Interpretation

A JOURNAL
Winter 1998

J_OF

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Number 2

Volume 26

149
183

Jules Gleicher
Tucker

Moses Politikos The Limitations

Interpretation
of

Landy

of

Political Philosophy: An

Plato's Charmides
and

201

Jason A. Tipton

Love

of

Gain, Philosophy
on

Tyranny: A

Commentary
217

Plato's Hipparchus
about

Larry

Peterman

Changing
Use
of

Titles: Some Suggestions

the

"Prince"

in Machiavelli
and

and

Others in

239

Catherine H. Zuckert

Leadership

Natural

Conventional

Melville's "Benito

Cereno"

257

Jon Fennell

Harry

Neumann

and

the Political

Piety

of

Rorty's Postmodernism
Book Reviews

275

George Anastaplo

Aristotle's "Physics": A Guided Study,

by
285
Michael P. Zuckert

Joe Sachs
and

Shakespeare

the

Good Life,

by
295
Joan Stambaugh

David Lowenthal
and

Martin Heidegger: Between Good

Evil,

by
299
Patrick

Rudiger Safranski
and

Coby

Hypocrisy
and the

Integrity: Machiavelli, Rousseau

by
305
Susan Orr

Ethics of Politics, Ruth Grant

and the

Leo Strauss

American Right,

by
309
Will

Shadia

Drury
and

Morrisey

Public

Morality

Liberal Society: Essays

on

Decency, Law,

and

Pornography,

by Harry

M. Clor

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

Philosophy, Queens College

Grey

General Editors

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

Consulting

Editors

Leo Strauss (d. 1973)

International Editors Editors

Terence E. Marshall

Heinrich Meier

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

Manuscript Editor

Subscriptions

(3 issues):

individuals $29 libraries and all

students

other

institutions $48

(four-year

limit) $18

Single

copies available. outside

Postage
or

U.S.: Canada $4.50 extra;

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

$5.40
or

longer)

The Journal Welcomes Manuscripts

in

in

Political Philosophy

as

Well

as

Those

Theology, Literature,

and

Jurisprudence.

contributors should

follow The Chicago Manual of Style, 1 3th ed. or manuals based on it; double-space their manuscripts, including notes; place references in the text, in endnotes or follow current journal style in printing references. Words from languages not rooted in Latin should be transliterated to English. To ensure impartial judgment of their manuscripts, contributors should omit mention of their
other
with

postal/zip

work; put, on the title page only, their name, any affiliation desired, address code in full, E-Mail and telephone. Please send four clear copies,

which will not

be

returned.

Composition

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

Printed

by The Sheridan Press, Hanover, PA 17331 U.S.A.

Inquiries:

(Ms.) Joan Walsh, Assistant to the Editor interpretation, Queens College, Flushing, N.Y. 1 1 367- 1 597, U.S. A. (7 1 8)997-5542 Fax (7 1 8) 997-5565
interpretation_journal@qc.edu

E Mail:

Interpretation
Winter 1QQQ 1999
-A-*-

Volume Volume 76 26

Number Number 7 2

Jules Gleicher
Tucker

Moses Politikos

149
of

Landy

The Limitations
Interpretation
of

Political Philosophy: An

Plato's Charmides
and

183

Jason A. Tipton

Love

of

Gain, Philosophy
on

Tyranny: A

Commentary
Larry
Peterman

Plato's Hipparchus
about

201
the

Changing
Use
of

Titles: Some Suggestions

"Prince"

in Machiavelli
and

and

Others
in

217

Catherine H. Zuckert

Leadership

Natural

Conventional

Melville's "Benito Jon Fennell

Cereno"

239

Harry Rorty

Neumann
s

and the

Political

Piety

of

Postmodernism

257

Book Reviews George Anastaplo

Aristotle's "Physics": A Guided Study,

by
Michael P. Zuckert

Joe Sachs
and

275
the

Shakespeare

Good Life,

by
Joan Stambaugh

David Lowenthal
and

285

Martin Heidegger: Between Good

Evil,
295

by
Patrick

Rudiger Safranski
and

Coby

Hypocrisy
and

Integrity: Machiavelli, Rousseau

the Ethics of Politics,

By
Susan Orr

Ruth Grant
and the

299
American Right,

Leo Strauss

by
Will

Shadia

Drury
and

305 Liberal Society: Essays

on

Morrisey

Public

Morality

Decency, Law,

and

Pornography,
309

by Harry

M. Clor
-

Copyright 1999

interpretation

ISSN 0020-9635

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

Philosophy, Queens College

Executive Editor General Editors

Grey

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

Consulting

Editors

1973)

International Editors Editors

Terence E. Marshall

Heinrich Meier

Wayne Ambler Maurice Auerbach Fred Baumann Amy Bonnette Patrick Coby Elizabeth C de Baca Eastman Thomas S. Engeman
-

Maureen Feder-Marcus Ken Masugi Will Morrisey Susan Orr Charles T. Rubin Leslie G. Rubin Susan Meld Shell Bradford P. Wilson Michael P. Zuckert Catherine H. Zuckert
Edward J. Erler Pamela K. Jensen Manuscript Editor

Lucia B. Prochnow Subscription rates per volume (3 issues): individuals $29 libraries and all other institutions $48 students (four-year limit) $18 Single
copies available.
outside

Subscriptions

Postage
or

elsewhere

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

extra;
mail

(8

weeks

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

The Journal Welcomes Manuscripts

in

in

Political Philosophy

as

Well

as

Those

Theology, Literature,

and

Jurisprudence.

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

with

work; put, on the title page only, their name, any affiliation desired, address postal/zip code in full, E-Mail and telephone. Please send four clear copies,

which will not

be

returned.

Composition

by

Eastern

Composition, Inc.,

Binghamton, N.Y. 13904 U.S.A.

Printed by The Sheridan Press, Hanover, PA 17331 U.S.A. Inquiries:

(Ms.) Joan Walsh, Assistant

to the Editor

interpretation, Queens College, Flushing, N.Y. 1 1 367- 1 597, U.S. A. (7 1 8)997-5542 Fax (7 1 8) 997-5565

E Mail:

interpretation_journal@qc.edu

Moses Politikos
Jules Gleicher
Rockford College

The

career of

Moses has

commended

itself

as a source of valuable

learning

to social thinkers as noteworthy and

diverse

as

Niccolo Machiavelli, Sigmund

scientists

Freud,

and

Martin Buber;

academic

political

like Michael Walzer,

George Anastaplo, and Aaron Wildavsky; and Biblical commentators like Nahum Sarna, Jack Miles, and Elie Wiesel.1 The present study continues this enterprise. While we accept on trust Biblical scholarship's assumption of the
multiple

the origins of
phrase

that whatever authorship of the books of Moses, we add this proviso its various parts, the Torah was at some point compiled (or in the

of the

trade, "redacted") into

more

or

less

coherent

whole; that it
a

comes to us as a

book,

not a

scrapbook.2

Though

highly

episodic, it tells
Moses'

story
and

that should be read with a view to

This said, let

works.

us examine some

discovering consistency of the more interesting points

wherever possible. of

life

Why
What In

does the LORD first

choose

Moses

as

His

agent?

Or,

to restate the

question more qualities

politely (for God can, of course, choose whomever He wishes), does Moses display that reveal him to us as choiceworthy? he is
a most

some ways
calculated

unlikely

candidate.

His Levite lineage is not,

at

first,

to command respect. It was Levi and Simeon who led the mas
a rash act

sacre at

Shechem,

that earned them rebuke in the Patriarch Jacob's

deathbed

statements
49:5-7).3

one can

hardly

call

them blessings
of

to his sons (Gen.

34:25-30;

But for
the
same

Moses'

rehabilitation absorption

the

Levites,

we

might

expect them to suffer

into the nearby tribes and disap fate, pearance, that later befalls Simeon's descendants. Further (Charlton Heston
This essay draws from occasional interpretive talks on the Hebrew Scriptures given between and 1998 at the Ohave Sholom Synagogue in Rockford, Illinois. I am grateful to Rabbi Elihu
and my fellow parishioners for allowing me the privilege of the pulpit. It also takes inspira from the seminar on Law and Religion in Biblical Antiquity, directed by Professor Calum

1994

Milder
tion

Carmichael, of Cornell University, for the Humanities, in the summer

that I attended, under

of

1994;

and

sponsorship of the National Endowment from Professor George Anastaplo, of the Loyola
Source,"

University of Chicago Law Spy Mission: Some Lessons

June 1994 issue
of

on

School. Section IX previously appeared under the title "The Mosaic Political Leadership from an Ancient and Venerable in the

the Illinois Political Science Association Newsletter.

interpretation, Winter

1999, Vol. 26, No. 2

150

Interpretation
is already an old man when he receives the divine call has spent his first eighty years in one or another non-Hebrew
Egyptian prince, then his
as a

notwithstanding), Moses

(Exod. 7:7),

who

occupation, first standably, he is

encounter with

as an

Midianite

shepherd.

Under

reluctant to

take on one more

resists

career

change.

In his initial

the LORD he

assignment

ineloquence
anger

and

lack

of other credentials so

five times, protesting his persistently as to provoke God's

then he needs the added reas

(Exod. 3:11,

13; 4:1, 10, 13-14). Even

surance that all

stall

the mission
a

Pharaoh is

earlier sought to kill him are dead, he may seek to his by taking family with him, and his first meeting with disaster that leaves him in despair (Exod. 4:19-20; 5:1-23).

the men who

What, then, does he have in his favor? For

bringing. As he himself discovers,
"knew
Joseph"

one, his princely Egyptian up

to the

centuries
Israelites'

of servitude

dynasty

that

not

have

crushed

the

spirit.

elders and

officers, but the qualities of leader and

They may have their own liberator must be bred under

different

conditions. act that we see

The first
Egyptian

Moses perform,
a

as a

who was

beating

Hebrew slave,
2:11-12)."

when

young man, is his killing of the he "went out to his brothers

and saw their

burdens"

(Exod.

He thus indicates both his identifica

nurture, and his capacity for righ

tion with the

Hebrews, despite his Egyptian

after

teous indignation. This act, though passionate,

is

not

heedless, for he

strikes

the

Egyptian only

that no one was watching. (For a

he "turned this way and and saw (or so he thought) different interpretation of this gesture, see His
passion

that"

Walzer,

pp.

44-45.)

for justice

shows

itself

again when

he

arrives

in Midian

and rescues years

Jethro's daughters from the

later still, he
when

2:16-17). When,
not

sees the
reveals

harassing burning bush, his

shepherds

(Exod. bush

first impulse is

fear but

curiosity.

Yet

God

Himself from the

midst of the

Moses
in
an

his face in fear (Exod. 3:1-6). His courage, that is, is understanding of which things truly are to be feared and which
conceals

grounded

are not.

He is
episode

also quick minded.

His

second response to

God in the

burning
when

bush

is to

ask what

divine

name

he

shall report to the

Israelites

he tells

them he has been sent

by

the God of their

notes, God has told him only to speak

fathers. But, as Nahum Sarna nicely to Pharaoh (Exod. 3:13, 10). Moses has
on the people's religious milieu must

already reckoned that in order to speak credibly to Pharaoh behalf he must enjoy their confidence, and to obtain that, in a where to name a being is in a sense to capture its essence, he
name the god who

be

able

to

has

recruited

him (Sarna,

p.

50). Like

a good chess

player,

he is thinking two moves ahead. The rabbis sometimes draw a contrast, especially at Rosh Hashanah, when the text describing the Patriarch Abraham's near-sacrifice of his son Isaac (Gen. protestations of self-doubt at this point and 22) is read, between
Moses'

Abraham's unquestioning
able age

obedience when

he is first called,

also at a respect

(seventy-five),
will

to go forth from his

show

land, kindred,

and

father's house to

the

land that God is

contrast

invariably

him (Gen. 12:1-4). As befits the occasion, the in favor of Abraham, as the father of faith. But whatever

Moses Politikos

151

Abraham may later become on the score of faith, this first call, and nearly every other command God gives him, is coupled with the promise that he will be come a great nation, the father of multitudes, a blessing to all nations of the
earth,
etc.

One must, that

is,

appreciate that

Abraham is
not

a man of great political

ambition,

a seeker of glory.

That the LORD does

in their first encounter,

abortive

and that when

similarly appeal to Moses He does later, in the Golden Calf and

Moses'

spy

mission

episodes, he is

impervious, implies
Moses

greater of

of character

(Exod. 32:7-14; Num. 14:11-20). With the book discover

much about

purity Genesis as a

backdrop,
not

we can

personally
nor

ambitious

Jacob,

head-over-heels in love
37:9).5

like Abraham, nor with himself

equipped to

seeing what he is not: He is passive like Isaac, nor wily like

by

and given

to delusions of

god-

hood like Joseph (Gen.

Conversely,

we

may be better
we

appreciate

the characters who

populate, and the stories that

with what comes

define,

the book of Genesis

value of

by

contrasting them

later. Often be like

eleven

ing

what

life

would

without

way.

Thus,

the

first

something only by see it. The Torah, too, arguably teaches in this chapters of the book of Genesis show what the
Chosen People
a world that

discover the

world would under

be like

without a

the weight of its corruption and that

rest of

deserves to be

wiped out

periodically sinks in a Great

would

Flood. So, too, the

without

Genesis

reveals what that

Chosen People

be

the Law.

Essentially,

patriarchal

rule, like all merely personal rule, is as

strong
Moses'

or as

weak as

the patriarch of the moment.

This, in

conjunction with

character, is why the offer with which the LORD repeatedly tempts him when the Israelites stray, to sweep them away and to make of him a great nation, is one he must refuse (Exod. 32:9-14; Num. 14:11-19; cf. Num.
personal

16:19-22).

By

exposing the flaws, defects,

prepares us

and scandals of
ascent at

the

patriarchal pe re

riod, the Torah

ceive the

to experience

Moses'

Mount Sinai to It

Law

as a spiritual ascent above

the

rule even of virtuous men.

also

allows us to

appreciate,

what their number and

intricacy

may

make

it easy to

miss, how blessed the Children of Israel are in their

commandments.

To be sure, Moses has his faults. He does

what

not always

he is told. (When God first

[Exod.

addresses

him from the

listen carefully enough to burning bush, He calls his

name twice of

3:4.] Is the second call necessary because Moses is simply hard hearing?) He tends to take sound ideas to extravagant lengths, and will not
his
own mistakes

admit

(see,

e.g., Exod.

18:19-26; Num. 13:1-2, 17-20; Deut.

But enough
of

1 :22-26). These flaws become

his nobility is

now

increasingly pronounced over time. apparent to justify God's choice of him to us.

II

As Moses

embarks upon

his

mission of

cially perplexing passage. He, his from Midian to Egypt.

wife

liberation, Zipporah, and

we encounter an espe

their sons are

traveling

152
At

Interpretation
a night encampment on the way, the a

LORD her

encountered

him

and sought

to kill

him. So Zipporah took

with

flint

and cut off a

son's

foreskin,
of

and touched

his legs

it,

saying, "You

are

truly

bridegroom
of

of

blood to

me!"

And

when

He let him
(Exod.

alone,

she

added, "A bridegroom

blood because

the

4:24-26)
just happens. Does

The for

passage

is full

of problems. or

First, it is

not clear

what

the LORD

seek to

kill Moses

Moses'

son?

Whose legs
[cf. Is.

or

feet (or genitals, Zipporah

and
blood"

which the word regel

is

sometimes a euphemism

6:2]) does

touch? What

is

the significance of the phrase "bridegroom of

its

formula-like
ened?

And why does this Second, these lines have no obvious

repetition? or

action protect whoever

connection

is threat

to those

immediately

preceding

following. The brief story,

seems to emerge

perhaps

fragment

of some earlier

source material,

from

and to go nowhere,

rupting God as suddenly

prophet.

an otherwise

fairly
for

smooth narrative.

and

no apparent reason

momentarily dis Most troubling is its depiction of seeking to kill his recently chosen

A has
so

common rabbinical

neglected

interpretation has it that God is angry because Moses to circumcise his son, that he assumes his extraordinary mission
to overlook the

hastily
Moses'

as

ordinary

obligation

of an

Israelite

under

the

Abrahamic Covenant. Others,

see

including
literary
of

the great medieval commentator

of

Rashi,

fault

not as one of
an

haste but

delay: instead

Egypt, he
boldness

tarries at

inn. The

critic

going quickly to Harold Bloom cites this incident

of

as one of several

in

which acts

female heroism

in this case, Zipporah's

capaciousness

in opposing the impish God Yahweh's

events, and
which

radically

change the course of author of the original

together tend to demonstrate that the

woman.6

J document

was a

These

readings assume

too much about what the characters

involved,

espe

cially Zipporah, know at this point. Put another way, we readers and rereaders of the Torah may know too much about what has already happened and will happen to
see

the

situation as

it

unfolds to

those in its midst.

We, for instance,

know why Moses is going to Egypt, because the text has us witness the LORD'S first conversation with him. But Zipporah did not witness it, and there

is

no

indication that Moses told her

of

it.

Rather, he

asks

her father Jethro, "Let

faring"

back to my kinsmen in Egypt and see how they are (Exod. 4:18). That is, he conceals from him the full story behind his return to Egypt. This is
me go
underscored when we

read, a few lines

later,

that

"Moses told Aaron

about all
which

the things that the LORD

had

committed to

him

and all

the signs about

that

He had instructed

him"

(Exod. 4:28). It is
a

not even clear when

Jethro

and

his

family

know that Moses is

priest's

Hebrew. Years before,

called

he first defended the

Midianite

daughters, they
was then

him

an

Egyptian (Exod.
a past

2:15ff.,
at

esp.

19). Given that he

one

fleeing

from his

past

that

included
ever

least
cor-

Hebrew's

rejection of

him (Exod.

2:14)

why

should

he

have

Moses Politikos
rected this misimpression?

153
son of

(See he

also

Wiesel,

pp.

187-89.) As
about

the

foster

Pharaoh's And

daughter,
does

wasn't

an

Egyptian? Zipporah know Abraham

the Abrahamic Cove to the line of
wife

what

either

Moses

or

nant of circumcision?

While the Covenant itself

as

was reserved

Isaac,
could

the

Midianites,

descendants
about

of

by

his third

Keturah,
Bed

have known something

p.

it,

and perhaps

followed the

regional

ouin custom of

Hertz,

circumcising 221). If this was

How

their

boys

at age thirteen

(Gen. 17:18-21; 25:1-6;

appears

also the might

Egyptian practice, then it

from
three-

Exodus 2:6 that Moses himself Hebrew

ritual: else would

have been
On the

circumcised

according to the
the the Israelites

Pharaoh's daughter have

child?7

recognized when

month-old

infant

as a

Hebrew

other men

hand,

finally
custom

enter

the land of

Canaan, Joshua has

their
years

the
of

circumcised, because the

had lapsed

during

8). What toll

a written

would centuries

desert wandering (Josh. 5:2forty of displacement and slavery in Egypt, without

the

Law, have

taken

on

memory

of

the pact between God and

Abraham?
With these thoughts in mind,
encampment: we can reconstruct what

happens may

at the night

Zipporah

taken

deathly

Moses (or Gershom, as the ill. She responds by circumcising her son,
sees
not as a

case

be) suddenly

with the

acts and
works

incantations,
too

bris, but

as a

Midianite

healing
call

ritual.8

accompanying While this

its intended

effect

the

invalid

recovers

to

it female heroism

makes rather

Let

us ask again

at an

much of it. But why would such a ritual appease the LORD? why God is angry in the first place. Not because Moses tarries inn. As Bloom notes, the journey from Midian to Egypt is difficult under

any circumstances. To make a night encampment is a necessity (The Book of J, p. 245). On the other hand, his departure from Midian is not hasty, for even
after

Jethro

grants

him leave, God

needs to command

assurance that

"all the

men who sought

to kill you are

dead"

him again, adding the (Exod. 4:18-19).

Perhaps

important than his pace, and at its root, is the company he The LORD has already designated Aaron as his spokesman and com panion, but Moses presumes to bring his family along (Exod. 4:14-17, 20). At
more chooses.

the

least,

this slows his progress across the desert. At worst, it mocks God's

command,

turning

a serious political mission

into

family

outing.

Hence, His

deadly anger, act, by debilitating

enables

which

is surely directed at Moses himself. Conversely, Zipporah's her son from further travel, forces Moses to continue alone,
quickly, and restores his mission to its proper character.

him to

go more not

So God relents,

because Zipporah faces Him

down, but because her

the

act

inadvertently
whence

promotes

the divine intent. She and the boys return to

after

Midian,

Jethro brings them to Moses later,

departure from Egypt known that God does

(Exod. 18:1-7). What does this

not allow episode enter

tell us about Moses? It

is

well

Moses to

the Promised Land (Deut. 34:4). This prohibition

is

officially

seen as a punishment

for his disobedience

at

Meribah,

where

he

pro-

154
duces God

Interpretation
water

from

commands

it as striking it twice, rather than by speaking to (Num. 20:7-12). The filiopious tradition, mindful of the teach
a rock

by

ing

that there never again

arose

in Israel

prophet

like Moses,

whom

the
an us

LORD knew face to face (Deut. 34:10), treats this dereliction as unique in otherwise flawless career (Hertz, pp. 655-56). This interpretation leaves
at

uneasy The reading just offered of the encampment incident, however, suggests that mode of operation from deviation from divine commands is a feature of
Moses'

the apparent

excessiveness

even

ingratitude

of

God's

reaction.

the start, that he may

typically
at

add

most consequential example,

something of his own to God's orders. The Numbers 13, is his transformation of a promis

ing testimonial mission into a doomed spy mission, for which we can say that he is partly to blame for the forty years in the wilderness (see section IX be low). The rock incident at Meribah is thus, for God, the last straw in a succes
sion of

Mosaic mistakes,

Moses'

which

together support

initial

self-doubts

about

his suitability for the job (Exod. 3:11; 4:1, 10, 13).

Ill

At Exodus 6:2-13, God

again reveals

Himself to Moses

by

Name

and as the

God
when

of the

Patriarchs, they do not heed

and reaffirms

His intention to free the Israelites. But

this message, Moses doubts his ability to convince the

presumably more skeptical Pharaoh. At the start of this passage is the state ment, "I am the LORD. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai,

but I did

not make myself

known to them

by My

YHWH."

name

It

would

appear that the name

LORD is

being

revealed

to Moses and the

with

Israelites

as

something hitherto unknown, as an innovation connected this is at odds with many passages in the book of Genesis,
nent characters use the word
LORD.9

the Exodus. But

where several promi

Why

would

God

mislead

Moses

about
of

this? The remainder of chapter

6 is

parenthesis, presenting the names

and

the

families
are

of the tribes of

Reuben, Simeon,
with

Levi. While
Levites'

genealogical

detours
partial.

common, this one,

Moses'

dealing

only these three tribes, is strikingly

or perhaps

It
a

affirms

status as a

Levite,

the

leader

of

Israel. Under the former Egyptian dynasty,

bring forth leadership would likely

claim to

have belonged to the Josephite tribes,

a prime minister and the

who enjoyed the prestige of

descent from

daughter

of an

Egyptian high "knew

of not

priest

(Gen. 41:37-45). (Exod.

With the

rise of a new royal

family

Joseph"

who

1:8)

the

presumption

to

to the tribe of

lead, based on the principle Reuben, or in their default,

principle
claim

primogeniture,

would

have

gone

to Simeon. The text

implicitly
are more

ac

knowledges this

by

Why
them
eon

is Levi's
eight one of

superior?

surveying At first glance, because there

compared to

no more

than these two tribes and Levi.

of

Levite families,

four from Reuben

and six

from Sim
woman

them, it is

noted

snidely, descended from a

Canaanite

Moses Politikos
(Exod. 6:14-25). But this is just
"families"

155

trick,

accomplished

by

vite point

in the third
there is

generation rather than

the second.

counting the Le Perhaps the

more

is

not the specific

numbers, but that the Levites

reminiscent of

keep

detailed

records.

Further,

tian credentials

in

Moses'

something lineage: the fact that his father Amram

perhaps
marriage"

the Josephite

tribes'

Egyp

took to wife

his

own

father's sister,

the nearest Hebrews could come, without

scandal, to the Egyptian royal custom of "sacred

and sister

between brother
between
rela

(Exod. 6:20). The Mosaic Law

will

forbid

marriages

tives whose consanguinity is that of

Moses'

parents, thus

insuring

that in this

respect as well as others there will never again arise

in Israel

a prophet

like

Moses (Lev. 18:12). When

we read

Exodus 6:3

with

Genesis in the background,

could not, the text

we

indulge

luxury

that Moses and the

Israelites

having

not yet

been

LORD may indeed be new for the Israelites in Egypt. When the Hebrew midwives disobeyed the previous Pharaoh's command to kill
recorded.

Thus,

the name

the

boy

children,

they

were

described,
we even

not as

fearing

the

LORD, but
as

as

"fearing
fear the

God"

(Exod.
a small

1:17). Might

"god-fearing"

understand

the

phrase

(with

"g"),

that

is, they

recognize the command as wicked and

punishment that

tiles who

any just god would exact? Are they, in effect, righteous Gen happen to be Hebrews? Again, when the old king dies and the Isra
under
or even

elites'

bondage increases
to the LORD

cry
and

out

his successor, they are said to cry out, but not to to God (Exod. 2:23). Four hundred years of exile
Torah
preserved

slavery,
record

without a written

by

guardians who

have

knack

for

keeping, may have

not

erased even the

vocabulary
we

of their

forefathers'

faith.
This may entirely dispose
of the

discrepancy

have

noted.

But
be"

as

God

has already told Moses when first asked about His name, "Ehyeh asher in bad English but maybe good ontology (or Hebronics), "I be as I (Exod.
3:14). This God is
not some genie who can what

ehyeh,"

be

conjured out of

his bottle

by

intoning
different God

a name.

He is

He

chooses to

be,

and the significance of

the same

vocalization as

may be different for the captive Israelites than for the Patriarchs, as God-who-Redeems is from God-who-Promises. The credential that

creates

for Moses is thus Sacred Name. for

not

only

restorer of

the

forefathers'

faith but

establisher of the

Is it

Moses'

perhaps essential

spiritual rehabilitation at this

point, and for

his

overall political

leadership
with

that

he

so conceive of

himself?
point.

chapter

5 his standing

the Israelites was at a

low
the

By the end of Following his and

the

Aaron's first, apologetic,

Israelites'

audience with

Pharaoh,

king had increased

burden, ordering that they no longer be given straw to make their bricks, and the Israelite foremen had cursed the two for the harm they had done. In a conspicuous show of despair, Moses had even reproached God
quota of

for sending him on a fool's errand (Exod. 5:22-23). But by the eve plague it is reported that Moses "was much esteemed in the land

of the of

last

Egypt,

156

Interpretation
people"

among Pharaoh's courtiers and among the in the interim is his rise in status (which

(Exod. 11:3). What

we see

parallels

the decline in Pharaoh's),

from failure

and

laughingstock to

acknowledged

leader.

IV

What in

sense can we make of the ten plagues that afflict

Egypt,
each,

and of their

sequence? ranged

Although
what not

perhaps not evident an

from the

substance of

is for Pharaoh
an

ascending

order of seriousness.

they are ar Pharaoh, let us

his
people's

recall, is opinion,
replicate

just

adversary, he is a

king

and, in his
as when

own

and

a god.

He

cannot give

in too easily,

his

court magicians can

the staff-to-serpent trick or the first two plagues (Exod.

7:11-12, 22; 8:3).

Were he to
to the LORD'S

By

the same

token, God

cannot permit

him to be too
their

accommodating.

let the Israelites

might

go too soon,

they

would owe

freedom

not

but to Pharaoh's
worship.

generosity.

This

would

in turn tempt them to the

idolatry
with

of

Pharaoh

Hence,
are

perhaps, the

notorious

hardening

of

Pharaoh's heart. But

the magicians cannot replicate the third plague (Exod. 8:14).

Beginning

the

fourth the Israelites

appear

immune (Exod. 8:18). With the

sixth the magicians cannot

courtiers
eighth

by his side heeding

urge

to confront Moses (Exod. 9:11). The seventh sees some of

his

they

warning (Exod. 9:20). And when Moses warns of the capitulation (Exod. 10:7). The seventh, perhaps the crucial turning
marks

Moses'

point

in this sequence,

the

erosion of

Pharaoh's

political support.

Thereafter

he

must

face Moses in

man

to man and the LORD god to God.

serious effects on the and

The
we see

plagues'

increasingly

Egyptians

are also evident

if

them

groups.

The first two, blood

the

frogs,

provoke

disgust:

The fish that

and the

were

in the Nile died,

could not

and

Nile reeked,

Egyptians

drink

water

from the Nile;

Egypt.

the

blood

was throughout all the

will swarm with

land

of

The Nile

frogs;
couch,

they
into into
onto

will
your your

ascend,

they will come house, into your bedroom, upon your ovens and into your dough-pans;
your

you, onto

people, onto

all your servants will

the

frogs

ascend!

[T]he frogs died away, from the

They

piled them up,

heaps

upon

houses, from the court-yards, and from the fields. heaps, and the land reeked. (Exod. 7:21, 28-29;

8:9-10'

The third, fourth, and sixth lice, insects, and boils produce physical discom fort. The fifth, seventh, and eighth cattle disease, hail, and locusts destroy Egypt's economy. The ninth, darkness a darkness so thick it could be felt, so
gloomy that for three days "a man could not not arise from his (Exod. 10:21-23)
spot"

see

his brother,

and a man could

seems as much

psychological as

Moses Politikos
physical,
of the and the

157

first-born,

psychology is of isolating despair. And the tenth, the slaying is an event without equal that decimates Egypt:

Then
the

shall there

be

cry throughout
never

all the

land

of

Egypt,
be
again.
. . .

like

of which

has

[T]here

was a great not a

been, cry in Egypt;

the

like is

of which will never

for there is

house in

which there

not a

dead

man.

(Exod. 1 1:6; 12:30)

Here is
spair

a crescendo of

doom, from disgust

to discomfort to destruction to de

to decimation.
note too that

We

the water of

first group, blood and frogs, attacks taste and smell the Nile becomes loathsome to drink, the land stinks from decay
the

ing
by
all

fish

and

frogs. The

next

lice, insects,
vision:

and

boils

strikes

the sense of

touch.

Three

more plagues

implicate

God

announces the plague of

hail

saying, "[J]ust

on account of

this I have allowed you to withstand,/ to make

you see

my

power,/ and

in

order that

they

might recount
will

my
such

name throughout

the

land"

(Exod. 9:16). Likewise, the locusts

fathers'

be

"as

neither your
upon

fathers

nor your

fathers have

seen/

from the

day

of their

being

the

soil until

this

day"

(Exod. 10:6). And darkness obviously

compromises seeing.
will

Finally, Hence,

the slaying of the

and

first-born,

as

already mentioned,
land,"

produce an

unprecedented

unmatched

"cry

throughout the

a progression

Only

the

fifth plague, it

from the olfactory senses cattle disease, does not fit into this

something heard. to touch to vision to hearing.

pattern.

As

big

observed event

should

belong

to the

later hail-locusts-darkness it
with the

group.

But the
group.

decaying
ascent

carcasses'

odor might also place

position

blood-and-frogs

Perhaps its

in the

middle of the

list is

an appropriate compromise.

The

from seeing to hearing may also anticipate the ascendancy of the Law the Israelites hear at Mount Sinai (Deut. 5:4, 19-24; 6:4) over the idols and
other

visually represented gods Other textual details suggest

of

the heathen.

other

organizing

principles.

Pharaoh

relents and

seeks to strike a
ninth plagues

fourth, seventh, (Exod. 8:4-6, 21-24; 9:27-28; 10:16-17, 24). This

with

deal

Moses

after the

second,

eighth, and
produces a

quasi-symmetrical
which

array in

of

Pharaoh's

obstinacy: three central plagues through

he

remains most

resolute, flanked

of one apiece after

which

he

by two sets of two increasingly wavers.

into three
groups

before

and

two sets

Sarna divides the first

repeated verbal
raoh,"

nine plagues

of

three, based

on

formulas: God
prior

orders

Moses to "station himself before Pha

and seventh

"in the

morning,"

to the

first, fourth,
Pharaoh"

plagues, the first

and

in

each triad.

He tells him to "go to

and ninth

before the second, fifth,

This

eighth.

And the third, sixth,

happen

without warning.

structural of

symmetry "emphasize[s] that what has active presence in the life of the world,

occurred
. . .

is the

vindication

God's

that

itous

succession of

random, senseless visitations

[the plagues] are not a fortu of Nature's blind fury, but the

158

Interpretation

calculated, purposeful,
ligence."

directed,
tracks

and controlled workings of the

Moses'

Divine Intel

This

schema also

emergence as

the LORD'S designated

agent:
second

The first

set of three are effected through some action of

and

Aaron's;

the

Moses'

by God, Moses,
pp.

Aaron in combination;

and the third through

agency (Sarna, Sarna's insistence that the

responds

76-78).

plagues'

orderliness

denotes divine intelligence

to the attempt

of another

scholar, Greta

Hort,

to

view

them

natu-

ralistically, as the kind of "familiar vicissitudes of nature that imperil the

Nile

Valley
rainfall

and elsewhere

from time to

time."

Hort

supposes

an

unusually

heavy

in the

southern

sources of the

Nile,

which causes

the river to

large

amounts of red sediment

downstream

and to

flood

prematurely.

sweep The sedi

and

ment explains the river's

purple

bloodlike appearance,

and an excess of

flagellates

bacteria the
river's

drive the

dying off of its fish. The pollution of dead fish would in turn frog population onto the land. The flooding would also produce
of

a bumper crop of mosquitoes, identified as the Hebrew kinnim, carriers bacterium Bacillus anthracis, which would kill off the frogs and later the
tians'

the

Egyp

cattle.

Again,

the ninth plague,

darkness, is

khamsin,
would

kind

of sand and

dust

storm common

to the region in the spring that usually causes atmospheric

and

haze. But the flooding, hail,

soil as to produce enough

locust infestation

have

so eroded the out the sun.

dense

matter

for the dust

storm to

block

And

so on

(Sarna,

pp.

70-73). Hort's

analysis

will, of course, not work for the

a supernatural event.
' '

tenth plague, the slaying of Egypt's

first-born, clearly

As the Israelites depart from Egypt, military matters suddenly assume pri mary importance. God avoids leading them along the northern route through the
land
of the

Philistines, lest they "have

(Exod. 13:17).

a change of

heart

when

they

see

war, and

return

to

Egypt"

They
"600

are, that

is, totally
chariots,

unsuited

for

warfare at upon

this point. We get a crude measure of this when

approach of

they fall into despair

the

Pharaoh's force

of

chosen

and all the chariots of

Egypt,

them,"

and captains over all of men

even though cf.

600,000

(Exod. 14:10-12; 14:7; 12:37;

enough

they themselves number Walzer, pp. 46-47). A mere

two months

later, however,

training
We
to

and toughness to resist and

Israelites have apparently acquired military drive off the Amalekites (Exod. 17:8-16).

are not

told the size of this enemy

Israelites'

force,

nor

fight them. But the

situation

is

still

how many men Joshua recruits so delicate that their very

existence can

apparently be imperiled
a not

by

what

is probably little

more than a

desert

raid

lays

upon

very prominent nation, thus the terrible Amalek (Exod. 17:14-16).

by

curse

the LORD

Both
ter. The

episodes

first is thoroughly

involve divine intervention, but of somewhat different charac miraculous: God drowns the Egyptians at the Sea of

Moses Politikos

159
is

Reeds;

the

Israelites merely
prevail

witness

the event (Exod. 14:30-31). The second

Moses'

hybrid: the Israelites

hands are arms, but only while by raised. He therefore enlists the aid of Aaron and Hur, to prop up his hands until the battle is finally won (Exod. 17:10-13). (Why their arms do not get weary
of

force

from propping up his is

weaned

not

explained.) The Israelites

are

gradually

being
to

toward the wholesome mix of faith and self-reliance

they

will need

conquer the

Promised Land.
contrast can

A further

be drawn between these

two events and the Battle of

Mount Tabor, described in Judges 4-5,

piled the

a passage which the rabbis who com

weekly Torah

readings paired with the one

discussed here. Several

thematic connections
Moses'

justify

this particular pairing. The Torah selection includes

Song by

the Sea after the

of

drowning

of

Pharaoh's charioteers; the

read

ing

Deborah's song of triumph after the Israelite general Barak defeats the of the Canaanite King Jabin army and his general Sisera (Exod. 15:1-18; Judges 5). Hence, the day's name, Shabprophetess

from the Book

Judges includes the

bat Shirah, the Sabbath

posed

of

Song. A

second connection

is the

shorter

song
Jael

com

by

Moses'

sister

Miriam,

who

is

also called a

prophetess, prefiguring,
and will

perhaps, the important

role that women of valor

like Deborah

occasionally play in Israelite history (Exod. 15:21). Both texts are, as noted, about military engagements. In Deborah's and Barak's battle, a century after the

Exodus, 10,000 Israelite foot

and

soldiers totally defeat an army of 900 iron chariots 4:13-16). In this case, the LORD'S role con (Judges supporting infantry sists either of Barak's victory itself or of a powerful rainstorm that so muddies
useless:

the ground as to make Sisera's chariots

LORD,
The

when

You

came

forth from Seir,

of

Advanced from
earth

the

country

Edom,

trembled;

The heavens dripped,

Yea,

the clouds

dripped

water.

(Judges

5:4)
his
chariots and

and

the

LORD threw Sisera

and all

the onslaught of Barak.

4:15)'2

Sisera leaped from his

chariot and

army into a panic before fled on foot (Judges

.

In the sequel, Sisera

who shelters

perishes at

the hand of

Jael,

the wife of Heber the

Kenite,

him in her tent, then kills him in his sleep by driving a tent peg through his head (Judges 4:17-21). These events, noteworthy as battlefield entirely in human or naturalistic terms. Also noteworthy is who does the fighting. In the first case, at the Sea of Reeds, it is God Himself. In the second, an undifferentiated troop of Israelites.

lore,

can

be

understood

The force Joshua leads

against

Amalek is

not

tribes: the attack that threatens the entire that

represents

drawn from any particular tribe or Israelite nation is repelled by a force

against

the nation. Not so the

battle

Jabin

and

Sisera. As

much

160
as

Interpretation

Deborah's song celebrates the LORD's favor and Barak s triumph, it also decries Israel's tribal divisions. The tribes of Ephraim, Benjamin, Manasseh (here
called

Machir,

the name of

Manasseh's son), Zebulun, Issachar,

trans-

and

Naphtali ben
and and

are praised

for

joining

in the battle. The

place

Jordanian tribes

of

Reu

Gad (here

called

Gilead, its

name)

and the coastal tribes of

Asher
and

Dan

are criticized are not even

for

holding
with

back. The

southern

desert tribes

of

Judah

Simeon
would

mentioned, it apparently

being

taken

for

granted that

they

not

be

concerned

this northern affair (Judges 5:14-18). As the self-reliant, as the common danger posed

Israelites become

more numerous and

by potentially fatal external threats recedes, internal differences move to the foreground. So powerful, apparently, is their temptation to tribalism or clannishness that or

it may even quite obscure the common bonds that formerly united defined them as a people, and render them so indifferent, or hostile, toward
others'

each

other

that each part

may

regard

with

equanimity the

conquest,

oppression, or destruction at the hand of outsiders.

VI

While the Israelites

visits

are encamped at

Rephidim,

Moses'

father-in-law Jethro

him.

Shortly

thereafter, he

receives

the Ten Commandments at Mount

Sinai. The
on some
elites'

process of

lawmaking

then continues rapidly,

events

God giving him

of

rules

forty-five

subjects.

These

begin the transformation

the Isra
18-

political arrangements

from

personal rule to the rule of

law (Exod.

23). Whether it is better to be

rulers governed

by laws

or the ad

hoc judgments
theory.13

of good of

is

fundamental
benefits

and vintage question

in

political

Rule

law

offers the

of advance notice and

impartiality,

but

at

the cost of not

circum circum

making fine distinctions relevant to particular, especially exceptional, stances. Individual rulers, on the other hand, can take account of such
stances, but for that very reason their

judgments
if

are

harder to

anticipate.

Is

it,

then, too,

more

desirable to live

under the rule of

the best or to have known rules

not

that work well enough most of the

as our

time,

even

the best

imaginable? Then,

generally good people can be corrupted, or, as our classical tradition teaches, may just have other things on their minds than governing. But law may also be corrupt, reflecting the personal, ideologi
even

liberal tradition warns,

cal,

or other

biases

of

the

lawgiver,
are

and

biases inscribed into law

view

are all the

more

difficult to

correct.

We

drawn to the

that in this unavoidable

the two principles,

dilemma
both

one must strike one or another

balance between
right.

of which are of

in

some sense

obviously
ruler

One might,
the Law

course, suggest that

such considerations

do

not

is God

given and the

perfect and

human

God's

greatest prophet.

apply where But if this

it
must

Law's

source

is

its instrument lofty, the

material on which

Moses Politikos
operate

-161

is far from

cles,

seem

Indeed, the Israelites, remarkably crude, dense, and given to

perfect. and

though surrounded
waywardness.

by

mira of

They have,

course, just emerged from slavery,

the habits instilled

by

despotism

are not

easily

shed.

It may take

efforts
of

nothing

short of miraculous

to make of a slavish

multitude a people

worthy

self-government, let alone a kingdom of priests

(Exod, 19:6). The

Israelites'

text at hand shows the

beginning

of the cultivation of the

character ment

in this direction

by

means of rules.

Crucial to this

develop

is Jethro's

visit.

tation

Unlike many Biblical encounters, that of Moses and Jethro is not a confron between the good and the wicked. It is rather a pleasant, benign meeting
men, one
solid not an

of two good produces

Israelite but both followers

wisdom.

of the

LORD,

which

some

practical

Jethro's
and

visit

is

prompted

by having

heard "all that God had done for Moses LORD had brought Israel have
elapsed since right

out

from

Egypt"

for Israel His people, how the (Exod. 18:1). Less than two months fast in the

the

Exodus;

good news travels

in the
"terror

direction. The
dread

prediction

Moses

made

(by desert standards) and Song by the Sea, of

may soon come he has received may
make

and

descending]

upon"

"the dwellers in

Canaan,"

to pass (Exod. 15:15-16). On the other

hand,

the account

be only sketchy, for Moses fills him in on some details that and bless the LORD (Exod. 18:8-9). Or is Jethro just being

him

rejoice

polite and matters

subtle,
about

rejoicing
which

celebrating God sincerely, to be sure, but he has already "heard all"?

and
with

over

Jethro brings

him

Moses'

wife

Zipporah

and

"her two
who

sons"

(Exod.

18:3) (Why
gone

not their

two sons?), Gershom and

Eliezer,

back to Midian

after the cryptic episode at the night

show great mutual

had presumably encampment (Exod.

word

4:24-26). The two

advance that out to meet

men

courtesy, Jethro sending

sons,"

in

he is coming "with your wife and her two and "bow[ing] low and his
father-in-law"

Moses

"[going]

kiss[ing]"

him (Exod. 18:

6-7). There is
The
next

no mention of

how he

greets

his immediate

family.'4

day, Jethro
until

observes

"from morning
attention.

evening."

Moses settling disputes among the Israelites He finds it not right that he performs so heavy a

task alone, one apt to wear him out in

judging

and the people

in awaiting his

First, instead of communicating friendly hoc to particular and teachings ad God's laws disputants, make them known generally. And second, select a number of capable, God-fearing, trustworthy to serve as permanent judges, and arrange men men not apt to accept bribes them hierarchically, so they can settle the minor disputes, presumably according
So he
offers some counsel:

to the published

laws,

while

passing the

major ones

along to Moses (Exod.

18:13-23).

This idea ings into "chiefs

so appeals

to Moses that, not waiting to get God's

tens"

laws

and teach
men"

publishable

of

form, he adopts it at once, and appoints "capable (Exod. 18:25). Does the thousands, hundreds, fifties, and
"capable"

as
repe

tition only of

from Jethro's longer list

of qualities signal that

Moses

162
acts

Interpretation
too hastily? Does he exhibit more enthusiasm and less piety than this plan if "God so commands
you"

Jethro,
name

who urged

(Exod. 18:23)? Since the Isra

would

elites are about

600,000

adult men

(Exod. 12:37), Moses

have to

78,600

"chiefs"

in the indicated proportions,

to

yet the task

is apparently done
disputes"

before Jethro

returns

Midian, by
instead

the third month after the Exodus (Exod.

18:27; 19:1). Is

this why,

of

hagadol)

on

to

Moses,

the chiefs end

mere

(hadavar passing the "major up bringing him "the difficult

obscure

matters"

(hadavar hakosheh)! Does

intricacy

intrinsic importance (Exod.

18:22, 26)?
Prior to Jethro's visit, the Israelites
are not

pre-eminently dedication
of

a people of

laws,
the

having

received

laws

on

only three

distinct

subjects: annual observance of

Passover (to

which

is linked

circumcision and

the

first-bom),

the

gathering of manna (associated with a limited form of Sabbath observance), and the injunction to "blot out the memory of Amalek from under (Exod.
heaven"

12:1-28, 43-50; 13; 16:4-5, 22-30; 17:14-16). The familiar Ten Command
ments are

followed

tioning

altars

constructing and posi dedicated to the LORD (Exod. 20:19-23). So, it would appear, from

by

less familiar two

dealing

with

the Israelites quickly move

having only
20,

three

laws

at

the start of chapter

18,

to fifteen at the end of chapter

to sixty at the end of chapter

23,

fivefold increase followed

making has only just

by

fourfold increase. And the

proliferation of rule

begun.15

VII

Chapters 32-34

of the

book

of

Exodus describe the

episode of the

Golden
on

Calf, God's threat to behalf,

destroy
Moses

the
of

Israelites

Moses'

and

intervention

their

the revelation to

the divine attributes, and announcement of a

Second Covenant. Unlike the surrounding material, whose lengthy descriptions Ark, the Tabernacle and its equipment, the priestly garments, and ceremonies of consecration might leave modern readers glassyof the construction of the
eyed and

indifferent,

these chapters are full of action and

complete.
God."

passion.16

By

the end

of chapter

stone

31 the Covenant is apparently tablets "inscribed with the finger of

Moses

receives the two

Their

content
on

than the
...

familiar Commandments, for they

other,"

are

"inscribed

may be more both their surfaces,

(Exod.

on the one side and on the

much

fine print, it

seems

31:18;
do
not

32:15). While Moses is

know
what
Egypt."

gone

for

forty days,

the people grow restless.

They
us

has happened to the So they

remarkable

figure "who brought

and ask or

from the

land
of

demand (their degree insistence is unclear) that he "make us gods who shall go before us [asehI'faneinu]." lanu elohim asher yeilkhu Aaron complies, but in a way that emphasizes that gods do not come free of charge: the people will have to give
gather against

of

Aaron

up their

gold earrings to

supply the

stuff of which

idols

are made.

He

casts

Moses Politikos
the gold
your

163

into

a mold and

fashions it into brought

you

a calf.

They
land

proclaim, "These are

of

gods, O

Israel,
asher

who

out of

the

Egypt [eileh

elo-

hekha Yisrael before it

and

he'elukha
the next

me'eretz

Mitzrayim]."'1

Aaron builds

an altar

declares

day

festival

of

the LORD. On the morrow,

and

starting early, the

orgiastically: cf.

people offer

up sacrifices, eat, drink,

also means

dance (perhaps

the word

for dance, Ttzaheik,

"play") (Exod. 32:1-6;

committed an

Gen. 26:8).
Even before the Calf is made, the
people seem to

have

idola

try,

one

to which Jews may be especially

the Passover
whom

who

wrote

deifying Moses,
counts mock

tempted, Haggadah took special precautions, the idolatry they credit for the Exodus. (The Haggadah, which

and against which the rabbis

of

re

the story of the

this particular kind of

Exodus, does not mention Moses by name.) As if idolatry, when God tells him to hurry back down
brought
out of the

to
to
of

the people, He calls them "your people, whom you

Egypt"

land

(Exod. 32:7). One is

you want to

reminded of the

angry parent, who says to his or did

today?"

her spouse, "Do

not yet quite accustomed

hear

what your child

Do the Israelites

grasp the
Moses'

notion

of an

incorporeal God?
was ruled

to

men who are gods:

Egypt

by

one.

They are, of course, They might even

a god can refer saw

have taken
to himself
miracles.

all of

"LORD

talk"

as poetic after

license: surely
whom

in the third
now

person!

It was,

all, Moses

they

working

And

time to replace

he has apparently gone off, as gods him. This explanation does not, of course,
that

sometimes

do, it is

excuse them.

They

have already

received and agreed

to the command not to make,

I8

bow down to,

or serve sculptured

images (Exod. 24:7).

"gods,"

In translating
ety,
which uses

elohim as

we

differ from the Jewish Publication Soci

one

the singular

because only
plural,
and

Calf

was made. can

(Tanakh,

p.

135).
inter-

The

grammatical

forms

are

the

discrepancy

be justified

pretively.

The

people want

gods, but

Aaron, wishing

to preserve worship of the

LORD,

attempts

enough gold

bull! And
of

by

only their earrings, for only one idol, and not a big one at that, just a calf, not even a calling for a festival of the LORD, he tries to combine the religion
a compromise. contribute

He has them

Moses

with

this "little
will

idolatry,"

perhaps

hoping
(For

that

from this

position of see

parity the true faith

eventually

rebound.

another

explanation,

Sarna,
anger

pp.

216-19.)
of

The ploy,

course, fails: some matters are not compromisable. The LORD'S

Moses'

and

plea. And when Moses approaches the camp is deflected only by sees the Calf and the dancing, he himself becomes enraged, shatters the and

tablets,

destroys the idol:

As

soon as

Moses

came near

became enraged;

and

the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, he he hurled the tablets from his hands and shattered them

at the

foot it
to

of

the

mountain.

He took the

calf that

they had

made and

powder and strewed

it

upon

the water and so made

burned it; he ground the Israelites drink it.

(Exod.

32:19-20)

164

Interpretation
sudden anger

Moses'

is

puzzling.

the people "have made themselves a molten calf and bowed low to
sacrificed
with

After all, the LORD had already told him that it and
are gestures that can of the

to

it"

(Exod. 32:8-14). But these

said

be

performed

solemn

dignity; God had

of sexual
Moses'

spectacle, the breach

nothing modesty (a la Cecil B. DeMille),

what of the strange

dancing. It is the

orgiastic

that partic

ularly

provokes

ire. And

business

of

pulverizing the

into water, and making the people drink it? This act's significance may lie in the fact that the color of a colloidal suspension of gold dust in water is, not bright yellow as we might expect, but blood Imagine

Calf, mixing

the powder

red."

the terror that this visible, and metallically tastable, reminder of the plagues

in

Egypt
gods

must

have

struck

in the hearts

of the wayward

Israelites

who yearned

for

like those they should have left behind! The text is clearly critical of Aaron, whom it blames for letting the people get out of control (Exod. 32:25),
and

in

whose

awkward,

lame,

even

comical,

explanation

it

mocks the
me and

irrespon

sibility into the

of religious compromisers:

"They

gave

[their gold] to

I hurled it

fire, [va'yeitzei ha'eigel hazeh]

man whom

and out came this calf

Moses'

(Exod. 32:24)!

This from the 10)! The

and

God

named as

spokesman

because he "speaks

readily,"

while

Moses

was "slow of speech and slow of stammered excuse

contrast

between this

by

(Exod. 4:14, Israel's first High Priest

tongue"

the splendor and

dignity

of the

could the point

be

more emphatic

priestly duties could not be more vivid. Nor that the holiness of the priesthood is a func

tion of the office, not the officeholder.

It is

Moses'

not clear whether

intercession is
His

elites or concern

for God's

reputation or
with

LORD
made see

not

act

inconsistently
X). Nor

prompted by by a more profound divinity by breaking

love

of

the Isra

concern

that the

the promise He

to the Patriarchs. (On this score at

section whether

below,

least Moses has something to learn: Moses would be better off as a new Patri
of

arch, to accept God's offer to make

him

a great

nation, than as a political

founder. The

scant mention of

his sons, Gershom

and

Eliezer,

suggests that

they

may have held little promise. However that may be, though God does not de stroy the Israelites utterly, their punishment is severe: 3,000 killed by the Le
vites, who side
plague.
with

Moses,

plus some unspecified number

dying

of

the ensuing

This is followed

by

further deprivation in the

next chapter:

The LORD
people.

said to
were

Moses, "Say
in

to the

Israelite people, 'You

one

are a stiff-necked

If I

to go

your midst and

for

moment, I would
to

destroy
So

you.

Now

then, leave

off your

finery,

will consider what

do to

you.'"

the

Israelites

remained stripped of the

finery from

Mount Horeb

on.

(Exod.

33:5-6)

This command, coming after Moses destroys the Calf, after the Levites kill 3,000 idolaters, after the LORD sends a plague and withdraws Himself from
their midst, may
punishment.
seem

like petty insult. But it is

of a piece with the earlier which could

The fine

clothes that

they

took

from the Egyptians,

Moses Politikos
have been
symbol of

165
a

emblems of their

liberation, have become, like

to the world of their

the Calf

itself,

lingering
be
luxury.20

attachment

former

enslavement.

So

they
of

too must

cast off.

In

addition to

Egyptian

idolatry,

the Calf is

a symbol

Egyptian

At the start of chapter 34, God tells Moses to carve two more stone tablets, like those he shattered, so He can inscribe upon them "the words that were on the first (Exod. 34:1). This Moses does, and, as instructed, reascends
tablets"

Mount Sinai

and stays

there another

forty

days. But this divine

promise

is

not

kept. Instead, Moses

as much as can

both something more and something less. Acceding, to request to "let me behold Your (Exod. his be,
gets
Presence"

33:18),
which

the LORD reveals to him what the tradition

proclaims a

has designated the Thirteen

with

Divine Attributes. He then He tells Moses to

the

Second Covenant

Moses

and

Israel,

Also, for
The

mandments

tablets, first time, the Covenant is here specifically (aseres ha'd'varim) (Exod. 34:28). Golden Calf thus
signified widens the

write upon the new

unlike the earlier ones.

called

the Ten Com

episode of the

tual status and the

Israelites',

by

gap between their reluctance to look

Moses'

spiri

directly
Moses'

at

his

face,

which

is

radiant with

holiness (Exod. 34:29-35). Whereas

earned

indig

nation and

intercession have

him the

privilege of

insight into the divine

nature, the people's dereliction

stated so

reveals an

incapacity

to appreciate the Law as

a simpler

far. A

new

beginning

is therefore in order,

beginning,

con

sisting of a few clear practical rules (few enough to be counted on the fingers of both hands), that will distinguish Israel "from every people on the face of the
earth"

(Exod. 33:16). That this involves

breaking
He

a promise at

Mount Sinai

should perhaps trouble us no more than that

"disappoints"

also
appropriate

Abraham

at

Mount Moriah (Gen. 22). God

grace

gives

what

is

"I

will

grant the

that I will grant and show the compassion that I will

even

show"

(Exod.
even

33:19

if that

means

not

fulfilling
man

some expectations.
what

Does God

leam the

need to

do this from Moses? Is this

it

means

for Him to "speak

to Moses face to

face,

another"

as

one

speaks

to

(in the

King

James

translation, "as

a man speaketh to are the

refer

his

friend")
rules:

(Exod. 33:11)?
point

What, then,
nation seems

Ten Commandments? At this

to the

in the text, the

desig

to

following

1. Do

not make a covenant with the

Canaanites worship

and the other

inhabitants

of

the Promised Land to tolerate the

of

their gods,

for Israel

must

worship only the LORD.

2. Do

not make

for

yourselves gods of molten metal.

3. Observe the Passover. 4. Dedicate first-bom

or redeem your
males of your

livestock to the LORD,

and

dedicate

first-born

sons. empty-handed": everyone of

5. "None
nity

shall appear

before Me

the commu

must contribute something.

166

Interpretation
6. "Six days
labor."

you shall

work, but on the seventh

day

you shall cease

from

7. Observe the Feast 8. Do

not offer

of

Weeks

and

the Feast of Ingathering.

and use

the entire Passover sacrifice

anything leavened with God's blood sacrifice, before morning.

up

9. Offer up the choice first fruits of your soil to the LORD. 10. "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's
milk."21

VIII

An incident in
this country's
Moses'

chapter

12

of the

book

of

Numbers bears

on what

deepest

and most persistent

problem,
of

race relations.

is arguably Miriam and

Cushite

Aaron,
woman

sister and

brother,

speak

ill

Moses "because

of the

he had

married"

(Num. 12:1). Some

commentators

identify

this person

Zipporah, supposedly of the Midianite Kusi tribe, while others regard it as a second wife of Moses, from the land of Cush, i.e., Ethiopia (Hertz, p. 618). In
as

this case Miriam's and Aaron's criticism would be a racial slur, for the hallmark
of

Cush is dark

skin.22

They

Moses'

also question
well"

prophetic pre-eminence:

"Has

[the

LORD]
see

not spoken

through us as

(Num. 12:2)? The two

criticisms

are connected

in the

punishment
connection

God inflicts, but

may
equal

an

implicit

from the

start.

by reversing their order we By claiming prophetic status

to Moses, Miriam and Aaron are attaching to their racial prejudice the implication that God Himself disapproves of his marriage and perhaps of inter

racial marriages generally.

This is the

second of

four

challenges to

Moses

reported

in Numbers 11-17.
and

Apparently,
serious

the present criticisms remain "within the

family"

do

not spread

to the Israelite community generally. In this sense the episode may than the

be less

preceding story about the people's complaints over the lack of variety in their wilderness diet. But if the scope of this domes tic squabble stays limited, its challenge to authority is more direct. The
Moses'

immediately

ball has begun to

ates

roll that culminates

in the

rebellion of

Korah

and

his

associ

in

chapter

16.

Moses himself does

the

humblest,

or

reply to the calumny, because, the text says, he is meekest, of men (Num. 12:3). We must understand by this that
not

Moses is
to

restrained at

pressing his
the

own

claims, for he has already

acted

boldly

help

others,

killing

Egyptian

who was

Jethro's daughters from the

harassing

Hebrew slave, rescuing shepherds, confronting Pharaoh, and in

beating

the

terceding with God Himself on behalf of the errant Israelites (Exod. 2:11-12, 16-17; 5:1; 7:10, 20; 8:4-8, 21-25; 9:10, 27-30; 10:3-11, 24-29; 11:4-8;
here may also be self-serving. In the previous chapter, he had poignantly protested to God that the burden of this people was carrying more than he alone could bear, and the LORD had obligingly siphoned off
silence

32:7-14). But his

Moses Politikos
some of

167
(Num.

the spirit that was upon

him to seventy

elders of the people

11:10-17, 24-25). The text

Two men,
(yit'nab'u)].
one named

continues:

Eldad
.

and

the other
and

Medad, had

remained

in the camp;

yet the spirit rested upon them

.

youth ran out and

in ecstasy [or they told Moses, saying, "Eldad

spoke son of

prophesied and

Medad

are

acting
"Are

the prophet

in

camp!"

the

And Joshua

Nun,
the

Moses'

attendant

from his

youth, spoke

up

and

said,
on

"My
my

lord Moses,

them!"

restrain
all

But Moses

said to

him,

you wrought

up

account?

Would that
upon

LORD's

people were

prophets, that the LORD put His spirit

them!"

(Num. 11:26-29)

His

silence at

Miriam's

and

Aaron's

provocation

may

combine

both the
share

same

noble

generosity However this may be, the LORD firms special status:
Moses'

and the same

desire for

coprophets to

help

him

his load.
and af

rebukes them

for their impertinence

"When

a prophet of

the LORD arises among you, I make Myself

known to him in
. . .

a vision,

speak with

him in

dream. Not

so with

My

servant and

Moses.

With

him I
of

speak mouth to mouth,

LORD."

plainly

and not

in riddles,

he beholds the likeness

the

(Num.

12:6-8)
in that this plain,
unriddlelike message

Is there
as

a note of

irony

is

not

described

coming to them in a dream or vision? The LORD also afflicts Miriam with tzaraat. This term
"leprosy,"

used

to be translated

as some

but

recent

scholarship
whose

resists

this

scaly

skin

disease

wasting

effects

identification. It is apparently one can infer from Aaron's hor

ror-stricken

exclamation, "Let her not be as

one

dead,

who emerges

from his is Aaron

mother's womb with not also afflicted?

half his flesh

away"

eaten

(Num. 12:12).

Why

interpretation,
was exempted
brother"

Rabbi J. H. Hertz, probably repeating a standard rabbinic notes that "Miriam seems [because she is mentioned first?] to
of the evil as and that "Aaron speaking against he was merely drawn into this attack on his
Moses,"

have been the instigator

from punishment,

(pp. 618, 619). But Aaron makes no such distinction in his plea to Moses, "O my lord, account not to us the sin which we committed in our (Num. 12:11). Rather, it would seem that Aaron is spared only because the
folly"

physical

blemish

of tzaraat would

disqualify
[El
na

functions (Lev. 22:4). Moses "O God, please, heal her,

complies, but only
after

responds with a prayer

r'fa

him from performing his priestly that is a marvel of brevity,

lah!]"

please!

na

(Num. 12:13). God

days"

(Num. 12:14),
[hei'aseif],"

after

requiring Miriam to "bear her shame for seven which she is readmitted to the camp, literally "gathered in indication The
of

a possible

her sorry

condition

by

week's end.

Why
the

this

punishment?

most conspicuous symptom of tzaraat

is

that

it

turns one's skin white,

color-conscious

like

snow

(Num. 12:10). This is

what

inclines

us toward

"Cushite."

reading

of

Holy

Scripture is full

of poetic jus-

168
tice,

Interpretation
of punishments that one could
of

fit the

crime.

If the

crime

here is, in part,

racial preju

dice,

disapprove
another

exactingly just God telling Miriam and Aaron, "You For Moses having a black wife? You want white? Here's

imagine

an

white!"

dramatic instance
one might wish

of a punishment that

is neatly

tailored to mirror the

offense,

to consider the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19).

It is

common
view

to regard the special sin of these wicked cities as homosexuality.

reinforced

This

is

by

what

Rabbi Hertz

calls the

Mosaic Law's "uncom

with child

condemnation"

promising
and various

of this

offense, which, along

cities'

sacrifice,

bestiality, incest, it punishes with the death penalty (Lev. punishment involves not 18:21-23; 20:2-5, 11-16; Hertz, p. 492). The their destruction but the of the also surrounding land. Does this only sterility not mirror the sterility, the incapacity to produce offspring, of homosexual rela
forms
of

tions?
code

Advocates for the

a

Gay

Rights Movement have

and that the

argued that
Sodomites'

the sexual
sin

in Leviticus is
of

later development,
signified

is their
angelic
cf.

breach

hospitality,

in the

attempted

violence

against the

travelers,

which contrasts with

Abraham's

generous conduct

(Gen. 19:4-11;

18:1-8). To be sure, raping one's guests is inhospitable by any standard mea sure, but can we understand this action apart from its deviant sexual character?

Perhaps

significant

here

are the words

the

Sodomites

use when

they

surround

Lot's house

and shout to

him: "Where

are the men who came to you tonight?

them"

Bring

them out to us, that we may know

(Gen. 19-5). The

which

verb yoda, the

generic term

for

"know"

or

in Hebrew
with

as

in English, does

this the description of

ambiguity necessarily imply the use of force. Compare Shechem's treatment of Jacob's daughter Dinah: "he
not
violence"

"be intimate

with,"

has the

same

took

her,

and

vay'aneha),

lay with her, and did her or King David's son Amnon's
her,
and violated

(vayikakh
her"

otoh vayish

'kav

otoh

treatment of his half-sister Tamar:

"he

overpowered

vay'aneha vayish'khav

otoh)

(vayehazak mimenah her, and lay with (Gen. 34:2; 2 Sam. 13: 14).23 Despite the availabil

ity

of

these more violent words, the to the

divinely

inspired
know"

narrator nonetheless as

Sodomites the desire only "to desire is specifically homosexual is made clear
cribes gant offer guests

the strangers. That their

reject will

to give them his two virgin

they daughters if they

and

when

Lot's only

extrava

spare

his

(Gen. 19:6-9). We

can also see the principle of

the sequel

incestuous

union

between Lot

mirroring punishment in his daughters (Gen. 19:30-38).

offering his daughters to the Sodomite mob, Lot had in effect shown will ingness to have them consort with any man at all. That indifference now comes

By

dramatically

home to

roost.

The "Cushite

woman"

Israelite people, though

mythic

an ethnic

ancestry, is

not a

contemporary lessons. First, the defined community by reference to a common strictly racial community. There is room, indeed, a
story

suggests two

respected

place, for a shared

made at

"ancestry by
springs

adoption"

for those

who accept the

Covenant
whose

Mount Sinai. How

much more so

for

a nation of

immigrants,
rights,

very

political

identity

from

an appeal to universal natural

Moses Politikos
the

169

Declaration
it!

of

Independence. And secondly,

what you

cautionary

note

to activists

of all political of

persuasions, take care

esteem, lest you get too much

IX

The story told

at

Numbers 13-14, land

of

of the

unsuccessful

Moses
that

sends to scout the

Canaan

and the

spy mission that disastrous military expedition

follows, is

the very stuff of politics. On the other

hand,

as

spy

missions

go,

this one is most peculiar.

The lection
ua's

rabbis who assembled

with chapter mission on

the weekly readings astutely paired this Torah se

of

of the

book
of

Joshua, for
is
shrouded

that text's description of Josh

spy

the

earlier episode.

city Joshua's

the

Jericho

provides a standard

by

which

to measure

men, whose names

that he

has

personal

only two are never revealed, and whose only credential, we infer, is confidence in them. Thus, their instructions are simple:
mission secrecy. sends
"Go," Jericho."

in

He

he tells them, "reconnoiter

enough

the region of

They

apparently know
of

well

how to fill in the details.

as a

They

go

to the house
such people

Rahab,

a woman

described

harlot (ishah zonah), though inn

would

were

keepers,

and an

be
of

an apt place

for

spies to gather

information.24

commonly inn She

helps them

evade

the

king
her

Jericho's agents, her

and

they in
is

turn prescribe arrange to accompany the

ments that will spare

and

family

from the do

slaughter sure

Israelite

conquest.

(The

spies'

authority to
universal after

this

never

doubted.)

Rahab's

account of the

Jerichans'

fear is, it seems,

for they

return

to Joshua

hiding

information they need, in the hills for three days and report, appar
all the

ently to him alone, that the LORD has delivered the whole land into their hands. The mission's existence seems unknown to the Israelites generally.

By

contrast, the Mosaic spy

men are political

mission

is

very

public affair.

By God's
Levites,

com

mand, twelve
exempt

chosen, one from each tribe (minus the

who are

from

service, but counting the Josephite demitribes as two, as

is

by

now customary).

Moreover, they

seem chosen not

for any

special talent at

espionage oshim

but for their ability to lead public opinion. They are chieftains (anroshei), known leaders whom the text names (Num. 13:3-15). Their
the likelihood that as tribal leaders

number and

they have

high

opinion of

themselves all but guarantees that

and

they

will

disagree. The hint

of

intertribal

in the slightly irregular order of tribal listing jostling rivalry Ephraim and Benjamin before Manasseh, Asher before Naphtali and Gad for
position
reinforces mission of

this suspicion. It

is

as though the

President

were

to compose a spy
would

twelve prominent senators. With such personnel,

not

it

be

a mira

cle

if it did

fail!

Has God, in effect, doomed this enterprise from the start by dictating such unfavorable selection criteria? Perhaps not. W. Gunther Plaut notes that when

170
Moses
places

Interpretation
recalls

this episode

in his farewell
mission with

speech

thirty-eight years
rather

later he

the

initiative for the

the

people

than

God (Deut.
sh'lah

1:22),
could

and that the reflexive

verb

form

of the

divine

statement

I'cha (p.

them"

indicate

permission

rather than command:

"Go ahead,

send

1 107)! However that may

be,

the LORD takes the precaution of

issuing focused

instructions. The
the children of

men are to

Israel"

land, being

mindful

I am giving to Canaan, (Num. 13:2). That is, they should pay attention to the that it is God's gift to them. Unlike Joshua's expedition, the

"scout the land

of

which

is not to gather information, either in general or military information in particular, but to confirm God's bounty. These tribal chieftains are chosen not as spies but as witnesses for God before the people, for which
purpose of this one

their political credentials are quite

appropriate.25

But Moses

seems to miss the point.

on

ine spy mission, and expands making human comparisons and that
concerns:

He treats the undertaking as a genu God's instruction in a way that invites

vacillates

between the land

and

military

"Go up there into the Negeb and on into the hill country, and see what kind of country it is [emphasis on the land]. Are the people who dwell in it strong or weak, few or many [emphasis on military concerns]? Is the country in which they dwell
good or

the soil

rich

bad [the land]? Are the towns they live in or poor? Is it wooded or
not?"26

open or

fortified [military]? Is

"And,"

he

adds

significantly, "take

pains to

bring

back

some of

the fruit

of

the

land"

(Num. 13:17-20).
men

The

the Wilderness of
now northeastern

apparently take these instructions quite seriously. They scout from Zin, in the Negev, as far north as Lebo-hamath, in what is

Lebanon,

and

back,

tour of about seven

hundred

miles

through sometimes rugged terrain. That

they

take

forty

days to do

all this

is

On the way back, they come upon a brook to which their action bequeaths the name Eshkol (Hebrew for "cluster"), and from a brookside orchard they bring the famous cluster of grapes, a cluster so large that two men

hardly

surprising.

are needed

to carry
report

it

on a

frame.

Continuing
and

the public nature of this expedi

tion, they
whom

back to Moses, Aaron,

the

the entire congregation, before

Moses'

In the first
even

they display instance,

of

fruit
his

of

the land.

their report tries to be

questions about the good or

faithful to
land itself

agenda and were

balanced. But is

since

largely

redun

dant: What kind

answer

land is it? Is it
"We
came

bad? Is the

soil rich or poor?

their

concise:

to the land you sent us to; it

fruit"

does indeed flow

the

honey, and this is its itants, however, the questions were

with milk and more expansive:

(Num. 13:27).

Concerning
and

inhab

more

distinct,

and

their answer is therefore

The

people are
Moses'

powerful; the cities

are

fortified

Elaborating beyond

questions,

they

name are

the

six nations

very large. who dwell

that

there and their respective

locations. Clearly, they

daunted,

so much

they

Moses Politikos
Moses'

171

neglect cation.

point about

woods,

with

its possibly encouraging military impli

One

of

them, Caleb
for thinking

of the tribe of

Judah,

enters the

dissenting
it."

opinion

that

they

should attack

anyway, "for
so and

we shall

surely

overcome

He

gives no

specific reason

does

not mention

God. His

statement seems

to express only self-confidence and perhaps the opinion that the richness of the
reward warrants the risk.

Such heedless

optimism

is easily

refuted.

The

other

have only to point land "are stronger than

men

out what
we"

they have already 14, by

seen, that the

people of

the

(Num. 13:28-31). That they

protection ripe

are right and

Caleb

wrong is
when

demonstrated,

at

the end of chapter

the rout the Israelites suffer

they do

attack without

God's

(Num. 14:39-45).
premise,

At this point, the discussion is

that the land

for

reminder of the mission's

is God's gift,

and that

faith

will compensate

for their

deficiency
worse.

in

human
men

strength.

But this tack is

precluded

by

decisive turn for the

The
that

defame the land itself, saying that it its people are giants, and that "we looked like
we must

"devours"

those who dwell in

it,

grasshoppers to

ourselves,

and so

have looked to
run

them"

(Num. 13:32-33). This is

no

longer

rational

deliberation. It is fear
over

rampant,

distorting

what

they have
must

seen, giving them

others and

to extravagant

speculation

about

how they

look to

to

excuses for inaction. The calumny against the land is a barometer of this. That the land is inhospitable ("devouring its inhabitants") not only contradicts their

testimony
brought

of a moment

ago; it is

refuted

by

the visible evidence

they have

that massive cluster of grapes, the magnificent symbol of abundance.

of a

Under the sway

their own eyes.

ruling passion, they

are

willing to

deny

not

only God but

The community thereupon falls into despair, they murmur against Moses and Aaron, and against the LORD, they long for the security of Egypt, that is, of
slavery, and
what
consider

how to

return

there. Even Moses and Aaron are at a loss to remind the people of the

to do next. Joshua and Caleb

try

land's be

good

ness,

and to urge them not to succumb to

fear,

that the LORD will

with

them

if only they do not rebel against Him. But it is too late. saves the two from stoning (Num. 14:1-10).

Only

divine intervention

The spy mission that was not really to be a spy mission has collapsed upon itself. The headmen who were supposed to reconcile the people to their labor of
conquest,

by

making them

rejoice

in God's gift, have instead infected them lessons

of this episode are not

with

their characteristic vice. The political

ones. cf.

happy

Fortunately, young Joshua learns

them well (so

too, perhaps, does Moses:

Num. 21:32).

Korah's rebellion, described in Numbers 16-17, is the fourth

Moses'

challenge

to

leadership in

that

book's

central

chapters, and, judged

by

the number
earth-

killed,

the gravest. The text sets the toll of

lives taken

by

the successive

172
quake,

Interpretation

fire,
of

and plague

that the LORD sends at

about

15,000, five
(Num.

times the

number

idolaters
cf.

slain

in the Golden Calf

episode

16:25, 31-32,

Exod. 32:25-28; but cf. also Num. 25:1-9). This deadly resolu tion is followed by some ritual matters, and then the narrative resumes with

35; 17:14;
the

Israelites'

arrival

in the Wilderness
silence
notable

of

Zin,

thirty-eight
years of

years

later (cf.

Num. 33:1-37)! The text's

concerning these

desert wandering,
the Ex

during
odus

which

(with

few

exceptions) the entire

generation of

perishes,
also

casts over

the present section a chilling air of finality. The inci

dent

appears

to teach Moses some valuable lessons about politics and

about

God.
rebellion

This
Moses'

is

peasants'

no mere
a

revolt. prince

Korah is

a man of

high status,
clans of

and

Aaron's first cousin,

to the

of one of the

Kohathite

Levites

who attend

Meeting
On,

kept in the sanctuary of the Tent of (Num. 16:1; 3-17, 19, 27-32). His confederates, Dathan, Abiram, and
sacred objects

of the tribe of

Reuben,

seem

to

represent of

this tribe's natural claim to lead

by

right of

primogeniture, as descendants

Jacob's

eldest son. men of

backed
benites'

by

"250 Israelites,
some

repute"

chieftains of the

community,

And they are (Num.

16:2). The latent

contradiction

between Korah's

leadership
story

claims and the Reu-

has led

Biblical
p.

critics to regard the other

as a conflation of two

separate rebellions

(Plaut,

1126). On the

hand,

politics, perhaps espe

cially revolutionary politics, often produces unlikely alliances between parties whose only common interest is opposition to a common foe. By failing to
mention

On

son of

Peleth

a second

time, does the text

also

hint

at

the

tendency

of revolutions

to fall into factions and purges, to "devour their

rebel

own children"?

But if the

democratic:
have
gone

"They

leaders have high credentials, their rhetoric is strikingly combined against Moses and Aaron and said to them, 'You

too far! For all the community are

midst.

holy,

all of

them,
to

and

the LORD
congre
Moses'

is in their

Why

then

do

you raise yourselves above the all that we and

LORD'S

gation?'"

(Num. 16:3). After

they have

seen

justify

and

Aaron's pre-eminence, this

speech

it

with understandable astonishment

is surely impertinent, and Moses greets (Num. 16:4). In a sense, however, he has
recent response

himself laid its

groundwork

in his

to Eldad's and Medad's

speaking in ecstasy, "Would that LORD put His spirit upon

admirable expression of
Moses'

all the

LORD'S

people were
see section

prophets, that the

them!"

(Num. 11:29;
echoes

VIII

above).

This

generosity,

one of the

traits that may make him

rebellion as a politi

worthy to

speak with

God face to face,

of

in Korah's

cal reproach:

One

cannot govern a

its

members were
when

worthy

large community based on the wish that all being prophets. It is a wish likely to be granted
this status as their

half way,

The lesson
other

unworthy about God is just

men claim as

birthright.

deflating. This
a

episode

reasons, because the LORD twice threatens to

this

is remarkable, among destroy the Israelites (Num.

made

16:19-21; 17:8-10). Now,

the time of the

is

threat He has

already

twice

before,

at

Golden Calf,

and more

recently

when the scouts gave an

unfa-

Moses Politikos
vorable and

173

false

report of the

Promised Land. Both times He

and

offered

to

make a

great or numerous nation of suade

Moses,

Moses

gave eloquent speeches to

dis

Him (Exod. 32:9-14; Num. 14:11-19). These dialogues (and for us), providing
us

are a process of
character.

discovery for Moses

Each
repetition of cient and

a window

into the divine

the threat tells

that the previous arguments were

insuffi

that the grasp Moses thinks he has on the kind of

being

the LORD is

is

somehow wrong.
Moses'

Let

us

therefore

review

these speeches.

Golden Calf

speech presents

two arguments:

"[1] Let
to

not the

Egyptians say, 'It in the

was with evil

kill

them off

mountains and annihilate them

intent that He delivered them, only from the face of the

and

earth.'

...

[2] Remember Your

servants,

Abraham, Isaac,
I

Israel, how You

offspring land

swore to

them

by

Your Self

and said to them:

will make your

as numerous as the
of which

stars of

heaven,

and

will give to your

offspring this

whole

I spoke,

to possess

forever."

(Exod.

32:12-13)
should

Moses

argues that the

LORD

be

mindful of

His

reputation

nations and should

keep

His

word.

To

neglect

the first

would

among the be shameful; to

flout the

second unjust.

the heathen

have

of

But why should an omnipotent being care what opinion Him? What does it matter that the Egyptians may mis
maliciously?

takenly believe
suggest

that

He delivered the Israelites from Egypt

And does he

Or does Moses
malicious were

subtly God now to kill them

the LORD

that the liberation

off?

would

truly be
The

assume that reputation were a god?

is important to

because it

would

be to him if he

reminder of the

Patriarchal Covenant is

also

flawed. For

even

if the LORD

were

to

destroy

all

the other Israelites and make a great nation of

Moses, He

would still

have kept

His promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob insofar as Moses is their descendant. Why, then, does God renounce his plan to punish the Israelites? We do not
know. Perhaps it is
a

divine

response

to

Moses'

earnestness.

After the failed spy mission, Moses

the people:

again offers

two reasons not to

destroy

"[1] When
that

the

Egyptians

land

[and]
LORD

hear the news, they will tell it to the inhabitants of the nations who have heard Your fame will say, 'It must be
. .

because

the

was powerless to

bring

that people them

into the land He had

promised

them on oath that

He

slaughtered

in the

wilderne

[2] [L]et

my Lord's forbearance be great, as You have declared, saying, 'The LORD! slow to anger and abounding in kindness; forgiving iniquity and transgression, yet not remitting
third and
all

punishment, but visiting the

iniquity

of

fathers

upon

children,

upon

the

fourth

generations.'"

(Num.

14:13-18)

The first
repute

reason parallels

the first from the earlier

speech.

Both

concern

God's His He

among the nations, with the

and

focus

now on

His

power rather than

benevolence,

both

are susceptible

to the same questions:

Why

would

174
care

Interpretation
if the heathen think him
powerless?

And does Moses himself doubt the

LORD'S ability to make good His promise until He actually delivers on it? After all, the world is full of gods, some stronger than others, but why ascribe
omnipotence to
argument:

any

of

them? The issue of benevolence

now shifts

to the second

to

destroy

the people would be inconsistent

with

the divine character,

as the

LORD has

revealed

it to Moses in

a moment of special

intimacy (Exod.
Patriarchal Cov

34:6-7). This
enant.

reason quite

displaces the

earlier reminder of the

Is this because the latter has itself been displaced

what extent

by

the Covenant of the

Law? To
archal

is the Law
bargain:

more at

Age behind

us?

Also hinted
rather

generally in this second

an attempt

to

put

the
what

Patri may
he

argument

is

strike us as a sinister

than wipe out the whole people at once,

kill
asks

off

only

some over a

few

generations.

Here Moses

might

just

get what

for,

and with

it,

probably to

his

personal

annoyance, the added respon

sibility of shepherding the Israelites for thirty-eight more years. When Korah's rebellion erupts the LORD threatens Israel with destruction
again, thus

indicating
is,

that none of these arguments was conclusive against

His

doing
mised

so, that

that His name among the

heathen is

not as

important
be

as

Moses

assumed,

and that

His kindness

and

faithfulness

would not

fatally

compro

by

family,
Moses

annihilating the Israelites as long as some remnant, even a single survived to carry on the Covenant. In face of this third threat, therefore, Aaron (to
whom

and

the divine attributes have not been revealed) for

mulate a

different

principle altogether:

Korah gathered the whole community against them at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Then the Presence of the LORD appeared to the whole community, and
the

LORD may

spoke

to Moses and

that I

annihilate them
of

in
of

God, Source
with

the

breath

the whole

community?"

from this community But they fell on their faces and said, "O all flesh! When one man sins, will You be wrathful (Num. 16:19-21)

Aaron,

saying, "Stand back

instant!"

an

Whatever its intrinsic merit, this

text emphasizes, it
were

argument too

falls

wide of the mark.

As the

is, for

now at

least, "the

community"

whole

that sins. Even

it

not and

so,

we

recall

from Abraham's

bargaining

with

the

LORD

over

Sodom

Gomorrah that God's justice

would permit the

destruction

of nine

innocent
kill

members of a

generally
and

The final instance

off

occurs

community (Gen. 18:22-33). when, after the earthquake and the LORD'S fire
sinful
and

Korah, Dathan

Abiram

their

families,

and the two

hundred

and

fifty

chieftains, the people remain rebellious:

Next

day

the whole

Israelite community
upon the

railed against
people!"

Moses
But

and

Aaron,

saying,

"You two have brought death

gathered against

LORD'S

as the

community

cloud

had

covered

Aaron

reached

them, Moses and Aaron turned toward the Tent of Meeting; the it and the Presence of the LORD appeared. When Moses and the Tent of Meeting, the LORD spoke to Moses, "Remove
saying,
this community, that

yourselves

from

I may

annihilate them

in

an

instant."

They

fell

Moses Politikos
on their

175

faces. Then Moses

altar.

said to

Aaron, "Take

the

fire pan,

and put on

it fire

from the
expiation
begun!"

Add incense

and take

for them. For

wrath

it quickly to the community and make has gone forth from the LORD: the plague has

(Num. 17:6-11)

Moses
must

seems

finally

to recognize that to argue with the LORD

is futile. One
Moses is in

hope for divine mercy. simply As recently as chapter 12, we were told that God's relation special, that "[w]ith him I speak mouth to mouth, plainly and
atone and

with not

in

riddles"

(Num. 12:8). But if God does

these stories are
one persuade

not address

Moses in riddles,

and

His

speeches

brutally blunt,

He

nonetheless

is

a riddle to

Moses. How does

the Almighty? What does it even mean for an all-knowing

being

to "change His mind"? What argument can one direct to one who is tion beyond human comprehension? In the end,

by

defini

him, seems left for Moses, the

from the

with a

kind

of grim

resignation,
of

not

Moses, like Abraham before to argue but to do his duty,

far cry

onerous political

duty

ruling

a multitude who are a

wished-for nation of

prophets.27

XI

Chapter 31
episode

of the

book

of

Numbers

presents the most

in

Moses'

career, the

Israelites'

campaign against the

on

morally troubling Midianites. God Moses

sends

tells Moses to "[a]venge the Israelite people

out a

the

Midianites."

force

of

twelve thousand men, a thousand from each tribe, with Aaron's

Pinchas serving as priest on the campaign. They kill all the Midianite men, including their five kings, and the prophet Balaam; capture their women
grandson and children; seize their encampments.

Moses,

the

herds, flocks, and wealth; and bum their towns and high priest Eleazar, and the tribal chiefs then visit the
camp (Num. 31:1-13). Now
.

victorious troops outside the

comes the nastiness:

Moses became angry with the commanders of the army [and] said to them, "You have spared every female! Yet they are the very ones who, at the bidding of
.

Balaam, induced
so that the

the

Israelites

to trespass against the

was struck
and

LORD in the

LORD'S community
among the children,

by

the plague.

matter of Peor, Now, therefore, slay

every

male

carnally; but spare [lit.:

keep

alive

slay also every woman who has known a man for yourselves] every young woman who has not
on the matter of

had

man."

carnal relations with a

(Num. 31:14-17;

Peor,

see

Num.

25:1-18)
Thomas Paine, famous
pamphleteer of the
of this

American Revolution
anti-Biblical

and outspo

ken

religious

skeptic,

says

incident in his

broadside The

Age of Reason:
Let any mother put herself in the situation of those mothers; one child murdered, destined to violation, and herself in the hands of an executioner; let any

another

176

Interpretation
put

daughter

herself in the

situation of those

daughters, destined
be

as a

prey to the

murderers of a mother and a

brother,

and what will

their feelings

On the basis
villains that could

of

this account, he proclaims Moses one

of

the most "detestable

man."2"

in any period of the world have disgraced the dispute Paine's statement that the girls are "destined to

name of

One

rather

Or if taken to wife, they would have rights as such under the Mosaic Law (Deut. 21:10-14). But this is quibbling next to Paine's main point,
than to servitude.

that the tale is morally shocking.

In

more moderate

vein, but obviously embarrassed

by

the story, Rabbi

Hertz

observes:

The

war against

the Midianites presents

peculiar

difficulties. We

are no

longer it
was

acquainted with the circumstances that

justified

the ruthlessness with which

waged,

and

therefore we cannot

satisfactorily

meet the various objections that

have

been

raised

in that

connection.

Quoting

from the Expositor's Bible, he

recollection of what

continues:

"Perhaps the Britain bent

on

took place after the throw

Indian Mutiny, The

when

Great
then,

was

temper, may punishing the cruelty and lust

same

in the

light

on

this question.

soldiers

of the rebels,

partly in patriotism, partly in

aside."

revenge, set mercy altogether

(P.

704)

One may sympathize with Hertz's effort to make the best of a discomforting text, but his comment is off target. The remarkable fact here is that the Israelite
soldiers, perhaps
unlike

the British

"set mercy

aside."

altogether

army, all the adult males,

prophet whom the

1857, do not True, they are thorough in wiping out the enemy their kings, and even poor Balaam (the Mesopotamian

during

the

Sepoy Mutiny

of

Moabite

king

Balak hires to

curse

the Israelites but who ends

up is

blessing

them

instead),

who seems an

innocent
be

victim

the wrong time.

unsupported

(Moses'

attempt to

blame him for the

a post

corruption of

in the wrong place at Baal-peor

rationalization.

by

the earlier text and may

hoc

Cf.

Num.

22-25.)
and

But the

soldiers and their chiefs

women

children.

Among
kill

the commanders

mercifully spare the Midianite is Pinchas, who has already

of

shown an

his

willingness to

a woman who

is

demonstrably guilty
who rebukes

corrupting

Israelite (Num. 25:6-8). Rather, it is Moses

who refuses

the commanders

for their mercy,

to

distinguish

the guilty women

from the innocent,

also the

and who therefore orders all the adult women

slain, and,

illogically,
. . .

boys, but

last feature eerily echoes another memorable passage: "The king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, saying, 'When you deliver the Hebrew women, if it is a boy, kill him; if it is a let
not
..

the young girls. This

her

live'"

girl,

(Exod. 1:15-16).

Moses, nearing his

action politically.

career's end,

has become like boys

Pharaoh!
We can,
of

course,

view

his

To

spare the women and

Moses Politikos
would place a

177

subjugated, probably resentful,

and therefore

dangerous

popula

tion

in the

midst of a

conquest of

migrating Israelite nation that still faces the long, difficult Canaan. (We might compare this to the problem the resident Pal

estinian population poses same

for the

modern

State

of

Israel.)

On the

other

hand,

the

kind

of political calculus could against

half-genocide

Pharaoh's policy of justify the Hebrews. After all, his fear that "in the event of war
the
wicked

first

they may join

not absurd

our enemies

in

fighting

against us and rise

from the

ground"

was

(Exod. 1-10).
rather suppose

Let

us

that the text wants us to see this parallel, to

even and

feel

Hertz's discomfort (perhaps

Paine's outrage),

so

that,

by forcing

us to

distinguish between the LORD

of

His

greatest

prophet, we may avoid the sin

any human being. We may note, for example, that this horrific Mosaic command does not bear the standard formula, "as the LORD had com

idolizing

manded."

God does

not even require extermination of the

Midianite

men.

He

had only said, "Avenge the Israelite people on the (Num. 31:1). This evidently meant to take the field of battle (Num. 31:7), but each further detail
now

Midianites"

was a matter of years

human

interpretation.29

We

might also recall that

Moses is

120

old; that he has

endured

forty
as

years of

opinion
ribah"

through no

fault he

of

his own; and,

desert wandering, in his he shows in the "waters of Me-

incident,
about

rally)
and

lack

irritability

for complaining (not unnatu the people in the desert, that he has become prone to impatience (Deut. l:19ff, esp. at 37; Num. 20:9-11). Further, God has told
when

"rebels"

calls

of water

and he has accordingly invested Joshua (who is conspicuously absent from this campaign) with some of his authority (Num. 27:13; 31:1; 27:20). The present order thus stands as far

him twice that he

will soon

be "gathered to his

kin,"

from Divine
confirm

authorization

as

Mosaic

command

possibly
retire?

can.

Does it

not

God's judgment that it is time for Moses to

order even obeyed?

Is his
taken

The text
number

notes that thirty-two thousand girls are

captive.

(Does the large

imply

generous

application of the rule should

that spares some

females?)

It is

explicit about

how
are

seized objects

be

ritually cleansed; how

captured persons and

beasts

divided among the

com

munity, the soldiers, the

sented as an atonement

Levites,

and

the priests; and the

amount of gold pre

offering

by

the officers (but perhaps not

execution of captives.

by

the

men

in

the

ranks).30

But it is

silent

concerning

Do

we

dare hope

that Pinchas and

mand while

his army were as righteously disobedient to an unjust com camped in Moab as the Hebrew midwives Shiphrah and Puah were
court

in Pharaoh's

(Exod. 1:15-21;

see

above, the end of

section

III)?

EPILOGUE

Moses'

We
fellow

earlier called attention

to

nobility, especially as it contrasts with

nurture spares of

Abraham's glory seeking (section I). His princely

Israelites'

him from his

courage and

slavishness and allows

development

his innate

178

Interpretation

intelligence. Though

initially

doubtful

about

his lack

of eloquence and

the

riski
as

ness of the mission to warms to the

which

he is called, he
comes to

gains

in

self-confidence

he

task and as he encounters Pharaoh's

resistance.

Growing
as

aware of

his

status as a political

Founder, he
their

love the Israelites

wrath and

his

adopted

children,
them

interceding
own

on

behalf to deflect God's

misbehave.

directing
In
a

toward

his

anger when

they

He

also exhibits
reputation.

what might

be

called the noble regard of a

friend for the LORD'S in his mission,

But

word, he

becomes

intensely

absorbed

with a passion that seems removed

from merely
and

personal ambition.

perhaps on account of this

very

absorption
com

princely self-assurance, he sometimes listens

unmindful of

badly, distorts divine

his

mands, is

his

own

mistakes,

and takes good neglectful of

ideas too far. (His

political preoccupation

may

also make
at

him

family.)

In

particu
and

lar, he

shows, for

while

least,

an eagerness

to share

his tasks

the

associated

glory

that

is

generous to a

fault
be

and

politically

naive, as though a themselves as a

mixed multitude of recent slaves could nation of equals! agant

expected to govern

(Moses is apparently not the only one to entertain such extrav expectations: cf. Exod. 19:6.) By the end of his life he becomes noticea
and even

bly

irascible

cruel,
and

failing

on

one

crucial

occasion

to

distinguish

between the

culpable

the

God's

greatest prophet who

is

granted a glimpse

innocent. And, notwithstanding his status as into the divine attributes, he is

ever a political

man,

whose conception of

divinity,

while

full

of awe

for the

great and unique short of the

favor God has done for His

chosen

people, generally stops

cosmological.31

But

would a more perfect servant of the and was also more

LORD,

one who saw and

Moses'

heard

with

theoretical, lack unerring accuracy, tice and his righteous indignation? Could such a perfect
flawed
people

passion servant

for jus

love this very

to talk back to

Israel

as

Moses does? Would he dare behalf? Or

or care

God, face
numerous,

to

face,

on their

might such a one rather consent to their

destruction
God want,

when offered nation

the alternative of

being

the source of a great, a more

a

himself (Exod.
we

32:9-14; Num. 14:11-19)? In

word, does

and

do

require, only less than perfect

instruments to improve

imperfect human

material?

NOTES

1. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, chap. 6; Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism (New York: Random House, 1939); Martin Buber, Moses, The Revelation and the Covenant (New York: Harper & Row, [1946] 1958); Michael Walzer, Exodus and Revolution (New York: Basic
Explorations,"

Books, 1985); George Anastaplo, "Law & Literature and the Bible: Oklahoma City Univer sity Law Review, 23, no. 3 (Fall 1998); Aaron Wildavsky, The Nursing Father: Moses as a Political Leader (University: University of Alabama Press, 1984); Nahum Sarna, Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel (New York: Schocken Books, 1986); Jack Miles, God: A Biography (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995); Elie Wiesel, Messengers of God: Biblical Portraits and Leg ends (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1976).

Moses Politikos
2. The
viticus,
"Torah"

179

word and

refers to the

first five Books

of the

Hebrew Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Le

Numbers,

Deuteronomy.

The

3. In general, scriptural quotations and chapter and verse references are to the volume Tanakh: Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text (Phila

delphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1988). I have, however, occasionally used other translations or translated passages myself when it seemed more appropriate to the point at hand. All translitera
tions of Hebrew terms are my own.

4. The text does

declare him to be
sengers

Moses'

not state

age at the time of this

or

incident. Different

rabbinical sources
Leader,"

either

twenty

forty

years old.

Elie Wiesel, "Moses: Portrait

of a

Mes

of God,

p.

185.

Administrator,"

5. See Aaron Wildavsky, "What Is Permissible So That This People May Survive? Joseph the PS: Political Science & Politics, 22, no. 4 (December 1989): 781. 6. W. Gunther Plaut, ed., The Torah: A Modern

Commentary

(New York: Union

of

American

415-16, gives the rabbinical interpretation. J. H. Hertz, ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Hebrew Text, English Translation, and Commentary, 2d ed. (London: Soncino Press, 1981), p. 221, gives Rashi's commentary. The Book of J, translated from the Hebrew by David Rosenberg, interpreted by Harold Bloom (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990), p. 245.
pp.

Hebrew

Congregations, 1981),

7. Hertz
child

offers an alternative explanation:

"Only

Hebrew mother, in desperation to

save

her

from destruction, would thus expose it on the (p. 210). This leaves open the possibility (which he surely does not intend) that Moses was circumcised, if at all, as an Egyptian.

River"

8. The bris is the ceremonial circumcision signifying the Abrahamic Covenant. 9. The English LORD, corresponding to the Hebrew Adonai, is the conventional rendering of the tetragrammaton, the authentic pronunciation of which is unknown. El Shaddai is usually trans lated as "God Cf. Buber, pp. 48-55. Passages in Genesis where characters speak the
Almighty."

Name

4:1, 26; 8:20; 9:26; 12:7-8; 13:18; 14:22; 15:7; 16:2, 5, 11; 19:13-14; 21:33; 22:14, 16; 24:3, 7, 12, 26-27, 31, 35, 40, 42, 44, 48, 50-52, 56; 25:21-22; 26:25, 28-29; 27:7, 20, 27; 28:13, 16, 21; 29:32-33, 35; 30:24, 27, 30; 31:49; 32:10; 49:18. Curiously, although the narrator of the last eighteen chapters of Genesis routinely refers to the LORD, no character is recorded as speaking the Name between Jacob's prayer, before he wrestles with the angel who renames him Israel, and
are

his deathbed

salutations to

10. The Biblical

preferred

quotations

his sons, a in this

span of eighty-seven years.

section are

from the

translation

by

Everett Fox,

which

I have

poetically expressive. The Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy: A New Translation with Introductions, Commentary, and Notes by Everett Fox (New York: Schocken Books, 1995).
as
more

11. Some
examples of

of the plagues are also mentioned

power.

in Psalms 78
nor are

and

God's

The lists
though

are not

identical

the plagues

105, but apparently only as they name given in the

same order as

in Exodus,

in both the

plague of

blood is

at or near the

beginning

and the

dying

of the

first-born
also

at the end. vol.

12. See

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1974 ed., Micropaedia,

3,

p.

418 ("Deborah").

13. See, e.g., Plato, Republic 347a-d, 473d-e, 519c-521b; Aristotle, Politics 1281a.31-38, 1282a41-bl3, 1284a3-b34; John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, chap. 14 ("Of Preroga
tive").

14. The
of

suggestion

is

Moses'

that

absorption

in his

political mission

has

made

him

unmindful

his

wife and children. us not make too much of this particular

as apt

15. Let
of

(3x5x4)

mathematical progression.

The lure

numerology is

to mislead as to charm.

concerns out of preoccupation with certain

It may tempt us to disregard the forest of human arcane trees. The numerological value of Jethro's name,
Israelite
nation

for example, is 616,

three more than the number of commandments to the

tradi

tionally
hitherto

ascribed

to the Torah. Should we therefore scurry to unearth three more mitzvot that

have

escaped notice?

one must

find them, but would we be especially wary

No doubt, with enough ingenuity, reverence, and good humor we could really be better off for the effort? Moreover, it is so easy to miscount that
of

drawing

sweeping

conclusions
of

from

such

data.

My

estimate of

forty-five subjects, for example, is based

on the

paragraphing

the JPS edition

(Tanakh,

as at note

above), but different divisions of the text, comprising three whole chapters of the book of

Exodus,

180
are

Interpretation
possible.

surely

Even

where we

think we stand on solid ground

with such

matters, we may

be
the

surprised.

For instance, the text

makes

at chapter

20 (in

contrast to chapter

34,

after the episode of

Golden

Calf)

duces them has

of the Ten Commandments. The phrase that intro nothing of the "Va'y'daber Elohim es kol-ha'd'varim ha'eileh lemor [God spoke all these words,
"ten-ness"

saying]"

different

rhetorical

thrust: It was these words, all these words, and only these
Israelites'

words, that God spoke.

attach

Only later,
See

after the

lapse into idolatry, does

special
as

importance
aid

to their precise number, and to that

a

number's

being

easily

graspable,

an

to their

becoming
16.

lawful

people.

section

VII below.
readings were not governed

Interestingly,

the rabbis who divided the Torah into weekly

by

this thematic distinction: one-third (45 of 138 verses) of the

continues the ceremonial rules of

portion

that includes these events

weeks'

the previous two

readings

(Exod. 30:1 1-34:35).

They

thus

resisted the temptation

on qualities

ceremonial"

sharply to distinguish between the moral, on the one hand, and the "merely the other. Ceremonies, that is, are moral, at least insofar as they hold certain

display and admiration. The priestly ceremonies here described, of washing, anoint oil, burning special incense, and wearing garments and using instruments made through divinely inspired workmanship, teach the moral lesson that divine worship is something splendid, set apart from the routines of ordinary life. The same point is made by the repeated injunction to keep the Sabbath. Even the reading's opening command, that each person, rich and
up for

ing

with

special

poor

alike, pay an

equal amount

in

census and expiation

money,

emphasizes

both that every reading

as well

mem

ber
and

of the community, who receives the

benefit

of membership,

is

obliged

to contribute something

that each is

irreducibly

precious.

This

point recurs toward the end of the

(Exod.

30:11-16; 34:19,23).
One
"

can gauge the

importance

of the

"There is
calf.
.

not a misfortune that

Israel has

suffered which

Golden Calf story by the is not partly

and the

ancient rabbinic a retribution

Calf,"

observation,
sin of the

for the

Sanhedrin 102a, quoted in Anastaplo, "Moses note 1 above, part 8.

of this

Golden

in "Law & Literature

of ancient

17. A chilling echo Israel, in the David

incident

comes

career of

King

along some three or four centuries later in the history Jeroboam I, who splits the Northern Kingdom off from the

united realm of

and

Solomon:

Jeroboam

said

to

these people still go

of these people will go

himself, "Now the kingdom may well return to the House of David. If up to offer sacrifices at the House of the LORD in Jerusalem, the heart turn back to their master, King Rehoboam of Judah; they will kill me and
Judah."

back to
said

King

Rehoboam

of

So the

king

took counsel and made two golden calves.

been going up to Jerusalem long enough. Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of He set up one in Bethel and placed the other in Dan. That proved to be a cause of guilt, for the people went to worship [them]. (1
Egypt!"

He

to the people, "You have

Kings 12:26-30)

King Jeroboam's boldness

gives

us to wonder whether the

Mosaic story

might

have

not

been

generally known at the time of the early Israelite 18. Is there a technical distinction between a
metal, like the
molten gods egel maseikhahl

monarchy.

sculpted idol, a pesel, and one cast from molten Is this why the Second Covenant specifically forbids the making of (Exod. 32:4; 34:17)?

19. I

owe

this observation to my

former

colleague

from Rockford College's

and

ment, Professor Justine Walhout.

Chemistry

Depart

20. Lincoln drew June 26, 1857: The

a similar connection

between

luxury

slavery in his Springfield

speech of

[that all men are created equal] was of no practical use in effecting our from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and remeant
assertion
separation

they

when such should

Moses Politikos
appear one

-181

in this fair land

nut

and commence

their vocation

they

should

find left for them

at

least

hard

to crack. (Emphasis supplied.)

list

21. How, then, does the name "Ten Commandments" come to be attached to the more august of Exodus 20? We conjecture that what happens next can best be understood through a modern The
charitable organization called the

analogy.

March

of

Dimes

used to

funds for
dismantle
another with

medical research to cure or prevent

infantile
name

paralysis.

Then

came

be dedicated to raising the Salk and Sabin

But
rather

vaccines, and polio

a

became

preventable.

The March had

of

Dimes had

succeeded.

than
to

functioning

organization that

recognition, the March

rededicated

itself

worthy cause, raising funds for medical research to cure or prevent birth defects. So too the Ten Commandments. The original set worked: the Israelites dispossessed the Canaanites,
the

observed

Festivals
like "Ten

and the rules

They
But

learned these things

so well that there was no

governing sacrifices, obeyed their distinctive dietary laws, etc. longer a need to call them by a special name. is too
good to

a name

Commandments"

waste, so it was transferred in public dis

course

to the

moral rules

and more nearly universal religious and already existing list of more fundamental that began the First Covenant. (For a less reverent version of the unconventional expla

nation offered

here,

see

Hertz,

p.

368.)
his skin,

22. Cf.: "Can the Cushite

change

Or

the

leopard his

spots?

Just

as much can you

do good,

Who

are practiced

in

doing

evil!"

(Jer.

13:23)
after the

23. Quoted from Twenty-Four Books of the Holy Scriptures, Carefully Translated Jewish Authorities by Isaac Leeser (New York: Hebrew Publishing Company, 1909). 24. Hertz, her
repeat a

Best

p.

635. The text

given

pays

implicit tribute to this liturgy: ".

cf.

woman's religious

formula

by Moses,
(Josh.

which she of course would not

.
.

became

part of the

daily

synagogue

for the LORD

your

sensibility by having have heard, and which later God is the only God in heaven
(anoshim
m'rag'lim).

below"

above and on earth

2:11;

Deut. 4:39).
men are not

25. Unlike
The
word used

the two

Joshua sends, these

officially

called spies

to describe their scouting

the commandment, given

it

shall

be

unto you

for

(latur) sometimes has the nuance of casual wandering: cf. just a few chapters later, that the Israelites wear a fringed garment: "And fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of
and that ye go not about

the

LORD,

and

do them;

eyes,

after which ye use to go

ancient people to use thickly walled cities extensively for 26. The Canaanites were military defense. The walls of Jericho are so deep that Rahab's house is built into the city wall itself (Josh. 2:15). I take the military sense of the last question as follows: Can the Canaanites lay in

astray the first

(v'lo taturu) (Num. 15:39; Hertz,

after your own

p.

heart

and your own

634).

stores of

fuel to

withstand a

long

siege?

Can

we

readily

obtain wood

from

which

to construct siege
gift.

equipment?

Note too
contrast

Moses'

that

references

to the land do not repeat that it

is God's him to

27. The

is

often

noted, that Abraham bargains at

raises no protest when

length

with

the LORD to save the

sacrifice

inhabitants
own son

of

Sodom

and

Gomorrah, but

the God orders

his

Isaac (Gen. 18:20-33; 22:1-19).

and

York:

28. Thomas Paine, Age of Reason: Being an Investigation of True Willey Book Company, 1942), pp. 119-20.

False

Theology

(New

29. Cf. Exod. 32:25-29; Deut. 20:15-18; ISam. 15:1-3. See also Walzer, pp. 59-60. 30. "But in the ranks, everyone kept his booty for himself (Num. 31:53). Was this because,
perhaps unlike the officers,
Moses'

they had nothing for which to atone? restatement of the Fourth Commandment, which relates Sabbath obser 31. See, e.g., vance to the LORD'S liberation of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, while omitting reference to
as a remembrance of
rested on

it

His

having

made

having
20).

the seventh (Deut.

heaven, earth, sea, and their inhabitants in six days and 5:12-15; cf. Exod. 20:8-11. See also Deut. 4:32-40; 30:11

Limitations

of

Political Philosophy: An Interpretation

of

Plato's Charmides
Tucker Landy

Kentucky

State

University

Both the Republic

and

the Charmides are in the

a

form

of a monologue

by

Socrates,
the

and

both

contain

description

of a good or

ideal regime, but the

differences in the description

presentation of these regimes are

decisive. In the Republic,

the work, and it is taken
realizable proposal a

of the good

city takes up the bulk

of

seriously by the dialogue's participants as a 471c-e). In the Charmides, Socrates very briefly
quite

(see
ruled

by

city temperance, in which all tasks are performed by those who know their busi ness, but he characterizes this description as a dream and leaves open the ques
tion whether it has come from the gate of

describes

hom,

which

issues true dreams,

or of

ivory,

which

locutors

of the

a realizable offer a

(173b) Odyssey Charmides, then, are discouraged from taking this description proposal. The Charmides, the dialogue on temperance, appears
ones

issues false

(see Homer,

19.562). The inter

as

to

sobering

counterweight to the

intense

political

idealism

of the

Republic.1

Part

of the reason

for this difference has to do

with the characters

in

each

dialogue. In the Republic, Socrates speaks mainly to Glaucon and Adeimantus, who are eager to see justice and the just life defended against the arguments
of

the sophist Thrasymachus. Glaucon and Adeimantus

would appear

to need

a noble vision of

justice worthy of their laudable Charmides, Socrates speaks mainly to Charmides later be involved in the
regime of the see

request. and

In contrast, in the
of whom

Critias, both

would

B.C.;

Xenophon Hellenica 2.4.19).

to establish and

Thirty During that

Tyrants in Athens (404-403

violent measures

maintain a

time, Critias took extremely Spartan-style oligarchy or aristoc

have this racy from Tuckey, p. 15.) Knowing these facts about their careers, we are not sur prised that Plato chose to have Socrates give Critias and Charmides a lesson in
temperance
with and

there. (Critias wrote a poem celebrating Spartan moderation. I

furthermore in the limitations

political arena.

of what can

be

accomplished

philosophy in the

fore

Knowing also, however, that Critias had spent some time with Socrates be becoming one of the Thirty Tyrants, we also wonder to what extent Socra
character and

tes and his ideas influenced the

thinking
most

of

Critias.2

Of

all

the

dialogues,
Plato's Socrates

the Charmides would seem to

be the

likely

place

to look for
that the

thoughts on this matter. The

of

difficulty

is that

we cannot

be

sure

Plato's dialogues is intended to

represent the

historical Socrates, his

interpretation, Winter

1999, Vol. 26, No. 2

184

Interpretation

thoughts, his speeches, and his actions. In any case, the most important ques tion, probably for Plato and certainly for us, is not whether the historical Socrates
not actually influenced the historical Critias, but whether political philosophy general neces just some political philosophies, but political philosophy in

sarily inspires or encourages dangerous it awakens the faculty of philosophical

political ambitions

in

certain people as

inquiry

and teaches them

how to think
to assume

independently,
main

even

radically,

about political affairs.

It is

reasonable

that this larger question, rather than the historical question, would be Plato's concern, although the historical question was certainly the stimulus to the

main question and

is

still of some

importance because it

provides empirical

data

for answering the larger philosophical question. In this essay we shall assume that the character Socrates represents,
historical Socrates, but
rather the

not the

ideal

political philosopher allowed: one who

to the extent that

Plato's

philosophical

and

literary

powers

is

aware

of

the

philosophy and of the need to exercise caution in charms. In this respect, he may differ from the histori others to its introducing cal Socrates. We shall then take Critias as representing a dangerous type of
political student: one who

dangers inherent in

he has

acquired other

Critias, in
science

is liable to believe that the knowledge of political philosophy is the necessary and sufficient condition of good rulership. words, is something like a prototype of many well-known mod inspired

em revolutionaries who were

of politics

by

what

they believed
will

to

be

a complete

that

delegitimized
I

all other claims

to rulership. The inter

pretation of the

Charmides that

follows, it is hoped,
argue,

bear

out

these assump

tions.

The

Charmides,

shall

acknowledges

inconspicuously

because the
at

serious pursuit of political

philosophy

requires an

that, inclination for (or

most

least

a willingness

to engage

in)

spirited, adventurous inquiries into the

pursuit

controversial political

subjects, that
activity.

bears

some of the marks of an

in

temperate or

immoderate

pletely avoid inciting and fostering both the historical and the Platonic Socrates cally ambitious,
perhaps

Political philosophy therefore cannot com the ambitions of people like Critias. Indeed,
show a predilection

for the

politi

precisely because of the adventurous spirit they pos sess (cf. Alcibiades I 104e-106a). The Charmides also shows, however, that steps can and should be taken to bring some measure of temperance to the souls
them aware of the practical
subject.

of such students and to make

limitations to

which

the application of political

theory is

We

see the

Platonic Socrates

tak

ing

such precautions

that even these steps

especially in this dialogue. Finally, the Charmides shows may not be completely effective, and that the danger of is
perhaps a

inspiring

misguided ambitions

necessary

companion of political

philosophy.

Clearly, if the Charmides has

in
an
readers

allusive, esoteric manner. It will

that there

this agenda, it can express these concerns only leave the impression with less attentive

is only one Socrates, the historical Socrates, who was con demned unjustly by the Athenian demos and who was lovingly reproduced here

The Limitations of Political

and

Philosophy
only
a

185

in the

rest of

Plato's dialogues; the inattentive

reader will see

Socra

tes

innocently

concerned with

fostering

deeper understanding

of virtue

in

the

minds of

the young and tender. Because of the

difficulty

of

demonstrating
of

the

existence of a

hidden agenda, the

will

coherence and on

plausibility

the

interpreta

tion offered

in this essay

depend

the evidence and the reasoning pre

sented as a whole.

The

relation of the

historical Socrates to the Platonic but

still substantial

literary

character

is,

as

I have suggested,

of subordinate

importance to the

philo

sophical subject matter of

this dialogue.

It

will not

be too far fetched, therefore,

to see whether Plato might have addressed this matter in some artful, though allusive, manner in the text. I believe he has. At one
point early in the narrative, had been complaining of headaches, that he had learned of a remedy for headaches and of a certain charm while soldier ing in Potidaea. He learned it from one of the Thracian physicians of Zalmoxis,

Socrates

explains

to

Charmides,

who

who were said

to be able to make a person immortal

(156b-

157c). This

physi

cian agreed with

the advice of Greek physicians, according to

which one should

not treat a part of the a whole.

body,
most

such as the eyes or the

head,

apart

from the

The Thracian added, however, that

soul.

one should not treat the

body as body apart

from the
the

In

fact,

illnesses

eluded the

Thracian, because the Greek

physicians were

Greek physicians, according to ignorant with respect to the human being,

(157a). Such
soul.

whole, which ought to be their concern. All good and evil, according to the

Thracian doctor, in the

the soul.

body
soul

as well as

in the

whole

arose

from

Therefore,

the

has to be treated first

which are

by

certain charms

(Socrates
words en soon as

now switches

to the plural),

"noble

words"

gender temperance

(now

mentioned

for the first time) in the

As

temperance to the

is

present

head

and

in the soul, Socrates maintains, it is easy to secure health to the rest of the body. Now let us suppose that the Thracian Plato himself
as the author of the

doctor is
the

a parabolic allusion to
portrayer

dialogue

and

literary
and

of

Socrates. (One

observation

that

is

not

decisive but

worth mentioning: the

Thracian doctor is
make

said to

be

able

to make men immortal

[156d],

Plato did

Socrates

and others

immortal his

dialogues.)
has

Then

we could

say, perhaps, that Plato is obliquely

the historical Socrates

in his
in fact before

artistic rendition

indicating that he by correcting a

"he did

modified

fault that the

not teach

historical Socrates he did

was

charged with, namely, that

politics"

his

companions temperance

(Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.2.17), i.e.,

souls

not engender temperance contrast

in their

Platonic Socrates, in
as the

to the historical Socrates, has taken

before treating their heads. The an oath to do

to this reading, the Charmides
on

Thracian doctor bid (157c).

According

would show, not the effect of the

and

historical Socrates

the historical Charmides

Critias, but

the

effect of a new and more prudent political philosopher on

would

people

like them. This reading

be in

accord with

Plato's

caution

in the
ques

Second Letter (although the authenticity of this letter has admittedly been tioned) that the dialogues are given to a Socrates "become young and

beautiful"

186

Interpretation
us

(314c). Let

allow, then, that Plato has made some improvements to the his

torical character
given
of

in his writings, better

sense of

Socrates

that, in this dialogue especially, he has how dangerous political philosophy can be and
and

how important the lessons

of restraint are

in educating the

ambitious young.

This essay is divided into four parts that follow roughly the order of the dialogue. The first part will treat the opening pages, which seem to intimate the fundamental
conflicting The
problem addressed

by

the dialogue: the mutual attraction and the

aims of the philosopher and of

the politically

ambitious.

The

aims of

philosophers are

theoretical, look
at

while

the

aims of

Socrates'

second part will

aspiring statesmen are practical. interactions with Charmides, where the

ethical
pow
Socrates'

potentially dangerous side of Socrates and of philosophical inquiry into and political matters is emphasized. We see here indications of
erful eros and

his

willingness

to teach bold

thinking

to those who seem suitable.

In these passages, it
cal

seems to

Socrates. The third

part will
of

takes up
the

by

far the bulk

something of a picture of the histori interaction with Critias, which the dialogic portion of the Charmides. Here we see
me,
we get

look

Socrates'

at

Platonic Socrates teaching restraint, with some at least temporary success, to the student who later showed the most extraordinary intemperance in Athe
nian politics.

In the fourth part,

we shall make use of what whether

has been

gained to

try

to answer the

larger question,

the political philosopher can teach

of political philosophy.

temperance as part of the sometimes

dangerous lessons

The indications that Plato

gives at the end of the

dialogue

are not

especially

encouraging in this

regard.

I. THE SETTING

In the opening

Socrates'

of

narrative
and the

(a

recollection of the events of

men to whom

"the

evening

of

the

day before"), he

young

he

will speak are

literally and figuratively coming from and heading in opposite directions, thus highlighting the difference between the former's primary interest in philosophy
and the

he had just
with

latter's primary interest in practical politics. Socrates explains first that come back from the army camps at Potidaea, where a major battle
place.

Peloponnesian forces had taken

That battle initiated the Peloponne

sian

War,
to

which would

eventually
the

help
was

bring

Critias
get

and

bring Thirty Tyrants

usual

down the Athenian

to power.
since

democracy

and also

Socrates

explains that

he
so

delighted to

back to his

pastimes,

he had been away for

long. He went, therefore, to the school of Taureas, where the young are trained. Several people hailed Socrates from a distance, and the mad Chaerephon rushed
over

to

him, led him by

the

hand to battle
at

a seat

beside Critias,

and urged

him to

give

Potidaea (153b-c). Socrates obliged them, answering all their questions. But in his narrative he repeats nothing about what he told them then; he shows no interest in such matters. He says that after

a complete account of the

they

The Limitations of Political

had had
and of enough of

Philosophy
know
whether or

187
home any
both."

"these

things,"

sorts of

he

asked them about affairs at also wanted to

in

particular about

philosophy (153d). He

the young men had distinguished themselves in "wisdom or

beauty
know

We

see

that
at

Chaerephon, Critias,
outward.

and the rest wanted to

what was

happening
they
were

the edge of the Athenian empire, at the

limits

of

Athenian power;

looking
was

Socrates

wanted

to know what was

happening
of

in

the city of Athens and specifically what philosophical activity was going on

there; he

looking
of

inward. Figuratively, the inward direction

Socrates'

attention could represent

outward

his interest in
and

the objects of philosophy, while the

attention could represent

direction

Chaerephon 's

Critias'

their

interest in
seems of the

material and practical objects.

The

action of

the dialogue as a

whole part pre

to stem from the struggle between these two tendencies. In the early
Socrates'

dialogue (154d-161b), inward, philosophical tendency dominates, manifesting itself as a desire to examine the soul of the young Athe nian Charmides. Indeed, as Socrates and Charmides discuss the nature of
temperance, Charmides
and

proves quite amenable to the

the serious pursuit of self-knowledge.

Critias'

activity But there is an

of

soul-searching
at

abrupt change

161b,

where

presence

begins to be felt

more strongly.

From that

point

on, the discussion focusses

the political power

on the question of the practical

benefits

and even

afforded

by
in

temperance understood as self-knowledge. It

is

clear that

in the hands

of someone

like Socrates,

who

is interested in knowl
3 Id),
or even

edge

for its

own sake and not

political power can

(see

Apology

the

most controversial political

inquiries

do

no

harm to himself

to others. In

the hands of the politically ambitious,

however, it is

another matter.

The

prob

lem is that Socrates is naturally interested in educating the young, especially the most talented and ambitious, toward a life of philosophy. The politically ambi tious, however, may be inspired to use their knowledge of political philosophy
to realize grandiose
political

dreams. There is in

a mutual attraction,

then, between historical

philosophy record, in ancient Athens

and political ambition which can

and modern

be dangerous,
shows this.

and the

times,

done to

avoid the

danger? The

subsequent narration

Can anything be in the dialogue analyzes the

Socrates'

problem and provides an of

illustration,
not

through the examples of

action,

how it

might

be addressed, if

entirely

solved.

II. SOCRATES AS TEACHER OF INTEMPERANCE

The Platonic Socrates is

230a). As
given the
we

an extremely complex character (see Phaedrus in the Symposium, Socrates seems to have from Alcibiades learn
virtuous

impression that

behavior

doubt

Alcibiades'

flattery

contains much that

character, but it
and temperate

is

a mistake to assume

easy for him (217e-221c). No is tme, if only about the Platonic that the Platonic Socrates is utterly sober
was on

in

all respects.

In the Charmides, the dialogue

temperance,

we

188
have
of

Interpretation
Socrates'

own account of a moment when

his desires

almost got

the better

him. We learn that Socrates does

control

not always

find it easy, but

rather some

times extremely difficult to

his

powerful erotic appetite.

If Socrates is
world of

reasonably taken to

be

the most complete

human

being

in the

the

Platonic dialogues, then to be desires that

are

fully

human, it seems, is to have desires, strong

impossible,
to control.

difficult,

though not

Critias, looking
greatest

away toward the

to
show

door,

told Socrates that a

beauty

was about

up,

and

rates tells us

actually he

addresses some
monologue place

young man of the appeared. Soc Charmides presently companion (o hetaire, 154b) who is
two

evidently listening to Charmides and Critias took "white

all
line,"

Socrates'

days

after the conversation with

that

he is

no measurer:

he is the

proverbial

useless at that age perhaps

men

in marking off the measurements of white seem beautiful to him. In this way, Socrates
appetite

marble.3

Almost

shows

his

liberal,

immoderate

for the

beauty

of

the young (cf.

Republic
of

474d-475a). After Socrates

mides'

acknowledged

the extraordinary

beauty
was

Char
strip,

face, Chaerephon
would

told

Socrates that if Charmides

no

consented to

Socrates

believe he had

face,

so

form (154d). Socrates, however,

and enough

claimed

thoroughly beautiful interest in stripping

Charmides'

Charmides'

soul

viewing that rather than his form, since he believed Charmides was old for a conversation. Critias had an attendant summon Charmides on the

pretense that

Socrates

was a

doctor

who could

help

Charmides

with

the

ailment

he had been complaining about yesterday. Then Critias turned to Socrates, ex plaining that Charmides had been complaining about headaches, and asked Soc
rates to pretend

he had "some remedy for the

head."

Socrates

agreed to

do

so.4

Much later in the dialogue, this sort of pretense is associated with intemperate behavior (see 17 le and also the references to "pretending to be a at
doctor"

170c

and

171c).

Evidently,
act

Socrates'

eros or

his desire for

conversation or

both

sometimes

led him to

intemperately

himself.
now reveals

Socrates, addressing his listener

lence that
arose

again,

in his

soul as

Charmides
in
out.

sat

the extraordinary turbu down beside him (155c-d). He

explains that
with

his former

confidence

looking

forward

to an

easy

conversation

listener last time, Socrates relates how, as people started pressing all around the two of them, he saw "the things inside caught [Charmides'] fire, and lost possession of himself. He says he was reminded of a verse the
nameless

the young man was

and

knocked

Then, addressing his

for the third

cloak,"

by

wise

Kydias,

who

lest, going
from

as a

in speaking of a beautiful fawn before the lion, you be

reveals

boy

warns someone

"to take

care

seized as

his

share of the

meats."

In this passage, Socrates

perfect.

that

his temperance in

erotic matters

is far

First, he

shows that

he had too

much confidence

in thinking he

would of

easy conversation with the beautiful Charmides, arguably a kind hubris. Second, he shows that his erotic attraction to Charmides' form made
an

have

it

almost

impossible for him

Charmides'

to

do

what

he had

said

he

wanted to

do instead
soul.

of at

contemplating

form,

namely, to examine

Charmides'

But

The Limitations of Political

the same

Philosophy

189

time, in giving
of

an account of

these things to his nameless

listener,

Socrates

shows what could

be

considered an essential

ingredient

of temperance:

knowledge it is

himself, his appetites and weaknesses, and he eventually recovers his composure. Still, if this passage is meant to illustrate temperance,
Socrates'

also

keeping to display

extraordinary in his erotic appetite

a

illustrating

the enormous

difficulty

Socrates has in

under control.

With

respect

to eros, Socrates seems

rather

shaky form

of continence

to use Aristotle's language

than an exemplary, virtuous

form

of

temperance.5

Temperance
how

now emerges as

the theme of the conversation. Socrates some

maintained the

pretense that

he had

charm (epode) went explaining that the remedy was a certain with the remedy (155e). Socrates then explained that he had learned of the

remedy for leaf and that a

a

Charmides'

ailment,

remedy as well as of the charm while he was in Potidaea from one of the Thracian physicians of Zalmoxis. In any case, Socrates or the Thracian doctor
suggested

that temperance is analogous to health: temperance is the

whole

welfare of

the soul and, thereby, of the

human

being

as

health is the

welfare of

the

body. Critias, remarking on what a stroke of luck this headache would turn out to be if it compelled Charmides to improve his understanding, apparently sus nothing other than the Socratic manner of questioning (157c-d). Eventually, Charmides also apparently caught on (see 176a-b). There can be little doubt that Socrates was only pretending to
pected was

right away that

Socrates'

"charm"

know the remedy for dia head, but we wonder whether lectic can indeed engender temperance in the souls of his interlocutors. As the

Charmides'

Socrates'

history

of

Athens bears out, Critias

and perhaps mean

Charmides
the Platonic
whole

were

certainly in
not the or was

need of such treatment.

Does Socrates (I

historical Socrates) really have this all just a hoax?

Socrates'

a treatment

for the

Socrates, human being,

Critias told Socrates that Charmides

which
charm

excelled

his

comrades

in the very thing

account of

produced, namely, temperance. Perhaps to encourage

Charmides to

speak out

boldly, Socrates flattered him

with a

lengthy

his fine

pedigree as a

excel others

in this

virtue

way of explaining why it was only right that he should (157d-158c). He asked Charmides to say whether he

already any
perance.

possessed

this virtue, as Critias maintained, and was therefore not in

need of

the charm. Charmides proved to be the very embodiment of tem

and explained that

He blushed

he

was reluctant either

to boast about

had it, or to make a liar out of his guardian, his virtue by affirming Critias, by denying that he had it (158c-d). Socrates replied that the answer
that he
was

fitting

and asked

Charmides to join him in

virtue.

inquiring

whether or not

he

(Charmides)
Socrates

in fact had this be

asked

it,

he

should

able

him to say what he thought temperance was, since, if he had to formulate an opinion about it (159a). Socrates was

evidently going to assist Charmides in knowing himself better. In addition, himsince Socrates had just experienced a momentary lapse of temperance in

190

Interpretation
have been interested in pursuing an investigation of temperance for his own benefit, so that he might better understand himself and his
might

self, he
also

own temperance or

lack

of

it. Charmides hesitated but

finally

answered

that to

temperance was orderliness or quietness

convince

(159b). Socrates then

proceeded

him that this

answer was not adequate.

Charmides agreed,

first,

that

temperance was a noble

thing

and, then, that

doing

things quickly and

force

excessively (sphodrd) was more noble than doing them quietly and slowly (159e). As examples, Socrates mentioned the activities of reading, writing, lyre playing, boxing, athletic activity in general, and learning. Finally,

fully

or even

Socrates added, "In the

quietest

searchings of the
or

soul, and in
and

person, I

imagine,

he

who

deliberates

deliberation, it is not the discovers with difficulty,

is held worthy of praise, but he who does this most easily and (160a). In this way Socrates encouraged Charmides to acquire, or at least to show, qualities that contrast sharply with the qualities Charmides had identified
that
with

quickly"

temperance. For

Socrates,

temperance understood as a

form

of quietness or

slowness

is

of questionable value

in the

pursuit of

knowledge

or skill.

Both in

body
more

in soul, Socrates and Charmides agreed, speed and sharpness were honorable than slowness and quietness. Hence, if temperance was noble,
and

it

could not

be quietness;

neither could

the quiet, orderly life

be

more

"tempe

rate"

than the unquiet life (160b-d).

asked

Socrates
of person

Charmides to look inside himself

makes

"bravely"

this temperance

say him into (160d). Charmides

got

and

what replied

kind

that tem

perance was respect or modesty.

In response, Socrates is

Charmides to agree,
and second that

first,

that temperance was a good thing, as well as a noble

was

thing,
a man

Homer

right

when

he said,

"Modesty

not good

for

in

need"

(from

Odyssey
evil.

17.347). Thus, temperance

could not

be modesty if,

on the one

hand,
it
was

temperance was good, while, on the other,

modesty

was no more good than

Charmides
at

agreed.

At this point,

Socrates'

questioning
vaunted

could appear to

be

aimed

deliberately

Charmides'

undermining
Charmides'

temperance.6

To

speak

precisely, Socrates was undermining

quietness, orderliness, or modesty. In any case, the

seems to
Socrates'

understanding of temperance as direction of the conversation

be moving toward a notion of temperance that is far from the ordinary. prodding of Charmides to examine himself boldly suggests one reason
conversation

for

the

direction the
some

is taking:

perhaps a

kind

of

boldness

that

may

look to

like intemperance is

a vital part of philosophical

inquiry,

since such

inquiry

requires

ventional and

dearly
he

overcoming the natural or habitual reluctance to question con held beliefs. It is not impossible that the historical Socrates
associated with and so could

was, in Plato's view, somewhat careless in

the young men
part

encouraging boldness of this sort in reasonably be held responsible in

(cf. Alcibiades I 119c-124b).

for the intemperate

character of some of them

The Platonic
an

Socrates, however, is willing

who shows

to switch

interlocutor

directions in conversing

with of

Critias

was quite

any bad character. We shall see that his treatment different from his treatment of Charmides.

The Limitations of Political

Philosophy

'191

III. SOCRATES AS TEACHER OF TEMPERANCE

In

fact,

Critias'

presence

begins to be felt
Socrates'

at this point

in the dialogue,

and

the thrust of the

temperance. that

discussion

changes toward

reinforcing
business"

rather

than undermining

Charmides

wanted

opinion on

temperance was

"doing
the wise

one's

own
rascal.
. .
.

something he had heard, (to ta heautou prattein)

(161b). Socrates

expressed shock:

"You

You have heard this from 162c that he

Critias

men."

or another of

Critias denied that Charmides heard this

nameless companion at answer about was

from him (161c), but Socrates tells his

convinced

Charmides "had heard this refuting Critias and debated

after

temperance from

Critias."

Consequently,
tes took on

Charmides'

with

understanding of this doctrine, Socra him for almost the entire remainder of the
act so surprised

dialogue. Why, though, does Socrates

to hear this answer?

I believe Plato has left indications in the dialogue suggesting that this doc trine had arisen in a previous conversation between Critias and Socrates, per

haps from Socrates himself, and that Critias passed it off to Charmides as his own. I present four reasons for reading the dialogue this way, aside from the fact that it best explains, to my mind, initial reaction upon hearing the
Socrates'

doctrine from the

tes

mouth of

Charmides. First, in the Republic (433a-c), Socra

principle

is

shown

supporting the
own

that everyone in a well-governed city

principle

should

do his it
as a

business,
of

although

he interprets this

differently
we

and

offers

definition

justice

rather than
of

temperance.7

But

know from

the Meno

and

the Protagoras that one

the Socratic teachings is that all the

virtues are one.

It is

not

unreasonable, then, to take the definition of temperance

of

offered

by

Critias to be

Socratic
of

origin.

Second,

we are told that

Critias had

already and in

spent a good
one passage a

deal

time with
suggests

Socrates
that

prior

to this occasion
a

(156a),

Socrates

Critias had
"Now

tendency

to mimic

Socrates in
things and
one

habitual

and unreflective manner: a

when

Critias heard these

saw me

in

difficulty, he
be

seemed to me

just

as the sight of some

yawning

causes people to

affected

in the

same

way

to be compelled

by

the sense of my

difficulty

to be caught in a

difficulty

himself (169c). It

would not

be

out of

character, then,

for Critias
was

trine about as his

shall

own while

Socrates

be spreading a Socratic doc serving in Potidaea. Third, as we

to

see, Critias expressed surprise at hearing Socrates argue against this and other proposals Critias made. This behavior is at least consistent with his think

ing

that Socrates was arguing against his own doctrines.

Furthermore,
was

Socrates'

replies sometimes seem to signal an awareness that

Critias

using

or mis

Socratic doctrines, and he occasionally irritation, using he wanted to remove himself from whatever peculiar interpretation might have
expressed

as though

accrued to
awareness

his doctrines from Critias. I say that the replies only they do not demonstrate it. But this indirectness could be

"signal"

an said

to

be demanded

by

the dramatic situation:

Socrates

perhaps

did

not want

to

em-

192

Interpretation
of

barrass Critias in front

Charmides

and the rest of

the

crowd

by

openly

con

fronting him with an accusation. The following passages are consistent

gether,
make

with of

this interpretation and, taken to

we

it

quite plausible. not

In

each

them,

find Critias expressing

position, and we

surprise that

Socrates did

himself

Critias'

agree with

find

Socrates rebuking him in some way for making such a hasty assumption. In other words, in addition to the explicit conversation between Socrates and Cri tias, there
Critias'

also

seems

to be a subtext or subconversation this

having

to do with

misappropriation of

Socratic doctrine. At 163e Critias

manner, "o
not agree
beltiste"

asked

Socra
this

tes, addressing him in

phrase
at not

Socrates'

(cf.

Socrates'

use of

162d)
for

whether

he did
evil,

with

the claim that the one

doing
now"

good,

the one
we

doing
have

was

temperate. Socrates replied sternly: "Leave

that aside,

not to consider yet what

Socrates'

I think, but

what you

say
of tem

(my
who

emphasis).

Later, following "knows himself at 164b-c), Critias

165b). This
proposal appears

suggestion

(Socrates

speaks of one

proposed another
or

definition
of

perance, namely that temperance was self-knowledge

edge (164cown

knowledge

knowl

to be a modified version of

Socrates'

temperate claim, made

in the

Apology (23b),
alone

that the god considers Socra

worth

tes

alone to

be

wise

because Socrates
kind

knows that he is

nothing

with

respect to wisdom, a
give with

of self-knowledge.

Critias

expressed

his desire to

Socrates

an argument

it. Socrates
you"

protested:
on which

supporting this definition, if Socrates did not agree "Why Critias, you treat me as though I professed to I
ask questions and needed challenged

know the things

with

only the
of

will

to agree

(165b). When Socrates

not allow a of

him, Critias

expressed surprise that

Socrates did
other

distinction between the knowledge

of

knowledge

and

the
un you

kinds

knowledge: "And

this

aware, since, in
were

fact,

as

believe,
you are
is"

you

[difference] you are far from being are doing the very thing you denied
to refute me,

doing

just now, for

about which the argument

annoyance

attempting (166c). Again, the language

having

left

aside that
Critias'

could suggest

that Socrates is now denying what he had previously taught and that Socrates is arguing merely for the sake of retribution. Socrates replied: "How can you think, if my main effort is to refute you, that I do it with any other motive than that which would impel me to investigate myself, that is, what I say (my emphasis). It is hard not to hear a sarcastic double entendre in this rebuke.
. .

Shortly thereafter, Socrates Socrates is the one being

entendre.

urged

Critias

not to care at all

"whether Critias

or

refuted"

(166d-e),
of

which again could contain a

double

The fourth mittedly Socrates

not a of

plagiarism, although it is ad strong one, is that toward the end of the dialogue, Critias accused saying "unusual (atopa) (172e). Now Critias had known
things"

and

final indication

Critias'

Socrates for
strange,
at

long

time.

Socrates'

line

of

reasoning

must

have indeed been

least to

Critias,

in

order to provoke

this remark. It makes more sense,

The Limitations of Political

Philosophy

193

however, if
thought
Critias'

we allow

that Critias believed

he

was

defending
than

doctrines that he

Socrates himself had taught.

lack
of self-restraint extended advance
of

further

his

willingness

to use

Socratic doctrines to

his

own reputation.

He believed,
gave

as we shall see

shortly, that his acquisition

to rule. He

the Socratic

teaching

him

a singular

ability

believed he had

obtained the supreme

science, the

science of all

sciences, referring to it as

"self-knowledge."

This reading, if correct, is both

historically
it
suggests

and philosophically significant. It is historically significant because how the regime of the Thirty Tyrants might have been related to

Socratic

political philosophy.

It is philosophically

significant

because it

relates

philosophy by its devotees. In the Charmides, therefore, we see what is perhaps Plato's improve ment on dialectical art, an improvement necessitated by Plato's expe
to the general problem of the potential abuse of political
Socrates'

rience
seem

of the

historical Critias. For those like Charmides,

the Platonic Socrates
as

on the one

hand,

who

to need encouragement or incitement to excellence and the pursuit of

we see

wisdom,

following

the example of the

historical

Socrates insofar
perance.

he is willing to undermine conventional notions of tem It is this willingness that is perhaps partly responsible for the failure of Alcibiades
or

the historical Socrates to teach those who need such

Critias the lessons

the

of restraint.
not

For
the

lessons,
alert of
of

on the other

historical Socrates, is
superficial

to the

hand, dangers, in Bacon's

and can

Platonic Socrates, if

words, of "a little or

knowledge

philosophy,"

apply

remedies accordingly.

Socrates'

interrogation

Critias,
elicited

as

we

shall see

presently,

accomplished

two

main objectives.

First, it

Critias'

understanding
Critias'

of what

philosophy The
to

is

and of what

it

can accomplish practically.

estimation of the power of

Socrates'

philosophy, as

we

shall

see, was unreasonably high in

view.

second objective that

Socrates'

interrogation accomplished, therefore,

a

was

lower this

estimation.

We

shall

highlight

few

passages that support this

under

standing At 164a, Socrates

things. Then
cial

of the principal thrust of the

Critias'

interrogation.
agreement that temperance

secured

is it

doing
was

good

he

asked

Critias

whether a

doctor

must

know

when

benefi

to heal
when

someone and when

it

was

not, and

know Critias

he himself forced to
an

was

likely
that a

to

every craftsman had to benefit from his work and when not.
whether might

was

admit

craftsman

not

know

such a

thing.

Socrates drew
might

even

stronger conclusion

(164b-c):
without

sometimes what

the

doctor

have done

what

is helpful

or

harmful

knowing

he did. It

may be that what are ordinarily called temperate actions always entail a certain amount of ignorance. But Critias apparently wanted the virtue of temperance to

be

much more than this.

Thus,

at this point

in the discussion, he
He
claimed

preferred to

withdraw some of

his

earlier claims rather

than concede that a man who was

ignorant
perance

of

himself in this

sense was temperate.

instead that tem

thyself!"

was

self-knowledge,

referring to the inscription "Know

at

194

Interpretation
even

Delphi (164d-165b). He
are

distinguished this inscription from

and

others

(two

much"

mentioned:

"Nothing

too

"A

pledge and thereupon

thy
at

perdi

tion") he
thyself!"

considered spurious. and

Both Critias
were

and the god

declared that "Know

inscriptions

"Be

temperate!"

the

same.

The

other

Delphi,

he explained,

were

written afterwards

by
was

men

who

misunderstood

the god's

words as mere advice and

decided to

add their own.

Critias then decided to

defend this

new

definition: temperance

knowing

oneself.

In the ensuing conversation, Socrates pressed Critias to express himself more clearly on what he meant by self-knowledge. Critias began by explain

ing

that temperance was a special

kind

of

knowledge in that it did

not produce

any immediate,
produced

tangible benefit as medicine produced health or as carpentry

houses (165c-e). Temperance, according to Critias, was more like geometry or calculation in this respect. Critias was evidently thinking of tem
perance as a theoretical
rather than a practical science.

Socrates, however,
said that tem and

wondered what the subject matter of temperance was.

perance was unique

Critias

in that it
out

was

the

knowledge

of the other

knowledges

of

itself.

Trying

to

find

to the
self

switch

Critias

made

exactly what Critias meant, Socrates did not object in his definition of temperance, from knowledge of

(heautou)
He
got

to knowledge of

itself (heautes), i.e., to knowledge

now

of

knowl

edge.8

Critias to agree, however, that temperance had to include the lack

of

knowledge

of the

knowledge (166e). Socrates

draws
be

a conclusion

which should rates

certainly said, "the temperate

arrest the careful reader's attention:

man alone will

"Therefore,"

Soc

know himself
and

and

able

to exam

ine

what

he happens to know

and not

know,
think

he

will

likewise have the

cases

power

to check out what other people know and think

they know, in
without appears

where other

they do know, people will be

and what

they

they know
agreed.
as

knowing it;
to be

unable"

(167a). Critias
assent,

Socrates

describing

temperance,

Critias'

with

the very skill of dialectical

examination

Socrates himself
more concrete
a subtext

employed on others throughout

his life,

a skill

he describes in

detail in the beneath this

and

Apology

(21b-22e). If this

surmise
Critias'

is correct, if there is
appropriation of elicited

conversation

pertaining to

Socrates'

ideas

methods, Socrates would

appear to

have

from Critias the implicit

scientific essence of

admission that

he

considered temperance to
a

be the

Socrates'

dialectic

science

like geometry
un

which could other

be

acquired and which would

distinguish

the possessor from all

human beings. Socrates

of

proceeded next to

investigate how Critias

derstood knowledge
conferred on

this sort and exactly what power

Critias thought it
knowl

those who acquired it.

presents

In the Republic, Socrates

edge,

dialectic

as

the

highest form

of

leading

to the secure comprehension of

ideas that

other arts and sciences

merely hypothesize (531d-535a). The presentation of dialectic in the Republic is consistent with his attempt, in that dialogue, to move his young interlocutors to an appreciation for theoretical philosophy. In the Soc-

Charmides, however,

The Limitations of Political

rates seeks ophy.

Philosophy

195

to puncture

Critias'

inflated

opinion of the practical power of philos

Socrates

raised

two questions,

therefore,

Critias'

about

understanding
or

of

temperance and pursued these questions throughout the rest of the dialogue

(167b).

First, is it
knows Critias

possible to

know both that

one

knows

does

not

know,

and

what one

or

there

in

knowing

know? Second, if this is possible, what benefit is these things? With respect to the first question, Socrates over
not

does

whelmed would

showing how unlikely or strange it be that anything should have the power of being applicable to itself (167b-168e). Socrates said that "some great was needed who could deter
with a series of examples
man"

mine whether petence

this was possible

(169a-b)

and that

he distrusted his

own com

to do it. Critias was humbled.

Seeing
as

compelled to after

feel the

same

difficulty, just
(169c).

Socrates in difficulty, he was one might be compelled to yawn

urge to

seeing

someone else yawn

Critias'

distinguish himself

on

every
reply.

occasion prevented so

questions,

he

concealed

him from admitting his inability to answer his difficulty, Socrates explains, with an indistinct

Socrates'

By failing
very
poor

to acknowledge his

fact,

imitator

of

difficulty, Critias showed himself to be, in Socrates, owing mostly to his love of honor.
revealed theoretical
Socrates'

Socrates'

first question, then,

difficulties

Critias'

with

understanding of self-knowledge; practical limitations. He wanted to know

edge of what one

second question aimed at

whether one would

revealing its

be helped
Socrates

by

knowl
be
of

knew

and

did

not

know (169d). Critias

of

and

agreed that

the one who had knowledge that was

itself

would

know himself

and would

helped thereby. But Socrates itself the Critias is

of same as

raised a new question: what one

how is knowledge that is

not

knowing

knows

and

does

know (169e-170a)?

needed more explanation. and political

Socrates

mentioned medical of

knowledge,

which

health,

someone who or

knowledge, which is knew only knowledge, without any

know
what

justice,

and wondered

how

additional

knowledge
any

of justice

health,

could

he knew

about these things or about

other sub

ject. Critias knowledge

admitted this was not possible, and that the temperate man, with no
of

health

or

disease,

would not

be

able

to distinguish a true doctor

from

one who was

merely pretending (170a-e).

Critias'

The deflation
sion moved perance was

of

notion of self-knowledge continued as

realm of politics.

the discus

into the if it
was

Socrates

wondered what

benefit tem

temperance
nize

enabled us

this

condition

only knowledge of knowledge (17 Id). He granted that if to know what we knew and did not know and to recog in others, we would be greatly benefitted by being temper
"we
who

ate.

For in that

case

had temperance

and everyone governed

others

by

us"

would

live

without

error, never

doing
city

or

allowing

to do anything
would

without

knowledge. Thus, Critias It is

admitted

house

or a

ruled

by

temperance

be

well ordered.

that this was how

they had been speaking

of

temperance (172a).

therefore evident that

edge of

knowledge

Critias had been considering temperance the knowl to be of tremendous power and use. As a ruling science, a

196

Interpretation
sciences, it could, in his view,
govern cities
without error.

science of

Socrates

attempted to
where

disabuse Critias

of this notion.

He forced Critias to

admit that no

has any such knowledge as they had imagined been found (172a). Socrates then explained one possible benefit of temperance or self-knowl
such as

edge,

learn

more

Critias had been supposing it to be: temperance would make one easily whatever one learned since the temperate man would not only
easily, but
would also

learn the

subject matter more

behold the knowledge itself

of those subjects

(172b). And the temperate

man would also

be

able

to examine

others more

beautifully
not

about the state of their

knowledge.

According

to Socra

tes, then, temperance

would

help

one

in the

unfinishable theoretical pursuit of practical affairs.

knowledge,
Socrates

in the

application of

knowledge to he

expressed

concern, though, that

and

be greater than it really was into temperance inquiry may have been worthless. Even granting that tem perance could do everything that was originally supposed, Socrates said he was still unsure what benefit it provided. Critias was baffled and accused him of
this temperance to the

Critias had been requiring (172b-c), and he asserted that

saying
control

strange things.
of

Socrates

now explained

his

"dream."

If temperance had

prophecy
principle

human beings, then everything piloting, medicine, warfare, even would be conducted knowledgeably. This principle resembles the
the

of

Republic, according
nature

to which everyone performs the task to

or oligar
appeal

(see 433a-c). It is necessarily aristocratic by in case chic, any certainly not democratic. It is therefore likely to
which someone with the oligarchic ambitions of

he is fit

to

Critias,

which we

know from history.

In the Republic,
perfection of person

however,

the emphasis of the

such a

Socratic

principle

is

not on the

knowledge in

for the task he

performs.

city but on the natural suitability of each In the Charmides Socrates did not, or would

not,

discuss this interpretation

of the

arisen

indirectly
his

at

17 le- 172a), but to

version of

perhaps

doctrine (though it may be said to have because his purpose here was not to Critias. Socrates
He
wanted

expound

own views,

elicit the views of

to

Critias'

understand

Socratic
that

political philosophy.

asked

Critias,

therefore, if
would
ment"

one

could

determine
replied that

human beings
would not

under

such

conditions

be happy. Critias
"perfection"

Socrates

or

(telos)

of welfare

if he

rejected

find any other "fulfill this knowledge. Critias

of

thus revealed that

pable of

he

considered

temperance,

the

knowledge

knowledge,
compelled

ca

bringing

about a

kind

of political perfection.

Socrates

Cri

tias to see that temperance was not sufficient

by
the

temperance such as

knowledge

of good

for such ends, that a city governed had imagined could exist only as a dream, and that they and bad was in any case necessary to determine whether
was also

anything done

knowledgeably

done

beneficially
inquiry

(173e-174e). Tem
added

perance, without such

knowledge,
for

could produce no

benefit. Socrates
had been

that he had good reason, then,

fearing

that the

worthless

(175a).

The Limitations of Political

Philosophy

197

IV. PHILOSOPHY AND POLITICS

We turn back

now

to the question raised at the

beginning

of

this essay:

whether precautions can votees of political

be taken

against

politically
of

ambitious students or

de
can

philosophy who acquire an do. In this dialogue, Plato shows two aspects

exaggerated notion of what

it

the relation of

Socrates'

teach

ing

to temperance.

mides'

effort charm
of

First, we see Socrates to some extent undermining Char temperance, presumably for the purpose of encouraging a more spirited at philosophical inquiry. Then we see him applying something like a
to the soul of

Critias,

who

had

shown

himself to be in

much greater need compelled of

temperance than
see

Charmides. Through

the art of

dialectic, Socrates
knowledge

Critias to
edge,

that temperance, even if

it be

understood as or a

knowl

was not a comprehensive

knowledge

knowledge governing longer be

or

somehow

the whole

body
it

of

knowledge. Critias
its

could no

certain even that such

knowledge
mind that

can alert

possessor to what

he knows

does

not

know,

never

can govern whole cities or

Socrates'

bring

them to a

fulfillment

of welfare. some

The

effect of

speeches

in the Charmides, then, is to dampen

Socrates'

what the zeal of one

inspired

by

dialectic to think it

can

be

used

for

implementing
In
another

intemperate
respect,

Utopian

dreams. learn that temperance

as

however,

we

Socrates,

not

effectively between individuals in a philo sophical conversation in a way that it cannot operate between a temperate ruler and the city he rules. The essence of temperance seems to be expressed in

Critias,

understands

it

can operate

Socrates'

recognition that the possessor of self-knowledge

knowing

what

he

knows

easily and will examine others more beautifully on the subjects they have learned (172b). Its benefit is philo sophical, rather than political. Socratic education, if it is successful, will en
gender new

and

does

not

know

will

learn

more

dialecticians
Socrates'

and

will, in so far as it is possible, avoid stirring the

ambitions of those who

lean

more toward a of

life

of political
art"

philosophy (cf. In time, the skillful dialectician

philosophical temperance

discussion

the

"kingly
able

glory rather than of in Euthydemus 292c-e).

might

be

to transmit the essence of this

to his interlocutor.
was taught

In Plato's dialogue, Critias

of

to be more temperate in his estimation

conclusion of

the

power

of

philosophy. of

But the

the

Charmides

gives urged

an ominous

foreshadowing
they

the regime of the

Thirty

Tyrants. Critias

Charmides
wanted

not

to abandon Socrates
were

in

great or small matters

(176b). Socrates

to know what

"plotting"

(bouleuesthon)
"You
allusions

and whether

were since

going to use force. Charmides

replied:

must expect me

to use

they force,
most

he [Critias] gives the intemperate regimes do not

command."

These

to one of

Athens'

allow us

the comforting conclusion that the charm

ing

words of the

Platonic Socrates

could

have sufficiently tempered the

soul of

198
a

Interpretation
other

Critias. I take it, in

words, that Plato is

leaving
as

open

the possibility that

the

history of Athens Socrates (maintaining

soul

could

have

proceeded

it did

even

if the historical

the

distinction

we

have

assumed

had

obeyed the precepts of the

Thracian

physician

in this interpretation) to induce temperance in the

even
admitted

before treating the head. Indeed, Socrates later Thracian charm he employed was ineffective (175e). The Platonic Socrates treats the them, but because he is
gable
moved

that the

souls of the young, not

because he

can cure

to

do

so

partly

by

eros, partly

by
at

his indefati
them.

desire for

conversation

and mutual

self-examination

with

These

impulses evidently cause him to act, like the doctor discussed 164b, knowledge of the benefit to himself or the person he is treating. Unlike Critias,

without

however, Socrates
edge.

seems well aware of the practical

Socrates'

limitations

of

his knowl

This is

one of the

strengths of

self-knowledge.

Critias actually

believed he had
to whole cities;

or might obtain a comprehensive science

that could

bring

order

Socrates,

we

recall, only the

pretended

to have a remedy

for the

head

and a charm that could treat

soul and

the whole human being.

NOTES

1. The Greek narrowly

mental

word sophrosyne

is notoriously difficult to translate,

since

its meaning is
and

more

than the meanings of the Latin-based words

"temperance"

"'moderation,"

which are perhaps more

head."

"keep
I
tion

one's

behavioral. The Greek word seems to mean something like an ability to See T. G. Tuckey, Plato's Charmides (Amsterdam, 1968), pp. 5-9. In this essay
"temperance"

shall always translate sophrosyne as

and ask the reader to

keep

the mental connota

in

mind. and

2. See Charmides 156a high

regard

Xenophon Memorabilia 1.2.12-37. Socrates, like Critias, had

for the Spartan

the regime
a

character of

(cf. Crito 52e), which may help to account for the Spartan described in the Republic. It is not unlikely that Critias thought he was
regime regime

implementing
the

Socratic

in Athens

during

the time of the

note

Thirty

Tyrants.

3. I have this

explanation

from W. R. M. Lamb's

in the Loeb Classical

Library

edition of

Charmides in Plato in Twelve Volumes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979) vol. 12, pp. 12-13. 1 have relied on Lamb's translation, emending where I thought I could render a word or phrase more literally.
original proposal of pretending to be a doctor, which would apparently have been excessive, but only of pretending to have a cure. 5. See Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1 1 19a b, where it is explained that the temperate man
not agree

4. Socrates did

to

Critias'

desires the
appetites,

right

thing in

the right way at the right time.

are

The

continent man,
on account of

by
his

contrast, has bad

rational principle

but knows they

regard

bad

and refuses to

follow them

(1145a). 6. With
to
Socrates'

"Again, his
7. The
explain

accuser alleged that

passages, and used them as

assumption

use of Homer here, consider Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.2.56: [Socrates] selected from the most famous poets the most immoral evidence in teaching his companions to be tyrants and

malefactors.

that Critias had passed this

not admit

doctrine

off to

Charmides
so

as

his

own

would

why Critias did

to

Charmides in

this conversation that it

is actually

Socrates'

idea,
front

and of

Socrates,

presumably, does

not want

to embarrass

Critias

crudely

by

revealing this in

Charmides.

nature

In the Republic, the principle of assigning every citizen to the business for which he is fit by is shown to be necessarily oligarchic or aristocratic. Plato would have reason, then, for

The Limitations of Political

distancing
hinted,
the

Philosophy
and

199

Socrates from this Tyrants.

principle

in

dialogue that features Critias

Critias'

Charmides. It is
regime of

nonetheless, that this doctrine might have

guided

thinking
for
a

when

he led the

Thirty

8. Scholars have debated the

significance of

this conversion

long
make

time (see

Tuckey,

pp.

33-37).

Tuckey

maintains

(pp.

37-38)
line
of

that

Socrates induced Critias to

have
a subject matter

this switch

by imply

ing

that temperance as

knowledge

might not

distinguishable from itself. This

is probably true, but be unique in having

matter of

Socrates'

the knower as

questioning seems perfectly natural: self-knowledge seems to its subject. And Critias might have answered that the subject
not

temperance
answer of

is the

entire

soul,

just that
itself."

part of the soul which

knows. What is decisive lets the

in

Critias'

is the

suggestion

that self-knowledge

is

somehow me

comprehensive; it is "the
switch go of
self-

knowledge

the other knowledges and of

purpose

It

seems

to

that Socrates
Critias'

because his primary knowledge.

is to

examine

the

full implications

of

understanding

Love
A

Gain, Philosophy and Tyranny: Commentary on Plato's Hipparchus

of

Jason A. Tipton
Tulane

University

INTRODUCTION

Tyranny
realm of

is something political philosophy inquiry: it should seek to understand it

turn its attention to

should

always

keep

within

its

the conditions under which tyr

it.1

anny phy

emerges so as to recognize
must

when confronted with

Political

philoso

tyranny if it is
only

concerned with

preserving the conditions under which philosophy thrives. The

phers

examining and Socratic philoso tyranny,

displayed this concern,

not

by inquiring
tyrants

into the

nature of

but

also

by

engaging tyrants

and potential

(Alcibiades, Dionysius, Cri

tias, Alexander),

often risking their own safety to do so. Plato's Hipparchus; or, The Lover of Gain is initially striking in that it is named not only for someone who is not present, but for a long-dead Athenian

tyrant. In the
a

Hipparchus, Socrates discusses

nameless.2

the love of gain

(philokerdes)

with

Comrade

who remains subject

In general, the dialogues

get their names

present

either

(Republic, Laws) or from someone (Charmides, Alcibiades I, Critias); given this fact, the namelessness
matter

from their

of the

Comrade only draws attention to the person for whom the dialogue is named. The argument concerning the love of gain unfolds in two phases interrupted
a digression concerning the Athenian tyrant Hipparchus, son of Pisistratus. The introduction of Hipparchus into the conversation is, for some readers, quite

by

unexpected and unnerving.

Lamb finds the

connection

between the

content of

the conversation and the digression strained at best:

After proving that gain is not same as good, Socrates gives

made

from

worthless

things,

and

that

it is

not the

an account of

the wise and

beneficent
which

rule of

Hipparchus in Athens
death. This digression,

and of the cause of the

although

conspiracy
thread

brought

about

his

it

gives

its
one

name to the whole

dialogue, is

connected with the conversation

by

but

flimsy

one of the maxims

These
ness to

thoughts on the

Hipparchus

owe much

to my teacher Ronna Burger. While my indebted the entire work.

her is hard to measure, her influence

manuscript and

permeates

also wish to thank

her for

reviewing the my
gratitude

making many helpful suggestions. I would also like to acknowledge to Steven Berg, with whom I have had many delightful conversations on this dialogue

and other related topics.

interpretation,

Winter 1999, Vol. 26, No. 2

202

Interpretation
Hipparchus inscribed 'Deceive
on a not a

which
maxim

by

the roadside

for

the

edification of

the people: this the

friend'

has

bearing,

not on

any

subject of
friend.5

debate,

but only

momentary difference between Socrates

and

his

While

we should not

dismiss

this sober

observation

too quickly, I believe

it is
an

not only fruitful but necessary to interpretation of the dialogue as a

sion gain. of

attempt to whole

incorporate the digression into

to
understand

in

order

how the discus

the Athenian tyrant contributes to the task of understanding

love

of

would certainly fail to live up to the standard Socrates holds artfully constructed written work as an organic whole (cf. Phaedrus 264b, 275d) if it had no more unity than what Lamb allows in his introduction dialogue.4 to the The question then becomes, What does the tyrant Hipparchus

The dialogue
an

up for

wish

to

gain?

The story of Hipparchus, in one version or another, would have been famil iar to Athenians during Plato's life. The assassination of Hipparchus by Harmo-

dius

and

Aristogeiton
of

Athenian triumph

generally held to be the founding moment of the democracy over tyranny (cf. Aristotle, Politics 1311a37;
was

of

Plato, Symposium 182c). Thucydides introduces the story at the very beginning his history, however, as an example of the way in which traditions have been

down without any critical reflection (Thucydides 1.20). He returns to the later to recount the events leading up to the assassination of Hipparchus in story order to demonstrate that "the Athenians are no more accurate than the rest of
passed

the world
history"

in their

accounts of their own tyrants and of the

6.54).5

facts

of their own observes that

which

(Thucydides

To

use a

Platonic image, Thucydides

few

willing or able to live. they Aristotle discusses Hipparchus

people are

question

the opinions of the cave in

and the events

surrounding his

assassination

in the Politics in the

ways of

context of

his discussion

of the causes of revolution and

preserving particular regimes (1311a35). In the Athenian Constitution, Hipparchus is said by Aristotle to be "fond of child's play (paidiodes), an erotic (philomousos)" (Athenian Constitution (erotikos) and a lover of the muses XVIII). This description is very similar to the picture that emerges in Plato's Hipparchus, and it would not be surprising if Aristotle were in fact referring to dialogue.6 the Thucydides, Plato and Aristotle all give varying accounts of Hip
parchus'

demise: Plato
appears to

seems to

and

Aristotle

be in

some

be carrying dialogue

on a
with

dialogue
both

with

Thucydides,
psy
of

about the tyrant's

chological

makeup and the passions that work to Thucydides provides an important clue to the
when

overthrow tyranny.

significance of the

legend

Hipparchus

he introduces it in the
recognized

context of a

discussion

about

Alci
as a

biades. The Athenians

potential

Alcibiades,

perhaps more than

Socrates'

anyone,

tyrant. One might wonder whether

association with

Alci

biades,
ate and

as

Plato

represents

it in

numerous

dialogues,

was an attempt to moder

tame him.

Likewise,

one might suppose that

Plato's journeys to Sicily,

Love of Gain,
which we

Philosophy

and

Tyranny

203
to

learn

about

in the Seventh Letter

ascribed to

Plato,

were an attempt

transform the

From

such anecdotal

young Dionysius into a philosopher-king and realize his republic. evidence, it appears as if Socratic philosophers have a

particular, perhaps practical, interest in reforming tyrants. The Hipparchus rep

resents

Socrates

in

speech.

doing something like this in his account of Hipparchus, if only The direction of this transformation in speech is indicated by the
Socrates'

most and

account differs from that of Thucydides striking way in which of Aristotle in the Politics: there is no mention in either of these of Hip

parchus

being

an educator of youth.

The first

phase of the conversation

in the Hipparchus

culminates with an

exchange of accusations of rade.

deception between Socrates

and the unnamed about

Com

It is this

exchange

which

introduces the discussion first

Hipparchus.

Hipparchus is
stages poetic

presented as

a teacher whose education projects

stage

involve three involves the

that seem to evolve one from the other. The

education of

the citizens, while the second stage involves the poetic

education of

the country
of

folk

which

is described

as a means of while

to the city.

The poetry

the second stage

and

is Hipparchus',
act that

attracting them that of the first

is

produced

by Homer,
can't

Simonides

Anacreon. The third leads to

with

stage

involves the
mur
execution.

education of an unnamed

youth; it

is this

Hipparchus'

der

fact that

help

but

Socrates'

evoke comparisons

The first two programs, directed to the poetry

to the
as a means

citizens and the

political

for

an education

distinctively

country folk, employ in nature, in contrast

which

private association with

the unnamed
and

youth.

These first two stages,

to

involve
ated

the citizens

generally
as

those outside the walls of the city, are initi

wise

by

Hipparchus

a political

man;

they lend
it is

Socrates'

support

initial

characterization of

Hipparchus

as a wise man

(228b 1). To

engage

in the

third stage,
must

his

private education of

the youth,
perhaps

not clear that

Hipparchus

be

a wise man

in the

same

sense; to

being

a seeker of wisdom would

be

enough.7

Hipparchus

seems

move

beyond thinking himself wise, poetry

a pic

and the
stage to

desire for

recognition

toward some private affection. In adding this

Socrates'

ture of the

his account, Socrates, however playfully, seems to have painted legendary tyrant which makes him mirror, in some form,
the argument about
prior

own situation.

The

second phase of

love

of gain attempts to continue

where the conversation

had been going

to the digression. As the aporetic that the loss of the Comrade's

ending approaches, there emerges the initial low opinion regarding love of
accounted action of

suspicion

gain might profit or

be

gain,

possibility

not

for in the

speeches

defining

gain; in this way the deeds

or

the dialogue

would correct or augment

the speeches. But why would

the love

Socrates be interested in disabusing the Comrade of his low opinion regarding of gain? One possible explanation is suggested by the features in the
condemnation of

Comrade's heated
applied

the

lover

of gain which could of

to the

philosopher.

The Comrade identifies the lovers

be equally gain as "those

204

Interpretation

who, out of an emptiness

(aplestia),
of

are always

striving preternaturally
gain"

(hupe-

phuos) for insignificant things

little

or no worth

in

loving

(226d7-el).s

To the

nonphilosopher

it

might

look

as

if

Socrates'

tireless pursuit of a wisdom

he

never seems

to achieve (cf.

Apology 20e) is

the act of a madman possessed

of some preternatural

knowledge
nificant

of

desire for something that continues to elude him; the ignorance Socrates has gained might indeed look like an insig

thing

of

little

or no worth.

The
gain,

suggestion that the philosopher or power

not after

introduces
lovers
of

the good

money into the discussion: "So

(227b 1). If the description
of emptiness

may be but wisdom, is

a noble

form

of the

lover

of

made stronger when

Socrates

you call those who

love the good,

gain"

of the

lover
not

by
a

some

feeling

(aplestia)
(unless

or

desire is

being driven immediately obvious as

of gain as eros as such a

description

of the philosopher

one

identifies

state; cf.

Symposium 203c ff.), the

that the parchus,

lover

association is certainly strengthened by the suggestion is really the lover of the good. In discussing the Hip Alfarabi notes that Socrates "explained the relation of the things of gain

useful and gainful

in the

eyes of the multitude to the things

truly

useful and

gainful, how

[tme]

gains or the goods are

practical

desired way of life, and how the gain that is the true
gain."9

nothing but that knowledge and that arts are not adequate for obtaining the

I. LOVE OF GAIN AND PHILOSOPHY

As is

characteristic of

many
the

of the

dialogues

or more what

broadly

characteris of gain and (dok-

tic of political philosophy

who are

investigation into
with

is the love
"In my

these

lovers

of gain

begins in

an opinion:

opinion

ousin),"

the Comrade explains

the

answer to the question with which

Socrates
to

initiates

discussion, "they
from
worthless

are those who

think it worthwhile

(axiosin)

things"

make a gain

(225a3-4).'

This definition focuses

on the

starting point or the material, the turn into profit.

worthless

material, the lover

of gain seeks to

whether

This first definition is quickly revised by the Comrade when Socrates asks he would call these lovers of gain fools if he thinks that don't

they

know the things

ness of the

are worthless.
with which

things

If they were simply ignorant of the worthlessthey hope to make a profit, the Comrade, and the

city for that matter,

to

could not condemn and punish such

behavior. It is difficult

justify fool; the Comrade calls the lovers of gain rogues (panourgoi) and evildoers (poneroi). The Comrade seems to be indignant at the daring (tolmao) of the lovers of gain; they know the worthlessness of the thing
the punishment of a

but

still

dare to

seek gain

from it through

shamelessness

(225b). (On the

con

between daring, tyranny and some of the passions lic 575a.) The Comrade is criticizing the shameless,
nection

daring

involved, means by

see

Repub

which the

Love of Gain,
lover
of gain profits

Philosophy

and

Tyranny 205
insofar
as

his

criticism

is

a political condemnation

he is

indignant
aries.

at the profiteer's

transgression of certain social or contractual

bound do
not

The business

of the

city

cannot support shameless profiteers who

recognize contracts.

The lover

of gain

is

someone

who rejects

conventional restrictions

while

wholeheartedly seeking his own profit. The individual who appears to go as far as possible in this direction is the tyrant (Gorgias 469a ff.). But one who pas sionately pursues his self-interest law is a description which seems
vidual

and
as

in

doing
could

if it

may set himself beyond the apply just as much to the indi
so
philosopher.

diametrically
(Apology

opposed

to the tyrant

the

Socrates

admits at

his trial that he

the

would not give

29c-30c)."

city

up philosophy even if commanded to do so by From the Comrade's perspective, love of gain is

of

primarily

concerned with

love

money; but there seems to be no reason why

the term should not

be

applied to a

broader

field,

which would encompass not

just money-making, but

also politics and maybe the quest

for

wisdom.

Abstracting

from the Comrade's

concern with the shamelessness of the prof

iteer's wanting to profit from worthless things, Socrates asks whether he means someone like a farmer who plants a worthless plant, raising it and hoping to
make a profit

from it. While this

example

may be

funny

to the reader of the

dialogue, it
the

can't

help

agitating the Comrade. Socrates appears uninterested in

at the shameless

Comrade's indignation

daring

of

the profiteer. In this way,

Socrates

appears shameless.

of gain wants to profit

limits to the
to the

profiteer.

by suggesting that the lover from everything (pantos) (225b9-10) nothing is off It is no longer just the worthless things that are of interest
The Comrade
responds

profiteer

but

everything.

If the first definition

now

was concerned with the

means with which

material of the profiteer

profiteer, the Comrade

highlights the

the

operates.

Presumably
is

it does

not matter

whether revised

the material with

which the profiteer works means

worthless or

not; in this

definition, it is
be
rooted

the

he

utilizes

that evoke the Comrade's anger (which may

in

jealousy). The Comrade's

so
response

draws

strong

rebuke

from Socrates Comrade's

not

to

answer

aimlessly "as though you had 5). This seemingly insignificant

suffered an

suffered some

injustice

(adikemenos)"

(225c 1as

comment about the almost

behaving
Socrates'

if

he had
ence to

injustice is followed

immediately by

refer would

lawcourts (tas

dikas)

(225c). The Comrade's indignation

be justi
Anytus'

fied, Socrates implies, only if he had suffered injustice at the hands of the lover of gain. (Cf. Meno 92b, where Socrates implies the same thing about
indignation
against

the sophists.) The

issue

of

justice,

which

begins to

emerge

here,

will reappear when

Socrates introduces Hippparchus in defense

against an

accusation

by

the Comrade (228a8-10).

rebuff

With
rade to

Socrates'

the conversation starts anew. Socrates gets the

Com
things

agree that

the profiteer

does know

about the worth

(axias)

of the

from

which

he

thinks

it

worth while

to make gain. Socrates turns the profiteer

206
into
the
a

Interpretation
knower
of

the

worth of

things; it is

clear that

he

continues

to ignore what

Comrade

considers to oath of

be the

shameless actions of the profiteer.

uttered man

The first
about the

the dialogue is

in

Socrates'

response

to

question you

farmer: "Is there any farmer knows (gignori) he plants (gignon),

who

(georgon andron), do

know

a worthless plant and thinks

affects

to make a

gain

from

it?"

(226a3-4). The

question
I."

the Comrade to the point of

phrased

evoking the oath, way

"By

Zeus

not

Socrates has

the question
on

in

such a

as to ensure such a reaction.

No doubt the Comrade has

his

mind as

examples of profiteers

thinking

of

something less benign than the farmer. He probably is businessmen who have broken contracts, con artists who sell to the
who prescribe snake oil

vulnerable, quacks

for every

ailment or maybe even

those who profess to teach virtue in the city.

examples illustrate an ambiguity in the argument that has been alluded to: Is the Comrade decrying the means of the profiteer or already what he hopes to make a profit on? At this point, there are at least two models:

These last two

the condemnation

is directed

at the means

or, alternatively,

at

the

material or

starting

point of the profiteer's actions.

In

other words, snake oil

is
an

worthless to

the sick man while the quack continues to peddle

it, making it
is

instance
This is

of an

profiteering defined

by

the material

from

which gain

extracted.

example that would conform

to the Comrade's description of the profiteer as

knowing
sic

the worthlessness of the

other
and

thing from

which

he dares to

profit

(225b 1-

4). On the
worth

hand,

the profiteer can take something which

has

some

intrin

through shameless means attempt to make some profit. This

with

seems to

be in line

the accusations against the sophists:

Protagoras'

claim

to teach virtue has made him a rich man (Meno

9 Id). Of

course

it is he

not so

to separate the two models; the means the quack employs are themselves than virtuous,
profit.

easy less
to

in large

part

because

of

the material on which

attempts

for its consequences), yet shamelessly monetary profit for themselves. They are also condemned for shamelessly manipulating language to win arguments. Both cases seem to be consistent with the model of profiteering stressing the
worth while
use or

Virtue is something

(either in itself

the sophists

it to

make a

shameless means.

Of course, Socrates diverges

appears at times to manipulate

language
shares

shamelessly (cf.

Apology 18b, 19b-c); but

when

the resemblance that

Socrates

with the sophists

monetary profit is introduced (Apology 19d; Cf. Sophist 223b). If Socrates is profiting from his discussions about virtue, it is
surely
a

kind

of profit of which the

Comrade is

unaware.

This

would seem to

suggest that

there may be two versions of the love of gain, a high and a low. In addition to the farmer as an example of one who needs to be considered

according to the Comrade's model, Socrates adds the horse trainer, pilot, general, flute player, harper, and bowman. In summing up this section, Socrates asks if "in short, any one of the artisans (demiourgoi) at all, or any of the other men with intelligence (emphronon), think to make a gain with
as a of gain

lover

Love of Gain,

Philosophy
is

and

Tyranny
not

207

worthless?"

tools or with any other equipment whatever that these examples, the pilot seems to

(226c7-10). Of

be
The

conspicuous
question

in that it does
case of

fit the
in his

formulation

used

for

all the others.

in the

the pilot is not

at stake

so much one of gain of

but

survival.

The

pilot's own preservation

is

outfitting in the same terms. One

with

the ship. It is

interesting

that

Socrates does

not

describe the

general

would

think that a general might be equally concerned

can
not

losing his life in battle if his army has worthless weapons, but of course he save his life in a way the pilot cannot. The pilot not only runs the risk of

one who
not

profiting from equipping his ship with worthless supplies but he is the only is said to suffer loss (226b5-6) he destroys himself and his ship. By caring for the ship, he
gain, the

indirectly

punishes

himself. In his

consideration

about

pilot cannot abstract

from his

own preservation

his

own good of gain

is

inextricably bound
the pilot of the
as an

to the ship.
can't

Socrates'

exemplification of the

lover

by

figure
This

ship image for the

prepare

help

statesman

making in the

us think of the traditional use of polis

this

(see Republic 488b-489a).

would

help

for the introduction

of the preeminent political man,

the tyrant who perhaps can

be taught that

even

his

own self-interest

depends

on

satisfying the interests of the citizens. (Cf. Xenophon's Hiero Simonides In light
encourages of

11.1.5,

where

Hiero to look
conclusion

after the common good of

about

Socrates'

there not

being

his citizens.) one lover of gain it:

among humans according to the

"But I,

proposed

definition,
of gain are

the Comrade revises

Socrates, want to say that the lovers (aplestias), are always striving preternaturally (huperphuos) for insignificant
those who, out of greed things of little or no
condemnation
worth

in

gain"

loving
means and

(226d7-el). This

marks a shift

in the
to the

from both the

the material of the

lover

of gain

end of that cus of

love. It is the

end

the profiteer

desires that

now seems

to

be the fo
said to

the Comrade's ire. The end

or of

or goal of

the profiteer's striving

is

be
an

insignificant
"nature"

little

worth.

The Comrade

suggests that the profiteer

is

aberration or a departure from the natural. What exactly the Comrade means

by
a

is

not

clear, but he seems to think

of which the

of

it

as the average. said to

Nature is

standard or

in light for

lover

of gain can

be

have

excessive

desire

longing
Without

what

the Comrade considers insignificant.

could

much a

strain, such a description

seems

be

applied

to Socrates.

Surely
appear as

Socrates has

desire that

to far

exceed

that of

his fellow citizens, does

ing
we

almost supernatural at times.

The Socratic

project aims at

knowledge, but
not

know, Socrates only

of

claims or

to know that, or what, he

would

know.'2

Knowledge
the

ignorance

perspective of one who

certainly perplexity liked to acquire money, power

of

appear worthless or

from

honor. After all,

what

kind

of profit

is knowledge

rance one

is

aware of a certain emptiness.

ignorance? In recognizing one's own igno But it is out of a feeling of emptiness

that the

(aplestia),
lover

according to the

Comrade,
own

lover
that

of gain

loves

gain.

The

of gain recognizes
sounds as

his

neediness

and

fuels his love

of gain.

Again, it

if this

might

apply to Socratic eros (Symposium 203d).

208

Interpretation
observation

The Comrade's
gain seems pursue

like

an

interesting

regarding the greed and desire of the lover of move in the conversation, yet Socrates does not
senses

this avenue of

inquiry. Perhaps he

that

it

comes

too close to

associating love of gain with philosophy, thus exposing the latter to condemna tion. Socrates needs to change the way the Comrade thinks about the "insignifi
cant"

things the

profiteer strives after

the philosopher and the profiteer,

before revealing any connection between if that is indeed what Socrates wishes to do.

The

shift

that has taken place in the argument, from emphasis on the lover of

gain's means to

the Comrade's
general and

revised

his ends, is not really acknowledged by Socrates. He dismisses definition by returning to the examples about the farmer,
which

horse trainer

had illustrated the

argument about

the material

the lover
now

of gain uses

(226a6-e3). These
"things"

examples
of

claims, that it is impossible for the lover

the
"things."

already showed, Socrates gain to be ignorant of the lover

of gain

worth of

Are the

here the Socrates

ends that the

uses

desires

or the materials

he begins

with?

this ambiguity to move

the argument in a direction that we presume

he

wants.

While apparently dismissing the Comrade's new is someone who longs for insignificant things out of
tes actually addresses it indirectly. As
gain

proposal that the profiteer

an

insatiable desire, Socra

of

is

evident

in the very name, the lover

the

loves gain,

which

is

an end.

The Comrade thinks that the

which would make

end which the of gain

profiteer strives after yphean or ugly.

is insignificant,

love

Sis

Socrates

attempts to change the

way he

views

that end. Socra

tes gets the Comrade to agree that gain

is the

opposite of

loss (226el0-227al). harmed

It is

not good

for

anyone to suffer gain

loss. Human beings

is the
opposite of

are

by

loss

and

thus it
gain

is bad (kakon). Since

a good.

loss,

the argument goes, to abstract from

is

Through this inadequate argument,

which seems

the worth of that which

gain

is

acquired or

lost,

the

Comrade

agrees that the

lover

of

is

lover

of the good

(227b 1-2). This agreement, taken together

with

the Comrade's earlier statements about the

the suspicion that the philosopher

striving

of

the lover of gain, arouses

may be

one species of

profiteer,

maybe even

the best exemplar of

love

of gain.

phy in his it is those

some
friend"

attempt to elevate who

be alluding to philoso the Comrade's low opinion of the lover of gain. If

would then

Socrates

love the

good that are

lovers

of

gain, then perhaps it is

not

with

irony

Socrates remarks, "at least the profiteers are (227b3). (Cf. Sophist 216d, where the philosopher is
that
with the connection

madmen, my

said to

be

some

times mistaken for a madman.)

Armed

that

has been forged between

assigned to the good

gain and

the good
the

although no real content

has been

Socrates turns

dis

cussion to the

Comrade's
all good

own experiences.

From the
and the

acknowledgment that the

at all

Comrade loves least

things

(227b9-10)

fact that Socrates loves

it looks
as

some good things

(227c 1-2), the Comrade

admits that

if

human beings love

possible

good things

due to the

emptiness of

(cf. Symposium 206a). Such a generalization is his concept of the good. The Comrade's love for

Love of Gain,
all good

Philosophy

and

Tyranny 209

things is emphasized
sure that

by

the second oath of the dialogue (227b7). The

Comrade is The

he loves

all good

things

even

though he may not know what

those good things are precisely.

argument

has

now moved

from

a condemnation of the means or mate

rial the lover

the material,

of gain uses to a condemnation of

the end he seeks. In

focusing

on

it

appeared as

if

no one was a

lover

of gain: no one tries

to profit

from

thing knowing it is

worthless.

examined, everyone appears to

either

be

Yet now, lover of empty

when the end of gain gain.

seeking is It is the abstraction from

the good that makes the

the means or the end and the

notion of

argument wobble

back

and

forth.
regroup
to

The Comrade
the lover of gain
gain

attempts to

as a standard against which

by introducing the honest (chrestos) man identify the lover of gain: "The correct view of
is
serious

is that he is
which

one who

about, and thinks fit to

make

from,

things

the honest men do not dare

replaces nature

(tolmosi)
of

to make gain

from"

(227dl-4). The Comrade

in favor

the honest as

his

standard, although the notion of the average may be the root of both standards. The tyrant and philosopher definitely are not average, although deviate

they

from the

average

in different

ways.

The honest
gain

man accepts conventional re

strictions on what

is

permitted

in seeking

for

oneself.

Again the Comrade

expresses a concern about the

pared

daring
the

of the profiteer.

He is

daring

when com

to the honest

man.

Why
cf.

Comrade

chooses the

honest

man and not the

gentleman gence of

(kalos kagathos,

228c) is

not clear.

What is

clear

is the

re-emer
man as

the Comrade's concern with shame as he holds up the honest

ignore the Comrade's moralizing about the profiteer's daring, concentrating instead on the good as the end of gain loving. This is made easier by the Comrade's choice of standards the honest (chres
standard. continues to

his

Socrates

tos) can be rendered useful (chrestos) and connected with the good. The Comrade now suggests that his conception of the connection between
gain and

the good might not be adequate; he admits that

one can

be harmed

as a

result of wicked gain

(227e6). When the

notion

conversation

began,

the Comrade ob
reprehensible

viously subscribed to the cause it is only acquired

the

that

gain

is unequivocally

be

by

wicked

means; wickedness and gain had gone

together in the Comrade's mind. It

now appears as

if the Comrade
other than

might accept

idea that

gain can

be

acquired

by

something
of

wicked means.

Likewise, losing something bad is potentially

independent from
that gain
good and evil.

a good.

Both

gain and

loss

can

be

Instead

pursuing

this change

in the

argu

ment, Socrates forces the Comrade to

admit that

they had previously

loss
which

agreed

is

always a good and as such

is

the opposite of

had been in deliberate

to be a

assumed to

be

always

bad (228al-7). With the Comrade's

apparent change

thinking

about gain and

loss, Socrates
229b 1).
with

accuses

him

of

deception

by

contradiction.

Along

with

the concept of
Socrates'

justice, deception

appears

recurring previously said, together

theme (226a 1,

unwillingness to change what was

the accusation directed at his

interlocutor, leads

210
the

Interpretation
Comrade to it
make a

strong

counter

accusation, made even

stronger

by

the

third oath of the dialogue (228a8). The Comrade does not

approve of

the way

in

which

appears

Socrates has

manipulated

the arguments based on the

Com
be

rade's

opinions; it is surely the

at

case that the

Comrade's indignation

should

directed

his

own

thinking

and not

Socrates (cf.

Apology

23c-d). We

can

easily imagine Socrates being playful when accusing the Comrade of deception; we cannot imagine the Comrade being so playful in his counter accusation.

II.

DIGRESSION HIPPARCHUS'

THREEFOLD EDUCATION

It is

with

the exchange of accusations

of

deception that the

if

person

for

whom of

the dialogue

is

named

is introduced. It

appears as

we get to a

discussion
answer

Hipparchus
"who"

by

accident; but in fact this discussion

promises to

help

the

question that

is

part of the

double

question which

initiates the dialogue

this question. The

(What is the love

gain?

of gain and who are

the lovers of gain?). Who is a lover of

We

must consider

Hipparchus
be the

as a possible answer to

tyrant looks as if he
sphere.

might

pre-eminent

lover

of gain within the political

If there

are at

least three in itself

spheres

in

which

love

the monetary, political and philosophical

stood as a neutral term

love

of gain

with respect

to praise

may be found may have to be under or blame.

of gain

Socrates

responds to the

Comrade's

accusation of

deception

the counsel of an Athenian tyrant. The way in which

by appealing to Hipparchus is introduced

(euphemein),"

foreshadows

Socrates'

reconstruction of the story:

"Hush

Socra

tes says after

being

accused of

deception, "I

would not

be

doing

something

beautiful, not obeying a good and wise (euphemein) to denote the pious silence in
duces
gods
a tyrant who will challenge the p.

man"

(228b 1-2). Socrates

of the

uses a word

the presence of a god as he

intro

authority

conventional, Olympian
good and wise,
not the

(see Forde,

25,

n.

7). In

addition to

calling him

Socrates

refers to the
nian

tyrant as a fellow citizen

would refer to or

demos

(228b4), certainly him. Whether Socrates and Hipparchus

community is not clear.
one that would

way the Athe

are

fellow
en

citizens

in Athens

in

some other

have to

compass tyrants and philosophers

The

goodness

and

wisdom of

Hipparchus

were reflected

in his beautiful
and
poet

deeds. These beautiful deeds included:

introducing

Homer into Athens

the

compelling the rhapsodes to recite the epics in relays; bringing Anacreon of Teos to the city by means of a fifty-oared ship;
of

lyric

keeping

Simonides

Ceos
to

around

his

court.

In

each case

Hipparchus

uses compulsion or persua

bring poetry into the city. The tyrant does not feel any need to expel the from the city, he can bring them under his control. How he compelled the rhapsodes is not made clear. We imagine Anacreon of Teos was persuaded
sion poets

by

either

the

honor

or

fear

of

force that

accompanied a
and gifts.

fifty-oared

ship.

And

of

course,

Simonides

was persuaded

by

money

Love of Gain,
Socrates tells
us

Philosophy

and

Tyranny

211

why Hipparchus

wished to

harness the

power of poetry:

"He did these things wishing to educate the citizens, so that he would rule over people who were the best possible; being a gentleman (kalos te kagathos), he
thought no one should be
plies of

begrudged

wisdom"

(228c4-6). Such

doctrine im

that either he was educating

friends

and enemies alike or with

he

considered all

the citizens his friends. (Contrast this

Hiero's distrust

and

fear

of

the

wise, Xenophon, Hiero

marvel
wishes

5.1.)

This poetry

education

induces those in the city to

at

(ethaumazon)
to turn

Hipparchus'

at

wisdom

(228dl). Hipparchus, Through this

this point,

himself into

an object of wonder.

enlightenment

project, Hipparchus attempts to make others wise so that

they may
be

recognize

his

wisdom.

If he desires honor
this stage.

or

recognition, it

should

satisfied with

his

education program at

After establishing the

to
Socrates'

education of those

story, turned his attention

not satisfied

in the city, Hipparchus, according to educating those in the country. Either

recognition of

his desire is
recognition

by

the

citizens'

his

wisdom or

that

makes

him desire

more.

desires to

exert

his influence

over a

expanding empire, Hipparchus broader area. Like the townsfolk, those in

an

Like

the country also received a type of

elegiac prose

poetic education as

Hipparchus

composed

to inscribe tyrant

(graphe)

on

Hermae

set about

the country. Not only is

Hipparchus
poet

brings in foreign poets, but he is also, apparently, a himself. The education of the city dwellers appears to be verbal; presuma
a
who

hand, Hipparchus has to write in order to reach those who are (and, therefore, perhaps out of his control). Of the many wise sayings of Hipparchus, Socrates highlights two in particu lar: "This is a memorial to Hipparchus: Walk thinking (phronon) just

bly,

on the other

outside of

the city

thoughts"

and

"This is

a memorial to

Hipparchus: Don't deceive

of

friend"

(229a4-bl).13

latter saying the Comrade's accusation that he

Socrates

connects this

Hipparchus

with

his

own

defense

against

was

being deceived;

Socrates

would never

dare

(tolmoen)

to deceive the Comrade (229b2). If Socrates were willing to

deceive the Comrade, saying he wouldn't dare might be a perfect deception. Hipparchus inscribed his sayings on the Hermae so that the country folk
would not marvel at

the sayings associated with the god

"Know

thyself and

"Nothing
the
god.14

overmuch"

(228el-6). His

writings are an alternative to the sayings of

In addition, he hoped that in traveling they The country

meant

could read

his speeches,
not adequate
wis

getting

taste of his wisdom, and come out of the countryside to complete their
education

education.

is

partial

education

that

is

in itself for the

students to

be

able to marvel

in

Hipparchus'

recognition of city.

dom; it is
authority.

to

lure

the

country folk into the

own wise

Yet it is only the country

the god's

education, through

Hipparchus'

writings,

which challenges

It is not, however, the

challenge to the gods

implied

by

the second stage of

his

education project which rivals

leads to

Hipparchus'

tragic end,
who are

but

rather a

dis

honor to two

Aristogeiton

and

Harmodius

popularly held to

212

Interpretation
of

be the founders
versions of the

Athenian democracy. As Socrates explains, there

of

are

two
a

fall

dishonor to the believe

know

assassin's sister;

Hipparchus. The many it is said that

procession.

suppose that

it

resulted

from

she was not allowed to

bear the
people

basket in the Panathenaic

a

The

more cultivated

(chariesteron)

different

account of

his death. In this account, two strands,

an educa

tive and an erotic one, come together to precipitate the murder. It

which strand was more central

is difficult to

to the plot. As we are told, Aristogeiton

educated
of

his favorite, Harmodius. Aristogeiton considered himself an educator about his educative ability). Thus humanity (literally he had "big
thoughts"

he

considered

Hipparchus

a rival

mosity.

Harmodius is
of their

said to

(antagonisten) educator and held some ani be Aristogeiton's favorite, yet the emphasis in the

relationship seems to be on his education. Socrates goes on to explain, happened to be the lover (eronta) of Harmodius, one of the most beautiful and well-bom youths. This is the first and only ex
description
plicit reference

to eros in the dialogue.

educator,

yet

the youth marveled

Nothing is said about Harmodius as (thaumazein) at the wisdom of both Harmo

marveled at

dius
until

and

Aristogeiton. At least, Socrates explains, he

to associate

their wisdom

he

came

youth

turned his mind

and

(sungenomenon) with Hipparchus, (kataphronesein) away from

them.15

at which point the

Harmodius

by

the

Aristogeiton, according to dishonor in the youth turning away from

The
version

Socrates'

account, were so pained

them that

they killed Hip

on the

parchus.

told

by

the many involved

an

intentional dishonor is
no

tyrant's part; according to the more cultivated, there

intention in the dis into their joint deed

honor. The

effect on

Harmodius

and

Aristogeiton

issuing

is

an unintended consequence

of the

youth.

The

founding

of

the Athenian

democracy

relationship between the tyrant and the is an accidental benefit of their

perceived

dishonor.16
Hipparchus'

How does
programs

association with the youth

fit into his

other education

and

the motivations associated with each? What does Hipparchus

hope to

gain?

He

started

by

desire to
to

gain recognition.

educating those in the city out of what looked like a The education of those in the country was an attempt
continue

lure those

people

into the city to relationship

their education,

by

means of a enters

challenge

to the gods. In his association with the youth,

Hipparchus'

Hipparchus

into

a private and personal

compared to the political nature of the ear

lier

projects.

motivation seems to evolve

wisdom to

from desire for

with

universal

recognition

for his

something

else

in his relationship

the

youth

(cf. Hiero

6.1-3;

see n.12).
erotic.17

Hipparchus'

relationship
It leads the young

with the youth

is

appar

ently

educative and

others results

man to denigrate the wisdom of he previously admired, which arouses the jealousy of those others and in his own downfall. This is, in fact, what Aristophanes portrays in the as

Clouds. As improbable
and the

it sounds, in the
Socrates'

end

Hipparchus looks like Socrates

like the
philosopher

tyrant in the end of

account

(Bloom,

p.

47).

Love of Gain,
The story
of

Philosophy

and

Tyranny
to

213

Hipparchus
part of

would

then

be addressing

one of the central prob

lems

of

the

first

the dialogue if it offers

a suggestion

fill

out the

empty
the

concept of the good or the end of the

the sake of a common pursuit of wisdom.

citizens'

love of gain, namely friendship for If Hipparchus had been satisfied by

achieved what

recognition of
attempt

his wisdom, if he had

he

sought

in

his

to replace the authority of the god, perhaps he would not have been

motivated

to engage the youth in what

looks,
and

as

Socrates

portrays

it, like

philosophical relationship.

He

would

have

continued on the path would

leading

toward

universal

recognition

of

his
to

wisdom

sphere of

influence, hoping
his
wisdom.

have

all the people

have kept expanding his in the region and then the

world recognize

political, public recognition

But apparently Hipparchus is not satisfied by the of his supposed wisdom. Perhaps he is not satisfied his lack
of wisdom.

because he harbors
the opinion
change

suspicions about
own

It

would

be the loss

of

concerning his is
replaced

wisdom, in that case,

which would

initiate the

in

motivation

recognition

leading to the association with the unnamed youth. If by affection, Hipparchus must also harbor some doubts
desire for
recognition.

about the satisfaction associated with recognition and a

III. GAIN THROUGH LOSS OF OPINION

The Comrade is

not convinced

by

this digression that

Socrates is
him to

not

trying

to deceive him. As in a game of

thing in

the argument

he

not allowed previously.

any (229e4-8). This is something that Socrates had The Comrade chooses to alter the notion that gain is
wants
suggested

draughts, Socrates

allows

change

always good, which

had been
have
a

in the first half

so

of the

dialogue (227a

12). But because

notice that the

we

transcript,
attempted

to speak, of the conversation, we

Comrade had
was

to change this element of the argument

move that precipitated

previously (227el); it
accusations and the

indeed this
of

the exchange of

is not good story thus brackets the digression concerning Hipparchus. While Socrates had not seriously pursued this line of inquiry before the digression (except indirectly in
notion that all gain

Hipparchus. The

the content of the digression

itself), he

now allows

provisionally that

some gain

is

good and some

bad (230a3).
them, bad
or good

Socrates
other.

asks whether one of

gain, is more gain than the

Socrates

must explain what

is

meant

by

such a

statement; just as

good

(agathon) food and bad (kakon) food are equally food and similarly decent (chrestos) and evil (poneros) human beings are equally human beings neither evil (poneros) nor decent (chrestos) gain is more gain than the other (230c8d2). Evil
or

decent

would

presumably

characterize

the source or manner of

acquiring
original

the gain, which might still

only

count as gain and

if it

were good.

The

question, then

whether good

(agathon)

bad (kakon)

gain would

214

Interpretation
gain

equally be Socrates
good and wants cause

has

not yet

been

addressed.

The

question
good.

lurking

here is how

gain should

be defined, if not simply in terms of the attempts to find out what the Comrade

sees as the same

in both

bad gain; they search for an idea of gain. Socrates illustrates what he by turning to food again: good food and bad food are equally food be they are both dry nourishment for the body (230e3-4). The Comrade
apply this
model to gain.

does
gain

not

Perhaps Socrates is suggesting, though, that

would

is

nourishment of the soul gains are worth more essential

(cf. Minos 317e ff.). It

than others and the
of

seem, then, that

different
altered.
we

model of

food

should

be

Even if the

definition

food is

dry

nourishment of

the

body,

all

know different foods have different

capacities to produce pleasures.
of

nutritional

value,

not

to mention

different

The fact that different kinds

foods have different

are not equal

effects on the
what

body
from

indicates
is

that good food and

bad food
any

in

is

gained

them (231b2-ll).
what

Obtaining
not

possession

without regard

to the worth of

secured

is

good, while it still might be considered,

the concern about worth

by

some, to be

gain

(23 lb9). In the

beginning,

starting

point or material with which the profiteer

(axion) dealt with the worked (225c3-6). Socrates

now observes

that the

conversation

earlier, namely that

gain

is

good.

is coming around to the same point made Unlike the earlier point, though, an attempt
exactly is meant by the good and how it to judge gain. In this way the conversation
of the

has
has

now

been

made to explore what

might provide a standard

progressed

by

which

despite
the

Foreshadowing
out

Comrade may think. apparently inconclusive ending

what the

dialogue, Socrates
or with

tells the Comrade that "not unjustly

(aporon)"

(adikon)

are you
"poor"

bewildered [poor

resources]

(231c6). In

being

Comrade has been

plexity,

enriched.

What has been

the prejudice

gained

in this way, perhaps the from the discussion is per lovers

of gain

which might confirm

in

some eyes that

strive out of

insatiable

greed

for insignificant things (226d7-8). The Comrade, love

of gain

however, is

not persuaded

to give up his opinion about the

on the other

but

rather compelled

(232b3-4). As readers,

hand,
and

we

may have

come

to understand that the love of gain

is

a neutral

term,

the end

being

sought

has to be

before automatically condemning the lover of gain. The loss of an unthinking opinion regarding the love of gain might well be a great gain, whether or not the Comrade considers it such.
analyzed

NOTES

vitch and

1. See Leo Strauss, On Tyranny; Including the Strauss-Kojeve Michael S. Roth, eds. (New York: The Free Press 1991).
or,

Correspondence,

Victor Goure

2. The Minos;
of the past

to whom reference is made in the

a

On The Law is the only other Platonic dialogue named for a legendary figure discourse. It is interesting to note that both Minos and
of

Hipparchus are, in

sense, enemies

Athens;

see

Leo Strauss, "On the

Minos,"

in The Roots of

Love of Gain,
Political Philosophy: Ten Forgotten Socratic

Philosophy
connection

and

Tyranny

-215

Dialogues, Thomas Pangle,

ed.

(Ithaca: Cornell Uni

and the

versity Press, 1987). Strauss's very brief comments on the Hipparchus (pp. 78-79) are powerful and suggestive.

between the Minos

The
tyrant

word philokerdes

is

restricted

to the Hipparchus

and

Book IX

of the

Republic

where

the

is

being

contrasted with the

philosopher; philokerdeia occurs one time in the Laws

(649d5) in

the context of a

discussion

about shamelessness and

daring.

The Hipparchus is
scholars of

one of

the smaller dialogues of

nice

Plato,
of the

and

its

peculiarities

have led many

to doubt its authenticity. For a

many of the Platonic dialogues see Philosophy: Ten Forgotten Socratic Dialogues. See

debates surrounding the authenticity Thomas Pangle's introduction to The Roots of Political

discussion

also W. K. C. Guthrie, History of Greek Philos ophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962), vol. 4, p. 41, and A. E. Taylor, Plato: The Man and His Work (New York: Dial Press, 1927), p. 534. My aim is not to enter this debate on the
status of whether

the Hipparchus but to use the the

dialogue

as vehicle

for thought. The historical

question of enough

dialogue

was or was not written

by

Plato is

not at stake

here; it is

"Platonic"

to

warrant serious consideration philosophically.

3. W. R. M. Lamb, Plato,

vol.

12 The Loeb Classical

Library

(Cambridge: Harvard "[the

University
digression]
Form,"

Press, 1927).
4. In is

discussing

elements of

Plato's style, Robert Brumbaugh

says that

use of

a matter of style that

has

an air of paradox about and

it,

when the supposed

and

consideration"

central

("Digression

Dialogue: The Seventh Letter

ed.

deviation is really the Plato's Literary in

p.

Platonic Writings, Platonic Readings, Charles Griswold, Jr., 84.

(New York: Routledge, 1988),

and

5. Thucydides tells
of the account of
supposed role we shall

story of Alcibiades being

the

Hipparchus'

assassins, Harmodius

Aristogeton, in
face

the midst

summoned

from the Sicilian Mysteries

Thucydides'

expedition to

charges

for his

in the

defacing

of the

Hermae

and the

see, Socrates deviates considerably from

(6.54). In the Hipparchus, as account of the death of Hipparchus.

affair

The

addition of the unnamed youth

ture. There

is

no talk of the education of

have

made several solicitations claims

is perhaps the most striking depar Harmodius in Thucydides; rather, Hipparchus is said to to Harmodius which enraged the lover Aristogeiton. While Thu
reconstruction

in

Socrates'

cydides

that the murder of Hipparchus was the result of a love affair, it is

sister
murder. attack on

finally

the

dishonor to
action that

Harmodius'

the account of the

many according to Socrates

the

that initiates the

leads to the
says

6. Aristotle
revenge and

in the Politics that the

a

Pisistratids took

place

for

the sake of
Harmodius'

not

from

love

affair

(1311a35),

referring, apparently, to the insult to

sister.

said to

In the Athenian Constitution, Aristotle includes a younger half-brother of Hipparchus who is be the source of all their misfortunes (XVIII). The discussion in the Athenian Constitution Plato's Hipparchus in
and

supports poets

particular

Anacreon

Simonides to Athens

by recognizing (being a philomousos)

Hipparchus'

efforts to

bring

the

foreign

and

his

suggestion

that the ruler is

an erotikos.

7.
View"

Very

little

attention

notable exception.

has been given to the Hipparchus in the secondary literature with one Alan Bloom's "The Political Philosopher in Democratic Society: The Socratic

is a very good treatment of the dialogue. Bloom suggests very plausibly that "this tale of Hipparchus is nothing but a description of Socrates, and the intention of telling it is only to explain I would suggest that as Socrates equals Hipparchus, why Socrates was later put to death.
...

Anytus himself

equals

Harmodius,

and

Alcibiades

equals

the nameless youth. Just as

Harmodius turned to

Aristogeiton, Anytus
on

turns to

his

educator and

lover,
of

Socrates for stealing away ten Socratic Dialogues, p. 47). My treatment

Alcibiades"

aid in revenging (The Roots of Political Philosophy: Ten Forgot the Hipparchus suggests that the resemblance

the Athenian

demos, for

between Hipparchus
seem to evolve

and

Socrates is the
to

culmination of a sequence of educational efforts which

from

political

philosophic. which might

In

other

words, I want to articulate

movement

a movement

from

one sort of education to on the motivations of a

another,

be different in kind. This

I

Hipparchus,

or what the tyrant wants to gain.

suggest

ultimately hinges that Hipparchus makes

Socratic-like turn, but from

political

rule, instead of pre-Socratic science, to philosophy.

216

Interpretation
of

In the brief description

rences of

the

first two

programs

(228a-229b),
word

there are at least nine occur

the word

"wisdom"

(sophos)

or one of

its derivatives. In

contrast, within the account of

occurs

Hipparchus'

"wisdom"

and that

relationship with the unnamed youth, the is in reference to Harmodius and Aristogeiton.

only

once

(229d4)

8. While the ordinary understanding of aplestia involves greediness for money or wealth, it is by Plato to describe the desire for other ends. Democracy is said to be greedy for freedom; it defines the good as freedom so that "it is the only regime worth living in for anyone who is by
used
free"

nature

(562b-c).

9. Alfarabi's
Press
of

Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, Muhsin Mahdi, trans. (New York: The Free Glencoe, 1962), pp. 58-59. 10. Hipparchus; or, The Lover of Gain, Steven Forde, trans., in The Roots of Political Philoso
Ten Forgotten Socratic Dialogues. I have deviated slightly from the Forde translation only The lawlessness
of

phy:

when necessary.

11
ophy,

the tyrant seems obvious enough. On the possible lawlessness of philos

see

Republic 373d ff.

also

12. Socrates

describes how passionately he desires the

connected.

acquisition of

friends (Lysis 21 le),

amount

which might suggest that the pursuit of wisdom and the pursuit of

friendship

to the same

thing,

or are at

least

This

will

be

explored

further in

the analysis of the third stage of

Hipparchus'

education.

Cf. Theaetetus 150c,

perhaps
Hipparchus'

Apology 22d.
Polemarchus'

13. Bloom (p. 46) suggests, public (332a ff.), that

thinking

of

definition thing,

of

justice in the Re
"justice is
not

two sayings amount to the same

a man should

so that

deceiving
has

friends. To his

put

it otherwise,

behave

decently

toward others not

are

because he

restrained

passions or given

up his

satisfaction

but because they

friends, because his

See

satisfaction comes

from

benefiting

them."

14. It

was

believed that Alcibiades had defaced the Hermae in between the

what of

a challenge to authority.

Thucydides (6.27 ff.). 15. This

the
association youth and

Hipparchus is

very important
connection

point of contact

to

Minos, especially in associate (sunousiastes)

logues is indicated both 16. The
contact with

is

said there of

the Minos-Zeus relationship: Minos

is

said to

be the

Zeus in his

sophistic education.

The

between the two dia

by

a number of

dramatic features: both take

place with unnamed of

Comrades,

and

are named after men of

overthrow of

old, generally thought to be enemies

Athens.

Hipparchus establishing the

the

Minos,

which seems

to question whether the

democracy seems to be another point of founding of a political regime is the

aim of or

merely an unintended consequence of a relationship between Minos and Zeus. 17. The word chosen to describe their relationship sungenomenon is suggestive of both the

educative

(Phaedo 6 Id, Meno 91e, Republic

330c)

and erotic

(Republic 329c, Laws

930d)

strands.

Changing
Machiavelli

Titles:
about the

Some Suggestions
and

Use

"Prince"

of

in

Others

Larry Peterman

University

of

California, Davis

Toward the

end of

Shakespeare's

Henry VIII, Katherine

"Dowager
Princess,"
altered."

of

Aragon,
observes

"un-

queened"

by

divorce
titles

and reduced to
now are

"the times

and

derstandable. Abandoned
political world

for

which

at about the same

she is effectively a sacrifice to a new he is clearing the way: in the play, she goes off to die moment that the future Elizabeth I is being bom to Anne

by

strangely her husband,

that sadly Katherine's melancholy is un

Boleyn, Henry's
titles,"

new queen and

the cause of the events that culminate in En

gland's political and religious refounding. and

Katherine's

remarks on

"the times

in this respect, point beyond herself toward two interconnected po litical rules. For signs of the character and magnitude of political change, attend
to the altering or

bestowing

of

titles and be aware that changing titles may

denote In
titles

tragedy.1

what

follows, I apply

a variant of these rules

question of what

call

it the redirecting
sources use

of

to the still-contested

Machiavelli's
and other

prince represents.

Specifically, by considering how Machiavelli

"prince,"

the title

I hope to

add to our

understanding

of the prince and the problems that

attend

him. This

entails that

by

"prince"

something in mind that like or

"king"

would

utilizing not have been

Machiavelli,

and

others, have
titles

captured

by

other available

"monarch."

This is the case, I think, despite the

title,"

finding

of

histo John

rians

that

by

the end of the twelfth century princeps had

become,

as

Pennington
to all

puts

it,

"generic

that

is,

a title

for the

most part applicable

power."2

forms

of rule and

referring to the full "terrain

shall
"prince"

of governmental

Even allowing for this, we kinds of rulers that attach to

that act as
counterweights

see that there are qualities and

foreign to

other

that the term has specific

dimensions

to

its

generic sense. a number of

This is important, I think, for

reasons,

not

the least

being

the

interest in clarifying Machiavelli's ofttimes Beyond this, the way Machiavelli and others use

longstanding
central

bedeviling

vocabulary.

"prince"

connects us

to issues

to disputes over him. For a start, if

"prince"

is generic, it
"tyrant."

needs to

be

morally neutral, since it then subsumes under its umbrella mor and On the other distinguishable ruling forms such as ally moral lends itself to distinctions, and thereby to hand, if specific,
understood as
"monarch"
"prince"

interpretation, Winter

1999, Vol. 26, No. 2

218
moral

Interpretation

judgments, by calling

attention

to the things that set off one ruler

subjects'

from Thus
to

another, for example, devotion to

medieval

one's own or one's

"prince"

well-being.

jurists, in
rule,

the main wedded to the idea that

were still sensitive was

was applicable

all manner of

to the problem of whether the prince, as the law or above

and was

opposed to other
prince
good?3

rulers,

bound

by

it. In short,

was

the

just in the
The
same

sense of

law-abidingness

he

ruled

by

the common

jurists
laws"

"prince"

who tended to think of

generically, in other

words,

apparently "loosed from the

could not escape attach

the

issue

of whether qualities

like

being

to

princes and mark them as

tyrants or potential
framework."

tyrants, the nongeneric rulers The question of whether

par excellence

in the

ancient

ruling
manner

"prince"

is

generic or specific

in this

leads

eventually to the question of the title's moral bearing.

question of the relation of prince and republic. or popular governments come to sight
strength

Connected to this is the

republics

In Machiavelli's terms,

in

opposition

to principalities, and their

in

some part

is

function

of

distrust

of princes and an awareness of the

tyrannical potential of princes.

Thus, Harvey Mansfield

is

outlines the

way

sym

pathy towards a desire to

popular government

aligned with suspicion of princes and with

"executives."5

"tame"

or reign

in

princes and replace them with

To

the degree that we

tyranny
become

and

determine that the princely title is specific, and leans toward absolutism, to the same degree we will come to understand why it
to republicanism and constitutionalism and why we have

stands as an obstacle

more nervous than enthused

by
of

the

idea

of a great prince.

(I

am re

minded that princes still

have admirers,

as

in "He is

a prince of a

fellow.)

From the contemporary perspective,

of the generic

course, it

might appear that the ques since

tion of the generic versus specific prince

has

long

been decided in favor

title.

Consulting

a popular source

like the Oxford English Dic

primary
usage

tionary, for example,

"prince"

reveals that the most recent

entry

under

is

an encyclopedia passage to the effect that the emperor of and the

Russia,

the

queen of

England,

king

of

the Turks are called

"monarch"

"equally

princes or

monarchs"

(2d ed., 1971). Thus,

"prince"

and

are equated and

to

gether
mean

that a prince the

incorporate emperors, queens, and kings. Even if one interprets this to is the model absolute single ruler, that is, the paradigmatic

monarch

Dictionary has
with other

a special

still

identifies
its

titles in a
more

category for that meaning way that defeats attempts to restrict it

"prince"

or

scholarly side, the same situation prevails. The index to Allan Gilbert's widely used English translation of Machiavelli's
works, for example,
otherwise oversight.

narrow

application.

On the

directs

readers to

"prince"

at

the

listing
a

for

"king,"

which

has
The

no

listings: this,

as we shall

see, may be

particularly

egregious

same pattern repeats

in secondary

sources.

Here,

the medievalist
move

Ernst Kantorowicz

provides a useful example given

that his subject, the

ment of religious and

liturgical themes into

secular affairs and the correspond

ing

development

of

the notion of the

king's two bodies,

an

modem conception of rule.

Kantorowicz is

up to the especially fastidious scholar, but

provides a ran

Changing
he has
no more problem than

Titles: The Use of

"king"

"Prince"

-219

mentioning any potential Salisbury's rex imago aequitatis

imago

Gilbert in equating and without difficulties in the overlap. Thus, he describes John of
as

"prince"

"Prince

equity"

of

and parses
...

the phrase rex

(vicarius)
of

Dei

as

"Prince

figuring

as a simile

of

God."6

In terms
pressive
vellian

contemporary political thought, however, perhaps the most im source for the generic prince is J. G. A. Pocock, whose The Machia
work on

Moment is the benchmark

Machiavelli

and the emergence of

modem republicanism rians.

for

most of a generation of political scientists and

"prince"

histo

For Pocock, as for the previous examples, becomes inclusive or ubiquitous and in his reading of the "conceptual vocabularies which were avail able for talking about political in Machiavelli's time, and
systems"

"prince"

"monarch"

equate, albeit he acknowledges that the categories "changed over

analysis tends to

time."

Thus, Pocock's
principate and

be indifferent to

potential

differences

between

monarchy

and

ing
all

statement that all states and all

his understanding of the Prince's open dominions are republiche o principati is that
(or
princi

"governments
least

are either republics or monarchies; all monarchies

palities)
at

are either

hereditary

new."

or

Any

residue of

the idea that

"prince"

is

a special case of monarch

fades in this

reading.

As

might

be expected,

accompanying this is the loss of a sense that tual has a moral dimension: Pocock
vocabulary"

"prince"

in Machiavelli's

"concep

can

refer, in this regard, to the

Machiavellian

exercise of of

"nonmoral

virtu."1

fore, how conceiving

tinguishable from any

Machiavelli's

prince

Pocock nicely illustrates, there as a generic title or as indis

single ruler is linked to viewing him as morally neutral. First impressions notwithstanding, however, the issue of the generic versus

the specific prince

is

not

entirely, let alone satisfactorily, decided. There

remain

active equivalents of the medieval potential

jurists

who

look

upon

the prince as at least a

tyrant,

and thus as a particular rather than general ruler.

Here,

perhaps,

the most notorious source

velli's prince

is Leo Strauss,

who abjures the

idea that Machia Machiavelli is

a

teacher of

is neutral, adopts the evil, and identifies the prince

given that

"old-fashioned"

opinion that

as a tyrant of classical vintage.

In this

respect, Strauss nicely counterbalances

vious at

Pocock,

although

this may

not

be

ob

first,

Strauss
that

upon

conclude, like

Pocock,
of rulers.

"prince"

examining Machiavelli's words seems to as Machiavelli uses it stands for many

different kinds
cal

As Strauss

puts

it,

"prince"

"may

mean a non-tyranni

monarch, or any monarch, or any

the ruling men this

man or

body

of men

in

ruling

position

including

in

republic, to say

Strauss, however,
Pocock. First, it
unique

finding

leads in

nothing different direction than

of another

meaning."8

For

was

the case

for

means

that Machiavelli's prince obscures distinctions between to ancient thought. As opposed to Plato

forms

of rule that are critical

and

Aristotle's insistence that

regimes and rulers are unique and must

"prince"

be

under

stood as such, the

chus's argument

ubiquity of in the Republic that

the stronger

in Machiavelli

reminds of Thrasyma-

the

advantage of

all forms of rule are essentially the same, (Republic 338c-e. Cf. Aristotle, Politics 1258a8).

220

Interpretation
"prince"

Thus, Machiavelli's
ond, the other

use of

indicates his departure from

comment

antiquity.

Sec

"meaning"

in Strauss's
of

turns out to be
out

critical

because

it

points to a specific

"prince."

As Strauss
on

points out

meaning in another place, "in the Discourses [Machiavelli] insists

This turns

to be prince as tyrant.

the fundamental differences between kings and tyrants; in the Prince he

courses are called princes

silently drops this distinction: individuals who are called tyrants in the Dis in the Prince; the term tyrant never occurs in the
tyrant

Prince;

is too harsh

prince."

a word to

use within the

Strauss then

expands on a

the point elsewhere.

about

hearing Suggesting the

of the

possibility that

Xenophon's Hiero,

dialogue

the art of a tyrant, supplies

Machiavelli's
ti-

model, Strauss describes how Machiavelli "in his Prince avoids the term
ranno:

individuals

who are called tiranni

Prince"

in the Discourses
pp.

and elsewhere are n.

called principi

in the

(On Tyranny,

24-26,

nn.

1, 26; 64; 118,

"defective"

2.

Strauss is
e.g.

sensitive to the matter of

"valid"

titles and distinguishes

titles,
shows

tyranny, from

titles,

pp.

75, 179-81). Thus, Strauss

with ancient

how the in

title both resists and

is in

keeping

thought,

and

how it

occurs

both

generic and specific

forms,

that

it

applies

both to

all manner of rule and to

tyrants

in

particular. and

Together, it follows, Pocock

struggle with
"prince"

Strauss
because

suggest that at we are

least in
as

part we still

Machiavelli's

prince

unresolved

to

whether

is

a new or traditional

title,

and whether

it is general, specific, or,

at

as

Gennaro Sasso suggests, it works simultaneously questions in mind, we turn to the way Machiavelli
in the hope
of

two

levels.9

With these
"prince"

and others

clarifying

whether the

title

"prince"

as

employ it descends to us is

meant

to convey a distinguishable variety of rule.

Basic to the issue

whether

of what

Machiavelli,

and

others, intend

by

"prince"

is

the title signifies

type. Here the evidence

something new or simply perpetuates an old stereo is that Machiavelli, as in other ways, takes from the old He borrows his division
and
of all stati

to render something new.

principalities
regimes

into

republics and

from Rome

in

doing

so

he discards the

sixfold scheme of

that

descends to him from Aristotle

acknowledges that

by

way

of

Polybius:

following

Polybius, Machiavelli
dorse the
ions.10

many

people consider those who en

sixfold scheme to

be

"wiser"

than those who

hold

alternative opin

it explicitly departs from probably the most famous approach to regimes. Beyond this, the Roman model Machiavelli appropriates is, in its own right, something of a breakthrough with regard to rule. Not only does it establish a competition be
sense that

Machiavelli's

approach to regimes

is fresh in the

tween popular and autocratic politics that

velli's and

is

a principal element of

Machia

later

political

By fastening
in
what

upon

thought, but it overtly replaces the old Roman kings. the Roman prince, Machiavelli becomes an accomplice
to replace
royalty."

becomes

a movement

The dichotomous

model of

Changing
prince and republic

Titles: The Use of

in

"Prince"

221

that Machiavelli emulates may be old,

other

words, but
of rule,

in its

own context as well as

it

signals a

turn

from the

most

traditional

form

kingship,

from Aristotle's

scheme of regimes. and as a

On these matters, Roman history, both itself

reasonably
clear.

Machiavelli

reports

it, is
to

The Emperor Augustus, for

start,

initiates the

change

princely titles when he chooses to

king ing the imperial throne: princeps never became an official title but it was by subsequent emperors down through Diocletian. And this is not a trivial
called princeps rather than
version.

be

on assum used con

after

It follows from Rome's disillusionment

with

kings,

and royal

rule,

its

lawbreaking and tyrannous Tarquins: according to Ma chiavelli, this experience was so discouraging as regards royalty that "the Ro man people (was) inimical for four hundred years to the kingly name (nome and "held the kingly name so much in odium that no obligation to any
experience with the
. . .
regio)"

of

its

citizens

who might

try for

that name could enable

him to
as the

escape the

penalties."12

proper princeps same

For the

emperors of what

became known

principate,

fills the

void created when

Rome turns its back

sense of royal

upon

kings.

By
or

the

"prince"

token, foremost

in the

narrow

son, filius regis,

of a

relative with a place eign or

in the line

of

succession, is

overtaken

by

prince as sover

person.

Not only

are preimperial principi

the title was used

in

various senses

overtaken

by

the

idea

of a prince as a single ruler

"King"

but

king

(rex) loses its luster. The

once

titles even tend to switch character.

"prince"

becomes

associated with pretension and

tyranny,

and

takes on positive attributes

royalty, for example, patriarchy and divinity. The Roman princeps, then, lends itself in two ways to a new conception of rule in Machia velli. First, it introduces a new sovereign figure, although Machiavelli some

identified

with

what

disguises this

by

utilizing in the Prince

a sense of

a traditional

"mirror

princes"

of

genre.

Even here, however,

princes"

"mirror

of

genre we

novelty shines through, given that the itself is itself a breakthrough of sorts. The title De
not employed until the end of the thirteenth

Regimine Principum,

find, is

century not become placing

before that,

writers spoke

largely

of

kings

and monarchs

and

it does
and re

popular until

the later middle

ages.13

Second, transcending
that as
"prince"

"kings"

as the ruler of

highest

stature means

ascends

in

stature, kings

or

royalty

are

diminished.
"prince"

Machiavelli's

utilization of

to signify a new political direction is

illustrated, in turn, in
chapter

a number of ways.

For

"king"

start,

never appears appear

in

heading

of the

Prince but

"prince"

"principality"

and
"Kingdom"

in

seven

teen chapter headings between them. there the

ruler of
ruler of

occurs

in

one

the

kingdom

of

the title,

Darius, is
is

not called

heading king and

Romans

but
the
as

the kind of kingdom

characterized

called a prince.

In the Prince,

well,

we

learn that

princes ought to model

subservient provinces

their behavior

on the

by

reducing kingdoms to all blood-related

served,
although

and, among
same

royalty.14

In the Discourses, the

things, erasing tendency is also ob

other

the treatise's republican emphasis makes it

less

pronounced or

222

Interpretation

obvious.

Philip

of

Macedon

and

his

son

Alexander, for

example,

are

said

to

provide evidence that

quire

two virtuous princes in

succession are

sufficient

to ac

the world.

This,

according to
and

Machiavelli, is in keeping
her
rise

with republican

Rome's

expulsion of

her kings

to "ultimate

greatness."

That

is,

the

success of the

two

princes

is identified

with republican greatness.

Both demand

the suppression of royalty, which

and

princely political success. Machiavelli laments that "neither

virtuous ways of ancient

thereby becomes the grounds of both popular In the preface to the first book of the Discourses,
republic"

prince nor

of

his

day

emulates

the

"kings,

legislators"

captains, citizens,

in their "ancient
once there

kingdoms

republics"

and

(Preface [p. 124], I.xx [p. 185]). Where

were ancient princes and

kingdoms

and republics with their various

ancient republics

leaders,

there are now

modem re

republics, and as
given

have

given

way to

publics, so

kings have
we

way to princes.

On this basis, already

pening. under

way,

even

may say that Machiavelli intends to further a process if his audience is not fully cognizant of what is hap

In the Prince, he lauds Ferdinand the Catholic,

"weak
king"

from held

becomes

"by fame

and

by

glory the
what a

first

King of Spain, who king among the

must

Christians"

and at estimable

the same time demonstrates

cf.

"prince"

do to be Machi

(Prince XXI [p. 89-90], he is

a

XVI [p. 67]). For Machiavelli, Fer

which suggests that

dinand is

a prince where

king

for Christians,

avelli sees

farther than Christians

who appear

to be bound to old-fashioned or
not

out-of-date categories and

hierarchies. Were it

royalty in favor of princes, the temptation that the use of the titles here might indicate that
suppress

for Machiavelli's tendency to would be, I admit, to think

"prince"

"king"

and

are coeval.

Given Machiavelli's
ence

suppression of

for

princes over

kings, however,
coreligionists.

royalty elsewhere and the Roman prefer the linkage between Christians and the

king
rious

title suggests that Machiavelli couples his resistance to

resistance

kings to his

noto

to his

Advancing

princes and

suppressing kings,

in this sense, may be one of the steps in Machiavelli's testing Christian and Church political influence.
That there is
a substantive

greater project of con

dimension to the kind

switch

from kings to
also

princes and

that the alteration ushers in a new

outside

of politics

is

indicated

by

sources upon

Machiavelli. One

such source

is Dante. Indeed, Machiavelli draws

of princes.

the poet to

help

clear

the

decks for

the

citations to the poet

in the Discourses,
to princes,

In the only direct advancing we learn from Dante of the faults in the
and

two

main alternatives

royalty

il

popolo.

For il popolo, the fault

is instability. The
that

people

tend to choose and

the

they lose their self-confidence and Monarchy, but the passage he quotes,

follow bad leaders, with the result turn self-destructive: Machiavelli cites
to the effect that the people cry death

to life and life to

death, is from
that
quotes the

the Banquet. For royalty, the

fault is the

uncer

tainty Here, Machiavelli

inal has it

of succession or

inheritance is

undependable as a source of virtue.

"ascend"

Dante's orig probity not descending branches" "through the but having to be sought from He
on

Comedy

Changing
who

Titles: The Use of

"Prince"

223

"wills

it,"

that

is,

that

virtue

is

providential rather a matter of

heritage.

Thus Dante explicitly enters the Discourses as a witness for the antiroyal posi tion that Machiavelli borrows from Rome. For Dante, as for Machiavelli, in herited
status and qualities

unsupportable. antidynastic

untrustworthy and dynastic claims to Indeed, Machiavelli seems to emphasize Dante's support
are

office of

the
al

case

by

attributing the Dante

Comedy's

statement

directly

to

him,
he

though

in the

original

puts the passage

in the

mouth of

the ancient poet,

and

and allegedly secret Christian, Sordello: Sordello makes the Dante observe the late-repentant, penitent, rulers in

comment as

antepurgatory.15

In

drawing
doubts

upon

Dante this way, Machiavelli accurately

reflects

the

poet as

regards

about the people and

the old nobility, and thus about the

advent of

princes, but it is important to note that he takes liberties insofar as he suggests

any
of

alliance

between Dante force

things.

Dante,

to be sure,
of

and about the

ordering is genuinely dubious about the stability of il popolo bloodlines and traditional lines of authority. Moreover, he
about

and

himself

as regards

welcoming the

new

where

specifically Sordello

connects

his doubts

inheritance to

royalty.

In the
repeats

same place

speaks of the uncertainties of

descent, Dante
"king"

his

arboreal

metaphor with

for failed inheritance

of

moving through the

"branches"

in

connection

the

"issue"

Henry

III

of

England,

the one

to whom we are specifi

cally introduced in this part of antepurgatory (Purg. 7.121, 130-32). On the other hand, Dante does not view the failure of royalty, to stay with our theme, with Machiavelli's
equanimity. not a

The

prospect

that

he

and

Sordello Sordello's
not an

are

antepurgatory is
of a sad

happy
on

one

for

either poet, and conditions.

comment

observing in is part
as

commentary
to
celebrates

contemporary
a sign that

It is

invitation,

in

Machiavelli,
Machiavelli
new order of

recreate rule

and erect princes.

is

Still, that Dante laments what he, like Machiavelli, discerns the onset of a
anticipate wake of

things. Where Dante

differs from Machiavelli is that he is troubled

Machiavelli in

by

the

new

order, although he seems to

identifying
royalty,

the

new

order, that

is,

what

follows in the

failed kings

and

with

princes and principalities.

Dante's
the

perspective and

on

these matters may be seen

in his

presentation

of

heavens,

in

particular

in his

presentation of

the heaven of

Venus,

the

heaven

where

this and the next world, or the temporal and eternal worlds,

intersect: the for

In
which

Comedy describes

Venus

as

the place

where we
below"

discern "the

good

the world above wheels about the world

where we experience

(Paradiso

9, 107-8).
political

such

terms, Venus is
seem

the possibilities and limits of

politics.

Interestingly, however, in
most arresting.

the heaven the

most

limits

of

politics, or

failure, Martel,

The heaven's
and

imposing

figure is Charles

the titular

king

of

Hungary

heir

apparent

to the two

Sicilies,

who

died early and unfortunately and whose death negatively impacted the world to come. As Charles puts it to Dante, "The world held me but a short time below,
and

had it been longer

much evil comment

that will be

would not

have

been,"

a point
rule"

reinforced

by

Charles's

that his untimely death led to "bad

be-

224
cause

Interpretation
when

"nature

meets

with

fortune
points

unsuited

to

it"

things turn perverse:

and

besides his
were unfit

own

example, Charles
king"

to

his

cousins

Louis

Robert,

who

religion"

for their offices,

the one

"wrest(ed)
he

to

although

by

nature a

soldier, the other "made a

when

ought

to have been a priest (Para.

8.

49-84, 121-48). Sordello's failed royalty in

paralleled of

antepurgatory,

in this respect,

are

by

the sad example of Charles Martel and

his

relatives

in the heaven

Venus.16

The

connection of this sad situation of

princes emerges

in Dante's
universe

characterization of
composed of

failed royalty to the new world of Venus as a heaven. In the poet's

of which
case of

cosmology, the

is

independently
nus,

moved or

has

an

revolving heavens, each independent efficient cause. In the

is

Ve

however, Dante gives us conflicting accounts of these movers. In the ear lier and unfinished Banquet, he calls them Thrones, in the Comedy, he calls
them Principalities. The titles themselves descend
angelic

from the New Testament's

orders,

of which we will

have

more to

8.34, 28, 130-35; 9.61). For

Dante's final description
which
of the

the moment,

however,
and

say below (Conv. II. v. 6; Para. we need but note that

with a

heavens identifies Principalities

heaven failure.

highlights the failure

of a

us to the sad consequences

promising "evil that will

king
be"

his

family line,
rule"

and alerts

and

"bad

of that

hand, Thrones, representing "God are redirected to the Heaven of Jupiter, the best phrase, sense that it has a benign influence, is characterized by
other sents

On the

judicant,"

in Allan Gilbert's
the heavens in the

of

concordia, and repre

where we experience

justice (Para. 8.5

1).17

The heaven

of

Principalities

the sad

failure

of a

deserving king
of what

and the misplacement of other when

dignitaries

and where we contrasts with

learn

happens

inheritance

and position go

the heaven of Thrones with

of

its

commitment to

awry justice. This is not

success or as movers

to diminish the positive aspects

well-being teaches us to
coincide with

love

rightly.

Venus, which in lieu of political However, that Principalities

in
a

the cutting

off of political promise

young
and

king

and

his de

scendants and the

giving
as

over of

the world to "bad

rule"

"evil"

is

consistent

with a negative sense of principalities

that Dante may borrow

from Scripture.

Princes

come

forward

kings

recede

in Dante's

universe as

in Machiavelli's,
with a new

but Dante
order of

attracts our attention to

the possibility that this coincides

things that is not to be welcomed. Dante like

Machiavelli teaches

us to

anticipate princes and see that the

way toward them is paved with failed

kings,

but he does not,

Machiavelli does, teach us to enthuse about this. The difference between Dante and Machiavelli here may be signalled
as

by

passage

in the Comedy. There, for the only time in the poem, Dante

speaks of
reference under

prudenza, the characteristic virtue of the good

Aristotelian
as a

ruler.

The

is to the
"king."

regal prudenza

of

King Solomon,
"docile

who

standing This is Dante's

Solomon
prays

as opposed to

theoretical

knowledge

specifically foundation for

the
cor

asks

for

becoming
which

version of the

heart,"

docile, for

in the

Vulgate.18

Solomonic prudence, in

this respect, marks the

Changing
best
that
of

Titles: The Use of

"Prince"

225

kings

and represents the combination of

is lost

with such as

upon prudence as

understanding and a good heart Charles Martel. Machiavelli, of course, also fastens the virtue of rulers, but he drops that sense of regal prudence
with

that

Dante identifies This may

Solomon,

with

Scripture,

and with the cor

docile. For

Machiavelli,
edge.

prudence
stand

is the

virtue of princes and

is indiscernible from knowl

kings into
new world

a world of

for what is necessary to transform the world of Dantean Machiavellian princes and for why Dante is chary of the
sees on the political

that, like Machiavelli, he

to return,

horizon.

For
will

another perspective on what

useful

the turn from royalty to princes

a

be

if only for

moment, to

antennae what

are, I think, quite as sensitive as

involves, it Shakespeare, whose political Machiavelli's, especially as regards

of

the

future holds. We
VIII
reveals a

saw earlier

that the depiction of Katherine of Aragon

in

Henry

potentially tragic dimension

altering titles. There is,

posi anticipates a glorious

however,

another side of

the play that suggests that such alteration can be

Shakespeare, refusing Dante's cautionary perspective, tive, that the disappearance of traditional English royalty will lead to
and that
ascent of princes. veyed

The

nature of

the changes
scenes.

Shakespeare has in
a

mind

is

con

in the

play's

first

and

last

The first includes

hyperbolic

account

of

the

"fabulous"

the Cloth of Gold

meeting of Henry VIII and Francis I of France on the Field of luster" put on an extraor in 1520. Here, "two kings equal in
a place where

dinary display
of the

in

"all

royal."

was

The last

scene

is

a celebration
thousand."

christening of The irony that Elizabeth

provides a

Elizabeth I,
will a

which we are

told, "will beget

be the "virgin

Queen"

aside, her birth presumably

stimulus, and

pattern, the

for

similar

births in the future. In the last

scene,

Archbishop Cranmer,
an

first Protestant
the

Archbishop
for
what

of

Canterbury, de
under

livers
and

"apocalyptic

vision of

bliss in

England"

store

Elizabeth

her

successor

James I. As Cranmer describes

"high
and
with

"royal

infant"

and

mighty Princess
her,"

England"

of

is to come, the present will become "a pat

graces,"

tern to all princes

living

the embodiment of "all princely

create another scenes of

and

her Phoenix-like
herself.'"9

ashes will

"new

heir

as great

in

admiration as

Together,

then, the Henry's

tionary
first

character of

Henry framing reign by contrasting perhaps

VIII

point

to the revolu

one of the

last, if
with

not

the very

last,

great moment of medieval of

pageantry in English

history
final
Cloth

the

moments

the queen who marks the Shakespearean advent of modem

with a

English

politics.

feudal

politics

We may say of Henry VIII that it opens for all its radiance, the Field and royalty
and closes

salute to of

of the

Gold

was sterile

politically

by

celebrating

a new political world where

"patterns."

princes set the standards or

In

such

terms, the transition in

of

Henry

VIII from the Field

completes

of the

Cloth

of

Gold to the England

English Richard

Elizabeth

and

history
II,
the

and

constitutional

reviewing development that Shakespeare begins in

James

the

process of

the insular

medieval politics

first play in his English history cycle. What we see now is that Shakespeare identifies with Henry's ancestor John of

226

Interpretation
kings"

Gaunt in the
parochial as

play is overcome, and Gaunt's "royal throne "sceptered no longer provide the focus for English
earlier
isle"
"fame"

of politics.

and

Cranmer

puts

it,

politics will
use of

nations."2"

new

Cranmer's

and look outwards, towards princely imagery to describe the English future

Now, "mak(ing)

is

significant

upon rule. and of

in that the imagery, and the title, accompanies anew perspective It may be unremarkable that Elizabeth is initially heralded as the "high
England."

mighty Princess

of

Given her bloodlines

on

and

her

place

in the line

inheritance,

the title is appropriate

and

traditional grounds.

The

princely language

imagery

in the

rest of aged

her scene, however

density of including the

English

prediction that she will

live to be "an

princess"

point toward an

ruling style that is seditious of traditional lineal claims. In keeping with Eliza beth's Phoenix-like qualities, for instance, those about her will claim greatness by

following
of

her ways, "not begun

says that

by

blood":

at

least for

rhetorical

purposes, this con

cludes the process

when will

Henry V,

Agincourt,
no

he

encouraging his troops before the Battle be brother to anyone "that sheds his blood with
and childless

me."

That Elizabeth dies doubt

unmarried

"yet
that

virgin"

as

already
our

noted
other

plays a part

in

all this.

It

remains

Shakespeare, like

sources,
claims on

lineal

however, demonstrates that princes come forward as royalty and recede. Moreover, the praise Shakespeare, by way of Cranmer, lav
and

ishes

Elizabeth

James

suggests

that

his

new

princes,

and

princesses,
old-

dispose

of qualities more royalty.

in

keeping

with

Machiavellian
one needs and

princes than with

fashioned

On this score, for example,

will attract

but

mention that accord

and

ing

to the

Archbishop, Elizabeth
will

"love

fear,"

that her text on

terror."

chapters on "peace, plenty, utility Machiavelli and Dante, in sum, Shakespeare's princes, political

include

love, truth,
and

Like

princesses,

represent

something new, but Shakespeare does not openly development. He does, however, associate princes ism
and political ambition that

express
with a

any doubts about the kind of cosmopolitan

old world and new:

drives

a wedge

between the

repeating the Cranmer say

old
of

Dantean metaphor, but changing its direction, Shakespeare has James that he will "like a mountain cedar reach his branches to
him."21

all the plains about

If it is the

case that

"prince"

using similarly

as a title signifies a new order of things

for Machiavelli To

and some

minded

thinkers, the

question next arises as

to what the new order entails. In

obvious. and merit the

Machiavelli,
be

part of the answer

is

immediately
measures

title,

a prince must

acquainted with

strong

be willing to use them. This is especially tme, apparently, of princes who move up from lesser positions. That is, in keeping with Machiavelli's denigrat

ing

of

inheritance

and

dynastic politics,
marked out

title rather than

inherits it is

ruling from other

the

prince who appropriates rulers

his

by

the way he utilizes

hard

measures.

In the Prince, the difference in

short

rulers

in this
of a

respect

is illustrated
prince"

by

comparing Machiavelli's relatively

treatment

"natural

who

Changing
inherits
rule with

Titles: The Use of

"new

"Prince"

227
order

his longer treatment

the "new

prince"

of a

who acquires

his

or territory.

Whereas the "natural

prince"

succeeds
will need

"ordinary

industry,"

prince"

to

"extinguish"

in maintaining himself by the bloodline of in

order

the old ruler and over all

demonstrate "great
the "new
prince"

industry"

to

maintain

himself. The superiority

to

of

to the "natural
industry"

prince,"

or of virtue

inheritance,
and of

resides

in the superiority
that

of

"great

to

try"

in the fact that the "new

the "natural

prince"

effectively

succeeds

"ordinary indus by cutting off the

would seem

bloodline

prince,"

is,

the prince

by

inheritance (Pr. II [p.

"prince"

16], III [p. 18]).

By

the same

token, he

who wins the title

to merit it more than he to

whom

the title descends.

spells out such

In the Discourses, Machiavelli

and

differences

more

elaborately,
rulers.

along the way points to how princes improve on nonprincely

"prince"

He

approvingly tells us, for example, that Philip of Macedon "from a small inimical" became of Greece by "the exceedingly cruel and to "every
life"

king"

way

of an

policy
object

of

treating his

subjects

like

sheep.

In

other

words,

Philip

provides

subjects as a

lesson in advancing from king to prince by treating his tyrant would: one recalls Thrasymachus's tyrannical example of

the shepherd and his

Discourses'

flock in the

Republic.22

Machiavelli

expands on this

in the
of

two other comments on Philip. In the

fraud, he
that

pairs

Philip

with

the

Sicilian tyrant

first, discussing Agathocles, and says

great"

the utility
of the

two

empires. In the by utilizing fraud they attained kingdoms and "very how must rulers revenge Machiavelli addresses second, discussing injuries,

Philip,

this time

an example of relates

failure,

as

King

of

Macedon

and as

Alexander's

father. As Machiavelli
whose attacker wedding.

the story, an
punish

indignant kills

victim of sexual assault

Philip

had failed to

Philip

at

Philip's daughter's

haps here

we

Philip is killed, therefore, because he was not severe enough, or per ought to say he was insufficiently princely. Thus it is that Machiavelli
Philip king
although

calls

Philip is

at

the height

of

the power for which he

xxviii

was saluted as prince earlier

(Disc. I.xxvi. [p. 194], Il.xiii [p. 311],

[pp.

364-65]).

Together, then, Machiavelli's

utilize

chapters

on

Philip

recall

his

principate

and

the

"prince"

title when Philip's success

and

is highlighted but draw

attention

to

Philip

as a

where

he fails to

that we see

father in recounting where he erred and failed, that is, according to the standards of a prince. The net result is that Philip's fame rested on the behavior that led him beyond king

king

act

the hard requirements of princely success, for his Macedonian subjects, fraud akin to that of Agatho cles, severity in punishments, and intelligent revenges. To this, we may add intelligent use of arms, given that the Prince tells of how Philip had once been

ship

and that we

learn

some of

example, cruelty

as with

employed as a captain of troops and took their

by

the Thebans but ultimately betrayed them

liberty

and

how,

with

Cesare Borgia, Hiero, David,

of arms

and

Charles

VII, he

exemplifies

the

proper

princely ordering

(Pr. XII [p.

55], XIII
kings

[p. 61]).

By

his

use of

Philip, Machiavelli

thus erodes our respect for

228

Interpretation
dispose
of qualifications that

and suggests that princes

anny. men

lend themselves to tyr

He

reinforces and embroiders upon and

this

message with accounts of

"private"

how be his

like Hiero

Agathocles

ascended

from

circumstances
pieces"

to

come princes
own soldiers
ple.

utilizing terrifying and Agathocles murdered

by

methods: all of

Hiero "cut to Syracuse's

some of

senators and rich peo

Hiero

and

Agathocles took different

was

routes

to their new positions, to

however.

Whereas Agathocles

King

of

Syracuse

prior

becoming

prince, Machia

velli quotes an unidentified source to the end that

being

king

kingdom"

except a

Hiero "lacked nothing of (Pr. VI [p. 33], XIII [p. 60], VIII [pp. 41-42];
privati

Disc. Il.xiii [p. 311]). The two exemplary

the step of

king

on the

way to

becoming

prince.

why Machiavelli drops Romulus, the one great as king in chapter 6 of the Prince, when he repeats the list
the tract's

one can skip helps explain This, perhaps, founder he expressly addresses of great

demonstrate that

founders in
a

last

chapter.

There he

says

the times are appropriate for

introducing
mind.23

"new
great

prince"

in Italy, but in

being

silent on

King Romulus, but

fill the
role

not on

the other

founders, he may

suggest that

kings

cannot

he has in

If
a

is so, royalty is so far from being drawback in the world of princes.

this

a prerequisite

for ruling that it becomes

equation.

This leads to the

princes go

other side of the

Machiavellian king-prince
matched

That

dispose

of qualities

lacking

in kings is

by

failings in kings that

other

beyond the

uncertainties of

descent.

Princely

qualities, in

words, coun
a

terbalance royal faults as well as supply what royalty cannot.

are constrained

Kings, for

start,

in

ways not shared with

by

princes, and thus are not so

well equipped

as princes to

deal

fortune

or necessity.

They

are, for

instance,
and the

more suscepti power

ble to

clerical

influence than

princes.

Royal dynasticism

Church's

over the sacraments open

the way for manipulation of

tion of marriage. In the case of

Shakespeare's

kings by way of manipula Henry VIII, Henry's divorce from

Katherine is less

critical to

Henry's
on the

impending

marriage to not on the

Archbishop Wolsey, the representative of Rome, than Anne Boleyn: Wolsey is willing to compromise
King
latter. Similarly, Machiavelli's Pope Alexander VI Louis XII of France for the benefit of Cesare
also

former, but

manipulates the marriage of

Borgia.24

At

a more critical

level, kingship is

to the rule of law. This is a staple of the tradition to which

restricting insofar as it is committed Machiavelli answers,

and he effectively adopts the old attitude that kings, as opposed to tyrants, follow the rule of law, but turns the argument on its head, making adherence to the law a flaw rather than a strength. As Machiavelli has it, good institutions

and

laws

kings
and

strong kingdoms, which means that even strong defer to the law, which, in turn, diminishes their freedom of action flexibility. This is tme, apparently, at all levels of rule. The difference
are characteristic of must rulers constrained

between

by

the rule of
of

law

and of

free

rulers

by

Machiavelli's different treatments

a prince and

Philip
all

Macedon,

may be illustrated who is praised for

multitude,
which

turning himself into

for making

anew,

and the

Changing
is
praised

Titles: The Use of "Prince

constancy.

"

229

for its

regard

for law
on

and

for its

To begin

with the presen

tation of
anew:

Philip, he is,
who wishes

the ancient standard, a tyrant in that he makes all

"he

to make an absolute power, which is called

everything."

tyranny by

the authors, ought to renew

act

This

means that

contrary to community standards,

"repugnant"

or to use

willing to Machiavelli's terms, to act in a

was

Philip

way Christian but

to the community and offensive to all ways of

life, "not only

human."

At least

as the

traditional definition of justice as follow

law is concerned, this means Philip was, as you would expect of a unjust. Machiavelli magnifies this point by offering as his example of tyrant, such behavior the only quotation from the Bible that occurs in the Discourses.

ing

the

He

attributes

to

David,

upon

attributed to

God: he "filled the

becoming a king, an act that in the hungry with good things and sent
him in the Discourses
model

Magnificat is
the
rich

empty."

David

the other reference to

calls

away him "an

old

prince"

excellent or conventional
ment of

becomes the Scriptural

for

princes

by

overturning

things, that is,

and the

by reversing
(and)
new

what would

be the

expected treat

the

hungry
new

rich, he provides a Scriptural

men."25

equivalent of

making

"new names,

authorities,

Philip's

community community

standards are a secular version of

standards.

divinely

contrary to inspired acts that ignore

actions

salvation comes

Christian doctrine may justify this spiritually because in Jesus and is not bound to a nation, a parochial set of laws, or
the message of the Magnificat

to a secular set of standards

or secular terms such actions rule of

but in

political

law.

Politically
road

lean toward tyranny by leaning away from the emulating the divine or secularizing the spiritual puts the

prince on

the

to

injustice,

and the argument

for the

prince

to

make all

anew amounts

to

having

the prince

imitate

a tyrannical

deity

rather than

imitate

king

and subordinate

himself to his

community. standards

When Machiavelli turns to the multitude, however, his ior

shift.

for behav

"Against the
will
law."

opinion,"

common and

he

says that

peoples, "when

they

are

princes,"

be "stable, prudent,

grateful,"

when respectful of or

"regu

lated

by

In this case, Machiavelli

goes

on, the voice

of the people

may be

likened to

that of

God. Where

princes prove

coming the law,

a constant people as ruler or

steadfast

worthy by surmounting or over prince in the generic sense proves

words, the people as generic
character of

worthy

by being

for the law. In

other

princes are good and

just

when

they

share

the

lawabiding

kings,

and

specific princes are

come of

"good

wise,"

and

Machiavelli's phrase,

when

they

can over

dedication to the law. Thus, Machiavelli expressly excludes from the list the kings of Egypt bom when Egypt was governed "good and wise
princes"

"in

law,"

accordance with

those bom in
eight

Sparta,
one

which, according to Machia

and those

velli, obeyed

Lycurgus's laws for

hundred years,

bom in France,
law"

of all the realms

Machiavelli knows the contemporary

or

best "regulated Princes in the

by

and

thus
of

the

strongest

of

kingdoms.26

specific are

sense

Philip

of

Macedon

Machiavelli's

version of

David,

we

conclude,

free

and

act, like tyrants,

outside the

law,

whereas princes

in the

generic

sense, such as a

230

Interpretation
retain their commitment succeeds

ruling multitude, will apparently his titles in this way, Machiavelli

rulers against one another and

to law.

By adjusting
enmity

both in pitting the law.

people and single

demonstrating
us at

that the ground of the

between the two is different

At this point,
princes.

approaches to the rule of

last question, for

with

least,

arises

This deals

Machiavelli's

use of religion

to

regarding Machiavelli's support both the tyran

nically tending princely

specific prince and the

lawabiding

multitude when
relies on

it takes

on

clothing.

On the

one

hand,

as noted,
of

Machiavelli

Scripture, if
jurists'

unconventionally, to support the

idea

the prince as, returning to the

phrase, "loosed from the

utilizes

law."

That is, in

bringing
other

to bear the

Magnificat, he
before

that part of the Christian tradition which places spiritual matters

politics and subordinates

law to faith. On the

hand, he

employs religion to

support the association of the people with

constant and

justice

by likening

the voice of the

seems to

lawabiding
between

multitude

to the voice of

God. Machiavelli
politics

leave

us torn

a religion which

by

subordinating

to

something

greater moves us toward willful, and

tyrannical,

princes or a religion which

by
be

associating
sual

lawabiding Philip
of

peoples with the

deity
ease

encourages popular and consen

our problem

government.

Nor does Machiavelli

and on

in the

chapter

tween that on

the constancy of the people, when he pits the

and

corrupting
against the
yond

effect

the

tyrannical

irreligious Roman decimvir Appius

are

restraining

effect of

republican, and royal, lawmakers who

be

"hope"

as regards erring, that

is,

who seem to

lack

a principal requirement

of religion: unlike

the chapters at the peripheries of this sequence, this chapter

does

not mention religion

(Disc. I.xlii [pp. 230-31]). Thus, to the

question of

choosing between

princes and popular government there

is

added the question

of whether religion plays a role

in the

choice.

Are we, in

other words, to con

sider religion somehow responsible

for

our new

political choices

irrespective

that the choices are usually traced to pagan

Rome?27

The

answer

here, I think, is
which

that

Scripture

gives

Machiavelli license to be held

at

utilize

religion as

he does,

is to say that
"prince"

religion can

least partly
side of men

responsible
"prince"

for the

senses of

that we the

have

encountered.

On the

as general

ruler, for

instance,

Vulgate for

supports the

previously

tioned movement away from ancient

distinctions between
a

regimes and rulers

insofar
ruler

as

it

employs princeps as a standin

in the Old Testament Hebrew

generous use of
"prince"

and

variety of different words for New Testament Greek. That is, the

Vulgate's

obscures the old approach to rule and en

and Machiavellian, reductionist position on forms of rule. Old Testament, for example, the Vulgate replaces about a dozen different Hebrew words for ruler with princeps. This is not to say that the Vulgate obliterates all distinctions among rulers. Insofar as I can determine, and consistent with the distinction between and that we have noted, courages the

modem,

In the

case of the

"prince"

"king"

princeps

in the Old Testament is

and rex

always

distinguished from

"king,"

melek

in

Hebrew

in Latin. Still, there is

a sameness

in the Vulgate for

expres-

Changing
sions original.

Titles: The Use of

"Prince"

231

for ruling, and titles for rulers, that is foreign to the Old Testament in the The general application of is also evident where Vulgate
"prince"

translations of the

Old Testament

anticipate the

New Testament. An illustration

Peace"

is the Vulgate

version of

the prediction of the coming of a "Prince of

recalled

in

Isaiah,

the most

frequently

Old Testament book in the New Testament. God: "his

name shall

The Vulgate identifies this figure

Peace."

with

be called, Wonder

ful, Counselor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of As utilized here, then, is just one among many designations or titles for the deity. In the Hebrew, however, the ruler in question the sar
"prince"

shalom

has

a more secular

bearing

and

the title is

understood more specifi

cally.

Thus, especially in

the face of the Vulgate or Christian reading, Jewish the mortality of the
the
Peace,"

commentators emphasize

sar shalom and understand

Isaiah

to refer to a particular

"crown-prince,"

future Judean king, Hezekiah (Isaiah

gives princeps a more

9:6). The Vulgate's "Prince

general

of of

then,

abstract,

force than the Hebrew

the original. A similar, although not so ex

where princeps replaces

treme,
Greek:
and

situation applies as well

in the New Testament,

rulers and on archo,

a significant number of most of the

different terms for

leaders in the Septuagint

latter turn

for example, archiereus, high-priest,

architeloneis, chief-publican (Matthew

26:62, Luke 19:2, 1 Peter 5:4). This

in the New Tes
given

is

consistent with an almost

haphazard

application of princeps

tament as a whole, wherein the title can

be

to

Jesus,

the "prince of the

kings
of the
vides

earth,"

of

the

and and the

"prince

savior,"

and

as
devils."28

world,"

"prince

of

the

readily as to Satan, the "prince In such fashion, the Bible pro

"prince."

Machiavelli

a source of support

for the

generalized sense of
of

We

may

call

this the first step in the religious end

the process of

turning

out new make

princes.

It

amounts to

freeing

rulers

from

old

ruling

categories and

helps

the generic

prince possible.

The
princes

second

by

step in this process is to generate suspicion about these new drawing in question their regimes, that is, their principalities. This

may be

seen

heavenly
influence
obstacles

especially in the New Testament. As noted in discussing Dante's movers, the Scriptural principalities, which are typically paired with
are primal
them."

"powers,"

forces that "stand behind

natural and

human

events and

In their New Testament setting, however, they also represent to the love of God and need to be surmounted on the way to the

divine. As St. Paul has it, for instance, they must be subordinated to divine authority. Christ had a part in their creation, to be sure, but they subsequently
turned
. . .

rebellious and

had to be disarmed from the

cross:

".

our

wrestling is

against

the Principalities and the the spiritual

Powers,

against

the world-rulers of this

high."29

darkness,
ment

against

forces

of wickedness on

The New Testa

"prince"

Vulgate, therefore,
specific

gives us

as a generalized

title

for

leader, but

its

"principalities"

are equated with

nature.

the

diabolical,

and thus with princes of a

more

This

anticipates

the mix of morally neutral princes and

problem

tyrannical

princes

we encounter

in Machiavelli. The Machiavellian

232

Interpretation

regarding princes may be said to echo the Christian problem regarding princes. Machiavelli manipulates Scripture to serve his own purposes as regards the development
of the new

prince, but he need not create

ex nihilo

the material

for is

his refashioning of the title in tyrannic terms. At least available to him in Scripture.
Scripture
and

some of

that material

Machiavelli, it follows, lead

prince seems

us

to

recognize

that the generic,

morally neutral,
prince,
or

eventually to be

overpowered

by

the suspect

the notion of princes that engenders such

distrust

today.

Why

this

happens is unclear, but there are grounds for speculation. Here we may return to Dante for a clue. We saw earlier that Dante apparently has doubts regarding
the onset of principalities. Despite
princes to respond

this, he, like Machiavelli,

world's political needs.

sees a need

for
to

appropriately to the
and

The

solution

the political

disunity

disarray

that he sees about

him, he says, is
in time
or

a temporal

monarchy
ral and over

with a prince

in the

role of temporal monarch or emperor: the

tempo

monarchy is "a

single principate over all things

in those things

those things measured

by

time,"

and

is "a

single principate

prince, who, possessing

all things and not

being

able

to desire

having one more, will keep

will

the kings contented within the

boundaries lesser

of their

kingdoms,

so that there shall

be

peace

between

them"

such that

associations and

individuals

be

able

to pursue their own appropriate

ends.30

Dante's initial

prince and principate as

are at

first

sight as

unlimited, and potentially as tyrannical,

actual

Machiavelli's.

When Dante turns to discuss

unchecked prince cal princes.

princes,

however,
faults but

the prospect of the

is

ameliorated.

To begin, Dante is

not unrealistic about practi

In the

flesh, they
speaks of

are as susceptible to

as anyone else, and

in

the Banquet Dante

folk"

them in terms of a debased

.

aristocracy

of

"noble

"princes, barons, knights

tyrants"

women"

not

only

men

and couples

"princes
stripes.31

and

in his invective

against

More important, however, his

specific

contemporary rulers of all historical examples indicate that

secular world

princes need to order.

be held in

check somehow

if the

is to be
right

put

in

Like Machiavelli, Dante looks to Rome for the first

princes: unlike
was

Ma

chiavelli, he argues that the

than force.

"authority
the

of the roman

prince"

by

rather

Surprisingly, he doesn't fasten

"perfect

the title upon

Augustus,

who on

for
two

Dante's
other

purposes presided over

monarchy,"

but fastens it

Romans. The first is Julius

considered

Caesar,

who

by

lic is to be

Rome's "first

prince"

supreme

marking the end of the repub (Mon. I. xvi.l, 3, Conv.

prince

IV.iv.8,

v.

12. Cf. Disc. Il.i [p. 275]). Dante's first historical

brings to

light the

opposition

between
readers

princes and republicans

that is also
places the

to the

dismay
of the

of some of

Dante's

celebrated when
with

Dante

defenders

republic, Brutus and

Cassius,

Judas in Satan's

multiple mouths

in lowest

Hell. Caesar, in this sense,

rather

speaks

for the

"will"

of

Rome,

and

for freedom,

than for the

other

republic.32

The

Roman

whom

Dante

calls

"prince"

is the

emperor
saved

Trajan. He is in

Paradise according to

a popular

legend whereby he is

through the inter-

Changing
cession of

Titles: The Use of

"Prince"

233

St. Gregory,
that

who was

impressed

by

an act of

humility,

and

"justice

piety,"

and

Dante

recounts

a short time restored to

his body,

in Purgatory: Trajan, the story goes, dies, is for accepts Christianity, and dies Thus,
again."33

counterbalancing the pagan Caesar in Dante's reckoning is a Christian Trajan: this is ironic given Trajan's fame as a persecutor of Christians. Trajan, in turn,
sets

the tone for the rest of Dante's

in the

Comedy
princes

is

a prince of the prince of and

every other prince named Church: the first is Dante's nemesis, Pope
Pharisees,"

history,

since

Boniface VIII, "the

grand

the new

the last are the glorious and

are

St. Peter

St. James,

and

between

St. Francis

and

St.

Dominic (Inf.
vie

27.85,

Para. 11.

for supremacy, Caesars

collegi, the latter a

and princes of

the alternative to popular rule:

cipi and

35, 25.2). In Dante's world, two kinds of princes the Church, who together represent republican Rome, Dante says, fought both
prin-

word

that in the

Comedy

and elsewhere also

is linked to
Inf.

the Church (Para.

6.45,

cf.

Purg. 16.129, Para. 19.110. See

two kinds

23.91,

Para. 22.98). There are, then,

envisions.

mentions of

of princes

in the

world

that Dante

ous

struggles

This obviously creates problems, especially in the wake of the jeal between the Pope and Emperor that marked the high Middle
these

Ages.

Among
How, in

is the

problem of

how to in

keep

the princes within bounds or turn on those

whom

how to
rules.

assure that the

secular prince

particular not

he

short, can we be sure the prince will protect his

political

subjects'

liberty

if,

as

Dante has it, his

jurisdiction is

unlimited?

On the

model

of

as was done for the chiefs of Moses, he is to issue law for "particular the tribes of Israel, but what holds him to the law, especially since we are told that Dante reminds us of the promise in Psalms that the just will have nothing

princes"

to fear from "evil

report,"

which means that the ruler as

or

lawgiver

need not

be

bound

by community opinion Psalms 111:7)? In pursuing the

faces the
same

tradition (Mon.
of

example

I.xii.9-12, Moses, in other

xiv.7-9,

IIIJ4,

words, Dante's

prince

temptations towards

tyranny

that Machiavelli's prince

does in To

following

the

example attributed

to David.

resolve

this, Dante turns the

spiritual

other end of

his problem, the The

existence of

competing princes becomes

within

secular and

princes,

into

a virtue.

existence of

dual

an answer

to the question of
suggests

how to

keep

an unchecked prince

bounds and, in addition, mately turns tyrannic. For Dante,

secular and religious share authority.

why the Machiavellian prince ulti political liberty is protected by arranging that princes, the extentions of Caesar and Trajan if you will,
this means that the secular arm must subordinate

Ultimately,

itself to the

religious arm where called the

since

world, who is

Roman

it is absolutely required. The "protector of the as Dante puts it, must defer to the
Prince,"

Roman Pontiff,
eternal

happiness,
"Caesar

the Pontiff's
must show

earthly happiness, the Prince's domain, is secondary to domain. Thus, the Monarchy concludes on the
that
reverence

note that

towards Peter which a

first bom

son

should show

his

father."

Such deference aside, however, the

critical point

here

234
is
that

Interpretation
Dante fashions
a

kind

of

late

medieval checks and

balances

arrangement

that provides an obstacle to the princely

arrangement
would

obviously be difficult
and

tendency toward and fragile, and

to

tyranny.34

Such

an

as

commentators

have demonstrated,

would require some contortions

Gilson, Dante Bodies, p. 461). To

e.g.,
tyrannical

Philosophy,

pp.

effectively (see, 184-90; Kantorowicz, The King's Two

work

repeat,

however, theoretically

this

impulses in
used to

secular and religious princes.

is the way to contain any As Dante puts it in the

temporal and

Comedy, Rome
spiritual

have two

suns which guided men toward

happiness. So

long
one

as

they

coexisted, all

was

well.

But now, Dante

are

says, the two ways, that of the

evil

"sword"

and that of the

"crook"

joined

with

effect

because "the

does

not

fear the

other"

(Purg. 16.106-12; Inf.

12.104, 132; 27.38, 54; Purg. 6.125). Such countervailing ruling princes, for Dante, may be said to replace the rule of law as the fundamental control against answer to tyranny, is no longer tyranny. Why the rule of law, the
ancients'

is another story, but one might simply mention that Dante's model for under the world monarchy is the "fullness of of Gala happiness earthly tians 4.4, where St. Paul corrects those who choose to live "under the and
sufficient
time"

law"

in the

name of

Christian freedom

reminds them that one subject

bom "under the

law"

offers the promise of

redeeming those
will

to law (Mon.

I.xvi.2; Galatians
In
refus

4:4, 21). Machiavelli,

of

course,

have

none of

this,

which exacts a cost.

ing
and

Dante's accord, he

accepts the

danger,
prince.

and

the

likelihood,

of an

unchecked,

thereby potentially tyrannical,

We

recall

that he points us to the

irreligious tyrant Appius is likened to the

and popular and

the alternatives to a prince who abides

voice voice of

kingly rulers who are without hope as by the Magnificat or a multitude whose

able to

accepting, as Dante
a

does,
of

God. For Machiavelli, this is apparently prefer an accommodation with the Church. To put it

differently, he initiates
able

way

thinking

wherein

to

earlier that

accepting or abiding the political Machiavelli's new prince is Scripturally

emerge

any form of politics is prefer influence of the Church. We saw

anticipated.

It is just

one of

the

ironies that

in Machiavelli that Scripture in Machiavelli's teaching

sows the seeds ally.

for the

disempowering
"prince"

of religious

princes,

and religion gener

In conclusion, for
middle ages

all that

is

employed rather

loosely
kings,

from the later

rule.

to the present, the title represents a changed vision of particular, princes exist in opposition to

In

Machiavelli, in
princes. rule

to popular rule,

and to the rule of

So

long

as the

law. This helps explain, I think, our contemporary distrust of Dantean accommodation between political and religious be
no

is refused,

there would seem to

way

of

camouflage the potential and specific princes or

for tyranny

by obscuring
the

the

avoiding this. We may line between the generic

is
hedge

by having

the prince speak as the voice of the people,

but,

as

Katherine

of

Aragon
prince.

discovered, in

final

analysis there

no

against the

irreligious

Changing
NOTES

Titles: The Use of "Prince

"

235

1.

Henry VIII, IV.ii.lll, 172, in

genl.

The Complete Oxford Shakespeare,

Stanley
our

Wells

and

Gary

Taylor,

eds., 3 vols. (Oxford: Oxford

University Press,

1987). For

purposes, the play's

unsettled arranges

authorship is immaterial. See, too, Love's Labour's Lost, Ill.i. 173. In IV.ii, Katherine for her own funeral and interment. In V.i.18, 166, the next scene, Anne's labor and the
of

delivery
Rome

Elizabeth

are announced.

Shakespeare takes
the

some

liberties here in that the historical

Anne led to his
rupture with

Katherine died three

and

years after

Elizabeth's birth. Henry's Church

of
honour"

marriage to

his assuming leadership of Hobbes is instructive: "Titles of

and
occasion of

England.
value set upon

signify "the

them

by

the sovereign
. . .

commonwealth,"

power of the of

they
and

wax and wane such that

"in

the process of time

offices

honour, by
mere

trouble,

for

reasons of good and peaceable

government, were turned

titles"

into

and,
removed

by implication,
10,
pp.

that titles could

be devised to

paper over the

fact
ed.

that persons

had been

from "possession
chap.

command,"

and

Leviathan, Michael Oakeshott,

(New York:

Macmillan, 1962),
2. The Prince

78-79.

and the

Law: 1200-1600 (Berkeley:

University

of

California Press, 1993),

pp.

3,

38. Pennington asks, regarding Machiavelli, how sovereignty in the sixteenth century differs from earlier versions and says (pp. 269ff., 283-84, n. 66) that it can be discussed "without becoming
anachronistic"

hopelessly
3.
although
. .

or

"without

being
Law,

insensitive to differences between then

pp.

now."

and

Pennington, The Prince

"most jurists
there were those
law"

and the

77-79, 88-90, 289. Pennington

define

also points out that

'princeps'

adopted

as a generic title to

a ruler who

had

no superior

for

whom the title could

"only

be

used

to

describe the

emperor as

defined

by

Roman

(pp. 90-91).
and

4. Pennington, The Prince

the

Law,

p.

83; Leo Strauss, On Tyranny, Victor Gourevitch

p.

and

Michael Roth, eds. (New York: Macmillan, 1991), p. 24. 5. Taming the Prince (New York: The Free Press, 1989),
that all rule

33 (because

of the

"presumption
of

ruling"),

p.

is unjust, 216.

all rulers must seek to avoid the appearance and evade the

responsibility

6. Machiavelli: The

Chief Works

and

Others,

trans. Allan

Gilbert, 3

vols.

(Durham: Duke Uni

versity Press, 1965). Kantorowicz, The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), pp. 89 and n.7, 94-95 (my emphasis). See, too, pp. 92
n.

18, 1 16, 218, 222, 227, 263 ("a

who

Ages: the Prince

translations of
"ruler,"

new ideal of kingship is found sporadically in the later Middle himself fight"), p. 439. Similar examples may be found in recent Dante. Christopher Ryan, for example, translates principato and prencipe as

did

not

"rule"

and

translates unicus

in Dante: The Banquet (Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri, 1989), p. 128, and Prue Shaw Dante: Monarchy (Cambridge: Cam principatus as "a single sovereign
authority,"

bridge

University Press, 1996),

p.

4.

7. The Machiavellian Moment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), pp. 57, 158, 184. Pocock, perhaps sensing the problem, uses hegemon in the Discourses, pp. 181-82. For Pocock on language, see, e.g., Christopher Nadon, "Aristotle and the Republican Paradigm: A Reconsideration of Pocock's Machiavellian The Review of Politics, 58, no. 4 (Fall, 1996): 679: Pocock's
Moment,"

"greatest influence

rests more on

advocates scrupulous attention to the

political theorists

wrote,

and which

his championing a new method of historical interpretation that historical and especially linguistic contexts in which past stresses the deterministic character of the language in which
that emphasizing

ideas

expressed."

are see

For the

argument

Machiavelli's vocabulary

exacts a cost to

Kahn, who also offers a reasonably recent scorecard of the sides in the arguments over Machiavelli, "Reading Machiavelli: Innocent Gentillet's Discourse on Political Theory, 22, no. 4 (November, 1994): 539-40, esp. nn. 1-3. Also on Machiavelli's rheto Rhetorica, 8, No. 2 (1991): ric, see A. J. Parel, "Machiavelli's Use of Civic Humanist 127-29. For a helpful discussion of interpretations of Machiavelli, see Mark Hulliung, Citizen Machiavelli (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), pp. 219ff. 8. Thoughts on Machiavelli (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1969), pp. 9-10, 13, 47.
his rhetoric,
Victoria
Method,"

Rhetoric,"

236

Interpretation
a principato civile and a principato assoluto,

9. Sasso distinguishes
ples:

Studi

su

Machiavelli (Na Chi

Morano, 1967), pp. 95-100. See, too, Discourses on Livy, trans. Harvey Mansfield
cago

the
and

introductory

comments

in Niccolo Machiavelli:

Nathan Tarcov (Chicago: The

upon this work.

University

of

Press, 1996),

p. xxi.

My

translation will

be based

citations to Machiavelli, with page numbers Discorsi, Sergio Bertelli, ed. (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1960). Polybius, The Histories, 10.3-5 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), v. 6, pp. 290-91. For Machiavelli's debts to Polybius, see Sasso, Studi, chaps. 4 and 5; Harvey Mansfield, Machia velli's New Modes and Orders (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1979), pp. 34-40. For Aristotle's

10. Discourses I.ii (pp. 130-31), Prince I (p. 15);

are to

in parentheses,

Machiavelli: II Principe

formulation
"Dilemma
we

of

regimes, see Politics 1259a25-bl0. Short of getting

DiscorsP'

into

what

J. H. Hexter
no

calls

the

of the

What

provides

Machiavelli

access to

Polybius if he had
an

Greek?

may

note

in passing that Machiavelli diverges from Polybius in

speaks of

interesting

way

with regard

to princeps. Whereas Machiavelli speaks of principalities

tyrants, Polybius
that

turning tyrannic and princes becoming kingship (basileia) turning monarchic (monorchia), by which he means
kingship. Pocock's
if
"monarch"
"prince"

monarchy is

"monarch"

a corruption of

equation of

with

then may

"Seyssel, Machiavelli, and intends, Polybius Studies in the Renaissance, 8(1956): 96; J. H. Whitfield, Discourses on Machiavelli (Cambridge: W. H. Heffer, 1969), pp. 191-98; F W. Walbank, Historical Commentary on Polybius (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), vol. 1, p. 660. 1 1. For the modern dichotomy between popular and autocratic politics, see Paul Rahe, Repub lics Ancient and Modem (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992), pp. 380 (". like 'the anxious to keep Machiavelli, Bacon, and Descartes, Hobbes distinguished between what they have already acquired, and the who want more and more and more"), 421, 505,
more

be

telling
VI,"

than he

is

a standin

for

"tyrant."

people'

'princes,'

711. For the departure from

("

"regal"

royal or

rule and the move

towards princely rule, see, e.g.,

Locke, The Second Treatise, VIII. 11 3, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, shew me any one Man in any Age of the World free to begin a lawful 1988), p. 344 Monarchy; I will be bound to shew him Ten other free men at Liberty, at the same time to unite and begin a new Government under a Regal, or any other Form. either all Men arc free, or else there is but one lawful Prince, one lawful Government in the World"). 12. Disc. I.xx (p. 185), lviii (pp. 264-65), III.v (p. 388); Seneca, De dementia, 15.1, 16.2; St. Thomas Aquinas, On Kingship, Gerald Phelan, trans., I. Th. Eschmann, intro. (Toronto: The Pon tifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1949), p. 20. Livy, Il.i. 9-10, B. O. Foster, trans. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), p. 221, reports that immediately after the Tarquins were sent off, Brutus
. . .
.

had the

people swear an oath that and

they "would

suffer no man

to be

king

in

Rome."

13. In the earlier,

as

republican, context princeps indicates priority in terms of lesser groups,

of

in first in

the senate

(princeps senatus), first

the youth (princeps

iuvenatus),

and

first

citizen

(princeps Illinois

civitatis).

See,

e.g., Disc. I.ii (pp. 134-135).

For

principi

in the

old sense

falling

before

the idea of the single ruler, see Vickie B.

Sullivan, Machiavelli's Three Romes (DeKalb: Northern

"Prince"

University Press, 1996), p. 146. Seneca, Pro Sulla, 21-25 (peregrinus

a

linked to

desire to

return

to republican
and

rex); Cicero, De Republica, 11.26. institutions. Wilfried Nippel, "Ancient

even

becomes

and

Modern Repub
ed.

licanism: 'Mixed A
would

Constitution'

Ephors,"

Fontana (Cambridge: Cambridge

sign of the shift

University Press, 1994),

and

in The Invention of the Modern Republic, p. 6.

B.

in titles

for

long

time be confused with a

understanding is that St. Thomas's De Regno, On Kingship, later work, De Regimine Principum, attributed to Ptolomy
occurs

of

Lucca. See Eschmann's introduction to On Kingship, pp. ix-xi. 14. Pr. IV (p. 19), Disc. II. iv (p. 289), xxi (p. 340). "Principality"
eleven

in the titles

of the

first

chapters, save for

IV,

where

kingdom

occurs.

distinguished

by antiquity of bloodline and centralization. The only king as such mentioned in the chapter is the king of France. 15. Disc. I.xi (p. 162), liii (p. 249); Purgatorio 7.122-24, citations to the Divine Dante: The Divine Comedy, John Sinclair trans., 3 vols. (New York: Oxford
1961); // Convivio I.xi.5-10, G. Busnelli
As the
need

In IV, monarchies of Darius's type are Machiavelli calls their monarchs princes.

Comedy are to University Press,

and

G. Vandelli,

eds.

for

princes

is

exposed

by

references to

Dante,

so the qualities

(Florence: Felice le Monnier, 1968). necessary in princes are

Changing
exposed and

Titles: The Use of

"Prince"

237

Virgil, Disc. I.xxi (p. 187), I.liv (pp. 252-53). See Larry Peterman, "Gravity The Review of Politics, 52 (1990): 190-91. Machiavelli exchanges for For the tie between royalty and inheritance, see Kantorowicz, The King's Two Bodies, p. 330. See, too, Disc. I.Iv. (p. 256). 16. For Venus as the meeting place of the spiritual and human, see Larry Peterman, "Ulysses Dante Studies, 113 (1995): 101-3. Richard Kay, Dante's Christian Astrology (Phil and adelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994), pp, 67, 80-81, 91-92.

by

references

to

Piety: Machiavelli's Modern

Turn,"

"descend"

"ascend."

Modernity,"

17. Commentators

teaching

of

attribute the change to moving from the teaching of Gregory the Great to the Pseudo-Dionysius. On the identification of Venus and Principalities, see Kay, Dante 's

for thrones,

Christian Astrology, pp. 80-83. For a resume of the controversy over the exchange of principalities see Robert Hollander s comment of October 7, 1996, on the Dante Studies website

York: AMS Press, 1965), 18. Para.

reference

(http://www.princeton.edu/dante/rh2.html.). Allan Gilbert, Dante's Conception of Justice (New p. 187; Kay, Dante's Christian Astrology, pp. 187, 196, 203-7.

13.94-105; Kings 3:9. Cf. Aristotle, Pol. 1277b25-27. Of

kindness
at and

the same nature

is

to Alexander's royal acts of

Etienne

Gilson, Dante

Philosophy

Conv. IV.xi.14. On Solomon's wisdom, see, e.g., (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), pp. 253-57.

19. I.i. 13-44, Viii. 36-37, V.iv.3-55. As the last play in Shakespeare's English quence and likely his last simply, Henry VIII is Shakespeare's "valediction to the literal
and

history
and

se

stage"

his

figurative last

word on the

direction
and

of

English
to

politics.

issue, Henry's divorce from Katherine

complement

marriage

Anne,
pp.

carries

In addition, the play's crucial dynastic implications that

the concern about inheritance that in Dante and Machiavelli leads to princes. The

Riverside Shakespeare (Boston:

Houghton-Mifflin, 1974),
V,"

977, 979.

see

20. Richard II II.i.40, Henry VIII V.iii.37; iv.3, 46, 52, 66. On the direction of the history plays, in Natural Right and Political Right, Thomas Silver Larry Peterman, "The Failure of Henry

and

the

toward"

1984), pp. 84-86. As the editors of it, Henry VIII and the whole cycle of English history plays "works Cranmer's prophecy (vol. 1, p. 415). 21. Henry VIII IV.ii.60-62, V.iv.2-3, 4, 22, 25, 30, 47, 57-58, 73. Earlier, II.iv.45-49,
Peter Schramm,
eds.

(Durham: Carolina Academic Press,

Oxford Shakespeare

put

Katherine

anticipates

the overlapping titles of the that

last

scene and

ties princes to the conception of

equivalent of and

virtue as wisdom and prudence

is familiar from Machiavelli. The fictional

who

Eliza

beth I for Shakespeare may be Prospero, Tempest V.i. 108, 122; iv.53-54.
prince."

is

"Prince

power"

of

in Milan

later

"living

22. I.xxvi (modi

crudelissimi e

nimici,
pp.

Mansfield,

The

Taming

of the

Prince,

193-94); Rep. 343b. For Philip 33, 216.

not

as archetype prince, see

23. Pr. VI (pp. 30-31), XXVI (pp. 101-2). This is See Disc. I.ii (pp. 134-35), xix (p. 183).

to discount that Romulus

is

fratricide.

24.

see, e.g.,
can

Henry VIII Hl.ii. 94-103, Pr. VII (p. 35). For Christianity having a stake in hereditary rule, Ameri Anthony Black, "Christianity and Republicanism: From St. Cyprian to
Rousseau,"

Political Science Review,

91,

no.

3 (1997): 647.

25. Pr. XIX (pp. 77-78), Disc. I.xvi (p. 176), xix (p. 184), xxv (pp. 192-93), xxvi (193-94), lviii (pp. 262-63), II. viii (pp. 298-99), Ill.i (p. 383); Luke 1:53; Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli, p. 44; Sullivan, Machiavelli's Three Romes, p. 159.
Machiavelli had
celebrates

26. Disc. I.lviii (pp. 262-64). In his references to Dante at I.xi (p. 162) and I.liii (p. 249), exposed the flaws of royalty and the people. In I.xxvi (p. 194) and I.lviii he
the
strengths of princes and

the multitude.

27. The

awkward status of careful of

the Magnificat in this regard

leads

a recent commentator

to warn

Christians to be
spiritual

content."

devoid of any making "the hymn a manifesto for political action Darrell Bock, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Luke (Grand
"socio-political"
rulers"

Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994), p. 158. Another commentator speaks of the are dethroned as well as the humble exalted and problems in the Magnificat, where "mighty the prosperous impoverished or distressed, and concludes that the problems must be understood in
"ethico-religious"

"socio-economic"

the matrix of the

and
and

language
eds.

Biblical Commentary, David Hubbard

Glenn Barker,
p.

of the surrounding verses. Word (Dallas: Word Book, 1989). See, too,

Pennington, The Prince,

p.

83; Strauss, On Tyranny,

24.

238

Interpretation
xliii

In Disc,
godless

dealings

of

(p. 231), Livy 111.41, 61-63, Machiavelli refers to a section in Livy where the the decimvirs contrast with the actions of a free people committed to their gods.
have it that Machiavelli
can use religion to support the

Conventional
prince

wisdom would

tyrannical

because

Christianity historically
Although this

opposes popular government or

has

a natural a

affinity for
where

absolutist

government.

position

is

hardly

universal,

it leads to

situation

suspicion of princes goes

hand in hand is
an

with suspicion of

Christianity. For this

and

argument and the

sec

contrary

argument that there

and

affinity between Christian thought

p.

republicanism,

Black,

"Christianity

Republicanism,"

647.
ancient

28. On the Biblical

The

orientation religion

erasing

thought, see, e.g.,

On the transmission from

most

to politics, see, e.g.,

Strauss, On Tyranny, p. 177. Kantorowicz, The King's Two Bodies.

nawsi, someone exalted, and sar,
of

frequent Hebrew
Dux
and

sources

by

far for

princeps are

someone of rank.

duces

are also common words

for kinds

leaders but do

not occur

See, e.g., Numbers 7:2, Judges 5:15. For differentiating and see, e.g.. Proverbs 8:15, Isaiah 10:8. Maimonides, who may be said to speak for the Old Testament and for Aristotle, separates into four separable heads. Medieval Political Philosophy, Ralph Lemer and Muhsin Mahdi, eds. (New York: The Free Press, 1963), pp.
as

frequently

as princeps and principes.

"prince"

"king,"

"governance"

189-90.

Supporting
Jewish

their

view of

the Isaiah text, Jewish interpreters point to the next verse (Isaiah

9.7),
God:
like

where the ruler

is to

assume the object

government, throne, and kingdom of David. In the same spirit,

commentaries

to the Vulgate's
true Prophet

linking
indeed,

of the no

Princeps

pads

to the name of

"This is

quite
God'

impossible. No
or

true Israelite

would

apply

a term

'Mighty
and

Father'

prince."

'Everlasting
ed.

to any mortal

Haftorahs, J. H. Hertz,

(London: Soncino Press,

The Soncino Edition of the Pentateuch 1965), p. 305. For Jews, therefore, the
count

prince as a
puts

strictly secular figure is lesser in dignity than the king, and a rough Old Testament references to kings at about 2500 and to prince and princes
other

in the Vulgate

at about and

250,

that

is,

10:1. On the

hand,

consistent with

its focus

upon grace rather than

laws

commandments,

the New Testament

has proportionally

more references to princes than rough

kings
1:15.

and

generally

attends

less to An

rule and rulers of

ratio of about

any sort, including princes. Thus, by a 1:7 to the Old Testament and to kings in a ratio
phenomenon

count, it

refers

to princes in a

of about

interesting

ture the nuances of

occurrences of

"prince"

the Septuagint try to cap authority more closely than the Latin, with the result that there are far fewer in the English translations than there are princeps in the Vulgate.

is that the English translations

following

"Prince

Revelation 1:5, Acts 5:31, John 14:30, Matthew 12:24. There is also a single reference to the of the Power of the Ephesians 2:2, which modern commentators take to be "the spiritual
Air,"

ruler over

the hierarchical realm of

eds.

demons,"

The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce Metzger

pp.

and

Michael

Coogan,

(New York: Oxford

University Press, 1993),

29. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Allen Myers, ed. Company, 1987), p. 850; Colossians 1:16, 2:15, Ephesians 6:12. 30. Com. IV.iv.4; translations are based upon The Convivio of Dante Alighieri, Philip Wicksteed, trans. (London: J. M. Dent, 1903). Monorchia I.ii. 2, Pier G. Ricci, ed. (Verona: Mondadori, 1965); translations, with changes for literalness, are based upon Shaw, Dante: Monarchy. here, is generic. Dante calls him by other titles, but does not call him a king. 31. Conv. I.ix.5, IV.vi.20. Dante sums up the contemporary situation by quoting Ecclesiastes 10:16-17: "Woe to thee, O land, whose king is a child and whose princes rise up and early to
"Prince,"

162, 611. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing

feast"

to no
eat

land may the sequel be addressed, "Blessed is the land in due season for necessity and not for
luxury."

whose

king

is

noble and whose princes

32. Inferno 34.61-69. For

others.

unity's sake there

is

need

for

one will, the

prince's, to direct all

Para. 5.21, 6.57, Mon. I.xii.2, 8. 33. Purg. 10.73-96, Para. 20.44, 112-17. For the Trajan legend, see, e.g., Edward Moore, Studies in Dante: Second Series (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1899, 1968), pp. 39, 254-55; Richard Kay, Dante's Christian Astrology, pp. 212-14.
greatest gift of the

Mon. I.xv.9. God's

is "freedom

will."

34. Mon. m.xv.10-11, 17, 18. On Dante's

sovereign,"

arrangement as an alternative to
pp.

creating

"modern

see

Mansfield, Taming

the

Prince,

96-97.

Leadership
"Benito

Natural

and

Conventional

in Melville's

Cereno"

Catherine H. Zuckert

University

of Notre Dame

In "Benito
captains

Cereno"

Herman Melville

contrasts

the

leadership

shown

by

three

Amasa Delano, the North American

captain of a

sealer,

who seeks to

help

Dominick;
control.

Spanish ship in distress; Benito Cereno, the captain of the slave ship San and Babo, the leader of the slaves who have revolted and seized Both
white

men, Delano and

a traitor

Cereno, occupy

positions of

lawful

au

thority; convicted as dragged to the gibbet

suggests mitted

by

the Spanish court

in Lima, Babo is

finally
com

by

the tail of a mule and hanged. Yet in his story, Melville

that of the three Babo

is the

most

intelligent,

resourceful, and

to the welfare of

his

people.

Melville dramatizes recognizing

either

some of the
natural

In relating the fate of the three leaders, factors that often prevent human beings from
or

the

title

the natural grounds of political rule.

I. SOURCES AND SETTING

on A Narrative of Voyages and Trav Melville clearly based "Benito els, in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres published in 1817 by Amasa

Cereno"

Delano,
chapter off

the captain of an American sealing ship named the Perseverance. In

18

of

his

narrative

Delano

recounted

his

encounter with a

Spanish ship

the coast of the island of St. Marie.

Seeing

took
on

his

whaleboat and a crew and went on

the ship in distress, the captain board the Tryal. "As soon as he got
people and slaves crowded around

deck,"

Delano reports, "the captain, mate,

. .

[him]

to

make

known their
told

grievances"

and no

he "could

not

but

their sufferings. the sealer to

They

[him] they had

they

water."

Delano

sent

pity his boat back to

. . . . . .

get

casks;

and when

arrived, he "was

obliged

to serve [the

water]

out

to the [people on board the

. .

much as

to do themselves injury.
a

Tryal], to keep them [from] drinking so Fortunately, Delano observed, they re

was

garded

him "as

benefactor;
It

and as

[he]
great

deceived in them, he "no doubt

on

[he] did

them

every

possible

kindness. Had it been

was

otherwise,"

would

have fallen

a victim to their power.

[his]

advantage, that,

this occasion, the

temperament of

his

pleasant."1

mind was

unusually

Had he
would

not

felt

so much

have

protested

the

sympathy for their sufferings, Delano recounts, he lapses of discipline he observed on deck more force
would

fully

than

he did; he surely

have

objected more

strenuously to the

behav-

interpretation, Winter

1999, Vol. 26, No. 2

240
ior
of

Interpretation
the negro who
of
prevented

him from

having

a private conversation with at

the

captain when

the ship, Don

Bonito, by keeping constantly

jumped into the
the

his

elbows.

Only
was

the

Spanish

captain

whaleboat with

Delano

as

he

leaving
that six
and

did the American discover the

actual state of affairs aboard

the

Tryal,
Span

days

after the

ship left
of the

port

seventy

slaves on

board had

revolted

killed twenty-five

whites, that the slaves had

commanded

the

pended, that he had made this

the

iard to take them to Senegal, that he had kept at sea until his water was ex port to get it and, he hoped, to find a way to save
remaining whites. In his narrative, Delano did not
so much as the

lives

of the

emphasize

the story of

his deception

on

board
the

risk he

and

his

sailors took

in recapturing the Tryal from

to remunerate
own narrative

desperate

slaves and the

Spanish

captain's ungrateful refusal

the Americans for their service.

Nevertheless, in his
question

Delano

brings his

own

leadership
were

ability into

by

knowingly
voyage.

taken a great many ex-convicts on board as sailors

admitting that he had un for his return

But,"

His "crew

refractory; the convicts ever

unfaithful.

Delano reports,
wholesome
. .

by "exercising

very

strict

discipline,

and

floggings;

and at other times

deserved,"

treating

them with the

giving them good best [he] had.

he managed to get across the Pacific. according as their deeds The voyage had been unprofitable. "We had been from home a year and a half,
and who

had

not made enough

to amount to
.

twenty dollars for

the coast of

each of

were of

all on shares.

Reaching
islands
of

Chile, Delano
and

my people, thus left

fifteen Marie.
men

his best

men at
seals"

the

St. Ambrose

St. Felix "with the

view of

procuring They were to meet again at the island of St. before they did, Delano discovered that three of his Botany had ran off when on shore and that five more were planning to run away

(p. 97).

Arriving

with one of

his boats. So

long

as

they

remained at the
water

island Delano did not,

minutes unless

therefore, dare to let his

was

whaleboat

be in the

fifteen

he

in her himself for fear

men to

He incited his
promise

reneged

opportunity risk their lives retaking the Spanish slave ship with the that they would receive half its value. But when the Spanish captain on his offer to share the profits once they were safely in port, he was five
of the men

other sailors would use the

to ran off.

able to get

Delano had taken

on

in

Botany

to

testify in

court

that the captain of the

decided in favor
an appeal to

of

Although the viceroy in Lima Delano, the American captain did not feel able to wait for
was a pirate.

Perseverance

the royal

judges,

since

his

crew were still

dispersed among

the

islands

with no

way to
of

help

themselves or to receive succor except from him.

narrative suggests the

At the very

least, Delano's

historical

captain was not a

human character, as shown by his disillusionment both in the men he recruited for the trip home and the Spanish captain he aided. His control over his men was tenuous, at best, and his voyage less than successful
very
good

judge

as an economic enterprise.

In "Benito

Cereno"

Melville

presents a much more positive view of De-

Leadership
lano's ability Spanish

in Melville's "Benito
both the

Cereno"

241
the

as well as a more sympathetic picture of

sufferings of

captain and the plight of the slave rebels. changes

on

Indeed, by making

a series of

apparently insignificant
shifts

the original narrative, Melville entirely

focus of the story from a celebration of the compassionate intrepidity ordinary American entrepreneur to the significance of the slave revolt. Writing in the 1850s Melville thus made the story of much greater relevance to
the
of an

his immediate decade

was

audience.

The

leading
should

question of

American

politics

during

that

how Northerners
rebellion.2

deal

with

Southern

slaveholders and

the

prospect of slave

ships

There had been two widely publicized cases of slave insurrection aboard the preceding decade the Amistad in 1839 and the Creole in 1843
which

from

Melville

seems to

the San Dominick, the Spanish

have drawn in adapting Delano's narrative. Like schooner Amistad was initially suspected of first
sighted off

being

a pirate

ship

when

it

was

the

coast of

1839. Like the Amistad, Melville describes the San Dominick

and sides covered with

as

Long Island in having bottom

reports

barnacles
Like the

and sea original of the

grass, an indication of disorder and

disreputable

disrepair.3

Captain Delano, Spanish

newspaper

first
any
and

sympathized with the concern

for the fate

of

suffering the blacks.

owners without

expressing
as
'buc-

They described
and

"the Africans
as

aniers'

and the

Spanish owners, Jose Ruiz

.

Pedro Montez, [were

said to
instant."4

'gentlemanly'

'martyr-like'.
their

The

Spaniards'

sufferings

have] been 'truly

deplorable,'

lives

being

threatened every

board the Amistad in 1839 was, indeed, very much like that Delano discovered on board the Tryal in 1804. Having murdered the captain
situation on

The

shortly after they left Havana, the black rebels ordered Montez to take them to Africa. The Spaniards survived by trickery. Forced to
and three crew members steer of east

by day, they

secretly
and

altered

the ship's

course

at

night

in hope for two

meeting

another vessel near the

succeeded

in prolonging the
where

voyage

months, remaining

North American coast,

land to

replenish of

the ship's water supply.

they eventually had to Lieutenant Like Delano, Commander

of

Gedney
salvage

the

brig

Washington

money;

and reporters

seized the slave ship in hope for the New London Gazette

getting

prize or

initially

expressed

their hope that he and his

men would receive

their

just due.
violation of

When it became known that the Africans had been kidnapped in

African
captives'

the Spanish law of 1 820 prohibiting the importation of African slaves,

and an
sailor who spoke

however,

the

language, Mendi,

translated their

statements about

having

been
of

chained and

whipped, public sentiment shifted to

the rebels. To the surprise

slaveholder

the

United States government, headed

by

Virginia

President John Tyler, the Supreme Court freed the Africans. In his

brief for the captives, John Quincy Adams argued that under the "law of na the Africans were like the American colonists, obligated to obey only
tions,"

the "law of Nature and Nature's

God."

Writing
acts

for the court, Justice Joseph

Story

agreed:

"We may lament the dreadful

by

which

they

asserted their

242

Interpretation
and took possession of the

liberty,

Amistad, but they

of

cannot
v.

be deemed

pirates
593-

or robbers

in the

sense of the

law

nations"

(U.S.

Amistad 15 Peters
rebellion was

94). But only

can on

Story

was careful

to

point out

that the
within

Africans'

justified
Ameri

the high seas. If it had occurred

the legal questions would

the United

States,

under

law,

have been different.

Antebellum North American

slave.

public opinion was

by

no means

Nor

was

it

clear what the official reaction of the

simply United States govern

pro-

ment would or should

be to

slave revolts.

In 1843 the

slaves on an

American

ship,
were

Creole,
freed

mutinied off the coast of

Virginia

and sailed to of

Nassau,

where

they

by

British

authorities.

Then

Secretary
a

State Daniel Webster

plot

wrote

the American consul

in Havana to beware

British

to invade Cuba and put

which would
S."

"a black military republic under British the British "strike a death blow at the existence
power

in

protection,"

help

seize control of

the Gulf of

and slavery in the U. Mexico. In the 1840s American dreams of "mani

of

fest

destiny"

were

linked,

at

territory in the Caribbean

ville made the

and

least in part, to a South America.

prospective expansion of slave

By

more recent cases of slave revolts on question of the

board ship
of

with

combining aspects of these Delano's narrative, Mel

and

status

proper response on

the part of white

slavery in the New World leadership central to his story.

the

The first apparently

was

minor alteration

Melville

made

in Delano's

narrative

the

date,

the months and the year,

during

which

the slave rebellion on

board the Spanish ship is supposed to have occurred. year from winter to summer, Melville made the
ship
coincide with the annual celebration of the pendence on

By

changing the time

of

of

slaves'

seizure of control on the

American Declaration

Inde

July

4. Didn't the

principles the

North American

colonists used to
enslaved

justify

their rebellion against Great Britain

not also

apply

to

blacks

by

the

Spanish? Were they

"created

equal"

and endowed with certain made the connection

rights?

By changing

the year

from 1804 to 1799 Melville

between

the events depicted on

history even more during which the slave By changing the year
status

board the Spanish ship and North American political evident: 1799 marked the midpoint of the twenty-year period
trade was allowed under the

United States Constitution.

readers of the ambiguous

Melville thus

reminded

his

institution had in the United States from the very beginning; he reminded his readers that Americans both Northern and Southern were im plicated in the traffic in human life and that there had been a general, if back
the

handed,

recognition

in the Constitution that the

slave trade was evil and should,

therefore, come to an end. In 1799 General Toussaint l'Ouverture

on

also

successfully led
a and the

a slave rebellion

the

island

of

Santo Domingo.

Declaring

Haiti

republic, he thus effectively

extended

the principles of both the

American

French

revolutions to

blacks in the New World. Toussaint

salines,
the

was succeeded as general-in-chief

by

Des-

however,

who,

following

the example of

democratic

revolution to

an end

by having

Napoleon Bonaparte, brought himself declared emperor in

Leadership
1804
them

in Melville's "Benito

Cereno"

243

and deceitfully assuring white landowners of their safety only to have butchered. Melville reminded his readers of this historical precedent for

the slave rebellion aboard the

He

also added a

figurehead
of

of

Spanish ship by renaming it the San Dominick. Christopher Colon, that is, Christopher Colum first brought
and established

bus,

on the

slavery Santo Domingo, at the behest of a Benedictine monk named St. Bartholomew. (As if to emphasize the connection between Catholicism and island
of

the

discoverer

the New World who

slavery, at the end of his story Melville

square

has the head

of

Babo look

across the

toward the Church of St. Bartholomew in

are

which

the

bones

of

his
a

owner

Alexandra Aranda

buried.)
figure

And

on the stem

Melville described

of a masked satyrlike

holding

down

another

neck, representing the institution the discoverer of

painting putting a foot on his the New World had brought

by

in his

wake. rebels on

When the

board the San Dominick

statue of

substitute the skeleton of their

former
leader,"

owner

for the

Columbus

and write

below it, "Follow

your

the implicit question thus becomes not simply whether the Spanish
will

resisting the slaves, but whether the is ship following the example of the original figurehead. Does Delano follow Columbus in serving a new imperial power
sailors

follow Aranda to death

the

by

American

captain who retakes

that betrays the promise of the new world

slavement of
others?5

by

seeking

wealth through the en

During
and

the 1 850s Southern politicians were urging Amer

ican Presidents to do just that.

The
source most

striking

initially

puzzling

change

Melville

made

from his

was,

however, in
his

the presentation of the Spanish captain. Not only did

Melville

change

name

from Bonito Sereno ("Blessed Serenity") to Benito

Cereno ("Pallid Benedictine"); Melville also changed his role and character from an inept leader and ungrateful beneficiary to something resembling a mar
tyr. In a curious twist, Melville thus made the apparent villain, the captain of a
slave

ship, the victim, the

object of

Captain Delano's compassion, if

not of the

reader's.

To

understand

to oppose slavery made

also the title
character.6

Melville's story is to understand why a novelist known the Spanish captain not only a subject of sympathy but

II. MELVILLE'S CAPTAIN DELANO

The focus

of

the story

Benito Cereno but

misunderstanding, saw, first
and

rather on

is not on certainly in terms of space devoted to it Captain Delano's understanding, which is to say, board the San Dominick. What the
artist narrative was the potential trompe-Toeil.
not emphasize slaves.

of conditions on

foremost, in Delano's

Perhaps longest

understandably, Delano

himself did

the way

in

which

he

had been fooled

part of

by

bunch

of uneducated

former

In the first

and

by

far

his narrative, Melville does. He

shows

how the

captain's

precon-

244

Interpretation
about the character of

ceptions

Old World

aristocrats

and

Negro

servants

preconceptions shared

story

was written

by many citizens of the Northern led him to misconstrue what he saw

states at the
on

time the

board the Spanish

ship almost entirely. On boarding the San Dominick Melville's Delano does
some of and slaves who

not

fail to

observe

the unusual conditions: the lack of discipline in the

throng

of sailors

immediately
in

surround

him

with

their tales of woe, the relative

paucity

of whites

proportion

to

blacks,

the generally slovenly maintenance of

the vessel, the watchful old oakum pickers stationed above

ominous attitude of the six
"raw"

deck

as well as

the

they occasionally
Delano's

clash

Ashantees polishing rusty hatchet heads that together like cymbals. But, as in the original narrative,

surprise was

lost in pity, both for the Spaniards

of water and provisions
out
.

from scarcity have brought

time

the

less

good-natured

and blacks, alike evidently reduced [L]ong-continued suffering seemed to qualities of the Negroes, besides at the same over

impairing

the

Spaniard's authority

them.

But, [he
to

reflects]

under

the

circumstances, precisely this armies, navies, cities, or

than misery.

condition of

things

was

have been

anticipated.

In

families, in

nature

herself, nothing

more relaxes good order

Nevertheless,
ceives on

the American

captain cannot on the

help blaming

the disorder he per

board the San Dominick

Spaniard's inept leadership. So De

lano thinks,

had Benito Cereno been

to the present pass.

a man of greater

energy,

misrule would

hardly

have

come

But the

debility

of the

Spanish

captain was too obvious to

.

be

overlooked.

A prey to
cloyed

settled

dejection

[h]is
dull

mind appeared unstrung.

Shut up in these unconditionality

about, at times
an absent or

oaken walls, chained to one

round of command whose abbot

. .

him, like

some

hypochondriac
or staring.
.

he

moved

slowly

suddenly pausing, starting, moody mind. (Pp. 50-52)

with other symptoms of

In Delano's mind, Benito Cereno displays

acteristic about the shared of the aristocratic

lack

of

Catholic "Old

World."

energy and Delano's

conviction char

own

reflections

by

Spaniard's decrepitude, both physical and mental, appeared to be his Negro servant, who followed the young man apprehensively,

performing [his]
the repute of

offices with that affectionate zeal which

has

gained

for the Negro

a

making the most pleasing body servant in the world; one, too, whom master need be on no stiffly superior terms with, but may treat with familiar trust less a servant than a devoted companion. (P. 52)

Leadership
The
of good

in Melville 's "Benito Cereno

of

"

245

North American
the only

suspects
reason

the representative
not

incompetence;
and

he does

think even worse of the

Old World aristocracy Spaniard

is that he

his

hand, by

what

rale are so obviously weak. Delano is attracted, on the other he believes is the slave's solicitous fidelity.7 In contrast to the

unjust rule of a

weak, superstitious aristocrat, Delano

believes Negro

service

is

an expression of a natural order.

Left in
other

effect as a

hostage

while

his

men return

to the sealer to get water and

saw several much

supplies, Delano became

suspicious when

he

black boys knife

Sev
seen

a white with
eral of

hardly

a reprimand

from the captain, him

less

punishment. one could

the white sailors seemed to give

knowing looks;

be

to be wearing a

Things

on

fine linen undershirt; another appeared to be sporting a jewel. board this ship did not seem to be what they should. So when the
to whisper in a conspiratorial
manner with

Spaniard
vant and

stepped aside

his

bodyser-

then asked

Delano

pointed questions about the number and suspect

disposition
the
and evil

of

his crew, Delano began to

manner while

Don Benito

of treachery.

"He

recalled

Spaniard's

subterfuge about

telling his story. There was a gloomy hesitancy it. It was just the manner of one making up his tale for
his suspicions, however,
throughout
was an

purposes"

(p. 68).

Delano

checked
was

by

reflecting that "if every in the

soul on
plot"

Don
to

Benito's story
the youngest

invention,

then

board, down

Negress,

his carefully drilled blacks

recruit

(pp. 68-69). Don Benito

"No,"

Neither

such cooperation of a white with members of an on the part of the was conceivable.
blacks?"

inferior
. .

race nor such

.

discipline

"[C]ould
asked

be any way in complicity

with

the

Delano
. . .

himself
...

he

immediately
were the

reflected,

"they
. .

were
.

too stupid.
who

The

whites

by

nature,

shrewder

race.

Besides,

ever

heard

of a

white

so

far

renegade as to apostatize
Negroes"

from his very

species

almost,

by leaguing

in

against

it

with

(p. 75).

noted

American

literary
Delano

critic, Newton

Arvin,

once complained that

upon

"Cap
In

tain Delano is moral simplicity in a form that borders

weak-wittedness."8

But to

most readers

seems

at worst superficial

and conventional.

1799 (or 1804, for that matter)

orders of the small

who would

have

suspected

that the titular cap

tain of a Spanish ship, dressed in velvet and silk, was, in

fact, following
trousers
. .
rope"

the

black
. .

slave
.

dressed in

"nothing

but

wide

made

out of some old topsail would

have
of

suspected

[held up] by a bit of unstranded that the Spanish captain was in constant
gave the slightest

(p. 57)? Who

and

immediate
were not

danger
as

losing
his

his life if he
Who
would

indication that things

they

seemed?

have thought

an uneducated was taken

black from Africa,

whites, could have
would

enslaved

by

own people

there

before he

by

organized a rebellion and established order on a ship?

Who

have be

lieved he
obey

could get

his

own rebellious and undisciplined people

to pretend to

the Spanish captain

in

order

to deceive their visitor? In 1799 Europeans

246

Interpretation
owned old

commonly bers of an Delano

both

ships and slaves;

aristocratic

Negroes did

not order around mem

Spanish his

family. The

expectations

in terms

of which stupid or

viewed

experience on

board the San Dominick

were

hardly

unreasonable.

Captain Delano

proves

himself,

moreover, to be not only a

intentioned but
them. And

also a

of the people on
when

very practical man of action. board the San Dominick, he takes he discovers the true

kindly Upon discovering steps immediately

and

well-

the plight to relieve

state of affairs on

board the Spanish ship,

he

acts

just

as

Like
value.

most

quickly and effectively to reestablish lawful control. human beings, Melville indicates, Delano takes things

at

face

That is, indeed, why his understanding of what happens on board the San Dominick has the importance it does. His initial deception not only demon strates the power of expectations and appearance in shaping opinions; his later
reaction

to

his

experience also shows

ble it is to

change such opinions once

how very difficult, formed.

a

perhaps even

impossi

Bom in Duxbury, Massachusetts, Delano is

ulates attitudes and

New England trader He is

who artic

beliefs that

were common

in the North before the Civil War.

not an admirer

He has the
of the

prejudices of

Protestants

as well as of whites.

institution

of slavery.

On the contrary,

at one point

he

observes that

it

"breeds ugly

passions

in

men"

(p. 88). Like many

citizens of the

American

republic, Delano believes unchecked power is bad for the people who exercise

it;

that

is, he

thinks that slavery

is bad for the

white

masters."9

He does

not

seem

to be very concerned about the plight of the

black slaves, however. So far

at one point

is he from objecting to the institution of slavery per se that offers to buy Cereno's black bodyservant for fifty doubloons!
Delano does
not think the

he

tionable or unjust, because

nature to serve.

Watching

slavery itself fundamentally objec he believes that Negroes are particularly suited by the slave prepare to shave Benito, Delano observes,
of
vocations
.

institution

There is something in the Negro which, in a peculiar way, fits him for about one's person. Most Negroes are natural valets and hairdressers.
.

There is

smooth tact about them.

mere grin or

And

above all

is the

great gift of good

humor. Not the

laugh is

meant

this

is

added the

docility
of

and that

susceptibility
one

here [b]ut a certain easy cheerfulness. When to arising from the unaspiring contentment of a limited mind, blind attachment sometimes inhering in indisputable why [some famous authors] took
. .

inferiors,

readily

perceives

Negroes

as servingmen.

Delano does

hatred. On the contrary, the narrator heart, Captain Delano took to Ne not but groes, philanthropically, genially, just as other men to Newfoundland (pp. 83-84).
not regard with or

blacks

fear

observes, "like
dogs"

most men of a

good, blithe

Like many whites, then

closer

and

now, Delano

to animals than whites, but

believes that Negroes are not merely for precisely that reason, also closer to nature

Leadership
and, therefore, good.
thinks:

in Melville's "Benito
and

Cereno"

247

Observing

slumbering Negress
pure

her

naked

child, he

"There's

naked

nature, now,

tenderness and

love."

Remarking

other

Negresses

more

particularly than before, [h]e

was gratified with their

manners; like most uncivilized women,

tough of constitution,

they

seemed at once tender of

or

heart

and

Unsophisticated

as

equally ready to die for their infants leopardesses, loving as doves.

and the

fight for them.

Like the "These

sun

in the sky

natural sights somehow

breeze wafting over the water, the narrator reports, (p. 73). insensibly deepened his confidence and
ease"

Delano's
contentment

positive view of nature as a whole reflects with

his

own goodnatured

satisfied with

his relatively modest, but commanding position. Basically himself and the world, the captain of the sealer does not under
much

stand or

have

the

fears

that move

sympathy with the dissatisfactions, the darker desires and He simply finds them to be sources of disorder
others.10

which need

to be put down. As soon as he comes to the San

understand

the true state of

affairs aboard

Dominick, Delano

takes

immediate

and effective

action,

first,

to save as many of the Spanish sailors as possible, and second, to retake

the ship, which

involves reenslaving the blacks. He himself is free

not seem

and

indepen

dent, but he does

He is
not

to care much about other

so much as

interested in justice
be

enjoying like status. he is in profit. Like his historical

people

model, Melville's Delano promises his

men a share of

the spoil as

incentive to
ex-slaves.

risk their lives in

what must

a violent encounter with

the desperate
of

Because they are part his men not to kill or Dominick the

perhaps

the most valuable part

the cargo, he urges

on

maim the

blacks. When he

comes

board the San

day

after the

capture, he

stops the whites

from vengefully tortur

ing
can

the shackled blacks. He does not act so much out of compassion,

however,
in

as concern

for his

own

interest. He

preserves

the lives of his captives so that he

take them back to be tried for their

"crimes"

in

Spanish

viceregal court

Lima,

a court which can also grant compensation although

to him and his men.

The placid,

by

no means passive character of

Delano's

reaction to

his extraordinary experience is highlighted in Melville's story by the contrast between the initial description of the captain's impressions of conditions on board the San Dominick
court. of
and

the deposition taken from the Spaniard

we

by

the

Through the deposition

learn

not

only how the blacks

reversed.

gained control

the San

Dominick, but

also

how they

exercised their power over the whites

when the roles of master and slave were,

in effect,

III. BENITO CERENO

Whereas Delano's Don Bonito tried to

age as possible once
ward or share

salvage as much profit from his voy in port safely by denying the Americans any re in the ship they had saved, Melville's Benito Cereno appears to

he

was

248

Interpretation

have been thoroughly debilitated, morally as well as physically, by his ordeal. He does not seem to have owned any slaves himself; he was simply captain of a
exandra of

ship transporting goods, including most of the slaves, Aranda. Melville thus presents Cereno less as

owned

by

his friend Al

a villain than a victim

his friend's foolishness

Like Delano, Aranda
of the slaves on

and the

blacks'

ferocity.
about the character of the slaves.
wore

was

fatally

deceived

None

board the San Dominick

were all

fetters, because Aranda

freedom
of move

told the captain that

ment made
used

they
and

tractable. The consequent

it

possible

for them to

organize and execute the rebellion

murder eighteen of

in

which

Spaniards sleeping they on deck; they also threw three others overboard, tied up and alive. The ring leader was the small black Delano thought should be called Benito's friend
the
rather than

handspikes

hatchets to

his

servant. after the

A few days

black

who

initial rebellion, Babo and his lieutenant, Atufal, a huge had reputedly been a chief in Africa, decided that Aranda should be
could not otherwise

killed, "because [they]

the seamen

be

sure of their

liberty.

[T]o

in subjection, [the blacks also] wanted to prepare a warning of keep what road [the Spaniards] should be made to take did they or any of them oppose [their (p. 106). One of the Ashantees thus prepared Aranda's
masters]"

skeleton

"in

way the Negroes

afterwards told the

divulge"

deponent, but

which

he,

so

long

as reason

is left him,
your

can never

(pp. 111-12).

Following
an

Babo's

orders,

they

then riveted the bones to the bow where he traced

leader."

inscription

below it: "Follow Spaniard forward,

The

small

black

then "took

by

succession each

and asked should

. .

him

whose skeleton that was, and

white's.""

whether, from

its whiteness, he "harangued them

way of (pp. 107-8).

not

think it a
. .

Everyday

thereafter Babo
go the

them that they should, soul and body, warning Don Alexandra if he saw them (the Spaniards) speak or plot

anything

Attempting
and

to save the
...

lives

of the

to draw up a paper

in

which

[he]

obliged

remaining whites, Benito Cereno "agreed himself to carry them to Senegal,

ship"

kill any more, and he formally to make over to them the (p. 108). Telling the blacks that what they most needed to reach their destina tion was water, the Spaniard steered toward intermediate ports in hope that he

they

not to

Babo threatened, however, that "he would kill all the he should perceive any city, town, or settlement of any very kind on the shores to which they should be (p. 106). Cereno thus headed toward the solitary island of Santa Maria, where sighting Delano's ship,
might

find

assistance.

whites the

moment

carried"

they
Babo

covered

the skeleton

figurehead
.

with
. .

canvas

and planned

the charade.

warned the

deponent "that if he intimation

uttered

any word,

or gave

any look

that should give the least

of

the past events or present state [to the

North American captain], he would showing a dagger which he carried Far from
natural servants or

instantly
hid"

kill him, (p. 109).

with all

his

companions,

faithful companions, Cereno believes

that the

Leadership
blacks have
created

in Melville's "Benito

Cereno"

249

proved

themselves to be

cruel savages who used

the opportunity
cannibalize.

by

the

lax kindness

of their master

to murder, torture, and

Like Joseph Conrad's Mr. Kurtz, the Spanish

the

captain appears unable

to forget

horror. Although he apparently rallies a bit on the trip between Santa Maria and Lima, he collapses after he gives his deposition and has to be carried on a
litter to
a

monastery

on

Mount Agonia

where

three months later he

dies

at

twenty-nine years of age.

Melville dramatizes the difference between the

to their common experience in a final exchange.

reactions of

the two captains

about their

Reminiscing

har

rowing

experience on the voyage

survived

only

by

the grace of

back to Lima, they agree that the American God. But the American and the Spaniard disagree

entirely on the lesson to be drawn from their mutual ordeal. Cereno is impressed with the depths of human error and

misunderstanding. end was

Delano had been in his company all day, he recalls, and yet until the very the American suspected the Spaniard's morals and motives, even though he

innocently
of one reflects.

suffering.

"So far may

even the

best

man err

in

judging

the

conduct

with

the recesses of whose condition

he is

acquainted,"

not
and you were

Cereno

"But,"

undeceived.

he quickly adds, "you were forced to it, Would that, in both respects, it was so ever,
with all

in time
(p.

men"

and with all

115).

Delano is impatient
Benito,"

such morbid thoughts.

.

"You generalize, Don

he responds, "and
yon

mournfully.

[T]he
leaves."

past

upon

it? Forget it. See,

bright

sun

has forgotten it all,

for

is passed; why moralize and the blue sea, and

the North

the blue sky; these

have turned
nature with

over new repetitive cycles

Characteristically,
comfort and

American turns to

its

hope. From

his

point of view progress.

it is

always possible to

begin

anew.

Past

evil cannot preclude

future

Don Benito emphatically disagrees. Sun, water, and sky can all begin anew, he dejectedly responds; "because they are "[b]ecause they have no
memory,"

human"

not

(p. 116). Human beings have memories;

we

do

not

and cannot

simply begin afresh without distinctive faculty. Terrified

losing by his

our particular
recent seen

identity
of

as well as our most

experience, Cereno cannot see any

the

thing in his future but death. He has

forget it. The
gentle

heart

darkness

and

he

cannot

fort,
cal.

breezes that blow his ship toward he explains, because the Negro has cast a shadow
case on nature with

port give
upon

him

no com

him.

The

responses of the two captains to their experience are almost stereotypi

Resting his
and

looks forward

always

its unending cycles, the North American to the possibility of a new beginning. Looking back at
of the

history
ish

into the impenetrable depths

despairs
of progress.

human soul, the Catholic Span

aristocrat

He is

without

hope.
of the

But in

fact,

Melville shows,

neither

the

"innocent"

New World

nor the

weary heir
third

of the

Old

sees what

has

gone on right under

their eyes. There is a

person or voice

in this story

who ought

to be heard but

is

not.

That is the

250

Interpretation
the black captain,

voice of

Babo, "whose brain,

not

body, had

schemed and

led

revolt."

the

IV. BABO

Subdued

by
his

Delano

when

he jumped into

the

boat

after

Cereno

and at

tempted to stab
strength of
not

him,

the
. . .

black had "at

once yielded to the superior muscular

captor.

Seeing

all was

over, he

uttered no

sound, and could

will not

be forced to. His

words"

aspect seemed to say: since

cannot

do deeds, I

speak

(p. 116).
physical

Mastered

by

force, Babo

ity
again

his ability to speak. effectively be denied

of another

up the sensible sign of his human He knows that his humanity has already and will
gives

by

the viceregal court that not only makes him the

him to death for resisting such violent oppression. Although remaining mute, Babo never admits guilt or voices any regret. On the contrary, the narrator imagines, his "head, that hive of subtlety, property

but

also condemns

fixed

on a pole

in the plaza, met, unabashed, the

gazes of the

whites,

and across

the Plaza looked towards St. Bartholomew's church, in whose vaults slept then,
as now, the recovered

bones

Aranda"

of

(pp. 116-17).
power of example

Seeing
posed to

has

often

been

said to

be believing; the his

is sup
it in

be

much greater

than that of an admonitory word. Babo was not able

to convince any of

his

white oppressors of

humanity by demonstrating

action; how can or could he possibly do so

with speech?

By

a certain

organizing not only the rebellion against their former masters but also degree of order on the San Dominick, Babo had proved beyond a doubt that he
and

shadow of a of animal

his

race were neither

the innocent

combination

ferocity

and affection

Delano imagined

nor the

devils

and cannibals

Cereno believed savagely

were

murdered

his friend.

They

were rational

beings

who

themselves

willing in fact to be
and

to risk their

lives in

order to gain

their freedom.

They had
did

shown

capable of self-rale.

As Benito himself
with a purpose.

explained

in his

deposition, Babo
recapture

his

collaborators

killed

They
kind
to

not want

to take a chance on their

former

master's

his

property.

They

put

later arranging Aranda's skeleton on

some

of pursuit to

display

frighten the

remaining Spaniards, upon whose knowledge the success of the trip to Senegal and thus their future life and freedom depended, into submission and service.
The blacks did nothing

did

when

so wantonly and needlessly cruel in retaking the ship they sliced pieces of the

as the white sailors

blacks'

backs

and thighs

off with

their sealing spears and then shackled them to the

deck

with parts of

their

bowels

hanging

out.

The blacks did

what

they

saw to

be necessary to free

themselves

from

oppression

nothing more,

or

less.12

Leadership
V. THE ROLE OF THE NOVELIST

in Melville 's "Benito Cereno

"

25 1

The

most

shocking
also

captains,

but

dom

and their

Melville's story is that not only the two white later readers have witnessed the desire for free many demonstrated capacity to exercise it rationally and yet have con
aspect of
blacks'
evil.13

cluded with against

Cereno that they were it? Should human beings simply

Is it

evil

to resist injustice and

accept

rebel

or

How is it that the

victims of oppression

come to

passively be

mastery

by

force?
in

regarded as villains

revolting against it? We return to the Melville

character.

question of

the significance of the most striking change

made

on

Delano's

narrative

Why

make

him look like the

mule"

martyr?

making the Spanish captain the title Has not the black "dragged to

the

gibbet at

the tail of a

and then

beheaded

suffered more severely? or

more unjustly? strated more

Far from

a member of an and

inferior race,

stupid, Babo demon

intelligence

leadership

than either of the white captains. Yet

they

are

saved, and he is publicly branded a criminal. What does

Melville, in
the
center of

the end, want to suggest?

We begin to

get a

clue, I

consciousness, Captain

believe, if Delano, might

subtle

we

inquire into the

to

reasons

want

forget

what

he has

seen.

If De

lano had thought

natural

about the

fact that he had

witnessed

the enslavement of a

leader

of

extraordinarily

was

physically

slight rather than

to question the coincidence

intelligence at least partly because Babo massively built, the American would have had he believes exists between the natural and conven human
or cosmic.

tional order as

well as

the simple goodness of nature

The
own

Captain would, in freedom

well as ville and the

other

words, have had to inquire into the basis of his

of

justice

his

command on

board the Bachelor's Delight

as

his

governments'

own or other captain

control of other

human beings. As Mel

shows, the

would

surely

undermine

is strongly averse to engaging in any such reflection; it his peace of mind, his self-satisfied complacency about
commanding
such
we might even

his

own and

his

nation's

position

in the

world.14

Rather than
captain extends

engage

in any

"mournful"

moralizing, the North American to the say his patronizing pity Delano advises the South
captains thus

Spaniard,
erner to

that

his sympathy is to say, to the

southern aristocrat.

follow his

example and

to

forget. In the end, the two

seem to represent two sides or aspects of the same psyche: one cannot what the other wants to repress.

forget
insti like

Northern traders from New England like De

"peculiar"

lano

profited

from the

slave

tution of the

South,

even

trade; they were implicated in the though they liked to forget or deny it. Even disapproved
of

when

Delano, they tion, they could

fears
of violent
tocracy"

officially, perhaps even officiously, therefore not

insurrection.15

the evil institu

Southerners'

only

understand

but

also share the

They

could even

pity the feeble, decadent "aris ultimately

prove

of the plantations

they believed

would

too

weak

to

252

Interpretation
effectively.

defend itself

In "Benito
about the

Cereno,"

Melville thus displayed follow.

remark

able prescience not

merely

coming conflict, but Old South that

even more about

the

romanticizing Whether Americans looked away toward profit and commerce like the north ern Delano or to religion and the afterlife like the southern Cereno, Melville

of the civilization of the

would

indicated,
tude

the problem

would not go away.

Neither innocent freedom

animals nor savage

cannibals, black human beings

would continue

to throw off the mask of servi

whenever

forced

upon

them and

try

to seize their

they

saw an

opportunity.

The

problem was that the violence

their rights also tended to convince whites

chains

they had to use in asserting that the blacks should be put back in
Unable to
present their

for the

sake of the

whites'

own self-preservation.
needed a white

own case

in action, the blacks

spokesman,

someone who would

present not the threat of violence word as opposed to

but

a sympathetic portrait of their plight

rather

in

deed, in imaginative fiction

experience threatened

than

factual

encounter.

Neither Delano
cause their
rectly.

nor

immediate

Cereno leams from his experience, Melville shows, be their lives and livelihood too di
reflection, and reflection requires distance. Fiction
as a means of education

Learning

requires

may be

superior to

fact

imaginative

or reflective rather than concrete and

precisely because fiction is immediate. We can learn vi

cariously from reflecting on the fictional experiences of others what we cannot learn directly from events in our own lives. We readers can see the truth em
bodied in the
not

slave revolt on
not

there and are

were.

threatened

board the San Dominick precisely because we are by it immediately the way Delano and Cereno
Cereno"

both

In his

short

story "Benito
entails.

Melville thus

shows us what

democratic

leadership
man who

ultimately is a leader in title alone, a Captain Delano he presents us with

own crew as well as

In Don

Benito, he

shows us the sufferings of a

puppet or posterboard a practical man of

figure

as

it

were.

In

action,

able to

lead his

effectively to obtain profit, but limited in his compassion and justice his range of action, by his conventional opinions. And in Babo he

shows us the rise of a natural genius

destroyed

by

the
of

inability

of those around and or

him to

appreciate either the grounds or the

nobility

his deeds. Babo

the guns

his

people are of the

defeated

not

merely

by
are

the superior

technology
court

force
espe

American

sailors.

They

finally

defeated in

by
is

law. Laws,
right or

cially in

By by dramatically showing his readers that blacks are neither naturally subservient nor intellectually inferior to whites, Melville does not merely seek to entertain his readers. He himself demonstrates, in ac tion, what democratic leadership actually involves.16
about what

democracies,

reflect public opinions

just.

trying

to change those opinions,

Leadership
NOTES

in Melville's "Benito

Cereno"

253

spheres:

1. Amasa Delano, Narrative of Voyages and Travels, in the Northern and Southern Hemi Comprising Three Voyages Round the World: Together with a Voyage of Survey and Dis
and

covery in the Pacific Ocean

in William D. Richardson, Melville's "Benito Press, 1987), pp. 95-122. 2. For this reason I do not think Allan Moore Emery is is
reprinted subordinated

Oriental Islands (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970); Chapter 18 (Durham: Carolina Academic
Cereno''

correct

in contending that Melville

the
"

issue

of

slavery in
Cereno'

a more general opposition

to American expansionism or "Mani

fest

Destiny."

'Benito

and
are

Manifest

Destiny,'

"

Nineteenth

Century

Fiction 39 (June
expansion

1984): 48-68. The issues

related; one

reason

Southerners

promoted

United States

into the Caribbean, Mexico

between free
and

and

Latin America in the 1840s

and

50s

was to maintain the

balance

expanding the range of slave territory south. The problematic character of this policy is indicated by the fact that slavery was abolished in the British West Indies in 1833 and in the French and Dutch islands in 1848. Legislation to abolish slavery had at least
slave states

by

been introduced in Mexico, Uruguay, Chile, Argentina and Bolivia by the 1820s, in Peru and Venezuela in the 1850s. The United States was, therefore, increasingly isolated in maintaining the
evil

institution. The decade began

with the

famous

"compromise."

But in 1852 Harriet Beecher Stowe

ener

gized and popularized the abolitionist movement

by

Justice

Taney
were

of the

U. S. Supreme Court

argued

publishing Uncle Tom's Cabin. In 1857 Chief in his opinion in the Dred Scott decision that
the

blacks
were

never

intended to be included in the

nor

"men"

Declaration

of

Independence

states

"created

equal"

in the

"people"

who
Cereno,"

"hold these truths to be

self-evident."

3. Herman Melville, "Benito Northwestern

edition of

University Press, 1987),

vol.

9,

in The Writings of Herman Melville (Evanston, IL.: p. 49. Subsequent page citations in the text are to this
Cereno'

the story.

Case,"

and the Amistad 4. Carolyn Karcher, "The Riddle of the Sphinx: Melville's 'Benito (New in Robert E. Burkholder, ed. Critical Essays on Herman Melville's "Benito
Cereno"

York: G. K. Hall & Co, 1992), pp. 199-206. 5. In "Master and Man in Melville's 'Benito
Augustine Lawler, eds.. Poets, Princes,
and

Cereno,'

"

in Joseph M.

Knippenberg

and

Peter

Private Citizens (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield

that,
placed

Publishers, 1996), Diana J. Schaub

ick

observes

in

charge of

the assault on the San Domin

by

means of which the mate cries see

Americans

capture and thus

leader!"

jingoistic first

out, "Follow your

effectively ("Benito

re-enslave the

blacks, Delano's

Cereno,"

p.

117).

6. On the name,

Richardson,

p.

81;

on

the change
p.

in characterization, Lewis Mumford,

Herman Melville (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1929), Symbol of Despotic Command": Melville's Benito
examples of the

Cereno,"

243. Cf. H. Bruce Franklin, "Apparent New England Quarterly 34 (November

1961): 462-72, for way in which Melville connects Benito Cereno to Charles the Spanish realm included much of the New World, who whose Roman the Emperor, Fifth, Holy encouraged the Black Friars, the Dominican leaders of the Inquisition, and who, abdicating his throne, died in a monastery. In Clarel (Pt. II, Canto xxxvi), Melville
refers

to a master (like Benito

Cereno)

who

may

shrive

his soul, take every sacrament, and give up the ghost on bended knees, and yet who is destined to die despairing. Cf. Joyce Sparer Adler, War in Melville's Imagination (New York: New York Uni versity Press, 1981), p. 99. 7. Cf. Leslie Fiedler, Love and Death in the American Novel (New York: Stein & Day, 1966),
p.

400.

8. Herman Melville (New York: William Sloane, 1950), p. 239. Melville does emphasize De narrator observes, first, that seeing the San Dominick without colors or simplicity when his Captain insignia and "[considering the lawlessness and loneliness of the spot other

lano's

identifying

Delano's

surprise

might

have deepened into

some uneasiness

had he

not

been

a person of

singularly

254

Interpretation
nature, not
personal

undistrustful good

liable,
alarms,

except on

extraordinary

and repeated

incentives,

and

hardly

then, to indulge in

any way

involving

the imputation of malign evil in man.

Whether, in
more than
determine"

view of what

humanity is

capable, such a trait

implies, along
perception,

with a

benevolent heart,
wise to as to

ordinary (p. 47) and

quickness and

accuracy of intellectual later that "Captain Delano [was] a

may be left to the simplicity

man of such native

be

incapable

(p. 63). But simplicity is not idiocy. 9. Cf. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1787): "And
of satire or

irony"

with

what execration

should the statesman

be loaded,
the

who

permitting
and

one

half the

citizens

thus to trample on the rights of

the other, transforms those

and the amor patriae of

into despots,

these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part,

ed.

other,"

in Merrill D. Peterson,
narrative

The Portable Thomas Jefferson (New

York: Penguin, 1983), pp. 214-15. 10. Melville changes the original
satisfaction.

to enhance his captain's complacent sense of

"Narrative"

self-

As

we

have seen, the

author of the
concerned about their

convicts as sailors and was

constantly

had been deceived into taking exrunning off, if not their mutinying. He

is especially he
the
and

concerned about

previous voyage

had

not

getting just recompense for his services to Don Bonito, because his been profitable. Melville's captain has already profited from the silk trade;

his

men

issue

of

have trusting, amicable relations. As Melville renamed the Spanish ship to bring out slavery, so he renames the sealer to emphasize Delano's contentment. No longer the
now called the

Perseverance, his ship is

tion

Bachelor's Delight. The

new name maintains

the associa

in

the original narrative,

was the name of

however, between Captain Delano's activity

and piracy.

Bachelor's

Delight

the ship the seventeenth-century buccaneers William Dampier and William

Ambrose

Cowley,

who

Spanish treasure

ships

helped Britain sap Spanish hegemony in the New World by preying on like the San Dominick in its prime. In the original narrative Don Benito gets
in
court that

some of the ex-convicts to swear

Delano

was a pirate to prevent the

American from

receiving a reward for recapturing the Tryal. 11. It was, however, Aranda's personal servant, Jose,
needed

who gave the slaves the

to surprise the whites in

bed; it

was

also

Jose

who

first

stabbed

Aranda

information they when he was

makes

dragged up on deck to be murdered. So much for the friendly nature of the blacks that ideal personal servants. As Schaub points out, "Babo thus mocks white color pride flesh be
white or
death"

them the

whether

black,

the

bones beneath do

are the same.

Racism

meets

its

comeuppance

in the

some contemporary critics, e. g. Michael Paul Rogin, Sub Art of Herman Melville (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1983), pp. ESO: A 208-20, and Sandra A. Zagarell, "Reenvisioning America: Melville's 'Benito Journal of the American Renaissance 30 (1984): 245-59, who argue that Melville showed how the not

equality of 12. I do
versive

(p. 55).
as

think, therefore,

Genealogy: The Politics

and

Cereno,'"

symbols of

sovereignty

or the roles of master and slave could

be inverted

and thus subverted

but

that the roles themselves are not overcome. Melville shows that the ex-slaves are able to rule
themselves
and others.

They

are

human beings
ability:

with

the rights that

belong

to such

by

nature.

He

also shows that

individuals differ in

Babo is

a natural

leader

or

democratic

captain and

hero

Ahab. To be sure, in the famous shaving scene Melville added to the original narrative, Delano thinks that Babo is merely displaying a childish love of bright colors typical of Negroes when he sees that the slave has used the flag of Spain as an apron. But with the ironic deposition,
as much as

Melville had

shows the reader that

Babo

was

intentionally desecrating

the sign of the sovereign who

oppressed

him
on

and

longer
block

operated
as even

his people; he was demonstrating that the power symbolized board the San Dominick. By putting Cereno's head almost
sees or

by the flag no literally on the

of

Delano

intuits
It is

at one point

the

black is

precariousness of

his

position.

no accident

that Babo

also reminding the Spaniard draws blood shaving his

the

"master's"

neck

when Delano questions the Spaniard more intensely about the calms that purportedly prevented the San Dominick from traversing a distance Delano says he has sailed in days. 13. Critics who view Babo as evil include Rosalie Feltenstein, "Melville's 'Benito American Literature, 19 (1947): 145-55; Robert Bruce Bickley, The Method of Melville's Short
Cereno,'"

Fiction (Durham: Duke

University Press, 1975),

p.

pp.

100-108; Yvor Winters, Maule's Curse (Nor

folk, CT: New Directions, 1938),

77.

Leadership
14. Schaub observes, "This belief in
with experience of nature's

in Melville's "Benito
benevolence is

Cereno"

255
a sailor

nature's

a somewhat odd stance

for

indiscriminate
much

power,

from its

deadly

calms to

its fatal

gales

but then
his

Delano is

not a man who

draws
can

from

experience"

(p. 52). But I

storms

suspect that with

Delano thinks,
of

from experience, that he

domestic servants,
land"

master or at

least

weather the

the

help

other

one of which,
Cereno,''

the whaleboat

dog. ("Benito

p.
wants rule

Rover, he 77). As Schaub (p. 44),

to be
crew"

compares

like the

negro

to a "Newfound
clear

observes, Delano "wants

own command on
Cereno,"

hierarchy

without

constraint; he
as of a

natural."

He describes his

the Bachelor's

Delight

"comfortable

family
see

of a

("Benito

p.

51).
of

15. For indications

cal views of white

of the similarities

between Melville's depiction

over

Benito Cereno

and typi

Southerners,

Carolyn L. Karcher, Shadow

p.

the

Promised Land (Baton

and

Rouge: Louisiana State

University Press, 1980),

136;

and

William R. Taylor, Cavalier

Cereno'

Yan

kee (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1969), pp. 157-60. On the captains representing two sides of and the Liberal the same psyche, cf. James H. Kavanagh, "That Hive of Subtlety: 'Benito
Hero,"

Classic American Literature, Sacvan Bercovitch Ideology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp, 352-83.
in
and

and

Myra

Jehlen,
more or of

eds.

In is

Democracy

in America,

vol.

1,

chap.

10, Alexis de Tocqueville

observed:

"The

less

distant but inevitable danger

a nightmare

of a conflict

between the blacks

and whites of the

South
make

the Union

constantly
one

haunting

the American imagination. The northerners to

it

a common

topic of conversation, though

there
one's

they have nothing directly

fear from it.

In the

southern states

is silence;

does

not speak of the

future before strangers;

fears."

one avoids

friends;

each

man, so to say, hides it

about the

from himself. There is something

the connection

more

discussing it with frightening about

stiffened

the silence of the

South than have

North's noisy

16. Several

critics

emphasized

between Cereno's artificially

empty scabbard and castration; the Spanish captain's unmanning.

costume

the slaves made him unwillingly wear symbolized the

For
erine

a more extended

discussion

of

the

poetic

leadership
99-129.

Melville hoped to exercise,

see

Cath

H. Zuckert, Natural Right

and the

American Imagination: Political

pp.

Philosophy

in Novel Form

(Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1990),

Harry

Neumann

and

the Political

Piety

of

Rorty 's

Postmodernism
Jon Fennell

We live in Marxism
and

an age

that

is especially
of

proud of

its relationship to the

"postmodern"

past.

Like

kindred forms

historicism,

the

perspective confi

dently
indeed,
occupy

claims

that it understands other eras in a way that

they do

not

and,

cannot understand

themselves. The postmodern observer professes to that permits him to

recognize

a privileged perspective

the assumptions,

i.e.,

the

limits,

of

the former time (as

well as of vestiges of

that time). From this to be necessary

vantage

point, the postmodernist sees that

what appeared earlier

or axiomatic was

merely

a reflection of an assumption that we

today

recognize

and, through such recognition, now transcend.

The

challenge to traditional wisdom posed

by

postmodernism

is especially
once under

pronounced

in

matters

political

and moral.

Political philosophy,
of man and

stood as pursuit of

the truth regarding the nature

at

the meaning of

justice, is
than

now

dismissed or,

best,

trivialized.

This is

nowhere more evident

in the

question of whether a viable politics requires earlier

legitimization

by

the

divine. An
prominent seau's
tical"

study has shown that the dependence of politics on piety is a Rousseau.1 Rous feature in the political philosophy of Jean-Jacques
part concerned with what can
practical problem
are,"

Social Contract is in large

political

be
of

called

"prac

theory. The

foremost

is that

regime.

be based in the

Rousseau, taking on reason. Instead, it requires sanction by the divine, i.e., a grounding order of things. Moreover, if the regime is to endure, the piety that
men

"as they

declares that the

founding the founding cannot

provides

its

legitimacy
depends

must remain alive

for

each

successive

generation.

In

short,

politics

on

piety, and piety depends on a form

of education. main current of

From the

postmodern perspective, even

if Rousseau (and the

the two-millennium tradition that preceded

politics requires with

him)

were correct

in

believing
In

that

piety, this

hardly

need

be

a requirement

today.

accordance

the

new

enthusiasm, then, we need to look more closely at Rousseau's

us

And in challenging that claim, let modernism, Richard Rorty.

claim.

invoke

a central pillar of post

My

plan

is

as

follows.

Recalling

the role played

by

religion

in the Social We
will

Contract,

we will examine

the implications of stripping

challenges and

politics of piety.

will then see

how

Rorty fundamentally
Rorty,

Rousseau's logic. This

be followed
The

by

an evaluation of

my

conclusion.

role of political

piety is clearly outlined,

though scarcely endorsed,

by

interpretation, Winter

1999, Vol. 26, No. 2

258

Interpretation
a philosopher of

Harry Neumann,
piety
means
. . .

faith in

one's
and

uncommonly forthright views. "[P]olitical faction's moral absolutes, in its basic laws, as

nonarbitrary, eternally just ogy,

no

true."

morality,

and without

Such piety is critical, for "[w]ithout theol Atheist politics is an morality, no politics.
. . .

oxymoron."2

Viewed through this prism, it is clear why Rousseau in the Social Contract has his Legislator invoke the divine. At first glance, it appeared that this
requirement arose out of the mains true. ment

limitations

of

human nature,

and

this perhaps

re

But Neumann is pointing to what appears to be a logical require for the political piety that is the object of the religiously based education

endorsed

by

Rousseau. Politics

always aims

for its

and

is

animated

by

some good.

But the

good

(i.e.,

morality)

presupposes religion.

Given this

view of

politics,

the regime must collapse upon dissipation of

piety!3

It is important to

note at

this

juncture that Neumann's

concept of religion

is

very broad. Religion is the belief in God, but for Neumann there are a wide These vary from Nature to race to concepts variety of candidates for
"god."

equality or individual freedom. What all of these contenders have in common is the conviction by adherents that the religion a contender defines is
such as

authoritative,

i.e.,
and

that

it

reflects a

dard

evil."4

of good

Every
form

sect presupposes

higher order, "an eternal, nonarbitrary stan religion, but for Neumann

religion need not take the of

of an actual church.

Indeed,

the most powerful

contemporary
Neumann's

religions

(at least among the intellectual class) explicitly dis

primitive character of orthodox churches. nihilism that would perhaps make even

tance themselves

personal

from the supposedly taste is for a

not

Nietzsche blanch. But this does

ism"

inhibit his disgust for the "pseudo-liberal

universities.

that dominates

the United

States today, especially in its

a moralization of the

Neumann

claims that pseudo-liberalism rests on an about

dishonesty
verts

itself: At its heart is

extraordinarily successful destruction of tradi liberalism proudly sub is animated by nothing

tional efforts to moralize. That

is,
of

the

reigning form

of

piety

without
piety.5

the

decency
accounts

other than

This

acknowledging for the bitterly ironic

that it

condition that now exists:

The contemporary
pseudo-liberal

erosion of of

moralizing

morality in liberal democracies springs from this immorality [i.e., fervid and self-righteous debunking, What
else can one expect of nations which more

reducing, rendering relative, etc.].

tolerate

defamation

of old-fashioned
women!6

fundamentalist piety far

easily than jokes

about minorities or

We live in
dishonesty"

time marked

by

"swindle"

that is
are

"concealed
subject to
doing"

by
"an

intellectual

("Political

Theology?"

p.

78). We

immature,
a

infantile

politics

unaware

politically
how

of what

it is

(p. 83). This is

politics of a able

shallow, easygoing tolerance that would

no matter

"domesticate"

all conceiv

positions,

noxious.

Such

an

approach

is "irresistible to

Harry
pseudo-liberal

Neumann

and

Rorty 's

Political

Piety

259

if

seen

for

what

tastes, it is,

blinding [pseudo-liberals]
means the

to the fact that their pluralism,

death

of all

politics,

including

their

own."7

Neumann's
political stark

none-too-generous commentary, and the

underlying thesis that

"Either/Or."

viability depends on religiously based political education, rests on a Either the young are initiated into, and throughout their lives
under, God's order,
or

maintained we

the regime will

collapse.8

In Richard

Rorty

necessity of such a choice. Rorty, directly contradicting Neumann, believes that politics is prior to phi losophy. He says, "politics can be separated from beliefs about matters of ulti mate importance. [S]hared beliefs among citizens on such matters are not
.
. .

find

powerful opposition to the

essential

to a democratic

society."

To the

view

that political practices and insti to traditional "but

tutions can
tresses"

be defended,

and will

survive,

without reference

Rorty

assigns the name

"postmodernist bourgeois

liberalism."9

In this last
claims.

sentence we see that

Rorty

is in fact making two very different

First, he is asserting that politics can be adequately defended without reference to i.e., to the objects of conviction that Neumann would include under that Second, he is making the empirical
"buttresses,"
"religion." "prediction"

our

existing (Western liberal

"Priority,"

democratic)
and

politics can survive without such

p.

but
at

tresses (see

pp.

177-78,

"Postmodernist,"

198). Let

us

look

each of these claims

in turn.
traditional appeal to authoritative

In the

place of the

foundations

and the strict

oneway deduction from foundations to beliefs and practices we find in Neumann, Rorty outlines a transactional, in-situation model of justification and explanation Under reflective that, he says, is much like Rawls's "reflective equilibrium, in moral deliberation we begin (and in fact have no choice but to
equilibrium."10

(Rawls, existing "considered p. 20). These judgments are revised in light of theory for Rawls), just as the theory will be revised in light of judgments (that are retained after the test of theory). The process is one of ongoing mutual accommodation, marked by

begin)

where we now

are,

i.e.,

judgments"

with our

("principles"

periods of equilibrium.

Several features
model.

of

this account stand out in stark contrast to Neumann's

under

To begin with,

Rorty

and reflective equilibrium, all principles are

"nonarbitrary"

experimental.

Nothing
More
on

enjoys

the status of
true."

(in the

sense

Neu

"absolute,"

mann employs this

not alarming.

term),
this

or

"eternally
most

(And that

prospect

is

below.)

The

that we have is considered

ments, and these

belong

to actual human beings

living
to

in

specific

judg historically
delibera

grounded communities.

At best,

all that we can appeal

during

moral

tion is that

which we

inherit through

countless generations of prior

as

deliberation.

(That defines
tme are the

the limit of our

legacy

well.)

Finally,

since the good and the grounded principles

product of

ongoing
at

modification of

historically

by historically losophy and theology,

evaluating

situated

persons,

history

and

least insofar

as we are

sociology trump (traditional) phi interested in understanding and

moral matters.

260

Interpretation
character of

be radically different than it is for Neumann. This is clear from a passage that
The

justification

must

under

this model
cites

Rorty

from

Rawls:

what

justifies

a conception of

justice is

not

its

being

true to an

order antecedent of ourselves

to and given to us,

but its

congruence with our

deeper understanding

and our aspirations, and our realization

embedded

that,

given our

history

and

the traditions
us.

in

our public

life, it is
p.

the most reasonable

doctrine for

(Rawls,

quoted

by Rorty

in

"Priority,"

185;

emphasis

Rorty's)

The

source of

practices) that
spelled out

authority in this picture is the traditions (principles, beliefs, and as they are are passed down to us, and equally important us. or to some other transcendent Appeals to to God, Nature, by
those traditions or

order are either poetic versions of with minimal

they

are chimeras

which,

examination,

are seen to

be irrelevant

or even meaningless.

In the

place of

Neumann's

appeals to religion politics

(God), Rorty

advances

"pro
about

cedure."

Viable (and peaceful)

does

not require

shared

beliefs

higher things; it only needs consensus on how we will contend with the chal lenges that will arise. There will always be disagreement and conflict. But so

long

as we understand and practice

"procedural

justice,"

we will remain politi

cally afloat. Contra Neumann, we human domain in order to secure

need not make appeals

beyond

an

admittedly
necessary,

a viable politics.

Procedure,
share of

while

is

also sufficient.

And, interestingly, it is precisely

the

demand that

religion

(the

transcendent) be central, and that people be required to matters, that is perhaps the primary threat to the success
politics."

beliefs

on such

procedurally based
us

Before considering Neumann's likely response to Rorty, let Rorty's second, empirical, claim regarding politics and proaches this matter through a discussion of
alleges,
can
together."12

touch on

"buttresses."

Rorty
.

ap

"communitarianism,"

which, he
.

asserts that

survive"

and that a special

"no society that "sort

sets aside
of glue

the idea of ahistorical truth

required

[is]

to hold a community
sociological-histor

This,

says

Rorty, is "a
p.

straightforward

empirical,

ical"

("Priority,"

claim

178).
of

Rorty

a single paragraph

evidently thinks very little in an article of

note

this claim, for he

dismisses it
His

after

more than

twenty

pages.

response

only is
this

simply to

that even

if the contemporary democracies did collapse,

would not prove

that "human societies cannot survive without widely shared

opinions on matters of ultimate

importance
earth"

shared conceptions of our place would no more

in

the universe and our mission on

than to

(p. 195). This

not

follow

say that they failed because they did

perhaps wise to

have kings,

established reli

gion,

etc.

It is

follow Rorty's lead

and not spend too much

time

on this

issue, for

the more

important

matters appear to

be the logical

and philosophical

Harry
issues inherent in the
noting that
of

Neumann

and

Rorty's Political
and

Piety
by

261
worth

conflict

between Neumann
what

Rorty. Yet it is
goes

by Rorty's standard, very little of empirical inquiry has meaning. In an echo

there is no warrant for

normally
event

the name

of

Hume, it

would seem

that

for

Rorty
eses

assigning

cause

X to

Y.

asserting that we can reliably advance our

subject

to

falsification. In the

matter on

knowledge only before us, if we hypothesize

Rorty evidently is by way of hypoth

that

viable politics requires shared

beliefs

the higher matters, and then show an

instance
this

where politics thrived without such shared would show what

beliefs,

we would

know that

hypothesis is false. This

what was not

showing

true. But

failure

such shared

belief)

proves nothing.
fail.13

only indirectly by contemporary democracies (lacking This would remain true even if all contem
case of

is the

porary democracies were to What is striking here is the

much more and

rigor of the standard adopted

by Rorty

in
is

regard

to the empirical claim that politics

depends

on

religion, as contrasted to his

flexible

to be

deciding fundamentally
life,

accommodating how to live one's life. This

probabilistic,

and

approach to approach

determining

what

moral

whereas when
short.

is approvingly acknowledged it comes to assertions about

a significant contrast

political

mere probabilism

falls

This is

in the how
to

bar

of acceptability.

Returning
begin
claims

to the contrast

between

Rorty

and

Neumann, let

us consider

the latter might respond to Rorty's path between the

"Either/Or."

It is

useful

by

noting that Neumann is not himself a practitioner of the piety he is necessary for a viable politics. Interestingly, then, Rorty and he are in
agreement

fundamental
self.

regarding the character of ideals and the nature of the For both writers, there is no absolute ground or nonarbitrary stratum on from
which we can

which or

derive

moral authority.

("Everything

is

an
p.

open

field for

change."

radical experimentation and

Neumann, Liberalism,

127.) And,
and

where

for

Rorty

"human beings

are centerless networks of

beliefs

cumstance,"14

desires [whose] vocabularies and opinions are determined by historical cir for Neumann the self (and everything else) is "nothing more than
it"

the experience

of

(Liberalism,
we

p.

illusion to believe that

world"

have

a self

127). It is, according to Neumann, an "which exist[s] in a coherent, intelligible

(p. 109).
accounts

What, then,
find the
answer on above.

for the

deep

chasm

between Neumann

and

Rorty? We

in Neumann's

criticism of

pseudo-liberalism, a critique touched

remarks

Borrowing
Rome

from Leo Strauss, Neumann

while

that

"contemporary

liberal intellectuals fiddle fiddle blind

or that

bums"

realizing either that they (p. 135). From Neumann's perspective, Rorty is
without of

Rome bums,

blind to the meaning

avoids and

his

reduction of

ideals

and morality.

Put

more

bluntly, Rorty
(pp. 135
the
redemptive

"seriousness"

through refuge
permits

in

"comforting

stupidity"

137).

Only

such

stupidity

virtues

of pluralism

and open

"liberalism's easy-going faith in (p. 137). As though

dialogue"

Rorty

were the precise object of

his attack, Neumann observes,

"Pseudo-intel-

262

Interpretation
. .

informs contempo lectual (pseudo-liberal) trivialization of nihilist anguish hermeneutics, structuralism, deconstructionism, post-mod rary academic fads
ernism.

The hallmark

of these endeavors

is

unwillingness
liberalism."15

to acknowledge

the nihilism, the moral void, at the

others
view

heart

of their

What

Rorty

and

as

third ground between absolutism and

a

everything-is-up-for-

grabs relativism reality.

(ultimately, nihilism) is
form be
of

shallow, self-serving obfuscation of

This is

dishonesty

that refuses to acknowledge that without

the "laws of nature and nature's

god"

(cited

by

the Declaration of

Indepen

dence),
in

there can

"rights"

no willingness

(Liberalism,

p.

18). Where

Rorty

sees courage

postmodemism's

to acknowledge the fact of our

fundamental
face up to
strands says

contingency, Neumann

sees a cowardice and

frivolity

that refuse to

the actual consequences of such contingency.

But

Rorty has
not

anticipated

Neumann's
these

assault.

There

are at

least two

to his response. The

first

of

is to disavow
p.

relativism.

Relativism,
also

Rorty, is
it

("Postmodernist,"

claims a

only self-refuting knowledge that it cannot have: "The every have escaped from
other could

202). It is

arrogant, for

view

that every tradition

is

as
a

rational or as moral as

be held only

by

a god.

Such

being
and

would

history

and conversation

into

contemplation

metanarrative"

(p. 202). Therefore, "[t]o

accuse postmodernism of relativ

mouth"

ism is to try to put a metanarrative in the postmodernist's Rorty's response to Neumann, then, is that he (Rorty) has no
tions to obfuscate. All of this is a drama in Neumann s mind.

(p. 202).

nihilist

implica

The
one

second strand of

Rorty's

response

is,

ultimately, more significant. It is

that

fulfills Neumann's
second

worst

fears

and

is

perhaps

impossible for him to

refute.

For Rorty's He

strategy is simply
subsequent
without reference

not to engage.

Rorty

wishes to

keep

all comparisons

(and any

recommendations)

grounded

in

this

world.

would proceed

to such concepts as

God's will,

human nature, Rationality, or "universal moral law."16 And what if an interlocu tor insisted on responding to Rorty in these terms? Rorty would simply look the
other want

way, for he does

to"

not

"know how to discuss

n.

such

issues,

and

[does]

not

("Priority,"

p.

182,

15). He says,

We have
which

not every argument need [sic] to be met in the terms in Accommodation and tolerance must stop short of a willingness to work within any vocabulary that one's interlocutor wishes to use, to take seriously any topic that he puts forward for discussion."

to

insist that

it is

presented.

In Rorty's view,
("Priority,"

concepts ("vocabulary") have a life span. Eventually, they fall into desuetude. Although it may not be obvious, they are "no longer p. 187, n. 31). When this occurs, it is advisable to stop employing

useful"

them. This amounts to a

mopolitanism,"

"forgetting

of a certain philosophical

tradition"

("Cos

p.

222).

For

an

educator,

forgetting (by

the student) can constitute a loss

of access.

Harry
This is
reminiscent of

Neumann

and

Rorty 's
access,

Political

Piety
where

263
Pole

the opening scene of Plato's Republic

a

(327c)

marchus,
that

threatening
be

different kind if he

of

loss

of

mentions

to Socrates

he

cannot

persuaded

refuses to

cally, goes

(as commanded)
with

with

listen. Socrates, responding strategi Polemarchus, and later finds his opportunity
with

to be persuasive indeed. It would seem that the traditionalist's challenge

Rorty

(and

the progeny of postmodernism)

is to find

an

opening for the

Socrates'

siren's song.

dae listen, Neumann, lacking mon, is rendered impotent. Neumann, no doubt, would at this point summon up images of Nietzsche's Last Man, a creature altogether lacking in depth, who
of wills an existence of shallowness and

In the face

the disinclination to

immersion. But this

prospect

is

also an

ticipated and embraced

by

Rorty: "even if the typical

character

types of liberal

democracies
people

are

bland,

calculating, petty, and unheroic, the prevalence of such

may be a 190). Confronted

might

reasonable price to
with what

pay for

freedom"

("Priority,"

political

p. of

is

perhaps the ultimate

failure

education,

even

Neumann
nightmare.

be

stopped short

by

the complacent acceptance of

his

worst

Leaving

our

imagined Neumann in
There

outrage and

dismay, let

us examine

Ror

ty's position, in the process returning to the question of Rousseau's

on political piety.

insistence
he

worthy for Rorty's its depends First, politics, ballast,

postmodern

are three points

of our attention.

on a

legacy

whose sources

community believes in the dignity of all human beings, it eschews cruelty, etc. These features elements of what might be called the liberal virtues are compelling for Rorty, not because they
denies. For example, Rorty's
are

derived from God,

Jewish
and

natural

law,

or the

like, but because they happen

to

have is

an authoritative place within our tradition.

Rorty
that

admits that this

tradition

largely freeloading

Christian in its origins, like [him]self

'

and

it is
p.

"gratefully invoked by
202). But Jewish
and

("Postmodernist,"

atheists

Christian vocabulary is among the now-useless hind. Because the fruit of these religions is part
can

baggage that is to be left be

of our

tradition, their

sources

be forgotten, and reflective equilibrium will take care of the rest. No one can dispute that this is how reflective equilibrium is supposed to
But it is important to
ask what

work.

it

would

religious roots

from

our convictions and

ideals.

("Religious"

be like actually to erase the here is used in the

appreciate what

broad it

sense associated above with

Neumann.) Does Rorty fully

along

means

to be a freeloader? When we borrow from the religious traditions of

we

the past,

in this
For

era of transition take the context

and

with

the

ideals

and

convictions.

Rorty

those of us who were subject to a more or

everyone

less

traditional
prior to

education

(which includes nearly

numbers

bom in the United States

or

1950,
a

and

large

of persons

bom in the decade

be

two that

followed),
church,

this is inevitable. This context,

which might

associated with

holy

order, pious elders,

rituals,

etc., or

(b)

nation,

(a) Constitution, law,

persists
per-

forefathers,

etc., or

(c) both,

satisfies a metaphysical

yearning that

264
haps

Interpretation
even

in

persons

purporting to be
atheist cannot

atheists.

than he knows or that a

is

able

to acknowledge.

A freeloader is receiving more Among Neumann's chief messages is

and

thoroughgoing
of

freeload (for he is truly alone) is

therefore

is anything but

cheerful.18

sanguine and
would

Rorty,

course,

deny
no

that religious context

required

in

order

for
as

the distillation of the religious traditions (ideals and convictions) to

a moral guidepost.

function

There is

intrinsic
would

metaphysical

yearning that must

be

satisfied.

And presumably

Rorty

small number of great

specially

educated

say that this is the case not only for a individuals, but that it holds true for the
matter.19

majority But this is not surprising, for

matter

of citizens.

There is

controversy on this despite Neumann's efforts to make it a logical

considerable

the call for a religious foundation

at

for

politics

remains, as Rousseau

suggests,

heart

greatest part of
requires a

regarding human nature. History as well as the Western literature and political philosophy indicates that politics
a question piety.

foundation in

In this light, Rorty's vision,

appears
Utopian.20

and

in

particular

its

apparent educational

prescriptions,

To

move

in this direction
to be ex

may be

highly

irresponsible. At the very least,

that

we are well advised

tremely cautious. Second, it appears

procedure

Rorty does
as

not escape

his

own version of religion.

In

the absence of consensus on matters of ultimate

importance, Rorty
of
political

advances

("procedural

justice")
the

the backbone

viability.

But

Rorty does
tion of

not recognize the

Pandora's box that has been

and

opened

by his
logic

reduc

morality (i.e.,
even the

by

debunking

dismissal

of

"buttresses"). If he did,
of

he

would understand

that an era that

legitimizes denunciation basic science)

and rea

son

(and

teaching

"phallocentric"

of mathematics and

as

"Eurocentric"

or
pressive.

can and will

blithely

reject procedure as

Thus,

since

Rorty
a

denies the

existence of a continued

constricting and op higher perspective from

on the

which to adjudicate such a procedure emerges

dispute, his

insistence

priority

of

as

type of piety. A more traditional student of politics

might view adherence riod.

to procedure
unavailable

(political order)
of

as

But this

move

is

to Rorty. And when

pe simply necessary Rorty's politics (or his

classroom) is

stripped of the

authority

procedure,

we are

left

with

something

no sane person could want.

from avoiding piety, seems instead simply to can be seen in Rorty's claim that he is not a relativist. Not only does he find relativism insupportable, as discussed above, he forthrightly declares that he is proposing a variety of ethnocentrism.
produce a postmodern version of

Third, Rorty's

pragmatism, far

it. This

This ethnocentrism, the "pragmatist's inevitable

itanism,"

ethnocentrism"

("Cosmopol

p.

214), may be
take with

viewed as

"anti-anti-ethnocentrism"

which

urges

liberals to
and

full
are

seriousness the

fact that the ideals

of procedural

justice

human equality

parochial, recent, eccentric cultural

developments,
worth

and then to recognize that this

does

not mean

they

are

any the less

fighting

Harry
for. It
hope
urges that of the species.

Neumann

and

Rorty's Political

Piety

265

ideals may be local ("On

and culture-bound, and nevertheless

p.

be the best

Ethnocentrism,"

208)
Can he

In this

passage

Rorty's he is

passion and commitment are apparent.

escape

the charge that

pious

(in Neumann's

sense of the term)?

As

we noted

earlier,

Rorty
a

responds to accusations such as

Neumann's

by

refusing to participate
ence of reference

in

dispute that

implicitly

to absolutes and universals.

pragmatist

explicitly It is, he says, only

or

affirms

the coher

against such a can

backdrop to be falling
passion

that

his

"postmodernist bourgeois
neutral,

liberalism"

be

said

short.

The

absence of

universal criteria

does

not reduce all

we

and

commitment shadow

to irrationality. That would follow only if the

rejected absolutes. pragmatism

re

mained

in the

of

Instead,

there

is nothing

compared volvement

to,

or

in light of,

which

his

is lacking. Continued in

in

such contrasts

is

sterile.

One is

reminded

here

of the

Buddhist story in

which the seeker

is working in

the muddy

fields,

experiences

Enlightenment,

and then spends the remainder of

his life working in the muddy fields. the matter, Enlightenment shows the
that

Assuming
at

that it makes sense to speak of

seeker that there

he

was

already

at

his destination (but

no

is nothing to seek, i.e., first simply did not know it). In

are of course
letter"

other

words, there is

Destination (but there

eschews

any

number of

destinations). Similarly, tice,

and

Rorty

"capital

vocabulary.

Truth, Jus
The latter

Reason

are

illusions, but truth, justice,

and reason are not.

not the

are worth

pursuing, and the pursuit defines the good (but

Good) life.
is anything

So is

Rorty

therefore pious? From a traditional perspective he

but, for he

either

denies the

object of

piety

or

he

refuses

to use vocabulary that

presupposes the existence of such an object.

But,

to employ a pragmatic mea

sure, is there any distinction in fact to be

noted?

Rorty

even though he would admit to being only a in asserting that the accusation of relativism is an unfair imposition on him. Yet it is understandable how Neumann might construe Rorty as being

Believer,

surely acts like a believer. Rorty seems

correct

religious, for

while

he

most

assuredly talks

differently

from the priest, is he any

harm?21

less

likely

to

defend,

criticize, proselytize, punish, and perhaps even

not

This piety is evident centrism, it emerges as a primary

and

central

only in Rorty's forthright endorsement of ethno feature in his vision of the ideal function of the

radical role ciation of

secondary schools (balanced, in Rorty's schema, by a thoroughly for the college and university). In an address to the American Asso
endorses

Colleges, Rorty

for higher

education

the

function

of promot

self-creation"

ing

"self-individualization and

but only

on the assumption that

the primary and secondary schools have already succeeded at inculcation and

initiation

("Dissent,"

p.
and

200). He states, "Socialization has to

come some

before indi
constraints

viduation,

education

for freedom

cannot

begin before
young

have been

imposed"

(p. 200). Under Rorty's

vision

people

up through
of the

age eighteen or nineteen would receive a

traditional education

consisting

266

Interpretation
systematic

fundamentals, followed by
source

the best the West has to offer.

(Rorty

cites

(and evidently mandatory) exposure to E. D. Hirsch's Cultural Literacy as a

book for secondary education.) Primary and secondary education is to build a "self that will, in the college or university, become free and individu
ated.

This preliminary activity is

a process of

called

being by

socialization"

"the shaping (p. 200).

of an animal

into

human

These forthright
comments.

recommendations

for

education

Let

us

begin

by

noting that while

as

that "[fjhere

is

no such

thing

human

nature"

invite a wide variety of here (as elsewhere) asserts Rorty in he is his educational pro

posals obviously responding to what can only be called facts about human beings (p. 200). He does, after all, straightforwardly declare that human beings

necessarily precedes individuation, etc. These are not trivial matters, especially for university faculty, for unless the secondary school does its job, the university cannot do its own, and must in
are shaped
socialization

(or made), that

stead provide the

missing socialization. In addition, Rorty's early education

will

not

only develops
hope"

skills

and

imparts

facts, it

(following Dewey) produce in children "an image of themselves as heirs to a tradition of increasing liberty and rising (p. 202; emphasis added). They will "come to think of themselves as proud and loyal of a country with a noble (if incomplete) record of improving the lot of its citizens.
In short, Rorty's early education would inculcate "this narrative of and make it "the core of the socializing (p. 202; emphasis added).
process"

citizens"

freedom"

There is
purposes nature

much more

to say about these proposals, but

emphasize the manner
vision and

for

our

immediate
human

it is instructive to
at the

in

which a view of

is

heart

of

Rorty's

to

highlight the

sense of self that

his

socialization

(the

"shaping")

aims to achieve.

identical to the less

and
well

process outlined

by

For is this shaping not essentially Rousseau in the Third Discourse (and in the

known Considerations

on the

Government of Poland. See "Rousseau

Political Piety.")? There is, of course, no counterpart in Rousseau to the mass-oriented higher education (for freedom) found in Rorty. And it is likely

that

Rousseau, for

all of

his

emphasis on

individuality,

would

have

grave reser
self-

regarding Rorty's desire to encourage creation on a mass Yet there is between

vations
scale.22

self-individualization and

Rorty

and

Rousseau

a common

wisdom

regarding politics,
evident

education

and, below that, what it means to be a

person and citizen.

Moreover,
that for

although

Rorty

recommends playful
what

irreverence
an

for adults, it is early

education

him,

as

for Rousseau,

is fundamental is

in

piety.

Summing
education
we

up, we must admit that on his own grounds,

piety.

Rorty

should want an
all

in

After all, in the

picture no

postmodernist

schema, tradition is
or

that

have. There is in this be

safety

net of

God

the natural order that

event that the thread
as a

can

counted on to restore what

is

moral and good

in the

to the past

is

severed.

Our

concern to preserve our

legacy

(albeit

constantly

Harry
evolving
world.

Neumann

and

Rorty 's

Political

Piety

267

set of

principles) is

proportional

to our capacity to care about our

grips of nihilism and

Assuming,

then, that we are not

already in the

have

not

fallen into

moral

vacuity, it is essential that the young be systematically

we were

initiated into that legacy. Even if

should

to agree with

Rorty

that education

issue in the
it

"ironic"

personality

aware of

the prerequisite to this elevated perspective would

world as

its fundamental contingency, be a solid grounding in the

postmodernism

now exists.

One

might object
what

that the piety required

by

Rorty's

is

far

cry from
and

Harry

Neumann has in
or as

mind.

Granted, Rorty

would never refer

to our tradition as
evil."

"eternal,"

But this is
evil,

not the point.

constituting a "nonarbitrary standard of good For Rorty (as for Dewey before him), there
real

are good and

and

morality is

(even if

not

Real). One
"God,"

suspects

that, if

pressed,

Rorty

might even grant

the existence of

if the

concept were

properly

understood
"eternal"

(e.g.,

seen as a metaphor

for that

which

is

valued).

Is

moral exist

authority for Rorty is human

for Rorty? Well, no, but the

mankind,
and

moral

authority that does

as

as old as

for

Rorty

anything that stands outside of

history

is

relevant

(that is, has meaning) only insofar

it has

an appli

cation within

it.
passionate effort to reveal the respect

Neumann's

piety implicit in

postmodernism

illuminates the
do (and have to
civil

in

which

Rorty

is

continuous with the

changed

long

tradition of

political philosophy.

How

we talk

may have

but, in

the end, what we

do) is

the same: Civilization requires the creation of moral and

beings through

a process of

inculcation learn

and

initiation.

During

this process

the young are taught a world, and

implicitly

that there is an authoritative

Ground. Where
education adults). since and

Rorty

deviates from
and

earlier commentators of an

is in his

call

for

an

in contingency,

the development

ironic

perspective

(for

That Rorty's

postmodernism

actually

escapes piety,

however, is
inculcation

unclear,

it both includes

recognition of

the necessity of the

of youth

is self-consciously

ethnocentric.

We
to the
selves

must conclude that

Rorty

and other practitioners of moral

reductionism,

degree they engage in political and educational theory, have shot them in the foot. On the one hand, they strip themselves of the language and
authority that
are so prominent

related sources of

in Rousseau
(and

and

Neumann.
the educa

Then,

when

they

attempt to outline a viable politics

spell out

tional foundations it requires),

they

suffer

from

a much reduced tool set.

Of

contemporary It is to Rorty's credit, and it is a reaffirmation of his pragmatist credentials, that he goes beyond mere speculation to engage the world. We may

course,

not all of our myriad

reductionists experience

the need to

be

practical.

rest assured that so

long

as philosophers and

theoreticians continue to engage

politics will

in

practical

political

theory, the need

for piety in

be discovered

anew.

268

Interpretation

NOTES

1. See Jon Fennell, "Rousseau

and

Political

Piety,''

Journal of Thought (forthcoming).

number of

2. Neumann's

writings are

widely

scattered.

A large

them,

with

variety

of re

Harry Neumann, Liberalism (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1991). The quotations here are from Harry Neumann, "Political Philosophy or Self-Knowledge? Comments on Schmitt and Interpretation 24, no. 1 (Fall 1996): 122 and 118. The structure
sponses, are collected in
Meier,"

of

case

my argument requires that Neumann and Rousseau be in concert on this matter. That this is the is manifest throughout Rousseau's writings. See, for example, Emile, p. 312: "without faith no

true virtue exists"; and Social

basis"

Contract, bk 4,

chap.

8: "no State has

ever

been founded
of

without a of which

(p. 133). Rousseau ultimately endorses "a purely civil profession the Sovereign should fix the articles, not exactly as religious dogmas, but as
religious without which a man cannot paper refers

faith

social

sentiments

be

a good citizen or a

faithful

subject"

to the Bloom translation of Emile (New York: Basic

(p. 139; emphasis added). This Books, 1979) and the Cole transla
together"

tion of the

3. Or its terror! 4.

Social Contract (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1950). "Only propaganda and/or terror holds communities
"Political Theology? An Interpretation
of

(Liberalism,
22)."

p.

134).

Harry Neumann,

Genesis (3:5,

Interpretation

23,
is

no.

1 (Fall 1995): 78.

pp.

5. See Liberalism,
meaningless

149-69

and

170-72. Neumann's
which

nihilist view of

in

an

atheist

world

in

it is

jackass-worship"

mere

piety is clear: "[P]iety (p. 171). The implicit

constitutes

contrast

is to "authentic

liberalism"

for

which

"nothing is
fruit"

obligatory."

It

"a

godless

wasteland, honest about its

synonymous with

inability

to bear any

(p.

xvii).

For

Neumann,

pseudo-liberalism

is

See. for example, p. xvi. Compare Rousseau's bitter commentary in the first Discourse: "[Tjhese
"political

liberalism."

vain

and

futile de

claimed go
and

forth

on all

sides,

armed with their

fatal paradoxes, to sap the foundations

at such old names as patriotism and

of our

faith,

nullify

virtue.

They

smile

contemptuously

religion, and

consecrate

their talents and philosophy to the destruction and defamation of all that men hold Not that they bear any real hatred to virtue or dogma; they are the enemies of public opinion alone; to bring them to the foot of the altar, it would be enough to banish them to a land of atheists. What extravagancies will not the rage of singularity induce men to (Jean-Jacques Rous
sacred.
commit"

seau, "A Discourse on the Arts and

Sciences,"

in The Social Contract

and

Discourses,

trans.

G. D. H. Cole [New York: E. P. Dutton, 1950], pp. 160-61). Neumann's emphasis on an implicit moralization is consistent with Rousseau's assertion that amour propre (qua a prideful "rage of
singularity") is at the
root of xvii.

the destructive activity. clear, has little regard for

6. Liberalism,
correctness. rule on

p.

Neumann, it is
the

his popularity

or

political

Predictably, Neumann finds

campuses where the

hypocrisy

and cowardice of pseudo-liberalism to

be the

America's

dominant

pseudo-liberals

"rarely display

Nietzsche's hon

esty

about their nihilism's

horror. Instead they

'invigorating,'

peddle a pseudo-liberal propaganda which makes

'noble'

their nihilism seem

moral and cultural

'liberating,'

and even

'effective in contributing to the

understanding.'

What

drivel!"

(Liberalism,

p.

281).

7. Liberalism,
conclusion

p.

but bases it

Rorty's
tion,"

contingency.

Richard Rorty's many critics, Steven Kautz, draws a similar of the psychological consequences of (an education in) See Steven Kautz, "The Postmodern Self and the Politics of Liberal Educa
of on an

135. One

analysis

Social

Philosophy

and

Policy 13

(Winter 1996): 164-89. The young beneficiaries

conservatives"

of

the

postmodern perspective refuse

become "thuggish

who, convinced that all views are equal,

to

entertain alternatives and with great self-satisfaction stand or

fast in their

unexamined con

victions,

they become "complacent

its contingency),

democrats"

who, certain of the

convinced of

see no reason to

defend it,

and

superiority of democracy (and therefore never learn how to do so. In

unable

both cases,
orate

postmodernism promotes and condones a casual

thoughtlessness that is
will

to

invig

the regime. "It will not be

long

before

such

democrats

find themselves easy prey for their

that arises out of the spread of

enemies"

(p. 181). Kautz

also points

to a third
of

"political

pathology"

postmodern

doctrines

and the

"vocabulary

contingency."

In

contrast to the

first

two categories,

Harry
here the young insular
person

Neumann

and

Rorty's Political
arises

Piety
(the

269

does

not

feel

at

radicalism"

(p.

182)

which,

taking
be

home in the existing regime. Thus the form of flight into group
contained of

"a

new and more

politics of appeal

identity

difference
neutral

and

balkanization),

cannot

in

a postmodern ethos which

forbids
what

to

or

politics

overarching can be founded only

what about

principles.

Stripped

the possibility of appealing to

is common,

on what makes us more than

different. Under these

conditions

it is unlikely that Profession defoi

any

regime could

thereby thrive; it is

improbable that
the Savoyard

democratic in

order can survive. s

And

Rousseau? The final

Emile'

advice of

priest

is "Flee those
Their

who sow

dispiriting
is
a

doctrines in

men's

hearts

under the pretext of

apparent skepticism

hundred times
perhaps adds:

more assertive and more

explaining nature. dogmatic than the decided

when,

adversaries."

tone of their
critique of men

Rousseau is

anticipating the impact

overturning,

of postmodernism

in

party,"

the "philosophist

he

"by

destroying,
depths

and

trampling
hearts

on all that

respect,

they deprive
of

the afflicted of the last consolation of their misery, and the powerful and

rich of

the only brake on their passions.

They

tear out from the

of our

remorse

for

crime and

hope

virtue, and

yet

truth
proof

is

never

harmful to

men.

boast that they are the benefactors of mankind. They say that the I believe it as much as they do, and in my opinion this is a great
truth"

on

anything intended to bestow non-arbitrary Neumann goes on to say, "Faith in reality. precludes intellectual 9. The first quotation is from Richard Rorty, "The Priority of Democracy to
mean
'god'
. .

they teach is not the 8. See Liberalism, p. 35: "By

that what

(Emile,
I

p.

312).
substance
honesty."

'god'

Philosophy,"

in

Objectivity, Relativism,
"religion."

and

Truth,

vol.

of

Philosophical Papers (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer

appears

sity Press, 1991), p. 175. Rorty's "Postmodernist Bourgeois

tivity,

"philosophy"

to be equivalent to

what

Neumann

means

by

Liberalism"

is from

the paper of the same name

in Objec
metanarra-

Relativism,
the term

and

Truth,

pp.

197-202.

"Postmodernist"

for

Rorty
p. and

means

"distrust

of

tives,"

a phrase that
used

Rorty

attributes to

Jean-Francois Lyotard. See

199.

Rorty

later

regrets that

he

"post-modernism."

See Richard Rorty, "Thugs

Theorists,"

Political

Theory 15,

no.

4 (November 1987):

578,

n.

23.

10.

"Priority,"

p. pp.

183. See John Rawls, A

Theory

of Justice (Cambridge, MA:

Geertz,"

Belknap Press,

1971),
11
and
.

20

and

46-53.
to Clifford

Richard
pp.

Rorty, "On Ethnocentrism: A Reply

note

in Objectivity, Relativity,

Truth,

208-10.
that, for
all

It is instructive to
stands

his

emphasis on civil religion explicit

(political piety), Rousseau

in the Social Contract where, in its closing pages (pp. 139-40), he says that the only thing that is to be forbidden is intolerance; "tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogma contain nothing contrary

foursquare

against

intolerance. This is

(The irony of the necessity of intolerance for intolerance ranks as a theory.) See, too, Emile: "The distinction between civil tolerance and theological tolerance is puerile and vain. These two tolerances are inseparable, and one cannot be
to the

duties

citizenship."

of

lesson in

practical political

accepted without the other.

God"

Even

angels would not

live in

peace with men

they

regarded as enemies

of

(p.

309,

n.).

(One is

reminded

here

of

the recent horrors in Bosnia and

Algeria.) It is

clear

that Rousseau's political piety is intended to be an agent of cohesion and, insofar as religion
provokes political

discord, it is

to be

rejected.

Robert Nisbet's interpretation

of

of

Rousseau is

compat

ible

with

this conclusion, but he is

tolerance: "Rousseau's prior criticism

with good

deeply suspicious of Christianity on

Rousseau's

professed

commitment

to

the ground of

its intrinsic

irreconcilability
protestations of as a practical

tolerance.

citizenship should serve as the grain of salt with which to take the We may therefore perhaps speculate on the extent to which tolerance

religion."

policy

would

be deemed
"Priority,"

commensurate

with

civil

See Robert Nisbet, The Quest for

p.

Community

(San Francisco: Institute for

pp.

12. Rorty,

177-78.

Contemporary Studies, 1990), Among those Rorty associates

132.
Unger."

with communitarianism are

He Robert Bellah, Alasdair Maclntyre, Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor, and "early Roberto says "[tjhese writers share some measure of agreement with a view found in an extreme form both in Heidegger and in Horkheimer and Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment. This is the view that

liberal institutions and culture either should not or cannot survive the collapse of the philosophical (p. 177). justification that the Enlightenment provided for 13. On Neumann's definition of piety, moreover, contemporary democracies (as well as all
them"

270

Interpretation
history) do have (or have had)
shared
at beliefs regarding higher things empirical knowledge in politics,

other regimes throughout

least
this

prior to their

decline. Given Rorty's

191. See

demanding

standard

for

fact

proves nothing.
"Priority,"

14. Rorty,

"Postmodernist,"

p.
. .

also
. .

p.

199: "The

crucial move

[in

under

is to think of the moral self standing Rawls] a person just is that with nothing behind it
...

as a network of

beliefs, desires, Neumann,

and emotions

network."

be

15. Liberalism, "black

p.

Lyotard,"

(p. 328, n. 2). 16. Richard Rorty, "Cosmopolitanism Without Emancipation: A Response to Jean-Francois in Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth, p. 211.
emptiness"

177. An honest, penetrating that would inspire

view of

reality, says

would show

it to

"horror"

17.

"Priority,"

p.

190. And

what of

the term

"religion"

itself,

which

is

at the

heart

of

Neu

mann's contemptuous analysis of pseudo-liberalism?

In

what

Neumann

would

surely
are

construe as a

and cowardly attempt to slip away, Rorty declares: "Both brella terms, and both are subject to persuasive redefinition. When these terms

'religion'

'philosophy'

are vague um

broadly

enough

defined,
'symbol

everybody, even atheists,

of ultimate

will

be

said

to have a religious
would

faith (in the Tillichian his

atheism

sense of a

concern')"

(p. 182). Neumann

deny

that

is

religious.

More

significantly, Rorty's declaration would dissipate Neumann's attack through a definitional ploy (for
when all positions are religious, then
one's view

it is

pointless to

build

a critique on the assertion that some

is,

perhaps

unknowingly, religious). Neumann would say that

Rorty

refuses

serious attention to what

he is

saying.

This is

what

Neumann

means

by

"cowardice."

to pay Given Rorty's

disinclination to engage, does Neumann then

become, for Rorty, simply

observation:

a crank?

18. Richard John Neuhaus dependent

the ironist does not

offers a

complementary

Rorty's "ironism is parasitical,

Rorty,"

upon other people who sustain

share."

(September
that

1990),

p.

society with beliefs, and a readiness to act on beliefs, that See Richard John Neuhaus, "Joshing Richard First Things No. 8 21. In fairness it should be noted that there is nothing in Rorty's pragmatism
and readiness

forbids
19.

having

beliefs

to act on such beliefs. There may,

however, be

funda

mental tension

between Rorty's

pragmatism and

his

allegiance to
cited

ironism.
7
above.

See, for

example, the article

caught

by
an

Steven Kautz

in

note

Neuhaus
place,

("Joshing,"

p. says

Neuhaus, Rorty declares that in his ideal culture, public rhetoric (and hence all persons) will be ironic, while elsewhere Rorty says that "In the ideal liberal society, the intellectuals would still be ironist, al though the nonintellectuals would (Neuhaus is quoting Rorty.) Unfortunately, Neuhaus does
claims to

21)

have

Rorty

in

inconsistency

on this

matter:

In

one

not."

not

provide

citations

to Rorty's passages, so it is impossible to confirm the accuracy of these

"apparent"

accusations.

20. This is merely

endorses
Dogma,"

because Rorty,

when

he

spells out

his

vision

for

public

education,

straightforwardly Dissent 36, No. 2

conclude that

Rorty

See Richard Rorty, "Education Without (Spring 1989): 198-204, which is discussed below. One might therefore is inconsistent. A more generous interpretation would have Rorty endorsing an
conservative

foundations.

educational program as

in

which

primary

and

secondary

schools

authoritative, but

not as sanctioned

by anything
light

"higher."

portray traditional culture and politics Whether this more generous interpreta last decade, bit

tion

is

coherent

is

another matter.

21. It is
that
Backward,"

interesting

(as

well

as, in

of the events of the

bizarre)

to note

Rorty has been

from the left'. See Richard Bernstein, "One Step Forward, Two Steps Political Theory 15, No. 4 (November 1987): 538-63. The essay is followed by
attacked
Theorists,"

Rorty's response, "Thugs

"foundationist"

and

cited above

in

note

9. For Bernstein, Rorty's

"we"

rejection of

appeals,

and

his dependence instead

our

on the traditions that

share,

constitutes an
"we"

apology for the

status quo.

(i.e.,
the

to the

"given"

'rationalization'

immediate point, Bernstein asserts that the appeal to that, for Rorty, largely defines us) can be "used as an exclusionary tactic as for fostering (p. 354). Bernstein even (horror of horrors) ranks
intolerance"

Closer to

Rorty

with the neoconservatives.

Among

the characteristics which support this classification, says

Bernstein, is
(p. 563
n.

their common "suspicion of

must

any

appeal to universal

criteri

principles,

standards and

27). It

criteria"

hardly

be noted, however, that flight from "universal principles, standards and describes, for example, the pages of Commentary. In his zeal to discredit the rejec Bernstein
engages

tion of leftist politics,

in

caricature

that, ironically,

portrays

himself

as a

carica-

Harry
ture of the

Neumann

and

Rorty's Political
of

Piety 271

increasingly lonely

leftist

curmudgeon.

For the benefit

those who still remain under

the dominance of leftist passions, it is necessary to remark that appeal to universals and absolutes,
the

demand for justification in terms

of

the higher things,

has

always

been

the hallmark of princi

pled conservative political and social commentary.

Rorty is

perhaps

irresponsible in his denigration

of

the

buttresses,

and

Bernstein surely has his

unwarranted and

Rorty's thinking, but it is

the
p.

left may be offended by 23: "Being in the service

reasons to be alarmed at the spreading influence of self-serving imperialism for Bernstein to claim that only Rorty's rejection of foundations. See, for example, Neuhaus,
"Joshing,"

of such

politics,
it.' "

[Rorty's] theory

provides no measures

by

which such

politics can

be

either criticized or affirmed.

"This is the way it is. Take it or leave is a rather comical, to define the
"we,"

Of his politics, as of his self, Rorty is saying, in effect, Incidentally, Rorty's response to Bernstein, in its attempt
to redeem his leftist

and not altogether respectable, rush

credentials.

22. In his discussion

much

Rorty

repeatedly

acknowledges

to a conception of human nature (without wishing to admit as much)

on

his debt to Dewey. That Dewey, too, owes is discussed in Jon

Aim
Education,"

Fennell, "Dewey
One
might

Rousseau: Natural Development has

as the

of

The Journal of

Educational Thought

13, No. 2 (August 1979): 109-20.

say that

Rorty

not

learned the full lesson from Rousseau. That

Rorty

embraces

the traditional one-sided view of Rousseau as critic of alienating

and advocate

institutions, defender
his
reference

of revolution,

for

emergence

of the true self

Foucault"

is

suggested p.

by

to "the tradition of

Rousseau, Marx, Nietzsche,

("Dissent,"

and

198).

ADDENDUM

[Tjhere is something that is just even nature, yet all of it is changeable; but
some

by
still

is

by

nature, some not

by

nature.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1 1 34b

"is

Leo Strauss
either stupid or

asserts that the argument that we need revelation as myth

blasphemous."1

The

argument

is blasphemous because the

per

spective that emphasizes the

politically

practical use of revelation

tacitly denies

To say that the argument is stupid, however, is to suggest unreasonable. The grounds for this conclusion are not as clear. What that it is
the truth
of revelation.

does Strauss

mean?

What

are the

implications for the

perspectives on

piety that

we encountered above?

In the dramatic
of

close of the

reasons as

philosophy is based on follows: Philosophy has

faith"

essay just cited, Strauss observes that "the choice (p. 269). In reaching this conclusion, Strauss
never

successfully

refuted

revelation, since

"all

alleged refutations of revelation presuppose unbelief

in

revelation."2

Thus,
269).

must admit the possibility of revelation [and] ("Progress or itself is possibly not the right way of ophy an act of faith. is therefore nevertheless To choose philosophy

"philosophy

that means that philos

Return?"

life"

p.

The
myth

recommendation

that

revelation

be

employed

as

politically

useful

is stupid, then, because the recommendation is ultimately grounded in an authority that is tacitly denied by the recommendation. The authority that un

derlies the legitimacy

of the philosophical suggestion also supports

the claims

272

Interpretation

of revelation. or error.

So,

there is

faith

or

stupidity,

or

faith

or

blasphemy. There is faith

Still,

by
of

revelation.

life devoted to philosophy (reason) is not the same as a life inspired The use of reason need not be stupid. But to avoid stupidity, the
must
must

practice of

philosophy revelation. Reason

include

respect

for

and examination of

the

claims

begin,

not

with

the

dismissal
piety.3

of

piety, but with

openness of

to it. Out of respect for philosophy we

must

take seriously the claims

piety, since philosophy

is itself based
there

on a

form

of and

For

all

of their

differences,
piety.

is in Rousseau, Rorty,
the simplest case.

Neumann

common

distancing from
intolerance

Rorty is

Manifesting

the con

fidence
misses

and

of the modem

the claims of piety as

we

(and postmodern) perspectives, he dis the now-encumbering baggage of a less mature

successful

past.

(As

have noted, however, he is less than

sees
our

in

jettisoning
essential

such

piety.) Neumann

giving meaning to
refuge of

piety lives. From his

everywhere

and

understands

its

role

in

nihilist

the weak and conceals the clean

as

perspective, however, piety is the and barren nothingness that is reality.

not

Rousseau,
faith
gime.

ever, is torn. He is a believer but does

find in his

own personal re

a truth

that will effectively serve as the needed cohesive

counsels recourse to a

for the just

Instead, he

form

of revelation as myth.

There is piety in

an alternative

to this distancing. There

is

a perspective on political

which the objects of

belief

are not
such

only useful, but

natural right

is

a vibrant reality.

We find

in

our own

true, where in the convic history,

also

tions of the

Founders,

as manifested

in the Declaration

of

Independence.
on

Strauss himself
explicitly founded
commitment

makes this connection.

In the introduction to Thoughts

unique.

Machiavelli, he declares

that the

United States is freedom

It is the only

nation

on rejection of the spirit of and

Machiavelli, i.e.,
of

on conscious
and

to the principles of

justice. Natural Right

His

tory,
with

whose paperback cover replicates

the Declaration
was

Independence,
on

opens
self-

the observation that the United truth of a Creator who

States

founded

faith in the

evident adds

has

endowed men with unalienable rights.

proposition,"

Strauss

thereby reminding us of Lincoln's grasp of the natural right foundations of our country, and of his pivotal role in preserving, both prior to and during civil war, the nation founded on the
conviction

that the nation was "dedicated to this

that all men are created equal.

The

alternative to the cynical use of

piety

rejection spired

by

Neumann

and

its

confused employment an order

by Rousseau, not to by Rorty, is

man

mention

its in

politics

by

genuine

faith

faith in
for

larger than

that

prescribes

principles

that are authoritative

man.

On

a practical political

level,

the con

higher things are in fact true) may for some period be indiscernible from those of the successful em ployment of Rousseau's (and Rorty's) measures. But we must ask ourselves if
sequences of genuine

faith (i.e., the

conviction that the

the

lack

of conviction

among the

perpetrators of such measures

does

not ulti
ad-

mately

undermine their effectiveness.

Implicit in the

claim to

superiority

Harry
vanced

Neumann

and

Rorty's Political

Piety

273

by

revelation,
of

as well as

in the faith that Strauss has discovered in the

foundations
a soul that
order

philosophy, is

the admission that man such as and

is chiefly
among

characterized

by
in
the

longs. Philosophers
this

Rousseau employ
establish

revelation as myth

to

grounds

satisfy for consensus

longing,

thereby

the

people

and order.

But

what about the souls of

the perpetrators?

If the underlying claim about human nature is true, it souls must be dissatisfied, and subject to malaise.
Under
genuine

would seem that these

piety the distinction between practical and philosophical po litical theory remains. Expertise in the practical is still required in order to found the regime and to sustain it. But enduring success of the practical de
pends on respect of natural right.

for the

philosophical and on possession of

its fruits in the form

Notes

1. Leo Strauss, "Progress or in The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism: An Introduction to the Thought of Leo Strauss, selected and introduced by Thomas L. Pangle (Chicago:

Return?"

University
ogy
and

of

Chicago Press, 1989),

p.

261. See

also

Leo Strauss, "The Mutual Influence

of

Theol

The Independent Journal of Philosophy (Vienna), 3 (1979): 114. 2. Ibid. Strauss also notes that "all alleged refutations of philosophy presuppose faith in

Philosophy,"

revela

tion."

Thomas Pangle, in his very useful examination of Strauss's argument, adds that only plete knowledge of the whole of reality would permit philosophy (reason) successfully to revelation. Philosophy obviously lacks this knowledge. See Thomas L. Pangle, Leo Strauss, Studies in Platonic

com

deny
in

"Introduction,"

Philosophy
p.

(Chicago:

University
to live as a

of

Chicago Press, 1986),

to be

pp. 21-

22.
3. See Pangle,
an act of
"Introduction,"

22: "The

choice

philosopher ceases

simply

faith

or of will

if

and

only if it is

a choice to

live

as a philosopher preoccupied with the

serious examination of the phenomena and the arguments of

faith.

The

ever-active

Strauss

elsewhere

wonders, "But does this not constitute the complete and final

defeat

of

velli,"

Athens? For a philosophy based on faith is no longer in Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, pp. 210-11.

philosophy.

See "Niccolo Machia

Book Reviews

Joe
gers

Sachs, Aristotle's "Physics": A Guided Study (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rut University Press, 1995), xi + 261 pp., $52.00 cloth, $18.00 paper.

George Anastaplo
Loyola

University Chicago, School

of the world

of Law

The finiteness

is

a main point

for the
with

ancients and

for

the medievals.
world.

The Aristotelian philosophy stands or falls Aristotle there is nothing outside, not even

the

finiteness

of

the

For
Klein'

nothing.

Jacob

The importance

of

Aristotelian

science

book, Aristotle's "Physics": A Guided

of texts such as this one
of

Study.2

is

provided

by

is sturdily argued by Joe Sachs in his A useful introduction to the study Harvey Flaumenhaft, the Senior Editor
text

the series of books in which this

valuable

is found (pp.

vi-xi).

This

series

has

served

is testimony to the St. John's College Program which Mr. Sachs well for more than two decades. St. John's is perhaps the only
in this country today where undergraduates can be introduced to reliable notions about the mathematics, effectively sciences, and the philosophical thought of antiquity. The Program higher

institution routinely
can

of

learning

yet

the physical

develop

an awareness

in

students

of what well

the enduring questions are in

these disciplines. All this testifies as

to the pioneering work of Jacob

and their associates

Klein, J. Winfree Smith, Curtis

at

A.

Wilson, Robert S. Bart,

St. John's College

since the

1930s.

The

merits of a proper translation of the

Physics,

as of other ancient

Greek

texts,

are also argued

by

Mr. Sachs. The defects

of earlier

translations are no

ticed in his challenging introduction.

There have been published, in

of

recent

years, a

number of reliable translations

Platonic

and

Aristotelian texts,

as well as of

texts

by

Xenophon

and

Aris

tophanes,
avelli.

to say nothing All this is partly due to the influence

about what

has been done

of

with authors such as

Machi

Leo Strauss,

who spent the

last

interpretation, Winter

1999, Vol. 26, No. 2

276

Interpretation
his life
on

years of

the St. John's College

campus

in Annapolis,

after a

distin

guished career at the

University
here

of

Chicago.
Physics for the serious

Mr. Sachs
student. as such

provides

a useful translation of the

His is probably the best translation of this text available in English, and it deserves the commendation provided on the cover of the book by

Leon R. Kass,
of

formerly

Tutor

at

St. John's College (and

now at

the

University

Chicago):
Sachs's
and

translation and

misleading Sachs's superb guidance,

whose

versions that

commentary rescue Aristotle's text from the rigid, pedantic, have until now obscured his thought. Thanks to
the

Physics

comes alive as a profound

dialectical

inquiry
and

insights into

the

enduring

questions about nature, cause,

change, time,

"infinite"

the

are still pertinent today. myself and

Using

such guided studies

in

a class

has been

exhilarating both for

for my

students.

This
who

assessment which may take for granted the recognition that those have known the Greek language need not have had Aristotle's thought

"obscured"

for them

the Kass assessment

a

is

reinforced

by

a passage

in

book

review

by

Carl Page, currently

to

Tutor

at

St, John's College:

translation

With

respect

Aristotle's

Greek,

the

[Sachs]

is lean

and

idiomatically

consistent.
ousia

It

also avoids much of the received technical vocabulary.

Thus, e.g.,

is

"substance"

not

but

"thinghood,"

arche

is

"principle"

not
"matter"

but "original

being"

source,'

or

"ruling
"accident"

what

is usually

translated as
attribute."1

becomes

"material,"

becomes "accidental

Mr. Page

continues:

Most striking
energeia, to ti

amongst the

departures from

standard usage are the renderings of profoundest notions of and

en einai and entelecheia

arguably the

Aristotle's

whole philosophy.

Inspired partly

by Heidegger
thing
be
at as

partly

by

Joseph its
to ti

Owens, Mr. Sachs

en einai as

translates the
on
'

energeia of a

its

"being-at-work,"

"what it keeps

being
and

in

order to

all,"

and

its

entelecheia as

its

"being-at-work-staying-itself (which I think

work"

of as the so

"self-maintaining being
commonly linked
usurp
with

at

of a concept of

thing).

The

fixity

lack

of

dynamism

the

"essence"

and sheer existential presence that tends to are

the meaning

"actuality"

of

thus nicely side-stepped in favor of the powerful, pulsing, actively

organizing

sense of

form

that

is

visible on the

face

of

Aristotle's

own neologisms.

III.

I hope it is

not

only my

perhaps naive reservations about

Martin Heidegger
said to

which prompt me

to notice problems with an edition of the

Physics

have

been "[i]nspired partly

by

Heidegger."4

Book Reviews
The Sachs translation is
often

277

awkward, more so than the introduction

(by
are

him) preceding

the translation or the

commentary (also
not

by him)

accompanying

it. Mr. Sachs himself

infelicitous (pp. 8-9).
thoughtful
scholars

recognizes that some of the terms

in his translation
to catch on

Thinghood, for example, is

likely

(many

may still prefer entity). This kind of term fails the test endorsed by Mr. Sachs of "us[ing] the simplest possible language in a way that keeps the focus off the words and on the things meant by (p. 7). In some
them"

instances it may be better simply to

reserved

use the

Greek terms (with

an explanation

for this

edition's

eminently

useful glossary).

This

could

be done with,
anti-Latinate

for example,
principle arete

arche, energeia, and ousia.

On the

other

hand, if

the

that Mr.

Sachs insists

(p.

354)

continue

is to be scrupulously followed, should to be translated as virtue and should phusis (pp. 31, 250)
upon
nature1.

continue

to be translated as

Some technical
perhaps corrected

problems with

the

Sachs

edition should also

be

noticed

(and

in

subsequent printings of so attractive a and chapter

heads, lacking both book

The mingling
of

numbers, are

book): The running distressingly inadequate.

of

text and

commentary

can

be troublesome. The insertion

be distracting. And there is

the

standard page numbers within the text can

a prob

lem

with

the relegation to the back of the book of

four

chapters considered

by
the

the translator to be digressions. In short, any meddling

with

the

integrity

of

text, as traditionally received, is to be But no matter how well a translation is done is

still

discouraged.5

or

presented, Aristotle's Physics

likely

to

be

of

little

use to most

bright

youngsters eager to

find

out what

the world is like. It is difficult to do

not also

much with such

texts as the Physics off (if

on) the St. John's College campuses,

and not

only among

undergradu-

IV.

critical

issue

with

respect

to Mr. Sachs's approach is suggested

argument made

by

his

frank

rejection of the

following

by

Richard McKeon for "pre

tradition"

serving a continuity of (pp. 5-6; emphasis added):

The tendency recently in
as

in translating Aristotle's texts into English

translations
and

from Greek
to avoid

and

Latin philosophers, has been

as clear and

to seek out Anglo-Saxon terms,

Latin derivatives. Words

definitely
in the

fixed in

long

tradition of usage as privation, accident, and even

substance, have been

echo

replaced

by

barbarous
with the

compound

terms,

which awaken no

mind of one

familiar

tradition,

and afford no entrance

into the

tradition to
an attempt

one unfamiliar with

it. In the translations

to the

[accompanying
of

this argument]

has been
the

made

to

return

terminology
of the

the

English
which are

philosophers of

seventeenth century.

Most

Latin derivatives

used

have justification in the

works of

Hobbes, Kenelm Digby, Cudworth,

278

Interpretation
even

Culverwell,
mass of of

Bacon,
on

and scores of writers

contemporary

with

them.
not

[T]he

commentary understanding if the terms

years.7

Aristotle
of

will

be

rendered more
are changed

difficult, if
arbitrarily

impossible,
two

discussion

after

thousand

translations

One could, if interested in the tradition of commentary, use other (standard) or one could, even better, learn Greek and Latin. Still, does not a
and

rich

approach?

potentially instructive tradition tend to be depreciated by Mr. Sachs's But then, consider what Jacob Klein did by using excellence rather
book."

than

(for arete) in his invaluable Meno An even more critical issue here, of course, is the
virtue
mover"

status of

"a

motionless

first

(pp. 28, 223-24). Much is

made

by

Mr. Sachs

of our

inability
be

to

know that
to

which

is constantly

changing.

Certainly,

changeableness can

said

be

an attribute of all observable

the attention of the modem

serve

things, those things which occupy almost all physicist. But is not the whole which we can ob
will

itself

"forever"

in that

"it"

(so far

as we now

know)

continue to exist
much

in

some

form

or other

according to unchanging

"laws,"

however

in flux

its

appearance may always be? I wonder, that is, whether eternal as some would-be

dismissed,

comprehensible or

yet constantly changing material should be Platonists-Aristotelians may seem to do, as in unknowable. Is what is said by them about "the first
some of them as

mover"

(often translated

by

"the Prime readily if

Mover") truly
The first
at all

more compre mover

hensible,
"forever"

or enough so to engage modem curiosity?

may be

in the full sense, but It is

not

observable,

at

least

not

in the

somewhat

That

which we call matter

reassuring way that many other things seem to be. does seem to be and to move pursuant to

ascer

tainable modes, now as well as this set of

long

ago, here

as well as

far

away.

Underlying

inquiries may be questions about the meaning and the status of the Platonic doctrine of the Ideas. It is reassuring to have Mr. Sachs notice that "in
the most

important respects, the

writings of

Plato (p.
2)''

and

Aristotle

are more

like

each other than either

is like anything

else."

The

status of modem science more

in Mr. Sachs's book

respect

seems

to be

deliberately
it
some

lowered. Little
times seems,
about which

than

grudging

is

shown

by him,

or so

for the

accomplishments

of modem

science,

accomplishments

Mr. Sachs is personally better informed than

on

most of us are ever

likely

to

be. Jacob Klein,

man"

the other

hand,

could speak of
it"

"mathematical

as "one of the great auxiliary disciplines connected with est achievements of Jewish p. 458). (Strauss, And one of Mr. Philosophy, Klein's colleagues in Annapolis, Eva Brann, could speak of "the reverence-

physics, and all the

producing

splendor of modem science and modem

mathematics."10

Although

Book Reviews
Mr. Sachs from
his
can recognize that

279
gains

the

"glory

of

the new physics is the power

it

mathematics"

(p. 15), his

general tone

is

likely

to be perceived

by

most of

readers as

dismissive.
serious problems with the philosophical

There are, it has been noticed, dations

of modem science.

foun

to any its an informed promote, particularly among faculty, inquiry into these matters than St. John's College, an inquiry nobly advanced by the superb work that Mr.
not of more

I do

know

school that

has done

Sachs has done in

close

several

fields. He himself has

of

observed that no one

has

come

to

digesting

the

implications

One

set of problems posed

by

modem science

contemporary physics. has to do with its be both One

a

considerable

reliance upon

mathematics,

which can

blessing

and a curse.

So

much
view

is this

so

that it can sometimes seem that contemporary physics comes to

as a

primarily
complaint

branch

of mathematics.

can

be

reminded of

Francis Bacon's

that

Aristotle had "corrupted be

natural

philosophy [that is, physics]

by

his

logic.""

Even so, it
of

should also

remembered

that Plato can still be

regarded as one

the greatest of mathematicians. (The geometrical construction proposed at

continues to challenge

Meno 87E in

commentators.) And,

mathematics was a prerequisite open

for

anyone who wanted to

where

Academy. This leaves

the mathematics that

the question of

grounding study in Plato's the emphasis was placed in Chicago

we are

told,

Plato

relied upon.

I recently heard the questions put, at a fermion," quium on the "composite "Is it
real?"

University

of

physics collo

a mathematical construction? exchange at another

a

Or is it

am reminded as

well of the after

physics colloquium:

A physicist,

following describing

Chicago

decade-long inquiry
his
at once

into the
is.

properties of an exotic particle, observed,

"We don't

ask what this particle

But

we

know it

can

leave

trace."

colleague of

added, "If it is

charged."

All this

elicited

from the

ranks of

these scientists the recollection of

not speak more

advice given
thinks."

by

Niels Bohr: "One

should

clearly than

one

Such investigations become

and the

even more
are

complicated, of course, when

the

divine

beginnings

of

things

taken

into

account.

That is,

Being

itself

can seem mysterious.

Perhaps the

same should

be

said of

Nothingness.12

VI.

Among
stein

the problems with the

upon mysterious elements,

himself faster

tended

epistemology of modem science is a reliance hard if not impossible to grasp, which Albert Ein We to dismiss as requiring "spooky action at a
distance."

can even

be told

of effects

that are

evidently transmitted from

one particle

to

another

than the speed of

should

light.13

Mr. Sachs

be

of

help here,

seeming depreciation

of modem

however misleading in its emphasis his science may be. Eugene P. Wigner has sug-

280

Interpretation

gested, "The surprising

of

discovery
hand

of

Newton's is just this, the initial

clear separation
other."14

laws

of nature on the one

with

and

conditions on the

Is

not

Aristotle,

his

examination of

the

fying
we

whatever

"initial

conditions"

four causes, particularly useful for clari there may happen to be for the universe as
physicists are

know it?

Perhaps,
better than
direction

is, Aristotle is needed if modem they do their foundations, limitations,

that
work can

to understand

and aspirations.
works

To this

end

Mr. Sachs's

be

quite

helpful. But

perhaps this

in the

other

as well: ancient science can

be illuminated, if

not

better understood,

by a proper appreciation of modem science's spectacular accomplishments. Un derlying this investigation, whichever direction one moves, is the continuing inquiry as to the nature and status of nature. Nature has been vital to the tradi
tion of philosophical pursuits in the
when one notices the absence of

West, something
as the

that can

be highlighted
Confucian."

the concept (but not of the workings) of nature

in

such great ancient

intellectual traditions

Biblical

and

the

VII.

It is

prudent

for the

scholar

to

keep

in

view

the remarkable
not that

technology

that to

has been

made possible

by

modem science.

Does

technology testify

something reliable, if not also important, in the modem grasp of things? That technology has expanded, in turn, the reaches of the universe to a perhaps in
comprehensible extent.

Aristotle
a

and

his

contemporaries

had

a quite

limited

physical access

to only

very

small part of one galaxy, the one we

happen to be in. We,

upon us

on the other

hand,

are accustomed to

hearing

about

the

billions

billions
all

of galaxies all at great

around

us, galaxies which are moving away from

in

directions be

speeds.16

What "the

universe"

means

in these

circumstances can

daunting
of

to

consider.

Indeed,
I put,

one can

adapt, to

an effort to ago

identify

"the

universe,"

the

questions

a couple of

decades
and

in the

course of a

University

Chi

cago memoir about

Leo Strauss

Enrico Fermi

questions about

something

called an ultron:

What

seems to

be missing in the

current scientific enterprise

is

a systematic

inquiry
do

into its

presuppositions and purposes.

That

is,

the

limits

of modern science

not seem to

be properly know
so

recognized.

Bertrand Russell has been know

quoted as saying,

"Physics is
but because
discover."

mathematical not we

because

we

so much about the physical world,

little: it is only its

mathematical properties that we can

But the
upon

significance of this observation

is

not

one

learns

trying

to persuade competent physicists to

as generally appreciated join one in presenting a

a careful reading of Aristotle's Physics. Is there any reason to doubt that physicists will, if they the Twentieth Century, achieve, again and again, "decisive course

devoted to

continue as

they have in
in

breakthroughs"

Book Reviews

28 1

dividing

subatomic

"particles"? But
would

what

future,

or genuine

understanding, is there
a

in that? I believe it
"ultron."

be fruitful for

physicists

that

is, for

few

of the more

imaginative among them What must this

an

to consider seriously the nature of what we can call the

ultimate particle
not an
"ultron"

idea

or a principle)?

For is

be like (if, indeed, it is a particle and implied by the endeavors of our infinite
point? regress

not

physicists,

by

their recourse to more and more ingenious (and expensive) equipment

and experiments?

Or

are we to assume an place or

(sometimes
to be (if it

called

progress)
another

and no

way,

what

standing is it that

starting is to

Or,
be

to

put

this questions still

permits the universe to

raise

and

is)
Mr.

intelligible? To Strauss
called

ask such questions

fundamental

questions about what

"the

project."

modern

How

would

Aristotle have

responded

to all this? With wonder

and with

many, more telling, questions of his own. A

told me that
successful

distinguished

physicist

recently
am more

Enrico Fermi had

once said to

him, "You know why I

because I have
no as

than you young theoreticians? It's

imagination."

am reminded

here that Leo Strauss

once

identified himself

"absolutely

and

always"

analyses of situations. I suspect that making "empirical, Aristotle could have described himself the same way as someone who was

hard-boiled"

empirical,

hard-boiled,

and not misled

by

his (or

anyone

else's)

imagination.17

This is something that Joe Sachs's scrupulous translation of and mentary on the Physics should help us grasp better than most
otherwise

elegant com of us might

be

likely

to do

at a

time when

imagine

what could ever of the

have been

meant

it has become virtually impossible to among thoughtful Aristotelians by

"the finiteness

world."

NOTES

1. Jacob Klein, Lectures

and

Essays (Annapolis, MD: St. John's College Press, 1985),

p.

114.

originally pursued and regarded as a most important component of the perfection of human life. The crisis of modern science consists, in [Edmund] Husserl's phrase, in 'the loss of its
was

"Science

For the sake of a sound view of human life we seek what may still be valid in meaning for Aristotelian understanding of Laurence Bems, "Rational Animal Political in Essays in Honor of Jacob Klein (Annapolis, MD: St. John's College Press, 1986), p. 30. See note
. .
.

life.'

the

nature."

Animal,"

15 below. 2. All
citations to page numbers
recent

Aristotle's Physics. Another

in the text of my discussion will be to Mr. Sachs's edition of instructive introduction to the Physics from St. John's College Aristotle's "Physics
"

is David Bolotin's An Approach

to

(Albany: State

University

of

New York

Press, 1998).
substance.

3. Reporter, St. John's College, Winter 1996, See Aristotle's "Physics. pp. 7-8, 15.
"

p.

7. Mr. Sachs has

'

useful

things to say about

Aristotle, Aristotle's "Physics, pp. 10, 29; Jacob Klein and in Leo Strauss, Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Moder nity, ed. K. H. Green (Albany: State University of New York, 1997), pp. 457f. See, on the Jewish Great Ideas Today 1998 Philosophy collection, George Anastaplo, "Leo Strauss and (1998): 457. See, for the reservations about Martin Heidegger referred to, George Anastaplo, The American Moralist: On Law, Ethics, and Government (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1992), pp.
4. See, on Martin Heidegger Leo Strauss, "A Giving of
and
Accounts,"

Judaism,"

282

Interpretation
ed., "Symposium
on

144f.; Arnold I. Davidson,

407f.
5. "Some
parts of

Heidegger

Nazism,"

and

15 Critical

Inquiry (1989):

Aristotle's text that

to the

are rather

Physics have been

organization of
of a

Appendix."

removed

technical and unnecessary to a first study of the Aristotle's "Physics. p. 30. See also, p. 36. On the
'

the

Physics,

see pp.

28-29. Does

not an editor's willingness to rearrange

the parts

text tend to ignore the care with which an author might

have

ordered those parts

(if he intended

"publication")?
whole, the

Fortunately

for the

reader who

wants

to get a sense of the arrangement of the

materials relegated

by

Mr. Sachs to
and second

an appendix as

"digressive

chapters"

are taken

in

roughly

equal measure

from the first

interspersing of editorial tion by Aristotle of the

can

"motionless"

Physics. Unfortunately, the repeated commentaries, refreshing though they are, can be confusing. The presenta a very short presentation (in chapter 2 of book 5) things halves
of the

be

said to of

be

at

the center of the entire

presentation end of the

Physics,

at

least

as

it has

come

down to

us.

That is,

at

the

heart

Aristotle's

returned

to, toward the

"

is this remarkably terse discussion of the motionless, which is is discussed. Compare Aristotle's Physics, when the "first
mover"

"Physics,

pp.

1-2: "The have

writings of

Aristotle that

we possess as wholes are school texts

seem never

that,

with

the possible exception of the Nicomachean

Ethics,

to have been meant for publication.

listening.'

The title that

ture

we

with the

Physics describes it

as a

'course

of
written

The likeliest

conjec

is that these

works originated as oral

discourses

by Aristotle,

down

by

students, cor

rected

by Aristotle, and eventually assembled into longer connected 6. Both the Nicomachean Ethics and the Politics of Aristotle seem

arguments

more accessible

to students,

and that can encourage them to persevere.

give students the skillful teacher

Other translations than Mr. Sachs's

of

the Physics do

is

impression that they are learning something, while the Sachs version (unless a involved) is more likely to make all but the most gifted of students believe that
said

they can understand little if any of what is being Review, 50 Review of Metaphysics (1997): 687.
7. All this is McKeon
at the
aside

by

Aristotle. See Edward

Halper, Book

University

from the difficulties that Leo Strauss, among many others, had with Richard of Chicago. See, on Mr. McKeon, Book Review, Review of Metaphysics
true"

32 (1979): 775. ("It is

not

should read

"But is it

not

true.") See, for

(although
now

an appreciation of

Mr.

McKeon, by
breadth
Kant,"

one of

his former students,

as a professor who

neglected) "was, for his

of mastery, clearness, penetration, and originality, a mind virtually on the level of Immanuel George Kimball Plochmann, Richard McKeon: A Study (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), p. 13. 8. See, for comments about the tradition, Anastaplo, Human Being and Citizen: Essays on

Virtue, Freedom, and the Common Good (Chicago: Swallow Press, 1975), p. 52. See, on the use of excellence instead of virtue, ibid., pp. 84f. See also Aristotle's "Physics, p. 254. Did Mr. Klein, whatever he may have believed about the work of others, ever use such terms
"

"mush,"

as
pages

"pretentious
and

gobbledygook,"

"gibberish"

and

in

print

in the way that Mr. Sachs does

on the

at

15, 22,

29

of

his text?
should

9. Perhaps Xenophon The Thinker dom

as

be linked to Plato

and

Aristotle here. See,

Ideas, Anastaplo,
pp.

Artist: From Homer to Plato & Aristotle (Athens: Ohio

"

University Press, 1997),

303f; Aristotle's "Physics,

of

pp.

49, 57-58, 93. See,

on what

Socrates did know, Anastaplo, "Free

Mind"

Texas Tech Law Review, 21 (1990): 1941, 1945f. 10. See Robert L. Stone, ed., Essays on "The Closing of the American (Chicago: Chi cago Review Press, 1989), pp. 186, 280. See also John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, September 14, 1998, p. 69: "the sciences, the extraordinary advances of which in recent times stir such
and the
him'

Speech

First

Amendment,"

admiration."

11. Bacon, Novum Organum, I, 63. Even so conservative a modern as Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss observed, "regards Aristotle's natural philosophy as 'unworthy of whereas [Burke] considers Epicurean physics to be 'the most Natural Right and History approaching to
rational.'"

(Chicago:

University
the

of

Chicago Press, 1953),

spirit

p.

31 1. (Epicurean

physics made much of atoms and

materialism, anticipating in
as well

the approach of modern science.) Is there not something Baconian

in

following
and

observation?

"[T]here may be
a person

a complete structural

scientific and a pure

deductive system;

opening

the pages of a systematic treatise

similarity between a in the

a glance at the

'Mathematics
sequence of

Physics'

section of a

bookshop
is

will not

be is

able to

tell, from

formulae,

whether the treatise

about physics or

about pure

mathematics."

Richard

Book Reviews
B. Braithwaite, Scientific Explanation (Cambridge: Cambridge
Alexander Friedmann liked to joke that bad become
meteorologists. mathematicians

283

University Press, 1968),

physicists and

pp.

350-51.

become

bad

physicists

See

Timothy Ferris,

The Whole

Shebang

(New York: Simon & Schuster,

1997),

p.

42.

noons,"

12. See, on the University of Chicago weekly physics colloquium, Anastaplo, "Thursday After in Kameshwar C. Wali, ed., S. Chandrasekhar: The Man Behind the Legend (London:

Imperial College
about a problem

Press, 1997),
in

p.

122. A
it."

University
he
was

of

Chicago Nobel Laureate in

physics observed problem.

particle physics that measure

You're going to have to

University
not

working on, "Aristotle can't solve this of Chicago Magazine, April 1993, p. 29.

See,
Case

on what a vacuum

is

and

is

taken to mean these

Revisited,"

Loyola

University

reminded,

See,

on

discussions, Heidegger and being, Anastaplo, The American Moralist,

vacuum

by

of Chicago Law Journal 28 (1997): of how difficult if not impossible it

pp.

days, Anastaplo, "The O. J. Simpson 461, 467 n. 14. We can be

can

be to

"zero."

measure

157f. See

also

Anastaplo, "On
n.

Beginnings,"

The Great Ideas

on

Today

(1998): 138.
distance,"

13. See,
Albert Physical
totle's

"spooky

action at a and

Ferris, The Whole Shebang,

pp.

277, 347

44;

Einstein, Boris Podolsky,

Reality

Be Considered
pp.

Complete?"

Nathan Rosen, "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Review 47 (1935): 777, 780. See also Aris
stuff."

"Physics,1'

eminent scientists can speak of

1,

p.

19.

Aristotle,

so

11-12, 16, 46-48, 56-58, 70-72, 78-79, 93, 105, 144, 186, 227f. Other "weird See, e.g., Chicago Tribune, December 22, 1997, sec. far as I know, had no more than an inkling (if that) of the minute things,
which

investigated
tant.

by

See

note

contemporary physicists, 16 below.

have

proved so

interesting

and

evidently

so

impor

See, on the speed of particle-effects transmissions, The Whole Shebang, pp. 276f.; Malcolm W. New York Times, December 16, 1997, p. B Rowne, "Particle's Properties Are Reported
Teleported,"

16. See

also

Aristotle's

"Physics,"

p.

12.
"Principia"

14. See Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Newton's

for

the

Common Reader (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1995), p. 165. See also Anastaplo, Book Review, The Great Ideas Today 1997 (1997): 448f. Laws of nature is a modern term. "[T]he evolution of the universe is determined not
only by dynamics, but also by the initial sal (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987),
systems," conditions."

p.

Robert G. Sachs, The Physics of Time Rever 276. See, on "the dynamics (i.e., the actual
seem,
purport

motion)

of

p.

3. The "laws

nature,"

of

it

would

to describe "the

dynamics"

of systems

(for example, how things

move and what

the effects are of those movements).

Thought,"

15. See, e.g., Anastaplo, "An Introduction to Confucian 1984:(1984): 124, 150f. Anastaplo, "Law & Literature and the
Law Review
vol.

The Great Ideas

Nature"

Bible,"

Oklahoma
of

Today City University

(St. John's
either

23 (1998). Compare James Carey, "On the

Discovery

College Lecture, Santa Fe, New Mexico, August 22, 1997). Nature is Hebrew Bible or in the New Testament Gospels.

not to

be found

in the

See,
171f.

on

the nature of nature,

Klein, Lectures

and

Essays,

pp.

219f. See,

on

Aristotle,

pp.

16. See
of

note

13

above.

Strange things

are also said about

Beginnings,"

Black Holes. See, e.g., the discussion

p.

Stephen Hawking's

work

in Anastaplo, "On

153. See

also note

14

above.

17. See, e.g., Kurt Riezler, Physics and Reality: Lectures of Aristotle on Modern Physics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940); Jacob Klein, Greek Mathematical Thought and the Origins of

Algebra (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1968); Anastaplo, The Thinker as Artist, Strauss's question about the significance of Galileo and Newton for Plato Aristotle's
and relied questions could
upon

pp.

306f., 314 (on Leo

Aristotle). Aristotle less

and

Among
noticed

be

some

taking

account of the us as

fact that

much of what more or

is tacitly

relied

upon

by

well,

but

relied upon

haphazardly
of

because it is

My
called a

not properly noticed informant for the Fermi

by

us.

"imagination"

quotation was

Robert G. Sachs

of the

University
can

Chicago Physics Department. Even so,

"golden
rule."

the Fermi name can

be linked

with

something that

be

in

check the

imagination

See Sachs, The Physics of Time Reversal, pp. lOOf. See, on the need to hold with respect to the "Arrow of pp. 30, 264f. See, on how apparently
Time,"

examples"

"contrived
n.9

can

have

apparatus constructed

to

demonstrate
p.

the

(noticing

the work of

Clyde A. Hutchinson, Jr.). Compare

190

n.2.

behavior described, p. 29 An insistence upon the

284
"need

Interpretation
[for]
277.
"imagination"
information"

much more experimental

can

be the last

word of a conscientious physicist.

See

p.

As to Mr. Fermi's

remark:

He had

observed

to invent new particles whenever

they they already knew. See, on how a United States Supreme Court justice might use "imagination and in trying to defend the indefensible, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 266, 286, 330f. (1962). Such an exercise can be properly disparaged as "chasing See, for my speculations, Anastaplo, The Artist as Thinker: From Shakespeare to Joyce (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1983), pp. 252-53. See also Anastaplo, The Thinker as Artist, pp. Oklahoma City 306-7, 314; Ariastaplo, "Lessons for the Student of Law: The Oklahoma Political Science Reviewer University Law Review 20 (1995): 19, 157-58; Anastaplo, 27 (1998): 345, 426 (www.cygneis.com/anastaplo). See, for the Strauss remarks, Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, p. 342. See also Kenneth L. Deutsch and John A. Murley, eds., Leo Strauss and the American Regime, forthcoming from Rowman & Littlefield. See, on resisting "the temptation to accept the imaginative

encountered problems,

young physicists to be overly prone instead of thinking more about, and

thereby

using, what

ingenuity"

rabbits."

"ultron"

Lectures,"

"Samplings,"

"hard-boiled"

true"

and

alluring

as

(even

as one remains open

to apparent absurdities), p. 285. See

for

a reminder
Not,"

salutary John A. Murley, Robert L. Stone, Practice of Theory (Athens: Ohio

proper appreciation

of

restraints upon modem physicists,

and

Hellmut Fritzsche, "On Things That Are in William T. Braithwaite, eds., Law and Philosophy: The
p.

University Press, 1992),

today
of the

3. Also salutary,

of

course, would be a

among

physicists

lessons that Joe Sachs

could

help

them

learn

from Aristotle,

and not

only from the Physics.

David

Lowenthal, Shakespeare
xii

and the

Good Life (Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littlefield, 1997),

+ 271 pages, $68.00.

Michael Zuckert

University

of Notre Dame

Readers
enthal's

of

Interpretation
new

will on

find

much

that is familiar in David Low

three of
a

intriguing

book

originally

published

in this

Shakespeare; very journal, while

and

its

eight chapters were

fourth

was printed

in

a collec

tion on the bard edited

which readers of

by

Joseph Alulis

Vickie Sullivan,

a collection with

this journal might also be familiar. This should not be taken as

an excuse

to ignore the
plays as as

important

book, however, for it contains new The Tempest, The Merchant of Venice,
instructive discussion
of

chapters on such and

Measure for

Measure,

well

as

the method and aim of

Shake

speare studies and of previous practice

in the field. book

its parts; seeing even whole much increases the
essays.

More importantly, the whole is the familiar essays in the context

value and

greater than the sum of of the as a

interest

of these

already
such

valuable and as

interesting

Lowenthal

Interpretation's, for he locates his work clearly readership within the "revolution in Shakespearean initiated several decades
aims at a
interpretation"

ago

by

Allan Bloom
poet,

and

Harry
special

Jaffa. This interest in

approach political

"treats Shakespeare
(p.
xii).

as a

philosophy"

philosophical

with

As

Lowenthal admits, he is extremely niggardly in citing previous studies, even studies by those in whose path he claims to walk. So it is not always easy to
state

how,

exactly, he

relates

to these earlier studies;

he

admits to must

"some trepi

dation"

in adding to

those writings

(unduly

modestly, I

say), but justifies

manner of

himself

with the promise of

interpretations"

"new ideas
xii).

about

Shakespeare's
states

writing

and new

(p.

Although he

his

point

in

a somewhat

ambivalent manner, perhaps

he

means

to signal his differences from his fellow

political philosophical

interpreters

as well as

from the

literary

interpreters

when

he

avers that

"even the

greatest claims

[hitherto] fall short of the claim bring us, it appears, the most philosophical
modest contribution than the other.

for [Shakespeare's] philosophical ability (p. ix). He intends to to be made for it

here"

Shakespeare yet, certainly

less

At the

same

time, Lowenthal does

not address

He is

much concerned with the

new and

failure

of

only the already converted. the political-philosophy Shakespeare Shakespeare has

won

to catch on. "This

deeper

view of

few

adherents

interpretation, Winter

1999, Vol. 26, No. 2

286

Interpretation
specialists."

among traditional Shakespeare insularity, intellectual prejudices Shakespeare's have

not

The

causes are

many
about

disciplinary
poetry, about

of our age about xii).

truth,

aims as a writer

(pp. viii,
(p.

Yet, "it is

also possible that we

not always

begun

our analyses at a point clear to one and

xii).

all, whether

or

Lowenthal presumably will attempt to they remedy this failing, not only making the "revolution in Shakespearean inter more accessible to those outside the field of political philosophy, but
share our point of
pretation"

strengthening it even for those point for "one and (p. xii).
all"

within

by finding

the sufficiently clear

starting

He lays
out

more emphasis on

"an

pattern."

overall

much more extensive

the starting point than on his success in drawing "To map the Shakespearean cosmos requires a comprehension than (p. xi). Yet he also says that
.
mine"

he has "placed the

manner of

plays

in

an order

best

[Shakespeare's]
do that, he
of the

philosophy."

calculated to convey the content and But if he knows what order is best
views about

calculated to and

must

have

some

firm
We

the overall "content

manner"

bard's

"philosophy."

can make sense of those various

pronouncements

if

we

take him quite literally: he has not made an effort "in

this

book to

weave the particular treatments of the plays conclusions

placed about

into

an overall pattern

and to
which

draw

Shakespeare's
of the plays

philosophy."

But the

order

in

he has

his treatments

does

"convey

the content and

manner"

of that

philosophy (p. xi;

emphasis added).

His

order of presentation

introductory
son

chapter

certainly has its peculiarities. He begins with an devoted to surveying Shakespeare criticism from Ben Jon
order

to A. C.

Bradley, in

to show

how

unevident

some more recent critics

are, especially how

unevident

many of the it is to

prejudices of
resist

seeing

Shakespeare The Tempest, last

at one and the same time as a

deep

thinker

(philosopher)

and as a

consummate poet. a

and closes

He then launches into a study of seven plays. He opens with play he insists in the chapter's first words was Shakespeare's with A Midsummer Night's Dream, a play he insists in that
was

chapter's

first

paragraph

Shakespeare's first in the

(pp. 21, 259). He
not

sense that

it is "the from the

oldest of all the plays

in its

setting"

last to the first, but he

chapter on
on

also cycles

only back to the beginning: the first

moves

section of the

The Tempest is titled, "How the

Play

Begins,"

while this

last

section

the last

(first) play is

titled "The Origin of

Drama."

In between

come

ters on
sure

King Lear,

Julius Caesar, The Merchant of Venice, Macbeth,

and

chap Mea

for Measure.
of the principles

None
of

the plays. The division

normally employed account for Lowenthal's ordering into genres (comedy, tragedy, romance, etc.) so fre
and

quently used (even by Alulis done here. The "dramatic

Sullivan) has nothing

also

to do with what he has

earliest

order"

does

not

signify, for he puts the

play last and has an play like Julius Caesar come after a like The Tempest. He does not even follow the principle of Bloom play Jaffa's
arrangement of

"ancient"

"modem"

and

clustering Shakespeare's

plays around regimes: the

mod-

Book Reviews
em commercial republic

287

(the Venetian plays), the

ancient republic
when

(Julius Cae
plays

sar), the

English monarchy

(King

Lear). Moreover, his

he lists the

in

his

preface and provides a one-sentence precis of

"conclusions"

about

each,

he interchanges Macbeth
The
the

and

The Merchant of Venice.

beginning
and

of wisdom on

"content

manner"

of the

Lowenthal's ordering, and thus on his views of Shakespearean philosophy is to notice that the
A

plays cluster

into two
(cf. the

groups of three each with an epilogue or appendix on

Midsummer Night's
the

Dream,

the play that

in

more ways than one cycles

and

back to

beginning

structure of

Leo Strauss, Natural Right

each other

History). The

two clusters are

distinguished from
"the Biblical

by

the presence or absence of

Christianity,

alternative"

or of

to classical philosophy. The

first

three plays (The

no Tempest, King Caesar) very little Christian content. The Tempest is apparently set in Christian times, but Prospero's island and Prospero himself have nothing to do with Christianity (cf. pp.
or

Lear, Julius

have

33, 57,
play.

and esp.

39

and

68).

Only King Lear,

"of the
of

tragedies,"

northern

is

"pre-Christian in its

setting"

(p. 72). Julius Caesar,

course, is also a pagan

The

second

cluster,

however,

contains plays centered on

Christianity

and

the

Bible. "In The Merchant of Venice the Biblical alternative to classical philosophy (p. is considered and in Measure for Measure the Christian view of
temperance"

x).

Macbeth is

set

in

Christian land

and

has the

"countering"

point of
chapter of

the

"defective"

Christian

view of

human life (p. 228). The last

gives us

the second
a

cluster

(on Measure for

over

Measure)
a

Duke Vincento's
pave

"winning
for the
drama"

kind

of

Christianity,"

victory

victory that seems to

the way
and

presenta

tion of "the origins of Athenian philosophy,

summer

democracy,

in A Mid

Night's Dream (pp. xi, 257). The essay that divides the two clusters concerns Julius Caesar, who "might even bear comparison with Christ himself
. . .

establishing

worldly kingdom Julius Caesar

...

in the

confines of whose universal peace

kingdom"

would arise another martyr with another purpose and another

(p. 135).

That is, the essay

on

serves

in

part as

the transition to the topic of

the second cluster of chapters.

II.

Lowenthal
that remain
Christianity"

segregates

the plays that raise the

or nonbiblical
...

biblical

alternatives
a

from those

within

pagan

horizon because

"conventional

is "usually

ascribed

to

Shakespeare"

(so far

as

Shakespeare is
chief error an adherent

credited with

having
to

substantive
correct.

views), and this

attribution

is the

Lowenthal
of

means

His Shakespeare is

so

far from

being

Christianity"

"conventional

that he is an enemy of

pendent
istotle"

thinking follower
(p.
x).

of classical

philosophy

it; he is, rather, "an inde of Socrates, Plato, and Ar

is
meant to explicate

Thus Lowenthal's first

cluster of chapters

288

Interpretation
the chief elements of the classical philosophic view

by giving us finds in Shakespeare.

that claim

he

That Shakespeare is
put

some sort of

Platonic

political philosopher

is the

claim

forth

by

(most of) the interpretive

one

"revolutionaries"

with whom

Lowenthal
to "begin

allies

himself. It is the claim,

claim

supposes, that the Shakespeare establishment

has resisted; it is the

analysis
. . .

for

which

Lowenthal has
all"

"place"

sought a

sufficiently
clear"

clear to one and point

"sufficiently
Tempest.

beginning

the seventeenth to the nineteenth

(p. xii). He may intend by that his survey of Shakespearean criticism from centuries, but I suspect rather that it is The

Many

"scholars

with a

background in

tionaries"] have
speare accepts and passim).
clear

suggested that

political philosophy [i.e., the "revolu The Tempest involves Shakespeare's version of
Republic"

the philosopher-king

in Plato's
of

(p. 21). Lowenthal

agrees:

"Shake

the idea

the philosopher-king

from Plato's

Republic"

(pp. 68

Yet that

presents a puzzle:

Lowenthal implies

a more evident or

starting point that might win more adherents than his fellows have done, but he seems to begin by agreeing with what they have already said, therefore not to have won his way to that superior point of departure. Here is how his
some a place where one wishes

yet and

for

fuller he

account

from Lowenthal
He does

of

readings

differ from those to

preface

whom

appears close.

provide

hints. In his
...

he
of

"conclusion"

presents

as

a
king"

the thesis that The

Tempest "treats

the

idea

the philosopher

(p.

x).

Yet in the

chapter relation

itself he
(p.
one

gives a

different formulation: "The theme

society,

of

the play

is the

between the

philosopher and

including
many

the rule of the philosopher

68;

cf.

63, 64). The philosopher-king is

broader theme
with

not the theme of

The Tempest but

point

aspect of a

other

aspects.

Lowenthal's

might

be,

then, that one must begin with the theme of the relation

between the

philosopher and as such.

society in toto
seem a small

and not with the theme of the

That may

difference

until we notice

philosopher-king Lowenthal's running be Shakespeare's

phi arts

insistence
most
losophy"

on the great paradox of

The Tempest: "It may

...

but there is "considerable concealment of overtly philosophical in it (p. 68). Indeed, "Shakespeare never refers to the liberal
studying] philosophy (p. 28). Where Plato blazons philosophy all
admits to as or calls

play,"

[what Prospero
pher"

Prospero is

a philoso

over the

Republic, Shake

speare

in this

supposed re-presentation of the

Platonic

position
as a

determinedly

silent on

philosophy.

To begin

by

reading The Tempest

to
"all,"

version of the

Republic, then, is,

who

unsurprisingly,
our point of

not persuasive
view"

do

not

"share

(p.

xii).

especially not to those Lowenthal approaches Shake

speare

with

his

somewhat

different theme
will not want

and

discovers

that

"Shakespeare,
his
secret reasons

agreeing
studies].

with

his Prospero, familiar to

to reveal [the character of

He

will not

identify

them as

philosophy"

(pp. 28-29). The

for

this will sound

raises

all who

know the

work of

Leo Strauss: philosophy

society

dangerous questions, dangerous both to the

philosopher and to the

Book Reviews
in
which

289

he lives. The

right

beginning

point seems

to

be, then,
less

the demonstra

tion within
and

Shakespeare's
a

corpus of the

idea

of

the tension between philosophy

society,

tension pointing toward the need

for

more or

esotericism

in

the presentation of philosophy.

Winning

this point is essential to

luring

readers

to

enter

into the

enterprise of the political philosophical

interpretation

as well as

getting them to read the plays in the correct manner: as extraordinarily artfully
constructed artifacts

leading

through the most careful manipulation of

detail,
a more

seeming

inconsistency,
but
of

apparent

gap in the presentations,

and so

on, into

philosophic

concealed core.

Lowenthal,

of

course,

makes no claim

to the

discovery

the tension between philosophy and society, the implications of the notion of logographic necessity; he seems merely to believe
out of

esotericism or

he has brought these insights

persons not

Shakespeare in

already

persuaded and

by
(at

the approach to see

way that will enable its point and view its

conclusions with

sympathy

least)

open-mindedness. at

The Tempest

as read

by

Lowenthal is thus

least

as much an echo of

The

Apology
of

of Socrates

as of

the Republic. The Tempest recapitulates the doubleness wise, the philosophers, them

Platonic

political philosophy: the superior claim of the

to rale, and the resistance to that rule in

both society

and the philosophers

selves, a resistance requiring the concealment of philosophy. Shakespeare agrees

with

Plato that the

philosopher cannot

(and does
to actual

not wish
political

to) rale, but he

life"

shows

"the
via

lasting influence he
magical arts of

can contribute

(p. 40). Prospero, way that, tempo

his

illusion,

controls events

(chance) in
he
uses

rarily, makes the rale of wisdom per se possible;

a philosopher would

his

power to show what

do if for

wisdom could rule. political

The

equivalent of

Prospero is

not

the philosopher striving

"ruling"

power, but Shakespeare the philosophic poet,

through

his

poetic art and

his

superior

tion,
them
chief

passions and to a

degree the

reason of

ability to his audience,

appeal

to the

imagina
to move

a rale

he

uses

in the

general

direction

a wise ruler would.

But,
seeks. a

and this

is Lowenthal's

point, he "must hide his superiority, hide his own opinions, in a fashion hide
order

himself, in
Not the

to have the

formative
be
the

effect

he

His

most

unconventional

thoughts must

concealed

behind

exterior"

pleasing

startling and (p. 62).

philosopher-king,

but

necessarily

esoteric presence of

philosophy is

the main lesson of The Tempest. Because of that, Lowenthal can claim to "pro
writing"

vide new

ideas
main and

about

Shakespeare's
emerge

manner of

(p.

xii).

If the

lesson to

from the

inquiry

into the

relation

between

philosophy
and

society is the

great tension

between them,

such

that the wisdom

morality (justice)

to

it,

ered

society are at best indirectly available then we might say the human situation (off of Prospero's island) as uncov in The Tempest is tragic or nearly so. That thought seems to provide the
so much needed

by

play Lowenthal takes up, for it "may be the (p. 71). It is the play where Shake most tragic of Shakespeare's specific nature of the tension between philos the what clear most makes speare
transition to

King Lear,

the next

tragedies"

ophy

and

society

is, i.e., why philosophy

can

have only

a concealed or esoteric

290

Interpretation
In the
course of

presence. nal us

the play, Lowenthal argues,

enacted

"something like

the origi

birth of philosophy is from recognizing it as

engages

before

our

eyes, but in a disguise that

character and reason
reenactment:

keeps

such"

(p. 84). Both the

same

for this
philoso
mad

concealment are contained

in the
in"

feature

of

the

"the

phizing Lear (p. 84). To

. .
ness"

is indistinguishable from his "descent into

a

show that

philosophy is

kind

of

madness, and therefore most

dangerous, is
Both
and

the

accomplishment of

main plot

lines

of the

play

King Lear. insistently raise

the same question: "Lear

Edmund

appeal to nature

to a natural, as distinguished from a merely

claim"

legal

or conventional or man-made

(p. 78). The

"discovery

nature,"

of

(p. 79). Once it dis however, is "how philosophy itself comes into covers the natural, what is, independently of human agreement about what is or should be, philosophy engages in "a radical rejection of the traditional authority
of religion and society:
. . .

existence"

Philosophy

challenges all
and

the name of the truth

it discerns

about

nature,

authority as such in in the play Shakespeare

actually has Lear recapitulate this radical break with the belief in the gods that is presupposed by the discovery of nature through (p. 79, 89).
philosophy"

Since society
cepted within

exists

in terms
a

of

the authorities,
of

beliefs

and goods-gods ac private world

it, philosophy is

kind

madness, a retreat into a

that no longer makes the same sense as the world in which others live. It
a

is

also

dangerous

activity:

the most necessary things lose all authority. At the peak of

O'

his philosophizing Lear takes aside Tom Bedlam, his "philosophic for a word. Lowenthal proposes that Lear means to ask "whether the
"private"

mentor,"

gods exist
deus"

or,

better, just

what

the fundamental cause of things really is: Quid

sit

(p. 88). This is

a question
life'

for

private

(off-stage) discourse

"if

religion

is
no

essential to

(p. 88) and Lowenthal's Shakespeare has ordinary human life." doubts that religion is "essential to ordinary human Having broken
the conventional views of morality and

with

divinity, Lear draws

justice

conclusions of

a most explosive sort:

in the light

of nature all

appears conventional.

Like Heraclitus, he

concludes

there is no support in the cosmos for the kind of

judgements human beings ordinarily make (p. 95). Nihilism is a moment in Lear's development. Many critics take this Heraclitean wisdom, together with
the particularly bleak ending of the play, to signal Shakespeare's intention "to

convey (p. 71).

a sense of

hopeless despair in

a universe

devoid

meaning

of purpose or

Philosophy may
neither political

prompt one

to that thought as a tentative conclusion, but

insight.
"the
ically"

King

philosophy nor Shakespeare's play ends up with that as its final Lear dangerously challenges conventional justice; it shows us that

world

is certainly not the kind of place where justice triumphs automat (p. 103). The play as a whole, however, demonstrates not a cosmos void
one where the principles of natural right are our sense of natural
justice"

of

justice but

relatively

clear

(p.

102). It "calls forth

we see on

in

our reactions

to the events
quite dif-

stage;

our experiences and

the lessons we carry away are

Book Reviews
ferent from the
experiences and

291

lessons

of

those on stage (p. 102). In sum,

Lowenthal concludes, the descent into

about
nature"

nature

is

not

justice tries in fact to demonstrate that it has (p. 104). Justice is

natural and real,

really dissolving: "this play a natural base in our social

all

but not, for

that, strong

enough and
all-

to

be

self-supporting.

Nature has

not the character of a not

wise,

loving

powerful

father,
p.

who guarantees or

justice (cf.
nature

80). Unwise
or points

merely the truth but the effectuality of partially wise human beings must complete what
true natural foundations: un
role of

begins

toward. These human beings necessarily admix large

doses

of prejudice and mere convention with the natural

derstanding
naturally
most

justice leads to the insight that the

rather

irrational

preju

dice, like descent

to the legitimate heir

than to the most meritorious, is

p.

more rational and

just than
harmed"

natural remain

justice itself (cf.

hidden from

78). Even

at

its

benign, philosophy

thus "must

public view

because it

(p. 106). easily do harm and be Shakespearean political philosophy can then establish the fact of natural jus tice, but what is it? That further question is pursued, Lowenthal maintains, in
can

Julius Caesar. That

tion
plot against

question arises

in the

most obvious sense via

the

assassina

Caesar;

the conspirators act in the

more

belief that the

republic

is the

best

or most

chic regime

just regime, or at least that it is Caesar has or wishes to install.

well

just than the kind

of monar

Lowenthal is
which

known for his

daring

reading

Caesar becomes the

central member of the

play according to conspiracy against his own

of the

life,

and of another
new

wholly

conspiracy in favor of his eternal fame as founder of a political order. He sees Caesar and the Caesaristic regime to be
conspirators and

superior

to both the

their republic (pp. 127-32). Lowenthal

is

careful to show, however, how Shakespeare shares in the flexible character of ancient political philosophy. He does not judge the

and prudent republic an

inferior

regime

in general, but only

revived and

under

the circumstances; the republic

is too
are

corrupted

to be

thus the conspirators, seeking what cannot

be,

acting both unwisely

geared

and unjustly.

Shakespeare

also

shows,

however,
of

that the

current corruption of the republic

has

much

to do with its inherent character:

to conquest, it

created

the

conditions

for the dissolution

its

own vir

tues (pp.

129, 134-35).

not only greater (i.e., more naturally meritorious) than the conspir honorunderstands him "as the perfection of political or Shakespeare but ators, (pp. 136). Caesar's willingness to give up his life for his honor is seeking

Caesar is

man"

one proof of

his consummately

political nature.

Caesar is the
"the

greatest political

man, the greatest lover of

the
perfection of

honor,

and thus

he

raises

claim that

he

embodies

human

nature"

(p. 138). Lowenthal

of

wonders

"whether Shake

speare accepts concludes

Caesar's

standard"

human merit, however (p. 146). Lowenthal

that he

does

not.

"While Shakespeare treats Cicero sparingly, he

that the
or
ultimate conflict of philosophies

presses us toward the conclusion

in the

play is between Cicero

and

Caesar,

in

view of

Cicero's

own admission

292

Interpretation
and

between Plato

Aristotle,

on the one

hand,

and

Caesar

other."

on

the
same

Shake

speare's view of classical political

contest

philosophy

culminates

in the

kind

of

between the

political and the philosophic

life that

so often

forms the

theme of

Platonic dialogues.
concludes
poet"

Lowenthal
philosophical enthal also

in favor bit

of philosophy.

Shakespeare's "own life

as a

is

one

of evidence of where the

bard stands; but Low Caesar. He has, in His

a
"distorted."

finds

evidence

in the Shakespearean
(p. 144). His
nature

portrait of

word, been
nature

"dehumanized"

has been

social

is stunted; he finds
one

no

happiness (pp. 145-46).

points

On the
model of

hand, then, Julius Caesar

regime per

the

best

se;

on the other

it

points

back to The Tempest, with its forward to the Christian

world

world, the world that came into existence within the

the world guided
political man at

Caesar made,
the

and

by

a moral

ideal very different from

either

honor-loving

its
or

peak

that was

Caesar,

or

the wisdom-loving philosophic man

that

is Prospero

sential
deeds."

Christian Christian

Cicero. Antonio, in The Merchant of Venice, is "the quintes one whose life is devoted to unselfish love and charitable
created

Shakespeare has
love"

him "as

a model and

test case for the idea of

unselfish

(p. 152).
the test.
cover

Antonio, like Caesar, fails

mildness and
otry."

His love is for

a

not

selfless, but

grasping.

His

kindness

are

but

form

of

"pious

cruelty,"

for "zeal
"The
who

Not Antonio, but Portia

alternatives presented

and

her Belmont triumph in this

are obedience to a on the one

play.

human

in this play

fatherlike God

is

a spirit apart

from

matter and

dominating it,
by

hand,

and

the beautiful harmonies of nature and subject to chance, on the other, guided
an

living by by

independent intelligence
of

magic"

and assisted

poetry

and

(p. 171). The

lure

"the father-like

God"

is great, for

otherwise

human beings face their

exposure to enthal's
witness

chance, as Macbeth nicely demonstrates. The biblical

shows over and

God, Low
promise:

Shakespeare
the

over, fails to deliver on this

who were

fate

of

the MacDuff

family,

left in his

care.

The biblical

God,

or rather

those who live under his auspices,

of their

passivity bom to imitate the

over and

trust,

or an

inhumane

moral

fall regularly into an unmanly rigor, bom of their aspiration

rather

spiritual
with

being

who made

them.

Lowenthal's Shakespeare sides,

Belmont"

over,

the "natural cosmology of

and

than the myster

ies

of

the God of

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob

a

Jesus.
conceives two and classical

Lowenthal's Shakespeare is
extreme alternative

very Aristotelian thinker. He

extremes
as

political-theological-philosophical

(Platonic-Aristotelian) philosophy
extreme
idiot"

the true and virtuous mean. At the one

is the

moral nihilism which

Lear

or

Macbeth in his "tale told

by

an

speech

develop

a most pessimistic and

inhospitable

view of things.

At

the other extreme

is the biblical God

versus moral

wise,

knowing,

caring,

providential.

Moral indifference
reign of
which

guarantees; the

war of all against all versus the

divine love. The

central section of the central chapter on the plays,

is

also the central section of

the

book

as a

whole, contains in

a nutshell

Book Reviews
the

293

Lowenthalean
good"

mean:

dead father, is actually own (p. 163).

obedient

"Portia appearing to be obedient to the will of her only to her own will and mind in seeking her

III.

Shakespeare

and the

Good Life is

not an

easy book to

evaluate.

This is

not

to say that it is difficult to find very much to admire and praise. It has, I hope I have shown, a strong and extremely interesting argument, presented and devel oped with great attention to detail. Even when it does not persuade it provokes
thought. If the point of

interpretive

studies

is to lead the in view,

reader to a

richer, more
succeeds

thoughtful,
greatly.

more

felt

experience of the text

then

Lowenthal

Yet there
strengths.

are

counterbalancing

considerations

to these and its many other

Reviewerly

candor requires

mention these as well.

The

essays

are,

in the first place, very uneven in character and quality. The chapter on Macbeth, for example, is long and rich; the chapter on A Midsummer's Night's Dream has
a

view,

disappointingly thin and hasty feeling. One of Lowenthal's betes noires is the fairly widespread in lit-crit circles, that Shakespeare wrote mainly or only
stage and the plays are

for the

accordingly to be

Lowenthal insists, rightfully I am study and that a kind of reading is direction. We

seldom glimpse

only for their theatricality. certain, that Shakespeare also wrote for the
read appropriate that goes

beyond

or attends to other

other matters than their theatricality.

Yet Lowenthal

goes too

far in the
plays:

through his readings that these were

Shakespeare's first
exhaust them

need was to make them workable on stage. an essential part of what

surely This does not

read

but it is

they
later

are.

Yet Lowenthal's why be

ings

give no room

for this. For example, he

often questions
when

statements rele

made at some earlier moment are not repeated

they

might

vant, as
stage

they

would own

has its

probably be in real life. An author knows that exposition on laws: boring the audience is a violation of all of them. Some
significant that a piece of

times it repeated,
always

might

be thematically
came

information is
we

not not

or that some characters appear

to know something that

sometimes

do

know how they

to tell the

to

know, but
it
seems

this is just the

and a

kind

of

compression and short cut

theater requires. It takes

and

judgement

"feel"

for

the

thing

difference,
be

to me Lowenthal often lacks such

treats the

feel. (A

similar point might

made

for the way Lowenthal

poetry

of

the plays.)

As I have indicated, Lowenthal is particularly concerned to find the evident (or at least many more beginning point that would lure "one and "interpretive he has joined. He builds a case via readers) into the
all"

persuasive

revolution"

the

lovely
is

order and coherence of more persuasive

his

overall argument.
one of

The

whole sequence of

studies

than

any

them. Yet he succeeds only to a

294

Interpretation

degree. The

beginning

point, the reading of The

Tempest, is

example of a problem

besetting

the whole enterprise. He

posing Platonic
get

to the text, going so far as Platonic answers to his questions as itself signifying Shake responding spearean intent vis-a-vis Plato. He begins, in other words, with a template, a
questions
preinterpretation

a particularly good begins his reading by to interpret the failure to

in terms

of which the

interpretation

proceeds.

Shakespeare's
it
it is

texts are so rich that almost

pieces and particles shaped

any does

sieve applied to them will allow through

particular

to fit the holes in that

produce a

sieve, so

not

too surprising that this sieve

reading

of the play.

There are,
supposition

of

course, great debates over

whether

interpretation

without pre

is possible, but it surely has

sieve, the

not

happened here. The thickness

of

and

visibility
continue

of the

selectiveness of

many

the readings will, I suspect,

to stand in the way of the establishment's signing on to Lowenthal's

revolution

Even I, certainly a fellow traveler and perhaps a fellow have ary, my reservations. Let us, by all means, read Shakespeare interested in and perhaps knowledgeable about the themes and texts
revolution.
philosophy.

as a writer of political

But

can

we

assume, for example, that he

understood

Plato

and

other

texts of political philosophy as Leo Strauss did? Although not

impossible,
in

that seems prima

order

to capture

facie unlikely, because Strauss had to or recapture these texts as he did.

read with a

expend great effort

Lowenthal begins to

strong pre-text,

an advance notion of what

the text is about, what questions to ask of

problematical with

it,

and

so on.

This is especially

texts as rich as Shakespeare's plays: texts so

intentionally
are prepared

ambivalent and ambiguous

(an

aspect

Lowenthal underestimates)
will
"Feminist,"

lie to us readily and hear. Thus there is a

to
speare.

repeatedly.

They

tell us much of what we want to

a

"Freudian,"

"Lacanian,"

a against

etc., etc., Shake

But

structure: structure never structure of

this is painstaking and sensitive attention to lies. Lowenthal, remarkably, pays little attention to the the plays, and relies instead on small details: who, he asks, is the
one check
Bellona?"

"bridegroom
other

of

An

interesting

question,

no

doubt, but like

so

many
the

little things

so amenable to

Shakespeare

and the

giving us back what we bring. Good Life is not, then, likely to be the book to

bring

despite my doubts and rewarding advance. With the exception of Harry Jaffa's essay in the Alvis and West collection of essays on Shake speare, this is probably the most comprehensive and coherent account yet at
revolution to a successful completion.

Nonetheless,

and

hesitations, it is

a significant and

highly

tempted of a political-philosophic

Shakespeare.
to the

Exit reviewer, marching

happily

Platonic

music of the

heavenly

spheres.

Riidiger

Safranski, Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil, translated by Ewald Osers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), xvii + 474
pages,

$35.00.

Joan Stambaugh Hunter College

On the whole, Riidiger Safranski has

reliable

presented us with an

intelligent
and

and

biography,
was

one that supersedes

Victor Farias's "Heidegger

Life."

Nazism"

and

Hugo Ott's "Martin Heidegger: A Political

His book

contains mate

rial that

lacking

and perpetuates

in those works, but unfortunately also accepts uncritically their errors. Heidegger's son and editor of the collected works,
published corrections of prefaced

Dr. Hermann Heidegger, has

of

these errors

in

volume

11

Heidegger Studies, 1995,

by

an acknowledgment of

thanks for

Saf-

ranski's effort to

be fair

and unprejudiced.

Safranski certainly endeavors to explicate Heidegger's thought, highlighting the major stages of his philosophical odyssey in remarkably clear analyses for
mulated often

in

concepts that

do

not

simply my

repeat

Heidegger's
a transitive

words.

Thus,

for example, he

analyzes

human

existence as

forcefully
transitive

expressed

in Sartre's "I

exist

having meaning (most counterbalanced body") by the in

is finite free
to
our

factor

of

thrownness. In other words, human existence thrown project. We are not

extent with regard

dom, in Heidegger's terms,

origin;
we are

free

with regard

free to

large
he

to our

future.
could

Heidegger's fatal
save

error was what

his faith in Hitler. He believed that Hitler

menacing forces of communism ("plan Germany He was not anti-Semitic nor a racist; ("calculation"). and Americanism ning")

from

saw as the

his many

close

Jewish friends

and colleagues

attest

to this as well as to his

was

efforts to protect and

help

them. His
of the

judgment, however,
and

flawed,

perhaps

deliberately

blind, in the face

to take place. As

Hans-Georg

enormity Gadamer wrote:

horror

of what was

beginning

Hitler in coming to power drum would deconstruct the nonsense he had used to up the movement, and we differently.1 counted the anti-Semitism as part of this nonsense. We were to learn It
was a widespread conviction

in intellectual

circles that

Safranski

sums

up Heidegger's intellectual

attitude as

follows:

In the

cultural

field,

competition anti-Semitism

spirit"

a specific exist

"Jewish

But this Jewish

spirit that one should

generally includes the assumption of beware of does not

to this

for Heidegger. Indeed he

always objected

kind

"spiritual"

of

anti-

interpretation,

Winter 1999, Vol. 26, No. 2

296

Interpretation
a

Semitism. In philosophy
too.

lecture in the

mid-1930s

he defended Spinoza,

declaring
Hegel

that

if his

was

"Jewish",
p.

then all philosophy from Leibniz to

was

Jewish

(Safranski,

256)

In his

notes to

Hugo Ott's book

states that she

on

Heidegger (Heidegger Studies,

mother advised against
neither

volume

13) becoming

Hermann Heidegger

"my

it (Heidegger's
post."

rector) because

knew that he had

the personality nor the

practical experience similar tone

in

academic administration required concludes:

for

such a

In

Safranski

He

retrieves

the

free mobility
overall

of

his thinking
art"

when

he

no

longer

wants to

be

participant

in the

"work of

of the people's

community, but instead turns

all, he was better
the
was soon
able

again to the works of art and philosophy.

These,

after

to read

than the political reality.

By involving
he had

himself in the

real politics of on

revolutionary
to retire
again

movement

made excessive

demands

himself. He

into the comparatively

safe quarters of philosophical thought. (P.

263)
But back to issues. With

philosophical

regard

to the

issue

of

authenticity-

inauthenticity, one of the issues in Being and Time that aroused the most gen interest, Safranski states that "Inauthenticity is the primordial shape of our This is not exactly false, but it hardly exhausts the matter. There is a great deal of ambiguity involved in this issue; there are other passages in Being
eral
Dasein."

and

Time that
not

state that

authenticity is the

ground of

inauthenticity. The depends

upon

ambi actual

guity is

the result of confused thinking, but rather

the

perspective:

inauthenticity

is

more

prevalent; authenticity is

more primordial.
everyday-

One
ness,

would of

have liked from Heidegger

experience of

some exploration of authentic can

how the

authenticity

Safranski
can

ends

his

extensive exploration of

transform ordinary daily life. Heidegger's philosophy, which

only be touched upon in the scope of this brief review, with the last pub lication of works available to him, the Beitrdge (Contributions), not originally intended for
publication.

In the

past year two and

peared:

Besinnung
of Being).

(Reflective

Thinking)

more such volumes have ap Die Geschichte des Seyns (The

History

In his Contributions
with a

we see

delirium

of concepts

Heidegger transporting himself into that "other and a litany of sentences. The Contributions are
of a new

state"

laboratory
in
which

for

the

invention
records

way

of

Heidegger

his

experiments

speaking about God. They are a diary to discover whether it is possible to

.

create a religion without a positive

doctrine.

These

exercises

in thinking

about

being
with

thus proceed

from

discovery. In just

Bohme had

wanted to experience their

way Meister Eckhart and Jakob God, Heidegger was to fill the empty heart
the

his

reality.

(P.

308)

Book Reviews
Safranski's instinct is
tradition. these two thinkers were,
sound

297

in sensing

an

affinity

with

the

German

mystical

Yet however bold,

radical and suspect still

to traditional church doctrine

within the realm of

they

believed themselves to be

Christianity. This is

no

longer

On the his

other

hand, it

ample contacts with

way open to Heidegger. Heidegger could not wholeheartedly affirm Eastern thought either. To name an example, Nishitani
a seems that

Keiji,
with

the great Buddhist thinker of the Kyoto school, had studied for three

years with

Heidegger. Although he had less

was

personal contact with

Taoists than

Buddhists, however, it
a

Taoism to

which

Heidegger felt himself drawn.

In particular, the thoughts Tao (way, path) had

of wu wei

(noninterference

strong heit (releasement) and way. Undoubtedly Heidegger felt himself

act correspondence

resonance with

or nonmanipulation) and Heidegger's thoughts of Gelassen-

addressed

by

a power that

finds

no ex

ality speaks out of of "the eclipse of

in any religion, Western or Eastern. Yet a powerful spiritu him that is genuine enough to realize that it speaks in a time
(Martin Buber).

God"

But

as soon as

get

there again

(Todtnauberg)

the whole
of

work of earlier questions cabin

again presses

in

on me

during
which

the very

first hours

my

existence, moreover,

entirely in the form in

I had left it. I

am quite

oscillation of work and

am

basically
marks

unable

to control

into the specific simply its hidden law. (P. 278)

placed

One

of the

unmistakable

of genuine

arbitrariness, if you will,

mindless

an absolute necessity.

determinism. After all, it

coincide.

was

spirituality is a total lack of This has nothing to do with a Spinoza who said that necessity and

freedom

Another contemporary witness, Hans A. Fischer-Barnicol, who made Hei degger's acquaintance after the war, recalls: "It seemed to me as if the thinking
of

this old

man

took possession of

him

as of a medium.

It

him."

spoke out of

Hermann Heidegger, his son, confirms this impression. His father, he reports, (p. 315). would sometimes say to him: "It thinks in me. I cannot resist
it"

Safranski's book
ner

presents

the development of Heidegger's thought in a man

which

intelligible

and accessible to a nonspecialist,

preserves

is

no small

feat. The

translation

by

Ewald Osers

this clarity and readability.

NOTE

1. Philosophical Apprenticeships (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985),

p.

75.

Ruth

Grant, Hypocrisy

and

Integrity: Machiavelli, Rousseau

of

and the

Ethics of

Politics (Chicago: Patrick Coby Smith College

University

Chicago Press, 1997),

xii

+ 201 pp.,

$22.50.

In this splendid study of Rousseau's ethics, Ruth Grant raises little-noticed but crucially important questions about morality and politics; even better, she
supplies

insightful,

sometimes

brilliant,

answers to all of the questions she asks. notes

The argument, in brief, is

with

as

follows: First Grant

Rousseau's

agreement

Machiavelli that is
about

politics

hypocrisy is necessary in politics. It is necessary because dependent relationships and because the interests of political
identical to the
ruler's own.

supporters are never

But

while

Machiavelli is

satis

fied to leave it
the core

at

that

at the prince who

is

"fox"

with no moral character at without

Rousseau, Grant
move

contends, is disinclined to do
an

ethics; and so

her

second

is to find in Rousseau

alternative

to the Machiavellian

hypocrite. The alternative, discussed in her third move, proves not to be the dispassionate moderate (present in Moliere), but the uncompromising moralist,
who, on first examination, resembles either the fanatic or the misanthrope. Each
type

is

uncongenial

to Machiavelli (Rousseau is both critic and follower of

Machiavelli),
searches

and neither

is seriously political; thus, in her fourth move, Grant

enough

for

signs of prudence within the moralist type

flexibility

to

avoid the charge of youthful naivete and enough adherence to principle to avoid

the charge of sellout. These signs she detects in Rousseau's concessions to

practicality (his openness to compromise, deceit, restrictions he places on each, restrictions which

and

manipulation)

and

in the

allow

Grant to

assert

that the

Rousseauian Rousseau's

actor

has integrity. In her fifth

person of

integrity

long

study

of the problem of

final move, Grant asks why in history. The question begets a rarity corruption. Corruption's root causes are human
and

is

such a

and freedom; these natural capacities produce sexual differentia knowledge; they in turn are the sources of amour-propre (vanity); amour-propre is the cause of dependency; and certain sorts of dependency are the cause of psychological damage, the prevention of which is Rousseau's ulti

perfectibility
tion and

mate objective.

The

centerpiece of

Grant's book is the

"integrity,"

claim

that Rousseau articulates a viable

Grant persuasively argues, than either "au ethics, one better called What then does Rousseau mean by integrity? The hyperor
thenticity"

"virtue."

moralist

Rousseau

specifies

five

elements:

vengeance,

(3)

pride without

vanity,

(1) disinterestedness, (2) absence of (4) truthfulness, and (5) a willingness to fail
more politic

rather than commit evil

(p. 75). The

elements, however:

(1)

tolerable compromises needed to achieve

Rousseau identifies only three justice and the

interpretation,

Winter 1999, Vol.

26, No. 2

300

Interpretation
good;

common

(2) deceptions faithful

as
a

to "moral
and

truth"

(not factual truth),

plus

disinterestedness
order

fail-safe control;

(3)

manipulations

of principles

in

to

achieve

beneficial results, e.g., the integrity.

Rousseau's
refer

parent manipulates the

child, the tutor

a concomi

the student, and the Legislator the citizen.

tant touchstone of

Again, disinterestedness is
ethical

There is

a completeness to

theory in

that it covers means,

ends, and intentions. The means

to generalized principles of justice (equal

ity,

gratitude,

honesty);

the ends refer to justice in the particular, or to common to interested-disinterested motives. Virtue

goods; and intentions

refer

is difficult
ends often

because

principled means often

fail to

achieve
and

just ends, because just

selfish

are compromised

by

selfish

interests,

because

interests (rationalized

intentions)
means.

and Utopian ends also

(Robespierrian revolution)

often

destroy

principled

Virtue

is difficult because

knowing
law,
and

the justice of the end requires

philosophy, revelation, conscience, or

ways subject to

because the

"knowing"

is

al

dispute.

Rousseau faces up to these difficulties: He derives his ends from conscience chiefly (the sentiment of existence). He makes practical concessions (Polish
serfdom and

representation) in the hope

of

respectful of man's

freedom society

and equality).

accomplishing just ends (a society He fights to defend the sanctity of

the

just

end and good

sets

limits to the

choice of

condemning certain sorts of hypocrisy. And he means (disinterestedness and no direct implication in

by

wrongdoing) in

order to safeguard

integrity.
lines
of

Two

questions now come to mind or two with

inquiry
be

seem worth pursu

ing. Rousseau is teamed

the
and

Machiavelli

as a quasi-modern who

departs from

Enlightenment

consensus that political relations can

conducted

honestly

openly or that reason can devise remedies, negotiate differences, achieve peace. What then would Machiavelli, Rousseau's partner in hypocrisy, have to say
about

Rousseau's

ethics?

Second,

what might the ancients

say

about a mo

rality so suspicious of moderation? Rousseau seconds Machiavelli in arguing that

relationships and that politics

politics

is different from
(in
other

other

has its own, looser

politics"

ethical code

words,

Rousseau

supports the
code

"autonomy
still agree?

of

thesis,

or much of on

it). For Rous founder to

seau, that looser

actors.

requires

disinterestedness
somewhat

the part of political

Does Machiavelli lest

He

does. He

advises the

share power cipled and

lest it be thought that his

crimes are self-interested and unprin

latter-day

princes repeat

his extraordinary
orders."

action
while

his

usurpa

tion of office
calls

and reform

"outside

of ancient

But

Machiavelli

for

power

sharing, he does

not call

whose

stoic view of virtue requires

for self-forgetting as does Rousseau, that actors derive no benefit from their
on
no

deeds, even that they suffer harm. Romulus, who created a senate but stayed as king, was a better founder than Solon, who wrote a new constitution with
place

in it for himself

and who

indeed left

town.

Machiavelli is

sensitive to

Book Reviews
the magnetic

301
and

draw

of private

ambition, appreciative

of

its consequences,
countenance

happy

to see it set free. Thus Machiavelli would surely not

Rous

seau's attempt naive and

to stigmatize ambition; he instead would dismiss the attempt as

as servile

disparage it

(because incompatible

with greatness).

Also,

the stipulation that evil,

ment of

if tolerated, be not personally committed Rousseauian integrity Machiavelli would likely classify as

this require
a

dangerous

way between the wholly good and the wholly bad. have Machiavelli's permission to inhabit the middle way.
middle

Only

private persons

velli

Which brings up the next point. Rousseau is more scrupulous than Machia because Rousseau is less political. One difference between the two is that
examines the

Machiavelli

behavior

of princes, ambitious

with political

dependencies,

whereas
who

individuals struggling Rousseau examines the behavior of citi have the

option of

zens, people only partly political

life. One should, therefore,

seau.

expect more

hypocrisy

retreating into private in Machiavelli than in Rous

position make

But

politics nicer

only more hypocrisy. It is said of them both that they between enmity and love: the mutual dependencies of politics
not

it

than war but meaner than

friendship;

accordingly,

politics

is

fighting by

law

rather than

fighting by

is only partially true of by force. The prince is enjoined to imitate the beast, to be part fox (fraud) and part lion (force); thus the prince rales by lionlike force no less than by foxlike fraud. He does
authors might so still

force. While entirely true of Rousseau, this maxim Machiavelli. Politics, for Machiavelli, is often fighting

because
agree

politics

is war, is to

or

is

never

far from

war.

The two
then

that political relationships are

dependent; but
one strives to

Machiavelli's lion

response

to

dependency

seek an escape

through the acquisi

tion of power. If one begins as a

a

fox (weak
with

and

private),

become

(strong

and

public), because
response

the power of a lion one can afford to

reconcile the opposition of

have integrity. Rousseau's

and

is to

hypocrisy
is in

integrity by implanting
was mentioned above

some portion of
response

integrity

in

a person who middle way.

some portion political.

Rousseau's

is to cling to the

It
cal

that Rousseau's summum malum

is the

psychologi

damage

caused

chiavelli the

falsity, inconstancy. With Ma by dependency summum malum is defeat by fortune. Rousseau is introspective;
vanity,
self-assertive.

Machiavelli is
ened and

It

might

then be said that Rousseau offers a soft

suggestion would explain the

feminized

version of

Machiavelli. This

ongoing importance
protect

of private

life for Rousseau

its capacity to

nurture and

integrity

and

his

restriction of public

life to

occasional acts of

charity
some

(pp. 168-69).

Regarding
thing in

comparisons

with the

ancients, the

politic

Rousseau has

common with on

Plato. Rousseau determines the justice

of an action

by
as

the effect it has the "moral

the

integrity

of

the actor. Thus

as

lying

is

acceptable as not come

long

truth"

is

respected

(and

long

as

harm does

to others).

Such

lie

causes no psychic

damage,

or no corruption to the

soul, in the idiom

302

Interpretation
Plato takes the
soul's

of classical philosophy. action and as of

health

as the measure of right

the desideratum to be pursued. He too permits himself the

and

liberty

telling lies (noble lies)

philosophizing),

on condition

committing legal transgressions (unlawful that no personal advantage is realized (his Socra
of
proper

tes lives in ten-thousand-fold poverty) and the

in

other ways

disturbed. Rousseauian damage is

integrity

ordering of his soul is not is kindred to Platonic natural is that for

Con
and

right

in that

psychic

presumed

to occur whenever spirit or appetite

takes command of the soul. The difference between conceptions

Rousseau the rightful

science practical

commander or moral

of

the soul

is probably
admixture

not
of

reason.

is in command, judgment. This

sense

some

sentiment

more egalitarian commander perhaps explains

Rous justice

seau's aversion

to dependence of every

kind, including
join
with

submission

to the rale

of philosopher-kings. as

Rousseau

seems not to
or as

Plato in

defining

"minding

business,"

one's own and character.

recognizing the rightful rule of a supe

even

rior in intellect

For Rousseau,

just dependence (student to

unjust

teacher) is psychologically crippling,

166). Aristotle is
similar to
ernance

and so even

just dependence is

(p.

also uneasy about philosophical rale, and he is so for reasons Rousseau's that citizens will not grow in virtue without self-gov
of

(hence the propriety

or moral virtue,

ertheless, Aristotle would quarrel

ostracizing the man of superlative virtue). Nev with Rousseau over the meaning of integrity:

Integrity,
Grant

contends that

is essentially moderation, a mean between extremes. Rousseau discards the Aristotelian continuum in favor of a

two-by-two matrix:

Moderation

Moralism
moralist

Integrity Hypocrisy
Grant detects in Rousseau
ardent

statesman

complacent

hypocrite

righteous hypocrite

a rival

devotion to

principle.

morality to Aristotelian moderation, namely She is satisfied that a single mean cannot account

for the

virtue of the purist and that moderation since moderation

is

tainted

by

the vice to which

it

is attached,

is,

or can

easily

become,

moral

complacency.

Both moral types, in fact, suffer from immoral hypocrisy (righteousness being hypocritical in its own way). One question arises, however: Would abandon
ment of the present on not

Aristotelian it

continuum
a mean

(typically

be necessary if more than three points were bracketed by opposite extremes)? Could there
to account for the person of Rous
schema:

be

an

indefinite number,

or enough

seauian

integrity? Consider the

following

cynicism

complacency

moderation

moral

severity

fanaticism

Book Reviews

303

By
fall

this reckoning the complacent cynicism, one

on

moderate would

fall

short of moral rectitude

on the side of

vicious

extreme, while the severe moralist would

short of rectitude

the side of

fanaticism,

the other vicious extreme;

then

moderation would remain would

the mean. What

is passing

for

an alternate virtue

in fact be but

a mild

form

of vice.

Grant, though,

offers a second reason

falling ing

short of the virtuous mean she

but is

why Rousseauian integrity is not a legitimate alternative to moderation.

This integrity,
that man

observes, rests on a competing philosophy of man, one hold

is

good

by

nature and corrupted

by

society.

The human

soul

is is

naturally
evil

united and

harmonious;
or

thus virtue

is

not a

balancing

of opposites

but

extremism

in

pursuit of goodness.

Against this

view

is the belief that

of

man

by

nature, partly evil,

on

forces, is dependent
quently the meaning
choice

of

conflicting carefully crafted compromises for its peace; conse virtue is "nothing too What one has then is a
much."

fallen: the soul,

battleground

between two

moralities

(a la Isaiah Berlin),

each of which

is

fully

vir

tuous and each of which culminates in an exemplary moral type: the statesman,

coolly

flexible,
raises

and

the purist, passionately

committed.

herself in the

the possibility

that Rousseauian

Or it may be Grant is little better than integrity

and

adolescent

idealism, hence incomplete, immature,

Anyone
who under

wrong if

persisted no

in (as
and

saying:

thirty

who

is

not a socialist no

has

heart;

anyone over

thirty

is

still a socialist

has

brain.). But Grant thinks that

amenable to the com

the charge

is misplaced, because Rousseauian

And
although worries

integrity is

promises of prudence.

the Aristotelian statesman is more prudent

still, Grant

that this prudence may prove a cover

for complacency,
resisting evil, for the

timidity,

and callous

indifference. In the Rousseau's

matter of

she speculates that

courage of

conception of

doing integrity

good and

would account

French

peasants who

hid Jews from the Nazis,

Rousseauian

as well as the cowar

dice

of

Parisian

sophisticates who rationalized collaboration. examples of wonders and

But

notice where

Grant

goes to

find

integrity

to simple peasants and

idealistic
that

youth.

One

then

if

the choice which

Grant

presents

is

not

between Athens

Jerusalem, between

the cardinal virtues of Greek phi

revelation.

losophy

and the spiritual virtues of

Judeo-Christian

Shadia B. Drury, Leo Strauss

and the

American Right (New York: St. Martin's

Press, 1997),

xiii

+ 239 pp., $35.00.

Susan Orr Reason Public

Policy

Institute

Shadia Drury seems intent upon making a career out of blaming Leo Strauss for everything she finds wrong with the world. In The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988), she charged him with corrupting young minds in the academy through an insidious form of atheism that cloaks itself in outward displays of
piety.

The

echoes of the

Socratic

charge would not

have been lost

on

Strauss,

but he knew that

unmask were not

serious readers would see that

the modem pieties he sought to

those of religion, but rather the idols of positivism and histori that his students have

cism.

It is

no surprise

followed him in

this endeavor,

but

Drury continues by Strauss scorn

tion to
are a set of

to find this
rational

incomprehensible, claiming that those influenced discourse, preferring instead an "unquestioning devo
cannot and will not

ideas that they

.

defend in

except to those who

already disseminating tive of intellectual life itself (p. 2). Immediately

convinced
.
.

their views

a manner

that is destruc
one

upon

opening the book,

wonders
need

why, if the

man and much

his

students are as she on

describes,

anyone would

to

write a

book,

less two,

the subject.

Unsatisfied

Drury indicts
Machiavellian

with saddling Strauss with all that is wrong with the academy, him for all the things that she doesn't like about America. Thus,
and

in Leo Strauss first book

the

American Right,
to all

she now

finds

that Strauss's
rightward.

reach extends

Americans

who

lean

supposedly While her its core;

of

was simply wrong, her latest is simply silly. Her thesis, then and now, is that Strauss's philosophy is

nihilistic at

that what the

he fears

most

is

unfettered

democratic rale; that his illumination

fundamental tensions between

common man who needs and that

reason and revelation

only

masks a contempt

for the
well;

to believe in a punitive god in order to behave

religion would succeed not too particular
would

for Strauss

"any

political task at
be"

hand. He is therefore

in accomplishing the about which religion it While The Political

should
one

(p. 11). Until this latest effort, it

have been hard to imagine

in

which

Drury

could so misunderstand

her

subject.

Ideas of Leo Strauss was misguided, confusing bad exegetical accounts of Strauss with his work, her latest book betrays an even deeper misunderstanding,
not

only

of

Strauss, but

also of

the

American

regime.

Drury

confuses and conf

lates the classically liberal foundations of the American politics of the last half of this century. There are many
this is the
most

regime with

the

liberal

errors

in the book but

fundamental.

In

order

to move the argument

from the academy to the

political

arena,

interpretation,

Winter

1999, Vol. 26, No. 2

306

Interpretation
draws the is
outlines of a conspiratorial

Drury

movement,

linking

Strauss

and

his

students

to the right wing of the Republican Party.

presented

Unfortunately, her
pictures of

strongest

argument

in the

cover

art,

which

displays two

Clarence
one
of

Thomas

and

Newt Gingrich, both

looking

angry, juxtaposed

with

Leo Strauss

briefly
worked wrote

looking sufficiently Cheshire Catlike. In the text, in the introduction to note where some of the students
in the
public

she pauses
of

only Strauss have

when she

arena, but the list

must

have been
of

old even
work at

the book. Alan Keyes is noteworthy because

with

his
not

the

United
presi

Nations

Jeane Kirkpatrick

under

President Reagan,

for his 1996

dential run, and it is a sure bet that Robert Bork would be surprised to find himself listed among the powerful Straussians in Washington. Anyone with a
glancing knowledge of Strauss's students know that her account is unreliable.
or

the conservative movement would

The only link she can make with plausibility she doesn't even try to forge: William Kristol is arguably the most politically influential of those who studied under Strauss and his students, yet he only gets a nasty dig in a footnote in the

first

chapter.

Instead

she reserves

her final Kristol

chapter

for his father

as

the

founder
feet

of
of

the neoconservative movement, which until now had not been

laid

at the

Leo Strauss. But for Drury, detects the hand dominant

of

Irving

and

Leo Strauss

are all of a piece.

She

Strauss

amidst the neoconservatives

because

almost all the

motifs of neoconservatism are the

bedrock

of

Straussian thought: the

preoccupation with

religion, the

conviction of

that nihilism is the source of the crisis

of

American liberalism, the depreciation

to

Enlightenment rationalism,

the antipa

thy

liberalism,

the emphasis on nationalism, the concern with the role of

and the preference

intel

lectuals in politics, For her

for

democracy
supposed

over

liberalism (p. 138).

one who excoriates

Strauss for his

nihilism, it is

telling
have

that a
a

concern about

the highest things becomes a

"preoccupation,"

but

we

hint

of

opinion of religion are

earlier, where she notes that people who take religion

seriously dians.

largely

people such as

David Koresh, late

Washington"

of

the Branch Davi-

The book turns from "Straussians in "Strauss's Jewish

Heritage"

in the first

chapter to

in the

second.

Here

one

leams that

"according
of a

to

Strauss, Maimonides does

as opposed to the
sian

not even

think that philosophy can prove the creation

eternity of the secret, the world is relatively

world"

(p. 52). If that is her idea

Straus

safe.

These

all-too-frequent errors make read

ing the book an exercise Having skipped along

in frustration.
the surface of
Connection"

to uncover "Strauss's German

Strauss's Jewishness, she next attempts by linking him to Heidegger and

Schmitt. The treatment here is equally loose. It consists of her insistence that there is no resemblance between Weimar Germany and modem-day American
excess.

According

she puts political

to Drury, Strauss mistakenly conflates the two because, as it, "Strauss is unable to liberate himself from the conception of the
which

by

his

victimized"

people were so

tragically

(p. 91). What

either

Book Reviews
Strauss's Jewish
remains

307
policy

or

German heritage has to do

has
managed

with

American

public

unclear,
a

except that she

to conjure up lurid images of

Nazism in
until

book

about the conservative trend

in American

politics.

It is

not

the fourth chapter that she turns to what should have been her central

thesis: an analysis of those who

have

spent most

their time studying the

founding

of

America. But it is here that

master

she

fails

miserably because
politics

she

has failed to

the

American

founding

adequately.

Since her focus is to it

would

understand

how American

is

shaped

by Strauss,
ma

have behooved her to

with

compare

the various Straussian accounts of the

see whether the

founding
nipulated

her

own

understanding to

Straussians have

their accounts to suit their purposes.

to

be

a tenet embraced

by

those who embrace

If, insists, feminism ought the Declaration of Independence,

as she

an argument needs

to be advanced.
are

Unfortunately,
they
come

the only references we get to

when

any founding Strauss's students. Her

as:

documents

slight;

only

gloss on the

founding

consists of

is referencing throwaway lines such

she

"There is little indication that the Founders

public morality].

[of

aspects of

were very clear on these issues In fact, they were often attracted to the most foolhardy liberal doctrine. I am referring to the intoxicating idea that the prolif

eration of private vice contributes

to the maximization of public

benefits"

(pp.

109-10).

Drury
She

would

have done

well or

to

spend some

time reading

founding

docu

ments, the Federalist Papers

also could

the Notes on the State of

Virginia, for instance.

have

spent some time

place of

morality in politics. Her front, i.e., what to do when the popular

a serious

learning from Abraham Lincoln about the ducking of the very question he had to con
will violates

the principles of truth and

a

justice, is
ereignty

deficiency. It
account

would

have

proved

far better

and

more

intrinsically interesting
squarely.

had

she confronted the question of popular sov so suggests

Her failure to do

her

most profound misunder

standing not only of Strauss but also of political philosophy. Leo Strauss and the American Right will offer any serious

reader of

Leo

Strauss little but frustration. The book is filled

for
a

sloppy wearying read. Shadia Drury has a problem with the revolution that led to the Republican takeover of the Congress in 1994. Because she likes neither this

with

mistakes that make

development in American study Strauss, ironic that she time,

she reads

politics

nor

the increase in number of those who

she posits that

refused

the two are

intertwined.

Surely

it is

more

than

to take Strauss's arguments seriously and, at the same

of the
Republicans'

between the lines

"Contract

America"

with

only to find Leo Strauss

lurking

there.

Harry M. Clor, Public Morality and Liberal Society: Essays on Decency, Law, and Pornography (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1996), x
+ 235 pp.,

$17.00

paper.

Will Morrisey

Are

public an

morality

and

liberal society mutually

exclusive?

Is 'public
can

mo

rality'

oxymoron

there

being

no

genuine

morality
an

that

survive

the crudities of publicity, or, conversely, no public sphere that can endure the
squeamish refinements of morality?

Is 'liberal

society'

oxymoron,

because,

finally,
One
refusal

to

liberate

and to socialize are opposite tasks?

of the merits of

Harry

M. Clor's

approach

to these questions is his

while nonetheless

to

state

them so

baldly,

so abstractly, as

I have done,

suggesting them to his attentive reader. He takes the Aristotelian path to politi
cal philosophy:

he begins

with

standards of

level-gazing, deliberate, careful of the particulars. The question is, "What, if any, is the legitimate interest of the community in decency and indecency; does our collective well-being depend in
the

some vital respects upon promotion of

former

and restriction of the

latter?"

(p. 1).

By

a public
call

losophers
American

an

morality Clor ethos. As

means a

something very
of course

close to what

Greek

phi

teacher of classical political philosophy

and

constitutional

law, Clor is

acutely
modem

aware of

the

differences
None
not,
and

between

an ancient polis and a

modem, extended,

commercial republic.

theless, he argues, an ethos is Americans could not speak of

still possible
'us'

in

regimes; if it

were

'our'

and

as

distinguished from

'them'

'their';
'You

citizens of other countries could not

begins

sentences with the

perceive

phrase,
and

Americans.'

To

perceive such collectivities

is to

likenesses

unlikenesses.

To be

unable

to perceive

likenesses

and unlikenesses

among hu

man groups would

standing.

be profoundly deranging to morality, and so to self-under Such derangement has been the project of nihilism. Because nihilism

in the

end must

deny itself,

one sees

instead the

construction of what

Andre
means

Malraux nicely it takes

terms "moderate

nihilisms,"

compromised acknowledges

doctrines

by

of which the village atheist

winkingly

that, to be

a village

atheist,

a village.
also commends moderation,
resolute

Professor Clor
same time no

and, as it turns out, he is at the

more

less

than a nihilist.

Indeed, he is

resolute, pre

cisely because his upon an imagined

inculcation
of

resolution

(as

nothingness. public

his moderation) does not depend To sympathetic readers who despair of the
well

as

any

morality in America generally,

and

in the American

academy particularly, he (in effect) replies, calmly: Despair is for immoderate and fearful people. "It is of practical importance that libertarian doctrines and
1999, Vol. 26, No. 2

interpretation, Winter

310

Interpretation

community-weakening tendencies do not go unchallenged, and that a rational case for public morality be available when and if the cultural situation be
hospitable"

comes more resolution and superior

(pp. 2-3). If

an

Aristotelian

can

demonstrate

superior

moderation, the nihilist loses at his

own game.

public

morality is "a
acknowledged

periodically
more or

body of presuppositions implicit in a way of life, by institutional or opinion leaders and sanctioned,
(p. 13). That is,
a public

less, by

the legal

order"

morality is

an articu

morality to the sum of private or individual moralities have never really worked in practice; people stubbornly hold beliefs in common. Beneath such a stubbornly held ethos lies human nature itself. Attempts to destroy the ethos go only so far before real
ethos or set of customs. reduce public

lable

Attempts to

human beings draw back from the results, disgusted

at the

dehumanization the

destruction

long

ran

itself may be changed or even replaced, but in the the inhuman-all-too-inhuman excesses weaken and collapse.
entails.

An

ethos

At the

same

time, dehumanization
need

can go quite

far,

and the short ran can error caused

be
the

brutal. Hence the In the

for

reasonable sanctions on
need

human

by

rule of the passions.

realm of

Hence the

for

a public morality.

theory, two

varieties of

contemporary liberalism

go

too

far,
his

demanding
ralities. own

that the state remain neutral with respect to private and group mo
puts supreme value on autonomy:

Libertarian liberalism

every

man

Nietzsche. Egalitarian liberalism diverse

moralities.

puts supreme value on equal respect

for

all the

These

radical

liberalisms have
(p.

provoked challenges

from

communitarian

writers, who question the replacement of the virtuous re

republic"

public with equality.

"the

freewheeling
see that an

34)

that maximizes

liberty
not

and or

Communitarians

individual

might well claim a

a

right

merely
a claim

to an individual or group
would conflict

'lifestyle'

but to

political and

society.

Such

incommensurably

with

libertarian

egalitarian

liberalism,

those supposed models of

erals must claim either good as to

inclusiveness. Against communitarianism, radical lib that (a) sociality of this sort is bad or at least not so group autonomy claims or (b) communalism is The second claim dissolves when one sees that it strong
that

tramp

personal and

compatible with pluralism.

would require a toleration so

love"

it

would

begin to look like "a be

powerful

religion of universal

that would include "a rather stringent morality of

and such a

[its]
arise

own"

(p. 54). Such It

love,

morality,

could

hardly

expected to

laws to itself. In this case, radical liberalism would begin to look quite illiberal. Although an illiberal communitarianism could explain to citizens what good
spontaneously. would need

institutions,

public

doctrines,

and

realize

they

served

namely, the good of the

served.

community
it

it

could not explain what

good the

community
has
more

Christianity,
say

a powerful religion of universal

love

with a stringent

morality,

can

what good

serves.

But

an atheist commu

nitarianism

difficulty

with such explanations.

To

overcome the

difficulty, libertarianism

can

be defended

as

being

more

Book Reviews

31 1

likely

than communitarianism to

serve

one or more

of

four

goods:

dignity,
the
me?

interest,
The

excellence,

and

individuality
is that

(p. 135). Such

claims

rhetorical

question, Who

other than myself

is to judge

what

usually is best for

rest on

answer to that question

occasions

in

which considerations of a good

"ordinary experience provides plenty of of individuality are in competition with other

imperatives

superiority of the former is not even to the self-judging individual (p. 141). Egalitarian liberalism, familiar from the writings of John Rawls
and the

life

self-eviden

and

Ronald

Dworkin,
regarded

claims

that all persons and groups have a right to "equal

concern and

respect"

(p. 149). Egalitarians have

as
more

difficulty

proving that
of

such rights should

be

valuable than

other moral

considerations, such as civility, the right

over

decency,

and virtue.

Rawls's

well-known

privileging

the

good

the latter allegedly a matter of mere utility rests on grounds so shaky that Rawls himself admits in his later writings that this privileging is merely the assumption of one particular political culture. This admission brings back the
claims of nor

the community,

but in

such a weak

form that

neither

individual rights

the community that respects them can claim any solid foundation (p. 164). Clor finds these problems of contemporary liberalism at the core of Locke's
excels

liberalism. Locke human

problem

later liberals in his

recognition

of

"the fundamental

the existence of powerful non-benign natural passions requir to which public morality has
puts

ing

restraint and refinement nonetheless

been

response"

(p.

167). But Locke

individual rights
a

and claims

firmly

above

duties to the community, encouraging

citizenry whose souls tend not so much to moderation as to petty assertiveness. Lockean liberalism performs the ex traordinarily useful function of discouraging the grand assertiveness of tyranni
souls, but its smaller-bore assertiveness makes
genuine civic

cal

dialogue

and

compromise

difficult.
central chapter

Accordingly, in his

Clor has

recourse

not to

Locke but to

Plato. Neither libertarianism

nor egalitarianism can produce a

humanly
balance"

satisfy

ing morality because healthy condition [of

elements that are

neither accounts

for the

nature of

the human soul, "the

which] is

an

"both diverse

and

appropriately hierarchical among unequal in (p. 116, emphasis added).

status"

"To destroy that balance dermining the capacity to 116). One

'self
might say,

in

oneself or others

is to

cause real

injury by
being"

un

actualize

the

distinctly

human

mode of

(p.

in agreeing

with

Clor,

that liberalism well understands the

'government'

portion of self-government,

but forgets the

portion.

Only

self-government tout court can solve the problems modem

liberalism leads to.

of self-govern

Clor illustrates the distinctive

ment

and

indispensable
addresses the

character

in his final chapter, in

as

which

he

issue

of

pornography, par
an or

ticularly
regard

contemporary feminists

approach

elemental passion

for

other people's

bodies

Pornography "arouse[s] independently of any affection

it.

person"

for

a particular

(p. 192). Feminists typically

of

object to pornogra

phy because its

'objectification'

the other establishes a relation of domi-

312
nance,

Interpretation
of

inequality, between
argues

voyeur and the person the voyeur watches.

Clor

concurs, but
name,

further that dominance

he knows it

by

its

more precise

is only one half of pornography's viciousness. Because too many feminists focus solely on power, in an odd, misguided Hobbesianism, they overlook or even deny the degradation of the voyeur. To acknowledge that

tyranny

degradation
edge the

would

be to transcend feminism
postmodernists

and masculinism and

to acknowl

humanism that

detest.

Still

other

feminists

want

to defend
can

a sexual-liberation agenda.

Some

equality while simultaneously defending only be described as Utopians of the body,

imagining

life

of

limitless

pleasure that synthesizes adolescence with

infantil

ism. Others,

more not

intelligent,

celebrate what
no

has been

called

"the

pornographic read

imagination,"

because it has

limits but because it tests the limits. To

about or to view sexual

limits

of

human

consciousness and to

dehumanization is, they argue, precisely to test the discover the limits of humanness.
to limit-experiences
will

Clor

suspects that this approach

habituate

the souls

that take
more
body,'

it to debasement. The way to test human limits and to overcome the atomistic forms of individuality is not to plunge passionately into 'the
which

is nothing if
alone;
eros

not

individual. Eros is

more complex and

interesting
same can

than the

body

involves

the soul as well as the

body. The
is

be

said

for free speech, the

at

right to which also variants.

looms large in the

speech

pornographic

imagination,

least in its American

Free

more complex and

interesting
course

than unlimited expression. Free speech originally meant rational

catches

dis

(p. 218). (Here Clor

act of

so to

speak, in the

failing
ideas

Supreme Court Justice Souter in flagrante, to distinguish between an idea and a stimulus
genuine eroticism and genuine

[p. 220]).
speech

Putting

these

together

free

one comes of course to

philosophy, philosophy
eroticism and such

as conceived

in, for

example, Plato's Symposium. Such

free

speech provide the

human

limit-experience. And, as the life of Socrates demon strates, philosophy is not without dangers; it too can appeal to the thumotic, risk-taking part of the soul. Clor's moderation thus supports his extremism and
soul with a true
vice versa.

gives

This weaving together of moderation and extremism or radicalism Clor's thought a comprehensiveness and just articulation missing in liber

alism modem and postmodern.

Clor

shows

how the

path of public

policy

can

lead to the

mansion of political philosophy.

The Enlightenment Project in

the Analytic Conversation
By: Nicholas Capaldi

University of Tulsa, OH,

USA
movement
scientism.

Analytic philosophy has been a dominant intellectual century and a reflection of the cultural pre-eminence of
to analytic
philosophy's peculiar reticence

in the 20th

In

response

(and inability) to discuss itself, this book provides its first comprehensive history and critique. The central element in the analytic conversation has been the Enlightenment Project: the appeal
itself through
science as

to an autonomous human reason, freed of any higher authority and channeling

its privileged tool. This centrality is demonstrated

presence and

by

systematically examining its

ethics,
political

development in the philosophy of

social

science, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy, and the

language, psychology,

science,

history

of philosophy. of

This

journey

highlights the internal logical disintegration

relativism

that

project.

Post-modern

is its natural offspring and not a viable alternative. The Enlightenment Project's conception of physical science is defective; this defective conception
of
physical

science

renders

the

analytic

conception

of social

science,

epistemology defective; and that defective conception of the human condition leads to defective conceptions of both moral
philosophical

psychology, and

and political

philosophy, specifically the idea

of social

technology. Throughout the

book,

an alternative conception of

engineering or social philosophy is

initiates the
of a coherent

presented as a way out of the abyss of analysis, an alternative that reconnects

philosophy

with

the

mainstream of

Western

civilization and

process of providing acoherentcultural narrative.

This book will be of particular

the lack

interest to any

sophisticated reader concerned about

cultural narrative.

Contents
Introduction. Appendix: Outline
of

the Enlightenment Project in the Analytic

Project. 2. Analytic Philosophy of Science. 4. Metaphysics in Analytic Philosophy Philosophy. 5. Analytic Epistemology. 6. Analytic Philosophy and Language. 7. Analytic Philosophical Psychology. 8. The Enlightenment Project in
Science. 3. Analytic
and

Conversation. 1. The Enlightenment

Analytic Social Science. 9. Analytic Ethics. 10. Analytic Social Philosophy. 1 1

.

and

Political

Analytic

Philosophy

and

the

History

of

Philosophy.

12. Beyond the Enlightenment Project. Works Cited. Index. 1998 548
pp./Hardbound

ISBN 0-7923-5014-6

NLG 320.00/GBP 109.00

P.O. Box

P.O. Box 358, Accord

322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands Station, Hingham, MA 0201 8-0358, U.S.A.

FINAL CAUSALITY IN NATURE AND

HUMAN AFFAIRS
edited

by Richard F. Hassing
(35=Sl>

An

study of the questions of final

causality.

intriguing

CONTRIBUTORS:
John W. Burbidge Ernest L. Fortin

George Gale

Teleology
the
nature,

the

inquiry into
and

Allan Gotthelf Richard F.

goals or goods at which

Hassing

history, God,
aim

John Leslie Francis Slade Richard L.

human beings

is

among the
sial

most controver

Velkley

themes in the

history

of

William A. Wallace
David A. White

philosophy.

The

essays

in

this

volume

brilliantly probe
questions of

the abiding

final

causality.

The

chapters

Studies in

are arranged order

in historical

Philosophy and the History of Philosophy Series

1997

from Aristotle to
anthropic-

contemporary

282

pp.

principle cosmology.

ISBN 0-8132-0891-2

$59.95

cloth

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY

OF AMERICA PRESS
P.O. Box 4852 Hampden

Station, Baltimore, MD 21211 410/516-6953

INTERPRETATION
A JOURNAL OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Queens College, Flushing, NY 11367-1597 U.S.A. (718) 997-5542 Subscription rates
per volume

(3 issues): individuals $29 libraries and all other institutions $48 students (four-year limit) $1 8
.00

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

Postage

outside

mail

Please print

or

type

ORDER FORM FOR NEW SUBSCRIBERS

(NOT I
wish

FOR RENEWALS

CURRENT SUBSCRIBERS WILL BE

BILLED)

to subscribe to INTERPRETATION.
name address
.

? bill

me

student

payment enclosed

ZtP/postcode

air mail

country (if

outside

U.S.)

GIFT SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM

Please

enter a subscription

to INTERPRETATION for
.

name

student

address

ZIP/postcode

air mail

country (if
from:

outside

U.S.)

? bill ?

me

name

payment enclosed

address
.

ZIP/postcode

RECOMMENDATION TO YOUR LIBRARY

to: the

Librarian,

I recommend that our library subscribe to INTERPRETATION, a journal of polit ical philosophy [ISSN 0020-9635], at the institutional rate of $48 per year (three

issues).
signature name

date

position

INTERPRETATION, Queens College, Flushing, New York 11367-1597, U.S.A.

ISSN 0020-9635

Interpretation, Inc.
Queens College

Hushing

N.Y. 11367-1597 U.S.A.

"0

c
3

60

ft*

In c r
TI
O
(JQ

<

i*i
JO

T3
-i

7
o

(1)

Si

32

O
qq