Interpretation

A JOURNAL

OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Volume 25
Number 3

Spring
293

1998

Robert D. Sacks

The Book

of

Job: Translation
on

and

Commentary
331 Terence Kleven

Chapters 32 through 38 Ibn Daud's

T. A. M. Fontaine's Account

of

The Exalted Faith (Ha 'Emunah

HaRamah)
367 407 John Alvis
Mark A. Michael

Milton

and

the Declaration

of

Independence

Locke's Second Treatise

and the

Literature

of

Colonization
Discussion: Two Views of Laurence Lampert 's Leo Strauss and Nietzsche

429

Lawrence Casse

443

Charles E. Butterworth
Book Review

447

Christopher

Flannery

Vindicating

the

Founders, by

Thomas G. West

Interpretation
Editor-in-Chief

Hilail Gildin, Dept. Leonard

of

Philosophy, Queens College

Executive Editor

Grey

General Editors

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

Consulting

Editors

(d. 1990) Ellis Sandoz Kenneth W. Thompson

International Editors

Leo Strauss (d. 1973)

Terence E. Marshall

Heinrich Meier

Editors

Wayne Ambler Maurice Auerbach Fred Baumann Michael Blaustein Amy Bonnette Patrick Coby Elizabeth C de Baca Eastman Thomas S. Engeman Edward J. Erler Maureen Feder-Marcus Pamela K. Jensen Ken Masugi Will Morrisey Susan Orr Charles T. Rubin Leslie G. Rubin Susan Shell Bradford P. Wilson Michael Zuckert
-

Catherine Zuckert
Manuscript Editor

Lucia B. Prochnow Subscription rates per individuals $29

volume

Subscriptions

(3 issues):

libraries
students

and all other

institutions $48

(four-year

limit) $18

Single

copies available. outside

Postage
or

elsewhere

$5.40

longer)

U.S.: Canada $4.50 extra; extra by surface mail (8 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, 1 3th 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
other with

work; put, on the title page only, their name, any affiliation desired, address postal/zip code in full, E-Mail and telephone. Contributors using computers
count of the entire manuscript.

should, if possible, provide a character

four clear

Please

send

copies,

which will not

be

returned.

Composition
Printed
and

by Eastern Composition, Inc., Binghamton, N.Y. 13904 U.S.A.

bound

by

Wickersham

Printing Co.,

Lancaster, PA 17603 U.S.A.

Inquiries:

(Ms.) Joan Walsh, Assistant to the Editor interpretation, Queens College, Flushing, N.Y. 1 1367-1597, U.S.A. (718)997-5542 Fax (718) 997-5565
interpretation_journal@qc.edu

E Mail:

Interpretation
<sr>r^nfr Spring 1 QQ8 1998
-__ -*-

Vnliimp 25 0^ Volume

Nnmhpr 3 ^ Number

Robert D. Sacks

The Book

of

Job: Translation
on

and

Commentary
Terence Kleven

Chapters 32 through 38
of

293

T. A. M. Fontaine's Account

Ibn Daud's 331

The Exalted Faith (Ha 'Emunah

HaRamah)
John Alvis Milton
and the

Declaraton

of

Independence

367

Mark A. Michael

Locke's Second Treatise Colonization

and the

Literature

of

407

Discussion: Two Views of Laurence s Leo Strauss and Nietzsche

Lampert'

Lawrence Casse

429 443
Book Review

Charles E. Butterworth

Christopher

Flannery

Vindicating

the

Founders, by
447

Thomas G. West

Copyright 1998

interpretation

ISSN 0020-9635

Interpretation
Editor-in-Chief
Executive Editor

Hilail Gildin, Dept. Leonard

of

Philosophy, Queens College

Grey

General Editors

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

Fred Baumann Patrick Coby Elizabeth C de Baca Eastman Thomas S. Engeman Edward J. Erler Maureen Feder-Marcus Pamela K. Jensen Ken Masugi Will Morrisey Susan Orr Charles T. Rubin Leslie G. Rubin Susan Shell Bradford P. Wilson Michael Zuckert
Wayne Ambler Maurice Auerbach Michael Blaustein Amy Bonnette
*

Catherine Zuckert
Manuscript Editor

Lucia B. Prochnow
Subscription
rates per volume

Subscriptions

(3 issues):

individuals $29 libraries and all Single

other

institutions $48

students (four- year

limit) $ 1 8

copies available. outside

Postage
or

elsewhere

U.S.: Canada $4.50 extra; $5.40 extra by surface mail (8 longer) or $1 1.00 by air.

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.

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
contributors should
other work; with

put, on the title page only, their name, any affiliation desired, address postal/zip code in full, E-Mail and telephone. Contributors using computers should, if possible, provide a character count of the entire manuscript. Please send four clear copies, which will not be returned.

Composition
Printed
and

by Eastern Composition, Inc., Binghamton, N.Y. 13904 U.S.A.

bound

by

Wickersham

Printing Co.,

Lancaster, PA 17603 U.S.A.

Inquiries:
interpretation, Queens

(Ms.) Joan Walsh, Assistant to the Editor College, Flushing, N.Y. 11367-1597, U.S.A. (718)997-5542 Fax (718) 997-5565

E Mail:

interpretation_journal@qc.edu

The Book
Translation

of
and

Job

Commentary

on

Chapters 32 through 38

Robert D. Sacks
St. John 's College, Santa Fe

CHAPTER THIRTY-TWO

1 Now, the three

eyes.

men ceased to

2 But

Elihu1

the son of

Barachel,2

reply to Job because he was right in his own Ram3 of the House of was angry at Job;
more

fuming, because
burned
against
condemned

he"

considered

himself

just than God. 3 And his

anger

his three friends because they could find no answer but merely Job. 4 Now Elihu held back his words and waited for Job, because
than he was. 5

they

were all older mouths of

But,

when

Elihu

saw

that no answer came

him.5

from the

these three men, anger burned within

of

6 Then Elihu

son

Barachel the

Buzite6

answered

and

said:

"I

am

but

young in years, and you are most venerable, to declare my thoughts in front of you. 7 I
speak, and fullness mortals,
a of years proclaim

and so

shrunk

back

and

FEARED

said to myself

'Let the

generations

wisdom.'

breath

of the
nor

Almighty
is it the

that gives

8 But surely there is a spirit in him understanding. 9 It is not the

judgment.7
thoughts.'

great who are

wise,

elders who understand

11 I 10 Thus, I say unto you, 'Hear me. I myself shall declare my have waited in expectation for your words and listened for your understanding while you searched for something to say. 12 I observed you carefully and there was
none

to confute Job nor was there an answer to his assertions from any of
of

you.8

saying We have found wisdom; God will defeat him not 14 Now, he has set out no words against me and I shall not reply using your reasonings, 15 for they have been shattered, and can no longer reply. All mean

13 Beware

man.9

ing'0

has left

them."

16 I

waited

in

expectation

till

they had finished

I
shall give

speaking, till
side of

they

stood and

longer reply. 17 But my in my belly declare my thoughts. 18 I am full of words, and the presses upon me; 19 my belly is like wine that has no vent, like jugs of new
could no
shall now
wind12

the matter. I myself

ready to burst; 20 I shall speak, and it will expand me; I shall open my lips and reply. 21 I will show no favor or flatter any man ('adam); for I know
wine
off."

no

flattery. 22 Or may my
The first thirty-one

maker soon

carry

me

chapters of

the translation and commentary appeared

and

bers 2

and

3,

and

Volume 25, Numbers 1

of

Interpretation. The balance

in Volume 24, Num will appear in a

future issue.

interpretation,

Spring 1998,

Vol. 25, No. 3

294

Interpretation

Comments

1. There is something
and the will

mysterious about the sudden appearance of this man,

we read on.

mystery only increase as internal problems of the same many 2. Otherwise 3. Given the
unknown.

As

we shall

see, there are too

sort to account

for

them

by

assuming the

passage was added as a whole without much regard

for the

greater context.

other

cases, the
son of

descendent
at

of

Ram the

is naturally led to assume that Elihu is a Hezron. This would place him as either part of or
reader

least

close to the royal

not

line

of the

House

of

David.

4. It is 3

perfectly 5. Literally, "and his

and us

clear who
nose was

the

antecedent

is.
same expression used of

fuming."

This is the

in

verse

6. Let

is commonly, though not exclusively, used look once more at the tree of generations
TERACH I

God.

Sarah

-Abraham

-Katura

Haran

Shua

Nahor-

Lot Milkah
I Bethual I I Uz 1

Iskah

Buz

I
Isaak-Rebekah

Laban
I

Esau

Jakob

Leah

Eliphaz

Judah Perez Hezron Ram

Aminadab

I
Taman

Nahshon

Salmon
Boaz

Eliphaz

Bildad

Obad Jesse David Barachel

I

Job

Barachel
I

Elihu?

Elihu?

The Book of Job

As
we can

295

see, there

was

as given was of of

in

verse

2. When

we were

something misleading about the genealogy of Elihu first introduced to him, we were told that he
or at

the House of Ram. We then naturally inferred that he was a descendant

and

Judah,

hence

part

of,

least

close

to, the

royal

line,

the House of

David.

According
brother

to verse

6, however,

this turns out to be deceptive. He

is, in
the

fact,

the progeny of some otherwise

of

unknown

Ram,

descendant

of

Buz,

younger

Uz.

7. One

cannot

help being

moved

initially by
to speak

this young man. He seems

with an air of

respectful and

mild, but he

also seems

and authority.

Several times he

speaks of the

deference he is

wont

understanding to pay to his

elders, and the FEAR he

feels in rising
out.

to speak among them.

Nonetheless, he

feels strongly that he must speak 8. Again he presents himself

listen to
can others.

as

a patient

He implies that Job's

arguments

young man who was willing to deserved to be heard before he

be

answered. sentence

9. This

is

somewhat critical to our attempt

to

understand

Elihu, but
say 'We literal

the grammer

is

ambiguous. wise

Greenberg
will

translates:

"I fear that

not

you will

have found the

translation may

course; God

defeat him

man.'"

more

help:
say] [we have

"[Lest] [you
[man]."

found] [wisdom] [God]

marks,
we are

[will defeat

him] [not]

Since Hebrew does

readings:

not use quotation

left

with

two possible

"Lest "Lest

you you

say, 'We have found say, 'We have found

wisdom:

God

will will

defeat him defeat him

man.'"

not
man."

wisdom,'

God

not

It's hard, if

not

impossible,

to know

for

certain either way.

The first reading would mean that the others wrongfully claim to have found
a certain wisdom, and that their wisdom consists of the
will

knowledge that "God

other

defeat him,

man."

not

In

other words

Elihu is accusing the

to his questions

three of

believing
within will

that there is

no answer to

Job

or

which

is

available

the realm of
a

human

understanding.

The

remainder of

his speech, then,

be

purely human

attempt

to answer Job.

According

to the second
a certain
will

they have found

fact only "God
understood,
speech

interpretation, he is accusing them of believing that wisdom with which they can defeat Job, whereas in
man."

defeat him

not

If this is how the

verse

is

to

be his

we can

only take him to

is

spoken with more

be asserting that the than human authority.

remainder of

10.

"words"

1 1. As
share the

we

began to
of

see

in

verse

9, Elihu, in
not

spite of

his piety, like Job, does

seem

not

horizons

the fathers: "It is

judgment."

the great who are wise, nor

is it the
that

elders who understand

The

words

"no

longer"

to

imply

for

him, too,
12.
or

an older world
"spirit"

has been shattered, but

as yet we

do

not

know the

cause.

296

Interpretation

CHAPTER THIRTY-THREE

1 "Attend my words, Job. Listen well to each utterance that I make. 2 Be hold, I open my lips, and the tongue in my palate begins to speak. 3 My speech
is
an upright

heart. The thoughts

me,
and the

of

my lips

speak with clarity. gives me

4 The

spirit of

God has

made

breath

of the

Almighty

life.
take your stand.
nipped2

5 Answer me, if

you can.

Lay

your case out

before
God,1

me and

6 Here I am, just

from clay, 7

as you

wished, standing in for

heavily.3

though I too was

nor

and terror of me will not overwhelm

you,

does the

pressure

put upon you weigh

too

8 Oh,
word.4

you

have

spoken

it into my ear,
of

and

still

hear the

sound of each no perver

9 T

am

pure,'5

'free

transgression,'6

clean,'7

am

'There is

me,'8

sion about
enemy.'10

10 'He finds
puts

ways

to oppose
stocks."1

me,'9

and

'He thinks

of me as

his

11 'He

my feet in the have

not acted

'He

scrutinizes

my every

wander

ing."2

12 But in this
than any mortal.

you

justly. I

will answer

you, for God is greater

to answer on
note.13

13

Why

do

you vie with

Him? He is

not obliged

15 It every count. 14 Yet God may speak once, even twice, but none take the when falls upon be in a or in a vision of night, dream, heavy may sleep beds.14 mortals as they slumber in their 16 He
unveils the ears of mortals and places man

His

seal upon

their

discipline,15

17 to turn
(gebher)}%

('adam) away from

action and

conceal16

pride

from the

man

He

will

keep
pain

his

soul

back from the pit,

and

and

his life from perishing

strife.18

by

the

sword.17

20 his bones ceaselessly twist in food.19 His life renders his bread loathsome, and his soul takes no delight in fine 21 His flesh is devoured, no longer to be seen, and his bones are ground away 19 He is tried

by

in his bed

and

disappear.20

22 His

soul

draws

near

to the Muck and his life is

[attracted]

to

[all that] brings death.21. 23 If there only were

tell man
say:
what

messenger,22

an

interpreter23

one

in

thousand, to

som.'26

have mercy on him and (ladam) 'Redeem25 him from descending into the Muck, for I have found his ran 25 'Let his flesh become brighter than youth, and let him return to his
right would
days.'

is

for

him,24

24 he

springtime

26 Let him but

face27

supplicate unto

God

and

he

shall

be

accepted and see

His

with shouts of

joy, for He

shall return

to mortal man his sense of

right

27 Let him only stand squarely in front of mortals and say, T have I have dealt perversely with what was right, and my accounts have not sinned; been 28 Thus He shall redeem his soul from passing into the Muck;
eousness.
settled.'

and

his life

shall see
will

in the do
all

light.28

29 Yes, God

these things two or three times for a man

(gebher),

30

to

31

bring his soul back from the Muck to be made bright by the light of life. Pay heed, Job, and hear me; be silent and I will speak. 32 If you have the

The Book of Job

words, respond to me.

297
you

Well,

speak!

for I

wish

to

justify

you.

33 But, if
wisdom."29

have nothing, then listen to

me.

Be

silent and

will teach you

Comments 1. hen 'ani kephikha f'el before God

you
"
are."

Greenberg

translates:

"You

and

are

the same

The Revised Standard translates: "Behold, I am towards God as The King James translates: "Behold, I am, according to thy wish in

God's

stead."

It is be. It is

clear that this

or at

is

a critical passage

in

our attempt to understand who

Elihu is,

least

who

he

claims to

be

and perhaps even

believes himself to

also a

very difficult

passage to

understand, as you can tell

"mouth."

by

the vast

discrepancies in
(kephikha). It
"like"

the translations. The problem

come
or

from the

root ph

meaning

lies in the meaning of the word The initial (ke) primarily

"when."

"as,"

means

but its

affect can or

instance,
ending is
objective;

'asher means

"which"

"that"; but
When
it is

vary greatly in individual cases. For means The final (kf'a)

"

a second personal ending. when attached to nouns

attached to verbs or prepositions

it is

possessive.

The

problem

is

what

they

mean when

to,"

"according

strung out together. The word kephi usually means something like but looking at several examples may help:
Each morning let each man gather "according woven work "like/after the fashion of a coat of "In
with"

Exod. 16:21 Exod. 28:32 Lev. 25:53 Num. 7:5 Num. 35:8 Zech. 2:4

to"

his

eating.

mail.

accordance man man

his

years

let him

repay.

Each Each

to"

"according "according
horns

his his

work. share.

to"

These

are the

which scattered

Judah, "so

that"

no man could

lift his head. Mai. 2:9 Therefore I

the
people

also

have

made you contemptible and

that"

base before kept my Saul

all

"since/according
are

to
the

you

have

not

ways.

IChron. 12:23

And these
came to

the

number of

bands

of the armed troops who

of

David in Hebron to turn the kingdom

to the word of the
to"

over to

him

"according
2Chron. 31:2
Each
man

Lord.

"according

his

work.

As

we can

see, the

expression never means

"the

as."

same

The

closest

it

ever

comes to
provides

having

that meaning

a pattern

for
to"

a or

is in Exodus 28:32, but even there totally different kind of thing. In all
to."

one

thing only
it

other cases

is only one other means "proportion Unfortunately, "according instance in which the object is a thinking, speaking being, IChronicIes 12:23,
there
and there the expression

The English

next part
word

clearly means "according to His le is the first / in 'el. In general, it is look at to

words."

equivalent word

to the
"be-

"to."

Strictly

speaking, Hebrew

has

no

independent

for

298

Interpretation
Thus ha'iti
melech means

come."

"I

was

king"; but

ha'

id fmelech

means

"I

was

to

king,"

or more
words of

simply "I became

the verse, hen
I."

king."

The first

'ani, usually

collapsed

into

hinone word expressions

neni, mean "here am

such as

When

put

together with the

one

finds
to

hinnenu

le '

you"

abhdechah,

"we have become

slaves

(Genesis

50:18). 2. berg. 3. For Elihu, Job is

sphere of
own right.
"Nipped"

is

a good word which

confess to

have

"nipped"

from Green

The

anguished perplexities that arise within

the

human

cognition can

find for

themselves no solution

from

within

its

border. For him, too, there is a great world out there beyond the human realm. He has already rejected Bildad's Wisdom of the Fathers,
Job 32:9
It is
not

the great who are wise, nor

is it

the elders who

understand

judgment.

And he has
32:14

seen

the

inadequacy

of the

human horizon.
I
shall not

Now, he has
your

set out no words against me and

reasonings, for

they have been

shattered,

and can no

reply using longer reply. All

meaning has left them.

And

so

he believes he

understands

of the

Jackal. As early

as

why Job has felt himself drawn to the Chapter 9, Job had said
turn

world

Job 9:34f.

But let Him

his

rod

away from

me and not

frighten

me with
myself

His terror, then I

I

would speak out without

FEAR

of

Him; for in

am none of these things.

and again

Job 13:1 9f

Now,
things

as things are me and

can

for

shall no and

only remain silent and perish. But do two longer be hid from your face. Remove
not

Your hand from me,

let

Your terror frighten

me.

At the heart
cannot

of Elihu's understanding of man is the notion that Job's request be fulfilled. Man has not the stamina to face what lies beyond his own

horizons. He
the

offers

himself
can nor

as one

who,

knowing
from

of the

terrors that lie beyond

human sphere,

listen to Job's is there

need

case

within the

human

sphere.

Job

cannot go

beyond, him,
We

4. There is something

eerie about

any longer. this line. Elihu insists that Job had

that

spoken

directly

to

and yet there

is little indication he
He

Job
not

was even aware of

his

existence.

are not

told when

arrived and

do

know

whether what

he had Job has

off.

been there from the

been saying in

beginning

or not.

even seems to

know

a rough

way, and

yet most of

his

quotations are

just

bit

The Book of Job

5. Not found
as

299

such, but

cf.

8:6, 11:4, 16:17.

6. Not found
7. Not found 8. Not found 9. Not found
10. 13:24 11. 13:27 12. 13.27 13. With

as such. as such. as

such, but

cf.

13:26.

as such.

a view to what will

be

said

in the has

following

note, it

might

be

wise

to remind ourselves of

how the

author
point.

used

the word that

we

have trans "to take

lated "to take

a

note of allow

up to this

In general, "to take

world, and,

note of a person or

thing is to

it to become

a part of our

hence,

not

note of a person or a

thing is

not

to

allow

it to become

a part of our world.

Job 7:8 Job 17:13-15

in

The
and

eye that sees me takes no note of me; your eye

is

upon

me,

am not.

If I

must take the

darkness;

call out to the muck

'Sister'

Pit to be my home, and spread 'Thou art my

to the maggots,

out

my

couch

Father'

and call out who will

'Mother'

and

Oh my hopes,
o'er;

ever take note of them?

Job 20:9

The
note of

eyes that observed

him have

given

they

no

longer take

him in his
me"

place.

Job 24:15
Job 33:14

An

adulterous eye watches at

and

note of

he

conceals

twilight, saying; "No his face. twice, but

none

eye will

take

Yet God may

speak once, even

take note.

14. There

is, for Elihu,

to

one contact that man

which we can

has

with

the realm beyond man.

note."

That

contact

is sleep; sleep in

see, and yet not "take

There

we can allow ourselves

perceive all

those things we would

keep

distant from

our

daily

lives.
spelled

Zophar had already

Job 20:7-9

it

out:

like his
him

own

dung

he

will

be lost in

eternity.

Even those

who see

will ask

"Where is
recedes

he?"

He flies

off as a

dream
The

and no one can

find him. He
him have

like

a vision of the night. no

eyes that observed

place.

given

o'er;

they

longer take

note of

him in his

As

we shall

see, Elihu is not only

"But,"

thinking

of what

is

said

in the Torah:

Exod. 33:20f.

live."

and

he said, "you cannot see my face, for no And the LORD continued, "See, there is
rock; and
while

one shall see me a place

by

me

where you shall stand on the will put you

my glory

passes

by

in

a cleft of the
passed

rock, and I will cover

then I will take
shall not

you with

my
and

hand

until

I have

by;

you shall see

my back; but my face

away my hand, be
seen."

300
and

Interpretation

Num. 12:6f.

And he said, "Hear my words: When there are prophets among you, I the LORD make myself known to them in visions; I speak to
them
all

in dreams. Not

so with

my

servant

Moses; he is

entrusted with

and

my house. With him I speak face to face he beholds the form of the LORD. Why
Moses?"

clearly, not in riddles;

then were you not afraid

to speak against my servant

Primarily he has in
Job 7:13-15

mind

Job's

own statement:

When I said that my bed will show me compassion and my couch bear my complaint, You frightened me with dreams and terrified me with visions and I preferred strangulation and death to my own
substance.

and

Job has already been where he wishes to go in the only way in he has seen for himself that it is no place for waking man.
unjust

which

he can,

Job is

because he judges in terms

of

his

own world

things that can

only be fairly judged in terms of a world into which he can 15. An act intended to teach, but usually implying force:
Lev. 26:22f. I
will

never enter.

let loose

wild animals against

you, and

they

shall

bereave

you of your children and

destroy

your

livestock; they

shall make you spite of this

few in number,

and your roads shall

be deserted. If in
I

discipline,
sevenfold

you

have

not

turned

back to me, but

you:

continue

hostile to

me, then I too

will continue

hostile to

myself will strike you

for

your sins.

16. "covered
17.

over"

Man, for Elihu, has only

realm of

vague

intimations

of the

frightful Pit

that

lies

beyond the
not meant

human ken
warn.

the Muck. Irrational fear is

God's signpost,
that our conceit

to punish
us

but to

It is

our
we

has brought

to the edge of the pit

only way of do not see. have

seen

knowing
in the

18. Job knows this only too well, 7:13-15 cited in note 14.

as we

quotation

from Job

19. And this:

Job 6:7

They

are

like

a contagion

in my

daily

bread.

20. And this

as well:

Job 30:17

By
ceases.

night

my bones

are whittled away, and the

gnawing

never

The Book of Job

And
more yet

301
is

Job

continues.
and

He knows this
of guilt

all

too well. But for

Job,

the world
guilt:

complicated,

feelings
am

do

not of

themselves

imply

Job 9:20

Though I

just my

own mouth would condemn me.

21. This seems to be at the heart of Elihu's conviction that man must be kept from peering beyond his own horizon. The human fear of what is beyond the human is a divine gift. The fear of death is a divine rectification of the fascina
tion that the human soul
elaborate at this point.

feels for death. So

kind

much

he says, but he does

not

22. Or

"angel"

or some word

of more

23. The

has two
stands

meanings.

It

can mean

divine being. See 1:14, 4:18, and 33:2. interpreter," "an in the simple
people who speak two

sense of one who

between two
who

different lan
the

guages, and to that extent

thoughts
of one

live

under

different horizons,

and makes

intelligible to

the other.

Gen. 42:23

They
with

did

not

know that Joseph

understood

them,

since

he

spoke

them through an
also

interpreter. had been interpreter (or envoys) of the sent to him to inquire about

2Chron. 32:31

So

in the

matter of the who

officials of sign that order

Babylon,

the

had been done in the land, God left him to himself, in to test him and to know all that was in his heart.

Its

more regular

meaning

by far, however,
not

is "to

scoff:

Isa. 28:22

Now therefore do

scoff, or
of

your

bonds

will

be

made

stronger;
of

for I have heard

upon

decree

destruction from

the

Lord GOD

hosts

the whole land.

Various best I
can

attempts

have been

made

to understand how the two are related. The

do is to

quote

Isaiah:

Isa. 43:27

Your first
me.

ancestor

sinned, and your interpreters transgressed against

Job 16:20,

on the other

hand,

seems to require

something like
argue

Oh my advocates, my friends, my eyes weep before God. Will no one MAN (gebher) before God as a man ('adam) should do for a friend?

for

perhaps

in the

sense of those

that can make

his

case

intelligible to

others.

For Elihu, Job is right, the human

voice cannot make cannot

itself heard in the

a man

highest He

court.

Job's

"advocate,"

his

"friend,"

be just

like himsellf.

must

be "an

interpreter,"

one who can stand

between God

and man.

302

Interpretation
man's
man"

24. Greenberg's translation: "To declare the

seems rather than "to a not

less

man,"

likely
which

because it takes f'adam to

mean

"for the
still

is

bit

strange after

the

word

"to tell"; but

it is

impossible.

25.
Exod. 13:15
all

When Pharaoh stubbornly

the

refused

to let

us

go, the LORD killed to the

firstborn in the land

of animals.

of

Egypt, from human firstborn

sacrifice

firstborn
that

Therefore I

to the LORD every male

of

first

opens the womb,

but every firstborn

my

sons

redeem.

Like Israel, the

whole of mankind

lies in debt for the

to

conditions of

their own
own

being,
surface

debt that they have world. It is not his to inquire into

man, it

not the means to pay. Man

does

not

the

and

enlarge

its borders. If

not paid

for

by

one richer than

will all soon

turn itself into Muck.

26. Cf.
Isa. 43:3 For I
give

am

the LORD your

God,

the

Holy

One

of

Israel,

your

Savior. I
you.

Egypt

as your ransom,

Ethiopia

and

Seba in

exchange

for

27. This
world

"interpreter"

would conquer all

the frightful things that live in the

of

beyond the
to 3:8.

world of man.

The terrible face

God

would now

become

the home of

joyous

man.

See

note

Isa. 27:1
ps. 74:14

And

on

that

day
the

the

Lord

shall punish the

Leviathan.

You

crushed

head

of the

Leviathan

and gave

it

as

food to

the

people of

the island.

Job

would stand where

he

could not stand

before

and

laugh

where there was

only horror because the horror would have been banished. 28. Job, for his part, has only to confess to a sin that by its not and cannot know that he has committed. Primarily, as Elihu
means

nature points

he does
out, this
note

accepting the

"perversion"

notion of

as

it

was

discussed in that has

a

long

to 11:6. Job's old

hopes,

that the

human

perspective

legitimate

place

in

any but his

ultimate account of soul will

things,

will still

"be

all

heaped together in the

Muck,"

be

redeemed and pass

beyond it.

29. Job has

no answer and remains silent.

CHAPTER THIRTY-FOUR

1 Then Elihu
me,
us

answered and said:

2 "Hear my

words ye wise

men; give ear to

all you who

know, 3 for

the ear tests words as the palate tastes

food. 4 Let

choose1

for

ourselves what

is

lawful2

so that we

may know among ourselves

The Book of Job

what

303

is

good.

5 Now Job has said; T

am

right'3

and

'.

that

God

who

has thrown
me'5

aside all
and

my 'The arrow

claims

for

justice,'4

6 T declare false
was

the

judgment
if it

made against

was

mortal, though I

without

transgression.6

7 What

man

(gebher) is

there like Job who

drinks up mockery

water,7

as

were

8 joins
9

company For he has said, 'It is 10 And so, you

with

those who deal in wickedness and walks

of no use of

with mortal men of evil?

favor.'8

men9

Almighty
God does Him the
and

from

evil.

to a man (gebher) that he be in GOD's heart, hear me; far be God from injustice and the 11 As a man (ladam) labors so shall he be recompensed,

and wherever a man

not cause

wanders, that is where he will find himself. 12 Now surely, wickedess, nor does the

Almighty
cared

turn

judgment

aside.

13 Who laid

charge upon

Him to
orb?

care

for the

earth?

Or

who placed upon

whole of this

fruitful

14 If He
all

to, he

could gather

His

spirit

His breath back into Himself, 15

to
dust.10

flesh

would perish and man

('adam)

would return

16 If there is
sound of

such

thing

as

understanding, listen to this. Attend to the

my

words.

17 Shall

even

he that hates judgment bind

who can

up?"

Would
'You

you
are

condemn12

the Magnificent Just

or

One, 18 He

say to

king

worthless,'

to the nobles, 'You are guilty

men,'

19

who shows no

favor to

any liege, or recognizes the prince above the pauper, since they are the works of His hand, every 20 They can die in a moment; the people tremble at midnight, and pass on.
one?13

The mighty
there

are

turned aside, but

by

no

[human] hand, 21 for His

steps.

eyes are upon

the ways of man, and He

watches

his every

22 There is
to

no

darkness

and
nor

is

no

Shadow

of

Death for the

worker of wickedness

hide in, 23

has He

ever yet accorded

it to

man

that he go with

God into

judgment.14

24 He

shatters

the magnificent, no

knowing

how many,

and sets others

up in

their place.
and of

25 Surely, He can recognize their deeds; Everything 26 He slaps them down along with the guilty in full view they all 27 because they turned away from Him and do not comprehend His 28
turns to night,
are crushed.

ways of
needy.15

bringing
29 But,

the cries of the poor unto

when

Himself; for He hears

If He
a nation or

the cry of the

He is silent,
note16

who can condemn?

should

hide His

face,
30 have

who will even take

of

Him, be it

be it

a single man

(Warn)?17

Mankind18

has been

polluted

by kingship,
bear it

those who ensnare the people.

31 For he has
not

said unto

God T

will

all and offend no more.

32 What I
longer."9

seen, teach me. If I have

not payment you must of

done injustice, I
required20

shall persist

in it

no

33 Should
tempt? It

for it be

of you
you

because

you

had

such con

is

answer, not I. Whatever

and

know then,
who

speak! me will

34

Men21

heart,

every

wise man

(gebher)

listen to

'Job has

spoken without

trials know no

knowledge, and his words limit, because his answers are no different from
37 He
adds sin upon
God."

lack

insight.'

36

say 35 May Job's

men"

those of the

of wickedness.

transgression,

slaps us

in the face,

and

continually

speaks against

304

Interpretation

Comments
to note that Elihu

1. It is
inquiry.

interesting

speaks

in terms

of choice rather than

2.

mishpath

3. "I

right."

am

Not found

as such.

But

see

9:15

and

10:15:

Job 9:15

But
plead

even though

am

in the right

still

cannot

do it. Yet I

must

for

what seems to me just.

Job 10:15

Well, if I have been guilty

right I have been
in me.

the grief

is mine, but

even when

am

so sated with reproach that no

feeling

of

honor is left

4.
Job 27:2

By
justice,

the the

life

of

that

God
has

who

has

thrown aside all

[my

claims

for]

Almighty

embittered

my

soul!

5. Not found

as such. as such.

6. Not found
Job 6:3f.

But

see:

And thus I
upon me and

speak without spirit

care, for the

arrows of

the

Almighty

are

my

drinks in their

venom.

"drinking"

7. The
appear of

significance of

till the

end of

Elihu's
as we

"tasting"

the word

as it shows up from the time Job's friends is markedly different from the connotations discussed them in the note to 12:11.
speech

The

complete

list

of quotations

is:

Job 6:2-4
all

"Would that my indignation could truly be weighed, my calamities laid out together on a scale! then would it raise up even the sands

of the seas.

And thus I in

speak without

care, for the

their

arrows of

the

Almighty
Job 15:16
And

are

me and

my

spirit

drinks in

venom."

what of

that

abhorred and corrupted

one, man, who drinks up

injustice like

water!

Job 21:20

Let his
cruet of

eyes see

his

own ruin and

let him drink

of the

Almighty's

fury.
man

Job 34:7

What

(gebher) is

there

like Job

who

drinks up mockery

as

if it

were water?

In this

section of the

book,

"drinking"

implies

taking into

oneself, even

greedily, the uglinesses of the outside world. For

coming to terms
of

with

them.

But for Eliphaz

and

Job it is the first step in for Elihu it is only a final way

succumbing to them.

The Book of Job

8. Not found
with those who as such.

305

Nonetheless, Elihu's
serious
was

charge that

deal in
guilt
so

wickedness and walks with men of

evil,"

Job "joins company while it may at

first

sound

like

by
as

association, is

indeed. For

long

time now Job

has known that

way the
time

far

he

could

tell, he
men

the

first

man

to ask in a searching
ways since

questions that
and

thoughtless

have

raised

in thoughtless

began,
much.

Job knows that he has

no proof that

the difference counts

for

very 9.

"mortal"

10. Job's

view

of

man, Elihu argues, presupposes

an

independent

world

obeying its own laws and following its own nature. It assumes a world that has been placed into God's hands for safekeeping and to which He therefore has
certain of

duties be

and obligations.

But there is

no such world.
man

The

whole structure

the world is an expression of His spirit. For

as

to

demand justice from God

would

if

we

had been hauled into

to
the

court no

dreams. With
been
given
.

respect

God,
hand

man of

has

by a character in one of our own being apart from the part that has
considering the
other passages

to him
can

by

God.
means

1 1 One

best

see what

Elihu

by

in

which the word

has been
for He

used:

Job 5:18

causes pain,

but He binds up, He wounds, but His hands rivers hidden things light.

heal. Job 28:11 He binds up the

flowing

and the

come to

Elihu purposely uses 12. Literally, "find 13. Job does ill to

a word that can

have

either a violent or gentle meaning.

guilty"

establish his understanding of justice by considering it as itself purely from within the human prospective. This, argues Elihu, is true for two reasons. True justice requires the notion of equality before the law.

it

reveals

But that equality only becomes visible when all men are seen as equally deriva tive from that which is beyond man. Men are equal because they are all equally the work of the hand of God, and God is equally above all. That also implies a
mutual recognition of
men as such.

the limitations of the human sphere

and the standard

For Elihu, both the judge

apply to all of judgment must come

which

from beyond.

Equality before

the law is compatible

with structured political

life
to

only if that equality has

man.

a prepolitical

foundation, but that

world

is

closed

14. Although there Elihu is trying to

charges:

are no

direct quotations, it is
what

clear that

in these

verses

address

himself to

Job

sees as the most serious of

his

Job 7:12
Job 14:13

Am I the

sea or some monster that

You

set watch over me? and conceal me till your

Who

can move

You to hide

me

in

the

Pit

anger passes?

Set

me a

fixed limit

and remember me.

306

Interpretation
Then
no

Job 14: 16

longer

would

You

keep

track of

my every step,

or

be

on

the watch

for my

sin.

God precisely where Job had questioned. If divine justice were to model itself after human justice, as Job implies, it would leave itself open to justice. Its all the wrangling, loopholes, and ambiguities that mark human Elihu
praises
whole

force

resides

in its unknown,

and

hence

unquestionable character.

15. Human justice is inadequate to deal

cannot reveal show

with

to

men

the cosmic significance of their

human misdoing because it actions. It can at best

that one or more other human beings object to the act, which would, of

course, ultimately

imply
it

nothing

more than

the rule of the

an order

strongest.

If

an act

is

to be seen as sinful

must

be

merely human concern. weak are heard. 16. The

word

Only

violating in that way can it become

seen as

beyond the

sphere of

clear

that the weak as

is intended to

remind

Job

of much of what

he had

said.

Job 7:8 I Job 17:15 Job 20:9

The

eye

that sees me takes no note of me; your eye

is

upon me, and

am not.

Oh my hopes, The
note of

who will ever take note of them?

eyes that observed

him have

given

o'er;

they

no

longer take

him in his

place.

17. I believe that God

can

by

"If He

should as acts

hide His is

face"

he

means

that the acts of

disguise themselves

of chance. part

times the

unknown source of retribution

He may be implying that at of its force, but it is not clear.

longer."

18.

man

('adam) injustice, I
shall persist

19. "If I have done

in it

no

Human justice is

fundamentally flawed; a man may perversions of the fathers, those for

held to account,

have been

unjust without

knowing

it. The
to be

which, according to

Elihu,

we are still

are not and can never

or

become

visible

from

within the political

horizon. Kingship,

indeed any

political

regime, in order to establish

its

own

legitimacy,

must neglect all prior claims.

Only
seen

the

individual

can

do

expiation chil

acknowledging this debt, dren. See note to 11:6.

by

as we

have
fit"

in the

case of the

Egyptian

20. Others translate "as

"from-with-you."

you see

or

means

It usually

appears

something like it. Literally, the word in such contexts as "What does the it
him"

Lord

you?"

ask of

(Deut.

10:12)

or

"I
"I

will require

of

(Deut. 18:10), but

one can also

Lord"

find

passages such as

and

my kingdom

are guiltless

before

the

(2Sam 3:28).

My
in

own sense of the passage as a whole seems

to go along

better 21.
22.

with the usage

Deuteronomy 18:10,

but in the

main

I have tried to

help

the reader

decide for himself.

"mortal"

"mortal"

The Book of Job

CHAPTER THIRTY-FIVE

307

1 Then Elihu
to say
all

answered and said:

2 "Is that

what you

think to

be judgment?

'My

righteousness
you?

is

greater than

God's?"

or when you

this

benefit

How

am

I better

off

than if I had sinned'?

with you.

say 'How does 4 I will answer

your

words,

you

and

your

friends along
nebula,2

heavens
have

and see.

Take

note of the

how high

above you

5 Just look up into the it is. 6 If you

multiply
your

sinned

how

could you perturb

it,3

and even
you were

if

you

transgres
you add

sions, how could you affect it? 7 Or if

righteous, what would

evils4

to it? What could it gain from your hand? yourself, and

your righteousness

8 Your

fall

upon men

like

is for

sons of man

('adam).5

9 Under
arms:

great oppression
none who

10 but 11

the night;
wiser

scream to be saved from mighty the one who makes songs in 'Where is God maker, say my teaches us more than the beasts of the earth; and makes us

they cry out; they

than the

birds

of the

sky.'6

men.

12 There they cry out, but He gives no answer to the majestic pride of evil 13 Oh vanity; God will not listen, nor will the Almighty take note. 14
since you and

Particularly
before Him
present

have

said that you yourself take no note.

writhe7

Yet the
since

case

is

for Him

you must

[in

uncertainty].8

15 But

for the
as

He does

not exert

His anger, he
mouth.

foolishly
grows

misunderstands.

16 And

for
no

Job, futility

pours

from his

He

heavy

with words and

has

comprehension."

Comments

1. Not found

as such.

2. The

notion of

"the

nebula"

is

somewhat complicated

for Elihu. See

note

to Job 36:28.

3. Others translate

"Him"

throughout, but there

seems

to me no reason for

doing

so.
[acts]"

4. Literally, human

"guilty
cosmos
pull

5. For Elihu the

concerns.

The

is wholly indifferent to the fate of man and to that Job felt into a realm larger than the human realm In

is

dangerously lowing himself to

6. Job had

misdirected.

flirting
in

with

the

world of

the

Jackal, Job is
"justice"

al

become

enmeshed

a world

in

which

the

word

is

mute sound which symbolizes nothing. said:

Job 10:3-4

Does it

seem good to

You that You oppress, that You have

contempt

for the toil Have You

of your own eyes of

hand, but
'

shine upon the counsel of the

guilty

flesh?

308

Interpretation
cannot

But he human
nence

know

what

oppression

is. Those

who

wonder

beyond the

realm cannot marvel at the night songs of nature, or at man's preemi creatures to

among the

be found there. To

man

it is

frightful

place.

He

is

crushed and can see nothing.

7. On the

irony

of this verse, see notes

. .

to 39:1.
what reason

8. "There, they cry out. matters not, beyond the human

gance."

For Elihu, to be attracted, for

sphere of

it

This is

what

he had in

mind when

understanding is to he said:

act with

"arro

Job 34:36-37

May

Job's trials know

of

no

limit, because his

answers are no

different from those transgression, God.

the

men of wickedness.

He

adds sin upon

speaks against

slaps us

in the

face,

and

continually

For him, the God

can

world

beyond the

world of

human

concern

is

a world

devoid

of

the concept of justice. There

is nothing in terms of which man can speak so that listen. Man among the jackals is left in fear and total uncertainty.

CHAPTER THIRTY-SIX

1 And Elihu
you.

continued to speak:

2 "But

wait a

bit for
will

me and

will show

There is has

still another word

to be said for God. 3 I

from
who

afar to show simple

my Maker rightous. knowledge is among you.

fetch my knowledge 4 Indeed, my words are not false. One

5 God is mighty and shows no contempt mighty in strength of heart. 6 He life to the guilty but grants judgment to the poor 7 and turns not His eyes from the righteous.
gives no

As for kings
exalted.
'

about to ascend the

throne, He
and

seats them

forever,

and

they

are

8 But if they
gressions.

are

bound in fetters

trapped in cords of affliction, 9 He

reminds them what

they have done

and that

they

can prevail over

their trans

10 He

unveils their ears to admonition.

they they
He

will complete their cannot

days in prosperity

and

11 If they can hear and obey, their years in delight. 12 But if for

hear, they
14

will perish

by

the sword, and pass on without

why.2

13 The impious
whores.3

of

heart

put on anger and will not

cry

out

knowing help when

afflicts them.

They

died

when their soul

was

yet

young, for it lived

He tears from their poverty and unveils their ears by force, lured they into a broad place, away from the edge of free of stress, and their table is laden with sumptuous fare. 17 You have fulfilled the judgment of the guilty and so judgment and justice
poor

among 15 But the

16

then

are

narrowness4

have laid hold

of you.

18 Beware lest 19 Will

fury

turn you to

derision

or a great of

ransom pull you aside.

your cries

for help,

even with

determination

The Book of Job

strength,
people you

309

bring

order to

life in

distress?5

20 Do

not pant

by

night eager to raze

what

from their

places.

21 Beware, do
poverty.6

not turn to

wickedness, for that is

have

chosen rather than

can oversee

22 Behold, God is exalted in His power. Who can guide like Him? 23 Who His ways? or say to Him, 'Thou hast done injustice?'
24 Remember then to
exalt

His

works of which mortals sing.

25

Every
His

man

('adam) has beheld Him. Mortals have looked upon Him from 26 Behold, God is exalted but we cannot know. The number
cannot

afar.7

of

years

be

unearthed.
mist

itself into His

upon

27 He draws up droplets of water, 28 that flows together into

and the moisture refines and

nebula8

trickles back down

mankind.9

29 Who
canopy?

can comprehend

the expanse of the clouds, the roarings under His

out over

30 He

spreads

His light

it

and covers over

upon

the roots of the

sea, 31 for

with them

He

pronounces

judgment

the nations, and provides

and commands
anger

food in
it to

abundance.

32 He

covers over the

lightning

in His hand

strike at

its

mark

33 But the roaring tells

of

Him, amassing His

against

injustice."10

Comments
1 Elihu began the
.

chapter

by

saying, "There is

still another word more additional

to

be

said

for

God,"

as

if

what

he

was about

to say were a kind of

speaks of

thought

consequent to what

he had

said

before. He

"fetching

his knowledge

from

afar"

and stresses the truth of what reiterates

he is

about to say.
and

Before going into it, bit shocking, but it

however, he

his

commitment to

justice
and

to the cause of the poor.

a

What he then has to say is, indeed, new, must be understood properly: "As for kings
exalted."

indeed

about

to ascend the throne, He seats them

forever,

and

they

are

Taken in

and
of

by itself,
Kings."

this

verse reads much much

like

what we would call

"the

Divine Right
verses that

However

this statement may be qualified in the turn out to

follow,

and no matter

how

critical those qualifications

be,

the

verse must

be faced in itself.
of man

For Elihu, the home

visible universe

is

the

only

proper

home for

man.

Nothing
that

in the

beyond the

realm of man can support the

human,
as

is to say, is to be

the political sphere. In that sense, there can be no such

or prepolitical

thing

Natural Right,

Self-Evident Truths

upon

which

the political regime

founded,
2. God.

and therefore

in the light
not

of which

it

can

be

questioned.

Monarchy

is limited
who

by

inalienable rights, but

by

divine

providence.

Even foreign tyrants

intend

no good

become tools in the

unseen

hands

of

310

Interpretation
And
of the of

2Kings 24:2

the

LORD
and

sent against

him bands

of the
and

Chaldees,
of

and

bands

Syrians,
the

bands

of the

Moabites,
Judah to
spake

bands

the

children

Ammon,
word of

and sent them against

destroy it,
his

according to
the prophets.

the

LORD,

which

he

by

servants

3. Literally,

"holy

ones,"

but the

reference

is clearly to

pagan

temple whores.

4. sar just Job's feelings. See

note

to 6:23.

5. The meaning
obsessed with anger at

of

the text is

obscure.

Greenberg
much

translates: "Though you are

the case of the wicked, the justice of the case will

be

upheld.

Let

his

affluence not mislead wealth avail

you; let

bribery
full
of

not turn you aside.

efforts?"

Will

your

limitless

you, all your powerful

you are

The Revised Standard translates: "But

the judgment

of

the

wicked; judgment and justice seize you. Beware lest wrath entice scoffing: and let not the greatness of the ransom turn you aside. Will
avail

you
your

into
cry He

to

keep

you

6. Job, like a has, in that sense, become

be
as one of them.
will

from distress, guilty man, has

or all the
strayed

force

strength

of your
realm of

beyond the

human

society.

an outlaw

to follow them may be of little importance.

among Once there, he

other outlaws.

What tempted him

will

find himself to
and

He may have
that there

entered

fully

determined to find justice justice. For Elihu,

no

order, but he
will go

find

is nothing
in
which

of them
of

to be found there. His cries

no son of con

unheard, nothing there will remind him

Adam

can remain

just in

a world

there

is

foundation for the

cept of

justice.
as the

7. Therefore, insofar
point not

human horizons

point

its laws, but to God and His guiding not a time for inquiry, but a time for song and exaltation. 8. The root of the word we have translated as
to nature and
"nebula"
away"

beyond themselves, they providence. It is

"to

means

wear

or

"to

pulverize or

beat into

a powder":

Exod. 30:34f.

The LORD
onychia,

said to

Moses: Take

sweet

spices, stacte, and

and galbanum, sweet spices with pure

frankincense (an
as

equal part of

each), and

make an

incense blended

by

the

perfumer, seasoned with salt, pure and

some of

holy;

and you shall

beat

it into powder,

and put part of

it before the

covenant

in the

tent of meeting where I shall meet with you;

most

it

shall

be for

you

holy.

or

2Sam. 22:43

I beat them into

a powder

like the dust

of the

earth, I crushed

them and stamped them

down like the

mire of the streets.

In that sense,

we

have already

seen

the root used in Job:

The Book of Job

Job 14:19 The
waters

31 1

have

worn the stones

away

and

its torrents have

washed

away the dust of the land.

As

noun, it first

refers

the

dustlike

particles

in their

smallness and

their

manyness.

When Isaiah

says:

Isa. 40:15

Behold,
considered

the nations are

like

drop

out of a

like the dust

as

on

the [pans of a] balance:

bucket, and are behold, he lifts up

the

islands

if they

were a

fleck.

the
of

imagery
dust
on

gathers

it force from the fact

is beyond
man's

that although the number of particles

the

pan

nothing, since
purchase.

no one

feels

cheated when

capacity to count, together they mean they are weighed in along with his is broken up daily:
and the clouds

Often it is
Prov. 3:20

used of a

temporary

whole which

By

his knowledge the depths

are

broken up,

[nebulae] drop
Sometimes it is
in itself
of a more

down the dew.

enduring thing, but

one can still see that the nebula

almost

was once a mass of separate

until

bits,

shapeless,

liquidlike

cluster

individual fragments
Prov. 8:28

God

made

them stand

firmly

together as a whole:

when

he

made

firm the
of

skies

[nebulae]

above,

when

he

established

the

fountains

the

deep,

At

other times

it looks
be

more

lasting:
faithful

Ps. 89:37

It

shall

established

for

ever as

the moon, and as a

witness

in heaven.

9.

man

10.

('adam) According to Elihu,

the visible universe beyond man

good of man and

is directed

by

the

hand

of

God solely towards the

spreads

his

concerns:

He
them

His light

out over

it

and covers over the roots of the

sea, for

with

He

pronounces

judgment

upon

the nations, and provides

food in

abundance.

nebula and

If Job is tempted into that world, however, he will be faced only by the the constant roaring. To man, God's labyrinthine complex of deli
ends will seem no more than a

cately interwoven incoherent nebula.

Throughout the
or

roaring

mass of

anger, an

passage

Elihu

speaks of

the way in which God covers over

hides from

mankind

the frightful origins as

they

manifest

themselves

in the

312
"roots

Interpretation
of

the

sea"

and notion

"the

strikes."

thing

of

Elihu's

lightning that that Job, by his demand

placed

We have already

seen some

to question, threatens to break

man and

through the

barrier that God has

He
unveils

between

his destruction:
their

Job 33:17

the ears of mortals and places

man

His

seal upon

discipline,
over)

to turn

('adam)
the man

pride them

from

away from action and conceal (cover (gebher). He will keep his soul back

from

the

Pit,

and

his life from perishing

thoughts:

by

the

sword.

Job, too,
23:17

at one time

had

such

was not

destroyed

by

the

darkness only because He had

concealed

[covered over] its thick

murk

from

me.

Even

now

it is

a struggle

for Job, but for him the question,

and the need to see at each

for oneself,
turn.

and with one's own

human eyes, keeps reasserting itself

CHAPTER THIRTY-SEVEN

1 "At this too my heart trembles and leaps from its place. 2 Listen, listen well to the in His voice and the groaning that comes up out of His mouth. light2 3 Straight down it comes under the whole of heaven. His goes out to the
rage1

ends of the

earth, 4
pride,4

and

then,
none

His

majestic

but

roaring that hear His

voice.3

He thunders

with

the voice of

voice can pursue.

5 God thunders
down,'

marvels with

6 For to the Snow He

the rain

His voice, working great things, though we can never know them. says 'fall to the and to the rain 'pour and
ground,'

is

downpour

of

His

might.

7 The

whole of

mankind5

He has
a

mortal as one of

His works, 8 like

when the

sealed up beast that

so

that

they may know

each

goes

in for

shelter and settles

down into its lair 9

place.6

tempest comes out of its chamber, cold

of

from its
light

scattering
cast

10 The breath
weighs

God turns

all

to

ice,

and

the wide waters are

and the

like bronze. 11 He
out

down the
a

clouds with

moisture,

ning-cloud spews

its bolt. 12 On

topsyturvy

course

He
of

steers them to
orb.

accomplish all that

He has
or

commanded them upon the

face His

this fruitful

13 Whether Job. Stand

by

love

by

the

lash,

so

He founds it

upon

at attention and contemplate the wonders of

14 Hear this, God. 15 Do you know

appears?8

land.7

how God lays know how the

or even

charge upon clouds are

His

cloud when the radiation

16 Do

you

kept in

balance,

the wonders of simple

knowledge? 17

how

your

southern

wind?9

clothing keeps you warm when the land has respite from the 18 Can you beat the nebula into a great expanse, firm as a
what shall we

mirror cast

like
us

molten metal?

19 Tell

then,

say to Him? We

cannot

lay

out our case

The Book of Job

because Can
of the

313

a man speak when not a a

darkness. 20 Does anything get through he is about to be swallowed

man

to Him when I speak?

up?10

21 Now,
comes
a

sees

the

light though it

shine

blinding
of

bright in the

nebula, not till

passing

spirit shall make them

pure."

22 Out
upon

the north there

golden

splendor.

A frightful majesty
ever

rests

God. 23 The Al
mortals14

mighty
abundant

none will

find Him. He is

in

judgment; giving

neither wrack nor

multiplying in might and in right12, 24 Thus hold

reason.13
seen."

in

FEAR15

the one whom even the wise of heart have never

Comments
1. A
that Job has seen in

passion

God, in

earth, and in man:

Job 3:17

There the guilty

cast off their rage and there rest those whose power

is
Job 3:26 Job 9:6

spent.

was not at

ease, I was not quiet, I had no rest, but

came."

rage pillars quake!

Who

can cause the earth to reel

from its

place till

its

Job 12:6
Job 14:1

Oh,
Man

there

is

peace enough

in the tents

of robbers and

those who enrage

God,

which
of

God Himself has

placed
and

security for in their hand.

of rage.

('adam) is born

woman, short-lived

full

2. It is very hard to know

"lightning,"

what

to do at this

point.

Most translate
means.

by

the
the

word word

and, clearly enough, that is

simple ear.

what

Elihu

However,

he

uses

is the

the word

first hits the

Elihu's

feeling
in

everyday word for light, and that is indeed the way This way of speech gives one a much better sense of for the dramatic and his sense that the fearful lies close behind
more of an

the mundane. What can be more peaceful,

and yet a moment

airy nothing than light, lion. roaring 3. With his warning words, "Listen, listen well to the Elihu is trying to give Job some picture in sound of what he will see if he wanders off into the

it

can

become

rage,"

land

of

the Jackal

and should cross over

beyond the

world of man with

human

eyes and

human

ears.

To him, the divine have

a

will appear as

the bestial.

4. Here

again we

term wholly indifferent to good or

bad, human,

superhuman,

or subhuman:

Job 8:11
Job 10:16 Job 35:12

Can
marsh?

papyrus grow

[show its

majestic

pride]

where there

is

no

You

must

feel the

majestic pride of a

lion in

hunting

me?

There they cry out, but He

evil men.

gives no answer to the majestic pride of

Job 38:11 Job 40:10

Here

your

[majestically]
yourself out

proud waves must come

to rest.

Come,

deck

in

majestic pride and

dignity.

5.

"man"

('adam)

314

Interpretation
sphere winter

of

6. Elihu likens the way in which man has been sealed up within the human understanding to a beast settled down in its den for the long
the cold wind

when

blows

and nature

is inhospitable. The

cave

is

man's

only

shelter

from

a world which, no matter what chaos to man.

it may be in itself, is only His

commands

a cold

and

frightful

7. The

ways

in

which

God

accomplishes
would seem

and orders course

this

fruitful orb, if he indifferent to its 9. Elihu

our

were end.

to

face it, is full

to man a

topsyturvy

totally

8. For Elihu, the

world

of wondrous events.

means that and

if

even the simplest

things, the things

we

rely

on most

in

daily lives,
are

hence the things

which are most at

hand

within

the human

sphere,
what

in fact
4

unknown

to man, why, then, should he expect to understand

is beyond that
verse

sphere?

10. In
edge

of

Chapter 36, Elihu had said, "One This turns

out

who

has

simple

knowl

is among
of which

you."

to be

far from the truth. There is it

will

no court

in

front

Job

can

lay
no

out

his case,

certain that

be heard
a

and adjudi

cated.

He feels himself

a man about

to be swallowed up
whether

by

totally indifferent
is directed from
who

nebular world. outside of

He has

itself

by

way the hands of

of

knowing

that world

an

all-knowing, all-caring God

listens to

the prayers and needs of man or not. "Does anything get through to Him when I
speak?"

For him, however, there is

or consider.

no alternative

to

a steadfast

belief in

an

all-

loving
can

God

other than the senseless roar of the

stormy

nebula which no man

face

11. Elihu's final belief is that

nebula.

one

day

a spirit will pass

by

to purify the
always

On that

day

man will see that

from the

beginning

there

had

been

blinding
12.
13.
lo'

light shining bright in the nebula, though

ya'aneh.

not one a man could see.

"judgment"

This is

a complicated

reproduce

in English
and

by

a single word. same word

play on words which I was not able to On the one hand the verb ('nh) means

"to

answer,"

is the

that has occurred so often in that stock

phrase, "And X

said."

answered and
will

In

fact,

the very next chapter, which is

only

one verse

away,

begin

with the

words, "And the Lord answered Job

out of the

Tempest
other a

said."

and also means

On the
torture."

hand, it

"to

afflict"

or

"to

torment"

or even

"to

It is

particularly

haunting

pun.

In the

case of a pun,

there is usually a

primary meaning, the one that is intended to hit the reader first. Then there is a kind of double take when he sees, "Yes, but it could also mean. The first meaning must always come before the second, sometimes by five years, but
. .

usually the time can only be measured in milliseconds. An essential part of the humor in the pun is the unspoken agreement between the punner and the punnee as

to which

is

the

first meaning

and which

this case, there

is

no

millisecond;

one cannot

tell which

meaning has the punch; but in is the first. The sudden

The Book of Job

recognition

-315

that a horizon has been shared where least expected is missing, and

the

humor falls flat.

The pun,
which was not a

pun,
and
a

tween the two of

them, Elihu
there
can

splendidly captures the relationship be Job. For Elihu there can be no greater com
so

fort than to feel that there is

chaos, but for

loving
word

God behind the

I have translated

mute raucousness of

Job,

be

no greater torment than to

have

no answer.
will appear

14. This is the last time that the in the text.

tal."

"mortal"

Etymologically, it is, in fact,

"weak,"
"sick,"

rather close to the

English

word

"mor

The

root means
"incurable."

or

or,

when used of a wound or a

disease,

it

means

We have

seen

the root used in that sense already:

Job 34:6

The

arrow was

mortal, though I was without transgression.

The

reader

because in the have translated

Job 4:12-12

plural

may find the complete list helpful. He must be a bit careful, it cannot be distinguished from the plural of the word we
"man"

as

(gebher).
but my
only a trace, as sleep falls upon mortals. pure than his maker?
ear caught

word stole upon me

one

gropes

in

a night vision when

deep

Job 4:17
Job 5:17-18

(gebher) more Indeed, happy is the mortal whom God disciplines, that has no contempt for the bonds of the Almighty; for He causes pain, but He
...

or a man

binds up, He wounds, but His hands heal. Job 7:1

Job 7:17

Does
are not

not a mortal

have

a term of
of a

duty

to serve

here

on earth and

his days like the days

hired

servant?

What is

a mortal that thou shouldst answered and

Job 9:1-2
Job 10:4

Then Job

said,

"Yes,

all that

magnify him? I know, but then

God?"

what

can make a mortal's

justice

apparent

to

Can You Can time

pass

see as mortals see? mean

Job 10:5 Job 13:9

Job 14:19

to

You

what

time means to man?

Do

your years

by

as our years?

Do

you

think you can

deceive Him he be

as you can

deceive

a mortal?

So, You have

What is
that

trashed all mortal

should

hope.
clean or one

Job 15:14
Job 25:4

a mortal that

born

of woman

he

should consider

himself just? himself just before God

or what can

How

can a mortal think

cleanse anyone

born

of woman?

Job 25:6 Job 28:4 Job 28:13 Job 32:8 Job 33:12

And

now what of

these mortals, the maggots or the son of

man

('adam),
wander.

the

worm.

Abandoned

by

every

passer

by, destitute

of all

humanity, they

No

mortal

knows its

value.

But surely there is a spirit in mortals, that gives him understanding.

I
will answer

breath

of the

Almighty

you,

for God is

greater

than

any

mortal.

316*

Interpretation
It may be in a dream, or in a vision of the night, when heavy sleep falls upon mortals as they slumber in their beds. He unveils the ears of mortals and places His seal upon their

Job 33:15

Job 33:16

discipline,
Job 33:26
see

to turn man

('adam) away from

God
and

action and conceal

shall

Let him but

supplicate unto

he

be

accepted and mortal man

His face
sense of

with shouts of

joy, for He

shall return

to

his
Job 33:27

righteousness.
stand

Let him only

accounts

squarely in front

of mortals and

say, "I have

sinned; I have dealt perversely

with what was

right,
for

and

my "I declare
mortal,

have
who

not

been

settled."

Job 34:4-8

"God

has thrown

justice,''

aside all

my

claims

false the judgment

though

me"

made against
transgression."

and

"The

arrow was

was without

What

man

(gebher) is

there like

Job

who

those who

drinks up mockery as if it were water, joins company with deal in wickedness and walks with mortal men of evil?
you men of

Job 34:10

And so,
and the

heart, hear
evil.

me; far be God

from injustice

Almighty
of

from
and

Job 34:34-35

Men
insight."

heart,

every

wise man

say "Job has Job 34:36

spoken without

(gebher) who listen to knowledge, and his words lack

limit, because his

me will

May

Job's

trials

know
of

no

answers are no

different from those Job 36:24 Job 36:25

Job 37:7-9

the men of wickedness.

Remember then to

exalt

His

works of which mortals sing. afar.

Mortals have looked

The

upon

Him from
sealed
a

whole of mankind

He has

each mortal as one of

His works, like

up so that they may know beast that goes in for shelter

and settles

down into its lair

when the tempest comes out of

its

chamber, cold from

Job 37:24

Thus

mortals

its scattering place. hold in FEAR the one

whom even the wise of

heart have

never seen.

15. In

like manner, this is the last time that the

"FEAR"

word

will appear

in the text.

CHAPTER THIRTY-EIGHT

1 And the

LORD1

answered

Job

out of

the

Tempest
no

and said:

2 "Who is this
Come,3

one that makes counsel your

dark

by

words that

have

meaning?2

gird

loins like

a man

(gebher): I

will question

you, and you

must

let

me

up know.

4 Where

of the earth? Speak up, if you know! 5 Who fixed its measurements, if you have any understanding? Who stretched a measuring line round it 6 and into what were its pylons fixed? Who set the cornerstone 7 as the morning stars sang together, and the sons of GOD joy?5 all shouted for 8 Who closed up the sea behind the double door when first

were you when

I laid the foundations

it

burst6

out of the womb

when

clothed

it in

a cloud and swaddled

it in

mist,7

The Book of Job

10

317

imposing
to

my law

upon

said, 'To this

come

point you

up the bars and the double doors: 11 and but no farther. Here your proud waves must may come,

it,

and put

rest.'

12 Have

you yet commanded

the morning,

or

taught the dawn to know its

winnow out

place, 13 to grab hold of the 14 All is as transformed as

garment.
broken.12

corners of
clay9

the earth and

the
as

wicked?8

stamped

by

seal,10

and

fixed"

dye in

15 But the light is

withheld

from the wicked,

and the uplifted arm

is

16 Have
down
selves

you ever come upon

the source of the

seas,13

or gone

for

walk14

by

the cranny in the deep? 17 Have the gates of

death15

unveiled

them

to you, or

have

you seen

the gates of the Shadow of Death16? 18 Have

all

you pondered

the expanse of the earth? If you know

these

things, declare is the

place of

them!

19 Which is the

road to

the

dwelling

of

light?

and which

home?17 darkness, 20 that you may take it to its borders and know the way to its 21 You know, for even then, you were born, and the number of your days is
great.18

22 Have 23
which

you come upon

the storehouses of snow, or seen the vaults

a time of narrowness and

of

hail

I have laid

aside

for

for the days

of

battle

and of

war?19

24
earth?

By

what paths

is light dispersed? How is the

the canals

east wind cast about

the

25 Who
voice of

cleaved

for the
it

flooding

torrent and made a pathway

for the
or

the

thunder,20

26

so that

might rain

in

land

where no man

is,

in

a wilderness that and the rain

has

no

human

life21

in it, 27 to

make a surfeit of
bloom?22

the

devastation

devastated,
have
a

and make a

budding field

28 Does the
whose

father?

and who

begets the drops face

of

dew? 29 From
heaven?23

belly

does ice emerge,

as

and who gave

birth to the frost

of the

of

30

Water draws itself up, tight

stone,

and the

deep

clutches untie

to

itself.24

31 Did
her

you

bind the Pleiades together

you

with a

chain, or

the reins of
with

Orion? 32 Can
children?

lead
you

out

the

Mazzaroth25

in its time
heaven,26

or guide

the Bear

33 Do

know the laws

of

the

and can you

impose its

authority on the 34 Can you raise

water?
J'

earth?27

your voice

to the clouds and

will

be

covered

in

a torrent of am

35 If

you send out the

lightning,

it

go?

Will it say to you, 'Here

?28

36 Who
outward can

placed

wisdom

at

the secret core and gave

wise enough

intelligibility
it into

to the

form?29

37 And

who

is

to tell the tale of the nebula? Who

congealed

tip

the

bottles

of the

sky, 38 to

liquify

the dust and cast

clods?

39 Can its
cubs

you

40

as

hunt up prey for the lioness, and bring to fulfillment the life in they crouch in their dens or lie in ambush in their lairs? 41 Who

prepares a catch

for the

raven when

his young cry

out to

God for help,

and

he

wanders about without

food?"30

318

Interpretation

Comments
1. This is the first time the

word

has been

used since

Chapter 2.

rhetorical
"Job,"

2. Verse 2 is clearly intended as a rhetorical question, and yet, unlike most questions, the answer is by no means obvious. Is the intended answer
or

is it "Elihu"? Perhaps
na'

we are not yet

in

a position

to ask the question.

3. This is my
Lord
uses and converts a

the word

very moving fact that the It is roughly equivalent to the English word command into a plea or a request, or, as in our case, an invita
all-too-poor attempt to capture the
.

"please"

tion. Needless to say

it is

a word the

Lord

uses

very rarely,

and each

instance

requires our close attention.

4. In

contradistinction

to the
uses

word

discussed in the
and which we

note to

Job 37:24, the

as man

word which the

Tempest from

for man,

have translated

(gebher),
translate
"man"

what

I was quite tempted to meaning "to be have been closer than simply using the word ('adam). My only reason for not doing so is that there is another, some although that modified, form of the word which does in fact mean
comes as a root

strong."

it

"hero,"

which would

"hero,"

form is
The

never used
voice seems

in the Book

of

Job.

to be reminding Job of

his

own

first words, urging him

yet

to fulfill the

promise

inherent in his birth:

Job 3:3

Job

answered and said

"May

the

day

that night

in

which

it

was said

'A

man

my birth be lost (GEBHER) has been

of

and with

it

conceived."

and now

he is

being
gird

asked

to gird his loins and become that man.

What
need

more can

be

said?

If Elihu

were not

nearly right, there

were

would

be

no

for Job to
be

would

no point

his loins; and yet, if Elihu in it either.

of some

simply right,

perhaps there

Again, it may be
Job 3:3

help

to the reader to see the complete

list:

Job
with

answered and said

night

"May
it

the

day

it that

in

which

was said

of my birth be lost and 'A MAN (GEBHER) has been

conceived."

Job 3:20,23

Why does
been lost

He

give

light to those
...

whom toil

has consumed,
whose

or

life to the bitter

of soul?

or to a man

(gebher)

way has

and whom

God has hedged

You
what

about.

Job 10:5
Job 14:10

Can time
But

mean to

time means to man?

perishes and

when a man

(gebher) dies, he
will

is

no more. again? as a man

Job 14:14 Job 16:21

Job 22:2

If

a man

(gebher) dies,
for
a

he

come

back to life

Will

no one argue

a man

(gebher) before God

use to

('adam)
"Can
can

should
a man

do for

friend?"

(gebher) be
friend?

of

any

his God
His

as a prudent man

be

of use to a

Job 33:16-18

He

unveils the ears of mortals and places

seal upon their

The Book of Job discipline,

from the Job 33:29-30
to turn man

-319

('adam) away from

.

action and conceal pride

man

(gebher)

and

his life from perishing

by

the sword.

Yes, God will do all these things two or three times for a man (gebher), to bring his soul back from the Muck to be made bright

by
Job 34:7-8

the

light

of

life.
there

What if it
were

man

(gebher) is

like Job

who

drinks up mockery

as

water, joins company with those who deal in wickedness

and walks with men of evil?

Job 34:9 Job 34:34

For he has said, 'It is

of no use to a man

(gebher)

that

he be in

GOD's
Men
will

favor.'

of

heart,

and

every

wise man

say 'Job has

spoken without

(gebhef) who listen to me knowledge, and his words lack

a man

insight.'

Job 38:3 Job 40:7

Come,
you,

gird

up
up

your

loins like know. loins like know.

(gebher). I

will question

and you must gird

let

me

Come,
you,

your

a man

(gebher). I

will question

and you must

let

me

5. The LORD begins

other. same

with a whole

bevy
he

of

questions,

one right after the

They
and

are

infinitely

beyond Job,

and

can

only

stand

in

wonder.

At the

time, the

questions are couched

in terms

"foundations,"

"pylons,"

such as

"lines,"

"cornerstones"

that Job can very well understand. He also

number was used.

leams

that measurement, and

hence

6. This
a child as

word

is

often used of the out of

raging

seas and the monsters

in them

and of

it bursts forth

its
saw

mother's womb.

Dan. 7:2

Daniel said, "I

winds of

in my

vision

by

night,

and

behold,

the four

heaven
man,

were

stirring up [bursting] lamentation

over

sea."

the great

Ezek. 32:2 say

are

Son
to

of

raise a

Pharaoh

king

of

Egypt,

and

him: "You

consider yourself a

like

a monster

(TAN)

lion among the nations, but you in the seas; you burst forth in your rivers,

trouble the waters with your

feet,

and

foul their

rivers."

Job 40:23

Though the river rage, he is unalarmed,

will

confident that the

Jordan

burst to his
thou art

mouth.

Ps. 22:9

Yet

he

who

burst

me

from the womb; thou didst

keep

me

safe upon

my
and

mother's

breasts.
of

Mic. 4:10

Writhe

burst, O daughter

Zion, like

a woman

in travail; for

now you shall go you shall go

forth from the city and dwell in the open country; to Babylon. There you shall be rescued, there the LORD from the hand
of your enemies

will redeem you

Here the
"creation"

beginning

of all things

is

not presented as

"Let it

be"

or as a

"making."

or as a primordial waters of

The passage, in mixing the waters of birth with the chaos, presents God more as a midwife, controlling the
number and order.

birth

and

letting

things come forth in

7. As

compared

to verses 4 through

7,

these verses, with words

like

"burst,"

320

Interpretation
"cloth,"
"swaddle,"

"womb,"

and

seem to mark a movement

movement

from the

arts to

those things which are older than the arts. This

ment

is in fact

a move

from the

masculine workman and

his arts,

which cause outside of

things to come to

be

by

the application of measurement to a world

itself,
that

and

by

the

forceful It is

fixing

of pylons

into something

more solid than themselves.

a movement

to another and older kind of coming to

be,

brings forth

measurelessly from within itself. Thus far, the movement seems tentative and ambiguous. The Voice presents itself as imposing its law upon the sea, and yet
"clothing"

it

also shows

itself to
It does

possess the more

feminine

virtues of
on

and of
sea,"

"swaddling."

not speak of

itself

as

"trampling

the tier of the

but

as

finding

a proper place

for its "proud

majesty."

Another way of looking at the problem is to consider the distinction between creating God and a nurturing God. Fundamental to this question is Aristotle's
"Of the things that are,
some are

statement:

by

nature, and some are

causes,"

the foremost of which is art. Aristotle implies that the

means

by other discovery of

nature

essentially

that there

is

no conclusion to upon

be drawn from the things

that are made

not

by

man and

hence rely

man, concerning the things that are

be"

manmade, but have

within

themselves their own source of motion and rest.

of

Here, too,
God
we meet

the artisan God has within Himself the "to

the object. He

shapes and molds

according to His plan, while the more

of

feminine, nurturing
"to
be,"

in the Book

Job

allows

for the

emergence of the

which

is in the thing itself. 8. Winnowing is a

one wants

strange and

interesting

process.

There is the wheat,

which

because it is good, and there is the chaff, which one does not want because it is not good; but there they lie all mixed up together. One's first inclination is
a

the chaff, chaff by chaff. Winnowing, though, very different process and calls for another kind of spirit. In winnowing, the whole is tossed lightly in a blanket. The wind carries off the chaff, or most of it,
would pick out

be to

and the

wheat, because it is more stable and weighty, tumbles safely back into
rejoices with

the
all

blanket. The farmer

his flour though he knows that in

spite of wheat

his care, a bit of chaff may have may have fallen to the ground.
9. If it is
one

gotten

through,

and a grain or

two of

looks
to

at the

way the

author uses the word as the

for clay,

one can see that

beginning
or

be

used quite

generally
Elihu

dead
on

medium out of which and

into

which we come and go.

In that sense, it takes

what

"matter,"

something
"nebula."

of what we call

something like

means

by
a

the

Job 4:19

what of

those who

dwell in like

house

of

clay,

whose

foundation is

but dust? He Job 10:9 Job 13:12 dust. Your

clay.

will crush them

a moth.

Remember that You

made me as

clay

and that

You

will return me to

aphorisms are proverbs of ash, your

bulwarks, bulwarks

of

The Book of Job

Job 27:16 If he
were

321
if it

should pile

up

silver

like dust,

and

lay

out

his clothing
and ashes.

as

clay,
me

Job 30:19 Job 33:6

It throws

into the

mire and

I become like dust

Here I am, just

was nipped

as you wished,

standing in for God, though I too

from

clay.

While the

imagery

of

clay

often appears

in the

other

books

of

the

Bible,

especially in Isaiah and Jeremiah, in them itself, whereas in this speech he is like the
signet.

man

is constantly likened to the clay clay

object made of

bearing

a seal or

The implication is that

be."

man, like the pot, but unlike the clay, has his

own

shape, his own "to

Isa. 45:9

Woe to him
potter!

who strives with

his Maker,
who
handles?"

an earthen vessel with

the

Does the clay say to him making"? or "Your work has no

fashions it, "What

are

are you

Isa. 64:8

Yet, O LORD,
potter;
we are all

thou art our the

work of was

Father; we thy hand.

the clay, and thou art our

Jer. 18:4

And the

vessel

he

hand,
potter

and

he

reworked

making of clay was spoiled in the potter's it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the I do

to do.
of

Jer. 18:6
the

O house

Israel,

can

not

with you as

this

potter

has done?

says

LORD. Behold, like the clay in the hand, O house of Israel.

potter's

hand,

so are you

in my

10. The
phrase should

single

Hebrew
a

word

hotam
a most

which

is here translated
up."

by

the English

"stamped

by

seal,"

has

interesting history,

of which

the

reader

be

aware.

Originally, it

meant

"to stop

Lev. 15:3

And this is the law

of

his

uncleanness or

for is

discharge:

whether

his

body
is

runs with

his discharge, in him.

his

body

stopped

from discharge, it

uncleanness

From there it
safe

acquires a

feeling

of permanence and out of

safety, either as a

thing

in itself,

or as

something safely

the way.

Job 24:16

against

In the dark he tunnels his way into houses which are him by day, since he does not know the light.
transgression would

sealed

up tight

Job 14:17

My

be

sealed

up in

a pouch and

You

would

plaster over

my

perversions.

Then, in its

nominal

form, it

comes

to be

used as a signet or seal placed

by

king

upon

his letter.
So
she wrote

1 Kings 21:8

letters in Ahab's
the

name and sealed elders and

them

with

his dwelt

seal, and she

with

sent

letters to the

the nobles who

Naboth in his

city.

322

Interpretation
marks a

In that sense, it
that the object

thing's character, and becomes a kind of guarantee

and will continue to

is

what

it is

be

what

it has become.

Esther 8:8

And
name of

you

may

write as you please with regard

to the

Jews, in
cannot

the

the

king,
the

and seal

it

with

the king's

ring; for
king's

an edict written

in the

name of

king

and sealed with the

ring

be

revoked.

We have already

seen the word

going in that direction:

Job 33:16-18

He

unveils

the ears of mortals

and places

His

seal upon

their

discipline,
from the

to turn man

man

('adam) away from action and conceal pride (gebher). He will keep his soul back from the pit and

his life from perishing

by

the sword.

There

are two

Hebrew

words

for the English

t_ebha'th

"seal"

word

or

"signet

ring."

One is
tb\

our word

hotam;
"to

the other is tabba 'ath. It comes

from the Biblical

word

root

dip."

which means

Hence into the

becomes the for the

for

a signet

ring,

or that which word

used

is

"dipped"

wax

to give the seal

its form. This

second

eventually became

the taking-off place

postbiblical word

tebha',

to translate the Greek word physis, or

"nature."

It is

interesting
the
author of

to note that

of the two
mark

words, the tradition chose the root

upon the object

which emphasizes

fact that the

is impressed

from the

outside.

The

Job,

on the

other

hand,

chooses the one which emphasizes the guaranteed character of the

object

itself.
suggestion

The
11
root

is that for Greek

our

author, the

word

hotam is

beginning

to acquire

the character of the

.

"nature."

word physis or

Again the
used

is
be

present one's also

author chooses a very forceful word. In biblical Hebrew the only in the reflexive mood. Even at its weakest, it means "to firm," self or "to stand in the sense of being fully present. It can

used to mean

"to take

stand,"

in the

sense of

taking full responsibility

of

for be

one's actions.
of

A full list

of

the other occurrences

in the Book

Job

should

help:

Job 1 :6 Job 2:1 Job 33:5 Job 41:10

One

One

day day

the

Sons Sons

of of

GOD GOD

came to present came to present

themselves themselves

the

Lay
No

your case out

before

me and

take your stand.

up.

one

is

so

brutal

as to rouse

him

Now,

who

is that

one who

would stand

before

me?

There is
help.

also an

interesting

series of uses

in Exodus

which

may be

of some

The Book of Job

Exod. 9: 1 3
Then the LORD

323

stand of

Exod. 14:13

said to Moses, "Rise up early in the morning and before Pharaoh, and say to him, 'Thus says the LORD, the God the Hebrews, "Let my people go, that they may serve And Moses said to the people, "Fear not, stand firm, and see the
me."

'

"

salvation of the

LORD,

which

he

will work

for

you

today; for the

again."

Egyptians
Exod. 19:17

today, Then Moses brought the people

took their stand at the

whom you see

you shall never see

out of

the

camp to

meet

God;

and

they
Exod. 34:5

foot

of

the

mountain.

And the LORD descended in the

and proclaimed the name of the

cloud and stood with

him there,

LORD.

12. The

argument seems to

be that if
well

a white garment

has been dyed red,

and

the dye stands

red garment.

firm
It

or

has been

fixed,

then the garment

The

red color

is

as much a part of
of me

has truly become a the object in front of me as

of

anything
truth

else.

would

be wrong

to think

the white garment as the

lying

behind the

red garment.

In the
pot. pot

same

way, the clay cannot be considered to be the truth behind the mark,
or character

The seal,

or

has transformed the clay into

be
separated

pot, and a

it

now

is. former
example can

The

chaff of our

from the

wheat

precisely
spite of

because the

character of the chaff

is different from

the character of the wheat. It

is this difference in their

the

own characters that causes the separation

with

in

fact that they

are

both tossed

the same

force

and

blown

by

the same

wind.

The

argument as a whole
of

is intended
as

as a

man, the realm

the

Jackal,

it is,

considered

reply to Elihu. The world beyond in itself and by the human eye,

may

not

be

reducible

to the nebulae. The beings in

own strivings and ambitions

being

and

hence their

it may each have their apart from any human

own
con

cern, yet

may be open to them. 13. Job had once said:

man

Job 7:12

Am I the

sea or some monster

that You set watch over me?

He is

now

being

asked

to

face that

sea.

14. I have tried to

character of

catch

the rather strange concatenation of the

foreboding
It is in the intended
one

the object and the relaxed,

and so carries with used

inviting
"going

character of

the

verb.

reflexive

form

it

a sense of aimless

freedom

and

joy. When it is

to describe God

for

walk"

in the Garden,
on

immediately
and

senses that of

He has

not come

for the

sake of

checking up

Adam

Eve. It can,
2.1

course, be

used with great

irony.

Job 1:7

"Oh,"

and

said the

just

went

down there to

Satan to THE LORD "wandering go for a

walk."

around

Earth,

324

Interpretation
His
a

Job 18:7-8

plans will

trip him
Him

up, for his

own

feet

will

lead him into

net, and he will walk himself right into

the trap.

Job 22:14

'Clouds
round

obscure

and

He

can see

nothing

as

He

strolls

the circuit of

heaven.'

It is

as

if the Voice beyond the

were

trying

to seduce Job into that frightful and

forbid

den

world

world of man.

15. Those that have

Ps. 9:13 Be

always

been

shunned

by

man:

gracious to me,
who

O LORD! Behold
liftest
of me

what

suffer

from those

who

hate me, O thou Ps. 107:18 death.

they loathed any kind

up from the gates of death, food, and they drew near to the

gates of

16. The Shadow

the
Jackal."

of

Death;

the tradition has connected it with "the Place of

Ps. 44: 1 8

Our heart has

not

turned

back,
of

nor

have

our steps

departed from thy

way, that thou shouldst

covered us with

have broken

us

in

the place of

jackals,

and

the

Shadow

Death.

It has been in the horrid haven had

of

air now

for

long
with

time now. Job

first

saw

it

as a

kind

of

things unwanted, the dark and dangerous place to which Job

consigned the

day

of

his birth

his first

words.

Job 3:1-8
in

Then, Job
said

opened

his

mouth and spurned

his day. Job

answered and

"May
it be

the

day

of

which

was said

my birth be lost in oblivion and 'A MAN (GEBHER) has been

with

it that

night

conceiv

May
not seek

that
nor

day

day

of

darkness.

May

God from

on

high

it

out of

any brightness radiate Death redeem it, and may

warms the counted
months.

upon

it; but let darkness

dwell
above

and the

Shadow
which

a cloud

it.

May

that

day terrify it. Let

the

the

murk consume

that night that

it

not

be

among Thus shall that

who

days

of the year or enter night

into the

number of

its

become hard

and sterile with no sound of

joy lay
And
now

in it. Those
open

the

Leviathan

despise the sea, will curse it.

and those who are

determined to

Job is invited to

When he enters, that

much about came out of who

drop in for a visit. day will be there waiting for him,

and as we main goal will
ago.

and

in it he

will

learn

birth
the

and

conception,

know from the first be to become that

words that

Tempest, his
fear
of

man

(gebher)
we

had been
and

conceived so

long
Job's

Death
shall

the

death

are central to the theme of the

book,

and, as

see, the remainder of

gates.

education

is nothing

more than a stroll

down

by

its

The Book of Job

325

Perhaps nothing of what is can be so transformed or disfigured and contorted as the face of death as it steps through the curtain drawn between the world of man and
the world of nature.
either

The

commonplace other.

becomes the terrifying,

and

it is

not clear that mask?

is the truth behind the

must

Which is the face

and which

is the

17. Job
of

learn to

peer

beyond the borders

of

the light and

into
in

the place
a

darkness. The

monsters of

the dark cannot be kept out

by hiding

cave, as

Elihu had
one who

suggested.

They

will wander and must

be gently

escorted

home

by

knows

the way.
verse to

18. Some take this

case.

be intended sarcastically, but that

of some

need not

be the
with

The

voice

may be reminding Job

deep-seated

kinship

he has

an antique whole.

19. In their 20. This

capture

own

home,
is

the monsters

have

a role

to play.
able

than I have been cleverly "cast in the English translation. The three verbs,
passage much more
crafted
"dispersed,"

to

about

"cleaved,"

and

all mean the same and then there

very

gentle

word,

is

thing, "to divide into parts"; but the first is a a clear progression to the last, which is quite
motion

a violent word.

Similarly,

there

is the

from light to

wind

to
a

flooding
pathway

torrent, and, finally, for the voice of the

God begins Job's

we are at a
thunder."

loss to know

what

it takes to "make

showing him the forces that were needed to bring the inanimate world into being. They are only a part of the forces which he has "laid aside for a time of narrowness and for the days of battle and of
education

by

war."

In this
man

account more seems

to be required than a "let there

be.

21.

('adam)
not understand: a

22. This is the thing that Elihu could is for its own sake and not for the sake
more

budding field

which

of

man, but for all that it may be the

beautiful to Job.
as we caught our

23. Again,
are

first

glimpse

in

verse

8,

male and

female

origins

beginning

to play an equal role

in the foundation
unique

of all

things. This stance

which comes out of the

Tempest is

to the Book of Job. In rhetoric and

imagery, the closest book in the Bible to the Book of Job is the Book of Psalms; and yet, even there, if one considers the complete list of references to bellies and wombs in it, one sees that, in contradistinction to the Book of Job,
the female

is

always somewhat subordinate:

Ps. 17:14

from
portion

mortals

by

your

hand, O LORD

from

mortals whose
with what

in life is in this
stored

world.

May

their

bellies be filled

Ps. 22:9

you up for them; may their children have more than enough; may they leave something over to their little ones. Yet it was you who took me from the womb; you kept me safe

have

on

my Ps. 22:10

mother's

breast.
was cast and since

On
you

from my birth, have been my God.

you

my

mother

bore

me

326

Interpretation
Be
gracious to me,

Ps. 31:9

O LORD, for I

am

in distress; my

eye wastes

Ps. 58:3

away from grief, my soul and body also. The wicked go astray from the womb; they speaking lies.

err

from their birth,

Ps. 71:6

Ps. 110:3

Upon you I have leaned from my birth; it was you who took me from my mother's womb. My praise is continually of you. Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day you lead
your

forces

on

the

holy
a

mountains.

From the

womb of

the morning,

like dew, Ps. 127:3

your youth will come to you.

Sons
reward.

are

indeed

heritage from the LORD, the fruit formed my inward parts;

of the womb a

Ps. 139:13

For it

was you who

you

knit

me

together

in my

mother's womb.

24. The double

autonomy.

use of

the reflexive even gives the water a certain amount of

Its

reaction

25. The 26. This

not seem to

exact

is something it does to itself. meaning of this word is not known, but it

constellations.

seems

to be the

name of one of

the

expression

have the

same

only occurs in one other passage in the Bible force that it acquires in this one:

and

does

Jer. 33:24f.

Considerest
two
off?

thou not what this people

have spoken, saying, The

even cast

families
thus

which

the LORD hath chosen, he hath

them

they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the LAWS OF HEAVEN
and

earth; Then

will

cast

away the

seed of

Jacob,
be

and

David my

servant, so that I
seed of

will not

take

Abraham, Isaac,

and

any Jacob: for I

of

his

seed to

rulers over the

will cause

their

captivity to

return, and have mercy

on

them.

27. Men
their

were always aware of a world

beyond
things

their reach that sparkled over

slept.

heads
it

each

night

while

all

other

Its

vastness

and

un-

touchability
could stir

were awesome. or change

It

moved

according

to

its

own

paths, and

no man

its

course.

have been banal unless Job were being face those well-known, everyday facts in a way in which no man ever had. If Job is to step beyond the limits of man, and into the realm of his
question to would
asked to

Yet God's

Job

brotherhood
those

with the Jackal, as he will surely do in the chapters which follow, banal facts, and others, must be faced again. In the Book of Genesis, the sun, moon, and stars were to be regarded as little more than the servants of man, given to him by an all-loving God "to separate the day from the night"; and "to be for signs and for seasons and for days and
years."

But Job is

being

faced

The Mazzaroth

comes out

something called "the Laws of the in its own time, indifferent to good times and

with

Heaven."

to bad

The Book of Job

times, to times
an

327

of war, and to cold

times of

peace. stars

To

some

that

would

have

signified

unbearably

indifference in the

to human affairs. Not to see it as

twinkling for us, but to allow it to twinkle for itself was Job's first lesson. 28. Job must be prepared not only for a world whose inhabitants have ends
and ways of

their own unrelated to man. There will also be those that strike of a
without purpose and were

sudden as no aim.

if they had intention

which

ready to go, but took

can only be been used: have they
I,"

The full force

inheres in the

word

translated "Here am

felt

by

reminding

ourselves of the conditions under which

Gen. 22: 1

And it

came

to pass after these things, that God did tempt

Abraham,
am

and said unto

him, Abraham:

and

he said, Behold, Here

I. And Isaac
spake unto am

Gen. 22:7

Abraham his father,

son.

and said,

My

father:
and the

and

he said, Here but

where

I, my

And he said, Behold the fire

a

wood:

is the lamb for

the

burnt

offering?

Gen. 22: 1 1
Gen. 27:1

And the
said,

angel of

LORD
and

called unto

him

out of

heaven,

and

Abraham, Abraham:
so that

And it

came to pass, that

he said, Here am I. when Isaac was old, and his

eldest

eyes were
said

dim,
unto

he

could not

see, he called Esau his

said unto

son, and
am

him, My
am

son: and

he

him, Behold, Here

I.

Gen. 27:18
Gen. 31:11

And he Here

came unto who art

his father,

and said,

My
a

father:

and

he said,

I;

And the

angel

thou, my son? of God spake unto I.

me

in

dream,

saying, Jacob:

And I said, Here

am

Gen. 37:13

And Israel

said unto

Joseph, Do
will send

not

thy brethren feed

And he

the

flock in

Shechem? come,

and

thee unto them.

said to

him,

Here Gen. 46: 2

am

I.
spake unto

And God

Israel in the

visions of

the night, and said,

Jacob, Jacob. And he

Exod. 3:4

said, Here am I.

And
unto

when

the LORD saw that

he turned
and

aside to see,

God

called

him

out of the midst of the am

bush,
and

said,

Moses, Moses. And

am

he said, Here ISam. 3:4

I.
called

That the LORD

Samuel:

he answered, Here
thou
calledst me.

I. And

he

ran unto

Eli,

and

said, Here am
again.

I; for

And he

said, I
the

called

not;

lie down

And he

went and

lay

down. And

LORD
and

called yet

again, Samuel. And Samuel arose and went to

Eli,
ISam. 3:8

said, Here am

I; for

thou

didst

call me.

And he answered, I And he

called not, my son; lie down again. And the LORD called Samuel again

the third time. thou

arose

and went to
perceived

Eli,

and

said, Here

am

I; for
the

didst

call me.

And Eli

that the
called

LORD had

called

child.

ISam 3:16
ISam. 12:3f.

Then Eli

Samuel,
I.

and said,

Samuel, my

son.

And he

answered, Here

am

Behold, Here
before his

am

I:

witness against me

before the LORD,

and

anointed: whose ox

have I

taken? or whose ass

have I

328

Interpretation
taken? or whom
whose

have I defrauded?
received you.

whom

have I

oppressed?

or of

hand have I it

any bribe to blind

mine eyes

therewith?

and

will restore

ISam. 22:12

And Saul said, Hear now, thou Here

am

son of

Ahitub. And he answered,

I, my lord.
he looked behind him, he
am saw

2Sam. 1:7

And

when

me,

and called unto me.

And I answered, Here And I

answered

I. And he
an

said unto

me, Who art thou?

said unto me

him,

am

Amalekite. And he

again,

Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for me, because my life is yet whole in me.
2Sam. 15:26 But if he thus say, I have let him do to
no me as seemeth good unto

anguish

is

come upon

delight in thee; behold, Here him.

am

I,

wisdom

29. The meaning of the text is obscure. Greenberg translates: "Who put The Re in the hidden parts? Who gave understanding to the
mind?"

vised

Standard translates: "Who

put wisdom

in the

clouds?

or given

under

parts?

standing to the mist? King James translates: "Who Who gave understanding to the
heart?"

put wisdom

in the inward

The first
(a

problem

is

with the word

b'tuhor*. It is

almost a

hopax legominon
and no one
root twh
be

word that appears only once in the whole of the known quite sure what

literature)

is

it

means.

All

seem to agree that

it

comes

from the

"to

overlay,"

"overspread,"

etc., rather from tbh, "to

secure,"

and that the surrounds

part of

"in."

means

So far

as

can

dope it out, the

problem

the w-type

vocalic mode of the tu. so we come

Is it

a shred of the w which

had been For

"coverer"

the

root?

If

have
to see

a noun related

to the

act of covering.

reasons which we will

later,
be

the Revised

Standard takes the

"covered"

to be a cloud. But
we are not

the u might
with a

a sign of the passive

instead. In that case,

"hidden"

dealing
the

"covering"

thing, but

with a

or

thing. In

fact,

in Psalm 51:8 (RS 51:6), translates: "thou desirest truth in the inward
word also appears

where even the

being."

Revised Standard

To

push the argument

fur

ther, The

we must

look

at the other problematic a true

word,

fshichwai.
and so we must go

This time

we

do have

hopax

legominon;
means

fishing.

Semitic root skh or skh

in Aramaic

"to

watch,"

in the

sense of

doing
com

what a watchman
plain."

does. In Syriac it

means

"to

hope,"

and

in Arabic "to

In
not

connection with this sense of

able

"watching,"

there

is

tradition

which

I have

been

to track down that relates it to a celestial appearance. Hence the

"mist."

Revised Standard translates:

tion of tahot as
"cloud."

This, I

presume, is

what

led to the transla

Gersonides has
This

another

tradition which relates it

more to the act of seeing.

would account

for

such

translations

as

"mind"

or

"heart."

This is

partic

ularly interesting took it as rhetorically As

part of

in the

case of the

parallel

James translators, to "inward

King

since

they obviously
from the

part."

this argument, there is another and more common word

The Book of Job

same

329

root, maskit,

which can

indeed

"imagination,"

mean

but

which more often

means a

"carved

figure"

or an

"image"; hence my translation.

and outward

The

relation of

between inner
Job.

intelligibility is,
all

of

course,

central

for the Book 30. If Job

these

can gird

his loins

and stand

before

these

things, he

will see

fearful forces,

all

in delicate balance,

each a part of

that with which it

seemed at war.

T. A. M. Fontaine's Account

of

Ibn Daud's

The Exalted Faith {Ha'Emunah

Terence Kleven
Yad Hanadiv-Barecha Foundation Hebrew

HaRamah)

University

of Jerusalem

1. INTRODUCTION

T. A. M. Fontaine's

recent

book In Defense of Judaism: Abraham Ibn Daud

(1990)
has

provides a comprehensive exploration of the purpose of a treatise that

often

been

overlooked
calls

in the

history
a

of

Arabic
great

and

Jewish
(p.

philosophy.1

Although Fontaine
claims

Ibn Daud

"less than
work

thinker"

1),

she also

that "the obscurity into which the

has fallen is

undeserved and

regrettable"

(p. 3). She

says

that Ibn Daud

"overshadowed"

was written

by

Mai

monides.

The Exalted Faith

seems to

have been

in A. D. 1160-61 in

Toledo. Maimonides

was approximately twenty-five at the time, and it is gener ally thought that the only treatise which he might possibly have completed by Logic.1 this time was the Treatise on the Art of Maimonides certainly becomes the center of attention shortly after Ibn Daud's time. Fontaine does not assert

that Ibn Daud achieves the

intellectual

acumen of

Maimonides,
Her

nor

that he

has

had

or should

have had

more

influence than is

attested.

articulated reasons

for her
Daud

exposition of

this treatise are threefold.

not

First,

the overshadowing of Ibn

by Maimonides is

sufficient

justification for

ignoring
an

his

work.
of

Second, G. D. Cohen's Hebrew

edition, English translation, and analysis

Ibn

Daud's The Book of Tradition (Sefer

I
wish

Ha-Qabbalah)
for
a

provides

invaluable

to thank the Yad Hanadiv-Barecha Foundation

at the

fellowship

for the

academic year

1993-94 tenured

Hebrew

University

of

Jerusalem

which

provided me the

complete this study.

also wish to thank

Professor Zev
of

Harvey

who

introduced

me

opportunity to to Ibn Daud and

who alerted me to the need

extent

for

an

inquiry

Ibn Daud's The Exalted Faith in

of

order to enucleate the

to which this treatise

is foundational for the introduction

criticisms of several

Jewish thought. Professor Harvey's

drafts

and the

Classical Greek philosophy into checking of Hebrew trans

of

literations led to many improvements in the essay. I also wish to thank Professor Tzvi Langermann the National Library at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who checked and confirmed that the
had
not

library
I

acquired, as of

wish

to thank Professor Klaus

July 1997, any recent manuscripts of The Exalted Faith. Lagally of Universitat Stuttgart who wrote the Hebrew

and

Arabic typesetting program ArabTeX which was used in the initial writing of this essay. I also wish to thank Professors Rama Porrat and Dov Grobgeld, both of the Computation Center at Hebrew

University,
Daud
will

who assisted me

various stages

in the

composition of

in setting up HebrewTeX and the Hebrew Editor which were used at this essay. It is my hope that in an extended manuscript on Ibn

be

able

to utilize further these Hebrew and Arabic programs.

interpretation,

Spring 1998,

Vol. 25, No. 3

332
study does

Interpretation
of one of the

two books

written

by

Ibn Daud, but there is

religion.3

also a need

to

examine the purpose of

not explicate

his

philosophic

defense

of

Although Fontaine

the relation between Ibn Daud's two writings, a detailed

a

examination of

The Exalted Faith is

as a

Faith

can

be

"counterpart"

regarded

necessary first step. Third, The Exalted which is diametrically opposed to

was written a generation

Judah Halevi's Kuzari (p. 2). The Kuzari Daud

before Ibn

by

a well-respected

Jewish poet,

and the

book is

a sustained criticism of

the merits of philosophy. Thus Fontaine seeks to the book

evaluate

the extent to which

is

an answer

to Halevi's Kuzari.

Fontaine determined

argues that

Ibn Daud's

purpose

in writing The Exalted Faith is to

justification for the teaching that man's actions are not rather that the will is free to obey or disobey the com by mandments. The book is addressed to a friend who had asked Ibn Daud
provide a philosophical

God but

whether actions are

determined

or

free. if

According
resolve

to

Fontaine, Ibn Daud

argues

that "the

inconsistency
and
will

that arises

we assume that

everything is determined

by

God is doctrine

greater

more

difficult to
(p. 7).

than the to Ibn

inconsistency

that the

of

free

implies"

According

Daud,
these

the philosophical
are not

sciences often

lead individuals into

confusion

because

individuals

able to reconcile the apparent

antinomy between

science and religion.

Ibn Daud
ciliation

seeks to articulate a philosophic account which reveals the recon sources of

between these two

of

knowledge. The title

of

the treatise

is

an

initial indication
was

its

purpose.

It is

often thought that the original

Arabic title

Al-'Aqidah Al-Rafi'ah,
or

which came

to be translated as either Ha-'Emunah

Ha-Ramah

Ha-'Emunah

Ha-Nissa'ah.4

Its

purpose

is to defend the

most

exalted religion.

He

uses a metaphor

to explicate the relation between philoso

phy and religion. They are like two lamps, the lamp of religion is in the right hand and the lamp of philosophy is in the left. Many people are not able to hold
these two the

lamps

at the same time.

When the

lamp

of

philosophy

starts

burning,
of

lamp

of religion goes out.

Ibn Daud

seeks to

show the

compatibility

these two

lamps.

According

to

Fontaine, however,

the argument to show the

harmony
as other suggest.

of religion and

commentators,

such as

philosophy is Julius her

not the central task of

Ibn Daud's book,

and

She
in

summarizes

argument

Guttmann, G. D. Cohen, in chapter 12, the final

as

H.

Simon,
her he

chapter of

book,

and

doing
her

so

judiciously
She

selects a quotation

from The Exalted Faith

puts

which confirms

point.

writes:

"Or,
the

Ibn Daud himself

it

when

eventually

embarks on

his treatment
problem

of

freedom
book' "

of the will and the themes and the

associated with

it: 'This

is

the

first in thought

last in action; it

is the

chapter

for

which we

have

written the

22-24).5

(p. 239. ER II.6, p 93 11

the strength of

Apart from this invaluable

argument rests

statement of

Ibn

Daud,

Fontaine's

in her

exposition of the structure of the treatise.

She

explains the
physics

structure as a series of steps

in

which

Ibn Daud

presents

Aristotelian

and metaphysics to the point at which

he

can examine

the nature of

human

Fontaine's Account of The Exalted Faith

conduct

333

(pp. 239-43). When Ibn Daud turns to

upon

an exposition of

human actions,

he draws
the

his

account of physical science to argue

'possible'

as a

Although Fontaine
volves

logical category admits that his

and

for (1) the existence of for (2) the freedom of the will (p. 243).
in this
structure

exposition of the steps

in

Ibn Daud in details "the

which are not

absolutely necessary for

of a compendium of as

the argument

and which give maintains

the book the appearance

various themes are

philosophy, she
a special

that

arranged,

I have said, in (p. 244).

way, and behind that order lies a particular

purpose"

Fontaine fense his

of

actions.

recognizes that for Ibn Daud a defense of Judaism requires a de both the possibility of efficacious actions and the necessity of virtuous She notes: "In his introduction Ibn Daud announces that the purpose of

philosophical reflections

is

practical

philosophy, i.e.

action"

(p. 250). Fon

taine says

later in

the same paragraph:

The

ultimate goal of

his

argument

questions that

he

addresses

finally

really is action. We have seen that the many lead to the question of the freedom of the will. It

is this very
philosophy knowledge
the

question that constitutes the

frontier land between

theoretical and

practical philosophy.
and

It is this

point

that marks the crossing-point

between
of
regards

religion,

at this point

is why agreement between the two forms is essential. If it were to become apparent that as
which

freedom

of the will either

philosophy
not

or religion

is

unable to arrive at a positive

what

conclusion, agreement on other points

point of a religious

would no

longer be necessary, for

is the
to

life if it is
in

the result of a choice

freely

made?

If

we are

lead

life

that

is

religious

a meaningful way,

proving the

freedom

of the will

is

an absolute sine qua non. also obliged to

To be

able to offer such proof,

Ibn Daud feels that he is

demonstrate that
which

agreement also exists on all other points

leading

to

this core problem,

of quotations

from the
reason

is why his philosophical expositions all close with a series Bible offered in evidence. Certainly he has a practical goal
some extent possible

(and for that

philosophy,

it is to

to regard the whole of

his

philosophy)."

including

the theoretical parts, as practical

(Pp.

250-51)

According
of religion

to

Fontaine, Ibn Daud's

manifest

recognition of

the legal and political nature

and rabbinic

Judaism is is The

in The Exalted Faith. His lifeline to biblical

secure.

purpose of

this study is to

offer a critical evaluation of

Fontaine's

pre

sentation of the purpose of

Ibn Daud's treatise. Criticism is

those

always a

out,
will

judgement

of arguments made well and of an evaluation of

which are

sorting incomplete. I

be essentially limited to
of

the coherence of Fontaine's read

ing

the text

rather

than

Daud's book. I
the treatise,
and phy.

will evaluate

engaging extensively in a primary study of Ibn her work under five headings: (1) the structure of
and

(2)

the sources of the treatise,

biblical creation,

(4)

on the

soul,

(3) Aristotelian and Platonic science (5) Law (Torah) and political philoso

334

Interpretation

2. THE STRUCTURE OF THE TREATISE

Fontaine's book is

written as

a series

of chapters which comment on

Ibn

Daud's

chapters

in their

respective order. or

his
In

chapters

in

one of

hers

devotes

one

She usually studies either several of of her chapters to one of Ibn Daud's.
devotes two
of

one

instance, Ibn Daud's

presents she

chapter

II.6,

she

ter which
sion

the argument

for the freedom

the

does

along

with

depart from this orderly presentation. II.4 because both chapters are Ibn Daud's intelligences. It is usually
text under

to this chap On only one occa She chooses to discuss 1.8

chapters will.

account

of

heavenly

spheres and
quence of a commended

a valuable procedure

to follow the se

inquiry

with considerable

faithfulness. Fontaine is to be

in placing herself as a commentator rather than as an innovator in the process of rearranging the order of presentation of the text. Whatever is lost in flair of presentation is more than compensated in orderly exposition. Her central argument is that the structure of Ibn Daud's book, that
who engages

is,

the order of

his

philosophic

arguments, forms a necessary sequence. The

presentation of

this sequence of proofs

Conclusions."

is found in her final chapter,

chapter

chapter

12,

"Recapitulations
sented twice.

and

In this

the summary

is in fact 240

pre

tends to the
since she on the

top

The first summary of page 244. The

of the structure
second

begins

on page

and ex

previously claims bottom of page 244

we examine

almost unwittingly, summary occurs her recapitulation of his argument has concluded

and continues to the

top

of page

245. Let

When

the first summary we are disappointed at the vagueness

a number of steps
when she

with which she

delineates

in Ibn Daud's
the steps

argument.

us

examine

two examples.

First,

presents

in the

arguments

between 1.1-5,
substance,

she proceeds

in 1.1-2
and

accident and

form,

summary of Aristotle's account of in 1.3-5, with a discussion of motion and

with a of

infinity. She begins the discussion

1.3-5

with

the

following

statement:

"Form, as Ibn Daud explains in the subsequent chapters on motion and infinity (ER 1.3-5), is of divine (p. 240). We are immediately presented with the
origin"

question of the origin of

form. Does God

"divine"

here

mean the

Aristotelian First
concern

Cause,

an

intermediary,

or the

of

Abraham? While this

a

is

appro

priate, it is necessary to determine whether it is

and, if it is a step, whether he accomplishes his task or not.

step in Ibn Daud's argument Aristotle's physics

is derived from
"In these

arguments

based

on

the eternity of substance,

form,

and matter.

What is Ibn Daud's

chapters

account

(p. 240). What is the link between the Aristotelian doctrine of form and the proof for the existence of God? How did the Aristotelian account of form make all
proof

he

also prepares

regarding his later

the creation of the world? She also says:

for the

existence of

God"

this possible? A careful exposition of the steps

used as an argument
regard

is necessary if the

structure

is

to

identify

the central purpose of the

book. Secondly, in

to

1.6-7,

an extensive

concepts of

form

and matter come

discussion by Ibn Daud on the soul, she says: "the into the discussion of the relation between

Fontaine 's Account of The Exalted Faith

soul and
body."

335

But form

and matter

do

more

than "come

into

discussion."

Form is

incorporeal, thus,
soul.

incorporeal

according to Aristotle, the form If the Aristotelian distinction between form

relation

of the

body
is

is

an

and matter

used

to account for the

between

body

and

soul, as it is in Aristotle's De

Anima,
ceed

then the proof of the existence of form and matter necessarily precedes

an account of the soul.

The

sequence of

Ibn Daud's

argument appears

to pro

in this

manner.

complication

emerges, however, inasmuch

as

Ibn Daud

seems

to prefer other formulations of the relation between

soul

body

and soul than

point

Aristotle's definition that the

Fontaine's

is the form
Ibn Daud's

of

the body. At a later

in

book,

she comments on

position on

this matter (pp. 60-

61). She does

theless,

not review the alternatives on

the issue in this summary. None

an exposition of

the structure of his argument requires a precise exposi

tion of each proof in its proper place.

Her Daud's

second

summary (pp.

244-45) is
A
will and

more

concise, and she follows Ibn the

argument proceeds

argument more carefully.

problem of what can

summation of

as

follows. The

free

determinism

cannot

be

answered unless

(1)

we

know

and cannot proceed

existence and

from God,

which requires

(2)

priori arguments

for the

fense

of the notion of singular

unity of God, which requires (3) a de incorporeal substances, which requires (4) an
the spheres,
which requires

argument

regarding the
an argument

that the motion of the

quires

(6)

(5) an argument soul is different than the motion of a body, which re to show that nothing can move itself, which requires (7)
motion of

a presentation of the concepts of substance, presented the

accident, matter, and form. I have

sequence as more obvious and

deliberate than is found in Fon

a structure to the

taine's paragraph, although the outline then

is hers. If there is

book,

follow this sequence, and Fontaine needs to note in each chapter of her exposition that the structure is present. Moreover, if the structure is indeed it
must

present, an

evaluation

of

Ibn Daud's treatise

requires

that

we

scrutinize

the

sufficiency of each argument in its proper order. Ibn Daud himself gives us a summary of the structure

of

his

argument

in the

introductory
the

Abstract

(kelal)

to the book (ER Abstract,

p.

3, 11.6-35). He insists
He traces
each

that there is a
argument

correct order of presentation of

his

subject.

step in

back to the

syllogism

necessary for its

proof.

Thus, in

this sum

reverse order in which they will appear mary he presents the arguments in the in the treatise. In this section Ibn Daud states repeatedly his sense of a neces "and a satisfactory answer could not be sary order of argumentation. He says, attributes and actions of God"; and the understand given to it until after we "one cannot know the truth about his attributes and his actions until he first

introduces

a proof of

his existence";
incorporeal

and

"this

could not

be

affirmed until we

had

proved that there are

substances which are called

angels"; and

"from the necessity that we prove that it is existence actual ordered infinite existents; and
that his
argument

not

possible

for there to be in
perceives

so on.

Thus Ibn Daud

follows

necessary

order.

We

should expect

in his treatise

336

Interpretation
demonstrations
contrast to

sequence of

leading

to his

conclusion.

Immediately following
in
a

this summary,
states

however, Ibn Daud

qualifies

his

procedure

decisive

way.

He

that, in

Ibn Gabirol in Fons Vitae discourse

which

whose

discourse

contains

excesses, he

writes with precise

is free from

excess and

is

true demonstration. Then

he

says

that he does not trouble himself with the

syllogism

introduction

of the

demonstrative
The

(ha-heqesh

ha-mophthi)
if the

that ac

companies each subject. cal syllogism

subjects are not

introduced in the
says that

order of a classi

(seder ha-heqesh ha-mophthi). He

wish,

masters of

logic

(ba 'ale

ha-higgayon)

they

can

formulate their understanding

of the mid

dle term

of the syllogism.

He thus

warns us that not all parts of the subject are

explained.6

Ibn Daud

claims that the reason the treatise

is

written

has

a particular reader

in

view. of

The treatise is

written

for

in this way is that he someone who has

departed from the

relation

grades

the masses and who is confused regarding the

between

choice and necessity.

Moreover,

the reader

is

someone who

wishes to sion after

after a

know the Israelite faith. Ibn Daud

promises a more complete

discus

summary

he introduces the truths concerning substances and accidents, that is, of Aristotle's Categories. The intended reader is someone who

has

not arrived at the appreciation of the

harmony
is

between

religion and philos

ophy.

The identification

of an

intended

reader

confirmed

by

other comments

in

the treatise. In the preamble to the

that

introductory Abstract, Ibn Daud

what grades of

mentions

in the Abstract he

will

discuss

the sons of man (madregot

bene 'adam) will Ibn Daud writes:

receive

benefit

(to'elet) from

the treatise. Later in the Abstract

Behold it is

clear that the subject of this speculation

ma'

(philosophiya'

ash),

in

religion there are

demonstrations. every
will man who

Concerning
is innocent

the

benefit

of

philosophy in true philosophy clear this treatise, behold, I recommend to traditions,

and

is

political

with an absolute

innocence ('ish

tarn

betaklit

ha-

temimut), who,

when they are asked concerning the inquiry of necessity and free (darush ha-hekreah ve-ha-behirah), or inquiries which are like it in order that there will be no anxiety concerning them that will think that man (ben

they

'adam)

cannot understand these

inquiries

and

his heart

will not

be troubled

within

him for his ignorance. He

should not yield

himself

to examine this treatise nor

proper that

anything

whose purpose

is

the purpose of this

and

book. Rather, it is

he

should remain

in his innocence
action.

his tradition because the

in
treatise

purpose of political

philosophy is
philosophers

And the

wise ones

religious wisdom who are also

do

not need to read our

because

their science

is

more

sufficient than our treatise.

will

But

perhaps someone will

begin to

understand and

he

be
in

perplexed
what

concerning

what

he has

received through tradition and what

will

is

true

is disturbing, then this treatise

many

of the ways of wisdom and we p.

greatly benefit him. We offered him established religion upon its foundation. (ER

Abstract,

4, 11.4-15,

translation

mine)7

Fontaine's Account
The

o/The

Exalted Faith

337

subtle movement of this passage makes us wonder whether

Ibn Daud is is equivocal,

and

truly saying
meaning

that this type of

innocence is

good.

The

word tarn

either a

true goodness (Job

1:1)

or naivete contrast

(I Kings 22:34

Genesis

25:27,
of

although

the

latter

reference

is to the

between Esau's knowledge

tarn. The

the art of

hunting

and

Jacob's lack

of such

knowledge, Jacob's

author must
particular shadows

be ironic in saying that Jacob has tarn; Jacob is innocent of the art of hunting, but he is not innocent of all craft. This irony fore

the

development
one

of the story.). we will

A translation
an

of

the passage

is very

difficult. I hope that

Daud

day
is

have

Arabic

version available

to us. Ibn

says that the treatise

not written

for the innocent

the

who possess an abso

lute innocence, those

and

who are not troubled with written

inquiry

free will,
appears to

nor

is it

for the true

philosopher who

regarding necessity knows science well.

He

deflect the

attention of the

from the study of from tradition. The innocent do not

to dissuade them
philosopher need what

innocent away from the treatise, even philosophy. Right action can be learned
to
read

need

this book. Nor does a true

to read

it because his

science

will

be

more sufficient

than

is found therein.
provides

Chapter 2
selection

further
In this

confirmation of case

the deliberateness of Ibn Daud's

claims that

of a reader.

Ibn Daud

Scripture itself only

alludes

to scientific truths,

while

its literal

sense satisfies the masses.

We say that in the books of prophecy there is no clear explanation of what is understood in true philosophy so that the understanding of the people who are the masses of men would not be slow. Rather the books of the prophets make allusions
and arouse allusions.

the unique individual to understand the secret meanings of those that

Thus,
while

individual knows that

wisdom

is included in the books

literal
sense.

of

prophecy,

the masses are satisfied with their

(ER 1.2

p.

12,

11.9-12)
Although Ibn Daud does
addressee, his
not

in this

context

comments reveal

that he

understands

say that Scripture is written for his Scripture to be aware of a

a corollary,

wide range of competences

in its

readers.

As

different
more

people certain

in different ways,
Scripture is

or certain parts of

Scripture may Scripture may be

address written

for

types of readers than other parts, or there may be other possi

addressed

ble
we

ways

in

which

to the different types

of readers which will explain

have

not

identified here. In the

not explain

course of

his

treatise

Ibn Daud

that Scripture does

philosophy.

This

view of

but simply alludes to all that is found in true the Tanach is especially confirmed in ER 1.8 (p. 43,

is an exposition of the account of the chariot (ma'aseh 10. After several cryptic references to verses in this Ezekiel 1 and in merkabah) understands these things will know passage, Ibn Daud says that anyone who that he did not explain the texts of Ezekiel. Ibn Daud follows a Talmudic in
11.23-40). This
passage

junction

against

a public explanation of the account of the chariot.

prevented us

He

says that

our ancestors

(qadmonenu)

from revealing the hidden

meanings of

338

Interpretation
the passage
revealed

Ezekiel, quoting
chariot can
presence

from Mo'ed Hagigah ILL The in the

student
presence of one

account

of

the

only be

student, and even

in the

vealed

only the chapter headings are to be re to him. From Ibn Daud's argument we know that he thought that at least
of this exceptional

certain written

documents, including

the sacred words of Scripture and

his

own

treatise, These

are composed with a certain addressee and other comments

in

mind. reveal

in Ibn Daud's treatise

its

introductory

or

protreptic nature.

It

seeks

to deepen the student's appreciation of certain philo

sophical questions and

foundation. As

an

doing so it establishes religious science upon its true introductory treatise we do not know the degree to which it
in

introduces supplying

philosophical

demonstrations only
reader who

as reports or

traditions rather than

fully

the steps in the demonstration. An

introductory

philosophy text

book,
be

one

designed for the

need of

is

accustomed to

most

in

stration.

Thus

unless

receiving philosophy by way of it is shown that at each step a demonstrative

accepting tradition, will report rather than demon

argument

is

presented,

we cannot

be

sure that the structure of

the treatise

is demonstrative. Aristotelian
actual,

The treatise

presents a nice

summary

of at

least

certain parts of

natural science.

Ibn Daud's

arguments

in 1.4

against the existence of an

numbered, ordered and

infinite

series of entities are not

demonstrative. But there is is based

also good reason to argue that strative at all points.

Ibn Daud did

seems to

intend the treatise to be demon

that the structure
on a

Fontaine in this

imply
we

series of philosophical proofs, eate

although, as
structure.

precisely the

steps

have noted, she does not delin This first and central argument for the
Ibn Daud may be
neces contem

existence of a structure

to Ibn Daud's argument remains to be elucidated.

seriousness with which philosophical

Finally, in

order to confirm the

deliberately
sary
to

supplying only
aware of

a partial

demonstration, it is
precedes, is

be

the philosophic

tradition

which

poraneous, and continues after him. The protreptic presentation of philosophy combined with a reticence to write final and complete treatises is known in

Greek philosophy from

teric'

antiquity.

works and

'commentaries.'

Cicero distinguishes between Aristotle's 'eso The esoteric works were intended primarily

for inside the Lyceum These treatises

Aristotle
'acroamatic'

and

were, as in the case of the

Poetics, incomplete.
apparently
not

were called

by later

commentators,

although

by

works.8

Alcinous'

Philosophy

reveals

an

intention

to write

(A. D. 2d century) The Handbook of only a partial presentation. In the

writes:

thirty-sixth and final chapter of the

handbook, Alcinous
to the

So much, then,

will suffice as an

introduction

study

of the

doctrines

of

Plato.

Some

of what

has been

said

has been

presented

in

proper

order; other parts,

perhaps, somewhat randomly and out of order. But at any rate what has been expounded here gives one the capability to examine and discover
the remainder of

his

doctrines.9

subsequently

all

Fontaine's Account ofThe Exalted Faith

The
good student

339

is

encouraged

to

proceed

demonstrations to be found in this handbook. At the

independently rather than expect all beginning of the Eisagoge

Porphyry
I

(died

circa

A. D.

305)

remarks:

shall make

for
and a

you a concise review of

this traditional

teaching
I

as

befits

an

introduction issues
and

try

to recount
words

what our predecessors said.

shall avoid

the deeper
shall

in

few

try

to explain the simpler notions. For example, I

put aside

the

investigation

of certain profound questions

species, since such an undertaking requires more

concerning detailed

genera and

examination.10

Porphyry
at

'introduction,'

writes an
particular treatise.

an eisagoge, which avoids certain

questions,
a

least in this

The treatise is

addressed to one

Chrysaorius,

Roman

any sense of Aristotle's Categories. philosophy is also known among the Arabs. G. C. Anawati distinguishes exoteric and esoteric passages in Ibn Sina. The
senator who was unable to make
partial presentation of

This

exoteric passages are made

to the public and therefore are incapable

of attack

from Muslim orthodoxy; the esoteric passages present potentially themes more subtly. D. M. Dunlop remarks briefly on Ibn Bajjah's

controversial

references

to

Alfarabi 's commentary on Porphyry's Eisagoge; Ibn Bajjah's comments that he is aware of the issue in both Porphyry and Alfarabi. There is

reveal

also a

tradition of aphoristic writing amongst the falasifa. Alfarabi writes the Aphor

isms of the Statesman and Introductory Sections (fusul) on Logic. Maimonides too writes Medical Aphorisms. He explains that the purpose of aphorisms is to
provide

the scientist with a

host

of

ideas

which need

to be remembered, but
sufficient nor

aphoristic texts

do

not

seek to

be

comprehensive and who

do they
also ad

contain axioms or syllogisms.

Ibn Tufayl,
the

died in A. D. 1185,

dresses his book

brother"

Hayy

the

Son of Yaqzan to

"noble,
his

sincere and affectionate

who

does

not understand

secrets of

illuminative

or oriental philoso

phy ('ishraqiyya). Ibn Tufayl

plete, partly due to the
that the
student

also warns that

exposition will not

be

com

difficulty

of the subject and partly due to the necessity

discover
to
the

secrets on

his

own.

Finally, Ibn Daud's

written

addressee

is

Maimonides'

remarkably tory in the Guide of partially

and not understand

similar

addressee
Perplexed."

described in the Epistle Dedica

The Guide is

for Rabbi Joseph,

perplexed

imperfectly

educated student.

Rabbi Joseph is his

but does
neither

philosophy sufficiently to

overcome

perplexity.

He is

completely innocent To be sure, these

nor a master of philosophy. examples of

introductory,

partial, or aphoristic

philosophic

texts vary in their degree of presentation, in their selection of literary forms to achieve their presentation, and perhaps in their respective purposes in partial
presentations.

They

nevertheless attest

to

persistent aspects of work

Greek

and

Arabic

philosophy.

Ibn Daud's

comment that

his

does

not present complete syl

logisms is

one example of a

reasonably

well attested manner of

doing

philoso-

340
phy.

Interpretation
The
reason

for his

comment remains unexplored

more

in Fontaine's book. In
other

certain respects

Ibn Daud's treatise is

demonstrative than
a

literary
and this

forms in

the tradition.
calls

Ibn Daud's The Exalted Faith is

book,
p.

a sepher or

treatise; he

both Aristotle's Categories (ER Abstract,

p.

3, 1.40)

work a sepher

(ER Introduction,

1, 1.4). Furthermore, in ER 1.4,

of

a chapter on argu

quantity, Ibn Daud's

presentation

the philosophic and

mathematical

ments against the notion of the existence of an actual

infinity
certain

serve as a para

digm

of

demonstrative

philosophy.

Thus, his treatise, in

is
characteristic

places, needs to
movement

be distinguished from the

toward a

purposes of aphoristic

literary

forms. His

full

presentation of subjects

of

Aristotle's treatises,
Ibn Daud

although we

have

noted that even

Aristotie's treatises

are acroamatic.

is certainly
to
which

aware of various partial presentations of moves

philosophy, but the degree

Ibn Daud

in the direction

of complete exposition

in

comparison

to the aphoristic genres marks his commitment to demonstration and to a recov

ery

of

Aristotle's intentions.
wishes

Nonetheless, if Fontaine
treatise is a series of

to argue that the structure of Ibn

Daud's

show the actual sequence and to account

of an addressee who

demonstrative arguments, it is necessary for her both to for Ibn Daud's deliberate identification
not a master of
logic.12

is

only necessary to reflect upon the complex interplay that exists between demonstrative syllogisms and rhetorical presentations throughout the
not

It is

sequence of the three

books, but

there

is

another

division

with which the trea

of

tise

is

composed.

There is

a second abstract at the

beginning

ER II. 5. There

two, but only two, abstracts in the book. The effect of this second abstract, although placed in the middle of Book II, is to create a new beginning;
are thus
we are required

to reflect upon the first abstract and what change

abstract

is

beginning

here. The first

science.

introduces the introduces

principles of natural and metaphysical

'tradition.'

The

second abstract

This
of

second

division in the

treatise examines

knowledge that is

obtained

by

way

perception, that is

by

the perceptions of others as

prophets.

they

are

transmitted

by

ER II.5 is

an account of prophecy.
of

The

rest

traditions, especially the of Ibn Daud's treatise is a Talmud

and a

defense

of the

details

the traditions of

Scripture

and

defense

of

political philosophy. minds us of the

tradition.13

With the

creation of

this second structure, Ibn Daud re

difference between the

proofs of

philosophy

and the proofs of

These

reflections on the structure of the argument

to Ibn Daud's
end of the practical

formulation

of

the purpose of

in the treatise introduce us his treatise. Ibn Daud says at the

abstract that the subject of his treatise is political or it is political philosophy which determines the philosophy; veracity of traditions in religious law, and it is political as well which deter philosophy mines what is demonstrative in philosophy itself (ER I Abstract, p. 4, 11.4-5).

introductory

According

to this passage the true science of religion and also the magisterial
of

science, the science

sciences, is political philosophy. This identification

of

Fontaine's Account of The, Exalted Faith

religion

341
on

and

political

philosophy is found

also

in

Maimonides'

Treatise

Logic. He
The

writes:

sages of

the peoples of antiquity made rules and regulations, according to their

of

various

degrees

perfection, for the government of their subjects. These are called

peoples were governed.

nomoi; and

by

them, the

On

all

these matters, the

philosophers

those

have many books which have been translated into Arabic. Perhaps that have not been translated, are even more numerous. But in these times laws
and nomoi;

we

do

not need all these

for divine laws

govern

human

conduct.'4

Maimonides'

comments
with religion and

here

are

subtle, but it

seems that

he

replaces the nomoi

in

so

doing
in the

suggests

that the purpose

of religion

is

political.

Ibn Daud does the

same

passage we

have

examined.

The

inquiry

into the

true nature of religion and a defense of Judaism

is the

subject of political phi

agreement

losophy. (Maimonides philosophy is

and

Ibn Daud

appear

to be in

that political

an architectonic rather than entity.

tially

political

ancillary science.) Religion is essen Fontaine is correct in her judgement that Ibn Daud Ibn Daud's interest in
Book III,
where

provides an account of

the soul which gives a central place to virtuous actions

political

and therefore to religion.

philosophy is

con

firmed
cal

at the

beginning

of

he

states that the purpose of practi

philosophy is happiness (ER III,

governance
of

p.

98, 11.19-20). Political philosophy

of the

cultivates political

the

individual,

home

and of

the state; these

way Ibn Daud modifies this formulation slightly in the next passage of the ab stract, however. After quoting Deuteronomy 4:6, Ibn Daud says that it is not the
marvelous

teachings are

found in the

most perfect

possible

in the

Torah.15

law that is (ha-misyot

actions

in the
are

eyes of not

Israel's

neighbours

because
nations,

revealed and

laws

ha-shimi'ot)
to

intended for the

and ethical

other

political

(ha-hanahagot

ha-mediniyyot)

virtues

(ma'alot

ha-midot)

are available
ral"

everyone of

intellect. (He does

not explain

this notion of "natu the principles of the

justice further

at this

point.) What is

marvelous are

Israelite faith (shorshe ha-'emunah ha-yisra'elit). Thus Ibn Daud's treatise

seeks

to

identify
natural

and

defend

principles.

The

point

of contact

in his treatise
and

between
which

science,

which

is

presented

in ER I.l-ER II.4,
end

tradition,

is

presented

in ER II.5

and perhaps to the

in ER III.2,

are principles.

The

principles of natural science are

harmonious

with

the principles of religion.

an enucleation

Biblical

interpretation

will

finally

be devoted to

of

these

principles.

3. THE SOURCES OF THE TREATISE

"sources"

The
abused,

examination
procedure.

of

the

of a

book is

necessary, though easily

an exposition of an
tra-

The delineation
the

of sources

is actually

author's predecessors;

concatenation of

these predecessors constitutes a

342

Interpretation
which an author writes.

dition from
of the

This tradition

contains a set of conventions

way

subjects are presented and

in

what

languages. An

author relies upon

certain previous

formulations

more than others, and the identification of these often elucidates what a particular writer

lines

of transmission and

imitation

is

saying.

The

pejorative criticism of a writer

more

because he has

"sources"

is in itself

insufficient. What is
the complex
conventions

difficult to examine, but more worthy of attention, is interplay that exists in a writer between the previously formulated of a tradition and the particular variations found in his writings.
a philosophic tradition which are complex.

Ibn Daud belongs to

tion. The reasons

does

not strive

for innova

for this
like

Let

us reflect on

tive

proofs

are of

problems

in

mathematics.

only one. Demonstra Mathematics represents the

pristine

form

necessary

argumentation.

particular student of mathematics with a mathematical

does

not

for the he

most part seek

to

be innovative

theorem,

but

rather

strives to

do

each

step according to

a pattern and

to arrive at the

one correct answer.

tive proofs in The Exalted

Ibn Daud is seeking to Faith; he does

that

some extent to produce not see

demonstra
virtue, nor

innovation

as a

does he

"borrowing,"

see

is, being

able to

follow

an argument and repro

duce it through
math

a series of problems, as a weakness.

which

Mathematicians discover
"theirs."

formulae
be

they

then make public,

but the formulae

"invented"

are not

It

would

unusual
=

to say of anyone that he

"created"

or

the equa

tion 2X2

4.16

Fontaine's book
Ibn Daud
precise
writes.

reveals an extensive command of the tradition conducts

from

which
of

She

her

examination of sources either at the

level

wording,

so that she can show that

Ibn Daud Fontaine's

was

reading

a particular

document,
cussion of

or at the

level

of

ideas. Each
for
each

of

chapters contains a

dis

his

possible sources

the Greek and Arab philosophers, and the

topic; in philosophy, these sources are in religion, the Bible and the Talmud and

interpretations

of these and

in

various representatives of

Rabbinic
she
ER,"

and

Karaite
that

Judaism, Christianity,
"Aristotle is the
tains that "the

Islam. Of the Greek

philosophers

argues

one whose presence

is

most

keenly

felt in

and she main work

Aristotelian

element weighs

heavier in his

than in that of

his

predecessors"

(p. 254). Of the Arab

and not

pendent upon

Alfarabi, Ibn Sina,

argument

Ibn Daud has been mostly de Al-Ghazali, and of these Ibn Sina is most
writers

influential. Her
examination
"Neoplatonic"

here is

confirms

what

was

particularly controversial, and her detailed hitherto argued. She admits that there are

tions of

from

"Neoplatonism"

elements, introduced primarily through Ibn Sina and interpreta Rabbinical writings, and thus Ibn Daud's Aristotelianism is not free (pp. 255-56). She argues that Ibn Daud's account of

emanation

is

presented

in exactly the
used

same

way

as

it is in Alfarabi

and

Ibn Sina

(p. 255). The

most

frequent term
pp.

in her

inquiry
passim).

into Ibn Daud's

suggests a

sources

is "bor
an avid

rowed"

(see

17, 25, 27, 69, 147

writers, the term

Although Ibn Daud is

student of previous

"borrowed"

facile

reiteration of

Fontaine 's Account of The Exalted Faith

the contributions of others.

343
pro

If, however,
to

we remember

that the

ability to

duce
erly,

demonstration is
that the

comparable

and

desire for innovation Fontaine

in this Arabic
rowing"

philosophical

prop creativity does not dominate writers tradition, then Fontaine's understanding of "bor
and
could

doing

a problem

in

mathematics

is

problematic.

have

made a

better

case

for Ibn Daud's

borrowed

intellectual training than she does. His book is not a words and ideas, but a sustained presentation of a series
and

collection of

of philosophical aporia

demonstrations,

and an examination of

the ways in which philosophy eluci

a matter of
and

dates Judaism. To be precise, my criticism of Fontaine here is presentation rather than of her command of the Greek, Jewish,
predecessors of

Muslim

Ibn Daud. There

are numerous parallels which she elucidates

between Ibn Daud

guage or

concerning precise points of lan ideas. concerning The way in which the philosophic traditions are represented in the study of
and other writers, either

an author

is

vital.

of a particular author or

This task remains, in any inquiry into either the achievement into the history of philosophy, a monumental challenge.
and

How does Fontaine depict this tradition,

how does her

representation shape
"influences"

her

account of

Ibn Daud? Let

us examine

her

evaluation of the

in

the tradition, and then look at two examples.

Fontaine
phy.

regards

Ibn Daud

as

She

writes

in

summation:

marking a new beginning in Jewish philoso "As regards Greek authors we can be quite sure

that Ibn Daud's

knowledge

his is

predecessors"

of Aristotelian philosophy exceeded that of any of (p. 253). The identification of the predecessors in this context

vague.

assume

that she primarily means Jewish predecessors, since she

are capable advocates of

maintains

that both Alfarabi and Ibn Sina

Aristotelian

philosophy.

This understanding of her intentions is confirmed in the following statement: "His [Ibn Daud's] originality lies chiefly in the fact that he tries to transplant the system of ideas of the falasifa into Jewish soil and make it bear (p. 269). In consistency with this evaluation of Ibn Daud, she argues that Ibn Daud's Arabic philosophic predecessors, Al-Kindi, Alfarabi, and Ibn
there"

fruit

Sina,
totle]

are

was

essentially Aristotelian (pp. 252-74). She writes: "Just as he [Aris to many another medieval thinker, to Ibn Daud Aristotle was the
what

authority,

She

also

Ibn Daud, indeed, called 'head of the judges that there is a secondary element
says:

philosophers'

"

(p. 254).

of

Neoplatonism in Ibn
on

Daud's treatise. She

"That the Neoplatonist influence

Ibn Daud

must

is clear, for example, from the fact that, like Ibn be Sina, his psychology is only tinged with Neoplatonism by fits and starts, while (p. 255). She later suggests all the time the starting points are pure
attributed to the falasifa
Aristotle"

that the inconsistencies in his thought are due to Neoplatonism:

To

some extent

these

"unevennesses"

can

be

explained

by

the

fact that Ibn Daud's

As I have already Jewish thinkers,

Aristotelianism
observed,

is

still

largely

coloured
with

by

Neoplatonic

elements.

Aristotle

gets

further

him than he did

with earlier

344 but,

Interpretation
as

his thinking

on matter

illustrates,

this does

not

lead to any

radical

break

with

Neoplatonism. (P.

272)
or

What

either

Aristotelianism
aporia.

Neoplatonism

means

in this
were

context

is,

of

course, the essential

If the term

"Neoplatonism"

avoided, it would

be necessary to

explicate

the teachings

of

those writers who are associated with

this movement. The unevennesses in Fontaine's comments represent

equivocal evaluation of what predecessors are most central to

her

own

Ibn Daud's trea it is necessary have

in the

tise.

Furthermore, in making
which reflect

an

inquiry into

this

issue

to determine

theme will be considered the most decisive. We will

opportunity to
successive

further

on the nature of

Ibn Daud's

predecessors

sections, but let

which

us examine one

passage,
of

a typical

taine's

work

illustrates

the

complexity

thought

passage, in Fon in Ibn Daud's

predecessors.

In

chapter

2 Fontaine

examines

Ibn Daud's She

notions of substance and acci

uses

dent. She claims,

tions
of

as might and

be expected, that Ibn Daud

also

Aristotle's defini

substance of

accident.

formulations
and

Aristotle's definitions

are

rightly so, that the taken from the falasifa, from Alfarabi
and

judges,

Ibn Sina. She is particularly impressed by Ibn Daud's reliance upon Alfarabi's commentary on the categories of Aristotle. She begins her examination
of

Ibn Daud's
"

sources of the categories

by disagreeing
is "fast

with

Jacob Guttmann's
Aristotelisch" "order"

comments that

his treatment
his

of the categories

wortgetreu

(p. 16).

She

criticizes

phrase

because

she says that the and

of

discus
Aris

sion of the categories

is different in Aristotle

Ibn Daud

and also that

totle

"glosses

concludes

last five categories, while Ibn Daud discusses them. She that Ibn Daud may have had an Arabic translation of an Aristotelian
the

over"

text, but that he

treatment nor a

may have had other sources. But fuller discussion of Aristotle is actually
also
of substance and
discussion.18

neither

the order

of

proof that

Ibn Daud

disagrees is

with

Aristotle's definitions in this

accident, and this

'category'

finally

what matters

presup Arabic spelling in Alfarabi's treatise and also that several of Ibn Daud's definitions are borrowed from Alfarabi. She traces the differences be tween Alfarabi and Ibn Daud to a possible source, that of Ibn Sina. Again, what
poses

Secondly,
the

she argues

that the Hebrew spelling of the word

matters

here is

not source

hunting
It is

for the copying

of substance

of

phrases, but the definitions

and

of substance and accident.

possible that

Alfarabi, Ibn Sina,

even

Ibn Daud
variations

have precisely the same account occur in the definitions. Fontaine

philosophical

though slight

should concentrate more

issue. Further, in

order to

illustrate

the

completely on the degree of difficulty of

recreating the thought of predecessors, it is necessary only to consider the num ber and the subtlety of Alfarabi's logical treatises. Fontaine's account of Al farabi's view of being is confined to one of his works, "Al-Farabi's paraphrase

Fontaine 's Account of The Exalted Faith

of

345

the

Categories

Aristotle."

of

Alfarabi

wrote a series of

logical

works which

must

In regard to subtlety in these treatises, it is necessary to note that, despite Alfarabi's agree ment with Aristotle on certain points, there is nothing comparable in them to
account of
physics.19

be

considered

in Alfarabi's

Aristotelian

the presentation of the categories as

found in ER 1.1.

4. ARISTOTELIAN AND PLATONIC SCIENCE AND BIBLICAL CREATION

There is

widespread agreement that

Ibn Daud's treatise is the first

substantial

Aristotelian treatise in Jewish thought. While Fontaine identifies

what she calls
"Neoplatonic"

a number of

elements,

she

judges that for Ibn Daud Aristotle is

up in the sentence quoted in the that his "starting points are pure
work

"the last

authority"

(p. 254). Her

view

is

summed

section

which

ends with the comment

of

Aristotle"

(p. 255). This degree

chapter

Aristotelianism in the division

is

is

by

no means

clear, however. In

11

of

her study, Fontaine

gives substantial credit to

of the soul and of ethics.

Plato for Ibn Daud's Even the

cently
use of the

accounts of the tripartite

"Neoplatonic"

criticizes

category the use because "Muslim

problematic.

E. K. Rowson

re

philosophers

had

never

heard
not

of

Neo

platonism"; it is a term used in modern scholarship

represent numerous authors.

which

may

In Fontaine's exposition, the Plato

separation of

accurately Aris

totelian and Neoplatonic encourages, as is often the case, both a strong separa
tion of the

intentions

of

Aristotle

and

and the affirmation that

Aristotle is

a more capable advocate of

biblical

religion

than Plato and

his interpreters. But

from I

if

we wish

to continue a heuristic

inquiry

of these

concerns, we thus need to be

aware

of possible or

limitations
or

of our

procedure. can

If there

are

elements

Plotinus
will

Porphyry

Alfarabi, they
'Neoplatonic'

be identified

by

individual

author.

thus avoid the term

as much as of

possible.20

An

inquiry

into (1) the degree

discussion

purity

of

Ibn Daud's Aristotelianism

and

(2)

the compatibility of Ibn Daud's natural science and biblical account of cre
of the origin of nature

ation entails a uses

in Ibn Daud's treatise. Fontaine

relation.

the word

"emanation"

frequently

to

describe this

She introduces
chapter
chapter

the term in her discussion of places in her

on

book,

most

the

heavenly
her

spheres and

intelligences,
statement on

chapter

extensively in her 7 (pp. 110-36). This

view.

presents

most

decisive

Ibn Daud's

She defers to her

chapter

formulation in
which

chapter

7 in later discussions. Note for example, in

9,

is her
the

examination of

God's knowledge
of

of events and governance of the

world as
of

a whole
central

and

his

governance

particulars, a chapter which raises

she refers to

many Ibn Daud's

we

issues
in

of

the entire

treatise,

her formulation

of

position

chapter

7 (pp. 172-73). In
'emanation.'

an examination of chapter

7,

indeed find her

follows:

key

discussion

of

She

summarizes

Ibn Daud's

position as

346

Interpretation
All these
vaguenesses and contradictions arise

from the fact that Ibn Daud

whether

makes no clear statement

emanation or

regarding

the question of

the world originated

emanation

by

in

an act of creation.

In his

efforts to

cling to both the

theory

of the philosophers and the traditional contradictions.

idea

of creation

he is bound to find

himself bogged down in In any event, it is necessary

emanation.

(Pp.

134-35)
rejects

safe to

say

that

Ibn Daud

the idea of

an eternal

But he

also accepts the

idea

of creation

only up to in time.

a point.

Nowhere, for example, does he state explicitly that God nothing, nor does he say anywhere that God created the
particular, would

created the world world

from

That, in

have

conflicted with

his ideas
This

of an

immutable God. For if God

might

created the universe at a single particular moment, should

it

be

wondered

have

chosen

that precise

moment.

presupposes a change

why he in God's will.

Thus

we can a

emanation, in

only conclude that Ibn Daud accepts both ideas, creation and diluted form. God produces the world, in whatever way that might
so with

be,

and

he does

his

will.

But for the

problems that this ambivalence

creates,

Ibn Daud has

no other solution than the shortcomings of

human

understanding.

(P.

135)

Several

key

points emerge

in this

passage.

emanation and claims that

creation,

as

distinct

and contradictory.

First, Fontaine sees the two views, Secondly, although she

is
an

Ibn Daud The

seeks to maintain the view of emanation of the philoso

phers, she says that Ibn Daud

emanation."

does

not think that there

"eternal necessary

question arises:

What does

emanation mean?

Thirdly,
his

she says

that he accepts creation but at no point does he state explicity

with creatio ex nihilo or creation at a point

agreement

in time. Another

question arises: not solve

What does let

creation mean?

Her

conclusion

is that Ibn Daud does

the

contradictions.
us

In

order

to confirm that this is her final judgement of his view,

other passages

examine

several

in her book in

which

the

issue is

discussed. Fontaine introduces Ibn Daud's

use of

Aristotle's

account of

form

and matter

in her
matter

exposition of

his

chapter

2.

According

to Ibn Daud's version of

Aristotle,
and

is known to

exist

because something

common exists amidst the changes

of

forms. For example, in the into

a gold coin and gold or

case of perceptual matter

ha-mel'

(hiyuli

ha-muhash)

artificial or manmade
made

forms (ha-surot
then

akhutiyot),

a gold scepter can

be

into

a gold

ring

and

into

thousand different
common

forms. The
entity

is

common to each new

entity; Fontaine calls this

gold"

"matter"

"substrate"

(homer)

or

"the

essence of

( 'asmut bezahav
or what

homer)
Daud ible
and

(p. 23). In the

case of natural

forms (ha-surot

ha-tivi'ot),

Ibn

also calls

divine forms (ha-srot

"prime
matter"

ha-'elohiyot),

the substrate is

impercept
also are
says

is

called

(ha-homer ha-ri'shoniyot). The forms

context

called

"prime

forms"

(ha-surot ha-ri'shoniyot). In this

whether prime

Fontaine

that the
ual

forms

and

matter,

form

and prime matter or the

individ

elements, are

both

"emanated"

from

and

"created"

by

God (pp. 23-24). She

she would

omits

any

comment

here regarding

what

Hebrew terms

translate

as

Fontaine 's Account of The Exalted Faith

"emanated"

347
is

or
used

"created."

The

usual

term

for

emanation

is

ha-shepha'

which

in ER 1.2,

p.

which also occurs

10, 11.30-33; but it is also possible that the term ha-ga'ah, in ER 1.2, p. 10, 11.30-733 and again in ER 1.2, p. 12, 11.25"emanation."

40,

could

be translated

as
use

Nevertheless it is in

an exposition of
not

this chapter that she

begins to

the term emanation. Although she does

uses

draw
verb

attention

to the verb

bara

from Genesis 1
shows

to speak of

in this chapter, Ibn Daud God's creative

acts.21

this poignant

sufficiently that Ibn Daud's initial exposition reveals his Aristotelian starting points. Fontaine says that Ibn Daud from Aris
"borrows"

Fontaine

totle's

Physics, 1,7-8
with

and

the
of

Metaphysics, VIII. Ibn Daud's

Aristotelian
physics
notes that

account of

form

and matter are an

infusion

into his treatise. In

consis

tency

these Aristotelian
on

formulations, Fontaine
however,

Ibn Daud insists,

inter alia,

the Aristotelian affirmation that

at

"nothing
a

can proceed

from

non

existence"

(p. 25). It is
not creatio

this point,

that a difficult question begins to

emerge:

Is

ex nihilo

necessary to
of

biblical

account of creation?

Fontaine
entails and

neglects to mention

in this

context that a rejection of creatio ex nihilo

the eternity and necessity

the effect from an eternal necessary cause,

thus the eternity of the world.

cause

Furthermore, if
no sense wills

the world proceeds

from

necessary cause, then the

in

the effect at one time rather

than another and, moreover, the effect is necessarily of a particular nature. For

Aristotle potentiality is not absolute nonexistence. Her only concern here which is typical of her preoccupation with the identification of types of sources
rather

than with an

inquiry

into the

aporia presented

in Ibn Daud's text

is

whether

Ibn Daud

read an

Arabic translation

of

Aristotle's treatises

or whether

he had his

some other source

(p. 25). Since it is Fontaine's

conclusion

that the
at

contradictions are not stated aim of

of

harmonized in Ibn Daud's treatise, that he indeed fails

religion and

harmonizing
of

philosophy,

she avoids

further

re

flection

these difficult questions. What she offers

is Ibn Daud's

correction of admit

Aristotle
as

on the

basis

biblical

creation.

Can

we

be content, however, to

easily

as

Fontaine that Ibn Daud

was aware

of, but could not solve, the

we gain

contradictions which preoccupied the

writing

of

his treatise? Or do initiates to

the

impression that further

Ibn Daud's

an

alert

writer

introduces
is

us

as

grave

issues for

exploration? account of origins complicated

further,

as

Fontaine recognizes,

because Ibn Daud introduces into this

chapter.

other non-Aristotelian and nonbiblical elements

view of matter

In particular, Ibn Daud's

is

not

identical to
(hitdabshe

Aristotle's. She
form"

argues

that Ibn Daud's notions of an "undifferentiated incor

poreal

(surat

geshem

beshilluah)
prime

"cohesion"

"volume"

and of are of

or

quf), both of
says

which exist

in

matter,

Neoplatonic

origin.

Thus

"prime

matter cannot

certain extension, a mann's

be wholly formless since it must in any event have a certain (p. 26). After a refutation of Jacob Guttvolume"

hypothesis that this

philosophy,

notion of a universal corporeal

form follows Ibn

nor

Gabirol's

Fontaine

concludes that neither

Ibn Gabirol

Ibn Daud

348
can

Interpretation
be
acquitted of the charge of
regard

ambiva

"contradiction

and

(pp.

29-30),

especially in

to matter. Fontaine's judgement of Ibn Daud's

view

of

matter persists

throughout her book. She says that his "ambivalence

regarding

matter will cost

Ibn Daud dear, (p. 30).

as when

he discusses the relationship between

contradiction

body

soul"

and

In the

midst of

this discussion of the

between

Aristotelian,
begin
(ER
report"

Platonic,
nings

and perhaps

Plotinian

accounts of

matter,

another version of a

is introduced. She

says that

Ibn Daud includes both

"creation

1.2,

p.

10, 11.1-18) in

order to explain the origin of

prime matter and prime

form (p. 30). Although

place"

she admits that the creation report still proof that report

is

"distinctly

out of

(p. 30), Fontaine judges that it is

a

defers to
that

biblical

account of creation.

In this
craft.

Ibn Daud
to

Ibn Daud ultimately states his belief

God

prepares the material

for his

According
not

Fontaine, Aristotle
generation and the on expla

provides

Ibn Daud

with a

"magnificent

explanation

for the
a

things"

corruption of

(p. 30), but Aristotle did

form."

have

"monopoly
not

nations of the origin of either matter or

created.

(p. 30). Matter is

eternal, but
means

For Fontaine, the

use of

the term

"emanation"

by

Ibn Daud

that

matter and
phrase

form

are not

"immanent

principles

in

nature"

and the use of the

"by

the will of

God"

is

"clear

indicator"

that these principles are of

divine

origin

(p. 30). her judgements here

are

While
on

on the whole

correct, she does not comment

the careful movement of this part of the chapter. After a summary of the

conceptual

demonstration (ha-mophet
a sentence with
created"

ha-sikhli)
believe"

(ER 1.1,

p.

9, 1.41

-p.

10, 1.1),
knowl

Ibn Daud begins

the verb

"We

and continues with the use of

of

"God

(bara '). The

juxtapositioning

two

forms

of

edge, demonstration and

belief, is

used

to make a point. Ibn Daud does not

a matter of

claim that the createdness of the world

is demonstrative. It is

belief.

(mequblearn later in Ibn Daud's treatise, beliefs are belot) which are not above intellectual scrutiny. The procedure of verification, or falsification, is closer in resemblance to proof in a court of law than to a

As

we will

'traditions'

mathematical
nature of

demonstration. Ibn Daud is

aware of

the potentially precarious

the verification of traditions, but he also reminds us that traditions are

cannot

necessary for human community, and therefore ply because they are not provable in the manner

be dispensed

with sim

of scientific

demonstration. Ibn

Daud's
world

view of

these traditions is presented in ER II.5. The createdness of the

thus is a tradition which requires continuous examination. Ibn Daud's

presentation

here

suggests

his keen

awareness of possible contradictions

be

tween scientific

demonstrations

and religious

teachings. We should expect fur

issues later in his treatise, especially since his aim is philosophy and religion. In the final section of Ibn Daud's chapter 2, a section which is devoted to a discussion of scriptural passages, we are introduced in a cryptic manner to Ibn
ther examination of these

to harmonize

Fontaine 's Account of The Exalted Faith

Daud's
account of

349

intermediaries,
of

and

thus to a central

ingredient in his

account

of emanation. a section on

Fontaine does
the

acknowledge

the unusual nature of this passage in

a comment on a phrase

teaching

Scripture. In

from Job
gives an
all other

38:14, he
exposition

reflects on the secrets of the world of of

nature, that

is, he

how the first

sphere

(ha-galgal

ha-rishon)

moves

spheres, how the ecliptic (galgal

and

ha-mazzalot)

generates genera and species,

how the

generate

proceeding along individual forms. This chain causes the

to be a passage

stars which are

the motions of the zodiac

generation and

( 'azor)
of

dissolution

the motions of the elements and the unification and removal of

matter.

forms from

This

appears

which would

invite further

reflection on

especially in a list of passages which are used to show that biblical texts suggest Aristotelian accounts of substance. Fontaine is content here to
remark

'emanation,'

that Ibn Daud "must describe

what role

the heaven-world plays in the

and

sublunary"

(p.

32)

in

order

to explain

generation

corruption,

providence

and

human

actions.

She

says we will case.

have to look to

subsequent chapters

in the

treatise to see

why this is the

comments on

Ibn Daud's
earlier

regarding Scripture in this

pedagogic purpose of

passage

initiated

part of our

discussion

the

the treatise.

According

to Ibn

Daud, Scripture only

in
philosophical masses.

suggests

(remazim)

and makes allusions to what

sense of

is known
written

demonstration. The literal

the Tanach thus is

for the

Only

the special individual (yehid segulah) will see the secret

extent are

allusions to own

philosophy in Scripture. To what treatise after the pattern of Scripture? We

does Ibn Daud left

present

his
to

deliberately

with much

ponder.

Three
sion.

central what

issues do

not emerge an

First,

is necessary in
writer,

sufficiently in Fontaine's initial discus is inquiry into the meaning of

'emanation'

whether a particular
progression of

such

as

Ibn Daud,

understands

it

as a

necessary

beings from the One

or whether, at some act of will

point,

perhaps

only

at

the

motion.

beginning, the First Mover makes a Second, if Ibn Daud seeks to defend God's knowledge
to
govern

to set the procession in

of particulars

and also particular

providence, then either the First Mover or perhaps

inter

mediaries must make continuous acts of will

the world. Aristotle's

First Mover
account

neither creates

by

an act of will

nor changes

in any

respect

to

for

contingencies.

Thus Aristotelian

causation

is

necessary, and

if

nec

essary, also eternal.

Necessary being itself

necessary only
within what

always

exists; the good and

exists.22

neces

sary

effect of a good and

cause also always

Third, Fontaine

speaks of causation
cient"

causation.

In

an article on

in Aristotelian terminology "effi Aristotle's separate movers, J. Owens writes: is

called

That

an

immobile Mover
requires

that its causality

admitted

in this

question,

function only as a final cause, the Aristotelian heavens to be animated, may be taken and indeed should now be beyond
of

the Metaphysics

can

and

as

controversy.23

350

Interpretation

Owens's summary expresses agreement with D. Ross's comments; Ross says that in book Lambda of the Metaphysics Aristotle argues that the First Cause
moves the world
"will"

the world

Daud

means

only as something loved. The First Mover does not in any way into being. Accordingly, any suggestion of voluntarism in Ibn that he is not consistent with Aristotle's argument.

This

subject emerges again of

in

chapter

of

Fontaine's book. Chapter 7 is

the purpose of

discussion

ER 1.8

and

II.4. Fontaine
the

summarizes

ER 1.8

as

Ibn

Daud's intention "to

not

prove that

motion of
soul"

the

heavenly

spheres emanates or

from their

nature

but from their

(p. 111). The

heavens,
is

to be more

specific, the spheres, have souls. The

motion of

the spheres

a soul-like or
motions of

voluntary
motion.

motion

(tenu'ot

naphshiyot

be-rason). Natural motion,

nonintellectual entities

due to their natures, is distinct from

move

psychic or

voluntary
God"

Entities

which

by

natural

motion

move

by

the "will of

(reson

ha-'

el), but the use of the phrase here is equivocal.

The

spheres are

living
1.8,
part
p.

entities.

The life

of these entities

is higher

than animal

life because the

spheres are rational

living

beings (p. 112). See especially the discussion in ER

41, 1.40-p. 42, 1.3.

proof of

Ibn Daud's

the existence of incorporeal

heavenly
human

souls

is derived in
movement proves the

from his

argument

for the

incorporeality

of the

soul.

The

of the

human

soul

from

potential

knowledge to

actual

knowledge is

existence of a separate active

intellect because that

actual

which

potential requires

an external mover which

existence.

is already

to cause the transition to the higher

In

a similar

way, the souls of the

heavenly

spheres

go through a

transition from potentiality to actuality, and the transition must be caused

more perfect mover.
most point

by

The

continuous circular motion of these spheres

of

is the
at

perfect

actualization

potentiality

possible.

Fontaine

remarks

this

that the motion of the spheral souls arises

from the "desire

and

of the spheral movers

souls to

become like the

movers"

unmoved

(p. 112);

"Thus these

cause this motion to the extent that

bodies

strive after

final cause, in that the heavenly they perfection, just as the beloved object, without itself being
are the
of

moved, serves as the cause

the movement of the lover

desiring

his

beloved"

(pp. 112-13).

Fontaine

remarks that

in this

exposition

Ibn Daud

"borrows"

from Aristotle's

De Caelo (p. 117). She does

which

note several

differences,

the most important of

is that Ibn Daud's first

a soul

arising from
motion"

proof of the motions of the heavenly bodies is derived from "premisses from Aristotle's doctrine of (p. 118). She says:

[The proof] hinges

natural motion

on the notion that the

is

rectilinear and comes to rest.

and
it.

moving principle cannot be nature because The proof as such comes not from
of whose works

Aristotle but from Ibn Sina

would

Al-Ghazali, in both
Ibn Daud
and not

Ibn Daud
that motion of
with

have been

able to

find

makes a point of

stressing

the

heavenly

bodies is voluntary

natural, and here he disagrees

Fontaine's Account of'The Exalted Faith Aristotle,

does

351

who, as I have already observed, teaches that the spheres have souls but to the will. Ibn Daud's

not refer

terminology

reflects that of the

Islamic

authors to whom

I have

referred.

(P.

118)
be
raised to

Fontaine

explains

that

an objection could motion.

Ibn Daud's

separation of

natural and

voluntary
although

She

says that

Aristotle himself

might object

(p.

293,
form

n.

38);

unlike

the motions

of natural

motion of the heavens is beneath the heavens, the motion of the heavens is still a motion. Fontaine concludes that Ibn Daud moves on to a second maintains that the movement of the

Aristotle

demonstration for the

that

heavens

by

'soul'

because he is

afraid

his first

proof might

lead to

an

indentification
motion of

of soul with nature

(p. 118).

Fontaine then
proof

examines this

better proof,
is

although the

issue

at stake

in this first
and

is,

to

be sure, decisive. If the

the soul

is voluntary,
of

if the

influence
Daud

of the
a

heavens in

causation

by

the will of the sphere-souls, then Ibn

offers

considerable

modification,

if

not

rejection,

Aristotelian

science.

in unravelling the tightly bound knots of this issue continues in ER II.4. This chapter is, according to Fontaine, "devoted to proving the existence of the so-called incorporeal substances, intelligences, or (p.

The

difficulty

angels"

119). ER II.4.1 is
to the

demonstration
a

of the existence of angels with respect to of the existence of angels with rehearses

human thought. ER II.4.2 is

respect
motion of

demonstration

the

heavens. In ER II.4.2 Ibn Daud

his

argu

ment, first presented in ER

1.7, for the

existence of an active

Fontaine notes, when Ibn Daud duce the second proof, he says:
If
we wished

gets to the point where we

intellect. But, as expect him to pro

to give a true

and

necessary

proof of the existence of the

intelligible
But
we can
who

substances on the

basis

of the motions of the spheres, we would

do

so.

only do this in
will

way

which we wish

to avoid, so we leave that

path

to

him
p.

tread

it,

and we choose the straight path. p.

(Fontaine's translation from

121

of

her book, ER II.4.2,

60, 11.11-14)

What is Ibn Daud saying here? Is he claiming that there is a proof for the existence of incorporeal celestial intelligences which, though demonstrative, he

does

not wish

to reproduce? Or is he saying that there is a sophistical demon

stration

that some people use that he

not

does

not wish to use?

Fontaine's reading is

that the proof is

derived from the

motion of

the intellects themselves, but

from the

movement

Ibn Daud simply

returns

from actuality to potentiality (p. 121). Thus she says that to the demonstration for the Active Intellect, which
sufficient

may well indeed be a is indeed one possible

proof, although not a different one. While this

explanation

Ibn Daud

would start a new chapter with

for his procedure, it is difficult to know why the statement that he was producing
of

another proof which

is independent
only to

his

proof

from the

nature of understand
point at which

ing

in the human

soul

abandon

this proof at the

it is

352

Interpretation
Rather it
of

required.

appears that

here

again

Ibn Daud is avoiding full

exposition

because
treatise,

the

difficult for

nature of the proofs and the protreptic purpose of other reasons.

his

or perhaps

We have

shown

earlier

that there are

numerous examples

in his predecessors, does

contemporaries and successors

for

par

tial expositions. Fontaine notes elsewhere that there are themes which are not
part of

his inquiry, but

she

not conclude that the same

an examination need

is true here. Ibn

of

Daud

continues

his discussion

with

of

primary instances
p.

knowledge (ha-yediyot ha-ri'shonot), the

reaffirmation

for

an arouser

that the heavens are moved

of the motion of the

by

will

(ER II.4.2,

(me'orer) and the 60, 11.30-31).

heavens arising from their love of perfection, a teleology of final cause, receives little further comment in Fontaine's book. She remarks that the concept of the falasifa of an intellectual desire causing the
The theme
creation of a mental representation

(tasawwur)
for this

of the

beloved is

not

found in
she

Ibn Daud. Fontaine has

address

no explanation

omission

(p. 122). Nor does

the

full implications
I do

of this notion of causation of

by

attraction

for her
a

evaluation of the
criticism

Aristotelianism

Ibn Daud. While I

offer

this judgement as

here,

not underestimate

the difficult challenge

philosophy.

for

anyone who

wishes to explicate this

issue in Arabic

Ibn Daud's distinction between the natural,

rectilinear motion of

the terres

trial sphere and the voluntary motions of the soul of man and the celestial
spheres
will

emerge

again

in

our next

section

on

the soul,

but this
Let

crucial

formulation

allows us, at this point, to present

Aristotle's

view.

us

begin

with a quotation

from De Caelo:

We may take it that movement which is

all movement
unnatural

is

either natural or

unnatural,

and

that the

to one

body

is

natural to another

as, for

instance, is

the case with the upward and

unnatural

downward movements,

which are natural and

to

fire

and earth respectively.

unnatural

It necessarily follows that

the

circular

movement,

being
on

to these

bodies, is

natural movement of some other.

Further, if,
surely be

the one

hand,

circular movement

is is

natural to

something, it

must

some simple and

primary

circular motion, as

the movement

of

remarkable and continuous and

ordained up and earth down. If on the other hand, rotating bodies about the centre is unnatural, it would be indeed quite inconceivable that this movement alone should be

fire is

body to fly

which

ordained to move with a natural

the

eternal,

being

nevertheless

evidence of all other cases goes to show that passes away.

contrary to nature. At any rate, the it is the unnatural which quickest

just

as some say, the body so moved is fire, this movement is downward movement; for any one can see that fire moves in a straight line away from the centre. On all these grounds, therefore, we may infer with confidence that there is something beyond the bodies that are about us on as unnatural to

And so,

if,
as

it

this earth,

different

is

proportionate to
18).24

and separate from them; and that the superior glory of its nature its distance from this world of ours. (De Caelo I 2 269a 34-

269b

Fontaine 's Account of The Exalted Faith

The
motion natural

-353

to the spheres is circular motion. The continuous and eter

nal nature of

this circular motion attests to a simple and primary

body

whose

nature possesses a superior account sounds

glory to the bodies of our world. To be sure, this

may, Aristotle's statement here

very like Ibn Daud's universal corporeal form. Be that as it does not distinguish natural and voluntary mo he does
not

tions,

and therefore

voluntary.

Aristotle's

account

say exactly that the motions of the heavens are is the opposite of this. To the extent that the

motions of

the spheres approximate perfection, that

is,

the

most perfect

imita

tion of

Perfection itself in moving things, this motion must be of a certain and necessary manner. The challenge which Ibn Daud faces, as does anyone who
seeks

to

preserve

the rule of law against the vagaries of tyranny, is to combine a

serious

defense

of

law,

and thus also of a

prophecy, with the

scientific

notion

that nature

entails necessity.

Can there be

genuinely

correction, if indeed there

needs

to be a correction, to Aristotelian science which

creation?

is

consistent

with, or
of

derived from, biblical

voluntarism?

Is this

correction

always

in the form

5. ON THE SOUL
Soul,"

Fontaine
so

examines

ER 1.6

and

7 in her

chapter

entitled

"The

and

in

doing
of

traverses two central subjects of

inquiry
subjects

in Ibn Daud's treatise, the is

established at

soul and angels.

The link between the two

which

the begin

ning

ER 1.6 in

Ibn Daud

says

the true science of the soul requires an

explanation of the substances.

"intellects"

intermediaries that

exist

between the First

and the corporeal and

The intermediaries

"angels"

are called

(mal'akim) in Scripture

(sheniyin) by

the

philosophers.

A demonstration of the existence of

incorporeal entities,
Ibn Daud

such as

souls, could be derived from sense perception, but

says that this would not

indeed be

a true

demonstration because the

writes:

premises of such an argument are not necessary.

demonstration if it is derived from the

heavens"

path of p.

"This is only a true human perfections and from the He

path of the motions of

the
entitled

(ER 1.6,

20, 11.13-15). Indeed, it is only

his
a argu

in the

"Angels,"

following
the

chapter,

that Ibn Daud produces

ment that

rational power of explored

the soul

is

neither a

body

nor a

force in

body.
also

Thus the issues

emerge

in

our

discussion He
says

of emanation

and

creation

in the

account

of the

soul.

demonstrations for incorporeal

demonstration
Fontaine
remains

substances.

clearly here that there are two We know already that the second for the
existence of

unstated.25

explains

that

Ibn Daud's first

argument

the soul

is actually
types of

an

argument

from

"observation"

(p. 49). We
"

recognize

different
a

beings

as we observe

their different
as

"functions."

This leads to

defini

tion. She formulates Ibn Daud's definition

follows:

'It is the

perfection of a

354

Interpretation

natural organic

say that the soul is the perfection of (ER 1.6, p. 21, 11.10-11). a natural body which has the potentiality of Fontaine remarks that while Ibn Daud says this is Aristotle's definition of the

body

and

if

we wish we can

life"

soul, in

fact,

the wording suggests a different source (p. 56). Aristotle's

body"

defini
first

tion is: "the

first

grade of

actuality

of a

naturally

organized

(De Anima, II

1 412a29-412b9). She
grade"

notes

that Ibn Sina includes the reference to "the

of actuality,

but

still concludes

that Ibn Daud's wording suggests Ibn

Sina's Risdlah. Fontaine is

in fact in
cannot

careful to recognize says

with

Ibn Daud's

claim

that the soul

be defined. He
what

respect

to

happens

he is going round about and defining the soul it. The soul cannot be defined because the necessary for definition, cannot be identified his definition is that of the philoso
makes no reference

genus and

differentia,

which are

with respect

to the soul. Ibn Daud says that

pher, presumably

Aristotle, but he
soul

to the

rest of

Aristotle's
form
of a

definition,
natural

namely, that "the

is

a substance
it"

in the

sense of the

body having

life potentially
at

within

(De Anima, II 1, 412a20-21).

Nor does Fontaine comment,

treatise.

this point, on this omission

in Ibn Daud's

Ibn Daud As

proceeds

to affirm that the soul

is
of

a substance and not an accident.

a substance, the soul

is

"mixture"

not a

"added to the

mixture

from

outside"

elements, but something that is (p. 50). Thus Ibn Daud rejects various

theories of the materialists. Fontaine explains these comments

soul and

by

saying:
it"

"The

is the form in her

and the end of the

body
is

and

is the

motive cause of

(p. 50),

commentary:

"The

soul

not a mixture with a certain

equilibrium,

but the form that

acquires"

a mixture with a certain equilibrium

(p. 59). The

accuracy of this identification of the soul as the form of the body, however, is crucial. Fontaine herself contradicts this statement several pages later where she
says:

"Ibn Daud does

not as

simply

see

the soul as the

form

of the

body, but
(p.

prefers to

describe it

perfection, that term

and

being

comprehensive"

more

79). In between
soul

respect to soul and

both Ibn Sina

body is

not

Ibn Daud, she says: "The relationship like that between form and (p. 80). The
matter"

is

"independent"

of the

body

and

has "no

real attachment

to the

body"

(p.

77). Thus the body. She

lence"

soul

is immortal, though it

was created at the same time as the

of

concludes that the

soul and the

body

are not

contradictory views harmonized in Ibn Daud,

the relation between the this causes an "ambiva

and

which

influences his

views of practical and ethical matters

Fontaine's
the soul. In
says:

exposition reflects a

(p. 80). difficult tension in Ibn Daud's treatment

of

ER 1.6 Ibn Daud

argues that the soul

is

the

form

of the

body. He

We have already explained to you that the form is the substance which the hyle which is common to diverse things. Form makes the hyle into

shines upon one of these

individual

entities.

Form

makes matter to

be

what

it is

by bringing
body. The

it forth from
soul

potentiality to

actuality.

Form is the

actualization of the

is the

Fontaine 's Account of The Exalted Faith

composite of

355
of the

itself

and

hyle that its

exists end.

in it

as part of
p.

it. The

soul

is the form

body
In the
soul

and

its

actualization and

(ER 1.6,

23, 11.25-29,

translation

mine)26

following
not

chapter, ER
on

is

dependent

the

1.7, Ibn Daud, after an extensive body, offers a different solution:

argument

that the

It is form

reasoned with what we

of a

body

at all.

have already established that the human soul is not the The doctrine of reincarnation [gilgul] says: indeed if there is his
mixture which

a soul of man proper to mixture and still there

is

generated with the generation of

his

is

a soul which
p.

is

separate

from his

body,

then

for

one man

there are two souls.

(ER 1.7,

39, 11.4-7,
that the

translation mine)

The

passage

definitively
follows this

states

soul

is

not

the form

of

the

body. The
in

reason which

statement

is that to is

make such a claim engages one

the absurd

doctrine

of reincarnation. chapters

Nevertheless,
evident.

the contradiction between

the

passages

from the two due to

contradictions are

non-Aristotelian

Fontaine judges rightly that these elements in Ibn Daud's psychology

soul, he
re

(p. 80). In Ibn Daud's

account of appetitive and rational powers of the a

frains from

identifying

faculty

of will.

He does

explain

that the appetitive

faculty

has the

power of a mover. and

He

says that the power of

locomotion is

sent

forth from the brain,

account

the brain arouses the nerve which moves the limb. The

is strictly

physical and

does

not explore

the implications

for

politics of

appetitive motions
puzzling.

in the human

soul

(ER 1.6

p.

30, 11.30-34). The

even more

omission

is

An

inquiry body
is

into the

causes of

human

action

becomes
of

perplexing

when we consider

that Ibn Daud's formulation

the relation between the soul

and the

take on a political orientation

the soul governs the

body

view that

not

precisely

stated

in Aristotle's De Anima. This formulation is

the
political orientation of

consistent with our exposition of

Arabic

philosophy.

Ibn Daud's interest in this defense

most
of

political orientation

is, in turn,

consistent with

his

Jewish

religion.

He thus
even

employs

the scientific account which

is

harmonious

with

Judaism,

if

such usage requires a modification of

Aristotle

points.27

on certain

6. LAW (TORAH) AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

The inquiries into the faculties

of

the soul and into the

government of

the

body by
eminent

the soul lead

be sure, for Ibn Daud

inexorably to the inquiry into the foundations of law. To this inquiry entails, inter alia, an exposition of the pre

legal prophecy of Moses. A defense of Judaism is a defense of law and legal prophecy. There are, however, many prophets in the Tanach. Thus, ER II.5 is an explanation of the grades of biblical prophecy. But, as we shall see, the

356

Interpretation
Ibn Daud's treatise
continues even after

political concern of prophecy.

world and

his discussion

of

ER II.6
the

presents

his

arguments

mystery

of omnipotence

regarding God's governance of the (sod ha-yekholet), and ER III presents

"method"

the nature of right action.

Fontaine rightly observes the change in exposition in ER II.5. In this chapter Ibn Daud
nature and

(p.

140) in Ibn Daud's

completely
on

concentrates

the

validity

of

biblical

traditions.

The

abstract which precedes entire

his in
a

quiry, the second, and only other

abstract

in the

treatise, introduces

distinction between

understanding (muhshot) standing (muskalot). The perceptions of past events are traditions (mequbbelot). They cannot be verified completely, although witnesses can be found to deter
perceptual and conceptual under mine their validity. assertion

Fontaine

writes:

"Ibn Daud's starting

accepted"

point amounts which

to an

that certain traditions (mequbbelot), trovertibly established, simply have to be

the reliability of

is

incon-

(p. 141). Although Ibn

Daud
of

will proceed to commend the witness of the

biblical traditions, the force

understanding is
rather made not

his distinction between

perceptual and conceptual

simply to

establish the perfection of

biblical authority, but

to distinguish

two types of verification. The

deliberate distinction Ibn Daud

continued

made

between
of

demonstration validity

and

faith in ER 1.2 is

here. The demonstration

the

of past events cannot proceed

"frailty"

in the
of

same manner as the

demonstra
not cause

tions of science. This possible

traditions, however, does Traditions

are

Ibn Daud to

abandon or

despair

over the task.

preservation of the order of the world.

The

inquiry

necessary to the into the veracity of ancient

sift through the ac

traditions

is like the

work of a

judge

who must

carefully

counts of the witnesses.

The legal

nature of the procedure

is

germane

to the

legal

nature of

biblical
of

traditions.28

The delineation supremacy of rived from the

of the

prophecy is essential for the Mosaic legal prophecy. The gradations

of respective

degrees

justification

of the

faculty

of the soul which

prophecy are de is operative in the emanation

of

divine. Fontaine
when

explains that the

highest
(p.

grade of

Ibn Daud

the

imagination is
of

"restricted"

by
143)

prophecy occurs for the intellect (p. 143). The

"disadvantage"

imagination is
144). She

source

"interference"

and

(p.

Alfarabi, for whom the imagination (in her account of Alfarabi, the mutahayyila) is necessary for someone who wishes to be a prophet. Ibn Daud presents an intellectual view of prophecy. to
contrasts

this

view with

According

Fontaine,
tion,
and

the prophet

is

also required

to have high standards of moral

perfec

prophecy
of a

can

only

arise

in

a particular period of

time,

at a particular
of the

place, and among

qualifications

a particular people

(p. 147).

prophet,

we

would

expect

Following an inquiry
in

this discussion

into

the

biblical Ibn

prophets who attain

to each grade. She

does

not engage

a reflection of

Daud's

views of

dreams

and symbols nor of

those prophets whose intellect is so

she reflect on

strong that they need no intermediaries. Nor does prophecy in the Tanach. This omission is most

the grades

of

strikingly

noted when she says

Fontaine 's Account of The Exalted Faith

in
passing:

357

"That Moses is
[sic]"

unrivalled
of

among the
the

prophets which

is

apparent

from,
of

among other things, the title 'Lord upon him him (p. 149). We Mosaic The
prophecy. reticence

prophets'

Ibn Daud bestows

would expect a substantial

discussion

is

not

in ER II. 5.1 that is

of

an exposition of

only Fontaine's but also Ibn Daud's. There is very little biblical passages which elucidate the nature
chapter refers

Moses's

prophecy.

The

briefly

to two prophets, Abraham and

and

Moses,

who are educated

in the

nature of

prophecy,

the chapter also in

cludes several comments on comment on passages symbolic

Moses's
only
a

righteousness and

Numbers 12

and

brief

comment

humility, but there is no on Exodus 33-34, biblical

Abraham
receives

which examine

Moses's

grade of prophecy.

both
non-

is, imaginative, is a higher grade. Ibn Daud does not make a similar point in regard to Moses, even though he might have discussed Numbers 12 in this context. Ibn
the

and nonsymbolic

prophecy, but the nonsymbolic, that

Daud

provides an examination of

Exodus 33-34 in II.6.1, the

chapter on equiv

ocal and metaphorical

terms which occur in the Hebrew language. We can only

begin to

ponder what

ER II.5.1

means

in the

context of

Ibn Daud's treatise

as

we recognise

that a

full

explanation of

biblical

passages and of the purpose of nature of often

each prophet's

tise persists.
subject

understanding is incomplete. The introductory We observe a procedure in which Ibn Daud

chapter than we expect the
discussion.29

the trea
a

addresses

in

different

Fontaine Halevi
or

prophecy is from Rabbinical discussions (p. 147). She writes:

concludes that
view of

Ibn Daud's

"borrowed"

from

But

compared with the

falasifa Ibn Daud's

work gives

intellectual

qualities a

subordinate role.

Where ER discusses prophecy there is

no reference to

intellectual

perfection or the various stages of the process of of preparation of the soul: and the preparation

apprehension, there
on a moral

is mainly

is merely talk plane. (P. 147)

only expresses her view that morality is a more critical preparation than intellectual perfection for the obtaining of prophecy, but she reveals that the soul is a moral entity. She adequately notes that in
statement not regard

In this

Fontaine

to the critical issue of prophecy, Ibn Daud's orthodoxy is secure.

a remark

Ibn Daud has

in ER II.5.1

which confirms

Fontaine's thesis

regard

ing

the purpose of the entire treatise.

one

According

to Ibn

Daud, dreams

that have
must

meaning only for

possess matters

individual

are not

instances

of prophecy.

Dreams

first

example

pertaining to the nations. Prophecy has a political import. The Ibn Daud gives is the symbolic representation of the nations in

Daniel 7.
ER II. 5. 2
presents a more

decisive defense

of

Mosaic legal law The first

of

prophecy.

The

chapter makes an

inquiry

into the

question of whether universal.

can change (tem-

urah), that

is,

whether

legal prophecy is

part of the chapter

is

discussion

of rational commandments

(mephursamot)

the Mutakallimun.

358

Interpretation
surmises that

Fontaine
says

Ibn Daud

agrees with the

Mutakallimun,

although she

his

guishes

view most closely approximates that of Saadya Gaon's.,She also distin Ibn Daud's view from that of Maimonides, since Maimonides rejects

rational commandments

(p. 152). Whatever Ibn Daud's final judgement

the

of

the

rational commandments of

Mutakallimun, Fontaine does

of words.

make a valuable
"intelligibles"

distinction in Ibn Daud's

choice

The

mind

knows

(muskalot)
an

rather

than "rational
also

commandments"

(mephursamot),
not

and good

is

intelligible (see
nor

ER 1.7,

p.

37, 11. 3-4). We do

know from Fontaine's

inquiry,
as

for that matter, from Ibn Daud's treatise, what biblical laws qualify intelligibles. Even in this issue which is vital for the practice of true religion,
continues

Ibn Daud

ries

which are

introductory procedure. Ibn Daud explains the catego necessary for the inquiry into biblical law, but he does not do our
his

work

for

us.

ER II.5.2

entails a criticism of

that the Mosaic law

is

superseded

Christianity and Islam. Christianity by the new covenant. Islam teaches

are

teaches
that the

Torah has been falsified. The Christians

reminded, inter alia, of the proph

ecy found in Malachi 4:4, and the Muslims are reminded of the well-attested traditions (shemu'ot tekhuphot) (ER II.5.2, p. 78, 11.5-6). Fontaine says that
these refutations are a
presentation.
"polemic"

(p. 166), though Ibn Daud is

philosophers and the

moderate

in his

He
to
of

notes that

it is the

Mutakallimun

who are

most opposed

any

notion

that God may change, that

while the

is, they

are closest of

to the

true

intention

Scripture,
2

ture suggest that God repents (ER

II.5.2,

literal reading of many passages p. 75, 1.38-p. 76, 1.20).

account of

Scrip
of the

ER II.6.1
world and

and

present

Ibn Daud's

God's

governance useful

the secrets of ability. A perpetual law can

only be

if

various
rejects

actions are possible and efficacious.

According

to

Fontaine, Ibn Daud

213). Ibn Daud He

the Mu'tazilite approach of Saadya and Halevi (p.

preserve

wishes to

causality in creation,

and

therefore he opposes various doctrines of

coreligionists.
rejects the assertion

"orthodox"

occasionalism even amongst

God's foreknowledge implies determination which, according to Fontaine, is found in both Saadya and Halevi. She concludes: "For this reason there is
that
now

only

one

order to save the

way open to him: to restrict God's knowledge of the possible in freedom of the will. He may swear that this does not mean a
a matter of choosing between the God's omniscience, the choice is not in favour of God's (p. 213). She adds that those, like Halevi, who trace all causes a

deficiency
freedom

in God's

knowledge, but if it is

of the will and

omniscience."

back to God have for Ibn Daud

count of

deterministic tendency. It is Ibn Daud's

possibility
of

ac

intermediate
makes

causes that makes actual the

human

action.

Fontaine

the same

judgement in

the

following

"providence"

section on

(pp. 216-17).
can only make two remarks here. First, Ibn Daud does not express criticism Halevi's views. Throughout the entire treatise he is remarkably reticent re garding his illustrious predecessor. He cannot but have been in sympathy with
of

Fontaine 's Account of The Exalted Faith

359

Halevi's understanding of the faith. Second, for Ibn Daud, the intelligences emanate wisdom, but only in necessary ways. The proper subordination of mat
ter to

intelligence only
in
certain

occurs with the recognition of necessities.

There

are

possibilities

good or not. cal

beings, the possibility of action in harmony While Fontaine's thesis regarding the centrality of moral philosophy to Ibn Daud is correct, and therefore it is necessary to
will,"

with the
or politi speak of

"free

the emphasis
of

dination

possesses a

continually be placed on the subor free activity to intelligence. Neither the One nor the human soul faculty of will. Freedom is only discovered in knowledge.
must

in his treatise

According
lations. She
gone

to

Fontaine ER III does

"The final

not

depart from Ibn Daud's ER is

a

earlier

formu

writes. man

chapter of

logical

conclusion

to what

has

before:

Achieving
and of

is free to choose, and bliss calls for triple perfection:

practical

philosophy

points the way.

perfection of man's moral

large"

disposition
admits a

his life in the Platonic

family

and the

substantial
sion of

element

community at in this final chapter in

(p. 225). She

regard

to the tripartite divi

the human soul and in regard to the virtues. In particular, Ibn that justice is the
virtue

Daud, like
an

Plato,

maintains

that corresponds to the rational

(pp. 225-27). Her

exposition of the relation of

'happiness'

intellect

and action

is

faculty inquiry
"em

into Ibn Daud's

phasis"

account of
chapter

(haslehah). She

concludes that the

in this final

is

on conduct.

She

writes:

For the fact is intellect: the

that

in

this chapter there

is

no question of the

primacy

of

theoretical
service to

emphasis

is

rather on man's

conduct,

and

in

particular on with

his

God.

Certainly

there are references to theoretical

intellect,

its

concomitant

activity of acquiring knowledge, but the supreme virtue is justice, even though in the first instance Ibn Daud marked justice, in so far as it amounts to dominion, as
virtue

belonging

to practical reason. to
action.

Here, then,

contemplation remains

in the

background, giving way

And

(P.

231)
of rational and traditional commandments says

finally, Ibn Daud's delineation

confirms this emphasis on action.

Fontaine

that Ibn Daud's initial introduc

tion of traditional commandments in this chapter places them in a subordinate

position to the rational commandments
at

(p. 234). But

writes:

she says

that his position

the end of the chapter

is different. She

Thus in the final

pages of

ER

we see

the

beginnings This is

of a gradual shift

in Ibn

Daud's
through

appreciation of the traditional commandments

useful'

from 'the least

an

important'

'psychologically
shows us what

to 'superior'.

extremely

significant shift

because it

Ibn Daud's

real standpoint

relationship between philosophy and religion. It is one which it becomes apparent that at critical moments the

is regarding the question of the of the few passages from

scales

tip

towards religion.

Earlier Ibn Daud has said, sporadically but in unmistakably clear terms, that human reason has its limits. Not everything can be grasped by the intellect, and that
applies

to the

point of

the commandments:

far from

all the commandments can

be

360

Interpretation
have
(P.
a rational

shown to
purpose.

justification, but

we must accept

them

without

asking their

235)
position

Ibn Daud's final This

is

"surprisingly

close"

to J. Halevi (p. 235).

exposition of

ER III is

a confirmation of a certain aspect of

Fontaine's
of

thesis concerning the treatise. Judaism is a legal tradition. A

requires a soul

defense

Judaism human

defense

of

law. A defense

of

law

requires an account of

the

in

which

words a
prophet

"free

human beings have the possibility of free action, or in Fontaine's Indeed the chapter ends with the cryptic reflection on the
will."

Abraham,

who

did

not consider

his knowledge
he

equal

to God's and who

son without

took the risk to

fulfill the

commandment when
not seek a rational must

offered

his

full

knowledge. Ibn Daud does

justification

of all the command are not understood.

ments, but the commandments

be

obeyed even

if they

Fontaine

recognizes

Ibn Daud's

political concerns.

While this

emphasis on the

legal defense

of religion

is germane, it is

neces

sary to remember that Ibn Daud apprehends phy

and

his

project as

harmonizing
account of

philoso political

faith. Let He
'

us

reflect

further

on

Ibn

Daud's

philosophy.

writes such powerful statements as:

philosophiya

ha-ma 'asit)
p.

exists

in the Torah in
and

"Political philosophy (hamore perfect way [than in the

our

sciences]"

(ER III,

101,

1.44);30

"[Political philosophy] is found in

Torah in the

possible"

most perfect state

(ER III,

p.

98, 11.22-23);
p.

and

"Political

philosophy exists in the Torah in a more and the Torah proceeds with it to its
not

perfect way.

It is taken from the Torah

end"

(ER III,

101, 11.44-45). He does

and action.

juxtapose these two

possible

rival

claims on

knowledge

Fon

taine's separation of faith and philosophy

often points out

is

more

decisive than Ibn Daud's. She

and thus she

Ibn Daud's

unresolved

contradictions,

judges

that

he is filled

not able to accomplish

his

aim.

Furthermore, lest
prior to

we consider that

Ibn Daud's

protreptic

intentions

are

ful
and

book III

and we thus seek

in this book to discover his final

two aspects of his

complete statement on

his subject, let

us observe

presentation

here that

reveal his consistency throughout the entire treatise. First, although Ibn Daud's orthodoxy is certainly substantiated in book III, his presentation of the purpose of sacrifice leaves us with much to ponder. Ibn Daud remarks that

sacrifice

is

one

of

the feeble grades of the law. After a citation of

several

prophetic passages which reveal the weakness of

a series of cases

sacrifice, Ibn Daud

examines

in

which the

feebleness

of sacrifice

is

evident.

As

an

example,

Ibn Daud

says part

that the belief that the

shedding
that
of

of

blood

placates

derived in

from

the astrological

teaching

Mars is the

responsible

for the

governance of the animals or

shedding
certain

blood,

and

Being is heavenly object killing or blood

Ibn He

letting,
is

either

among

humans,
the

reduces the

harm

of such acts.

Daud here

notes

the continuity

between

biblical

and pagan practices.

careful to

draw to worship

our attention that of

first

three of the Ten

context

Commandments
is

oppose the

heavenly

bodies. The

in

which an argument

Fontaine's Account of'The Exalted Faith

used

361

is

essential.

Nonetheless, Ibn Daud

requires us to reflect on the various purpose of sacrifice.

law in the Torah, in this instance, the he has not exhausted his subject.
grades of

He knows

Second, here in book III Ibn Daud

tues"

says:

"Justice is the head

of

of all the vir

(ER III, 99,

11.2-3); "Justice is

the

beginning

the

commandments"

(ER

III,

p.

99, 1.9);

and

"By

Justice the heavens

and the earth

endure"

(ER III,

p.

99,

11.9-10). This justice is intellectual: "Because the

faculty

of

the active intellect

p.

is the judge

of

the rest of the powers of the

body"

(ER III,

[Justice] is the virtue which is sent from the wealth of the 99, 1.17); and "Its [Justice's] opposite is vice, the offshoot of 99, 11.18-19). Ibn Daud does not abandon his attempt to show
the Torah and

intellect"

folly"

99, 1.5); "It (ER III, p. (ER III, p.

the

harmony

of

intelligence.
and

Ibn Daud essentially introduces us, both in book III to the subject of political philosophy. It is practical, or
named,
political philosophy.

in the

entire

treatise,

perhaps more of

It

offers a true

understanding

adequately tradition because

examination of

above all

Judaism is

a set of moral and political teachings.

An

the grades and purposes of the commandments and of the

roots of phy.

demonstrations

of the

the Torah is found only in the true science of the

and

law,

political philoso
political

The first

only

science which can claim

to examine Justice is

"First"

philosophy. order of sequence

is,
is

to be sure, an equivocal term, and sometimes first in the

not

first in the be

order of rank.

But if Justice is to be
upon

given and

its due,

we will at some point

required

to reflect

the Exalted

Faith,

we will need a science

to

offer a

true understanding of that

faith. Ibn Daud

and

introduces ignore the but the

science, perhaps the architectonic science

itself,

he

points to
not

the type of good

government such a science would produce.

Book III does

concern

for

a proper

understanding

of

voluntary

action and

free will,

emphasis

here is

on the abundance of good conduct and

moderate

that flows from true knowledge. It is necessary to

ment

loving worship Fontaine's argu

he has
nor

sufficiently to
us

acknowledge

his

protreptic emphasis.

Ibn Daud knows he

not

has introduced
exhausted
masters.

to possibilities we may not

have

considered and

his

subject.

He

writes neither

for the completely innocent

for the

7. CONCLUSIONS

Fontaine's
unavoidable

extended

examination of

the The Exalted Faith will remain an

criticism of

study for those who wish to understand Ibn Daud. My central her study is its failure to recognize the introductory nature of the treatise. All syllogisms, and therefore all demonstrations, are not found therein.
attempt

The

to

elucidate a

logical

structure

to the treatise

is

challenged

by

this

quality

of the text.

The

master of

the art of logic is required to construct those

repeated comments on the unresolved
contra-

syllogisms which are absent.

Her

362

Interpretation
which are

dictions in the treatise,

and underestimate the nature of mark of

in

certain respects

true,

also misunderstand

deliberate
more

purpose of these contradictions.

she

The

protreptic

the treatise is

intentional than

appreciates, and

it is

not a

incompetence.
of the political nature of

Ibn Daud's defense

ated ated

only be appreci within this context. Scripture is only adequately understood if it is appreci as a theologico-political document. Science can only demonstrate the
Judaism
can of

foundations

Judaism,

that

is, it is only harmonious

prophecy.

with

Judaism if it is

science which can

defend legal

Ibn Daud

would

have those

of us

who are not absolute

beginners

proceed with an

investigation

which will end

in

the true understanding of Scripture.

The

greatest thinkers of medieval

Arabic

science

quiries as commentaries on classical philosophical current

usually texts. It is

present their
unfortunate

in
that
al

dissertations

cannot

follow this orderly

to

example more rigorously. exposition of us.

There is

ways a place

for the

careful and

the thoughts of an

intel

ligent

writer as

he has

presented them

This is

even more so

the case when

we are still so uncertain

regarding the

actual readings of an original

Arabic text

that

is

now

only

available to us

in two later imperfect Hebrew translations. The

procedure of such a

interest in

sources

commentary must at all points be philosophical. Fontaine's is valuable, but it all too often becomes a distraction from

sustained evaluation of the manner of presentation of the treatise

our task complete when we

itself. Nor is

have identified

contradictions.

If the

partial exposi

tion

of the treatise

is deliberate, the contradictions are the axes upon which the understanding is founded. The falasifa are known for their subtlety, and there is from The Exalted Faith that Ibn Daud takes his become
students
place

sufficient evidence

among

the

best

of

the tradition. We are required to

in the

presence of

the masters of the Arabic scientific tradition.

NOTES

1. T. A. M. Fontaine, In Defense of Judaism: Abraham Ibn Daud. Sources and Structure Emunah ha-Ramah, Studia Semitica Neerlandica (Assen-Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1990). The book is a slightly adapted version of her doctoral dissertation, and I assume that it is in this revised
ofha-

book was translated into English by H. S. in this essay are to this English translation. The Hebrew text upon which her study is based is Abraham Ibn Daud, edited and translated into German by S. Weil under the title Das Buch Emunah Ramah Oder Der Erhabene Glaube (Frankfurt am Main: Druck der Typoversion that she wishes

the book to be evaluated. The

Lake. All

page references

graphischen

version even though only a few Hebrew edition, English translation, and commentary on the treatise completed by N. Samuelson and G. Weiss. See N. Samuelson, translator and commentator, and G. Weiss, translator, The Exalted Faith (Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1986; London and Toronto: Associated University Press, 1986). Sam years prior to the appearance of

Anstalt, 1852); I

will continue to use

Weil's Hebrew
was a

Fontaine's book there

uelson and

Samuelson
why.

Weiss's study requires an evaluation in its own right. Fontaine says that she is aware of and Weiss's work, but unfortunately was not able to use it (p. 3), but she does not say It would have been useful if Fontaine had commented on Samuelson and Weiss's edition and

Fontaine 's Account of The Exalted Faith

363

commentary in her book; their edition was published at least three years prior to publication of the English version of her dissertation. Perhaps Lake's English translation is an essentially unrevised

dissertation

which

had been

completed several years

before Samuelson
be

and

Weiss's

publication.

At

any rate, we anticipate further scrutiny of their work, The three

other

which contains no

apparatuses, on

her

part.

Hebrew

versions of the

treatise

should also

mentioned.

E. Alon

prepared chapter

7 in Motot's translation for

partial completion of a master's

degree

at

Hebrew University. See E.

Alon, Chapter Seven from Emunah Nissa'ah of Ra'bad HaLavi (master's dissertation: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1966), in Hebrew. A second Hebrew version is also partial. It produces both the Ibn Labi and Motot translations of book 2, chapter 5 through to the end of the treatise. See J. Eisenberg, Emunah Ramah (Jerusalem: Hosa'at Haskel, 1986), in Hebrew. A. Eran made a com plete version of Motot's translation for partial completion of a doctoral degree. A. Eran, The Philo
sophical

the Translation of

Sources of Abraham Ibn Daud in His Book 'Al-'Aqidah 'Al-Rafi'ah (Special Emphasis on Samuel Motot: HaEmunah HaNissa 'ah) (doctoral dissertation: Hebrew Univer
enumeration of the treatise

sity

of

Jerusalem, 1990), in Hebrew. The

ER
refers

that I use is as

follows:
book

the

abbreviation

to Weil's Hebrew edition of The Exalted

Faith, followed by

the

num

ber

and chapter,

followed

by

the page and line numbers. Some chapters also have subchapters.

2. Bookstaber dates The Exalted Faith to A. D. 1168. P. D. Bookstaber, The Idea of Develop ment of the Soul in Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Philadelphia: Maurice Jacobs, 571 1-1950), p. 68.

by

3. Abraham Ibn Daud, The Book of Tradition (Sefer Ha-Qabbalah), translated and introduced Gerson D. Cohen (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1967-5728). 4. But
see

W. Bacher's

reflections on

the Arabic title of the treatise. W.

Daud's,"

Bacher, "Der

arabische

Titel des

religionsphilosophischen

Werkes Abraham Ibn

Zeitschrift der Deutschen

Mor-

genldndischen

Gesellschaft 46(1892): 541-44. Fontaine's bibliographical entry contains an error. ha-perek 'asher biglalo u-ve-sibbato hosenu zeh ha-sepher 5. The Hebrew is as follows:
ve-hu'

ve-hu'

hayah tehilat ha-mahshabah

purpose of

ve-soph

ha-ma'aseh, ER II. 6,
reflection.

p.

93, 11.22-24.
makes no

6. The 7. The

this passage requires further

Fontaine

commentary

on

the passage, nor

for

that matter, on the

introductory
passage as

Abstract.
it is
presented

sense of the

Hebrew in this

in Weil's

edition

is difficult. A
uncertain: not

crucial phrase

in this

passage

for delineation

of the purpose of the entire treatise

p.

is

ki

taklit

ha-philosophiyyahha-ma'asit (ER Abstract

4, 1.10). Samuelson
line has dropped

and

Weiss do
Unless

have
a

the dashes

in their Hebrew text,

and

they

translate the

as a nominal sentence. out.

we

have

better manuscript, we do not know whether a word 8. G. Whalley, "On Translating Aristotle's
ities: Innocence of Intent (Kingston
and

or phrase

Poetics,"

in Studies In Literature

and the

Human
pp. 44-

Montreal: McGill-Queen's

University Press, 1985),

74.
9. Alcinous, The Handbook of Philosophy, translated with an introduction and commentary, by J. Dillon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), p. 48. 10. Porphyry, Porphyry the Phoenician: Isagoge, translated, with an introduction and notes, by E. W. Warren, Medieval Sources in Translation 16. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval
p. 27, 11.7-10. An English translation was also made in the last century: Porphyry, The Introduction of Porphyry, in The Organon, or Logical Treatises of Aristotle, translated with an introduction by O. F. Owens (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1853), vol. 2, p. 609. 11. Avicenne, La Metaphysique du Shifd': Livres I a V, translated and with an introduction, G. C. Anawati (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1978), p. 42. and

Studies, 1975),

notes,

commentary

by

Alfarabi, "Al-Farabi's
3(1956): 117-38.
the Eisagoge is
elucidation.
not

Eisagoge,"

edited and
writes

translated

by

Dunlop

that Ibn Bajjah says that Alfarabi was not alone

D. M. Dunlop, The Islamic Quarterly in maintaining that

M.

Dunlop
on

Sections

but a partial logic. This distinction is obscure and needs ("Aphorisms of the Statesman"), translated by D. al-Madani Fusul Alfarabi, Al-FarabT, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961). Alfarabi, "Al-FarabT's Introductory edited by D. M. Dunlop, The Islamic Quarterly, 2 (1955): 264-82. P. Kahle,
merely
propaideutic
Logic,"

Galeni in Platonis Timaeum Commen"Mosis Maimonidis Aphorismorum Praefatio et Duncomments in a review of D. M. tarii Fragmenta (Berlin, 1934), pp. 91-96. See M. Mahdi's Oriental American Journal the in Society of lop's Fusul al-Madani ("Aphorisms of the Statesman") Lerner 23(1964): 140-43. Ibn Tufayl, Hayy the Son of Yaqzan, translated by G. N. Atiyeh, in R.
Excerpta,"

364
and

Interpretation
Philosophy
(Ithaca:

M. Mahdi, editors, Medieval Political

Cornell

University Press. 1963),

an of

pp.

134-62. M. Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, translated and with by S. Pines and an introductory essay by L. Strauss (Chicago: University

introduction

and notes

Chicago Press, 1963),

addressee

la-2b,

pp.

2-4.
Maimonides'

12. In noting the parallel between Ibn Daud's addressee and kept in mind that what one writer achieves with the use of a
another writer achieves.

it

must

be

certain

strategy may

not

be

what

13. This In the

second

division in the treatise has,

of course,

been

recognized

by

other commentators.
subject

modern

context, J.

Eisenberg

was

willing to
second

publish a

Hebrew

version of

sufficiently ER II.5 to the

convinced of end of

the change of

that

he

was

the treatise, that

is,

to separate the

part of

the book from the first part. J.

unusual that

Haskel, 1986). It is
faith."

Eisenberg

exalted

Note the
and

use of the

Eisenburg, 'Emunah Ramah (Jerusalem: Hosa'at his Hebrew edition 'Emunah Ramah that is, "an definite article with the noun, Emunah, in both abstracts in
entitles
Ha'

Weil's
edition.

edition

in the
both

second abstract

in both

manuscript

versions

of the

text in

Eisenberg's
MS

Eisenberg
All

uses and omits the article

in

references

to the title in the foreword to his

omits the

edition.

manuscripts of

both Ibn Labi's translation (G. Weiss it is therefore

opening lines

of

Mich 57 in his summary

exception)
and

of the manuscripts, and

possible

that this manuscript is an

the one manuscript of Motot's translation have the definite article.

Maimonides'

14. M. Maimonides,
edition and

Treatise

on

English translation

by

I. Efros (New York: American

Logic (Makalah Fi-Sina'at Al-Mantik), Hebrew Academy for Jewish Research,

1938),

p.

64.

entitled

reflects on the political orientation of Islamic philosophy as a whole in an essay The Political Orientation of Islamic Philosophy, Occasional Papers Series, Center for Con temporary Arab Studies (Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 1982). In a more specific but

15. M. Mahdi

cryptic account of political thought

in Alfarabi
with the

and

Alfarabi's "identification

city"

of religion

Ibn Sina, Mahdi notes the difference between and Ibn Sina's "philosophic interpretation of
edited

religion."

(London

and

M. Mahdi, "Avicenna: i. New York: Routledge is

a

Introduction,''

in Encyclopedia Iranica.

by

El Yarshater
comments

and

Kegan Paul,

1989),

vol.

3,

pp.

66-67. Mahdi's

suggest that there

different

suasively that Ibn Daud is more essential, therefore, to inquire whether the
the same

philosophy in these Arab writers. Fontaine argues per in agreement, at least in general, with Ibn Sina than Alfarabi. It is
political

relation

between theoretical
of

and practical

philosophy is M. T.
d'Al-

in Alfarabi

and

Ibn Sina. In

a comparison

two writers it is necessary to base the

suggestion made

conclusions on a careful comparison of content.

The impressive
of
"Avendauth?"

by

verny that Avendauth of Toledo, one of the translators considered at length, however. M. T. d'Alverny,
celona: also shown

Avicenna, is really Ibn Daud,

Homenaje
a

must

be

Millas-Vallicrosa (Bar

Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1954-56), vol. 2, pp. 19-43. A. Eran has Ibn Daud's dependence upon Ibn Sina's notion of the immortality of the soul. A. Eran, "Avicenna's Influence on Abraham Ibn Daud's Proof of the Immortality of the DAAT: A
Soul,"

Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah, 31 (1992-93): 5-25. 16. There is a thoughtful discussion of this issue in the preface to Falaquera's Epistle of the Debate, English translation and Hebrew edition by S. Harvey (Cambridge: Harvard

University

Press, 1987),
reader

pp.

ix-xvi.
not

17. Fontaine does

in fact

point out which of

the two
of the

Guttmanns

she

is criticizing here. The

pub

is

required to check

the endnotes at the

back

book, only

to discover that the

lisher's phy

method of endnote citation

only

gives the year of publication.

We then turn to the bibliogra

and

discover that the

son,

publications of

Jacob,

and

Julius, have been

mentioned

only one Guttmann are listed, even though both father, in the Introduction (p. 4). We then need to check the
when

endnote

cated procedure

in the Introduction to Julius Guttmann to see is created by the publisher's cryptic

he

published on

Ibn Daud. This

compli

endnote citations and also

by

an omission

in

bibliography. Of course, if we knew the identity track this down, but the purpose of footnotes and
the

and

dates

of

the authors, we would not need to

provide what we

bibliography

is to

do

not

already

know.
18. M. Arfa's
unpublished

doctoral dissertation
argument

remains the central

no sustained evaluation of

Arfa's

in her

study.

study on this issue. There is See M. Arfa, "Abraham Ibn Daud and the

Fontaine 's Account of The Exalted Faith

Beginnings
of

365

Medieval Jewish Aristotelianism (with

RAMAH)"

special reference to

the concept of substance

in the EMUNAH
translation

Arabic edition and En by D.M. Dunlop, Islamic Quarterly 4(1958): 168-97, and 5(1959): 21-54. Al farabi, "The Existence and Definition of Philosophy: From the Arabic text ascribed to English translation by D. M. Dunlop, Iraq 13(1951): 76-94. Alfarabi, "Al-Farabi's Introductory
glish

(New York: Columbia University, 1954). 19. Alfarabi, "Al-Farabi's paraphrase of the Categories of

Aristotle,"

al-Farabl,"

Sections

Arabic edition and English translation by D. M. Dunlop, The Islamic Quarterly 2(1955): 264-82. Alfarabi, "Al-Farabi's Eisagoge, Arabic edition and English translation by D. M. Dunlop, The Islamic Quarterly, 3(1956): 117-38. Alfarabi, "Al-Farabi's Risalah on
on
Logic,"

Logic,"

Introductory

Arabic

edition and

English translation
also published

pp.

224-35. M. Tiirker has

one

D. M. Dunlop, The Islamic Quarterly, 4(1957): Arabic editions and Turkish translations of several of

by

Alfarabi's treatises,

of which

is listed here because it is

not

one

of

Dunlop's

editions.

M.

Tiirker, "Kuciik Kiyas Kitabi

Revue de la Faculte de Langues, d'Historie et de Geographie de I'Universite Ankara, 16(1958): 214-86. 20. E. K. Rowson, "Review of I. R. Netton's Al-Farabi and His International Journal
d' School,"

(Kitab-ul-kiyas-Sagir),"

of Middle East Studies 26(1994): 338-41. 21. Ibn Daud's theory that there must be
matter which

Afnan

says

a generation of a mixture or balance of the elements in is necessary for association of this matter with a particular soul is not Aristotelian. that it is also found in Ibn Sina. S. M. Afnan, Avicenna: His Life and Works (London: and

George Allen

from the

crasis

theory. See
no

Unwin, 1958), p. 136. At the same time, Ibn Daud Fontaine, pp. 59-60.

seeks to

distinguish his theory III. 9, 432b 5-9,

22. There is 433a 22-433b 5,

creation

faculty

'will'

of

in Aristotle's De Anima. See

the passages at

and

in

Averroes'

III. 11, 434a 10-15. See Kogan's inquiry into the issue of eternal necessary criticism of Al-Ghazali. B. S. Kogan, Averroes and the Metaphysics of Causa
of

tion

(Albany: State

University

New York Press, 1985).

Movers,"

23. J. Owens, "The Reality of the Aristotelian Separate 3(1950): 322. See Owens's bibliography on this subject in footnote
editor

number

Review of Metaphysics fourteen of his article.

24. Aristotle, De Caelo, translated by J. L. Stocks, The Basic Works of Aristotle, R. McKeon, (New York: Random House, 1941), pp. 400-401. 25. Samuelson
and

Weiss

note

that MS
and

57,

the manuscript that serves as the

and

basis

of their

Hebrew
legible,"

edition and

because it is "complete

preserved"

beautifully
us"

"the

it "seems to be the latest copy known to omits a tion; thus the only demonstration mentioned by this manuscript is

reference

is exceptionally to the first demonstra

script

one

that is not stated.

See

their

The Exalted Faith, 121). The

chapter

p.

105,

n.

1. Samuelson
17.

and

Weiss do

not reflect on second proof

this anomaly. For their

comments on the manuscript see page

They

say that the

'soul.'

is found in ER I 8 (p.

certainly says that locomotion may be accidental. must be hi', and thus it refers to 26. Weil's 27. A. Eran argues that Ibn Daud's account of the soul is dependent
hu'

upon

Ibn Sina. See

article

cited above

in footnote 15.
collapsed

28. This distinction has

in biblical

studies with the result that mathematical-like cer

cannot

tainty is
attendant

now expected of

biblical traditions. When this certainty

merits

be obtained,
not

there

is

an

scepticism of the
schools of

of all

traditions.

Concomitantly, it is

"Enlightenment"

biblical scholarship do
says:

not conduct

surprising that the their inquiries in a legal or political

mode.

29.

Concerning

Moses he

"Furthermore,
should

we will complete p.

the account of these charac

virtue."

teristics in the

chapter on

the grades of

ER II.5.1,

75, 1.12.
ha-hanahagot ha-mediniyyot.

30. Ha-philosophiya ha-ma'asit

be

compared to

Milton

and

the Declaration

of

Independence

John Alvis

University

of Dallas

I
the

propose

to reconsider the principles of the Declaration of Independence in thought of John

light

of the

understood

by

reference to the republican

tion to the thought of

our

Milton, my thesis that the Declaration is better theorizing of Milton than by assimila John Locke, or, to put it somewhat more modestly, that
envisions civil

founding
me

document

society

under

terms that require

us

to

correct

Lockean

premises with

Miltonic.
to propose to sanitize the
an

Let

Declaration
of which

clarify of its

by stating that I do not intend indisputably Lockean influences,

an

Harry

Jaffa has demonstrated. Nor do I

mean

undertaking the futility to say that because the

Locke something short of entirely accurate a goodhearted misunderstanding explored at least to my satisfaction the explications of Leo Strauss, and more recently by Thomas Pangle that by

Founding

Fathers had

understanding

of

we must

therefore adjust our

view of

the Lockean influence to the mistaken

readings attributable to

true and

eighteenth-century Americans. I think this argument is that, indeed, Locke naively misunderstood provides adequate guidance to the political life or, in any event, guidance judged adequate by the founders. Evidence for widespread benign misprision has been already established, again at least to my satisfaction, by Thomas G. West in several writings. Hence, my
be that
wisdom and

contention will not

happiness

consist

in

being

well gulled

by Locke, however true to say so. Nor is my plea the good one advanced by Jaffa, George Anastaplo, and William B. Allen that the understanding of gov
ernment announced

in the Declaration

and

implemented in the Constitution is back to

ade

the natural completion of a tradition of republican thought extending

Plato, Aristotle
quately

and

Cicero. To my

mind

this contention

has

also

been

established
would

by
I

the efforts of these scholars to which I can add

little.

Nor, finally,
align the

founding

want my brief to be filed as amicus with recent document with a tradition of Atlantic "civic

attempts to

humanism."

Although there is
reservations

much

to

be

said

for this

argument as

well, one may have

regarding

what seems

its

exaggeration of

the secularization theme,

and one and

may be put on guard by a suspicion that his followers amount to attempts to pedigree
what

revisions socialism

by by

J. G. A. Pocock indirect
means.1

Instead,

propose

is that Jefferson

and

his

colleagues uttered

the sense

of the subject

in

accord with a perennial wisdom elucidated

in the
Lee

writings of

thinkers so widely separated in time and place as

Aristotle, Cicero, Locke,

Sidney,

and,

as

Jefferson

said

in the letter to Richard

Henry

which cites

interpretation,

Spring 1998, Vol. 25, No. 3

368

Interpretation
"etc."2
cetera"

these authors,
pride of place

Among the"et because, unlike Aristotle

conditions created
was

Milton, I
Cicero

would

contend,

deserves

and

and

to a degree unequaled

by Sidney, Milton
publican

understood what was at stake

sions

of

philosophy to Christendom
while

by

arising out of the Protestant Reformation. I

continuous with

in adapting this perennial re Christianity and from the divi

will

suggest,

moreover, that,

it

Declaration
anticipate

resolved a

essentially fundamental problem left

Milton's thought, the in Milton. I

might

unresolved

the

my proposal in this way: Recall the obverse image on the emblem of Great Seal of the United States, a pyramid over which hangs an apex pro

portionate provides
pyramid.

to, but

not yet
and

Jefferson

joined with, the ascending pile. Milton, I will suggest, his colleagues with the already completed portion of the
adds the summit of

The Declaration itself

Milton's

premises point toward as their

never arrived me

in his

own writings.

necessary Since I do not mean to

completion

necessary thought which but at which he

contrive

suspense, let

say at once that the necessary completion of Milton's thought added by the Declaration is a practical connection between the doctrine of consent and the
articulation of that principle
class-based mixed regime publics.

in a specifically democratic transformation hitherto thought the only likely durable form

of the of re and

Nevertheless,

the colonists understood

they

would more

directly

securely To

arrive at that particular

form

of regime through the principles

Milton

espouses than through those propagated provide

by

Locke.
support

here the

argument

I think necessary to
with a chapter

the contention just

advertised, I should require an exposition the length of a book. The table of

contents of such a

book

would

begin

Declaration to Milton's Cicero

argument

in defense

of regicide and

relating the thought of the the Commonwealth

developed in his Pro Populo Anglicano,

would proceed to a chapter on on

Milton,

Aristotle,
Catholic

and

which would

focus

Milton's

adaptation of a classical

republican tradition to the exigencies of a and

Europe

agitated

by

conflicts

between

Protestant, taking into account such writings as The Reason of Church Government, A Treatise of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes, Are opagitica, and The Readiest Means to Remove Hirelings, and thereafter would
open onto a

third chapter

dealing

with

Milton's

proposal
a plan

British

constitution

into
and

Protestant republic,
to

for transforming the expounded in his late

consid

pamphlet, A

Ready

Easy Way
of

Establish

Commonwealth. Add
in Milton's
would

erations upon
which

Milton's idea

the role of education in a republic, a scheme

underlies

Areopagitica

and

is fleshed
enlarged

out

public

letter to
with a

Samuel Hartlib,
chapter
which

Of Education.
while

The

study

then conclude

appropriate everything for providing the political institutions necessary to realize his ideal of a commonwealth of Christian citizens moderated in their practice of Christian precepts by training in the sort of prudence inculcated by

arguing that the Declaration and

Constitution

Milton had hoped

classical political

philosophy

and classical

poetry.3

Instead

of

that

book,

perhaps

it

will serve

to consider a precis of its first

Milton
chapter,

and

the

Declaration of Independence

369

focussing
the

upon the question of provided

how the Declaration

appears when pro

jected
mean

upon

background
upon

by

Milton's thoughts in Pro Populo. I

of

to

dwell

the initial paragraphs

the

Declaration, following
of particulars and

that

exegesis with some remarks on one with

item in the bill

oath

ending

final hypothesis

on the

closing

by

which

the signers pledge in

support of

their cause, their

lives, fortunes,

and

honor.

"LAWS OF NATURE AND NATURE'S

GOD"

Preliminary
son and

sidebar:

What follows distinguishes

the Declaration.

sometimes

between Jeffer designate the

the

chief author of

Jefferson's

name will

man whose personal views

throughout his career seem to have been

deist,

and

in their
of

coherence
of

best

understood

by

alignment with the materialist skepticism contradistinction

the

follower
of

Epicurus, Lucretius. By
beliefs
of

I designate

as the

draftsman forward

the Declaration Jefferson circa

July 1776,

who, in putting himself

ac ex
five,"

as representative of the

commodate pected

his

own convictions to those of and their constituencies

his countrymen, was obliged to "the committee of the

up
and

signatories,

down the

seaboard.4

The

difference between the two Jeffersons is in

the two almost in antithetical relation.

some respects so marked as to put

Jefferson the independent deist

was more

Lockean than his

of

work of

1776.
the

This distinction bears

reference

upon

the first important assertion

God."5

the

Declaration,

to "Laws of Nature and Nature's

one might

Although

be inclined to dismiss the

references

to God in Locke's

Second Treatise

bow to orthodoxy (like the fastand-loose treatment of the unimpeachably orthodox Hooker in Locke's notes), the Congress and conventions in the colonies made clear from the outset their
as the author's self-protective

expectation of a compose a

document

friendly

to scriptural religion
separation presided over

from

whoever should

colonies'

statement

of the

from the

parent country.

Massachusetts Provincial Congress, December 6, 1774,

In
a

by

John Hancock, had issued

a resolution addressed

to church ministers stating:

day

like this,

when all

the

friends have

of civil and religious

liberty

are

exerting
country's

themselves to deliver this country from its present calamities, we cannot but place

hopes in
cause
.

an order of men who

ever

distinguished themselves in their

Jefferson may have had less faith in Virginia ministers, but whether he had or not he found himself instructed in piety by the official proclamation of his own Virginia convention who on May 27, 1776, had urged congress to revolution
to witness their appealing to "the Searcher of The record of congressional pronouncements from 1774 through 1776 indi cates Virginia could expect from Congress a hospitable reception of counsels
sincerity.6

hearts"

370

Interpretation

recommending piety. It was presided over by the same man who had signed the Massachusetts resolve just cited and who had also read the revolutionary mani

festo

of

"Inhabitants

Boston"

of

tonians

having

been "stationed
with

(July 26, 1774) by

God."

which

had boasted
which

of Bos-

providence"

and

had identified

resistance

to the British

"the

cause of

speaking the same language. In an appeal to gress had referred to "the bounty of an indulgent Creator"; in its Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (July 6, 1775) it had spoken of a
"divine
Ruler
Author,"

Anyway, Congress itself was Canadians of May 29, 1775, Con

"our

Creator,"

great

of

"the

supreme and

impartial Judge

and

of the

Universe,"

and, as if the members sought to quash beyond question

any imputation of deism, they "gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour toward us, that his Providence would not permit us to be
called

into this

severe

controversy,

until

we

were

grown

strength."

They
world"

then conclude with an oath addressed "before

up to our God
sat

present and the

and once more thank

"our beneficent

Creator."

As he

to his writing

desk Jefferson
toward a

would

have had to be

aware that

Congress

was well a

disposed
ruler, and

Deity it

publicly

spoke of as a

creator,

lawgiver,

judge,

the agency of a special providence (not

just

a principle of general

laws left to based for

on

their own operation). He would also know that national political acts
assumptions of
union of of

Judeo-Christianity
on

colonies, for

already being June 12, 1775, Congress had published

were
Prayer"

set afoot

by

the nascent
a

a call

day
"to

"public Humiliation, Fasting,

of

and

to

implore God to

avert an effu

sion

blood. That
of all

proclamation

had

concluded with a recommendation

Christians from

denominations to
and recreations

assemble
on said

for

public

worship, and to abstain

wonder must

servile

labor

day."

Small

it have

been to Jefferson, therefore, that his preliminary draft of the Declaration was altered by the time Congress was done with it to include an express reverence

for superintending Milton's continual

directed the Pro Populo, Treatise

"Providence."

Congress's
faith in
a

emendation was
which

in the

spirit of

expressions of

Providence

he thought had

course of
pp.

the

Puritan-Commonwealth
had demolished

revolution.

(See for instance

305, 525, 535, 537, in

and

the Yale edition.)

poor

Before Locke
and the

Sidney

Robert Filmer in The First

Discourses

the same anti-absolutist

scholar

Government respectively, Milton had employed arguments to skewer Filmer's predecessor, the French
on

the

Declaration had

section

Claude Salmasius, in Pro Populo. Similarly, with respect to the words makes its fons et origo, before the phrase which heads this Milton's.7 was Jefferson's, it was Replying to the question of his adver
asked

sary

who

by

what

Charles, making
swers,

war against and

law the parliamentary party had broken its oath to later killing its legitimate king, Milton an
Nature."

"by

the law of God and

Much
and

of

Pro Populo is devoted to

prescription.

establishing the leads Milton to

and the

character of this
a philosophical

natural

divine

The

effort

tradition he attributes to Aristotle and Cicero

and to classical

Roman

republican

historians chiefly,

tragic poets

sec-

Milton
ondarily.

and

the Declaration of Independence

examination of

37 1
and

It leads concurrently to
scriptures.

lengthy

both the Hebrew

Christian

Philosophy

and revelation of a

concur, says

forth the law

ter of this

by

which

Parliament disposed

Milton, in setting king. What then is the charac

royal or

divine

and natural consists

law?

Essentially it

in the

duty

to repudiate any civil authority,

otherwise, if that authority

fails to

uphold a covenant assumed to exist

between

the government and the governed, a contract which obligates the government so

to rule that it enables the governed to fulfill their duties to other men and,
ultimately, to

God. There
(kings
or

are three parties

to this implicit

contract:

the officers

of government

magistrates), the people in their corporate capacity, and two principals, God. This conception of the
covenant

the

final authority

who umpires the

agents

participatory in the divine-natural

the natural

quences which come

view of

to sight once we compare Milton's concept

has consequences, conse with Locke's in Locke is

It is

law. hence
of the

The

status of nature and

law

of nature

unclear.

not clear

for his law

Locke's lish

from Locke's reasoning, for example, whether he is entitled to claim of nature moral obligatory force. From time to time it serves
to speak as though the axioms he
one

rhetorical purposes

formulates

estab

moral

imperatives. Yet
statements

may say
with

anything.

The test is

whether one can

make one's more

consistent

one's of

most authoritative principles. natural

understanding regarding nature on the footing of description rather than prescrip tion: that is to say, generalizations about probable human conduct derived from

securely

grounded

Lockean

law

might put

his

statements

an

hypothesis

about an aboriginal state of nature

but

having

the

force

of scien

tific
tion.

predictive statement rather than

the authority of moral apodictic prescrip

In fact, I think Locke's

natural

laws fall into the former class,

and

return to this issue. Yet for now it may suffice to point out that, their relation to moral obligation, Locke claims his first laws be may derive from nature, and although he begins the Second Treatise by naming God as author of nature, the most one can say of Locke's deity is that he is inert,

subsequently I

whatever

inasmuch
sciousness

as

he

neither

supervises

the social contract nor occupies the con

consenting parties except in the single instance of violent rebellion where, although Locke says rebels submit their cause to God, he gives no indication he believes God can be distinguished from the might of the con
of the
parties.8

tending
constant standard

By
for

contrast, the Declaration and Milton agree

political

in

locating

life in
there

a concord of

divine
no

and natural

prescrip

tion. We may further

observe

is in Locke

three-cornered covenant

a two-party agreement without enfolding men, government, and God but solely divine Supervisor and Guarantor. The Declaration, however, refers to a divine

legislator, judge,
political

and executive of

Providence,

life. The Declaration

proposes a
agreement.

than the Lockean

two-party

a deity continually relevant to Miltonic three-party covenant rather Our question, to recall, is whether

Locke

or

Milton has better

claim

to grandpaternity of the Declaration. On the

372
basis

Interpretation
of the

foregoing

analysis of the status of natural echo

law,

one would
explicit

think

Milton has
not

stronger

claim, because the draftsmen

more

Milton's

phrase,

Locke's, but

second, and

decisively, because

the subsequent

language

Declaration expressly petitions God to judge the justice of Americans in breaking with England. As in Milton's notion of providence having decided the
of the

Civil War, the British

colonists

invoke the divine

umpire of

their

covenant with

the

government.

More is involved here than Jefferson's

of a

choice to enlist the greater rhetorical

double ("and Nature's God"), in preference to a single ("laws of efficacy Nature"), sanction. Milton says explicitly in another of his writings and argues throughout the one we are presently considering that the revealed law dispensed

by

God

and the natural

mean that the two

superior

sources of promulgation

law (in its essentials) are the same. Yet this does not deserve equal deference. God is
of nature.

to nature because he is the Creator

of

In this

respect the

God

of

Milton differs from the First Cause

ple of

Aristotle,

as well as

from the first

princi

the pre-Machiavellian philosophic tradition generally, insofar as that tra

and non-Christian.

dition is non-Hebraic, non-Islamic,

thinker as representative, the

For Aristotle, to take this because the First "interested

party"

issue

of

deference be
either a

cannot arise

Cause,

since

it is nonpersonal,

cannot

judge

or an

to an agreement, and, moreover,

we owe greater

for Aristotle it

makes no sense to ask whether

deference to the Creator

of nature than

to

nature

because the
stand on

world, comprehensively considered, was not created. How

this? The

does Locke
to

creaturely

status

of the world
more

in Locke

seems

be

assumed

but
ori

subordinated to a

politically

important it

conviction

that,

whatever

its

gins, nature is

begrudging

and adversarial

and,

hence, less

to be accepted in
our ease than

gratitude than contended with to make

yield more

helps to

its

Author

seems to

have been inclined to

asserts

provide. we

If the Declaration
the draftsmen put

Locke's principles,

may

wonder

why did

not

foremost Locke's all-sufficing

principle of self-preservation?

Indeed, why did they

preservation

not so much as mention self-preservation anywhere?

Be
self-

cause anyone who gives thought to the matter can understand that

Lockean

ing

the morally

natural

nullify obligatory status that he initially attributes to his version of the law. Consider Locke's description of the law of nature as it operates in
same

is

default bias built into his

system and

has the

effect of

the state of nature. Men under no civil

or

less the

authority are equal in that all have more capacity for preserving their lives and the necessary adjuncts to
movement,

life in freedom possessing

means of
such

of

liberty

of

disposing

their

labor,

and

security

of

tools

(property)

which compounded with

labor

give them the

a

sustaining their bodies. livelihood from natural materials,

the fruits of their

They have
and

thus two

desires: first, to forge

second, to protect themselves as

well as

labor from
which

the violence of others. At this point

speaks of as though

Locke intro

duces

further law

he

force. What may I do to

protect myself and

it had morally obligatory the fruits of my labors? Locke

Milton

and

the

Declaration of Independence

373

encroaches upon

answers, anything proportionate to the end of self-preservation but nothing that the equal right of others to protect themselves and the fruits of
their labors.
of

This seems merely a restatement of the golden rule, an anticipation Kantian imperative, or a variation upon the truth that one ought to con duct oneself with justice. Yet at just this point what I have termed the Lockean
the

default
not

comes to

bear

once

Locke he to

observes:

"when his

own preservation comes

mankind"

in competition,

ought

preserve the rest of

(2. 6). Upon

reflection one can perceive eralization

that the

apparently obligatory

character of this gen

disappears
not

once we appreciate

the effect of the restrictive clause. For

with"

we are not obliged

to preserve others when to do so "competes

our own preservation.

(Locke,

notice, does

say prevents)

glance to mean no more and so

than that no one is obliged

restriction carries much
must

This may seem at first to be a self-sacrificing hero,

as

it does. But the

further

becomes

manifest
when will

when one asks what

is this self which

I

(or can) be

preferred

to others

its

preservation

is

at stake?

return to

this issue subsequently, but here it

self Locke understands consciousness of absence of pain. But what is required for indolence is nothing short of meaning life all plus the gains one has wrested from unimproved nature. Thus the bodily
suffice

to say that

by

"indolence,"

effectual truth of

Locke's is

restriction upon

the golden rule is to propose that

not to

one

has

an

whether to

overriding do so is law is

compulsion to protect
or not at

(and why

augment?)

one's

own,

the expense of

another.

The

effectual truth of

Locke's
natural

restriction upon a

the golden rule is to negate that

can

rule of

justice. Locke's
maintains

law

of

interest. It

be God's law (as Locke

as to make

it

is)

only if

one so alters one's notion of

God

Him indifferent to
as a

moral of self

obligation. ordained to

Locke's law differs from that

of

Hobbes only

definition

seeking pleasure after pleasure or power after power, which is to say, it does not differ. Thus, although Locke will say in chapter 11 that his law of nature carries forward into civil society,

indolence differs from

a self as

thereby imposing
carries
ever

limit

upon with

arbitrary government, it imposes

we must understand

that

it

forward burdened
but in the

the specified restriction and, consequently, what

not after the manner of a moral

limit it

places upon arbitrariness

prohibition

manner of one natural

recoiled

Either Jefferson himself

as

from

force setting bounds to another. invoking a first principle so weakened

would not

Locke's is in its

moral

authority, or he

risk it

with the

Congress.

Either way the result was that he did not bottom the Declaration on Locke's keel. Instead of any reference to self-preservation as the foundation of civil
society,
ral cum we

have Jefferson-in-Congress's
the

recourse to an

understanding

of natu

divine law,

a prescription which proclaims categorical moral obligation. accords

with

That understanding

teaching

of

Thomas Aquinas, Richard

Hooker,

or

Milton, but not,

with

except on

the unnecessary assumption of benign

misprision,

Locke.
the phrase "laws
God"

I have
of

given perhaps undue emphasis to the second part of

and

Nature

Nature's

because the

second

part

goes

largely

ignored

374

Interpretation
is
time

today. It

for

me

to redress

by

emphasizing that the first laws

of nature,

part

is

limitary

upon the second.

If the

obeisance to

God

sanctifies the

it is

also

true that the

laws

"civilize"

of nature

(i.e., politicize)

the creator God. The Declaration

de

clares to

be important

rather that which cludes

just anything that has been said of the Deity but is pertinent to political life. Moreover, the Declaration ex
not

from

self-evident truth theological affirmations not established

by

con

sistency

with natural reason.

The only laws

ascribed to

God that the draftsmen The

will countenance are those also ratified

by

sound reasoning.

founding

thus

is theological but
standing

not

fideist. It
as

cannot countenance a appears to

morally

relativistic under

of natural

law

Locke

have propagated, but

neither will

it

accept a moral

law

which

has

no other claim upon one's

allegiance than

its

allegedly divine
on a

promulgation.

One may
as the

even go

the length of saying that the

envisions
not

political truth of such

laws

of

God

Declaration

does

not

depend
the

demonstration

of

God's

existence and

indeed does

depend

upon

fact, if it be
son,

a fact, of God's existence. Three Adams, Franklin) were surely Deists, whether

of the committee of
and

five (Jeffer

knows

they

were atheists

only the suppositious God in their inmost heart. Yet all three were given

throughout their lives to pious utterances and even to exhorting their colleagues

to prayer. Adams once

stated

his

position

publicly

and rather

baldly:

Let

us conclude with one reflection more which shall

not

barely

be hinted at,

as

delicacy, if
there a
who

prudence, may require, in this place, some degree

that the government of nations may

of reserve.

Is

possibility

fall into the hands but fireflies,

of men and that

teach the most

all

disconsolate

of all

creeds, that

men are

this

[i.e.,

object of

universe] is without a father: Is this the way to make man, as man, an respect? Or is it to make murder itself as indifferent as shooting a plover

[a

bird],

and the extermination of the

Rohilla

nation as

innocent

as the

swallowing

of mites on a morsel of cheese?

And twenty
If I

years

later:

were an atheist

should

believe that

chance

had

ordered the

Jews to
wise,

preserve and propagate to all mankind the

doctrine

of a

supreme,

intelligent,

almighty

sovereign of the universe, which

I believe to be the
of all
civilization.9

great essential

principle of all

morality,

and

consequently

The Jefferson
"It does

me no

can also ask

quip at one point in the Notes on the State of Virginia: for injury my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no on another page of the same book:
who could

god"

can the

liberties

of a nation

be thought
be

secure when we

have

removed their

only

firm basis,
of

a conviction

in

the minds of the people that these

violated

liberties

are of the gift

God? That they

are not to

but

with

his

wrath?

Indeed I tremble for

Milton

and

the

Declaration of Independence
cannot

375

my country when I reflect that god is just: that his justice (Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17, Query 18)

sleep forever.

Whether God
are

exists or

not, most men

will not

believe their rights

and

duties

firmly they believe these to be the gift of God. For purposes belief in God is of more consequence than His existence.
grounded unless

political

Similarly
Providence,
to

with respect a

to the

Declaration's concluding

expression of

trust

in

Lockean

could make

the same avowal, as in fact Locke does in

referral

the section of the Second Treatise which refers to violent rebellion as a

God's

arbitration

(19 in Sherman ed.,

to

pp.

148

and

163). Locke is appealing

self-preservation.

to Providence in the sense of the aboriginal law of nature,

The

colonists seem

imply

ordeal

by

combat over which

something more akin to the medieval notion of an God was thought to preside. Either position seems

exposed

to the same objection, as

successes of the

for that

matter

Milton's

appeal

to manifest

New Model army invites the same retort: that such views of Providence, given the Deity's inconstancy in favoring justi fied but small battalions, reduce to a belief that might makes right. Milton,
Providence in the

however,
battle,

possessed an alternative view of would make

Providence

which permitted

him to

believe God

his judgment known

convened

elsewhere

than on the

field

of

namely, at a judgment

beyond this

world.

From the

words of

the Declaration alone one cannot tell whether the Congress means to assert such
an alternative view of providential

confirmation,
willingness

yet one cannot rule out

the

possibility in view of the fest itself after they may have

signatories'

to expect Providence to mani

given those

lives

of theirs which at the end of the

document they pledge to their cause. In any case, the Declaration seeks to proposing
which a

secure

the efficacy of natural laws

by

divine

source and a

divine judge

operative not

just in the

crises of

violent rebellions

but

at

every
at

moment when

the rights of men are at stake,

every moment. The God of the Declaration, like Milton's supervising trinity but unlike Locke's deus absconditus, works a sort of high-maintenance providence through constant judgments, however secret these may be. One cannot say with any confidence that natural right has ever been upheld by an historical occurrence clearly, or even probably, supernatural.

is

as much as to

say

But in

one can argue with considerable

right

helps to
even

maintain

right. It

seems moreover not

probability that belief in a God interested improbable that such

belief is
the point
might

grant necessary to maintaining right. Milton would presumably but distrust its Averroist odor, whereas the revolutionary colonists

take

it less

fastidiously

with

the

reflection

that a stable basis

for

political

life

requires a certain

breadth for the foundation,

perfect so

including

willingness

to build

with materials

less than
to

long

as

decent. is
not

By

contrast

Locke,
to

the Declaration

indifferent to the issue

of cre of a

ation and

by

contrast

Aristotle,

the Declaration promulgates the

idea

God who, because he creates,

presides over a nature which

defers in its

author-

376

Interpretation
its Creator. The God
of the

ity

to

Declaration is

that

God

who

is

worshipped

in

by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. This is the God of Milton, espe the Milton of Pro Populo, who says little of what might be thought cially peculiar to Jesus but much regarding the deity worshipped as Creator, lawgiver,
common
and

judge

by

all three

scripturally based its opening

words

religions.10

should

be

more specific about

this Miltonic-Jeffersonian convergence of the Declaration

and

theopolitical archai. In
a

is

concerned

to

justify
whose

revolution, a resort to arms against a

whose

king

Parliament,
is

or maybe a king-in-

Parliament,
wise was

legitimacy
negate

as occupant of the throne

undisputed

but

misdeeds are

held to

his

claims upon

his

subjects'

obedience.

So like

Milton

concerned

to defend his conduct and that of the Independents

of situation

similarly

circumstanced.

Similarity

does

not settle

anything, since

many controversialists, Locke for one, found themselves so situated. But the parity, rather identity, of the reasoning of Milton and the author of the Declara
tion

deserves

remarking.

To be sure, Milton, Locke,

and the

Declaration

all

shared a common concern

to set executive power under law.

Milton, however,

does

not uphold an equation of

he

maintains this state of

legislative sovereignty and rule of law, although affairs happened to obtain in Parliament's opposition

to Charles.

assert a case

Similarly, Jefferson and his colleagues in drafting the Declaration by nature, God, and circumstance, but theirs is not Locke's case
rule of

for

identifying

law

with of

the

formal

regime requirement of

legislative
rule of

supremacy.

Rule

law for

neither

Milton

nor

the

providing for drafters means

mid-Puritan-

the legislative
posture

revolution

branch. This is so, even though Milton's disposed him to champion Parliament's cause. Milton
a condition of state

not

only

could

imagine

in

which

the monarch would better

represent natural right

relation to

than his entire citizenry (the Father of Paradise Lost in his angels), but in defending a Cromwell who had dismissed a Par liament, Milton backed with reasoned partisanship an actual, and, by the time he wrote, unpopular claimant to sole preeminence. Like Aristotle, Milton grants the right of unshared rule to a soul who can attest a
and

degree

of virtue

manifestly

greatly decisive when

superior to that of one allows

The distinction here, I grant, is not for the subsequently introduced right of rebellion
neighbors.

his

Locke
Milton

reserves to the people against even the supreme rather

legislative

authority.

The

difference is

that in reposing ultimate

and the

Declaration leave
whereas

the people subject to a

sovereignty in the people both divine natural require

ment of

justice,
not on

tion of whatever

But if
ton

subjects the people to nothing but their calcula desire in order the better to preserve themselves. they may Lockean grounds of Whiggish doctrine, how exactly does Mil regicide?

Locke

defend Parliament's

station to make resistance to

tyrants.

distinction between
govern

kings,

who

the duty of anyone in any Milton insists throughout Pro Populo on a govern for the common good, and tyrants who
common good.

By maintaining

for their

own

interest adversely to the

Kings

ought

to be

Milton
obeyed

and

the

Declaration of Independence
the notion

377
for

(although Milton

once

flirts

with

they may be

set aside

the prospect of better governors [p.

resist

494]),
deeds

whereas against

tyrants one ought to

acknowledges

if

resistance seems not

impracticable (p. 469). Milton

of

his he

responsibility to

ascertain particular

tyranny

and adduces specifics or perhaps a shorter

estimates should substantiate a

long

train of abuses

train
the

of

very serious abuses American Declaration,

"domestic"

which

includes

almost all the particulars recited

by

not excluding the king's insurrection (read Charles's alleged residents with

inciting
use of

of

Indian

savages and

the Irish as his catspaw

against

British

in Ireland). In detestation
of

word, Milton
as

identifies natural, justi

easement

fiable independence like the

colonial

tyranny,
on

does the Declaration. Again

ambiguous more

draftsmen, Milton
of revolution

allows

some

for

more general

right

founded

nothing

definite than the

people's expectation of

improvement. Milton

anticipates

ing
to

as

he

moves

against outright

from the strong defense (right to rebel tyranny) to the more latitudinarian implied right form
of government
suited

Jefferson's very word after long forbearance

of the people some other which

exchange one
"seem"

(tyrannical

or

not?) for

may
rebellion

to them better

to their welfare.

Finally
of a

the people's right of

subject
moral

in both Milton
of

and the

Declaration

remains

always

to the

necessity God and

conforming their judgment to the

dictates

higher

law

of

nature.

"SELF-EVIDENT"

TRUTHS: EQUALITY

Equality
dians'

is

hardly

a proposition confined

to

post-Miltonic or post-Lockean

political speculation. praise of

republican

tradition rooted
and

in Solon, the Greek trage

uniformly to
affiliation."

isonomia, Aristotle,
of civil

Hellenic-Roman Stoics instructed Eu

applied all persons

rope

in the

standards

regulations

whatever

their differences of origin, accident, or group

not altogether modern

Still,

there

is something if
ular version

then

distinctly

postclassical

in the

partic

of

the

notion

of

would not contest the general

I equality inculcated through the Declaration. view which holds that this new departure owes
assumptions.

something, or, if
the
particular

you

will, much, to Lockean

of

Yet I

would suggest

understanding

equality Jefferson

ascribes

to

"We"

(Americans?

republicans? a cognoscenti of the enlightened?

grasping the self-evidentiary

ton's way
of

character of

any and every mind capable of "these truths"?) owes more to Mil Let
me

thinking

about things political.

first
in

attempt to substantiate

with my claim with regard to equality then, "pursuit of Locke's influence regarding

a more pointed concession toward

reference

happiness,"

to the Declara

tion's

teaching

about

individual

rights.
equal"

Whether the
as

proposition

"all

men are created

be

a self-evident truth

Jefferson, Lincoln,

and most

Americans

prior

to the 1960s

believed,

self-

378

Interpretation
lie
as

evident

C. C.

Pinckney

said and

many

southern partisans then and now

believe,

or a truth the

self-evidentiary necessary to

character of which requires a

recovery

of

traditional

liberal

education event

to grasp as,

following

C. S. Lewis, I

would main

tain, it is in any
proposition

be

more careful

than almost all statesmen and

in explaining the equality have been inclined. scholars many

of

What I

plead

for is

not yet more

canvassing

eighteenth-century opinion,

because

such opinions are worth no more than the

upon which

thoughtful reading
we can attempt

by

our own

perspicacity of the acts of first and thoughtfulness in reading arose, they lights. What one might wish for is rather a more
proposition

attentive

scrutiny document itself. How It

might proceed

of the

equality

in the

context provided

by

the

might such a

scrutiny

proceed?

from the

observation that the

terms

of

debate

over the

meaning we have record)

of whether

and consequences of the

incorrectly

equality proposition have been (as far back as framed. The debate has hitherto turned on the issue

the notion of equality conveyed

status of

by

the Declaration relies on as

upon

sumptions about the prescriptive axioms

Englishmen or, alternatively,

of the second position conveyed

positing durable human the better case, because the equality pressly
universal

nature.12

Proponents

have
ex

proposition

is

in language

("all

men"

and so some case

forth). But

proponents of the

Anglo-consti

tutional position
an attainment

have

because the

equal status of all men available

is in fact
pro

(or

an attained perception of a

duced

marked

by by

British
stirrings

constitutional

perennially development the stations

"Gothic"

truth)

of which

had been

consolidation of the common

tion of

mists, Magna Carta, Tudor law, the Puritan-Commonwealth Revolution, Peti Rights, Glorious Revolution, and Bill of Rights, and by the
pre-Conquest

in the

colonists

own experience of

homegrown

representative government

founded

upon a

ubiq

uitous middle class

seem

this side of the Atlantic. This aspect of the debate

would

to admit of a solution in camera: British constitutional

development finds

its necessary fruition in the principles finally arrived at in the Declaration's equality proposition. The perceived truth affirmed at Philadelphia in 1776 has its basis in
perennial of

human

nature

yet, similar to what Aristotle said of the

see nature

development

dramatic tragic art, to

require preparation

for

what

it universally

and

perpetually is may

through a number of approximations that

owe to conventional

or only in part formula: Jefferson may have deduced his understanding of equality from the evolved state of the British constitution, yet that understanding is not the less radically natural inasmuch as

happenings

and causes

unselfconsciously,

consciously, concerted. To put it in

a portable

the end toward which

specie

British

constitutionalism was

evolving is,
not

considered sub

aeternitatis, radically
all

natural.

But however

that may

be, my business here is

to patch a peace but to

bring
the

another sword to

the conflict, because

it may be

that a misconstruction of

equality proposition shared by almost all representatives of either side of the debate just described more obscures the demonstrable significance of the equal-

Milton

and

the

Declaration of Independence
contestants share

379

ity
the

proposition

than their

contention.

What both

is

a view of carried

the subject accommodated to the secular outlook that

is

reputed

to

have

day

plain

among academics, folk between coasts.

sides assume that stated no

and even

among intellectuals, foundation

of

if

not quite yet

among

Both pressly

the creaturely

equality,

although ex no

by

the language adopted

by

Congress in the document, has

really
meant

bearing,
therein.

decisive

bearing

anyway,

on

the meaning of the equality asserted to assert

Anglophiles

maintain

Jefferson

and colleagues

the

equal

footing

Englishmen
or

were entitled

to under British law. Their oppo

nents of either

Aristotelian
natural

Lockean

sympathies argue

for

an

equality deriva
event

tive

from the

genera of the species

(rationality)

in the

they

are

Aristotelians, or, if they favor Locke, they

condition of men prior

to that contracted

identify Jefferson's equality with the civil society hypothesized by Locke,

parties turn aside
enough not

Hobbes,
language
men

and

Rousseau. Yet both contending

from the

actual

of the

Declaration,

which asserts

plainly

that Britain made

to be equal, not that genera detectable through scientific morphology es

tablish equality, and not that a balance of powers among men

state of nature constitutes
"created."

in

a presocial

because they are so human species, or the Aristotle would not As observed above, say anything else, was created, whereas from the perspective of the British constitu tionalists as well as from the view espoused by the followers of social-contract
equality, but that
men are equal

philosophers, whether
terial to a proper

men are created or produced

in

some other

consideration of

their equality. (This

and

is

not to

way is imma deny that for

other considerations

Hobbes, Locke,
to

Rousseau

might

have interests in the

issue, probably introducing doubt regarding the political implica tion of divine creation.) But the draftsmen of the Declaration neither disputed nor were indifferent to the connection between God's creation and man's equal
with a view

ity.

They

so

insisted

upon

the importance of creatureliness to equality that

they

asserted that
within
God,"

connection

three times

in different but interdependent

manifesto

propositions

the first hundred words of their

("laws

of

Nature

and

Nature's
proper

"are

created"

"and

are endowed

by

their Creator"). If

it is

to

speak

strictly

about anything,

it

would seem proper

to speak strictly

about a

matter of such consequence as the principle said on all

our national

hands to

preside over

life.

Strictly

speaking, therefore, Jefferson must

a

proceeds

from

an act of

divine grace,

occurred and therefore prompts

say human equality benefaction that, perhaps, need not have gratitude. Although once conferred by divine
benefaction

creative grace, the unpredetermined

termines everything in human affairs, perhaps which God himself may justly deal with this
servation of the

Deity subsequently de determining even the terms upon

of

the

particular creature. view

With this

ob
and

centrality

of

the Declaration's

of

divine initiative

human

response, we

may

return

to Milton and perceive

his preparatory
of

relation

to the founders.

Equality

occupies a prominent place

in Pro Populo's defense

regicide, in

380

Interpretation
plan of a reformed

Milton's

Commonwealth,
equality,
and

and

indeed

by

implication

throughout the polemical prose as well as everywhere

in

the major poems.

accord with

What is Milton's
of the

conception of accords

how

well

does it

that

fairly closely and, if not precisely, it accords much better, I would contend, than Locke's comparable teaching. To return to Pro Populo, Milton holds against Salmasius that every form of
Declaration? It
absolutist government violates a

the time of
given

his

creation.

human equality conferred by God on Adam at Milton identifies originary equality with the assurance
and

in Genesis that "male [or

him!]."

female he
the

he

created them

By

created them, in the image of God imago dei Milton understands rationality,
with political

broadly
attached

speaking, but a certain kind of rationality,

implications

to it. One may have to go beyond Pro Populo to Areopagitica and,

especially, to Paradise Lost coupled with Paradise Regained to gather all of

Milton's thought

on

human

participation

in divinity. Yet
point

even

in Pro Populo

unsupplemented one can

take the crucial

that for all politically relevant

considerations the aspect of

which

rationality
equal

men share with

God,

the aspect thereof

makes them other

(politically)
in
an

Unlike hence

animals, human animals

is the capacity for deliberative choice. can direct their conduct by reflection and
of what

by

choice grounded

understanding

they

ought

to do. Men

differ in their
so

particular capacities
anyone

markedly that

for deliberative choice, but they do not differ better fitted for deliberation may govern others in the
may

unlimited

way

even the worst man

rightly
so

govern

even

the

best beast.

the divine may image that God may indirectly punish by permitting despots to rule them more harshly than men discipline beasts.) Yet the parenthetical qualification gives no

(Milton, however,

acknowledges men

disfigure their

share

in

comfort

to bad rulers. For whatever the

dispensation

arranged

by

divine

provi

dence,
jure
the

absolutist rule offends

against an

even after the corruption worked

by

Edenic equality which continues de original sin. The tyrant Nimrod was

first

so to

offend, Charles Stuart more recently.

on primal

Lockean teaching

equality

overlaps

Milton's somewhat,

ad

mittedly, since Locke also locates the specific difference of the human species

in rationality (Second Treatise, 2. 11). Yet an underlying difference between Locke and Milton seems to me more decisive than their partial agreement, since
Locke nothing about man's existing in the image of God (neither does the Declaration, but I will come to that at the proper place). The issue goes beyond
says

merely nominal divergence in the frequency of theological reference. For from Locke we would infer we owe no gratitude to divine provision for our ratio nality because Locke's
and

Locke,

question of ultimate

indicated above, does not human origins. Even were this

as views of the

concern not

himself

with the

so, there are between

Milton's

intrinsic

character of reason
practical

differences
not

suf

ficient to distance the two thinkers. Lockean

reason

(i.e.,

speculative)
prera-

turns out to be the calculative

tional

instinct

of self-preservation.

auxiliary to an all-compelling yet Men begin to calculate with respect to

what

Milton
is
subject

and

the

Declaration of Independence
seek

'381

to their disposition

because they

to preserve themselves, and

they

calculate what

they

can change always with a view

(actually

compulsion)
at reason's

toward the same end.

origin

Self-preservation

stands

back

of

reasoning

in

or

reason all

just before contracting into civil society and as well presides over through life. Milton by contrast, although not inattentive to the preva desire to
preserve

lence

individuals'

of

reason, altogether apart

from

a consideration of whether

themselves, finds a wider scope for in any given instance

the reason of a man serves good or evil. That

action with speculative

is,

reason coordinates practical whether

truth (truth as perceived,

produces essential

rightly

or wrongly). not

For this

essential

attribute

human freedom to live

various

by

instinct but
Such
and

by

the truth that comes to men

according to their

lights.

an understanding carries forward to live accordingly, whether consequent

an ethical obligation conduct conduces on

to know truth

to self-preserving
on the political

or not.

I do

not wish to

dwell, however,

the edifying
and

but

implication

of the

difference between Milton

Locke

with respect

to

taking

rationality for their first ground of equality. The important political conse quence is that within Milton's conception, but not within Locke's, men may,
and ought

to,

alter their predispositions

so

as to

bring
as

these

into conformity

with obligations

descending from

perceived

truth. This combination of capacity

and obligation makes us resemble ness work

God inasmuch

God's

wisdom and good

inseparably. Yet
the ability to
most

men are

dissimilar to God to the

practice,

extent

that while

they have

wed speculative reason with

they actually join

be
at once

the two functions

imperfectly
proper

when

they join

them at all. To

remarkably

similar

to something of

superior exellence and yet

markedly to dif

fer is the God.

Since

mode of

being

to an image. God's truth and action are one; to truth. Human beings are then only

man can make of

his

action conform

images

acknowledgement was made

above

that Jefferson says nothing of an

imago dei, it is incumbent upon me to suggest where in the Declaration one might discover Milton's understanding of a rationally voluntaristic ground of
equality.

First

one might

say

nowhere

the enabling premise of the will persuade said world to behave favorably "facts to a candid ting toward rebel colonists. Given the likelihood that considerable portions of that
since
entire
world"

expressly and everywhere by implication, document is its expectation that submit

world would

be

predisposed against

the revolutionaries, Jefferson and the

Con
or

gress must trust that shame to alter their

by

reasoned argument men

may be induced

by

insight

first intents in the light

of perceived truth.

Jefferson,
that

com

mittee, and Congress seem to

centrism

have implicated themselves in irremissive

kick free from the
assumption

logo-

if that

means

they

could not

deeds

should answer to

compelling

rational speech.

Thus much might be said, however, of any conception of human nature that repre emphasizes the morally rational, say, for example, classical rationalism as
sented

by Plato, Aristotle, Cicero,

and

the Stoics. But there is a more

particular

382

Interpretation
distinctive to
scriptural religion which, when su
participation as

emphasis upon a conception perimposed upon

the rational, bespeaks a fheistic

the specific

difference marking off the human from Jaffa has hit upon this conception in his
Declaration between the three
on the ates
with

other species within

the genus animal.

remarks on the

similarity drawn
on

by

the

aspects of

divine activity,

the one

hand,

and,

other, the three dimensions of

governmental authority.

by

making laws, executing the laws, general law. Hence the Declaration
of

and

judging

Civil society oper particulars in accordance

violations of sound

speaks of

British

law, and of corrupt judicial pro good while it prescribes standards for a legislature, executive, and judici cess, ary. Similarly, the Declaration speaks of God, first, as a giver of law, second, as
legislation,
neglecting faithful
execution of

an executor of

law through His

as

creation of nature and endowment of

human

beings
ment ular

with

rights, and, third,

the supreme judge making

manifest

His

judg

by

His Providence, His

application of general principles of

right to

partic

instances

of proper conduct or of wrongdoing.

But

one must go

further to
shared

observe

the reason civil authority sorts out

God

and governments: man qua

individuated
such

Classical rationalism, or, alternatively,

or

activity by is essentially this threefold. modern rationalists as Montesquieu

a threefold soul

into

Locke discern the

same

three essential features of civil government

hence

the celebrated doctrine of separation of powers. But scriptural religion dis

tinctively, if

not

uniquely, provides the ground

nomocratic-executive-judicial

activity

as

for grasping the human being's the flawed simulacrum of God's con law just
as

duct. Man's judgment

with

and action alike answer to self-acknowledged

God,

although,

unlike

God,

the three powers only

fitfully

harmonize in the

souls of men.

but

at

This is nothing other than to say that human beings are not God their best only images of God. This understanding prescribes how we are
at

to think about God and

the same time

how

we are to think about man.

Milton

in Pro Populo

in The Tenure expressly invokes the idea of participation in the divine being as the underlying basis of an equality of rights. Because it is the one feature of man's prelapsarian nature which survives the fall, it is spoken
and of

in Genesis
after

at the time of

the creation of Adam and Eve but also repeated

(twice)

the account of the first

transgression, appearing

final time

well

along in
election.

the narration of new transgressions

leading

to the story of Noah's

This is
a

significant

in

view of

Milton's

endorsement of a

distinction

between

"primary"

"secondary"

nature, and a

Yet the basis

nondespotic

of

the

law, pertaining to prelapsarian perfected human law, accommodated to man's fallen nature. imago dei, as well as its moral consequence of requiring
natural

natural

government, persists through both versions

of

Milton's law

of na

ture. Men should be ruled

they

retain their

nondespotically because even in their corrupted state semblance of God sufficiently to deserve rule by law rather
Either from his
own conviction or a

than subordination to the ruler's mere will.

result of

in

accommodating to the
on

for

a people

doctrine

composing predominantly Christian and Jew, Jefferson so modifies Lockean human nature as to redirect it toward this Miltonic teaching.

exigencies of

document

of state

Milton
What
equality?

and

the Declaration of Independence

participation upon

-383

bearing

has this belief in divine

and good sense concur

the doctrine of

Aristotle

treating

equals equally and unequals ity. Since this is so, one deduces that

in prescribing that justice demands unequally in proportion to their inequal

accurate

judgments

of

inequality

are as

important for
of

political purposes as perception of equality.

Does

a predication

equality better and

on

the basis of

divine

semblance obscure

worse?

No. In the first place, equality

permits

fixing

necessary distinctions of upon the aspect of human

nature which entails come

true distinction of better and worse to

considerations

to

sight

by

removing irrelevant
In the

(of race,

birth,

sex,

beauty, strength)
based

which

themselves obscure true

second

on a nonessential standard.

distinctions because they are place, human beings differ in

to the difference in

the degree of their resemblance to their abilities to execute and to

God just in

proportion

law properly so called, as well as in their ability to discern law in the first instance. Does this mean that equality founded in divine semblance invites Orwellian irony of putting forth

judge in

accord with

beguiling

egalitarianism

while

hierarchy? Yes. Yet the

assume

irony

carrying in its tail the stinger of a covert itself is shallow, since to operate at all it must

that distinctions

within a species are unwarranted.

distinctions warranted, they are cations can be claimed for the understanding
semblance:

only are indispensable to justice. The following impli

not

But

of

equality

predicated on

divine
basis

(1) It founds

the commonality of the species on essential rather

than accidental or extrinsic properties;

(2) it

consists with a rationalist

for asserting equality; (3) it enlists piety in the service fideism.13 Such an effort was Milton's sipating simple
political

of reason while
aim

dis
his

throughout

writings, and such an aim appears

to have impelled the draftsmen

who contrived

to induct Locke into a civil

theology generally

acceptable

to

the

non-Loyalist colonists.

The

one well-founded objection

equality.

to Jefferson's work, to my mind,

attaches

to

the bare word

Jefferson discerns
essence

cannot

What actually seems the proper word for the reality be well designated by the arithmetical term, since the
analogy or, perhaps,
a propor
govern

Jefferson has in

mind more resembles an

tion. Human rulers, like the herd stallion, the good of the human group, tion but
ence
unlike a

for the

good of

the herd. But

herd,

consists not member.

in

the

perfection of each

individual

solely in its preserva That perfection has refer

to civil society but

in the first
resort

resort

to the individual

person's contribution

in the last

to the individual person's attainment of the highest approxima

particular resources allow.

tion of the divine that his

Thus the individual human

being

must as

be

regarded

ultimately
the word

as subject and

only

incidentally

and provi

sionally

instrument. This is the

conveyed

self-evident yet complicated

equality.

truth somewhat

inadequately
objection

by

Yet, it

seems

necessary to add, my
of

to Jefferson's

verbalization

applies

to any

conception

equality,

particularly to the conception here discussed of a in divine semblance. We might conclude that grounded standard of equality there is indeed no better means of referring plainly and persuasively to a notion

however

grounded, and not

384
so

Interpretation
accessible as

readily

equality is to

common experience

yet

so elusive of

precise philosophical

formulation.

SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS: RIGHTS

The

segment of the

Declaration

most

indebted to Locke

extends

from Jeffer
of
self-

son's stipulation of
evident

inalienable rights through the final item in the list

of consent with

truths, the doctrine Scholars

its

correlative assertion of a

right to

revolution.

point out

these doctrines were espoused

by

Locke

and note

that Jefferson expressed them

not

in language

identifiably
altogether

Lockean. Granted. I do
with

suggest

we

supplant

Locke's influence

Milton's. What I
antecedent
a

would

observe,

however, is
language

that the context provided

by

Jefferson's in

and subsequent

seeks to accommodate a

Lockean thought to
similar

teaching
save

Locke presumably would not endorse, one later considered to Milton's.

teaching

all respects

Since the declaration regarding rights follows logically from the equality proposition, which in turn presupposes creation, one must begin the Lockean
section
with

large

qualification

introduced into that Lockean

Then there is the

perspective

which relies upon notions of self-preservation.

matter of the

still more consequential qualification upon

the predicative addition "are

endowed"

ticipated the point to some extent, we

content with one observation

Locke's theory of rights attached to (i.e., by a Creator). Having already an should not make a meal of it but be
previous characterization of

harkening

back to the

the quarrel over equality. The two quarrels come down to the same
are subject of

issue

and

to the same charge of posing

versus natural

fallacious

alternatives.

Prescriptive
or

rights
social

Englishmen

rights (whether Aristotelian-Ciceronian

contractarian)

as exhaustive alternatives puts the matter on the same

false

footing

as the contention

for

conventional or natural egalitarianism as exhaus equality.

tive alternatives

for understanding Jeffersonian

alternative, though once again plainly stated

the

by

the

A generally ignored Declaration, would hold that

rights here

mentioned are entitlements neither conferred

by

Britain

nor

de in

duced from

nature

(even if Jefferson believed Britain had

once so conferred

them and that the nature of the

question are characterized

human

species so requires them). character

The
this

rights

by

their

inalienable

(more

on

directly),
credited

but

as

for their

source neither

Britain
act

nor nature

but

Creator-God is

in the document. As for the

neither with the evolution of

that establishes these

rights, it is identified

Britishers'

having
of

taken

its

course

but

with another gratuitous of

"endowing]."

self-understanding nor with nature's divine deed added to that of

creating, this time the divine act

Life, liberty,

and the pursuit

are

happiness

and other

rights

unspecified

but

pointed to

("among these")

endowments conferred
with

by

God.14

Milton's understanding,

not so well with

This understanding of rights conforms well Locke's. Milton would and does

Milton
insist
to

and

the

Declaration of Independence

385

upon tracing human rights back to God's will, whereas Locke may agree designate divine origin, on occasion and for purposes peculiar to his own secular project, but cannot agree in a sense that consists with his most authori

tative theoretical positions upon the

self whatever

necessarily self-elevating fundament

of pre

serving Besides the divergence just mentioned, Jefferson's

endowment as

the costs.

characterization of the
and

unalienable opens a certain

distance between his doctrine inalienable

Locke's. I
these
cause

am

supposing the Declaration mentions the

than employs some more
sensed

character of

rights
its

rather

logically

essential adjective

be

author

crucial predicate.

correctly Late eighteenth-century legal jargon

that for political purposes

inalienability

is the

relied on

two adjectives

to modify the meaning of rights:

indefeasible,
infringed

and

in[or

unalienable.

An inde

feasible its

right could not

be

justly

by

another

but

could

be

waived

by

bearer.15

moment quick of

my right to remain silent, but for the I shall lay my right aside.") The parenthetical example exposes the the distinction. As distinct from indefeasible, inalienable rights confer
could chose assert

("I

if I

along
might

with moral suasive power

benefitting
not

their

bearers,

coincidental

duty

im
I

posing be

obligations on the

bearer. I have
I
am

merely
a

a privilege of
of

living,

which

justly

assert or not as

disposed, but

duty

living. How

could this
of

so except on the supposition

that my life is not my own to dispose

in fee
to the

simple, that is to say, not alienable property?

second

Similarly

with

respect

right, liberty. One has

To
glance at of

not

merely the

privilege

but the

obligation to
and

be

free

man.

the jeremiad most dear to

undergraduates

other

bloodhounds be free deemed latter

hypocrisy,

a mind which recognized an obligation of all men to

insurrections"

justly resent "domestic personal liberty to be dependent

could

on self-government and

only to the extent he deemed the

Locke does say that a man cannot justly slay himself because his life belongs to God not to himself simply (Sec ond Treatise, 2. 6). Yet I indicate below why Locke's concept of self nullifies
not yet within the reach of slaves.

the merely

apparent moral obligation

to preserve one's own life.

obligation to

As for liberty,
proposed

Locke

makes no claim that a man

happiness"

has the

be free. here be

"[P]ursuit
cause able

of see

poses a problem to the exegesis

it is hard to
sense

in any

how pursuing one's own contentment could be inalien other than (the Lockean) sense one has in mind when one

says an animal cannot

help

seeking

pleasure after pleasure.

"inalienable"

One

might

further

object to an

imputation

of moral obligation via

that every

familiar

setting aside one's own contentment on behalf of something lofty but disagreeable. If Jefferson had stuck with the more shop worn triad climaxing in property, it would be easier to see the connection be
moral code seems to require

tween

liberating
subject

and an

entirely depend

to our

obligatory aspect to the arbitrary disposition because

the phrase

right.'6

Our property is

not

our

family

and neighbors

on

it. Locke

employed

"pursuit

happiness"

of

(Essay,

chap.

21. 44, 51, 52)

evidently because he thought it

more comprehensive of varied

386

Interpretation

happiness
ean

self-seeking than property (though he sometimes appears to take property and synonymously). Isn't Jefferson here making a Lockean case in Lock

language? preceding

Possibly

so.

One

must give

Locke his due tribute

with

money.

Yet if

the

enumerated rights come

freighted

responsibilities,

Jefferson

has

predisposed us

to hedge the

sponding
mation

obligation also.

apparently selfish right with some corre That obligation, I suggest, would amount to a sum
most

of all

the preceding

duties

now

directed toward
Jefferson to

concerted

end,

superduty, if
obligation

you will.

We

could understand

express

the paramount
rational

to pursue the end

(happiness)

of

the properly

independent

creature rather

than the servile end of the person who prefers subordination to

and prelates?

others

(priests

the high-born?

the

powerful

or

wealthy?

the
men

racially pure,
who, if truth

or

their ethnarchs?) deemed more worthy of

happiness than
who

were

known,

are equal

in the

sight of a

Creator

has dispensed
A reply

equal endowments of

liberty. The best textual

happiness"

objection to

this construction is
might

that it makes "pursuit of

redundant to

"life,

liberty."

appeal to a sense of rhetorically fitting subsumption, or more substantially, to a familiar distinction between mere life and living well. Living requires tenure of

breath

and the

disposing
may be
of

of one's

elementary freedom of bodily movement, of emigration, and of labor and tools; living well (happiness) carries the further
moral and obligation

obligation of

said to

cultivating have an

intellectual
to
pursue

virtue.

In this latter

sense we

happiness. I

would maintain the

context added

by

the

bill

of particulars adds plausible support

to a moral

view

"the

happiness,"

pursuit of make case

inasmuch

as these proponents of

independence

from Britain
than
of

less from the inconvenience Britain has

of

made

for them

from the

difficulty
against

discharging

their civil and religious duties in the face

British interference. Most

complaints

of the charges

listed in the
with

are

British interference

body of the Declaration colonial lawmaking and the

colonists'

efforts toward good government. man's

hand but

looming

sinisterly

at the a

Then, in a cloud still the size of a eastern horizon, gathers a threat to the
this
of

colonists'

religious

responsibilities,
specific

king-commissioned bishop. But

brings

me to the

Declaration's

indictments

George III. I defer discus

sion of erned

the last of the self-evident truths

until

the principle of consent of the gov

account of the
of

the way can be prepared

with

by taking
in

similarity

of the

Declaration

Pro Populo

evident

a comparison

the itemization of

grievances against

kings included in both texts.

BILL OF PARTICULARS

In

chapter

12

of

Pro Populo Milton

comes to

his bill

of particulars against

Charles Stuart. As the Declaration

without the consent of

will

indict George III for

imposing

taxes

the colonial
and

legislatures,
other)

Milton indicts Charles I for Parliament (p.

levying

new

taxes

(Ship-Money

without consent of

Milton
521). As the

and the

Declaration of Independence
with

387

colonists will charge

or with

George

having

suspended the

American

legislatures,
inveighs has

having

caused

them to convene in remote places, Milton

abolished the

against

Charles for

gotten revenue

from that

having body (p. 521).

legislation

Short Parliament

once

he had

He had

earlier protested that and as

the

king

no

right to

veto needful

as

Charles had done

the Ameri

cans claim

George to have done. The Declaration

will complain of the

king's

raising an army of German mercenaries. So had Milton complained of Charles (p. 521). Jefferson will echo Milton's claim that the king had reneged on "leige
protection"

(p. 528),

or as

the Declaration puts

it, "he has

abdicated government

here

by declaring
his
Jefferson
our

us out of

his

protection."

Milton

notes

Charles had

waged

war against
us."

own

subjects, as the colonists will, "and waging

war against

will repeat

Milton's

complaint against

Charles for

having

"taken

charters"

away

(for Milton, Magna Carta, for the

colonists

chiefly their

royal charters prior

to

1674)

and

for

having
of our

abolished

"our

most valuable

laws,

and

altering

fundamentally

the forms

government."

Milton like Jefferson had

protested

had

groaned under the weight of swarms of executive officers and

the king's

equivalence of

having set brother against brother. fomenting insurrections by Irish

or perhaps also with

with

I have already mentioned the George's "exciting domes

charac

insurrections,"

tic
autochthonous,

George's stirring up those prepossessing,

terized

by

indigenous inhabitants prejudically and stereotypically the phallo-Euro-logo-centric Jefferson as "merciless Indian
pp.
"

savages"

522-23, 524-25). Since elsewhere in Pro Populo Milton had protested Charles, Laud, and Wentworth's Star Chamber abuses of the judi cial processes, including denial of trial by jury, we may say that in most areas
(See Pro Populo,

Milton's bill
ness.

of particulars parallels that of the

alarm over

Declaration
a

with a of

fair

exact

Even the

colonists'

George's

fashioning
with

nursery

despotism

military outpost in a "neighboring Milton's complaints regarding Charles's dealings

and a

province"

had been

anticipated

by

the Scots. But this matter

deserves the

separate treatment given

significance of

below. Let

us consider

here

not

just the

fact but the

ration

the

parallelism

between Pro Populo

and

the Decla

respecting their bills of particulars.

not

I trust
not

to have

conveyed

the impression that I suppose the colonists could

feel the backs.

points of redcoat

bayonets

without

their

My

case

is

not

to

establish

literary precedent to sensitize literary derivation but to explore a

suggest the

continuity

of republican thought and

hence to

perennially

applicable

grounds of

both Milton's Both lists

alike

and

Jefferson's

particular grievances against

government.

of grievances proceed

from the

principles

arbitrary Milton and

the Declaration

hold self-evident, truths

coming to be

now applied

to

particular political

misdeeds which when analyzed yield

up that doctrine of
enshrined

free

government which

in Jefferson's
powers.

time was

in the

notion of separation of

Yet

one

massive

element

of

Milton's

notion

of

tyranny may

seem

to be

missing

from

Jefferson's

otherwise

parallel

itemization.

Milton

probably

388

Interpretation
wrongdoing he taxed Charles with approached the gravity Laud's misgovernment evident in their insistence upon unifor
and worship.

thought none of the

of

Charles's

and

mity in
church

church

doctrine

similar grievance against

doctrine

and

George, as discipline, or of

The Declaration may seem not to bear a it manifestly says nothing of churches, of
worship.

Although the

emphasis of the

Declaration in the
of

practical

domain is certainly

more secular than

the emphasis

Pro Populo,

we should consider what religious concerns

that one
our

item

of

the particulars which

may be entailed in has probably drawn the least attention in

day.

QUEBEC AND DISESTABLISHMENT

half-century

after

the Declaration

one

of the

members plot to

of

the

drafting

committee remembered colonial suspicion of a

British

transport Angli
sounded

can

bishops to America. John Adams

recalled

the

issue had in 1776

an universal alarm against

the authority
and

of

Parliament. It

excited a general and

just

apprehension that

bishops

dioceses,

and churches,

and

priests, and

tithes,

were

to

be imposed

on us

by

Parliament. It

was

known that

neither

King,
Act
of

nor

ministry,

nor archbishops could appoint

bishops in America

without an

Parliament;
with all

and

if Parliament

could

tax us,

they

could establish

the Church of

England

its creeds, articles, tests, ceremonies,

conventicles and schism
shops.1"

and

tithes,

and prohibit all other churches, as

If historians
alarmed

are correct

in their

estimate that prospects

of a royal prelate

colonists, and

if I

am

tion were proceeding with

years

right in supposing the draftsmen of the Declara grievances Milton had laid out over one hundred
bill
of

before,

we would expect the

indictment

somewhere

to add to its
and over

complaints over the

king

sending

swarms of officers to eat us

up

his

preparing to send mercenary troops he intends to

whose rule
send arrogant

something like this: "In

subdue our

concert with others

bishops to

churches,

haughty

churchmen

of

spiritual

warfare

is the indiscriminate

subjugation

of

men,
with

women, and children, relying on the adulterous misalliance of temporal

spiritual where

authority, a device known everywhere to tyrants and consistent no that

with

independent
do

exercise

of conscience

owed

the

Creator."

Of

course these words

not appear

fondness for
achievement

some

such a

in the document, despite Jefferson's statement in view of his subsequent pride

probable

over

his
of

in getting

tolerationist statement into the Virginia Statute

1786. The
relations were

probable prophylactic against such an

insertion

was this: although

between the Church of England and the Episcopal sect in America ill defined, very clearly prominent was the status of Episcopalianism as a beneficiary of taxes in Virginia. It must have seemed inexpedient to risk alienat

ing

Virginians

more

kindly disposed

than

Jefferson is known

to

have been

to-

Milton
wards

and the

Declaration of Independence

389

their colony's internal arrangements. Besides there were denominations

in

other colonies which relied on official colonial support.

The

problem

as

it

must

have

seemed

for the draftsmen

was

how to tap

resentment against

Britain's
not

suspected

Erastian

project without

colonists

who

might

be

prepared to go the

length

of

alarming those Jefferson towards

with

disestablishment. Their
principle, if

solution was

clever,

not

inconsistent

at

all,

and we should

add, in the spirit

outrageously inconsistent of Milton.

Whether

one should credit

Jefferson's

second

Franklin,
man or

the entire committee of

five,

or one of

thoughts, revision by Adams, its other two members (Sher

Robert Livingston),
of

the charge of

governing

had the genius to add to Jefferson's draft George's preparing a weapon against the colonists through his Quebec. The addition stipulates George III is culpable
someone

[f]or abolishing the free establishing therein

render an

it

at once an

neighboring province, arbitrary government, enlarging its boundaries, so as to example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute
and

system of

English laws in

rule

into these

colonies.

Now Quebec had become

espoused

noxious

for two

causes:

it had recently officially

the French legal code (although

sanctions to
crown.19

long

practiced there

by

custom), and

George had leant legal

subjects of the

British

establishing Roman Catholicism for French The Quebec connection thus provided the Phila

engine precisely suited to extri cating themselves from their dilemma of appealing to disestablishment patriots without alienating American Protestant establishmentarians by insisting too
with a

delphia draftsmen

fearsome two-handed

much on

an

identification left
at

of a

state-supported

religion

with

despotism. The
or

colonists were

liberty

to

attach

their odium to

Catholicism,
fear
of

to political
miters.

intrusion into

Like the Milton

embrace
vided

properly of Areopagitica

private religious and

domain,

or to

Anglican

liberty

Of Reformation they might, if they chose, for Protestants while denying it to Catholics. Milton had pro

the

rationale

by

nomination at

all, but

an

arguing that Catholicism was not a proper religious de international secular interest dressed in priestly robes.
rhetorical and expediential refinement

Adams,
of

or

whoever, worked the further

mention of

excluding any

Catholicism

per

se, thus

inoculating

against

bla

tantly offending
themselves
mischief

minutemen

Catholics

while still

giving George's "fit

by

a name

to what

they

could

allowing imagine the

antipapists

to incense the

worst of

instrument"

might

inflict

on their consciences.

By

such

backdoor but probably effective and arguably defensible means, Milton's cause on behalf of conscience got into the second thoughts of the committee or into
the floor debate and,

hence, into

the draft

Congress

ordered

engrossed

on

July

4.

From

beginning

to end of his career as thinker and statesman Jefferson fol

that civil

lows Locke in his belief

authority

ought

to have

no

free hand in

390

Interpretation
for
salvation of as
souls.20

legislating
to have
which

Yet

at times

Jefferson
a

also appears

to desire
a

it both ways,

in the letter

declaring

"wall

separation,"

of

letter

Jefferson

concludes with a prayer.

If Congress

and

the colonial conven opinion,

tions can be counted the indices of Revolutionary-era

public

American
that

belief diverged from the Lockean

what

side of

Jefferson to the

extent of

holding

is

common to

Jews

and

Christians in

scriptural religion not

only

comports

with, but proves indispensable to, sustaining those self-evident truths

Jefferson

himself

endorses.

In this

respect the colonists

diverged from Locke-Jefferson to

political

follow Milton,
siastical causes

who on the one

hand

would

debar

but,
and

on the

other, would exclude Catholics

and
era

authority from eccle from liberty of wor fundamental

with

ship,

doctrine,
in

speech,

who,

moreover, recognized that republican

civil encouragement of

government

Christian
not of a

required

Christian principles, Jesus (also

denominational

sort

but pretty

much

identical

that common theism combined with a morality of the two great commandments
of

of

Deuteronomy),
more
passed

a compound which

Hobbes derided

as "Aris-

totelity."21

Jefferson's

dated to the

revisions

latitudinarian sentiment, once it had been accommo in Congress and consolidated in the Quebec
of

passage, that is to say Jefferson shorn

through this

his deism

or

agnosticism, conveys

item

of the

bill

of particulars

just the

mixed view of civil religion

that Milton professed

everywhere

in Areopagitica,

Of Reformation,

Pro Populo,

and

indeed

in his

mature writings

down through the last, A

come closer to

Ready

and

Easy

Way. On disestablishment Locke

points. and

Milton

meeting than

on other opposed

But they

approach each other

from

origin-points

diametrically

and therefore stations of

reaching the limits of the elastic tethers anchored at their opposite

not quite

departure they do
we could

join. his word,

Milton

True, if
Milton's

take the Locke of the Letter on Toleration at

position and

Locke's

all

but coincide, for Locke

agrees with

that secular and sacred authorities are

ordinarily should not compel both Milton and Locke exclude from toleration
who require of their communicants

completely distinct and that the civil uniformity either in belief or worship. Moreover,
atheists and those

Christians

immoral

practices.

Locke,

although more

apparently congenial to Catholics than Milton, also agrees ultimately with Mil ton that Catholics who think one need not keep faith with heretics, or who think
themselves dispensed
warrant

from

toleration. The one

of

the

basis

his

argument

obedience to excommunicated rulers also do not difference separating Milton and Locke is that (on in Areopagitica) Milton would exclude pagans from

free

speech and

tolerated
explicit

emphatically says pagans should be Sherman p. 180). (Letter, ed., This, to repeat, if one takes Locke's teaching to be his ultimate teaching. If, however, Locke's professions of
mainly self-protective, his divergence from Milton
the
more consequential

worship, whereas Locke

abhorrence of atheism are

becomes obviously

greater and

politically
reason

as conditions

favoring

unbelief approach

those of our own

day.

My

for thinking

Milton
Locke's
express

and

the

Declaration of Independence

391

teaching is

not

his
and

ultimate

teaching
his

rests on

the

discrepancy
we examine

between his

profession of

piety

the logic of
of

argument.

If

the careful appeal Locke makes in

no

favor

tolerating

pagans, it

appears

there

is

impediment to making that tolerance extend to irreligion simply, although Locke does not expressly say so much, leaving it to his readers to draw the inference. Locke makes strong his argument for a universal tolerance (subject to
the two abridgements noted above), while he makes
irreligion.22

flimsy

his

objections to

If my reading of Locke is accurate, one may distinguish four positions on toleration and disestablishment relevant to the situation of Americans at the
moment

they declared independence. Arranging

more universal toleration at give us

a spectrum of these alternatives

more restricted at with

extending from the right would Locke

next

the left toward

Jefferson

at the

left

and

Milton

at

the opposite end,

Jefferson, and the Declaration just left of Milton, thus: Jefferson, Locke, Declaration, Milton. The two leftward positions are separated from the
to
two on the right

by

their lack of fervor with respect to scriptural religion, a their greater indifference to,
of

disregard
tion
was

which also entails of course

hence

tolera

for,
less

religious vocal

differences. Put Jefferson left

Locke because the Virginian

than Locke in rendering the tribute of

of

hypocrisy

to orthodox

Christianity. Put the Congressional draftsmen left

ration

Milton because the Decla

leaves

anti-Catholicism

implicit

or at

any

rate makes toleration of papists

provisional upon

their properly accommodating their conduct

by foregoing
positions on would

pa

pal

supremacy
and

over secular rulers.

similar

rating

of

the

four

the

score of their opposition to

a state-sponsored religion,

however,

have

Milton

the colonists exchange places. Of course the issue here becomes

government-

complicated once we remind ourselves that residual attachments to sponsored religion

in

a particular

colony

might prove quite a

different

matter

from endorsing
If the

civil religion on a national

level.

Making

this

likely

adjustment

would move the colonists much closer to

antiestablishment

Milton.23

Americans

sought

the biblical

principle

for

their

in

dignation in Milton's
antiprelatical tracts

writings

they

would

have discovered it in Milton's

and

several

written and

between 1640

1647:

Of Reformation, Reason of

Church Government,

Causes,
sions to

together with these

A Consideration of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical the sonnets and the later Likeliest Way to Remove Hire
writings

lings (1660). In

Milton

attempts

to demolish Anglican

preten church

find authority in

scriptural and primitive

Christian

practice

for

government

by

bishops

while

he
two

endeavors

to

establish

decentralized

govern

ance

by

elders on these same

prescriptive

bases.

Permeating

this argument

from

prescription, the colonists would

have found,

as some of them

doubtless

did find, an argument from reason which links Milton's reasoning on churches with his reasonings on state. Republicanism in church and state is his consistent conclusion derived from his inveterate premise that all governments derive their just
powers

from the

consent of

the governed.

And if the

colonists sought the

392

Interpretation
the
ultimate standard

statement of

thority
Populo:

and religion

they

would

for regulating the relation between civil au have found it in this formulation from Pro

Primo homines

ut tuto ac

libere

sine vi atque

injuriis

vitam

agerent, convenere in

civitatem; ut sancte et religiose, in ecclesiam; suam, plane seritur, quod

ilia leges, haec disciplinam habet

per

diversam: hinc
Magistratus
et

toto orbe

Christiano

tot annos

bellum

ex

hello
"

Ecclesia inter

se officia confundunt.

("Preface,

p.

34,

Columbia edition) Men

at

first

to

lead their lives safely

a civil

and

freely
be

without

force

and wrongs

congregated

in

order; that

they

might

holy

and

religious,

in

church; the

first has laws, the second her doctrine, manifestly distinct: because [our] Magistracy and Church confuse their authorities, for so many years war is sown from war
throughout the entire Christian
"sown,"

world.

[My

translation.

Yale has
an

"followed"

for
"join"

seritur.

Alternatively
its

Milton may be echoing

seritur

idiom

of

Sallust, Histories,
"sew"

Bk 4, 61. Perhaps the Yale translation took

and produced therefrom
"followed."]24

in the

sense of

or

Obviously
tax

not all the colonists would as noted a single

have

subscribed to

Milton's blanket

con

demnation since,
support

for

above, many (most) denomination. Moreover,

a general

lived in
all

regions which provided

the colonies provided

some

form

of support

for

Christianity

through tax exemption, state

sponsorship if not by actual both

madversions
wedge with

of prayers and

fasts,

state subsidies.

laws encouraging indissoluble marriages, For considerations Lockean, Miltonic, or for

and
of

at the same

time,

some

(many?)
and

the signatories may have hoped ani

would prove

against
which

London

Canterbury
more

the thin end of a

civil
coercion

they

could open
nearer

space

between

and

preferred

denominations

home. Other

colonists would

have been

content

to keep a fairly porous fence (hardly any desired a wall, it seems) separating Christian sheep and shepherds from civil overseers. Probably to the disgust of Jefferson the freethinker, the Declaration permits its constituency to find their
own reasons

for resenting
of

reckoned upon almost with some

variety

a prelate of royal creation. Yet the Congress probably every non-Tory identifying his grievance over this matter a position Milton had established on wider grounds than on the assumption that
crypto-Lu-

Locke

("wider"

not

conceptually but representatively,

such a

Christian

republicanism was more

cretianism). consists

In any case,
the

generally endorsed than Lockean Miltonic antiprelatism one can perceive better underlying the Declaration's creation, does Locke's teaching on tolera

with

scriptural

religion

equality,

rights,

and consent propositions than

which

tion,

teaching

canism.

(By

expressly require disestablishment of Angli inference, granted, Locke's logic as distinct from his explicit
not

did

concessions

may so require.) By Miltonic reasoning Jefferson could have his scripturally based self-evident truths now and his wall of separation later. One

Milton
may doubt
thought as
whether

and

the

Declaration of Independence

393

the wall can well consist with perpetuation of the Declara

tion's self-evident truths. But that was

Jefferson's

problem of

consistency
colonists,

of or

it is today

our

problem; it

was not a problem

for

most

for

Milton.25

LIVES, FORTUNES, SACRED HONOR

One final
passage of

Jefferson's first draft left

undisturbed

by

Congress

pro

vides support
proper

for the interpretation

advanced to this point.

I have

argued that a

grasp of the Declaration's doctrine of rights points to the conclusion that Jefferson means to accommodate a Lockean and relativistic notion of rights to a
more

traditional, probably Miltonic, understanding, from duties and ultimately from a superordinate duty
creating, providing, and

one which of

derives rights
gratitude

rendering

to a

judging

Deity. With

regard

to the passage on rights

itself, my
sonance position

pretty much to a supposition of Jefferson's con with Milton offered in correction of a more academically popular sup of Jefferson's consonance with Locke. I assert, therefore, a conclusion
argument amounted

which would

have to be
can

established

by

a more thorough exposition of

one that should

Locke's

writings

than

be

undertaken

here, namely

demonstrate that any deference Be all that as it

Locke's doctrine
to
an

of rights relies on no sense of

divine

origin nor

idea

of rights

imposing

inseparable

moral obligations.

may
of

prove

to

be,

the support for my supposition comes chiefly

from the

context

theological apodicta antecedent to the

upon

rights

stipulation.

Chiefly

but

not

solely
ously,

those grounds,

however, because

the context subsequent to Jeffer

support claimed

son's enumeration of
a

liberties provides, besides the

just

previ

brief

yet

Declaration

with

rhetorically Milton and kindred

prominent passage that

spirits

would contend

joins the
ardently
offered

while

disassociating its
The
passage

heroic
in

temper

from Locke's flatfooted

oath with which

utilitarianism.

here

evidence

is the

Jefferson

concluded and which

Congress

approved.

After the foundational raising the arch of

work

laid down in the opening

paragraphs and after

particular

indictments in the
vow

body

of

the document Congress

closing have already begun to defend in

the
continued
service

sets the capstone with a

pledging its members to the cause they speech and deeds (i.e., continued war) and in

of which and

they

now

write

they

pledge

to hazard their
a climax

"lives, [their] fortunes,

[their]

honor."

sacred

Suitable to

for the
climac-

entire manifesto, the sequence of

items here

avowed

is itself

arranged

tically. As important as are the

signatories'

lives,

their property is more impor

or property.

tant,

and their

honor

more

important than

either

life

In

fact, they

return to the theological rhetoric of the

"Providence"

approval of

and to assert

document's opening both to invoke the that their honor is sacrosanct. Why do
pledged stakes?

the

signatories so estimate and

discriminate among their

394

Interpretation
condition

Life is the

for the

crown of

life but

not

itself

a suitable

term
than

for the life be

most estimable good available

to

man.

Property

is

more precious

cause a man equipped with possessions

vidual

man

considered

is morally more important than an indi in his nakedness. The signatories would understand

Shakespeare's Talbot in 1 have

captured

Henry

VI

who

his

physical

person, have

boasts that his enemies, though they not gotten the substance of Talbot founded
on

which, he claims, resides in his social

identity

his landholdings

back in England and,

sponsibility,
established and

more

significantly, upon the

and political power

reciprocal

bonds

of re

loyalties,

residing in the
of

connection

between this lord

his dependents. Jefferson's

lifelong

work against pri

mogeniture, entail, and patents of nobility alters the basis

enlargement of

this idea of an

the individual to propertied representative of a community,

but fee

his

efforts serve

only to
as

relocate

Talbot's

substance

in

different,
of

perhaps more

natural, setting. Propertied individuals hold their life in trust rather than
simple

by

because,
and

observed

above, small communities

peers

superiors, depen

dents,
in the is

(albeit

demoticized)
and of

rely

on a man

for his

responsible

deploy
is the

ment of

his labor, tools, ownership

enhanced

for the

accumulated

labor

and sacrifice monetized propertied person

man's

finance

capital.

Because the

individual
a

by

power and

further

completion of

its accompanying responsibilities, property homo politicus. Hence the signatories, wealthy or not,
abundant or not, than
man,"

accord more
mere

deference to their property,

unpropertied
with

they do
as the

to their

life. Even

"unaccommodated

invested

Declara his

tion claims

him to be

inalienable dignities

by

virtue of the grace of

Creator, is more than "a poor, bare, forked animal"; so much Lear eventually learns. But, excepting the slaves, there are few such men in this land, or at least
few among the newly independent who will have a property in they bear and every one of whom has already a property in the rights this Revolution seeks to secure. Wealthy or not, a man viewed from the
there will be
such

talents as

vantage

of

his property

surpasses

in

dignity

the mere (though

rational

and

though

divinely benefacted)
or rather

organism. put

Still,

dignity. Honor

replaces

therefore, honor, not property, is "the pursuit of

last because it is first in initial rights triad

constitutive of

happiness"

of the

because honor
piness.

more

definitely

declares the

moral

desiderata
of

hap

Sacred

added thereunto

deflects inferences

vainglory

or ambition.

even

Honor here obviously means attested integrity rather than avidity for fame, if one is willing to acknowledge with Douglas Adair that the two disposi
tions usually go together
and that the inferior motive greatly interest in acquiring reputation for integrity and performance among founding fathers. It may not be too tenuous an inference to propose that "sacred amounts to an identification of happiness with a politicized
public men

in

promoted

the

honor"

virtue

which, in turn, rests

on moral and

intellectual attainments,

accomplish

ments which,

debt to

in their turn, constitute in the Declaration Creator as it lies with fallible men to render.

such return of one's

Milton
Be
versus

and

the

Declaration of Independence
affect

395
Locke

all that

too as it may, how do these observations

our present prosecution and ever

the

issue

of

Milton in

of their

paternity

suit?

One knows

what comes what

first, last,
and

for Locke:

self-preservation.

To grasp

finally

Locke

understands

by

self-preservation requires a
of what

consideration, inconve
to be this "self
suffice

niently
which

lengthy
is,
here:

controversial,

Locke

understands

or ought

to

be,

or must

be,

preserved.

Let the

following

for

our

"self,"

purposes

Locke

states

in the

Essay
.

and contradicts nowhere as which or

far

as

I know,

"[is]

that conscious
and

thinking thing

is sensible,
and so

or con

scious of cerned

Pleasure

Pain,

capable of

Happiness

Misery,

is

con

for it self [sic], as far as that consciousness One of those attempts at definition which amused Plato's Socrates by enumerating what all a thing does rather than what it is, Locke's effort is also defective by including
the

extends."

thing

to be defined in the definition: the self is that

which

is

concerned with

"it

self."

reader

occasionally

suspects that

Locke falls into

wells of

illogic in
seems
with

seeking to avoid saying outright that self reduces to body. In

to mean

any case, he

in this

passage

to equate self

with consciousness and

specifically

the consciousness of "Pleasure and

strict

Pain,"

evidently requiring, though

elsewhere

not

in

logic requiring,

body. Is

not

this

notion what most readers

from the
one to

Essay

and

the Second Treatise?

Nothing

carry away in Locke causes

discard this downright but textually verifiable reduction of his teaching What is to be preserved is the individualized capacity to (and experience pleasure pain?), the tenure of our bodies, preferably in that
on self-preservation.

Epicurean

condition of

imperturbability

Locke terms indolence.

If there is anything to my previous argumentation, one must conclude that self-preservation in Locke's sense Jefferson makes subordinate to other con
cerns mere

in the Declaration. As Milton life in Pro Populo, the drafters

was not

inattentive to safety, health,

and

of

1776
word one

were not negligent of self-preser

Though they never employ that liament's killing of citizens, whether

vation.

itself, they
these

resent

king
as

and

Par
of

takes

citizens

seats

consciousness

of pleasure and pain or otherwise.

tend to take

people otherwise.

They

tend to take

them,

But the rebelling colonists as Milton took them, to

responsibilities

be the beneficiaries
unique

of

divine

endowments and of

corresponding

to the
of

species. such

Milton's Pro Populo,

view

although not

by

any

means

the

sole

rendition

of

human

nature

and

ordination,

was

accessible,

widely known,

and was

probably the
since

exposition most

easily

adaptable

to the

colonists'

circumstance,

considered

constitutionally,

and morally, their situation and aims were close to those

legally, religiously Milton knew in 1651.

CONSENT: CULMINATION OR VITIATION?

Close, but
on
political

not

identical. I have deferred discussion because it

seems

of

Jefferson's

statement

consent

to me to indicate an advance upon the

396

Interpretation
of

reasoning
offered
major

Pro Populo but

an advance

better

appreciated

from the

vantage
one

by

an analysis of

Jefferson's
not

points of agreement with

Milton. The

disagreement is, however,

inconsiderable.
the Commonwealth revolution

Throughout his
ton

career as a champion of

Mil

found himself bedevilled

by

opponents who

fastened

upon

his

notion of

consent as the most vulnerable part of that

defense. Salmasius had foundation

who

sneered over

the pretensions of an advocate of covenantal

confine

was

willing to
may

his

covenanters to a

minority

of

those citizens who would be subject to

not

the covenant's arrangements. Milton

did

blink the problem,

yet one

doubt his
carried

attempted solution.

In Pro Populo he be
sustained

concedes the revolution was a

forward

and continued to

by

party

by

any

plausible reck

change so

oning less than a majority. He maintained, nevertheless, that a constitutional implemented was nonetheless just. Milton will go the length of af
that a minority may more

firming
why

truly
the

represent the people than a majority:

should

not

say that the

act of

better,

the sound

part of

the

Parliament, in

which resides

the

real power of

the people, was the act of the people?

in Parliament
not

prefer enslavement and

right for

minority to

prevent

putting it if they can

the commonwealth
and preserve

If a majority for sale, is it up their freedom? (P.

457)
Milton's
ment

practical problem arose

from his bitter

says, is

recognition of

his

confine

to a minority position.
p.

Liberty, he
assured

proper

only to

good men

(TKM,

Yale ed.,
that
not

190)

and

he had

himself that the

preponderance of

English

men were not good.

But, because
better than

the poet of man's

first disobedience thought generically were immediate practical diffi

Englishmen

were

most people and that men

an

good, he realized that he confronted not only

culty but a perennial limit upon any doctrine deriving the just powers of gov ernment from consent. One aspect of the dilemma: If men will not consent to a

free government,
sent

can

they be forced
To both

to accept

freedom? Another: If

government

to be just requires consent at its

beginning, does

government also require con

yes.

in its

operation?
whether

questions

Milton answers,

But to the further

question, something like democracy must follow, Milton answers, no. Why? Because to do so submits civil life to the caprice of a majority predicta

bly

composed of the unregenerate. can

For Milton the

substantive
of

desideratum

of

just laws

be distinguished from the formal desideratum

acts of consent.

having

policies

devolve from
expedient. sent

The former

principle must prevail over the

latter
con

He attempts, therefore, to
perceived catastrophe

salvage
of

his teaching

on

foundational

from the

requiring

continuous

majoritarianism or

through recourse to a notion of virtual representation.

as a

A majority,
and

the

people

whole, ought not to represent its will

of

directly
in

continuously in

the

formation
represent

policy but

should

instead

acquiesce

a system which professes to

them virtually and

better than the

people would represent themselves

Milton
if
as
present

and

the

Declaration of Independence

397

in

person.

Milton

says the upright

they happen

to be

but,

so to

say, at

minority their best.

represents the people not

This is precisely the understanding they provided yet which the American
of the

of representation that the

rejected.26

British

argued

colonists

The

more

temperate

British

were prepared replied

to accede the justice of no taxation without repre

sentation

but

that Americans were virtually represented

eleventh

in

Parliament
would pro

that seated no pose,

Americans. At the
that some

hour Joseph

Galloway

impracticably,

Americans be installed in Commons. The Dec

laration

repels this accommodation, without actually acknowledging it, by first principles. Actual and not virtual representation, exclusively, satis arguing fies the criterion of consent derived from divinely conferred equality. Locke,

incidentally,

appears to

have dodged the issue in his Second Treatise.

sounder on

Is Jefferson or, alternatively, Milton disagree? Jefferson is

sounder.

the matter over which

they

His

solution consists

better

with abstract princi

ple and would seem more conducive practicable.

to

civil

friendship

if only it

could

be

made

Moreover, Americans

seem

to have

convinced

themselves

they

pos

sess actual representation at some

would not part with

level

of government and

frequently
without

it. Jefferson's
would

solution

is not, however,

say they its diffi later he

culties, as Jefferson himself

remarked

have to

acknowledge when years

that although the will of the majority must prevail,

rightly
of

to prevail

it

must

be just. Milton had

success

reversed the effectual truth of the

same conundrum.

Jefferson's

lies in his

having

averted the

logical debit does

importing

notion of virtual representation,

but he

succeeds at the expense of

not

opening his

position

to an equally serious objection. For

apparently his formal

requirement of consent vitiate the substantive

justice demanded in the Declara

ask whether we are

tion's resounding self-evident truths? This

organic

is to

left

with an

law

which asserts that men are created

equal,
at

endowed

by

their Creator

with certain

rights, and so

forth,
The

unless a

majority

any

given moment

holds be

otherwise?

Men

will

be

governed.

ultimate

authority
the

of government must a

re

posed somewhere.

Wherever it is reposed,

including in

erned, the worry

still arises who will govern

governors.

majority Or as a

of the gov
subsequent enable

founder

will put

it: "the

great

difficulty

lies in this: You in the

must

first

the

government to control the governed; and

next place,

oblige

it to

control

itself (Federalist No. 51).

Declaration
and

My

statement of

the problem may seem to place the

Milton

on opposite

horns

of a recurrent

dilemma

unresolved

by

any theory of civil society Yet perhaps the risky options

choice makes absolute and not

whatsoever.

need not

be

so

nicely

equipoised.

Jefferson's

for the less imperfect

dependent
upon

solution.

The

self-evident

truths are indeed

historically
and

insular

majorities

any majority's opinion or will. Discrete and have and always will act contrary to these truths rights from time to time. The
same observa

neighbors'

hence

violate

their

tion, however, holds for any group identifiable

by

their species rather than,

398
when

Interpretation
it is too late, he had
Milton

by

their

deeds. If there be
mind would

therefore no odds

between

major

ities

and

minorities, a reasonable

favor the

majoritarian

settlement,

provided

a tolerable assurance

that majorities could usually be made

sift and refine the ma

responsible, perhaps
will.

by devising

institutions designed to

jority being permitted his doubts long debased by kings and

imputed to Jefferson that
man, one can never

might agree with this general proposition and yet

insist

upon

regarding seventeenth-century English majorities bishops. Or he might reply to the reasoning here
the
unregenerate

given

character of post-lapsarian

betters

unless

one

reasonably could discover

expect responsible majorities a people

to

identify

their
theo-

fairly

well
"We"

disposed to the
who

logico-political
propositions.
ple so

manifesto

Jefferson
at

attributes to the professes to think

hold his opening

But Jefferson
and

least

he

envisages such a peo

disposed,

the

frame

of government proposed

presumably his signatories agreed. Subsequent devices for in 1787 would help keep majorities so dis

posed, and, as The Federalist argues, the extent and

might contribute additional antidemogogic and

diversity

of

the society
a view

refining influences. With

we

to the concerted effect of all three causes operating upon the

on

colonists'

gamble
now reinvoke our

behalf
of

of actual rather than virtual

representation,

may

image

Jefferson's

work relative

to Milton's

as apex to pyramidal

foundation.

The image may

the
at

connote more exaltation than the

reality warrants, however, if

foundation

rests on ground subject

to tremors. For

instance,

respectable, or

least reputable, academics assure us that belief in laws of nature has nowa days the same status among college inmates as belief in ghosts. If there be in fact
such skepticism of natural

law,

this would pose a more serious threat to the

currency

of

Jefferson's
will

principles than eroded religious

belief,

since

belief

of

in sentimentality and dread if nothing better. More crucial to sustaining Jefferson's gamble must be a general convic tion that the source of creation and lord of history is also the guarantor of
some sort always sustenance
natural

find

right.
said

I have

Milton

could not resolve the patent

inconsistency

of

his

new-

modeled regime with

his

archprinciple of political covenant

of the

consent.

Milton's

notion

best

practicable regime

requiring for England

general

was

an

aristocratic

republic, a polity

featuring

rule of

law,

some separation of some

powers,

complete provisions
ment.

disestablishment

of the

state

church, and

(not very

definite)

for claiming popular approval at least at the inception of the govern Yet Milton's model required above everything his reposing authority in a
and

group reliably Protestant, congregationalist,

wary

of a populace

the

major

ity

of whom

were

not at once

Protestant,

republican, congregationalist,

and

disestablishmentarian. Hence, notwithstanding the logic seemingly incumbent upon a theorist dedicated to consent, Milton would not draw the necessary inference that would have transformed his aristocratic polity into a democratic
republic.

Jefferson

and

his

successors

in

attendance ten years

later

at

the consti

tutional convention
repelled.

improved Milton

by

embracing

the

inference Milton had

Milton
Delegates

and the

Declaration of Independence

399

deliberating
it

the

Constitution
any When set
on

wrestled with the question whether

representation would

be based

consideration other than population and against a

finally
of

concluded

ought not.

hitherto prevailing tendency

was momentous

the

Western tradition

of republican

thought their decision

because they thereby turned

among
previous republican
mixed regime

aside

from the vastly

in
which

predominant

conviction

theorists that the best practicable

and

constitution

is

property possibly be proportionally represented as well as population (of male adults) arithmetically determined. Therefore the American founders in re jecting any determination of representation other than the census and any for
other attainments would mal principle other

like Rome

Britain

and

some

than equality (the wealthy and the propertied middle class

could still protect

themselves

by

clared their work would produce a

using wealth politically yet democratic republic. That

subsequent to the
of

informally) de
was

necessary

consequence of

principles appealed

to

maintaining in 1776 in justification

probably a Revolutionary War the

and

that

war.

Although

decade later than Pro Populo, in The projecting have

such a as

Ready

Easy Way

Mil

ton came closer to

so

entirely, and in Pro

Populo,
pyramid,

democratically biased model, he never did I have said, he shied from the logical conse
him to do
so.

quence which would

required
we

If

we

look then to the

apex of provi

Milton's

uncompleted

find it filled in

with

the constitutional

sions needed republican articulated

to substitute a democratic republic for the

of

expedient

the mixed regime.

sublates

traditionally favored The Declaration as subsequently

and

in the 1787 Constitution

Declaration
cannot

Milton,

to this extent the prin

ciples of the

in defense
Yet
where

of

be simply the Commonwealth.

one

confined to what

Milton had

argued

suppose

imagines

Milton transported to Philadelphia in 1776,

he

would

find himself
with

surrounded

by

a populace

Protestant

augmented

numbers sympathetic
of secular

politically defanged Catholics, to loosening if not to severing entirely

in its majority certainly and in significant

authority

with particular

an unholy alliance Christian denominations. Would not the Mil

ton of Pro Populo so transported most

quence a

likely

embrace

the democratic conse

differently situated Milton had avoided? Of course one establishes nothing by testing only in favorable circumstances. We might come closer to principle by asking whether there is anything in Pro Populo theoretically incon
sistent with

tion indeed calls

democratic republicanism, or is it not rather that Milton's founda for, even if Milton himself does not envision, the architecture
provided?

Americans subsequently

CONCLUSION

And

what

of

the Jefferson of the to call

Declaration,

the

freethinker-by-circum
his
de-

stances-bound so

him,

versus

Jefferson the freethinker-to-have-his-say?

construct

Did Jefferson,

who

would

write

his deistic speculations,

400

Interpretation

Anglomythologizing expurgation of the gospels, and substitute courses in Saxon for biblical studies in founding the University of Virginia, did this unfet

tered

Jefferson
of the

provide

sufficiently for preserving

of

a public

belief in the Creator

God
nity
case

Scriptures

upon whose act of creation and conferral of special

dig

and equal

rights the draftsman

the Declaration had relied to establish his

for independence from Britain

and a new order

for

mankind?

Judging by

last-mentioned achievement, Jefferson in setting a curriculum for Virginia's young men seems to have been intent upon undermining the authority of those
the
writings which
republican with

Jews, Christians,
in
"Ideology"

and

Islamics

call the

Book in favor
recent

of authors

but pagan, Anglo-Saxon, Baconian, Lockean,

(a
word of

American and,
coinage

his

chair

of

late eighteenth-century have The

for

research

into
a

the material

basis

thought processes),

positivistic.27

After the
the

Declaration Jefferson
tion
of

Jefferson theistic for the

occasion seems to

reverted to

inconsistent piety if
of political

not outright agnosticism.

interesting

ques

for

students

philosophy is

whether with

respect to superior.

political

wisdom the
more

first Jefferson

or the second should

be judged

In jargon
posed as

consonant with an academic

audience that question could

be

follows:

on what grounds other than those occupied

by

the peoples who es

pouse scriptural religion can

equality,

rights,

and consent
can

lished,

and

if they

can

be

so

founded in thought,

be reasonably estab they also be established

sufficiently to citizens in the

the same as

moderate

the self-seeking of the

conduct of their practical

generality of nonphilosophic lives? This question almost comes to

ideal,
a

an

asking whether the notion of a democratic republic is a practicable impracticable but helpful goal, corruptive wishful thinking, or simply
us the

yoking of contradictory terms. If that is the question for philosophers, for

of what
Nature"

neglect

the Declaration to "Nature's

actually
with

says.

Our

issue may lie rather in our founding document ties

of all coordinate

"laws

God"

of

that most

indefinite

conjunctions,

and.

The

preeminent challenge to rational minds consists

in

sub

jecting that conjunction to patient yet skeptical scrutiny, since at stake is noth ing other than the question of the relation between reason and revelation, the
life
of thought and the a silence

life

of piety.

The Declaration in its

makes the

silence on this

final
pro

question vides

which,
an

however,

final

question obtrusive

Americans

with

invitation

or a provocation

to participate

in

philo

sophic reflection so

far

as our abilities permit

in

leisure. This dence held

blessing out by the

may constitute the best Declaration.

more

part of our

society inhospitable to true legacy of indepen

the Declaration

More prosaically but

through the eyes of
read over

practically, if

we

try reading

it

more

theologically minded discerningly, a gain which in

of

republicans such as

Milton,

we

may

turn might excite parental resentment

the

habits
the

teachers at all

levels

of

read about

document but
reading to do

not

to read

schooling who oblige their students to the Declaration itself, or when rarely
attentiveness

they do

exact a

so with a

fugitive

dulled

by

secular

Milton
predispositions or worse.
we should not a

and

the Declaration of Independence

of such a

401

Not the least benefit inflicted

on us

recovery

might

be that
to

have

soon again

the embarrassment of

listening

two-term president misattribute to the Declaration

Lincoln's

watchwords

"of

the people,

by

the people,

for the

people,"

and

have

no one notice.

NOTES

1. Harry V. Jaffa, How to Think About the American Revolution (Durham: Carolina Academic in Nellie D. Ken Press, 1976), pp. 37-38. Compare Willmoore Kendall, "John Locke dall, ed., Willmoore Kendall, Contra Mundum (Lanham, MD.: University Press of America, re printed 1994), especially p. 426; Thomas G. West, "The Classical Spirit of the in J. Jackson Barlow, Leonard Levy, and Ken Masugi, eds., The American Founding: Essays on the Formation of the Constitution (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988), pp. 1-56; "Leo Strauss and the American The Review of Politics (Winter, 1991), pp. 157-72; George Anastaplo, The Constitution of 1787 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1989), pp. 2-25; William B. Allen, "The
Revisited,"

Founding,''

Founding,"

Constitution to End All in the Twentieth

The

Constitutions"

in

an address

delivered to

a conference on

"The Constitution

Century"

at the

University

classical exposition of

the case

St. Thomas in Houston, 1983. for a Lockean reading of the Declaration is William F.
of

Harvard Law Review 13 (Jan., 1900): 319-43. Dana, "The Political Principle of the See also Carl Becker, The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Ideas (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1922), also, Morton G. White, The Philosophy of the American Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978). For a more penetrating treatment of the Lockean theme, see in Jack P. Greene ed., Encyclopedia of American Ronald Hamowy, "Declaration of Political History (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1984), pp. 455-65. See Jaffa, op. cit., and Martin Diamond, et al., eds., The Democratic Republic (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966), pp. 95-97, The Review of and Michael Zuckert, "Self-Evident Truth and the Declaration of Politics 49, no. 3 (Summer, 1987): 319-39. Garry Wills, Inventing America: Jefferson's Declara tion of Independence (New York: Doubleday, 1978); Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chi
Independence,"

Declaration,"

Independence,"

University of Chicago Press, 1953); Thomas L. Pangle, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988); J. G. A. Pocock, Politics, Language, and Time: Essays on Political Thought and History (New York: Atheneum, 1971), pp. 96-103. Pocock says "few of Adam Smith's teach
cago:

ings [on
ments,

civic

responsibility] have
such a teaching.

survived,"

yet

Smith's large book,

Theory

of the Moral Senti

is just

pamphlet self-published

I discovered late that my argument was anticipated at the beginning of the century in a little by Gilbert G. Davis, A Brief Account of John Milton and His Declaration
ed.

of Independence, limited
make

(Worcester, MA: Gilbert G. Davis, 1903). Mr. Davis

out

thought he could

Kings

for

merely by setting Pro Populo faced by the opening time better instructed than ours in the
case

his

in

parallel columns eight paragraphs spliced paragraphs of principles of

and

the

Declaration. This

might

from Tenure of have sufficed

can with preme

apparently Court as though they had to provide may be appropriate.

unfeigned naivete confront

the natural law

fundamental law, yet today when senators beliefs of a candidate for the Su
treatment such as I seek

met with an extraterrestial, a more analytic

2. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Thomas A. Lipscomb, 20 vols. (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association), 16: 118-19. 3. A most searching argument for reversing the priorities I see in Milton's thought, i.e., pru
dence based
proposed

on classical political philosophy's

taking

precedence over

Christian teaching, has been

"Areopagitica"

Paul Dowling, Polite Wisdom: Heathen Rhetoric in Milton's Rowman & Littlefield, 1995). MD: 4. I mean Jefferson and the committee had so to compose that they

by

(Lanham,

signatories.

With

regard

to what

occurred when

the

document

was

could satisfy anticipated laid before Hancock, historians

402

Interpretation
they
signed whatever

tell us we cannot know who signed what, and when

it

was

they did

sign, if

they did. We have

no official record of what

may have
ed.

passed

between the

members of

Congress

assembled to consider approval of the committee's work.

We do have Jefferson's
vols.

recollections

from

1823. See The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, University Press, 1950) 1: 300-329.

Julian P. Boyd, 26

(Princeton: Princeton
to "Nature and

5. The Nature's
The

committee and
yet

Congress

approved
gave

Jefferson's
a

introductory

reference

God,"

Jefferson originally
"from that
revision

proposition

by

writing:

equal creation

less emphatically scriptural cast to the equality inalienable." [men] derive in rights inherent and
Creator."

committee of

five's

son's

draft

6. On

fairly definite, by May 24, 1774, the

substantially strengthens theological language, already in Jeffer substituting: "endowed by their Virginia House
of

Burgesses had

also

designated

day

of prayer and

requiring all members of the House to "proceed with the Speaker and the Mace to the Church in this City for the Purposes (Boyd, 1: 105-6). Governor Dunmore, taking

fasting

aforesaid"

offense

tion regarding the

for George III, thereupon dissolved day of fasting "cooked

Puritans"

the

House. See

also

Jefferson's

approval of the resolu

forms direct

of the

7. Similarly,

even

he says, "[from] the revolutionary precedents and (Autobiography, Ford ed., 1: 9-11, as cited by Boyd, 1: 106 note). in an instance wherein Jefferson's debt to Locke seems to be a matter of
counsels

up,"

one may discover a precedent in Milton. Jefferson says prudence enduring despotism up to that point when a people has witnessed "a long train of Second Treatise 19. 225). Jefferson doubtless recalled Locke's phrase, since it is identical

literary influence,

abuses"

(cf.

with

the

verbiage employed
same charge ment's

in the Declaration. Yet Pro Populo, while varying the language, had against Charles's despotic accumulations accompanied by the same praise forebearance (cf. Pro Populo, p. 523). in his Second Treatise Locke had spoken of the (1. 2),
yet since

made the of

Parlia

long-suffering
course

8. Of
law to the

natural

law

as a product of

God's
divine

will at the outset

he

makes no more of this

must wonder

divine

origin than to reduce the

why such an elemental necessity shared divine command; in any event, from Locke one derives no sense of the propriety of rendering thanks to God for human origins. Quite the contrary, over the subsequent course of the argument of the Second Treatise Locke will introduce no cause
with all animals needs

principle of

self-preservation, one
to

be

supplemented with a

for

gratitude

towards, but

abundant reasons

for

resentment

against, whatever personal agency, if

there

be any,

upon whom we must

unimproved nature. and

See

also

responsibility for our straitened and penurious condition in 1.11. See Pangle, pp. 198-244. See also Paul Rahe, Republics Ancient

lay

and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992), pp. 295-97, 493-500. 9. This and the previous passage are cited in Thomas West, "Religious Liberty: The View from the in Daniel Palm, ed., On Faith and Free Government (Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Founding,"

Modem: Classical Republicanism

Littlefield, 1997).
10. Milton's
Milton in
writings were

widely

accessible

in America

after

1690. From George Sensabaugh,

Early America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964, pp. 110-46), one gathers the following information: Evidently the chief late colonial disseminator of Miltonic ideas was Jon
athan

Mahew,

who

drew

upon

both Areopagitica
in Boston

and

Pro Populo for

ammunition

in his

attack upon

the pro-Episcopal machinations

dent,"

of an

writing in The Boston Gazette, in 1770. More

pertinent to our

applied

Anglican missionary (!) organization. "Indepen Milton's Ready and Easy Way to America's situation
of

concerns,

at

least three Milton

the "committee of

five"

commissioned

to draft

the Declaration are

reproduced a
Religion."

known to have
passage

read

and to

have left

trail of citations. Franklin had

long
a

John Adams
list
of

studied

with

Locke) in

of Paradise Lost in his "Articles of Belief and Acts of Milton throughout his life, and explicitly cited Milton (side by side republican authors he recommended to George Wythe in a public letter to merits of a republican

from Book 4

Virginians advising them on the sent to Virginia early in 1776.

Jefferson
records some

form

of government.

Adams's essay

was

these are rather perverse (yet republican) readings of

Lost;

some are moralisms

Milton in his Commonplace Books. Many of Satan's speeches at the beginning of Paradise drawn from Samson Agonistes. Milton's ecclesiastical pamphlets Jefferreferences to

forty-seven

Milton
son

and

the

Declaration of Independence

403

drew

upon

toleration,

beginning
cites

in preparing notes for his efforts in the Virginia legislature on behalf of religious with An Act for Exempting Dissenters from Contributing to the Anglican

Church (passed in Jefferson

the legislation.

December, 1776)
and

Of Reformation

and extending through A Bill for Religious Freedom (1786). Reason of Church Government in his memoranda for debating

In a 1770 letter to Robert Skipwith containing a list of recommended reading (Boyd, 1: 76-81) Jefferson includes "Milton's Works (2v. 8vo.) in Donaldson's Edinburgh edition Since he
(1762)."

puts

Milton in the "Fine

"Religion,"

Arts"

section

and

does
or

not

Trade,"

"Law,"

"History,

Ancient"

"History,

include any Milton titles under "Politics, (though he does list several
Modern"

writings of reference

Locke),

one can

hardly

posit

from this

an acquaintance with

Milton I find in the Papers is the tantalizing but in the Miltonic effused in 1771 by a Mrs. Drummond,
to
Stile"

cryptic praise of
a companion of

Pro Populo. The only other Jefferson's "few lines

Jefferson's
on a coach

journey

little known (Boyd, 1: 65). Sometime before November 19, 1776, but not certainly before July, Jefferson had referred twice to yet another edition of Milton's Works, a 1698 Amsterdam printing, to which he makes reference in citing Milton's The Reason of Church Govern
otherwise
ment

but

Urged Against

Prelaty

and

Of Reformation

(see Boyd's

notes

1: 553). Did this

edition contain

Pro Populo? Jefferson's epitaph, "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to ascribed by him to Ben Frank and lin, who in turn had attributed to John Bradshaw (the judge presiding in Charles's praised by Milton in a lengthy panegyric as a at the end of the Second Defense [Yale,
"trial" "tyrannicide"

God,"

pp.

637-39])
and

Populo
Zeus."

sounds very like a lapidarian adaptation of a Senecan tag Milton cites in both Pro The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates: "the blood of tyrants is the dearest sacrifice to

a general discussion of Milton's probable influence on Jefferson, see, besides Sensabaugh, in David Armitage, 135-46, Jony Davies, "Borrowed Language: Milton, Jefferson, Armand Himy, and Quentin Skinner, eds., Milton and Republicanism (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni versity Press, 1995), pp. 254-71. In his letter to Madison, August 30, 1823, Jefferson claimed he had "turned to neither book or

For

Mirabeau,"

pp.

writing."

pamphlet while

According
the volumes

to the

inventory

of

Jefferson's

library

published

by

the

Library

of

Congress, besides

Milton's poetry Jefferson possessed at least one collection of Milton's prose. Whether the volume contained Pro Populo and if it did whether it was marked in Jefferson's hand, and, if it were, whether the markings dated from before July, 1776, I have been unable to deter
of mine.

This does
since

not much militate against the argument pursued

concern

here (though it certainly does

not

help it),

my

is

with a parallelism of thought

analysis of the significance of the

Declaration for

which

and with an up to a point Milton's thought in Pro Populo provides, I parallel

maintain, an

illuminating

point-for-point analogue.

11. For an account of the status of equality within the context of rule of law, see M. Stanton Evans, The Theme is Freedom: Religion, Politics and the American Tradition (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 1994). For an antithetical account see Orlando Patterson, Freedom in the Mak ing of Western Culture (New York: Basic Books, 1991), pp. 47-181. The best philosophical consid eration of the subject may well be Bertrand de Jouvenal, On Power: The Natural History of its Growth (Indianapolis: 12. See for British

Liberty Fund, Heresy

of

1993).

example

the controversy between

Equality,"

Jaffa,

pp.

M. E. Bradford, "The 13. See Wilson

Modern Age

141-61, on the natural rights side and 20, no. 1 (Winter, 1976): 62-77, on the
Moral Foundation for
ed.
Community,"

conventional rights side.

Carey

Mac Williams, "On

Equality

as the

in

Robert H. Horwitz, The Moral Foundations of The American Republic, 3rd. University Press of Virginia, 1990), pp. 283-88.
14. Jefferson's A
sessed

(Charlottesville:

Summary

by

the American

colonists as of natural

View of the Rights of British America (MIA) identifies as "pos the liberty "of a free trade with all parts of the
right,"

world"

(Boyd, 1: 123). This, however,

natural right.

would case

be

a corporate right presumably, not

argument made

individual

The

interesting

for the

conscience.

On

the question of the positive

(prescribing

necessarily an in this essay would be right of government action on behalf of) or nega-

404
tive

Interpretation
government action pp.

(circumscribing

in

respect

to)

character of these

rights,

see the

intelligent

discussion in Hamowy,

458-59.
and compare p.

15. Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed., 8: 771,

840. The Oxford

entries provide usage

only British illustrations. I may be wrong in assuming that American eighteenth-century conforms, but see John Adams's A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law. 16. Speculations
about the

ancestry

of

Jefferson's

pursuit of

happiness have

ranged

from Locke

(Becker, Jaffa), to Burlamaqui (Frank Donovan, Mr. Jefferson's Declaration [New York: Dodd, Mead, 1968], pp. 138-40), to the Scots empiricists (Wills), to Aristotle (Charles Murray, In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988], pp. 32-36, 136-37).
Apart from feature down
context the phrase seems to me

irresoluble in its ambiguity, and,

while

even

taking every

of the context

into account, I

put

in for Milton

acknowledging that

one can

hardly

pin

a term of such wide suggestiveness.

culled out of are

St. Augustine
and

Varro 288 philosophically

attested

definitions

of

felicity. So broad

fundamental

the categories of pleasure, virtue, and property of which these varieties are
the

compounded one

doubts

inely
1).

philosophical transvaluations

curiosity of de Sade, Foucault's inversions, or even Nietzsche's genu do anything to augment Varro's enumeration (City of God, 19.
protested

17. The British

might

have

they

were

only replying in kind,

"Indians"

since

had

thrown their tea into the sea. The colonists also employed in their ranks certifiable

Indians,

although

presumably they disciplined these in their more civilized European usages of war. 18. As cited in Bernard Bailyn, Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992), pp. 256-57. 19. The Virginia Resolutions
the House of
Commons'

on

Lord North's

Conciliatory
down

"changing

the government and

set

Religion

Proposal (of 1775) had spoken of (Boyd, 1: 172).

Quebec"

of

20. In his Commonplace Books Jefferson

copious extracts

from Locke's Letter

on

Toleration,
of

the most

interesting
that

of which

in the

present context

is the following: "[Lo]cke denies

toleration to those who entertain opns.

society; as for

instance,

faith is

contrary to those moral rules necessary for the preservation not to be kept with those of another persuasion, that kings
obedience men

excommunicated
some

foreign prince,

forfeit their crowns, that dominion is founded in grace, or that or who will not own & teach the duty of tolerating all
god."

is due

to

in

matters of

religion, or who
so

deny

the existence of a
sais

Jefferson then

comments:

"It

was a great

thing

to go

far (as he [Locke] himself

short, we may go
of the

on"

stopped

[sic] of the pari, who framed (Boyd, 1 : 548, emphasis added).

on

the act of tolern.)

but

where

he

21. The Locke

concern.
and maintain

Letter

Toleration

would

Locke expressly consistency

allows a state-supported with

church, although it does

presumably find little here to engage his not appear he can do so

the logic of the Letter. But

for

colonists more

Miltonic than Lock

ean, as I've been contending

the other

they

were, the

impending
Nature
and

prelate would

be

a concern comparable to of

British

violations of the

laws

of

Nature's God listed in the indictment

of pagans to

particulars.

22. The Letter

a regime ruled
conscience

on

Toleration

challenges the

Christian intolerant

imagine himself in
of

by

a pagan prince.

he

would

Locke asks, should he not extend to pagans the same liberty desire for himself under pagan rule? To the objection that the superior truth

of

be preferred, Locke replies that the orthodoxy of one man is the hetero doxy of another (C. L. Sherman ed., pp. 181, 200-201). Locke thus anticipates an illogic today pervasive among undergraduates and all but orthodox among their teachers, having this generalized form: "X maintains A entails B; but Y maintains A entails C; therefore A entails neither B nor C
one of the creeds ought to

(nor anything

else)."

That

practitioners

apply their illogic selectively usually

compounds mischief,

though sometimes it provokes truth spasms.

offer convincing evidence that establishmentarians were on the run everywhere 1776. Even so, Congress in the midst of war could ill afford to risk losing any backers if there could be found some way to alarm disestablishmentarians without panicking the stand-patters. That the latter still retained some influence seems attested Jefferson's remark that

23. Bailyn does

colonies

in the

by

by

his

passage of the

Bill for Religious Toleration ten

years

later

required a
and

"severe

struggle."

24. I

owe

this observation to a suggestion

by

Kathleen Alvis

David Sweet.

Milton
25.
political

and the

Declaration of Independence
the development of American

405
and

Writing

on

the different but

and

related subject of

English

its

evidently from a perspective he probably would not consider sympathetic with my own, David Simpson nevertheless in a contrast of Emerson with Cooper hits upon the theological spirit I perceive in the Declaration. In the following quotation Natty Bumppo epitomizes
to my mind the outlook characteristic of the

implications

draftsmen: "When Emersonian

nature,'

man
tired'

stares as

at the as

horizon, he beholds 'somewhat

can 'see

as

beautiful

as

his

own

and

he is 'never

long

he

far

enough

glory

of

God,

and then

glish, 1776-1850 [New

Natty on the contrary never thinks of his own nature; he registers the starts looking for suspicious (The Politics of American En York: Oxford University Press, 1986], p. 254).
woodsmoke"

As he does
"Endicott
and

more often

than not, Hawthorne gets it just right when at the end of his story

the Red

Cross"

he

sums

portrayal of

New England Puritan only

revulsion over

up the ironies he has developed over the course of this Charles and Laud to imply that the Independence

of

1776

not

resolved the problem of conscience coerced

by

foreign

rule

but

also

America's
such a

indigenous
simplistic

religious

intolerance. Yet
as

so superior a thinker

is Hawthorne
conveys at

compared

with

ideologue
in
a

Arthur Miller (in The Crucible) he

the same time the costs of

suggests ought to

toleration

a resultant erosion of moral

decency,

a cost which

Hawthorne

be

bome but

loss

even so.

The

gods set

their gifts on the right hand and on the left.

26. See Ed Erler, The American Polity: Essays in the Government (New York: Crane Russak, 1991), pp. 115-16. 27. For an illuminating account of Jefferson's efforts to
of

Theory

and

Prachce of Constitutional
the Bible at the

undermine

University
of

Virginia, see Eva T. H. Brann, Paradoxes of Education in a Republic (Chicago: University Chicago Press, 1979), especially pp. 58, 81, 86, 91-92, 93, 98, 139.

Locke's Second Treatise

of

and

the Literature

Colonization

Mark A. Michael
Austin

Peay State University

INTRODUCTION

A ican

significant amount of

whether and

to what extent Locke's

generation.

scholarship has been devoted to the debate over theory of government influenced the Amer
Less

Revolutionary

relationship between the theory of ond Treatise of Government and English

colonization and

has been paid, however, to the property which Locke developed in the Sec
attention policies and attitudes

concerning the

development

of

America.1

By

the time Locke wrote the Trea

tise

English

colonization

had been in

progress

during

that period there

or

was no shortage of either published accounts of

for roughly ninety years, and life in

America

permanent ments

English

documents suggesting reasons for establishing and then expanding a presence. But the sorts of reasons one finds in these docu
which

differ markedly from those

pre-Lockeian writings
whatever explicit moral

Locke

offers

later in the Treatise.

These

concerns;

generally justifications

appealed to either prudential or religious

were

in

circulation were either

highly
an ence

sectarian or

largely

enthymematic.

Locke's theory
process of

of

important

contribution to the

ongoing

justifying
of

property represents an English pres

moral

in America because it for that

advances a

full-blown, theoretically based

both
assumptions

argument on

presence which was

independent

based be

narrowly The
shift

sectarian religious views and of appeals to

concerns.

what would now

thought of as geopolitical and economic

in

emphasis

from

prudential reasons

to moral ones parallels a shift

in thinking about exactly which aspects of colonization and settlement required justification, and this was not a historical accident but reflected changing condi
tions in America. Prior to the
advanced
publication of

the

Treatise,
and that

whatever reasons were

in favor

of colonization were

largely

concerned with

showing why

England
to

should establish a presence as the other

in America,

it had

as good a claim

territory in America

European

powers. claim

Concern
to the

over the

fact that

native

pressed.

Americans may have had a justifiable Thus we should expect most of the earlier
like to thank my
colleague

land is rarely ex arguments for colonization

earlier

would

Richard Gildrie for reading

drafts

of this paper and

for offering very helpful

comments and suggestions.

interpretation.

Spring 1998,

Vol. 25, No. 3

408

Interpretation
geopolitical

to appeal to

and economic

concerns, and that is exactly what we

colonization efforts were need

find. But
English

by

the time the Treatise appeared, English

and

in

full swing,

consequently there
the
major

was

no

longer any had to

to convince the
claims

government to press ahead with colonization.

Additionally,
some extent

to

American land

by

European

powers

been

sorted

out, and so there was little need to

justify

the English presence in America to

the French or the Spanish. What was called

for instead

was a response

to those

in England
were

and the colonies who

had

misgivings about

the

fact that the English

appropriating, settling, and planting land that arguably belonged to native

and so
was

Americans

not

England's for the taking. As early

as

1629, for

example, the Puritan

leader John

Winthrop
land

considered the

possibility that "We

have

noe warrant to enter uppon that

wch

hath been

soe

long

possessed

by

others."2

And

while

English

settlers

he ultimately argues that there is such warrant, had the right to appropriate American land was clearly
amounts to an
given

whether

an

issue

of concern.

The Treatise had to be

implicit

admission that a
made on

moral argument

in

response

to claims
of

specifically behalf of native

of

Americans. I

want to argue that one

function
stamp

Locke's discussion

in the Treatise future

was to place a moral

of approval on a process of

property land

appropriation that was

colonial policy.

already

under

way,

and

to suggest

a specific

direction for

The

foregoing

all

hinges

Locke's
Treatise.
and

mind when

he laid

however,

that this makes

that America specifically was before his theory of property. It may be suggested, far too much of Locke's references to America in the
on the claim

out

Why

not

accidental,

and that

simply suppose that the references to America are haphazard Locke invoked America, when, as far as he was con
of

cerned, any colony would serve just as well as an illustration

was

the points he

trying

to make? I think this suggestion

peal to conditions accidental.

in America in the
we examine

context

is mistaken; Locke's recurrent ap of his discussion of property is not in

which

When

the passages

Locke specifically

refers

to

America, it
in

appears that

he does

so with the specific purpose of

justifying

property in America. This is not to deny that Locke had other I only claim here that Locke wanted to show that English colonization efforts in America were morally justified, and to provide
claims to

English

purposes

mind as well.

English

policymakers with a

blueprint for

an

ongoing, morally justified policy

of colonization and

development in America.

This Board

view

of

is partially borne out Trade. Locke served as a

by

Locke's

actions while

he

served on the

member of

this

board,

as well as

being

an

unofficial advisor to various governmental and quasi-governmental

bodies. On

those occasions when a question these

bodies

promoted policies that were consistent with

relating to American development was raised, Locke's theories in the

after

Treatise, both during his

he
ended

tenure as an official member and for some time

with

his

official

association

them. The principles set

forth in

the

Treatise

reinforce the view that the establishment of

permanent, agriculturally

Locke 's Second Treatise

intensive
settlements with

and

the

Literature of Colonization
in America,

409

relatively large

populations

as opposed and

to just missions or

trading
all

outposts, was the proper policy to

be followed,

that is just the sort of policy we

carried vanced

the

day. If

find Locke advocating and which usually this is correct, then the Treatise contributed to and ad

the ongoing discussion of the colonization of America and the treatment

of native

Americans.

THE DISCUSSION PRIOR TO LOCKE

It is important

at the outset

to appreciate the context in which the literature

advocating English colonization made its first appearance. As Kenneth R. An drews notes, "it would be mistaken to suppose that Hayes and similar enthusi
asts

matters.

[about colonization] represented the main current of opinion about such From 1586 to 1602 at least skepticism if not downright hostility pre
. .

vailed and

The

earliest

documents

were of

directed to two distinct

audiences

began to

appear

in the 1580s. Some

on

these,

such as the younger

Richard

Hakluyt's "Discourse
other powerful

Western

Planting,"

were

directed to the

queen and

figures in the government,

and attempted to persuade them that

the government should embark on a much more aggressive policy of coloniza tion. On the other

hand, documents
New Found Land

such as
of

Thomas Harriot's "A Brief

were more akin

and

True Report
guidebooks;

Virginia"

of the

to

modern

they

provided

information

about conditions

in the New World to

the public and potential colonists. One consequence of the fact that this litera ture was aimed at very different audiences and had a range of purposes

is that

prudential, religious,
ment of

and moral

justifications for the

colonization and

develop

America

are all

the part of the authors

moral

jumbled together, apparently with little awareness on that, for example, a prudential reason does not supply a
practical nature of

justification. Given the anything

more.

these

documents,
possible

we shouldn't

expect

But from
and as we

our perspective

it is

to sort out the

strands of

justification,

do that,

certain patterns emerge. earliest

For example,

the most

frequently

encountered

justifications in the

appeal to prudential concerns.

geopolitical

Some invoked

what would

literature generally now be thought of as

considerations, whereas others made much of the economic condi

tions
that

which prevailed

in England. But the

be
good

upshot of all rather

these justifications was

colonization would

for England,

than that colonization was

arguments and reasons morally justified. Of course, the people to whom these were addressed typically would have assumed that what was good for England was

morally

good and
clear

failed to

see these as

two

separate

issues. But from

our

perspective major

it is

that these are very different claims, and that there

a

is

difference between
as
opposed

interest

justifying policy by showing it is in a nation's selfto its being morally permissible. This is important, for

410

Interpretation
of

Locke's justification
moral

colonization, as

we shall

see

in the

next

section,

was

through and through.

can

We

begin

by taking

detailed look

at the various

forms that the

pruden

tial arguments take.

colonization

What I have

called the geopolitical arguments all note that

and settlement

would

improve England's
which

position

in

relation

to

other

European powers,

most

notably Spain's,

had already reap

would

mounted

fairly
fits. It
the

extensive explorations and which was

beginning

to

economic

bene

was argued that colonization and trade

in America

help

to check
notes

expansion of

Spanish

power.

For example,

as the younger

Hakluyt
time."4

"This
of

enterprise

may

staye

the spanishe kinge

from flowinge
there

over all the

face
also

that waste fume of

America,

yf wee seate and plante

in

He

says that an
of the

English
of

presence

in America would, "be

may

a great

bridle to the Indies for the

two hundred saile

kinge

Spaine

and a meane that wee

arreste at our pleasure

or

space of tenne weekes or three monethes of

every yere, one

his

subjectes

shippes
claims

at

the

fysshinge in Newfounde

lande."

In the

next

paragraph

Hakluyt

that the gold and other wealth

unrecoverable annoye of

from the Indies

en

abled the

Spanish to "worke the

this

Realme,

whereof
point

already wee have had very dangerous is that an English presence in America
which

experience"

(p. 211). The implicit

would provide a

base

of operations

from

harassing

raids on

Spanish shipping

might

be

carried out.

He believed that the ability of the Spanish to wage war was partially dependent on American gold and silver. Thus, Spanish designs in Europe could be thwarted by cutting off this source of
offered a similar argument.
wealth.

Sir Walter Raleigh

Raleigh writes,

For if the Spaniards

by

the treasure of those

Kingdomes

which

America] be
hee
other

able

to trouble the

better

parte of
which

Christendome,
thought to
or

what would

hee hath already [in hee doe if

were once established

in

Guiana,

is

bee

more

rich

than all

lands

which

hee

enjoyeth either

in the East
bee
soe

West Indies. Whereas if her

occupied

Majestie
that

weare seased of

it, hee

mighte

kepte

in those

prouinces

hee

would not

hastely

threaten us,

with

any

more of

his inuincible

navies.5

This

argument continued to

find the his [the

force, for fifty years later we following in a speech given in the House of Commons, "They are not For it king of Spain's] great territories which make him so powerful
carry
some persuasive
. .

is very
minister

well

knowne,
.

that
.

Spaine itself is but

are

weake

in men,

and

barren

of

naturall commodities

No sir, they

his

mines

in the West Indies,

monarchy."6

which

fuell to feed his

vast ambitious

desire

of universall will

Arguments that
concerns are
provide an

a presence

in North America

advance other national

excellent

readily found. For example, it was thought that America would base for further explorations, such as the search for a
elder
of other regions

Northwest Passage to Asia. The further discoveries

Hakluyt writes, "A great possibilitie of from the North part of the same land by sea,

Locke's Second Treatise

and of unspeakable

and

the Literature of Colonization

-411

benefit that may rise upon the same, by the trades to ensue in Iapan, China, and Cathay, &c."7 A North American presence would also augment the strength of the English navy and allow it greater free
and

honor

dom
will

of movement.

Hakluyt the Younger notes, "That this

is the

action

be greately for thincrease,

p.

mayneteynaunce and safetie of our strengthe of our efforts

[colonization] Navye, and

. .

especially

of greate shippinge which

Realme

("Dis

course,"

213); And it

would aid

English

to draw Ireland

closer

into

the English sphere of

influence (p. 212).

a confluence

There

was

additionally

between these

geopolitical concerns and

one prominent

type of religious justification. The

conversion of native

Ameri

cans was often cited as a reason

to explore and settle the New World. Insofar as

native

these were based solely on charitable concerns for the state of

cans'

Ameri
and

eternal
will

souls,

they

count as moral

arguments, however misguided,

take them up later. But other authors see the conversion of natives as
a more pragmatic and strategic

having
giance

aspect,

which was

to ensure their

alle

in the

religious controversies and wars that were

being

played out on the

continent.

As Peter Mancall notes, "Under Queen Elizabeth I, an ardent be liever in the need to expand the power of Protestants and limit the power of the Catholic Church, Spanish Atlantic
ently it
constituted and

French

efforts to spread
stopped."8

Catholicism

across the

a threat

that

had to be
the

notes one reason which recommends will

colonization

Raleigh, for example of Guiana is that "pres

who vaunt of theyr

stopp the mouthes of the Romish for the

propogacion of

Catholickes,
another

gospell"

great adventures

the

(p. 135). category of pruden One was that coloni

Economic
tial

considerations provided the were

basis for

justification. Of these two

would

zation

especially pay for itself in the short run

prominent. and

in the
of

long

run

make

significant contribution to the economic

well-being

England. It

was argued goods

that colonization would simultaneously open up

and
create more
reliable

new markets raw

for English
and

sources

of

both cheap
concern

materials

finished for

goods.

For example,
wool.

major

English

was

to

find

new

markets

English
offered

This

concern

is

reflected

in the list

of reasons

for

colonization

by

the elder

Hakluyt,

who claims

that America and native Americans the Woollen clothes of

will offer

"An

ample vent

in time to
sorts,
.

come of
. .

England,

especially those
Northerne

of the coursest

and vent also of

sundry

our commodi

ties upon the tract of that firme

side of that

land,

and

maine"

("Inducements,"

possibly in other regions from the p. 327). He also notes that it is

especially important to find new markets because of increased competition from 1).9 Spanish wool, at least some of which is coming from the West Indies (p. 33 Besides

functioning

as a new

market, America
when

would

and other goods that were more

costly

bought

supply raw materials elsewhere. These could be

had cheaply in America, since essentially worthless goods could be exchanged trawith native Americans for these resources. Hakluyt notes, "At the firste
ficque
wth

the

people of

those partes, the subjectes of this

Realme for many

412

Interpretation
many
cheape commodities of these partes,

yeres shall chaunge

for thinges

of

highe

valor

there not estemed, and this to the greate inrichinge of the

Realme, if

commone use costs would and their

faile

not"

("Discourse,"

pp.

316-17). Furthermore, transportation

those Regions the marchantes
and repaire or restrainte

be lowered.
shall
at

"By

the greate

plentie of

factors
returne

lye there cheape, buye

withoute

their shippes cheap,

and shall

pleasure

staye

whereas upon staies and restraintes over of other

the marchaunte raiseth

as opposed customs

forreine Prince, his chardge in sale

of

his

ware

(p. 317). Finally,

were no

to goods that came

from

European nations, there "No forren

taxes to be paid to

foreign

powers.

commoditie

that commes

into England
come

commes withoute
and so
"

payment of custome once twise or thrise all

before it

into the Realme, Realme

forren
An

commodities

become derer to the

subjectes of this

(p.

316).
additional problem of certain

that colonization might solve was that of

goods

ensuring

powers.

steady supply The maintenance

in the face

of conflict
an

among the European

proposition, given the

of trade was

generally

iffy

extent of

idle

one.

European animosity during this period, and so this concern was not an As David Quinn notes, "One of their major hopes was to find alterna

tive sources

for Spanish

products

olive

oil, wine,

leather,

and suchlike

the

continued acquisition of which was

worsened."10

becoming

uncertain as relations with

Spain

ties were
concern

The supply of these could be interrupted at any moment if hostili to break out, and so finding an alternative supply was a matter of
government.

for the English

Hakluyt the Younger says,

If the
oiles,
more

America] serve for makinge of salte, and the Inland for wine, oranges, lymons, figges, &c, and for makinge of yron, all wch wth moche is hoped, wthoute sworde drawen, wee shall cutt the combe of the frenche, of
sea coste of

[of

the spanishe, of the portingale, and of enemies, and

abatinge of their wealthe and

doubtfull frendes to

the

force,

and

to the greater savinge of the wealthe of the

Realme.

("Discourse,"

p.

317)

In

addition to

these standard reasons, the socioeconomic conditions that

were the occasion

pre

vailed

in England

for

another sort of argument. a significant advances

Beginning

in

ending in 1600 England experienced 4.07." tion, from 3.25 million to Furthermore,
and

1570

increase in

popula

agriculture resulted

in less

work

being

available.

in manufacturing and These two factors produced

and general social

unemployment,

which

in turn led to poverty, crime,

disorder.

One

partial solution to these problems was colonization.

The

pursuit of such a

policy would purportedly have two desirable consequences. First, it would put idle and unproductive laborers to work, thereby increasing the overall prosper

ity

of

social

England. Second, it would help eliminate social disorder by exporting the riffraff from England to America.12 As Hakluyt the Elder notes,

Locke's Second Treatise

If this

and

the

Literature of Colonization
in the
mines

413

realme shall abound too too much with youth,

of

there of
an

Golde,

(as that

Chisca
the

and

Saguenay)
of this

of

Silver, Copper, Yron, &c. may be

tilling
.

imployment to
and

benefit

realme; in
. .

of the

rich

soile

there for graine,

in planting of Vines there for Wine; imploiment of the soile, our people void

and

in many

such other

of sufficient
home.13

trades, may be

things, by honestly

imploied,
He

that els may become hurtfull at

goes on to suggest that the various sorts of could

tasks that

will need

performing Hakluyt

in the New World

"idle
and

be

performed

by

those he alternates between calling

p.

people"

"waste

people"

("Inducements,"

331). The

younger

argues

that America is the perfect place to send the

impoverished

and their

children:

The frye
and and

of the wandringe beggars of England that growe upp ydly and hurtefull burdenous to this Realme, may there [in America] be unladen, better bredd upp, may people waste Contries to the home and forreine benefite, and to their owne

more

happy

state.

If Englande

crie oute and affirme that there

another as

is

so

many in

all

trades that one cannot live for

in

all places

they doe, This Noumbega (yf

p.

it be thoughte

remedie."

so

goodd)

offreth

the

("Discourse,"

319)
idle
popula

It

should

be

noted that although the existence of an excess and

tion which could

ments offered

find

useful employment

in

colony figured in
driven

moral argu

by

subsequent promoters of colonization, some of which will

Hakluyts'

be

looked

at

later,

the

arguments

were not

by

moral concerns.

They
in

were not

arguing that the

presence of a

a nation conferred moral

legitimacy

on

large group of unemployed people either England's or any other nation's

claims to

land in America. Rather,

reasons

colonization

is

suggested as a practical solu

tion to a pressing economic problem.

All the

for

colonization we

have

surveyed

thus far were based on

was neither the

prudential rather than

purely

moral considerations.

But Locke's

only
ences

nor

first explicitly moral justification. There were significant differ between Locke's moral justification and those other moral justifications
the

which were most

in

circulation prior to

the

publication of

the

Treatise, however. The

world either

frequently

invoked involved
who

a set of

interrelated

assumptions which would

be

plausible

only to those
some

view.

For example,
or some

already accepted a sectarian and religious believed that it was simply the will of God that England
such as one of was

England

should colonize was

group America. Colonization

within

the Nonconformist sects

directly
was

sanctioned

by

morally justified then because it God; America had been given by God to whichever
colonize and appropriate

group John Winthrop

place to

claiming the
a refuge

right to

land. For example, hath

provided this

asks rhetorically,

"who knowes but that

whom

god

be

callamitie, and

seeinge

for many he the Church hath no

there

meanes place

to save out of the generall

wilder-

lefte to flie into but the

nesse,

what

better

worke can

be,

then to goe

before

and provide Taberna-

414

Interpretation

cles, and food for

her,

thither"

against she cometh

(p. 42 1). He

also claimed that

parts soe as

"God hath

consumed the
left"

Natives
(p. 423).

wth a great plague

in those

there

be few in-habitants
given

Winthrop

took this as evidence that

persecution which

God had
were

the land to the Puritans as a refuge from the

they

experiencing in England, and that therefore they had a right to the land. This kind of religious justification went hand in hand with a second
was alluded

which

to earlier. Inasmuch as the conversion of native

Americans

was

thought to provide them with a

benefit, namely

eternal

salvation, it followed

establishing an English presence in America was a morally good thing to do. This would only justify the establishment of Spanish style missions, however, and falls far short of establishing a right to
that effecting the
conversion

by

colonize and appropriate note

land

on a permanent

basis. So many

writers go on

to

that

more

than simple conversion was wanted. As Roderick Nash argues,

"The Puritans

seldom

profit, security, and

forgot that civilizing the wilderness meant far more than worldly comfort. A manichean battle was being waged
Gospell'

between 'the
antichristian needed

clear sunshine of the

darkness'

on

the

one

hand

and the

'thick

on the

other."14

A permanent, large-scale

presence was

to solidify the civilizing effects of religion, and this would

bring

in its

train the benefits of purportedly superior technology. Some apologists, such as

George Peckham, apparently conceived American land as a bargain in return for

of the

taking

which native

and settling of native Americans were receiv

ing

something

worth

infinitely
when

more, namely

eternal salvation.

Peckham details

these spiritual benefits

he says,
and gladsome tydings of the most glorious

in

respect of

the most

happy

Gospel

of

our

Saviour Jesus Christ, whereby they [native Americans] may be brought from falsehood to trueth, from darknesse to light, from the hieway of death to the path

of

life, from

superstitiqus

idolatrie to

sincere

Christianity, from
receive this

the

devill to Christ,
can yeelde us of

from hell to Heaven. And if in

respect of all

the commodities

they

(were they many moe) that they

should

but

onely benefite

Christianity, they
Peckham
on

were more than

fully

recompenced.15

goes on to note that native

Americans

will receive material

benefits

top

of these spiritual

Peckham says, "Yet [native

to their

civility and land may be

benefits, due to a one-way transmission of technology. Americans] being brought from brutish ignoraunce, and made them to understand how the tenth part of knowledge,
so manured and

emploied,

as

it may

yeeld more commodities

cause of

to the necessary use of mans

complaint
have?"

life,

then the whole now

same

doeth: What just

echoed some
of us

later

by

may they Winthrop, "We

(p. 120). This

idea is

forty

years who

shall come

in

wth

the good

leave

the to

Natives,

find benefitt already by our neighbourhood and learne of more use, then before they could doe the whole, & by this

improve

put

to

meanes wee come

in

by

valuable purchase:

then all the

land

wch wee

for they hav of us that wch will have from (p. 423).
them"

yeild

them more benefitt

the

Apparently

fact

that

Locke's Second Treatise

and

the

Literature of Colonization
due to
native

415

the survival of the Plymouth colony was

edge

largely

American knowl
of

did

not

disturb Winthrop's faith in the benefits

and

superiority

English

technology.

A further justification dovetails

native
cruel

with concerns over

both the

conversion of

Americans
and
of

and the expansion of which

Spanish

power.

Some

writers noted at

the
the

brutal treatment

American Indians

were

hands

the

Spanish,

and argued that presence of

humanitarian

concerns

undergoing justified the

estab

lishment
mane

of an

English

in America. The English

and

would

be

more

hu

in their treatment

native rebel

encourage native

Americans to

The

perception that

the Spanish were

Americans, ultimately successfully against Spanish domination. responsible for horribly mistreating native
this
would

Americans

was common

in Europe

by

the

end of

the sixteenth century, thanks

largely

to the appearance of

Bartolome Las Casas's

Brief Account

of the De

struction

of the Indies. As J. H. Eliot notes,

appeared

Las Casas
Spanish

in French
the early

and

Dutch translations, before

being

translated

into

English in 1583.
conduct

By

1580's, therefore,

the most lurid

information

about

in the Indies
of

the horrific
of the

illustrations

was circulating through the continent. It only needed Theodore de Bry's new edition of Las Casas at the end

consciousness.

century to stamp an indelible image of Spanish atrocities on the European The Hugenots, the Dutch, and the English all seized on Benzoni and
with glee.

Las Casas

(P.

95)
recommends meanes

Raleigh, for
result will

example,

the colonization of Guiana

nombers of soules and

because the

be "that

from theyr idolatry, ping

of

by this bloody

infinite

may be brought
to the worship

sacrifices,

ignoraunce,

inciuility

the true God aright to ciuill conversation, and also theyr [native Ameri

cans] bodyes freed from the intollerable tirrany of the Spaniards whereunto they (p. 135). He goes on are already or likely in shorte space to bee subjected
. .

to catalogue in gory detail the natives,

purported acts

of

Spanish cruelty

against the

including, "branded

with

hot irons, roasted, dismembred, mangled, hott oyle, suet,

and hogsgrease, put to drowned, dashd against the

stabbed, whipped, racked,

scalded with

tyhe strapado, ripped alive, beheaded in sport,

rocks,
sumed

famished, devoured by
. .

mastifes, burned and

by

infinite

crueltyes con

(pp. 138-39).
some moral

Finally,
look

justifications
Locke to
one

were

in

circulation

during
will

this period, and

worth while stitch

since these anticipated

at them

degree

or

another, it

be

to

for

purposes

of comparison.

One might, for example,

to

gether an argument view

based

on material

found in Thomas More's Utopia. More's if it is He

is that
a

when a

country is suffering from overpopulation, the inhabitants

have

right to

take

land [the

ingly
use

says that

"they
to
owns

belonging Utopians]

to others think

not

being

used.

approv

it the justest

reason

for

war when

any
not

nation refuses

others

the

use and possession of when

that land which

it does

itself, but

in idle emptiness,

the others

by

the law of nature

416

Interpretation
be
nourished

ought to

from

it."16

Here

we

have

an

explicitly

moral argument

that appeals to the natural law. A similar argument was advanced a century

later

by

Samuel Purchas. He says,

But
what

right

can

England then

challenge

to Virginia

.?

First,

as men, we

have

a naturall possessed

right to

replenish

the whole earth: so that

man

by

other men,

every

by

Law

of

if any Countrey be not Nature and Humanitie hath right

be

of

Plantation,
human

and

nature.

may And if

not
a

by

other after-commers

dispossessed,

without

wrong to

country be inhabitated in

some parts

thereof,

other parts

remaining unpeopled, the same reason giveth liberty to other men which want convenient habitation to seat themselves where (without wrong to others) they may provide for themselves. To question this right were to disappoint also that
.

Divine Ordinance

of

replenishing the Earth.

More's right to
have

argument

holds that

a surplus population at of another.

home

gives one nation the

would agree

colonize the

idle lands holds in

land

On the

one

hand, Locke

that More's principle

a

the state of nature,

unless

inasmuch

as a person cannot and conse

legitimate

claim to

he

cultivates and

develops it,

quently idle land is unowned. But on the other hand, More's claim goes much farther than Locke would be willing to go, for by Locke's lights once a system
of private
need

is

an

property is in place and governed by the positive law of a society, insufficient justification for invading another's property rights, even
not

if the land is More

places overall nor

currently
explains
not

being

put

to any productive use. That

is,

neither

Purchas

like America but

why in England. Furthermore,

possession

may be taken

of unused

land in

a crucial component of an

theory

of

Neither
why

provides

property is completely absent from both More and Purchas. an account of how property rights are generated initially and
spite of

private

property itself is justified. In

these

differences, however,
incorporate into his

both
It

of these accounts contain elements which of colonization.

Locke

will

defense

should not

umbrated

in the

be surprising to find a moral justification of work of John Winthrop and John Smith,

appropriation ad since

these early
remained

settlers were the ones

involved in

the actual

for Locke to essentially

some

offer a coherent and unified

taking theory of

of

land. While it
and

property,

to

present an

secularized argument

for

appropriation which

did

not appeal to re

vealed religious

truths, Winthrop's

and

Smith's

arguments anticipated

Locke

on

key

points. of

The issue
and at

land rights

was raised one of

among the

colonists

by

Roger Williams,
against

this provided the

basis for

the charges that was

brought

him

his trial in 1635.

Governor John
solemnly colony

Winthrop

enumerated the

(who personally four charges.

.

cherished a warm affection

.

for Williams)

First, Williams had

a royal

maintained that the

could not

hold its title

to the

land

by

charter, for

King

Charles

never

Locke's Second Treatise

owned the soil

and

the

Literature of Colonization
no

-417

in the first place,

and so

had

right

or power paid

to bestow it. The

true owners were the

Indians,

and

they

should

have been

for

the

territory (as

Williams scrupulously did in Rhode

Island).18

Thus the
against

challenge

for the early

settlers

was

to

defend their
right

claims

to

land

this kind of charge. In

argued that

colonists'

defending

the

to appropriate

land,

Winthrop
That

wch

lies

comon and

hath

never

been hath

replenished or subdued

will possesse and

improve it, for

earth

god

given to the sonnes of men a

is free to any double

that

right to the
when men

earth, there is a naturall right & a Civill right the first right was naturall

held the

in

common

pleased: and

then as men and

every man soweing, and feeding where he the cattle increased they appropriated certaine parcells
manurance, and this

of ground

by

enclosing,

and peculiar

in tyme

gave them a

Civill right. (P.

422)
are repeated of

Many

of these

ideas

in John Smith's "Advertisements for the Un

or

experienced

Planters

New

England,

Any

Where":

for God did

knowne to

make

the world to
and

be inhabited
generation

with

mankind, and to

have his

name

all

Nations,

from

to

generation: as

the

people

increased
And

they dispersed
people

themselves

into

such

Countries
and

here in Florida, Virginia, New-England, in Christendome

can

as they found most Canada, is more land

convenient.

than all the

manure, and yet more to spare than all the natives of

culturate.19

those

Countries

can use and

These

arguments advance three claims which are also critical components of

Locke's theory of property and his defense of colonization. First, Winthrop holds that God originally gave the earth to all in common. Second, as Smith notes, much of the land that God gave to all in common is not being used
productively; there is
needed
more

land in America than

could

by

native

Americans. Third,
right"

Winthrop

explicitly

and

possibly be used or Smith implicitly

claim that

and improving property rights arise from labor; the acts of enclosing to property, which, once political institu the land give rise to a "naturall right." in laws, becomes a "Civill enshrined are tions evolved and customs

Locke incorporates
so

all these claims

into his theory in the

next

his theory

was neither without precedent nor

property acquisition, and completely discontinuous with

of

past

discussions. But

as we will see

section, what
was

in the hands

of

others amounted to

little

more than a sketch of a of property.

into

sophisticated

theory

theory Furthermore, Locke

could

turned

by

Locke

claims

that the

theses

which provide
reason.

the main support

for his theory

Biblical

be known to be true

through

Thus,

while appeals to
useful

passages and revealed religion

generally may have been

policy

of

colonization

and

politically in creating a consensus favoring a land appropriation, such appeals were ultimately

418

Interpretation

unnecessary for

demonstrating

the correctness of the

main principles of

Locke's

theory

of property.

LOCKE'S THEORY OF PROPERTY AND ITS APPLICATION

TO AMERICAN COLONIZATION

mon

by noting, as Winthrop had, that initially everything was com property, belonging jointly to all of humanity. Unlike Winthrop, however, Locke thought that this could be known by reason, independently of any scrip
Men, being Drink,
once

Locke begins

tural warrant. He writes, "Whether we consider natural that

born, have

a right to their

Reason, which tells us Preservation, and consequently

affords

to Meat and

and such other

things,

as

Nature
it to

for their Subsis

xvi.

tence
given the

'tis very clear, that God, as Earth to the Children of Men,

King
given

David says, Psal. CXV.

mankind

has
But

in

common."2"

this thesis

bly

arise

common

property justifia from property held in common? In contemporary instances of joint or property, the permission of all the owners must be secured to transfer

immediately

produces a puzzle:

How

could private

property
would

rights

from the group

of process

of owners to an

individual. But Locke

could not

appeal to that

kind

to

explain

the origin of private property, since

it

have

required

appropriators

to secure the consent of all the owners,

which, based on the

principle of common was or

ownership, would have been all of

humanity. Locke knew that it

process

did

occur

historically,
private

wildly implausible to suppose that such a even could have occurred, but there must be

some means

whereby
of

mon

ownership
point

ownership can be secured legitimately, for com necessities such as food is useless. Food can only provide
consumed

nourishment when

it is

by

an

individual.
one

At this

Locke

notes that at

least

thought to be held in common. And this entails that

movements of
object which

thing, namely one's body, is not an individual owns all the

is

his body, including his labor. When a person labors on some owned in common but which belongs to no one in particular describes
as the state of

(which Locke
mixed with
and

sometimes

being

unowned), his labor is

the object. Locke then claims that since the person owns his labor
now

his labor is

in the object, he
two

can

be

said

to own the object, and it

thereby becomes
There are,
taken

private property.

however,

limitations

on

how

much

may be

appropriated

justi is

fiably. The first is that

one cannot appropriate so much that part of what

literally

rots or goes

to waste. God gave the world to

humanity

for its use,

to

and that purpose waste

is

violated when second

instead. The

something limitation provides

that could

have been

used goes

an additional explanation of

why

universal permission

is

not a

thing from

the common

necessary condition for justifiably removing some stock. Locke claims that private appropriation does not
than he was prior to the appropriation. Of course

make anyone

any

worse off

Locke's Second Treatise

this

and

the

Literature of Colonization

419

is true only

where

the common stock is large enough so that others may

whenever

appropriate goods

for themselves

they desire. Thus

confers
appropriation.21

the second limita

tion

is that mixing one's labor with something there is "enough, and as good if after the
left"

property rights to it only When this condi is

tion

holds,

the appropriator's actions are not prejudicial to anyone else; no one the distribution
of

can complain about

property,

since more

available.

Now generally this second condition will be met in the rudimentary stages of human society, as populations will be small and those resources that are neces sary for life
are self-renewing.

Animals reproduce, food

which

grows

wild, trees

and

plants spread and grow.

Even land,

is finite, is his
or

abundant

in this

stage.

Furthermore,
excess that

the no-waste principle

limits the

acquisition of

land to only
can use. given

as

much as will produce whatever a person and

her

family
So

Any
no-

is

grown will rot, and then the principle

is

violated.

the

waste principle and the vast though

finite

amount of

land, Locke does

not

think

that the "enough and as the acquisition of

good"

any land in the early stages of human development. Locke first introduces America into the discussion of property to illustrate

principle will place

additional restrictions on

these points.
ica"

At

section

36 Locke

notes that

in the "vast inland

places of

Amer

there is no trade

natural

limits

on

commerce, money has no value, and so there will be how much land one may justifiably acquire. And because of
or

these

natural

those parts

limits, it follows that if one were to stake out a claim to land in of America, his acquisition does nothing to "prejudice the rest of
themselves
now spread

Mankind, or give them reason to complain, or think Man's Incroachment, though the Race of Men have
all the corners of was at the

injured

by

this

themselves to

the

World,

and

do

infinitely
sec.

exceed p.

the

small number

[which]
of small

beginning"

(Second Treatise,

36,

293). Appropriation

tracts of

idle land in America is thereby legitimated. Locke reiterates these points at sections 46 and 48. In 46 Locke life generally
to
and rot unless

notes that
prevailed

the necessities of

used, and that this condition

in America

prior

during

the earliest period of English settlement. This

illustrates how the

no-waste principle places natural

limits

on the amount of

property money. In 48 Locke

the middle of
would

one can remove

from the

common

stock,

prior

to the introduction of

notes that there

is

no use

in

having
be

huge landholdings in
commerce, it

America,
and a

where, since there

get

would

no trade or

be impossible to
trade

money for the

product of one's

lands. Again, the

on what a person monetary upshot is that claims to may rightfully acquire from the common stock. The large holdings of unused land in America cannot be justified, whether native absence of
system places a natural

limit

Americans
These

or

European

colonial powers are

advancing those
settle

claims.

conditions

change,

however,
larger
put

as

humans

into

more

stable, agrar

ian

modes of
rules

life. There
and

are
are

concentrations of

people, trade and

barter

develop,

laws in

in

place

to

resolve

disputes,
can no

and

introduced. In

societies

which

this has occurred, Locke

money is longer rely on

420

Interpretation
limit the
amount of a person's

the no-waste principle to

crucial characteristic of

holdings, because

one

money is that it doesn't rot. People can develop land, it than they can use personally, and sell the excess, all without violating the no-waste principle. Thus the introduction of money pro vides the catalyst for the enclosure of large tracts of farmland and for the de
grow much more on
velopment

of

barren

and

empty

wilderness.

As this

process

accelerates

it

eventually leads to

a situation where there

is

no

longer any

unowned

land

avail of

able with which to mix one's

labor,

and

this seems prejudicial to the

mix

interests

those latecomers who

consequently

are

originally landless. Since private

did

not

their labor with

appropriation of

any land and who land naturally evolves

for others, there is

to this state, it

would seem

that all such appropriation would violate Locke's

much

proviso, because not only is there not as

none at all.

land left

over

Locke
reasons.

nevertheless

believes this

state

of affairs

to be justifiable for two

The first is that land has practically

no value

in itself; rather, labor is

the source of almost all value. As

will control what

long

as people control their own exchange.

labor, they
so
no

is

most valuable

in the labor

The

person who owns

land but has

no

laborers really
not

owns

is

at a

disadvantage in

bargaining

with

something of relatively little value, and laborers. Thus the fact that there is
prejudicial to their value

land left for laborers is

seriously

interests,
in itself

since what

they

cannot now

attain, namely land, has very little

anyway.

The
mental

second reason starts out with the observation that

value; it is what grows on

land

rather

than land

land has only instru itself which people

really

want.

And land that is

owned

privately

and

hence

cultivated produces a

much more abundant yield

than land on which people simply gather nature's to Locke's eye

of

spontaneous
which

bounty,

which

is

not
will

sanctions private

ownership

land

very bountiful. Thus a society be wealthier than one which in the former
will

prohibits such

ownership,

even though some people

be land for

less. And
their use,

so such people are

better off,

although there

is

no

land

available

because they live in a society which produces more of what people than those who live in a society which has no institution of private want, really land ownership. Locke claims, "he, that incloses Land and has a greater plenty
of the conveniencys of

life from ten acres, than he

could

have from

an

hundred

left to Nature, may truly be said, to give ninety acres to (Second sec. p. 294). It is in this section that Locke compares America and Treatise, 37,

Mankind"

Devonshire. Locke
nature,"

cites the

"wild

woods and uncultivated west of

America left

to

and compares

well-cultivated

its productivity to the productivity of ten acres of land in Devonshire. Here Locke introduces America to buttress

his
and

claim

that cultivated land is much more productive than uncultivated

land,

that what makes the

difference in terms
in the

the labor that

is

expended on the cultivated

more

productivity land.

of

of

land is simply

Locke
tion

cites

America twice
reiterates

course of

41 Locke

the claim that although

making this point. In sec America is rich in land, its

Locke's Second Treatise

inhabitants
unstated

and

the

Literature of Colonization

421
The
also

are poor

in terms

of the conveniences offered

by

civilization.

implication is
and as good

that what accounts

for the difference is labor. It land does land itself, but

the

alludes

to Locke's belief that the

absence of unowned proviso.

not violate the rather agri pro

"enough
cultural

left

over"

It is

not

labor

on

the

land, in

combination with trade and

commerce, that
production of

vides

the

surplus

in food

which

in turn

enables

those

additional material goods

that people desire. Where there

"extras"

is

no private appro
people get

priation, people
more of what of

lack the

conveniences and
want under a regime

of

life. Thus

they really

of private appropriation and

ownership Locke essentially

produce

land.

repeats these points

in

section

43. Land in America

would

the same amount of wheat as it does in

England, if it
estimates

were cultivated.

But

since

it is not, it is

largely

unproductive.

Locke is

that the value

one

of

what

is

produced

spontaneously labor is in
seen

by

nature

worth

less than

one-thou

sandth of

the value of what is produced

again seen

on an equivalent

tract of cultivated

land. Once
productivity
which

to be responsible for the different levels of

cultivated as opposed to wild

lands. And it is

"mankind"

benefits from this productivity, since more of what is of use to people is produced on English farms than is produced in the wild and uninhabited lands
of

America.

Finally
clares

we come to the

famous

passage at section will all

49 in

which

Locke de

that all the

world was

America. But it
the

be

worth while

to include the

full
Find

quotation

here, "Thus in

beginning

the World was

was

America,
where

and

Money any thing something that hath the Use and Value of Money amongst his Neigh bours, you shall see the same Man will begin presently to enlarge his Posses sions (Second Treatise, sec. 49, p. 301). Locke could not discern anything that
more so

than that is now; for no such

as

known.

out

"

resembled a settled use of

legal

system

currency among America is in the state

these

native

governing property rights, Americans, and so Locke's

or

the

widespread

claim

here is that
absence of

of nature with respect to

property.22

In the

institutions, idle land in America, which was truly unowned, could not be compared with idle land in England, which though unused was nevertheless the
legitimate property be
characterized as
of whoever

had title to it. Consequently, idle land

could not

belonging

to any individual native

American,

or as

"prop

that is, as belonging to a native American nation as a whole, erty of the so idle land in America could be appropriated justifiably by anyone who ex pended the time and effort to mix his labor with it. A subtext of Locke's general
crown,"

theory
such

of colonization were property is that conditions in America at the time that the English appropriation of land through the creation of agricultural of

settlements was

beyond

moral reproach.

We

might nevertheless wonder

references

if this

makes

too much of Locke's relatively

frequent
pose

to America. Might not America have served a

as an

larger

pur

in

the

Treatise, namely

illustration

of

everything that Locke says

422
about

Interpretation
the state of
nature?

Or

at the other
which case

extreme,

perhaps

Locke's

remarks

were casual and

off-handed, in

nothing

of significance should

be

read

into them. I
refers to

think the textual evidence argues against

separate passages

both

of

these views.
and ex

Locke

America in fourteen in the

in the Treatise, in
which

actly half
three
of

of these occur

one chapter of the nineteen

"Indians"

he dis
and

cusses property.

Locke

also refers to chapter on property.

or specific tribes six

times,

these occur

in the
how

Locke's

central concern

in that

chapter objects.

is to

show

one

justifiably

acquires
of

This tells

against an

interpretation

the Treatise

property rights to unowned which has Locke's

If the
problem refer

allusions to of

America

being

accidental and without significance. was not on

property America so
On the

acquisition

in America in this

his mind, why does he

to

frequently

chapter and so

infrequently

throughout the rest of

the Treatise?
other

hand, Locke is

not committed to the view that there was some

thing
point

that existed at the time of the writing of the Treatise which corresponded

by

point with

his description

of

the state of nature, so there

is

no reason to

think America was introduced to serve that more general function. Although

Locke did think that the merely erty rights

America"

state of nature
neither

had

basis in historical fact

and was not

heuristic device,
required

his

account of government nor that of

prop

there to be some contemporaneous society that existed in

the state of nature. Of course there

passage, but

as we

have

seen that turns out to

of

is the "in the beginning, be

all a

the world was

restricted

fairly

of the textual ownership evidence found in the Treatise, it is fair to say that the problem of how one justifiably acquires property and English colonizing efforts were associated
claim

about

America

and the

land. On the basis

with one another

in Locke's thinking.

Locke
once

offered a

theory in

which

land is

unowned until someone cultivates

it;

that occurs, the land

belongs to the

person who

his

readers a picture of

America in

which

land

was

developed it, and he gives in the state of nature and

undeveloped.

Native Americans
mixed their

they had actually

would more

become the property of productive, which is exactly

only those parcels of land with which labor. Thus any undeveloped land in America whoever was willing to enclose it and make it
owned what the was

English

colonists were

doing. Thus

their claim to property

in America

Locke's theory of property and course of his discussion of that theory, I think it is fair to
was much on

morally justifiable. Given this survey of the references to America which occur in the
conclude that

America
so

Locke's

mind when other

he

wrote

the chapter on property, more

than when

any Locke's theory in turn would suggest an colonization of America We should expect
It

he

addressed

issue in the Treatise.

overall
a

policy to be

pursued

in

the

policy

which encourages the set

tlement of America on a permanent basis with the purpose of working the land.
will

be

population

intensive; large-scale

emigration to

America

will

be

en

couraged

for the

purpose of

developing

permanent settlements

which would

Locke 's Second Treatise

trade with one another.

and

the

Literature of Colonization
be encouraged,

423

Commerce
be

should

and that will obvi all this

ously

bring

in its
can

wake the use of

English

currency.

Once

occurs, large

justifiably property by sumably remain English citizens, and England can then ful authority to govern those areas.
areas of

land

claimed as

those settlers who pre

justifiably

claim

right

THE INFLUENCE OF LOCKE AND THE TREATISE ON POLICY

When
boards
tal

we

look

at

Locke's

actions while a member of various government

and to the actions of

and quasi-official

organizations,
after

those governmen

institutions

immediately

have been Treatise

somewhat

subject

his tenure, during which time they would still to his influence, we find further evidence that

Locke believed that the

the
could

place

principles concerning property which he elaborated in become the basis for English colonial policy in America. The to begin is with Locke's stint on the Board of Trade, which was officially
as

known
His

The Lords Commissioners

of

Trade

and

Plantations. Its
and

official and

func

tion was "for promoting the Trade of the

Kingdom,
and

inspecting

improv

ing

[Majesty's] Plantation's

in America

elsewhere."23

The Board, "was

the center of routine colonial administration from its

prepared the commissions and

founding

in 1696.
...

[it]

instructions for
and

royal

governors.

It

corre

sponded
royal

with

governors

regularly

received

additional

information from lob

of

officials,

colonial councils and

assemblies, the

as well as petitioners and

byists."24

Locke

was appointed as one of

original members of we

the Board

Trade in 1696

and served through on colonial

1700. When

try

to determine the

extent of

Locke's influence any

policy,

we must remember

that it could not be

as a whole to

greater than the extent of the

authority

of the

Board

direct

colonial policy.

Given that,

we should not set our sights

too

high. As Laslett

notes,

Government
quite

control

[of the

colonies and

settlers]

was

incomplete,
could not

and

it

would

be

misleading to say that the American colonies were created

action, but without
government

by

deliberate
come

political

decisions they

have

into

being. When

we ask who advised the

government,

who provided the

intelligence,

the suggestions, or the contacts

with people outside politics with

the necessary

knowledge,

we arrive at colonial committees and commissions.

(P.

371)

Furthermore,
Council
and

the Board of Trade served in

an

had

no

direct authority to

make or
we see

advisory capacity to the Royal implement policy (p. 372).

Within those limitations, however,

ence on the

Locke
to

having

a significant

influ

Board

during

his tenure.

According
of

Laslett, Locke
which

"dominated

its [the Board's] early Board related to colonial

ever, in
which

history"

(p. 372). Most We

can

the issues
at

divided the
how

appointments.

find

least

one situation,

Locke

argues

for

a specific colonial policy.

Economic

problems

424
had

Interpretation
emerged

in the Virginia colonies,

support

largely

caused

by

a combination of

insuf

ficient financial
engrossment of

for towns

and other population centers and too much

land that

went uncultivated.

The

following

extensive quotation

sets out the

issues

Among
reform.

the

colonial papers

in the Lovelace Collection is

Virginia together

document

of

considerable

length
paper

on

the problems of

with recommendations

for

The

is partly in Locke's hand, partly

that
of

that of an amanuensis.

The

information it

contains resembles

the report presented

by Henry Hartwell,

James Blair, and Edward Chilton to William Popple in October 1697 and points to a clear liaison between these three witnesses and Locke in the preparation of their
report.

Both documents drew

attention and

to the contrast between the the

state of affairs which

natural

richness

of

Virginia, its
Virginia

vast

potentialities,

in fact

prevailed.

was the

'poorest,
in town

miserablest and worst

country in
of

America.'

The failure to
and

settle the people

was named as the root cause

economic

disasters,

the

compulsory

resettlement

of the people

by

royal prerogative was recommended.

[emphasis added] On the basis

of this report the

Board

of

Trade

resolved

to ask the

King

to

appoint a new governor of

Virginia.25

Both the diagnosis

were

of the problem and the recommendation

with

for its

resolution

wholly in line

Locke's

views

that uncultivated

land had

no value and

that policy should require land to

be

worked

in

order

to be

considered property.

The Board's
A brief

recommendation was acted

on,

and a new governor was appointed.

marginal note added

Treatise,
light

which

Laslett

suggests

by Locke to the Christ's College copy of the should be dated after 1698 and which belongs
Trade,
in the
sheds additional main text of note

to the period of Locke's membership on the Board of

on the

foregoing
Treatise;
be

incident. Laslett includes this

the

his

edition of the of men are to

first

sentence

runs, "This shews, how much

of

numbers

preferd

to largenesse
of

dominions,

and that the

increase

of

lands

and

the right

imploying

them

is the
notes

government"

great art of

(Second

Treatise,
cant of

sec.

42,

pp.

297-98). Laslett

that the addition, "is very signifi

[Locke's] attitude to that institution [The Board of Trade] and his policy for it, and for King William Ill's government in its struggle with France,
his particularly the insistence on increased population as against territory source of power (p. 297, Laslett's note for lines 21-28).
. .

as

The ideas that land

population growth a

should

be

appropriated through

its development

and that

in the

settlements should

be

encouraged

formed

the

basis for

the war [of the

Board policy that persisted after Locke departed. Alison Olson notes, "After Spanish Succession, 1701-13] the British Government aggres
encouraged

sively

immigration to

the colonies,
residence

hoping
in

of non-English stock would take

Treaty

[of Utrecht].

up The Board of Trade

areas

particularly that left undefined

settlers

by

the

often negotiated

directly

with

ship

Locke 's Second Treatise

captains

and

the

Literature of Colonization

425

to transport the settlers. With their encouragement, nearly

and

100,000

Germans
addition

nearly

a quarter of a million

Scots Irish
and

went

to the colonies, in
settlers

to thousands of

Scots, Irish, Huguenots,

Board
of

Swiss. Once the

to

arrived

in the

colonies the

Trade

worked with governors

get

them

land

and

then exemptions from paying taxes on

it for
what

seven to ten

years."26

We
enced

might

briefly

consider

the question of to

degree the Treatise influ

on the about

English policy apart from Locke's direct application of it during his stint Board of Trade. The Treatise provides fairly specific recommendations
continued colonial expansion of the

how

frontier

and

the settling of wil

derness

areas would creation and

have to be

carried out

if these

were

to be morally justifia
purpose

ble. The

of

permanent

towns and settlements with the

as well as emigration

of

cultivating
populate

improving

the

land,
be

from England to

help

the

frontier,
might

would

required.

We find that the English This

French strategy, It

pattern of

settlement conforms

to these recommendations.

pattern of colonization and which relied more

development

be

compared with the

heavily
for the

on trade with native purposes of

Americans,

as well as excursions might also

into the interior

hunting

and trapping.

be

compared with the

Spanish strategy,
and

which

involved

a combination of

the

secular

task of exploiting

exporting
of

whatever resources were

native

mission

converting

readily Americans to Christianity. These

available alongside the religious

of course

are

very broad generalizations; obviously both the French and Spanish built perma nent settlements, and the British engaged in commerce with native Americans. And
permanent communities were more practical apart

defended,

from

whether or not such

in that they were more easily settlements could be justified morally.

They

created what

in contemporary

parlance

is

often referred

to as "facts on the

ground."

But it is

undeniable

that one can make out different approaches among

the colonial powers with respect to the problem of how to

resources that were available

develop

the land and

in the New World. At

a minimum we can

say that

Locke's
this

views provided

a theoretical

framework for the English

approach to

problem.

NOTES

1. A

notable exception

Colonialism (New York: Oxford

is Barbara Arneil's John Locke University Press, 1996).

and

America: the Defense of English

2. "Reasons to Be Considered for Justifieinge the Undertakers of the Intended Plantacon in Encouraging Such Whose Harts God Shall Move to Joyne wth Them in the Massachusetts Historical Society 8 (1864-65): 422. Proceedings
It,"

New England & for

of

3. Trade, Plunder and Settlement: Maritime Enterprise and the Genesis of the British Empire, 1480-1630 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 307. Document 46 in The Origi 4. Richard Hakluyt the Younger, "Discourse of Western
Planting,"

nal

Writings

and no.

Correspondence of the Two Richard Hakluyts, issued

by

the

Hakluyt Society,

Second Series,

77 (1935),

p.

314.

426

Interpretation
Guiana,"

in Robert H. Schomburgk, ed., The Discov 5. Sir Walter Raleigh, "Of the Voyage for Guiana (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), p. 136. and Beautiful Empire the Large, Rich, of ery of 6. Sir Benjamin Rudyard in the House of Commons, 1624. Quoted in J. H. Elliott, The Old
World
and

the

New, 1492-1650 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970),

these geopolitical concerns in the

pp.

90-91. Elliott book. Corre

1580-

offers an extended account of

fourth

chapter of

this

7. Richard Hakluyt the Elder, "Inducements to the

Virginia in 40.
spondence

Liking

of the

Voyage Intended towards

and

and

of the 8. Introduction to
ed.

42, Degrees Of Two Richard Hakluyts,

Latitude,"

Document 47 in The Original Writings

p.

327. 8.

Envisioning

America: English Plans for the Colonization of America,

p.

1640,
9.
ence

Peter Mancall (Boston: Bedford Books, 1995),

the same points
wool market can

Essentially
in the
pp.

concerning a new market for wool products and Spanish influ be found in the younger Richard Hakluyt's "Discourse of Western

Planting,"

313-14.

10. North America from Earliest

Discovery

to First

Settlements (New York: Harper

and

Row,

1977),

p.

324.

11. E.A.

bridge: Cambridge 12. A further both Hakluyt

which and

Wrigley and R.S. Schofield, The Population History University Press, 1981), pp. 531-32.
potential

of England, 1541-1871 (Cam

benefit

of the

dispersal

of some segments of the population noted of theological and other sorts of

by

French

authors was the

diminishing

factionalism
and

had the

potential

to

bring

about civil war.

See G. V. Scammel, "The New Worlds

p.

Europe

in the Sixteenth

Century,"

The Historical Journal 12 (1969): 407-8.

Voyage,"

13. "Inducements to the

cultural and prominent

Liking

of the

330. While poverty, depressions in

agri

textile production, and the displacement that attended them may have been offered as a

those Puritans who emigrated to

justification for colonization, it may not actually have been a causal factor or motive for New England, although it may have held true of other colonists.
and

See Virginia Dejohn Anderson's "Migrants

1630-1640,"

Motives: Religion

and

the Settlement of New En

view

gland,
tions were a major

New England

Quarterly 58

(1985): 368-74. For the

see

that economic condi

factor in English

emigration

Karen Ordahl Kupperman,

Settling

with

the

Indians: The
man

Meeting

& Littlefield,

of English and Indian Cultures in America, 1580-1640 1980), chap. 1.

and

(Totowa, NJ:

Row-

14. Wilderness

the American Mind (New Haven: Yale

of the

15. "A True Reporte

of

Late Discoveries

and

University Press, 1967), p. 37. Possession, Taken in the Right of the Crown
and

Englande,

of the

Newfound Landes:

by

That Valiant

Worthy Gentleman, Sir Humphrey

in Richard Hakluyt, The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques & Discoveries of the English Nation (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1904), vol. 7, p. 119.

Gilbert,"

1974),

16. Thomas More, Utopia, trans. Peter K. Marshall (New York: Washington Square Press, p. 58. 17.
"

A Discourse

Virginia,"

on

in Samuel Purchas, Hakluytus Posthumus

or

Purchas His

Pilgrimes (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1906), vol. 19, pp. 222-23. 18. Perry Miller, Introduction to The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, (New York: Russell and Russell, 1963), vol. 7, p. 7.
19. "Advertisements for the Unexperienced Planters
of

Perry Miller,
Where,"

ed.

in Philip England, or Any L. Barbour, ed., The Complete Works of Captain John Smith (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), vol. 3, p. 276. 20. Two Treatises of Government, Peter Laslett, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), sec. 25, pp. 285-86.

New

21. The "enough

good"

and as

phrase

is first

used

in

section

33

of the

Treatise.
employed a system

22. Herman Lebovics

of exchange artifacts

argues that

Locke

was aware that native

Americans

using functioned

artifacts that were thought to represent as

value, but he did not think that these

symbolic or ceremonial

currency, because their use had primarily a

function

rather than a commercial one.

ment,"

Journal of The History 23. Cited in Peter Laslett's "John Locke, The Great Recoinage
William
and

America in Locke's Second Treatise of Govern of Ideas 47 (1986): 573-74, 578.

of

See "The Uses

and the

Board

of

Trade,

1695-

1698,"

Mary Quarterly, 3rd

series, 14

(July, 1957): 370.

Locke 's Second Treatise

and

the

Literature of Colonization
1696-1775,"

427
Ency
Black-

24. Ian K. Steele, "Metropolitan Administration of the Colonies, clopedia of the American Revolution, Jack P. Greene and J. R. Pole.
well

Blackwell

eds.

(Cambridge, MA:
pp.

Reference, 1991),

p.

10. 421-22.
Empire,"

25. Maurice

Cranston, John Locke: A Biography (New York: MacMillan, 1957),

Socio-Economic
and

26. "The

Changing

Strategic Importance
p.

of the

Colonies to the

in Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution,

19.

Discussion: Two Views of Laurence Lampert's Leo Strauss and Nietzsche

Laurence

Lampert, Leo Strauss

and

Nietzsche (Chicago:

University

of

Chicago

Press, 1996), ix

+ 227 pages, $22.50.

Lawrence Casse

No

reader of

Strauss

could

deny

that he took Nietzsche

writings as

with

the

utmost

seriousness.

He is

presented

in Strauss's

a powerful critic of

the

rationalism of

Socrates

and

Plato

as well as the

initiator

of the third wave of

sev

modernity

and

therefore our foremost contemporary. Nietzsche appears in

the originator of a new kind of

eral presentations as

historicism,

one that

denies is

the rationality or completeness of the historical process. Although Nietzsche the originator of the

ism

of some of

his

successors such as

fact-value distinction, he did not follow the value relativ Weber. Strauss writes that "Nietzsche is first thinker
who

the philosopher of relativism: the

faced the

problem of relativ

ism in its full extent and pointed to the way in which relativism can be over (The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism, p. 24). While Strauss
come"

recognized

Heidegger
our

as the

foremost

and most thorough exponent of radical

historicism in
what

century, he suggests that Nietzsche may have taken a some different road in his attempt to resolve the dilemmas generated by histori

cism.

modern
city'

In Strauss's view, "Heidegger merely gives a it 'ontologically'. For historicism,

"anchors'

refined with

interpretation

of

Heidegger, 'histori
merit of

has

made nature

disappear completely,
reflect."1

which

however has the

It appears that Strauss may have consistency and compels one to thought Nietzsche's attempted solution to the problems of historicism and rela
tivism was more successors,
self
profound and

philosophically
the

interesting
is
viable.

than those of

his

whether or not

his

attempted solution

And Nietzsche him

that solution than

may have been

more aware of

problematic nature of

some of those who

followed him.
preoccupation

Strauss's
noted

lifelong

with

Nietzsche is
what still

evident

and of

has been
the best

by

a number of commentators.

In

remains

one

studies of Strauss, Victor Gourevitch must not be allowed to Nietzsche

. .

notes

that "Strauss's explicit rejection of the unstated

of

obscure

but important A

affini

ties between his

own

and

Nietzsche's

modernity."2

critique

number of

writers, ranging from irresponsible polemicists to more serious scholars, have suggested that a Nietzschean element might be at work in Strauss's mature
thought or that he may be more
sympathetic

to Nietzsche than he

initially

ap-

interpretation,

Spring 1998,

Vol. 25, No. 3

430
pears. would of

Interpretation
A
serious

be

appear to

study of the overall place be a prime desideratum,

of

Nietzsche in Strauss's thought

the interpretation of one
and

including

his last

enigmatic

essays, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good

Nietzsche.3

Evil,"

his only
several

In
that

essay devoted exclusively to presentations of the development of modernity Strauss

published

suggests

difficulties inherent in the thought

of the originators of

velli,

Hobbes, Descartes) led

increased

to

subsequent attempts

to overcome these

modernity (Machia diffi

culties

through partial appropriation or return to the thought of the ancients

radicalization of modern principles regarded

combined with an
cal

(What is Politi

Philosophy?
was

p.

50). Spinoza,

by

Nietzsche

as one of

his

prede

cessors,

"the first

great thinker who attempted a synthesis of pre-modern

philosophy"

(classical-medieval)
p.

and modern
who ushers

(Liberalism Ancient

and

Modern,
It is

240). But it is Rousseau

in the

second wave of modernity.

this attempt to appropriate elements of the thought of the classics on the basis
of a radicalization of seau's

thought;

such

modernity that accounts for the many paradoxes in Rous paradoxes, Rousseau thought, "must be made when one
suggested that

seriously."

thinks
which

Strauss

nearly

all the

"serious difficulties
.

with

the understanding of Rousseau's teachings remain beset

can

be

traced to the

fact that he tried to

science."4

preserve the classical

idea

of

philosophy

on the

basis

of modern a similar attempt to combine elements of advanced

Can

modernity

with

the

thought of antiquity account

for many

of

the paradoxical features of Nietzsche's

thought? Nietzsche attempts to recapture the high spirituality of men

on the

like Pascal forward

return)
per-

basis

of

the most radical atheism. Nietzsche would appear to put

metaphysical

all-embracing
while

hypotheses (the any

will

to

power and eternal

denying
He

the possibility of

metaphysics on the

basis

of a radical

spectivism.
of

attempts to return to certain aspects of the

Platonic

conception

the philosopher while undertaking the most radical critique of

Socrates

and

"Platonism."

He

advocates a

Spinozistic determinism

and

the apparent fatalism

as
will

of the eternal return

power and value creation.

along with a celebration of human freedom He points to the "great of is

malleable with no natural

to

stupidity"

"instinct"

while

claiming that the

soul

limits. Nietzsche

speaks of a

return to nature or the natural while

insisting

that the world is

will

to power

"and nothing else which Nietzsche insisted

besides."

was

Moreover, this thought culminates in the book his most important, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in a
has led to
a number of

bewildering
The

array

of

parables, mock-biblical speeches, and poetic dithyrambs.

attempt to resolve some of these paradoxes

conflicting interpretive strategies. In an influential but controversial interpreta tion Heidegger read Nietzsche as the last metaphysician and his conception of
will to power as still caught presence a tradition that

up in a Platonic tradition of Being as determinate Nietzsche failed to overcome. More recent French
on

thought since the 1960s

has focused

Nietzsche

as the propagator of philo

sophical thought that shatters traditional metaphysical notions of subjectivity,

Two Views of

Lampert'

Leo Strauss

and

Nietzsche

431

hierarchy,
to his

causality,

and

identity;

on

this basis Nietzsche can be used, contrary

intent,

to support views closer to the political Left than the Right.

Indeed,

in

a age

devoted to

increasing

egalitarianism

in

all

its forms, it

would appear

that

interest in Nietzsche is
new

greater than ever.

and

In his detailed

study, Leo Strauss

Nietzsche, Laurence Lampert

"Note"

presents a

paragraph-by-paragraph

terpretation of the place of

and an overall in reading of Strauss's Nietzsche in Strauss's thought. In this last essay,

Lampert argues, Strauss

resolved the most

difficult interpretative issues

opinion of

regard claims so?

ing

Nietzsche

and presented

his

own

final

him. But Lampert

(p. 11).
"Note"

that "from a

Straussian
on

point of view the

Because, he claims,
shown

the basis

of a

essay is a detailed reading

of

scandal"

Why
it
can

of the

be

that nearly all other

discussions
"Note"

Nietzsche in Strauss's

published writ

ings

are

deliberately
a close

misleading
of the

or exoteric or at

best incomplete. Strauss

and

According
are

to

Lampert,
have

reading
with

shows that

Nietzsche

in

fundamental
more

agreement on

nearly every

philosophical

issue. The disagreements

to do

the public presentation of that teaching: "the primary

reservation must

the proper

lie precisely where Strauss placed the greatest emphasis, on politics for philosophy today. This, it seems to me, is the fundamen
Strauss"

tal difference between Nietzsche and

(p. 167).
not an

Perhaps but
a
and

Lampert'

s most central claim

of some

is that Nietzsche is
realized

historicist

"naturalist"

kind

and that

Strauss
put

this as well. In Beyond

Good

Evil

and

elsewhere, Nietzsche

forward

a new conception of na and nonhistorical and

ture and

human

nature which was meant

to

be

"eternal"

could thus

serve

as

standard

for

an

order

of

ranking

of men

and

human

institutions. Nietzsche
philosophers

also past

fully
and

recognized

the art of esoteric writing used

by

in the

described in detail in their reading

of

by Strauss;

Strauss

and

Nietzsche
and

are not that made also

far

apart

Plato. The

contrast of

Plato

Nietzsche

which world.

Strauss

in Strauss's essay and elsewhere masks their common goal understood: "What was Nietzsche's intent? To rule the
same

Nietzsche had the

that
could no

intent
as

as

Plato. To

ascend

to a secret spiritual
kingdom"

kingship
phy

longer be

secret as

Plato's

spiritual

(p.

128). The fundamental issue for both Plato

or religion will rule.

and

Nietzsche
of

was whether philoso

and elsewhere

(Lampert's description
of

Plato here

is

reminiscent of

D'Alembert's description

Descartes

as secret

leader

of a vast

conspiracy.)

According
as

to

Lampert, Strauss fully

(p. 64). His

endorses
"Note"

the Nietzschean turn

in

morals

both

natural and rational

connection

and

logical

demonstrates the rationality doctrines of will to power and eter between Nietzsche's
also

nal return.

In the

second

half

of

Beyond Good

and

Evil, he

presents gottliche

a new

teaching
events.

about

nature,

albeit one

different from the traditional

Natur,
and of a

supposedly initiated "return to

by Plato,
new

which

forms
form
of

Nietzsche's teaching is

a new

for ranking men naturalism, for he too spoke

standard

nature."

This

teaching

about nature

is

nonhistoricist

in that it

432

Interpretation
It forms the
ultimate

speaks of eternal truths.

justification for the

man."

acceptance of

the

doctrine
a spiritual

of eternal recurrence and the of

Nietzschean demand for

a new rule

by ing

accord aristocracy "complementary is far from the doctrine of human required Lampert, self-making by historicism. "A coherent naturalism distinguishing high and low as noble and

the

This naturalism,

to

base

emerges as a now reasonable alternative to the old antinaturalism or

super-

naturalism which called the

mortal"

high

gottlich or eternal and the

low earthly

and

(p. 64). This

new

teaching

about nature also supplements and corrects

the mechanistic excesses of modern science and

of nature or technology. provide the viable

does

not

demand the

conquest
can

Finally, Lampert
a new politics on

claims that

Nietzsche's teaching
to the

basis for
based

based

earth"

on

"loyalty
Strauss's

and a

new world religion

Dionysian

gods.

Lampert Nietzsche

recognizes

that

his

presentation

of

interpretation

of

Nietzsche. To

nearly all of Strauss's own published statements on why this is so he turns to the concluding paragraph of the lecture "What is Political where, with Lampert's characteristic
contradicts explain
Philosophy?"

exaggeration, Nietzsche is said to be

presented

as

"the target

of a

patriot's

ferocious

denunciation"

and

"denounced

as a philosophical criminal of the

first

magnitude"

(pp. 7-8).

Being
sacred as

certain of the tameness of modern western

man,

[Nietzsche]

preached

the

right

of

"merciless

extinction"

of

large

masses of men with as

little

restraint

his

great antagonist

had done. He

used much of

his

unsurpassable and

inexhaustible

power of passionate and

fascinating

speech

for making his

readers

loathe,

not

only

socialism and

communism, but conservatism, nationalism and

taken upon himself this great political

democracy

as well.

After

having

responsibility he could He left them no choice

not show

his

except that

readers a way toward political responsibility. between irresponsible indifference to politics and prepared a regime which, as again

irresponsible

political options.

He thus

long

as

it

lasted,

made

discredited

democracy
54-55)
cannot

look

like the

golden age.

(What is

Political Philosophy*!,

pp.

Lampert

claims

that

he

find the is

words

"merciless

extinction"

in

Nietzsche's
and

writings and that this

a clue that

the entire paragraph is

of the

exoteric

does

not reflect

Strauss's

real opinion.

But in the discussion

Birth of

Tragedy in
Let
us

Ecce Homo, Nietzsche

writes:

look

ahead a

century; let

us suppose

my

attempt to assassinate two millennia

of anti-nature and

desecration

of man were to succeed.

That

new

party

of

life

which

would tackle the greatest of all

tasks, the

including the merciless annihilation was degenerating and parasitical, would

earth

humanity higher, (schonunglose Vernichtung) of everything

attempt to raise
again make possible that excess of again. sec.

that
on

life

from

which

Homo, 'Why

Dionysian state, too, would have to waken I Write Such Good The Birth Of Tragedy,
the
Books,'

(Ecce

4)

Two Views of Lampert 's Leo Strauss

and

Nietzsche

433

But this is merely an instance of a larger point. Clearly, Nietzsche would have despised Hitler's regime of antisemitism and nationalism. But Lampert simply
cannot

be any possible connection between Nietzsche and the political extremes, nor can he admit that Nietzsche's rhetoric may have dangerous consequences, for this would mean there still may good reasons for
could
restraint

believe that there

in

public

speech,

if

not

for

esotericism.

So Strauss's

claim

that

Nietzsche may have inadvertently prepared the way for Hitler's regime appears to him so fantastic that he dismisses it as exoteric, ignoring the fact that Strauss

Lampert must dismiss such claims plausibly makes the same point because of his belief that a new politics, based on the 'Nietzschean Enlighten is both possible and benign for humanity at large. And he must find
elsewhere.5
ment'

'political'

motives

behind those

remarks of

Strauss

on

Nietzsche that

will not

fit

his interpretation.

THE USE AND DISADVANTAGE OF ESOTERICISM

The task difficult

of

judging

the correctness of Lampert's interpretation is made more

by

his

relentless

hyperbole

and exuberant rhetoric.

never able

Lampert is

con

stantly making
the

rhetorical promises

he is

to deliver on;

he is

con

stantly announcing

forthcoming
in
which

revelations

that never appear. We are promised

most

deepest,

most radical confrontations

between the deepest, the greatest,

profound thinkers

the

deepest,

greatest, most profound problems are

Strauss, supposedly the greatest revealed as really the greatest disciple of is to be Nietzsche, going in a Nietzsche. And all this is to be done commentary on Strauss's essay which,
shown to and so on. opponent of needless

going to be

be solved,

to say, is simply the most important essay on Nietzsche

a

ever written.

Lampert is like

bad

boxing

promoter whose

fighters

never show

up, and we

leave disappointed. No doubt, Strauss's essay requires the most careful reading, and Lampert is devices as "blunders, centerings, silences,
"Note."

repetition

correct to point to such

that Strauss may have used in the

character"

But

few

remarks about the

"literary

"Note"

of

the

are

in

order.

Nietzsche's terminology
appear as

and concepts:

Throughout the essay Strauss uses even when discussing Plato such terms
"ideal"

"value
as

judgement,"

"pure

mind,"

many
then the

of which

he

criticizes
ultimate

elsewhere,

in his
of

critique of

Weber. If this essay

possible that

represents

Strauss's

confrontation

Plato

and

Nietzsche,

issues

are

presented

from

Nietzsche's
could go

perspective.

It is

Strauss

wanted

to see how far he

in making the most powerful case that could be made for Nietzsche as Nietzsche understood himself. It is only in occasional hints that one sees a
critique of

Nietzsche. This does not warrant

taking literally every

final
opinion.

statement
view

in

the the

exposition of
"Note"

Nietzsche

as

Strauss's
"a

own

Lampert's

that

was

intended to

provide

relentless pursuit

comparing Nietzsche

434
and son

Interpretation
Plato
issues"

on all major an examination

(p. 1

16)

seems exaggerated at

best;

that compari that

requires

of all

of

Strauss's

other

writings

discuss

Nietzsche
cism"

and

Plato. Momigliano's idea

remark that

Lampert

quotes

Strauss

was an

"addict

of esoteri

but the

remark seems of

oddly
to

appropriate to

Lampert; he

can't get enough.

Intoxicated Nietzsche

with the

esotericism, his

use of

the notion, with reference to

and

Strauss,

seems

lack

precision or

hermeneutic discipline. As

is "so entertaining in its intri cacies, so intoxicating in its audacity that it threatens to overwhelm more basic (p. 125). And that is exactly what has happened here. While Lampert
of esotericism
matters"

Lampert himself admits, the theme

does

offer some

insightful

"Note,"

comments on the

some of

his

readings of

particular passages seem so

textual

"commentary"

on the poem

arbitrary and willful that one is in Nabokov's Pale Fire.

reminded of the

Nietzsche

Lampert enthusiastically embraces the notion of esoteric writing and credits as well as Strauss with its rediscovery. But because he understands
"rule"

the issue primarily in terms of the desire of philosophers to

or as a

battle

for

power

between "pious is

religion and

philosophy, he is continually conflates the eso

to protect both philosophy and soci
sake of

tericism of the philosophers

fraud"

undertaken

ety (And from

with

perpetrated
where the moral

for the

gaining
"free

or

keeping
its

power.

cf.

BGE 105

indignation

about
of

"pious

fraud"

that Lam
unfreedom

pert exhibits

seen a

limitation

of a certain

type

spirit,"

certain prejudices.

Does Lampert believe that Nietzsche's future

spiritual

rulers will never use

fraud?)
sought

Lampert necessary
more

never

tires of claiming that for Nietzsche esotericism is no longer

and that still

he

to expose its subterfuges while

esotericism simple.

believed in the necessity of cautious, 167-68, 172-73). But the contrast may be too

Strauss, being pp. 20-21, Strauss, for his part,

(e.g.
eso Hep-

struggles with the question of whether or not to expose,

for example, the his

teric

teaching

of

Maimonides. As

a character

in Jean Bodin's Colloquium

reader not to reveal an age

taplomeres remarked:

"Maimonides begged the historical

secrets."

Strauss

concludes that the current consciousness and

situation

dominated

by
pp.

historical

facing
his

many dangers to freedom (Persecution may

also of
and the

of thought

war

rants the partial exposure of

secrets

Art of Writing,

55-56). Public discussion

the ruling

of esotericism

dogma

that the mind

is incapable 199
n.43).

be necessary to counteract liberating itself from its age

same time

(Natural Right

and

History,

p.

At the

he

points to

the

possibility of an esoteric commentary on an esoteric text (Persecution, p. 56). If Nietzsche fully grasped esotericism in Strauss's sense and it is far from clear
that

he did

he may have thought that

and enervated

modern man

had become

so shallow,

mediocre, tame,

that any risk was worth taking.

Did Nietzsche he
read

counts.

understand esotericism in the way that Strauss did? And did Plato in the way that Strauss did? Lampert's answer is yes on both There are a number of discussions of the esoteric-exoteric distinction in

Two Views of Lampert's Leo Strauss

Beyond Good
and

and

Nietzsche

435
But

Evil

and also

some mentions of

it in

other writings.

because Nietzsche does

tions

not provide

it is difficult to judge his

of

meaning.
a

any detailed examples of such interpreta The issue of the adequacy of

Nietzsche's interpretation ble here.

1.

Plato is

difficult

one

but

few

remarks are possi

According
of
or

language two,
and

to Lampert's reading one may be led to wonder, whether, in the Plato's Sophist, the triad Plato-Nietzsche-Strauss are really one, three. Lampert seems to think that if you can show that both Nietzsche
argued that

Strauss

Plato did

"believe"

not

really
(p.

in the

Theory
real

of

Ideas

then you

have

gone most of

the way toward eliminating any

theoretical

difference among the three certainly

stantiae

of them

48,

n.15, pp.

127, 163-64). Strauss

Platonic Ideas
was

questioned the received textbook version of the

as

sub-

separatae; the

he

regarded

it

as probable

that Plato

already familiar
(Letter to
think that
other
not

with all of

Aristotelian
pp.

criticisms of the
which

Ideas
is"

and accepted them

Kojeve, On Tyranny,
the

277ff.)

does

not mean

that he did

Socratic way
points of

starting 2. Lampert
show that

beginning from "what inquiry, including Nietzsche's

of wanted to

questions

is

superior to approach.

"genealogical"

seizes on a

"Plato

few passages, such as Will to Power (428-end), to have taught as absolute truth what he himself did

not regard as even

souls."

tality
rabi's

of

conditionally true: namely the separate existence and immor This statement (which on this point seems to agree with Faof the

interpretation

Phaedo)

might seem to show

Nietzsche moving in

his last
But it Plato

unpublished notes toward

would

take a massive

something like Strauss's view of esotericism. effort to explain all of Nietzsche's comments on
as

and

Socrates
and

he distinguished the two Evil

and
or

they

appear, for example, in

with

Beyond Good

interpretation

of

Plato

in Twilight of the Idols as compatible the Platonic Socrates. Lampert comes

Strauss's
"I

nowhere near am a

such an undertaking.
complete skeptic

He

frequently
Plato"

quotes
establish

Nietzsche's
the

remark that of

about

Nietzsche's
text
of

readings of

that remark

similarity Plato (pp. 20-21, 30, 69, 164), but examining the con in Twilight of the Idols would, in fact, tend to support the
owe to the
Ancients"

to

Strauss's

and

opposite view

("What I

2).
advocates

3. An important

passage

for the thesis that Lampert

that Plato

is Daybreak
what

496,

where

it is

suggested

intended to do for
customs

the

Greeks

Mo

hammed did for

the Arabs: "to

determine

in things

great and small and

It is here that especially to regulate everyone's daytoday mode of some with his philosopher of the future who will be Nietzsche may see affinity a spiritual ruler and legislator. But surprisingly there is no detailed discussion of

life."

Plato's Laws, according to Strauss Plato's only real claims that the goal of Platonic political philosophy is to
change

"political"

work.

Lampert

undertake a massive

in

the

opinions

of

society

at

large. We

can

only say that in presenting Plato as a Mohammed or the Hindu lawgiver Manu (Will to Power

here. I

will

scarcely discuss this thesis great founder or lawgiver, like

142-43), Nietzsche

436
(and

Interpretation

Lampert) implicitly follow

on

the

Machiavellian

view of

"unarmed

founders"

"propaganda'

and their need

to revolutionize the opinions of society through

p.

(Thoughts "unarmed
as

Machiavelli,
was understood

173).

According

to

Strauss,

this understanding of

founders"

based it

on attempt

to imitate the success of

opposition

Christianity

Machiavelli

and

is explicitly in
an

to the views of Plato

and ancient philosophy.

Or is this too

"exoteric"

argument?
whether

Indeed,

according to Lampert's reading one is led to ask

there are

any major philosophical differences or issues at all. All that is really necessary is to show that a number of thinkers were really atheists or used esotericism; everything
else

is inconsequential. Apparently, Plato, Aristophanes, Maimon

and

saying almost the same thing, and outspoany apparent differences are simply due to a difference in reticence or kennness. It would appear that any difference between Strauss and Nietzsche
are all
comes

ides, Farabi, Nietzsche,

Strauss

down to

a a

difference in

political tactics and courage

in

which

Strauss is
least

to

be faulted for
arguments

lack

of political nerve
problems

(p. 184).

Philosophy
longer

is

constituted not

by

or

fundamental

but

by

esoteric

whispering
necessary.
on

at

until

Nietzsche

came

along to show that

it
of

was no

Lampert's
tericism

work

illustrates the danger

simply

focusing
on

the fact

of eso

which

I don't

deny
its
would

without

focusing

posed esoteric

teaching
"esoteric"

and

rational grounds or

the content of the sup defensibility. Without this,

other secret cult

philosophy
such

as

be indistinguishable from any

as ancient mystery religions, Rosicrucianism, or the Masonic order. As Leibniz remarked, esotericism is permissible but it must hide something worth trying to discover in the first place (Nouveaux Essais, book 3, chapter 10, sec

tion 12).

NATURE, HISTORICISM, AND MODERNITY

1. One
of of the major themes

in Strauss's
minds"

"Note"

is the transitional
of the

character

the relation between the "free

of

and the

"philosophers
the

future."

In

his discussions
historicism'

historicism Strauss
to account

emphasizes as a

difficulties

generated

by
as

attempt

for itself

coherent

philosophical

view.

There is

a certain

affinity between Nietzsche's

as

views and

those of

Marx,

Strauss

suggests

by

two significant references to Marx in

derstand themselves

not as the end or peak

being at the "absolute of history but as the historical turning

pp.

moment"

his "Note"; both un in history, understood

point

(Studies in

Platonic Political Philosophy,

32-33). Thus the "free

minds"

characterized
virtues

by

virtues such as

probity

and the

historical in the

sense will

have different
whose

and

different tasks than the "philosophers

If Nietzsche turns to
"nature"

of the

future"

preparing.

second

half

of

way they are Beyond Good and

"nature"

Evil it is

nature

in

a new and paradoxical

sense; Nietzsche's

is turned

to not as an origin but as a goal or task of the philosopher of the

future. It is

Two Views of Lampert's Leo Strauss

introduced
phasized

and

Nietzsche

437

to overcome the paradoxes of the will to power. Thus Strauss em

"nature"

the transition in section 188 from

the quotation marks

(in

quotation

marks) to

nature with
project of

the will that arises

sense of

silently dropped. The from the impossibility

"renaturing"

of man
of

is

"living

according

to

nature"

in the

the Stoics (BGE 9).

that Nietzsche was in any sense an

By simply denying
misses order

historicist, Lampert
historicism in

the point that

Nietzsche it. He
which

must

dialectically

pass through

to

try

to overcome
"naturalism"

misses the

questionable,

paradoxical status of

Nietzsche's
pears that as

is entirely different from, say, Spinoza's. It ap

"historicism"

Lampert tends to
or rational

understand the term

primarily
a

either

Hegelian both

historicism (p. 105)

or as

historical

relativism

that

reduces

the thinker to a sociological exponent of his time (p. 89). But Nietzsche
of

rejected

these positions.
question of the place of

2. This leads to the larger

overall

Nietzsche in Strauss's

interpretation
was a

of

the evolving dialectic

of modernity.

By denying

that

Nietzsche damental
speaking,

historicist, Lampert
at all.

also claims that

Nietzsche denied the fun be regarded, strictly

premises of modern
"modern"

philosophy

and thus cannot

as a

According

to Lampert:
moderns"

Strauss
VII 2

makes

it

apparent that

Nietzsche, "the

most modern of modern on

the
ideas"

(KGW

{201},

is

not a modern.

Nietzsche "abhorred the

(WPP 172).

When Strauss defined those ideas in his "Restatement

assigned

Xenophon's Hiero, he in the "conquest

of

modernity two
which

defining

beliefs: "unlimited

progress

nature",

is

made possible

by

modern

science, "and the

popularization or

diffusion

knowledge"

of philosophic or scientific

(OT 178). Nietzsche (P.

advocated

Enlightenment."

neither the conquest of nature nor the

117)

But if

we

look

at

the

passage

that Lampert cites

argument.

from What is Political Philoso

points out

phy (p.

172)

we

see no

such

Strauss

the close affinity

between Nietzsche's
phy
of

conception of will

to

power and

the early modern philoso

Bacon, Hobbes,
that

and

Locke in
evident

which

the

notion of power

is central,

connection

is

not always

owing to Nietzsche's

anti-British

pre

so ap judices (BGE 252-53). As Strauss notes, "Was not the "will to pealing precisely because its true ancestry was ignored? Only Nietzsche's

power'

successors restored the connection, which power and technology.

he had blurred, between the will to But that connection is clearly visible in the origins of
between Nietzsche
Beyond Good
and

that

philosophical

tradition which Nietzsche continued or completed: the British

and

tradition."

The

connection

Hobbes is
cited six

also evident

in the

important
"Note,"

aphorism

of

Evil,
is

times in Strauss's

the

frequently impossibility of living

more

than any other aphorism. Nietzsche's argument about

according to

nature

not unrelated to

Hobbes's
not

conception of

the

state of nature as the summum

"negative"

malum.6

Nietzsche does

simply

use nature as a

standard also advocates a

("the

gruesome rule of nonsense and

nature"

chance"), however, he

'"return to

as a goal or project

438

Interpretation
man"

48). The context of the (Twilight of the Idols, "Skirmishes of an Untimely remark in Twilight of the Idols makes clear that he has Goethe in mind as a
prime example.
nature

Nietzsche's

return

to

"nature"

is

not nature

in the first

sense

but

that has already been To be sure, Nietzsche's conception

"spiritualized"

by
to

the will to power.

power as a perpetual process of

of will

self-overcoming departs to some extent from the conception of power of the early moderns. One reason is that Nietzsche thought the early moderns were not rigorous
enough

in their

anti teleology;

they

still retained a residual

teleology in

the notion of self-preservation as it appears,

of conatus

(BGE 13;

Gay
it

for example, in Spinoza's concept Science 349). Strauss recognized that Nietzsche used
a

the term "will to

power"

in

"very
later

subtle and noble

manner,

yet the crude and

ignoble way in
ter
as

which

was

understood

is

not altogether
p.

independent

of

the change of orientation he

suggested"

(Rebirth,

240). Lampert in this

mat

in many others has a tendency to understand both Strauss's and Nietzsche's statements in an overly refined sense that may be too abstract and remote from the political realities that Nietzsche and Strauss
"spiritualized"

were all too aware of.

and

Thus he surprisingly fails to see that "putting an end to the rule of non-sense (BGE 203) is a descendent of the Machiavellian and Baconian
chance"

project of

mastering fortune and chance applied to the historical As Strauss notes in paragraph 25 of the "Note":

process

itself.

the

new philosophers must

put an end

to the gruesome

rule of nonsense and

chance which was

hitherto

regarded as use a

"history": the true

history

as

distinguished

from the

mere

pre-history, to

Marxian distinction

requires the subjugation of of the

chance, of

nature

(Genealogy

II.

2) by

men of

the

highest spirituality,

greatest reason.

The

subjugation of nature

depends

then

decisively

on men who

possess a certain nature.

The "Marxian

distinction"

here

refers

to a conception of

history

as

at

turning

point

(in Marx's

case the transition

realm of

freedom); in
as

this particular context it

states

egalitarianism,

he

realm of necessity to the has nothing to do with Marx's (p. 77). Clearly, Lampert is so enthralled by

from the

Nietzsche's hence Nietzsche's

"elitism,"

the claim that there are those superior that

by

"nature"

and of

entitled

to

rule,

he

misses

the

problematic
call

character

both

"nature"

and of

his

"ruling."

Thus his

for

Nietzschean

politics

misses what

is ultimately

tics;

not the of

ination

abjuring of its supreme in

be the astonishing requirement of that poli the conquest of nature and human nature through "elim
shown to

forms"

(p.

77) but its

transcendence

by

the deliberate and

conscious re introduction of
man existence

contingency, pain, suffering

and

inequality

into hu

order to avoid the

debilitating

consequences of modernity:
"given"

"Hitherto suffering and inequality have been taken for granted, as imposed on man. Henceforth they must be par. 35).
willed"

as

("Note"

Two Views of Lampert's Leo Strauss

Lampert's larger
own prejudices

and

Nietzsche

439

connection suggested

by

may also have Strauss between the

prevented

him from seeing the

to power and the

notion of will

project of the conquest of chance embodied

in

modern science and tech

nology.

Indeed, Lampert adamantly denies

between Nietzsche's
claims on associates
will

that there could be any possible

connection

to power and modern

technology

and

finds

Heidegger's

this

point a

"ridiculous
with

notion"

(p. 76),

perhaps

because
all

he wrongly
earlier

technology
and

his dreaded

egalitarianism.
and

This is

the more surprising, given

Lampert's

attempt to

link Nietzsche
example of

Bacon in his

book Nietzsche

Modern Times. An

this can

be

seen

in

Lampert's concluding remarks on Nietzsche's thought as regards modern natu ral science and the "conquest of (p. 170), where he quotes the Geneal
nature"

ogy of Morals
appeared to the

III,

section

9, regarding

"hubris"

modern

as

it

would

have

Greeks: "our

whole attitude

toward nature, the way we violate

her

with

the aid of machines and the

ever so
.

heedless inventiveness
comments:

of our

engineers and

technicians, is hubris.
nature,
of nature

Lampert

"Physics,

the

science of physis or

was reformable

into

a philological science of subtle

interpretation
But is this
are not

(BGE 22); its

the

end was not

technological mastery of
place

nature, but its understanding of

compatible with
"disinterested"

nature and view

the

human

in

nature"

(p. 170).

that all

interpretations

and understandings

but

are phenomena of the will to power? and not

Whatever Nietzsche's (and

engineers, the
passage

Lampert's) aesthetic distaste for machines from Genealogy 111.9 when read in context does
show

condemn modern

hubris but tries to

how it has

come about as a radical

reversal or revaluation of

everything that
were

was

formerly
things."

sacred, as did philoso

phy itself: "all

peared weakness

good

things

formerly

bad

As it

would as

to the ancients, "our entire modern way

of

life, insofar

have ap it is not

but

power and consciousness of power

.

has the

appearance of sheer

hubris Strauss

and godlessness.

3. Consider

paragraph

29

of

Strauss's

"Note."

At this

stage of the argument

remarks that:

History

takes the place of nature as a consequence

of

the fact that that the natural

e.g. the natural gifts which enable a man to

understood as a given

become

a philosopher generations,

is

no

longer
cf.

but

as the acquisition of

former

(aph.

213);

Dawn of Morning

aph.

540). Historicism is the

everything in terms
of

tendency
nature

to

understand

peculiarly modern its genesis, of its human production;

child of the

furnishes only the worthless II sect. 43). Government of

materials

in themselves. (Locke, Two Treatises

The Locke
the Aristotle

quotation at

this stage

in the

argument must

be

compared with

quotation

in

paragraph

33

where nature

is

understood as

telos

or

completed peak.

Like Rousseau, Nietzsche tries to

combine aspects of

both

conceptions of nature while

transforming

the meaning of both.

Lampert
view of

claims

that the

quotations make

it

clear

that "Nietzsche

is far from this

human

440

Interpretation
Nietzsche is
Locke"

production.

no child of of raw
nature

(p. 90). But is there

transformed

not a connec and

tion between

Locke's

view

by

human labor

Nietzsche's
not

view of chaos

transformed

by

the will to power?

procedure

Furthermore, did
search
. ,

Lampert himself
essence of a

earlier endorse

Nietzsche's
replaced

whereby "the

for the
the

thing, its idea [is]

of

by

the Nietzschean search:

history genealogy Nietzsche's primary method

or

thing"

(p.
or

48)?

Later, Lampert describes

history"

"genealogy"

as

"natural

but fails to
marred

see

the connection with

historicism.7

The

argument

in BGE 213 is

by

Nietzsche's
tial point:

embrace of

"many

generations must

nineteenth-century have labored to

genetics at

its crudest, but the

prepare

essen

the origin of the

philosopher"

shows the cess that

dependence

of philosophical

insight

on a

historical

pro

has

preceded the

philosopher.8

PROBITY AND DOGMATISM

Nietzsche

wrote:

"There is

pher's conviction appears on mystery:

in every philosophy when the philoso the stage or to use the language of an ancient
a point
fortissimus"

"A dvendavit Asinus,

pulcher et

(BGE 8). Lampert's don "the idiocies

of re

key

makes

its

entrance on page

184

with

his

reference to

religion"

vealed

whose opposition

to philosophy Strauss understood so well.

Earlier, Lampert

quotes the passage

most

from Natural Right

and

History

(pp.

74-

75)
pert

which

describes the

fundamental human

alternatives as

"human

guid

ance or

divine

revelation"

and the

impossibility
not as what

of

synthesizing them. But Lam

problem

immediately

interprets the issue 32).

philosophical

but

as

"Which

will rule?"(p.

By interpreting

Strauss

posed as the

fundamen

tal question

there might
can give an

simply as a political power struggle, Lampert ignores the point that be a theoretical issue or problem as to whether or not philosophy

intelligible,

complete account of the

whole

and

thereby have

reasonable or nondogmatic ground

from

which

to dismiss religion as super

fluous. Perhaps, as Nietzsche claimed, thinkers like Kant and Hegel who wrestled with just this issue were just philosophical underlaborers (BGE 211).
Lampert
esty,
what exalts the

Nietzschean
called

virtue of

probity

or

rigorous intellectual hon

example of

Nietzsche

"the

virtue."

youngest

An

this

modern

probity might be seen in ever is doubtful as false. But

eliminate prejudices

Descartes'

methodological resolution to regard what as

Leibniz remarked, this

them.9

procedure would not as of at

but merely change Nietzsche himself saw probity a virtue of the "free and as such only a virtue during the period future." transition to the "philosophers of the While Lampert concedes this
minds"

times, he does

not seem

to appreciate

its full

significance.

As Strauss argues,

this modem probity is itself questionable as resting on an act of will unless the
will

to power is fact and not

em, pp.

256-57): But

on the

simply a hypothesis (Liberalism Ancient and Mod hypothesis of the will to power there are no facts

Two Views of Lampert's Leo Strauss

but only interpretations (Will
to

and

Nietzsche

441

Power 438). Strauss his

hesitated"

points to the
of which

"problematic,
was

tempting, hypothetical
well aware.

character of

proposition"

Nietzsche

Nietzsche "seems

to have

that

paean

ambiguity or hesitation that to Nietzsche.

seems to

before putting it forward.10 It is be missing in Lampert's enthusiastic

NOTES

1. "Correspondence

of

Karl Lowith

and

Leo

Strauss,"

trans.

George Elliot Tucker, Independent

Journal of Philosophy 4 (1983):107. 2. Victor Gourevitch, "Philosophy

3. References to Strauss's "Note
on

aphorisms

and Review of Metaphysics 22 (1968). in Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil are abbreviated
EviV'

Politics,"

as

BGE.

the

Plan

of

Nietzsche's Beyond Good

and

(hereafter

referred

to as

"Note")
"Note"

originally appeared in Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983). I have made use of the paragraph numberings provided with the text of the reprinted in Laurence Lampert's Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, pp. 188-205.
4. "On the Intention
Rousseau,"

of

in Hobbes

and

Rousseau,
is

ed.

Maurice Cranston

and

R. S.
than

Peters (Garden City: Anchor, 1972), pp. 269-70. 5. "What Nietzsche says in regard to political
what

action

much more

indefinite little
he is

and vague

Marx
what

says.

In

sense, all

political use of

Nietzsche is
and

a perversion of

his teaching. Neverthe

responsible

less,
sible

he

said

was read

by

political

men

inspired them. He is

as

for

fascism

as

Rousseau is
as

for fascism

for Jacobinism. This means, however, Rousseau is for "The Three Waves of
responsible
Jacobinism."

that

as much respon

Modernity,"

in An Introduc

tion to

Political Philosophy, Hilail Gildin, ed. (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), p. 98. 6. A Hobbesian theme is also evident in Nietzsche's Daybreak in the duality of fear and power.
who

Peter Gast, "Nietzsche

problem of

was

with

Nietzsche

much

of the

time the book was

being

written, noted that

was

in this book primarily

secondly the

concerned with

two psychological problems: first the

fear

power"

problem of

(quoted in Walter

Kaufmann, Nietzsche:
p.

Philosopher, Psychologist, Anti-Christ, 4th

ed.

[Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1974],

"

188,

n.5). also

7. Consider

Nietzsche's depreciation
origin

of the quest

for

"origins"

as metaphysical:

In the

beginning
meditate on

To glorify the

that is the metaphysical afterthought that

breaks

out when we

history

and makes us

believe that

what stands at

the

beginning

of all things
and

is

also what

is

essential."

most valuable and

and

Strauss, Natural Right

"breeding,"

Human, All too Human II, The Wanderer History, pp. 96-97.
distasteful
of
remarks about genetics second

His Shadow 3. Cf.

8. Despite Niezsche's

sometimes crude and

genetics,

inheritance,
if

and

found throughout the

half

BGE, his
will and

"Lamarckian"

are

ultimately
ac

rather than

Mendelian. This has implications for Nietzsche's be inherited, then human

whole argument about nature:

quired characteristics can nature.

history

can

ultimately transform human

9. "Critical Remarks Philosophical Essays, 10. "But does this

ed.

Concerning
Paul
and

Descartes'

Principles,"

section

Anne Martin Schrecker Indianapolis:

that the truth has

2, in Monadology and Other Bobbs-Merrill, 1965).

the truth about all

not

imply

finally

been discovered

possible principles of thought and action?

Nietzsche

seems to

presenting his understanding ity," p. 96.

of the truth as

his

interpretation."

project or

hesitate between admitting this and "Three Waves of Modern

Laurence
cago

Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche (Chicago: The University Press, 1996). ix + 186 pages, $22.50.

of

Chi

Charles E. Butterworth

University

of Maryland, College Park

of

This painstaking and masterful Nietzsche's Beyond Good and

whole

analysis of
Evil"

Leo Strauss's "Note Strauss's

fact"

on the

Plan
with writ

is informed grasp

by deep familiarity
of

Nietzsche's

corpus

and an admirable

myriad

ings. Lampert, persuaded Strauss was both quietly and Nietzsche in viewing the will to power as a "fundamental
nal return as

indirectly
and

close

to

the eter

the "highest

value,"

endeavors to explain

in

such agreement and what

it

means

why the two might be for Strauss's larger teaching. Of all the
purported

recent

books

and articles

on

Leo Strauss's

Nietzschean proclivity,

most thoughtful and by philosophically challenging. It is so not least because Lampert has taken the trouble to examine these other works

this

is

far the

as well as the criticisms

able

they have

earned
a

from defenders dispassionate

of

Strauss For

and

is

to assess their respective merits in

manner.

all these

reasons, Lampert's book deserves to be read very carefully, preferably hand

in hand

with

Leo Strauss's

article

(which Lambert

faithfully
and

reproduces

in

an

appendix)
easier

and

Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good

Evil. The task is

at the

made

by

the intelligent way this book is

presented:

footnotes

bottom
within

of the pages are used

to discuss points not relevant to the discussion to

within

the

text,

while

basic

works are referred

the

main

text

by

means of

abbreviations.

The
preciate

work

begins with a painstaking account of how Strauss Nietzsche's importance as a philosopher and a sober,
the
pedagogical considerations

came to accurate

ap
ac

count of

that seem to
eschews as

have

prompted

Strauss's

opaque style of
all

writing

which

Lampert

he does his "best to dot

Age,"

the

i's"

on

the grounds that "we're entering the Nietzschean

that

is,

that "public

decency

does

not

depend

upon

our

hushing
the place

it up that God is thoughtful,

of
well-

dead

corrupts"

or

that philosophy

(p. 15). It

ends with three

researched chapters, the

first two

of which probe of political

Nietzsche
a

and

then that of Strauss in the

history
how it

philosophy

seen

from
dour

Platonic

perspective,

while

the third examines Nietzsche's attack on the modern en

coincides with

lightenment
tion
of

and suggests
movement.

Strauss's

own

apprecia

that

The

core of

the

book, in
of

content as well as
and

form, is
almost
"Note."

Lampert's

paragraph-by-paragraph,
analysis and

even

sentence-by-sentence

word-by-word,

interpretation 92

Strauss's

seventeen page

Indeed,

this

chapter comprises

of the work's

To be

grasped

fully

only through
Vol. 25, No. 3

186 expository pages. detailed exegesis of Lampert's

com-

interpretation,

Spring 1998,

444

Interpretation
Strauss
compares
which

mentary, Chapter 2 emphasizes the way

Plato

and

Nietzsche

in his

article and seeks

to grasp the extent to

enigmatic

the latter replaces the

vornehme

former. For Lampert, Strauss's

ersetzt

final sentence, "die

Strauss

Natur

die

Natur,"

gottliche

provides the

ter

4, he

pursues

the theme

key to his how investigating by

is,

ultimate stance.

In

Chap

viewed

the three

different

enlightenments medieval

that

the modern (which

leads to

all our current

problems), the

(embodied in Maimonides,

who

leams from Alfarabi,

and the classi
philosophical suggest

and which offers a solution of sorts to the modern

cal

dilemma),

(embodied in Plato). Here, Lampert indicates how Strauss's precisely those links the two, above all, is a common judgment
are
of

preoccupations what

Nietzsche

and

begins to
on the evils

that

confronting

modernity.

At times, Lampert
remained

seems

insufficiently

attentive to

how

much

Leo Strauss

student

of

philosophy, a scholar, all of his life. That

than

propounding

a solution to the problems

he identified

as

is, rather basic, he strug

the
presented

gled to

keep

the alternatives open

paragraph

for inspection. Lampert

makes much of

penultimate

of

Strauss's intellectual autobiography (first

und

as the preface
and

to the 1965 English edition of Spinoza's Critique of

Religion)
of three

the repetition there of a phrase from his Philosophie

earlier

Gesetz

decades
peared).

(itself

published

five

years after

the Spinoza volume

first ap

In

doing

so, he

neglects

how Strauss
culminates

contrasts there the recourse to

with

faith in

which

Nietzsche's teaching
of

the ever-present need to

also

keep
to

the

make an

possibility philosophy ally of Kenneth Hart Green,

and

open. as

Lampert is

unduly

eager
note

to

in his
not

reference at page

134,

Green's Jew

Philosopher,
and

page

148:

Strauss's

acknowledgement of

the

1928 terminus Green's

ad quem

for his autobiography, but

others

shortcomings

in the

at

tempts

by Drury, Brague,
account.

to make a

Nietzschean Strauss is the

focus

of

Still, Lampert's
of

observations at the end of

Chapter 4 that "Strauss's

read

history

Platonic
new

political

philosophy

opens a new

way to

the

history

of philoso

and "it was Strauss's Plato way to read our whole spiritual has" that enabled him to look differently on Nietzsche than anyone else (p. 164)

tradition"

phy, a

are

clusion certain

surely incontrovertible. They prepare the way for the carefully worded con to puzzle, if not discomfit, the most thoughtful students of Leo

Strauss:

Strauss's

service to

this possible philosophy of the future was confined to

introducing

the new

Nietzschean divine things from be

the standpoint of a still

without

skeptical admirer who recognized the arguments persuaded that

in their favor

being
character as
view of

they

could

made persuasive.

Having

established

his

something

of a pious

ascetic, Strauss could tell the truth about the new

things and never be believed except

by

those

very few he had trained to

skepticism

Two Views of Lampert's Leo Strauss

about pious masks,

and

Nietzsche
establish
new gods

445

his

own

included. The

character

he had labored to

dictated that he tell the truth non-Nietzscheanly, that he introduce the

Aristophanically, dressed up these new clouds. (P. 185)

To be
graphs

as

Maimonides,

poet of the old order enchanted with

appreciated

fully, it

must

be taken together

with

the three ringing para

that close this proficient, yet sympathetic, inquiry.

Book Review

Thomas G. West,
pages, $22.95.

Vindicating

the Founders:

Race, Sex, Class,

and

Justice in the
xv

Origins of America (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997),

219

Christopher Flannery
Azusa Pacific

University
philosophy in America these days

Students

of political

often

have their

at

tention turned more to the mysteries of the nocturnal council than to the coun
sels of

their country. Thomas West's book

ambitious to think

is, among

other

things,

an

invitation
from
to

for those
texts to
real

for themselves
as

about serious matters

to

return

life. "The Great

Books,"

he says, "are indispensable

must

preliminaries

thinking, but the thinking itself be our own. (p. x).

.

be

about

the

world we

live in if it is to

This book is the

West
studied

result of a

kind

of second

American things in Claremont

with

sailing in West's own studies. Martin Diamond and Harry

Jaffa,
on

vindicators of the

Founders for

whose

But in

graduate school and

and

years

influence he gratefully acknowledges. following graduate school he concentrated Then

about

Greek

German

political philosophy.
on

fifteen

years

ago, he

began to focus his

particular.

attention

America
current

and on

the American

This

new

turn
goes

led to his
(p.

inquiries which, he

Founding in discovered, call

for "reflection that

vindicating the
about the

beyond the
xiv).

work of

those who have preceded me in

in scholarly pursuit of the truth which he is concerned have implications truths with but the Founders, He aspires to write in the vein of Jefferson, for "choices facing us
West
writes
today."

Founders"

Thucydides,
not afraid ness and

and

Churchill,
(p.

who

in studying

history

were

"loyal to the truth but

and

to distinguish between justice and

xv).

injustice, honor

villainy, great

degradation"

Against Against

what

and

whom

is Thomas West "Vindicating

authorities who either

the

Founders"?

modern and
Founders'

contemporary

distort

or misunder

stand the

ideas

and the policies and

preeminent

institutions arising from them.

and political scientists of

These

authorities

include

historians

this

intel century, Supreme Court justices, clerics, civil rights activists, and leading intellectuals who are heirs those (in right particular, lectuals of the left and the of what West, following John Dewey, calls the "New Liberalism"). J. Allen

Smith, Charles Beard, James

Roger Mahoney,
are a

MacGregor

McDonald, Paul Finkelman, Thurgood

few among

Burns, Gordon Wood, Forrest Marshall, Ralph Abernathy, Cardinal

What do these
authorities
misunder-

many.

interpretation,

Spring 1998,

Vol. 25, No. 3

448

Interpretation
distort? A
great

stand or

deal! But, first

words

of

all,

they

mistake the

meaning West

and

implications

of the most

famous
self

in the American

political tradition:

"We
re

equal."

hold these truths to be

sponds
words:

evident, that all

men are created

to three contemporary orthodoxies about these famous and important

that the

founders did
that

not

believe that

all

human beings

are created

equal;

that
well

they believed this, but did

as
we or

not understand

the implications of this idea as

do;

and

they believed

this and understood it full well, but

actions.

weakly hypocritically Anyone who teaches these

spread and not

ignored it in their

subjects to college

freshmen knows how

men"

wide

deep

rooted

is the

opinion that the

when

founders did
wrote

not mean and could

have

meant

"all human

beings"

they

"all

in America's
school

central

political

document. As

rule,

student graduates could not

from high
meant

confident

in the knowledge that the Founders

have

"black

because they held black slaves; they could not have meant because women did not enjoy equal civil rights with men; they could not have meant "poor because there were property qualifications for voting in
men"

men"

"women"

many of the states. If our student has had an oldfashioned teacher and textbook, he might be disposed condescendingly to excuse the inhumanity as determined by economic self-interest or reflecting an "eighteenth-century mind
Founders'
set,"

which we

have

long

ago transcended.

If the

student

has had

a more

up-to-

date education, he
elitist.

will

know that the Founders

were

merely racist, sexist,

and

In

either

case, the thought of the Founders was suffering from some

debility
the

that

deprives it

Founders, it is so dated, or merely confused they

they founded
West many
would partake of

any intrinsic merit in its own right. If we are to study that we can learn how narrow, prejudiced, unjust, out
of were.

It follows necessarily that the country

and

these attributes.

sets out to

demonstrate that informed

be
a

intelligent

people will

find

reasons to share what used to

nearly

universal

American

opinion: us

that the American

Founding

was

great and noble and must

has

much to teach

today. To accomplish this

task, he

first dispel

determined falsehood that

evangel

has ists:

achieved almost the status of gospel

truth. To cite just a few of the

Samuel Eliot Morison, Oxford

work reprinted

many times
view

since

of the American People (a 1965): "Did Jefferson think of blacks

History

standard when

he

wrote

'all men are created equal'? His subsequent career indicates that he did

not; that in his

blacks

'men'

"

were not as

(pp. 2-3).
of the

Gordon Wood (regarded

period

the most

influential historian

Founding

in the last thirty years): "What was radical about the Declaration in 1776? We know it did not mean that blacks and women were created equal to (although it
would

white men

in time be

used

to

justify

those equalities too). It

equal"

was radical

in 1776 because it

meant that all white men were

(p. 3).
opin

Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (in 1987): The ion

of

"prevailing
no

the

framers"

was that

blacks

were

"so far inferior, that they had

rights

Book Review
which the white man was
and

449

bound to

respect

...

and

that the Negro might

justly

lawfully
'all

be

reduced

to slavery for his

equal'

benefit"

(p. 1).
accepted that the

Jefferson biographer Conor Cruise O'Brien (in 1996): "It is

words

men

are created

women, and
to
slaves"

were not

intended

by

do not, in their literal meaning, apply to the Founding Fathers (collectively) to apply

(p. 1). The

John
of

Garraty,

Story

of America (an eighth-grade textbook):

"By
. .

the first

his

self-evident truths
meant that

in the Declaration

of

Independence,

Jefferson
p.

certainly Ralph

only free

equal"

men were created

(West's emphasis,

4).

Abernathy

(civil rights
'men'

activist

in the 1960s draw

...

logical

conclusion that modern

blacks

can

and 1970s): "The only is that their forefathers

country"

were not regarded as

by

the white
a college
'him,'

founders
American
not to

of

this

(p. 19).

James MacGregor Burns (in

Declaration The first
phisms
. . .

government

textbook): "the

refers to

'men'

women"

or

(p. 73).

and most essential evidence

of

to cite against these entrenched so

is Jefferson's draft

the

Declaration, demonstrating beyond any doubt

Independence
all
wrote

that when the author of the Declaration of

meant all

"all

men,"

he

human beings, certainly

submitted to

including
nature":

black

men.

In this
negro

draft,

which
as

Jefferson

Congress, he explicitly denounced

"human

slavery

violation of the

rights

of

He [the its

king

of

Britain] has
rights to life

waged cruel war against

human

nature

itself, violating

most sacred

and

liberty
and

in the

persons of a

distant

people who

never offended

him, captivating
Determined to
prostituted

carrying

them

hemisphere.
and sold,

keep

open a market where

into slavery in another MEN should be bought

he has

his

negative

prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

for suppressing every legislative attempt to (Jefferson's emphasis, p. 3)

But Jefferson is
meaning. searched
was not

hardly
for

alone; there is

voluminous evidence of

the

Founders'

As Lincoln wrote, before the 1850s the historical in

vain one single
Independence"

record

"may

be

affirmation, from one single man, that the Negro

of

included in the Declaration

and

(p. 35).

Many

of

today's

intellectuals wittingly
to confirm the fact:

unwittingly trace their understanding of this point to

all

the supporters of slavery of the 1830s to 1850s. West cites many other Founders

Certainly

leading

Founders

meant all

human beings

(including
about

nonwhites, women, the poor, and the unfree) when

men"

they

reasoned

"all
and

being

equal; more than this,

they

understood with remarkable of

depth

clarity the many

generations of

moral and political

implications

this idea. It
obscure

has

taken a few

ideologically
recitation

driven scholarship to

this in

controvertible

truth.

Patient

of

the unanswerable evidence may in

another generation or so

bring

the truth back into view.

In light

of the

truth, the task begins to take

stood themselves

understanding the Founders as they under interesting shape. What can it mean, believing
of

450
in
and

Interpretation
understanding equal natural rights as they did, that they held and contin to hold negro slaves? that many of them opposed black citizenship and
that

ued

political equality?

they

supported and encouraged the unequal acquisition

of property, even quest? that

defending

the unequal distribution

they

permitted and

arising from justified property qualifications for

economic,
and
professional

unjust con voting?

that to

they

denied
that

many

political,

opportunities

women?

they

supported

immigration

restrictions

based

on race or national

origin?

West

examines each of these

questions, showing in

each case

how the

Founders

reasoned

from their

principles
moral

often complicated
each

particulars, to

equality judgments and

reasoning

of

and

liberty,

through the

political

decisions. In
of mod

case, West compares the

Founders'

with

the reasoning

ern and

contemporary Founders thought on

authorities.

He takes

particular pains

to discover how the

questions of

race, gender, welfare, property

rights,

and

immigration

which so agitate

the public mind today.

Comparing

the

Founders'

views with the views of the conservatism progress we on these made

New Liberalism
us

and

issues, West invites

in the
past

occasionally to consider how

with current

much moral

have

two centuries.
which characterizes contempo

West finds

coherence

in the New Liberalism

coherence
Founders'

rary scholarly opinion. It is a liberalism of the Founders. The

founded

on

rejection

of the

old

liberalism

viewed

human rights

and

unchanging human nature, whereas the New Liberalism, traceable through Hegel to Rousseau, views man as having no fixed nature,

liberty

as rooted

in

an

being

essentially
man

malleable

(pp. 59-60). From the

point of view

of the

New

Liberalism,
natural

is,

so

to speak, nothing without the state, and there

is

no

limit to

what

the state might make of man, with enough resources and

recognizes and takes advantage of the

enough planning.

West

tions

of modern

scholarship to our understanding of the past, but

many contribu he raises a

more to

genuine question

for

serious students. who

From
urges

whom us

do

we

have

learn:

Historians like Paul Finkelman, "committed 'treason

more against
slavery"

to regard Jefferson as

having

the hopes of the

world'

because he failed to do

to

abolish

(p. 175)? Or the likes

of

Abraham

Lincoln,

who urges:

"All honor to Jefferson

to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle

for

national

independence introduce into

by
a

a single

people, had the coolness,

forecast,

and

capacity to
all

merely revolutionary document, times,

and so to embalm
and a

applicable to all men and all

coming days, it shall be a rebuke bingers of reappearing tyranny and

answer to sons

truth, it there, that today, and in stumbling block to the very har
(p. 175)? West is
assurance.
sure of

an abstract

oppression"

his

this question, and he gives reasons

for his

They

are rea

that inform what one of his teachers has called "the

freedom."

scholarship

of the

politics of

West

shows a

decent

respect

to the opinions

of the

Founders; but

this is

by

no means a slavish consider

pietism; the

founders

themselves would

despise that

and

it

no

foundation for

self-government.

In

manly

spirit of reasonable

Book Review
self-restraint and

45 1
in

self-assertion, West
not the
regard

would agree with

Madison,

who wrote whilst

Federalist 14: "Is it

have
paid a

glory

of

the people of America

that,

they
for

decent

to the opinions of former times and other nations,

they have

not

suffered

blind

veneration

for antiquity, for custom, for the example,

or

names, to overrule their own experience? To this manly spirit posterity will be

indebted for

the possession, and the world

on

of

the numerous

innovations displayed
happiness."

the American theater in favor of private

rights

and

public

INTERPRETATION
A JOURNAL OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Queens College, Flushing, NY 11367-1597 U.S.A. (718) 997-5542

Subscription

rates per volume

(3 issues): individuals $29 libraries and all

students

other

institutions $48

(four-year

limit) $18

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

Postage

outside

mail

.00

Please

print or

type

ORDER FORM FOR NEW SUBSCRIBERS

(NOT I
wish

FOR RENEWALS

CURRENT SUBSCRIBERS WILL BE

BILLED)

to subscribe to INTERPRETATION.
name address
. .

? bill ?

me

student

payment enclosed

ZIP/postcode

air mail

country (if

outside

U.S.)

GIFT SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM

Please

enter a subscription

to INTERPRETATION for
.

student

address

ZIP/postcode

? ?
?

air mail

country (if
from:

outside

U.S.)

bill

me

name

payment enclosed

address

ZIP/postcode

RECOMMENDATION TO YOUR LIBRARY

to: the

Librarian,
that our library subscribe to INTERPRETATION, a journal of polit [ISSN 0020-9635], at the institutional rate of $48 per year (three

recommend

ical philosophy

issues).
signature name

date

position

INTERPRETATION, Queens College, Flushing, New York 11367-1597, U.S.A.

ISSN 0020-9635

Interpretation, Inc.
Queens College

Rushing

N.Y. 11367-1597
U.S.A.

>

r~

03

z
o
3
i

i,
z
o
to

to
~a
o

> H
o
^-1

T3
O

50

21

ft<3
n>

td