No title

:*m a journal of political philosophy summer 1970 IS page I 21 leo strauss alexandre allan jose on kojeve...

Author: Seth G. Benardete (ed)

6 downloads 430 Views 13MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

:*m

a

journal

of political

philosophy

summer 1970

IS page

I

21

leo

strauss

alexandre

allan

jose

on

kojeve

bloom

a.

thomas s. schrock

martinus

hegel, an

benardete

the euthydemus

marx and

Christianity

interpretation

macbeth's

last

considering

of plato's

ion

words

crusoe : part 1

nijhoff, the hague

edited at

queens college of of new york

the

city university

interpretation a

journal

of political

philosophy

editors

seth. g.

hilail

benardete, howard

gildin

hallowell,

erich

interpretation is its

b.

white

executive editor

editors

consulting

John

-

a

hula,

michael

journal devoted

editors welcome contributions

a serious

interest in

political

all manuscripts and editorial

should

be

addressed to

oakeshott, leo strauss, kenneth

to the study

from

all

philosophy

those

w.

of political philosophy.

who

regardless of

take

their orientation.

correspondence

the executive editor

interpretation, 939

madison

subscription

avenue,

new

york,

n.y.

10021,

u.s.a.

price

for institutions

and

libraries $ io; for individuals $8; in connection

subscriptions and correspondence

therewith should

be

sent

to the publisher:

martinus nijhoff 9-

n

lange voorhout,

p.o.b.

269, the

thompson

hague,

netherlands.

ON THE EUTHYDEMUS Leo Strauss

From the Crito we are led to the Euthydemus by the consideration that the Euthydemus contains the only other conversation between Socrates and Kriton. The two dialogues stand indeed at opposite poles. The Euthydemus is the most bantering, not to say frivolous and farcical dialogue while the Crito is the

the Crito is the only dialogue in

most solemn one:

occurs almost a

theophany. Yet there is

two dialogues in regard to

structure.

kinship

a remarkable

In the Euthydemus

there

which

between the

Socrates'

performed

Kriton surrounds and interrupts the conversation, narrated by Socrates, between Socrates, Euthydemos and others. The only other dialogue which has a comparable structure is the Crito in which Socrates' conversation with

performed

conversation

Kriton

with

by Socrates, between Socrates

evoked

The farcical

character of the

with the

fact that Socrates

become

a pupil of

the

surrounds

and

quasi-conversation,

the Laws of Athens.

Euthydemus

stands

in

a superficial contrast

praises therein the

patently absurd and ridiculous "art" Euthydemos' of Euthydemos, not only to face, but in his absence when speaking to Kriton, as very great wisdom; he even expresses his desire to

Euthydemos. Everyone

this is "that customary

irony

Socrates'

his

report about

of

this.

Was Kriton

unaware of

thus the Euthydemus not

Would it thus

I. The

of

Socrates."1

conversation

impervious to it? Would

to us Kriton's most important hmitation?

initial

conversation

(271 opens

Kriton, the direct addressee with Euthydemos, does not say

that irony? Was he

reveal

that

said

But

throw hght retroactively or in advance on the Crito ?

not

prologue: the

Kriton

say, everyone has

wiU

the dialogue

between Kriton

al-273

and

Socrates

d8)

by asking Socrates "Who

was

it, Socrates,

with

Lykeion?"

Kriton is therefore respon yesterday in the for the dialogue's taking place; the dialogue is as it were imposed on

whom you conversed

sible

Socrates. Kriton's

is

.

.

questions.

belonging

to the

that

question

Yet it is sphere of

Socrates

"Who

was

Socrates' .

reminds us of

.

not philosophic

gossip,

of

but

ordinary

rather

"What

"anthropologic,"

curiosity.

Kriton

could

i.e.

hear

conversing with someone, presumably a stranger, Socrates and the man with whom he con but a big standing versed prevented him from seeing everyone and hearing anything distinctly. and see

was

around

crowd

Since the conversation in Socrates

He 1

himself,

could see

Republic 337

we

which

Socrates was

may say that Kriton's

engaged

access

is caUed philosophic by

to philosophy

the man sitting next but one to Socrates on

a4-5.

was

blocked.

Socrates'

right,

Interpretation

2

and

he

boy

reminded

the

could recognize

but the

him

of

his

Kleinias had

boy

sitting between Socrates and that man; the Kritoboulos who is more or less of the same age

boy

son

grown much

lately

is beautiful

and

and good

to

look at, while Kritoboulos is rather defective. We assume then that Kriton's initial question is inspired not by aimless curiosity but by paternal concern for Kritoboulos who gave him cause to worry. This assumption is borne out the end

by

The

dialogue.3

Kriton has

stranger whom

Euthydemos'

Kriton does

for

them

the

of

not

know

quite some

either of

Euthydemos; he had

seen was

who

time. Kriton beheves that

from

not seen

Socrates'

left. had been sitting on has all whereas Socrates known at them

brother Dionysodoros

their

they

are

sophists; he wishes

is ; he does

not ask they certain as to their place of origin but is not Socrates they he knows that they have been tossed around quite a bit among Greeks. As for their wisdom, they are the greatest masters in doing battle, i.e. winning battles, that Socrates has ever seen. Not only can they fight in heavy armor and enable others to do the same ; they are also proficient in doing battle be fore law courts and in teaching others to speak before law courts and to com pose speeches to be delivered before law courts. Above all, they have made themselves masters in the battle of speeches simply : they can refute every

to hear where

how

come

that is said at any time when

speaks of

pay only fighting in heavy

art of

account:

the two

he

regardless of whether

armor.

men

Kriton is

He

poor.

must

not convinced

that

too old for the venture. The

by

Socrates

Kriton.4

uses

his

Socrates

reason

now calls eristics.

art.

they He

becomes

persuade

opportunity for

Socrates'

situation

all means since

Socrates

accept

of

how this

for

difficulty

Socrates

the end of his

himself over to

Kriton to

doing

participate

reverse of

that in the Crito

that the two brothers themselves were already

took up that wisdom grants

in

this.

declining the venture proposed which

he desires

and

of

and which

that he and his hoped for teachers

the two brothers are strangers.

with

to the teacher

pupils.

abihty to teach the

clear at

might

that this must be prevented

They might

even refuse

to

But he has already an experience He is also taking lessons in harp-

as a pupil on this ground.

playing together and

true. Socrates

thought is wise : Socrates seems to be

here is the

become ridiculous to his boyish feUow pupils

by

or

handing They will of course demand pay for it

therefore

an

it is false

brothers'

contemplates

old age as a reason

replies

advanced years when

he

The

for instruction in their

the venture. Kriton gives him

where

the two

speaks of

he declares to Kriton that he

Socrates is

and

wisdom

charge.3

much

thing

and what

by

will

the combination of

can

be

overcome.

boys ; he

got rid of the embarrassment caused

persuading

some

elderly

men

to him

to become his fellow

therefore attempt to persuade some other elderly men

harp-playing

and eristics

is

not suitable

to most people

-

-

to become his fellow pupils at the two brothers'. He begins his attempt with

? 3 4

cf.

Crito 45 b4-6.

cf.

Apol. Socr. 20 b7-8.

Crito 52 el-4, 53 d7-el.

On the Euthydemus

3

Kriton: why does Kriton not go to school with him? As a bait they will take Kriton's sons to the two brothers. Kriton does not reject the proposal. He leaves the decision to Socrates. He surely does not show the eagerness he Crito.5

in the

He wishes to hear first from Socrates what kind of wis learn if Socrates decides on handing himself and Kriton over to the two brothers. Socrates is only too willing to comply with Kriton's wish, i.e. to give a full and truthful, if not verbatim report, of yesterday's showed

dom they

will

conversation.

According to some dressing room, in the httle later, already

and was

got

divine dispensation Socrates was sitting alone in the place in which the conversation was to take place a

already

to leave. Then unexpectedly, when he had

about

up, the customary sign, the

daimonion,

to

occurred

him,

where

he naturally sat down again. According to its wont the daimonion had then warned Socrates against what he was about to do. In so doing however it upon

rendered

inevitable the

sequel nion

Euthydemos

conversation with

imposed

conversation was then

shows, the conversation

on

was

Socrates the

by

opposite

and

the others. The

his daimonion. Yet, as the of compulsory. The daimo

forbade him to leave the

leave the

dressing room, as the Laws forbade him to By forbidding him to leave, the daimonion permitted, nay,

prison.

sanctioned

the conversation that foUowed. No

by Plato has

so

high

an origin.

The high

other conversation presented

origin could

be thought to

explain

why the Euthydemus is so extraordinarily rich in Socratic oaths. Shortly after Socrates had sat down again, Euthydemos and Dionysodoros with a train of many pupils entered without while

later Kleinias

Ktesippos

Socrates

out.6

stood

much; he Kleinias did take grown

he

entered ;

would never

notice of

crates. and

Euthydemos

Kleinias,

Euthydemos

with

their

crowd

II. The first

series

sitting alone,

is in turn

and

help

46 bl.

6

Socrates a8).

needful

of the two

by

the train of Socrates. But most

brothers'

speeches

ones :

they

understand

(273

cl

278 e2)

-

as men wise not

in the

everything pertaining to

for the future good general; they can also enable a man courts if someone wrongs him. One sees at once

speaks of

Kriton

Ktesippos

speaks of

Kleinias

"nature."

Kriton

attracted

whose parts were

himself in the law

6

(273

is

So

center.

things but in the great

war which

to

Diony

and

Dionysodoros

attracts also

bipartite train,

a manner

hurried

and

side when

Socrates introduced the two brothers to Kleinias smaU

that Kleinias had

Socrates'

of pupils

short

whom

that remark to Kriton.

at

lovers,

Kleinias'

obviously Kleinias is the

Socrates. A

deliberation joined Kleinias

many

Socrates. It is in this way that joined only by chance, becomes in

remark

made

down

of

many lovers among

who was still sat

after a short so

by

Kriton's

confirms

barely

who attracts

taking notice

followed

himself have

Socrates

to him at once. Kleinias had sodoros and

was

never speaks of

"being beautiful

and good

in

regard

being beautiful and good in regard to

to his

sight

nature"

(271 b4-5).

Interpretation

4

that the description of the two

Kriton is already considerably We note only that the two

to bean

hkely that

by

of

mastery

to that art than

they teach one how to

to

given

soon

not

the art of generalship: Kriton is less

Kleinias, the

to Kriton that

mentioned

Socrates had

he learned from them

what

speaking to Kriton Socrates had

when

brothers'

aspirant

besides he had

arts which

colored

afterwards. mentioned

brothers'

they

grandson ofAlkibiades

to be dehvered

compose speeches

;

teach their arts for pay and

by others before

if Kleinias keeps his promise, he will not need a speech writer, to introduction met with contempt and say nothing of becoming one. laughter on the part of the two brothers; they teach the things mentioned by

law

courts :

Socrates'

Socrates that

longer

no

they beheve

as serious

but only

as

by-work;

any other human being. What they understand

by

Kriton

acquired power:

about

be it false

This

same.

if

their newly

true and

or

they

is

particular

Socrates

Athens they the

to

is said, time to do the

-

brothers'

The

view of virtue entaUs

in

in forensic

their new possession ; the last time

fighting

rhetoric.

in

that in

We

assume

their present visit but in

claim stated

they

visited

only ; Socrates is now silent on that Socrates had heard of their

armor

during dehberately refrained

hear that

report

can refute whatever

generalship is not virtue, at least not the highest virtue. to be deeply impressed by the claims of the brothers. He

they found

new claims

ias

Socrates'

the highest superiority of a man to others in

case

were experts

expertise

they

from

of

seemed

wondered where

clear

can enable anyone within a short

eristic superiority.

the art

becomes

virtue

proper sense

impossible. For in that speeches

is

is necessarily identical with virtue if virtue is wisdom and knowledge of the most important things -is

power

in the

wisdom

their serious claim now

to be able to transmit virtue better and more quickly than

introducing the brothers to

Klein

from mentioning their highest claim in order to in public by the brothers themselves. Be this as it may,

he then declared that if they truly possess the knowledge, the science, which they claim to possess, he ought to treat them hke gods ; only gods, it seems, could

conceivably give men virtue. But considering the magnitude of the claim unbelief. The brothers were wilhng and even eager

they must forgive

Socrates'

to exhibit their wisdom :

demanded for the present who

lovers

of

lack that

Kleinias

they

-

talked to

would

lookout for

-

he, Kleinias, Ktesippos

sit rather

who wished

be said, jumped up

and

to obstruct

both to

see

took his stand

-

Kriton's

obstruction of

access

to

Ktessippos'

action wall around

his

view of

philosophy.

when

view of

his beloved

opposite

-

the

wiU

be

that aU those

Ktesippos'

both sitting with him; the others comrades did the same. It was then in the first others

prevent

No fee

and aU

far away from Kleinias ;

Kleinias'

,

pupils.

vouched

the other

to acquire it.

Socrates, he happened

thereupon Ktesippos

the

Socrates in his turn

wisdom

wish

Ktesippos happened to mos

were on

exhibition.

and

Socrates

lovers

place

and

and

the

Ktesippos'

not an erotic man).

Kleinias ;

to hear what

his beloved that led to the

(Kriton is

Euthyde

the three brothers'

desire to

blocking

As

of

a result of

the lovers and the pupils together formed a semi-circular

those who are

neither pupils nor

lovers.

On the Euthydemus

Socrates

5

brothers to exhibit their wisdom since everyone brothers' lovers but also the comrades are eager to learn: the brothers have a very large public. His appeal was greeted with great eagerness by Ktesippos and aU the others. Apparently the brothers did present

-

appealed to the

not

not respond

Kleinias'

only

-

immediately. They surely

address them once more. sake

He

asked

them

Socrates the opportunity to

gave

to gratify the others and for his

now

to exhibit their wisdom. He thus indicated that his interest in the

tion differs from the

interest

appears

interest in it taken by the

from the

question

exhibi

The pecuharity of his to the brothers : can they

others.

that he addressed

transmit virtue only to someone who is already convinced that he ought to learn from them or also to someone who is not yet convinced of it because he

does

not

There can

believe that

be taught.

virtue can

be taught

or

that

they

are

teachers

of virtue?

for

believing that Socrates was doubtful whether virtue Certainly the brothers must be able to dispel that doubt; they

are reasons

must possess an art which proves

wondered, that

art will not

the

necessarily

teachability prove

of virtue.

But, Socrates

that the brothers are excellent

of virtue. Dionysodoros assured him that one and the same art dispels both doubts : the teachability of virtue stands or falls by the two

teachers

brothers'

teaching

virtue most excellently.

Dionysodoros'

reply encouraged Socrates to ask him whether the brothers be best, at least of aU human beings living now, at urging people toward love of wisdom (philosophy) and an active concern with virtue.

would not on

He obviously assumed that virtue and wisdom are identical or at least in But it is not clear why he is concerned with exhortation. Perhaps he thinks that exhortation to virtue does not presuppose that the question separable.

regarding virtue's teachabihty be decided

by

means other

than teaching,

Dionysodoros'

either way: even

men must

in the

be

encouraged

if virtue is acquired to strive for it. On

Socrates

asked the brothers replying Kleinias to philosophizing and to caring for virtue: he and lovers desire that the boy, the scion of a blessed house, should become as again

to

affirmative

Kleinias'

exhort

good as most

possible, and

beloved

they fear

that he might be corrupted. The youngest and

group is naturaUy in the geatest danger of being brothers' therefore the fittest object of the exhortation to

member of the

corrupted and

Far from warning Kleinias against the mischief which the two sophists do to him, as he warns Hippokrates against Protagoras, Socrates hands him over to the two sophists for education in virtue or in order to pre vent his corruption. This difference is not sufficiently explained by the facts virtue.

might

that in the case perhaps

of

Kleinias the

Hippokrates is

more

sophists are present and corruptible

than

Socrates is courteous;

Kleinias. We

must also not

forget that Socrates tells the story of Hippokrates to a nameless comrade, while he teUs the story of Kleinias to his old and familiar friend Kriton. concern for Kleinias: he was Euthydemos was not disturbed by Socrates'

not

interested in Kleinias

incorruption ; the only that the

boy be

than that

willing to

laid down

as

thing

Socrates

is,

with a view

to the boy's

virtue or

is necessary according to Euthydemos is (Euthydemos laid down no other condition

which

answer.

by Socrates on other occasions.) Socrates re-assured

him

Interpretation

6

that score. Before he goes on with his report, he expresses to Kriton his ap

on

prehension

that his

brothers : hke Muses

Just

as well.

intervention

of

the

human help. The the

speech of

report might not

a poet

he

must call

as the

dialogue

daimonion, its

narration

is

a

do justice to the amazing

to his

assistance not

have taken

would never

narration

kind

wisdom of

the

Memory but

the

place without

the

only

too is not possible without super

of epic poem

; it is in a way as

poetic as

the Laws in the Crito.

The questioning was begun by Euthydemos who asked Kleinias which human beings are learners, the wise or the unwise? Kleinias was embarrassed turned to Socrates who encouraged him as well as he could. While

and

Kleinias

was

predicted

that whatever the

still

silent,

answered that the wise are

Dionysodoros, he

was

answers were refuted

the equivocity

Dionysodoros, whispering into

ear,

boy would answer, he would be refuted. Kleinias the learners and when he was cross-examined by

forced to

by

Socrates'

admit

that the unwise are the

learners. Both because of

the brothers. The refutation is possible

"unwise"

of

which

may

mean

both

"stupid"

"ignorant"

and

;

the human beings who learn are those who are intelligent and do not

know. The

(yet)

the reasoning was not made clear by Socrates or Socrates merely reports that the refutations were greeted with noisy laughter by the pupils whom he now calls their lovers : from admiration to love there is only one more or less long step. On anyone

character of

else

present.

brothers'

hand, Socrates and the other friends of Kleinias, while filled with for the brothers, were depressed. We on our part can hardly fail

the other

admiration

to notice that each of the two elenchoi looks hke a Socratic elenchos. We may also note that if the fallacy is disregarded, the two refutations prove either that neither the wise nor the unwise

learn, i.e. that learning is impossible, hence presumably that wisdom proper is impossible, and hence that the only wisdom possible is eristics ; or they prove that both the wise and the unwise learn, i.e. while

that wisdom is

being

not

possible

only

but

even most

easy to

acquire:

the best it is the cheapest, hke water (304 b 1-4). The contradic

tion between the two imphcit results leads us to the question as to whether wisdom

is

possible.

There followed a question to on

being

The final

result

leads then beyond

a second round similar

to the

the

brothers'

wisdom.

first; Euthydemos

addressed

Kleinias, Kleinias replied ; Euthydemos refuted the reply and, by Dionysodoros, Kleinias reasserted what he had

cross-examined

answered

first. Yet this time there

Euthydemos

was about to

was

apparently

no

laughter

start a third round when

he

and applause.

was

stopped

by

Socrates. As he tells Kriton, he did not wish that Kleinias be stiU further discouraged. But we must not forget that Socrates was unable to stop the brothers earlier since their perfect teamwork had obviously taken him by surprise.

In the

by which he stopped them and which he addressed in Kleinias, he showed himself a changed man. Gone was the

speech

the first place to

depression which he had felt before and very little remained of his admiration for the brothers. Someone might say that Socrates was never depressed and depressed" that he never admired the brothers. But why did he say "we were and

"we

admired

Euthydemos"?

Why did he

then

identify himself

with

On the Euthydemus Kleinias'

lovers presumed to be

did

and

longer do

no

1 Socrates'

so now?

second round was

hardly more than a repetion of the first surely contributed to the change. full

The

however is that Socrates had understood in the meantime the brothers were about. He explained this to Kleinias in an uninter

explanation

what

rupted

speech

Kleinias

length: the two

of unusual

the Korybantes do to

what

play,

a prelude

must

learn first

the

right use of

but

this is play, enabhng

all

if one has full knowledge

even

best to

of

the

Prodikos

as

sophistry; for

says

boyish

right use of

; in

one

accordance

in this respect;

unawareness

practise

to

doing

to be intiated ; it was a

sacred rites of

words,

Kleinias his

one at

have been

strangers

someone about

to the initiation into the of all

with this the strangers showed

for

be

narrative must

levels. The fact that the

coherent on all

pranks on

people,

words, he will not know

the things a bit better. Socrates comes close to saying to the brothers to their face that they have been practising boyish pranks on Kleinias. The strangers

from

will of course

their art

of

urging

themselves

the same

with

to be

ner one ought

then

now on act

Socrates turned

they

should show

promise

next

urging

Kleinias in

the brothers did

on : although

speeches were serious and

in

to

exhibit

to the brothers what man

concerned with wisdom as well as with virtue.

various manners of

their preceding

reminder:

fulfill their

and

seriously

people on to virtue.

There

not claim

are

that

that those speeches

particular

protrepprotreptic, Dionysodoros at any rate had said that eristics and tics are one and the same art. What he meant can be inferred from what he

were

and

to

his brother did : if virtue is every speech, the

refute

above all

superiority in

mere exhibition of

speeches or

this abihty

the abihty

will urge on

every

Socrates indicated his disagreement

by declaring that he will give the brothers a doubtless poor specimen of what he understands by a protreptic speech. The protreptic speech will no longer be long to the prelude ; it will be part and parcel of the sacred rites of ambitious

youth

toward

virtue.

"sophistry"

in the

wide sense of

that term.

Socrates'

III.

protreptic speech

Now Socrates

asked

Kleinias to

to the brothers he begins

been that their desire for began his correct

He

what

at the

answer

they

regard as a

e2-283

questions.

beginning. The great, if

by inducing

In

brothers'

ambitious, that

potential pupils are

protreptic speech

his

I (278

they

a4) contradistinction

tacit are

premise

filled

the greatest, good.

not

Kleinias to

state

that

with

had the

Socrates

premise and

to

it. him first

asked

or act well.

we need

in

He

whether we

went on

order

human beings

from there to

to do or act

well.

all of us

-

propose a

list

Since he did

-

do

not wish

to do

good

things which

not suggest to

Kleinias any

of

the

only for this reason, one can say that his questions are alternative, wished to encourage Kleinias. Kleinias agreed with every leading; he surely In this made. Socrates point way it was established that first being rich, second and not

being healthy, in

one's

city

beautiful

and

the

are good things.

like,

The

and

finally noble birth, power and honor

order would

be

one of ascent

for

an

ambi-

Interpretation

8

tious human being. Socrates did not ask Kleinias whether he thought the hst

is

complete

hst is did

but he

do

not

raised a question which would permit

While he had divulged his

complete.

so now.

He

asked

the

boy

the

that the

answer

in the former cases, he moderation, justice and cour

own view

whether

not, adding that their being good could be disputed. be disputed on the ground that the only good things are those

age are good things or

It

could

mentioned earher and

that the virtues are not necessarily needed for obtaining

them. Nevertheless Kleinias

Socrates had

asked

him

replied

that the three

virtues are good.

belongs to the

whether wisdom

good

Only after

things and had

reply did he ask him whether in his view the list is that he thought it is. Wisdom apparently belongs to another class complete; of virtues than moderation, justice and courage. But then Socrates suddenly received an affirmative

remembered

the

greatest of all

equal

with

wisdom

is

Socrates

suddenness

fortune,

good

good

goods,

Kleinias

by

therefore of course also

fortune,

understood

changed

his

as even a child would

which

is universally

and

to be the greatest good. Yet mind

by

remembering that

know. But the

child

Kleinias

Socrates'

contention. Socrates made him know; he was astonished by agree with him by showing him that in all cases wisdom makes human beings fortunate. The cases which he mentioned are flute playing, letters, seafaring,

did

not

generalship

Kleinias

In speaking

and medicine.

clearly that the

wisdom

in

question

who was not supposed

the central case he indicated most

of

does

to notice

not always guarantee good

this, did

not notice

luck.

it. We have then

is, humanly speaking, omnipotent. In the Socrates, he and Kleinias eventually agreed together, he did not know how, that in the main a man who possesses wisdom does not in any way reached

the result that wisdom

words of

need good

fortune in

fortune in the

addition.

But if this is so, Socrates'

occupied so conspicuous a place

in

indispensable for

well or

about

what

sense, like wealth, health

wide

doing

or

acting

becomes

list

and which seemed

that Kleinias agreed to these propositions: we are

those goods only if they benefit us, and they benefit merely own them but use them; to convince Kleinias he

drink

and

craftsmen

but

happy.)

goods

be

if we do

not own

or even a slave can

good

fortune is

exphcitly right

use use

use;

is brought of

and

other

by wisdom ;

will not suffice

use

we

do

not

the examples of

is bad,

words, the question arises

needless

inteUigence;

is a

a man

those

Kleinias'

attention

for making

non-use

is

figuring

in the

whether

to say, the question was not

a man

to the fact that the

happy;

the use

must

bad;

right

neither good nor

wrong by knowledge. Knowledge then brings

the good things

benefitted than

used

materials might act well

about

possession whatever

wisdom,

on account

only if

them and therefore whether a wise man who is poor

be happy; in

things

while

happy

us

question arises whether we can use

Instead Socrates drew

mere use of good

be

using their tools

Here the

guaranteed

raised.

to be

then of a craftsman's (a carpenter's) tools and materials.

and

(He implied that would not

the goods of

for happiness? Socrates brought it

of

food

of

and political power which

beginning

of

about the right

the previous hst. No

any benefit if its use is not guided by prudence, man possessing httle but using it intelligently is more possessing much but using it without intelligence; of

On the Euthydemus hence

intelligence is better

a man without

off

9

if he is deprived

things previously listed than if he possesses them, for rather than rich, weak rather than strong, obscure

When Socrates man or a

gence, Kleinias

better

asked next who would and

coward,

off

therewith

"the coward",

rephed

do less,

which of the

i.e.,

of

the good

instance, if he is than

rather

poor

honored.7

a courageous and moderate

two is better off without intelli

the coward

than the courageous man without

without

intelhgence is

intelhgence; Socrates

gave

Kleinias no opportunity to decide whether the unintelligent man is better off if he is moderate or if he is immoderate. He gave him even less opportunity to decide whether the

unjust;

is better

unintelligent man

off

if he is just

or

if he is

the analogy of the other cases the answer would have to

judging by

be that he is better

off if he is unjust. But this thought verges on the absurd. better to say that justice seems to be the only good, the only virtue that is beneficent (on the whole) even if not guided by intelhgence, perhaps

It is

much

because the laws the

man

the just

which

himself.8

Accordingly

man obeys

supply the lack

Socrates'

abstraction

be tantamount to

an abstraction

in the Euthydemus

as

of

the purpose of bringing

honor

out

or

exhort

Socrates and

This

to the practice

-

virtues,9

served

unique significance of wisdom : wisdom

is

only the

not

greatest good

presence of wisdom and purpose

is

the

; it is the sole

guidance

most appropriate

in

and

-

by it

are

the

a speech meant

to

of wisdom.

summarized

drew the

the

glory

good; only through the other goods good.

would

from law ; he surely is silent about the laws distinguished from the Crito. Be this as it may, the ruth

less questioning of what Aristotle would have called the moral of course not

inteUigence in

from justice here

the

result of

to

conclusion

which

his preceding Kleinias

conversation with

assented that

every

Kleinias

man must

in every way to become as wise as possible. In particular he must beseech his lovers, nay, every human being to let him partake of wisdom, strive

doing every menial service which is not base in return. Kleinias whole heartedly agreed. Only one difficulty remained: they had not investigated gladly

whether wisdom

Speaking in opinion

that

long inquiry

hvely

wisdom

manner

alone reached agreement on

than ever

is teachable. This

before, Kleinias

pleased

Socrates

altogether on our wisdom and

Compare

point.

since

it

saved

his

him

a

this subject; he did not say that he and Kleinias have reached it. Socrates drew the final conclusion that since our happiness

if virtue

can

learning, striving for wisdom, philosophizing is the

'

this

proclaimed

on

agreement on

depends

is teachable, let

a more

what

Socrates

explains

to Kriton's

son

be

acquired

one

thing

by learning,

needful.10

Kritoboulos in the first

chapter of the

Oeconomicus. 8

That justice in

contradistinction

important ingredient

of

the first

to

courage and moderation cannot

paragraph of

Cf. Republic 491 b7-10 of Morals. (and context). c7-dl 619 Republic -

physics 9 10

Kleinias'

threefold use of

of that use of vocatives that

is

"O

Socrates"

prompted

by

be

misused

is

an

the text of Kant's Foundations of the Meta

and

(280

Meno 88

d4,

a6-e4.

282 c4,

self-confidence.

d3) is

a

very

obvious example

Interpretation

10

brothers'

The

sible and

to be

is properly taken by eristics. Socrates seemed wisdom is teachable; it is not clear whether that place

the possibihty

affects

Kleinias

imply

to

seems

of wisdom.

Yet the reasoning

to

addressed

that in order to be wise one must know all the arts,

this does not seem to be

be impossible. Socrates different from "moral

that wisdom proper is impos

speech was

therefore that its

uncertain whether

doubt

and

the two

premise of

and

for any

possible

the brothers

But

virtue".

as

man; thus

one

to

agree as

is indicated

the honorable services which the beloved

boy

wisdom would

being

virtue proper

Socrates'

by

reference

may do in

order

to

to acquire

wisdom, Socrates admits that there is some awareness of the honorable which antedates the acquisition of wisdom. His doubt of the teachabihty of

may be

wisdom

connected with what

in regard to luck

power of wisdom

ly

"wellborn"

Socrates

in

order

philosophy.

He

to learn

layman

he

whether

happy

of

by discussing

knowledge

and a good man needs

toward

on

inadequacy

craftsmen what

exhibition

every branch

must acquire

to be

wishes

them to repeat as

to continue his

or else

in urging Kleinias

success

to the brothers for the

apologized again

protreptic speech and asked a

wisdom.

his

with

pleased

was

he intimated regarding the limited ; perhaps one must be particular

or chance

of

his

he had done with

as

Kleinias

or whether one who

to acquire a single branch of

knowledge only and what this branch is. He also reminded them again of how important it is to him and the others that Kleinias should become wise and good.

This

was

the

turning

addressing Kriton

and

attention what would

would

lay

hold

on

Kleinias toward

IV. The It

could

brother

the

in

of the

they

years

speeches

a good omen

from

boyhood,

speech was

no

longer

said.

He

disbelief in their

(283

that it was who

by

exhorting

a5-288

d4)

Dionysodoros,

started

the

the

conversation.

to hear something extraordinary

were

as an exhortation toward

extraordinary Kleinias

addressed asked

seriousness

nor

did he pay any regard lovers whether

Kleinias'

Socrates

in wishing Kleinias to become

are serious

out

the brothers

what manner

would start their

brothers'

expectations

Socrates had

brothers'

observing in

next and

others'

Dionysodoros

what

they

central series

disappointed: the

virtue.

to

happen

the speech and from where

be thought to be

and

in the dialogue. Socrates brings this

stating to him that he was watching with the greatest

wisdom and virtue.

remotest

Socrates'

not

point

and wise.

Thinking

that it

was

the

that had induced them to proceed so

and fearing a repetition, Socrates assured them emphat ically of their seriousness. This is all that Dionysodoros needed for his refuta tive speech : desiring that Kleinias become wise means desiring that he cease

playfully before

to be the one he is

lovers

you are!

exhortation

be

to

now

-

Whatever virtue

that he

cease

else might

it is indeed

to

be

-

that he perish ; fine

have to be

said about

Dionysodoros'

extraordinary.

understood as a most shameless admission of

friends

and

this speech, as an

thesis

the worst crime

could

imputed to

11

On the Euthydemus

in wisdom is corruption of the young (see 285 bl). Or did Dionysodoros think that his speech was protreptic since it refuted Socrates and lovers and thus enabled Kleinias to recognize the two brothers

sophists: education

Kleinias'

the true teachers

as no

longer

We

might

have

Was this the

of wisdom?

addressed

why he

reason

that Socrates

expected

Dionysodoros for

would rebuke

continuing with his boyish pranks. He failed to do so. This fact is able importance for the understanding of the dialogue as a

brothers

speeches of the

Kriton that he

are

contemplates

Kriton

he

ridiculous and yet

obviously

becoming

Kriton to join him. Of the first words that

their

pupil and

series of speeches

could not take them seriously.

beginning

near the

the dialogue

of

taken on a serious turn. We must watch to

of consider

to

says

he even tries to induce

Socrates

in

said

so

many

as stated to

only if at one point to be playful and

makes sense

ceased

how this

see

The

whole.

Socrates

His final judgment

the conversation with the brothers had

or another

his brother

and

Kleinias himself?

change came about.

philosophizing is learning to die? The obvious reason for his failure to rebuke Dionysodoros for his levity is that before he could say anything, Ktesippos vented his anger and indignation: Dionyso

Did Socrates

doros hed

by imputing by

about,

a

or

say, only

that

angered

would always

would

be

such an

or

refuted

is

what

to lie. Ktesippos

him

wise and

or

must

have

tacitly that

said

reasoning

all men

valid,

speak

all men

;

for wishing that Kleinias should disconcerted by the refutation. He granted

but

are

say the truth. It Dionysodoros.

by

questioned

next

lead to the

conclusion

the truth. Euthydemos

was

not as

this

they

are.

He

presupposition

of

hot

men?

expedient rejected

of

on

the

ground opposite

if the

gentlemen

beings; do they

human

Whereupon Ktesippos

them that

they frigidly

round ended

the

wished

then clearly

the better

of

their

perdition of

with a

wisdom.

later the At this juncture Socrates In

those of

order

to

converse.

whom

he

the brothers:

It was to be

was

rephed:

they

expected

speak

by

was

big frigidly

ill

men of no

abuse; Ktesippos so

rudely

cherishes most.

said

This

Ktesippos'

manliness

that the sophists

hot-tempered young

Ktesippos, he

speak

of

The brothers had

forced to intervene in

appease

bigly

Dionysodoros had

susceptibilities of a

arouse sooner or

conflagration.

defeat

one advanced

say the truth, they also speak

complain about

complaint as unfounded since

that Ktesippos

to the

gentlemen as well as other men speak

left but for Dionysodoros to

that

argument

that all men always think or say the untruth,

rejoined:

things and of evil

hotly

the frigid and say

got

explicit

conclu

no need

Euthydemos.) Ktesippos contended that of evil

were

think or

they

one can

i.e. that wisdom is impossible

and

one can speak

is not; he led up to the the truth when he drew the

whenever

it is

affir

(Dionysodoros'

was

would

in the

Euthydemos'

be

would

that

was not

opinion

replied of course

become wise.) Ktesippos was not that Dionysodoros said somehow the things that presupposed

in his

by starting from the fact that

say the truth

there

Euthydemos

whether

and not what

Ktesippos. (If

think

wish.

unholy

outburst; he asked him

falsehood

that Dionysodoros

result

sion

to say

Euthydemos

mative.

to him

Ktesippos'

intimidated possible

consider that

order

forced to

would

gentleman.

to

prevent a

speak

to him

Interpretation

12 playfully : far from

being

able

to blame the brothers for what could seem to

be their continuing playfulness, the extreme seriousness of the situation that had arisen between Ktesippos and Dionysodoros forced him to become playful himself. He alluded to the fact that the issue was still merely verbal: the strangers insist on calling education

to

in ordinary parlance is called they know how to destroy human beings

corruption what

virtue and wisdom

; if

to make them good and sensible out of bad and senseless, let them

so as

destroy Kleinias

him

and make

sensible and

let them do the

same

to all

of us;

but if the young are afraid, let the strangers make their dangerous experiment on old Socrates. Therewith Socrates handed himself over to Dionysodoros to do to him

sophists of which

he

has already taken

place

himself to the

doings

to Kriton

to some

handing himself over to the being contemplated by him only, day before, and it took place then

as of

the

extent

Ktesippos'

wrath against

the sophists.

that generous youth, could not stay behind old Socrates and

Ktesippos, their

Socrates'

pleased:

speaks

to appeasing

with a view

offered

he

whatever

strangers

for anything they

in him

would end

becoming

might

do to him

provided

He denied

altogether virtuous.

Dionysodoros : he only contradicted him. As if he had learned Prodikos, he pointed out that contradicting and abusing are two different things. The somewhat dangerous incident thus ended in perfect

being angry

at

something from

reconcihation

between Ktesippos

fact that Socrates

Dionysodoros. We

and

must not overlook

exclusively by influencing Ktesip speaking of contradicting, by taking it for granted that contradicting is possible, Ktesippos offered a flank to Dionysodoros. The fact that Dionysodoros and Ktesippos contradicted one the

estabhshed concord

pos : the sophists were not angry.

another

By

regarding contradicting was somehow noticed by Ktesippos. But reduced him to silence. He did this by making use of the same

Dionysodoros point case

formerly

lacked the

Socrates

used

for showing the impossibility of lying ; but the present for anger or indignation which the former had.

potential

was astonished

by

Dionysodoros'

argument.

doros, he was always astonished at that particular it from many before him. It

many times

people and

astonished

-

As he told Dionyso

argument

for he had heard

it

and even people

Protagoras

used

him because it is incompatible

with

the

claim of

the

it. If it is impossible to lie, to say or think a falsehood, aU men are wise, and there is no need for teachers hke the brothers. While Socrates expounded this argument, Euthydemos took the place of his brother. So it happened that it was Euthydemos, the wisest or cleverest of the brothers, men who use

Socrates

whom

easily

decisively

remain unnoticed.

refuted.

The decisive

Socrates did

not put

character of

this event could

the slightest emphasis on his

and as for Euthydemos having been reduced to silence we can only infer it from the fact that Dionysodoros took the word again immediately afterwards. He blamed Socrates for reminding the brothers of something

victory

which one

they had said

time (272

earher: their claim that

bl) is

game which as such

As

appears

to be taken

is

quite

constituted

from the sequel,

they

can refute what

literally. Eristics,

by

certain

another rule of

mental

is

said at

any

wrestling, is a

arbitrary but inviolable

this kind which Socrates

rules.

unwit-

On the Euthydemus transgressed is that he

tingly his

of

is

who

who

is

questioned must not

Socrates bowed to this

own.

13

reply

with questions

the explicit ground that a man

rule on

regarding speeches determines reasonably whether to Despite his compliance Socrates succeeded in refu

altogether wise

answer questions or not.

ting Dionysodoros

and in fact the two brothers on fundamentally the same before. This time Socrates put the proper emphasis on his victory. But this had the embarrassing consequence that Ktesippos became very abusive so that Socrates had to calm him again. The net result was therefore

ground as

again

Socrates'

that

Socrates

he had

which

being

not

but

on

by

could

a consideration

Kleinias

He

earher.

resembles

spoke again of

the

one

Socrates

to imitate Menelaos

ought

sophist

Proteus, Ktesippos

forced Proteus to

who

reveal

Needless to say, Socrates will not use force. He proposed that he tinue his protreptic speech : perhaps the brothers will from compassion secret.

his

by

the brothers

the other hand he studiously avoided the word brothers' spoke to Ktesippos of the witch

Since the brothers imitated the Egyptian

craft.

remain unnoticed.

easily

that

derivatives from it. He

and

and

encouraged

serious

"play"

brothers

refutation of the

Ktesippos

calmed

serious endeavor

V.

Socrates

be

II (288 d5-290 e8)

protreptic speech

Kleinias to

Kleinias'

remind

him

of where

they left

off

but,

without

so, did the reminding himself: he had no faith Or did he have too great faith in it? They had finaUy

doing

Kleinias'

memory.

agreed, he said, that

with

themselves.

serious

Socrates'

asked

waiting for in

his

con

one must philosophize.

speaking they had

Strictly

not

this since it followed from the premise, regarding which Socrates suspended had judgment, that wisdom is teachable. Be this as it may, philos agreed on

ophy is the their

acquisition of

earlier

edge which

do

not entail

knowledge in

of how

to

thing

make a

to

use that

our

between Socrates

and

not accompanied

cient

for

that Socrates

it

knowledge? Not remembering that kinds of knowl

as possible

the knowledge concerned could be

something

(production) coincide.

by

not accompanied

happiness had become

Kleinias;

by

corrected

how to

imphcit in the

was

in his

which consists

of

of

make

in the

how to it

abstraction

of

use a

or procure

earher exchange

from the

how to

criterion

thus

estabhshed

art of making speeches and

brothers that

ing

on

before

the

;

are

eristics.

Kleinias

thing

of the

suggestion

i.e., the

which

it is insuffi

power of chance.

rejected

it

one could

the defect

examined at

then the art of generalship,

lower than

ground

they

use

earlier exchange

Socrates'

the

kind

of

knowledge

second protreptic speech

in the

of a

something and the That knowledge as to how

clear

that knowledge

knowledge

happiness

our

the defect

is

which

is insufficient for is

good use of

both the making

which

knowledge

the

of which

regarded

They agreed thereafter that they are in need

the desired knowledge. of

knowledge:

discussion Kleinias

say first -

Using

first the

the two arts of the art of speech mak

that those who make (i.e. write) speeches to be delivered

courts of law and the

hke do

not

know how to

use

them: even

regard-

Interpretation

14 speeches the art of

ing

What is

least

at

making them

important

as

it

new self-confidence with which Kleinias'

men

but he

happy

marvelous

not

art,

was made

main point that

agreed with

claimed

the art of using them are different. judgement is the amazing, the wholly

and

as this

young Kleinias. Socrates

by

the art of speech making

far inferior to the

art of the enchanters

is

pressive

firm

not make

(We

verdict.

must not

; it bewitches crowds

hke. All the

as the enchanters bewitch snakes, tarantulas and the Kleinias'

does

that he had had great expectations from it: it is a

an ambiguous expression: the art of

speeches"

of

making Socrates

that

is

is inseparable from the

possesses

im

more

forget however that "the

art

speeches

making using them.) Socrates

art of

hkely to make its possessor happy. by Kleinias: generalship is an art of

turned then to generalship as an art most

This

firmly hunting is

rejected

proposal was again

hunting but

no art of

astronomers, and

do

calculators

using; for

an art of

not make

discover them, and since they do not know how to their findings over to the dialecticians for use. For this or

Socrates very

praised

by

did

say

not

a word

true, dialectics, of

highly

as

-

highly

to the effect that if

being

did therefore

praise

went on

encouraged,

pohtical men.

But

produce or

hunt

being aware

of it

pohtics

since

what

he

hand

nothing to the

said

pohtical

context of

science.

(or

was

Socrates

unqualifiedly but only an art

The ironical

quite obvious.

generals

they know how

that the

Within the

either.

to say that the

or after.

statement were

become

not

but find

Kleinias

remark

before

geometers, use

them, they hand

nor a productive art

using, could not possibly be the desired

his high

as never

use

they

Kleinias'

hunting

neither a

instance,

the figures which

over

effect

Kleinias, obviously

their conquests to the

that the pohtical

to use, he seems to

kingly)

art

character of

imply

men

without

too is not the desired

science

the discussion the defect of dialectics and of

(to say nothing of speech writing) cannot but redound to the benefit And that defect was due to the use of a criterion estabhshed by

of eristics.

Socrates.

V.

The

a.

central conversation

Kriton suddenly interrupts

between Socrates

and

Socrates'

narrative.

Kriton (290

The

reason

el-293

a8)

for this is

not

that he is greatly concerned about the desired science but that he is concerned about

his

Socrates'

sons

;

glowing

his domestic difficulty. But he finds

comfort

Kleinias'

answers of

becoming

report about

Kleinias has

him

of

assistance or serious resistance

in his unbehef; he is certain that is a complete falsehood. He is then Socrates'

aware of

reminded

Socrates'

without

irony

in any

point.

Socrates'

report about

by

no means

Socrates

admits

incapable that Klei

Ktesippos may not have given the clever answers that he ascribed to Kleinias but he insists on not having given them himself; he claims to have nias or even

heard them is

of

perhaps

from

some

higher being. Kriton's

reaction

to this

claim

the same force as if he had said in the Crito that not the laws but Socra

tes had made that impressive speech. Socrates provoked Kriton's interven

tion

by his

unfounded praise of

Kleinias in

order

to put a stop to Kriton's

On the Euthydemus

hesitation to Kriton

his

send

to some teachers

sons

takes it for

now

granted

15

of wisdom.

that youths

As

a matter of

fact

Socrates'

not as advanced as Euthydemos'

fictitious Kleinias might be benefited by becoming pupils. Kriton's interest is not exhausted by his interest in Kleinias ; he is also interested in the subject matter of the conversation ; he is interested to know the sequel of

Socrates'

Kleinias

protreptic conversation with

they found

whether

the art

they

looking

were

for.

Limiting

and especially himself to the

important, Socrates tells him what happened to them when they exam kingly art which is the same as the political art; the term "kingly

most

ined the art"

is

perhaps preferred

because it

the art in question. The

of

things useful. Yet

all other arts makes all

what the work of

the

kingly

corresponds

art seemed

to the splendor, the claim

to them the art which

they

hard

were

put

by ruhng to it to tell

kingly art is. At this point Kriton has become

in the conversation, Kriton have reacted to pant

it were,

as

a partici

Kleinias. (How

at the side of

Socrates'

protreptic questions

would

if he had been in the

Kleinias?) While he knows quite well what the work of his art the farming is, he is as unable as Kleinias to tell what the work of the

place of art of

-

-

kingly art is

or what good

that there is no

it transmits. But Socrates

but

other good

some

things as freedom of the claim to be the work the premises agreed upon

of

follows that the

wisdom makes men

(produces) Kriton upon

Socrates

kingly

kingly

art

guarantees

and

something

it

art must make

happy. The

Kleinias had

of

agreed

such good

the pohtical art; in the light

Kleinias, freedom as such is speak of the kingly art.) It like

and

bad. (Hence it is better to

neither good nor wise

by

and

knowledge. This deprives

the human beings wise, for only

is then

an art which

the good

use

of

both

that

"makes"

something.

necessary to make clear that these things were agreed Socrates and Kleinias: we do not know where Kriton stands. At any

regards

by

rate there

is

agreement

transmitting

all

Kriton is

bad. But in

what will

he is

not affected

predicament could

despair he

and

caUed on

curious

Kriton

as

products of all arts other

the

by

be

it

and

to the

than the

kingly art not kingly art are

kingly art make the human beings

Kriton knows that Socrates

wise and good? predicament :

between Socrates

arts, for the

neither good nor

how that

as

and

he has

overcome.

Kleinias

were

no suggestion

to

in

a great

make as

to

Socrates tells him that in his

the two brothers for

to hear

whether

help, urging them to be serious. Euthydemos helped Socrates and Kleinias :

noticed the superiority of Euthydemos to Dionysodoros ; he has be wisdom. mildly interested in effort to determine the science which makes human beings happy

he has

Euthydemos'

come

Socrates'

has

his to

ended critics

in

guide men

for that what

11

complete

failure. He has

that he was most

to

it:11

he

proved

wisdom which makes

that

wisdom

confirmed

by deed the view of some

of

in exhorting men to virtue but not able to be excellent in exhorting Kleinias to strive

excellent

is. Someone

human beings might

happy but

say that the

was unable

predicament arises

Xenophon, Memorabilia I 4. 1 (Plato, Clitopho 410 b4 ff.).

to tell

solely

Interpretation

16 from the desired

almost complete

But then

art or science.

dialogue to the benefit

of eristics.

his action, one in the

redounds

But why is

series

to

came

In

art, he

which

asked

words, he

other

assistance

he

Kleinias

and

that Socrates is

knows a

some

knowing

him

whether

were

omniscient.

know

ment

but he

Socrates

everything.

by

showed

brothers

any

with

knowing

on

If

we still remember

the basis of

claim

oath.

to

art,

admission made sure

omniscience

;

aware of

this

raised

they, nay, admission

be inclined

kingly art is

that the brothers

as a consequence

claim, he demanded

made

we might

the

he

Instead he tried to

to admit that

Dionysodoros

Dionysodoros'

When Ktesippos became

Dionysodoros'

art:

kingly

being

to this monstrous argu

art.

the

man;

Euthydemos'

by compelling them

democracy. Socrates

raising the

his only

ado.

regarding

the same time ; hence he

man at

Euthydemos'

everything.

science

long time by proving

foUows. Socrates admittedly

raised no objection

because he had learned

questioning on the he does not know.

that

such a

deed that he had learned

human beings too know

ible

proceeded as

things, however trivial; he is he cannot be a non-knowing

turn the tables on the

to say that

He

which

therefore a

no objection

without

for

a predicament

question on

Socrates'

possesses

man

must

all

in

b5)

a8-304

by putting

there is anything

that Socrates

proved

the

Socrates'

Socrates'

the broadest possible basis. Instead of continuing

kingly

be inclined to say

circumstances of

(293

speeches

of the

will

to be benefited?

eristics

brothers'

VI. The final Euthydemos

of

from dialectics

abstraction

dialectics : dialectics is obviously the why Socrates abstracted

of

one must explain

Looking at the result

from dialectics. that the

disregard

compat

were serious

Dionysodoros here

the

a massive proof:

in

used

exorbitant character of

does

each of

the broth

know how many teeth the other has? The brothers refused to comply with this demand since they beheved that he was poking fun at them: they

ers

did

not appeal

to the

rules of eristics since

regarding the many

questions

skills

they

however

were eager

lowly they

to

answer

possessed.

any

Socrates

intervened

by appealing from Dionysodoros to Euthydemos. Euthydemos keeping Socrates properly obedient to the rules of eristics de knowing that Euthydemos wished to entrap him in merely verbal

succeeded spite

his

in

snares, i.e. despite his reahzing the unserious

for he master

was

already

resolved on

in the dialectical

Socrates

asked

becoming

character of the

the pupil of

proceedings,

Euthydemos,

of

that

the true dialectics was completely forgotten. Euthydemos to begin his questioning again from the start.

Thereupon Euthydemos means of something.

art:

asked

Socrates

him

he knows

whether

rephed :

yes,

by

what

he knows

by

This reply been asked

means of the soul.

in conformity with the rules of eristics, for he had not he knows. When Euthydemos pointed this out to him, Socrates became properly apologetic which did not prevent him from making

was not

by

means of what

a similar mistake

as

acting the

immediately

afterward.

part of a rather slow pupil

-

Socrates of a

presents

Strepsiades

himself to Kriton

as

it

were. Accord-

17

On the Euthydemus

ingly, he

led to

was

child, when he

had of

come

was

admit

born,

that he

into being. Socrates

recollection; it is a

he

all things: when

conceived, before heaven

was

was a

and earth

taught a caricature of the doctrine

being

was

caricature of

knew

always

he

when

that doctrine especiaUy

since

it is

silent on

the soul as well as on learning. Euthydemos concluded his argument

asserting that Socrates Euthydemos'

pleasure.

by

know everything in the future, if this is This is perfectly reasonable given his premises: only will also

(or thinks) is or will be, but since genuine wisdom is not pos place its is taken by eristics so that only what is upheld by the master of sible, that art is or will be. what

he

says

Socrates

by asking him how he, Socrates,

tried to entrap Euthydemos

next

knows that the

good men are unjust:

if Euthydemos (we

should remember

the

regarding justice) grants that Socrates knows it, he says something revolting; if he denies that Socrates knows it, he denies omniscience which he had been at such great pains to estabhsh. Dionysodoros

difficulty

previous

Socrates'

into the trap

walked was

openly

preferring the alternative that is not shocking; he by his brother, so much so that he blushed.

by

for this

rebuked

When Socrates thereupon had

doros, is and

asked

Euthydemos

Euthydemos'

brother

and

Euthydemos'

to forgo

answer

forced him to

whether

mistake, Dionysodoros quickly

not made a

admit

his

omniscient

thus forced him to

brother

he, Dionyso

asked whether

this

answer

question

to his own question. The brothers

that he is fatherless. This

gave

Ktesippos

finaUy

an occasion

to

by bringing up the question of the broth gladly admitted that his father, being father,

intervene. He tried to turn the tables ers'

father. Yet Euthydemos

was a were

father

of all men and aU

to Ktesippos that

father. (Socrates not own a

while

human

by beating

his

dog

who

escaped

the part of

Socrates, but

father

to Euthydemos

Ktesippos

as well as

turn, proved is his, he beats his only because he did

and

the

help

"having

of mythological examples.

successfully

as a teacher of

tempted to say that

father-beating

Socrates

of an argument

his

in favor

nature.

of

first

inter

that no

is foUowed reasonable

He defended the

case

for

"father-

the Clouds where Socrates is pre

extremely continent. One is Euthydemos as a caricature of the

could not

continence,

Ktesippos

an

and as

presents

Aristophanean Socrates. Socrates

to

Dionysodoros. The themes

also against

remind us of

and

not

"father-beating"

refuted

"continence"

beating"

led

telling Ktesippos

Euthydemos'

more"

by

a

being needs many good things : the theme

contention with

sented

is

the charge of

the theme "continence". Ktesippos

role

he himself

father-beating dog.) A somewhat insulting reply of Ktesippos

vention on

by

beasts

the brothers of puppies and the hke. Dionysodoros on his

possibly have been the

while

Ktesippos

was also successful

was

addressee

fitted for this

in his ensuing

argument

brothers, so much so, that Kleinias was greatly pleased and laughed. As Socrates teUs Kriton, he suspects that Ktesippos owed his success in the with

last

the

argument

to his

having

overheard

the brothers

discussing it

among

wisdom."

themselves, "for no other human being now hving possesses such When Socrates asked Kleinias why he laughed about such serious and beautiful things, Dionysodoros asked Socrates whether he had ever seen a

Interpretation

18

beautiful thing. He thus introduced the

fact that

the

this

view

great

theme of the

beauty

some

become Dionysodoros

by referring to the fact that Socrates does not being present with him and repeated

Dionysodoros'

by

incisive

more

the

relation of

beauty itself; according to Socrates things are beautiful by is present with each of them. Dionysodoros refuted

beautiful things to

how

manner:

his

the different be different

can

in this

question

by

the presence of

Dionyso the different with the different? While pretending to be surprised by doros' of predicament which Dionysodoros himself traced to the non-being the beautiful

brothers

Socrates

itself,

was

trying

already

to imitate the

he longed for it. He imitated that

since

the

wisdom of

to his

wisdom

satisfaction

ideas"

but admitted of thus and only thus defended "the doctrine of the dialectical craftsmen of excellent course that otherwise the brothers are and

art which as

art

every

an occasion

to

off its pecuhar work.

finishes

his

perform another of

This

gave

Dionysodoros Socrates

verbal somersaults which

own?"

praises

This he

as the

question or exclamation

understands

beings

hving the

gods.

by

are

But

become my induced Dionysodoros to ask Socrates "wiU this

peak of wisdom:

his

his

what

own.

wisdom ever

Somewhat rashly Socrates

own which

he may sell,

then is the status of

give

agreed

away,

what

that only those

or sacrifice

Socrates'

ancestral gods?

to any of

Obviously

Socrates may give them away, seU them, or sacrifice them to any of the gods pleases. Socrates was knocked out and left speechless. Euthydemos had given him the knock out blow. The brothers acted hke caricatures of Socra

he

tes'

accusers :

to

come

clowneries

seriously accuse him. Ktesippos who had tried to fell an easy victim to another of help with the words "the two men are unbeat the struggle up

they did

Socrates'

; he

gave

not

Dionysodoros'

able."

The This

whole show

had

ended with

the complete victory of the brothers.

Euthydemos'

was

the view not merely

of

Kleinias and, above all, of Socrates as human beings. Overwhelmed by their He

praised

to the

them

great men who are

to

advantage, as

deed

everyone

selves

initiating and

to silence

art

to

to

with

around

by denying

is

speeches

Socrates ;

they

by

unfair

praises the reduce

in

but they thus reduce them cannot be resented. Finally, they

that anyone can learn it

carries with

meant

to their art; Socrates

He

refuted

the obvious

such a perfection

which

more ashamed

the awareness of

second ground on which

fact, it is true,

exhibition,

people

Turning

be

this kind than to be

has nothing to do

from the

pubhc exhibitions.

Kleinias

aU other men would

speeches are popular or popuhst and gentle

time. This

single pubhc

;

of speeches of

too to silence, so that their

short

from

help

of shame

have brought their very

the group

never seen so wise

place

speeches

the

appears

brothers : their

of

brothers'

refute others with

them. This sense

lovers but

Socrates had

wisdom he turned to praising them. for their indifference to the many as well as thought to be something; only the few who resem

in the first

ble them hke the

well:

concluded

to

allure

advised

by

within a

it the inconvenience that paying pupils,

suffices

them therefore to

asking the

brothers to

a

for

abstain

accept

him

as pupils.

Kriton, he

encourages

him to join him (and

Kleinias)

in going

19

On the Euthydemus to

the

school at

fee, not Kriton, the of a

brothers'

:

the only condition laid down

natural gifts nor youth

brothers'

; and

instruction does

by them is a payment

is especially important for in any way interfere with one's

what

not

money-making.

VII. The

the final conversation between Socrates and Kriton

epilogue:

(304 h6-307 c4) Socrates'

Kriton pohtely declines suggestion: he belongs to those who be refuted by Euthydemian speeches than refute other men with

would rather

their help. Aware of the difference of rank between himself and regards

it

improper

as

or ridiculous

to

him for his

rebuke

Socrates, he hkes but he

strange

from teiUing him what he was told by somebody else. Quite he met a man who had heard the exchange of speeches a man

cannot abstain

by

accident

with a

-

high

opinion of

That

speeches.

fended the

man

brothers'

his

wisdom and who

is

in

clever

to forensic

regard

had nothing but contempt for the brothers. Kriton de doings against him with the words "but philosophy is brothers'

something graceful", i.e. he took it for granted that the phUosophic. His nameless informer also disapproved toward the

conduct

Kriton

repeats

his disagreement

brothers'

with

Socrates is

he knows to

with

would

have been

absurd

ashamed of

the unqualified disapproval

him.

of

the

but he feels that Socrates is to be blamed for publicly

speeches

disputing

brothers; Kriton

speeches are Socrates'

of

them.

unable what

to reply properly to this detractor of philosophy before

kind

of man

he belongs. He learns from Kriton that he

composes speeches to be dehvered

by

Men

orators proper.

of

this kind be

long according to Prodikos and according to Socrates to the borderland between the philosophers and the politicians and regard themselves as superior

grate of

to either ; in order to be recognized universally as such,

the

philosophers:

Euthydemian

the greatest threats to their

art as philosophy.

mely and

wise

because they

partly in

Socrates

speeches.

demos'

The

Kriton in

they deni

the masters

describing Euthy

in

question regard

themselves as supre

in the

proper measure

partly in philosophy

men

partake

agrees with

renown are

Socrates'

pohtical matters.

judgment

on

them is based on this

everything that is between two things and participates in both is inferior to the better and superior to the worse, if one of the two things is good and the other bad; if the two things are good and directed toward principle:

different

ends the

thing participating in both is inferior

to both in usefulness

in question; if the two things are bad and directed toward differ ent ends, the thing participating on both is superior to both. Hence if both philosophy and pohtical action are good but directed toward different ends, for the

as

ends

the borderland

philosophers and and

the

repeats

that

people cannot

pohtical art

the

radical

one not

help

admitting,

the politicians. Socrates

have different

ends and

hence

distinction between dialectics

be angry

with

the

detractors

they

are

inferior to both the

here that philosophy different arts ; he tacitly

presupposes

of

are and

the

philosophy ;

kingly after

He

asks

they

take

art.

aU,

Interpretation

20 hold

of

something

they

reasonable:

are

aware

of

between philosophy and pohtics. Socrates has successfully vindicated Euthydemos Kriton

neither

denies

the

radical

and what

this. Instead he turns to the

nor admits

he

difference stands

for.

subject of

his

his two sons, and especially his oldest son Socrates, he becomes aware of the para

greatest and constant predicament:

Kritoboulos. Whenever he mount

importance

meets

of education

the name. As a consequence, he

but he

does

cannot

not

toward philosophy: he does not dream

find

an educator

know how to

of

urge on

worthy of Kritoboulos

asking Socrates to apply his

pro

treptic skill to Kritoboulos nor does Socrates offer it. One could say that

Socrates had candidly exhibited the limitation of his protreptic art ; yet he had at least tried to apply it to Kleinias. A more plausible reason is that Krito nature is less fit for the purpose than or, in other words, Kleinias'

boulos'

Socrates'

daimonion holds him back in the case of Kritoboulos as distinguished

from that

of

Socrates

Kleinias.

reminds

Kriton

of a

fact to be

observed

in

regard

to every pursuit,

the fact that the good practitioners are rare; just as this is no reason for no reason for rejecting philosophy. itself. If it seems to be a bad thing, carefully philosophy Kriton must keep everyone, not only his sons, away from it; but in the op posite case the opposite course is to be taken.

rejecting money-making

One

must

We "the

or

rhetoric, it is

examine

too

are still

much

inchned to

sophists"

in the hght

of

see

the conflict between Socrates

and

the conflict between the thinkers of the Restora

tion and the thinkers who prepared the French Revolution or took its side.

In the Euthydemus Socrates takes the pos and

Kriton. Socrates

was not

side of the

two

brothers

against

the sophists the mortal enemies of Socrates.

According

to

Socrates,

philosophy, the greatest sophist, is the pohtical (Republic 492a5-e6), i.e. the enactor of the Athenian laws.

greatest

enemy

of

Ktesip

the mortal enemy of the sophists nor were the

multitude

21

CHRISTIANITY*

MARX AND

HEGEL,

Alexandre Kojeve translated

An

fact,

unwarned reader could

what

is involved is

be

Hilail

by

misled

by

Gildin**

the title of Mr. Niel's

not an abstract analysis of

Mediation (Vermittlung). It is the

whole concrete content of

sophy that is set forth. And it

be

tour de force

must

said

by summarizing in less

book. In

the Hegelian category

Hegel's

that the author has executed a

than 400 pages almost the

of

phUo real

totality

of

the Hegehan writings.

Moreover, to

the title chosen

by

Mr. Niel is perfectly

legitimate,

and

it bears

understanding of the general structure of Hegel's thought. Indeed, to say Mediation is to say Dialectic, for all that is mediated is dialectical, and all that is dialectical is mediated. Now in Hegel Dialectic is anything but a method of thought; it is not an artifice of philosophical expo witness

a profound

Dialectic is the very structure of concrete reahty itself, and it only into philosophical thought to the extent that philosophical thought

sition :

penetrates

correctly describes this concrete reality taken as a whole. To analyze Media tion (i.e., Dialectic) in Hegel's philosophy is therefore to analyze that philos ophy itself in its

whole concrete content.

And that is precisely

what

Mr. Niel

does in his book. One might, nevertheless, regret the fact that the author did not devote a to a more or less formal analysis of the very notion of Mediation

chapter or

Dialectic. And I

correct

The

must

in general terms

notion

say that wherever he incidentally speaks of this he says about it is not, in my opinion, absolutely

what

(see especially p. 70, note 10; pp. 102-04 and p. 357). lack of understanding of Dialectic in Hegel does

relative

not prevent

Mr. Niel from giving a perfectly correct summary of the dialectical philoso phy which he sets forth. This lack of understanding is, however, very grave in the

sense

that it inspires commentaries which give a

fundamentaUy

false

meaning to correctly summarized theories. This apparent paradox is ex plained

by

the fact that Hegelian dialectical texts are necessarily, and

*This long

(Paris, 1945)

review

essay

originally

of

Henri Niel's De la Mediation dans la

appeared

in

philosophie

some-

de Hegel

Critique, I (1946), 339-366. The permission of Critique

to publish an English translation of this essay is gratefully acknowledged. **

Translator's

note:

Double brackets

the translator. Other brackets places where

French H.

"lutte"

words

could not

have been

Nichols'

recent

and

double

be translated

supplied

by

from the

"depasser"

"fight"

between double

insertions by In the

parentheses represent

and parentheses are reproduced and

parentheses or

translation of Kojeve (Introduction to the

original.

by

"surpass"

the

double brackets. James

Reading

of Hegel,

Bloom [New York, 1969]) has furnished the translator with many useful Jonathan Mandelbaum's helpful advice is also gratefully acknowledged.

ed.

Allan

suggestions.

Interpretation

22

intentionally, ambiguous (as Mr. Niel himself acknowledges, for 17, 214 and 332). The same text, whether it be directly quoted or correctly summarized, can mean very different things depending on the way in which it is read. For instance, Mr. Niel reads the texts and his own summa times

example pp.

ries

in

pp.

214, 351

such a

reality these

as

way and

to give

369),

a

them,

with

theistic and

many reservations,

moreover

(see

theological meaning. Now in

even a

texts set forth a radically atheistic philosophy.

summarized

be said, however, that this essential misunderstanding, which has lasted for as long as Hegehanism exists, is only possible because Hegelian It

must

atheism of

has

a

even

deny its reahty. And so, But, in

philosophy.

one often

the Christian

in the

not atheistic notion of

God

usual sense

and

does

not

finds theological formulas in Hegelian

deepest sense, this philosophy is

the

For the only

atheistic and non-religious.

radically of

Hegel is

special character.

very

the word, for he does not reject the Christian

the

and

nevertheless

unique

reality

of

God for this philosophy is Man, taken in the totahty his historical evolution accomplished in the midst of nature, this totahty

being

notion of

completed (=

itself to itself in

and

perfect) through the Wise Man (Hegel), who reveals it absolute Knowledge which he has of it. And

through the

it is enough to correctly interpret the very notions

(or,

if

you

prefer,

be

cannot

of

Negativity,

of

Time,

of

of Mediation or of Dialectic

History)

to

understand

that it

otherwise.

In what foUows, I wiU try to recall the genuine meaning of the Hegelian Dialectic (= Mediation), in order to permit the reader who does not know it to

understand

correctly the

Hegel, in

summary which Mr. Niel has made of generally debatable commentaries which

excellent

the work

of

surround

the expositions properly so called.

The

vulgar sciences

spite of the

deal

particular entities which universe which

the

other

Being

they isolate "by

For they

or more

are concerned with

abstraction"

these entities in reahty form part of.

hand,

in its

with abstractions.

from the whole real Hegelian philosophy, on

accurately absolute Knowledge, is concerned with In other words, this Knowledge does not ab

concrete reahty.

from anything (not even from itself) and reveals (= describes) the of what is. One can therefore say that absolute Knowledge has To tality as its ; this Knowledge does nothing but analyze and reconstruct Totality out of its constitutive elements (Momente) which are isolated by stract

totality

"object"

analysis.

But the totahty

this

totahty, to

just

as weU

say that

"object"

and

concrete

of what

Totality,

real concrete

reveahng Being is Totality; or,

and

technical,

or, if

or absolute

real concrete

at

the same time revealed

all

Idea.

Being is Totahty,

other than

by

Being, is

And it is precisely for this reason that this is the same thing, that it is the True

(Begriff),

Hegel is enunciating something the concrete real is constituted a

also implies the Knowledge which reveals Knowledge is itself real. One can therefore

"subject."

(das Wahre), or Concept However, in saying that

Hegel,

is

the extent that this

this

truism,

that exists.

Concept,

The term

"dialectical"

you

please,

a

or

Idea,

which reminds us that

meaning.

Totality has, in Totahty is the

Hegel, Marx synthesis of

(=

Identity

thesis)

Negativity

and of

23

Christianity

and

(= antithesis).

precisely because real concrete Being is not only Identity (with Negativity (of itself) that this Being is at the same time

And it is

itself) but also

"subject"

ject,"

and

"ob

that is to say,

thought and

being reveahng itself to itself through (discursive) thought which realizes itself in being (as truth) and thinks itself

in speaking of its own concrete reahty or of the totality of what is. The totahty of what is does not remain eternally identical to itself. To be it is, namely Totality (taken as Identity). But it is; it therefore negates what it is, it negates itself as it is and it is not Totality (taken as Negativity) except as the totality of its successive auto-negations. In other words, real concrete Being changes and is sure, it also

is

always remains what

always other

other

nothing

than it

than (is the same as) the

totality

of

its

real changes.

That is to

say, Totahty is neither pure identical Being (Sein), nor simple other than Being, that is to say, Nothingness (Nichts), but the synthesis of the two or

Becoming ( Werden) Or else, again, Totality is the nihilation of the Nothing ness in Being through the annihilation of (identical) Being : it is the Tempo rality of the Spatiality which is. Totality is therefore time which is as space, or space which only is to the extent that it is annihilated as time by becoming past. One can also say that the temporalization of Being subtracts the being from Being. For past being does not differ from present being except for the fact that it is not any longer, just as future being is not yet. But neither does differ from Being itself except for the fact that it is not in the concept the same way that Being is. One can therefore say that temporalization (= Negativity) transforms Being (= Identity) into the Concept of Being, so that Totahty ('= Identity + Negativity), since it is Concept-which-w or .

"Being"

Beingject,"

which-is-conceived,

being

Hegel

and

is, in

thought, in

expresses

this

a

effect,

word,

"dialectical"

at

the

absolute

(=

time

same

Idea

or

trinitarian)

"subject"

and

"ob

Knowledge.

conception of real con

Being only in itself (an sich; for (fiir Antithesis or Negativity); but also sich; Identity), itself Synthesis or Totahty). Or else, he it is in and for itself (an und fiir sich; (aufgealso says that real conciete Being is always dialectically-suppressed crete

Being

Thesis

also

by

is

saying that this

not

=

or

=

hoben): in Thesis

the Antithesis, Being is suppressed A, Being; but just as A is preserved in

and through

or as given

non-

or negated as negated

Being

in its being, for the Antithesis also is; finally, just as non-A is determined not only by the non but also by the A, although it is other than A, so too Being which is preserved in and through its negation that is to say B, is

preserved

-

Being which is negated; and one can say that Being is sublimated in its being, for having negated itself as given, it has trans formed or formed (gebildet educated) itself, so that it is no longer "brute Or else, finally, Hegel summarizes all that but "wrought precedes by saying that real concrete Being is mediated (vermittelt) in its being. Being ((L'etre)) is Totality, i.e., Being-which-is-conceived or Ideawhich-is-real, because the Identity of Being is mediated by Negativity. Being negates its given being, and by thus temporalizing itself through auto-nega is

other

negated-preserved-

than

=

matter"

product."

tion, it creates itself through this Mediation as revealed

or as

thought of Being.

Interpretation

24

Such, in brief, is can

already

the

of

see on

"dialectic"

the

this

of plane

"dialectical"

principal

Mr. Niel,

note

be tempted to

on the ontological plane.

"dialectic"

is essentially

texts which prove this

is,

And

atheistic.

moreover,

one

(One

quoted

by

28).

80, Indeed, Being is Totahty, p.

Being

that this

"God,"

that is to say, thought or

only to the

caU

"subject"

that one could

that it imphes Negativity. Now

extent

"brute"

given Negativity is pure nothingness (reines Nichts) apart from could have charcterized as "divine"). The Being (Being which only a which Hegel has in view does not, therefore, create Being out of nothing. On the contrary, it can only be, or create itself, by negating given being which it therefore presupposes: it can only derive its own being from the being which is given to it and which is therefore independent of it. The is the temporalizing annilulation of being or the nihilation of the the Being which must be before being annihilated : the being of the "Sub

this

"pagan"

"subject"

"Subject"

ject"

therefore necessarily has a beginning. And since it is the

nihilation of

the nothingness in

since

it is

(temporal)

a nothingness which nihU

"Subject"

(as Time), the necessarily has an ates

"Subject"

Being,

end.

is essentiaUy the negation of itself: it therefore Now if this is the case, it is quite evident that the "divine."

in

is certainly not (In the text quoted on p. 80 [[by Mr. Niel]], Hegel says: "The annihilating inquietude of the infinite is And it is clear that the only by the being of what it which is only a negation of the finite, only a non-finite, is not autonomous in question

"infinite"

annihilates."

its

being

and

therefore does not have the character

AU this becomes

much clearer when one

by

a

objective

"subject."

Objective-Reality

this objectively real

totality is

metaphysical problem what

reahty only

Spirit is "in

or

( Wirklichkeit)

And,

.

of

where there are no abstractions effected

is therefore,

called

by definition, Totahty. Now (Geist) in Hegel. The whole itself to the question of knowing

"Spirit"

therefore reduces

truth,"

infinite.)

descends to the metaphysical plane.

Here real-concrete-Being is objective-Reality course, there is

"divine"

of a

"objectively,"

that is to say, as it reveals itself to

itself. It is evident, in the first place, that objective-Reality is not only Nature (and that is precisely why Hegel calls this Reahty "Spirit"). For reahty im phes all that is objectively real, and therefore all that is reahzed for all here and now.

reahties,

However,

now

such as wood

there are here not only

for example, but

work and words written on

ing

which reveals natural

Reahty). In

objective world"

and

the

"universe

"brute"

or given

transformed into paper

by having a meaning, and a mean example, as not by itself exhausting also wood

this paper, words

reahty (for

other

"natural,"

words, the reahty

of what we call

discourse,"

in brief

the "historical

"man,"

is just as or reahty of what we call the "natural Objective Reahty or Spirit is therefore neither only Nature, or the non-hu man world independent of human reahty, nor only Man, or human reahty of

or

-

objective as the

independent and

of

this is the

reahty is

world"

the natural world. Spirit is same

not such or

-

"nature."

World-implying-man, or, thing, Man-in-the-world. And just as natural objective such a thing taken in isolation, i.e., in abstraction from natural-

Hegel, Marx the

real

nect

ties that attach it to its

it to its

past and

to its

spatio-temporal world "individual"

-

is

humanity, Objective-Reality is

hfe there

extent

of

the

which

only be

isolation,

not such or such an

in the

evolution of

midst of the natural world.

not

man

"contra-natural,"

is

which

created

by man through

natural given (= raw

sense of

"antithesis"

only becomes

world.

trans-formation

This

"formation"

or

negation

by an objectively real negation of being Action (Tun) in the proper and

the word. Objective human reahty is therefore a negating

Reality is in fact

"thetic"

Nature. And that is why

or

"synthetic"

"mediated,"

or

viz.,

"dialecticaUy

objective-

suppressed,"

"spiritual"

that is to say,

Man in his

a

possible to the

"historical"

materials), i.e.

reality, this

identical

of

extent

human reahty is

Nature but Spirit because the universe in fact is essentially something other than an animal, inanimate thing. While living in the midst of nature, man leads

natural objective

strong

present and con

but the whole historical

that he creates a non-natural, technical or

world can

in the

the indissoluble whole of the natural

objective

accomphshed

because

man and

a plant or an a

too

25

Christianity

spatial surroundings

future, but

taken in fictitious

which

implies

so

and

it is objectively real Spirit. reahty is Action. That is to say, he is only real to the negates natural reahty. And this means :

objective

that he really or

"objectively"

that he is transcendent

with respect to nature. On the one hand, he is free as it, for he can negate nature in its given reahty and is not, therefore, determined by it; and he can even negate himself as given or as On the other hand, in realizing himself through negation, man does not arise

regards

"natural."

"natural"

out of nature as a result of a

creating the historical world.

in

to it

opposition

evolution:

he

creates

himself freely in

FinaUy, in negating given nature, he to it

and opposes

what

is

not yet

himself

sets

objectively real,

while

bringing this un-real into relation with reahty : he opposes to the natural given projects (= ideas) which he reahzes by Action that negates the given. He "subject"

nature in the way the opposes itself to Being Action, he is also Discourse having a meaning, discourse reveals through its meaning the real which is opposed to man as well as

therefore opposes himself to the

"object."

which

the

real which creates

Spirit is

ing

"flesh"

and which

the real (=

itself as human

become

"Logos."

It is

reahty.

Thus, being Man-in-the-world,

an objective

reality

which

has

a mean

therefore is a value. It is a free creative reahty which

"determination"

and reveals

(Bestimmtheit)

itself as

reveals

And it is, if you please, infinite, at least in the sense that it is non-finite ; for in being able to negate the finitude of the given, whatever it be, it is not hmited by this finitude, limitation or

Totality)

real.

.

The metaphysical anthropology

of Hegel

therefore preserves the fundamen

say that the Hegelian tran than the transcendence of man with Spirit is other scendence of the anything respect to nature? Can one say that, for Hegel, objective -Reality is anything other than natural and human? Can one say that the Spirit of which he speaks tal categories

of

Christian theology. But

can one

is God?

Many perfectly univocal texts compel one to reply in the negative. One of them, which is late, moreover, is quoted by Mr. Niel (p. 368, note 15) without

Interpretation

26 his

drawing

the

inevitable

"that the Weltgeist has

history is

completed

it

was

midst of

Hegel,

man

"God"

Hegel

humanity,

reality,

to be

Now,

But that

was

him. One

the reahty

historical

evolution

this evolution, in the person

end of

((the))

absolute

Spirit"

which was earher "God"

that

what was caUed

totality

its historial

of

evo

iUusion. In fact, theology always was an into the beyond, without realizing

an

only

man projected

himself,

the ideal

or

of

his

own perfection

that he

most subhme

ideal imphed in Christian theology is realized surpasses himself, and his given reahty

longer

no

earher) is

now no

longer

a

hmit

"determination"

for

or a

say that "the finite consciousness has ceased to be it is "in that that God "has the objective reahty way"

he "was deprived perfection of

(unconsciously objectively

received"

earher."

Before the

man, the "absolute

was

real as

finite

enclosing itself

or

upon

externahzed "God."

and named

human

perfect reahzation.

The

absolute

consciousness which

itself in the

edge, that is to say, the complete

history, i.e.,

completion of

consciousness"

"representation"

anthropological)

into the beyond

projected

of

seems

received

can therefore

before the

sense

((lutte))

which

the end of history (and it is precisly because of this that it is

created

Now,

of which

by

at

Man therefore

(which he

as

humanity in its

At the

taken in the completed

anthropology ;

completed) the man.

struggle

advent of

the idea that he had of

pursued.

finite."

The

external"

"God."

unconscious

by

....

Hegehan knowledge, "absolute consciousness to man. And that is precisely why pre-Hegelian man

lution. Before the

it,

Spirit

absolute consciousness

understands and proclaims

is, in

there,

[Italics mine.]

"grasps himself

:

it

the

natural world.

caUed

caUs

absolute

with

The Weltgeist is

clear.

the

says

earher."

deprived

This text is very

seems

the

Hegel

moment at which universal

to it has ceased. The absolute consciousness has

of which

of

at

seems,"

the advent of the Wise Man or of Hegehan absolute

by

of the finite consciousness

in the

[i.e.,

succeeded now

Knowledge] in grasping itself as external

from it. "It

conclusion

has

Spirit is only to be finite

ceased

cyclical movement of absolute

auto-comprehension of

The Absolute Spirit is therefore

an

only

(Vorstellung)

its

Knowl

completed or

"infinite"

only in the

that it is non-finite : it is infinite through the completed active negation

the finitude of the identical or natural given which it presupposes. And this

is why the Spirit is

God, but simply the spatio-temporal totahty human reahty or Man-in-the-world. But isolated texts matter httle. It is the whole dialectical philosophy not

of

objective natural and

Hegel that is incompatible

On the

one

hand,

the

with

theism

of

spiritual which

any kind

is

"dialectical"

"before"

natural; it is therefore pure nothingness it would be pure nothingness if nature did there is no sense of

human

trans-mundane, that is to say

the term. On the other

by

negating himself

as

hand,

that

is why the

not exist or

a negation

if it

itself

of

the

ceased

to exist;

Spirit in the theistic

"dialectical"

man creates "given"

by becoming in

remains man while

spiritual reahzes

is

existence of nature and

"transcendent,"

"historical,"

and

the

natural, or, generally, as

way that he becomes, that he is he is at any given moment ; but he

of

whatever.

himself

as

; it is in this

time other than

surpassing

by transcending

himself;

natural

reahty

Hegel, Marx

being

without ever

27

Christianity

and

to transcend human reahty: aU that is spiritual is

able

non-natural, but aU that is non-natural is human and human only. An attempt has been made to interpret Hegel's dialectical metaphysics God"

saying that it is the description of the "becoming of But even if one admits, per impossibile, that the notion God"

has

meaning, it

a

must

be

that

said

one

of

cannot,

by

("pantheism").

the

"becoming of

without

abusing

"divine"

the becoming which Hegel has in mind. language, characterize as For, since it has a beginning and an end, that historical becoming is essentiaUy finite in the proper sense of the term. History necessarily has a beginning, for

if man is the

has

an end or

world without men must exist

nature, a

And

world.

one cannot

precisely,

history

negation of

in the

are men

history

say anything

is

in

even

necessarily has

also

before there

an end.

Or,

more

that is conclusive or true unless

whatever

effect completed.

Indeed, if there is Totahty

is to say, if

Being is Becoming, the becoming (= change) of being will perpetually transform into relative error the (rela tive) truth of the discourse which correctly reveals being such as it was at a and not

only Identity,

that

itself). In

given moment

(in its identity

truth in

becomes, becoming

what

reality

which

history

which

negates,

with

changes

order

be

must

for there to be

order

(absolute)

Now it is human

itself in being. It is therefore

or changes

has to be completed in

for there to be

completed.

a truth of which one

(= necessarily) valid, that is to say, a say that is universally and eternally truth in the proper sense of the word. Thus, either there is no Truth, no can

Knowledge

(Wissen)

properly

so

caUed,

the only

and

Skepticism (with its counterpart, irrational ben] which never succeeds in "looping the of

[=

loop"

the

possible attitude

in-coherent]

of its

discourse

is that

Faith [Glau or

reasoning,

"revealed"

"gap"

notion of the divine), in the reasoning being precisely the history has an end and the Spirit is finite in its objective manifesta

or else

tions, being the human Spirit. In any case, there is therefore no theology, there is no science (Wissenschaft) of God. To be sure, the end of history is not a hmit imposed on man/rom

history

is, if

you

unlimited.

please,

For

man can negate aU

possible

without:

that he wants

((to negate)), and he only ceases to negate and to vary if he no longer wants to do so. He therefore does not complete his becoming unless he is perfectly satisfied (Befriedigt sated; see above: "the struggle [[lutte]] of the finite has ceased") by what he consciousness with the absolute consicousness =

.

is;

or,

more

(through the

precisely,

by

what

negation of what

himself). And

since man

is

he has

did

alone

not

in

done,

-

.

.

since

he has

satisfy him able to negate

created

him

outside of

being

and

to

himself

and within

negate

him

self, that which satisfies him perfectly is perfect in the strong sense of the term: it is something which cannot be surpassed any more. Thus, Hegel preserves

the

notions of

(satisfied)

perfection and

of

(perfect) satisfaction

which, up to him, had been the exclusive possession of theistic thought. But in him these notions have an atheistic meaning, for the Being which is perfect

in

and

not

through

God but

edge and

its

a man

satisfaction and satisfied

in the

in this way

being

in

and through

its

perfection

is

the Wise Man possessing absolute Knowl the Truth (= Logos).

world :

-

Interpretation

28

"dialectic,"

The

just

atheism of

the

briefly, is in Hegel.

of

When

descends from the

one

I have

"dia

perfect accord with the phenomenological

analyzed

lectic"

which

ontological and metaphysical

to the phenomenological

metaphysical plane

plane, objective-Reality becomes empirical-Existence (Dasein). The real itself as a whole ((consisting)) : i.e., the real becomes "reveals"

"phenomenon"

"objects"

of

opposed

capacity for speech;

to a multiplicity of

or

else, again, the

speaking

existence of men who speak of

as of aU

that is not themselves.

essentially finite

"subjects"

endowed "appears"

real

the

with

(erscheint)

as

the

themselves and of other men, as well

Now, according

to

Hegel,

this

existence

is

it is exclusively because it is mortal that it is There is only where there is finitude must die in order to himself completely

or mortal and

"revelation"

and revealed.

revelatory

"God"

"reveal"

and

death. And

and

definitively (e.g., Christ); i.e.,

tion);

must

become

"man"

and

therefore

(the only theistic error of Christianity is the Resurrec he is necessarily hidden ((abscons) ) he remains -

-

"God"

long

as

he

"God"

be

cease to

so

as

(precisely because God is not, because there is no God). If there are "phenom ena,"

that is to say, if there are revealed and revelatory existences, this is

uniquely, says

Hegel, because the term, i.e.,

sense of

strong

there are on earth men who are mortal in the

able,

the one

on

(risk

hand,

to voluntarily perish,

necessity"

any "biological the other hand, (in absolute

life in a fight for pure prestige) and, Knowledge) able to become fuUy conscious

without on

of their essential

of))

becoming

and

through

in the

finitude (while being fully satisfied by this very

(("experience"

Now if man is truly mortal, if he is annihilated in "divine," "transcendent" there is no God.1 For the or the

conscious).

death,

trans-mundane, is, in the final analysis, nothing but the (or Aristotehan imaginary to boot) of men "after the existence of God can only be the afterhfe or the resurrection

sense of the

"natural their

of

death"

:

(cf. the

of man

"topos,"

place"

"good tidings").

evangehstic

This

imphcitly atheistic finitude of the phenomenological dialectic appears at the very moment at which the young Hegel discovers the fact of dialecticity for the first time. This discovery was made, moreover, on the phenomenolo gical plane.

And Mr. Niel is

right

phenomenon which presented

to stress that the first dialectical human

itself to Hegel

was the phenomenon of

Love

(Liebe) Now it is the love between essentially mortal beings which is at issue. Love is dialectical because it is Totahty and not Identity pure and simple. The Lovers (Liebende) are united and one. But their absolute unity is a .

union of

two beings who

(difference

"separate,"

are

essentiaUy

autonomous or "totahty"

negation; Negativity). This is why the is something other than each of these lovers considered in his

1

Suicide

without

any

commits "divine."

against

=

a

la Kirilov, i.e.,

external

suicide;

and

therefore

For that only is

it in

such a

death

a

cause, limits the also

which

is voluntarily

omnipotence of all

the omnipotence of

and

which can act on me without

action would

be

equal

with

are not

"God,"

who

my

different

both lovers

"identity"

consciously

those who

"divine"

way that the

of

self-inflicted-

the one

who

thus ceases to be

being able to act on it or

to the reaction.

Hegel, Marx "totahty"

himself: their

("re-unification"

of and educated "separated"

is the

lovers)

the

in

And it is because the

child.

and not

human being. Now the

only

identity

child

is totality

that he is an

educable

is totahty because the parents are union, since they are free and autono

child

their amorous

spite of

29

Christianity

and

individuals. And they are that only because they are mortal (each hav to die for himself, in spite of the amorous tie which attaches him to the

mous

ing

Thus it is because the

other).

he is

death (=

also the

but

plane

parents are mortal

that the

child

is human. And

the biological only For he is himself human only because his him. But in educating him, they prepare a "new

Negativity)

the human

also on

of

his

parents not

on

plane.

generation"

parents educate

them and the ideas

which will relegate world

they have

of

themselves

to the nothingness of the historical past, which

will

and of

the

only live in the

(Erinnerung) of the child. Love, death and historicity, that is to say, humanity of man, are therefore interdependent from the beginning of

memory the

Hegel's dialectical

However,

Hegel. He does

did

more

not account

conception of

sketch of

dialectical phenomenology did not satisfy one can assume, with Mr. Niel, that he

tell us why. But

not

(or,

abandoned

analyses.

this first

precisely,

for the

love

transformed)

the dialectic of love because it

history. To be sure, the dialectical to understand the historicity of man. But

phenomenon of

enabled one

"deducing"

(= reconstructing a it, one could not succeed in universal history. content of posteriori, i.e. "understanding") the concrete phenomenological dialectic one sees a new 1800 and And so, between 1806,

starting from

with

a

historical

distinctly

Hegel. In the

writings we

orientation

appear

possess, the new

in the

dialectic is

various writings of

without exphcit

ties to

But one could, it seems, restore the connection as follows. What is human about love is the fact that desire is not related directly (= "immediately"; unmittelbar) to a natural empirical entity. The desire for the

dialectic

of love.

"mediated"

(vermittelt) by the very desire of the one (sexuahty), a man desires the amorous desire is a desire for the desire of the woman (eroticism). At hmit, he can be be and wants to loves love itself, the one who by loved, this entity (the

body) is

desires :

whom one

an animal

desires the female

"satisfied"

this

reciprocal

love alone,

teristic of love to uniqueness

but of

(=

"particularity")

particular

sality is

without

any

attribute an absolute

you on earth and

the

"materialization."

(=

of

the

one whom one

and the universal (=

a negation of particularity); and

synthesis, that is to say, as a

But in fact the opinion of

loves ("there is

in heaven"). To love is therefore to

Identity)

Now it is

charac

(= universal) value to the exclusive

it is to

no one

realize a synthesis

Negativity,

since univer

constitute oneself as such a

"totahty."

is essentially limited. That is why, in the man truly worthy of the name cannot be

"totahty"

amorous

all, the

existence of a

satisfactions. And that is why, in the opinion of love is not, even in the universalized form of Christians themselves, history. Love is essentially hmited because it universal mover of the true attributes an absolute value not to the action (Tun) but to the given-being

exhausted

by

amorous

"charity,"

reason,"

(Sein)

of

the beloved: one loves

someone

"without any

that is to

Interpretation

30

say, simply because he is, and not because of what he does. Now given-being by the very fact that it is given, that is to say, identical to itself and

is hmited

different from

therefore

hmits

all

which are opposed

that is not it.

to

it,

and

Only negating action can surpass the universalize the very being of

in this way

the one who acts and who creates himself through the active negation of the

he himself is. Love, and does not

which

given-being

behavior. It therefore inoperative. And it

remains

remains

is

which

truly

essentially passive,

eternally hmited

by

to given-being, does

related

engender

action

not presuppose

or

active

(=

negating)

better, ineffectual

the static hmits

the

of

or

being

to which it is related. This is why love can at the very most found a human

Family with a hmited friends") which, in the created a

In

State in

natural

foundation

history,

course of

(barely

which citizens act with a view

to account for the phenomenon of

order

enlarged

narrows as

it

by

evolves.

a

"circle

It has

of

never

to its universal expansion.

history

and of

historical man,

it is therefore necessary to replace the hmited and passive dialectic of love by a universal dialectic of action. And that is what Hegel does by universalizing his first

by

value

sarily pires

dialectic. The

"lover"

restricted

of

group

and

to be "the only one of his

since

the hmits

human

of

) (or,

"relatives"

his

universal recognition of

natural and

to be

wants

the beloved ((par l'etre aime)

to the

wants

And

amorous

at

recognized as an absolute

the very most,

by

the neces

"friends"). Historical

man as

the absolute value of his particularity: he

kind"

and nevertheless

his given-being,

the given structure of the

as weU as

world which surrounds

him,

valid."

"universaUy

oppose

themselves to that

his particularity, he trans-forms that world and trans-forms himself through a sequence of negating actions. These are the actions which gain him recognition and it is as agent that he is recognized. universal recognition

It is the

whole

((consisting))

plished with a view

which

the negating actions

history. And the true

"mediates"

his

negation of

of

of particulars accom

to universal recognition which constitutes the concrete

content of universal

action,

of

his

natural

being

of man

is this historical

given-being through the universalizing

particularity.

Mr. Niel is wrong idea of this

when

action of particulars

for their

"mediation"

he

says

through

(see for

history,

example pp.

that

16

and

255)

that the

is to say through the historical

recognition, only appears belatedly According to Mr. Niel (see pp. 16ff.), mediation through love is first replaced by "psychological (Phenomenology of Spirit) then by mediation through "speculative (Logic and Encyclopedia) whereas the "identity between logic and was only recognized by Hegel "at the Generally speaking, Mr. Niel presents the chronological universal

in Hegel's thought.

mediation"

,

reflection"

,

history"

end."

sequence of

the writings

which

he

summarizes as so

Hegelian thought. Now, in fact, this is not tion of Hegel's thought is completed at the very tion

of

many

stages

in the evolu

at all the case.

The

moment at which

evolu

he dis

(1800) the dialectic of Recognition (Anerkennen) or of Action (Tat), immediately substitutes for the dialectic of love. From that day on, the 32 years which there remained for him to live, Hegel did nothing during covers which

but

he

set

forth the diverse complementary

aspects of the

dialectic the

general

Hegel, Marx he discovered

schema of which

describing Then, in

the

the

at

the end of his juvenile period. He begins

by

the phenomenological aspect in his Phenomenology.

totahty Logic, he completely of

31

Christianity

and

analyzes

the ontological aspect.

Finally,

the whole metaphysical aspect is given to us in the Encyclopedia. As for later publications,2

Hegel simultaneously describes in them the phenomenological, the various "constitutive

metaphysical and ontological aspects of

this same total dialectic which realizes itself

(Momente)

of

as universal

history ;

elements that are

finaUy, philosophical. Having discovered possession of the

key

the notion of

his

notion of

political,

legal,

elements"

itself

and reveals rehgious

aesthetic,

and,

Recognition, Hegel finds himself in

whole philosophy.

Therefore it is through

the analysis of this fundamental notion that one understands the arrangement of

the different aspects and elements of the Hegehan

between Hegel's

mutual relations

The desire for to

recognition

dialectic,

is in the final

analysis the

sense of

the

word

("admired,"

for

desire for a desire. For "desired"

to be recognized as a value is to want to be

want

the

as weU as

philosophical writings.

in the broad

Now every desire

example).

for

(hunger,

example) is not an empirical reahty, but the presence of the absence of such a reahty (of food, for example). If one acts on the basis of a desire for a desire, therefore acts

one

on

Thus, (or, better

this kind

the basis

the

given world.

being

yet,

natural, that is to say,

of what

does

which creates

as such an

which

is

not

that he

in

natural or

nonaction) is itself a being which is or human in the strong sense of

with natural objective

real

to the extent that it enters

(negate) it,

and can surpass

reahty

negates

himself

as

given,

i.e.,

"natural"

as

or

the desire for recognition alone. In other words,

self

in the

through an action of

the occasion arise. Man is therefore real as human only to the extent

should

of

exist

and

"spiritual"

the word. But the spiritual is only objectively

into inter-action

(yet)

itself in

and

fight for

on

animal,

man

only

through the risk of his animal hfe incurred in the

pure prestige.

Now

such a

fight to the death

the

basis

realizes

him

course of a

( Kampf auf Leben

Tod) becomes necessary as soon as two desires for recognition other. For if, in fact, one can only be satisfied if one is

und

meet each

"recognized"

"recognizes,"

someone whom one oneself

man

does

not

know this

at

by the

"recognized"

beginning. At the beginning, one wants to be by all, without "recognizing" anyone in return. And since, by definition, the desire for recog nition

is

stronger than the animal

animated

by the

desire for

instinct for self-preservation, both men, recognition, will fight until one of them

one-sided

dies. But the dead man what

2

does

not exist.

Apart from the

no

In

longer is, and one obviously cannot be recognized by for there to be actual recognition and therefore

order

Philosophy

of

Right, they

Hegel's

students and published after

ings

strictly

as

found does

an

not

genuine.

interpretation

It is therefore of

the

apply to Mr. Niel.

consist

mainly

his death. One therefore

whole of

inadmissible,

as

of

lecture

notes edited

cannot consider

these

by

writ

has been done only too often, to on them. This remark, moreover,

Hegelian thought

Interpretation

32

objective

as

to

sent

"recognized"), it is necessary the other

recognize

it takes

place on

the basis of the fear "non-natural"

(=

of absolute

victor, in the

if

one

of

death, is just

decision to

"free"

as

the fight

start

and

to

the future victor to victory, just as

predisposes

future

vanquished

adversaries

to his defeat. It is through an act are created as

through a fight for prestige that is

and

vanquished

and

begun. And that is why

freely

human, though in a different way, as the victor him Master, the other is the Slave, and it is evident that there

is just

is the

as

Mastery (Herrschaft)

neither

(Furcht)

freedom that the

vanquished

self:

Nothing

predisposes the

nothing

by him: one must sub by submitting, although

recognized

as the

or

unpredictable)

fight it to the finish.

is

being

without

the same time

and at

that one of the adversaries con

This decision to interrupt the fight

to the other.

mit

is human (for man is only human,

which

reality

"objective,"

Slavery (Knechtschaft) in the

nor

natural or

animal world.

Man therefore does

himself in

and

comes out of

in the

it

Master

as the

that this

means

humanity in isolation. By

his

not constitute

of a

struggle creates

the word.

precise sense of

the man who is

by

recognized

slave,

or as

the Slave of a master. And this

human reahty as an essentiaUy social reahty, But it also creates it as apolitical reahty, for

others

in his human reahty

this very fact recognized pohticaUy : he is the Citizen

formed

by

Finally, legal

those who

For if this fight is

the pure and simple on

recognize

(otherwise it

would

be

a

order

to make this

thing

or

to the

woman : man

( (pour le as

The and

3

person"

( ("sujet

historical

existence.

In truth, Hegel does words, he does

mutual recognition of

or a

woman, it is

fights

one

for

not

that it is

carried

the

against

right"

his "exclusive

to the

therefore be

at

general are created. reveals

to us the

origin

But this

hu

analysis makes us see and understand

well. "objectify"

not explain

Masters

the

by

one-sided recognition

not explain

how

a

Master

the genesis

of

whom

without

the superiority (= authority)

becoming his

allow

fight for

they

end

having fought

identical to

"leader''

be

can

recognized

by

the slave, the another

the State. And that is the

however,

of a collective

beginning

phenomenon of the political

others without their

in

political and social constitutive elements of

or

the victors

recognize each other as

))

Recognition therefore

together against common adversaries

writings:

the State

turn.3

therefore fights in the final analysis for right

gap in his phenomenology. One could,

would

thing

or the woman

fight). The

animal

juridique"

legal,

the nature of the

other

of

in

.

many other things as In order to reahze

In

thing

other

analysis of the notion of

man or

(Burger)

recognizes

droit) ) And that is why, at the end of the fight for recognition, the legal property (legitimate wife) as well as man as owner (husband) or

"legal

as

the

"recognize"

in

dignity is by

and

the struggle for recognition is also a

by

purely

he

and whom

started over a

possession of

other

thing

him

the reahty constituted

reahty.

creating

through a fight to the death for recognition, he necessarily

by

If

several men

enslaving, they

can

which

slaves as a result of

But there is

Hegel does

Masters this.

can

be

fight

mutually

among themselves. "Fellow

of one of the

Master.

important

that the state is born from the recognition.

"brother-in-arms."

( ("chef'))

most

citizen"

also the

not analyze recognized

in his

by

the

Hegel, Marx the

master compels

profit of the master

This is therefore which

is

slave

is

to

work

and

for him. This forced

accomphshed against

or

human Work

the

for the

work

natural

is "against

instincts

of

exclusive

the slave.

nature,"

that is to say, specifically human action. And it is this essentiaUy which trans-forms the very essence of the natural

one more action which

"spiritual"

a

33

Christianity

(Arbeit) by creating in the midst of nature the technical world within which uni versal history unfolds. By working, man opposes himself to nature, because he trans-forms it, that is to say, negates it as given. And one can say that by working man opposes world

"object"

"subject"

in the way that the opposes itself to the while standing in a relation to it. For the slave works at the command of the master. Now, what is natural desire in the master (desire to eat, for example) himself to

nature

is only

"abstract

an

without

unreal,

feehng

of an

idea"

in the slave,

it himself. He therefore

idea

which

is

a project

who acts

in

order

to satisfy

works as a consequence of

to be

realized.

essentially transforms the natural given.

desire

a

something

And that is why his

Consequently,

work

there is

wherever

called, there is necessarily

Understanding (Verstand) also, i.e., the capacity for abstract notions, or if you prefer, for discursive Thought (Denken, Sprache). Man speaks while working. He speaks about his work work

properly

so

and with a view

discourses and of

But, in

the

and

vulgar

((consisting)) of these laborious (non-philosophical) sciences of the world

the whole

sciences which are all more or

man,

work and

to his work,

constitutes

finally

end

in

less

"technical"

:

they issue from

work.

speaking, the slave does not hmit himself to

describing

the given

transforming it through work. Not being recognized, not being, therefore, satisfied by and in the world, he criticizes it in his dis it verbaUy. And he constructs an imaginary world in its courses or world

for the

sake of

"negates"

which is in conformity with his ideal of as yet unreahzed satisfaction. It is in this way that the man who works in slavery necessarily forges the fictitious ideal universe of Art and of Religion. And that world evolves paraUel

place,

to the

real world

is born from the as the

but

in

which

"first"

the ideal is

fight for

desire for recognition is

reahzed.

Thus

universal

history,

not

for

which

long fuUy satisfied, is not only a history of work,

recognition and which continues

also one of scientific and critical

thought,

as well as of art

in

as

its forms

all

and of religions.

But, basically, History is carried on with a view

seeks

to be

recognized

to

the

history

of

bloody fights for pure prestige On the one hand, each master

universal recognition.

by all men. And

so the

"State"

of which

he is

a citizen

is essentially warhke and aspires to universal empire. On the other hand, the slave does not content himself endlessly with the imaginary satisfactions that art and the rehgious beyond give him. He tries to make his masters recognize him. He therefore seeks to suppress them as masters. And that is why States in which there are slaves of any kind whatever (that is to say, "classes") are the

arena of

bloody fights which have as their goal the estabhshment of social

homogeneity.

foreign

History is

wars and

therefore a

bloody

more or

revolutions.

less

But this

uninterrupted sequence of sequence

has

an

aim,

and

Interpretation

34 For

an end.

consequently will

at

necessarily stop

Now this desire

will

desire for recognition,

being born from the

the moment at which this desire will be

be

be

satisfied when each will

fully

recognized

history

satisfied.

in his reahty

dignity by all the others, these others being recognized by each in their reality and dignity ((a reahty and dignity which are recognized as being)) equal to his own. In other words, history will stop when man wiU be perfectly satisfied by the fact of being a recognized citizen of a universal and and

in his human

homogeneous whole of

The

you

of a classless

prefer,

society comprising the

humanity.

history

sense of

or, if

State, which

Hegel has in

view

the term: pohtical, social,

is therefore

"history"

born from the

which are

"superstructure"

which

basis

real

only has

a

"infrastructure,"

pohtical and social

this, if you please,

fights

history

the

and a

meaning

formed

of a real

common of

by

aspect of

of

of being ((consisting))

possibihty

the whole

on

the

of

the

by man. But while stressing

and works accomphshed

"materialistic"

the Hegehan dialectic (which de

Marx), it should not be forgotten that historical dialectic is, for Hegel, something essentially other than fight termined the whole thought of

work, than science,

It is

evident

only be

a

art and rehgion. recognition

itself through the fight for

recognition

itself and

objectifies

conscious

reahty

"recognized"

only if

of itself. For it is

one oneself

knows that

evident that one can

one

is

an animal or a

thing,

although one can

the satisfaction which the citizen of the

derives from his

recognized perfection

is

Bewusstsein) In .

universal and "immediate"

not

satisfaction.

man can

Now, just

historical

the

whole

his

self-consciousness

only be perfectly as

satisfied

the real perfection

evolution previous

if he is

of

and

but

words,

"mediated"

fuUy conscious

so

by

satisfaction

the citizen is the

to his advent,

presup

other

homogenous State

the fuUness of self-consciousness (and that is precisely why this

truly human) :

never

love them.) saying that he is

well

very

That is why, by saying that man is Recognition, Hegel is also Self-consciousness ( Selbstbewusstsein, which, of course, implies the consciousness of the external world,

be truly

(One

recognized.

"recognizes"

poses

this and

that the reahty which is born from the desire for

and which reahzes can

the

"ideolo Hegel, history historical process : they are a sort of ideal

sciences, the arts and the rehgions is only, for gies"

in the

history. And the

economic

is

of his

result of

too the fullness of (("experiences"

is nothing but the integration of the conscious previously accomphshed in the course

of history. of)) becoming Universal history is therefore, in the final analysis, the history of selfConsciousness. Man fights and works to reahze himself, but he only reahzes

himself in

order

to become conscious of himself

by

reveahng himself to

himself and to others through a coherent discourse having a meaning. Thus his will stop at the very moment at which man becomes fully self-conscious. To be sure, the fullness of self-consciousness can only be attained at the moment at which man is fully satisfied by his real existence. For as long as he

tory

is

not

he

is,

His

((satisfied)) he negates himself, trans-forms himself, becomes other than and

therefore

objective

other

(historical)

than the

reality

one of whom

will surpass

he had become

conscious.

his self-consciousness

and

the

Hegel, Marx latter

be truly

wiU not

total, that is to say,

complete or

As long as there will be a possibility be something aim,

is

and

man.

But it is

in the full

itself. Man

consciousness of

there

dialectical) motion only in

perfect

He

perfection.

Philosophy. One

to be

motion which

progressive extension of self-consciousness

that, in the final analysis,

therefore say

can

order

changes and moves

only in order to go towards the fuUness of consciousness. Now the fullness of consciousness is caUed Wisdom and the

leads to it through the

will always

that the final

nevertheless true

to be

seeks

his

itself,

enclosed upon

of negation or of action,

consequently the prime mover, of historical (=

satisfaction conscious of

satisfied

in

unconscious

35

Christianity

and

is

universal

caUed

history

history of philosophy, which leads to the absolute Knowledge (absolu Wissen) of the Wise Man. If perfection that cannot be surpassed is synon

is the tes

with

ymous

self-conscious

Wisdom,

with omniscient

whole, is only there

objectify Science.

Satisfaction,

one can

so that

This System is divided into two an

Introduction to the

rethinking the

he integrates

whole

(by

System,

historical

rethinking

enological aspect of the

Spirit. And the

history,

it is

parts.

book

of a

In the

first,

synonymous

completed as a

process which

it) ;

entitled

which

the Wise Man becomes

is

at

System of

the same time

fully self-conscious by

has given birth to him

and which

or, if you prefer,

total dialectic.

second part

once

the Wise Man (named Hegel in this case) can

Knowledge in the form

absolute

if the latter is

and

say that

is the

by describing the phenom This first part is the Phenomenology of Science itself, that is to say

exposition of the

the description of the ontological aspects (in the

Logic)

and metaphysical

(in the Realphilosophie, subdivided into the Philosophy of Nature and the Philosophie des Geistes) of the same dialectic that had been described, as aspects

"appearing"

or revealed

the first

through the self-consciousness of the Wise

Man, in

part. "mediation"

contrary to what Mr. Niel thinks (see pp. 16ff.), the of the Logic and the Encyclopedia does through the "speculative

Thus,

reflection"

mediation"

differ essentially from the "psychological enology. These are three aspects of one and the

through the Phenom

not

"mediation"

of

given-being through thought

same

fully

thing, namely

conscious of

itself,

of

the

which

is born, in the final analysis, from the desire for recognition, when this desire is fully and definitively satisfied by the whole ((consisting)) of the works and

fights

which constitute universal pohtical

history

of

art,

In this last

fully

"mediation"

self-conscious.

through

It therefore

beginning, in

and

through an

fight for recognition. In world without a

And so,

himself, ence"

the latter

being

also

the

Hegehan Science, human reality becomes itself and reveals itself as it is in

understands

reahty, that is to say, as essentiaUy finite the

history,

of rehgion and of philosophy.

what

and

mortal,

actual risk of

life

since

at

it

was

the time

of

created, in the

"first"

knowing itself to be mortal, it knows itself to live in a (Jenseits) or without God.

beyond is

most curious of

that is to say,

of)) becoming

all,

attains supreme

man completes

himself

and perfects

satisfaction, through the

conscious, in the person

of the

Wise Man,

(("experi

of his essential

Interpretation

36

be mortal, it is by accepting the idea has become a Wise Man knows himself to be Spirit which has nothing beyond itself. And it is precisely this of the Wise Man pos value which the

finitude. For it is of

by knowing himself to

his death that the

the

absolute

man who

"particularity"

"universal"

absolute or

sesses, ((a particularity that that constitutes the final

objective

in its Science

of

by

man,

is the

which

Truth,

reveahng the profound

the "apparent absurdities of his historical past ((which

of all

meaning

is))

"justification"

has))

forever."

vanished

Die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht. Universal same

time the supreme

the only vahd

one who

((judgment)) because it is the

Now it is

and real.

is

to

himself,

about

more or

dialectical

is

only ((judgment that

at

the

which is

is)) possible

what

he is. He

to gainsay

will

himself,

therefore

so that all

not

have any

that he has

said

therefore about man in general, in the fuUness of

not acknowledge

the essentiaUy atheistic character of He not see that this philosophy excludes by

He does

philosophy.

"transmundane"

its very nature every kind in his interpretation, he

of

cannot

importance that is has in

his

true forever. And that is why he is the Truth.

will remain

Mr. Niel does gel's

by

satisfied

any

and

consciousness,

which

in this Tribunal, and he is the same as the And the man who succeeds in fuUy justifying himself to

acquitted.

change

history,

in its final judgment,

man who sits

himself is perfectly reason

Tribunal,

acquits man

bring

genuine

transcendence. And this is why,

himself to

ascribe

to

history

aU

the

Hegelian thought.

To be sure, Mr. Niel admits that for Hegel "history alone is the place of (p. 299). He also acknowledges that, in the Hegehan (= dialectical)

Spirit"

conception,

history must

necessarily have

an end

(p. 300). FinaUy, he knows

that it is precisely the advent of Hegel's (dialectical) philosophy that marks the end of the historical process, "because through it becoming thinks itself becoming"

as "eternal"

itself in

Spirit

which

is

nevertheless speaks of a

real outside of

time

and which

or "incarnates"

only

history (see for example pp. 252 and 357).

becoming"

domain

"divine"

(p. 368). But Mr. Niel

He distinguishes "temporal (p. 181), the "essentiaUy historical "supra-historical" of the Spirit from its activity (p. 180).

from "eternal

becoming"

activity"

of

He thinks he

finds, in

history, but

kind

a

of

the

Phenomenology,

"eternal

not an end

return,"

man

being

properly so caUed of "to endlessly himself" (p. 181). And

condemned

the series of forms through which he manifested Hegehan philosophy for him is not only the integration of the historical history" process but also "a transcendence ((depassement)) of (p. 114). in Now, fact, there can be no question in Hegel of a repeat

"transcendence"

( (depassement) ) properly history in the sense historical period. Being an adequate description of the real, it negates nothing

Hegehan philosophy is, if you please, that it does not mark the beginning of anew

so caUed.

"beyond"

and

therefore

creates

before it. But it point. which

nothing

nevertheless

real:

forms

it does

not

have

a real or

historical future

the historical process, as its final itself in time at an historical moment

part of

Not only because it constitutes it describes: it is nothing but

"history conceptually

understood"

Hegel, Marx

(begriffene Geschichte)

that is to say,

,

Mr. Niel has in petually

description

mind: after

rethink

aspects:

And it is exclusively this the "eternal that

return"

history,

process which

do nothing but

man can

has been

completed and

per

"under

the Wise Man (= Hegel).

stood"

by

"divine"

As to

described in its

((history))

which constitutes

the end of

the historical

37

Christianity

and ontological.

phenomenological, metaphysical,

(phenomenological)

and

"eternal"

notions such as

"supra-historical

or

activity,"

etc.

becoming,"

"eternal

Spirit,

they simply do not exist in Hegel. For Hegel

-

Time"

(Geist ist Zeit), and time is "the concept which empirically (der daseiende Begriffselbst) There is therefore neither creative activi

"Spirit is

exists"

.

ty

(=

of

time is at the very most space,

Being

negation)

thought

nor conceptual

(Sein). Now

static

Being,

i.e.,

since

outside of

"outside"

time. What is

the purely natural world, or static

it is

identity, does not differ from

pure

anything ( (ne differe de rien) ) It also, therefore, is ing" itself ( (II n'est done pas non plus different du .

not

different from "noth

"rien"

lui-meme) )

or

from

Nothingness (Nichts). And that is why one can say that there is nothing or Nothingness only being outside of time, the in "nothing"

the form

Being

of

time which realizes itself in the midst of space, of

historical,

as real or

-

"something"

human,

viz.,

Nature,

or of

time.

Now if this is the case, the very criterion of truth has, in Hegel, an historical If history has an end, it is not because this end is affirmed or

character.

"demonstrated"

itself"

Hegehan philosophy, which is true "in (or with respect to an eternal or divine truth). On the contrary, if this philosophy is true, it is exclusively because history has come to an end, it is because man no

by

longer negates,

by

ophy, which,

but truth itself

no

longer trans-forms the

or

fact, is

real revealed

longer philosophy Wisdom (absolute Knowledge).

this very

no

by the final philos for truth,

or quest

"temporal"

or historical character of Hegehan truth, Not seeing this which is absolute truth only because it is the final truth, Mr. Niel does not see the decisive importance which the fact of the end of history and of the

man

who, according to

him,

was

the incarnation of this end, i.e.

Napoleon,

had for Hegel. To be sure, Mr. Niel knows that Hegel was a fervent admirer of Napoleon fall" (p. 268) ; but he says only in passing, that he was "grief-stricken by his

and

and

in

a

hesitating manner,

the reahzation

"kingdom

leonic

ing sive

of

God

of

empire

165,

note

completion and

84);

that the

and

that Hegel has in mind is nothing but the Napo

section of

above

all, he does

Chapter VI

of

the

not understand

Phenomenology,

the true

which

is

mean

of

deci

importance.

As Mr. Niel description

The

is the result, the

earth"

on

(p. 182). And,

the last

that Napoleon

the French Revolution (p.

of

of

sees

the

second section

announces

-

which

very well, Chapter VI is devoted to a (phenomenological) whole historical process from the Greek City to 1806.

(B)

ends with an analysis of the

Revolution

of

1789

and

the advent of the Napo clearly see homogeneous" State. As the "universal and

Mr. Niel does

not

leonic empire, that is to say, of for the last section (C) it is indeed devoted,

-

as

Mr. Niel says, to

an analysis of

Interpretation

38 Kantian

German

and post-Kantian

But Mr. Niel does

philosopy.

not notice

that this philosophy is presented as a process which prepares for the advent of the philosophy of Hegel himself, and that the latter has as its essential aim his Empire, by presenting it as the to Napoleon, or to "justify"

"explain"

completion of universal

It is in the last

history.

Chapter VI that Hegel

paragraph of

philosophy (as resulting from the the

paragraph which one could entitle

Evil

its Pardon. Mr. Niel teUs

and

history

concrete attitudes which

Hegel

at aU the case. "evil"

in

order

belong to

speaks

is the

question

"pardon"

in

so called

properly

(with Mr. Niel

us that

to

in this

and

[?]

of

times"

all

there of

(p. 174). Now, in fact, this is not himself as speaking of Napoleon. The "crime"

of

Hegel "abandons

the metaphysical meaning

seek

own

philosophy), in

foUowing Lasson)

paragraph

supposed pohtical

is the justification

his

speaks of

evolution of post-Kantian

Napoleon's

Napoleon,

of

achievement

( (Voeuvre

the

and

napoleon-

ienne)) by Hegel's philosophy, or, more precisely, by his Phenomenology. of uni (see p. 175) is Napoleon as the "acting is Hegel, the of versal history, and the "judging of German philosophy, and, there Napoleon and of history, as the fore, of the whole history of philosophy. "result"

consciousness"

The

"judge"

consciousness"

"result"

As

long

as one

does

know that the

not

his critics, its Mr. Niel's summary of it (pp.

Napoleon

and

unique

content remains

174ff.) is

purely

theme of the paragraph is

strictly

unintelligible.*

verbal and

tolerably

Thus

obscure,

to say devoid of meaning. In any case, the true meaning of the passage,

not

the paragraph and the chapter, and which is reproduced at

which completes

the end

does

Mr. Niel's summary (p. 176), completely escapes the reader who know the text and the context. Now this passage is the most remark

of

not

able of all.

In this about

passage

Hegel

speaks of

opposed

empirical-existence

to

-

duality,

of

is the God

existence

After this of

4

this

the empirical

existence

of

the I

who

in its contrary, has self-certainty ; this empirical manifests himself in the midst of those who know -

reconciliation"

Germany,

"reconciliation,"

Napoleon. On the

order

passages on

the "valet de

is the very content of the paragraph, in which and himself as a German, with Napoleon.

the I

one

State Hegel the citizen

French in

The

(Dasein), is

of

"reconciles"

Hegel

and

says

as pure

The "yes

and

he

knowledge."

themselves

neous

and

the I which remains equal in itself there ; and which, in

complete ahenation and

the I

I"

them: "The Yes of reconciliation in which both I desist from their

extended

its

the existence of "both

Hegel is

no

hand, because in

and

to become

the "wounds

of

of

Napoleon the

longer really

emperor cease

men plain and simple.

the

spirit"

which

particularly

to

the universal and homoge

"leave

to be German

On the

other

scars,"

no

chambre"

remain

"opposed"

unintelligible.

The

and on "wound"

the

in

hand, "king"

question

is the defeat inflicted by Napoleon on Germany, which ((country)) Hegel advises to willing ly integrate itself into the universal empire that Napoleon is in the process of realizing; the

"hypocritical"

"valets" -

they

are

the essentially

critics of

Napoleon.

Hegel, Marx

39

Christianity

and

because the philosophy of Hegel is a becoming conscious of Napoleon. By understanding Napoleon as the completion of history, Hegel understands man as such and therefore the man he himself is : the consciousness of the external

(Bewusstsein)

(Selbstbewusstsure of being a Knowledge because, thanks to Napoleon,

thus coincides

with self-consciousness

It is in Napoleon that Hegel finds

sein).

"self-certainty."

Wise Man possessing absolute the reahty which he describes is definitively

And

completed.

"reconciliation,"

originally, before the

(being

a

He is

Frenchman

Napoleon

since

who

is

an

enemy

German) is really other than Hegel, Hegelian thought, which accounts for Napoleon, is more than a "subjective (Gewissheit) : it is the revelation of an (Wirklichkeit), that is to say, a truth of

the

certainty"

"objective-reality"

(Wahrheit). Now the itself. It is therefore

Hegel), perfectly Spirit

which

leon is the "revealing"

and

(Napoleonic)

conscious of

"appearing"

or or

through Hegel and his

Mr. Niel is therefore

which negates

right when

he

says

that is to say, to

nothing,

which

order

really true, he should have added that the Christ Jesus. The Gospel account is only the myth project (=

in

the

is

fully

and

there

completed

that, for Hegel, "Christ is

(p. 109). But in

not

his

Spirit,

Knowledge"

"mediator"

dialectical

completed

absolute

disciples,

nothing, but reveals perfectly the real through its finished historical becoming.5

perfect"

is

they are henceforth only "pure knowledge",

creates

and

reveals

the same time (thanks to

And that is why one can say that Napo "revealed" "God" (der erscheinende Gott),

call

that is to say, the "absolute

in

at

"God."

Christians himself to

it

which

and, itself. It therefore is the

through those who know that

fore

reality

perfect or absolute

for his

whom

Hegel has in

Christ,

of

assertion

or, if

you

the

to be

mind

is

please,

ideal to be

reahzed). The Christ who empirically exists, the himself to men, the Logos truly become flesh is the dyad Napoleon-Hegel, is the man completing historical evolution through

God a

who

actuaUy

battle

bloody

reveals

-

((lutte))

discourse the meaning Now Mr. Niel does

of

not

analogy between Christ

coupled with

this

the man revealing through his

evolution.

say that (even though he mentions, p. 369, the Hegel). He cannot say that because, not having

and

understood the essentially atheistic character of Hegehan (= dialectical) philosophy, he does not see the decisive role which the real completion (=

Napoleon)

6

In

a

of concrete

famous letter

Phenomenology, he dows. This text is

Welt-seele,

history plays in it. Inversely,

quoted

saw at

revealing.

and not

by

Mr. Niel (p.

dawn the "soul The

victor of

he does Hegel

not

who

therefore

not

fully

268), Hegel

the

seeing that "absolute

says

that

world"

ride on

Jena is

Volks-seele; he incorporates

that of the whole of humanity. But he

because he is

of

not

called

not

is Welt-seele

the

having finished

horseback

under

the

win

in it the "soul of the world": he is history of the French people, but

and not

Welt-^mr. He is

not Spirit, history, but Spirit by doing it. It is

self-conscious; through his actions he in fact completes

know that he is doing this and that he realizes absolute and who says it in the Phenomenology. Absolute Spirit

knows this

neither

his

Napoleon

understanding-Napoleon.

nor

or

Hegel, but Napoleon-understood-by-Hegel

"God"

is

or Hegel-

Interpretation

40 Spirit"

he

is nothing but the history

can attempt

One

to

theistic interpretation

give a

might even assume

Hegel,

to

refuses

"trans-Christian"

of man completed

that Mr.

the Hegelian Spirit.

Niel, foUowing most

Hegelian

acknowledge

by a man (or by two men),

of

atheism preserves

other

interpreters

of

precisely because this Christ, by applying it to a

atheism

the idea of

For it is and radically man properly called, "conceived in atheist to really take seriously this paradoxical and for an difficult even very "dialectical" yet necessary consequence of Hegelianism (and probably of any sin"

mortal.6

so

philosophy, or even of any

consistent or coherent atheism

to founder in

As for the behever, he

relativism).

recoil

from the enormity

if the

blasphemy is

this

of

by

uttered

that this other is grossly

that does not want

must

unconsciously

-

blasphemy and try to deny its existence :

another;

if he knows

even

or

-

even

beheves he knows

mistaken.

However that may be, Mr. Niel wants to hear nothing of Hegelian atheism, On the contrary, he beheves that he finds or of the Napoleonic "theandry."

the Christ of the Gospels again in that Hegel was

less

a philospher

Hegel, than a

and

he

goes so

far

as

to say (p.

329)

theologian.7

And yet, Mr. Niel is very suspicious of the alleged Hegehan theology. He enemy in it, and a particularly formidable enemy. Thus, he ends the

senses an

he beheves to be the

summaries of what

"failure"

affirming the

book

entire

Now, in

ends with a paragraph entitled :

in

order

beaten before

to

nevertheless

avoid

does

alleged

of

Hegel is

affirmed rather

Niel. One has the impression that he

by Mr.

wanted

than

to present

having even started the fight and perhaps precise

starting it. But the last some

raise

by

The Failure (p. 376).

"failure"

my opinion, the

the enemy as

Hegehan thought

of

the examined attempt at "mediation". And the

of

demonstrated

ly

"stages"

questions

critical paragraph of

which

deserve to be

the book

considered.

Hegelianism"

that "the only possible refutation of is of (= In he and I historical. this is Hegehan necessity profoundly "dialectical")

Mr. Niel teUs

would

he

6

be the last to

says that

stop

us

with

I do

this

Hegel, I

not

dwell

raise

any

would

on

the very

conception as a consequence of

he

pretending to believe that the the kingdom of

universality,

Prussia,

matters

so called

is therefore 7

In

Hegel view

a certain sense

to

which,

ended

his

this

simple,

is,

concern

"surpressing"

scendent with respect

that this

it

definitively as man.

or

in his

that he ended

by Napoleon and

work

did

by

was realized

not aspire

to

theo-logy

theo-\ogy

all

or as

definitively completed history

historical

Man-God,

moreover, true. But this

to

"Napoleon,"

"universal"

creative of new

with

make

not

at a given moment that

was not

and not the

himself

history

when

did

is that, according to him, Napoleon disappeared

work and

as))

him. But

that Hegel had to

definitive State begun

however,

matters

((i.e., history

man plain and

did, indeed,

perfect and

little. What

because he had (virtually) properly

significant modifications

Napoleon's fall. That he thought

the Archduke of Austria for his

could substitute

by

objections whatsoever against

has already been made, because hke to put some objections to him.

refutation

"worlds."

In any case, it

who realizes perfection.

sense can

only be

his life, this

was

the science of a

an

ironic

one.

If

exclusively with a God who is tran

Hegel, Marx

and

41

Christianity

Mr. Niel rightly does not follow those who want to "refute" Hegel by alleging the fact of Kierkegaard's existence against him. For the existence of Kierkegaard does not, in fact, anything at all, given that he was duly "refute"

described and

"refuted"

through the description of real historical overcoming in the Phenomenology. Mr. Niel, still a good Hegehan, alleges, in opposition ot Hegel's claim to have enunciated the absolute

((depassement) )

truth, the fact Hegehan

the immediate appearance

of

"right,"

"objection"

And this

point of view. tion"

I

But

is, indeed,

and of a

to confront each other down to the present.

vahd,

even

have to

one would

"left"

Hegehan

from the Hegehan

state

precisely

"dialectical"

or

what merit

this "objec

reaUy has.

would

Niel

which continue

of a

like to

out, in the first place (without

point

point of

shares

knowing whether Mr. beginning a

view), that if there has been from the

my Hegehan left and right, this is also all that there has been since Hegel. For if one abstracts from the remnants of the past which Hegel knew and described ("liberalism"

included),

and

which, consequently,

to him as an historical or

sition

"dialectical"

cannot

be

alleged

in

oppo

refutation, one observes that

there has been strictly nothing outside of Hegelianism (whether conscious or whether on

not),

the plane of historical reality

itself,

or on

that

thought or discourse as has had historical repercussions. And so

say,

with

assert

Mr.

Niel,

is that it has

pretations of

that

Hegehan

history

by

Verbal

polemics or

Hegelianism. The "leftist"

and the

most one can

"rightist"

inter

For today the discussion still continues. discussion can only be settled by reahty, that is

a

the reahzation of one of the theses that confront each other. "dialectics"

only reflect the real dialectic, which is a Action manifesting itself as Struggle ( (Lutte) ) and Work. And it is as work ("economic system"), revolutions and wars that the

dialectic in

refuted

philosophy.

Now, according to Hegel, to say,

has

decided between the

not

of such

one cannot

of

effect

between

polemic

"Hegelians"

has been taking

place

for nearly 150

years.

Recently

the left has won a brilhant victory, and it would be absurd to

conclude

from it that it is the

"right"

that will

finally

win.

But it

would

be

false to say that the provisionally victorious interpretation has defini tively proved itself to be true. In our time, as in the time of Marx, Hegehan philosophy is not a truth in the proper sense of the term : it is less the adequate discursive revelation of a just

as

reality, than

realized, able

is

and

an

idea

or an

therefore

ideal,

proved

that is to say, a

"project"

which

is to be

true, through action. However, what is remark

is that it is precisely because it is not yet true that this philosophy alone becoming true one day. For it alone says that truth is created in

capable of

time

out of error and

theistic

theory

of

that there are no

necessity

either

has

"transcendent"

criteria

(whereas

a

been true, or is forever false). Hegehanism, but will hmit itself to

always

And that is why history will never refute choosing between its two opposed interpretations. One

if it is

can

that, for the moment, every interpretation of Hegel, talk, is nothing but a program of struggle ( (lutte) ) is called Marxism) And this (and one of these

therefore say

more

than idle

"programs"

and one of work

.

Interpretation

42 means that

the

work of an

interpreter

work of political propaganda.

cluding, that "Hegelianism is of more

may be that, in present and

way in

which

This last review

fact,

the

in the

on

quite

the future of the world, and therefore the meaning

significance of

the Hegelian

remark

Hegel takes

the meaning of a rightly says, in con interest." than purely literary For it of

Mr. Niel therefore

may

the past,

writings are

perhaps

reader's eyes.

depend, in

of

the

the final analysis, on the

interpreted today.

justify

the unusual length of the present

43

AN INTERPRETATION OF PLATO'S ION Allan Bloom

In Xenophon's Banquet Antisthenes asks, "Do stupid

[or simple] than the

leads the

reader of

Socrates

choose

you

know any tribe

more

rhapsodes?"

This question, obviously rhetorical, the Ion to the further question, "Why in the world does

to speak to a

man

hke Ion,

a

typical member

of

the tribe of

rhapsodes?"

Even though Socrates

claims that

he investigates

men with re

spect to their knowledge and ignorance, it is hard to see why he should think it important to test Ion. Moreover, their conversation is private, so that it cannot be intention to show Ion off, or up, to others. Socrates in Socrates'

the

dialogues exposes the important kinds of human souls and their character

istic

To

errors.

him,

this particular discussion a

make

the empty reciter

of

Homer's

worthwhile enterprise

poems must represent

for

something beyond

himself.

Socrates

(530a-b) it is he

who

no need

to

to have this conversation,

seems most anxious

since

apparently stops Ion, who shows no particular interest in Socrates or desire to talk to him. Thus the first four exchanges occur entirely Socrates' at initiative, Ion responding in a way which would end the dialogue if Socrates did not return to the charge. Ion is a self-satisfied man who feels

He is

as

render an account of

he does;

himself or his activity; he knows

who

he is

he knows both himself and his activity to be important. far from the radical self-doubt of philosophy as a man can be. He is

and what

willing to talk

ity

about

In

order

and

about

himself and

others, for he does

accept

praise; he

not sense a

pressing

to engage Ion and induce him to

tract him and become

by flattery

and

reveal

has, however, little curios need

to learn from them.

himself, Socrates

for him. Ion is vain, and he is first when his self-esteem is threatened.

respectable

then captured

must at attracted

Socrates begins by expressing the greatest interest in Ion's achievements, making it clear that he is one of Ion's admirers. We learn from

Socrates'

first

questions about

city to city

and

is

Ion's

admired

recent

in the

doings that Ion is

cities

he

visits.

a man who

He is

not

bound

travels from

by the

ordi

Hellenanary hmits of citizenship : he is a cosmopolitan (or more properly a be based on Greek will prove to for his counterfeit, pohtan, universahty convention rather than anything universally human). His rhapsody is his passport, and he finds proof for his worth in the prizes the peoples award

him. He knows himself in

from

relation

to the

unquestionable acclaim

he

evokes

Above aU, Ion is needed to partake in the festivals dedicated to whom all Greeks honor. He is a servitor of the Greeks, and his

others.

the gods

authority is somehow connected his pious vanity.

with

the gods of the Greeks ; this is the

ground of

(530b-c) Socrates, who apparently knows Ion's character, prevents him from breaking off the conversation by praising him. Once Ion has taken

Interpretation

44 Socrates'

bait, he

will soon

be

at

his mercy

tion for his way of life. Socrates professes envy to specify

on

what arouses

that ugly but

among the knowers ;

sodes are

how. That

art

Socrates for

begging

-

a

flattering passion in him.

they possess

an art

justifica

the rhapsodes, and he goes

of

-

is divided into two apparently

of know-

of

parts

unrelated

The rhap

kind

a skill or a

widely

divergent

dignity : its practitioners adorn their bodies so as to look most beau

tiful,

they occupy

and

themselves

with

the thought of the good poets, espe

the teacher of the Greeks. Socrates has to explain

cially the divine Homer, what he means by the second as

part of

the art, which is apparently not so clear

the first. To be a good rhapsode, one must

says, for the rhapsode is a spokesman to the listeners. Hence, the rhapsode

Knowledge

of what

the poet thinks and

an audience constitute whose sole

or

authority

the core of the

emanates

understand what a given poet

interpreter

know

must

fidelity in

of the poet's

thought

the poet means.

what

conveying his thought to He is an intermediary

rhapsode's art.

from the

poet.

(530c-d) Ion readily accepts this description of what he does, not consider ing its broad imphcations. He has not reflected on art in general nor on the particular requirements of an art of

Homeric thought. He does

discussion

not see that

himself and

of rhap has really moved from a an inter as of Homer. Ion's of the interpreters adequacy sody to a testing preter is about to be put to the test, and thus the received interpretation of

the

conversation

Homer,

the interpretation

is to be

called

In

response

has hit the thought

of

participate

into to

by the most popular and typical of his interpreters,

question.

Socrates'

assertions about

Ion's art, Ion

avows

that Socrates

the head and that it is precisely to understanding the Homer that he devotes the greatest energy. He is delighted to nail on

in the

prestige

generally

accorded

to

tries to strike out on his own; he puts the

Homer,

of

on what

is his

own rather

Homer, but he

accent on

his

also

covertly

contribution

to

Homer's, is

than Homer's. His speech, not

particularly beautiful ; he has more fair thoughts about Homer than anyone. He is not simply Homer's faithful servant. Socrates recognizes that Ion would

like to

give a

display of his talents ; this is Ion's work, and he counts on charm

ing his auditors, charming them in such a way that they ask no further quest ions. Ion insists that he is reaUy worth hearing ; he reminds us of the for gotten

first

part of the rhapsode's art :

deserves to be uses

he has

adorned with a golden crown

Homer to his

profit.

adorned

by

Homer

and

the devotees

Socrates, however, does

not permit

of

for that he

Homer. He

Ion's

disloyalty

to Homer ; he has no interest in an Ion independent of Homer. The ever idle

Socrates greatest

says

he has

no

leisure to listen to the

rhapsode; he only wants the

That

(531a)

Hesiod

question

is

as

answer

to

follows: is Ion

performance of

Greece's

one question.

clever

about

only

Homer

or

Archilochus too? This apparently naive query leads to the heart of the matter, for Socrates knows that Ion will respond that Homer is about

sufficient

and

for him. And the fact that Ion has

of the other poets of what

is

is

symptomatic of what

most conventional.

no

he is

-

curiosity

about

the teachings

the most conventional

It is a thing to be wondered

at

-

agent

though far from

An Interpretation of Plato's Ion uncommon

that

-

ples which are

a man would

merely

given to

45

be wilting to hve his hfe according to

princi

him, while he would not purchase so much as a

investigating the alternatives. Socrates investigates such a man in this httle conversation, one who accepts Homer's view of the gods, the heroes and men without any need to see whether what the other poets say about these things is in any way useful. Even more, Ion is the one who transmits the Homeric view. In a word, he represents tradition. He accepts cloak without

the

orthodox

particular

view,

he teaches it. He does

and

tradition should be accepted

number of

conflicting

tween them. But Ion source should

be

accounts of the

his kind

and

They

preferred.

rather

world,

not seek

for

than any

men must make a choice

can give no reasons can

merely

why this If there are a

reasons

other.

assert

why their

be

particular

the superiority

of

their

text. In this respect, Homer's book resembles the Bible. It has adherents who

rely

it utterly but who can provide no argument in its favor when con books. And if the book cannot be defended neither can the

on

fronted way

of

with other

hfe

he had

grounded

in it. Ion

rehes on

But there

no competitors.

The Greeks learn the

official ones.

Homer,

which would

are always other poets

poems of

Hesiod

and

in

be

sufficient

addition

Archilochus

if

to the as well

Homer, and any man who questions must wonder which of them follow, for his happiness depends on the right answer. For Ion,

as

those of

he

should

Homer is sufficient, but for the

sole reason that

it is for reciting Homer's

poetry that golden crowns are awarded.

(531a-b) other poets

ence

Socrates

in

presses

that the rhapsode

say the

same

the question about Ion's competence with the

fashion ; he does not leave it at Ion's insist know only Homer. Where Homer and Hesiod be an equally competent exegete of both. So Ion

a comprehensive need

thing, Ion must

turns out to be an expert on a part of Hesiod as well as the whole of Homer.

Now they must test Ion's expertise on the remainder the part of Hesiod which is not the same as Homer. It is not so easy to determine this part as -

the other,

and a new

must

step

begins to forge the link between pointing to

divining

a

plays

object

words are

mention

to

on what

of

which

words

divining, these

the words

enough;

and

and

of

when

to the things the their words

words relate.

both Hesiod

a student of

Socrates

and

the poets. When the poets say the same

poets'

turn away from the

Homer

theme

what

Homer

argument.

Hesiod say differently by subject matter about which they both speak: divining. Now, a great role in the Ion, but here it is brought in innocuously as

an example of a common

thing, the

be introduced into the

they say different things, words are about. about

it take

on

And it is the diviner

one must

Both Hesiod and

meaning from the

who can comment

about divining, not because he is Homer, but because he knows divining.

Homer say

Hesiod

and

Knowers draw their knowledge from the great book of the world, and the poet, whether he is a knower or not, is dependent on and speaks about that world. No written book is sufficient unto itself; every book is essentiaUy related to something beyond itself which acts as a standard for it. Socrates has gradually narrowed the discussion and focused on the poet as a source of knowledge and on the rhapsode as a knower of that knowledge. Ion does not

Interpretation

46 that it is the

notice

this case. The

diviner,

argument has only because he knows the

the

the rhapsode, who

not

consequences of

that fact

that

estabhshed

will

is the

become

expert on

clear

Homer in

to him later. Now

Homer

a man can speak well about

Homer

subject matter about which

It thus

speaks.

becomes necessary to determine what Homer speaks about, since Ion must be a knower of that in order to be a competent interpreter of Homer. If Homer speaks about the same things as Hesiod, Ion's claim to be incompe tent about Hesiod will not be able to stand,

What is

(531c) Ion

which

must

Homer

whether or not

He

and

those things.

siod agree about

that Homer

it, then,

be

every thing human

presumed

to

divine. Homer

and

the knowledge

speaks about and

The

possess?

answer

is,

simply;

of

everything-

whole, and, if he

speaks about the

truly, he reveals to men those things which they most want and need to know if they are to hve well. It is at this point that Socrates reveals for the first time the reason for his choosing to speak to this shght man who is never speaks

himself aware

the import

of

of

the discussion. Homer presents the authorita

tive view of the whole according to

primary

Every

source

They

nothing.

It

by

In

and

in it from

guide

is the

important things.

whole

by

which

its

it

the

aU

constitutes the

knowledge he

needs

Every

sophic questioning.

for

from

has been instilled in him

by

a

who possesses a philosophic nature

deepest unity

of

that

it is

rightly

less

and well.

things, particularly

of

beginning

a more or

one starts

man who accepts

hving

the Greek understanding

man starts

No

an authoritative view

always

the gods. At least symbolically, he shows the

individual

the

to be the true view, and the

purports

to possess

whole which

themselves : he

earhest childhood.

is

particular there

Socrates, then, is testing of

Greeks

about the most

with some such view of

to the community, and

community. supposed

which

or error

themselves and which acts as a framework for their expe

are educated

afresh, from

belonging

begins

of men

group

members orient

rience.

knowledge

of

point of philo

coherent view of the

tradition. Somehow that rare

becomes

aware

that the tradi

tion is not founded in authentic knowledge but is only an opinion, and he is compelled of

the

come

to seek beyond it. The philosophic quest implies a

inadequacy

to light as a

of traditional

result of

opinion,

the investigation

appears unproblematic to most men.

the Greek tradition

which stems

certain whether what

authority

of

Ion

and of

prior awareness

the problems of philosophy

that traditional opinion

Socrates treats Ion

which

the purveyor of

as

from Homer, and therefore he tries to as Homer can be understood to have the

says about

knowledge. If it does not, the man who seeks for knowledge in the interpretation of Homer, unmoved by popular

must start aU over again opinion.

Ultimately,

himself: is his in the

event

of

that it is not, one

and start a second time.

ity

for the

course, the

same question must

speech about gods and men

most

stating the issue

would

In the

decisive

spite of

on

have to try to

Ion, Socrates

opinions.

return

confronts

He does

be

Homer

asked of

knowledge

of

them? And

to the beginnings

authority, the

so with great

author

delicacy,

knows that the community protects its his caution he was finally put to death

directly, for he

behefs fanaticaUy. In

based

never

sacred

by

the

An Interpretation of Plato's Ion community for rather

investigating

47

the things in the heavens and

the earth

under

than accepting Homer's account of them. In the failure of Ion to meet

the test Socrates puts to him we see the reason why Socrates was forced to undertake a private study of the things in the heavens and under the earth.

As the Homer

exegete of

Homer, Ion

the art of the whole.

possess

professions, Socrates is ness of

his ignorance

it

what

answers

of

to the

answers are

According

him to

Socrates is, therefore, with

why they

and

of

his

aware

higher level

of

to

see

the

tradition, Ion has

not

know that those is only that

contribution

thereby elaborating

and

it. In the Apology Socrates

men who were supposed

clear,

Socratic

of

and

Socrates'

deeply indebted

ascent to a

made

are unable

the

important questions, but he does

questioning the traditional answers structure of human alternatives.

break

the whole,

about

their opinions. As the spokesman most

the things of which

for knowledge. He knows in the Ion he shows the kinds of

and

they know

themselves questionable.

basis for the

of

He must, it has been to the most famous

make a quest

knowledge,

things that men must think

inadequacy

seriously.

ignorant, ignorant

causes

to possess

means

be the knower

must

if he is to be taken

speaks

of

the essential

to the tradition, which is the only consciousness, but he is forced to

reports

that he

examined

to know: statesmen, poets

three kinds of

He

and artisans.

chose

the statesmen and the poets because

knowledge

of

know

the good hfe

and

what

hfe,

the whole. Thus the

peace and war.

nothing, but that the

do things

such as

is,

and

artisans

making to

preferred

the tales of poets tell of gods and men, death

Socrates discovered that

teach their skiUs to others

less Socrates

things

human what

and

whole

do

the

of such

to the

open

admission

poets

whole

he knows the

choice seems

that

do

was

determining

they do

the

questions. arts

what

not speak about would

imply

the

the artisans

to be between men

and unaware of

parts of

whole.

Socrates

In the Ion, he

adopts a

not

know

applies

to the themes treated

fail

their

the whole com

but knows that he does

and the tradition

wherein poetry knowledge.

After

than to

knowledge

that those who talk about the

insignificant

with

knowledge drawn from the

whether aU poets

rather

way

latters'

both incompetent

are as a consequence obhvious of

(531d-532c)

poets and

it. The

of

are

deal

thus showing

way

own

artisans, for the

was made aware

but

and men who

answers although

standard of

of

However, Socrates did learn from

knowledge

position; he is

moderate

ignorant in his

remain

hence

and

not possess

petently but

actually

training horses, and by their ability to they proved they possessed knowledge. Neverthe

their pride of competence caused them to neglect the

who talk about the whole

incompetence,

They

could

shoes or

situation as a whole.

knowledge is

knew

statesmen and poets

did in fact know something.

become knowledgeable in the way of partial

they are men whose very activity imphes commands of statesmen imply that they

the

by poetry,

and what stands

in the

Homer talks about, Socrates asks same things. Ion recognizes that an

both that he is

conversant with aU

the

that Homer is comparable to other poets. While agreeing that other

do speak about the

same

things as

Homer, Ion, therefore,

adds

that

they

Interpretation

48 do

do

not

so

in the

He

same way.

that Homer cannot

means

poets, that

same standard as other

be judged

by the

it were, inhabit the same the position which Socrates

they do not,

as

world. Ion does not really accept or understand has been developing; he wants to interpret the world by the book rather than the book by the world. He is quickly disarmed, however, when Socrates asks whether the difference consists in the others being worse than Homer. Ion cannot resist affirming this suggestion; its corollary, that Homer is better, he

Better

and

worse, Socrates is

the things to which provided

by

competent

to judge

When

whether

he

are comparable.

expert

that

speaks well or

concern

is better,

badly;

Turning

of relation and

to the

know that

weU or

badly.

another

They

is

judges

arithmetician

when someone speaks about

the doctor judges whether he speaks

standard

is equaUy

-

the objects of his specialty.

a man must

numbers, the

about

speaks

someone

terms

are

the man who knows an art

-

all speeches

one speech

to respond,

quick

they apply

the arts, the

To determine that worse.

Zeus.

by

reenforces with an oath

healthy foods, to do so

are able

because they know numbers and health respectively. Who is it then who can judge of the better and worse speeches of poets because he knows the object about which

the

reveals

the poet speaks? The

problem of

the

is that it is the rhapsode

who

of

existence of

the rhapsodes

the art of the whole

for knowledge kind

of

serves

-

whether

Ion

speaks well or

poets'

speeches, but

these shallow replacements for knowers

-

to initiate

for

question

the discussion with Ion

the questions, let alone the answers. The

the highest things. In

of popular substitute

responding to this

of

premise of

competent judge of the

is the

rhapsodes are not even aware of

very

difficulty

dialogue. The

us

dimension

a new

When

we recognize

of the quest

Ion, Socrates

investigating

philosophy.

badly,

into

studies a

we reflect on who

judges

that it is not an expert but

the people at large. The issue has to do with the relation of knowledge and public opinion

in

civil society.

The iron-clad necessity of the argument based on the arts thus constrains Socrates and Ion to accept the conclusion that, if Ion is clever about Homer,

he is

also clever about

Hesiod

and

Archilochus. Socrates urbanely maintains dialogue, that Ion does in fact know

the unquestioned hypothesis of the

Homer,

and concludes

sion

is

he is

confronted

excellent and

from it that Ion is

ineluctable,

by a mystery:

except

reason

an expert on all poets.

that it is

not

This

conclu

true. Ion recognizes that

forces him to be

expert on all poets and

he is not; he cannot give an account of himself. The tables are turned; his confidence is somewhat abated, and now he turns to Socrates, who has estab lished

some

authority

over

him, for

an explanation.

than Homer he dozes as do the people, according to

the

Apology,

when

they have

no

gadfly to

With the

Socrates'

arouse them.

poets other

description in

It is this

miracle

that

needs clarification.

(532c-d)

Socrates has

that Ion is incapable

Ion is

of

no

difficulty

speaking

in supplying the answer: he responds Homer by art and exact knowledge.

about

not an expert as are other experts.

further

and more pointed comparisons

Socrates

pursues this result with

to the other arts. At the same

time, he

An Interpretation of Plato's Ion takes advantage

latter is Ion to

now

ask

instead,

for

an

vanity is

for Ion than Ion

humiliating he

the remark that

is to be

ment

poses a question

explanation; Ion

involved, is

now

esteem and

to make it quite clear to Ion that the

new prestige

a

Socrates. He

display,

any

and

way

be

will

a

far

forces

must

hear

more com

have been for him. But Ion, whose own wiles for preserving his self-

his

gives

assent

gay

hearing "you wise

such as

an obscure

to be heard now

passions,

would

not without

enjoys

in

who wanted

Socrates, by engaging Ion's

and

performer

pelling

his

of

in tutelage. He

49

For

the currently

of

to his instruction

men."

him,

with

Socrates'

argu

popular sophists might

technical virtuosity at confuting common sense, a display more no table for form than substance. If one treats Socrates in this way, he need not be taken too seriously ; one can observe him idly as one does any other per of

give,

former. Socrates, however, does not He takes the offensive himself and actors and

The

men,

on

human

the one

opposition

hand,

situation which

and points

between

truth

and

Ion this

accuses

he, Socrates,

poets, whereas

private man.

grant

Ion

speaks

what

and private

the pursuit

of

wise

vanity.

along

truth,

with

befits

as

a

called wisdom and public on

man,

forces Ion to be ignorant

to the precondition

being

only the

is here

for his

protection

of

the other, hints at the

without

being

aware of

it

the truth. In order to satisfy

of

their pubhc, the public men must pretend to wisdom, whereas only the private who appears to belong to a lower order of being, is free to doubt and

man,

free

the burden of pubhc opinion. The private hfe seems to be

of

to the

For example, the

philosophic state of mind.

speak of mean and contemptible

the

exalted

level

new pupil.

tioners an art

Arts

Ion

flute, harp

compare

cither prove

the

; the

argues

beneath

to

tutoring

to criticize

returns

or arithmetic are

grand art with

the practi

means that

; this

man who can

means

and cither playing.

his

are

judge

all of

one practitioner of

its

He

practitioners.

like rhapsody

; he cites imitative painting, sculpture,

(He here covertly insults Ion

the relatively trivial ones of

by appearing

flute, harp

and

playing.) The ostensible purpose of this segment of the discussion is to to Ion that the grasp of an art implies competence to deal with all of it;

Socrates pretend

could.

Socrates

with examples of arts which are much more

than either medicine

to

for position, Socrates

skirmish

possession of

now provides

and

this

are wholes,

of an art are comparable

is in

reveahng but

which are

expected of pubhc men.

(532d-533c) After his

things

essential

private man can think and

succeeds

in

doing

to the authority

However,

and as

art,

these examples

mains unexamined or wholeness of

this

of

for the

thus forces Ion to

realize

that he cannot

Socrates had first led him to believe he

implicitly

moment.

raise a

further

What is it that

the arts of painting and

sculpture?

problem

constitutes

Two

represented are

distinguishing argument

and

is toward He

its

medium.

its

characteristic

clearly

primary in

sense, but the

separable aspect.

identifying

abstracts

one

poetry

from the

with

its

entire

Obviously,

medium

thrust

is

a more

Socrates'

of

subject matter and not with

in poetry, from what constitutes hidden way he attempts to explain

poetic

charm, although in a

The

re

possible answers

suggest themselves : their subject matters or their use of materials.

the things

that

the unity

Interpretation

50 that charm. The

duahty

of style and

or medium and subject

content,

matter,

in poetry calls to mind the two aspects of Ion's art mentioned by Socrates at the beginning: the rhapsodes are adorned and they understand the thought of the poet. Socrates seems to forget the beautiful in poetry, just as he has to discuss the

neglected

beautiful,

the true to the

of

the point of view of uniqueness of

ing is

adornment.

the relationship

or

or

one of

its

quest.

philosophy

poetry,

and

of

he is examining the

the relationship

philosophy to poetry, from

role

in

plays

poetry

community.

the citizens that constitute a particular

Ion's total

confusion about

establish

The need for poetry

and

true, is exemplary

the

by Socrates, in

examples of practitioners of arts used

is

one of whom

Five

a

contemporary, while the

rhapsodes

are named

Socrates'

for

problem

the difference between speaking/zwe/y and

showing Ion that he must know all the poets, help to point. There is one painter, a contemporary ; there ages.

apparently paying

the most revealing facts about the human soul, and it is that need

effect on

speaking well, between the charming Socrates undertakes to clarify.

The

while

truth. Socrates is perfectly aware of the

the false but authoritative opinions of the

and

But

teaching, he is actually studying

only to the

attention

rhapsodes'

poets'

other

of

the issue

the context of

make an

amusing, covert

are three

sculptors, only

two are mythical person

; the only contemporary is Ion

himself,

and

the others are all mythical. Of the mythical rhapsodes at least two of the

first three

death

their singing. The

fourth, Phemius, during the king's absence. He was saved from suffering death for it only by begging for mercy at the feet met violent

as a result of

the mob of suitors running

served

riot

in Ithaca

Socrates'

the wise Odysseus. Perhaps there is a hidden threat in

of at

least Ion

it

mean

about

do

for

asks

Socrates'

finally

succor,

yielding

that he who knows he speaks most

Homer

and of whom all others assert

finely

What does

beautifully

of aU men

or

that he

speech;

completely.

well, is

unable

Socrates

ends

speaks

to

so about other poets?

The dialogue has three

first

which

has

major

concluded that a

divisions. Ion's

knower

of

plea to

Homer

must

be

a

knower

the

of the

poetry and, imphcitly, of the whole. the Ion has, in turn, three parts, two long speeches divine possession surrounding an interlude of discussion. The explicit

whole art of

The on

central section of

intention This

of

this section is to find some source

attempt at

section of

succeeds

but is

finally

of

Ion's

power other than art.

by

rejected

Ion

and

the final

the dialogue is an effort to resuscitate his reputation as the posses

sor of an art.

It is in this dramatic

possession must

dignity

first

to Ion's

be interpreted. It is

speech about

other alternative

is

no

Socrates'

context that

teaching about divine

presented as the alternative

Homer; it

proves

unsatisfactory,

less unsatisfactory, it helps to

reveal

for giving

but,

since

the

the nature of Ion's

claim and appeal.

(533c-535a) bout Homer Ion

Ion insists that Socrates try to explain why Ion is so good athe other poets. In response, Socrates provides

and not about

with a respectable and

flattering

he takes the opportunity to do

what

answer

-

divine

Moreover, long wished to do;

possession.

Ion himself had for

so

An Interpretation of Plato's Ion

he

display and gives a long speech, beautifully adorned, telling

offers a poetic

of gods and men and

poetry is of

supposed to

soul

my

.

their relations. And the speech has the effect on Ion that

have. "Yes,

Socrates

.

by Zeus

plays the

he himself is

seen whether

51

divinely

...

not

poet,

the speeches somehow

to say the god. It

lay hold

remains

to be

he self-consciously to Ion's needs and wishes.

possessed or whether

rationaUy constructs a tale designed to appeal The tale Socrates teUs does satisfy Ion's demands. It explains why he can only interpret Homer and at the same time gives his interpretations a dignity

and

perhaps greater than those

than that

greater

failed: he hmits

be

There is nature

akin

rather

(a

does

word which

to arrive

ways

the same thing.

view of

Homer,

one

where

Ion has

that transcends the

They

does

at

are

not

depend

in the Ion),

not occur

the rational study of

on

so

that

art

is

not

the only

that art and divine possession are not

stressed

the same result, alternative ways of understand each

exclusive,

implying a different and contrary

the whole. An art requires a subject matter which is permanent and

governed

by intelligible

elusive and

free

and who can

case

for

than the comparison between two technical treatises.

a source of wisdom which

merely two

ing

have, for there is no dignity

comparison; the comparison between Homer and others to the comparison between the Bible and another book made

to wisdom. It must be

road

on an art would

estabhshes a special place

behever

a

based

the gods. Socrates seemingly succeeds

of rational

would

by

of

rules.

Divine

gods who are not

to be

implies the

possession grasped

existence

of

by reason, who govern things

only be known if they choose to reveal themselves. In the latter and most decisive things are to be known only by the word,

the highest

rather

than the word

god,

Socrates

being judged by

the thing.

the artisan, would be the

and not

Ion,

one who

as

the spokesman of a

would

know the truth.

only describes the weU-known and undeniable phenomenon of frenzied insight but backs up the description by asserting that the passionate, source of that insight is really a god and that, hence, it is of the highest status.

Reason

not

(nous) is delusive

and must

Socrates takes enthusiasm, archetype

the presence of a god within, as the

the poetic experience. The unreasoning and

of

movement of

the

Corybantes is

an example of

likely

be denigrated.

literally

the kind

to be found. This is the

become diviners

itself in the

soul which expresses

and oracles.

of condition

state of soul

Rehgious

in

in

orgiastic which

which men

excitement and

unreasonable

dances

this

of

the

revelation

foretell the

fanaticism

is

future,

constitute

the ambiance in which Ion and his poetry move. Socrates compares the god

to

a

lodestone

things. man

of

the sacred;

moves and

lends its

perhaps a source of rest or of

for him to be

here, ministers

both

which

Reason,

affected

Ion,

himself at home in this

must

be

to

other

out of a

fully by this source of motion. Poetry, as presented

particularly to that

and

power to move

self-motion,

part of

the

soul which

longs for worship

festivals dedicated to the gods, finds of man's longing for the divine. Socrates,

who sings at the

atmosphere

however, suggests that the stone can be understood in two different ways. One interpretation

implying

comes

it is only

from Euripides,

a stone

;

and

a

poet, who calls it the

Magnet,

the other comes from the vulgar, who caU it

Interpretation

52

Heraclean, implying

the

its

mysterious

that only the presence of the divine can account for

It

power.

be

might

that in this

suggested

Socrates

speech

the account of the vulgar to explain Ion's mysterious attractiveness,

adopts

lending

to that attractiveness

a significance commensurate with

his

and

his

audiences'

wishes.

Upon Ion's

(535a-e)

his speech, Socrates ques of his argument but with

enthusiastic reception of

tions him. He does so ostensibly to tighten the hnks the

real effect of

to the great interests he

opposed

the character

rates

The

finally

reveahng

poet

poet and

is the

of

the rehgious

spokesman of a

hence the

asked

when

he teUs the fearful tales

of

his

frankly

of

his

mind and

subject.

teUs

When he tells

not suppose

shed

that

for the

As

has been

suggested.

is the

spokesman of a

a part of

this great chain,

rhapsode

the stage. Is he not possessed

Achilles,

or

the

most curious of

imaginary

his

soul

transported to the place

to this rapture, this total sympathy with

piteous, his

eyes

stands on end and

that of the passions connected with purveys

the

the avenging Odysseus and

freely

of the

fearful, his hair

the

of

experience which

and

experiences on

of

does he

these events? Ion confesses

his

At the

the sufferings of Hecuba and Priam? When he recites is he

piteous ones of not out of

god,

Ion's soul, this httle Ion as same time Socrates elabo

nature of

spokesman of a spokesman.

Ion is

to tell

the

represents.

tragedy ; he

pleasures, the

fiU

with

tears,

and when

his heart jumps. Ion's arouses

pity

and

fear,

pleasure experienced

sufferings of others.

Men desire

he

world and

is

he

in the tears

and need

the

satis

faction found in contemplating the mutilation and death of noble men. This satisfaction is provided in beautiful poetry and is presided over by fair gods.

Socrates

points out

circumstances

his

does

golden

not

unreasonable

Ion's

he finds himself lost his

-

crowns and

in the

noble sentiments are

he,

adorned with golden

is frightened

when

real

crowns,

his friendly

him. Ion's tears, Socrates imphes, would only be for his terror only for his life and comfort. He may be the

not attack

crown,

and

for the

grandest beings and sentiments, but he is a very ordinary His tragedy would be the loss of the means of display and self-preser He is, in the deepest sense, an actor. Ion readily accepts

spokesman

mortal.

how

which

he has

cries when audience

in

Socrates'

vation.

characterization of his situation, without

FinaUy,

after

sensing his own vulgarity in doing so. by a god, and Ion by

estabhshing that the poet is possessed

the poet, Socrates completes his argument

the spectators

are possessed

by

by

Ion. Thus the

asking Ion to

confirm

that

spectators would constitute

the last link in a chain of attractions originating in the god. Ion asserts that the spectators do indeed share his experiences. He knows this because he is always

looking at them and paying the closest attention to them. He reassures so by explaining that he laughs when they cry, for he wiU

Socrates that this is get

money,

possessed,

and

he

living

box-office

cries when

with

they laugh, for he

the gods and the

will at

lose

money.

This

man

the same time counting

the spectators when they cry, he but cries there may be a deeper kinship in he laughs, they laugh, that Ion's low interest in the money which preserves life is not totally ahen the

receipts.

He is

heroes, is

and when

to the fear

of

death

at war with

-

-

which

is

at the root of the spectator's

interest in the tragic

53

An Interpretation of Plato's Ion poems.

At

all

we can see

events,

that Ion gives them what

they

to the HoUywood stars,

son

the

ments of appear

wishes of

to be

that the real magnet is the spectators and

want.

He

fans, but

their

best be

can

who, in

order

The

even

admirable,

are

only fulfill

to satisfy them, must

"divine."

independent,

by compari

understood

nothing in themselves,

who are

spectators must

deceive themselves, absolutize their heroes, who exist only in terms of their tastes. It is a kind of self-praise; what the people love must be rooted in the

best

highest ;

and

to go from gods to

what appears

direction. Ion

other

He may think himself superior duping them, but he is their flatterer depends

men

really

goes

in the

dei in himself, but it is only the vox populi. to the people, laugh at them, thinking he is

senses the vox

their creature ; his self-esteem

and

their prizes ; he does what he does at their bidding. The nature of

on

the people and Ion's relation to them perhaps comes most clearly to light

that, if what the people most have to deceive them and could be at

comedy, Ion

when we recognize

wanted were

would not

one with them.

laugh

they laugh. This may help

when

between truth

to

He

would

Socrates'

earher opposition

explain

and pubhc men and cast some

light

his dictum that the city

on

is the true tragedy.

(535e-536d) about

divine

A

second

long

is designed to

speech

possession and perfect

complete the argument

the new view of Ion's calhng designed for

him by Socrates. But this speech, similar to the first one in its poetic quahties, is no longer successful, and Ion, far from being possessed, rejects it. The form

is the same, to

so we must

persuade.

Socrates

The

look

elsewhere

simple answer

to

is that it

second an example of unsuccessful

the

essence of popular

This

possession

is

of successful

but the

tells Ion that

not a special

audience

honor

of

as

too is

not

are

and with

thereby

that

aspiration of

its

the poet and the

only Everyone is possessed;

possessed.

title to wisdom;

or a

this speech

did the first.

poetry

poetry, slyly suggesting

poetry is its capacity to flatter the

second speech

rhapsode possessed

for the failure

longer flatters Ion

the first speech an example

gives with

the

audience.

account

no

possession explains

is merely a description of the entire set of activities and attractions involved in poetry. Moreover, Socrates now stress The story

nothing.

divine

of

possession

superior

equaUy possessed, and Homer is in no sense in this decisive respect. It just happens that some men are more

attracted

to Homer than any

that the

es

for

beheving

says. of

various poets are

what

And Ion's

fact,

each of

sanction.

Ion is

Homer

other poet.

says

speeches about

Divine

possession provides no

Orpheus

more than what

any Homer

suffer correspondingly.

the various conflicting sayings of the poets has now a

helpless instrument

of a

bhnd

power.

basis

or

Musaeus

As

a matter

equal

divine

FinaUy, Socrates

imphes that it is not only the poets and their votaries who are at odds, but that there are different gods reveahng contrary ways. There is no cosmos, only

a chaos

original of

the

; and the truth

of

Ion's

and

Homer's speech,

theme, becomes impossible to determine. Such

teaching

about

divine

possession when

further

are

which was

the

the consequences

elaborated. Socrates'

(536d) Ion, dimly aware of the unsatisfactory nation of

his activity,

refuses

to

admit

that he is

character of

possessed and mad ;

expla

he makes

Interpretation

54

to possess Socrates by making a display. Socrates, however, him off, asking for an answer to yet another question. Ion is to be forced to support his claim that he possesses an art. He will, of course, fail in this attempt. The conclusion of the first section was that Ion knew aU the a

last

attempt

again puts

; the

poets

The first

between the be nothing

Homer

does

than an

speaks well.

about which

know,

not

salvage

that

Ion

know Homer.

his

that concern. Given the dispropor of

it, Ion

will

be forced back

upon

his reputation. But that divine possession

self-justificatory boast. asking Ion about what particular

by

thing in

properly that there is nothing in weU. But what about those things he

responds quite

he does

is,

not even

idle,

Socrates begins

(536e-537c) Homer he

fulfilling

the

claim and

more

be that he does

requirements of

divine possession in order to will

one will

the universahty of Ion's proper concern, the third

to fulfill the

incapacity tion

this

conclusion of

section shows

not speak

those arts

of which

Ion is

not

himself a

practitioner?

Without giving Ion time to respond, Socrates searches for a passage in Homer that is technical in character. Ion is caught up in the artifice and eagerly asks to

recite

the passage. At last he gets to perform, if only on a duU set of in

structions

he

for be

should

charioteer

but

Socrates teUs him

a chariot race.

what

to

recite and

The

used.

passage recited

belongs

more

to the domain of a

than to that of a doctor. It deals with the details

of a chariot

one might wonder whether such a poetic presentation could

interpreted expertise.

by

did

not ask

eer

is

and charioteer

could

that ; his goal is to get Ion to admit that in this instance the chariot

more competent than the

do so, Socrates

(537c-538a) matters. each of

must come

This

There is

a

rhapsode, but before he can compel Ion to

to a further agreement with him.

agreement concerns

variety

of

the

relation of arts

different kinds

of

to their

subject

things in the world and to

these kinds is assigned an art whose business it is to know that kind.

subject

know from

matter,

another.

one

art,

and what we

The difference in

know from

one art we cannot

names of arts comes

from this differ

only be one kind of expert for each kind of thing. Therefore, if the charioteer is expert on a passage in Homer, the rhapsode, as rhapsode, cannot be. Once this rule is accepted, Ion, who does ence

not of

in

race,

be properly the issue of

Socrates relentlessly pursues Ion sees no choice, although he best comment on the verses. But Socrates

a charioteer either.

Between doctor

probably thinks he himself

One

teUs him

to stop. Socrates is now Ion's master and gives a demonstration of how

when

subject

matter; there

particularly

the domain

leads

this passage anyway, is prepared to admit that it is

the charioteer rather than the rhapsode. But this admission

inevitably to

which

the consequence that there is no passage in Homer about

Ion is competent, for the

special arts.

dealt

care about

of

can

And

even

world

though there

is divided up among the

were some segment of

weU-known

Homer

which

be only one of many experts caUed in to inter pret Homer ; but, if rhapsody is anything at all, it must somehow be compe tent to deal with all of Homer. The helpless Ion, in order to be something, must

with

rhapsody, Ion

look for

finaUy

emerges

would

some specific subject matter which

in the

guise of a general.

he

alone

knows,

and

he

An Interpretation of Plato's Ion This loves

the discussion is particularly offensive to anyone who is not only that Ion is deprived of a claim to his

segment of

Its

poetry.

consequence

profession, but also that Homer is al

55

reduced

information drawn from the

After all, a poem is a whole, one but which puts them together in

arts.

which

to a mere compendium of technic

Nothing may

a unique

could

be

more

arts

be derived from

which cannot

way

antipoetic.

drawn from the

use material

the arts.

Socrates knows

The very verses fisherman could comparing goddess well as

is;

poetry

the argument is

a

; the

tackle.

this passage must know the gods

of medicine

Then, too,

the verses about the

appropriately judged by the is good for the character of

Rep. 408). Even the first example, cal.

which on

way to handle

account of the

Examination

a

telhng

of

statesman who

citizens

as

Machaon's

knows

what

than the doctor (cf.

the surface looks hke a straight

chariot, is

of

the context

not

unambiguously techni

the propriety

of

of

of such advice

does

the charioteer's sphere of competence. The

clear; it does

not

do justice to the

not

evidently fit too

insufficiency

of

thereby

well

into

this argument is

to Ion. But Socrates

poem or

to see precisely wherein it fails and

compel us

grasp.

heahng

the passage reveals that Nestor is actually his son how to use somewhat unsportsmanhke tactics in the race ; the

judgment

found

to the

assigned

be interpreted

man who can understand

fishing

forward

intended to be defective.

this. For example, the passage

by a fisherman as such, for it is a simile, fisherman's hne falhng through the water to the plunge of a not

wounds are more

kind

what

cited prove

wishes

to

to see a real and pro

Ion, and, for that matter, most men, do not sufficiently They, in their hves, are caught up in it unawares. This argument merely

problem which

reflects a contradiction

in the

The problem would be

most common

of specialization.

If

sees a

independent,

variety

of

one

astronomy, hterature to be unquestionable.

sity but there is university

not

have

of

things.

around a modern

seemingly

as

that

university, for example,

one

self-sufficient

disciphnes. Physics,

and economics teach competences which are

Now,

where

no one who

as a whole.

but it does

looks

understanding

immediately perceived by modern men

most

is

There is

an

is the

unity?

expert about

They

the knowledge

always a central

intellectual discipline

are parts of

of

thought

the

univer

present

in the

administration, to be sure,

its

own

; it merely provides

the wherewithal of survival to the disciphnes and accepts their inteUectual authority.

There

are men who

and who are even applauded

them

with

knowledge

ists. One finds

the

of

talk about the whole domain of knowledge

for

same

doing

so.

solidity

But

no one

or certitude as

competent specialized speech or

thinks

of

crediting

that of the special

bloated, unconvincing general

It is this very problem that Socrates is approaching here, the problem aUuded to in the Apology -when Socrates teUs of his examination of the arti sans as well as of the poets and statesmen. He does not deny that Homer speech.

constitutes a unity, which

The

question

character of

longings

is the

knowledge,

and which

is more than the result of the mere

status of

they

or

that

is it

can

unity.

Does Homer's

an adorned

deception

addition of parts.

general view

have the

which satisfies men's

dupe themselves into taking seriously

by calhng

Interpretation

56

the only

arts are

case, then

If

Socrates'

inspired"? Men in

"divinely

sources of

time, simply

the

what more

becomes

aware

that it is

art can speak

precisely

forgotten is the

about

it

authority than the

with even greater

the latter in

sets

motion.

alone can judge

He

is their user, but he is surely not ter artisan is the architect who house.

Socrates'

As

None

art.

is

the specialties

of

This leads

us

good and

each of

is itself the

is really independent,

back to the

art of

the saddle

fact, he may maker himself, for he bad saddles, for he

The best

model of

the mas

the specialized artisans who build a

rules

part of a whole which

speaks of

a matter of

saddle

the

a saddle maker.

forgets that

argument

matter which

Socrates

that no other

one art and

horseman, for example,

maker's art with great competence and precision. speak of

of poetry's unity.

some

accept

that subject matter. But this is not so. What is

The

master arts.

by

Socrates

And Ion's

wrong.

is the source of the dissolution

that each subject matter is dealt with

asserted

by

principle of speciahzation posited

one

carefully,

ance of that principle

knowledge. But if that is the

be knowledge.

men's general views can never

one examines

present, beheved that the

as at

persuasive

the arts treats of a subject subject of a more sovereign although

the whole, the necessity

it may

seem

to be.

of which emerged

early in the discussion. The subject matter of poetry turned out to be the whole, and if poetry is to be based on knowledge, or to be discussed knowl edgeably, there men

do

not see

divisions.

different

be knowledge,

must

or an

of

art,

this art and do not see the whole

the whole. But somehow

presupposed

in

each of

its

They have a view of the whole, but it seems to stem from altogether

sources

than their view

somehow altogether

of

the parts. The helmet

different from the

maker's art seems

statesman's art which

in

war

directs

intelligible, but the The discovery of the

the wearers of the helmets. The parts seem rationally whole of which

possibihty nature,

they

are parts

and

that the word

remarked

surprise, then, that the

dialogue Socrates nature nor of art

is the

order which

for that

conceive.

heroes,

is the

Ion's

world

awe-inspiring ; cause of

Ion's

representation of

It is

the

unifying knowledge

of which

knows

With

Socrates

Ion

of nature.

which

is

This

neither

could not conceive and we

of special arts which are

such arts are almost coeval with

highly

man,

and

notion of a permanent and comprehensible

intelhgibihty

of

the parts. But that

reflection

dazzhng poetry telhng of gods philosophy but its bitterest enemy. The Ion is a a

the emergence not

of philosophy out of the world of myth. only ignorance that prevents the discovery of nature ;

man's most powerful passion sides with wisdom.

in the Ion; it comes as no to be found. In this

also nowhere

; instead there is

world

a precursor of

(538e-539)

not occur

universal and

them leads to the

not a part of

and

does

philosophy is

the pre-philosophic soul which knows neither of

examines

and even

reflection on

is

nature

word

spurious, that knowledge

longer

developed

to be so.

not seem

the master art which seeks the first principles

quest

special nor

can no

does

rationally intelligible whole may be called the discovery of that discovery is the origin of philosophy. It has already been

of a

reveals

great emphasis

he

poetry

this in his final recites passages

and

is

examples

at war with

his love

of

drawn from Homer.

from the Iliad

and

the

Odyssey

An Interpretation of Plato's Ion

deahng

with

Homer

with which a speciahst should

divining,

presumably to

57 the kind

show once again

deal.

However, he has

thing in

of

already amply

his point, and the pecuhar solemnity of his presentation forces one to further for his intention. It can be found in his desire to call particular attention to the art of divining. This art has been mentioned several times in the dialogue and has been connected with rhapsody throughout, suffering

made

search

the same fate as it. In the first section,

it

divining was treated as an art ; indeed, the first example mentioned of an art. In the central section, it was one

was

of

the examples of divine possession, and now it has again become an art.

Although

not

Socrates to

up their

divining is used by divining we can pene

to rhapsody or poetry,

similar

obviously

point

By

character.

reflecting

on

trate what Socrates wishes to teach us about rhapsody and poetry.

Diviners

because

exist

men wish

to know the

happen to them

because they

future,

individuals. There can be

are wor

knowl if there is if the fate of individuals is but a matter of providence; only chance, this fond wish would have to remain unfulfiUed. Providence imphes ried about what will

as

such

edge

the

existence of gods who care

it is

in that it

strange

for

art, it would, in a sense,

seem

If divining is to be

men.

know the intentions

must profess to

considered an of

free,

to presuppose that the

art,

the gods; as

an

elusive gods are

by the bonds of intelligible necessity. Divining partakes of the ra dignity of the arts while supposing a world ruled by divine beings who

shackled

tional are

beyond the grasp

arts and

to the

peculiar art

of the arts.

realm

It belongs

divine

of

in that it treats

somehow

possession.

both to the

realm of the

Moreover, divining is

of the particular while other arts speak

only

in the edge ones.

it

is taken

general rules.

ministers Socrates'

hand, it

one

to

man's

of

impiety .

.

they

.

-

advised

desire to

master

divining defending

manage

of such

deeds,

ies

be

the good

piety

preserved

for

he had been

-

households

respect

a

by

they

and cities

becoming

to

calculator,

acquired

important

whether

a

consequences of which are

should

be done. He

us

by

accused

carpenter,

household

a

smith,

manager or a

human thought. However, he

parts of

a

sent

that those who are

farmer,

an

of the art of

investigator

general, he held that said

thought

such stud

that the gods reserved the

them for themselves and of these parts nothing is clear to

in it; nor is it clear to the is it clear to the statesman man who marries a

said

they

unclear, he

in a fine way had need, in addition,

a

human beings. For it is surely not clear to the man will reap it ; nor is it clear to the man who builds

to the

has been

them [his companions] to do necessary things in the way

be best done. As for things the

divining. With

most

and gain

fixed providence; on the other hand, his destiny rather than accept it. Socrates'

context of

them to inquire of diviners

can

to avoid the bad things

Xenophon teUs that Socrates :

would

going to

used

presupposes a

view of the proper use of

Xenophon. In the

while

account of

derived from it is to be On the

of the

the divining by other arts only to the extent that it partakes And, finally, although divining is a pious art, the knowl

general; the unique, the special, are the only concern of particular

a most

general whether whether

beautiful

a

house in

it is beneficial to

presiding girl

who plants a

over

the city is

for his delight

a

field in a fine way who fine way

exercise

who will

live

command;

nor

beneficial;

nor

is it

whether she will prove a

clear

misery

Interpretation

58 to

him;

is it

nor

in the city

suppose that

possessed given

of such

nothing

by

not

it is better to does

he believed do

what

to

by

accomplish

inquired

not

He

city.

said

that those who

madness.

But they

diviners concerning things that the

tell a

can

all are

are also

gods

have

guaranteed

Those

is forbidden. He

study

must

by

means of

grace.

what

what

is

ship

about such

divining; for

has knowl

be known

by

things from the gods

the gods have

not clear

or one who

who

ask about what can

inquire

that

said

be studied;

gods

who

has knowledge

get a pilot of a

given

human beings

to human beings

the gods give a

be

should

to those

sign

(Memorabilia Ii6-9).

how to sow, but whether he will reap what he sows is to know, for chance is decisive in determining wheth

man

live

reap.

by

they apply, and, in

words, he

their action.

man who sows

cares about most as a

Socrates reasonably

art.

other

die. But the

or

What he

rules of art where

diviner. In

a chariot who

power of art

to

wants

for

have knowledge? Or to

weighing.

from the

about

er that man wiU

affect

of

get a charioteer

happen to be in their

beyond the

he

inquire

by

are possessed

have knowledge? Or whether it is better to

counting, measuring, or

Art

be driven from the

things belongs to the domain of the divine but

human thought

of

madness who

edge or one who

who

man who makes alliances of marriage with men powerful

will as a result

to human beings to judge on the basis of study ; for example, if someone were to

ask whether

does

he

the capacity

within

to the

clear

whether

They

prescribes

that

acting

so

because

man

men should

is

not

obey the

belongs to chance, consult the what is out of their control

what

urges men not

only does

hving,

to let

should separate out

their hopes and fears from their

manfully foUow the prescriptions of what true knowledge understanding possess. They must not let their passionate aspirations corrupt that they and

knowledge. But world

fate

such a

of an

the fate able

is not satisfactory to most men; they must see the way that their personal ambitions have a cosmic status. The individual man is no more significant to the knower of man than is

such a solution

in

of a particular

for the life

dence

and

leaf to the botanist. The way

They must

of men and cities.

the gods, a world in

particular,

poetry to which man chngs so him. As long as human wishes for the world of

dominate, it an art of

remains

order, for

the

whole

unaccept

by provi

of the

which art and science are

world which confuses general and

permanent

knower is

see a world governed

inexphcable,

nature and chance.

intensely, for it

a

This is the

consoles and

flatters

significance of particular existences

impossible to discover nature, the intelligible and satisfy those wishes. Ion cannot imagine

nature cannot

because,

as rhapsode,

he

most of aU serves

the

longing

for individual immortality, and he uses his poetry to that end. The effect of this longing for immortality on the soul is illuminated Socrates'

comparison of

by

the enthusiastic diviners and rhapsodes with the

Bacchic or Corybantic dancers (534a-b). In the Laws (790d-79 lb) the Athenian Stranger

speaks of

which gets

its

Corybantism

rehef and cure

as an

illness resulting from

excessive

in the frantic dances. The hearts

of

the

fear,

Cory

bantic dancers leap, just as does Ion's, and they dance wildly ; carried away by powerful internal movements which they translate into frenzied external movements, they dedicate their dance, and themselves, to a protecting deity.

An Interpretation of Plato's Ion

The fear of

the most profound kind of fear and the most powerful

death,

of

59

moves them until

they are out of their minds, and they can be healed only in the fanatic religious practice. In the Ion, Socrates points to the most important source of religious fanaticism and suggests that the function of that kind of poetry which is taken most seriously is to heal this fear and passions,

in his

console man

ally

Fanaticism is

one.

is

stories

to the

sense of

condition of

The

result.

tests the stories

This poetry irration

all

its

believes the

man who most

those who do not.

of

poets'

Socrates,

those who tell them, is

as weU as

the

a menace

them. It is precisely overcoming this forms, that is the pre

by

provided

security

oneself, in

concern with

its

often

to be most intolerant

hkely

philosopher who

Ion

awareness of his threatened existence.

the madness in all of us. It is a useful remedy, but a dangerous

soothes

subtle and pervasive

philosophy and a rational account of one's own life. Poetry, as it to suffering man, gives a spurious sense of knowledge

administers

while

really serving

watering the

and

(539d-540d) Socrates,

who

reciting from Homer, showing his select

the passages that

belong

over

to the

Homer belongs to him. He does not

only stupidity,

He loses his title to sides, he clearly

if he is

recites all of

gifts,

Ion

rhapsode.

But,

has himself been

and

now

must

demands that Ion

look for

ox-like, he

self-interest that makes

not

some spe

that all of

asserts

to have followed the

not seem

however, but

respect

from Ion

own rhapsodic

cial segment which speaks about rhapsody.

It is

hostile to true knowledge.

passions

has taken

argument.

him

so

dense.

the interpreter of the whole, and, be

the Iliad and

Odyssey

and not

just individual

Socrates forbids him, however, to say that he is an expert on all of Homer. Their earlier agreements about the practitioners of arts who can judge

passages.

Homer bind Ion. Socrates

parts of

appropriate

that the

for

rhapsode

is reaUy only

it,

sees

Ion for

by

counts :

men and

his

in

free,

slave and

not allow

ruled and

to technical,

personnages are always particular

would

say in

tient. Ion

same

difficult

is true

To this Ion

slave or

of

be

Ion

can

be the

expert on what

when

a woman.

know

What

"yes."

answers

Both

it is

must

kinds

of

his

in general; particular kinds of

never presents man

of men

doing

ship ; he is the pilot ; what he is known to the practitioner of the

a ruler of a

man who

Socrates

about

a

doctor treating a sick pa whether he knows the

him

the things it is

artisans

fitting for

is

asks

But Socrates be

this general statement

at

fitting

will not even

for

Ion

ing

his troops. In a last desperate attempt, Ion

a man who

is

a general

seizes on

a slave

let him

too. Then Socrates

would

what

fitting for

ruler, to say ; he knows the pro

Homer

situation

the

"no"

must answer

proprieties of such speech. say?

is

man who

a particular

The

ancestral

relatively

man.

Ion to leave it

what men should say.

things. There is a free

pilot's art.

not

the parts of Homer dedicated to these petty, uninterest

as opposed

civil,

Socrates does competence

emerge

the human things. In particular he knows what it is

women,

prieties of

forgetful. It is

the agreements and

ing arts are of no real importance to the whole. reaUy

being

memory mindlessly repeating the

a

things. Ion beheves he can abide

intact. As he

chides

people, to be forgetful. Socrates imphes

a rhapsode, of all

to

remain a

asks whether

to say in

exhort

this alternative, his

Interpretation

60

salvaging his dignity. Socrates interprets Ion's assertion that he say to mean Ion possesses the general's art; he knows the speech of a general must be a general. Socrates began by

final hope knows who

of

what a general should

to a rhapsode and ends

talking

by

commissioning him

as a general.

Socrates

but

the distinction between speech and deed which Ion suggests

rejects

cannot

defend. there is clearly a possibihty of

Now,

knowing is

discussing

all the particular activities which

he

man

in

general without

can undertake.

Similarly

there

capacity to speak about deeds, and to understand them, without per forming them. Ion is caught in a sophistic argument. But Socrates does not a

do him

an

injustice, for if he

were able

to

present a

defense

of

dignity

the

of

speech, if he had any justification for his own life which is devoted to speech alone, he could extricate himself from the difficulty. He makes a hving from

but does

speech

ing Homer,

not

respect

really

it

or understand

the heroes and their

admires

is the best kind

if there is

are more

on

deed,

and

important the hfe of

hfe. Or, rather, there is no theoretical hfe; for only theoretical hfe can speech be regarded as anything more than a

a

of

Thus Ion does

means.

deeds; they

Speech follows

than the speeches which glorify them. action

it. Ion, apparently follow

sing the

not

for their

poems

own sake

but for the

sake

of money.

in

Only

in

a world

thought could be

which

understood

to be

highest, in

essentially intelligible beings can there be significant general speech. Without such universals, only particulars Socrates' exist. That is why Ion is unable to stop progressing from the man in which

there

Ion

general

and so on.

are universals

said

Only

have already are

he knew

he

brate the

do

of

doers,

and

the

The

the competent.

not explain

only be

speeches of

how that

(540d-541b)

All

of

Socrates

by

effected

Socrates,

for the hfe devoted to

generalship.

he

he

speak of man

For him,

can

; but

we

aU speeches

poets and rhapsodes are splendor and

be. In

order

authority

deed, but

for that

of

the

expla

to be given there would have to be a total revolution in their view, a

revolution which can

ground

nature could

to indicate that speech can be higher than

poets and rhapsodes nation

to slaves guarding sheep, pilots in a storm

human

the deeds of

of

would seem

of

-

cannot even conceive of nature.

but incompetent imitators poetry

which means

about

if he knew

seen why

distillations

-

the

poet

philosophy. -

in this

When poetry can cele Plato has found a

case

-

speech.

this becomes clearer in the further elaboration of Ion's

permits

Ion to

masquerade

in this

comic

garb,

although

have easily shown that this position cannot be defended either. This role for the actor is apparently too appropriate to be denied him. Ion now knows what he must do to defend himself, so he is wiUing to assert that there is

could

no

difference between the

rhapsodes are generals argue

that

art,

bring himself to

There is

a

and that aU

go so

hidden madness in

far

aU

as to

unself-

human lives, and Socrates, in dissecting this soul, brings its pecu to hght. Ion's choice of the general's art is appropriate for many It is a particular practical art, one which is pervasive in Homer, one

madness

reasons.

cannot

all generals are rhapsodes).

conscious

liar

rhapsode's and the general's

(although he

61

An Interpretation of Plato's Ion which

But

is

needed and admired

more

general

profoundly

has something to do

his understanding

and

beyond

of

most other arts.

that the propriety of Ion's

one can see

becoming

a

the whole view of the world pecuhar to Ion

with

Homer. In the

beginning,

Socrates hsted the

when

things the poets talk about, the first item was war and it was the only one which stood

others.

alone,

The

Superficially struggles

not coupled with an appropriate companion as were

obvious

this

complement

means

between

the

to war, peace, is missing in the poets.

that the great poems tell of warlike heroes and the

In

and within cities.

a

deeper

sense

it

means that

they

tell

by gods who also struggle and who refer back to an ultimate chaos. The only harmony is to be found in the rational cosmos which is grasped not by the practical man but by the theoretical man. (541b-542b) Socrates pursues this theme by asking Ion why he goes around Greece being a rhapsose instead of a general. Adopting Ion's own hidden of a world ruled

prejudice,

Socrates, who never does anything but talk, ridicules the notion that

the Greeks need a man wearing a golden crown more than a general. Instead

arguing that the interpretation of poetry is a better and nobler thing than leading men in war, Ion offers an excuse for doing second best. He is a citizen of

of a subject

either of

be

and would not

city

would

poetry : he

adapts what

and nows.

His poetry provides the

as guarantors of

is apparently

their causes

cosmopolitanism

is only

also

universal

they

Athens

just

what

or

service of

he does

with

his

to the needs of opposing heres

Athenians

march out

a sham with roots

either

himself to the

adapt

gods which

when

by

used as a general

apparently be wilhng to these warring cities. Perhaps this is

Sparta. Ion

and

Spartans invoke

to slay each other. Ion's

in nothing beyond the

needs of

the cities, giving particular and passing interests a universal significance. He is a servant who must appear to be master in order to satisfy his masters. While a philosopher

independent man needs a not

in

on

him. For

limiting

a citizen of the

the opinions or

country

dependent

need

is truly

of

and a people

the

approval of

pohtical men

their

arithmetic.

unreason

to

serve.

his

He

it

spectators.

surrounding

He

from the

political

needs the

they

are

cities,

as

they

born is decisive

fulfiUment. limits

of pohtics

were as cosmopohtan as

abstracts

is essentially

pursuit

any group of men, the pohtical Ion has no satisfactions which are

accident of where

act as though these

treats pohtics as though

ple,

the

possibihties of

Socrates tries to

world, in that his

consent of

life,

any

of

did

not

exist; he

the arts, for exam

pecuhar atmosphere of chance and

expressing

astonishment at

Ion's

unwil

hke any other man of knowledge ; he thereby provides a meas ure of the difference between the life of reason and that of cities. It is the city to which Ion belongs, and his irrationality only points to the city's. Socrates

lingness to

names a

act

to say unknown, men, alleging that they were chosen On this rather dubious basis, he asserts that not being hindrance to pohticial particpation. Ion, Socrates concludes,

few obscure,

as generals a citizen

is

not

by Athens. no

be insisting that it is a hindrance only in order to avoid giving that won drous display which Socrates has been so eager to hear for so long. Ion, sug gests Socrates, must be an unjust man since he does not fulfill his promise.

must

Interpretation

62

Or,

as an alternative, perhaps

Ion

a choice :

tely

the same.

he

can

be

either

he is reaUy divinely possessed. Socrates gives divine or unjust. Perhaps the two are ultima

compares Ion to the slippery Proteus, and thus imphcitly com himself to Menelaus, who sought for guidance about the gods from Pro teus so he could save himself. But this Proteus cannot help the new Menelaus.

Socrates

pares

So they part, Ion humiliated but wearing a new, divine crown; Socrates in knowledge of the gods.

search of more authoritative

63

MACBETH'S LAST WORDS Jose A. Benardete

I. Last

have always been felt to be especially poign At any rate, "they say the tongues of dying men / Enforce Although Macbeth is denied a death speech proper, he is given what comes words

one supposes

-

-

attention."

ant.

he

speaks

expressly

be doubted from The reference

being

to

as close as possible words

of

one,

and

it is only

fitting

that in his very last

damnation. That Macbeth is

any theological standpoint. to damnation is, however, so exiguous

damned,

cannot

almost

and

indeed

so oblique

that we can understand why David Garrick should have wished to enlarge upon

it.

Playing Macbeth, Garrick by himself.

chose

to

expire with

the

following

Unes

composed

...

I

Here is

a

death

is

soul

my

cannot rise!

clog'd with

I dare

It is too

late, heU drags

I sink,

my

speech

-

soul

proper, in

blood for mercy -

not ask me

down; I

is lost forever!

operatic

style, in

-

-

sink,

Oh!

which

Oh!1

-

Macbeth is

seen

to be writhing in the fuU consciousness of his own eternal damnation. Far be it from me to censure the great actor for wishing to milk the scene of all its

dramatic

It is

potential.

enough

to observe that in the present instance it is

the Ehzabethan poet, and actor, Shakespeare who exercises the kind of culti vated self-restraint upon which the pride

themselves

Shakespeare's Macbeth does

at

his

restraint

speak

The peculiarity is

all

speare's version with

Macbeth

at

here is

exphcitly

and post-Augustans were

to

of

not confined

damnation,

to mere diction. Although his

he

speaks of it

in a

pecuhar way.

the more brought home to us when we contrast Shake

Garrick's. Garrick caters to the

have every Macbeth's last words us what we

Augustans

expense.

right

to expect. In the case

au pied

de la lettre

stock response.

of

we are

He

Shakespeare, if we

forced to

conclude

gives

take

that

the end does not regard himself as damned. This is not to say that

Macbeth simply ignores the question of damnation. He does not. He speaks of it. But the words he speaks presuppose that at least to his own mind he is not

damned.

Macbeth's last ment when

he

words presuppose

utters those

last

only that he is not damned at the mo In the very utterance of the words he

words.

sequel.

possibihty that he may in fact incur damnation in the immediate How he behaves in his combat with Macduff, will determine whether

he

be damned

envisages the

1

will

Macbeth,

ed.

K.

-

or saved.

Muir, (Cambridge, 1957),

p. xlvi.

Interpretation

64

Couched in the imperative mood, Macbeth's last words may be described It is, however, a disjunctive curse, with divided reference applying and indifferently, to himself and to Macduff. Hypothetical or condi equaUy, as a curse.

tional in its

in

the curse can only take effect if one or the other behaves Damnation is to be visited on Macbeth, or Macduff, on

burden,

a certain way.

one condition

only

we are not

if he

-

the coward in the ensuing combat. Although

plays

duel, we have taken "Blow, wind! come, According to his own

told how Macbeth conducts himself in that

the full measure of the man in the course of the play.

/

wrack!

At least

we'll

hghts Macbeth is

die

with

harness

back."

on our

damned.

not

II On

that Macduff was

learning

not of woman

Kittredge

part of

says of

glosses

the

the pas

"my courage, which is a man's better part ; the quality which,

follows :

sage as

born Macbeth

man."

that "it hath cowed my better

news

man."

more than

Not

justice saved

but justice

courage

biblical

and

by

courage,

-

he

was always regarded

the

it is for that

and

by

reason

recovers

his

fights to the

courage and

justice

of

issue. The

main

injustice simply faU

and

main

issue is

summed

the play: "Brave Macbeth (weU he deserves that

Of Macbeth it

might almost

be

Cawdor "confessed his

available

option

-

mention

to

him,

within

the thane of Cawdor:

it."

leaving

the

by the way as beginning of

the

treasons"

and

But there the

died in

resem

"deep

state of

the immediate resources of the play, the kind of

traditional

orthodox and

up

at

that minor episode only to show that Shakespeare

repentance."

I

With his final

name)."

said what was said of

"Nothing in his hfe / Became him hke

had

end.

it is only the

Momentarily

-

Considerations

irrelevant to the

ends.

replaces

deviant theology in which damnation and by imphcation made to depend the one on cowardice and the other on

salvation are

blance

part of man

that deserves damnation.

part

affirms a

courage.

Tradition, both

Macbeth

that he can regard himself as

For if courage is the better

words.

the Great

moral virtue par excellence.

betrays that better

cowed, Macbeth curse

as

classical,

in his last

man who

makes me a

anything else,

-

which

Garrick

exploited and

the poet

eschewed.

Dr. Johnson's

principal

criticism

Shakespeare is that "he

of

purpose."

write without praise of

see

any

Shakespeare,

that there

might

"praise"

and what

be in

part

life"

can

On the

moral

he

that his drama is the mirror

be

the source of the

have

a

an

called

"moral

intimate

his "first "praise."

connection

defect,"

It is

not

seems

to

is the he says, "this of Johnson failed to

plus side

...

life."

between Shakespeare's

that the

easy to

"defect"

see

might

in fact

how the "mirror

of

purpose."

Ill Macbeth in his last salvation.

only of damnation. He does not mention important passage speaks of salvation. He

words speaks

It is Macduff who in

an

Macbeth's Last Words speaks of

Macbeth's

salvation.

He

the precise

specifies

Macbeth may be saved. Macduff is fuU of the news of Macbeth's

65 conditions

under

horrible atrocity, the

killing

which

of

his

wife and

when

children,

salvation.

,

But, Cut

he

of

possibihty

Macbeth's

TT

Heavens,

gentle

short all

intermission ; front to front,

thou this fiend of Scotland and myself;

Bring

Within my sword's length Heaven forgive him too! The

most

entertains the

him ; if he scape,

set

"If I let him escape I will not only forgive but I pray God to forgive him (Kittredge). Here indeed is Christian forgiveness but with a novel twist. God's mercy is being extended words are extraordinary:

also"

him

myself

to the fiend

of

Scotland

outfighting Macduff cise of

Here

on one condition

when

they

prowess can earn

manly it is

again

share

escape", but Macbeth may

him do

letting

successful exer

for

all

his

crimes.

that supersedes justice as the cardinal

Kittredge

provides

Macduff's

escape

Macbeth's

so.

The

redemption

Macbeth's deviant theology.

'scape"

Where the text has "if he

that he succeed in outwitting or

-

mortal combat.

Macbeth full

courage or prowess

Macduff is found to

virtue.

in

meet

may indeed

escape

the gloss "If I let him

vengeance without occur

Macduff's

through a failure of

Macduff's part; it may equally occur simply through Macbeth's proving himself the stronger man. Searching for Macbeth on the battlefield, Macduff exclaims, "Let me find

prowess on

him,

Fortune!

entreat

/

Fortune,

And

out

God,

or

Great Tradition he

more or

would

I

beg

Heaven,

have every

for Macbeth's destruction,

mula of medieval

truly fight defend

chivalry,

not."

In particular, Macduff refuses to his victory. According to the

to

ensure

right

"By the grace

heaven!"

me

to do

Not

so.

of

God

Seeing

so.

that justice cries

Macduff to invoke the for

we might expect

this mine arm/

and

Macduff

will

rely solely

on

as

...

his

I

arm.

IV Despite his

cult of manhood

Macbeth

ferent to

considerations of justice.

with the

words, "But

blood

thine already

of

thee back!

get .

.

.

Macbeth kills Duncan he is charged with

/

should not

Challenged

1 bear

My

soul

by

Macduff, he

is too life."

a charmed

never allowed

be taken

as

being

warns

much charged

From the

indif

him

/

off

With

moment

that

to forget that his soul is too much

blood. But

wherefore could not

I had

most need of

I

pronounce

blessing,

"Amen"?

"Amen"

and

Stuck in my throat.

Justice,

guilt, remorse, compassion: these

courage, prowess, manhood, comprise a second.

resolution

comprise one moral

("Be bloody, bold

Although Macbeth is powerfully

and

susceptible

syndrome;

resolute") to the first

Interpretation

66

it is the manly syndrome that is seen finally to prevail in his deepest nature. (With Lady Macbeth the reverse proves true: "the valor of [her] gives way to a "mind diseased.") Even as Macbeth regards his soul as too tongue"

blood he

much charged with

inviolate. The two

stands

his

zes

genius of

the same. In the last analysis Macbeth pri

than he prizes his

manhood more

The

Garrick

that his better part of man

remains convinced

are not

soul

("mine

giving full value, and Nietzsche caUed "slave

lay in

jewel").

eternal

than full value, to

more

morahty"

the moral syndrome

"master

Garrick"

These

was

The

long

despair

most and

character.

agony

and

His face

remembered.

intrepidity,

horror,

being

utterly

as

to

seemed

of

.

the older conception

by

oppressed and overcome

an anonymous critic pointed out

Instead

.

.

at

his

What

Garrick did

advice?

by

entails the

former? If a

oppressed

by

not

...

of

the

for

guilt

play Macbeth

.

.

[he pursued]

the sense of his guilt.

as a coward.

it be

Why having committed acts

what

.

daring

to him that Macbeth was not a coward ; and with

the sense of guilt. man

bloody

every instant

that good sense and modesty which always distinguished him he adopted the

overcome

to

P. Fitzgerald

Garrick looked

grow whiter at

to the audience

bluster,

and perhaps cant and

Macbeth

of

as opposed

account of

instructive.

were exquisite strokes altogether new

his idea But

is

of

expression of

hands, and

in Macbeth's

-

in his "Life The

what

-

morality"

should

he has done there is

He

assumed

of grave

played

advice.2

him

that the

as

latter

injustice is utterly in

pro tanto no cowardice

that. That Garrick and Garrick's critic and Garrick's biographer should aU

fallacy

succumb to the power of

"I

am afraid

wonder your

of

supposing

to think

that he

Later, in

The

shame

/

To

wear a

heart

white."

so

poet

purpose" -

Especially

with

testy pride, "Ay, the

and a

of

brings

bold

by

out much of the moral

that dare look

ringing the

import

-

changes

1 do

not

say

the play.

to be noticed are two exchanges and

featuring the

word

"man",

one

his wife, the other between Macduff and Malcolm, In the first we have: T dare do all that may become "

are

strikingly akin. a man; / Who dares do more is were a man ; / And, to be more than

none.'

more

2

one

Devil."

the play is the word "man". It is

that the

between Macbeth that

reply

might appal

word of

on that word

"moral

will

Which

key

not,"

the scene with Banquo's ghost, when she raUies him with, "Are

he

/

the tremendous

I have

man?"

that

proves

connection,

it is no done; / Look on't again I dare be vulnerable to his wife's retort, "My hands are of

what

should

color; but I

you a on

a

the cult of manhood; so that when Macbeth gives voice to his guilt,

the

man.'

// 'Bring

forth

//

p.

493.

you

durst do it, then you / Be so much

were, you would "

only!'

men-children

A New Variorum Edition of Shakesspeare:

1963),

'When

what you

Macbeth,

ed.

H. H.

Furness, (New York,

Macbeth's Last Words In the "

....

too!'

an almost

rehearsal of

uncanny

man.'

// 'But I must also feel it hke a // 'O! I could play the woman

a

the first:

man.'

//'... blunt

it.'

heart;

the

not

is

second exchange there

'Dispute it like

67

enrage

Within my sword's length // 'This tune goes

set

him ; if he 'scape,

with mine eyes

/

Heaven forgive him

/

manly.'"

Although in the good, in

one we

have the forces

of evil and

in the

each exchange considerations of manhood are

other

the forces of

by both parties

taken

to be overriding considerations. That is never in question. What is in question

is simply how the overriding considerations of manhood are to be interpreted. Do they aUow foi the natural grief of a father and husband? "All my pretty ones?

/

Did

you

say

all?

AU?"

O Hell-kite!

-

Do they

allow

for

fear

natural

fail?"

any circumstances whatever? "If we Again, in both cases it is the moderate position that is

under

Macduff

extreme one :

case

it is the

and

Macbeth

are

overborne

by

both brought to heel. And in

the

each

the valor of her tongue succeeds in goading

weaker who through

the stronger. Malcolm (if I may say so) is a woman when juxtaposed

with

Macduffcannot

can,

if only because, though nominally Macbeth's chief adversary, he be aUowed to detract from the decisive role assigned to Macduff. He

however, be

given

the part of

Lady

Macbeth : "blunt

not the

heart,

en

it."

rage

Pity and fear: in regard to both

of those passions

the cult

of manhood

takes

if only for professional very hard hne. Needless to say, the tragic poet reasons can never quite identify himself with the cult, though he may per haps place his art in its service. He may see himself as rousing those passions a

-

-

in his

audience

for the

sole purpose of purging them.

VI

Hardly is

Macbeth dead but that

learns that his

has been

son

slain

grand soldier of

Your son, my lord, has paid He only hved but till he was The

had his

which no sooner

In the unshrinking station But like a man he died. These

words of praise might

beth himself. uary notice,

his

prowess at

dished the nisi

Coming

always

the

steel"

and

-

last" -

aU

we

do

school,

Siward,

a soldier's a

debt.

man,

prowess confirmed

where

he fought,

equally be applied, mutatis mutandis, to Mac his death they might well serve as his obit

remembering that in the long interim between confirming the play "Disdaining Fortune with his bran

his

epitaph

not

old

upon

outset of

-

dying like a man at the end of the play

his terrible

bonum the

interim

hard

the

in the battle.

is

career of

Old Siward has only

"Yet I

injustice hes between. But if de

not unsuitable.

know how he

-

would

one question

will

try

mortals nil

Young Siward being denied the long have fined it.

to ask. Where did his son receive his

Interpretation

68 wounds case of

on

-

his front

Macbeth:

we

or on

his back? No

know the

be

such question need

asked

in the

answer.

As for the father shedding tears for his son, that is simply unthinkable. the old soldier is ada When Malcolm protests, "He's worth more mant: "He's worth no more; / They say he parted well and paid his sorrow,"

score."

On

learning

then, God's Heaven

his

that

be

soldier

will open

son's wounds were on

he!"

It is thanks to his

to receive him. That his

the front Siward says,

son exercised

cause, is certainly important to Siward ; but it is the the justice second. Salvation itself consists in

If Siward refuses

on principle

eyes"

Nature"

alone

in resisting,

of

a

that comes

of

just

first,

soldier.

; if Macduff refuses equal

weep for his

wife and

children;

to the "compunctious

Duncan? Macbeth is

feehng deeply,

even while

son

should submit

the life

and spare

visitings of

and

God's

in

courage

courage

being

to grieve for his

ly "to play the woman with mine how can it be expected that Macbeth

his

"Why

that the gates

son's courage

the claims of

by

"Pity

no means

hke

a naked

babe."

new-born

Macbeth, Macduff, Siward these are hard men ; they have been trained in a hard school; they are men of great moral seriousness who prize justice as well as courage ; they are men of great heart who are open to the whole range of moral experience. But they are men by whom justice is largely taken for -

granted :

it does

not

he in the forefront

of their moral concern.

If only because

they are soldiers by profession "Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier, and they are pecuharly vulnerable to any imputation laid against their manhood.

afeard?"

-

-

Reflecting

on

those hnes we are

some accident of

fate,

why it is that Macbeth to show)

should

be

some

inevitably

unlucky turn

of

led to the

the wheel

and not

Macduff or Siward

singled out

to become the fiend

conclusion

of

fortune,

or even of

that only

can explain

Banquo (as I hope

Scotland. That

accident

darkness,"

fate may be seen as bodied forth in those "instruments of the Weird Sisters : in Hohnshed it is suggested that they may be the "goddesses of

destiny."

of

of or

Although Macbeth is morally responsible for his crimes, it is an accident fate that those crimes should be committed by him and not by Macduff Siward

some

Much

whom we

have found to be his

basis for Macbeth's of

the babbhngs

hteraUy "signifying

atheistic speech:

of

the Witches

are

moral equivalents.

life is

a

"tale told

There is thus

by

the babbhngs of an

idiot."

an

idiot,

quite

nothing."

VII In the

philosophy the ethical question par excellence is I to be meaning "why be moral rather than It may not be altogether selfsimply hearken to the dictates of be evident that moral considerations should allowed to override prudential manuals of moral

taken to be

"why

moral?"

ought

self-interest?"

ones.

When Macbeth

both

shrinks

from

killing

Duncan he is

moral and prudential considerations

seen to

operating together,

be deterred the one

by

assum-

69

Macbeth's Last Words

ing

the form

not

doubt that the

Quite

principally

-

from the

apart

consulting his own Macbeth innocent

is

claims of justice

self-interest

present

in

a third

quid

of moral

case, we may

factor that is

release

self-interest; cannot

She

urges

does

used

.

age

of

that

they

.

.

Besides morality either of

an

only

impov

and self-interest

there

the others. It is to that tertium

She knows her husband well; she knows character ; she does not appeal to his

his

man

dignity

This topic,

which

to his

of

Johnson's

ambition.

courage, a glittering idea

has been

statement

and

soldier;

the

a woman without great

a

"pecuhar

soldier and a woman who are

a soldier

by

a woman.

in

we might

having

the theme

add, husband

that the theme is too universal to be confined to

only too readily

When

in "brinkmanship",

as

be borne

and

by

enacted

by

a

wife, Johnson

special conditions.

quite as much as of manhood

or

considerations, acting separately

eclipsed.

success,

Courage is the

reproach of cowardice cannot

propriety"

also,

sometimes

impatience.3

Mankind taken in general, and perhaps the best men others, are hable to be so dazzled by the ghttering idea ral and prudential

has dazzled

which

always employed with too much

propriety, to

with peculiar

virtue of a

from

Although there is

engage

keep

to

help to us in under

provide

to age, and animated sometimes the housebreaker and

in this scene,

distinguishing

sees

sensitive, merely

would suffice

are of no

philosophy

not even appeal

the excellence and

from

the conquerer

any

highly

fashion

be improved.

mankind

is

appeals.

the mainspring

she

giving rise to fear. He does imprudent as it is immoral.

he is

which

suspect

inferior to

not

Macbeth

Lady

that

how to

to

cold-blooded

erished account of moral experience.

is

other

as much

the crime.

of

Seeing that the manuals standing the

pity, the

of

-

contemplated act

the

that mo

acting together, are bombs

cold warriors armed with atomic

in the Cuban

missile

crisis,

they do

not

find it

easy to back down from advanced positions, and it cannot be assumed that even the most elementary consideration of self-interest, sheer survival, will always restrain

When I as

them; to

save

contrast moral and

yielding to contemporary

are

both

moral virtues

usage.

for the

-

to be any praiseworthy trait courage as weU as justice

face they may

manly

is

account of moral virtue we

a

of

death to

diverse I

come.

am

to be

seen

According to Aristotle courage and justice

simple reason

praiseworthy trait

may

the

that a moral virtue is taken

character, and it is not to be doubted that

venture

that Macbeth kills Duncan for the of one of

jump

considerations as

of character.

to say (doubtless

sake of

If we

with

virtue, for the sake

-

accept

that

exaggeration) at

any

rate

-

the virtues.

Hobbes breaks with Aristotle in denying that courage is a moral virtue; for him it is merely a passion. Again, the reason is simple. Hobbes under stands the moral virtues as living,"

"means

and courage as such

3

Op.

cit. p.

105.

4

Leviathan,

part

I,

chapter

15

is

not

ad finem.

of

peaceable,

sociable and comfortable

directed to that

Cf.

chapter

6

on

end.4

If

we accept

the passions.

this

Interpretation

70

find nothing Irving. "Of Macbeth's

Henry

in the description

odd

account we will

bravery

Indeed Shakespeare insists throughout

his

There is

almost

It

use of

be

cannot

the word appliable

equaUy

called virtue

faith, without pity, but

not glory.

greatness of soul

I dub him

in Machiavelli in

"virtue."

...

.

.

.

It is to

villain."

equivocates beauti-

he

which

It is his description

Macbeth, himself

to

of

Agathocles that

an equivocal case.

fellow-citizens, betray one's friends, be without ; by these methods one may indeed gain power of Agathocles in braving and overcoming perils, and

to kill one's

For if the

virtues

in supporting and surmounting obstacles be considered, one for holding him inferior to any of the most renowned captains. Never

theless his barbarous cruelty and

do

this great manly quahty

by

given

and without religion

his

sees no reason

on

refer when

a pertinent passage

fuUy in his is

I

moral qualities which

Macbeth

of

there can be no doubt whatever

not permit of

his

being

together with his countless atrocities,

inhumanity, among the

named

to fortune or virtue that which he achieved

famous

most

men.

We

cannot attribute

either.5

without

VIII If

"man"

tiaUy

is the

key

word of

the play it is

"woman"

with which

it is

essen

contrasted.

When thought

Lady Macduff learns is, "I have done no

that the assassins are at her door her first

harm."

And if

punished?

she

is to be

To think thus is to trust the

If

she

has done

no

punished must she not

moral order of

the world.

harm how

can she

be

be guilty of some sin? Her first thought gives

way to a second, "But I remember now / 1 am in this earthly world where to laudable." do harm / Is often She explains her first thought as owing to failure It is as if she were an angehc soul who suddenly remembers that, longer in heaven, it has been cast adrift on earth. But this thought gives way

of memory. no

to a

third, "Why then,

have done

harm?"

no

To trust the

be

alas!

Even

Do I

/

moral order of

defence, / To

up that womanly

put

women are not allowed

to be

say, I

womanly.

the world, is to be womanly; to distrust it is to

Carried to its extreme, that distrust issues in the conviction that tale told by an idiot. Lady Macduff unsexes herself in a fashion remi

manly.

life is

a

niscent of

hard, mire

Macbeth. There is indeed this difference: the

Lady

manly hne in suffering the one

are alike women.

even as we

Although

unbearable

5

The

other.

if it

Prince, who

alter ego of

The fact

soft.

The

were not so

"play

translated

have

the

by

inflicting

remains

the hard

is

mercifully brief. In

a

hne,

E. R. P. Vincent

by

ad

nature as

in the

turn the

audience are

that it would be

word, it is "womanly": we

with our eyes even

attained the position of prince

we

so pitiable

woman"

and

takes the

that the two women

in rejecting their

and

scene as a whole

L. Ricci

one

it. We may

Macbeth, Lady Macduff is in

Lady Macbeth. Lady Macduff herself takes

hesitate to

"Of those

the other in

in taking the hard, manly line

invited to take the not

detest the

If Macduff is the

alter ego of

do

injustice,

if her husband

,(New

York, 1940),

villainy."

refuses.

chapter

8,

71

Macbeth's Last Words

The or

scene

is

crucial to the

thematically

considered.

play, whether it be dramatically or spectatoriaUy Dramatically, it presents the hard, manly hne of

Macbeth

being carried to the reductio adabsurdum of wanton cruelty. Specta (if I may coin a barbarism), it ehcits to the highest degree the soft and toriaUy in us as observers of the action. Thematically, the hard and the soft, womanly the manly and the womanly which constitute together the theme of the are so intertwined in the very texture of the hnes that we can scarcely play disentangle them. -

-

Macduff's dence

son

has only

one

brief moment to hve but thanks to the

provi

the poet's art a whole lifetime is telescoped into that one moment,

of

as we see

the child proceed in three stages, from tender innocence to

knowing

ending in brave defiance. In the first stage Lady Macduff "Sirrah, your father's dead : / And what will you do now? How

worldliness and

says

to

him,

live?"

will you

trust and

The ence

specific reference

.

expressing thereby his

here to Matthew 6:26

recaUs the more general refer

hiring to kiU Banquo, "Are you so gospelled / To / Whose heavy hand hath bowed you to the .

pray for this

and sotto

not women.

woman.

If the

voce, "We are men, my

To be

is

moral

a man

is to be

They reply enough. They are

The

the moral proves to be the

root of natural

Milk is the

natural portion of

the Spirits

she summons

difference between

is to be

a

as o'

his

and

man and woman.

wife

knows only too

the milk of human kind

women, and therefore when she unsexes

with

the words, "Come to my woman's

gall."

The / And take my milk for human kindness, in being gospelled, in

breasts

gospelled

the distinction between the manly

Macbeth himself is both manly and womanly, "Yet do I fear thy nature: / It is too full

herself

To be

the manly, then to be moral is to be

weU.

ness."

That is

ungospelled.

contrasted with

gospeUed and womanly.

liege."

good

grave?"

.

simply, men,

mother,"

to the New Testament where Macbeth says to the embittered men whom

he is man

He rephes, "As birds do, faith in the natural order.

root of

being

the moral is to be found in

womanly.

Lady

Macbeth's

in unsexing herself, in transforming herself into a man, is to become Manhness pushed to the extreme is cruelty. "top-full / Of direst

object

cruelty."

If Lady Macbeth himself. I

unsexes

herself Macbeth may be said to dehumanize To be a human being is to share by nature

use the word advisedly.

in both the manly and the womanly. If the human being is a man the manly should indeed predominate but the womanly must not be suppressed. If the human being is a woman the womanly should predominate but the manly The tragedy

is there

as well.

terrible

violence which each

greater

in the

case of

Lady

of

Macbeth

inflicts

on

and

his

his

wife

may be traced to the The violence is the

own nature.

Macbeth. He merely

suppresses

the

subordinate

in his nature, whereas she affronts her central core. Even he is appal led: "Bring forth men-children only! / For thy undaunted mettle should com It is altogether unnatural in a woman. It is no pose / Nothing but element

males."

wonder, then, that her

self-violence should

issue in her

suicide.

Interpretation

72

IX No value

account of

"Macbeth"

the play

be

can

to the Witches. It is not

enough

adequate

that fails to

give

fuU

to dismiss them as mere stage proper

for the interior drama

correlative"

ties that serve as an "objective

within

The Witches enjoy an irreducible exteriority that we are enjoined to respect. At the same time they are inherently mysterious: their so place in the cosmic order is so obscure that only some deviant theology Macbeth's

soul.

-

to

we are moved

if anywhere, the

surmise

be

could

-

expected

by its very "not to be

transparent that which

render

to

accommodate

critic must proceed with especial caution. nature

is

It is

are

opaque.

Macbeth is

very top of his form when he undertakes, in Act IV, scene 1, to for now I am bent to know, / "I will be satisfied!

This heroic

late in the

play.

effort

It does

to

master

By

not express

Macbeth's

and acts accordingly.

"Disdaining

characteristic attitude

are not

We have be

we

attitude

word:

trust.

the future

of

outset of the play Macbeth is introduced to us as The man who trusts the his brandished steel."

with

to disdain Fortune : he becomes its anxious slave. For if the

ceases

Witches

Now

the worst

At the

Fortune

Witches

Fortune in

the

them:

darkness"

the "instruments of

may be summed up in one Macbeth trusts the Witches ; he has faith in their predictions

Witches. That

toward the

seen at

master

.../...

worst."

comes

for him to

commanded

Although the Witches

means, the

Here,

them.

not

important,

some seen

destiny,"

the "goddesses

of

albeit

they

are

certainly

related

to

mysterious, way.

that Macbeth pursues the manly at the expense of the moral.

betraying the manly on its own ground. To be manly is to To be manly is to disdain Fortune. By accepting the "metaphys the Witches he surrenders his autonomy: "I bear a charmed

find him

self-reliant. aid"

ical

of

life."

If Macduff is the

alter ego of

difference between them. "Let Macduff also pared with

asks

something

Macbeth. The

other wants everything.

Macbeth there is

yet one

decisive

point of

find him, Fortune! / And more I beg Fortune but how httle, how very little

not."

me of

com

only the opportunity to be self-rehant, the Macduff might even be said to strike a bargain with one asks

him,"

bargain! "Within my sword's length set that is all I ask, no more, and in exchange for that smaU favor, "gentle Heavens", let Macbeth receive divine absolution if I fail to kill him altogether on my own.

Heaven,

The

and what a

quid pro quo

tune goes

Why

is

so unequal

that we may indeed say, with

Malcolm, "this

manly."

"gentle Heavens"? The Heavens have

not

But is he not, with the word, placating the Heavens, chance to fight Macbeth? In the light

of

these considerations it is

by

been

gentle

so eager

to Macduff.

is he to

no means accidental

win

the

that Mac

duff defeats Macbeth. I think that

we can pinpoint

to disdain Fortune. The

King, why Chance may

the precise moment at which Macbeth ceases

moment crown

is instructive. "If Chance

me,

/

Without my

will

stir."

have

me

The thought is

Macbeth's Last Words

morally viewed

That is to say, it is morally unobjectionable when "slave Judged by the standards of

unobjectionable.

from the

morahty."

standpoint of

morahty"

it

"master welcome

73

lapse. For he is

constitutes a serious

now prepared to

the highest rewards from Fortune without so much as exerting him

self.

The

Witches to demorahze is

subtle power of the

in the

case

suspects

that

evidenced even

nature."

Banquo, despite his Duncan was murdered

"royalty by Macbeth,

Although Banquo

of

of

that

suspicion

does

"shine"

cherishing the thought that if the Witches

deter him from

not

can

Macbeth, "May

on hope?"

be my oracles as well, / And set me up in That Banquo initiaUy turns a deaf ear on the blandishments

they is

not

not surprising.

Macbeth

even

I

The

pays

rewards

them

promptly demoralized

being

good or

Johnson,

him

seem at

Witches,

of the

the time so

remote

that

heed.

bad,

more

Banquo

Macbeth

and

by

unhinge a man through expressed.

that Shakespeare "has not only

real exigencies

but

as

it

demorahzed

.

.

his

by

-

the

progeny).

it

made

.

the further

use of prophe

Here surely we may say, with human nature as it acts in

shown

be found in trials to

would

of

good,"

"verities

means of some

riddlingly

are

future (and that

own personal

purchased

be difficult to

should not

cies,

as

-

his

of

unveiling

Credence

offer

that almost any man no matter how self-rehant would become

submit

oracular

no

they

which

it

cannot

be

exposed."

Newton's first law

free

of all

describes how every

of motion

impressed forces.

Owing

body. Reveahng the be, in trials to which it cannot be

to

body would act if it were there

universal gravitation

"as it

is,

every body Newton's first law is to be

nature of

no such

would

and can

be found

exposed,"

true

contrary-to-fact

"mirror

best

hfe,"

of

emulate

the

in the

conditional

it is in his

subjunctive not

physicist.

Although

mood.

subjunctive

indicative

mood

oracular witches are

seen as a

No

mere

that the poet can

contrary to nature,

the poet may invoke them in the antecedent of a contrary-to-fact condi tional and thereby reveal, in the consequent, what no mirror of hfe could reveal.

Once the

moral casuists

his

crimes.

prudence

the Witches to corrupt is acknowledged, it

seductive power of

strikes me as an open question

to debate

that

might

whether

-

"Diminished

which

-

the critic

would

Macbeth is to be held

be

wise

to leave to

fully accountable for British juris

responsibility"

is

be held to fit the

a concept of recent

case.

X Macbeth is out

a man who

derogating from their

that

they are, in their

own

was a woman and that

force? Macbeth does beth.

is

ruled

by women,

preternatural

way,

if you

women. wish

not master

not one woman

dignity Did

not

but four. With

may say of the Witches MachiaveUi say that Fortune

we

yet

to master her you must conquer her

Fortune; it is Fortune

by

that masters Mac

Interpretation

74

Valor's toady

in both

senses of

:

he is

frets his hour

upon

the word

Valor's darting. As he "struts

as well as

and

are almost always separated by a very bluster. Having opted for "master even master in his own house. His wife does not hesitate to browbeat

his

stage"

the

"minion"

minion"

Macbeth is "Valor's

daring

and

intrepidity

morahty,"

line from

thin

he is

not

him

with

he is

the

mere cant and

fear

stricken with

insists (it is

no more

her

quite concedes

and

point

To be

article of out

"master

trembhng by Banquo's

when, the

afraid

is to

ghost

cease

by

unmanned

having

foUy?"

when

And though he

ghost.

than the simple truth), "What man

again."

man

words, "What! quite

characteristic

dares, I

dare,"

he

vanished, he says, "I am a

to be a man. If we were to accept that

morahty"

be forced to say

we would

seeing that through

-

the bulk of the play Macbeth is almost continuously in a state of fear

that he has with

relinquished

renews

the ghost to "be ahve again", Macbeth is all bluster

Challenging

says, "If trembling I inhabit then, protest me beth is in fact, as each of us is, the baby of a

simply to be aspires

to be

woman who

born. Macbeth

of woman all

man, and indeed he

born. It is Macduff who is so

was,

to speak, only

It is because the man and woman

manly, in the

-

excepting his last words where his lapsed disdain of Fortune.

manhood: always

him he

against

everything

his

/

girl.

aspires not

can

baby

to be of

only be defeated

He may be born.

natural origin of each of us

he

when

girl."ButMac-

of a

To be the

all man.

of woman

baby

of a girl

woman

is

born. He

by one who is not of

contrasted with

is to be found in the

Jesus

union of

in the womanly as well as the the hard. If these be "the most heterogeneous

by

that we all share

soft as well as

The

nature

ideas"

it is to be hoped that they can be reconciled without being "yoked by violence In Macbeth the manly and the womanly, the hard and the together."

soft,

master

and slave

morality

morahty, are indeed yoked

by

violence

to

gether.

After saying in one breath that Macduff is all man we do not hesitate to it in another ; and if we cannot preserve a strict logical consistency,

retract

do

despair

suitable to the achieving a certain poetic consistency subject-matter in our discourse. We have found heretofore that, like Mac beth himself, Macduff shares in the womanly. In fact if Macduff excels Mac

we

not

of

-

-

beth in intrinsic

manhness

it

might

be

argued that

he is

also more

than Macbeth. On his receiving the terrible news there is this

womanly

remarkable

utterance :

Did Heaven look on, And would not take their

They What is it conviction

-

exactly

-

that

Lady

part?

Sinful Macduff!

for thee.

Macduff takes to be

womanly?

It is the

that moral blamelessness entails exemption from at least the worst

misfortunes.

Therefore it follows

that if one is struck

duff then

were all struck

must

by

a

by

what

the logician calls

modus

tollens

terrible misfortune he must be moraUy guilty. Mac

be morally guilty. How else explain the absence of divine we have the womanly trust in the moral order pushed to

intervention? Here

Macbeth's Last Words

its

ultimate

conclusion, in the face of a tale told by an idiot.

75

evidence that might

lead

anyone

to

infer that hfe is

That Macduff should feel guilty, is very previous crimes having been purely

natural.

It is true that

"pohtical"

beth's

Macbeth

were of

But though

was capable of wanton cruelty.

Macduff I believe that any

deserting his

man placed

wife and children

guilty in his heart. Someone may wish to

in his

in time

conclude that

reason

position

of

aU of

Mac

he was not to know that

danger

-

-

may

exonerate

the position as it could not

but feel

it is in Macduff that the manly

and

the womanly are reconciled, precisely through his carrying each to the last extreme. where

-

My

own opinion

is that for the

to the poet himself. With Dryden I

reconciliation we must

poets"

it is Shakespeare

perhaps ancient soul."

prehensive speare's

soul,

It is the

sheer

even more than

who

largeness

look

else

say that "of all modern and has "the largest and most com

should

and comprehensiveness of

his art, that

Shake

can encompass such polarities.

Syracuse

University

76

CONSIDERING CRUSOE: PART I Thomas S. Schrock

This is the first half Robinson

Crusoe,

that scholarly

of

lore

of a

due him for the

respect

the last

claim

Crusoe has

the hfe

consideration of

adventurer, narrator,

and consciousness of

The

two part

It is

and essayist.

and

he has

prominent role

thought

ot

another payment

played

in the

centuries.

on our attention will not

be

exhausted until at

the

very least scholars dispel uncertainties and misconceptions they themselves have discovered or engendered about him. I have especially in mind the

Crusoe's genealogy of the blood in his doctrinal veins so to The prevailing view, indeed the great theme of present day Crusoe

question of

speak.

-

studies, is that religion is his vital principle. Crusoe's egregious moralizing

Defoe's known Dissenter

and

Crusoe

was meant to

be

a

affiliations

have

convinced

nearly

all critics

that

sincere, though of course sinful and materialisti

cally inclined, Christian. If Robinson Crusoe is not regarded as a conscious inference from Puritan premises1, then it is taken to be the production of an author caught

sumed under

in the grip

of

the "Protestant

the categories of a sociology of

Maximillian E.

George A.

Starr,

Novak,

Defoe

and

Economics Spiritual

Robinson Crusoe (1965). Novak here

Puritan

regard and

1,

on

be

the other

sub

hand,

narrative3

it

the

social-religious

as a variation on

pilgrim allegory.

rather than explicit

and

the Fiction of Daniel Defoe

Autobiography (1965),

stated,

issue

doctrine, against

For the

although

most part

Hunter that Defoe indeed

capitalistic

availed

my differences

the

-

for Form in

a note.

and

Hunter

autobiography

by taking by Starr and My doubt per

thought

am persuaded

to which

genres

own

my

I

spiritual

these authors are implied

with

elucidated

them, usually in

himself of the

the Quest

individualism. Starr

literary forms

I have occasionally

with one or another of

and

Crusoe is Defoe's remonstrance, based

argues that

traditional Puritan

(1962), pp. 3248; 74-125, 185-197; J. Paul

pp.

The Reluctant Pilgrim: Defoe's Emblematic Method

Hunter, upon

whose work can religion.2

be arguing in this first Part of my presentation, that there is a pro drift to Crusoe's and essays4, a drift that

shall

nounced anti-religious

1

ethic,"

they

refer.

tains solely to the intention behind that employment. 2

Ian

Watt, The Rise

Puritan become Watt

not so much

interpret the

of the Novel

capitalistic

(1957),

individualist (see

argues that pp.

in my conclusions about what in the light of the "Weber

60-92

Robinson Crusoe is the

of

makes

epic of

the

the edition of 1962). I differ from

Crusoe

run as

thesis"

in my

hypothesis

reluctance

to

"probably unconscious conflict in Defoe (ibid., 81). See also Rudolph Stamm, "Daniel Defoe: An Artist in the Puritan Philological Quarterly, XV (1936), 225, at 229. 3 Daniel Defoe, The Life and Strange Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe (1719), work

or under a

of

himself"

Tradition,"

and 4

The Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe (1719). Daniel

Defoe, Serious Reflections during the Life and Surprising Adventures

Crusoe (1720) in Romances and Narratives by Daniel Defoe, (Hereafter cited as Serious Reflections). Published

about a year after

ed.

of Robinson

George Aitken (1895).

the Farther Adventures and fifteen months after the Adven-

Considering coincides with the

tendency

of

Crusoe

11

modern secular political

early

In an only slightly caricatured version, the generally Crusoe's progress goes something like this :

Robinson,

the wayward,

injunction,

contrary

impious,

On the island he

industry

and

age

accepted account of

prodigal, son, disobeys his father's

he is buffeted by storms, which from God, soon forgotten however in adventures he is finally, and hopelessly, ship

and runs off to sea where

he momentarily interprets as calmer seas. After desultory wrecked.

philosophy.5

that

warnings

performs

those prodigies

thrill youthful readers

so

of resourcefulness, cour and adult escapists.

He

to stay ahve against all reasonable expectations and even to prosper. Toward the end of the first year he undergoes a spiritual crisis that leads to manages

penitence

for his sins, to true Christian resignation, and even to satisfaction situation. The footprint renews the original terror, but his

his island

with

God

rehance on

they lead their

Crusoe is

shores and

mand of

him through. He

pulls

happy, Christian,

a

her,

and

he

and

rescues

companionable

enabled

by

Friday

and converts

life. God directs

Providence

and

a

him;

lost ship to

strategy to take

com

Friday escape from the Island, thereby

symbolically Puritan craves. We

accomplishing the dehverance from sin every penitent Crusoe's island saga, then, by combining titles from two of the latest studies, and saying it is the spiritual autobiography of a reluctant can characterize

pilgrim.

Comment tive. In

fervor did not, and remain

let

this synopsis

on

anticipation of

as

that

I

detailed parsing

shall

merely

assert

of

the narra

that Crusoe's

is said, level-off at a high pitch after his so-called conversion of his island experience. He never even confessed,

there for the rest

doing penance for,

alone

will require some

presentation

some of

his

most serious sins.

He tells the

reader

that at best his rehgious feehngs were spurious, and that after the footprint

they

vanished.

to be

back into salvation

fear

and not

tures, the

what -

he

all

of

about the

his virtually

blessings

of rehgious

ceaseless endeavor

dehverance has

to dehver himself

along regarded as the only necessary and sufficient For him, the fear of God is as nothing next to the

civil society.

of man.

vidence

All his talk

in the hght

read

He

rehed on

his

own

fear and

prudence

-

not on prayer or

Pro

to free himself from the primary evil, which is the state of nature

-

the state

of sin.

the Serious Reflections is

product of

a collection of essays

that,

as

the

author

says, "is

not

merely

the two first volumes, but the two first volumes may rather be called the fable."

for the moral, not the moral for the (Serious Reflections, ix ["Robinson Crusoe's Preface"]). 6 I am therefore in at least partial agreement with the one prominent truant from the

product of this.

prevailing

The fable is

school of Crusoe

always made

interpretation. In

a second

book,

which

I find hard to

reconcile

his first, Professor Novak has shown more clearly than was known before that Defoe had a pronounced interest in the secular philosophy of the early modern centuries, and has with

argued that

Novak,

Robinson Crusoe is in

Defoe

and

part at

the Nature of Man

least

a

display of that interest. (Maximillian E. note 34, infra.

(1963)). See

Interpretation

78 The thesis that Crusoe be

experience can

on

Grace ; but Grace is

the natural condition

before

powerless

-

is

of

the island

presumably depends

salvation

Yet, the state of nature or Therefore, if man is to become

necessity.

necessitous.

to be sufficiently

if, for example, he is

the state of nature must be

-

from his interpretation

follows : Spiritual

of man

to saving Grace

amenable

to pray

extrapolated

stated as

But the

overcome.

composed

be

state of nature can

only by human power: security or civil society is a strictly human achievement. Spiritual salvation depends on man's doing: the heavenly is as overcome

it

based

were

the earthly city, and

on

In

self-dependence.

his feUow

man.

founder

the

God-dependence,

to

to the

addition

That

is,

salvation on

the

requirement

that he avoid succumbing

sin of a single-minded

society will be compelled to exploit men, in addition to the sin of ignoring

of civil

sin against

necessary condition to civil society, which in turn is a prerequisite of salvation. These alleged necessities are presented in such a way as to argue

God, is

a

for the justifiability (and no

not

the

less intelligible than Grace

Crusoe

also seems

mere

excusabihty)

of

the

sins

in question,

to amount to a contradiction. But sin made justifiable is

which would seem

to necessity, or, than what

made subordinate

to suggest, a Providence ruled

by

In

chance or necessity.

fact, Crusoe renders God superfluous and non-worshipful, if not non-existent. With this anticipatory

6

account of

Crusoe

as

Robinson Crusoe is usually interpreted in the light

Defoe's

This involves

religious position.

principal

datum from

negligible part of

that

his

which

of what

supposing Defoe's

in mind,

we

may

is thought to be known

since

circularity,

views on religion can

But,

corpus.

some

Christian6

the Defoe

be inferred,

and

corpus

Crusoe is

a

be

religious persuasion can

of

is the non-

in

and

in assuming his persuasion is expressed in Crusoe, or by Crusoe. For all we know, Defoe consciously decided to use "his protean (Stamm, op. cit., 239) to portray a person and/or a doc fact is known from

Robinson

sources other than

Crusoe,

we are not justified

gift"

trine mind

uncongenial

to his own religious, if not to his artistic, sensibilities.

to this possibility

courtesy.

Question

studies are

by beginning It may

with and

not

dissimilar)

begging is

disrespectful

of

as

bad for the

the artist.

to those found in Robinson

And the

always

been

here

context

is the Crusoe trilogy,

about

trilogy,

to be in order.

a word seems

sometimes regarded as sheer

the popularity of the first

(or

elsewhere voiced sentiments similar

Crusoe, if he did. Penultimately, however,

to be the context in which any particular

relevant

regarded as an authentic

The Farther Adventures is cash-in on

predisposing background

sticking to the Crusoe text.

portant consideration would seem

in haste to

commentator as

an open common

Accordingly, I have here reversed the usual procedure

be ultimately irrelevant that Defoe

voiced.

Keeping

to be a counsel of ordinary prudence and

would seem

volume.

which,

the im

sentiment

it has

since

is

not

afterthought, written, it is said,

And the Serious Reflections has

frequently been said to have even less to do with the great first volume, the supposition being that it is nothing but a collection of essays Defoe had lying about that, heaped to gether, made a even

the last

pot-boiler

part of

regarded as superfluous

to stop when

I take

all

he

to

sell on

the basis of a

nominal relation

the first volume, relating Crusoe's -

an artistic

return

to Robinson Crusoe. And

is

sometimes

unfortunate

incapacity

to civilization,

lapse that illustrates Defoe's

was ahead.

these neglected writings seriously

because I believe that,

-

though

not with

when an author presents a work of

deadly seriousness, I hope

ostensibly

connected

parts,

-

all

Considering

79

the argument in detail and with the necessary qualifications. One to start a study of Crusoe's thought about rehgion is at the

now present

feasible

Crusoe

place

beginning

of

month of

his

his

rehgious

i.e.,

experience,

his conversion, in the

at

ninth

exile.

A. The Supreme

of Salvation

Blessing

Before this event, Crusoe was "aU that the most hardened, unthinking, 101).7 Creature among our common Sailors, can be supposed to (1, be"

wicked

In the

confession

that he interpolates into the

himself for his

reproaches

failure to

previous

narration of experience

his conversion, he of God in

"the Fear

Deliverances"

[and for his omission] of Thankfulness to God in Danger, (I, 101). Afterwards, although he was not noticeably more fearful .

.

.

of

God, he

being dehvered by God. Crusoe's conversion occurred during a bout of a seventeenth century ver sion of the Hong Kong flu, in the course of which he suffered a terrifying

entertained notions of

dream. The fever ebbing, he

having Call

opened

on me

Day

of Trouble,

were

very

apt

Sound,

no

Apprehension

and,

the Book casually, the first Words that

in the

The Words

had

Bible,

up the

picked

Case,

to my

Things

.

.

to me were

occurred

these,

deliver, and thou shalt glorify me. [though] as for being deliver'd, the Word Thing was so remote, so impossible in my

will .

.

I may say to me; the

as

of

I

and

.

107-08].

.[I,

Presently, however, I did

what

I

never

had done in

the Promise to me, that if I me

.

.

.

other

rebuttable

are

defeated

the

same

different times,

or that

artistic or philosophical ones.

of

mind

reported

to the

above,

protagonist-narrator, the presump

is that he wants us to read them as connected, i.e., as parts of a likely to be more reliable guides to the interpretation of each

any extraneous documents. Prima facie, it is irrelevant

by lack

his

would open

he had the thoughts

-

parts at one stretch or at

the legitimate

after

mind and experience of

to be sure

as such, are

which,

than

Life, I kneel'd down and pray'd to God to fulfil him in the Day of Trouble, he would deliver

to be his dehverance. Crusoe

to come from the -

whole

the

was

deliverance. A few days

varieties of

said

my

P, 108].

And, if God

tion

all

call'd upon

internal

evidence

to

If the

support

treatment of the author's possible intentions

he may have had presumption of

it,

that

misguided.

whether

motives

Defoe

in

wrote

addition

to

interrelatedness is then

would not prove

this

On the contrary, it

respectful

would prove

the efficacy of the only method that could give adequate proof of the spuriousness of the alleged connection.

dependence in the

lesser known

ically in 7

of

But in the

volumes

portions of

Parenthetical

case of

Crusoe,

justify

saying it

sympathetic would

be

reading elicits

as

enough real

citations

inter

arbitrarily foolish to ignore the

the work as it would be to interpret the island narrative

the light of those

Robinson Crusoe as

to

mechan

portions.

in the text

they

appear

refer

to the volumes and pages of the narrative parts

in the Shakespeare Head Edition

Selected Writings of Daniel Defoe (1927).

of

the Novels

and

Interpretation

80 I

ty

of

[and] while I was thus gathering Strength, my Scripture, / will deliver thee, and the Impossibili upon my Mind : But as I was discouraging my self

the Fit for good and all,

miss'd

Thoughts

run

my Deliverance

lay much

.

.

.

this

upon

exceedingly

.

.

.

Thoughts, it occurr'd to my Mind, that I pored so much upon my Dehver from the main Affliction, that I disregarded the Deliverance I had receiv'd; and

with such

ance

I was,

it were,

as

made

to

ask

my self

such

Questions

these,

as

viz.

Have I

been

not

God had deliver'd me, but I had not deliver'd, and wonderfully too, from Sickness? d him: that is to say, I had not own'd and been thankful for that as a Deliver ance, and how cou'd I expect greater Deliverance [I, 109-10]? .

.

.

glorify'

After this Crusoe began

serious

It happen'd providentially is

exalted a

Prince

and a

.

.

.

of

study

the Bible.

that reading the

Saviour,

Scripture, I

Repentance,

to give

and

came

to these

Words,

He

to give Remission: I threw

Book, and with my Heart as well as my Hands lifted up to Heaven, in a Extasy of Joy, I cry'd out aloud, Jesus, thou Son of David, Jesus, thou exalted Prince and Saviour, give me Repentance! down the Kind

of

Now I began to you, in

construe

the Words mentioned above, Call

different Sense from

what

I had

on

and

me,

I

will

deliver

done before; for then I had no Notion of anything being call'd Deliverance, but my being deliver'd from the Captivity I was I was indeed at large in the Place, yet the Island was certainly a Prison to in; for a

ever

tho'

me,

and

that in the

worst

Sense: Now I look'd back so

dreadful,

that my Soul

Guilt that bore down shall read ance

all

Sense in the World; but upon

my

sought

Life

past

nothing

my Comfort

.

.

.

of

now

with such

I learn'd to take it in

Horror,

and

another

my Sins appear'd

God, but Deliverance from the Load of add this Part here, to hint to whoever

And I

it, that whenever they come to a true Sense of things, they, will find Deliver a much greater Blessing than Deliverance from Affliction [I, 110-11].

from Sin

God had dehvered Crusoe from the him from the island. But Crusoe had threatened to be

cause what

for

no a

"ague,"

and could

longer

needed

therefore dehver

to escape the island be

hfe-long imprisonment had become

the

supremely rewarding freedom. Crusoe goes so far as to suggest that dehverance from the island and from sin were not compatible, since on occasion

a

the island "I was remov'd from all the Wickedness neither

the Lust of the

nothing to the scene of

the

of

.

.

fresh transgressions

no

...

I had

of Life. I had might

be

fall from Grace. Crusoe's structuring between the two forms of dehverance suggests he means to

contrast

he

the World World"

covet

say that the authenticity of which

of

Flesh, the Lust of the Eye, or the Pride (I, 148); whereas, presumably, "the

his

and a

conversion will

be tested

by

the extent to

dehverance from the island. But, in any case, Crusoe would to leave it, for why should his place of abode or external cir

craves

longer

pine

cumstances matter

to

a man who

has been

given what

Crusoe

caUs

"the

Salvation"

(I, 181)? "As for my sohtary Life it was noth ing; I did not so much as pray to be dehver'd from it, or think of it; It was aU of no Consideration in Comparison to (I, 111). Nevertheless, Crusoe not only thought of leaving the island; he tried stren supreme

Blessing of

this"

uously to leave it. The student of Robinson Crusoe must therefore try to why Crusoe did not hve by the proposition that, as he said,

understand

Crusoe

Considering "Dehverance from Sin [is] Affliction"8 tion,"

8

1 1 1),

(I,

Crusoe

Autobiography, island

pp.

dramatic

[2]

the

persistent

most

-

predicament

is the culminating metaphorical

self-isolation

from God (Defoe

55-57, 59, 80-81, 84-85, 99, 100); drastic

marks yet another more

his

of

his long

stage

in God's

Spiritual

efforts

to

him. It is

reclaim

on

the

at once

deliverances, and [3] the most effective barrier to Finally, Starr notes that, after the conversion, [4] his isolation from human society "frequently strikes him as a series of

(p. 101).

situation

-

-

blessing,"

positive

seeing

God's

in the

shift

(p.

117; but island

significance of the

to detect. In

stands

for,

occasion

and

brief,

Starr

writes

shift

of a

something

situation stands

attempts to escape

that "through

.

.

the

for the

island,

acquiescence,

.

tions for and positive benefits in his solitary expressed most

we note

both my Sorrows

their

Gusts,

and

my Delights

month, the stem

Joys;

Stroke"

of

weary

could not get

which

And Crusoe's

.

anniversary

suggest a

the boat to water

(I,

Labour,"

146-47). At

(I,

deal

of

147). He

I

will

belabor the

grutch'd

my

point a

and that

small to

more

he tells

by

says that

Labour, in Hopes

although at one place

too

bit he

of

us that

carry him from the island

hoping it would be his (I, 163).

.

.

and now

Coming,

in the

ninth

to as

my Thoughts

run

many

boat-building "many a

a

hewing"

and

after more

Crusoe

Pains; but

"infinite

notes that

who grutches

Labour,"

a certain

Pains,

failure; his report: beginning a Work before we

conceded

noting that Crusoe

a

my first

I

chang'd

"In the

the

count

Work, same Devotion,

middle of

with

that

"This

this

.

"though I

having

.

to have been transient

I finish'd my fourth Year in this Place, and kept my Anniversary and with as much Comfort as ever before (I, 148). .

partially

that "it was now that

were at

"hacking

one point

is

situation

of

acquiescence alleged

sure

the Folly of heartily, and now I saw, (I, 147). The next sentence begins as follows:

ond, smaller, boat

his

way

was converted

delay in the

only to find that,

prodigious [?]"

By

143). This desire issued in

(I,

...

.

they

what

year, "you may be

Labour,"

report

acquiescence seems

he devoted "infinite

"inexpressible

aspect of

(p. 116).

my very Desires alter'd, my Affections

"Folly"

the Cost

that "this

129-30). Since Crusoe

(I,

union

why Crusoe

we wonder

this Life I now led was

perfectly new, from

were

"cost me a step in the have their Deliverance in view griev'd me

and

second

Escape"

to

a project

the case,

past"

For, during the third finding "some Means of

to

project,

he

my

dilatory.

well as times"

conversion.

.

state,"

happy

I have italicized tend to

words

from that

Crusoe's

much more

and

indeed for the two Years

.

to,

prerequisite

malum, it later becomes the

therewith, apparently to escape God. [Crusoe] learns to find both consola

series of annual

I began sensibly to feel how chang'd

being

and .

continuing

summum

thanksgivings"

forcibly in his

bearing out Starr's point,

"sense

that Defoe could reasonably have

situation

the

setting for realization of the summum bonum. This

in his

an unprecedented

70). Starr has thus accurately de

cf. p.

is this: Whereas, at first, isolation for Crusoe's isolation from God, later, isolation from human

God. If at first the island

persisted so

for Crusoe is

coupled with what

accessibility"

from human society society becomes the with

it is

nearness and

the

scribed

as

expected attentive readers

or

and

that "Crusoe's arrival

and

vagabondage"

Crusoe's island

of

individual 's

of the

-

Blessing of Salva

as an "Affliction."9

his isolation

still regarded

Crusoe's

than Dehverance from

Blessing

a much greater

rather, why, if he had the "supreme

or

Professor Starr suggests that [1] the island

expression of

81

was near

Boat to

soon

turned to

building a sec it, yet I never (I, 157). And,

two Years about

go off

to Sea

last"

at

he knew from the beginning that the new boat was (I, 157), we hear somewhat later that he persisted in

vehicle of escape until

the very hour in

which

it nearly drowned

him

Deference to God is not necessarily incompatible

with

self-help (see citations to

Starr,

Interpretation

82

B. A Canker in the Conversion

Referring to his

emotions when

he found himself safe "

of the shipwreck, Crusoe reports that

Transports

and some

sie,

have

might

Fhght

presumably

Yet

as

had the Grace

which

this

of

ended where

102). Although the terrors

(I,

.

.

occasion

they

were not assisted

in the

by

wake

of Exta-

Kind

God assisted, it begun, in a of

the sea are

God's Grace.

by, or itself, as dread

the time of his iUness another terror apparently was assisted

at

perhaps

ful

God's,

Joy

of

on

on shore

was surpriz'd with a

up to true Thankfulness ; but it

come

meer common

Soul,

of

I

assisted, Grace. This

other

terror was not the sickness

that undoubtedly was, but the "terrible

Dream"

Crusoe had

during the

illness. I

saw a

Man descend from

the Ground

He

....

a great

infra). But Crusoe has

note

19,

ance

he contemplated

while on

Cloud, in a bright Flame of Fire, and light upon upon the Earth, but he moved forward

black

was no sooner

landed

the island metaphor, and the modes of deliver

presented

the

island, in such a way as to oppose boat-building self-help

to an unmixed enjoyment of God's

The lesser

presence.

insufficient dehverance (from

and

island) supersedes the greater and sufficient (from sinful self-centeredness): Crusoe's hankering after the inferior blessing of human society poisons the allegedly supreme bles

the

sing of God's

I have

society.

a similar

difficulty

that critical "emphasis use of

language has

Defoe's

'realism'

with one of

upon

the

Professor Hunter's

'realistic'

nature of

obscured the emblematic

is like that

meaning

of

detail

choice of

Crusoe's

of Bunyan and substantiates the

He

principal suggestions.

both Defoe's

his

activities, but

physical

metaphor,

says

and

rather

than weaken

Defoe, like Bunyan, continually makes his hero express his spiritual condition by ing physical actions. The fusion of physical and spiritual concerns is implicit throughout it.

Robinson ters"

Crusoe,

(op. cit.,

quite

p.

and

the

general pattern of

189). And

easily in Robinson

again:

"Defoe is

Crusoe, for

the novel's plot

which

is basic to Puritan tradition and

(ibid.,

p.

199). Hunter has surely

Crusoe's

which

action

emblematic of

follows the

had taken

a

larger

the

of

not attended

sufficiently to the possibility that Defoe

metaphor get out of

hand,

but finally to

as

spiritual"

9

Other things

say nothing

Christian theologians

animal,

.

Institutes of the

Calvinist theological

Crusoe not

notes

of course a severe

and

deprivation.

and

devotional literature in the light

The

Holy

man

Spirit had

Calvin, in

in the

bringing people to life (ibid., IV, i, 4). But, by hypothesis, at least one of those saved!

society

.

puts enormous stock

case, the greatest need a

Calvin, to by

philosophers, believes that "man is

disposed, from natural instinct, to cherish and preserve Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, II, ii, 13. From .

that follow). And the same

Christian thinkers,

to let the

merely to "reflect the

of which

visible

"other

has for the ministry reached out and

company

Church

with

as

one

God's

was not equal

furtherest

quoted

the

things"

of

the

Robinson Crusoe

be read, I have decided to stick with the original because I think it takes fastest into the most significant problems. The Institutes are cited and in the

However,

might wish

it.

being equal, enforced solitude is

of some other

nature a social

(Calvin,

overcome and supplant

or

"physical"

it were, allowing the

allegory"

that Defoe trades on

denying

the expectations of those readers who are trained to look for the pilgrim allegory.

he has

mat

spiritual

comprehensive metaphor

fictional form in pilgrim

the foolishness

proved

is

able to use the physical to reflect

vast

vast

can and

frequently

majority

of

chosen means of

for Crusoe. In his

the Church was met otherwise. He was

touched him

directly (a

possibility Calvin

towards me,

that

at some

it is impossible to

this, Seeing At

long Spear or Weapon in his Hand,

with a

Ground,

to a rising

No one, that

even

dreamed

it ;

of

of those

Horrors ;

nor

erates with

Crusoe's

precipitated

impending

an

death

violent

he

came

terrible,

Repentance,

now

thou shalt

die:

to kill

me.

Hand,

Account, will expect that I should be able to describe this terrible Vision, I mean, that even while it was a Dream, is it any more possible to describe the Impression

that remain'd upon my Mind when I awak'd and

This dream

so

that I can say I understood, was

all

brought thee to

not

when

Voice

a

this

shall ever read

the Horrors of my Soul at

I

the Terror

express

to kill me; and

to me, or I heard

spoke

thought he lifted up the Spear that was in his

Words, I

which

Distance, he

these Things have

all

83

Crusoe

Considering

found it

Dream

a

conversion and repentance. Man"

the hands of "a

at

but

was

[I, 100].

The fear

of

is the terror that coop

the Grace of God to work Crusoe's salvation. Not the fear

God, but the fear

of a

Crusoe's

man rendered

visionary

of

to

soul amenable

redemption.10

happily

acknowledges :

concerning those

Church from the Apostle's saying that Paul

was

there

"describing the

usual

who would

"hearing is

economy

infer

the

a

monopoly in

beginning

dispensation

and

salvation

faith,"

of which

Calvin

for the

says

the Lord is

that

wont

to

laying down an invariable rule, for which no other method can be substituted. Many he [the Lord] certainly has called and endued with the true knowledge of himself, by internal means, by the illumination of the Spirit, without the intervention of (IV, xvi, 19)). Calvin would surely say that only perverse

employ in calling his people,

and not

preaching"

obduracy entirely inconsistent the earthly state of the soul to

with the

which

175-82,

pp.

is the

ly

say, "Leave

God."

Perhaps

some

communion should

behavior

upon

he

be

said

the external Church. It may of course

draw-back to

such a

society.

Robinson, if everything is

will also

by

is

be shed on the uses to

our

on compara

help forestall lapses (see Hunter,

among the Puritans). But balanced

alone,

put

and

"improving"

notice, in the

I

as you

which

second

against still

op.

cit.,

that need

think Calvin

say between

you

Crusoe thinks church-

Part

of

this study, of his

returning to England from his exile, and of remarks on the possibility of

Professor Starr

mind as

light

society

by

try

worrying after the

he includes in the Serious Reflections.

communion 10

Crusoe had

well-enough

of

the Church to

on post-conversion sin

set of temptations

would

and

as saved needed

the blessed would

every Christian aspires,

tively paltry though legitimate matters be that Crusoe

of

mentality

penned

ber, however,

suggests

that Defoe had the story of Balaam (Numbers 22 :

the episode of the dream (op. cit., pp.

60, 100-101).

that in Numbers the angel is called an angel, and

not a

It is

well

man, and

12-35) in

to

remem

that,

when

Crusoe himself discusses Balaam explicitly, he too refers to "the angel with the flaming (Serious Reflections ["A Vision of the Angelic World"], p. 290). See also Hunter, sword"

op.

cit.,

one

155-64.

pp.

There may

two

are

(each admittedly

ways

assume with

the Bible

Starr

and

somewhat

tendencious) to interpret the dream:

Hunter that Defoe

does,

to

higher

was

employing

anthropomorphic

(e.g., Ezekiel 1

:

5);

or one can

imagery,

as

do

acknowledging biblical parallels, dwell upon the literal ele the dream. Either way the expositor must concede that his reading of the dream

as

I have done and,

ments of

is decisively

affected

whole story.

Starr

God

sometimes

and

the

complicated

by

and

purpose

while

what

he takes to be the basic

Hunter believe that

relevant emotion

relationship

relevant emotion

a

action

to be the fear

of

of man.

If

dominant

God. I think the basic

with nature and with other

his fear

action and

passion of

to be Crusoe's evolving relationship

one chooses

men,

action

absent as well as

the

with

is Crusoe's

present, and the

the Starr-Hunter approach, he

must at

Interpretation

84

of this fact on Crusoe's later rehgious experience, i.e., defect in Crusoe's conversion, we will notice his response to the famous footprint in the sand. Crusoe is really quite candid that his rehance upon God's protection collapsed under the consternation he felt

To

to

bearing

the

see

see

the

crucial

sighting the print. "Fear banish'd Confidence in God which was founded

aU

upon

religious

my

Hope ;

upon such wonderful

aU

former

that

Experience

as

I

180).11 He seems to suggest that his Goodness, now vanished (I, he took to be God's efforts been sustained what had his "rehgious by to deliver his body. And after the appearance of a sign of man he utterly lost

had

of

.

.

Hope"

that

"reproach"

What did he

sustenance.

his "Easiness, that [he] would just serve [him] till next

not sow

Season"

.

.

.

(1,

himself for then? For more

any 180). He

Corn

also

one

began

one

thing,

Year than

would

repent"

"sorely to

that he had made an opening in his fortification (I, 186). To remedy these blunders, he "took all the Measures humane Prudence could suggest for Time,12 "though [he] foresaw nothing at that [his] own more than (I, 187). He admits [his] meer Fear suggested to .

.

.

Preservation,"

.

.

I did and

.

;

Surprise,

which

he

I had done

as

if I had done, I had,

ance

at

least, been

and perhaps carry'd through

"perhaps"

it

have been

might

more

cheerfully supported under this

Resolution

with more

[I, 184-85].

through prayer,

more resolute

could not pray:

The Dread

Spirits,

my

I

...

and

must

falling into the Hands of Savages and Cannibals, lay so upon Maker, testify from my Experience, that a Temper of Peace, Thankfulness, Love and

Terror

Affection, is

fit for

least

a

kind

of

cf. note

did

"convert"

not

primacy for the fear

derivative from

80, infra. Novak, Nature,

11

And

12

The time in

see

Dread

under the

metaphorically ; the fear

expressed as

Also,

that

of

the

the significance of the fact

consider

pressed

the proper Frame for Prayer than that of Terror and

much more

and

comforting Performance

and earthquakes some

of

that I seldom found my self in a due Temper for application to my

Discomposure;

is

his Providence,

upon

.

Mind, by crying to God in my Distress, before, for my Defence and Deliver

take due Ways to compose my

not now

resting

though

.

.

new

But, he

.

.

of

that,

Crusoe; of man

God

of

Uneasinesses, may

well

which

be imagin'd by any

Hunter himself

Man is

a

...

[I,

notes

(p.

a

the

made who

.

.

.

[not]

189].13

155),

storms

in Crusoe's

mind.

testimony to The fear of man is never ex

is, in the figure of a man. A sense of the fear of God

34-36; but

pp.

near

indeed

impending,

praying to God

"aboriginal,"

the Print of

any human Creature come

as

or parasitic upon an

question would seem

Account

of

the vision did. And the vision is a

underived,

I, 202

see

and

fear

of man.

211.

to have been about two years, for Crusoe writes in

the same context that "all this Labour I was sions on the

Mischief

of

Duty

at

the Expence of, purely from my Apprehen

Man's Foot

Island,

my Life

know

and

much

what

which

I had

less

I had seen; for

now

as yet

liv'd two Years

comfortable

it is to live in the

I

than it was

constant

Snare

never saw

under

these

before; of

as

the Fear

Man"

of 13

(I, 188-89; emphasis original). Extended, and not elided, the passage

pending,

a

Man is

no more

fit for

a

reads, "that under the Dread of Mischief im

comforting Performance

of

the

Duty of praying to God,

Crusoe's discussion

foUowing

"necessity"

of

above

the

power of

fall into that necessity is to

It is

in the Serious Reflections

contains

the

assertion :

Necessity is power

85

Crusoe

Considering

to defend

written

itself,

is

nor

human nature, and for Providence to suffer a man to him to sin, because nature is not furnished with

suffer

grace

itself

able

fortify

to

the

it.

mind against

14

large in the trilogy that the most fearful and therefore the most that a man can face is that in which he thinks his hfe

necessitous circumstance

is threatened

by

other men.

Well does the Scripture say, The Fear of Man brings a Snare it is a Life of and the Mind is so entirely suppress'd by it, that it is capable of no Relief; the ;15

Spirits sink,

Afflictions, Is it

pecuhar

intensity his

with

and all the

and

is

Vigour

present

of nature, which

to them in the greatest

that Crusoe should

fear

of man's

total ignorance

almost

use

Not

of man?

of

at

vision

Men

supports

animal

under other

Exigencies, fails them here [III, 139].

the Scripture as his authority for the all, for this usage is in perfect accord

the fear of God. Crusoe did not even men

tion the possibihty of damnation in the

And the

usually

Death,

long

discourse

on

that horrified Crusoe was not one of eternal

his

repentance.16

torture, but

of

"a

Man"

"moved forward towards me, with a long Spear or Weapon in his The vision of this man is more real to Crusoe than the Hand, to kiU vision of God. This is the defect in Crusoe's conversion. It took who

me."

principal17

the fear

of a

"Mischief

man

visionary

impending"

at

forting Performance Grace, "grace itself

to drive Crusoe into rehgion, and yet the fear of

the hands of man renders him unfit "for a com God"

: Duty of praying to [would not] fortify the mind of

the

were a man

a recurrence of

.

the fear that drove him into it. And Crusoe was in the grip

for

a

long

time

he

after

than he is for Repentance others

do the Body;

Disability as that Mind, not of the

and

of the

sighted

on a sick

Body,

Body."

the

of

his fear

of man

footprint.18

Bed : For these Discomposures

the Mind

affect

as

the

the Discomposure of the Mind must necessarily be as great a

This

conversion, considering that it 14

driven into

against"

.

.

and much

occurred

Praying

greater,

passage might

to God properly an Act of the

be thought to

virtually "on a sick

suggest a

defect in Crusoe's

Bed."

Serious Reflections, p. 35 ; cf. Novak, Nature, p. 70. : 25 continues, "but whoso putteth his trust in the Lord

15

Proverbs 29

16

Elsewhere Crusoe relates that he expected to be "preserv'd to repent and be

Devil, on the other hand, "is to be cast into (II, 4; italics original). 17 Cf. note 13, supra. ; see also I, 102: "and

the

dwell

shall

the

Bottomless-Pit,

all

the rest of my life was like

to

be

safe."

pardon'd"

with

; everlasting

Fire"

18

sure.

Professor Starr

minimizes

the post-conversion Crusoe's susceptibility to discompo

He writes, for example, that

confront new

that he is an

hazards,

object of

and

after the conversion

biography,

p.

Providential

113). But the

hypothesis

he

Crusoe "becomes better

able

to

terrors, for he gains security from the conviction In other words, it is not that his belief shields him

to dispel their care.

from further vicissitudes, but that such vicissitudes agitate him only when he forgets he is under divine more often than

it"

question

remembers.

would require more

is,

of

course,

either

(Defoe

whether

While conceding that

discussion than

fail to discompose him

protection"

will

Crusoe does

or else

and Spiritual Auto not

confirmation of

flt into this note, I

tend to forget

the

"forgetful"

will nevertheless

Interpretation

86 I have

Crusoe's

sketched

hfe from his initial oblivion to God, God, to the point where fearful necessity

religious

through his apparent enthusiasm for

forced him to dence."19

to the

sin against

Crusoe took the

second

Part

of

It

the end

of

greatest spiritual

oring to

A,

try

riches,

so

rehance on

own

His

not such a man.

spiritual

along for the only kind

examination of some of

Nature"21

Now, Starr goes

to the

question posed at

isolated man, possessed of the hard to augment his circumstances by endeav would an

of

do any

would

dehverance

dehverance that

(I, 136)

thing, but that Crusoe was illusory, and his striving was all

such

was

seemed real

far

so

as

him, i.e., from

to

to say the "evidence of

sand"

(p. 113-14). He

incorporates into his

the

to the security of civil society.

.

.

.

narrative of

quotes

116), it does

composure"

(Starr,

[the security Crusoe

p.

gains

that he is an object of Providential care] is to be found in Crusoe's

the footprint in the soe

sins or crimes

induced Crusoe to

that, if Crusoe's attitude ever becomes "one of become so because of a confidence in Providence.

conviction

the

compelled or

suggest

not

"humane Pru

hands. We shall postpone

that isolation? The answer is that there is no reason to believe

end

of

his

all

give a short answer

Why

viz.,

that a man thus hypothesized

"State

placing

thing into his

"necessity"20

of

here to

must suffice

Section

by

this study our

forms

against men various commit.

God

whole

from the

discovery of

from the tributes to Providence that Cru

the footprint episode

-just

as

he

quotes

tributes from

the early anniversary celebrations (see note

8, supra). In the case of the annual thanks givings, Professor Starr failed to note that, during the four years in which Crusoe tells us he was perfectly resigned to the island and to Grace, he was actually undertaking "inexpressi to himself from the island. In the case of the footprint, Starr neg ble "deliver"

Labour"

lects to

that,

observe

his

while

Crusoe tells

from his belief in

got consolation

own prudence and

fear for

us

from time to time that he depended

Providence, he

also

least two

a period of at

tells

us

years.

upon and

that he relied entirely upon

See

note

12, supra,

and accom

panying text. 19

I.e., Crusoe had

conversion self:

was the sin

light

he

returned, in a

"thoughtless

confessed

of a remark

of a

in the

a

living in

a

God,

his

p.

should

191: "I take

be

considered

in the

a general neglect of

.

.

.

instructions] to be a kind of practical atheism, or at of Heaven, regardless of all that share which His invis

and

of contempt

ible hand has in the things that befall

This from Calvin in

us."

who, confiding in themselves

pronounced a curse upon all

It

pre-

101). That thoughtlessness

(I,

conversion.

from the Serious Reflections,

kind

to be sure, to the posture of his

Providence"

or a

narration of

[Providential cautions, warnings, least

more sober mood

or

also pertinent:

others, form

"God has

plans and reso

lutions, [and] who, without regarding his will, or invoking his aid, either plan or attempt to execute (James iv. 14; Isaiah xxx. 1; xxxi. (Institutes, III, xx, 28). Consider also the verses he cites from James and Isaiah, and the ones he could have cited from Jeremiah : "Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose heart departeth from the Lord (17 : 5,7). See also Starr, op. cit., pp. 65-66, 77-78, 187-93, and whose hope the Lord 1)"

....

is"

for

some

view of

extremely helpful

that Crusoe abandoned that 20 21

remarks on

the

seventeenth and eighteenth

century Puritan

the proper blend of trust in Providence and self-help. I differ with Starr view.

See

also

Novak, Nature,

Cf. Novak, Nature, Chap. III. Crusoe uses the term only once in the trilogy.

p.

144.

by thinking

Considering Crusoe C. Grace

Necessity; Providence

and

It has been truly

said that "Crusoe is not a description of himself as sinner: he life is impossible for any man threatened as he

am of

the

is to is

the

suffer

"Necessity",

able

Prudence

.

.

.

But Crusoe does

to

fortify

nature

is

not

in

which

suffer a man

furnished

the mind against

that the

effect

not

sinless

was.

state a circumstance

For Providence to

in

says

there is

not one man

to fall into

.

.

to defend

with power

in

necessity

.

itself,

nor

it.23

rate the greatest necessity, will necessarily overcome therefore rehgious practice, for reasons that "any who it is to hve in the constant Snare of the Fear of Man" (I, 189) will or at

hope,

rehgious

that I could

be honest

him to sin, because

itself

grace

know

opinion

world would

and

saint."22

rest with a

I

87

what

any

and

understand.

The

assumption

behind Crusoe's

"theoretical"

power of

God to

to be that, whatever the

assertion seems

He wishes, in

save whomever

practice

only

those souls that are at peace with their material environment are ehgible for

saving Grace. If Grace is potentially equal to necessity, this potential is never actuahzed, because Grace either does not appear or disappears in the face of

Crusoe does

necessity.

deny

not

the joys of the converted; his point is only

that composure is a prerequisite to the institution and maintenance

His

state of salvation.

may

are

the record of

must

as

cause,

22

be

an experiment:

is the

case with all

Novak, Nature, p. 33. Serious Reflections, p. 35 ;

Crusoe

accounted

the

something neither

men, his

for

at all

body

must

Job, Crusoe is

a matter-of-fact

be

secured

before his

the

that

other

perhaps allowances should also

is traceable to something

than

the aided human

for

"sin."

especially that occurring in "state of those circumstances. Crusoe's

be impious angelic

of emphasis to

be

the two forms

of

of

A

be

made

man,

soul

bodily

"Necessity"

as

significant

is

at once an

indictment

amalgam of

safety,

of

the

not

transgression

used

soul

body. The

excuse

that he

really

means a -

by

for brutish

is,

to

by

the harshness of conduct

God.

to affect, contrary

questions are

in

-

"wrong-doing"

natural state and of nature's

and the temporal order

deliverance to transpire. A

here

compelled

imphcit

body and

care of his

is

"sin,"

Calvinists

that is conquerable

portion of man's -

must "sin"

for hyperbole.

or of the

original

and

-

spirit.

conditions

indifference to the

given

Pelagians,

than the

other

nature"

proposition

war of all against all and an

to his nature,

and

predestined evil or gratuitous malice

unaided nor

would

quoted in text accompanying note 14. We "necessity" difficulties involved in the terms and

in the wrangling of the Augustinians

of conditions

It

in

the drift of Crusoe's thought is clear enough. There is a species of

"sufficiency"

24

upsidedown

and

partially

massive conceptual

them here. And

uses

Arminians,

in the

in this

me?"

saved.24

Nevertheless, and

the

of

the sources from which man

that

acknowledge as

of

way if God cannot, then Crusoe, hke any other man so situated, look elsewhere for deliverance, not because Crusoe is fickle, but be

implying

23

study

saying, "Can God deliver

testing God,

can

a

to derive the security necessary to that composure. Crusoe's

expect

books

form

memoirs

only the degree

which one should expect

similar question was asked

by Socrates:

Interpretation

88 The

[?]"25

necessity that

is this : Will "Providence

question

Will God

view

the

.

to fall

suffer a man

.

the

requisite

bodily

to

into

.

.

.

security necessary to

hfe? God might

a rehgious

designed His

by having this, by assuring each man that he is in Concerning the first alternative, the reader

affirmative either

creation with a

to man's security, or, in heu of

care of particular

does the

in turn is

mental composure which

have justified the

.

provide a man with

have to

not

environment

holden for

island has

allegedly

most

hostile

part of

himself be

consider

to God's mere creation. Although Crusoe "could

cast more

aspects of

view of the

to see that he did not

-

Place in the

nam'd a

have been

could

Crusoe's

other men

-

composure

have

hardly

Providence.

consider

to my

Eden,

Part

unhabitable Advantage"

World26

the

of

(I, 153);

where

I

indeed his

although

still,

of God had not wonderfully order'd the Ship to be cast up Shore, where I not only could come at her, but could bring what I got out of her to the Shore, for my Relief and Comfort ; I had wanted for Tools to work, Weapons for Defence, or Gun-powder and Shot for getting my Food. I spent whole Hours, I may say whole Days, in representing to my self how I must have acted, if I had got nothing out of the Ship That I should have liv'd, if I had not perish'd, like a meer Savage. That if I had kill'd a Goat, or a Fowl, by any Contri-

if the

good

Providence

to the

nearer

.

.

.

.

.

"Then

[Glaucon]

got a means of that,'

do

you

listen to

not

livelihood he

said."

he

(Plato, Republic, 407

is that livelihood follows faith

ii, 37;

2, 8;

viii,

xiii,

3;

xx,

the temporal priority

urge

a-b

2, 11-13, 16. Even of

'I think he

[Lindsay,

should

begin

even

has

before

trans.]). The counterpart Christian view

See

when a

security he

bodily

.

says that as soon as a man

virtue.'

and not vice versa.

.

.

Phocylides, when he

to practice

ought

.

will

Calvin, Institutes, I, Christian thinker

typically

recognize

xvii, 9-1 1 ;

seems

III,

to grant or

God's Providence

in the very passage, as Hooker here: "destitution in [food and raiment] is such an impedi ment, as till it be removed suffereth not the mind of man to admit any other care. For this cause, God

assigned

Adam

(Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, we

.

.

.

have

meaneth

not

.

.

the

God

will make

of

thou

shalt

be blest

emphasis added).

God to be

above all

great plagues

in

speak

in the fruit

and

delight is in the Law

braceth him

2;

x,

thee plenteous in every

thy cattle,

there are

I,

promise of

the sacred Scripture to

fruit

whose

.

of life, and then appointed him a law to

maintenance

work

of

God,

whatsoever

oppressed, but mercy which saveth from turneth away the course of 'the great

(emphasis

original).

See

also note

Quotation from Hooker may Crusoe should be judged by. But between Hooker Anglican which 25

26

he doeth it

and

and

Calvin,

being

and

which

infirmities.'

all

keepeth from

and man

being

em-

overlaid and

touched with grievous miseries, mercy which

them not to 'come

near'"

supra.

the

the

reader wonder

subject of

just

what

this note there

united

in

opposition

orthodoxy I think

is little if any difference

that goes for many other points

the Genevan would be

'The

'For the ungodly

shall prosper

and permitteth

make on

what

his trust in the Lord mercy

waterfloods,'

19,

xlviii, 6: "If

Again, 'Keep his laws,

whosoever putteth

Not only that mercy

every

V,

adversity,

wealth.'

thy

side.'

on

all

large terms, 'Be obedient, and the Lord thy of thy hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the

people, the Lord shall take from thee

remaining; but

ibid.

also

delivered from

so

the land for

of

Consider

evermore

observe"

on

which

Crusoe indulges himself.

Serious Reflections, p. 35. Cf. Proverbs 8:31, "rejoicing in the habitable

the

great

to the attitudes and ideas with

part of

his

earth."

Crusoe

Considering vance, I had

Bowels, like

a

way to flea

no

it up; but

or to cut

or open

them, it

must gnaw

the Flesh from the

or part

with

89

Teeth,

my

it

and pull

Skin,

and

the

my Claws

with

150-51].27

Beast [I,

Crusoe

credits the

since

.

"particular Providences [that] had

attended [him] (I, 152), rather than the place itself, for his survival. "daily Thanks for that daily Bread, which nothing but a Croud of Wonders could have brought [He] had been fed even by Miracle; even as great as that of feeding Elijah by Ravens; nay, by a long Series of Miracles (I, 152-53). .

.

.

.

.

Place"

coming into this In short, Crusoe gave

[his]

....

.

.

Crusoe's "Confidence in God rience as

ship's

.

.

[he] had had

.

appearance, the

of

.

.

.

was

founded

his Goodness

chief miracle was

the inadequate island economy. Without

(I, 134). But Crusoe's

starved

to

understand

even

why

his

narrative of

confidence

in

upon such wonderful

Expe

(I, 180). Second only to the God's introduction of barley into .

.

"Corn"

his

he

claims

discovery

particular

he

would

have

the grain helps us

of

Providence deserved him

at the crucial moment.

Crusoe teUs

that

us

it is impossible to

Occasion;

.

.

express

After I

.

the Astonishment

and

Confusion

my Thoughts on this

of

there, in a Climate which I know was especially that I knew not how it came there, it startl'd

saw

Barley

grown

not

for Corn, and me strangely, and I began to suggest, that God had miraculously caus'd this Grain to grow without Help of Seed sown, and that it was so directed purely for my Sustenance, proper

on

that wild miserable Place.

This touch'd my Heart my self, that

But

such a

a little, Prodigy

and of

brought Tears

Nature

should

out of

my

happen

Eyes,

on

and

my

I began to bless

account

.

.

.[I,

this episode took place before his conversion, he began to

since

89].

recon

sider.

At last it

occur'd

in that Place,

to my

and

and

Thankfulness to God's Providence began to

abate

this was nothing but

[I, 89-90]. 2S

Commenting writes as

I

or

on

...

too

must

upon

confess, my

the

out

religious

Discovering

that all

this behavior from the viewpoint of the converted, Crusoe

to have been

miraculous

as thankful

; for it

was

for

so strange and unforseen

really the Work

appoint, that 10 or 12 Grains of Corn

had destroy'd

all

the rest,)

"As if it had been Cf.

what was common

I

follows:

ought

been

27

Thoughts, that I had shook a Bag of Chickens Meat [meal]

then the Wonder began to cease;

as

of

Providence

Providence,

as to

should remain

me, that

if it had

unspoil'd, (when the Rats

if it had been dropt from Heaven

...

[I, 90].

miraculous,"

but

as

should order

not miraculous

; rather,

"nothing but

Calvin, Institutes, I, xiv, 22 : "How impious were it to tremble in distrust, lest we day be abandoned in our necessity by that kindness which, antecedent to our

should one

existence, displayed itself in 28

here

The are

non or at

the

any

rate

things!"

a complete

parables of the sower and of

5000. Consider

also

supply

of all good

less blasphemous New Testament

Matthew 1

:

18-25

parallels that come to mind

the mustard seed, and the miracle of the and

Luke 1

:

26-27.

feeding of

Interpretation

90

common."

what was

The

has been

suggestion

through

is

nature and

Defoe's fictional

of

variety

often

to explain the

gives almost

event narrated

every

"common"

even

explanation,

later

sustained

fuUy

order'd

if it is

.

.

.

in the

will present

Indeed, Crusoe trilogy a

a

scru

"natural"

an uncommon event.

Consider

or

as exam

around

.

.

.

.

and

his island experience : of the ship that wrecked and wonderhe says "the good Providence of God him there, Shore 150). He also nearer to the to be cast (I, [it] up

the parentheses

ples

situation

that "if any

nature,"

fall into difficulties, Defoe

characters

of natural causes

pulously

that "Defoe's Providence works entirely

made

indistinguishable from

.

.

.

.

asks, "What would have been my Case if it had not happen'd, Which was an that the Ship floated from the Place where she Hundred Thousand to one,30

first

driven

struck and was

later,

years

[?]"

to the Shore

so near

.

.

.

(I, 71).Twenty-eight "

preparing to embark for England, [he] forgot from whom Heart in Thankfulness to Heaven;

Crusoe

when

was

to hft up [his] [II, 68]. Earher every Dehverance must always be acknowledged to he had called the appearance of the ship that bore him away, "a strange and unforeseen (II, 39). In Robinson Crusoe providential acts are espe not

.

.

.

.

.

.

proceed"

Accident"

cially hard to distinguish from

Nevertheless, does

had

to

-

friendly

Crusoe

accident.31

Yet the

by looking

reader

may

were

wonder if"

hke

an accident

justified in regarding events "the Work

attending him,

these events "as

at

some people

was

if they

Providences"

"particular

accidents.

generated

looks to

explanation as

as

30a

accidents.

an event

"common"

a

me"

as

that it is an

not prove

which

the fact that

how

they

of

Providence

or, if we may say so, as much

conviction

were miraculous.

he

In the

grip of the terror inspired by the footprint he seems to have had no reservoir of faith to draw on, no clear recollection of an unmistakable intervention of

God to

sustain

his

that this

was confident

that what he had previously

than mere accidents, after the footprint he was unsure

be his future

would

t/rafriendly

Or, if he

spirit.

experienced were more

accidents crossed

; if we may say so, the thought of He imagined now a "casual accidental

experience

his

mind.

Main"

Landing of Straggling People from the all my religious Hope; I reproach'd ...

would not sow

next

Crop

Season

as

that was

In the

no

upon

upon no religious

29

Novak, Nature,

30

Italics

Corn

Accident

one

the Ground

fear

Year than

could .

would

intervene to

just

prevent

serve me

tiU the

my enjoying the

(I, 80).

.

imagined necessity Crusoe reverted to the expla that had informed his understanding when he had "acted

crucible of

nation of events

30 a

more

any

if

(1, 1 85). And, "my Fear banish'd my self with my Easiness, that

and

Foundation

p.

aU"

at

(I, 89) : he now regarded the events that

6, 7.

original.

Consider, for

example,

III, 86: "by

mere

Accident

Providence."

or

31

Calvin, for example, acknowledged that many events seem to be accidental (Institutes, 9); this being due in part to the fact that "the providence of God does not interpose simply; but, by employing means, assumes, as it were, a visible (ibid., I, xvii, 4). I,

xvi,

form"

Considering Crusoe

91

befell him as, to use his earher expression, nothing "otherwise than as a Chance" (I, 89). It is because he could not convince himself that God was in that he ceased to rely

control

Thus I took

tion;

it

and

on

His Providence.

the Measures humane Prudence could

all will

be

seen at

length,

though I foresaw nothing at that

that

they

Time,

for my

suggest

own

were not altogether without

more

than my meer Fear

Preserva

just Reason;

suggested

to

me

[I, 187].

For the record,

partially in

and

Part

anticipation of the second

of

this

study, Crusoe's formula of the relationship between bodily and spiritual dehv erance is this. Bodily security must precede dehverance of the soul; but that can

security

be

wrested

both to rely entirely

from

nature

by

and

by

only

themselves, leaving God that there is such a thing

upon

to the

men who are

out of

it,

and

willing

to exploit

extent as the state of Grace, it foundations laid in sin; proximately in the case of a founder (i.e., has himself like Crusoe experienced and triumphed over some mani

other men:

must rest on

one who

festation

of

beneficiaries

the of

Of course, it

tion

of

it;33

and

were not of

state of gious

founding

would

Grace

feehngs

salvation

desire

after

he

could

only be seriously

of

from

...

for Repentance

his

sin was not again

on a

Never

mind

on :

contains a non sequitur

by

the

spiritual salva

disinterest in the

moment

Sick

Bed"

-

by

which

(1, 1 89).

More to the

as an object of

he

Crusoe's

had impinged

expressed

that it is nonsense to

on

his

his disaffec

allege

that the

"necessity."

cannot

overcome

clearest and crudest of

terms,

bread is

own satisfaction which side a man's

he had learned to

God. From the

finally to deny the omnipotence in, he ceased to take the spiritual

question and

this doubt set

seriously, reserving thenceforth his juxtaposition

side

offended

to

profound

state of nature

that the formula

is that he had learned to his of

means

in the running

of

buttered

the

To be sure, Crusoe may have experienced some reh his illness. But his last word on sickbed conversions is

the necessarily all-powerful God What Crusoe means to communicate, in the

Grace

the

would not: as such

the fuU necessitousness of the

God

with

case of

to take this formula seriously in its

anyone

interest to him because

during

point,

sensibilities.

remotely in the

or

as an end.

that a man is not "fit

tion

could not:

Crusoe

man)

act.32

be hard for

The Christian

entirety.

impiety

natural condition of

the

deliverance for merely We may now turn to Crusoe's

of

the two forms

of

polemical or satirical purposes.

out and out polemic.

Serious Reflections, which has been than the narrative "more orthodox"

32

characterized volumes.34

Cf. MachiaveUi, The Prince, vi, xvii, xviii, xix;

xxxvii;

II,

33

Cf.

34

The

of the

by

most

The accuracy The

intense in the

one commentator as

of

Discourses, I,

that

vi,

ix,

charac-

xviii, xxvi,

viii.

notes

24

and

27

supra.

is Professor Novak (see note 5, supra) His argument for degrees of the Crusoe trilogy (cf. note 6, supra) needs to be seen in the perspective

commentator

orthodoxy

and

It is

within

larger thesis

of his second

.

book (Defoe

and

the Nature of Man)

.

There, he refers the

Interpretation

92

terization can

in

treatment

be conveniently tested

New Testament

well-known

by examining, as we shall here, Crusoe's God's justice, of His power, and of a

the Serious Reflections of miracle.

D. God's Justice Crusoe's discussion the

conquistadores and

reader

to a

knowledge n.

passage

he

and

places

58,

p.

he

Crusoe himself.

and

Concerning

67). Novak

one

indication

of

thinks

also

"Defoe's

(Novak, Nature,

Defoe,

pp.

p. 58, 10, 11, 34,

[on necessity] extreme, but it

position

Mandeville"

issues

although of course

-

nothing

he does

of

not

simply Hobbesian.

was

strongly influenced

was

during

and

his disciples

a child of his

by

the two main

streams

of political

the latter half of the seventeenth century: the doctrines of

and

[ibid., p. 14]. law, and by borrow concepts in the writings of Grotius, Hobbes,

those of their opponents

age, Defoe formulated his

.

.

.

own scheme of natural

able to achieve a certain eclectic original

be misled, however, into thinking that Defoe's ideas and beliefs caveat: Whereas Defoe

stem

from only

source, Novak adds a rather decisive

kept

abreast of all

the

new

the Bible. And

science and

The

an

Hobbes, Spinoza, and Defoe was with Hobbes, to say

on a number of other

thought in England

we

the Spanish

thinkers as

ing, combining, and emphasizing various Locke, and many other philosophers, he was ity [ibid., p. 2]. Lest

by

the fate of those peoples

the Fiction of Daniel

and

"not only is Defoe's

with such suspect

Like Locke, Defoe

As

the divine dispensation for

necessity"

Novak, Economics

contends that

Hobbes

centers on

found in the New World

Machiavel'

(Novak, Nature, Spinoza and Mandeville, allege

natives

in A Collection of Miscellany Letters for and his doctrine of

him in company p.

God's justice

the

by

the 'wise

of

2. Cf. ibid.,

50);

of

heathen, especially

ideas

of

his day,

he apparently felt free to

use concepts

deism for

[ibid.,

special effects

heterodoxy in Defoe's

retained

his faith in his

like primitivism,

a voyage

con

deists,

against the attacks of the

to the moon, or

even

8].

p.

writing is

distinguish between Defoe's

[he also]

...

he defended the Bible

while

"special

a matter of

sincere utterances and

his

effects."

Furthermore,

special effects

simply

one can

by

asking

Defoe's authority or on that of his narrator. At least Novak seems to proceed this way in his analysis of Robinson Crusoe. He risks his criterion in the course of a discussion of Defoe's views of the heathen. whether a particular statement

Crusoe

.

.

the

of

made on

defends the cruelty

.

Peru : "We have heard tudes

is

much of

the inhabitants there,

government of

.

of

the Spaniards towards the natives of Mexico and

the cruelty of the Spaniards in .

Providence, it

.

but

seems

of vengeance should

be executed,

destroy

who were come

those people,

such a

dreadful

blood

cried

height,

for it

.

.

passage contradicts volume and suggests

Crusoe the

.

in that

to

me

and of which the

up

(by

such multi

of

instruments, devil, no doubt)

were

the

to to

human sacrifices, that the innocent

214]."

p.

the

Spaniards

the influence

abhorred custom of

attack on

destroying

for giving up all the actions of men to that Heaven had determined such an act

am

[Serious Reflections,

Crusoe's

[And, Novak

cruelties of

continues,] This

the Spaniards in the first

that the closer Defoe's name became associated with Robinson

more orthodox

what might

I

as

have been

he became in

considered

religious matters.

ideas favouring deism

The

most

bitter

attacks on

and primitivism occur

in the

the Spaniards met, Crusoe

with whom men's worst

designs, to bring

least knowledge have heard

we

to pass the glorious ends of

design

or

Serious

Novak's

general proposition

I

am

such multitudes of

the actions of men to the

all

Heaven had determined

work was allegorical

such an act of

[Novak, Nature,

that the Serious Reflections is "more passage

the

without

distance separating Crusoe from Defoe has been

that the

is disputed in the text. The

narrative volumes

destroying

for giving up

seems to me that

where the

author's contention

as

Providence,

again:

the Spaniards in

of

but

.

.

Providence, it

by the

following

.

And

actors."35

the cruelty

much of

Reflections,

the

of

the inhabitants [of America] government of

that "Heaven serves itself of

opines

the avarice, ambition, and rage of men have been

and

made use of

93

Crusoe

Considering

just

orthodox"

than the

is, however,

quoted

erased

45-46].

pp.

open

to the

additional objections :

1. In saying that "the distance separating Crusoe from Defoe has been erased by the Novak presumably has in mind "Ro that the work was allegorical,"

author's contention

binson Crusoe's

Preface"

to the Serious

historical,"

allegorical, is

and

also

tions of whose life are the just story most

There may indeed be

said

that "the story, though

known too, the

and well

part of

not

such a

In any case,

(see Hunter,

sheer conjecture

alive"

but the

op.

cit.,

name"

"allegory"

of

the identification of that

however, pp. 120-21);

the flimsiest of excuses for reading Defoe's

not afford

ac

the

divorce the Serious Reflections from "man

volumes."

in "these

contained

Defoe is

does

alive,

these volumes, and to whom all or most

subject of

This language does

p. x).

narrative volumes.

life is

it is

-where

a man

directly alludes; this may be depended upon for truth, and to this I set my

(Serious Reflections, the

Reflections,

"that there is

and

his

man as

accordingly the passage

supposed

orthodoxy into any

the trilogy.

portion of

2. Crusoe does here his former

not

here "defend the cruelty

of

the

Spaniards."

the Spaniards as cruel.

characterization of

Nor does he

Neither did he

"contradict"

formerly

make a

here he asserts, that the fate of the natives any rate, denying, explicitly whom the Spaniards assaulted can be traced ultimately to God. (See e.g., I, 106 and 199). Accordingly, it is difficult to see the respect in which Novak thinks the Crusoe of the Serious Reflections passage

he

3. The

"contradicts"

yes ;

is

or

quotes

is

at odds with

"orthodox"

more

cruelty.

cruelty,

What he

no.

what

would

in

he

no

should

have

plausibly

could

in

same crime

...

.

.

[to]

.

palliate

it

motives.

are

God's

two distinct issues :

executioner.

choice

employment of

one

God's having

35

Serious

Reflections,

I,

xvii,

5;

p.

to be

volume.

Puritanism

corrected

-

-

that

Severity,

or otherwise.

Puritan might have entertained vengeance,

as

Crusoe

employment of

As Calvin says, it

will not

suggests.

the Spaniards

do "in the

Providence,

.

.

.

case

[for] in

manifested"

the

for them, but

and

upon

not entail

the state of their minds and their

God's

approval of murder.

There

the victim, the other between God and the

the death of the native

222. This

xviii.

of

first

iniquity of man is separately the guilt or innocence, of the Spaniards, depends.

and

between God

stand

the pretext of Divine

the Spaniards for breach of the Sixth Commandment

e.g., Institutes

why Novak thinks the

a piece of orthodox

some

is that God's

homicide does

willed

or

se, Spanish

per

is that

murder.

under

"defensibility,"

(Institutes I, xvii, 9). The God's inscrutable

argue

be

though I

-

cruelty

addition

the justice of God

not upon

-

would

God's instruments

were

stated

Crusoe,

narrator

that it

of

way diminish their guilt for

of theft or murder,

the

suggest

Puritan defense

can cite a single

the

than the corresponding passages in the

I doubt, however,

the notion that the Spaniards

And

to

passage quoted seems

to defend Spanish

Novak

what

at

practice of

proposition

Americans

would not exonerate

(ibid., 5).

is in

accord with

Calvin's teaching. See,

Interpretation

94 vengeance should

be executed,

stroy those people,

who were come

dreadful

Crusoe sins

or

height, in

for it

cried

.

that

up

crimes,

abhorred custom of

imply

human sacrifices, that the innocent blood

here that the Spaniards God

even though

orthodoxy, this

Accordingly,

to de

instruments,

were

.

seems to

pertinent

Spaniards

(by the influence of the devil, no doubt) to such a

Peru.

resolution

one wonders

be

would not

appointed and

the natives of Mexico and

punish

employed

excused

their

their acts to

though consistent with the

But,

is difficult to

in

uphold

why Crusoe voluntarily took it

argument.37

himself to

upon

that God was involved in the Spanish atrocities. One wonders, that

suggest

is,

.

and of which the

why Crusoe repeatedly drew

attention

to an issue

that,

as

it taxes the best

be left to them, and passed over in si other Christians. We may discover what Crusoe is driving at by on the native practice Crusoe thought especiaUy aroused God's

theological minds, perhaps ought to

lence

by focusing

i.e., "that

wrath,

being

abhorred custom of

Canaanite

a

American

foUowing

remark.

natives and

Israelites, in destroying the nations of the land of Canaan, was done.39 The heaven, and therein Joshua was justified in what was abhorred appointment however was doubtless an of Spaniards, by us,

God for the destruction

But, it is

one

of the most wicked and abominable people upon

thing for

the

Holy

and quite another

for Crusoe,

attribution

to vouchsafe the

and

-

Crusoe

assigns

as yet unquoted:

mean

"it

[i.e., human

extinct

by

seemed

[to

Turks

Serious

37

Even in Calvin's

39

40 41

ascribe genocide

"doubtless,"

reason

therefore.*1

Spaniards,

to

God,

to make the same

Consider the

as stated

in a passage

to be time to put a stop to that

race?

and

Reflections,

p.

By

"the very

people,"

does Crusoe

race of

Does he think that God thought the from Mexico to, e.g., Turkey

English

would allow

custom of

and

themselves to be

England,

sacrificed?

214.

presentation

the argument is difficult to follow. Cf.

Institutes, I,

note

34 (item

3),

xvii, 5.

Deuteronomy 18 : 9-10. See, e.g., ibid., 1 : 1-5. Serious Reflections, p. 216. Calvin's doctrine that every

willing does

Institutes, I,

not entail

xvii,

always refrained

Saul, 42

divine

the

supra, where I state my understanding of 38

facile

loosing Heaven]

butcheries."42

sacrifice would spread

36

Scripture to

earth.40

sacrifice], lest the very race of people should at last be

their own

and that the

with a

to God for

the whole human

human

sacrifice

from

cruelties of the

crime

Human

it may have been one of similarities be the Canaanites that prompted Crusoe to the

cruelties of the

commanded

reason

sacrifices."

abomination,38

tween the

The

human

and

1-2; III, ii, 39; from

event must

be traced to God's

active and

that we may casually assume knowledge of God's

xxi,

interpreting

4;

xxiii).

This is

particular providences

the Philistines in I Samuel 23 : 26-27).

Serious Reflections,

p.

214.

not

immediate

reasons

(see

to assert, of course, that Calvin

(see,

e.g.,

ibid., I,

xvi, 9:

David,

Considering There is

95

Crusoe

biblical record of God thinking the physical survival of the human

no

by the pecuhar custom

race was endangered

people,"

very race of the humor in the occurring in the

we

of

it is juxtaposed

passage comes out when

discussion. For example,

same

Canaanite. But if, by "the

the

take Crusoe to mean the native American race, then with other passages

find Crusoe acknowledging

we

that it is hard to say whether the paganism is much abated [in America] except by the infinite ravages the Spaniards made where they came, who rooted out idolatry by

destroying

the

idolaters,

writers affirm above

not

by

bitants for many hundred

miles

having

converting them;

of people and

seventy millions

cruelly

cut

left the country

off,

as their own

naked of

its inha

together.43

In short, this abomination [human sacrifice] God in His providence put an end to those nations from the face of the earth,

them, cutting in

pieces

man, woman,

bringing

and child

.

.

a race of

bearded

by destroying

strangers upon

.

Crusoe has God wielding the Spaniards to exterminate the Americans for purpose of shielding the Americans from extinction. He has the Spaniards

the

fulfilling the unfulfiUed commission of the Israelites as they defeat the aUeged their own

purpose of

Consider

the reasoning that Crusoe

also

passage

already out for

commission.45

attributes

to God in

part of a

"the innocent blood [of the victims] But, first, the Spaniards killed innocent victims and second, this argument from innocence has no Crusoe

quoted.

says

[vengeance]."

cried

alike;46

and sacrificers

in the biblical

analogue seems

to have

Crusoe's argument, pertinent part of

thought,

since

sacrificers.

the

account of the

considered all or one

Israehtes

Canaanites

and

the Canaanites

and related peoples

that he learned from

God

-

guilty.47

some source other

It is

than the

the Old Testament. But it is not necessarily his complete

innocence

of

the victims does not necessarily

What does Crusoe think

are

imply guilt of the

the necessary conditions

of guilt

in

sacrificers?

He

says

relatively little about sacrifice, but of course he rehshed talking What then does Crusoe say about the guilt of the canni

about cannibahsm.

bals? His 43

Ibid.

44

Ibid.,

45

"And

constant major premise

p.

the Lord them"

utterly destroy tants of Canaan. See,

"The

where

thy God

the Indians in

resurrection

the Spaniards

went

then

(Serious

Reflections, :

2). The Israelites did and

Judges 3

:

not

shalt smite

slay

all

them,

the inhabi

1,3.

they were talked to of the future dead, eternal felicity in heaven, and the like, inquired after death, and if any of them went to heaven; and being

in the affirmative,

Deuteronomy 20

:

America,

.

.

.

when

of the

answered

47

deliver them before thee; thou

shall

(Deuteronomy 7

e.g., Joshua 9 : 14-15

poor wretches

state, the

Once, and in the

no guilt without scienter.

215.

when

and

46

is,

16-18.

shook

p.

their heads and desired

231).

they

might go

to hell

Interpretation

96 supposedly less

Crusoe it is

Consciences reproving,

Offence, Sins

we

and

Ox;

an

do

...

volume, he imputes

to

this as

not commit

it in Defiance

of

a

Divine

is

proposition

humane Flesh, than

eat

ratified

of

however,

to himself that

said

Crime ; it is

Justice,

we

do to

in the supposedly

their own

not against

They do as we

not

do in

think it no more a Crime to kill a Captive taken

nor

knowledge

Elsewhere in the first volume,

their Light reproaching them.

or

commit

they

commit,

do to kill

And this

then

having

as

these People

certain

(narrative)

cannibals.48

himself

quotes

first

orthodox

their turpitude to the

know it be

an

the

almost all

in War, than

we

Mutton [I, 198].

eat

more orthodox

Serious

Reflections. It is

evident

.

.

[that the cannibals]

.

eat no

human

creatures

but

such as are

taken

pri

in their battles, and, as I have observed in giving the account of those things [i.e., in the first narrative volume], they do not esteem it murder, no, nor so much as unlawful. I must confess, saving its being a practice in itself unnatural, especially to us, soners

I say, saving that part, I

is frequent in heat eating

43

vincing

not

saving the justice

proof of

one of

the

little difference between that

see

and our

action, viz., refusing quarter; for

those that offer to yield, it matters

This imputation is

service of

is

killing

and

of

unequivocal,

of

God,

or

the

which

in the

war

much.49

not

however, inasmuch

it is

as

made more

in the

Crusoe, than as a con The italicized portion of the following passage

apparent

essential minor premise.

way,

to the difference between

as

orthodoxy

of

the quotations Novak uses to substantiate his contention that Crusoe condemned

the cannibals: "I was led [to] arraign the Justice of so arbitrary a Disposition of Things, that should hide that Light from some, and reveal it to others, and yet expect a like Duty from both : But I shut it up, and check'd my Thoughts with this Conclusion, That we did not know by what Light and Law these should be condemn'd; but that as God was necessarily, and by the Nature of his Being, infinitely Holy and Just, so it could not be, but that if these Creatures were all sentenc'd to Absence from himself, it was on account of sinning against that Light which, as the Scripture says, was a Law to themselves, and by such Rules as their Consciences would acknowledge to be just, the Foundation was not discover'd to us [I, of Calvin, for one, does not always condition divine justice on the .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

tho'

24344]"

.

.

.

"acknowledgment"

human

"Where calamity takes

conscience.

if God

murmurs as

Christ declares that, spectacle

the glory

compelling God to

precedence even

of

birth,

our carnal sense

in thus afflicting those who have not offended. But had eyes clear enough, we should perceive that in this

were unmerciful provided we

of

his Father is brightly displayed. We

render an account

.

must use

modesty,

(Institutes, I, xvii, 1 [emphasis

.

not as

supplied]).

it

were

Never

theless, Calvin adheres to Crusoe's sometime scriptural authority (Romans 2 : 14-15) and insists that the Gentiles do know when they do wrong. See, in fact, Institutes, II, ii, 22, where

Calvin,

law "served

.

.

while .

[the

eous condemnation.

be

discussing Romans 2 : 14-15, concludes that conscience or natural Gentiles] instead of the law, and was therefore sufficient for their right The

end of the natural

improperly defined the judgment just and unjust, and by convicting men not

pretext 49

-

for

law

...

is to

render man inexcusable, and may distinguishing sufficiently between own testimony, depriving them of all

of conscience on

their

ignorance."

Serious Reflections,

pp.

115-16;

cf.

Novak, Nature,

pp.

44-45.

And

indeed,

deny

the

the Crusoe

97

Crusoe

Considering

mens

is

the Serious Reflections

of

cannibals'

rea,

thereby exonerating

not content

merely to

them. He also returns to

theme, the theme he had introduced in the first volume, the God's dispensation for the Pagans:

the related

justice

of

If

all those [pagan] nations are included under the sentence of eternal absence from God, which is hell in the abstract, then what becomes of all the sceptical doctrines of its being inconsistent with the mercy and goodness of an infinite and beneficent Being to condemn so great a part of the world, for not believing in Him of whom they never

had any knowledge or instruction? But I desire not to be the promoter of unanswerable doubts in

matters of

religions,

either as

Although God Reflections does been .

.

.

noted

by

can save

religion;

much

less would I

promote cavils at

to its profession or practice,

seems

and

the

foundations

therefore I only name

of

things.50

to have forsaken the heathen utterly, the Serious

contain a

kind

another, Crusoe

damnation."51

these people from

for their

of suggestion

redemption: as

has

Christian Crusade, Crusoe indeed visuahzes such

maintains that

"only

a

project, but his vision is more in the spirit of The Shortest Way with Dissenters than in a mood of either charitable sohcitude or truly pious sever a

ity. Yet, whatever might have been his opinion on salvation by the sword, Crusoe affects, again in the allegedly more orthodox Serious Reflections, to be uncertain about

the good to be wrought

trine among the

heathen, however it is

What the Divine

wisdom

by

dissemination

of

Christian doc

spread.

has determined concerning the

souls of so

many millions, it

is hard to conclude, nor is it my present design to inquire; but this I may be allowed here, as a remark : if they are received to mercy in a future state, according to the opin ion

of

some, as

darkness is

having not

not a

sinned against

curse, but

a

felicity;

saving

and

light,

there are

then their ignorance

no

and pagan

unhappy people in the world,

but those lost among Christians, for their sins against revealed light; nay, then being born in the regions of Christian light, and under the revelation of the Gospel doctrines, is not

so much a

manner

ners,

mercy to be

acknowledged as some

be true that the Christian

and

loses

more

than it saves,

Indeed. But still, Crusoe does swerable doubts in matters of

religion which

not

is

teach us, and it may in a negative

an efficient

in the

is impious but to

"desire

...

condemnation of sin

imagine.53

to be the promoter of unan

rehgion."

E. God's Power

The

subject of

involves 60

the previous discussion

a special class of events.

Serious Reflections,

doctrines."

61 62

p.

-

what

God's treatment

foUows,

we shaU

of

the pagans

-

discuss Crusoe's

111. Needless to say, Calvin had rejected these "skeptical viii, 20; III, xiv, 1-5; xxi, 1 ; xxii, 11 ; xxiii; xxiv, 15-17.

See, e.g., Institutes, II, Novak, Nature, p. 45.

Available in the Shakespeare Head Edition

Daniel Defoe (1927). 63

In

Serious Reflections, pp. 1 10-11.

of

the Novels

and

Selected Writings of

Interpretation

98

to God's disposition

adversions, in the Serious

Reflections,

This

Crusoe affirms his behef in particular Providence.

subject comes

If it be true,

Savior Himself says, that

as our

feels

our author

for any

am not answerable

know

and that

Providence,

contempt of

Nevertheless,

and subjected to

to

some are apt

entitle

out, "O! the

cork

fly

use

may be made

their own extremes,

In

.

.

model

and] obey

.

.

.

is the

superstitious regard not

for

manner

resigned

to

this lives in

possible.54

.

.

beer

hard to direct

.

endangers

being over ripe

"own

a man's

as

....

It is true,

more

to every

observation

"listen to the

far

an

ill

where

the running into many foolish

awful name of Providence

to them any

of

ridiculous

to tie people too strictly down to a rule,

and

dictates,

into; I

weak people

common and most

as reason

is to be the

voice

...

directs,

than a total

fancy of their

judge."

[of Providence

without

neglect."57

own.56

any

over-

In short, "it is

to dictate here to any man what particular things relating to him

me

Providence is

concerned

But if Crusoe consider

be

...

neglects

the froth follow like an engine, cried

and

Providence is a thing

man who will

secret

provoking

he that

Power!"55

is to be the judge,

least,

at

to

ought

and

knew, seeing a bottle

the ceiling,

things,

tacking the

and

[its]

of

these

observation .

some cases

Crusoe's

of

We

.

these things may lead

extremes

wonders of omnipotent

This listening to the voice

...

the hand of God to the

against

up

the

constrained to enter a caveat.

trifles in Nature ; as a religious creature I

burst out, the

most

without

to fall from our heads without our

ought

Him in the means;

in the

of all events.

hair falls from our heads

not a

hair

heavenly Father, up to our heavenly Father in it not a

our eyes

Him in the event,

I

when

then

will of our

having

up

wavers

in,

or what not

in his

.

.

estimation of

the degree to which a man should

the events affecting him as the work of a Providence particularly

interested in him, he seems confident nevertheless that the Deity in some as pect determines or has determined the manner in which events will occur. He

"unchangeableness

affirms the aware of

64

Ibid.,

55

Ibid.

56

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

57 58

59 60

of

the Eternal

decrees,"59

their possible imphcations for human p.

The

he is

immutabihty

195-96.

p

184.

p.

185.

p.

156.

Providence decrees that necessity,

ourselves, and, sequences,

as

events shall attend upon causes m a

direct chain,

and

by

an

has doubtless left many powers of good and evil seemingly to it were, in our hands, as the natural product of such causes and con and

which we are not

we are accountable

horted

even though

185.

pp.

evident

freedom.60

for the

and commanded

and punishments would

to

to limit and

cannot

expressly determine about, but

good or evil application

do any

good

thing,

be incongruous

threatenings be perfectly unmeaning,

of;

otherwise we were

or to avoid

any

in

wicked one.

which

vain ex

Rewards

justice, and promises and mankind being no free agent to

with sovereign

useless

things

-

himself, or intrusted with the necessary powers which those promises and threatenings imply [Ibid, p. 182].

Considering Crusoe he

decrees

ascribes to the

cuts also

in

another

99

direction

toward God Him

-

self.

It

be

would

ill

an

the world, if

account we should give of

that

we should argue

its

the government of divine Providence in

events are so

unavoidable,

and

every circum

I think it would take from the determined, that nothing can be altered sovereignty of Providence, and deny even God Himself the privilege of being a free

stance so

agent

.

.

...

.

People that tie up the

world of all

all

to events and causes, strip the Providence of God

its superintendency,

and

leave it

no room

to act as

which guides

a wise

disposer of

things.61

Crusoe It

seems

of

it in the

ing,

to

me

"stripping"

'Tis

incidents

men, is

idence,

Now

sufficient

by

the

following

expedient:

the

wisdom and power of

Creator,

and

the notion

dutifully preserved, and is as legible to our understand hand left at liberty to direct the course of natural causes and as

to the honour

of an

immutable Deity, that, for the

common

life, they be left to the disposition of a daily agitator, namely, divine Prov

of

to order and direct

cause and

God

that the immutable

minds of

though there be a

events.

"the

thus

avoids

them,

as

it

shall see

good,

the natural limits of

within

consequence.62

Providence,

since

hmits

natural

works would

viewed as

"a

daily

agitator,"

must work within

consequence,"

of cause and

one would suppose

be indistinguishable from

natural cause and

that its

consequence,

and

that accordingly Crusoe would be tolerant of those men who confuse the

two. But this

is unwarranted for two

expectation

the tendency

reasons :

to equate the natural course of events with chance ; and animus toward the

very

Crusoe's

of men

apparent

notion of chance.

Crusoe relates, in their

own

words, the story told him

by

two

"wretches."

London, and in some lanes betwixt happened, by a slip of his horse's foot, which lamed him a little, to stay about half a mile behind the other, was set upon by some highwaymen, who robbed him, and abused him very much; the other went on to Caxton, not taking

They

were

riding from Huntingdon towards

Huntingdon

care of

Caxton,

one

his companion, thinking he had

caped the

Calvin

and

rejects

thieves, they making

"a necessity consisting

And according to him, the only

stayed on some particular

off across

the country towards

causes"

of a perpetual chain of

person

to

whom

the necessity of

and es

occasion,

Cambridge.63

(Institutes, I,

"events"

is

xvi, 8).

"evident"

is

God, who makes each separate event necessary by willing, and not merely permitting, it so (Ibid., I, xvi, 8 ; xviii, 1). Calvin means that even human acts are decreed by God : "men cannot even give utterance except in so far as God pleases (Ibid., I, xvi, 6). He denies that man is a free agent (e.g., Ibid., I, xvi, 4; xviii, 2; II, ii-v), and yet argues that God's punishment for man's divinely appointed acts is not "incongruous with sovereign (e.g. Ibid., I, xvii, 3, 5). He denies that exhortation is in vain (e.g., Ibid., II, v; III, xxxi, 4). .

.

.

.

.

justice"

61 62

Serious Reflections, p. 198. pp. 198-99. It will be

Ibid.,

shifts from "direct

incidents 63

I,

life"

of

[ing]

observed

"within the

natural

Ibid., P. 202. For the positing

xvi, 9.

that

within

the course of natural causes and

limits

of a

this

passage

events"

to

the

role of

Providence

disposing of "the common

consequence."

of cause and

remarkably

similar example, see

Calvin, Institutes,

Interpretation

100

When Crusoe interviewed them afterwards, he found that the first, he who escaped, had "not the least sense of the government of Providence in this When

affair."64

"

asked

'how

"happened"

and

words as

feUow

who was

Crusoe

As for the it,"68

have

a mere

...

luck."65

that his

remark

"empty idol of air,

phantasm,

an

victim's alternative

he

idea, a

rephed

Crusoe is hkewise "

'horse

or rather an

imaginary,

and a

explanation, that it

by using such by the

provoked

chanced

nonentity,"

was

to

slip,"'66

nonsensical

"mock-goddess."67

"as the devU

would

Crusoe thinks that it may be true that the highwaymen were,

though

devil's

"good

robbed, for his

calls chance an

nothing

escape?'"

to

came you

office of

going to

and

fro,

seeking

Hand than Satan's that delivered this

And Crusoe has authority for his

poor

by their employment, doing the

even

they may plunder,

whom

blind fellow into their

yet

'twas

a

higher

power.69

assertion :

for this in Scripture language, in the law of manslaughter, or foolishly enough, by misadventure; it is in Exod. xxi. 13, in the case of casual killing a man ; it is expressed thus : "If a man lie not in wait, but God de This was not to be accounted murder, but the slayer was to fly liver him into his We have

death,

a plain guide

it

as we call

hand."

to the city of

Here it is

killed

man

refuge.

that God takes all these misadventures into His own hand; and a by accident is a man whom God has delivered up, for what end in His prov

evident

idence is known only to

The Providence

kept

[of

God may be

causes],"

and yet

have

chains"

contain

or

mere

being

"a

that

by

taken man

superintendency, because

consequence"

"direct

or within a

a place as a

"daily

agitator."

For, "direct

hnks that, though forged

"misadventures"

like

stripped of some

the "natural hmits of cause and

within

chain

of

Himself.70

God "into His

by nature or chance, and looking "accidents", are nevertheless susceptible of own Then, for aU we know, it is true hand."

kiUed by accident, is

a man whom

God dehvered

up"

;

and we

left standing irresolutely somewhere between God and Fortuna, hke the Phihstine soothsayers who, according to Calvin, "attribute [d] the adverse event partly to God and partly to are

chance."71

Consider

an atheist's experience as narrated

64

Serious Reflections,

65

Ibid. He

Crusoe does when

nate 66 67 68

not elicit all

the kind of

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

p.

"by being

a

negligent, if

202-03.

203.

Ibid.

70

Ibid., pp. 203-04. Institutes, I, xvi, 9.

not

faithless,

companion.

the morals one could possibly draw from his parable. same

story (see

note

63,

supra),

went out of

ambiguity Crusoe introduces into his

203.

pp. p.

moral

Crusoe in his Vision of the

202.

have said,

he told essentially the

69

71

p.

could also

by

rendition.

Calvin,

his way to

elimi

Considering Crusoe Angelic

World,

the coda to the Serious Reflections. When this atheist caUed

the house of a friend and

at

101

the door was opened only wide

feUow-atheist,

long enough for the main character to hear a voice within, which hke his friend's, caU out to him for Thinking this a

enough and

"repentance."

sounded

greeting, he left in

rude

friend for the

Later,

shock and anger.

he

when

his

upbraided

the friend rephed that at the time when he was sup posed to have answered the door he was in another part of the house, abed,

incivihty,

that he had

and

not

known

of

his fellow-atheist's

On receiving this

call.

intelhgence the visiting atheist assumed he had heard an did repent. Now, as a matter of fact, a third man had come

"apparition"

and

earher to visit the

tenant and had stayed in the anteroom when the latter went off to bed. It was

he,

to the others, who had uttered the

unknown

It is

to be doubted but that many

not

tainly in

the world,

hinder

us

from making

Crusoe

as the

being

not

a

very good

not

use of such

immediately

things ; for many a

spoken

from thence

.

of cer

more

than

should not

may be

voice

.

the first volume had remonstrated with himself for

of

"thankful for

appearance of

deal

have followed, has been no this. But before I leave it, let me observe that this

directed from heaven that is

Just

comment:

an apparition related with a great

and of which good ends

such a serious mistake as

at all

Crusoe's

cry.72

Providence, as if (I, 90), so here Crusoe

so strange and unforeseen

the corn] had been

.

.

.

[the

miraculous"

allows

that

doubtless He that be

and affect

the

things and

made all

by fortuitous

given

accidents,

and

mind as much and as

created all

things, may

may direct concurring effectually as if

appoint

instruction to

circumstances

to touch

they had been immediate

and

miraculous.74

These thoughts

suggest

themselves. If the redundancy "fortuitous acci

dents"

is taken literaUy, then Crusoe's God is not directing events, but is depending upon chance for their occurrence : Crusoe may be one of those who, in Calvin's phrase, place God "in But according to Crusoe's

a

watch-tower

waiting for fortuitous

there is no such thing And this denial places him in perfect agreement with his author, as the latter is generally and perhaps correctly understood. [T]he God of Defoe's nature is always present in his works. Calvin had contended that 'Fortune and Chance are heathen terms For if all success is blessing from God, and calamity and adversity are his curse, there is no place left in events."75

other assertions

as chance.

"

.

human world

affairs

where,

[God's] 72 78

Ibid., Ibid.,

for Fortune

as

Crusoe

Chance.'"76

.

Indeed,

chance

(I,

pp. p.

296-312.

Ibid.

Institutes, I, xviii, 1. Novak, Nature, p. 7,

superfluous

in .

313.

76

is

a

in the first volume, "nothing happens without 106). And, conversely, by giving chance any part

says

appointment"

74

76

and

.

quoting

Calvin, Institutes, I,

xvi, 8.

.

.

Interpretation

102

of events, Crusoe would risk its seeming usurpation of If chance, which has no place in a universe where nothing happens without God's appointment, is once invited to perform any small task in that universe, it may quickly seem to prove itself capable of doing

in the determination whole.77

the

much more

for

least to those men who

at

to

want of a wiU

hold

a

-

"set

[it] up in their imagination

Maker."78

Chance

can acquire such

the imagination of him who gives it entry, that he may

on

that everything that

assume

might

their

acknowledge

happens, happens

without

God's

begin to

appointment.

Perhaps God's intervention in a chancy universe is not impossible, but neither seem necessary. And, since it may appear that a persuasive account

does it

be

of events can

given without reference

strike one as gratuitous

who

has

once

his

sustained

and will

-

flirted with the more

fervent

to Him will

God, any reference

to

therefore not augment the faith of the man

"mock-goddess"

chance.

rehgious

interpretation

RecaU how long Crusoe

of

the growth of corn on

the island. At last it

occur'd

in that Place,

Thoughts,

to my

and

that I had shook a

Thankfulness to God's Providence began to this

was

nothing but

This

remark

spirit

from

is

not

what was common

far

so

abate

too

upon

the

Discovering

that all

[I, 89-90].

removed

Crusoe's concluding

one of

Bag of Chickens Meat [meal] out

then the Wonder began to cease ; and I must confess, my religious

in immediate remarks on

subject matter nor

in

the episode of the atheist

the door. He says that episode was

at

ordered

in the

same manner as

though wonderfully extraordinary

thing in

Although Crusoe successful with at

during ture.80

77

the 78

79 80

a

cock,

could

least

of

who

form

dreams

of this presentation

is

Christ,

his blessed Master had foretold,

naturally crows

explain

usuaUy

one

his investigation

Part

the cock crowing when Peter denied

concurrent with what

at such a

time of the

concurrences, he

He

of non-concurrence. as a source of

which,

yet was no morning.79

was

not

puzzles over

intelligence

about

so

it

the fu

our author's eye-witness report of a disputa-

According to Calvin, Augustine "everywhere teaches, that if anything is left to fortune, (Institutes, I, xvi, 8). Calvin agrees, emphatically. Serious Reflections, p. 203. Ibid., pp. 313-14. This investigation is part of a larger inquiry into all kinds of spiritual revelation and random"

world moves at

prophecy.

Crusoe

seems

to believe

dreams, i.e., "sleeping

dreams,"

prophesy

dreams,"

more

reliably than

delusions"

do "waking even though the former may be "nocturnal or the "mere dosings of a delirious head and relics of the day's (Serious Reflections, pp. 252, 253). (One must reconsider Crusoe's narration of the dream that precipitated his thoughts"

.

conversion

in light

melancholy people,

interest in

and

.

The

of such remarks as these).

dreams is that those

apparitions,

.

the

of

the waking variety

whose like"

connection with

imaginations

(Ibid., the

p.

are so

run

reason

for his

this way; I mean,

about

247). (The

subject

treated

preference of

frequently experienced by

disparaging reference in Section F, infra) .

to

sleeping

"vapourish

seeing the

devil,

apparitions

is

of

Considering Crusoe

103

tion over the reliability of dreams, between a clergyman and a layman, in which the former urged men to heed dreams, while the latter tried to dissuade them. The layman brought five objections, and the clergyman gave distinct answers to all these objections,

they may be

satisfactory;

whether

let every

judge for

one

The layman's fifth As

to those that

to me, I confess, very no concern of

mine;

this:

objection was

.

.

warned,

.

or supplied with notices of good or evil

so all men were not alike supplied with

them;

why one man or one woman should not have the

And this is the

and

them, is

read

himself.81

men were not always

dreams],

so

hints

same

fifth

pertinent part of the clergyman's

[by

and what reason could we give another?82

as

response :

As to the last question, why people are not equally supplied with such warnings, he said, this seemed to be no question at all in the case, for Providence itself might have some share

in the direction

direction, wind blowing

it, and then that Providence might perhaps be limited by

the same that guides all the solemn

and was a

where

This is

one of

"daily

agitator",

hmits

it listeth

.

.

dispositions

of

Nature,

.

the more enigmatic passages in the Serious Reflections. To be

sure, it reminds somewhat a

of

some superior

of

disposing

Crusoe's of

own prior

of

rendering

the "common incidents

Providence

hfe"

of

as

"within the

8*

consequence."

It departs from the earher hypothesis principally in suggesting that Providence "might be denied even that ignominious efficacy. As for the "superior direction" here invoked, it is probably impossible to determine with certainty what Crusoe natural

of cause and

perhaps"

81

Serious Reflections,

82

Ibid.

83

Ibid.,

257.

p.

(Ibid.,

this opinion of another man, because it corresponded

is

nothing

of

something like the

of

(cf.

note

these things

limitation

a

"misfortune"

a

63,

blowing where it

Nicodemus, in

exchange with

Speaking murdered

the phrase, "wind

8,

:

Jesus'

context

of

fortuitous. How which occurred

fortuitous, he

will

no

fortune to his

own

have

Providence

(Institutes, I,

rules

the

xvi, 4). Crusoe

will

the

exactly

my

own

.

.

could

be

See text

at note

62,

supra.

very

to

prominent.

of robbers and

be

discernment,

the Christian feel? Though he

will consider

relation

person's

xvi, 9). Calvin

said

not

Holy Spirit. The Providence, to say

the

into the hands our

death

of

capacity

indeed in its nature, God overruled it and guided was

also mentions a school

"who

the air, but leaves the inferior to

to turn this

scheme on

of old

Fortune"

its head, assigning

exclusive, reviewable, jurisdiction in the inferior region, to God. 84

with

of

in that

upper regions of

refers to

question of

by Spirit, is

doubt that the Providence

end"

feigned that God

which

supra), Calvin writes: "In

appear

listeth,"

traveler had to fall

that every circumstance

(Ibid., I,

so

258).

p.

In John 3

all

after his report of this exchange, and referring to the cler Crusoe says that "I thought it would be much to the purpose to

Immediately

gyman's series of responses, remark

255.

p.

a non

Interpretation

104

has in

But

mind.

perhaps we sould

take

from his

boldness, and Chance, or something one hand, Crusoe may be

courage

"mock-goddess"

he

suggest that

either

means

like the immutable laws

the

On the

of natural motion.

they, hke Crusoe himself on the island, have trying and "meer because "humane on but their to nothing rely their true condition is indeed as Calvin said it would be for men hving in a to teach his

readers

that

Fear,"

Prudence"

world

from

every blind

which

Providence had

vanished or

fortune"

and random stroke of

may have been preaching-up quence"

which

when

would,

the laws

a science of

matured,

send chance

"exposed to

expelled:

aU possible move

Alternatively, Crusoe

water."86

the sky, the air, the earth, and the

ments of

been

"exposed to

;85

"cause

of

a-packing

and conse

the now

with

departed providence, thereby making way for the kind of comforting predic tion and control that was never available to behevers in pre-scientific proph esy.

In

where

either

case, Crusoe

it becomes

seems

to have

free-thinking

pushed

over

the line

atheism.

F. A Miracle We have been treated to and

daily

Crusoe's

But

agitators. argument

a parade of apparent

our

study

for the reahty

would of

apparitions, near-miracles,

be incomplete

spirits, in the

without mention of

course of which

treats of a miracle, while at the same time clarifying the meaning

of

he

also

the term

"apparition."

The

miracle

is Jesus walking on the

It comes up in the first few pages admitting that it wiU be

water.

A Vision of the Angelic World, where hard to identify the inhabitants of that of

Crusoe,

"world,"

"it is

evident

that there

assertion, Crusoe

says

nevertheless assures us

are such spirits and such a

world."87

that

To buttress this

that "the discoveries in the Scripture which lead to this

innumerable, but the positive declaration of it seems to be declined.88 And in the next sentence he furnishes an example of what he apparently re gards as a of the spiritual world. "When our Saviour walking on are

"discovery"

the sea frighted His them? were

Truly they

not

be

and since

mistaken,

quickly bibhcal

disciples,

enough,90

discovery

and they cried they had seen a

the Bible teUs

of

would

85 86 67

have thought

would not

Ibid.

89

Ibid.

90

Matthew 14

:

27 ff.

what

He

we

find terrified

since

the disciples

do

But

they

their

corrected

error

this incident to Crusoe as a

resolution of

his discussion is based

such men as

have been

Institutes, I, xvii, 10. Ibid., I, xvi, 3. Serious Reflections, p. 238.

88

that

the reahty of spirits. The rest of

a contrary-to-fact condition.

One

us

one wonders what commended

easy because the

flesh,

out,

spirit."89

thought

the perplexity is

on what at

first

appears

to

continues :

they,

who

so much surprised

had the

vision of

if they had

seen a

God

manifest

spirit,

.

.

.

in the

Considering

Crusoe

105

But

what if it had been a spirit? If it had been a good spirit, what had they to fear? And if a bad spirit, what would crying out have assisted them? When people cry out in such cases, it is either for help, and then they cry to others ; or for mercy, and then they cry

to the subject of their terror to the wickedest

thing that

before, they had

a good spirit as

they cry to? for 'tis they

say,

evident

either cried out

devil;

done

by such grave men as the apostles ; for if it

help,

pray to

not

if it

to cry out; and

no need

they did

for

them. Either way it was either the foolishest

spare

ever was

God,

.

.

was a

but they

.

bad one,

cried

which was great nonsense to call

to

who

for

man

was,

This

put me

Africa,

in

who,

While the

.

.

or

mind of

has been wondering

reader

false hypothesis has to do have

the

contrary-to-fact condition

not

what

them.91

hurt

this

polemic on

proving "that there

with

also

noticed

help

which

the poor savages in many of the countries of America and

worship the devil that he may

.

did

out, that is to

they cried to the spirit they saw, that it might not hurt them, in short, neither less nor more than praying to the devil. the

against

or

was

the basis

of a

spirits,"

are

.

.

he may

.

that once, unintentionally or otherwise, Crusoe shps out of

following

into a simply factual alternative: "or they And this slip is repeated in the first sentence they the last paragraph quoted. "Here I must digress a httle, and make a

transition

from the story of the spirit

cried

saw."

to the spirit

spirit mentioned

"Story" .

.

"spirit?"

of what

.

thus far is that which the disciples

Before completing an inventory of Crusoe's follow him on his digression.

usage

mistook

The only Jesus to be.

in this commentary,

we

should

Here I

digress

must

a

little,

and make a transition

stange absurdities of men's notions at

the first impressions of Christ's

that

time,

from the story

and

of

the

particularly of those

preachings were wrought

spirit

to the

upon whom

; and if it be looked narrowly

into, one cannot but wonder what strange ignorant people even the disciples themselves were at first; and indeed their ignorance continued a great while, even to after the death of Christ himself

....

It is true they

were wiser afterwards when

they were better

92

taught

In mentioning the last of a series of instances in which the disciples betray Crusoe returns to what might be interpreted as a hypo ed their "ignorance,"

thetical way of writing about the a spirit

here,

"absurdity"

was their

they

notion of

be said,

...

would either

hear his

on

their

seeing

94

Ibid., Ibid.,

a spirit

here

.

.

put

them into

such a

fright,

and

indeed they

in the

appearance of a good

and stood still

to of

pp.

angel,

238-39.

enigmatic

239^10 (emphasis

240.

.

Heaven, or prayed to God to deliver them out of the hands hell.94 supposing it, as above, to be a vision from

rejoiced

suggestion, but not necessarily heterodox : see John

Calvin, Institutes, II, ii, 21; p.

seeing

if their

they saw a spirit? No, not exactly. Part of their error spirit they thought they saw:

from

239. Another

pp.

as

have

Ibid.,

93

notion of

their wits ; for had their senses been in exercise

Serious Reflections,

and

in their

But does he talk

out of

92

14:26

so

to be frighted

91

p.

"Just

fright."93

to the

message as

the devil

them into such a

was to think

response

[T]heir might

which put

"spirit:"

xvi,

added).

14; III, i, 4; ii, 4.

Interpretation

106 Matthew 14

25-27

:

And in the fourth the disciples

when

and

they

have

would

Crusoe begins

proceeds

and

One

by

used

"discovery"

a

spirit

disciples"

which

-

In

of a spirit.

the

mention

the hypothesis

adopt as

that "there are

adverbial phrase

"discovery"

no

they

"senses,"

they

"discoveries"

through an

frighted his

sea

Crusoe has to

would

is

order

.

"when

-

.

.

our

respectful of

the

to introduce the

disciples'

misapprehension which

upon which

to

criticize

the disciples.

in its entirety, Crusoe writes,

have thought

such men as

have been

should not

apparition, for to

literally,

a spirit

reacting in fear

seen"

and

the

visible

Jesus, i.e.,

and supphcation

human

organ of

to the

sight.95

their failure to see it was

spirit

seen

anything After his initial

-

"they

thought

for "a

spirit

sight."

concession

.

.

:"

they had .

[is]

not

to the bibhcal "apparition"

only that the disciples may have had an nothing. That which the Bible tells us Jesus and the disci

seen

error, is

by

Crusoe

miraculous

for

asserted

hypothesis

hypothesis. And this

by the

answer

he

got at

a

truth. The spiritual,

i.e.,

bibhcal,

the

supersedes

can

the door : "It

an apparition related with a great

which good ends

take as

in the

be taken

the as

Crusoe's last

the subject unless one thinks to add what he said about the atheist

befuddled many

manifest

the sea. It consisted rather in two"absurdities

or metaphorical

word on

the

error was not

on

"apparitional"

bodily,

God

vision of

grants

ples considered an

the

had the

if they had seen a spirit, that is to say, to be an allusion, not an expression to be

disciples'

by an organ of human

account, Crusoe

by

not visible

thinking they had

second,

who

see a spirit seems

Jesus walking toward them

first,

they,

so much surprised

being

According to Crusoe,

deal

have foUowed, has been

of

is

not

to be doubted but that

certainty in the world,

no more

than

and of

such a serious mis

this."

University

95

"senses,"

saw."

astutely to "the

searching the Bible for

not yet quoted

seen an

the

spake

discussion advances, its premise loses this hypothetical character, Jesus is replaced by a spirit, or rather, by a figure of speech. In a passage

flesh,

of

And

sea.

as the

have

we

to

the

upon

troubled, saying, It is a ghost; unto them, saying, Be of good

were

According to Crusoe, if they had been in their

Saviour walking on the bibhcal account, but is

But

sea, they

the disciples had been in their

reacted more

He brings up

he

them, walking

came unto

for fear. But straightway Jesus

spirits."

subject of spirits,

he

on the

not afraid.

have seen Jesus.

would

night

him walking

Matthew, if

to

According they

I; be

the

watch of saw

cried out

cheer; it is

follows:

reads as

Ibid.,

p.

238. Here Crusoe

recognizes

explicitly denies the Incarnation.

the

of

California, Santa Barbara

greatest miracle.

So far

as

I know he

never

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

Recommend Documents