A

JOURNAL

OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

January
1

1984

Volume 12 Number 1

Ernest L. Fortin Paul A. Cantor Michael H. Mitias Robert Sacks

Gadamer

on

Strauss:

an

Interview

15

Hamlet: the Cosmopolitan Prince Hegel

on

29
49

the Source of Political the Ass: a

Authority
on

The Lion
of

and

Commentary

the Book

Genesis (Chapters

40-43)

Discussion
83
107

Joel B. Lidov Nicholas Capaldi

Justice in Translation

Exploring
a

the Limits of Analytic Philosophy:

of

Critique

Nozick's Philosophical Explanations

Book Reviews
127
Joan Richardson Character Names in Dostoevsky's Fiction Charles E. Passage 131

by

Will

Morrisey

After Virtue

Philosophical

by Alasdair Maclntyre; Nihilism: Essay by Stanley Rosen

Short Notices
137

Will

Morrisey

Plato's

"Phaedo"

: an
Averroes'

Interpretation
"Rhetoric,"

by

Kenneth
"Poetics'

Dorter;
Aristotle'

Three Short Commentaries

and

"Topics,"

on edited and

translated

by

Charles E. Butterworth; Dante

et

Dissidence

et philosophie au moyen age:

ses antecedents

by

E. L. Fortin

interpretation
Volume
12

JL

number i

Editor-in-Chief

Hilail Gildin

Editors

Seth G. Benardete Gildin

Charles E. Butterworth
Howard B.White

Hilail

Robert Horwitz

(d.1974)

Consulting

Editors

John Hallowell

Wilhelm Hennis

Erich Hula Ellis

Arnaldo Momigliano

Michael Oakeshott

Sandoz

Leo Strauss (d.1973)

Kenneth W.

Thompson Christopher A. Colmo Maureen Will

Associate Editors

Patrick

Coby

Feder

Joseph E.

Goldberg

Pamela Jensen

Morrisey
Assistant Editors Design & Production Annual
subscription rates

Bradford Wilson

Marianne C.

Grey

Laurette G. Hupman

Martyn Hitchcock

individual

$13;

institutional

$16;

student

(3-year

limit) $7.
a year.

interpretation appears three times

Address for
correspondence

interpretation, Queens

College, Flushing,

N.Y. 11367, U.S.A.

Authors submitting MLA Style Sheet

copies of

manuscripts

for

publication

in

interpretation are requested to

follow the

and to send clear and readable

their work.

Copyright 1984

Interpretation

Annals of Scholarship
METASTUDIES OF THE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Studies
of the

history

and

current

development in

of the

disciplines

and

methodologies as well as the manner

which scholars and their

scholarship
structures

influence

and are

influenced

by institutional,

political and social

Review Essays

Ronald

Berman, University
of

of

California, San Diego,

Humanities

past

Chairman

of

the

National Endowment for the Humanities: The Humanities in American Life, Report Joseph
an

the

Commission

on the

Duffey, Chairman,

National Endowment for the Humanities: Twigs for

,

Eagle's Nest: Government and the Arts 1965-1978

by

Michael Straight

Donald R.

Kelley, University

of

Rochester: La Renaissance de la Critique

by

Jean Jehasse

Edward

Pessen, City University

of

New York: The Past Before Us,

edited

by

Michael Kammen Msgr. Joseph N.

Moody,
and

Boston College: The

Making

of Frenchmen: Current
edited

Directions in the History of Education in France, 1679-1979,

by

Donald N. Baker

Patrick J. Harrigan
of

Carville Earle,

University

Maryland, Baltimore: Wealth of a Nation

Eve of the Revolution
of

to

Be:

The American Colonies

on the

by

Alice Hanson Jones

Stanley L. Engerman, University Demography

C.B.

Rochester:

Current Studies

of

Strozier,

ed.:

Comments

on

Shrinking Histoi-y: by

On Freud and the Failure

ofPsychohistory

with response

David E. Stannard

The Annals of
essays are

Scholarship

is

published quarterly.

Single

articles and review and

$1.75. The
other

annual subscription price

for individuals is $18

outside

for

libraries

and

institutions $27. For

of

countries

the

United States

please add

S4. Mail to Annals

Scholarship, Inc., 201 East 36 Street, New

York.N.Y.. 10016.
Distributed by
the

Humanities Press, Inc.

PUBLIUS:
THE JOURNAL OF FEDERALISM
Published by the Center for the Study Temple
Federalism

of

University

Of The Commonwealth System Of Higher Education

Daniel J. Elazar, Editor John Kincaid, Associate Editor

PUBLIUS is Federalism
processes. a

editorial perspective reflects

which

quarterly journal now in its thirteenth year of publication. Its the orientation of the Center for the Study of
of

is dedicated to the study

federal principles, institutions

the theoretical
and practical

and

The journal publishes articles dimensions of American federalism and

on

other

federal

systems

throughout the

world.

Recent
such as

special

issues have dealt

with

topics

of

contemporary importance,
special

decentralization,

suburbanization,

political

community, policy choice,

political culture,

covenant, and state constitutions.

Forthcoming

issues

will concentrate on comparative

Australia, American
systems.

medium-size

cities, and ethnicity in

federal

subscription an

Federal Studies,
share an

to PUBLIUS includes membership in the Conference for international organization of scholars and practitioners who
various aspects of

interest in the
receive

federalism. Members

of

the

Conference Members

are also

its newsletter, the CFS Notebook, and other publications. invited to participate in research projects, conferences and

periodic workshops.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD: Samuel H. Beer, Lewis A. Dexter, Ivo D. Duchacek, Max Frenkel, Irving Kristol, E. Lester Levine, William S. Livingston, Neal R. Peirce, William H. Riker, Harry N. Scheiber, Ira Sharkansky, Donald V.

Smiley, David B. Walker, Murray Weidenbaum, Deil S. Wright.

Inquiries regarding
PUBLIUS Center for the

subscriptions and manuscript submissions should

be

sent

to:

Temple

Study University

of

Federalism

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122 (215) 787-1480

Gadamer

on

Strauss: An Interview

The It

following

interview

was

held

at

Boston College

on

December ii,

198 1.

was conducted and

subsequently

edited

by

Prof. Ernest L. Fortin. Prof.

was

Gadamer has Prof.

read and approved and

the edited version. The recording

done

by

Betty

T. Rahv

Mr. John Walters. Prof. Frederick G. Lawrence

pro

vided valuable editorial assistance.

fortin

There

country who would late Leo Strauss. Perhaps

School
of

many philosophers and political theorists like to know more about your lifelong relationship
are you could

in
with

this

the

begin

by describing
was

the atmosphere at the

Marburg

in the early

1920s.

possibly the most exciting period in

there a sense of that excitement
gadamer

obviously an exciting period, twentieth-century intellectual history. Was

change.

That

We

were

living
of

among the students? in an age of great political

Everyone

was aware of the

was

impact

the new parliamentary

general

democracy
one of

not prepared

for it. The

do?"

feeling

was

a country that disorientation. One

in

day
"What
were

was

only

a youngster then

a number of us got together and asked:

should we

"How

can

the world be

reconstructed?"

The

answers

von

Gierke;
of

very different. Some thought we ought to follow Max Weber; others, Otto others still, Rabindranath Tagore, who was the most popular poet
after

in
to

Germany immediately
his
plays.

World War I, thanks to

some and

moving transla
came
of a prophet.

tions

(He

was a good once:

friend

of

Paul

Natorp
with

occasionally

Germany. I

saw

him

an enormous

figure

the face

Fantastic!

were shared search of

Natorp himself was a giant in the guise of a dwarf.) These concerns by the young Leo Strauss as well. He, too, was looking around in some orientation. He had studied under Cassirer at Hamburg but had
political views.

little sympathy for his fortin When did

gadamer

you

first

meet

Strauss?
He himself
never studied at

In

1 920 or thereabouts.

Marburg,
sometimes

but his home town (Kirchhain) was only a few used our library, of which I was the so-called
the person
was not
stand

miles

away

and

he
that

"administrator,"

is to say,

in

charge of

procuring the

books

requested

by

students.

Our budget

very large but the library was a good one. Those initial encounters still out in my memory. He was short and I was tall. I especially recall that
of

little look
had bored
The tion,

his: furtive, suspicious, ironic,

and always

a common

friend, Jacob Klein,

about me.

who alerted me

slightly amused. We to the fact that Strauss har

against

certain misgivings

Not that I had anything

Project
of

Jews

editors wish

to thank the Oral

History

the American Political Science Associa

which was supported with a grant

from the Pi Sigma Alpha Political Science

for permitting Interpretation to
make

Honorary

Soci its

ety, for making this interview

readers.

possible and

it

available to

2
doubt

Interpretation
whether

he

ever

thought that

but he

must

have

sensed

in

me

the typical

arrogance of a
right.
was.

young student who is proud of his success. He was probably After that I was very careful not to offend him, knowing how sensitive he
were on good

We

terms

and

talked now and then but

otherwise

had few

relations with each other.

Our first
of

real acquaintance came much

abroad.

later, in

1933,

when

availed myself another radical

the opportunity to travel

Germany
more

was

undergoing

change and no one was allowed

to take

than 300 marks with him. For me

that

was a small

ertheless a warning.

fortune and, to that extent, hardly a restriction. But it was nev I was bright enough to see that before long we would not
penny for
such purposes.

be

allowed a single

went

to Paris. Strauss was there

on a other

Rockefeller

grant and we spent a me

things, he introduced
a good

very pleasant ten days together. Among to Kojeve and took me to a Jewish restaurant. in One

We talked

deal

about the situation

power.

to it prior to

Hitler's coming to

Germany and day we went

Nudism,"

the French to the

which

reaction

movies.

The

newsreel contained a segment

entitled, "German

turned out to

be

a report on a recent athletic event.

The

"nudism"

referred aspect of a

to was that of the

parade

athletes clad you

in

sports attire!

The

event

had the

military

as a

know,
robots.

we are masters of organization

and

the

participants

looked

bit

like

The French, who were still ludicrous that human beings should be
theatre

unaccustomed

to these things, found it

regimented. was

so

immediately

burst into
with no

laughter.1

completely All of this

The
new

whole

totally

to me

who, as a young teacher

traveling

allowance, had

never

been

outside of

Germany. Afterwards The

my
one on we stayed

in

fairly

regular contact. of particular

Strauss

sent me

his books.
to

Hobbes I found to be

interest

since

it

was related

own research on

the political thought of the

Sophists. That happened to be

one of

my great concerns at the time, although I was forced to abandon it when it became too dangerous to discuss political matters in Germany. One could not
about

talk

the Sophists without alluding to Carl

Schmitt,
neutral

one of

the

leading
such

theorists of the Nazi party.

So I turned to

more

subjects,

as

Aristotle's

physics.

After the war, Strauss (at Heidelberg, in

who vated attended

came to

Germany

and

I invited him to

give a

lecture

As I recall, he spoke on Socrates. Alexander Riistow, the lecture, disagreed with what he said but was utterly capti
1954).
and

by

his charm, his wit, had

the elegance of his presentation.

Riistow,

then

in his late sixties, Max Weber

and

was a man of considerable stature. succeeded

He had been

a pupil of was a

him in the

chair

at

Heidelberg. He
fine books
on

twentieth-century Voltairian of sorts, who society but was also an excellent classical
1
.

wrote some

industrial

scholar.

See Gadamer's

account of

this and related

incidents in his Philosophische Lehrjahre (Frank

furt

am

Main, 1977),

50-51

Gadamer
Strauss
way in

on

Strauss
spent

3
of

and

the rest

the

day

together.

My
in

wife marveled at

the

which

talked about
spondence.2

he kept coming back Plato. Some of these

revealed

to the same problems, especially when we

problems recurred our published corre
with

They
the

the strange overlapping of our positions along

main

a number of
question of

important divergences. The Ancients

and the

divergence had to do
what extent could

with

the

Moderns: to

this famous

seventeenth-century
of

quarrel

possible to side with

in the twentieth century and was it still the Ancients against the Moderns? I argued that this kind
reopened
modern period

be

debate

was

necessary, that it challenged the

choice was not

to find its

own

evidence, but that the

really

an open one.

I tried to

convince without

Strauss that

one could recognize

the superiority of Plato

and

Aristotle

being
and

committed to the view that their thought was

even

immediately

recoverable

that,
to
a

though we have to take seriously the challenge

which

they

pre

sent

our

own

prejudices,

we

are never spared the

hermeneutical

effort of

finding

bridge to them.
mention that much

I forgot to
phronesis

was a

earlier, in the late twenties, I wrote a paper on in Aristotle for my classics teacher, Paul Friedlander.3 Friedlander Platonist who did not have much use for Aristotle. I was intrigued by the
and a

way Strauss handled the problem of the tension between Plato had never heard a real answer to that question. So I sent him
ticle. He wrote me a letter (destroyed
objected

Aristotle but
of the ar

copy

during
terms,

the war) in which he praised it but

"sedimentation,"

to my using certain

modern

such as

to eluci

date Aristotle's thought. That

go

was exactly the point on which we disagreed. To into the meaning of a text does not require us to speak its language. One cannot speak the language of another epoch. I later wrote a critical essay on

this, inspired
to avoid
vent

by

Hans Rose's
1937).4

book, Klassik
was an art

als

kunstlerische Denkform des

who

Abendlands (Munich,
modern

Rose

historian

consistently tried
("Personal

terminology in
one of

describing
his

the classics. This still did not pre

him from entitling

which

chapters

"Die

Personlichkeit"

ity"),

is obviously
To
come

not a classical word.

fortin

back to

Marburg for
But,
has
you

moment, who was the leader of

the School in the 1920s? Natorp?

gadamer

Yes, he

was.

leader is

always the one who

was

not
no

know, for the younger generation yet been discovered, and that was
question.

the
not

Natorp; it
traction.

Nicolai Hartmann,
also

For us, he

was

the great at
with

Marburg

had

an

outstanding

faculty

of romance

literature

2.

Cf. L. Strauss

and

H. G. Gadamer, "Correspondence
5-12.

Concerning
of

Wahrheit

Methode,''

und

The Independent Journal of Philosophy 2 (1978), 3. The paper was never published but an
"Der
aristotelische

application

its

results

is to be found in
der
aristotelischen

Protreptikos

und

die

entwicklungsgeschichtliche

Betrachtung

Ethik,"

Hermes

63 (1927),

138-64.

4.

See Gadamer's

review of

Rose's book in Gnomon (1940),

431-36.

Interpretation
a good

Curtius,

friend

of

mine, followed

Auerbach's successor, Werner Krauss

predecessor

Leo Spitzer, Erich Auerbach, and four distinguished scholars. Curtius's

by

had been Eduard Wechssler, What

made

who

later

moved to
others?

Berlin.

fortin

Hartmann different from the

of

gadamer

Under the influence idealism

of

Scheler he had begun to

and

move

away
our

from the
both

transcendental

Cohen
was

Natorp. He had been

a pupil of

and above all of

Natorp, but he
are written

most shaman-like

figure. When

one reads

especially impressed Cohen's books today,

by Cohen,
one

finds them
style.

in a way There is
Strauss

empty.

They

in

stern,

fragmentary,

and
a

dictatorial

hardly

also

any had a high

argumentation regard

in them. But he had

for him. He died in

191 8.

strong We

personality. never

met

him. The story that Strauss told me about him came from Franz Rosenzweig. Rosenzweig visited Cohen in Marburg one day and asked him how he could be
so

taken up with modern science and still

at which point
man with

hold to the biblical doctrine

of cre

ation;

Baltic

Cohen began to hedge. As for Hartmann, he was a typical the Russian student's habit of drinking tea from the late morn
morning. remark

ing
his

to the

following

He

always

worked

well

into the

night.
went

This
out,

prompted

Heidegger to

jokingly

that when Hartmann's

at 7:00

light

went on.

Heidegger,
at

who gave or

his lectures

a.m.,

started

his

day

very early, rising

went

four

five o'clock,

which was about the time

Hartmann

to bed.

fortin
vincial.

Strauss

used

to say that the atmosphere at

Marburg

was

very

pro

gadamer
and

Yes, in

the sense that

we

lived in

an

ivory

tower,

absorbed

in

philosophy paying little attention to the rest of the world. That continued to be the case after Heidegger's arrival a very exciting situation. But in those years Strauss was hardly ever in Marburg.
fortin

When did Heidegger first

start

teaching

there and

what

did he lec

ture on?
gadamer

In

1923.

I do

not recall

the exact title of his first course, but it

dealt

with

the origins of modern philosophy.

a series of

He

concentrated on

Descartes

and

developed

twenty-three questions.
who came

well organized. afterwards

Hartmann,
was

to the

Everything was very dramatic and first lecture honoris causa, told me
doubt
whether

that not since Cohen had he seen such a powerful teacher. Twentytypical of Heidegger. I

three questions, that

yond

he

ever got

be

the fifth one. And then there was this peculiar radicalism of
of

his, I

mean

the habit
are

radicalizing

questions almost ad

infinitum. Some

of

his followers

him, forever asking empty questions which, through living all contact with their deeper roots. being radicalized, lose fortin What about the students and student life?
caricatures of

gadamer

There

were close relations

between

dents
was

went

from

one place

to the other, as was the custom

after the war and

an acute

housing

shortage

and Freiburg. Stu in Germany. There the biggest problem was to

Marburg

Gadamer
find

on

Strauss

5
I
changed universities

living

accommodations.

Munich, but only because

was not an

one of

important
with

philosophic
and

only once, when I went to friends had offered me a room. Munich my center. The dominant trend there was phe

nomenology,

Pfander

Geiger.

Heidelberg

was well

known because

of

the shadow of Max Weber and the presence of Karl Jaspers and Karl Mann

heim. Jaspers
star was

outstanding reputation as the leader of a seminar. His high when I was a student. Hamburg, originally founded as a already maritime institute, had only recently grown into a full university. The city, which was wealthy, poured a lot of money into it. It had Bruno Snell and
enjoyed an

Cassirer,
and

the greatest scholar to come from the School of Marburg. Cassirer

was a voracious reader with a phenomenal memory.

He

was

elegant, reserved,

very kind, but one would hardly describe him as a powerful personality. He had neither Heidegger's dramatic quality nor Hartmann's talent for reaching young people. As for Frankfurt, it had not yet come into its own. The univer

sity

was

founded in the

1920s

but it

was not

long

before it began to

attract

attention. quired

Riezler,

who

its

established

became its president, developed it. It eventually ac scholars in people like Horkheimer, Adorno, and Tillich.
of

fortin
mark that

Your discussion
at

Strauss in Truth
was

and

Method

opens with

the re
of our

his teaching
482).

Chicago

"one

of

the encouraging

features

world"

(p.

What did
that's

you mean

by

that?
attracted students say.

gadamer

Oh,

easy.

My

impression is that he

by

his

courage

to

proclaim what no one else would

have dared to

Although
to the
mind.

Chicago

was a citadel of

progressivism, he had the guts to answer

"No"

question of whether one should was clear

believe in the
of

progress of the

human

It

to me that the

University

Chicago

was an unusual place.

I had

met

Hutchins in Frankfurt in 1947 and found him to be a very open and farsighted man. I met Adler. I also met McKeon, who was a real boss. So I could imag ine
and

some of the things

I had heard

about

Strauss: how he, too,

was ambitious

tried to profile himself against McKeon. Later on, when I started coming to
was

America, I
his
students

able

to

observe

at

first hand the dedication

in

various parts of

the country:

many of you, Allan Bloom, Richard Ken

and others.

of so

nington, Werner

Dannhauser, Hilail Gildin, Stanley Rosen,

be
acquainted with came

was

frequently
knew
pened, I
always

asked

to speak at places about which I had never heard and where I

of no one who might could

be

sure that

the invitation

my work. Whenever that from a Straussian. They

things

hap
were

kind

and open

because Strauss had

said some nice

about me and

about our 1954 meeting in Heidelberg, to which he often most profitable conversations he had had in a long time.

referred as one of

the

fortin

Do

you think

Strauss
able

would

have been better

much

off

in

Germany
for the

as a

teacher? Would
gadamer
reason

he have been

to do as

there? More perhaps?

simple

No, his
students,

success was

independent

of such matters

that there was nothing

good

he drew

cared

phony about it. You know better than I do how for them, and stayed in touch with them. I can

Interpretation

only see the effect, not the way it was produced. been in Germany he would likewise have founded

My feeling

is that if he had
I did
not real

a real school.

ize

until you

told me

how large his

had
more

classes were.

From his description in the

You

1950s, I thought he
fortin

never

than six or eight students.

as

What

would you

identify

his

major contribution?

spoke a and

while ago about

his

having

revived

the

old quarrel with

between the Ancients

the Moderns. Does that have something to do

gadamer
on

it?
a great

Yes,

although

I personally learned

deal from his book

as a

Hobbes. For the first time somebody was attempting to see Hobbes not only British counterpart of the new foundation of the epistemology of the sci

ences

but

as a moralist whose

by

means of an analysis of on me.

relationship to the Sophists could be explained his views on civil society. That made a deep im is
now a much

pression

realize

that this

debated

question and was not

that

Strauss himself had

and

second thoughts about

his book. But that

my field

to

read

very
of

personal

something in this style was a revelation. There was also something in his image of Hobbes as a man who hated the English political
of

system and suffered

greatly at the hands Strauss in the Hobbes book. The

other

British

society.

There is

a good

deal

book that I

would single out

is Persecution

and the

Art of Writ

ing,

where one can see

both the

positive and

the negative or dangerous conse

problematic. can one

quences of persecution raises

for the hermeneutical

one:

The

question that and

it

is

an

enormously important
run counter society?

how

convey
relevant

express

thoughts that

to contemporary trends or the commonly accepted

opinions of one's studies

The

question was

particularly

to my own

in Plato,

where

the issue of public opinion and censorship comes up in

of

even more acute

fashion. It took the life

Socrates. There is

always

the pos

sibility
point.

that anything worth saying will arouse opposition.

One

cannot

be

thinker without exposing oneself to it. I pretty much agree with

Strauss

on

that

fortin

In Truth

and

Method

you also refer

to his rediscovery of the eso

teric mode of writing or what you call "conscious

distortion,

camouflage and

concealment"

(p. 1

488).
was

gadamer

thinking mainly

of

Spinoza. He, too, had historical

a special signif

icance for
struck

me

as

a precursor of the

modern

consciousness. and

was
par

ticular

by by

the way Strauss treated the

Theologico-Political Treatise Spinoza

as

in

his

analysis of

Spinoza's Strauss's
did

attempt to explain miracles essays on and

in terms

of

the

cultural

agenda.

studied
was

closely.

My feeling
same

that he

was right as not

far

Maimonides very Maimonides was concerned

but that the

always author

apply equally well to Spinoza. There is the possibility that the inconsistencies uncovered in the works of an are due to some confusion on his part. Maybe this only reflects the
method

confusion

in my
the

own mind.

As I

see

it,

the hermeneutical experience

is the
a

ex a

perience of

difficulty

that we encounter when we

try

to

follow

book,

Gadamer
play,

on

Strauss
step

or a work of art us

by

step, in

such a

way

as to allow

it

to obsess us and

lead

beyond

our own

horizon. It is

by

no means certain

that we can ever

recapture and

integrate the

original experiences encapsulated a challenge relativism.

in those

works.

Still, taking
us

them seriously involves from the danger of agnosticism or

confronted.
who

to our

thinking
was

and preserves

Strauss

riously the texts that he

superiority Plato had not been
agreement.
of

resented as much as

willing to take se he did the assumed

as

the scholar

thinks

he

can

improve Plato's logic,

score we were

if

able to think

logically. On that

in

complete

Needless to say, Strauss's attention to the external Plato's and Xenophon's works was very congenial to
Friedlander to
some extent

or

dramatic

elements of

me.

In this, I followed
ear.5

beyond him. I learned something from Hildebrandt's book on Plato, for whom Hildebrandt had a sensitive He was not a philosopher but a well educated psychiatrist who had a good feel
go

but tried to

for young

people.

This

enabled

him to

see things

in the Platonic dialogues that importance

no one else could see.

fortin

Strauss

credited

Klein

with

having

rediscovered

the

of

the dramatic features of the Platonic dialogues. To what extent is this true?
gadamer

There

was

a certain

symbiosis

between Klein

and

me.

Klein

had already left Marburg when I began to study the classics with Friedlander, but he often came back; so there was a genuine exchange. Friedlander did not influence Klein directly,
that Klein
was although

he did

so

through me. I would

rediscovery.

the only one responsible for the

of

hesitate to say However, he had a

better knowledge

had the in

merit of

philosophy than Friedlander, and so did I. Together we relating the dramatic elements of the dialogues to the philo

sophical problems with which

they deal. I

gave some courses on

Plato's dialec

tics
own

which I treated the Sophist and the Theaetetus. From the center of my even

studies, I tried to demonstrate that

in these late dialogues there is

contain more

certain

living

communication and

hence that they

struck

than

is

explic

itly

stated

in the text. We import

were

both

by

the

fact that

a proper attention

to

their dramatic component was crucial to an

That

was the

of

Klein's

Friedlander'

and

Plato's thought. understanding s discovery. Strauss extended

of see

this to the area of

Friedlander'

political

theory. It
even

is amazing to
on

how

great the as

impact
as

of

book has been

the college

level, here

well

in

Germany.

The only thing I would add is that in Germany philosophy is more at the forefront of Platonic studies. As a result, there is less of a tendency to overemphasize the dramatic setting of the dialogues than there is among
Klein's
and

Strauss's

second and

third generation followers. I sometimes re

ceive papers

from them

which abound

in

all sorts of clever

but

unfounded

in

terpretations.

Just yesterday, I had

a conversation with a

young

student who

5.

C. Hildebrandt, Platon: Der

Kampf des

Geistes

urn

die Macht (Berlin,

1933).

Interpretation
between the
circular and somewhat comical

tried to establish a connection

dia

lectic

of the

Parmenides
occasion of

place on

the

fact that the meeting with Parmenides takes the Panathenaic games. I pointed out that that was all
and the some support

very
more

nice

but that he had to find

vance

had to be demonstrated from the text itself, than that it might be warranted.
not always on avoid

for his assertion, that its rele and that so far we knew no

Klein himself did

me a

that trap.

Recently, somebody
he
says some persons

showed

copy

of

his lecture

the

Phaedo, in
of

which

He

points out that at the so good.

death

Socrates fourteen
to make a

crazy things. were present. So between

far,

But he then

proceeds

detailed

comparison

these fourteen characters and the

fourteen hostages Theseus had

once rescued

from the Minotaur

Delos for the
wrong
place.

with

the ship that was still sent on an

annual mission

to

purpose of

commemorating this event. That is Talmud in the

as

fortin
or

That

method

mudic"

"rabbinical."

of reading texts has often been described Is that the right way to talk about it?

"tal

gadamer

There

are elements of (1754-

that,

at

least in Strauss, just

as there are

in Salomon Maimon
Kantian
era.

1800),

one of

the first Jewish philosophers of the

Maimon

wrote a

very

interesting

the impact

of

the Jewish school system on

we

autobiography in which he traces his own thinking. The book is re

as regards the experience was

vealing because
of suppression.

have

a parallel

here, particularly

Hesse,

the province from which

Strauss hailed,

known for

its

anti-Semitism

fortin

in the early decades of this century. In his correspondence with you, Strauss takes issue concerning
p.

with some of

your statements

the

"relativity

of all

human

values"

(for example,

Truth If I

and

Method,
was

53).

You certainly do

not consider yourself a relativist.

understand you

ism. Strauss

ing

it. Do

you

correctly, you are reacting in your own way against relativ apparently not convinced that you had succeeded in overcom take his criticism to be a serious one?

gadamer

replied

to his letter but he broke off the correspondence.

tried
and

indirectly

to challenge

him in

an appendix to not

the second edition of Truth

either.

Method (pp. 482-491), but he did I

saw

reply to that

We

met again

afterwards and cussion

that he was very cordial. One

day

in the

course of a

dis it to

referred

to an article of mine and he said: "But you never sent

would

me!"

I told him it

since much of

it

was

interested in
cause

what

have been pointless to send along everything I wrote foreign to his interests. He replied, "Oh, no. I am always I found that very touching. I mention it not be you
write."

it

reflects

on

my

own

worth

but only to

suggest that

we

were

good

friends. On top of that, there was the overwhelming resonance that I found among his former students. All kinds of doors were open to me when I came to
this
country.

That

that these people

fortin

something about his loyalty. I demanded full agreement from me.

also says
would

am not

suggesting
to

They

have been disappointed! Strauss

seems

have

at-

Gadamer

on

Strauss

9
our

tached more importance than you do to the crisis of

time, to

what

Hei

degger
zons

calls

the

"darkening
and

world,"

of

the

to the cataclysmic crash of all to

hori
of

of

value.6

meaning
about

According

him,

this

is the

situation

out

which

the new

agreement

hermeneutics arises, one that is characterized by the total lack of fundamental issues and in which the groundlessness of all
accepted notions

hitherto commonly
that.
gadamer

is disclosed. You for

seem

to make light of

That is is

a crucial question

me

as

well.

The

radicalism

to

which you allude

related

to Strauss's remark about the fact that I take my cue

from Dilthey, whereas Heidegger takes his from Nietzsche. That is in a way true. Of course, Dilthey is more of a contemporary of Nietzsche and is espe cially
place some
of

useful as

the

mediator of

the romantic

feeling. But behind this difference lies the

German Idealism, Hegel, Schleiermacher, and central issue of the

such.

of conceptual

thinking
no

as

I think that
possible.

without

some

agreement,

basic agreement,

disagreement is
This is

disagreement is
erkannte

a prejudice.

what

In my opinion, the primacy Heidegger called die Sorge fiir

die

cogni

Erkenntnis;

that

is,

the preoccupation with "cognized

the commitment to certitude, the primacy of epistemology, the monologue of

the scientists.
world.

My

own

perspective aware of of

is

always

the

hermeneutics

of

the whole

We have to become

the limitations of the methodology of the

monologue.

sciences or the

epistemology

the

Beneath the
one

structures of

the

opinion-making technology
sic
experience

on which our

society is based

finds

a more

ba

involving some agreement. That is why I have always emphasized the role of friendship in Greek ethics. I allude to this in my discussion with Strauss (cf. T.M., p. 485). My inaugural lecture, that is,
of communication

the public lecture with which one

subject.7

begins

one's

teaching

career,

was on

this

My

point was

that

what

fills two books in Aristotle's Ethics

occupies

no more

than a page in Kant. I

was

twenty-eight years old then and not yet ma

of

ture enough to grasp the full implications

somehow and one of

that

fact; but I

anticipated them

I described
topics.

as the tension

my deepest insights (if I may say so) had to do with what one of Strauss's between the thinker and society

Here again, however, one should not lose sight of the dual nature of the re lationship. Hence my insistence on the positive side of Socrates's conformism. I do
and not

believe

one can call

Socrates

an

atheist, as Bloom does. Both Socrates

conformism with

Plato

maintained a certain conviction

distantiated

the cult, but be

we are never able

hind it lurks the

to
conceive.

that there is the

divine, something
whether

That, in my

view, is

what underlies

the Phaedrus and the other di

alogues.

Strauss

might agree with

me, but I doubt

Bloom would,

or

so

gather

from the discussion

example,

we

had

about

the Ion and,

later,

about

the

6. See, for
den

M. Heidegger, An Introduction to Metaphysics. R. Manheim transl. (Gar

was never published.

City,
7.

1961), 33 and 37.

The lecture, delivered in 1929,

10

Interpretation
where

Euthyphro,

the

conflict

between
in

us

was

even

sharper.

Bloom took
opposed

the position that Euthyphro acted

a spirit of genuine

piety, as

to

Socrates,
pletely.

who was emancipated

from the
on

religious tradition.

I disagreed

com

I said, "No, No! That borders

the

sophistry, conventionalism, hypoc

argues on grounds of

risy."

Socrates is
that

really

pious one.

He

maintains

one should always respect one's

piety when he father. Euthyphro's denuncia

tion of
cratic

his father illustrates the logical

noble conflict

that is typical of all of the So

convicted

dialogues. Someone
of a

claims a special

competence; he is then

by

means

argument

based

on

the real

figure

of

Socrates,

to whom

we are always

led back. Bloom defended the Socrates the

had

opposite

thyphro
wrong.

was

the pious one and

a

atheist.

view, arguing that Eu I think that is completely

So

we

fierce but
He

friendly
very

altercation.

never

discussed these

matters with

Strauss issues

or

Klein

at

any

great

length. in lis

Strauss

avoided them.

was

amicable and

I took

great pleasure

tening
them.

to

him, but

whenever philosophical

came

up, he shied away

from

fortin

What do

you

think of the

idea that hermeneutical ontology be

longs to
of all new

precisely with the shattering horizons? Doesn't Heidegger himself look forward to the emergence of a
period,
one which coincides appearance of new

a transitional

consensus, to the
point

gods, for whom

we can

only

wait?

Strauss's

is that

we shall

then find ourselves in

a posthermeneutical situa

tion, just as we were in was still dominant.

gadamer
well.

a prehermeneutical situation when

German Idealism

There I disagree
that you
raise

The

point

effect

that I work

not only with Strauss but with Heidegger as is closely connected with Strauss's remark to the from Dilthey rather than from Nietzsche. That I regard as a means

fair

statement.

What it

is that for

me

the tradition remains a

living

tradi

tion. I am a Platonist. I agree with

world

Plato,

who said

that there is no city in the

in

which

the ideal city is not present in some ultimate sense. You also
statement about

know the famous

some sense of

the gang

of robbers

whose members need

Well, that is in along deed my perhaps overly conservative position. As you know, we are formed between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. Academic teachers always come too
order to get
with one
another.8

justice in

late. In the best

not

instance, they

to build up character.
on what

Frankfurt
point that plied of

can train young scholars, but their function is After the war, I was invited to give a lecture in the German professor thinks of his role as an educator. The

made was that professors question at

man.

have

no role

to play

in that

regard.

Im

in the

hand is

a certain overestimation of the possible

impact

the theoretical

Heidegger only in

at all when

That is the thought behind my attitude. I do not follow he talks about new gods and similar things. I follow him
the empty or extreme situation.

what

he does

with

This is his only

point

8. Cf. Plato, Republic,

351c.

Gadamer

on

Strauss

11
who

of agreement with nothingness.

Nietzsche,
he

likewise

anticipated an extreme position of

Of

course

ended

in

self-contradiction.
sense.

Heidegger
out with

was not a

Nietzschean in that

When he first
gods,

started

coming really
mind. uns

his
I

mysterious

allusions to the return of the

again and saw

we

were

shocked.

contacted

him

that that

was not what

ein

he had in

It

was a

facon de

parler.

Even his famous statement, Nur

politics

Gott kann

retten,9

means

only that calculating he

can

is

not what will save us

from the he

impending
sometimes

catastrophe.

Nevertheless, I

would

criticize

that too.

Heidegger
when

says more than

cover, as he
new world.

does, for
would

example,

looks
any
the

ahead

to the emergence of a

So I

deny

that it

makes

sense

to speak of

a posthermeneutical epoch. of

That

would

be something like
In my
at

recaptured

immediacy
speaking
will

the speculative

ideas,

which

cannot admit.

opinion, it involves
phorical

a confusion or a categorical and

fallacy. It is

best

a meta

way

of

is

meant

to suggest

manner,

technology

be

enshrined as a

only that, if we go on in this terminal state, a final world govern

into being, and everything will be regulated by an omnipotent bureaucracy. That is the ultimate or extreme situation; and, of course, selfment will come

destruction
rated

by

can occur on the way to it. I do not believe in this extreme elabo Nietzsche. Heidegger's intention was merely to bring to light the one-

sidedness of this society.

Western way, culminating in

our

present-day technological

my latest articles on Heidegger, I try to show that Heidegger was He did not believe in Confucius and other very far from any sectarian such exotic novelties. He was only suggesting that there exist in the Far East In
one of
stance.10

certain remnants of culture

from

which

we,

who

have

glimpsed

the

impasse

of

Western civilization,
cusses

could

the work of art and

which can claim

thinking
seems

possibly benefit. On the other hand, when he dis maintains that there is something beyond conceptual to be true, he has my wholehearted approval. That
share

basic to

me and seem

here I
to

his

position completely.

fortin
philosophy.

You

regard

hermeneutical philosophy

as

the whole of

gadamer fortin
on

It is

universal.

Its universality implies human finitude.

a certain

infinity;

yet you

insist

a great

deal

gadamer
ity."

They

go together.

Finitude

corresponds

to Hegel's "bad infin

What I

mean

is that the "good

infinity,"

that

is,

the self-articulation of the

concept, the

self-regulation of

the system, or

whatever

it may

be,'

seems

to me

9.

See the interview

after

with

Heidegger

published

in the
of

May

31, 1976, issue

of

Der Spiegel, To

shortly

Heidegger's death. An English translation

1976), 267-84.

the interview appears in

Philosophy
and

day

20:4 (Winter,
10.

H. G. Gadamer, "The Religious Dimension in eds., Transcendence and the Sacred (Notre Dame, 1981), Gadamer, Kleine Schriften IV (Tubingen, 1977), 74-85.

Heidegger,"

in L. Rouner

A. Olson,
Gott,"

193-207.

Cf. "Sein, Geist,

in

12

Interpretation
anticipation of a new

to be an

immediacy. That I
way
sense of

cannot go

along

with.

The step

emphasis on more.

finitude is just

another

Bad

this

bad

infinity in the infinity is not as

Hegelian

saying that there is belongs to finitude. As I

Aristotle

always one

once

wrote,

bad

as

it

sounds. of

fortin

You have done

lot

fine

work on

and

especially

on

his

notion of phronesis.

What troubles
of episteme.

some people

is that

you seem

to stress

phronesis at portant
well?

the expense
and

Wasn't

science or episteme

equally im
notion as

for Aristotle

doesn't

one

have to

come

to grips

with

that

gadamer

Aristotle's

main point

and

it is

also

Plato's

is that science,

like the technai, like any form of skill or craftsmanship, is knowledge that has to be integrated into the good life of the society by means of phronesis.
The ideal
of a political science

that

is

not

based

on

the lived experience of

phronesis would

be

sophistic

from Aristotle's
or

point of view.

I do

not

deny

that

the

clarification

of the

apodictic

demonstrative dimension

exemplified

by

mathematics and

is

a great

especially by the theoretical mode of Euclidean mathematics achievement in the eyes of Aristotle. But the idea of the good lies
scope

beyond the

of

any
of

science.

That is very
man

clear

in Plato. We

cannot

conceptualize

the

idea

the good.

fortin
and politics.

Strauss He

once said that as a

said

young

he had two interests

God

also

on

number

of occasions

that the greatest phi

losophers Whitehead
of

of

the twentieth century Bergson, Husserl, James, Heidegger, differed from their predecessors by reason of the virtual absence

any

political

dimension from their thought. Their

philosophies

grave political
political

implications but they themselves issues. Moreover, Strauss tends to see

consciousness.

never

may have had dealt thematically with

an

politics as the cultural matrix of

of

the

historical
we

When

we

speak

historian

without

qualification,

generally

mean a political

historian. You

mentioned at

the

beginning

of our conversation

that you were once interested in the political

abandon that pursuit

thought of the

Sophists but had to

This is the

because

of

the situation
politics? of

in Germany. Do
gadamer

you still recognize

the overarching importance of

other side of

the same problem, that of the place

the theoretical man in society. All is

not negative

here inasmuch
of

as

the theoret
which

ical

man remains subordinated

to

phronesis.

One

my

recent

articles,
and

has been in the

needs years

press

for

years

it is

being

published

in Greece

Greece

deals

with

the problem of the theoretical and the practical life

in

Aristotle's Ethics. In it I try to show that it is always a mistake to stress the tension between these two lives or to say that, on the basis of his premises, Aristotle had to prefer the political life and defended the primacy of the theo
retical

life only

out of

deference to Plato. The

article

demonstrates
do
not

the absurd

ity

of that view.

We

are mortals and not gods.

If

we were

gods, the question

could

be
we

posed as

an alternative.

Unfortunately,

we

have that

choice.
we

When

speak of eudaimonia,

the ultimate achievement of

human life,

Gadamer

on

Strauss

13
account.

have to take both lives into

the second

The

characterization of

the

practical

life

as

best life in the Aristotelian be fine if

we were

scheme means we are not.

life

would

gods; but

only that the theoretical We remain embedded in the

which we were reared and

social structures and

must

the normative perspectives in

we

recognize

that

are part of a

development that
a

always
and

proceeds

on

the

basis

of some preshaped view.

Ours is

fundamentally
come

inescapably
mediation

hermeneutical
of

situation with which we

have to

to terms via a

the practical problems of politics and society with the theoretical life.
fortin

More than

sixteen years

have

elapsed since

the

publication of your

discussion
met

of

Strauss in the

second edition of

Truth
and

and

Method (1965). You

year of

Strauss

a number of

times

between 1965
then?

1973, the

his death.
I

Do

you still stand

by

what you said

gadamer
mentioned

Yes,

and

I hope he
not

earlier, he did

very like to discuss his disagreements

would agree.

He

was

modest

and,

as

with me.

I have

always regretted
and

that the dialogue was not pursued. I had made a new overture
a

he knew that

further discussion, though

perhaps not a

definitive one,

was

possible.

fortin

gadamer

Are there any other survivors from the period of the early 1920s? Helmut Kuhn. He was in Berlin then and now lives in Munich.
of

He

was a

Protestant

Jewish

extraction and

had

strong

religious

bent. As is

the case

with so

Reich

prompted

many other religious intellectuals, the experiences of the Third him to convert to Catholicism. He found a new home in the
and

became extremely conservative. fortin Litt, in the book to which you refer in Truth and Method (p. 490), describes the opposition to history as being very dogmatic. Would you not
Catholic Church
agree that the

defense

of

history
kind

can

gadamer fortin

Oh,

certainly.

Strauss
of you

be equally dogmatic? makes that point in his letter to

to give us so
at
much of your year.

Kuhn.11

It

was most

time on
are all

this,
very

the last
grateful

day
to

of your

stay in this country

least for this

We

you.

11.
23-26.

Cf L. Strauss, "Letter to Helmut

.

Kuhn,"

The Independent Journal of Philosophy

(1978),

the

review

off

a philosophical
DECEMBER 1983

quarterly
VOL. XXXVII, No. 2

ISSUE No. 146

$7.50

articles

KENNETH L. SCHMITZ

Community: The Elusive

Unity
Exist?

SERGIO COTTA
BARRY MILLER

Positive Law and Natural Law

JAMES HADEN
MARY J. GREGOR

Why Should Any Existing Individual Friendship in Plato's Lysis

Baumgarten's Aesthetics

DAVID PLATT
and

Summaries

and

Comments

Staff

philosophical abstracts

announcements

Individual Subscriptions $20.00 The Catholic

Institutional Subscription $30.00 Jude P, Dougherty, Editor

Student Subscription

$10.00

University

of

America, Washington, D.C. 20064

????*?????????????????????????????????????????*????

The Journal

of

Philosophy
to students
and
unemployed phi

Subscriptions at $15.00/year; $12.00 $20.00/year to libraries

Students'

price

extended

to

retired

losophers. Published bimonthly 1904 to 1976, monthly there after. Complete volumes and all separate issues available back to January 7, 1904 (volume I, number 1 ); prices as follows:
BACK VOLl'MES
52-page issue's,

(from

the

first

to the penultimate year)

special

$1.50; 64-page, $3.00;

volume indexes

issues.

$4

00.

Volumes (unbound,

included),

$30.00

each.

CURRENT VOLL'MES

(this

year and

last)

64-page

$2.00, special issues, oct-pa^c or over, $3.00. Volumes (unbound, volume indexes included), $25.00 each.
issues, ALSO AVAILABLE

Cumulative Fifty-year Index, 1904-1953; articles classified by Ten-year Supple subject and author; 452 p.; cloth, $12.00 ment, 1954-1963: 98 p.; cloth $3.00, paper $2.00.

720

PHILOSOPHY HALL,

OI I MHIA UNIVERSITY, NYC

10027

? ???????*???????? -***********4**444,t*

Hamlet: The Cosmopolitan Prince

Paul A. Cantor

University

of Virginia

But

all of us

have,

unconsciously,

involuntarily
. .

in

our

bodies values, words, formulas,

modern soul where with case.

moralities of opposite
would

descent.
a resolute

A diagnosis of the

it begin? With
of

incision into this instinctive contradiction,

with the vivisection of the most

the

isolation

its

opposite

values,

instructive

Friedrich

Nietzsche, The Case

of Wagner

I
Few let have

critics

have troubled themselves

over the question:

Would Prince Ham

made a good act

King

of

Denmark? Preoccupied
the play, critics
might

Hamlet fails to

for

much of

luctant to And
yet

speculate about

how he

with the problem of why have understandably been re have acted had he come to the throne. end of

Shakespeare

raises

the issue at the

the play,
might

when

Fortinbras

concludes was

by

predicting
as we are

what
put

Hamlet's

political

future

have been: "he

(v.ii. 397-98). '
cor

likely, had he been

assessed

on, / To have

royal"

prov'd most

Sympathetic rectly

to

Hamlet,
say

we would

like to think that Fortinbras Fortinbras has

in

the prince's potential as a king. But

a political motive

an ulterior

motive

one might even one

being

so generous

to the

dead Hamlet. Ever

ahead

to seize an opportunity, Fortinbras is already the situation he has stumbled

upon:

thinking
"I have

to

how he
me"

might exploit

some

rights, of memory in this

kingdom, / Which
speaking
well of

now

to claim my vantage

doth invite
seeking to
own cause

(v.ii. 389-90).

By

Hamlet, Fortinbras may be

his

win

the hearts of the dead prince's partisans and thus to advance

in Denmark.

What Fortinbras presumably does not yet know is how deeply indebted he actually is to Hamlet. For in his last words, Hamlet proposes Fortinbras as the
next

has

King of Denmark: "I do (v.ii. 355 my dying

th'

voice"

-56).

prophesy As

election a political

lights / On Fortinbras, he
this endorsement

judgment,
of

is truly

extraordinary, and as the most

Fortinbras'

clearly

political action

Hamlet takes in Hamlet

the play, it casts doubt on would have been as king. If

prediction

how

successful

one political theme runs throughout

Hamlet, it is

the struggle of the Danes to maintain their ascendancy over the Norwegians. As the play opens, we hear how Denmark
sion

from Norway. We

soon

is arming itself against a possible inva learn that the elder Hamlet's greatest triumph was

1.
ed.

My

text

for Hamlet is from The Riverside Shakespeare (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974),

by

G. Blakemore Evans.

16

Interpretation
a victory which apparently Norwegian territory under Danish control. We later learn that the Fortinbras is trying through force of arms to undo the elder Hamlet's

to defeat the elder Fortinbras in single combat,

brought
younger

some

achievement.

Claudius

cannot equal

the martial exploits of his heroic

pursued a

predeces

sor, but

as we see

him in Act II, he has successfully

present

ful

diplomacy
his

to get the

King

of

Norway

to rein
on

policy of peace in Fortinbras and di

vert

aggressive

impulses

against

Poland. Whether

the battlefield or in the

seems to

council

chamber, the

cornerstone of

Danish foreign policy

be to

keep

Norway
winds.

in

check.

With his He

dying breath,
own

Hamlet

seems

willing to throw this policy to the

wants

to hand the Danish throne over to a

Norwegian, specifically
no precedent

to

the

son of

his

father's

greatest antagonist.

There is

for this

in any of the sources we have for Hamlet.2 The only parallel is to be found in the peculiar analogue to Hamlet, the German play Der bestrafte Brudermord ("Fratricide Punished"), which concludes with Hamlet saying:
action

"Gentle Horatio, take the

that the Kingdom may

crown to

not

fall into

my cousin, Duke Fortinbras of Norway, so hands."3 other In keeping with the way this

much truncated version simplifies

the story and tries to clear up

its

mysteries,4

Hamlet is here

given a simple and comprehensible motive

bras to the throne, a motive which even version, there is not the slightest hint

sounds patriotic.

for naming Fortin But in Shakespeare's

of any kinship between Hamlet and Fortinbras. The clarity of Hamlet's motivation for endorsing Fortinbras in the German play only highlights the mysteriousness of his action in Shakespeare's play.

Hamlet possibly justify his dying bequest to his people of a Norwegian enemy as their king? It is of course notoriously difficult to discover what is going on in Hamlet's mind. But his defense of his choice of Fortinbras
could

How then

would

job."

the

probably be: "Fortinbras should be king because he is the best man for When Hamlet witnessed Fortinbras preparing to invade Poland, he
Fortinbras'

himself unfavorably to the Norwegian prince. Observing political resoluteness in marching into battle for an essentially trivial cause, spiritedHamlet felt weak and irresolute by comparison and praised
compared
Fortinbras'

Geoffrey Bullough, Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Kegan Paul, 1973), Vol. VII, pp. 3-189. The greatest difficulty for any source-study of Hamlet is that we lack what was presumably Shakespeare's prin cipal source, an earlier Elizabethan Hamlet play, probably by Thomas Kyd and conventionally re ferred to as the Ur-Hamlet. See Bullough, pp. 15-20. In the absence of this play, we cannot know
2. sources
of

For the

Hamlet,

see

Shakespeare (London: Routledge

and

with

certainty

whether

Shakespeare introduced Hamlet's

appears

endorsement of

Fortinbras into the

or

story.

All

we can

mate

say is that no such action sources of the Hamlet legend.

a

in

either

Saxo Grammaticus

Belleforest,
play to

the ulti

3. Bullough, p. 158. For Bullough, pp. 20-24. 4.

discussion

of the complicated relation of this

Hamlet,

see

For example, in Fratricide Punished, the

complicated question of

why Hamlet delays his

and cannot yet attain

revenge receives a

very simple answer: "Now am I back here once more, my revenge, because this fratricide is at all times surrounded by many

to

people"

(v.i.).

Hamlet: The Cosmopolitan Prince

17

ness, nobility, and courage (iv.iv. 32-66). When cession, Hamlet evidently recalls the kingliness he

thinking

of the

Danish

suc and

observed

in Fortinbras,

decides to be
act, Hamlet

governed

by

nature rather

than convention. In his

most political

himself completely indifferent to the most basic of political considerations, the distinction between us and them. To find a king for the Danes, he feels that he must go beyond the narrow bounds of Denmark to lo
shows cate

the best man available,

even

if he happens to be

Norwegian.

Hamlet's

unwillingness to settle

spects an admirable
would

trait,

even

for anything less than the best is in some re in a ruler. But one must wonder how Denmark is
at

have fared

under a monarch who

heart indifferent to the distinction

between Danes
whim

and

Norwegians. And Hamlet's

aberration.

dying

words are no as

or

last- minute
with

Proposing
clarity the

Fortinbras

king

momentary is entirely

in

keeping

the

character with

he displays throughout the

problem

play.

Hamlet's final

speech

simply
which

reveals

stark

with all along.

cosmopolitan

by

temperament, Hamlet is
narrow politics

he has been struggling placed in circum

of

stances

demand that he take the

soul

Denmark

seri

ously, and his

balks

at

that prospect: "The time

is

out of

joint

cursed

(i. v. spite, / That ever I was born to set it at the heart of Hamlet's tragedy is to view him as

188-89). a

One waY of getting cosmopolitan in the etymo

logical meaning of the term. Hamlet is a man who wishes to take the cosmos as his polis. He refuses to allow his horizons to be limited by any one community

just because he happened to be born in it,

and

instead lets his

vision

roam

freely

over all the

world. with precision when

Hamlet defines himself

that he is politically
myself a

he

Rosencrantz'

rejects a

s claim

ambitious:

"I

could

be bounded in

nutshell,
dreams"

and count (n.ii.254-

king

of

infinite
not

space

were

it

not

that I have bad

56).

Hamlet does

take his bearings from the ordinary

the

political

horizon. He because
private

could within

in fact be

content with

little

private world of

his

own mind

that mind his thoughts

can range over

the

whole universe.

The

and the universal are the

two poles
view

between

which

Hamlet's

mind moves.

What

tends to

drop

out

from his

is the

middle

term, the public, the

medium

through which most men relate their private concerns to something larger and
more universal.
political

For Hamlet, the

which prevent

public

demands

the is merely a realm of "bad within the bounds him from remaining safely
of a citizen of

dreams,"

of

his

own mind and

savoring the freedom

the

world.

II
Hamlet's
cosmopolitanism

is in

part a reaction

to the provinciality of the to

country
Europe.

in

which

he

lives.

Shakespeare

seems

have

gone

out

of
of

his way to portray Hamlet's Denmark

as mired

in the

cultural

backwaters

Nothing

characterizes

the Denmark of the play so strikingly as the

fact

18

Interpretation
have to be forced to
spend time there and are always on

that even its citizens

the lookout for the

earliest

potent combination of a

opportunity to leave. As the play opens, only the royal funeral and a royal wedding has brought the cast

of characters together ertes are

in Denmark.
to

By

the second scene, both Hamlet and

La
to

already begging their travels. When Hamlet

ways:

be

excused

from the

court so that

they

can return

meets an old

friend, his first

question

is

almost al

doing here in Denmark?", with the clear implication: some place more Hamlet is able to spy out that aren't you "Why Rosencrantz and Guildenstem are working for Claudius because he knows that
"What
are you
interesting?"

no one would come

to Elsinore of his own volition. Hamlet is even surprised to

hear that

a reputable theatrical

company has

Claudius'

arrived at

court.

But far in

from regarding this as an enviable opportunity for a mance, the players have come to Elsinore only because
their

royal command perfor stiff new competition

home city has forced them on the road. It does not say much for Denmark even its royal court is looked down upon by actors as the provinces. that
The play leaves
ciated with
no

doubt that Europe

offers more

interesting

places to

be

than Denmark. Hamlet would rather be in

both Doctor Faustus

and

Wittenberg, a university town, asso Martin Luther, and hence with the new in
in the play
with new

tellectual currents of both the Renaissance and the Reformation. Laertes begs

leave to

go off

to

Paris,

city

associated

fashions
to

of all

kinds, from the latest

eling
their
all over

cut of

clothing

to the avant-garde style of

fencing. Trav

Europe,
as

the youth of Denmark are evidently

learning

despise
him

homeland
Claudius'

Hamlet
about

expresses

out-of-step with more modern and fashionable his contempt for Denmark openly when Horatio
ceremony:

countries. asks

drinking

horatio hamlet

Is it

a custom?

Ay,

marry,

is't,
native

But to my mind, though I am And to the manner born, it is More

honor'

here

a custom

d in the breach than the

observance.

This heavy-headed Make

revel east and west

us traduc'd and tax'd of other nations.

They
Soil

clip

us

drunkards,

and with swinish phrase

our addition

(i.iv. 12-20).

Here

we

see
no

homeland,
country.

eigners make

how easily Hamlet slips into an outsider's perspective on his doubt a result of all the time he has spent abroad listening to for fun of Danes. Hamlet has become in effect a foreigner in his own
speech

This

thus reveals how problematic to uphold the customs of

his

kingship

would

have

been. A
that

king is
are

supposed

his country, he

not to point out

they

"more honor'd in the breach than the

of

observance."

If Hamlet

ac
a

cepts

Europe's judgment

Danish

customs as

"swinish,"

would

have had

hard time acting the

part of

king

with conviction.

Hamlet: The Cosmopolitan Prince

But Hamlet's
contempt

19
to his native land. When he is prob
reveals

is

not confined

ing

the motives of Rosencrantz and

Guildenstem, he

how

widespread

his disgust really is:

hamlet

sends you to prison

What have you, my good friends, deserv'd hither?

at the

hands

of

Fortune,

that she

guildenstern
hamlet

Prison, my lord?
a prison. world one.

Denmark's

rosencrantz

Then is the
o'

hamlet

A goodly one, in Denmark being one

which there are

th'

many confines, wards,

and

dungeons.

worst (n.ii.239 47).

contempt focuses on Denmark, but only as the worst example of what is generally wrong with the world. For Hamlet all regimes are prisons: they ar bitrarily limit man's horizons by imposing one set of customs on him. In this

Hamlet's

exchange, Hamlet's contempt for Denmark quickly expands into a the

world as

contempt

for

such,

an attitude which

begins to ity. As

suspect a

distinctly Christian ring to it. One link between Hamlet's cosmopolitanism and his Christian
has
a religions of

opposed

to the civic

the ancient world,

Christianity

is

transpolitical.

Aspiring
He

to be a catholic church,

Christianity
in

refuses

to be lim

ited

by

the boundaries of any particular regime. Hamlet shares this transpoliti

can never

cal perspective.

become

fully

absorbed

political

life because he
In

tends to view all the things of this world that

from the
and

perspective of eternity.

light

all

worldly

goods

Hamlet,
One
of

to be a great

ultimately insignificant. For transitory lord is only to be "spacious in the possession of

seem
dirt"

(v.ii. 87-88).
reason

for the breadth

classical

of

Hamlet's horizons is that he is

measure

student

history, especially

history. He likes to

his

contemporaries

by
has

the standard of classical models, according to which he usually

finds them

wanting. with

But in Hamlet's eyes,

time dissolved into
makes

even

the

superior greatness of

the ancient world

nothingness.
mental

Seeing
to

the skull of poor

Yorick,
a

Hamlet

immediately

the

leap

wonder whether

Alexander the

Great looked the

same

way in the
of all

grave.

Alexander's fate teaches Hamlet

and

lesson in the vainglory

particular:

earthly

achievement

political greatness

in

Imperious Caesar, dead Might stop

a

and turn'd to clay,

hole to

keep
t'

the wind

away.

O that that
Should

earth which

kept the
the

world

in

awe

patch a wall

expel

winter s

flaw! (v.i. 213- 16)

Horatio

instinctively
consider

recognizes

the danger

"Twere to
to

too curiously, to consider / to

in Hamlet's thinking this way: (v.i. 205-6). A prince, not

so"

mention a

king,

cannot afford

be too acutely

aware of

the hollowness of
pursue

political glory,

for that

awareness would undermine

his ability to

his

po

litical

goals with singlemindedness and zeal.

20

Interpretation
cannot close

But Hamlet
of

his

eyes to the skull

beneath the skin,

and

his study

history has like the momentary fads of fashion. Speaking of how the players have sud denly fallen out of the public's favor, Hamlet cannot resist drawing a political
ancient and modem convinced him that

both

political reputations

are

parallel

for Rosencrantz

and

Guildenstem:

It is

not

mouths at

very strange, for my uncle is him while my father lived,

picture
could

King
give

of

Denmark,

and

those that would make

a-piece

for his

twenty, forty, fifty, a hundred ducats in little. 'Sblood, there is something in this more than natural,
out (n.ii.363 68).

if philosophy

find it

Faced

with

the mutability

of

this world, Hamlet turns from politics to philoso

phy, from

public

life to

a private quest
admiration

for

a universal and stable truth. ancient

Notice,
not

however,
were with

that despite his

for the

world, Hamlet does

turn to classical philosophy.

Hamlet is concerned,
the "more than

not as

Plato

and a

Aristotle Christian
In his

the natural, but

natural."

with

Hamlet's is

philosophy, directed toward what lies beyond the borders of this

one other mention of sees as

world.

philosophy, Hamlet feels

of

compelled

to correct what
are more

he

the limited horizons

and

Horatio's

world-view:

"There

things

in heaven (i.v.

earth,

Horatio, / Than
who claims

are

dreamt

of

in

philos

your
Dane"

166-67).

Horatio,

he is "more

an antique

Roman than

(v.ii. 341), displays

cellus observes

a classical skepticism about all reaction

things supernatural, as Mar

ghost:

in Horatio's

to the report of the

of

"Horatio
5

says

'tis

but

our

fantasy, / And
supernatural

will not

let belief take hold before he

(i.iv.56).

him"

(1. i. 23-24).

Hamlet,
fasci

by

contrast, believes in the

ghost

ever sees

it

and

is in

general

nated

by

phenomena, thus

leaving

himself

wide open

to "thoughts

souls"

beyond the

reaches of our

Ill
From
an examination of

the implications of Hamlet's emerges, to public

dying

endorsement of

Fortinbras,
to his own,

a consistent profile
who prefers private

of a man who prefers other countries

life,

and who

is in many

respects

less

concerned about

this world than the next. Together these attitudes work to unfit
role of avenger

Hamlet for the

his father's

ghost wishes to

impose

on

him.

Shakespeare
em

portrays

Hamlet
who

as a cultivated and sophisticated product of mod

Christian Europe,

room and

is suddenly asked to step out of a university class into the brutal world of Norse Hamlet must become involved
saga.6

in the
larger
5.

most primitive of social considerations

relationships,

blood feud,

and subordinate all

to the sole task of exacting vengeance:

See

also i.i. 30,

56-58, 165.
52-53.

6. Cf. Bullough,
reverses

pp.

Hamlet's tragedy is thus the

called upon

the movement Hamlet

is

to perform:

by

mirror image of Othello's. Othello entering Venetian society, he moves

Hamlet: The Cosmopolitan Prince

Yea, from
I'll All
wipe

21

the table of my memory

all trivial all

away

fond records,
all pressures past

saws of

books,

forms,

That

youth and observation copied

there,

And thy commandement all alone shall live Within the book and volume of my brain, Unmix'd
with

baser

matter

(i. v. 98-

104).

Hamlet
as
an

reveals more than

he

realizes when

he

recognizes that to pursue

his

role

avenger, he

would

have to

annihilate

his

entire

education.

Far from

preparing him for the task of taking vengeance, Hamlet's upbringing has in fact made it impossible for him to pursue Claudius with the pagan fierceness his sit
uation calls

for.
can of course
respond emotionally to the appeal of his father's him clearly wants to wreak vengeance on Claudius. There when Hamlet seems to embrace a heroic role and his Danish

Hamlet
ghost,

and part of

are even moments

heritage, as, for I, / Hamlet the

example,

in his

appearance

at

Ophelia's
more than a

grave:

"This is

Dane!"

(v.i. 257-58). But there is himself. He

the way Hamlet here announces

seems

to

be

irony in deliberately over

hint
of

histrionic outbursts of acting the part, spurred into competition by grief over Ophelia. Even in his moments of passion, Hamlet maintains a criti
cal

Laertes'

detachment that
circumstances

prevents

him from

ever

completely plunging into the

role

his

dictate. He is
to the

which

he

articulates

as

I may say,
to
a

whirlwind

by the principle of acting "in the very torrent, tempest, and, troop of your passion, you must acquire and beget a temper
governed of players:

in his life

ance

that may

give

it

smoothness"

(m.ii.6-8). And

even

when

Hamlet its

re

sponds

heroic

ideal, he

cannot close praise of

his

eyes to what

he

sees as

under

lying

hollowness. Consider his

Fortinbras'

expedition against

Poland:

Witness this army of such mass and charge, Led by a delicate and tender prince, Whose spirit, Makes
with

divine

ambition pufT'd

mouths at
what

the invisible event,

mortal and unsure

Exposing
To Even for

is

all that

fortune, death,

and

danger dare,

an egg-shell

(iv.iv. 47-53).

from

a primitive

heroic

world

to a

sophisticated civilized one.

Hamlet is

an established member of who as a

his society

who craves the

freedom

of a cosmopolitan existence;

Othello,

Mediterranean

from country to country, finally hopes to settle down and mercenary has known what it is to move take his place through marriage in Venetian society. Hamlet is destroyed while attempting to as one and become in effect domesti sume an epic role; Othello is destroyed while attempting to leave misplaced: Hamlet, the modern cated in Venice. Each hero is tragically and, as it were, generically

European,
farce lem
and of

wanders

into

Norse saga;

Othello,

the Homeric
and

hero, blunders into

avoid

an

Italian bedroom
at.

is in

effect

forced to kill his beloved

himself to

being

laughed

On

the prob

cosmopolitanism
Othello,"

munity:

in Othello, see Allan Bloom, "Cosmopolitan Man and the Political Com Shakespeare's Politics (New York: Basic Books, 1964), especially pp. 46-51-

22

Interpretation
to this speech, one thinks one to the last

Listening
bras

until one gets

himself had been

cannot

inflating.7

is hearing unequivocal praise of Fortin in which Hamlet abruptly deflates what he line, Hamlet genuinely admires Fortinbras, and yet he
worthlessness

strives
not

sure that in stating his own position, Fortinbras would he was, to use Hamlet's phrase, finding "quarrel in a (1v.iv.55). Political men take the pretexts for their heroic action very seriously

seeing the for. We can be

help

ultimate

of what the

Norwegian

prince

straw"

admit that

because they view their ideals uncritically. One is tempted to say that their po litical resolve derives precisely from the fact that they are unaware of the illu sory character of the goals they often But the cosmopolitan stance which
tional political
pursue.

allows

Hamlet to

see

beyond the

conven

horizon

undermines

His intellect is constantly

called upon to
and yet reveals posed
perform.8

leading
He is

his ability to take any heroic ideal seriously. him to deny meaning to the very acts he feels right the
wrongs

supposed to

in his

native

land,

he has nothing but that he would just

contempt

for the Denmark he lives in

Norwegian
yet

as soon see a
and

to uphold

his father's honor,

supposed of

ultimately its throne. He is sup his study of history has shown

on

and

him that

political reputations are

Above all, he is
haunted

arbitrarily won and seldom long maintained. to take action in this world, and yet he is constantly
next,
which

clearly complicate his response to his worldly tasks. When, for example, he finally has an opportunity to kill Claudius, he finds that vengeance is a far more complicated matter for a Chris

by

visions

the

tian than a pagan:

Now

might now

I do it pat, I

now

is a-praying;
goes to

And
And

I'll do't

and so

'a

heaven,
scann'd:

so am

reveng'd.

That

would

be

kills my father, and for that his sole son, do this same villain send I, A
villain

To heaven.

Why,
The

this

is hire

and

salary,

not revenge

(111. iii. 73-79).

world-view

presence

of an

afterlife

in Hamlet's
A

introduces
that a

a new

factor
of

into his
enemy;

calculations as an avenger. as

pagan

merely has to kill the

concludes

body

his
on

Hamlet be

reflects on

his mission, he in
such a

Christian bent

vengeance must

destroy
saved:

the

body

way that the eternal soul of his vic

tim will not

When he is drunk asleep,

or

in his rage,
his bed,

Or in At
7.

th'

incestuous

pleasure of

game a-swearing, or about some act

For

a more

detailed
and

analysis of this

speech, see G. K.
eds
,

Hunter,

"The

Heroism

Hamlet"

of p.

in

John Russell Brown

also

Bernard Harris,
of

James Wood, "The Pale Cast

pp. 30-32. p. 32.

Thought"

Hamlet (New York: Schocken, 1966), (Harvard University Undergraduate

95

See

Honors Thesis,

1973, unpublished),

8. See Wood,

Hamlet: The Cosmopolitan Prince

That has
no relish of salvation

23

in't

Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven, And that his soul may be as damn'd and black As hell,
whereto

it

goes (m.iii.89 95).

The issue

of revenge reveals of

hensiveness,
alyzes

horizons
an

works to produce a split

clearly how Hamlet's largeness, indeed compre in his soul, which in turn par
understand

him

as

actor.

One begins to

tracted to the melodramatic genre of the revenge

create

why Shakespeare was at play and how he was able to

such cast

potboilers as

something profound out of the kind of material that had produced The Spanish Tragedy and (presumably) the Ur-Hamlet.9 By

ing
ics,

an

intelligent

and reflective man

in the

role of

avenger, Shakespeare is able

eth

to use the revenge play to expose the inner contradictions of Renaissance

the conflict

between

pagan and

Christian

principles.

Vengeance is

basically
we

a pagan

principle, in

some ways the pagan principle par excellence.

As

see,

Hamlet feeds his

vengeful

impulses

by drawing
leaving

upon classical

precedents, in

particular, the Iliad-like tale of how Pyrrhus slew Priam. As a

let

ought

to

reject a call

to vengeance,

the task to God.

must

Christian, Ham But, as we have

find A
a more so simpler man

seen, if Hamlet is to
phisticated

pursue vengeance as a

Christian, he

form,

and

leam to kill

not

just the

body

but the

soul.

than Hamlet would

have

either rejected the

task of vengeance or embraced it

claims

wholeheartedly and in will not let religious death. When Claudius himself his "father's
church"

a more

direct form. Laertes, for example,

stand

that he

scruples
asks

in the way of his avenging his father's him what he is prepared to do to Hamlet to show
Laertes
replies

son,"

bluntly: "To

cut

his throat

i'

th'

(iv. vii.

124-27).
not

But Hamlet does

have this kind

of one-track mind.
need

He

shows

himself to
question,

be

true child

of

the Renaissance

in his

to

look
of

at all sides of a

and to approach available

present

the issue of the

vengeance

in light

the two ethical traditions

to him

classical and

the Christian. Intellectual historians tend to

the Renaissance

as

trying

to reconcile these two traditions

in

one grand

synthesis, usually referred to as Christian humanism. But Hamlet's tragedy re veals how precarious and deeply problematic this synthesis was. On the issue
of

revenge, the

classical and

Christian traditions

recommend

of action, as a quick review of the Iliad and the New

opposing Testament will

courses
reveal.

And if
with

one tries

to

pursue vengeance sinister and

in

Christian

framework,

one comes

up

something far more Greek ever dreamed of.

difficult to

accomplish

than any Homeric

One ideal
9.

might attempt a

formulation

of

Hamlet's tragedy this

ends

way:

precisely be
profound

cause of
of

his

comprehensiveness of

outlook, the way he follows the Renaissance

trying
a

to

combine

disparate ethics, he

up exposing the

For

discussion of Hamlet in relation to the revenge play tradition, see Anne Barton's
edition of

intro

duction to T. J. B. Spencer's

Hamlet (New York: Penguin

Books,

1980).

24

Interpretation

tensions between those ethics, thus

which

leaving

himself in

tragic

situation

in

his

own principles make can see

alyze

him. One

the inner

contradictory demands upon him and hence division in Hamlet when he goes to confront
par

his

Claudius'

mother after

confirming
Now
could

guilt with

his staging

of

the

mousetrap:

I drink hot
the

blood,
mother.

And do
Would

such quake

bitter business
to look
not on.

as

day
to

Soft,

now

my

O heart, lose
The Let I
soul of

thy
not

nature!

let

not ever

Nero

enter

this firm

bosom,
use none.

me

be cruel,

unnatural;

will speak

daggers to

her, but

My

tongue and soul

in this be hypocrites
(1n.ii.390

How in my words somever she be shent, To give them seals never my soul consent!

99)
,

Alternating between pagan fierceness and Christian mildness Hamlet proclaims a disharmony between his words and deeds which mirrors a more fundamental Pulled in two directions at once, he cannot help be disharmony in his to himself. Hamlet's final words in this speech in some a hypocrite ing way
soul.10

seem

to

echo

the

ghost's original

injunction to him:

But howsomever
Taint
not

thou pursuest this act,

nor

thy

mind,

Against thy

mother aught

let thy soul contrive (1. v. 84 -86).

an

From the very beginning, Hamlet is faced with barbaric pagan vengeance with the tenderness
accomplish

impossible task: to
civilized

exact a

of a

Christian. To
superman:

this goal, Hamlet

with

needed

to be a kind of Nietzschean

"the Roman Caesar

achieve

Christ's

soul."11

If, then. Hamlet ultimately fails

laid down

to

his

revenge within the constraints

by

failure

results

from

kind

of

overreaching,

and as such

his father's ghost, his is a tragic failure.

IV
In
a

sense,

Shakespeare

suggests the
sanity:

Hamlet's tragedy is that of a would-be Renaissance man. kind of ideal synthesis Hamlet aspired to in Ophelia's

eulogy for his

"O,

what a noble mind

is here

o'erthrown!

/ The

court

ier's,

sword"

soldier's,
not

scholar's quite the

eye, tongue,

(in. i. 150-51). 12 Though Ham

let may
10.

be

all-embracing human
this speech, see

being

Ophelia pictures, he does

and

For

fuller

analysis of

Reuben A. Brower, Hero

Will
to

Saint (Oxford: Ox

ford

University Press,

1971),

pp. 297-98. and

11.

See Walter Kaufmann

R. J.

Hollingdale, trans., The

Power (New York: Ran

dom House, 1967), sect. 983, 12. Cf. Brower, p. 314.

p. 513.

Hamlet: The Cosmopolitan Prince

25
seems at times to wish to
prides

try

to span

to all men.
edge of

opposing realms of value. He Though a prince by birth, he he

can

be

all

things

himself

on

his

practical

knowl
and

the theatre and the way

own

talk to the players on

envious of so that
Laertes'

familiar terms
reputation

in their
as a

language. He is sufficiently
continual
odds"

in

court

fencer to stay "in

desire to
over

practice"

he

can at

least hope to beat

reveals

him "at the

competitive age

when

they
in

come to

fight (v.ii. 210- 12). Hamlet

he is
confronted

his im

excel

all areas when

by

his

mirror

Laertes

Ophelia's

grave:

'S wounds,

show me what woo't

thou't do.
woo't

Woo't weep,

fight,

fast,

woo't

tear thyself?

Woo't drink up eisel, eat a crocodile? I'll do't. Dost thou come here to whine?
To
outface me with

leaping
her,

in her

grave?

Be buried

quick with

and so will

I (v.i. 274-79).

Hamlet

vows

to outdo
and

fighter,

ascetic

indeed

Laertes in any part he with his quick wit,

chooses verbal

to play
and

mourner, theatrical

facility,

talent, Hamlet

in many different But the inner richness which allows Hamlet to play such a wealth of parts works against him when he has to settle down to the singleminded task of
can shine
roles.13

pursuing

revenge.

If there is

one

theme that runs throughout Shakespeare's por

trayal of public

life, it is

that politics requires a narrowing of a man's horizons

if he is to be

successful

in his tasks. The

positive side of

Hamlet's

cosmopoli

tanism is that he is open to all the diverse

offer
vents

influences the

modem world of

has to
pre

him. The

negative side ever

is that precisely that

diversity

influences
What

Hamlet from

playing
tragic

a single role with utter conviction.

makes

Hamlet the
ner

quintessential of

figure

of the

Renaissance is that in him the in

to consciousness.

contradictions viewed as

Renaissance

culture

come

Hamlet is

self-divided, but many critics treat his self-division as a kind usually of pathological state, as if the community Hamlet lives in were whole and only he fragmented.14 But Hamlet's self-division mirrors a more fundamental self-

Indeed Hamlet is distinguished in the play precisely by to the way his culture is self-divided. the fact that only he is One reason Hamlet has such resonance as a play is that in Shakespeare's division in his
culture. alert

hands the story comes to embody the complex layering of Renaissance culture. Shakespeare takes material from a primitive Norse saga and transposes it to a
modem

European court,

a court

clearly Christian in its beliefs

Barton,
p. 44.

and yet

shad-

13. 14.

On Hamlet's

"ventriloquism,'

see

See. for

example,

G. Wilson Knight's "The

Embassy

of

Death: An
32:

Essay
life,

Hamlet,"

on

in

The Wheel of Fire (New York: Meridian Books, 1957), especially p. murder of Hamlet's father, the Hamlet universe is one of healthy and
mour,
romantic strength, and welfare: against

"Except for the

original

robust

good-nature, hu
pale with the

this

background is the figure

life."

of

Hamlet

consciousness of

death. He is the

ambassador of

death walking

amid

26
owed

Interpretation

by

memories

of classical

antiquity.

1S

What

we think

of as

the Renais

sance was within a

the result of

just this blend:

that had been

an attempt grafted on

to

revive classical

antiquity

Christian
of

culture

to the indigenous pagan civ

one

ilizations
sance

Europe. Everywhere

one turns

in Hamlet,

finds

rich Renais

texture, in the many

classical references and

Claudius'

allusions, for example, or

the

all the modernizing touches that make

of

court seem

contemporary

Queen Elizabeth's,

and not

the headquarters

of some

wandering Germanic

tribe.

Even the imaginative geography of Hamlet reflects the interplay that went to make up the Renaissance. Shakespeare's Denmark is

of

forces
of old

kind

borderland, lying
world of pagan

on

the fringes of modem

Europe, halfway
Christian

between the To the

a

heroism
a
yet

and the new world of

world

civility.16

north

stands

Norway,

untamed

of

"lawless

resolutes"

(i.i. 98),

land

where single combat

of

between

martial

heroes can still take place, in short a

kind

the frontiers of civilization. To the surviving Denmark lies the heart of modem Europe, cultivated cities like Paris,

Homeric

realm

on

south of an
unhe-

roic world

in

which men
ice"

leam to

fence,

rather

than to smite "the sledded Pothis world stands

lacks

on

the

(i.i.63).17

And in the
of

middle of

Hamlet,

able to

look beyond the borders Western culture, to

see

tory

of

his country and in effect to survey the his its competing models of human excellence him. There is Laertes, the
model of a

embodied

in the figures
a

who surround gallant

modem

courtier,

young

trained

in Paris. There is Hamlet's fellow

stu

dent, Horatio, Wittenberg in Stoic ideals, and a model of rational control. And finally, there is Fortinbras, Hamlet's Norwegian model of the he roic soldier. Hamlet can find something to admire in all these models, but he
schooled at can also see

the limitations of each.

Precisely
any

because he is
As
a

open to all of

them,

he

can never

become the

captive of

single model.

result,

all

the other

characters

to

in the play seem one-dimensional by comparison with Hamlet. Next Hamlet, Laertes seems superficial and callow, Horatio cold and unfeeling, Fortinbras
rash and narrow-minded.

and

Hamlet's is

a peculiar

form

of

hero

rather than pursuing one heroic ideal to an extreme, Hamlet moves back forth between a number of competing heroic ideals, subjecting them all in the process to a critique. What makes Hamlet stand out in his world is thus

ism:
and

not

any conventional heightened awareness

genuineness
of

greatness of
of all

soul, but the largeness

of

his horizons, his His

soul

that his complex culture contains and the depth and to its contradictory ethical
a
demands.18

his
of

response

becomes
15.
16.

kind

crossroads,

battleground

on which pagan and

Christian,
south.

See, for example, i.i. 1 13-16, i.ii. 152-53, 11. ii. 390-91, and 111.ii.98- 106. Shakespeare's Denmark is to the north of Europe what his Cyprus is to the

In the

imaginative geography of Othello, Cyprus stands midway between the Christian Venice and the pagan barbarism of the Turkish Empire, and thus is the appropriate

civilization of

setting for the

tragedy
17. 18.

Othello, who is caught between these two See Barton, p. 20. Cf. Hunter, p. 104, and Brower, p. 310.
of

worlds.

Hamlet: The Cosmopolitan Prince

ancient and modem values meet and

27
a

fight to

standstill,
unable

leaving

Hamlet

unable

to remain tme to

any

one set of values and

thus

to carry out the specific

task his concrete situation

demands

of

him.19

V
Hamlet's tragedy is ultimately that of a placed in very political circumstances. Critics
cal
terms,20

cosmopolitan

or

apolitical

man

seldom

discuss Hamlet in

politi

even

though the

play's

action

hinges

on a number of political

is

sues,

such as

the succession in Denmark or the Danish -Norwegian conflict.

The

reason critics

politics of

generally feel that they cannot be bothered with the petty Denmark is that Hamlet feels that way himself. His viewpoint so

completely dominates the play and colors our response to it that his apoliti cal perspective has inevitably influenced all commentators. Hamlet thus be
comes a test-case of the relevance of political considerations

to understanding

Shakespeare's

plays.

In many

respects

Hamlet is the least

political of

Shake

speare's mature

tragic

heroes,

and most analyses of approach.

his

character we

take a

purely Shake

psychological,

if

not

psychoanalytic,

But

cannot

understand

Hamlet if

we abstract

him from the

after

concrete political

setting in

which

speare placed
of

him. He is
and

all,

as

the

subtitle of

the play tells us, the Prince

Denmark,
Thus to

that

fact is

understand

bound up with his tragedy. Hamlet's tragedy, it is useful to begin by asking

intimately

few

straightforward political questions,

such as:

what

kind

of

king

would

Hamlet

have

made and

these may seem

why does he propose Fortinbras for the succession? Though at first to be narrow political questions, they ultimately lead to
even

the larger issues in the play, and ture

of

help
him,
of

us

to understand more

fully

the na

Hamlet's

apolitical stance.

If

we

leam that Hamlet is

we also

unequal

to the po

litical demands his

equal

world makes upon

leam that that

world

is

un

to satisfying the higher longings

Hamlet's

more comprehensive soul.

As

always

in Shakespeare,
limits

questions of politics

lead to the

more

fundamental

question of the

of politics.

19. 20.

See Brower, For

of
Play,'"

p. 316.

an exception to this rule, see

E. A. J. Honigmann, "The Politics in Hamlet

pp.
129-47.

and

'The

World

the

in Brown

and

Harris,

social research
AN INTERNATIONAL QUARTERLY OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
A publication of the GRADUATE FACULTY new school for SOCIAL RESEARCH
_
. . . .

VOLUME

50, NUMBER 3

AUTUMN 1983

Genevieve Lioya
Reason, Gender,
in the
and Morality History of Philosophy

Women

and

Ljnda j Nichoison
Women, Morality
and

Morality
Guest Editors KA~.*x, Ann r\'i Mary Ann O Loughlin James C. Walker Debra Nails
~. ..uii.

History

Lorraine B. Code
Responsibility and the Epistemic
Comrnunity: wyoman.s PiaMce
ma

Responsibility and Moral Maturity in the Control of Fertility or, A Woman's Place Is in the Wrong

Mary Ann O'Loughlin

Owen J. Flanagan, Jr. and Jonathan E. Adler

Impartiality and Particularity

John M. Broughton
Women's Rationality and Men's Virtues: A Critique of Gender Dualism in Gilligan's Theory of Moral Development

Debra Nails
Social Scientific Sexism: Gilligan's Mismeasure of Man
-

James C. Walker
a Diffident Voice: Cryptoseparatist Analysis of Female Moral Development

In

Individual Subscriptions: $20; Institutions: $35 Single copies available on request Editorial and Business Office: 66 West 12th Street, New York, N.Y. 1001 1 RoomGF341

Hegel

on

the Source

of

Political

Authority

Michael H. Mitias
Millsaps College

In "the

a recent

study 1

argued

that

law, for Hegel, is

from the

the

foundations

of

the state;
ultimate

constitution which

emanates

will of the people

is the
of

principle

according to which the activities and the

Within this
organization no

institutions

the state are

organized.1

activity,

religious, social, or educational, is valid or

it is legal, economic, justified if it does not uphold the

whether

citizen."

personality

or

individuality

of

the

But, I may be

asked, does Hegel

provide a principle or a political

framework

within which

the

desires, interests,
play
a significant

and aspirations of role

the people as

individuals
process of

and groups can

in the

political

process, in the

enacting

and

modifying the law?

participate and

For in the

unless the people

political process

individually

or as a

majority (democracy)

their will would, at

least in principle, be ignored,

if

their wills are

as

ignored they

would not exist as self-determined

beings,

that

is,

free. On Hegel's view, my critic might go on, the ordinary people do not have to be consulted when the law is enacted, modified, or reformed; for the

legislative

power

is

not

restricted

to "the Legislature but also

extends

to the

authority on what laws should be adopted or rejected. Thus the question arises: if we hold, as Hegel does, that the basis of the constitution is the will of the people, how can this will become concrete? How can we be certain that the final legal authority
monarch and

his

ministers.

The

monarch

is in

effect

the final

always acts

in the interest
been

of

the

people?

As

an

immediate
ever

response

to this objection on behalf of Hegel

let

me ask:

has there

a political system

in the

history

of

human

civilization

in

which all the people participated, or could participate,

ment?2

in the

process of govern

Again, how

can a people of the modern state share

questions not validate or

individually
am

or

di

terested

rectly in the political process? I raise these in discussing the arguments which
a political
system

because I

here in
as

invalidate

democracy

but because I

am anxious to

focus

attention on

the central

question of

this essay: given a society

in

a certain place and

historical period,

I.

M. Mitias, "Law
198 1.

as the

Basis

of the

State:

Hegel,"

Interpretation: A Journal of Political

Philosophy, Fall,
2. ever provided

D. Pickles, for example, for

writes:

"no

political

system at

any time, democratic

or

not, has

all the people even

to

choose

the government, much

less

exercise governmental

powers."

there were a
not suited

Democracy (New York: Basic Books, 1970), p. 9. And Jean-Jacques Rousseau writes: "if perfect government is people of gods, it would govern itself democratically. Such a
to

Social Contract, ed. R. D. Masters, trans. J. R. Masters (New York: St. Book III, Chap. 4. See also, J. Plamenatz, Democracy and Illusion (Lon Martin's Press, 1978), don: Longmans, 1973); Sir H. S. Maine, Popular Government (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics,

On

the

1976).

30 how What
tinued

Interpretation
can

the

people

of that

society

express

and assert their will effectively?

sort of governmental structure should a state establish

growth of

to

ensure

the con

freedom in the lives in the

of

its

citizens?

Or,

under what conditions and

can citizens participate

political process

in

some

fashion
the

feel in their

their hearts that they count and that the policies by genuine interests as individuals? We may construct and defend a democratic, aristocratic, monarchical, or perhaps another form of constitution, and we may pride ourselves, at least in theory, that we espouse the most logical and human
adopted

state reflect

istic form. The

ent

history

of political

theory from

the days

of

Plato

until

the pres

is

replete with such

forms. But for Hegel the

question which we should

consider most of all when we analyze political

form
cial

of government

is

'idealistic'

or

logically

reality is not whether this or that neat but whether it provides a so

the
as

structure,

a political

atmosphere,

within which citizens can exist under

conditions of
persons.

rationality, morality,
criticism of

and

creativity,
and

whether and

they

can

function

Hegel's

Rousseau

Fichte,
each

the thinkers

in their tra
the basic

dition, is based mainly

principle advocated

on this premise.

In

case

he

analyzed

by

the philosopher only to see whether that principle

is (i)

philosophically

sound and

(2)

provides

an

opportunity for

citizens

to realize

themselves as persons.

In this essay I

shall

first discuss the

major arguments which

Hegel

advances

then, on the basis of this discussion, proceed to a critical treatment of why he adopts the constitutional form of government which I defend in the first essay. Here I shall
of government and
argue

against some aspects of the

democratic form

that

(1)

the fabric and the end

of

the legislative process is the general in

recom

terest of the people;

mends

(2)

within

the political framework which Hegel

or

the people can, and should, express their wants, needs,

desires to the

Legislature

directly

and

indirectly;

and

(3)

the

final authority

which enacts the

laws

of the

land is the

state as a sovereign power.

Hegel's critique of democracy we should first of all focus at basic ideas in Rousseau's theory of the state. I do this simply because Hegel has mainly Rousseau in mind in this First, the state is a union of men in which every member has voluntarily agreed to alienate his rights to the community as a whole for the sake of preser vation and prosperity. The of these rights produces what Rousseau calls unity
In

discussing

tention on three

critique.3

the general will. We

This

will

is the fundamental
Hegel is

principle of the state.

In

society

3.
will.

should

here

point out that

also critical of

Fichte's

conception of the general

of the

This

criticism

extends, moreover, to the philosophers and

intellectuals
with an

French Revolu
par

tion.

See, for

example, Hegel's Natural

of

Law,

trans. T. M.
pp.

Knox,

Acton

(University

Pennsylvania Press, 1975),

85S.; The Philosophy of Right

introduction by H B
2<s8

273

Hegel
governed

on

the Source of Political

the general
will

Authority

31

by

the people are

has

alienated all

his

rights

to the whole none the others;

gives

free because: (i) since every person would be left with extra rights or
since each person gives

power

to dominate or

control whole

(2)

himself to

the community as a

he

himself only to the general he in effect obeys himself; usurp the rights
tion
one
of

will which

himself to none; consequently he gives is his own will. Thus in obeying this will
principle no reason

(3)

there

is in

for any

person

to

others, for "since

each one gives

his

entire

self, the condi

no

is

equal

has

an

for everyone, and since the condition is interest in making it burdensome for the
the state is sovereign; it

equal

for everyone,

others."4

Second,
political

authority.5

is, in other words, the ultimate source of Sovereignty, however, derives its being from the sanctity
which private

of

the contract according to

individuals form

state,

or a repub

lic.6

Rousseau

makes

a clear of

distinction between 'general

the general interests
which

will'

and

'will

of

all'

The former

consists

are

common

to the

people as a

whole,

as a community.

The latter

consists of

the private,
shared

particular

interests. These interests

zen.

are subjective and not

necessarily

by

every

citi

Thus

since

the general will aims exclusively at the well-being of the whole

state

it "alone

can guide
which on

the forces of the State according to the end for

good."7

which

it is instituted,
that "it
governed."8

is the
the

common

This is based
good

on

the

assumption

is uniquely
never

basis

of

this common

that society ought to

be

Therefore, "sovereignty, being

be alienated,
will."9

only the exercise of the general

which

will, can

and that the

sovereign,

is only

a collective

being, can only be ferred, but not

general will

represented

by

itself. Power

can

But the

question which we should ask of society?

perfectly well be trans is: how does the It becomes

concrete

become concrete, living, in the life

in

and through the corpus of

law,

that

is,

the constitution,
these
or

which regulates

the

public activities of society. not

In the

enactment of

laws the lawgiver

should

have before his

of

eyes

the

universal as

such,

the good in

itself, but only

time.
estab

the true interest

the society

as

it

exists

in

a certain place and

Third,

the

government

is

a public

force; it is "an intermediate body

for
laws

lished between the

subjects and

the

sovereign

their mutual communication,

and charged with the execution of the as political

freedom."10

and the maintenance of civil as well see

We is

can not

immediately
justified
on

from this definition that the

existence of government

the basis of a contract between

it

4.
5.

On The Social Contract, Book I, Chap. 6.

This
premise

is

central

to all

versions of

democracy

in the twentieth

century.

See, for

ex

ample, Carl L.

Becker, Modern Democracy

(New Haven: Yale (New

Introduction to Democratic

Theory

University Press, 1959); H. B. York: St. Martin's Press, 1975); D- Pickles,

Democracy.

6. On
7.

the

Social Contract, Book I, Chap.

7.

Ibid., Book
Ibid.

II,

Chap.

I.

8. Ibid.
9. 10.

Ibid., Book III, Chap.

I.

32
and the

Interpretation
people;
on

the contrary, it is a commission, "a function in which, as

simple officers of

the sovereign,

they

exercise

in its

name

the

power

that has
mod

been

entrusted

to them

by

the sovereign, and that the

sovereign can

limit,

ify,

and

take back

whenever

it pleases,
the social

since

the

alienation of such a right

is in

compatible with
sociation."11

the

nature of

body

and contrary to the goal of the as

Accordingly,

the legislative power

is

function

of

the people. task of

But
the

on what principle
popular assemblies
will.

does

a people promulgate new

laws? The

main

general

is, for Rousseau, to enact laws that are expressive of the The deputies of the people must not be viewed as 'representa
are

tives', for the general will cannot be represented; they when there is a need for a new law or the modification of
of as

its

agents.

Thus

an older one

the

duty
for

the people's assembly is to discover the new law or to change the old one so to be expressive of the general
will.

In

such an

the deputies to agree unanimously on

what

law

should

assembly it is not be adopted or

usual

rejected.

a majority vote is appealed to. But one may ask: can determine the validity of a law by a majority vote? For if a minority is of a different opinion, if this minority does not consent to the adoption of the law, it

Whenever this happens

we

would

not

feel free
law is

when

Rousseau is

aware of this

compelled to act according to that law later on. difficulty. He thinks the whole question is badly put,

for "when
asked

proposed

in the assembly

of

the people,

what

they

are

being

is

not or

it does
presses

they approve or reject the proposal, but precisely does not conform to the general will that is theirs. Each
whether

whether

one ex
will

his

opinion on

this

by

voting,

and

the declaration of the general

when the opinion

is

drawn from the counting

mine

of the votes.

Therefore
This

prevails,

that proves

nothing

except

that I was mistaken,

and

contrary to what I
that "all
cease

thought to be the general will was

not."12

of course presupposes

the characteristics of the general will are still in the majority. to

When they
takes."13

be,

there is no

longer any freedom

regardless of the side one

II

Hegel

agrees with

Rousseau that the fundamental divine authority but

content"

principle of the state

will of

is

not

gregarious

instinct is

or

rather

the general

the

people.

This

will

viewed as a universal and rational principle and

"which

has

thought
not

both for its form

the

(Par.

258).

Its

end

is the

common

interest,

interest

of this or

that particular person or group of persons. But

unfortu

nately,

Rousseau, Hegel
he
called

complains, abandoned this

notion of will and replaced

it

by

what

the 'will of all': "he

(Rousseau)

takes the

will

only in

a de-

11. 12.
13.

Ibid.

Ibid., Book IV, Chap.

Ibid.

3.

Hegel

on

the

Source of Political

Authority

33

terminate form as the

individual will, and he regards the universal will not as the absolutely rational element in the will, but only as a will which proceeds out of this individual will as out of a conscious will. The result is that
'general'

he

reduces

the union of individuals in the state to a contract and therefore to

on

something based
given express

their arbitrary wills, their opinion, and their capriciously

consent."

Now, if

the

fundamental

principle of

the state

is

not

the general will as

law
of

which

must

something obey does not

universal and rational, express

or,

put

differently,

if the

my

rational will

but the

capricious will

the majority of the society to which I

belong,
and

then I cannot be free.

chap.

Early

in

the Social Contract (Book

advances a concept of will

I,

chap.

6,

7,

Book II,

1, 2, 3)

Rousseau

that is both general and rational, a will that cannot

be alienated, divided, and mistaken, a will that is above the desires, values, and interests of the people as particular individuals. This will aims at the gen
eral

interest

of

all, and this interest could not be articulated

by

any

specific

member of

the community. In his discussion of Law and the

stresses that
will a

Legislator, Rous
of what
not

seau
good

repeatedly for them: "how

the people are

not

the

best judges
does
out

blind multitude,
good

which often

know

is truly what it

wants, because it rarely knows what is

for it, carry

by

itself

an under

taking
"the

as vast and as

difficult

as a system of

legislation?"14

This is why the

or constitution:

people need a person of superior wisdom to

draft their laws,

discovery
who

of

the best rules of society suited to

who saw all of men's

nations would require a su yet

perior

intelligence,
had
no

passions nature

experienced

none

of

them;
whose attend

happiness
to ours;

was

relationship independent
one

at

all of

to

our

yet

knew it thoroughly; willing to

with

us, yet who

was nevertheless

finally

who, preparing for himself a future glory

the

passage of

Gods

would

time, be needed to

could work

in

give

century laws to
which

one

and

men."15

enjoy But when he

of

the reward

in

another.

came

to discuss

the legislative power, the assembly

of social

has the task

as
we

behavior, Rousseau
a

maintained,
vote.

articulating the laws have seen, that a law is

He did insist that the assembly should by majority enact the general will, yet what the assembly articulates as law is nevertheless decided by the will of the majority, that is, "their arbitrary wills, their opin
adopted or rejected
consent."

ions,

and their

capriciously
when

given express misses and

We

should

therefore dis

agree with
seau's

Avineri

he states that "Hegel

volonte
will'

the significance of Rous

volonte

distinction between la
sees

generate

la

de

tous.

Hegel

apparently
wills

Rousseau's 'general
the fact that it

as
represents

pure
a

aggregate

of

individual

and overlooks

higher,

community-oriented

Tower'

level

of consciousness,

transcending
Hegel is

the

will which aware of

is

oriented

towards
be-

merely individual
14
IS. 16. p. 184.

goals."16

fully

Rousseau's distinction

Ibid., Book II. Chap.

Ibid.

7.

S. Avineri, Hegel's

Theory

of the Modern State (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press),

34

Interpretation is
also aware that

tween the general will and the will of all, but he

Rousseau
"
.

himself Thus

reduced

the notion of the general

will

to that of the

will of all

although

Rousseau formulated

a rational principle of the state

management of

this prin

ciple remained abstract and people. seem will

ineffective in the
contract
will

the affairs of the

The

real social

contract, the

that is actually operative,

does

not

to be expressed in the general

of all.

but in the

contract established a principle

by

the

Rousseau failed to bridge

or

to provide

according to

which

the two wills can

be

unified.

"For this reason,

when these abstract con

clusions came

into power, they

the French

afforded

for the first time in human

history

the

prodigious spectacle of the overthrow of

the constitution of a great actual state

(France
on

during

Revolution)
its

and

its

complete reconstruction ab

initio
and

the basis of pure thought alone, after the

destruction
to give it

of all

existing

given material. a

The

will of

refounders was

what

they
of

alleged was

purely rational basis, but it was only abstractions that were Idea was lacking; and the experiment ended in the maximum
terror"

being

used; the

frightfulness
is

and

(Par.

258).

18

The

crux of

this

criticism

is that

an abstract

idea

of

the general

will

not

fruitful in reforming
an adequate political

or

restructuring an already existing state. The main task of theory is to help in building on what already exists; the at

tainment of rationality think that a state can

is

a gradual process of achievement.

on

It is

a mistake to

be built

the basis of pure thought alone. The

defects,
on

injustices,

or

blunders

of a state

may be

exposed or condemned

but the reality

merely

of the state cannot

be denied

or obliterated.

Moreover, basing
in fact lead to

a state

the idea of a

contract ab

initio does
on

not

a well-organized or a a

it only produces nized political body, for the customs, values, and interests of constitute the heart of its constitution evolve gradually. They
smoothly

functioning

state;

the contrary,

loosely
society I

orga
which

arise out of should

the

existential conditions of

the people through a

not mean

historical

period.

here
de

immediately
not, be
an

add that

Hegel does

to say that there cannot, or

should

ideal

which stands above

the actual;

but,

as

shall argue

in

some

tail later on, there must be within the state a viable mechanism, or principle,
which

facilitates the
absent

realization of the

ideal in the life

of

the people. This prin

state

ciple

is

from Rousseau's

political

theory. Rousseau held that the

is

composed of

two basic powers, the executive power and the

legislative

power. sover

As
that

an executive

power, the government is

an

intermediary
concrete

between the
in the

eign and

the people. But the sovereign the constitution.

becomes

general

will,

is, in

The

people alone are entrusted with the

legislation

of all

the laws.

Rousseau's
of

reluctance to allow

any
his

other power or

agency to

17.
places

For it

detailed discussion

how Rousseau
5.

abandons

concept of the general will and re

with the concept of

the will of all see B.

(London:
18.

Macmillan,

Bosanquet, The Philosophical Theory

of the State

1958), Chap.

See also, G. W. F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Mind, trans. J. B. Baillie (London: Allen &
1961),
pp. 599-610.

Unwin,

Hegel
assist

on

the

Source of Political

Authority

35
popular assem

in the

enactment of

laws led him necessarily to invest the

bly
was

with

the full power to enact all the laws. This is the main reason why forced in the final analysis to reduce the general will to the will of all.
an abstract

he

Upholding
consequence: general will

idea
of

of

the general will

leads to

another undesirable

the

freedom

the

individual
such

would

be disregarded. For if the

and cannot

is sovereign, and as then it should follow that every

inalienable, indivisible,

err,
will

member of the state should submit

his

completely to it. This premise is made explicit by Rousseau: "in perfect legisla tion, the private or individual will should be null; the corporate will of the gov
ernment
ways

very subordinate; and consequently the dominant and the unique rule of all the
of

general or sovereign will al

others."19

But if the

end of

the

state

is the freedom is

principle, participate
will

if this individual does not, at least in individual, in the legislative process, if, in other words, his actual
the
and

ignored,

then any claim to

seems

his freedom

would

be

fiction

and not a real

ity. Hegel is, it

cept of

to me, quite aware of this weakness in Rousseau's con

for in the same section where he discusses the concept he insists that rationality exists concretely in the state when objective freedom, the freedom implicit in the universal, in the general will, is unified with subjec
the general will; tive

freedom,
legislative

with

the

freedom
This

of

the particular, private will (Par. 258).

But the
the

general will process.

becomes

concrete

in the

popular of what

assembly, that

is, in

process

is the heart

democratic process, for in it the

ticulate this will as a
we should

people are expected

is usually called the to declare their will, to ar

law,

and

to adopt the law as a rule of social behavior. But

here

ask: under what conditions

will?

the true content of the general to

Are the

discover the

common good?

raise

assembly to arrive at qualified, or in a position, these questions for two reasons: (1) they
popular

is the

people

freedom into sharp focus; (2) the method of articulating and realizing the general will is, for Hegel, a central question of political the ory; for if the end of the state is freedom we should explain not only the mean ing of freedom but also the conditions under which it is possible. Now let us
place the problem of
ask again:

is the.
the

conceptual

framework

within

which

Rousseau

analyzes the

concept of

general will and

the way this will

quate?

The

answer

to this question

concretely ade is, for Hegel, in the negative. In what fol

is

actualized

lows I

shall explain why.

We have
source of

that, for Rousseau, the people are sovereign: their will is the political authority. This premise underlies Rousseau's insistence that
seen must

the legislative power

semblies.

be

restricted

to the people

in

events of popular as

In these

assemblies

they

vote on those

laws

which

they

take to

be

ex

pressive of not

the general will, to

what

of

the will of the people as a whole. This task can

be

'representatives'

relegated

for two

reasons:

(1)

the people are most

qualified to

judge

is in their best interest;

III, Chap.

and

(2)

the will of the individual

19.

On the Social Contract, Book

3.

36
cannot

Interpretation be
represented.

present and each

Hence in articulating a needed law the people must be person must deliberate and decide on the appropriateness or
of a proposed

inappropriateness

law. This line

asserts

of

reasoning
of

seems at

first look

attractive and convincing,

for it
to

the sovereignty of the people in a genu

ine fashion. It

also seems

account

for the possibility

reasons. should person

freedom

effectively.

Hegel, however, rejects it for First, "to hold that every

the

following

single

share

in

deliberating

and

deciding

on political matters of general concern on

the ground that all

individu is

als are members of the

state, that its

should

concerns are their with

concerns, and that it

and

their right that

what

is done

be done

their

knowledge

volition,

is tantamount to form into the

sion of such a means when

a proposal

to put the democratic element without any rational

organism of the

state,

although

it is only in
all"

virtue of

the posses

form that the

says

state

is

an organism at

(Par.

308).

What Hegel

he

that the idea of

state

popular government

lacks

rational

form is

that it ignores the aspect that a

als who compose

is

an organic whole and

that the

individu

it

are

concrete,

unique wills:

"the

rational consideration of a

topic,

the consciousness of the

Idea, is
A

concrete,

and

to that extent coincides

sense."

with a genuine practical

citizen

in the

state

is

an abstraction.

And the

people are

not, to borrow a

merely a number or term from Herbert Mar

not

'one-dimensional'

cuse, words,
of
homogeneous.20

in every possible respect. Their wills are not, in other The state is a concrete whole; as such, it is composed
or corporations.

groups, classes, associations,

or

In

whatever an
which

individual he

feels, thinks,
Thus
shares with

does, he
is
not

reflects a

the interests of the group to

universal

he belongs.
which

a citizen

merely

interest

or consciousness

the

rest of

the society; "this consciousness and will,

however, lose

their emptiness and acquire a content and a

filled

with

particularity,

class-status"

particular

grave mistake

particularity 308). What Hegel is here stressing is that it is a to think that in any society it would be possible for all the mem
(Par.
certain matter or pro as groups who share

and

living actuality only when they are means determinacy as particular and a

bers

of that

posal

society to agree unanimously, equally, on a primarily because people exist as individuals and

certain so

ideas
as

and

interests.21

person realizes

himself

as an

far

he belongs to
&"

such a group:

"the

single person attains

individual only in his actual and

living destiny for

a

tion, society, islative process, "whether individuals

pose,
or whether

universality only when he becomes a member of a Corpora (Par. 308). Accordingly if individuals participate in the
are to choose representatives

leg

for this

pur

every

single

individual is

to

have

a vote

in the legislature
level (Par.

himself,"

the state

would

be

reduced to an atomistic and abstract

20. 21.

From the

Cf. Charles Taylor, Hegel (Cambridge: Cambridge principle "if freedom implies the consent is
meant.

University Press,
of each

1975),

pp. 4o8ff. course

individual,

then of

the

subjective aspect

From this

only

principle

follows

as a matter of course

that no law is valid

must yield to

except

by

agreement of all.

the

majority."

Reason in History,

This implies that the majority decides; hence the minority

pp. 56-7.

Hegel
303).

on

the

Source of Political

Authority

37

The
a

'people'

become the 'many',

and

and as such

they

exist

"as

an aggre

gate,

formless

mass whose commotion and

elementary,
cease

irrational, barbarous,
will or a

frightful."

activity could therefore only be If this happens the state would

to be a

of particular wills or
cusses

unity of purpose; it would instead exist under the sway interests. Hegel makes this point forcefully when he dis
monarch

the possibility of electing the monarchy, I mean, the

ultimate

directly by

the people: "in an

elective

nature of

the relation between

king

and people

implies that the

constitution

decision is left
of

with

the particular will, and hence the that is a

surrender of

becomes

Compact into

Election,

the power of

the state at the discretion of the particular

ticular offices of state turn
private

will.

The

result of

this is that the par

of the state en

property, the sovereignty

feebled from

and

lost,

and

finally

the state disintegrates within and is overthrown

without"

(Par.

281).

Second,

the claim that each person should participate in the legislative busi that "everyone is at home in this business
a ri

ness of the state presupposes

diculous notion, however commonly we may hear it sponsored. Still, in public opinion a field is open to everyone where he can express his purely personal
count"

political

opinions

and

make

them

(Par.

308).

In Reason in

History
a

Hegel

characterizes

this presupposition as

false

and

dangerous, for

then "each

popular

faction

can set

itself up

as

the People. What constitutes the state is

matter of

trained

intelligence,

not a matter of

'the

people'."22

Hegel insists that

will actually and their clearly distinguish between what the popular assembly a people may agree on a universal. In a to will the ability certain law, but in this agreement there is no guarantee that what they have

'people'

we must

willed

is

the universal.

kind

of

freedom

subjective

If they fail to will the universal they achieve only one freedom. But the determination of the universal,
people,
requires

of the general
nature of

interest

of the

"a

comprehensive

insight into the This insight is

ordinary
men.

the state's

organization and

(Par.

301).

not,

under normal

conditions, generously present

in the

minds of

Its

attainment requires

skill,

dedication,
of

wisdom.23

Third, if

we

hold that the laws

the state should be decided

by
for

the people

directly

we undermine the
superfluous:

tion becomes

centrally located
needs

observer

a constitu very idea of the constitution: the need "the only institution necessary would be a neutral, who would announce what in his opinion were the of

of the
and

state, a

mechanism

assembling the

individuals, casting
This is
a

their

vote,

the

arithmetical

counting

and comparison of the votes on the various

decision."24

propositions

and

this

would

already be the

serious

22. 23.

Ibid.,

p. 57.
political

In his early
and
century.

writings

Hegel discusses this

the latter part of the
excellent

difficulty

with

specific

references

to

France, England,
nineteenth

Germany during

eighteenth

century

and

See Z. A. Pelczynski's

treatment of this point

4.

early part of the in Hegel's Political

Writings (Oxford: Oxford

24.

University Press,
p. 57.

1964).

Chap.

Reason in History,

38

Interpretation
idea
of popular
general

consequence of the

sovereignty, for the

'state'

is

an abstract en

tity; its

foundation is the

will.25

Accordingly
to the

it

needs

to be translated
of gov

concretely.

This translation is

what gives rise

whole

machinery

ernmental and social possible.

institutions in the

without which social

life

and culture are

im

But the detailed determination

of the general will

is the very entity

of

structure

of

the

constitution:

"only

constitution we

does the

abstract
with

of

the state

assume

life

and

reality."26

Moreover, if
of the

do away

the constitution we the people.

in

effect

ignore the validity

universal, the

ideal, in

the life

If this happens, any come to a halt.

attempt at rational progress or reform would

necessarily

Fourth, in fact,
at

order

for

popular government

to be effective, in order for it to

work, the people must enjoy a high degree of political consciousness; but in

expression of

least in Hegel's time, this requirement does not seem to be fulfilled. An this difficulty is electoral apathy. Hegel thinks that popular suf
states

frage especially in large

the casting
electors.

"leads

inevitably
is

to electoral

indifference,

since
of

of a single vote

is

of no significance where

there is a multitude

Even if

voting

qualification still

highly

valued and esteemed

by

those

who are entitled of an

to

it, they

do

not enter

the polling booth. Thus the result

of what was

institution
election

of this

kind is

more

likely

to be the opposite
of a

in

tended;

the particular

actually falls into the power of a few, and contingent interest which is precisely
311).

caucus, and so of to have been

what was

neutralized"

(Par.

electoral apathy?

raise

We may here ask: why does popular suffrage lead to this question, for it would seem that casting one's vote

on a matter of social alive

significance

is

a political obligation.
main reason

to this point. He

holds that the

of political

for

electoral

Hegel is certainly apathy is, as I

a conse

have just indicated, lack

quence of a more rooted

consciousness; this lack is itself

problem,

namely: most people

do

not

have

a substan

tial conception and sense of

freedom.

They

conceive of
order

is,
he

as an

activity

of personal satisfaction.

But in

freedom abstractly, that for one to be fully free

should acquire

personal

both understanding and skill in realizing the universal in his experience. This happens only when a person views his destiny as an life
of

integral

achievement of the

the state as a rational whole.

Ill

Hegel, then,
express
and

agrees with

Rousseau that in

order

for

a state

to be free it must

realize

the common
with

interest,

or

the general will of the people.

Hegel, however, disagrees

how its
25.

Rousseau

on

how this

content can

be

articulated as a valid

will becomes actual, on law. While Rousseau insists that

tract. Book
26.

Rousseau, like Hegel, I, Chap. 6.

views the state as an abstract,

ideal,

entity.

See On

the

Social Con

Reason in History,

p. 57.

Hegel

on

the

Source of Political

Authority
participate

39
in the legislative
process

the people as a whole should

cause

directly

be

they,

as a

people,

are

sovereign, Hegel thinks that this

procedure

is im

practical and

does

not ensure of

the gradual realization of the general will as a ra the whole.

political

tional principle

in the life
problem

The

central

should adopt a

but

whether

theory, for Hegel, is not whether we democratic, aristocratic, or monarchical form of constitution, we can determine "the best constitution, namely, that institution,
securely
guarantees the
state."27

for

organization, or mechanism of government which most

purpose of

the

Thus

we should ask: since

the end of the state is free to the realization

of

dom,
idea We

what sort of political organization

is

most conducive us

this end? "A

free

constitution,"

Hegel writes, "is for

and

dependent

upon

the

of representative

government,
add

this has become a firm

prejudice."28

should

immediately

that when Hegel speaks

states are so

of representation

he

means

indirect

representation:

"our

big

and

their people so many, that

contribute

they

cannot

directly, but only indirectly

decisions."29

through representatives,

their will to political

critic may here object: how can a person be represented indirectly? I discuss this question in detail later on; but for now let me make the fol lowing remark. Suppose the will of a person can be represented directly or in

My

shall

directly,

what

is the

purpose of

this representation? Now suppose it cannot be

all, does it not have the right to seek and attain its true interests? does it not become free in realizing these interests? Thus the question Again, for Hegel is not whether the will can, or cannot, be represented by another per
represented at son or an assembly of persons but whether the real interests of the people can be discovered, systematized, and enacted into law. Here my critic may ask once more: who, in Hegel's view, is qualified to enact the laws of the state?

Hegel holds that the This

power

enactment of the of

laws is the task

qua sovereign.

of

the legislative power.

is

function

the state

stract
ers of

entity; it is the
the
state:

ideality
Crown,

of the state.

It

exists and

But sovereignty is an ab concretely in the three pow

the

the

Executive,

the Legislature: "the organic

unity both firmly

of

the

powers of

the state itself implies that it is one single mind which

establishes the universal and also

brings it into its determinate

actu

ality
the

and carries

it

out"

(Par.

299).

Thus

unlike

Rousseau, Hegel

maintains

that
of

enactment of the

law is

not restricted

to the Legislature

the

Assembly
stated

Estates

but to

all

the

powers of

the state. This point

as a whole

is clearly

in the

following
two

passage:

"in the legislature

effective,

the

other powers are

the

first

moments which are

(i)

the monarchy as that to the advisory

which ultimate
moment

decisions belong; (ii) the

possessed of

executive as

body

since

it is the

(a)

a concrete and

knowledge

and oversight of the whole state

in its

numerous
27. 28. 29.

facets
p. 58. pp. p.

the

actual principles

firmly

established within

it,

and

(b)

Ibid.,

Ibid., Ibid.,

61-62.

61.

40

Interpretation
particular of what

knowledge in
the legislature

the state's power

300).

needs.

The last

moment

in

is the

Estates"

(Par.

My

critic might once more

interject:
of

this view undermines the people's

authority in

determining

the

laws

the

state, for the legislative task

is, for Hegel,

the monopoly of the monarch and

his advisory
will

council.

But

unless

the people speak

for themselves,
mistaken

or

declare

their own will

express

directly,

there would not be

any

guarantee that the enacted

laws

their true interests. This

argument

is

for

at

least two

reasons.

First, Hegel

avers that

the legislative

power

is

function

of

the state, that

is,

the people,

but

as sovereign.

However,

as are

abstract strict

ideal; its
the

concrete

determinations

I just indicated, sovereignty is an the three basic powers. If we re

we

the legislative business to the Legislature alone

face two difficulties:

of

the sovereignty of the state; for if the sovereignty in its three governing powers it would necessarily follow that exclusion of any of these powers would limit the authority of the people in the formulation of its laws; (2) we further the separation, or indepen

(1)

we violate
state

integrity

of

the

becomes

concrete

dence,
of

of

the powers of the state. Hegel repeatedly stressed that

remain separated

if the

powers

the state

sequently
contains

meet

its

end:

its unity would be destroyed; the state "the idea of the so-called 'independence
error of

would con
powers'

of

supposing that the powers, though indepen This independence however, destroys the unity dent, of the state, and unity is the chief of all (Add. to Par. 300). should declare and enact their will into Second, the claim that 'the
are

the fundamental to

check one another.

desiderata"

people'

law is

vague and

misleading;
'all'

for,

what of

do

we mean

by

'the

people'?

Do

we

mean, for example,

'many'

or empirical

the people? "The phrase 'the

more

Many'"

Hegel writes, "denotes

universality

in

current use.

If it is
'all'

said

to be obvious that this

'all'

strictly than 'All', which is Prima facie excludes at

definite

least children, women, and, then it is surely still more obvious that the quite word should not be used when something quite indefinite is
meant"

(Par.

301).

So

when political

thinkers and critics speak of "the

'summoning'

people

legislative business they usually mean the Es assume that the deputies of the or even the people "(i) they people, must know best what is in their best interest, and (ii) their will for themselves, its promotion is undoubtedly the most (Par. 301). But this as
with reference

to

tates;"

disinterested"

sumption

is

mistaken

why?

Hegel holds that

the one
which

we should make a

distinction between

what one wills, on

willing the universal, on the other. is the proper business of the legislative powers,
and
insight."

hand,

Willing
requires

the universal,

prehension and

It is

a mistake

"profound ap to think that the Assembly of Estates is I discussed this

point

in

a position to

determine the

universal.
add

in the first

part of

this essay. I should, to promulgate a

however,
not a

here that in fast

universal

legislation

our end

is

law, a distinction, however, is

statement which

is both
one,

general and

hard

and

because

determinate; "the law, by being a law,

Hegel
is
ab

on

the Source of Political

Authority

41

'Thou
more out as

initio something more than a mere command in general terms (such as shalt not kill'). A law must in itself be something determinate, but the determinate it

is,

the more readily are

299).

its terms
law is for

capable of

being

carried

stand"

they
to the

(Par.

Thus

although

a general

proposition, it has

an empirical
cable

character;

without

this character, it cannot be relevant or appli

life

of the people.

But in
of

order

one to enact such a

law he

should

have

a synoptic

knowledge

the affairs of the state. He should have a

profound

grasp of its external and internal problems; he should also know these problems as interrelated. A popular assembly is not in a position to possess this sort of knowledge; it is only qualified to articulate what the people actually will
under given circumstances.

Hence it

should

function

as a

link,

that

is,

an

inter

mediary, between the government and the nation: "the Estates

have the func

tion of

bringing
the

into

existence the moment of subjective

formal freedom, the

opin

public consciousness as an empirical

universal,

of which

the thoughts and

ions

of

Many

particulars"

are

(Par. 301). In this way it becomes

a major

factor in guaranteeing the well-being and freedom of the people. But its ability to render this service to the nation does not lie merely in its status of being the representative of the people, but especially in its political in
sight,

"(a) in

the

additional

insight

of the

deputies, insight in
under

the first

place

into

activity functionaries

of such officials of

as

are not

immediately

the eye of the higher

the state, and in

particular which are

into the

more

specialized needs and

deficiencies

directly
Many,

pressing and more in their view; (b) in the

fact

that the anticipation of criticism from the

particular of public criti

cism, has the effect of inducing officials to devote their best attention before hand to their duties and the schemes under consideration, and to deal with
motives"

these only in accordance

sage at

with

the purest

(Par.

301).

quote

this pas

that, for Hegel, the determination of the universal requires political skill, experience, and wisdom. This is a main reason why he held that the executive power is in a better position than the Estates to contrib length only to
stress ute

to the legislation of the

are also more

law; they have

deeper

and more comprehensive

of government and are able

insight; "they
a greater skill

habituated to the business

the Estates
while

have is

in it,

so that

even without

they

to do

what

best, just

as

they

also

continually have to do

the Estates are

in

sessio

Hegel is here

aware of

the possible charge that if the monarch, or the executive

power, becomes the

ultimate

factor in the legislative business there

will

be

tendency,
the will

at

least in principle, toward despotism. But this

executive

charge assumes that

of

the

is bad

or

less

good

than the

will of

the Estates. This

of the negative on the

the rabble or assumption, Hegel argues, is "characteristic of of the state affairs the We cannot conduct outlook
generally."

assump
the state to the

tion that its

would

various powers are antagonistic

to one another,

otherwise

be doomed to failure
should not

sooner or

later: "the
and a not a

attitude of the executive

Estates

hostility

is

a sad mistake.

be essentially hostile, The executive is

belief in the necessity

party standing

of such
an-

over against

42
other

Interpretation
party in way that each has continually to steal a march on the other something from the other. If such a situation arises in the state, that
such a

and wrest

is

a misfortune,

but it
that

cannot

be

health"

called

(Add to Par.

301).

Moreover,

we should remark end while

by its very nature the executive has the universal as its the Estates proceed in their business as private individuals; they
individuals, from
while per contra a private point of

start, Hegel writes, "from isolated

view,
at

from
the

particular

interests,

and so are

inclined to devote their

activities

to these

expense of

the general

interests,

the other moments in the

power of

the state

explicitly take up the

one of

standpoint of the state

from the

start

and

devote

end"

themselves to the universal

(Par.

301).
of

Hegel thinks that "it is

specific moment

the

most

important discoveries

logic that

treme,
same gan

ceases

which, by standing in an opposition, has the position of an ex to be such and is a moment in an organic whole by being at the

mean"

time a

(Par.

302).

This

moment nation.

between the

government and

the

is the Estates; it is a mediating or While the first intends the univer

interests
of

sal, the second, the

the

Estates, intends
society, the
to their

the particular

the

people.

From

standpoint of civil

nation exists as a conglomeration of particular

individ

uals who give preeminence

interests

without

due

conscious

ness or concern

for the well-being it here

appears

of

society

as an organic whole. acquires mere

But in the
signifi

Estates the
cance and

people qua members of civil

efficacy;"

society "neither as a

its "political

indiscriminate

multitude

nor as an aggregate

a class subdivided a tie of substance

dispersed into its atoms, but as what it already is, namely, into two, one subclass (the agriculture class) being based on
and the other

between its members,

(the business class)

on

particular needs and

the work whereby these are met.

there is a genuine link

between the

particular which

It is only in this way that is effective in the state and

universal"

the

(Par.

303).

Although this
tention on the
outside

point

need

to view the state as a

has been discussed before, I reiterate it only to focus at harmonious unity, not only because
also to establish on a

it

ethical

life is impossible but

source of such

firm foundation the

claim

that the people are the ultimate source of political authority. For the peo

ple cannot

be the

authority

unless

they

exist as a unified will and

unless can

there is a framework
enacted

within which

the rational and general aspect of this

be

into law.

IV

A brief
throw more

consideration of this

framework,

the

Assembly

of

Estates,
The
elects

should

light

on

the role of the people in the

legislative

process.

princi
repre

ple around which

this

framework is
on

organized
and

is this: society
the

its

sentatives as a society,

the one

hand,

legislative

power enacts the

Hegel
laws
of

on the

Source of Political

Authority

43
on

the nation as an organic unity, as a unity of will,

of

the other. Let me

discuss the dynamics

this principle.
composed of two

The
"one

Assembly

of

Estates is

houses: the first

represents the

agricultural class and

the second represents the business class. The

whose

first

class

is

whose ethical

life is natural,

basis is
land"

family life,

and, so far as its

class

livelihood is concerned, the

posed of

possession of

(Par. 305). This

is

com

farmers

and an educated elite.

their

land

and sociopolitical class

by

Like the monarch, its members acquire birth. Hence they do not depend for their

living
This

either on

the state or on the other classes;

status allows

they have

a will of their own.

socioeconomic

them to be in

a position

to contribute con

Hegel states, "is more structively to the well-being of the state. "This particularly fitted for political position and significance in that its capital is in dependent
profit,
and
alike of

class,"

the state's capital, the uncertainty of

business,

the quest

for
of

any

sort of

fluctuation in

possessions.

It is likewise independent
even

favour,
own

whether

from the

executive or

the mob. It is this class

fortified

against

its

wilfulness,
are not

because those

members of

who are called

to

political

life

entitled, as

other citizens

are,

either

to dispose of their
to their children,

entire

prop

erty at will, or to the assurance that it love equally, in similarly equal

this class
universal

will pass

whom

they

divisions"

(Par.
the

306).

But

although

the right of

is based

on

the

natural principle of

family, is, from

and although

it has the

immediately
of

realized

in its life, it

cannot sever

its

political outlook or

interest from that

the nation as a whole, that

the general interest of

society (Cf. Add. to Par. 306). It thus has the diary between the monarch and the executive,
ety, on the other. With the
cal
monarch

unique role of on

being

an

interme

the one

hand,

and civil soci

it

shares

the aspect of

economic and politi

independence

and with civil

society it

shares similar rights and needs.

Its

virtue consists

(1) in

bringing

about a more reasonable and prudent

judgment in
the Execu

legal
tive.

matters and

(2) in
of

enhancing the unity between the Estates

the

and

The

second class.

house
This

Assembly

of

Estates

represents politics

the interests of the

business

class

does

not participate

in

directly

but

indirectly
of

by

means of
and

deputies

or representatives,

because

(1)

it is the largest

segment of

society
sional

(2) because it is
is

composed of various associations.

Each

these

associations

grouped together on the

basis

of mutual

economic

or profes

interests. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to harmonize and ar ticulate these diverse interests by means of direct participation in the legislative
process.

Thus
as a

since

the deputies of this class "are the deputies of civil society,

consequence

it follows into

direct

that their

appointment

is

made

by

the society

as a society.
atomic

That is to say, in making the

units,
collected

appointment

society is

not

dispersed
and

only a single and temporary act, On the contrary, it makes the ap longer. kept together for a moment and no and Corpo pointment as a society, articulated into associations, communities,
to
perform

rations,

which

although constituted

already for

other

purposes, acquire

in this

44
way
sist:

Interpretation
politics"

a connexion with

(Par.

308).

But my

critic might at

this

point

in

how

can

the deputies of these diverse associations discover the unity of the

will of the people? ciations

sent

Put differently, how

can

the diverse interests of these asso

be harmonized does it
does it

and articulated as a

the will of the people?

what what mean mean

law? Again, can the deputies repre These questions call for a two-fold clarification.
society!

First,
ond,

for a society to appoint its deputies as a for the deputies to represent the people?
society,
qua

Sec

First,
ties, he
of

when

Hegel

asserts that

society,

should appoint

its depu

means

that the people are the electorate, and that the concrete

interests
hu
as

the

people as a whole must

be is

expressed and must

tive process. But 'the

man

people'

not an abstract or a

play homogenous
who exist

a role

in the legisla
mass of

beings. The term

'people'

refers

to human

beings
look

in society
emotional

individuals
clinations,
conduct

with personal

interests,
social

values, intellectual capacities,

in

desires,

and world outlooks.

quick

at

how

people

actually

their activities

in

life

shows that

they

exist as

groups,

or associa

tions,

possible

Hegel would call them, Corporations. What makes a corporation is unity of socioeconomic and professional interests. In civil society a corporation is usually preoccupied with its particular interests: the attainment of
or as

these interests is the basis of its satisfaction.

people are
each

Accordingly

if the interests

of

the

to be represented in the Legislature comprehensively and concretely,

should elect

corporation

would not

be

useful or effective unless the

its deputies. But the activity of representing deputies are competent or qualified
"the
guarantee

for the task. Hegel is

ties
will

sensitive to this condition:

that the depu

end,"

have the
. .

qualification and above all

disposition that

accord with

this

he

writes, "is to be

in the knowledge (of the

organization and

inter

ests of the state and civil

society), the temperament,

and the skill which a

dep
of

uty

acquires as a result of

the actual transaction of business in managerial or

official

positions,

and then evinces

in his

actions"

(Par.

310).

Thus

deputy

the people should

enjoy

a political and administrative

sense; he should be de
above

voted and responsive

to the needs of
a wise

be

capable of

making

his community; and, judgement (Cf. Par. 311).

does

all, he

should

am aware of

the possible objection that the

differentiation
not

of

society into
our own

associations or corporations

is demode

or perhaps

apply to

society
ever,

at the

present.30

But the
crux

crucial point which we should recognize, of

how

and

which

is the

Hegel's argument, is

not

whether

exhibits a certain mode of economic or professional organization

society but that if a

con-

system of representation
30.

is to be successful, it

should

take into
of

serious

am of

the opinion that Hegel's claim that society is composed

associations, that these

associations reflect

definite

socioeconomic or professional

interests, is

valid

in

principle even

in

our

contemporary

society.

the people are not

In the United States, for example, the president and the representatives of elected directly by the people but indirectly through the electoral college, the ex

isting

parties, and other types of caucuses. In addition, a

large

portion of the

legislative business is
of minorities,

conditioned

by

all sorts of

lobbying

groups which represent

the concrete

interests

la

bor unions, businesses,

and others.

Hegel
sideration

on

the

Source of Political
of all

Authority
This

45

the

interests
of the

multiplicity, of
various

interests.

interests

exists as a diversity, or Accordingly the deputies should be the deputies of the people. Only in this way does a society act as an elec
people.

the

'all'

torate concretely and not

abstractly

as a conglomeration of atoms

(Par.

311).

Second,
other; the

when

Hegel

characterizes
not mean

deputies

as representatives of the people

or of their will
point

he does

"simply

the substitution of one man

present

for

an

is

rather

that the

interest itself is actually

in its

represen

tative,
being"

while

he himself is there to
311).

represent the objective element of

his

own

(Par.

It is

a notorious presumption to claim

that an elected official

can,

regardless of

his intellectual
will of

achievements or political

position, know the

actual content of

the

the

people.31

Hegel is

aware of this

difficulty. He

clearly

states

that the

deputies
Two

are not

"agents

with a commission and specific

instructions"

(Par.

309).

arguments are advanced

in

support of on public
on

the claim.

(1) "Since deputies

point about confidence

are elected

to deliberate

and

decide

affairs, the

their election

is that it is

a choice of

individuals

the strength of

felt in them, that is,

of these affairs

a choice of such

individuals

as

have

better

understanding

than their electors have

or a

and such also as essen

tially

vindicate

the universal interest of a society

Corporation in
to be a

preference

to that
which

interest."

(2)

The
The

Assembly

of

Estates "is
and

meant

living body

in

all

members

deliberate in

common merits

other."

vince each

point which

reciprocally instruct and con special emphasis here is that the

substance of the
or

legislative activity is what is right, or good, not merely for this that individual or group of individuals but the whole of society given as a di
of common

versity, indeed complexity,

tent, the
principle.

good, is

not given as a

interests. This activity is deliberative; its con ready made or clearly formulated
on

On the contrary, it is conceived, articulated,

actual

the basis of under the state as an

standing the
on

social condition and rational aspirations of

organic whole.

trust, but trusting

own

in my
on me.

This is why Hegel reminds us that "representation is grounded another is something different from giving my vote myself personal capacity. Hence majority voting runs counter to the prin
should confidence

ciple that

We have

be personally in a

present

man when we

in anything which is to be obligatory take him to be a man of discre

tion

who will manage our affairs

edge, just
vote

as

for

a person

if they were his I declare confidence in this

In this
act

own"

conscientiously and to the best of his knowl (Add. to Par. 309). Accordingly when I
person's qualification

to discover
not

and promote the common good.

I function

as a citizen;

I do

think

merely

of

my

subjective

interest but

also of the well-being of the state as a sov

ereign power.

31.
people': not

In the

proceedings of

the

Wurtemburg Diet,
the

Hegel

writes with reference

to the 'will of the

"this is

a great
or use

Word,

and

representatives of

the people should take the greatest care

is'

to

profane

it

it lightheartedly.
noble, things one

difficult,

and

hence

most

is one of the most To say 'he knows what his will can say of a man. People's representatives must not be
the
wisest

picked at random,

but

rather one should choose

from among the people,

since not

every-

46

Interpretation
peoples'

But the

Assembly
or

of

Estates, they

or

assemblies other

in general, may
qualified

not

be

honest,
pate

skilled,

wise;

may not, in

words, be
we

to partici

effectively in the legislative process. Indeed if political institutions, we find that in most cases the
various states

look

at

the

history

of

peoples'

assemblies of

the

did

not exercise

the highest degree of wisdom or competency.

Hegel knew this fact very well. This is the main reason why he refused to re strict the power to enact laws only to the Legislature, the Estates; he insisted,
as we

saw, that the

people

themselves,

including

the monarch and

his advisory

council,

should also contribute

to this task.
people should voice their opinions and make
state.

Hegel strongly believes that the

recommendations on
which

the political business of the

This is

they

can exercise their political

consists

freedom: "the formal

and on

subjective

basic way in freedom

of

individuals

in their is

having
called

ments, opinions, and recommendations

expressing their own private judg affairs of state. This freedom is col
opinion,'

lectively lutely universal,

tance

manifested as what

'public

in

which what

is

abso

the substantive and

particular and private opinions of and political emphasize

true, is linked the (Par.

Many"

its opposite, the purely 316). I discussed the impor

with
elsewhere.32

implications
points.

of public

opinion

Here I

would
a pub

like to

two

(1) For Hegel, the

Assembly

of

Estates is

lic forum in
are

which

the problems, needs, aspirations, and

and settled. means

interests

of the state

evaluated,

debated,

In this forum the Executive

of

as well as

the

citizens

can,

views,

or wisdom.
nation.

directly by They can,

or

the press, contribute their objections,

moreover, cooperate in

determining

what

is best

for the

The

relation

between the

people and the government on

is

not con

tractual. The latter is not, moreover,

instituted

the basis of trust. It should, will, for its

main

instead, be viewed as an instrument of the apply the law, to bring the particular under
realizes or makes est of

general

task is to

the universal. It is the

power which

the will of the people actual. Moreover while the main

of

inter

the

Assembly

Estates is to discover

and exchange what

the

people ac

tually
unless

want, the main

interest

of

the government

is to discover the

objective,

rational aspect of

these

interests

and enact them

into law. But it

cannot

do this

it knows the it

mind of

the people as members

rights and

of corporations

concretely,

and unless

shows respect

for their

interests. The

proper strength of

the government

lies in its
which

associations:

"in them the

executive meets with the

legitimate interests
be
other

it

must respect, and since the administration cannot

than helpful to such

protection

interests,

though it must also supervise them, the

individual finds interest

civil
with

in the

exercise of

his

rights and so 290).

links his

private as

the maintenance of the

whole"

(add. to Par.

Again, "just
interest

society is the battlefield

where everyone's

individual

private

meets

one

knows,

as

it is his

duty

to

know,
of

what one's

true and

real will

is, i.e.,

what

is

good

for

Quoted
32.

and commented on

by Pelczynski
the

in Hegel's Political Writings,

Hegel."

p. 93.

Cf "Law

as

the

Basis

State:

Hegel
everyone

on

the Source of Political

so

Authority
struggle

47
of private of

else's,

here

we

have the

(a)

interests

against

particular matters of common concern and

(b)

of

both

these together against

same time the corpo

the organization of the state and its

ration now

higher

outlook.

At the

mind, engendered when the particular sphere gain their title of rights,
converted

is

inwardly

into the

mind of

the state since it

finds in

the state the

(Par. 289). This is enough to show maintaining its particular that for Hegel the work of the government and the Assembly of Estates should
means of

ends"

not,

as we argued

earlier, be

viewed as antagonistic

but

as

complementary to

each other.

(2) In being
ucation

an open people

forum,
in the

the

Assembly
of the

of

Estates

provides a realistic ed

for the

affairs

best how to

recognize

the true character of

state; in its meetings they learn their interests. "The idea usually

dominant is that
that the

everyone

knows from the

a mere

start what of this

is best for the knowledge. In

state and

Assembly

debates is

discussion have to

fact, how
the

ever, the precise contrary is the truth. It is here that first begin to virtues, abilities,
course

develop

dexterities,
are

which

serve as examples to the public. who

Of

such

debates

irksome to ministers,
criticism

with wit and eloquence

to meet the

have to equip themselves there directed against them. None

theless, publicity here is the chief means of educating the public in national affairs. A nation which has such public sittings is a far more vitally related to
the state than one
vate"

which

has
The

no

Estates

Assembly
of

or one which meets

in

pri

(Add. to Par.

315).

Assembly

Estates, then,

performs

two impor

tant functions:

(1) it informs the government about the people's needs or prob lems; (2) it brings to focus, to the attention of the people, the problems of the
state as a whole

internally

and externally.

It is in this dual function that the As

that

sembly

of

Estates

acts as an

intermediary,
for the

is,

as a

unifying bond between

the government and the

nation.
enactment of

But the

power responsible
council:

the laws

is the

monarch and

his advisory

"the

second moment

in the

power of

the crown is the mo

ment of particularity, or the moment of a

determinate

content and

tion under the universal. When this acquires a special objective

comes

its subscrip existence, it be

it.

the

supreme council
monarch

and

the individuals who

compose

They bring
the

before the legal

for his decision the

to
meet

content of current affairs of state or

provisions required

aspects, that

is,

the grounds on

which

existing needs, together with their objective decision is to be based, the relative laws,
should

&c."

circumstances

(Par.

283).

It

be

clear

from this

passage

that the

monarch

is

not

strictly

personal or subjective

but assisted, indeed determined,

by

the wisdom of the executive council, on the one

hand,

and

the

articulated

needs or

demands

of

the

Legislature,
a

on the other.

The monarch,
sums

qua

ruler, en

joys the

privilege of

being
state:

final authority because he

power of

the sovereignty of the

"the

the crown contains

up in his person in itself the three

and

moments of the whole,

viz.,

(a)

the universality of the

particular

constitution

the
mo-

laws: (b) counsel,

which refers

the

to the universal;

and

(c)

the

48

Interpretation

ment of ultimate

decision,
which

as the self-determination else

to which everything else

actuality"

reverts and

everything beginning of its (Par. 275). Thus when Hegel states that the final legal authority is the mon 'authoritarian* arch, he does not in any way mean to advocate a despotic or

from

derives the

type of government. The only authority, the authority of the

within which

for him,

which should rule a political

the state

is

law. His only concern is to establish the state can function and express itself as

framework
This
the
the

a unified whole.

framework is based, as I have so far argued, on three basic principles: substance of the legislative process is the actual and general interests
people;

(1)
of

(2)

the

people who

participate represent

in the legislative

process

electing deputies voicing their

nication;

their

interests concretely

and

indirectly by directly by

opinions

in the be

press and

the

recognized means of public commu

(3)

the monarch as the concrete element of the

decides

what

laws

should of

accepted or rejected.

sovereignty of the state This decision is based on the

recommendations
such.

the Legislature and the advisory council of the state as

PHILO SOPHY SOCIAL G1UTIGI

lSM

an

international quarterly journal

volume

9 1, 2

numbers

David M. Rasmussen,

editor

BOSTON COLLEGE

DAVID M. RASMUSSEN, communicative action and philosophy / MICHEL FOUCAULT, is it really important to think? / FERENC FEHER, adorno's philosophy of music /KAI NIELSEN, egalitarianism, socialism and just land use / RICHARD DIEN WINFIELD, the in justice of human rights / ROBERT R. WILLIAMS, hegel's jena philosophy

9:1

9:2

WILLIAM C. GAY,

myths about nuclear war: misconceptions

in

public

beliefs

and

governmental plans/

to neo-liberalism/
sciences:

EEKE, ethics and economics: from classical H. HANALKA, is it possible to change the laws of

W. VER

economics

the social

lebenswelt and critical reflection in habermas' theorie des kommunikativen handelns I PAUL REDDING, action language and text: dilthey's conception of the understanding
special

double issue

still available:

Philosophy

and

the Problem of Language. ROBERT E.

INNES, in

tersections;

meaning; WILLIAM GAY, analogy and metaphor; ERNSTWOLFGANG ORTH, reduction and language; FERRUCCIO ROSSI-LANDI, linguistic money; PAOLO

KARL-OTTO APEL, UMBERTO ECO, the

understanding sign revisited;

$12 per year; individual $16 per year; institution $42 per year, single issues $3.95; double issues $5.95.
subscription rates: student
and

Mail check or money order payable to Philosophy Social Criticism, Department of Philosophy, Boston College, Chestnut

FACCHI,

certain communication.

02167 USA.

Hill, Massachusetts

The Lion

and

the Ass:
on

Commentary

the Book of

Genesis (Chapters 40-43)

Robert Sacks
St. John's College, Santa Fe

CHAPTER XL

AND IT CAME TO PASS AFTER THESE

THINGS,

THAT THE BUTLER OF THE KING

OF EGYPT AND HIS BAKER HAD OFFENDED THEIR LORD THE KING OF EGYPT.
2. AND PHARAOH WAS WROTH AGAINST TWO OF HIS CHIEF OF THE

OFFICERS,

AGAINST THE

BUTLERS,

AND AGAINST THE CHIEF OF THE BAKERS.

In his commentary, Abrabanel argues that the men who actually served the King were not the Chief Butler and the Chief Baker themselves but men of lower
placed
stature.1

He

argues

that Pharaoh held the officers responsible for

having
fact butler
to as

unworthy

men

in

such

high

position.

His

argument

is based

on the

that the
and

men who committed

the sin

in Verse One

are referred to as the are referred

the baker but the

men who are punished

in Verse Two

the chief of the butlers and the chief of the bakers. This

interpretation, how
clearly

ever, does
referred

not seem tenable

because the

men who were punished were

to again as the butler and the baker in Verse Five. In addition, the
speaks of conclusion

chief of the butlers been forced to this

names since

my

sin

in Gen.

41:9.

Abrabanel

seems to

have
the

by

the apparently unnecessary

solution

repetition of

in Verse Two. However, his

apparently unnecessary

does

not

face the
time
and
main

real problem

repetitions

will

occur

time
theme.

again

throughout the present

chapter and are an

integral

part of

its

3.

AND HE PUT THEM IN WARD IN THE HOUSE OF THE CAPTAIN OF THE

GUARD,

INTO THE

PRISON,

THE PLACE WHERE JOSEPH WAS BOUND.

4.

AND THE CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD CHARGED JOSEPH WITH

THEM,

AND HE

SERVED THEM: AND THEY HAD BEEN IN WARD FOR DAYS.

The

syntax of

Verse Three of the

repeats

the problem implicit in Verse Two. The

house of the
was

captain

guard

is

the prison which

is

the place where

Joseph

bound,
to

and read

there seems no purpose to this

constant reidentification.

As

we

continue

the

chapter we shall see

that

it is

painting

by
and

Chardin. The unnecessarily bound by

places and the people are all

clear

drawn

with

surrealistically sharp
vanish

lines,

almost as

if ideas

would

quickly

if they
to

were not

seven chords.

Verse Four falls into two

1.

sections

juxtaposed

one

another.

The first half

Abrabanel, Commentary

on the

Early Prophets,

Vol. I,

p. 377-

50
of

Interpretation

the verse implies that Joseph was put

whereas role

in command of the two officers, half clearly states that he served them. The duality of his becomes intelligible when we remember his position in the jail. Potiphar,
the
second
captain

his former master, is the

cent.

He has therefore

placed

of the Joseph in

guard and

knows that Joseph

was

inno

high

position under

the guise of

being
is

a prisoner.

In

addition

to the

complications and

the other unnecessary repetition there

verse.

another thread prison when

to the story which begins in this

was

Joseph

was released

from
this

he

thirty

years old

(Gen.

41:46).

Since he

remained

in

prison

for two

years after

the

scene of

the present chapter (Gen. 41:1)

he

was at

point twenty-eight years old.

He had been taken from his father's home

when

he

roughly seventeen (Gen. 37:2), and given what we know of Potiphar's it is doubtful that he spent more than a few months in the home of his wife, master. In other words the days they had been in ward came to roughly ten
was
. . .

years.
which

This

point

time will

may be insignificant in itself, but it is play in the present chapter.

part of

the strange role

5.

AND THEY DREAMED A DREAM BOTH OF

THEM,

EACH MAN HIS DREAM IN

ONE

NIGHT,

EACH MAN ACCORDING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF HIS

DREAM,

THE BUTLER AND THE BAKER OF THE KING OF BOUND IN THE PRISON.

EGYPT,

WHICH WERE

Again in Verse Five

we noticed

we are presented with

the strange sort of clarity

which

in Verses Two

and

Three. The

verse

is

composed of a series of

short phrases which established even

identify

and

reidentify
absolute

men whose

identity

had been

well

before the

verse started.

The
read

reason

for the demand for

clarity becomes

evident once we
a

the verse more closely. When the text reads they dreamed
of

dream the

bold lines

division begin

dream,
guished

and so

fade. The two dreams suddenly become one the two dreamers become one dreamer. They cannot be distin
to

by

the

dream but only

by

the

interpretation

proper to each man.

6.

AND JOSEPH CAME IN UNTO THEM IN THE

MORNING,

AND LOOKED UPON

THEM, AND, BEHOLD, THEY WERE SAD.

7.
AND HE ASKED PHARAOH'S OFFICERS THAT WERE WITH HIM IN THE WARD OF

HIS LORD'S

HOUSE, SAYING, WHEREFORE LOOK

again shows signs of ward

YE SO SADLY TO-DAY?

Verse Seven
that were with

him in the

unnecessary identification. The words of his lord's house contain at least two ways of
this
are

reidentifying the men, both strange kind of clarity in the

When Joseph
the curtains aside

of which

superfluous

but

which

add

to the

style of the chapter.

entered their room

from the window,

in the morning it was as if he had pulled letting in the sunlight. The men were sad,

The Lion
and

and the

Ass

51
which

the sharpness of the

lines

had been drawn

all

by

constant redefinition

painted

their cell in black and white. The color had

been lost.

8.

AND THEY SAID UNTO

HIM,

WE HAVE DREAMED A

DREAM,

AND THERE IS NO

INTERPRETER OF IT. AND JOSEPH SAID UNTO

THEM, DO

NOT INTERPRETA

TIONS BELONG TO GOD? TELL IT, I PRAY

YOU, TO ME.

was

As in Verse Four the dream is continually referred to in the singular. There only one dream though two men claimed to have dreamed it. There is one

other peculiar

facet to this

verse.

Joseph

asked

the

men

to tell him the dream

to

because God has the interpretation. However, Joseph higher than

a man

never speaks

any

being

throughout the

whole

book.

9.

AND THE CHIEF BUTLER TOLD HIS DREAM TO MY

JOSEPH,

AND SAID TO

HIM, IN

DREAM, BEHOLD,

A VINE WAS BEFORE

ME;

IO.

AND IN THE VINE WERE THREE BRANCHES: AND IT WAS AS THOUGH IT AND HER BLOSSOMS SHOT

BUDDED,

FORTH;

AND THE CLUSTERS THEREOF

BROUGHT FORTH RIPE GRAPES:

II.

AND PHARAOH'S CUP WAS IN MY HAND: AND I TOOK THE PRESSED THEM INTO PHARAOH'S HAND.

GRAPES,

AND

CUP,

AND I GAVE THE CUP INTO PHARAOH'S

Chapters
or

four

Forty and Forty-one contain several dreams. There are either two dreams depending on how one counts them. The dreams of the present
have been
of
referred will

chapter

to

as a

dream in two
called

places

(Gen. 40:5,8),

and the

dreams
(Gen.

Pharaoh

be specifically

one

dream

by

Joseph himself

41:25).
and
which surrounding the dreams tends to contain words was in than it This tendency, however, is less marked

The vocabulary in
are

infrequently
list

used.

Chapters Thirty-one
give a

and

Thirty-two,

which

dealt

with

Jacob's

magic.

We

shall

of the words

involved, including

those

which appear

in Pharaoh's
first

dream.
The list is in fact many In
each cerns of the
somewhat more

impressive than it

seems

to

be

at

since

words appear

in

clusters.

addition

to

being

characterized

by

unusual

words, the dream appears to

dreamer in terms

of

his

own private position.

The dream

of the

butler

con

butlery

and

the dream of the

baker, bakery.
one

The dream itself differs from reality in densed. In

real

important

aspect

time

is

con

life

grapes require months

to

grow and wine must

be

aged even

longer.
AND JOSEPH SAID UNTO

12.

HIM, THIS IS

THE INTERPRETATION OF IT: THE

THREE BRANCHES ARE THREE DAYS:

52

Interpretation
Number

Occur
Occurrences
rences

Occur
rences words

of
in

occur-

rences chaps.

in the

rest

in the
rest

of

of

the

The

word

40'and 41

Dodecateuch

of the Bible

from

the

same root

Interpreter,
interpretation

13
2

Branches

Joel 1:7 Is. 18:5 Job 15:33

Job 40:17 Lam. 1:14 Eccles. 12:5 Ezek. 1:7

Blossoms

"

Song
Clusters
1

2:12

Song

7:11,13

Num. 13:23 Num. 13:24

Deut.
32:32

Is. 65:8
Mic.
7:1

Song Song

1:14 7:8,9

Press
Meadow

1
2

Job 8:11
Hos. 13:15

Ears

of

Corn

10

Judg. Ruth

12:6
2:2

Ps. 59:3 Ps. 69:16 Zech. Is.

4:12 17:5,8

Job 24:24
total:

words

30

17

13.

YET WITHIN THREE DAYS SHALL PHARAOH LIFT UP THINE

HEAD,

AND RE

STORE THEE UNTO THY PLACE: AND THOU SHALT DELIVER PHARAOH'S CUP INTO HIS

HAND,

AFTER THE FORMER MANNER WHEN THOU WAST HIS

BUTLER,

Time

also plays a central role

in the interpretation. Joseph

quite

that the interpretation of the dream

is that the three branches

stand

rightly says for three

to any

days. Once this is

thoughtful human

understood

the rest of the dream becomes

clear

being.
time is the crucial

The
three

awareness of

key,
a

not

dreams.

Apparently

the distinction

between him
large
extent of

only to this dream, but to all who can and him who
upon

cannot

interpret dreams depends to

the importance of

the

interpreter's
and

awareness of

time,

and

hence,

remembering

forget

ting.

The importance interpretation

ever since
of

of

time in

interpretation is
and

by

no means

limited to Joseph's
together
we

the

dreams. Time

memory have held the book

the Flood.

Only by

remembering, that is

by forgetting

time, have

been

able

to understand the author's message

by

seeing the traditions

and ways

of peoples and places

throughout their history. Joseph's way of interpretation

The Lion
has in
time.

and

the

Ass

53 for the interpretation

of

effect served as a model

the book for a very

long
im

The butler
portance when

seems to share

in

some vague

way Joseph's

awareness of the
which

of

time. The dream itself concerns the strange relations

arise

time is neglected.

As

we shall

see, the baker's dream

contains no refer

ence

to time in this sense.

In many ways Joseph's interpretation is more confusing than the dream it self. The word which has been translated place normally means a base or
socket and

is

used

in the

sense of position
shall

11:20).

The

words

Pharaoh

times

in the

present chapter and

only in the Book of Daniel (Dan. lift up thine head will be played with several allow for at least two crucially different inter Even the interpretations
men.

pretations

(see Gen.
as

40:20,21).

must

be

understood

differently
be true
or

they

apply to different

Words,

as our author

knows full
be
said

well, are meaningful only

in

relation to

the listener. Words can

never

to

false

apart

from the

reasonable expectation of what

the speaker

be

lieves the hearer

to say

will understand

by

his words;

and the words

may be intended

different things to different

people.

14.

BUT REMEMBER ME WHEN IT SHALL BE WELL WITH I PRAY

THEE,

AND SHEW KIND

NESS,

THEE,

UNTO

ME,

AND MAKE MENTION OF ME UNTO

PHARAOH,

AND BRING ME OUT OF THIS HOUSE:

15.

FOR INDEED I WAS STOLEN AWAY OUT OF THE LAND OF THE HEBREWS AND HERE ALSO HAVE I DONE NOTHING THAT THEY SHOULD PUT ME INTO THE

PIT.

has suddenly disappeared again. The house, which is the prison, has suddenly become the pit in which his brothers had left him ten years before (Gen. 37:24). When Joseph asks the butler to remember him in
In Joseph's
mind

time

good times

his

own

memory

goes

back to his brothers

presented as

and

to the bad times.

same situation in the story Joseph is being Judah had been in at the beginning of Chapter Thirty-eight when he left his brothers, severing all relations. His homeland is suddenly the land of the He

At this

point

in the

brews,

that

is to say

land

of slaves.

In the

following

chapters we shall see

this

separation grow and then

suddenly

collapse.

l6.

WHEN THE CHIEF BAKER SAW THAT THE INTERPRETATION WAS

GOOD, HE

SAID UNTO

JOSEPH,

I ALSO WAS IN MY DREAM, AND, BEHOLD, I HAD THREE

WHITE BASKETS ON MY HEAD:

17.

MANNER OF AND IN THE UPPERMOST BASKET THERE WAS OF ALL

BAKE-

OUT OF THE BASKET MEATS FOR PHARAOH; AND THE BIRDS DID EAT THEM
UPON MY HEAD.

l8.

AND JOSEPH ANSWERED AND

SAID,

THIS IS THE INTERPRETATION THEREOF:

THE THREE BASKETS ARE THREE DAYS:

54
19.

Interpretation

YET WITHIN THREE DAYS SHALL PHARAOH LIFT UP THINE HEAD FROM OFF

THEE. AND SHALL HANG THEE ON A TREE; AND THE BIRDS SHALL EAT THY
FLESH FROM OFF THEE.

The chief baker had no particular insight into the wisdom of Joseph's inter pretation of the butler's dream. When he saw that the interpretation was good

he

saw nothing more than the happy ferent. He will have to be convinced

ending. of

With Pharaoh things

will

be dif has

the wisdom of Joseph's

interpretation.
no

The dream itself is

manifest reference

quite vague.

It

comes

to the baker as a whole and

and

to time in the sense

that the butler's dream had

that Pha

raoh's

dream

will

have. It

could also

be

which we

have translated
have
come

white

is

a peculiar word whose

very misleading dream. The word meaning is unclear. It

could as well

ors take

it in that

sense.

meaning hole and indeed, some translat In addition, it could have come from the Hebrew word

from

a root

for freedom,

and a

less

apt

interpreter

could

lieving
a

that the dream portended the baker's ultimate

have easily been misled into be freedom. The baker is not

very good dreamer. His dreams are unclear and lack any feeling for time. At the beginning of the story we were told nothing more than that both men had sinned. Whatever was said of one was said of the other. They had dreamed but
a single

dream,

and

in

each case the

dream

meant

the same thing:

within

three

days Pharaoh

shall

lift up

thine

different. When Joseph

returned

adds the words

head. Suddenly, the two become totally from off thee he means that one will be
to be one so different? The but
a vague and subliminal of the

to his
made

place of

honor,

the other hung.

What

these

men who seemed almost

ler's dream itself butler

shared

was a

with

playing with time. In Joseph his understanding

of

way the

importance

of

time. But

dreams touch the heart

of

man,

and

this vague but deeply-rooted understanding

time was sufficient to save

his life.
awareness of time

Clarity
man's

of

dreams
yet

and

a vague could

how

can

they

save a

life? And

Joseph

have
of

seen no other

difference between the

and

two men. To see the whole

force

Joseph's interpretation

its

relation

to

the dream as it was understood

by

the

dreamer

we must reflect on our own ac

tivity

as

interpreters

of the

Book

of

Genesis

and

its

relation

to that large mass

of people

great and small

for

whom

the book

was written.

Was it thought
were

by

the author that all the men, women, and children whose

lives
the

to be
of

guided

by

this

book

would not.

follow the intricacies

are
we

of

dates

and

history

each city?

Probably

How then Israel

to understand the relation of his

deepest thoughts to that ery

one of the

mass of people
of

for

whom

he is

writing?

While

not ev

Children

need

be

aware of the

deepest understanding

of

tradition

deep
lives.

they, like the butler, must have a vague reflection of that awareness, in their hearts. If the New Way is to succeed, that alone will save their

The Lion
20.

and

the Ass

55
DAY, WHICH WAS PHARAOH'S BIRTHDAY,

AND IT CAME TO PASS THE THIRD

THAT HE MADE A FEAST UNTO ALL HIS SERVANTS: AND HE LIFTED UP THE

HEAD OF THE CHIEF BUTLER AND OF THE CHIEF BAKER AMONG HIS SER VANTS.
21. AND HE RESTORED THE CHIEF BUTLER UNTO HIS BUTLERSHIP

AGAIN;

AND

HE GAVE THE CUP INTO PHARAOH'S HAND: 22. BUT HE HANGED THE CHIEF

BAKER;

AS JOSEPH HAD INTERPRETED TO

THEM.
23. YET DID NOT THE CHIEF BUTLER REMEMBER appears to show read as

JOSEPH,

BUT FORGAT HIM.

on

Verse Twenty-three

deep ingratitude
unto

the part of the but

ler. Verse Fourteen had

with unto

follows: But
thee, of this

think on me when it shall

be

well me

thee,

and shew and

kindness, I pray
me out

me; and make mention of

40:14).

Pharaoh,

bring

house (Gen.

The

word which

has been translated

make mention of literally means cause me to be remem but bered, memory cannot play a role if there is no forgetting. When Joseph says when it shall be well with thee he knows that the butler will forget him but

that
seph

when

the right

to

mind.

opportunity arises the conditions themselves will bring Jo Presumably Joseph's trust in the butler is based on his awareness
a solid

that the butler is

dreamer.

CHAPTER XLI

I.

AND IT CAME TO PASS AT THE END OF TWO FULL

YEARS, THAT PHARAOH

DREAMED: AND, BEHOLD, HE STOOD BY THE RIVER.

2.

AND, BEHOLD,
KINE AND

THERE CAME UP OUT OF THE RIVER SEVEN WELL FAVOURED AND THEY FED IN A MEADOW. KINE CAME UP AFTER THEM OUT OF THE

FATFLESHED;

3.

AND, BEHOLD, SEVEN OTHER

RIVER,

ILL FAVOURED AND LEANFLESHED: AND STOOD BY THE OTHER KINE

UPON THE BRINK OF THE RIVER. 4.

AND THE ILL FAVOURED AND LEANFLESHED KINE DID EAT UP THE SEVEN

WELL FAVOURED AND FAT KINE. SO PHARAOH AWOKE. 5AND HE SLEPT AND DREAMED THE SECOND TIME:

AND, BEHOLD,

SEVEN EARS

OF CORN CAME UP UPON ONE

STALK,

RANK AND GOOD.

6. AND, BEHOLD,
7-

SEVEN THIN EARS AND BLASTED WITH THE EAST WIND

SPRUNG UP AFTER THEM.

AND THE SEVEN THIN EARS DEVOURED THE SEVEN RANK AND FULL EARS. AND PHARAOH

AWOKE, AND, BEHOLD,

IT WAS A DREAM.

The

word translated river

is

a peculiar word which

is

used

in the Bible

ex

clusively for the Nile and may even have been an Egyptian word. This fact alone is a key to interpreting a good part of the meaning of Pharaoh's dream.

56

Interpretation

As is commonly known, it never rains in Egypt. If the waters come up at the right time, Egypt prospers; but if the waters fail to rise or rise only a little, the
crops

fail

and

Egypt is desolated. The up out of in which the

upon what comes

Egyptian well-being depends the Nile River. The dream also shows an awareness
whole of cows or

of

time. The

order

the ears of corn come up

also shares

is the

most

crucial part of

the dream. Pharaoh's dream

the clarity of the

butler's

dream in

another sense.

The cows,

as well as

cows which will

be fat for
The

seven years and

standing for years, stand for real lean for seven years, just as the but
than vague sym

ler

will

actually

give a glass of wine

cakes which

to Pharaoh. The baker's dream does not

share

this

clarity.

the

birds

eat are no more

bols easily misinterpreted. The present commentator is

somewhat confused not

by

the last phrase of

Verse

Seven,

perhaps

because he does
words

have

fine

enough

feeling

for the Hebrew

dream may have been intended to imply that the imagery was so sharp that in spite of the strange things that had been going on, Pharaoh took his experience as real life until he awoke. The
language. The
and,

behold, it

was a

other

interpretation

would

be his
a

realization

that a very

important thing had

happened to him knowledge

of

he had had
can

dream. Perhaps the

point.

reader with a more subtle

Hebrew

decide the

8.

AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE MORNING THAT HIS SPIRIT WAS

AND HE SENT AND CALLED FOR ALL THE MAGICIANS OF

TROUBLED;
AND ALL THE

EGYPT,

WISE MEN THEREOF: AND PHARAOH TOLD THEM HIS DREAM: BUT THERE WAS NONE THAT COULD INTERPRET THEM TO PHARAOH.

Pharaoh
nificance

was

troubled

by

his dream. He

was

vaguely

aware

of

but

unable

to articulate it fully. In at least

one critical sense

its sig he was

more aware of

the solution than either the

wise men or

the magicians. Pharaoh

as containing one dream. But they were unable to interpret them. Pharaoh saw the unity of the dream even though it was separated by time. In that sense he was more aware of the

told them

his dream: Pharaoh

considered the whole

incident

Biblical

notion of

time than the wise

men and magicians who considered

them two different dreams

because they

were separated

by

time.

9.

THEN SPAKE THE CHIEF BUTLER UNTO PHARAOH.

SAYING,

I MUST CAUSE MY

FAULTS TO BE REMEMBERED THIS DAY. IO. PHARAOH WAS WROTH WITH HIS SERVANTS. AND PUT ME IN WARD IN THE

CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD'S

HOUSE,

BOTH ME AND THE CHIEF BAKER:

Almost
seph.

without

thinking, the

chief

butler has fulfilled his

he
was released

obligation

to Jo

At the

end of

the last chapter

when

from
of

prison the

but it

ler forgot Joseph. But the memory

self,
and now

of a good man

has

way

working

by

that the times are ripe Joseph came back into his mind.

The Lion
II.

and

the Ass

57

AND WE DREAMED A DREAM IN ONE NIGHT, I AND HE: WE DREAMED EACH

MAN ACCORDING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF HIS DREAM.

12.

AND THERE WAS THERE WITH US A YOUNG

MAN,
HIM,

AN

HEBREW, SERVANT

TO

THE CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD: AND WE TOLD

AND HE INTERPRETED TO

US OUR DREAMS: TO EACH MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DREAM HE DID

INTERPRET. 13.
AND IT CAME TO

PASS,

AS HE INTERPRETED TO

US, SO

IT

WAS;

ME HE RE

STORED UNTO MINE

OFFICE,

AND HIM HE HANGED.

The butler

repeats the words which point to the seems to

ambiguity in the

number of

dreams. The butler

passive way.

have been

sensitive to the problem at

least in

14.

THEN PHARAOH SENT AND CALLED

JOSEPH,

AND THEY BROUGHT HIM AND CHANGED HIS

HASTILY OUT OF THE PIT: AND HE SHAVED

RAIMENT AND CAME IN UNTO PHARAOH.

HIMSELF,

In

a strange
who

brothers

way time has had put him in

collapsed again.
a

It

was not

Pharaoh's

men

but his be

pit, and Joseph

of

was

taken out as

if he

were

ing directly
40:15).

delivered from the hands

his brothers (see commentary to Gen.

We
must remember

Joseph

shaved and put on new clothes.

that because of

the collapse of time he was nearly naked, since he lost his clothes. His coat of

many colors was taken by his brothers and his outer garment had been grabbed by Potiphar's wife. New clothes are often used as a Biblical symbol for change
of

the inner

man.

On their

return

to

Beth-el, Jacob's family buried

35:2 and commentary).

their gods

and changed their clothes

(see Gen.

discussed the
the

great rise

in David's

character when

We have already he changed his clothes after

death

of

and suffering.
ward change

his first son, whom he had mourned while the child was still alive David's willingness to face life again was symbolized by his out
(see II Sam.
12:20 and
were about

Children

of

Israel

commentary to Gen. 23:1). When the to receive the Law and to enter into the New Way
(Ex.
19:10,14).

they

also changed

their

clothes

Shaving, however, is not part of the New Way. David is described as having a beard (I Sam. 21:14), ar*d his servants were so scandalized when they were shaved by the enemy that they went to Jericho, which then lay in desolation,
only
until

their

beards

grew

back (II Sam.

10:4,5).

corners of the

beard
as

was against

the law of Moses (Lev.

Even rounding the 19:27). Shaving is

of

mentioned

being

sometimes

necessary in the
clothing.

case

leprosy

(Lev.

13:29).

Joseph shaved,
15.

and now wears

Egyptian

AND PHARAOH SAID UNTO

JOSEPH,

I HAVE DREAMED A

DREAM, AND THERE

IS NONE THAT CAN INTERPRET IT: AND I HAVE HEARD SAY OF

THOU CANST UNDERSTAND A DREAM TO INTERPRET IT.

THEE,

THAT

58
l6.

Interpretation
PHARAOH, SAYING,
APART FROM

AND JOSEPH ANSWERED

ME, ONLY GOD

SHALL GIVE PHARAOH AN ANSWER OF PEACE.

The meaning

of

the original text

is

unclear.

It

contains a rather ways.

used word which

different translators take in different

not

The

men of

infrequently King

James translate: It is

of peace. Our translation, which follows an early translation into Aramaic by Jonathan Ben Uziel, is more in conformity with the connotations of the word as it ap pears in Verse Forty-four of this chapter. At that point the King James version
me:
shall give

in

God

Pharaoh

an answer

reads: without thee shall no man

lift.

17.

AND PHARAOH SAID UNTO

JOSEPH,

IN MY

DREAM, BEHOLD,

I STOOD UPON

THE BANK OF THE RIVER: l8.

AND, BEHOLD,

THERE CAME UP OUT OF THE RIVER SEVEN

KINE,

FAT-

FLESHED AND WELL 19.

FAVOURED;

AND THEY FED IN A

MEADOW;

AND, BEHOLD,

SEVEN OTHER KINE CAME UP AFTER

THEM, POOR

AND VERY

ILL FAVOURED AND

LEANFLESHED,

SUCH AS I NEVER SAW IN ALL THE LAND

OF EGYPT FOR BADNESS:

20.
AND THE LEAN AND THE ILL FAVOURED KINE DID EAT UP THE FIRST SEVEN

FAT KINE.
21.

AND WHEN THEY HAD EATEN THEM

UP,

IT COULD NOT BE KNOWN THAT

THEY HAD EATEN THEM: BUT THEY WERE STILL ILL

FAVOURED,

AS AT THE

BEGINNING. SO I AWOKE.
22.
AND I WAS IN MY

DREAM,

AND

BEHOLD, SEVEN

EARS CAME UP IN ONE

STALK,
23.

FULL AND GOOD.

AND, BEHOLD, SEVEN EARS, WITHERED, THIN, AND BLASTED WITH THE
EAST

WIND, SPRUNG

UP AFTER THEM:

24.

AND THE THIN EARS DEVOURED THE SEVEN GOOD EARS: AND I TOLD THIS

UNTO THE
ME.

MAGICIANS;

BUT THERE WAS NONE THAT COULD DECLARE IT TO

Pharaoh's

account of

his dream is fuller than the Pharaoh

not

account given
noted

by

the

author

in Verses One through Seven.

only

namely that the lean of Egypt.

cows grew no

fatter, but he

also connected

important results, it with the land

25.

AND JOSEPH SAID UNTO

PHARAOH,

THE DREAM OF PHARAOH IS ONE: GOD

HATH SHEWED PHARAOH WHAT HE IS ABOUT TO DO.

26.

THE SEVEN GOOD KINE ARE SEVEN

YEARS;

AND THE SEVEN GOOD EARS ARE

SEVEN years: THE DREAM IS ONE. 27.

AND THE SEVEN THIN AND ILL FAVOURED KINE THAT CAME UP AFTER

THEM ARE SEVEN YEARS: AND THE SEVEN EMPTY EARS BLASTED WITH THE EAST WIND SHALL BE SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE.

The Lion
28.

and the

Ass

59

THIS IS THE THING WHICH I HAVE SPOKEN UNTO PHARAOH: WHAT GOD IS

ABOUT TO DO HE SHEWETH UNTO PHARAOH.

29-

BEHOLD, THERE COME SEVEN YEARS OF GREAT PLENTY THROUGHOUT

ALL

THE LAND OF EGYPT: 30. AND THERE SHALL ARISE AFTER THEM SEVEN YEARS OF THE PLENTY SHALL BE FORGOTTEN IN THE LAND OF
FAMINE SHALL CONSUME THE LAND.

FAMINE;

AND ALL

EGYPT;

AND THE

31.

AND THE PLENTY SHALL NOT BE KNOWN IN THE LAND BY REASON OF THAT FAMINE

FOLLOWING;

FOR IT SHALL BE VERY GRIEVOUS.

32.

AND FOR THAT THE DREAM WAS DOUBLED UNTO PHARAOH BECAUSE THE THING IS ESTABLISHED BY BRING IT TO PASS.

TWICE; IT

IS

GOD,

AND GOD WILL SHORTLY

Joseph's interpretation

of

the

dream

again

turns

on

his insight into its

rela our

tionship

to time. That

is

made

particularly

clear

in Verse Twenty-six. For

comments on

the particulars of the dream and its singular clarity see the com
41:1.

mentary to Gen.
33.

NOW THEREFORE LET PHARAOH LOOK OUT A MAN DISCREET AND AND SET HIM OVER THE LAND OF EGYPT.

WISE,

34.

LET PHARAOH DO

THIS,

AND LET HIM APPOINT OFFICERS OVER THE

LAND,

AND TAKE UP THE FIFTH PART OF THE LAND OF EGYPT IN THE SEVEN

PLENTEOUS YEARS. 35.

AND LET THEM GATHER ALL THE FOOD OF THOSE GOOD YEARS THAT

COME,

AND LAY UP CORN UNDER THE HAND OF

PHARAOH,

AND LET THEM KEEP

FOOD IN THE CITIES. 36.

AND THAT FOOD SHALL BE FOR STORE TO THE LAND AGAINST THE SEVEN

YEARS OF FAMINE, WHICH SHALL BE IN THE LAND OF EGYPT; THAT THE

LAND PERISH NOT THROUGH THE FAMINE.

At this
thor
and

point a certain

distinction

emerges

between the teachings

notion of

of our au

the teachings of the wise

men of

Greece. The
sense of the as

tradition and

in

particular
a clear

its deepest

manifestation

in the

have

relationship to
as

Moira,

or

Fate,

it

appears

face of God appears to in Greek tragedy. In

about

order to

draw the distinctions fate is

it
appears

notion of

have to say something more in the Greek tragedies and its relation to
we shall

the

nature as

that

word

understood

by

Plato

and

Aristotle.
and

Only
comes

heroes have fates.

Nothing
they

in their lives is accidental,

the inevitable.

their honor

from the way in

lives

which

meet

Men,

as we

know them

from
ever,
of

daily

experience, do not have fates in the tragic

can

sense of

the word. How

reflection

our random
of a

be

made

intelligible

by

seeing them as a

the life

hero

who

this sense the hero is

notion that the most

lives according to the way things living, breathing eidos. But the Bible
men

are essentially.

In

seems to reject the

understand

important factor in understanding

is to

that

60
which

Interpretation
is
his
everywhere

and always.

Man, like

the

fish,

requires

blessing

be

cause

character

depends

more on

tradition and individual ways than

it does

on the unchangeable.
which author

By

the dream

portends

establishing new ways Joseph can mitigate the fate in a way which Oedipus could not. But the Biblical
a magic

does

not

believe in

lamp. Joseph

will

in Egypt for five years,

servitude.

and

those

five

years will stretch out

invite his brothers to stay into centuries of

The

author

is
it

aware of
will

the great difficulties there will be

no more

in

establish

ing

the

state and

that

last

than those same four hundred years

our

(see commentary to Gen. Jerusalem and Athens, has

again

37:30).

The distinction between

to the
surface

two parents,

once more come

only to disappear

in front

of our eyes.

37.

AND THE THING WAS GOOD IN THE EYES OF

PHARAOH,

AND IN THE EYES

OF ALL HIS SERVANTS.

It is hard to do
since

much more

than to repeat Abrabanel 's argument at this point

it is probably one of the finest insights into the nature of prophecy and dreams that has been written. Abrabanel begins by posing the following ques
tion.

Why

does Pharaoh find Joseph's interpretation its

closeness

so compelling?

In part,

one could argue that

to the text is one of the compelling

factors,
Pha

but that does

not seem sufficient

to account for the great investment

which

raoh makes on

the

strength of

the interpretation. Abrabanel argues that since

Pharaoh himself

was the dreamer the full meaning of the dream must have been in him, somewhat the way in which things that we have forgotten are in us. Pharaoh's acceptance of the dream was like a recognition. It was like the action of a man who

has been

reminded of

viction comes not sence of

in the

reminder

something that he once knew, and the con but from his own memory. That is the es

Abrabanel's

argument.2

In

order to see more

who seems

to be saying very

clearly the distinction between Abrabanel and Freud, much the same thing, we should begin by think

ing
one

somewhat about

thought. Thought is very

different from creeping

speech.

One

sees a

red-roofed

house

with

blue

shutters and a vine

roof or whole.

up the side. Though

speech

does
us

not see the red

before the

the vine before the creeping,

forces

to

destroy

the

inarticulate

There is

a sense

in

which

this

is

not

true of the words of a prophet. One

thou?
well

day

the Lord said to Jeremiah What seest

And he said, / see a rod of an almond tree. And the Lord said, Thou hast seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it (see Jer. 1:11,12).
word

Now the Hebrew bol

of

hasten is the

same as the word almond.

In the

sym

the almond Jeremiah saw at once the summation of all of the political al
and passions which

liances

filled his time. Babylon Egypt in

was about

to attack and the the attack. Jer

king
2.

wanted

to join

forces

with

an attempt to withstand

emiah could not

have helped
Vol. 1,
p.

knowing
259-64.

that the people were weak, that Egypt

Abrabanel,

op. cit..

The Lion

and the

Ass

61
could not control.

had just lost many battles and ment, at least, Babylon was in
as

be

relied

upon,

and

that

for the
and

mo

He surely knew

all

the

facts

dates

any modern news analyst would, and yet suddenly all those things were from his mind and he could see only the almond tree warning him. Per haps he had never collected all the data as a journalist would have. But it was
gone

all summed

up in the

almond

tree.
men

The
and

conscious

thought of most
are

usually

centers around their own needs

desires. But there

times

when some men reflect upon a

larger

whole.

It's hard to say

pattern search

where

wonder

comes

from. Men
quite

see

the beginnings of a
and

an ordered world which

doesn't

fit together

they begin

to

for the missing

pieces.

Neither

absolute order nor absolute chaos can

of

be

the grounds of a question. The

fragments
and

the political situation began to

revealed

form
of

a whole

in Jeremiah's thought,
almond

they

themselves in the form

the almond tree. The way in

which

the imagination summed up these ele

ments

into the

tree is close to the activity of dreaming.

unstated our con

Dreams, according to modern psychology, are an expression of our desires. The thoughts which compose them are as involved as most of
scious

are

thought, if not more so. But if that is correct and our own middle hidden from ourselves, then our concern for the whole may lead
about

terms
us

to
we

dream
know

the whole in wayo that draw the those powers

with which we

conclusion

from the things

by

means of prophets

form dreams.
concern

True
though

are not

those men whose

serious

is

with

the whole,

they may
and

be

fully

conscious of

the
of

ways

in

which

their fragmented
about

insights

thoughts join together the bits to form a

whole.

knowledge they have

the

political situation

While most of us are concerned with our own daily needs and petty desires, both consciously and unconsciously, other men seem to exhibit a genuine con cern for a greater whole which pervades their thoughts and even their dreams.
But
men

differ,

and

it

sometimes

happens that their These

are

pettiest of needs appear

to

them as
as

having

cosmic significance.

the

men whom

the Bible knows

the false

prophets. not magical. case of of

Unconscious thought is

It

can err as

easily

as can

any

other

thought,
of

as

happened in the

the

man

of God

who predicted

the coming

Josiah
who

and
are

the destruction
capable

the altar at Beth-el. There are, as well, those

concern

men

of

articulating their

for the

whole

in human

speech.

They

are sometimes called philosophers.

This distinction,

though expressed

in

other

words, was not

unknown

to the

author. In the commentary to Gen. 20:7 we tried to show the

radical

distinction
the

he

made

between Moses

and the prophets.

He

emphasized

the

fact that

prophets were taught through

dreams but that Moses

of

saw

the

world with clar

ity. Presumably, our author, who never speaks revelation, did not regard himself as a prophet
mean a

his

own work as a work of

either.

In his

case

that

would

fully

conscious awareness of

the

use of symbols

that

when

he

wrote

62

Interpretation
curse

Joshua's

he

was

thinking

about

the death of Zedekiah in the same terms

in

which we

have tried.
chapters

But in these
store
about

the dreamers were only vaguely aware of what was

and the

in

for them. Pharaoh

butler, however,

shared a

deep-seated

feeling

the nature of time and thought which the baker lacked.

38.

AND PHARAOH SAID UNTO HIS

SERVANTS, CAN WE FIND

SUCH A ONE AS

THIS
39.

IS,

A MAN IN WHOM THE SPIRIT OF GOD IS?

AND PHARAOH SAID UNTO

JOSEPH,

FORASMUCH AS GOD HATH SHEWED

THEE ALL 40.

THIS,

THERE IS NONE SO DISCREET AND WISE AS THOU ART:

THOU SHALT BE OVER MY

HOUSE,

AND ACCORDING UNTO THY WORD SHALL

ALL MY PEOPLE BE RULED: ONLY IN THE THRONE WILL I BE GREATER THAN

THOU. 41.
AND PHARAOH SAID UNTO

JOSEPH, SEE I

HAVE SET THEE OVER ALL THE

LAND OF EGYPT.

42.

AND PHARAOH TOOK OFF HIS RING FROM HIS

HAND,

AND PUT IT UPON

JOSEPH'S

HAND,

AND ARRAYED HIM IN VESTURES OF FINE

LINEN,

AND PUT A

GOLD CHAIN AROUND HIS

NECK;
actions as two separate actions.

We He

should

begin

by

considering Pharaoh's

recognized

the truth of Joseph's interpretation and also made

him

ruler.

These two

parts of

Pharaoh's

act reflect the two parts of

Joseph's

act.

He had

both interpreted the dream

way
of

and given solid political advice

meeting the situation.

However,

one of the still unanswered questions political wisdom and

concerning the best is

wisdom, sim

whether ply.

the text would distinguish

between

43.

AND HE MADE HIM TO RIDE IN THE SECOND CHARIOT WHICH HE HAD: AND

THEY CRIED BEFORE

HIM,

BOW THE KNEE: AND HE MADE HIM RULER OVER

ALL THE LAND OF EGYPT.

The

history

of chariots within

the books sheds a great deal of light

will

on

the

present verse. goes out

In

Genesis, Joseph
50:9).
main

use

his

chariot twice

once when

he

to greet his father (Gen. 46:29) and again when he takes his father's

body
later

back to Canaan (Gen.

will

Chariots
when

form the
of

force

of

the

Children

Israel

escape via the

Pharaoh's army four hundred years Sea of Reeds. Moses and his
and

people will, at ots will exhort

that time, be drowned (Ex.

pass

through the sea unharmed,

Pharaoh's his

chari

14:28).

Part

Moses'

of

final

speech to

people will

them not to fear

horses
help.
appear

and chariots

for they

will

be

able

to possess the

land

even without their

The
gaged

chariots

finally
with

during

the time of
men

Joshua

when

Israel

was en

in battle

Hazor. Joshua's
at

conquered

the chariots, and

they

were all

burnt

by

fire

his

command

(see Josh.

11:9).

The Lion

and the

Ass

63
the
men of

Later in the

book,

when were

Ephraim

and

Manasseh

complained that

the lands given them

quer spite

too small, Joshua told them

they

were

free to

con

the mountain territories and assured them that

of

they

could

be

victorious

in

the iron chariots

never

which

the

Canaanites had (see Josh.

must

17:16-18).
were victori

Though that battle is

ous,
since

described, it
on

be inferred that they

mentions

from that

point

the Bible

often

the mountains of

Ephraim.

On the plains, however,

began in
acted as united

chariots posed a greater threat.

The Book

of

Judges

politically idealistic time when there was no leader and each man part of the whole. There was to have been a loose federation of tribes
a

only by God and by the Jubilee Year, but Judah and Simeon, who by that time had banded together, were unable to conquer the iron chariots (Judg.
1:19).

These foreign
and

monsters also played

their role in the loss

were

of

individual

freedom
after

the rise of kingship. The iron chariots

give

finally
of

conquered
and

Israel had been forced to

the

under

judgeship
people

of

up that understanding Deborah (Judg. 4:3,13,15).

give them a

freedom

only lived

When the

demanded that Samuel

was

king,
for

one of

the ways

in

which

he tried to dissuade them

to warn them that a

king

would

take

their sons to be charioteers (I Sam. 8:11,12).

able to
ots.

King Saul,

all

hold his

own against

the Philistines without the use

of

of

his faults, was horses and chari

But the last his in his

eyes saw

life

was

a mass of chariots
chariots

following

hard

upon

him in the field (II Sam.

career

1:6).

Saul died, but

had

come to stay.

Early
seen

David

conquered a

thousand chariots. But after

of

having

Saul's defeat he decided

most of

not

to follow the example

Joshua. Although he
own use

burned 8:4).

the chariots,

he

reserved one

hundred for his

(II Sam.

Ultimately these chariots caused more harm than good. They were used in displays by both Absalom and Adonijah when they called the people together
in
order to

form their insurrections (II Sam.

reign of

15:1 and

I Kings

1:5).
own.

Under the

King

Solomon

chariots came

into their

He

sanc

tified the forbidden

sacred sea or
chapters part of

objects

by

using the

form

of

the chariot as the base of the

lavabo

which stood

in front

of the

Temple (I Kings making

7:33)-

Two

later he fulfilled Samuel's prophecy

played a role

by

chariots a permanent

the army (I Kings 9:19,22).

Chariots
(I Kings

in the Syrian

wars which

20:1-33).

However,

at the end of

continually ravaged the land the battle Jehoshaphat, who was on killed.

foot,

escaped,
the

while

Ahab,

who rode

in

a chariot, was captured and

And

up in his chariot against the Syrians, and died at even: and the blood ran out of the wound into the midst of the chariot. And there went a proclamation throughout the host about the going

battle increased

that

day:

and

the

king

was staved

down of the sun, So the king died, And

saying,

Every

man to

his

city, and
and

every

man

to

his

own country.

and was

brought to Samaria; in the

pool

one washed the chariot

they buried the king in Samaria. of Samaria; and the dogs licked up his

64

Interpretation
and

blood;
spake.

they

washed

his

armour;

according

unto the word

of the Lord

which

He

(I Kings 22:35-38)
were

Chariots
threw a

almost

laughed

at

in the Battle Which Wasn't

when

Elisha
Elisha

fog

around

the Syrian army (II Kings

with

6:15),
horses

and again when and

frightened the Syrian army

7:6).

the noises of

chariots

(II Kings

The last time that In his final

when

a chariot

is

mentioned

by

the author
set

is

when

he

speaks of
sun-

the statue of a chariot which the

god. resurrection of

kings

of

Judah had

up

as a gift

to the

the state Josiah

burnt those
23:11

chariots as

Joshua
This

had done
return

he first
in

entered the seems to a chariot.

land (II Kings

author's

and

Josh.

11:9).

to the

beginning

be the

final

reflections on

chariots,

but Joseph

now rides

44.

AND PHARAOH SAID UNTO

JOSEPH,

I AM

PHARAOH,

AND WITHOUT THEE

SHALL NO MAN LIFT UP HIS HAND OR FOOT IN ALL THE LAND OF EGYPT.

45.

AND PHARAOH CALLED JOSEPH'S NAME

ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH;

AND HE

GAVE HIM TO WIFE ASENATH THE DAUGHTER OF POTI-PHERAH PRIEST OF ON.

AND JOSEPH WENT OUT OVER ALL THE LAND OF EGYPT.

Joseph's
married

rule

in Egypt

was
an

total. He

rode

in

an

Egyptian

chariot and was

to the daughter of
was

Egyptian

priest.

Hilliapolis,
Joseph
chapter

were

dedicated to the worship of riding in the chariots which Josiah tore down. Later become
clear that

The city, On, sometimes called the sun. It almost looks as though
on

in this
of

it

will

his fathers life.

and

thinks of

Joseph has completely abandoned the home himself only as an Egyptian (see Gen. 41:51). Joseph's
new name

According

to

modern scholars

is Egyptian for

creator

of

46.

AND JOSEPH WAS THIRTY YEARS OLD WHEN HE STOOD BEFORE PHARAOH KING OF EGYPT. AND JOSEPH WENT DOWN FROM THE PRESENCE OF

PHARAOH. AND WENT THROUGHOUT THE LAND OF EGYPT. 47.

AND IN THE SEVEN PLENTEOUS YEARS THE EARTH BROUGHT FORTH BY

HANDFULS.

48.

AND HE GATHERED UP ALL THE FOOD OF THE SEVEN

YEARS,

WHICH WERE

IN THE LAND OF THE

EGYPT,

AND LAID UP THE FOOD IN THE CITIES: THE FOOD OF HE UP IN THE

FIELD, WHICH WAS ROUND ABOUT EVERY CITY, LAID

SAME.
49. AND JOSEPH GATHERED CORN AS THE SAND OF THE

SEA,

VERY MUCH.

UNTIL HE LEFT NUMBERING: FOR IT WAS WITHOUT NUMBER.

Apparently, Joseph
the one he

seems

to have

decided to play
of

a much

firmer

role than

had

outlined to

Pharaoh. Instead
all of

his

new plan called

for collecting

ginning of the seven years of plenty. insufficient since it would not have even

food, collecting food and rationing it from the be Clearly the first plan would have been
one-fifth of the

the

provided enough

food for two

years.

The Lion
50.

and the

Ass

65

AND UNTO JOSEPH WERE BORN TWO SONS BEFORE THE YEARS OF FAMINE

CAME, WHICH
UNTO HIM.

ASENATH THE DAUGHTER OF POTI-PHERAH PRIEST OF ON BARE

51.

AND JOSEPH CALLED THE NAME OF THE FIRSTBORN

MANASSEH; FOR GOD,

SAID

HE,

HATH MADE ME FORGET ALL MY

TOIL,

AND ALL MY FATHER'S

HOUSE.

52.

AND THE NAME OF THE SECOND CALLED HE EPHRAIM: FOR GOD HATH

CAUSED ME TO BE FRUITFUL IN THE LAND OF MY AFFLICTION.

Joseph's break
that

with

the past has become total. His first son's name

implies

he has completely forgotten his brothers. But forgetting, in the case of Jo seph, has two sides. He had a duty towards his homeland, but he also had am
ple reason to

hate it. At this

new

point

in Joseph's life there is

neither

duty

nor

ha

tred. There

is only the

life

which

he is thinking

about

in Verse Fifty-two.

53.

AND THE SEVEN YEARS OF

PLENTEOUSNESS,

THAT WAS IN THE LAND OF

EGYPT,
54.

WERE ENDED.

AND THE SEVEN YEARS OF DEARTH BEGAN TO

COME,

ACCORDING AS JOSEPH

HAD

SAID;

AND THE DEARTH WAS IN ALL

LANDS;

BUT IN ALL THE LAND OF

EGYPT THERE WAS BREAD. 55.

AND WHEN ALL THE LAND OF EGYPT WAS

FAMISHED, THE PEOPLE CRIED TO

PHARAOH FOR BREAD: AND PHARAOH SAID UNTO ALL THE UNTO

EGYPTIANS,

GO

JOSEPH',

WHAT HE SAITH TO

YOU, DO.
years of

After the birth

of

Joseph's sons, the

hardship

came, and the

Egyp
was

tians complained to Pharaoh with the same

will use when unable

words

that the Children of Israel

they

address

Moses in the desert. Unlike Pharaoh, Moses

to God but had to
remain as mediator.

to send the people

directly

56.

AND THE FAMINE WAS OVER ALL THE FACE OF THE EARTH: AND JOSEPH OPENED ALL THE STOREHOUSES, AND SOLD UNTO THE EGYPTIANS; AND THE FAMINE WAXED SORE IN THE LAND OF EGYPT.

57.

AND ALL THE COUNTRIES CAME INTO EGYPT TO JOSEPH FOR TO BUY

CORN;

BECAUSE THAT THE FAMINE WAS SO SORE IN ALL LANDS.

Joseph had

provided well

for his people,

and

in

a strange

image

of

the

prophet vision when all men shall come

way one has the Jerusalem. to

CHAPTER XLII

I.

NOW WHEN JACOB SAW THAT THERE WAS CORN IN

EGYPT,

JACOB SAID UNTO

HIS SONS, WHY DO YE LOOK ONE UPON ANOTHER? 2.

AND HE

SAID, BEHOLD, I

HAVE HEARD THAT THERE IS CORN IN EGYPT: GET

YOU DOWN THITHER. AND BUY FOR US FROM AND NOT DIE.

THENCE; THAT WE MAY LIVE,

66

Interpretation
one of the great

Famine is
tions

in the

most

literal

sense

moving forces in the book. It causes vast migra of the word. As we shall see later, the other mov
caused

ing

force is food. Thus far in the book famine has

and

Abraham to
even

go

into

Egypt (Gen. 12:10) went only as far as

Isaac to

migrate

in that

same

direction

though

he

Gerar,

the home
sons

of

King

Abimelech (Gen. 26:1),

and now

it

will send

Jacob

and all

his

into be

a strange world
children

from

which

they

them

selves will never return alive.

When their

finally

leave Egypt four hun

dred
and

years

later the famine

will still

out

there in the desert waiting for

them,

they

will

only learn to live

was

with

it

when

they have learned

to live with

themselves.

The

new

state

to

have

joy

as

its

principle characteristic.

This

joy

in

serving God was based primarily on the internal relationships which culminated in the celebration of the Jubilee Year (see commentary to Gen. 15:9). warning, contrasting their service to God with foreign domination, reads as
Moses'

follows:
Because thou
servedst not

the

Lord thy God

with

joyfulness

and with gladness

of
in

heart, for
the

the abundance

Lord

shall send

of all things; therefore shalt thou against thee, in famine, and in thirst,
put a yoke

serve

thine enemies which

and

and

in nakedness,
until

of all things: and He shall stroyed thee. (Deut. 28:47,48)

want

of iron

upon

thy

neck,

He have de

The

word

famine

next occurs

in Hannah's prayer,

which ends with

longing

for

king

(see I Sam.
prayer

2:1-10 and

commentary to Gen. 20:7). But even before

which sent

Hannah's Elimelech

there had been a famine in the days of the Judges

and prepared

and

Naomi to Moab

the answer to Hannah's prayer

by

the birth of David's great-grandfather,

Obed (see Ruth 1:1, 4:23, David

as a punishment

and the com

mentary to Gen. 19:31). Famine was one of the

choices open to

for the

sins of

Saul

against

the Gibeonites. Though David chose

blight, famine
a census

occurred at the spite of

end of

his

reign

because he insisted

upon

taking

in

Joab's

warning (see II Sam. 24:13 and the commentary to Gen. 23:1). In his great prayer, which not only serves as a paradigm for
which contains some of

all prayers

but

the

deepest

reflections on the nature of prayer

itself,
no of

King
Ahab

Solomon

again warned the people of

famine,

arrow could and

slay (I Kings 8:37-39). There were Elisha, but the great famine came under the lost
and the people

enemy whom famines again in the days

reign of

that unseen

King

Zedekiah

when all was

taken into Babylon.

And it

came to pass

in

day

of the month, that

against

the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon came, he, and all his
and pitched against

host,
on no

Jerusalem,
city
was

it;

and

they built forts

against

it

round

about.

And

the

besieged

unto the eleventh year

the ninth

day

of the fourth

month

of King Zedekiah. And the famine prevailed in the city, and there

was

bread for

the people of the

land. (II Kings 25:1-3)

The Lion
The final
which

and

the Ass
of the

67
state
was

collapse

accompanied

by

famine

the famine of

Moses had

spoken. was and

From Abraham to Zedekiah famine

the
people

the goad which

continually

pushed

on; from Canaan to Egypt

back to

Canaan, from Canaan

it
pushed them

to

Moab

and

back

with

the seed of a

king,

and

finally

into the

great world.

3.

AND JOSEPH'S TEN BRETHREN WENT DOWN TO BUY CORN IN EGYPT.

The

author stresses the

fact that

ten

brothers

went

down into Egypt. His

em

phasis on
verse

the

number ten

was not meant as an

introduction to the

following

in

which we are stress

told that Benjamin did not go with his brothers. Actu

understood

ally, the

is intended to be has found

did

in

opposition

to the number Nine.

In

other words

the author subtly wishes to

a proper role

remind us

that Judah has returned to

his brothers
why the

and

author

not wish

to

mention

for himself among them. The reason Judah explicitly will become clear in

the commentary to Gen. 43:2.

4.

BUT

BENJAMIN, SAID,

JOSEPH'S

BROTHER,

JACOB SENT NOT WITH HIS

BRETHREN;

FOR HE

LEST PERADVENTURE MISCHIEF BEFALL HIM.

pression that
wish

In reading this verse we must bear in mind that Jacob is still under the im Joseph was murdered by his brothers. Apparently he does not
to give them the opportunity of

dealing

with

Benjamin in the
place.

same man

ner since

Benjamin, in his

eyes, has taken Joseph's

5.

AND THE SONS OF ISRAEL CAME TO BUY CORN AMONG THOSE THAT CAME:

FOR THE FAMINE WAS IN THE LAND OF CANAAN.

6.

AND JOSEPH WAS THE GOVERNOR OVER THE

LAND,

AND HE IT WAS THAT

SOLD TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE LAND: AND JOSEPH'S BRETHREN

CAME,

AND BOWED DOWN THEMSELVES BEFORE HIM WITH THEIR FACES TO THE EARTH.
7. AND JOSEPH SAW HIS

BRETHREN,

AND HE RECOGNIZED

THEM, BUT

MADE

HIMSELF STRANGE UNTO SAID UNTO

THEM,

AND SPAKE ROUGHLY UNTO

THEM; AND HE

THEM,

WHENCE COME YE? AND THEY

SAID,

FROM THE LAND OF

CANAAN TO BUY FOOD.

Verse Five

presents

the sons as appearing among the crowds of people which

countries

had

come

from many

to

buy

corn. yet

Joseph is the

prominent one and

they

number

recognize

only ten in him.

contains

large crowd;

he

can spot them

but they do for

not

Verse Seven
and

play

on words.

The Hebrew

words

recognized

he

made

himself strange

come

from homonymic

roots.

This word, recog Judah. It

was used

nize,

is

the

word

which played

such a role

in the life

of

68
when

Interpretation
Judah
recognized

his

own staff

in the hand

of

Tamar

and at

the same time

recognized

the wisdom of Jacob. Joseph is now in somewhat the same position

a new

in

which

Judah had been in Chapter Thirty-eight. He has found

life for

himself

and

has

no

intention

ognition will not cause come much more

returning to his brothers. Unlike Judah, his rec him to return immediately. In his case relations will be
of

complicated,

and we shall

have to

see their

development in

the next chapters.

Recognition is

not

had been
cob on

used once
was

necessarily before in the disguised

as

a characteristic of passage

in

which

every generation. The word Isaac failed to recognize Ja Traditions

can

because he
through a

Esau (Gen.

27:23).

be

passed

whole generation even

though recognition is not present. How

ever,

they become dead if

not recognized

from time to time.

8.
9.

AND JOSEPH KNEW HIS

BRETHREN,

BUT THEY KNEW NOT HIM.

AND JOSEPH REMEMBERED THE DREAMS WHICH HE DREAMED OF

THEM,

AND

SAID UNTO ARE COME.

THEM,

YE ARE

SPIES;

TO SEE THE NAKEDNESS OF THE LAND YE

According
unto them

to Verse

Seven Joseph Joseph's

spake

Whence

come ye.

speech

roughly unto them; and he said in Verse Nine is rough language,

but according to the text the question posed in Verse Seven is already rough language. Even from the outset Joseph tries to get his brothers to remember
where

they
two

came

from He

and

hence

who

their

fathers really
he

were.

But Joseph

was

still of

minds.

accused

them of

being

spies who

had

come to see the

nakedness

of the

land,

an accusation which ways

will repeat

in Verse Twelve.
and we

There
must

were a great

many

in

which

Joseph

could

have reacted,

try

to

discover why he
accusation of
order

accused them of

being

spies.

Joseph's
attack

Egypt in

pose a number of

spying is tantamount to accusing them of wishing to be used for this pur times later in the book (see Num. 21:32; Josh. 2:6; Judg.
to dwell there. At any rate spies will

18:2;
a

and

II Sam. 10:3, 15:10).

Ironically,
spies.

the

brothers

will

ultimately

settle

for

time in Egypt as if

they had been

The term nakedness in Hebrew has a somewhat wider meaning than it does in English. Leviticus 18:8, for instance, reads as follows: The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover; it is thy s nakedness. The last part
father'

of

the sentence means that it is a nakedness which it is only proper for the fa

ther to see. We have

connection with

already discussed the notion of nakedness once before in Noah. When Ham uncovered his father's nakedness he did, in

an inappropriate way, something very close to the highest human activity so far described in this book. By gazing upon his own origins he remembered or rec ognized that which was inappropriate for him to remember. Joseph's accusation is based on the fact that he, in a way, has become

Egypt's

nakedness.

In Egypt the Children

of

Israel

were

known

as

Hebrews,

The Lion

and

the Ass

69
and as we so

that is as slaves

(see commentary to Gen. 39:11),

thought
eat with
of as

shall

learn in
that the

Thirty-two, the Hebrews were Egyptians, by law, were forbidden to

Verse
who

being

lowly

them. It may be that

Joseph,

has begun it is

a new

sition

to reveal

life for himself, fears that his brothers would be in a po his nakedness, that is his origins, and does not yet know for them to
see

whether

appropriate

it

or not.

10.

AND THEY SAID UNTO

HIM, NAY,

MY

LORD, BUT

TO BUY FOOD ARE THY

SERVANTS COME.
II.

WE ARE ALL ONE MAN'S SONS: WE ARE TRUE

SPIES.

MEN, THY SERVANTS

ARE NO

12.

AND HE SAID UNTO YE ARE COME.

THEM, NAY,

BUT TO SEE THE NAKEDNESS OF THE LAND

13.

AND THEY

SAID, THY SERVANTS

ARE TWELVE

BRETHREN,

THE SONS OF ONE

MAN IN THE LAND OF WITH OUR 14.

CANAAN; AND, BEHOLD,

THE YOUNGEST IS THIS DAY

FATHER,

AND ONE IS NOT.

AND JOSEPH SAID UNTO

THEM,

THAT IS IT THAT I SPAKE UNTO YOU SAY

ING,

YE ARE SPIES:

In Verse Eleven the brothers intend to

that

prove their

honesty by telling
care

Joseph

they

are

brothers. This

proof assumes

that the sons of one man would not

all risk whole.

their

But the

lives simultaneously because of their proof does not satisfy Joseph, who is

for the

family
on

as

not certain

that

they have
their

any

care

for the

family

as a whole.

His doubts are,

of

course, based

earlier actions

towards him.

are suddenly forced to remember the brother pit. had placed into the But it is not clear what it was that reminded they them of Joseph. Perhaps it was his voice which brought him to mind. Perhaps

In Verse Thirteen the brothers

whom

the connection between Joseph and the

voice

of

the man who stood before

see

them

was made

by

that part of their minds which allowed Pharaoh to

even

the

solution to

his dream

before Joseph interpreted it.

15.

HEREBY YE SHALL BE PROVED: BY THE LIFE OF PHARAOH YE SHALL NOT GO

FORTH
l6.

HENCE,

EXCEPT YOUR YOUNGEST BROTHER COME HITHER.

SEND ONE OF YOU, AND LET HIM FETCH YOUR BROTHER, AND YE SHALL BE

KEPT IN

PRISON,

THAT YOUR WORDS MAY BE

PROVED, WHETHER THERE BE

ANY TRUTH IN YOU: OR ELSE BY THE LIFE OF PHARAOH SURELY YE ARE

SPIES.

The test

which

Joseph has devised is

dangerous one,

and yet

it

seems to

be

the only one

with

possible.

The

real question

is

whether

the brothers

can

be trusted

Benjamin's life. Does Jacob have

enough

trust in his sons to place Benja

placed

min

in the

same position

in

which

Joseph himself had been Even if Jacob

thirty

years
not

previously?

Joseph is taking

quite a risk.

should

agree,

it is

70

Interpretation
his
sons will pass the test.

clear that otherwise

But

since

nothing

can

be

accomplished

Joseph has decided to

go through with

his

plan.

17.

AND HE PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER INTO WARD THREE DAYS.

Joseph
not

placed

his brothers in
we

prison

for three days,

with

and

they

waited.

This is

the

first time that

he

have have

sweated through a period of three

it be the last. Abraham

walked

for three days

Moriah,

where

would

sacrificed

him (Gen.

22:4).

his son, There

days, nor will Isaac, to Mount

was a three-

day journey
place where

he became
not

between Laban's house, in which Jacob was a servant, and the a magician (Gen. 30:36). Pharaoh's officers waited in

jail for three days be true

or not
go

knowing

whether

Joseph's

predictions would will ask

turn out to

(Gen.
a

40:12-19).

In the future Moses

Pharaoh to let the

Hebrews

for

three-day journey, taking

God (Ex. 3:18, 5:3,
and

all of their possessions with

them,
and seen.

to sacrifice to their there will follow a

8:23). But Pharaoh

which

will

refuse,

three-day
of

period of

darkness in
not

nothing
what

can

be

After the Children

would

Israel left Egypt,

knowing

their

journey

death

of

be like, three days passed before the water ran out (Ex. 15:22). After the Moses, Joshua announced a three-day period to prepare for the cross

ing

of

the Jordan into the Promised

Land,

not

knowing

what

life

would

be like

on the other side

(Josh. 1:11, 2:22,

the

and 3:2).

In the time
the period the Levite

of

Judges there

were other similar

three-day

periods, such as

Samson

gave to the

from Ephraim

spent at

Philistines for solving his riddle, and the time the home of his father-in-law before the jour

ney which ended so disastrously (Judg. 14:14 and 19:4). Saul spent three aim less days looking for his father's lost she-ass before he found Samuel (I Sam.
9:20).

Three days from

they

always mark a period of

doubt

and wonder.

They

differ

forty

and

four hundred in that they

character of the
of

are always a period of unrest

because
occur

of the

unknown

outcome.

Similar three-day

periods and

twice near the end of the Second Book

once

Samuel (II Sam. 20:4

24:13), but

Solomon becomes

king three-day

periods never occur again.

After the di

vision of the

country the end was inevitable.

DAY,
THIS

l8.

AND JOSEPH SAID UNTO THEM THE THIRD

DO,

AND LIVE; FOR I

FEAR GOD:

19-

IF YE BE TRUE

MEN, LET ONE OF YE, CARRY

YOUR BRETHREN BE BOUND IN THE HOUSE

OF YOUR PRISON: GO

CORN FOR THE FAMINE OF YOUR HOUSES:

20.

BUT BRING YOUR YOUNGEST BROTHER UNTO

ME; SO SHALL YOUR WORDS BE

VERIFIED, AND YE SHALL NOT DIE. AND THEY DID SO.

At the
period
makes

end of the

three-day

period

Joseph

made

differs from

all others

in that Joseph,

rather than

his decision. This three-day God or circumstances,

of

the decision. His final

judgment

was

twofold. Most

the men will

be

The Lion
returned

and

the Ass

71

home. This

father

and

to reach

sending ample provisions to his brothers, providing the brothers with sufficient time for them their own decision about returning to Egypt once they have returned
while

will provide a means of

home.
ers

By deciding
accept

to hold one of them prisoner, Joseph even

forces

the

broth

to

the test if there is any

decency

left in them.

In Verse Eighteen Joseph suddenly hints to his brothers about his identity by saying For I fear God. While the brothers do not fully understand the hint it
seems

to have a quiet effect.

to

It,

together with the

incarceration

of

Simeon, is

sufficient

bring

Joseph to

mind again

in Verse Twenty-one.

21.

AND THEY SAID ONE TO

ANOTHER, WE

ARE VERILY GUILTY CONCERNING

OUR

BROTHER, US,

IN THAT WE SAW THE ANGUISH OF HIS

SOUL, WHEN

HE BE

SOUGHT

AND WE WOULD NOT

HEAR; THEREFORE

IS THIS DISTRESS COME

UPON US.
22.
AND REUBEN ANSWERED

THEM, SAYING, SPAKE

CHILD;

I NOT UNTO

YOU, SAYING, THEREFORE,

DO NOT SIN AGAINST THE

AND YE WOULD NOT HEAR?

BEHOLD,
23.

ALSO HIS BLOOD IS REQUIRED.

AND THEY KNEW NOT THAT JOSEPH UNDERSTOOD

THEM;

FOR HE SPAKE

UNTO THEM BY AN INTERPRETER.

It is

strange
and

how the human mind, the things it knows, the things it does

not

know,
Their
that

the things it knows only in a way,

present thoughts seem to

of

have been

called same

interplay forth by
time

and even contradict.

Joseph's indication
speak

he feared the God if Joseph insignificant

the Jews. At the

they

freely

of their

guilt as rather

spoke no
moment

Hebrew,
is

as

Verse Twenty-three
of

points out.

This
the

a clear example of

how the

author views

question of

forgetting

and of

remembering,

seeing

and of not

seeing,

which

is

characteristic of the
as such

book

as a whole and upon which the significance of tra

dition

is based.

In Verse Twenty-two Reuben apparently is referring to Gen. 37:21, in which he had warned the brothers not to kill Joseph. However, he makes no
reference to

Gen. 40:1, in

which

Joseph

was

taken out of the pit and sold.

was eaten

Nonetheless it is
wild

consistent with

the belief that Joseph actually

by

beast. In this

sense the

verse tends

to substantiate the notion that it was

the

Midianites

who pulled

Joseph

out of the pit and sold

him to the Ishmaelites.

speech

After the

brothers'

confession

in Verse Twenty-one Reuben's

"I told
you

falls

flat. Like the

words of a child who says

so",

they

serve no purpose.
moment remains

However, Judah,
silent.

who will emerge as their

spokesman, for the

24.

AND HE TURNED HIMSELF ABOUT FROM

THEM, THEM,

AND

WEPT;

AND RETURNED

TO THEM AGAIN, AND COMMUNED WITH

AND TOOK FROM THEM SIM

EON,

AND BOUND HIM BEFORE THEIR EYES.

72

Interpretation
are complicated.

Joseph's tears
pentance, but

They

contain recognition of own

his

brothers'

re see

they

also contain the

necessity for his

our remarks on

return;

however,
upon

the commentary to Gen. 45:1 for

treated their

weeping.

Joseph purposely
them

Simeon

harshly

in front

of

his brothers in

order to

impress

duty

towards him.

25.

THEN JOSEPH COMMANDED TO FILL THEIR SACKS WITH STORE EVERY MANS MONEY INTO HIS

CORN,

AND TO RE

SACK,

AND TO GIVE THEM PROVISION

FOR THE WAY: AND THUS DID HE UNTO THEM. 26. 27.
AND THEY LADED THEIR ASSES WITH THE

CORN,

AND DEPARTED THENCE.

AND AS ONE OF THEM OPENED HIS SACK TO GIVE HIS ASS PROVENDER IN THE

INN,

HE ESPIED HIS

MONEY; FOR, BEHOLD,

IT WAS IN HIS SACK'S

MOUTH. 28.
AND HE SAID UNTO HIS

BRETHREN,

MY MONEY IS

RESTORED;

AND

LO, IT IS

EVEN IN MY

SACK;

AND THEIR HEARTS FAILED

THEM, AND THEY WERE

AFRAID, SAYING
UNTO US?

ONE TO

ANOTHER, WHAT IS THIS THAT GOD HATH DONE

At this
which will world.

point

Joseph begins to
a

work upon

his brothers in He

yet another

way

play

large

role

in their

education.

places them
which

in

a strange

One

might even call

it

a world of

miracles, in

from

nowhere and

in

which wild and

fantastic
delights

things will
and

money appears happen to them. This

which give rise

world will
awe.

be filled
now

with the

kind

of

torments

to

They
not

believe that God has

if it is
meant

returned the

money,

and

they

are con

fused,

knowing

for them

or whether

they

are

to be accounted

thieves.

29.

AND THEY CAME UNTO JACOB THEIR FATHER UNTO THE LAND OF
AND TOLD HIM ALL THAT BEFELL UNTO

CANAAN,

THEM; SAYING,
TO

30.

THE

MAN, WHO

IS THE LORD OF THE

LAND, SPAKE ROUGHLY

US,

AND

TOOK US FOR SPIES OF THE COUNTRY. 31. 32. AND WE SAID UNTO WE BE TWELVE

HIM,

WE ARE TRUE

MEN;

WE ARE NO SPIES: AND THE

BRETHREN,

SONS OF OUR

FATHER; ONE IS NOT,

YOUNGEST IS THIS DAY WITH OUR FATHER IN THE LAND OF CANAAN. 33.
AND THE

MAN,

THE LORD OF THE

COUNTRY, SAID UNTO US, HEREBY

SHALL

i know that ye are true men: leave one of your brethren here

with gone:
34.

me,

and take food for the famine of your

households,

and be

AND BRING YOUR YOUNGEST BROTHER UNTO ME: THEN SHALL I KNOW

THAT YE ARE NO YOU YOUR

35.

SPIES, BUT THAT

YE ARE TRUE MEN: SO WILL I DELIVER

BROTHER,

AND YE SHALL TRAFFICK IN THE LAND.

AND IT CAME TO PASS AS THEY EMPTIED THEIR

SACKS, BEHOLD, EVERY

MAN'S BUNDLE OF MONEY WAS IN HIS SACK: AND WHEN BOTH THEY AND
THEIR FATHER SAW THE BUNDLES OF MONEY THEY WERE AFRAID.

The Lion

and

the

Ass

73
of strange and

The brothers
spake

went

home full
provided

roughly
as

and

yet

for their

needs.

contradictory tales. The He demanded to see

if he
cared not a

man

one

brother Jacob

if he cared,

and yet

he

put another

in

chains as

bit.

even participates

in these

wonderful

things when it is

discovered

that all

the money

has been

returned.

36.

AND JACOB THEIR FATHER SAID UNTO

CHILDREN: JOSEPH IS

THEM, ME
NOT,

HAVE YE BEREAVED OF MY

NOT,

AND SIMEON IS

AND YE WILL TAKE BENJA

MIN AWAY: ALL THESE THINGS ARE AGAINST ME.

Jacob is
Joseph
and

most concerned about

his

sons.

He believes that his

sons

had killed
even

that
of

he himself is

guilty.
whom

He

cannot risk the

now considers

life

of

Benjamin

in the hope

saving

Simeon,

he

lost forever.

37.

AND REUBEN SPAKE UNTO HIS

FATHER, SAYING, SLAY HAND,

MY TWO

SONS,

IF I

BRING HIM NOT TO THEE: DELIVER HIM INTO MY

AND I WILL BRING

HIM TO THEE AGAIN.

Well-meaning
whole

Reuben has blundered

again.

His

suggestion arises

from his
he

true desire to accept the responsibilities laid upon the first-born. But Jacob's

life has been

spent

in

an attempt to avoid such sacrifices.

And

while

could

presently believes himself to have failed, Reuben's offer of further sacrifice only have sounded grotesque. But throughout the discussion Judah con
tinued to remain silent.

38.
IS

AND HE

SAID,

MY SON SHALL NOT GO DOWN WITH

YOU; FOR HIS

BROTHER

DEAD,

AND HE IS LEFT ALONE: IF MISCHIEF BEFALL HIM BY THE WAY IN

THE WHICH YE ROW TO SHEOL.

GO,

THEN SHALL YE BRING DOWN MY GRAY HAIRS WITH SOR

Jacob decides to do
and

nothing.

His memory

of

Joseph's death is too strong,

he

can no
end of

longer trust his

sons.
writings

The

the verse belongs to a different genre of Biblical

than
more

the works the

with which we

have been dealing. The

expression

word

sheol, which
earth,

has

connotation of

the English
often

poetic word appear

found
often

very

in

our

is generally a but it does not in Job, Psalms, Proverbs and Isaiah, books. Jacob had used it once before when he was
the

bowels of the

presented with again when

Joseph's
quotes

coat

(Gen. 37:35),

and

Judah

will use

the

word once

he

the

present verse

to Joseph (Gen.

44:29,31). sense when

It

will

be

used once

in the Book

of

Numbers in

literal

Korah

and the rest of

his

rebellious

followers
uses

are swallowed

up

by

a sudden

fault in

the earth (Num. 16:30,33). David

omon.
old

the word twice in his last advice to Sol

of

In both

cases

it is

a poetical

friends for

whom

there

is

no

way longer

telling his

son what must

be done to

a place

(I Kings

2:6,9).

74

Interpretation
the word will appear three times in three different poems.
will and

Finally,
and

David

Moses

both

use

the

word

in the

psalms which

they sing
which,

at

the end of

their
gins

lives,
we

Hannah

will use

the

word

in the

prayer

as

it were, be

her life (Deut. 32:22; I Sam. 2:6; have had

several occasions

and

II Sam.

22:6).

As

to mention, the Book of Genesis contains

a certain antipoetical strain

almost the

last

word on

(see commentary to Gen. 4:23 and 21:7). This is the author's view of poetry, but nonetheless Moses and
Moses'

David both ultimately turn poet. song is a bitter song sung introduced the life. It is his following words: by
For 1 know that
the way which
cause you will work after

at the end of

my death in the

ye will

utterly

corrupt yourselves and will

turn aside from

I have

commanded

you; and evil

befall

you

in the latter

days; be

of your

of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger through the hands. And Moses spoke in the ears of all the congregation of Israel

do

evil

sight

the

words

of the song,

until

they

were ended.

(Deut. 31:29,30)
the soul can

Poetry
the final

arises again as the

last

means

by

which

be

calmed.

It is

refuge of an

essentially

antipoetical work and as such mirrors

Jacob's

feeling

of resignation.

CHAPTER XLIII

I. 2.

AND THE FAMINE WAS SORE IN THE LAND. AND IT CAME TO

PASS, WHEN THEY HAD EATEN UP THE CORN WHICH

THEY HAD BROUGHT OUT OF

EGYPT,

THEIR FATHER SAID UNTO

THEM, GO

AGAIN,

BUY US A LITTLE FOOD.

Time

and starvation

have forced Jacob to

of

send

his

sons

back to Egypt. He
word

imagines himself in front

stresses

Joseph

begging

for

little food. The

reveals

little

the

humility

of

his

request and at

the same time

the complex

way in
cob's

which

the human mind works. If the grand minister were present, Ja

might persuade

humility

him to

grant the

food,

without

demanding

that

Benjamin be brought to Egypt. The figure

self upon

of the grand minister so

impresses it

Jacob's

mind

that

he

acts as

if the

minister were present even though

Jacob knows that he is far away and that Benjamin must be sent. Jacob is in such distress that his mind breaks in two one living in the world which is and
the other

living

in the

world which should

have been.

3.

AND JUDAH SPAKE UNTO UNTO

HIM, SAYING,

THE MAN DID SOLEMNLY PROTEST

US, SAYING,

YE SHALL NOT SEE MY FACE, EXCEPT YOUR BROTHER BE

WITH YOU. 4.
IF THOU WILT SEND OUR BROTHER WITH

US, WE

WILL GO DOWN AND BUY

THEE FOOD: 5. BUT IF THOU WILT NOT SEND

HIM,

WE WILL NOT GO, FOR THE MAN SAID

The Lion
UNTO
YOU.

and

the Ass

75
FACE, EXCEPT
YOUR BROTHER BE WITH

US,

YE SHALL NOT SEE MY

Judah
clear.

finally

decides to

speak. not

His

words

are

simple

Unlike Reuben he does

begin

with a great oath

the

situation as

best he
words

can.

In

spite of

this precision

and unmistakably but calmly describes his words are not a direct

quotation.

The

Thou

shalt not see

my face

were never spoken

by

Joseph

himself. But Judah is very insistent

theless
error

upon

this point and states it twice. None

they

will

be

spoken when

God

addresses

Moses (Ex.

33:20).
of

Judah's

is

not a simple one

for,

as we remember

well, the problem

face of God is closely connected to the question of whether a trusted with the life of his brother (see commentary to Gen. 32:28).

seeing the man can be

6.

AND ISRAEL

SAID,

WHEREFORE DEALT YE SO ILL WITH

ME,

AS TO TELL THE

MAN WHETHER YE HAD YET A BROTHER?

7.

AND THEY

SAID,

THE MAN ASKED US STRAITLY OF OUR STATE. AND OF OUR IS YOUR FATHER YET ALIVE? HAVE YE ANOTHER

KINDRED, SAYING,

BROTHER? AND WE TOLD HIM ACCORDING TO THE TENOR OF THESE WORDS:

COULD WE CERTAINLY KNOW THAT HE WOULD

BROTHER DOWN?

SAY,

BRING YOUR

Judah does brothers to do

sense of

not answer
so.

his father's

question

but, falling
a

silent,

allows

his

Their

answer

is,

of

course,

lie

at

least in the

superficial

the

word.

They

themselves were the

first to

mention

their father and

their two other brothers

in Verse Thirteen him

of

of

the last chapter, but in a deeper

will use almost

sense their words turn out

which

to be true. Joseph
to
when

the same

words

they have

attributed

he

asks them about the welfare of their

father in Verse Twenty-seven

the

present chapter.

They
does

may be telling the truth in

of recognition are

an even more profound way.

We have

seen

that the seeds

seem to on

buried

deep

inside the brothers. Perhaps it

those questions which must

them as if Joseph had in fact

asked

have been
8.

his

mind.

AND JUDAH SAID UNTO ISRAEL HIS

FATHER, SEND THE LAD WITH ME,

AND

WE WILL ARISE AND

AND

GO;

THAT WE MAY

LIVE,

AND NOT

DIE,

BOTH

WE,

THOU,

AND ALSO OUR LITTLE ONES.

argument and returns

Judah ignores the

to the

simple

facts

at

hand. But he

does try
and not

to shift the grounds of the discussion a bit. The words that we may

live

by saying both from Jacob, who had used them when he sent the brothers to Egypt the first time (Gen. 42:2). In doing so Judah is trying to an and of Verse Two and place the discussion back on the simple nul the
die
which

he

amplified

we and thou and also our

little

ones are a

direct

quotation

humility

forthright level
sons

of

the

beginning

of

Chapter Forty-two, in

which

Jacob

sent

his

for food

without ceremony.

76
9.

Interpretation
HIM; OF
MY HAND SHALT THOU REQUIRE HIM: IF I

I WILL BE PLEDGE FOR

BRING HIM NOT UNTO THE BLAME FOR EVER:

THEE,

AND SET HIM BEFORE

THEE,

THEN LET ME BEAR

words are partly directed to Jacob and partly to himself. Insofar as directed to Jacob they are intended as a correction of Reuben's rather they clumsy statement in Verse Thirty-six of the last chapter. He realizes that pledg ing his own life is no solution and that the pledge of his own honor is of greater

Judah's
are

value

to his father. To this

extent

Verse Nine is
common.

also addressed

to Reuben. Ju to commit

dah

and

Reuben have
spite of

one

thing in
refusal

They

both

refused

frat
as

ricide.

But in

his

Reuben,

the elder, proved to be

inadequate

leader. Judah, in his decision to

of

have to take the responsibility Reuben

cide.

his brothers, knew that he would the first-born and that this responsibility, in
return to

the mind of the author, will continue even past the

and

days he

of

Josiah.
to commit fratri the necessity for

Judah had been the two brothers

essential respect

who refused as sees

But in this

Judah, insofar

replacing his brother, was metaphorically compelled to commit fratricide in a deeper sense. Thus ultimately he was the only one of the brothers to perform
the
act.

Insofar

as the verse

the time he spent with

comes a replacement

is directed to himself, his private thoughts go back to Tamar. When he pledges himself in this verse he be
and signet

for the bracelet, staff

38:18).

ring

which

he

gave to

Tamar

as a pledge

(Gen.

10.

FOR EXCEPT WE HAD

LINGERED,

SURELY NOW WE HAD RETURNED THIS

SECOND TIME.

should

In Verse Ten Judah subtly implies that there is no question but that they have returned to Egypt immediately in order to save Simeon, as Reuben
argued

had
was

in Verse Thirty-seven

of

the last chapter. What Reuben did

not see

that speech is of no avail and can

on the part of

barely

be

said to exist when explain

it

cannot

be

heard. This insight Forty-two.

Judah helps to

his

silence

in Chapter

II.

AND THEIR FATHER ISRAEL SAID UNTO

THEM, IF

IT MUST BE SO

NOW,

DO

THIS;

TAKE OF THE BEST FRUITS IN THE LAND IN YOUR VESSELS, AND CARRY

DOWN THE MAN A

AND

PRESENT,

A LITTLE

BALM,

AND A LITTLE

HONEY, SPICES,

MYRRH, NUTS,

AND ALMONDS:

12.

AND TAKE DOUBLE MONEY IN YOUR

HAND;

AND THE MONEY THAT WAS IT AGAIN IN YOUR

BROUGHT AGAIN IN THE MOUTH OF YOUR

SACKS, CARRY

hand; peradventure it was an oversight:

13.

TAKE ALSO YOUR

BROTHER,

AND

ARISE, GO

AGAIN UNTO THE MAN:

The Lion

and the

Ass

77 The
word

Israel insists that his

not often used as sense of

sons take a present with them.

for present is in the

a gift given

to a

human being. It is

quite often used

of

tribute, or a payment given under the force conqueror (Judg. 3:15; I Sam. 10:27; U Sam. 8:2,6 and The
word

threat to a

foreign
tribute

10:25).
of

is

also used

in this

sense when use

the last

king

Israel

paid

to Assyria (II

Kings

17:3,4).

Its final

in the book

occurs when

King

Heze

kiah suddenly
this
present

presents a gift to whets

Berodach-Baladan the

King

of

Babylon, but

only Aside from the

his

appetite

present which

(see commentary to Gen. 38:27). Jacob gave to Esau (Gen. 32:13-22), the

word

for

present

Bible

with

is mainly used as an offering to God, even in the books of the which we are dealing. This latter sense is implied in the vast major
in
which

ity

of cases

the word

is used,

and perhaps

is

closest to the use

in the

present verse.

14.

AND GOD ALMIGHTY GIVE YOU MERCY BEFORE THE

MAN,

THAT HE MAY

SEND AWAY YOUR OTHER MY

BROTHER,

AND BENJAMIN. IF I BE BEREAVED OF

CHILDREN,

I AM BEREAVED.

We have already discussed the meaning of the term God almighty in the commentary to Gen. 17:1, where we saw that under this name God protected
the very beginnings of his people as

they

came

into

contact with

the outside

world, but there is something

strange about

its

use

here

since the man

is

their

brother. Unlike his sons, Jacob does

not seem

to have
are

even

a seed of recognition

concerning Joseph's identity. His last words be an old man bowing to the will of fate.
15. AND THE MEN TOOK THAT THEIR

full

of

despair. He

appears to

PRESENT,

AND THEY TOOK DOUBLE MONEY IN

HAND,

AND

BENJAMIN;

AND ROSE

UP,

AND WENT DOWN TO

EGYPT,

AND STOOD BEFORE JOSEPH.

l6.

AND WHEN JOSEPH SAW BENJAMIN WITH

THEM,

HE SAID TO THE STEWARD

AND MAKE

OF HIS

HOUSE,

BRING THESE MEN HOME, AND

SLAY,

READY;

FOR

THESE MEN SHALL DINE WITH ME AT NOON.

17.
AND THE MAN DID AS JOSEPH BADE; AND THE MAN BROUGHT THE MEN

INTO JOSEPH'S HOUSE. l8. AND THE MEN WERE

AFRAID,

BECAUSE THEY WERE BROUGHT INTO JO BECAUSE OF THE MONEY THAT WAS RE

SEPH'S HOUSE; AND THEY

SAID,

TURNED IN OUR SACKS AT THE FIRST TIME ARE WE BROUGHT MAY SEEK OCCASION AGAINST

IN; THAT

HE

US,

AND FALL UPON

US,

AND TAKE US FOR

BONDMEN,

AND OUR ASSES.

Joseph's

servant over

is quick,

prompt, and accurate.

The

complete control

that

Joseph has
of some

his

servants will

be

stressed on several occasions and will

be

importance.

78

Interpretation
are

The brothers
the money itself

bewildered

by

this strange invitation.

They

speak about

their fears in terms of their denial

of

any

guilt with respect to the money,

but

would not necessarily explain their fears. The slightest irreg in their lives causes them to think, and thought brings with it feelings of ularity guilt. The guilt centers around the money because they cannot face the true ori gins of the guilt they feel on account of Joseph.

19.

and they came near to the steward of joseph's

house,

and they

communed with him at the door of the 20.

and

house,

said, o sir,

we came indeed down at the first time to buy

food: 21.
and it came to

pass,

when we came to the

inn,

that we opened

our

sacks,

and

behold,

every man's money was in the mouth of his

sack,

our money in full weight: and we have brought it again in

OUR HAND.
22.
and the other money have we brought down in our hands to buy

food: we cannot tell who put our money in our sacks. 23.
and he your

said,

peace be to

you,

fear not: your

god,

and the god of

father,

hath given you treasure in your sacks: i had your

money. and he brought simeon out unto them.

We

again

begin to

see

Joseph's

magic at work.

The ten brothers

arrived

in

Egypt along with all the others who had come much like themselves to buy food. Why should the man invite them to dinner if they were thieves? Why
should noon.

he

even want

to see them?
greeted

Well, they

would

just have to

wait until

If their host had

as

them things would

have been

more straightfor were

ward, but there.

it was, they

were given

time to think about why

they

brought

When their fear

reached

its height the

steward spoke

kindly

to them. Appar

ently there
planned

was never

anything to

fear,

and

Simeon

was returned.

Joseph,

who

the whole, reminds us of Prospero 's elegant

magic which charmed and

cured the souls of men.

The steward,

as the

instrument

of

Joseph's magic, knows in

minds within

what manner

the money was returned. He

which

knows that the

brothers'

strange world of pain and

delight

by

has been working on the the man, Joseph. Are there times

been carefully planned the Bible itself when even noble

all

has

men must

lie

about

God?

24.

AND THE MAN BROUGHT THE MEN INTO JOSEPH'S HOUSE. AND GAVE THEM AND THEY WASHED THEIR

WATER,
ENDER. 25.

FEET; AND HE GAVE THEIR ASSES PROV

AND THEY MADE READY THE PRESENT AGAINST JOSEPH'S COMING AT NOON:

FOR THEY HEARD THAT THEY SHOULD EAT BREAD THERE.

The Lion
26.

and

the Ass

79
HOME, THEY BROUGHT
HIM THE PRESENT WHICH

AND WHEN JOSEPH CAME

WAS IN THEIR HAND INTO THE HOUSE AND BOWED THEMSELVES TO HIM TO THE EARTH.
27. AND HE ASKED THEM OF THEIR

WELFARE,

AND

SAID,

IS YOUR FATHER

WELL,
28.

THE OLD MAN OF WHOM YE SPAKE? IS HE YET ALIVE?

AND THEY

ANSWERED, THY SERVANT OUR FATHER

IS IN GOOD

HEALTH, HE

IS YET ALIVE. AND THEY BOWED DOWN THEIR OBEISANCE.

HEADS,

AND MADE

The

steward and

his lord been

entertain the

brothers
and

with all never

due

formality
put

as

if

their guests

had

not

placed

in bonds This

had

been

through the

anguish of not

knowing
as men

what would

become

of

them. For the moment at least

they

are

treated

by

a man. part of

constant change
magic.

between anxiety

and

joy
29.

seems

to be an

integral

Joseph's

AND HE LIFTED UP HIS

EYES,

AND SAW HIS BROTHER

BENJAMIN,

HIS

MOTHER'S

SON,

AND

SAID,

IS THIS YOUR YOUNGER

BROTHER,

OF WHOM YE

SPAKE UNTO ME? AND HE

30.

SAID, GOD

BE GRACIOUS UNTO THEE. MY SON.

AND JOSEPH MADE

HASTE; FOR

HIS BOWELS DID YEARN UPON HIS BROTHER:

AND HE ENTERED INTO HIS

AND HE SOUGHT WHERE TO AND WEPT THERE. 31.

AND HE WASHED HIS

WEEP;

CHAMBER,

FACE,

AND WENT

OUT,

AND REFRAINED

HIMSELF,

AND

SAID,

SET ON BREAD.

Human feelings from

deep

inside Joseph's

soul

have begun to break through

his

wizard's mask.

At the

sight of

is suddenly emptied, and he must Verse Thirty-one is written in that

previous occasions.

his brother, Benjamin, Joseph's hide himself in another room.

bag

of

tricks

same curt style that we saw on several

It is

no more than a series of short

words.

sentences, each con

taining

not more

than one or two

preparation

It is the

same style

in

which

the author
au

described Abraham's
tomatic actions of a
cannot

for the

sacrifice of
acts

Isaac. It describes the

and

man

performing his

perfectly

precisely because he

bring

himself to think

about them.

32.

AND THEY SET ON FOR HIM BY HIMSELF, AND FOR THEM BY

THEMSELVES,

AND FOR THE

EGYPTIANS, WHICH

DID EAT WITH

HIM, BY

THEMSELVES:

BECAUSE THE EGYPTIANS MIGHT NOT EAT BREAD WITH THE HEBREWS; FOR
THAT IS AN ABOMINATION UNTO THE EGYPTIANS.

Verse Thirty-two
eat with

raises

the gravest
an

problem

of the section.

Joseph

cannot

his brothers because

not eat with

Egyptian

cannot eat with a

Hebrew, but Jo
He
magi-

may brew. Joseph is both

seph's men

him because
neither.

an

Egyptian

cannot eat with a

and

he is

Joseph,

the master, teacher, and

80
cian,

Interpretation
eats

alone;

yet what an ambiguous phrase

wonder whether

that is! Like Man

he

was

alone,

and we are

left to

that is

his

greatness or

his

emptiness.

33.

AND THEY SAT BEFORE

HIM,

THE FIRST BORN ACCORDING TO HIS BIRTH

RIGHT,

AND THE YOUNGEST ACCORDING TO HIS YOUTH: AND THE MEN MAR

VELLED ONE AT ANOTHER. 34. AND HE TOOK AND SENT MESSES UNTO THEM FROM BEFORE HIM: BUT BEN

JAMIN'S MESS WAS FIVE TIMES SO MUCH AS ANY OF THEIRS. AND THEY

DRANK,

AND WERE MERRY WITH HIM.

magic seems

Joseph's

to have

worked

its

spell.

The brothers
with their

now

live in

an

enchanted world. min though accept

They
a

are

happy

and

drink together

brother Benja had learned to

and

his

portion

is five

times greater than their own.

which

They
of

Benjamin in
colors.

way in

they

could not accept

Joseph

his

coat

of

many Jubilee Year.

Their relationship is

almost a perfect

image

the joys

of

the

which

In the commentary to Gen. 3:14 we have already given an food and eating play in the Book of Genesis. We are
the subject in greater detail.
subject of

outline of now

the role

in

a position

to

review

The

food first is
upon

arose

in Chapter One

when

God

gave

every herb
which

bearing

seed, which

the

face of

the earth, and

as

every tree, in the

1:29).

is the fruit of the tree yielding seed to man stresses the fact that only seed-bearing things
rocks or
word.

food (Gen.
in the

The

author

are good as
earth

food. Men

cannot eat

anything Life is almost

else

which

is

part of

the

simple sense of

the

a substance

like

a chemical or a vitamin

that can pass

from food.

one

living thing

to another. It unifies the whole

by

dependent, but in

this early stage only the vegetable

making the parts inter kingdom was intended as

of

In the commentary to Gen. 2:16 it became clear that from the point of view Chapter Two, the supremacy of man over the vegetable kingdom could not
understood

be

in the

same sense as

it had been
with

expressed

in Chapter One. The

already.

second

account of

Creation began

a world

that had seeds in it

Man
press

was created

itself. Once

merely as the necessary means for allowing the world to ex man had been created, however, his superiority to that for the
and

sake of which

he had been formed became evident,

God

planted

the Gar

den for him. The Garden, in this sense, was an afterthought, and though man was too noble for his position in the world, he was insufficiently fit for life in
the

Garden. When he
which

was

split

in two because for him

no

of

trees
plete

had been thought

proper

longer

his loneliness, one of the could be eaten. The com had to be limited.
of that

interplay between Ultimately man did

man and eat of

the rest

of creation

that

tree,

and

the consequences

eating
of

again manifested

themselves in terms of food. When man ate

and

from the Tree

Knowledge he ingested
appropriate

became

one with a

knowledge

which was no

longer

to him. As a consequence, food was no longer readily

available.

The Lion

and

the

Ass

81
would

Harmony became
Food is
responsible

struggle, and he
to

have

to

labor

to obtain even that

food

which was appropriate

him. in
connection with the

next mentioned

Flood

when

Noah

was made

for

feeding
which

the animals

during

the time on the Ark. The unity of the

world,

which

food represented,

now appears

in

slightly different light. The

to the whole now

interdependence
pears as

unified and gave completeness

ap

the weakness and

dependence
The

of

the part.

After the Flood this

given parts.

slight shift was made even more explicit when man was
weakness of symbol of

the right to

eat meat.

the part led to a division

now

of

the

Food,

which

had been the

unity,

becomes

that which di

vides and

The

subject of

brings disharmony, since one part may now eat dependence and independence became

another.
more

involved

after

the war of the Five Kings against the Four

Kings,

when

Abraham

showed

his

independence from the Four Kings

member,
would

by
act.

that

was

complicated

refusing Abraham

their offer of
recognized since

food. As

we re

the injustice he

incur if he became
would was

obligated

to the Four
of the

Kings,

that

his descendants

inherit the land

own. of food occurs

Four Kings

and

he already knew that the battle into

which

he had fought
next

his

The

time the notion

independence

was

transformed

magnanimity ited his tent.

by

the meal which Abraham prepared for the three men who vis

When Abraham's
showed an even

servant

returned

to Haran to

get

wife
eating.

for Isaac he
He
refused

further sensitivity towards the

act

of

Laban's

offer of

food

until all

of the arrangements

had been completed, but

meal.

once that

had been done he

eat

seemed

to have enjoyed his

The

act of of

down to

together became symbolic at this point.

But

symbols

sitting human

feelings become
ized is
proper

meaningless and even grotesque when

that which

is

symbol

not present.

In this

sense the

distinction between the

proper and

im

time for eating arises. Food became a bargaining tool for Jacob, when he used it to birthright, and a way of charming a blessing from his father.

buy

Esau's Ja

After the dream

cob required and most could

at

Beth-el food became

to the land
of

one of the simple things which

to

return

his father. Food then becomes the lowest It is that

without which

fundamental foundation
else.

of possibility.

there

be nothing

Food

and eating, which

in the Hebrew language

come

from the

same

root,

play
was

a many-faceted role

first

accused of
eaten

in the relationship between Jacob and Laban. Laban having eaten their money, while Jacob presents himself as

having
tual

been

away

antagonism was

by cold winters in the service of Laban, finally concluded when they shared a meal
sat

but their

mu

at the monu

ment which

they

erected.

The thoughtless brothers

after

down to

a picnic and ate their

bread

not

long
him.

they had

planned

to kill Joseph

and claim

that a

wild

beast had

eaten

82

Interpretation
of food as a symbol

The importance

is

next underlined

by

the author in the the

three dreams. It is the fundamental

symbol

in the dreams

of

butler,

the

baker,

and

Pharaoh himself. In the

dreams, eating in
time

the double sense of

growth and

decay

almost

becomes

synonymous with

itself,

since

time is

process through which.

The
when

significance of

food

and

its

relation

to time and change

becomes

clear

the brothers are forced

rest of

by

famine to follow Joseph into Egypt. Through

out

the

kind

on

the

book. In the
conjured

boook, famine and food, the all-pervasive necessity of man lowest level, will occasion the most fundamental changes in the present verse, however, Joseph's magic of food and merriment has
the
and

have

accepted

up the days of the Jubilee Year. The brothers have forgotten envy Joseph.

$>

Announcing the Canadian Journal Supplementary Volume IX 1983:

-

of

Philosophy's

PLATO: New Essays

Plato and Pericles on Freedom and Justice J. MORAVCSIK The Craft of Justice R. PARRY Plato's Greatest Accusation Against Poetry E. BELFIORE Belief, Knowledge and Learning in Plato's Middle Dialogues M. MORGAN Plato's Timeaus: Mass Terms, Sortal Terms, and Identity Through Time in the Phenomenal World J. ZEMBATY Timeaus 48e-52d and the Third Man Argument W. PRIOR Plato's Parmenides Theory of Relations M. McPHERRAN Philebus 55c-62a and Revisionism R. MOHR Knowledge in Philebus 55c-62a: A Response R. SHINER
-

Edited

by

Francis Jeffrey Pelletier and John King-Farlow

Price: CDN$13.00 (in Canada) US$13.00 (out of Canada) Cheque or Money Order only.

This Supplementary Volume is free to individual and student subscribers to Volume XIII (1983).
of

Order from:

The

University

Calgary Press,

2500

Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada.

ISSN 0229-7051

University

Drive N W
ISBN 0-9 19491 -09-X

Discussion

Justice in Translation
Joel B. Lidov
Queens College, C.U.N.Y.

According
what

to a familiar story, a freshman in a great books course was asked

translation of the Iliad

his

class was reading.

No translation, he answered, in that it in

to recreate

the original

Old English.
of

The Iliad

Lang, Leaf,
choice

and

Meyers is

unusual

attempts
of

the distance between the reader and the supposed context

more and

the

original.

The

ordinary
a

is to
the

present a classical author

author can

tacitly
has

assume that

be

read as a contemporary.

contemporary style This assump himself to

a participates

tion

corollary, that the

concern

classical

author,

matter of

enduring
are

(as

evidenced

having by his being

underlie put

addressed

translated),
a
recent

with

the

modern reader

in

a common and

readily

available purpose.

These

the

assumptions

that seem to
Grube.1

translation
paperback

of a

Plato's Republic

by

G. M. A.

Hackett has

it

out

in

in

generously-sized octavo

format that is easy to Stephanus

volume

read and comfortable

to

hold.

Adequate
edition

margins with student.

page and section references make

it

a useful

scholarly apparatus: in all a scant eight the preface, introduction and brief bibliography take up pages. The introduction aims at no more than describing the dialogue's place in
not encumbered

for the

The

is

by

very general historical and biographical survey. There is duction to each book, illuminating the "main thread of the
a and a minimal use of notes

discussion"

page-long intro (p. v),

aims

in the

body

of the translation.

Grube

"to

com

readabil

bine successfully

fidelty

to

[his]

author with natural

(p. iv). He

es

chews paraphrase altogether and

mostly

achieves an uninterrupted

flow

of edu

cated, contemporary English. His

sense.

Grube has

a good ear

vocabulary are plain in the best for that level of the language which is idiomatic
style and

without

blatant

colloquialisms, which

is free from

mannerisms

of

diction

or
of

has many structure, and which will not be rapidly dated. It is an English that the virtues we would look for in a translation of Plato's Greek.

But Grube's
could

translation also

has its

share of

flaws. Although

some of these

be

overlooked raise

as occasional

infelicities

or minor errors, taken together

these flaws
ent purpose

the question
served

whether

this translation

has,

at

its core,

differ indi
this

from that

in the

original.

Grube's text

often expresses often achieves

vidual turns of the

conversation

with great clarity,

but it

i.

Plato's Republic, tr.

by

G. M. A. Grube (Indianapolis: Hackett

Publishing Co.,

1974).

84

Interpretation

clarity by disregarding the larger arguments which these single episodes consti tute. Not only does he lose the context for the separate discussions, he also does not convey the effects of the book's dialogic structure and hortatory de
sign.

These deficiencies
either

appear

prominent

in

modern

thought or

especially when the text broaches in the modern conception

purpose as

a problem of

Plato's

thought. Grube's translation thus serves the same

his

earlier

book,
find
the

Plato's Thought: "In

an

each of

the eight chapters of this book the reader

will

account,
Ideas,"

as complete and concise as

"2
. .

can make

it,

of what

Plato
are

said on

subject
of

discussed
"Art,"

(three

of the

chapters, for example,

"The

Theory

"Statecraft").
can, in

This

question of purpose

fact, be
In the in

asked of

four

other

translations

with which

will compare

Grube's. It is
mean?

one aspect of

the more general ques

pages

tion, what does an English Plato the Greek text with the English
virtues and

following

will compare

versions

order to

discover their individual

deficiencies,

assess

their relative merits, and attempt to illuminate

the general problem of reading

Plato in

modern

dress.3

will make no

brief

on

Old English, but it seems to me that some these translations need to be called into question.
behalf
of

of

the assumptions of all

In Part I, I

will consider

without addition or

loss;
well

second, how he has

not amenable

first Grube's basic accuracy in rendering the Greek managed some particularly diffi
to
"literal"

cult problems of
will consider

Greek idiom

translation.

From there I
with

how

his rendering

of particular passages

fits in

their

context, to
and

what extent

the translation respects the argument as Plato spins

it,

how

well

the translation represents the special

form

of

Plato,

the dialogue.

will adduce

for

comparison two other

readily

available

translations, that

by

Desmond Lee in the Penguin series, and the copiously annotated translation by Paul Shorey in the Loeb Library.4 In Part II, I will look at the assumptions and
methods of

the translations

by

Allan Bloom

and

A. D.

Lindsay, mostly
brief

with

reference to passages
of

already discussed,

and conclude with a

assessment

the practical strengths of each of the five

are adaptable.

translations,

and the uses to which

they

while revising the order of the opening four words Republic. The story must give a translator pause. But in English, the or der of the Greek, "I went down yesterday to the (Lee, Shorey), does of the
Piraeus"

Plato, legend has it, died

2. 3.

(London, 1935,)
The
a modern

p.

ix.

problem of the

historicity
of

of

understanding is

not

primary here,

since the comparison

is

between

reading

the Greek text and a modern translation.

4. Plato, The Republic, tr. by Desmond Lee (second ed., revised, New York etc.. 1974). Plato, The Republic, tr. by Paul Shorey (Cambridge, Mass. and London, I, 1930 (rev. 1937), II,

Discussion

85
awkward emphasis on

nothing but introduce

went

a slightly down to the Piraeus

"yesterday"; Grube's "I

and

yesterday"

is

normal

English for the Greek it

should

places whatever

secondary

emphasis there

is

where on

tion.

In the
"our

next sentence own

Socrates, reporting
and

the new

be, on festival,

the

destina he
ad

says

procession"

mired

had

sent was no

less

outstanding"

graciously (Grube). But it is local

adds

that "that which the Thracians

not so simple.

Has Soc

rates gone

down to the Piraeus

and

as a

or a visitor?

The theories that Plato

of
of

has Socrates descend

lower
tants"

to the most

feverish district

Attica

at that

to

construct a model of what

is above,
to the

urge a not

detachment

Socrates from the

realm.

The Greek (32734) has

contribution

"our

own"

but "of the local inhabi

confuses with

("local

procession,"

Lee; Shorey only

were

"of the

citizens").

Further,

there is a historical problem:

ad

the

Thracians
"them"

res

ident

aliens or envoys?

Adam notes,
a sharper or make

loc,

that the

former
"us"

was more

likely.
than

So Grube has introduced

distinction between
327b

and

Socrates

seems to

feel

(indeed, in
That is the
must

he

makes a point of

his

own

intention to leave). Grube

of epempon with

appears

to have been led into this

common

by

his translation

(32735)

"sent."

as

meaning, but construed

the verb needs a

its

"procession,"

cognate pompen,

which

mean

more germane translation.

Shorey,

with'"the show made

by

the marching of the

Thracian

contingent,"

tense of epempon,

it precisely right. He also observes the force of the for which Grube implies an aorist rather than imperfect.
gets
"p"

And

Shorey

has

perhaps picked

up

some of

the

spirit of

the

alliteration

in
er

the Greek. What is

rors

disturbing
with

about

Grube's

handling

of

the verb is that the

of translation are

elementary, and

careless.

matters, but along

his forthright

presentation

These may seem like small of idiomatic English, he has

and

gratuitously given dramatic situation do Here is

an

unlikely historical

interpretation,
more often

he has

obscured

the

and

hence the

potential significance of

Socrates's

presence. such errors

Grube translates accurately,

occur.

of

course,

than not,
proposes

but

another example.

At 589C7, Socrates

to tell the pan

egyrist of
.

yeyovevm.

injustice how they would say Grube's translation, "beautiful

right

xai xa xaXa xai to. aloxQtx v6\ii\ia

and

nated,"

looks

only

at

first
of

"Traditions"

glance.

ugly traditions have origi is hardly the subject of this

discussion;
is
what

"the
are

origin

...

the

conventional notions of

fair

foul"

and

(Lee)

they

discussing.
show, there is
considerable variation

As these
out

examples

the translation.

Many
his

difficulties
position.

are

rendered

in quality through simply and well. In 343c

Thrasymachus

restates

The

reader must

keep
by

straight

the relations

1935).

I
a

will

occasionally

refer also

to The Republic of

Plato,

tr.

1945),

widely

used paraphrastic version.

Jowett's translation is been

perhaps still

F. M. Comford (New York, the one most in cir

own

culation, but it

pays

the penalty now

for

having

highly

idiomatic in its

time,

and

will

make almost no reference

to it. I have made use of the running commentary and notes of James
will

Adams, The Republic

All
references are ad

translators of Plato (Cambridge, 2 vols., 1902). The loc. unless page number is given.

be

cited

by

name.

86
of

Interpretation
contrasts:

advantage/harm. and

many terms expressing three basic The Greek takes full

justice/injustice, ruler/subject,
its
resources of parallelism
awkward.

advantage of

coordinating particles; the English tends to get

But Grube
of

makes

it easy to follow and manages to imitate the exaggerated clarity within English idiom. For example, rotfvavriov (34306), is
Greek
and
other

the original

predicative

in

and

is

laboriously
Grube

translated as such

.");

makes

the point

Lee ("is the contrary, by Shorey clearer with an adverbial phrase ("on the
and

hand").
often

But

the same passage

illustrates both flawed

eros
"love"

and

deft translation. In
youth who

57265-5730, Socrates describes the and tyrannical. Grube uses

"lust"
longing"

implanted in the

becomes
well

appropriately, and captures

correct

the

"sting

of

(pothos). Shorey's vocabulary here is

more sexual reference as

but

cumber

some; Lee imports

presentation

than

is

called

for,

and obscures

the

of

Eros

mythological

figure. But Grube drops the

whole

phrase

introducing

the simile of the drone bee

to it in the next
observe

paragraph

that the oversized,

(57331), rendering the reference incomprehensible. Socrates, in 422e2-7, about to to wealthy city is disunited, denies the name
"city"

any

other state than one such as

"we

founding"

are

(Grube). This transition

"build"

of

pleasingly implied in the dialogue. But the

xaraoxevd^OLiev

recalls

the historical precedent of colonization

"construct"

or actually mesns (whether buildings or institutions), and that is the sense and context needed here (so Lee and Shorey). On the other hand, when Adeimantos asks for a dif
word

only that one must address other cities Grube's ( Lee's) "find a grander literally, pett,ovcbg name for nicely fits the sense and the ironical spirit and vigor of the Greek. This time one can hardly read Shorey without wincing: "a greater predi
and

ferent name,

Socrates

says

"more

greatly,"

them"

cation must

be

applied."

Even though
use

"greater"

leads
well

more

lems ism

of size and

number, its
at

here illustrates

exactly to the prob the false value of literal

which

Grube

his best idiom

avoids. often call out

Small

problems of

the best in

Grube's

translation. For

example, in 33206 the double question, idiomatic in Greek but foreign to En glish, is nicely rendered with a paratactic addition: xioiv ti, etcetera, becomes

"what does the

of

whom?"

craft

give

and to not

(cf.

Shorey!). The beliefs

the guardians are set

fast,

430a-b,

to be washed out

by

emotions which
.

are stronger gent

. . .

than any "powder or soda or lye"). When Cephalus sums up the through the awkwardness and
another"

soap"

(Shorey: "detergent

abster

usefulness of

money (33^5-6),

Grube

cuts

indefiniteness
"benefit for
of the

of, for example, "set

ting
as

one

thing

against

(Lee)
the

benefit."

with

Perhaps

no small

difference in

idioms
a

two

languages is
of

so

taxing
and

that of pronouns. Because

Greek has

multiplicity

demonstrative

third person pronouns, the advantages of case and gender, and a stock of cor
relative

particles,

Greek

paragraph can go quite a

distance

without

repeating

Discussion
an antecedent.

87

Moreover, Greek

style tolerates a much greater not respond to this

degree

of

inde

terminacy
tently.

than

does English. Grube does

times leave a

difficulty

consis

Sometimes he
other

will substitute an antecedent

for

a pronoun

(for example,

430d8-9), at

hanging

"this"

A mishandling of the pronoun idioms can double question mentioned above occurs in the discussion
analogous

(for example, 328e4). seriously disturb the sense. The

of

justice

as a techne

to medicine and cooking (332c6-d2). The question is asked three

times,
twice,
us:
food."

once

for

each

craft,

and

the interrogative xioiv turns out to be masculine

whom?"

neuter once.
. .

Grube keeps "to

.

all three
. . .

times,

and so even gives

"What does

cooking

give

and to whom?

It

adds

flavor to
and

He has

chosen to preserve a verbal pattern

that has no logical value,

to make Socrates sound awkward. to clarify

Since the

whole

discussion here is intended

the passage

by

the

use of

familiar

examples

that

is,

has

a conversa

tional rather than

effect.

Grube actually works against the intended expository tone Here the problem can be met by (Shorey) and does not call for
"what"

abandonment of

the

parallel construction.

In this last

case the

difficulty

concerned one word.

But in the fullest

uses of

the pronominal
such passages

idioms, Plato balances

translator to
represent

several pronouns against each other.

marked

In

the differences between Greek and English are so

the Greek closely must

that

the
a

failure

of the

be

evaluated

in

larger

context.

Consider 438, in Grube's translation. Socrates

expounds

the

proposition

that "in the case of all things that are related to another, when the

first is ified

qualified

by

predicate, the second is too, but

object"

each

in itself is

unqual

and

directed to

an unqualified

(438a7-b2). When Glaucon fails to

comprehend, Socrates
paratives

offers examples taken greater against

from the

relation of opposed com

and from the field something something knowledge becomes specifically architecture when it is knowl of knowledge edge of house-building. Then he repeats the general proposition with minor smaller

changes of clear

wording (438dn-i3; Grube version of his rendering of the first

uses no words of
"related"

uses a somewhat condensed

statement).

but very
et

predic

Plato
sim.

here for the ideas

of

"related,
"Than"

qualified,

saying uses, in effect, a "such

than the the genitive
and
case or

Instead

he

uses correlative pronouns;

and
house,"

for

"qualified"

he

"of,"

construction.

as

in "greater

smaller"

"knowledge
the

of

building

are

both

expressed

by
ex

by

preposition ngog.

Plato takes them

as similar rela

tions of subject

and object.

Shorey, in

a note, calls this passage

"a palmary

ample of the concrete

ideas."

He

offers a

simplicity of literal version of the

Greek idiom in the

expression of abstract

second statement of

the

proposition:

"
. .

of all things that are such as to

be

of something, those that are

just them kind

are

selves of

only

are of things
kind."

just

themselves only,

but things

of a certain

things of a

No

wonder

Glaucon

was confused.

But Plato

explains

Plato. When Comford,

defending his

method

of

para-

88
phrase,

Interpretation
Shorey'

condemns

s version as of
.

little
.

use

to "one more concerned to

idiom"5

follow Plato's
gards some of

argument than to relish

Greek

Plato's

intention, he ignores
Plato's
place

the student who

stand the problem of

in the

history

of

he not only disre is trying to under the Western mind. Plato

cannot

does

not write with a

post-

Aristotelian

vocabulary.

Nonetheless, English
burdensome to
read.

bear Greek's idiom lemma may

This last
one
well

without

becoming impossibly
is
as

The di

be insoluble. Grube's
the

version reads

well, but perhaps

as

he does

not offer enough to

modern student who

persevering

Glaucon.

example raises the

may overlook what illustrate this problem.

recollection

possibility that by translating Plato too clearly is actually happening. Two more small examples will

In
of

329c

Grube

renders

idiomatically

and

directly
as a

Cephalos's

the time he asked Sophocles about his sex life.

to epithumiai
("appetites,"

Cephalos then
class,
and

generalizes

Grube: "desires")

in his

repetition of

Sophocles 's

opinion

the plural genitive xovxcov

appetites.

(d2) must refer not it, however, as

forcefulness in the
the

to the collective aphrodisia

but to the
note

Grube takes

"sex."

This is

an

error, but
a

that in making it he gains

of

moment and

loses

foreshadowing
34208

the discussion of how

points out

just

man

happily
and

regulates

himself. In
their

Socrates

that the

technai
ern"

"govern

have

object"

power over

(Grube). For

archein

"gov
of"

is the best

choice

I found to

mediate

the meanings of "be the

first

part

"rule."

and

For kratein "have

power"

is

also

easy

and

exact; but then

en

one must and else

translate the familiar "advantage

stronger"

of or

the

(kreittonos,

where)

as

"of the

powerful"

more not

ment will get

lost. Grube does

the clarity and construction of the argu follow through; indeed, in en he has "its

advantage."

own

The
when

combination

of

consistency
a

and precision

in translation
of

matters

most

the words assume, even for

moment, the force the objection that

technical terms. In

454a-b

Socrates, preparing
remarks
on

to

meet

women

differ in

nature

from men,
techne

introduces,

and

difference between eristic, which the antilogike dialectic. The implied and self-illuminating contrast be
the
perhaps

tween antilegein and

dialegein is

beyond translation. More impor

tantly, the translator confronts the two-fold problem of maintaining both the technical distinction between the two types of verbal investigation and the ap
propriateness of

both

words

to the

informal,

conversational context

in

which

they

are used.

For he

"dialectic"

must remember

that the casual reference to

and

here is preparatory to the reintroduction of it as a major in Book VII; and he must not forget that in English

"dialectic"

strictly defined topic and be

"eristic"

long

to a technical vocabulary used only in philosophic studies.

Shorey
once;

uses the at

technical terms once, the

informal

"wrangling"

"arguing"

and

best,

this points out the problem. Lee chooses a

5.
cal

distinction

of purpose:

"score

points

P.

vi.

language

Comford ignores Shorey's first version of the proposition, which uses modem, techni much like Grube's. Shorey frequently uses alternative styles of translation for two
the same idea.

statements of

Discussion
in
debate"

89 "argue
seriously."

and

He loses the

reference

to technique and to
"disputing"

the basic meanings of the words which

"conversing."

Grube

attains

by

contrasting

and

Indeed, Grube's is probably

the simplest and clearest version

in the immediate context, but prepare the reader for

In
382

by

their

"dialectic"

very familiarity his English terms fail to in its technical and philosophic sense. deception

Socrates

rejects

the stories of

by

the gods in popular my

thology by distinguishing between the cbg dkrjdcog ipevdog and verbal false hood. The former is a misunderstanding in the soul about reality. Pseudos is a word of much greater range in Greek than is in English. It frequently
"lie"

means

"deliberate

misrepresentation,"

but it

can refer

to any representation and

often means

"misrepresentation from

whatever

cause."6

The distinction

which

Socrates

makes

here is

not

easy; Adeimantos
easier.

needs

two tries to get it. But

Grube does
. .

not make

it any

In the

mysterious phrase

xcp xvgicoxdxcp
overclarifies

ip-evdeodcu xai Jtegi xd xvgitbxaxa most vital part about

(38237-8; Shorey
their
most vital

it:

"falsehood in the

concerns") Grube

translates pseudesthai
most
out

by

an explicit verb of speaking:

"to

speak untruth with

important

psrt of

himself

sbout

the most important

subjects.

But it turns

that pseudesthai

here

refers to what

is

not

the

verbal

falsehood. For this

phrase jtegi

is
xd

explained

by
of

a parallel expression a

few lines later (bi-2): xfj ipvxfj

xai

ovxa

xpevdeodai

xe

xai
and

ixpevodat

dfiadfj

elvai.

Grube's translation
one's and

this, "to lie

. .

to be in a state the

soul, to be ignorant
obscures

",

removes

generally

the parallelism

reality in from the opening words for to (note the change from
of untruth about emphasis
"with"
"in"

the

dative;

compare and

Shorey: "that deception in the

soul about

realities, to have

been deceived

to be

blindly

ignorant

.").

Thus Grube

provides a passage

in clear, smooth English which actually obscures the very point under discus sion. But this is a vital moment. Plato introduces here the distinction between a world of unchanging perfection and the human world. He makes the distinction in
reference

to the

gods of popular

belief,
intent

not

to philosophic

"ideas";

and

in

this way he

grounds the introduction of the absolute world of thought

in

com

mon religious

feeling. The
to

hortatory
his

of

the

book,

as well as the philo

sophic,

requires us

respect

method.

drawn mostly from the first half of the Repub This last lic, points up how the basic ideas treated in the Republic are bound into the de velopment of the dialogue as a conversation, rather than as an exposition. The
series of examples,

translator,
sage, has

by focusing
individual

rather

mistranslated a

narrowly on the most prominent needs broader reference. In the end, the accuracy

of the pas
of

the ren

dering

of

statements cannot

be

considered apart

from the translator's

Socrates is de

appreciation of

the dialogic form.

the dialogue

Grube veloping
plain

presents

in

paragraph

form, but

wherever

an

idea through
note

a series of questions

and assents
"untruth,"

which

is to say,
really
ex

6. Grube's

to 37707 explains that

pseudos can mean

but it does
to the

not

Socrates's

point.

That

note

actually

applies

to this passage,

which adds

confusion.

90

Interpretation
the time

most of sents

Grube

omits the

introductory
to the

"he

said"

and attaches p.

the as

argument

(which, he asserts, "do

Socrates's
However

not contribute

vi) to the para

graphs of

statements common

by

means of a

dash. The

style excludes quota

tion marks.

the form of dialogue

Century,
with

the Athenian

reader could

hardly

in the early Fourth have been less distracted by the me

was

chanics of

its

presentation

than is the

modern

reader,

who

has had

experience

the novel before he comes to Plato. Plato chose to maintain that

form

over

continuous, or at
convenient

least less

frequently interrupted,

expositions.

While Grube's
the reader

format does form

not suppress

not to regard the

a matter of

any substance, it importance.

encourages

As

a type of

dramatization the dialogue derives its life from the

to the intended
emotional

adaptation

of style

to the

content and

force

of

any

given moment

of conversation.

Grube

relies

basically

on a

flexible English

period of moderate
para-

length. It easily
tactic additions

accommodates extended

phrases,

subordinate clauses and

but

style,

capable of

away from oratorical rotundity. It is an expository setting out an idea fully. At its best Grube can make it both
shies

dignified

and moving:

laid up in heaven, for him who wishes to look upon, and as he looks, set up the government of his soul. It makes no difference whether it exists anywhere or will exist. He would take part in the public affairs of that city

Perhaps, I

said, it is

a model

only,

not of

any

other.

(592b2-5

the close of Book

IX)

The concluding myth of Er, which is one of the longest continuous expositions in the Republic, is also effectively rendered, but with one exception. The proc lamation
compact,
of

the

heavenly
style a

messenger,

6i7d6-e5, is

couched

in

heraldically
the
pre

nominal

(which Denniston derives from the

and

style of

Socratics). It is
unnoticeable

forceful

dramatic bit

of mimesis

in the

original,

but

in the translation. Grube's style, indeed, is that he Socrates's description of the

cannot shake off

The

problem with

the ex

pository tone. Consider

pation:

"democratic"

man's

dissi

xai xaxavkovpievog. aiixig 5e vdgojvoxcdv (56107-8). There is a rhetorical flourish in this which is xaxioxaivdpievog captured by: "At one time he drinks to the accompaniment of the hardly heavily

tore

/iev

Liedvcov

xai

flute,
"One
diet."7

at

another

he drinks only
women

water and

is wasting
next

away."

Compare Lee:
strict

day

it's wine,

and

song, the

water

to drink and a

Such
of

inflexibility

can obscure the

intent

of an

important

passage.

At the

end

Book III

(4i6d2-4i7b8) Socrates

prescribes the ascetic and communal

life

of

the guardians. The specifics are set out

in

an extended series of

infinitive

clauses clause

(sometimes elliptical) dependent on dei ("it is necessary"). The last introduces further infinitives in indirect discourse, then the original
version

con-

7.

Shorey's

For

other examples of

is more pejoratively loaded. Cf. , on the rest of this passage, infra p. Grube's failure to match style, see 37737 and 401c with Adam's notes.

92.

Discussion
struction

91
lawful"

is

resumed with a

(ou themis).

heightened impersonal expression, "it is not These infinitive instructions are capped by an emphatic potential
whose verb

optative phrase

is

repeated

in

active and passive:

literally, "thus
gives

they

would

be

saved and would save the condition.

city."

And this in turn

way to

monitory future indicative

change

The

vigor of

the Greek is achieved

by

the

to

increasingly

forceful types

of construction after the accumulation of

cli

infinitives, something
max

not

easily imitated in English. But Grube flattens the

by dropping
future

the repetition of the optative verb

and

selves and

their city"),

by

subjunctive

condition

("they may substituting the translation of the more common (as English present) for the more emotional future
preserve them

indicative. The

emphasis

away from the importance reformed life.

is thereby shifted to the regulations themselves and which Socrates attaches to having these men lead a
a

which

Above all, the dialogue, as ideas are developed. The

prevents an
and

conversation,

establishes
most part

context
and

within

context

is for the

defining

limit
in

ing. The dialogue

which

idea from

being

applied outside the sphere

matter at

it

was

raised,

limits its

application

to the

hand. Indeed, di
purposes, as

alogue permits the

when

introduction

of

topics for essentially

negative

Socrates

deliberately
cf.

confuses

Polemarchos
note ad

by

is

thief

(333e-334a,
and

Adam's

loc);

or when

proving that the just man he simultaneously

which makes

demonstrates

dismisses the technical

aspect of

music,

its

re

form possible, by ory (400b). Grube

intentionally
renders
care

confused references to

Damon's

rhythmic the

these passages

without gain or

loss. development
such cases construc

But the translator's

is

most needed whenever the positive

of a topic suggests to modern thought more than

Plato

allows

it. In

Grube does
tion of the
must

not always preserve

Plato's limitations

by

observing his

argument.

In 400du-40id2, Socrates

argues

that the city's artisans

imitate only the best. The basis of the argument is that rhythm, harmony, and form (the danced ode is the governing example) must conform to the logos, and the logos conforms to the character (ethos) of the soul. If the
ethos

is good, the
xai

other

qualities

will

also

be

present:

zbkoyia eiin-i^eia

dga
and

xai

stagptooxta
&ei
. . .

eioxrjpoovvr]

xai

etigv&pia

dxokv-

(400dn-ei) "So fine

speech, fine music, gracefulness,

of character
pattern
.

fine

rhythm are all adapted to a

simplicity

in Grube's translation for the break in the

ity"

for

"gracefulness,"

(Grube). Even allowing "simplic

rejects

translates only that meaning of

euetheia which

Socrates

in the

next

two
the

lines,

and carries neither the

repeated

ft)-)

needed

meaning here. And

nor verbal pattern

(corresponding
necessary

to

"fine"

is

hardly

the

moral

term. But Grube has in fact already risked the

vital connection

by translating

logos

as

capture

here. And he does not re in d9, and in d4, the intent by translating the opposites, kakologia and kakoetheia
"word" language"

"content"

"speech"

(40ia6),

as

"poor

and
proposition

"poor
goes on

From this basic

Socrates

(40ib4)

to the enthusiastic in-

92

Interpretation
against artisans who present

junction leads
of us

less than the best

always.

The

argument

to look at the work

of

the

craftsman with our eye on work.

the moral
as a

quality purely
nega after

the soul reflected in the surface features of the

"Beauty"

aesthetic

quality

should

have

no place.

Plato

makes

this clear

by

starting only

tively
man

and

the simile of the

of

using clearly harmful pasturage,

natural

moral

language. The

positive notion enters

and still with a rural metaphor:

the crafts

good

ability

(etcpvcog dvvdpievog)
occurrence
who

tracks down the nature

and

of

the

kalon

("beautiful,"

first

in this passage)
works are

euschemon

("graceful"

but

see

below). Those

enjoy his

like those

living

in

healthy

place,

and

from their

perception of

the kala

erga comes assimila

kalos logos. This last is obviously the eulogia that expressed good kalos in this passage may be rather than but it has character; been strictly defined, both by context and by pairing with a ew-compound from
tion to the
"beautiful"

"good"

the preceding part of the argument.

Grube, however,
and

obfuscated the context

by

his translation

of

the preparatory argument, to its

now

translates euschemon

without reference

key

element.

And though the in the

next

use of

logos here is tran

sitional

to the
of

acquisition

of reason

paragraph, the translation

for kalos logos completely obscures the connection of this had led up to it. Finally, Grube takes the three nouns for the as similation, 6iioioxr\xa xe xai cptkiav xai ovpicpcoviav and renders philia first, to get "love of, resemblance to, and harmony with But philia is deter

reason"

"beauty
climax

to

what

mined

by

its

position

here. It

must mean

the affinity of those

which on

belonging

to the
em

group (see LSJ), not a quasi-erotic passion phasis. Shorey, for this same passage, has notes
same

deserves primary
of

the similarity of Plato to

Wordsworth,
guage, his
"symbols"

and

though he preserves

most

of the restraints

Plato's lan
the artisans
a

modern

bias leads him to

call the eikones produced would prefer a

by

("images,"

Grube). The translators have

Grecian Plato to

Greek; but
festation

the Athenian would

us embrace

beauty

only

as a useful mani

of good character.

I have already had occasion to cite one of the best-known sections of the Re public, in which Socrates derides the democratic man who treats all his desires equally (561). The description of his behavior is loaded with words that have
political

meanings,

in

particular also

time

and

its

compounds

(atimazein
obvious).

(b5)
These level

"disdain"

(Grube), but
until

"disenfranchise"

is the

most

keep

alive the political

meaning Socrates's climactic

who

of

he

reaches the

meaning isonomikos Though

"legal"

of

isos,

"equal."

Grube ignores

this

man of

Glaucon's

assent

to

disparaging
equality."

description (56iei); he
covers
with which

renders this as
-nomos,

"a

man

believes in legal

the effect here

out

is further to

obscure the

consistency

Socrates is

books

following

the

dominating

metaphor

by portraying

the condition of the man's soul as

the constitution of a city.

(I have already quoted Grube's rendering of the culminating expression of that metaphor at the end of Book IX; there he trans lates the difficult heauton katoikizein by "set up the government of his

soul,"

Discussion
which captures

93 it perfectly.) For isonomia is a constitutional term in Greek, and a new word in this context, its appearance here in a term for a

though nomos

is

type of character

has been

well prepared

in the Greek

by

the metaphor. Since

Grube's

"legal"

is

unprepared

in the translation, it

appears as a new

idea. As

result, Grube's Socrates suddenly seems to be taking pot shots at a type of po litical theorist. (Lee was careful to maintain the constitutional metaphor and his
translation of isonomikos
sistent with

"one

who

believes in

liberty

equality"

and careful

is

con

the rest of the passage.

Shorey, slightly less

than

Lee,

seems all

too

happy

to present a Socrates merely satirizing the "devotee of de

caught

mocracy.")

Grube, apparently
attack on

by

Socrates's infamous
guage which

the spirit of

momentary interest in exhibiting democracy, has obscured the lan

and never

carefully circumscribes that in fact even broaches a political

would

attack with a concern

for

the soul,

recommendation.

All translators, it

appear, infringe the

voice of

integrity

of

the dialogue in

quite another way: notes.

The

far in Lee's
dialogue
tracts the

edition.

Shorey

writes

the teacher, for example, is never very footnotes in profusion, creating as it were a

with

the

dialogue; I'm

not sure whether

his

method

from Plato's presentation, as Lee's does, or has no headnotes. Grube uses both kinds, but with great headnotes are only a page, and only once per book. Most of the moderation; the footnotes are explanations of words which lack a precise equivalent in En
reader

ultimately dis emphasizes it. It is

notable that

Shorey

glish or are

significantly bound up in
43od;
on

a cultural context.

These
on
on

notes are often

pun on skylax,

excellent,

concise and precise at

once:8

on

techne, 332c;
376b;

the

375a;

on

sophrosyne,
on

philosophos,

musike,

3~/6e;
also

on

theos, 377e;

Plato's

avoidance of

technical

terferes. The note to 335d

makes sure

that everyone

terms, 534a. is aware

But Grube
of

in

Socrates's "ris

ing

to a higher ethic"; the

are

first

note

in Book V declares that the

following

books

themes."

portant are vital.

digression, but only formally, for they contain vitally im Grube opposes form, apparently unessential, to themes, which It is true that Plato stages the ensuing discussion as an interruption,

"formally

but Grube distracts the

ity
IV,
but

of wives shows and needed

from seeing how the example of the communalthat the laws and upbringing mentioned at the close of Book
reader produce

to

the

fully

just man,

cannot

be

achieved

by

conven

tional

kingship,

as seems to

be implied there. The

"theme"

is

not

only vital,

formally

integral. beyond

And
cations

applies

in the argument; they contain impli all he has said which undermine it. "Socrates reminds his hearers that (p. remind had to Plato if as almost to women too. It reads
some notes go

interfering

himself!"

167, headnote to VIII). Plato's

personal

problems

also explain

577b,

where

Socrates
hold.

and the others pretend

to describe the tyrant

as members of

his house full

We are informed that "Plato

notes are not

is here in fact claiming to

one

speak with

8. But the
name

fully

edited.

The

to 361b

misquotes

the translation of 362a; the

Creophylos in 6oob is

misspelled

Creophilos in the

note.

94

Interpretation
based
on

knowledge"

his

visit

to Dionysios I. But that makes the passage in

of

ductive,
their

when

in fact it is deduced from the logos

relations.

the parts of the soul and

on personal

"political"

For

discussion

of

happiness dependent

observation we could
"knowledge"

have

stopped at

Book

II.'

Notice, too,

that Grube's use

of

here denies the superiority of reason to perception. Grube's lack of respect for the genesis of the argument in the dialogue
comes out

and

for its discursive development

the pervasive
we
problem of

especially in
model

passages which

touch on

the relation of the

apparently find ourselves, the one in which understanding of that relationship is tied up with our notion of the famous I observed above how Plato is careful to ground his first references to
"Forms."

city to the world in which the dialogue takes place. Our

the world of absolute truth

scant reference

in

common

religious

feeling. He himself
VII is

makes

to his the

"Forms"

in the Republic, though their importance to the in Books VI

and

description
worth

of

philosopher

self-evident.

So it is length

noting that Grube introduces them in the notes before Plato does in the
and goes

text (note to 473a in particular, but cf. that to 402c), to explain them (notes to 476a, e).

to some

His

explanations

involve

capitalization:

Form, Beauty, Justice,

one

etcetera; and

they

tend to focus

our attention on another

world, entirely distinct from this one. But in fact Plato does not make things so terweaves the levels
nished
without

easy.

He smoothly

and

loss

of

distinction. A

fairly

clear example

closely in is fur

by

a small remark at 396e2.

Socrates dismisses
"jest,"

narrative

containing im
"amusement,"

personation of

except perhaps

Lee).
to

Shorey insidiously

lesser men; it is something a moderate man won't engage in, for the sake of (Grube; Shorey, has a sententious note here on the preferability of gross comedy
"play"

false

romance.

Grube's

note points out the paradox that

Socrates

usually
not

attaches great

importance to

play.

Their translations

of this passage are

inaccurate, but
conception of

what neither shows

is that in

bio-c3

Plato had described

his
and

the perfectly proper man's behavior in potential optatives,

then, to

explain

it

more

fully,

used subjunctive conditional sentences.

The

subjunctive empirical

constructions
not an

extrapolate

from

present situations

and provide an
play"

model,

idea. The

proviso

"except for the

sake of

saves
with

the empirical generalization

from

challenge and

has nothing
word

to

do

any

ideal

notion of play.

In the
occurs

simile of the

divided

line,

509d-5iic, the

for

"form,"

eidos,

four times. The first time, before the line is introduced, it is a synonym for genos in the presentation of the two realms which are to be discussed. "So
you

have

two

kinds,
the

the visible and the

intelligible."

The

second use occurs

in

5iob8 where

Socrates is

discussing
that

how the

soul makes

its way in the

upper

most section of

line,

is, in

the upper section of the part which repre

sents the
9.

intelligible
far be
as

eidos; he will later call this method noesis. It proceeds,

In

so

Plato means,

by

the pretense,

to suggest an example from experience, it

would need to

part of

the audience's experience too.

Critias

will

do,

we need not go abroad.

Discussion
he says,

95
themselves"

aiixolg eldeoi, "by forms Shorey). For this instance of the word Grube
a

(Lee; "by ideas

his
uppercase and

only,"

shifts to

inserts

definite article, "the Forms

the

unwarranted

He thereby imposes a sharp and distinction in terminology between the two kinds that constitute

themselves."

the two

realms of

line's

major

divisions,

and

the

forms

with which

the up
of

per part of

the line is concerned. The third use is in the explanation the upper part, the section the
of

the
plu

lower

section of

dianoia, in
items

5iod5.
of

Here the

ral of eidos signifies of

"visible

figures"

(Grube)

the

upper section

the lower

half

about which one use refers

resent or

imitate. This

talks while reasoning about what they rep back to the first one, in 507 cLj., but the plural the class while the qualifier these
eide
"visible"

here indicates
seems

particular

items

within

to

be
in

the

key

to

distinguishing
not opposition

from the

ones noesis works

through.

These latter
contrast

are once again referred

to in the fourth use, 51 ic2, where

they

are

but

to the assumptions
at

(hypotheseis)
eide as

used

in

the third section (that of

dianoia)

and,

first, in

the fourth. Since the assump

"figures"

tions are based on the visible eide, the distinction between

"Forms"

and as article

which

Grube insists

on

here

seems unjustified

(Grube drops the

in 51102, although the Greek is virtually identical to 5iob8). Plato's vocabulary does not lead to clear and easily understood distinctions here, and does not justify translating eidos as if its uses in relation to the uppermost sec
tion were
pared to argue

self-evidently distinct from the others, that such a meaning is implied by

responds not present an exposition of

even

if the translator is

pre

considerations not of

immediate

to the text. Grube's practice tive concern to

to the text

Plato, but
5iib8,

to a presump

Platonic Forms.
measured

The force
says that

of

Grube's

concern can

be

at

where

Socrates
xr)v xov
of all

in

noesis

the logos reaches

which

[xeXQ1

xv

dvvxoMxov m
the

Jidvxog
that
and

dgxrjv,

"that

is beyond hypothesis,
hypothesis
than
rather

first

principle

exists"

(Grube).

By translating
renders

throughout

by

its

transliteration
or

"hypothesis,"

derivative,
Grube

by

its meaning,
of

"assumption"

"pre

supposition,"

the

whole

discussion

the

upper

line

all

but in
ver

comprehensible.

Leaving

that problem aside,

however,

compare

Shorey 's
and

all."

sion:
notes

"that

which requires no assumption and

throughout,
sought

Shorey

tries to lower the ceiling

is the starting point of in the discussion,

anything but the
and
politics.

In his

insists
"sanc

that the arche, the idea of

tion"

the good, is

never

sufficient

in any

given

discussion

of ethics

He is

zealous

in

(II 106, note a); "transcendental separating the significance from the he attempts embarrassment an is "of The thus he chooses that mod to reference to explain away. Grube obviously disagrees. But only by
"starting-point."
all" exists"

rhetoric"

ern

dispute

can we understand

Grube's
ptexQi

addition of

"that
as

and the essen an

tially

emotional

translation

of

too

dvimoMmv

invitation to

hypothesis."

that boundless

empyrean

"beyond
"Forms"

The

concentration

on

leads to
the

further

consequence.

Grube tends
an
empha-

to skew the

whole presentation of

upper

half

of the

line towards

96
sis on

Interpretation
the objects of the mental process described there. It toward the
"Forms"

is just this

predispo over

sition

and

toward objects that

"mathematicals"

leads to the debate

whether or not

Plato

conceives of and sensible objects.

termediate between
refers

Forms

reasoning in Throughout this passage Plato

as objects of

to

objects of

the upper half and especially to those of the third section

with a maximum of

indefiniteness,
problem of appear.

achieved and

in large

measure

by

a reliance on

neuter

pronouns,

passive

participles

vague prepositional

phrases.

In the

face

of this

familiar

and substantial
"processes"

terms to

translation, Grube allows more independent Thus in 51 ie2 "the things over which they [the
are"

(Grube)

of the

soul]

becomes "the

content of

its

particular
of a

section."

partitive

The clarity of the discussion is genitive in 51105-6 and of one

also clouded of

by

mishandling

the vague

neuter pronouns of c8.

Insofar

as

Plato does

present

the

"objects"

of

the upper half he

metaphorical

extensions
of

of

the visible objects of

perhaps

only in the lower half. The fullest

so of

does

presentation simile

that

metaphor

better,

that

simile

within

is Glaucon's
uses

expression of

Glaucon

Grube's translation
than any other

for the activity of of them ignores the

his understanding in 5iic3-d5; the verbs noesis are basically visual (as Lee notes).
metaphor.

This

passage goes

farther

in specifying the is ixavcbxaxa "quite

existence of

sufficient"

For it is precisely on the problem simile in 534a. The cumulative

reader not

"objects"; Socrates's reply to it not Grube's "very (Shorey), of these that Socrates abandons the
the
"objects"

satisfactory

effect

of

Grube's translations disposes the

to strive to follow up Plato's emphases, but to stay within the

confines of the

Perhaps the
the

contemporary classroom. most famous passage in all the Republic is the introduction

of

"philosopher-king."

Far

more

than the close of Books IX and X

it

seems

to form the modern, certainly the popular, notion of how Plato the gap between the
example of
world of real

would

bridge

ideas

and

this one. It will serve as a final

how the

characteristics of

Greek
of

as a

language,

the

flexibility

of the

style,
effort

and

the conversational context

the dialogue encumber the translator's

to convey Plato's meaning. After Socrates finishes describing the way of life of the city, Glaucon challenges him to show how the city is

citizen

in the in

model

possible

practice attempt

(47104). Socrates

reminds

him that the

on

whole exercise

sprang from the

to find the effect of

justice

happiness,

and compels assent to

the notion that

thus

a verbal construct can

himself

off

the

circumstances:

be truer than any practical construction. Having he proceeds to answer the question in terms of hook, what is there in cities now that prevents them from
the question is
asked

let

present

being

like
and

the verbal model

in the
The

indicative,

473b5-6

what one smallest change would make

them such as it is

the possibility is

raised with a potential sure a

optative, 473b?
present

and C3.

change of moods

helps in
dictum

distinction
the

of

conditions
now

and

ideas.

The

famous

introducing

philosopher-king is

spoken,

but it is

cast as

a negative

Discussion

97 from
present condi

present general condition: a subjunctive clause extrapolates

tions to discuss what now

what

is. The

sentence

explicitly from

answers the

first question,
"

is

now

wrong, not the second, what would effect the change: "Unless phi
,

losophers become kings. force is: "as The

protasis

there

is

no rest

evil

for the
there

cities

The

long
is

as philosophers are not

becoming kings,
not

is

no rest

quite

long,

and expresses

the condition in several alternatives

(unless

philosophers

become

kings, if kings do
. .

become philosophers,
never changes.

un

less

political power and

separately
the second

are

constrained,

philosophy combine, ), but the construction

unless

the practitioners of each

Only

in

part of

the apodosis (after the parenthetical expansion of "the

cities"

to the "human race") does the

implied

answer

to the second question begin to

become evident, though

still

in

a negative statement:

Socrates
the light

uses an

idiomatic Socrates

form

of emotional

negative

prediction a

(or) lit)

with

the subjunctive) to add

day."

that the city

will not

"grow into

possibility

or see

of

then explains that

expectation

he had been
infer

reluctant

to put forward an idea so contrary to

"paradox,"

(para doxon

the translators use

from

which

the mod

ern reader will

inevitably

a reference to a more substantial or

immediate
potential

kind

of

internal

contradiction).

Finally, in

optative, he says that no

other city would Socrates's statement, then, focuses our attention on what is necessary and lacking in our present cities. The context (473c 1-3) leaves no doubt that what

last sentence, using the be happy.

the

is necessary is
discussions

also

sufficient; but the

emphasis

is

on

the

need.

References to
mood

the actualization of the city are carefully distinguished

of present circumstances.
never

by

verbal

from

positively, and

in the

usual

The possibility envisaged is never stated form of a conditional with future reference future indicative. The for its
emotional

(subjunctive apodosis), let alone closest Socrates comes to that is

rather

with an unconditional with an

idiom

remarkable

than logical force. The

optatives

philosopher-king's

city is

never asserted nor an

ticipated. The

instead

keep

the idea before us purely as an idea. This

is

consistent with the care with which

Socrates

entered upon

the topic and the

turn of the discussion to a definition

suggestion

activity.10

of philosophic

His

practical

in

541a

to

expel everyone over

the age of ten

assumes

the prior

existence of the philosopher-king, as

and

do the diagnoses
of

of change

in Books VIII

IX,

which

describe the degeneration

the city,

not

its coming into being.

evil
unless

Grube inverts the opening

of
"

conditional, and translates the present tense esti

will

the apodosis as future: "Cities

have

no respite

from

This

shifts and

the

emphasis

away from

current

conditions,

and towards

fu

ture events,
ment

destroys the
clause).

contrast with

the

second part of

Socrates's

state

they (the or) ur) without the meticulously logical structure and with But idiom. English easy Greek out the distinctions drawn by the idioms of the three moods of the
Such
changes appear
10.

to be small, and

achieve an

The

restatement

in 499 is equally

circumspect

in

regard

to suggesting an

effective action.

98

Interpretation
answer appears

verb, the
says.

to

be

more

satisfying than

what

For in fact Socrates is

not concerned with asked.

closing the

Socrates actually gap between the

two worlds in the way that Glaucon

may find the image of our own difficulties. We read the book to learn something, but it does not follow that a primary function of the book is to answer the questions we ask. The Republic seeks to persuade us to Here indeed
we

believe that
certain plained

we will achieve

the greatest happiness

by disposing
is

our souls

in

manner, the through a

manner which

is justice. The

argument

expressed and ex

political with

comparison, and in consequence there is much in the

with

book that has to do

soul.

politics,

the grounds of persuasion, and with the

As has

often

been said, there

add

are

few topics the Republic does

of

not touch

on. of

To this diversity,

the

original

force

Plato's mind, his in the

representation

the Greek

tradition,

and

his

seminal position

history

of

Western

phi

losophy,

science and religion.

It is

no wonder that

there are so many, diverse

questions which we might ask when

reading this book.

tells us to be modest in our requests. The

Fidelity
questions

to the author,
wishes

however,

he

to ask and to answer must take

a scrupulous

first

place.

The translator,

therefore, allow his own

must

display courtesy in his attention to detail, and not wishes to interfere with his guest's pleasures. But a perfect com
be impossible, for the resources at hand are those of our lan of the schools of the Twentieth Century, and the guest makes
place. measure of must

pliance proves to

guage, the English

demands
The
make

on

those of his native time and

good

translator, then,

take the

his insufficiencies,
paraphrase.

and

the possible adjustments.

are

the most pressing, he can

If, indeed, he decides do as Comford did, and

define

that his own problems

The disad

vantages of

that method do not need to be elaborated.

But if

all we seek

is

such

answers as

Plato do

gives or suggests to what we a clear rendition of

not choose

as problems of

Comford

offers
we

the substance of the

such a

doctrine, Republic." Mostly,

and prefer a more

however,
"literal"

to

ignore Plato to

degree

familiar style, such as this one by Grube. I remain unconvinced that this represents the best choice, for what is familiar usually turns out to be what is expected. The modem conceptions of what Plato
version

that still maintains a

ought

to be

teaching

and of

the nature

of

his importance have interfered in the

translation as surely, if not so extensively, as

result

is

student

they would in a paraphrase. The slightly different and rather less coherent book than Plato's Republic. who reads it as an exposition of what Plato thought, under the guid
with

ance of a

teacher well-acquainted

the original,

will not

be seriously

mis-

II.

It is

interesting
of

that Comford

handles ordinary

with ease and grace

the

transition, in Book I

331c.
exam quite

from

small-talk to a philosophical conversation.

This

passage

is
the

one of the most

ples of
adroit.

the closeness

dialectic

illuminating

and

conversation.

In the

original the transition

is

Plato

preserves the colloquial tone and

key-words
a

duces the specificity and exactness needed for all tend to be heavy-handed, and to disrupt the

preceding remarks, but also intro dialectical examination. Grube. Shorey, and Lee
of

continuity.

Discussion

99

led,

perhaps, but he is also not

likely
a new

even

to understand that he

is

being

chal

lenged to think

his

questions

in

to

him

and

foreign

way.

In contrast,

is

awkward

horses
never

and

Shorey's bilingual Loeb edition. Though the rendering bit confusing at times, and the translator rides his hobby champions his interpretations throughout the notes, the reader can
consider or

lose

sight of
"
.

the authority of the

Greek.12

Shorey

presents

his translation
apparent
expe

as

interpretive:

freedom in

order

to

following bring out the

.

the text closely, to use a

precise

justifiable

meaning

of passages which

long

rience

as a

teacher and reviewer has taught me are liable to

notes and

misapprehens

(p. liii). The

versation

the awkwardness are a constant reminder that the con

Indeed, by their very copiousness the notes honor the dialogue's authority to define the subject matter. Obviously the loss of a literary grace natural to English and corresponding to the original's weak
not of our making.
ens

is

this text (though a certain pungency is retained), and for some creates an to reading and comprehension. But is serviceable, consistent, and supple.
overall

adventitious obstacle

it is

enough

that

Shorey's

style

So the
as

problem with
plan.

Grube's

version

seems so selfwhy the goal evidently sound; why, indeed, it should be easy to read Plato's Republic. Fully to understand it and to feel its persuasive force requires that one leam ancient
wonder

in the

may lie not of "natural

so much

in the

execution

readabilit

Greek,

a somewhat

laborious undertaking,

and acquire a considerable

knowl

edge of

the

cultural

background. Put into English the Republic document in

contribute

requires

less

work; it

remains a twenty-five-hundred-year-old

another

language

no matter

how

we present
of

it. If

we expect

it to

to

our own and our

students'

understanding
alone will

the origin of

modem

thought and its significance, let

original

if

we wish

to

preserve some of

the good of the

not

exhortation, we

have to

work at

it

bit,

and

accept,

disguise,

the

moderate

difficulty.

II
Shorey's
tentive and
version educated would

is

difficult than Grube's, but he does address "an at (p. liii). Grube doesn't describe his reader English
more

but clearly he
tieth

be the

same

man, though perhaps at the end of the Twen

well educated.

Century

he is

not quite so
mind not

Lee, in preparing his

of

revised

Penguin edition, had in

nal

instructions, but

"students
natural

or

only the "general others engaged in academic

Dr. Rieu's

origi

as well.

He

version"

still aimed at a

"swift,

but

revised

"to

bring

the English more

12.

should emphasize

that my

consideration of

Shorey

tion. The text of Shorey's translation is

reprinted without notes

Collected Dialogues of Plato, Bollingen series, different. Shorey's

a part of
notes comment on

71

is only of the fully annotated Loeb edi in Hamilton and Cairns, ed.. The (New York, 1961), but the effect is quite

the translation to such a degree that

they

must

be

considered

it;

conversely, the translation without the notes

is incomplete.

100

Interpretation
Greek,"

severely close to the Charybdis of Comford.13 In

much, but Lee is more
akin

steering between the Scylla

of

Shorey
do

and

the

respect

to their audience the three

not

differ

to Grube. The

samples quoted above are sufficient

to show that the two share many qualities; Lee however manages not to stum

ble into Grube's

excesses and misapprehensions. paragraph

Like Grube he is willing to

rewrite, for example, the

introducing
not

the philosopher-king, and often

his language is freer. But he does

to exhibit,
and

have

a set of pre-established varied and

doctrines
weakness
will

the

style

is

overall

more

lively.

His

is

an

excessive and

colloquialism

of

tone

this version, like

Jowett's,
of a

age

rapidly Grube's translation. Plato's

Lee's hands. Some

the lack of that

formality
style

or grace whose presence

distinguishes
low
style

plain

becomes too
annoyed

much

in

readers will also

be

that he has abandoned the tra

pagination are given mentioned

ditional book divisions (the book in the

margins and

numbers and

Stephanus

in the

analytical table of contents).

I have already
to

the copious,

didactic

notes. merit our attention

Two

additional

translations

before I

attempt

weigh

the

advantages

of the available

translations against each other.

Both

share

with

Shorey
they

the starting premise that there are real difficulties of form and substance

to be encountered
seem to

by

the English reader who

hopes to Grube

understand

Plato,

and

have these difficulties in

should

mind more than

the character of the

reader.

One,

nonetheless,

be

grouped with

and

Lee

as a

translator

the general reader; A. D. Lindsay's version belonged originally in the Everyman series. But I will turn first to a translation that begins where
who addresses

my remarks on the difficulty of Plato leave off. Allan Bloom is quite willing to forgo the "easygoing
style"

charms of a more con

temporary
is in itself
for
us.

in favor

of

the goal of "literal

difficult book
must not

and our
hidden."

translation"; for "[The Republic] historical situation makes it doubly difficult

A translation is for those
who will

This

be

do the

hard work; even more, it should mean to make the work available to has the potential to understand it better than does the translator, who
pretend

one who must not

to have
of

William
reader

adequately Moerbeke's Latinization

be
spared the
given

grasped

the
of

book's teaching. Bloom

Aristotle. Such
measures

would emulate

better

allow a

to understand ancient authors as

reader will

they

understood

themselves. And in this

case, the

easy

assumption that we now

have terms for

Plato's

ideas;

rather, he is

the

opportunity

to explore, through the differ

thought."14

ent meanings of

To free the

"slavish,
'3ments

even

terms, "the true history of political reader from "the tyranny of the if sometimes cumbersome literalness
The difference between Lee's two

translator"

Bloom
as

proposes a possible
al-

insofar
is

Pp- 9-

56-58.

editions

considerable and

my

com

apply only to the second edition. 14. The Republic of Plato, translated, with (New York and London: Basic Books, 1968),

notes and an
pp.

vii, xii, xiv,

Interpretive Essay, by Allan Bloom xix Bloom analyzes Cornford's

apologia at

length in his introduction. Note that his

references to

Lee,

p.

ix,

are

to the first edition.

Discussion
ways

101
word"

using the same English equivalent for the same Greek Meaningful terms are "translated as they have been by the great
philosophic

(p.

vii).

authors of the

tradition"; terms of recent origin are especially eschewed (p. xiii). Furthermore, Bloom pays rigorous attention to the dialogue format. He criti
the

cizes

tendency

to discover "Plato the

poet"

apart

from "Plato the

philoso are or

pher"

as a

false distinction between form

and substance.

The dialogues

ganically unified; every detail deserves the closest scrutiny; every argument must be interpreted dramatically and vice versa. The translation pays meticu

lous

attention

to the turns of conversation. There

is

even a separate

index

of

terms of
are

familiar address, and at the top of every page the speakers on the page listed. It is, Bloom holds, our weariness or ignorance that disparages any
of

facet

the

construction.

Whenever
we should

we

find the language

warned to

or construction most

strange or

cumbersome,
we

be thereby

look

most

closely for for

the meaning

don't
of

expect or

accept.15

easily

On the basis

this proposal one would

awkward

look for

a rather awkward and

bidding

text. In

fact, despite
manages

moments, Bloom is for the most part

more mus

quite readable. cular and

He

to convert cumbersomeness into a style

forcible than Grube's, though like Grube's it suffers from a certain inflexibility. Thus the end of Book III, the life enjoined on the guardians, feeling. Still
not as

comes over with much more vigor and

dramatically

forceful

original, it is much truer to it in spirit. The end of Book IX, on the other lacks the elevation and quiet strength of conviction that Grube captures. hand, In general, Bloom's style is the one more suitable to a conversation such as
as the

Plato

reports.
merits of

Although Bloom intends the

his

method

to be measured
of

by

the ef

of reading the translation through, it is unrevealing defects to examine his version of passages already discussed. The discussion

fect

not

both

merits and

of

the

relation of superficial

beauty
how

to

good

character, 40od-40id
arguments and

(above,
words

p.

91)

could stand as a model of

care

for Plato's

his

(espe
and

cially, in this case,

comprehensible.

eu-

and

logos)

can produce a translation

both faithful

The introduction
the thought in its

of

the philosopher-king in 473

is

rendered

very strictly,

and though

it lacks the

color of

the

(above, p. 96) Greek, it retains

the divided line
"Forms."

the

exactness of

context.

In the discussion
"forms,"

of

"forms"

(509d-5iie,
isonomikos
of

above, p. 94),

are always p.

never

The

of 561CI

(above,

92) is

felicitously

"the

man attached

to the law

democracy."

As for the lapses, In

one notes that

Bloom

sometimes

handles

grammar oddly.

40 id the works of the craftsmen should

not

lead

children

to likeness with
of association,

fine
not

speech,
15.

lead them to fine

speech with

likeness (dative

P.

xviii et passim. not

I think it is fair to
violate

wonder

if the indications

of speaker announced on ev
wanted

ery

page

do

in

their

way

the literalness of the re-presentation; if Plato had

the

reader

to determine so easily

whether

Glaukos

or

Adeimantos

were

speaking he

could

have

used

their

names.

102 dative

Interpretation
of means).

In

51

ib,

where

the logos reaches the

first principle, the prep

to the
arche
hypothesis."

ositional phrases are skewed:

the feminine

pronoun which refers

is translated
matters of

as

if it

were

neuter, referring to "what is free from

not eliminated all
"command"

In

vocabulary Bloom has

p.

In

342c

(above,
for the

stronger"

88), he uses cognate kreittonos, losing

a

confusing inconsistencies. for kratein but retains "of the

the connection. In 454a

view

(above,

p.

88),
once

which

"provides

first

commonsense

of

[dialectic's]
common words
dialectic"
. . .

(Bloom's

note ad

loc), he
. . .

adopts

Shorey's
and

("quarreling
in

discussing")
note or the

using the technical "eristic

expedient of

once, but nothing in the

words each pair are

text

makes

from

common stems.

it clear that the corresponding Sometimes Bloom's literalness is

.

simply
and

unhelpful.
will

To take

a small
out

example, in 430b "lyes

"Chalestrean,"

Chalestrean

soda

alkali"

not wash

the qualities with which the the guardians are to explain

not proper.
note

dyed

and

he

even needs a note

a word which

in

Burnet's text is
mon"

given as

common,

More striking is the

adequate

use of

"de

throughout
will

for daimon. The

is

is scarcely
of context

to the trouble this

book will really study however revealing of the history of religious termi a mistranslation. nology it may be if investigated in depth The problem with daimon illustrates a more serious problem inherent in the
cause;
and no amount of close

in this

one

cure a problem of what

goal of

literal translation. The English

a

word used

turns out to

be actually
"virtue"

or

arete.

symbolically Bloom's Republic

applied as a standard

transliteration:

for

"demon"

read

daimon,

for

read
"literalness"

works as well as
with will

it does because in fact

a

is

ing

of

only Plato's Republic. As

judgment,
be
evident

judgment based

on

his
the

understand

to anyone

who reads

interpretive for in his

which

essay

placed

between the translation

and the

notes, the understanding demands

respect,

and so

does the judgment. Where

"literalness"

is

not called

judgment, Bloom translates

is
required

words and sentences

according to the sense

by

taking into
"send"

consideration

the context and the variety of English

meanings

to

which

the word corresponds in

a procession

Greek literature. He does

not

have
one.

the Thracians

Bloom had to
reader

make

in the opening paragraph, but some of which from the point decisions,
must seem

"conduct"

of view

of a

ignorant
. . .

of

the understanding

cussing

dialectic"),
"related"

and some of which

arbitrary (for example, "dis from the point of view of the the

ory are arbitrary. Thus in the difficult passage about correlatives (above, p. 87), Bloom uses but not "qualified"; Lindsay (see below) makes the oppo
site choice.

It is just
eralness
guage

as well seeks

that Bloom's

judgment is better

than

he

is

restrictive and

to

basic terms
style.

and propositions with

probably chimerical insignificant developments

not.

his theory, for the lit anyhow. It reduces lan

of gram

mar and

Is the

circumstantial participle always to

be translated

by

the

same

English

construction?

Clearly

I have commended the

vigor of

his

Discussion

103

reading of the end of Book III, but in fact he uses the English future for both the impersonal dej'-plus-infinitive and for the monitory condition. Nor will one

find the distinction between

Bloom's introduction

optative

and

subjunctive
of

emphasizes the

importance

rigorously observed. dramatic composition, but

the translation reduces that to

torical
must

formulae
the very

of exchange.

Particles,

phrasing,

rhe

devices
captured

all

these are also part of the drama. All too often the effect

be

in English

by

variation

in vocabulary

which

is taboo

to

literalist. I

cite

these shortcomings not to carp at the translation but to point

out

the inherent limitations of the project. The translation

character

derives its fundamen

of

tal

from Bloom's design

of

the best approach to an understanding

Plato.

We

can

note,

then,

some

distinguishing
and

features

of the

translation that be

long

to the design. Above all, The Republic is to be approached through the

tradition of political

philosophy that it
and

kindred

works spawned.

This

repre

sents a significant amendment

to the goal

of

presenting the Plato

as

ancients as

they

un

derstood themselves,
tue,"

explains, for example, why

arete

is

rendered

"vir

"excellence."

and not

To

understand

his

contemporaries would

have,
word

within

the bounds

of

literalism,

one would need to translate terms

one word which which

fits into Greek

authors

from Homer to Isocrates,

authors

not

by by

the the
of

is

used

by

such

subsequent

as

Cicero

and

William

Moerbeke. Furthermore, Bloom

rates as a citizen-philosopher

emphasizes the

dramatic The

representation of roles of

Soc

among

other citizens.

the dialogue

are the roles of men as actual or potential participants

in the

public realm.

The

brothers

of

Plato

as

interlocutors in this

narrated

tinguished as Theaetetos and Theodoros in a

ness of speech

radically dis dramatic dialogue. The playful dialogue

are as

is

subordinated.

Speech is thought
therefore

leading
its

to

choice

among

ac

tions

the

value

of

speech

lies

in

terms,

definitions,

and

propositions.

The

effect of speech as action

(given

much credit

in the "Interpre

tive

Essay") is

constructed out of

this

conception of

its

significance.

The

great strength of

this

version

is

a rigorous and

orderly reading

of

the

text. Of

all the translations this

is the

one

least

who subjects a passage

to

close

scrutiny, and least

likely likely

to disappoint the

reader

lead the

casual reader not.

into thinking that Plato

concerned

accidentally to mis himself with what he

It is certainly the translation to be used by readers with some of political experience in the history of Western philosophy or in the analysis in specialists amateur thought, be they advanced undergraduates or scholarly or the ideas or practices of medieval or modem times. To those without this

in fact did

experience edge

beginners

or

those

approaching it

with

other

kinds

of

knowl
or

this may not

be

helpful book. The

undergraduate

presentation will seem

arbitrary
as a

irrelevant. The
a

beginning
this

is in danger

of

adopting it
to

dogma,

sturdy handle

on right opinion

to get him through the course (the "Interpretive

rather

Essay"

augments

danger),

than

as

provocation

philosophic

104

Interpretation

thought. Not surprisingly, the limitations of this translation will seem most co
gent to those readers who would read

do

with

it

what

Bloom

considers an abuse:

book among many, without study. A.D. Lindsay has nothing to say about his readers, and he He includes in his also has very little to say about his theory of (40 paragraph on Plato's lan pages) a introductory discussion and summary

it,

as one

Unlike the

others

translation.16

guage.

He

emphasizes and

Plato's

use of conversational

language for "metaphysical

instruction"

his

avoidance of technical terms. conjunction

of a

"It is

hard, if
language

not

impossible,
profound
where

to

reproduce
. .

in English the
resists

of

simple and

and

thought

"so he

the use

"dead

technical word
particular

Plato
avoid words

something."

uses a word

that was alive

'correlative,'

and meant
'essence,' 'absolute,'

In

he tries to Such

"words like

or

'thing

in

itself.'

have in
gest

most cases

been

so affected

by

later

philosophical usage

that

they sug
tech

wrong

meanings

in Plato,

and

in any

case

they

give an appearance of
Republic"

nicality
xxxv).

which

is

alien

to the conversational
concerned with

form

of the

(pp. xxxiv,

Like Bloom, he is

misunderstandings of

the substance.

The its

similar

capturing the form, and discouraging impetus leads to quite different

choices.

Where Bloom
monic"

renders

daimon

and

adjective

form
spirit,

by

"demon"

and

"de
mi

Lindsay
raculous,
more

uses:

than

"god, lesser deity, daemon, human, demi-god, ghostly,

English

divine, heavenly,
in
context.

angel"

(the last in the

myth of

Er). He obviously

seeks the

word most vivacious

He

not

only
with

avoids

technical terms, he undermines any attempt to find a consistent use

of a consistent argument.

of terms

for the development

This

procedure accords

the understanding advanced in the

introduction,

in

which

he

emphasizes

The Republic's variety of subjects, changes in form, and final reliance on the representation of Socrates as the answer to its inquiries. The complete lack of
notes also suggests a

a whole and a ments.

strong emphasis on the disinclination to make much

not to

experience of
of the

reading the book

as

integrity

of separate argu course

This is

say,

however,

that

Lindsay
its

is insensitive to the

taken

by any particular argument. Overall, the translation reads well

"ordered"

and gets

points across

directly. The

Thracians
and

their procession

disgraceful have the

time

origins"

following
double

(327a); "men's opinions on what is noble (589c, above, p. 85), the ambivalent (above,
p.

gender of
each

the pronoun in the

question of 332c

86) is

resolved

by

"to

what."

whom or you

The

notorious correlatives of 438a appear

clearly in "whenever

which imply something else, the qualified terms, I think, imply a qualified, and simple unqualified terms a simple"; the problem of lies in 382 (above, p. 89) is handled very much as it is by Shorey. Like the others, Lindsay sometimes loses the exact sense. In 342c the Eng

have terms

lish

"subject"

word

by implying
with an publ.

Plato's

point obscures the explication of

it:

16.
perback

The Republic of Plato, tr.

(New

introduction
1935).

by

A. D.

Lindsay,

Dutton Everyman Pa

York, 1957; originally

Discussion
"the

105
their
subject"

arts govern and are masters of

(cf. Lee,

"subject-matter");
disappears. The
contention"

and, again, the etymological connection

with

"of the
uses

stronger"

introduction
and

of

dialectic
. .

and eristic

(454a-b)

"discussion

"contention

arguments,"

scientific

and so

fails

to prepare the topic ade

man to whom all

quately.

It doesn't

help

at all

to call the

isonomikos "the

laws

equal"

are

beauty to Lindsay is inconsistent in his use of both key terms, logos and (euphos "the happy gift") and the argument is even harder to trace here than it is in Grube's version. But Lindsay himself does not lose the argument: kalos logos is "the principle of not the (Grube). "beauty of What makes this translation work is that in the end Lindsay turns out to be following where Plato leads. In 509-511 (the divided line) he uses
relation of surface

(56ie). Even worse, in 400-401 (the

character)

eu-

beauty"

reason"

"classes"

"Forms"

and

very

much

like Grube, but the

principle of

mind reaches
and no

"as far

as

that which
uses

is

not

hypothesis,

the

first

everything"

further. He

the

future in the

conditional sentence
not

that opens the paragraph on the

philosopher-

king, but he does

always

invert

the clauses to change the emphasis.

Lindsay

seems

to stand at a certain distance from the original, never nearer, never far
will

ther.

His text

not so

allow

close

analysis,

as

Grube's

often

does

and

Bloom's

demands,
a

that the
get so

reader can

follow

an argument with

exactness,
must with

but it

never

lets him

Grube, into
but

distant that he wanders, different discussion. is thus

and

as often

he

Lindsay's

position

one

in

which

he

can allow

himself

a considerable version one

controlled

freedom,

from this

position

he

achieves

for his

very important distinction.

Book IX, the
ald:

Lindsay

exhibits throughout a wonderful adaptation

whether

to the varying styles of the original,

the moving

dignity

that closes

seriousness of Er's story (with appropriate variation for the her "The responsibility is on him that chooseth. There is none on God"); the absurdity of the democrat at 561 cj ("fluting down the primrose path of wine");
with which

the urgency

Socrates

pronounces

the regulations on the lives of the

and

guardians at the end of

of of

Book III ("This

reservation one

will

be their salvation,
about

the salvation

the city"). Whatever

may have

the other consequences

produces

Lindsay's

emphasis on

variety, his

appreciation of

this aspect of it

indisputable excellence. The five translations that I have discussed here differ sufficiently in their in tentions and styles for them not to be compared as simply better or worse.
an

Bloom's

version

differs the

most and

its

advantages

and weaknesses
opposed

have

al

ready been discussed. Lindsay's

the

version can

be neatly
to

to Bloom's. For
to know
come

reader of some general education and

what

understanding

who wishes

broadly
stand

The Republic has to say,

and

comprehend

how it has

to

as

the

high tower
one

of

thought

from

which

men

take their

bearings,

Lindsay's is the vey

to

read.

His

version will also serve well

in

a general sur

only the outline can be discussed. Shorey, again, demands more of his reader than Lindsay does,
course where

not

just

more

106

Interpretation but
the
a
good acquaintance with

attention,
guages

literature, history,

modem

lan

educational

baggage

of a

late Victorian. For the

accomplished

student of what we now call the

humanities, Shorey's is

the version of choice;

he

might also

be helpful in

"senior

seminar"

of mixed readings.

But for those be too

cum

without

the necessary sophistication,

and

Shorey

must

be

conceded

to

bersome,
Some
courses)

confusingly idiosyncratic.
will

readers

want

and

some

students

(particularly

in

will need a

translation that allows closer

and

than Lindsay's

does,

is is

more accessible than either of

scrutiny Shorey's
success

and gives more or

introductory help
Bloom's.

Such
role

beginner's

version

limited use, but Plato's

in

our generation

in large

measure

depends

on

how

well such a version

in playing his in

troduces him. I am partial to the tone and

moderation of

Grube's rendition, but

and

it does,
what ment of

finally,

misrepresent

how Plato

presented

his thought

so, too often,

Plato thought. Lee's is

more responsible overall,

however

varied

his treat He
must

the small points may

be,

and

he is certainly

more stimulating.

be

given the

nod, though the classroom teacher who is

or who can
prefer

dealing
of

lected passages,
structions, may

take the time to undo some

mainly Grube's

with se
miscon

that more straightforward version.

Fired

by

a sentimental attachment to

democracy,

our youth

exercise,

sporad

ically,

their recently gained franchise. We wish them to

live lives happier than

Polemarchos found. If

the one Alcibiades

led,

and

in

cities of

better than the

one

this ancient constitution

means read more

is to be

than once. So it

any help, it will have to be studied, which is good that the translations exhibit different

strengths and problems.

Bloom,

ever aware of

difficulties,

remarks that "at the

supplement

very least,
more

one can

say that a literal translation is a necessary

to

felicitous

renditions which

The
will yet.

student who puts

Shorey

or

deviate widely from their Lindsay next to Bloom or

a more

original"

(p.

viii). other

next

to each

discover important things. But there is The text

of

literal

and

felicitous

version

The Republic

can no more

be the

sum of

its translations

than

it

be, for us, naturally readable. Certainly, as long as those eager for philoso phy are not pursuing knowledge of Greek, there is no rest from the misunder
can

standing

of

Plato in

our studies.

Exploring
A Critique

the Limits
of

of

Analytic

Philosophy

Nozick's Philosophical Explanations

Nicholas Capaldi
Queens College

Robert Nozick has

Explanations.
upon which

performed

a valuable

By

going further than

anyone else

analytic

helped

us

to see

philosophy as an just how untenable that

that the

in writing Philosophical in articulating the assumptions enterprise rests, he has inadvertently

service

enterprise

is. Nozick

asks and answers people

preten

the kinds

of questions

ideology

of analysis

from

even asking.

Unfortunately,

the answers

usually prevents suggested by Nozick are

tious restatements of the modernist

such

liberal teleology that

nor adequate.

underlies analysis.

As

the answers are neither novel

which

They
in

are

inadequate because
asks
non-

the terms in

they

are cast are still analytic.

In short, Nozick
an analytic way.

analytic questions

but he

asks and answers them

parts.

My
book

paper

is divided into three

In Part

I, I

shall summarize

Nozick's inter

chapter

by

chapter and

largely

in his

own words.

In Part II, I

shall

pret what

Nozick is

doing

against a

broader historical background. In Part III, I

shall argue

just why it is inadequate.

I: SUMMARY OF PHILOSOPHICAL EXPLANATIONS

Introduction:
one:

According
wants

to

Nozick,

all philosophical questions

"stem

from
ques

how

precious?"

are we valuable and

(p.

i).

philosoph

tion,
what

what

Nozick

to

avoid

is "coercive

In trying to in

answer

this

which we seek

to

prove things

by

providing

knockdown

argument.

In its place,

we are offered render

Nozick

calls

a philosophical

explanation

which

is designed to

things "coherent and better

(p. 8).

philosophical explanation,

then, is

hypothesis,

(a) It

relies on

imagina

tive theoretical constructs;

(b) it asks questions like "what might be possible?"; the possibilities inherent in the theory; and (d) its realizes it discovers and (c) to prove that it is true but what is possible if we act formulation is not intended
if the theory is true. To engage in philosophical activity is to formulate and to explore a hypothe sis. A philosophical explanation is not a transcendental argument, which, we
as

are

told, is designed
conception

as a proof

intended to

reveal

necessary

conditions

(p.

15).

Whose

of transcendental

argument

is

being

rejected

is

not

some

thing

we are told.

Nozick's

goal

is

not to persuade

but "to

remove

the conflict,

to put my own beliefs in

alignment"

(p.

16).

In short,

what

he is proposing is
14).

that "explanation

replace proof as

the goal of

(p.

108 The

Interpretation

foregoing
"radically

conception of a philosophical explanation

is intertwined

with

and contrasted with a second and more radical goal.

lead to

new

and

surprising truths

insights"

and

Exploring hypotheses may (p. 12), partly be

which are not al

cause we

believed"

ready
nation

may be led to consider "explanatory hypotheses (p. 14). It is not yet clear which of these two
either exploration or

models of expla

is to predominate,
more adequate.

replacing

what we

believe

by
to

something A distinguishing
tolerate alternative
ralism

characteristic of

Nozick's

presentation

is his

willingness

hypotheses,

what

he

calls philosophical pluralism.

But

plu

is not,
at

to arrive

told, to be confused with relativism. Nozick's aim is the truth. Although philosophy itself may not be a science, "the
we are

still
phi

losopher's (p.

existential

entist"

13).

For

hypothesis may suggest detailed investigations to the sci further elaboration of the meaning of Nozickean pluralism book
where we are

we are referred

to the end of the

told that philosophy is an

art

form,

understood as

presenting

a shaped view or vision

(p. 647). [As far

as

can make

it out,

what

this amounts to is the familiar claim that philosophy

is

hypothesis formation, that hypothesis formation is be further explained, and that theory construction
tion are

a creative act which cannot and methodological

innova

indistinguishable.] the introduction, the book is divided into three parts: Metaphys ics, Epistemology, and Value. No immediate explanation is given for this or

Following

der. The damental

shall

order seems at

first to be
questions

odd

because

we

have been told that the fun

retrospect what we notion of a
self-

questions

are

of value.

However, in

see

is that Nozick's

methodological

innovation is the

subsuming explanation, Metaphysics: This

and

this can only be made clear

self-

initially by

reference

to the metaphysical problems of

part of

identity.
two main chapters: The

the

book is divided into

Identity The Identity

of

the

Self;

and

Why

Is There

Something

Rather Than Nothing?

con

of the Self: This

of

chapter

is divided into two parts; the first

and the second concerns related and reveal

cerns

the problem

identity

through

time,

the

notion

of reflexivity.

These two

parts are

intimately
time,

reflexivity

as

one of

the dominant themes of the book. Nozick subscribes to the closest

of personal

con-

tinuer

theory

identity

through

theory
of

that

invokes the

notion

of self-creation.

Self-creation is
The

an example of reflexivity.

Let
treated

me elaborate.

general philosophical of

issue

identity

through time

is

the closest continuer theory. As a by necessary but not sufficient condition, "something at time t2 is not the same entity as x at tt if

Nozick in terms

it is

not xs closest continuer.

And

'closest'

means closer than all others.

x

However, something may be

enough to

the closest continuer of

without

being

close

it to be

x. of

How

close
x

pends on the

kind

entity

something must be to x to be x, it appears, de is, as do the dimensions along which closeness is

a self?

measured"

(p.

34).

Well,

what

kind

of

entity is

The

"capacity for

reflexive self-reference

Discussion
is
essential

109
self"

to

being

(p.

79).

Reference is here The

self

made

by

Nozick to

Fichte's

notion of

self-positing (p.

76).

is

created

by

a primordial act

of self-reference which

is

also a

decision

about what

to be. This primordial act

is

self-reflexive

(seen from the

inside)

and refers

to itself at the same time.

act of

"The

self which

self-reference"

reflexive

is reflexively referred to is synthesized in that very (p. 91), and it is also described as a "reflexive
no).

act of

craftsmanship"

(p.

Parenthetically,

this conception of the self satisfies the

explain

original able

impulse to
109).

engage

in philosophy, namely, to how

how is

we are valu

(p.

The

foregoing
refers

explanation of

reflexive self-knowledge

possible now

becomes
that

a prototype of all explanation.

It is

self-subsuming

explanation

in

it both

to itself and justifies itself.

a

Self-subsumption is
self,
and refers

to itself.

way a principle turns back on itself, yields itself, applies to it If the principle necessarily has the features it speaks of, then

it necessarily will apply to itself. This mode of self-reference, whereby something re fers to itself in all possible worlds where it refers, is like the Godelian kind of the
previous chapter.

There

we also

discussed

an even more restrictive mode of

self-

referring,
not

reflexive self-referring.

merely self-subsuming referring? (p. 136).

and

Can the fundamental explanatory principle(s) be selfnecessarily self-applying, but also reflexively

Why
as

Is There

Something

Rather than Nothing?: Nozick treats this

question

meaningful,

planation.

literally Philosophy is in
as

meaningful, and as an
part an attempt

issue

about the nature of ex

to

explain everything.

But

as we all

know the
with

attempt

to

push explanation

to its outer limits seems to present us

the

following
we reach

dilemma:
I admit,
appears quite weird

Explanatory
When
are

self-subsumption,

feat

of

legerdemain.

the

ultimate and most

few

possibilities.

fundamental explanatory laws, however, there Either there is an infinite chain of different laws and theories,
or

each

explaining the next,

are unexplainable

there
or

is

finite

chain.

If

finite chain,

the endmost

laws
are

facts

laws

of a certain sort at all

under one of

the other possibilities)

if there necessary truths or the only laws there can be (the fact that there are laws of that sort is classified or the endmost laws are self-subsuming (p.

120).

Given the

traditional and

seemingly intractable
we are

problem of

justifying

first

prin

ciples within a

deductive explanation,

brought to

self-subsumption

as

the only way

nation of

out.

What
of

we

need, according to
which

Nozick, is
onto

fundamental
without

expla

the

totality

reality

loops back
brute fact.

itself

circularity

and without an unexplained residue of

What

might such

an explanation

Nozick discusses

several.

select

be like? Without endorsing any of them, two of them because I think that these two
thinking.

indicate the direction

beyond
existence

of

Nozick's

First, Nozick

speculates on
"nothed"

and nonexistence

to a

nothingness

force that

going itself

110-

Interpretation
reality.

and

let in

This hypothesis
considers

would seem

to give nonbeing a power of

facts"

its

own.

Second,

Nozick

the possibility of a self-subsuming principle of

with

organic

unity, "one that best fits in

the other

and which

"would be

explained

by

its

facts"

mesh with other

(p.

149).

This hypothesis

would seem

to reinstate

particulars within

the

universal concept.

At this
argue

point all of

it

seems as

if there

are enough resources

in Nozick's book to in the way that the

why he
refuses to

that

the alternative explanations or hypotheses are themselves mo

ments within one great organic self recasts

unity,

all

being

reinterpreted refuses

itself in Nozick's theory. But Nozick

to complete the pic

ture

in this way (p. 20). Later, we shall have to do so. For the moment, we shall note Nozick's

speculate on
reservations.

Still,
than
of

won't

there

be many different equally

coherent and unified worlds?

If

each

is equally in truth.)

accord with a principle of organic

unity, why
one put

then

does

one

hold

rather

another?
. .

(This question parallels the familiar

to coherence theories

see no reason to think there

is only

one

principle capable of
undistinguishable

generating in fundamentalness;

other

facts

within a structure of

self-subsuming organic unity high organic unity why

one par

so the question would remain of

ticular one

holds, barring

a reflexive account

(p.

149).

In summation, there
cepts:

appear to

be three

key

and

interrelated Nozickean

con

self-reference,

reflexive

self-reference,

and self-subsumption.

self-reference may be
sentence

exemplified as

follows:

This
2.

has five

words.

reflexive self-reference:

"I

am

Nicholas

Capaldi"

(when

uttered

by

the au

thor of this article).

3.
self-subsumption:

P: any lawlike statement having characteristic C is true. P is a lawlike statement with characteristic C. Therefore P is true (p.
119).1

All reflexively suming

self-referential statements are

self-

self-subsuming,

and all self-sub statements are

statements are

referential, but

not all

self-subsuming
that
all

reflexively
ments are

self-referential.

Nozick does

not claim

true or acceptable proofs.

Being

self-subsuming state self-subsuming is a purely formal

characterization.

1.

Not

all

derived in this
S:

self-subsuming explanations are true. Many false way. The following example is Nozick's own:
words

statements are susceptible to

being

Every sentence of exactly eight S has exactly eight words. Therefore, S is true (p. 119).
Notice how this
unanalyzed. example too

is true.

already

contains the word

'true'

within

it,

and

how

'truth'

remains

Discussion

-111

Epistemology: This

section of the

book has three

"argues that

subdivisions:

Knowledge,
possi what we

Skepticism,
ble?
think we

and

Evidence. It
with

answers the
who

question, How is knowledge

we

Beginning
do"

the skeptic

do

not

know

(p. 167), Nozick

proceeds to show two things.

First,

skepticism

is,
the

allegedly, a
coherence

logically

coherent position which cannot

be
of

refuted.

Second,

of skepticism

does

not entail

the

denial

the possibility of

knowledge. So knowledge is
Nozick's
explanation

possible. not claim

does

to provide "procedures to determine

knowledge"

whether or not

any
of

particular case

is

a case of

(p. 287). In

fact, in
that

his discussion
position

evidence, inductive

logic,
only
as

and

probability, Nozick takes the

that epistemology

is

not and cannot

be

an autonomous

discipline,
(p.

epistemological principles at

best

can

achieve self-subsumption

278).
truth"

Knowledge is
(p.
178).

defined,
is the

positively,
case where

having

"a belief that tracks the

Tracking

"to know that p is to be

were

someone who

[subjunctive conditional] believe it if it (p. 178). Tracking is lieve it if it were

would
false"
world."

true, and "real factual

who wouldn't connection

be

to the
as

Finally, Nozick
which

offers

a speculative

hypothesis

about

knowledge

tracking

is

compatible with evolution.

can give organisms

That is, the evolutionary process the capacity to vary beliefs with the truth of what is be

lieved (pp.
Value
vided

283-87).

comprises

the third,

final,

and

largest

section of

the book. It is subdi

into three

chapters:

free will, foundations

not attempt of

of ethics, and

the meaning

of

life.
Free Will: Nozick does
to argue that man's will

is free. Instead
with

he tries to formulate ism

and sufficient

theory

free

action that

is "compatible
292).

determin

purposes"

for

our value

(p.

Jargon notwithstanding,
relates

this is a familiar
other themes.

position.

The only

question

is how this

to Nozick's

A free
action,

choice

is

a choice which weighs

both the
of which

reasons

for

and against an

and

it

weighs

the

principle

in terms

it

assigns weights.

By

as

signing
the the

weight

to

itself,
not

the choice is self-subsuming (p.

as

300).

This

allows

for

explanation of choice explanation

something

other than a random event.

Although

is

itself

causal

it is

compatible with reductionism.

It is

even

possible to

imagine that
317).

such

free

action exhibits

tracking by tracking
value

value or

bestness (p.

This theory,

we are

told, is

compatible with

the mind-body

identity theory
tory
value

(p. 339)
out

and with a notion of

contributory

but

not

origina-

(ruled

by

determinism).

In

drawing
his

the

parallel

fying

concept of

between epistemology and value, Nozick is clari 'tracking'. There is a great deal of formalistic parapherna

lia thrown about,

point of

and

tracking is

construed

as

a subjunctive relation, a

but in

fact tracking is
not

a teleological

concept.

It is

disposition

of

human be

havior both
ous

cognitive and

evaluative, a disposition

connected with certain obvi

facts but

deductively

inferable from those facts.

112 The

Interpretation
reader should recall nature with and at

this point that teleological concepts

lost their

standing in

the advent of modem physical science construed deteranalytic philosophers

ministically,

Anglo-American

officially eschewed their use even in discussing deavors. There was in the 1960s a whole literature devoted to trying to
man or man's

have generally intellectual

and en

show

that teleological explanations were replaceable

by

causal

explanations.

Early

on, Quine himself thought that dispositional terms could be defined ally, but
all

extension-

this was abandoned. Quine now thinks that dispositional terms will

eventually be dropped from science when the enterprise of science is "com In technical discourse this has made it difficult (some of us would say
pleted."

impossible)
etcetera.

to

achieve

any

epistemological

consensus

on the status of

laws,

("tracking"

Nozick is reintroducing teleological concepts in value theory) but trying to do so in "organic

with

in epistemology,
compatible
what

way that is

but

not

deducible from determinism. He does this

as a two-tier approach.
possible and a

by

adopting

can

only describe

There is

level

of conscious understand where

ing

where

tracking is
not

deterministic level
were

teleological con

cepts

do

appear.

If these two tiers

we could

functionally
intellectual in
approach

identical (like
cake and eat

mind-body too. There

identity

theory) then

have

our

it

are a number of antecedents

for this

modem philoso

phy, but I shall discuss them later.

we can mould

Foundations of Ethics: Nozick's ethical theory is an attempt to show how the world into an embodiment of human purpose. He defines the

task of ethical

theory in
words

terms of the dialectical relation

moral pull and

between
(p.

right and mo

rality, or in his

"the

push"

the moral

401).
calls

Value is
tion

understood

"realization",

that

teleologically as "organic is, "we choose that there be

us"

unity."

Nozick

his

posi

values, that

they

exist, but
choice

their character

is independent itself
(p.

of

(p. 555). As is to be expected, this

to find value subsumes

self

as

something valuable, justifies

choice
with

itself,
be

and puts

it

into

effect

560).

Moreover, "the
relationship

that there

value

brings
not our

(some) facts into

an

organic

value, unifying these but

perhaps obscured

identifying
facts have
what

them"

(p. 568). This

unification

is

"because

not

been organically

yet."

unified enough

This tight

organic

unity is

brings together epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics (p. Nozick attempts to do justice to Kantian deontology as well
predictable view that organization.

524).
as to

Aristote
to be

lian teleology, but he takes the

supplemented

deontology

needs

by

some end

for

So

we come once more

pull

face to
421).

face

with

the issue

of an ultimate synthesis,

this time of push and

(p.

Nozick

still

answers,

no!

(p.

449).

Doubtless frightened
urges

by

the collectivist

im

plications of such a resolution

he

that "there not be the highest

new and even

organic

unity in the

values"

realm of
unities"

so as

to

leave "room for

radically

different

organic possible

(p. 449).

Is it really

to resolve

autonomy

and an unconditioned end without

Discussion
resort

113

to a self-developing absolute spirit? Can we avoid, the individual

finally, finding free

Nozick hesi
that he is
and

dom

by having
this

fully

integrated into the his

community?

tates and then

not pia

declines to
view of

explore

these issues.
with

Specifically, he

claims

linking

morality

earlier

book Anarchy, State

Uto

(p. 499)
and the

Philosophy
what gives

Meaning
It is

of Life: The
meaningful

choice that

there be value is also

life its

meaning.

in the

sense that

it is "a

choice

to

connect and accord with

limits"

something external,
that

a choice

to transcend one's own

(p. 6 1 8).

Nozick

finally

concludes aims not

philosophy is

a part of

the humanities pre

cisely because it

of value only and meaning. Moreover, he proclaims that his self-subsuming explanations are nonreductionist and preserve value and meaning, although he does not think

at explanation

but

at

the explanation

that it is possible to prove that

reductionism

backs away from an So what does this

The way

ultimate synthesis

is impossible, (pp. 635-42).

and

he is

once again

make of academic philosophy?

Philosophy

an art

form.

philosopher aimed at

truth states a

theory

that presents

a possible

truth and so a

understanding the actual world (including its value) in its matrix of possible neighbors. In his artistic reshaping, he also may lift the mind from being totally filled
of
with

the actual world

in

which

it happens to find itself. There is

a tension

between

the

philosopher's

tracking is
scend

of

as a tight unity, desire that his philosophy track the world and his desire that it depict a world worth tracking, if not tran value
altogether.

the world

Still,

the

philosopher must

be true

enough to the world,

presenting

a possible

(though shaped) view, to be transcending it (p. 647).

II: THE HEGELIAN BACKGROUND (FROM CORRESPONDENCE TO

COHERENCE)

Contemporary
anism.

analytic

What

was

philosophy began with Russell's rejection of Hegeli inaugurated was a realist, foundationalist, antipsychologistic

enterprise.

This

enterprise

has failed to
the

achieve

period of reassessment.

Ironically,

reassessment

its goals, and we are now in a leads us back to Hegel.

the

The

inadequacy
I believe

of

the

correspondence

theory inherent in foundationalism,

2.

that Nozick

is

aware of a

lack

of perfect congruence

between Philosophical Expla

nations and

Anarchy, State,

and

Utopia.

In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, I presented a political philosophy One might attempt to provide any moral foundations for that view.
working back from the view, step losophy and working forward.

but did
such a

not

present

foundation

either

by

by
a

step, or

by

starting

at

the very foundations of moral

that this

phi

There is

also the

risk, however,

forward

motion

from the foundations

struction

will

lead to
enough

here extensively

We completely different view. in the direction of political philosophy to be

do

not pursue

the con

able

to see if

there are two lines or one (pp. 498-99^).

1 14

Interpretation
of

desertion

Wittgenstein,
and

the

failure

of positivism's program of
of

verification,
cumu

Quine's wholism,

the disequilibrium

Kuhn

and

Feyerabend have

latively
have

undermined

Russell's
an

original program.

First

Rorty

and now

Nozick

ever-widening hole in the dike. Nozick's book is heralded as a bold new step into the future, but in reality it is a reactionary return to Hegelianism accompanied by all of the fumblings and
put their

fingers into

thrashings about of someone who

revived.3

has

not

fully

understood

the past that is

being

The

return

to

idealism, here

understood as

the belief that to be real is

to be

system, where members are only understood when is the understood, is signaled by Nozick's conception of a self-subsuming explanation. Whereas Russell rejected internal relations, Noz ick restores them via self-subsumption. What is being proclaimed as a new di
system as a whole rection

a member of a rational

in disaffected

analytic circles

is in

part a return to an older position

in

the light

of the failure of mainline twentieth century analytic philosophy. The Hegelian background to contemporary analytic philosophy's current cri sis can be expressed in terms of three intertwined problems, (i) There is a gap between how we understand ourselves (self-consciousness) and how we under

stand

the world, a gap accentuated and aggravated

under

by

scientistic, reductive

at

tempts to subsume the former

reconcile science as

the study of a

(2) It does not seem possible to nonteleological fixed external structure and
logic
of explana

the latter.

the human striving for value.

tion in purely

formal

(3) The attempt to construe the (mathematical) terms independent of the

in terms
of

subject who

does

the explaining renders meaning unintelligible.

Nozick's task is

expressed

(3), but it is

motivated

This is the Some

whole point

behind the desire to

replace argument

by (1) and (2). by explanation.

expressions of

the motivation are the

following.
mind, science,

It is ironic that
seems to
which

one of the most glorious achievements of the modern

no room

leave
seems

for its

own

glory; that the

reduced

image

of man toward
of

it

inexorably

to lead

a mean and pitiable

plaything

forces beyond

his

control

seems

to leave no room even for the creators, and the creation, of

science

itself (p. 627).

those who

deny

value sometimes see as

itself

valuable their tough-mindedness

of

in

refusing to succumb to (what

they

view

as) the

illusion

value, this

comfort

is

not

legitimately
Just
to unite
as

available

to them (p. 559).

a

Hegel developed
and

dialectical logic to
Nozick develops
of

overcome

the dualism of and to a me

thinking

being,

so

an organic as opposed and

chanical paradigm of

logic in the form

self-referentiality
gap.

self-subsump

tion. But whereas Hegel solved the

first problem, the

by

phenomenal world as the self-presentation of the noumenal

reconceiving the world, Nozick is

3.

no argument sonal views

no logical provision in Nozick for paying attention to the views of others. There is for taking anyone else's perspective or hypothesis seriously other than Nozick's per assurance that he does so. He offers, however, no indication of how he would rank other from within his own.

There is

Discussion

-115

content with a mere

formal analogy between

explanations.

self-consciousness and the world

in terms
reality
refusal shall

of

self-subsuming

By

arguing for the analogy between

with a we

and

self-articulating reason, Nozick's enterprise is Hegelian but

to follow it through to the Absolute Spirit. Just why is

something

discuss in Part III.

order

In

for Nozick to

express and to explain what

his theory is about, he is

key junctures to play God or to talk from a point of view sus piciously like Hegel's Absolute Spirit. In his discussion of epistemology, Noz ick imagines a God who creates organisms that would have true beliefs in a
forced
at several

changing world, beings "able to detect

beliefs

accordingly."

According

in facts, who to Nozick such beliefs are

changes

will change

their

"merely"

true. But

the evolutionary process which Nozick champions gives beings the

"capability

for true
it

beliefs."

This capability is
beliefs

supposed

to be superior.
the truth
of what

makes

their

(sometimes) vary

somehow with

is
belief

believed; it

makes their beliefs somehow

sensitive

to the facts.

Thus,
of status and a

the

capability instilled by the evolutionary diate between a belief that (merely) is true in the
with

process will yield

actual

beliefs

interme
varies

world,

belief that

the truth in

all possible worlds

(pp.

283-86).

In

other

words, the evolutionary epistemology is

superior

superior

to the God hypothe

sis.

But is it

to Hegel's Absolute?

Actually
is
also

it is like the Absolute but

and
"somehow"."

without

the Absolute. How's that? Well it

perspective of

is

"sometimes"

The
value.

the Hegelian Absolute

invoked in

order

to explain

The

existence of value

subject to

his

control

is up to him, but the character of value is independent, not In God's relationship to value (under this view) or choice
...

his autonomy is preserved, for it is his choice that there be value, yet also there is an independent standard of value according to which his existence and choices are
valuable, a

fixed simply by his own preference or approval. Although he founds the country club, its membership conditions are not up to him (pp.
standard not

554-55)-s

4.

Nozick is

somewhat

aware

of

the similarity of his

views

to things said
of

by
and

Hegel. But
McTaggart!

Nozick's

version of

Hegel

is,

apparently, gleaned

from

reading

Aurobindo
two

That Nozick fails to

.

understand

Hegel

can

be

seen

from the

following

remarks;

such theories

(do not) find it easy to

process of

explain

why the

perfect and all-inclusive

underlying

substance

is undergoing the

coming to

complete self-knowledge

(p. 606).

See

note 5.

5.
gues

Nozick is guilty

of the usual analytic caricature of the

history

of philosophy, and

he

even ar

for the

value of such caricatures

(p.

546).
and arena;

"Hegel's theory leaves

that needs us as the

us

being
in

Geist's little helper it

but how awe-inspiring is

how

Geist be

arena

which

achieves self-consciousness, you

ennobled can we

by

being

connected with such a

Geist? Would

join

country

club that needs you as a mem

ber? (pp. 6o6-6o7n.) Notice the

same metaphor of a

country

club.

116 Let

Interpretation
us at this point spell out the within

Hegelian
to see

argument and

locate Nozick

pre

cisely lytic philosophy.

it. This

will also permit us

his difference

with previous ana

The Hegelian
theses.

argument

can

be

presented

as

progression

through nine

(i) There is

multiplicity

of objective truths.

(2) This multiplicity of truths forms a coherent system (S). (3) a. any statement about S is, if true, a part of S. b. our understanding of S is, if true, a part of S. (4) Statements of the kind (3a) and (36) cannot be established by
dence because
we the establishers would

correspon

have to be

outside of

the system S in

order to use correspondence.

(5) Therefore,
lished in formal (6 Coherence

the

fundamental explanatory

principles

(3a)

must

be

estab

some other way, alone

by

coherence understood organically. not a sufficient condition. a

is

necessary but
suggested

It is

a mere

requirement.

Any

(3a) is

hypothesis to

which

there are

alternatives.

(7) How

can we tell which version of coherence

is the true (correct)

one?

Certainly
correct

not

by

correspondence

(see 4)

or

any

extra-systematic means. system which

(8) There

must

be

a of

final

and

all-encompassing
must also account

includes the
why
of al

understanding

itself. It

for the how

and

ternative expressions of (3a). How can a system know itself? This is only pos sible if there is a unity of thought and being.

(9) If

such a

unity

exists

but

we cannot yet articulate

it,

where are we

now,

those of us who

dergoing
Quine,

clearly understand this? We are at development toward self-articulation. This Absolute (3b). The Absolute, in short,
most

one stage of a process un

explains needs us.

core

why stop

and

how

we

relate to the

and

analytic

philosophers of the

hard

at

step (2).

They
not

refuse

to talk about talk about the world. When analysts are criticized for

critics

considering the big questions it is the refusal to go beyond (2) that their have in mind. Nozick goes beyond (2), and that is why he appears to some to be progressive. But Nozick stops at (6). He refuses to discuss how we
choose.

As

an

analytic

philosopher not satisfied with

just deductive

argument

but

self-subsuming explanation, Nozick is engaged in a total concep tualization of the world. In order to do this, knowledge must not only explain but be like the world. Ultimate reality and self-articulating reason must be iden
who wants a

tical. In some way we must explain that logic

ness

(self-reflexivity
but
what

is derivative from self-conscious in Nozick's terminology). Nozick's discussion of self-syn

thesis and the closest continuer

theory
a

of

identity, for
which

example,

uses analytic and el

jargon,
evates.

it boils down to is is thus

a

dialectic

annuls, preserves,
a static

Thinking

nation of

thought must

developmental activity, not be itself developmental. Once

one,

so an expla
think-

the explanation of

Discussion

-111

ing

thinking (for example, progressive self-redefinition, trackings, for organic unity) then the explanation must itself be subject to movement. This would explain pluralism and maintain
of or Teachings

is

based

on

the

movement

possibility of absolute truth. The important difference is that Hegel can envisage saying everything (a final synthesis) whereas Nozick will not go that far and so is left with a possi ble plurality of self-subsuming explanations. Nozick thus fails to reconcile this with a belief in objective truth. He plurality parades his
such

the

truth as well as

problem nevertheless

support of certainly priding himself on his open-mindedness, but the logical remains. Absolute truth is replaced by the model of selfone of

subsumption, and curiously truth is Nozick's book. Self-subsumption is

truth

the few concepts

not analyzed

in
of

another word

for

a coherence

theory

organically understood. But such a theory is only successful, I would ar gue, if there is a single organic whole of mind and reality and if it is under going a self-development that requires ultimate consummation. Short of that, Nozick is going to be left with an implausible historicism. Nozick's theory is indistinguishable from historicism.6 Suppose two philos
ophers, N
tive
and

H. N believes
also

or says

that he

believes in
new

an absolute and objec radical par

truth, but he is
shifts,

totally
At the

open to new same

ideas,

hypotheses,
or

adigm

and so on.

time, N
other

refuses to commit

himself to any
we

specific criteria

by

which

we can

tell that later is better

that

are ever

closer to the absolute truth.

an absolute and objective

H,

on

the

hand,

either

denies the
a

existence of
about

truth

or refuses to

be drawn into

debate

it. In
not

stead, H

argues that

later thought
"a"

evolves out of earlier

"the"

thought but is

in

any
that

objective sense closer to

all

or

truth. H even seizes upon N's point

thinking involves
arguments can

speculative assumptions or
what

starting
we

points

that cannot

themselves be

objects of proof:

Nozick

means when

he denies that de
practice

ductive
or

justify

themselves. How could

distinguish in

empirically between N
without an act so

and

H? What difference is there between Nozick's

quasi-Hegelianism and an out and out

historicist? The

answer

is that there is

no

difference

Nozick) become just

never explained

Alternative self-subsuming theories (a la many incommensurable discourses (a la Rorty). It is

of

faith.7

how

we are

to choose or compare or to coordinate those alter

natives.

6. For
cal

an elaboration of

this very important point see Hilail

Gildin (ed.), introduction to Politi

p. xiii.

Philosophy: Six Essays On he

one

by

Leo Strauss (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1975),

used

occasion,

[Leo] Strauss

meant

by

affirming that if

positivism understood

Ernest Nagel's The Structure of Science to illustrate what itself it would necessarily transform into

historicism.
7.

Nozick aptly

expresses the

limitations

of this

kind
not

of

theorizing:

"However, just
plan

as empirical
which

data

underdetermine a scientific

theory, is

so actions

do

uniquely fix the life

the same
an

from

they
are

flow. Different life

actions"

plans are compatible with and might yield

(p.

577).

If so,

they really different life

actions?

plans, or

one of the plans

(at least)

inadequate

expression of

the

118

Interpretation
shows us

What Nozick
embrace

is that

fully
not

self-conscious analytic

philosophy
of

must not

Hegelianism. That it does

do

so

is, in part, the

a peculiar assumptions.

result of

being

fully

self-conscious of what an argument

it is doing. It is

kind

failure,

not to

follow

backwards to its implicit

are
at

No

matter

how bril

liant individual

analysts

developing
will

the implications of a
the roots of a

hypothesis,
hypothesis. Nozick's

they lack

the capacity or the to be

philosophical

to
as

understand

They fail

insofar

they fail

to be

self-conscious.

are, in the end, just like Rorty's incommensurable discourses, Quine's theoretical multiplicity, Rescher's pluralism of metaphilosophies, and
speculations

Goodman's

world visions.

To the

extent

that

they fail

to be

lian (ultimate synthesis), they brace historicism.

either retreat

into

silent nihilism or at

consistently Hege best em

Ill: THE LIMITS OF ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY

In the ophy in
raise

previous section
general can

argued that

Nozick in

particular and analytic philos now want to

be best

understood as and what

failed Hegelianism. I

the questions of why

it fails
is
a

that failure implies. But before ad

dressing these questions there avoid. My examination is not

losophers
ought

to embrace

misunderstanding that I want to brief for Hegel. I am not arguing that all phi Hegelianism. My purpose is to expose the inade
one potential

quacies of analytic philosophy.

At the

conclusion of

this paper I shall argue

given

that the more consistently Hegelian the analyst

becomes,

his

other

limita

tions,

the more

dangerous

analysis

becomes.

Why is analysis failed Hegelianism? It would be easy to argue sheer histori cal ignorance, the failure of many contemporary professionals to study their
own tradition or
story.

to teach it to subsequent generations. But this is not the

analysts

whole

In

fact, early
are

like Russell knew very

well what

they

were re

jecting

in idealism.
two reasons why analysts, especially like
even

There

Nozick,

would not em with

brace Hegel
and

if they

understood
of

him. The first has to do

scientism,

the second

with

the politics

liberalism.
scientism, to the belief that
science gives

Analytic
us

philosophers subscribe to

the ultimate truth about the whole of reality.

sense that

Scientism is
mind

opposed

to ideal

ism in the

trary,
mind

dependent. On the con only do analysts believe that reality is independent of mind but that is itself explainable in the same way that we explain the rest of reality.
not

the latter takes reality to be

Thought is nothing but the It

might appear to some

reflection of an external structure.

Scientism

as such

entails materialism and reductionism.

that Nozick does not subscribe to scientism because

he

criticizes reductionism.

shadow of reductionism.

The

On the contrary, Nozick always writes under the great fear is that whatever independent realm we

Discussion
carve out

119 is in imminent danger

to look through
of

for

man

being

replaced,
cast

and the ultimate

embarrassment

in

analytical philosophical circles

is to be

into the

position

of people who refused

Galileo's telescope

or who opposed evo

lution. Nozick

goes to great pains to point out that

reductionism must

any attempt to prove that fail is futile (pp. 570, 642). Nozick does not rule out the

possibility of reductionism, and we should recall that in his treatment of free dom he does not argue that man is free but strives instead to formulate a
compatibilist position.

More

important, Nozick denies

from

that there

is

an

intersub
(p.

jectively
627).

valid commonsense world

which science

itself is

abstracted

The fundamental

commitment to scientism

has two important

of

consequences:
and

it leads to
Let

a peculiar conception of

the practice

philosophy,

it leads to

normlessness.
us

look first

at

the practice of philosophy. In

Nozick,

the practice of phi

losophy

practice of science. Instead of attempting to un derstand science, what we get is a scientific approach to philosophy. As in sci ence, hypothesis formation is everything. But how do we know that we have

is derivative from the

correctly understood science? This question is postponed indefinitely. In order to clarify further what hypothesis formation means in Nozick, I
shall

introduce
as

distinction
and

among:

(a) philosophy
we

as

exploration,

(b)

philoso
phi

phy

replacement,

(c) philosophy
of meaning,

as explication of meaning.

In (a),

losophy

as the exploration
model of

follow

out the

implications

of some

hypothetical

thought and practice in order to realize

its inherent

possi

bilities. In philosophy as the replacement of meaning, there is an explicit sub stitution of new ideas for our everyday ideas. Reductionism is a form of re
placement.

Both

exploration and replacement

rely
to do

upon

imaginative theoretical from

constructions and ask the question

"What is

possible

if
extract

In philosophy
ous practice a

as explication what we seek of

is to

our previ
applied

theory

that practice, a

theory
as

that

may be reflectively

in

deciding

what

to do

next.

In philosophy
attempt

explication, norms are fundamen

the sense we

tal. Explication is the serious

to clarify an intuition

have

of ourselves as we act.

Nozick predominantly and self-consciously engages in theory exploration. We are constantly besieged by what the book dust jacket calls "new concepts,

daring hypotheses,

rigorous

reasoning,

playful analytic

Nozick philosophy

exem

plifies the preoccupation of

contemporary

with methodo

logical innovation. There is first (p. 654, hypothesis

new of n. 12).

much concern over who arrived at what

hypothesis

But

what

is the
in

point of these

hypotheses? Sometimes times, the

point of

these seem to be
seems

mere exercises

cleverness.

At

other

the

to be

theory

replacement, that

is,

to get us to see things in a

up way "the view that the self

suggests

and

to give

our old ways of thinking. exists

For example, in his

of all acts

handling
hand,
all

independently
it

of self-referring",
other

away"

Nozick

that we must "explain

(p.

94).

On the

120 forms
when

Interpretation
of reductionism are examples of

theory

replacement.

How

are we

to tell

it is

appropriate

to

replace a view and when not?

Sometimes Nozick is brought to the brink

to square science
with

of explication as when as meaningful

he

wants

our view of ourselves

beings. But he

specifically

refuses

to embrace this as the

aim of philosophy.

"Showing

that

certain values are

immanent in

certain activities

does

not constitute an explana

tion of why those values are correct, or of

all"

how

correct values are possible at

(p.

435)as exploration

Philosophy
point of

is

committed to the traditional

"I

think."

So

right

from the
"I"
"I"

beginning
as opposed

Cartesian starting Nozick's emphasis is on thought

to the
"we."

as opposed to action and on the

appears to subject as

On the

surface

this

take the subject

an object

seriously, but as it develops we interacting in an environment of other

come

to see the

objects.

To his

credit, Nozick does

not use mechanical models

but

organic ones.

But

by

ping

at the organic

level,

we get a picture of man as a rational animal

stop but not

as a person.

Nozick's

analysis of skepticism

is typical.

Dealing

with

the skeptic

involves

an egocentric

perspective,

not a social one.

My
I

task here

is to

remove the

conflict, to

put

how those
accept.
what

of the things the skeptic says which

my own beliefs in alignment, to show I accept can be fit in with other things

that to

In this way, I take very seriously what the skeptic says, for I acknowledge he says creates a problem for me and my beliefs. In thus trying to explain how knowledge is possible,
what

myself

is

relevant

is

what

accept

(p. the

16).

Nozick

responds

to the skeptic's demand

for total justification

that is

by

now

fa

miliar move of

rejecting

foundationalism,
If there
must

by

rejecting the notion of the

contexts,
and

existence of privileged contexts.

are no privileged
a context of

if

we
all-

are to avoid

nihilism, then there

a

be

the whole, a pervasive

science.

inclusive background. Such

we are

background for Nozick is

So, ironically,

back to foundationalism. What

analytic philosophers confused

have

finally

come

to reject is phenomenalism, but

they have

this

with

the rejection of

idealism.
ground

They

have

not

is science,

and

really rejected idealism. Moreover, if the widest back if science is normless, then there will be no way to de

cide short of explanation

possessing total knowledge (Hegelianism again) which alternative is correct. There is, in fact, no way to decide which among com
no

peting hypotheses is correct, no way to compare them, and nate them. Nozick's pluralism is ultimately normless. Such is
a pointless multiplicity.

way to

coordi

It's

all

just talk

until science

normless plurality brings home the final

verdict.

Practically
very feel

speaking

good one at

methodological
alienated

philosophy remains a form of historicism, not a that, and this is why it continually degenerates into an orgy of innovation. Is it any wonder that many analytic philosophers
analytic
not

(p. 578),

knowing

what world

they inhabit (the

pretheoretical

or the

Absolute)?

Discussion
All
norms

-121

in Nozick's

view

level,
ence

whereas science

itself is

itself

a norm-governed a

function organically (teleologically) at the upper normless. There is no possibility of making sci activity. Nozick is opposed to transforming science
(p. 627). Nor is there
on

"against its grain, into

humanity"

Nozick's
whole

part a

desire to
would ralism

correlate

final

organic

unity

with

final

scientific and

that
plu

be Marxist. So
that

we are

left

with an

unexamined,

unexaminable,

is comfortably
as

and

marketably liberal.
objective of all analytic of

Nozick's objective,
conceptualization.

is the

philosophy, is total

To

conceptualize

the

interaction

the subject and the object

is to

make

the subject or self a self-conscious concept. All of Nozick's expla to the formal properties of the
appealed

nations

refer

thing

explained,

and

the formal

properties

ultimately

to (self-subsumption and self-reference) make

the

subject and

the object indistinguishable. What I am arguing is that once we

as the explication of

abandon

philosophy

What is
with

peculiar about

the subject, namely that

meaning we inevitably lose the self. he is part of a cultural matrix

a rational animal

implict norms, is completely lost. Man is not just acting with nature, but a being in a culture in nature.
the

inter

Surely in the case of self-identity we exist in a social setting (for example, family) long before we develop a personal identity. It will not do to say, cannot be derived "only from non-reflexively self-refer formalistically, that
"I"
statements"

ring
tion of the

(p.

74).

individual's

mental

The fact is that before anything can become life it must first have existed externally
or more people.

func

as a re
of

sult of an exchange
and

between two

We

are ourselves

because idea
of

through others. What Nozick

has

confused

is

an account of the

the
nor

self with an account of

the

self.

Contrary

to

Nozick,
refer

the

self

is

not an

idea

is it deducible from ideas, any ideas. To take the subject seriously would be to

to the normative social mi

lieu, but
making

this would involve a

recognize

totally different
the social

conception of what an explana

at

tion is. Nozick does

of

dimension,

least

implicitly, by his
cites

philosophy
one must

a part of

the humanities.

Specifically

he

the

need

to

share our experience.

But

of course this

treatment is inadequate.

One

cannot

just say it,

Let
us

do it

asides and admissions of

embody it in one's philosophy. Autobiographical doubt are not enough, they are just in bad taste.
and

suppose, contrary to
social

Nozick,

that thought is

a reflection on practice

action,

specifically implicit norms. If so, then there are existential limits on thought; you are not en titled to hold any old view; you cannot challenge indefinitely and contextlessly. Moreover, if thought were a reflection on what you and I do together, as op
posed

practice, and let us suppose further that

contains

to what I think alone, then those limits would be underscored. Failure to

provide

for

a social

frame

of reference

however
where

nice and polite pluralism

must

only problematic in epistemology, may be. It is catastrophic in the social sphere is

not conflicts

there

be

some

way

of

handling

among competing

versions

of political and social

life. primarily interested in explaining

what we mean or

Nozick, then, is

not

the

122

Interpretation
have
of ourselves.

sense we

At the

same time
within

Nozick

needs

philosophy

as ex

plication of mean

meaning because it is only valuing

the context of what we

already

our previous

of ourselves

that we are

going to be asked to

repudiate ourselves and emerge reconstructed potheses.

by

the

exploration of certain

hy
of

By

Nozick's

own account

there

is

a pretheoretical context

in terms

which arguments

function. Arguments

are not self-certifying.

It is this

pretheo

retical context of
was what

meaning and value that he is trying to explain. That, after all, he told us in the introduction. But what he is doing is trying to ex

plain

it

by totally

conceptualizing the
of the

pretheoretical context. where we end

The
with

clearest exam

the self being up idea-of-the-self. In the pretheoretical context eliminated short, eventually disappears in Nozick's theory. The underlying commitment to scien tism underscores the major and most ironic failure of Nozick's book. Ostensi
ple of

this is the treatment of the self,

in favor

bly

committed

to preserving the

dignity

of

man, the

whole

logical thrust

of

Nozick's

argument

is to

collapse the

distinction between the

subject and the ob

a

ject. Despite his

protestations

to the contrary, Nozick's philosophy represents

loss

of

the

self.

failure of analytic philosophy to consistently to total Hegelianism. This reason is purely political. Ana lytic philosophy, which has its origins in Hobbes and Locke, is culturally bi
We
come now move ased toward versities

to the second reason for the

liberalism. This its

other

explains

its

entrenchment

in Anglo-American

uni

and can

home in Anglophiliac Vienna.

as

Liberalism, for

our

purposes,
and

be defined
within

determinism

follows: (a) the assumed congruence of teleology the individual (such as Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke,
a

Smith, Bentham); (b)

set of consistent ends

the assumption that each individual has

built-in

end or

belief in progress;

and

(teleological-organic component); (c) the Enlightenment (d) the belief that freedom is the absence of arbitrary ex From this
point of of
of

ternal constraints (defined relative to b).

collective

is judged in terms

its serving the

ends

view, any social individuals. Conse

quently, the Hegelian community,

synthesis of right and

and the notion

that the ends of the

morality in the ethical life of the individual are both satisfied and dangerous
collectiv

transcended in the social organism would be rejected as

ism. What Nozick has

reductive offered us shall call

is

two-tier system
micro
level),8

of explanation.

There is

level (we
political

it the

and an organic-teleological

8. Liberal

theory is directly
Nozick
use

analogous to
of

liberal

economic theory.
economics.

It is thus The

no acci

dent that both Rawls

version of

and

the

vocabulary

contemporary

most extreme

CL is found among Austrian economists who still subscribe to homo economicus. to individual has a built-in end. Mainline ML postulates a double teleology. Its first articulation was in Adam Smith's hidden hand thesis, and its last has been enshrined in text
the
view

that each

books
with

by

Samuelson 's
social

neoclassical synthesis

the macroeconomics of

Keynes

as expressed

integrating the microeconomics of Arrow and Hahn by Hicks. The most radical version of liberalism
of aggregate

actually invokes demand by

Keynes'

transcendence, and it can be seen in the sole hypostatization Cambridge disciples such as Ms. Joan Robinson.

Discussion
level (we

123

shall call

it the

macro

level),

wherein each

level has

an

integrity

of

Of course, and here the macro, but the macro has its
own.

comes

the scientism, the micro is responsible for

emergent properties

(teleological)
on the micro

whose explana

tion

properly

utilizes organic concepts not

found

level.
as

Such

a view would and

have to

present people's valuable traits

as

(such

being

self,

seeking value,
their tion

freely
from

choosing)

having

an

integrity

of their own.

Although

these traits emerge

component processes and are shaped

by

outside

factors,
interac
must not correct

functioning
rather

would not would

it

merely as the involve the intricate integrity

explicable

be

product of the simple of the whole.

be merely a view that view (p. 635).

can

be taken

by

us

it

must

be the ontologically

What

we

have is level

deterministic it

system

that coincidentally operates on the

self-

conscious

as a

teleological system. This explains why Nozick redefined

compatible with

freedom We

so as

to make

determinism.

that this approach is anything but novel. It originated with Hobbes who, on the one hand, claims to be a determinist and physicalist and
must stress

coincidentally operating with principles such as self-preservation, which are not themselves specific drives but parts of an elaborate homeostasis to keep the entire system
functional. It is
The
also no accident

who,

on

the other

hand, describes

the human and social world as

that Hobbes was the first liberal.

whether

question we can ask

is

this coincidence

of micro and macro

levels is true? Is it true, and is it true in precisely the way that Nozick says it is? There is not one single piece of evidence offered nor is there even an argu
for why anyone should believe it. It is in Hobbes, in Adam Smith, in Nozick and in everybody else in between, a rationalization which allows them to wrap themselves in the flag of scientism and in the belief in human value as
ment

it. It is whistling in the dark. It is in no sense a se rious argument, and calling it an hypothesis does not disguise the fact that it is a carpeting together of personal intellectual commitments. Adopting a form of

they

would

like to

construe

compatibilism to solve some problems

may

appear to

be

a neat

solution, but it

is

purchased at the

price of

invoking

a new

dualism that is

no more and no

less

plausible than

any other form of dualism. Nozick's dualism is an expression of

are at

particular

Within liberalism there

least two

possibilities.

variety of liberalism. Classical liberalism (CL) Classical liberalism is

no ultimate conflict

finds the

ultimate

teleology in
assume

the individual per se.

therefore forced to

that on the social level there is

one

between the
em

unity Liberalism (ML) finds

organic

of

individual. Mod any any a double teleology: both in the individual and a
and other social world as a whole, so that no
without

individual

more

inclusive

organic

unity in the
organic

individ

ual can achieve

his full

unity

every

other

individual achieving

his

as well

(but there is
a

no notion of social transcendence).

modem

Whereas Rawls is

liberal, Nozick is

a clear case of a classical

liberal.

124
. .

Interpretation
there

is

no guarantee of a path to maximize and also that of others.

both

your own

harmonious

hierarchical development does

not

However,

ethical responsiveness

demand

you most

(sic)

enhance the

development

of

others, only that the value

you respond to their value as value, that you treat them as

having

they do

have. Between

such responsiveness and your own

value,

your own

harmonious

hierarchical development, there is

no conflict at all

(p.

515).

Both
would unities

of

these positions are

see

ad

hoc. Both depend

rest.

upon

the whim of where we

like to but

the organic unity

Both

assume or postulate such organic

any Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia

rations

never offer

proof of

them or evidence for them. In

and

fact, both
are explo

Rawls's

Theory

of Justice

(not explications),
would no

and

hence they

are contextless.

Nozick
empirical

backing. As he

doubt reply that a teleological theory cannot be given solid says (pp. 441, 541, 577), such theories provide nec
(this is true
no

essary but
against

not sufficient conditions

of all self-subsumptive explana argument can

tions and even tracking).

In

short

knock-down

be

offered refu

any teleological argument or

hypothesis,
still

so while

it is immune to

tation so

is every

other possibility.

This

leaves

us with a

bilities

and no

in

a proper

way to decide among them. This light.

or we

should put

plurality Nozick's pluralism

of possi

and

If, as I have argued, the distinction beyond, is purely arbitrary, then

strains which moulded

borderline between CL
should
expect

and

ML,
in

to

see

strains

Nozick's analysis, easily

indicate that his

much

touted libertarianism is three such

(a) Nozick can be

514).

recognizes a context

into something like the New Left. There in which "there is

(p. 504).

are a

instances.
that rights

possibility

transcended"

(b) He talks, in
Here define
equal

passing, of the possibility of barriers to self-development (p.

we are reminded of or

how difficult, if
we cannot

not

impossible, it

would

be to

removed.
when all

opportunity Remember that for Nozick

are removed.

to specify criteria for

when all

barriers have been

for

specify

sufficient conditions

barriers

suggest that teleological explanation will come

back to haunt Nozick.

(c) Nozick's
how
all

treatment of capital punishment is the most glaring example of to

this talk about organic unity can drift toward modem progressive liber

alism.

According
But So

Nozick,

punishment reconnect
as an

is
the

form

of

retribution, but the

pur

pose of the punishment

is to

wrongdoer with correct rules

(p.

374).

even a murderer

has,

agent,

him is both to
value.

destroy intrinsic
Nozick's

value and

intrinsic value, so to execute to jeapardize our own connection with

some
are

while

own moral

intuitions

in favor

of capital punish

ment, his liberal

theory

of organic

have

alternated on the

issue

of an

unity allows for a drift to the left. "I myself institution of capital punishment, unable to
378).

conclusion"

reach a clear stable

(p.

Nozick's

reputation as

the

arch

de

fender

of

individualism

will not survive a careful

I think that

now we can

begin to

appreciate

reading of this book. why Nozick's book has received

Discussion
such plaudits.

125

By pursuing the preconceptions behind technical analytic philos Nozick lays bare the progressive liberal motivation that sustains and ophy, fuels it. Solving and dissolving all of the technical issues eventually is sup
posed

to

liberate
in

man

for higher
I
suspect

things.

Just

what

higher things

we are never

told,

and

some cases

it

will mean
who

just

doing
a

more methodological retarded

innovation. Even those

will welcome

on

the left

find Nozick

bit

politically

his book, for it

are

provides

the opening

wedge.

What, in
philosophy

conclusion,
seriously?

the alternatives available to those who take analytic

analytic

Either
or

philosophy
of

embraces

reductionism

and

hence becomes nihilistic,

it

seeks

to avoid

nihilism.

There

are two ways

to

avoid nihilism: either embrace some oneself on radical

form
we

teleological consummation

or put

historicist hold. If

take teleological consummation seri

ously, we

either embrace vague progressive

liberalisms

or we can argue

for

ul

timate consummation. Ultimate consummation can only mean Hegel or Marx.

Hegel is

out

because

of

his

rejection of scientism and materialism.

That leaves
only
politi

only Marxism. In short, Marxism

and progressive

liberalism

are the

cal positions compatible with analytic philosophy.

The
t^-xt

Journal

of

Libertarian

Studies

THEJvJLJrvINJ/\LSF

TTW T A T

publishes

intellectually

stimulating

papers

TT)pr)rpir)TiTkT

relating to all aspects of human liberty. Its purpose is to seek a deeper

and ethical

| J
|

rjr.ix
..

| /\l\l/\lN
r,N

understanding of human action, and the

^ J^ \^J I

tt^vTT^O
71

institutions

foundations
thus

of a

free

society.

Work

published

in

cludes

economics, political and ethical

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEW

philosophy, sociology, psychology and

the

history

of

ideas.

Murray N. Rothbard, Editor

Of

special note

in Volume Six

"American

Isolationism,
and

1939-1941,"

by Justus D. by

Doenecke

"Retribution

Restitution: A
of

Synthesis,"

Peter J. Ferrara Mendilow

"Shelley's Philosophy

Liberty,"

by Jonathan by

"An Economic Analysis

and

of

the Norris-LaGuardia
Industry,"

Act,

the Wagner

Act,

the Labor Representation

papers

Morgan O. Reynolds

In addition, the "Religion

with

presented on

at

the Eighth Libertarian Scholars

and

Conference discussion
and

late-nineteenth-century

American
"

Politics,"

including

an

essay

by
on

contemporary Richard Jensen

title; Forces in American

View

the same

'Let the People See': Reflections

Ethnoreligious

by Joel H. Silbey; and a response by Paul Kleppner, "Religion, Politics, and the American Polity: A Dynamic
Relationships."

Politics,"

of

JLS is
only.

published

quarterly

and subscriptions are accepted on a per-volume

Annual

subscription rates are

$25 for institutions

and

basis $17 for individuals.

Non-U. S. subscribers please add postage as follows: $4 for surface delivery; airmail, $6 for Canada and Mexico, $10 for others. (U.S. dollars only, please.)

Address inquiries to: The Center for Libertarian Studies 200 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10003

Book Reviews
Character Names in Dostoevsky's Fiction.

bor, Mich.: Ardis,

1982. 140 pp.: cloth

By Charles E. Passage. $27.50, paper $6.50.)

(Ann Ar

Joan Richardson
La Guardia

Community College,

C.U.N.Y.

Character Names in Dostoevsky's Fiction is a well-honed, carefully fash ioned instrument for interpretation. In the best tradition of useful, objective
scholarship, this

highly

organized,
concise

presents, in

remarkably
and

thoroughly researched and documented text form, all the necessary information about Dos
background
of pertinent

toevsky's naming

of characters against a

historical,

po
a

litical,
text,
as

personal,

literary

details.

Using

this excellent reference tool,

reader of

any

one or all of

Dostoevsky's

works will

be

able to

illuminate the

Passage
access

it were, enriching the translations with the colorful illustrative details provides. Passage's contribution allows English-language readers an

to an

immediate level
of

of

meaning previously
to

reserved

only for

Russian

audience. sense of
and

Readers unity

the English translations

will now

be

able to

enjoy both the

"system"

and coherence

belonging

Dostoevsky's
of

onomastic

the personal, political, and historical attitudes

name choices.

the author clearly re

flected in his

Up
have

until

not

very recently, readers of Dostoevsky's work in English translation had a very important part of the text one of the central narrative
available to them.

devices
better idea
all

This

the author's complex and revelatory sys

subject of the

tem of naming characters

of

is the

book

under review.

To

give a

the difference this book makes, imagine reading Dickens

proper

thinking
like in

the names simply

names,

being
We

unaware of

the range of

denotative

and connotative additions carried

by

each of

them. It would be somewhat

Homeric

characters without epithets.

author

could not

imagine the
would

characters

their particularity the way the

imagined them. We

have

difficulty

remembering appear in the

and

recognizing the host of personages as they disappear and re narrative. We would, in short, have the experience most of us

have had
our own while

when

mnemonic

trying to invent reading Nineteenth Century Russian novels devices for each character paired with his or her name
time, to

trying,

at

the same

keep

in touch

with

the narrative

flow. We

no

longer have to
With these
gion
of

attempt

these

mental acrobatics.

additions

to understanding, the reader can begin to enter the re

Dostoevsky's
a

mythology.

It

would

be

as

if

to offer a parallel in
not

stance, using

mythology equally distant in different ways, though

reasons

for

wholly different
to the text the

there were a translation of the

Odyssey

that restored

associations and connections of

its

metaphors so

that we could

128
see with

Interpretation
the
mind's

way as the original audience, the images evoked by the poet's words. We would have a very different perception of the sea, for example, if we knew, or read through the translation, that its etymol
eye, in the
same

ogy ties it to the word for a pregnant woman. Having that kind of sense guage and the interconnectedness of words and names heard by original
ers of the

of

lan

speak

language

allows

us

to perceive

fully

what

different

world-view and under

means

and allows us

to move

freely

in that

other

world,

feeling

standing its

complex system of

relationships, seeing a name not simply as an

as an

arbitrarily

appended

tag

or

epithet, but

integral

part and

necessary

expres

sion of an organic whole.

Passage

accomplishes of

this task

for

Dostoevsky
a

with

the ease and

economy
to
ex

that grow out

his

excellent sense of order and

his

assiduous attention

cluding any
so

personal

interpretation. This is
our own

tool,

meant

to be

used

incisively
a

that we can make

reader would

interpretations
automatically.

once we

have the information

Russian

have had

A fine

example of what a scien

precision

tific, objective critical it was designed to be.

approach can

offer, it

works

like the

instrument
Ta

Neatly
bles
will
,

divided into three

main

sections

Part

One, Part Two

and

subdivided no

have

into clearly labeled categories, the scholar or general reader problem finding exactly what he or she is looking for. In addition

there are a Preface and Introduction

tersely covering
Russian
and

the

intention,
writer.

personal and

historical genesis,

and placement of

this kind of work, and its relevance to

Dostoevsky

as a

Nineteenth

Century

European

In the Intro
context

duction, for example, Dostoevsky's ranging from the Greek "New

ties to Dickens
the English

"name-giving"

is

seen

in

broad
.

Comedy"

of the

Fourth

Century

through

its
to

Nineteenth Century's

archetypal name-giver

its

closer as

links in the Russian

tradition to Pushkin and

Gogol. Here

and else

where,

well, Passage also points out

Dostoevsky's carrying
plot summaries

over of Hoff-

manian mannerisms

very important in studying

some of the earlier works.

Part One is been

woven

diachronic, presenting brief

meanings of each of

into

which

have Sto

the

the character's names. It is separated into

as a writer:

four
ries,

subsections
1846-

following

Dostoevsky's development
of

I.

Early

Various Kinds, 1857- 1865; III. Short Novels 1866 and Short Stories, 1881; IV. The Long Novels. The only place where the chronological order is interrupted is in Section III dealing with the short
novels and stories change which

1849; II. Works

actually

appeared

in between the
allows the

long

novels.

This
ex

in ordering is

appropriate

because it
with

larger

works to

be

amined as a

group; those unfamiliar

to the section

the entire the

Dostoevsky
novels, not

corpus can sim

ply

go

directly

dealing

with

long

distracted

by

the

material about

the shorter works. Also appropriate

is Passage's
pertain

greater attention

to the analysis of names and their allusions as

they

to the plots of the

long

novels.

The

nonspecialist

in

Dostoevsky

these discussions. For the shorter,

will naturally be interested in less-known pieces, Passage is very brief,

Book Reviews
giving only the
should

129
meanings
without

names'

making

all

the connections to the

characters'

movements and

functions in

be

since most of these works

have

English,

as

have the

major

novels,

and

This is as it unfolding been thoroughly analyzed in the specialists in Dostoevsky who will
the
of the plot. not yet

be interested in these doubt be

minor works should

simply be

presented with the raw

material and so allowed will no

to begin themselves the more expansive analyses that

suggested

by

Passage's

elliptical presentation of

the facts. In

deed,

look forward to new, expanded analyses of the longer novels as well, following what Passage economically but enticingly has given us already.
we can

Effectively
useful

punctuating each of the subsections of Part One are extremely biographical details, suggesting certain changes in Dostoevsky's attitude be
reflected

that

might

in his

name choices.

In addition, Passage brings to bear

his easy erudition about the various editions of Dostoevsky's work and about the broader influences impinging on his namings. In this way, Dostoevsky's feelings her
about

Russia, Orthodoxy, Russia's relationship

to

France,

to

Germany,
sug

problem with

minorities, the class system, figures from the historical past,

personal past and present are all a one-to-one

as well as
gested.

figures from his

no point

illuminatingly
of all

At

does Passage draw

interpretation

of a name

and a particular

fact;

rather, he masterfully leaves the threads

the facts

hanging;
ample of

these Dostoevsky's and his readers can weave together into their own
meaning.

tapestries of

In

all

cases,

however, he

provides, in a well-chosen ex
name choices.

equivalence, the tone

implicit in Dostoevsky's

For

ex

ample, in showing how the various diminutives function in Russian to indicate degrees of intimacy or affection, he points out the difference between calling
"Johnny"

someone

to communicate

something like "my dear Dostoevsky's playfully disparaging

or
named

John."

Or, in

another a

instance,
piece

attitude

in

farcical

towards two characters

gests

Pyotr Ivanovich

and

Ivan Petrovich, he sug

that the

effect of

their names

is

similar

to the effect Americans get from

Tweedledum
cable to

and

Tweedledee. It is divided into

all the possible categories appli and

Part Two is

synchronic.

Dostoevsky's

system of naming:
of

I. Types

Family Names;

II. The
and such as

Social Classes; III. Special Groups

"Non-Russians,"

the latter section

French,"

Characters, for examples, subdivided into various nationalities,

Germans,"

"Doctors,"

"The

English,"

"The

"The

"The Jews"; IV.

Animals; V

Narrators;
names,"

VI.

Settings; VII. Russians

has Names").

with

Names (this
and

section also
"Servants'

useful subsections

Non-Russian Names; VIII. Given "Nick covering

"Patronymics,"

With its

structural

approach, Part Two

and

offers even

the anthropologist or so
a portrait of

ciologist the

necessary in Dostoevsky's Nineteenth

various

important information to build

society

lists, Passage

offers

Century Russia. Also, by cataloging the names in literary theorists interested in processes of compo
captured

sition a rare glimpse sky's mind.

objectively

into the

workings

of

Dostoev

130

Interpretation
never mentions

Though he

it,

we can

hardly

escape

speculating that Dos

that

toevsky
was

used

his

taxonomies as mnemonic devices.

Knowing
his

Dostoevsky
the pres
which

epileptic,

and

that he composed the

greater part of

work under

sure of

meeting

serial

deadlines,
he
gave

often enough

having

a seizure

from

he

would recover with

little

or no short-term

memory,

suggests

gree at

least,

the names

his

characters were

linked in

some

that, to some de kind of per in

sonal associative pattern that would allow

him, if

necessary, to recognize them

through their names and to reconstruct their personalities and their actions the context of the narrative
"Animal," "Bird,"

"Plant"

he had already completed. The preponderance of names, as Passage lists, will prompt fanciful readers
personal
with

to

reconstruct

for themselves Dostoevsky's in

memory

scheme

scheme of

that seems to have a great deal in common

schemes continued
use

the memory schemes

Antiquity. These

through the Middle Ages and the

Renaissance,

contributing, as Francis Yates points out in The Art of Memory,

to the order and

imagery

of

Dante's Divine

Comedy
Though

as

well

as

to that

of

Giordano Bruno's Hermetic doubt have devised his

his

religious message.

system

naively, in response to

Dostoevsky dealing with

could no

the more

terrifying
also

aspects of

condition

in

relation

to his

work as a

writer, it might

be

possible

that he had learned this system as part of his own education,

monkish methods of the Middle Ages being preserved until very late in the Orthodox tradition. In any case, this is the kind of speculation that is generated by the material collected and presented in schematic form in Part Two of Pas

the

sage's

handbook.
categories of

Within the for

Part Two, Passage

provides all the

specialists and nonspecialists

alike, reading

at their various

details necessary levels. Indeed, be tempted to

the nonspecialist

looking

at

only

one particular section will soon

read more of

become
and

a specialist as

well, wanting to
prompted

both Dostoevsky's fiction

Passage's

illuminations,
as we

by

the concrete sense of writer and work

that emerges from Passage's erudition. The sense of reality ple, from
ries as

derived, for

exam

learning,

described

and

do from Passage, that the weather and newspaper sto referred to in Crime and Punishment correspond to the
stories of a summer

real weather and

feature

in St.

Petersburg

when

Dostoev

sky

was

feverishly during
this

writing, allows us to participate in the kind of response his

original audience would

have had, waiting for the

next

installment

of

the novel

to appear

the same hot summer. Knowledge of this sort

belongs only to
order:

the true scholar, and it

is the

sort that makes true scholars of others. are

Closing
"Given
example,

neat
with

volume

three

tables

listing,
and

in

alphabetical

Names,"

their English equivalents and translated meanings (for

"Foma

Thomas

Biblical
=

twin"

beneath it

its

diminutive in

forms, "Fomka,

Fomushka"

"Tom, Tommy"); "Non-Russian

appear,
with

Names,"

dicating
Names,"

in

which

works

they
of

cross-references;

and

"Family

with

indications

the works in which

their

they

appear,
and

again cross-refer

enced, their transliterated

forms,

Russian

forms,

their meanings (for

Book Reviews
example, "Brok

-131

Belyavski

Ecjijibckhh
to

any
ever

reader could go

immediately

find,

in the

"white hare"). To these tables most direct and concise form,

native

the meaning that is

automatically available to the the derivation is not certain, a question mark

In short, is no bit
It is
no matter which of a

Russian

reader.

Wher

prefaces the offered possibili

ties. there

section of
not

this wonderful guide is turned to,

researched and

information that is
useful at all

thoroughly
and should

carefully

presented. one

book

levels

be

on

the shelves of any

having

even one

Dostoevsky
a

novel.

Charles Passage's death is

worked with

loss

not

only to those of
appreciation
and

us who and

knew him
the

and

him, but

loss

to all those who

love letters

know

differ

best of scholarship makes in our how to live and what to do. His gentleness
ence

the

of texts that

show us

generosity

the qualities most

apparent to

those who knew

"

him
His he

were the

features
his

that made

his scholarship

fit for
which

the

category "best.

gentleness translated composed

he

read and with which

careful sentences.

into the sensitivity with His generos

ity

shows

itself
his

to anyone whose enjoyment of reading

Dostoevsky, E.T. A.
attention

Hoffman
riched

or

any of the other figures to whom

additions.

he devoted

has been

en

by

Many

more than those who

knew him

will miss

him,

because

there will

be

no more

of his

work.

Two Critiques
After Virtue.

of

Nihilism
University
and of

By

Alasdair Maclntyre. (Notre Dame, Indiana:

1981. 252 pp.: cloth

Notre Dame Press,

Si 5. 95,

paper

$7.95.)
Lon

Nihilism: A Philosophical Essay.

don: Yale

By Stanley
+ 241

Rosen. (New Haven

University Press,

1969. xx

pp.: cloth

$22.50,

paper

$6.95.)

Will Morrisey

"There
ture,"

seems to

be

no rational

way
not

of

securing

moral agreement

in

our cul

Maclntyre

writes.

Morals

are said to reduce to

the

sentiments of

individ

uals.

When

on occasion

they have

"emotivism,"

alytic'

and existentialist philosophers echo

simply have failed to

"utility"

endorsed overcome
"rights"

both 'an

it. In this they

that

the nineteenth-century debate

on

versus

"matching

pair of

incommensurable

fictions."

The language
stroyed,
albeit

and even

the "integral

substance"

of

slowly

and often

quietly,

leaving

us

morality have been de with today's farrago of

petty

calculation and

arbitrary

self-righteousness.

Maclntyre traces this destruc

tion to the

Enlightenment,

wherein philosophers attacked religion

but in

effect En-

judged philosophy morally incompetent to

replace religion.

He traces the

132

Interpretation
and

lightenment's failure to Protestantism

victed reason of moral upheld

to Jansenist

Catholicism,

which con

incompetence (except for the

only trustworthy human

calculation of source of

means)

and

divine

revelation as man's

teleological en

lightenment. "[Ojnce the

appears as as

notion of essential

purposes or

functions dis

from morality, it begins to appear implausible to treat moral judgments factual unless, one might add, one regards sentiment or faith a reflection of morally significant fact.
statements"

Maclntyre

observes

that older writers understood ethics differently. Discuss

ing

virtue as conceived

by Homer, Sophocles,
and

and

Aristotle, he

endorses Soph-

oclean

tragedy's presentation of an "objective

of

order"

moral

that avoids the

harshness
Maclntyre
cal

Homer's tribalism Hegel's

the too-optimistic ethical

harmony

that

ascribes

to Aristotle. (In addition, he rejects Aristotle's "metaphysi

complaints about
'History,'

biology"

and repeats

the defense of slavery and

a telos

Aristotle's

refusal

to provide a sense of

for

all mankind.

He

does

phronesis.) He ends the historical survey with a chapter on the medieval of Aristotle and Christianity in which he carefully leaves Christianity in limbo.
approve of
'synthesis'

Thus the first two-thirds

of

the book contain

an outline of our current moral

dilemma
moral

and of reasons

for it.

They
that

do

not contain

an

explanation of

why

sentimentalism

is false

Nor do they contain an account of blame of Western intellectual history's

is, why moral the foundation(s)

as much

chaos of

is

true

dilemma.
praise and

Maclntyre's This is,

after

various aspects.

all,

his

tory
ers.

told

with more care and at

least

accuracy

by

several earlier writ

Maclntyre began to discuss these

cussed
knowledge"

more

fundamental

matters while

he dis

Sophocles, just before turning to Aristotle. Maclntyre's "theory of allows him to call "each particular set of moral or scientific beliefs
and

intelligible historical

justifiable
But
even

insofar
the

as

it is justifiable
in the
series

series."

of a

last

"belief"

only as a member "is open to being

view."

in turn

corrected and

transcended

by

some more adequate point of

"adequacy"

This,

obviously,

requires some standard of

by

which one can correct and

transcend current beliefs. After

ity, Maclntyre
account of

returns to this
moral virtues.

discussing Aristotle and sidestepping Christian problem, devoting his two longest chapters to an
between
of

the

He

attempts a compromise a

rationalism and

can produce

"core
the

conception"

the virtues,

a conception

historicism whereby he that "in some

[italics added; in
what

sense embodies

history
this
"

of which

it is the

outcome"

sense,
three
cal?

by

the way, can a

of

"conception"

embody
conception's

history?]. He describes the

hence
not

"stages"

"logical"

only

histori "prac in the

"development.
calls

Maclntyre
tice":

the "first

stage"

of

the

virtues'

logical development

"any

coherent and complex

tivity

through which goods

socially internal to that form of activity

form

of

established cooperative ac
are realised

Book Reviews
course of

133

trying

to achieve those standards of excellence

of

[that]

are appropriate

to,

and

powers

that human to achieve excellence, and human conceptions of the goods and ends
are
extended."

partly definitive of, that form

activity,

with the result

involved,

Architecture is a practice, bricklaying systematically is not; farming is a practice, planting turnips is not. War, household manage ment, flute-playing, and geometry are all practices. Virtues are acquired human qualities needed to achieve the goods internal to a practice. "Practices never have a goal or goals fixed for all time painting has no such goal nor has
physics
ity."

but the

goals

themselves

are

transmuted

by

the

history

of

the activ

Of the
of

several problems

here,

two

stand

out; credit Maclntyre for seeing one

a

them.

By defining

an

art, painting, and

science, physics,

as

practices,

Maclntyre forgets that, while an art's telos may change, a science's telos may not at least insofar as it is a science and not an art. The purpose of physics
remains

knowledge
not can

of physis.

It

cannot
else.

become anything
Of course, the

else and remain phys

ics; it has
knowledge

become anything and has changed.

see

purpose

of

acquiring

Maclntyre does

that his definition

of a practice could own

include

evil activi

ties. He mentions torture

and

but, following his

camp

distinction between be the better

"human

farming
He

planting turnips,

a concentration

would

example.

could mitigate of

this consequence

by

the goods and ends

involved"

putting in a practice; his "second

extra weight on

conceptions
of virtue's

stage"

logical development does in fact

Man is

attempt a

definition

of

humanitas.
stories combine

animal"

"essentially
and

tions, beliefs,
novelist

story-telling settings. (This may

who called

whose account

inten

for the

enthusiasm of of

the late

John

Gardner,
not
truth."

After Virtue "the best book

philosophy in
of stories

years.") Man "is

that aspire to

essentially, but becomes through

history,

teller

whereby "the

story-tellers a quest

What, then, is the background of come to aspire to truth? Maclntyre

life for
man

"history,"

this story
calls

it

a quest

for

good,"

the virtues sustain. This leads to a

somewhat

tautological
good

formulation: "the
man."

good

is the life

spent

in seeking the

life for

On to the "third
calls

stage."

Maclntyre

it

"tradition."

bit

more

like

philosophizing.
.

embodied

argument
adequate

Here we get something that begins to look a A tradition is "an historically extended, socially One in part about the goods which constitute
it."

needs,

first, "an

sense"

of one's tradition and of

any

other

tradition(s)

that confront(s)
past

one

and, second, "a grasp of those future

to the
"argument,"

possibilities

[that]

the

present."

has

made available undefined

good,"

"adequacy,"

"sense,"

Such
and

notions

as
with a

"the

"grasp"

leave Maclntyre

lot

of

explaining to do. Credit him, again,

for acknowledging this. "My negative and positive evaluations of particular ar guments do indeed presuppose a systematic, although here unstated, account of
rationality."

He

promises one

in

a subsequent

book.

134 The
of

Interpretation
unresolved problem of

this book

its

insufficiently
results

defined in
part

combination

logic,

storytelling, events, and social forms

from Macln

tyre's failure to see the significance of historicism (as distinguished from his

tory) in
have

modernity.

Maclntyre

omits

from his

prevented this

failure: Nihilism: A

bibliography one book that could Philosophical Essay by Stanley Rosen.

his
project will

If Maclntyre does

not come

to see the links between historicism and such lesser

and existentialism

doctrines
That

as

would

philosophy be unfortunate; for a

analytic

collapse.
atten

number of

reasons, Maclntyre has the

tion of many

intellectuals
his book

who

may

never

hear Rosen.
a

This

quasi-political consideration ends

leads to

purely

political consideration. of

Maclntyre community

with a call

for "the

construction

local forms

of

civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sus tained through the new dark ages [that] are already upon However he in tends this, it will surely be read as an endorsement of some Lindisfamesque communalism. Imagining himself surrounded by barbarism
within which
us."

'small-is-beautiful,'

pure and

simple, Maclntyre fails to distinguish between barbarians

and

who

tolerate

Lindisfames begin

barbarians

who

don't. To

show

what

emergence

from the
have to

postvirtuous age would mean

with

in

practice as well as

in theory, he

will

that distinction.

Rosen

observes that nihilism

"reduces

reason

to nonsense

by

sense of significance of speech

to

silence."

If

one conceives of reason mathematics as nature

equating the "exclu

describes

mathematics,"

sively

on the model of and

defines

the mode of ex

pressing Newtonian physics,

changes

insists that the

physics

constantly to no purpose, one will conclude that reason alienates man from his own desires. "Today philosophy and historical existence are both
threatened
was

by

the nihilistic consequences

a purification of

of

the

denaturing

of

reason, which

reason."

Dividing

ostensibly his book into

six

chapters, Rosen

shows

the nihilism implicit in the then discusses the

of

West's two dominant contemporary

philosophic ancestors of

philosophic

schools,

those schools and the political consequences

with

their

teachings. He concludes the book

two chapters

contrasting
He

nihilism with

Platonic

philosophy.

Wittgenstein believes
tion and practice.

nature and

theory

mythological.

celebrates conven
ends

His

'analytic'

'linguistic'

or

philosophy

in circularity
some

because he

cannot make

his

conventionalist claims without

interpreting

thing;

by

conventionalist

tion of sense to

nonsense."

definition, definition reduces to "an arbitrary attribu Unlike Nietzsche, whose arbitrariness partakes of
prides

grandeur, Wittgensteinian arbitrariness

itself

on a verbal not with a

microscopy that
sledgehammer,

limits it to triviality. He "teaches but

file."

us to

philosophize,

with a nail about speech

stated or

Any "theory fully

[that] is itself

denial that
as

such a

formulated"

theory may be
as

yields nihilism.

This is

true of

Heidegger

it is

Book Reviews
of

135

Wittgenstein. Heidegger differs from Wittgenstein in that he does not simply deny Being but regards it as so radically temporal/historical that it cannot be
said

to

be

thing

'His'

at all.

Being

is

rather

but in fact is

no-thing.

This belief

gives

Heidegger

ing

to speak silence;

he

produces a sort of

like Wittgensteinian convention, the unenviable job of try he calls poetry speech, a cel
'ontic'

ebration of acts

that

is,

a celebration

of not-words.

This is "not just

self-

refuting but Both doctrines

alt and

self-canceling."

offer us the curious spectacle of attempts to present.

dissolve the

simultaneously

ex

calls

the

it) effort Fall, reason

of

Rosen traces their genealogy to the Christian (as he to divide nature into prelapserian and postlapserian phases. After
can aim

only

at

utility,

at

standing lieve the ism that

the

primary

good

is

said

to be

existence of

divinity

and one will

secondary goods, whereas under transrational, a divine gift. Disbe invent a sort of imperial utilitarian
time,"

would use all of nature

to

satisfy human desires. Historicism, "the

and

inability
man.

to

distinguish between

being

theory
existing

and

practice,

results

from this

attempt at a vast subsumption of

nature to

restless, acting

Historicism
ment of

finally

yields poeticist politics.

Heidegger's
perhaps

notorious endorse
partic

Nazism

exemplifies this on the

'Right';

Merleau-Ponty,

ularly in his book Humanism and Terror, best exemplifies it on the This politics destroys cruelly in order to bring the forgetfulness ostensibly needed in order to create. "To be reborn means to recur to the level of beasts through the loss of one's Nietzsche's 'death of is, in Rosen's striking The poeticist politician negates the phrase, "the self-preservation of
'Left.'
memory."

God'

chaos."

present

"on behalf

of

an

unknown

and

unknowable

yet

hoped-for

future."

Historicism

thus exalts those aspects of the present that tend toward the de

struction of the present. sence of a creator

Unfortunately

God,

creation ex nihilo

for historicism's publicists, "in the is

ab

unintelligib

suggesting that historicism may be fully explained by a his tory, by history of philosophy. Although nihilism has become easily no ticeable today because a series of thought-events have encouraged it, "nihilism has its origin in the nature of man, and not in contingent historical
avoids a even

Rosen

events

This insight

underlies

his final two chapters,

which concern

the good and wis

dom,

respectively. shipwreck

Nihilism "is doomed to

because it

sunders courage

from wisdom, from

justice,
know

moderation."

and

Undirected wilfulness, thymos

cannot

without reason, cannot madness

what

it

wants.

It therefore
to

distinguish divine
can sustain no

mere

madness.

With

no measure
regards

refer

to, it

human life,

political or

philosophic.

Plato

the good as

intelligibility,

visibility.

Nihilism denies

the goodness of

reason

by denying
nothing. good

that the good exists; being's source

is

noth

ingness,

or

being

itself is

Plato indicates that the lars. If it did, the

illuminates but does

not generate posits

the particu

good would

be identical to God. Religion

the existence

136
of

Interpretation
that

God,

is,

link between the

retain

good and

life. Marx
would

and

Nietzsche

attempt

to

do away
body."

with

God but
end

the

link; they

"replace the

church with

the

They

in

nihilism

because the
comes

body

has nothing to
come

say.

Of

all the

historicists, Hegel

the closest to overcoming nihilism, in

'History'

Rosen's

estimation.

Hegel decides that

comprehensive

has

to an end in

his

own

work, the assertedly

noted able

speech

about

being. Earlier, Rosen had

much

in passing that Hegel's solution is not so excessively elitist for democratic souls. He

refutable

as

unbear
self-

now contrasts

Hegel's

deification to the teaching of Plato's Socrates. To deify the human, obviously, one must destroy its nature in an attempt to achieve a different and superior
nature

if

godliness can
word

be

said

to be a

'nature.'

But the love

at

of wisdom sense of

embodied

in the

"philosophy"

is

not wisdom

itself,

least in the

the attainment of a comprehensive speech about the whole. Socrates regards the
whole as

intelligible; he does
means

not

believe it

achievable

by

the best characteris

tically human
achievable

of

achievement,

speech.

Much less does he believe it

may be thought wise in that he par himself into wisdom. At most, Socrates may often mono playfully suggest that he is a god; literal-minded self-deification theistic self-deification, at that he leaves to more hubristic souls. "In effect,

by

human
He

action.

philosopher

takes of

wisdom.

cannot make

one

may say that Hegel

or as

makes

the suppression of nihilism

dependent
The

upon

hybris,

the sanctioning of man's desire to become a

god."

suppression

lasts only

long

as the would-be god can

imagine himself

successful.

Short Notices
Will Morrisey

Plato's Phaedo: An Interpretation.

of

By

Kenneth Dorter. (Toronto:

Toronto Press, Myths

are

University

1982. xi

+ 233 pp.: cloth,

$28.50.)
fact may
point to

for children; Dorter

absence
of

suggests that this

Socrates'

the signif

icance

of

Plato's

during

last,

mythologizing, hours. Dorter

with

finds "the

scepticism"

problem

central
about

to "themes most associated the theme of

Plato";
tion,"

the Phaedo is that

"pre-eminently
a

bondage

and

libera

is,

about

the way

few

men can

be liberated from

myths and the

way

others

may be partially liberated

"dramatic"

by
to

the right myths. Dorter combines the

"analytic"

and
method
'time,'

that attempts to that

myth.

interpret the dialogue, avoiding the describe Platonic dialogues as reflections of their
methods

Dorter

observes

that Platonic myths guard reason

ruled

instead

Everyone begins life

where

by

the body's

desires,

and

undermining it. the body is "the realm

of

not

reality is proximally though inadequately made be liberated from the body by denying the body any
as

manifest."

Thus

one can

more

than

by indulging
taking
the

it (or,

in

some

traditions, sanctifying it); liberation begins

myths

by

not

body
of

too seriously. Mere

will not suffice.

the

de-mythologizing, the accumulation of knowledge, em-body ideas, they also abstract from the desires body. If well-made, they can moderate unphilosophic souls. Only wis
While
of all other motivations

dom,
nism
where

the subordination

to reason, "resolves the antago

an ordered

between form

and

corporeality
truth of

by

placing them in

relationship

form is the

corporeality."

essential

In attempting to discover this

essential

truth, the reasoning

of the

soul must avoid

misleading analogies,
as modeled on

such as

conceiving

relationship

of

body

and soul

the relationship of cause and effect in the physical

can yield

world.

Too

many misleading analogies, if refuted, "bondage to the

physical."

misology, itself

a symptom of

nature are

Reason, logos, comes first through words, logoi; the bases of the logoi in Dorter knows that this formu the forms, whose basis is "the
good."

lation tends toward circularity because the theory of the forms posits something ("the good") that it cannot clarify. Also, the theory of the forms does not ac
count

for

physical causation.

Thus the forms

'lower'

are problematic

both in

respect

to

the

'higher'

(the
are

one

good)

and

the

(the many

particulars).

Not

myths

but

numbers

between the forms

with

and the particulars.

The
a

soul

bears the
consis

forms to the
tent tific

body

the preliminary aid of mathematics

theory

with neither

the

religious notion of ex nihilo creation nor

the modem scien

notion of entropy.

138

Interpretation
refuses to allow

Dorter

his

readers

to confuse this

problematic

theory
a

with

scepticism. not

That "it is He

a persistent theme

in the dialogues
that
wisdom

that wisdom

is

mortals"

wholly

accessible to
concludes

does

not mean

itself is

lie,

noble or otherwise.

the book

with what

he

calls a speculative

chap

ter, in

which

he defines Platonic

ing

reason

and sensation).
not

soul as both energy and mind (itself combin Unlike the appetites, reason orients us toward the

"object considered,

toward the

thinking subject; it

wants

to understand what

is true, not how objects affect us. Energy, the istence independent of a perceiving consciousness"; "one
the natural order without
ness."

"world-soul,"

has "intrinsic impute

ex

can

reason

to

The well-ordered,

conceiving this reason as personality or conscious erotic individual soul maintains the body while
present"

that links it to the achieving that "consciousness of the eternal both striving, perhaps, toward "the getic
"world-soul"
good."

ener

By reenacting Plato's thought Plato's continuing presence.

and

extending its action, Dorter

enhances

Averroes'

Three Short Commentaries

Edited
of
and

on

Aristotle's
ix +

"Topics,"

"Rhetoric,"

and

"Poetics."

translated

by

Charles E. Butterworth. (Albany:

206 pp.:

State

University

New York Press,

synonymous

1977.

cloth,

$30.00.)
associated

Averroes'

name,

with

scepticism,

might

better be

with coherent scepticism's

of certainty.

only basis: a rigorous standard for the establishment These commentaries form part of a series of commentaries on Ar

istotelian treatises, the majority of which concern logic. In them, Averroes measures not only the Koran's teachings in accordance to a logical hierarchy; he Aristotle's teachings, as well. Aristotle's Topics concerns dialectic. Whereas Aristotle
measures regarded

dialectic

as

a means of

even as a means of

truth, examining "the ultimate bases or grounds of each [ioia25-ioib2], Averroes regards dialectic's materials (opinions) too weak
and

bringing

the many partial opinions up to the standard of

scienc

to support philosophic certainty. In particular,

induction

cannot yield such cer

proven

tainty because the necessity

some or

of

the universal cannot be

by

collecting
arts."

even

all

the particulars;

induction

cannot

demonstrate. Dialectical demonstrative

training "seems unnecessary for

Rhetoric
ranks still

the perfection of the

Aristotle

regards rhetoric

lower in the hierarchy, as it does for Aristotle. But based on enthymeme as at least partly reasonable, not
coincide with
as

seek

merely useful; this may "as much clearness

sought

his

well-known advice that one should

the subject matter admits of, for precision is not to

be

for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the (Nichomachean Ethics, I094b3). Averroes tolerates imprecision less, perhaps because in his day certain "dialectical defended Islam
crafts"

theologians"

with

enthymemes.

Averroes

also

goes

so

far

as

to cast

doubt

on

rhetoric's

Short Notices
"most
powerful"

139

nonsyllogistic
or otherwise.

technique, testimony

the

basis

of most theol

ogies, dialectical

Poetry
ined
serves

are not

"[S]peeches [that] cause something to be imag speeches [that] make its essence Butterworth ob that Moslems often regard the Koran as "the best example of poetic ex
ranks

below

rhetoric.

understood."

cellence

here

Aristotle, Averroes does not poetry to history. In this hierarchy, poetry has no inferior. Butterworth's candid, astute introduction serves not merely to introduce the reader to the texts but to illuminate them in their entirety, or very close to their
might add

in

Arabic."

He

that,

unlike

contrast

entirety.

In addition, he three indices (of names,

all

provides a careful
of

English translation,
and

extensive

notes,

titles,

and of

technical words),

the Arabic texts: thought in

the assistance

contemporary

readers will need to renew

Averroes'

their own minds.

Dissidence

et philosophie au moyen age:

and

Dante

et ses antecedents.

Fortin. (Montreal: Bellarmin,

Artful

Paris: J.

Vrin,

1981. 201 pp.: paper,

By E. L. $13.50.)

self-contradiction and even syllogisms

left incomplete

enable philo poetic writ

sophic writers to suggest unpopular thoughts to some readers.

But

ing

poses a

dilemma for

careful readers.

Is the self-contradicting

poet rational?

Does he
I

aspire to reason?
put

(Walt Whitman
Dante

Or does he believe something it with equanimity: "Do I contradict myself?

. .

'because'

it is

absurd?

Very

well

then

contradict myself.
appears

.")

to

bring fewer
teaching
out?

problems

in this
But he

respect

than, for example,

Shakespeare does. Dante founded in

How
part on

celebrates reason.

also celebrates

Christianity,
poet
reason?

the

that

philosophic wisdom

is folly. Does the

or

who celebrates reason and can anyone

Christianity

subvert

Christianity

baptize

find

Fortin
poetical

majority of today's medievalists, Aquinas. More than one-third of the pages here
opposes the

who regard consist of

Dante

as a

philosop

surances that such a

thing

as

"the

politic mode of

scholarly as exists. (Although

esotericism, ra

contemporary
tional

scholars

readily

accept

the

existence of mystical

esotericism seems much more

improbable to many

of

them.) Fortin dis

cusses al-Farabi, Averroes, and Maimonides, tracing their kind of writing to Plato. He recounts the condemnation of Aristotle's works in 1277 by the of Paris, Etienne Tempier. He prudently observes that Siger and

Bishop

Boethius,

Aristotle's

ill-fated

medieval

apologists,

"had

not

sufficiently

reflected upon

the human and social

conditions of philosophy";

their excessive

candor almost

invited the Bishop's

represents

revenge.

In Paradiso, Dante
susceptible

Siger's

sole

wrong envy

as

the

teaching

of

"truths

to stirring up the

malevolence

or

of

his

contem

in

Fortin's

words.

This is

one of several

Dantean teachings that

might stir

malevo-

140

Interpretation
envy
against

lence

or

Dante,
Fortin

were

they

not

seemingly

overwhelmed

by

far

more numerous pieties. of

refuses

to be

overwhelmed

even to the extent

discipline"

philosophy as "this master less than twenty pages after quoting Dante's slightly different assertion that po Such well-shaded imprecision, litical philosophy is the "master of public
political
things."

writing that Dante regarded

necessarily selective approach to evidence that the brevity of his interpretation requires, will surely not force "apologists for the orthodox admit their impotence before this opaque resi Christianity of the poem [to]
coupled with the
. .

due that ceaselessly comes to trouble our [!] repose and Those apologists have their own reservoirs of ingenuity.

puts all

in

quest

Nonetheless, Fortin's
Commedia
sive with more

strength

will

force

some

readers

to

look

at

the

care,

and more scepticism. show or

He

recognizes that a conclu

interpretation

would

have to

how the

whole poem

works; perhaps he

will write such an

interpretation,

induce

another

to write one.

Chicago
ROUSSEAU'S SOCIAL CONTRACT
The Design
Gildin
of

the Argument

Hilail Gildin
provides a

step-by-step development
the argument's
parts

of

Rousseau's

argument

in the Social
overall

Contract, relating
conception.

to

each other and

to the work's

Rousseau's conclusions, Gildin shows, from a conscious design.

are not

only

coherent

but follow

"The product of a long-meditated and intimate familiarity with the text and with great themes the nature of the contract, the Rousseau's thought.
. . .The

significance of

the
are

General Will
Cloth $22.50

the relation between sovereign and government, the illuminated here in ways and to a degree that I think is Thomas L. Pangle, University of Toronto

legislator,

240

pages

(est.)

LEGISLATURE
California's School for Politics

William K. Muir, Jr.

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

thereby shaping its

232
pages

members

into true

statesmen.

$19.00

THE SOCIOLOGY OF THE STATE

Bertrand Badie
Translated
Badie
and and

and

Pierre Birnbaum
is a social fact and that it arose within the Western Europe. Drawing on historical materials

by

Arthur Goldhammer
argue that the state

Birnbaum

peculiar sociohistorical context of

bringing

sociological

strikingly

original

insights to bear, the authors lay the foundations tor a birth and subsequent diffusion of the state. theory
of the

Also

A Chicago Original Paperback $24.00 available in cloth

$10.95

176

pages

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS

5801 South Ellis Avenue

Chicago, IL

eOMi

MARSHALL COHEN, THOMAS NAGEL, THOMAS SCANLON, Editors

Responding to

increased

public

interest in the
collection

moral aspects of medical

practice, this

of essays addresses questions of

justice

and

in

justice in the
conceptual
medical

delivery

and

distribution
and social

of medical

care and patient rights.

Included

are essays on

issues, health

policies,

paternalism, and euthanasia.

Philosophy & Public Affairs Reader Cloth, $22.50. Paper, $6.95

Princeton Box EX

University Press

41 William Street

Princeton, NJ 08540
Please
send me.
.

copies of

Medicine

and

Moral

ISBN 0-691 -07268-X. $6.95. ISBN 0-691 -02020-5. Paper, Subtotal Tax: NJ,5%;CA, 6% $1-75 Postage & Handling TOTAL
. .

Philosophy Cloth, $20.00.

Name

Institution Street

City
Please
enclose payment

State

Zip.
with order.

(check

or

money order)

Forthcoming
Robert Sacks

Articles

The Lion

and

the Ass: a

Commentary

on

the Book of

Genesis (Chapters 44-50)

Kent Moors

Justice Nature

and of a

Philosophy
Definition
of

in Plato's Republic: the

Mario Lewis, Jr.

An Interpretation

Plato's Euthyphro (Introduction;

Part 1, Sections 1-3)

Jack D'Amico

The Virtii Clizia

of

Women: Machiavelli's Mandragola

and

Jim MacAdam

Rousseau's Contract
of

with and without

his

Inequality

David E. G. Boucher The Denial

of

Perennial Problems: the Negative Side

Quentin Skinner's
and

Theory
a

David Schaefer

Libertarianism
of

Political Philosophy:
and

Critique

Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State,

Utopia

Discussion
Laurence Berns

Spiritedness in Ethics
Aristotelian

and

Politics:

Study

of

Psychology
and

Ernest Fortin

Rational Theologians

Irrational Philosophers:

Straussian Perspective

Stanley

Corngold
Walter Benjamin / Gershom Scholem What
are the
and

& Michael Jennings Charles M. Sherover

Political Implications

of

Heidegger's

Being
Book Reviews
Will

Time?

Morrisey

Algeny by Jeremy
Studies
of

Rifkin

the American Constitution: How

Democratic is the Constitution?

by

Robert A.

Goldwin & William A. Schambra; How Capitalistic is

the

Constitution?

by

Robert A. Goldwin

Statesmanship: Essays in Honor of Sir Winston S. Churchill by Harry V. Jaffa Winston Churchill's World View:
Power

Statesmanship

and

by

Kenneth W. Thompson

ISSN 0020-9635