A

JOURNAL

OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Fall 1988

Volume 16 Number 1

Aristide Tessitore

Aristotle's Political Presentation

the

of

Socrates in

Nicomachean Ethics
of

23 61
87

Victor Gourevitch
Wilhelm Hennis

Rousseau's Pure State

Nature

Tocqueville's Perspective
of

Charles Butterworth An Account

Islamic

Recent

Scholarship
Mind"

in Medieval

Philosophy
of the American
and

99
101 111 139

Discussion: "The
William A. Galston

Closing

Socratic Reason

Lockean Rights
and

Harry

V. Jaffa

Humanizing

Certitudes

Impoverishing
the

Doubts
the

Roger D. Masters

Philosophy, Science,
American Mind

and

Opening

of

145
157

Will

Morrisey
Neumann

How Bloom Did It The

Harry

Closing

of

the Philosophic Mind

Editor-in-Chief

Hilail Gildin Seth G. Benardete

Hilail Gildin

Editors

Charles E. Butterworth
Howard B.

Robert Horwitz (d.1987)

White (d.1974)

Consulting

Editors

Joseph

Cropsey

Ernest L. Fortin Erich Hula

John Hallowell V. Jaffa

Wilhelm Hennis David Lowenthal

Harry

Arnaldo Momigliano (d.1987) Ellis Sandoz

Thompson

Michael Oakeshott (d. 1973) Kenneth W

Leo Strauss

Associate Editors

Wayne Ambler

Maurice Auerbach
Patrick

Fred Baumann
Christopher A.

Michael Blaustein

Coby

Colmo
Mindle

Edward J. Erler

Maureen Feder-Marcus

Joseph E.

Goldberg

Pamela K. Jensen
Will

Grant B.

James W. Morris

Morrisey
Leslie G. Rubin

Gerald Proietti
Hossein Ziai

Charles T. Rubin

John A. Wettergreen

Bradford P. Wilson Catherine Zuckert

Michael Zuckert

Manuscript Editor

Laurette G. Hupman

Design & Production

Martyn Hitchcock

Subscription
for

rates

one volume

individual

$15; institutional $18;

check

student

(3-year

limit)
the

$7.50: by
in

in U.S. dollars
three

and payable within

U.S.A. There
a volume.

are

issues

of interpretation

Authors submitting manuscripts are asked to follow The Chicago Manual of Style. 13th ed., or manuals based on it, and to send two clear copies of their work.
interpretation, Queens
1

College, Flushing,

1367-0904, U.S.A.

inter >retation
fall
1988
volume 16 number 1

Aristide Tessitore

Aristotle's Political Presentation

in the Nicomachean Ethics

of

Socrates
3 23
in
of

Victor Gourevitch

Rousseau's Pure State

of

Nature

Wilhelm Hennis

Tocqueville's Perspective:
America in Search
Politics"

Democracy

of the

"New Science

61

Charles E. Butterworth

An Account

of

Recent

Medieval Islamic

Scholarship Philosophy

in

87

Discussion: Five Essay-Reviews of Allan Bloom's Book

William A. Galston Socratic Reason
Place
of the and

Lockean Rights: the

University
Certitudes
of

in

Liberal
101

Democracy Harry
V. Jaffa

Humanizing
Doubts:
a

and

Critique

The

Impoverishing Closing of the

in

American Mind Roger D. Masters

Philosophy, Science,
American Mind

and

the

Opening
and

of

the

139 Principle in

Will

Morrisey
Neumann

How Bloom Did It: Rhetoric The

Closing Closing
of

of the American Mind

of the

H5
a

Harry

The

Philosophic Mind:

Review

The

Closing

of the American Mind

157

copyright 1988

interpretation

Aristotle's Political Presentation

in the Nicomachean Ethics
Aristide Tessitore, A. A.
Assumption College

of

Socrates

clarify.

It may be best to begin by stating what this article does and does not seek to The subject under consideration is Aristotle's political presentation of
referred

Socrates in the Nicomachean Ethics (henceforth

Ethics). The study
which

to

simply

as

the to

follows does

not examine the sheds on

Ethics

with a view

discovering
Indeed,
of encounter

what

(if any) light this book

the historical

Socrates.

the effort to

distinguish the historical Socrates from the

character we

in the

works of

Plato, Xenophon,
who

and

Aristotle

would appear

to be
some

limited

value since

it is the latter is

a character who no
of greatest

doubt bears
students

resemblance

to the original

interest to

of phi

losophy.
It is, nevertheless, necessary to qualify this statement in one important There is one historical fact which is crucial for an understanding of Socrates; namely, his trial and subsequent condemnation on charges of impiety
and corruption of the young. cite

respect.

About this

fact, however,

there can

be

no

doubt. I

it here because the

significance

of this

trial and condemnation figures

prominently (whether explicitly or implicitly) in all subsequent accounts of Socrates. That significance might be stated in a general way as follows: In the historical figure
of

Socrates the fundamental tension between the life

of

the

philosopher and the requirements of possible political

life in the city

was

was

brought into

sharpest

focus;
justice

the
and

life

of radical
wanting.

inquiry
way

summoned

to the tribunal of

found

Socrates the

philosopher was condemned

to

death because his activity in

gods and the noble.

some

undermined

the

deep

although vulner

able guarantors of public order

the shared beliefs of citizens concerning the

In

some obscure yet

disturbing

way Socrates

refused

to

take his bearings from those beliefs considered most

authoritative and praise

worthy by his fellow citizens. If his activity own in effect and combined with
Socrates'

was not subversive apparent

in intent it

was

intransigence, it
and

elicited

the severest

possible penalty.

These
are

historical facts concerning the trial inseparable from his influence on later generations of
well-known

death

of

Socrates
one

students.

Perhaps is

might public

say face

that
of

Socrates,

more

than

any

other as

philosopher,

personifies

the

philosophy; that

by

the

exigencies of political

is, philosophy life. If later generations

reckoned with.

it

confronts and

confronted

of philosophers were to

gain even the partial acceptance of their

Socrates

was

an

event

to be

fellow citizens, the life and death of This concern is obvious in the
explicitly
apologetic

writings of

Plato

and

Xenophon,

several of which are

in

Interpretation
This death
concern

character.

is

also present

in the

writings of

Aristotle, particularly
had intervened

in his

moral-political works.

Although

an additional generation

since the

of

Socrates,

religious and political charges against philosophers

were not a

thing

of the past as

Aristotle's

own

forced

exile

to Chalcis

made all

too

clear.1

If philosophy
who

were ever

to be

accepted

by

the city, that acceptance would

require as a constitutive element a new attitude toward

its hero-victim; those

had

would phon

Socrates for his often outlandish and galling manner Socratic way of life in a new light. If Plato and Xeno had begun this task, they had not completed it. Could the "gadfly of
once condemned see the

have to

Athens"

come to

be

regarded as

the city's

greatest

benefactor In
what

as the

Platonic

Socrates gratingly claimed (Apology 30c-e; to show that Aristotle sought to extend the circle
edge

36d-e)?2

follows I hope

of

those who might acknowl

the truth imbedded in this Platonic

mitigate

assertion.

Although it may

prove

impossible to
civic

entirely the disruptive consequences of philosophy Aristotle's

political writings

for

life,

the

apologetic character of

is

suggested

how philosophy is able to offer respectful and substantial clarity regarding matters of vital importance for those who bear primary responsibility for the city. If the preceding remarks suggest something of the general importance attrib

by

the extent to which

they

reveal

uted to

Socrates

by

later

generations of
particular

something for focusing

with respect

to his

students, it is also necessary to say importance in the Ethics. The reason

not addressed primar

on

this

work

lies in the fact that the Ethics is

ily

to philosophers but rather to the better sort

as
gentlemen.3

of persons referred

to in

classical

literature hope to
most

Although I believe it is wrong to

presume

that Ari

stotle neglects show

the concerns of

philosophically-minded students

in this work, I

that Aristotle's
point of

presentation of

Socrates belongs to what, from the

the dominant horizon of the

obvious

view,

might

be

called

Ethics

his

concern

to foster and in some way shape the best sentiments of his

course of

gentlemen readers.

In the

this study Aristotle attempts to

appreciation

bring

his

gentlemen readers
I.

to some positive
of

for

Socrates'

life

and

teach-

After the death

Alexander the Great in 323, Eurymedon indicted Aristotle for

5.5).

impiety
to trial,

Diogenes Laertius, Lives

Aristotle decided to leave Athens before the

give

matter came

lest,

as one tradition reports

it, he

the

Athenians
it

second

opportunity to

sin against phi

losophy.
2.

The incompleteness

of the apologetic task as

was undertaken

by

Plato is further

suggested

by

the

following

Socratic

statement

(among

others):

"Now the

men who

have become

members of

this small band

[philosophers] have

tasted how sweet and

madness of
"

blessed

a possession

it is. At the

same

time, they have seen sufficiently the of the cities does anything healthy
3.
and a

the many, and that no one who minds the

business

Rep

496c.

Gentleman (xaXoxayaftog) is a term of distinction connoting both social-political status certain level of moral excellence. The gentleman is a citizen in the fullest and best sense of highest
aims of

the word, one who embodies the

the polis.
of

See EE

I248b8-I249al8.
pp.

Cf. Leo

Strauss, Natural

Right

and

History

(Chicago:

University

Chicago Press, 1953)

142-43.

Aristotle's Presentation of Socrates in

ing.4

the

Nicomachean Ethics

What is

at stake

is

not

merely

good

name, but the

acceptance of

essentially the rehabilitation of the place and importance of philosophy to

or city. of

Socrates'

those who will be most

influential in the

first

part of

Aristotle's

"philosophy

the human

It is especially in the Ethics, the that we find an initial

things,"

treatment

of

would seem

the problematic relationship between philosophy and the city. It reasonable to view Aristotle's presentation of Socrates in this book
part of

as an

important

his initial

presentation of the philosophic

life,

a presen

tation which is marked

by

its sensitivity to the

perspective and concerns of

Aristotle's

gentlemen readers.
appears seven

Socrates

times in the Ethics. These

seven references can referred

in
the

turn be divided into

four thematic treatments. Socrates is

Aristotle's
consideration of

to

within

following
(2)
and
will

four

contexts:

truthfulness and

irony (ii27b25-26), (3)

in
turn.5

prudence

(i) courage (iu6b3-5), (1144^7-19; 28-30),

of

(4) incontinence (ii45b23-26;

be
considered conveyed

1147^4-17).
attention will

Each

these references to the various

Particular

be

given

impressions
to speak of
and

by

the specific contexts within which Aristotle chooses

Socrates,
of

as well as

the larger context provided

by

the

movement

discussion

the Ethics as a whole.

COURAGE

Socrates Aristotle's
the

makes

his first

appearance

in the Ethics

within

the context

of

account of courage

major elements

(Iii5a6-ni7b22). It may be helpful to recall in Aristotle's treatment of courage before turning to the

specific place which

4.

Socrates

occupies within

that treatment.

This thesis

runs

contrary to some of the prevailing views on this subject. Alasdair Mac

repudiation of

lntyre, for
Socrates"

example, contends that the Ethics contains "a systematic

and

the morality of
re

that Aristotle's references to Socrates in the Ethics evidence "none of Plato's

spect."

A Short

History
seeks

of Ethics (New York:

Macmillan, 1966),

pp.

67-68. Werner Jaeger's

on

influential study
which

to establish a chronology for Aristotle's writings based

the extent to
as a

they

evidence more

a rejection of the repudiated

Platonic Socrates: the

more

Aristotle

"developed"

thinker, the
ment, trans.

he

the

views of

Richard Robinson,

2nd ed.

his teacher. Aristotle: Fundamentals of his Develop (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948). The correctness of my
the evidence this article brings to light.

own view must

be judged

on

the

basis

of

5.

Although there is

general and the

book is
a a

as a

of dividing and rearranging Aristotle's works in Ethics in particular, recent scholarship has tended to emphasize the integrity of this whole. Typical in this regard is Amelie Oksenberg Rorty who writes, "Even if the book

scholarly tradition

thing

composed of threads and patches,

coherent

the

organization of

those threads and patches composes

pattern."

perfectly

Essays

on

Aristotle's Ethics (Berkeley:

University

of

California Press,

1980),

p. 3.

regard this approach as

able cohesiveness of evidence anism

best among possible alternatives. Moreover, the remark Aristotle's references to Socrates in the Ethics provides a further piece of
the
of

for the fruitfulness

this approach to the text. Cf.

Harry Jaffa,

Thomism
and
IV,"

and

Aristoteli

(Chicago:

University

"Spontaneity, Justice, and and J. W. Chapman, eds., Coercion, Nomos XIV (Chicago: Aldine/Atherton, 1972),

Chicago Press, 1952), especially Chapter 4, Coercion: on Nicomachean Ethics, Books III and
of

Robert Faulkner, in J. R. Pennock

p.

85,

n.

6.

Interpretation
courage as a mean with respect to the emotions of
most

Aristotle describes
and confidence.
which

fear

Courage is displayed
namely, death.

especially
even

with

reference

to that

is

most

fearful

However,

death does

not

in

all

circumstances afford an equal

courage pertains where one

opportunity for courage. The fullest measure of to the noblest form of death. This is death on the battlefield

That death in battle

supported

has the opportunity to defend himself courageously or die nobly. provides the standard for courage is, Aristotle observes,
the

by

fact that

public

honors

are conferred

Although Aristotle
of

acknowledges

that it is possible

precisely on this basis. to be courageous in the face

illness
The

or a storm at

sea, courage in the full

sense

(xvgiojg

avdgeiog) is

found

midst

the perils

of war.

second major emphasis

in Aristotle's treatment
the

of courage

is his insis

tence that the

courageous man acts with a view of virtue as of a mean

noble.

Whereas Aristotle

had

initially

described

between

excess

and

deficiency, it is
that he amplifies

especially
virtue

within

the context

his

consideration of courage

the essential connection between virtue and the noble. If the

formal

cause of

is best

explained

as

mean

between
as an

excess

and

deficiency,

the final

cause

of virtue

is best

understood

attachment

to the noble.

Aristotle

explains so

that although
right manner xakov

a courageous man sometimes experiences

fear, he does
on account of

in the

(cbg del)
are

and as principle

(Xoyog) dictates

the noble (tou

evexa) (iii5bu
appropriate

13).
at

Two

observations

this
virtue

point.

First, Aristotle's initial

political.

presentation of courage suggests

that this

is essentially

Courage
death
on

in the
the

proper sense

is

exhibited

by

one who

fearlessly

confronts noble

battlefield. Aristotle begins his in

particular

consideration of moral virtue

in

general and

courage

by

this excellence is best

of

revealed.

emphasizing the political or civic horizon within which Perhaps the obvious and necessary dependence why Aristotle chooses to begin his treatment Whether or not this is the case, Aristotle draws
to support this
view of courage.

the city

upon courage explains

of moral virtue

in this

way.

upon common political

experience

Whether

one

lives in

service stotle's

that is, monarchy, it is courage on the battlefield polity to one's country that is most highly esteemed (1115329-32). Ari solicitude for the civic horizon of his gentlemen readers is evidenced by
a
or

his

willingness

to

appeal

to that which

is

most valued

by
is

the

city

as

that

which

provides the authoritative standard

for

courage. presented within this exhibit

Secondly, Aristotle's initial

same civic a

elaboration of the noble

of

horizon. The kind

for the

courage

which

one

might as one

in

con

fronting ing to principle

of courage

fatal disease (although it

and

might also

be borne

ought, accord

sake of the

noble) fails to

provide the
of

full

measure
on

because, Aristotle
emphasis

asserts, the noblest kind

death is death

the

battlefield. This
eros,
or pain

is

reinforced

by

Aristotle's

explanation at order

the end of

this section that it is

not courageous

to

face death in

to

escape

poverty,

because this is really

a sign of weakness and

therefore cowardly.

Aristotle's Presentation of Socrates in the Nicomachean Ethics

Although Aristotle's
examples are chosen

to illustrate how

one might
unlike

fearlessly
death
on

face death
the

out of weakness, pertains

it is
an of

also

striking that
or

each one

battlefield
is

to

individual

merely

personal
within

experience.

Aristotle's initial discussion

that
which

the noble comes to sight

the context of

most

highly

prized

by

the city as well as that

which

is

essential

for its

continued existence.

In the
which

second part of

Aristotle's

account of courage

he takes up five

qualities

bear

some resemblance

to courage but do not constitute courage in the

proper or most authoritative sense.

The five

"types"

of courage

discussed

are:

(i) (4)

political

courage,
and

cheerfulness,

(2) experience of a particular danger, (3) (5) courage based on ignorance.

Jiokixixi))6

spiritedness,

Of these five qualities, political courage (f\ bles courage in the sovereign sense. Citizens exhibiting
their bearings from the laws (written and unwritten)
twv vopcov of

most

closely

resem

political courage take

the regime (6ta ta ix

to which
courage

iJTiTiuia) (iu6ai8-i9). Aristotle's account brings out the extent political courage both approximates and at the same time falls short of
sense. and

in the full
virtue

Whereas the
an

virtue of courage

is

motivated

by

desire for
motivated although
which

itself

attachment to the

noble,

political

courage

is

by

a sense of shame

(aldcog) (which is

Aristotle

sometimes refers to

strictly speaking a virtue it in this way) and a desire for honor

not

may be noble but is not the same thing as the noble (1116327-29). Aristotle's description of political courage emphasizes the desire to avoid
reproach.

As such, it is both is
characterized

similar

to and yet

different from the

virtue of

courage which

by

a more

The lowest form

those
who

of political courage

innate disdain for anything ignoble. mentioned by Aristotle is found among

commanders

maintain

their post

because their

threaten physical

violence

ical

courage

if they do not. Although Aristotle indicates that this is inferior to polit in the best sense, it is a form of political courage nevertheless.
consideration of political courage as a whole suggests

Aristotle's

that it falls
of compul

short of sovereign courage sion or

insofar

as

it

results

from

a certain

kind

necessity (avayxr\) rather than adherence to the noble (m6b2-3). If this is seen most clearly in the case of those who must be threatened with
physical

violence, it is also true

reproach of their

of

those who

maintain

their post

fear the

fellow

citizens.

The latter

exhibit a

behavior

because they which is

likewise derived from compulsion,

the laws and customs
appears of

albeit of a more subtle

kind stemming from

general suggestion

their particular regime.

Aristotle's

to

be that the
that

various manifestations of political courage are are compelled

defective

to the

extent

they

from

without.
of

Although Aristotle introduced his initial discussion

6. Plato
also speaks of political courage which

the noble
way:

within an

he defines in the

following
for,

of opinion produced

by

law through

education about what

and what sort of

thing

"the preserving is
see, his

terrible"

(Rep

429c).

Aristotle

appears

to have Plato's discussion in mind, the

same

as we shall

own

account

is essentially

a more muted presentation of

idea.

Interpretation

explicitly political horizon, his consideration of political courage as something which falls short of courage in the sovereign sense, suggests that the noble,
although

it may
of
needs

presuppose

politics,

cannot

be simply identified
the

with

the

horizon
account

and

concerns

fashioned

by

body

politic.

Aristotle's

clearly indicates that actions undertaken because they are noble are both higher and better than those undertaken for the sake of political honors or
out of not

fear

of public
present

disgrace. It

must

(in the

context)
on

suggest

be noted, however, that Aristotle does any conflict between actions based on the
the city. He simply main
provide

noble and those

based

the

laws

and customs of

tains that the former are

the

more perfect and

consequently

the

standard

for

latter. In fact, far from being in opposition to the noble, the law is pre sented in this discussion as commanding what virtue requires. Political courage be
a

appears to
sense.

training

ground

for

courage

in the fullest

or most authoritative

The fidence

second mistaken or as

imperfect
experience

view of courage

identifies it

with con

it

results

from

in the face

of some

particular

danger

(in6b3-23). It is

within

this context that Aristotle

Socrates'

first

speaks of

Socrates,
type of
superior

asserting that this view was at the origin of is knowledge (morrj[ir]) (m6b3-5). Aristotle
courage

supposition that courage explains

that this

is

exhibited most

clearly
appear

by

professional soldiers.

Due to their
alarms

experience,
real

professional soldiers are able to and so often courageous

situation.

distinguish false

from the
of

thing

owing

to the

ignorance

their
of

fellow

soldiers

regarding the true

and possess

professional soldiers makes them adept at use

Moreover, the greater experience fighting, for they know how best
arms

to

their arms

the best quality

both for

attack and makes

defense. like

Generally,
armed men

the superior experience

of professional

soldiers

them

fighting

against unarmed or

trained athletes

fighting

against ama

teurs.

Despite their
soldiers possess cal courage.

superior

fighting

ability, Aristotle explains that professional those citizens who act on the basis
professional soldiers
of politi

less

courage than

The

reason

for this is that

superior strength whereas citizen

grace.

soldiers are constrained

prefer

by

rely on their the fear of dis

Hence,
way,

whereas

citizen

soldiers

shameful

professional

soldiers

prove

death to safety procured in a to be cowards when the danger disadvantage in

numbers or

imposes too
equipment.

great a strain or when

they

are at a

Aristotle concludes that the type of superiority shown in this case Is only incorrectly understood as courage in the proper sense of the word. It is striking that Aristotle chooses this context for his first statement about Socrates in the Ethics. Several aspects of this account warrant further com
ment.

The first
view,

and most obvious

point

to be noted is that, from

Aristotle's
not

Socrates'

point of

cation of superior experience or

understanding knowledge

of courage was

inadequate. The identifi

is mistaken; it is
second point

with courage

the virtue

of courage as

Aristotle has

elucidated

it. The

bears

on

Aristotle's Presentation of Socrates in

the

Nicomachean Ethics

the particular example which Aristotle uses in this section, that of professional
soldiers
of

who, according to

Aristotle, best exemplify

the Socratic understanding

courage.

Aristotle's

example

Socratic understanding
sional soldiers.
related

of courage with

clearly invites his readers to compare the the kind of courage exhibited by profes
of courage

However,

this type

may be

even more

intimately
of

to

Socrates. Might there be

further

resemblance

between the kind

courage characteristic of professional soldiers and that which was exhibited

by

Socrates himself, particularly as he faced the prospect of death at his trial? A few tentative comparisons suggest themselves. In the first place, like
professional

soldiers, Socrates did

not after

not appear

to

be especially
makes not

attached to the

polis,

at

least

the

fashion

of

those citizen soldiers

whom

Aristotle has

just finished discussing. Moreover, if (as the context speaking of foreign mercenaries (^evol), this does

clear) Aristotle is
an altogether

seem

inappropriate way to introduce Socrates

eigner"

who

must

have

seemed

like

"for
i-jd.

"stranger"

or

Second,
Aristotle

although

many Aristotle indicates that

to

of

his fellow Athenians (cf.

professional soldiers

Apology
do

not possess

the virtue of courage, he does acknowledge their superiority in fighting. As

points

out, it is

not

best fighters. If this in terms bears

second point

necessarily the most courageous men who are the is applied to Socrates it suggests that he may it is
a

exhibit a real superiority, although

stood
of courage

at

least

not as

superiority which cannot be it is defined by Aristotle and

points

under

exhib

ited

by

gentlemen.
on

This

second observation

which

the

major point

one necessarily in Aristotle's discussion. The superiority of

to a third,

professional soldiers greater guish

derives from their

experience which provides them with a

mentions

knowledge
alarms

of war

(Aristotle specifically
ones)

the ability to distin

false

from

real

as well as a more extensive and specialized of the superior experience

training in
and on

the art of fighting.

superior

Does this description

consequently Socrates?

knowledge

of professional soldiers

have any

bearing

not particularly attracted to Socrates would probably have been his unwavering refusal to beg for mercy or plea bargain at his by trial. Might this Socratic courage be based on an ability to distinguish between false and true alarms? Perhaps, as Socrates maintained at his defense, death (at

Even those

impressed

least in does

some

circumstances) is less to be feared than acting in

a superior man
Socrates'

not

befit

(cf.

Apology
of

29a-

and 34c

-35b).

way We

which

might

also wonder whether not

life

inquiry
possible

and clever

in fact

provide

him

with

the best
of

training

and arms as

speaking ability did he faced

death, ostensibly
Whatever
we

at the make

hands
of

the Athenian demos.

these particular comparisons,

of

Aristotle clearly in

dicates that

neither the

teaching

Socrates

nor

the example of professional

soldiers reveals

the

virtue of courage

in its

most authoritative sense.

Aristotle's
is
of

treatment of courage establishes a hierarchy.

undertaken

Courage in the
courage

sovereign sense

for the

sake of the noble.

Political

is

undertaken

because

10

Interpretation
which

the honors and reproaches

are meted out

by

the city. Although great

experience and superior strength

have the

appearance of courage, these quali

one who possesses understood

ties

must

be his

ranked

still

lower because the

them

is

not

constrained

by

honor

and

disgrace

as

it is

by

the

city.

Aristotle
atten

concludes

consideration of

the Socratic view of courage

contrast

by drawing
who

tion to its political

limitations; in
away,
particular

to the citizen soldier

thinks it

disgraceful to
lack
and

run

professional

soldiers

do

not

(iu6bi5-22) for they

attachment

to any

city his

and

the way of life transmitted

by

its laws

traditions. Aristotle's initial presentation of Socrates expresses a certain

perspective

sympathy for the

acknowledges
ment

of

gentlemen

Socrates'

"strangeness,"

apparent

to

what

the city regards as honorable or

as it quietly his lack of attach particularly reprehensible. At the same time, readers

insofar

however it

should

be

observed

that Aristotle's presentation also suggests that

a real some

Socrates may be erly rience.

characterized

by

understood as

courage, is in

superiority which, although not prop way based upon knowledge or expe

With

respect
add

to the remainder of Aristotle's treatment of courage, it

of spiritedness
"type"

is

suf

ficient to
the third

two observations regarding his account

of courage

imperfect

(iu6b23- 111739).

({hvu.6g), First, Aristotle is

embold

harsh in his
ened man

criticism of spiritedness.

He begins

by

comparing those

by

spiritedness to wild
of

beasts. Aristotle's

account emphasizes

the subhu
a wild or are

quality

&v/j.6g

which causes one to rush

into danger like

whatever

wounded animal spurred on present.

by

pain or anger and

blind to

dangers beast

Aristotle's

comparison of a spirited

individual to

a wild

effec

tively

emphasizes

the problematic character

of spiritedness.

The

spirited

in

dividual is indiscriminate in his action; like a wild beast he blindly strikes out at all who appear to pose a threat. In light of Aristotle's immediately preceding
account, his harsh
problem. criticism of spiritedness might stem

The

spirited

individual is

likely

to act without

very specific sufficient deliberation

whether
walls.

from

against all

those who in some way pose a threat to the the battlefield or

"foreigners"

polis

they

are

enemies on

living

within

the city

The
softens

second emphasis

in Aristotle's treatment his initial (and

of spiritedness criticism.

in

some

way
ac

the

harshness

of

dominant)

Aristotle

knowledges that

courageous men are also spirited.

they

are courageous not

because

of

any far

feeling
as

He explains, however, that (ndd-og) but because their ac

and

tion takes its

bearings from the

goes

noble

(to xakov)

is

guided

by

principle

(Xoyog). Indeed, Aristotle

provide

so

to suggest that spiritedness

may

the natural basis for the virtue of courage.

not

Spiritedness

by itself,
.

however, is
This

sufficient; it

requires

the addition

of

second emphasis as

in Aristotle's discussion is the

mitigates the

deliberation (jigoaigeoig) harshness of the

first insofar

it

suggests that

spiritedness, properly

directed, may lead

guiding

to the

virtue of courage.

What is

needed

presence of some

principle

Aristotle's Presentation of Socrates in

and

the

Nicomachean Ethics

11

capacity for deliberation. We

should note

that the addition of precisely

character.

these qualities would cause spiritedness to lose its indiscriminate

IRONY

After
up
of

a consideration of courage and self-control and magnificence as account of

in Book III, Aristotle takes

to
one of

liberality
the

he begins

an ascent

the high

points

magnanimity in Book IV The magnanimous man is one who not only possesses all the other virtues but possesses them to a great or extraordinary degree. In the latter part of Book IV Aristotle descends from
this peak in
names,
are
order

Ethics, his

to consider several qualities which, although

of

lacking

proper

part

human

excellence

as

whole.

He discusses ambition, It is
not

gentleness, agreeableness, truthfulness, wittiness,

within

and a sense of shame.

perhaps

the context of Aristotle's discussion

within

of

truthfulness and,

surprisingly,

the more

specific context of of

his
(i

consideration of

irony by

that

he turns for

a second

time to the figure

account
of

Socrates.
127313-

Aristotle begins his plaining that he is

or not

truthfulness

Ii27b32)

ex

in

matters

speaking in the present context of honesty in agreements involving justice and injustice, but rather that virtue which mani
when

fests itself

even

nothing is

at

stake

because it is the

result of a

fixed

disposition (e<c). The boaster (6 cxka,d)v) pretends to praiseworthy qualities which he does not possess whereas the ironic or self-depreciating individual (6
etgojv) disclaims praiseworthy
qualities which

he does

possess.

The

mean

is

found in the
about

straightforward man

(6 ati-dexaorog)

who acknowledges

the truth

himself

without exaggeration or understatement.

The
and
when

man who possesses even

quality is considered morally good (imeixrjg) because the one who loves truth (6 cpiXakrj&ng) even is likely to be even more truthful when something is.
this

praiseworthy nothing is at stake

and
self-

Aristotle indicates that both

excess

and

deficiency
in

(boastfulness

depreciation)
ulterior

may be

pursued with or without an ulterior motive. and conduct

Lacking

an

motive, the words, actions

question reveal an

individ
foolish

ual's true character.

Thus, Aristotle
no
ulterior

explains, the one who pretends to more

should

than he deserves than bad.

an

with

motive

be

considered more

If, however, his

subject more

pretensions

individual is

to

censure

have glory or honor as their aim, such (although not severe censure). It is,
object of one's

however,

disgraceful (cxoxnuoveoregog) if the

striving is

money or something that will get money. In contrast to the boaster, Aristotle indicates that the

one who understates character since

his

merits possesses a more gracious or not

motivated

beautiful (xagiioxegog)

he is

adds that those

by falling

gain

but

by

a concern

to avoid ostentation.

Aristotle
the most

into this category

sometimes

deny

or reject

12

Interpretation

generally accepted and highly praised opinions (ra evdo^a). It is Socrates whom Aristotle cites as his example. He then goes on to speak of those who disclaim insignificant
and obvious qualities.

These, he

maintains, are

appropri

ately despised. Aristotle suggests that this latter sort of self-depreciation might even be understood as a kind of boastfulness, for both excessive attention and
extreme negligence

bespeak

an

element

of

pretense.

employ (ol xQ^^vol)

understatement

in

a measured or obvious

However, those who way (jxergiajg) regard

appear

ing
who

things

which

are

not

commonplace

to

be

gracious

(xagievTEg)
is the
expresses

(ii27b29-3i).
opposite of
with

Hence, Aristotle
man

concludes, it is really the boaster

one who

the truthful

because he is inferior to the

himself

irony.

Several

points should

be

observed

regarding this
the
character

account of an

apparently

minor moral virtue. praises

To begin

once again with

most obvious

point, Aristotle

the

man

of

straightforward

(6 aiMxaoxog) because he
and self-depreciation.

embodies
an

the

virtuous mean

between boastfulness

Such
of

individual, Aristotle
It
should

maintains, is worthy of praise because a love

small

the

truth which expresses

as well.

naturally be noted, however, that the same word which Aristotle uses to describe the straightforward man also describes someone who is blunt or Although these latter if the type
respect qualities are not such as to

itself in

things will

embrace greater

things

plain.

incur

moral

blame,
a

one

might wonder case

of character which comes closest to the mean

superior

in this

is in every
the one

to the one
refers

who

uses

irony

in

measured within

way

whom

Aristotle twice

"gracious."

to as
makes

It is

the to

context of this apparent paradox that

Aristotle

his

second reference

Socrates. Could it be that

man

while

Aristotle

wishes

to give the

straightforward

his due, he also wishes to direct his readers in a gentle way to some ap preciation for the more gracious and certainly more complex character of Socrates? As
we
or

have seen, Aristotle indicates that

one

fulness
case

irony

with or without

any

ulterior motive.

may be characterized by boast With respect to the former

(those do

who

act

from

an

ulterior

motive), Aristotle offers only two ex

of

amples, those
who so

who exaggerate

their abilities for the sake

honor

and

those

for monetary

gain.

Although both individuals

are

boastful, Aristotle

perceptively remarks that when pretense is undertaken for another purpose, it is no longer pretentiousness which best describes the character of those in
question.

What is

most

revealing

about the

individuals in Aristotle's

examples

is

not

the exaggerated claims

and

which

they

make

for themselves but their desire

for honor

money respectively. Since Aristotle's only two examples

to

of

pertain might

boastfulness,
one

the

reader

is left to

wonder what
way.

acting from an ulterior kind of ulterior

motive motive

lead

to use

irony

in

deliberate

Indeed,
reference

the to

only indication

furnished clearly

by

Aristotle in the

present context
of

is his

Socrates

who

is

placed

into the category

those who use

irony

in

a measured

way to

Aristotle's Presentation of Socrates in the Nicomachean Ethics

speak about

13

things

which

are

not obvious or

easily

seen.

Why

did Socrates

speak

ironically?
one might offer a number of

Although

different The

answers specific

to this question, the

under consider

immediate
ation

context suggests one

virtue of

in

particular.

topic

is the

truthfulness. If the straightforward

small matters of no

man reveals might

his love

of

the truth
of

((pLXaXTJ&ng) in

Socrates'

consequence,

love

the truth lead him to use

irony

in

matters of great
or

import?7

Does Socrates
manner?

use

irony because

the truth requires it

is best

approached

in this

second and related reason

for using his

irony

emerges within the context of

Book IV

as a whole.
such an

In his

account of the magnanimous

reveals greatness

man, Aristotle in

dicated that

individual

toward men of position and

with

fortune
station

whereas

he is

measured vulgar to

(ftexgiov) in dealing
lord it
over the speaks
weak with

those of

moderate

because it is
when

(1124^7-23). More

over,

addressing the many, he from

an

ironic

self-depreciation
character which

(elgoiveia)
separates

so as not

to call attention to the sharp difference in

a superior man

inferior

or

describes the

magnanimous man as one who

or candor

ordinary is marked

one.

In

fact, Aristotle

by

a curious combina

tion of truthfulness

(aXtr&evxLxog)

and

irony

(H24b26-3i).
truthfulness

As already noted, Aristotle's discussion

earlier peak caste

of

the

minor virtue of

takes place in the shadow of his account of

magnanimity.

By

in Aristotle's

exposition of moral

virtue, his

present

recalling this discussion is

in

a new and

irony

that trait

striking light. Most pertinent in this regard is the fact that for which Socrates stands as Aristotle's sole exemplar in the
cannot
always

present context

be

understood

as

deficiency

but is

some

times employed in a
excellence.

measured

way

by

those

who

embody the highest human

PRUDENCE

Aristotle's third his It

and

fourth

references

to Socrates occur

within

the context of

consideration of will

the relationship between prudence and

useful

moral virtue as a

whole.
matter

prove

to summarize Aristotle's the Socratic

own one.

teaching

on

this

before turning to his be likened to On the

one a

remarks about

Aristotle's
might

consideration of prudence

and moral

virtue

(ii44a6-ii45au)
from
either of

revolving door

which can

be

entered

two

sides.

hand,
the

prudence requires moral

virtue,

since
that

it is

moral virtue
a clever speaker

7.

At the

outset of

Apology, Socrates ironically

acknowledges

he is

but,

unlike

initially

his accusers, he speaks cleverly with reference to the truth (i7a-b). In fact, Socrates is presented in the Apology as an unusual combination of 6 air&ixaorog, who will speak

plainly in his accustomed manner, and 6 eiqcdv, who acknowledges his ability to speak cleverly. In the defense which follows, the Platonic Socrates proceeds to give the reader a remarkable demon
stration of great

subtlety

clothed

in simple,

straightforward speech.

14
which

Interpretation
furnishes the
means
good at which a prudent man aims.

Prudence discovers the

particular

through which that good is attained.

Since the

good

only

appears as such to the good

good

man, the absence

of moral virtue means that the

such an

for

which one strives will

be defective. Whereas is the

moral

individual may
called prudent

be

clever

in the

choice of means
which

to attain his end, he cannot be

one given
virtue

unless

the end at

he

aims

by

moral virtue.

On the

other

hand, Aristotle

maintains

that

cannot

exist

without

prudence.

Although Aristotle

acknowledges

that

the

dispositions for

particular

moral

virtues are somehow

natural

already present by nature, he points out that even good dispositions (al (pvoixai e^eig) can be harmful without the guidance of
uses

intelligence. Aristotle
lost his
moves. one

the image of a man with a

powerful

frame
fall

who

has he for

sight and as a consequence meets with a

particularly

heavy
If

when

It is precisely
a

prudence which supplies guidance or

natural

"moral

vision"

with

strong

disposition

for

virtue.

someone

pos

sessing
sition

natural excellence

(f\

cpvoixr] agexr))
resembled

acquires

prudence, then the

virtue

dispo
or

which

previously only

virtue

becomes

in the full

sovereign sense

(f\

xvgia agexrj).

Hence, Aristotle
also

concludes, if it is true that

prudence requires moral virtue sense

it is

true that moral virtue in the proper

does

not exist without prudence. relation

After offering this helpful but not entirely satisfying account of the ship between prudence and virtue, Aristotle considers and amends the
of others on of

opinions

this subject. He speaks first

inquiry

was

right in

one

thinking

that

all

virtues

of Socrates, maintaining that his line way but wrong in another. Socrates was mistaken in were forms of prudence, although he spoke well in

maintaining that
explains that

they

cannot exist without prudence conceived of

(1144^7-21). Aristotle

Socrates

the virtues as rational principles

of

supposing all of them to (ii44b28-3o). If Socrates is

be

forms

knowledge

(Adyoi'c), itmoxrjfiag) (ndoag

overstated

virtue, Aristotle thinks that his

virtue reason
a

relationship between reason and contemporaries understate it. They maintain that
the
accordance with

disposition determined in is
meant

right

reason and that right neces

is

what
a

by

prudence.

In this

case

too, Aristotle finds it

sary to offer
reason

as

to

accompanied

Virtue does not merely conform to right something external (xaxa xov dgftov Adyov), rather virtue is by right reason (uexo xov dg&ov Xoyov) (1 144^25-27). The
slight modification.

rational principle virtuous virtuous.

from

which virtue

takes its bearings does not exist outside the

within

man,

it is

rather

something

him

which

enables

him to be

Aristotle
views.

adopts a middle position one

between the Socratic

and

contemporary

On the

tification of virtue
cannot exist

hand, Aristotle criticizes the paradoxical Socratic iden with knowledge, although he agrees with Socrates that virtue

without

although

unwilling to

being accompanied by a rational principle. Moreover, identify all the virtues with prudence, Aristotle does
necessarily
possesses

acknowledge that the one who possesses this single virtue

Aristotle's Presentation of Socrates in

all

the

Nicomachean Ethics
his

15

the rest

(114531-2). On the
maintains

other

hand, in

contradistinction to

contem

poraries, Aristotle

that one does not possess moral virtue simply

some ration3l principle

because he issued
We

acts

according to

(for example,

commands

by

a prudent

lawgiver)
to

since moral virtue

in the full

sense cannot exist

without prudence. would

do

well snd

try

to grasp something of the significance

of

these

different

positions
on

most

Socrates
tion

this question.

especially the difference between Aristotle snd In the Meno, the Platonic dialogue to which Aristotle

appears to
with

be referring in the present instance,8 Socrates begins his conversa Meno by confessing complete ignorance about the nature of virtue
statement
so since

(71b).

Socrates'

startles,

not

to say scandalizes, Meno

and

under

standably
as

it flies in the face

of a conventional civic education as well

the common experience of decent persons, both of which lead most people

to assume that

they know
and adds

what virtue

Meno's ridicule

to his initial admission of

what virtue

is. Socrates is, however, undaunted by ignorance that he has yet to

could
of

meet anyone who

knows

is (71c). One like

or

hardly

describe this

manner of
rates'

inquiry

as conciliatory.

Indeed, in light
challenge

this latter remark, Soc

confession of
Socrates'

ignorance

almost sounds

remarks

are

intended to

boast. At the very least, provoke Meno to begin an

a

investigation

something which he believes he already understands. In the Meno (as in other dialogues), insistence on knowing
of
Socrates'

and

subsequent confession of
own

ignorance is
seem to

shown to

have know

direct

bearing
is,

on

his

way

of

life. As

long

as one cannot claim to

what virtue what

the most

important activity would thing which Socrates is

because
ance). and to an

be the

attempt to

discover

it is (some

not

the extent

in getting Meno to do precisely very that Meno remains unconvinced of his own ignor
successful

Such

activity,

one could

argue, properly takes precedence over the

effort to conform one's actions to the admonitions of

famous teachers,
of

great

statesmen,

or even

the laws

of

the city itself. Perhaps the life

inquiry

should

be

"virtuous"

regarded as the
of

only truly
the

life

whereas all

others, to borrow from

shadows.

the final image

Meno,

are

merely lives lived among

In

contrast to

Socrates'

jarring
this

and provocative approach

to the question

of

virtue,9

Aristotle

addresses

question

in

more acceptable

to his

gentlemen readers.

a way which is likely to be much Aristotle sheds light on the common

but had

complicated experience of

decent

persons

by

clarifying that
of

experience

to

great extent and

warned at

only gently suggesting the limits

that

clarification.

Aristotle

the outset of his study that it is the

mark of a well-educated
Socrates'

8. In the Meno, Socrates undertakes an investigation of virtue. paradoxical iden tification of virtue and knowledge emerges in the course of this dialogue, where it takes the particu lar form referred to by Aristotle in the present context: namely, the identification of virtue with
prudence (88a- 89a).

9.

It may be
that

appropriate

to recall that the

frustrated Meno likens the into

effect of

Socratic
also

argument

to that of the torpedo fish which numbs anyone who comes

contact with

it. It is

interesting

to

note

Socrates in

no

way disavows the propriety

of this comparison (80a- d).

16
person

Interpretation
to expect only that degree of precision
of which a subject matter admits question while at

(i094bi2-27).
precise

By de-emphasizing
clarity

the problematic
and

concerning the
the
same

relationship between knowledge

an appropriate
able

virtue,

time

bringing

and rigor to

his treatment

of virtue as a

whole,

Aristotle is

to acknowledge the

dignity

of moral virtue without,

of

however,
we

offering final clarity

should understand and virtue as of
an

or precision about

the nature

the good.

Perhaps

Socrates'

inquiry
of

Socrates'

expression

into the relationship between knowledge uncompromising desire for precise

or not

knowledge
contrast to

his

subject matter.

Whether

this

the impression
moral

conveyed

by

the

surface

is so, it is clear that in of the Platonic dialogues,

is
not

the life of

virtue

as

it is
of

practiced

by

gentlemen

presented

by

Aristotle

as a

shadowy kind

tually

serious and capable of

existence, but as a way substantial happiness.

and

of

life

which

is intellec

The disagreements between Aristotle

Socrates

on

this

issue

should of

not, the

however,

obscure

deeper

agreement.

The

well-known

conclusion

Ethics explicitly teaches that a life devoted to the practice of moral virtue is not the simply best or happiest way of life. Moreover, we should also bear in mind that what Aristotle does recommend to his readers as a serious, if secon

dary, way
amended

of

life is the

practice of moral virtue as philosopher.

of

it has been

elucidated and
modifies

by

Aristotle the
view

In the

present

context, Aristotle

the contemporary

virtue

by

moving

closer

to the Socratic one;

principle.

he

insists that
major

virtue requires

the active presence of some guiding

and

The

difference between Aristotle

his

contemporaries

on

this

question

appears
which

to be that Aristotle shifts the center

exist outside
an

of gravity away from those norms individual toward those which come from within.

Aristotle's human
regime.

subtle

emendation

rules

out

the

possibility that the

standard

for

excellence could

be

provided might

by
be

one who a good

Such

an

individual

simply obeys the laws of his citizen but he should not be

esp.

considered a

simply

good man

(cf. Pol I276bi6-I278b5,

I277b25~29
conclud

and I278a40-i278b5).

The fuller

significance of this
section.

distinction is

suggested

by Aristotle's

ing

remarks

in this

If it is true that

sovereign virtue

(i) xvgiojg

agExrj) soul,

cannot exist without prudence which perfects the

deliberative

part of the

Aristotle
all nor

points out that

prudence,

even

though
more

it both

presupposes and

directs

the moral virtues, does not possess

authority (xvgia) than wisdom,

does it

govern

the better part of the soul. To maintain otherwise, Aristotle

would be like asserting that political science, since it governs everything in the city (including religious festivals), also wields authority over the gods (ii45a6-n). Aristotle concludes his treatment of moral and intellectual virtue

says,

by holding
ment of

up the
of

wise man

and not

merely the

prudent one

as

the embodi
points

the most authoritative human excellence. This conclusion

gently

to the

limits

his preceding

consideration.

Although

virtue

in the

sovereign

Aristotle's Presentation of Socrates in the Nicomachean Ethics

sense

17

properly

qualifies one

to rule in the

city,10

the wise embody a higher and the wise are de facto

presents a

more authoritative subject

human

excellence.

Although

as citizens

to the political authority of those who rule, Aristotle quietly

even

famous, strident, Socratic teaching on this issue; namely, those who rule, indeed the city itself, should be subject to the- greater authority of the wise.
be helpful to
Before turning to the final three references to Socrates in the Ethics, it may order (at least to some degree) the impressions conveyed thus far

by viewing Aristotle's references to Socrates within the broader context of the Ethics as a whole. Aristotle introduced Socrates at the beginning of his consid
Socrates'

eration of moral virtue.

thesis about
courage which
referred

virtue

first

came

to sight as a

strange

corrected.

understanding of Aristotle next

Aristotle respectfully but emphatically

most accepted opinions.

to Socrates as an example of someone who

spoke

with

irony,

often

confounding the
also appeared

Although

Aristotle
some

maintained

that those who

habitually

indulge in

understatement are

in

way deficient, he
of

to use this discussion to suggest

who

some

thing

the subtlety

of

the superior man since those

human
was at

excellence also speak with

irony. Aristotle's
intellectual

next reference virtue.

embody the highest to Socrates

Although Aristotle
clear

the end of

his

consideration of

does from

not

simply
to the

endorse the

Socratic

view of

virtue, it is

that

he is far
with

dismissing

it. Whereas Aristotle introduced the Socratic

(courage is
that

paradox

reference eration at

particular virtue of courage addresses

knowledge), his

consid

the end of Book VI

(virtue is knowledge;
stotle's

prudence

is

virtue).

teaching in more More importantly,

in Book III

general whereas

terms

Ari
the

initial

consideration of

the Socratic the

noble

paradox

emphasized

relationship between
of

virtue and

(as

was appropriate since

consideration of moral

the horizon

inquiry

was at

that point restricted to a

comes closer

virtue), in

Book VI Aristotle
terms. (This

to considering the Socratic thesis on that the horizon of

within

its

own

is

also appropriate given and moral

inquiry

now embraces

both intellectual
that

virtue.) It is

this broader horizon of

inquiry
be

Aristotle

voices

considerable with

appreciation

for is

Socrates'

view

without,
must

however, entirely agreeing

accompanied

it (moral

virtue

not

knowledge but
virtue

by

rational

principle;
of
all

prudence other

is

not

simply

but it does
even

presuppose

the

presence

the

virtues).

Nevertheless,
as

the

broader horizon himself

of

inquiry

established

in Book VI is limited
remarks.

Aristotle

acknowledges

in his concluding
this

virtue of prudence which qualifies one to run concludes

the affairs

Although it is especially the of the city, Aristotle

existence of a

his

consideration of

virtue which

by

acknowledging the

still greater authority; virtue of their

namely, that

godlike

properly belongs to the wise who, by wisdom, embody the highest and most authoritative
Pericles
who

io.

Aristotle's

example of a prudent man was

is

said

to have possessed a capacity

for

discerning

what

things were good both for himself and for mankind, a capacity which, Aristotle

maintains,

characterizes one who

is

capable of

managing both households

and cities

(I

I40b8-

1 1).

18

Interpretation
excellence.

human

Are

we meant

to think

of

Socrates
although

who was condemned

by

the city for his

wisdom

a wisdom as

which,

he insisted that it him

was

merely human,
20e)?

was

described

divine

by

those who

condemned

(Apology

Perhaps
and must

Socrates'

teaching
considered

and mode of

investigation regarding
the
city.

virtue are

be

imprudent from the

point of view of

However,
per

this still

leaves

open

the possibility that from a different

or transpolitical point of view

point of view
Socrates'

haps

a more

detached

paradoxical

teaching
we

and manner of

inquiry

may

prove

to

contain

still

greater

truth than

have been led to

acknowledge

thus far.

In any case, it is
a

at

this

point

beginning,"

in Aristotle's study that he decides to

which promises a consideration of

undertake

"new
of

one
excellence

heroic, indeed
surprised

kind

divine,

(1145315-33). We
the

should not

be

that Aristotle once again turns to

figure

and

teaching

of

Socrates in the Ethics Book VII

where

are all

Aristotle's concluding remarks about found within the context of his new beginning in
Socrates'

Socrates.

for the final time Aristotle takes up thesis regarding the relationship between knowledge and

problematic
virtue.

INCONTINENCE

Aristotle's final
cussion

references

to Socrates occur within the context of

his dis
theme
con

of continence/incontinence. parts.

His

general a

consideration of opinions

of this

is divided into three

tinence and
entangled

variety incontinence (U45b8-20), brings to light

opinions

Aristotle lists

regarding

six problems

(aKogiat)"

in those

(U45b2i-H46b8),

and

then attempts to disentan

gle them (ii46b8- 1 152336).

interest to

us

It is the very first anogia which is of greatest for it is here th3t Aristotle returns to the problem raised by
possible

Socrates: How is it
same

for

someone to set
what

in

time that he correctly supposes that

he is

morally wrong way at the doing is wrong? Aristotle

elaborates the problem

by citing the view of those who say that one cannot act in this way if he knows (moxauvog) the set to be wrong since, as Socrates supposed, it would be strange if, while knowledge was present, something else
should overpower

it

and

drag

it

around

like

slave

(ii45b2i-24). In fsct,

Aristotle observes, Socrates used to comb3t this view altogether (that 3 man could know what is right and do what is wrong) in such 3 wsy ss to imply th3t
there was no such 'Anogia
or

thing

as

incontinence (ii45b25-27). Socrates believed that

by
"dilemma"
"antinomy"

11.

can also

be translated
which

or

and

is likened

by

Aristotle

to a

knot

tangle

(8eop,6q)
a

binds the intelligence (Meta

of

9953271!. cf.

NE 1146321-27).

for understanding the argument, I have Joachim, Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics, ed. D. A. Raes (London: Clarendon Press. 1951), p. 219, and John Burnet, ed., The Ethics of Aristotle (London: Methuen, 1900), pp. xl xii.
connotations of the word are essential
retained the

Wherever the fuller

Greek. For

discussion

the meaning

of

ajrogia, see H. H.

Aristotle's Presentation of Socrates in

no one acts

the

Nicomachean Ethics
what

19 only

acts agsinst whst

contrary to what is best knowing that is best out of ignorance.

in
a position one

he does is bad;

one

We

are now

to observe thst

of

the seven references to

Socrates
to the

in the Ethics,
problematic
moral

all

but

(Aristotle's

reference to

Socratic irony)

pertain

Socratic thesis regarding the relationship between knowledge and goodness. At the very least, Aristotle's sixfold reference suggests
of

something
teaching.

the

weight

and

seriousness
add

which

he

attaches

to this Socratic
referred
with

To this

we

might

that although
st

Aristotle has

to the

Socratic thesis
thematic way.

several

times, it is only

this point that he deals

it in

It is

within

the context of his themstic trestment thst Aristotle

indicstes the
tion of
nence.12

most radical or

jarring

Socrates'

aspect of

approach

to the ques

moral

goodness; it led him to

as

deny

the very existence of inconti

a

In fact,

Aristotle frames the issue for

final time before offering

or expresses

his

own

evalu3tion, he no longer hesitstes to csll attention to the strange the Socratic

stance.

extreme character of

Indeed, he

sympathy for
on

Socrates'

those who continue to experience

outlandish

teaching

such

sn

the Socratic view something like frustrated indignation of this matter, Aristotle asserts, is clearly at odds with the most obvious facts (U45b27-28)! Given the character of Aristotle's previous references to this

important

matter with

Socratic teaching
thematic treatment

as well as
which

his

expression of surprising.

its
It

spparent

inconsistency,

the

follows is
as

would

be difficult to

construe

Aristotle's final
endorsement

anything other than a rehabilitation and even (although qualified) of the Socratic view, notwithstanding the fact
evaluation

that it

is

at odds with the most obvious things. subject of this

Given the

other anogiat which

study it is not necessary to list esch of the five Aristotle finds to be entsngled in current views regarding
worth

incontinence.
anogiat,
which

However, it is

noting that

whereas

Aristotle lists

six

his

own consideration of

them follows neither the order nor the list

address all

he has just furnished. Although Aristotle's treatment does he has brought to light, he
one
which reflects

the
a

anogiat which new

orders

his thematic treatment in

which

way, presumably to the various

the relative importance

raised.

he

attaches about

anogiat

which

he has is the

What is

most

striking

Aristotle's
paradox.

order of consideration

emphasis which

it

places on the

Socratic

As Burnet
with

incisively

points

out, it is as if Aristotle says, "We

have first to deal

the

great anogia, noxsgov

Eldoxsg

fj

oi; and then we

can take all the rest

12.

together."13

Socrates'

The

radical

character of

denial

of

incontinence is

even more evident

in light
3ssert

of

Socrates'

his

explanation of what good apart

there is no
pleasure.

actually from pleasure

occurs. and

analysis of

incontinence leads him to

thst

that virtue consists in

knowing

how to

choose

the greatest

See Protagoras 351C-361C,

incontinence
are not

esp. 357a and 358b.

unacceptable

The harsh implications

even antagonistic
Socrates'

of the

Socratic

consideration of

ties of decent

persons.

only Although regrettable, it is

but

to the best sensibili

mode

not

surprising that

of

inquiry

eventually
13.

elicited

the

condemnation

from his fellow

citizens.

Burnet, Ethics,

p. 298.

20

Interpretation
Socrates'

Aristotle's thematic treatment

and

of

teaching is divided into

which

a preface

four (difficult

and

abbreviated) arguments

lead to his final

to

evaluation

(U46b24-U47bi9)14

It

is

sufficient

for

our

purposes

summarize

the
on

conclusions

of

each

of these

arguments,

noting especially
argument

their

bearing
who

Aristotle's final

evaluation of

Socrates.

After

a preface

in

which

he dismisses the
modified

of those

adhere

to the Socratic thesis in

form, Aristotle
concludes

offers

three

dialectical
that it

(Xoytxog)
would not
possessed

arguments.

The first

argument

with

the

assertion

be surprising if
but
was not

someone were

to act against knowledge which

would

he

currently using, although it

while

he

acted against

knowledge
argument

he

was

(rJeivdc) if actively beholding (ftsaigovvxa) it.

be
strange
rendition

Aristotle's
would not

second

amounts

to a technical

of

the first.

It
in

be

strange

if

one

knew both

universal and particular propositions

food is healthy, but fail to realize that the food before one was dry.) Aristotle adds, however, that it would be astonishing (ftavfiaoxov) if the individual in question knew in the
the
one might

habitual way but, in particular. (For example,

a particular

case,

considered

only the

universal and not

know that

dry

sense

that

both

universal

and

particular

propositions

were

apprehended

as

concrete particulars.

Aristotle's

analysis

thus far differentiates different ways of

knowing. However, he has not yet joined the issue since it is only the last kind of knowing that is involved in incontinence; namely, when one undertakes a
particular
wrong.

(that

is,

concrete)

action

which

he knows (in
the kind of

some

sense) to

be

In his third

argument

Aristotle

speaks of or

knowing

which charac

terizes someone who

is asleep, mad,

drunk. Aristotle likens this type

reel off

of

knowing

to young

students who

correctly

formulae but

without under

standing the

significance of what

they

are saying.

The incontinent, Aristotle

says, fail in the

same way.
some

knowledge is in

may act against what they know but that way defective for it has not become part of them or, to

They

14.

three 3re

Commentstors generally agree that these four arguments break up into two types: the first Xoyixog (based on the distinction between having and exercising knowledge) whereas the
cpvoixwg.

fourth is

However,

there is a remarkable degree of difference that the opvoixwg explanation

"better"

are evaluated.

Robinson

maintains

although

in the way these arguments it is often used by

has in this
on
case no real
Akrasia,"

Aristotle to

present a

topic from a distinct and

a

point of view

bearing
Ethics

on what

Aristotle takes to be
2 of

logical

puzzle:

Robert Robinson, "Aristotle

in

and

Politics, Vol.

Articles

the other

hand, Burnet
that

maintains

Aristotle (New York: St. Martin's. 1978), pp. 84-87. On that the first three arguments are essentially dialectical whereas
on real

the (f'VOixcbg explanation reveals Aristotle's

maintains

answer to

the problem

(Ethics,

p.

299).

Walsh

grouping together these four arguments, Aristotle indicates that there is no funda mental difference between these two approaches: James Walsh, Aristotle's Conception of Moral Weakness (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), pp. 99-100. Randall makes the general

by

suggestion that
"talker"

Aristotle normally follows

a pattern of

investigation

which moves

from the

Xoyixog
I

or

to the (pvoixdjg or "natural

of nature:

have found Randall's

John Randall, Aristotle (New York: general observation to be borne

inquiry is brought Columbia University Press,

as the
out

into the
i960),

wider context pp. 59-61.

in the

present case.

Aristotle's Presentation of Socrates in

express

the

Nicomachean Ethics

21

this in

more precise

not characterized
explsin

by

Aristotelian terms, it is a kind of knowing which is ovftcpvoig (1147322). While each of Aristotle's srguments knows to be kind
right

how it is

possible to set against what one should also

(in

opposi

tion to the

Socratic view), it

be

observed

that each of these argu

of

ments points

to another way of

knowing

perhaps the

knowing

which

Socrates

sought

which, Aristotle ssys, it would be surprising, even to oppose

astonish-

ing, if
of

one were

by

one's sctions.

Aristotle's finsl
in

srgument addresses the

Socratic

psrsdox

from the

viewpoint

the natural philosopher (cpvotxojg). Aristotle describes a physiological state

which rational

control

state comparable nent

to that produced

is temporarily overcome by passion or pleasure, a by drunkenness or sleep. What is most perti

analysis

for

our purposes

is that Aristotle's defective

acting
repeat

under

the

influence it in
a

of passion or pleasure either

clearly shows that the one does not possess knowl

a

edge or possesses

way. much

like

drunken

man who might

the sound moral maxims of Empedocles without their altering his behav
conclusion

ior in the least. Aristotle's

position which
eign sense

is

striking:

"We
not

seem

to be led to the
sover
nor

Socrates

sought to establish
which

it is

knowledge in the
incontinent act,

(xvgiwg inioxr\\ir])
about

is

overcome

in

an

is

such

knowledge dragged
all

by

passion"

(1147^4-17).

For

the

difficulty
is
clear.

of

Aristotle's
one

particular arguments

in this section, their

overall effect sible

On the

to act against "right

maintains

opinion."

hand, Aristotle argues that it is in fact pos In opposition to the Socratic paradox,
exists
and

Aristotle
other which

that

incontinence both
consideration also

is intelligible. On the
a

hand, Aristotle's
cannot

brings to light
emotions.

kind

of

knowing

by disagreeing with apparently Socrates in such a way as to shed light on an all too familiar aspect of human experience, Aristotle also begins to suggest the proper way to understand a
overcome

be

the

While

much

less familiar Socratic

for the kind
with

maxim.

What

initially

seemed to

be

outlandish

is

now revealed ation

to have seemed so to the

of

extent

that one

lacked

a proper appreci

knowing

which

Socrates

sought.

Whereas Aristotle's

Socrates helps to clarify the experience of incontinence, vindication of Socrates provides his readers with some appreci Aristotle's final

disagreement

ation and

for "sovereign

knowledge"

as

it is

sought

by

the

philosopher

that rare

in someway

godlike

knowledge
to the

which

Aristotle had (in his

previous refer

ence to

Socrates)

attributed

wise.

The

particular arguments which

Aristotle

makes which

in this

section address

the

question of moral goodness within a

horizon

is broader than that

restricts

which

has hitherto horizon

moral

constrained

his inquiry. Aristotle

shows

no

longer

himself to the

of gentlemen

but

himself willing to
attempts

consider

the question of

goodness

from the
of

perspective of natural philosophy.

It is

within

this
an

broader horizon

inquiry

that Aristotle

to

bring

his

readers

from

initial frustration
some,
even

with

the pstently

outlsndish charscter of

Socratic
to

inquiry
which

to

psrtisl,

spprecistion

for the less than

obvious truth

that

22

Interpretation
was

inquiry
edge

provides

his

devoted. In effect, Aristotle's justification readers with a greater appreciation for the
sense, that

of

the Socratic paradox

requirements of

knowl

in

a strict

is, knowledge

as

it is

sought

by

the

philosopher.

CONCLUSION

The

aim of

this paper

has been to

suggest that

Aristotle's

presentation of

Socrates in the Ethics is both

acknowledged. of

more careful and more sympathetic

than

is

often

The

more

typical evaluations regarding Aristotle's repudiation

well as his culturally determined understanding do justice to the suppleness of Aristotle's mode

the Platonic Socrates as

excellence

of of

human

do

not

inquiry
taking
both his

in the Ethics in

particular and

his

political writings of

generally.15

It is

by

seriously the

apologetic

dimension

Aristotle's

political writings

that

awareness of

the limitations of the code of gentlemen and

his

apprecia

tion for the Socratic

mode of

inquiry

assume

their

full

and proper

force. I have

attempted to show that readers

in the

course of

the Ethics Aristotle seeks to

Socrates'

bring

his

to some

positive appreciation

for

life

and

teaching. On the
aspects of
which of

one

hand, he
his

mutes and

in

some cases corrects the most

disturbing

Socrates'

teaching
reflects own gentlemen readers. ciation

on moral

virtue, approaching those teachings in a way

sensibilities readers

concern

to preserve and foster the best

other

his

On the

hand, Aristotle directs his

to

an appre

for the

seriousness of

it

might

initially
was

appear.

Socratic inquiry, however outlandish and galling Without trying to persuade his readers that the "gadfly
city's greatest

Athens"

of

in fact the

benefactor, Aristotle's double

appreci

ation

for the

radical

suited

dignity of moral virtue as it is lived by gentlemen and the life of inquiry as it was embodied in the life and death of Socrates is uniquely to bring his readers to a new and positive appreciation for the Socratic

life. For Aristotle, as for Plato (although in a way which differs from Plato), Socrates continues to personify the public face of philosophy. Aris
way
of

totle's prudent rehabilitation of the

exemplar par excellence of

the philosophic

life in the Ethics

can

be

understood as part of place and

his larger
of

effort

to secure an at
city.

least

partial acceptance

for the

importance

philosophy in the

13.

Consider, in

addition

to

Maclntyre
a slave

and

Jaeger (loc. cit.), John Randall

norms or

who

identifies
culture

Aristotle's teaching
the ethic

on

human

excellence with

"the values, the

ideals

of

Greek

of an upper class

in

society."

Aristotle,

p. 248.

Rousseau's Pure State

Victor Gourevitch
Wesleyan University

of

Nature

Heinrich Meier's important Foundations of

account of state of nature.

new edition of
Men1

the Discourse
us

on the

Origin

and

Inequality Among
of

invites

to

rethink

Rousseau's
the
"pure"

the state

nature,

and more

particularly

of what

he

calls

Meier has
Peyrou

provides us with the most

definitive text

of

the Discourse to date. He

collated

the two 1755 editions and the posthumous 1782 Moultou and Du
which

edition

incorporated Rousseau's
the Letter to
criticized the

numerous

corrections

and

additions; he has
which

"Philopolis,"

re-edited

the pseudonym
the

under whom

Charles Bonnet had

Discourse;
of 28

Reply

to Le
until

Roy,

earlier editors

referred

to as "An Unknown

Naturalist"

Ralph Leigh

identified him; the letter to Perdriau

Dedicatory;
footnotes.
and

and all

known fragments

and

drafts

November 1754 about the Epistle of the Discourse. The French

texts are accompanied

Intention"

index in

facing German translations, and by extensive They by long Introductory Essay on "The Rhetoric of the Discourse, and followed by a very complete and useful French to key terms and concepts. by
are preceded a
appear

Meier's

It may at first Second Discourse

one

should

surprising that the most authoritative edition of the be the work of a scholar not writing in French. Yet
reminded scholars of

is

almost

immediately
"foreign"

how indebted Rousseau

editions of

studies

are

to the labors

of

for

standard

the texts: C.

E.
a

Vaughan's two-volume Political Writings

century; G. R. Havens brought
the
cal out the

remained unrivaled

for

over

half

first

critical edition of the

Discourse

on

Sciences
writings

and

Arts;

the only modern and complete edition of the polemi

occasioned um

by
den

the

First Discourse is Discours

von

Ludwig

Tente's

three-

volume

Die Polemik

ersten

Rousseau in Frankreich

und

Deutschland;
de Rousseau

Ralph Leigh's
will

splendid edition of the

Correspondance

complete

surely

remain

definitive for
short and

edition now claims a place

in this

very long time to distinguished list.

a

come.

Meier's

Starobinski's
since

edition of the some

Discourse in the Pleiade QZuvres

years

completes

had,
the

its

appearance

twenty

ago, generally been

regarded

as

standard edition of the text.

Meier has

corrected errors snd oversights

in the
notes

Pleiade text; he hss included

1.

sdditionsl

drafts

and

fragments;
sur

and

his

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Diskurs iiber die Ungleichheit I Discours

sdmtlichen

I'inegalite: Kritische Materialien

nach

Ausgabe des integralen Textes. Mit Originalausgaben

und

Fragmenten
ediert,
xcii

und ergdnzenden und

den

den Handschriften

neu

Ubersetzt

kommentiert.

By Heinrich

Meier. (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoningh, 1984,

+ 532 pp.); hereafter referred to as Meier.

24
are

Interpretation

informed

by

argument.

Not

all

keen sensitivity to the political character of his corrections will significantly affect

of

Rousseau's
a
minute of

even

scholar's understanding of the text. But every conscientious student Second Discourse will henceforth have to take his edition into account.

the

Indeed,
with

this is primarily a study

edition.

It does

not

bring

us

face to face

Rousseau's text,
us
with

or with an unadorned translation of the

text; rather, it
notes situate
rather

presents provide given

that text
editorial

learnedly

and

exhaustively footnoted. The

sources and

detailed

information, identify
or real or presumed

references,
sometimes

passages

in their broader context,

call

attention,
and

pointedly, to Rousseau's

meaning

intentions.

Meier is particularly in
other words

sensitive

to the relations between authors and readers,

to

problems of rhetoric.

Both in his Introduction

and

in

numer

ous notes throughout the and ecclesiastical and

book he

reminds us of the ever-present threat of civil

which

censorship

under

Rousseau

and

his

contemporaries

wrote,

he

calls attention

to the

places where

that threat

clearly influenced
of

the text of the Discourse. At the same

time, he is

mindful

the self-cen

sorship

one would expect

from the

author of

the First Discourse. That self-cen

which

sorship manifests itself perhaps most clearly in the distinction draws between his different addresses: Geneva, in the Epistle
118-28); the likes
of

Rousseau
(pp.

Dedicatory
and

Plato

and

Xenocrates whom, in the Exordium

calls

in the

concluding

paragraph of

Part I, he
calls

his

"Judges,"

and

in the

penultimate
and

paragraph of the

Discourse he

"attentive

readers"

(pp. 140, 169, 197);

those whom,
cp.
p.

in the last

paragraph of

Part I, he
than

calls

"vulgar
to
see

(p. 169,
the

135).

Thus,
his

while

many

commentators

continue

Epistle

Dedicatory
ized

to Geneva as nothing
native

more

Rousseau's

somewhat

naive, ideal that it is a

vision of

city, Meier convincingly

restates the view

sophisticated and self-conscious political

document designed to

help

heal the

deep divisions between the party of the Citizens and the ruling patriciate that had repeatedly brought the city to the brink of civil war during the preceding
half
century.

In the letter to Perdriau

states that such

which

Meier includes in his volume,

of

Rousseau very clearly Epistle Dedicatory.

had indeed been the intention

the

Now,
to

the

most

perplexing

rhetorical problem posed

by

the Discourse is how

make coherent sense of what

Rousseau

says about the state of nature:

is it

conjectural or
one rather

is it factual;
way that

what are what

the consequences of

deciding

that it is the

than the other;

a

may be Rousseau's

reasons

argument
with

in

appears

to

leave this
Meier
and

an open question?

for stating his The issue arises

the very

first

passage which

examines
Intention"

closely in the
of

Introductory
aside all the

Essay
facts.

he devotes to "The Rhetoric

often quoted

the

Discourse, namely
setting

Rousseau's

invitation to the

reader to

begin

by
to

It did

not even enter

the mind

of most of our philosophers

doubt that the

state of

Nature had existed,

whereas

it is evident, from reading the

Holy Scriptures,

that

Roussseau'

Pure State of Nature

received some
and

25
and precepts

the
not

first Man,

having

lights

immediately

from God,

was

himself in that state,

that if the Writings of Moses

are granted

the credence

owed them

by

Flood, Men
Let
us question.

were ever

every Christian Philosopher, it has to be denied that, in the pure state of Nature

even

before the

therefore begin by setting aside all the facts, for they do not affect the The Inquiries that may be pursued regarding this Subject ought not be taken for historical truths, but only for hypothetical and conditional reasonings;

better
(P-

suited to elucidate the

Nature

of things than

to

show

their genuine origin

139)-'

Meier
are

agrees with

the

long

line

of scholars who

have

seen that the

facts

we

here invited to

set aside are what might

be

called

"the biblical

facts."

He

further

agrees with those scholars who

have

argued

that the biblical facts are

snd

the only
therefore

fscts
not

we sre sccept
state

invited to
at

set sside

face

value

in the Discourse, Rousseau's repeated

of

thst we should
that

assertions

his

account of

the

of nature

in Part I

should,

instead,
open

take that to

account as

having

is conjectural, but factual.3 That been intended to be

the Discourse

reading is
i i

question.4

The invitation to
facts:"

set aside all the

aside

"the biblical
also
Moses"

"Let

us therefore

facts is certainly an invitation to set But Rousseau's formu begin

"
.

lation

indicates
on

distinction between the biblical

account

"the Writ
of

ings

of

the one

hand,
them

and

the theological interpretation

Philosopher"

that

account other.
more

"the
sets

credence owed

He

aside

by every Christian the theological interpretation of the biblical

on account

the

far

categorically than he sets aside the account itself. Just before inviting the reader to set aside all the facts, he had
2.

remarked

that

All

otherwise unidentified page references throughout

this essay are to The First and Second

on the

Discourses translated, the Pleiade

together with
and annotated
edition of

the Replies to Critics

and the

Essay

Origin of Languages, edited,

by

Victor Gourevitch (New York: Harper &

completes are

Row,

1986);

references

to

Rousseau's OZuvres

indicated

by OC,

followed

by

volume and

page numbers.
"conjecture,"

3.

For Rousseau's
"reveries:"

use of
which

see op.

cit., Index. Diderot had but

"conjectures,"

lately

called

for

bold, basic
calling
terpretation
p.

scientific experiments,
"

he

called
what others might

will

call

Revery

but had originally thought of Pensees sur ['in call a

System."

49, n.T,

de la nature, Varloot and Diekmann eds., in OZuvres completes, Vol. IX (Paris, 1981) Dugald Stewart came to speak of "Theo and nos xxxi-xxxviii. Half a century later,

retical or conjectural

history;

an

expression

which

coincides

pretty nearly in its meaning

of

with

Natural
some
Smith"

History,

as employed

by

Mr.

Hume see

his Natural

History

of Religion and with what

Raisonnee."

French

writers

have

called

Histoire
vn, 31L
cp.

"Account

the Life and Writings of Adam

(1793); in Works (1829),

Naturgeschichte
Philosophers,"

der burgerlichen R. L. Emerson surveys "Conjectural History and Scottish especially in Exkurs II, pp. 305-13; in Canadian Historical Association Historical Papers 1984 Communications in Beyond Good and and Nietzsche is writing "Naturgeschichte der pp.
Moral"

vi, 4; discussed by Hans Medick, Naturzustand und Gesellschaft (Gottingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1978),

historiques,
4.

63-90;

Evil, Part VI.

(Cambridge: Cambridge

As C. E. Vaughan had already indicated: The Political Writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau University Press), 19 15, Vol. I, p. 13. n. 3.

26
it had

Interpretation
never so much as occurred

to most of

our philosophers
Philosophers"

to doubt that the

state of nature
man was ever

had existed, in the pure

are

although

"Christian

have to

deny
and

that the

state of nature.

Now,
and

the "state of
state.

"pure
well role

nature"

state of

not, strictly speaking, the same

As Rousseau
nature"

play a in two very different traditions, the theological tradition, and the philo sophical tradition. More precisely, Christian theologians traditionally distin
expressions of state of

knew,

the

"state

nature"

"pure

guish

between the

state of pure nature

(pura
and

natura or

in

pur is

naturalibus) ,

the state of corrupted or fallen nature,

grace.

the

state

of restored nature or of

By

mid-seventeenth

become

a central

century the status of the "state of pure issue in the differences dividing the Jansenists and the
had
come
of

had
neo-

scholastics.

The

neo-scholastics

to

use or

"state
of

nature"

of pure

to refer
prior

to the state, actual or conjectural, to

supernatural

man

the world without

destination,
the
unaided

aspiration,
natural

or assistance.

They had accordingly

from the
point of view natural

also come

to distinguish between

law

considered

of pure nature or
natural

human reason, that is, purely

point of view of grace

law;

and

law

considered

from the

which, although it is
natural

supernatural rather than natural,

sense."5

is

nevertheless said to

be

"in

a relative

The Jansenists,
of a

on

the other
nature.

possibility
of

state

of

pure

hand, categorically Jansenius, borrowing

rejected a

the very
of

metaphor

Augustine's,
fallen

allowed no more

difference between the

state of pure and

the state

nature than

between

being

undressed and

being

nsked, snd

he

re

garded all speculation about

of
Pelagianism.6

the

state of pure nature as

tantamount to a

revival

Rousseau is evidently alluding to this debate when he says that the biblical account does not allow for the pure state of nature; and when he
adds
"

that therefore
.

what

he

will

say

about mankind and about the earth essentiam,

et

5.

quia etiam gratia

habet

suam propriam

naturam,

cui

connaturale est

lumen infusum, cui etiam connaturale est non solum dirigere homines ad rectam. et honestam, ac debitam operationem supematuralem, sed etiam depellere tenebras, et errores circa ipsammet legem
pure

naturalem, et sub altiori ratione praecipere

ipsiusmet legis
naturalis,

naturalis observationem.

Sic

ergo

lex

naturalis

duplex distingui potest,

una pure

alia simpliciter

supernaturalis,
et

naturalis

gratiam."

autem respective, per coparationem ad

Suarez, Tractatus de Legibus,

be taken
as

Deo Legislatore
warn

(1612),

1, 3, xi, (cp. 11,

8, i);

while

this view may

representative, Suarez does

end,

that

the philosophers
certain

have

not recognized man's supernatural

but have dealt

to

with a

felicity
. .
.

in this life,
since

or rather with a certain state conducive

living
life,

it in

peace and

justice
end of

However,

it is

doctrine

of the

faith that

men are ordained

in

to the supernatural
sacred

the future life

by fitting
natural

means

that are to be sought after

a

this

theology

rightly

infers that this

law is necessary for

philosophers

more positive

laws than those that

vastly different reason, and that recognize (op. cit., 1, 3, x);

men require

from Suarez's De Gratia quoted by Starobinski, OC in, 1303. 6. Cornelius Jansenius, Augustinus, 1640 (Minerva Nachdruck, 1964), Tome II, the last 3 books, pp. 678-980; p. 679; "Statum purae naturae in Eclesiam introduxerunt 1, 6, xi, p. 361. For the background of these debates, Etienne Gilson, Introduction a etude de Saint Augustin, 2nd ed. (Paris: Vrin, 1943), p. 193 n. 1; Henri de Lubac. S. J., Augustinisme et theologie moderne (Paris: Aubier, 1965), especially pp. 140-44, 152-65, 274L, 284-87; also Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 184 n. 23.
see also the passage
Pelegiani,"
1'

Roussseau's Pure State of Nature

"abandoned to
itself"

27 be conjectural, he
who
uses

(pp.

140,

142)

will

the

same

formula
freedom
silent

as

that used
most

by

innumerable theologians

took part in that debate.

The issue is

of will

commonly debated in terms of the kind of grace, that is, of or of choice, Adam might initially have enjoyed. Rousseau is
of
of

choice until much

regarding grace, and he postpones any consideration of freedom later in the Discourse (p. 148). Here he speaks, instead,
prior to where

Adam
God,"

"the lights

precepts"

and at

which

he

received

"immediately

from

"precepts"

clearly

the very least refers to God's: it: for in

But
the
and

of the tree of the

knowledge

of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of

day

that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Genesis 2:17);

"lights"

clearly
to heed that

at the

and
was

precept.7

very least refers to the lights needed to understand In a passage which he added while the Discourse

in press, Rousseau guardedly indicates that the biblical account but the interpretation of that account will make sense especially only to
Divines'
. .

those

who will see

in the intention
would not

of

human

actions which

they

have

giving from the beginning a morality to acquired for a long time, the reason for

a precept

indifferent in itself

and

who are convinced that the

divine

inexplicable in any other System: Those, in a word, voice called all Mankind to the enlightenment and
.

the

happiness

of celestial

Intelligences

(p.

213).
Divines'

The biblical
account

account

is

at odds with
himself."

but especially the interpretation of that what did or would have happened naturally, to man

"abandoned to
To demur
which,
good

arbitrary prohibition is a natural inclination, but conforms to the order of things and to man's in itself vicious, being constitution; since he would not be able to attend to his preservation if he
against a useless and

far from

had

not a

privileges as

very lively love of himself and of the preservation of all his rights and he received them from nature. He who could be anything would wish
what would restrained

nothing but limited and

what

be

useful

to

him; but
a part of

feeble

Being
and

whose power

is further
reclaims
as

by law, loses
of.

himself,

in his heart he

he is

being

deprived
what

To impute this to him

and not some other

as a crime

is to impute to him

a crime that

he is

he is
he be

being; it
true

would

be to

wish at one

and the same time that

and not

be. For this reason, the

order

infringed

by

Adam

appears

to

me

to

have been
from

not so much a

prohibition as a paternal

advice; a warning to
conforms

abstain

a pernicious and

deadly

fruit.

Surely

this

idea

better

to the

idea

one should entertain

regarding God's goodness,

12

and even

7.

On

"precepts,"

cp.

e.g.,

Augustine, De Civitate Dei xiv,

90-

(quoted in

note

Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica, la Ilae,

2,
ad

108 passim; on negative

precepts, la

8 below); Ilae, q2 art. "precepts":

sec;

Suarez,

op.

cit.

11,

10,

i;

the dictates of

Hobbes's

natural or

law

are

still

Philosophicall Rudiments

Concerning

Government

and

Society,

De Cive (Oxford: Clarendon

Press,

the Clarendon Edition of the Philosophical Works of Thomas

ch. hi passim;

Warrender ed.), e.g.,

"A

law of

nature, (Lex
"

Rule, found
use of

out

by Reason, by
see

which a man

is forbidden

Hobbes, Vol. Ill, 1983, H. Naturalis,) is a Precept or generall Leviathan, ch. 14; for Rousseau's
Index.

"precept,"

Discourses, Replies, Languages,

op. cit..

28

Interpretation
Genesis,
than do the
of

to the text of

ideas

which

Divines

are pleased

to

prescribe

to us;

for

with regard

to the threat

the

double death, it has been

meaning
which

shown

that the expres to

sion morte morieris

has

not the emphatic

they

attach

it,

and

hebraism

[also]

used elsewhere

[in

Scripture],

where such an emphasis would

is only be

out of

place.8

The invitation to begin

"the
when

by

setting

aside

the

tion to set aside the biblical

aside

facts; but it is
no more

more

facts is, then, indeed, an invita particularly an invitation to set

of these

the orthodox

Divines'"

interpretation

facts: their

claim

that Adam sinned

he did

than act sccording to his nsture, and

their sccount of the consequences of Adsm's deed. Without to the theologicsl

account of
strict

explicitly referring debstes surrounding this issue, Rousseau proceeds to give an mankind abandoned to itself alone (p. 141). Since on his rather
writings of

reading, the

Moses do

not allow

for

man's ever

having

found

himself in that state, he

tional
World."

compares

his

account

to the "hypothetical and condi

make

reasonings"

which

"our Physicists

daily

the

It is hypothetical
the
Divines'

and conditional

regarding the formation of because otherwise it would clash

so

head-on
would

with

interpretation

and

invite their
reason

censure.

But it
condi

be

a serious error to conclude

that that is the only

why it is

tional and

hypothetical,

or, as Rousseau also

pp.

frequently

says, conjectural.
"Divines'"

8. A Christophe de Beaumont, OC iv, tion, If

e.g.:

939f.,

note.

Regarding

the

interpreta

anyone

finds

difficulty

altered

by

the transgression of those

subject to the great

so

in understanding why other sins do not alter human nature as it was first human beings, so that on account of it this nature is corruption we feel and see, and to death, and is distracted and tossed with contending emotions, and is certainly far different from then lodged in an animal body if, I say, anyone is
was a small and except what

many furious

and

it

was

before

sin, even though it

ought not to think and that not

were

moved

by

this, he

that that sin noxious,

light
was

one

because it But

was committed about

food,
feli God

bad

nor

because it
sort, the

forbidden; for in

that spot of singular

city God

could not

have

created and planted

any

evil thing.

by

the precept He gave,

commended obedience, which

reasonable

is, in

mother and guardian of all

the virtues in the

creature,
of

which was so created

that submission

is

advantageous to

it,

while

the

fulfillment
ment

its

own will

in

preference to the one

enjoining easy to
of

abstinence

from
a

kind

of

Creator's is destruction. And as this food in the midst of great abundance of

as

command other

kinds

was so

keep
in lust,

so

light

burden to the memory

afterwards
greater

and, above all, found no resistance to the

penal consequence of with which

its

observance

which

only
the

sprung up

sin, the

iniquity

violating it

was all

in

proportion 12

to the ease

it

might

have

been kept. Augustine, De Civitate Dei xiv, The Vulgate's

attempts
morte

(M. Dods tr.).

die,"

morieris.

to render the Hebrew

Ass,"

King James's "thou shalt "dying you will die"; regarding

surely

this expression, see R.

Genesis 2:17 and 3:4, Sacks. "The

Lion

and the

see, e.g., Romans 5:12-14,

polygenist

Interpretation, 1980, 8:54; for the interpretation of the double death, Augustine, De Civitate Dei xiii, passim; for the heterodox and interpretation, see Isaac de La Peyrere Proeadamitae (1655), translated under the title

Divines'

Men before Adam. Or

a Discourse upon the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth Verses of the Fifth Chapter of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans. By which are prov'd, that the first Men were created before Adam (London, 1656); and Systema theologicum, ex Proeadamitarium hypothesi (1655), translated under the title A Theological System upon that Presupposition that Men were before Adam (London, 1655). La Peyrere has his pre-Adamites in the state of nature

living

because they live

without and

before the Law: Men before Adam.

ch.

xvm,

p. 45.

Roussseau'

Pure State of Nature

29
"state
nature"

1.2. i
all

In the
and

philosophical tradition the expression

as a

of

is, for

intents

men

without

purposes, introduced civil society (which

all

term
we

of art

by

Hobbes: "the
call

state of state of

state

may properly
remains

the

nature)."9

For

intents

and

purposes, that

the most general and the

philosophical

most

widely "State of
conditions,

accepted

definition

of the expression

in the

tradition.

nature"

so understood refers
which

to at least four materially very different

the state of men prior to the
state of members of of men after

it is important to distinguish:
society, and so to

institution different in their

most

of civil

being

civil-ized; the

civil societies

in their

relations with one

another; the state

the dissolution of their common civil society; and the state of

relations with one another.
referred

sovereign states condition

Of these, the first is certainly the

state of nature are or

commonly both the

absence points

to

by

the expression "state of

nature."

Formally, then,
defined

theologians'

philosophers'

and the

by

the

of positive

law, be it divine
of

human. Still,

as

Jakob Thomasius

out, Hobbes's "state

call

nature"

most

theologians

the "state of corrupted

closely corresponds to what the nature"; he ignores what they call the

"state
9.
and

of pure

i.e.

prelapsarian

nature."10

De Cive, Preface (ed. cit., p. 34); also "the naturall state of Ibid. 11, I, Annotation, 11, 13 (ed. cit., pp. 52, 68), which compare and contrast with the use of the expression
,
state"

men,"

"naturall
10.

understood as
remark

the right and

proper

state,

e.g.

in, 25 (ed. cit.,

p. 72).

Thomasius's

is

reported

by

his

student

Leibniz, Theodicy I, 221; Pufendorf very

below.
echoes, Voltaire appears to have

explicitly acknowledges as much regarding his own In a ditty to which readers of the Second Discourse

account of the state of nature: see p. 31

will recognize

deliberately
nature":

run

together the theological "state of pure

nature"

and the philosophical

"pure

state of

Mon
Je

cher

Adam,

mon vieux et

triste pere,

crois

te voir en un recoin d'Eden

Grossierement forger le Genre humain

En tourmentant
madame

Eve,

ma mere.

Deux Singes verds, deux Chevres pieds fourchus Sont moins hideux au fond de leur feuillee; Par le Vos
soleil votre

face halee,
ecaillee, crochus,

Vos bras velus,

ongles
peau

votre main

Votre
Dont

longs, crasseux, noirs et bise, endurcie et bru lee,

sont

Sont les attraits,

1'

les

charmes

flatteurs

assemblage allume vos ardeurs. sale

Bientot lasses de leur

aventure,

Sous

un vieux chene

ils

soupent galament

Avec de l'eau, du millet et du gland; Ce repas fait, ils dorment sur la dure: Voila l'etat de la
pure

Nature.
"

Le Mondain (1736), lines 46-59

of
sur

However,
remained

elsewhere

Voltaire

also speaks

various

places

in America
2

where

mankind

nature."

in the

state of pure

Essai

les

mceurs

(1765), Ch.

(i.f.).
of

In

1752 the thesis of one abbe

as well
and

de Prades

was censured

by

the

Faculty
a

Sorbonne

as

by

the

Parliement;

Charles de
as

Archbishop of Paris; it was Caylus, Bishop of Auxerre,

condemned circulated

to be burned

Theology of the by the Paris

against

Pastoral Letter
of a

it.

Diderot, posing

the abbe, wrote a Defense of the thesis

in the form

reply to the Bishop's

30

Interpretation
On
several occasions

1.2.2

Hobbes does

"

speak of a state or

before

such

time as

men

had

engag'd

themselves
"bare"

by

any Covenants
state of

Bonds

and

he

"meere"

refers to

that state as the

or

nature."

His

sometime

secretary, Samuel
seau would

Sorbiere, in whose French translation of have studied Hobbes, renders "bare state of
following
passage

the De Cive Rous

as etat
pure-

Pastoral Letter. The

from that Defense illustrates the

senses of

confusion

that could result together.

from wittingly or unwittingly running the two readers familiar with the Second Discourse will
It
seems

"pure

nature"

state of

Again,

recognize verbal echoes of

these lines in it.

to

me

that before accusing me of substituting some fantastic

would

being

for

man

[as de

picted] in

Genesis, it
over

have been

more

to the

point

to inquire whether my thesis dealt with

the first man, or with one of

man most

his descendants;
of

with man placed

wandering

the

face

the earth;

with

innocent man,

enlightened and

in the earthly paradise, or with favored with the

difficulty from
since

extraordinary gifts from heaven, or with corrupted man, banished, and emerging with dark ignorance. If M. D'Auxerre had taken this trouble, he would have seen that man as he now is, is the only man known and acknowledged by the adversaries I had to
was

combat, it

the only man I could place before them;

for

discussion

can

only begin
and

with

agreement on some point; and present condition of

there simply cannot be two

reasonable sentiments about

the

human

nature viewed

in terms
since

of

its intellectual faculties from the

the

origin of

its knowledge. He

would

have

seen

that,

I had to derive the

man

successive progress of moment when

these

[intellectual faculties

and

knowledge],

and

to

bring

he is

without

any ideas, to the pitch of perfection when he is acquainted even with the profundities of religion; from the point of imbecile nature when he appears to be lower than a number of
animals, to the
revelation state of

dignity

when

he

so to speak

has his head in the heavens

could not take as

and

is

raised

by

to the rank of the celestial

intelligences; I
and

my

model

the man who

one

emerged perfect

from the hands

of

his creator,

by

himself

alone possessed

in

instant If M.

more enlightenment than

his

entire

posterity together

will acquire

in

all

future

centuries. me

D'Auxerre had
other

condescended to make this one

and

observation, he would have spared

would

many

observations;

his

long

Pastoral Letter

have been

shortened

by
has

some

twenty

pages of commonplaces about

nature which

Adam's

prerogatives and the advantages of the state

of pure

clearly

show that the point of

my thesis

escaped

him;

that he

not understood

anything about hold ideas that

nature.

what modern philosophers mean

by

the state of nature, and that one could

easily
of

are more catholic than

his

about

how theologians

should understand the state

him
of

In the meantime, and until the Sorbonne instructs him regarding the latter, I shall inform of what the former is according to the new philosophy. The state of nature is not the state

reasoning.

Adam before his fall; that momentary state must be the object of our faith and not of our What is at issue among philosophers is the actual condition of Adam's descendants
in herd (en troupeau), in
and not

considered

in society;
with which

a condition which

is

not

only

possible

but

remains actual, sets out

which all savages

live,

it is entirely

permissible to start when one

to discover philosophically, not the vanished grandeur of human nature, but the origin

and order of

its knowledge, in

which one recognizes that man

with

has distinctive

qualities that raise

on the same level [as it]; finally, defects or, if one prefers, less lively qualities that lower him beneath [it]; a condition which lasts more or less long depending on the circumstances that may lead men to form political societies and to move from the herd state to the state of society. By herd state

him

above

the

beast;

others

that he has in common

it

and that

keep

him

(etat de troupeau) I mean the state where men. brought together nature, like monkeys, deer, and crows, etc., have not formed any
to

by

the simple

prompting

of

conventions

that subject them

duties,

nor established

any authority that

might compel compliance with conventions; and

where ressentiment

that passion

with which

nature,

which attends

to the preservation

of

the

beings, has
only
completes,

endowed

injustice."

curb of

Diekman,

every individual in order to render him formidable to his kind is the Suite de 1'apologie de M. V abbe de in Diderot, CEuvres Proust, Varloot, eds., Vol. IV (1978), pp. 333f.
Prades,"

Roussseau's Pure State of Nature

ment naturel

31 The difference between "the

state of

or

"purely
while

state."

natural

nature"

without qualification and

"the

mere or

bare

nature"

state of

consists

in

this, then, that

without

the

state of nature as

such

is the

state of men without

common political

bonds,
the

the

mere or

bare

state of nature

is the

state of men a state

any

acknowledged

bonds

whatsoever.

It

would

without

prior

to

family

properly

so

called,
even

for example, be insofar as the

family

properly so called is does not consistently

"bare"
"meere"

by

institution.12

However,

adhere to the

distinction

which

in the De Cive, Hobbes he here draws between the

For the
most

or part civil

state of nature, and the state of nature as such.

he

uses

only the
as
with

more general

expression,

and refers

to any state short of

society

the "state of

nature."

In conformity
nature as

that practice,

Pufendorf, in his turn, defines

find himself
at

the stste of

the state
which everyone

in

is

conceived to of

birth

by

abstracting every purely

thing
or

that changes the

man

face
the

Human Life [and

and

is]

established either

humanly

inspired to

by

Divinity;

ious Arts together

ties
so

with all

among these we understand the commodities of Life in general, but

only the var also Civil Socie

not

;
man

that

in that

state would

be

as

if he had fallen from the skies,

Mind
and

entirely

abandoned to

himself;
when

whose qualities of

Body

are as

limited

as

they

are now

found to be
or

they have

neither

been cultivated,
of

nor

been

assisted

by

his kind

favored

by

the extraordinary care

the Divinity.

Pufendorf
considered

also refers and

"

to the state of nature so defined as "the state of nature

13

purely

this state of nature

more particular and subject

simply in itself. discovered

. . .

He draws Reason

sharp distinction between

"
.

by

alone

and on

"... the
the same

detailed

enlightenment provided

by

Revelation

Elsewhere Diderot
sur

refers

to

what

he here
2,

calls the

herd

state as

the "pure state of

nature":

Essai

"herds,"

le

merite et

la vertu, Part II,

cit., p.

sect.
pp.

note

2;

on p.

cp.

Languages,

op.

172,

cp.

173, 215, Meier

178,

Rousseau, Discourse, Replies, cp. pp. 180, 328; but also Plato,

Statesman 264a-267c; Aristotle, Politics I, 2, I253a8, History of Animals 487034, 488a20; on see also the last paragraph of Rousseau, Second Discourse, Note X, "celestial
intelligences,"

quoted on p.

n.

103

of

27 above. De Cive I, x and Annotation; cf. ibid. 11 18; v 2; and vm I as well as Leviathan ch. 20 (p. reduced to a the 1651 edition, cited in n. 16 below); Robinson Crusoe was at first
"
nature."

meer state of

Daniel Defoe, The Life

and

Adventures of Robinson Crusoe (New York:

(I'

Penguin,
12.

1965),

p.

130.
etat

Leibniz therefore says, "Mr. Hobbes calls the natural state the least art; perhaps not taking into account that human nature in its l'art
elle)."

naturel) that

which

has

perfection

involves

art

(porte

avec

Theodicy, I,
nature

221.

13.

Droit de la

et

des gens, J. Barbeyrac tr. (second ed.,

revised

and

enlarged.

Amsterdam: Pierre de

Coup,

1712), 11,

ii,

1, 2, 4. Pufendorf
are as

goes

considerably farther than the

to

Hobbes

of

"engagements"

De Cive, according to whom men in the state of nature only: "Let us return again to the state of nature,
out of the earth, and
other."

if

earthbom with respect

and consider men as

if but

even

now

sprung

of engagement

to each

suddenly (like Mushromes) De Cive vm, 1.

come

to

full maturity

without all

kind

32
For

Interpretation
example:

in

order

to represent

Man's

primitive constitution,

from

which

the

foundation
us

of natural right and

is deduced,

one abstracts

from the Creation that is taught

so

by

Sacred History,

figures the first Man fallen, inclinations

take us no

to speak, from the skies,

on

and

[possessed of] the

since

same

men nowadays

have

coming into the

world;

is

since

reasoning Hence I say that in expounding Natural Right " the Fall
. .

alone can

farther

one

has to

consider

Man

as

he

Rousseau

accepts

Pufendorf 's
itself"

premises and sometimes even uses

the same

formulations as, for example,

the
earth

when

he,

in his turn,
142).

speaks of mankind and of

"abandoned to
practice of

(pp.

140,

Further, like Pufendorf, he

earth,"15

follows Hobbes's

common superior or acknowledged state where

referring to the state without any in other words the "on authority as the "state of "each is judge is his own However,
most part
case,"

for the

nature."

sometimes, as in the first

passage quoted

(pp. 24L), he "moral

or

calls

the state without

inequalities,"

political

"moral

or political
without

hence

without relations

authority
"pure"

or

rule, and indeed

nature.16

"moral"

any
"pure"

whatsoever, the
corresponds

state of

Formally, then, his

state

of nature

to

Hobbes'

14. Les devoirs de I'homme et du citoyen (The Duties of Man and Citizen), J. Barbeyrac tr. (Amsterdam: Pierre de Coup, 1735); Author's Preface, m, vm; cp. the passage from the Exor dium of the Second Discourse cited p. 24 above; Pufendorf 's statement can be read as an almost word for word rejection of the orthodox position: cp. e.g. Suarez, cited in note 5 above; indeed: other things, dear Sir, I find it rather amusing that he [sc. Veit Ludwig v. Seckendorf] sets forth the theory of the state of integrity [or pure nature]; for when that theory is stated distinctly in terms of our hypotheses, human life appears so different from what it is now, that

"Among

theologians'

theirs."

there

is scarcely any

agreement

between

our

natural

laws

and
v.

("Unter

andem

m[ein]

h[ochgeschatzter] H[err]
integri ausfiihret; denn
leges
naturales zu

sachen gefallet mir wohl, wenn solche ex

daB Derselbe [sc.

nostrorum

Seckendorf]

theoriam status

hypothesibus

Theologorum distincte delineiret

wird, bekommet das menschliche leben eine solche differente gestalt von dem

ienen

sich am wenigsten reimen an

soil.") Letter to Christian

(l68j-

itzigen, daB unsere Thomasius, 9 April

ed.

1687, Briefe Samuel Pujcndorfs

Christian Thomasius

1693).

E. Gigas

(Munich &
the

Leipzig: Oldenbourg, 1897), p. 5. 15. For example "Religion commands

us

to believe that

since

God himself drew Men

out of

they are unequal because he wanted them to be Second Discourse, Exordium, in Discourses, Replies, Languages, op. cit., pp. 139L;
of

State

Nature

immediately

after

the creation,

so."

"

promises

to

do

or to

forbear

are conventional acts which go outside

"

the state of nature and restrict

freedom."

children

Emile 11, OC iv, 336, Bloom tr., leave the state of nature almost upon
addition to the passage state of occurs
nature"

p.

101;

by
"
.

being

born

claiming the right to be obeyed [,] Nouvelle Heloise, v. 3, OC 11, 571.

quoted on p.

16. sion

In

"pure

from the Exordium (p. 139) in the following contexts:

"

the

24 above, the expres immense distance that must

"

have
.

separated the pure state of nature

from the

need

for Languages
was no
"

p.

154.

Meier

p.

120;

the goodness suited to the pure

.

state of

Nature

longer the
the

goodness suited to nascent

Society
[states]
a new

p.

176, Meier

p.

192,

which compare with most

,

pure state of nature and

is that

of all

in

which men

would

earth."

Unpublished
of

so-called

be the least wicked, the Political Fragment, 11 # 1

that
which we of an excess of

happy,

the

most

numerous on
"

State

Nature, different from

pure

OC m, p. 475, Meier p. 422 #14; began in that the first was the state of Nature in
corruption."

its purity,
whether

whereas this

last is the fruit

State
of

in the

Nature the
chance

it is

rather

difficult to believe that

p. 197, Meier p. 262; is commonly with child again and encounters or the impulsion of temperament alone would

"

woman

"

"

have

produced as

frequent

effects

in the

pure

State

of

Nature

as

in that

of conjugal

Society

Roussseau's Pure State of Nature

"bare" "meere"

33 it
corresponds even
and
more

or

state of

nature,

and

closely to

Pufendorf 's "state

state without

of nature considered

purely

simply in

itself:"

it, too, is
and

and

artifice or conventions of

conceivably prior to any kind.

rule,

bonds,

covenants,

hence

In

sum:

the alternative to the

theologians'

state of pure nature

is the in

state of

corrupted

nature,

whereas

the alternative to Rousseau's

"moral"

pure state of nature

is

the state of

men engaged

in

relations with one

another,

and

particu

lar the

state of civil society. pure state of

especially his

same time, Rousseau's differs from the other nature, of

At the

state of

nature, but

philosophers'

concep
the decisive dif
and civil-ized man

tions of these states

primarily because

his insistence

on

ferences between
on

pre-civil or savage man on the one

hand,

the other.

1.3

The

greater the
will

differences between
on

them are assumed to

men

be,

the more

problematic

be inferences based

the

around us about what men

have been. Rousseau is the first to have clearly seen, or at may least to have clearly stated the central paradox of what has come to be known as historicism: that the reasons why historical inquiries are said to be neces
sary,
are

"originally"

the very

same reasons

why

such

inquiries

are

necessarily

conjectural

(p.

129).

He is thus led to
to
and to and p.

reflect on

how difficult it is
from
what

disentangle

what

is

original

is

artificial

in

man's present never

Nature,
did exist,

know accurately a state which no longer exists, which perhaps about which it is nevertheless necessary to have exact Notions
.

("Preface,"

130).

Note XII, #3,

where

p.

223, Meier

p.

358,

which compare with

Hobbes's

"'

state of meer of

there are supposed no Lawes of

Matrimony;

no

Lawes for the Education

Nature; Children; but the

Children."

Law of Nature, and the naturall inclination of the Sexes, one to another, and to their Leviathan, ch. 20, p. 103. To my knowledge, this is the only occurrence of the expression "state of in the Leviathan, where Hobbes's preferred expression is condition as in "natural condi
nature"

tion"

nature."

or

"condition
state of

of mere

Rousseau did

not

know the Leviathan

"

at

first hand.

"Pure

nature"

Discourse. It does

occur

in the exclusively formal, legal sense, does not occur in the Second in the Discourse on Political Economy: as soon as one man claims
.

to subordinate another

without regard other

to the

laws, he immediately leaves

above the

the civil state and places

himself in
except

relation

to that

in the

pure state of nature where obedience

is

never prescribed

necessity."

by
as

[19];

cp.

"But if the Prince is

to his subjects
p.

laws[,] he lives in
for any
of

the pure state of

nature and owes accounts neither

nor

to anyone

his

action."

Unpublished

fragment known

The State of War, OC ill,

603.
Rousseau's
"pure"

According
also account

to some readers, any attempt to

understand

state of nature must or

Yet in

at

for every occurrence of least one critical passage they

op. cit. p.

"primitive"

as
are

in "primitive
not

state"

condition."

"primitive

manifestly

interchangeable: Discourses, Replies,

Languages,

176,

quoted on p. 36 with

nature"

pure state of

is interchangeable

below. However, in the Second Discourse "man in the "natural (op. cit. pp. 130, 132. 168, 207). In the
man"

Emile, by
which

contrast, Rousseau warns

natural man

"The difference is

considerable

between

natural man

living
p.

in

the state of nature, and

living

in the

society"

state of

(OC iv, 483, Bloom, tr.

205),

is

as much as to
reason

say that "the

nature"

pure state of

has

not

the status of

fact;

and would seem

to be the

why the expression does not occur

in the Emile.

34

Interpretation
the
state of nature

Now,
most

broadly

speaking, the
exist,

state of man

"without
to
exist.

civil

society,"

certainly did exist, does

pp.

now

and will continue

us"

It

is,

particularly, the state of "the Savage Peoples known to

(pp. 176; 165,

and conceiv or moral

173; Meier

190; 156,

180).

17

But

a state of man without

ably
may

prior

to

lations,

and

any acknowledged authority, rules, artifice or or prior to hence without

covenants,

re

well not ever

unlikely to exist be a mixture of perfectly

artifice or

convention of any kind, have existed; it certainly does not now exist; and it is most hereafter. Human life may always, everywhere, necessarily, the natural and the artificial or conventional, and it may be

"natural"

that this
one

be

so.

In

order

to know the state

of man

free

of

convention,

is

therefore compelled to conjecture.

arbitrary.

Such

conjectures

will, of course, not be

not

Still,
having
seen what

Let my Readers
seems to me so

imagine that I dare flatter

see.

myself with

difficult to
. .

I have initiated

some arguments;

I have hazarded

some conjectures

(p

130).

However compelling

Discourse, they
that

remain

may find Rousseau's conjectures in Part I of the conjectures. He knew that they are conjectures; he said
one and

they

are

conjectures;

he very clearly

spelled out of

necessarily are conjectures quite independently risks involved in contradicting or "abstracting

considerations. set
himself.18

the reasons why they biblical the account, of the

from"

it,

or of

any

rhetorical

They

are conjectures

because

of

the

nature of

the problem

he

The difficult
make

rhetorical question

is:

when

and

why
and

does Rousseau fail to

state of nature or about

it

clear whether

he is speaking

about

the

"pure"

the state of nature without

tion of
account

qualifications.

One effect,
readers

his failure
is fsr

to do so, is to than

leave

with

presumably one inten the impression that his

more radicsl

it in fact is. But

unless one remains attentive to

sense

the distinction between the two states, it is impossible to make consistent

of

the

Discourse, let

alone of

its

relation

to Rousseau's other writings on these

subjects.

17.
contrast
"

Rousseau is
to "in the
.

not alone

state"

civil

or

in the

wild

State

of

in using in interchangeably with "in the state of and hence "civil-ized"; cp. for example, Hobbes, De Cive, vm, 18; Nature wild People must have an Instinct to understand
"

"savage"

nature,

"

one another, which they lose when they are Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees, Part II, The Sixth Dialogue; F. B. Kaye ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), Vol. II, pp. 286, 285; and some naturalists e.g. Buffon and, a full century later, Darwin classify animals as either "in the state of or The political implications are clear, and Rousseau repeatedly calls
nature"

civiliz'd."

"domestic."

attention to them.

18.

Harald Weinrich
of the

in Part I
narrative

strictly linguistic grounds: the verb forms primarily discussive (besprechend), and in Part II predominantly (erzdhlend). "Erzahlte Philosophie oder Geschichte des Geistes: linguistischc Bemerreaches a similar conclusion on are

Discourse

kungen

zu

Descartes
eds.

Rousseau."

und

Geschichte Ereignis pp.

und

Erzahlung, R. Koselleck

and

W.-D. Stempel

(Munich: W. Fink, 1973).

411-26;

see pp. 424L

Roussseau
2.
when

Pure State of Nature

paragraph of

35
considers

In the last

Part 1 Rousseau

how best to

proceed

two
.

facts

given as real are to

or

be

connected so

by

a sequence of
.

intermediate

facts

that are unknown

believed to be
given as

(p

169).

In Meier's
point"

view

the "two

facts
of

real"

are what which

he

calls

"the starting
sets out

and
reconstitute

"the

point"

end

the development

Rousseau

to

in the Discourse. He takes the

"pure"

point"

"starting
up
man not

to be the account

of man

in the
and

state of nature that took

so much of

Part I

of

the

Discourse,
real"

the "end

point"

to be the account of

despotisms. Although he

acknowledges that the

first is

in contemporary a "fact given as

throughout

in the

same sense

that the second

is, he

proceeds, here

and

his
not

commentary, as

if it

were.19

Rousseau's does it

remark about

fact in any sense the "two facts given as real

Is it
a

of the term? allow

Does

for, indeed
Discourse,

not require a

different,

more natural and more plausible reading?

Rousseau is outlining what he proposes to do in Part II and how that plan is related to what he did in Part I:
to consider and

of

the

human

reason while

it sociable,

and

bring together the various contingencies that can have perfected deteriorating the species, make a being wicked while making from so remote a beginning, finally bring man and the world to the
find
them (p. 168,
of

point where we now

Meier,

p.

166).

He then
this plan in
. .

goes on
view of

to review some

the difficulties he faces in carrying

out

the

other,

impossibility of on the one being in a position to attach

[that]
are to

hand rejecting

certain

hypotheses without,
of

on the

to them the certainty

facts;

two

facts

given as real

be

connected

by

a series of

intermediate facts
to read
world

In the

context of

this program, it

seems more natural and plausible

real"

the remark about the "two facts given

19.

as

as saying:

"man

and

the

See Meier, footnote 212,

of

p.

168;

cp.

footnotes 94, 202, 215, 448; so, too, L. Strauss: "At

real'

the end of the First Part

problem consists

the bipartite work, Rousseau calls the state of nature a 'fact': the
given as

in

linking
facts.'

'two facts

'by

a sequence of

intermediate

and

actually

or

supposedly Natural Right

politique:

unknown and

The
op.

given

facts

despotism."

are

the state of nature and contemporary

History,
du
also

cit., p.

Les

principes

systeme

267 n. 32; so, too, V. Goldschmidt, Anthropologic et de Rousseau (Paris: Vrin, 1974), PP- 39f> 755- J- Derrida,
pure state of nature as

following
"factual"

J. Mosconi,

interprets Rousseau's Most

of

the initial or earliest, i.e.

stage of the state of nature.

accounts of origins can perhaps most

the difficulties

he

encounters

in his deconstruction

of

Rousseau's Rousseau's
De la

be traced to that interpretation. A further

problem with that

interpretation is

succinctly indicated

by

the fact that Derrida routinely refers to

pure state of nature as the state of pure nature, an expression and a concept that
p.

be found in Buffon (see

grammatologie
,

55),

Voltaire,

or

Diderot (see

note

10 above),
pp.

but

never

may in Rousseau:

(Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1967), e.g.,

329L, 337, 357^, 387;

Of
au

Grammatology G.
XVIIIe
(1),"

Spivak tr. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press,

1974),

pp.

231!, 236f.,

252L, 274; J. Mosconi "Analyse et genese: Regards sur la theorie du devenir de l'entendement Cahiers pour T analyse No. 4, 1966, p. 75. siecle

36
.

Interpretation

[at]

the point where we now find societies, some of

and
which

them"

is

one

fact

given as real: most

there are
extreme

political

have disintegrated into the

to have
197).
returned

despotism

may therefore
whose

be

said

to the state of nature

in

the formal sense of that there are

sources political
"savages"

expression

(p.

It is

another

fact

given as real

that

way

of

life is

such as modern

travellers and ancient

have reported; in
"state
of state of

other

words,

there is

historical,

that

is,

pre

nature."

In this factual
. .

nature,
contempt shown

everyone

punishing the

him in

a manner proportionate to the

and men

stock

he

set

by himself,

vengeances

became terrible,

bloodthirsty

and cruel.

This is precisely the state reached by most of the Savage Peoples known to us; and it is for want of drawing adequate distinctions between ideas and noticing how far
these Peoples that
man

gentle

already were from the first state of Nature, that many hastily concluded is naturally cruel and that he needs political order in order to be made [Tadoucir], whereas nothing is as gentle [doux] as he in his primitive state

when, placed

by

Nature

at equal

fatal

enlightenment of civil man

distance from the stupidity (p. 176).

.

of the

brutes

and

the

The many
savage
man

who

drew this

hasty

conclusion erred

because they
this error,
the

attributed

to

the needs and passions of civilized

man.

They fallaciously
they
politic

rea

soned post

hoc

ergo propter

hoc. As

a result of
of

also erred

regarding
manifest are

natural

right

and

the true

foundations

body

(pp. 131,
the
us

132, 133, 153, 159L, 224L). In particular,

they mistakenly
recognize

assumed that

cruelty ingredient to human

and

bloodthirstiness
existence.

of most of the savage peoples

known to
are

They
and

failed to

that

they

deriv

ative, the by-products

men's material and savage peoples and

of complex

"moral"

lives.

They

possibly failed to

contingent

developments in
"most
of

recognize that state of

the

known to

us"

are not men

in the "first

nature."

Reason

tradition alike point to conditions

more primitive

than those of the savage

peoples

known to
us

us.

Rousseau therefore

assigns most of
of

the savage peoples

known to

to a second stage of the state

nature,

a stage which

begins

with

the establishment of separate, stable,

and which
with

by

and

by

gives

way to

a third and

sedentary families settled in huts (p. 173), final stage in the state of nature

of metallurgy and agriculture (p. 177), the enclosure and land (pp. 179, 170), and the attendant and irreversible division of labor (pp. 177, 179L). The second or middle stage of the state of nature, the

the

introduction

division

of

stage of
ning"

"most

of

the savage peoples known to

20

us,"

is

also the stage of

"begin

or

state of

society (pp. 176, 182). In the preceding, first stage of the men lead a nomadic life in more or less loosely structured nature,
"troops"

"nascent"

bands

or

those which various savage nations still

20.

(pp. 173, 262L) possessing languages "approximately like have (p. 173), languages which
today"

But

never

"societe

sauvage":

Meier, footnotes 237,

238.

Roussseau's Pure State of Nature

contain at

37
conventional proper

least

some

articulated, that

is,

and

instituted sounds,
strictest sense

and which

therefore count as human languages

248).

in the

(pp.

Their life is certainly not simply free of artifice and conven 173, 244, tions. It certainly does not represent the state of nature, understood as
"pure"

the

state

without

and

conceivably

prior

to

all

artifice

and

convention.

Rousseau only

never claims

to have any facts regarding

such a state or stage.

The

means

by

which

to get to know
what

it,

the only means

by

which

"to disentan

gle what

is

original

from

is

artificial

in

nature,"

man's present and

is,

as

he

frequently
facts. The
systematic

says, to

"meditate"

on

the available facts

alternatives,
cannot

and

to

try
a

to frame hypotheses which cannot be refuted, even if

quest

they
is
a

be

asserted as

for the

putative pure state of nature

thought-experiment,
relations;
needs

"bracketing"

of all artifice and of all moral needs and

and

hence

also

of all

the conditions necessary for artifice

"

and

moral

and

relations:

"[b]y

It is

an exercise

stripping the in

Being
The

so constituted course of

(p. 141;
us,"

Meier,
is

p. 78).

"analysis."

this

regressive analysis

guided

by

the two facts "given

man.

as real":

the savages "known to

of

and civil or civil

ized

The

most

distinctive feature
post

this

regressive analysis

is the

effort

to

avoid

drawing
the

any

hoc

ergo propter

view,
as

Grotius, Hobbes, Locke,

conclusions

and

hoc inferences as, in Rousseau's indeed all of his predecessors did. As far
analysis
will

possible

of

the

regressive

be

confirmed

by
aim

facts. But the farther the

analysis moves

beyond the

state of

the savages known

to us, the farther the realm of

of the analysis

fact

recedes and

fades into

conjecture.

The

limits

or

conditions

is in any of humanity. These limits

event not
"facts,"

to establish fact. It

is to

extrapolate
are not

to the

or conditions
real."21

sense of

the term
sketched

let

alone

"facts

given as

They

are

in any "general

21

Rousseau

the

rhetorical and methodological

strategy

of

the Second Discourse in a

fragment believed to have been drafted The books

methods.

full ten
with

years earlier:

of the

Philosophers

are

filled

Laws

and maxims

pertaining to two

general

One,

which

they

call synthesis or method of composition

by

means of which one goes

from the

simple

to the

composite and uses

to teach to others

what one

knows;

the other which

they call Analysis or method of resolution and which one uses in learning what one does not know; for example, when inquiring into a family's genealogy, one traces it backward from the
present,
which a relation

by

relation, ancestor
with

by

ancestor, to its origin; that

is the Analytic

way.

After house

table

is drawn up,

the one who

has been discovered to be the founder

of the

at

its head, [and] moving forward generation by generation right up to the present, that is I would, then, wish always to begin my discussions with the weakest proofs. In some fields, the most convincing arguments are drawn from the heart of the matter itself; such
synthesis

are questions of

Physics. Knowledge
of the soil

of the nature of plants may,

for example,
nourish

well

be fur
specific

thered

by

knowledge

in

which

they

thrive, the fluids that

them, their

be properly known without examining without considering their total internal structure, their fibers, volvules, tracheae, bark, pith, leaves, flowers, fruit, roots and, in a word, all the parts that go into their makeup. In moral inquiries, by contrast, I would begin by examining the little we know about
properties, but their them in themselves,
mechanism and springs will never

the human mind, taken in itself and

considered

singly, I would gropingly derive from it some

few

obscure and uncertain

conclusions, but soon abandoning this dark

labyrinth, I

would

hasten

38

Interpretation
or
"principles":22

causes"

at a

minimum, beings
are

who are

physically

constituted

as

the human beings

we

know

constituted,

whose needs and powers are

in

balance, who are therefore materially and psychologically self-sufficient, that is, free, hence morally and politically equal, and thus "good"; and who are

to examine man in

his

relations and

derive from them

host
in

of

luminous truths that

would compari

dispel the uncertainty of my arguments and would be son. "Idee de la methode dans la composition d'un OC iv, 434.
and

seen

an even clearer pp.

light

by

livre,"

OC n,

12441 : see a'so.

Emile in,

Emile v, OC iv, 837; Bloom

tr. pp. 171. 459. with the warnings:

Discourse.

I59f., and OC 111, 61 if.

Consider There is

also

Hobbes's Clue
as

account of

his

procedure:

a certain we are

of

Reason,

whose

beginning is

in the

Conduct,

led

'twere

by

the

hand into the

and

clearest

dark, but by the benefit of whose light, so that the Principle of Tractafor the

tion is to be taken from that

Darknesse,

then the light to be carried thither

irradiating

any writer, doth either weakly forsake that Clue, or wilfully cut it asunder, he describes the Footsteps, not of his progresse in Science, but of his wandrings from it. And upon this it was, that when I applyed my Thoughts to the Investigation of Naturall
often therefore as

its doubts. As

Justice, I

was

giving every

one

presently advertised from the very his Owne) that my first enquiry

word was

Justice, (which

to

be, from

man should call

proceeded not

did

afterwards

any thing rather his Owne, than another mans. from Nature, but Consent, (for what Nature at first laid forth in common, men distribute into severall Impropriations) I was conducted from thence to another
to what end and
rather upon what

steady Will of it proceeded, that any And when I found that this
signifies a
whence

Inquiry, namely
common,
men

Impulsives,

when all was

did

think

it fitting, that every

of

man should

have his

equally every mans in Inclosure; And I found

the reason was, that from a

enjoyment should

Community

Goods,

there must needs

arise

Contention

whose

dably
which

be greatest, and from that Contention all kinds of Calamities must unavoyensue, which by the instinct of Nature, every man is taught to shun. Having therefore
at

thus arrived

two maximes of humane

appropriate

Nature,

the one arising

from the

concupiseiblc

part,
a

desires to

to it selfe the use of those things in which

all others

have
a

joynt

interest,
naturall

the other proceeding

from

the rational!, which teaches

every

man

to

fly

contre-

Dissolution,
seem

as the greatest mischiefe

that can

arrive

to

Nature; Which Principles being

connexion, in this little
and thence the rudiments
pp. 26L

laid down, I
work of

from them to have demonstrated

by

a most evident

mine, first the absolute necessity of Leagues and

Contracts,

both

of morall and of civill

Prudence. De Cive, Epistle Dedicatory, Warrender ed.,

For the background

of

the contrast

between the

analytic and

the synthetic methods, see Richard

Kennington, "Analytic and Synthetic Methods in Spinoza's Spinoza. Studies in philosophy and the history of philosophy Vol.
.

Ethics,"

in The

Philosophy
ed.

of Baruch

7, R. Kennington
293-318.

(Washing

ton, D.C.: The Catholic At the

nature,
end of

University
of the

of

America Press, 1980),

[66). which

pp.

Part I
etat

Discourse, Rousseau
(p.
p.

speaks of

having dug
if it

to the genuine state of

le
p.

veritable

de

nature

Meier translates der

that
passages as

wahrhaftc
spoke of

Naturzustand
the true

(Meier,
wahre

161

); but in his
of nature,

note
an

80,

166, he

"quotes"

der

state

expression which

Rousseau

nowhere uses;

see also notes

215 and,
read

especially, 135 and 448. A similar error unfortunately slipped into

op.

Discourses, Replies, Languages,

line 19,
where
at

cit., p.

344,

note ad

n[4]; also,

p.

29 line 7,

and

p.

130

for

"true"

"genuine."

Admittedly

it is difficult to translate

veritable

consistently; and in

least

some cases,

Rousseau may have chosen it in preference to vrai for reasons of euphony. However, that cannot have been his reason for choosing to speak about la veritable jeunesse du Monde, "the genuine
the (p. 177), which, as Meier notes (p. 194. note 240) directly alludes to Lucre tius, but which, it must be added, does so by taking issue with him. It would seem that, at least in the Second Discourse, Rousseau uses veritable to indicate a contrast with the broad of an
youth of
World"

tendency

Roussseau's Pure State of Nature

"perfectible"

39 potentially human to have been potentially human

so

perhaps even almost

unlimitedly
prove

(p.

149):

animals,
animals.

or

what

in hindsight

will

2.1

Rousseau

"natural"

sometimes speaks of
most

man as
state"

in the less

"animal"

state,
corresponds

or condition.

For the

part, his "animal

and

more or
of

to

Hobbes's

"brutish,"

as
short."23

in: "...
not

the life

man, solitary, poor, nasty,

even a cites

brutish,
his

and

It is

primitive

human

state.

necessarily a pre-human or Most of the facts which Rousseau

in the
animal state are not

particularly
support of
or

in

conjectures about man

facts

about animals
us"

putative animal
we

beginnings, but
equal

about

the savages "known to

who and

are, as

have seen, "at

man"

enlightenment of civil

distance from the stupidity of the brutes (p. 176). Thus the very first time he
of the senses

the fatal
the

mentions

"animal state", he is contrasting the development

civilized men:

in

savage and

in

Self-preservation
oped

being

faculties

must

almost his only care, his [sc. savage man's] most devel be those that primarily serve in attack and defence By
perfected

contrast, the organs that are

only by softness and sensuality must remain in his being in any way delicate; and since his senses differ in this respect, his touch and taste will be extremely crude; his sight, hearing, and smell, most subtle: Such is the animal state in general, and according to reports, it is also the state of most Savage Peoples (p. 147; Meier, p. 96).
a state of coarseness which precludes
Travellers'

In

other

words, "the animal which, though

state"

is

or,

more

precisely, is

also

the state

be civilized, certainly do have lan they may guage, arts and artifacts, and mceurs, morals or customs. The hierarchy or acuity of their senses may point to the condition of the lower However, their moral life places them at a considerable remove from it.
of peoples
not
animals.24

The "animal
alternative account:

state"

would,
his is the
and of

then,
the

appear

to

be
de

coextensive with

the "state of

account of

veritable etat

nature

in

contrast

to that of the juris

that avoid the

consults, of

Hobbes,
his

Locke, because he bases it

committed; so

on reflections and arguments

veritable

fallacies

which

predecessors

too, the
be
see

jeunesse du

monde

is the second,
animals which

not, as Lucretius had said, the

unreliable travelers

first

stage

in the

history

of man and the world;

22.

say On "general

are

beasts, may
and
op.

perhaps

veritables savage men

(p.

215).
and

causes"

"principles,"

Fragments politiques, OC ill, 529,

also

Dis

courses,

Replies, Languages,
op.

cit.,

Index;

cp.

OC m,

604

and

var.(b), and "Idee de la

a central

methode,"

cit., OC 11,

1246.

The

relation of

fact

and principle

in the Discourse is

important study Anthropologic et politique: Les principes du systeme de Rousseau. Unfortunately his account of that relation is, in the final analysis, incoherent because he too fails to observe the distinction between the state of nature broadly speaking, and the
theme of Victor Goldschmidt's
pure state of nature; see n.

19

above.

23.

Leviathan,
live

ch.

13,

op.

cit., p.

62;

also

"For the
"

savage people

government of small at

Families,

the

concord whereof manner

dependeth

on naturall
p.

in America, except the lust, have no government

all;

and

at this

day

in this brutish

idem,

63.

Buffon had recently drawn a animals': Discours sur la nature des

24.

CEuvres

philosophiques,

J.

between the acuity of man's senses and the animaux (1753) (Discourse on the Nature of Animals), in Piveteau ed. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1954), pp.
comparison

325b36-326bi8.

40

Interpretation
At times Rousseau
extrapolates

nature."

from this

state

to the conjectural

"pure"

state of nature:

Savage Man
sense will

will

then begin

with

be his first state,

which

he

purely animal functions: (X) to perceive and to will have in common with all animals. To
will

will and not

to will, to desire and to fear

soul
. .

be the first

and almost the

only

opera

tions of

his
the

only

evils

he fears
what

are pain, and

hunger;
the

animal will never

know

it is

to

die,

and

I say pain, and not death; for knowledge of death and of its

an

terrors was

one of man's

first

acquisitions on

moving away from the

animal condi

tion (pp. I49f.;

Meier,

pp.

104, 106).
animals'

Regardless,
is to be
animals are edition

now, of how this remark about the

ignorance

of

death

reconciled with

Rousseau's

ignorant

of

it is,

as

pity (pp. i6of.), the claim that Starobinski rightly reminds us in his Pleiade
account of who are or are presumed

note,

a commonplace. of

Human beings

to

death may be said to be in the animal state. That is why Fontenelle had but lately spoken in these terms of a boy born deaf-mute. be ignorant
He did
animal
not

really know

what

death is,

and

he

never thought about

it. He led

purely

life, entirely

absorbed

by

sensible and present

objects,

and

by

the

few

ideas he

received through the eyes.

"Animal"

here

refers

to the

condition of a

human being,
or,
more

albeit

to that

of a

human

being

whose capacities are

limited

precisely,

undeveloped

precisely because, as Fontenelle points out, he lacks language. But as Fontenelle goes on to report, before long the boy in question gained hearing, and as soon as he did, he learned language and achieved full human status.
Both Condillac
which

and

Buffon had
well.

quoted and

discussed this
speaks of

report

in

contexts

Rousseau knew

Indeed Condillac
which

it in

a chapter spe sequel

cifically devoted to the issue

of conjecture

Rousseau

raises

in the immediate

to

the remark about death in the animal and the human condition: the confirmation

by

fact.25

When he does draw

most

comparisons

between
does

animal and
with

human behavior
(pp.

at

its
in
the

primitive, Rousseau
as when

invariably

so

qualifications

i6of.,
so

173); or,
order

he

compares

animal not

and

human sexuality, he does

to underscore the

differences,

the similarities

between

man and

other animals with

222L).26

(pp. 221-23 regarding

which see pp. 51L

below;

165L;

cp.

153

as

Formally long as
25.

speaking,

man

to the extent that

may be said to be in the animal state or condition he remains under the sway of exclusively
ed.

Buffon, De I'homme, M. Duchet

connaissances

(Paris:

Maspero,

1971),

pp.

I99f.;

Condillac. Essai

humaines Part I, section 4, chapter 2, 13. 26. In contrast, for example, to Plato, Laws vm, 836c; a passage cited by Pufendorf in connec tion with his assertion that conclusions about human conduct based on animal behavior persuade i i.f. only the vulgar: Droit, op. cit. 11, 3,
sur

I'origine des

Roussseau
"physical"

Pure State of Nature

41

impulsions, that is to ssy subject to the lsw of nature or of the (pp. 132L, 175L, 184L); he may be said to have left the animal state insofar as he acts in terms of relations and constraints within the
stronger
"moral"

context of

society

and

in

particular of civil
civil-ized.27

society, in

other words

insofar

as

he

becomes

"sociable"

and

Certainly
permits us
man

nothing Rousseau
speechless,
as

says about man

in the

animal state or condition

"pure"

to conclude that he thinks that

man

in the

state of

nature,

isolated,
in the
animal

and without artifice or moral relations of never goes

any kind, is
man called

fact "given

real."

He

beyond positing

and

discussing
be hypothesis

"pure"

either

state of
state"

nature, or in what

"pure

"the

animality"

state of

by analogy (p. 224) as

might an

the
or a

conjecture.28

2.2

In

Note
on

which

many

readers

have found especially striking, Rous

thousand causes may produce, and

seau, reflecting

the "varieties

which a

indeed have

produced

in the human
[or

species,"

is led to

wonder whether

various animals similar to

like]

men

[semblabes

aux

hommes]

which

travel

lers have

without much observation taken

for Beasts,

either

because

of some

differences they noticed in their outward conformation, or merely because these Animals did not speak, might not indeed be genuine Savage men [de veritables hommes Sauvages]
occasion to and was still whose

race, dispersed in the

woods

in

ancient

times, had had

no

develop
in the

its

virtual

faculties,

had

not acquired pp.

any degree
2i4f.).29

of perfection,

primitive state of

Nature (Note X,

The

reports which prompted

these

musings and which

Rousseau

goes on

to

quote at some
27.

length,

tell of animals similar to man

([qui]

ont une

ressem-

This
man

from the state of nature to the civil state produces a very remarkable change in substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and by endowing his actions with the morality which they previously lacked. It is only when the voice of duty succeeds physical impulsion and right succeeds appetite that man, who until then had looked only after himself,
passage

by

sees that

he is forced to

act on other
state

principles,

and

to consult his reason before

of

listening

to his

inclinations. Although in this

nature,

he deprives himself

many

advantages

he holds from

he

gains such great ones

in return, his faculties

entire soul exalted

are exercised and

developed, his ideas

if the
abuses of this
should cease

enlarged, his feelings ennobled, his

new condition

to such a degree that

which

did

not often

degrade him below that from

that wrenched him

he emerged, he

lessly
ms.,
28.

bless the

happy

moment

limited

animal made an

intelligent

being

and a

from it forever, and out of a stupid and man. Of the Social Contract, I, 8; cp. Geneva

OC m,

p. 292.

Writing
and

to the

describes

man as

Archbishop of Paris, Rousseau that is to say initially

"bete,"

says that
or

in the Discourse but not,

on

Inequality

he

"stupid"

"dumb,"

as some commentators

erroneously
also

Essay

on the

compare with

tendentiously have it, "a beast": A Christophe de Beaumont, OC iv, 936; consider Origin of Languages, (Discourses, Replies, Languages, op. cit.. p. 268n) and Discourse on Inequality, Note X (ibid., p. 217). Meier, incidentally, very correctly
fact that Rousseau
which

calls attention to the 29.

opens:

never refers

to man

as a

beast.

This is the Note

"Savage Man

Rousseau

appended with

to the passage quoted on p. 40 and which

animal

will, then,

begin

purely

functions.

42

Interpretation
exacte avec

blance

I'homme) walking
similar

through the forest in Indian

ing

around

fires, building
so

themselves to
man

shelters,

and

African

"orangs"

(si semblable[s]
them

file, gather dead; of burying a I'homme) that some

their
of

travellers monkeys; women;

men and satyrs.

but

not

the

natives

thought

offsprings

humans

and

of stories

that some of these beings force themselves on girls and

report

and of

Merolla's
which

that the natives occasionally capture savage

after

women,

Purchas,
which

many others,
read

says must

be the

Ancients'

The

picture

labelled

"Orang

Histoire des Voyages in

Rousseau

"anthropomorphic"

looking
reflecting look
on such

accompanying these reports in the them, depicts a strikingly humanbeing. It is not difficult to see how Rousseau, have been led to
conjecture

Outan"

reports,

might

that

they

are

really

reports of encounters

between

members of

the same species who, although

they

or act strange and wild

in

one another's eyes and

especially in the
most part might

eyes of

the traders and adventurers

are nonetheless wonder

on whose accounts see

he for the how he

depends,
to

human. Nor is it difficult to (des

have

gone on

why the travellers be

as

who report about animals conformites

that exhibit such striking

avec

similarities to our species should nevertheless suggest

frappantes

reluctant

to call them human beings. He is thus

point

lespece humaine) led to

one cannot

discreetly,

the commentators

out, but also,

help

suspect, tongue in

cheek

that the question

whether orangs or similar animals of

belong

to the human species could be settled to the satisfaction

the "crudest
performed

observers"

by innocently
In
question
order

simple

experiment

which, as he adds,

could

be

only if its
to

outcome were
such

known from the

outset.
mind

understand

musings, one has to bear in

that the
of

whether orangs or similar monkeys

(singes)

might

be lost tribes

primitive men

it

means

simply did not mean for Rousseau and his contemporaries what for us. There is no plain French or German equivalent for the distinc
"monkey"
"ape"

tion between
out,30

and

As Tinland, in particular, has

men of

pointed

and as

Meier know

reminds

us, the most learned

the time had seen

fewer did

apes and

knew less

about

them than any visitor

of a modem zoo.
travellers'

They

not even

enough about them

to challenge the

reports of

orangs

in Africa.

tions, that So that

be

orang-outan

They did, however, know, and Rousseau specifically men is Malay for man of the woods (p. 216): and he cer
sylvestris

tainly knew

that

homo

is how Lucretius

referred

to "the first

men."31

when

he

wonders whether wonder man

of

the orang might be

animals

understood to

whether certain

a variety of man he must described by travellers as

"anthropomorphic'

closely
not

resembling
"men

Rousseau's

and

Linnaeus's

woods"

and called

the

by
not seem

the natives who

an

knew them best,

might

be just that. That does

to be such

tion. Nor
30. 31.

does it

seem

particularly bold to

go on

extravagantly bold to wonder in this

sugges
context

Tinland, L'homme sauvage (Paris: Payot, 1968), pp. 94-97. On the Nature of Things, C. Bailey ed., e.g. V, 967, 970.

F.

Roussseau
whether other might not

Pure State of Nature

and

43
said

apes, called pongos

primitive

enjokos, and

to be like the orang,

seem

be

human beings. Nor, again, does it

the travellers called
certain

particularly
or,
more

bold to

wonder whether
"monkeys"

animals apes
were stupid.

precisely,
quite

rather than men stresses

or

because they
point

After all, he

rightly
bright

that

most of

these travellers are themselves not particu

larly

trustworthy.
alone

Rousseau's

is

not

that human beings are

most

"really"

apes, let

that

"descended"

they

are are

from apes, but that

traders, adventurers,
might well mistake

and

missionaries

likely

to be crude observers who

members of their own

unfamiliar-looking-and-acting
as

kind

(leurs semblables) for apes, just

travellers'

Purchas,

the compiler of one of the major the beings

which

"satyrs"

anthologies of

reports,

calls

Merolla,
ssid

sensible, educated, Franciscan missionary, reporting at

firsthand,

were

"Ssvsge

women"

men

and

(pp. 216, 218). His

a

concern what

throughout the Discourse

common with what

as

whole, is

not

with

in this Note, and man may have in

but
with with

beasts or, for that matter, with "celestial differentiates them from beasts snd celestisl intelligences, variety
or of

intelligences,"

the full

range snd

humankind;

and

it is

out of this concern

that he invites his

reader to consider call

the possibility that some of the beings

which crude observers a

apes,

sylvans, or fauns or satyrs, may, as he put it in

later

addition

to

the text, prove to be "neither beasts nor gods, but

cited p.

men"

(p. 218;

cp. p.

213,

central this concern with the full range and variety of is to the Discourse, and he very correctly points out that Rousseau deliberately excludes from consideration questions about evolution or transmankind

27 above). Meier recognizes how

particularly likely to raise. Yet his his readers to raise these very repeatedly questions. In particular, he maintains that Rousseau's readiness to envisage the possibility that some of the beings which crude observers call apes or satyrs may be human beings marks the culminating point of the Discourse, and that
which

formism

contemporary

readers

are

own emphases and comments

prompt

the

fact that it does conclusively

and

proves

the Discourse's

radical

scientifically

serious

character."32

"philosophically By imposing this particular

real"

order on the
man's

text,

by

point"

"starting

reading it as asserting that it is "a fact given as is the state of animality (note 211, pp. 168L),
or or even that

that
and as

culminating in the conjecture that orangs, ing point, Meier invites the transformist
32.

pongos, or enjokos, are that start

evolutionist

reading
as much

of

the

Meier believes that Rousseau thought

at

so

too,

and

he indicated

by

placing

these reflections
paragraph of

the very center of the Notes

which

he

appended

to the text: in the middle

his

middle

that this is the

stresses the

philosophical

Note (Meier, op. cit., note 409). He gives no other evidence of his claim highpoint of the Discourse. Yet in the very same passage in which he

importance

of the message

in the

middle

paragraph,

he

acknowledges

that Rousseau

had

stated the general point

restates
well as

clearly in the very first paragraph of his Note. The fact that he it in the middle paragraph would therefore seem to be a case of order arising by chance; as to confirm Montaigne's warning in the title of the middle essay of the Essays.

fully

and

44

Interpretation
which

Discourse
excluded

elsewhere

from

consideration s

he expressly (cp. notes 92,

and
94)."

rightly

says

Rousseau had

Certainly
appears

Rousseau
what

conjecture, if that is

not

that troops of

travellers say are apes,

radical

might

too strong a term, in Note X, be lost tribes of primitive man

to be more
of

than the superficially similar conjecture at the end of

Part I

the Discourse

where,

speaking

about

sufficient says

individuals in

a world

in

which everyone

presumably isolated, was in the same position, he

self-

that he considers it possible that natural man's potential faculties might

remained

have

trast, he is evidently

eternally dormant (p. 168, Meier p. 166). In Note X, by con prepared to envisage the bolder and more puzzling possi
and man's
other

bility

that

"perfectibility"

potential

faculties
In

might

remain

dormant

even

in individuals

and groups

in

contact with men society.

possessing lan
part the conjec

guage, arts,

and an at

least rudimentary,

"nascent"

ture appears to be especially bold

about

because,

to repeat,

we read

it

as

if it

were

orangs, chimpanzees,
what

and

gorillas, and as if Rousseau knew that it was;

whereas about

he did know
and

was

how little he

and

his

contemporaries

knew

these
on

beings,

musing
33.

this subject

he repeatedly stresses that the reports which set him to are apt to be misdescriptions of human beings who are
contrast

It is instructive, in this connection, to

might

his

conjectures with

Kant's:
crying,
since

What
the

be

nature's aim

in

letting

children come

into the

world with much

in

bare

state of nature

[im

rohen

Naturzustande]
pig attracted birth. Indeed,

this exposes both

mother and child

to the

utmost
mother

danger? For

a wolf or even a

by

that

cry

could

devour the

child

if the

is away

or exhausted

by

the

no animal other

than man (as he now

is),

would

loudly

announce

its

existence at

birth,

which seems

to have been ordered

by

the wisdom

of nature with a view to

preserving their

species.

Therefore it has to be both

assumed

that in the

early [or first]

epoch of nature the children of this class of animals were not noisy;

but that their

being

noisy

made

its

appearance
culture

attained the

[level of]

later, in a second epoch, [required] for domestic life,

about such a
of a great natural

when

parents

without our

knowing

had already how and by

leads far:
might

means of what causes nature

brought

development. This

observation

e.g., to wondering whether, in the wake

not

revolution, this second epoch

be followed

by

third,

when an

orang

outan or a chimpanzee might

fashion the

organs used

in walking, manipulating objects,

use of the

understanding,

Part II,
1974),

section
p.

E,

note.

and speaking, into a human frame containing an organ for the gradually develop itself through social culture. Anthropologic Cassirer ed., vm, p. 222; M. McGregor tr. (The Hague: Nijhoff, and

188.

Quite
calls the

aside

from the fact that for transparent

what

prudential or rhetorical reasons

Kant

projects

into he
is

the hypothetical future

he clearly thinks

occurred

in the Kant's

past,

he here

speaks about what

bare

state of nature

categorically

and as a

fact

given as real;

Rousseau

never speaks that speculation

way

about what

he

calls the pure state of

nature; and

frankly

transformist

without parallel
"still"

at

in Rousseau. The only the beginning of Note III:

possible

hint

of

anything like it in the Discourse is

the word

The

changes which a long practice of walking on two feet may have produced in man's struc ture, the similarities that can still be observed between his arms and the forelegs of Quadrupeds, and the inference drawn from the way they walk, may have given rise to some doubt which way of walking must have been most natural to us (p. 201).

However,
man.

the entire point

of

the

Note is that the

upright posture

has

always

been

natural

to

Roussseau

Pure State of Nature

stranger

45
pygmies must

if at all only slightly been and indeed were

skeptical about

than, for example, the first

have

to the travellers who

came across them.

He is
268*).

the reports that

they

cannot maintain a

fire (p. 227;

cp.

The fact that they do not speak may no more prove that they lack language, than the fact that children crawl on all fours or that feral men run about on their

hands

and

feet

proves

that

man

is

quadruped

(pp.

218, 216;

201-203).

Rousseau's

conjecture

in this Note is

apt

to appear especially puzzling because

as

we tend to think of speculations about rather than of

humankind

as one.

Yet insofar

these conjectures point to

human origins, they point in the direction of the polygenist the transformist hypothesis. Rousseau had introduced the conjec

with the reflection that both ancient snd modern reports very indicate that prior to conquests, migrations, and commerce, when clesrly peoples lived more isolated, they differed in appearance, size, shape, bearing,

tures

in this Note

and ways

far

more

than

they do

now

(pp.

2i4f.).34

When,

after

these reflec
said were remark

tions, he
beasts

goes on to wonder whether

the beings

which

travellers have

might not

be

"dispersed"

savage men

anciently
the remark

in the woods, the

has to be

read

in

conjunction with

in the

Essay

on

the

Origin of

Languages:
I
'first'

call

the times of men's

dispersion,

regardless of the age one chooses to

assign to mankind at that period

(p. 260, n.i),

that the dispersion

and the

indication,
In

two pages

below,

is

post-Noahdic

(pp.
the the

262L,

264).

other words,

he indicates that he is in

effect

Bible's ten

antediluvian

generations; hence he is in

effect also

bracketing bracketing
was

Bible's

account of a single common origin of mankind.

speculations.35

Rousseau

certainly

acquainted with polygenist

34.

The

conjecture

that troops of apes

op.

Cp. Emile v, OC iv,

267*

p.

830, Bloom
p.

tr. pp. 453L and

Discourses, Replies, Languages,

cit., p.
35.

In

later Note (XVI,

notorious work or

228) he

refers

to an episode from the Relation du Groenland

although

(1647) by
people

the most

naming the

early polygenist, Isaac de la Peyrere, its author. La Peyrere and Grotius engaged in
when

he prudently

avoids

a polemic about whether

the

inhabiting

America

Columbus discovered it,

were native

to the Continent or Green-

or Norwegians, or Ice who had migrated. Grotius argued that they were Greenlanders landers: De Origine Gentium Americanorum (1642). La Peyrere argued that they were not, and

landers

could not

be

(Relation,
where

op.

cit., pp.
of

272, 275L). The episode which Rousseau cites

from the
no

Relation
than to

recalls that

debate. It tells

Greenlanders
so

and

Icelanders

who

had been taken

farther
died

Denmark,

they became

homesick that

some

died

of

it outright,

while others

trying
would

to swim back home. The

moral of

the story is that people so attached to their

homeland
the

certainly not have settled in faraway America. One issue in the debate was Americans were descended from Adam, or not. Grotius held that to deny that they
undermine religion.

whether

were was

to

La Peyrere
op.

was on record

denying

on scriptural grounds that

been: Men Before Adam. later

addition

cit., ch. vm; A Theological

refers on

Systeme,
to Jan de
might

op. cit.,

they need have Book IV, ch. 14. In a

populated

to the

Discourse, Rousseau
with

by

name

Laet,

the other polygenist who

was engaged

in

a polemic

Grotius

how America

first have been

(Dis

course,

11, 2,

Replies, Languages, p. I47n). Regarding the polygenist thesis, see also Pufendorf, Droit, 7, 8. Buffon, after reviewing the arguments for and against America's having been settled
from Greenland
or across

by

migrations

the

Bering Strait,

concludes with

the elegant equivocation

46
might

Interpretation
be lost tribes
of primitive men
and

is

perhaps

less implausible in the

varieties of man

context

of the polygenist

hypothesis
Be that

its corollary, that the

may. enjokos

may be

different
The
and

subspecies.

as

it

question

whether

orangs, pongos,

or, for that matter, satyrs,

such varieties are accounted

fauns

are varieties of man

regardless of

how

for

might

be

answered gives no

by

being. Rousseau
experiment
might might

mating one of them with an acknowledged human indication of what he expects the outcome of such an
open

to be. While he leaves

careful

the possibility that orangs and satyrs

be men, he is
not

to leave equally open the possibility that

would convince

they
"the why

be. He

says

no more than that the outcome

much of

observers."

crudest

Since throughout

this

long

Note he

explains

he thinks that

most

travellers are crude observers who cannot be trusted

similar creatures are apes or

when

they say

that orangs and

satyrs, he is clearly invit

ing

his

reader

to conclude that the outcome of this experiment would convince

even men of

the meanest capacity that very Calibans may be human beings. that he
points and expects

But it is

not at all evident

the outcome to settle the issue for

reasonable observers.
not

As he

out, the true outcome could, in any event,

be known for

at

least one,
to be seen

possibly
nature, a

not

for

several more generations.

For it

would remain whether

whether

there is

an

offspring; and, in case there

is one,

it is

"monster"

a mere sport of

in the language
us suppose

of this

Note,

or whether

it

can

have

offsprings of

its

own.

Let

that

it

can

have them, and so proves to be a member of the That would be the only fact which the experiment can possibly establish. It certainly cannot trans form the conjectures about the pure state of nature into fact, any more than it
species.36

can

transform into fact the conjecture that orangs or similar beings

of savage men

might

be

lost tribes

centuries on end

in herds

anciently dispersed in the woods or troops in at least occasional

who

have lived for

contact with native

populations,
2.2.1

without

developing

Once

we enter

any of their virtual faculties. into the spirit of such conjectures, we have to
should prove

allow

that if the
"animal"

issue

of the

experiment

to

be

human being, its

communi

parent

may

well

be

descendent

of outcasts

from human

ties

who after several generations

forgot language

and whatever arts

they may
same as our

that, "even
146

independently
a

of

the theological
p.

reasons,"

the

Americans'

origin
cp.

"is the

own."

Del homme, M.

Ducheted.,
and

311,

cp. pp.

309-21;

(i.p.). For

detailed
'

thoughtful early account of these

Voltaire, Essai sur les maeurs, ch. debates, see Pierre-Francois-Xavier

par ordre

Journal d'un voyage fait Paris: Nyon Fils, 1744, Vol. I, pp. 1-43; the most authoritative current account of these debates is Guilliano Glozzi, Adamo e il nuovo mondo. La nascita antropologia comme ideologia coloniale: dalle genealogie bibliche alle teorie

de Charlevoix, "Dissertation

preliminaire sur

I'Origine des

Ameriquains,"

du

Roy dans I Amerique

septentrionnale ,

dell'

razziali

36.

"A

(1500-1700), Florence, La Nuova Italia, 1977. species [is] nothing but a constant succession
and

of

individuals
references

that are similar

article

[semblables]
Donkey,"

together reproduce

"

Buffon, Histoire

naturelle. Vol. IV

(1753),

"The

in CEuvres philosophiques,
see e.g.

op.

cit., p. 356352-54.

For full

to the relevant

learned literature,

Meier,

nn. 406L

Roussseau
have for

Pure State of Nature

rather

47
of potential

possessed,37

than the

descendant

human beings

living
any
more

countless centuries

together

without ever who

kind. Its
primitive

being

human

being

acquiring language had lapsed or relapsed

what

or arts of

into

stage would

certainly be

consonant with also

Rousseau

means

by

"perfectibility."38

It would, incidentally,

be

natives'

consonant with

the

story that apes remain silent out of Rousseau invites such speculations when, in order to underscore how unreliable he thinks the travellers are who report that orangs and pongos are
prudence.39

apes, he adds that these same travellers

about a

would

feral

child who
and

"gave

no sign of sounds

reason,

walked on

probably have said the his hands and

same

feets,

had

no

218).

language, Still, it is
lesser
the

orangs and one of

(p. way resembling those of a most unlikely that he thought of entire bands or troops of pongos as human beings who had relapsed from a state of greater to
no
"perfection."

formed

in

man"

However, he does,
rejected

on

one

occasion,

appear

to

consider

more radical alternative of a

total loss

by

all

men of all

human

acquisitions.
readers

He had apparently

this possibility

just before

inviting

his

to set all the to

requires us

deny

facts aside, on the grounds that the biblical it.40 Yet in the Essay on the Origin of Languages
living
on

account
which

37.

"Isolated individuals

desert islands have been known to forget their

own

lan

guage."

Discourses, Replies, Languages, p. 264. "At his first coming on board with us, he had so much forgot his Language for want of Use, that we could scarce understand him Woode Rogers, reporting the rescue of Alexander Selkirk who had lived abandoned on Juan Fernandez
"

Island for nearly four and a half years, ed., Robinson Crusoe, op. cit., p. 306.
38.

and whose

story

served as

Defoe's model; in Angus Ross

Why

is

man alone

liable to become
the

an

imbecile? Is it

not

that

he thus

returns

to his

primitive

state and always

that,

whereas

Beast,

which

has

acquired

nothing
other

and also

ity
pp.

had

keeps its instinct, man, losing through old age or made him acquire, thus relapses (retombe) lower

has nothing to lose, accidents all that his perfectibil Beast itself? (p. 149, Meier

than the

102-104);

cp. also

Diderot's

reference

to

"

the point of imbecile nature when he [sc. man] appears to

"

be lower than
39.

a number of animals

in the

passage quoted

in

note 10 above.

Brue tells "a

of a species of red monkeys called

Patas

by

the natives who are persuaded that

they
into

are

species of savage men who refuse

to

speak out of ch. vi

fear

of

being

put to work and sold

slavery."

Histoire

generate

des voyages, Bk. VI,

p. 239). upon

(Paris:

Didot,

1746), Vol.

II,

p.

521;

see also

Bk. IX,

ch. vm

(Vol.

IV,

Yesterday
not wish spoken.

I had

a visit

from the Pastor who,

seeing that I
went

spoke

only in French to him, did

to speak to
rather

me

in English,
expedient:

so that

the interview
to

by

with

hardly

a word

being

my neighbours, if I have any, and even if I should learn English I will never speak anything but French to them, especially if it is my good fortune that they know not a word of it. That is more or less the ruse of the monkeys

like this

will resort

it

with all

which, the Negroes say, do not wish to speak, although

that

they

might

be

made

to

work

(Rousseau to

they are capable of doing so, for fear Hume, 29 March 1766, Correspondence

complete, R. A. Leigh ed., Vol.

40.

XXIX,

p.

66).

if the Writings

of

Moses

are granted the credence owed even

them

opher,

it has to be denied that,

before the Flood, Men

were ever

by every Christian Philos in the pure state of Nature,

48

Interpretation

was not published

during

his lifetime
of

he ignores these theological

as

reserva

tions, into

and refers

to the dispersion
condition.41

Noah's descendants
"relapse"

just

such a relapse rhetorical

the

primitive

That

is

transparent

unless

to

they by defend, and

would

some

altogether

extraordinary Occurrence relapsed into it; a Paradox impossible to prove (p. 1 39 Meier p. 70).
not

mosl

embarrassing

They

presumably

be in the
on

covenant not to visit of the attendant

any more floods sharp distinction God

the earth and its

now

Flood, because of God's inhabitants (Genesis 8:20, 9:9-19), and drew between man and beast (Genesis 9:2-4); it would
pure state of nature after the
state prove that

manifestly be a paradox to have men relapse (retomber) into a been in; but if they were in that state, it would be impossible to

they presumably had never they had lapsed into it

from

some other

state,

and

in

particular

from

a state of grace.

Adam spoke; Noah spoke; granted. Adam had been taught by God himself. When they sep arated, the children of Noah gave up agriculture, and the common language perished together
with

the first society. This

would on

have happened

even

if there had

never

been

tower of

babel.

Isolated individuals After

living

desert islands have been known to forget their

men

own

languages.

several generations

away from their country

vast

rarely

preserve

their original

language,
the

even when

they

work

together and live in society with one another.

Scattered throughout this

desert

of the world, men relapsed

(retomberent) into

dull

have been in if they had been bom of the earth. By following [the thread of] these entirely natural ideas the authority of Scripture can easily be reconciled with ancient records, and there is no need to treat as fables traditions that are as old as the people that have
would

barbarism they

handed
20,
and

them

down to

us.

(Discourses, Replies, Languages,

p.

264;

cp.

Genesis 11:1, 6; 10:5,

I9:3if.)
with

"Although it is known
a

very

particular effect of

certainty that the first men early learned the most necessary arts by Divine Providence Mankind would not have escaped being rather

miserable, if Civil
the mention of the natural!, adds the

Society

had

not

been instituted

arts,"

"necessary

", Pufendorf, Droit, op. cit. 11, 2 ii. After Barbeyrac, drawing on Pufendorf 's treatise De statu hominum
.

following
to

pertinent note:

That
wife

would appear

be the

case

from

what

did

the

Lord God

make coats

of skins

and clothed

is said, (Gen. 3:21) that Unto Adam and also to his them; that is to say, in the manner of the

Hebrews,
efforts,

that he taught them to make coats. For how could these first men otherwise

in

so

short a time

have bethought themselves

as

of such an

invention

and mastered it

by

their own

lacking

they did
one

all metal

tools,

and

before the

practice of

killing

animals

had been

established? several other

From this

can, in my view, further infer that Divine Providence taught them

things that

were no

less

needful

for Human Life,

or

less difficult to invent. Thus

eat

God

having

expressly

commanded our
must at

first

parents

to cultivate the Earth and to

their bread

in the
season
ered

sweat of their

brow, he

the same time have taught them the nature of grain, the

for sowing, how to till the

themselves only
of

earth and to make

bread,

all of which

they

could

have discov
the

by

after protracted experience and reflection.

According
Agriculture

to

History,

Ancient inhabitants

Greece, having lost

the use of wheat

by

I know
of

not what accident,

for

long

time lived

off acorns and wild

fruit before the Knowledge

was restored

among them. Yet the first child of Adam tilled the earth, from which it appears that this Art was As for Fire, the ancient already well known and hence that iron was also already in use. Greeks regarded its invention as so remarkable that they imagined a Prometheus to bring it down from Heaven. It is said about the inhabitants of the Canary Islands, of the Phillipines.
and of

the Island off China called los

the arrival of the

Spaniards;

and

Jardenas, that they had no knowledge of Fire at all before they had remained thus ignorant for perhaps several centuries

Roussseau's Pure State of Nature

feint.42

49
must not

The

question of whether
of

Noah's descendants
and
arts
"relapse"

have

preserved not arise.

some

memory

their

former language
their

therefore does

However, precisely because

particularly striking that
nsture, but

is

such a transparent

feint, it is
stste of

Roussesu hss them

relspse not

into

"pure"

into

living

in

fsmilies,
or

and

possessing "domestic from the

of men

languages"

from

the first (pp. 260, 272). At the same time, since this lapse

or relapse presum

ably has does not

all mankind

begin

begin

anew

same primitive

state, it
"pure"

answer the question about

how troops

in

presumably
"perfected"

state of nature could

have lived for

centuries on end

in

contact with

human beings
of their open

acquired language or developed any That may well be the reason why Rousseau leaves the possibility that his experiment will not prove orangs to be humans in

and yet not themselves

faculties."

have

"virtual

the pure state of nature.

2.2.2

But let

us

set

all

such

speculations
prove

aside,
to

and

assume

that after

necessarily
strictly
words,

prolonged

inquiries, they do

be human beings in the

sense, that,
to the

biological, and only in the strictly biological they do, indeed, prove to be human beings prior
"virtual
arts and
faculties,"

in

other of

development
and of

any

of their

prior

to the acquisition

of

language,
leave

any

other

skills,

conventions; the experiment

would still

unanswered

the question which Rousseau had challenged the Aristotles and Plinys of the
age

to resolve: "What experiments

natural

would

be necessary in

order to come

to

know
within

man; and

by

what

means can

these experiments be performed

society?"

(p.

130).

remove

both

parents and

For the mating experiment would offspring from the "pure state of
recover

immediately
and plunge

nature"

together without
their mind to

it

or

being able to by chance.

chapter

the use of something so necessary, either

See

Georg

Hornius

[1620-

1670], De

by putting Originfibus] gentjium]

Americanfis] Book I,
for
a

8,

and

long

time

did

not

know the

use of

Book II, Chapter 9. There have also been nations which Iron although iron mines existed in their own country. It

therefore has to be recognized that Divine Providence early taught the

necessities of

first Men these

and other

Life. So that if

long

afterwards

of these things was

lost,

this is due either

found among whom the use of some to the fact that an arid land fell to their lot; or to the
were

Peoples

fact that

troop

of

people,

having

been forced

by

the

violence of a

few

ambitious men whom

they

could not

resist, to flee in haste to

some remote and

deprived

of all the

fact that Colonists

ments with

implements they had been accustomed having gone to settle in some remote country
or

utterly desert land, found themselves to use in the place they left; or to the
neglected

to take their

imple

them;

by

some accident

lost them

on

the way, after which it was exceedingly

difficult to

replace them some

because frequent
make

and regular commerce

had

not yet

been

established.

However,
oyster

few have tried to

substances that are

less

well-suited or

up for this loss by using as best they could other to the purposes of Life. Thus several peoples of America
and similar things

use

shells, Animals bones

teeth, reeds,

instead

of

Iron. See Dapper in

his Description of America.

42.
which
sur

The device Rousseau

was

common; again

Pufendorf, Droit,
section

11, 2,
of

iv; Condillac, in
with a

a context

to

refers

in his Second Discourse discussion

the origin of language (p. 53): Essai

I'origine des

connaissances

humaines, Part II,

I, Introduction,

to

Bishop

Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses. As Rousseau

points out

covering reference in the passage cited in

50

Interpretation

them into a state of

highly developed,
enable us

structured social relations and

man,"

culture.43

It

would

therefore not

"to know

natural

and

it

would

leave

as

conjectural as ever the question of

"pure"

how

men might might

in fact have

emerged

from

the

state of

nature, how perfectibility

"moral"

in fact have
originated

come and

how language
naturally, in
man's

and

relations

might

have

into play, developed

and of

short what

is

or was the

"genealogy"

of

the human

heart,44

humanity. Yet

unless or until experiment

these questions are answered, the conjec

tures which the mating

what

is

supposed

to

resolve

necessarily

remain

they
3

were

from the first:

of

conjectures. understands

The test

how Rousseau
of

the

pure state of nature must

be

sought

in his discussion

the

origin of

language,
the

and

hence

of

the origins of
problem of

"moral"

or social relations and

in

particular of
"moral"

family. For the

the origin of language

question origin of

and

that of
or

relations are
language?"

inseparable,

and

the

"which is

first, society language in Part I of the Discourse

In the

frames the discussion

of the

2.3.1

body
that

of

the

text, Rousseau formulates the issue

is to imagine how languages
could

as

follows:
neces

The first
sary;

difficulty

arises

have become

for, Men having

no relationships with one another and no need of any, one or the

cannot conceive the

necessity

possibility

of

this invention if it

was not indis-

the preceding note, been earthbom.

43since

after

the

relapse men are

in

the condition

they

would

have been in if they had

every

progress of

the human Species

removes

it in

even

farther from its

primitive

state,

the more new knowledge we accumulate, the more we deprive ourselves of the means of

acquiring the that we have

most made

important knowledge

of

all, and

sense,

it is

by

dint

of

studying

man

it impossible for
original

us

to know him (p. 129). For it is no light undertaking to

disentangle
curately
will

what

is

from

what

is

artificial

in

man's present

Nature,

and

to know

ac

a state which no

exist, and about

longer exists, which perhaps never did exist, which probably never which it is nevertheless necessary to have exact Notions in order ac
Whoever
might undertake

curately to judge
might of

of our present state.

to ascertain exactly the precau

tions required to make solid observations on this subject would need even more

Philosophy

than

be thought; and a good solution of the following Problem does not seem to me unworthy the Aristotles and the Plinys of our century: What experiments would be needed in order to know
natural

come to
society?

man: and

by

what means can these experiments

be

performed within

Far from undertaking to solve this Problem, I believe that I have meditated upon the Subject sufficiently to dare answer in advance that the greatest Philosophers will not be too good to direct these experiments, nor the most powerful sovereigns to perform them; a collabo
it is scarcely
reasonable

ration which
rather

to expect, especially in conjunction

with

the sustained or

the successive enlightenment and goodwill needed

by

both

parties

in

order to succeed

(pp.
44. 45.

130L).

A Christophe de Beaumont, OC, iv, 936. "The first difficulty that arises is to imagine how languages

could

for,

men

having

no relationships with one another and no need of

"

any

have become necessary; (p. 153); I leave

"
.

to anyone who wishes to undertake

it,

this difficult problem:

of

which was

the more necessary, an

estab

already

united of

society for the institution

(pp. 157L).

Languages,

or

already invented Languages for the

lishment

Society?"

Roussseau's Pure State of Nature

pensable.

51

I would be ready to say, as many others do, that Languages arose in the domestic dealings between Fathers, Mothers and Children: but not only would this fail to meet the objections, it would be to commit the of those who, in fallacy

reasoning

about

the state of Nature carry over into it ideas taken from

assembled
as

Society,
members

always see the

family

in

one and the same

dwelling

and

its

maintaining among themselves

intimate

and as permanent a union as

they do

many common interests unite them; whereas in this primitive state, without Houses or Huts or property of any kind, everyone bedded down at random and often for only a single night; males and females united fortuitously, among us,
where so

according to

chance

encounters, opportunity,

and

desire,

without speech

being

an

especially necessary interpreter of what they had to tell one another; they parted just as readily (XII). The mother at first nursed her Children because of her own need; then, habit having made them dear to her, she nourished them because of theirs; as
soon as

they had

the strength to

forage

on their own,

they left

even

the Mother

(P-

153)-

In

other no

words, Rousseau proceeds

or

on

the premise that men and women

enter

have
of

"physical"

biological
The

need

to live together or to

society human female

with one another.

survival of the species

does

not require
of

into any kind it. The

the male, to

no more needs

the continued company or assistance

she
on

than he needs
provide

hers. In particular,
offsprings
which

is

by

nature

both inclined

and able

for her

entirely

her

own.46

In the Note

he

appends

to this passage,

Rousseau indicates how

conjectural these propositions are.

He

criticizes

that the

human female is indeed

on
"physical"

by

nature

Locke for apparently denying capable of providing for herself and

her

offsprings
of a

favor
In

her own, and for therefore apparently arguing in entirely basis to "conjugal (pp. 221-25). More precisely:
society"

several

Notes to the Discourse Rousseau

"originally,"

explores the

possibility that

ana

tomically,
expect
and effort

or

humans

are

herbivores. It

would seem reasonable

to

"conjugal

among herbivores because they require more time than do carnivores to forage and to feed their offsprings; and hence to

society"

"physical"

expect a offsprings.

basis for

having

both

parents contribute

to the care

of

their the

Yet,

once

again, the comparison between

stress the should

"physical"

man and

other animals

leads Rousseau to
even

difference,
nsture

not

the possible similari

ties

between them:

if humans

"physical"

basis for "conjugal

society"

frees the hands

and permits the mother

be herbivores, there is no by them. For the upright posture among to carry her child with her as she moves
Languages,

46.

See

also the

"Letter to
"

Philopolis,"

in Discourses, Replies,
with

and

op.

cit., p.

237; Rousseau's
authority,

reflection on

this subject
original

are continuous

Hobbes's

reflections on parental and

which conclude:

Dominion
"

over children
belly."

belongs to the Mother,

among

men no

less than

other creatures:

The birth follows the

of

Hobbes's argument, Pufendorf speaks Naturel), in which there is no conception of

rizing

either

De Cive, ix, 3; after summa the purely Natural State (I'Etat purement Droit vi, 2, ii. Sovereign, or Family
"
.

Choderlos de Laclos

elaborates

Rousseau's

reflections

on

the

self-sufficiency

of mothers

in De

V education des femmes,

11. 3.

52
about

Interpretation

for food
more

or shelter; and she can

do

so

by

herself

alone sees

because

she

bears

than a single child at a time. As Rousseau

and

it,

the point at

rarely issue

between himself

Locke

can

therefore be to be

reduced

to the question:

how

frequently
nature?

is the human female

likely

with child

in the

"pure"

state of

good

deal

of

uncertainty

surrounds the principal

fact

which serves as

the

basis for

Mr. Locke's
pure state of new

entire argument:

For in

order to

know whether,

as

he claims, in the
a

Nature the

birth

long

woman is commonly with child again and brings forth too before the former is able to shift for himself, would require experi not

ments which perform.

Locke has surely

performed,

and which no one

is in

a position

to

The

continual cohabitation of

Husband

and

Wife

provides such

direct

occasion to expose oneself to a new

fortuitous
as

encounters or the effects

pregnancy that it is impulsion of temperament

Nature
as

rather

difficult to believe that

alone would
of conjugal

have

produced
.

frequent
223).
"7

in the

pure state of

in that

Society

(p.

Locke
state of

of course
as about

does

not speak

here

or anywhere else
what

about the

"pure is

nature,"

Rousseau has him do. But

in the

present context not

striking "principal
difficult to

most

Rousseau's criticism, is that he does

not prepared to go

deny

Locke's

fact."

He is
(p.

believe"

223).

The issue

could

beyond saying that he finds it "rather conceivably be settled by experi

ments, that is to say

by

fact. Once again,

however, "no
no one

one

is in

a position

to

perform"

these experiments.

The

reason

why

is in

a position to perform put an end to

them is
putative

not

far to

seek: to perform them would

effectively

the

by immediately removing the parties from that plunging them into a state of highly developed, structured social relations and culture. Once again Rousseau very clearly indicates why the pure state of nature cannot be known as a fact given as real. The principal question
pure state of nature

state,

and

most

immediately
has to
that it may

at

issue is
be

whether

the child can

fend for itself

by

the time

the

mother

attend not

to the next one. Locke holds that it cannot. Rousseau

unreasonable

argues

to assume that in the pure state of nature

that in that state childhood

it

could.

He

assumes
or

or conjectures

dependency
as the

would

be

was

less
deal
with

long-lasting

than it is in our experience, and that

nature would soon

with children who cannot

fend for themselves The

proposition that

law

of

Sparta dealt

defective

children

(p.

142).

in the

pure state of nature men and women would

be

or were

so self-sufficient

that

they
of

would not need a

and

therefore did in fact

not

live together in any

on

kind

society, is

frankly

conjectural conclusion

based

frankly

conjectural

premises.

Rousseau tacitly

acknowledges as much

in the Emile:

47. A full discussion of Rousseau's criticism of Locke would have to take account, as Meier does (pp. 350-55), of the discrepancies between Mazel's French translation of the text which Rousseau used and Locke's original (Treatises II, 79, 80); and of the context of Locke's re marks; but in addition, it would also have to take into account Locke's remarks in Treatises 54.

I,

and

Essay

1, 3,

9-12.

Roussseau's Pure State of Nature

children crawl and are weak

53

for

such a

long

time that the the

mother as well as

they

themselves

would

find it difficult to do

without

father's

attachment and

the

cares that are

due to

them.48

Men
united

and women

would, of course, not from the first live

under one

roof,

by

"the
cp.

sweetest sentiments

known to

men,"

conjugal and parental

love

(pp. 173L,

153L).

Such But

highly
the life

structured, sedentary

family

life certainly

is

fact

given as real.
"moral"

reason and

tradition alike suggest that the the savage

peoples not a

family,
was

like

other

aspects of

of

known to us,

preceded simpler

by

other,

simpler ways.

alternative

to

the

stable,

However, it does settled family, is

sustained
"moral"

follow that the only roaming life of

self-

sufficient,
with

their

kind,

solitary individuals without and hence without

(p. 142)

contacts

or

communication

components of

assumes

that before the institution of the

with

family,

men

any kind. Rousseau lived "dispersed among Such

a

animals"

the

few if any incest it is

more

taboos.49

more primitive at

than life in "conjugal

"natural,"

society"

least

one sense of

properly so-called, natural. Yet there is

"moral"

life is certainly and hence in

no reason

to

think of it as devoid of all artificial, conventional, or

contrary: all

elements.

On the
real,"

the

evidence

indicates that,

with respect

to "facts given as the term

and

Rousseau

considered the

family

in this broad

sense of

hence

artifice or convention

to be coeval with human

life,

and

hence to be, in this

sense of

the term,

"natural."50

2.3.2

By

contrast, the

isolated,

self-sufficient, and speechless

beings

of

Part I

of

the Discourse are

of such

perhaps most

accurately

characterized as premises.

On the

premise

beings, it is utterly impossible fact, "the invention

of

to conceive of

how

language
accept
sary.51

could

have

arisen.

Rousseau therefore invites the

language"

that, Once that necessity is granted,

as a matter of

reader simply to did become neces

a new and even greater

difficulty
(p.
154).

arises:

for if Men
more

needed speech

in

order

to learn how to think,

art of speech

they
.

needed even

to know how to think in

seem

order

to find the
maintain

It

would

to

make

sense

to

that the

"invention"

of

language

requires
48. 49.

thought, for

much
p.

the

same reason
p. 430.

that Rousseau's next comment, that

Emile iv, OC iv,

797; Bloom tr.

Cp.

Essay

on

the

peoples wander

Origin of Languages in op cit., p. 255. Before the division of land, and disperse in pastures and forests. Marriage will not be as stable among

them as among us,

where

it is fixed

by

residence, and where the wife

keeps house; they

can there
as

fore
do."

more

readily

change

wives, have several of them, and sometimes mingle

indifferently
.

beasts

Languages, op. Montesquieu, Of the Spirit of Laws, xvm, 13. On early incest, Essay on cit. 11, xiii, 5. op. also note ad p. 272 and Suarez, loc; cit., 50. Consider Discourses, Replies, Languages, op. cit., pp. 260, 262L, 271L, Of the Social
Contract
51.
1,2.
reflections

As did Condillac. He begins his

abandoned
;"

on the origin of

language
"

by imagining

two

infants left

after the

Flood: "As

long

as

the children of whom I

just spoke, lived

about

He says nothing the next paragraph begins: "Once they lived together separately 1, 2. how that change might have come about. Condillac, Essai. op. cit.. Part II, ch. I,

54
even

Interpretation
the greatest to
minds

scarcely likely which it is capable (pp. 154, 157), makes sense. But upon reflection, the best success in perfecting a language proves to be quite irrelevant to the
succeed
minds'

bending their best efforts in bringing language to

for
the

centuries

on

end

are

pitch of perfection of

problem.

The best

minds

do their
"inside"

work

within

the context of an

language; they
problem,
"outside'

work

from

language,
for the

so

to

speak.

existing Rousseau's stated

language from
and

by

contrast,

is to

"invention"

account

of

fully According
assumption

it. That problem, taken strictly, recognizes that it cannot be.

to the
traditional
of

can not

be resolved,
that

Rousseau

view,

the

view

suggests

itself

on

the

ideas"

of at

the

"way
at

which

Rousseau here

initially

accepts,

language is
object
154).52

least

is

singled out and view

first built up of names for the objects of our ideas: an identified at the same time as it is assigned a name (p.
assign

On this
names

it is impossible to

names

or

to account

for

assigning

to "ideas which

have

no sensible object and which could

voice"

therefore not be pointed to

by

gesture or

by

(p.

154).

Such

objects could

be publicly singled out and identified only if they already had a name or if they could be described. On either assumption, the institution of language presup
poses

the existence
was

of

language. This

circle cannot

be broken
contract.

language

instituted

by

common consent or

by

assuming that True, language is

of

by

communal.
of

But any
establish

account of

its beginnings in terms

or,

any lar. For to institution

other practice or

institution

of contract

indeed, is,

the

beginnings

once again, circu a

language is, in effect, to

ex

establish

discourse

and

understanding where,
a

hypothesi,

none existed

community of before. But the

"
.

of such

unanimous some

community agreement must have been

of

presupposes a shared purpose motivated and

this

(p. 155); it

presupposes
sssump-

already existing community

sll mutual

understanding
worth

discourse. The leads to

tion thst
regress

understanding

rests on prior agreements

an

infinite

of such

prior agreements.

It is

noting that the very first time

as a

Rousseau discusses contract, he

new state of affairs comes
of

stresses

its defects

description
of speech

of

how

into being. The very possibility community

more primitive condition.

or,

more or

precisely,

language
some

presupposes a

which cannot

be derived

deduced from
or

prior,

Nor

can speech

be derived
Its

deduced from

some

hypothetically

prior state of utter speechlessness.

presence or absence can

"the

almost

only be taken note of. Rousseau therefore speaks of demonstrated impossibility that Languages could have arisen and

become

established

by

purely human

means"

(p. 157), that

not

is, invented. The

then

formula

suggests the traditional alternative:

if

by human,
successive

by

divine
of

institution.53

Yet Rousseau
"invention"

recognizes

that

the

failures God

his

efforts

to elaborate a the

prove that
52. 53.

satisfactory of language
2.

account of the origin of

language
of

no more or gods

required the

intervention

Compare e.g., Locke's Essay, in, Plato, Cratylus 438c.

Roussseau's Pure State of Nature

(consider
pp.

55

15 if.) than the

object

difficulty

of

explaining the invention

of

fire

or

the
on

arts proves

the truth of the Prometheus story.

Admittedly

the analogy is not

all

fours: the

in raising the

question about the origin of

language is

not

to

inquire into the

origin of some one

among many

possible arts or

conventions,

but to inquire into the

That is
not an

condition of the
or empirical as

historical
that

very possibility of art or convention. inquiry at all. The story of the successive
the inevitable failure the
of read as

efforts to pursue of all

such

inquiry
can

if it

were empirical and of

efforts,

certainly be
of the

the rhetorical equivalent

progress of

correlative"

"objective
language.54

slow,

arduous

the

mind

and

But

read

as

argument, the demonstration that every

to language
or

attempt or

to to
ad

assign an absolute

moral

relations

beginning is inevitably

to

mutual

understanding,

circular,

serves

as

conclusive

reductio

absurdum of

the premise of

wholly isolated,

self-sufficient,

speechless

individ

uals, and so of the pure state of nature as a possible

"fact

real."

given as

3.
of

regressive analysis that takes and confines

"the

savages

known to
plausible

us"

as

its

point

departure

itself to the

realm of at men

least

fact,

cannot go nomadic

beyond the hypothesis that from the first

lived in loose-knit,

families, bands
time, have

or

troops,

and that

[s]ome inarticulate cries, many gestures,

made

and a

few imitative

noises

must, for

long
is,
as

up the

universal

Language, [and]

the addition to the

it, in every
of which

Region,

of a

few

articulated and conventional sounds none

institution

I have already said,

imperfect, and today (p. 173).

In the

easy to explain approximately like those which

too

made

for

particular

languages,
still

crude,

various

Savage Nations

have

Essay
to

on the

"popular"

contrast

Origin of Languages, Rousseau languages (pp. 260**, 272).

regressive analysis proper must recognized what

"domestic"

calls

them

in

Beyond this

limit,

cease,

and extrapolation meant when

takes its place. Buffon very clearly

spoke about

Rousseau

he

the pure

state of

nature, and he very clearly articulated the dif

ference between
alone,
and

a regressive analysis which remains within the realm of

fact
or

one

which,

like Rousseau's,

seeks

to extrapolate to

causes

principles:

What

we see

is

not the

ideal but is he
a

the real state of nature:

is the

savage

living

in
as

deserts
a

a placid animal;

happy
in

human being? For

we will not

assume,

does

Philosopher,
a greater

one of the proudest censors of our

man

humanity, Mr. Rousseau,

that there

is

distance between

pure nature and

elapsed

the savage than between the

of art and of

savage and

ourselves; that the

ages

that

before the invention

to

speech were

far

greater

than the that

centuries needed

perfect signs and

languages;
set aside

because it

seems

to

me

if

one wants

to

reason about

facts,

one

has to
see

54.

"Regarding
on

the natural state and the slow progress of the

human mind,
p. 258n.

the First Part

of

the Discourse

Inequality."

Emile iv, OC iv,

p.

556n., tr.

Bloom,

56

Interpretation

assumptions and adhere to the rule of

Nature
almost

places at our

disposal has been

invoking them only after everything that fully exhausted. Now, we find that by an
from the
most enlightened and

imperceptible

regression one proceeds

polished nations to

less industrious peoples,

and on to others that are cruder

but

still

subject to

Kings

and

laws; from

these crude men to the savages, who are not all

alike, but rather exhibit as many differences as

some

do politically

ordered

peoples; that

form

rather numerous nations subject

to chiefs; that others,

living

in

a smaller

society,

are subject

among them

nevertheless

only to customs; that, finally, the most solitary and independent form families and are subject to their fathers. An Empire, a
two
extremes of

Monarch, a family, a father, these are the limits of Nature; if they extended farther, traversing
all of voice as well as to

society;

they

are also the

would there not

animals

have been
of

found, in

the globe's solitudes, human signs,

males and

deprived

speech, deaf to the

females dispersed, the young abandoned, and so forth? I hold that, short of claiming that the body's constitution was different from what it is today and its maturation much more rapid, it is impossible to maintain that
man can ever

have

existed without
and

forming families,
after

since the children would perish

whereas newborn animals

if they
prove

were not

helped

looked

for

several

years;

need their mother

only for a few months. This physical necessity alone suffices to that the human species could last and multiply only by means of society; that
mothers and

the association of

fathers in tum

with children

is

natural

because it is

necessary.

Now this

union cannot

fail to

produce a mutual and alone suffices

lasting
for

attachment

between the

parents and the child, and this

them to grow accustomed to all the expressions of

most

to gestures, signs, sounds among

sentiment and need; which

themselves, in

a word since

is

also proven

by fact,

the

solitary savages,

like

all other

men, have the use of signs and of speech.

Thus the but

state of pure nature a

is

known state; it is the Savage

children,

living

in the desert,
and

living

in

family, knowing his

understood.55

known

by

them, using speech,

making himself

Rousseau
about

fully

agrees with

Buffon

about

the facts. He disagrees

with

him

how to The

order and

to account for them.

He disagrees

with

him

about

principles.56

3.1

aim

of

the Second Discourse is to ascertain the principles

or

or

causes which

the facts instantiate

in the light is

of which not of a

they

might

be

under

stood. as

In particular, "the
and experiments

nature"

pure state of

kind that is
fact. It is

or can

be
or

fact,
55.

cannot

possibly

confirm

it

as

original

The Carnivorous Animals (1758), in QZuvres philosophiques,

returns

op.

cit., pp. 373b4l

outan and man

-374355;

Buffon

to these

issues in

lengthy

comparison

between the orang

returns

in

which

he

attends most

particularly to the duration

prove

of

infant

dependency
be

among them: Nomenclature des

to the charge,
a matter of

singes

(1767)

op.

cit., pp. 389as6-393b8. Choderlos de Laclos that the pure state

of nature could not

Buffon has failed to des femmes,

56.
ch. 9.
a

arguing that fact: De T education

Buffon

For

parallel

situation,

consider

also

the disagreement between Rousseau

Times'

and

regarding the balance

the

of nature:

the editorial notes, and the

Origin of

Languages,"

Discourses, Replies, Languages, op. cit., p. 270 n. 1 together with discussion in V. Gourevitch, "The First in Rousseau's Essay on in Essays for Richard Kennington, Graduate Faculty Philosophy Jour
137L

nal, 1986, 11:123-46,

pp.

Roussseau's Pure State of Nature

primitive

57
principles.57

in the

sense of
or

being

a principle or set of

Principles

can

only be
mating

conjectured

thought.

That is

one

reason

why,

after

offering the
goes on to

suggestion

for the benefit

will

of the crudest
require reports

observers, Rousseau

say that serious observers from

such men as
modern

from

philosophical
200f.),58

travellers,
such

from the
men

Buffon among others (p. 220, cp. Aristotles and Plinys he had called for

in

other words

earlier.
will

When

say "this believed.

animal

is

man"

and

"that is
law or,

beast,"

they

have to be right. in
Argu

The Discourse is

study in

natural

more

precisely, in

natural

According
either of

to Grotius's influential

distinction,
of

natural right can

be

established

two ways: a priori,

in terms

the causes or, as he says,

Thing;"

"by

drawn from the very Nature of the or a posteriori in terms of the effects or, as he says, "by Reasons taken from something In other appeal it can be established either an appeal to or an words, principles, by by
ments

external."

to

facts.
The former way of reasoning is more subtle or abstracted; the latter more The Proof of the former is by showing the necessary Fitness or Unfitness
popular. of

any
when

Thing,
be

with a reasonable and sociable

Nature. But the Proof

great

by

the

latter is,

we cannot with absolute

Certainty,
which

by

the Law of

Nature,
be any

most civilized,

Nations. For,
Sense.59

an

Probability, very is generally believed to be so by all, or at least the universal Effect requires an universal Cause. And
yet with

conclude that to

there cannot
called

well

other

Cause

assigned

for this

general

Opinion,

than what

is

Common

Grotius himself

proceeds a

posteriori,

by

an appeal

to

what

he here

calls

the

common sense of civilized

57.

nations, that is to say

alerted to

by

an appeal

to effects

or

to

Careful

readers will

have been

formula, "[l]et

us

therefore
"

begin
.

by

setting

aside all the

Rousseau's meaning from the first: the famous (p. 139) echoes the remark, a few
facts."

Edifice setting (p. 134) apparently arbitrary and accidental social relations are found to be intelligible and based on firm foundations. Unfortunately Rousseau's point gets blunted in Meier's translation, which
paragraphs earlier, that after
aside

the

dust

and sand that surrounds the

renders

the first ecarter with entfernen,

but

the second with

beiseite lassen. (Meier, anthropology

pp.

61,

71).

Or like Claude Levi-Strauss, who defines the sciences as the quest for Rousseau's "pure state of
58.

mission of

and of all the

human

nature:"

Natural

man

is

neither prior social

to society, nor outside

outside of which the

it. Our task is

human

to recover

his form,

which

is

immanent to the formulate the

natural
men'

state,

condition

program of

the experiments that 'would be needed

is inconceivable; hence to in order to come to know

be
performed within

and

to

ascertain

'by

what means

these experiments can

society.'

But this

model

that

is Rousseau's

solution

is

eternal and universal.

Tristes Tropiques

(Paris, Plon, 1955), ch. 28 i.f., p. 423; cp. ch. 29 /./. p. 339; tr., J. and D. Weightman (N.Y.: Atheneum, 1974), pp. 392, 316; see, further, Hanns H. Ritter, "Claude Levi-Strauss als Leser in eds. Wolf Lepenies and Hanns H. Ritter, Orte des wilden Denkens (Frankfurt
Rousseaus,"

a/M:
van

Suhrkamp, 1974), pp. 1 13-59; as well as Ton Lemaire, Het Vertoog Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Basisboeken Ambo, 1980), pp. 225-33.

over

de Ongelijkheid

59.

Of the

Right of War
qualification

and

Peace

(1735 tr.),
was added

I, I,

xii.

In the

phrase

"reasonable

and socia

ble

nature,"

"sociable"

the

by

Grotius's translator Barbeyrac.

58

Interpretation

facts. Hobbes, in an important passage which directly echoes Grotius's text, flatly denies that there is a common sense or practice of civilized nations, and he accordingly rejects Grotius's a posteriori in favor of the a priori him,61 Rousseau, like Pufendorf and Locke before fully accepts Hobbes's
criticism of
way.60

Grotius's

"analytic"

a posteriori or

procedure, and

of

tion of a civilized common sense regarding right (pp. 159L ). He

its assump indicates his

Grotius from the very first: the epigraph on the title page of the Discourse, "What is natural has to be investigated not in beings that are drawn from Aris depraved, but in those that are good according to

difference

with

nature,"

totle's discussion

of natural

slavery, is cited
accepts
which

by

Grotius in
and

support of

his

own a

posteriori procedure.

Rousseau
conclusion

Aristotle's

Grotius's premise, but

turns

it

against

the

"synthetically,"

proceeds a priori or

by

it.62 Accordingly he they draw from Arguments drawn from the very Nature
"
. .

of

the

Thing"

as
of

Grotius

characterizes

the a priori way,

derived from the

after

Nature
us

things
all

as

he himself

says

he

will

do

immediately
at

inviting

to set aside

the facts (p. 139),

and as

he
or

says
"
. .

he did do

the end of Part

of

the Discourse (p. 168,

as

Meier,

p.

166);

deduced from the Nature

of

Man

in the Preface he
(p. 131),
1).63

says

that one must proceed in order to estab

lish

natural right p.

and as at the end of

a priori

Part II he

says

he did

proceed

(p. 199, Meier

"

27

Hobbes's

deduction

of natural

right is, in his

60. if any man say, that somewhat is done against the Law of Nature, one proves it hence, because it was done against the generall Agreement of all the most wise, and learned Nations; but this declares not who shall be judge of the wisdom and learning of all Nations Hobbes, De Cive il.i; "But howsoever, an argument for [sic] the Practice of men, that have not sifted to the bottom, and with exact reason weighed the causes, and nature of Commonwealths, and
"

suffer

daily

those miseries, that proceed from the ignorance thereof,

is invalid. For though in

it

all

places of the world, men should

lay

the

foundation
c.

of their

houses
"

on the sand,

could not thence

be inferred, that
science of

so

it

ought

to

be."

Leviathan

xx

[in fine};
the
causes of

politics and can

ethics, that is the

a priori;

the just and the unjust, the

equitable and

inequitable,

be demonstrated

because
table,

we ourselves make

the principles, that

and

is the

justice, namely laws

and covenants,

whereby it is known what the just De Homine x, 5.

are."

the

equitable and

the opposites. the unjust and the inequi

ix; for a searching discussion see J. B. Schneewind, Synthese, 72 (1987); 123-55, esp. pp. 130-38; at best an Argument from what has been, to what should of right be, has no great force 103. "Where there is no property, there is no injustice, Locke, Treatises of Government, 11, viii,
vii, viii,
of

61. Pufendorf, Droit 11, 3,

"Pufendorf 's Place in the

.

Ethics,"

History

is

a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid: for the idea of property being a right to any thing; and the idea to which the name injustice is given, being the invasion or violation of that right; it is evident, that these ideas being thus established, and these names annexed to them, can as certainly know this proposition to be true, as that a triangle has three angles equal to two right
ones."

Locke, Essay of Human Understanding iv, 3, 18; cp. 19, 20, and iv, 4. 7, 8, 9. 62. Grotius, Of the Right of War and Peace (1735 English tr.), 1, I, xii; cp. Of the Social Contract, 1,2. Barbeyrac had traced Grotius's a posteriori way to the procedure Aristotle follows
in
moral

criticisms of

inquiry: in Pufendorf, Droit 11, 3, vii, Grotius's a posteriori method: Essai

pp.

note
/'

1.

Martin Hiibner traces

naturel

the

history

of the

sur

histoire du droit

(2 vols., London

1757. 1758), Vol. 2,

55-82.

proceeds synthetically and begins with natural man[,] I proceed Handschriftlicher Nachlass, in Gesammelte analytically and begin with social (gesittet) Schriften (Berlin: Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1912-1923), Vol. XX, p. 14.
noted:
man."

63. As Kant

"Rousseau

Roussseau'

Pure State of Nature

59
attend

view, flawed because Hobbes had failed to

difference between the

needs and passions of men

i59f.).M

sufficiently carefully to the in the state of nature, and

all of

those of men in the civil state (pp.

Like

his predecessors,
will guard against

Hobbes had

proceeded post own quest

hoc

ergo propter principles:

hoc. Rousseau

doing

so

in his

for the

perceive

meditating on the first and simplest operations of the human Soul, I believe I in it two principles prior to reason It is from the association and combi
. .

nation which our mind

making between these two Principles, without its being necessary to introduce into it that of sociability, that all the rules of natural right seem to me to flow (pp. 132L; Meier, p. 56).
capable of

is

In direct

contrast

to

Grotius,

who

had

said that an a priori account of natural or

right

would establish

reasonable

and

"the necessary Fitness Rousseau sociable

Nature,"

Unfitness

of

any Thing,

with a

asserts

that it

must establish

the

fitness

or unfitness of

things with a nature that

is

not

or, that, for the

reasons

already clearly
sociable.65

stated

by Hobbes,
to

should not

be

assumed to

be

reasonable or

The
I
of

pure state of nature

which

he for

all

intents

and purposes of

devotes Part
principles:

the Discourse may be looked upon as his statement

or natural
natural

his

self-sufficiency
virtue
of

freedom,
of
short

and

hence
and

moral or political

equality,

by

the

balance

needs

powers

and

of

the concert of

and the natural capacity for convention, restoring a balance between in short "perfectibility". More been needs and powers when it has upset, precisely, Part I of the Discourse may be looked upon as Rousseau's statement self-preservation and

pity, in

"natural goodness";
particular

for

artifice and

and

in

of

his

principles

conjectured

into existence, bodied forth,

and given a

local

habitation

and a name.

These considerations,

which

indicate why,
man without

and

in

what

"moral"

any

easily be expanded, may suffice to pure state of nature, the state of Rousseau's sense, relations, artifice, or convention, is necessarily
could

conjectural.

It is but
that it

one of

the many merits of Meier's edition of the Second Discourse the premises of that

stimulates renewed reflection about

important

and

absorbing text.

64. So, too, Montesquieu, 65. De Cive, I, 1; I, 2.

Of the

Spirit of Laws, I,

2.

Tocqueville's Perspective

Democracy

in America: In

search of

the "new

science of

Wilhelm Hennis
University'

of Freiburg

In

a well-known

passage.

Hannah Arendt defended the thesis that the

oc

cidental and an

tradition of political thought

clear-cut

is

marked

by

clearly datable

beginning
had its
to
a

equally

termination. "Our tradition of

of of

political thought

definite
no

beginning

in the teachings

Plato Karl

and

Aristotle. I believe it This may

well

came

less definite

end

in the theories
(1805-

Marx."1

be

true. But

in Alexis de Tocqueville
properly be

1859), Marx's contemporary

and senior

by

13

years, we see once more a thinker who has that bold thought shared
can called

by

all who

"political thinkers":
or, in
other

Everything
most

depends

upon govern of sciences

ment and upon politics political

science.2

words, the

important

is

Was Tocqueville

political

scientist?

It

seems

to me that this question,

which might appear rather superficial and pedantic, opens a path not more

only to

precise

questions

understanding field.3 basic to the

of

Tocqueville, but

also

to the reactivation

of

That Tocqueville
would not

was not a

scientist; that even had he wished to be one

he

have been

a good one; that

his intentions
work

were

totally

other than
of political

those of a political scientist; and that

rhetoric

his

belongs to the

history

these are judgments to which authorities on

admirers of the great a significant

Introduction"

Frenchman, feel

themselves

Tocqueville, thorough compelled. However, there is

this view. In the "Author's
writes:

line from Tocqueville

to Part I of

which opposes

Democracy
for
monde

in America, Tocqueville

"A

new

political science
politique

is

needed
a
un

a world

itself

new."

quite

("II faut

une science

nouvelle

tout

nouveau.")4

This sentence,

placed

at

1.
2.

Hannah Arendt, Between Past

and

Future (New York: Viking, 1968),

(politics
as the most

p.

17.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics,

upon

1094a

important

and

leading
sketched

science);

Hobbes, De Cive, Preface ("certainly thing depends

ible in the
political 3.

the

most valuable");

Rousseau, Confessions, Book 9 (every

as

the art of

government).

What Friedrich H. Tenbruck has

"Die

Moderne"

Glaubensgeschichte der
succession of

(Zeitschrift fur

Politik, N.F. 23 [1965],

have

pp.

1-15), their

is discern

those sciences in

which recent generations

placed

hopes, from

economy to ecology. With regard to the wealth

of

facets in
46

recent

Tocqueville
59-75-

research, see

Robert Nisbet, J. P

"Many
Mayer
ci

Tocquevilles,"

The American Scholar,

(1976/77),

4.
and

Alexis de

Tocqueville, Democracy in America,

trans.

George Lawrence,

ed.

Max Lemer (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), hereinafter abbreviated tations in parentheses refer either to J. P. Mayer's CEuvres Completes, "edition
Beaumont
edition

as

D.i.A. The
or

definitive"

to the
as

(B). (Users

of

the 1969

paperback edition should note

that translations

differ,

does

the pagination.)

62

Interpretation
point

dramatic
stood
as

in this

highly

dramatic

introduction,5

can

scarcely be

under

author.

anything but an indication of the Should we not read Tocqueville's for

ambition

of

its

highly

ambitious
and

Democracy

in America,

his
I

entire corpus wish

that matter, as an answer to this need?

This is the

question

to answer.
able

To be

to do this,

we

must

first deal

with

three established notions

view of

concerning Tocqueville's
political no scientific

writings

which

would

distort the

his "new

assuming that it exists. The first is the opinion that there is intent underlying Tocqueville's work; that he is a liberal thinker of the first order, but not a scientist. To so characterize him, however, is to fail to
the peculiarity of his scientific purpose and to thereby misunderstand his continuing, timeless significance. The second view is closely linked to the first. He who sees in Tocqueville the liberal thinker in an age of emerging
recognize

science,"

democracy
times,"

and

understands

his book him

on as

America only

as

"tract for the

will

be inclined to
Tocqueville
settled

regard

the great successor of Montesquieu.

successor appears

This

picture of

as

Montesquieu's

to be one of

the most
would

firmly
of

views

in the

research

on

Tocqueville. In contrast, 1
not

like to demonstrate that Montesquieu does

supply the

key

to an

to a

understanding failure to

Tocqueville,
his

and

that to view him within this tradition

leads
one

understand

modernity.

Tocqueville's

actual

teacher, if

is

to be ascribed to

him, is Rousseau. The

and

third obstacle standing

on a problem

in the way
his

of an

understanding

of

Tocqueville is the fixation

that was not even

central to

his,

i.e.,

the tension between freedom

actual

Tocqueville's
uality
shall

problem was that of

equality allegedly freedom and solidarity,

significance

work.

of

individ lies. I

and sociality; and attempt to

it is here that his

for

our own age

establish

these three theses in order then to proceed with a

systematic treatment of at
science."

least the basic ideas

of

Tocqueville's "new

political

I
When
pal
work an

undisputedly
obvious

great author remarks

in the introduction to his

princi

that an era which is quite new demands a new political science, it

ought to
work

be

that this suggestion is to be taken seriously

as a response to

and

that the

itself may be readable seems to be anything but

this challenge. But

such a

obvious.6

Is there any

scientific purpose at all

reading behind

Tocqueville's

work?

Even James Bryce,

could
no

otherwise

full

of

admiration character.

for
In

Tocqueville's book,
5.

longer

recognize

its

scientific

D.I.A.,

p.

6 (O.C

1, p. 5).
suggestion were

6. The first to follow this

Alexis de Tocqueville (Oxford:

Clarendon,

Gesellschaft. Zur

soziologischen pp.

in The Social and Political Though of Jurgen Feldhoff in Die Politik der ega'litarcn Dcmokratic-Analyse bei A. de Tocqueville (Cologne: Wcst-

Jack

Lively

1962)

and

deutscher Verlag, 1968),

ii7ff.

Tocqueville'

Perspective

63
years after

Bryce's words,

written

in 1888, fifty-three

the

appearance

of

the

first

volume of

Democracy

in America: "Let it only be

remembered

that, in

spite of
science

its
.

scientific
"
.

form, it is really
as a work of again no

a work of art quite as much as a work of

And

even more pointedly:

"The Democracy in America is

not so

much a political

study George W. Pierson,

research on

edification."7

petty critic, but

comes of

a man who

devoted his

entire

life to
book book's

Tocqueville,

to a similar
and

conclusion.8

Tocqueville's
explain

on

America is allegedly full

acclaim
a

defects,

Pierson
of

can

only

the the

enduring fact that Tocqueville was

dubious honor,
the classic.
as

rank and

by

the personality
one of

its

author and

by

sociologist,

the first in France. This is a

and errors

it

results

from

identifying

nothing but defects

in

It is to Otto Vossler that

we owe

the most thorough and informative attempt

to prove the unscientific character of Tocqueville's work. His

Tocqueville is
contends

again a

testimonial of love and

admiration and

for its

object.9

1973 book on Yet he

that whoever

literary
a

work

is

on

scholarly purpose the wrong track. Tocqueville is

looks for

intent in Tocqueville's

for his
edge

Frenchman writing for France, for political education and therewith a better future countrymen. He aims for a political effect and is not seeking pure knowl
for knowledge's
and success.

sake.

He is

not

interested in science, but in historian

nor as

practical political as

utility
such

He

writes neither as

sociologist, but
and

concerned political educator and admonisher, as passionate

Frenchman

it is

as

that

both he

and

his

work are

to

be

judged.10

For Vossler, the determinative bar to Tocqueville's book on America being to the first volume: "I scientific lies in a sentence in the "Author's
Introduction"

admit that

saw

in America
...

more

than

America; it
shows

was

the shape of

democracy
or

itself

which

sought

so as at

least to know

what we

have to fear

hope
not

therefrom."11

This

sentence

purportedly

first,

that Tocqueville

did

seek

knowledge for the

practical

sake of

knowledge,
as

second, that he sought knowledge

for its

utility,

and

third, that he

pursued this

knowledge for the

each of

sake of

a particular

object, France. As far

not

Vossler is concerned,

these inten

tions separately,

to mention cumulatively, precludes Tocqueville's work

from
7.

being

scientific.12

James Bryce, "The Predictions

of

Hamilton

Tocqueville,"

and

in Studies in

History

and

Jurisprudence (Oxford: Oxford

University

Press. 1901), Vol.

and

I,

p. 325.

8. George Wilson Pierson, Tocqueville

Beaumont in America (New York: Oxford Univer

sity Press, 1938). 9. Otto Vossler, Alexis de Tocqueville. Freiheit

und

Gleichheit (Frankfurt

a.

M.: Klos

termann,
10.

1973).
pp.

Ibid.,

65, 83.
p.

11.
12.
all"

D.i.A. 1,

12

(O.C. 1, 1

p.

12).

Vossler

never

tires of

testifying

that Tocqueville

is "no

scientific

mind, not a philosopher

not

at

(Vossler,
ously.

pp.

91, 151). The demand for

a new political science

is thus

to be taken seri

64

Interpretation
seeks scientific
must

Now it is certainly true that Tocqueville utility as an intellectual aid to France. But
scientific

knowledge for its

this preclude it

from
In

being
field

in

character?

If I

understand

it

correctly, no one strove

for knowledge
no

for the
of

sake of

knowledge
was

until

the middle of the

own sake

nineteenth century.

knowledge

knowledge for its

the

central

concern, but rather,

it

was always a matter of

the knowledge's meaning, or, in Max Weber's termi

its Wertbeziehung. The meaning could be theoretical, practical or technical. The science politique of Tocqueville still stands squarely in the tradi
nology,
tion
of
political

science

as

practical-philosophical

discipline.13

As

with

everyone own

before him, the knowledge he

sake of correct of

seeks

in this field is
Nor
can

sought not

for its

sake, but for the

action.14

the fact that Tocque

sake of

ville pursues

his study

democracy in

America for the

understanding

France

keep

it

from

being

a scientific contribution to our

Kriiger15

of the era. of science as

Gerhard

has described the

modern

concept

being

defined

by

the attempt to achieve the double emancipation from natural sensu

ous experience and researcher.

from the bonds of the practical community surrounding the In the historical-political sciences, too, there has been no shortage
power of

of attempts more

to supplement the obviously fallible human

universal

judgment

with

precise,

instruments

of measurement and observation.

Outside
is only
minus

the realm

of quantifiable

magnitudes

(with

which

political

science

peripherally cule. But the

concerned), the results to date of these efforts

modern

have been

demand

upon

the researcher that

he radically
political

abstract

himself from the

know,"

"prejudices"

community has triumphantly prevailed. Oriented to the standard of theoretical science, "It must in Kriiger's words, "in order to know, and not for the purpose of

and value standards of

his

leading
ever,

a social

Tocqueville. But
and

understanding of science is entirely foreign to justify denying him any scientific intention whatso in the manner of Vossler, no longer thereafter, looking for such an
an can

life."16

Such

this

intention in Tocqueville's

works?

Tocqueville

wants

to become acquainted
even or

with

democracy
as to

in America, to
we,"

subject

it to

scientific
of

examination,

know

what

i.e.,
fear
refer

the French to
a

his time, "have to fear

manner

if only "so hope there

conducted

from."

Hope

and

good, to the

in

which

life is
which

in community for the French.

not

just any

sort of

life in common, but that

and

is

possible

Only

when such

hope

fear

legitimately
or

enter

into scholarly
of

inquiry
13.

can the normative problems of

politics,

if

you

will, the question

addressed.'7

the ends toward which our

lives

are

directed, be appropriately
und praktische

For

Regarding
1977).

this tradition, see

Wilhelm Hennis. Politik

Philosophic

2d ed.

(Stuttgart,
14.

not changed

15.
16.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 109535-6; I I03b27. The purpose of political knowledge is in Machiavelli or Hobbes, either. They only radicalize it. Gerhard Kriiger, Grundfragen der Philosophie (Frankfurt a. M.: Klostermann, 1958). Ibid., p. 183.
Hans Jonas
argues

17.

for

"heuristic

fear"

of

in Das

Prinzip Verantwortung (Frankfurt

a.

M.:

Insel,

1979).

Tocqueville'

Perspective
was

65 To take this fact

reveals more
as

Tocqueville this
unscientific

self-evident.
of

an

indication
our

of

the

character

his findings

about

contemporary

understanding The addressee

of science than about of

Tocqueville.
on
was

Tocqueville's book
it),18

America (his certainly

not

ouvrage

politico-

philosophique, as he always called

munity.

the

scientific

com

It

was

directed toward those

who were responsible

for France's des

that of Plato and
"leaders"

tiny. In

Tocqueville's terminology,
point of

which

is identical

with

the entire tradition, it was directed toward the

"legislators,"

the

of

France. The
also

view, the scholarly perspective in Tocqueville's work, is

of a statesman

that of an

imaginary legislator,

in

search of

the knowledge

he

needs.

This has been

science since

one of the classical scholarly approaches to political Plato's Laws. In the United States Tocqueville seeks and finds
we"

lessons "from
derive
spective

which

and

that means especially the legislators

"can

benefit."

To
and was

ask questions

in this

manner was to take a scientific per

not

merely

an

attempt at popular

education,

which

for the

modem scholar

is apparently the very

to salvage to some

epitome of an unscientific

design.19

If

one seeks

extent
pre-

the scientific

character of

Tocque

and early history of this, classifying it in the too, conflicts with Tocqueville's own understanding of his work. He spoke only very condescendingly of Saint-Simon and his school and of Comte. And what if not his self-understanding as a political scientist could have prompted

ville's work

by

sociology,20

him, in his capacity Politiques, to deliver

any
case provides us
"new"

as an

president

of

the Academie
on

des Sciences Morales

Science"

et

important lecture
a certain

"Politics

as

which

in

with

insight into his

deal

systematic

of the required

science.

will

briefly

with

the contents of this

understanding lec

ture, Tocqueville's only extended statement concerning his idea of political Confronted with the conventional objection that the field of politics
science.2'

is too polymorphous, too

unstable which

to support the foundations of a science,

Tocqueville distinguishes that

politics as a science. elastic.

belongs to the is

art of

statesmanship from

Politics

as a science
grounded

constant:

the art of governing is

Politics

as a science
and

"lies
his

interests, his
times but

capacities

instincts,
suit

whose

in the very essence of man, in his direction changes with the

as

whose

essence

is unchanging, imperishable

his

itself."

species

This
1

science

teaches "which

laws best

the general and enduring

being

of

8. Cf. James T. Schleifer, The Making of University of North Carolina Press, 1980), pp. 83,
19.

Tocqueville'

Democracy in America (Chapel Hill:

165.

This

aspect of

Tocqueville's

scientific

perspective

Drescher in Dilemmas of Democracy: Tocqueville Pittsburgh Press, 1968), pp. 23ff. ("He was always
citizens"

and

is penetratingly analyzed by Seymour Modernization (Pittsburgh: University of

a politician or a potential politician

addressing

other politicians and

p.

25.)
op. cit.

20.
21.

Most forcefully, Jurgen Feldhoff,

CEuvres Completes (Beaumont edition), ix, pp. 1 1 iff. The most important passages are in the collection edited by Albert Salomon, Alexis de Tocqueville. Autoritat und Freiheit (Zurich:

Rascher,

1935),

pp.

138-52.

66

Interpretation
Tocqueville
"greatness"

continues:

The

(grandeur)
if

of

this

science

prevents

many intellects from noticing it. However, palpably emerge,

observer, the

one

were

to observe

"this

significant

attentively, the various elements of which

it is

com

posed would

and one would arrive at a precise conception of

the whole.

For

such an

great writers would no seek

longer

present such a mass

of confusion.

Some,
laws

the very great,

the natural

of the societal

body

and the rights which the

individual exercises,
upon which character

i.e.,
istics

the

laws

which

best

suit the societal structures origins and which

depending
they

they

possessed

from their

acquired.

They

seek

the
are

governmental systems appropriate

according to

situation, place and time.

and

These
to

the great
mention

authors:

Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Montesquieu

illustrious
must one power
names.

Rousseau,

only

some of the most

But, he
science

asks

rhetorically, why

demonstrate the
made

existence of political

in

country
the

where

its

has

itself

manifest on

every hand?

You

deny

existence and so altered

deeds

of political science!

Look

around yourselves!

Who has
return

the

face

of

the modern world that were your grandfather to the

to earth,

he he

would recognize neither once

laws,

the morals, the clothing nor the

which

customs which

knew

short, who

brought

about

scarcely even the language the French Revolution, this most

he

once spoke?

In

momentous event

in

history?

Was it the
great

politicians of the eighteenth century,

the princes, the ministers, the

feudal lords?

Nothing

of

the kind!
were

The
who one

great creators of

this colossal Revolution

had

never

taken part, even

in the

slightest

precisely the men of that time degree, in the affairs of state. Every
new seeds

knows

that political writers, political science and often even the most abstract

science planted grew so

in the

minds of all our

fathers the

from

which

suddenly

many

political

institutions

and statutes unknown

to their

forefathers.

Among

all civilized peoples, political science gives

birth to the

general

ideas,

or at

least lends them their form. From these then later

politicians move and the

arise

the events in

whose midst

the

laws

which

they

think

they

are

inventing.

The barbar

ians

are

the

only

ones

in

whose politics one recognizes

gentlemen, has the task

of

of of

determining
a

its field

only practice. Our Academy, preparing a place for this useful and fruitful science and activity. This is its honor, but also a danger.

It is

the condition of

danger for the very reason that this science could only prosper under freedom. Tocqueville's speech is a subtle treatment of the

decline

of

freedom
one

under the

dictatorship

of

Louis Napoleon.
ahead of myself)

Now if

tal axiom of

knows only (and 1 am getting Tocqueville's political science

and

that

fundamen

only derivative
people,
which

symptomatic,

except

was "that everything in politics is for the ideas and feelings of the
else,"22

embody the causes of everything know that Tocqueville was equally convinced "that
22.

and

if

one

docs

not

political societies are not

pp. 300!'.).

Letter

of

October

26.

1853, in

Salomon,

op. cit., p.

215 (O.C. Beaumont vn,

Tocqueville'

Perspective

67
are

the products of their

laws, but
and

feelings, beliefs, ideas

greatness

habits

of the

from the very beginning determined hearts and minds of their felt
compelled
speech an

by

the

members,"23

then one will not be able to understand why he to this science. But if what he says

to

ascribe such

in his

to the

Academy

is

true,

i.e.,
from

that political science "forms something like

intellectual

atmos

phere around and

every society,

which

the spirits

of

the ruled and the rulers inhale

principles of

which

they

alike, often unconsciously, draw the

understandable

their

behavior,"24

why he attributes such fundamental importance to this science and why he feels himself a part of it. Nevertheless, one might question whether it is really to the point to ask
then
whether

it is

Tocqueville

should

be

read as a political scientist or a sociologist.

Is

not what so.

Tocqueville has to say to us the same in either case? But this is not To read Tocqueville as a sociologist is to pose questions or ascribe ques

tions to him which were not his. We can not

who

really

did

not regard

himself

as a sociologist

by

tions.

On the

other

hand,

we can not receive or

reply from an author him sociological ques posing understand what he may have
get a

had to say to us if we refuse to receive it in the language which he speaks. Everyone knows that in translating a poem from one language to another, much is lost. But how much more must be lost when we are deaf to the questions
expressed

in the idiom

of a particular science
"relevant"

because

we

believe it

will yield use

the correct and, for us, the modem

scientific sense

only

when we

have (to

"reconstructed"

term)
Tocqueville
as all

the texts to conform to our own questions.

a sociologist

To
stand

understand

is to

fundamentally

misunder

him. For

truly
longer
once

political

citizen

is the

central

political

thought, the relationship between man and problem, but for sociological thought it is a

problem which no

exists.25

As

successor

to Machiavelli and

Rousseau,

Tocqueville fights

again private

the

disjunction between the

and

specifically Western struggle against the and the public. He does this in the tradition,
In
a

using the categories,

of classical political science.

letter dated October

26, 1853, Tocqueville

We

complains:

belong

to

another era.

We

are

to a

certain extent antediluvian animals which

museums

might soon

be displayed in

natural

history

to show

how beings

once

looked

that loved

freedom, equality

and

honesty. All

are strange

tastes,

which presuppose

totally different
It is
a

organs on the part of this world's present

inhabitants."

different"

"totally

manner of

thinking

which

distinguishes the
his time
and

political

science of
ours.

Tocqueville from the incipient sociology Not that Tocqueville would automatically be
Letter The
of

of

from that
were

of

understood

if he

to be

23.
24. p.

address

September 17, 1853, in Salomon, op. cit., p. 214 (O.C. Beaumont vi, pp. 226f.). to the Academie des Sciences Morales et Politiques in Salomon, op. cit.,
Siegfried Landshut's Kritik der Soziologie
1969).

144. 25.

This is the basic idea

2d ed.

of

und andere

Schriften

zur

Politik,
26.

(Neuwied: Luchterhand,

See

also

his introduction to Alexis de Tocque

ville:

Das Zeitalter der Gleichheit (Stuttgart: Kroner, See

note 22.

1954)-

68
read as

Interpretation
a
political

scientist; but one bars every possibility of understanding

Tocqueville

when one

is

not prepared to understand

him

as

he himself

wanted
evi

to be understood.

Nothing

in his

work evidences

an affinity,

everything

dences In his
the

decided

enmity, toward the emerging sociological thought of

his time.

entire

work, Tocqueville's concern was nothing but an attempt to prevent

of man

separation

from

citizen.

He

was

not

concerned,

as

his

younger

contemporary, Marx, was, with the elimination of this polarity in a definitive solution to this problem. More realistically than Marx, Tocqueville could only
conceive of

this

problem's

solution

in the

shape

of

egalitarian
was

democratic force

tyranny.

To

prevent

this

form

of solution effort.

to the problem

the

driving
is

behind his
Just
as

passionate

intellectual

access

to an understanding of Tocqueville's thought

obstructed

when we overlook

the fact that he

reflected on

the

problem

of politics

in the

categories of classical political

science, so also

do

we

obstruct our access to politi

him
cal

him the wrong genealogy in the history of thought. Tocqueville himself precipitated this fate in a peculiar way.
when we, as

it were,

give

II
Insofar
as the effectiveness and

brisance
tree

of a political thinker

is concerned,

his

placement

in

particular

family

is

not

matter of

indifference. A
tradition of
same

thinker in the tradition of Plato is more

"exciting"

than one
and of

in the

Aristotle;
in this
composed

and

the

relation of an

Hegel to Kant
passage

Marx to Ricardo is the

one of

regard.

In

often-quoted

from

Tocqueville's letters

during
"There

the time he was working on his second volume on America.

are three
men

he

wrote:

in

whose

each side.

day: Pascal, Montesquieu

and

Rousseau."27

company I find myself for a while Let us leave Pascal to one

Diez del Corral has sympathetically investigated Tocqueville's connection him.28 to That Tocqueville stands in the intellectual tradition of Montesquieu is
a

commonplace

since

Royer-Collard's The Spirit

comparison

of

the first

volume

of

Democracy
disciple
century.
ler,29

in America

with

of the

Laws. Tocqueville is the "faithful

Montesquieu"

of

(Raymond

Aron),
years

the

Montesquieu
identifiable"

of

the

nineteenth

And Rousseau? An influence is "not

within

writes a

Otto Voss
on

who

the space of

few

published

large

monograph

Rousseau
27.
P-

and one on

Tocqueville
on

which

especially
\m.
1

emphasizes

Tocqueville's
op.

Letter to

Kergolay

November 10. 1836; O.C.

p.

418.

In Salomon,

cit.,

19328.

Luis Diez del Corral. La

1965).
op.

mentalidad politico

de Tocqueville

con

especial

referenda

Pascal (Madrid,
29.

Vossler,
close

cit.,

pp.

51,

204.

Although Vossler

emphasizes

with

such

love

of

detail

Tocqueville's cerning the

attachment

to his great-grandfather.

Malesherbes, he
and

mentions
one

not one

word con

friendship

between Malesherbes
man,"

Rousseau. If
have been

accepts

Vossler 's

thesis

concerning Tocqueville, the "family

Rousseau

must

rather close to

him.

Tocqueville'

Perspective

69
with

aristocratic

family

tradition. The same social origins, the same concern

what

freedom,
name erroneous with

the same open and unbiased spirit

and

could

be

easier could

than to

Montesquieu

Tocqueville in the

same

breath? What

be

more

than to place the petty

Tocqueville,

the great gentleman, in a closer

relation

bourgeois from Geneva, the resentful outsider, the patriarch ship of the Revolution, Jean-Jacques? However, I know of no "epistemologicalsociological"

chain of
one.

reasoning that is

more

decisively
and

misleading than this

Certainly, it is fruitful
with

to compare Montesquieu

Tocqueville, especially
forms
of of

regard

to Tocqueville's

theory concerning
man

the new

despotic
to

domination.

Certainly,

the younger

stands

in

sort

succession

the man born 116 years (and what years!) before him. Nor could

thing

our seeing in him a new something similar to what that great man of his own social had achieved. But under what radically changed conditions! They are
against

he have any Montesquieu. Indeed, he wanted to

station worlds with new

accomplish

apart with regard

regard

to their places in

to the experiences which each sought to

fundamentally different societies, and intellectually master. "A

itself
new."

political science

is

needed

for

a world

quite

There

can

be

no

doubt

that this sentence, which the old political

starting point and which contains a judgment of science, is essentially directed toward Montesquieu. In Democ
our a whole series of passages which and continue with classifies as

is

racy in America there is

not

begin

roughly:

"I

am

speaking
which

about

familiar

viewpoints of sense

Montes
positions

quieu not

Tocqueville

indisputable,
of of

common sort of

meriting further Montesquieu is Tocqueville's

elaboration.30

Typical

this

tacit dismissal of
a

examination

honor in the United States,

classic example of a paradigm change.

Montesquieu is

not mentioned at all.

At the
assert,
of
tor."

beginning
and

of

Book 29

of

it

appears to

me, that I have

The Spirit of the Laws is the statement: "I written this work only for the purpose

proving this contention: The spirit of moderation must govern the legisla Tocqueville writes in order to prove a totally different contention, namely,

that equality, absent fortunate countervailing forces such as exist in

could

America,

lead to the degradation

unavoidable

of man.

He

seeks to cultivate

moderation, the
to it

but is
and

not

fond

of

mediocrity of it. The weak, dull souls

democracy. He
which

understanding for reconciles himself

trouble

it

can produce

him,

all

his

maxims of statecraft aim at

nothing

other within

than the repeated the

creation of

centives to stronger spiritual

sensitivity

framework

of

unavoidable moderation.

What he fears is that the

of reach of peoples

citizens of

democracies

"may

in the

end

emotions
refresh

become practically out which do indeed perturb

those great and powerful public

which also make

but

them grow and

them."31

For that

which

but

scorn.
30. 31.

"I have

always considered what

is distilled from Montesquieu, he has nothing is called a mixed government to be

Cf., for

example, D.i.A. I, p. 286 (O.C. I, I p. 326); 11, pp.

p.

608-609

(O.C. 1, 2

p. 257).

D.i.A. 11,

619

(O.C. 1,

2 p. 269).

70
a

Interpretation
And what, if
not

chimera."32

Montesquieu's theory

of

despotism, is

the

target of the

following
in
the
you

proud passage?

The

chief and,

a sense,

centralizing believe that

supreme power

do

so.

necessary in order to succeed in democratic society is to love equality or to make Thus the art of despotism, once so complicated, has been
the only
condition

in

simplified; one

may

almost

say that it has been

"principle."

reduced

to a

principle!.]"

single

According
closes

to

Montesquieu,
as

the

the pernicious motive, of

work on

despotic
in

domination is.
with

we

know, fear (crainte). Tocqueville's

Survey"

democracy
chapter
of

dull "General

that reads

like

tortured exercise

diligence. The
7.

actual conclusion can

be found

at the end of

Book IV.

a continuation of

Book IV,

chapter

6,

which

bears the title "The Sort

Despotism That Democratic Nations Have to

of

Fear."

This,

the actual conclusion

the entire work and, at the same time, of his analysis of

one need not

despotism,

reads

(and I believe that

have learned to

stalk the semantic nightingale

from Leo Strauss to

with
ward

catch the allusion):

"Let us then look forward to the

which

future
and

that

salutary fear (crainte salutaire)

and not

makes

men

keep
sorte

watch

for freedom,
et

to that

flabby

and

idle terror (cette

sink

de

terreur

molle

oisive)

which

makes

men's

hearts

and enervates

them."14

It is

surely

no coincidence that called

in the final

sentence of a work

dealing

with modem

despotism, fear is
In this
times
with

"salutary."

penultimate chapter,

Tocqueville
times.

compares

the dangers of aristocratic that Federalist No.

those of

democratic
is

Naturally, he knew
of

47

states:

"The
of

oracle who

always consulted and cited on this subject separation written

[of the

preservation

liberty,

and

powers] is the

celebrated

Montes

quieu."

But

since

Madison had

these words, the world had changed the same:

completely.

The

endangered

good

remained

freedom
were

and

human

dignity. However, the dangers lurked

nize

elsewhere.

They

equality than in the era of personal rule. remarked: "Other dangers and other needs [than in aristocratic times] face the men of our own day. The political world changes, and we must now seek
age of
new remedies

in the

harder to recog Thus Tocqueville

for

new

ills."35

of

Montesquieu had little to tell Tocqueville concerning either the identification the new evil (the degradation of mankind in individualistic egoism and
propre)
on

amour

or

the

Rousseau,
correctly
strike one

the other

remedy (democratic sharing of responsibility). hand, could tell him much. In all of Tocqueville 1 find
new

not one sentence which would contradict understood.

Rousseau's teachings
are countless of
work.

when these are

On the contrary, there

his lines
all

which

as pasted-in excerpts

from

Jean-Jacques'

For,

differences

32. 33. 34. 35.

D.i A. 1, D.i.A. 11,

D.i A. 11,

p. p.
p.

232

(O.C. 1, (O.C. 1,

p.

262).

654

p. 309).
2 p.

676 (O.C. 1,

335).

D.i.A. 11,

p.

675

(O.C. 1,

2 p. 334).

Tocqueville'

Perspective

71

aside, the latter's writings bear a

mantic soul.

fundamental affinity

with

Tocqueville's

ro

In the fragments for the Ancien Regime, Tocqueville

the ideas and

portrays

the change

in
of

feelings
the

of the

French between the king's

of the elections

relinquishment

absolute power and

beginning
of the

for the Estates-General.

At first

one thinks

only

formation

of

the Estates-General. Thick tomes are

to reconcile the

hastily

filled

with undigested erudition.

One labors

Middle Ages to

the conceptions of the present.

pears completely.

Finally,

the question of the old

Estates-General
one

disap

One discards the

whole mess.

In the beginning,

only

speaks of

how the

regulated. pure

be better balanced, the relationships between classes better Soon, however, one follows, pursues, then frantically chases the idea of democracy. At first, Montesquieu is quoted and explained; in the end one
powers might

speaks

solely

of

Rousseau. He became
36

the

only teacher

of the

Revolution in its

heyday

and will remain such

Thus, I believe
and

that the

key
they

to understanding Tocqueville
relate to the new

his

principles

his

political maxims as as

despotism

is to be found in
Montesquieu may ordering
of

Rousseau insofar is

be found in any have been Tocqueville's mentor as far as the form

can

it

"forerunner."

or real

the

analytic

subjects

concerned.37

Rousseau is Tocqueville's
which

teacher when it comes

freedom.38

to substance,
36.
37.

indeed,

the substance

is

at

issue: human

Quoted in Landshut, Zeitalter, p. George W. Pierson in Tocqueville

to the stylistic

240.
and

Beaumont,

op. cit., p.

769, reduces the influence

of
Montesquieu,"

of

Montesquieu
undertaken

by

similarity of the chapter headings. A rebuttal of this aside Melvin Richter, "The Uses of Theory: Tocqueville's Adaptation of

Pierson is
in

M. Richter, ed., Essays in Theory and History (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970), pp. 74-102. Richter sees Tocqueville as Montesquieu's successor primarily in terms of
method, stances,

in

an adoption of

Montesquieu's
is

analytic

categories.

But the differentiation

of circum

institutions

and morals

not peculiar to

Montesquieu. We find it from Plato

ordering
potential. of a

and

Aristotle

Rousseau, in every political thinker who approaches the of a legislator, i.e., with an eye to purpose and formative
to

polity from the perspective It belongs to the unquestioned

which

tools even

of

Rousseau,
[1968]).

that

is,

the Rousseau of the "maxims of

governmen

Roger D.

Masters
sity

worked out

in The Political

Philosophy
context of

of Rousseau

2d ed.

(Princeton: Princeton Univer

Press,
Richter

1976

places

Tocqueville in the

that style of thought which J. G. A. the

Pocock has

named

"civic

humanism."

Machiavelli, Harrington, Montesquieu,

a great
"pupil"

Scots,

the

Federalist, among
This
connec

many others are assembled by Pocock within tion is too tenuous to make Tocqueville the
38.

"civic community of Montesquieu.

"teacher"

humanism."

The thesis that Rousseau

made:

distinction be
principles

Tocqueville

(popular sovereignty,

naturally requires that one very clear in totally changed circumstances. Rousseau s revolutionary freedom and equality) are now prevailing law. One must live with
was
writes

Tocqueville's

them and make them fruitful. Tocqueville's political world also stood open

for

change.

It

was no

longer

a matter of a

prudential,

practical-philosophical

"science du

legislateur,"

but

rather of actual

tasks and possibilities

order

for the legislator,

and

at whose

disposition the

constitutional and administrative

by

and

large

stood.

How little Montesquieu

ville's time

how

much

Rousseau

signified

for

theoretical mind of

Tocque

in understanding the contemporary world, is underscored by Lorenz von Stein. Von Stein (born in 1815 and thus ten years younger than Tocqueville) wrote in his The History of the Social Movement in France, 1789-1850 (Totowa, N.J.: Bedminster Press. 1964): "Montesquieu

72

Interpretation
deal more closely with the fundamental agreement an agreement not extending to Tocqueville's thinking manner in which Tocqueville sees in the but one course, consisting
cannot and
of

In this essay I between Rousseau

details,
the

of

problem

politics, the future

suffice.

of man

under

the

conditions a of

of equality.

Examples Rousseau

must
and

When
one

one

stumbles almost

across

connection

between

Tocqueville,
naturally
ancien

is

in danger

underestimating the
still under

differences

which

exist

between them:

Rousseau,

the

conditions of while

the

regime,

intellectually

anticipated

the society of equals,

Tocqueville

encountered such a

self-confident and secure

society in full development in America, in its continued existence. Indeed, the belief that a (much

large

state could not exist as a republic

political

less,

democracy)

was one of

the firmest convictions of

theory. Tocqueville saw

before his

eyes

in

America

huge empire,
less

organized

in

republican

whose existence was

endangered

than any of

democratic fashion, the great European monar

and
categories

chies. plains

Further, it is

without exception with

Rousseau's

that

he

ex

this astonishing

state of affairs and sees and understands what

is happen

ing

in America. When he

allows

one,"

writes in summary that America's federal form it to enjoy "the power of a great republic and the security of a small it matches almost word for word a sentence from Rousseau's work on

Poland.39

But
ville

more

basically,
new

which

traditional thinker could have supplied

understand who could

Tocque

with

the categories he needed in order to the world,

the

fundamental itself through

limited

destiny
the

of

i.e., democracy? Or
the
will

have helped him

understand a

country in in
a

which and

of

the people expressed

laws,

public

opinion,

the prejudices of the masses

of modest

a will

by

morals grounded

religiosity

reason all the more powerful?

of of

seemingly Tocqueville's appropriated Rousseau's

demands, but for that

concept

freedom in

describing
itself,"

the republic as defined

by

the "slow and quiet action monarchy,

society

upon

distinguishing

it from

constitutional

in

which

progress."

to

authority "in a sense outside the body social, influences it and forces it "In the United States the motherland's presence is felt every
All the
maxims of

where."40

Rousseau's

political genius

had

aimed at

produc-

merely showed what the old constitution 108). Allan Bloom refers to the "intimate

might

have been,

not what

the

be"

new one was

to

(p.

relation"

between Tocqueville
Texts."

and

Rousseau

a surpris

ing discovery
39.

for him,

as

well.

See his "The

Education, M. Richter,
end

ed.

(Princeton:

in Study of Princeton University Press.

Political

Theory

and

Political

1980),'

pp.

135-37.

by

D.i.A. 1, p. 264 (O.C. 1, 1 p. 300); Rousseau. The Government of Poland xi. toward the in CEuvres Completes, Bibl. de la Pleiade 111. p. 1010, translated with an introduction and notes Willmoore Kendall (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972), p. 72. To be sure, Montesquieu, too,
the possibility of a

saw

federated
I

republic which would

benefit from the intrinsic health

of

(small)

numbers

and, at the same time, thanks to the

federation,

command the advantages of a great repub

lic (The Spirit of the Laws ix,

).

Regarding

this question of utmost

importance to Tocqueville,
patrie se

cf.

Schleifer,
40.

op. cit., pp. pp.

11

2-

18.

D.i.A. 1,

53,

85,

362, (O.C. 1, 1

pp. 56,

95, 412) Via

fait

sentir partout")

Tocqueville's Perspective

73 Tocqueville
quotes

ing

this result.

"It is

just

Hamilton, "the

people

errors."

commonly intend the public good. This often applies to their very Rousseau?41 Who could overlook the fact that Hamilton was quoting
to

According
of

Tocqueville,
means

the society of equals

stands

before the

alternative

the egalitarian, free republic and egalitarian despotism. For the

alternative

individual,
bourgeois.

this

being

citizen

or

subject problem

citoyen

or

Tocqueville sees,

as

Rousseau had, the

moral

in

a world

in

which

equality has
concern

ruptured the ties of

dependence

and

belonging. In every

conceiv

able way, egoism must

be broken, diverted, circumvented,

affairs as well as their own. or to tie these

themselves with

by forcing men to To lay upon men

may be,
and

the bonds of

brotherhood,
of

bonds anew,
central

as the case

to make them legitimate the first

this is Rousseau's

problem, formulated in
concerned with

lines

The Social Contract. And Tocqueville is

most

the

same thing.

Perhaps the

frequently
more than
of

used

word

in Tocqueville's

work

is

"bonds"

the word

(liens). No

did Rousseau does Tocqueville

wish

to extinguish the

individuality
what

the person.
who

However, for
is
threatened

the sake of moral

"individualism"

ity

and

the nobility of the soul, man,

by
society, must

(Tocqueville's term for

Rousseau

called amour propre42) and abandoned

"unfettered"

to his egoistic weakness in the egalitarian, anomie,

be

surrounded

in every

conceivable

way

with

the

bonds

of

brotherhood.

Only
his

the political order which tears the individual out from behind the
ego can secure

walls of

these bonds and continually tighten them.

no more a
of a

Tocqueville is
are,

liberal than is Rousseau. To the

special

extent

that

they
the

they

are

liberals

very

kind. Neither is interested in the

bourgeois liberalism, i.e.,
out

govern of

mental

order

from the

perspective

of

motive of

securing freedom for the individual.

guarantees of

Certainly
its

the individual needs

freedom

and

this

freedom,
order,

too.
and

But this freedom is active,

services are

oriented to the social

claim

and political

constantly laid

to

by

the social and

must

political order

the freedom of the citoyen, not of

the spiritual disposition to
free,"

the

bourgeois. What

be

cultivated

is

freedom,
not upon

the "taste for

man

freedom,"

the "satisfaction
law."

of

being
unites

"dependent

but

upon

God

and the

This freedom

men;

it is

not

the free

dom

of the

individual

who withdraws

into his

own private space.

Tocqueville

shares with

Rousseau

thoroughly
could

pedagogical,

formative

view

of the political problem.

most
magnificent

If Rousseau
written

say that Plato's Republic

Rousseau's

was

the
en

book

on

education,

philosophical

deavor itself
nature,

centered on

nothing

so much as the elevation of man to

possible.

his true

needful

to

him

and

perhaps

As is

well

known, The Social

which

Contract is

presented

in summary form in the Emile,

book

Tocqueville

41. 42.

D.i.A. 1,

p.

139 (O.C. I,

p.

156).
d'

Jean-Claude Lamberti, La Notion

individual isme

chez

Tocqueville (Paris: Presses

uni

versitaires

de France,

1970).

74
must

Interpretation
have known especially well;
second volume of
moral-educational of parallels

to the Emile are particularly evident

in the

Democracy

in

America.43

The in

to an understanding
politics or

probing is tied to something else which is important Tocqueville in the light of Rousseau. If we distinguish
principles and

pedagogy between
presents

maxims, the Emile

is

almost

exclusively

a compendium of

instructions,

of maxims of

the pedagogical art.

Indeed,

the

book

itself thus in its first

sentence:

"This collection

of

reflections and

observations,
on the

without order and almost without cohesion of

The Social
Right"

Contract,
(ou

contrary, bears the subtitle, "or Principles

politique).

Politi

cal

principes

du droit

In the first

sentence of

The Social
civil order of

Contract
of

one reads:

"I

wish

to determine whether there can

be in the

life, any kind

of principle

(regie) for
in the

legitimate

and

incontestable form

government."

Generally
"principles"

then,

one

sees

political

Freedom, Equality, Popular Sovereignty

Rousseau only the man of the the doctrinaire of the larger

Contrat Social. In
tutions."

Germany

this is a tradition extending back to Kant. But The

a planned
would

Social Contract is only a fragment of That never completed work

more

work on

"Political Insti
with much

in any

case

have dealt

than

just

principles.

Even

at

the conclusion of The Social Contract

axioms of constitutional

itself,

Rousseau writes, "After the true

and an attempt

law

are established

has been

made to provide the state with

its foundation
with

(iv,9). That

is,

there is to be a consideration of this

foundation
of

the

help

of

the maxims of the art of governing.

Three-quarters

The Social Contract

rules, but
with

deals its

with

the art of governing

will"

not with principles as general

how to "lend drive

and

to the
and with

body

politic, with what "must be done

for

preservation"

(n,6),

how

one must alter general goals

according to
more

the circumstances in establishing a good state (n.ii). The perspective (what is

fashionably

termed the "theoretical

interest"

[Erkenntnisinteresse] but is

properly called the "need to [Wissensbediirftigkeit] from which the knowledge of political science in Rousseau's sense, beyond the question of universally applicable principles, is sought, is the perspective of the legislator,
and,

know"

in the

course

of

time,

of

the statesman.

His

knowledge,

viewed

as

whole, is empirical, substantive and saturated with experience. Like the Greek

cpgovnoig, it is
situation

prudential

from

another.
as much

learned
43.

at

least

able to differentiate one in these matters, Tocqueville could have from Rousseau as from Montesquieu.44
and practical

in character,

Precisely

This is
on

true above all of the third section of

Volume II,

which

treats of the "Influence of

Democracy
44.

Mores
must

Properly

So

Called."

Here I in

let these

suggestions and assertions suffice and "inspiration" the term rigidified picture of

hope

at a

later time

to

be

able

to portray
other

by

depth Tocqueville's Rousseau. Only a completely

greater
Demokratie."

is

perhaps more

fitting

than any

Rousseau,

e.g., that of the theoreti

cians of

"identiidren

could make the reference to their

tionable. (Cf. the convention report

by

relationship appear so ques Jutta Hoffken in Politische Vierteljahrschrift, 21 I1980I, p.

410.)

Tocqueville's Perspective

75

III
Guided

by

deeper levels

of

Tocqueville's relationship to Rousseau we find the path into the his thought. What Rousseau says of himself in anti-Cartesian

fashion, namely that he feels and senses before he thinks, is also true of Tocqueville. He considers men's feelings as more important, more fundamental
to their

life together, than their thinking, i.e., than their rationally considered rights and interests. "1 am he writes in a previously quoted letter dated September 17, 1853, "that political societies are not the products of their
convinced,"

laws, but

ideas,
are

and

from the very habits of the hearts

are

beginning
nature
and

determined

by

the

feelings, beliefs,
Tocqueville's

and minds of

their members, and that these latter

education."45

in turn formed through

through

concerns

do

not originate

in his head; the head is

an organ of

the worrying and

greatness and

hoping

soul.

Like Rousseau, Tocqueville is exclusively in the

accord

convinced

"that the true

of man consists religious

between the

feeling

for freedom
and

sentiment"

and that the question at

issue is "the enlivening

can our

taming
and

soul"

of

the

(ibid.).
problem

If that is so, Tocqueville's true

equality,
as one
reads everywhere.

not

be that

of

freedom

Just

as

epistemological-sociological of

prejudices cause us to see

of

Tocqueville in the tradition

we ascribe of

Montesquieu instead

that of

Rousseau,

so

do

to him a problem which

is in fact the

dominant

real-historical

problem

the nineteenth century and still to some

extent of our century: the power struggle of the third and

bourgeoisie
and

and

proletariat,

or

if

you

will, of
were

fourth estates, liberal freedom and equality, liberalism

the stakes

democracy. Real-historically, these

in the
of

struggle over

education, the

franchise,

power and

taxes. From the side

men

the

bourgeoisie,
situation,

this struggle was reflected in the thought of

from John Stuart Mill to Max bourgeois. His

and

Weber

and

Carl Schmitt. But Tocqueville is

no

his

philosophical

instinct,

and

his bias toward freedom

in the

human dignity,
it.46

permit

him the

same as

distance from the

Rousseau
enjoyed

real-historical conflicts of

the period after the

Revolution

period

Tocqueville
egalitarian
of a new

always saw of

but

one alternative
and weak

preceding for the future:

either an

unfree,

society

disconnected
or

individuals
society
of

under the

domination
free it

despotism,

the free

egalitarian

those who remain

through close

association.

Each

of

these possibilities is

defined

by

equality.

They

differ in the association, the

spiritual and political and

league,

which makes

possible

for

equals

to

preserve their strength

therewith their
of men

freedom.

Democracy,
45
46.

the equality of conditions, furthers the

pp.

danger

succumbing

O.C. [B] vi,

226f.,

in Salomon,

op.

cit., p. 214.

Naturally,
place

this must

be taken

with numerous grains of salt.

Tocqueville the

active politician of

had his

in the

political class conflicts of

his

day

he

always remained a

"defender

prop

(A. Jardin). Michael Hereth convincingly discusses the stale thesis that Tocqueville is the classical author for the opposition of freedom and equality. "Die Gleichheit als Gegner der Frei
erty"

heit?"

in Aus Politik

und

Zeitgeschichte

b 31/80

(August 2, 1980),

pp. 34ff.

76

Interpretation is
no road which

to the amour propre of individualism. There

leading
binds

back to
all men

aristoc

racy,

to a society

founded

upon

an

inequality
idea
of

tightly

together. Even the old, pre-democratic

freedom is finished.

"According
in

to the modern, the

democratic,

and

I dare say

the correct conception of

freedom, every
everything
all

man

has from his birth

onwards an equal and perpetual right

alone,"

which

touches on himself

from

which

it follows "that the

sovereign will can

wills."

only

proceed

"From this

obedience"

point

on,

from the coming together of the decisions of Tocqueville here means person lost its
moral

ally

owed obedience

"has

also

foundation;

and

between the

manly and proud is no middle Thus

men's
and

virtues of

the

citizen and

lowly
other

compliance of

the slave there

ground."47

mutual

detachedness,
men what

the

side

of

equality,

threatens
with

freedom;

Tocqueville's "new

political must

sees

itself faced

the

specific task eration once

"of showing they become

democratic."

they This, Tocqueville

do to

escape

tyranny
in

and

degen
after

wrote

1836

the appearance of the first volume of

general

Democracy

in America

was

the most

idea

with which one could summarize

the meaning of his

book.48

IV
With that
we can

finally

turn our attention to the task of representing, at

science."

least in outline, Tocqueville's "new

more

political

Tocqueville,
for the

and still

the Tocqueville literature (to which we owe so much

understand

ing

of the

man), make this difficult.

Tocqueville, like every

to reconcile

political philoso

pher,

wrote with a purpose:

he

wished

democracy

and

Christianity,
casts them us
reconcile

convinced

"that only freedom (I mean,

can pull men out of

moderate and

regular) and religion, in a

joint effort,
soon

the

swamp into
missing."49

which

democracy
wants to

as

one of these

supports

is

He

also

the

men of

his

own class

to

democracy,
call

from this
talk of
so

purpose.

Why

he does nothing which could detract Rousseau the forefather of the revolution, why
and of

fraternity,
and

when

this third concept of the

besmirched? But the linkage in the noXig, that

of 1836 on

revolutionary trinity has been freedom, equality and fraternity concerns

Rousseau,

it is fraternity, the
points

equivalent of the

friendship

which supports

harmony
47.

to those central
social et politique

ideas from

which

something
1789"

From the essay

op. cit., pp. of one person

"L'Etat

de la France

avant el
and

depuis

(in

Landshut,
dination

141L).

The

strict rejection of all personal

domination

thus of the subor

concept of

to another in the new state of affairs (the core of

Rousseau's
as with

freedom)

appears to me to

be Rousseau's

most

important legacy. And just

"

Rousseau, it is

all the more crucial that those consequently abandoned to individual isolation (Vereinzelung) be joined together through intensive "social contracting That is the fundamental idea, common to Rousseau and Tocqueville, of the "science politique The new science of associations is
nouvelle."

only its
48. 49.

most

important

subdiscipline.

Letter to Kergolay, December 26, Letter of December 1, 1859 (O.C.

1836

(O.C. \m,

1 p. 431)

Salomon,

op. cit., p.

193.

[B]

vii. p. 295).

Salomon,

op. cit., p.

213.

Tocqueville's Perspective
like
"system"

77
science"

of

his "new

political
"Rousseauan,"

can

be inferred. In

sentences

which, once again, sound

a

very

the elderly Tocqueville

wrote

to

friend in
You
can

1856:

hardly imagine,
and time.

honorable lady, how feel

as

painful and terrible outside the

it is for

mc

to live

in this
of

moral

isolation, to

if 1

were

living

my country

Solitude in the desert humanity. For. I

and to

would

be

no

intellectual community more difficult for me than

to you this weakness,

this

isolation in

the midst of

will confess

isolation has live in

of

always

frightened me;

be

happy
able

and even serene,

always

had to

a certain concord with others and to

be

to count upon the

my own kind pecially the line

perhaps more than one can reconcile with wisdom. applies:

understanding To me es

"It is

not good

to be

alone."50

Since Aristotle's definition

characterized

of man as a

being

characterized

by

speech,

i.e.,

way by sociality, munity in order to develop fully as toiov noXirtxov there have been many linkages made between anthropology and politics. They occur in the central
a special and

in

requiring the political com

themes of classical
even

political

philosophy,

of modern rational

natural

law,

and

in the

work of

Marx

at the end of these efforts and

purportedly

super

seding them. None

of

them seems to me to be more valid or more modern in its

than that of Tocqueville.
a primeval

hopelessness"

"hoping
The bitterness
affirms
of

loneliness is

human

experience.

Tocqueville prevalently

this; but he society

radicalizes an experience suffered so much more

in

modem

by

making

this oldest pronouncement of our Judaeo-Chris-

tian conception of human

not

history

the basis of his entire political thought: It is

not

only

oppressive and sad

it is

good,

it

weakens and

destroys

spiritual

strength and the soul of man

if he is

not torn

from behind the

walls of

his

ego

into constant,
which
"naturally"

social

and

brotherly

responsibility.

The broadest

association

in

this can be
on

accomplished of

is the

state.

In aristocracy, this happened

"liens."

account

the historical abundance of social

"artificially."

In the

society itous

of equals

it

must

be

pursued

However,

this

sible on a

basis

which

is in

each

instance

historically
can

given and

is only pos therefore fortu

circum

and contingent.

America

shows

how it

be done, for there the

stances, the

laws,

and

morals, held off an even greater danger of isolation

of the whose

stemming from equality of conditions. It is the task of the legislator, (from whose ideal perspective and for the sake of "leaders of
society"

enlightenment
a given social

Tocqueville's

political science

is pursued) to

utilize all

the ties

in
to

"artificially"

fabric,
of

to

strengthen or

reestablish them when

in

order

promote the
"natural"

bonds

brotherhood. Even society

must

he insists that that

"artificially"

which was

in

aristocratic

be

pursued

equals, Tocqueville is
steps of
50.
p. 224.

not a rational constructionist.

Entirely
To

in the society of within the foot

these ties
op. cit.,

Rousseau, he
of

seeks social ties within the given.

establish

Letter

January

I, 1856, to Madame Swetchine (O.C.

[B]

vn, p. 295).

Salomon,

78

Interpretation
them

and protect

from harm is the

task of the "leaders of

accordance with

just

as

it is
the

the task of the educator to guide the pupil in

circumstances.

his talents

and

If the interpretation
point

of

Tocqueville's
to

political

science

takes as

its starting
mutual
of

the statement, "It is

and

not good

be
with

we are past

the relationship of

freedom

equality
aid.

and

are

dealing

human togetherness in
central

dependency
which

and

Here lies Tocqueville's

even

thought, in the light

everything else,

his doctrine

of

the new
on

despotism, is

explicable.

will

clarify this
aristocratic and

by

volume of

Democracy

referring to the in America.

all men

chapters

individualism in the

second

In

societies,

are

linked to their fellow

a manner of

citizens

above,

below
cent

inside their
another.

order of rank. are

In

speaking,

they

are adja

to one

They
the

therefore almost always

thus often

"closely

tied to some

themselves,"

thing
rarer.

outside on of

and other

democratic ages,
"The bond

hand,

ready "to forget devotion to another human

loosens."

themselves."

In be

being

would

human

affection stretches and

closer

Under the

condi

tions of equality, every class comes

to the others and mixes with them.

another."

Men become indifferent racy formed

and

"at the

same

time,

alien

to one

"Aristoc

of all citizens a

long

chain that reached

from the

peasant

up to the

king; democracy breaks

Thus,
man

the chain and segregates each link unto

itself."

not

their view of their

only does democracy make men forget their ancestors, but it also clouds descendants and isolates them from their contemporaries. Even
on

is forever thrown back

solitude of

himself alone,

and

there

is danger that he may be

shut

up in the

his

own

heart.51

This is despotism's

golden opportunity.

Fearful

by

nature,

it

perceives

in

men's

isolation the
so suits

surest guarantee of

its

own

duration. No

vice of

the human heart

subjects

it

as

does

egotism.

"A despot
not

will

lightly

forgive his
. .

for

not

loving him,
at all

provided

they do

love

one another.

Despotism, dangerous

democracy."52 times, is therefore particularly to be feared in ages of How is one to combat this? "Citizens who are bound to take part in public

affairs

must

turn

from their
than

private

interests

and

occasionally take
of

look

at

themselves."

something
nity's

other

In the

common management of not as

the

commu

affairs,

everyone notices that

"he is

independent

his fellows
his
aid

as

he

used

to suppose and that to get their

must endeavor

help

he

must often offer

to

them."

One

to attract the esteem and affection of those in

whose

midst one must

live.

Those frigid

passions that

keep

hearts

asunder must

then

retreat and

hide

at

the back

of consciousness. afraid of
itself.53

Pride

must

be disguised;

contempt must not

be

seen.

Egotism is

51. 52.
53.

D.i.A. 11, D.i.A. 11, D.i.A. 11,

p. 478
p.

(O.C. 1,

2 p.

106).
109). 2 pp.

481

(O C.

1. 2 p.

pp. 481-82

(O.C. 1,

iio-ii).

Tocqueville'

Perspective
perfected

79
sees

In America, the
was possible

democracy. Tocqueville

that it is possible.

any rate, to combat the democratic isolation which leads morally to the numbing of hearts and politically to despotism. "The Americans have used liberty to combat the individualism bom of equality; and they have
there at
won."

By
gave

preventing the
region

centralization of
political citizens

administration, America's lawgivers

so

every

"its

own

life

that there

should

be

an

infinite

number of occasions should

for the

to act together and so that every

day they
The

feel that they depended

on

on one another.

That

conduc

was wise

Squarely
they

the path cut

which

by Rousseau,

Tocqueville virtually
and

enthuses:

free institutions

the Americans possess

the political rights of which

make such active use

provide a thousand continual reminders to

every

citizen that

he lives in

society.

At
the

every interest

moment

they bring
be is

his

mind

back

to this

idea,

that

it is the

duty

as well as

of men to

useful

to their

fellows.

Having

no particular reason

to

hate

others, since he

neither their slave nor their master, the

is of

American's heart easily

inclines toward benevolence. At first it

necessity

that men attend to the public

interest,

afterward

by

choice.

What had been

calculation

becomes instinct.
habit

By

dint

of

working for the good of his fellow citizens, he in the for serving them [D.i.A. II, p. 484).

end acquires a

and

taste

spreading this inclination are the unifying alliances, sometimes for political purposes but more "which arise in bourgeois life and have no political
great means
of such alliances are

The

"associations,"

the

importantly

those

purpose."

How important

he

seems

for Tocqueville is generally known. It is precisely here that to be continuing Montesquieu's teaching concerning the freedompouvoirs

intermediates. But that is entirely incor different that the reference to Montesquieu totally in Tocqueville's writings. The rather clouds the meaning of intermediate powers of Montesquieu only have their place in monarchy; their

preserving function of the rect; at least the context is

so

"associations"

presence

"forms the
11,4).

essence of the monarchical

form

governm

of

(Spirit of

the

Laws

Mechanically, they

are necessary to prevent the degeneration of

monarchy into despotism. Because Tocqueville's concept of freedom is entirely in different from that of Montesquieu, the task of Tocqueville's
"associations"

preserving freedom, in morally establishing both community and freedom, is totally different. I can not demonstrate here how subtly Tocqueville distances himself from Montesquieu on this point. Tocqueville insinuates that even in
relation

to

aristocratic

society, to

which alone

Montesquieu's teaching applies,

mechanical

Montesquieu

recognized

limitation
quieu no

of power.

only the cruder, These are "easy to

the "less

more

aspects

of

the

comprehend."54

There is in Montes
barriers"

discussion

of

well-known

but

not

less

powerful

of

inclination,
which

morals, religion, provincial prejudice,

an

custom and public

opinion,

ring"

had formed themselves like

D.i.A. 1,
p.

"invisible

around

the old power of

54.

286

(O.C. 1,

1 pp. 326-27).

80
the

Interpretation

state.55

Montesquieu,
thus

child

of

the

Enlightenment, had
actual reason

underestimated of

religion

and

failed to

recognize

the

for the duration

despotic regimes,
same

whose roots

lay

in

religious

feeling

and not

in fear. In the

way he

misperceived

the power of religious and moral restraints

in

con

they hindered despotic degeneration. Tocque is also thoroughly imbued with the teaching concerning observational acuity and the moral spirit of Rousseau. This, as he emphasizes,
stitutional ville's

monarchy,

where

associations

"science

nouvelle"56

of

the

art

of

association

becomes

the

"fundamental
sink

science"

science

mere

in

democracy.57

The individual

would

into ideas
the

impotence
men are

and

debility

and culture

itself

would

be threatened

by

barbarism if
and

did

not avail themselves

constantly
upon

of associations.

"Feelings

renewed, the heart enlarged, and the understanding developed only

action of men one
another."58

by

reciprocal
essence of

These lines

contain

the true

Tocqueville's "political
so, it is
clear

science."

This
atic

being

that the true object of political science, its system

which promote men

center, must be the factors

interaction."

or, as the case may

be,

oppose

"human
modem

What brings

together? What drives them apart? The

answer, already found in the Enlightenment and in Hobbes, is clear: interest. Tocqueville, no less than Rousseau, knew that to move men one must interests.59 appeal to their But as on the one hand the "human inclines
to the

toward the

banal, material and useful, so on the other hand it is "naturally drawn infinite, the spiritual, and the beautiful. Physical needs hold it to the
when

earth, but

these are relaxed, it rises

established men

of on

its

own

accord."60

Lasting ties can only be feelings, which always bind

other.

the basis of
even

ideas,
bind

passions

and

together,

if in hatred toward
only"

one an

When "[n]o longer do

specific

ideas, but interests

"it
would seem

men

together

(democracy's

danger),
dust

that human opinions were no

unable

more than a sort of mental

come

open to the wind on

together and take

shape."6'

When,

as

every side and in France before the

to

February
private

Revolution,
5556.

"restricted

goals and points of view which are

1
p. 327).

taken from

D.i.A. 1, p. 287 (O.C. 1. D.i.A. 11, p. 486 (O.C. 1, Make of Associations in Civil
diaires"

2 p. 1 14).

The

chapter entitled

"OI the Use Which the Americans

Life"

begins

with a clear
"

distancing

from the
of

"

pouvoir s

intermealso

of

the old regime: "Je ne

on

veu.x pas parler

The designation
(his

"science

nouvel

distinguishes his teaching of Montesquieu.

57.

secondares"

"associations

consistent choice of

words) from that

D.i.A. 11,

pp.

488, 494 (O.C. 1,

viewed

pp.

117, 174). Tocqueville's belief in the

power of

associations must

be

in the

context of the manifold associational movements of the time and the

(Buchez, Lacordaire, Lamennais, St. Simon

the thought of his time

has, in
An

the absence

of even a

been

researched at all.

overview

is

provided

by

early socialists). Tocqueville's position within minimally satisfactoiy biography, virtually not Maxime Leroy, Histoire des idees soiiales en

France, Vol. II: De Babeuf a Tocqueville

58.
59.

(Paris. 1962).

D.i.A. 11,

pp.

Classically

stated

60. D.i.A. 11, 61. D.i.A. 11,

p.

486, 487 (O.C. 1, 2 pp. 114, 115). in The Government of Poland, Chapter IX [op 424 (O.C. 1, 2 p. 44).

cit., p. 79).

p. 396

(O.C. 1,

2 p.

15).

Tocqueville'

Perspective

81
place of

life
and

and

its

interests"

progressively take the

the common weal goes

"general views,
revolution

sentiments

ideas,"62

downhill,
of

and

is just

around

the comer. What these lines from the

to the Chamber of

well-known address of

January

I, 1848,
also

Deputies

express

forms the deepest foundation

be bound together in the
interests but feelings
prevent

of

contemporary political concern, Tocqueville's political theory. That men

ideas
and

must not

state

by

views

held in common, that

cement,

and

opinions

form the

social

that only

they

isolation

and the

dissolution

of the chain

this is the persistent theme

of

Tocqueville's truly theoretical work, the America.

of

second volume

Democracy in
beliefs."

With It is easily seen "that no society could prosper without such out ideas in common, there can be no common action; without common action,
there are of course men, but there

is

no societal

body.

So for society to ideas; but

opinions

exist and, even more

the minds of the citizens should always that could never

for society to prosper, it is essential that all be rallied and held together by some leading
them sometimes came to draw

happen

unless each of

his

from the

same source and was

ready to

accept some

beliefs ready

made

[croyanees toutes faites]

Dogmatic acting in
men

convictions are no common with

less indispensable for

fellows."

man's

"living

alone than

for

his

It is

not conscious choice which causes

to adopt most of their views without examining them for themselves

of

"the inflexible laws inflexible de

sa

his

existence compel

him to behave like

that."64

La loi
more

condition

one must search

long

and

hard to find any

decisive

anthropological

declaration in Tocqueville.

Tocqueville's
might

"cogito"

is

diametrically

opposed

to that of Descartes. One

formulate it
the others,

as

follows: "I

am able to

be

a man

like
and

all

accept most things

among men because 1, In the name of freedom

"But,"

human dignity, Tocqueville rehabilitated prejudice. "[A]ny man accepting continues any opinion on trust from another puts his mind in good use of to make Tocqueville. "it is a salutary bondage, which allows him
bondage."

freedom."65

Men

can

not

survive

without

dogmatic beliefs. Their

possession

is desirable; is

and of all

dogmatic beliefs,

regarded

from

scientific perspective, religious

beliefs
which

are

"the

most

purely worldly and There desirable of

a
all."66

"hardly

any human

action

does
His

not result

from

some

conception which men

have

of

God,

of

relations with

the

very general human race, of

are

fellows."

the nature of their soul, and of their duties to their

These ideas
religions

"the

common

spring from

which

all

else

All

which

remain within this realm and

do

not strive
on

to go beyond it "impose a salutary

27, 1848; Landshut,
op. cit., p.

62. Address to the Chamber 63. D.i.A. 11, 65. D.i.A. 11,
66. D.i.A. 11,
p. 398

of

Deputies
p.

January

254.

(O.C. 1, 2
17).

16).

64. Ibid. (O.C. 1,

p.

2 p.

399 (O.C. 1,

2 p.
p.

17).

p. 408

(O.C. 1, 2

27).

82

Interpretation
intellect."

control on

the
contribute

and though

they do

not save men

in the

next

world,

they "greatly
I
shall

to their happiness and

side the
particular

dignity
point

in

this."67

leave to
peoples

one

many

advantages

which

religion

confers

on

democratic America
cal

in

the central

of

comparison

between

and

France is

and

only direct

attention once more

to that central politi

idea

which

almost a

means of socialization.
of

warranty of salvation: the combating of egotism by From Machiavelli via Hobbes, to Rousseau, the relation
patriotism as

the

Christian belief in God to

men

is the

core problem of modern polit

said

ical theory. All three

tried,

Rousseau

of

Hobbes in The Social

prob social

Contract, "to

reunite

the two heads of the

eagle."

This is Tocqueville's
which

lem,

as well, and with

without value.

Rousseau he

can say: which

unity is himself
I

All institutions Tocqueville

"Everything bring man into

it in
a

destroys

contradiction with

worthless."

are

expresses

letter

as

follows:

should

like it if the
of

priests would

tell men more often that they, even as

associations which

Christians,
bound to
mother

belong
in

to one

these great

human

God has doubtless founded individuals

are

order to make visible and palpable those ties

by

which

one another.

These
that

associations are called

peoples, and their

on each and

territory
soul

the

land. I

wish

we might

stamp it entity

deeply
and

every

everyone

belongs first

to this collective
who

only then to

himself.68

Here is der

someone

to see that

God

"doubtless"

actually believes he founded the ties, the

can

look

over

God's in

shoul

great associations which

order

to

make visible and tangible the

liens, by
virtue,

individuals

are

bound
one our

together. There must be no

make of

indifference regarding the

a

motherland; nor
weakens

dare
of

this indifference

spiritless

"which

some

instincts."

noblest

"When
of

a people's

religion

is destroyed, doubt invades the

the

highest faculties
state pares

the

mind and

half

paralyzes all

Such

a skeptical

"inevitably
a

enervates the

soul,

and

people

for

bondage."69

Again

and

relaxing the springs of the will, pre again he states that skepticism in the
world."70

always seemed to

him to be "the

worst evil
are

What
which

one

finds

most scarce

today
and

the passions, genuine

can no

and powerful passions

hold life together

and guide

it. We

longer desire,

no

longer love

and

no

longer hate. Skepticism

of

incapable clumsily

performing

either

humanitarianism completely paralyze us; make good or evil in a grand style; force us to flutter
of which not one attracts

us

around a myriad

petty things,
us.71

us,

powerfully

repels us or

forcibly

arrests

67. D.i.A. 11, pp. 408, 409 (O.C. 1, 2 pp. 27, 28). 68. Letter dated October 20, 1856 (O.C. [B[ vi, p. 347), in Salomon, 69. D.i.A. 11, p. 409 (O.C. 1, 2 p. 28).

op.

cit., pp. 226L

70. Letter dated August 1, 1850 (O.C. [B] vi, p. 154) in Salomon, op. cit., p, 207. Certainly Tocqueville, as a modern man, must have repeatedly had to wrestle with skepticism within himself. Nevertheless, it is a fundamental misunderstanding to think that Tocqueville's way of thinking can

be

reduced

to the formula

of

"skeptical

liberalism"

(thus, R. Leicht in
117), in

Hoffken,

op.

cit., p. 408.

and

Siiddeutsehe Zeitung, July 26/27, 1980). 71. Letter dated August 10, 1841 (O.C. [BI

vi, p

Salomon,

op. cit., pp.

197L

Tocqueville'

Perspective

83

V
Tocqueville has
concern was

always

been
could

regarded as a great

liberal thinker That he,

whose major who

how freedom

be

preserved

in

equality.

was,

if

liberal,

then "a liberal of a new

one of

sort,"

would

be in this

manner misunder

stood,
wrote:

was

Tocqueville's

constant

worries.

On March 22, 1852, he

They
the

are

absolutely

set upon

ascribe passions to me and

love

of

freedom

and

making me a party man, although I am not one. They I only have opinions; or better, I have only one passion human dignity.72

It is hard to
ville's.

see where

the typical liberal aims could ever have been Tocque

He had but

one aim, and

for its

sake

he

sought

to harness politics and

heart."

the political order: "to combat the weaknesses of the human

ness

The

weak

of man

lies in egotism;

spiritual

self-degradation

follows

upon

it. The itself

It is
the

ever-present weakness of men

is intensified

by

their

isolation,
not

the dissolution of the "world

the

liens

of

the old society in the society

of equals.

Therefore,

new"

quite

demands

a new

political

science.

For

the mler, but political

rule, political life together is

what must render our weakness assistance.

precisely for this

sciences.

reason

that political science is the most

important

of all

The diagnosis

of

the new

form

of

despotism has been

regarded as

Tocque

ville's greatest achievement with

in the field

of political science.

this.

However, his
given
undue

accomplishment

One can only agree is obscured, his institutional re

viewed

flections

are

weight,

when

he is

from the

scientific per

spective of our time and political scientist

it is

overlooked of

that Tocqueville
and

in the tradition

Plato

Rousseau

is, precisely here, a a moral historian, or,

if

you

will, an analyst of the order and disorder of the human soul in the age of

democracy.
In
mind,
order we

to make Tocqueville's concerns more understandable to the modem

might

do

well of

to the

elucidate

Tocqueville's

analysis

of

egalitarian

despotism The chy

tism"

with

the

help

categories of

Max Weber.

evil with which

Montesquieu

was still confronted was absolute monar

unrestricted personal

which threatened

to degenerate into

mle, the "despo

the context of

of

Louis XIV

and

his

successor.

Tocqueville

wrote within

any entirely different world: a such as that of both Bonapartes, legitimized itself in
way.

democratic world, in

which even caesaristic

mle,

a plebiscitary-democratic

This democratic
of personal

caesarism no chain

longer bears the

character of personal

mle,

i.e.,
not

loyalty. The
and

is broken, the

new master

is faceless. He is

interesting,
man who

Tocqueville had nothing to say

corrupts
it,"73

about

him. Thus Tocque

ville writes that

"despotism

the man who submits to

am
much
pp.

it

much more

than

the

imposes

and, "I

less interested in the

Salomon,
op.

question

72.
73.

Letter dated March 22, 1837 (O.C. [B] vi, D.i.A. 11, p. 668 (O.C. 1, 2 p. 325).

70L), in

cit., p. 193.

84
who

Interpretation
master

my

is than in the fact

recognition of

of

obedience."74

If

we adopt

Tocqueville's
man"

analytic tools

for the

despotic dangers, the

"strong

is

of no

interest. He is, as Tocqueville said of Napoleon I, a mere accident. Tocqueville's theme is no longer personal domination, but in Max Weber
sense, rationally legitimated domination
which

and

the

specific motives

to submission

are

motives

necessary for it in the age of for submission and obedience to

are reversed.

equality.

In

aristocratic

times, the

a certain extent motives

follow the master; for

submission are

in democratic times, things The

Here the

the controlling theme; domination follows

perantem. character of

submission:

oboedientia

facit

im-

domination is

not

defined

by

the mler,

but

princi

pally, as in

classical

politics,

by

those who obey: either free men or slaves.

Thus, Tocqueville's indifference regarding

Nowhere,
ers of

the

character of

the ruler.

overtly (but remember that he is addressing the "lead society"75), does Tocqueville revert to what he considers an antiquated
at
not

least

theme
seeks cratic

the analysis of contemporary rule from a personal perspective.

He

in

vain

for

a word
word

for the

new sort of oppression which

threatens demo

peoples, a

that would

exactly

express the whole of the conception

"tyranny"

I have formed. Such

and as

old words as cannot

"despotism"

and

do
it.76

not

fit. The thing is new,

find

a word

for it, I

must

try

to define
are

What he describes

souls'

the small

motives

for

submission

in

a system of

domination
provision of

which

legitimizes itself rationally, objectively, through increasing security and social welfare. He never speaks of a personal
"ruler,"

but

rather

of the

"sovereign,"

power"

the

"tutelary
The image
of

or,

most

often, entirely
mild and peace

matter-of-factly, the "central

power."

"regulated,
"it

ful

servitude"

which

he draws is

much more

easily

assimilable with some of the

would not even

outward

forms

of

freedom than

one might

think,

so that

be

impossible for it to build its

Men
console themselves
chosen

nest

in the very

sove

shadow of popular

for

being

under schoolmasters

by thinking
put

that

they have
for he
sees

them themselves. Each individual lets them

not a

the collar on,

which

that the

it is

person, or

a class of persons,

but society itself

holds the

end of

chain.77

Tocqueville become
74. 75.

could not yet and

form

a mental picture of

the extent to
of our

which men

in the both democratic

slaves

technical-scientific civilization
of

time

would

to the conditions
p.

this civilization. The

pampering

of amour

D.i.A. 11,

668 (O.C. 1,
who

2 p. 325).

Concerning

these

might

lies the objective-sociological ity.

76.

and

actually be, Tocqueville is as unclear theoretical dilemma of every political

324).
2 p. 325).

as

Rousseau

was.

Here

theory in

the age of equal

D.i.A. 11,
D.i.A. 11,

p.

77.

pp.

666 (O.C. 1, 2 p. 667-68 (O.C. 1,

Tocqueville'

Perspective

85 from
one's

propre, the encouragement of every sort of emancipation others, has become the guiding maxim nations. We have difficulties conceiving
of

duties to Western
meant

democratic

politics could

in

all

what

Tocqueville

have

by

freedom. Tocqueville's freedom (here, too, in conformity with Rousseau) has nothing to do with freedom from distress, burdens or the circumstances in
which man
matter

may find himself

vis-a-vis nature or
man's

his

own

kind. But rather, it is

of

independence,

of

self-reliance

in

little things.

Rousseau

prepared

the path

is

nevertheless

for him, but Tocqueville. among the theoreticians of politics, the first realistic analyst of that disenchantment of the modern
and

world

cracy.

resulting from rationalism, industry, improved productivity Certainly, and he clearly says so, the concepts of despotism

bureau

and

tyranny
are

do

not

fit. But
and

what

he describes is the
even when

illegitimacy

of relations

which

illegitimate
mate

inhuman

(and

perhaps are made even more

illegiti

because) they find

popular approval.

Here is the

key

to the significance which Tocqueville attaches to morals in

analysis must turn

democracy. Political
tures of obedience.

from the

stmctures of mle to the struc

Thus, he

says again and again

that he is
case not

concerned not with

the mler, but with obedience. Nowhere

in any

explicitly,

although

is Tocqueville concerned with the illumination of rule, certainly implicitly but rather with that illumination which might awaken the souls of citizens. That
is his
souls as actual

in

an

theme, his only theme: How age of equality which has been
man

can

we prevent

the degradation of

for Rousseau, high is

what

in his

the

road or the

low

willed by destiny? For Tocqueville humanity is defined by his freedom. He can choose road. Keeping him from choosing the more comfort

determines the many institutional suggestions and considera tions to be found in Tocqueville. In themselves they are unimportant and dated.78 What is important is that man's sense for the higher things he pre
able path served and that

his sensitivity to

greatness

be

prevented

from

falling

asleep.

Therefore he
Let
us

writes at

the end of his major work, and I quote it again:

with

then

look forward to the future

that

watch and ward

for freedom,

and not with that

salutary fear which makes men keep flabby, idle terror which makes men's

hearts

sink and enervates

them.79

The

political

world

changes, "and

we must now

seek new remedies

for

new

ills."80

This

challenge toward the end of a new political science

of

Democracy

in America is

a response to

the

demand for

in the "Author's

Introduction."

Tocqueville

formulates the theme

78.
material

this science as an appeal to the "legislator":

characteristics of

Naturally,
for his

the institutions and empirical

work.

America furnished him

reflections which

with

the

principal

"classic."

sioned are

fascinating
p. p.

and

And certainly the descriptions and But the "science politique

empirical characteristics.

these occa
philosophic-

nouvelle,"

his basic

political concern, 79.

lies beyond these 676 (O.C. 1,

D.i.A. 11,

2 p. 335). 2 p. 334).

80. D.i.A. 11,

675

(O.C. 1,

86
It

Interpretation
that
a
sovereigns now

would seem

only

seek

to

do

great things with men.

wish

that

they

would

try

little

more

to make

men

great, that

they

should attach

less impor
remember

tance to the work

and more

to the workman, that

they
is

should

constantly

that a
one

nation cannot

long
a

remain great of

if

each man

individually flabby

weak, and that no

has

yet

devised

form
it is

society

or a political combination which can make a and

feeble.81

people energetic when

composed of citizens who are

I believe that I have found

some

what

Tocqueville

was

really

concerned with

in

lines

by

Erhart Kastner (the Greek Kastner).

his

literary
There is

remains, Der Hund in der Sonne ("The

would

They Dog in

are

in the

volume of and

the

Sun")

helped

to give it its peculiar title. I

a wonderful

like to

quote

them:
auxins"

line in Seneca: "Calamitosus

animus

/uturi

deeply

unhappy is the soul that anxiously thinks about the future. How true. He who thinks about the future is not happy. But to think anxiously about the future is human. It is
a

truth of the

first

order and one with which we must

live:

Only
hope

with

the

look toward threshold,

the uncertain, the anxious care, the prospective view, the the

at worry's
man

fear for

the

future

only
the

then

does that
sun.

which

distinguishes
no

begin. Without

thought for the

future is

dog

in the

There is
times.

doubt that the

dog in

the sun

has

received unexpected of peoples

honors in

modern

He has become the

great promise.

The leaders
sun

have

promised

the tormented and untormented the

for

so

long

that

in

some countries at the

he has become the

of

model.

dog Gradually it
for

in the

is

becoming

clear what

lies

bottom

it

a colossal contempt

humanity.*2

Tocqueville

was

not

the

first

who

saw

through

the

new

despotism,

the

degradation

of man

the service of

by having first

modern civilization.

This title belongs to Rousseau. But

of

elevated

this theme

the

dog

in the sun,

modem

servitude, through a comprehensive analysis, to the central theme of political

science

this accomplishment is most certainly Tocqueville's.

81. D.i.A. n, p. 676 (O.C. 1, 2 pp. 334-35). 82. Erhart Kastner, Der Hund in der Sonne (Frankfurt
1975).
P- 5-

a.

M.: Insel, Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch.

An Account

of

Recent

Medieval Islamic
Charles E. University

Scholarship Philosophy

in

Butterworth

of Maryland

Al-Farabi's
(The British

Commentary
with

and

Short Treatise
and

on

Aristotle's De

Interpre-

tatione. Translated

an

Introduction
and

Notes

by

F. W. Zimmermann.

Academy University Press, 1981.

on

Classical
clii

Medieval Logic Texts; London: Oxford

+ 287

pp.:

$145.00.)
Mabadi' Ara'

Al-Farabi
al-Madlna

the Perfect State: Abu Nasr

al-Farabl's

Ahl
and

al-Fadila. A Revised Text with Introduction, Translation, Commentary, by Richard Walzer. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. vii + pp.: $65.00.)

An Introduction to Medieval Islamic Philosophy. bridge: Cambridge

By

Oliver Leaman. (Cam

paper,

University Press,
of

1985. xii

+ 208

pp.:

$12.95.) $16.95.)

Averroes State

and

the Metaphysics
of

Causation.

By Barry

S. Kogan. (Albany:

University
a

New York Press,

1985. xi + 348 pp.: paper,

[Averroes'

Al-Matn
ace

al-Rushdi:

Madkhal li-Qira'ah Jadidah

Corpus: Pref

to

New Reading].
1986.

By

Jamal

al-DIn

al-'AlawT.

(Casablanca: Editions

Toubkal,

245

pp.: paper,

$12.00.)
two translations, one with an

The five books to be discussed here

comprise

ophy;

accompanying one detailed

divisions
what

edition of

the Arabic text; one general account of Islamic philos

Averroes'

analysis

of a

problem

central

to

metaphysical

teaching;
accepted

and one examination of the problems attendant upon

Averroes'

the heretofore
on

of will

writings,

especially his

commentaries

Aristotle. In
and

follows, I

try

to

explain

briefly

what each

book is

about

features. Aware that many readers of Interpretation will identify not be totally familiar with the details of scholarship about medieval Islamic philosophy, I will try to place each book within its scholarly context and draw

its

salient

attention to the
whose work

larger

questions

that surround

it

or

the particular philosopher to

it is

addressed.

al-Farabi (about 870-950) is generally considered to important among the Islamic philosophers. If not the first, that honor going to Abu Yusuf Ya'qub Ibn Ishaq al-Kindl (d. about 866), Farabi is certainly the one who most captured the imagination of his readers by his

Abu Nasr Muhammad

most

be the

subtle

investigations

of all aspects of philosophy.

His

acumen was such

that he

88
came

Interpretation
teacher,"

to be known

within

the Arabic tradition as "the

second

the

first

being

Aristotle.

Thanks to Muhsin Mahdi, Farabi's famous treatises The Philosophy of Plato, The Philosophy of Aristotle and The Attainment of Happiness are now available in English. Another work, his Aphorisms of the Statesman, is avail
,

able

in

fairly

reliable

English translation;

and

part of

his famous Political

Regime has been aptly translated by Fauzi Najjar in the Lerner-Mahdi Source book in Medieval Political Philosophy.
But few
ars
were of

Farabi's

works on

logic have been translated into English. Schol

therefore desirous of
and

having
on

Zimmermann's translation
,

of

Farabi's
desir

Commentary

Short Treatise

Aristotle's De Interpretatione
price of

almost

ous enough to overlook

were reliable.

the extraordinarily high

were

the work, providing it

nor

Their hopes

in

vain.

Neither the translation

the

long

introduction seeking to explain how Farabi may have gathered the ideas ex pressed in these works justifies the price. We are told in the introduction that Farabi
general.

was

anti-Christian,

anti-Muslim,

and

critical

of

Arabic thought

in

Zimmermann

also claims

that Farabi was unduly enamored of Greek

thought and expression though aware of Greek to only a limited

norant of mar and

degree,

ig
he

Syriac,
style.

and without

knowledge

of

the basic features of Arabic gram

calls upon what

To buttress this last point, Zimmermann Farabi's

(pp.
via

takes to be his own superior mastery of Arabic to explain, painstakingly, how

he

would

rewrite

many

of

examples

exxix-exxxvii).

He then

goes on

to revise

Farabi's text in the translation

emendations, omissions,

and additions.

Zimmermann is best
tradition of tion to that

historical accounts, especially Aristotelian commentary. Here, his wide reading

at concern with

at

recounting the
tedious atten

and

detail bear fmit. His historical

history

is

so

pronounced,

however,
its

he deems

a sufficient explanation of an context.

idea to

consist

in

a relation of

genesis and
tate"

Moreover,
of

claiming that he intends to "facili

"anticipate"

the evaluation of philosophical ideas rather than to

an

it

(xi:32-

34), he limits himself to

might

indication

the

sources

known

by

Farabi that
or

have

prompted

Farabi's
general

observations

about

Aristotle's text

to

an

explanation of

how the

Whatever the

merit of such a procedure

historical setting influenced Farabi's thinking. for instructing us about the history
too

of thought prior to

Farabi, it
what

all

frequently

leads Zimmermann to

erroneous

conjectures

about

Farabi himself thinks.

was a

For example, Zimmermann

presumes that since

Farabi

Muslim

living

from the late

ninth

to middle

century he must have considered Islam to be above question and philoso to be universal religion. Unable to make Farabi's discussion of jurispru phy dence (fiqh) and theology (kalam) in Chapter Five of The Enumeration of the
tenth

Sciences

mesh with

that

judgment, Zimmermann
incident to
Farabi's larger

seeks a psychological expla

nation or an otherwise obscure

with cxiv-cxv).

resolve the

difficulty

(see xliii,

n.

Yet

attention to

political

teaching

or reflection

Recent
upon

Scholarship

in Medieval Islamic

Philosophy
would

89 have
allowed

Farabi's

conception of the task of

pitfall. of

philosophy

Zim

mermann

to avoid such a

By far
contempt superior much

the weakest part

the volume is the translation.

Zimmermann's

for Farabi's

style and confidence

that his own grasp of Arabic style

is

lead him to
notes

revise, rather than

translate, Farabi's text. He does

so as

in the

to the
of

introduction

and

to the translation in citing from other

of

texts as

in the

body

the translation. His revisions take the form

expressions to translate the same expression
or

using

number of

different English
the same

Arabic term and,

conversely,

English

to translate a number of
and

different

Arabic terms; omitting inconvenient

means of words and clauses placed

difficult terms;
square

adding to the text

by

in

brackets.
uses

Plentiful

as are

Zimmermann's notes, he rarely

them to explain what

prompts these emendations or what might

justify
as

the

omissions and additions.

He

even

alters

simple

stylistic

devices

such

parallel

constructions

while

ignoring
style.

more complex

constructions,

which are nonetheless unique

to Farabi's

When

prompted

by

some

unspecified

urge,

Zimmermann introduces Most often,

would

Aristotle's

name

into the text

an

as

though Farabi had cited him.

and the sense of

nothing calls for such been better expressed

insertion;
indirect

the sentence

have

by

phrasing.

Finally, Zimmermann
be
resolved

passes over

in

silence major textual problems that might

by

reference to similar

passages elsewhere

in the text

or

Though it
the

hardly

compensates

simply emends them without comment. for the price, the one uncontestable merit

of

book is the list

of variants and of corrected readings

for the Arabic text that

Zimmermann
The
great

appends

to

his

work.

appearance

of

Walzer's
scholars.

edition

and

translation was also a cause for

was

rejoicing among 1970s, its fate had been the Gerhard Endress Walzer

Though it

first

announced

subject of much speculation after

in the early Walzer's death in

colleagues all

1975.

explains

in

footnote that he

and

his

students of

by

did nothing to add to or correct the manuscript completed Walzer before his death except for attempting to fill in the cross-references
and

ing, drawing up

left blank in the original, removing mistakes a bibliography from material

inconsistencies in the
in the

print

cited

footnotes,

and com

piling detailed indexes. However commendable such dedication on their part, it did not suffice to overcome many shortcomings. Walzer holds that the way to understand Farabi is to find the source for his

ideas. The introduction

what authors or

commentary are thus replete with suggestions about texts might have prompted various thoughts by Farabi. His
and

adherence to this type of explanation

is

so

deeply
all

rooted

that

when unable

to

identify

a particular author or

text, Walzer

surmises

the existence

of an author

or text yet unknown mann's exegesis

to

us.

Consequently,

the criticisms made of Zimmer

apply to Walzer's. Once again, the price of the volume is exceedingly high. The

price seems all

90

Interpretation
reader notes

the more unwarranted when the

that the English text is merely a

photocopy

of a typescript with unadjusted margins and the

Arabic text

a pho

tocopy

of a

sometimes so

carelessly copied text written by hand. Moreover, the Arabic text is faint as to be nearly illegible.

Walzer's

learning

was

vast, and he was widely known

for his

careful atten

tion to historical detail. It is apparent,

extend

however,

that his scholarship

did

not as

to political questions. He is so unclear about Farabi's basic

teaching

to mistranslate the title of the work

itself,

the proper title

being

The Principles

of the Opinions of the Inhabitants of the Virtuous

nor even

City
i

and not

The Perfect State

as
of

he

suggests

in the Introduction,
Farabi

p.

"Principles [i.e. essential

features]
nal).

the Views of the Citizens of the Best

State"

(brackets in the

origi

More

importantly,

when

explains

that in addition to the various

cities

opposing the

virtuous

city

rendered

here

by

Walzer

as

"the

excellent

city"

there are "individuals who are weeds within

Walzer translates
cities"

"individuals
55).

who make

up the

common people

in the

various

(pp.

253-

The Arabic is

without

should call to mind similar

sive explanation

ambiguity (min afrctd al-nds nawdhit al-mudun) and terminology in the Political Regime with an exten
no room

that

leaves

for thinking that

"weeds"

(nawdbit)

refers

to "common

people"

(see Kitdb
1964],
,

al-Siydsah al-Madaniyyah, ed.

Najjar [Beirut:

Imprimerie Catholique,

p.

87:5-7

or

The Political Regime, trans. better translation

Najjar, in Lerner-Mahdi Sourcebook, pp. 41-42). As with Zimmermann, then, so with Walzer, we
and explanation of a

await a

very important text by Farabi. In Walzer's case, it is even difficult to be grateful for the edition of the Arabic text. Too many errors have
slipped

into the text. Some

instances

are

surely due to

carelessness,

but

others can

only

be

understood as

of mistaken readings of

the Arabic

manuscripts.

With Leaman's volume, Islamic

philosophy.

we reach

The

errors

the nadir of contemporary scholarship on in English, in the transliteration of Arabic, and

in the rendering of fringements against

wonders

key

philosophical

terms,

not

to

mention are

the grievous in

conventional

scholarly procedure,

how this book

was ever accepted

for

publication.

many that one Since its appearance

so
a

the book has been the subject of several attacks,

myself

including

lengthy

one

by

("On

Oriental The
cerned

Scholarship and Scholarly Society 106 [1986], pp. 725-32).

is divided into two

Conventions,"

Journal of the American

volume

parts of three chapters

each, one

part con

primarily with theoretical philosophy and the other with practical. To introduce his readers to Islamic philosophy, Leaman starts from the arguments
Abu

of

Hamid

al-Ghazal!

(1058-1111)
such

best known for his

as

writings

on

theological
nature of

questions
and

about

issues
and

the creation of the world, the

of particulars.

the soul

its

immortality,
al-Walld

God's knowledge

He
or

then

explains

how

philosophers

like Farabi, Abu 'All

al-Husayn

Ibn Sina

Avicenna (980-1037), Abu

Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Rushd

or

Recent

Scholarship

in Medieval Islamic
and

Philosophy

91

Averroes (1126-1198),
same

Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) discuss these

of a theologian and a

issues.
offers no

Leaman
philosopher none

justification for his inclusion

Jewish

in his introduction to Islamic

philosophy.
no

The

exegesis provides

either, for the basic explanation is in

proceeded

Had Leaman

historically, he

might

way enhanced by their presence. have introduced his reader to the

dialectical unfolding of Islamic philosophy and thereby justified including Ghazali and Maimonides. That is, he might have begun by identifying the
arguments

in Farabi

and

Avicenna that

aroused
upon

the ire of their coreligionists

and then explained

how Ghazali took it

and

himself to defend the faith

philosophers.

by

attacking philosophy would have been able to

especially these two intellectual context,

In that way, he
and yet place

concentrate on the same

all

basic themes

them within their proper

continuous

the while showing

how

debate

was carried on

through time. Then Leaman could have

intro
re

duced Averroes, emphasizing his explicit attempts to refute Ghazali habilitate philosophy or at least to defend its pursuit. At this point, in

and

order

to

justify

the inclusion of Maimonides in

might

what

is ostensibly
a slight

an

introduction to
explain set

Islamic philosophy, Leaman how Maimonides takes his

have

made

digression to

own philosophical

bearings from the issues

on

forth

in this larger debate

and theologians.

and

draws extensively

both the Islamic

philosophers

The

part of

the book devoted to practical philosophy is no more successful.

Leaman begins
are

by

considering the

question of religious ethics and whether

deemed to be

subjective or objective.

In Islamic
context.

philosophy,

they however, the

have been

topic of ethics arises in a

totally different
Farabi's

Leaman

would

better

advised to
or

begin

with

account of

the virtues in The Attainment

of Happiness

in The Political Regime

view.

and

to

explain

how

moral virtue

that

is,

ethics

fits into that larger

modified

He

could

then have examined how that

account

is

by Avicenna,

attacked

by Ghazali,
a

tated

by

Averroes. Instead, he becomes immersed in

eventually rehabili discussion of how ethics

and
approach

is

perceived

in Islamic jurisprudence

and theology.

This

eventually

leads him
themes.

to Maimonides and to religious, but not necessarily philosophical,

Philosophy,"

Leaman's final chapter, "How to Read Islamic

attack on those who engage

is primarily

an

reading namely, Leo Strauss, Ralph Lemer, and myself. For some reason, ophy Leaman does not include that other well-known practitioner of esoteric reading, Muhsin Mahdi, in this
unwarranted
Averroes'

in

what

he terms

"esoteric"

an

of philos

coterie.

His

attack

on

Lemer

consists of

drawing by

an

inference from

a phrase

in the introduction to Lerner's translation

"Republic"
.

of
of puerile

Commentary

on

Plato's
about

Strauss is
Farabi

attacked

means or

countersuggestions

how to

read

on

Plato's Laws
suggestions about

Maimonides'

explain
reveal more about

procedure

in The Guide to the Perplexed,

of what

that

Leaman's inadequate grasp

Strauss is

in

each

92

Interpretation
about

shortcomings in his exegesis. But it is my interpreta Three Short forth in the introduction to my tion of Averroes as set Commentaries (Albany: SUNY Press, 1977) that receives Leaman's most

instance than

any

Averroes'

careful attention.

Since I have
above, I the
will
"esoteric"

responded myself

limit

approach.

essay mentioned here to presenting the basic themes of his critique of Leaman thinks that reading philosophy is "just a

to

his

arguments

in the

review

matter of

looking

at the

arguments, picking out

of

interesting
by

points and

judging
182).
. .

contain"

the strength or otherwise

the reasoning
out what
of

process which

they

(p.

Those
put

who prefer

forward

"seeking dazzling variety

conflict

is hidden in the text

the author and

hermeneutic
religion

techniques"

assume

"that the

between
of

and

err, because they philosophy is of overriding

all

importance to the
within

construction

philosophy"

that

(pp.

182

Islamic philosophy and and 186, emphasis in the

the arguments

original).

Leaman

denies that the

conflict was

commentaries and

in fact terribly important and points to the many expositions on Greek philosophers composed by the Islamic Those familiar
with

philosophers as proof.

these writings

will

recall,

however,
his

that

they
are

serve

to explicate issues central to the conflict between religion and

part of

philosophy.

book

In fact, many of the texts Leaman refers to in the first drawn from those very commentaries and expositions.
It

Kogan's book differs remarkably from Leaman's.

is

well-written,

carefully argued, thoroughly

roes'

researched,

teaching
careful

about causal efficacy.

very thoughtful study of Aver The general exposition is enhanced by the

and

attention use

Kogan

pays

to traditional and modem

scholarship forth in the

and

the

judicious

he

makes of

the Arabic and Latin sources.

3rd and

(Incoherence of the Incoher ence), that is, his famous reply to Ghazali's attack upon the philosophers in the Tahdfut al-Faldsifah (Incoherence of the Philosophers). Kogan focuses upon
al-Tahdfut

The book is primarily 17th Discussions of

concerned with the arguments set

Averroes'

Tahdfut

these two Discussions in order to explain what it means to hold that

produce effects and

(a)

causes

(b)

we can

know they do
(a)
a act

so.

As it is

set

forth here, the

basic

position

implies that
of

causes

by

means of an

agent, (b) have only

their effects,

certain

kinds
to

effects,
and

(c) have

necessary

connection with

(d)

are prior

them,
and

(e)

explain

their effects.

Ghazali's desire to insist

upon

the

divine

character of all causal

Competent

engaging

as

efficacy leads him to deny the preceding. is Kogan's explanation, it is not without prob
rhetorical appeal

lems. The study opens with a general the dispute by placing the argument

for the

significance of

about causal

broader

context

in the

history

of philosophy.

efficacy clearly within its Because he is intent upon follow

ing

the philosophical argument in

Averroes'

book, Kogan
he
concentrates

rejects

the basic
upon

exegetical task as nonphilosophical.

Instead,

his

efforts

Recent

Scholarship
argument

in Medieval Islamic
with

Philosophy

93
procedure

entering into
unfortunate

Ghazali

and

Averroes. That

has the

consequence of

depriving

the reader of a coherent account of the

issue. Moreover, Kogan's insistence upon plunging immediately into intricacies of the extraordinarily complicated problem of causal efficacy the
texts at
without

learning

placing it in a specific why it arises in the first

Averroes'

contextual
place or

setting prevents the reader from how it fits into Ghazali's attack upon
Averroes'

the philosophers and

defense

of them.

In the conclusion, Kogan

constitutes a critique of
Averroes'

emphasizes and

how

response

to

Ghazali leads to
whether

Farabi

Avicenna

as well as of

Ghazali

and

own

teaching
use

about causation.

It is questionable, however,
manner

Averroes does
cenna. against

this book to criticize Farabi in the same

support

as

Avi

Though Kogan brings forth texts to

Ghazali's

original charges

Farabi, he
as

never pauses

to

investigate

whether

those texts reflect Fa

censure of

rabi's position.

Nor does he
of

show

that Averroes

is

as

strong in his

Farabi

he is

Avicenna.
larger analysis, these
criticisms are minor. of a

Still,
plex

given the excellence of the

Kogan has

conducted a thoughtful and

problem, and

probing investigation for this he deserves high praise. is best known for his

highly

com

Jamal Averroes
as

al-Din and

al-'AlawT

publications

of

works

by

Abu Bakr Muhammad Ibn Yahya Ibn al-Sarigh,

or

otherwise

known
trea

Ibn Bajjah

Avempace (d.
on

1138).

In 1983, he brought forth

contained

several

tises

by

Averroes

logic

and

physics

in

manuscript

from the
al-Tlm

Escurial Library. This collection,

al-Tabfi

entitled

Maqdldt ff al-Mantiq

wa

(Treatises

on

Logic

and

Physical Science), The

was published

in Casa

blanca

at

Dar

al-Nashr al-Maghribiyyah.

same year,

two other books

by
Ibn

al-'AlawT appeared,

both

on

Ibn Bajjah. One

was a

detailed

bibliography

of

presentation of several

Bajjah's works, Muallifdt Ibn Bajjah (The Writings of Ibn Bajjah), the other a philosophical treatises by Ibn Bajjah, many of which
never

had

before been

published

Rasail Falsafiyyah li-Abt Bakr Ibn Bajjah

Casablanca
A
year

(Philosophical Treatises of Abu Bakr Ibn Bajjah); both books were published in at Dar al-Nashr al-Maghribiyyah and in Beirut at Dar al-Thaqafah.
Averroes'

later
on

al-'AlawI

brought

out a critical edition of

wa

Middle Com

mentary

Aristotle's De Caelo (Talkhts Kitdb

al-'Alam)

based
the

on the two extant

Arabic

manuscripts

located in the Oxford Bodleian

and

University
of

of

Leiden libraries; this

of

volume was published

in Fez

at

the

Faculty
also

Literature

the

University
in this
related

of

Fez. publishing activity,

al-'Alaw! was

While working
their

engaged

extensive

on

questions

to the way Averroes and other North African

philosophers contemporaneous with

philosophical rhetoric

him discussed
These

philosophical

questions, on
now come

as

it

were.

reflections

have

to

fruition in

truly exciting book that

reconsiders

the whole corpus of

Averroes'

94

Interpretation
as

writings, especially his philosophical writings,

these

have

come

down to

us

in

Arabic.1

writings

taries

new book, al-'AlawI calls into question the way Aristotle have traditionally been divided into Short Commen (Jawdmf). Middle Commentaries (Talklus, pi. Taldklus), and Long

In his

Averroes'

about

Commentaries (Sharh, pi. Shurith, or Tafsir, It is not that al-'Alaw! denies the validity
clature used

pi.

Tafasir).

of such a more

division
and

or the nomen

to denote it.

His

point

is both

limited

broader:

more

limited in that he
and

questions whether certain writings wants

broader in that he

to enlarge the

really fall into this division division to include works like the
1983.

logical be
so

and physical treatises

he

published

in

The latter he

considers to

many instances of Averroes coming back to precise questions first raised in one or another of his commentaries and attempting to resolve doubts that had plagued him in those earlier discussions. This aspect of al-'Alaw!'s argument

is flawless. As he The former corollary that

assigned new

shows

in the book
uses

and as

the treatises themselves amply

demonstrate, Averroes indeed

point

these treatises

for

such a purpose.

is

somewhat more problematic,

writings now considered

especially since it has as a to be commentaries on Aristotle must be

to al-rAlawi, only two groups of works

designations.
the

According

fall into this

category:
on

series of

treatises on logic now identified as the Short

and the

Commentaries Commentary

Aristotle's Logic

treatise

now

identified

as

the

Short title,

on

Aristotle's De Anima. He
on

would give each of

on

these a new
new

namely, Summaries
meant

Logic

and

Summary

The Soul. These

titles are

to indicate in each instance that the

work

is the summary
Averroes'

of a subject,

not of a work or a series of works

by

Aristotle.
treatises on logic
on

Since

al-rAlawI's suggestions about the title of

have direct
"Topics,"

bearing

Averroes'

on

my
"Poetics"

Three Short Commentaries

(Albany: SUNY
of

Aristotle's
a criti

"Rhetoric,"

and

Press,

1977)

cal

Arabic

edition and an and on

English translation

these works,

with notes and an

introduction

my

current efforts to edit and translate all of the treatises

in this collection, I
respect to

would

like to say something Averroes

refers

more about

his

argument.

With

the logical treatises, al-cAlawI

the title:

adduces

three

reasons

for his

proposed

revision of
another

(1)

that

"Summary"

to them

by

the term

in

(2) that none of the old book lists assigns to them the title "Short Commentaries"; and (3) that they differ from his other Short Commentaries in
work;
structure and

intent (p. 50; for the details

and

citations

that

follow,

see

pp.

49-57)-

In the introduction to the Three Short

Commentaries, 1 discussed
and concluded was

the prob
were not

lems

raised

by

points

and 2 at some

length

that

they

decisive (pp.
1
.

5-14).

My

argument

there, in brief,
in Arabic
or

that

Averroes'

reference

The

caveat about

these works
medieval

being

arises

from the fact

that

writings are extant

only in

Hebrew

Latin translations, the

original

many of Averroes Arabic having been

lost for

a number of reasons.

Recent

Scholarship

in Medieval Islamic

Philosophy
direct
the

95
on

to these treatises in the opening lines of

his Short Commentary

Aristotle's
thus
are

Physics
not

was of the nature of an allusion rather than a of

citation and
old

indicative

how he

meant

to name them.

Secondly,

book lists

notoriously inaccurate
questionable.

and can

therefore not be used to determine titles that are

The third
tions.

reason

adduced
on

by

al-cAlaw!

does, however,
other

raise

major ques

These treatises

logic do differ from the

differ in
structure

Short Commentaries in
not organize

structure and each

intent.

They

in that Averroes does

treatise around a particular Aristotelian text.

Instead,

the

first few trea

Porphyry's his discussion length

tises

introduce the

subject of
when

logic in

a manner that calls to mind

organize

Isagoge. In addition,

Averroes does begin to

considered

according to about Farabi He

what might and uses

be

Aristotelian texts, he

speaks at

Farabian

paradigms to explain

the forms

of syllogisms.

invert the traditional Aristotelian order, placing the discussion of sophistry after that of demonstration and before that of dialectic something tantamount to placing On Sophistical Refutations after the Poste rior Analytics and before the Topics. He does something similar in the treatise
even goes so

far

as to

on

the soul

in that he divides the

work

various

faculties

of the soul rather than the three

according to his discussions books or chapters into

of the
which

Aristotle's text is divided.

In the introduction to the treatises
purpose
on

logic, Averroes declares

logical

that

his

"is to

abstract

from every
how

one of the

arts the arguments neces

sary for logical

reason

explaining"

the subject matter. As he understands the subject matter, it

a concept

consists of

identifying
so

is formed

and an assent obtained

and

in the His

arts of

demonstration, dialectic,

sophistry, rhetoric,

poetics.

for

limiting

the scope of his investigation is that:

it is especially necessary to have this extent of the art in order to study the arts that have already been perfected, in the way most of the arts have been in this time of
ours.

He then
to

goes on to observe that:

speak about

the things that

comprise and constitute

these arguments

is

either

for studying the the direction of what is

useless
what

arts that

have already been

performed or

it is useful, but in

more excellent rather

than what

is

more excellent

in this

time of ours
also

is
be

almost

is necessary and to pursue impermissible. (The term "more

"superfluous"

excellent"

here

can

in both instances

understood as

[afdal].)

For al-'AlawT, it is especially significant that Averroes limits himself to speaking about what is necessary for an understanding of the logical arts in
these treatises because he does something very
soul.
similar

in the treatise

on

the

in the latter work, namely, at the end of the he excuses himself for the brevity "The Discussion of At
one point
Taste,"

section entitled of the explana

tion and

says:

96

Interpretation
discussion
of

an exhaustive

these things calls

for

a much more extended

discussion

than

this, but

with respect

to these things our discussion is merely according to what

is

necessary.

If God
a

grants

longer life

and removes

this

distress,

we will speak about

these things in
we

way that is clearer,

these things
is

more

distinct,
be

and more exhaustive.

Yet

what

have

written about

the extent necessary

attained.

for human

perfection and

by

which

the first of the

human

ranks can

Averroes then
this time of treatise:

adds:

"For

anyone able

to

grasp it, this

much

is

a great

deal in
of

Taking

this statement together with the

opening lines

the

our purpose
about

in this discussion is to

establish
as

those arguments of the commentators

the

science of

the soul that we see

in

greatest

conformity

with what

is

explained

in

physical science and most

in

agreement with

Aristotle's

purpose

al-'AlawT

insists that these two

as

works

stand

apart

from the

other

works

by
on

Averroes known

Short Commentaries.

He notes, for example, that Averroes begins the Short Aristotle's Physics
Our

Commentary

by

declaring:

purpose

is to turn to the books

of

Aristotle

and abstract

from them the

scientific

arguments, I mean, the

omit

most reliable

ones, that constitute his

doctrine;

and we will

anything in them taken from the doctrines

of other ancients

besides him.

All

of this

he

cites

as

evidence

that

Averroes has

different

purpose
as

in the Short

treatises on logic

and on

the soul than in the treatises he recognizes

Commentaries

on physical science.
none of

Now I dispute
each of

these citations. Nor do I

other writings

deny

that Averroes begins

clear

the treatises on

Aristotle's
rather

by

making

his intention
al-

to speak about a

book

than a subject matter. that

much

Rather, I differ from

on

'AlawT in that I do
structural

not

attach

importance to these indications

of

differences

and of

intention. In the treatise

logic, it is
of

clear

that

the ultimate goal

arts.

is to

explain

Aristotle's understanding
much

the various logical

Averroes

refers

to Farabi as

to criticize as to praise and

same

does

so

in

order to

clarify
on

particular points of

Aristotle's teaching. The

is true

with

the treatise

the soul.

about commenting upon a particular book or books by Aristotle in these treatises does not appear to me to provide sufficient evidence

Averroes'

silence

of a

different

approach
on

either, for I

note

that in the treatise known as the Middle

Commentary
upon

De Anima he

says even

less

about at

his intention
about

of

commenting
of
without

Aristotle's book. Instead, he

soul and ado.

speaks

length

the importance

studying the human

then begins to discuss Aristotle's book

upon

further

The only indication that he is indeed commenting

Aristotle's

Recent

Scholarship
use of

in Medieval Islamic
"he
said"

Philosophy
beginning

97
from
or

De Anima is his
paraphrases of

(qdl)

at

the

of quotations

Aristotle's
on

arguments.2

Both the treatise

the soul and those on logic differ from the other Short

Commentaries in that Averroes explicitly declares his goal as one of providing what is necessary to understand the subject matter rather than explaining
Aristotle's doctrine. In both

instances,

the

importance

of

the

subject

justifies

this limitation. That same emphasis on subject matter seems to account for the
structural plain

differences

noted above.

He has

no qualms

about

beginning
the

to ex

logic from something like a Porphyrean framework Aristotle's treatises, for he is intent above all on showing is
and on

nor about what

art of

reordering logic

correcting
of

current

misunderstandings of

Aristotle's teaching. That

same

line
of

division
roes'

reasoning explains his inattention to the traditional tripartite Aristotle's De Anima in the treatise of the soul.
with

For these reasons, then, I differ

writings and continue

al-rAlawi about

this

aspect of

Aver

to maintain that the treatise on the soul

Aristotle'

entitled a

Short Commentary
on

on

s s

De Anima

and

is properly the treatises on logic

Short Commentaries

Aristotle'

Logic.
with

Nonetheless, despite
al-'AlawT's on these

this disagreement

book

a major contribution to the

his interpretation, I consider study of Averroes. His emphasis

our attention to two
conviction

formal

characteristics of the treatises

Averroes'

draws

impor

tant minor themes in

teaching, namely, his

and

that the arts

some

have already been

perfected

in his time

his intimation that there is

in his

thing
on

exceptional about
s

his

time. Both themes are present

Commentary

Plato'

Republic

as

well, but their significance

for

Averroes'

broader teach

ing

is

not yet clear.

Perhaps

al-'AlwaT's conjectures about

the date of composi

tion of the different parts of the corpus and the various programs of commen

tary followed by Averroes at various stages in his life that may be, he clearly provides a solid overview of
corpus and makes it possible

are relevant.

However

the Arabic part of the

of

for

scholars with

knowledge

the Hebrew and

suggestions

Latin
about

parts

to investigate

whether

these confirm or

deny

his many

Averroes'

activity

as a commentator of

Aristotle.

2.

This work, incidentally, is

characters

extant

Hebrew

and was not examined

Arabic written in only in Judaeo-Arabic manuscripts by al-'AlawI. The treatises on logic are likewise extant

only in Judaeo-Arabic manuscripts except for my previously cited edition and translation of three of them. His reference to a phrase from the introduction to these treatises (p. 51, n. 6) mistakenly cites the Paris Bibliotheque Nationale manuscript as a source. At this point, however, that manu
script

has

a major

lacuna.

Discussion

This is the first of what, it is hoped, will be several rounds of discussion of Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind.* The editors of Interpreta
tion
welcome

comments

from the

author

as

well

as

from interested

readers
.

generally.

The

editors regret that

Dannhauser
cussion,
one. and

and

compelling Clifford Orwin from contributing to the

that

practical reasons

kept Werner J
of dis

present round

hope

they

will

find it

possible to take part

in

a subsequent

*New York: Simon & Schuster,

1987.

393

pp.: cloth,

$18.95;

paper,

$7.95.

Socratic Reason
The Place
of

and

Lockean Rights
in
a

the

University

Liberal

Democracy

William A. Galston

I
Like Rousseau
awoke

after the

publication

of

the First

Discourse. Allan Bloom

challenged

to find

himself famous. Like Rousseau, he

is in fact the

his

age

at

the

point of

its

greatest and most unexamined pride.

He dared to
most

suggest

that "our

untrammeled tolerance
what an

destmctive

of vices.

And

attack!

By

turns passionate, ruminative, scornful, sorrowful, Bloom

took on

his

subject

in

a manner

utterly

contemptuous of current

fashion,

and

virtually
reviewed

guaranteed to enrage. not enrage.

Remarkably, his book did

respected newspapers and

Instead,

with rare

exceptions, it was

in tones ranging from

respectful

to rapturous in the nation's most

soared more

journals,

and

best-seller lists. The

event
one of

those rare

Closing literary
The
of the

of the American

it quickly Mind is
reveals

to the

than a

top of the book, it is an

deeds that

the

doubts,

the

fears,

and

the

longings

of

its

audience.

reception of

this book deserves an

inquiry

of

its own,

as an

indication

deep foreboding

just beneath the

complacent

surface of

contemporary culture. The Closing of the American Mind has three distinguishable, though inti
strands: a

mately related,
v ewed

detailed description

of modern an

American society,
expla

through the prism of university students;

historical-analytical

nation of the

ills

revealed elements

by

that

description;

and as

finally,

a proposed cure

for

those ills. These

sists, "Concreteness, not

Bloom characteristically in hallmark of philosophy. All inter is the abstractness,

are

linked because, from the

and

esting

generalizations must proceed

richest awareness of what

is to be

explained"

(p.

255).
a

In this respect,
of a

American Mind is

defense

in many others, The Closing of the distinctive conception of teaching, of learn

stmcture

ing,

and of

the

modem

institutional

the university
not

that shelters
so

and sustains these activities.

The book is concrete, It is

an

just objectively,
and

to
ac

speak, but

also subjectively.

intensely

personal

self-revealing

count of one man's

way

of

life. It is not,

as some

have

argued, a

jeremiad; it is

Bloom's Apology.

II
On the level
of

description
not

of

little to say in this essay,

because I

contemporary society I will have relatively am sure Bloom is right but because I do

102

Interpretation
the
requisite evidence and

not possess

to say he is

wrong.

(In

one area,

though, I do
the

have

some evidence,

I feel

constrained

to

remark

that his

account of

alleged

lack

of natural connection

between fathers

and their children

[p. 115]
than the

conforms neither

to my

own experience nor

to my observation of the men of

scope

my generation.) If there is a difficulty, it lies in the accuracy of Bloom's description. He states that his

rather

"sample"

consists

in

stu

the future elite. But he some twenty thirty best universities times speaks as though what he says about these students is true of American

dents

at

the

or

society

as a whole.

Based

on

my

own experiences, which

Americans"

include

lengthy

and

systematic

discussions is

with much

"ordinary
less relativism,
moral

across

the country,

I have

concluded that there

understandings of

much more respect and

for traditional
than might

individual rights, young

this

virtues,

the

family

be

inferred from Bloom is

a sample of

elite students.

not unaware of changes

difficulty,

and

he
at

appears to respond to
and

it

as

follows: Influential
downward. First

comes

gradually filter top dangerous philosophy, then the corruption of the intel
of opinion

begin

the

lectuals,

then the students, political

not

leaders,

and

finally

the general public.

not

Although this thesis is

wholly implausible, it is
arena of a struggle

the whole truth.

who

American society today is the

and

between those

advance,

those who resist, the trends Bloom rightly deplores.

During

the past de
moral rel

cade, in

fact,

there

has been
and

a popular revolt against

the perceived

ativism of the
wide.

elites,

the gap between popular and elite beliefs

so

Of

course

not socially and is capable of resisting what it does not like. In as for worse it is the people who ultimately

it is troubling that politically influential do

very many of those who are likely to be have healthy opinions. But the public
a

is

now

democracy

for better

as well

rule.

Ill

Why
rights of

has the

elite

American

mind

deserted its

founding

convictions

the

man, the Bible

in favor

of an openness

that cannot make moral dis

s

tinctions and eventually undermines all convictions? Bloom

which provides

official

answer,

the plot

line for

much of

his book, is that

relativistic

German

philosophy gradually imposed the sturdy Enlightenment tradition.

But this
of

yoke of alien

thought on what had been a

can

hardly

be the full

answer.

To begin with, the

enormous success
needs

this popularized Nietzscheanism forces us to wonder what

it

gratified

and whether the unsullied

American

mind was

that

is,

why this

Continental victory

occurred.

really Bloom

so well-ordered
suggests

to ask,

two seemingly

contradictory but ultimately reconcilable answers. First, Nietzsche as mediated through Freud interpreted the higher in light of the lower, an approach that
proved

especially

popular

in

democracy
supposed

special

claims, and the good is

"where there is envy to be accessible to

of what makes

(p.

232).

But

Socratic Reason
second,
an

and

Lockean Rights

103
an essential corrective

Americanized Nietzsche
whose

provided

to early

democratic theory,
man

low but

solid

foundation failed

to flatter democratic

sufficiently,

by holding
age

out the

autonomous,
moral,

a source of new values

possibility that everyone could be creative, the very definition of nobility in a transIn short, Nietzsche
as
received

postphilosophic

(p.

144).

in this
us

country simultaneously
all

undermined

the grounds of aristocracy and offered

opportunity being aristocrats. These suggestions, in turn, make me doubt that the story can simply be the victory of foreign corruption over domestic health. It is more nearly adequate
the
of

to say that vulgarized Nietzschean thought activated

celerated

latent problems,

and ac

provides us with an

indigenous trends, already present in American life. Indeed, Bloom impressive catalogue of such phenomena. Liberal tolerance
it
seeks

fosters
claims

relativism when

to widen its scope

to superiority outside the realm of freedom fosters relativism when it seeks to become
rational

placing more and more knowledge (pp. 30-31). Liberal

absolute

by

limits (p.

28).

Democratic

egalitarianism

fosters

relativism

by denying all by deni

grating heroism and delegitimating rank-ordering among human beings (pp. 66, 90). Egoistic individualism fosters relativism by denying natural relatedness
among, and duties toward, other human

liberal-contractarian
account suggests

view of

the

that

modem

liberal

family democracy

(pp.

beings, a trend exacerbated by the 86, 112). In short, Bloom's own

less it is

somehow

mitigated

by

external

is not stably well-ordered un forces (religion, traditional moral re

it tends to
corrode

straints, aristocracy)

with which

it is

at war and which

(see

especially pp. 251-252). That this is in fact the deeper

stratum of

his

argument are

is

suggested as well natural

by

another set of considerations.

Liberal democracies

the

home

of

the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois existence, says

expunge

Bloom, is defined distinction, for

(p.
169).

by

the effort to

dangerous
tmth

passions

for

aristocratic

political

power,

for

religious

in the

name of tranquil and commodious

bourgeois"

living: "Neither
of course

longing
natural

nor enthusiasm

belong

to the

But

these

desires

cannot

torted

expression

be wholly eradicated, and they thus find stunted, dis in democratic societies (pp. 183, 3296.). The appeal of

Nietzsche, like
existence not
was

that of

Rousseau, is
or

to the part of the soul that bourgeois

leaves fallow,

lays

waste.

The gateway to the

the

mind of

America did

have to be

rammed open

by

alien philosophy,

Enemy
IV
If

swung open Within.

to the invader

by

our

inchoate

Enemy Without, for it longing for the beyond, the

relativism

is the

modem

democratic disease,

what

is the

cure?

can

best

approach

this

question

through some personal history.

It

was

in the fall

of

1963,

during

Bloom's

unforgettable

"Introduction to

104

Interpretation
Philosophy,"

Political

that I

first
first

encountered pages

Leo Strauss's Natural Right

sensed

and

History. From the

powerful

on, I

immediately

that I

was

in
it

the presence of greatness.

surrender

Strauss's Introduction

challenged

Americans

not to
and

their ancestral faith in the rights of man to

of modem

German relativism,

traced the impasse

classical

thought to the seventeenth-century overthrow of

natural science.

that

is,

teleological

read on

eagerly,

hoping

to

find

an account of

the

grounds on which

the Declaration of Independence could

be rationally reaffirmed and the problem posed by modern science surmounted. But as I finished Natural Right and History, I was perplexed. Far from
reaffirming the
those rights
rights of

man, Strauss argued that the

philosophic

ground of

Hobbes'

and

Locke's

account of the state of nature

had been

decisively
his

criticized

by Rousseau,

who carried

the antiteleological premise of

predecessors

to its logical

conclusion.

(My

read, at the end of "What Is Political

Philosophy?,"

perplexity only deepened when 1 that Nietzschean nihilism thought, the inevi

is the

culmination and

highest

self-consciousness of modern

table consequence of the break with classical rationalism.) As

of natural science:

for the

problem

Strauss had

made

it

clear at

the outset that he would confine

his discussion to that domain

aspect of natural right that could

be

clarified within

the

step in his narrative, Strauss showed that the political thinkers of modernity accepted the antiteleological implication of modern science and shaped their political teachings in its light. Evidently the
of the social sciences.

But

at each

problem posed

by

science could

be deferred but

not

indefinitely
find
no

evaded.

Yet

as

read more and more of

Strauss's writings, I

could

definitive

account

of

this matter. In the preface to the seventh impression of Natural Right and

History (1971),

nearly two decades after its initial publication and only shortly before his death, Strauss explicitly reaffirmed his "inclination to the natural right teaching of classical antiquity. But to the best of my knowledge, he
never cleared

away

what

he himself had identified

reaffirmation.

as

the most fundamental

while
relativism

intellectual
is poison,

obstacle

to

that

To

summarize:

neither modern nor classical natural right

teachings are straightfor

wardly available as antidotes. I find precisely these same difficulties

at

the heart

of

Bloom's

narrative.

He

suggests, for example, that there is an essential conflict between the human ities including philosophy and modem natural science (p. 372). At the
same

time, he

notes that no

influential

modern

thinker

has tried to
(p.

return

to the

pre-Enlightenment

teleological

understanding
or suggests

of nature

181).

More to

the point, he never recommends,

would seem

the possibility, of such a return. It

to follow that our

account of man must now

be

situated within

the

context of modem science.

Yet

much of

Bloom's book

consists

in

a critique of pp.

every

postclassical effort to execute such a

strategy (see especially

193.

301-302).

There is
must

no third path.

If the

problem of natural science cannot

be
ex

sidestepped, it

be addressed,

else the return to classical rationalism refuses to accept,

or make,

is

hypothesi impossible. But Bloom

this choice:

he

Socratic Reason

and

Lockean Rights
to

105
nor confronts

neither consigns natural science

irrelevance

head-on the human

difficulties

engendered

by

its

antiteleological stance.

Bloom's

recapitulation of

Strauss's

other conundrum

the status of

modern
states

natural right

is

even more

fundamental to his

entire enterprise.

Bloom

unequivocally that the modem natural rights

work and

teaching

establishes

the "frame

the atmosphere for the modern

university"

(p. 288),

which

institution

it is his
rooted of

purpose

to defend against its enemies. Modern

natural

right, in turn,

is

in the

state of nature

(p.

the rights of man, which

In particular, the American understanding undergirds the American university, rests on the
162).

state of nature as

depicted

by

Locke (pp.
argues

165-66).

Therein lies the difficulty.

Like Strauss before him, Bloom

criticized simple more

that Locke's account was that

decisively
find
a

by Rousseau,
he had

who pointed out

"Locke, in his
problem,

eagerness to nature

or automatic

solution to the political

made

do

much
do"

than

a right to expect a mechanical, nonteleological nature to

(p.

176).

The

modem

of nature

teaching

that

university Bloom wishes to defend thus rests on by his own account must be judged defective.
profound
wrong.

a state

This

chain of

inference has is

implications for liberal democracy. If

Rousseau is right, Locke is

indeed, America itself

book his

insecurely

If Locke is wrong, then the university founded. Yet at this critical juncture, in
pulls

hardly

deficient in blunt speech, Bloom

back from the full

simplistic

rigor of

argument.

Rousseau, he declares,
nature and
mine).

"explodes the

[Lockean]
be"

harm-

oniousness
ise"

between

(p.

177;

emphasis

society that seems to be the American prem lurks the In this ambiguous "seems to
at

deepest issue. Are the

which most

natural

rights

the base of our regime, the rights to

rights

Americans

still

subscribe

(p. 166), the

that constitute "our

cher

justice,"

only ishes

principle of are the

the rights that sustain the

so

institutions Bloom
of our rational

rights

of man,

conceived, worthy

devotion? in this

That is the
otherwise

question.

cannot see that

it

receives an adequate answer

compelling book.

V
It may be argued that the immediately preceding argument is deeply unfair. After all, Bloom distinguishes between modern and Socratic rationalism. The impasse of modern rationalism, which Nietzsche both observed and exem
plified, is not the impasse
of reason simpliciter

(p.

310).

Indeed,

that

impasse
It

provides the strongest motivation

for returning to the

essence of

classical understanding.

is Socratic
of

rationalism rationalism

that

is the

the

university, and

it is the defense

Socratic
307).

that constitutes the highest calling of the university (pp.

at the

253>

Locke's defeat

heart

of

Rousseau is therefore irrelevant to

Bloom's

enterprise.

This
return

argument

is however

exposed to serious objections. on

To begin with, the

occur
with-

to classical

rationalism cannot

Bloom's

own account

106
out

Interpretation
modern

first surmounting the obstacle posed by which, as 1 have indicated, Bloom does not

natural

science,

task
ad

even

begin to

undertake.

In

dition, it is by
count)
rest

no means clear whether

or

how

Socratic

rationalism

leads to
own ac as

the vindication of the rights of man. on which

(again,

on

Bloom's

both liberal

democracy

and

the

modern

university.

Finally,

Bloom

argues at

length (pp. 256-68), there is

a crucial

disagreement between

classical civil

and modern rationalism

concerning the relation between reason and

maintains

society.

Classical

rationalism

that there is an inherent tension

of

between philosophy and politics and that the trial and execution was a dramatic manifestation of that tension. Modern rationalism,
sees

Socrates
contrast,

by

this event as the outcome of a mistaken but corrigible understanding of the

relation

between philosophy
and rendered

and politics, and

it

argues that civil

public exercise of

society

can

be

improved by,
reason.

hospitable to, the

a

of philosophic and

Bloom

espouses

both

Socratic

conception

reason

post-

Socratic

conception of the relation

between

reason and politics.

The

question

necessarily arises whether this combination is tenable. This tension comes to a head in Bloom's depiction of the
providing highest justification. The dom
a public

university.

It is in

home for Socratic

purpose of

reason

that the modern university finds its

the university is to enable students to reach

toward the perfection of their nature

of the mind

by fostering
The
use of reason

true openness,

which

is free

(pp. 20, 40,

248-49).

essence of the

cultivation of the

"noninstrumental

for its

university is the own (p. 249).

"become

Those

who spend

their lives in the exercise

of noninstrumental reason

the models for the use of the noblest to all of us,

presence
more

human faculties
than

and

hence

are

benefactors
their

for

what

they

are

for

what

they do. Without

(and,
how

one should rich or

add, without their

no matter

comfortable, no

matter

tender sentiments

can

be

civilized"

called

respectable), no society how technically adept or full of (p. 21). In and through the univer

being

sity, the classical tension between reason and the regime is

extent that society:

diluted to

such an

Socrates

can

become

a respected
proof

even useful

member of civil

"The

successful

university is the
(p.
252).

that a society can be devoted to

the well-being of all, without stunting human potential or to the goals of the
regime"

imprisoning
his society

the mind

As Bloom

summarizes

credo:

"Never

did I think that the university was properly Rather, I thought and think that society is

ministerial to the

around

it. I
a

ministerial to the university, and

an a

bless

society that tolerates and supports in turn be

maintains,

eternal

childhood

for some,
(p.
245).

childhood whose playfulness can as

blessing

society"

to

If,

Bloom

the

highest task

make the political world safe

have

reached

its

culmination

of ancient political philosophy was to for philosophy (p. 276), this task would appear to in modern liberal democracy's artful dissolution

of a conflict once considered

inescapable.

Yet

matters are

not so simple.

Early

on.

Bloom tells

us that

every

educa-

Socratic Reason
tional system

and

Lockean Rights
moral

107

has

specific

goal, the production of a certain kind of

accord with the

human

being
or

citizens who are

in

fundamental

principles

01 ad

their political community.

mits

In particular, democratic education, "whether it democratic (p.

it

not, wants and needs to produce men and women who have the
regime"

tastes,

knowledge,
to

and character supportive of a

or

26).

If so, the university is

ministerial

inevitably
it
will

comes

under

pressure

to become
we

democracy

after all.

To the

extent that

it is

not

ministerial,

may confidently
sition.

predict that

sooner or

later

encounter political

oppo

But Bloom's university is far from wholeheartedly democratic, in at least three respects. First, modem democracies concentrate on the useful, while the university is directed toward the noninstrumental (p. 250). Second, democracies rest on settled principles equality and the rights of man
modem

which call

it is the
question

purpose

of philosophic reason,

sheltered

in universities, to
(pp.

into

in the

name of alternative principles of political right

248-49).

Third,
of

modem universities

tend relentlessly toward the

which

equalization and homo-

genization of

human beings,
superior

tendency

the university resists in the name

high standards, from

gifts, and human

251-54).

inequality

in the name, in short,

says

of natural spirit

aristocracy (pp.
"Socrates'

The university,

Bloom, began in
himself from the

contemptuous and

insolent

distancing
(p.

of

Athenian
versity]
and
on

people"

(p. 311),

and

it

must maintain

that spirit today: "[The uni

254).

must

be

opinion"

contemptuous of public

Bloom is

shocked

dismayed his
own

when

this spirit of contempt evokes public anger in return. But

account, this anger, which endangers the

natural and predictable.

free

public exercise of
of

reason, is entirely

It is the triumph

politics,

Socrat-

ically

understood, over the public exercise of Socratic reason. From this stand
official account of

point, Bloom's

the

fall

of

the American university

the

must be re victory of a vulgarized Nietzsche over the vestiges of Socrates vised. It would be at least as tme to say that the fall of the university represents the revenge of the demos on the last embattled remnants of aristocracy in an

increasingly
VI
I come,

democratic

age

(see

pp.

319, 326,

353).

finally,

to the

question of students.

Bloom

maintains

that,

unlike

the

students of the

1960s, today's students are nurtured

the Declaration
of

neither

in the Bible
of

nor

in

the tradition of

Independence. The loss

these traditions
need"

has

made

today's students

narrower and

flatter,

without

the "felt

for the

kind

of noble openness

that only devotion to philosophic activities can gratify.

which and

There is thus less

I have

university teaching can take root, (pp. 51, 61). is too thin to "sustain the taller
soil
growths"

in

that soil

no competence to characterize today's students.

But I

can speak of

108

Interpretation

the students of

twenty

years

ago that
was

Bloom

evokes

with

such

nostalgic af mem

fection, for I was ory of it does not

I do in the doctrine
ever grown

one of

them. It

indeed

a marvelous time.

But my

fully

square with

Bloom's

account.

not recall that

many

of us were

of the rights of man stable

particularly well versed in the Bible or I know I was not. Most of us had how
television was not yet a
and

up in

families
was

where

dominant force,
respected.

families in
reached

reading in the university

age of the

which

encouraged

learning

was

We

midst of

the

biggest, longest

economic

boom in

the

history

world, and
or

we never worried

future ability to earn a puted leader of the Free World, diplomatic

cynical accomplishment. about anything.

we were willing to take intellectual risks because had to worry about the effects of risk-taking on our living. At that time, the United States was the undis with a

virtually

unblemished record of postwar

We trusted

our government.

We

were

not

really

We

were patriots.

(We

were

also

relativists,

by

the

way, but Bloom

cured us of that of

brash,
how
was

open

hubris

quickly enough.) The United States had the Athens before the Sicilian expedition, and we all some
willingness

participated

in it. Our for

a

to learn was unqualified; our "felt

in large

measure

kind

of aristocratic

distinction that

might

be

possible

within a

democratic
across

society.

As I look
generation, I

the gulf that

separates

today's students from those of my

am struck

by

the importance

of socioeconomic

forces

and political

events,

most of which

Bloom

hardly

mentions:

stagflation, television,

divorce,

gasoline

War, Watergate, lines, American hostages in Iran. I

make

the Vietnam

suspect economic uncertainties

have helped

today

s students career-ori

ented,

closed to

speculation,

afraid of

taking

risks; that two decades of

foreign

policy fiascoes have undermined confidence; that repeated breaches of public tmst have bred cynicism; and that television has perceptibly eroded both the capacity to concentrate and the taste for reading. I also agree with Bloom that

family instability and rising divorce rates have wounded children in ways that reduce healthy openness when they reach the university. None of this is to deny Bloom's basic thesis that if true learning is to be
possible,
nature needs the assistance of convention.

But I believe that he

un

duly
em

denigrates the independent force

conditions

of political and economic circumstances

in affecting the

for

openness,

in the

name of a conception of mod

philosophic

history

as

produced

almost

entirely

by

the dissemination of

thought. I doubt that economic

stagnation and

matter, the
and

epidemic of

broken families

can

military bungling be laid at the feet

or, for that

of

Nietzsche

Heidegger.
as

One last thought. Bloom takes Golden Age

about
of

his baseline
It

of comparison an all-too-brief
was a

American higher
am

education.

Golden Age,

no

doubt
ex
as

it. But 1

forced to

wonder

whether

those few years

were most

not

ceptional

by

the standards of American

mind

history
is
not

itself. For the

part,

Tocqueville stresses, the American

particularly hospitable to

the

Socratic Reason

and

Lockean Rights

109

cultivation and exercise of noninstrumental reason.

Philosophy in
chain.

America

will

always

be

vulnerable

to the

practical

disciplines: the MBA degree denounced

American

by

Bloom is but the latest link in

a venerable

The

problem goes

deeper than the

violence of the

1960s and the

or at

vacuity

of

the 1980s. I would suggest that Bloom has a quarrel

relation

least

an ambivalent

with

bourgeois society

as a whole.

(Is it

by

chance that

the emotional

peak of

his

introductory
absence
of

course was the

lecture

on

Madame Bovary'l) Bloom

cherishes

the freedom that

despises the

is only to be found in liberal democracy, but he longing in the soul of the bourgeois. He wishes to
of

defend the university through an appeal to the principles but the thinkers to whom he appeals with the greatest
throughout

liberal democracy,
and effect

frequency

are all crit Socrates, Plato, Rousseau, and Nietzsche ics of liberal democracy. Locke, he suggests, is more politically salutary than Rousseau, but less psychologically profound. And besides, he insists, Rous
seau was

his book

ing

ultimately the more consistent thinker. Until the grounds for support liberal democracy are more firmly established than this, the status of reason
therewith of the

and

remain unsettled and

university insecure.

in the

modem

world

will

of

necessity

Humanizing
A Critique
of

Certitudes
The

and

Impoverishing

Doubts

Closing

of the American Mind

by

Allan Bloom

Harry V Jaffa

At the

end of

July

1987, Mark

McGwire,

of

Claremont, California,

and

the

Oakland As, had hit 37 home runs, and led both major leagues. He had equaled the home run record for rookies in the American League, and was only one
short of

the National League record.

Records, however,
"Feenom."

are

for full seasons,

to play. He

young Mr. McGwire still had nearly half the without question what in sports is called a
and

year's games

is

At book

about the entitled

time McGwire

was

taking his first

turn at bat that spring, a

of the American Mind, by Allan Bloom, was pub lished. Its rise to the top of the nonfiction best seller list has been as explosive as young McGwire's bat. Its staying power at the top of that list extending over many months is no less astonishing than its swift anabasis. The demand

The

Closing

for it is
and

widespread radiating outwards from Chicago, New York, Boston, Washington (not to mention Paris, where it is said to be going like "hot

crepes")
much a

to

top

most regional as
event

lists,
in

as

well

as the national.

It is surely

as

"Feenom,"

Whatever the

ultimate

any judgment may be

recent sports

history. book's merits, there

can

as to the

be

no

doubt that its tremendous

"defense"

sales are evidence

no

that it has touched

must

an ex

posed nerve of public concern.

Something,

doubt,

be

conceded

to the

fact that its

pmrient

of traditional

denunciation

of

morality is accompanied by a great deal of immorality like the famous reformer who, at the

turn
of

of

the century, made

highly

publicized

invasions jammed

of

the red

light districts

lew York City. His

church was always well as numerous of

on

the ensuing

Sundays,

when

his

congregation

(as

reporters)

assembled

to hear of his

virtuous

forays into these dens

preaches, and

iniquity. With
well.

much greater

sophistication,

Bloom

also

does it very

Meanwhile [that is, in the

est motives

wake of women's

"liberation"]
Men

one of

the strongest,
the

old

for marriage is no longer easily enjoy previously could be had only in marriage. It is strange that the tiredest "He won't stupidest bromide mothers and fathers preached to their daughters
operative.

can now

sex that

and

respect you or

marry

you

if

you give

him

what

he

easily"

wants

too

turns

out

to

be the truest

and most

probing

analysis of

the

current situation

(p.

132).

Reading
sion

the

first

part of

The

Closing
one

of the American Mind,

topics as
"Equality,"

with

its discus
"Sex,"

along the

foregoing lines
"Eros,"

"Race,"

of such

"Divorce,"

"Love,"

and moral

is

forcibly

stmck

by

its

resemblance to the

(as distinct from theological)

aspects of

the sermons of the

Rev.

Jerry

112*

Interpretation
and
of

Falwell
correct

the homilies

of

the Rev.

Pat Robertson. Bloom is certainly

women

about

relativism

seducing young
also right
men

thereby saving
other
when

their

boy
com

friends that trouble. And he is

greater

in pointing to the

and much

troubles

that

young
reason

find themselves in,

all moral choices are

in the

"liberated"

pany

of their
unsupported
"value"

women.

If
or

"values"

and all are

equally
nificant.

by

by

revelation,

which

becomes just

another

"opinion"

or

then all moral choices are equally significant,

quotes

or

insig
deal."

Thus Bloom

young

women as

saying that
those
and

sex

is "no

big

Yet the truth is that

wise, leave
an

sex

is

always a

big deal,

and

who think and act other

ever-widening trail of
one

disaster, disease,

death in their

wake.

There is, however,

evils of relativism.

He is

vigorous

surprising omission in Bloom's catalogue in his portrayal of the human cost of

quotation

of

the

sexual

promiscuity, as the

foregoing

indicates. Yet his

observations of

the

aberrations of the counterculture seem

frozen in "The

Sixties,"

as the title of at the

his

most memorable chapter suggests.

(Bloom left Cornell for Toronto

end of that

decade,

and remained

in

self-imposed exile

for

most of

the decade

that

followed.) His

remarks about

feminism,
the

and the

changing

roles of men and

women, for example, are dated

not

because they

are mistaken, or

irrelevant,
movement,

but because in the

which

intervening

years

so-called

"gay

Bloom
not

hardly

mentions, has emerged as the most radical and sinister

challenge,

As 1 have
and can

argued

merely to sexual morality, but to all morality. in "Sodomy and the Academy: The Assault
'Liberation' Ethics"

on the

Family
Ameri

Morality by

(American Conservatism
pp.

and the

Founding, Carolina Academic Press, 1984,

sodomy
as

263-78), the demand for

right represents

the recognition of

both

a moral and a

legal

the

most

complete repudiation

theoretical as well as practical

of all objective stan

dards

of

human
but

conduct.

The

reason

why

we regard

the

killing

of other

human

beings

not

the

killing

of cattle

as murder,

is because

we are members

of the same species. regard

That is to say,

we share a common nature.

The
as

reason we

the enslavement of human beings

we recognize an

but

not

of cattle

wrong,

is

because
species.

equality
reason

This is

also

the

discrimination
can, I

as

wrong.

Every
which

of rights among fellow members of the same for regarding racial or religious or even sex moral distinction that can be called to mind

believe,
human

be

shown to

have the

same origin or

ground,

including by

the very
appeal.

idea

of

rights

to

the sodomites and

lesbians themselves
individuals

But the

word nature means generation.

species

is defined

the presence

in

it

of

individuals is the
of

of opposite

sexes

who

can

generate new

of the

same species. ness

Nature is the
"male

ground of all

morality, but maleness and female-

ground of nature.
adds

The Bible, in

describing
he
as

man

as

created

in the

image

God,

and

female

them,"

created

implying
nature's.

that God's
so-called

own existence

is

grounded

in the

same

distinction

The
and

rights"

"gay

movement

is then the

ultimate repudiation of

nature,

therewith
a

the ground of all

morality.

Of course, sodomy has been

around

for

long

Humanizing Certitudes
time
as
we

and

Impoverishing
we

Doubts
faced

1 13
with

know from the Bible. What

are

here is

not

demand that
are

between consenting adults. We homosexuality faced with a public demand for the admission into law and morality of an
a private matter right of

be

equal

homosexuality

and

heterosexuality. There has

and

never

in my

experience

been anything like the Gay campus with a GLAD week every
sanctioned

Lesbian Centers,
and

(Gay

virtually Lesbian Awareness Days)

now on

and encouraged even

by

the college administrations, and patronized

by

local (and
than

national)

politicians.
never seen

1 have been teaching many

students as
as

more

years

Bloom,

and

I have

today.

It is difficult

enough

for young people,

morally confused as they are Bloom shows so well, to have

to work out anew, with no authoritative conventions, the roles to be followed

in boy/girl,
question.

man/woman

relationships.

But this

difficulty

is

compounded
called

thousand times, when the

boy/girl,
of

man/woman

relationship is itself Tens

of

into

This is is

as much as to say, that whether you want to

a matter personal preference.

belong

to the

human
perhaps

race

now

thousands

hundreds

of thousands

of students across the seduced

country,

who never

had

the least homosexual tendencies, have been

the

(and their lives mined)

by

overpowering

pressure

of

the official patronage of the gay rights propa

ganda.

Many

young men,
as

who

do

not

know how to deal do

not

"liberated"

with
with men

"liberated"

women, and many

women, who

know how to deal

and

any

more

(except

enemies), take
moral

refuge

in sodomy

lesbianism. This has

constituted

the great

crisis of

the eighties on American campuses, and

Bloom is

almost

entirely
of

silent about

it.
corresponds

The chronology
public movement

the

AIDS

epidemic
and

precisely
as a

with

this

sodomy lifestyle. In nothing has the power of relativism can higher education manifested itself more

to

establish

lesbianism
and the

recommended of

disgrace

Ameri
of

than

in its

endorsement

homosexuality. But
and nature

whatever

the attitude of the educational authorities, God

retribution.

have

exacted

terrible

This lifestyle has

proved

to be a
assault

deathstyle. For the first time

upon man's

since modem relativism and

has

mounted

its

humanity, chastity
upon

the monogamous

family

may be This

seen to

be
old

recovering ways is entirely based

will not survive
of

some of their standing.

Unfortunately,
for

the new argument

for the

the

argument

self-preservation.

argument

the

discovery

of new scientific cures.

freshmen (and women)

moral allegiance.

that there was a race on, between

Last spring I told a class God and science,

for their

And, I

added, somewhat sententiously. that it would

be very unwise for them ever to bet against God. A few years ago, this remark would have provoked gales of laughter. This time I looked out upon the most
solemn

faces I had

ever seen!

Thanks to AIDS then,

the

we

have

little breath (as in the

certitud

ing

time to reassert the tme

not

arguments

Nicomachean Ethics),
must

merely

Bloom's

"enriching "humanizing

doubts."

Morality
The
arguments

be seen,
not

as

Aristotle

sees

it,

as a means to

implement the desire for happi

pleasure.

ness, and

merely

as a restraint upon the

desire for

114*

Interpretation
made not

must

be

pursue a good

only life. But

as to

how

one

one will not

may avoid a bad death, but how one can find those arguments in The Closing of the
speaks
and even of

American Mind.

Notwithstanding
the evils that he is
are to
not

the

foregoing. Bloom

eloquently
not mean

wisely

of relativism.

And,

to the surprise and pleasure of many,

it turns

out

just

another

Bible thumper. (I do

to suggest that these

"elite"

be despised, but only that they have no standing in our universi of of political all things, a professor philosophy, pointing to ties.) He is, rather, his fellow university teachers as the source of this poisonous and literally

demoralizing
Bloom for

doctrine. This surely

wide appeal and

must go a

long

way towards accounting for

the book's apparently

solace

to middle America. Yet those who turn to

apt

guidance

are

to

find their

optimism

short-lived.

Having

eloquently

portrayed

the disastrous consequences of relativism he

does
"bro

not advocate a return to those standards of

human

conduct

implied in its

rejec

tion and, most notably,

mides"

in his

own

invocation
writes

and praise of the ancient

concerning
It is
not

chastity.

Thus he

the

immorality
the

of relativism that

I find

appalling.

What is astounding
239).

and

degrading
going lack

is

dogmatism

with which we accept such

relativism, and the easy

of concern about what

that means

for

our

lives (p.

In

one

issue

of

Insight magazine,
was

as well as

in feature

stories

in The

Washing

ton

Times, Bloom
who

hailed

as

"the

general

in the

relati

war against

But those

thus hailed him seemed to assume that his critique of relativism

implied
with

a stand

in favor
care
or

of

traditional morality. If so,

they did
repeat rejects

not read

him

sufficient

astuteness.

Bloom does not, What Bloom

not, find "the

immorality
going"

appalling."

of relativism

is only

"easy
turns

relativism.

When Bloom looks

out to

"low"

at the

in the light

of

the

"high,"

"high"

the
of

be the One

"extraordinary
might

thought and philosophical

relativism

German
and

nihilism.

say that American

is

comic

in its blandness
whereas

indifference to the
man version

genuine significance of
choices

human choice, heroes

in its Ger
of

fundamental human
of

take on the agonized

dignity

high

tragedy. But none

or

Bloom's

philosophical

for

example,

Nietzsche
once

Heidegger

wrote

tragedies.
well

Shakespeare did. And Bloom himself

wrote

extraordinarily
with
pp.

Bloom,
cially,

Harry

Othello. (See Shakespeare's Politics, by Allan Jaffa, Basic Books, 1964, Chapter 3. See espe
on cannot

53ff.) Desdemona "for the

whole

imagine that One

can

woman would
surmise

betray

her

husband

world."

even

only

how

students

for

the play. One guesses only that for them it is a big black comedy about crazy people. The greatness of Othello is inextricably bound up with the fact once so powerfully expounded by Bloom himself
whom sex
read

is "no

deal"

that the covenantal act of choice

nantal act of choice of the

of partners

in

marriage reproduces the cove

Children

of

Israel

by

the

God

of

Israel. Bloom

wants

Humanizing Certitudes
to turn

and

Impoverishing
"impoverishing

Doubts

115
to

his

students
seems

from their

certitudes"

"humanizing
was a

doubts."

But it

to me that his own argument requires rather that "impov

replaced

certitudes" certitudes."

erishing necessary in
the minds of
marriage.

be

by "enriching
as to

After all, it

condition of

the

tragedy in Othello
Desdemona
doubt,"

that there

be

no

doubt

whatever

in

Othello

and

the absolute significance of

fidelity

less than any other kind, would dissolve the tragedy into a tale of silly mistakes. It seems to me that Nietzsche's and Heidegger's theoretical teaching is far more profoundly subversive of the

"Humanizing

no

universe of

Shakespearean tragedy, than

Bloom's
attention. about

the sitcoms of
we must ask whether a

Woody Allen,

which who

draw

so much of

And

the same Bloom

recommended more or

the

less

apt to

been

replaced and

by

be young benefit from it, if her cheap generic drugstore relativism had the high and tragic nihilism of the parent of all relativism
chastity,
woman would

"bromide"

Nietzsche

Heidegger? Do
agonize over

we

really

want

her to look into the

with

abyss

of

nothingness

and

whether

to have sex
a

her boyfriend? As
phrase

Bloom

must

know from the literature (to borrow in

at

familiar

of

Leo

Strauss),
whether

the outcome,

least
or

the girl agonizes

first,

nine times out of ten, will be the same, just hops into bed. Thus Aristotle, in the

Nicomachean Ethics
Nor does
goodness or

badness

with regard

to

such

things [viz.

passions such as
upon

spite, shamelessness, envy, and actions such as adultery,

theft, murder] depend

and

committing adultery with the right woman, at the right time, but simply to do any of them is to go wrong (i I07ai5ff. ).

in the

right

way,

Aristotle directs the already formed

argument of

by

basic

moral

education.

his Ethics only to those He does not

on

whose characters are suppose

that

liberal

education should

form the basis

of moral choice

the contrary, he supposes

education.

that moral education should form the

seems to

basis

of

liberal

Bloom, it

me, has got it exactly backwards.

A moving passage in The Closing of the American Mind, and the one that to me conveys Bloom's critique of relativism most effectively, is the following:

My
only

grandparents were

ignorant

people was

by

our

standards,
rich

and

my
all

grandfather

held

only

lowly

jobs. But their home

ritual,

what was

and their explanation

specifically in the Bible's

counterparts reasons

not spiritually found their origins in the Bible's commandments,

stories and of

because

the things

in it,

the commentaries on

them,

and

had

their

imaginative

in the deeds

the myriad of their

grandparents

found

for the

existence of

family

exemplary heroes. and the fulfillment

My
of

they interpreted their special sufferings with respect to a great and ennobling past. Their simple faith and practices linked them to great scholars and thinkers who dealt with the same material, not from outside or
their

duties in

serious writings, and

from

an alien perspective,
guidance.

but

believing

as

providing

There

was real respect

they did, while simply going deeper and for real learning, because it had a felt

116

Interpretation
their

connection with

lives. This is
and

what a

community

and a

history

mean,

a common

experience

inviting

high

low into

a single

body

of

belief (p. 60).

1 do

not remember a more eloquent evocation of the and of

idea

of authoritative

tra

how it dignifies human life. Of course, Bloom is referring to the Jewish tradition the most conservative of all traditions, beginning as it

dition,

does "in the

grandparents

beginning."

am confident

that Bloom's grandparents

within

like my

found for them

home for that tradition

the American political

tradition that

was represented

am

sure

that

they felt,
on as

as

by Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. did Moses Seixas, sexton of Newport's Touro
of

Synagogue in 1790, hailed Washington

the

occasion

Washington's

visit

to Newport.
the

He he

another

Joshua
people

who

had been led

by

Lord,

as

himself had led the American

of political and religious

into the Promised Land

of this new

Zion Rev

freedom. For American Jews

who

at the time of the

olution

and even

for those today

always seen as

have

not

become

victims of a univer

sity

education

have

this nation as also a chosen nation. From the

beginning, America

the new

Israel,

as

light to lighten

all

the nations,

concerning the principles of political and religious liberty, has been a theme of public discourse. And for the very reason that America could become a Zion to
all the

nations, it

could

become

Zion to the Jews themselves. George Wash

represented

ington's letter to the Touro Synagogue

2,000 years that
sented

the

first time in
any

more

than

Jews had been

recognized as citizens of

nation.

It

repre

the first time in human

history

that

Jews had been recognized, And that

as

as equal

and

fellow

citizens of a non-Jewish polity.

recognition was authorita and

tive

because it
Father

came

from the

one man

who,

President in

Head

of

State,

and as

of

his

Country,
as
equal

surpassed all others

moral authority. not

Washing

ton's greeting to the Jews

recognized them as

possessing
under

legal equality, but Let just

human participants,

only a technical the One God, in the

moral and providentia] order which was me

the source of all the nation's blessings.

add

here,
a

that Lincoln's greatest speeches are characterized

by

the

combination order of

peculiarly American synthesis the Bible, and of the no less moral and
of

into

of the moral and providential no

less

providential order of address we see

the

Declaration

Independence. In Lincoln's

second

inaugural

in

absolute perfection an authoritative tradition

encompassing the teachings of

teachings of the Revolu

the Bible

both Old

and

New Testaments

and the

tion. I am confident that Bloom's grandparents understood

ble

but

profound

acid solvent of all right of

this, in their hum does Bloom look Why only abroad, to that German traditions, nihilism, for that which is already his by
way.

then

inheritance?
of

Here is the denouement

tribute to his grandparents.

Bloom's genuinely

poetic

and

nostalgic

I do

not

American way,

believe that my generation, my cousins who have been educated in the all of whom are M.D.s or Ph.D.s, have any comparable learning.

Humanizing Certitudes
When they talk
parents and

and

Impoverishing
earth, the

Doubts
between

1 17
men and women,

about

heaven

and

relations

children, the

alities, the material of

when people closer

human condition, I hear nothing but cliches, superfici satire. 1 am not saying anything so trite as that life is fuller

have

myths to

live by. 1

mean rather material

that

life based
research

upon

the

Book is
to

to the truth, that it provides the things. Without the

for deeper

in

and access

the

real nature of

great revelations,

epics,

and philosophies as

part of our natural

vision, there is nothing to see out there, and eventually little left
not

inside. The Bible is

similar

the only

means of

to

furnish

mind,

but

without a

book

of

gravity, read

with

the gravity

the potential

believer, it

will remain un

furnished (p. 6o).

Bloom
to that

says that
of

his

generation

his

cousins

have

no

"comparable

learning"

their grandparents. But why does Bloom assume without argument

that there
makes

is any

"comparable"

learning
rejects

to the Torah and the Talmud? Bloom

no

attempt

to understand his grandparents as their way of

they
as

understood recognizes

them

selves,

and

he tacitly

life,

even

he

in it

something rich and wonderful that is lacking in his own. Bloom's evocation of his grandparents is touching, but it is barren. He denies that he is saying "anything so trite as that life is fuller when people have What then is he saying? That "a life based on the Book is myths to live
by."

things?"

closer

to the truth

[and]

provides

access

to the real nature of

enables

But

what

is the

source or ground of

knowledge that
to Leo

Bloom to judge the

the
concept of

Bible's proximity to the tmth?

ture"

According
and

Strauss,

"na

is

discovery

of

philosophy,

is

alien

to the Old Testament.

By

asserting that the world is created

by God,

the Torah denies that there is a

rabbinic of nature

self-subsisting reality independent of the will of God. Of course, Judaism, like medieval Christianity, assimilated the idea of "the laws
God"

and of nature's of this

assimilation

within

the framework of Creation. The perfect expression

is

of course

in

our

own

Declaration

of

Independence.

Bloom's easy going judgment of the tmth of the Bible is however

viewpoint of the

from the

Bible itself
great

judgment

of

the high in the light of the low.

"

"Without the
"

Bloom writes,
of the

there is nothing to see to

out there

The descent

Bible is

now explicit are now

being

only

one of

"revelations."

many
"epics"

And

"revelations"

such

lower

"books,"

case

along
part of our

"philosophies."

with natural

and
vision."

We

need them says

Bloom, "as
artifacts

But books

are

artifacts.

If, however,
there

determine the

content of our

vision, if

without

these

artifacts

vision"

visual

reality is in tmth
such

an artifact.

"Natural

is nothing to see, then would then be an illusion,

although not an optical

illusion (since there is

natural

no optical reality)!

Conversely, if
objects of

there is

thing

as

vision, then there must

be

natural

sense perception, and of

must

knowledge. And the

existence and perception of would

these
or

be independent
of

of

books. Books then

not themselves

be

accounts of

reality,

interpretations

reality, but

the ground of the reality of which

nihilism.

they

speak.

To say that

without

books there is nothing to see, is

Yet

118

Interpretation
manifest

Bloom's nihilism,

in these words, is.

and

as we

have

seen,

contradicted
things."

by

his

reference to

both "natural

vision"

"the

real nature of

This

contradiction runs

throughout

his book from

beginning

to

end.

Although the title

of

the book speaks of an "American

Mind,"

there is in

truth little or nothing American about the mind or minds that are characterized,
other

than Bloom's reports about his students. Bloom writes

in the tradition

of

the great expatriates:

what

different sense)
of

Henry Henry

James, T. S. Eliot, Ezra Pound,

Adams. He
reminds
and

and (in a some

one of the avant-garde

Pa
can

risian-Bohemians

the 1920s that included Joyce

Hemingway. He

breathe

freely

aristocratic stood

only in the presence of the symbols (and ruins) of Europe's past. American democracy, as Americans themselves have under book to him.
about pages

it, is

a closed writes

Bloom Names
thinkers
more

often

French like

and

drop

upon

his

summer

German philosophy and literature. flies. There are the great modem

Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger. There are the literary types, Ibsen, Joyce, Dostoyevsky, Proust, Kafka, Celine, Mo liere, Flaubert, Schiller, and of course Goethe. There is not a single reference
Cooper
or or

to

Hawthorne

or

Emerson

or

Whitman
or

Dreiser

Sinclair Lewis

or

Edith Wharton

or Howells. Nor any to Willa Cather. Thoreau is men

"

(p. tioned, but only because he represented a "side of Rousseau's thought 171). Above all, there is nothing about Melville or Mark Twain! In "Tom Sawyer: Hero of Middle (Interpretation, Spring 1972, reprinted in
America,"

The Conditions of Freedom, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975) I attempted to capture the art by which Mark Twain had transformed Plutarchian

into Machiavellian (and Lockean) heroism, how in Tom Sawyer

regime which

we

see

the
of

refounded, how

we witness

the coming into

being

of a of

"new order,

Tom is

a new prince

[and where] the

boy

is father

the man, and the

old are ruled

Tom may be a rogue, but he is a charming one. Bloom's Tom Sawyer is Celine's Robinson, the hero of Journey to the End of

young."

by

the

the

Night, described
Bloom
complains

as an

"utterly
and

selfish

liar,

cheat, and murderer for

pay"

(p.

239)-

loud

long
is

that

Americans do

not

have

national
or

books
or

that form and represent national character, as do

Frenchmen

Germans

Italians

or

the English. There

genius of

some

justification for this

is

complaint.

But that

is because the
political

America

as a civilization writers

above all to

be found in its
political

institutions,
and

and

its

greatest

have been its

greatest
of

men,

Jefferson

Lincoln

and

Washington. The American book story

of

books, is

the story of America

itself,

as the

the

secular redemption of mankind.

It

was not

the

mere matter of

the separation

of

the colonies

from the

motherland

|said

Lincoln

his way to Washington in February of 1861] but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this
on

Humanizing Certitudes
country,
promise and

and

Impoverishing
for
all

Doubts
was

119
that
which gave

but, I hope,
that

to the world,

future time. It

in due time the

weight would
chance.1

be lifted from the

shoulders of all men

that all should

have
of

an equal

Lincoln's metaphor,
with

course,

was

that

of

Christian, in

Pilgrim's In the

Progress,

the great pack on

messianic

his back

representing
rebirth of

original sin.

Gettysburg

Address the
the

theme would be consummated in the transformation of

the nation. What national poetry
epic

death

on

the

battlefield into the

in the

has

ever surpassed

that of Lincoln? When did

actual
of

poetry

and poetic

tragedy
no

ever so coincide

life story

of a people
and

a coincidence

in itself

less improbable than that

of

thought and of events

philosophy kingship from the Revolution to the Civil War?

of

than in the movement

Of

course

it is the themes

the Civil War that supplied the themes of

America's

greatest

literary
with

works.

Huckleberry
a

Finn

confronts convention with

nature, and slavery

tion of the teachings of

surpass

uniquely American poetic transforma Rousseau. It is one that, I believe, equals, if it does not

freedom, in

great white whale,

anything that European literature of the last 200 years can show. The like the weight that Lincoln wished to see lifted from the
is
also a

shoulders of men,
of

distinctively
of

American

confrontation of the problem

evil,

within the a as

framework
book"

Dick too is

"people's

as much

Biblical allegory ("Call me Ishmael"). in the tradition of the Iliad and be. Of
either of

Moby
of

the

Odyssey

says nothing.

any There is

modem

book

could

them, however, Bloom

who seems

irony

too in the Foreword

by

Saul Bellow,

only to have this in common with Bloom: that "European observers sometimes classify me as a hybrid curiosity, neither fully American nor satisfactorily

European,
I had

stuffed with references to the philosophers, the

historians,

and poets

consumed

higgledy-piggledy

(pp. 14,

15).

Bloom

writes:

Reading
regimes

what we call

decline of Greece was purely political, that importance for understanding it. Old little history had traditional roots, but philosophy and science took over as rulers in
Thucydides
shows us

that the

intellectual

is

of

modernity, and purely theoretical

cannot and

problems

have decisive

political effects.

One

imagine

modern political

history

without a

discussion

of

Locke, Rousseau

Marx (p.
aside

197).

Leaving
history,

the begged question of what

is

meant

by "purely
history"

political"

can one

imagine

discussion

of

"modem

political

that is only that

out

"a discussion
What

of

Locke, Rousseau,
in

and

Marx"? Elsewhere Bloom

asserts

was acted out

the American and

French Revolutions had been thought

beforehand in the
modern politics

writings of

Locke

and

Rousseau,

the

scenarists

for the drama

of

(p.

162).
1861.

1.

Lincoln, Address in Independence Hall, Feb. 22,

Collected Works, IV,

p. 240.

120 He

Interpretation
Hobbes had "led the
and. as

adds that

he proceeds, it becomes

clear

that he regards Locke as essentially Hobbes

with a

fig

ism,

atheism, and

materialism

that is so prominent in the

will return

leaf covering the hedon former, but no less

to this point presently.
"scenarios"

essential although concealed

in the latter. We farmers

in the

But think Locke

the
and

of

it,

the American and

French Revolutions
who

written
shot

by
fol

Rousseau! The
and

embattled

"fired the

heard

round

world"

the great

protagonists

world

historical

events

that

lowed

Samuel Adams,

Patrick Henry,

Benjamin Franklin,

John Adams,

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, are mere actors, following a script. Do we not have here an historical determinism equal to
Hegel's?

Only

history"

the

"cunning

of

is

replaced

by

the cunning of the

modem philosophers.

But this is the

purest nonsense. comment

Leaving
can

the French Revolution to others, I

and

only
of

on

the Ameri

Revolution

the American Founding. The

not

statesmen

the era, among

them those
Greece"

just mentioned, were, if

"a

graver

bench than

ever

frowned in
And they

or

Rome, certainly
they

the equal of any

(Coriolanus,

m.i.106).

possessed a core of conviction which

if

we are

to make any attempt to under

of

stand

them as

understood

themselves
about

formed the basis

"the American

they did. Bloom

mind."

purports

to

write

everything But he is

perfectly oblivious of the presence of this expression in one of the most fa mous documents of American history. In a letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825, Thomas Jefferson explained the sources, the purpose, and the manner of the
writing of what Lincoln would Calvin Coolidge (observing in "the
most call

that "immortal emblem of

humanity,"

and

1926 the sesquicentennial of the

world."

event)

called

important

civil

document in the

But

with respect

to our
was

rights and

the acts of the

British

government

those rights, there

but

one opinion on this side of

the water.
resort

contravening All American whigs

to arms

thought alike on these

an appeal was

subjects. of

When forced therefore to

for redress,

to the tribunal
of

the world was

of

deemed

proper

for

our

justification. This
in

the object

the Declaration
.

Independence. Not to find

mankind

out new principles, or

new arguments

but to firm
as

place

before

the common sense of the subject;

.

terms

so plain and

to command their assent

neither

of principle nor yet copied

to be tone

an expression of and spirit called

the

from any American

the

particular and previous writing,

aiming it

at

was

originality intended

mind, and to

give

to that expression the proper

for

by

occasion.

nizing

sentiments of the

day,

whether

All its authority rests then on the harmo expressed in conversations, in letters, printed
right, as

essays or

in the elementary books

2

of public

Aristotle, Cicero. Locke.

Sidney,
We

etc.

must ourselves

lay

the greatest emphasis upon Jefferson's

emphasis upon

the "one
phy"

opinion"

on this side of the water.

at the

time

of

the Revolution and the

There really was a "public philoso Founding. The party conflict of the
S. Foner, Halcyon House,
802.

2.

Basic Writings

of

Thomas Jefferson,

edited

by Philip

p.

Humanizing
1 790s exceeded

Certitudes
in

and

Impoverishing

Doubts

121
even

intensity
called

decade before the Civil War. Yet

could

anything that has come after Jefferson, in his inaugural different

names

that of the

address

in 1801,

say "We

have

by

brethren

of

the

same principle.

We
the

Federalists, we are all letter to Lee, of the "harmonizing

are all

Republicans."

To

speak as

Jefferson did, in is to
a

sentiments of

the

day,"

imply
two

consensus

transcending

the

normal

differences

of opinion

among

free

people. are

Of "the elementary books of public ancient, two are modern. I think it safe to

right"

mentioned

by Jefferson,

assume that

according to Jefferson's

understanding of the American mind, that mind found harmonizing sentiments among the books of public right no less than among the conversations, letters,
and printed essays.

Certainly

that would suggest that

"harmonizing"

Americans then
which

read

John

Locke's Second Treatise in its

sense, in

Locke

quotes

Hooker for authority for his doctrine, and through Hooker Christian scholasticism, and through it to Aristotle. Bloom
scenarios
not

reaches

back to

by

only believes that the English and American Revolutions were Locke he says that "the new English and American regimes
instructions"

founded themselves according to his [Locke's] ing to Bloom one can save oneself all the trouble
constitutional

(p.

162).

Accord

of

history
most

like Bloom
important
was

and

just

read

and reading Locke. But how does

political

Bloom

read

Locke?
discovery"

"Perhaps the

upon which

Locke's teaching
. . .

was

based,

according to

Bloom,
at

that "there was no Garden of Eden

Man
nor

was not provided punishes

man.

for

the

beginning
for
himself."

God

neither

looks

after

him

him. Nature's indifference to justice is

must

terrible bereavement for

He

[therefore]

care

(p.

163).

The

complete

break

with

Biblical religion,
totle and

as well as with classical

philosophy, as represented

by

Aris

Cicero, is
world

the necessary

presupposition of

Bloom's Locke.
of

Once the
or

has been
reveals

purged of ghosts or

spirits,

[meaning

any belief in God

immortality] it
is
not 165).

to us that the

critical problem

is scarcity

What is

required

brotherly

love

or

faith, hope,

and

charity, but

self-interested rational

labor (p.

"Americans"

says

Bloom,
work

are

Lockeans: recognizing that

is necessary (no

longing for

a nonexistent

Eden),
not

and will produce well-being;

following

their

natural

inclinations moderately,

because they possess the virtue of moderation but because their passions are balanced and they recognize the reasonableness of that; respecting the rights of From the point of view of God or heroes, others so that theirs will be respected
.

the all this is not very inspiring. But for the poor, the weak, the oppressed the promise of salvation. As Leo Strauss it is of mankind overwhelming majority
ground"

put

it,

the

moderns

"built

on

low but

solid

(p.

167).

We
can

need not mind

dispute Bloom's interpretation

ever

of

Locke to

deny

that the

Ameri
us

has

been the

mind

represented

by

that

interpretation. Let

122

Interpretation
obiter

however turn here to Bloom's

dicta

at

the end of the

foregoing

passage.

This is his only mention (or quotation) of Leo Strauss, although Strauss's words and Strauss's thoughts echo and re-echo (without attribution) throughout his book. However,
uted to
as

Strauss

are not

Kirk Emmert recently reminded me, the words attrib albeit words Strauss himself Strauss's but Churchill's
can

frequently

quoted.

But

regime

to

which

Churchill
so

could

give

such

unstinting devotion
owe so much

a regime

in

whose

finest hour

to so

few;

a regime whose

thousand years

be

a regime
person

despised
I have

glory would by God and heroes? known to

many not be of

would come

to

day, but

of a

Bloom is the first

God"

ever

suggest

that "the point of

oppressed."

view of

is

adverse or

indifferent to "the poor, the weak, the

calls the

How

can

a regime which

Bloom himself

salvat

"promise

of

for

"the overwhelming majority of greatest heroism? Why did the Union died to
make men

mankind"

be anything but a theme for the armies march to battle singing, "As He
free
"

holy, let

us

die to

make men

Why

did Churchill

for the singing of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, in Westminster Abbey, at his funeral? Abraham Lincoln is reported as saying that he made so many of them. But God must have loved the common people
himself leave
orders who

that

has

ever read either

the Prophets of the Old

Testament,
says

or the

Sermon

on the not

Mount in the
labor"

New,
be in

could

have

said what

Bloom

here? And may

I
am sure

"rational

service of
so.

faith, hope,
own

and charity? account

that
of

Bloom's

grandparents

thought

Bloom's

of the

success

American Lockeanism is testimony to the proposition that this is precisely the kind of regime that the God of the Bible, who cares for the poor, the weak, and
the oppressed would

kind

of

God

most

Americans have

favor. Bloom to the contrary notwithstanding this is the always believed in. This is what they be
America."

lieve

when

Let
mind

us

they sing "God bless again consult Jefferson,

is
one

at

his inaugural,

declaring

of the

American

that it

enlightened
yet all of

by

benign

religion, professed,

indeed,

and practiced

in

various

forms

man;

inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispen
them

sations proves that

it delights in the happiness

of man

here

and

his

greater

happiness

hereafter

(p.

333).

As far

as I can see, everything Bloom says on subject of the American Found is derived from his readings of Hobbes, Locke, or Tocqueville. I have found not a word of serious interpretation apart from his birdseed scatter

ing

ings

Hamilton,

coming from an American source: not Jefferson, Washington, Madison, or Lincoln. No one has maintained more persistently than I have,
the past thirty-five years, the
as

during
work

importance in the American

Founding

of

Locke's teachings

they

were understood and

incorporated into their handi

discovered in

by

the

Founding

Fathers. But to say that

a radical atheism

Humanizing Certitudes
Locke's
esoteric

and

Impoverishing
of what when

Doubts

123

teaching
it,

was

part

they
single

understood,

believed,

and

incorporated into their

question contradicts

regime and there

every

document

bearing

on the

is

not a shred of evidence to support

it

is

just

plain crazy.

Bloom
It

writes:

should

be

noted that sex

is

theme
all

hardly

mentioned
not

American Founding. There it is

more powerful

preservation,
their

procreation,

in the thought underlying the because fear is

pleasures

than

love,

and men prefer

lives to their
a work

(p.

187).

Surely
One
sex

no sillier remark

has

ever

been

made

in

purporting to be

serious.

can

by

the

only Father lines

the

wonder what of

Bloom

could

have in

mind: a

treatise on the

joy
of

of

his

country?

Something

to vindicate the symbolism

penned

the

Washington
the raciest

monument?
of

In
1

point of century.

fact, Benjamin Franklin

way

some of

the

8th

And Jefferson's "Dialogue Between the

Head

Heart,"

and

although

in

no

indecorous, is
That it.

nonetheless

highly
in Bloom he
old and

charged with the passions that are

its

subject.
with

moreover was written

Paris,
would

and

during

Jefferson's

romance

Maria Conway. I'm

about

sure

have approved, if only he had known

writes about

But Bloom
says can refer

the thought underlying the Founding. And

of

what

only to the thought

preservation

Thomas Hobbes. For it

meant

was

only that
civil

bachelor for
who

whom

self-preservation

individual self-preservation,
and

divorced

from procreation, the family, Thomas Hobbes is

not even

society. of

What is tme

of the political thought of

not

however true

the American Founding. It

is

true of Locke. The centrality of property to the

in Locke's teaching gives place preservation. Nor is it tme of Hobbesian

remarks about

as

well

family,

as

the object of

self-

nature

fear

and

generally notwithstanding Bloom's love. In nature generally self-preservation is individual. A

cock robin will attack a where

directed to the
cat that comes

species rather than to the

too near the

nest

the hen is brooding.

In the

case

of

humans,
behavior

the

instinct

of self-preservation
as

the political

community,

the guarantor of the family.

may be transferred from the family to But whatever the

of particular

individuals,

the instinct of self-preservation is almost

nature

never understood

to

be directed

by

to the preservation of the

43rd

individual happens to it is to be

as such.

Consider the

following

from the

Federalist

which

be the
of

central number.

Madison writes,

with respect
rather

to the question of the right

the Convention to scrap the

answered at once

Articles,

than revise them, that

of

by

recurring to the

absolute

necessity

the case; to the great

principle of self-preservation; which

to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's

and

God,

declares

political

safety institutions aim, and to

that the

happiness

of

which all such

society institutions

are

the objects at which all

must

be

sacrificed.3

3.

Modern

Library Edition,

p. 287.

1 24
There is

Interpretation
no question

that "the great principle of

society,"

refers

to "the

safety
very

and

happiness

of

and not to

words of

the Declaration of

individuals. Moreover, in using the Independence, Madison gives us a gloss on

sense

that document as well, and on "the common

then no contradiction
as some

subject.

of the

There is

have

supposed

between the
the

unalienable right

to

life,

proclaimed

in the

second paragraph of

pledge of the
honor."

Signers,

to each other, of

Declaration, and the mutual "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred
right

It

would

have been inconceivable to them that the

endowed cost.

to

life,

with

which

they had been

any

by

their

Creator,

was a right

to act

basely,

to

save their skins at

Moreover,
and

the law of nature,

as stated

by Madison,
of

is dedicated to the
cal

ends of

safety

happiness,

the alpha and omega of politi

life. This is in

entire agreement with

Aristotle's Politics. The teaching

and the

the the

Founding,
ground

expressed political

in the Declaration

Federalist,
sense,

takes nature as

of

life

in

the

teleological

not

in

the

non-

moral purposeless sense of modern science.

only the American

cal
speeches

Founding, but

all political

Bloom has completely misread not life, since he does not read politi

to discover the form of the consciousness of political men. He

whether

assumes that political men are mere epigones of philosophers

they
the
or

know it Founders

or

not.

The

political

nature

of man
and not

is however

understood

by

if

one reads what

they
and

say,

only

what

Hobbes
as

or

Locke
as

Kant say in the light of the light of the inequality of man closely with the first book of Genesis. But such inequalities
cal right are grounded

inequality

of man

and

beast,

well

in the

God. This understanding corresponds very the Politics, and as it does with the first chapter of

imply

that morality and the principles of

politi

in

purposeful

corresponds as well to the teachings of

reality accessible to reason, one that biblical faith. When Madison speaks of

the sacrifice of all

a

fortiori that

institutions to the safety and happiness of society, he implies the safety and happiness of individuals may or must be sacrificed
the safety
or

too. For the

Founders,
of

happiness

of

society

that

is to

say, of a

society in the Declaration

constructed

according to the principles of Independence judgments

of

legitimacy

and right set

forth

always takes precedence over the mere

interests
while

or subjective

conceding that the

citizens

individuals. That is why Lincoln in 1861, of the seceding States possessed the same denied that they ought to inconsistent with the purposes for which
ancestors,
with

right of revolution as

their

Revolutionary

exercise

that right for any purpose

their ancestors had exercised that right. To extend slavery was inconsistent
the purposes of the
could conceive of a preservation at

Revolution. The life

worth

Founding Fathers, living without friendship.

no more

than

Aristotle,
of
self-

The baseness

ple,

was

the principle of Hobbesianism as a moral princi any cost beyond their imagination. Hence for them there could be no interest in

self-preservation separate

from

or

independent

of the survival and

well-being

of

everything they loved. In truth, fear is not more powerful than love. The Founding Fathers, as one of the most exceptional generations

of

politi-

Humanizing
cal men

Certitudes

and

Impoverishing
be
were rather

Doubts

125

who ever or

lived,

are not to

understood as

primarily Hobbesians,

Lockeans,
cally
wise
portraits of virtues

Aristotelians.

They

phronimoi, morally and politi

men, the kind

of characters

from

whom

Aristotle himself drew his

understood what these

the moral and political virtues.

not

And Aristotle his

were,

from

speculative

thought as such, but from contemplating

observation.

such actual examples of

the virtues as came under

The

source

of

his ability to

recognize

these virtues, was

of philosophy.
doubts"

not

philosophy, but nature, the

reality

the source of

Bloom looks to philosophy only as For him, political philosophy is nothing more nor less than the cleverly disguised question, What have you done for me lately? But men who lead revolutions, who found and preserve states, cannot
which was

the ground

"humanizing

be

guided

only

by

their

doubts.

They

require convictions.

And they do

not

look

upon

themselves as responsible

convictions.

Looking
life

no one can comment

only only to books, politics for Bloom is a closed book. And instructively on the relationship between political life and does
not

to those who raise doubts about those

the philosophic

who

know

what political

life is.

philosophy statesmanship of the American Founding reality of political life itself. In the light of that reality rights divorced from right. There can be no such thing
of

The vitality
the

of classical political

why it is so close to the spirit is that it is grounded in the

one

does

not speak of

as a right to
of

do wrong
never

as

Lincoln

said

when

he denied that the

consent

the governed could

as

justify
forgot,
others was to

the extension of slavery. And we must never that the rights Americans valued so
endowed as

forget,

Lincoln

they had been

did

by

their

Creator. Their

highly duty

were

the rights

with which

to respect the rights of

not ensue

Bloom, following Hobbes,

thinks

solely because it

their advantage, however enlightened the self-interest which dictated

that advantage. Their to God

a

duty

to respect the rights of others was part of their

duty

duty

which

was

entirely

unconditional.

Hence Jefferson, in the

Notes

on

Virginia,
liberties
of a people

And

can the

be thought secure,

when we

have

removed

their

only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?

are of the

Concerning

the

central

event

in American

history

in

which

Abraham

Lincoln found entirely plausible Jefferson's prophetic judgment concerning the wrath of God for the sin of slavery Bloom has this to say:
The only quarrel in our history that really involved fundamental differences was over slavery. But even the proponents of slavery hardly dared assert that some human

beings

are made

deny
with

the

by nature to serve other human beings, humanity of the blacks. Besides, that question
of

as

did Aristotle; they had

really already
settled

to

was

the Declaration

extinguished, not a permanent

Independence. Black slavery was an aberration that had to be feature of our national life. Not only slavery, but

126

Interpretation theocracy
were

aristocracy, monarchy and

laid to

rest

by

the Declaration and the

Constitution (p.

248).

Except for Russell Independence

("

Kirk's

cally Jeffersonian government") I cannot

such great
errors.4

excommunicating the Declaration of not even characteristi not conspicuously American not a work of political philosophy or an instrument of
allocution
.

recall another place

in

which so

few

words encompassed

We very
who

note

first

of all

Bloom's thesis: that

those
over which

our

"differences
used

of principles

are

fight"

small

compared to

men

to

(p.

248).

This

opinion was certified

by

Tocqueville (who

visited

here in the early

1830s and
none

died before the Civil War). It is therefore

canonical or

Bloom. It is

theless mistaken. I remember in 1940

trying

to tutor in English a refugee Polish

university professor. I finally abandoned the effort. My pupil had a German English textbook that he had brought with him from Europe, and he simply
would not accept

agree with

anything I told him his German authority!

about the

English language that did

not

Bloom
come

cannot

form
a

or accept an opinion about

source.

the United States that has

not

to

him from

European

Tocqueville
of

was a great and wise writer

but,
and

as

Aristotle

says of the

discourses

Socrates, however brilliant,

original,

searching they may have been, "it is difficult to be right about (Politics, 1265314). It hardly seems to detract from Tocqueville's
differences"

every

greatness

to

say that he is not the greatest interpreter of a war he did not live to see. Bloom
writes about the

"fundamental

in the Civil War, He ignores the

yet

there is no
of

attempt

to characterize those differences.

which represent

pronouncements

Lincoln,

the peak of
of

what

is American,
and

pronouncements

that

belong

in the company

Demosthenes. Cicero,
a greater a greater war

Burke.
oration

Leo Strauss
than that of

believed the

Gettysburg
as

Address to be
was

funeral

Pericles, just

Lincoln

clearly

leader. In the Preface to the

University
I had first

of

Chicago Press

encountered

Crisis of the House Divided I noted that the Lincoln- Douglas debates in 1946 when I was
reprint of

reading Plato's Republic with Leo Strauss. I was astonished to discover that the issue between Lincoln and Douglas was identical in principle with that between

Socrates

and

Thrasymachus. For Douglas's doctrine

of the proposition

simply the democratic form

the stronger.

sovereignty was that justice was the interest of

of popular

We in Illinois

tried

finding
p.
4.

that it

was not

profitable, we abolished
1858.

slavery [said Douglas], kept it up for twelve years, and it for that reason (Joint Debate,
Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. Ill,

Alton, Illinois, October 15,

297.)
On Kirk's atrocities, United
see

"What

Intentions'

were the

'Original

of

the Framers of the Consti

States?"

tution of the
380-83.

in The University of Puget Sound Law Review,

Spring

1987. esp. at

Humanizing Certitudes
Whatever the
and
whatever

and

Impoverishing
said

Doubts

127
vote

people think

is in their interest,

Douglas, they may

vote

in,
of

they

think is not in their

interest, they may

out.

This is

exactly

what

Thrasymachus thought democratic justice to be. This implies,

course, that when the tyrant

more

does

what

is in his interest, he is
no

being

neither

nor

less just than the

people.

Tyrannical justice is
of

less justice than

democratic justice.

Southern

version

as in the sovereignty the distinction between tyrannical and democratic justice

In Douglas's

version

popular

disappears.

But Lincoln thought differently.

principles

Like Socrates (and Plato justice limited

as

and

Aristotle) he thought that the

ought

of natural
a

they

to guide
when

human
Bloom

choice.

There is

distant

echo of

Crisis of the House

there could be no

Divided

writes

(p. 29) that "for Lincoln

compromise with

the principle of equality, that it did not depend on the peo

ple's choice or election

"

but is the
sees

condition of their

having

elections

in the first
a

place

But Bloom
people

Lincoln's

argument as a of

demand for consistency,

demand that the he does

not

defer to the logic

the principle of their regime. But

inquire into the

status of that principle or of the regime or

it: is it theirs because it is right,

"low"

is it merely
as

right

embodying for them because it is

theirs? Bloom never asks. He never entertains the possibility that the tion of this allegedly
regime

founda
abstract

is,

Lincoln believed it to be, "an

times"

tmth applicable to all men and all

(Ibid., Ill,

p.

376).

my knowledge, the election of 1800 in the United States was the first time in human history that a national government was replaced by its

To the best

of

bitter
offices

political

enemies on

the basis of a free election. Those who lost their

offices

gave them up without any physical struggle. Those who gained the to execute, imprison, expropriate, or exile did nothing to proscribe those who lost. And those who lost looked forward confidently to a future in

which

they

or others

like themselves

might again

hold those

offices.

We

are so

accustomed to such
we

blessings in
the

what we are pleased of

to call the free world, that

fail to

appreciate

uniqueness

this event, and to realize how much

of

everything we hold dear depended upon the successful test the Declaration of Independence in the election of 1800. It is
the
well

the

principles of

to bear in

mind

that

in the Glorious Revolution in England in 1689

was no constitutional elections

King

was

driven into

exile

just because there

the basis of the

way

of

changing the
the

chief executive on

to Parliament. Al supremacy,

though that Revolution

established

the principle of

Parliamentary

King

(or

Queen)

remained

the

executive

head

of

the government until after

remained responsible

the Reform Act of 1832. The the unelected

could

ministers of

the crown

to

Crown,
course,

and not govern

to the elected House of Commons. The Crown

not,

of

effectively

without majorities

in the Parliament,
the patronage

but these

majorities were assembled as much

by

manipulation of

(that is to say,
to the
"rotten"

by buying

the votes it
electors

needed

in the Commons)
unreformed

as

by

deference
with

electorate.

And the

of

the

Parliament
were

its

"rotten"

boroughs

as well as

equally

rural seats

very far from

128

Interpretation
standard

the American

of

democratic

representation mind when

in

1800.
said

All this is, I

that the

believe,

what

Alexander Hamilton had in

purged of corruption, who reigned
would

he

British
of a
and

Constitution,

become

unworkable.

The idea

King
yet of

or

Queen
that

but did
to
a

not rule,

and of a

Prime Minister

cabinet

was responsible

democratically
in the House

elected

legislature, had
whenever

not
vote

been born. And

the people

so the

idea

of

changing the executive

of

the

changed

the

majorities

Commons,

was yet un

known. The idea

of a government registered

consent of the governed,

resting upon the continuing and changing in free elections, was a discovery of the
to the
world.

American Founding, party in

whether

and was

its

precious gift

But the trail blazed in

a national
"seceded"

1800 proved to
refused

be inconclusive. In i860,
Here indeed

the

losing
and

election

to accept the results of the voting,

was

to form another government.

supreme

test of

societies of men are reflection and

really

capable or not of

establishing

good government

from
politi

choice,

or whether

they

are

forever destined

to

depend for their

cal constitutions on accident and

force (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1,

Modern

Library

edition,

p.

3).

In his inaugural address, Lincoln declared that

A
majority,

held in

restraint

by

constitutional checks and

limitations,

and always

changing easily
only true

with

deliberate free

changes of popular opinions and sentiments

is the

sovereign of a

people

(Collected

Works, IV,
to

p.

268).

And

so

it

remained

for the American

people

demonstrate
bullets;

to the world
that
when

that ballots

are and

the rightful and peaceful

successors of

and

ballots

have

fairly

constitutionally decided, there

p. 439).

can

be

no successful appeal

back to

bullets

(Ibid.,

Bloom to the contrary notwithstanding, this question of bullets versus ballots as fundamental a difference as any over which men have ever fought.
represented

We

noted

Bloom's

pronouncement above

that the antebellum "proponents of

are made

slavery hardly other human beings,

dared

assert that some

as

human beings
"

by

nature to serve
matter

did Aristotle
of

He has

got

the

exactly

backwards. The American defenders

ery
the
was

They did so by biological inequality of the races. Aristotle says that someone of human birth would be servile by nature, if he differed from the generality of mankind "as widely as the soul does from the body and the human being from the lower (Politics, 1254a 16). The usefulness of such persons, by reason of the by
nature
animal"

just.

Negro slavery did assert that that slav asserting long before Nazi theory

imperfection

of

their rational

faculties,

"diverges little from that

of animals;

Humanizing
bodily
tally
as service I254b25).

Certitudes

and

Impoverishing
life is

Doubts

129
.

for the

necessities of calls
akin

forthcoming

from both

(Ibid.,
men such

Aristotle only to be functionally

are called

those slaves natural

who are so

defective

to the lower animals. In the modern world,

persons

retarded,

and

"mental"

euphemistically called them from universities.) One

such persons world?

usually institutions. (This is

are

confined to what are supposed could

somewhat

to distinguish
expect

might

however ask, how

Aristotle

to

form

such a social class as slaves

not.

The

answer

is that he did
that

actually formed in the ancient In Book VII of the Politics he says that

"it

is

advantageous
"

all slaves should

have their freedom

slave, properly
so

set

before them
cannot

as

a reward
rewarded

(1330332). But

a natural

called,

be

by freedom,
of natural

any

more

than a horse or a

dog

or an ox.

Aristotle's

discussion

slavery leads to the conclusion that the actual institution of slavery rested, not on nature, but on convention or law. Its sanction was force, or justice understood as the interest of the stronger (cf. 1255319 with
I255bi5).

Aristotle's
would

proposal

in Book VII

of the

Politics,

applied

to

antebel

lum America,

have led to the policy that Lincoln commended: that of compensated emancipation. The fact that no such policy was politi gradual, cally
conceivable

that

is to say, that
made

no

legislation to this

end

could

be

adopted

by

constitutional means

the Civil War inevitable.

Slavery

was

in fact destroyed
necessity.

by

the only means that could

have destroyed it: military

much with

The

antebellum
recognizes.

Southern defense Aristotle's

of

Bloom

argument

Negro slavery was has nothing to do

harsher than
"race"

(as in

"racism,"

a term of modem politics).

justify

the enslavement of an intelligent Negro

"aberration"

Nothing by

in Aristotle's

argument would

a stupid white.
was

Bloom thinks

that American slavery

"settled"

was

an

whose place

by

the

Declaration
shown

of

Independence.

Nothing

could

be further from the tmth. This is

"cornerstone"

by

the

following

excerpts of

from the famous

speech

of

April

861 (before the fall Confederacy.

Fort Sumter)

by

Alexander

Stephens, Vice Presi

the

dent

of the

The prevailing ideas entertained the time of the formation of the African
was

by [Jefferson]
old
of nature:

and most of
were

leading

statesmen at

Constitution,

that the enslavement of the

in

violation of

the

laws

that it

was

wrong in principle,

socially, morally,

and politically.

Now, however,
those ideas

we

know that
wrong.

were

fundamentally

They

rested upon

the assumption

of

the

equality of the races. Our new government [the Confederate States of is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its
rests upon

America]
cornerstone

the

great

truth that the negro

is

not

the equal of the white

man.

That

slavery
tion.5

the

subordination

to the superior race,

is his

natural and normal condi

5.

The Political
p.

History

of the Great Rebellion, Edward McPherson ed.,

Washington, D.C.,

1865,

103.

130

Interpretation

Stephens further
edly

natural aptitude

compared

inferiority of the Negro his alleg was a discovery of modern science, and he for slavery it to Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood. He identi
asserted that the natural
of

fies the idea

progress science

the social, moral, and political progress of mankind with the

of science.

The

Confederacy
to the
of

based

upon

just

such

an

advance of

is therefore

"old"

superior

Constitution

of 1787.

The

notorious

claims made

later in behalf both

National Socialism

and

Marxism-Leninism
for the

that
truth

they

represented political regimes grounded

in the

progress of scientific

were anticipated

in

principle

by

this most articulate spokesman

Confederate South. Bloom's

to
1

assertion

that slavery "was an aberration that

Stephens'

had in

be

86 1

is itself merely the that opposition to Negro slavery

all new

extinguished"

counterpart of was

conviction

an

aberration

to be extinguished.

Like

recognition.

truths, he said, it would take time for its diffusion and general With this recognition, however, would come acceptance of the
of

justice

and

propriety

altogether

forgotten

if he has not Bloom simply dismisses Lincoln's House Divided speech, which warned that the Negro
slavery.

nation was at a
whether

crossroads, and that a decision had to be reached and taken, to become all free
and or all slave. an

the

nation was never

Bloom

writes as

if "all

slave"

was politician.

possibility,

Lincoln

irresponsible

inflammatory

American historians wrote precisely as most before the publication of Crisis of the House Divided in 1959. In truth, how

He

"revisionist"

writes

ever, the idea of

progress can

be

used

to vindicate either

freedom

or slavery.

In

1861,

however,

no one could tell which would prevail.

The

question of

slavery
was

extension

went

to the root of the meaning of free

government, but it
would continue

the obverse of the question of whether free elections

would govern

to decide who

in

a republic.

By

i860 the

doc

trines of John C. Calhoun

which

had taken the deepest

root

throughout the

South

had completely divorced the idea of natural rights and human equality from the idea of political sovereignty, and hence from the idea of State sover
eignty.

It

was

this

divorce

which gave

legitimacy
seen

to the idea of a constitutional

of

right of secession.

Popular sovereignty, his

in the light

the Declaration

of

Independence, is
person to
of

the collective expression of the equal right of each human

own consent under

be

governed with

the

rule of

law. And the

rule

law

was

itself

understood to

be the implementation, in

accordance with the

God."

dictates

of prudence, of

"the laws

of nature and of nature's

These laws

of nature were understood

to be both moral and rational.

They

were understood

to secure the equal rights to

of each

life, liberty,

property, and the pursuit of

connection

happiness

human

person.

In severing the

between

natural rights and

and morality Calhoun's typical
who

constitutional altogether.

rights, Calhoun severed the connection between law

was

This fact

disguised to idea

some extent of progress

because

of

mid-century
were

commitment to the
and

to the belief that those

scientifically

technologically

advanced were

morally

superior.

Humanizing
The

Certitudes

and

Impoverishing

Doubts

131
and their

discovery
to

of gunpowder and the use of steam as an

impelling force,
the

application

military

purposes

have forever

settled the question of the

of

ascendancy

between
on

barbarous communities, in favor Cralle Government, ed., p. 62. Emphasis added.)

civilized and

former. (A Disquisition

Calhoun

assumed

as
same

written about

the

did his contemporary Karl Marx, whose Manifesto was time as the Disquisition that the outcome of physical
of

conflict,

whether

that

proletariat

and

bourgeoisie,
refers

or

that of

white

and

colored races

would

indicate

moral no

less than

material superiority.

State sovereignty, in Calhoun's thought,

more than

then

ultimately to nothing
government.

the

force (assumed Independence

who

to

be moral)

at

the command of the

In his Disquisition there is Declaration

government.

no abstract or rational

way to distinguish
and

as

in the
of

of

between the just

slaves

the

unjust

powers

Those

are

are

assumed

to be rightfully slaves, and

those who are masters, to be rightfully masters.

arise and enslave

And if the

slaves

suddenly

latter

was

argument.

be rightfully what he is! This not something Calhoun contemplated, but it follows the logic of his It is not for nothing that Calhoun has been rightly called (by Richard
the masters, then
each will still of

Hofstadter, in The American Political Tradition) "the Marx

Class."

the

Master

This is to

imply
If it

correctly, I believe

that Calhoun anticipated, in

certain

fundamentals,

the thought underlying the two great tyrannies of the

was

twentieth century. monarchy, and

Constitution."

true,

as

Bloom says, that "slavery, aristocracy,

rest

theocracy"

had been "laid to

by

the Declaration and the

so power

then why

had the

thought of John

C. Calhoun become

ful?

Why indeed

was

there ever a Civil War? (See "Defenders of the Constitu

Madison,"

tion: Calhoun versus

published

by

the present

writer.

A Bicentennial
of

Essay

by

the Bicentennial Project of the

University

Dallas.)
Bloom
was

Next, I
was an

come to a

Bloom's

account of

the "The

Sixties."

forced to

live through

event

revolutionary political event which he never really understood. It in American history, the serious study of which Bloom has

always regarded as superfluous. canized versions of the

He looked

upon the student radicals as

Ameri

Nazi

youth of

the 1930s, and there

is

some

validity in

this analogy. The deeper resemblance,

however, is

to the historicism and nihil

ism already

present

in the intellectual defense

and

the thought of both John C. Calhoun

of the Confederacy notably in Alexander Stephens. And there are

contemporaries

important

parallels

to Calhoun in

Thoreau,

who,

opposite sides of the each other.

slavery question, were yet nearly perfect mirror

abolitionism

ostensibly on images of
theoretical
would

For the fact is that

the Constitution.

and

slavery,

although

antagonists,

nonetheless collaborated

in

way that, had it succeeded,

have

cmshed

Their

radical

hostility
our

and

practical

coopera

tion closely

resembles

the way in

nists worked together to

destroy
had
no

century Nazis and Commu the Weimar regime, which both hated worse
which

in

than

they hated
and

each other.

But Weimar lacked the

Lincoln.

strength of

the

American

Founding,

Germany

132

Interpretation
movement which

The Black Power

brought Cornell

University

to

its knees

in 1969 (and drove Bloom into exile) was movement, in the aftermath of the victory
of

a transformation of the of

Civil Rights

that

movement

by

the enactment

the great civil rights laws of 1964 and 1965. In this transformation there was

the same severance of the connection between civil and constitutional rights, on the one

hand,

and natural rights on of

the other,

as

had been
own

earlier accomplished

in the thought
ever

Calhoun. Black Power became its

could

justification for
once

what

demands it

exact, just

as

the ownership

of slaves

justified

whatever

the owners of slaves could

exact.

That the ideas animating the Black

those of the

Power

movement were at

bottom the

same as

leading defenders

of

slavery, however ironical, is

of

nonetheless

tme.

Bloom, however, is
least

unconscious

this, because he is
made

unconscious of

the power and magnitude of the

ideas in

conflict that
war ever.

the American Civil War perhaps the

avoidable great

Bloom's his
pride

alienation

from the American

some of

political

tradition is illuminated

by

in the fact that Socrates

his

students went

among the rioters distribut

ing
in

a pamphlet which reprinted

the passage from Plato's Republic

(49ie-492b)
many
who

which

characterizes the

demos itself
Most

as

the greatest of sophists, the

and

greatest of the corrupters of the young.

were not radical would

radical students

think that what it revealed most of all was Plato's

antidemocratic prejudices.

But the

passage also

lends itself easily to

Marx

ist interpretation however spurious because, according to the Republic, among the causes of the corruption is private property, and the leading cure for it is communism. It is difficult to imagine what effect other than inflamma

tory
One

Bloom thought this Platonic

might

passage might

have had

on

the rioters.
characteriza

reflect,

however,

as

Bloom does

not, that

Socrates'

tion of

democracy in the Republic is peculiarly inapplicable to the popular government envisaged by the American Founding Fathers. Theirs was a regime
law

of

in

principle and

aspiration, one of reason unaffected

could make given

by

desire. To the
as a regime
and

extent that
which

human

ingenuity

it so, it

was

intended

in
of

equal

recognition
was

was

to the

requirements as

of wisdom

consent.

Consent
of

necessary however because,

as

Plato himself insisted, the

wisdom. remarks

designs

tyrants are always masked

the claims of

Leo Strauss, in "On Classical Political

"aristocracy"

Philosophy,"

that

(rule

of

the
of

best)

presented

itself

as the natural answer of all good men

to the natural question

the best

political order.

As Thomas Jefferson

put

it, "That

form
tion

of government

is the best,

which provides offices of

the most

effectually for

a pure selec

of

[the]

natural aristoi

into the
of

government."6

Professor Colleen Sheehan

point out to me that

Villanova

University
pp.

has been kind

enough

to

in this

celebrated essay,

Strauss illustrates the

85, 86.

central thesis

6. In What Is Political

Philosophy''

Free Press. 1959,

Humanizing Certitudes
of classical political

and

Impoverishing

Doubts

133

tion from a renowned that

the nature of the best regime with a quota philosophy letter of Jefferson to Adams. She has also pointed out
central passage

it

appears to

be the

in Strauss's

essay.

However

one

finally

judges the

wisdom of

the

Founding,
of

there is little doubt that

Strauss, like Jef

as

ferson,

regarded

this assimilation

aristocracy into
that

democracy
from
mass

its guiding

thought.

Elsewhere Strauss has

education as

written

Liberal

is the ladder

by

which we

try

to

ascend

democracy

to

democracy

originally

meant.'

The American Founding, insofar

thus

as

it is

meant"

"democracy
as

as

originally
"low."

is

inadequately

characterized
a

to say the least

something

After

all, why would anyone need

ladder to

ascend

to it?

Yet Bloom is
The

not altogether oblivious of

the higher ground. He writes,

students were unaware that the teachings of equality, the promise of the

Declara
and

tion of

Independence,

the

study

of

the

Constitution,

the

knowledge

of our

history

many

more things were the

painstakingly

earned and

stored-up

capital that supported

them (p. 334).

Someone

who can write of

the American and French Revolutions as scenarios

thought out beforehand

stmctions,"

say that "the English and American regimes [had been] founded according to [Locke's] in is hardly in a position to reproach others for the lack of "the study

by

Locke

and

Rousseau,

and who can

history."

of

But

were

the students simply unaware of this

history

as

Bloom
the

says

here
as

or were

they

not

in

agreement with

Bloom's

own view of

Founding

"not very

inspiring,"

and as

spiritually impoverishing? Was the

the successful
students

revolt of the sixties not at materialism misguided not

of

bottom

a middle class revolt against not

American life? Did

were

the

themselves

however

believe that they

nurtured

Bloom himself

this revolt, even if it took

rejecting the low in favor of the high? Had forms that he did not

expect or wish?

On Senate
est

February
of of

21,
of

1861,

President-elect Abraham Lincoln

spoke of

addressed

the

the State

New Jersey. He
of a small

his recollection, from the

earli

days
I

his childhood,
the

book, Weems's Life of Washington.

battle fields
upon

remember all

accounts

there given of the

and struggles

for the

liberties

of the country, and none

.

fixed themselves
the crossing
of

my imagination

so

deeply
my have

as

the struggle here at Trenton

the river; the contest with the

Hessians;

the

great

hardships
single

endured at

that time, all

fixed themselves

on

all memory been boys, how these early impressions last longer than any others. I recollect think ing, then, boy even though I was, that there must have been something more than
more

than any

Revolutionary

event; and you

know, for

you

common that those men struggled

which

for. I

am

exceedingly
than

anxious that that

thing
that

they

struggled

for;

that something

even more

National

Independence;

7.

Liberalism Ancient

and

Modern, Basic Books,

1968,

p. 5.

1 34

Interpretation
out a great promise

something that held

come; I
the
am people

to all the

people of

the

world

to all time to

exceedingly anxious that this Union, the Constitution, and the liberties of shall be perpetuated in accordance with the original idea for which that I
shall

struggle was made, and

ment

be

most

happy

indeed if I

shall

be

an

humble instru

in the hands

of

the

Almighty,

and of

this, his

almost chosen people, pp.

for

perpetuating

the object of that struggle (Collected

Works. IV,

235, 236).

Leo Strauss's
coln's all

and

Jefferson's
of what the

meant,"

"original

idea"

"democracy as originally Almighty had promised "to

is the
that was
at

and
all

Lin

the people of

world"

the

by

this "his almost chosen

noble

legacy
in the
not

the

moral no

less than the intellectual foundation Lincoln's

lacking

educa

tion of the disaffected students.

speech

Trenton,

Socrates'

denunciation
rioters

of

who, in rejecting their

democracy, is what was needed inheritance,

a pearl

to illuminate the

folly

of the

Like the base Indian, threw

away,

Richer than

all

his tribe (Othello,

opposed

v.ii).

Lincoln,
ground as

who

had

Douglas's idea

of popular

that Socrates had

Thrasymachus'

opposed could could

sovereignty on the same cynical definition of justice

provided a
shown

nothing but the interest of the stronger, duction to the Republic than Bloom's. He inner
connection

have

better intro
students

have

the

the
and

between the

principles

of classical

political not

those of the Declaration of Independence.

Bloom

could

philosophy do this because

everything in his it to be true.

The

account of

the American mind proves that he does not believe

argument of

Bloom's book founders

on the

fact that he

cannot
and

decide

between the
skepticism,
sche and

classical rationalism that

may be traced to Socrates

that his
"humanized"

Socratic Nietz

and the rejection of all rationalism

certain

and all skepticism

by

Heidegger. He is only

doubt is
of

superior

to any alternative, or to any decision

of

for example, in favor

concedes

the principles

the Declaration of Independence. Yet he

that the issue may yet be

resolved.

Are Nietzsche
the question
rationalism.
is

and

Heidegger
and

right about returned

Plato

and

Aristotle?

They

rightly

saw

that

here,

both

obsessively to Socrates. Our

rationalism

is his

modern rationalists and

avoided

Perhaps they did not take seriously enough the changes wrought by hence the possibility that the Socratic way might have the modern impasse. But certainly all the philosophers, the proponents of

reason, have

something in

common, and more or

less

directly

reach

back to

Aristotle,

Socrates'

spiritual grandchild.

serious argument about what

is

most

profoundly modern leads Socrates is the one thing degger look to the
possible to

inevitably
needful.

to the conclusion that study

was

of

the

problem of and

It

Socrates

who made

Niet/sche

Hei
seems

pre-Socratics.

For the first time in four hundred

to

years,

it

begin
might

all over again,

try

to figure

out what

Plato

was

talking

about,

because it

be the best thing

available

(p. 310).

Humanizing
The study
of

Certitudes

and

Impoverishing
was
a

Doubts

135
of

the problem of

Socrates

life-long
Indeed,

preoccupation much of

Leo

Strauss,
passage
addition

who was
might

Bloom's teacher

and mine.

the

foregoing
In

have been transcribed from Strauss's familiar

all

conversation.

to his many writings on virtually

aspects of classical and modern

writ
and

political

philosophy, Strauss wrote three books on Xenophon's Socratic them

with

ings,

all of

forewords
it

by

Bloom. In addition, he
an

wrote

Socrates
of

Aristophanes.
problem of

Together,
as

these constituted
might

exhaustive

articulation

"the

Socrates,"

be

uncovered were

in

non-Platonic

(and

pre-So com

cratic)

sources.

These

writings of

Strauss
as

in

addition to

his

lengthy

mentaries on

the Platonic the

no

Socrates
the

he is

presented yet

the

Statesman,
makes

Apology,

Crito,

and

in the Republic, the Laws, other dialogues. Of all this

Bloom

mention.

In his

overview of

the

history

of political

philos

ophy, "From

Socrates'

Apology

to Heidegger's

Rektoratsrede"

(pp. 243-312),

there is no mention of Strauss.

In

our

time, Bloom writes, "it

the study of
anyone who or
most

was Heidegger, practically alone, for whom Greek philosophy became truly central (p. 309, 310). How had studied with Strauss or had read "What Is Political Philoso
"
. .

"On Classical Political

comprehension.

Philosophy"

could
speak thus of

have

written

this

is

al

mentioning Strauss, is like speaking of Hitler, without mentioning Churchill. For, if the tmth were known, Strauss was as surely Heidegger's nemesis as Churchill was

beyond

To

Heidegger,

without

Hitler's. One

can

only

conclude

that if Bloom

says

that the one

thing

needful

is

the study of the problem of

Socrates,

and yet makes no mention of

Strauss's

study

of

the problem of Socrates (or of Greek philosophy), then he cannot

needful one.

think that Strauss's study is the

Strauss
might now

moreover never reached such a after

lame
to

conclusion as

Bloom's,
Plato
makes

that we talk

four hundred

years

"try

figure

out what

was

ing about, because it might be the best thing for the right way of life sound like the quest for
of prohibition!

available."

This

the quest the era

prewar

whiskey

during

is an In fact, Bloom's "to figure Strauss's Preface to Spinoza s Critique of Religion:

For Spinoza there but
are no natural ends

out"

echo of a passage

from

He is therefore

compelled

to give a novel

account of man's end

(the life devoted to

contemplation): man's end

is

not natural

rational, the the

result

of figuring it

out

He thus
mind
.

decisively
as

prepares

the modern
an end

"ideal"

notion of

as a work of the
nature.

human

distinguished from
p.

imposed
added.)

on man

by

(Liberalism Ancient

and

Modern,

241

Emphasis

What Bloom is
at

looking
to

for is

out"

"figuring

of

Plato

which

is in fact

not

Plato
all

all, but

"ideal,"

a modem

ostensibly

grounded

in Plato, but designed like

modern reason.

ideals,

Bloom has

gratify a passion, rather than to subordinate passion to no intention of facing squarely the issue of philosophical
and

realism

(Socrates, Plato,
no such

Aristotle)

versus

nihilism

(Nietzsche

and

Hei

degger). He has

intention because he knows that Strauss has

presented

136
the case

Interpretation
for the former in terms he
cannot refute
s

but
on

will not accept.

Consider
Modern

the

following
Right"

from the

end

of

Strauss
and

chapter

"The Crisis

of

Natural had

in Natural Right

History. Rousseau,
name of

according to

Strauss,

a reservation against

society in the

the state of nature.

the
state of nature means to

To have

a reservation against

society in the
without

name of

have

a reservation against

society

being

either compelled or able

to

indicate the is
made.

way

of

life

or the cause or pursuit

for the

sake of which the reservation

The

notion of a return

to the state of

nature on

the

level
not

of

humanity

was

the ideal basis

294).

for claiming

freedom from society

which

is

freedom for something (p.

core

Rousseau,
Rousseau

as

interpreted here

by Strauss,

is the

of

Bloom's

soul.

It is

informs Bloom's reading of Plato's Republic, and who has tipped the balance within him irrevocably towards Nietzsche and Heidegger.
who

Bloom's ideal
state

of

the university is just such a place where one can "return to the
on

of

nature

the

level

humanity."

of

The

attractiveness

of

this sup

posed

return, says

Strauss, is

that

It

was an

ideal basis for

an appeal of

finable,

to an ultimate

sanctity

from society to something indefinite and undethe individual as individual, unredeemed and freedom
came

unjustified.

This

was

precisely

what

to mean

for

a considerable

number of men.

In the "ultimate sanctity

of the

individual

individual"

as

sanctity
modern

unfettered either

by

God

or nature

meaning thereby a Strauss has defined the core of

liberalism. And Bloom,

men."

a quintessential

liberal, is
that

one of

that "consid

erable number of

Concluding, Strauss

writes

Every

freedom

which

is freedom for something, every freedom

or

which

is justified

by

reference

to something higher than the individual

than

man as mere man, neces

sarily restricts freedom or, which is the same thing, establishes a tenable distinction between freedom and license. It makes freedom conditional on the purpose for which it is
claimed.

Of

course

Bloom does

not

claim

unconditional

freedom for

man

in society
conven

any

more than

did Rousseau. Nor does he

attack

those necessary

tions of academic life that make it comfortable and agreeable to persons like

himself. But he does idea

That
of

not admit within conditional and

his

own soul

nor

does he teach
man

any
man.

freedom that is

upon

excludes

both Athens

Jerusalem

anything higher than and Leo Strauss.

as

was

Bloom to the contrary notwithstanding, we have known all along what Plato talking about. He was talking about Justice (for example, in the Republic), in the
other

and

dialogues bad for

about man.

moderation, courage,

law,

and, in general,
not what

what was good and

The

question about

Plato is

he

was

talking

about,

or even whether what

man was

he

said appears wise or

just, but

whether

the good and bad for

grounded

in any

ultimate

reality,

whether

it

Humanizing Certitudes
existed

and

Impoverishing
(or law),
or

Doubts

137
unknowable

by

nature,

by

convention

by

some

divine

dispensation. For Bloom the

about

question

is not, What is Justice? It is, Which book

end of

justice do

you

like best? At the

Thoughts

on

Machiavelli Strauss,

rejecting Machiavelli's teaching,

nature or

says

"that the
must

notion

of the

beneficence
derived"

of

of

the primacy of the

Good

be

restored

by being
it is
the

rethought

through a return to the

299).

fundamental

experiences

from

which

(p.
the

In Strauss's

rejection of progress
would

in favor

of return,
us

books

of

classical philosophers

be indispensable to

as modem

men, needing
unlike

emancipation
never

from our peculiarly modern cave. But Strauss, failed to distinguish books from the "fundamental
to articulate. The

Bloom,

experiences"

the books

were meant sis

"primacy

of

the

Good"

the upper case empha

is Strauss's

is

primacy
always

with respect to all

books

and all

art,

even that of

Plato.

Plato's dialogues
subject

reveal

to us far

more

of our

ignorance

of each

discussed, than knowledge of that subject. In revealing our ignorance, however, they always reveal something of our knowledge of that ignorance.
And that knowledge
of

ignorance

always reveals

satisfy us, but something

whet our

of what

it is that
to go on,

we wish and

never something to know. It is

enough enough

to to

appetites, to

make us wish

know

more of what

it is that
of

we

do

not

know. The life lived in

accordance

with

the

knowledge

igno
the

rance

the

tmly

skeptical

life,

the examined and examining life

regime

is, by

light

of unassisted

human reason, the best life. The life is the best

regime.

that is best adapted

to the

living

of this

All

other

lives

and regimes are to

be

judged in relationship to this life and this regime. The goodness of the best life and the best regime is not arbitrary. It is not to be characterized as Bloom
suggests as

is
in
to

"according harmony with

merely the "best thing to And hence the

available."

On the contrary, that intellectual

goodness

nature."

moral and

virtues which are

this goodness are not arbitrary, but also are good

"according

nature."

We

return

to

Bloom's

assertion

that Nietzsche and Heidegger "returned so, he says because "Our

rationalism not

Socrates."

obsessively to

They did

is

[Socrates']
ously
might

rationalism."

He adds, however, "perhaps they did

take seri

enough

the changes wrought

by

the modern rationalists and

hence the One

For

possibility

that the Socratic way might have avoided the modem the

impasse."

encapsulate

life

work

of

Leo Strauss in Bloom's

"perhaps."

Strauss proved, I believe, that "the changes wrought by modem had mistakenly discredited the possibility that reason might discover the right way of life and the best regime. According to Strauss, it was not true that "Our

rationalist

[viz.,
and

modem

man's]

rationalism

is his [viz.,

Socrates']

rationalism."

Modem

rationalism

is

"scientific"

rationalism, which means that it explains the world

including whatever is regarded as good or bad for man everything in it in terms of what Aristotle called efficient and material causes, while denying

138

Interpretation
formal
and

the reality of what he called

causes
are understood

final
and

causes.

All formal

and

final
to

in

modern

science

modern

philosophy

as

epiphe-

nomena or explain

by-products

of efficient and material causes.

They

are attempts

the high
as

by

the low.

This is from

if

one would

try

to understand Michelangelo's David as the result

of the physical

force

applied

by

the

artist

to the chisel on the marble,

sculptor's

omitting

one's explanation rationalism

any

reference

to the

brain,

purpose, and skill.

a

Socratic

assumes

that Michelangelo's brain

had

purpose, even

before his hand

had discovered

attempted to give
what

it effect,

or even

before Michelangelo himself

that Michelangelo could not through all

it

was.

Indeed, it
For
of

assumes

have discovered his

a

purpose

if it had

not pre-existed modern

potentiality
an

of

his human

nature.

philosophy,

eternity Michelangelo's

as
art

is simply
causes

accidental

outcome

the causes that generated

Michelangelo,
or
so

utterly indifferent to his art, as they were blind to anything intelligent intelligible. The premises of modern philosophy are the result of a doubt
radical as

to eliminate all further

rationalism

need

to doubt: hence its dogmatism. The

ambition of modern companied

was

to eliminate the skepticism that had ac

Socratic rationalism, as its shadow. By replacing skepticism with dogmatism in philosophy, it would at the same time obviate any need for faith in God. Strauss, by showing that the self-destruction of reason in modem

philosophy
return not

was

the self-destruction

of modem

rationalism

alone, prepared a

restoring Socratic skepticism, he restored Socratic but the place that that skepticism left for biblical rationalism, only
to premodern rationalism.

By

faith. Nietzsche
rejection
of

and

Heidegger

represented

the final disillusionment

with

and

modem

rationalism,

although

they

seem

at

the same time to

have

rejected all rationalism.

modern

Not seeing as did Strauss discovered: nothing. rationalism, however, they

good or
man.

any alternative to Since there is no in life

must

purpose,
willed
wills

evil, in any reality

will

outside of

man,

all purpose

be

by

But the is
good.

has

no source of guidance outside

wills

itself. What
will

one own

as

good

What

one

as

evil,

is

evil. s

The

is its

justification, because
"Triumph
of of

there can be
whatever

no other.
as

Hitler

famous

propaganda

film

the

Will,"

its defects

art, is an authentic

manifestation

Heidegger's teaching. Here then is the

core cause of modern nihilism, and existence of

of the

belief that there is

things,

no ground

for the
or

God,

or of the noble

pleasing illusions. These must be willed by man, although are believable they by hoi polloi only if their origin is concealed. For the true Thinker who replaces the Philosopher there is
and good except as useful neither myth nor reality. abyss alone

fictions

The Thinker

having
without
with

triumphed over the terror of the

either

lives

without

illusions,
out

hope

or

fear, but in
it

an

unprecedented

freedom.

Bloom lives

considerable
which

discomfort in this
he
would give up.

freedom, but he has

not yet

figured

anything for

Philosophy, Science,
and

the

Opening

of

the American Mind

Roger D. Masters

It is exceptionally rare for a philosophic book to find its way to the New Best Seller list. It is also unusual for a work condemning Amer ica's culture and university system to generate widespread praise from the
York
Times'

targets of its criticism. But to a

it is
The

above all

extraordinary to

see such a response

book focused

on the souls of our students.

My

own assessment of

Closing

of the

American Mind

can

be

summa

rized under

three

headings, corresponding
reader

to the

book's

organization.

First,
and

the

account of our current situation

in Part 1 is brilliant is
spared
a

and accurate of

only

limited in that Bloom's

description

the

consequences

flowing
of

from the

cultural emptiness of

America's

educated class.
brightest"

One might,
effect

after all, remember that

the character of the "best

and

has the

of ugliness

shaping the cultural horizon of everyone else, with results including the cult in the arts and crafts (often in the name of originality, but some

times

blatantly

for its
or

own

sake), the loss of

morals

in business
of

and public

life

("inside

trading"

"guns for

hostages"),

and

the decline

industrial "com

nessmen

(as American technology is sold to foreigners and American busi only find profits from buying and selling each other's jobs and corpo
analysis of the

rate names).

Second, Bloom's

impact

of philosophic themes

and espe

on American opinion is simply cially of the German tradition II of The Closing of the American Mind makes connections of
us

awesome.

Part

which most of

have

never

dreamed

and makes them convincingly.

elaborate

added
what

is that Bloom doesn't

might call

clearly the historical

The only thing to be reasons (that is,

Aristotle

the "material and efficient causes") for the spread of

nihilism.

Isn't the lack

of spiritual goals

linked to the democratic itself

explicable
on

character of philosophic

the university? And

grounds?

isn't that higher

phenomenon

Democratization
of

of

education one

is,

after

all, in

part related

to the spread

high technology. On the

with mechanization

hand,

the need for productive workers goes

reason

down

(Rousseau had

to express

his

opposition to
on

labor-saving

devices in his

constitutional proposals

for Corsica);

the other,
the

the remaining jobs do

require

different

patterns of work. off

Putting

most of

youth through college at

least keeps them

the streets and the unemployment

rolls, and a few learn how to tions (even if

poorly). of

run computers or read complicated sets of

instruc its

The
massive

effects

technology

on

our

universities

are,

in turn,

related

to

impact

on

the character of our youth. Not

just (or primarily)

televi-

140
sion

Interpretation
though its effect on the ability to read and think
should

not

be

under

estimated now that the average

high

school graduate

is

said

to have spent more

mean

time in front of a television set than in a classroom.

refrigerators,

Rather, I
A

telephones,

cars, ski
spoiled

lifts,

and

running hot

water.

generation of spoiled

brats has been

"conveniences"

by

modern

the consumer

durables that

fuel
have

our economy. not a materialist alternative

This is

to Bloom's

critique:

the machines that

corrupted our youth are mode.

the essence of the Baconian project that the

fulfilled in

Lockean
II
of

Rather, it is

a suggestion

philosophic argument

in Part

The

Closing
life."

of the American Mind could easily be reinforced

old sense) of what

by

a precise called

account our

(anthropological in the
of

Aristotle

would

have

"way

Finally,
about the

the third part of Bloom's book says much that greatly needs saying
scholars and universities

way

have

abandoned serious matters.

Some I

might object that

it's

not

that much different

in

some

European

universities

know

some

young French

people who think their system much worse than ours

because demic

much

more preprofessional.

But to

see the

disarray

of the entire aca

world portrayed at one

time is indeed disconcerting.

For this reviewer, there

are

only two

key

points worth

adding to the dia

logue. First, Bloom

understates

the negative role that can be played

administrators

by
can

admin

istrative decisions. In general, university

void of our curriculum with
"Theme"

think

they

fill the

something trendy (for example,

"Theme"

interdisciplinary

causes called

courses, with the

being

something like "Ideas

that formed the Twentieth Century"). Not all of the baneful effects of contem

porary higher education can be laid to the door of the professors. A second question gets to my only major disagreement with The
the American Mind.

Closing
miss

of

Bloom's image

"Science"

of of the

is

no

longer entirely
seems

accurate.

Among

other

things, his treatment

natural

sciences

to

the

profound possibilities of

something new, especially in contemporary biology.

noting
since

This is especially
argument.

worth

it

contradicts

some minor points

in his

can

start with a small

but

significant

detail. One

of

the very few factual

errors that occurs

in The

Closing

of the American Mind concerns the relation

between humans
This

and other animals.

On

p.

133,

Bloom says, "In

all that growth

all

species

other than man, when an animal reaches stage

puberty, it is
all

it

will ever

be. is

is the

clear

end

toward which

of

its

and

learning
perhaps

directed. The
starts

animal's

downhill.

Only

activity is reproduction. It lives in man is puberty just the

and ways.

on this plateau until

it

beginning."

It's

jus

tifiable to

ignore the insects (despite Aristotle's interest

species"

in them), though
state

Bloom does say "all ment in some interesting

insects clearly contradict his But let us focus on the kind of

the social

"animals"

Bloom clearly had in

mind: mammals

here,

the assertion is contradicted

(dogs, horses, birds, wolves, etc.). Even by the importance of activities other than

Philosophy, Science,

and

the

Opening
with

of the American Mind

and with

141
the

reproduction associated with

environment.

play,

sociability,

learning

about

The in

actions not

narrowly
or

related to reproduction are

most of

the other primates. Aside from verbal

clearly very important speech, moreover, there is

"man"

virtually that has

no

activity

not now also

capacity that formerly was attributed uniquely to been observed in chimpanzees if not in other monkeys
of the self and of others as

and apes:

identification
altruistic

individuals, deceit, laugh

war.

"culture,"

ter, Nietzschean
ing"

self-sacrifice to
"brute"

save

others, murder, even

uses

The

assertion that the

(a term Bloom

often) has

no

"mean

is

a continuation of
cannot watch

the Hobbesian devaluation of nature. yes, playing

One

two eagles playing

"brutes"

for hours,

and still

think of all nonhuman animals as

chimpanzee or gorilla

puberty.

solely is emphatically not all he or she will be on reaching This is important insofar as Bloom appears to have accepted Nie

concerned with reproduction.

tzsche's view that "Man

is

becoming"

pure

(p.

203).

It is simply incorrect to

say that "the actuality of plants and other animals is contained in their potenti
alities, but this

is

not tme of man as

is indicated

by

the many cultural flowers

essentially

unlike one

On the

hand,

all

living

forms have

a range of

potentialities, so that
of organisms; on the
of philos

actuality depends

on the environments and

life histories

unlike"

other, to say that all cultures are

"essentially
and

flies in the face

If

ophy, experience, common sense,

serve the same all cultures are

Nietzsche's

own project.

all cultures

function
essentially

say to

give mythic meanings of good and

bad

then
Bowerof

birds

attract mates materials view

different

only differ on superficial matters. by making gaudy nests, it is said, and each bird builds but all the nests serve the same function.
alike and

Bloom's
contradicted

of

human

nature

can

thus be questioned as outdated and

by

contemporary biology,
animals).

and

is

on

the observation of other

especially by ethology (based as it This point is linked to a deeper issue.

reductionist,
and

Bloom

refers to modem science as

"materialistic, hence
so

deter but
no

ministic"

(p.

195).

That

might

have been
science

in the

nineteenth

century

longer.

Contemporary
not

natural

seems

to be none of these.

Scientists

themselves may
philosophic who made

recognize

the change (the last person to ask about the

implications

of scientific

discovery
is
noted was

may, alas, often be the scientist

it). Nonetheless, the

change

real and

overwhelmingly

evident.

It

was

Nietzsche himself

who

first

that physics wasn't what the eigh

teenth-century Newtonians thought it Soffer, eds., The Crisis of Liberal

gone much

(see Kenneth Deutsch & Walter

pp. 48-66).

Democracy,'

Now,
and

things have

further. Physics is
than

and

has been

since

Bohr

Heisenberg
"ideal"

radically
are

probabilistic rather more

everywhere

deterministic; emergent properties (novelties) important than "reductionism"; the formal or

1987.

1.

Albany: SUNY Press,

142

Interpretation
clearly
prior not

properties are

to

and more elemental than representative

when

the

perceived

material physics

itself.

Heisenberg
us

may

be

he
and

sees

modern

forcing

notably to Heraclitus and Plato (see his Physics and Philosophy); Capra may exaggerate in the The Tao of Physics in seeing Eastern religion imminent in contemporary theories.
to return to ancient Greek philosophy
with such radical

Even so,
and

departures from the high

to
question

school physics of

Newton

Galileo, it is really important

must with put

the adequacy of the old catch

phrases.

Philosophers
could

do this, for
regard

physicists won't

do it for

us.

Much the

same

be

added

to biology.

One distinguished biologist, George in

"absurd"

Gaylord Simpson, follow that

it flatly:

reductionism

biology
Aristotle

is

Nor does it
the

science cannot address conscious phenomena.

That is
and

another of

comfortable scrutiny.

myths that
cite

would

have

shocked

won't

withstand
manic-

To

but two

recent examples:

(i)

mental phenomena

like

depressive biological
expression

and

schizophrenic

illness

are

in the

process

of

being

traced to

causes

(in the

case of

manic-depression, to a specific gene whose

depends to

some extent on experience);

(2) dyslexias involve def

icits in reading and writing (and now we are discovering exactly how the brain handles linguistic information by learning the ways that these processes can be
disturbed).
In general, the
progress

in these
we are

areas

is

so great as to

be truly dangerous;
about

far from
logical

being impossible,
behavioral

only too

capable of

learning

the neuro

To say nothing is achieved in studying the soul with contemporary scientific methods is to say that the Characters of Theophrastus was not a philosophic work. Such assertions can
and concomitants of thought.

only be

maintained

if the
and,

"soul"

word

is defined in

theological

rather

than a

philosophic sense

even

then, only in

some religious

traditions
will

would

it

follow that belief in

serious

a nonmaterial soul endowed with a

free

is

requisite

for

discussion
"soul"

of

human

ends or purposes.

It may be true that modern science has simply devastating effects for the concept of in some Christian texts. It is not true that modern science has
the same implications

for

Plato

or

Aristotle

used

understanding of the soul as that term. Quite to the contrary, for it is now possible to
a philosophic or rational

conclude that the tabula rasa

psychology

of

Hobbes, Locke,

and the

behaviorist

tradition is simply wrong on

scientific grounds. with

This
order.

presents

us,

paradoxically,

theological danger of the highest

The

war of reason and revelation

put

to sleep

by

our

Founding

Fathers
of

among American Constitution. Whether

manism"

others

seems

to be waking up in time for the Bicentennial

the

internally

(a judge ruling that "secular hu

is

a religion

in the

sense of

the first

Amendment)

Ayatollah Khomeini
able assertions of wrong:

describing

the

American

regime as

or externally (the "Satan"), the comfort

God is

not

modernity are disappearing. Nietzsche seems to have been dead He (like Rip Van Winkle) was just asleep.

Philosophy, Science,

and the

Opening

of the American Mind

scientific remains

143

Continued scholarly research, particularly linking the ing of nature with the philosophic issues dear to Bloom,

understand
as

necessary

today

as

it

was

for Aristotle, Rousseau,

or

Kant. Although the Closing say s

author

relatively little Chicago, it is

about research, perhaps

worth

because its

is

at

the

University
in
an

ol

undergraduates and perhaps a

remembering the dangers of few friends. Anyone

will recall

limiting

one "s

dialogue to insti
end

with experience

tution of
of

higher

scholarly

learning inquiry can produce bitter,

only
reinforce

individuals

who

demonstrate how the

closed minds.

These

reflections

the argument of Bloom's book.

At least
were

some of our youth need

desperately

to leam of these issues. If philosophy

to die now. it might really disappear

sleeping.

forever. But
writes

perhaps

it too has just been

of the American

Certainly
a

what

Bloom himself
of

in The

Closing

Mind has

striking way

contradicting his title.

How Bloom Did It: Rhetoric in The

and

Principle

Closing

of The American Mind

Will Morrisey

At least two questions arose in the early reviews of Allan Bloom's book. Given its extraordinary popularity (outstripping even the confessions of Patty Duke during the long, hot summer of 1987), how much has the. "American
mind"

really

closed?

twenty-dollar volume whose to Heidegger's

A citizenry that buys hundreds of thousands longest chapter is titled "From

of copies of a

Socrates'

Apology
of

Rektoratsrede"

deserves

some credit
could

for

open-mindedness at the
more copies

very least. The American bourgeoisie

new picture anization

have bought

the

album

about
or

Elvis, but
"Swift's

no:

it

preferred to read

"The

Nietzsche-

of

the

Left

Vice-Versa,"

"Rousseau's Radicalization

and

the

German

University,"

Doubts."

and

work, after all?

Are Americans

quite so

Does the Enlightenment really decadent as Bloom appears to contend?

mind.

And then there is the

matter of

Allan Bloom's
virtues.

Cultivated,

powerful,

incisive, witty
reviewers
getting: a phy.

no one

denies its

But

what

does it really think? Most

assumed

that what

they

saw

on

the surface was what

upon ancient

they

were

defense
a more

of the classics grounded

firmly

Greek

philoso who
and

But

noticed

the

interesting and literally central place

and other

challenging view was urged by those of Nietzsche's argument in the book,

a nihilist's

decided that this,

details, betray

hand

within

a puppet

Plato. Does Bloom secretly revel in the very decadence he decries? These questions about both minds in question, America's and Bloom's,
were raised

tellingly in

the one

tmly intelligent early

talk given in

review, "The

Closing

of

Allan Bloom's Mind: An Instant Classic Professor

Reconsidered"

by

Charles R.

Kesler.1

Harry

V. Jaffa in

a public

Washington, D.C., in July,

1987, developed many of the same points, more amply, and added some, as did Professor Thomas G. West in remarks delivered at the 1987 American Political Science Convention. These critics agree that Bloom fails sufficiently
to appreciate politics: he has little to say about civic, as distinguished

from

liberal,

education; he

speaks

eloquently

of eros

but

not enough of

thymos; he

preaches without

having

recourse

to any discernible religion; a tme son of the gymnastic,

the
and

University
effects
of

of

Chicago, he ignores
he fails to
regarding them

therefore exaggerates the

music;

appreciate

founders, instead
Bloom
of

as

mere

statesmanship of the American practical Lockeans. Some suspect if Bloom

can choose

harboring

a politic nihilism, or wonder

between

Socrates
1.
review

and

Nietzsche.
pp.

In The American Spectator, Vol. 20, No. 8, August 1987,

14-17.

For the

most stupid

by

an

intelligent

man, see

Paul Gottfried: "A Half-Open

Mind,"

in Chronicles: A Magazine

September 1987, of American Culture, Vol. 11, No. 9,

pp. 30-33-

146

Interpretation
substantial objections

These

deserve

careful

so much tmth

in them. Bloom does indeed Far from

apolitical

avoid

study because there seems to be any thorough discussion of

political considerations on of

civic education.

(he introduces

almost

every

page).

Bloom
as

nonetheless gives

few indications

how America

might educate

citizens,

Bloom

seems to want

distinguished from cultivating decent intellectuals. the rose without its protective thorn. He does not seem to
the thorn.
when

appreciate

the virtues

of

As Leo Strauss taught,

should search

for

some

the translator and

men make glaring errors, readers intention before Has sighing, 'Homer underlying interpreter of Plato's Republic and Rousseau's Letter to what makes a political
political man?

competent

nods.'

D'Alembert suddenly forgotten

the need

Has he forgotten

for,

even

the nobility of, some

men, and the consequent need

wrote:

for

civic education?

Some twenty

years

ago, Bloom

Today

religion, philosophy, and politics play little role in the formative years. There is openness, but that very openness prepares the way for a later indifference, for the young have little experience of profound attachments to profound things; the soil

is
he

unprepared. must

Previously
prejudices

a professor

had to free his

wishes

students

from

prejudices: now

instill

in them if he

to give them the experience of

liber

ation.2

Has Bloom live

now

simply

given

up

on religion and politics,

leaving

philosophy to

by

its

wits alone? and prudence ought to give us

Both civility

pause, here. A book titled The

about

Closing impoverishing
although

of the

American Mind,
souls,
most

with

subtitle

failing democracy

and

likely

has

more

than a pinch of rhetoric in it. But

neither rhetoric

critics

charge

Bloom's
works

critics nor

with confusing politics with rhetoric, his defenders have shown adequately how Bloom's professor

Bloom

how

semiobscure

managed

to

galvanize

the

American

energy from his how Bloom writes can one

mind with

own not-simply-American mind.

Only

after

guess

why he

writes

that way, and

what

seeing he really

thinks.

Only

then

does

criticism make sense.

Judge this book

by its

cover, for

a moment.

The title

appeals

primarily to
that "the

'liberals,'

'conservatives.'

contemporary American
persons
who

mind"

secondarily has done anything so drastic

themselves
on

to

To

assert

as

to close,

will

pride

keeping

their minds open

and

surely distress and broad. This

matter of

failing democracy

must also

trouble

intrigue them. Could there

are

be

a new social problem

to address? These
repugnance

locutions
to any

just

enough to over
"Souls"

come the

contemporary liberal's
to conservatives,

mention of souls.

appeals rather racy.

who also ropes

"Foreword

by

Saul

Bellow"

worry about education failing democ in just about everyone, too: liberals,
in Robert A. Goldwin,
pp.

2.

Allan Bloom, "The Crisis

of

Liberal

Education,"

ed..

Higher Educa

tion

and

American Democracy, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966,

121-40.

How Bloom Did It

because is
one

147

prominent artists must

have

our

respect; conservatives, because Bellow

a

of

us, sort of. The back cover endorsements cover

will

similarly
professor

wide

range:

liberals

trust Conor

Cruise O'Brien

and

a woman

from
'neo-

Harvard

(they

won't suspect she's no can gaze

liberal);

conservatives,

or at

least
and

conservatives.'

happily

at words of praise

by

Walter Berns

Har

vey C. Mansfield, Jr. Bloom dedicates the book to his book's

real audience;

students.

But

dedication

need not reveal a

the preface here gives a better look at that. There Bloom

one of them

speaks as a

teacher, to teachers. He lets them know he is doubt that his task is to

the
assist

("no

real

teacher can
against

his

pupil

to

fulfill human
He

nature

all

deforming

forces
a

of convention

and prejudice").

also tact

fully

lets them know he knows

bit

more about

teaching

than

they do

(look

at

what makes your students

angry,

he advises,
"will

yourself too

much

with

charges of

don't concern this, subtly 'elitism'). Centrally, he suggests that the

and spend their

number"

"small

of students who

lives in

an effort

to be auton

omous,"

use of

of philosophy, are "models for the undertaking the "solitary the noblest human faculties and hence are benefactors to all of us, more

quest"

for

what

they

are than

for

do."

what

they

(When

reviewers call

Bloom

a philo

man, they are simply telling us what he says of himself in his first four pages.) Though solitary, philosophers are not apolitical, paradoxically enough; Bloom concludes the argument of his preface by observ
sophic
and

not

a religious

ing

that in modern regimes, politics and "reason

cohere more

in its

uses"

various

(emphasis

added)

tightly

than in traditional regimes. This raises the question

of the relations uses

among the reason that discovers theories, the reason that finds
production, passion,

(abetting economic including the political

his
'fellow'

among
to

other

things),

and

politics

anger,

which

Bloom has directed the

students.

attention of

teachers,

soon to

become his

For years, Allan Bloom has been

an

untimely

man.

But the

success of

The

Closing

Introduction,
perhaps the

of the American Mind depends "Our resembles

Virtue,"

upon a rhetorician's good certain writings

timing. The

by

Professor

Jaffa,

or

early Paul Eidelberg; its far

greater popular success owes now are

some

'liberationists'

thing
ation.

to the second thoughts old

having

about

liber

Bloom identifies

moral relativism as a symptom of moral

egalitarianism,
that

and used

says that such relativism

has

replaced

"the inalienable

natural rights

to

be the
"a

traditional

American

grounds

for

free

society."

Observing
the

that

"every
of

educational system

has

a moral goal

that it tries to
calls

attain,"

formation has

certain

kind

of

human

being,"

Bloom

the new goal "the

as

democratic
such
a

personality,"

"openness."

characterized
"tendency"

by

Although liberalism
the American

freedom,"

toward "indiscriminate

founders,
and

and

the
of

modem political philosophers

they

read,

finally

insisted

on

the natural basis

certain

discriminations: e.g., the distinction between freedom

slavery,

148

Interpretation
not

determined

by

public opinion or popular sentiment

but

by

the self-evident
of the

truth that all men are created equal tion of Independence gets left out
reasons
of

by

God. The Creator-God

perhaps

Declara

Bloom's account, Bloom is

not

for

philosophic an audience

but surely

also

for

rhetorical ones. counts.

addressing
and

for

who pri piety nonetheless appealed to God in the Declara of denied the Jesus, vately divinity tion, knowing how their countrymen would conceive of God, Bloom's rhetori
whom

traditional

Whereas Jefferson

Franklin,

cal problem

is different. He

must address secularized

individuals

suspicious of

God, especially in political discourse. any Bloom is nonetheless firm on the moral point. Moral
mention of

relativism

denies the
life."

existence of

the common good

and

(here the language turns necessarily moral)

the search

"extinguishes]
"Openness"

the real motive of education,

for the

good

closes the mind:

contemporary

or relativist

liberalism defeats itself.

Only

reason enables men and

wider.

to transcend the cave, which relativism merely

not

digs

deeper

Reason-as-modern-science does
us or
not

transcend

the

cave,
regime

because it
in its
son,"

cannot

drive

lure

'up.'

us

It is

anerotic.

The American

original

form does

"Liberty!"

say, simply,

It says, its

"Liberty
found
a

to rea

in politics, religion,

and education.

"What

makes

political

structure

possible

is the

use of

the rational principles of natural right to the

people,

thus uniting the good with one's

place.

general with a particular people and

Bloom
some

claims

no

gift

of prophecy. new

He knows he
that
will

cannot

plausibly

assert

ennobling,

entirely

prejudice

help

to point

his

readers

toward the truth. Instead he more prudently argues

remnants
of

shrewdly appealing to the

the
myths

liberalism
virtues

generosity for "respectful

and

to the strong will-to-gullibility in contemporary

"error,"

treatment"

of

that inculcate real

(and

sometimes real moral

will

vices) in

people.

Moral

relativism often

does

rest

on more

than

egalitarianism; there

is

a certain

dim; Bloom
means not might

avail

himself

of

it.

"respectful"

By

civility involved, however treatment, however, he

merely living-and-letting-live, but examining these myths as if they be true, or contain some truth, as determined by reason "to seek the
reason."

good

using (relativism unjustifiably

by

Showing
exempts

that moral relativism

refutes

itself from its

'left'

own strictures) and

itself in theory in practice

reas-

(fostering
sociate
'facts'

extremism, not
and

toleration,
minds

and

'right'). Bloom aims to

accustomed

reason

from
not

"values.'

morality in the To moralize

such

of men

to segregating
natural

about the

Creator-God

or the

law

would

work

with

individuals. In

order

to liberate them from their

with

unexamined assumptions or prejudices,

Bloom begins

those prejudices.

appealing to

some

features

of them while

dissolving

others.

Bloom divides the

body

of

his book into three

"Students,"

parts:

"Nihilism,

American

"The University": the taught, the teaching, the teaching meainstitution. He does not have a section called preferring to
and
"Teachers."'

Style,"

How Bloom Did It

sure

149
readers

his

criticisms of

his

in small,

sometimes

concentrated

doses. In
period

"Students,"

he begins

not with criticism

but

nostalgia.

He invokes the
more

^S-^S,
purposes,
new

when students were

really

students

and,

many of today's senior faculty for these American students, and in that they
when so
fresh."

were students.

usefully for his "The old was

were right,

for every impor

tant old insight is

But there were also victims, victims of the perennially university, which failed to give them a truly liberal education. Bloom thus begins skillfully to
subtle alternate

complaints

about

today's

wayward

youth

with

flattery During the course error seen by his best

gymnastic.

and apparent of

sympathy for their elders. these assessments, Bloom does indeed he talks books,
not

commit

the

critics:

the

Book; he

almost
not

ignores

That is to say, he dampens

spiritedness.

But this is

nihilism; it

deliberately
body,"

is rhetoric, concededly for a philosophic not a religious purpose. Bloom is bookish because his audience is accidentally bookish. To put it another way as Bloom does in his commentary on Plato he "abstracts from
the
wants

not

because he has forgotten it, but because (as Socrates does) he

to forget it. He
wants

his

auditors

to get them beyond their

materialist

historicism

that supreme combination of the

bodily
against

and

the

bookish, tending

toward too much or too

little thymos. Bloom

and

uses

the bookishness of historicist

ideology

against

materialism,

thus

finally

historicism

itself,

which

tends to regard

books

as mere epiphenomena.

Far from

believing

books merely

artificial, as some contend, Bloom clearly regards them as written speeches,

partly artificial but also originating in nature and pointing at nature. "Without is a rhetorical exaggeration; surely no one books there is nothing to imagines that, without Bloom's book, there would be no crisis of the university
see"

to see. Least of all does Bloom succumb to the illusion that the American mind
would not

be closing if he had
eros characterizes

not said

it

was.

Physical

the

student

generation.

Bloom

exploits

the

tendency
this state

of of

the middle aged and the elderly, affairs, now aggravated

inclined to

other

vices, to

deplore feel too

much

by

'liberation'

ideology. He his

also manages

to attack the eroticism of the young without making

audience

old-fashioned;

after at

all, some of them grew

up

on

Elvis.3

This too has

to

do be

with

timing;

this stage of the game

it

might even

become fashionable to
some reviewers

unhip.

Mesmerized

by

Bloom's discussion

of

eroticism,

overlook of music.

his introduction
He
shows

of philosophic and political

music

themes into this account

how

can

prepare

the soul for reasoning, or very

nearly
such

spoil

it. He

remarks

that the Enlightenment

believed it defense

could

do

without

preparation, only to find it had

Professor Kesler does "the beat
Tops?"

removed a good

against irrational-

"old-fogeyish"

3.

object

to Bloom's

characterization of rock music as

.

intercourse."

having

of sexual

"Could this really be said

of the

Beatles, Bob Dylan,

and, as for Paul

'soul'

the Four

No, but

pace. Professor

folksinging

and

aren't rock, pumice.

McCartney's cutesy little melodic hooks paroxysms in the girls of its day.

if that's rock, it's

And

even

it induced

erotic

150

Interpretation
how to tame
for
rougher passions

ism
bad

by forgetting
consequences

with

subtler ones

yielding
rhetorical will

education and politics.

He

even gets

in

few

jabs

by

associating
music

rock

music

with

that

horror,
but

capitalism.

That

make

excounterculturites

stop
a

and think

no small achievement.
one with social

Rock

makes

solipsistic world,
prim

consequences;
observes

'relationships.'

they
what

are called

by

an

oddly

latinism,
a social a

Here Bloom

happens

when a nation makes

political principle considered

equality self-evidently true in

or

fact instead

of a moral and

Young
ately but a

people are

"spiritually
a

carefully defined sense. unclad, unconnected, isolate, with no inherited

anyone."

or unconditional connection with

anything

Again, Bloom deliber

exaggerates

in

great stage on

bookish way, claiming that "America is actually nothing which theories have been played as tragedy and
teachers for whom
of praise and
'concrete' 'abstract'

come

Speaking
sent

to

a generation of

and

repre shows

respectively the apogee

the nadir of

blame, he
social

how

ideas

matter even with respect

to the stubborn and ever-fascinating nature of

you supposed a

sexuality.

Teacher, in

your

liberalism had

equality

and

sexual passion to

be twin

goods?

Professor Bloom has

yield

sobering thought

for

you: egalitarianism and sexual

liberation
deal."

"passionlessness,"

the re-conceiving of

activity
gets

as

liberalism,
eros.

big diluted by the

natural

"no

colorless

Even com-passion, the very fuel of social fuel of egalitarianism. For if all are the
and

same, why pity? And why desire?

Self-protectiveness (anger
young
people

fear)

replaces

Lacking

firm

attachments,

attach

themselves

to

themselves, fearful of anything much beyond that. Hectored by moralists who do not know how to educate either the reasonable or the passionate parts of the
soul, students blink uncomprehendingly
not even

"last

men"

but last

persons.

Because

all

but the

youngest

teachers have at least some dim

appeals to their sense of

memories of old

eros, Bloom's students,

while

rhetoric

effectively

superiority to their
errors.

carefully teaching
central

teachers of their own

longstanding
uncovers

The book's
and

part,

"Nihilism, American
of

Style,"

the

moral
a

intellectual foundations

those

errors:

Nietzschean egalitarianism,

concept no one anticipated.

do
the

not

teach relativism or

Bloom clearly states that the American founders historicism. But he also says. "The great mystery is
to American souls that were not
it."

prepared response authors

kinship of [relativism and historicism] by education or experience for

among Bloom's
critics.

This

point receives no adequate

Critics rightly

complain

that such American

as

Cooper, Hawthorne, Emerson, Whitman,

and

Howells

never

find

way into the book. But to take the central name on the list, Emerson was the man who popularized German historicism in the United States; the first
their

American
with

'intellectual'

adumbrates

the rationalism cut out. And Emerson

means

nothing less (or more) than Hegelianism was one of Nietzsche's intellectual
somewhat

heroes. This

that Americans have been

vulnerable

to such

corruption almost

from the beginning.

an

Bloom does

offer

explanation,

albeit

problematic

one.

He describes

How Bloom Did

John Locke
as an

It'

151
man who

Enlightenment
a

intends "to

extend

to all men what

had been the

theoretical
production,
are

reason

This is not only but primarily the subspecies of useful reason that serves the conquest of nature. Eros and thymos do not disappear, but they
preserve of

few: the life according to

reason."

tamed,

subordinated to modern natural rights

a soul

that
or

is,

to the

.ve7/Lcentered.

Nor is this 'self Lockean

ness or man

in

either the classical

the Christian sense;

'Greek'

when

finds his

quest

for

joy

too

joyless, he looks
central

not to as

happi

Christian salvation, but eventually to Rousseau and perfected by Nietzsche. In his

"creativity,"

anticipated

by
of
at

chapter

(the

eighth

fifteen),

"Creativity,"

titled

Bloom

nihilists'

attacks

the

exaltation of

making

the expense of thinking. Democratic America shrinks from the pride of these
philosophers.

Rather,

"there is in America

a mad rush

to distinguish oneself,

something has been accepted as distinguished, to package it in such a way that everyone can feel Bloom deplores this vain egali tarianism, in part because it affords so little solid ground for statesmanlike
and, as soon as
included."

prudence, and for politics generally.

statesmen attention are rare

After the

founding

generation, genuine

in America,

and

these few do not much engage Bloom's

here.
modern political philosophy, even

Hence

in its

soberest

forms, leaves itself

'History'

vulnerable replace

to the thrust of Nietzsche's terrible swift sword.

providence

cannot a

divine

because

scientific progressivism

is

lie

with respect

to the soul, if not with respect to the body. Insofar as the Founders partake of that philosophy and,
rhetoric

aside,

let's face it: Jefferson, Madison,

their
work

and

Franklin
although

all

did,

deeply
not

if
the

not

exclusively
ways;

is

also

vulnerable,

perhaps

in

same

founding

political

regime

is

not

philosophizing. refutation of

In the book's

central

passage, Bloom
and

summarizes

Nietzsche's

rationalist
will

egalitarianism

describes Nietzsche's irrationalist

commercial

elitism, his

warlike

to

power.

Peaceful

republicanism stands

perennially
passage

threatened

by

those who reject

its

philosophic premises.

Then, in

publicly

unnoticed

by

his critics, Bloom writes,

for
culture more

a cultural relativist must care

while
with

than truth, and

and

fight for

culture

knowing

it is

not

true.

This is

somehow

impossible,

Nietzsche

struggled

the

problem

throughout

his career,

perhaps without a

satisfactory

resolution.

company with Nietzsche precisely on the issue of the rational pursuit of tmth. While conceding the force of Nietzsche's objections to En lightenment rationalism, he concedes nothing to Nietzsche's attack on Socrates

Bloom

parts

and

Plato. He

also

insists that the Enlightenment, "whatever its

center"

failings,"

at

least kept
demns.4

reason

"at the

of

the soul

praising

what

Nietzsche

con

4.

It is true that Nietzsche

sake of

wants

spiritedly to defend truth, for

not culture

for its

own

sake, but culture

for the

life. The

real antagonism of

agrees with one

Nietzsche that truth,

quest

or the rational

denies that the

or

of unaided reason

Nietzsche, is not culture but life. Bloom never quest for it, are somehow incompatible with life. (If serves truth, or life, one gets on the road not to

Germany

Athens, but

to

Jerusalem.)

152

Interpretation
style

Nihilism in the American

takes the egalitarianism of commerce and

and
conventional

democracy

while

breaking

the

natural

limits

on

that egali

tarianism. The problem, of course,

when

Nietzsche

goes to

Fort Lauderdale, is
rhetorical argu

that neither may survive the experience. One of Bloom's best

ments

has

attracted

criticism:

"It is
and

appalling.
we accept

What is astounding
such our

immorality degrading is the dogmatism

not

the

or

relativism with

I find
which

relativism,

means

for

lives"

easygoing lack of concern about what it (emphases added). Does no one see the wit, here'.' Hav
and our

ing

already
as a

addressed

the

moral

defects

of

relativism

in "Our
to

Virtue"

and

"Students,"

in this chapter, "Our

moralist.

Ignorance,"

he does

not speak another

his

audience

simply
tract

This

would

make

his book just he

'conservative'

with

limited

circulation.

In this

passage

initially
surely
to
shake

downplays the
no good

moral

defects
demur?

of relativism and

to deplore

"dogmatism"

teacher will
over

(remoralizing,
a

now)

invites
our

us

our

heads

the

lamentable

unconcern about our

Can there be

young, very lives, heart in the National Educational Association

as

that relativism evinces.

so

far

gone

in

bourgeois bolshevism
knockout: "As
reminded of

to remain untouched
of our current

by

this? Then Bloom goes

for the

an

image

intellectual condition, I

keep being

the

newsreel pictures of paid was

at the

seashore, enjoying the

government.

Frenchmen splashing happily in the water annual vacations legislated by Leon Blum's
1936, the
same year

Popular Front occupy the

stand political mere rhetoric.

It

Hitler

was permitted

to

Rhineland."

These

are not the words of a man who

doesn't

under

rhetoric, or who

fails to

see that politics consists of more than

"Western

rationalism

has

culminated

in

a rejection of reason.
University,"

Is this
the

result

The book's third part, "The

chapter

contains

longest

in the book, "From

a sort of

Socrates'

Rektoratstrede,"

Apology

to Heidegger's

suggesting

history

of reason as embodied

in

educational

institutions.

But he begins
ment

with

America.

Citing

Tocqueville

on the

danger

of

"enslave

opinion,"

to public

Bloom

echoes the sentence

in the

preface, on

knowing

oneself

only by one's students. Democracy increases this danger, and modern democracy increases it still more, by making popular consent legitimate and

insisting
sort
of

that it can

be

rational.

"Reason transformed into

prejudice

is the

worst

prejudice, because

reason

prejudice."

Then there is

is the only instrument for liberation from sentence Bloom's critics overlook, a sentence that
ways:

challenges their criticisms

in two

"For

modern men who

live in

a world abstrac

formed

by

abstractions and who

have themselves been transformed

is

by

tions, the only way to

through with the

experience man again

by thinking
have

these abstractions

help

of

thinkers who did

or

not share them and who can

lead

us

to experiences that are

difficult

impossible
Bloom's

help."

to

without their

The

bookish

'abstract'

or

character of

argument

throughout his book

is, in

his judgment, dictated

by

the character

of

contemporary Americans,

particu-

How Bloom Did If 153

larly

those

of

the

'intellectual'

classes.
of

Bloom's
and

critics

apparently do

not

perceive

Bloom's understanding
was

modernity,
the
as

this prevents them

from

effectively challenging it,

except on
'abstract'

issue

of whether or not the contends.

American
of

founding

nearly

so

Bloom

The

question

the

effectiveness of civic as

distinguished from liberal

education

in today's climate,

necessarily depends not only on whether Bloom's rhetorical argument portrays the founders accurately, but on the extent to which he portrays today's Ameri
cans accurately.

Bloom

calls

"the best
of

regimes,"

of

the modem
rationalism,

[the]

Enlightenment

which

liberal democracy, ""entirely he describes as "perhaps

one."

not even primarily, a scientific project

but

a political

Again he does
"The

not

acknowledge the
of

Declaration's language

about the

Creator-God.
States."

authors pre

The Federalist hoped their

scheme of government would result

in the

ponderance of reason and rational men

in the United Here the

you

But this kind

of

reason, Bloom continues,

makes sense.

is

rudderless.

Kesler- Jaffa-West critique

Put

somewhat

differently, if
between

ignore the fact that the Declara

the

tion admits no
'bury'

inconsistency

reason and

Creator-God,
no surprise

and

if

you

therefore

that God in the name of reason,

it is

that you

find

reason mdderless.

In my opinion,

although

not

Bloom's critics, the founders

and revelation. a synthesis

were well aware of

professedly in the opinion of the distinction between reason two,

Their Declaration is

a politic and political synthesis of the

that in time made America quite safe for individuals of varying

religious and even

irreligious hues.
the nature of

However,
God
of

given

Bloom's audience, he

which

ranges

from

reli-

gious-latitudinarian to atheistic, perhaps

must remain silent on the Creatorwill not

the

Declaration, knowing

that the Creator-God

rhetorical

be

resurrected

in

such

minds

by

Allan Bloom's
will not

powers,

formidable though these

perhaps

they may (in fact very old) way, a way that enables them to discover the ends of human life instead of reducing those ends to the subhuman. Bloom begins by arguing that Enlightenment philosophers are
are.

If intellectuals

be brought to believe, however, in

a
new

be brought to think, to

reason

not

ideologues but tme

philosophers,

men

who

attempt

to give "the rational

life"

whole."

account of the

"Philosophy is
defense

not a

doctrine but

"openness"

tice,

here, Bloom's
all

ultimate

of genuine

way of "so the

no philoso

phers, for
another

the differences in their teachings, have more in common with one

followers."

than

with

anyone not

else, even their

nature

Modern

philosophers

differ from Socrates

in their

but in their

political program.

But they

too know that philosophy

can never

benefits

no populace,
and

consoles

no

be tmly popular, for it inspires no awe, person. Reason will never truly enlighten
philosophers
reflects

nonphilosophers,
pretend

Enlightenment
modern

know that,
the

even

as

they

otherwise.

The

university

Enlightenment

political

program, whereby "the

what

powerful

are persuaded of

that

letting
as

the professors do

they

want

is good"; instead

educating aristocrats,

Socrates does, the

1 54

Interpretation
educates

Enlightenment
modern

the

populace.

This

pretended

enlightenment

is the

version

of

civic

education.

"The fact that

against

popularized

rationalism

is,

indeed
would of

superficial

is

not

argument

the

philosophers.

They

knew it

be that

way."

Bloom takes the half-understood Enlightenment demieducated educators,

and

prejudices

his

audience

of

teaches

them

what

those

premises rhetoric

are, and
even

what

they logically

entail.

He thus imitates Enlightenment

while
"

showing its limitations.

philosophy's

Bloom

observes:

Speaking of ancient philosophy, response to the hostility of civil society is

than philosophic, the

an educational

endeavor,

rather more poetic or rhetorical

purpose of which

is to temper the for

passions of gentlemen's souls,

softening the
pity."

hard
tute

passions such as anger, and

hardening
in The

the

soft ones such as

Substi better

teachers"

"gentlemen"

"contemporary
of what

and

you

will

not

find

summary

Bloom is

doing

Closing

the gentleman of antiquity, the modern professor

not work too ern rationalist

of has tenure

the

American Mind. Like

and

therefore need

hard; he is
fashion
as

often

prey to thymotic

passions, crystallized

in

mod

ideology;
He

a post-Christian,

he

makes much of compas

sion and noblesse oblige.

needs a civic education

but

now

in true

modern

fashion, he is
aristocrat.

allergic

to civility. His patriotism has atrophied. He to

is

not a true
abili

Hence his have

civic education must appear

be (and may be if his

man
whose

ties and temper allow

ambitions gone

it) liberal,

that
so

is, liberating. A
far

political

underground, or

aboveground as

to lose

sight of

the

ground,

must

be brought back to

political

thought while remaining under the

greatness

illusion that he has transcended it

of

by

the force of his intellect and the

his heart. It helps if recently he has bruised his foolish head on some reality, and is ready to listen to a more sober voice. This voice asks him a question:
"Does
reason,
a

society based

on

reason

necessarily closely
modern

make

unreasonable

demands

on

or

does it

approach more

to reason and submit to the ministra

reasonable?"

tions of the
question

To

prepare

intellectuals to think

about that
"perhaps"

is

a small

Nietzsche

and

by

the modern
avoided

step in the right direction. And to suggest that Heidegger "did not take seriously enough the changes wrought rationalists and hence the possibility that the Socratic way might
impasse,"

have

the modern

conveys

the thought of Leo Strauss in a

way Strauss
attention.

rediscovered

namely,

without

bringing

Strauss's

name to public

Finally,

to warn that one way to force reason and egalitarian dogma

to cohabit may
'liberals'

be seen in Soviet tyranny, and to do this so that contemporary may find it plausible, is a public service. In his final chapter, "The Student and the Bloom shows how he
University,"

would reintroduce

the prudent study of politics. "The apolitical character of the

content

humanities,
the classic

the habitual deformation or suppression of the political

in

literature,

which should

be

part of a political

education, left

a void

in the

soul

that could be filled with any politics,

current."

particularly

the most vulgar,

extreme and

Here Bloom

uses

the snobbery
same

of cultivated souls against

suggest

their current

political egalitarianism.

At the

time he manages to

How Bloom Did

'coverup'

It-

155
not

that a
certain

has occurred, that Enlightenment has

matters.

fully
is

enlightened more and com

political

And there is

more:

"Political both
looks

science and

prehensive

than economics

because it

studies

peace
war

war

their

relations";
unusual

it is "the only
all, political

social

science which

in the

face."

"Most

of

science

the possible exception of

branch."

is the only discipline in the university (with the philosophy department) that has a philosophic

wisdom

Not only moderation, justice, and courage, then, but even the love of may be found among members of the American Political Science
although

Association,
Bloom
anger,

they do

not constitute and

the majority of the Association.

would

reintroduce politics

the

prudent

study

of stem

justice

and

by

the means of

flattery

and

curiosity

seduction, the art

of eros.

In

Bloom's judgment, for his it. Neither Nietzsche

A
nor

chosen

audience, that is the only effective way to do

any

nihilist as

says, as Bloom

does, "Philosophy is
But this does
we

still

nihilist would

say,

Bloom does, "It is the hardest task

what we care
'"we"

of all not

to

face the lack itself

ted
reveal

of cosmic support

for

about."

in

nihilism; much depends upon who

are.

Are

beings

anima

first
of

and

last

by

love

of our own

our

lives,

children, cities?

Is death the
"we"

best to be courageously overthrown? Or are convinced that philosophy means "learning how to die"? Do we regard "the intense pleasure of to be sufficient compensation for the knowledge

king

terrors

for us,

at

insight"

that we must die? Those are the principal alternatives for the Socratic philoso
phers. are

Among

their successors, the Epicureans come closest to nihilism, but

not

nihilists.

Nihilists find insight painful,

might

and

fight the

pain

with

self-

assertion.

Epicureanism

be

a plausible charge against

not.

Bloom,
Part

were

he

to

leave

sufficient evidence mental closure

to decide the issue. He does

of the anti
of

dote to

is

more

the raising of questions than the

delivering

answers.

It is right to

regard civic education

as prior to

liberal

education.

Unfortu
civic

nately, too many modern intellectuals imagine themselves

liberated from
who see

matters,
of this
way.

even

from the

'Conservatives'

obligations of civility.

the

folly

simply Students

are not part of the problem. can

They

can

be

addressed

in

different

be

addressed

in

yet another way; even the most sophomoric

among have some

them are only junior ideologues. It isn't hard to disillusion them.

of the
right
passions:

Many
love

patriotism, a desire

for

some

sort more

of

beyond the

universe

bounded

by

Sesame Street
someone

and

MTV. A
give

directly

civic education and

may

reach them.

But

has to
so.

them that education,

speaks

there are
of

not enough teachers who can

profession.

do

Bloom

to the unable

majority

his

Mirabile dictu,

some are

listening.

The

Closing
of

of

the

Philosophic Mind

A Review

Bloom's

Closing

of the American Mind

Harry Neumann
Error is
error
not

blindness.
Nietzsche

is

cowardice.

Professor Bloom That

error

shares

the

error

informing

this

book

with

most

liberals.

is their

unwillingness to realize the nihilism or atheism responsible

of politics

for their
liberal I

subordination

to

individual freedom

or

self-interest.

By

mean anyone who

believes that the individual is

precedence
over of

more

important than
obligation gives rise

the state;

individual liberation takes for

political

however that liberation is interpreted. Bloom's brand his

unqualified preference philosophers over

liberalism

to

nonphilosophers, for

philoso

phy over politics, for Socrates over Achilles, for peace over war. The anger or moral indignation of Achilles, the chief political passion, is, for Bloom, "of all the experiences of the soul the most inimical to reason and

hence to the
philosophy.

(pp. 327,

71).

He

sees

it

as

the passion most hostile to

aesthetic

To be sure, Mozart to

moral

indignation lacks the

charms

and

daintiness
(p. 69).

of

whom

Bloom's

good students are

eagerly introduced

Moral indignation is
Bloom
the
minority: castigates as

more

akin

to

"McCarthy

and those

like

him"

whom

"clearly

nonacademic and

antiacademic, the

barbarians

at

(p.

324).

This liberal taste does

not place

Bloom in the
outraged

academic

"Most

McCarthy."

professors were against

He is

that many

student threats to academic

liberals (for example, the AAUP) opposed to McCarthy were not opposed to freedom in the late sixties. Against these threats,
the
opponent of moral

Bloom,
phers:
of

indignation (politics) in academics, is

were

most

indignant. For those faculty-student disrupters

"The tiny band
of men who participate

hostile to Bloom's in (philosophy)

philoso

fully

are the soul

the university.

However bad
an

universities or a

was always a
about"

divination that If

Aristotle

may have been Newton was what they

there
were all

(pp.

271-72).
of the

moral

indignation is

antiphilosophical and

philosophy

is the
and

soul

university, Bloom's indignation (at threats to

"philosophy"

its university) reveals his hostility to the university's very soul. I believe that Bloom, however unwillingly, is opposed both to philosophy
Author's
note:

The

research

for this

review was assisted

by

grants

from the Earhart Foundation

and

the John Brown Cook Association for Freedom. The

review

problem of nihilism and education raised

in the

is

more

fully

Education's

Only

Serious

Question,"

discussed in my articles: "Political Philosophy or Nihilist Science? in Natural Right and Political Right: Essavs in Honor of

Harry

V. Jaffa (Durham, N.C., 1984), pp. 365-74; "Politics or Nothing! Nazism's Origin in Journal of Value Inquiry (Vol. 19. 1985), pp. 225-34; "Nihilism Scientific Contempt for Claremont Review of Books (Fall, 1984), pp. 26-28. Challenged and
Politics," Defended,"

158
and

Interpretation
do
not

the university. I

courage to acknowledge

fault him for this opposition, only for the lack of it. In reality, Bloom shares my atheism or nihilism, is
obfuscated

however

much

our

agreement

by

his

need

acceptable

(liberal) fig

leaves to hide his

books,"

nihilist nakedness

for academically for example, his

anti-McCarthyism, and Mozart. championing of "great I found the chapter informed by Bloom's indignation, his very political condemnation of his colleagues of the late sixties, to be the most lively and
alive part of the
men,"

book (pp. 313-35,

some chaos

347-56).

It indicated that,
perhaps enough

unlike the

"last

he

still star

has

(politics) in him,
It
showed

to give birth to
as opposed

dancing
I

(pp.

194-207)?

how

deeply

political,

to

"philosophic"

(in his sense), Bloom is!

agree with

Bloom's

prejudice

that politics and its indignation obfuscates

the truth about oneself and one's

of

world:

"It is

essential not

to make the pursuit

truth dependent on what is politically

contention that

relevant"

(p.

283).

also agree with

his Thrasymachean is "the

enormous

"ultimately

the only authority

in

America"

majority"

(pp. 246-56,
and

319).

Opposing

nihilists

such

as

Thrasymachus, Bloom
of and not

myself, Lincoln (p. 29) insisted that the "principle

equality"

"the

enormous and

ity
far

in

America."

Lincoln in
common

his best

"ultimately the only author contemporary student, Harry Jaffa, have

was

more

with

Socrates than Thrasymachus. Bloom,

ourselves

or

I do. We

neither are nor

if

we

dare to know

sophic.

Bloom lacks this

self-knowledge.

accurately Instead he deplores

want

to be philo
philosophy's

dethroning "by
(PP377-78).

political and theoretical

democracy

democracy
a

took away

philosophy's privileges

In America anyhow, everybody has

philo

Bloom
and

wants

to turn this around, making politics subservient to philosophy "'Never did I think that the university was properly ministe
ministe

its

university.

rial to rial

the society around it. Rather I thought and think that society is
university"

to the
a

(p.

245).

This

ambition

is

inherently

political and springs an

misunderstanding of what philosophy is, tion informed by philosophy is. Nietzsche knew better. His
opposition and

from

and what a school

institu

to Socrates

was

directed

against

both

philosophy
problem of

schools

shaped

by

it.

Bloom

sees

that, for Nietzsche, the

opposi

Socrates is the

problem.

He wrongly interprets Nietzsche's

disputation"

tion to Socrates as "a classic

eternal

philosophic

(p.

308),

part

of an

dialogue among
constitute

few

cosmopolitan

intellectuals
in the
(p.

of all ages who,

midst of all

for

Bloom,
united

"the

real

community

of man,
"

the

self-

contradictory

simulacra of common

by

"their

community concern for the

381).

These

cosmopolitans are

good

the only real common good

philosopher-kings.

this is the meaning

of

the riddle of the that

improbable
all

They
(pp.

have

is exemplary for community 275-7D. 381-82). This community is the heart

a

true

other

of

Bloom's university

and

its

education.

Not Nietzsche's!

The

Closing
common

of the Philosophic Mind

159

Nietzsche's
nothing

nihilism precluded and

Socratic dialogues. In that nihilism, there is nothing individual! To be something rather than noth
rejection of reason and science

ing

required
of

Nietzsche's

(knowledge

of

reality)
uncon

in favor

his desperate faith in the its

willing. and

redemptive virtue of a
of

Dionysian

scious and

The

real

horror
of

Nietzsche's Dionysius, its

clearer

essential

destructiveness
Venice
and

Wagnerian love
of

death, is

in Mann's Death in
(p. 234).

its "cries

the damned plunging into

nothingness"

Far from sharing Bloom's reverence for his true community of philosopherkings and their ageless dialogues, Nietzsche wanted to purge his state of
anyone with so-called

'educated'

university education: "'I just as Plato drove

against

would out the

drive

poets; this

Nietzsche's terrorism
tion of the

Bloom's

revered

my ideal state the is my university springs from rejec

out of
terrorism."1

heart

of

Socrates

and of philosophy,
or at

the faith in a nonarbitrary,

eternal good somehow

philosophic or

knowable,
point of

least divinable,
rejection of

by
is

a pure mind.

From

Socratic

view,

this faith

which philoso

phers experience as more than mere

faith

or opinion

nihilism's core.
men"

Nietzsche

criticizes the philosophers,

"the famous
to

wise

responsible

for

Bloom's university, for their

pretend political

enslavement

politics.

However
or anger

much

they

to transpolitical vistas unsullied

by

indignation
of the

(a

powerful

"tarantula,"

pretence!),

they really

are

victims

the spirit of
common

revenge, that

is,

of politics.

They

are enslaved

by

sense, the herd

instinct,

and its essentially moral-political bias. Common sense, the herd instinct, is never egalitarian. It

always
good

inculcates

one chief care

in

all

herd members, that

care

care

is to

get what

is

for oneself,
herd

to

live

a good
"cave"

life. This
or

is informed

by

the moral-political orthodoxies of

one's

herd. Unlike into

unphilosophic

herd members,

philosophic

members turn this care

a question whose adequate answer philosophic

question.

forever

eludes
striv

them.

Philosophers,
political.

that

is,

herd members,

spend

their

lives

ing

to answer their herd's chief

Consequently

philosophers always are

radically
The
rational

There

are no apolitical philosophers,

only is

philosophic

herd

members.
philosophic

primacy

of the moral-political question

not revealed

by

inquiry
upon

since

it

sets

the

goal of all rational and

is forced

both

philosophic

inquiry. Faith in its primacy unphilosophic herd members by what

calls the strongest
enslavement

Nietzsche in his Joyful Science (1, 354)

the hallmark of "the famous that is exemplary for

instinct

of

any herd.

In his Zarathustra (11:8) he rightly discerns

wise all other

to the herd

instinct

as

men"

communities"

comprising Bloom's "true community (p. 382).

the

What Bloom (p. 285) calls "the uncompromising difference that separates from nonphilosophers is not about death and dying, as he
about
whether

philosophers"

believes, but
1.
p.

the

tme

common

good
and

without

which

both

(Nietzsche) Kritische Gesamtausgabe,

edited

by

Colli

Montinari, Berlin,

1967!!., hi 3,

172.

160

Interpretation
and politics

philosophy
although
adequate

is

meaningless

exists. not

Like

all

good

herd

members,

the philosophers claim to know

they, grasp

unlike

that it exists, know, merely believe! unphilosophic herd members, believe that they lack an
5053-51 id).
as their most

of

it (cf. Republic,
knowledge both

Like

good citizens,

they

sec

acquisition of this
main object of

pressing

practical need and

the

their theoretical inquiry. Unlike

not

Aristotle, Rousseau
and practice,
virtue.

or

Bloom,

philosophers cal

do

distinguish between theory

practical

between theoreti
main practical

(philosophic)
is

and

(moral-political)

Their

concern

also their main theoretical concern.

Their thought
which

never

transcends

the original moral-political orientation of the cave in

roots

their birth

(nature)
lib

them.
or

Scientists
eral,

sophists, not philosophers (p.

"cave,"

256), consider themselves

liberated from their

beyond

good and evil. what

Like
good

all unphilosophic

herd members, they believe they know

philosophers are permeated

truly is

for themselves;
not.

by

the sting of the awareness that

they do

Thus

the

main

question

for

philosophers

is

whether

the good

life is philosophy for

philoso

(questioning

the notion of goodness dominant in one's cave) or unquestioning

or politics?

loyalty: philosophy phers. Philosophers

need

This is the
untenable

never settled question

are

in

an

psychological

tension

between their
to

for unquestioning

loyalty

(which their ignorance does

not permit them

really

discredit)

and

their need to seriously question that loyalty.

serious

However

misguided, Heidegger's Rektoratsrede reflects the only

attempt

in

our

century to recover awareness of philosophy's necessarily political rootedness. If Bloom really were interested in being philosophic, he would have taken the Rektoratsrede
much more

seriously (p.
or

311).

Like Socrates, Lincoln,

Jaffa,

philosophers must experience

that depth of
or

loyalty

to their people.

They
283).

cannot, like

Bloom, Machiavelli,

Aristotle
what

consider

"it

essential

not

to make the pursuit of truth dependent on

is

relevant"

politically
what mon

(p.

For

what

is

most relevant

is

most relevant

good"

(p.

381).

hold there is in

no sin

the need philosophically It is therefore not sufficient philosophically to declare "I but (p. 292), unless the man asserting it also
ignorance"

politically is precisely to know "the only real com

has, like Lincoln

ness
what

or Jaffa, an unquestioning (and therefore "ignorant") rooted his herd holds to be good and right. Bloom is not alive to this, the
not

necessary, if

sufficient,

condition

for

philosophy.

Consequently

his

philoso

phy really is Laputan science, ignorance of the true common ority

of

floating

on

good precludes

empty air (pp. 293-97). Philosophic Laputan confidence in the superi

Bloom's

philosopher-kings

to

precludes

my Weber's distinction between facts

alternative

characterization of political men as mere

and values

ordinary herd members. (Indeed it herd members!)

is
philosophic

insofar

as

it

implies that the decisive tion;

98).
pher.
not

is philosophy

or politics, reason or revela

"facts"

insofar

as

it legitimates

a meaningless

science of

(pp.

194-

But Weber, like Bloom

or myself, was

basically

a scientist, not a philoso

values

Still he

realized that the choice

between

ultimate

(philosophy

or

The

Closing

of the Philosophic Mind

161
nihilist

politics) is far more crucial morally than science, a trivial

business. He
above

did not, like Bloom, hurl philosophy into this

politics).

emptiness

(by

elevating it

Genuine philosophy is a risky business, a two-edged sword directed against politics in the name of philosophy (""I hold there is no sin but ignorance.") but also against philosophy in the name of politics ("McCarthyism my country,
right or wrong!").

Philosophers

remain

true to their political

roots while seri

ously questioning their worth, a difficult, necessarily esoteric enterprise. Bloom wrongly believes that Thrasymachus "sees the truth about
(p. 283)
when

Socrates"

he "sees that Socrates does

respects and

city."

not respect

the

Insofar

as

he is

philosophic,
respect, the

Socrates both

does

not

respect

the city

but the

faith in the primacy

of the main moral-political

concern, is primary
can

for

philosophy.

Only

scientists such as

Bloom
of

or

Thrasymachus

simply

not

respect

the city. The consistent elaboration

this subordination of politics to

"philosophy"

is

clearest not

in Bloom's book Beyond Good

or

or

Aristotle's Metaphysics but in

Evil. Without

Nietzsche's Joyful Science

or

and

daring

to realize

it, Bloom is

closer

to

Nietzsche

Aschenbach than to Socrates.

of

There is in Bloom's pedagogy much Aristophanes and Swift which liberates

that scientific

tyranny

satirized
of

by
of

men

from the
of

actual

politics

their

herd and, therefore, from philosophy, in favor

philosopher-kings, the only
real

"community"

the apolitical

community for Bloom (cf. Hippias in Plato's

an

Protagoras

337c-d).

I doubt that there is anything like catalogues and other propaganda. The

"American

Mind"

except

in

college
springs univer

notion that

from Bloom's
sity."

unphilosophic prejudice refusal

that

"society

it is closing or closed is ministerial to the

Thus America's
mind.

to enslave
should

close

its
or

Bloom's book
and

itself to Bloom's university is said to called The Closing of the Philosophic be

accurately, Heart of Darkness or,

Mind

Beyond Good

Evil

or more

paraphrasing Bloom on Swift: How Scientists Exploit The Nonscientists So As To Live Their Version Of The Contemplative Life (pp. 295-96).

Following Nietzsche,
means
nihilism.

Weber

realized

that science,

knowledge

of

reality,

Unlike Nietzsche,
of

but tme to Schopenhauer,

Nietzsche's

teacher, Weber despaired

existence,

including
the

all

overpowering reality's nihilism: the heart of willing, is nothing. Nietzsche saw that the herd instinct
moral-political

inspiring
primary
which

faith that

cares, the concern with the good, are

also

inspires the illusion

cares

of

living

in

a coherent,

intelligible

world of

in

those

are

at

home (Joyful Science,

would realize

1,

354).

Deprived first

this

comforting myth,
ist"

men

(and beasts)
as

that life is a chaos of

empty
of

experiences, impressions

Hume

called

them. As "Europe's

perfect nihil

Nietzsche knew that

science was

nihilist,

revealing
of

a world

consisting

nothing but interpretations, hypotheses,

menting,
or

points

view,

methods

of experi

to speak

bluntly

as recommended

by

Bloom (p. 238), nothing but

than another.

prejudices,

bigotries,
can

superstitions nihilism or

(p.

253).
nihilist

No

man

avoid

be less

Everything,

162

Interpretation
all moral-political
passions
as

particularly
pressions. nihilist

("values"),

is nothing but empty im

Thus Celine is not, Mann

or

Bloom (p.

239) supposes, more

effort

authentically
to

than

Camus.

Celine's futile

to

be

something,

transcend nihilism,

is
or

no more realistic

than Aschenbach's

or,

for that

mat

ter, than Socrates

man can an

Lincoln's

or anyone else's.

Dostoyevski's

underground

rightly nobody knowledgeable about himself be or become anything not even an insect: even to be lazy
observes that
creation cv nihilo\ might

and

his

world

would require

impossible America)

over

disrupt the dreams

To be sure, Bloom (or the victory of Russia of liberal democratic students whose

bigotries tend to be
nightmares of a

soft and permissive with the murderous

or of

(nazi-communist)
joyous libera believe
to
me

Celine for

Nietzsche's

pale criminal

(p.

151).

When

attacked

despising

those who experience

nihilism as

tion, 1

said

that I rejected this prejudice, but 1 despised only

men who

their views of anything are more than

bigotry

or superstition.

This

seems

the scientific attitude, the experience that all

knowledge is

bigotry

or prejudice

including
This
and

of

course, the assertion that all knowledge is bigotry.

and

scientific
see

therefore essentially bigoted

single

awareness relation

made

Nietzsche
reason

Weber

that "the

fundamental issue is the

(p.
195).
babies"

between

or science
liberation"

and

the human

good"

that one finds in

"

"big

It is why in Nietzsche "the joy of like Marx (p. 218) "has turned into

easygoing or self-satisfied atheism with ago nized atheism, suffering its human Rather than suffer those consequences he would have preferred to be a university professor but, as he
wrote

terror

Nietzsche

replaces

conseque

Burckhardt
courage

(January 6,
compelled

1889), he

could not push

his

private egoism all

that

far. His

him to

realize

that

he, like

life,
He

was

a god

whose creation was

in reality nothing university

created out of nothing!

would

have

been far happier

as a

professor

cowardly clinging to the illusion of

all other commu

membership in the
nities."

"tme community that is exemplary for

Instead his
war

courage

doomed him to

confront

between
(no

reason or science and passion.

life's only serious struggle: the Reason (insight into reality's nihil
is destroyed
stars).

ism) is
science

repellent

to passion

unless

passion

or

emasculated

by
so

more chaos

to give birth to
remain

dancing

All

passions

not

emasculated

(depoliticized)

teleological, striving to
goods

obtain some good or on

avoid some evil. common sense's

Consequently

all passions are

irrational, subsisting

faith in

teleological world of

to pursue and selves to pursue

them.

When

genuine science,

liberal education, forces

the
passions

abandonment of this
against

faith,

the wrath and

frustration
external

of

liberalism (their
passions now

political

demand their
the

"rights."

reality itself. Like reflection) the rabid, because enlightened, This demand becomes more strident, more is
realized.

is directed

communist or nazi,

more

its

inanity

No

powerful

desire

can

genuinely liberal, liberating education, unless it is domesti cated, that is, degraded into uplifting propaganda. Aschenbach's refusal to
or

tolerate science

The

Closing

of the Philosophic Mind leaves him

same

163

domesticate
of embrace an career need

science

powerless against the

insane, destructive fury

resolve

"Dionysius."

The

courage

is

responsible

for Nietzsche's
university

to

insane

apotheosis rather than

become
(p.

professor

"whose "no

has been

one"

to prove

unusually happy the importance of

an

and who therefore experiences 22).

education"

Bloom's

celebration of the
of

he supposes,

university and science (of science, and not, as philosophy!) is accurately evaluated in his quotation from
Vocation: "Finally,
.

Weber's Science

as a

although a naive optimism

can

celebrated science question aside

as the path to of

happiness, I believe 1
which

may have leave this entire

made of

in light
who

the annihilating critique

Nietzsche has
still

'the last

men'

'have discovered happiness'. Who, then,

believes in
in
editorial

this with the exception of a

few

big

babies in university

chairs or

offices?"

(p. 194)

As I
cal,

remarked earlier.

Bloom

seems most alive and

lively

at

his
the

most politi

inspired

indignantly censuring by his philosopher-kings.

democratic-egalitarian
This indignation

threats

to

shows that

university he took Plato's

Republic too seriously because he did not take its ignorance of the good seri ously enough. Thus he transformed its philosophy, its wavering between politi
cal repression and philosophic

freedom, into

the unmitigated terror responsible

for Aschenbach's "cries

In
agreement with

of

the damned plunging into

nothingn

Bloom,

the present editors of the

Strauss -Cropsey His

tory of Political Philosophy rejected Jaffa's request that Heidegger and Burke be balanced by Churchill and Lincoln. Prevented by their scientific orien
tation
of not want to sully a history Had they had the courage of their real convictions, their editorial policy would be that demanded at the end of Hume's Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding: eliminate (actually Hume as philosophic as mere
"philosophy"

from

being

Jaffa, they did

with

statesmen.

advocates
gin with

burning)

all

nonscientific

(that is philosophic-political) books. Be

Hobbes

and

Nietzsche

with perhaps a

bow to Aristotle for his be

purged

opposi

tion to

Socrates'

universal

good.

Strauss too

would

(as he is from
with philos

Bloom's book ophy The

with one minor

exception)
as

since

and the ancients result

of

insofar

they

were philosophic

he obviously sided (p. 289).

progress

these
more

purges

would

be

scientific

over philosophic

"progress"

superstition

or,

accurately
one

to the

realization

that scientific

enlightenment means

trary
his have

reason

substituting bigotry for another; there is no nonarbi for anything. Bloom disagrees, but his disagreement is vitiated by

confusion of scientists with philosophers as

in the

to

have

reasons

for
.

what we
. .

do. It is

a sign

of our

following statement: "We humanity and our

don't feel they
or philoso either

There may be possibility of community have to make a case for themselves, but they
phers"

some people who

must

be

tramps

(p.

238).

The

philosopher's of

essentially

moral-political

rootedness

compels

him to

seek

knowledge

the tme good which alone could

justify

his

enterprise.

similar error makes

Bloom

overemphasize

Plato's

opposition to

Homer,

164

Interpretation

the creator of

Achilles,

that personification of the

spirit of

vengeance, moral
politics

Nietzsche rightly finds at the heart of all indignation, fore, of all philosophy (Will to Power, 765; Zarathustra,
which

and, there

11:7-8).

Anger

or

indignation,
faith that
sider

the spirit of revenge, like philosophy, arise

from

the herd-instinct
unlivable

one

has

or needs goods without which

life becomes
apostate

(con
of

Psalm

137).

Hatred (Bloom's

reaction

to those

intellectuals

the

tzsche's superman

late sixties) is the natural reaction to whoever threatens those goods. Nie is characterized by redemption from this spirit of revenge or
and

hatred. Nietzsche from the heart

more

Rousseau,

not

Socrates

and

of politics.

Without the

courage

to

Plato, want this redemption see it, Bloom has written a

for Bloom is
Evil
or not
and

Nietzschean than Platonic Book. The book

as

on education

the

Republic,

he insists (p. 381), but Beyond Good

these problems, I
was reminded of suggestion

Death in

Venice \

Reflecting
14,

on

Conrad's reply (December

1897) to

Cunninghame-Graham's

that

Singleton,

the simple,

upright seaman of the

'Singleton

education'

with an

Nigger of the Narcissus, be better educated: "You say Everything is possible. However I think Single

ton with an education

is impossible.
unconscious man

Would

you

seriously,

of

malice

prepense,

cultivate

in that

the power to think? Then he would

become

conscious
. . .

and much smaller

you

and

very

unhappy.

Now he is

simple

and great

Would

Understand that

you are

nothing,

seriously less than

wish

to tell such a man 'Know thyself!

a

shadow,

more

insignificant than
dream?'

drop

of water

in the ocean,

more

fleeting

than the illusion

of a

Would

you?"

The Philosophical Review

A

Quarterly Journal Edited by

the

Sage School of Philosophy

October 1988

The Limits Proposal

of

Intelligibility: A Post-Verificationist Christopher Peacocke

Mental Images Michael Tye

The Picture
Aristotle

Theory

of

on

Temperance

Charles M.

Young

220 Goldwin Smith

Cornell

University
Rates
outside the
per year

Ithaca,
U.S. Subscription Rates: $12.00 $20.00
per year

New York 14853-3201

U.S.:

for students,

$17.00 $25.00 $39.00 $11.00

for students,

the retired, and the unemployed

per vear

the retired and the unemployed

per year

for

other indi-

for

other

viduals;

$6.00

per single

issue

viduals;

$8.00

per single

indi issue

$34.00 $9.00

per year

for institutions
issue

per year

for institutions
issue

per single

per single

VISA

and

MasterCard Accepted

The Political Science Reviewer

Volume Seventeen-Fall 1987
Symposium: The Constitutional Convention
James Madison
and

of

1787

the Dynamics

of

the Constitutional Convention

Lance Banning
James Wilson's Political Thought
and

the Constitutional Convention

George Washington
and Franklin Symbols or

Carey

Lawmakers? W.B. Allen

A Reconsideration

of

"True

Federalism"

at

the Constitutional Convention

Gordon Lloyd

The Middle Delegates in the Constitutional Convention Forrest McDonald

Essays
The Rhetorical Design
and

Theoretical

Teaching

of

Federalist No. 10 Paul Peterson Original Intent Danny Adkison

The Federalist

and

The

Slavery

Provisions

of

the U.S. Constitution: Means for Emancipation

John Alvis
The Constitutional Completion
of

Liberal Philosophy Richard G. Stevens

Please

enter

my

subscription

to

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER.

[
Name

|VoIume XVII

[ |Volume

| ]check enclosed | |enter standing order

Price
per volume:

$10.

All back issues Address

except

Volumes I

and

II

are

available at

this

price.

City /state/zip
Mail to:

PSR,

c/o ISI.14 S. Bryn Mawr Avenue, Bryn Mawr, PA 19010

Journal
Editor: Micheal W. Giles Journal The
the
of the

of

Politics
Journal of Politics for beginning in 1988. As Volume 50
will mark

Southern Political Science Association

of

University

Texas Press

will publish the

Southern Political Science Association

the oldest regional political science the continuation of

journal,

JOP

under the

Giles. Guided

by his

careful

outstanding direction of Micheal editorship, JOP offers a blend of various

its
representation of the

styles of political science and maintains

broad
the

scope of the

discipline. The relatively balanced

comparative and

treatments of
politi

fields includes American,

international

cal science.

Some
The
cial

recent and

forthcoming

articles

include: Finan

Deregulatory Snowball: Explaining Deregulation in the Industry by Thomas H. Hammond and Jack H. Knott.

In Defense of the Politics of Ideas The Politics of "Ideational

by

Paul J. Quirk.
Paul R. Shulman.

Policy"

by

Changing Partisanship
Davidson Nesbit.

among Southern

Party Activists by Dorothy

The Problem of Institutional Constraint Realist Grieco.

by

Robert Grafstein.

Theory
with an

and

Analysis

Problem of International Cooperation: Amended Prisoner's Dilemma Model by Joseph M.

the

Complex Rules

and

Congressional Outcomes: An Event

Energy

Tax Legislation

by

Thomas W. Gilligan

and

Study of Keith Krehbiel.

Individual
Foreign

single

copy rate/$6; Institution

postage.

single

copy

rate/$8

add

$2 for

Subscription rates (one year): Individual/ $20; Institution/$30 Foreign add $6/subscription for postage.

University

of

Texas Press

Journals, Box 7819, Austin, Texas 78713

social research
AN INTERNATIONAL QUARTERLY

OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

VOLUME 55, NUMBER 1-2 SPRING/SUMMER 1988

CENTRAL AND EAST

EUROPEAN SOCIAL

RESEARCH PART1

THE "SECOND SOCIETY": IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE SOCIAL MODEL EMERGING IN CONTEMPORARY HUNGARY? Elemer Hankiss "WITHOUT US BUT FOR POLITICAL ORIENTATION IN HUNGARY IN THE PERIOD OF LATE PATERNALISM Laszlo Bruszt
US?"

INDIVIDUAL ECONOMIC STRATEGIES AND SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS Robert Manchin ANTINOMIES OF COLLECTIVE SUBCONSCIOUSNESS
Mira

Marody

SOCIAL INTERESTS, EGALITARI AN ATTITUDES, AND THE CHANGE OF ECONOMIC ORDER Lena Kolarska-Bobmska INDIVIDUALS AND THE SOCIAL SYSTEM: VALUES, PERCEP TIONS, AND BEHAVIORAL STRATEGIES MarekZiolkowski
COVERT REPRESSIVENESS AND THE STABILITY OF A POLITICAL SYSTEM: POLAND AT THE END OF THE SEVENTIES Krzysztof Nowak

Individual Subscriptions: $20; Institutions: $40 Single copies

available on request Editorial and Business Office: Room GF354 66 West 12th Street,

New

York, N.Y. 10011

Forthcoming
Joseph

Articles

Cropsey

On Pleasure Philebus

and the

Human Good: Plato's

J. P. Geise & L. A. Lange

Deliberate Belief Conrad

and

and

Digging

Holes: Joseph

the Problem of Restraint

on the

Heinrich Meier

The Discourse
of

Origin

and

the Foundations

Inequality

among Men

Frederick J. Crosson
Drew Hyland

Mill's Dilemmas

Republic. Book II,

and the

Origins

of

Political

Philosophy
John Alvis Theodore

Philosophy

as

Noblest

Idolatry

in Paradise Lost

Sumberg

Machiavelli's Castruccio Castracani

ISSN 0020-9635

Queens College

Flushing N.Y.

11367

"0
o

>
3
3

Z c
00

3
z

c
[

3
1

>
1
CT*

7;

"0

T3
w
>

!
0