.

Tendering
re

one's

liberties to the community,

not

one expects

something in return, and, if is

calculated and

turns are
made.

forthcoming,

one's contribution will not continue person and state

willingly to be
selfish,

The bond between individual any rate, self-interested,

rather

or,

at

than reverential or self-forgetful.

Thinkers

who commend these arrangements call them enlightened and argue that govern
ment

becomes
no claim

more responsible once everyone

has been brought to think

mlers

have

to

divine authority

and must earn respect

and comfort.

by

convincing the

governed of their

having

provided

safety

refreshingly enlightened or discouragingly low-minded, we may deduce that once Lockian teaching on the relatedness of the individual to society has come to prevail, prospects for heroic literature memorializing
regarded as national

Whether

founders turn doubtful. First,

Insurance brokers do
not

what should an epic poet

find to in

cele

brate in

nations that think of themselves merely as markets

dealing
and

personal

security?

inspire

songs.

Should

one expect men

to

expend themselves
siah

in serving

people, as

Moses, Aeneas,

Milton's Mes

did, if

that

people proclaims

itself

animated

by

no common purpose more

inspiriting than about dying for

venience,
as

nursing

comforts

security or about heroes of epic poems

contractarian

There is something contradictory undertaking every sort of privation and incon

in

safety?

do, in

order

to arrange for someone else's

future up for

ease.

The

notion appears

to disparage self-sacrifice.
give

Why

should one

self-seeking party to Locke's

a contract

for protecting property

himself

another?

conception places at

the origin of a political order not

God's providence, the foundation of community for

Moses, Virgil,

or

Milton,

but human
than the

contrivance,

projects remote
will of

thereby confining from divine interest. If men

as

collective effort come

to human secular
will rather

to view their own

God

the

source of

law, they

will

hardly

endorse

the enabling

228

Interpretation
heroic literature: the hero leads his
sponsor who
people under

premise of traditional
pervision of a

the su
and

divine

judges
inject

conduct

while

inspiring
into the

hero

community
religious

alike.

Inasmuch

as contractarian models require a suppression of

would
unnegotiables

enthusiasms,

which

social

cal

culus, it is

not coincidental

that

Hobbes, Locke,
argument

and

Rousseau

all seek

to mod

erate religious
produces man

attachments,

and that

the Locke of The Letter on Toleration

the definitive modem

for compromising belief. Lockian

in Lockian society
the
modem

nonheroic

expectations.

judgment,

diffidently, conforming his conduct to Once Lockian teaching informs manners and guides writer who seeks heroic subjects finds himself dispos
practices religion

sessed of suitable

material,

i.e., ideals

of

self-sacrifice, dispossessed of a peo

ple worth the efforts of a

of

hero

and appreciative of

his deeds,

and

dispossessed

divine authority,

of a providential scheme and a theodicy.

My
some

supposition

that Melville
organized

means

to present his tale against the

prescribed

backdrop

of such a

society

along lines
the

by

light

on a problem of

novel's construction.

Lockian theory throws Moby-Dick contains 135 Although the dramatic

"Extracts"

"Epilogue."

chapters plus

prefatory interest attaches to Ahab's

appearance of

and an pursuit of

the white whale, Melville delays the

first

Ahab

until

the twenty-eighth chapter, after almost a fourth of the

book has
s

mael'

Granted, important matter transpires in the exposition Ish meeting Queequeg, Elijah's warnings at the wharf, Father Mapple's
elapsed.

Jonah
require

sermon

still, the foreground

are

seems

of such

inordinate length

as

to

justification. We

told Melville was well along in composition be

upon

fore he decided to throw his focus

composition, he chose to retain at
portation with and

Ahab, but
plus a

whatever

the

exigencies of

publication all

the detail
tavern

of

arranging trans

lodging
and

in

two

towns,

scene,

bargaining
undra-

shipowners, and elaborate ship

descriptions,

although all

this delays intro

ducing
matic

Ahab

launching
given

the action proper.

Justification for this

make us

foreground may lie in Melville's intent to society

feel the

unleavened over

weight of a

to getting and spending. Ahab will have to

come this utilitarian preoccupation

Melville

must overcome the same

in pursuing his metaphysical vengeance, and inertia if he means to convey a sense of epic
commerce.

momentousness.

The link
on

with

Lockian thought is

A society

organized

for trade
Commer

the modem scale answers best to the project of enlarging and securing prop
goal of political association combined with

erty, the
cial

in Locke's from the

contractarian theory.

activity

the

effects commerce works on manners and moral moment

outlook

occupy the

reader's attention

Ishmael hits

upon

the

notion of pages

going later. From initial

to sea until

Ahab

steps out of

his

cabin more than a

hundred
to the

musings on

Manhattan

clerks

"tied to
absorb

counters"

moment of

Ahab's entrance,
than

commercial transactions

Ishmael, Quee
commercial

queg,
parent

and several minor characters who make reason other

their brief entrances for no ap

establish a

that

they

serve

to

busy

Moby-Dick
atmosphere.
and

and

Melville's Quarrel
for
man

with

America

229

We

see almost no occasion

meeting

man

in New Bedford

Nantucket
since

other than seller

tavern-keeper purveys

bal

"He

reg'lar."

pays

seeking employer. A doubtful liquor in cheating tumblers and lodges a canni Even the non-Westemer, South-Sea-Islander
or employee

finding

buyer

Queequeg, first
the
second

appears as a vendor

(of

shrunken skulls).

The

proprietress of

inn Ishmael
a

visits worries about

the

damage

suicides

inflict

on

her

business

harpooner killed himself

with the

tool of his profession in one of

her rooms, provoking her to complain that he has rained one of her counter panes. Melville prepares us for the disappearance from the story of the most
romantic
authorial remark

figure among his characters, the shore-despising Bulkington, with the that Bulkington remains a (3.16), a term
"sleeping-partner"

borrowed from nineteenth-century financial jargon signifying an investor whose role in a firm went unpublicized. The cenotaphs on the walls of a church em
phasize

the perils of the

we observe

industry

that

dominates this

region.

On the deck

of

the

Pequod,
structed

the painful

husbandry

of the ship's owners and are

in

in their
to

practice of we

the net
owners

profit.

Then

paying the seamen by assigning various fractions of discover that ledger calculations induce these Christian
Mammon. The

several accommodations with

long

passage

to the

hunting
the ship

zones permits no

delays for

religious

observances, hence

once outfitted

must set sail even shipmasters urge

though the

day

is Christmas (22.104).

Bible-quoting
not will

Quaker

the mates not to work too much on

Sundays, but

to miss a

fair

chance of a as

whale,

Sunday
officio

or not

(22.105). Ishmael
of

later

characterize

whalemen

"Ex
are not

professors

Sabbath

breaking"

going to allow pagan Queequeg aboard, but put their scruples aside once they see him dart a harpoon (18.89). The anxiety for gain prevails over their trust in providence and thrift pinches their (67.303). Bildad
and

Peleg

owne

charity.

Stubb

warns

Pip

a whale will

fetch

much more

in the

market than a

black boy. Not surprisingly, then, the novel is "money-making

pear once we read

the only formal definition

of man

to occur
not

in

animal"

(93.413). Strenuous belief does

and

ap

beyond Father Mapple's sermon,

since

his preaching

makes

something of a quaint impression ity has supplanted once-paramount

Melville

suggests that commercial avid

religious concerns. means

By
the

this

portrayal of

New England manners, Melville

engaged

to

establish at stan new

outset

the impression of a society

religious

in exchanging Christian yielding to

preoccupations

dards for Lockian. Older

passions generated

pieties

are at the point of

by

emancipated avarice.

Commercial

follow

Lockian ideas naturally from

cial
arrangements

of atomistic

individuals in their large

devising

cooperative so

to

make themselves secure

accumulation of property.

regime

organized

for

commercial

activity

on a

scale answers
preserve

to Locke's their

teaching

that men seek, and

preserve

ought

to

seek above all

else, to
oil

lives,

and then to

them

in

some comfort.

Whale

brings

comfort

to buyers

by
f

providing
Nantucket

fuel for their lamps, while profits from whaling secure the estates constant press of business in port and men and their families. The

230

Interpretation
ship
seems

aboard

designed to

suggest that

for

owners and mariners

alike, light

from

whale oil

takes

precedence

in their

moment-by-moment

consciousness

over the

light

which ancestral

piety had identified

with

God's

son.

Melville devotes
to

lengthy

passages

to explaining the whaling

epitome of a

industry

so as

keep
goes

in

sight

the image of the Pequod as an

society

organized
who says

for the he

sake of commercial venturing.

Excepting

Ahab

and

Ishmael,

to sea

for

what we and

today

would call psychic

therapy, the men, diverse

Ahab

in race,
and

regional

ties,

religion,

agree

to be shipmates for no other reason their further motivation, both

than making their livelihood. If

they have
their

Ishmael

nonetheless must get

living in

their present circumstances

appreciates

by

contributing to a
as we see

commercial enterprise.

Ishmael

the cash motive,

from his trite

paying is

meditation on original sin:

The

act of

perhaps

the most

uncomfortable

infliction that the two it? The

orchard
urbane

thieves entailed upon us. But

being paid,

what will compare with

activity
so

with which a man receives

money is really marvelous, considering that

we

earnestly believe money to be the root of all earthly ills, and that on no account can a monied man enter heaven. Ah! how cheerfully we consign ourselves to
perdition!

(1.6)
must

Even Ahab

itable
"sage This
pays

voyage and

have a care for maintaining appearances of managing a prof (46.212-13). Not surprisingly, then, Ishmael characterizes as
the

sensible"

latter-day
is
one

Puritan's

accommodation

to the spirit of ac

quisition:

"a

man's religion
dividends"

thing,

and

this

practical world quite another.

world pays

(16.74).

Similarly

the Locke of the Second Treatise

lip

service

to the Christian
of

teaching

that covetousness is "the Root of all

Evil."

Yet the invention

simple,

rude existence

money is for Locke the key to man's transition from to civilization, since "a little piece of yellow

Metal"

makes possible

the

accumulation of

property

and with

it that

stimulation

of

acquisitiveness which

for Locke is the despises

engine of

human

advancement.

Melville

thus makes clear enough that he intends to portray a utilitarian society colliding
with a man of spirit who

comfort and cares sort of

body. In Ahab Melville imagines the

cans shift their

leader

capable of

nothing for preserving his making Ameri

in
all

a project

preoccupation with gainful toil to willing service promising more risk than profit. Yet, as I will argue presently, for its daring his project is more Lockian than traditionalist in its premises. consists

bearings from

Ahab's nobility

in his impatience

with

utility, pleasure,

accom on

modation, compromise, and conventional

attitudes of piety.

Observing

his

first have

view of

his

captain

the physique of a man whose spiritual energy seems to

consumed

his

own

some as yet undefined

flesh, Ishmael likens Ahab to a martyr suffering for heterodoxy, "a man cut away from the stake, when the
them'

fire has overranningly wasted all the limbs without consuming (28.123). Melville plays up without explaining a livid scar which one old tar maintains runs the entire length of Ahab's body. He alludes to a rumor of Ahab having

Moby-Dick
been

and

Melville's Quarrel

with

America

231

himself hints

branded, presumably by lightning, in some elemental clash. Finally, Ahab at the scar's having been made by divine fiat to chastise him.

Whatever its origins, the scar and the extraordinary vigorous spareness of Ahab's person combine with his whalebone leg to convey the sense of a spirit scornful of comforts in his preoccupation with mental struggle. We are not
surprised

to see such a

man

fling

the pipe

he has been smoking into the

sea.

Easy-living
the high
even

Stubb

smokes

continually,

and companionable upon

Queequeg

shares a

peacepipe with

Ishmael, but Ahab looks

bodily

comforts as obstacles to

in his dreams.

intensity he maintains awake and, according to the steward's report, During the final chase, like an Achilles become all spirited

in his rampage, Ahab scarcely needs sleep or food. Melville contrives a certain dignity for his chief character by making him, as it were, so much compressed spiritedness in contempt of the compromising materialism now
ness

gaining authority over his New England Commercial manners favor the easy nally
misanthropic

compatriots.

familiarity

Flask

enjoys and an origi

Ishmael leams to

practice.

Although

not

insensible to human
show of of other

affections, Ahab holds himself unselfconsciously aloof. He makes no his dignity; but because all his attention turns inward, he is oblivious
men until

for them, or until they happen to obstruct his quest belittle his affliction. Ahab doesn't smile, speak at like or, unthinking Stubb, table, nor, excepting fitful and quickly repented confidences half-opened to
he has
some use

Starbuck

and a

despotic benevolence toward the Yet the distance he

cabin

boy, does he
to
regard

enter

into his

familiarity
snob

with anyone.

preserves

between himself him

and

men results

solely from self-torment. We but troubled visionary. is

are supposed

not as

Lockian bargain-seekers doubtless but large

sorrow presumed

experience

the common ran of vexations,

to convey extraordinary spiritual capacity beyond

a utilitarian's conception of
"crucifixion"

human likelihoods. Ishmael

extensive

says of

Ahab bears

in his face. Without making

inventory

his injuries

coming to cases that would certainly diminish our sense of his grievance Ahab displays his continual consciousness of some unpardonable if unspecified
a

affront.

His language

resounds with

melancholy, resentful expressions evoca

author of

tive

of

Hamlet,

outraged strength

Lear,

or

the broodings of the

never

Ecclesiastes.
a

Melville depicts
strength,
men.

in grief,
offers

plaintive

or

self-commiserating
the wound inflicted

moreover,

which

to

champion

the cause of all

Ahab's

sorrow appears

magnificently in

excess of

deep-grieving by
an arm

the

whale

since

meet another ship captain who eventually we

has had

taken in the

same

had lost way Ahab

whaleman remind

a us

spirits of the British

leg (chap. 100), yet the tangy good that physical impairment need not be
malignity

taken as
things.

revelation

of some

altogether

unacceptable

deep

down in

In fact

there

is

evidence

suggesting that Ahab

s rebellion against a cosmos

he finds

malevolent

could not

have had its

origin

in his

physical

loss. From

232

Interpretation
Melville's chronology one charged to Ahab appears to have
since concludes that the most occurred prior to

close attention to

shocking

blasphemy

the voyage that

a chalice

brought his injury,

Elijah

speaks

of

his

having
which

defiled

in

church sometime previous to the voyage

during

the whale took off

his

leg

(19.92).

Already

before he

encountered the whale

non serviam. against

Ahab thought he had

we are

sufficient cause

thus to express his

Consequently,
Moby-Dick the

sup

posed

to recognize in Ahab's grievance

culmination

rather than the origin of a protracted period of spiritual rebellion.

What lies back

of

Ahab's

defiance, then, is evidently

some animus resem

bling

the theological equivalent of unrequited love. We see this as the novel

builds toward the final chase, when Melville discloses the origin of Ahab's mysterious scar in another act of defiance directed toward God-in-nature. The
crucial

chapter, "The
of a

Candles,"

depicts

an

Ahab

who

demonstrates his indif

ference to terrors lifted to foot in fire:

Oh! thou
scar; I

typhoon as he stands up to

lightning

extinguishes the corpusant

salute

fire

with

his breath. He

stands with

lightning

which still shows on

the mast, and

ostentatiously right arm up while he keeps his

the spirit of

and

contact with devil- worshiping

Fedallah, Ahab

addresses

clear spirit of clear

fire

whom on these seas

as

Persian

once

did

worship, till in the sacramental act so burned

now

know thee, thou

clear

spirit,

and

by thee, that to this hour I bear the I now know that thy right worship is

defiance. (119.507)

Ahab

was once prepared

to worship the source of

light

and

life, but

the

wound

suffered

in the

act of

devotion he interprets

as a rebuff and an admonition to

stand off

in fear

rather

than approach in amity. We

know Ahab feels

of a

thwarted

in his love because he subsequently says, "Come in thy lowest form I will kneel and kiss Ahab would hold out an open hand to
thee."

love

and who

God

showed

himself disposed to
presides over

love,

yet

he has

convinced

himself that
to
a

no such of

loving

God

nature,

and

he

will not respond

ministry

fear

because to do so, he feels, would be to submit a higher agency to a lower. Ahab's greatness of soul will not permit him to worship except on his own
terms and only if God meets a test Ahab
will set

him.
In

Ahab

seems

to have rejected altogether such proofs of love as his fathers

generosity.

once ascribed

to Christ's redemptive

fact, Ahab
sole

never mentions

Christ, insisting instead

icence. Ahab
of created

that natural phenomena

be the

test of divine benef

evidences

will not subscribe

to the idea of a

loving
at

God from the

beauty

and order

that Ishmael observes

times because he thinks

ultimately prevail in physical nature. In the chapter imme the first day's chase, Ahab confides to Starbuck the lesson he diately preceding has learned from forty years of whaling. He thinks of himself as having warred

rapacity

and ugliness

all

that time against "horrors of the

Ishmael'

deep."

from

perspective,

a reader will

Observing likely be as

the oceanic phenomena

impressed

with

its

tran-

Moby-Dick
quil,

and

Melville's Quarrel
its

with

America

233

Armada"

life-producing rhythms
chapter serves to
Ishmael'

as with

death-dealing
in

commotions.

The "Grand
sea pastoral.

focus this
Ahab's
upon

sense of order with career spent

of

its tender

Against

testimony

chase and combat

has

so

concentrated

his imagination
make

the rigors

his

profession that

he becomes

indifferent to these benign

aspects of

the seascape. Habits of aggressiveness

perceive and

long
own

reinforced

Ahab keen to
when

to exaggerate

nature's

destractiveness. Therefore
pursuit refuted

Starbuck
of a

attempts

to dissuade Ahab from

further he has
be

by

appealing

to the

serenity

the mate when

he

points to an

fine day, the old man considers instance of nature's law of eat or

eaten:

"Look!

see you

Albacore! Who

put

it into him to

chase and

fang

that

flying-fish?

Where do
to the

murderers

go, man! Who's to

doom,

when

the judge himself is dragged

bar?"

(132.545)
us

Melville intends
ment of

to think of Shakespeare's Lear when we hear Ahab's indict

the Creator. Like Lear on the heath and for much the same reasons of
ascribes

disillusionment, Ahab
derers. Whoever has

perversity to

nature.

All

living

beings

are mur

made them and continues

to govern them

has

made them

to be killers. The supreme law of creation is self-preservation,

life overbearing
than the

life

with no

assurance

that the devourer can claim to

be

"higher"

devoured in any other regard than in its capacity to exert superior force. Melville evidently would have it that Ahab's experience is shared by honest
observers of carnage

between the

species.

Queequeg
him

moralizes on a shark shark

. . .

feed Fejee

ing-frenzy:
god or

"Queequeg

no care what god made

wedder

Nantucket god; but de god wat made (66.302). Ishmael can ask, "Who is not a
tates upon "the universal
each
cannibalism of

shark must

be

one

dam

Ingin"

cannibal?"

(65.300),

and

he

medi upon

the sea; all whose creatures prey

began"

other, carrying

on eternal war since the world

(58.274). Stubb
share with

approves who

Fleece's
get

sermon

exhorting large-mouth
to

sharks

to

those

demselves."

"can't

into de

scrouge

help
nature's

Stubb's

comment:

"that's

Christianity."

The

narrative action suggests

that

law

of

domination

by
one

bloodshed

extends up to the human

realm.

Ahab's
who

charge

echoes

the irreligion of the

on mariner's

"Forecastle-Midnight"

Manxman in

had

commented

drawing

knife

against another:

In that ring Cain

mad'st

struck

Abel. Sweet work,

right work!

No?

Why

then, God,

thou the

ring?

(40.178)
the

If God has

created

men with and

disposition to kill their brothers,

way to

such a

God

ht to be defied,
rl

the

most practical

defy

is to
of

war against

God's

th
,

dealing

creatures

while

boasting

consciousness

thereby expressing
It
appears

esentment

against

the Author of this botched creation.

there

234

Interpretation

Ahab's defiance something of the resentment associated with apos trust in a be tasy, disappointment that experience has denied him his nevolent Deity. Nature having shown itself to be what it is, however, he will
embitters
fathers'

dedicate himself to
the hopes
of

a religion of

hate

as

fervently

as, had the

world

bome

out

believers, he
seems

would

have devoted himself to practicing

experience

loving

kindness. Melville
providence once resentment

to suggest that trust in the kindness of a personal

under adverse

it

collapses a natural

yields

to

immoderate
and capri

against

scheme

now

seen as

cruel,

hostile,
against
should

ciously wasteful. Christian explanations

question

of evil

which

blame Satan

ran

the further

why

God, having
adversary.

the power to overcome

comply
to the

with

his

Responding

to

Satan, apparently Flask, Stubb gives Melville's reply

orthodox:

"do

you suppose

I'm

afraid of

the devil? Who's afraid

and put

governor who

daresn't

catch

him

him, except the old him in double-darbies, as he deserves,

of signed a

but lets him

go about

kidnapping

people; aye, and

roast

bond
a

with

him,

that

all

the people the devil

kidnapped, he'd

for him? There's

governor!"

(73.326-

27)
extending to several spokesmen freethinking doubts of this cosmos, Melville means to suggest that Ahab's dispute

By

just

governor

for

with

God

proceeds

from

intellectually

honest

confrontation of evidence

upon with the resoluteness grounds on which some of

mander

Ahab
the

embodies.

widely felt but rarely acted Melville means also to indicate the
their com

crew will make common cause with

in

a quest the

impiety
more

of which

he inclines

rather

to emphasize than

conceal.

Ahab thinks he is
would rale

govern, he

it

with

just than God, because if the world were his to less tolerance for cruelty and waste than God, as basis The
of

he thinks, Ahab's

stands accountable quarrel rests on

for.

a wider

inference than that

in
which

provoked

by
the

bloody
severed

spectacles

in predatory

nature.

chapter

he

meditates on

recently taken has Ahab address the scheme of things with challenging questions. He imagines this (so Melville refers to the head) has witnessed the full scope of human woe under a heartless or unob
of a whale
"Sphinx"

head

servant

heaven. The head has

torn

seen

in

sunken navies

the rain of national

hopes,

children

from
each

their mothers, and

lovers

who

wave; true to

other,

when

heaven

seemed

"sank beneath the exulting false to Ahab continues

them."

his indictment
pering

with

Job's

complaint of

decent
ship

men slain and struck

the wicked pros

as

and concludes with

the

fancy

of a

by lightning

it trans

ported a

"righteous husband to
moral

arms"

outstretched

loving

(70.312). Since he

draws the
of

"thou hast

seen enough

to split the planets and make an infidel

Abraham,"

we realize

and

has

ascribed

Ahab has taken the very widest survey of man's lot its misfortunes to divine spitefulness. Moby-Dick simply in malignity Ahab
sees everywhere.

carnates the general

As Ishmael convincingly

Moby-Dick
speculates, "he felt by his
mael

and

Melville's Quarrel

with

America

235

piled upon the white whale's

whole race

hump

the sum

of all

the general

rage

from Adam

down"

(41.184). At
anguish

another place

Ish

compares

Ahab's indignation

with rebel

the

Prometheus

suffered

(44.202). Both the Titan and Christian from a cruel supreme deity.
More

insist that human misery

proceeds

disturbing
in it

than Ahab's obsession is his ability to induce other men to

acquiesce

or even

willingly to

serve

it. Ahab

practices

Caesarism, despo

tism advancing

by

the politician's manipulation of popular passions rather than terror. He succeeds partly
social system and

by by

reliance on mere

dencies
such

of a

Lockian

partly

by accommodating to the ten by appealing to needs neglected

a society.

Despotic

control on

the warship in White-Jacket had de

pended on a

legally

authorized

backed
ship's arts of

by

their praetorian guard, the

complement.

monopoly of force exercised by the officers detachment of marines included in the

never employs

ordinary

Ahab

incitement,
not

self-dramatization,

force, relying instead on the flattery, bluff, and appeal to self-interest.

Ahab did he
the

could not succeed

first take

care to conceal

in making himself despot over the souls of his crew his violation of the mercantile purpose of

voyage.

By

whales

en route

cruising the ordinary whaling grounds and taking some few to the site where he plans to seek Moby-Dick, he protects

himself from from law

a charge of usurpation

for

which

he

could

be

legally
is the

removed unwritten

command.

The

one custom

he

permits

himself to

violate

of

helping

the

distressed,

yet this abrogation of maritime

property.

ius

gentium

is less

risky

than

misappropriating

Ahab

senses as

he

can

Christian

commandment of

neighborly charity for

long

as

safely ignore the he makes show of

observing Ahab undermines

the

the Lockian commandment to respect another's

Starbuck'

property.

Moreover,

s chances

approval of common sailors.

leading Following the example

rival.

a successful revolt
of

by

winning
enlists

Caesar, he

the commoners against an

"aristocratic"

Caesarism

requires a certain
of

flexibility

from the despot

who must

know how kindle

to work upon a variety

human

materials.

his disposal for fashioning his

malleable

Ahab knows the variety populace. Some men

of means at
will

show of energy. The publicist in Ahab enables him to merely in response to a so as to provide the excitement that will stir the himself know how to stage for the somewhat more intellectually able contrives shallow sort while he also motives of avarice. Ishmael attributes to Ahab the an appeal to more solid

axiom that
ness"

"The

permanent

condition of

the

manufactured man

is

sordid-

(46 212). A doubloon he

low
ambition,
comes

nails

to the mast combines appeals to passions

of excitement,
exchange
without

and greed.

The

gold piece
winner

looks

rich

beyond its
earned

value,

bearing
the

glory to the

of a

contest, is
out.

sweat,

and

stirs

envy

of everyone

who

loses

Besides these His

sense

ordinary
f
w

mainstays

of the

demagogue, Ahab knows how to

mystify.

d
If

purpose

will

allow

as

is

evident

him to employ cheap tricks without embarrassing from his astonishing some of the crew by making a

236

Interpretation
rod of

lightning

his

own arm when

the corpusants

descend,
a

and

from his piety in

effort

to overawe

ignorant
more

seamen

by

making

a compass of an

ordinary

sail needle.

Somewhat
cause. aloft

subtly, Ahab knows how to

must choose a watchman

enlist

man's

bad him

When he

to guard the line that has hoisted

in the

rigging, he

chooses

God-fearing

Starbuck. Ahab knows Starbuck's

Starbuck has
said

conscience will not permit

mania will

him to kill

even though

Ahab's

destroy

ship

and crew

(130.538-39; 123.515).
and

In

addition to these time-tested expedients of

possesses

two

other

holds

upon

his men,

these

business administration, Ahab he enjoys precisely because

both

provide relief

from the

shortcomings characteristic of a

Lockian,

commer

cial society.

The

reason

heroic tempers from Homer's time to

toil is from
aversion

our own

have

despised

merchants and mechanical

to the unadventurous,

meanly calculating transactions

the uncontestable
observation

required

for

buying

low

and

that merchants must cut comers, seize

selling high. Upon little ad

the sizeable exag

vantages,
geration

and minimize

risks

literary

men

have

propogated

that

commercial of

manners

are

inconsistent he

with

generosity

and

adventure.

Several

Melville's

poems suggest

endorsed

this prejudice. In

any event, the hunt for the

those
connected with

white whale gives scope

to emotions larger than

labor. Ahab invites

selves as warriors

whalemen's routine, workaday world of mechanical hands to try out the exhilaration of expending them rather than laborers. Furthermore, he adds a common touch

the

all

to this

feeling
will,

of

the sport.

They

will

join

with

him

as

comrades-in-arms, their
a sense of a

subjugation common

to his will obscured

a shared cause.

by

their

inebriation in enjoying

Beyond adventure-sharing, Ahab's quest promises a purpose that dignifies even the meanest auxiliaries, because the hunt for Moby-Dick fabricates a telos for
otherwise aimless

lives. It

affords

a pretense of

purposefulness,

of

that

which we

today

are accustomed

to speak of as

"meaning."

The

crewmen

feel

larger

and more alive once

they

conceive their exertions count toward some end

respond

beyond their
peals

personal

desires. Ahab knows that human beings

to ap

to

unite with

something larger than themselves.

existentialist

Accordingly
in

he

calls

for

sacramental

ram, delivers

sermons,

and exploits this

offering his own bodies a modem

conduct as a model substitute

for

perserverance

sublimity.

yearning by Ahab em

for the

sublimation once

identified

with either phi

losophy,

patriotism, sanctity,

or selfless

love.

What is this meaning to which the men of the Pequod assent, however vague, partial, and inarticulate may be their grasp of it, when they raise their voices to consent to Ahab's quarterdeck oath? At bottom, they and Ishmael
or part of

him

find Ahab

compelling leader
acknowledge a

rather

than a negligible be

deviled crank, because

attack on

some portion of

their own soul takes his part. In his

the white whale,

they

an

impulse

of resentment which most

heirs

of

poetically emphatic version of the Enlightenment can lay claim

to,

a resentment

directed

against

limitations imposed

by

nature,

by

the sum of

Moby-Dick
things
most
not

and

Melville's Quarrel

with

America

237

amenable, is
most of

or not yet

amenable, to human improvements. In their

physical our

telling form,
form

these limits impose

affliction,

injury depriving
and

us of

that

which

intimately

our own

bodily

limbs

faculties. The is

most vivid ral

human defiance, therefore, is

relieving

a war conducted against natu

limits for the

sake of

man's afflicted condition.

My

supposition

that Ahab's vengeance against Moby-Dick is one in principle with a program

by Machiavelli, Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes, Locke, Kant, and Marx, and eloquently endorsed this side of the Atlantic by Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Emerson (excepting Marx, Melville mentions all these authors in his writ
set

ings). The lectivist

project of

the modem technological regime

assault
unimproved

in

either

its free

or

col-

versions

has been to

nature

for the

sake

of

enlarging man's estate, to liberate from limits imposed by a nature which op poses human effort but yields to our socially concerted technological efforts.

Straggles
natural

against

disease,
food

against all

defects

of

birth

and

circumstance,
make

against

scarcity

of

or

energy, efforts to prolong life or to

all

it

more

secure or more

accommodating

these strenuous and well-organized expe

ditions

against nature's empire

take their rise from the

upon

impulse

which

Melville
principle
con

symbolizes
which

in Ahab's

vengeance

his

whale.

That

malignant

Ahab

would strike and

at, piercing through its masks, is the grudging,

aspect

fining,
he
A

unfair,

bullying
to his

the cosmos displays to a modem man when

meets opposition recurrent

will where

he had

required compliance.

theme of modem

teaching

asserts

that we properly define our

selves as
or even

human beings

by

opposing

a world which appears

blindly

to frustrate

capriciously to
the
nature resources will not

maim and

destroy
lords

human
of

beings,
it

who on all accounts

are supposed

noblest product and

earth,

and who therefore ought

nobler

to

find in

instead

of obstacles.

Holding

to oppose than

submit, Ahab

despotism
strike

or

patiently endure what he supposes to be either nature's its indifferent stupidity. If he cannot make it over, he will at least
the malign agents of this despotism. He shows, thereby,

back

at one of

that human

will cannot
suffered

tion
a

as

he has

be cowed, even if the body be subject to such humilia in the loss of the leg. The men of the Pequod respond to
in large
and clear terms a resentment

leader

who represents

they

each

harbor,
Ahabs"

although inchoately. As Starbuck ultimately perceives, "all of us are (123.515). Ahab can be seen as having succeeded in supplanting a traditional
with a modernist view of the

etiology

of evil.

For the Christian doctrine

of

the

fall

and original sin,

Ahab

substitutes resentment against

a coquette nature who

provokes

desire,

then

withholds

the means to
all

satisfaction.

Man is innocent

of

any originary from

man

wrongdoing
an

yet

the same suffers the straitened condition

Christians impute to
to nature,
arts,

aboriginal

or nature's

fall. Like Locke, Ahab transfers the onus God, yet Locke's remedy, the cultivation of
will

productive

is

too tame

for Ahab. He

take more

literally

the project of

making

while war on nature

he invests the

straggle with poetic color and reli

gious zeal.

238

Interpretation
us with

Melville troubles

the

intimation that the

pursued

project

Ahab takes

on

delir

iously
with

might

just

as

effectively be

in

cold

blood

on a national scale and

republic as

the same baneful consequences for the citizens of the

is

suf

fered

by

the crew of the Pequod. The number Melville sets for the crew on this
keel"

"federated

(30) is

the number of the states of the U.S.A. prior to the

sure

admission of plement of a

California. Although to be

it is

elsewhere

the standard com

whaler, Melville has made a symbolic use of the number thirty for the states of the union in Mardi, Chapter 158 (thirty stars) and Chapter 160 (thirty palms). Ahab's success in imposing his despotic will on a ship flying the

flag

of a republic

points

to a

weakness

in the foundations
men

of

the American
civil

republic.

As indicated previously, Lockian teaching has

of

form

society

in the hope
nonhuman.

overcoming two obstacles to their security, one

posed

human,

the other

The threat

by

the unrestrained wills of other men is allayed

secures

by

the institution of a

government which

rights, but

the same civil

ac

institution

also promotes

the overcoming of nature's scarcity

by facilitating

quisition of
men makes

property feasible a

and

division

of

labor. Peaceable

association with other

more vigorous prosecution of

that campaign against na

ture

which arises

from the

same sovereign cause of self-preservation as

does the

contrivance of civil government.

will not sacrifice

Nothing insures, however,

sake of the second.

that the

first

end

be

compromised of their

for the
fellow

Will

men not agree

to

liberties

citizens and

risk

losing

some of their own

if

the inducement comes in the form of a strong leader who promises in exchange
relief

from

nature's

despotism? If the

social contract reduces seems not

to a bargain nego
self-

tiated

on calculations of might consent

self-preservation, it

improbable that

interest
To

to despotic power in the

hope

of

maximizing

power over

nature's resources.

bring

home this threat Melville does from his

not

have to

project some

hypotheti

cal situation remote

contemporaries.

The

prolonged national temporiz

ing

with

to accept
some

slavery would have seemed to him proof of his countrymen's liability limits upon human rights in exchange for an institution considered by
protest

his

cynical reflections on

Americans indispensable for subduing the land. He has Ishmael "Fast Fish and Loose Fish":

in

What
slaves

are

the sinews and souls of Russian serfs and Republican [United

Fast-

States]

but

Fish,

whereof possession

is the

whole of the

law? (89.398)

Ishmael'

disillusionment

over

the equivalence

of

Russian

and

American despo

tism in the matter of slaveholding extends to his country's foreign policy,

"What
gland?

was

Poland to the Czar? What Greece to the Turk? What India to En

at

What

last

will

Mexico be to the United States? All

White-Jacket
praised as

Loose-fish."

If the

republic the narrator of

liberties"

bearer

of

"the

ark of man's

can countenance slavery in its domestic policy and is no respecter of rights in its foreign policy, Melville, speaking through Ishmael, feels justified

Moby-Dick
in
now

and

Melville's Quarrel

with

America

239

concluding, "What (89.398). for

a

are

the Rights of Man and the Liberties of the World

but

Loose-Fish?"

Melville is
or

no proto-environmentalist

sounding

alarms

protesting species-centric depredations putatively fragile ecosystem. He fears rather that the

more radical whelm

the more

impulse driving modem, particularly American, politics may over benign liberalism of Jeffersonian dedication to natural rights.
from the
amoral character of

The

problem arises

the principle

upon which

the

social contract rests. and the

Self-preservation is, first and last, the engine that drives destination sought. To preserve himself the Lockian individual consents

to creating a civil authority, agreeing

under

thereby

to regard other men as equals

law, yet to preserve his life and to preserve it more abundantly that individual may consent to a despotism which regards men as tools. Within the system founded in a calculus of self-preservation there appears no moral cause
for self-restraint, and, moreover,
tions supporting
self-restraint makes

the system undermines those religious sanc

that were once sustained in pre-Lockian polities.

of

When Ahab

his

display

defying

the

lightning

in the

scene previ

ously discussed, he
In the

proclaims:

midst of the personified

impersonal,
and

point at

best;

whencesoe'er

I came;

wheresoe'er

personality stands here. Though but a I go; yet while I earthly live, the
royal rights.

queenly personality lives in me,

feels her

(119.507)
dealt

Ahab's

"personality"

has been

affronted

by

the maiming

by

the

whale as

well as by the attempted intimidation he presently reads in the storm. He af firms this personality by persisting in his quest and by communicating his an imus to a body of men. Personality is modernity's substitute for soul. Its other

for personality is the self, which Locke defined as "that conscious think which is sensible, or conscious of Pleasure and Pain, capable of ing thing Happiness or Misery, and so is concem'd for it self, as far as that conscious
name
. . .
extends."

ness

Without the immortal

thinkers'

ordination or

held

by

Christians to

ennoble

"personality"

the soul, the

and without upheld

modem

"self is

nonetheless

sovereign,

needing to

establish

its

virtue against such generic standards as are nonetheless altogether

by

classical moral

philosophy it

is held to deserve

a special

personality"

dignity. This "queenly

result of

is

individual because it is the

nature and

individual

will

thereby
tion

unique version

putting its stamp on human of human potential brought to

specific act.

producing The indi

vidual will, the personality,

preserves.

is

what

the all-compelling
of

passion of self-preserva
happiness,"

Locke's of It is the beneficiary notion reduces to a gran suspect the One Jefferson's. may phrase before it was but however that may be, Melville will not go diloquent excuse for willfulness, Ahab's greatness. Yet he does indicate that although so far in questioning ample, his efforts are demonic in the degree that Ahab's character is heroicly rather than benevolence. Because he regards other men only he promotes hatred naemployed in executing his wrath against nature and instruments to be "the
pursuit

as

240
ture's

Interpretation

God, Ahab
of

neglects,

and

finally

chooses

deliberately
he

to

renounce,

promptings
with

humanity. His
the

obsessiveness precludes

companionable

feeling
friend

the one
and

crew member renounces

Starbuck

with whom

might make a

ship,

he

fellowship

available
practiced

in the faith

to espouse the bleak Manichee worship

by

his fathers only the Parsee, Fedallah. Most

of

tellingly, Ahab betrays the trust of subordinates pledged to unquestioning dience. Just before the final chase, Starbuck reminds the older man of the
and

obe
wife

young

son who await

past

his

return

to Nantucket. But an Ahab almost past

affections pushes

feeling, certainly
and

acting upon,

family

down

husbandly

fatherly

emotions and

turns away from Starbuck to cross the deck and gaze

into the

water where

he

sees reflected
who

Fedallah 's face (132.545). Melville here

directs his
charged to not an

irony

toward an Ahab

himself

now causes chapter.

those sorrows he had

present

divine indifference in the Sphinx

In the

instance,

uncaring God but a preoccupied Ahab sends sailors to the deep and separates husbands (Starbuck and himself) from faithful wives (Starbuck's, his A
parallelism

own).

between Prometheus

and

Ahab

reinforces the

latter's

violation

of

loving

kindness. Melville has Ahab

a

evoke

the Prometheus

myth when

he
ac

fire bearer ("The Candles"), when he braves knowledges to be his superior in power, and when he supplies
makes

himself

God he

substitutes

for

divine
dle,"

providence with and

his technical

resourcefulness

("The

Chart,"

"The Nee

"Log

Line"). After the

a science

manner of

the Titan depicted in

Aeschylus,
interest in

Ahab

practices

altogether

utilitarian.

Ahab

exhibits

no

knowing
A

for its

own sake.

chapter

depicting
nature

the repair of

Ahab's

ivory leg

conveys

Melville's for

skepti

cal estimate of this new

Prometheus. We

overhear

his

requirements

recon

structing human
while

to produce a machine all will and power:

Prometheus is about it, I'll order a complete man after a desirable pattern. Imprimis, fifty feet high in his socks; then chest modelled after the Thames Tunnel;

then, legs

with roots at

to'em, to stay in

one

place; then, arms three feet through the

wrist; no heart
. . .

all, brass

forehead,

and about a quarter of an acre of

fine brains.

(108.470)
romantic

In Melville's
ment,
while

hierarchy

of

faculties,

the heart stands for moral

judg
be

the calculative technical agency is the brain. He declared in a letter

with

to Hawthorne: "I stand for the heart. To the dogs

a

the head! I had

rather

fool

with a

heart than Jupiter Olympus

with

his

head."

Ahab his

would remove residual attach

the heart because he realizes that

ments

feelings

generated

there

to wife, child,

Starbuck, Pip

solve.

Promethean

revisionism

power,
prompts

and confronts

unbending re finds its instrument in brain will, its internal adversary in an opposed moral sense which
serves the

could soften

his

otherwise

love

rather

than resentment.

Early

on we

were

told Ahab had "his

re-

humanities,"

yet

this late soliloquy indicates he would suppress whatever

Moby-Dick
mains of compunctions of power and will.

and

Melville's Quarrel
for the

with

America

241
to

fellow-feeling

sake of

giving free

rein

Although Ahab
gests

means to

imitate Prometheus
man.

as

benefactor, Melville sug

his case for revising nature in contesting with God as mankind's advocate. Ahab boasts his love for oppressed human beings and seems to act upon pity for the
states

he is
of

a specious

friend to

He

terms

philanthropy:

outcast when whaleboat

he takes up
mid-chase

with

Pip,

the

black

cabin

boy

who

jumps from

in

and, left for

a time alone

mented,

intermittently

insightful

visionary.

in the sea, emerges a de Melville so constructs Ahab's

of

scenes with

Pip, however,
him

that he exposes the shallowness

no notice of

not

its

perversity.

Ahab has taken

his

subordinate

Ahab's pity, if until the boy's

human providence step in to God's unconcern. When Ahab takes ping rectify Pip under protection, Melville intends we should recall Lear's meeting houseless Tom o'Bedlam. Yet
misfortune makes

suitable as an exhibit

illustrating

an equally pathetic Pip elicits from Ahab nothing of the self-recognition Lear had been moved to. Instead, Ahab arraigns God and befriends the boy so that

he may
not as

himself for his benevolence. Ahab taunts storming skies, Lear had his own to "take medicine, take (120.509).
congratulate
"pomp,"
medicine"

Shakespeare's
later

king

had

charged

himself to leam sympathy,

whereas

Melville

has Ahab boast he

chapters when

surpasses

egoism

God in pity for suffering human beings. Three decked out in ostentatious kindness becomes obvious
to
prove

Ahab

offers

Pip

as court evidence

"there

can

be

no

hearts

above

snow-line"

the

(125.522).

Taking

the

boy
in

to his cabin, Pip's

new

protector

treats him to some Enlightenment

sermonizing:

Lo!

ye

believers in he does,

gods all

goodness,

and

man all

ill,

to you!

See the
and

omniscient gods oblivious of

not what yet

suffering man;

and man, though

idiotic,

knowing

full

of the sweet things of

love

and gratitude. grasped an

Come! I feel

prouder

leading

thee

by thy

black hand, than though I

Emperor's!
some affront to
secular

From Melville's vantage, what offends in Ahab's vaunt is less deity but rather the insult to human dignity. Ahab violates the ist's
moral code when

human

he debases its hatred.

supreme good of

benevolence

by turning

kindnesses into

up Pip as a cat's-paw to strike at the gods shows his philanthropy is adjunct to his pride. His dream of revising human nature has so chilled his heart that, although he professes love of man, he neglects to be kind to the actual human beings whose lives are in his care.
expressions of

Taking

Obviously, Pip

goes

down

with all

the other

mariners

dependent

on

Ahab.

Melville introduces the three-day death chase of Moby-Dick with an episode designed to gauge the inhumanity of a philanthropy founded in resentment. The

incident
ters the
and

of

the Pequod's encountering the

of an

Rachel, previously
his pity for
unkindness

alluded

irony

Ahab

who

has

voiced

mankind

to, regis in the abstract

Ahab's last

has

rebuked

heaven

and sea

for their

to the human race, now

sufferer.

refusing to

interrupt his hunt

at

the entreaty

of a

fellow

242

Interpretation
human community beyond the decks of the Pequod shows his so entirely consumed by his obsession with his role as protesting

contact with

having
within

become

champion of oppressed

humanity

that he chooses protest over

such

remedy

as

lies
and

his power,
captain.

at

this moment refusing

although

help

to another

father,

compatriot,

fellow
causes

Self-pity,
cruel

it has

expanded

to pity for mankind at

of man

large,

Ahab to be

to

men one

by

one.

Rights

have become fast-fish

hostages to this

embodiment of
of

despotic

potentials

inherent in the technocratic

impulse,

the gentler aspect

Locke

mastered

by

the more compelling.

IV

Melville

encloses

Ahab's story

within

Ishmael's in

order

to juxtapose the

former's
Ishmael

career

in

resentment against

the latter's education in

acceptance.

The

contrast

has led

some readers

to suppose Melville offers

self-preserving in

a correction to

Ahab. This hypothesis

proves out well enough when

applied to the novel's theme of

discovering
to

proper ways of

knowing. Ishmael's
matter of

character supplies no corrective

better

guidance

Ahab's, however, in the for America's political destiny.

the
mental

locating
superior

The very

source of

flexibility
up
and

which makes

Ishmael the He

student of nature

incapacitates him for

effective political action.

cultivates

intellectual independence

by taking

then

discarding

one after another a

number of antithetical perspectives on

with continual

irony

and

every issue he inspects. Compounded self-deprecation, this strategy causes Ishmael to attach
position.

himself only provisionally to any intellectual

conventional

He

enjoys

exploding
of whose

opinion, arguing the

humanity
permits

of cannibals and

the

difficulty

accepting the biblical story of Jonah (chap. 83). A mobility

as seaborne

latter-day

Montaigne

his sampling a diversity of cultural tenets on questions metaphysical, religious, or ethical, Ishmael feels wise not to be bound by any creed. Both as character and as author, he makes the most of a freedom from Madison's
self

intellectual

sectarianism won

for American intellectuals

by

Jefferson's
protects

and

arguments narrowness
a

for toleration drawn from Locke. Ishmael

him

from

by keeping

a mind open even

to the possibility

of yet

discovering
this din
of
afar"

transcendent order,

the great world's

"Ah, mortal! then be heedful; for so, in all loom, thy subtlest thinkings may be overheard
only in
nonsubscription:

(102.450). He
exile

remains steadfast

Long

from Christendom
which

and civilization

inevitably
is

restores a man to that

condition

in

God

placed

him, i.e.

what

called savagery.
myself am a at

Your true

whalehunter allegiance
against

is

as much a savage as an

Iroquois. I
and

savage, owning no

but to the

King

of the

Cannibals;

ready

any

moment to rebel

him. (57.270)
a philosopher

Ishmael boasts himself

because he

sees

the

merely

conven

tional basis of opinions less-enlightened minds mistake for truths and

because

Moby-Dick
he
maintains

and

Melville's Quarrel

with

America

243

a stoic composure while loose harpoons dart about his head (60.281). His cetology attests to Melville's preference for Ishmael's intellectual method over Ahab's. Collecting and playing off multiple perspectives serves to correct Ahab's tense, humorless fixation, enabling Ishmael to grasp that the

way to transcend Ahab's allegorizing lies not in rejecting analogies altogether (the opposed impercipience of soulless utilitarians like Flask and Stubb), but in

imagining

a range of analogies

from

various vantages not

scientific measurement and commercial utility.

If

we accept

excluding those of Melville's implica

we

tion that study of whales stands as a synecdoche for study of anything,

acknowledge seems a wisdom

Ishmael's better We

way.

To

credit

him

with

philosophy,

however,
pursuing
to

bit

grand.

might suspect

Ishmael

enjoys

less the rigors

of

than the pleasures of evasion and withdrawal. An alert, supple recep

tivity
from

toward the spectacle of manners and opinion

practical concerns.
moral

he

achieves

by learning

detach himself from

pressures

Yet he

also

thereby insulates himself

implicate him in Ahab's
will.

to settle into

judgments

which might

dangerous
The

action.

skepticism

he carefully

preserves

permits

Ishmael,

as

mono

mania permits

him,

to elude obligations that might restrain his

In

one of

his reveries, Ishmael thinks it prudent to lower aims of "attainable to the "hearth and (94.416), yet he does not seem to have married (see the
home" "Town-Ho"

felicity"

digression). He division

professes

admiration

for Jacksonian

democracy
which side

without, as far as we can see,

of the national
over

intending

to stump for candidates. On

he despises

people

negro"

white-washed another mood

for Lincoln, because slavery who consider a white man "anything more dignified than a (13.60)? Or would he hold with the neutrals since in
would enlist:

Ishmael

he

seems

to trivialize the

issue

with

characteristic

flippancy,

"Who
vents

slave"

aint a

(1.6)? Ishmael's fondness for

discovering

antinomies pre

his having any political view worth taking trouble for. His independence from conventional opinion allows Ishmael to

make a reli

able

friend

of a

cannibal,

and at

that opening to affection, he says,

generates

kind

feelings toward humankind

tion of temper in the glow

large.

Queequeg
longer

has
were

worked

him to

a mollifica
and mad an

of which no
wolfish

"splintered heart

(10.51). Not surprisingly for dened hand turned against the submerged yet dangerous wreckage Ishmael who likens all orthodoxy to
world" sailors'

of

ships

(69.309),
draws
a

religion must give

way to

freethinking

and

camaraderie.

Even
mael

friendship
friend's

must yield nonetheless to concern

which

for

self-preservation. even

Ish

line beyond

he

will not extend

his tolerance

to

have
self-

his

new

approval.

He

refuses

to imitate or to sympathize with

severe

devotions that

require

latisomething of heroic discipline. Although a

tudinarian in

most articles of religious

observance,

Ishmael
zeal

reacts with provokes such

disgust
a as

to Queequeg's

keeping

lengthy

fast. His friend's

him to
rigors

lecture
"Lents
and

on
and

minding

one's

comforts.

He has determined that

of

Ramadans"

violate

"obvious laws

Hygiene

sense"

and common

that

"hell is

an

idea bom

apple-dumpling."

on an undigested

So that

we

do

244

Interpretation
scoffing to be a banalism that Ishmael grows beyond over the the novel, Melville has his narrator switch to the editorial present his
creed of self-preservation

not take this course of

when

he

voices

in

comfort:

I have
person

no objection to

does

not

kill

or

any person's religion, be it what it may, so long as that insult any other person, because that other person don't becomes really

believe it

also.

But

when a man's religion

frantic,

when

it is

positive torment to

him,

and

in fine,

makes this earth of ours an uncomfortable

inn

to lodge

in;

then I think

it high time to take that individual

aside and argue the

point with

him. (17.84-85)
catechism of

Ishmael's is the liberal

Locke,

a resolve

to tolerate diverse theo

logies for the

Ahab

sake of peace while

encouraging

unofficial

uniformity

of

belief in

the priority of pleasure. His aptness to accommodate sets Ishmael in contrast to

and allows

him to
where

experience

sentimental of

fellowship

in the

scene

of

case,"

"squeezing

he touches the hands

his

shipmates and

moist-eyed,

forgets "[his] horrible to pursue the white whale (94.416). Since Melville appears to approve his narrator's progress in secular
oath"

human-

itarianism
death

by

arranging the
us

ponderous

symbolism

of

Ishmael's

escape

from

by

means of

Queequeg 's

coffin cum

lifebuoy, it may
a road

seem

the

end of

Moby-Dick leads

back to Lockianism

by

lower than Ahab's but

corrects

more

humane. Ishmael's

softer version of modem stem

individualism

the militant

harshness human
which

of

Ahab's

version, allowing hope for the

gradual pacification of

man's estate

through self-interested pursuit of comfort and opening the way to

suppressing anxiety concerning doctrinal questions over Europe had bled during its two centuries of sectarian fervor. A dividend
compassion

by

accrues

in the freedom to muse,

an approximation of

satisfy

most writers and academics.

reader cannot

philosophy sufficient to be certain Melville means

to convey reservations against Ishmael's corrective of tion of the political theme than the antitheses
losophy"

Ahab,

and yet considera

will cause us

to think there must be a further word

posed

by

Melville's

opposition of

Ishmael's "desperado

phi

to Ahab's

promethean

despotism.

We
cost of

can

see, for

instance,
heroic

that Ishmael escapes Ahab's

dampening
when

spiritedness. an

One

admires

the generosity

inhumanity at the Queequeg

and,
subse

displays, first
quently,

when

he dives into

icy

sea to save a stranger

he

plunges

into

a whale's carcass

to rescue a shipmate. Although

nobility in Queequeg, he does not recognize that his friend's selflessness may be owing to beliefs in a law higher than self-preserva tion, beliefs supported by those religious disciplines Ishmael finds offensive to Ishmael
also admires this

hygiene

and common sense.

Clearly

enough, Ishmael proves incapable

of

hero

ism for any reason, not even on behalf of friendship. When a bumpkin insults Queequeg, Ishmael evidently sits passively awaiting his friend's response (13.60). Despite his secret decision to dissociate from Ahab, a change of mood
recorded

in the

"Try-works"

scene and confirmed

during

the case-squeezing,

Moby-Dick
Ishmael
although neither opposes

and

Melville's Quarrel
nor reproaches

with

America

245

Ahab publicly
"Town-Ho"

Melville inserts the despot

all captain

digression

with

himself for inaction, its account of a mu

Pequod'

tiny

against a
was

despot

for

apparently to show that resistance to the its risks not impossible. Against Ahab's tyranny by is
called

s persua
man of

sion some counter-persuasion

for. Since the first

opposing

mate and

the

learning
ric,
deck
his

are

the only

spokesmen capable of
saved

rhetoric

to

Ahab's

rheto

the ship's company can be

crisis

Ahab

succeeds

in

only by their alliance. During the quarter dominating because at the moment Starbuck
support

makes

his

gesture of opposition

voice to the crew which

The
reason

well-known chapter

Ishmael not only fails to is shouting its consent. on "The Whiteness of the

him but

adds

Whale"

gives

Ishmael's

for siding with Ahab at the one moment he might have been successfully opposed. A tortuous series of meditations on whiteness as symbol for cosmic
meaninglessness

builds up to Ishmael's concluding that he

atheism"

was moved

to iden

tify
"a

the white whale with nature's false promise of a final meaning,

white

being

colorless all-color of

(p.

195) underlying

all natural

hues

and ex

posing them for "subtle deceits, not actually inherent in substances, but only laid on from without; so that all deified Nature absolutely paints like the harlot, (p. 195). For all whose allurements cover nothing but the charnel-house
within"

his

care

ordinarily to look
as

on all

sides, Ishmael here

succumbs

to Ahab's deter

mination

to perceive the whale under one aspect only. Ishmael makes a symbol

of

Moby-Dick

Ahab is

doing,

and

their overlapping reductions are evident in

whale

Ahab's

remark

that he dreads to find the

to be the symbol of

mean

inglessness: "Sometimes I think there's

mires

beyond"

naught

(36.164). Ishmael

ad

of will a

Ahab for striking back at deceitful Nature and thereby creating by an act meaning for his life in despite of Nature's general meaninglessness.

meaning where there is none to discover is the post-Enlightenment intellectual's version of the common human impulse toward self-preservation.

Creating

At

a moment when political action

is

most

requisite, Ishmael proves as

vulner admires

able as

the

rest of

the

seamen

to Ahab's

proposal

because

a part of

him

Ahab's
pious

force, and the remainder which would Starbuck, since Ishmael believes he has
embodies.

resist cannot make alliance with

liberated himself from the tradi

of

tional religious belief Starbuck

In Melville's allegory
to

the

national

character,
proves a

Christianity

weakened

by

accommodation

commercial

feeble

protector of

the ark of

man's

liberties,

while

prosperity America's intellec Christian teach

effort on

tual class,

skeptical of a

higher law it identifies

which might suffers a

with rejected

ing,

now

holds

no

beliefs

inspire dangerous

political

behalf

of

freedom. The intellectual

admire

further

debility

in

an ambivalence

that has him partly

assault on

despotic

concentrations of

the national prowess

in

an

deceitful
vocation

or

intellectual

in the

begrudging Nature. Although Ishmael may discover celebration of the whaling industry, his insistence
such

an
on

his doctrinal independence is

cal

that he

never

becomes

attached

to the politi

life

of an actual community.

That is why in the

editorial present

he

stipu-

246
lates

Interpretation
we are

to call him Ishmael. He was at the time of the

Pequod'

s voyage

and continues now to

be

deracinated
a

observer.

hoods

and

suggesting that liberties.

liability

of a

Melville may be tracing likeli Lockian society is the tendency of its

intellectuals

to purchase their freedom of

inquiry

at

the cost of their

country

men's political

Moby-Dick leaves Melville

realize

with

the problem
of

of

imagining

hero

suitable

to

America's Ishmael

mission as grounded

"bearer

the ark of the

liberties

world

of the

against a alliance

despotism

in the American doctrine

of popular consent.

The

and

Starbuck fail to

arrange suggests the shape

Melville judges

heroic

action might

take in a more politically effective Christian endowed with

a more spirited

learning

or, alternatively, in

intellectual

capable of

appealing to
passive

Christians. piety into

of such a

Statesmanship
but

founded in

a political religion

transforming

active

devotion to the rights

opposite republican so

of man could suffice

to meet Ahab's zeal

with an equal

temper. An appreciation of the timeliness to have set the plan Lincoln adhered

statesmanship

founded

seems

to throughout a career in which he tried to win assent to the proposition that the
principle of natural of consent.

This

was

rights has priority in the national purpose over the principle the issue Lincoln debated with Stephen A. Douglas in the
1858. Lincoln thought America's
conquest of na rail

Illinois Senate
ture
road

campaign of

represented

by
be

expansion westward and allowed

industrialization through the

even

could

not

to extend slavery,
of slaves.

if the

people

of

the

territories consented to importation

Although Melville's
no evidence

literary

career spanned

Lincoln's

political career,

I find

that Melville followed Lincoln's speeches in the forties and fifties.

His

volume of

poetry, Battle Pieces

and

Lincoln in
series of

a single poem

lamenting

his

assassination.

Aspects of War, deals Instead of

directly with focussing the

at

Civil War

poems on the man who presided over the emphasis

upon

Union

war,

Melville throws his

thoughts
as

portraying

a projection of

the national

offering his own temper Lincoln had forged between

a

people,

1860

and

1865. The

collective sacrifice:

the War for the

dedicatory notice announces this emphasis on a heroism Memory of The Three Hundred Thousand Who Maintenance of the Union Fell Devotedly Under the Flag
"To the

of

in
of

Their

Fathers."

cided, through

his

Lincoln's statesmanship is best shown, Melville may have de effect upon the people he led.
Melville invites his
readers

From the

outset

to perceive

his

particular stance

toward the Civil War: the lavish

not

expenditure of

blood

and resources

for

a cause

evidently rise beyond calculations dred thousand

profitable to the
of

ordinary Union soldier self-interest. The sacrifice both the

attests

human capacity to offered by the three hun

implicitly

rebukes

cautious self-preservation practiced

Moby-Dick

and

Melville's Quarrel
pursued

with

America

247

by

Ishmael

and the self-assertive

individualism

by

Ahab in his

exalta

tion of

"queenly

personality."

NOTES

White-jacket's "the Israel

(chap. 36).

expectation
time"

for America
entrusted

as a redeemer nation
providence

is

evident

in the

rhetoric of
of

his
the

tribute to

of our

by

"to bear the

ark of

the liberties

world"

2. The Writings of Herman Melville, ed. Harrison Hay ford, Hershel Parker, and G. Thomas Tanselle (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press; Chicago: Newberry Library, 1988), vol. 6,
chap.

33,

p.

148. Subsequent

citations within parentheses refer to chapter and page of this edition.

Discussion

Antiquing
Reflections

America:
on

Rahe's Republics

Thomas K. Lindsay

University

of Northern Iowa

INTRODUCTION: OUR PERENNIAL SELF-EXAMINATION

Scholars'

What does it
present an

mean

to be an American?

responses

to this question

foundations
politics'

unsettling collection of contraries: America builds on Machiavellian its founding practically repudiates Machiavellianism; America it
revives

spurns classical republicanism

the classical

republican

defense

of

dignity;

America is the

capitalistic order par excellence

its

founding
concern

ratified an

anti-capitalistic,

communitarian

republic; America

reconciles revela

tion with rationally

with

discerned,

natural-rights

doctrine

its overriding

rights

undermines revealed religion.

From the
might

persistence and

infer that
what

part of what means

contrariety of inquiry into America's identity, one it means to be an American is to ask without
an
American.1

ceasing

it

to be

questions the content and perhaps even the existence of

Doubtless every people at times its collective identity.

Yet America takes this

natural process

step further.

Apparently

we

suffer

from

what

is currently
this
not

called an

identity
but
and

crisis. also political

of our

We
appear

see

only in

academic

discourse. At times
hill."

we

so certain of our merit

thus

identity

that we rally round

leaders
wink of

who reflect our view that we

occupy

"city

on a

Then, in

the

the

national

eye,

we

flirt

with

the proposition that our political life so

Paul A. Rahe, Republics Ancient

Revolution (Chapel Hill:
work

and

Modern: Classical Republicanism

and the

American

is

now

available

University of North from the University

paperback

edition,

published

Carolina Press, 1992), xiv + 1,201 pp., $49.95. The of North Carolina Press in a revised, three-volume, in 1994. Volume 1, The Ancien Regime in Classical Greece, xxiv + Modern Political Thought,
the
xxvii +

379 pp.,
pp.,

$22.95; vol. 2, New Modes and Orders in Early $24.95; vol. 3, Inventions of Prudence: Constituting
wish

485

American Regime,
earlier

xxxi

+ 377 pp.,

$19.95.
I
All
to thank Matthew J. Franck for his thoughtful critique of an

draft

of this essay.

errors are mine.

interpretation, Winter

1996, Vol. 23, No. 2

250
lacks if

Interpretation
content as

meani

to require the

a national quest

for

a new

"politics

of

But

one element of

answer

to the question of the

uniqueness of

the American

soul consists

in

our perennial penchant

who we

to say that emptiness is part of

for self-examination, this is effectively are. Such a description, while less than
One
wonders whether our

satisfying, may
to paint in all

also

be less than
the

surprising.

inability

its

particulars a self-portrait of product of

being

in

some measure

American citizenship owes to our thinkers who were, in the final count,
of

citizens of no particular

country but, rather,

we

the

world.

Yet, from
demic

another

perspective,

appear more self-aware than our aca

and political

debates

sometimes suggest.

Put simply, to be American is

to subscribe to the principles of the popularized philosophy undergirding our

constitutional
pendence.2

order, that

is,

the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Inde

all

But these truths, which apply not only to American citizens but to perhaps because they apply to all human beings somehow human beings
answer

fail to

fully

for

us the question of who we are. serve

settled,

core principles

incompletely
own

as the noetic matrix

Does conceding that our for our self-

examination require us soul must

likewise to

that a complete appraisal of America's

our of

transcend
ends mean of

and, in this sense, declare insufficient

self-preservation,

sanctioned

liberty,

and

the

pursuit

officially happiness?
"un-

Might this
of

that any evaluation of

national purposes

from the

perspective

the ends constitutive of a completed or perfected life

is, in

sense,

American"? More precisely, is the very lack of national content that so per plexes us simultaneously indispensable to the way of life on whose basis we trumpet our "exceptionalism"? The
mind nature of

these questions points the

would-be reader of

the American
under

to the need

for

more than

historical
our

erudition.

Because the deepest

standing

of an epoch requires

first

coming to understand it as it understood

must come

itself,
which means

an accurate account of

America

to grips

with

its

commitment

to what the Declaration regards as the

transhistorical,

self-evident

truths
what

by
it

it justified

our revolution

to a "candid

world."

Investigating by
those
who

to be an American requires an understanding not only of American his

also of

tory but
than
ness.
much

the philosophers and philosophy invoked

framed

the Constitution. While foundings are important for the study

of regimes other

America's,
The

the gravity of our

founding
been

is

another aspect of our unique

struggle over

the Constitution produced public

debate
the

of an order

higher than
an

perhaps

has

ever

witnessed

in

political contests.

Amer
regime

ica is, in
not on the a

important sense, the first

on appeals of tradition or myth.

"philosophic"

polity
The

first

founded explicitly group

of

to truths self-evident to the unassisted reason, and

authority

founding
both

presents

for

our

scrutiny
and

highly

educated men serious about

political

philosophy

the

practical problems of

their day.

Reading
political

the records of their

debates,
in

one

finds

philosophic arguments with a

brought to bear in

on practical questions

a manner and

directness

unparalleled

history. Perhaps Fisher Ames's 1788

Antiquing
observation on

America
have
a

25 1
length

the

founding

best

states

the point: "legislators

at

condescended to speak the successful student of the

language

philosophy."

of political soul needs

As

result, the
with

American

to come equipped

both

historical

and

theoretical competence.
rare mix of skills.

Paul Rahe brings this

escapes the

His Republics Ancient

and

Modern

Scylla

and

Charybdis

of unphilosophic

history

and ahistorical phi

fall many of the major treatments of America. By training first a historian, Rahe understands the ancillary character of historical data in relation to the permanent questions. His gifts are such that he provides the

losophy

into

which

reader careful

interpretations

of

the

philosophic

texts that address republicanism

which

and then situates these texts

and

in

relation to

the historical circumstances in

magnitude of

to which

they
not

were offered.

Given the

the task Rahe sets for

himself, it is
lous notes,

ambitious thesis
and

surprising that Republics is a very long book. In support of his Rahe offers the reader a 782-page body, 346 pages of meticu index.3 a 70-page Yet his prose is highly accessible and his No
reader of

narrative powers enviable. awed and pleased

this tome can fail simultaneously to be

by

Rahe's

massive yet mellifluous exposition.

While his final destination is the American character, arriving there requires Rahe to take his readers on a twenty-five-hundred-year odyssey that begins in
ancient always
with

Greece. In book 1, "The Ancien

and sometimes

Regime,"

he

paints

for the

reader

the

fascinating democracy in

stupefying

character of the

first

experiments
without

the Greek polis. Here we

learn

what

democracy

rights demands
clopedically the
cartes,

and supplies. resolute

Book
with

2, "New Modes
antiquity
and

Orders,"

and

break

ushered

in

by

details ency Machiavelli, Des Book 3, America in light

Bacon, Hobbes, Harrington, Locke, the work's denouement, "Inventions of

Prudence,"

their

followers.

examines

of

the debate between the ancient city and its modem critics. Here
elements of republics ancient and modem what

Rahe identi
"mixed"

fies those

that he finds

by
ex

America to form

he

argues

is

a novel

brand

of republicanism. with

That Republics culminates,

plained

literally

and

figuratively,
"soft,
in
a

America is

by

purposes at once

scholarly

and political.

Rahe detects here

administrative

and

in

the other Western democracies a drift toward the

tism"

despo

foretold

by

Tocqueville (pp. 6-7). He be

worries

that the muscularity re

quired of self-government cannot

relegates all

maintained

polity that

"effectively
num with a

decisions"

severely

contentious political

as well as a
unelected

growing

ber

of

policy

questions

to a

life-tenured,
intended have for nearly
of

judiciary

in tandem

similarly

unaccountable
national

federal bureaucracy. To

worsen

matters, those who

occupy the
responsive

legislature

by

the Framers to be the branch most

to popular opinion

so stacked the electoral

all changes

"death

and retirement account added

in

personnel."4

deck that today These mu

tations,
cratic

to the

virtual

death

federalism, lay bare

our

"decline in demo

vigor"

(p. 7).
"genetic"

Is this decline

a consequence of our

fundamental

principles

or

252

Interpretation
or the result of some mix of reason and chance?
and

incidental,
equality,

Divining

the

answer

is both obligatory
that we can

and consent

peculiarly burdensome for us. Our principles of have been so spectacularly victorious here and
conceive

liberty,
abroad

today scarcely
could

Our

success threatens to rob us of the

any objections to their unqualified justice. detachment requisite to self-understand

worse

ing. That there justice

thinkable for

be in

another

could consist us

a regime

way for a people to govern in which the people does not

we seek

still, that

govern

is

un and

(p. 8). The intellectual liberation have become

after

is

at once

invited

inhibited
Yet to

by

what

two hundred years of familiarity- and

success-bred nonchalance
maintain

innocent

prejudices offered

in favor

of

reason.5

calculating

the

particular

justice

by

to be liberated from our democratic

presuppositions.

liberal democracy, we need Such liberation, argues

to our republi

Rahe, is
can

enhanced

by

intense study

of

both the

great alternative

vision, the

ancient

polis, and the

modem critique of antiquity. prepares us to

Reflection

on ancient civilization and

its discontents in

face

without

blinking
life. We
to

the strangeness
return

the

culture-spawned uniqueness

of our own

way

of

from

our

inquiry
the

strangers

what was once native

land;

we scrapie

accept at

face

value principles

that further inspection may well show to be only

shadows cast on more

wall of our culture-cave. of

Qua strangers,

we

may

glean

fully

the uniqueness

America.

Much
with

of

Rahe's

exposition of

America's

uniqueness

those currently in charge of

academic orthodoxy.

is unlikely to sit well While the generality of

to understanding the

historians
ancient

underscores economic and social class as

key

polis, Rahe follows

"regimes."

Thucydides, Plato,
the diverse cities

and

descriptions

and evaluations of

especially Aristotle, whose look first and foremost to their

who rales

differing
for
what

The

regime or politeia

denotes

purpose

or purposes.

Classical
"people"

regime and

analysis

proceeds

in the city and from the

what

premise that what constitutes a

fully

finally

lies in

it loves

openly and earnestly. Rahe cites Augustine's compelling language, "'a people is a multitudinous assemblage of rational beings united by concord regarding loved things held in Aristotelian
common'"

(p. 2).

regime analysis

is Rahe's

methodological paradigm

a choice

that justifies itself repeatedly throughout his tome. Through

clarifies cated

regime analysis

he

historical

periods and

issues

whose essence

has been

largely

obfus

in the last two

centuries

by

the methodology of modem social science. to deem Athens rather than

He

challenges the present

political

tendency

Sparta

antiquity's

touchstone. He also confronts the view that early modem thought is

largely
of

consonant with antiquity.

Rather, he detects

"decisive

break"

between

ancients and

modems, one somewhat camouflaged

by

the rhetorical

intentions

the latter (p. x). His exhaustive study of the

able

historical

evidence

to Leo

early modem period adds valu Strauss's interpretation as presented in, for ex
Writing.6

ample, Persecution

and the

Art of

Rahe likewise dissents from the dominant historical

schools on the question

Antiquing
of

America
America

253
at

America's
was

character.

Today's historians
or

clash over whether

its

founding
sorts

"republican

liberal,
of

confused.

ancient or

modem,

or

simply
vindicate re

For Rahe the

liberal human has

founding
and

established a

"deliberately
man's

contrived mixed regime of

modem, first

all, but in its insistence that to

dignity

one must

demonstrate
well"

capacity for self-government,

the
phrase

publican and classical as

referred

(p.

x).

Historically

"mixed

regime"

to an order whose goodness derives from its ability to mix the

city's most powerful elements

and

in

such a manner

that all

are

both

satisfied with

limited in their
and poor

political participation.
rale

In Aristotle's

mixed

regime, the rich

few
in

many

better together than

either would

separately; the defects

which

each

ruling

body

are mitigated

by

their

mixing.

In the England from

most of

the early colonists came, power

was

divided between the Crown

and

Parliament; the latter was composed of one house representing inherited wealth (Lords) and one, the people (Commons). This mix looked to marry the energy
that comes from unitary execution, the wisdom found in the few
education and good popular
what with

high

breeding,

and

the

fidelity

to the people characteristic of

institutions. To these traditional

purports

usages of

"mixed

regime"

Rahe

adds

he

to discover at our

founding: America

mixes ancient and mod

em principles as regards

Propelling
between logos
seek our

"man's capacity for Rahe's interpretation of America is his

self-government."

conclusion

that the debate

of

ancients and modems revolves

capacity for

speech and

finally reason, by

around

the issue

the

status of

which we

deliberate

about and and good. pas

to persuade others of
capable of

what constitutes

the advantageous,

just,

Is logos

liberation from the Rahe

passions?

Or is it

finally

but the

sions'

scout and spy? per

education

reads the ancients to argue that man, through pro

acquire moral

(paideia),

can

rationality

sufficient

both to

justify ity
is
is

and

to require his efforts to

communicate

to and persuade others of the

and goodness.

truth of his opinions concerning advantage,

"political"

justice,

Such is

activ ante

in the highest from

sense.

Freeing
or

reason

from

passion

cedent to the ascent also

opinion

to knowledge of the good. This liberation

largely

coextensive with

happiness

human

flourishing

in its highest
liberation. So

natural manifestation.

Education is the
understood,

means

to this nature-fulfilling,

humanizing

education refers

to

more and

less than

our current conception.

It

looks first to form

task of the

character with regard

to the regime's ends. As such, it is the

politeia.

Politics is natural,

argues

Aristotle, because
can
provide.

"work"

man's

(ergon) has
quires an

a natural

basis,

and

the completion or perfection of this work re

education

that only

life in the
consists

polis

The
of

summum
which

bonum,

the highest
man.

happiness,

in the

unimpeded
polis

activity
must

that

is highest in

only live but "live

not

well."

For this reason, Hence he

same

finally,
is

the

exists, that

we might not

who would craft a education.

souls, or, to say the

thing,

politics

a crafter of city As such, it is performed

be

only

by

the city

on

the citizens but also, and equally

important,

consists

in

254

Interpretation
whose perfection

the very activity

is the animating

aim of political education.

Political activity is itself part of the highest purpose of political activity. This
apparent

education whose

institution

is, in turn,

the

faith in

education's power

to

liberate

reason

from

passion

activity largely by modern ity. Political activity is unfmitful at best and fatal to regime health at worst. While reason justifies man's claim to superiority over the beasts, it does so
of political rejected

this justification

Rahe finds

only

as

the more
and

clever agent of

his desires. Because the latter

are

sovereign,

insatiable, ever-fluctuating in each man's psychic economy, ethical virtue in the classical sense does not and cannot exist. Self-restraint is self-punish
ment, is unhappiness, because it restrained, is
not violates our nature.

The

happy

life is

not

ing
man

and much

tranquility in the face of nature's limitations; it is much desir enjoying. Thus the content of happiness varies not only from
also within

to

man

but

the same man

when swayed

by

different

passions.

The idea

of a summum

bonum is illusory. The "effectual both

other men and

truth"

reveals man's

life to be
pursues

a perennial straggle against

as

happiness

it

appears

to the

passion

currently

at

miserly nature as he his heart's helm.

and

Thus "moral
rulers and ruled

reason"

is

fatally flawed, finally impotent,

to
much

trust in it

by

has

contributed

of the

world's

misery.

regime

grounded

in the

effectual

truth will not sacrifice the good that can be achieved

in this world, lower though such goodness may be compared to that inculcated in republics whose foundings lie only in imagination. Rather, it will ground

itself in the depended lowers its

surer support of self-interest

in the virtually
on

universal

desire for

comfortable self-preservation.
on

The catholicity

and strength of

this desire can be

republic

to

bring

men

to agree at

least

the goodness of a

that

purpose

from nurturing happiness

understood as virtuous understood.

maintaining but the pursuit

shall not seek

the conditions of
of

happiness, vulgarly
new end
rather

activity to Not happiness

which

happiness becomes the

for the

new

republic,

vainly to snuff but

soul and city.
new

to channel and therewith regulate pas

sion's power

in

To

give

birth to the

order requires

more than

persuading
nature's

rulers

and

ruled of natural

the truth of the new understanding of human nature. It entails also a

science

liberated from
for
man.

past

contentment

with

and

nature's

God's
power

provision

The

new science will

for

material acquisition.

To the

extent that science makes this

increase geometrically human life more

comfortable and and

secure,

men will

tend to ponder

its

requirements.

Their

spiritedness

thus

clash son

violently over what appear to be "frivolous and fanciful

enlightened combat commercial

less passionately the afterlife diluted, they will be less prone to from the standpoint of calculating rea
and science

distinctions."

In the

republic, acquisitiveness

join

forces to
and

the penury in which nature

and

has left looks

man.

Through

technology
victim

trade,

compacts

constitutions,

man

to ascend

from

to

master of

his

destiny

captain of a

fate

whose

dispensation

formerly

had been

Antiquing
relegated
cal

America
as

255

to the hands the

of

God

or gods.

Man

understood no more solid

longer

the politi

but

rather as

tool-making

animal

is the

foundation

bracing
suc

the

new republican edifice.

Commerce
is

replaces

politics;

labor,
man

war; technol
ascends

ogy,

providence.

Icarus

redirected

resurrected:

modem

cessfully to good government because his is the flight from politics.

These

are the general

terms

of

the debate between antiquity and modernity

according
and

to Rahe. Where and how

argues

does America fit in this dichotomy? First

mod

foremost,

Rahe,

the Founders acknowledged the force of the

em critique of moral reason and

hence

of political activity.
on

They

likewise

con

ceded republicanism's

heavy

dependence

passion-managing institutions. But

they did

not reckon

institutional

controls as

consequences

from the

clash of

merely the means to glean moderate immoderate desires. Just as important, they

found in their institutions

requisite

a vehicle

by

which

to educate men in the capacities

to

reason's

America licanism.

retains at

its

freedom. While primarily modem and liberal, then, Rahe's founding at least a vestige of the core of ancient repub

LIBERTY, EQUALITY,
"The Ancien mesmerizing
paints
Regime,"

FRATERNITYWITHOUT

RIGHTS

book 1

of

Rahe's tome,
of

unearths

and

the portrait

stupefying character of the first republics,

that most

the

polis.

the simultaneously With bold strokes Rahe

ours

regimes so

distant from

in

orienta

tion

and purpose

today

would

deem

them

democratic in

name only.

In

fact,

many

would pronounce

them nothing

less than

monstrosities.

It may

not

be surprising that
whom

such should

be the

verdict of

contemporary intellectuals,

for

more precisely, modem democ generally even modem democracy is found wanting in light of this or that abstract standard of justice racy that is and equality. But no less a mind than Hamilton's also voiced contempt for the

ancient cities.

In Federalist 9 he

grants

their "bright talents and exalted endow

ments,"

but finds it "impossible to

Greece

and

Italy

rapid succession vibration

were

read the history of the petty republics of feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual
without
. .
anarchy."

between the

extremes of

tyranny

and

What

sort of cities

celebrated"

these that
and

produced

"justly
the other?

endowments,

on

the one

hand,

and

anarchy,"

"tyranny
ented

on

The Greek first

republics were

dominated

by
for

politics. and

and

foremost to

preparation

Political activity was ori prosecution of battle. Not to

appreciate

the

importance, indeed,
not

the

omnipresence of war and

its threat to the

a citizen of the

Greek

cities

is

to understand
a

ancient republicanism.

To be

ancient polis one

had first to be

soldier,

and

to own land one

had first to be

256

Interpretation

citizen.

Nearly

all

honors

and privileges were associated with or

sprang

directly

from

speech and

deeds

aimed at

enhancing the city's

martial virtue

(polemike)

(p. 31). From the primacy of foreign policy arose the distinction between those who by nature merit freedom and those who by nature merit slavery. Rahe finds the Greek
ethos expressed

succinctly
the

'war is the father

of all and

by Heraclitus, king over

free'"

who, "to support his

claim

that

all,'"

observed that warfare

natural

"'made
right
of

some men slaves and some men

might

(p. 33). Likewise, the

lies

at

the core of

Athens'

notorious

defense

of

its

impending

sack of

Meios. Accordingly, in practice, "the ordinary slave was a barbarian taken in That a man would accept slav war, kidnapped by pirates, or sold by his
kin."

ery imposed by force liberty or death was

rather

than resist and therewith

bring
of as

on

himself

either

proof of

his

inferiority
lovers
of

and

hence

the naturalness and

justice

of

his

enslavement.

Slaves

were

of mere
field."

life;

such, the Greeks

was

judged them "little better than the beasts

agreed:

the

Throughout Hellas it

to lack

martial courage was

to be less than human (p. 34).

The

omnipresence

of war and concomitant preeminence of martial virtue

elevated maleness and

demoted femaleness. The household

and

its

concerns of

generally

were

deemed inferior to the

to

conduct of politics and war.

Because

their physical

weakness relative

men as well

their

child-bearing role,

women

were not soldiers and thus were not citizens.

They, along

with slaves and small

children,

were relegated

to the

household,
like that
word

to the

handling

of private matters.

The

status of the private realm,

of

those assigned to

it, Rahe

shows

is

suggested

by

the fact that our

more to

"idiot"

derives from the Greek term de

than to "public
endeavor"

scribing one inclined 31). Such is required

"private

pleasure"

(p.

by

the equation of virtue and polemike. This equation,

in

turn,
to

owed

to a worldview in which "one community's

subjection"

freedom

was understood

entail another's

(p. 59).
the Greek cities not, argues

The
valued

political

freedom for
all

which
was

fought,

and which

they

highest among

goods,

it. It

was not a status valued

first

as an

Rahe, freedom as we conceive instrument to securing and maintaining

and as ends

life,

civil

citizen valued

liberty, the pursuit of happiness, life, liberty, and property not

property rights. The ancient in themselves but for the

freedom. To be politically free meant to participate in the human exclusively activity of applying logos to the questions of the advan tageous, just, and good. Rahe cites Aristotle, whom he reads to argue that, for
sake of political

nearly

all men

nearly always, "the

fully

human life is

life

of praxis

[coopera
political

tive action] conducted in accord with the dictates of

logos"

(p. 36). In

activity

lay

the chance to "be

brilliant,

to

shine."

On erecting

rale

by

the

demos,

the ancient city

democratized the

aspiration

to

"immortalize"

through

noble service to the city (pp. 44-45). In so doing, it removed the institutional barriers that had before impeded the few best among the fighting men from

taking

their just place in the "middle

ground"

the political arena

where

they

might cultivate and

display

their public virtue (p. 42).

Antiquing America
But in the very
"horror."

257
with

charm of this
writes

Logos,

Rahe, is

opportunity lay what a "double-edged

power

so

filled Hamilton

sword"

(p. 55). Our

ca

pacity for
Greeks'

rational speech

includes the
Natural

to dispute what constitutes the

of

advantageous,
native

just,
. . .

and good.

diversity

opinion, coupled

with

the

longing

for glory,
and

accounted

for

much of

the "perpetual vi

bration between

anarchy"

tyranny

lamented

by

Hamilton. Competi

tion for glory produced conflict not only between cities but also, and often
much more

dangerously, among
threat of
war

each city's

denizens themselves. Yet

Analysis
to

war or under

is

most

in

need of

a city at domestic harmony. To this di

of

lemma Greek legislators devoted islation

shows the
lawmakers'
"solidarity"

considerable attention.

Greek

leg

preeminent concern was

maintain

domestic

(homonoia).
cities sought

view to strengthening solidarity, Greek Madison in Federalist 10 would later deem

"opinions,"
"passions,"

With the

to do what

"impracticable"

homogenize
polis were

"interests."

and

The

citizens of

the ancient

bound together
mined

by

a moral purpose

their full devotion to which would be under

by

excluded

weighty differences in ways of life or thought. Commercial men were from the city, for commercialism could not but help to spawn a soli
Men
whose

darity-threatening diversity of interests (p. 60). consists in buying and selling from each other
and

cannot

primary be depended

connection on to

fight

die for
made

each other.

But it
the

was

less that

such men made

money than how

"invisible,"

they
and

it that

worried

Greeks. Because their judged less

wealth was

merchants and craftsmen were

miners,
a

whose wealth

lay largely
lose, in

likely to defend the city than farmers in the land itself (pp. 60-63). Should the
to his

city fall,
animals,

farmer
With

would

addition

land,

etc.

so much at

stake, he

would

be

more

his slaves, crops, likely to fight to the last

all
would

to save the city. But

rowed to

commercial men were

threatened only if the enemy bur the city

the urban

center.

Even then,
abroad

should

fall, it

be far

easier

for them to ply their trades

movable wealth.

than would be the case for those

with

im

Promotion
posed

destabilizing diversity of interests was not the only threat by commerce. By allowing and sometimes requiring international trade,
of a goods

commerce opened the

city not only to foreign 7 (pp. 72-74). Openness to the foreign threatens
ensures

but

also to

foreign ideas

patriotism

in

a martial republic.

Isolation best

the like-mindedness

on which

the polis depends.

Further,
with

homonoia is
side,"

upset not

but

also

only by because trade inures

commerce-attendant citizens

interference from the "out

and

to

haggling

quibbling

each other

(p. 75).

It may
cal

not go too

to

republican needs.

material

far to say that the ancient Greeks judged commerce inimi health precisely due to the success with which it satisfies Commercial life both demands and supplies
"self-interest,"

"caution,"

"distrust."

and

Beneath the businessman's

fundamental"

restless

activity

and

ap

parent

civility lies love of mere "the

"more

passion,

one shared against

by

the slave

life."

In

wealth men seek a

"hedge

death."

Hence it is

258

Interpretation

not remarkable that modem

liberalism, grounded in the primacy of the desire for self-preservation, should take exactly the opposite view of the rank of com merce (pp. 75-76). Trade mollifies men, turns spiritedness (thumos) toward
acquisition and

hates
Such

and

away from violent conquest, and hence undermines both strong strong loves. Trade makes for industrious, timid, calculating men.
of

are not the stuff of a martial republic.

homonoia led antiquity to take a dim view also of innovations in the technical arts. As was the case with commerce, the very The

indispensability

success of

the enterprise was the chief

reason

for its
life's

censure.
natural

Technical innova
threatens

tion, by providing likewise to soften men. It

goods that soften somewhat was

hardness,

ity,

and

deficient

polemike

accordingly associated with extravagance, frivol (pp. 83-85). Moreover, it was feared that changes

in the

arts would rests

lead to

changes

dience

to a

significant

in the laws, whose power to compel obe extent on foundations that are less than simply

rational.

While the

arts proceed and succeed

by

dint

of

logos alone, laws

are

obeyed not

largely
more quent

simply due to the rational self-evidentness of their rectitude, but because they are all the citizenry has ever known. Laws whose origins
to be shrouded in
men myth and

are so ancient as

mystery

are

for this very

reason

likely

to evoke in
of

the respect, the awe, requisite to obedience. Fre

undermines popular reverence such reverence

overturning very idea of the This

and singular

fundamental laws
of

for the

rule

law itself. On just

republicanism

depends.8

devotion to homonoia,

with

its

attendant

hostility to
resulted

commerce
more

technology
need

indeed,

to work and profit generally

cooperation

from

than the

for military

(pp. 89-94).

Appealing

again to

Aris

totle, Rahe finds that while self-preservation may explain the origin of the polis, nothing less than justice and piety illuminate its full purposes. The an
cient

Greeks

saw

themselves bound
"selves."

not

merely

by

rational

contract with

other, equally egoistic,

Rather,

the gods themselves bequeathed them

their land and people. These gods also gave the city the laws

by

which

it

defined itself

and

in

which

it

educated

its

children.

the concept of "separation of)

patriotism and

"church"

"state"

and
and

The very terms (much less did not exist. Piety was
spiritedness

patriotism, piety;

here

lay

the root of the ancient citizen's

public-spiritedness
power can

(pp.

115-19). Aristotle deems

(Politics 1327b40-41).

(thumos) "the

by

love"

which we

infer that

spiritedness

is in the

service of what we

Extrapolating from this, one love. Paraphrasing from

his love
spiritedness
and serve

another

tradition: where a man's treasure

is,

there

will we

be

also.

Public-spiritedness, then, is the power by which Civic devotion which, even in the best of cases,
with

the city.

exists

perpetually in tension

the private side of

our nature

is

animated

fully

and

finally by

the

view

that in

fulfilling

civic

duty

one most

pleases,

and

hence

comes closest

to, the

divine
est

sources of

the city's

being

and

justice. The highest happiness,

and able

the great

nobility,

awaits

only those willing

to

lay

down their

all

in defense

Antiquing America
of the

259
man

temples

of

their city's gods. In the life of the committed citizen

of

finds the fulfillment

the

longing

manifested

By

the same reasoning, to

fail to do

one's

by duty to

love

and served

by

thumos.

the city was not only trea

sonous

but impious (p. 116).

of the

For the bulk

of

citizens, then, the

glue

binding

them to the performance

their

duties, especially during

gods and shame

wartime,
one's

consisted of

the twin fears

marriage of

of punish

ment

by

before
core of

fellows. In the

piety

and

patriotism

Rahe finds the

the

paideia

by

which

the

ancient republican

virtues were
"hard"

inculcated in the
father to

citizenry.

virtues,
"toil"

pursued and prized was

As Nietzsche recognizes, these were precisely for their hardness. For the Greeks
and without reverence
was

(ponos)
of

"reverence,"

there could be

but little
If the
prepare

the manly courage that

of ancient

for them
were

virtue entire

(pp. 123-28). home

life."

chief aims

education

to avoid strife at
as

and

for battle abroad,

no polis so

distinguished itself

Lacedaemon. More
Their

than any other citizen

success at

body,

the Spartans "shared a common way of

uprising

by

making many into one was owing primarily to the shared fear of an the subject helot class, which greatly outnumbered the citizenry and
Spartans'

on whose

forced labor the

leisure for

political participation

depended

(pp. 140-42). Given the extraordinary and permanent danger of its situation, Sparta enacted a regimen that demanded equally extraordinary efforts on behalf
of

the city. At the root of the Spartan soul

even on ancient
"music"

"exaggerated"

employed
thumos"

of cal

(poetry set inspiring love for

music

lay a piety that can be appraised 145). While Greek cities generally to music) as an important means of "civilizing
terms (p. the city and hence of

turning

thumos

in

a politi

direction

took center stage in the Spartan

paideia

(pp.

125-26,

144ff.)
able

The poetry of Tyrtaeus bolstered the self-forgetting reverence indispens to Spartan life. Spartan poetry sang its paeans not to the man lusty after
selfless

immortal glory for himself but to the

city.

hoplite in

who

labored solely for his

Added to Sparta's

singular music education

civil courage was an

equally

ambitious project to remove men substitute

from

and then to provide them a suitable

for

the

pleasures offered

by

the private realm. Pleasures pursued in

civic

private seduced men

into slighting their

(p. 155). Rahe

duty. Accordingly, Spartan legis

observation
whereas

lation

sought

to

"eliminat[e]

to the greatest degree possible the last refuge of

cites

privacy
ancient

the

family"

Montesquieu's
could

that in

took

form

Greek "'marriage only friendship which one dare not

pursued

be

found,'"

"'love

mention'"

(p. 16). The

aggressiveness with

which

the Spartans

the latter

served as another gauge

by

which

they

distinguished themselves from the

cities of

their

day

(pp. 154-55). With this

than had ever

Sparta
been

sought

to homogenize passion more

thoroughly

before

effected.

This

effort

to forge wholly public beings erred

cannot of

in attempting
was
most

simply to eradicate that which practice evident in the

Spartans'

be

eradicated

simply.

This

secretly

hoarding

gold and silver. Neverthe-

260

Interpretation
alert

less, Rahe,
her

to Sparta's excesses,
other's
at

judges her
civil

unmatched

by

the regimes of

day any No less devoted to

and

"promoting

courage"

(pp. 161-62).
which

success at war was

Periclean

Athens,

Rahe

shows

was

considerably less liberal than is generally granted by current classical scholarship, some elements of which have gone so far as to present Athens as

the

"primitive,

democracy."

premodern

prototype

of

working-class

Rahe

finds Athens "no

mocracies

exception"

to Tocqueville's description of all the ancient de

masters'"

as, in the final count, "'aristocracies

of

(p. 192). Like the

other cities of

its day,

Athens'

democracy

lived

off and alongside

its dominion

over a vast number of slaves. of

While

"modem"

she might appear more

by

virtue

her

laxity
of

in

morals relative

to other Greek cities, this impression needs to be

balanced dards

against

the fact that, like

and

Sparta,

she

judged her

citizens

by

the stan

"[mjanliness

piety"

courage,

public-spiritedness

and

(p. 194).

And, like

the other Greek cities, Athens restricted women, wealth, and techno

logical innovation (pp. 198-217). Further, she pursued war in the name of empire and was intolerant of religious infractions. Far from a model for modem

democracy, Athens
cient

exhibited all

the "fanatical
and

particularity"

by
which

which

the an
virtue

Greek

republics were

distinguished

from

they drew their

and cruelty.

This unavoidably brief summary of book 1 fails to do justice to Rahe's close, exhaustive analysis. In the endnotes he wages sustained battle with the
giants of classical scholarship. ancient

Against the Weberian

and

Marxist

approaches

to

history
states

practiced

by

Moses

Finley

and

G. E. M. de Ste.

Croix,

respec

tively, Rahe
mentary
"social,"

offers
of

Aristotle's both

regime

analysis, in the light

and materialism

of which appear.

the

frag

modem

idealism

Economic,

demographic,
But
all are

and geographic most

data

are

structive.

in the

important

sense

manifestly necessary and con derivative of the politeia, of

who rales and

for

what purpose.

The very cogency of his case for embracing Aristotle raises questions re garding Rahe's subsequent emphasis on the practice rather than the philosophy
of antiquity.

To be sure, he

by

no means

simply

neglects the

judgments
contrary.

passed

by

Yet he take, or at least to present, their professions largely at face value. He tends not to focus as much as he might on the fact that his paradigm, Aristotle,
tends to
views ancient practice with politic reservations explicit endorsements. criticisms of

the classical thinkers on the regimes of their day.

Quite the

that are just as

weighty

as

his for

Hence Rahe is left to look

largely

to modem thought

Greek

practice.
well aware of and

To Rahe's credit, he is
cient selves practice.

"[Bjecause the

ancient philosophers
with

defends openly his focus on an really did content them

the wise and

[quoting Priestley]
it is perfectly
making

'with thinking

acting

with

the

vulgar,'

possible to write a political

philosophy"

without

reference to

any ancient regime (p. 234; emphasis in original). To

history

of

Antiquing
understand modem not

America

261

history

requires a

different

approach.

Modem

practice can

be

understood absent our modem practice

ity; for
which which

coming to grips with the is driven by "popularized

the source of those
a people.

philosophers of modern
"ideology,"

philosophy,"

or notions adherence

has

replaced religion as

deepest

to

defines

and

distinguishes focus

Nevertheless,

to

on the relation of ancient practice and modem

theory
suffi

appears to presuppose that the

self-understanding understanding

of

the

ancient

practitioners,

combined with the critique of that

cient

by

the early modems, is

one

for grasping

republics ancient and modem.

Is it? Need

board the

train

of modem postulates

to arrive at the most

tice? More precisely, are the limits and

illuminating dignity of the

critique of ancient prac ancient polis seen most

clearly from a perspective whose evaluative standard looks faction of the desires for self-preservation and comfort? Before
requires

largely

to the satis

beginning

to attempt to answer these questions, fairness to Rahe

underscoring the fact that he shows himself to be fully cognizant of Aristotle's distance from the participatory ethos of the ancient polis. But to this theme he devotes no more than a few paragraphs (see pp. 217-18; 908, n.
181). Rather, his bent is to
as emphasize the

self-understanding
thinkers'

of

the

polis and

then to point to Aristotle's and other ancient

apparent
of political

concurrence,

especially
the

regards

the question of the

rank

activity. read

Thus his
to present

portrait of republics ancient and modem

is in danger
stands

of a

being

following

dichotomy: Republican
ancient

man

at

crossroads.

march

down the

trail,

where

the "city's freedom and

autonomy"

He may de

mand a

bloodthirsty

communitarianism and a worldview

distinguished

"fanatical

particularity"

(pp. 217-18). Or he

can walk

the smoother,

by its lower,

soul-shrinking highway of the modem commercial republic, where happiness is both more reliably insured and, for this reason, more prone to be nauseating for its pedestrianism.
shudders to think that these are the only alternatives for republican Needless to say, Rahe denies that this is the case; for he finds in Amer ica the third and better road. I address his assessment of America in the latter

One

orders.

half

of

this essay.

Presently
left

my intention is to clarify

elements of

Aristotle's
em runs

republican vision phasis.

Again,

what

owing to Rahe's choice of follows derives from my concern that Rahe's focus
somewhat unremarked

the risk of

licanism

leaving his readers with the can be largely lumped together

impression that his

with

exemplar's repub

"ancient

practice."

ARISTOTLE ON POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

Without doubt, Aristotle

would

affirms

man's

political

nature.

Hence he

likely

have

number of

carefully (in fact, he is in some ways the source of) a today's familiar critiques of the soul-stunting repercussions of the
weighed

depoliticization-through-commercialism

on

which

modem

republicanism

de-

262

Interpretation
Yet
closer

pends.

scrutiny

suggests

that he in no wise champions the wide

spread participation practiced

by

the democratic cities of his day. For

radical

Aristotle,
these two

the polis,
embraced

by by

nature, lies between the

republics

inclusiveness

and exclusiveness

ancient and modem. of

Accordingly, between
or

extremes politika

(the "affairs

polis"

the

"politics"),
model and

and

therewith the
"polity,"

proper scope of political marries elements of ner

activity, lie. Thus also, his

republic,
a man

two defective regimes,

democracy

oligarchy, in

Through this mixing-balancing of hegemony Aristotle's republic nurtures and requires the factions and their ruling claims, the ability to share in rule, that is, nurtures and requires political activity. So
that guarantees the
of neither.

understood, his

project can

be

called and

"political

mixing."

This is

simultaneous

embrace

rebuff of political
first"

participation

comes

to

light in Aristotle's
which
restricted

presentation of

the "best

and

to the

"best"

demos

the moderately wealthy

laws"

"govern themselves in

accordance with

democracy, citizenship in farmers, who (Politics 1292a3-b23, 1305a27the

polemike of

ll).9 Rahe rightly 32, 131 8a38 1 9b

makes much of

the ancient
agrees

farmers
that

and

links this to the fact that

as well as

their wealth

is in land. Aristotle
(Politics
made

herdsmen tend to military 24). While the political limitations of martial

farmers

excellence

1319a20-

virtue
life"

are

clear

in his

critique of
and

Sparta, he

grants

that the

"soldiering

encourages self-restraint

public-spiritedness

(Politics 1271a42-bll; 1269b39-70a5; 1334a25-27; Aristotle's best

life"

1279a39-b4).
In
addition to polemike, the citizens of

democracy

possess

moderate wealth.

He finds in the

"middling
to

sort of

for

most

to participate
wealth

in"),

reason"

a readiness

"obey

(a way of life "possible (Politics 1295a25"wish"

b27). While honors

citizens'

and offices

willingness to share poverty threaten the (through and "envy"), the city's to be and
"arrogance"
equal"

composed of ment

"similar

and

persons

is best
static

realized

by
of

the middling ele

(Politics 1262b7-10).

Further, in the
to
wealth.

tance was the most

likely

avenue

economy This lessens the

antiquity, inheri

acquisitiveness and acquired.

brazenness

all too often

found in those

whose wealth

is newly
that

Thus it

also reduces

the friction often found between buyers and sellers. To this extent,
more

the citizens
and

closely

approximate

the

"affection"

community

requires

hence the

"capacity

to be ruled and to

rale"

the

"political"

capacity (Poli
of

tics

1277b 14- 16).

we overreach
with

But
"best"

when

we

attempt to

equate

Aristotle's

"praise"

the

demos

the ancient

democrats'

self-understanding.

The

chief reason polit

Aristotle

elevates

farmers is

not their

participation-meriting sufficiency in
which

ical virtue, but their

expertise

law-abidingness,

results
a

not of

from their
"leisure"

political

primarily but rather to them willy-nilly to "put the law in charge and (Politics 1292b24-29).

simply

or even

lack

that leads

assemble

only for necessary

views work and

assemblies"

In tension

with

Rahe's thesis that the

ancient

democrat

Antiquing
wealth with

America

263

disdain in
of

comparison to political

activity,

key

factor in Aris

totle's elevation

the moderately wealthy farmers is his observation that this

than participating in politics, provided be obtained from ruling; "for the many strive more may (Politics 13 18b 1 1-17). For Aristotle the crucial polit
more and and
pleasant"

group finds
that
no

"working
for

"great

spoils"

for

profit than

honor"

ical difference between the farmers

that the latter

the other,

"worse"

types

of

demos is
the to

artisans, merchants,
town."

laborers

are of

"always

frequenting

marketplace and the

Therefore

all"

"nearly
are

them are able

"easily"

"attend the

assembly,"

whereas

farmers

"scattered in the

country"

(Politics

1319a24-32). Because the

pied, the

great

political offices can

majority of the citizens are distant and occu be filled only by those with the wealth for leisure.
at the time of the

While

payment

for

office

(practiced in Athens

Politics)

can

remedy this, Aristotle 1304b26-30). On

argues closer

rejects

this on the grounds of its

divisiveness (Politics

inspection, then, Aristotle's

demos
even

"defense"

of popular participation

that the

the

"best"

demos

that governs least governs

best. He likewise
garchy.

restricts citizen participation

"multitude"

In the

latter,

shares

in his polity and restrained oli in rule and "law necessarily has

authority."

As in the best democracy, the rule of law in a moderate oligarchy is the product of the fact that the majority of citizens lacks leisure (Politics 1293al2-19). Polity, the best both
practical

regime,

and

the standard for

of

improving
1302a2-

democracy

and

oligarchy, is

also constituted

primarily

the moderately

wealthy; therefore

similar

limitations

on participation

apply (Politics

15, 1320a20-24;
In defense
citizens'

1294bl3-96b40).
argued

of

taneously liberate.
enact

Rahe's reading, it can be They increase truly

to

that these restrictions simul

"political"

participation

by bolstering

the

capacity justice in the

liberate logos from In the best

passion

in their

quest to uncover and an accessible

city.

or mixed

democracy,
of

requirement and popular power over audits and elections produce a sufficient size and power to resist the
people pursue profit without allows

property demos of

harassments

the wealthy. While the

oppression, the

prohibition on payment

for

office

those among the wealthy who seek honor to satisfy themselves through to high office. The limits on both
prevent either

election

political relation
exclusion reflects merit neither nor

into

one

of masters

and slaves.

This

mix

from turning their of inclusion and

Political beings
"beasts"

both the limits

and

the

dignity

of politics.

the compelled nonparticipation enforced upon a pack of

things"

that the people and the simply to "do the (Politics 1281M9-21, 1310al9-23). wealthy characteristically Aristotle's best democracy, then, embraces neither simple majoritarianism

the

unlimited

power

"enjoy"

nor even

the

participation unlike

by the

many in high

office.

lican

vision

Greek

republican practice

So understood, his repub cannot be so easily dismissed distance toward moderating

by

modem

thought, for his

republic goes no short of

the "fanatical

particularity"

the cities of his day.

Equally important,

Aris-

264
totle's
the

Interpretation
objections

to the polis

not

only do

not require

but in fact

largely

reject

fundamental

premises

underlying early

modernity's critique of ancient prac

tice. But if Aristotle's

republicanism can

be lumped together

with neither an

cient practice nor modem

theory, where precisely does it stand? To do full justice to his republican vision requires, according to Aristotle
philosophy," politics'

himself, "political
longer
Pericles'

on

whose

basis

touchstone
course"

is

no

Funeral Oration few

but,

rather, the "natural

the absolute

rale of the one or standpoint of noble part

of unqualified virtue

(Politics 1282b 14-24). From the

"one

philosophizing,"

the

political

actions."

Therefore,

those preeminent

in

political virtue merit a no

community is for the "sake of "greater

in the

city"

(Politics 1279bl2-81a8).
the best city

Harboring

illusions

as

to

its likeli
the

hood, Aristotle highlights

that
we

nonetheless.

He does
the

so with

intent
of

through reflecting on
course"

both the

goodness and

infeasibility

the

"natural
and

will arrive at a seasoned character

problematic

of political

grasp of the simultaneously noble life generally (Politics 1284a3-b34,

extent

1288al7-29).

endorses

So seasoned, we his fellow

argues

can measure more

Greeks'

accurately the
and

to which Aristotle

endorsement of political activity.

political

On the
rather

one

hand,

truly activity ruling being is the core of political education. As such, it both provides gling for mastery for and results from blunted factionalism. The factions may come to moderate
that

he

ruled,

than strag

their

more extreme claims

in light

of a

human possibility
a

made visible

to them

only

through participation-education
mixed"

in

city that

is,

as

Aristotle describes

it,

"finely
he has been

(Politics 1294a30-94b39, 1252b28-30, 1253a30-40). While

to concede the role and rank of institutions in moderate
poli

seen

tics, Aristotle

challenges modern republicanism

solution

by denying

the viability of a

simply institutional ters, and depends

stands as the

to the political problem. His republic serves,

fos
all,"

on

political

education, which, though "slighted

of political

by

"greatest"

instrument

health (Politics 1310al2-14).

much

On the
totle's

other

hand, it is
the

now apparent

that too

is

often read

into Aris

emphasis on

educational potential of political activity.

Read rightly,

he lends
em.

scant succor

to supporters of participatory republics, ancient or mod

In fact, his very defense of his best practical regime reveals most conspicu ously his distance from the participatory ethos. While his moderate democracy
and

oligarchy
Polity's

seek

to balance the claims and powers of the rich and poor, these

in

"polity"

neither of nates.

factions, but

rather the

"middling

element,"

domi

moderation appears

to owe most to its socioeconomic structure.

powers.

Its uniformity
project

to

largely dispenses with the need to balance temper democracy and oligarchy depends for its

While his its

"mixing,"

effectiveness on
of

ability to educate the two most powerful his polity

of
neutralizes

factions in the benefits

these groups through the numerical and martial

superiority
of wealth

the

heavy-armed, middling
makes political

and

poverty,

Moderate property, a mixing most possible. Without the

element.

"mix"

preeminence of

Antiquing America
such

265
is

body,

the attempt to balance opposing factions through

education

prone to

instability
be

(Politics 1304a38-b3). Polity's lessened dependence is

proportional and equal
"affection."

on po

litical
"wish"

education-participation

to

its fulfillment
In addition,

of

the city's there is

to

composed of

"similar

persons,"

without which

insufficient

sameness to promote civic

wealth

polity's wide and

spread yet moderate

apolitical,

participation aim

in

politics

deflects the many from an excessive, (Politics 13 18b 14- 17).

thus

Aristotle's

to

limit

participation

through satisfying acquisitiveness ap to that of his modem republican suc

visions.

pears to move cessors.

his

project much closer

Yet the two differ markedly in their

course,"

The primacy
and

of

the

"natural
animates

or unqualified

excellence,

not of

life, liberty,

property,
mul

Aristotle's project,

which seeks

the ascendancy of that

"certain"

titude whose way of

strained

life

renders with

in

and

satisfied

it militarily powerful and simultaneously re its political participation. Polity satisfies it

allows

acquisitiveness to the extent that

"profit,"

the many to

"strive"

unharassed after

which

they desire

more

than

"honor."

the acquisitiveness of both rich and poor

whose wealth view to

by

At the same time, it restrains opposing to both a middle class

the
of

is

largely
those

static.

Polity

"mixes"

satisfaction and restraint with

limiting

who possess

merely freedom

and/or wealth

to a

level

participation proportional

to their political contributions.

In

so

tempts to
and

provide the restrained political arena required some

for

virtue

doing, it at to be heard,

perhaps, to

extent, to

rale.

Accordingly, polity is
inclusive
cause

the best practical alternative not because it is the most though this it is

and secure of regimes

but first

and

foremost be

its domestic health is

and peace

exercise their virtue on par excellence

the city's

buy for the naturally best the opportunity to behalf. For Aristotle the political contribution
As is tme
of all

"prudence"

or practical wisdom.

the Aris
practiced.

totelian virtues, prudence exists in activity; prudence, to

be,

must

be

Polity
is,

allows

the one or few who

excel

in

prudence

to exercise their virtue, that

to be virtuous

fully,

and

for this

reason

polity
most

ascends.

opens to the

influence

reaches toward what

polity is for Aristotle the

of virtue

resembles

the rale of the

or

In the opportunity it "god-like"; it

divine

best

regime

simply

(Politics 1284a3-15, 1284b25-34). Aristotle appreciates fully the obstacles

the
polis.

to the rule of prudence presented

by

Nevertheless, he deems it the

city's natural

inclination to desire to be

mled

by

the true God. All communities, he observes in the very first sentence
aim at what appears good.

of the

Politics,

This

aim

desire to know

the good.

Stated differently,

man's

necessarily includes the directedness toward the po

well,"

litical community is explained fully and hence presupposes his desire to know
nature, intends to leam
source and
and practice

finally by
and

his desire to "live

and

what the good

virtue

life is. The polis, by to know the truth about the

ordering Nicomachean Ethics 1094a27-bl2).

principle of

the

cosmos

(Politics

1328b4-22, 1325M6-31;

266

Interpretation

In this

light, Aristotle's
fanatical

republican vision presents a

city
to

animated neither

by

universalism.10

antiquity's

particularism nor modernity's

tepid
prosper

For Ar
unre

istotle the
identified

political animal remains too much an animal

from

stricted political participation.

At the

same

with and satisfied through a

time, the soul refuses simply to be hedonist calculus. Because human nature
offers

is mixed, so must be the healthy city. Constmcted thus, Aristotle's polity itself as a third way between republics pitiless and prosaic.

THE FLIGHT FROM POLITICS

In Aristotle's

appraisal of

Greek

practice we

find

a core that

without

deny

ing
tion

the differences among the classical thinkers

of classical political
philosophy.

represents

the general direc

The

ancients'

compass

guiding the
or classical natural

appraisals of the cities of their

day

is the "natural is the

course"

right,
virtue,

the
or

political culmination of which

unqualified rale of unqualified

backdrop, modernity's critique of the polis comes more clearly into focus. Again, it is no more accurate to treat the modems as a simple unity than it is do so with the ancients. Nevertheless, Rahe
reveals modem a nucleus of shared principles on

the best regime. Against this

the basis

of which all

the seminal

thinkers reject the ancient

period

polis. of

The

between the death

saw

the

polis and

the birth of modernity, the

Middle Ages,
carried on

the ancient

view of man as a political and rational animal

by

Catholicism (p. 217). Also in

science to
estate"

agreement with the

a mere

ancients, the
means

Christian Middle Ages held

"relief
of man's

be higher than

to the

(p. 98). That these

classical tenets survived and even

was not

prospered

Nietzsche did for

Christianity tramped observes, original Christianity

after status of

paganism

accidental.

As

is

popularized a

Platonism.

Christianity
activity but God's

all men what

Platonism had done only for

politically impotent few; it

and political

demoted the

family,
and

city,

this-worldly
not

ambition,

(p. 219). Man is first

obedient subject.
neighbor.

foremost is

the

self-legislating

citizen

loving his city than in loving his his fellow citizen, but whoever is in merely need (cf. the parable of the Good Samaritan, Luke 10: 25-37). The universal blessings and requirements of a God who is no respecter of nations became the
completion

His

lies less in

And his

neighbor

not

new

dispensation,

on whose

basis

wholehearted

devotion to the polity

of

was no

longer defensible.
If the Church
allowed

through its spiritual gates the Greek gift

with

trust in

logos,
. . .

it

soon

discovered that Rahe

cites

it

came

the

factionalism that had

so

riven the

Gibbon: in the Church '"[t]he study of philosophy devotion'" (p. 222). In fact, heresy as of fidelity to logos produced even worse factionalism in the Church than it had in the polis; for, "[i]n a world in which salvation is universally held to depend on an
ancient republics. was as often

the parent of

Antiquing
acceptance of the true
faith,"

America

267

issues life

of

heresy
death."

and scriptural

interpretation "are

of greater concern than mere

and sword

"logos turned
apart"

out to

be

double-edged

As it had been for the pagans, so that, if speech and reason

conspired to

brought Christians together, (p. 223).

argument and

disputation

drive them

Moreover,
philosophy
tofore
unseen

given the character and while

ferocity

of certain tenets of the

faith,

ostensibly
a mind

condoned and even welcomed to an extent there

and commissioned

was

countenanced

solely

as

theology's

handmaiden. No less
view

than Thomas Aquinas openly defended the pious

truth'

that "'whatever is discovered in the other sciences must be condemned as

repugnant

entirely false if it is
count, philosophy
as

to the

"

of

Christian

revelation.

In the final

during
of

the Christian Middle Ages was at

least

as subjugated

before (p. 228). When the founders early

modem

thought looked at the marriage of Jeru

pointless carnage and

salem and

Athens, they found first among its offspring

intellectual darkness. fanatical

This
was

They

found the Cmsades

and

the trial of Galileo. Had

particularism

fallen, only

to be replaced

by
and

fanatical its

universalism?

the question raised

by

the

early modems,

suppressed premise

would

become the lens through

the Church.

which

they

would

focus

on and reject

both the

polis and

That the revolutionary intentions of the early modems are nearly invisible to our generation is owing to the success of the school of thought according to
which

historical
and

change results of

from impersonal forces

and parties

rather

than from the

thoughts
marize

deeds

individuals

(p. 234). To

paraphrase and sum

who

this school, "There are no great men, only mediocre men

find
no

themselves at the helm tion is radical

during

great

historical

movements."

Allied to this

historicism,

which

has

produced a consensus on

the point that

rational self-consciousness

the means to and end of liberation from our ep

och's unique presuppositions

"the

age,"

spirit of the

is impossible. Be the barrier class, status, or there is no escaping culture's cave (p. 235). Were this
another obstacle.

set of

blinders

not sufficient to obscure modernity's

ourselves confronted evidence whose

by

Rahe

provides exhaustive

revolutionary ends, we find historical

that the early modems

wrote

esoterically;

they

were

dissemblers

works'

pious surface camouflages an

impious
(p.

core

(pp. 233-48). Here

of and

he

signals

grounds

his debt to Leo Strauss, for early modernity's covert

who

first

gleaned

both the fact

n.

operation

918,

21).
and

Machiavelli launched the inspired trust in logos. His

a

modem attack on

Christianity

critique of moral

reason, in turn,

paved

its classically the way for

with
humanity"

wholly

new species of republicanism

(pp. 228-29). Crucial to the break

antiquity was his replacement of proper pride with the "principles of (pp. 260-74). While the ancients granted the value of the feeling of
or

humanity
on, the justi-

pity,

they did
came

not count

it among the
virtue.

virtues.

But, from Machiavelli

with

humanity

to be regarded as a

This elevation, along

268

Interpretation
the new science, required a
new

fication for
became
and

understanding

of virtu,

which

mere

"virtuosity

an

instrument fashioned for the

attainment of

'secu

rity Grounding
velli's

well-being'"

(p. 262).

the promotion
of

of

humanity
that the

and

demotion

of pride

is Machia

denial

the

ancient view

quest

for fame

points

beyond itself to

the cultivation of the virtue for which men

achieve

fame. He "severs the link

between the beautiful

good"

or

the noble and the

(pp. 264-65). This

decoup
self-re

ling

derives from his

is

analysis of

desire. Because desire is insatiable,

notion

straint

finally

unsatisfying.

Hence the is

that happiness consists

and

in the in

cultivation of the moral virtues

a sham.

Virtue

happiness

consist not

limiting

"acquisition"

but in satisfying limitless desires. On this basis, the life of unceasing of the matter is that men divide not ascends. The "effectual
truth"

between the immoral Logos is but is

not

and

the moral, but between the ambitious and the fearful.

by

naturally drawn to discover and communicate the just and good, nature an instmment of the domination required to satisfy insatiable
the good things are few and their would-be captors

desire in
many.

a world where

If Machiavelli is the fountainhead

of matters moral and political ments of emerged

of

the project to

bring

the effectual truth

ele

to the attention of

thinking

men, significant

modernity disagreement with the Florentine. Rahe directs

later

and sometimes as

the fmit of

fundamental

ing

on

Machiavelli's

us to Montaigne, foundation, dislodges from its facade the

who, in build
one stone still

shared with

chant critique of

the exaltation of the quest for glory. Montaigne's tren antiquity heroic virtue would become the cornerstone of modernity's

misgivings about

both the Christian

martyr and as well as

the

ancient warrior

(p. 268).
of

Heroism
soul

and

self-restraint, classical

Christian,

are

diseases

the

bred

of an unjustified and unjustifiable pride.

primary

source of man's

inhumanity

This pathology has been the toward himself and others throughout his

tory. Better

fitting

man's nature

understood

here but

as
"

his desire for security 'mildness

and ease of

and

well-being

are not courage and self-sacrifice

dis

position.'"

The latter
"the

reveal

their worth when the good comes properly to be

and when

identified

useful,"

with

logos accordingly focuses

(pp. 269-72).

on

the advan

tageous. In this view, the

now comes

to light as

cruelty humanity's
So

concomitant with the ancient warrior's virtue

worst vice man of

The
stered
more

success of the new

modem science.

man, the
argues

"natural

mildness,"

will

be bol
and

by

Francis Bacon. By making life longer

comfortable, science promises to dilute religion and the older, austere virtue. So constituted, the new man, whom Bacon labels a '"citizen of the
world,'"

will

become

more sensitive not

only to his

own

security
in the
the

and

well-

being

but

also to

that of

his fellow

citizens and mankind generally.

The bless
principle

ings brought
religion

by

modem science will

themselves educate

men

and practice of of

"humanity"

(p. 279).
of scorn

Moreover,

reasons

Bacon,

weakening

and,

with

it,

for this life's

happiness will

increase

Antiquing America
men's

269

seriousness
and

about their

lives here

and

thus render them more

fearful,
hospi
these

pacific,

law-abiding. Because the

project

to persuade men to care more

world

about this world requires

first
to

and

foremost that this

medicine critical.

become

more

table, Bacon deems

virtue, the longings
not

advances

in

While

one result of

material advances will

be

of the

few

deafen the many to calls to hard and dangerous are less easily satisfied. To them Bacon offers
nature

only the Machiavellian

enticement of political

the promise of the scientific conquest of

mastery over fortuna but (pp. 280-81).

of

also

Equally
to cede the

a philosopher of will and an

enemy

Christian

zeal

is Descartes,

whose repudiation of

heroic

virtue and religious

distinctions traditionally made for honor, and the base desires for wealth and bodily arises from his denial that body is finally subordinate to
he finds

piety is evinced by his refusal among the love of God, the desire
pleasure. soul

This

refusal

(p. 286). Because

the soul becomes

body
a

to be the source of all

of

desire, his

account of

is accordingly subsumed under Descartes's "new and revolutionary mathematical (p. 287). A soul whose supervenes subordination to can know no principle of hierarchy its unity body

"merely

branch

physiology,"

which

physics"

by

which

to order the virtues.

Hence the

generosite with which

Descartes

re

places greatness of soul status.

(megahpsuchia)
is "an inborn but

cannot claim an

the latter's architectonic

Rather,
It is

quality,"

generosite not virtue

"overpowering lust
master passion

for
as

mastery."

replaces virtue.

It is the
the

and,

such, the final

source of resolute resistance against

periodic chaos caused

by

the other

passions.

Rahe

cautions us

lest

we

take the

surface

for the

core.

Descartes

argues

explicitly that ability '"to do

men.'"

generosite

is the
"

source

and

things,'

great
goodness

and

the

greatest of

spring of man's willingness and deeds is 'doing good to other

"

When

is

measured as
man's

by

the gauge of security and well-being,

scientific progress emerges

greatest

benefactor. Generosite inspires it to the lull

us relief of man's estate. self-satisfaction

the work that both

advances science and

turns
will

For fear that

such

humanitarian

rhetoric

into the

Descartes promises, Rahe

rosite

calls our attention

to the

fact that,
reads

at

bottom,

gene

modernity's rosite

"is the hard, unrelenting, willful, soft, democratic

aristocratic self-assertion at

the heart of
gene

humanity."

As Rahe

it, Descartes's

is Machiavelli's "savage

virtu"

turned

from the lust for

empire to the

quest to rule nature through science

(pp. 289-90).
truth"

Equally
Locke,
ued

beholden to Machiavelli's turn to the "effectual

is John
are val

whose realism

finds that '"power

happiness,'"

and

only as conducing to our (p. 293). Accordingly, austere

riches, nay virtue itself, that is, to this life's

be
relied on a system of

'"enjoyments'"

notions of virtue cannot

to spawn

action.'"

'"conformity
that this

of

Required instead is

secures each man's pursuit of

change comes

his

private enjoyments.

morality The full import

use of

and politics of

to light

when we recall

that Locke

inaugurates the

the

term "self in

"soul."

place of

The

self

is distinguished

by

an egocentrism

that,

270
in the
quest

Interpretation
absence of a

hierarchy

of

idiosyncratic pleasures, is necessarily

in its

for

satisfaction. elevates

The very

impossibility
that

content of of consensus on the

happiness
ness

the pursuit of happiness. But for Locke the

a

pursuit of

happi
of
"

must remain

pursuit,

one

finally

leads

nowhere.

The
"

pursuit

'uneasiness'

happiness is less
of pain and

the quest for the good than the flight from the
death"

(p. 294). Life in Locke's republic reveals "the joyless quest itself to be quoting Leo Strauss's memorable description joy."" for From this, virtue comes to light as bourgeois virtue; or, as Locke "the
prospect of

states

it,

self-preservation provides the solid ground on which to

morality'"

"

'regulate

our

religion, politics,

and attempt

(pp. 294-95).
civil

Crucial to his
stratagem

faith but

"priestcraft,"

society on solid ground is Locke's regarding Christianity. While his professed target is not Christian his critique of the latter eventuates in a Christianity far
to reestablish
what

different from
humanity"

it had been theretofore.

in the
view of

grounded

the

By steps it becomes "inadequacy of God's

certain

"religion

of

provision"

for

man, "inclined to tolerate

and

condone"

and even

"weaknesses

of

the

flesh,"

focussed primarily on improving "man's estate in this (pp. 301-3). Appealing to the Protestant emphasis on individual conscience, Locke succeeds
world"

in

diluting

the doctrine of justification

so

by

faith to the

requirement of mere

sincerity.

In

doing,
that

his

aim

tianity in

order

it

might engine

ultimately is not to no longer oppose but

eradicate
come

but to

soften

Chris
moral

to prop the new

ity

of

humanity. The

driving

Locke's

project as well as

his instrumental
standard of

biblical hermeneutics is his

the meaning
and

employment of reason as the

final

both

the soundness of revelation.

Should that
will

project

succeed, the
of

new man of virtue nor

Locke's

new order no

longer

be

seduced

by

dreams

heroic

inflamed
"busy"

with religious zealotry.

He

will embrace

the "cautious

hedonism,
His

the mild skepticism, and the genial

tolerance"

generated

by

commerce.

will

be

life,

one engrossed

by

the quest to improve this world and

world virtue

to

come"

hence less than "zealous for salvation in the (pp. 314-17). Lockean man will echo the critique of classical

later

offered

by Montesquieu,
bourgeois,'"

who

loathes the

ferocity
not

of ancient

life,

preferring the '"timid particularism but to pacific

progress.

who

devotes himself
in

to a

bloodthirsty

and

homogenizing
for the

commerce and technological

a

The
not

new man's virtues consist not

an

making,
pmdent

in

inhumane

contempt

haughty rejection of money body and this life, but in a

and

frugality

and a softness

in

manners.

In Locke's

Montesquieu's

new

world commerce replaces war and

slavery

as

the primary means

of acquisition.

Equally important,
the material life

of

though not stated explicitly, the new science, by protecting the many from unconcerned nature, will also protect the

intellectual life
No less Rahe
credits

of the

few from overly-concerned

to the birth
of

religion.

a midwife with

the new world is

Thomas

Hobbes,

whom

founding

"a

new

science of politics aimed at

on

politics

altogether"

(pp. 364-66).

eliminating

Building

the work of

Grotius, Selden

Antiquing America
Descartes and, above all, Bacon, Hobbes continues the modem classical trust in logos. Because reason is but the "scout and
because the latter is different
attack on of
spy"

27 1
the
and

desire,

inconstant,

the ordinary terms

of moral

discourse have
for the
same

and often opposed meanings

for different
passion.

men and even

man when

later
can

swayed

by

contrary

Moral reason,

at once

fettered

and

fitful,

thus serve neither to found nor to maintain commonwealths. Not

reason

primarily but the fear of violent death drives men to establish commonwealths; for only fear can fully focus the mind and smother the other singly
or
passions

(p. 376).
critique of moral reason serves to absolute sovereignty.
of

Hobbes's
and

delegitimate

political

activity

bolster

His

program

to escape politics looks to Ma

more

chiavelli's view
marries

human nature, but is

finally

optimistic, because it

to the Florentine's dissection of desire Bacon's aim to elicit true excel

lence

logos from piety and politics to science and the technical arts. Human perfection is wrought through yoking logos to method. Neither the

by turning

great-souled nor

the

pious

man,

but,

rather, the

scientist-inventor

is Hobbes's

and modernity's paragon of excellence.

Here Rahe brings to light nicely the

repudiation of

"hidden
ogy.

teleology"

beneath Hobbes's

Hobbes
of

extols

(rhetorical) "calculating, industrious, scientific

explicit

teleol the

reason,"

praises

"virtues

civility,"

and never slackens

in his "demand for Locke both

consistency"

(pp.

395-97). These fundamental Hobbesian

principles

adopts and modifies.

So amended, they would come in time to inform the work of the American Founders (p. 397). But if the Leviathan is the raw material and the Two Trea
tises the

finished product, the

after

effect of

both

on

the American

founding

is

seen

appraising the workmanship of a thinker relatively unknown clearly only to the extent that he is known, misinterpreted James Harrington (p. and,

409). Rahe's Harrington

and

serves

Locke. Harrington

grants

as something of a mediator between Hobbes Hobbes's major premises but rejects absolute

sovereignty and champions popular self-government. From his defense of the latter, he is routinely read as a classical republican. This reading Rahe rebuts. Harrington's Oceana proscribes public debate for the same reason that Hobbes
prescribes absolute monarchy.
over

Both

aspire

to

eliminate

divisive

public

dispute
poli
self-

the advantageous,

just,

and good.

tics,

to abolish "the middle ground

That is, both attempt to eliminate that had been the central feature of

government

in

times"

ancient

(pp. 414-15).
patron of self-government

Rahe declares Harrington the first

public

to erect

a re

independent

of

the ancient premise "that one can

education."

inculcate

civic virtue

and public-spiritedness through

His

republic relies on

judiciously

constructed ness on

institutions to wring the common interest from individual selfish (p. 421). In fact, these institutional means (e.g., secret ballots and the ban
to
encourage men

debate) intend
their souls the

to vote their interests and hence to

lessen
con-

in

weight

and,

with

it,

the

divisiveness

of moral-political

272
cems quieu

Interpretation
(pp. 422-26). In
and all

this, Harrington, along

with

Hume

and

Montes
to the

contrary to Aristotle
embraces

looks to "political its ruling

principle

" 'structure' "

of government, as the source of

(pp. 440-41).
with

Locke likewise

Hobbes's

ends while

harboring

reservations

his

means

(p. 463).

Initially

Locke later adopting Hobbes's Erastianism,

with
constitutional

comes

to champion religious toleration along

monarchy

and

the

right to

rebel.

Never

doubting

the political

deadliness

of religious

strife, he

diver eventually decides that religious persecution, not sity, is the chief danger. Accordingly, toleration, not state supremacy over holy dogma, proves the better method for preventing disputes over the health of
nonetheless
religious

man's

immortal

soul

from spreading

sickness

to the

body

politic

(pp. 459ffi).
can

Because he

expects religious

liberty

to

end violent religious

straggle, Locke

dismiss the

need

for Harrington's

program

to eliminate the "middle ground of

(p. 473). Political activity will be made because religious freedom will declaw politics.
politics"

finally

safe

for the

world

Examination

of other

key

elements of of

Locke's

project reveals the

depth

of

his debt to Hobbes. On the issue

the role and rank of political education

to

Locke breaks laid in

with

Harrington, joining Hobbes

insist that

foundation be

public opinion

mechanisms propositions

sanctioning the employment of modernity's institutional (pp. 478-79). This doctrinal foundation consists chiefly in the

later deemed self-evidently tme

also sides

by

the Declaration of Indepen

critique of moral-politi

dence (p. 479). Locke

cal reason.

finally
to
"

with

Hobbes's

Because
"

reason

is bound

objectively the 'executive nature (pp. 496-99). For this

struct civil society.

power'

boundless desire, men cannot exercise that inheres equally in each in the state of

cause men

flee

nature through art

they
no

con

Hence the

relevant political sense

in

which

Locke

less

than Hobbes deems men naturally "free and

ure

equal"

follows from

nature's

fail

to endow logos
no

Nature is

sufficiently to establish a natural capacity for less niggardly in the economic realm. Man is left

mle.

largely

alone

in fact, hallows the emancipation of the acquisitive instincts (p. 501). With the fall of the value of nature's supply rises the dignity of human labor. Value owes virtually all to labor, and the labor of each man's body is and can be his alone. Hence Locke reasons that man "'has a property in his own In fact, because it is "in
person.'"

to provide for his necessities. His natural neediness permits,

his

rather than in nature, that man finds what is truly valuable, is property par excellence is that which 'nobody has any right to but (p. 502). Accordingly, we discover at the pinnacle of Locke's teleology the '"industrious and whose conquest of nature with a view to comfortable self-preservation is the end in whose service politics is legitimated (pp. 504-8). While the current fashion in scholarship is to read Locke's teaching on property as proof of his bondage to the interests of the English upper class, Rahe's careful account finds Locke's overriding concern is for the welfare, not of the rich and idle few, but of working men and women (pp. 514-18).

person,"

own

his

"person"

"

himself"

rational,'"

Antiquing America
Rahe
sition as

273
acqui

argues that part

Locke's from

chief

intentions larger

redirecting thumos toward pacify

men

and parcel of the

project to

through
and

trade;

replacing labor over

during
sive

calculating reason; elevating to some extent made their way into the colonies activity his tenure on the Board of Trade (pp. 519-20). Rahe also offers exten
political

guidance

moral reason with

testimony

about the

depth

and

breadth

of

Locke's intellectual leverage

on

the
and

continent.

tant

and Gordon, Bolingbroke, Blackstone, Sidney, Priestley to Hutcheson, Smith, and Hume, there was, despite their impor differences, general agreement regarding the essential rectitude of Locke's

From

Trenchard

program was

(pp. 530-39). Although Harrington

who would

Locke

English republicanism, it become its "dominant intellectual (p. 535).

spawned
force"

As noted, Rahe is
thinkers and

well aware of and

the differences among the above-mentioned

notable of are

between them

Locke. Most

the misgivings of
project.

Hume
and

and

Montesquieu

about

the doctrinairism

Locke's

If Locke

early modernity generally look to avoid the strife that they suspect super venes trust in man's capacity to distinguish the advantageous, just, and good, Locke also enunciates a moral-political vision whose universality serves as the
touchstone and thus as the
potential accuser and subverter of of

To the dangers inherent in the rise

alert.
and

ideology
seeks

existing orders. Rahe finds Hume the first to be

Along with Montesquieu, dignity of the particularism

with

Hume
that

to restore somewhat the

civic

legitimacy
means.

is inseparable from
ends

identity. Yet they

differ

Locke less

over

fundamental Locke's

than over the choice of that consent

While they
political
or prudence

accept and echo

contention

is

the source of

legitimacy, both look

that

to instill in modem republicanism the

flexibility

they deem

a prerequisite

to political health (pp. 536-40).

THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC

Where do the American Founders between

stand

in the debate

over republicanism

classical antiquity and early modernity? To this question Rahe devotes In the pre-Revolutionary colonies he book 3, entitled "Inventions of finds Locke's influence massive. Between 1760 and 1776 Locke's work was
Prudence."

not

only the

most read and quoted

by

colonial politicians

but

was also popular

remarkably high degree among the Protestant clergy. Such was his power during this momentous period for the colonies that even some Loyalists found it
to
a

necessary
premises.

and

advantageous

to

appeal

to his authority (pp.

556-57). Rahe Locke's

guides us through

the list

of

the notables of the time

who echo

key

Among

them are no

Wilson, Morris,

and

less than Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Mason, Paine. Moreover, Locke's language found its way into a
(pp. 558-66).
to
premises assented

number of state constitutions

Crucial among the

the
not
view

by

the

leading
a

lights

of

the time was

that

politics

is

at

best

an

instrumental good, better to

protect

"burden"

to be endured

for its

own sake

but in

order

the primary realm of

human

274

Interpretation
and happiness the

activity
nence.

household

and private affairs.

With this the Found

preemi

ers appear

to reject the basis

puts

on which

the
even

ancients

accorded politics

As Paine

it, '"government,

in its best state, is but

necessary

evil'"

(pp. 562-66).
also entertained

Yet the Framers

ambition

lofty
men

political

aspirations.

How did great

politics'

take hold in the souls of

status?

who

ostensibly

believed in

secondary
examples,
ness"

Rahe

concludes

that these longings

were

kindled

by

ancient

which taught

the Founders "what it meant to

aspire

to political great

(p. 570). John Adams detected

of

a classical element

in the '"revolution

principles'"

the

novus ordo sechrum.

Thomas Jefferson thought it among those

fitting
books

to
of

include Aristotle's
right'"

and

Cicero's

works

"'elementary

public claims owes

that support the Declaration. That the two

part to

men could make

these

in

the fact that their institution

of a modem republic as an
act"

improvement

on

the

ancient model was

itself "a profoundly

political

(p.

569). At the
"

same

time, Rahe
revival

finally

rejects

J. G. A. Pocock's influential inter

"

pretation of one part

the American Revolution as a

'flight from
West
of

modernity,'

"

that

is,

as

'of the
Rahe

in the early

modem

the ancient ideal of

homo
the

politicus.'"

minces no words. of

The "'civic

humanism'"

ascribed to

Britain

and

America

this period is

largely
At the

"a figment

of

the scholarly

imag

ination"

(pp. 569-70). Few

on either side of

the Atlantic judged the

same

highest life

to fall to the

fully

committed citizen.

Bailyn, Appleby,

and

Diggins

no

denying
Locke
to

any

ancient

influence

on

time, Rahe finds Rossiter, in taking the opposite tack of the Founders. Moreover, Rahe's reading of
less
mistaken

and subsequent

demonstration
view

of

his influence in the

colonies

leave little

justify

Gordon Wood's
"

that the

founding
Nor
can

established an

"'essentially
sacrifice

anti-capitalistic'

order animated

by

the republican

ideal

of

individual

for the "'greater

Rahe's
scrutiny.

whole.'"

good of

the

Hannah
of

Arendt'

s case stand
was

For Arendt the "'ultimate

of

end'"

the Revolution

the

"participatory
space where

" 'freedom' "

the Greek polis

' "

"

'and the

constitution of a public

freedom

would appear. and

Yet Rahe finds Wood's

both discern the guiding
provided a model of
undertook

Arendt's

readings plausible to the extent that

role

the ancients played

and

nobility that inspired

action

the

daunting

that was

the
are

"very

founding"

act of animals

America "was
with"

for our Founders. Antiquity fortified the Americans as they the founding. Rahe's key point is that
a

tacit assertion that some

men

really

political

endowed

the requisite

570-72).
Here
one we arrive at what

"capacity

for

logos"

(pp

for Rahe is the

the

core of
of

hand,

the

Founders Hobbes's

granted

import

the polis

and

criticism of politics

America's identity. On the both the humanitarian critique of generally. Their new order would they

thus establish the securing of comfortable self-preservation and its prerequisites as the end to which politics would serve as means. On the other hand

Antiquing
"were
which

America

275

steeped

in the classics,

and

they felt

the

force

example,

of

the ancient
goodness
of

taught the simple, as opposed to the

a goodness

instmmental,
turn,
evinces
while

free

dom

that both potentiates and, in

self-go

itself

fully

through

"man's capacity for

would within

vernance."

Accordingly,
political participation

the new republic

honor first
In

man's

tool-making

ability, it would allow and even

foster

limits "political
so

liberty"

as well. ciples.

doing,

the Founders

They

also reevaluated

"silently passed "traditional Whig political

need not

beyond"

classically Locke's first

understood
prin

architecture"

in light

of

their

conviction

that institutions
election of

also conduce

to, the

for, but merely competent leaders (pp. 571-72).

substitute
yielded

could

in fact

This

reevaluation of

institutionalism

the American scheme of separa

tion of powers, which "seeks to vindicate man's capacity for self-government

by teaching
affairs concomitant

him to

acknowledge the

limits

of

that capacity and to conduct his

accordingly."

Beholden to the
man's

modem

understanding distrusts

of

equality

and

its

doubt concerning
good,
statesmanship. and classical whom

ability to overcome private passion and

politics and

serve the common

separation of powers

thus limits

the scope of

At the

same

"aristocratic

in

character"

time, separation of powers is expressly in assuming the power of logos in at

analogous

least

few to

it

ground"

opens an

opportunity
occasion

to the "middle
of public service

of the polis.

In providing this
pride of an

for the

display
men

virtue, "it

harnesses the

the country's most ambitious

"indirect"

in

to the public

good."

Rahe deems this

ancients' paide

version of

the

"civic

Like its predecessor, the new republic seeks, albeit gently, to transform pride To the degree that it and ambition "into something considerably more
exalted."

succeeds

in educating

and

ennobling the

players on

the national stage, separa

way:

tion of powers also educates the people in "the most effectual

by

the

shining examples it holds up for bears "a certain, undeniable

in
a

emulation."

So understood, the United States

ancient mixed

resemblance"

to the

regime, albeit

way"

"strange,

convoluted

it

strikes

the

mean

between Hobbes's "en

lightened

despotism"

and classical republicanism

(pp. 599-602).

Rahe finds

an additional classical element provided a condition

by

the

Supreme Court.
thinks

The Court fulfills

able to
a view

that

Socrates, in
regime

the

Republic,

indispens
with

good government:

the Constitution empowers the federal

judiciary

to guaranteeing that within the

there will remain an element that

embraces

"the

same

understanding
laws."

(logos)

of

the regime that the lawgiver pos

powerfully"

sessed when

he framed its
"political

education" citizens'

to the
publicanism

As such, the Court "contributes (p. 609). Accordingly, while

"stealthily"

modem re

does

not take

as

its task Plato's

"perfection"

encourages the soul's

"'caring for and by "indirection

souls,'"

America openly
a

while

(pp. 615-16). pursuing less exalted In sum, only "the unsuspecting

interests"

ends"

glance"

judges the United States to be

mere

"congeries

of special

rather

than a "people united

by

a common

cause"

(p. 650). Against the

"unsuspecting"

impression, Rahe

cites

both

Mad-

276

Interpretation
not sufficient virtue

ison's denial that '"there is

ment,'

among
"

men

for

self-govern

"

and

Hamilton's

affirmation

that there is a

'portion

of virtue and

honor
as
and

"'virtue'"
mankind.'"

among

John

Quincy

Adams identifies the

people's

fidelity

to the principles '"proclaimed in the Declaration of

Independence,

embodied

in the

Constitution'"

(pp. 602-3). Rahe

argues

that the American

people, in giving flesh to the Declaration's spirit, bestowed on the Constitution "a sacred authority limiting their prerogatives, directing their common activ

ities,
be

and

forming

their character as

citizens."

viction

that "man's capacity for self-government

This they did acting on the con can be vindicated only if it can
the
"justice"

shown to serve a

higher

purpose"

(p. 604).
content of

What is this higher ison in Federalist 5 1 "common

cause"

purpose?

What is the
of

that Mad
or rank of

asserts

is the "end

government?"

What kind

or common good

does Rahe find in America's

what

principles

hid

den from "the unsuspecting glance"? In consist? Our reflection on the very
motes

does American
with which

popular virtue

"indirectness"

the regime pro

its

ends points

to some answers.

THE ENDS OF THE CONSTITUTION

Ranking
dle
of

the class of ends and level of virtue that can be promoted ade

quately through indirection requires our

ground"

first examining

more

closely the "mid justification

that the Constitution allows and encourages

the political activity

Framers'

the national office-holders. (Recall that Rahe

finds the

for opening this ground to be the view that modem like ancient republics de pend on some degree of public and private virtue, and in this justification he purports to find at the founding at least the remnants of classical republican

ism.)

To begin,

while

the Founders may

extent of

have disagreed

with

the ancients con

cerning the
species

nature

and

the virtues republics require,

made a

they

and

the
of a

philosophers whom of virtue.

they followed may be said to have Rahe, following Martin Diamond's

but
an

necessity
work on

seminal

The

Federalist,

recounts the modest

stable virtues

bred gently

by

the influence

on manners and mores of

life in

extended,
n.

commercial republic with a multi

plicity of interests and sects (p. 1048, In Federalist 10, Madison declares
"principal
prior
task"

1;

pp.

573-616).
"various
ascends
interests"

"regulating"

to be the

of of

"modem

legislation."

This task

in the

shadow of the

democratized, commerce. The latter, unlike ancient commerce, affects the behavior, nature, opinions and habits of the majority to an extent heretofore unachieved. Further, while democratized commerce incul
modem, or
cates commercial

rise

habits in the
the

commercial allegiances on

fragmented, thereby downplaying

property.

people generally, it serves also to focus their "various interests" into which they have been

awareness of and conflict over amounts of

The democratization

of commerce exercises

both

uniting

and a dis-

Antiquing
persing

America

277

function,
faction.

and the

interaction

of

both is instrumental in remedying the

effects of

on

For the multiplicity of interests scheme to succeed, individuals must focus local pursuits and away from potentially fatal struggles over basic or regime

principles.

The fragmentation its intended

required

for

liberty

and served

by
and

cannot exercise
ests,"

effect

in the

absence of

"opposite

multiplicity rival inter

that
and

is,

widespread source of

acquisitiveness.12

This,

the root of the "most common

durable"

faction, is

also prerequisite to

fects. The channeling of "rival If natural selfishness

motives."

interests"

redresses man's general

remedying faction's ef lack of "better

cannot

greatest of all reflections on

selfishness

human

nature,"

be simply negated, government, "the must seek instead to moderate

through multiplying its foci (Federalist 55). The coalition process is

citizens'

driven
come

by

the

recognition

that,

to satisfy their selfish aims,

they

must

down to the brokerage level,

at which a

majority

composed of

diverse

interests,

religions, and geographies can agree.

what need

nary multiplicity compels, for

tion of the most extreme claims of all.

Creating unity be only selfish reasons, the modera While Madison and the other leading
out of extraordi

Framers

saw

the need for

"other-regarding"

virtue
of selfishness appears

in the

people and

their repre
on which

sentatives, the

durability
rests.

to

be the foundation

Federalist 10
pected

Molded

by

such

circumstances, the citizenry can be ex

"inhuman"

to

do fewer heroic
or religious

and cruel

deeds through Supplied in

either an

desire
virtue

for glory

"enthusiasm."

place of

high

and

flighty
and

are commerce's

lower,

more sober

assets, e.g.,

industry,

mildness,

thrift.
we

With Diamond's interpretation have

seen

of

Federalist 10 Rahe

largely

agrees.

But

that he also underscores the latitude of discretion fostered

and sects.

by

separa

tion of powers and multiplicity of interests

arena to the

capacity for, States

possibility of and in mm seeks to nurture,

the advantageous,

In opening the national statesmanship, the Constitution both presupposes the

man's use of

logos to discern

and

communicate

just,
in
a

and

good.

embraces

the central tenet of classical

To this extent, the United republicanism. Stated simply, the

size makes representa

infeasibility
of

of

direct

democracy

country America's

tion necessary; representation, in turn, makes possible the democratic selection

Jefferson's "natural

aristoi."

Because they recognized the new republic's need of the "service of the Founders took further tocracy of knowledgeable and prudent
men,"

an aris

steps to

ensure that such would

be

rewarded and

hence

cultivated.

This,
for

at

least, is

the

way Rahe

reads of

the Constitution's

protection of copyrights

authors

(p. 712).
the Con

My

reading

the

constitutional passage causes me

"aristocracy"

to

wonder about

the precise

character of

the

natural

anticipated and provided

for

by

stitution. Article One, Section Eight, Clause Eight provides Congress with the power "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for

limited Times to Authors

Writings
and

and

Inventors the
mine).

exclusive

Right to their

respective of such

Discoveries"

(emphasis

Might Rahe's description

278

Interpretation
"knowledgeable
prudent"

men as

and

be

rendered

more

precisely
thus.13

as

Locke's

"industrious
and

and rational"? neither

Tocqueville
case that

appears

to read

it

This denies

Rahe's

the

constitutional

distribution

of

"honors
his
ob

offices"

establishes a mild paideia

for

modem-republican man nor

servation that our

first

six presidents all urged

Congress to

establish a national

university

with

the

view

to perpetuating our political institutions through the

creed

teaching

of our political

(pp. 712-14).

My

question

concerns

not

the

being
and

but the

content of the new education

for the

new man.
arts"

Honoring

those

who contribute to

the "progress of

science and useful

appears

to look

first

foremost to encouraging that yoking of logos to technai, to "science and the that Rahe shows lies at the heart of Hobbes's enterprise (pp. 395ff.).
arts,"

Rahe has likewise demonstrated that quintessentially In accord with my reading modem democratic republic
those of
aristocratic regimes view of
modem.

such elevation of technical expertise

is

of

Clause Eight, Tocqueville expects "habitually to put use before

exhibit a
relation

citizens

in

beauty,"

whereas

generally

"contempt for

practice."14

Rahe he

finds Jefferson's
ness stated
"

the political

between

"elegance"

and useful
cities,"

considers

powerfully in the Virginian's critique of "great 'pestilential to the morals, the health and the liberties
the elegant arts, but the useful
with more ones can

which

of man.

True,
would

they
and

nourish some of

thrive elsewhere,

less

perfection

be my I have further
at

choice'"

in the others, (p. 726).

concerns about

health,

virtue and

freedom,

Rahe's thesis insofar

as

it

posits the

identity

or

least affinity of the activities of legislators in republics ancient and Ameri can. We have seen that American republicanism issues from modem naturalrights

doctrine,
as

which,

by definition,
"great

sets

limits to

government power.

Federalist

10 lists
rights,"

the

Founders'

object"

"securing]

the

public good and private

and

it

assimilates

the public good to "the permanent and aggregate

interests
most

community."

of

the
of

Nowhere in this

what

has become, for us, the

of

influential

the Federalist essays

does Madison, the Father

ethical virtue or souls.
justice,"

the

Constitution,
the
comes

utter a word about

Constitution's Preamble
into
sight

perfecting saving its intention to "establish through the lens of private, prepolitical rights and
states appears to

While

justice "in

public

terests."

American justice

be the

prevention of

injustice (see Politics

cf. Rahe, pp. 777ff). To be sure, Rahe in several passages powerfully presents the case for, as he puts it, "the restricted, Lockean character of the American understanding of 'justice and the common (p. 1064, n. 153). We have seen that he himself grants that what the regime pursues are "less exalted
good'"

1280a31-1281a8; but

"openly"

ends."

So understood, the and is accordingly

"openly"

common good requires more

less in the way

wonder

of effort and

talent
of

easily coaxed through Rahe's own analysis, then, one cannot help but pursues what rales and is honored by

"indirection."

On the basis

why what America everyone in the daylight

Antiquing
should not

America

279

be taken
and

as the core of on

Augustine

Mill

just this

point.

its identity. Rahe rightly cites and emulates We recall his quotation from Augustine,
assemblage
. . .

for

whom

"'a

people,'"

is

"'multitudinous

united

regarding loved things held in "'something which is

which

common.'"

Mill locates

political

by concord identity in that

and re

settled,'"

which

is "'not to be
or

called

into

question'"

inspires "'the

feeling

loyalty'"

of

allegiance,

(pp.

2, 22). But
"question"

course
us

only to those principles whose sovereignty is

and the pursuit of

beyond
us still

for

life, liberty,

happiness

leaves

in

search of the yet

"higher

purpose"

Rahe

purports to

find in Americanism. We have

on which to

to dis

cover an

authoritative,

public

basis

identify

America
nobler

with ends

any

higher than

comfortable self-preservation and means

any

than calculat

ing

reason.

Perhaps
more.

we err

to expect more. John Adams seems to have foreseen little

Rahe

quotes a
an

long

passage

in

which

Adams

argues

that the ancients

thought the laws

were

insufficient

check on

the people until

to

they
life, and fellow-citizens, as the
.

habituated, by

education and

discipline,
In

regard

the great duties of

to consider a reverence of themselves and the esteem of their

principal source of their enjoyment.
small communities
.

this might

be

plausible; but the

education of a great nation can never accomplish so great an end.

(P.

543)
of an education
power

Instead

in

public virtue, argues

and of

Adams,

security"

the

"only
places
Adams'

lies

in opposing

"to power,

interest to

interest."

Rahe astutely

this

quotation at the

very

beginning

book 3. What light does

description

cast on the nature of the

"middle

ground"

allowed the national

legislators? And We have

seen

to what extent is their activity that Aristotle's mixed

of
regime

"political"

in the

classical sense?
on

likewise

relies

to some extent

the

manipulation

interest

and passion of powers

in

order

to enhance the rule of

rational with

deliberation.

Separation

appears

to seek the same end,

provides

but

this

important

difference: the ded

about governmental ends

formally
its

only natural-rights doctrine as embed lowered by already in the Constitution. Thus, on the one hand, Rahe is correct that
rejects

separation

of powers

freedom to

"deliberate"

the United States

achieve

dependence
reliance

on on

"political
political

architecture"

alone

to

national on

ends.
other

Some

logos is

expected

and

nurtured.

But,
the

the

hand,

this

is logos

restricted

erty,

and

pursuit of

happiness. As such, it is
"lawmaking."

not

to securing life, lib full deliberation in Aris

of

totle's

sense;

rather,

it is

The latter lacks the latitude

reduction of

discretion that distinguishes the former. The

deliberation to law

making follows logically from the reduction of ancient to modem political pur poses. Its ends thus condensed, the national regime can rely more confidently
"indirection."

on

It

can

leave

matters of moral paideia as well as

higher

educa

tion to states,

families,

and churches.

Rahe is right to

contest

the

notion

that separation of powers is concerned

280

Interpretation
with

merely

maintaining

liberty
more

against government encroachment.

The

consti

tutional scheme aims at

appears comparable

than negative

liberty; it

aims at

something that

to classical virtue and prudence in that it strives to glean their representatives the competence and character requisite
goals.

from its

people and

to achieving

its lower

To the

extent

that it recognizes that even modem

liberty

requires a measure of public and private

virtue, it

can

be

said

to reach

closest to antiquity.

ancient and modem parallels that

On these terms, the pivotal distinction between republics between a catechism and a machine, respec

tively. The Americans agree with the early modems in

political

lowering

the ends of

machinelike

life. But they fashion.

prove

deny

that even these lowered ends can be achieved

in

But does this

Rahe's thesis that the United

also a

States,

while

first

and

foremost
Are the

modem and and more

liberal, is
"virtue"

"deliberately
and praised

contrived mixed regime"?

"wisdom"

called

for

in, for

example, Federal

ist 57, anything

rather than

than enlightened self-interest or common-sense sobriety,

"ancient,"

As

we

anything uniquely have seen and will explore

powers,
and

much

further,
like the

less Aristotelian, in character? Rahe finds in multiplicity, federal

ism,

separation of

the

means

by

which

the

Framers

resur

rected

"within

reason"

and political

carefully defined and limited sphere, the autonomy of (p. 602). Yet if he correctly assays the degree to
view

moral
which are

the Framers followed Locke's

those
"

that the

only

valid moral principles

together'

'that
of as

are

"'rules The
on

convenience,'"

absolutely necessary to hold Society to what extent is American "moral

as

"

and

follow the
rea-

and political

son[ing]"

"autonomous"

Rahe

claims?

(pp.

292-93, 315-34).

road

down

which of

this question takes us

architecture."

is illuminated
We have

by

our

reflecting
modem

the

dynamics

"political

seen

that

thought's relative decapitation

of political

activity

mandates reliance on

institu

tions. Man understood as a passion-driven calculator

is

tered to and satisfied

agree with

by

a machine-like government.

easily Although they

more

adminis

largely

human nature, the Founders do not take Hobbes to his radically depoliticized conclusion. Such "inconsistency" is salutary, by Ar istotle's lights, because he would find Hobbes's view of human nature and
view of

Hobbes's

politics serious
ence

seriously man's desire to live a morally Hobbes's Aristotle, political sci self-proclaimed, in divorcing itself from man's and the city's natural need to know and
life. For
"realistic"

incomplete in its

refusal to take

participate

in the

highest would
Framers'

be, in

the

final count,

unrealistic.

However salutary the stitution frees up logos

citizens what such

"stealthily"

concerns that transcend mere

those higher concerns

would

departure from Hobbes may be, if the Con and encourages men to deliberate about advantage, it does little formally to inform its
are.

Perhaps

at

the time of the

purpose"

information

have been

founding
to which
of the moral

superfluous.

The "higher

Rahe

points was supplied of

by
the

religion and

family. But

late,

with

devaluing

of

tradition through the vessel the vessel and its cargo, the

Antiquing
marketplace

America

28 1

has

opened wide to a

hodgepodge

of peddlers of

the "politics of

meaning."

These formal does it

reason

observations point

back to the

question that opened

this essay. Our

constitutional principles
mean

do

not answer

satisfactorily the question "What

to be

American?"

an

in terms

life, liberty,
are

and the pursuit of

all

other than those of calculating happiness. For this reason, all other

attempted answers

that purport to transcend the demands of rationalized

interest

declaimed The

by

one

faction

or

another,

at one

time or another, as

"un-American."

new republic opens

to all individuals all possibilities, and to where, and for what, only the
au

its

new science promises unlimited progress

emancipated

individual

can

decide. Given the decline in the transpolitical

and

thority

of

religion,

tradition,

the

family

which we must own

is in

some

measure

the

result of our classical

liberal

principles

together with the impact

of the critique of

bourgeois

virtue

by

right,
ennui.

the decisions of "to

where" what"

and

German philosophy of both the left and "for lead largely today to terror or different doors, the soft, enervating he labored. Needless

Both

states of soul

invite,

through

despotism This is
republic

of which

Tocqueville

spoke and against which

to say, both states have their representatives in American culture today.

neither

to assert nor to

imply

that the Founders thought their new to pursue

more

free

of the need

for its

citizens

"exalted

ends."

Far

from it.
tions.

They

in fact both
problem

expected and relied on such

But the

confronting

anyone who would analyze

other-regarding voca America em

ploying Aristotelian regime analysis is that our relegation of such pursuits and of the education in them to states, families, and churches means that what is

highest

about

the

national regime

Stated differently,

what

is

exalted about our regime

is not, properly speaking, part of that regime. is somehow beyond the

good

control, though certainly

not

beyond the

wishes,

of

the

regime.

This be

comes more concrete when we

first

grant what

is

obvious

the

fact that the

American story
generosity,

presents a good number of examples of and

courage, self-sacrifice,

and a certain greatness of soul

then inquire into

its

sources.

The Role of Federalism in

Completing

the

Regime

That the But

"indirect"

paideia provided

by

the Constitution encourages

we

its

citi

zens to self-restraint, seen.

where

frugality,

etc.

the bourgeois virtues

have already
gener

do

citizens

find the incentive for courage, self-sacrifice,

extent that

osity,
source which

and

the like? To the

these are commonly practiced, their

nearly always and everywhere has been piety and, with it, the family, in piety is inculcated. But these two sources of our more "exalted Rahe is focus
well

ends"

are,

as

aware, certainly not the central and

in fact

hardly

even an
cites

explicit

of regulation of

by

the national government

chief work of

(pp. 64 Iff.). Rahe

Madison's description

the

the House of

Representatives in

282

Interpretation
objects of

Federalist 56: '"the

portance
...

federal

legislation'
. . .

which are of most

im

militia.'"

are

"'commerce, taxation,

and

the

At the
lice"

same

time, Rahe
polis).

the regulation of piety and

rightly family to
an

notes

that the Constitution explicitly

under

leaves
("po

the states

their "police

power"

derives from

He

entertains no ethos

illusions

on

the

question of whether

enlightened self-interest

is

sufficient

in

moral

stamina

to sustain a

democratic way very

over of

republic

(p. 687). Rahe is every bit

modem republicanism

aware of

the possibility that the

life

sired

by

virtues required

for its

perpetuation.

may in time come to undermine the He finds that a number of New En

question and were

gland states at the

founding

also

faced this

equally

anxious

its

answer.

Hence these

states sought

to support religion. And here the

of

Anti-Federalists'

demand for the Religion Clause

the First Amendment

ap

pears

to

aim as much at

regulation of religion as

preventing Congress from interfering with the preventing Congress itself from supporting religion in
religion

states'

anything but a nonpreferential manner. Rahe appears to agree with Tocqueville that
nent social

is America's
laws"

preemi

institution. From this he concludes, "There was and is American politeia than can be found in the nation's written Thus the fact that the Constitution leaves "moral hands
church"

more

to the

(p. 764).

police

by

and

large in the
rele

of

the

family

and

needs

to be balanced against the equally

vant point

that the same Constitution also "conceded to state and local govern to the schools
which

ments, them

and

these set up, considerable

leeway
For

in giving
no people

support"

(p. 778). To this

informal,
Rahe

extraconstitutional,

yet regime-com

pleting,

spiritual-moral consensus

argues we must return. on

can sustain

itself

during

"a

crisis"

great

"'comfortable

self-preservation.'"

merely This is due to the fact that, despite

what classical political
deliberations"

the basis of the ethos of

modern

ity's "best him to be

through

efforts,"

man remains

philosophy thought
resist explanation

"a

political animal whose public

a simple

hedonist

reductionism

because they
of what

manifest

in the final

count

the natural need to live a morally serious life (p. 772).

Because
people was
completed

control

over a

good
of

deal

transforms

a multitude

into

left in the hands

the thirteen states, America's civic

paideia was

state and
and

duties of the national and local governments, that is, federalism. Rahe asks that we reexamine
sphere of political

through the combination of the powers and

revivify the

activity that

formerly lay

open at

the local

level.
There is
project
much

to recommend his recommendation. He

and

finds

support

for his

in Jefferson

Tocqueville; both

saw

in local

participation a combina

tion of classroom and coliseum in which

ruling be
as

skills and

hence better

understand and

everyday citizens might sharpen their defend their interests against the
well and

subdued and

subduing despotism of paternal government. Indeed, this may important to our civic education as commerce,
"indirect"

multiplicity,

separation of powers.

Here Tocqueville

underscores the

importance

of what

he

Antiquing
calls

America

283

the "mental

habits"

of

the citizens. Against the open, popular power of

participation an oblique method
habits,"

phihsophe

ideology, Tocqueville finds in local

into liberal democratic
political project. culture

for

introducing
of

the "mental

if

not

the

content,

his "new

science,"

which

looks to

provide

the prudent
to illu

flexibility
minate maintain

wanting in Locke's

Proper "mental

habits"

promise

the content

by

which

to guide the citizens themselves in their efforts to

liberal

democracy.15

Local

participation requires and

develops the

citi

zens'

cies"

ability to or doctrinairism
reason

inductively,
of the
age.

thus undermining the

"generalizing

tenden the

power

of philosophe-'mspired

So understood, intellectuals through

participation

opposes

opinion generated at the

bottom

common opinion modified at

increasing by

the power of
the

knowledge

the everyday

citizen gains

from his tasks

self-government.
habits"

I find here in

Tocqueville Aristotle's
to be the modem
tion"

spirit at

the least. "Mental

appear

in

one sense

republican parallel of

Aristotle's hexis

the "settled
virtue

disposi

whose

proper orientation

toward the passions

is

(Nicomachean

Ethics 1105bl9-1106al3).

Rahe, following Tocqueville, is not calling for populism or direct democ racy, for, like Tocqueville, he values the latitude for deliberation made possible by representation. Rather, popular participation is salutary when circumscribed
citizens'

to objects

within

the

experience.

Enlightenment

requires more

than a

collective consciousness raised

to awareness of the general ideas constituting

rights doctrine. It

requires also

the education that comes from governing, mean

ing, for
of the

us, an education in limits. If the popular dissemination of the doctrine

of

Rights

Man teaches radically

new possibilities which

viduals, local

participation

teaches the limits to

for radically free indi rights doctrine can be

implemented, thus combating the utopianism of phihsophe thought and, with acquiescence in pacific it, the tendency of rights doctrine to secure the
citizens'

serfdom.

Jefferson

worried

that,

with

the loss of local participation, citizens

would

likewise lose

the means and motives to

and vigilant
mind when

defend

against

federal

encroachment.

Such "enlightened
and

selfishness"

was, for

Jefferson, demotic

virtue,

this must be bome in

some read to

be the

"classical"

attempting to come to grips with what character of his view that a measure of public
maintain republicanism

and private virtue

is

required

to

(pp. 726-29). Rahe

argues
owe

cogently that Jefferson's anxiety "far more to Machiavelli's subordination

than to the ancient
not

over corruption and embrace of virtue of virtii to

individual security

and

well-being"

understanding.

Jefferson's

conception of popu

lar

virtue

does
for"

include

self-sacrifice

for the

community.

Rather, he

and

Madison, like
substitute
republicanism

their Federalist adversaries, "sought to

forge from

self-interest a

the other-regarding

virtues

that the ancients deemed essential to

(pp. 742-43).
some

For Jefferson,
vate

degree

of political

activity is necessary to

maintain pri

liberty. Public life is

neither noble nor coextensive with

human

perfection

284
and

Interpretation
happiness.

Rather,

private vices yield public arms

benefits

whose regulation

on

the local level is an activity that

tion

the

wit and steels

the soul against seduc

by
of

centralized government.

any

the

private

vices,

political

cate citizens through an appeal

because it is as selfishly grounded as Jefferson's sense promises to edu in activity desire to identify with and hence natural to their

Precisely

to seek to protect the powers and

ments under

perquisites enjoyed scheme.

by

state and and

local

govern

the original federal

own we citizen which

Men love most,

hence

are most

jealous of, their

power

things. We recall that Aristotle identifies thumos as

love."

"the

by

which

Local

participation

succeeds

in

fortifying liberty

to the extent that the

motic puissance

finds in the love

to raise

by

community the thu his head from possessive individualism

of

his

own

and, through "political

republicanism.

jealousy,"

maintain

the vigilance crucial to modem

In sum, local

participation

is both

possible and substantial

and closedness

because

each

community
standards")
to

provides required

the smallness,

homogeneity,

("community

if individual

citizens are

to come at least in some measure

identify

the public interest the

with

their own. The local community alone ap

polis.

proximates

intimacy

requisite

to the political catechism of the ancient

For these reasons, Tocqueville finds federalism enhances and protects the two senses of liberty (political and civil) that he finds at work in liberal democracy.
Local
to
self-government

(political

security in
against a

private enjoyments

liberty), though too easily (civil liberty), also serves

in the

a source of

danger
guard

the latter

by

ing

despotic

accumulation of powers

central government.

Against this defense

poration"

of

local

participation stands

the rationale behind "incor the Bill of Rights

the procedure

by

which certain requirements of

have been

applied to

the states.

According
and

to this rationale, the threat to civil

liberty
tion
at

posed

by

states, communities,
of

sundry private, voluntary

associa

tions outweighs the benefits

these

the education in political

liberty
granted

that

participa virtual

levels

provides.

Rahe

rightly

laments incorporation's

emasculation of

the regime-fortifying capacities

formerly
courts

the states un

der the

police power.

As he
of

states

it, "the federal

an

have transformed the

Constitution
gime"

and the

Bill

Rights into

instrument

subversive of the private

our re

institutions that
While

provide

the modest, moral paideia needed to sustain

occur?

(p. 780). How did this

a good

deal

of our movement

toward centralized government

can

be

traced to the
as advances stmck at

demands
in

of an ever more sophisticated modem

economy

as well

communications
over

federalism

the

technology, no less responsible for the blows last six decades has been the explosion of

"rights."

With the Fourteenth Amendment serving

as

(contrary
bulk

to the

intent
of

of

its framers)
restrictions

the constitutional conduit

with

by

which the

of the

Bill

Rights'

(along

growing

number of

pseudo-rights) has trickled

where

seriatim to the

states, uniformity necessarily has emerged

federalism-created diversity

previously

prevailed.

Antiquing
The Fourteenth Amendment
owes

America

285

its

being
not

to the Civil War. The war, in

slavery.
are

turn,
with

would not

have been fought

of

were

it

for

Now,
hard

those familiar to

the

theory

justice

presented

in the Declaration

pressed

deny
the

the persuasiveness of Lincoln's case that slavery

core principles.

is inimical to the Declaration's

at

This

even some and

Southerners granted,

least

at

the time

of

Constitutional Convention

the unhappy, nearly

fatal,

compromise on slav

ery that it produced. But if it is clear that the South could claim little support for its peculiar institution in a proper reading of the Declaration, it is less clear
that

it failed to find

succor

there for

its

asserted

right

of secession.

This is

powerfully by Rahe's argument that the author of the Declaration, had he been alive in 1860, may well have defended the South's right to se cede and this with the full, painful awareness of the inhumanity of the institu
shown most

tion secession sought to save. Why?

The Hamilton-Jefferson Debate

as

Regime Paradigm

Jefferson's defense
we

was animated merit and

by

a view of republican

liberty

in

which

have
in

seen

Rahe finds

to which he bids us now return. Our age

stands

critical need of

relearning the

indispensability
argument.

of

demotic "watchful
"jealousy"

ness"

and

distrust
on and and

of

the federal government, and this Jeffersonian

states'

both feeds
apart
trust"

fosters the

rights

Without

a power
popular

base "dis

from

largely

independent

of

the national government,

means

of centralized

authority lacks the

to resist encroachments. It also to and hence defense of

of self-interest. opinion an

lacks the
local

palpable perquisites

by

which

attachment case
of

government might make a while

Thus,

convincing he judges Jefferson's critique

before the bar

Marshall's

Marbury

"overreact[ion]

Rahe takes "a

quite

ing

"judicial

'despotism'

'oligarchy.'"

and

seriously Jefferson's general caveat concern For while Rahe agrees with Ham its

ilton that America

and classical

species of compromise
was at

democracy"

founding
Rahe is

between Hobbesian monarchy it "insufficiently

well

monarchical

today faces

"opposite"

the
at

danger (p. 781).

and as

Quite so;
pressive

the same time,

aware, it

was not

the na

tional government but the states that were responsible for the single most

institution in
states

our

history. And it
continued

was not

the

national government

op but

the postbellum the

that

to some extent to

deny

to the

freed

slaves

rights to
old

which

they

were

by

both

nature and political convention entitled.

As the
you

sally in the law schools goes, "You can't have federalism so long as The rights to which the Declaration tells us all men have
Mississippi."

everywhere are entitled cannot or not

exist

depending

on

one's

vary in magnitude location in In short,

and,

fortiori,
to

cannot exist

relation

to the conventional

boundaries that
our

we call states.

our commitment of

commitment

to justice.

The turning

the Bill of

federalism fell to Rights against the

286
states

Interpretation
against the

very

entities whose most ardent

defenders

were

sponsible
southern

states'

was publicly justified for the addition of a Bill of Rights refusal to secure fully the rights of the descendants of

largely by

re

the

slaves.

The

repudiation of

federalism is due first

with

and

foremost to this fact. Allegiance

to smallness faded and,

it,

the

place of

federalism in
more,
not

our constitutional

system, because

smallness came to

be

viewed as

less, dangerous
us

to

individual
is less the

liberty

than

was

the

large,

extended republic.

Because for

liberty

exercise of the virtues of the citizen and more the protection of the

enjoyments of the
ment not

householder, largeness
becomes the
Jefferson's
strident

not smallness

centralized govern

federalism
grants that
an

sine qua non of

the best regime.

states'

Rahe
was was

defense

of agriculture and

rights

ultimately far from synonymous In the

"almost

grotesque error with

in

statesmanship."

While his defense

to slavery's sup

the South 's later case for slavery, Jefferson's

and moral

apparent position provided

porters.16

intellectual

legitimacy
raises

course of

detailing

the unwitting role played

Madison in
whether the
port on the

support of the southern

cause, Rahe
reforms at

by Jefferson and implicitly the question

he
presented

institution

of

Hamilton's

the time

his Re

Subject of Manufactures might not have made it possible for the country to resolve the slavery dispute without recourse to the bloodiest war in its history. Hamilton's program to strengthen the national economy would have

had the

effect of

elements within

assimilating states more to each other while diversifying the states, and hence may have undermined the passion with which
with slavery. and

the South
against

identified itself

Had Jefferson's had the

and

Madison's

efforts

Hamilton,

commerce,

the growth of the national government not

and

been

so short sighted and

intemperate,

homogenizing

and

pacifying

because commercializing effects of Hamilton's economic reforms been able to take hold south of the Mason-Dixon line, perhaps the slavery problem could have been
velled on
resolved

in the same,

remarkable manner at which

Tocqueville

mar

Constitution
We
would

reviewing our change of "without its costing

government

from the

old

Articles to the

new

humanity

a single

tear or

drop

of

blood."17

shall never

know

have

effected.

early implementation of Hamilton's program We do know that there was to be no irenic solution to the
what

the

slavery issue, and this failure is at once the most tragic and the most illuminat ing event in American history. We also know that Lincoln as president "imple
mented
a program
much"

of

political

and

economic

reform

that owed
Jefferson"

to
resur

Hamilton (p. 779). The

rected

man who proclaimed

"all honor to

many

of

the economic and political reforms of

conquest the

Jefferson's

greatest oppo
secede.18

nent and

denied through

right

of

Jefferson's Virginia to

With Lincoln, through no fault of his own, came war, and with war, as Mad ison predicted, came an inevitable growth in the size and power of the central
government

(p.

723). But the

real

and

illegitimate inflation

of

federal
the

power came not

from Lincoln

and

the Civil War

Amendments but from

subsequent misinterpretation of those

amendments, especially the

Fourteenth,

Antiquing

America

287

in the twentieth century, which has produced the incursions on family and church against which Rahe today properly protests. lies a paradox. For those who consider the swelling of national Here, then, power to be in some measure disastrous, the defense of federalism by which
this growth was at least
shows was animated

forestalled
and

appears

salutary.

Yet that defense Rahe

first

foremost force

by

the passionate attachment to slavery

and,

later,

to racial segregation. In the defense of injustice we find a level of

spiritedness government

and,

with

it,

martial

sufficient

to block the

bloating

of central

for

some time

here. The South,

was

whose putative allegiance

to

feder

alism, it

should

be noted,
seems

ism,

nonetheless

to

equally a game of on-again, off-again opportun have been more committed to maintaining its

than the citizenry as a whole has since been committed to freedom against an enslaving central government. The exagger maintaining its ated indeed, the depraved pride of the slave master and his moral heirs

mastery

over slaves

seems to state and

have been the local

engine

driving
with

and

maintaining the independence

to
render

of

government.

Lost

the vices of mastery and overweening

attractive

pride was also a

"jealous'*

amply At the
emanates across men

of

way of life sufficiently federal expansion.

we

the local citizenry

same

time,

have

seen that of

the primary antagonism to federalism

ostensibly in the

name

the project to institute uniform justice

the nation in light of the perceived dictates of the Constitution.

of

Now,

may be faulted for their particular notion take their view of the just so seriously that they
the least to

justice, but that they should long for it to rale the world at

rule all of their own country is not only understandable because in sense: the lack of such commitment nearly always but also good this natural, derives not from an enlightened appreciation for the flexibility required of pru

dence but from

tolerance and,

an

indifference to the
principled

gods of other peoples

of one's own

bom

of a

like

indifference to the

foundations is
a

way

of

life. Universal

with

it,

peace

dividend

most

likely

to be received from the

universal conviction

that no principle of justice is worth

fighting

and

In this

light,

the centripetal pressure on

pressure

American

politics
and

is

dying for. hardly to be

given

wondered at.

And this

is

all

the more

likely

legitimate

the

fact that
both."

the Founders

established

(as Madison

strictness neither a national nor a

in Federalist 39) "in federal Constitution, but a composition of

remarks

That fellow NATO

their

members would repulse suggestions

from

one an
and

concerning proper. That Mississippi

moral

other

respective

domestic
claim

policies

is

understandable

can

rightly

to

merit similar

autonomy

against the

demands
such

of

her

northern neighbors seems

is

another matter.

Yet

"detachment"

to be precisely what an effective

federal

ar

rangement requires.

Federalism looks to institutionalize the

conviction that

the

liberties

we share as members of one nation

depend

somehow on our separate

and simultaneous
nities.

identities

as members of

the various states and

on which the

local

commu and

The

maintenance of

the brand of

federalism

Federalists

288

Interpretation
reached

Anti-Federalists face
of and as

their

compromise at

the

founding

requires

our

firm,

principled embrace of principled

a

flexibility. Montesquieu insisted

and

on

this in the
saw of

remedy for the doctrinairism that he

Hume

lying
we

dormant in
means

modem natural-rights teaching.

Looking

to the

liberty

all,

need somewhat to

allowing local
required

look away from the practices of each. At the very least, this communities discretion on the widest possible range of (states
were

issues

and responsibilities

already

at

the

founding
of

too large for the

intimacy
practices.

of civic paideia).

Barring

violations

the

Constitution,

communities must

be

allowed the

latitude to
such

err at

times in their policies and

anathema to phihsophe and

But,

as

Tocqueville sees, local

forbearance is
the

"disgust"

rationalism,
blunders"

which views with

halting

half-steps No less

"numerous
said of

concomitant with

self-government.19

can

be

the

response

by

the bulk of this century's educated elites to the

and apportionment. uniform came requires a

states'

conduct on remarkable

the

issues

of segregation

Thus it is less than

that the desire to

nance of

make

justice

to

tramp

the

view

that the mainte the

liberty

as well as

justice local

like

maintenance of

identities

and powers of the state and

governments.

Moreover, it may be
tude,
and

that a part of our nature would rather be compelled to

want more

be just than be free to do injustice. We

idiosyncratic
contentment.

than self-preservation, lati

participate

in

way

of

life

whose

We want, goodness has

most of such

all, to discover

and

luster that it

weighs all other

considerations,

including

that of life

itself. While

such

finally out longing

may lie dormant and undisclosed in the souls of most men most of the time, it is in fact implicit in what Rahe's ancient Greeks found to be the trait by which
man

is distinguished from the beasts

the natural need to discern

and commu

nicate what

downfall

of

is advantageous, just, and good. Thus, while one may view the local participation as proof of Acton's maxim, it may be no less an

indication

of man's

longing

for justice.
perhaps a more precise portrait of the

From these

reflections

issues

distance

between American
also practiced

and classical republicanism.

First,

while

the ancient Greeks

sort.

federalism,

theirs

was of a

substantively different

We have

seen that their end moral paideia. requires

in remaining small was to retain the conditions necessary to Politics is for the sake of character, and character formation
politeia

smallness; hence any

of
"wards"

worthy
a

of the name must remain small.

But Jefferson's defense

the states into

the rights of states and the goodness of partitioning

looks to inculcate

demotic

"virtue"

of a sort

different from that

sought

by

classical

defenders

of smallness

markedly (p. 719). As we

have seen, the local

ness

political participation encouraged

by federalism

does

not

constitute man's completion

but is

a means

to transpolitical ends whose good

is illuminated

fully by
and

the cold light of

must conclude that our peculiar mix of national and

a marriage of

calculating reason. On this basis, I federal principles is finally

than Rahe's

Locke

Montesquieu

rather

fusion

of

Hobbes

and

ancient republicanism.

Of course, Locke is in

key

respects a

Hobbesian, but the

Antiquing
view

America
republican writer

289
Rahe
the

that Montesquieu is in any important way a classical

refutes.

roundly
"mixed"

Accordingly,
and modems versus

while

Rahe has

convinced

this

of

character of
gam of

the American polity,

we appear a mix

to be

finally

not an amal

ancients

but

rather

of

the competing modem

whose contours

"architecture"

schools so

demotic

"watchfulness"

Rahe

masterfully illustrates.

AMERICAN POLITICS, TRAGEDY, AND MYTH

the deliberative limitations of Rahe's constitutional

My
not

earlier critique of

middle ground appears to

find implicit
America's

support

in

one of

his

chief

concerns, if

his

chief

concern,

over

present and

future. He blames "judicial

encroachment"

in large

part on a

Congress

eager to

781). The very validity of his accusation produces melancholy reflection. If the Constitution opens a middle ground for legislators to employ
their logos to deliberate about the

"sidestep the following

controversy"

(p.

just

and

good, this very group seizes nearly

every opportunity to Disputes that

our are

flee that

ground.

Why?
which move

deeply

political, those

directly

to the heart of
constitu

principles,

also most antagonize a good number of a

with which

legislator's

ents.

Hence the initial happiness

mling. of

some politicians met the

were emancipated

Dred

Scott

They,

the people's representatives,

painful

from the been

duty

making the

decision

over

slavery, the burden

unpolitical

having

passed

to the unelected,
also

life-tenured, putatively

federal judiciary. both

sides of

Hence

the hand wringing and waffling

by

politicians on

the

abortion question

in the
of

wake of

the

profederalism

Webster decision. The

over

whelming majority
tive,"

legislators
that

operates on

the basis of the "electoral impera

which mandates

they

avoid principled conflict whenever possible. power

from the legislature; it has largely been handed jurisdiction over previously labelled "political on a sil ver platter and with Congress's blessings. The

judiciary

has

hardly

"wrested"

questions"

In the face

of

this ignoble

abdication

by

their elected representatives, how

regularly.

have their

constituents responded? returned

By

reelecting them

The

average

legislator is
ents
of

to Washington term after term

in

part

because his is the

constitu

deem him

successful at

plucking from the

national material

treasury

their fair share

bumper-

the

public plunder.

"Avoid politics; satisfy

program articulated

wants"

sticker

philosophy.

rendering of the Might one

by

the founders of modem political

conclude

that this credo

describes

no

less the

modus

operandi of our national representatives?

Perhaps little

more

is to be
a

expected

in the
ent

new

republic, given

its

acute

sensitivity to the fact that

"zeal for differ

rendered men

opinions"

concerning the advantageous,

(Federalist 10).

just,

and good

has

"much

more

disposed to

vex and oppress each other

than to co-operate for their

good"

common

290

Interpretation
same

At the
weighed

time,

and

against

these

depoliticizing dynamics,

we

have
good

the effects of the

retention

by

the states of the police power.

precise sense

deal
the

of

American

"politics"

in Rahe's

takes or took place not at

extent of

national

but

at

the

state and

local levels. Given the

matters, and the
a

the previous thus deliber

as

role played

by

these smaller,

subordinate entities

in regulating
means

and

ating

about

religion, art, science,

reveals

family

like, incorporation,
of

currently construed, Incorporation's removal from

a multitude

itself to be

further

depoliticization.

communities of

the powers requisite to transform

sembling
pushes us

effectively dislodges the last source of anything re because intimate, civic paideia. In this sense, incorporation viable, further toward the modem end of the continuum between ancients into
a people

and modems on which means when

Rahe
that

places

us,

and

this is a substantial part of too

much

what

he
of

he

warns

today

we

have
while

moved

in the direction

"Hobbesian

monarchy"

(p. 781). But

Rahe

recognizes that the Court- and

bureaucracy-enforced depoliticization
to the

of the

self-depoliticization of our national

citizenry is due first and foremost legislators, he seems less disposed to

highlight the basis in

exile

our

fundamental

principles

for Congress's

self-imposed

from the demotic

middle ground. more centralized government

The drive toward

of the
suit of

and,

with

it,
of

the diminution
effected

virtues

fostered
modem

by

local participation, has been

and

in

pur

quintessentially

ends, namely, the extension

the utmost pri

of

vacy

and

security to the individual

to

hence the

"privatization"

public or quasi-public

concerns, e.g.,

religion and morals. citizens

This

we

previously have seen any

gov

was ordained with a view

insulating

from

government's

ernment's

regulation of
freedoms."

those activities judged to fall under the category of

"preferred

In this century,

liberty,

so

understood, has

come

to

trump economy
remarks
tism,"

as

the principled engine

driving

centralization.
concern on and over

If Rahe

rightly
of

the applicability

today

of

Jefferson's

judicial "despo

and

if the

courts'

overreaching both feeds

fosters the demise

local participation, then liberty understood as enjoyment of private entails a tyrannic logic no less than liberty understood in the classical

pursuits sense as

sharing in
self

social power.

While Montesquieu
the lesson
of

has

limits,"

need of

powerfully that "virtue it the American experience rejoins that

argues

liberty

modemly

understood

is

no

less

needy.

Single-minded
case of the

fealty

to either

project appears a precondition of

despotism. In the

ect, incorporation has

we can

so

tipped

us

American proj in the modem, depoliticized direction that

be

said

to have undergone a change of regime in this century. Thus

Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, while sadly mistaken about the deepest moral intentions, spoke more truth than he knew when he
Founders'

declared, "While
its
place arose a

the Union survived the Civil

War,

the

Constitution did
and

not.

In

new,
. .

more

promising basis for justice

theme
of

equality, the Four

teenth

Amendment.

Marshall's

remark returns us to the

slavery and,

with

it,

raises the

Antiquing America
question whether the

291

that the the

Framers'

effort to

American story is form a more

no alternative appeal

finally

tragedy. One must concede through the adoption of

continue

perfect union allow

Constitution left them

the

but to

slavery to

for the

foreseeable future. But this

erase
moral

to necessity, while valid, cannot simply

ugliness of

the circumstances necessitating the compromise. the nation

was afflicted as an embryo

Moreover,
nation.

the disease

with which

has in
a

a number of ways metastasized over our more than two

hundred

years as

Granted,
in it

we removed

the growth through the bloodiest war in our his

tory. But in the century thereafter we continued to

espoused principle.
we

flout in

practice what we

Finally,

the

evil

became
of

so unbearable that to

rid

our

selves of

acquiesced

in the

growth

the

federal leviathan in
in danger

whose of suf

bureaucratic

belly

our participation-dependent virtues are now

focating. Had

we not

of our subsequent

inherited slavery prior to the founding, and had so much history not been the product, direct and indirect, of the insti but
wonder whether with

tution,

one cannot

this would not

have dampened the angry

as

spirit of

uniformity and,

it,

the cause of centralized government.

As it
nate

happened,

the massive project publicly

defended
us of

necessary to

elimi

slavery and, other hom of our

later,

official

segregation

brought

face to face

with

the

national

dilemma. While the fall

pride

the peculiar institution

brought down
notorious,

with

it the depraved

for

which

the southern aristocracy was

such

high

self-regard and spiritedness were not southern of

limited to

upper-class

plantation owners.

Everyday

citizens, according to
freedom'

Burke, "'were by

far the

most proud and

jealous

their

"; for
was

political

liberty,

precisely
some

because it

was not shared

by

all

in the South,

taken

by

all as a sign of

distinction, something to be esteemed, something of which thing worth fighting and dying for (pp. 549-50). Clearly,
dation
of

to be

jealous,

the repugnant foun

moral and economic our

this

pride also spawned a culture not

stunning for its

our

sluggishness,

to mention outright decadence.

Nevertheless,
at

justified

revulsion at chattel

slavery

cannot

justify

blinking by

the melancholy

fact

that, in its
our

peculiar

institution, the South

more

than any region at

which

any time in

history

found the liberty. But

pride and spiritedness

to practice that "jeal to the maintenance of the American

ousy"

of national power that republican

must

Jefferson thought
melancholy be

so crucial

our

last

reaction to

story?

Never has there been

the influence

founding

less dependent

on myth and more open

to

of unassisted reason than

America's. For this very reason,

affliction

our

inability
ica is

to

recover

from
best

our

hereditary

modem philosophy's

practical

may well drag down with it defense before the bar of politics. If Amer slavery and, therewith, rescue its by which it will do so lies in

finally
the

to rectify the

consequences of

fate from

pronouncement of

tragedy, the road

discovering a new source of pride and robust independence, one free of the depravity that must accompany mastery. The proper object of the culture's derision should not be the conventional slave but, rather, natural slavishness

292

Interpretation
of soul

the state tages it

in

which

freedom

appears good

only for the

material advan

brings,

rather

than for the intellectual and moral development

it

allows.21

The

noninstramental stance toward

freedom,
clearly

which runs

Tocqueville

recognizes as

characteristic of aristocratic societies,

in tension

with

the passion

for equality that both moves modem democracy and invites centralizing gov ernment. Precisely for this reason pride and its concomitant thumos are salutary for
us.

In

brief, for America

to

experience a

"new birth

freedom"

of

today,

we

must able

discover in itself.

or recover the noble

the splendor of

justice,

the good as lov

Only

to the extent that a people

freely

chooses the noble can

it

hope plausibly to proclaim, to a "candid the nobility of its choice of freedom (see Nicomachean Ethics 1115M8-23; Politics 1281a2-8). In order for
us

world,"

to

identify

and esteem

Jefferson's

natural

aristoi,

we must

be taught,

and

taught to revere, the beautiful and just possibilities that inhere in man's posses
sion of a public nature.

Yet, if
for the is

the above accurately describes one road to an American renaissance,

the dilemma

immediately
utility
of a

public

concerning the utility of making a public case nonutilitarian morality. Better perhaps would be some
arises

tale in which the steadfast conviction of the independent

advertised not as
a

dignity

of political

life

foreign import but

as

the rediscovery of a truth that

informs the periority

construction of our most sacred

documents.

Demonstrating

the

su

on several

levels

of

the latter approach will stand as one of the

many lasting contributions of Republics Ancient and Modern. Past attempts to find classical elements in America's principles have
with

met

derision from Rahe's

some.

Such

"myth-making,"

in
in

a regime
were

founded

on enlightenment principles.

say the critics, comes too late It would be less than surpris

ing

claim

to find antique components in America greeted likewise

same are

certain quarters.

At the

deny
right,

that Americans

today

time, few, if any, of these in need of a "politics of

critics are

likely

to
or

meaning

be it left

ancient or modem.
what

But to

concede this need goes some

distance toward
that man's na

granting
and

Rahe deems

antiquity's

distinguishing

premise

ture requires for its completion

his employing logos to the end of discerning the advantageous, just, and good. Of course, while nearly communicating
competing
camps endorse to some extent
citizens'

all of today's ment of

the

endorse camps

the view of the independent

dignity

of

politics, some in these

append the

disclaimer that the it is

more than

noninstramental view of politics

is

finally

but

salutary very
what

myth

merely un-American, it is

also untrue.

Yet this
about

qualification compels them to

deny

that

what

they

praise as
as

salutary

they

condemn as mythical

is itself

a myth.

So far

this admission ques

tions the optimism that undergirds and

classical view appears rehabilitated.

justifies

the enlightenment project, the to the extent that the

Accordingly,
on

found

ing

principles

do

not

hinder

and

in fact depend

the public elevation of public

virtue, the antiquing of America may not be the myth that certain of its critics in the past have supposed. At the very least, our shared concern over the dehu-

Antiquing
manized character of a

America
to

293

depoliticized citizenry
eyes

signals our need

explore with

fresh

and sympathetic

the philosophy

as

well as the practice of

Greek

antiquity.

CONCLUSION: THE POLITICS OF REPUBLICS ANCIENT AND MODERN

Paul Rahe has

might pause
entail"

written

this

book, he informs
what our work

us, in

order

that we as a people

to ponder

seriously

"first

principles are and what

they
our

(p. 782). He intends his

to serve a restorative

function. In
better

coming to grips with his analysis of the

founding
By

we stand a

chance of
of our

halting
on

our

tendency

toward principled

"drift"

(p. 777). An

earlier

loss

national

bearings

was

the relevance
of

way of concluding, Rahe reflects Lincoln's 1838 Lyceum Address holds for America today.

faced

by

Lincoln.

Mindful

the differences
our

between Lincoln's

day

and

ours, Rahe finds

gross

none of our

theless that

day, like Lincoln's,

must plead

guilty to

ignorance

founding
peace

principles.

Exacerbating
.
. .

our national amnesia are

the

psychological

and moral

atrophy

concomitant with

"more than four decades

of comparative
of our

and prosperity.

Our

success

is,

paradoxically, the cause

"extreme"

defects"

(p. 776).
render

These defects

our

current

predicament

as

as

that

con

fronted institute

by

Lincoln (p. 777). While "the Founders

republic,"

argued

for

and sought

to

an enlightened

the task of enlightening the citizenry was

and

failing
the
were

in Lincoln's

day

is

no

less

at

risk in

our own

principles of

the Revolution had been

largely
our

(p. 778). In his time, forgotten in the North and

spend colossal sums

brazenly

contradicted cannot

in the South. In be
said

time, "We

on

education, but it

that we manage to inculcate a reverence for the Constitution whose

popular adherence

understanding"

or even an

of our core principles and

construction

they inform (p. 779). In his time, growing

make

to

the views of the goodness of slavery and the simple rectitude of popular sov

ereignty threatened to European philosophic

a sham of

the Declaration. In our

time, sundry

movements

"utilitarianism,
alike

positivism,
all

idealism, his

existentialism"

toricism, Marxism,
our

pragmatism, and trumpet their

institutions

of

higher learning,
truths.

highly influential in incompatibility with the

Declaration's

self-evident

were not.

Worse still, our age's difficulties are exacerbated in a manner that Lincoln's and hence "real and Gone with his day is "largely
local"

tangible"

self-government

by

which communities were able

police"

to "reinforce the

family

and

church

in

matters of moral

(p. 780). In
grown

our

day,

national unification and

administrative centralization

have

by

Hamilton.

Serving

as

both

symptom and cause of

far beyond anything ever envisioned these difficulties has been

the steadily growing

power of

the federal courts. In this

"despotism"

light, Rahe rightly

judges Jefferson's fears concerning judicial than they did in his (p. 781). our

to

ring

much

truer in

day

294

Interpretation
entertains similar

If Paul Rahe
nonetheless. and moral

fears, he
"great

ends

his book

on a note of

hope

While it

remains a question whether we now possess

crisis"

the

energy

unity to
so

survive

the

next

that will

inevitably

come our

way, Rahe
we

encourages

by

reminding

us that while we

have been

before

and regained our

may be adrift at present, bearings (p. 782). But to restore our

their meaning and application.
and

first
port

principles we must and

first

ponder"

"seriously
will prove an

Republics Ancient
in the
quest

Modern

enduring

indispensable sup

for the

self-knowledge on which

the preservation of our more

perfect union

depends.

NOTES

the American

1. See Joseph Cropsey's incisive 1975 essay, "The United States as Regime and the Sources of in his Political Philosophy and the Issues of Politics (Chicago: Univer Way of sity of Chicago Press; Phoenix Edition, 1980), pp. 1-15.
Life,"

1981),

2. See Martin Diamond, The pp. 2-12. 3. All

page references

Founding

of the Democratic Republic (Itasca, IL: Peacock,

to the

in this

review are

hardcover,

single volume.

4. Whether the
must,
at

momentous

1994

elections

in fact

represent a sea change

in these

practices

this writing,

remain an object of speculation.

5. See Allan Bloom's The

Democracy
1987),
pp.

Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students (New York: Simon and Schuster, 25-43.
and
context"

6. (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1952), pp. 22-37. This and other of Strauss's works have of philosophic been charged with ignoring or paying insufficient attention to the "historical
thought. Rahe examines exhaustively the
comes
context

in

which

the early modems wrote; in so

doing, he
and

to concur wholly

with

Strauss's thesis regarding

not

only the break between antiquity

modernity, but also,

this

and more

importantly,

the self-conscious or

horizon-transcending

character of

break.
as well as

7. Consider the setting of Plato's Republic tween America's coasts and

"heartland."

the intellectual and

moral relation

be

8. The
understood

deep and pervasive effect technological innovation can exercise over a regime is easily by Americans, for whom the inventions of the cotton gin and the birth control pill have

profound consequences not only on the laws but, even more importantly, on popular mores. 9. I supply the original Greek with key terms, while following Carnes Lord's translation of the Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984).

had

10. On this subject,

on

see

the Politics of
and

Virility,"

in Essays

Stephen G. Salkever's "Women, Soldiers, Citizens: Plato and Aristotle on the Foundations of Aristotelian Political Science, edited by
and

Carnes Lord 11. Leo

251. J. Frisch

David K. O'Connor (Berkeley:

Natural Right

Strauss,

History

(Chicago:

University of California Press, 1991). University of Chicago Press, 1953),

p.

in American Political Thought, edited by Morton Richard Stevens (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971). 13. Democracy in America, translated by George Lawrence, edited by J. P. Mayer (Garden City: Anchor Books), pp. 454-68.
and

12. See Martin

Diamond, "The

Federalist,"

14.

Democracy

in
or

America,

pp.

465, 462. Cf. Aristotle's

accounts

megalopsuchos,

whose concern

for

his

"independence"

"self-sufficiency"

for his

preference

for "beautiful

and unprofita

ble"

things (Nicomachean Ethics 1 125al 1 13). merely indebted to James W. Ceaser's analysis of Tocqueville in Liberal Democracy Political Science (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), pp. 143-76.

over

'useful"

15. I

am

and

Antiquing
Perspective,"

America

295

16. On this subject Rahe acknowledges his debt to Harry V. Jaffa's "Agrarian Virtue and Republican Freedom: An Historical in Equality and Liberty: Theory and Practice in American Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), pp. 42-66. On Lincoln's relation to
Jefferson
and

the

Declaration,

see

Jaffa's

seminal

the Issues in the

Lincoln-Douglas Debates (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1959), 17. Democracy in America, p. 113.

Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of pp. 308-99.

P. Basler

18. Letter to H. L. Pierce (1859), in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy et al., 9 vols. (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1953-55): vol. 3, p. 376. 19. Democracy in America, p. 62.
at

20. Remarks

the

annual seminar of

the

San Francisco Patent

and

Trademark Law Associa

slavery, see Darrell D.

tion, Maui, Hawaii, May 6, 1977, p. 7. 21. On the enduring perspicacity of Aristotle's teaching on Dobbs's "Natural Right and the Problem of Aristotle's Defense

natural
of

Slavery,"

Journal of Politics

56(1994): 67-94.

Book Reviews

Ni

Socrate,

ni

Jesus

Mark Lilla
New York
University-

Alain Renaud
nietzscheens

and

Luc Ferry, editors, Pourquoi

nous ne sommes pas

(Paris: Grasset, 1991).

"Every

philosopher

is first

Nietzschean."

a greeted with

Twenty-five

years ago such a

proclamation would

have been

nearly

universal acclaim

by

French
that

intellectuals,

even

though most found themselves on the left.

considered no general and more

Up

until

time, Nietzsche had been pher of the right, and had

strictly accurately influence in France outside of

as a philoso small
avant-

garde and surrealist circles.

But Nietzsche's status, like

Heidegger's,

changed
and

dramatically
Freud,
orably
proved

in the
"la

mid-1960s when

his ideas

were grafted

to those of Marx

producing that curious hybrid which Luc

called
pensee
68."1

Ferry

and

Alain Renaut
Renaut

mem mix

Despite its intellectual confusion, this

reasons are

enormously attractive, and for explain. Marx, Freud, and Heidegger

Ferry

and

were

first to

theoretically incompatible because

Nietzsche's writing is
un

they

are,

above all and

else,

systematic

thinkers. But

systematic,

his

"dancing"

aphorisms can of

be

employed

to many purposes. In

the French thought

ences

the sixties

they

were used

to efface the evident differ

and

between Marxian materialism, Freudian psychology,

seem that

Heideggerian
in
a common

existentialism, making it
campaign to

these thinkers

were engaged

liberate

us

from Western humanism. The

result was syncretism of

the sort Victor Cousin used to practice,

of these

hardly

a serious confrontation with

any

German

philosophers.

La
to the

pensee

68

was an

influential book in France,

atmosphere

and contributed

recent change

in intellectual

there.

Kant

and

enormously Tocqueville are

objects of reflection and veneration

68,

and

the

neohumanists

around

in Paris today, not the master-thinkers of Ferry and Renaut can take some credit for
pensee

bringing

that change
and

about. not

Still, La

68

was

mainly
show

a work of cultural with

criticism,

did
or

itself

offer

the

necessary

encounter

Marx,

Nietzsche, Freud,
my view) that the
the events
of

Heidegger. Instead, it tried to

syncretic

doctrine

of

that period
a new

(less successfully, in bore some direct relation to

of modem

May 1968, both heralding

1996, Vol. 23, No. 2

form

individualism.

interpretation, Winter

298

Interpretation
subsequent writings

But in

Ferry
and

and

Renaut have begun to

consider

these

German thinkers
em

directly,

and

thought

about

the subject

especially their place within the history of mod the individual. This exercise began in their

joint

contribution

to the Heidegger affair, to

Nietzsche.2

turned their

attention

books they have now Renaut's L'ere de I'individu portrays

and

in

separate

Nietzsche

as the culmination of the modem philosophical

individualism that

first
sents

emerged

classicizing"

in Leibniz's Monadohgie, while Ferry's Homo aestheticus pre Nietzsche as father of both avant-garde art and its right-wing "hyperFerry and Renaut reject this individualism on both philo
critics.3

sophical and moral

grounds,

and

in

each of their recent works

project

have defended

a modified return to
presupposes.4

Kant's

critical

and

the universalizing subject it

It
est

comes as some

surprise, then, to discover the sentence, "tout phihsophe

not

d'abord

nietzscheen,"

in the latest

work of

Derrida

or

Deleuze, but in
Pourquoi

collection edited

by Ferry

and
.

Renaut themselves,
meant

and entitled

nous

ne sommes pas nietzscheens

The title is

to mislead, and it succeeds. It

hammer"

suggests a

manifesto, or at least a series of

autobiographical confessions re

to Kantian counting "philosophy of the humanism. But it is nothing of the sort. The editors explicitly warn the reader in their preface that "the scales have fallen from our eyes: no one today be
conversions

from Nietzsche's

lieves any longer in Absolute Knowledge, in a meaning of history, or in the transparency of the subject. That is precisely why it is necessary to Nietzsche against
'think'

Nietzsche."

The
of

rhetorical

strategy is

a clever

one, especially in

France,

where

the fear

appearing

naive seems

to dominate all other fears. The campaign

of

hostile
of

and

thoughtless reviews

waged against

this book only confirms the prudence

of

taking
not
will

precautions,

even

today. But an attentive reader

as

Ferry

and

Renaut

will

dismiss this bow to Nietzsche have

noted

the repeated

merely rhetorical, or opportunistic. He assertions in all their books that a return to Kant

and Fichte can only succeed if it passes through Nietzsche and yes, only Freud. In the first volume of his Philosophie politique, Ferry presented the task of

philosophy today

as

the need to respond to the

following

question:

"How to

conceive a modem

humanism

that would be neither

naively

metaphysical nor

simply historicist, and which, as such, could Nietzsche's refutation of classical

losophy?"

undergird a modern political phi metaphysics and modem political

histori
are

cism must repellent. within

be taken

as

given,

historically, but his

a modem

conclusions

Our task is to
of

develop

Kantian humanism that

can exist

the bounds

the post-Nietzschean age, that

is,

without
we

fundamental
against

presuppositions of that age.

This is how

"think"

challenging the Nietzsche

be defended

Nietzsche.
an exercise
penser

Such
on

Nietzsche

contre

Nietzsche
claim

could

any

of several grounds.

If

we accept

Nietzsche's

to have closed an
must
nee-

epoch of

philosophy, then any attempt to

assess modem

philosophy

Book Reviews
essarily
we

299

confront

Nietzsche's

rejection of

it. But in

so

doing

we must

beware

the temptation to present Nietzsche as simply antimodem, and the alternative

face, politically

and morally, as one

between Nietzsche

and

modernity

en

bloc. Nietzsche's

own view was

that modernity is only the

inevitable

outgrowth and

of mistaken premodern

developments, in

particular of classical

philosophy
a

Christian

morality.

Nietzsche is

not at all

like those

reactionaries whose con

tempt for the modem democratic "herd

animal"

leads them to
in

thoughtless to trace the

idealization

of the premodern.

He harnessed his

contempt

order

genealogy of that creature back to its moral sources. He finds two: Socrates and Jesus. Penser Nietzsche therefore necessarily entails penser Socrate et Jesus. This Ferry and Renaut steadfastly refuse to do. And, once again, they have
their reasons.

for

an

They are alert to the destructive role imaginary Athens, Sparta, Rome, or Catholic
since

which nostalgia

whether

Middle Ages

has

played

in European reactionary thought

alert to the revival of
nism.

the French Revolution.

They

are even

this nostalgia on the left

of

But

as

with

many defenders

today, in the name of postmoder liberal humanism in France and the

United States today, this worthy vigilance against subjugation to the past can also breed an intellectual narrowness in thinking about it. Willingness to live
with

the modem political present then transforms itself into an

other standard.

incapacity
political

to

judge it according to any

ings in France The fait
recently.

This, it

seems to

me, has been the

writ

unintended philosophical consequence of

Benjamin Constant's does the

matter might

be

posed as a question:

acceptance of modem

politics as

accompli also

demand

an acceptance of modem political philoso

phy

on

the same grounds?

as

Ferry

and

Renaut simply
us.5

assume

it does.

They

as

sume

that, just

history
made

closes off certain political

possibilities, so
case could

it

removes

certain philosophical possibilities

from

But the

be

made

and

indeed has been

that the advent

of modem politics might

instead de

mand greater philosophical attentiveness

to

premodern political

thought as a

way of orienting ourselves in our present situation. Here the contrast between Constant and Tocqueville is instructive. Constant's commitment to modernity
was

both

political and philosophical.

Tocqueville's

analysis of modem politics

surpasses

instead

to

Constant's precisely because he avoided such commitment, trying free himself from the unphilosophical passions driving both ancients
Tocqueville's first
commitment

and modems.

was

to

philosophy.

Ferry

and

Renaut,
court, a
now

on

the other

hand,

are

philosophically

committed

to modernity tout

commitment

that borders on decisionism. Little wonder,

then, that they

effort,
their
and own

find

themselves with a

Nietzsche

problem. volume

Given that many

of

Ferry

and

Renaut's latest

is

a collaborative

their

contributors

do

not

fully

share

their

approach,

Nietzsche

problem

does

not

dominate the book. Vincent

analysis of

Descombes, for
Nietzscheans

exam
of

ple, limits himself to a

critical

the French

the

1960s, exposing

with

his

characteristic sharpness

its intellectual

sloppiness and

300

Interpretation
Pierre-Andre Taguieff takes
another

not-so-hidden agendas.

tack,

documenting
(Nietzsche

at

length the

rhetorical continuities and

between German

anti-liberalism
L'

and

Spengler)

its French

counterpart

(from Maistre to

Action Frangaise).
critique of

And Robert Legros

provides a thoughtful exposition of

Nietzsche's

metaphysics, showing how it necessarily leads to the individual.

a new vitalistic conception of

Other is
needed

authors

to

understand

fare less well, showing all too clearly how much perspective the father of perspectivism. Alain Boyer, for instance,
Nietzsche,"

evidently wishes to be "against Nietzsche. Turning to the questions that

truth?

open

but only manages to Beyond Good and Evil

"think"

"Why
Comte-

untruth?"

Why

not rather choice

Boyer leaps into Nietzsche's decisionist trap,

choice."

writing that "the

of

rationality is

an

ethical

Andre

Sponville,

on

the other

hand,

gives us the most self-indulgent and

moralizing

contribution

to the volume, never getting beyond the reductio ad Hitlerum.

of

About the French Nietzscheans

that "when our authors

the

1960s, Vincent Descombes

cite

observes

here

invoke him,
the

it is less to The

his

analyses or

hypotheses
said of the

reader."

than to have

a moral effect on

same might also

be

less

reflective

French

neohumanists today.

The

contribution of

Ferry

and

Renaut is

of course more

thoughtful, but does

little to free them from their begin promisingly enough after that "the fact of
us: either a rational

self-incurred

tutelage to modem thought.

and

They

with

Tocqueville
also

Constant, only

to assert soon

democracy"

imposes

a philosophical choice upon

"ethics

argumentation"

of

consistent with
"neoconservative"

democracy

(J.

revival of tradition Habermas, K.-O. Apel, J. Rawls), or a in a world without God (A. Maclntyre, L. Strauss, Nietzsche). This is a reveal

ing

opposition. and

While it accurately
conservative

reflects

the choice between progressive ra

tionalism

antirationalism,
alternative.

it

ignores Renaut

Nietzsche's
seem

(and

Strauss's)

rejection of

just that

Ferry

and

to sense that

Nietzsche fits uncomfortably into these categories, speaking of "the strange mix of tradition and But they treat this as a modernity that characterizes
him."

contradiction or
essence.
future"

limitation
would

of

Nietzsche's thought
said that

rather than as a clue to a

its
the

Nietzsche

have

his philosophy is

"philosophy

of

precisely because it transcends the

modems,

family

quarrel

between

rational and

antirational

teaching
happiness

us

to will truth and untruth simultaneously.

What he may be
end to

challenges

is

not reason as

such, but the Platonic

"health"

equated with

and goodness.

a means-to-another-end

(the

teaching that reason By transforming reason from an of the "species"), Nietzsche in

Christian
revela
masses,"

vents a new

morality to
moral

replace

both Socratic

rationalism and

tion. (And since

real

Christianity
coup

is just "Platonism for the

Socrates is the
in

target of this

d'etat.)
on

The only contributor to seize thought is Philippe Raynaud, for

Nietzsche's

unique

position

modem

whom

"Nietzsche's thought

should

be taken

Book Reviews
as a privileged means
"educator"

301
an

for the

modernity."

self-critique of
critique of reason must

He

calls

Nietzsche

whose

developing
later

be traced throughout his

works, up to those
of a

writings which

Raynaud believes

limited

rationalism after perspectivism.

an as

open the possibility "If Nietzsche knew how to make

the

Enlightenment
'irrationalism'

instrument
a

of

his

critique of

reason,

we must

leam to

use

his

means says

of

continuing the
on

emancipation

begun

by

the

Enlightenment."

Raynaud

that Weber and the German neo-Kantians did the path

just that,
rather as

and that we should

follow

they

marked out.

Nietzsche's

thought must not be treated merely as just one philosophy among others, but

"the

condition of

the survival of the Enlightenment's

ideals."

Whatever

one makes of

Raynaud's defense

of

Weber, it has

the virtue of

taking Nietzsche seriously enough simply to say that he was right. Raynaud's Nietzsche offers us a choice to reflect upon, not a philosophical fait accompli.

Any humanism
choice

that wishes to be more than a

decisionism
what

must reflect on

that

and not
modem

just because

of

Nietzsche. For

Nietzsche

shares with all

the great
sical

thinkers, including Kant, is a self-conscious rejection of clas Christian revelation, from which certain consequences had philosophy to be drawn. Kant's categorical imperative and Nietzsche's perspectivism are,
and

to be sure, radically opposed conclusions drawn from that

still share
wish

rejection.

But they

the same

premise: ni

Socrate,
Kant"

ni

Jesus. If the French

neohumanists

to undertake a real "return to

without

finding

themselves unwitting

exponents of mean

Nietzsche, they might do well to retrace Kant's steps. That would beginning, not with the fait accompli of modernity, but with this deeper
troubling
ni-ni.

and more

NOTES

1. La

pensee

68. Essai
as

sur

V anti-humanisme

contemporain

(Paris:

Gallimard, 1985),

translated

(badly) into English Press, 1990).

2. Heidegger (Chicago:
et

French

Philosophy

of the Sixties (Amherst:

as

University
Heidegger

of

Massachusetts Moderns
(Paris:

les
of

modernes

(Paris: Grasset, 1988), translated

a

and the

University

3. Alain Renaut,

L'

Chicago Press, 1990). ere de I'individu. Contribution

Princeton

une

histoire de la

subjectivite

Gallimard, 1989),
French
gout a
Thought" I'

pp.

210-21. An English translation

of this work will soon appear

L'

in the "New
invention du

series at

University

Press. Luc Ferry, Homo

pp.

aestheticus.

age

democratique (Paris:
of

(Chicago:

University

Grasset, 1990), Chicago Press, 1994).

to Kant
still remains

199-254,

translated as Homo Aestheticus

4. The form
of

of this return

frustratingly

obscure

in their
often

works.

The writing
as a model,

the young Fichte (as meticulously interpreted by Alexis Philonenko) is as is Kant's Critique of Judgment, but the systematic articulation of the
never

invoked

new philosophie criticiste

On these two models, see Renaut's Le Systeme du droit. Philosophie et threede Fichte (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1986), and Ferry's Universitaires de France, 1984-85), especially vol. 1 volume Philosophie politique (Paris: Presses (pp. 109 ff.) and vol. 2 (pp. 139 ff.). s5. A good example is Ferry's treatment of Leo Strauss, which opens the first volume of Philo

has

been

offered.

droit dans la

pensee

302

Interpretation
Ferry
seems

ophie politique.

to recognize that Strauss's revival of la

querelle

des

anciens et mod

ernes

is

an

important

response

to Nietzsche's challenge. Yet rather than

examine

that response as it
anachronism.

presents

itself, he

rejects

it

out of

hand

as a species of misguided

(if

not

dangerous)

The

has disappeared, therefore (concludes Ferry) its political philosophy is irrelevant today. That Socratic philosophy begins in a critique of ancient political practice never
ancient political world

seems to occur to

him.

Seth
and pp.

Benardete, The Rhetoric of Mortality and Psychology: Plato's Gorgias Phaedrus (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991), vii + 205

$39.95.
Will Morrisey

Rhetoric

points

to

justice,

appeals to moral

Genuine

rhetoric

is "the

eros"

science of
'pulls'

(p.

indignation; it can be spurious. 2), and eros is the love of the

soul are addressed and

beautiful. Those different

on

the human

in the

Gorgias, in
and

which

Socrates talks
which

with rhetoricians about

justice

rhetoric,
of

the

Phaedrus, in

Socrates talks

with an amateur about

the nature

love
the

and writing.

This

pair of

dialogues has its

counterpart:

the Protagoras and

Symposium,

which also concern rhetoric and

love,

respectively, but carry

more

theological weight. Benardete will title his book on the Protagoras and
will

the Symposium The Gods of the Poets. In it he

"explicate the theological

dimension
Each

of

the Gorgias and the

Phaedrus"

(p. 3).

Socrates'

interlocutors in the Gorgias

rhetoric

are

Gorgias, Polus,

and

Callicles.

of

them exhibits

in his

own way.

rhetorician,
not

Callicles,

conceives of

himself

as

The culminating example of the a hard-nosed realist. But he is

suggests

real, existing

nowhere

but in

Platonic dialogue. This

about all manner of as

that

rhetoric

is,

as people nowadays

like to say
man,

Gorgias is

an optimistic rhetoric

believing
power

things, he does that rhetoric is

claims

problematic.
all-power

ful. "If Gorgianic

has the
time"

Gorgias
of

for it, it

would neces

sarily follow that the best city in

anywhere on earth at

speech

the Republic

could

be

realized

any

(p. 5). Socrates,

by

contrast,

seems

profoundly If talking ("the

disadvantaged in
Socrates'

comparison

to the rhetorician with the power of eloquence.

shoelessness symbolizes

his indifference to

self-protection.

baseball, Socrates best natural hitter I ever

were

would

be Shoeless Joe Jackson,

a great player

saw,"

wrongdoing,

and punished

by being
would

according to Ty Cobb) banned from the

accused and convicted of

game.
city"

If Gorgias is 17). This

means

right,
that

there

be

no need

for force "within the

make

(p.

rhetoric must

and therefore peaceful

actually be able to among themselves. But the

Socrates'

fellow-citizens just,
as rhetorician
rhetorician

rhetorician reveals.

does
must

not

know justice,

as

questioning quickly

know how to

appear

to know. It may be that "The city no more

knows
unjust"

justice than the

rhetorician

knows

an

art,

and

in their

mutual

ignorance the

rhetorician sometimes

fails to

guess what

the city is

going to decide is

interpretation, Winter

1996, Vol. 23, No. 2

Book Reviews
(p.

304

28),

and will perish

like

some

problem

Gorgias

would

have to

hapless, unshod philosopher. To resolve this imitate Socrates, whose justice consists "in
his
quest

justice"

making (p. 30).

is

speeches about

as part of

for "the truth

justice"

about

Polus is

complains

that Socrates has

political

Gorgias'

exploited

sense of shame.

Polus He

pleasures"

a man of no erotic.

"austere

(p.

38)

killing,

robbing, exiling.

Nor is he the

sort of political man whose soul thrills at visions of

honor. He is

conventional"

"deeply

(p.

41), however; his

as

rhetoric

"flatters the

people on the sternness of

tyranny"

ness of

their morality and (p. 44). Rhetoric treats the mind

indulges their taste for the happi

if it

were

the

body,

assum

ing dishing

that

suffering brings understanding while appealing to the pleasure out punishment. "There seems to be something tragic about
puts a premium on

of

rhetoric"

(p. 54). Rhetoric

convincing,

and ends

real whiplashes with

the slings

and arrows of outrageous

in needing to replace verbiage. Rhetoric

'spirit'

thus imitates "the historical drift of language itself from the concrete to the

abstract, the

corporeal to
'wind'

the

noncorporeal

(p.

56),

as when

the word

starts out to mean

and ends

up meaning something very

much more

impressive. It is
mind

regrettable and

that the "the linguistic movement

from

is

random,"

at

"not directed

by

the

mind

for any

good"

(p. 56).

body to Body
that

still rales

the chattering soul. This is the secret of morality,

which requires

souls exist

like bodies in

an afterlife.

Rhetoric

or punishment-justice

"operates
supposes

pain"

solely

within

the confines of pleasure and

(p.

58)

even as

it

itself,

or asks others

to suppose, that it soars above pleasure and pain. The

'fatherland'

is the

political equivalent of rhetoric's moral

individual. In both in
wrongdoing"

stances, "a nonentity that can do no wrong is denounced for Callicles does not know "the extent to which morality is
ric"

(p. 59).

essential to rheto

seen

(p. 61). In parading his soi-disant realism he undercuts himself, as may be in his other self-contradictory role as the aristocrat devoted to the demos,
not speak

"a love that dares

cause real

its

name"

(p. 64). Socrates

annoys

Callicles be

Socrates is

not a real man.

Grow up, Socrates. Yet, "for

thin-skinned"

a proponent of

Callicles "is awfully (p. 68). You cannot coher "speak for Achilles in the language of Thersites, who takes straggle ently up over natural right and ancestral right as a quarrel over (p. 71). Callicles
booty"

manliness,"

is is

more erotic on

the

heart"

Polus, but his eros is badly directed. "Democratic equality in imperial Athens, "but the stmt of the tyrant is in everyone's (p. 74). When Socrates praises self-rule, Callicles loses his temper. Cal
than
books"

licles
sires. earth

wants to

transcend the

body

and

be

pure

will,

with no

limits to his de
on

He
can

needs never

Hades

not

for

purposes of punishment
satisfaction"

but because "life

bring

him

enough

(p. 76). "What the Gorgias

contains

is
of

a proof

that the city and the soul are

model"

different in kind,

and no

mapping ent if the city is its

the one onto the other is possible. The soul is of

necessity incoher

(p. 78).

305

Interpretation
spurious

"Between the
morality
ordered
and of

corporeality
shines

of

hedonism

and the

equally

spurious

soul, philosophy
of

through. Its orderliness is grounded in the

ignorance."

disorderliness

knowledge

of

(p. 90).

Gorgias, Polus,

Callicles "can be joined because

shared

the rationality of Gorgias already con

and

tained the willfulness of the thumoeidetic,

the vindictiveness of Polus al

ready
the

in the

Callicles"

pleasures

of

(p. 91). Gorgias-Polus-Callicles

parallels the class structure of the

city in

speech and the soul-structure seen

in

Republic. The tensions among them are assuaged in the Republic because in the Republic force supplements talk from the beginning and the talk is of
as

justice

the common good and of the need

moderated.

figured, but it it can be does, "to make another

Professor Benardete
servation need not

for law. The city cannot be trans Genuine justice is to do as the philosopher

perplexed"

(p.

97),

not

to satisfy the quest

for

certitude.

and

his books have been

considered perplexing.

This

ob

be the basis for any indignant accusations, however, al though it probably sometimes is. Surrounding the political, the city, the conventional, is nature. This is where
the Phaedrus
comes

in,

Socrates'

walk

in the

woods.

The Phaedrus has two

parts, the set of three erotic speeches and the discussion of the art of writing.

To find unity in these parts, Benardete suggests, one should take love speeches, in which a lover "attempts to induce through speech what he himself experi
enced through the
experiences

senses,

as

the model for the transformation of any set of

not so much

into

knowledge"

(p. 104). It is

that carnal knowledge

foreshadows noesis,
edge are yet

as that self-knowledge and scientific or universal

of

knowl
and

in tension (knowledge

oneself

cannot

simply be generalized)

in

need of one another.

reality.

Phaedrus loves books. Socrates loves

"If Phaedrus had had his way,

it"

love
can

would

be

as

easy

as

be deceptive,

even

picking up the letter of the law:

book

and

reading

(p. 107). But letters

The law is necessarily carnal. Its competence cannot include knowledge of soul. knowledge of soul, then, is outside the law; but it is not criminal in itself
Socrates'

and can

become

so

knowledge. defense

Socrates'

only if Socrates is forbidden to identification of conversation

against

converse and advance with

his

of philosophy 1.233-37). (P. 112)

every form

of

philosophy is the ultimate tyranny (Xenophon Memorabilia

Philosophy
ful is
a

begins in

quest

for

self-knowledge,

opinion-definitions

imposed from

without

by
that

simply knowledge of the laws. "The one science need

not

psychology that has

of which

Socrates"

is,
can

the philosopher

"as its

one

test case, in light

adequacy The body-lover, the one who writes the speeches Phaedrus in one sense moderate, that is, discipline or wants to tyrannize

its

own

be

judged"

(p. 115).
so

admires,

control

his

philosophy"

beloved, blocking
incarnate"

the beloved's "access to

(p. 124). The lover is

"incarnate."

"hubris

(p. 125),

perhaps

with

the emphasis on

Only

Book Reviews
philosophic philosophic
moderation

306
the

cannot afford

be imposed
to ignore

by

the tyrant.
or

Nonetheless,

lover

cannot

carnal

political

things, because

tyranny
gaged

competes with

philosophy in the

seduction of

are most

inclined to tyranny.
a

"Philosophy

is thus

compelled

precisely those souls that to be always en

old-fashioned virtue

in

defense

of what

philosophy"

is wholly by Central to Benardete's book is

uninformed nion.

is potentially hostile to it (p. 125).

a chapter on

that

Socrates'

the agent
and

of

daimo-

The daimonion him to be

recalls

Socrates to himself
another

keeps him

out of politics.
eros"

It

permits

daring

in

way, to be "the Prometheus of

seeks

(p.

133). Recalled to himself, Socrates

"leaves beyond minacy form
of

to know himself. His psychology to the gods who lead men

room

for law

and convention gods whose

to

give shape

themselves,"

"conventionality
at

reflects

in turn the indeter

what nature a

cosmos"

of

the structure of the

i's"

(p. 136). "The law fills in

the gods too
much

sketches.

It dots her

(p. 136). "To look

is

dangerous
the

self-forgetting"

reason; "the way to

symbol of

understand

(p. 138). Still, symbolically the nature is through the

philosopher

gods

link

nature with of

understanding"

the

gods.

"The

alone

is devoted to the

use of

those

reminders"

reminders as

(p. 144).

Love is seeing

and

149), individualized;

(p.

which

may this love distinguishes the

not

asking questions. One properly loves "one's better half or be fully known. One's better half is not
"special"

philosopher
'abstract.'

from

all

other

human

types, who find philosophic eroticism too "Eros splits into the motion of ascent and the
motions that are split and paired
eros"

self-motion,"

motion of

two

(p. 152). "The

to say "there
Rome"

spell of

the city

is broken

by

(p. 153); Benardete

called

law-lover,"

starts

never was a

before

being
ated

back

by
as

his

philological

knowledge that "Philonomos (law (p.

lover)
associ

occurs on a with

Jewish inscription from

153,

n.

5).
or

Lawgiving
sacred

is

writing,
nor

in the Egyptian hieroglyphics

(p. 157).

writing.

Law

persuades"

neither

"argues

Plato

manages

to combine writing with erotic reason. The danger

with eroticism

in

combin

ing

an art such as

The Muses
(p. 163).

are

writing like Sirens "who test through

enchantment

is the danger

of

drowsy

enchantment.
past"

enchantment those who sail

Still,

just

as the enchantment with

is necessary as the first step to disenchantment, Plato's writings can be the first step toward philos
that "the world is not a
book"

ophy.

Disenchantment
after

requires one to see

(p. is

167), but only

knowledge
withdrawn,

hoping

that it is. If the one

thing

needful

in this

world

of and enchantment

by

book,

then the gods once ruled but have

differs from the writing to the beautiful and the beautiful to wisdom. Still, Socrates does come down to us as a character in books. He avoids being a commanding, and succeeds in being a perplexing, character
opinion

leaving

their commands behind.

This

Socratic view,

which subordinates

harkening

to a poetic character,
part of nature.

Odysseus,

who wards off

the spell of

Circe

by by

understanding

Green, Jew and Philosopher: The Return to Maimonides in the Jewish Thought of Leo Strauss (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), xiv + 278 pp., $59.50 cloth, $21.95 paper.
Susan Orr American

Kenneth Hart

University
over the

The battle ering the Jerusalem

legacy

of

Leo Strauss is
ought

at

its

most

heated

when consid

question

of which

place

to have primacy over man's soul,

or

Athens. It is

fitting

that the

lines

should

be drawn
and

at

this most

central point.

As Strauss himself

states

in Natural Right

History:
knowledge
of the

The fundamental question, therefore, is

good without which

whether men can acquire

they

cannot guide

their lives
or whether

individually
they
are

unaided effort of their natural

powers,

collectively by the dependent for that

or

knowledge human

on

Divine Revelation. No

alternative

is

more

fundamental than

this:

guidance or

divine

guidance.1

That

we

should

care

about

the

answer

is

no

longer in dispute. It is

not

sufficient

to

ignore this

central question

in

order

to concentrate on the less

Strauss's teaching, such as how to read texts care fully. Shadia Drury, for one, has made it impossible not to answer this question forthrightly. More recently, Brent scathing piece in the New York
controversial elements of
Staples'

Times, "Undemocratic

Vistas,"

ing

Leo

Strauss.2

While Mr.
there

authoritarian

bully,

to an ever-increasing interest in debunk for instance, distorts Strauss into a vulgar, Staples, are more serious critiques of Strauss's project, and
attests

those

who

denounce him

are aided

by

dissension already
than

present

among his

students.

Although the
split

geographic

lines

are more

fluid,

there is an
and

acknowledged
Coast"

between

what

have been termed "West

Coast"

"East

Straus

The West Coast Straussians, led by Harry V. Jaffa and his students, believe that Strauss never held religion in disdain. Instead, they take him liter
sians.

ally
the

when
other.3

he

writes

that neither the

philosopher nor

the theologian can

appears
on

refute

For his West Coast followers,

when

Strauss

skeptical, he is
and

anything but dogmatic.

question,

Pointing

to

his

steadfast

focus

God

the Jewish
when

they

also

maintain

that a

failure to take Strauss

literally

he

argues that surface

is important is

a critical

one, for it is a failure to

understand

his

project:

"There is

no surer protection against

the understanding of anything

obvious and

than

taking for

granted or otherwise

despising
and

the

the

surface.

The

problem

inherent in the

surface of

things,

only in the

surface of

things, is

interpretation,

Winter 1996, Vol. 23, No. 2

308

Interpretation
things."4

the heart of

Since Strauss is

most respectful

to Jerusalem on the sur

face,

the West Coast argues, a failure to take his

approach

seriously is
understand
God.5

a grave

mistake.

As the West Coast stay than the West

open

understands

it, it is

failure to

that the
more

philosopher must nuanced

to the possibility of the the

call of

Ever

Coast,

East,

with

Thomas Pangle

as

its

most outspo

ken representative,

prefers to shade

Strauss's teaching

about

revelation, sug
of

gesting that the more serious students understand the political nature teaching, one intended to inculcate moral virtue in students lacking the
gifts required

this

natural such

for

philosophy.

They

point

to passages, abundant in

Strauss,

as, For both philosophy

the only
and the

Bible

proclaim

something

as the one

thing

needful, as

thing

that ultimately counts, and the one

thing

needful proclaimed

by

the

Bible is the
versus a

opposite of that proclaimed

by

philosophy: a

life

of obedient

love

life of free insight. In every attempt at harmonization, in every synthesis however impressive, one of the two elements is sacrificed, more or less subtly but in any event surely, to the other: philosophy, which means to be the queen, must be
made

the handmaid of revelation or vice

versa.6

For

modem

minds, the

appeal of

independent

inquiry

is

undeniable.

Unwilling

to yoke themselves to the burden of obedience, East Coast Straussians presume

Athens'

victory.

Strauss Strauss
Bloom

makes sided writes

rarely give credence to Jerusalem or the arguments that for the faithful city. Instead, East Coast Straussians insist that

They

unequivocally with Athens. Choosing his words carefully, Allan in his encomium to his teacher, "Leo Strauss was a philosopher.
never said so

He

would

have

himself, for he
and

was

too modest and he had too

much reverence

for the

rare

human type

the way of
an age

life

represented

by

that
so

title to arrogate it to
cheapened."7

himself, especially in

when

its

use

has been

By

sidestepping the question of revelation, Bloom finesses the

to why Strauss
never referred

real question as

to

himself

as a calls

philosopher; he
the debate over
soul."8

cuts off the question at the root of what

Strauss himself

"the
way,

alternatives or religion

the antagonists in the

drama for the human

or accident.

In this
the

more radical

becomes simply a matter of culture East Coast Straussians, like Thomas

a contest

Inevitably,
far
as

Pangle,
and

go so

to col

lapse the debate into

between philosophy
and

poetry,

forswearing

any

distinction between Hesiod's

Theogony

Genesis.9

Against this backdrop, it comes as a pleasure to read Kenneth Hart Green's study of Strauss in Jew and Philosopher: The Return to Maimonides in the Jewish Thought of Leo Strauss. Green, a student of Alexander Altmann,
careful

Marvin Fox,

and of

Emil

Fackenheim, decided
Green looks
concern
at

to

investigate Leo Strauss

and this

and

his
a

understanding

the Jewish problem for

his

dissertation,

book is

refinement of that project.

this question

from the

perspective of

Jerusalem. His underlying friend or foe?

is

simple:

Should Strauss be

understood as

Book Reviews
Green's book is
ful
analysis of
meticulous

309

in

scope and

painstakingly laid

out.

His

master

both the texts

and subtexts as well as

the commentary

written on

Strauss is
themselves

breathtaking
a

over one yield a

hundred

pages of copious endnotes

of

are

in

study which When he finds fault with

always

fair treatment
of

the students of
criticisms

Strauss.

a student

Strauss, his
than not,
there

are

firm, but
deserved.
who

done

with a gentle

hand;

more often

they

are

justly

Even if

one ends

up

disagreeing

with

Green,
will

is

no question

that all

take the time to

analysis of good nides.

work

through his book

find their

efforts rewarded. as

The

Strauss's
of

earlier works alone will prove

fruitful,

Green

spends a

deal

time analyzing Strauss's youthful turn from Spinoza to Maimo

Green has done

earlier work with such care.

Strauss

gleans

Strauss's students a good turn by exploring his For example, his discussion of the insights that from G. E. Lessing is particularly illuminating. Green maintains
all of

that Strauss drew three critical lessons

all students of

from

Lessing

that

will sound

familiar to

Strauss: that the Enlightenment's

sacred; that
out

success

is

attributable to

its

mockery

of the

its

material success

finally,
ems

that

laying

the arguments of
a prudent

is ultimately ambiguous; and the quarrel between ancients and mod

way to write about controversial topics. he began studying the contribution of Leo Strauss to contemporary Judaism, he expected to find that interest in Judaism was of peripheral concern to Strauss. But the more he studied, the more he was de As Green admits,
when

in dialectical form is

lighted to discover that the Jewish

question was central

to Strauss's understand

ing

of

the human condition. As Strauss often reminds us, the Jewish problem is
problem.

the quintessential human

onstrate that the

Green

appreciates

Strauss's ability to dem

the modem answers of
answer

Jewish

problem cannot

be

solved analysis

by

either assimilation or

Zionism. As Green's

suggests, Strauss's

to the problem of modernity requires a

return

to Maimonides.

Green's Strauss
to

thesis

never

discovered the Maimonidean project, turns back. Although he acknowledges the aforementioned debt is
simple: once

having

Lessing

as well as

to

other

Jewish

intellectuals,

such as
with

Hermann
a

Cohen,

remedy for the modem quandary. Carefully following Strauss's method, Green notes the ob vious first: on the surface of all Strauss's work, Maimonides "receives less

Green

thinks that Maimonides alone provided

Strauss

obvious criticism swers

than any
of

other

Jewish

philosopher"

the

question

why Strauss

chose

(p. 5). Green easily Maimonides: "Strauss came to

an see

Maimonides
similar
fect,'

as a

resolve the crisis by achieving a "per between philosophy, religion, morality, though unconventional, balance

crisis,

and who

uniquely had been

wise thinker and able

teacher who arose in the midst of a

to

politics"

and

(pp.

xii-xiii).

sets for himself is difficult to say the least: to discern Strauss and Maimonides. The questions that this Leo the relationship between project implies are plentiful. Why would a modem Jew turn to Maimonides? Is destinea successful return even conceivable, or has modem science, with its

The task

which

Green

310

Interpretation
teleology,
made

tion of

the way back

impossible? The difficulties that Green's

study

raises are more than

academic;

they

point to

fundamental

and permanent

problems.

To those

unfamiliar with

Strauss,

an absolute return seems as

impos

sible as an absolute embrace of progress.

Through Green's study, Jews have been both the

the playing
nent rebuke

we are reminded

that Strauss teaches us that the

and

greatest

beneficiaries

the greatest sufferers from

out of modernity.

to

modem man's

In many ways, the Jews have served as a perma attempt to overcome his natural limits. As Strauss

remarks,

Finite,
solved.

relative problems can

be solved;

infinite,

absolute problems cannot which

be
of

In

contradictions.

manifest

society From every point of view it looks as if the Jewish symbol of the human problem as a social or political and,
as a man

other

words, human beings

will never create a

is free

problem

is the

problem.10

Green

understands this problem

willingness

Strauss's Green

to take seriously

what a return

faithful to Jerusalem, appreciates to Jerusalem means.

understands

that clarity cannot be achieved simply

by
his

pointing to
without pit

Strauss's falls
matic. reason

extensive studies on

Maimonides, for

that course is not

either.

Strauss's

exegetical

texts on Maimonides are

by far

most

enig
that

The first
or

difficulty
a

is

what

to make of Maimonides: Does he side with

or a philosopher?

faith? Is he

Jew first

If

we can unravel

difficulty,
choice?

then the next question the

is, Does Strauss

Maimonides'

approve of

relationship between Strauss and Maimonides can seem at times a task worthy of Sisyphus, but this is the daunting goal which Green sets for himself.

Untangling

itself: Jew The

The first thing that will puzzle the reader familiar with Strauss is the title and Philosopher'} This will no doubt prove troublesome to some.

difficulty is,

as

both. No
ent

synthesis of the two alternatives

not

already mentioned, that Strauss insists that one cannot be is ever possible. The challenge pres
on

in the title is

lost

him. As Green
phy
are

understands

Green, although the answer is anything but clear to Strauss, the formulation that theology and philoso

in permanent opposition, which all cursory readers of Strauss know, is his first formulation. Green insists that "there must have been something simply in Strauss's deeper views as a thinker which overrode the previously mentioned dichotomy, and which allowed him to pursue his concern to understand both what it means to be a Jew and what it means to be a philosopher, and yet not
of

be guilty
(p. Jew

the muddleheadedness which he attributed to

Moses

Mendelssohn"

ing
gins

n. 1). It is this underlying theme that Green attempts to flesh out in Philosopher. From the outset, Green begins on the offensive by insist that Strauss be understood as both philosopher and Jew. Ironically, he be

143,

and

by resisting the surface teaching. Green asserts that one cannot understand Strauss's Jewishness as simple fa milial loyalty, as a debt owed out of justice. In so doing, he reopens the dispute begun in public with Shadia Drury 's The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, but

Book Reviews
already
careful present

-311

in his
of

students

beforehand. Green's temperate language

to consider

and

reading

Strauss

compel us

freshly

where

Strauss

stood on

this most

important

question.

The tension, inherent in the title, remains throughout the entire book. Ulti mately, Green thinks Strauss took a position friendly to revelation: at the end of
the
as a

first chapter, he suggests, albeit tentatively, that Strauss is best understood "'cognitive a title which Green thinks is appropriate because of
theist'"

Strauss's

simultaneous concern with

of

the

whole and

his

view

that a complete
and p.

understanding 127). Green's

the whole is beyond the reach of

man

(p. 27

167,

n.

argument

is that
not,
a

while synthesis of reason and revelation

may be

impossible, harmony is

distinction

which

he thinks is

critical.

Rather than conceiving of Strauss's thought as progressing through distinct stages, he sees it as becoming ever more penetrating, once he discovers Mai
monides.

The Maimonidean turn is it differently, his

never

gainsaid, only deepened. Although

Green
cal

understands

analysis mirrors

Bloom's, but

with a criti

difference. Remember that, according to Bloom, Strauss went through three phases which, though distinct, signified a deepening insight. The first stage,
which

Bloom

"Pre-Straussian"

calls

the

Strauss, is Strauss
his

as

the intellectual

historian;
and

the second stage is marked

by

discovery
on

of esoteric

writing; the

third and final stage,

by

works such as

Thoughts

Machiavelli

and

The

City

Man, in
of

which

modem

alternatives.11

discussion
which

Strauss clearly prefers ancient modes and orders to their In keeping with the Bloom perspective, there is little Strauss and revelation. Bloom confines his comments to those

imply
for

that

Maimonides, like Plato before him,

saw

only the utility

of

religion

good citizenship.

Green, in contrast, sees the evolution of Strauss's thought through the prism of Strauss's work on Maimonides, and hence through the medieval straggle between reason and revelation, philosophy and theology. Akin to Bloom's
analysis, Green
sees

Strauss's

progress marked

roughly
and

by

the

following
and

three

books: Spinoza's Critique of Religion, Philosophy

and the

Law,

Persecution

Art of Writing. For Green, Strauss

notices

makes

the

discovery

that Maimonides

is

superior

thinker to Spinoza that Strauss first

while

Spinoza's Critique of Religion. He argues working that philosophy in modernity is not driven by a longing
on of

for

a comprehensive

knowledge

the

whole

that may never

be achieved, but
provides a com

instead

by

passion or

will; indeed the

whole.

modem

philosophy thinks it

prehensive

account of

As

result, Strauss begins to grasp, that,

although

Spinoza

champions reason and

freedom, he ultimately distorts both.

into the familiar
critique which

Eventually, Strauss's
Green

understanding

crystallizes

characterizes as

follows,
in the
process of

Simply
divine
will.

put,

modern reason

freeing itself

from theology

and the

will

has destroyed itself

as reason

by

eventually reducing itself to human

It is

revealed

by

Strauss to be

motivated not

by

pure

love

of

wisdom,

which

would compel

it to

encounter

theology

as a serious and

worthy

opponent

(if

not as

312
a

Interpretation
teacher), but to be
motivated

by

"atheism,"

or

by

"antitheological

ire,"

or with

certain modem revisions

by

Epicureanism. (P.

19)

As Strauss began to understand, Spinoza may have loved the Jews, but he did not love Judaism. His fervent desire was to free man from the tyrannical rale of
a

priestly

class and a

crippling fear

of

God. Strauss

sees

Spinoza

as

the quintes

sential modem.

Once Strauss discovers that Maimonides is

must answer
of

deeper thinker than

Spinoza, he
and even

how Maimonides
that his end
truth,"

understands

the seemingly contradictory nature

search

man,

i.e.,

is the "unconditional
while

for the highest (p. 89).

of

the

most comprehensive

"denying

the adequacy of man's

abilities"

intellect

to attain the highest truths

by

his

own efforts and

Strauss,
about

Maimonides'

then,

must and

necessarily

confront with regard

pursues

reason

revelation, especially

prophetology.

This is the

path

Strauss

understanding to his peculiar teaching in Philosophy and Law.

the limits of

With the first stage, Strauss discovers that Spinoza presupposes the falsity of revelation, rather than disproves its possibility. At this point, Green argues that

Strauss

was content with a negative vindication of revelation

and,

indeed,

an

understanding of reason and revelation with which conventional scholars would find no quarrel. But Green finds Strauss unsatisfied with this reading; he still

has
phy

unanswered
and

questions, questions
this

which

he is

attempts

to address in Philoso
consider

Law.

During
can

time, Green
He

thinks that

Strauss begins to

whether a positive vindication of revelation

possible and whether wonder

the modem

crisis of reason

be

solved.
as a

also

begins to

insists

upon

philosophizing

Jew. The

central question

why Maimonides he considers, which

has

bearing on all the other problems, is why man needs prophets. During this time, Green notes that Strauss leams much about the Maimoni dean project by studying other medieval thinkers, such as Averroes, Avicenna,
a and

Alfarabi.

But, Strauss begins

refuses

to detect a deeper
agree

teaching in Maimonides.
Maimonides'

To his credit, Green

thought

to

that

Strauss

collapses

with the Islamic thinkers. But he does think that Strauss gains a critical insight from Avicenna, i.e., that the Maimonidean approach to prophetology as a science is more beholden to Plato than Aristotle. Strauss begins to see that, far from being overtaken by Spinoza's attack, Maimonides had foreseen it, and

found it

wanting.

As Green

writes of

Strauss's formulation:
Aristotle through prophecy,

For Maimonides, human knowledge

can always surpass

i.e.,

the prophet always attains to a greater theoretical

height than the philosopher,

even with regard to superlunar physics and

Maimonides'

its attendant metaphysics. Thus, as Strauss further discerned, entire approach may not actually have been so finally defeated by the transition from medieval to modem science, since his
argument science:

is

rooted

in

a prior epistemological critique of all possible

philosophy
(P

or

it

would seem man

was,

is,

and always will

be in

need of revelation to

know the truth

about

God

and

the angels, and about creation versus eternity

65)

Book Reviews
Green
suggests

313

that,

at this

moment, Strauss begins to see that the fundamental

was not a scientific

problem political

that Maimonides had to address problem,

problem, but

i.e., how
choose

to

inspire human beings

answer

who are not philosophi aid of

cally disposed to
prophets:

the good; the

is through the

the

mankind requires

the true prophets (such as Moses and those who imitate his

perfection), who are perfect in all necessary human faculties

(i.e., intellect,
convey
a

imagination,
which

morality, courage,

divination, leadership),

and who can

law

is

adequate to meet
while

the complexities and anomalies of ordinary human

experience,
political

life

should

orienting it to the highest theological truths be guided. The Platonic basis for

by

which a virtuous

Maimonides'

position was

thus uncovered

by

Strauss in is

prophetology: once guaranteed

divine

revelation

is

accepted as
of

binding law,

complete

freedom is
man

the theoretical

life for

rooted

for human reason, and the primacy in the divine law itself, nay, in the prophet

himself. (P. 104)

Green

contends

that Strauss looks to Maimonides as the preeminent guide to

this political problem because Maimonides understands that Jewish revelation

and classical rationalism consists

are, in the end,

compatible.

Their

essential agreement

in this: both

agree

regarding the necessity of moral law. Persecution

and the

This final step is Strauss he had

realizes

crystallized with

Art of

Writing

when

that a unification of Jerusalem and Athens is not as simple as

once supposed.

Strauss

refines

his

argument and

brings the

permanent

opposition of

the two cities into

sharper contrast.

As Green writes,
although

In this scheme,
pardonable

which

Strauss

allows to

be

"Averroistic"

called one

"with
access

ignorance,"

revelation or
peculiar

prophecy in

form

or another

is the

to the truth
which

to the city: politics must employ

theology because

religion,

imaginatively presents God (or the gods) as justice, functions in support of the moral life. The
devoted to
wisdom and claims

an active

force devoted to

philosophic

life, however, is
and

to transcend the imaginative sphere,

hence

assigns revelation to opinion rather than to truth.

(P.

123)
itself to
such

Obviously, it is

this

final

articulation of

the problem that lends

controversy because it is at this point that Strauss modifies the traditional ac count of Maimonides in pursuit of an esoteric teaching that is subtle and often
misunderstood.

It is here that Strauss's Green

chooses

critics claim

that he ended up embracing Nietzsche.

instead to

argue
and

tension between Jerusalem

Strauss, in his final formulation of the Athens, "regarded his own tentative return to
that
as
an

Maimonides

and

to

ancient

wisdom

option

not

fully

anticipated

by

Nietzsche,
damental

and

hence

as

something which, if nothing else,

of

would seem

to rep

resent either

the

beginning
to the

'the fourth

wave'

of

modernity,

or

the only

fun

altogether"

alternative

modem

(p.

149,

n.

6).

314

Interpretation
part of

In analyzing this

Strauss's "voyage

discovery,"

of

Green is forced to
entitles

address the central question

forthrightly

(p. 106).

Interestingly, Green
in

the chapter where he addresses it "Maimonides as Esoteric Writer:

Strauss's

Rediscovery
Guide."

of

the

Philosopher's

Categorical Imperative
raise eyebrows.

Maimonides'

This

chapter will not

fail to

No

one will argue with

Green that Maimonides is

Strauss's formation. The argument, instead, will nides is, and finally, who Strauss is. Many argue that Maimonides is simply a philosopher interested in preserving a safe haven for philosophy in the Jewish

primary importance to revolve around who Maimo

of

law, but places his first loyalty with Athens. As a philosopher, he is superior to Spinoza, but fundamentally at odds with Jerusalem. Even if this is an accurate representation of Maimonides, it still
world; he cloaks himself in Jewish

begs the
ment

question of where placed

Strauss
and

stands.

But Green

understands

the predica

he has

himself in
on.

does
asks:

not

shy away from it, choosing instead

Maimonides'

to

confront

it head

Green first

"Does

position as philos unique

opher and

Jewish thinker

represent

something

in

itself,

which

does

not

merely In other words, he disputes Pangle's claim that the arguments are already pres ent in their fullest form in the ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry. Green
versus argues

reproduce

the Platonic idea

of esotericism

in Jewish

format?"

(p. 127).

that Maimonides does not reduce the quarrel to philosophy

poetry precisely because

the Jewish position
revelation

...

is the best
of

"argument"

conceptualized and articulated premises and

for
on

divine

in terms

both its

"superior

rationality"

its

argument was

its conclusions; thought through "from the

and

based

its

beginning"

in

explicit and
what

implicit

opposition

to the essential claims of philosophy.

Consequently,
an

Maimonides be

revelation

significantly adds to the quarrel between reason and that the ancients did not grasp is the full awareness of how powerful
most

argument can

made against philosophy.

In the Hebrew Bible

one

thing
other

new

has

been

presented about the nature of

God

which

is
(P.

not present

in any

conception

God's
as

absolute moral character.

130)

The Torah
wisdom

is,

Strauss
the

often reminds
nations.""2

us, "said in the Torah to be 'your

in the

to reason. In a way
revelation.
vokes

Thus, the Torah claims to be accessible inconceivable for the ancients, philosophy must respect Zeus does not invoke honor, but fear; the Judeo-Christian God in
eyes of man owes

both. But the fear just

punishment
a moral

God is

not

fear

of a capricious

will, but

fear

of

an essential

difference from
with a

the pagan notion. Be

of

cause

God is

being,

as

Green writes,

hint

irony,
or

the

Bible

provides
cal

"a morality that issues in

truly

unconditional

commands,

'categori

imperatives'"

(pp. 133-34).

time, philosophy, which agrees with the Biblical understanding importance of morality, lacks teeth because the clarity of moral law may be only obvious to the wise man. In "Progress or Return," Strauss puts it in this way, calling it a "philosophic lack of depth":
same of

At the

the

Book Reviews
Greek philosophy has

'315

frequently

been blamed for the

which

absence

from it

of that

ruthless examination of one's

intentions

is the

consequence of the

biblical
what

demand for purity of the heart. "Know thyself means for the Greeks, know means to be a human being, know what is the place of man in the universe
examine your opinions and

it

prejudices,

rather

than "Search your

heart."

This only if

philosophic

lack

of

depth,
be

as

it is called,

can

consistently be

maintained

God is indeed
of

assumed not to

assumed to
as

is be entirely his own affair. The Bible and Greek philosophy agree regards the importance of morality or justice and as to the insufficiency
concerned with man's goodness or
man's goodness

if

morality, but

they disagree
as

as to what completes morality.

According

to the

Greek philosophers,

already noted, it is understanding

or contemplation.

Now

this necessarily tends to weaken the majesty of the moral

demands,
majesty

whereas

humility,

a sense of

guilt, repentance, and faith in divine mercy, which complete

strengthen the
of the moral

morality according to the Bible, necessarily demands. (P. 37)

So how does Green think that Strauss

of

sees

the seemingly incompatible cities

Jerusalem

and

Athens

come together?
understands

enough, is Socratic. Strauss

the sun to
elusive at

The answer, for Green, appropriately why Socrates turned from looking at
a complete account of

looking
best:

at

man,

i.e., because
has

the whole is

it. Man's understanding of nature is always incomplete. Maimonides, like Socrates before him, was not committed to any specific cosmology. As Green points out, revealed religion
modem science not captured

shares this

in

common with

Socratic
the

philosophy:

"revealed

religion

fundamen for

tally

rejects this
as

world,

i.e.,
is'

world of

ordinary human
sinful"

experience and rea

such a

soning,

the final moral standard,

or even as

a possible source

standard,

since

'how

that Jerusalem and

is essentially Athens may live in harmony

man

(p. 15). Thus, Green

argues

rather

than be synthesized.

By

returning to a Maimonidean approach, (p. 135). leam from one

another"

"they

are

taught how to respect and

In the closing chapter, Green does allow that deducing where Strauss finally allies himself is difficult. In a sense, Green may have made it more difficult by concentrating solely on the influence of Maimonides in Strauss's thought. There
sent,
or are selections such as

in the Strauss

corpus where of

Maimonides is
and

not omnipre

"The Mutual Influence

Theology
of

Philosophy,"

"Progress
and

Return? The

Athens: Some

Contemporary Preliminary
of

Crisis

Civilization,"

and

"Jerusalem

Reflections."

Strauss's
complete

own articulation of

the struggle

These texts, one could argue, are between reason and revelation. For a
of

understanding
would

Strauss's

articulation

this

fundamental human

problem, it
not without

behoove us to study these texts carefully. But that task too is Strauss places difficulty. Remember that in "Jerusalem and
Athens"

himself in the
able.

position of a

beholder,

tenuous

position

that he knows is

unten

For Green, there

are

two

possibilities.

Strauss

could

have held

religion to

be

316

Interpretation
"unreason."

synonymous with

In

other words,

Strauss

could

have been paying

only lip service to revelation. But in the end, Green thinks that this character ization of Strauss is a distortion. As Green notes, it is important that Strauss
refuses to mock or

thing

that some of

dismiss revelation, rather he treats it his students have failed to do and in

with

respect, some

so

doing

distort his

teaching. One cannot find a passage in Strauss that unequivocally buttresses

Jerusalem. In that regard, Green finds Strauss a friend to Jerusalem. In Jew and Philosopher: The Return to Maimonides in the Jewish Athens
at

the expense

of

Thought of Leo Strauss, Green delicately suggests that the East Coast adherents of Leo Strauss may have made the same fundamental error that Strauss attrib
utes

to himself when he first began to study Spinoza:

they have failed

enough.13

to under

stand

Strauss because they do

not read

him

literally

NOTES

1. Leo 74.

Strauss, Natural Right

and

History

(Chicago:

University

of

Chicago Press, 1953),

p.

Unlikely

2. New York Times, November 28, 1994. See also Richard Bernstein's response, "A Very New York Times, January 29, 1995. Bernstein gives a superficial Villain (or
Hero),"

recounting of Strauss's contribution, arguing that Strauss was a traditional conservative. It is ironic that Strauss is being placed with those who would certainly not claim him as one of their own, i.e.
,

the traditional conservatives,

heirs

of

Burke,

who argue

that the old is synonymous with the good.

Civilization,"

3. Leo Strauss, "Progress or Return? The Contemporary Crisis in Western Modern Judaism (Baltimore: The. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981), vol. 1,
4. Leo 5. A
yields

in
13.

p.

45.
p.

Strauss, Thoughts
reading
and

on

Machiavelli (Chicago:

University

of

Chicago Press, 1958),

careful

of the

"Introductory
pp.

Essay"

in Strauss's Spinoza's Critique of Religion

just

such a reading.

6. Natural Right

History,

74-75.

7. Allan Bloom, Giants and Dwarfs (New York: Simon & 8. Leo Strauss, "The Mutual Influence of Theology and

Schuster, 1990),

p.

239.

Philosophy,"

The Independent Journal

of Philosophy, 3 (1979): 114. 9. See his introductory remarks to Strauss's Studies in Platonic Political

Philosophy,
of

edited

by

Thomas Pangle (Chicago: A

Reply

to

Harry

Jaffa,"

Chicago Press, 1983), and "The Platonism Claremont Review of Books, Spring, 1985.

University

of

Leo Strauss:
Schoc-

10. Leo Strauss, ken, 1982), p. 6. 11. Giants

and

"Introductory
pp.

Essay,"

in Spinoza's Critique of Religion (New York:

Dwarfs,
and of

246-50.

12. "Jerusalem

Athens: Some

Preliminary

Reflections,"

from The

Cit\-

College Papers,

No. 6 (The

New York, 1967), p. 5. 13. Strauss, Spinoza's Critique of Religion, p. 31.

City

College

Forthcoming
Leo Strauss Daniel Elazar How to

Study
of

Medieval

Philosophy
and

The Book

Judges: The Israelite Tribal Federation

Its Discontents

Chris Rocco

Liberating
Gorgias

Discourse: The Politics

of

Truth in Plato's

Paul

Bagley

Harris, Strauss,

and

Esotericism in Spinoza's Tractatus

Theologico-politicus Christopher Rousseau's Philosophic Dream

Kelly

ISSN 0020-9635

Interpretation, Inc.
Queens College

Flushing

N.Y. 11367-1597

U.S.A.

T3

r
3
o

z
o 3

G
r

Z
o
N>

O O

JO

"TD

no
ai

>

O
era