Interpretation

A JOURNAL

A OF

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Number 3

Spring

1994

Volume 21

Mark Kremer

Aristophanes'

Criticism
of

of

Egalitarianism:

An Interpretation
Women

The

Assembly

of

Steven Forde

The Comic Poet, the City, and the Gods: Katabasis in the Frogs of
Dionysus'

Aristophanes Tucker

Landy

Virtue, Art,

and

the Good Life in Plato's

Protagoras

Nalin Ranasinghe

Deceit, Desire,

and

the Dialectic: Plato's

Republic Revisited Olivia Delgado de Torres Reflections

Rebellion

on
of

Patriarchy

and

the

Daughters in Shakespeare's
and

Merchant of Venice Alfred Mollin Joseph Alulis

Othello

On Hamlet's

Mousetrap
of

The Education

the Prince in

Shakespeare's
David Lowenthal Glenn W. Olsen

King

Lear

King

Lear
the Flight

John Rawls

and

from Authority:
as an

The Quest for

Equality

Exercise in

Primitivism
Book Reviews Will

Morrisey

The Roots of Political Philosophy: Ten Forgotten Socratic Dialogues, edited

by

Thomas L. Pangle
John C.

Koritansky

Interpreting
America,"

Tocqueville
edited

"Democracy

in

by

Ken Masugi

Interpretation
Editor-in-Chief Executive Editor General Editors
Hilail

Gildin, Dept.

of

Philosophy, Queens College

Leonard

Grey

Seth G. Benardete Charles E. Butterworth Hilail Gildin Robert Horwitz (d. 1987) Howard B. White (d. 1974) Christopher Bruell Joseph Cropsey Ernest L. Fortin John Hallowell (d. 1992) Harry V. Jaffa David Lowenthal Muhsin Mahdi Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr. Arnaldo Momigliano (d. 1987) Michael Oakeshott (d. 1990) Ellis Sandoz Leo Strauss (d. 1973) Kenneth W. Thompson Terence E. Marshall
Heinrich Meier

Consulting

Editors

European Editors Editors

Wayne Ambler Maurice Auerbach Fred Baumann Michael Blaustein Patrick Coby Edward J. Erler Maureen Feder-Marcus Joseph E. Goldberg Stephen Harvey Pamela K. Jensen Ken Masugi Grant B. Mindle James W. Morris Will Morrisey Aryeh L. Motzkin Charles T. Rubin Leslie G. Rubin Bradford P. Wilson Hossein Ziai Michael Zuckert Catherine Zuckert Lucia B. Prochnow

Manuscript Editor Subscriptions

Subscription rates per volume (3 issues): individuals $25 libraries and all other institutions $40 students (four-year limit) $16
Single
copies available. outside

U.S.: Canada $4.50 extra; $5.40 extra by surface mail (8 weeks or longer) or $1 1 by air. Payments: in U.S. dollars and payable by a financial institution located within the U.S.A. (or the U.S. Postal Service).
Postage
elsewhere
.00

follow The Chicago Manual of based on it; double-space their manuscripts; place references in the text, in endnotes or follow current journal style in printing references. Words from languages not based on Latin should be transliterated to English. To ensure impartial judgment of their manuscripts, contributors should
contributors should

Style, 13th

ed. or manuals

omit mention of

page
with

their other work; put, on the title only, their name, any affiliation desired, address postal/zip code in full, and telephone. Please

send three clear copies.

should, if possible,
entire manuscript.

Contributors using

computers

provide a character count of

the

Composition
Printed
and

by Eastern Composition, Inc., Binghamton, N.Y. 13905

bound
PA 17603

Lancaster,
Inquiries:

by Wickersham Printing
to the

Co.

Patricia

D'Allura, Assistant

interpretation, Queens College, 11367-1597, U.S.A. (718)997-5542

Editor, Flushing, N.Y.

Interpretation
Spring
Mark Kremer

1994

Volume 21

Number 3

Aristophanes'

Criticism
of

of

Egalitarianism:

An Interpretation Women

The

Assembly

of

261

Steven Forde

The Comic Poet, the City, and the Gods: Katabasis in the Frogs of
Dionysus'

Aristophanes Tucker

275
the Good Life in Plato's

Landy

Virtue, Art,

and

Protagoras Nalin Ranasinghe

287
and

Deceit, Desire,

the Dialectic: Plato's

Republic Revisited

309
and

Olivia Delgado de Torres

Reflections
of

on

Patriarchy
Othello

the Rebellion

Daughters in Shakespeare's Merchant

and

of Venice

333 353

Alfred Mollin Joseph Alulis

On Hamlet's

Mousetrap
of

The Education

the Prince in

Shakespeare's David Lowenthal

King

Lear

373 391

King

Lear
and

Glenn W. Olsen

John Rawls

the Flight from Authority:

The Quest for

Primitivism Book Reviews

Equality

as an

Exercise in

419

Will

Morrisey

The Roots of Political Philosophy: Ten Forgotten Socratic Dialogues, edited Thomas L. Pangle
Tocqueville'

by
437
in

John C.

Koritansky

Interpreting
America,"

s edited

"Democracy

by

Ken Masugi

441

Copyright 1994

interpretation

ISSN 0020-9635

Aristophanes'

Criticism
of

of

Egalitarianism:
of Women

An Interpretation
Mark Kremer

The

Assembly

University

of Chicago

Aristophanes'

Assembly

of Women is the

literary
attempt

companion

to Plato's Re

public.

Both

propose the communism of

property,

women and children.

The

proposals are an experiment

in

justice; they
of

to subordinate the private

to the common good.

Aristophanes'

female legislator (Praxagora) is like Socra

the
s

tes in that she proposes the abolition

comprehensive unity.

family

in the

name of a more

Through

Praxagora'

legislation Aristophanes

conveys

his thoughts
sembly of
nism and

about the wisdom of

any

attempt to

destroy

the private. The As

commu

Women, like The Republic, is

therewith the

a profound

investigation into

limitations

of politics.

While the

subject of the

terized as less than

repulsive.
who

exuberant or even

play is communism, the play itself can be charac It is ugly because its outcome is
ugly.'

The

outcome

is

repulsive

deserve to be defeated

are

because it is manifestly unjust. The hags victorious, while the young lovers who deserve

to be victorious are defeated. The offensive character of the play

has forced
attributed

interpreters to
the ugly
on

give reasons

for its

dissatisfying
are ad

character.

Some have
that

character of

the play to the effects of old age and the decline of Athens

Aristophanes'

thought.2

But these

hoc

explanations

fail to is

exam more

ine the

relation

between the

subject of

the play and its character. It

reasonable,

and will prove

of

to be more

fruitful,

to

explain

the ugly

character of

the play in light

Aristophanes'

thoughts on

communism.

We,
was

supporters

of

liberal

democracy living
have had the

after

the fall of communism,

on communism
rather

might think that we are more qualified to pass

judgment

than

Aristophanes because

we

chance

to see its practice

than

its possibility only. We might confirm to ourselves the judgment by the fact that Aristophanes does not dwell
nomic problems connected with communism.

opinion of our on

better

the manifest eco that

without

Practice has

shown

the

concern

for the

private

there is no reason to work for the common good, that

that there is
with was

no political public-spiritedness

is

not tainted

by

the concern

the private. Yet Aristophanes certainly knew that the creation of wealth a great, if not insurmountable, problem for communism. He reveals his

interpretation,

Spring 1994,

Vol. 21, No. 3

262

Interpretation

awareness go

by

placing doubts into the

and

mouth of

Blepyros (a

man who will

only

to the assembly for pay)

by

portraying

a sensible citizen who will not

give

up his property but wants to enjoy public benefits. Aristophanes was not unaware of the economic problems

endemic

to

com

He simply did not choose to emphasize the economic shortcomings because he did not believe them to be communism's worst failure. Aris
munism.

tophanes
principle

reveals

that communism is a human

failure,
meant

that the

application of

its

leads

not

simply to poverty

but to the destruction

to

of what

is

noble and

good about man.

The play is ugly because it is

hold up

a mirror

to the

ugliness of the communist vision of the right order of society.

The ugly

character of

the play is not the effect of

of women

destroying
is
of

private

but

of

destroying
on

the family. The sharing

far

greater

property importance
women

to Aristophanes than the sharing of property. The community of

is

founded

the

following

law: young

men must

first

hags before making love to beautiful, young girls. panied by a hag to ensure that the law is effectual. The law establishing the community of men is also ugly, but it is only an afterthought and is less strict. Old
men are given
3

love to ugly, old Each girl is to be accom

make

the

right

to

go

first, but they

must

fight for her

position (694-

709).

Praxagora's
sexual

sexual are

laws

reveal

the worst aspect of

regime.

These

laws

the consequence of her promise to make an equal

must ensure

distri

bution
the

of

happiness. She
and

that the old and ugly enjoy the same satisfac

abolition of private

tions as the young

most painful

beautiful. The

inequalities,
of

the personal ones.

of

property does not rectify One's body cannot be made pub inequality. There is
scene no

lic; it is
possible

therefore a source

both the

private and of
of one's

play its
sexual

character

overcoming (the famous

animated

the private nature

body. The

that gives the

Hag Scene
enough not

where of

three hags fight for a young man's

of

favor) is
of

by

the principle

equality, not the hatred

Aristophanes'

the

private. or what

Those

who are

fortunate
not

to live in communist regimes,

is left

munism

them, should for it is also,

be

complacent about

critique of com

or even more

so,

a critique of

democracy. In fact it is
an equal

more critical of our

democratic

project

(to

ensure

that there is
of

distribu
private

tion of happiness among

human beings) than it is

we will not

the abolition of

property (the
that the
one ness

aspect of

equality that

tolerate). Aristophanes believes

egalitarianism about which we

boast

and plume our

feathers
The

that no

is

superior

to anyone else with respect to the qualities conducive to happi threat to

is

a greater

of Women holds

a mirror

humanity than is up to democracy

common property. and can

Assembly
us get a

therefore

help

perspective on ourselves.

II

Anyone

who reads

The

Assembly

of Women

cannot

but be

struck

by

the

amazing difference between its daring and exciting beginning and its lackluster, if not repulsive, ending. The beginning is full of promise. Praxagora, through a

Aristophanes'

Criticism of Egalitarianism

263

daring fraud, plans to replace rule by men with rule by women (or rather rule by herself, since she is the leader of the women and by far the most impressive
of

them). In contrast to the promising

beginning,
has

the play ends with a

not partaken of

drunken

maidservant

calling

happy

the only

man who

the

festival

the public satisfaction promised

The disproportion between the

Aristophanes'

by Praxagora. beginning and

the end reveals something of

pedagogy.

He takes the

claims and charms of communism seri

ously in order to allow it to reveal its true character. He first shows commu nism in its most favorable light. We see it at its inception, as the project of an
extraordinary woman at a time of political corruption. We learn that Athens no longer reveres the ancient ways and no longer calls forth an instinctive patrio
tism. The urban population attends assembly only

for

money.

Slandering

and

informing

have become
women and

ways of

life.
not

Adultery
above the

and

drunkenness

are practices

among the

certainly

suspicion of their

husbands.

Furthermore, leaders and policies are constantly overturned by a corrupt popu lace that loves to be flattered and loves to see change for better or worse. In
light
of

the corruption, even

virtue. at

decay, Praxagora

cannot

but

seem

to promise a

return

to

She
the

promises a restoration of public

health,

which

is the topic it

of

discussion

assembly.

Although the

communism of

property is

not a return

to the ancestral ways,

nonetheless appears

to be public spirited. It appears to serve the common good

because it is inclusive; it promises to relieve the poor of the suffering that comes from poverty. The relief of the poor appears especially just as Athens is not at war and therefore does not require the rich to contribute to a war effort. But the
good.

common good understood as common

movement

The

from

vice

property is only a sham common to communism does not form a common object

of

devotion

or a common attachment.

promises

that all will

have their bodies

The outlawing of private property simply cared for and that no one will have more Athens

than another. The abolition of private property is not a return to citizen virtue

but
not

an

be

increase in democracy, a movement towards more a harsh father demanding the sacrifice of comfort fatherland. She
the
will

equality. and

will

of the

be

kind

and gentle mother will

life for the glory providing each of her

the economy

children with of

necessities of

life. Athens

be

modeled after

the

family,

not

the virtue of the ancient

city.4

Praxagora's
appearance of

sexual

laws,

unlike

serving the

common

her property laws, do not even have the good. Aristophanes can show, without caus

ing

repulsion,

a man who

turns in his private property (728-876). He cannot

show obedience to the sexual same nature as property.

not

laws without causing disgust. Sex is not of the Sex is directed towards the beautiful and the pleasant,

towards the just and the useful. The pleasures of love cannot be shared
and even

by

community,
acter.

the attempt to distribute them equally distorts their char

as one of

The

sexual

laws have
of

their clearly stated

benefits,
of

not

justice,

but the humiliation

ment

the proud (631-34). to

They

are

laws

envy

and resent

because they

attempt

insult the beautiful

while

acknowledging that the

264

Interpretation
happiness worthy of envy. resentment that can lie below the surface
a
matters.5

beautiful enjoy envy

and

Praxagora'

s sexual
of claims

laws

reveal

the

to equality,

espe

cially in

private

Ill

After Praxagora has

children she own

set

down

as

law the community

of

property,

women and

is

written out of

the play so that we may judge her regime on

its

terms, unprejudiced by the splendor of its founder. The second part of the play is in turn divided into three distinct scenes. The first scene has for its
subject

the community
and

of

property; the
the play the

second

the third

final The

scene of

the community of women; and festive dinner that Praxagora promised

each citizen.

is the community of women (the Hag Scene) is by far the longest of the three, and its length is commensurate with its importance. We will discuss the Hag Scene in detail because it is the most
section whose subject

important
The

Praxagora'

statement about

democracy.
a man.
or

scene opens with the

first

hag

waiting for
more

She has

plastered

her

face

with cosmetics

in

order

to look

beautiful,
make

would

have

us

believe. The

hag

has tried to

less ugly, as the girl herself look beautiful in

to beautiful

order

to catch the eye

she also

of a man.

She knows that

not

men are attracted

women, and

knows that her face is

likely

to entice a

man.

Accord

ingly, help her sing a song so that she may catch the ear of a man. But why does the hag bother trying to attract a man when she knows that the man belonging to the girl with whom she is paired must go to bed with
she asks

the Muses to

her

by

law? The
the

hag

seems ridiculous
she could

because

she

wants
whom

to believe that

be the

object of a man's

is trying to fool herself; she desire. The girl to

hag

is

paired adds to

her ridiculousness

by

singing

against

her

as

if

she were a

rival lover.
Praxagora'

Despite
superiority.

s attempt

to make women equal, there are still claims to

The

hag

claims to

be wise, sexually

experienced and
with

loyal to her

lovers. She

contrasts

her

sexual experience and

perience and possible

inconstancy. The
claim

hag

emphasizes

constancy her superiority in

the girl's inex

mat

love, superiority is meant to convince a young man to girl. But choose her over the why does the hag bother giving reasons for why a young man should choose her when she knows that the law requires the girl's man to gratify her? The hag must argue for her superiority because she wants to
ters of
since

her

to

be loved. Hence

she as

does

not

immediately make
second

her

claim on the youth accord

ing
not

to the

law,

does the herself

necessary to
with she

justify
of

also

hag. The fact that the first indicates that she thinks a young
is
conscious of the
also

hag

feels it

man would

be interested in her. The

the desires
the youth.

hag

fact that
about

she

is

She is

interfering

slightly uneasy
right to the

her

feels that

she

does
gives

not

have

a right

to the youth. The first

interference; hag does not

think that the law

her

an unambiguous

girl's man.

Aristophanes'

Criticism of Egalitarianism

265

The
of

girl praises

the

beauty

the advantages

of youth

bloom that accompany youth. Her praise is itself a claim to deserve praise. The girl thinks
and
and ugly.

that the young and beautiful are naturally superior to the old

The

girl

does
she

not argue not

is

for her superiority in matters concerned with justifying herself to

of a

love because, unlike the hag, potential lover. In fact, she tells

hag not to begrudge the young their happiness, which indicates that she is defending the young against the old. The girl reminds the hag of her inferiority by contrasting the beauty and bloom characteristic of youth with the ugliness and decay characteristic of the old. The hag implicitly admits that the virtues of
the
old age are not as

important
She

as the advantages of

youth,

since

her only

response

to the girl is
valid claim

a curse.

curses

the girl because she knows that the

cannot

girl

has

to superiority. The

hag

hope to
girl

destroy

the girl's beauty.

Accordingly, the hag cannot hope that the hope, by wishing her bad luck in bed, that
her
sexual

does

not get a man

but

must

she gets a man who cannot

satisfy
girl

desires. is
not

The

girl

bothered

by

the hag's curses

and

insults because the

knows that insults

the

cannot affect

her

beauty

and

that her

beauty
girl

will not enable

hag

to steal the youth. She possesses an inner confidence that comes

from her

an awareness of one's own attack on

beauty

and goodness.

The

then continues

that no
more

hag by reminding her that death is always near the old. It seems law can relieve the threat of death which naturally threatens the old
the

than the young. The

girl.

hag

responds

by

distress the
gests

The

hag

also

tells the girl to

saying that her old age will not stop singing. This response sug

that the girl has

to things

succeeded

rivalry
with

which will

in wounding the hag. Her desire to limit the distress the girl is a desire to limit the rivalry to The

claims relevant to

catching

a particular man.

hag

does

not want

her

rivalry
can

the

girl

to be between the young and the old, as

girl

such.

She does

not want

to discuss the justice of the law. The

no real so

indicates to the

hag

that there

be is is

rivalry between them as women competing for a man because the ugly. The girl is not as concerned with competing for the youth as

hag
she

with

suggests

arguing that the young have natural advantages over the old. She thus that Praxagora's sexual laws are unjust, since they give higher rights
girl's

to the inferior.

When the

law. He
with

sees no girl.

lover enters, he expresses his dissatisfaction with the new good reason for going to bed with a hag before going to bed
searches

his

He then

has

taken enough

initiative to

escape

for the girl, hoping to find her from the hag temporarily

alone.

The

girl

and calls

to the

youth.

They
he

then pray to Eros to

bring

them together. The lovers show their

resistance

to the law
goes

by trying
meet

to escape the

duty

it has

placed on

the youth.

But
new

when

to

the girl, the the law

hag

meets

him

and reminds

him that the

to him

law is the The

obverse of

by

which

he

ate a

free

meal given

by
but

the

city.

hag

does

not want

to turn to the authority of the

law

outright

to the

youth's sense of

obligation,

hoping

that he

will compromise

his

erotic not

appetite

because the city satisfied

his

nonerotic appetite.

But the

youth

does

266

Interpretation
one

feel that the

obliged

thing has anything

his
erotic

to

do

with

the other;

he does

not

feel

to

compromise

When the

hag

persists, the

youth attempts

longings because the city has fed him. to argue that her privilege is just

one side of the

law, asserting
her

that she must pay five per cent of her life in taxes

before

she can exercise

privilege.

youth cannot

say that the

hag

owes

taxes in the form

Since currency has been abolished, the of currency. The assertion

that she owes taxes in the form of time

sacrificial side of

is ridiculous; the youth had to make a the hag's beneficial law because everything favors the hags.
youth's nonsense and says

The She

hag
no

ignores the

that she is

taking him
quotes

to bed.

longer

appeals

to his sense of obligation the reasons

but instead
nor

the law. She

passage she

does

not attempt

to

explain

behind the law

that the

does the

quotes give

any

reasons

for it. had

pretended
youth

At

one point the

hag

had

come

to see her and

that she

had been waiting for him

pretend a

specifically.

The

youth's resistance makes

it

impossible for her to

must

that she is loved or even

desired; her
raped

seduction

be

tyrannical one. When the youth

is

about

to

be

by

the

hag

the
not

girl enters.

The

hag

tells her that the

youth

belongs to the hag. She does

quote the

law but

pretends

that she has won the contest with the girl. Accord
girl of

ingly,
the

the

hag

accuses

the

girl

to envy the

be

next.

Because the
she

hag hag
won

if the

hag

envying her, for it would make no sense for were just expecting sex, since the girl would

resists

the girl that

with of

has

the contest, we can

resorting to the law and because she implies to infer that the hag is uncomfortable The hag's
uneasiness

the truth

of

her

present situation.

is

not

just

a result

her failure to be
aware of the
about

loved;

she of

thinks that she is

and

not

worthy

of

being

loved. She

is

injustice

her desire is

slightly

ashamed of

it. The force

hag
of

is

uneasy law in order to

the

fact that

she

an old and

get a

beautiful

youth of

ugly in bed. She is

woman

using the

the

aware of

the injustice of her

desire
The

and

claims of

is slightly ashamed the young beautiful.

the
youth

it. This first

hag

shows some respect

for the

girl saves

by telling by

the

hag

that she is old enough to be the

youth's mother.

According
is
so
youth.

to the girl, the law leads to incest and therefore is

the mere thought of

invalid. The
she stops

hag

horrified

more powerful attachment

Her horror reveals raping the in her than shame before the beautiful. It

committing incest that that shame before her own kin is

also reveals

that the

to one's own has not been overcome. The private will

overcome when

horror

and shame at

incest

are

overcome,

when man

only be is rean-

imalized or, with respect to the pagan gods, when he is divinized. When the second and third hags enter the scene, the girl does not give them the same argument concerning incest; she says nothing and does nothing. But why does she mother? If the
then the girl
not girl

tell the second

hag

that she is old enough to be the youth's

is

silent

because the
respect

hag

is too

old as

to be the youth's mother,

would

be showing

for the law

long

as

the law does not

lead to incest. Yet

one might argue

that the girl shows no respect

for the law

Aristophanes'

Criticism of Egalitarianism

267
But

because

she tried to escape

from the first

hag

and she called

to the

youth.

the girl's resistance occurred

before

claims were made

law. The
to

girl's
a

failure to
unless

resist

the second

hag

by the authority of the indicates that the girl is not one

the limit
youth of

break
The

law

it leads to incest. Incest

not

remains

the

law. She
un

second

hag

is

uneasy

about

taking

the

to bed.

ashamedly
second

refers to the

law

as soon as she sees the girl with

the youth. The

hag

does

not attempt

to play the

desired

woman or give a

list

of

virtues;

she

does

not even quote

the law. When the girl does not

help

the youth, he

begins to describe how

or apologize

cannot

disgusting the second hag looks. She does not curse him for her looks; she asks him to join her in bed. The second hag be shamed into thinking that an old, ugly woman should not be with a
youth.

beautiful

When the third

save

hag

enters, the

youth

thinks that she, like the girl, is going to

him from

hag. On
of

Heracles,
hags

the slayer

discovering that she is also a hag, he calls upon monsters, to help him. He also describes how unattrac
would

tive the third

would

hag

looks. One
But

think that the youth's

descriptions
the

of

the
of on

throw cold water on their sexual

when

desires,

since

his descriptions
youth

them are

repulsive.

the third

hag

enters she claims

account of

her

age and ugliness. of

She is

older and uglier strengthen

than the second hag.

The

youth's

descriptions

the hags actually

their claims, since the

ultimate claim on

him is based
or

on age and ugliness.

referred

The first

hag

did

not want obli

to mention her
gation and the claim to

body

age; she

to

sexual

experience, constancy,

law. The third

the basis

hag
of

does

not see

any

problem

in making her

the

youth on

her

old age and ugliness.

right

The law, however, does not say that the older and uglier have the greater to a young man. The law says that old women have rights over young
The law does
not anticipate two old women

girls.

The third

hag

realizes

that the law

by

which

the

second

battling for a young man. hag made her claim will

youth on account of

not resolve

their dispute. The third hag's claim to the

her

age and ugliness

is her interpretation
to
make

of

the principle which underlies the

law.

Praxagora's

attempt give

the

old and a

forces her to

the old

and

ugly

ugly equal to the young and beautiful higher right than the young and beautiful.

higher right indicates that the old and ugly ugly and inferior to the beautiful; the higher right of the old and young naturally ugly is not thought of as the superiority of the old and ugly. The girl thinks that the higher right of the old and ugly denies the young and beautiful their happi The fact that the
are old and
need a

ness and proper respect; she shows no

indication

of

thinking

that the old and

claim

ugly may be
old and

superior

by

virtue of

their higher right.

The third hag's

to be

ugly is
of

asserted with

the same outspokenness as the girl's claim to be

young
more not

and

beautiful, but
the

the third

hag

does

not

think she is naturally superior or

worthy boastful or ridiculous.

when respect

youth

because

she

is

old and ugly.

Her

claim

is shameless,
the third

Only

for

youth and

beauty

is disregarded

can

hag

268

Interpretation
claim

shamelessly

the

youth on account of

her

age and ugliness.

The

youth

erroneously believes that he must gratify all old hags before making love to the Praxgirl. He makes this mistake because he understands the character of
agora's regime: all of the old and

ugly

come

first.
girl and

We have
the

seen

that the rivalry between the

to desert

the

first

hag

gives

way to

the rivalry between the second and third hags. The

rivalry

between the

girl and

first

hag

involved

claims

based

worthiness. good

They

thought that a claim

understanding of merit or to deserve respect or to deserve some

on an
virtue.

had to be justified
claim

by

an appeal

to some praiseworthy quality or

The third hag's

not

to

deserve the quality hags

youth on account of or

her

age and ugliness

is

based

on some positive

virtue; it is based tyrants

to
who

on a

lack

of admired

qualities.

The
or

second and third

are

feel

no need to

justify their

dominance The

higher

right

saying that he wants the surviving hag to be his tombstone. He fears that his rape will end in his death. The girl had in part
youth ends

the

scene

by by

an appeal

beauty

or virtue.

defended the young against the old by saying that death is closer to the old. Praxagora has succeeded in making the youth feel the threat of death just as
much

if

not more than a

the old; she has denied him the

youth.

pleasures of youth and

thus, in

sense,
s

she

has denied him his does

violence

Praxagora'

regime

to nature. The distinction between the

that

beauty
ated,

of

blossoming

youth and

the

decay

foreshadows death is
eradicate

not obliter natural of

nor can

it be. All that

make a

can

be done to

this most

inequalities is to
erotic nature.

law that denies the The hags

most

elementary
be
made

aspects of man's
replaced so

Eternal

union and procreation with pleasure.

must

the beautiful are

by
the

the sterility of

bodily
of

cannot

beautiful,

ascendency

of the

beautiful

be denied. The

suppression of

the beautiful is

the counterpart
man or animal

teaching

that human
can

happiness is to be

achieved on a subhu

happy only insofar as they are insofar as legalized rape. The Assembly of Women is shameless, they enjoy ugly because the victory of the hags is more repulsive than ridiculous. It is
considered repulsive

level. The hags

be

because

we cannot share
Praxagora'

their shamelessness and

s attempt to make
all

because

we cannot

but

pity the young lovers. basest hedonism in

happy

tributed and redefined happiness. Happiness must be understood

order can

has only in terms

redis

of the

to

bring

about

equality because
on the

satisfactions; equality

be

achieved

only
the

level

of

enjoy bodily the body. The young

all can are rendered miser

lovers
able

who were

to

be the

envied example of
not speak

human happiness

by

the

regime.

Eros does

language

of

law

and

hedonism.

IV

One
women

might

wonder

but

not

the community the

why Aristophanes chose to of men. The absence

show of the
s

is

connected to

absence of a

discussion

of

Praxagora'

community of community of men fate under the new

the

Aristophanes'

Criticism of Egalitarianism

269
us

regime.

Aristophanes
as

allows us to solve the riddle of parts

democracy by
to

allowing

to put these two

man

hidden
name

together. Praxagora is

married

Blepyros,
is

an old wife

who,

his

"watcher"

suggests, is

not

likely

to make his young

when she

happy. He is
Under the
old

not even aware

that she wears perfume

was

amorous.

democracy
having

Praxagora
with

forced to take lovers in

amorous

secrecy.

The

new regime coincides

perfectly
gone to

her

interests;

she can

take lovers

at

her

ease after

bed,
of

Blepyros. The

amorous

interests

claiming to have gone to bed, with Praxagora can even explain her abolition of
or even

She says that the abolition of currency will help her put out of business the prostitutes, whom she hates because they receive the first em braces of young men. The new regime makes lawful the adulterous affairs that
private property.
were once accompanied

by

fear

and shame. not

Contrary
to virtue.

to our initial expectations, Praxagora does

regime

bring

about a return

Her

is actually

an advanced stage of virtue's

decay, for

there
no

is

no

hope

of virtue's restoration when

there is

no shame characterized

when

there is

awareness of virtue. siveness

Praxagora's

regime can

be

by

legal

permis per

or,

what amounts

to the same

thing in its democratic

of equality.
establishes a

extremism,

missiveness regulated and

by

the

demands

idea

of

the

common

good, Praxagora

Far from restoring a feeling form of political hedo

satisfactions.

nism.

Politics is

reduced to the art of

equally

distributing bodily
Although

One

might attempt

to excuse Praxagora because she to

an old man.

suffered under

the old

democracy. She

was married

she was constrained

in

the old regime she

by having
suffering

secret affairs.

was not

getting Our sympathy for her cannot go very far since her without relief. Nor can we admire her, since for the sake of in broad daylight, she old regime (perhaps
are subjected

nonetheless

found

ways of

around

those constraints

enjoying her
nature).

pleasures

beautiful lovers to the imposed

those
on

constraint she

felt in the

a constraint

her

by
not

The

lovers, like Praxagora,

find to be
repulsive.

forced to lie

with

they do

love
made

and even

In Praxagora's

regime

the beautiful are

old

into

prostitutes

for the

ugly.

There

was prostitution

in the

democracy,
while at

but

all of

the young
old

were not subject

to

it. In that

democracy
a

prostitution al

lowed the
titutes

to enjoy their desires

without

giving them

higher right

the same time making them pay for their

were not

satisfactions.

Furthermore,
not

the pros

free

women

but slaves, already

citizens

subjected

to ignominy. The

commerce

between
what

better than

slaves and ugly Praxagora institutes.

is certainly

noble, but it is

Unlike Praxagora, the hags

sufferings under

would not

be

able

to relieve themselves of their than convention, has in

the old

regime.

flicted

their suffering upon

But nature, them. If they were least

were remained more

more

pained

by

their privation under

the old

democracy, they

at

decent

and

just

by keeping

their

pains to themselves.
cense.

They

human before enjoying their legal li

the

Praxagora justified the dissolution

good.

of

She

attempted

to make the common good tangible

family by invoking the common by comparing it to the

270

Interpretation

the whole city is to be experienced as one large family. But from what have discovered, we know that she does not believe what she says. She is the classic hypocrite who hides behind the morality of a higher justice in order

family;
we

to
of

pursue

her

private pleasures. new

Praxagora's

freedom,
appeared

The tyranny of the hags is the public expression freedom granted to her by her own decree.
and philanthropic

Democracy
equality
poor rule of a part

first

to be just

because its love

of

promised

to make everyone happy. But

sake of a part. ugly.

like

all regimes

it is only the
sake of

for the

but for the naturally intercourse

with

Democracy Democracy cannot

pleasure of a powerful

rules not

just for the

the

but be

prejudicial

to the

better
sexual

endowed who are used

for the

the lesser. The

of what

law

forcing

the ugly is

image

Aristophanes

believes to be the perversity of democracy. The scene preceding the Hag Scene throws
of

additional

light is

on

the character

law

and of

Praxagora's

regime.

In that

scene there

a confrontation

be
the

tween Chremes (who

without

hope

of reward or
"Citizen"

fear

of punishment obeys

decree to turn in his property) and a who wants to keep his Chremes is the lawabiding man ad absurdum; he treats the law as an
His fellow
what one short citizen

property. absolute.

thinks Chremes is
when

mad

because it

makes no sense

to give up
will

has toiled for

there

is

good reason to

believe that the law

be

lived. The law is

meaningful

depends

on the will of the stronger

only if it is obeyed, yet obedience to it who can overturn it. Chremes is forced to
not

admit, if only

by

cursing, that the law does

to discover the the
condition

have

an unconditional of a

dignity.

But he is
who

unable

for the

dignity
fool,

the law. The man

blindly

obeys

philanthropic

law is

either a

tyrant or both. He

cannot

defend his just

obedience and sacrifice with

obey.6

reasons,

and

he
on

can

only

use

force to

make others

The

dignity

of

the law depends

its ability to
without an

articulate the
articulation

order of

of the whole.

things; it is The citizen,

whimsical

decree

or

force

although

selfish, justifies himself

by

saying that the gods teach man to take rather than to give. The fact that the dignity of the law depends on its articulation
order of

of

the just

things means that the compassion which played a role

cannot

in Praxagora's
can

public
a

policy

be the guiding

principle of

her

regime.

Compassion

be

tender

feeling

that moves the

Aristophanes

makes clear

heart, but it does not justify force, and as (especially in the Hag Scene), force will always be a
justification. It is therefore
objects of given

part of politics and will always require

that

in Praxagora's
cannot

regime the

former

They

be

satisfied without

being

not surprising pity become the new tyrants. higher rights. Force is needed to

because their suffering alone cannot bring others to relieve it. satisfy The Hag Scene completes the scene preceding it insofar as the Hag Scene reveals the order of things which justifies democratic law. Egalitarianism sup
them
presses the

beautiful

and

therewith

man's

longing

to overcome

his

mortality.

It

cannot recognize claims pleasures of the

that transcend the

shamelessness

concern with

the preservation and

body. Its

destroys the human.

Aristophanes'

Criticism of Egalitarianism

271

The

Hag

Scene

reveals an

ugly
new

combination of convention and

combination reflects not

hedonism
the life of

that characterizes radical egalitarianism. The

Praxagora,
of witness

the

founder

of

the

democracy. Her light is

of

the natural light

the sun but the sterile and manmade light

the

lamp,

which

is the only
of

to her secret amours (1-18). She fails to articulate a just order

things

in

which man can

find his

Just
scene

as

the scene preceding the

humanity because she gives higher rights to the ugly. Hag Scene throws light on its ugliness, so the

following it illuminates its ugly character. In this last scene a drunken happy the only man who has yet to enjoy the food and drink of the promised festival. He is called happy because he has something to look forward
servant calls

to.

His

satisfactions

lie

ahead of

him; he is

not satiated.

The difference between

satisfactions

those who satiate their senses and those

understand

who

long

for

helps

us

to

for

eternal

The young lovers who pray to Eros hope togetherness. Their eroticism is connected with their desire to unite
the ugliness
of

the

play.

with

the

beautiful
are

which

is the

obverse of their repulsion at

death

and

decay.

Their hopes
to look
and

in

marked contrast to the

forward

except raise

for death
them

and sex.

longings that banishes

above

who have nothing toward which The young lovers have sentiments the beasts, that make them human. Prax

hags

agora

humanity
of

human beings differ from the Love is drained

guishable

from her regime; the satisfactions enjoyed between pleasures of food and drink only in intensity.

its

procreative and

divinatory

powers; it is

hardly

distin

from drunkenness. In the

name of

equality Praxagora's

regime con

tributes to the reanimalization of man, to oblivion of the eternal.

is repulsive, not ridiculous. It arouses disgust, indigna tion and pity rather than laughter. It is ugly because it completely severs justice and pleasure from the beautiful. The suppression of the beautiful is allied to the
regime suppression of man's

Praxagora's

longing
can

to overcome his

mortality.

Claims

on

behalf

of

the old and ugly to sexual

preference can

forgotten; intercourse
vention suffer under off

be immediate

only be made if the horror of death is and intense only if one does not at
nature and con

tempt to overcome one's paltry existence through love. Both the guidance of

Praxagora;

the law

and

intercourse

are cut

from

an

law

and nature and

understanding of oneself in light of eternity. The interplay between in Praxagora's regime can be characterized by the force of
the sterility of
meaningless pleasure. ugliness of

tyranny
We
thinks

can

deduce from the

Praxagora's

regime

that Aristophanes the

man's

humanity

requires an awareness of eternal

human
human
and

situation.

Whether he thinks the

It
suffices

eternity is animal

an awareness of or

divine is

unimpor

tant for the

present purposes.

to

recognize

that

an awareness of

the

situation

in light of the two eternities requires the

Convention
the
and nature must

proper mix of nature

convention.

be informed

by

an awareness of

the mortality

of

body,

not

just the

preservation and pleasures of

the

body.
cannot

The

required mix of nature and convention

is found in the family. It

be

forgotten that the critique of Praxagora's regime

is

a critique of the destruc-

272

Interpretation

tion of the

family,
some.

and

therefore an implicit defense of

its

existence

despite its

injustices to
conventional.

family is the mating ground for the natural and the The private pleasures of lovers can actually lay a base for devo
The
exhibit a combination of

tion to the city through the family. The lovers

natural and

the

the

divine; they pray

to the god Eros to unite them.

Furthermore,
inter

their love points towards the family. Procreation is the

course and

natural effect of

the most immediate way of overcoming one's mortality. Love and

family
world and can

connect

human beings to

one another

in

such a

way

as

to require the

support of

the divine. The the law can

family
find its

is the

aspect of

the

private which supports a

in

which

reason

for being. It brings together the

body

the community through a concern with eternity. In the spirit of Aristotle we

either a

say that he who is outside of the family or the associations built upon it is beast or a god. Every practical attempt to replace the family must
man.

dehumanize

There is

no political

that is worthy

of respect.

We

should not

community independent of the family be surprised that Praxagora is more

interested in avoiding the greater whole. The whole

restraints of the

family

than in

becoming

part of a

by

which she

truth,

she

takes her bearings from the

part of

legitimates adultery does not exist. In the whole that is body, that is between love
conflict and

subhuman.

Although there is

natural

connection

family, Aris
as

tophanes is also aware that there is an obvious

clear

between them,

is

from the

character of

Praxagora's

marriage.

One

might object

to the fact

that while Aristophanes

underlined

the injustice and ugliness of Praxagora's

democracy, he did
racy,
a which

not underline the

marriages and

injustice
His

and ugliness of

the old democ

had forced

denied intelligent

women

like Praxagora
mistaken

vote,

never mind a political voice.

emphasis should not

who

be

for

the cleverness and

passion of a vulgar

partisan,

turns a blind eye to the

faults ill
of

of

his beloved
not

her. He is

while pointing out all the deformities of those who speak dogmatic and defensive. emphasis is that of a
Aristophanes'

politically responsible wise idealistic and opportunistic politically reveal itself for At the
responsible
what

man.

He is

wise

because he thinks through the perfectly just

society.

attempt

to create the

He is it to

because he

condemns

it

by indulging

it; he

allows

it is. He has

no need

for

accusations and apologies.

who

end of

the play the

chorus

draws the distinction between judges

simply laugh and judges who think. Aristophanes claims to satisfy both. At its height his comedy is a feast for the mind. But even the obscenities that make us

laugh

are not

shameless;

they

would not cause

laughter if they
are

were not accom

panied and

by

an awareness of are not equal

decency. Although the

pleasures of

laughter

to one another,

they

both

more

understanding human than the

pleasures of

Praxagora's democracy. Her

and

democracy

can

be

characterized

by
not

democratic fanaticism

democratic decay. Its justice

and pleasures

do

accompany laughter because they are tyrannical and shameless rather than boastful and ridiculous. Nor do they accompany thought because they are doc-

Aristophanes'

Criticism of Egalitarianism
human. Laughter
reader to
and

273
are

trinaire

and animal rather

than

moral and

thought

outside of

Praxagora's

democracy
the

because the human is foreign to it. Unlike

Praxagora, Aristophanes does

the hags the victory to overcome it. His
comical over picture an

not allow

his

forget
us

eternity. and

lovers,

he brings before

death

the

By giving longing

because it is

is not simply repulsive. The victory of the hags is impossible fantasy. The young, especially young men,

would rebel against

the old before

being
force

subjected to their sexual

on

desires. In the
than

strength of youth

there is

a natural

behalf

of

beauty.

But the
physical

repulsiveness of

the

hags'

victory is

moderated

by

more

its

impossibility. It is

also moderated

by

the fact that it is the

fulfillment

of a political project.

ises
for

of

democracy
a

Their victory reveals the disproportion between the prom and its reality. The disproportion is sobering and is a subject

reflection.

hopes. It is

The victory of the hags is the victory of death over all human lesson about what man can hope for by pursuing justice to the

neglect of the moral order.

One
to

cannot

forget that Praxagora's

not allow
art

project requires resent

the transgression
ment

of sacred

laws. Aristophanes does

the human

idealism,

and physical pleasure

blind him to death. His

transcends Prax therewith the

agora's

by

preserving

an awareness of

alternatives and

human.
The

Assembly

of communism.

of Women is more critical of democratic extremism than it is Aristophanes shows the ugly character of egalitarianism in its

humorless

moralism

fueled

by
of

resentment and

its

sterile

hedonism that knows

sisters can

no pleasures

beyond those

the

immediate
of

senses.

These ugly

belong

together because
achieved

they

are

born

the

same

mother:

equality

only be

by

affirming

as absolute of

the satisfactions that every man,

woman and

child can effort.

enjoy Egalitarianism has

regardless

as

intelligence, education, talent, beauty or even its end the reanimalization of man, the denial of
preservation and principle of

anything that transcends the

the pleasures of the body. to

By

thinking
cal

through the underlying

conclusion, Aristophanes

warns

democracy democracy against its

its

extreme

but logi

worst

temptations.

NOTES

characterization of the play as less than exuberant or even as ugly is shared by Gilbert Leo Strauss and Moses Hadas. Murray, 2. This is the opinion of Gilbert Murray in Aristophanes: A Study, p. 181 A similar opinion can be found in the introduction of the Loeb Classical Library edition, V.III, p. 246.

The

3. The line
4. The
claim

references are standard

to

most

Greek

editions and translations.

reduction of

the political

entity to

an economic

entity is

even evident

in the

women's

to rule (214-40). The the human

substitution of

the economic
not

for

the political

is

consistent with

the

replacement of

with

the subhuman. I have

discussed the
of

relation

between the

charac

ter of the play and the fact that Praxagora

is

female. A discussion
,

this aspect of the play can be

found in Leo 5. It must be

demands
of

Strauss'

Socrates

and

Aristophanes

pp. 281-82.

noted

that Plato

also attempted

to

bring

man's sexual nature

into line giving

with

the

the

common good.

But Plato did

not attempt

to politicize sex

by

out equal

274
rations.

Interpretation
Plato takes
communism

further than Aristophanes

by
at

good order of

the city. He can do this because he

analogous

is willing,

subordinating sexual desire to the least for argument's sake, to assume

that the city

is

to the soul. Plato is

thereby

capable of

denying

man a

happiness indepen
does
not come

dent

of

the city and of affirming the primacy of hierarchy. When nature

finally

into

conflict with the city,

it is the

mind rather

than the

body

that

rebels.

The city is ugly,

because it

frustrates young lovers, but because it forces the philosopher to be concerned with a particular city at a particular time. Plato completes The Assembly of Women by showing the city in light of the
divine in
man rather

than in light of the animal in

man.

For

a more

developed

comparison

between

The Republic

and

The

Assembly

6. That force

cannot

of Women see Allan Bloom, Giants and Dwarfs, pp. 170-76. be avoided is the meaning of the exchanges at (795-805) and (866-74).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aristophanes. The
Harvard

Assembly of Women. University Press, 1972.

In Loeb Classical Library.

Cambridge, Mass.

and Dwarfs. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990. Hadas, Moses. The Complete Plays of Aristophanes Toronto: Bantam Books, 1962. Murray, Gilbert. Aristophanes: A Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933. Strauss, Leo. Socrates and Aristophanes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.
.

Bloom, Allan. Giants

The Comic
Dionysus'

Poet, The City,

and
of

the Gods: Aristophanes

Katabasis in the Frogs

Steven Forde

University

of North Texas

The Frogs, like

the
atic

all of

Aristophanes'

relationship focus on the

in

of comic

poetry to the

city.1

surviving plays, presents the problem of The Frogs is unusual in its system

proper relation of tragic

culminates

a contest

poetry to the city as well. The play in Hades between the tragic poets Aeschylus and Euri himself. In that contest, Dionysus
political or public-spirited rea

pides,

presided over

by

the god of the theater

chooses

Aeschylus his

over

Euripides for purely

preference was

sons, though

original

happens in the
The decisive
receives

course of

the play to cause a

strongly for Euripides. Something change of heart or mind in the god. in

civic virtue

event appears to

be

an education

that Dionysus
or

during
or

the

first half

of

the play,

during
the
and

his Katabasis
god

descent into

Hades.
a

Xanthias,

the slave
role

who accompanies

during

his descent, takes

leading

directing

in this education,

to that extent plays the part of

Aristophanes himself.
The Frogs is the only surviving play of Aristophanes whose opening scene deals explicitly with the subject of comedy. Dionysus and Xanthias violate the dramatic illusion by debating what may be properly said on stage in order to
make

the audience laugh.

while

Specifically, Xanthias,
ass, his
master make.

who

is carrying
make

Dionysus'

baggage

riding

on an

walking alongside,
comic a

wonders what

comic complaints

he may

Dionysus leaves him free to

any

com

plaints except those

habitually

used

by

bad

writers, such as those of

gratuitous vulgarity.
such

Whenever Dionysus is
comes
an

devices, he

says, he

seem a strange complaint

for

using away older by more than a year. This may immortal being to make, but it does not satisfy
Dionysus'

spectator at productions

Xanthias for edy

another reason.

He

construes
as such

prohibition of vulgar com considers

as a prohibition of
of

the possibility

himself deprived of comedy laughter. Xanthias wonders, his through relieving suffering
the circumstances, why he is
not

(20); he

sensibly
which

enough under

being

forced to carry

such

a ponderous

load

of

baggage if he is
slaves

to engage in any of the

engage

buffoonery

baggage-carrying

commonly

in in

comedy.

at

the

This essay began its life many years ago as a paper for one of Allan Bloom's graduate seminars University of Toronto. This version of it is dedicated to Professor Bloom's memory, as a
token of the things I learned

small

from him, in

and outside of class.

interpretation,

Spring 1994, Vol. 21, No. 3

276

Interpretation

Dionysus is

descending
and

to Hades to find and retrieve

his favorite dramatic

poet, the recently deceased Euripides. He has disguised himself as Heracles to

facilitate the task, certainly

some of
comic

from

what we soon

change of costume or other obvious reason receives no use

his plan, he foresees no for bringing baggage. The baggage

learn
of

in the

course of the

play

except as an

instrument to

its buffoonery. Aristophanes

the
vein of

seems

to introduce the baggage only as a

device, in

the

"vulgar"

comedians.

Moreover,
in

we cannot

fail
are

to notice that the very lines Dionysus

finds

so

disgusting

vulgar

comedy
of

delivered in the opening exchange between him and Xanthias, under censuring them. Aristophanes makes his spectators laugh by the use

cover of

these

putting them in the mouth the difference between Aristophanean and

most part

lines, for the

of

the god himself. Whatever

the lack of

vulgar

jokes in the its

work of

comedy may be, it is not Aristophanes (see, e.g., 87-88, 221-

"vulgar"

38, 479,
vulgarity
which

and of course countless passages

with peculiar

in

Aristophanes'

other plays).
of

Aris

tophanean comedy,
as one of

juxtaposition
whose

high

and

low, incorporates
the
standards

its

parts.

Dionysus,
the
more

ignorance

about

by

to

judge tragedy is
of and

one of

major

themes of the

Frogs, is
the

revealed at

the

beginning
Dionysus

the play to be

ignorant than his

slave about comedy.

his

slave arrive at
answers

their first

destination,

dwelling

of

Hera

cles. as

When Heracles

the door to find the effeminate Dionysus dressed

Heracles himself, he is overcome with unquenchable laughter. The first character in the Frogs to laugh, Heracles laughs at the manifest boasting of
Dionysus. For the
second

time in the play,

get advice on

however, Dionysus
easiest road

misses

the

joke;

he has come, he says, to

with ease

the

to Hades. His concern

and

nature.
explain

only In the
the

reminds us of the
course of

disproportion between his disguise

with

his true
to

his
to

exchange

Heracles, Dionysus is forced

his desperate

reason

for his mission,

make resorts

and

therewith

longing

for
un-

Euripides. In
poetic

an attempt

this

longing

intelligible to the

crude and

Heracles, Dionysus
an

to an analogy to the

hero's desire for bean

soup,

Heracles, fails
for the

analogy which, however, due to its ineptness or the unrefined tastes of to instruct: why should not any number of tragic poets suffice
Heracles is
unimpressed with as well as

same purpose?
good

Euripides in

particular

(89-91). It is his

instinct
at

no

doubt,
cannot

Heracles to
the

express

disgust

the refined

and perhaps

his crudeness, that causes impious lines that Di

not per

onysus raves over ceive same

(104). Heracles

believe that Dionysus does

taint in these lines.

Having
and

received a

tolerably detailed
and

delights,
a

Dionysus

account of the way to Hades, its terrors Xanthias depart. There is an abortive attempt to

hire
is

dead
on

man as

porter, inspired

by

Xanthias'

reluctance

to carry his master's

baggage

this

journey,

after which

the two arrive at

Charon's lake. Dionysus

accepted

for

passage

to walk around with

other side

in Charon's boat, but Xanthias, being a slave, is forced the baggage. After learning where he is to wait on the it
will

he

seems to assume

take Dionysus

longer to

cross

by

wa-

The Comic Poet, The City,

ter

and

the Gods

277
the
en not

Xanthias leaves the

alone with

scene.
neither

Thus it is

contrived that
nor

Dionysus

crosses

lake

Charon;
with

Xanthias

the dead
arranges

man who was

just is

countered

travel

him.

Why
a

Aristophanes

things this way

immediately
The
cance

clear.

scene

that

follows is

to the

drama

as a whole

brief but puzzling one (196-270). Its signifi is indicated clearly enough by the fact that it

features the
gives the

sole appearance
name.

play its
and

Yet

in the play of the chorus of frogs, the chorus that on its face, the scene is rather unremarkable.
even

Dionysus
rather ute

the frogs exchange words,

heated

contest of some sort of at

In itself, the
and significance

scene

angry words, and engage in a does not seem to contrib

Dionysus'

greatly to the action with the frogs is murky

we recognize ceives on

the play,

the meaning of

interaction

best. Its

it

as a

foreshadowing
to

or synopsis of

becomes intelligible only once the education Dionysus re

his

journey

Hades,

an education

that prepares him to

of

judge tragic

poetry

as

he is

called to

do in the

second

half

the

play. will

According

to the orders of Charon at the outset of the scene, Dionysus

row

have to learn to

in

order

to cross over to Hades.

For,

as

becomes

abun

dantly
cal

comically clear during this scene, Dionysus is utterly without nauti experience (203-5). This obstacle is not insurmountable, however, for
and says that

Charon
through

Dionysus

will

be taught to

row

by

the

wondrous melodies of

the frogs. Thus the frogs are introduced

music.

Sure enough,

as soon as

teachers, teachers who instruct the two travelers leave shore, Dionysus
as

is enabled,
poetry blisters
of

or

driven,

to row even better than he would

have

wished

by

the

the chorus.

on

He begins positively to suffer under their tutorship from his hands and posterior. Needless to say, he does not appreciate the

music of

the frogs. He begins instead to complain

bitterly

and rather

vulgarly

about what

they

are

doing

to him. Some

the low quality he had inveighed 22, 236-41). If we are guided

against

by

unmistakably take on in the opening scene of the play (221the opinion Xanthias expressed there, we
of complaints

his

may of his

conclude pain.

that Dionysus

uses

the language he does in order to relieve some

seems to

In any event, Dionysus is

not yet over.

have learned something

about

comedy as But his ously

g0(js

well as seamanship.
ordeal

when

they

realize

how

much

The frogs begin to sing all the more vigor it annoys Dionysus. They insist that other
and

they

mention

the

Muses, Pan,
the
music
frogs'

Apollo

are

delighted

with

them,
recall,

promised

apparently Dionysus that the

who

on account of

they

make

(229-34). Charon,
course of

we

music would

be delightful. Is Dionysus the

their recitation,
one

only one the frogs in the

The
had

does

not appreciate their song? of

In the

mention

two different types

life they lead (241-49),

the

delightful Zeus.

sun and

marshy waters,
Dionysus
on

another on

bottom, fleeing
one of

the

rain of

second of promised

these might remind us of the

fact that

the sights Heracles

mud and ordure as

his way to Hades was evildoers who were buried in punishment for their misdeeds (145-51). Indeed, this is the

278
only

Interpretation
sight promised

by

Heracles that Dionysus does

when on

not encounter on
Zeus'

his

jour-

ney-unless resent

the frogs

themselves,

the

bottom, fleeing

rain, rep

this

embarks

group (cf. Strauss, p. 241). We note that immediately after he dis from Charon's boat, Dionysus does claim to have seen the criminals
Heracles had
spoken

of whom none

(274-77),

though

he has in fact

encountered

but the frogs.

part of

music, though, is not their description of their onomotopoeic refrain, Brekekekex, koax, but life, lives, they lead, koax. This refrain seems, and is usually taken to be, nothing but onomato-

The best-known
or

the

frogs'

the

poea

syllables

to think the

chant

strung together with no sense of their own. But there is reason is more than that. Elements of the refrain bear a
frogs' frogs'

striking resemblance to words that have a wider resonance in the play. George Elderkin has proposed a significant interpretation of the chant based on

listener, he maintains, would associate bre brechesthai, "to get wet, be rained Koax, mean which in turn suggests (cf. while, would remind him of koas, Clouds 343). Furthermore, the fleece was associated in the Eleusinian myste ries with a cult of Zeus, and the Frogs is permeated, as Elderkin shows, with references to Eleusinian ritual (kodarion, a diminutive of koas, is mentioned
these
resonances.2

The Greek

kekekex

upon."

with

the verb

"fleece,"

"cloud"

later

by Aeschylus as a word he could use 1203). Putting these elements together, then,
Zeus)."

to

destroy

Euripides'

prologues:
frogs'

Elderkin deciphers the

re

frain to read, "Rain, rain, cloud (of The harmony between this and what the frogs say tom to escape the rain of Zeus is obvious. And if the
represents

about

fleeing

to the

bot
then

frogs'

flight to the bottom

the punishment

of

the

wicked

in the

mud and ordure of refer

Hades,

the rain of

Zeus,
lends
scene

and

the

frogs'

mysterious

chant,
frogs'

to the

punishment of significant a

evildoers meted out

by

the gods. Thus the

refrain

becomes

indeed
whole.

and

significance to

the scene between them and Dionysus as

a contest

The

develops into

between Dionysus

and

the

revolving
to take the

around

this very refrain. As the frogs call the refrain ever

ever more

frogs, louder,

Dionysus, growing
refrain

vexed, tries to

retaliate.

Eventually, he

threatens

from them, to which the frogs reply that they will then suffer (252-53). After a few more shrill exchanges, Dionysus finally makes terribly good on his threat. He bellows out the refrain of the frogs (267-68), where
upon
Dionysus'

they immediately fall silent, and Charon's boat reaches shore. brief trip in Charon's boat has given him the beginnings
in
some

of an

very important matters. He has learned something about and he has comedy, he has learned the quintessential Athenian art of rowing learned the refrain of the frogs. In the case of the refrain, it is important
education
frogs'

that

he has

not

merely learned

it, but

appropriated anger

it from them.

Only by taking
silence the

their refrain, only

by

screaming it in

(264-68), does he
and a

causing them pain, sending them to the bottom torment. This is the key lesson he leams from the frogs,

frogs

free himself from lesson in exercising

The Comic Poet, The City,

the
par

and

the Gods

279

divine

power to punish the wicked

not

in Hades. This is the divine It is

a

prerogative

excellence, but it is

simply

a prerogative.

gods

from the

point of view of the

city

or of political

necessary function of life. It is in some sense

ear,
which

the source of gods or of the need for gods. To

corrupted

Dionysus'

has been
and

by

the softness

of

Euripides,

the

frogs'

refrain seems

jarring

unpleasant, despite the fact that

other gods

delight in it. The

most

important

lesson Dionysus takes from his encounter with the frogs is to overcome his distaste for this refrain. In the final analysis, we might say, this is a patriotic or
political

lesson. In the

context of

Athenian
with a

politics

at

least, it is

not at

all

surprising Upon reaching

Xanthias'

that this should be coupled

the other

original estimation

lesson in rowing or seamanship. side, Dionysus encounters Xanthias once more. of the relative lengths of time it would take him
not

and

Dionysus to back

get to

the other shore proves to be

far

off.

Still, he does
Dionysus has

not come

on stage until the

frogs have been

not

silenced and

disembarked. The frogs themselves do

asserting that
case,

vanish, if the

scholiast

is

correct

in

they

were never visible

to the audience in the first

place.3

In that

a spectator might around

the scene to go the

play.

be forgiven for concluding that Xanthias, when he left the lake, joined the chorus of the frogs for their part in Dionysus
asks

At any rate,

when

him to

characterize

the

regions

he

(273). He has traveled through, Xanthias simply replies, "darkness and also insinuates that he has seen the archcriminals that Dionysus here claims to

mud"

have first
sort, their

seen as well utterance of as an

Xanthias

(274-75). Moreover, an ancient stage direction identifies the when he reappears, a mysterious salutation of some
of a reed

imitation

pipe, something

alluded

to

by

the frogs as one of

collec

musical contributions point where

to the gods (see

note

3). If these indications

to, Aristophanes is suggesting a close they tively between Xanthias and the chorus of the frogs. Such an association
seem

association would give

Xanthias
This Heracles

leading
he
are

role

in the

education of

Dionysus.

suggestion

onysus and

is greatly strengthened by what follows. As soon as Di alone, Xanthias reminds the god of terrible monsters that
this
stage of

said would appear at

their journey. Dionysus boasts that

worthy of his journey. Immediately, Xanthias claims to see such a monster, causing Di onysus to be overcome with terror (285-305). But the monster is clearly a fabrication: Xanthias is testing mettle, while contributing of course

he

would

love to

come across

one, to

experience an adventure

Dionysus'

to the comedy of the

acts as though

play.

it

were part of

Thus Xanthias openly plays the part of the poet, and his task to cure Dionysus of his boasting. In his
even

fright,
escape

the god seems ready

to

foresake his divine

identity

in

order

to

danger (298-300). In
upon

a parallel

gesture, he breaks the dramatic illusion

by
of

calling

the priest of the theater to save

him (297). After Xanthias tells

wonder what god

him

that the monster

miseries:

is gone, Dionysus is free to

is the

source

his

Xanthias, by sarcastically reciting

that it is his

some phrases of

Euripides,

suggests

in

effect

love

of

Euripides.4

280

Interpretation
braved
all the terrors of

Having
if
not

Hades that Heracles had

to be
poetic

warned of

some and as

all of which encounter

have turned
the
chorus of

out

inventions

Dionysus

Xanthias
well.

blessed initiates that Heracles had foretold

This

chorus gives

the

audience a

heavy

dose

of political

instruction. This

of course
unusual

is far from

unusual

in Aristophanean comedy;
the virtues of
chorus
war

what

is

somewhat with

is this

chorus's emphasis on

(362-65), along

its

failure to

praise or plead

for

peace.

The

does

elsewhere express a

desire

for peace, but only in the briefest

and most muted chorus

fact,
an

we could generalize about

patriotic

the

way (714-16, 1530-31). In in this play by saying that it follows is

the
a solicitude

war effort.

unswervingly We can find in this

line,

part of which
an

for the Athenian

the

echo of

teaching

of

frogs,

most

obviously their lesson in seamanship. This was the sole lesson Charon prom ised the frogs would teach (or perhaps the only one he thought Dionysus/Hera cles lacked; 203-7). The chorus of blessed initiates, the official chorus of the
play,
resembles

the chorus of

frogs in this

and other ways.

Overall,

the almost

complete

lack

of

distance between this

chorus's perspective and other

the patriotic

Athenian

perspective

distinguishes it from
arrive at

Aristophanean Reminded
at

choruses.5

Xanthias his disguise

nounces

and as

Dionysus

Pluto's

palace.

by

Xanthias

of

Heracles, Dionysus knocks peremptorily

slave

the door

and an

himself to the

Aeacus

as

"Heracles the

mighty"

(464). What
monster a

follows is essentially moment before:

terrors of

a repetition of

the encounter with the

imaginary

Dionysus'

manifest

boast brings down

on

his head the famed

to

his

valor.

Hades, Moreover,
at

which

quickly

reveal

the god to be anything but Heraclean in

the terrors

summoned seem once again

be

simple poetic

creations;
all

any rate Aeacus, who leaves with the; express intention of setting those terrors in motion, returns somewhat later with only a few of the palace

guard.

Aeacus,
seems

the only slave

in the Frogs
and

aside

from
as

Xanthias,

plays what

looks surprisingly like

onysus slaves come

a poetic

didactic
as

role a

well, for

terrifying Di
The two

to serve an educative, to share a very

well as

comic,

purpose.

certainly Xanthias now ridicules Dionysus openly as the most cowardly of gods men. Dionysus naturally asks whether Xanthias was then not in fear of
threats. Xanthias replies that he gave them
not a

close and curious rapport.

and

Aeacus'

thought. His sang-froid

might

be

explained

by
not.

his knowledge

as poet of what

is behind the threats

of

Hades

and what

is

roles,

since

At any rate, when Dionysus then proposes that they change Xanthias is so valorous, Xanthias immediately agrees. Thus for the Dionysus foreswears his divine

second time

identity

in

order

to escape

danger.

But the

exchange of roles presence of

does

not

last long. With

a swiftness

that makes one

feel the

the

comic poet a

Aristophanes,
prepared

a servant appears

to

invite the
enough
and

supposed

Heracles in to

lavish feast

by
was

Persephone. This is

to entice Dionysus into

speaking

of

taking back the skin how ridiculous the original switch

and club of

Heracles

into

tion of the role of

Heracles,

which represents of

(542-48). But his resump course the resumption of his

The Comic Poet, The City,

and the

Gods

281
Aris

boast, is
lence
on

tested

with a swiftness

that once

more

belies the

presence of

tophanes. Two

women enter and accuse

Heracles/Dionysus

of

thievery

and vio more

his

previous

trip

to Hades. The god is quickly reduced once

to

entreating Xanthias to don the costume of Heracles. He says he wouldn't blame Xanthias for beating him for taking back the costume, and offers the most solemn oath that he will never reclaim it. Xanthias accepts the oath, in full

knowledge that Dionysus 601). He doesn't

give

will not

keep

it if the

situation changes again (599-

Dionysus that opportunity,

offer

however,
a
"slave"

and at

the

same

time effectively takes up the god's

reappears with the palace

to submit to
offers

beating. When Aeacus Dionysus for tor

guard, Xanthias

his

ture

by

Aeacus. This

proposal

truth of

Xanthias/Heracles'

is introduced purportedly to demonstrate the statement that he has never been to Hades before

nor committed

much more serious

any thievery there. In fact, the function.

with

beating

that ensues performs a

When faced
god,
whom

the prospect
not

of a

whipping, Dionysus

protests

that he

is

Aeacus dare

beat. But this time Dionysus is Xanthias

Dionysus'

not allowed protest

to

reclaim

his divine

identity

so easily. of

uses

to trans

form the issue from the truth

Dionysus'

Xanthias/Heracles'

statement

to the truth of

claim to

divinity,

which

Xanthias

maintains can also

be

established

by

for whipping the god. The highly comical whipping contest that ensues in support of his claim to be must offer himself to be Xanthias, Heracles,
proceeds

beaten too
not

feel

pain.

from the premise, advanced by Xanthias, that gods do Yet he is in a better position than anyone to know the falsehood
at

of this

premise,

least in the

case of

himself is
premise.

not a god and would

be

unmasked

Dionysus. He certainly knows that he by the contest if it bore out the

betrays
aner

a conviction

It is doubtful that Aeacus is any more taken in by the conceit: he that Xanthias is human by addressing him as gennadas
before the
are contest

immediately
and

begins (640). It
god.

almost

looks

as

though

Xanthias
And it is

Aeacus blows

conspiring to torture the

We

note

that Dionysus

receives more

and, it seems, more

painful ones

than Xanthias does.

proposes

somewhat suspicious

that,

when

Aeacus

finally

the

recogni

tion test as a substitute for the whipping contest (Dionysus accepts the substitu tion unhesitatingly, while complaining that it should

have been thought

of ear

lier)

he does

so

in terms that
premise of

suggest

he

was mindful of

this possibility all along

(669-71). The

the

recognition

test is that Pluto and

Persephone,
While this

being
test is

gods,

will

be

able

to distinguish who is a god and who

is

not.

being

carried on

inside,

the parabasis of the play takes place.

The

contest

the second

between the two tragedians, Aeschylus and Euripides, occupies half of the play. The two poets hurl many stylistic criticisms at each
contest

other, but the

style or

form,

but

of content or

between them is ultimately decided not on the basis of teaching. In this respect it reminds us of the
and

implicit
of

contest

between Aristophanes

the

vulgar comedians at

the opening
at

the

play.

There, Dionysus

was concerned

primarily

with

style, but

the end

282
of the

Interpretation
makes content chooses

play he Euripides. He
to

the basis

of

his decision between

Aeschylus and

the former for his political virtues, despite the fact that
retrieve

he originally intended to
onysus
make

the latter. The

education

that

prepares

Di

this choice

culminates

in the

recognition

test for divinity. That

culmination

is hidden from us,

the audience,

by

the parabasis of the play, and

hidden for

political reasons. slaves emerge after whose recognition test, Aeacus is evidently has supposedly just been certified, is a divinity to him in the same words that revealed his knowl

When the two

convinced man.

the

that

Dionysus,

At any rate, he refers edge that Xanthias was a man before the whipping contest (gennadas aner, 738). We note that Aeacus confines himself to saying that the recognition test has
established who

is the

master and who

the slave, not that either one of them

can

is divine. This

being
the

the case, the slaves

more

believe that Pluto is

and so with all

than a

certainly have no good reason to man, just as Persephone must be a woman;

rest of

the gods. Yet this

knowledge does before the

not prevent

the

two slaves from swearing

oaths are multiplied
Preserver"

by

Zeus in

public or

spectators.

Rather,

with such significant variations of epithet as

"Zeus the

(738)

and

"Zeus the God

Kinship"

of

(750)

in their

short conver

sation

before the

commencement of agree

the

poetic contest.

This is in

spite of

the

fact that the two

away their
propounded

that their greatest pleasure as slaves consists in giving

masters'

secrets

(752-53). The

slaves act on the

principle, later
what

by Aeschylus (1050-56), that a poet should not always say he knows. Aristophanes sufficiently demonstrates his commitment to this
ciple

prin

by

concealing the

recognition

test

from the

audience.

Xanthias

and

Aea

cus make clear

classification,

they they are among

are

both firm

supporters of

Aeschylus or,

by

their own

the good (771-83). As such,

they

are opposed

to

the mob of parricides and other evildoers who

form

Euripides'

constituency in

Hades

(771-83)
We

the same group Heracles spoke of as

languishing

in

mud and

ordure.

recall that

according to Heracles this group included followers

of

bad

poets

(145-53).
position as a god

is clearly much more precarious than he had it upon depends the good will or the wisdom of the poets Here, Xanthias and Aeacus. It depends upon social-poetical convention, or it is in
thought.
essence a agreement
recognition

Dionysus'

"social

position"

(Strauss,
this is

p.

among the gods

test

what

245). Not only does it depend upon Dionysus will have learned from the
among men,
conven

(Strauss,

p.

258)
of

but

upon convention

tion supported if not established

Dionysus'

by

poetry.

From this

point of view we can

perceive

why

love

Euripides,
a great

a poet who

denied the Athenian

boast: it implied the belief that he (889-94), could survive as a god in spite of denigration of convention, in particular the conventions surrounding the gods. This is not to deny, of course that there was a corresponding boast on part.
gods constituted
Euripides' Euripides'

in fact

We

can see

in

retrospect

that all the elements of the education

Dionysus has

The Comic Poet, The City,

received
of

and the

Gods

283

during

the precarious nature of

his descent to Hades have been directed to making him aware his position and of what he must do to preserve it.
shown an
of

During
guise

the
a

descent, Dionysus has

god,
under

alarming

readiness

to shed

his

as

the

influence

his

cowardice and general

softness.

Xanthias

Aristophanes have had to thwart Dionysus in this, to demonstrate to him the gravity of his actions, and finally to instruct him concerning his duties as a god. The whipping contest represents the culmination of this part of
and

his

education.

By

his

divinity

could
of

its very institution, the contest showed Dionysus how easily be called into question. The whipping itself, based on the
Dionysus'

questioning hilation as a
quences of and

his divine status, is thus the comic equivalent of god. The contest gave Dionysus some sense of the

anni painful conse

hence

on

his behavior, and some insight into his dependency on convention (the right kind of) poetry. From here it is a rather short step to the Euripides
which concludes

condemnation of god's

the play, to the realization that a

love for Euripidean tragedy is dangerous indeed self-contradictory. It is for this reason appropriate that the Frogs presents successively a whipping con
test and a
shadowed
music

contest

(cf.

Strauss,

p.

249). This

succession as

was

fore
love

in

Dionysus'

contest with the chorus of

frogs. Just

Dionysus'

for Euripides leads

nation of

Euripides

by an being

inexorable logic to his

the
precondition of

being

whipped

his

condem

his escaping that

condemn

pain

Dionysus
order

had to
escape

appropriate

the

frogs'

chant,

or

learn to
on

the wicked, in

to

the torment the

of

frogs inflicted
not

him.

The love

Euripides is

the only

defect Dionysus

must overcome.

That

love is
plified such a

a mere symptom of

in his

encounter

deeper defects in his understanding, defects exem with the frogs. The pervasive softness that made him

likely

follower

of

Euripides,

and such an

imposter in his disguise

a

as

Heracles,
penser

him from recognizing, or performing, his duty as of justice in general. What we learn from the Frogs is that gods,
prevented

dis
this

whose

very

being

is

grounded

in

social

convention,

cannot

decline to
In the

perform

function, for

which

the political community

relies on

them. In effect, the

gods'

punishment of

injustice is
must

a precondition of their existence.

Zeus,"

words of

the

frogs, Dionysus
chylean pides:

dispense the "rain

again

of

a task that requires

Dionysus'

Aes Euri

hardness. Thus
amounted needs.

the boast embodied in

love

of

it

to

a claim

that

he

could exist as a god

in

spite of

the city and

the city's

We

can see now

that

Aristophanes'

decision to

make

Dionysus descend to
out

Hades in the

costume of

Heracles

despite the fact that the disguise turns

(cf.

to be unnecessary for the

journey

Strauss,
much

p.

242)

was

far from

coinci

dental. The disguise

pensable

caused

Dionysus

to much of the comedy of

suffering and of course was indis the play. But we, and Dionysus, learn

through it that the

harshness

and prowess of guide to

Heracles, despite his

of

crudeness

if

not vulgarity, provide a

better

politically salutary poetry than does the

the city and of the

effeminacy

of

Dionysus.

Comically

stated, the tastes

284

Interpretation
in poetry
must always

city's gods

bear

a certain resemblance to the taste of men

after

for

bean

soup.

Poetry

needs of

the city,

which

cles,

as portrayed

only is its precondition, have been fulfilled (cf. 376). Hera education in in the Frogs, is closer to those needs.
Dionysus'

can

fulfill the highest desires

the

basic

the first half of the play consists

largely

in his

learning

not

to

abandon

his
of

course

Heraclean disguise, and then to live up to it. This does not use of it is that it is a disguise, and that
Dionysus'

change a

the fact

laughable boast.

But it is
course of
own

boast that Dionysus, like all gods, must make. We learn in the the Frogs that much of the reputation of Heracles himself rests on his
a reports of

false

how

great

the terrors
about

of

Hades are,

not

to mention
of on

his his

silence
own

(and the

poets'

silence)
Dionysus'

journey
this
p.

there.

boast

make

boast; but
143).

that

was

guilty simply his belief that he needed not the greatest boast that can be imagined (cf.
was

the skulduggery he

was

Strauss,

The whipping contest to which Dionysus was subjected along with Xanthias taught him the necessity of Heraclean hardness, or rather, the facade of such

hardness. The feel pain,

sake of

premise of

that contest was

was

Xanthias'

claim

that a god will not

a claim

he knew

false. Dionysus, forced

as well

by

Xanthias to

make

that claim,

is taught

by

Xanthias

to conceal the pain

he feels, for the

soft cannot

his

reputation or social position.

god who

is thoroughly
can over an

preside over an city.

Aeschylean drama any

more

than

he

Aeschylean

And

given

the enigmatic exclusion of

the

Frogs, Aeschylus is
he
receives

the only poet presented as such who

Sophocles from any serious role in is compatible with

the city at all. However

education

the education

much Dionysus may suffer from the Aristophanean in the Frogs, it is nothing compared to the harshness of Aeschylean drama would have given him. The punishments and

labors
upon

characteristic of that

drama

are so great as

to cause Dionysus

pain

hearing

them spoken of

(1264-80). The

phenomenal anger of

simply Aeschylus

is highlighted

compared to a
scent

the second half of the play; among other things, he is raging rainstorm (e.g., 851-55). Relatively speaking, the de into Hades that Aristophanes prepares for Dionysus is a journey without

during

tribulation (cf.

401),

and

leads him to the

and

opposite

it is only the softness or ignorance of the god that conclusion. Thanks to the use of comic equivalents comedy in general, Aristophanes can teach lessons with at least some of the softness of

the

toil-assuaging
and

character of

the god,

the city, Aeschylean

Euripides.

Still,

the Frogs is a play in

pole of
of

which

Aristophanes

embraces the

Aeschylean/
seen

Heraclean
the lessons
with

poetry

as

his own,

out of public-spiritedness.

This is

in
In

the chorus of

frogs,

as well as and

the main chorus's close alignment

the Athenian patriotic perspective

chorus recommends

the virtues Athens needs

who are

in

war.
on

the parabasis the

that all

willing to

fight

the

Athenian
the

side at sea should

be

accepted as

citizens; in

particular

they

commend

Athenians'

enfranchisement of the slaves who showed

their valor at the

The Comic Poet, The City,

recent

and the

Gods

285

battle

of

Arginusae (694-702). Given the

one might
not

peculiar role of as a call

the two slaves

enfranchise
rate

who appear ment of

in the Frogs,

interpret this

for the
at

the comic poet, were it

for the fact that Xanthias

as

any

did

not

participate

in the battle

of

Arginusae,
simply

he informs

us more

than once

(33,

190-93). Given that

us

fact,

the exhortation of the chorus serves only to remind

a patriotic man

that the comic poet is

not

in the

sense understood
poet

by

the city. What the Frogs teaches instead is that the comic

is

under a

necessity to teach

kind

"Aeschylean"

of

patriotism

despite the fact that he

may not share this patriotism. In fact, his ambivalence may be instrumental to his role as educator: it appears in the Frogs that if Xanthias had fought in the

battle

of

Arginusae, he
an

would not

be playing the

role

that

he does (33-34,

190-93).

There is Aeacus

inevitable tension between the

convictions or predispositions of slaves

the comic poet and his

and must

duty

to the

city.

This is the tension the

Xanthias
of

feel

when

they

swear

by

Zeus despite their knowledge

pleasure

the

real status of

the gods,
secret.

foresaking

the great

they

would receive

from

revealing their
ever,

they

reveal

More politically wise than Socrates or Euripides, how their knowledge to few among the spectators. They accord

ingly

escape the punishment those two sophists suffer at the conclusion of two
comedies. of

Aristophanean
cles and ments of the

Nonetheless, for

the comic poet, the tastes of Hera than fulfill the political require
of

the kind city,

poetry that does

no more

are quite unsatisfying.

The primary theme

the Frogs dic

tates that it revolve substantially around the lowest function

poetry activity of the comic poet insofar as he is a slave to the city and to the gods, just as it shows the gods as slaves to the city in turn (cf 756) This is sufficient to explain both the reluctance of Xanthias to
(cf. Wasps 1030). It
shows the
.
.

of comic

follow his
required

master

to Hades

(169). It

should not surprise us

(33-34, 167-68) and his willingness that Xanthias, despite his

to do so if
pivotal role

in this play, disappears as soon as his minimum task is accomplished, leaving Dionysus on his own for the second half; nor that Aristophanes should decline
to
make

Xanthias,
In

or anyone

else other

spokesman.

contrast

to two
the

in the Frogs for that matter, his explicit Aristophanean plays where the comic poet
where

appears as a character

Acharnians,

the

poet

turns his back on the

acts against the gods

city but does not cross the gods, and the Peace, where he but with the city (see Strauss, p. 158, and also the Birds) tophanes is acting in harmony with both the city and the

in the Frogs, Aris

gods.

Consequently,
in
war.

his

ennui

is

greatest.

Here

alone

his

object

is

Socrates turned his back

either,
we

on

both

gods and

peace, but city, or at least

not

valor

Since

was not a slave of

may say that the Frogs shows

p.

Aristophanes'

most

clearly

envy

of

Socrates (cf. Strauss, It is

5).
the Frogs that the standard
victorious

characteristic of

by

which

the useful (cf. 783). Aeschylus is

application

in the

poets'

contest propose

it judges poetry is because of the openly (1035,

of

that standard, which

he is the first to

286

Interpretation
chorus of the

does Praxagora, that it is teaching the Aris useful things (686-67; Ecclesiazusae 584). This is in contrast to other to claim tophanean choruses who claim to teach what is just. The Frogs cannot
1056). The play claims,
as

teach the just things

poet.

pure and simple

because it does
of which
and

not

do justice to the
of

comic

There is

higher

sort of

justice,

the justice

the city is

perhaps

part, that

always prefers

Aphrodite

Peace,

and that

is hinted

at

in the

name of

To say nothing of the many indications in the second half the Frogs that this justice is closer in some ways to Euripides than to Aes
"Dikaiopolis."

chylus, the example of Dikaiopolis is

exists

enough

to

show

the real

kinship
of

that

between Euripides

and

the private

pleasures

and motivations

Aris

tophanes himself.

Xanthias his

respects

the social position of Dionysus

and

the gods because

it is

is useful; that is the precondition of every other sort of do so could only lead to his own demise. He could indeed depose Dionysus and the Olympian gods, but only if he were to take all the trouble that Pisthetairos does in the Birds, which is very little in the charac

duty

to teach

what

teaching.

His failure

to

ter of a comic poet. And even

so

if he

were

to take

such

pains, found his

own

city
to

to speak, he

would be under the same similar

obligation

to teach the useful, in

comic poet prefers

another remain

but essentially

form. In the Frogs, the

order.

frankly

a slave of

the existing

NOTES

plays found in Leo Strauss's 1. This essay rests on the general understanding of Reprint Chicago: and Aristophanes Socrates ed.; University of Chicago study, (Midway Press, 1980). For the sake of brevity, I shall occasionally rely on Strauss's interpretations of plays

Aristophanes'

seminal

other

than the Frogs without elaborating them.

Numbers in the text in

parentheses refer

to lines in

the play.

2. George Elderkin, Mystic Allusions in the Frogs of Aristophanes (Princeton: Princeton Uni

versity Store, 1955), p. 17. 3. The scholiast is cited in the Bohn's Classical James Hickie (London: George Bell
would

Library
vol.

edition of

and

Sons, 1907),

2,

p.

539. As

The Frogs, trans. William a matter of staging, it

appeared

have been inappropriate to

present

the chorus to the audience

before it

in its

proper

guise, as the chorus of initiates.

give

4. 311.1 follow the reading of the Oxford Greek text in assigning this line to Xanthias; it to Dionysus. The line makes much greater sense in the mouth of Xanthias. 5. The Athenians
seem

others

to have appreciated this

of

apparently Press]. Cf.

a patriotic

unprecedented

honor

being
the

staged a second
pp.

("Introduction,"

Loeb "The

edition

of

Frogs,

of the Frogs. The play received the time, owing to the patriotism of its chorus 293-94 [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
p.

feature

Argument,"

also

preceding the Bohn edition,

war with

20).

Aristophanes'

choice of such
might

approach, and the

Athenians'

enthusiastic response to

it,

be

explained

by

the

precarious position of

Athens

at

this time in her

Sparta,

and the most welcome

victory the

city had just

enjoyed at

Arginusae.

Virtue, Art,
Kentucky
State

and

the Good Life in Plato's Protagoras

Tucker Landy

University

In the dialogue beings

at

named after
virtue

him, Protagoras
great

claims skill

to surpass
that

all

human

teaching

(328b). So

is his

he

even charges

money for lessons, like any artisan. Protagoras does not speak of himself as an artisan indeed he disparages those who force the young to learn arts or technai (318e) but he speaks of sophistry as an art (316d, 317c), freely acknowl
edges

that he is a sophist

(317b),
"the

and allows the subject

art"

he teaches to be

char

acterized

by

Socrates

as

political

(319a). So

we are

wonder whether virtue admits of such a and and

thing: can virtue

naturally led to be made into an art

taught to others in the manner of other arts? Most

will

doubt that it can,

will expect after

the reader encountering the Protagoras for the first time

Protagoras'

Socra
that

tes to trounce
makes virtue

pretensions to the contrary.

Indeed,
prove

Protagoras

his

grandiose

claim, Socrates

challenges

him to

his

premise

is teachable,

tory

over

Socrates doubts. However, though the expected vic Protagoras does come, it does not come in the expected form. For
which

Socrates actually goes much further than Protagoras in maintaining that virtue is an art, compelling Protagoras at one point to defend the claim that courage,
at

least, is very different from

sophists as
which

art

(351a-b).

Later,

we even

find Socrates
a sort of
virtue.1

ad

vertising the
calculus,

teachers of the "art of

measurem

hedonic

he apparently considers to be the essence of Socrates more zealous than Protagoras in advancing the claim that reduced to an art and that sophistry has achieved this reduction? The thesis
of

Why

is be

virtue can

this essay is that in reducing

virtue

to art, Socrates

deliberately

exaggerates the power of

knowledge

over

human

affairs

in

order

to promote in

his

audience a stronger
would

desire for knowledge than

raise as

Protagoras'

presentation of

sophistry

allow, and, moreover, to

can accomplish so

the audience's expectations

sophistry placency that it would otherwise instill in its posal for a hedonic calculus as part of the "art of
a complete art of

about what

high

to subvert the intellectual com

Socrates'

students.2

ironic
limit

pro
what

measurem

describes

living

might

look like; it
of

points to the transcendent

of

the

sophistic enterprise or

indeed

any

similar attempt

to create a practical sci

ence,

limit to

which practical excellence can

never, in

fact,

aspire.

Socrates is

certainly aware that such a calculus is beyond the reach of human beings, and he indicates as much in his strange interpretation of the ode by Simonides
(338e-347a). In

describing

the art of measurement and arguing,

in effect, that

interpretation,

Spring 1994,

Vol. 21, No. 3

288
virtue

Interpretation
is knowledge, he lays the groundwork for a Protagoras wish to pursue the matter,
of a complete art of more thorough of

demonstra
must when

tion, fall short

should

how far sophistry

the conversation,

living. At the

end of

Socrates invites Protagoras to join him in the investigation Protagoras naturally

of shows no

of what virtue

is,

interest.

By

proposing
open of virtue.

dialectical investigation
of another

the

nature of

virtue,

however, Socrates leaves

and another

the possibility

orientation of course of

for knowledge
rather

kind

That

other orientation

is

theoretical

than practical, and the alternative to the

Socrates'

sophistic art

living is Socratic virtue, which is visible mainly in dialogue. We are not exposed to the full range of
Protagoras, but
dialogue
whose several allusions
main

actions

in the

Socrates'

way
us out

of

life in the

to the Symposium

invite fill

to suppose that the the picture of it.

subject matter

is

eros would

Socratic virtue, that is, the highest human virtue within the Platonic universe, is not an art and cannot be taught to another as arts are taught. It is portrayed in
the Protagoras
as

the

difficult,

untidy, somewhat artless effort to balance the

demands

of

duty

and of philosophical eros.

Whether sophistry is anything like the arts is the underlying question of the conversation between Socrates and Hippocrates (311b 314b). Socrates repeat

edly

compares

sophistry to

other arts

in

order

to force the impulsive Hippoc

rates,

who wishes

desperately

for the

wisdom of

Protagoras,

to think carefully

about what

going to
ply,
tion

sophistry is. Socrates first asks Hippocrates what he thinks he is become by paying Protagoras. Before the young interlocutor can re
typical

Socrates, in

fashion,

provides a

few

examples of the

kind

of ques

offered

he is asking and the kind of answer he is looking for. Each example is in the form of two questions. The first question always uses a form of
"to
be"

the

verb

(onti);
what

the second, a

form

of

the verb "to

become"

(geneso-

menos), verbs which acquire some

asks
be."

importance later in the dialogue. Socrates

doctor."

he takes his namesake, Hippocrates the Asclepiad, "to Hippocrates replies, "a Socrates then asks him what, by paying become." Hippocrates the doctor, he would expect "to Again the reply is, "a Socrates then goes through the same exercise with the same pair of
doctor."

Hippocrates

verbs, this time using the

example of sculptors. In this way, Hippocrates is induced to say that since Protagoras is said to be a sophist, Hippocrates must have it in mind to become a sophist. Hippocrates blushes and admits to Socra

tes that

he

would

be

ashamed

to present

himself to the Greeks

as a sophist.

The

outcome of

this conversation points to a to a more significant

sophistry, the

which points

difference between art and difference between art and virtue:

better in
some

sophists claim an art

to educate men and to make them

way,
as to

as anv

teacher of

does,

yet

their way of
so.

life is

not so

exemplary

inspire
that

great confidence

he teaches

good

in their ability to do judgement in private

Protagoras, for

example, claims that

and public affairs

(318e-319a)

and

Virtue, Art,
he
surpasses all
others

and the

Good Life

289

in assisting

men

toward virtue or gentlemanliness

possesses

(328b). Some

must

wonder,

however, if he himself entirely

himself in the
Art is

the

virtue

he

claims

to perfect in others, roaming as he does from town to town like any

common

merchant,
seems to

involving
be due

political affairs of none.

This dis

crepancy
rather

not so much art.

to some
always

to its aspiration to the

peculiarity transportable,
will

of

sophistry, but
virtue, as

while

most people understand

it,

must

be

rooted

in

some particular soil: a good

doctor

is

a good

virtuous

doctor anywhere, but in Sparta, partly because

as

a virtuous of the

Athenian

inevitable

cultural

not necessarily be differences between

cities or nations and

partly because
some good

of virtue's

Furthermore,
always

the discussion in Republic 333e-334b

bonds to the city it is fostered in. points out, virtue is

disposed toward

end,

whereas art seems neutral with respect

to
as

ends.

Any

effort to turn virtue

art, then,

must always arouse

into something so rootless and cosmopolitan suspicion. Now Socrates will eventually pro
the salvation of

pose

the all-purpose art

of measurement as

human life,

which

would seem

to subject him to the

same suspicions
Socrates'

to which the sophists are

subjected,

perhaps more so

because
will

that proposal,
odiousness of

however, he

bold hedonism. Before making have inoculated himself against some of the
of virtue

implying

sophistry with his initial assertion that that it comes to human beings from the gods

is

not

teachable,

or nature or some other

way but in any case not from him or from sophists. It is certain, though, that the efforts of both Socrates and Protagoras to intellectualize virtue are perilous,
at

least to themselves. Socrates

rescues

Hippocrates from his

not

embarrassment

by

maybe

Hippocrates is

looking
he has

for

a technical education

suggesting that in sophistry, but a

teacher and

gentlemanly one,
sophist, but
studied as

such as

received

from his

grammar

harp

teacher (312b). What Hippocrates wants to

a good man or a gentleman.
part of a more general

become, Socrates implies, is not a Perhaps sophistry might be safely

or

merely

liberal

education.

Hippocrates
a

gladly

assents

to this characterization,

but his

blushing

reveals

hope that
conversa

sophistry

might offer more

why.

than intellectual

polishing.3

The ensuing

tion perhaps indicates

Socrates
cally,
what as

challenges

the sophist knows.

Hippocrates to say what Again, Socrates

out what

a sophist

offers artisans
of

is and, more specifi (carpenters and

painters)

examples, pointing

kind

learns from Hippocrates that

is
still not satisfied:

sophists can make one clever at speaking. make one clever at which

knowledge they have, and Socrates

harp-players

about which
edge say.

they

give

knowledge,
to

speaking on the matter is harp-playing. What kind of knowl

does the The

sophist make one clever at

reason seems

the art of

all

arts,

so that

speaking about? Hippocrates cannot be that sophistry aspires to be comprehensive, to be its subject matter is naturally hard to define. But this
ambitious

is
in

what makes

it appealing to

young

men

like Hippocrates,
greatness.4

who see

sophistry's comprehensive power a means

to

political

Hippoc-

290

Interpretation
restless,
unformed

rates'

desire to distinguish himself is the

a complete a complete

outward expression

of a natural

desire to become
perfection or

human

being
be

with a complete
obtained

life.

Now if human mastery

visible,

life

could

through the

"become"

of a certain
even

art, the way to

perfect would at

least be plainly

if it

were an

only the
one

most

talented.

extremely difficult art to master and attainable by Assuming that one had the necessary native abilities,
own
"is"

simply have to acquire this art, either on one's teacher. And it would be easy to determine whether someone
would

or

from

a complete

he has this art, as young Hippoc being by determining rates could easily determine, for example, that Hippocrates the Asclepiad was a doctor. We can say what a given person is, if he happens to be an artisan of human
whether or not

some sesses

kind, because he

native

clearly identifiable art (a doctor, e.g., pos identifiable product (for a doctor, health). As a medicine) clearly Athenian, Hippocrates has an opportunity to obtain what many at the
possesses a with a even

time (some
of

today)

would consider a complete

human

achievement:

to be
city.5

in the

world's

leading
that

life or at least the very peak kalos k'agathos, a gentleman or leading citizen, From the exchange between Socrates and Pro
needs

tagoras, it

appears

what

Hippocrates

in

order

to achieve this goal to the manner

is in

something like which Socrates

art of

an art of statesmanship. will question

Later, owing partly

will present

him, Protagoras

statesmanship or as the core of the art of About the arts of statesmanship and sophistry we can say that the former is the management of public affairs and the latter is cleverness at speaking. But such definitions
are

his sophistry as the statesmanship (318e-319a).

unsatisfactory because
unique:

we also want

to know to what ends or

with

for

the sake of what product these skills are applied, as these skills are

any

art.

However,
but
at

they

aim not at some particular or relative good

the comprehensive good, which is not easy to

attain.6

know

or

It is

no

wonder,

then,

that Plato wrote two

describe, never mind to long, intricate dialogues

Hippocrates'

attempting to define the

sophist and

the statesman.

confusion,
or

then,

about what

sophistry is

and what

he

wants

to

become

be

stems

from

this much larger

difficulty
He
no

about what a complete

human

being

and a complete will shed

human life
more

are. on

doubt hopes that the his fellow

wisdom of

Protagoras

light

these

vital matters. of

Socrates, like
doubts
about
reprimands

many

citizens

(see

316c-d),

appears to

have

he Hippocrates for subjecting his soul to the sophists without consult ing family or friends (313a). Since the soul is fed on doctrines just as the body is fed on food and drink, and since the soul is more valuable than the

the value of a sophistic education. With admirable solicitude,

body,

Hippocrates

wary of sophists than of medical hucksters. Such men have a financial interest in promoting their wares: they may try to deceive potential buyers or may be deceived themselves. A doctor can avoid the decep tions of hucksters, but unless one happens to have "a doctor's knowledge of the
soul"

should

be

more

Socrates'

tone

implies

that the notion is preposterous

one will

have

Virtue, Art,
trouble
soul.

and

the Good Life

291

determining
says

sophists'

which of

the

doctrines

are good or and

bad for the

are still

He

that elders should be

consulted since

he

Hippocrates

rather
tes'

young to
be based

unravel so great a matter.

Now the difference between Socra

wariness about
would on

the sophists

and

that of elders

is decisive: the
what

elders'

advice a

the assumption that

as

they know

is best for

young

man, but

Socrates,

he

protests

in the

Apology

perhaps

too much, does not to be ironic. Nev

pass

know

what virtue

is.

Socrates'

advice, then,

would seem

ertheless, it is worth noting that Socrates does

not always

the

respon

sibility looking Charmides Socrates

of
soul of

after

claims to

young men's souls to elders. For example, in the know a charm for engendering temperance in the
seems

the beautiful

Charmides (155b-158e). Indeed, Socrates

to have

starkly different ways of dealing with companions like Hippocrates, who seek his advice, and those like Charmides, in whom Socrates shows an erotic inter
est.

To Hippocrates he
an

plays the role of

greater

the

cautious

fellow citizen, but to

an art of

Charmides he is

inciter to We

ambition.7

Does Socrates have

most

treating
young

souls after all?

Can he

make at

least the

beautiful

and

promising

men virtuous?

must wonder about this question as we wonder about

presence

the significance of
Socrates'

Alcibiades'

in the dialogue,
a

whose

importance to

erotic

life is

underscored

by

the opening conversation of the work

(309a). Perhaps Socrates does have

somehow
tes'

such

determines to
not governed and

whom

he

will

treatment, but the fact that eros apply his art would suggest that Socra
elders would recognize as virtue.

art

is

by

what

the

city

When Socrates

Hippocrates
asks

arrive at

the house of Callias where Pro

tagoras is staying, Socrates

man will

the great sophist to say what

at

benefit the young

says

take away
will

from the lessons (318a). Protagoras

first

Hippocrates demands
Again he
of

more uses

on every day that he attends classes. from Protagoras, just as he had from Hippocrates. accuracy examples from art. If young Hippocrates should ask Zeuxippus

improve

only that But Socrates

Heraclea to

explain

the benefit of lessons from

with respect

him,

the reply

would

be that

Hippocrates
would come plains that

would

become better

to painting, and a similar reply

ex

from Orthagoras the flutist. Pressed in this way, Protagoras

other sophists.

he does not teach arts like By attending his lessons, he says, Hippocrates will learn good judgement or euboulia, both in domestic how he might be and in public affairs how to manage his home affairs
most powerful

in the city
word

with respect

to action and

speech.

Protagoras

seems who

somewhat reluctant to characterize

his

expertise as an art.

It is Socrates

insists

on

using the
and

art"

political

techne, asking Protagoras if he is talking about "the endeavoring to make men good citizens. Protagoras emphati
what

cally
about of

agrees

that this is

he

Protagoras'

purports

to teach.
techne could stem

initial

wariness

identifying
suspicions

euboulia as a species of

from his

awareness

by any effort to render virtue into art. It is Protagoras wants to appeal to the aristocratic disdain more likely, however, that his auditors might have for the arts. He claims that he teaches a special intellecthe

likely

to be aroused

292

Interpretation
art.

tual virtue that reaches far beyond the limited scope of any

Euboulia is

because of certainly among the most highly regarded intellectual virtues, partly the breadth of its scope, which extends in some mysterious way even into the future, partly because of its supreme usefulness to politics, and partly because of its elusiveness and rarity. That Protagoras teaches some kind of art, how
ever, is

fairly
to

certain since

he

characterizes

sophistry

several

times as an art

(316d, 317c;
equivalent

see also
euboulia

328a-b). How the

art of

sophistry

could

be

said

to be

is

at

this point unclear.

Socrates,
order

on

the

other

hand,
well-

persistently known principle

edge

uses art as

the

model

for
to

virtue

in

to

drive home his

must

not yet revealed more suited

his

audience

that virtue

be knowl

or, to use terms

to our current purpose, that the virtuous man

about what

must act with as much with

knowledge his
art.

he is

doing

as

the

artisan acts

in the

performance of now men

Socrates

proclaims

his doubt that the

(319a-320c).
artisans

political art can

be taught

or

furnished to between this

by

men, and he offers two reasons, based on the difference

skill and other arts

First,

the

Athenians,

whom

Soc

rates considers
nical matters

wise,

like

building

can speak.

No

one

only ship manufacture, but in matters of state, anyone is rebuked for lack of schooling in the subject. Such behav
or
wise

will allow

to advise their assembly on tech

ior,

Socrates says, implies that the

Athenians do

not consider such matters care

teachable.
children

Second,
all

the

wisest statesmen

in Athens take
yet

to educate their

in

the arts

they deem important,

their children or to

they

seem unable

to bestow

their

own excellence on
Socrates'

find teachers

capable of

doing
is

it for
With
at

them.

position

implies that the

from the in the

wisdom of great statesmen

a myste

rious quality that

respect

comes

gods or nature or some other way. man would seem

quality.8

to

practical

affairs, from the Socratic position,

universe

to be

the mercy

of whatever power

bestows this

mistic view of of

Against this apparently pessimistic doctrine, Protagoras the human condition through his well-known
Prometheus (320c-323a). The
purpose of

offers a more opti version of the myth

the myth is to explain the

differ

ence

between

political wisdom and the other arts and

not

to show that
as

political

wisdom

is unique,
virtue of

by

virtue of

being

unteachable,

but

by

show, is far from

myth, the

being taught to everyone by everyone. being helpless in practical affairs. According

had been

Socrates maintains, Man, he intends to

to
Protagoras'

when mortal creatures

created and were about to emerge

into

light,

the gods charged Prometheus and

after

Epimetheus

with

the task

of

distrib

uting powers to each. Epimetheus, do it alone, provided a different

upon Prometheus to let him for every creature claws, thick hides, bulk, speed, or something similar; but he exhausted his supply of saving powers before providing for the human race. Disturbed by his brother's predic ament, Prometheus stole fire and wisdom in the arts from Hephaestus and Athena for human beings to use. He could not steal political wisdom,

prevailing

salvation

since that was

kept

by

Zeus. As

however,

a result of not

having

the political art, which

Virtue, Art,
included the
beasts. Their
only in feuds
race,
other come ordered art of

and

the

Good Life

293

war, human

beings

could not withstand

the attacks of wild

and resulted

efforts to

band together

were

futile

without

this art

and civil wars.

Zeus, fearing for

and

the destruction of the human

Right,"

Hermes to distribute "Respect if only a for the differences

not

in the

manner of

arts,

with one artisan

into

being

sufficing for many, but to all, since cities cannot few have this virtue. This myth, according to Pro
which

tagoras,
litical

accounts

Socrates

observed

between the
than

po

art and

the other

kinds,

but it

makes virtue out rest of

to be

more rather

less
the

accessible
myth

to human

beings than the

the

arts.

Protagoras

concludes

by alluding supposedly theft, suggesting that human beings live in a world whose formidable hostility is mitigated partly by Jovian piety and partly by the Promethean i.e., rebel acquisition of technology. lious
to the
was punished

fact that Prometheus

for his

It

would appear

that

Prometheus'

gift serves

the purpose of survival on an

cooperate with each

individual basis,
other.

while

Zeus's

gift enables

human beings to
not some

Now Protagoras

claims that

he teaches

Promethean art, but the

of

higher, more respectable Jovian art however, could arouse the suspicion
character of

of virtue.

number

considerations, the

that

Protagoras'

art partakes more of

the fire-thief's

gift.

mention good

just two

such considerations private

here.

In the first place, he

with respect

claimed

to teach

judgement in
not

affairs, and, others,

to politics,

he

claimed to
powerful

teach,

how to

cooperate with

but how Zeus

one might

ordered

wonder what

in the city Second, since his gift of Respect and Right to be distributed among all, we must need there is for specialized teachers of it. It would seem that

be "most

(318e-319a).9

Protagoras teaches
vidual

Promethean
masks

art

(an

art whose end an

is

salvation on an

indi
it.

basis)

which

itself

as

Jovian virtue,
of

art

that even exploits

who possesses

cooperativeness

among

others

for the benefit

support

the individual
Socrates'

This

suspicion receives
which

further

from

interrogation in the

of

Pro

tagoras,
speech

follows the

so-called

Great Speech.
Protagoras
made course of

Socrates
that

wonders

(329c)
one

about a claim

his

virtue

is

thing (324e-325a). Through

Socrates'

questioning,

Protagoras is induced to say that justice, holiness, and temperance are actually parts of the whole, namely virtue, but not as pieces of gold are, with no differ
ence

between them

except

size,

rather as

the parts of the

face

are

(the mouth,

nose, eyes,

and ears).

Socrates

challenges

Protagoras

on

these claims, appar

ently for thinking

virtue and

maintaining that all these virtues are really the same. What reasons
so are not yet clear:

he has

he has

not

disclosed his
justice is

principle and

that

(all)

is knowledge. First, Socrates

virtues are

argues that

holy

holiness just Protagoras

the
parts of

that therefore these

that

the same or very much alike.

admits

they

resemble each other

in

some small

respect,

as even

the face things

other

resemble

each

other, but, he says,

one cannot

conclude

that such

are therefore

"alike."10

Socrates,

surprised

by

this answer, pursues an

somewhat

line

of questioning.

After getting Protagoras to admit,

hastily,

294

Interpretation

that every opposite has but one opposite, Socrates forces him to agree that both temperance and wisdom are opposite to folly. It follows, then, that temperance
and wisdom are

the

same

thing. that he has been tricked

somehow

Surely
sions

Protagoras

can see

by

Socrates'

questioning,"

but he
of

cannot now retract or

in front

this crowd of potential

pupils.

modify any of his previous admis In addition, Protagoras must be

moral

irritated

by

the fact that Socrates has apparently taken the

Protagoras'

high

ground

can

statements, that no one away from him by implying, contrary to be wise who is not also holy, just, and temperate. Protagoras maintains that
virtues are

the

distinct partly because this

not want

claim accords with common

sense,
stu

which

he does
and

to

violate

too readily while making his pitch

for

partly because he wants to show that he can offer more to his stu dents than lessons on how to be just. He knows that only the most ambitious

dents,

young men are likely to seek him better of their peers in private and
tion
says
of

those, in

other

words,

who wish

to

get

the

public affairs.

He

must appeal

to the ambi

the young while not alarming their in the Great Speech that the citizens

elders.

need

Consequently, Protagoras justice, holiness, and tem

because
such virtues are
and virtue of each per

perance

for the

sake of

the city

(324d-325a),
that the
not

not

intrinsically
son

choiceworthy.

He

also says

justice

toward the other

benefit

"us,"

that these qualities benefit the one

having
(329e); (330a,

them (327b).
and

Later, he

allows

that
as

someone might

be just, but

not wise

he distinguishes

wisdom

being

superior

to the other virtues

352d). Protagoras, it seems, wants to indicate, without being offensive, that he can teach young men how to be superior to the merely just through wisdom. But Socrates is making it extremely difficult for him to Socrates next asks Protagoras whether a man who mindfully (sophronein) but finally disconcerting, questioning
accomplish

this task.

temperately
acting
mit

or

unjustly is acting (333b-c). Protagoras finds this line of

acts

allows

that such a

man

might well

be

mindfully.

Socrates forces Protagoras to

acting
unjustly. someone might someone

admit that one can even

be

well

advised and prosper while

previously that
asked
enough.

being
had
resorts

to admit that

Now Protagoras was willing to ad be just but unwise; here, however, he is might be wise but unjust. Protagoras has

When Socrates

starts to question
speech

him

about

the good, Protagoras

maintaining that the good is motley and manifold (334a-c): what is good for some things is bad for others and vice versa. In this way, perhaps, Protagoras hopes to escape the harsh light of Soc
reasoning; he
good or

to a somewhat

lengthy

will not have to maintain that justice is either absolutely bad for the just man. In any case, it must be clearer now to absolutely his audience that Protagoras is not only in the business of Jovian
rates'

teaching

Respect

and

Right.
to the

By turning
get a

Theaetetus,

where

Protagoras

also

fuller

Protagoras'

picture of

relativism and of the art

figures prominently, we he teaches. Accord

each man

ing

to

Protagoras,

as represented

in that dialogue

by Socrates,

is the

Virtue, Art,
measure of what

and

the

Good Life

295

is

and what

is not;

so

the wise

man

is he "who

by bringing

about a change makes

good"

things that

seem and are are wise

seem and are

(166d). Doctors

bad to any of us into things that because of their ability to induce

changes

by administering drugs to them; ability to do likewise for plants; and orators, because (167a-c).12 of their ability to do likewise for cities The good, then, is relative to the city as well as to the individual. art is not intended to determine what the good is. Rather, his art is a tool by means of which the individual may
perceptions of their patients
of their

in the

farmers, because

Protagoras'

achieve

his

own relative good

by

making

what seems good

to him seem good to

whomever

he

addresses can

in

public or private. claim

How, then,
euboulia!

Protagoras
the

that the art he teaches is equivalent to

We

venture

following
to

tentative suggestion. The statesman trained

make

in the Protagorean
to

oratorical art

can, in the first place,

his

policies appear
even

be the

wisest course of action

his fellow
some

citizens.

And second,

if his

ability to make those policies seem like successes (cf. Rep. 361b). Through the Protagorean art, then, one can appear prudent and even prescient without having to be so in fact. But this
policies appear
statement must

to have

failed, he has

be

modified.

rectly,
sense
made

would entail

Education in sophistry, if we abandoning the whole idea that "good

understand
judgement,"

it

cor

in the
can

that most people understand

it, is

possible or necessary:

judgements

be

to appear good through the application of the orator's art,

just

as sensa

tions can be made to appear good through the application of the physician's art.

In reality, according to Protagoras, no one has good judgement; the only wis dom there is consists in the ability to make judgements seem good. On the basis of such doctrines, Protagoras could reasonably think that he has indeed reduced
"virtue"

to an art.

Of course, he

cannot

declare

such

doctrines, if

these are

indeed his doctrines, to the crowd of listeners at the home of Callias. Aside from the cautions imposed by the public situation, Protagoras wishes to appeal
to the ambitions
elusive
of potential students who

may eagerly
not grandeur

wish

to acquire the

intellectual

virtue of euboulia.

He does

wish, at this point, to disil

that attaches to this or

lusion his

potential pupils
which

by

undermining the
art

indeed any virtue How much of is

not

his

art mimics.

Protagoras'

Socrates is
what

acquainted with

in the Protagoras
to is not the

certain, but in any case,

aims of

Socrates evidently
sophistry.

objects

hidden Promethean

Protagoras'

Indeed, later
with an

on, Socrates

proposes a much more comprehensive art of methean character, one that seems

to go

unmistakably Pro far beyond sophistry in its ability to

living

produce the relative good of the

ances or on

individual because it does

not

the susceptibility of others to rhetorical

persuasion.

rely on appear He advances

this the

proposal

in

order

to

support

his

case against point

the Protagorean doctrine that

mod

virtues are not one.

By

this late

in the dialogue, Protagoras had

that while

ified his
ness,

claims somewhat and

had

asserted

justice, temperance, holi

and wisdom are close

to one another, courage differs very much from

296

Interpretation
example of arti

them (349d). When Socrates tried to show, again through the

and quite persua be wisdom, Protagoras argued professional attributed to Socrates divers, horse that boldness, which sively men, and peltasts, may come from art or rage or even insanity, while courage

sans, that

courage

must

arises

from the

nature and good circuitous

nurturing
of
establish

of souls

(349e-351b). Here Socrates

embarks on a a

long,

line

reasoning,

which

includes his

proposal

for

all vices

hedonic calculus, in order to to ignorance. Socrates

of

that all virtues amount to

knowledge,
feel in the
to see or

claims

that the weakness the many

overwhelming judge accurately the future

face

pleasure or pain

really

amounts

to

an

inability

consequences of actions

he says, it is possible to measure the good and assuming, for the moment at least, that the good
to nothing more than pleasure and pain,
many,"

(353c-354e, 357d). In fact, the bad artfully or scientifically,

and

the bad ultimately amount

respectively.

Apostrophizing
life is

"the Pro

Socrates declares to them that "the in

Protagoras'

art which saves our

measure

ment,"

recalling the salvation of man attempted

metheus enable
myth.

but

not perfected can

by

The sophists, he says,

to procure the

teach this art and to

their students

thereby
presents

to judge accurately
as

which pleasures

indulge in

and which pains

to endure so

most pleasure and

the least pain

in life. As Socrates
essence of all of

the virtues

it, the art of measurement seems to be the very (359a, 361a-b). But instead of enabling the possessor
virtuous,
as

this art to merely

appear prudent and

Protagorean sophistry
to an art.
of soph

probably does, The Socratic proposal

Socrates'

hedonic

calculus

actually

reduces euboulia

would seem

to

represent

the transcendent limit

istry

or any such practical art or science. By delineating that transcendent limit, Socrates could be said to have revealed the telos or final form to which practi

cal sciences such as

falls

short of

sophistry aspire. To the extent that any practical science that limit, it falls short of being the art that would truly ensure a
what gives

complete

life. Of course,
we point out

the hedonic calculus so much power are

several

absurd,

unexamined assumptions.

Since there is

not room to uncover

them all,

two of them: that all pleasures are commensurable and

that the future

sive

consequences of one's actions can of

be known. (For
pp.

more exten

discussions
and

these assumptions, see

pp.

Goldberg,

250-77; Coby,

pp.

251-61;
about
we

Cropsey,
while

152-54.)
abandon now

Socrates is evidently willing to

sophistry find him joining for

the reservations he had

showed

conversing with Hippocrates in the early Protagoras and the rest of the sophists in
not

morning.

Now hoi

denouncing

polloi

cured of

stingy and their ignorance by

the
grounds

being

submitting themselves or their children to be such teachers (357e). Socrates, it seems, is not in

principle opposed

to the Promethean effort to

that

improve
to
risk

man's estate with

art,

at

least

not on

such effort amounts

hybristic

revolt against the

with

gods or nature.

Indeed, Socrates

seems

willing to

associating himself
Socrates
at

this endeavor of the sophists in opposition to the many.

endorse

will always

the proposition, held

as well

by Protagoras,

that virtue

least

requires

knowledge.

Virtue, Art,
Now
after

and

the

Good Life

297

making this

proposal and

establishing that
admits,
at assertion

courage and all virtues

really
since

amount to

knowledge, Socrates
of virtue

the end of the

dialogue,

that

this conclusion contradicts his the reduction

previous

that virtue is unteachable,

make virtue appear would clear

to knowledge is the best way to

not show us

teachable (361a-b). Plato does

contradiction.

how Socrates

However,
to clear

earlier

in his

conversation with

was compelled

case mire

up another, related by Protagoras, in a poem by Simonides which Socrates professed to ad (339d). Perhaps resolution of the contradiction in the SimoniSocrates'

up this Socrates Protagoras, contradiction, pointed out in this

dean

ode will

be

of use

in resolving the larger

ode after

contradiction of

the Platonic

dialogue. Protagoras introduces the longwinded

submit

being

forced

by

his

audience to

forego

speeches and to question

to the same treatment

by
ode

Socrates closely or, if he should prefer, to Socrates (338c-e). Adopting the former

course, Protagoras challenges Socrates to a contest in

literary

criticism.

Now

possibly Protagoras selects this him with the best opportunity to

poems, but there is probably sion,
must

merely because he thinks it will provide show his prowess at detecting flaws in famous
to it.

more

Protagoras,
so

at

this point in the discus

be baffled

by

Socrates'

line

of questioning.

Socrates has

not yet
con

revealed

his doctrine that

with a man

virtue

is

knowledge,

Protagoras finds himself

holiness, justice, and who and courage as important as wisdom has moderation, thereby shown himself to be a greater supporter of the civic virtues than Protagoras. Indeed, tending
who seems

to consider the virtues of

Socrates'

initial

reluctance

to grant that virtue can

be taught

might appear

to

stem

from

a civic-minded wariness about

foreign teachers Simonides

who claim

to be able

to make the young better through

tagoras'

"wisdom."

In these circumstances, Pro

appears

criticism of

this

particular ode

by

to

be

an appropri

ode moral stance. for taking an indirect shot at asserts that "it is hard for a man, indeed, to become truly good, in hands and Simonides doubts he feet and mind foursquare, fashioned without

Socrates'

Simonides'

ate one

reproach."

can

find

"blameless

man"

anywhere:13

am content with whoever

is

not evil or
man"

the "For my too intractable. He

sentiments

part,"

ode

continues, "I

who

knows

city-

moral stance

nearly supporting justice is a healthy that Socrates seems to be currently assuming: virtue is rare and almost impossible to acquire by any means; man is at the mercy of the gods;

(346c). Such

express the

political
Socrates'

justice is

all

that can be hoped

for.14

Protagoras may doubt that

moral pessimism

is anything
to
use

more

than a cloak or covering such as

must

he

said

Simonides

was accustomed

(316d), but he

find

way to

bring

Socrates down to his level.

Socrates
admits
and

that he has especially studied this ode and that

he

considers

it

beautifully

correctly

composed

(339b). Protagoras then

with

points out

that

the

ode contradicts

itself,

since

it begins

the

claim

that

it is hard for

a man

good,"

"to become truly true for me, though it

but

adds

later: "Nor does that Pittacean

was

spoken

by

'Hard,'

a wise

man,

ring he says, 'to be

speech

298

Interpretation
Socrates feels
as

fine.'"

if he has been

struck

by

a good

boxer,

blinded

by

the

argument and

by

the applause of the audience. But he soon

recovers and main

tains that the

good"

poem

does

not

actually

contradict not

itself

since

{agathon He
good"

men alatheos

genesthai) is
on the

the same as

"to become truly "to be (esthlon

fine"

emmenai).

might

have focused but he

difference between the

predicatives

"truly

"fine,"

and verbals

chooses

to focus instead on the

difference

between the

"becoming"

"being."

and expressed admiration

Since Socrates has

defending Simonides,
able

but he his

alters

the poet's meaning in

for the poem, he is committed to his interpretation and

man, it turns out, is

so reveals the extent of

own pessimism and optimism:

way.

to

help

himself in in

severely limited
of

According
of

to

Socrates,
rest of

the poem

was written

order to undermine
a

the saying

Pittacus (343c). Pittacus, he

the seven
skill and

explains,
sages

Spartan culture, along with the (343a). The superiority of Spartan culture is due not to
was

devotee

fighting

courage,

as

everyone

supposes, but to

wisdom

(342a-e). With

most of

the

sophists of source of

in their midst, the Spartans never let on that this is the their success, but they sometimes reveal their perfect education by
the
world
Pittacus'

Spartan education, then, is evident uttering short, memorable phrases. in his famous saying that to be good is hard. absurd attribution of Spartan superiority to sophistry seems to be in itself an ironic indictment of the
Socrates'

idea that sophistry Lach. 182e-183b).

could

teach virtue or that virtue could become an art (cf

Laconic saying and Simonides, Socrates says, wished to overturn make a name for himself, so he corrects it, allegedly on the grounds that "to a good man is, not hard, but impossible and inhuman; God alone can have this privilege (344c). However, "to temporarily good is possible for human beings, though even one who has become good, according to
be" become" Socrates'

Pittacus'

reading,
son or

can

be

overthrown

by

an

"irresistible
can

mischance."

Now

a private per so when (ame-

layman (idiotes), says Socrates, Simonides speaks of someone being

chanos) mischance, he
mechanos). must

be

overthrown at

any time,

overthrown

by

"irresistible"

an

be thinking
doctor in

of one who

is "able to
storm,
says

resist"

(eu-

pilot can

be

overwhelmed

by

a great

Socrates,

a of

farmer
their

by

a rough

season,

and a

a similar way.

Artisans, because

knowledge,

are able

to resist, but an

irresistible

mischance will compel

even them to suggests that

when

be bad. As Socrates
the source
well of all
. .

he does What
as true

(praxas

unpacks the meaning of the next verse, he difficulties is ignorance. Simonides says: "For eu), every man is good, but bad if he does
.

badly."

makes a man

good, Socrates

now

says, is

learning,
is only

mathesis.

This is

in

grammar as about

it is in

medicine.

Speaking

now about

"the

good

man"

and not

just

artisans, Socrates asserts that there

of

one

way to

do badly: to be deprived
some other calamity.

knowledge

either

through

acquisition and retention of

Human welfare, it seems, knowledge.

time, labor, disease, or depends almost entirely on the

Virtue, Art,
Socrates'

and the

Good Life

299

interpretation
between

of

the ode

reveals

two things about his

shows

position on a certain virtue

the relation

art and virtue.

First, it

to what extent

rhetorical purpose

determines that

position.

By

attributing Laconic

to

philosophy rather than to nurtured courage, by surreptitiously equating bad fortune with ignorance and thus implying that all misfortune might be resisted with knowledge, he shows that he is trying to convince
others

sophistry

and

let

us

be bold

one

thing

needed

and say by fair means or foul that knowledge is the for the improvement of man's estate (cf. Euthd. 279d-280b). accounts

This

rhetorical

strategy

in

part

for the

apparent contradiction
on

in his
that
and

position on art and virtue.

virtue on

Socrates

wants

to maintain,

the one
of some

is knowledge, just as every the other, that the knowledge

another
of

art amounts to

knowledge

hand, kind,

of which virtue consists

wants

has

not

been

fully

discovered. Put have

no

way, he

to convince others that human beings

not war

teachers

the

knowledge that is virtue, but that despair is

must

ranted: partial
will come

knowledge is knowledge.

available and with much effort more and more of

it

to light.
such

Human beings

be

satisfied with a state of

becoming

regarding

Second,
the verbs

and more

important,

Socrates'

depiction

of

the artisan and the good

or virtuous man within the context of the

"being"

"becoming,"

and

whole, in conjunction with his use of point to fundamental differences between

art and virtue as well as

to the limitations
some specific

doctor knows
edge

or

farmer,

aims

at

both. The artisan, good, such as food or

of

such as

the
and

health,

certain means

by

which

that good can be brought about. Such

amounts

knowl
actions,

distinguishes the

artisan

from the layman. It

to partial

foresight,

for the

artisan can predict what consequences will

follow

upon what

accordingly (cf. Theaet. 177e-179b, Lach. 198d-199a). Of course, the material that the artisan works on is never entirely within his control. As Socrates explains, he can be overthrown by an irresistible mischance. Nev
and work

ertheless, the

artisan's contribution

to his product is usually words, is for the

distinguishable,
or

at

least
If
a

to other artisans,

from the

contributions of external other a

factors

"irresistible

mischance."

The

artisan's

work, in

most part apparent.

doctor fails to patient, for example, other doctors can be consulted to determine if the doctor in question is liable or not, that is, if he
produce

health in

acted

incompetently

or

if

extraneous

factors,

which

he

could not anticipate or

of

control,

caused the patient's

which gives

health to fail. It is this visibility

the artisan a clear
"becoming,"

the artisan's to

work, perhaps,
speak

identity
also of

and which allows us

"being"

reasonably

of not

only
that establish the

but

an artisan. one must

Of

course, the

conventions

how

much

knowledge
of medical

have to

be

called a

doctor

change with

improvement

science;

neverthe

less,
what

some specified amount of

knowledge, however limited

is
a

that may

be, is
as

distinguishes him from other human beings and enables us to say without
or

this any hesitation that he has that

that

person

doctor

and will remain so as

long

knowledge.15

The

good or virtuous

person, however, does

not aim at

300
a

Interpretation
good

limited

for himself

or

his country but

at

the

comprehensive good.

The
the

virtuous person

is

expected

to consider, insofar as a human

results of

being

can,

all

factors

or causes

that could affect the

exercise as much comprehensive

"prudence"

foresight

as possible.

his actions; he is expected to The etymology of our

word

reflects

this

expectation.

In

work performed

by

the virtuous

person, it is very difficult to distinguish the that of fortune. His work, the
evidence of

contribution of

his foresight from

his virtue, is harder to see because it is too intricately interwoven with the fluctuations of surrounding forces; so for conversation with Hip this reason as well as for others alluded to in
Socrates'

pocrates,

we

do

not

think of the virtuous person as an artisan, and we do not

or

say
to

so

readily that this

and then

that

person

is

virtuous.

Nor is there any

obvious

way

"become"

"be"

virtuous as

there is to become and be a doctor or

Thus, the restriction of the virtuous or good person to a state of becoming, in contrast to the state of being that the artisan enjoys in some sense,
carpenter.

is

not unreasonable.

comprehensive san's

Of course, there are arts that involve the use of this more foresight, but the more such foresight is required for the arti
more

product, the
rather

the

artisan's skill seems

to partake of virtue or pru

dence

than of art (cf. Phil. 55d-56c). A general,

we also expect

for example,

possesses

the art of war, but

restraint

him to have virtue, to

show aggressiveness or

battle,
critical

according to the dictates of his prudence or foresight. If he loses a we have trouble distinguishing bad luck from a failure of virtue; so in
situations,
no matter replaced without

is usually
same

how murky they may be, an unsuccessful general much hesitation just in case he does lack virtue. The
of

thing happens
statesmen

to coaches, administrators, business executives, and,

who assume such roles are

course,

in democracies. Those

brought to

court

to face charges of

incompetence,

unless their

rarely blunders are

especially gross, because we recognize that the artisan's accuracy in determin ing what consequences follow from what actions is not available when the
range of causes and effects that such men are expected to manage
and complex.

is

so

large

To summarize, when Socrates interprets edge can be overwhelmed by irresistible mischance

can

Simonides'

ode and

to say that knowl

person

that the good

be deprived

of

his knowledge

by

the effects of time or other accidents,

he he

indicates the limitations imposed foresight

produces
of

on man's a

capacity to
good

the artisan

can produce

limited

help (assuming

himself. The
that

partial

what

is good), though the

artisan and

the product are subject to the blows

of unforeseeable mischances.

But

comprehensive

foresight is

needed

for

pro

ducing
more

the comprehensive good, even

than maximum pleasure and

supposing that it amounts to nothing minimum pain. Since the light of human

knowledge concerning practical affairs is surrounded by immense darkness, since, in other words, comprehensive foresight is dim at best, practical knowl
edge can never

be

productive
a

in the way that

albeit

arts are.

Virtue, it
for

"improvisatory"

seems, is partly
art of

second-best,

vital,

substitute

an

living.

Virtue, Art,
Thus,
as we resolve

and the

Good Life

301

the

larger

contradiction of the

tion of virtue's

teachability

as

Socrates describes
Socrates'

and so

dialogue concerning the ques follows: in fact, virtue cannot become an art such cannot become teachable in the way that arts are

initial assertion, never repudiated by him, that virtue is not teachable, is correct. The Socratic doctrine, stated at the end of the dialogue, that virtue is knowledge describes an unattainable goal which underscores the
teachable.

human

need of

knowledge

and which
other

practical age and

nesis

life.

Consequently,

ultimately points to the limitations of the virtues besides knowledge, especially cour
what

temperance, are required. They inform (Nic. Eth. 1143b-1145a).

Aristotle

will call phro

Protogorean sophistry, then, must fall short of its promise. It cannot human beings truly good; it can only make them adept in some limited The
skilled

make
way.

sophist, like any artisan,

range of

can always

be

overwhelmed

by

circum alto

stances gether.

beyond the
Socrates'

his knowledge

or

be

stripped of

knowledge

hedonic calculus,

by

contrast,

seems capable of

putting its

possessor

into

a state of
clear

being
the

and

remaining

good.

The

art of measurement,

he
to

truth, "by making remain by the truth, saving its by Simonides declared this to be impossible does Socrates maintain so forcefully that the
says,
life"

would cause

the

soul

to have

rest and of

(356d-e).16

But his interpretation

the ode

for human beings. Why, then,

sophists

teach this art?

Clearly

Protagoras does does

that

not

teach such
with

an

art,

teaches it. He goes along

not wish

Socrates'

to oppose

Socrates'

effort

be led to say that he claim, it seems, simply because he to encourage the many to seek lessons
since

he

must

from the
reach

sophists.

Evidently, Socrates is inducing Protagoras

what

to make claims
even attainable

beyond

he actually teaches

and

beyond

what

is

learning, the hedonic compel of calculus seems designed to the students sophistry to feel, in the end, the deficiency of human knowledge with respect to practical affairs. But if, as is more likely, Protagoras does not adopt such a proposal, he will have to lower
for human beings. If
adopted as

the goal of sophistic

the

expectations of

his

students about what

his

art can

do for them: Protagorean fortunes. The is the

art of ma

sophistry

cannot make them godlike masters of their

perceptions of

nipulating the

others,

however, if

that

extent of what

Protagoras teaches, will probably seem inadequate to those awakened to the need for a truly efficacious practical science. In either case, Socrates has upset
the complacency
of

the sophistic enterprise.

Moreover,

the hedonic calculus, even if we suppose for the moment that

would

it

were attainable, necessarily leave at least some of its practitioners isfied. The Protagoras does not treat this problem explicitly, for reasons
will

unsat which

become

apparent

later; however,
a

awareness of

it from

host

of other

certainly entitled to infer dialogues. The endeavor to teach

we are

Socrates'

such an

art of

living
from

would seem

to encourage

intellectual

preoccupation with the prac

of

tical

good

of the

individual, depriving human beings

se.17

the

happiness that
as

comes

knowing

per

The

attainment of such

happiness

is

available

302

Interpretation
would seem

to human beings

to entail the

recognition

that human

beings,

as

Aristotle says, are not the noblest things in the universe, not the objects of human knowledge (Nic. Eth. 1141a). This is not to deny that human beings
must act with as much prudence as

worthiest

is

available

to

them; but if

practical

knowledge has

unavoidable

limitations

and

if happiness

entails

looking

beyond

human affairs, then perhaps the highest attainable practical virtue will be some ability to improvise toward contemplation of the highest things in the universe.
in thwarting hopes of demonstrating the supe of devotion to knowledge puts him, no less than sophistry, but riority sophistry puts Protagoras, at odds with the political life of Athens. Protagoras teaches an art that exploits society for the satisfaction of whatever desire the

Socrates

Protagoras'

succeeds

Socrates'

has to mask this from city elders who naturally do not may have. want individuals (except perhaps themselves) exploiting society. Socrates, not presuming to know what the good is, always maintains that virtue is knowl
artisan

He'

edge, but he does

reason

not pose as a

teacher

of an art

that would give

practical

his

students

to think that
of

they know

enough

for

all

purposes. at

Seeking
to

knowledge

enjoining accompany him in the quest, which strives not to bend society to serve his
nevertheless, the
political constraints

the

good and

others carries own

(even Protagoras
unavoidable

361c-d)

political

risks, he

individual good, but to minimize,

on

imposed

that quest.

In

order

to

get a

better understanding
we attention

of

the Socratic alternative to a Pro

living, dialogue, paying especial

methean art of

turn now to a re-examination of the early parts of the to the actions of Socrates. If there
we would expect

is

a good

life
of

and

if

virtue

is

a part of

that

life,

to find it in the

example

is reasonably taken to be the most complete human Socrates, any Platonic dialogue in which he figures prominently. The opening conversation of the dialogue is between Socrates and
who

being

in

a name
com

less companion,
panion,

who are

the only dramatis

personae

in the

work.

To this

after ten or so

exchanges, Socrates

relates the

day's

events.

The very
Socrates'

first
The

statement

by

the nameless companion serves to

companion asks

inform

us

of

Socrates where he is coming from (309a). does not know what Socrates has been doing, but he evidently declares his suspicion: Socrates has come from chasing the youthful beauty of
current companion

habits. The

Alcibiades. The

companion could surmise this only if he had seen Socrates Alcibiades recently. The action can be dated, then, at about the same pursuing time as the action in the Alcibiades, in which Socrates, as a prospective lover,

approaches

Alcibiades for the first

seem

time.18

In

view of

this, the

events

described

in the Protagoras
asks

to be a

digression from
now a

Socrates'

companion remarks that

Alcibiades is

man,

with some

in reply if the companion does not agree with youth has the highest grace in him whose beard is
to either Iliad 24.348 or

appearing."

The beard. Socrates Homer, "who said that This reference is

erotic pursuits.

Odyssey

10.279. In

each of

these passages,

Homer is

Virtue, Art,

and

the Good Life

303

describing
who

someone who

how Hermes disguises himself as a young man in order to help is about to face a very difficult task: in the Iliad, he helps Priam,
recover who

is

on

his way to

the
on

body

of

Hector from

Achilles; in

the

Odyssey,

he helps

his way to rescue his men from Circe. This Odysseus, comparison of Alcibiades to Hermes is on the one hand fitting because Al cibiades does indeed help Socrates in his discussion with Protagoras (see 336b, is

347b, 348b),
tors

and

who created

because been

during

posed for some of the sculp It is, on the other hand, an odd comparison the Peloponnesian War, Alcibiades was suspected of having

there is a story that Alcibiades

Hermae.19

the

connected with

the desecration of the Hermae

withdraw
Socrates'

(Thucydides 6.26-29). This

suspicion paign

forced Alcibiades to

there, and it did not help that he is not a professional educator but the Athenians
his
companion

from Sicily, undermining the cam reputation in Athens. Socrates claims that, indeed,
wanted of

and

virtue

is

not

teachable,
on

must

have

Socrates'

wondered what effect

philosophy had

education or not.

Alcibiades, whether Socrates Alcibiades, it seems, was

Socrates'

to avoid using the word

temporary help

to Socrates at

best;
erotic

at

disaster. The opening exchanges, then, allude to the worst, fatal conflict with Athens. Indeed, the impulse that engendered
a singular

tension between Socratic eros and civic

duty

seems

to

be

a subtle motif

in this
the

dialogue. When Socrates

more
reveals

that he had just had a

more

lengthy
of

conversation with
wisdom

beautiful Protagoras

beautiful because

his

the

com

panion some

invites him to

relate

it. Socrates

now proceeds

to describe

his

day

in
in

detail from the time Hippocrates

roused

him from his bed. Now if Socra

abrupt appearance

tes

was

chasing

after
of

Alcibiades

at

the time,

Hippocrates'

the early hours

the morning

cannot

And

Socrates'

description
with

suggests

have been entirely welcome to Socrates. as much. Hippocrates knocks violently on

Socrates'

Socrates'

his stick, rushes in when the door is opened, and asks Socrates loudly whether he is awake or asleep (310a-b). greeting is or "Hippocrates not the warmest; something like "This is
door
Hippocrates"

there"

(Hippocrates

houtos).

Hippocrates, having just heard

that Protagoras

is in

town, is eager to see Protagoras right away, but Socrates, aware that Protagoras has been in town for two days already, seems to have little or no interest in seeing him. Socrates, it seems, is forced to curtail his own plans for the day,
which

Alcibiades primarily, in probably involved

sense of compulsion or constraint

order

to

help

Hippocrates.

The

that characterizes the

beginning
setting
the
of

of

Socrates'

day

is heightened,

almost

to the point of

drollery, by

the

his

conversation with

Hippocrates. It cannot

fail to

remind everyone of

begin

which takes place in the prison where Socrates was awaiting ning of the Crito, his execution. The conversation in the Protagoras, like that in the Crito, begins in the dark hours just before dawn with Socrates either asleep or, in any case,

not yet out of

bed. In the Protagoras, Hippocrates

the good news that

enters

rudely,
to

rouses

Socra
ap-

tes,

and

announces

Protagoras has

come

replies

that Protagoras

actually

came

two days ago. In the

town; Socrates Crito, Crito

304

Interpretation
Socrates silently,
the
waits

preaches

for Socrates to

wake

up,

and

tells him very

news that the ship from Delos will arrive tomorrow, have to die; Socrates replies that, owing to a prophetic dream he has just had, he does not think the ship will arrive tomorrow but on the following day. In each case Socrates is unflappable; he is neither elated at

delicately

distressing
will

after which

Socrates

the good

somehow. and

by

distraught at the bad, having already anticipated the news And in responding to the subsequent requests made by Hippocrates Crito, he has a sobering effect on each of them, showing himself to be
news nor

the very model of good citizenship. In the

rates to speak with
Protagoras'

Protagoras

on

his behalf

Protagoras, Hippocrates wants Soc so that he (Hippocrates) might

Protagoras'

become

student and partake of some of

wisdom; Socra

tes expresses concern about wise

trines and urges Hippocrates to consult with

rash

foreigners coming to town to sell their doc his elders before doing anything
escape of

(313b, 313d, 314b). Crito wants Socrates to Thessaly; Socrates persuades Crito that the laws
and

from

prison and

flee to

Athens
to

are to

be

respected

obeyed,
we

and

that the punishment

must

be

endured.

As

have already observed, Socrates

and

seems

be disposed
men

differently

toward Hippocrates
or

toward

beautiful, promising young

former (as
with

like Charmides

Alcibiades. One
under

senses that with the while with

Crito), Socrates is
more

acting and freely. In Charmides

constraint,
view of

the latter he is acting

us

this

indication, let
someone

spontaneously label these two dispositions or

and toward someone

modes of operation or

(toward

like Hippocrates

like

Alcibiades)

Socrates'

constrained and erotic modes.

That Socrates is operating for the moment in a constrained rather than an erotic mode seems to be emphasized by some striking parallels between certain

features
and

of

the Symposium and the sequence of events that

make their

occur as

Socrates

Hippocrates

way to the house of

all of

Callias,
of

where

Protagoras is
in the house

staying. of

To begin with, almost Agathon in the Symposium In the Symposium

the

major

figures

who appear

are present

in the house

Callias in the Pro

175b), after having bathed and dressed ap Socrates follows an invitation to the house of Agathon. But propriately, up before he enters, he stands by himself for quite a while thinking over some
undisclosed
matter while

tagoras.10

(174a-

tagoras,

as

Socrates

and

his host anxiously awaits him inside. In the Pro Hippocrates approach the house of Callias, with no in front
of

invitation, they discuss

house

some undisclosed question

the door

of

the
on

and come to an agreement

before trying to

enter

(314c).

They

knock

the door until a eunuch appears, who answers gruffly that his master is unavail
able and then slams the

door

shut.

Socrates has to knock

Callias'

again and

insist

on

being
size

announced

before he is

the lack of erotic

attempts

finally admitted. Such imagery seems house. buoyancy in the gathering at

of

to empha

Socrates Socrates
uses

to correct this state

of

affairs,

and

Plato has provided

a
"meeting"

an

unmistakable and

indication

this. At the

beginning

of

the conversation

between
he
teach-

Protagoras, Callias

expresses

his desire to have

the rather formal

word sunerdion

to discuss the question about the

Virtue, Art,
ability
to a
of virtue
"banquet"

and

the Good Life

Callias'

305

house (317d); later, Socrates compares the gathering at (symposion) and asks that Protagoras and he try to imitate such a
resemble as much as possible the
movement

party

of educated men

current

gathering

(347c-348a). Socrates tries, in other words, to make the kind of gathering we see in in the conversation,
with

the Symposium. The overall

as

it

comes

increas

ingly

under

the control

of

Socrates, is from
as

an atmosphere of constraint toward

one of

liberty

and pleasure:
with

Socrates talks

Protagoras, he gradually
dialogue, Socrates
or not.

ceases

to be concerned

his

duty

to Hippocrates and becomes engaged in

the end of the

the conversation
seems

for its

own sake.

Indeed, by

to have forgotten about Hippocrates

and with

his

needs altogether: we never

learn

whether

Hippocrates decides to study

Protagoras
to one of

This is

motion

from
a

an atmosphere of constraint

liberty
wants

and pleasure

paralleled

by

shift

in the

conversation

from

one about

matters to one about more explain what

theoretical ones. Socrates first

would get

strictly practical Protagoras to

benefit Hippocrates

from attending his

the

classes

(318a),

strictly him to
not

practical question since

it

concerns

particular needs of

Hippocrates
asks

and the particular art of

explain

Protagoras. When Protagoras obliges, Socrates

how

virtue

particularly long reply, Socrates thanks Hippocrates for

the last we hear of Hippocrates
nates

concerned with

is teachable (319a-320c), a practical question but Hippocrates or Protagoras. After

Protagoras'

bringing

him to Protagoras
question

this is

and asks

Protagoras the

that domi

the rest

of

the discussion: are the virtues one or many (329c)? This ques

tion could be

considered practical

but

more

dialogue, Socrates
Protagoras'

asks

the question

which

remotely so. At the very end of the he would be most delighted to have
(361c)? This
question

help

in investigating:
as

what
can

is

virtue

is theo from

retical at

least in form insofar

toward
Socrates'

it

be

asked of

practical questions

more

theoretical ones
ascent

any has been

object.

This

ascent

made

to correspond

closely, in

narration, to the

from
ends,

an atmosphere of constraint

toward one of
come erotic

pleasure.21

The

conversation never

however, before it

can

be
and

truly

theoretical.
of the

The dialogue

breaks through to the freedom

levity

Symposium,
at the

which

is

perhaps

the matter

of whether

knowledge

should serve

why Socrates never broaches human welfare or something

of

higher. The

environment

distinguished home

Callias,

where political

ambition and

self-importance

weigh

heavily
p.

on

the conversation, could

hardly
pre

permit an ascent to the

ideas (cf.

Coby,

24).

Socrates

concludes

his

conversation with

Protagoras
myth

by

saying that he

fers the

character of

Prometheus in

Protagoras'

to the character of Epi

"thoughtful"

metheus,

consults Prometheus and is adding that he life when he occupies himself thoumenos) about his whole

(prome-

with

these matters virtue, but

(36 Id). He

asks

Protagoras

for

help

in

investigating

the

nature of

Protagoras has

other

business to
see

to thoughtful, but it is hard

The Socratic way of life is indeed how that way of life could be rendered into a
attend to.

Promethean art teachable to others.

In

Protagoras'

myth, Prometheus attempted

and the

to

provide

a salvation

for

man

by

giving him fire

arts, but this attempt

306

Interpretation
to be inadequate. The arts
and
needed

proved

to be

supplemented surpassed

Respect

Right (322c). Zeus's

gift might

be

by Zeus's gift of by something like

and

Socrates'

art of measurement.

We have seen,
with

however,
deeds

that this art is not at

tainable. Man must be content either

Jovian Respect
and
of

Right

or with

the thoughtfulness displayed in the

words arises

Socrates.

Socrates'

thoughtfulness, into the nature dialectic has

look
at

as

he indicates

here,

from his dialectical investigations

a

of virtue and related

matters,

lifelong,

even

infinite One

project.

Though Socrates has

made

not reduced virtue more

to an art, there can

be

no question

that

Socrates

thoughtful in practical matters.

need

only

how he

uses

dialectic to

help

thoughtless friends like Hippocrates. In

quiry into the nature of virtue will not automatically yield prudence, but it does seem to foster and improve prudence, at least insofar as it instills the habit of

thinking before
Socrates'

acting.

evident

in the

thoughtfulness, however, naturally lacks the accuracy and control skill of good artisans. He maintains an uneasy balance between
his
erotic mode.

his
on

constrained mode and

Toward those

who make

demands

him,

whether

just

or

not, Socrates their

assumes

the role of the cautious

fellow
or

citizen, especially
other gifts.

when

ambition

is

not accompanied

by

intelligence

But toward those

who appeal

to Socrates as
appetite

potentially

great con

versationalists, he is less reserved,

and

this
as

for

good conversation even

leads him into trouble

with

the city,

the references to
with each other. of

Alcibiades hint
The
action of
Socrates'

at.

These two modes, then,

are

in

conflict

the

Protagoras,
pursuit of

viewed as a

whole, is

a perfect

illustration

this:

erotic

Alcibiades is interrupted

by

the necessity to take

care of

Hippocrates,
engrossed

and

then

Hippocrates'

needs are subordinated as

conversation with

Socrates becomes
virtue.22

in

the

fascinating
of

Protagoras

about

The is

portrayal of

the good

life in the Protagoras

of

seems compatible with the

teachings
said

Aristotle in book 10

the Nicomachean

Ethics,

where

happiness
to Aris

to consist first in

contemplation and second

in the

practical activities

with which prudence and

the ethical virtues are concerned.

According

totle, contemplation is a leisurely activity, while practical activity, even of the highest order, in politics or war, is toilsome (1 177b). Indeed, the contemplative
life
of

the

philosopher

conducted without

may be best, but it would seem that the best life must be the lucidity evident in the meanest arts. The tensions and
which are portrayed more

conflicts of that

life,

richly
that

in the drama

of

the Pro

tagoras than in the treatise of

Aristotle,

are considerable.

Even so, the Socratic

could

tradition in

ancient

philosophy
conflicts.

would not grant

human life

be

com

plete without

these

NOTES

See 357e,
on

where

Socrates

says

that the many

refuse

to take lessons in the the

ment"

the grounds that it is

"unteachable."

He had

said earlier that

"art of measure Athenians consider virtue

unteachable.

infer, then,

that Socrates is equating the

art of measurement with virtue.

Virtue, Art,
2.

and

the

Good Life

307

Larry Goldberg,

Commentary

on

Plato's Protagoras, American

University

Studies (New

York: Peter

Lang, 1983), and Patrick Coby, Socrates and the Sophistic Enlightenment (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1987), from whose work I have benefitted a great deal, emphasize too
desire on the part of Plato or his character Socrates to protect the city Socrates opposes sophistry not so much because of the harm it might inflict on the city, but because it encourages the young to seek no more knowledge than is required to gain power
much,
seems to me, the

it

from

sophistry.

in the Protagoras is, first, to protect the philosophical from the deadening intellectual complacency of sophistry and, second, to avoid unnecessary harm to the city. 3. blushing seems to be due to the fact that he has not entirely ruled out the prospect of becoming a sophist. Hippocrates is clearly divided between his desire for the wisdom of Protagoras arid his respect for Athenian gentlemanliness. Cf. Goldberg, pp. 80-82.
city. rhetorical purpose potential of

in the

Socrates'

the young

Hippocrates'

eager to become famous in the city and that associating with him, Protagoras (316c). 5. Plato has set the action of the dialogue at about 433 or 432 B.C., by the reckoning of most scholars, at the height of the Periclean Athens. See C.C.W. Taylor's notes in his translation of

4. Socrates tells Protagoras that Hippocrates is

supposes

Hippocrates

he

would

best

achieve

this

by

Plato, Protagoras, Clarendon Plato Series (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976),

6. The best illustration is asking Crito to
medicine produces of

p.

64.
where

this

difficulty

occurs

in the Euthydemus

291b-

293a,

Socrates

identify
health

what

the political art produces.

and

that the art of

farming

produces

easily say that the art of food from the earth, but he cannot do
can

Crito

the same
whole

for the

art of

statesmanship, "which

steers

the whole, rules the whole, and makes the

useful."

And

neither can

Socrates,

who refers

to this

Charm.

159b-

161b. Compare

Socrates'

reaction
Socrates'

to the

difficulty as an aporia. blushing of Charmides

at

158c

with

that of Hippocrates in Protagoras 312a.

Socrates'

where again

eros

is salient, is

quite

disposition toward Alcibiades in the Alcibiades, similar to his disposition toward Charmides. See Ale.
Protagoras,"

105eand 119b-124c. 8. See Joseph Cropsey, "Virtue No. 2 (1991-92):140.

and

Knowledge: On Plato's

Interpretation 19,

cate analyses

9. See Coby's (53-70) and Goldberg's (13-56) discussions of this myth for much more intri than I am able to provide here. The word dynatotatos (319al), though perhaps not as
connotation as our expression

impersonal in

"most

powerful,"

does

not

exactly

connote

sociability,

especially in the superlative where rivalry is clearly implied. 10. C.C.W. Taylor's notes (pp. 110-11) are helpful here, but I do
"failed"

not agree

that Socrates has

to

distinguish between the different

or some

senses of

the word

"alike,"

which could mean

"identi

If Socrates is assuming that the "having virtues are one because they all amount to knowledge, then he has no need to make such distinc tions: throughout his argument, means identical in all respects. argument rests on an equivocation in the use 11. Taylor points out (pp. 122-31) that
cal all
"alike" Socrates'

in

respects"

characteristic(s) in

common."

of the word opposite,

but I doubt Plato

was unaware of

(as

yet

undisclosed)
not

assumption

that virtue

this, as Taylor maintains (p. 129). is knowledge allows him to consider virtue and
presents

Socrates'

vice as

polar

opposites,

just incompatible
as
seem

qualities.

12. It is true that Protagoras,

wise orators make good apart

Socrates

him,

waffles a

bit,

since

he

maintains

that

the good

good, whereas his principle does

not allow

that anything could be

not

from how it is
to the

perceived.

He adds, however, that

that according to

one must

follow

his words, but his

meaning (166d-e). I
want seem good

infer, therefore,
city.

Protagoras,

wise orators make

anything they

13. For
edition of

parts of

this ode I have

used

W.R.M. Lamb's translation in the Loeb Classical

4 (London: William

Library

the

Protagoras, in Plato,
sentiments entire

vol.

Heinemann, 1924),
for the
purpose of

pp.

185-209.

14. These
maintains

bear
ode

some resemblance

to those of Aristophanes in The Clouds.

Socrates

that the

by

Simonides
who

was composed

saying

of the wise man

Pittacus,
not

Socrates

claims was a student of

the

art of

overthrowing the "short Socrates

speeches."

Similarly,

the entire poem The Clouds was written in order to overthrow the wise man

the historical

Socrates,

the

character

in Plato's dialogues in this

and perhaps

especially the Socratic

dictum that 15.

virtue

is knowledge.
language is very
precise respect.

Socrates'

He does

not avoid

implying

that

one

308
might

Interpretation
"be" "be"

a good doctor or a good man (see 345a). The doctor, only that one might possession of knowledge, however limited, distinguishes the artisan as such; the extent of the an artisan he is. artisan's knowledge, which is necessarily in a state of flux, determines how a
"good"

The

more

knowledge he has

about

his

art and about

everything else, the better his

chances

for

success

in any medical action he undertakes. 16. The art of measurement does not seem

capable of

points out

(p. 159). This shortcoming is measurement is ultimately unrewarding.

17. To
mention

one reason

making human beings immortal, as Coby why the practical orientation of the art of
passage

just

one

probably the
critique of

most pertinent

dealing

with

this matter, see

the striking interlude in

Socrates'

Protagoras from Theaet.

172c- 177c.

18. That Alcibiades is

companion says

not visible at the time of

this exchange is evident from the fact that the

a noble man

that Alcibiades appeared to him to be

"the

day"

other

{proen, 309a3).

Scholarly
century.

opinion on

the authenticity of this dialogue has been divided since the nineteenth

theon

See Paul Friedlander, Plato, trans. Hans Meyerhoff, Bollingen Series (New York: Pan Books, 1956), pp. 348-49 n. 1, for a useful, though not comprehensive, bibliography on this Most
arguments against

question.

platonic style and

artistry, allegedly

its authenticity boil down to objections unusual behavior on the part of Socrates language. Since
of a

against and

allegedly
out of

un-

Alcibiades,

and a

few instances it
seems

of

allegedly

unplatonic

definitive
than to

solution

is probably

reach,

best to

adjust our

understanding
esteemed

Plato

rather

reject a work

traditionally

accepted

as part of

the canon and

of

highly

by

both Hellenistic

and

Medieval

commentators.

Alexandria, Protreptika 53. I have this from Plato, Protagoras, with a com mentary by Hermann Sauppe, trans. James A. Towle (Boston: Ginn and Company, 1889), p. 27. 20. The only major exception is Aristophanes. If, as Goldberg observes (p. 329), Aris
19. Clement
tophanes'

presence

is felt

nonetheless
presence

Protagoras,
21. It is dialogue.

then perhaps his

because his comedy in the Symposium is

supplies the

impulse for the

whole

partial and subordinate

because the

action and speech of

that dialogue take place on a higher level. to follow the

uses of

interesting Among them:

the word hedone and its cognates throughout the

pleasure at

Socrates takes

detached

watching the

parade around

Pro

tagoras at the house of Callias

(hesthen, 315b3); Protagoras then expresses his extreme pleasure at the prospect of speaking before others (hediston, 317c4); when Socrates threatens to leave, he adds that he would listen to Protagoras not without pleasure (ouk aedos, 335c6); later, Socrates says he would be pleased to converse with Protagoras rather than with anyone else (hedeos, 348d6); finally, at the end of the dialogue, Socrates expresses extreme pleasure at the prospect of having a joint pleasure in the conversation in inquiry into the nature of virtue (hedista, 361d6). As
Socrates'

Protagoras'

creases,

diminishes.
of the

22. See Coby, p. 202 n. 83 for an interesting argument that at the end Socrates leaves for his supposed appointment, Alcibiades, not Hippocrates, If this reading is correct, it
would support

dialogue,

when

accompanies

Socrates.

the claim that for Socrates eros overrides duty.

Deceit, Desire,

and

the Dialectic:

Plato's Republic Revisited

Nalin Ranasinghe

University

of Dallas

This

work will

defend Plato

against perhaps

the gravest
the

of

the many accusa

centuries.

tions that have been levelled against him

over

last twenty-four
nature.1

Plato, it is
the

charged, teaches in the Republic that benevolent totalitarianism is

form

of governance most appropriate to

human

The insatiable de

sires of man ensure that any freer form of political association will inevitably breed anarchy and tyranny. Plato's conservative critics have been more muted in their tone, at least to the time of Nietzsche; while sharing Plato's apparent pessimism towards the desires, they ignore his more bizarre suggestions and

strong prejudices and healthy habits. This belief in the desire is shared by new, shriller voices on the left who use futility educating support their suspicion that education is nothing more than an the Republic to
concentrate on of

forming

insidious
those

means of

domination

and control.

Addressing
a close

myself

especially to
proper
under

who are

both impressed
severity, I
and

by

the brilliance of Plato's insights and distressed

show

by

his

apparent

will

how

attention

to dramatic
of

historical

considerations

reading that pays allows a very different

standing Instead ideal

the text to

emerge.

of

political

reading the Republic as a vividly detailed account of how the order is established and maintained, I will show that the Republic

is actually a comic depiction of the absurdities that result when a fundamental disjunction is set up between justice and eros. At the risk of being judged too

flippant, I
emy."

would even claim

that Plato's Republic is the

original

"Polis Acad
on

Far from

being

a summation of
a

Plato's deepest thoughts

process of

the art of

ruling, the Republic is itself

labyrinthine

pedagogy that tests the

utmost.

reader's powers of reflection and poetical real

imagination to the
as

In

very

sense, reading the Republic correctly is every bit

difficult

out of the

Cave. We

must remember

that the content and

climbing the form of Platonic

as

teaching
for the

are not at variance.

In

other

weds, Plato did

also

not choose

indirection desire
and

sake of elitism and of

obscurity; he is
ourselves

incapacity
One
ning
of

human beings,

teaching us about included, to receive virtue

be
read

the

through infor

mation transference and coerced order.

pointer as

to how the Republic should

which seems

is

provided at the

begin

the

Parmenides,

to

be

structured so as

to

call our attention

'

interpretation,

Spring 1994,

Vol.

21, No. 3

310

Interpretation
narrator of

to the Republic. The

who

the opening segment is a

Parmenides'

man called

Cephalus,
de

travels to Athens where he seeks out Glaucon and Adeimantus. In the

which precede of

preliminary remarks scribes his own style

long
was

monologue, Zeno

writing

and

tells Socrates that

he him

made no pretense of as

disguising
defense
of

from the

public

the fact that those who

.

his

work

written

"a

sort of

Parmenides
. . .

against

made

fun

of

by

supposition
coin

leads to

absurdities

this book is a retort

. . .

showing that his in the same

...

by

consequences"

showing that their (128c-d). Zeno

own suppositions reminds

lead to

even more absurd work of

Socrates that this indication

his

youth

was not written

dispassionately,

as an older man an

would, but
as

out of a youthful

desire for

controversy.

Apart from giving

to how the Parme

a

nides should

public should

be approached, we seem to be provided with be viewed in the same fashion. As in every

to convey knowledge wholesale; he

hint that the Re leads the individ

dialogue, Socrates
in the definitions Republic is
was

does
ual

not claim

indirectly

mind

to knowledge

by

exposing

various

shortcomings

given

by

his interlocutor.
suggestive

Further
given

information
who

with regard

to the context of the

by Xenophon,
to

tells us in the Memorabilia that Glaucon

"at

tempting
was

be

an orator and
years

less than twenty

would get

striving for headship in the state even though he and none of his friends or relatives could stop him
platform and make

though he

himself dragged from the

vi).

himself

laughing
who

stock"

(Mem. III.

Xenophon

goes on

to say that only

and

Socrates,
managed

took an interest in Glaucon

for the

sake of

Plato

Charmides,

to check him. Socrates does this

that

his ignorance
This

prevented

by questioning Glaucon and making it clear him from making any contribution of value to the
how Glaucon
was regarded or

polis. and

gives us some sense of

in his

own

age; he is clearly taught how to establish

not a potential and maintain a

Alcibiades, Dion,

Alexander

day being

tyranny. In this context

we should also

bear in

mind

the Seventh Letter and Plato's passionately

expressed

distaste for
exercise

the methods of the restored

Oligarchs;

the Republic is not an academic the practical consequences

blithely

undertaken
and

by

one unaware of

of political

frustration

hatred.
all we a

Ultimately,
readable

learn from Xenophon

and

history

can

only

redirect us to

the text. Although

Platonic text is autonomous, like

alone and capable of revelations of

natural

theology it is both

revelation.

helpful because they restore to us what was presupposed as general knowledge in the audience for whom Plato wrote. Xenophon's Memorabilia should also be used
are all the more
as a source

in theory by reason In this context the

being

illuminated through

Xenophon

for

questions with which to succeeds

bombard the text. We may

ask whether

Socrates intends (and

in) dissuading Glaucon from entering politics. We may also ask why Plato seems to depict Socrates, who was accused of corrupting Critias and Charmides, in the act of corrupting their nephew and his
brother Glaucon. This
question

becomes

even more significant when we recall

Deceit, Desire,
Xenophon's claim and Charmides.
that

and

the Dialectic
of

-311

Socrates

undertook to educate

Glaucon because

Plato

Although Leo Strauss, who points out the importance of Xenophon's infor mation, reads the Republic as "the most magnificent cure ever devised to every form of political it is clear that Xenophon's Socrates is not hostile
ambition,"2

to all political ambition.

Immediately
is

after

the

conversation with

Glaucon, Xe
Glaucon's
enter

nophon recounts a much earlier encounter uncle

that Socrates had

against

with

Charmides,

who

encouraged

by Socrates,

his will, to

politics

(Mem. III. vii).

source of relevance
of and

Another
shadow

the themes

is the Charmides; this dialogue seems to fore the Republic, not simply because of the relationship

between Charmides
in

Glaucon, but
leads to the

also

by

the way in

which a

lack

of

tem

perance or self-knowledge
Charmides'

consequences

described in the Republic

soul what

and seen

political career.

Temperance is to the

justice

is to the
charm
cient

city.

to cure

Socrates saying that before he gave Charmides the his headache, he had to see whether Charmides possessed suffi
recall

We

temperance to use it (158c). This situation

is illustrative

of

the fundamen

tal paradox of education, and

indicative

of

the untransferability of virtue or

a glimpse of

temperance. Even though Socrates has caught

the potential of

Charmides that has inflamed him

potential

with great worth

is

not sufficient. soul

It is

also

desire (155d), the possession of bearing in mind that we cannot

expect

Glaucon's
even

to be improved markedly
out

by

one

evening

spent with

Socrates;
with

Alcibiades had to find

the hard way that a

one-night stand

Socrates quality
of

was not a sufficient means of

not a

that

Charmides

or even

absorbing virtue. Temperance is Socrates himself could claim to own; it is

to the
moral archetypes

rather a state of

being

constantly

attentive

that remind

the soul

its

powers and responsibilities.

Critias that

self-knowledge

is minding
of

one's own

Also noteworthy is the definition of business (161b). sub

Critias'

sequent career as a
minds of

leader

the restored

Oligarchy
most

would

be too fresh in the

made of

Plato's
of

definition
is
crucial.

readers for any use but the justice in the Republic?

ironic to be

this

Returning
If

to the
we

Republic,

we must see

that Glaucon's

place

in this dialogue
ambitions a response
of

remember

that it is Glaucon

whose political

are

being

assessed

by Socrates,

then the dialogue can

be

seen as
on

to

Glaucon's understanding of justice rather than a treatise Just. In other words, the Republic does not represent

the nature

the

Socrates'

account of

jus de

tice; does

we should not

take in
what

all seriousness

his

claim at

the end of

Book I that he

know

justice is. Rather, Socrates

serves as a midwife who

livers up the unsatisfactory implications of the views that Glaucon holds and does not make public. We should examine very closely the demand that Glau
con makes of
political

Socrates in Book II before

endorses

drawing

any
a

conclusions about

the the

ideas that Plato

in this
and

work.

In Aristophanic

language,

Republic is in

Cloud-Cuckoo-Land,

Socrates is

philosophic

midwife/

312

Interpretation

away with and hatches another bird's wind-egg. We must not fault Socrates for refusing to provide an explicit account of justice at this time. failure to Justice is discussed against the ominous background of
cuckoo who runs
Charmides'

learn temperance. It may

even

be that the very

notion of

Justice is too stultify

ing
for

term,

too

opposed

to eros, and too tied in with the Metaphysician's need

self-conserving systems, to offer much possibility for genuine equity. Perhaps the very Socratic revolution consists in the replacement of cosmic jus tice by temperance? In short, the Republic is not an attempt to construct and
stable

conserve

a coherent whole:

Plato is

not

Aristotle;

this account will present

must of

strong evidence that he is not even a Neoplatonist. Rather, we rich imagery of the text as it draws us into a better appreciation
and

enjoy the

the grandeur

frailty

of

human

existence.

Glaucon from

plans

to rule a city. Instead of

deriving
power.

his

political

a clear awareness of

the soul, his understanding to exercise

of

the soul

philosophy is blindly

derived from his fierce

reformed

ambition

first? Glaucon
of

says

the

former,

Should city or soul be but Plato implies the latter. A true

an appreciation of

understanding
that does
not

the polis

must

derive from

human

nature.

It be

must not come out of a

desire to
The

rule which

is indicative
such as

of a

disordered

soul

know itself. An
statesmanship.

unexamined

life,

Glaucon's,

cannot

the basis for

subtext of

the Republic is

an argument

that

Socrates

conducts through and with

made aware of

Glaucon is
effective

his

political

Glaucon's ambitions, an argument in which incapacity in a way that is all the more

in its

avoidance of public embarrassment.

This

argument

is

also conducted against

Aristophanes
are shown

and

the

various con

servative accusers and critics of

Socrates; they
go of

the consequences of

the the

romantic and comic notions which undergird present

age.4

their

own complaints against

They

would

like to

back to

a golden age which

has

never

existed

in fact. The very

Aristophanes'

beginning

the Republic with

its treatment

of

the

questions

attention to

surrounding the repaying of debts seems to be designed to call our charge in the Clouds that Socratic dialectic is unjust
quibble about what

because it teaches debtors to

making that Glaucon
prompt and
would

is properly

owed

instead

of

literal

performance of what

is

expected of

them.

It

turns out
exis

like to

bring

Aristophanes'

comic vision

into literal
Socrates'

tence;
ody

this

is

part of

Plato's indictment
tradition. We see

ment of of

the

mimetic

poetry Glaucon blindly

a wistful
witnesses go on a

of

which amounts

to an indict
par

imitating

Aristophanes'

satire,

which

is itself

invocation

of a past

that

never could

have

existed.

Our

own age

the compounding of this

absurdity interpret

when

literal

readers of

the Republic
are

to

accuse

Plato

and

Socra

tes of totalitarian

ambitions.

We

truly in
in

situation where men

blindly
state of

shadows at several removes ambition

from the truth. Glaucon in his

possession of

ignorant
with

is identical to the
he

man not

his

wits who was

refused restitution of what

entrusted

for

safekeeping.

Instead,

he is

provided

Socratic interest:

valuable awareness of

his

own unsettled condition.

Like

Deceit, Desire,
the

and

the Dialectic

313
for
and

dog

that did
not

not

what

he did

do; he did
and

bark in the night, Glaucon is not follow the example

perhaps of

best

remembered

Critias

and

Charmides

share

in their

notoriety.

chooses a

long

Like Odysseus in Book X (620c-d), he apparently inglorious life of obscurity and takes his leave of us rejoic

ing

in his

chain of

fortune. This essay will try to depict the powerful but subtle reasoning that sent him on this path. The Republic is thus evidence of
good
which

the unorthodox but honorable way in

Socrates

satisfied

his

obligations

to

Athens.

Glaucon's

views on

justice

and

injustice

are

filtered through Book I

of

the the the that

Republic,
sophist

which recounts a series of

increasingly

spirited exchanges about son

nature of justice

that Socrates had

with

Cephalus, his

Polemarchus,

and

Thrasymachus. All three interlocutors

anticipate

Glaucon's

position

the just life is unhappy because justice is essentially theme of Book I is the raging force

antierotic.

The underlying
threatens

of eros which compromises and

any possibility of justice or social stability. When Cephalus tells Socrates that his advanced age has made him immune to desire and more susceptible to
speeches, he
a quoted

Sophocles

frenzied

and savage master.

saying that he felt as if he had Quite apart from anticipating the

as

run

away from sentiments felt

by

the prisoner in the cave, and

we are made aware of readers were

telling

us

something
effort

about

the character of

its

rulers,

the tremendous
aware

that is expended in

fighting

desire. Plato's date

of

doubtless

that a

few

years after

the

dramatic

the

Republic,

Sophocles'

sons sought

to have

him declared flute

girl.

of unsound

mind

because
the

of an attachment

that he had formed

with a

Cicero tells

reading from his latest As well as explaining the Lear-like animosity that play, Oedipus at Oedipus shows towards his sons, this historical snippet also advises against
us that
ninety-year-old poet proved
Colonus.5

his sanity

by

declaring
Call

premature

victory
to

over eros: one could edit

Solon

and

cry

warningly:

no man unerotic until

he is dead.
wealth and not of old men

Socrates
character

suggests

Cephalus that it is his

that enables

him to face the disabilities

money that he can make reparation to gods and youth. His wealth serves to protect him from the
old age.
out of

simply his good it is because of his age; for the sins of his lustful
the fears
which afflict

worst of

Because he inherited his money he did not need to accumulate wealth necessity, a form of desire which makes justice in the sense of strict impossible. If Cephalus isn't
as attached to

reparation

his

wealth as one who would one

had to
had

earn

it,

how

much more under

the grip of necessity

be

who

not earned enough?

This is

one of

the recurrent themes of the

Republic; is
suppressing for for

justice knowledge

of what of

is

appropriate need or

is it poetry:

wealth

the necessary desires

poverty to

secure conditions of

stability

and order

itself? The complexity

the
second

of

this question

is

compounded
as

by

the strategic need

type of justice to disguise itself

not

the first.
sole

Polemarchus,
is
all

Cephalus 's only

son

but the

legatee
of

of

his argument,
wealth

too aware of the problems that

beset the defense

inherited

314

Interpretation
instability. If Cephalus
stands represents

amidst conditions of political

the

no-longer-

tenable

old

order,

then

Polemarchus

for the

uncertain

present

and

Thrasymachus the threatening future. Cephalus views justice in terms of repara tions to others, but Polemarchus desires coerced restitution of property from
enemies.

Polemarchus

also cites a

poet,

Simonides,

to buttress this position,

claiming that justice is giving to each exactly what is owed; his definition repudiates the very origin of the Athenian polity, when Solon abolished debt slavery and cancelled all other debts despite the loud anger of the wealthy. When Socrates points out that giving what is owed implies knowledge of what

is

appropriate

in

situation

where

simple reparation

is

not

so

easily made,

Polemarchus
entails

attempts

to short circuit any discussion of this question (which

knowledge
as

of what

is

good

and

evil)
and

justice
views

license to do

good

to

friends

saying that he understands harm to enemies. Polemarchus

by

justice in

subjective and partisan

terms: a

man's

friends

are

just

and

his in

enemies unjust.

The love he feels towards his friends leads him to find

relish

giving his enemies their just deserts. What is repaid has little to do with mate rial accounts; honor and dishonor are the currency of the realm of spiritedness. As
a

result, these

spirited

men

find it hard to

acknowledge

the most

basic

property rights of their enemies. There is the further problem that spiritedly just men like Polemarchus do not seem to have any nondestructive traits or skills. An adversarial relationship is suggestively implied
while all of

by

the

long

series of contrasts

between
to

the

productive skills seem

to

be

connected

crafts and justice, injustice, i.e., not

being
was

part of

the just

faction,

rather

than justice. A
entrusted
when

just

man cannot

useful as a guardian of what

has been

to him (the

family

of

be only Cephalus

in the business

of

shield-making)
acquisition; he
with

the origins of property are to be

"just"

found in be

acts of violent

also needs productive enemies who can of other

plundered

or controlled

the

assistance

friends. Plato
the Republic

obviously

meant

his

readers to note that the

dramatic

context of

provides poignant

testimony

to the transient nature of such

and

friendships. While

the two young aristocrats, Glaucon terms

would with

the wealthy metic

be killed
and

by

faction led

family of by their

Adeimantus, are presently on good Cephalus, in a few years Polemarchus

Socrates'

uncles and

former

compan

ions Critias
selves at

Charmides. These Oligarchs then

metics.6

proceeded to enrich them

the expense of the

soon convinces

Socrates

Polemarchus that

greater

benefit

and

harm

can

be

done to friends
and enemies value

respectively by really are, as well as what is truly beneficial. This is the positive of justice, and its importance can hardly be exaggerated in an adversarial
and enemies one who who

knows

his friends

situation where

internecine
made

conflict

is

more

the rule than the exception.

Pole
makes

marchus

is then

to admit that since

doing

injustice to

enemies

only

them worse, it
advantageous.

is

never

just to injure anyone,

claims that

even

though it might seem to be

Socrates

justice, by its very

essence, cannot

make

Deceit, Desire,
men

and the

Dialectic

315
into
to

unjust; justice is like

all the other arts

in that it improves
This
view

all who come

contact with

it

with respect

to its subject
observed

matter.

is

flatly

opposed of

the subtext that

men"

we

have just

according to

which a

group
not

"just

define their

enemies as unjust

to
of

justify
the
called

their subsequent

malevolent con

duct towards them. In the language

Euthyphro,
just

the just is

just, just
polis,

because it is
Socrates'

called

just

by

the

just; it is

by

the just because it is just.

view of

justice

stresses
would

the unity

and common

interests

of a

while nisms

the other definition

emphasize, exacerbate,

and exploit antago

between

various economic and social strata. now

Thrasymachus

the advantage of the stronger. Justice in the

intervenes to defend violently his thesis that justice is idealized sense in which Socrates
and tragic

has described it is

illusory

in the

worse

sense.

True

justice,

as

Thrasymachus depicts it, can be portrayed in Nietzschean terms as a stabilizing force overcoming the tragic delusions of idealistic ethics. Socratic rationalism
leads the individual to Thrasymachus
would agree accuses

make

impossible
of

moral

demands

of

life;
a

this is why
nurse.

Socrates

heartily

with

needing snivelling Nietzsche's claim that justice is in the

and

wet

He

service of

life;
a
con

justice has
creation of

no

right to

make unrealistic

demands
of

of

life because justice is

is that justice is
to life

life. The fullest implication

those too
weak

this

position

structed so that

to govern, and give meaning to the

whole

in

seeking their
without

own

advantage,

can accept the

vertigo.

meaning

given

by

the strong

suffering from

moral

Conversely,

the superiority of those

wearing spurs consists not simply in their ability to create their own values, but also in their prudence in not revealing that they have created nature/convention
the laws of life. This is why the perfectly unjust ruler must be perfectly just and even demand recompense for his seemingly just deeds. Thrasymachus must agree with Nietzsche that the key to happiness is the
accordance with appear to

in

strong accepting the truth justice.

chaos.7

about of

life

and

creating
or even

noble

life-sustaining
moral

lies for

the weak, who are incapable

bearing
on

apprehending the truth about

and social

Making

unrealistic

demands

life only leads to

Thrasymachus is

robbed of

his triumph

by Socrates,

who

is in

a position to

force him to

admit that

his

own professional activities as a sophist are con

ducted according to the adversarial and exploitative model that he has just set out. Although Thrasymachus charges money for his lessons, we are entitled to suspect that this is not the sole advantage that he gains from sophistry. Even the
public

defeat

and

discomfiture

of

Thrasymachus
the
associates

support

his

own point about

the

political

necessity

of untruth: as

should

be kept in the dark

Socrates'

perfectly unjust man to his intentions. Thrasymachus could have re

sciences
weak

of the

jected
that it

analogy from the

in

even stronger

terms

by

claiming

was

to the advantage of the

to be dominated the
master

by

the strong, thus

which regu
content-

presenting injustice on the grandest lates the health of the polis by purging it

scale as

discipline

of what was

dangerous to its

316

Interpretation

This was why he could not take the easy way out offered by Cleitophon's position, which would produce conditions of pluralistic anarchy instead of the monistic totalitarianism that Thrasymachus himself would prefer.
ment and stability.

He is

unable

to

deploy
steals

this ideal of the perfectly

unjust

ruler,

an

ideal that

Glaucon

later

from
to

him

and

describes
arguments

without

his

permission.

Thrasymachus'

refusal reminded of

bring

forth these

indicates that he has been

the public untenability of his position

acute enough

to see that

Thrasymachus'

weakness

by Socrates. Glaucon is lay not in his argument but

in his imprudence in giving open expression to an indecent truth; the famous blush of Thrasymachus is a belated recognition of this need for the appearance
of

honor. Socrates has Socrates

shown

himself to be the
The

more prudent of

the two
now

in this

battle between just

with what

and unjust speech. conceals

question

for Glaucon life

has to do
as

beneath his

unattractive and

ironic facade. Just

without

Socrates

asked

Cephalus in relatively
now what

crass

terms

whether a

desire Soc

was worth rates.

living, Glaucon
seeks

indirectly
Socrates
enjoys

aims an even cruder question at

He

to know

gets out of

living

the way he does.

Glaucon just

wonders

if he secretly

illicit

pleasures while

seeming to be merely
appear

pauper.

Glaucon have is very

asks

Socrates

whether

he

would

truly

persuade or

to

convinced

them of the superiority of justice. This question shows that he the distinction between
appearance and

much aware of

reality underly up
a

ing

Socrates'

apparent refutation of

Thrasymachus. Glaucon
own

sets

threefold

classification of goods: those

desired for their

sake, those desired

for

con

sequences,

and those

desirable both for their

practiced

own sake and

their consequences.

Glaucon believes that justice is

only for its presumed consequences and not for its intrinsic qualities; he challenges Socrates to defend justice strictly on the basis of its inherent effects, although Socrates has already told him that he
understands

justice to be
the

preferred

both for itself

of

and

for its

results.

Glaucon's
with

challenge presupposes

impossibility
to accrue

the good
a

life;

not content

denying

the good effects

expected

burden it
that

with

every

misfortune and asks

just life, he goes on to Socrates to compare it to an unjust life

compounds

from

has every

material advantage.

Adeimantus

the

problem

by

ex

cluding

consideration of rewards and sanctions

in the

afterlife.

By framing
already nothing
charge

the question in this

extreme good

fashion the

sons of

Ariston

make

it

impossible for Socrates to defend the

accepted

the judgment

of

life in any positive way. They have Thrasymachus and Cephalus that justice is

more than

the denial

in his

encounter with

significant refinement of
course

of eros. While Socrates has already refuted this Callicles in the Gorgias, he is now faced with a this definition of injustice. This modification is of of

the perfectly unjust life; a life conducted according to scientific injustice that would eschew the barbaric hedonism of Cleitophon and Callicles in order to prosper long and gloriously. The perfectly
unjust man would

the Machiavellian dream

be

a practitioner of

the kind

of master science

that

so fasci-

Deceit, Desire,
nated

and

the Dialectic

317

Glaucon's

uncle

Critias in the Charmides. Such

a master science will not

be

connected to the knowledge of good and evil, as Critias had to acknowledge in the Charmides (174b); rather, it will situate itself above good and evil by virtue of its presumption that all morality is constructed in accordance with the

law This

of

nature,

which

dictates that only the

thus
replaces

strongest and wrongest should rule.

master

science

amounts to a sovereign

temperance, because its self-knowledge knowledge of its own creation and business. Glaucon

thus seeks to escape the problems that confounded

pelled

Callicles,

who was com

in the Gorgias to describe the

effect
who

unjust
at a

tyrant as

a sort of natural slave

to

desire. In

Achilles,
career of

then, Glaucon aims had to choose between

eros,8

overcoming the disjunction faced

by

long

obscure

life

and a short glorious and

injustice. While Socrates

education of

also

believes in

long

happy

life led

through the
shown

he

that injustice and

of

lasting

defend this possibility before he has happiness are incompatible.

cannot
provides a

Glaucon's image
he too
with we red

the ring of Gyges

uses

very definite indication

as

to his own inclinations. Glaucon

would emulate

this tale to inform

possessed of

Socrates,

secretly, that

Gyges

were

he

the power to act unjustly

whatever

total

impunity; "give
same

each

(man) license
will

to do
.

follow

and watch where

his desire

lead

we will catch

he wants, while the just man

(359c). Both Socrates and Glau way as the con are aware that the discussion in Book I has done little or nothing to over come Glaucon's hidden desire for tyranny. To achieve the desired catharsis,

handed going the

unjust"

Socrates

must

descend into the

underworld of

Glaucon's desires

and vanquish
superi

the desire for tyranny. In a sense, any intellectual attempt to

display the

ority of the just life is doomed in advance, because the desire for tyranny only rationalizes in order to justify what it has already accepted prerationally. Socra
tes cannot
nalized
con
win

his battle for Glaucon's

another

soul

by demolishing

one set of ratio

fortifications;

Sophist

will soon replace

these as

long

as

Glau
the

secretly

continues

to desire tyranny.

It is
of

not sufficient

to

address

symptoms of allure of

Glaucon's malaise; the depths tyranny to be discredited.

purges

his

soul must

be

plumbed

for the

Socrates
of a soul. and

Glaucon
of

of

his
a

Instead

depicting

misery as a consequence of crediting his own view that virtue is desirable for its consequences, Socrates offers Glaucon what he truly desired: the totally unjust life, perfectly disguised
as would

unjust desires by offering him a city instead perfectly just life that encounteied misfortune its virtue, thereby playing the pander and dis

the perfectly just life. Socrates suggests to Glaucon and Adeimantus that it be easier to observe justice in the city than in the soul. By watching a

city come into being, they would presumably be able to observe the genesis of justice and injustice. The origins of the city are to be found in our not being self-sufficient. This is also a timely reminder to Glaucon that human life cannot

be led

apart

delusion

of

from society; as Socrates told Polemarchus, self-sufficiency was a some rich man with an exaggerated notion of his capability. The

318

Interpretation
can

just life

Socrates'

only be justified and satisfied through its political consequences. understanding of justice is very Athenian and cannot be translated
or

into Stoic

Christian terms

without

suffering

great

distortion.

other

The first city to be described by Socrates, while materially sufficient in all respects, is not found by Adeimantus to be either just or unjust (372a).
more

Although this city, own it is

business"

than any other, is characterized

by

men

"minding their
even

significant that this

definition is

not

introduced,

though

such a

depiction
the

of

both Cephalus
ance after

and

be wholly consistent with the positions that Polemarchus held. Justice can only make a belated appear
would

justice

erotic

Glaucon bursts in
meat.

like

a wild

beast
as to

upon
of

this bucolic

society to demand opson, i.e. city may be

needed. as a of swine suggests overcome.

Glaucon's description
own

this community

that
after

he has his

ideas

how this

deficiency
is justice

Only

Glaucon's introduction

of relishes

The luxurious city also needs swineherds. Although the city of swine has shepherds and cowherds, "this animal wasn't in our earlier city already there was no need but in this one there will be need of it in (373c).

addition"

By
it

acquire and

outstripping the bounds of necessity, the city now needs an army to defend its luxuries. In keeping with the principle of specialization,
this responsibility to

must entrust

Guardians,

who combine

in

their natures

sheepdog's capacity for loving friends and hating enemies. Justice is thus introduced only after injustice and eros come to characterize the conduct of the city. This is consistent with what we said about justice being a restraining

the

influence it is
of

on

not a transcendental
stronger

desire. Justice in this city is simply politically mandated restraint, ideal in its own right. Justice is simply the advantage imposed
crudest grown on

the

the weak in order to maximize the superiority of the

are

strong.

In the

terms, the Guardians

from the

only

needed after

the strong

have already
tice.

accustomed

to the taste of relishes; their purpose

enemies of

is to jus

guard and preserve

this advantage

those who define

The Guardians
mies.

of

this city are thus expected to that a Guardian will

love friends
a

and

hate

ene

dog being angry at a "even though it never had bad with experience stranger, any Conversely, "when it sees someone it knows, it greets him warmly, even
us
him."

Socrates tells

be like

in

complete

though this

it

never

had

him"

a good experience with

is

dog "truly

is totally ignorant

about

its true friends

and enemies.

(376a). Like Polemarchus, Such a Guardian

philosophic,"

since

"it distinguishes

friendly

from hostile looks

other
.

by
. .

nothing other than by having learned the one and being ignorant of the how can it be anything other than a lover of learning since it defines
own and what's alien

what's

its

by

knowledge

ignorance"

and

(376b)?
and

The
sist

content of

the

Guardians'

education

is

now

discussed

found to

con

entirely of Noble Lies. Because the purged city seeks to downplay the freedom of the individual in order to promote community values of endurance
and

stability, the

educator of

the Guardians

will use religion accordingly.

With

Deceit, Desire,
this end in mind,
shades are

and

the Dialectic

319

instead
and

of

describing

shadowy

existence

in Hades

where all

grey, he

will speak of significant

in the Blessed Isles

to remind
men of

Tartarus

respectively.

otherworldly rewards and sanctions Homer's accounts of Hades serve

worldly existence; in contrast,
and re

the

tragedy they

and uniqueness of

myths about reincarnation can

be

used

to emphasize social continuity

punishment

mind

the many that

will

cannot escape

for their

actions.

The

Guardians futile but

also

be taught that attempting to escape from the cave is not merely sinful. We don't hear what the personal views of the founder of
attitude would

the city are on religion. We may infer that his

of

be

similar

to that

Cephalus
would

and

the crass religion of the unjust man described

by

Adeimantus:
as

"best

be to

keep

quiet, but if there

were some

necessity to tell,
after
by"

few

as

possible ought

making the sacrifice, not of a swine but of some great offering that's hard to come (378b). We must observe that every outward pretencse of virtue has been maintained
the educator of the Guardians. He
and
will

to hear them as unspeakable secrets,

by

seek to eradicate
of

untruth,

his

greatest

falsehood

will

be the denial

deception
artistic

and

the conceivability

of

must be the only virtuosity is regarded with in his city if its citizens are to be reduced to mere shadows of their human potentiality. Similarly, laughter is regarded with the greatest hostility because muse of

"the thing which so much fear: the tyrant

any thought of both the possibility of was This is why

not."

its

connection

to aesthetic distance

and self-consciousness.
minded as possible

The
so

citizens of

this community are to

mimetic

be

made

as

literal

that perfect

docility
now

can

be instilled in them.
that the Guardians

Socrates

proposes

live

under conditions

of strict

communism. enemies: the

This is deduced from their

obligation

to love friends

and

harm

just

man

is

expected regimen

to

pillage

his

enemies and give all

his friends. This Spartan

cause of
make

is found to be
any

the

more

everything to appropriate be

the

principle of specialization:
much

accumulation of possessions will

the Guardians that to an

objection

less

efficient at

their specialized task. In re

points out

sponse exist

by Adeimantus, Socrates
not

that the Guardians

for the
of

sake of

the city

and not vice versa.

What is important is "the

to become

happiness
classes. men of

city,"

the

the individual happiness of its constituents or

give

Although the Guardians "must

the city's
of
freedom"

up

all other crafts

crafts are

(395c), they do

not receive

any freedom. We
was
agreed

reminded

the discussion with Polemarchus where

it

that the to

proper practice of a skill could not engender

its very

opposite.

The

response

this complaint is that

of

all of

the crafts, not excluding medicine, exist

for the

sake

the city

so as

to

produce or

fabricate

good

citizens; as a consequence,
as

all of

the virtues are defined according to this highest end, just

justice is defined

according to the advantage of the stronger. The manifestly austere and artificial regimen that has been prescribed for the Guardians necessitates the creation of another class of Guardians whose task is
to
educate

them

and

"guard

over

enemies

from

without

and

friends from

320
within
to"

Interpretation
so

that the ones

will not wish

to do harm and the others

will

be

unable

(414b). The former Guardians only the

guardians of

are now

demoted to the level

will

of

Auxiliaries,
This
the neces
and

while

the Auxiliaries

be the Guardians
to be dictated
of who

proper.

refinement of

the structure of the city

would seem

by

sity

of

the true Guardian possessing

proper

knowledge
as

his friends

enemies are.

The Auxiliaries merely function

the dependent and ignorant

bodyguards
This

of the real

Guardians; they
so

also create a sort of

workings will not corruption of

"ring

Gyges"

of

around the true

many.

Guardians

that their

be

perceived

by

the

structure mirrors

the

three-step
justice
the

the idea of justice over

Book I:

firstly,

the Artisans see

is owed; next, the Auxiliaries

help
act

as speaking the truth and repaying what friends of the city and hate its enemies;
most powerful

finally,

the true rulers, the

who

become the

duping
seek

Auxiliaries,
complete

now

their own advantage while cloaked

according to in the appearance

Thrasymachus'

in the city through definition and

justice.

of

Once the

hierarchy

of

the just city has been established,

its Guard

ians may proceed to purge and pillage the Artisan class through their Guard ians. The function of the Auxiliaries is turned around from protecting the city

from its into the

external enemies

to policing

its

own

citizens; the army is transformed

affect the cultural

mother of all secret polices.

The

various restrictions on music and po

will

etry devised for the

of will complete

sake of the

Auxiliaries

obviously

life

the polis significantly, but Socrates now describes economic measures which the transformation of the
of

City

of

Swine into

totalitarian State.
and

The

"stability"

the Artisan class

is

most

threatened

by -wealth

poverty,
as a

since

the one engenders indolence and the other wrongdoing;

furthermore,

result of either vation

jadedness We

or

necessity, both

economic extremes

introduce inno

any economic surplus would be di verted, but it is easy to conclude that, since both the Auxiliaries and Artisans are not supposed to be wealthy, this wealth could only end up in the hands of
to the
city.

are not told where

those

who

are

both discreet

and

immune from the temptation

the perfect unity the
of

of eros:

the

Guardians. The

heavy by

emphasis on

the city also means that

the procreation, employment,

and micromanaged

and marriages of

citizens will

be

arranged

the Guardians.

We

should pause at this

juncture to

compare the

life

of

the

Guardian

of

the

just city to the unjust life that Glaucon described in the following way: "First he rules in the city because he seems to be just. Then he takes in marriage from
whatever station

he

wants and gives

in

marriage whomever

tracts

and

has

partnerships with whomever

he

wants and

he wants; he con he gains because

he has

doing injustice. So then, when he enters contests, both public and private, he wins and gets the better of his enemies. In getting the better he is wealthy and does good to friends and harm to (362b). When we measure the Guardian's life against these criteria, it is self-evident
no qualms about
enemies"

that

he

rules

because

the

in the city because of his Guardians have unlimited

appearance of

control over the

justice. As for marriage, lives of their subjects,

Deceit, Desire,
this requirement is
also satisfied

and the

Dialectic

321

to an extent unimagined

by

Glaucon. Because between classes, total impunity.

the seem

the Guardians have the power to elevate and demote the seemingly just
man can select and exploit

persons

his friends
as

with

With

regard

to contests, in Book IV the very question

preferable

to

whether

ingly just

is found unnecessary by Glaucon because its superi is so evident. it Lastly, is obvious that the Guardian is uniquely situated to ority obtain great wealth and visit enormous benefit and damage on friends and ene
mies respectively.

life is

Socrates has
specifications. and reveal

duly

described

He

must now go on

perfectly unjust life according to Glaucon's to demonstrate the untenability of this life
to Glaucon. This
process com

the superiority of the

truly just life

mences when

Socrates

reverses the parallel

between city
the city

and soul

to suggest

that the soul should

recedes still

be divided

and ordered as

was.

As

a result

justice

further, collapsing within the soul of the Guardian himself. The Guardian becomes the knowledge and wisdom of the city. He is, as a result,
compelled

to train his own soul

even more

rigorously

than

when

he

ordered the

lives

of

the Artisans and

Auxiliaries; he is forced
compliant with

to see how

much effort

is

expended

in

keeping
quite

fortune

his domination. So

enormous an

act of will

is

relishes.

Power loses

beyond the capacity of anyone who wishes to enjoy his some of its allure and the just city begins to look a little
that Glaucon is not a crude
ambitious enough
entitled

bit

absurd.

We

must remember or

hedonist

of

the stamp of

Callicles is

Philebus. He is

to desire power and sufficiently

virtue of

presumptuous to
con

believe himself
the

to it

by

his high birth. Glau devices he

ruthless-

a prime example of

banality

of

injustice; left
for his

to his own

would ness

do
and

no more than maintain allow

the status quo with some degree of

profit quite

himself

some

pains,

but

corrupted

by
is

Thrasymachus he

could prove

to be

dangerous. Glaucon

honestly

believes

that injustice is natural, and that

he,

a member of

the natural aristocracy,

born to

rule.

certainly not force him to see the unnaturality of attempting to suppress desire in the name justice. In short, although Glaucon sought to suppress the desires of others
that he
could

Too indolent to enjoy the exercise of power for its own sake, he is willing to practice injustice as a fulltime occupation. Socrates will
of

so

enjoy his supposed natural superiority, he will come to see that he has unwittingly fashioned a prison for himself too, a grim austere cave without

friends

or

leisure. Glaucon may very

of

well echo

the

words of

Achilles

and prefer

the life of a landless serf to ruling

over a

principality
on

of shadows.

Because

the artificiality of his enterprise, the Guardian is forced to rely

more and more on

his

own efforts and

less

his

supposed natural advantages.

The totality of the domination that the Guardian enjoys also means that he can never depend on a status quo to support him; he cannot build his security on ground that has been devastated and impoverished by himself. Looking into

himself, in

search of capacities

to sustain

his

increasingly

unnatural and poetic

322

Interpretation
own soul; only this knowledge can towards the desires and lead him towards a

efforts, Glaucon is compelled to study his

purge

him

of

his ignorant

cynicism

less

understanding of justice in both city and soul. Socrates makes Glaucon turn around within himself and
adversarial are

see

that not all

and

desires

the

same.

One

must

distinguish between
mind

bodily

desires

the

tragic potential of

spiritedness.

In opposing the

to the desires angered,

we create a

situation where the energies of spiritedness are

blinded,

and

directed

to serve the ends of the body. As a result, the mind is compelled to devote all
of

its

power

to repressing this blind

force; like

the Guardian in Glaucon's city it

can achieve objectives. not

nothing better than a stalemate because of the unnaturality of its If we can only accept that spiritedness is not ineducable and should
we will

be lied to,

be in

far better

position

to

reorder natural

the soul and achieve

a truer state of

happiness. Spiritedness becomes the

of, its
proper role

ally

of reason when

it is granted, While the

desires to
the

and reminded needs of

in the economy

of

the soul.

the

desires

are specific and

particularities.

limited,

spiritedness

itself

altogether

transcend these

dead bodies is does

Reason

now used

can and able.

oppose

the

by Socrates to prove bodily desires in the name

The story of Leontius and to Glaucon that spiritedness

must navigate a course

ends.

supply reason with the strength and Once reason and spiritedness

of something more honor for spiritedness, just as spiritedness should the integrity that it needs to attain its proper

are reconciled on

these reasonable and

hon

orable

ing

of

terms, it then becomes possible to arrive at a more adequate understand what is meant by one's proper business. A man's first and most proper

business is the ordering and continual governance of his soul, and sophrosune must precede politics just as self-respect should precede civic friendship. This
was

the lesson that Socrates unsuccessfully attempted to administer to Glau

con's uncles

in the Charmides. The Republic is

of

a great advance on

the earlier

dialogue because
emphasis

its far

greater reliance on action and poetic

imagery. This
philoso

is

used

in the

remainder of

the

work

to

introduce Glaucon to

him how much more he needs to learn about both city and soul. phy While Glaucon has already received the information necessary to repudiate the
and show unjust

life, Socrates
will.

will

help

him to translate these insights

and choose

over

to the city, so

that Glaucon may reject oligarchic politics

and

justice

of

his

own

free

informed

As
high

we enter

artifice

is heightened

that since
plete the

we

Book V the absurdity of returning to a natural state by means of by Plato's use of Aristophanic devices. We are told have completed the male drama we must now go back and com

female (451c).

Comedy

and

ridicule

which

had hitherto been

arguments

excluded

from the city now re-enter the city itself has been a

and reveal

precisely why they had been excluded:

Socrates' Aristophanes'

poetic

creation.

community
nism.9

of women are

lifted

directly

out of

in favour of late play Eccleof

siazusae, where the heroine discusses

Aristophanes'

at great

length the advantages

commu
are

last

utopia also provides

for statutory matings, which

Deceit, Desire,
controlled

and the

Dialectic

323
of

by

the

leading

stateswoman

to her own satisfaction. Instead

we observe

the

three waves of ridicule

aged

which

drown the just city,

than the
man. one

instead three
sexual
on

hags,

each older and uglier

congress with a reluctant grounds

who are

young

preceding her, demanding When he refuses the first woman

the

that she is old enough to be his mother, she is joined

by

the two others

presumably too old to have been his mother. This play, which would presumably have been known to the readers of the Republic since it came out
about

ten years after the death of

Socrates,

serves to remind erotic

like Glaucon that pecking

order of

dirty

old men would

city.

the just

best positions occupy When Machiavelli said that Fortuna

the
men

young men in the sexual

was

woman who was most attracted

to virile young

(The Prince, Book

XXV),
blunt

he failed to

mention

that she was actually a

hideous

old crone who would

the erotic urges of even the most shameless and power-hungry youth.
method of argumentation seems to velli's
on

Socrates'

be

an anticipation and refutation of erotic

Machia

temptation; it is

Socrates'

intention to deflate Glaucon's

unattractive and

designs
task it

the

body
be.

politic

by

showing him how

waves of

draining

would

Even

after the

first two

city, Glaucon

still

desires to

bring

absurdity have come crashing down on his it into existence. Brushing aside all other how this
regime could

considerations, he earnestly

asks whether and

be

set up.

Socrates

warns

that he created a city in speech to

and

display

the political conse

on whether

quences of

justice

injustice; he did
must

not

intend to dwell
his famous
to
cure

this city

should come

into being. Socrates then philosophy

be

makes

statement that since

political power and

combined
made

the ills

of cities and

souls, any

separation of

the two should be

could

impossible.

Only
off

the combina
out of

tion of philosophy and

of nature and

kingship
This

bring

the regime

they had discussed

into the

sun.

remark makes explain

Glaucon tear
or suffer

his clothing

justice
(474a).

and

demand that Socrates

himself

the consequences

Socrates clearly phy

without

adequate philosophical

merely want he saying that philosophy is essentially

combination of politics and

to deter Glaucon from venturing into politics without training, but we must also ask why he feels that philoso political expression is worthy of active discouragement. Does he the philosopher to return to the cave for the good of the city, or is
means concerned with political matters?

Is the
or

both? Is
the

political

philosophy for the sake of politics, philosophy, philosophy merely a feigned interest in political matters

so of

that a philosopher can go about his own

philosopher?

business,

or

is it the

proper

business

tes'

only be answered after we see how Socra own life measures up to this standard. Although Socrates was certainly not politician in any sense of the term, neither does his life resemble that of a These
questions can

conventional philosopher concerned with ontological concerns removed

from

the sphere things

and

of

everyday

affairs.

He

situated

their real multiplicity, and

himself between the ideal unity of demanded that each should be made

324

Interpretation
to the other. This position is closely
connected

accountable

to his

contention

that the best life cannot be led in isolation from the city (497 a). Socrates is trying to teach Glaucon that philosophy is necessary for the

well-

being

of

the city because only the philosopher is

and souls

able

to

reorient and reconcile

respectively.

the many desires

that comprise a
or

losopher is

not a

demagogue

city oligarch, studying desire many

. . .

soul or

The

phi

with

the sophist

in

order to manipulate the opinions of the

or the moneyed;

he is

taste every kind of

with

learning

with gusto

approaches means

every kind

"willing to of learning
does
not

delight

and

is

insatiable"

(475c). This

that a philosopher

seek to

them

destroy opinions and desires in the name of truth; his task is to reconcile by revealing the truth animating their spiritedness. We cannot remain
shadowy opinions and believe that truth is no more than battle between blind and insecure factions as to whose perceived
of

trapped at the level

the victor in a

advantage should give order to society.

mies of

the polis and

polis.

stroy their
of

In this unhappy situation only the ene like Thrasymachus profit, while the citizens de Glaucon must learn not to mistake a thoroughly coerced state
panders what

artificially uniform opinion for Before Glaucon can be made

is just

and true.

fully

aware of the need

for philosophy to

liberate the city from the tyranny of opinion, Socrates responds to a challenge from Adeimantus, who claims that while most persons who persist in philoso phy beyond their youth (shades of Callicles) often become either strange or
vicious,
sponds out even

the best cases are completely useless to the city.

with

Socrates

re

to this slander

his

celebrated
useless

image

of

the

ship

of

state, pointing

that the

philosopher

is found

because the

advice of

the true naviga

prefer

tor will never be heeded

and

by

the mutinous crew of the ship:

they

drinking

feasting

to the serious work of

image
us

also carries with

steering the ship to its proper port. The ship it overtones of Athenian naval democracy and readies

shortly ensue. Socrates warns us that the best natures are always led astray in their youth, since the very talents of such a soul, not properly attended to, can breed disaster:
shipwreck that will

for the

What do
if he

you suppose such a

young

man will

do in

such

circumstances, especially
and

chances to
and

be from

big

city, is

rich and noble

in it,

is, further,
. . .

good

looking
to the

tall? Won't he be overflowing with unbounded hope, be competent to mind the business of both Greeks and barbarians

believing
exalt

he

will

himself

heights, mindlessly full

of pretension and

empty

conceit?

(494c-d)

While this
con and

remark reminds us of uncle

Alcibiades, Socrates is

also

his

thinking

of

Glau

Charmides:
gently to
approach the

If

someone was

young

man

in this

condition and

tell

him the
not to

truth

that he has no

intelligence in him
slaving for its

although

he

needs

it,

and

that

it's

be

acquired except

by

acquisition

do

you think

it

will

be easv for

him to hear? (494d)

Deceit, Desire,
This
provides

and

the Dialectic

325

further

confirmation

that

Socrates'

is different from the direct

mides. with

and unsuccessful
what

strategy towards Glaucon approach followed in the Char

Instead

of

denying
of

Glaucon

sovereignty

over a state so

that Glaucon

he desires, Socrates has presented him will see for himself that slavishly
preferable can

following
of

the life

the

landless Socrates is

to

being

prince over all

the dead. This is a choice that only Glaucon

refine and educate

make,

and we

have

seen

Socrates

his understanding

of what

it

means.

Adeimantus
of of

complained argument a argument

that

Socrates'

method was to
so

little

at a

time

continually shift the ground "when the littles are collected at the end

the the

the slip turns out to be great and contrary to the first (487b). This is precisely what happens here. The nature of the philosopher is
such that

assertions"

it is in love

with

the truth (485b). Such a

"just"

man will not

tolerate the
yet

elaborate edifice of philosopher who

lies that the

supposed

city is found to
savior and

consist
of

of;

it is this
This

is

to be the

king

this

regime.

crowning absurdity is surely intended to shift Glaucon's attention from city to soul, so that he may finally see what ambition had made him blind to and
renounce

his Aristophantasy.
account of warned

Socrates is now ready to render an is translated into truth. He has already

aration

the process

by

which opinion proper of

Adeimantus that the

tested

for philosophy

pleasures of the sort

many that he has described

entails

years of

being

by

images

prep fears and

over

the course of their discussion.

As

consequence, he is

hardly

in

a position

to offer Glaucon anything more

than a very tentative

representation of

this

process after

only

few hours
the

of

discussion: "I only wish that I itself and not just the interest
.

were able
. .

to pay and you

were able

to receive it
good

receive this

interest

and the child of

itself

...

be

careful also

that I do not in some way unwillingly deceive

Aristophanes'

you"

(507a).

This language

harkens back to

charge about

repaying debts

mentioned earlier.

everything.

The Good is "what every soul pursues and for the sake of which it does The soul divines that it is something but is at a loss about it and
to get a sufficient grasp of just
what

unable

it

is"

(505e). The

strife

between

desire is only resolved through an awareness of the Good, since the disagreement is over what is best and most pleasurable for man. This is tied to
reason and

the celebrated Socratic dictum that

context of
not

man will

only do

evil out of

ignorance. The

the Republic

makes

this statement clearer. Knowledge of the

Good is

abstractly imposed by another; it is only gained when both reason and the desires are made personally aware of the efficacy and sovereignty of the Good. Socrates uses naturalistic imagery to describe the Good because he wants to
use

the contrast between the

promise

natural and

the artificial to support his claim that

the tyrant's to

to

restore a state of nature

is

thoroughly

unnatural effort

create an artificial and unjust state.

As the

sun

is the

principle of order and

growth

and

in nature, the Good is the source and aspiration of all human actions desires; as the light of the sun conveys the nurturing power of life to

326

Interpretation
so

nature,

too does eros mediate between humans the Piraeus from

which eros

and

the Good. The

nocturnal

conversation at

has been
of

ejected mirrors a parallel

situation

to the cave, which excludes the

considered

light

the

sun

in favor

of artificial

light that is

less dangerous. The be

power of vision

functions through
eros

light, just
sunlight

as spiritedness can

nurtured and elevated

what

by

beyond blind
the

tragedy. While Socrates does not disclose

the intellectual

equivalent of

is,

the

structure of

this dialogue and

works such as

the Phaedrus and

Symposium strongly suggest that it is eros. The model of the divided line is now used to
of

provide

the broadest

depiction
paralleled

the terrain

and scope of

knowledge that is

provided

in the Republic. The

the

proportion

that reality bears to that intellection

illusion

at

the lower half

of

line is
and

by

the

relation

has to thought in the

be assessed,

upper

half,
as

the original

division between the

sure

visible and

the transcendental. Just

we must means

by

which appearances should

reality is the mea similarly allow light to

can

be

shed on empirical

reality

by

the ideas. This the

that the city of swine,

which

became
in

untenable through

proliferation of

desire,

be

ordered

in

nonreductive stands

way

by

the education of desire through the ideas. This procedure

stark contrast

to the polis of

Glaucon,

where

deceit

and

illusions

were

offered as

the solution.
extent

The full
polis

to which deception defines and pervades the

is

revealed when

grotesque and

Socrates describes the cave, which completely inverted representation of the divided line. Instead
the sun, we discover the

seemingly just turns out to be a

of

fire and, lastly, and with considerable effort, the wholly invisible Tyrant. Once the Tyrant is seen, it must be con cluded that he is the cause of all that is wrong and unjust in the cave. Just as
the Good
and

the

divided line has

accommodated

both

pure and applied

pure

thought, the

cave

has

provision
pher

for the Tyrant

practical

and

his Auxiliaries. The

thought of the philoso

and enlighten

issue in working hypotheses which the polis uses to educate desire; this procedure is imitated by the Tyrant, who gives his
modes and orders

Auxiliaries the desires

prisoners'

as well as

their own.

necessary to Instead of artisans

unaware of

suppress
who

totally

the

trust in

natural and

reality,

we

encounter prisoners who are

cal conditions

totally they live in. Consequently,

and

both themselves

the physi

there is an inversion

of

the respective

domains
versa.

of

illusion

nature,

so

Although the

cave

image is,

that appearance passes for reality and vice at the most superficial level, a criticism of
prisoner

poets and

democracy,

the very fact that the escaped

has to

accustom

himself to

view shadows and reflections outside the cave proves that

he has
must

previously been

conditioned to view

something

even more

delusory. We

remember that the proportion of appearance to

reality is

repeated over at

least

three points along the divided line. Transcendental reality cannot be reduced to naturalistic terms; this is precisely why Socratic philosophy rejects the comic
solutions of

Aristophanes

The

cave

and the Oligarchs. image strikingly depicts the contrast between education

and

co-

Deceit, Desire,
erced of

and

the

Dialectic
just

327

habit. The

cardinal error

is in assuming that the

represent

cave and the

regime and

Glaucon

are not a

identical but
the
work:

the respective extremes

of

reality

ideality. Such
out of

distorted
of

view of

the Republic is

inevitable if Book VII is torn

the unity

construction
and

that demands the

educated

most careful and

any Platonic dialogue is an exquisitely subtle imaginative attention to context

not

detail. The

Guardian's task is

to lead his subjects out of the

cave

but to

preside over what even

affairs.

This is the
the interests

clearest proof that

reductio ad absurdum of an

a very unsatisfactory state of Glaucon's city is not the just polis but a inadequate and inequitable view of justice that only
party.

he finds to be

serves

of an

invisible fourth
was

It is

significant

that the

ring

of

Gyges, in Glaucon's

story,

found in
of

khasma
a

or cave serf

beneath

the ground,

by

his ancestor,

Theteuonta

king's flocks.

Gyges'

forebear

king literally had

the

hired

entrusted with

the

to choose

between
who

being
truly

hired

serf-glorified sheepdog-just guardian or an

and ruled over

invisible

king

exploited

his potentially dead herd.

we are again reminded

Returning
coercion and not

to the cave,

that the real problem with

whole

is its

inability

to

bring
must

true

knowledge;
direction

this is because the

soul,

merely the mind,

be

prepared to apprehend
without

truth. The prisoner's

head

cannot

be turned in the

proper

his

body being

released

from bondage. Neither

education

can we

transfer knowledge

via coercion or

habit:

is

not what the professions of certain men assert

assert
.

it to be.

They
. . .

presumably instrument
ligh*

that
. .

they

put

into the

soul

knowledge that isn't in it

is in the
soul

but the

present argument

indicates that learns

this power

of

each and

that the

with which one without

just

as the eye
must

is

not able

to turn toward the

around

from the dark

the whole

body

be turned

from that

which

is coming into
at that which

being
is
.

together with the whole soul until it is able to endure there would therefore
sight nor
.

looking
soul

be

an art of art

this

turning

the

around, not

an art of not

producing

in it. Rather, this

takes as given that

sight

is there, but
education

rightly turned
understood

looking

at one ought

to look at.

(518b-d)
perhaps

Once in the

is

in this manner,

and never

(except

Gorgias) is Socrates more serious, a most glaring light is shed on the injustice and inadequacy of the city that Glaucon required of Socrates. The
draconian
with essence of this polis
given

the cave is

further

support.

is revealed, It is

and our

identification
that

of

this regime

now revealed

even

the philoso

in the cave; this is surely no mystery. As we have observed earlier, the idea of a lover of truth devoting his life to propagat ing falsity is not the least of the many absurdities testing the credulity of the
pher must

be

coerced

to remain

literal in
that

reader of

the Republic. Instead

of

the philosopher employing his talents

leading

men out of

the cave (it cannot be overemphasized that Plato

holds

all souls possess this

capacity for education), the just

regime

"produces

such men

but in

order

in the city not in order to let them turn whichever way each wants, that it may use them in binding the city (520a). Such a
together"

328
city, that

Interpretation
where all an abstract

three of its classes are denied the

pursuit of

happiness in order

be satisfied, most conclusively dem onstrates the absurdity of reductively defining justice as the suppression of eros. The practical question of who gains must be raised here; human nature

definition

of

justice

could

would not allow such a

desires
a wolf

of some

city to come into being unless it were conceived by the invisible party. Logic demands that we deduce the existence of
clothing
who uses

in

shepherd's

this definition

of

justice to

seek

his

own

advantage.

Resuming our examination of bewildering account given of the

actual camp.

Glaucon's education,
itself,"

we must see s preparation an

that the

philosopher-in

is

not an

but introduction to philosophy or "the song Such a pronounced emphasis on what is mechanistic
mental

intellectual boot is be

and cosmological

intended to instill

discipline from

and purge

the soul of sophistry and

of

relativ

ism; it is best
mistaken

understood

within

the context

the cave and cannot

studies extend

for the study of philosophy. Socrates never describes how these beyond the lower half of the divided line; his intention is to
with

impress Glaucon
sophical where

the exceptional amount

entails.

of

learning

that even this "philo

prolegomena"

This

was

the strategy followed in Xenophon's

concede

account,

Glaucon

was

forced to

that he lacked the logistical

knowledge
quite

required

to function

as an effective ruler.

Plato's Glaucon
power of

was

told

clearly, in

response

to his request for an account of the

to

dialectic,

that he

would not

be

able

follow Socrates

at

this point, though this

would not

be through any lack

an education could

of eagerness on
given

the part of Socrates himself (533a). Such

possessed of a great

only be

to someone already

deal

of practical experience and

knowledge.
to resume his discussion
of

Socrates is

now prepared

the disintegration of
show

the supposedly just city; his objective, all along, has been to

Glaucon
event of

how impossible the

all of

conservation of such a
genesis

city is,
of

even

in the unlikely

the prior conditions for its

being

met.

argument should

be based

on

the divided state

It is thus necessary that his his respondent's soul. Half of

Glaucon, his oligarchic side, is attracted to the material allure of the unjust life; the other half, his spirited side, is attracted to rulership and the prospect of the divisions that plagued Athens. resolving Accordingly, both practical and
moral arguments

have been
and

used

to show Glaucon that his desire for

will now

power

is

both impractical
within

immoral. Socrates

demonstrate how this division

Glaucon's soul will cause his city to degenerate with dramatic swiftness. Glaucon has already acknowledged that, through his discussion of philosophy, Socrates had indicated the existence of a still finer than that of the Guard city ians which was described prior to the three waves of absurdity (544a). All further discussions of virtue will be based on this philosophic regime rather
than the city ruled

by

the Guardians. It

his

advantage and uproot

for Socrates to drive home every propensity towards injustice that might still
now remains

remain

in Glaucon's

soul.

Deceit, Desire,
While it
was claimed

and

the Dialectic

329

that the fall

of

the seemingly just

regime was caused

by

the

failure

of

the

difficult to
and

comprehend the
still

eugenically jargon

maintained class structure of

this city, it is

that

Socrates

uses

to explain this process,

harder
or

to resist the inference that he does

more

not

intend to be
that will

compre

hended

taken seriously. It seems far

cal gibberish

is the language

of

the

appearance of motives.

likely learning
The truer

that this pseudo-mathemati

be

used

by

the Guardian class to conceal their true

eration of

reason

for the degen

This honor in this
some

this

polis

lies in the failure

the
artisans

of

the

Aristocracy

to resist the temptation

possessions. public

to

publicly

enslave

and

accumulate

material

temptation can
or

be

caused

by

either material greed or a

desire for
soul

satisfaction; it is

evident to

Adeimantus that Glaucon's

not

is

almost

situation: a

young Aristocrat is
moral

disposed to

sacrifice

his

relishes

for

theoretical
satisfaction

or prudential concern.
or

Since his

reason

will

discover little

in

following

maintaining
will

an abstract

idea

of

justice, his blinded

Thumos

and starved

desires

turn against

each other. evils

After

depicting

Glau his

con's soul as

it is, Socrates then describes the

and

to result if Glaucon and

city

were

to

progress without education.

Tyranny, desperate
sion.

shameless,

now

becomes the

main subject of

discus

Although
and

immoral it

have previously examined this life, and found it to be both impractical on account of the extreme and continual demands that
we who

makes on

him

leads

it, Socrates

will now go on

to show that even the

considerable and are

impressive

material advantages origins of

that accrue from such a

are examined and

life

inherently

undesirable. reason's

The

tyranny

found to be

the result of

failure to

bring
of

the desires into a harmonious relation.

This failure introduces

insecurity, faction,
the

selfishness,
poor and

and a struggle of

between

the wealthy and the many: "the city

the city

the

rich, dwell
a

ing
of

together in the same place, ever

perceived

other"

plotting

against each

(55 Id). As

result, justice is

in

adversarial and

the stronger. These conditions of ignorance and

arbitrary terms, despair

as set

the advantage

up

a vicious

dialectic between insecure anarchy and brutal authority that in the shameless violence of tyranny.
Socrates'

reaches a crescendo

discussion

of the

Tyrant is

consistent with

his fundamental
of the

posi are

tion that
similar

ignorance is the in his

cause of evil-doing.

The desires

Tyrant

to those roused
when

a man

lacking
and

himself,
food
and

reason

is asleep

his

healthy "beastly and

a
.
.

and moderate relation to

wild

part, gorged
go and

with

skittish and, pushing sleep away, seeks to satisfy its rid of all shame and It dares to do anything (571b-c). This "terrible, savage, and lawless form of desire is in every (572b). We have already seen Socrates observe that every soul can be en

drink, is
. .

dispositions.

prudence"

man"

lightened; if this
a tyrannical soul
and

capacity is is created

not

nurtured, many

unfortunate

things could ensue:

melancholy"

who sees through

becomes "drunken, erotic, (573c). Glaucon now readily agrees with Socrates that one the facade of pomp set up by the Tyrant would find him to be
when

this part of man

330

Interpretation

slavishly Tyrant is

dependent, exceptionally fearful,

not memorable

insatiable. poverty-ridden, and

claims

The
in

the omniscient and omnipotent Guardian he

to

be; he
are

is,

Churchill's

image,

fearful dictator

perched

precariously on an

angry and hungry tiger. Even the gaudiest pleasures of because they only give temporary respite from his infinite dulgences
make aside

his life

illusory,

neediness; these in

his desires
the

more

insatiable,
over

even as

they
we

are appeased.

Setting
superiority
cal result
order and

solid geometrical measures

that

were used

to calculate the

of

the Philosopher the

King

the tyrant,
we

may

arrive at an

identi
proper

by arranging finding each

of

various

lives that

have

reviewed

in their

deviation to be three times

unhappier

than the previous

of

term.

The life

the Philosopher

King

comes out

3 times happier than that

the privately soul, 9 times happier than the timocratic soul, 27 times happier than the oligarchic soul, 81 times happier than the democratic
philosophic

soul, 243 times happier than the tyrannic soul solus,

that most unfortunate of
when we arrange

and

729 times happier than be

obtained

brutes,

Tyrannus Rex. This

the cave

result can also

the

illusory

order of

below the

ratios of

ideality

to

reality (9), Opinion (27), Artisan

notes

which constitute

the divided line: Intellection

(1), Thought (3), Trust

that 729

also stands

(81), Auxiliary (243), Guardian (729). Allan Bloom for the number of days and nights that Philolaus, the

Pythagorean mathematician, calculated a year to consist of (The Republic of Plato, p. 470 n. 11). This means that Glaucon's short glorious night as a tyrant is 729 times less
ness all
pleasant

than the

truly

philosophic

life,

which

knows happi

the

year around. of

Book X brings this feast

considering the

Platonic poetry to
notorious

an appropriate conclusion

by

issues involved in the famous

that this

quarrel

between poetry

and phi

losophy. Although the Republic is is worthy

of mention

for its

work

has

also

hostility towards poetry, it historically been treated as an

especially dangerous work of poetry. Plato is viewed as the great educator and inciter of philosophical tyranny; his seductive virtuosity only makes him all the more dangerous. The careful reader is expected by Plato to see that the chief issue here concerns the proper relation of philosophy to poetry. They should be
related as reason to

souls, philosophy poetry from the tragedy of profligate and disorderly eros that, left unresolved, falls victim to tyranny. True poetry is "not only pleasant but bene ficial to regimes and human (607d); by this Plato does not mean sy to the status but cophancy quo, poetry which reminds the soul of its true regime and loves.
protects
life"

philosophy

needs to educate and

desire in that poetry provides inspire both cities

reason with

the eros

which

and

while

Returning
education.

to the context of

mimesis and the

Glaucon's education, the chief issue here is belief that imitation and habituation are the principal tools of
we saw

In the seemingly just city

that painting,

which

is

singled out

for
the

special criticism

here,

seemed to

be the

paradigm

for

statecraft:

in Book

fashioners

IV,
of

of

the city were painters who possessed the best

knowledge

Deceit, Desire,
what was appropriate
we are

and

the

Dialectic

33 1

for the
tablet

various parts of the city. and

Then

again of

in Book VI

told

of painters who were a

"take the city

. .

the dispositions
place

human being,
would wipe

as

though

they

which

in the first

they

clean"

(501a). This is

that

the just

regime could over

ten and

taking

very literally; at the end of Book VII we are told only be founded by exiling everyone over the age of their children (541a). This ex nihilo model of statecraft is
meant

totally inconsistent with the Platonic methods of erotic midwifery and recol lected discovery. A philosopher is not a creative artist; he better resembles an
art

historian
in the

and restorer who

lovingly
of

recovers and preserves what was present

in the first
as

place.

The image

case of
of

man, "we no

Glaucus is very suggestive here since, longer see his original nature because some of
the
sea off and

the old parts

his

body

have been broken

...

the

others

have been

ground

down
was

and

thoroughly

maimed we see

he

resembles such a

by

nature, so, too

the soul in
sotto

any beast rather than what he condition because of countless

suffered

evils"

(61 Id). One

could

observe,

voce, that the Republic has

the

same

fate.
must now restore

Glaucon
good

to

justice
among

what was gods and

reputation

that

it

enjoys

unjustly borrowed of it: the men (61 2d). This he does

readily, choosing the just soul

that

over

the unjust city.

and was

Then, instead
eventually

of

Glaucus

who

fed his

mares

human flesh

eaten

imitating by them,

he

emulates

the bronze of a

Glaucus the Lycian, who exchanged his gold guardian's armor for mere mortal (Iliad VI 234-36). Unlike Homer, who thought
we

him deranged,

join Socrates in applauding his

choice.

NOTES

1. For the Greek text

of the

Republic, I have

used

the Loeb

Edition,

trans. Paul

Shorey

(Cam

bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930). Allan Bloom's translation, The Republic of Plato (New York: Basic Books, 1968) is the source of all English quotations from the text. Translations
of all other and

dialogues

are

from the Bollingen Edition

trans.

Cairns (Princeton: Princeton

edition of

Loeb

Xenophon,

of the Collected Works of Plato, ed. Hamilton 1961). For the Memorabilia I have used the Press, University Marchant and Todd (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

1923).
2. Leo Strauss, "On Plato's Press 1964) p. 66. 3. Xenophon
violence"

Republic,"

in The

City

and

Man (Chicago:

University
palm

of

Chicago

says

that "Critias

in the days
of the

of the

Oligarchy

bore the

for

greed

and

(Memorabilia I.ii. 12). Book II

Aristophanes'

Hellenica describes the

conduct of

Critias

during

this period.
political philosophy see Stanley Rosen's explication of in the Symposium in Plato's Symposium, 2d Ed. (New Haven: Yale Univer makes some suggestive observations on the quarrel sity Press, 1987), pp. 120-57. Leo Strauss Socrates," in The Rebirth of Classical between Socrates and Aristophanes in "The Problem of

4. For

an account of speech

Aristophanes'

Political Rationalism, ed. Thomas Pangle (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1989). in Selected Works, trans. Grant (New York: Penguin 1960). 5. Cicero, "On Old 6. Lysias, a silent participant in this discussion, describes these events in his "Against Era
Age,"
tosthenes"

in Lysias, trans. W.R.M. Lamb, Loeb Classical

Library (Cambridge,

MA: Harvard

332

Interpretation
period see

University Press, 1960), pp. 22 1-77. For an excellent reconstruction of this tumultuous Peter Krentz's The Thirty at Athens (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press 1982).
vatism of

7. Leo Strauss splendidly sets up the opposition between the Socratic optimism and the conser Aristophanes and Nietzsche in his introduction to Socrates and Aristophanes (Chicago:
of

University
best

expressed

Chicago Press, 1966) pp. 3-8. Nietzsche's own criticisms of Socratic in The Birth of Tragedy, sections 11-16, and "The Problem of
views on

rationalism are

Socrates,"

in The

Twilight of the Idols. For Nietzsche's and Disadvantages of History for responsibility Science and section 57
of of

the primacy of life the lives

over

justice

see

"On the Uses

that
of

Life,"

in

Untimely
upon

Meditations. For the

of

claim

it is the
The

the strong to impose meaning

the weak see

Book III

Gay

The Antichrist.
Philebus
and

8. The Protagoras

and

give a

fuller

account of

this theme.
and

9. See Strauss, Socrates Rationalism, pp 125-26.

Aristophanes,

pp.

263-82,

The Rebirth of Classical Political

Reflections

on

Patriarchy
de

and

the Rebellion
and

of

Daughters

in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice

Olivia Delgado
Torres

Othello

St. John's College, Santa Fe

From Shakespeare's

examination of the republican experiment which

his

two Venetian plays, The Merchant of Venice and The Tragedie of

Othello, The
the rela

Moore of Venice, reveal, there emerges tions between fathers and daughters.

three-dimensional

portrait of

The setting
and

of the two plays

in

republican

Venice is
and

not accidental and

to the

character of the relationships

between Brabantio
century,
a

Desdemona it

Shylock

Jessica. Venice in the

on at

sixteenth

tolerant,

prosperous republic would

thriving
where,

its

worldwide

commerce,

gave promise that

not as white and

be

society
and

last,

"men

could

live

as

men,

black, Christians

foreigners."' Within this setting, at either end of the filial Jews, Venetians and spectrum, Shakespeare gives us Desdemona, who indirectly causes her father,

Brabantio,
both these

to lose his life and

Jessica,
his

who

directly

but

figuratively

causes

her
to

father to lose his life

extremes
more power

by losing

religion and

his fortune. The

alternative

in death than

is Portia, the center of the triptych, those father exercises ever Brabantio or Shylock in life. What survives
and causes

Portia's father's death

Both

him to be honored
of all

and

obeyed,

even

though

absent, is his wisdom, the true basis

title to

rule.

plays suggest that republican regimes

do

not

necessarily
public

guarantee

the

best,
while

most enlightened patriarchal

rule,

either at

the

or private

level,
public

The Merchant of Venice hints that, in the best world, rule in the sphere by an outstanding female is not only possible but beneficial.
I
propose

to examine the threefold father-daughter

relationships portrayed us about each

in

these two plays

by focusing
us

on what
with

Shakespeare tells

father

and

his daughter. Let

wayward

begin

Brabantio. Before

we meet

Desdemona,

the

daughter, Shakespeare introduces her father.

BRABANTIO AND DESDEMONA

Brabantio is
".

good,

solid

Venetian citizen; he is When he threatens to

a man of

property

and

importance in the
. .be

community.

punish

Rodorigo, he

says

sure

thee"

(I.i.113).2

my spirit and my place have in them power to make this bitter to He believes in the ordered and civilized way of life in the city

interpretation,

Spring 1994,

Vol. 21, No. 3

334
of

Interpretation
where such

Venice

things as robbery
extent.

do

not often

happen but if

they do, they

are punishable

to the law's full

no

Brabantio has
over

doubts
and

about

the superiority of Venetian ways and customs

what constitutes and well

foreign tastes

Brabantio's

virtue as a citizen.

beauty. This very conventionality is Because one's own is familiar

what

known,
the

it is usually identified with attraction to be the attraction

same.

is

good.

Brabantio
or

understands

all natural

of

like to like

between those

equal and

He is thus blind to the possibility of attraction between the unlike, or opposites, such as his daughter and the Moor. Such unions are unnatural and

Thus, the first word that opens the play is disparagement, pronounced by Rodorigo and designed to
unspeakable.

an

exclamation of

silence

Iago

as

he

speaks of and and

the Othello-Desdemona

marriage.3

For the

good

citizen,

as

Brabantio

Rodorigo are, the entire horizon of the universe is constituted by the city its values; only the conventional is natural, and therefore any rejection of it

must

be

caused

by

magic, something beyond

nature.

Unfortunately, Braban
susceptibility to Desdemona's flight, he
stuff of

tio's

republican

virtue

has

not cured

him

of

the

patriarch's

tyrannic impulse.
remarks

Thus,

when

he hears the

account of

that he has already

seen

it in his dreams: it is the

his

paternal

nightmares

(Li. 156).
a

Rodorigo,
responsible

former

suitor of

Desdemona,
a

for his daughter's "grosse

see

revolt"

why he should say such Brabantio believes it must be supernatural, it is hard to

pretty, young girl, from one of the best

suggests that Brabantio is partly (Li. 147). At this point, however, thing or to what he is referring.

and

he

reasons as

follows: Would

families, leave her

secure, affluent

home to risk

public

ridicule

she were under a spell or

marrying someone socially unacceptable, unless bewitched? Especially since this pretty, young girl had turned down the best that Venice had in Yet

by

was so opposed to marriage that she

to offer?

Brabantio certainly seems to have a sense should not have allowed him to down
all

point

common sense.

common

assume without question

that

turning

the spoiled,
opposed a

daughter
indicates

rich, young bloods of Venice necessarily meant his marriage because she preferred her father's house. Rather it
bored
with what

young

woman

her society
a

says

is best for her. Yet

the more Desdemona

"guardage"

refused

to marry, the longer she continued in her father's

term which refers to the law

(Brabantio
of

uses

the word, I.ii. 87)

the person, property (or both) of an infant, an idiot or other giving custody person legally incapable of managing his/her own affairs, (cf. OED, s.v. guard

ian, 2). The legal

mentally daughters
public court retarded. not

daughters was the same as for infants and the Because Brabantio does not see that it is possible for some to fit that legal category, he does not see that a young woman,
status of all
views
of

disdainful

of society's

the beautiful

and

noble,

will

not

only risk
even

disgrace

by choosing something

opposite to those views

but may

disgrace.

Reflections
There is
and a profound

on

Patriarchy

in Shakespeare
view of

-335

discrepancy

between Brabantio's

his daughter

her

self-description.
of

of one with

incapable

him,/
world.
4

the

My My

At her very first opportunity, she repudiates the status managing her own affairs: "That I love the Moore, to live downe-right violence, and storm of Fortunes,/ May trumpet to

heart's

subdu'd/
show of

(I. iii. 276).

promised

Although her

Even to the very quality of my independence may appear somewhat

Lord"

com

here, since defiance of her father is manifested as a heart subdued to her husband, it remains to be seen in light of her understanding of herself and Othello. Her father, on the other hand, describes her thus: "A Maiden, never
bold:/ Of Spirit (I.iii.113). Brabantio believes that
what so

still,

and

quiet, that her Motion/ Blush'd

at

her

selfe"

has happened to him has implications

state

for the
such men

rule of all

Venetian fathers but for the

passage other

itself,

Actions may have (I.ii. 120). In

be"

free,/ Bond-slaves, and words, Brabantio believes

effect of

not only he says, "For if Pagans shall our States as male

hyperagamy,

or

men
rule

marrying in the republic: free

profoundest

above their

station, has the

reversing the

proper order of

The

bond-slaves, Christians over pagans. disagreement between Brabantio and Desdemona, however,
gentlemen over

concerns what stolen

it

means

to be a daughter. Brabantio feels his daughter has been

from him, the way one's property is stolen. Othello has married his His daughter has been daughter, but Brabantio feels
"cheated."

"charmed"

away from him. As a matter of fact, that image of stolen property is used by Iago when he alerts the father: "Looke to your house, your daughter, and your Bags,/ Thieves, hold which he rules, is
Thieves"

(Li. 87). Desdemona, as part of Brabantio's house being.5 part of his In other words, Desdemona's being is
and

inherited from her father, and as part of his flesh sees her interests separate from his own.
Although
mention
we meet

blood, he

never

really
to

Shylock before

we meet

Jessica, he has

no occasion

Desdemona is the only daughter whom we get to know first through her father's and then her husband's description of her. In contrast

her,

and so

Brabantio's vision, Othello shows derring-do, in faroff, exotic places.

to

us a

young

woman

fascinated

by

tales of

in saying Brabantio is responsible for his daughter's escape in many ways, and, at least, in this one: he first introduces the Moor into his household. Like father, like daughter, he too enjoys hearing fantastic

Rodorigo is

correct

tales of distant lands. Othello

chores

says et

Desdemona

steals

away from her household

to listen to him (I. iii. 151

reared

seq.), making

us suspect

that,

unlike

Portia,

Desdemona, Othello,

by

her

very traditional
arts.

father,

excels more

in household

skills and religion than

in liberal
(I.iii.

On the

"free

speech"

of

187 89;III. iii.

more

ciated with

liberal

education.

Perhaps

other hand, she is, according to 212-15), a habit frequently asso to the point, however, daughters of over

doting

fathers

and wives confident of

their empire

their husbands are char

acteristically

outspoken.

336

Interpretation
stories

Othello's
were a man

have

a profound effect upon

Desdemona. She

wishes she

herself to

experience such adventures.

Next best to Desdemona's herself

would wish

impossible desire is to be loved hence her heart

subdued

by

a man such as she

service

to

be,
of

to Othello is in

to

a more

beautiful image
courage and

herself. Othello

comprehends

Desdemona loves him for his

he, in

turn, loves her for the pity his pains and labors stirred in her (I. iii. 190). The husband perceives the daughter's capacity for courage that the father does not
see

in his "Maiden Never

Bold."

At

last,
if

Desdemona

appears.

Her first

words

describe the daughter's

always a

state: a

divided
even

duty
she

(I.iii.205). Brabantio believes

a wife.

daughter is

daughter,
becomes

becomes

Hence, first

allegiance

is

always

to parent and
she

family. Desdemona disagrees; a daughter is a daughter first, until a wife, and then she is a daughter only secondarily. Brabantio is
wounded

shocked and

that his own daughter prefers and gives

own

precedence

to a nonrelative

over

her

flesh

and

blood. In his

dismay,

the legal fiction of generation

seems preferable to procreation,

precedence over
children

the love of

for if exogamy means that nonrelatives take one's own flesh and blood, then better to adopt
paternal nest

than to beget them naturally (I. iii. 2 17).

Desdemona's flight from the

proximate against

is her

her impossible

wish.

By

going

with

golden opportunity to ap Othello to Cyprus to wage war

the

Turks,

she can experience all

the

adventures of men while remain

ing

a woman. remain

She tells the Duke that behind

as

she would rather

Peace"

than to
rodite's
mation

"The Moth War.

of

accompany her husband (I. iii. 284). Her voyage to Aph

the occasion

island into
a

affords the
of

"Maiden Never

Bold"

for her transfor

Butterfly

Brabantio's last words, "Looke to her Moore, if thou hast eyes to see;/ She (I. iii. 323), may imply a similarity has deceived her Father, and may between the relationships of father and daughter and of husband and wife. Does
Thee"

daughter bold

enough all

to

defy

her father indicate begin life

as

a wife capable of

betraying

her husband? Do
mean

faithful

wives

dutiful daughters? Or does he

that craft and guile, once employed, become a way of life? In warning Othello against his daughter's capacity for deception, Brabantio, if he is reasoning from his own experience, does not have in mind the adul terous

innuendo Iago
to be

supplies when of guile a

he

reminds

Othello

of the

father's

words

(III. iii. 236 ff.). The kind

appears
what she

daughter

practices on a

father,

when she

same she would practice same

is not, the better to get what she wants, may be the on a husband, but not for the same reasons nor for the
or

goal, except insofar as father

husband

assume

the

tyrant.6

Othello But

forgets Desdemona's

duplicity

was

for his

sake and at

her father's

expense.

Brabantio's words, spoken in the tyrant, "I am glad at soule, I have

me

spirit of no other

the jealous patriarch and

domestic

Tirranie/ To

hang

them,"

clogges on

Child,/ For thy (I. iii. 222-24) find

escape would teach

echo

in the heart

of

Othello, for

much

the same spirit.

Reflections

on

Patriarchy

in Shakespeare

337

More than her capacity for guile, Desdemona's downfall springs from two aspects of her character, her delight in listening to fantastic tales and her ten

dency
seems

toward superstition. "The

Lady

Superstitious,"

as

Shaftesbury

calls

her,

indicated in the etymology of her name, "fearful of demons."7 She lies once, perhaps twice, but only once to Othello, on the occasion of the com pletely fantastical, portentous tale he invents about the handkerchief he has
given
her.8

Given to his
and

mother

by

an

Egyptian

mind-reader

to

ensure

his fa hearts
so,

ther's

love

fidelity, it
swears

was, he says,

woven

by

a two-hundred-year-old
virgins'

Sybil from

sacred silkworms and

dyed in mummy juice from

(Ill.iv. 69 ff.). He

that if she loses

it,

terrible things

will

happen,

and

instead hint
read as

confessing she has lost it, she lies. It is her undoing because on the lost kerchief Iago builds his case against her. What frightens her is the tale's
of of evil omen

the cause of

(Ill.iv. 92, 1 17), which actually comes about by her failure to the tale's invention separately from its image. The image is:
ensured

the handkerchief
so

the love and

fidelity

of

Othello's father for his

mother, loss, fears, may jeopardize Othello's love and fidelity for her. But the truth is, in inventing the tale, Othello shows his mind's reflection:
she

its

the fear that the lost kerchief signals Desdemona's lost

fidelity

and

love for

him.

Shaftesbury
certain

remarks:

'Tis

there is a very great affinity between the passion of

superstition and

that of tales. The love of strange narrations, and the ardent appetite towards
unnatural

objects, has

a near alliance with the

like

appetite toward the supernatural

kind,
every
dire

such as are call'd prodigious and of

dire

omen. or

For

so

the mind forebodes on

such unusual sight or and as

hearing. Fate, destiny,

the anger of heaven seems

denoted,

if it

were

delineated, by

the monstrous

birth,

the horrid

fact,

the

For this reason, the very persons of such relators or taletellers, with a small help of dismal habit, suitable countenance and tone, become sacred and tremendous in the eyes of mortals, who are thus addicted from their youth. Tender
event.

virgins,

losing

their natural softness, assume this tragic passion, of which

when a suitable

they

are

highly

susceptible, especially
narrator.

kind

of eloquence and action attends are then

the character of the

A thousand Desdemonas
resign

ready to

present

themselves and would

frankly

fathers,
of the

relations, countrymen and country

tribe.9

itself to follow the fortunes

of a

hero

black

The
that

passion of superstition and that of tales

spring from the

same root:

the

irresistible desire for knowledge. Desdemona is

will not of

such a manifestation and one

be

put off

by

mere appearance.

Indeed,

tender young virgins, the

innocents
recognize,

experience, are
that

all appetite

for knowledge.
also present

Shaftesbury

seems

to

however,

spiritedness

is

in Desdemona's behavior is
simultaneous with a

because
loss
of

the

moment of seizure

by

the "tragic

passion"

the

softness characteristic of virgins. mere

How

else

to explain

Desdemona's
to marry
Degree"

disdain for

body,

a certain toughness that allows

opposite

her to

consent and

someone so

(III.iii.271)

completely and disposes her to

to her own
go

"Clime, Complexion

to war? In short, Desdemona's appetite

for

338

Interpretation
value the goods of the soul above those of the

knowledge inclines her to

and so she

body,

declares that
passion she

she saw

Othello's true face in his

mind

(I. iii. 280).

Desdemona's
and

the unknowable;

for tall tales bespeaks her curiosity for the unknown is ever alert for signs by which the divine might signal
perfect

its
too

presence

(IV. iii. 63-64). The

little,
in

Desdemona

expects rather

too

foil for Iago, the atheist, who expects much from the divine. Pious instruc
on

tion as to the mercy and power of

ground such a

heaven to do the impossible falls

fertile

the

impossible,

Desdemona is willing to believe the monstrous, the contradictory is the divine most manifest. Cassio admiringly
nature,
and so

testifies that Desdemona's

beauty

shows

itself in just this way, for

Natures,"

at

her

pas go

sage, wind, sea, sand,

and rock omit

their "mortall

letting

her

safely by (Il.i. 79-85). She has the capacity to the lifeless. In

animate and make moral even

keeping

with

Desdemona do the Othello has

wishes:
mend"

miraculous

her faith in heaven's omnipotence, Shakespeare has by returning from the dead. She speaks after
and she

strangled

her,
,0

lies,

thus

"Heaven

me such uses send,/

Not

fulfilling another of her impossible to picke bad, from bad; but by bad,

(IV.iii.l 14-15).

SHYLOCK AND JESSICA

Jessica is Shylock's daughter and, as with Desdemona, we father. He enters intent upon his profession, as his first words

meet

first her
Both Braban

express."

Shylock
tio

extremely conventional, his Venetian citizen's view of the world, so Shylock by his strict interpretation of his religion. In both cases the result is a misperception of what, in the human sphere, is natural and artless and what is conventional and

and

Brabantio

are

each

in his

way: as

is bound

by

artful.

In assessing Antonio's wealth, Shylock

sailors

says that ships are

but

wooden

boards,

nothing but men against the perils of water, wind, and rocks, really two-legged water rats or water thieves, just as robbers are human land rats (I. iii. 22). But ships are not just boards but boards put together
and pirates are

by

the art of

boat-building,

and sailors are not

just

men

but

men skilled

in

maneuvering over water, wind, and rocks. Precisely on the degree exercised in each of these arts, excluding thievery, the money-lender's
is

of skill

jeopardy

inversely

proportional.

Or again, when Shylock justifies to Antonio his practice of taking interest on and illustrates his money lent out, he calls it rather understanding of it the Old Testament in which Jacob breeds Laban's by story sheep so as to exact usance from Laban's enjoyment of Jacob's service to him many (I. iii. 92). Shylock's choice of story to illustrate his point does two things.
"thrift"
years'

First,

since the
metal"

Christian

objection

to usury

was

that it

was

unatural

for "barren

to reproduce

itself, Shylock deliberately blurs

the

issue

by substituting

Reflections
sheep,
which

on

Patriarchy

in Shakespeare

339

reproduce themselves naturally, albeit adroitly manipulated by Jacob (Aristotle, Politics 1258a 37ff; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part II, 2d Part, Q. 78). The point, however, is that the same convention estab

do

lishing
Next,
Moses

money

as one

form
sight

of

wealth, may

also establish

sheep

as

another.

although at
says after

first
the

Jacob's

manipulation of

the ewes appears

fraudulent,
which

fact that God devised it. To

on whether

this

Old Testament tale,

appears

to equivocate
reacts

it is lawful to

seek recompense of

injury by

fraud, Antonio
can cite

indignantly
purpose

with

the Gospel observation that even the Devil

Scripture for his

matter of

In the

the contract that Shylock

when

(Genesis 30.25-43, 31.5-12 Matthew 4.6). concludes with Antonio, I think it

proposes

is clear, from Shylock,

collecting:

he first

it,

that he has no intention

of

"A

pound of mans

flesh taken from

a man,/

Is

not so

estimable,

profitable neither/

As fleshe

of

lock clearly sees that the meat because it is intended for human consumption, and for precisely that reason, human flesh has no market value. Rather, what is valuable is a human life, and

(I. iii. 170). Shy Muttons, Beefes, or of beef, sheep, and goats has its market value

Goates"

Shylock for
not

means

to

exacting the
of

have the haughty, Christian merchant forever indebted to him price of the bargain. What then changes Shylock into a
It is the loss
of

monster of revenge?

his daughter, his flesh

of

and

blood, his

stake

in the future The

his tribe. Shylock's understanding

one of respect

roots of
a

directs that

decent life is
also

for

and obedience to the

justice lie in his religion, which law. Respect

have/ With

for the law is

the foundation of the Venetian Republic: "The Duke cannot

deny

the

course of

law:/ For the

commoditie that strangers

us

in

Venice, if it be denied,/ Will

out respect

much

impeach the justice

of all

of

the

State,/ Since that

the trade and profit of the city/ Consisteth

Nations"

(III. iii. 3 1-36). With

internal

and

for the law governing the republic's commercial relations, both external, Venice could not be the model for the modern political
which

experiment,

is to

overcome religious and sectarian

differences among
passion, namely
and republican

human beings
the desire for

by directing
profit.

their attention to another

powerful

Venice is accordingly bourgeois, tolerant,

(Bloom,
he

p.

16).
central

As the law is
compromises

to Shylock's character, his undoing is signalled

when

his

principles:

"I

will

buy

with you,/ sell with

you, talke

with

you,

walke and so
you"

following/ but I

will not eat with

consents

you, drinke with you nor

pray

with

(I. iii. 33-39). When he

punishment of occurs at

to

eat and

drink
with

with

his Chris far be

the

tian clients, can the

being

forced to pray

them be

hind? Jessica's flight

the same time Shylock

is

feasting

with

Christians. The simultaneity of events only reinforces his suspicion that all of Christian Venice, with its masques and revels, was privy and conspired to
seduce

Jessica away from her father's

sober religion

(II. v. 30). Although An

tonio is

a sad and mournful exponent of

his

religion

(I.i.5-11, 86-88), Jessica

finds the Christians gay (Exodus 34.14-16).

340

Interpretation

As Brabantio believed that his private grief affected the state, so too Shylock in his demand for justice. Both grievances concern, at bottom, rebellious daughters and the republic's ability to preserve its interests and honor its most

fundamental laws. As befits

comedy, the issue turns

case of

more upon

money,
of

con

tracts,

and positive

law in the

Father Shylock than in that

rank and

Father in the

Brabantio,
republic.

who appeals

to some natural order of

title to

rule

Shylock Shylock

and

Brabantio

are

similar

fathers in

at
of

least two

other respects.
mind as

suffers

from the

same

lack

of

knowledge

his daughter's true

Brabantio. He
"unthrifty,"

shudders

to leave his house

guarded

by

a servant

he believes is

suspecting his spendthrift daughter (I. iii. 180, II. iii. 5). Sec suffer the fear characteristic of patriarchs: dreams of evil both fathers ondly, premonition about their possessions being stolen, one his daughter, the other
never

his money bags (II. v. 19). Of the two, only one might be qualified but the culprit is Jessica, the daughter. Both fathers see their
riage choices as
own

as a

theft,
mar

daughters'

betrayals

of

the household. Shylock says

incredulously, "My
calls

flesh

and

blood to

rebell"

(III. i. 32),

while

Brabantio

it "a treason

of

the

blood"

(Li. 185).

Nowhere in the play does Jessica show herself fearful of the retribution of heaven for her deeds. She first appears in the company of the clown, under scoring what her first words convey, that she finds her father's house a hell: the
serious

business

of

religion are at war with

making money is dull, boring stuff; his thrifty ways, his her passion for her Christian suitor (Il.iii.l, 20-22).
to go to another

When the father is

servant quits so

household,

she overtips

him. As the

frugal,

the daughter is lavish.

of

Where Desdemona dreams

being

a man of adventure

like

Othello, Jessica

dresses up like one in order to elope. Of all the daughters, Jessica is the most rebellious. Desdemona is innocent, and she dies despite her innocence. Pre
cisely for this reason,
we are spared

duplicity, sneaking
ringside
and,
seat as she not content

out of

any scenes or details her father's house. Not so

of

her

one clear act of

our

Jess. We have

cleverly engineers her escape, just to leave him, she robs him

blatantly
as she

lies to her father

goes,

dry

eyed and

remorseless

(II. v. 48, 60).

natural

Indeed, Jessica is

such a portrait of unfilial

certain

devotion
that she

that some commentators have thought to interpret

lines to is
not

mean

is

not

Shylock's

daughter,

and

therefore

she

(II. iii. 12-13, III.v.5 ff.). The

the case of

commentators thus seem

really Jewish to think that, at least in

or approximates
race.'2

Judaism,

religion comes through

the blood

Jessica's description

of herself denies this, however; she says she is ashamed to be her father's child, for although she is daughter to his blood, she is not to his manners (II. iii. 16). But perhaps Jessica is more her father's daughter than she

realizes.

First, does
action?

she really If both law and

rob

her father

or

merely

appropriate

her

being by

direct

custom consider that a

daughter is

part of

her father's

Reflections
property, is it possible for the
part

on

Patriarchy
as

in Shakespeare
which

341

to steal from that of

it is

a part?

Only

if the
part,

part

takes

more

than its share. But

would

be

entitled to the whole at

Shylock's only heir, Jessica, the his death. Is the money she takes the
way
open

equivalent of
never

her dowry? Is there

consent to

another

to her? Shylock would

and

willingly

her

marriage

to a

Christian,

the republic seems

to encourage even young women to a love of

money,

Cyprus
might open

by the very real question of where she live if she remained behind. Her father's house was no longer suitably to her, nor did she want to return to it. Sufficient finances, had she had
appears
extent

Jessica is nothing if not dictated to some

practical.

In taking the In contrast, Desdemona's flight to

self-governance.

them,
is. It

would

have

eliminated

the

problem.

Jessica has
can

seen

her father's thrifty ways;

enjoyment

she

buy

pleasures,

and,

most of

knows how important money all, freedom from her father's

to money is
matched

house (II.vi.40). Shylock's

daughter. She
she goes not

excessive

attention
of

in his

only takes the chest

time to
word on

jewels
herself

and

money,

back
a

"guild"

a second

with

"more

ducats"

fortune in itself, (II.vi.5).

Jessica's
no part

Gratiano, in
worthy
of

play

the

"gentle,"

finds this

gesture on

of

the

liberality
at

of a well-born

Gentile (II.vi.58). There is

doubt
a

there is something shocking in Jessica's

behavior, resembling

as

it does

kind

father-beating
The
effect

the hands of the daughter. As the

reflection of

her father's

extreme passion
ugly.

and

is to

soften

his punishment, Jessica, the miser's daughter, appears Shylock's portrait and call forth sympathy for him.

PORTIA

daughters, because her father is dead, we do not first paternal intermediary. Rather, her portrait is first sketched for us by Bassanio, a suitor, and he begins with what is important to him in his speech to Antonio: "In Belmont, a lady richly (Li. 171 ff.). Portia is a rich heiress, and that is how Shakespeare designates her in the cast of characters. Her wealth is important, simply, and it is important to Bassanio,
other

Unlike the

two

meet

Portia through

left"

in particular, because he is seriously in debt

virtue,"

and

is attempting to recoup his

fortunes. After her money, Bassanio mentions her beauty and last, her "wondrous which are, he says, even fairer than her looks. He compares
her to the
staunch
other

famous Portia, the daughter

of

Cato

and wife of

Brutus,

two

Roman Republicans. complaining of how has no reason to

Immediately after this, we meet Portia herself. She is boring life is. Her lady-in-waiting, Nerissa, tells her that
complain

she

because

she

has

more good

luck than

bad,

which

is

a mean

between
phrases

the

extremes of all no small

it, "it is

misery happiness therefore to be

and superabundance

(I.ii. 2 ff). As Nerissa

seated

in the

meane"

(Aristotle,
wisdom of

Nicomachean Ethics Il.vi-ix).

Portia,

while

acknowledging the

342

Interpretation
with

Nerissa's maxim, remains dissatisfied wisdom is better than "well

what can neat

the

world.

Nerissa

reminds

her that

pronounced"

if "well

followed."

Portia

replies with

only be logical
to

package.13

good

doe,

very sophisticated, philosophical point in a She says, "If to doe were as easie as to know what were Chappels had beene Churches, and poore/ mens cottages Princes
characterized as a

Pallaces
tween act and

(I.ii. 13-15). In her "it is

other

words,

she points

to the

discrepancy
her
owne

be

intention, between theory

own: a good

and practice.

She

ends

argument

with a maxim of
tions."

Divine that/ followes his

instruc

More to the point, says Portia, than all this wise talk is the problem of getting the husband she wants. It is not that Portia believes theoretical wisdom

in practice, but the exercise of wisdom must be accompanied by the ability to choose. This Portia is prevented from doing by her father's will: "the wil of a living daughter curb'd by the will [testament] of a dead is
useless
father"

(I.ii. 24-25). Portia's father has devised

ensure a good

kind

of

lottery,

whose

aim

is to

husband

by eliminating

at

least two types

of men who make poor

husbands.
There Inside
are

three caskets or chests: one of gold, one of silver, and one of

lead.
that

one of the chests

is

a portrait of

Portia. The

suitor who chooses

casket gets

fortune, and the kingdom. Portia's father, just before his death, in a prophetic insight, has devised the test, and although Portia grouses a bit, she obeys because she is persuaded, at least thus far, since it has spared her from the Neapolitan prince, the Palatine count, the French lord, the English baron, and the German duke. All of these have defects. One loves wine
the girl, the
too much, the other
all

They
to

horses too much, one is too serious, the other too giddy. decide to leave because they do not want to play the game. Indeed, in defects
are plain

their cases, the test of the caskets is unnecessary; their

see.14

for

all

The

problem

that the caskets pose,

of

course, is to

reconcile

the exterior
reconcile

appearance with the treasure contained

inside, in

other

words, to

seeming

with

being

or

reality, a problem encountered previously in The Moore

virtue

of Venice. How does one distinguish Or how does one discern what kinds

of

from vice, masquerading as virtue? people have what kind of character?

wives are more precious gold

For example, husbands

perhaps

who swear

their

than gold

really desirability. This is the Prince

acceptance of conventional

want wives with

gold, because

is the

accepted measure of

of

Morocco,
and

one of

the suitors. He represents the

words are a reference

taste,
gold

that is why his first

complexion"

to

his

color:

"Mislike

me not

for my

(Il.i. 5).

Convention, too, is
for itself: "Who he de hasard

the reason he chooses the

chooseth

casket.

The

casket

speaks

me,

shall gain what men

desire."

The

silver casket reads: while the

"Who

chooseth

me, shall get as

much as

serves,"

lead

casket says:
of

"Who

chooseth me, must give and

all

he

hath."

The Prince

Aragon,

true to his national trait of excessive pride,

Reflections
assumes

on

Patriarchy

in Shakespeare

343

he is worthy and so chooses the silver casket to get what he deserves. Thus, as the notes in the respective chests reveal, one suitor is too young and hasty in judgement, accepting the convention for lack of sufficient pride and
confidence

in himself

traits

acquired

with

age

and

experience.

The

other

is older, wiser, and less subject to common opinion but because of that, he wants always to be in the right. His judgement is too slow, too deliberate,
suitor and

he

suffers

from the

pride which

fears to

make a mistake.

As these two extremes are dismissed, Bassanio, who has borrowed money from Shylock, through Antonio, the Merchant of Venice, in order to try his luck in winning Portia, arrives on the scene. Portia wants him to win and, good daughter that
the
she

is,

she abides

by

the test

of

the caskets, but she gives him all

help

short of

telling him
fair

the answer

outright.
true"

Bassanio

chooses

"not

view,

and so chances

and chooses

(III. 11. 138-39). Portia's

by the "very

likeness"

is in the lead

chest.

Portia

manages what none of

the other daughters

do;

she reconciles the compulsion of and also gets

duty

and

her
A

own sweet will; she obeys

remarkable

her father dom.

the husband she

wants.

display

of

free

But why Bassanio? It seems a bit difficult to understand Portia's taste for him. He is certainly not as outstanding or exceptional as Othello. He is, how
ever,
a

Venetian,
with a

scholar,

and a

soldier,

i.e.,

a man of a certain amount of

courage,

taste

for

matters of

money,

and although

learning (I.ii. 108). He is liberal, almost prodigal, in being lavish with money is not itself a virtue, it

is certainly closer to the virtue of generosity than stinginess. Bassanio also believes in the virtue of friendship, so although he is not perfect, he is intel

ligent,

able

to reason, and yet young enough in

body

and spirit to

be willing to

chance and gamble.

What jeopardizes Portia's

freedom, in fashioning her happiness, is An

religion seems

tonio's desire for martyrdom, a passion his

to

foster."

Portia is
run

determined
such a

not

to allow the

friendship

between Antonio

and

Bassanio to

course; moreover,

she says

that if there is

friendship

between the two,

against

there

must

be

a certain

likeness

of character.

Portia dresses up as chant of Venice. She

quibble

a man and overturns

judges the
on what

case of

Shylock
called

the Mer

it

may be

the merest verbal

(Furness, pp. 403-20). The contract that calls for one pound of human flesh does not include, strictly speaking, any blood. The quibble turns upon the
tension between equity
and

the strict letter of the law.

Sanctity
fundament

of contracts
of

may be the first law of all commercial relations and the the Venetian Republic, but more so is the presupposition underly
a nature capable of
and as

ing

all contracts:

guarantor of contracts,

such, is

not

promising itself into the future is the itself a legitimate object of

contract.16

mere money is one of the qualities that the two friends Bassanio Antonio share, and which also characterizes Portia. It is the concomitant to the principle that human excellence resides not simply in living but in living

Disdain for

and

344
nobly.

Interpretation

Presumably

this

principle prompts

Antonio to risk his life for

friend,

but Antonio notwithstanding,

would a
horsecart.17

one

may

not contract

to sell one's life as one

The

virtue of

the

contract

between Shylock It is

and

Antonio lies in its impos

a

sibility, the
valuable proposed

equivalent of a

hyperbolic denial that

human life is

no more

than that

of a two-legged rat. accepted

a wager that neither

believes

in,

by

one,

by

the other, in order to compel belief from either

If, when first proposed, the contract is not understood by both to be impossible, then the Jew is guilty of premeditated murder and the Christian of wanton suicide (Furness, pp. 295-96).
unbeliever.18

obstinate

There is

no

doubt that

having

the

advantage over

the merchant

is his

sweet

to

Shylock,

whose

dealings

with

Antonio heretofore

afforded

him

neither satisfac
need

tion nor revenge. But anger has overheated Shylock's reason. In

to

requite, he
enemy.

wants yet

And

his

his tears, his sighs, his ill luck answered in kind by his greatest power over the Christian lies not in its use to exact
and

payment, but in the free

serves

willing
act.

restraint of such exercise which

thus pre

the constant

potential

to

Mercy
potent

is

most appropriate will.

to gods, who, in

this way, show themselves

doubly

in their

As Shylock Portia
matches

refuses

to admit anything but the narrow reading of

his bond,

so of

him

with a quibble

which, in

demonstrating

the

impossibility

collecting the forfeiture, simultaneously reveals the absence of mercy as the presence of murderous intent, an intent earlier testified to Portia by Shylock's
own

daughter (III. ii. 30 1-5). It is for this that he is

are notable

punished.

At least two things

from this
who

event

in the in

play.

First, it is
and

female,
if
not

albeit

disguised

as a

male,

is

sucessful

interpreting

judging

a matter of

law. Since

we are not sure about as a man

Desdemona, Portia is

the second,

the

Further,
and

were

third, it

to disguise herself
not

to assume command of her life.

for Portia,
a

who

Jew

would an

have had

bloody

ending.

is neither, the conflict between Christian That is to say, the conflict would

have had law's

ending more disastrous than the end which disaster: Shylock is forced to convert, forced to recognise
claims upon

is,

without

doubt,

an unwanted

son-in-

his estate,

and

forced to lose half his fortune. It is beget them,

as

enough

to

make one adopt children rather than

Brabantio

recommended.

CONCLUSION

The double

portrait of republican

fathers
Portia

and and

daughters becomes
her dead

triptych

when set over against the

image

of

father,

and

yet,

as

Brabantio hinted, the three-panelled picture and dimension only when viewed against the While
not

appears

to take

on a certain

depth

relation of

daughters

and

husbands.

ignoring

the

they

transcend them. Othello

body's demands, Othello and Desdemona believe seconds Desdemona's pleas to accompany him to

Reflections

on

Patriarchy

in Shakespeare
But to be
to
see

345
and

Cyprus,
very

not

"to

please the pallate of

minde"

bounteous to her

my Appetite;/ (I. iii. 290 ff.). And yet neither

union of souls

...

free,

appears

how this
to

high-minded, body-disdaining

is peculiarly

vulnerable

the suspicion of gross sexual temptation. In soaring too quickly to the highest realm, they ignore the capacity of the lowest to pull them down by its sheer
weight.

This ignorance is

most patent

others'

rely barian in

must

on

willingness to recognize

in Othello. He who, in the Venetian Republic, that, although resembling a bar

yet

color and

mands, in an
seem

birth, his seeming is not the same as his being, access of childish innocence, that all others be exactly

de

as

they

(II. iii. 35 1-53). But it is the very nature of body to appear and to seem. When it comes to matters of love, Othello, the warrior, really would like to do

away with body. Desdemona's understanding of body is equally tinged with contradiction. The body in its vulgar manifestations and demands holds little sway over her, but when she says that she would never commit adultery for all the world, her

lofty

the world
absolute

disdain exaggerates, thereby making the body the most important thing in itself. Perhaps it is Desdemona's Christianity that inclines her to the
sanctity
of marital

fidelity.

Lacking

Emilia's

low,

common view of

the manmade laws regulating them, she is less equipped to in contrast to Emilia, whose vulgarity is in direct proportion to Othello, her ability to defend herself against male injustice."
such matters and counter

Desdemona believes the Moor, "true

ness,"

of

minde,
sun of

and made of no such

base

is incapable
as

of

jealousy

because the
skin

his birthplace has leached it is

from him

it burned into his

(Ill.iv. 29 ff).
possesses

without one's

consent, the good one

Jealousy is the fear that, being shared by another

of

(III. iii. 313-16). At the very

of

least, it

strikes

her

as a passion more characteristic

the

mean spirited

than of a man secure in the

fullness

his

worth.

Hence,

as of

Desdemona
the absence

it, Othello's blackness, far from being a defect, is the sign of defect, for the sun would not have inflicted such cauterization
reads

except

in

view of some good.

warrant

his

complexion

Desdemona believes Othello's nobility of soul is is not ugly. When first he proves unjust toward her

lost handkerchief, she is alarmed to find his true character and altered, that were it not for his countenance, she would no longer being know him. When the nobility of soul departs, only Othello's distinctive color

because

of a

so

remains to

testify he is
self and
with

the same.

The disproportion
of

shocks

Desdemona;
while

the

image
as

of

her lover is

a reflection

her ideal

hence

a reflection on

herself

the beloved. In attempting

experience of

to

keep

faith

that

image,

reconciling it to her

Othello's

injustice

over a small state

either some

matter

thing, she makes an odd comparison. She conjectures in Venice or unhatched plot made demonstrable in
clear spirit.

Cyprus has
as men

puddled

Othello's

do in politics,

hotly disputing

In this, she remarks, he is behaving petty, insignificant things, all the while

346

Interpretation
as

having

their

first intention

matters of great weight and

import.20

It is

falling
out

short of

the

mark

that she likens to

of

an experience of women

but

which

turns

to be the

inverse

the men's experience, "For

let

our

finger ake,

and

it

en

(Ill.iv. 168-70). healthfull members, even to a sense/ of In Desdemona's comparison, the women's experience more accurately reflects the healthy republic wherein an injury to one class is felt by the entire body

dues/

paine"

our other

politic,
great

while

the

great men of state come

to sight as myopic trivializers of the

into the

small.21

Desdemona has
who was not above after

low

opinion of men

in

politics.22

She

suspects

her

father,

making her elopement, may very well be responsible for Othello's dismissal from Cyprus and recall to Venice (IV. ii. 53-56). Accordingly, the behavior she can
not square with

a public

issue

of

his

private griefs as

he

attempted

The making

revelation a

big

Othello's heroic virtue, she attributes to politics. that men in politics behave like women with a finger ache, todo about nothing, leads Desdemona to reverse a belief she

presumably held heretofore and/or to enunciate a general directive for women, starting with Emilia and herself: "Nay, we must thinke men are not Gods,/ Nor
of them
all was

looke for
well

such observancie/

As fits the

Bridall"

(Ill.iv. 170-72). When

Warrior."

Now

she

between them, Othello called Desdemona his "faire taxes herself with being an "unhandsome because
Warrior"

she

has

unfairly indicted Othello for his unkindness: only gods are both strong and gentle. But precisely in that passion she thinks unworthy of him is Othello's
resemblance
ness

to the gods, for the divine is

which

most characterized

by

its unwilling
nothing
else.

to share,

is the

same as

its desire to be itself

politics when

and

Perhaps

men most

imitate the

gods

in

they fight

and wrangle over pre man

petty things to keep from sharing their jealously guarded possessions and rogatives. But whereas a jealous god may even be a mighty god, a jealous

is

paltry creature indeed. The extent of Othello's possessiveness toward Desdemona is

corroborates

matched

by

her

self-assured command of

his love. The Moor himself testifies to it (I. iii. 190),

and

Iago

it (II.ii.342, 376),

Desdemona boasts
p.

of

it

with what one

critic calls

"strumpet-like

resolution"

(Furness,
on

160

n. 28). of

So

confident

is

she

that she stakes Cassio's reinstatement

the strength

her dominion

over

Othello. But there is too

power

much

that, forged from

warrior,
precludes

and soldered to

false security, too her image

and

much of

complacency in this herself as a not-unhand

some

any

willingness to peer

from

all warriors and

heroes, Othello

into the ugliness inseparable herself included. Othello loves Des

as ugly.

demona for her pity precisely because it precludes seeing him Aristotle observed, is a kind of pain caused by some
that

Pity,

as

damaging

stroke of evil

happens

to one who

does

reported

Desdemona
must

said she

deserve it (Rhetoric 1385bl3ff.). Othello wished she had never heard his tales; the pains
not

they depicted
undergo them

have

pained

her,

and yet she wished she were such a man to

(I. iii. 183-86). The

passion of

pity is

always accompanied

by

the

Reflections
painful experience of one's own

on

Patriarchy
as the

in Shakespeare

347

innocence

imagination

of oneself suffer

ing

the same unmerited misfortune.

On her
periences

from death, Desdemona succeeds in duplicating Othello's ex for which she pitied him. She says three things (V.ii. 147-56). First,
return
murder'd"

"O
on

falsely, falsely
the heels of
guiltlesse

(which may
out of

or

may

not refer

to

Othello's "murthers
dye"

tune"

reference refer

to Rodorigo).

"A

death, I

(which

now

clearly does
deed,"

to

herself, coming Then, herself)- Last, in

answer

to Emilia's "Who has done this

me

she oh

says, "No body: I my selfe,

farewell:/ Commend
which

to my kinde Lord:
good

farewell."

Is this the lie

by

she

hopes to

bring

herself? Either the

and

goodness of
enables

from evil, exculpating Othello by accusing the lie protects a silent Othello from punishment

simultaneously

the victim to pardon her murderer, an act of Christ

like nobility, or the goodness of the lie provokes Othello to tell the truth and uncover Desdemona's innocence. The first alternative is well within Des
demona's character, but the
of guilt second
occurs.23

actually

Desdemona's
of

confession

is the

expression of conscience generated

in the face

Othello's disbe

lief in her innocence. The

inability

to persuade another of one's own

innocence

leads to assuming responsibility for all that happens to one, in short, one's pitiless fate. Hence Desdemona says that no body has done the deed but she
herself.

Othello,

on the other

hand, believes himself nothing if

killing
not

Desdemona for her

infidelity

not perfectly just in (V.ii. 79-80). He believes her deathbed lie

only damns her soul to hell but offers more proof of the reason for which he killed her: she was false, she was other than she seemed. He cannot keep silent: "She's like
a

Liar

gone to

burning

hell,/ Twas I that killed

her"

(V.ii. 162-63).
all

His justice demands to be

made public:

"O, I

were

damn'd beneath

depth in
M

hell:/ But

that I

did

proceed upon

just
was

grounds/

To this

extremity"

(171-73).

What Othello loved in Desdemona

i.e.,

unmerited.

her ability to feel his pains as her own, Her innocence reveals her pains as unmerited; his are most he kills himself. Desdemona's lie
retains

richly

deserved

and so

its

character of

resulting in Othello's death. The morality of the be nobility liever's faith in the impossible appears to have triumphed over the unbeliever's
selfless while

denial

of

the

miraculous.

The easy banter between Lorenzo and Jessica regarding her possible dal liance with the Clown (III. v. 28-29) is unthinkable between Othello and Des

demona, but
her

then

neither

is Lorenzo

jealous husband
to

nor

Jessica
of

as sure of sentiments
after

empire over she

Lorenzo. She
over

wants

hear

reassurances

his

before

hands

the money she appropriates as she elopes, and even

guards

the elopement, Jessica pledges,

as

her

playful

scepticism

of

Lorenzo's frequent

if his lighthearted

promotions of

himself

as a paragon of

fidelity

hinted
night

insufficient grasp of the gravity of her actions. The moondrenched inspires Lorenzo to conjure the stock romantic scenario of the constant
an

lover

and

his faithless beloved, Troilus

and

Cressida. Jessica

counters with

the

348

Interpretation
of

tragic tale thwarted

two very young

opposition.

and

innocent lovers, Pyramus

a

and

Thisbe,
invok

by family

Sensing

correction, Lorenzo
counters once

responds

ing Dido,
image
nearer

abandoned

by
of

Aeneas. Jessica
plants

more, calling up the

at

of

Medea, gathering
point.

to aid in her sorcery.

Lorenzo,

the

Both
a

his

examples

depict lovers betrayed

by

their

last, comes beloveds,

is better to

first

man, then
on

woman, but in Jessica's two examples,

neither woman

faithless;

the contrary, both

disobey

and

betray

their parents, the

keep

faith

with

their loves. The closest mirror to Jessica

orders

obeys

her father's

to save Jason's
not

life,

who marries

is Medea, who dis into a foreign circle

and rejuvenates

her father-in-law, but

mingled with

a trace of

remorse,

before cutting his throat. There is just self-justification, in this image of a rebellious
rejuve

daughter cutting a patriarch's throat for his own good, much as Jessica nates her father by causing him to be born again as a Christian.

Jessica, like Othello, is

matic.

a convert wife and a

to

Christianity, but her

are

reasons are

Becoming

loving

Christian
a

inextricably
also

prag linked for her.

Her
v.

new religion requires

and she a

her to lose

father to

gain a

husband (II. iii. 21-22; willing to

relin

59-60),

willingly

pays the price.

Desdemona is

quish a

father for
to

for

marriage

husband, but if renouncing her Christianity were a condition Othello, it is not at all clear she would have consented with the
ease as

same

lighthearted

Jessica. Jessica
not

never utters an oath nor calls upon

the

divine

as guarantee.

She invokes
of

God but her lover's

guarantor of

the success
and

her

elopement

name only once as the (II. iii. 20). For Othello and Des controls

demona, heaven
increase
the
or

hell

are real.

Desdemona believes heaven

the
of

decrease
the

of

joys
Her

on earth (Il.i. 222- 25). possible

Jessica,
of

the

most

brazen

daughters, believes it is
observe
mean.

to

find the joys

this

heaven

on

earth, if

one

but

example of

Portia,
among

she who men.

has

no equal

felicity, seated in the mean, is among women (III. v. 69-74) nor, we suspect,
that the
mean

It is Portia

who reveals

extreme.

Through the theme

of

friendship,
as a virtue.

which

differs greatly from either figures in both plays, it is her to is

possible to glimpse this

difference.
It
prompts
press

Desdemona
reappointment.

values

friendship

for Cassio's
that

It

is, however,

an exaggerated she

zeal, fueled

by

a conviction

her

virtue as a

friend demands

do

more than she

requested

(Il.i. 185).

This assessment, although Iago's, is later (III. iii. 26-27) and appears to be the result
when she

confirmed
of

by

Desdemona herself Desdemona

his

observations of
of women since

virtually
the

commands

him

praise

the best

he has thus
woman: she

far

praised

worst of women

best. Desdemona defines the best despite itself

corroborates

whose merit

is

such that malice even

mind

it. That Des

not

demona has herself in

certain as

as

the actualization of the definition is

an

as

that its

expression

is

ideal to

which she aspires.

Iago

most per

versely

praises

the best worst, and

of

tion that even Butterflies

War

end

Desdemona is stung by his cynical predic up domestic drones. All her actions, from
even

choosing

Othello, going

to war,

championing Cassio,

to her return from

Reflections
the

on

Patriarchy

in Shakespeare

349

more

dead, emphatically repudiate the fate of the best woman to accomplish no than "To suckle Fooles, and chronicle small (Il.i. 185). Portia, in her turn, values friendship, but she chooses the occasion of its
Beere"

display
tonio's
of

with more prudence

than Desdemona. She is all too conscious of An

grip

Jesus'

her husband, in the name of a kind of friendship reminiscent sacrifice of his life in friendship for mankind. The Christian, forever
upon
mourns

indebted,
his
way.

the

great

loss for his sake,

not to appear to

as would

Bassanio if Shylock had

who
would

Portia is

careful

be the

wife

tie

her
go
a

husband tightly to her apron strings. Her willingness to off even before the honeymoon earns the admiration
godlike concept of amity.
ness

allow of

her husband to

Lorenzo for
apparent

such

It is

rather more

than

divine in its

willing
to suit

to share, and

although we

take seriously her subsequent speech regarding that she has a plan

the mutuality of
action

friendship,
forked

we also note

by

which

to words.
plan

The

is

attack.

The first

stroke

by

which

Portia

pries

her hus
over

band loose from Antonio's bonds is to dissolve the bond Shylock holds

Antonio. Next, she ensures the primacy of her bond with Bassanio by the game of the rings. In asking for the ring she had given him, the disguised Portia tests Bassanio's pledge, literal and symbolic, never to part with it. Bassanio is
staunch,
until

Antonio insists the

wife's commandment

be

weighed against

the

young lawyer's merit and Antonio's love. In essence, Antonio has pitted his importance against Portia's. The young lawyer's merit consists only in having saved Antonio's life, and Antonio's love means not just his love for Bassanio

but Bassanio's

reciprocation.

Portia's final coup is to use the same ring to make Antonio bind himself to her as the guarantor of Bassanio's fidelity to Portia. Thus, when she reveals
that she was the young the sweet

Daniel, Antonio
given

realizes
and

he is

doubly

bound to Portia,

lady

who

has

him both life

to some

living

At least two

of the women resort

masculine

in returning his wealth. disguise in order to take

to repudiate the notion

command of their
upheld

lives, but only Jessica's is intended

are

by

the law that daughters

their

fathers'

property.

The

success of

Portia's

masculine

disguise is

more suited

to Desdemona's

spiritual

home,

the

best republic, whose virtue it is to give justice according to souls rather than bodies. In contrast to Jessica and Desdemona, some part of Portia's success in
must be attributed to her status as an heiress, already in her possession of estate, while the other two seek to establish theirs. The re mainder of her success is due in no small part to her mind which is quick and

conducting her life

nearly so innocent as The Venetian Republic's fundamental commitment to accomodate both zens and foreigners on the basis of commutative or commercial justice is
not

Desdemona's.25

citi seri

ously

threatened

outside the

by the marriages of Jessica and Desdemona. These marriages family betray the family and affirm eros as lawless. Figurative par
republican

ricides,

the

daughters

are more violent

in their

rebellion

than Portia.

350

Interpretation
makes

The decisions the Duke

regarding them

oblige

him to

consider

distinc

tions in the importance of tinctions

Othello, Shylock,

more consonant with

Antonio to the republic, dis distributive than commutative justice. Portia, on

and

the

other

hand, is
to
to

better

matched

than either Jessica or

Desdemona,
In the
whether

since she

is

not obliged
marriage

seek

her happiness in
there

alien or exotic circles.

matter of

her

Bassanio,

is

some

question,

however,

he is
well

as ex

traordinary
it is
men. more

a man as she

is

a woman.

If he is

not

her equal, it may

suitably than
nor

be that

difficult to marry
not

off exceptional women

exceptional

As Bassanio is
sanio's value as a not

his

wife's

equal,

neither

is Othello

Lorenzo. Bas

husband is
either

perhaps more apparent

or

in

comparison:

he

would

have deserved

Shylock

Brabantio

as a of

father-in-law.

her insolent courage; Des demona is courageous but, prompted by pity, too willing to take upon herself the burden of imaginary sins (IV. ii. 125-27). Portia, who fares best of all, gets
Jessica fares better than Desdemona because
what she wants while

acceding to

patriarchal

demands. Such felicitous

recon

the necessary and the voluntary is rare but for Portia who, alone of all the daughters, dwells in no existent republic, while her name conjures reminiscence of another more perfect republic, in a time
ciliation of perhaps not accidental

long

ago,

whose

deeds

now remain

only in

writings and speech.

NOTES

1. Allan Bloom, "On Christian Politics (New York, 1964), p. 14.

2. All 3.
citations are
"Tush,"

Jew,"

and

in Allan Bloom

with

Harry

V. Jaffa. Shakespeare's

to the Furness variorum edition

(Philadelphia, 1888).

appears
s.v.

in the
while

quartos

but is

Dictionary,
intention to 4. It is for
5. This
where

Thus,

the play's

from the first folio (1623); cf. Oxford English first words enjoin silence, the last words proclaim the
omitted

make public

the tale: "and to the

State,/ this heavie Act,

with

heavie heart

relate"

V.ii.447-48.
not

self-governance and take pride

notion of

surprising that Desdemona, reared in a republican regime, in that independence; cf. Ill.iv. 53-54
property
and substance as somehow connected
"being,"

should value and

the capacity I. iii. 281-82.

is

visible

in

classical

Greek,
or

the

word

for

"substance"

or

possession, ousia;

cf.

Liddell

and

Scott,

in philosophy, is the Greek-English Lexicon, s.v.

as used and

same word

for property

6. There is

similarity between Desdemona's behavior

Iago's

professed modus operandi.

is. Thus, in following a herself, III.iii.236ff. Iago says that he follows Othello, the better to serve himself; "I am not what I I.i.45ff., especially 62-71. 7. Anthony Ashley Cooper, Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times (London, 1714), vol. 1, p. 348; Bloom, p.72 n.44.
who she

Desdemona,

to get what she wants, is willing to appear not to

of

be

feigned image

herself,

she appears not

to follow

am,"

8. Chief among this play's distinguishing marks is the pervasive duplicity of its major charac ters; everyone lies either in speech or deed. 9. Cooper, p. 349. The kinds of tales Othello tells, and the delight they awaken in those who hear them,
engendered.

1949),

p.

description Cervantes gives of the tales of chivalry and the passion they Miguel Cervantes, Don Quixote, trans. Samuel Putnam (New York: Modern Library, 131 bottom, pp. 275 ff.
resemble the

Reflections
10. Desdemona is the only Heaven thirteen times.
11. There has been
much one

on

Patriarchy

in Shakespeare
frequency:

35 1

in the play to invoke the divine

spilled on

with such

she calls

upon

drowning
Shylock
neither

in that

sea.

I take my

not

merely

as

the subject of Shylock, and I should like to avoid from Allan Bloom (p. 18) that Shakespeare depicts Antonio and individuals but as types representative of Christianity and Judaism, although
cue specimen.

ink

is

a pure or

ideal

12. Furness, The Merchant of Venice, pp. 80-81 nn. 12,13, especially Dyce; also pp. 443-44. For more on Judaism as a matter of race, see Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New

York, 1979),
13.

pp. xi-xii.

Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic, 8th ed. (New York, 1990), p. 269. 14. For an interesting interpretation of the true identities of these suitors, see "Portia's by Richard Kuhns and Barbara Tovey, in Philosophy and Literature 13, n.2 (October 1989):
,

Suitors,"

325-

31.
15. While Shakespeare
seems

to suggest that

Christianity

encourages

self-sacrifice, there is

probably more to the relationship between Bassanio and Antonio than friendship. See Barbara Tovey, "The Golden Casket: An Interpretation
ice,''

either religion or simple of

The Merchant of Ven

in Shakespeare

as

Political Thinker,

ed.

John Alvis

and

Thomas G. West (Durham, N.C.,

1981),pp.215-37. 16. H.F. Jolowicz, Historical Introduction to the

Study

of Roman Law (Cambridge

University
much

Press, 1967),
himself

pp.

161-65, 166-69.
cannot

17. Shylock

be

allowed to win,

for

at

this point Antonio does not represent so

as all those who subscribe

no

to this
at

principle of

living

nobly; cf.

Plato, Crito 48b. Antonio,

his life

however, is

Socrates, because
symbolizes

Antonio's age, Socrates took

care to preserve

by

staying out of politics. 18. The wager thus liefs. 19. There is

the profound disagreement between Christian and Jewish be

a certain

Shylock's

view of justice

similarity in Emilia's view of justice between men and women between Christians and Jews; cf. The Merchant of Venice IV.i. 53-66
equates

and

and

Othello W.m.95-112. his daughter

20. Aristotle, Politics 1303bl7ff.; Desdemona is present when her father with the theft of Cyprus by the Turks, I.iii.236ff. 21. Plato, Republic 462c. See also Cervantes (p. to Sancho Panza in relation to themselves.
the theft of

523)

where

Quixote

explains

the very same

thing

22. Nevertheless, Desdemona does understand politics; cf. III. i. 48-54; III.iii.15-17. 23. Desdemona is willing to pardon even such a villain as Iago, IV.ii. 159. 24. Othello is
point most concerned about

important that Desdemona's

to the former
and so
without

revival and the news of

Desdemona's soul; cf. V.ii. 29-38, 61-67, 161-62. It is Cassio's survival occur together. There is no
role

the latter. Desdemona is unaware of Emilia's

in the lost hand

kerchief

believes Cassio is her only means to establish her innocence. Thus, upon Othello's testimony, when she believes Cassio is dead, she says, "Alas, he is betray'd, and I V.ii.96. 25. That Portia is
conversation she
not as virginal

undon

in

mind as

Desdemona

seems attested

by
as

the

rather

frank

has

with

Nerissa,

as

they discuss
of

the escapade of
excuses

dressing

up

59men, Ill.iv.

81, especially
the

the last lines. Some commentators look for

to read the
cf.

passage another

way,

better to

save a certain

false image

Portia

and

feminine modesty;

Furness,

pp.

179-80

n.75.

On Hamlet's

Mousetrap

Alfred Mollin
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice

I. PLOTS AND COUNTERPLOTS

An intrigue dramatic

recounted

by

the

ghost

of

Hamlet's father begins the

play's

action.

The

ghost

claims

that his

brother, scheming
he
slept

to

steal

both
The

queen and
ghost asks

crown,

poured poison
avenge

in his

ears while

in his

orchard.

Hamlet to

his

murder.

Intrigues
seek

abound as

Hamlet

moves

toward

to induce inadvertent revelations

of

early plots hidden information. Hamlet's behavior

concern,

his

goal.

The

play's

at court

following

his

encounter with the ghost arouses attention and object of

and

he thus becomes the

to discover
whether

two

such

plots:

Polonius in
an

trying

Hamlet's

antic mood and

is

rooted

Claudius, unrequited love,

and
which

provoke

a conversation
at

between Hamlet

Ophelia

upon

they

can

eavesdrop;

the same

by

Claudius
when

and

time, Rosencrantz and Guildenstem are commissioned Gertrude to visit with Hamlet, "draw him on to
unguarded and

pleas

and,

he is thus

behaving

openly, determine "[wjhether

17).'

aught to us unknown afflicts

him

thus."

(II.ii.15,

Hamlet easily deflects

against someone

these schemes, showing how difficult it is to plot successfully

who

is

on

his

guard.

At the
unmask

center of

the play lies the

scheme

devised Its

by

Hamlet. Its
element

purpose

is to

the clever and guarded Claudius.

a

principal

is

staged

drama

play-within-a-play
success of

dubbed

by

Hamlet "The

Mousetrap."

With the

the

Mousetrap,

the pace of the play

with

accelerates.

In

trigues become deadly. Claudius

plots the unwitting Rosencrantz and Guildenstem to take Hamlet to England where he will be slain, but Hamlet

discovers

the scheme and concocts a counterplot that results in

escape a and return

his
and

friends'

death. After Hamlet's

scheme to poisoned sword point.

to

England, Claudius
where

Laertes
with

lure Hamlet into

A

sporting duel

he

can

be killed

poisoned goblet of

wine, ready to Hamlet's

hand,

backs up the primary plot. It is this last series of intrigues that litters the floor of Elsinore Castle with the bodies of Hamlet, Gertrude, Claudius, and Laertes,
and places

the

crown of

Denmark

within

Norway's

grasp.

The
of

Mousetrap
pivots.

is therefore the fixed

How does the

point about which occasion

the dramatic action

consequences?

Hamlet

Mousetrap

these

interpretation,

Spring 1994,

Vol.

21, No. 3

354

Interpretation

II. PROBLEMS OF ANALYSIS

Hamlet intends the

Mousetrap
into the

to trick Claudius into

a

betraying
in he
sleeps

his

guilt.

The

Mousetrap
be
the

begins

with a

dumb-show

kind

of prologue
while who

which a

would-

usurper pours poison murderer

ears of a

king

in his garden;

then woos and

wins

the widow,

had been devoted to her Gonzago. It

king. The
spoken

play that follows

remarriage

concerns a

duke The

named spoken

initially

addresses

the evils of
where

by

widows.

to the point

Gonzago 's
Light.

nephew pours poison

play is performed up into the Duke's ears. After

and cries

Hamlet's brief
out

elaboration on

the

nephew's

motives, Claudius rises

orders on an

"Give

Away"

me some

(III. ii. 259, 263). Polonius

the play
emptied accom

stopped.

Confusion is

everywhere. proclaims

As the turmoil subsides,

to Horatio that the take the
ghost's word

stage an exultant
plished

Hamlet "O

Mousetrap has
for
a

its

purpose:

good

Horatio, I'll
Hamlet

thousand

pounds"

(III.ii.280-81).
we

Although

have the

word of

strating just exactly how the Mousetrap critical (Hamlet, Jenkins ed.,
problem"

Horatio for its success, demon works has proved to be "a famous
and

p. 501).

The

central

difficulty
and

arises

from

a murder's

spoken play.

being Why are

depicted twice

first in the dumb-show

later in the

there two depictions? And if the point of Hamlet's

an emotional response

scheme

is to

startle

Claudius into

by

a scene

that resem
spoken

bles his
play?

murder of old

Why does

he

not

Hamlet, why does Claudius react to the dumb-show?

offered not

react

only to the

The

solutions that

have been
play;2

to this problem fall more or less

see the
sees

within

three categories:
startled

(1)

Claudius does

dumb-show
play3

and

therefore

is

by

the

spoken

(2)

Claudius

the dumb-show but does

and

not sees

understand

it

and

therefore is startled

by

the spoken

(3) Claudius
his
the pressure

and understands

both the dumb-show

and

the spoken play, and while

cannot stand

nerve
and

holds up through the dumb-show, he ultimately breaks down during the spoken
play."

The
own

proponents of

these

theories,

while unsuccessful at

views, have
agreed

made effective attacks on

the theories

of

their

establishing their rivals.5 It is

analysis.6

widely
we

that none of these theories provides a

compelling
for

As

briefly

discuss below,

Claudius'

none presents a plausible explanation

reaction

to the spoken play without

taking liberties

unwarranted

by

the text.

"Second-Tooth"

Theory
can withstand

The theory that Claudius

collapses under

the shock of the

dumb-show, but
has been
Claudius'

the

pressures

brought to bear

by

the spoken play,

dubbed the

"second-tooth"

theory. This

theory

might

be

powerful

if

pain were physical rather than

emotional, and second-tooth proponents often

On Hamlet's
make
p.

Mousetrap
at

355

metaphorical reference to physical torture

pain

(Robson, The Dumb-Show,

is least nearly
physical

12). Physical

is

cumulative.

Each

new onslaught

as

difficult for the

works.

sufferer to endure as was the

pain will always

first. This is why

and

torture

We know the

be bad,

the

strength we expend

in

enduring the pain must ultimately be We become accustomed to its causes, torture, for example, edly frightened.
This
problem

sapped.

But

emotional pain

is different:

and repetition

blunts its force. Successful

could not

be

premised upon the prospect of

being

repeat

is heightened for the

second-tooth proponents
Claudius'

because the
than the
ears

spo

ken play presents a less faithful depiction of show. Although the unusual method of murder

crime

dumb-

poison

in the
not a

is

re

tained, his nephew,

murder

the spoken play concerns:

not

(a)

the

murder of a

duke,

king, (b) by

is

not

his brother, (c) for his estate, not his crown, (d) and the apparently committed in a garden. No one doubts that it would be
weather

difficult for Claudius to

without

the shock of the

dumb-show's

revelations

giving
deed

some visible sign of

his inward turmoil. But the

second

depic
to

tion of the
Claudius'

murder

the

one

in the

are extenuated.

spoken play is anticipated; its Because it is not startling, Claudius

parallels
will

find it

easier

to maintain an outward show of composure

during

the

critical moments

of the performance.

The force
poisoned

of

this analysis

is illustrated in Act V. As Gertrude

drink"

grasps

the

(V.ii. 294). This cup, Claudius blurts out "Gertrude, do not scene is typically played as if Claudius were struggling for control, and only barely able to keep the courtiers in attendance from sensing his alarm. How
ever, when,
several moments prepared

him, Claudius,

for

what

later, Gertrude falls dying must happen, coolly

same way,
against

to the floor before

explains

that "She

swoons to see them

bleed"

(V.ii. 3 14). In the

the

if

an emotional reac

tion is to become
tion should
a second.

visible

be

provoked

during Mousetrap by the first depiction of the

second-tooth

Claudius'

will, the

reac not

murder of old

Hamlet,

Some

proponents of

the

theory have

attempted

to finesse this the spoken

crime.

difficulty by

Claudius'

making the cause of

other

being

startled

during

play something
generally, these

than,

or in addition to, the depiction of his

But

variations

hypothesize

attitudes

in Claudius that

are

implausi
rendition

ble
of

or not warranted
second-tooth

by

the text. For example,

under

W.W. Robson 's

reveals

theory, Hamlet knows that he murdered

Claudius'

the

the spoken play gradually

old

to Claudius that that occa

Hamlet,

and

it is this
as the

revelation

sions

failure

of nerve.

The

premise of

Robson's reasoning is that

author of

Claudius did

not

immediately

recognize

Hamlet

the dumb-

show's message:

Hamlet's meeting with the Players immediately before the play was unknown to the King, who in any case, as we know, had other things on his mind. There was therefore no reason why the King, on seeing the dumb-show, should at once be certain that Hamlet knew his secret. (The Dumb-Show, p. 12)

356

Interpretation
performance

But Claudius knows, through Rosencrantz, that the

was

at

Hamlet's command, and he knows, through Polonius, that Hamlet "beseech'd (III. i. 22-23). Ham me to entreat your Majesties/To hear and see the
matter"

let's been

prominent role

in the

production of

the performance has not been con

flaunted.7

cealed. on

Indeed, his
Claudius'

role

mind when

And has arguably been before the dumb-show began must

whatever

may have It is
more

pale

to

comparative

insignificance

the

dumb-show's implications
moment whole
truth"

are understood.

plausible to conclude realizes that

that "[t]he

the dumb-show is over,

Hamlet knows the

[Claudius] (Lawrence, The Play Scene in

Hamlet,

p. 9).

Claudius Does Not See the Dumb-Show The

gues

principal alternative

theory,

forcefully

elaborated

by

Dover

Wilson,

ar

that Claudius cannot be startled into an inadvertent

seen

reaction

by

the spoken that the

play if he has
second-tooth

the

dumb-show.*

Dover Wilson

recognizes as well

theory
is

gives no persuasive account of

two depictions of a
the dumb-show

murder

in his

not part of

why Hamlet has included Dover Wilson concludes, therefore, that Hamlet's plan, but is rather a scene introduced by
plot.

the

players without

Hamlet's knowledge.

As the
Hamlet
as

players

begin the dumb-show's performance, Dover Wilson views fearful that the unexpected dumb-show will undermine the surprise
success of the

necessary to the
Claudius'

attention with antic

Mousetrap. Therefore, he has Hamlet distract behavior, which then becomes the subject of a
and

discussion that into

the

preoccupies

Claudius, Gertrude,

Polonius

during

the dumb-

show's performance.

In this way, Claudius

can still

be

startled against

his

will

an emotional expression

by

the depiction

of murder

in the

spoken play.

To

why a scene lacking any dramatic purpose was in cluded in the play, Dover Wilson speculates that Shakespeare intended the dumb-show as an aid to the audience, so that they might be better able to
natural question about

follow the
The

action

in the

spoken

play that follows.

modern

price of
with

this rationalization is great. A

audience,

likely

to be

familiar

the plot of the play,

no

has

no need of such on-stage prompts.

But if
to the

the dumb-show has

play's

dramatic importance

and

does

not otherwise add

inherent intelligibility, it ought to be omitted. Only a thoughtless, pious adherence to the forms of the past would lead a director to include the scene. Indeed, Dover Wilson's theory, which is functionally equivalent to the kind of
textual emendations that are usually adopted

be

viewed as

But

even

"groundlings"

when Hamlet is staged today, may in the theater, if not in the textbooks. having if Shakespeare felt a need to elucidate the Mousetrap for the (III.ii.ll), it seems implausible that he would accomplish this

prevailed

end with a scene so

foreign

to the

dramatic

action of

the play that the principal

On
characters'

Hamlet'

Mousetrap

357

attention must
and

be distracted. Moreover,

having Polonius, Gertrude,

would

Claudius carry
from

on

a conversation

during

the presentation of the dumb-

show, absent the

the audience
purpose

use of

extraordinary staging techniques,

the

risk

distracting

following

dumb-show,
Wilson'

thus

defeating

the

hypothesized

for its

inclusion.9

However, in any
the
problem

event, Dover
posed.

s proposed solution crucial scene

does

not resolve

he has

Just before the

in the

spoken

play,

where

by Lucianus, Hamlet places Claudius on his guard by three separate statements: (1) He alerts Claudius to the fact that poi soning is about to occur; (2) he tells Claudius that his title for the play is "the thereby alerting Claudius to the possibility that the play is a trap; and (3) he announces that what will occur is but that, as long as it will not touch him (III. ii. 229-36). Claudius, Claudius has a "free whose soul is emphatically not free, is thus warned by Hamlet about a trap
the
poisoned
Mouse-trap,"

player-king is

"knavish,"

soul,"

involving
message

knavish poisoning that will concern him in a disturbing way. This is less blatant than that of the dumb-show. However, there has been knavish deed

only

one

involving
These
on

poisoning in
warnings are

Claudius'

life

about which as

he has

reason

to be

concerned.

therefore as

likely

the dumb-

show

to place Claudius
which

high

alert.

Surely inventing
Claudius'

yet another stage

direc
warn

tion,

in

some

way further distracts

attention

from these

ings,

would go

too

far.10

Claudius Sees But Does Not Understand

the

Dumb-Show

Finally, in
although

a variation on
viewed

Claudius

Dover Wilson's theory, the dumb-show, he did not

take their textual
cue

some

have

argued

that,
saw.

recognize what

he

The

proponents of this

theory

from Hamlet's
and

disparaging
that the

reference

to "inexplicable

dumb-shows"

(III.ii.12),

they

speculate

dumb-show may have been performed in a manner so stylized as to be unintel ligible to its But this seems inconsistent with the special pains Ham
viewers.11

let has taken

with

the

actors points

to ensure that their

realistic.12

performances were

Moreover,
will nation

as

Jenkins
purpose

out, "if

defeat its
for

for the dumb-show, it (p. 504). And the text suggests no dramatic expla
no one

is the

wiser

Claudius'

while

the dumb-show

viewing the dumb-show, and missing its significance, remains intelligible to Hamlet's audience.

An Additional Analytical Problem

It is
tions in

not

necessary to
which

examine each of

these three theories and their varia

detail, identifying
is

and

to determine

most

comparing the sum total of their defects, in order likely to be true. All three theories must be squarely

358

Interpretation
Each is open, to the
on same

rejected.

degree,

to a conclusive

objection.

Focusing,
play both
a

as

they have,

Claudius'

rendering
purpose

emotional reaction to the spoken

psychologically sight of Hamlet's

sign of

plausible and consistent with the

text,

these theorists have lost

in staging the Mousetrap: evoking from Claudius

so

his

guilt.

For example, imagine that Hamlet had directed the dumb-show

player at

that a
cym

the periphery of the stage clashes a

large, previously
into the

concealed,

bal

at

the very moment that poison

should

is

poured

player-king's ears. observer conclude

If

Claudius

blench

at

this moment, could any fair

Claudius'

that

this emotional response bespeaks

guilt of old

Hamlet's

murder?

The

answer,

of

course, is

no.

It is

not possible

to determine

whether

Claudius is

responding to the clanging cymbal or to the depiction of the murder of old Hamlet. Either hypothesis is plausible. To serve Hamlet's purpose and con
Claudius'

clusively

establish

guilt, the

a response

that can only be

explained

Mousetrap must by the hypothesis

Suppose that

provoke

from Claudius

that Claudius murdered

Hamlet's father. The

were central problem

thus

emerges:

sans cymbal poisoned

Claudius
the
King"

to blench in response to the player-king's

being

through the ears

of

in the dumb-show. Would this have trapped "the (II.ii.601)?

presence

conscience

Again,

the answer

must

be

no.

A depiction

of regicide

in

Claudius'

is the functional
account views

equivalent of a
reaction.

plausibly
audience

for

Claudius'

large, clanging cymbal: It would Even if the remainder of the stage

than

the dumb-show

as

no

worse

tasteless,
his

be

excused of a more agitated reaction.

The safety

of

person

king could is indirectly

for any
vis

implicated ible

by the dumb-show. Justifiable outrage reaction by Claudius, let alone a mere

could account

"blench,"

in

response

to the dumb-

show.

Later, when Claudius does react with strong emotions to the spoken play "How fares my asks Gertrude, as he rises (III. ii. 261) his courtiers understand his behavior in just these terms. Rosencrantz and Guildenstem im
lord?"

ply that the

the whole
well

Mousetrap threatened state. They agree that

Claudius'

life,

and

thereby

Claudius'

concern about

the well-being of Hamlet's behavior is

attributes

founded (III. iii. 7-23). Likewise, when speaking to Gertrude, Polonius anger to Hamlet's improper behavior,
Claudius'

Look Tell him his

pranks

you

lay

home to him,
with

have been too broad to bear

screen 'd and stood

And that

your

Grace has

between

Much heat

and

him. (Ill.iv. 1-4)

And,
after

most

convincingly,

Gertrude,
me?/Help,

upon

Hamlet's

rude

behavior in her
"What

closet

the play,

immediately

expresses concern
ho!"

for her

safety:

wilt

thou

do? Thou

wilt not murder

(III.iv.20-21). But if everyone in the clanging cymbal, how

can

stage audience views the

depiction

of regicide as a

On Hamlet's
Hamlet
conclude otherwise with

Mousetrap
Claudius'

359

any

certainty?

Hamlet,
has
of

unlike

the courtiers,

may know that it is possible that

emotional response

some other reason play's

caused murder of a

strong

to the spoken

depiction

the

king, but
to be

it does

not

follow

logically

that this alternative

explanation

is

more

likely

true than the other.

mainspring
scene
attendance.

cannot

Thus, if the be anything

Hamlet claims, successful, its Mousetrap is, so simple as merely provoking, by a dramatic
as

depicting

the murder of a

king,

an emotional response

from the

king

in

The theories thus far

this
problem.

propounded about

the

Mousetrap

have

not recognized estab

W.W

Lawrence, for

example, believed his

arguments

lished

no more

than that
to Hamlet and Horatio
"blenching"

[Claudius] has betrayed himself

as enacted on

by

at

the crime

the stage. The revelations of the ghost are

confirmed.13

This is insufficient. Without more, Hamlet cannot know that the Mousetrap has caught its intended victim. It might be supposed, by Dover Wilson's disciples,
that just as Claudius
also was was

ignorant
of

of

the performance of the

plan.

dumb-show,

so

Hamlet ignorant
that

this flaw in his

Or

second-tooth

theorists

may

propose

Hamlet, like Claudius, had

much

too many other things on his mind

Claudius'

to work through the logical consequences of trap. But this is too

regarded as

reaction

to the Mouse

ignorance. There
approach

are

fools. A fresh play that

is

called and

too many people that must be for. This approach can begin with

an analysis of

the reactions of

Claudius

the stage audience to the unfolding

and

play

within a

is

not

from the

outset guided

hence distorted
in the springing

by
of

Claudius'

the premise that

emotional response

is

key event

the Mousetrap.

III. HOW THE MOUSETRAP WORKS

Reactions to the Dumb-Show

the dumb-show

How

are

the

viewers of

likely

to respond?

Claudius,

without

be sorely agitated. The dumb-show pantomimes his murder of question, lesser his brother in detail he thought known only to himself. Most men men might betray their agitation. But Claudius is not most men. He is a
will
"villain"
smile"

who can
stolen

"smile,
his

and

(I.v.108). His

daring

is

on record.

He has

his brother's

queen and crown.

remorse.

He

watches

Gertrude

dying

at

his feet
Laertes'

without

betraying
serve

When Laertes,

at

the

head

of a

revolutionary

army,
rage

stands prepared

to slay him on the spot, Claudius calmly turns

to

his

own purposes.

And Shakespeare

makes

a special point of

Claudius'

displaying
expectedly

with reminders of

ability to control his responses when he is confronted un Hamlet.14 It is no surprise that his murder of old

360
an

Interpretation
and courageous man who

alert, resourceful,

in any

event

is

predisposed

to

be

suspicious of matters

in

which

his

unpredictable nephew

has

hand

can

keep

his

outward composure

in the face

of a

depiction

of

his

murder of old

Hamlet.15

Claudius

can

think clearly enough to reject, almost as quickly as it is enter

coincidence.16

tained,

the possibility of chance

The

highly

unusual manner of

murder,17

the quality

of

the victim, the wooing of the wife: All speak so

directly
Clau
crime

to his crime that

coincidence could man.

be

no more

than a fanciful

hope,
of

and

dius is

not a

fanciful
done."

But if the dumb-show's depiction

an

his

is

purposive, it carries what you have

thoughts
move

with

itself

implicit but

unambiguous message:

"I know

Claudius, outwardly
"the

composed, is

instantly

alert as

his

to the only possible author of that message

matter"

Hamlet,

whose

now-intelligible emphasis upon

of

the play-within-a-play marks the dumband

him

Claudius'

as courtiers

mortal

enemy (III. i. 23).

Claudius'

The

do

not share own actions.

perspective;

they do

not see

show as

mirroring their

But the dumb-show depicts regicide,

presence of

it

presents

this heinous crime in the

the reigning King.

means

Ophelia's
lord?"

remark at

the conclusion of the dumb-show

seeks not an explanation of what

"What

this, my

(III. ii. 134)

rather,

has just been portrayed, but,

an explanation of

mark of sober concern. sion

it.18 The question is a Hamlet's intent in portraying And her next remark, persisting through Hamlet's eva

"Belike this

show

imports the

play?"

argument

of

the
room.

(III. ii. 136)

surely

echoes concerns shared

by

all

the courtiers

in the

pantomime overhear

to be the subject of the play to

follow?19

Is this unseemly Even if Claudius does not

the
same question must

this

discussion between Hamlet

and

Ophelia,

soon occur

to

him, for he is
salvo?

alert

to discover

what

dumb-show

portend

the argument of the spoken

his enemy is about. Does the play? Is the dumb-show merely

Claudius'

Hamlet's first

portrayed regicide.

The

If so, Claudius has reason for concern. The dumb-show regicide did not implicate the legitimacy of
of the murderer
cannot

throne, because the relationship

unspecified.

to the
reveal

slain

player-king is left

But the

spoken

and

if it

elaborates the events

will

play depicted in the dumb-show This fact

fail to

the

murderer's as

identity,
under

Claudius

stands

them, it
from

portray the murderer of the player-king as his brother. No

alone will convert

one will mistake the reference.

message

the dumb-show's

an

insult into

an

indictment.
an

Claudius has

much

to fear from such

indictment. The
death
of

passions

that Ham

let has begun to inflame in the

against

courtiers about the

kings may be turned

Claudius. His

will view as

his

crown

crown will be under challenge and by one whom many possessing a rightful claim to occupy that throne. A challenge to does not, in itself, mean that Claudius will lose it. But the apparent

ease with which

Laertes

will

things are far from

settled

shortly raise a revolutionary army suggests that for Claudius. And, most worrisome to him must be

On Hamlet's
the accurate

Mousetrap

361

detail

of

the

dumb-show, suggesting
some proof
notice.

that Hamlet is not merely

whose secret

guessing, but that he has

presence

some

witness, perhaps,

had

Claudius'

escaped

Reactions to

the

Spoken

Play

As the
abate.

spoken play unfolds, the concerns of no one in the stage audience A discourse on the evils of second marriages by widows in the pres

ence of a widow who remarried

in

remarkable

haste

must seem

to the court

iers

an escalation of the

bad taste inaugurated

by

the dumb-show.

For

Claudius, however,
the dumb-show is
similar

the spoken play confirms

his fears. The

player-

queen of make

her

particularly characterized in ways that to Gertrude. And Hamlet emphasizes the personal relation

being

more

between the
to Gertrude:

player-queen and

Gertrude
you

by

his interruption

and pointed question

"Madam, how like

brother
of

play?"

this

(III. ii. 224).

murderer

Hamlet's intentions

must now seem clear

to Claudius. When the

is

identified
attack.

as the
no

the slain

king,

Claudius'

throne will be under direct

way to avoid the confrontation comes to sight. Ordering the spoken play halted will merely force Hamlet to play his proof card, whatever it may be, immediately. Claudius has no choice but to wait and discover how
severe

But

Hamlet's

accusation will

be. He

must

begin to think

of

his defense.

Claudius'

absorption with standable

the prospect
of

of such a confrontation makes under

his

unchivalrous you

query

Hamlet, during
is there
no

the Mousetrap's

second

interlude: "Have
28).
20
Claudius'

heard the

Offence/in't?"

argument?

(III. ii. 227-

Perhaps the
the

courtiers are

defense
Hamlet's

in asking this uneasy question are not fully clear. his true audience, and this query is the beginning of the counterattack he feels will soon need to be made.
motives answer

But Hamlet's
and

to this question,
Claudius'

with

its

unsolicited mention of are not

poison,

response

to

next

query

puzzling

at all:

Hamlet

replies to

Claudius'

question

that the title of the play is:

murder

The Mouse-trap. Marry, how? Tropically. This play is the image of a in Vienna. Gonzago is the duke's name; his wife, Baptista. You shall Tis
a

done

see anon.

knavish

piece of work: us not.

but

what of

that? Your majesty and we that have free

our withers are unwrung.

souls, it touches

The

galled

jade wince,

(III.ii.233-38)
Hamlet's
will answer

is

declaration that the

portrayal of

knavish deeds to follow

touch him to the quick.

orders word

revenge, Hamlet

hanging

on

every

with a melodramatic, croaking call for play to resume, we must imagine Claudius that is uttered. He is about to be accused, the battle for

When,

the

spoken

his throne

about

to begin in earnest.

362

Interpretation

3. The Denouement Lucianus

written

murders

Gonzago,

after

speaking the lines that may have been

by

Hamlet for the

occasion:21

Thoughts black, hands apt, drugs fit, Confederate season, Thou

mixture

and time

agreeing;

else no creature

seeing, collected,

rank,

of midnight weeds

With Hecate's ban thrice

blasted,

thrice

infected,

Thy
On

natural magic and

wholesome

dire property life usurps immediately.

[Pours the
poison

in the

sleeper's

ears.] (III. ii. 249-54)

and sees

What

Claudius'

are
enacted

thoughts as

he hears this "talk

poisonin

of

the

the murder

(III. ii. 283)? Moments before Lucianus began speaking,

as

Hamlet identified him

ing, Lucianus
nephew

was

identified
confusing.

Gonzago 's nephew; and, immediately before speak (III. ii. 247). This must be, for as the
"murderer"

Claudius, initially
is the dumb-show's

The

nephew

to old Hamlet? Who is this? And the

murderer?

The

murderer of whom?

Where does this fit

poison

within

the

argument?

Claudius

watches

intently. As the

is

poured

into Gonzago's ears, Claudius receives a wholly unexpected revelation. The nephew, not the brother, is the murderer of the king. Hamlet has not carried
out what

Claudius had taken to be the threat

accused of

of

the dumb-show. Claudius is not

no public

publicly After

his brother's

murder.

There is

indictment.
public

having

steeled

himself for the desperate battle that Hamlet's

Claudius'

indictment

would

occasion,
an

relief must

be

almost palpable.

A lesser

man might give

in to

impulse to relax, to slouch,

direction. So
we

or to

display by

some other

physical mannerism speare gives no

the release of this almost unbearable tension. But

stage continue

Shake

such

to imagine

Claudius,

despite his internal turmoil, successfully maintaining his composure, remaining

outwardly calm. But the game is
over.

The

Mousetrap

has

accomplished

its

purpose.

Clau

dius has silently unmasked himself. Although Claudius does not immediately recognize what has occurred, he will in a moment. To understand how his guilt has become
ence. apparent

to

Hamlet, it is necessary
of

to focus

upon

the stage audi

For different reasons, Hamlet's casting player-king is also shocking to the stage

the

nephew as

the murderer of the

audience.

The tasteless dumb-show

had first
play

portrayed the murder of a

continued

the unseemly

king in the presence of a king; the spoken exercise by impliedly insulting Gertrude, and now,
he,
Claudius'

the personalizing
nephew

has been

completed.

the murderer implies that

To the courtiers, Hamlet's making the nephew, intends the murder of

his uncle, the King.22 Hamlet makes, in effect, a public threat to the person and throne of Claudius. In the eyes of the courtiers, Hamlet's audacious behavior,

On Hamlet's
once

Mousetrap
Claudius'

363

merely

impudent,

now

hovers
that

at

the brink

of

treason. This is why the

courtiers conclude after the

play everyone in the room, Hamlet's identification of the received with all the force of a hard slap in the face
that

Hamlet has threatened

to

life. To

murderer as

the nephew is

everyone

in the room,
of

is,

save one

Claudius,
from

to

whom

the unexpected

identity

the mur

derer

comes can

first to Hamlet

sight as a
reason

blessed

relief.

How

Claudius'

behavior to the

certain conclusion
and

that he has

murdered

his father? No

king

will endure such not

threats

insults

as

have been delivered

of the

by

Hamlet. But Claudius does

timely

react to the talk

poisoning with indignation, therefore he did not immediately recognize its message. Who could look at the spoken play with full and complete atten

tion, and yet be even temporarily blind to its true import? Only the person who had murdered old Hamlet in the manner recounted by the ghost; only such a
be distracted; only such a man will remain composed. This does noj; long endure, certainly not long enough to be revealing come an object of attention for those, like the courtiers, whose eyes are not (III.ii.85). But Hamlet is attentive. He is prepared to "rivet[ed] to his
man

has

reason to

composure

face"

listen to

Claudius'

silences as well as
with

his

speeches.23

And thus his

can

he exultantly
the

conclude,

certainty, that the

not work

ghost

has been

vindicated.
on

Accordingly,

Mousetrap
of

does

despite

Claudius'

being

guard and suspicious

Hamlet. Indeed, to the contrary, Hamlet must use every opportunity to fan the flames of suspicion. Claudius must see the dumb-show. Claudius
Claudius'

must

be

alarmed with

by

its depiction

of

his

guilt.

Hamlet

must with

Claudius
old

the prospect of the spoken play's

so

dealing

overtly threaten his poisoning of

Hamlet. Hamlet

distracts Claudius

with

the

prospect of

being frontally

his crimes, that Claudius fails to recognize timely the blow de livered to his flank, a blow that could never have escaped the notice of an
assaulted with

honest

man.

4. The Aftermath After the his trap sprung

murder

of

the

player-king,

and

his

purpose

achieved, Hamlet interrupts the

ence with several

play's performance about

to provide the stage audi

items

of

information

the spoken play. His statements

tend to extenuate the treasonous

overtones of

the spoken play: The murder is not committed

Gonzago; it is
very
to
choice get

not a piece written and

by

the murder of the player-king in for the crown, but the of Hamlet, but an story, "written in
"estate"
"extant"

Italian";
of

Hamlet

reminds

the audience that the murderer comes

"the love

Gonzago's

wife"

(III. ii. 255-58). M

the beginnings of relief, see Hamlet
spoken

Although the courtiers, backing off from the brink

perhaps with of

directions

now

abound.

treason, the "The King

rises,"

says

play does not continue. Stage Ophelia (III. ii. 259). As he

364

Interpretation
asks: calls

does, Gertrude
play.

Claudius

(III. ii. 260). Polonius stops the "How fares my for light and leaves. Turmoil is everywhere as the stage
exultant

lord?"

empties,

leaving

only the

Hamlet

with

Horatio,

who confirms prey.

Ham

let's judgment that the

"fares,"

Mousetrap

has

caught

its intended

Gertrude's query in the midst of this confusion, asking how Claudius ill.25 A betrayal by is a telling remark, suggesting that Claudius looks Claudius of the infirmity he feels would be understandable, for he has come to
realize what

Hamlet has done,

and why:

Hamlet did

not

know,

after

all, about

know; he needed proof, and now he has it, from Claudius himself. The proof, it is true, is not of a sort that may be propounded in a court of law; however, Hamlet and Claudius both know it is
the murder; he suspected, but he did not

beyond

cavil.

Thus,
no

the pretense of equanimity that Claudius

had,

with

effort,

been maintaining

longer has

purpose.

Unchecked

by

Claudius'

prudence,

sickened reaction surges

to the surface, alarming Gertrude.

Thus,

Claudius'

strong emotional response is not, as has been assumed, the means by which he is trapped; it is rather a sign of his recognition of what Hamlet's scheme has already accomplished. If this is the state of
endure.
mind and

body

that

Rosencrantz
"choler"

and

Guildenstem

almost

Gertrude observes, it does not long immediately advise Hamlet of

Claudius'

(III. ii. 295).

Claudius'

anger

incorrectly
brush
messages

understood

by

his

courtiers

to be

a consequence of

Hamlet's

apparent

with

treason

must

soon arise when

Claudius

comes to see the

two

Hamlet intended the

Mousetrap

to deliver: The
it."

dumb-show,

which

killed my father"; the spoken play, which kill you for The delivery of these messages
edge

looks to the past, said, "You announces the future, says: "I will
Claudius'

along

with

knowl

that he has let himself be trapped

distemper"

intelligible the "marvellous But the quality

pression of of

into revealing his guilt of the king (III. ii. 293). leave Claudius
with an

makes

fully

Hamlet's

craft must

indelible im

the true measure of the

met

clever
which

Claudius has

his

match.

adversary he now faces. At the least, the We are not surprised by the immediacy with

he begins to

plot

Hamlet's

death;

Claudius'

nor are

we

surprised at

subsequent use of a
when

Laertes,

after

poisoned sword
not

backup scheme to the fencing failing in the first two matches point, says to Claudius, "My Lord,
Claudius,
think't"

match with

Laertes. And
with

to

strike

Hamlet

the

I'll hit him

now,"

we are

surprised as

resigned and

empty

of

hope,

concedes

Hamlet's

mastery:

"I do

not

(V.ii. 299).

5. The Tragic Core

The
tragic
goes

certitude

obtained

through the

Mousetrap

makes

possible

Hamlet's

inflection. Paul Cantor persuasively argues that Hamlet's Christianity far to explain why, despite his admiration of classical, pagan virtue, he

On Hamlet's
hesitates to
exact

Mousetrap
by
virtue, is

365

his

revenge.26

Indeed,

the demand for

vengeance

Hamlet's
condi

father,
against

whom

Hamlet

views as

the embodiment of

classical
nor

tioned with Christian precepts: "Taint not

aught"

thy

mother

let thy soul contrive thy mind, (I.v. 85-86). Old Hamlet would have his son be a
with a conscience.

Christian hero
let's

that

is,

hero

Ignorance is the
explanation of

aspect of man's

finitude that figures prominently in Ham his hesitation (II. ii. 594-600). And actions later
Laertes'

vividly demonstrate why ignorance makes the seeking of revenge so problem atic: He nearly slays the wrong man in death. If seeking to avenge Hamlet could not circumvent the inhibition that derives from man's finite na
Polonius'

ture, action would never be possible. But Hamlet, by means of the Mousetrap,
dius'

can peer

into the

center of

Clau

Passing judgment is normally the prov ince of the (I.ii. 131), but, armed with certainty, Hamlet may undertake the divine task. Pagan demands and Christian inhibitions are no
certain of guilt.
"Everlasting"

heart. He is

his

longer

at odds.

"Now

could

I drink hot

blood,"

Hamlet

exclaims

(III. ii. 381).

Hamlet's pace,
early
portion of

after

the

Mousetrap, is

almost

frantic in

comparison to the

the

play. and

In the

space of some causes as

four hectic

days, Hamlet
to

slays

Polonius, Laertes, Guildenstem; after

behaves
"Rashly"

Claudius; he inaction,

the deaths of Rosencrantz and

acknowledges

months of

Hamlet

Horatio, he
into disappear

(V.ii. 6); he leaps

aboard a pirate

ship, jumps

battling

Ophelia's grave, and fights a desperate duel. Thoughts from his soliloquies. After the Mousetrap, Hamlet acts.

of suicide

Ultimately, Hamlet fails. His

Certitude
within

quest

for

revenge occasions

Gertrude's death.

Claudius notwithstanding, Hamlet has been unable to remain the constraints established by the ghost. If Hamlet does come to recog
about
pagan and

Christian demands are, after all, mutually exclusive, it would explain why, with his last breath, Hamlet does what he can to give Denmark's crown to Norway. He seeks to reverse the consequences of old
nize

that

Hamlet's

Fortinbras'

noble combat with

father.

By

renouncing the fruits

virtue,

of

that

combat, he
sioned

impliedly

renounces

the tree

pagan

whose claims occa

his tragic fall.

IV. TEXTUAL OBJECTIONS

Some may question whether this analysis of the Mousetrap is consistent with Hamlet's own comments concerning his scheme. Shakespeare shows Hamlet as

he first

conceives of

the idea for the Mousetrap. A troupe

of actors

has just he

arrived at

the

castle.

During

the course of a moody soliloquy in which

berates himself for delay, Hamlet, to have prompted murderers to confess openly their guilt, hits the Mousetrap:
recalling that scenes

from

plays are reputed upon

the idea of

366

Interpretation
I'll have these
players

Play something like the murder of my father Before mine uncle. I'll observe his looks,
I'll tent him to the
quick.

If a do blench,

I know my

course.

(II. ii. 590-94. Emphasis added.)

Claudius'

These lines
will

commonly taken to mean that Hamlet believes be revealed if he is provoked to some emotional response,
are
within a
play.27

guilt
"blench"

some

by

the play

Even if Hamlet is here thinking

visible,
this
or
emotional

of no more

than provoking Claudius to a

reaction, the soliloquy

portrays

Hamlet

at

the moment that

idea first

occurs.

Most

accounts of

Hamlet's

Mousetrap

assume, explicitly
thinking.28

implicitly,
would

some

degree

of evolution

And it

be the

mark of a rare man

in Hamlet's planning and indeed whose ideas were not

refined as

his

plan of execution was worked out

reason

for

such a plan

to

be

revised:

As

in detail. Moreover, there would be good we have demonstrated, it cannot work.

Horatio
could witness

And it is improbable that Hamlet

courtiers
Claudius'

and

the

reaction of

the

Claudius'

who

attribute and

anger and

to Hamlet's
certain

thinly

veiled

threat to

person

throne

remain

that Claudius

had been
Claudius'

trapped, if the
"blench."

Mousetrap in its final form had involved no more than Finally, the balance of Hamlet's comments concerning the Mousetrap
the plan that has been outlined
above.29

are consistent with

I know my far from certain. The lines do not say that if Claudius blenches, his revealed; they say that if Claudius blenches, Hamlet "knows [his]

Moreover,

the meaning of the lines "If a do

blench,

course"

is

guilt

is

course."

If,

is commonly assumed, Hamlet is here understanding a blench by Claudius as proof of guilt, then his would be to exact his revenge; but, on this
as
"course"

reading, the lines

immediately following
thought:

seem

to

be

an abrupt

interruption

of

Hamlet's train

of

If

do blench,

I know my course. The spirit that I have seen may be a devil, and the devil hath power T'assume Out
of a

pleasing shape, yea,

and

perhaps,

my

weakness and

my melancholy,

As he is very potent with such spirits, Abuses me to damn me. (II. ii. 593-99)

An

alternate

reading

avoids this abrupt

interruption; if

Claudius'

blenching

at

the critical moment signals the failure of the plan to establish

Claudius'

guilt,
reflection

then Hamlet's
upon

"course"

is

not action

but further inquiry. Hamlet's

the credibility
that the ghost

of

the ghost and his own

some

infirmity
intrigue,

and upon with

the possi
soul

bility

is involved in

demonic

Hamlet's

in the balance

is

a natural and

logical

continuation of this train of thought.

On Hamlet's

Mousetrap
It has been

367
inter
ob
with

Finally,
pretation served

under

this latter reading of these

lines,

another problem of resolved.

concerning Hamlet's his

penned

Mousetrap

may be

that Hamlet asks the players to perform The Murder of

Gonzago,
see

the

addition of

lines, before

the soliloquy in

which we

him

conceiving for the first time the notion of having "these players play something like the murder of my (II.ii.590-91). This creates something of a tem
father"

poral

anomaly

under

standard

interpretations

of

the Mousetrap. As Jenkins

notes:

The in

plan that

Hamlet in

seems

motion and

a more precise

only now to be arriving form (a named play

envisages.30

at

he has

of course

already

set

with a proposed additional

speech) than

at this point

he

But if the

plan which

Hamlet
of

conceives

two different depictions

the slaying

of a

during this soliloquy includes using the king in the manner outlined above,

the apparent anomaly disappears.

The Murder of Gonzago, with the addition of the lines penned by Hamlet, may be assumed to contain a depiction of the killing of a duke by his nephew.

On the

other

hand,
of of

the plot to

unmask

the soliloquy represents Hamlet as not yet having conceived Claudius when asking the players to perform The Murder of

Gonzago. But,
the unmasking

course, there is no anomaly if Hamlet's initial

motive

is

not

Claudius. And

such an

independent

motive

is

not

difficult to
not, act.

identify. Before the But he

penned
can speak.

success of the

Mousetrap, Hamlet

cannot,

or will

by

The Murder of Gonzago with the addition of the lines Hamlet will depict a nephew slaying a king, the deed to which

Hamlet is
albeit
no act

by the demands of pagan virtue. Speech, then, is a substitute, for weak, performing the deed itself. No doubt Hamlet, who has shown reluctance to insult Claudius, recognizes immediately that Claudius will re
called

angrily to

such a scene's

being

played

in his

presence.

But it is only later,

during
guilt

the course of his soliloquy, that it occurs to Hamlet that the indignant

reaction

Claudius

ought

to have to the spoken play might be derailed and

precedes

his

established, if Hamlet

the

event

by having

the players
out to

"Play
be the

something like the

father"

murder of

my

(II.ii.591). This turns

dumb-show,
spoken play.

which parallels more

closely the murder of

concern

his father than does the

players'

Accordingly, Hamlet's two, different

plan evolves

references

to the
the Mouse

putting

on

the play-within-a-play

two distinct

aspects of

trap,

as

that

in Hamlet's thinking.

V. PRACTICAL OBJECTIONS

It may be
Claudius'

also argued that

will

cessfully staged, that it

misplaced silence

be difficult for this reading to be suc be nearly impossible for an audience to grasp that is the most revealing moment of the Mousetrap. A it
will

368

Interpretation
perhaps accustomed

modem audience varlet's

to the view that tolerance, even of a

insults, is
audience

bethan

may that kings do not

a virtue

not understand as

sit without

readily as would an Eliza indignation through a dramatic

points out:

depiction

of their own murder.

As Dover Wilson
have demanded

An Elizabethan

audience would

such a

reaction, conscious as

they

royalty on such matters, more especially with the Essex rising of February 1601 fresh in their minds; a rising which had been preceded the day before by a performance of Shakespeare's Richard II in order to
were of the sensitiveness of

incite the deposed

people of

London to

rebellion and p.

to show them that princes had been

and might

be

again.

(WHH,

170. Emphasis added.)

Claudius'

Moreover,
lence his
as

the

distracting
within a

turmoil

that must follow

pregnant

si and

the play

court exit

compounds

play is halted in staging difficulties. There

to make

midperformance, and
are

Claudius

two responses to be

made

to this

point. choose
more apparent

First, directors may

the emotions that

Clau

dius is undergoing at the moment of the "talk of the although it arguably detracts from his deserved stature, Claudius
to look profoundly
clear confused or perhaps
even

poisonin

For example,

might

be

made

relieved

when

it becomes
of relief as

that the

nephew

is the

murderer of would

the player-king. A

display

during
as

the talk of the poisoning

silence.

betray

Claudius to Hamlet just

King"

surely
made

does his

Similarly, Hamlet's
the

reading

of

the

line "nephew to the

could

be

dramatic
would

center of the scene.

A threatening tone

and a self-referential ges

mere

ture

inform the theater

audience

that the spoken play is more than a

re-enactment of

the dumb-show. The courtiers could visibly register their

rising

indignation

at

lighting

and

Hamlet's insult. It is easy to imagine ways in which modem dramatic staging techniques could lend emphasis to these distinc

tions, and staging decisions that are based upon sound textual analysis need no defense. Ultimately, however, the practical Objection may be well taken; the working of the Mousetrap is complex and subtle, and the point of denouement,
even with

dramatic prompts, will escape the notice of many. However, Shakespeare's dramatic artistry goes far toward eliminating the serious consequences of a failure to grasp the import of silence. Al
Claudius'

though all elements of the

makes

Mousetrap

are shown

to the theater audience, Hamlet

con

known beforehand that he

come and

clusion,

Horatio will, upon the Mousetrap's together to join judgment "in censure of [Claudius']
and

seeming"

(III.ii.86);
trap has

the pair

worked.

Any

fulfill this promise, subsequently assuring us that the guilt would be dispelled lingering doubts about
Claudius'
murder"

in his ensuing soliloquy to his "brother's (III.iii.38). Thus, should those who "are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb-shows and (III. ii 11-12) fail to understand why the Mousetrap works, they will

by

the reference

noise"

still understand that the

Mousetrap

works,

and

accordingly be

able to

follow

the general flow

of

the dramatic

action.

On Hamlet's
It

Mousetrap

369

is, then,

perhaps

preferable,
with

and

to stage the

play-within-a-play
His

throughout both the dumb-show

unmasking. observers
others"

and

certainly most faithful to the text, Claudius outwardly calm and unmoved the spoken play, reacting only after his
Hamlet's
"judicious"

silence can thus continue to speak to

censure of which one must
. . .

for "the

o'erweigh a whole theatre of

matter of

(III. ii. 26-28)

those who, Polonius reminds us, as a

out"

course,

"By indirections
NOTES

find directions

(Il.i. 66).

1. Hamlet's but
and

mad

behavior is itself a scheme of this nature: "I essentially am not in madness, Hamlet (Ill.iv. 189-90), Harold Jenkins, ed., The Arden Shakespeare (London New York: Methuen, 1982), hereinafter "Hamlet, Jenkins, All quotations of Hamlet are
antic

in

craft.'

ed."

from the Arden

ter WHH.

edition.

2. See, e.g., J. Dover Wilson, What Happens in Hamlet (London: Cambridge, 1967), hereinaf 3. See, e.g., S.L. Bethell, Shakespeare 1944).
and still most and the

Popular Dramatic Tradition (Durham: Duke

second-

University Press,
W.W.

4. The initial, 18(1919): 1 For

'The Murder
of

elegant, presentation of the

Hamlet,"

tooth

theory is

set

forth in

Lawrence, "The Play Scene in

a more modern
Gonzago,'"

variation, see

Journal of English and Germanic Philology M.R. Woodhead, "Deep Plots and Indiscretions in 32 (1979): 151.
Mousetrap,"

Shakespeare

Survey

5. See e.g., W.W. Lawrence, "Hamlet and the Publications of the Modern Lan guage Association 54(1939): 709, criticizing the theory that Claudius did not see the dumb-show. 6. See Hamlet, Jenkins, ed., Show? (Edinburgh: Edinburgh 1
.

pp.

501-5,

and

Ophelia's

questions

to

University Press, 1975), Hamlet during the first

W.W. Robson, Did the King See hereinafter The Dumb-Show.

the Dumb-

interlude

of

the Mousetrap's performance

imply

that Hamlet has a superior knowledge of the

play's contents

(III. ii. 134 ff.). And Claudius

play?"

asks of

Hamlet, during the second interlude, "What do 8. This theory has its root in a suggestion in J.O.
allowable to

you call the

Halliwell-Phillips'

(III. ii. 231).

edition of

1865

Hamlet:

"Is it

direct that the

King

and

Queen

should
it?"

dumb-show, and delphia: Lippincott, 1877).

during

the

so escape a sight of

be whispering confidentially to each other Quoted in The New Variorum edition (Phila
the

9. Dover Wilson
point,

would solve

this problem

by having
that"

King
p.

and

Queen stop acting

n.l).

at

this

i.e., "remain

still and without

by-play

while

the dumb-show is proceeding; since the whole

attention of the audience must

be

concentrated upon

(WHH,

184

Another

adherent of

this

theory

would solve
and

the problem

by having

the dumb-show performed on a part of the stage not

pp. 50-

visible to

Claudius
same

55. In the
10.
scene:

spirit,

one might

Gertrude. R. Flatter, Hamlet's Father (London: Heineman, 1949), have the dumb-show performed in another theater.
nearly
so what on

This, however, is very

"'Poison!'

Dover Wilson does in his

the ear of

explanation of this crucial

the word grates

harshly

Claudius,
p.

as

it

was meant

to do. Hamlet

is

flashing
.

the vial in

his face, but

"

swiftly that he
truth"

cannot see what

it is. The flash is disconcert

The Modern Language

ing, but Claudius has no suspicion of the 1 1 See, e.g. A. Walker, 'Milching Review 31(1936) 513. See also Hamlet, Jenkins, 12. See, e.g., Ill.ii. 17-19:
,

(WHH,
and

191).
Hamlet,"

Malicho'

the

ed.,

p.

Play Scene in 502 (summarizing

variations on the theory).

Suit the
the that

action

to the word,

word you

to the action, with this special observance,

o'erstep

not the

modesty

of nature.
Mousetrap,"

13. W.W. Lawrence, "Hamlet And the Association, 54(1931): 734. See also Woodhead,

"Deep

Plots

Publications of the Modern Language and Indiscretion in 'The Murder of

370

Interpretation
p.

Gonzago,'"

153:

"[Claudius]

sits

through the
guilt'

[dumb-show]

unmoved

but

at

the climax of the

Hamlet."

play more than blenches, his "occulted 14. See, e.g., III.i.49-54:

having

been clearly demonstrated to

O 'tis too true, How smart a lash that

speech

doth

give

my

conscience

heavy

burden!
probable

15. It is

that

Hamlet did
After the

not

intend

or expect

the dumb-show to startle Claudius

Claudius'

into

some misplaced expression:

Mousetrap

has been trapped, he asks "upon the talk of the (III. ii. 283). For Hamlet, the critical moment reaction to the spoken play. Hamlet is not interested enough in
tion that the prey
Claudius'
poisoning"

has been sprung, and Hamlet is seeking Horatio whether he had observed
of

confirma reaction

the

intrigue is
to the

Claudius'

response

dumb-show

even

to ask

whether

Horatio has
when

Claudius'

observed some aspect of

expression
Claudius'

that he

himself

might

have

missed.

Similarly,

asking Horatio to
the spoken play:

assist

in observing

behav

ior, Hamlet focuses Horatio's

There is One
a

attention upon

scene of

play tonight before the King. it comes near the circumstance

of my father's death. I prithee, when thou seest that act afoot, Even with the very comment of thy soul

Which I have told thee

Observe my uncle. If his Do not itself unkennel in It is

a

occulted guilt
one

speech,

damned

ghost that we

have

seen.

(III. ii. 75-82)

guilt.

Speech,
Claudius

Claudius'

not

pantomime,

will unkennel

Indeed, Hamlet's lack

of concern

for how his

reacts to

the dumb-show is one of the reasons that Dover Wilson

offers

in

support of

theory

that the dumb-show was not part of

Hamlet's

plan.

16. In his prayer-soliloquy

tional agitation occasioned
gives orders to

following

by

the Mousetrap.

Rosencrantz

and

Mousetrap, Claudius reveals the high degree of emo Yet, in the immediately preceding scene, he calmly Guildenstem about Hamlet's going to England, implying he has
the
against

already devised the means and manner of the plot his ability to think clearly, despite his agitation.
administered

Hamlet's life. We

can

have

no

doubt

of

17. The Mousetrap, in both the dumb-show and the spoken play, in the ears both ears, not one echoing the ghost's porches of my ears did pour/The leperous (I. v. 63-64).
distilment"

speaks of

the poison's

being

claim that

Claudius "in the

Ophelia's next remark, asking whether the dumb-show for a play, like the play, play to follow. An must possess an intelligible beginning, middle, and end. If Ophelia did not understand what had been portrayed by the dumb-show, it is unlikely that she would think of it as a potential candidate
conclusion reinforced

18. This

is

by

constitutes the argument

for the

"argument"

spoken

for

an argument.

19. Hamlet
an

makes a

bawdy

rejoinder and

to

Ophelia,
remark

the kind of remark perhaps

inconsistent

with

intent to

offend

Claudius deeply,
But Ophelia

the

the dumb-show

raised more

than moderate
and

diverts Ophelia from pressing her inquiry. Had concern in Ophelia, it is unlikely that she could have like
the
anyone confronted

been

put off so easily.

the courtiers,

by

the prospect of
and alert
room.

tasteless

behavior,

will now

be

more

than usually attentive to the spoken play that

captured

follows

to innuendo. Hamlet

has, by his dumb-show,

is
whether

full

attention of everyone

in the
to his

20. Gertrude's defense implies

and

reputation

under apparent assault.

Claudius'

failure to

come

wife's

his asking instead

the argument of the spoken play has any

could

"offence"

in it

a total preoccupation with

his

own concerns.

21. See II. ii. 534-36: "Hamlet: You

for

a need

study

a speech of some

dozen

or sixteen

lines,
style

which

would set

down

than speculate about what

insert in't, could you lines Hamlet penned, the lines

and

not?"

While it is

not possible

to do more

spoken more

by

the player-nephew do differ

and

in
to

from the preceding lines. The

nephew's

lines

are

far

melodramatic,

they employ

On Hamlet's
a great extent

Mousetrap
not used

371

the rhetorical device of repeated grammatical

forms,

device

in the lines
the
"player-

preceding.

22. In the interest

king"

of

clarity,

we

have

referred

to the

actor

and

his

wife

the

"player-queen,"

and

they indeed

are

portraying Gonzago denoted as and

"king"

as

"queen"

in the

text of Hamlet. But the text of the play-within-a-play does not suggest that they are king and queen; that text is consistent with Hamlet's characterization of the player-king as a Duke named Gonzago:
and

Gertrude's

response to

Hamlet, "The lady doth

stage as

methinks"

protest

too much,

(III. ii. 225),

con

firms that they are being portrayed to the been more precise to refer to them as the

lord

and

lady

i. e.,

sans crown.

It

would

have

"player-duke"

"player-lady."

and as

Accordingly,
iers
must see

when

Hamlet introduces Lucianus

scene to

"nephew to the

King"

courtiers are

personalizing the thus prepared by Hamlet to

as

Hamlet

follow. Gonzago is

not a

(III. ii. 239), the court duke, but a king. The

Claudius,
"King"

who

would

see Gonzago as Claudius, and Hamlet as Lucianus. To has been thinking of the player-king as standing for old Hamlet, the reference to have little impact; for him, the puzzling reference to old Hamlet's nephew would be

heard

most prominently. prepared us

23. Shakespeare has

nius explain at

to understand such rhetorical uses of silence

by having

Polo

length, at the beginning of Act II, an almost whimsical scheme directed against his such as "drink son, Laertes. Polonius, concerned that Laertes may be committing minor and the like, directs his emissary to ask after his son and ing, fencing, swearing,
"crimes,"
quarreling,''

pretend
manner
will

to be

distant

acquaintance who recollects

liberty"

Laertes

as

being

"wanton
an

wild"

and

in the

"most known to
made
Laertes'

youth and who can

(Il.i. 22-24, 25-26). If Laertes is be

counted upon

have

honorable friends

to rise with

honorable man, he indignation at such slan

friends'

ders. But if

something like, "I know the gentleman; I saw him yester (Il.i. 55-57), then the failure to day, or the other day, or then, or then, with such and object would impliedly affirm the set of facts presupposed in the emissary's questions and thus
answer with
such"

friends

Laertes'

reveal of

licentious behavior.

Polonius'

scheme, overtly

unconnected with
midst of

the dramatic

action

clanging cymbals. 24. Whatever subconscious motivations may be hypothesized for Hamlet's utterance see, his stating that the e.g., Ernest Jones, Hamlet and Oedipus (New York: Doubleday, 1949)
player-nephew undercut

the play, reminds us to listen for the silences, even in the

becomes the lover

of the player-queen would audience would

be taken

by

the stage audience to

the possibility that he had intended the spoken play. No one, the courtiers would think,
Claudius'

to

identify

him

with

the

nephew of

the

willingly

subject

himself to

such obloquy.

Cf. Pericles, Prince of Tyre, I. i. 145-48. 25. The characterizations of

suggestion that
"totter,''

exit

Claudius

maintains

his

outward

have been wildly divergent, ranging from Robson's decorum, to Dover Wilson, who has Claudius
compulsively"

(Robson, Flatter, who is convinced that Claudius rises "violently and Dumb-Show, at p. 19; Dover Wilson, WHH; R. Flatter, "The Climax of the Play Scene in Shakespeare Journal 11, no. 8 [1952]: 26-42, 29).
to

Hamlet,"

It is
play.

necessary to Even if Claudius is

not and

put

too fine a point on

Claudius'

reaction

to Hamlet's interruption of the

would

viewed as

displaying

anger at

this point,

it

be too late to

cover

his

failure

thus irrelevant to Hamlet's purposes. It is

after

the "talk of

poisoning"

(III. ii. 283) that

Claudius

rises.

26. Shakespeare: Hamlet (New York: Cambridge 27. Shakespeare, in from the path of reason
Claudius'
"blench"

University Press, 1989),

to mean a

pp.

22-64.

other or

contexts,

deceiving

oneself.

"looks,"

makes referencing 28. See, e.g., Robson, The Dumb-Show

swerving See The Winter's Tale, I.ii. 333. But line II.ii.593, it difficult to insist on that reading here.
,

uses

kind

of mental misstep:

p.

13:

"When
that the

[Hamlet] first conceived the plan he may have jumped to the optimistic conclusion he [came] to realize that this was King would betray himself flagrantly. But
.

unlikely."

says that

29. Before the Mousetrap, he expects

Claudius'

when

guilt

to "itself

speaking to Horatio about the unkennel in one

plan

speech"

for the first time, Hamlet (III.ii.81). This manner of

guilt.

speaking is

neutral

to the way

in

which

Claudius is

expected

to

betray

his

Hamlet

seems

to be

372
taking

Interpretation
care not to prejudice

Horatio's judgment. But Hamlet's insistence that Claudius

"Even
with

must

be

watched

very, very closely

the very
rivet to not

comment of

thy

soul/Observe

my uncle"; "Give
suggests

him heedful note"; and "I mine eyes will Hamlet's plan involves some subtle point,

his

face"

(III. ii. 79-80,

84, 85)

that

merely has been sprung, Hamlet asks whether Horatio "Didst the success of the Mousetrap? (III. ii. 281). When Horatio answers affirmatively, Hamlet carefully ensures that Horatio is basing his judgment "upon the talk of the (III. ii. 283), that is,

blatant

emotional response.

Likewise,

perceive"

after

the

Mousetrap

poisoning"

Claudius'

upon cal response

demeanor

several moments

before Claudius displays his Some have

most

demonstrative,

physi

to the play-within-a-play.
pp.

30. Hamlet, Jenkins, ed.,

272-73

n.

explained

this apparent temporal anomaly

by

construing the soliloquy

as

retrospective, portraying Hamlet's

frame

of mind as n.

he

asked

the

players to perform

the play.
with

See,

e.g., Dover

Wilson, WHH

at p.

however, is inconsistent

the first lines of the soliloquy, which

am

This interpretation, locate the soliloquy in time after

142
I!"

the departure of the players: "Now I

alone, O what a rogue and peasant slave am

(II.ii.543-

44). Harold Jenkins correctly observes that the apparent temporal anomaly "cannot plained by Dover Wilson's theory (p. 273 n.).
away"

quite

be

ex

Wisdom

and

Fortune:
of

The Education

the Prince in Shakespeare's

King

Lear

Joseph Alulis

University

of Chicago

In the last
the play's

scene of

King Lear

the crown,

given

away

by

the old monarch at

beginning,
as

comes to rest upon

Edgar,

son of

Gloucester.1

This fact

raises a question:

Why

the

drama

a whole?

is the crowning of Edgar the necessary conclusion for This question in turn suggests another: What is the
to each
other? and

relation of

the play's

plot and subplot us

An

examination of

this

second question

leads

to the answer to the

about

first

hence to
prince

a central mean

ing

of

the play, a

teaching

the

prince.2

If the

is to be good, he
of

must

role of

be wise, and at the heart fortune in the affairs of

paper

of political wisdom men. parts.

is the understanding

the

This

is divided into three

the

The first

addresses the question of

the

relation of

the subplot to the plot and the

content

kinds
gives

of

issues the

subplot raises.

The

second examines offers some

the subplot

to each of these issues. The third

plot, the story

preliminary of Lear.

observations on

the way the subplot illuminates the

There

are some

fifty

or

sixty

versions of

the Lear story

prior

to

Shakespeare,

has anything like this subplot (K. Muir, 1972, p.xxxix, n.2). Shakespeare took it from Sidney's Arcadia. The story of Gloucester and his
and none of them

Sidney's story of the King of Paphlagonia and his two What is there about Shakespeare's intention that calls for this addition? The
sons parallels
sons.3

answer to this question

presumably lies in the

relation of

this

story to that
Lear is that
abuse

of

Lear.

The

most obvious relation

is that

of similarity.

The story

of

of a and

king

who gives all a

to two deceitful daughters

disinherits

tmthful daughter who comes

subsequently to his rescue. The story disinherits

a

who

him

of

Gloucester

is that
"sees"

of an earl who advances a

false

son and

true one and then

the

first

abuse

him

and

the second come to

his

rescue.

The

subplot

repeats the plot.

In repeating

story that

centers

on

the

issue

of

heightens the

salience of

that issue in two ways. The

filial piety, the subplot story of Gloucester both

interpretation,

Spring 1994,

Vol. 21, No. 3

374

Interpretation
the catastrophe of the story of Lear. A.

universalizes and makes more concrete

C.

Bradley
This

articulates

the

first idea:
pain with which

repetition

does

not

simply double the

the

tragedy is
Lear
and

witnessed:

it

startles and terrifies

by

suggesting that the

folly

of

the

ingratitude
that

of

his daughters

are no accidents or

in that dark
observation

cold world some

merely individual aberrations, but fateful malignant influence is abroad. (P. 215.
p.

This

is

also made

by

Schlegel. See K. Muir, 1972,

lvi.)

Stanley. Cavell
what

gives

voice

to the second: "Gloucester suffers physically

Lear

psychically"

suffers

(p. 278). Some critics, for

example

Samuel

Samuel Taylor Coleridge, think the blinding of Gloucester is "too (K. Muir, 1984, pp. 2, 9). The horrid to be endured in dramatic

Johnson defense

and

exhibition"

of

this event is that nothing less horrible

to what Lear suffers
spiritually.

would

do to

give physical

expression

"The very

violence and

horror
sort

of

[it] finds its dramatic justification in the

catastrophe

need

to match

in

another

the

to

Lear"

(Granville-Barker, 1:274).
has the
effects of a

Surely
noted.

the story of the subplot does repeat that of the plot and

But it does something else, too. It also tells filial piety and thus raises other issues in the story One finds Here Edgar Insofar
as a

different story than that of Lear.

speech of act

hint

of

this different story in the

last

3,

scene

6.

comments on

Lear's

plight:

"He

childed as

fathered"

(3.6.108).

the subplot repeats the plot, Gloucester is Lear's counterpart. Here

suggests

Shakespeare
Lear is the
author of

that Edgar

also

be

seen as

the way for the

conclusion of

the play
at

when

Edgar

Lear's counterpart, preparing ascends the But if

throne.4

object of

injustice
relation

the hands

of

two of

his daughters, he is the

injustice in

to a third. In order for Edgar's comparison of

himself to Lear to be

complete

it

must

include Edmund. Edmund is Edgar's

double,

and

the two together are a foil to Lear. The subplot,

then,

not

only
the

repeats the

plot; it also tells a different though complementary story. The immediate effect of seeing this different relation of stories is to
private realm to the political.

shift

focus from the

Lear
plot
a

Tolstoy

called

the

subplot of

King
main

distraction.5

He is right, but the distraction is deliberate. As the

private, the

subplot highlights political affairs. In Granville-Barker's words, the story of Lear moves to its climax in act 3 "in one great impetus of (1.271). At the start of that movement Lear is

becomes

increasingly

inspiration"

surrounded

by

"all the large

effects/

That troop
and
strife"

majesty"

with old

(1.1.130-31);
man"

at

its end, he is but a "Poor, infirm, weak, 1 he is concerned to prevent "future his sole, obsessive concern is "filial Lear is addressed as "Royal
position of
of

despis'd

(3.2.20). In

act

in his kingdom

ingratitude"

(3.4. 14). 6

(1.1.43-44); in act 3 Where, at the start,

from
a

majesty"

and

treats with other sovereigns

as

power,

by

act

3 he describes himself

merely the "old

kind

father"

two ungrateful

daughters (3.4.20).

The Education of the Prince in

The
subplot

King

Lear

375

Edmund,

does indeed distract from this: its movement, in the person of is in the opposite direction and just as rapid. In act 1 Edmund's life is
standing.

entirely private; as a bastard he has no public Gloucester into denying Edgar ("I never got (2.1.83-84). In
act

By

act

2 he has tricked
making him heir

him."

2. 1

.77)

and

3 he becomes

earl

in his father's

place of

by betraying

to

Cornwall Gloucester's sympathy with Lear and possession the landing of foreign forces to aid the old king.
In
see of

information

about

act

3, then,
so

as

Lear descends into madness, the

status of major public actor.

ultimate private

state,

we

Edmund rise to the

By

act

Cornwall,

far

as

Regan's

wishes

step away from

being

ruler of

the whole

may make him so kingdom. The Fool

compares

5, Edmund is Duke (5.3.69-79), and a

comments on

these

opposite movements.

In

a speech to

Kent he
goes

"a great wheel

[running]

down

hill"

with

"the

upward"

great one

that

(2.4.69-72).

By

the former

he clearly intends Kent to understand Lear; the the latter. And just as holding onto a downhill standing in the way of one going uphill fortune to get hit from both directions. As the
another.

audience recognizes wheel will

Edmund in
neck, so
mis

break

your

will crush you.

It is Gloucester's

plot recounts the

fall
not

of one

monarch, the

subplot recounts

the rise of
and

Plot

and subplot or

offsprings'

Surely

piety from the first

lack

of

only tell the story of a father's it. Rather, both stories deal with "the division
of

folly

his

political mle.

reference to
mle."7

the

kingdom"

(1.1.3-4)

the

play is about "political issue. This is evident when To

appreciate what

But the

subplot gives a particular

focus to this

story to Shakespeare's meaning, one need only imagine the end of the play without him. The dramatic resolution of the story of Lear as Shakespeare conceived it requires the deaths of Lear and
Edgar's story
contributes

one considers

the

of

Edgar.

Cordelia,

the end of the evil characters and the reunion of the kingdom

under a

good mler.

The

subplot contributes

to

all

three of these events. In its absence

the obvious solution, as the ending of the

role

Quarto suggests, is to

assign

Edgar's

to

Albany

and

Edmund's to Cornwall.
the
sons-in-law

Contrary
decent

to some of

Shakespeare has
also

made one of
of strife

and

the

other

his sources, a villain. He

introduces talk
seems

9). This
dead
after

to point

between the two (2.1.10-11, 3.1.19-21, 3.3.8to a climactic fight between them, leaving Cornwall kingdom. Prior to this fight
and

and

Albany in

possession of a reunited

the defeat of the

ordering the murder Regan one need only imagine

French, Cornwall would have been assigned the role of of Lear and Cordelia. Finally, to dispose of Goneril and
an adulterous relation

between Cornwall

and

Goneril, like that between Goneril and Edmund, and have Goneril kill her and then herself just as she does in the play as written.

sister

What is gained by rejecting this solution and adding Edgar and his brother? In particular, what difference does it make to have Edgar king instead of Al bany? Four things seem particularly noteworthy.

376
1
.

Interpretation
A fifth-act fight between
Cornwall is merely a fight between to the throne. The fight between Edgar and Ed

Albany

and

two conventional claimants mund,

however, is

a climactic

fight between

good and

evil, justice and

injus

tice. In act 4 the action of the subplot chiefly

endeavor

concerns

Edgar's

successful

his father from taking his own life. Edgar's thought in he acting thus is expressed in a single line in this act: "Thy life is a tells his father (4.6.55). In this act, second only to act 1 in length, Edmund has
to prevent

miracl

but

a single

line,

addressed

to Goneril: "Yours
preparation

in the

death"

ranks of

(4.2.25).

In the

penultimate

act, in

Edgar is

associated with

life his his

and

Edmund

for the coming battle between them, with death.

act

2. Edgar has
scene

no conventional claim

to the throne as does Albany. In

5,

3, Albany
upon

asserts and

right

to

mle

(5.3.60-62),
elder claim

right

recognized as

resting

his title
of

marriage

to Lear's

daughter (62-67). In this

"In his
own grace

context,

on

behalf

Edmund,

contrary

is

raised:

he

doth
3.

exalt

himself (68).

By

the same

token, Edgar's
of

ascension raises

the issue

of a nonconventional claim

to mle, a claim

"grace"

as opposed

to blood.

Albany is virtuous, but his virtues are those of loyalty and decency only. In act 1, scene 4, he is slow to appreciate the breach Goneril has deliberately
made

between herself
own

and

in his
spite

household

(293)

her father (271-72), is and in the matter of

submit

unaware of what pmdence seems of

has

gone on

content, de
wife

his

serious

reservations, to

his judgment to that

shown

his

(327).

Edgar,

on

the

other

hand, in

acts

and

4, has

himself possessed
wisdom. new mler

of great

intellectual virtue, both in his resourcefulness and his 4. The last speech of the play refers to what the
(5.3.324-25). But it is
whole of acts report

has

witnessed

Edgar,

not

Albany,

who

has

seen

the

most.

During

the

3 and 4, Albany (4.2.2-9, 69-97). If the

who

remains at

home

and

leams

of events

experience of

Lear has

a critical

only by lesson to con

vey, then it is Edgar

sees with

has the

his

own eyes what

opportunity to leam it. For Edgar Lear has experienced on the heath (3.4.45-181,
amplest

3.6.1-99)
sions show

and on

Dover beach
172-173).

(4.6.80-200),

and

his

comments on

both

occa

that these scenes have impressed him

deeply

(3.6.

59-60, 100-107;

4.6.85, 139-40,

The subplot, then, raises three specific issues concerning political mle. First, a contest for mle between one who represents death, Edmund, and an
other who represents

derstandings

of

the

life, Edgar, involves a contest between two different un good and of justice. Second, the claim of each brother to
but merit,
as
raises

the throne resting not on convention

acter proper

the
a

question of

the

char

to a good mler,

with

Edmund embodying
the question
of

bad

or

tyrannical and

Edgar

a good or royal character.

Third,

the subplot concludes with

Edgar's before
edu-

ascension to

the throne, it

prompts

how

what

has

gone

has

prepared

him for

mle.

The

conclusion of

the play is
of

dramatically

satisfying

because Edgar is fitted to the

role

by

knowledge

justice,

character and

The Education of the Prince in

cation.8

King
of

Lear

377

The

account of

his

education

for
I

mle raises

the question the

the meaning the

subplot

of political wisdom. gives

In the

next part

will consider

content

to each of these issues.

II

The Idea of the Good

and

the

Just

Edmund. Edmund
act

shows us what shows

he

understands

by

the good and the just in

1,

scene

2. First he

how he

addresses the question:

bound"

"Thou,
but

nature, art
will what

my goddess; to
guided not good and

thy law/
nature.

My
His

services are

(1.2.1-2). Edmund
nation

be
is

by

what appears

to be good and

just to any

by

just

by

speech suggests at once what

he thinks In

nature
partic

declares to be

good:

the

unlimited and robust satisfaction of appetite.

ular, Edmund focuses

upon

the two appetites

which are strongest and stand

for

9 the rest, the desires for sexual gratification and property (1.2. 11- 16). In this

same scene
"goatish"

Edmund

speaks

of man's nature

natural

inclination
understood of

"disposition"

or

as of

(1.2.124-25). Man's
good consists of

is best

in the light justice is the

the

beasts. As the
whatever

the satisfaction

appetites, then the just is

of

best

satisfies

this end. A corollary of this

expressed

idea

mle of

the more

powerful.10

This idea is

in the letter Edmund

writes

but

attributes to

Edgar: it is foolish to obey those without power (1.2.47-49). At the end of the scene as at the start Edmund is alone on the stage

and

expresses

his

central conviction

lands
what

by
his

wit:/

All

with me's

in bold language: "Let me, if not by birth, have meet that I can fashion (1.2.180-81). This is
fit"

goddess teaches:

"meet"

or

right is

"fashion"

whatever one can most

to

serve one's

appetites,

and as

the stronger may do the law

in this direction,

mle of

the stronger

is just.
of of nature runs counter

Edmund's understanding

to a traditional

teaching
expressly
ish

that saw the

rejects as

"meet"

as a restraint upon appetite. same speech

This idea Edmund

"meet"

folly. In the

in

which

he defines the

in

a nontraditional
honesty"

or traditional nature as a "fool way he derides Edgar's 178). In this Edmund raises the question as to (1.2.176, way

"noble"

which of

these two different understandings of nature

folly?"

is tme,

which

is

wisdom

and which

This
tion

question mns through

the

entire play.

Shakespeare dramatizes the

ques

by

playing his

on

the paradox of giving to the Fool speeches that express

traditional
one of

wisdom.

Thus, for

example, the Fool

offers a counsel of restraint

n

in

songs that speaks

directly

to Edmund (1.4. 122-25).

More to the

point,

however, is

the Fool's advice to Kent to abandon Lear

because he, Kent,

378
will

Interpretation
break his I
neck

by

his

loyalty

(2.4.65-72). The Fool

proceeds

to comment

on

this advice:
would

"When

a wise man gives

thee better counsel, give me mine

again:

have

none

but knaves follow is idea is later

it,

since a

Fool

it"

gives a

(2.4.72man"

74). In short,

such counsel

called wisdom

only
wife

by "knaves";
in

"wise

knows it to be folly. The

same

expressed

an exchange

between

Albany
father:

and

Goneril.

Albany

reproaches

his

for her injustice toward her

Goneril: No more; the text is foolish. Albany: Wisdom and goodness to the Filths
savour

vile seem

vile;

but themselves. (4. 2. 37-39)

express

Edgar. Nowhere does Edgar

the just man's idea of goodness and

man.

justice has the

so

boldly

as

Edmund

expresses

that of the unjust

Although Edgar

lines in the play after Lear, almost a third of them are in act 3 in the disguise of Poor Tom, he pretends to be mad. But just as with where, Lear in act 4, in Edgar's speeches one may detect "reason in
most

madness"

(4.6. 173). In his

and the

speeches

in

act

3,

scene

4, Edgar

conveys

his idea

of

the good

by indicting Edmund's understanding as madness or folly. Edgar has thirteen speeches in scene 4, two of which consist of little
just
a-cold"

more

than "Tom's to the

(144, 170). In
of with

seven of

"fiend"

or

"the Prince

Darkness."

the remaining eleven, Edgar refers Edgar is a sane person pretending to

be

mad who

links the fiend

the

madness; that

is,

to do

as

the

fiend

advises
"meet"

is
as

madness,

and

fiend is the

personification of opposition

to the

The fiend's crime, by tradition, is rebellion against God. This is exactly Edmund's crime from the viewpoint of a traditional natural-law teaching: he will not submit to God's governance of the universe which dictates
restraint on appetite.

the

"meet"

but

claims that

"meet"

is

whatever

he

can

fashion to

attain what

he

likes. In short,
as not wisdom

by
but

his pretense, Edgar indicts Edmund's teaching

madness.13

about nature

This indictment is (83-98). Recall that

most complete when

in Edgar's longest

mad speech

in

scene

Edmund introduces

himself, (1.2.1-21),

one of

the

two appetites given prominence

is

sexual

brother, Edgar
of

emphasizes

lust

unchecked as

desire. As if in direct reply to his the way to and very best expres
significant vain and

sion of madness.

In this

speech

his

past

life

and
. .

the cause

of

he continually comes back to lust as his madness. He was proud and

swore oaths and

"serv'd the lust

(83-85); he
. .

broke them

and

"slept in
woman

the contriving of

lust,

out-paramour'd the

Turk"

(86-88); he loved wine and dice (88-90); he was false and bloody
concludes this

and

"in

and

"let

silks

betray [his]

heart"

poor

(90-94). He

litany

of evil

doing by
of

warning his auditors to "keep thy foot out of brothels, thy hand out of (94-95). Thus, in a speech of sixteen lines, describing crimes significant
madness, half
ral are so

plackets"

devoted to lust. As

sexual appetite stands

is

most

insistent,

so natu

to satisfy,

difficult to restrain, it

for

appetite generally.

Edgar is

The Education of the Prince in

expounding traditional teaching that is and does not dictate it.
"meet"

King

Lear

379
what

appetite must

be

made

to conform to

In the

central part of this speech

of

(91-92) five

vices are characterized

by

different beasts. This depiction

role

the human

being
reads

as

debased

by

life devoted
Edmund's

to the unbridled satisfaction of the appetites

like

an account of

in the play and his mund is a "fox in

tence that he to lust as

self-confessed

character.14

Thus, in

acts

and

2, Ed

stealth"

and, in

act

5,

"lion in

the central one is "wolf in

must

greediness"

which

Of the five animals, corresponds to Edmund's insis

prey."

have Edgar's land (1.2.15-16). I take

"hog

in

sloth"

to refer

is the ordinary sin of rakes. Finally, Edmund is a "dog in The dog may be taken as representing the spirited part (cf. Republic 575a-b). What it means to say Edmund is mad in his spiritedness leads to the
sloth
madness."

next

issue,

that of the

character of

the mler.

The Character of the Ruler The

tyrannical nature.

In the

persons of the two

proper

brothers Shakespeare

presents a picture of

the characters

to the tyrant and the king. It is

of

Edmund

who appears

first. Our initial impression

him, in

act

1,

scene

1, is

not unfavorable.

We

sympathize with

his

misfortune

that he must suffer

for his

father's

sin.

In

part our

should the accident of

sympathy reflects our democratic sentiments. birth make a difference in a person's standing?

Why

Edmund
with which mund

appeals

to those democratic sentiments

act

directly

in the

great speech

he introduces himself in

1,

scene

2. As Coleridge notes, Ed
as well as

introduces the issue

and opposition

of primogeniture

(1.2.3-6)

illegitimate Edmund

birth,

to this social mle

is

a good

democratic

position.

appeals

to

us as a rebel against unjust social convention and as we excuse of

his

done him, we also admire his determination not to suffer being wronged lightly. "Now, gods, stand up for (1.2.22) is like the appeal to the God of battles to vindicate the natural equality
the wrong
bastards"

wrongdoing in light

of man against
we recognize

tyrannic convention. We

admire

Edmund's right is

spiritedness

because

that the resolve to

fight for

one's

essential

to either

free

dom

or rale.

Moreover,
that
as

to this spiritedness is joined intellectual virtue. Ed

mund reveals a mind

is quick,

critical and clear.

It is

characteristic of such
million"

a mind

1924,

Hazlitt says, "One speech of his is worth a that, p. 14). In Coleridge's phrase, Edmund is "Endowed

(K. Muir,

by

nature with a

powerful

intellect

will"

and a

strong 3 to

energetic

(ibid.,

p.

8). intellect Earl

of and will.

It is in the

service of greed and

acts

lust that Edmund

employs

He

uses

both in

and

raise

himself to the

position of act

Glouces
Edmund

ter. But it is the spirited

element

that dominates. In

3,

scene

5,

betrays his father's complicity in the hostile action of a foreign power. A son who knew that his father was so compromised would be torn between private

380

Interpretation
duty. In the
scene

and public

in

which

he

exposes

his father, Edmund

expresses
clear

such a conflict sorrow

(3.5.8-9, 11-12, 20-22). But this brief scene makes is feigned. In lines that alternate with expressions of filial
Edmund's tme
of and

his

grief are
hand"

expressions of

(14-15),
ter

the

landing
to

fixed concern, the "mighty business in foreign forces on English soil. What rouses his charac
the

is the

prospect of

battle,

and resolution

attain still

desire for victory and the hope by force of arms greater heights. Edmund is mad in his spiritedness
is lower than itself
and

insofar both
own power

as

it

serves what

in that

service exalts

in its

to accomplish whatever it intends.

The
upon and

royal nature.
readers as

For

a number of

reasons, Edgar

makes an

impression

many 2 he appears

something less than royal. Unlike his brother, in acts 1 gullible and In act 3 he is reduced to the antics of a
weak."

madman.

Finally, in

act

some critics

think he is unpardonably self-righteous

in his

relation with

his father. In

what

follows I

will

take up

each of

these

objections.

Edgar

appears

in the play,

initially,
are

is difficult to
the start.

give

him

much credit

Edmund's dupe, and for this reason it for wit. Yet Edgar shows his intellect from
as

Practically

his first lines

to express skepticism of belief in astrol

practiced on or

ogy (1.2.135-39, 147). Further, if easily is because Edgar is not evil; his honesty Republic 409b, 348c). After he has been outlawed,
not
when

Edmund's villainy it (cf. nobility makes him

by

"foolish"

Edgar
plight.

reappears

in

act

2,

scene

3, he does

display

a spirited response to

his

Rather than declare his intention to 5 he Edmund his

fight

and win

back his estate, he

quite and

offers

his back to the blows (2.3.11-12). But

act

Edgar

appears

spirited

when

in

confronts

with

treachery, fights
spirit
ness

is

associated

defeats him (5.3.129-40, 149 S.D.). Moreover, insofar as with Edmund, it is associated with villainy. When spirited

presentation of

is dominant, as it is with Edmund, it is excessive. The fact that in the Edgar spiritedness appears only second suggests not that the

quality is
subject to

lacking

to him but that spiritedness

else that

is

not

the

highest; it

must

be

something

is tender

and submissive rather

than hard and

resistant.

In

act

3, in
are

the disguise

of

Poor Tom, Edgar's speeches,

suggested,

far from

mad gibberish.

Rather, they

show

as I have already Edgar to be both

intelligent
scene

and compassionate. act

Consider

3,

3, he is
to be
a

still

course, recognizes

4, where Edgar first appears as Poor Tom (in act 2, Edgar assuming the role of Poor Tom). The audience, of him as Gloucester's nobly bom son. He is a sane man pre
scene

tending
who

mad

to escape
where are

detection for fear

of

his life. In this

scene

he is

disturbed in
to escape

hovel
and

he has taken

shelter

from the

elements

by

people

know him is

detection

to see through his disguise. What better way than to escape their company? Thus his first speech once he
that

thus

likely

is

on stage

"Away,"

is, "Go

away."

He

proceeds to give them a sensible

The Education of the Prince in

reason

King

Lear

-381

to do so, "Through the sharp hawthorn blow the cold

suggests a pleasant alternative:

winds."

Then,
and warm

to

conclude, he (3.4.45-47).

"Go to thy bed As he

thee"

The
gar, it

same calculation explains

would

his

next speech. so

pretends to

be

beg
gives

be

suspicious not to
...

beg,

he

asks

for

handout: "Who

anything to Poor Tom? MacLean, p. 1 10). But he he

volunteers

Do Poor Tom does something

says once

charity"

some else to

(3.4.50, 59. See

scent: appearance a

also

throw them off his

information to (55): he has

explain

any trace of refinement it

was

in his

that

might arouse suspicion.

horse"

He

his

custom

to "ride on

bay
him

trotting
point

not

been destitute from birth. When Lear

asks

he has been, he invents a plausible identity: "a (84). One thinks of Oswald: not as high in the social hierarchy as
who

blank

servingman

gentleman,

but higher than Right

after

a peasant and so not

to be expected to be utterly

coarse.

this

false

identity

is offered, Edgar's father

appears.

Now the

danger

detection is increased: surely his father will recognize him, and his father has ordered his death. Edgar's speech at this point (112-21), the central
of

speech of scene

4,

conveys

both his

changed relation

to his

father

and

his desire

for their

reconciliation.
who

First he
poor

expresses alarm:

Gloucester is the "fiend Flib

prays

bertigibbet"

"hurts the

creature."

Then he

to a famous exorcist,

makes

St. Withold, that is, he prays that his father might be cured of the delusion that him seek his son's life. It is not his father who wishes to hurt him but
some nightmare that possesses
him.16

Edgar's
back"

next speech after

Gloucester
speaks of

arrives

is to

identify

himself

again

for

his father's benefit. Thus he

how

formerly

he had "three

suits

to his

the way Kent describes Oswald (2.2.13-15); explains how he "whipped from tithing to got there: (131), that is, he has come from some distance; and, finally, declares that he's been mad seven years (136), as if

(132-33),

tithing"

to say, "I

can't

be

your

son, he hasn't been

gone

twenty-four hours

yet."

Like his

reaction

a commentary on Lear to some shelter. Finally, Edgar has every reason to think, he will be left alone. Kent and Gloucester have no wish to take with them a mad beggar. This result

his father's appearance, Edgar's last speech in scene 4 is his situation, this time ironic. Gloucester has come to take
to

is foiled

by

his

mind with an

Lear's insistence that Tom accompany them. Edgar relieves ironic comment significant to the audience but only mad talk

to the other

characters:

Child Rowland to the dark tower came, His I

word was still:

Fie, foh,

and

smell

the blood of a British

man.

fum, (179-81)
a candidate

He

admonishes

himself to be brave like

awaits

him

will

"dark"

gerous or state of

for knighthood, for what be a trial of courage and of wit; his father's house is a dan place to go. He fears his father, as Gloucester is in his present
might

mind, as he

fear

man-devouring

giant.

382

Interpretation
course of act

In the
scene

3 Edgar

also shows

himself to be

compassionate.

In

6, in the

shelter of one of

Gloucester's outbuildings, Lear's

with

madness

appears most piteous.

Confronted

this spectacle, Edgar tells the audience

part so much/

in

an

aside, his "tears begin to take

[Lear's]

terfeiting"

(59-60). His

speeches now seem

They mar my coun less designed to disguise himself

mad speech

than to humor the king. The best of these

is his last dogs

of

in this
that

scene. at

Lear's tortured imagination (61-62). Moved

pictures

the

pet

the court

barking

him
must

by

this,

desiring

to

ease

Lear's pain,

and aware

he

do

so

both like

a madman and as a madman would

appreciate, Edgar throws

who chases

himself upon the ground and pretends to be a

traitorous court dogs away (63-71).

dog

loyal to Lear

the

Let

us now address

the objections to Edgar based on

as self-righteous when

his

relation

to his father

in

act

5. Some

see

Edgar

he

speaks of

how Gloucester's
"untender"

(5.3.168-72). But this is like calling Cordelia and Lear, when he is or criticizing the Fool for telling harsh tmths to Lear (1.4.176-77). To acknowledge wants the tmth tells the Fool he sane, only
sin cost

him his

eyes

God's

mle

is to

acknowledge

the punishment of crime. Judged

by

our

tyrannic

is nothing as cmel as wisdom. But seen with the eyes of justice, there is nothing more beneficial (cf. Gorgias, 472e-473d, 480b-481b).

desires,

there

Political Wisdom: the Problem of Fortune If the play depicts the preparation of Edgar for mle, what does it show him learning? In act 3 it is clear Edgar already knows a great deal, as seen in his

reply to Edmund's idea of nature. In particular Edgar knows a great deal about mle. Lear mistakes Poor Tom for a philosopher and asks him what his study is. Edgar gives a mad answer that may be read as prophetic of his actions in acts 4
and

5: "To

prevent

the

fiend

and

to kill

vermin"

from
mund

self-destmction

he "prevents the is

fiend"

and

(3.4.156). In saving his father in killing Oswald and Ed

"study"

he "kills

vermin."17

This

short speech

prophetic also of

the play's end in that this

may
means

be taken

as a statement of what

the mler does. "To prevent the

fiend"

that mle should inculcate virtue

crime. make

in the

mled.

"To kill
all

vermin"

means

to

punish

The
those

object of the mler

who commit

is to benefit

the crime

his subjects; punishment is to better (cf. Gorgias, 464b-c).

knowledge of justice, Edgar has something to leam. That lesson concerns fortune. Both Edmund and Edgar express an understanding of what is just by nature. As teachings about natural law, both these understandings have in common the problem of fortune.
possessed of a good character and a
still

But though

For law to be
the

natural

it

must

be

as

strong

as nature.

Just do

as you can't

"break"

law

of

gravity,
with

so a

tmly

natural moral

law is likewise
people

self-enforcing: you

can't get

away

breaking

it. But, in fact,

seem to get

away

with

The Education of the Prince in

violations of

King

Lear
break

383
na

the

natural

law. Fortune

awards success to those who

ture's law and punishes those

who abide

by

it.

What

play as injustice

eighteenth-century readers of King Lear and kept the Shakespeare wrote it off the stage for a century and half was the terrible
most shocked

of

the death of Cordelia (see Johnson's comment

on

this in K.
calls

Muir,
arrant

1984,
will

p. 2).

whore"

Despite her wisdom, fortune, whom the Fool (2.4.50), decrees her death. When she is led away to

"an

what she

knows

be her death, Cordelia speaks of "false fortune's (5.3.6). False though fortune may be, Cordelia's compliance with nature's law is powerless to
save

frown"

her.
problem

The

is just

as great

for the

nontraditional

teaching
his right

about nature as schemes

for the traditional teaching. Thus Edmund

conditional

must couch natural

wise

in

language. What belongs to him

thrive"

by

will

be his only "if

this letter speed,/ And my invention

(1.2.19-20).18

For the tyrannic man, the

solution

to the

problem

is that fortune may be

to satisfy an enterpris the result of their own

mastered, not completely, perhaps, but sufficiently

so as

ing

realist.

For Edmund,

what most call misfortunes are

weakness and miscalculations

(1.2.115-18). In
one masters
win

space, Edmund

shows us

how

1, in a very brief fortune: be ready to improvise, to

act

2,

scene

use whatever comes

to hand

(14-15);
to hear

the aid

of

those who can

help

you

by

telling

them what

they
sends

want

though always serving yourself (105). Most

Captain
noble

whom

he

to

murder

(93-96); important, as Edmund tells the Lear and Cordelia, to make one's way "to
speak
is"

the language of

"duty"

fortunes"

one must
what

be "as the time

(5.3.29-33). To be ready to

able

to change

in this way,

is required, besides intellect, is spiritedness, the boldness that

the possibilities
nature and of
and

makes a man aware of

seize

them.19

can get

Edmund's teaching about away with in pursuit

set out on a course of

her

law,

that one may do

whatever one

the

satisfaction of

appetites, is

not a

formula for

anarchy because

most men realize

they

harming

con's account of the origin of

away (cf. Republic, 358e-359b: Glau justice). Gloucester's servants may decide to
others,

that

they

can't get

with much once

abandon a traditional restraint upon their appetites sion poses no serious

(3.7.96-97), but
of

that deci

threat; they

would soon

leam the limits

their possi

bilities. But it is the

clever and

seed of tyranny.

The

real significance of

this law is that the

rebukes

bold may give full scope to their ambition. Thus, when Albany Goneril for her lack of restraint, she perceives him as saying, 'I am too
sufficiently
fortune'

weak and not

clever

to dare to
cf.

be great; I don't have the

courage or

ability to

master

(4.2.50-55.

46). It is because Edmund does that likes to be

mastered.20

Nietzsche, First Essay, she is drawn to him, and

metaphor of

section

13,

p.

the sexual

in

trigue of the play dramatizes Machiavelli's

who

fortune

as a woman

The

man

who

thinks
and

fortune may be mastered,

lecherous"

Edmund, is by his
woman who shares

self-description,

"rough

(1.2.128);

the

his

view of nature and

fortune is

an adulteress and

mur-

384
deress

Interpretation
who prefers

Edmund's

roughness

to the more

respectful

treatment of

her

husband (4.2.25-28). The

education mle

that Edgar

receives

teaches him a very different lesson.

not ours

To be
to

fully

fit for

he

must

leam that fortune is

of

to

master or even acts

judge,
ciled

that it is entirely in the hands

start of act

God. Edgar leams this in

understands

and

5.

At the

4 Edgar thinks he
.

his fortune

and

has

recon

himself to it (4. 1 1-9). There is

escaped

a certain amount of self-satisfaction

here,

that he has

By

the

power of

from the company of Lear and his father without detection. his wit he has forced fortune's hand. But it becomes apparent
understand

at once

that Edgar does not

his fortune (4.1.25-26). He is his

place

learning

to reserve

judgment; learning

that it is not

to

hang

on

the gifts of

fortune.
As
even

act

more, in the

4 proceeds, Edgar leams, in the case of his father (4.1.19-21), but case of Lear on Dover beach (4.6.96-105), that what we
fortune"

take to be good

Lear's "good
who

fortune may blind us and thus not be what we take it for. Thus as king is to be flattered and deceived. Note it is Edgar
newfound wisdom about

hears Lear's

authority
the

or mle

(4.6.148-70)

and

comments upon

it,

"O

matter and

impertinency
and

mix'd"

(172). Edgar leams that

the fact that their posi
punishment

the good fortune of the usurious

judge
of,

beadle,

tions

make

them safe

from the

sins

and sins

hence the

due to, the

thief and the whore,

not

blinds them to the

they do

commit and

the

fact that

suffering

correction

for those sins, they

are worse off

than the thief or the

whore who are corrected most part

by

their punishment

(cf. Luke 18: 9-14). But for the

punishment

thief and whore are not

result

improved

by

they

see adminis

tered

by

hypocrites. The

better. To

mle well one must

is that those in authority do not make the mled leam to guard against the blindness toward our
our good

selves and others occasioned passionate.

by

fortune. One

must

leam to be

com

Thus, in act 4, scene 6, after Lear exits, when Gloucester asks Edgar who he is, he responds: "A most poor man, made tame to Fortune's blows;/ Who,

by

the art of

known

and

feeling

sorrows,/

Am

pity"

pregnant

to good

(218-20).
politi

This

speech expresses the

two cardinal elements of Edgar's hard-earned

us as

cal wisdom:

the acceptance of what fortune deals

God's

doing

and

the

importance

of

"good

pity."

Ill

If the
of

purpose of the subplot

these issues is to be

stories of

Edmund

and

is to clarify the meaning of the plot, then each seen as critical for a reading of the story of Lear. The Edgar become the lenses through which we view the old

king. The tragedy of King Lear then is that to the degree he reflects Edmund in character and in his attempt to master fortune, a good king is guilty of injustice.21

The Education of the Prince in

The
education of

King

Lear

385

tion"

or correction of

Edgar, his preparation for mle, is furnished by the "educa Lear, the purging of the injustice of which he is guilty.
see that

It is

not

hard to

Edmund is
the "large

a reflection of a part of

Lear.

Certainly
abdicated responds

Lear is very
the

spirited.

When Goneril demands that her

effects"

father, having
to royalty, he this

throne, with fierce

is
upon

give

up

some of

proper

curses

(1.4.273-87). Granville-Barker invocation

prays of

comments on

speech:

"It

this deliberate

ill that

we pass
act

into

darkness"

spiritual outburst

(1.288). It may be
provoked and
with

granted

that here and in

2 Lear's

has been

that he
as

for "noble
more

anger'(2.4.274).

Cornwall

to

who

is the

"firey"

is

hardly
at

noble

Still, a competition (2.4.88-94, 100world

101). Even

more excessive are

the curses Lear hurls

the

in

act

when

he

would see all

life destroyed because he has been thwarted in his

might

own

desires

(3.2.6-9). One

say of all these scenes that Lear's violence is indicative of his powerlessness, not his spiritedness. But the same cannot be said of act 1, scene 1, when he is still king. When he tells Kent, who would reason with him,
not to come

"between the dragon

The

and

his

wrath"

(1.1.121), Lear

presents an

image
wishes

"dragon"

of spiritedness as evil.
it.22

will

have its way simply because it

of

What has
than is
are

aroused

that

"dragon"

is the denial
everything.

Lear's desire. He has

so

asked

his daughters to tell him that he is

"meet"

In

doing

he has

asked

for
and

more

by

the traditional understanding

of nature.

Goneril

Regan

willing to oblige him; Cordelia is not. Cordelia's response infuriates Lear because it marks the limit to his desire. The significance of act 1, scene 1,

is that it

represents a clash
royal.23

between the two ideas

of

the good and

just,

the

tyrannical and

If there is in

all of western

literature

a tragic character of

the

stature of

Lear,

it is Oedipus. The two kings have

of

much

in

common:

both

are great

benefactors

their people;

both

are

spirited; both

are compelled

to go

on a pilgrimage of

self-knowledge.

Finally,
one

if Gloucester's
and

blinding
Oedipus
of

is the

physical equivalent of

Lear's madness,
this

may say Lear

share the same

fate. There is
of

further

parallel: essential
fortune"

to the story
that

Oedipus is his image

himself

as

"a

child of

(1080),

is,

as

owing nothing to gods or men,

having

way (Sophocles 1:58). There is something of this in Lear also: he too has believed that he was everything (4.6.104-5). His crime, like Oedipus, is to put himself in the place of God (cf. Republic 573a, 508a-c).
always made

his

own

The
ends as

parallel

between Lear
with a

and

Edmund is
act

reflected

it begins,
with

love test. In

1 Lear

asks

in the fact that the play his daughters who loves bestow the
greatest

him most,
portion of and

the

implicit

promise that on

her he

will

his kingdom. In
with

act

5 Edmund
prize

conducts a

love test between Goneril

neither case

Regan

himself
the two

as

the

(5.1.55-69). In

is the test

real one.

Each has already decided

of
women

on a course of action and

deceitfulness

to

attain

his

ends.

merely uses the Edmund knows he is desired

offer

by

both women,

each of whom

has something to

him. Regan

can offer

386

Interpretation
which

him Cornwall,
contrive

to

offer

her

"love."

Just

Goneril, by killing Albany and Regan, can him the whole kingdom, and she appears willing to so prove as in act 1, scene 1, the sisters are avid competitors. The
is much; but
at

difference is that

the start

they

paid

in

words and were rewarded with

tang

ible goods; in the

reward

end

they pay in deeds

an

and get no

reward, or, rather, get the

they deserve.
important
similarity.

The two love tests have

Both

men ask

for something
obviously Lear is

that is contrary to or exceeds what is

criminal asking.

"meet"

by

nature.

The

more

claims of

Edmund

call

attention

to the

wrongness with

of what

Both think they

can

can make

these claims

think

they

do

as

they

please and

by

force

get

impunity because they away with it. The irony of

Lear
"knows"

their situation is no less than that of the two

women.

that his

daughters
never

are

lying

when

have

conducted

he is everything to them. Yet he would they the test in the first place if he had not tmly thought that
tell him

he

was

everything, that

is,

could

do

as

he

pleased and

bring

all

his intentions to

fruition.

token, Edmund, who so coolly plays upon the desires of the two sisters ("To both these sisters have I sworn my love;/ Which of them shall I take?/ Both? One? Or [5.1. 55, 57-58]), wishes to con

By

the same

neither?"

sole

himself

at

the

end with

the thought that

he

was

beloved (5.3.238). He both

men come

clings

in death to

what

he

scorned

in life. The
character.

grief

to

which

is

the fmit of the same seed, a tyrannic the flaw in Lear. The story
well again

of

The story of Edmund highlights Lear is the tale of how the unjust man is made

by

suffering the punishment due to his crimes (see

Gorgias, 472e).

In Lear's
tion comes

punishment

the education of Lear and Edgar meet. Edgar's educa

justice to
the

prepare

before his kingship; Lear's comes after. Edgar is taught the value of him for mle; Lear must be taught its value in punishment for
symbolized

injustice he did in mle,

punishment

by

his treatment
education.

of

Cordelia. The

spec

tacle of Lear's
on

is

part of

Edgar's
to the

heath
fire"

and

beach, he has journeyed

report on

underworld.

In accompanying Lear He is like Er who has

"bound/Upon
a wheel

come
of

back to

the fate of

tyrants, that they

are

(4.7.46-47).24

Insofar

as

Gloucester's fate

parallels

Lear's, Edgar

takes this lesson

from the

spectacle of closely:

his father's pilgrimage, too. But here the lesson touches him more when his father suffers, Edgar suffers as well. In experiencing that
none of

suffering he leams that it is

pleased with

his

affair

to

wait on

fortune's
in the

smiles or

be

the thought

of

them.
regards wisdom

The

great

lesson

of

the play as

is

seen

response to

their fortunes given

nal

things;

what

Fortune only touches exter by important is really is beyond its reach. Thus Kent in the stocks

the play's two best persons.

tells Gloucester
heels"

out at

not to worry on his account: "A good man's fortune may grow (2.2.153). Kent is content so long as he serves "authority"

and

that

"service"

remains

such service

is

decision (1.4.22-30). How fortune rewards matter. The more striking case is that of secondary Cordelia
own

in his

The Education of the Prince in

Confronted
at
with

King

Lear

387

the prospect
"outfrown"

least,
This

she can
wisdom

that, for herself fortune's frown (5.3.6. Cf. Apology, 30c-d).

of

her

own unjust

death,

she says

is

summarized

best in

a short speech of

taken to
endure/

be the best

and simplest statement of the play's

Edgar's that may be lesson: "Men must

all"

Their going hence, even as their coming hither:/ Ripeness is 1).25 (5.2.9-1 Fortune is to be left entirely to God: men must endure it (cf. 7: 14-15). It is our responsibility to act rightly, in accord with the Ecclesiastes,
"meet."

This is the meaning

that "arrant

"ripeness,"

of

that maturity or perfection or excel

lence

appropriate

to the species. When we have acted

whore,"

thus,

we

have

"all,"

and

fortune,
people,

can

will ever mle well until

harm. No prince, he has learned this lesson.

us no

do

whether

king

or

NOTES

1. The Folio (1623)

attributes

the last speech of the play accepting the crown to

are other

Quarto (1608)
significant

attributes

it to Albany. There

differences between
while

and

Edgar; the F, the most

being

that F contains about 100 lines not in

Q,

Q has

about

300 lines that have

been

from F, and there are numerous instances in the text where Q and F give different readings. In interpreting King Lear, then, one first must decide which text to use, Quarto, Folio or a text that conflates the two. If one chooses a conflated text, one must decide whether to follow Q
cut or

when

the two differ. Kenneth Muir reflects the prevailing view among scholars
a conflated text with preference given on

today
pp.

when

he

decides for

to F in the case of
some scholars

variants

(1972,
that

xiv,
and

xvii).

My

interpretation is based
are

Muir's text.

Recently

have

argued

"Q

F
as

King
two

Lear

versions

sufficiently dissimilar that they of a single play, both having

are

should not

authority"

be conflated, but (Warren, p. 97). In this

should

be treated

vein

Stanley

Wells

claims

that new

from Q,
vulgar

scholarship has shown that revisions found in F, particularly the omissions of material Shakespeare's and "were not, as has often been supposed, forced upon the author by
exigencies."

theatrical

Thus, "future
other"

criticism"

when not

"primarily

comparative

will

have to base itself upon

one or the and

judgment

of

Kenneth Muir

(p. 18). In choosing to use a conflated text I rely upon the David Bevington. Bevington thinks "the case for artistic prefer in
revisions of

ence"

as opposed

to "theatrical
p.

exigencies"

F is

"overstated"

uncertain and represents

(King

Lear,

ed.

Bevington,

136). For Muir's

see

criticism of of

the argument that F

deliberate

"revision

by

Shakespeare,"

his "The Texts

citations

King

Lear: An Interim Assessment

of the

Contro

versy,"

in K. Muir (1985).

My

throughout are to the Arden Shakespeare edition, which

gives all variants and

indicates

whenever

tion relies

upon

F,
and

strengthened

by

some

Warren that

"Q

reveal significant

found only in Q or F. In general, my interpreta lines found only in Q. I am not persuaded by Michael differences in the roles of Albany and Edgar, differences
the text is
characters
whether

sufficiently great that one is obliged to interpret their hope to show in this paper, the decisive question is settled, the crown belongs to him.
2.

differently

in

each"

(p. 99). As I

to have Edgar at all. Once that is

By

"prince,"

1,

chap.

58, in

which

like Machiavelli, I understand the Machiavelli speaks of "cities in

sovereign power.
which

the populace

See The Discourses, book is the

as an appendix.

prince."

Philip Sidney, Arcadia, book 2, chap. 10. Some Arden edition and the Bantam Classic edition, include this
3. Sir

editions of

King Lear, for

example, the

part of

Arcadia

4. This line is

part of a passage

differences between

and

importance in F, then one monarch, in F rather than Q.

that occurs only in Q. If Michael Warren is right about the F expressing Shakespeare's deliberate decision to give Edgar a greater would expect a line comparing Lear and Edgar, the former and the future

5. Tolstoy on Shakespeare, p. 63. Samuel Johnson notes that a contemporary critic, Joseph Warton, makes a similar complaint: "the intervention of Edmund destroys the simplicity of the

388

Interpretation
Johnson's defense
of

story."

"the intervention

Edmund"

of plot:

reflects

the interpretation of the critics

poet

noted of

above, that the subplot essentially repeats the

Edmund "gives the

"

[the opportunity]

combining perfidy with perfidy and connecting the wicked son with the wicked daughters, to (K. Muir, 1984, p. 2). impress this important moral, that villainy is never at a stop, in this scene: Lear 6. Shakespeare underscores Lear's obsession by his reaction to "Poor
.

Tom"

assumes that

Tom has been

Jaffa
argues

reduced

to his

condition

by

ungrateful

daughters (3.4.48-49 his daughters,

pp.

and

62).

See Norman MacLean's 7.

know

account of

Lear's

"fixation"

madness as a

upon

94-1 14.

Harry
about

that everything Shakespeare tells us about

us

Lear,

combined with what we

politics, leads

to expect the play to

political

present

"the

consummation of

the political art, of

political virtue and

therewith of

life

altogether"

(p. 114).
the

Lear Shakespeare to, the perfectly just and the perfectly unjust man respectively and, in depicting his education, vindicates the former. See Republic, 360e-362c. F. T. Flahiff argues that the Edgar of King Lear is to be seen as the
8. In this way

King

Lear dramatizes the

argument of

the Republic. In

King

presents

the understanding of the good possessed

by,

and

character proper

historical

King

Edgar (reigned 957-975). Flahiff

notes

that in Tudor and Stuart times the

I"

historical

"held up as a model for Elizabeth, for James I, and for Charles (p. 232). Shakespeare's choice of him as the very type of the just prince, then, is not without precedent.

King

Edgar

was

appetites

9. Cf. Machiavelli, who warns the prince, above all, to be wary of thwarting men in these two (The Prince, chaps. 17, 19, pp. 66, 72). Aristotle, Politics, 1.2, singles out these two

appetites as most

in

need of restraint

(1253a35-40).
chap.

10. Cf.
opposed

Machiavelli, Discourses, book 1,

6. Machiavelli decides for

democratic

as

to an oligarchic republic because it is more capable of expansion, in effect

because it

provides greater means to

483-84, 491-92,
stronger

where

satisfy the appetites, that is, is more powerful. See also Plato, Gorgias, Callicles argues that natural law teaches the justice of the rule of the
that in

for the

gratification of appetite. argues

11

Edwin Muir
opposed

King Lear

"two ideas

of

old generation and

the new are set face to

face,

each assured of

society are directly confronted, and the its own right to (p. 33).
power" rulership"

These two Edmund

as

ideas

of

"the

mouthpiece of

society involve different "idea(s) of the new (p. 37). This

generation"

(p. 35). Muir

sees

generation

"worships
power

nature"

because
claim

nature

the right to

"gives them the freedom they hunger for, what they have the do" (pp. 37-38). See also Bauer, pp. 359-66.
. .

to do

they

12. Kent's
view

response

to the Fool's song,

that

1.4.126, is

the Fool says

"nothing"

decent

men

noteworthy. In espousing the traditional don't already know. Kent is less philosophical than

the Fool.

Tom

13. Although my interpretation of Edgar differs from his, Maynard Mack also reads the Poor speeches in act 3 as "designed to keep before us the inner metaphysical and moral cost of
and sees

Appetite"

Edmund

as

the

"Appetite"

virtual personification of

(pp.

61, 60).
his brother
(p.

14. Edwin Muir

Edmund"

also reads

this speech as one in which Edgar

"giv(es)

a portrait of

(p. 48).
so much the

15. Cf. Flahiff: "When he first appears, 227). 16. When the devil
greater
of suspicion

thing
in
act

of

Edmund, he is

nonent

has been driven

despair in
act

out

by

Edmund's
a

cruel

exorcism, a the

fiend, despair,
he has

takes its place. Cf. Luke 11:24-26. Edgar then assumes the

role of

holy

man: when

cured

his father

of

4 he

reports

seeing

devil depart (4.6.67-72).

between but

17. It is important to note, however, that it is no part of wisdom to mistake the difference a person, though evil, and Edgar is very clear-sighted about Oswald's character,
"vermin."

expresses regret

that he

must

be his

"deathsman"

(4.6.249-51, 254-55). Cf. Gorgias, 469.

Likewise, he

charity with Edmund (5.3.165). This makes a striking contrast with an other Shakespearean character intended for the throne, Guiderius, the son of Cymbeline. See Cymbeline, 4.2.113-54.
exchanges

18. Cf.
32).

Machiavelli,

The Prince,

chap.

7. The

problem of

fortune is
he had laid his

seen
were

in the fact that "so

sound"

Cesare Borgia failed in his

19. Cf. The Prince,

schemes although

"the

foundations"

(p

chap.

25: "He is

prosperous who adapts

mode of

proceeding to the

The Education of the Prince in

qualities of
times."

King

Lear

389
the

the times;
all:

and

similarly, he is unprosperous

whose procedure

is in disaccord

with

Above

necessary, if one
chap.

"It is better to be impetuous than cautious, for fortune is a woman, and it is wants to hold her down, to beat her and strike her (pp. 99, 101). See also
down"

18:

a prince must

"have

a spirit
must

disposed to

change as

the winds of fortune and

and

variation when

command pick

him"; in
and

particular, he
lion"

know "how to

use the

beast

man,"

the

know

"to

the fox

the

20. The Prince,

chap.

(pp. 70, 69). Plutarch describes Alcibiades as a 25, p. 101. The use of this metaphor of aggressive
"lust"

""chameleon."

sexual appetite

for

mastering fortune adds significance to Edgar's emphasis upon 21 Of course, there is more to Lear than Edmund; Edgar is
.

in his depiction in him

of madness.

reflected

as well.

It is

noted

that Lear is Edgar's godfather (2.1.90). But that we see the way in which Lear reflects Edmund seems critical to understanding the political lesson of the play.

Socrates

22. Cf. Republic, 590b: in condemning as unjust the domination of the spirited part of the soul, calls it "the lion-like and the snake-like I take the to be 23. Cordelia has been criticized as imprudent for her truthful reply to her father. See Arthur
part."

"dragon"

"snake-like."

Eastman's discussion

of

Georg

Gottfried Gervinus in A Short

History

of Shakespearean Criticism
approval

(p. 121). In Pericles, however, Shakespeare offers what may be taken as response: "For flattery is the bellows blows up sin;/ Whereas reproof,
. .

for Cordelia's
in
order,/

obedient and

Fits kings
"obedient

as and

they
in

are

men,

for they may

may
well

err"

order"

and one

(1.2.39, 42-43). Surely Cordelia's response is imagine a scene in which a wise king, answered as
of
"imprudence."

Cordelia does Lear, would praise her answer and take it as an opportunity to criticize the kind flattery in which her sisters engage. Jaffa offers a far deeper reading of Cordelia's
He
sees

the clash between Lear and Cordelia in act 1

an

scene

as

that between politics and what

transcends politics or between justice and

appropriate or

"uncompromising
a

quest

for

truth"

(p. 137). However

politics"

right Cordelia's
of

answer

may be in
of

higher sense,

within

"the limits

of

it is

imprudent be

and

therefore inappropriate.

24. That Edgar knows

assumed.

Lear's treatment household

Cordelia,

thus knows him guilty of

injustice,

must

He is

a member of a

close

to the court, and all the court knew of the deed at

re

once.

Moreover,
about

on

Edgar's first

appearance

(1.2.131-47), Edmund is repeating Gloucester's

flections

the influence of the stars, reflections occasioned

on

by

Lear's

rash action.

Edgar does

not question

Edmund

the occasion of these extravagant notions any more than Edmund needed

to question his father. For the myth of

Er,

see

Republic, 6146-6216; for

the punishment of the

tyrant in particular, see 6 15-6 16a.

25. See Kenneth Muir's

this passage expresses "the

note on

this passage in the Arden edition of the play. Jaffa agrees that
play"

moral of

the

(p. 144,

n.

34). See

also

Mack (p. 117).

REFERENCES

Bauer, Richard. "Despite

Cosmic."

of

Mine Own Nature: Edmund

and

and the

Orders, Moral

and

Texas Studies in Literature

Language 10(1968): 359-66.

published

Bradley, A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. New York: Fawcett, 1968. Originally

in 1904.

Cavell, Stanley. "The

Avoidance

of

Love: A

Reading

of

King

Lear."

In Must We Mean

What We Say? New York: Charles Scribner, 1969. Reprinted Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press,
1968.

1976.

Eastman, Arthur. A Short

History
and

of Shakespearean Criticism. New York:

King."

Norton,
Rosalie

Flahiff, F. T. "Edgar: Once

L. Colie
and

Future

F. T. Flahiff. Toronto:

In Some Facets of King Lear, University of Toronto Press, 1974.

vols.

by

Granville-Barker, Harley. sity Press, 1946.

Prefaces to Shakespeare. 4

Princeton: Princeton Univer

390

Interpretation
i."

In Shakespeare's Jaffa, Harry. "The Limits of Politics: King Lear, Act I, scene Basic New York: Jaffa. Books, 1964. Politics, by Allan Bloom and Harry Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Translated by Harvey Mansfield, Jr. Chicago: Uni versity of Chicago Press, 1985. Mack, Maynard. King Lear in Our Time. Berkeley: University
of

California Press,
Lear."

1965.
In MacLean, Norman. "Episode, Scene, Speech, and Word: The Madness of Critics and Criticism, edited by R. S. Crane. Abridged ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Muir, Edwin. "The Politics of King don: Hogarth Press, 1949.

Lear."

In Essays

on

Literature

and

Society. Lon Kenneth In

Muir, Kenneth. Introduction. In The Arden Shakespeare King Lear, Muir. London: Methuen, 1972.
"The Texts
of

edited

by

King
and

Lear: An Interim Assessment

of the of

Controversy."

Shakespeare: Contrasts

Controversies. Norman:

University

Oklahoma Press,

1985.
ed. King Lear: Critical Essays. New York: Garland, 1984. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Genealogy of Morals. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random House, 1967. Shakespeare, William. King Lear. Edited by David Bevington. Toronto: Bantam Books,
,

1988.

Sophocles, Oedipus
gedies,
edited

the King. Translated

by

David Grene. In The Complete Greek Tra

by

David Grene

and

Richmond Lattimore. Chicago:

University

of

Chicago Press, 1954. Tolstoy, Leo. Tolstoy on Shakespeare. Translated

York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1906. Warren, Michael. "Quarto and Folio
Edgar."

by

V. Tchertkoff

and

I. F. M. New

King

Lear

and

the Interpretation of

Albany

and and

Jay

In Shakespeare: Pattern of Excelling Nature, edited F. Halio. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1978.
and

by

David Bevington

Wells, Stanley. "The Once

Shakespeare'

Future

King
Lear,

Lear."

ren.

Two Versions of King Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.

s

edited

In The Division of the Kingdoms: by Gary Taylor and Michael War

King

Lear

David Lowenthal
Boston College

King
ceeds

in

Lear may be the pathos the final

and

most

tragic of Shakespeare's tragedies.

Nothing

ex

spectacle of

Lear

bending

over

his dead Cordelia,

think of

looking
Lear him
out

for life in her

to be
at

then expiring

himself. But

what should we

generally?

Is he the vain, irascible

a view quite close

and

to the one held

doddering old man his critics make by his two bad daughters?
but
admire

Why, then,
great

the end, do we not only pity

him

as a man of

very

soul,

a much greater man

than the loyal Earl of

Gloucester, his lesser

counterpart a

king

or a

in the play? Is the play named after him only because he was in fact because Shakespeare wanted us to think of him as a king par excel

lence,

tme

king,

a natural
and

king? Hamlet is

called of

the Prince of Denmark in

the title to that play,

Pericles the Prince

from the

history

plays

Shakespeare

names no other

Tyre in another, but apart but Lear in his titles. king

What did he

mean

by

this? And is the play, as often remarked about its ending,

or meaning?

intended to convey a sense of hopeless despair in a universe devoid of purpose How can we square this interpretation with the admiration we feel
not

for Lear, Cordelia, Edgar and Kent: Do they direction of meaning and goodness?

qualify the

universe

in the

Along
in

with

Hamlet

and

Macbeth, King Lear is

other

one of

the three tragedies set

northern countries.

All the

tragedies are set in the south of Europe: the

four Roman, the two Italian (Othello and Romeo), and Timon of Athens. And of the northern tragedies, it alone, like most of the tragedies generally, is preChristian in its
speare's
own

It may also be the earliest play dealing with Shake country, followed by Cymbeline and then the history plays
setting.

themselves.

1. THE SETTING

Shakespeare tells
ents, his
other or

us

nothing

about

how Lear became

king,

about

his

par

wife and past

accomplishments,

or about events and conditions

in

European

powers at

the time. Whether Britain is geographically the same

not made clear.

different from the later England is

its neighbors,
youngest

It is

with all

and of such repute

that France

and

country at peace Burgundy have come

to court Lear's

daughter. It is

also without

the slightest sign of inter-

interpretation,

Spring 1994,

Vol. 21, No. 3

392

Interpretation
dissension
such

nal commotion or even

mle.

is the

respect

Lear has

won

for his

his society is polytheistic and astral: he swears Jupiter and Apollo, and seems to associate like by the gods of pagan antiquity, them with heavenly bodies. Yet some of the states in the play France, Bur
The
religion

Lear

shares with

gundy
entailed

in

collapse of the

history arose only after the coming of Christianity and the Roman Empire. Similarly, the British aristocracy, with its titles, estates and primogeniture, was linked historically during the feudal
actual

period with
unknown

Christianity

rather

than with the

paganism of

the

play.

For

reasons

to us,
with

elements,

therefore, Shakespeare has mixed together unrelated historical the consequence that Lear's Britain seems both modem and
As
such a

ancient at one and the same time.

poet's own

composite, it is

much more plays.

the

fabrication than the Roman

plays or the

English

history

and contrast As the play begins, the reader is stmck by the parallel between the situations of the old king and young Edmund, Gloucester's bastard son.

By
so

law Edmund is Gloucester's

and estate.

second son and would not also

inherit his
to

father's title
miny,

By

law he is

condemned,

as a

bastard,

igno

that Gloucester sends

him away for

nine years at a

stretch, despite

claiming to love both his sons equally and, this time, bringing Edmund with him to the court. Edmund challenges these laws and customs keeping him

down
quy

as

merely
to

conventional and against

the dictates of nature. His bold solilo

customs.

appeals

nature as superior

to human laws and

By

nature

he is

equally Gloucester's natural son. By nature, by his natural endowment, he is his brother Edgar's equal or superior. Edmund will therefore use deception, and later

force,

to remedy the artificial injustice of law and custom. He will scheme

prosper.

to get Edgar's lands: "I grow; I

Now,

gods,

erences

The play actually opens not with this raucous by Kent and Gloucester to Lear's imminent division
subject of

up for invocation but with

stand of

bastards!"

quiet ref

the

kingdom,
remarks

switching to the
on

Edmund only

after their

brief

introductory

this

subject.

Subsequently,
Lear
planned

the actual division of the kingdom takes place,

though

hardly
and

as

it,

and

only then does Shakespeare

quoted above.

return us

to

In this way the play can be said to open with two related topics, the inheritance of Lear's daughters, and the inheritance of Gloucester's sons. But there are also striking
give the

Edmund

have him

amazing soliloquy

differences between the two

cases.

Gloucester has two sons,

one older and

legitimate,
ters

the

other younger and

illegitimate. Lear has three legitimate daugh

of

and no sons.

The play
would

gives us no

direct indication

how the

succession to the throne

normally take place. Was the eldest son expected to inherit, paralleling Edgar's situation? Could a daughter inherit? And why was Lear able to divide
the

kingdom in three, as if it were his own to do with as he pleases? One gets impression that law or custom governed the inheritance of Gloucester's land and titles much more definitely. For neither Kent nor Gloucester seems surthe

King
prised at the

Lear

393

it is
and

not

kingdom's division, and when Kent later objects to Lear's actions, to the division of the kingdom as such but to his treatment of Cordelia
to her
sisters and

his

surrender of power

their husbands. Even the daugh

ters

all of them

express no shock whatsoever at the

division. Goneril, for

not one of them ever

example,

never says or

hints that it

should all
custom

be hers:

takes Lear to task for violating law or

Perhaps Shakespeare

wants us

in any part of what he did. to understand Lear's situation, in contrast to

thus

Gloucester's,
kingdom

as one not

bound he

by law,

leaving

succession well-nigh absolute. on whomsoever

Does this

mean

Lear

his discretion regarding the could have bestowed the

given

pleased?

Could he have

it to

someone out

side his family, like Kent or Edgar? Yet his attention seems to be wholly and exclusively riveted on his daughters, as if there were no other alternative. Moreover, he treats the lands as dowries i.e., as traditionally obligatory wed

ding

gifts

from

parents

to marrying

daughters to

bring

he plainly vests political power (after his original breaks down) in the Dukes of Albany and Cornwall
Regan. This
makes

into their marriage, and plan for a tripartite division

rather

than in Goneril and

the eldest, or
queen of all

it unlikely that any one of the daughters, whether Goneril, Cordelia, the best loved, could have herself been designated
suggests a

Britain. It

traditional

opinion or unwritten custom

favor

in the mler, thus qualifying the seeming absoluteness of Lear's ing discretion in arranging the succession. And the priority plainly given by the law to one of Gloucester's sons over the other shows that age usually was the
maleness

priority in inheritance. Could Lear therefore have given all to his Goneril, first-bom, much as Gloucester was expected to give all to Edgar? Let us piece together the plan for the succession that the aged Lear has
ground of

formed.

Having

sembled court that

of

already divided the kingdom into three parts, he tells the as he intends to give each daughter a dowry consisting of a part in
worth

the kingdom

proportionate makes

to the

love

she expresses

for him in

speech. show

This idea

Lear look exceedingly

vain and not a

little dotty. To

how

mistaken s

this impression is
years ago

Harry
he

Jaffa

was

the

first to do it in
purpose"

Shakespeare'

Politics, many
Lear begins to

we must calls

take note of a few simple

facts. First,

as

express what

"our darker

i.e.,

a concealed purpose

the map of Britain he brings in and employs has already

been divided into three parts, just as he said. Second, he does not wait for all the daughters to speak before making his allocations but does so one at a time, after each has spoken. Third, it is Lear who sets the order of speaking by
the order of seniority in leads to his giving substan This which society would usually tially equal portions to the two elder sisters, who follow one another, leaving to his favorite, Cor what Lear calls "a third more opulent than your

asking his

eldest

daughter to

speak

first

i.e., by using

grant preference.

sisters"

delia.
get

By

the time Cordelia speaks,

no other part

is

available

to her:

she

has to
and

the best third. To this way of

given

treating

the

elder

daughters, Gloucester
of

Kent had both

testimony

at

the very

beginning

the

play.

It

seems

they

394

Interpretation

map by Lear and expressed surprise only at the equality with he had treated the two dukes in his division of the kingdom, since they agreed that up to then "the King had more affected the Duke of Albany than
were shown the
which
Cornwall."

that, contrary to the the love speeches as a test of his

means

This

standard

interpretation, Lear did

not

devise

desert: he had already decided upon the allocations before setting up the contest and hearing the speeches! We are not told where these territorial thirds lay, but it is very likely that the third
given

daughters'

to Regan

and

Cornwall
and

was

part given

to Goneril

Albany

in the south, near Cornwall itself, near Albany in the north. The "more

and

the

opulent"

third reserved for Cordelia must therefore have lain two. In an earlier move, before the play's action
unusual action postponed

in the center, between these begins, Lear had in a most

their marriages. This implies that

giving Goneril and Regan their dowries at the time of he had devised this scheme for the succes
some

sion, entailing

"darker

purpose,"

time before. But the scheme

an event now at

could not

be brought to fruition enabling the

until

Cordelia

also married put

hand

thus
much-

eighty-year-old

Lear to

into

place

his

momentous and

needed settlement.

Both the Duke

wish

of

Burgundy

and

the

King

of

France

are there

because both

to marry Cordelia, but the evidence (again per Jaffa) indicates that Lear intended Burgundy, not France, to be her husband. Only Burgundy was told in
advance what

dowry

to expect

with

Cordelia,

and

it is to

Burgundy

that Lear

first turns in offering Cordelia's hand. Why should this be, if the King of France was obviously the better catch? Marriage to the more powerful France
would

have threatened to
seems of

make

Britain

dependent

subordinate of

France

polit

ically. Lear

to have thought that the danger of placing Cordelia's third

between those
gundy.

her

sisters would
would aid

And he himself his life

with

be sufficiently Cordelia's cause

offset

by

her link to Bur

remain

by

residing for the

and

der

of

her alone,

rather

than shuttling from one daughter to the

other,
set

as

he

ended

my rest on The language

that
what or

up doing her kind

used

with

two of them: "I

lov'd her most,

no

thought to

nursery."

by

Lear throughout leaves

mind was an actual

doubt (here I depart from

of

Jaffa) a temporary
"all

he had in
merely

division

the

kingdom,

and not

apparent our

division. He explicitly
age,"

care and

and cares of would give

purpose and

giving up all He implies that something like a tripartite council of state unity to the mle of Britain. When Cordelia herself thwarts his he disowns her, he divides her intended portion between the other
state."

business from

he is shaking of territory interest "mle,

says that

two and

eminence and the

invests his sons-in-laws, the two dukes, large effects that troop with
and a

jointly

"with my power,

pre more

majesty,"

keeping
.

little

than
gives

his title
the

hundred knights for himself. To these "beloved

give

sons"

he

"sway,

revenue and execution of the rest.

this emergency, Lear would

the two dukes

more

It is unlikely that, in power than he had origi-

King
nally intended to
gundy,
give

Lear

395

the three dukes together

was symbolized

(including

the Duke of Bur

whose place

in Britain
can

by

the coronet Lear had on

hand
the

for the

occasion).

We
of a

tripartite

division

only Britain that

were

conclude under

that Lear's plan really

was

envisioned and

him

entirely united,

that these the

three parts, as he says,

and

intended for the

perpetual possession of

dukes
his

their heirs.
peculiar scheme?

What drove Lear to this

In

what

way did it

necessitate

having

"darker

purpose?"

What

were

the alternatives he faced? The

evidence a

in the play
presumption

seems

to

warrant of

four

premises:

(1)
or

that there was

in Britain

in favor

hereditary

monarchy

keeping

the

crown within

the

family; (2) that women would not have been (3) that as in the case of Gloucester's sons
in favor level
of of

wanted

to take the helm

directly;
at the

there

was a social presumption

the mle of the eldest, though

without

any

binding

authority

the crown

itself; (4)
premises not

that Britain was regarded as a possession of the

king's
the

which

he

could even

basis

of

these

divide up into separate dowries or inheritances. On taken together, it would appear that the most so

cially consistent, if
eldest,
or

expected, alternative

rather, through
and

heriting
and

both Regan

was leaving all to Goneril, the her, to her husband, Albany. This would mean disin Cordelia, just as was to occur in the case of Edmund

does occur, his

as a matter of

course, in

all

hereditary

monarchies.

But

what

if

Lear's "darker
share of

purpose"

and

his foremost

objective was

to pass on the greatest

as

power

to

Cordelia,

whose conventional

claim,

the youngest, was

Perhaps this is why he chose to avoid the problem of succession directly and instead to couch all decisions in terms of giving dowries to all three daughters.
weakest of all?

Lea: had

no personal

craving for

public expressions of affection

from his

daughters. As he himself announces, what he wants to do is extend his largest bounty (in distributing the parts of the kingdom) "where nature doth with merit
challenge."

posed

by

nature

Merit is his concern, and it is the challenge or claim to the crown in the form of merit i.e., natural merit that seems to have
conclusions embodied

moved

Lear to the
merit

in his divided map

of

of

Britain. It is

Cordelia's

that he wanted to
were

find

tion,

and

the "love

speeches"

acknowledging in the alloca way the secret means he had devised to do so.
a
elder sisters

They
sively

are set and

up in

such a

way that the two for last.

first

praise

him

effu

thereby inadvertently
saves

commit themselves

to the more

favorable treat
if

ment of

Cordelia that he

This solution, however, is already a compromise with the natural standard for choosing kings, why should the his
offspring?

convention:

merit

is
to

choice

be

confined

is that, among his children, merit should receive its due. Those that have descended from his body (his wife, their mother, is never mentioned in the play) will be treated in accordance with
The
compromise

Lear

arranges

their merit, ability to mle, or excellence of soul.

Loving Cordelia,
like himself,
and

Lear thinks
wants

he has found in her

a person of

exemplary

virtue

he

her

396

Interpretation decisive
share

to have the largest and most

in mling Britain. Dividing the

king
best

dom

was

the only way of

achieving this

objective.

This

means

that Lear preferred

dividing

the kingdom and giving the

third to Cordelia over

this keeping it intact and giving it all long before he began to think badly of Goneril. But why? Shakespeare seems to have him engage in this radical and highly improbable action in order to indi cate the full impact a natural principle is likely to have on the social order. Making Goneril (or Albany) his successor would have had the advantage of
and

to Goneril

strengthening the
social

social presumption

in favor

of

the eldest and

thereby bolster

reliability stability in the succession generally. This would have ing been even more important to consolidate on the political level of the monarchy
and

than on the level of the individual aristocratic

family

like Gloucester's. Histori

cally, the

practical alternatives

facing

monarchies are either

hereditary

mle or
and

chaos, but Lear does not do what he can to shore up hereditary monarchy instead undermines it in the name of the principle of merit.

It turns out, therefore, that both Lear and Edmund appeal to nature to a distinguished from a merely legal or conventional or manmade claim. In Edmund's case, the legal mle working against him is already firmly and
natural as

formidably
governing
open

established:

succession exists

he tries to break it down. In Lear's case, the legal mle only in an inchoate form and hence is much more

to the impress of
can

what a

king

of

his

stature

Lear

help

form the tradition guiding

desert
rather

royal

actually decides to establish. succession; Edmund must undo

appeal

the effect of a tradition already established.

ple of natural
understood

Moreover, both
with

to a princi
principle

than age, though

strength or

Edmund this
with

is

to be based on manly
sense.

power,

Lear,

on moral virtue

in the broad
than a

Or

since age can

we

itself be thought
natural

of as a natural rather

conventional

principle of age as a

find two

principles

in

conflict. of

Whatever the defects

principle, it has the advantage, for society,

cast

being
lose

definite

and clear cut.

Once

aside, many

more

Edmunds

will make

self-interested claims all

than Lears. The result will be to encourage injustice and

at one and

dependability
life have
the
a

the same time.

whether

Thus,
political

the great question animating this play is

human justice
and

and

foundation in

nature or are

merely conventional,
that

it is

this

question

applied

to the problem
of

of succession

duces

at

beginning
society.

the play

and resolves

Edmund had to invent the term

"nature"

in the

Shakespeare intro Neither Lear nor play, for they found it already at
in the
rest.
"nature"

hand in their

But

someone

had to discover

in this

sense.

he really retains any of the polytheistic beliefs of his society, or is rather clothing his radically untraditional beliefs in the traditional garb of religion. For nature is not a god dess in the ordinary meaning of that term. Nature means the necessary working of things due to their own internal makeup or composition, and it can apply
whether

When Edmund exclaims, "Thou, Nature, art my it is unclear ing the gods to "stand up for
bastards,"

goddess,"

and ends

by

exhort

King
either
such

Lear

397

things, like the nature of men or horses, or to the sum of all things in Nature. It is distinguished from what men artificially establish,
to particular

but

also

from the

external will of

the gods

from both human making

specific sense
and

and

divine

making. of

The independent force

"nature"

nature, taken in this

the very

word

had to be discovered

by

someone at some point: nature

is

not

known to
Right"

men

by

nature.

In his

chapter

"The Origin

of the

Idea

of

Natural

(in Natural Right

and

History), Leo Strauss describes how philosophy

itself

comes

into

existence

through the

discovery

of

nature,

so

that the

first

philosophers were all natural philosophers.

Their innovation

was

to insist on to discover

using only

man's natural capacities

his

senses and

his

reason

the ultimate causes of things: their nature. This could not occur without a radi
cal rejection of claim to
when

the traditional authority

of

both

religion and

society

of

their

supply the authoritative account

of

these causes

already.

Philosophy,

it arises, challenges all authority as such in the name of the tmth it discovers about nature, and in the play Shakespeare actually has Lear recapitu late this radical break with the belief in the gods that is presupposed by the

discovery

of nature through philosophy.

gods and nature.

In the play Lear is first shown believing in a combination of the traditional It is to nature that he appeals as he searches for political merit

in his successors; it is
tender"

by

the gods that he swears

and

when

punishing his

"un-

daughter, Cordelia,
(just
as

then again it

is to

nature now understood as a

goddess

thankless

and cmel

nature and

to bring sterility to his Goneril. He seems to be able to believe in both daughter, the gods because, in keeping with the tradition of his society, he
case of

in the

Edmund)

that he

appeals

looks

upon

power of
nature

justice, particularly through their injustice. the gods seem to be both the source of Thus, punishing and its mlers, and are capable of interfering with its normal working for
cause of justice.

the gods as supporting human

the sake of sustaining the

This dual belief makes it

possible

for

Lear to

address

Nature herself
appeals

as a goddess who can

interfere

with

her

own she

natural effects.

Edmund

to a goddess he calls

by the

same name

but

is really very different. Lear thinks of the gods as making up for weaknesses or defects in human justice, punishing where human justice cannot reach. Ed
mund,
on

the

other

hand,
on

wants

to oppose human justice in the name of a

natural order

centering

his

own

interests. He believes justice itself to be its

concern

an

artificial or conventional

idea,

since

for

others or

for the

common

good goes against the selfishness natural to us all.

By depicting
and

Britain
and

as a place where

there is already knowledge of

nature

of

identification combining this Shakespeare creates a situation with personal bodies deities, heavenly something like the combination of biblical and classical elements that charac
philosophy,
with a religion on

based

the

the

terized
sets

society all the way through to his own day. What Shakespeare forth in King Lear is a continuous reflection, primarily occurring in Lear's
medieval

398
own

Interpretation
mind, on the relationship
the
of

justice to the
daughters'

gods and nature. and

As Lear

goes

mad under speare

impact
him

of

his

elder with

ingratitude

injustice, Shake
and

shows

preoccupied

the subject of
reaches gods

justice

following

course of philosophical reasoning.

He

the radical conclusion that

support

justice

is

lacking

not

only in
and

support

from the

but in

from

nature as well:

it is entirely
the

conventional.

This

agrees with of cosmic

the position taken

by

Edmund from

beginning,

the absence

justice that it teaches her. But is this

seems to receive

its final demonstration in the is needlessly

sought murdered and

deep

pessimism of over

the final scene, where

what

Cordelia

Lear dies

Shakespeare

to convey in the play? Is it even what the last scene teaches? Does

Shakespeare basis
can

Lear in thinking justice conventional? If not, he think otherwise, and why does the play seem to reach a
agree with

on what conven

tionalist

conclusion?

2. FATHERS, GODS AND KINGS

To
came

tyranny."

compromise his brother, Edmund writes himself a letter, claiming it from Edgar, in which he calls for the overthrow of their father's "aged He tells his father that he has even heard Edgar maintain "that sons at

perfect age and

fathers declin'd, the father

revenue."

should

be

as ward to the
after

son,

and

the son manage his

In

a parallel

to this, shortly
severe with

Lear has begun

his

visit with

Goneril,
man,

she

determines to be

him:

Idle That

old

still would manage given away!

those authorities

That he has Old fools With

No, by my life,
and must when

are

babes again,

be

us'd

checks as

flatteries,

they

are seen abus'd.

Shortly
mothers

afterward, the fool tells Lear that he has

made

his daughters his

giving them the rod and pulling down his own breeches. All these instances involve an overturning of what seems to be the
nature, whereby parents raise and mle
over

by

most

obvious order of

their children and

at

are owed grateful obedience.

This overturning

puts all of

society

risk, since
political

the

family
to

is the

authority
wishes

as such. end

authority In the play, Edmund makes it his father's mle and even his life,
to
get

original seat of

and perhaps

the archetype of

seem

that his brother Edgar

whereas

beginning

with an effort

his brother's

inheritance,

it is really he who, betrays his father and

Cornwall. Similarly, Lear, having rashly and wrongly disowned Cordelia, finds himself cruelly mistreated by his two elder daughters, using the power he has relinquished to them and their hus bands. They shuttle him back and forth between them, reduce his company of knights from one hundred to none, humiliate him further by putting his man in
makes possible
cruel

his

blinding by

the stocks, and,

finally,

shut

him

out

in

terrible storm.

King
Filial disobedience
nate aberration

Lear

399

and

ingratitude have

always

existed, but

as an unfortu ab and

stract views.

receiving justification from Shakespeare has Edmund express such views, with Goneril
affairs and without concrete variations of
with

in human

the

fool contributing
of

their own. The

reason

for this is that

convention,
authori

the coming

philosophy,

its distinction between

nature and

represents a challenge

to even the most sacred and most self-evident

ties, including that of the father. Once philosophy enters the picture, it must be demonstrated why it is that the gratitude and obedience traditionally owed by
children

to parents are

deserved,
may

and other possibilities must

including

the mle of

mature children over aged parents philosophical vativism reverence. conclusion end

be

considered

dispassionately. The

but its

ground must

in deep conser up supporting tradition now be rational proof rather than traditional for the have
link to

Reverence for
other.

parents and reverence

gods

a clear

each

Just

as parents create and care

operation
be."

Lear

calls

them

"orbs"

for their offspring, the gods, generally cause us to "exist and

and

by

their

cease

to

They

are the

first

causes of

things,

the things

they

cause are

intrin

sically dependent on them. Together, marked disposition to favor the old

older

parents and gods not

generations,

and old ways generally. challenge

when

only older Both Lear

own

introduce into society a parents but old people,

and

Edmund
as an old

challenge

this domination of the old

old man and an old against

Lear's

authority

father,

an

king

they

appeal

to nature and

natural merit as

tradition and convention.

According
it
would

to the

principle of natural merit

taken

by itself,

Lear's

view of

indicate that

perhaps

an

intelligent

young

son should mle over

he

undertakes to guide
and

foolish father, just as Edgar does when the blind Gloucester. He should do so for his father's

his

old and

good,

Edgar does

so

far

more

wisely than Gloucester

attempts

could

have, left

to

himself. But
the old

by Edmund's

view of nature and

merit, the young

should mle over as a

for

their own good, as

overall change mle of

he

to do throughout. In the play

whole, the
change

that occurs in Britain

from be

beginning
expected

to

end

is

from the
a

the very old

Lear is

an octagenarian

to the mle of to
reign

Edgar,
and

young

man of

the highest quality,

who can

justly
old: nor

wisely begins his reign by paying apt tribute to the wisely "The oldest hath borne most; we that are young shall never see so much,
and who

live

long."

so

Between the customary authority of fathers or parents and the authority of the gods stands the authority of kings or mlers. Lear's conception of kingship

does

not emerge all at once

in the play, but his

original plan

for

kingdom is designed to Cordelia. This

must,
above
effort

authority for Cordelia is in turn predicated

and

give as much

as possible on

to

merit

dividing the i.e., to

that a
mler

the

notion

all, be just

virtuous,

and so she

is,

even

if

lacking

somewhat not of mler a

all

in

pmdence.
mler

It

presumes

that

political mle

is for the benefit It

of

the mled, the

the

in this

respect

nature

that

commands

respect and

resembling is

paternal power. capable

requires of

of command

generally,

di-

400

Interpretation
the
common good.

This is why the play takes an interest in the question whether there are any kings by nature i.e., whether human life is well provided for not only through punitive justice but through just mle and proper authority of all kinds. As part of this interest, Kent, in disguise, tells
rected toward

Lear that "you have that in

and upon

your countenance which

would

fain
To

master,"

call

a natural

being asked by Lear what that is, king and deserves to be not only

"Authority."

replies
obeyed

him, Lear is
As

but

admired and served.

Lear's

madness and

question of natural

his understanding simultaneously deepen, he pursues this kingship further, at one point affirming that he himself is
yet

"every
royal

inch

king,"

immediately
to anything

contradicting this idea

than a farmer's

authority

amounts
view

more

by denying dog barking

that
at a

beggar. Which

is true?

When Lear is

mistreated

by

his

elder

daughters, his
king. It is
anger,
as and

reactions

ing father!")
cmel

the different perspectives of father

and

their

vary in adopt father ("So kind a

them all. But

that he feels the greater sorrow

after

unable

to comprehend their
given

ingratitude
almost

he treated them

so well and

had just

he is
spect,

equally

sensitive

to derogations from his majesty,

marks of

disre
of

having

to plead where

before he

could command.

Over the issue

the

conduct and number of perhaps with

his knights, he

curses

Goneril

and sets out

for Regan's,

Act I, helped by the By fool's bitter jests, he has already regretted surrendering his power to these daughters, and recognized that his disowning Cordelia was the originating point
expresses.

less hope than he

the end of

of

this folly:

"O'

dear judgment "sweet

out!"

Lear, Lear, Lear! Beat at this gate, that let thy folly in and thy Already, so early in the play, he fears going mad and begs

heaven"

to

confronted and

him from going mad. By the end of Act II he has been humiliated by both daughters together in Gloucester's castle.

keep

Again he
sweet send

appeals allow
and

to the

gods:

"O

heavens, if

you

do love

old

men, if
your and

your

sway

down,

obedience, if you yourselves are old, make it take my Tom between wanting to be patient
part!"

cause;

wanting

vengeance, he begs the

gods as a

"poor

man"

old

if they have
anger"

caused

his

daughters'

ingratitude. He

for patience, yet also wonders asks to be touched by "noble

to weep,

and avenge

helped to
on

avoid weeping.

Refusing
he

himself
shall go

these "unnatural

hags,"

again

fears

threatening to sanity: "O, losing

and

his

Fool! I
Lear
an

mad!"

By appealing
old

to the gods as a poor old man and

father,

rather than as a

king,

chooses what

he

must

instinctively
and

sense

to be the firmer ground.

Being

enduring condition, whereas being a king is that can happen and unhappen. While something retaining the title of king, Lear had in fact given up his royal power, but he did not and could not give up his status as a father and what was owed to him by his daughters. And this, of course, is the bond that most affects the audience one they have all experi enced and sense to be both natural and of the greatest moment. Nevertheless, something
of

father is

a natural

Lear's

case

is lost

when

he forgoes arguing
more

as a

times,

as a

progenitor, for these functions liken him

king and even, at fully to the gods than

King
the
"oldness"

Lear

401

he

stresses.

Symbolically, however,
and

the challenge to

"oldness"

mounted

by Edmund,
custom and

Goneril in

Lear himself
provides

a challenge

to all old

things,

including
like the
guise

tradition
as

the setting for the philosophizing

madness. our

Lear himself

soon engages

he descends into
enacted as such.

original

birth

that keeps us

philosophy is from recognizing it

of

before

In short, something eyes, but in a dis

much of

the play

parallels

Strauss's

account of

It is amazing to discover how how the idea of natural right

originated.

By
cmel

the

beginning
of

of

the great

regained whatever moral ground

in Act III, Lear has more than he had lost at the beginning of his rash and
storm scene of

dismissal

Cordelia

and

Kent. The depth

his love for Cordelia has

not

yet shown

force, but he plainly regrets his injustice to her. We are impressed, moreover, by Kent's returning in disguise to serve his master, and all the more because of Kent's independence of mind: it is a deed that speaks as
well of

itself full

his

master as of

himself. We begin to
expense,

cringe at

the fool's almost

wonder

merci

less

sarcasm at

his

master's

and cannot

but

how Lear

can

tolerate it

and preserve

his

attachment

to the fool throughout. Of

at

course we

sympathize most

strongly

with

Lear's suffering

the hands

of

his

elder

daugh

ters and begin to

appreciate

the grandeur, as

well as

the confusion, of his soul.

was not

Thinking back,
with sudden erence

we realize

that his

explosion at

Cordelia

simply the
combined

result of egotism or even

irascibility. It

was caused

by

great

love

fmstration

for her

itself seeing his elaborate scheme destroyed by her unanticipated obstinacy.

at

animated

by

pref

By

the end of Act

what

II, then,

we are prepared

to concede, from watching Lear

in action,
of selfish

the situation in Britain originally implied. Far from

being

a man

vanity, feeble intelligence and uncontrollable anger, Lear is cast in the heroic mould. He is usually not impulsive, not even given to anger, and certainly not vain. Until then he has combined wisdom with power, and that is

why he has
who

no enemies at

home, is

so well

loved His

and respected

by

all

those

count,

and enjoys such

from the daughters

our sister

artificial complication of as

standing his

abroad.

misfortune stems as much

scheme and anger at can

it does from his inordinate

his misunderstanding of his Cordelia. "He always lov'd

against

most,"

is

all

that Goneril

and

Regan

hold

him, but they do

as

not complain of abuse or neglect.

They

concealed their vices so

whose virtue

long

their father

had

gifts

to give

and power

to awe;

Cordelia,
to

he had

recognized and

loved, had
sisters and

perhaps not yet

had

occasion

show an

the contempt she

had for her

her inclination to

push virtue

itself to

imprudent

extreme.

3. "REASON IN MADNESS": THE STORM SCENE OF ACT III

night, as he thinks about
urges

Let

us now

follow Lear's
and

words

in the

storm at

his

daughters'

injustice

his

own suffering.

First he

the wind, rain, light

fires"

ning

("thought-executing

i.e., lightning

that executes the thought of

402

Interpretation
and

Zeus)

thunder to put an end to "ingrateful

man."

Unlike his children, these

elements owe

doing

nothing to him and so can subject him to what they will without injustice. Yet they seem also to be in alliance with his daughters against
age and

him, despite his

weakness, and are therefore unjust,

castle while

since made

the daugh

ters, after all, are safe inside Gloucester's full bmnt of the storm outside.
Lear
another calls upon

he is

to feel the

himself to be patient,
the gods:

without

complaining,

and

then finds

way

of

justifying

terrorize

undetected criminals and need not

be using this dreadful storm to they make them beg for mercy. But in that case
must

Lear himself
this point

fear: "I

am a man more sinn'd against

boy"

than

sinning."

At

he turns sympathetically to the fool "my his feeling cold, showing this innate concern for others, just him to some shelter in a hovel, showing the same concern. On approaching the hovel, Lear "tempest in my over his
mind"

and worries about as

Kent tries to

get

still

daughters'

hesitates to enter, claiming that the ingratitude keeps him from feeling
not as this
what an
to't?"

the tempest

of

the storm tear this

battering
hand for

his body. "Filial ingratitude! Is it

mouth should

lifting

food
such

He is

stmck

by

inversion
home,"

of nature

is to be found in
punishment

suggesting that their

ingratitude, but he will "punish lies in his own hands and not in those
enter as

of

the gods.
enters

Meanwhile,
first
and

urged

by

Kent to
prayer,
of

the

fool

then

utters a

he

calls

hovel, Lear makes sure the it, for the houseless and
He himself, he
con as

unfed poor

"that bide the pelting

not

storm."

this pitiless

fesses, had
selves

thought enough of the sufferings of the poor. He goes so

far

to command those

in

"pomp"

the wealthy
and

and powerful

to expose them

to

what poor wretches more

feel

bestow their

surplus on

them in

order

to

"show the Heavens

With this reflection, Lear has taken his mind off himself and ceased thinking of the storm as a divine means of detecting or criminals and sinners. Storms cannot be conceived as moral instru punishing
ments, since their victims
are

just."

the

innocent

even more prayer

than the
gods

guilty.

Those
to

mainly hurts
the wealthy,

are

the poor, best helped not

by

to the

but

by

pleas

who

in

helping

the poor "show the

heavens
as

just."

more
o'

At this
covered
mled not

point the almost naked

Edgar, disguised
a

Tom

Bedlam, is dis
if the
world

in the hovel.

Raving

like

by

a good god or gods

devout man, he but by the "foul

speaks as

is

fiend,"

and even gives

his

Ten Commandments. He tells Lear he has led a life of but Lear seems not to hear and to be pleasure, considering only Tom's uncovered body. At first he thought Tom's must have been caused by penury the ingratitude of unkind daughters, like his own misery: "Could thou save nothing? Wouldst thou give "em Perhaps it was even a "judicious punish
own counterpart of the sinful
all?" ment"

(without saying by whom) for having begotten such But now Lear is stmck by the contrast between naked Tom

"pelican"

daughters.
of

and

the "three

us"

(Lear, Kent,
"Thou,"

and

fool)

who

are

clothed

and

therefore

"sophisticated."

Lear

says

to

Tom, "are

the

thing itself;

unaccommodated man

is

no

King
more

Lear

403

but

such a

poor,

strip off his Tom.

Let
us

own

whereupon he starts to bare, forked animal as thou (these "lendings"), obviously to make himself like clothing
art"

Why

am

not an

try to reconstmct the unspoken movement of Lear's thought here. I suffering the ingratitude and injustice of my daughters? The storm is instrument of the gods for punishing the wicked. In fact, the cause of
wickedness

human

is in
or

men

themselves, for they have departed from

a simple animal without

nature.

Man is essentially,
or power

by

nature,
and

clothing,

possessions

unsophisticated

hence

without the

kind daughters. The

source of

human

unhappiness

possibility of having un and evil is what man adds to

and conven

his nature, complicating and corrupting tions, clothing is the perfect symbol.
now

it,

and,

of

these inventions

Stripping

himself

Edgar's

being

close
of

to nakedness is

a sign not of

his clothing for poverty but of natural

of evil man

purity
caused.

is Lear's way
after

regaining

nature and

undoing the

himself has

So

Edgar

gabbles about assorted evils caused of

by

the foul

fiend,

about

the awful things he eats and about the prince

view of

darkness
"What's

thus presenting a

the

world as

dominated

by

evil rather with

than good powers

he?"

Lear

re

sponds

to Kent's "How fares your

Grace"

Grace?"

i.e., by

dis

missing "your
natural

as a when

merely

conventional title
against

that has

no place

among
com

things. And

Gloucester, acting

Lear's

daughters'

mands, seeks to

bring

his

king

out of

this "tyrannous

night"

to a place where

food

and shelter are

me

ready, Lear

speaks

the most amazing

lines in the
thunder?"

play:

"First let

talk with this philosopher. What

when

is the

cause of

It is to Tom that Lear turns

he

speaks these

lines, for he has

mistaken we

him for

a philosopher.

Why? And
train
of

what

does his is

question signify?

Again

must seek

the
of

unspoken

thought. Tom

natural man

man prior

to the

influence
of

inventions,
of

conventions and

traditions.

Philosophy is

the exercise

human reason, challenging

the nature

all accepted of all

beliefs
and

as such and

edge of nature

things,

the causes of them all. What

seeking knowl is
with

more plausible than nature or

to believe that this

natural man would of nature?

be in touch
nature

have

a natural

understanding

For it is

that Lear

himself has discovered in his question, since simply asking is to doubt what he and his society have always believed
cause of

the cause of thunder that Jupiter is the

"thought-executing"

thunder, that both lightning

It is to
attribute

and

thunder are the

effects of a god, or that

causes of all things.

beings mentally

akin

to human beings are the

directing

the cause of thunder to

forces inherent in

or natural to the material world. Thus, when a few moments later Lear says to we can guess what that word must Tom, "Let me ask you one word in private. In all likelihood, Lear will ask and the question must be be, why whether the gods exist or, better, just what the fundamental cause of things
private,"

really is. It is
essential

a question that cannot

be

asked

openly
that

or

publicly if

religion

is
of

to ordinary human life. And to

show

introducing

the idea

404

Interpretation

philosophy at this point was hardly accidental, Shakespeare has Lear invoke its and "good Greek origins by his references to Tom as "this learned
Theban"

Athenian,"

and

identifying

him twice

more as a philosopher.

If

one

had to

choose a single place

in Shakespeare's

plays

that proves

he

for the study than the stage, for serious private reflection than theater viewing, this is it. Here we find no dramatic interest whatsoever. Noth
wrote more

ing happens, no action, passion or perception: the plot stands absolutely still. For this reason, the critics (apart from Harry Jaffa, the first to draw attention to this point) have produced practically no commentary on the lines, which simply baffle them. But if King Lear is a play about Lear's mind and soul, as everyone
has to admit, a failure to happening inside Lear to
the play.
note

the importance

of

these

lines,
he

and what

has been
of

cause

them, is to

miss and misunderstand

rational as

the heart

By

making Lear

grow

increasingly

grows

increasingly

mad, Shakespeare has him

reenact

the coming into existence of philosophy in

sixth-century Greece. Earlier in the play Shakespeare had philosophy

she will of of nature

even pointed us

back toward the

earliest

by

twice citing playfully the fundamental

we call

maxim of

these

pre-Socratic

philosophers, as

them. When

Cordelia first tells Lear that

replies:

say nothing to

express

her love for him, he

nothing,"

meaning, in the context, that

she will

"Nothing will come receive no dowry if she

Later in Act I, when the fool asks Lear whether any use can be made of nothing, he replies: "Why, no, boy; nothing can be made of noth If the Harvard Concordance is right, this principle is mentioned in no
speaks no words.
ing."

other

play,

so

Shakespeare for the

must

have

appreciated

its

unique

importance to the

rational search

natural causes of

things

which was and

is

philosophy.

As

Empedocles
From
and

put

it
in
to

at about

450 B.C.:

what

no wise
perish

exists, it is impossible for anything to come into

of

being;
. .

for

Being

completely is incapable

fulfillment

and unthinkable

This basic idea

ing,
erly,

and cannot

that something must come from something and not from noth in turn become nothing has often been regarded, quite prop

as the premise of all natural

investigation,

whether we call

it philosophy

or science.

Rational

inquiry
with

idea
the

of

its originating
"nature"

into the cause of thunder can only proceed after the Zeus has been discarded. In the play, natural philos

ophy
there.

as an

word

undertaking seems already to have been known in Britain, just as was known and had even become part of common parlance
refers to and rejects the

Gloucester actually
eclipses

"wisdom
and

nature"

of

(meaning
about solar and

this very natural philosophy) that can "reason

it thus

thus"

a wisdom, in short, that refuses to believe them to be the imminent human disorders that (as he thinks) they really are. Pri vately, Edmund makes fun of his father's superstitious belief that the heavenly bodies determine our character and fate, but in front of Edgar he acts as if their omens of

lunar

father's belief is

also

his own,

drawing

from Edgar the

criticism

implied in the

King
question, "How

Lear
would

405
say

long

have

you

been

astronomical?"

sectary

(we

"astrological").

So,
cease

while

Lear

was

view when

he

spoke of

probably expressing the generally accepted the "operation of the orbs from whom we

religious

exist and

to

be,"

it does

not seem to

have been customary

an

at

the time to
astrology.

extend

this

view, as Gloucester
were expected

does, into
and

overall

deterministic

The

gods

intervene into human affairs, but it did not necessarily follow that their role as heavenly bodies or orbs determined the whole course of every life. And it is Gloucester's credulously taking recent
eclipses as omens of ceptible

to influence

disorder

and

divisions in human life that

makes

him

sus
re

to Edmund's lies

about

his brother's

hostility

to him. Gloucester

mains pious and credulous

Having
come

entered

throughout, but Lear leaves his piety far behind. the farmhouse provided by Gloucester, Lear is still preoc
a

cupied with

his bad daughters: "To have

in
upon

thousand
of

with red

hissing

'em.

He is thinking
will now

how he

might

burning spits bring about

than on the
must

their suitable punishment, but he

rely

on armed men rather

gods,

which seem would

to be the only recourse left to him. Then something

tell

unjust to punish his daughters without a trial, and his next be done; I will arraign them So, guided by what looks like an inherent or natural sense of justice, but relying on the conven tional device men have invented to administer justice, Lear appoints a bank of

him that it
words are:

be

"It

straight."

shall

judges consisting of Tom, the fool and Kent. He arraigns Goneril first, charg ing her with kicking the poor king, her father an apt physical metaphor for her
mistreatment of of

the influence

him and very similar to an action Aristophanes attributes to Socrates in The Clouds. But Lear imagines that Regan escapes,
in the
court

due to

corruption

i.e.,
see,

to

a weakness

in human institutions for little dogs

and

enforcing justice, all, Tray, Blanch

and after and

this comes his pathetic reflection, "The

Sweetheart

they bark

me."

at

Not only do his daugh

ters, failing to recognize him as their father and king, treat him with such cruelty, but even his own little dogs (he imagines) fail to recognize him as their old be loved master and bark at him, baring their fangs as they would at a stranger.
Lear's final
phy:
remark

in the farmhouse

returns

to the theme of natural philoso

"Then let them

anatomize

Regan;

see what

breeds

about

her heart. Is there

that Regan's

any cause in nature that make these hard hardness of heart has a physical cause not
pondering but peculiar to her
of the appearance of
own

hearts?"

This

presumes

endemic

to civilized life

Edgar (as

Tom)

had led him to

conclude

itself, as his before,

body. Thus, in place of explanations given in moral or religious terms, Lear looks for a natural cause in the most physical sense. He seems to have replaced the notion of mind and soul, divine or human, with that
of

matter,

dismissing

the idea of a divine superintendence of the world for the

other

sake of justice.

On the

hand, he
to the

still seems

to harbor the belief that "these

hard

hearts"

are an exception or

general mle of

nature,

which

favors

softer

hearts

justice.

406

Interpretation

Before proceeding further, we should comment on the connection between Lear's mental wanderings and the physical circumstances surrounding him. A great storm is taking place in nature, and amid this storm Lear is losing his
mind:

two

similar

occurrences, both showing

departure from the has

always

harmony

of

nature.

Lear tries
patient

desperately

not

to go mad. He

been in

control of

himself,
(and

in the face
his

of sorrow

and suffering.

character,

combined with

the magnitude of

But the majesty of his his mistreatment by his daughters

mistreated

perhaps with

own awareness of of

having

Cordelia) derange

his

mind.

The

chaos

this storm of unparalleled proportions matches the

chaos of

to make

his mind, or so it seems, and together they absorb us so completely as us forget that the normal human condition is one of sanity and the
good,
or at of nature a great

normal condition of nature one of

harmony
plunge

this goodness of nature

least nonstormy, weather. The seems difficult to upset and

into

storm,

and

the human

mind even more

difficult to

render

irrational, its
philosophy,

proper nature

being

to remain in control of itself. In this respect,

by

its

attainment of

tmth, may be
itself
and

said to

bring

the mind into

its

fullest

and most stable possession of

thereby

to provide its natural

perfection or greatest
madness.

health. It

is, intrinsically,

the very hallmark of sanity, not

4. "REASON IN

MADNESS"

AT DOVER: ACT IV

asleep in the farmhouse, Gloucester comes urging him to flee for his life and providing him with a litter to take him to Dover,
about where

As Lear is

to fall

rest might yet

Cordelia's army has landed. "Oppressed have balmed thy broken sinews.
subjected

nature

sleeps,

says

Kent. "This
permitted no

But Lear is
not

rest, and,
extends

to the further

motion of

flight,
him
at

his

reason-in-madness when we see

only remains mad but Dover. The first report of

escaped

his
and

presence

there

comes

from Cordelia.

Having

evidently

from Kent
to show
or

his

litter-bearers,

Lear has fashioned himself merely

outside

a crown of weeds

he

is

king by

nature and not

by

convention, for

unlike

flowers

grains,

weeds grow

The

scene on

spontaneously in the storm

the gods,

without cultivation

by

man.

Gloucester's

castle

had

ended with

Lear's

giving up his wicked daughters

ceive their
of evil

turning

must

his principle, realizing that be brought before the bar of human justice to re
to original nature as

and then wondering whether there are physical causes itself. At Dover, conceiving of himself as a natural and not merely conventional king, Lear begins by saying: "No, they cannot touch me for coin ing; I am the king What adding "Nature's above art in that

punishment,

himself,"

respect."

he

means

conventional

being

ordinary crown makes a merely counterfeiting ("coining"), since he is counterfeiting king, but he, Lear, is a natural king, a real king, and hence superior

is something like this: wearing

an

king

guilty

of

King
to any artificial or conventional
respect!

Lear

407

king

whatsoever.

Nature is

above art

in that

His

next series of

disconnected

remarks

form

a pattern

by

their reference to

activities

he

associates with

kingship,

and,

except

for one,
granted

pertain

to the

prac

tices, have

attitudes and skills of war.

seemed

They

take it for
of

so obvious must

it

to Lear

requirement of political symbolic attachment

society life. This priority of the military also accounts for his to his knights, his continuing to hunt, even at the age of
toward the end of the play that
were

that the

defense

against attack

is the first

eighty,
would

and

his

proud claim more

he

younger

he

have done he

than kill
made

Cordelia's
skip.

executioner:

"With his

good

biting
Peace,
Lear's

falchion"

would

have

him

The only break in the military

partem

of

these

remarks

comes

with

the mystifying

"Look, look,
Is this

a mouse!

peace, this
gentler side

piece of

toasted cheese will

do't."

meant

to

show

perhaps or are

to

lure it

out

just

clever ways of

reliving a child's surprise at seeing a mouse and wanting and the toasted cheese his quieting call of "Peace, but this is the only a mouse? We do not know, catching
peace"

context

in
He

which

he

mentions peace. on

Next Lear dwells

youth. now

the

flattery

to

which a

king

knows, he

says, that he

could not

is exposed, even from his really have been wise when

young (as they told him), that he has no control over nature's great He recognizes his limits, and events, and that he himself is not for doing so. In this way Lear seems to be and king of course is a better man

he

was

"ague-proof."

continuing his reflection on kingship: a tme and would have to be aware of his own limitations and A
moment not

wise

king
he is

natural

king

realize

not a god. voice and

asks, "Is't
picture

the

later, when the blind Gloucester recognizes King?", Lear replies "Ay, every inch a
in his domestic
role as

Lear's

king!"

and goes on
criminal

to

the

king

the fearful dispenser of

picture

jus

tice

of punishment and pardon.

But the He

he

now presents constitutes a

adulterers

radical

break from the

since

ordinary.

will

not, he proclaims, have

mle of nature

killed,
for
tion

lechery

and copulation are

the

for

all

animals,

and

women

thrive."

Nor
crime

are

even more than men, despite their outward modesty: "Let Let appetite be followed and pleasure sought! some men truly just and others unjust: no, in the desire to

copula

commit

there is

no

difference between the justice

the system of

and

the

thief,

the beadle and the

whore.

Moreover,
the
poor.

justice is
to
elude

always

unjust

allowing the wealthy

geance on

and powerful

its

net while

in its application, wreaking full ven

This is why Lear can find in a beggar running away from a farmer's barking dog the "great image of authority": authority has its founda tion in fear alone, not justice. And it is also why this natural king, crowned
with weeds of

his

own

picking,

can

draw the

grand and most radical conclusion

em."

that "None does offend, none, I say, none; I'll able have Edgar characterize Lear's utterances as "matter

What better

place

to

and

impertinency

mix'd;

Reason in

madness"?

408

Interpretation
point of

About this high

say.

His

claim

is

stated

Lear's thinking the commentators have nothing to in the most general form i.e., philosophically: there
strict

are no

offenses,
will so

no

crimes, in the

sense,

no crimes

by

nature, and he

testify in defense of those accused of crimes. But if all crimes are merely conventional, the laws against them must be devised not out of a devotion to justice but as we may conjecture because each individual has a
himself interest in protecting himself from crimes, inclination is to commit them if he could do so
selfish
even
with

though his own natural

impunity. The

general

teaching

expressed

here

by

Lear in this

odd manner

is

so old that
who

it is traceable
nature

to some of the earliest natural philosophers

and relied on

the ones

discovered

"ex

nihilo"

as their

first

principle.

Shakespeare has already

alerted us

to that background in the play. He may

effect

have known
things are

of an expression good and

by

Heracleitus to the

that "To

God,

all

beautiful, just; but men have assumed some things to be Heracleitus means that the distinction between just and unjust, others unjust acts is not in the nature of things but assumed or devised by men: justice
just."

is

conventional.

Almost

immediately

after

this

point

in the text, Lear imagines

a chimerical stratagem

to steal upon his sons-in-law and

"kill, kill, kill,

even

etc.,"

presumably do? What

killing

all

in sight,

including

his daughters. But the

stratagem raises

two questions: Do his sons-in-law deserve to be

about

killed,

if his daughters be just? Is

innocent

members of

their households? Would that

than a conventional mle to refrain from punishing the innocent? basic to the play is not Lear's sense, and ours, of the guilt of his daughters an indication that some justice is indeed by nature and not simply
not more

it

And

so

conventional? seems

Lear's theoretical understanding, in the

play. all

manner of

Heracleitus,

curiously at odds with the facts of the It was also Heracleitus who declared that

things are in

flux, but Shake

in the
natural

speare

distinguishes between

harmony

and

chaos,

rest and motion

constitution of

things. With rest,

Lear's

mind can recover

of course

losing
in

the unnatural ability with which

its normalcy while Shakespeare endows it to

philosophize

madness.

But nature,
rest,

and

the

nature of each

thing,

consists

in

the control of motion

mind.

by

of matter

by form,
a

and, in men,

of matter

by

The

world

is

a cosmos more

than

chaos,
upon

and so are

the natural beings

in it. As Lear

sleeps

still, Cordelia

calls

the gods to cure this "great

breach in his
relies on

abused nature!
father!"

The

untun'd and

jarring

senses,

O,

wind

up

of

this

child-changed

More

conventional

than her disturbed

father, Cordelia

the

gods

to restore the

harmony

inherent in
quite

our nature

by

which we

are rendered normal and sane.

Nevertheless,
of mad

appropriately, it is to the
rest.

harmonies
Let

of music

that Lear awakens, restored, from his

us see

the consequences

Lear's

having

adopted

the conventional

ist

view of

justice.

According
of

to that view,

all men

have the same, essentially

selfish

desires bereft

sense or

any concern for others, and unrestrained by any natural understanding of justice. But in that case there are no natural crimes,

King
no natural

Lear

409

punishments,

no nature-based systems of

justice,

and

no natural public good

kings! It
and

makes no sense

to think of a

king

as one
as a

devoted to the

acting

justly

in the

public's

behalf

i.e.,

king by

nature

if there is

What Lear has done, through his thinking, is to undermine entirely his thought about himself and his daughters. And what Shakespeare has done is to confront us with these philosophical alternatives. If
no natural

basis for his

activity.

justice is natural, there are natural crimes, natural punishments and rewards, perhaps natural kings as well, and the fundamental injustices and virtuous ac
tions
of

the play are themselves

rooted

in

nature.

If justice is conventional, the

unfounded,
and all

distinction between the

apparent

selfish and the unselfish will prove

justice

and virtue will

dissolve into

selfishness of one sort or another.

In that case, the internal foundation of the play itself, and Lear's entire being as a man in pursuit of justice, will collapse and leave no mark. The good and bad
characters will

fade into

each

other,

and

there will

be nothing

glorious

left. But

is this

what

happens in the

play?

5. THE LAST ACT

In

no other

distinguished
end)
and

play of Shakespeare's are the good and bad characters so starkly in this one. Goneril, Regan, Cornwall, Edmund (until the very Oswald are rotten to the core. Lear, Edgar, Cordelia, Kent, Glouces
as

ter, Albany are essentially good, whatever their faults. Now it is obvious that Shakespeare does not stand neutrally between these two groups. He makes the
good as on what

lovable

and admirable as

he can, the bad

away from

as

detestable

as

he

can.

But

is this distinction based? Are the

understood as a

good more natural

than the bad? Are the good, or

the bad to be the good

as a

falling

or corruption of

falling

away from
plain

or corruption of

the bad?

For
play,

one

thing, it is

that the principle of selfishness, as it operates in the

only wantonly destroys others but destroys oneself. Edmund is di responsible for his father's blinding, for the death of Cordelia, for his rectly father's mortal pursuit of Edgar, for the mutual jealousy of Goneril and Regan,
not

and,

finally, for Goneril's poisoning

and

of

Regan. Selfishness is inconsistent But this is far from

with

the love

loyalty

required

in

social relationships.

all.

Provoked
characters

by

and

Shakespeare's presentations, we in the audience love the despise the bad: there is something in us to which the

good
poet

appeals,
appeal

had already to be there in order for him to make such an in the first place. We are angry with Lear for dismissing Cordelia and
and which

Kent,

while

remaining

concerned about

his future. We too feel how

suffer with

sharper
when

than a serpent's tooth is filial ingratitude. We

Gloucester

Cornwall worthy

sets

his foot We

on

his face. We love Kent for his Lear

as

selfless service and

to

master.

ache with

he painfully loses his mind,

delight

410

Interpretation
of

sympathy he expresses in the midst of his And as his plight worsens, and his daughters grow more repulsive, we desperately with him what support justice has in the world. in the touches

love

and

misery. wonder

We have these
we

reactions

because there

are natural experiences

in life

which

particularly identify with being human. Love, friendship, the recognition of human greatness, pity, reflection occur, to some degree, in us all. Despite the constant diggings of self-interest, good people do not surrender the distinctive
content

of

these

experiences.

We

admire

the

loyalty
well

of

Edgar, Kent
when we

and costs of

Gloucester, realizing
them
much

not

only that their

loyalty

is

directed but that it

to

be loyal. We
Edmund

recognize a

fault in Gloucester

leam

his

having kept

abroad and wince at

his

credulousness

Edmund's traducing of Edgar. We see that this weakness should not be there. This judgment derives from the fact that
place requirements on us

in swallowing in his character

our relationships

from

within themselves.

It is

being
don
be

who

has

no

friend

or

does

not

love

someone and

very warped human who fails to realize that

a

sacrifice will at

times be
and

required of

him,

even great sacrifice.

Are

we

to aban

our

friends

loved
we

ones at an

loved

ones again?

Will

instant? Will it be easy to find friends and think well of ourselves? Would we ourselves wish to
similar can

so abandoned?

Something

be

said of

ingrates

and

especially

of

ungrateful

children,

who receive

benefits

without

wanting to thank their bene

contempts or

factors
return

and

help

them in

turn, but instead

relationships

give

slights,

harms in

for

affection and assistance.

It is to these elementary

of parent mler and

and

child, brother

and

brother,
the

sister and

sister,

master and

servant,

that Shakespeare turns in this play for his

complications of

material.

mled, husband While exhibiting

and wife some of

ordinary morality, he is anxious to demonstrate its

dignity,

ground and necessity.

By

them to their source, and

showing both injustice and justice at work, he traces reveals their basis in human nature. In consequence,
resistance

far from
to

demonstrating
hearts

the meaninglessness of the universe, and its

justice,

the play shows why justice must have a

of men.

lasting

and secure place

in

the minds and

conventional

Founded in the

social nature of

man, justice is

This

principle

only in its forms, while its substance remains fixed and universal. is perfectly consistent with acknowledging that the actual accom

plishment of

justice is difficult

and elusive.

Injustice

receives

its

power

from
it

the selfishness that resists and thwarts the call of our

better

natures.

Keeping

down depends
order upper

on

the wisdom, justice

and

and power of weakens.

mlers,

who preserve an wicked gain

in

which

justice thrives

injustice innocent.
Lear

When the

the

hand,

not

the principle of justice but its enforcement suffers, with untold

and

consequences

for the just

scene of

the

In the last
cannot while want

Act IV,

when

awakens

to the strains of music,

he

believe he is before Cordelia herself, and takes her to be a soul in bliss he is bound, suffering, to a wheel of fire for treating her so badly. He

to kneel to

her, but

she wants

him to bless her. He

will

take poison if she

King
desires him to. He thinks
she

Lear

411

does

not

love him,

and admits she

has

some cause

to do him wrong, unlike her sisters. To which, in what may sound like a contradiction of the root principle of natural philosophy, she says, "No cause,
cause"

meaning only that she has no cause to harm him. Lear asks her to forgive. Obviously, he has forgotten and forgiven the obstinacy on her part that had occasioned his rage, and she, having forgiven his rage, only wishes for his blessing again. Forgiving the errors of otherwise good people
no

forget

and

seems, in

fact,

to be

a general

trait

of good people

in the

play.

Cordelia

and

Kent both forgive This forbearance

softens or

Lear; Lear forgives Cordelia; Edgar forgives Gloucester.

the good people to
each

cements

other,

and either

prevents,

terminates the harms

they

sometimes

do

inadvertently, influenced by

passion or error.

In the last Act both Lear

and

Cordelia
wants

are captured

by

the native
with

forces

of

Edmund, Albany

and

Regan. Lear

only

to live in prison

Cordelia,
Even in

blessing
and

and

kneeling
cannot

to each other, praying, singing,

discussing
God's
now

those at court

trying

to penetrate their motives, "as if

spies."

we were

seclusion of as

Lear

help thinking

about

politics, though

the rise and

fall

"great

little direct importance to him, their fall being as apparent their rise. His private relation to Cordelia, which he seems to regard as
of

ones"

is

never-ending, has
mund off

replaced political

life in his

mind.

On

being

ordered

by

Ed

to prison,

however,

Lear's

old

fighting
"We'll

spirit reappears. em starv'd

he tells Cordelia to

wipe

her

first,"

eyes:

see

As they are led before they

shall make us weep.

In the
mund's

interim,

with

the

help

of a

letter from Edgar,

Albany

discovers Ed

and

Goneril's deceit,

lenged to

personal combat

by

Edmund is mortally wounded when chal Edgar, whose identity is then unknown to him. In
and

revealing himself to Edmund, Edgar tries to vindicate the justness of the gods, who "of our pleasant vices make instruments to plague us. The dark and vi
cious place where

thee he

(Gloucester)

got cost

him his

doubt

whether

this was Edgar's serious view, since he

gods rather than
are

But we may had tricked his father

who saved

eyes."

into believing, falsely, that it was the from death at the cliffs of Dover. We
combat

himself

him

entitled,

however,

to infer from this

that, without Edgar's success defeating Edmund, the whole story might have had a very different conclusion. Moral superiority is not enough: the good must also be physically more powerful than the wicked. Edgar goes on to tell

Albany
died

and

Edmund

of

his

and

Gloucester's sufferings,
whereupon

and of

how Gloucester

after

Edgar

reveals

extremes of

passion,

joy

his tme identity, and grief, burst

as

smilingly."

his heart, "Twixt two Edgar also tells of learning

life"

from Kent "the begin to

crack

piteous

tale of Lear and

in Kent just

seeing the "strings he leaves to fight his brother.

and

him,"

of

A peculiarity of this part of the play concerns Edmund, who, dying but not dead, is unexpectedly moved by his brother's account of his own and Glouces
ter's travails to
promise

that some good

will come out of

it, but unaccountably

412
waits

Interpretation
to act until urged
on

by Albany
good

a considerable number of
mean

lines later.

Only

then, does he tell "The

gods

declaring: "Some
of

his

order
her,"

do, despite of mine own to kill both Lear-and Cordelia, the latter by hanging.
I
to

nature,"

defend

exclaims

Albany, but

too

late,

as

Lear

enters with

the

limp Cordelia in his arms, calling upon them all to howl against the heavens to Kent asks, as if there had been a protest her death. "Is this the promised divine promise of a good end to life here on earth. Albany simply exclaims,
end?"

"Fall,
his

cease!"

and

wishing, it seems, that the heavens

would

fall,

and all

things come to
master can

an end.

Kent tries to

think only of

last time to Lear, but identify Cordelia and himself. For he had just killed the
one and recalls

himself

man who was of

hanging Cordelia,
days. Not
even concentration on while

the

much greater

military

prowess

his

earlier

Kent's

news of

his

other

two

daughters'

death

disturbs Lear's
fool"

Cordelia. He

cannot understand rats

should more

be dead his

dogs, horses
never.

and

live

on.

why his "poor She'll come no

button"

never, never, never, never,

means on own

"Pray

you, undo this

Lear

probably man (perhaps

sign of

tunic, feeling imaginary) for doing it. For a moment, he thinks there's some life on Cordelia's lips, only to faint himself and finally expire. Edgar
pressure chest and

in his

thanks a

calls upon

world,"

Lear to look up, but Kent wants him to leave "the and prepares to follow his master.

rack of

this tough

other

There is nothing so tragic in Shakespeare's tragedies as this scene. To no hero are we so attached as to Lear not to Hamlet, or Othello, not to
and

Cleopatra
exercise

Antony,

not even

to Romeo and
us.

Juliet,
his

to name only those who

the

greatest attraction

for

In

no other case

is the

protagonist so

admired and

beloved

by

the end of the play,

original

sufferings so

prolonged,

and with so remarkable a

fault forgotten, his final display of his virtue.

and

Other

good people

in the play die too

Gloucester, Cordelia
producing going down
not

Kent

soon

enough

so

that the ending has the

of an excellent man

net effect of a collective

only

the single

going down
which

but

of the

good, thus

demonstrating
Lear

the tmth

of

must

be

spared

Kent's calling this the tough world on the rack of further suffering. Such is the dramatic impact of the
message?

play, but is it its deeper philosophical

The Edgar

picture at

the

end

is bleak

succession to
will

the throne has

next

been

indeed, but not without determined, and Edgar

promise, for the

wise

and

good

surviving Lear had bestowed his power, Albany, in the final mo ments of the play, returns this power to the shattered Lear for as long as he will live. But on Lear's death seconds later, Albany without explanation re
son-in-law on whom moves

be the

king,

and of a reunited

Britain. As the

sole

himself from
realm."

consideration

by directing

Kent

and

Edgar together to "mle

in this
the

Was it in

recognition of their greater service and

suffering

or of

blemishes he himself bore from his connection with Goneril? In any case, Kent expresses his intention to follow his master into death soon, and Edgar is
left to
accept

the "weight

of

this

time"

sad

and

have the last word,

remember-

King
ing
nor

Lear

413
much,

the

sufferings of
long."

the

old:

"...

we

that are young

shall never see so

live

so own

While it is true that Lear's

dying

picture of

the

world

is

as

bleak feel

as can

be, is it Shakespeare's
of

too?

Or is it

meant

to provoke in us a reaction in terms the

the play as a
accuses

whole

that goes beyond

what

dying

Lear

can

and see?

Lear
gone

the

world of

injustice: his

wonderful

daughter, Cordelia, is dead,

vault

forever,
of men

never

to return. He wants

heaven's
not

to be

cracked

by

the

howls

though without

calls everyone else murderers should

and

specifically traitors for

mentioning the gods

and even

helping

to save

her.

Why
her

dogs, horses
murdered or

and rats against

have life but

not

Cordelia? But is it
rails?

against

being
Life

her mortality itself that Lear

the world,

feels there is
seems

no moral superintendence of

whether

He obviously divine or natural.

to rats,
or good

irrational: it doesn't

care about men as compared

complaint goes

men as compared

to bad. But Lear's

too

far, for if

the world

not preserving the life of Cordelia, it must get credit for in the first place. And if men must die while rats still live, it is producing her nevertheless tme that the statement itself assumes, and testifies to, the lasting

deserves blame for

superiority
unique,
can

of men

to rats. Even so, would the

or

world

be improved if
while

all

horses

and rats were will other

to

die before be

along

with

Cordelia? And
as

there not

other

Cordelias, just
injustice

the case of

every being is Edgar shows there

be

Lears?
the very
sense of

Moreover,
nature

by

which

Lear

and we are gripped at

the end testifies to the

goodness with which we are endowed

by

nature, for it is

itself that
to
sustain

cries out at those

features

of the world

allowing

injustice,

or

failing
world

the good. Praise arises out of our very condemnation, for the

that

kills

Cordelia unjustly has

given us

the

means of

recognizing this

injustice,
be

and sometimes of

weighed accordingly.

averting or punishing injustice, and must therefore As for our mortality, and hence the perishability of all
nature

good things and

bad,

this sad fact is a condition of

nature

that we must leam to

is impossible, and therewith all the good things nature produces, as well as its sad and often anguishing limitations. What makes it possible for Edgar to face the prospect of mling Britain if not a reflec tion such as this? As he had said earlier to his life-weary father: "Men must
accept, for
without

it

endure

their going hence

remarks

even as

their coming
also seem

hither; ripeness is
designed to

all"

(V.2).

Edgar's final

in the play

recognize

the preju

dice in favor

of

the old that

wisdom must

encourage, not because the old are

necessarily wiser, but because that prejudice keeps us from experimenting with elements of society that cannot be directly even in the name of nature drawn from nature. For Lear had wrought an innovation in the name of natural

justice in his
cost of

original succession

plan,

hoping

to favor
merit.

Cordelia,

even at

the

dividing

the

kingdom, for
her

the sake of

And

what else

does the

play demonstrate but that there is

worthier of rale than

such a natural

principle, that Cordelia

completion of

is far

sisters, that Lear

in the

his

powers

414

Interpretation
a natural

is indeed

king, just
of

as

Kent is the

natural servant of such a

king? Even

so, the principle consideration,

tional

merit,

more

fundamental than that

of age or

any

other

must

for the

sake of

justice itself

bow to

other more conven

principles

that guarantee continuity and

stability.

The play calls forth our sense of natural justice particularly by the fate of innocent and good people in it, or of people whose faults are in no way com
mensurate with the sufferings

they
for

are

forced to

endure.

It is

fitting

and

just

that Goneril
well.

and

Regan

suffer

for the

evil

Cornwall

should suffer not

having
such

they do their father, and Edmund as blinded Gloucester. But Gloucester's

not not

loyalty

to Lear did

deserve

treatment; Edgar did

his

deserve to be deserve to die

traduced

by

his brother

and

hunted

by

father; Cordelia did

and

by hanging. The play does not try to explain wicked, except perhaps in the case of Edmund
Regan
seem not to

what makes particular people

his bastardy. Goneril

and

have been

abused or and of

badly

neglected

they

themselves have

no complaints on

this score

Cornwall's background

we

leam

nothing.

From these
explanation

examples

all the more

frightening

when

they have

no apparent

wickedness, it seems,

can show

itself

anywhere.

the good can draw

show an

is that they
not

must

ability to outsmart or overpower

be constantly on it whenever it

The only lesson the alert against it and

comes

to light.
automat

The

world

is certainly
as

the kind of place where

justice triumphs

ically dering

or

independently
just
gods or

of man's own effort

to

sustain

it. Neither is it the do

while engen

main of

Tom

would

have it

of

the foul fiend:

virtue and

and an
ceived

justice, nature cannot help also engendering vice and injustice unending straggle between them. Nevertheless, nature generally is con in the play as a kind of harmony or rest that encourages the best ele
man

ments

in

in the

midst of

disharmonies,
is

motions and conflicts

shown more

it

can never

completely

contain.

Its

essential character

by

good weather

than

by storm, by normalcy and rationality than madness, by health than by illness, by self-control than by anger or profligacy, by fellowship than by selfishness, by philosophical comprehension than by ignorance, by justice than by war. It is
closer to
or

the understanding

of nature

in Plato

and

Aristotle than in Heracleitus

the materialists.

We do

dying

know why Edmund suddenly decides to do a good deed in his moments, and it is even harder to understand why Shakespeare has him
not

wait so many lines before acting to save the lives of Lear and Cordelia from the death he has already ordered for them. Jaffa believes this has a political expla

nation

that

Edmund's
as

good

deed
of a

Cordelia be killed

the

head

consisted precisely in waiting and letting French force invading Britain, thus prevent
our

ing

all similar

sense of retributive

foreign designs in the future. But does this correspond to justice? And why have Edmund want to do any good at

all?

Why

not simply have Cordelia killed without If Shakespeare means to use Edmund to even

introducing
have

this complication?

show the redemptive powers of

goodness,

in the wicked, he

seems not to

prepared the

way

suffi-

King
ciently.

Lear
the

415
stan

Nothing
power)

in Edmund's

past

(except,
possible

perhaps, his

adherence to
on

dard

his part, any more than on Goneril's or Regan's. As for his delay, he has already heard of Edgar's devotion to Gloucester and now hears Edgar continue about Kent and Lear,
of would

indicate this

improvement

immediately
them

after which we

leam the fate

and

of

Cordelia's

sisters.

Plainly, Ed
and envies

mund understands

that his

father

Lear had both been beloved

for it, thus being led himself to exclaim, on seeing the bodies of the sisters: "Yet Edmund was belov'd! The one the other poison'd for my sake, and
herself."

after slew

Quite

tribute to love from one

who

before had

abused

it

as

he

wished!

Less

obscure

than Edmund's reason

for

delaying

is the

advantage

Shake

speare gains

in the play

by

it. Once

we realize all

that is

at stake

in the

delay,

nervously whether the forces of good will be in time to prevent the death of Cordelia and Lear. The partly fatal effect of the delay forces us to admit the role of accident in human affairs, for to fmstrate an evil already
we wonder

ordered, a

good

desire

must

be

activated

Minutes,
as

seconds can make all

the

in time, otherwise it is almost useless. difference between success and failure, and,
the balance. Neither
god nor nature

they

go

ticking by, human lives hang in

save

can

intervene to

these good people: it all depends on human action and

hence to
at

some extent on

least

accounts

does the efficacy of justice generally. This for both the reader's dramatic experience in these passages and
chance,
as

the meaning
whole.

they

take

on

within

Shakespeare's

reflections

on

justice

as

say that this play about justice tries in fact to demonstrate that it has a natural base in our social nature, and that, even when we perceive the delicate ways in which self-interest tends to intermingle with

Standing back,

now,

we can

our at

love

of

others, this
of

attachment a wish

is

still real.

It is

a concern

for

others

that lies

the bottom

justice

to see them properly treated,

and an abhor

rence at their

being
out

itself in both
and

paternal and

broadens

normally naturally shows filial love, friendship, admiration and sexual love, from them to a general concern for all men of the kind the
mistreated.

This

concern

and

best men, like Shakespeare himself, have always felt. The good feel a special kinship for each other, and it is in the spirit of this fellowship of the good that

Albany finally
quishes to

addresses

Kent
claim

and

Edgar

as

"friends

soul"

of

my

and relin

them his own

to the throne.

It

can therefore
and

be

said

that Shakespeare emphatically disagrees with Lear's

at

conclusions

Kent's

the

end of

the play. The examples of

examples of

love he

sets

before
ter

us are

far

more

impressive than the

wickedness,
of

and even at

the end,
and

when all seems

bleak, Lear's heroism,

the devotion

Kent, Glouces
than the
victims.

Edgar, Albany's
the
wicked and

self-abnegation stand out more

luminously
their

acts of

help
love

to

counteract and

the

sufferings of

In

short,
prior

we are

only

capable of and

discerning
of

judging
good.

wickedness

because

of our

understanding

justice

and

the

The

wicked

may triumph,

416
and

Interpretation
the good perish, but the separate character of each

is

set

in the

nature of

things. Injustice derives

of

from

an

inability

to love others,
or

and

this

insufficiency
and

the

social element

in

us constitutes a

distortion

defect
of

of our nature.

What is the
of natural are

connection

between this
that

social

foundation

justice

the

idea

kingship?

Assuming
be

men are

they
as

also equipped with a natural power capable of

naturally inclined toward justice, bringing justice about?

protect as

Just

the

family

must

subject

to some parental authority, so groups of men,

living
from

in society,
external

must

obey
and

attackers

some authority that will from their own criminals

them militarily

well.

They

need a

system of

justice, wisely
would

wrought and

wisely

guided at

the helm. In the best

of

case, this justice

and wisdom who

be implemented
and can

by

natural

leaders

outstanding

virtue

love justice

be

entmsted with such responsibility.

The

idea

of

the natural

king

is

an extension of as

the idea of
of

natural

justice. Shake

speare

is

under no

illusions

to the

difficulty

finding

such a

king. Lear

by being a very good but hardly a perfect king. He does not understand his daughters. He is imprudently attracted by the claim of natural merit in
begins choosing his successors. He flies into a rage at both Cordelia and Kent. Nev ertheless, his love of virtue and his devotion to the common good are joined to
a

majesty

of

body

and soul

that stamps the

and

presence of royal

winning the respect,

admiration of

loyal

service

of

men

authority in him, like Kent and

storm, he

Gloucester. Under the impact becomes juster

to
and wiser still

his

daughters'

ingratitude

and the

more aware of

the plight of the poor, the abuse

of political

which systems of

justice he

are

prone,

and the

limitations

life

gener

ally.

In the final

scene

seems to

join together the

perfections of sense.

king, father
just

and man all at once: then

he is

King

Lear in the fullest it from different

not

King Lear
from Plato

and

The Tempest both borrow the theme

with

of

the wise and

king
a

and

Aristotle but deal he does

points of view.

Unlike

Prospero, Lear is
philosopher,
and

not a student of not

the liberal arts,

an

directly

or

naturally

have

Ariel to

obtain

the effects he seeks to

not something that comes naturally to is Prospero, nothing like Lear's. Lear is a political man from the outset, forced to reflect and philosophize in his madness, whereas Prospero is a philosopher turned king by the necessity of having to return Mir and

have

on political

life. Spiritedness is
physical prowess

his

anda to society.

Prospero
A
no of

or

The absolutely perfect king even more unlikely than either Lear taken separately would unite the essential natures of the

political and the philosophical man.

word must of

be said,

finally,

about

the role of

philosophy in

King

Lear. In

play

Shakespeare is

more explicit attention given

to the origin and

import

philosophy

(remembering that

the term

is

neither used about nor

or minimize of

by

Prospero

in The Tempest), but in such a way as to conceal Moreover, in no Shakespearean play is a course
more

that

very fact.

relentlessly than in Lear's

of

passage

philosophizing followed from belief in the justice of the gods to

yet almost

the conventionalism

the

natural

philosophers,

invisibly. This

must

King
tell us

Lear

-417

something

about

tion to his poetry.

occupies

Shakespeare's understanding of philosophy and its rela Philosophy occupies for Shakespeare the kind of place that it
and

for Plato

Aristotle. It is the

most

important

of all

human

activ

ities,

the source
all

of our natural

understanding
a

of nature and

right,

the guide of

life in

respects, and the basis for

sense of

poetry that teaches

while

as well as entertains

in the highest
glory
of

the term.

But,

human nature, it

must remain

undoubtedly the peak and greatest hidden from public view because it can

easily do harm and be harmed. What could have led Shakespeare to this
can

conclusion? Clearly, philosophy undermining the necessary opinions of society that philosophy which must be the reason why Lear takes Edgar (as necessarily questions to ask him a question Shakespeare conceals from us. Making phi Tom) aside

do harm

by

losophy

public can also

bring

harm to the

philosopher

(and his writings),

and

as

it

did to Socrates. But it

ossification and

can also of

lead to the institutionalization

hence the
political as

dogmatization

abuse

as

it had

during
unlike

philosophy itself, and therewith to its the Middle Ages. It must be for reasons such Plato
and

these

that

philosophy philosophizing so skillfully in all his plays, only rarely permitting a direct glimpse of it. How ironic but consistent, then, that he should conceal his
own

Shakespeare,

Aristotle,

conceals

and

disguises

depth
and

Lear's philosophizing within the ravings of a madman! The play of Shakespeare's philosophical penetration into the problem
the way in
which

shows of

the

justice,

he

resolved

it in favor

of natural

right

and against con

ventionalism.

reflective poet

This teaching, in its philosophical form, is for the studious and few, while the dramatic impact of the play on the stage allows the to influence the public at large in behalf of the good.

John Rawls
The Quest for

and

the Flight from Authority:

as an

Equality

Exercise in Primitivism

Glenn W. Olsen

University

of Utah

John Rawls', A Theory of Justice has been at the center of discussion of justice in the United States for two decades and has had a not negligible influ
ence elsewhere.

The book, along with many second thoughts about its in dominant stands a stream of political arguments, theory, one of the AngloSaxon forms of liberalism, which self-consciously develops and refines the the ory
of

Rawls'

the Social Contract. Rawls gives the Contract its

form.1

most

influential twen
has led him to

tieth-century

The

extended

discussion

Rawls'

of

position

modify it at many points, indeed to abandon many of his original assertions. Yet neither in his nor his revisions has what I would call his mythical
critics'

quest

for equality been

which

seen

in

sufficient

whole range of criticism

to

which

historical context, or subjected to the it is vulnerable. This is the task of the present
Rawls'

essay,

for the

most part addresses

lated, because this far an important

the constitutional

center of

his thought has

as

survived now

qualification

Rawls

originally formu his revisions, except inso offers his theory as suitable to
position as

democracies,

rather

than as a universal

theory

of

justice to

which all societies should aspire.

will

have

accomplished
Rawls'

something if I
thought.

am able

to

show

the provincialism
work within a

and arbitrariness of received at

Every
in

philosopher

has to

tradition, but the best

read outside
ways

philosophers challenge and probe their tradition

and

every point, larger. In some

way refashion it into something Rawls does this in his laudable attempt to find a viable

it,

some

alternative to utilitarianism and

even content

intuitionism,

yet

he

seems to me

hedged in by,
an

with,

kind

of received canon

taught in most

English-speaking
Aristotle,
second,
and

philosophy departments which, despite the occasional reference to does not go much beyond, first, the Anglo-American traditions,
north-European philosophy. a

Because many

of

his deepest

assumptions

form

of unexamined cultural

imperialism, in
philosophy.2

some respects

he is but
still often

embody one late dictates

example of a

kind

of secularized cultural
moral

Protestantism that

the agenda in Anglo-Saxon

one means the traditions of of such of

If

by

modem moral

philosophy

the

his

claims as

that

English-speaking schools, one can see the tmth "During much of modem moral philosophy the
some

predominant systematic

theory has been

odd

form

of utilitarianism

(p.

vii)."3

But

such claims

look exceedingly

from the

perspective

of, say,

Spanish,

interpretation,

Spring 1994,

Vol. 21, No. 3

420

Interpretation
or

Italian,
sions,
of

Polish

philosophy. at

Even

where one

is inclined

to

Rawls'

conclu
"person"

one must whose

bridle

his

unargued assimilation of

terms like

and

ideas

historical his

origins were

in

revealed

posed

to be a purely

philosophical position.

theology into what is sup He tells us, in a passage full of the

imprecision that

mars

book,

that "Each person possesses an

inviolability

founded
(3)."4

on

justice that
as

even

the welfare of society as a whole cannot override

As far

outside
was at

the influence the heart

of

I know, every legal code in the Western tradition before or of Judaism and Christianity held the opposite: this indeed
the Roman law distinction between
public and private continental

law. like Of

His book

seems to assume

that, along

with a

few

thinkers

Kant,

the

course a

English-speaking philosopher of law,

tradition should set the terms of discourse.

even more

than most,
a political

must

begin

with and speak

to his own tradition. Yet Rawls also

seems own

is

philosopher,

and

here there

to me to be a special obligation never to assume the lightness of one's

traditions. I can only suspect that ignorance of the traditions in which, say, Georgio del Vecchio or Javier Zubirez stand makes possible the astounding
praise

Rawls lavishes

on

thinkers like J. S. Mill as

choose
a choice

a prelude

to asserting that
intuitionism"

"we

often seem

forced to

between

utilitarianism and
on

(p.

viii and see p.

3). That is

forced only

those

who think

the

English-

speaking tradition adequate. I do

not want

to belabor the point or win arguments

canon.

by

citing

authors outside
Rawls'

the Anglo-Saxon
of

Yet I

must

insist

on

the arbitrariness of

point

departure. He writes, "What I have attempted to do is to generalize and carry to a higher order of abstraction the traditional theory of the social contract as
represented

by Locke, Rousseau,
noted

Kant"

and

(p. viii,

and see pp.

3, 11). As
does

Jeffrey
phrase

Stout has

in
the

book from

whose

title I have appropriated the

"The Flight from

show

Authority"

for the

present essay's

title,

nowhere

Rawls
a

the truth

of

theory
on

of

the Social Contract. He stands, rather, in

tradition

of

"flight from

authority"

which

has

fastened, largely for historical,

strategy for undermin has fallen into dis

political,

or pmdential some

reasons,

first
has

this and then that

ing

replacing favor. This "flight from

or

traditional authority
authority"

stmcture which

come

ity,

language

of rational

individualism.5

"philosophy as a handmaid losophy as a handmaid to

course,
mythical points of

to

theology"

to assert the autonomy of moral Not just in his thought, the medieval has been replaced by a modem "phi

politics."

process primitivist modes of dis departure for politics, which after more than a nium of debate had been expelled from at least the Aristotelian branch of medieval Catholic thought, have reappeared at every step in the modem world. In the larger flight from authority, the conclusion drawn from the appear
mille-

In the

ance of

Protestantism
authority

ideas

of

were untenable.

which

the needs of

resulting conflict of authorities was that medieval A new notion of politics had to be drawn in the historical moment could shape a suitable notion and
manner of

and

the

place

for

authority.

In the

Descartes,

one cast about

for

a rhetoric

John Rawls

and the

Flight from

Authority

421

disconnected from traditional authority, in this sense secularized yet capable of establishing a new form of authority. If one had a specific cause to advance in
the Glorious Revolution
ancien regime

(Locke), or a program to recommend to (Rousseau), one redefined or relocated authority

always

replace

the

accordingly.6

Of

course

it had

been Yet

so:

the

"handmaid"

business had
a

always

been

susceptible to politics and power. ence on political thought.

"history"

Political interest had had from the category

of

perduring influ
to that of
the bellwether

"nature"

a shift

clearly took
the shift

place

in the

modem period.

Machiavelli,

here,
which

marks

from the

political

theory

of

the ancients and medievals,

had generally understood politics as the discovery of and submission to principles rooted in an order of nature, to the political science of the modems,
which

has tended to dictated

see politics

as

the study

of

the exercise

of power

in

circumstance

by

history.7

There is

difference between Plato's Myth be taken to be

of

Er

and

Locke's Social Con

to

tract,

which might otherwise

similar attempts

find

"useable for

myth"

on which

to ground society. In Plato's case the

of of

myth was offered

those not
observable

capable

inequalities

of

understanding understanding philosophy, nature, the differences between people, dictate

that the
a

hier

archy for society, and that each therefore should accept the place for nature had fashioned him or her: those who used their reasons aright
conclude

which

could of

to the truths

embodied

for the less disciplined in the Myth

Er.

Nowhere in Locke, that (Glendon, p. notions captured in the Social Contract established
tion and argument. The attempt to

"story-teller,"

21) by

comparison, are the

observa

independently by

find

either an

historical

or ontological

home

has been notoriously difficult, thus Kant's abandonment of such seems, so far as the unaided reason can determine, that there never was, chronologically or ontologically, a first state of nature for man to be in. Such an idea is essentially the bringing into politics, the secularizing, of for the
contract claims.

It

now

Christianity's Eden The

or paganism's

dream

of a

Golden Age

or

Age

of

Saturn.

contract seems neither

conditions
which

any in actually prevailed, nor of some founding moment of political life, Edmund S. Mor authority passed from the people to a state. Rather, as
whole movement toward popular
seventeenth

tme

of

moment

in the past,

when egalitarian

has shown, the contract, the in England and America in the

gan

sovereignty

and eighteenth

centuries, was a

device for making

once
people."

the

political argument

that

had been, rooted in God: it was now Ray Gunn has shown a similar process
of
aware of

authority no longer was what it to be placed in a fiction called "the

at work

in the

constant re

definition

Rawls is

liberalism in nineteenth-century the problems in determining the

state of nature.

America.8

exact status of
contract

the

seven with

teenth-century
Kant
attempts

Therefore, in redoing

theory, he
the

to

abandon nature and about

justice.9

history

for

pure reason as a

point of

departure for thinking

point of

He begins from
on

"original

position"

or

"original

agreement"

purely hypothetical the principles of justice

422
(see

Interpretation
esp. pp.

11-22, 118-92, 251-57). Although he

allows

that in every actual

society discord
ment"

and dissent are present, when he speaks of the "original agree only does human historicity fall away, he writes as one might imag ine Descartes reborn as an economist (cf. p. 14): the principles of justice "are
not

the

principles

that

free

and rational an

persons

concerned

to further their own

interests
mental

would accept

in

initial

position of
II)."10

terms of their association (p.

equality as defining the funda It is as if the ideals of the Enlight

enment of

had

never

been criticized,
specific

as

if

no one

had

noted

that the

liberal

notion of

rationality is

impossibly

neutral,

presented under and

the pretense or delusion

being

free from any

tradition;

that the

is too narrowly political, or even ple of an exceptional American

economic."

rejector of

community As John Dewey, who is an exam the Social Contract, observed in

liberal

sense of

1888, "The
man would

non-social

individual is

an abstraction arrived at

by imagining

what

be if

all

his human

away"

qualities were

taken

(quoted in

Menand,
puts

p.

54). Rawls does

not

clearly

see

that,

as

Stout

(especially

in

chapters

2-3)

it,

the age begun

by Descartes, originating in
of

the attempt to overcome scepticism

by ing

some

form

foundationalism,
party
unqualifiedly

and ever since

fluctuating

between these

two, has
to

ended with each persons

inflicting
free,
act,
the

mortal wounds on

the other.

Accord

Rawls,

that is

without

historical determina
and could

tion or necessity, are nevertheless asked to act as if

commit

they had interests

historical

themselves to some

specific create

some mode of

existence.

Besides this God's decision to

queries

world seems small potatoes. veil of

As Stout

in his discussion
pp.

of what

Rawls terms "the

ignorance"

(see

especially Rawls,
ignorance?"

136-42),

"What language is

spoken

behind the

veil of

If they
to

speak a

language the

original contractors will and rational without

already be
a universal

determined
will

by history,

that is will not

be free
that

qualification,

be

unable

achieve an agreement

is

universal.

For that

be necessary, but such a language, because "neutral with re spect to belief, would be As Stout dryly observes, the contrac tors would be under no small disadvantage.12 In sum, Rawls, like Kant, is mistaken in thinking that reducing the "state of of traditional theory to a
would
meaningless." nature"

language

"purely
empties

hypothetical

situation"

(p. 12) leads to

of what

the traditional

theory

trying
If

to discover this is

what principles not a

a conception of justice: it merely little meaning it had had. If Rawls is ought to apply to all irrespective of natural
of

differences,

thought experiment

likely

success.
contract"

Rawls "the traditional theory of the social in his up dated version, it is clear that he has much of importance to say. But why grant the theory? It is clear that there are historical reasons for using the theory, but
we grant what are

the philosophical

reasons

reasons of

for the grounding

not reasons

myth of

for granting it? One can see many historical his system, but, as with many modem points
system except

departure,

for valuing the

myth.

in the historical
so sure

situa
a

tion

which generated

its grounding

For

instance,

is Rawls that

John Rawls

and the

Flight from

Authority
rather

423
than,

theory
say,

of justice

is to be
of

raised on the supposition of equal

persons,

on an

idea

the common good, that he

holds that

some questions can

only "be answered in a certain way": he says, as an example, that religious intolerance is assuredly unjust (p. 19). I would merely observe that, whether we are talking of inquisitorial Spain, socialism with a human face, or Walter
Lipmann's
quest

for

"public

philosophy,"

the desire to live a public life

of

shared values possible

in human solidarity is very deep-rooted, and by definition not intolerance." without some form of "religious Current debate about
correctness"

"political

"multiculturalism"

and

centers on

the fact that "Even

free

and open societies argued

I have

knowledge."13 devise something akin to an As elsewhere, the First Amendment to the American Constitution,

'official'

directed form

initially

against above all

of religion which sees

the Puritan tradition, is intolerant of any its fullness to lie in expression in a public order
religion.14

manifesting the beliefs

tolerant
and against

of that

Rawls justifies the Yet he does

use of

force

by

the

the intolerant

when

the latter threaten the

principles.

liberty

of all

(p. 219),
to
realize

this makes good sense on

unless

his

not seem

that,
part

there

are no shared or public

values, any tradition to

be

tradition

must set and

up

some

form
the

of

intolerance.15

Religious

bigotry
its

parcel

of

liberal tradition

itself,

with

certainly has been various forms of

kulturkampf and May

olics

Laws that have been used, for instance, to pressure Cath to accommodate to Protestant majorities. I think more than forcing the

intolerant to play
the premise
radical pluralism

by

liberal

mles

of an

individualism

or atomism of

is involved here: Rawls only makes sense on individual ends limited in its

of our

humanity

solely by the preservation of liberty itself. He robs us of most in the name of an impossibly abstract, mathematical, and pro

cedural view of what

life in society,

what

community, is about. Or to speak

more sharply, he is blind to the intolerance of his own position, hidden starting point in the myth of equality, "the shattering of the

by

its
of

'givenness'

existence as symbolized p.

in the hierarchical

being."

representation of

(Sandoz,

29,

uses

this

phrase

in

an attack on moral one aspect of

relativism.)
communist

It has been
states

observed

that

the recent collapse of the

specific notion of
Faith,"

is the

inability

of a state ordered

to a

good, attempting

in the

modem world a

"communitarian Age

of

to

stand

that is to the

dissolving
Cf.
even

ideas
on

of

freedom

and

democracy
more

up to modernity, (Vree, p. 4. See also

pp.

Bumma,
Some

"Heimat."

the

retreat of

the state,

Ascherson,

13-14.).
of

of us

may

have

some

sympathy for the

reluctant

spiritually inclined
with

the former

subject

peoples,

somewhat

to join politically

the

West,
gold.

more than wondering whether what glitters in Berlin is anything However benighted one might think this or that quest for a shared public

and

life

ordered

to

a specific view of of

the world, there are

seems

serious questions with

involved It does

here.
not

Rawls'

kind

liberalism

incapable

of

dealing

these.

clearly
of

the idea

that, because its point of departure is itself theological, equality, it outlaws all forms of religion which are not
see

lying

in

"Protestant."

424
Ruled

Interpretation
out

is

all religion which

is unwilling to

restrict

itself to the

private and

individual,
referring to

which sees

itself

as about more

than God and the soul. I am not

classical

Protestantism

here, but

to that

remade

Protestantism

of

the

Enlightenment,
"pluralism"

which, classical Protestantism

practice of

Catholicism in its

failed roughly as much as intolerance (pp. 215-16), adjusted itself to the

having

necessary for there to be for instance Will Herberg showed thirty-five years ago (as at p. dous
price paid

an

American
this

republic.

As

271),
of

was at a

tremen
aban

by

Judaism

and

Christianity,

which

in the United States

doned
can

most of their prophetic

way of life, Rawls emphasizes "equal

dimension and, instead became its prime boosters.

liberty"

criticizing the Ameri

liberty"

and

"the priority In

of

(p. viii,

with

pp.

195-257,

541-48). Such liberal

"pluralist"

preferences are society.

perfectly intelligible

within

the

context of a modem

such we protect ourselves

from

each other's

orthodoxy

by
the

(on the surface, it turns out)

ancient ends of

disestablishing all
and shifts

ortho

doxies

and

displacing

politics,

education

goodness,
and

above all what was called virtue

the "common

good."

Emphasis

from truth

to

liberty, itself

a new

kind
and

of

tion

by

the terms

"pluralism"

"liberalism."

orthodoxy hidden from careful identifica Just as Locke refashioned natu

without
good"

ral-law

theory into
authority

natural-rights

and commitments of

the past, so

abandoning all the language Rawls has refashioned the "common to

theory

reorient miss

around

justice, liberty,

and

the individual. If in Rawls

we

because they hardly convincing justifying exist. Rawls may in fact sometimes argue from nature, but this he formally impugns. The shift is better explained as dictated by a new historical circum One can see how in a modem atomist society justice moves to the fore
arguments
such a
stance.16

shift, this is

as

that

which protects each of us

from

notions of virtue with which we

do

not

agree, but why

a sense

should a philosopher accept the

licitness
of the

of

become the (somewhat flatfooted) Virgil

any
proper

development, in American Experiment,

this

without

grounding
embody in
Rawls'

of the

priority

of

liberty

or

justice?

My

argument and set

is that
of

such notions

an ancient and mythical pattern of

thought

ideas

still

living

thinking. The Kantian bath may have cleansed

an actual account of

this thought from its grosser historical claims to be

the

This thinking indeed is merely this, and to connect it with what has already been said of the Social Contract, background is needed. If what writers like Mircea Eliade have said is tme, there is hardly a culture or religion in the world without a myth of a "once upon a a primordial
claims reappear.

first condition, but in the now almost point for point the age-old
race's

abstract or

hypothetical "original

position"

circular or

re-expresess the myth.

To

show

time,"

radically different from the present. To stay with the Western tradition, in the 1930s and 40s Arthur O. Lovejoy and George Boas massively documented the ubiquity of the idea of the Golden Age in ancient and medieval thought (see now Elliott, and Olsen, "Recovering" pp.
state of
now with conditions

life,

lost,

104-7

and

"City"). I

am

inclined to

call

this in

all

its

variations the central

John Rawls
myth

and

the Flight from

of our

Authority 425
not of the race.
of

(imaginative
of

representation of
we

reality)

culture, if
an

Hundreds
of

times

find

either cultural

primitivism,
the
race

early form
seen as

the

idea
at

the

noble

savage, in
etc.,

which

the first

state of

is

morally pure,
com

harmonious,
bination

or of chronological

primitivism, in

which of

the best is seen the common

the beginning. The Christian myth of Eden is an example

of elements

from both forms

of primitivism.

Although few
upon a and

pictures of
time"

the Golden Age

seen as a

were

identical, very commonly

the "once

was

time of unity;

harmony

both between human beings

and of

between God

or

the gods, the animals, and the state

people

humans;

the absence

of

hierarchy, law,
Golden Ages

and

The

naturally did the right thing. heirs to both the Eden story and the Christians,

manifold

of classical

literature,

conflated

these two

the

first

centuries argued

that in man's
or

traditions, and writer after writer of first state, before the Fall, there was no
were equal and no one

private

property, government,
splendid

law. All

dominated.

Peter Brown's
greatest of

the Latin thinkers,

tion

as

he did for the

In
part

Body and Society has recently shown us that the Augustine, no longer fits as neatly into this tradi brothers Carlyle (volumes 1 and 3) early in the present
was one of

The

century. sons

this

is because Augustine

Lovejoy

and

Boas had labelled

more

antiprimitivist.

those relatively rare per But Augustine was a ex

generally among ancients. Most saw the race lost the unity of an earlier and better life. Rare having was the Aristotle, the thinker with no myth of man's origins to tell, no outrun ning of the historical record, no myth of a better state or original society on which to erect his political thought. Or rather, rare in the ancient world, for
ception

among Christians,

as god-descended and as

embracing notions of an original equality and absence of human authority (God's authority in Eden was presumed), Aristotle's counterproposal that political society is rooted in nature,
still

from the twelfth century Aristotle came to enjoy in the ancient world. In a Christendom largely

an

influence he had

never

had

and should reflect and not as

the nature of people as we find them in the historical

were

record

they allegedly
this
culture. or at

in

some mythical

Ultimately
discredited
cles,

counterproposal was

to lie

at

first state, made deep inroads. the basis of much political thought

in Catholic

The

earlier notions of

the Church

Fathers,

on

this point

would

least partly abandoned in medieval Aristotelian university cir have a new life with the Reformation, along with a general revival
was chiliastic.

of much

that
of

In time they

would

Contract
to

the seventeenth-century thinkers, a

find their way into the Social reversion, as I have observed,

political

a primitivist or mythical mode of

departure for

thought: this is part

of what

meant when

said

that philosophy in the

north of south

Europe

main

tained Protestantism at the

cultural

level, just

as

in the

it

maintained

Catholicism. back to the beginning, this time to the origins of the alternative of conceiving society as natural or conventional. Although the brothers Carlyle, in the first of their six-volume history of medieval political

Once

again we must

drop

426

Interpretation
saw

thought, only

this antithesis as appearing with

Cicero, it clearly

was

a of

commonly understood contrast centuries earlier and Republic." Here Glaucon in puzzling over whether Socrates had really Plato's
vanquished

is described in Book 2

Thrasymachos in the conceiving

the
as

previous

book,

touches on one of the great

what

alternative ways of

political

life. Plato-Socrates himself rejects

Glaucon distinct
the

says

"countless

others"

resemblance of

seventeenth

century,

hold. Yet at least some scholars have noted the ideas Glaucon describes to the Social Contract of well as to other aspects of what has come to be

termed a liberal politics and

theory

of rights

(Comford translation,

pp.

41-42).

Glaucon
who

gives the argument

that justice

is

mere social convention.

For those
"nature,"

hold this, the customary rales of morality are not discovered in but are forged by the human intelligence and rest on tacit consent. They are neither laws of nature nor divine enactments, but conventions which man made
and can alter.

Listen to Glaucon describe this

do
and suffer

position

he takes to be common;
another, and taste
profitable

when people

injustice in

dealing

with one

both,
make

those

who cannot

both

escape the one and take

suffer

the other think it

this

to

make an agreement neither

to do nor to

injustice; from
. .

they begin

to

laws

and compacts and p.

law lawful translation,

among themselves, and they name the injunction of the (2. 358-59, Rouse just. This, they say, is the origin of justice

156)
after an account of

A few lines

later,

and unjust of which recounted.

Hobbes

could

the self-seeking of both the so-called just have been proud, the story of Gyges is

In

chapter

2 Socrates

responds are

in

a manner

that

associates nature with

in

equality.

Men, he

argues,

bom

neither self-sufficient nor alike.

Therefore

society, in which people are interdependent and specialize according to innate aptitudes, is both natural and advantageous to all. Aristotle of course
organized

later

works out more

thoroughly

the

observation

that men are

by

nature un

equal, but the basic insight that the inequalities

or complementariness of

of nature

lead to the inequalities

society is

shared with

the race cannot continue without the union of

cannot survive

his teacher. As Aristotle has it, male and female. The individual

ply its
needs,

wants. and

infancy without a The family cannot

village

"family,"

that

is,

a stable association to
satisfaction of

sup

go much

beyond the
the more

daily

hence the
the

is bom to

develop by

distinctively

human

capacities of

individual

and

the family.

Finally,

the limitations of all lesser

a

forms

of natural association are overcome

the polis,

diverse
we can

enough

to perfect

all

human

possibilities.

community large and As I will note in a moment,

natural

readily acknowledge the time-boundness of what Aristotle takes to be here without undermining his main point, that whatever the historical
smallest viable social unit

progress, the

is the family, not the individual, which left to itself literally dies. No society was ever formed of autonomous individ reuals who came together. Moreover, the individual's full humanity is only

John Rawls
vealed

and

the Flight from

Authority 427
and

in

differentiated society

which

allows

for leisure
man

thus for the nature, rather

highest human pursuits,

than

above all philosophy.

That is,

is

by

by

convention,

a social animal. of contrast

Let me, terfactual,

see

by
call

way
this

to the egalitarianism and individualism

of

the

conventional

tradition,

which we might call

theological, ideological,
mean

or

coun-

a scientific politics.

By

this I

that Plato and Aristotle

as replicated

the

observable

differences found in
political

nature and

history

in

and

the basis of social and

when

life. This is

one of

the things Aristotle means

he

says man

is

by

nature a political animal.

Society

perfects

what

is

incomplete
completion.

or potential

On the

one side

in the individual, and is necessary and natural to that then we have the natural or scientific politics of
conventional or counterfactual politics of

Aristotle,
unnamed

on

the other the

Glaucon's
and of and

"many,"

of most of the of

Church Fathers,

of

the Social

Contract,

Rawls

and

his kind

liberalism. The

one assumes

that politics works

from

respects exist

the natural

to

diminish for "a

or

inequalities between human beings, the other that politics eliminate these natural differences. Rawls actually writes of justice that
102). The
ends nullifies

looking
myth of proach

conception of

the accidents of natural en

dowment"

(p. 15

and see p.

natural or scientific approach

has

no

human

is commonly
explains

Rawls
tion"

tell; in both, first in a myth of an original that he carries the Social Contract "to a higher level
origins or rooted
compact of

human

to

the

conventional or

liberal ap equality. Thus

of abstrac

by

replacing "the

society

...

by

an

initial

situation

that
an

incorporates
the "original

certain procedural constraints on arguments

justice"

designed to lead to

original agreement on principles of

agreement"

(p. 3). The "initial

situatio

and

has been suggested, a greater bloodlessness than the seventeenth-century form of the contract, but encourage in turn a myth of human ends, the use of politics to attain a state like that of the original

have,

as

hypothetical
that

situation.

This

seems one more example of

Eric Voegelin's

claim

most modem politics not want

can which

18 is Gnostic (chaps. 4-6).

Again, I do
in
politics.

to

be

misunderstood.

Aristotle is
certain

not

the last word

nature

We

understand

but deplore

ahistorical

to

his thought, in that is a

ture,"

he does

not

grasp that we have no cases of "pure na history. He has little to say find in history can ever be called

nature unconditioned

by

on

the

"natural"

vexing question in anything but

of whether what we
a qualified

sense, that

is,

as qualified

by

some particular set

of antecedents and some particular context.

Lemer'

Like the

confusion still at

found in,

s feminism, he assumes that say, Gerda record from its beginnings we can discover a a gener purus which

by looking

the historical

"natural"

has been

overridden

by

history."

innate human relations, I do not think he was do

not

completely

mistaken

in his turn to

what

he

calls

the natural, but I

think
quali

he clearly fied

saw

that

reason cannot recover or

discover any unhistorically

"natural."

Similarly,

there is

an

issue treated too superficially in virtually

all classical

428

Interpretation
which

philosophy
actual should

is

almost

thoughtfulness

in

Rawls'

exactly matched by what seems to me a lack of position. Plato and Aristotle clearly believed that the

hierarchy

of their societies was not

just,

that some were shoemakers who

be soldiers, and some derstood that the inequalities

natural

slaves who should

be

citizens.

That

is, they

un

of actual
such

inequalities, but
to the
class
more

on

things

necessarily built on society as different social positions at birth.

were

not

Plato clearly had

of people minded

a mechanism

for

dealing
they

with

this

by force,

the reassignment

to

which

were

Aristotle,

willing to

work with

suited, but the more historically inherited institutions, glosses over

"accidental"

how the polity is to sift natural inequalities from family one is bom into. Rawls would be right to criticize for
not

ones
classical

like the

philosophy giving more attention to this problem. Yet, presumably because his thought is built on contract, convention, and the individual, he seems to me
unsatisfactory
the
at

the heart of his

own position rooted

in the treatment
people

of what

he

calls

(p. 7), those "deep places in life that have nothing to do

Rawls'

inequalities"

in

having
I

different starting only make one here. Because

scientific or
of social

with personal merit.

can

observation about

treatment of this most vexing question

rather

he

society as composed of individuals, Aristotelian tradition, of families, or more

sees

than,

as

in the

fully,

of various

levels

incompleteness, like

the

family

or village

for the

completion of which

the polis

exists, Rawls is willing to attack nature in a new way. He renders problematic all labor of families to provide for offspring. The family, for him, stands in the

The criticism of Plato by Aristotle in the Politics, that finally way of he forgets that the state exists to perfect rather than destroy the lesser forms of
equality.20

society of which it is composed, is a criticism liberal individualism. On this issue, then, one
pleteness of ancient

not without relevance can

to

Rawls'

be unhappy
of

with

the

incom

thought but see Rawls

as no remedy.

Let

me summarize

state of

the race

my argument. A primitivist mode very different from anything found in

replicated

affirming an original history is found across

of

the cultures. Such a point of departure is

pass

in hundreds

forms

as we

through our own

come

history, in for instance the Renaissance attempt to over the Middle Ages in order to recover the classical Golden Age, or in the
attempt to recover an original
even when purified of

Reformation
the Social
and runs
sent.21

form

of

Christianity. It lies behind

Contract,

in

myriad ways

any explictly chronological claim, through European and American history to the pre in
some

I do

not think that

a mythical

Comteian way the

on

race or

the individual

passes

from

through a theological to a scientific stage.

Rather,

one

role of reason modes of

is to

reflect on

myth,

the

function
Thus

of primitivist and similar

boundary

thought, between

which are always with us.

we

may discover
and

a proper of

the unifying vision which

reason
produces.22

myth attempts,

the sense

human limitation that

It is

always

the myths that provide

some sense of the whole,

some sense of a place

in

being

and perhaps of a

direction in

which

to move. At the level at which reason examines them

they

John Rawls
are expressions of more

and

the

Flight from

Authority 429
yearning for between all be
validated

inchoate desire,

of

something in
a

our nature perhaps cannot

than reason and

history

can

provide,

harmony
and

ings. The
reason,
conflict

myths cannot validate

themselves
the very

they

be
of

by
out

although reason can perform

important function
can

pointing
thus

between

myth and what observation proper

discover,
may

and

help

to

hedge
and

our

imaginations into
seems to

limits. Because the desire for

myths

wholeness

unity

lie

within our

nature, the

perform a Utopian or
check

paradigmatic

function,

not unlike that of political

theory. Held in

by

reason,

they may

suggest not

that

our world can

become radically different

from

it has been, but somewhat different. The myths are not clear enough, the natural desires too imprecise, for a political system to be built on them. If they have more than an imaginative function, that lies beyond reason
what
and

history.

NOTES

1. Pages

cited with no

further identification

are

to A

Theory

of Justice. The criticism,

defense,
2,
on

Rawls'

and modification of and

"Priority

Right."

of

the

ideas may be explored through Rawls, "Political not See also Pogge, Neal, and Kukathas and Pettit, especially

Metaphysical,"

chapter

4 (July, 1989), is entirely on Rawls. I wish to thank my colleague Bruce Landesman for calling some of the literature referred to in the present study to my attention, for allowing me to read three of his unpublished papers, and for making available to me own unpublished commentary on his book "Guided The direction of recent
contractarian positions.

Ethics

99,

no.

Rawls'

Tour."

Rawls'

thought is to

bring

to the

fore the

"pragmatic"

"game"

or

aspects of

his

earlier

position,

and

thus to
can

drop
no

the truth claims found in his book. Against a position that makes no truth claims there
philosophic

be

properly
who

criticism, and in this sense the present essay

must

address

the earlier

Rawls,
work

thought he was
who want a

for those
the

doing something more than finding a theory liberal democracy. Rawls, Political Liberalism,
study.

of

justice

which would

was not yet available to

out

me at
which

the time of composition of the present

See

also

Weinreb. Steel draws

the sense in

dream

of

equality is

Utopian.

2. See Stout, pp. 71-72, for the argument that, with Romanticism in poetry, modern philoso (p. 71). Although the historical analyses of phy is a "continuation of Protestantism by other this book are very illuminating, they often oversimplify. In general the medieval ideas of authority
means"

were more

varied, and Trent

more

complicated, than Stout suggests. As

of

at p.

114, he

seems

overreliant on

the not-always-reliable descriptions

contains

Aquinas
and

given

by

Hacking. Stout's

quotation

from Aquinas (p. 107)

ideas

of

authority

probability that do

not square with

the

oversimplified position ascribed

brilliantly

portrays

the

7, 38-39, etc.). George Grant, as at pp. 58 ff., interrelations between liberalism, Protestantism, and English-speaking
to Aquinas (pp.

philosophy.

descriptions of classical positions do not seem to me very accurate. Thus, in ascribing to Aristotle a teleological theory which directs society to the principle of perfection (p. 325), Rawls says slavery was justified as necessary for the culture to develop philosophy, science, etc. Aristotle, rather, argues that by nature some are not suited to being citizens, and it would be 3. Some
of

Rawls'

unjust,

for them
of

and

for society, to

make

them

citizens.

On

p.

383, Rawls does

not recognize

the

variety

historical "divine

right"

theories of government, and says that in them "'subjects

have

This would be news to many medieval and natural-law forms of this only the rights of position. Rawls presumably is aware of historical discussion of topics like regicide, but his further implies considerable ignorance of medieval, more gener statement that subjects "cannot ally Catholic, political thought. As too frequently, we are given some form of reduction of such
suppliants."

disobey"

positions to a type

commonly found from the time

of

Luther.

430

Interpretation
33)
"person"

4. George Grant (p.

this
question

notes

the

sentimental retention of

by

Rawls. Rawls

returns

to

in "Political
the

Metaphysical."

not and equal

His distinction (p. 245) between the

and

person's public which

identity, defined by
other or

free

individual,
seems

the person's nonpublic

identity, in

than liberal ideals may be embraced,

of religion quite

to replicate the schizophrenia of the

privatization

isolation

from

public

ties can hold

different

views of of

life in America. For Rawls, one's public and nonpublic identi the good. Pogge (chap. 2) rightly defends Rawls against
without

common misreadings of

his idea

the person, but

seeing that the deeper issue is his

Rawls'

use of

the idea at

all.

5. Stout,
kind

pp.

218-23, 226, 232-35, 238-41,

accurately, reveal particularly

on

Rawls.

comments

(pp.

389-90)

on

the

of parallel

authority found in the

sciences and

in

describing
more

neither

well

democratic society, while in my opinion his idea of autonomy (see pp. 513-20 for
a

detail),

which

is

more a credo than

principles need are to

have

no established

anything else: "Equals accepting and applying reasonable superior. To the question, who is to decide? The answer is: all

decide,

everyone

taking

counsel with we

himself,
Rawls'

and with reasonableness

it

often works

enough"

out well

(p. 390). Here

have

strange and
where

theoretical, mythical, and unearthly equality, ments about man in time ("it often works out ("it
well,"

by

continuing shift from an opening definition authority is not needed, to judg

which are no

well

enough")

truer than their opposites

never works out

stubborn

if I may coin my own phrase), and simply reveal the irrealism of very belief in Enlightenment notions about human reasonableness. See also Nagel. George 11 ff.,
on

Grant,
similar

as at pp.

the aridity of the Social

Contract,
on

makes a number of criticisms of

Rawls

to those found in the present paper.

surveys the controverted

6. Ruth Grant
against

literature

Locke

and

defends him Locke

as nonideological

the kind of reading he receives from Stout. Also arguing for the coherency of Locke's
much sharper

thought is Rapaczynski. Shapiro is

in both his treatment

of

as

ideologue

and of

Rawls.
ture

7. Budziszewski (Resurrection, p. 11) attacks the "historical retreat from the idea that Na life," human nature somehow provides the rule and measure for human engaging Rawls;
the analysis in Nearest Coast.
"Fiction."

and extends

8. Morgan, Inventing,
and

and

See

also

Sommerville (pp. 57-66). Reiman (pp. 12-14

throughout) makes a thoughtful attempt to defend the contractarian idea by providing founda tions Rawls does not. Rawls (p. 454 n. 1) briefly considers the Myth of Er. With Maclntyre (p.

392)

on

the prerational

foundations
various

of

the liberal project,

of

am

inclined to

regard most

American

political

debate

as

between

forms

liberalism.

common

so

9. Rawls, in spite of his denial of this, seems to me frequently to argue from nature. In a way in the liberal tradition, he bases his ethics on natural inclinations, passions, or interests. In doing, because he rejects an Aristotelian teleology, he opens himself up to the very thing he

arguably is trying to avoid, the naturalistic fallacy (see above n. 3 and below n. 12). When he describes nature he refashions it at critical points by assumptions that come from the a priori of
equality. of what

Thus the
at

convoluted

discussion

of

how

general the

capacity for

a sense of

justice is. Some

of

human nature liberal polity, and in the somewhat similar argument of Reiman. Sandoz, who sees the centrality of discussion of human nature, weighs in on the side of a significantly classical, Christian, and liberal republicanism and of Locke, acutely criticized. Again, Rawls by making selfrespect so central to a just society, and securing it (p. 545) "by the public affirmation of the status of equal citizenship for does not confront the question of the likelihood that a
argument that a
must undergird a
all,"

is

issue here is laid bare

by

Rapaczynski in his

doctrine

"natural"

country

can

long

survive
or

in

which are

policy, economics,

ecology,

decisions requiring high expertise, as in the areas of foreign influenced by a general citizenry which will be underinformed.
the

10. In

highly

original critique of

ideal
be

of

autonomy, Kass

wonders

in Augustine-like
and at

fashion
least

whether an

isolated individual

would

capable of self-knowledge.

If John Paul II
persons can

phenomenology (let alone trinitarianism) is right that defined in relations, Rawl's form of the liberal project collapses. For further
one
school of

criticisms

only be see Wolfe.

Galston pursues the question of neutrality, especially concerning individual definitions of the good. Cf. the description of Georg Simmel's critique of Kant in Balthasar, especially pp. 61 112, and the argument of Frank, especially p. 146. Many of the criticisms Donoghue makes of
.

11

John Rawls

and

the Flight from

Authority

431

the thought of J. Hillis Miller apply analogously to Rawls: "He wants to start the world over again devising" and to act as if there were only the present tense and a future of his (pp. 49-50).

Gauthier has
ways.

given a new
note

form
viii).

of

the Social
contract

Contract,
is

which

departs from Rawls in

significant

Paul

et al.

"Gauthier's
(p.

an agreement

between
is that

real and

distinct people,
with

Rawls'

whereas

is

not"

12. The

quotations are
accepts

from Stout (pp. 220-21). Stout's

point

because,
a

David A. J.
quest

Richards, Rawls
would

that

"meaning
to

and substance cannot

be

separated,"

"universal language

be
.

meaningless"

(p. 221). The

goal of

Stout is to
of

show

that (p.

3) "the

for

autonomy

was

an attempt

deny

the historical reality

having

been influenced

by

tradition."

Along
(Old

this line I
Rawls'

would observe

English, Middle English), if

conditions as not
earlier one

such of

that, because all languages are used in a specific historical form people behind the veil are speaking at all, they cannot satisfy knowing their stage of civilization (p. 287) or where they stand in is the
more primitive one's

the generations. The

conditions would

stands, that

language,

the more

Rawls'

be

approximated.
of

Rawls

expresses

his ideal

as

"a kind

of moral

(p. 121). Rawls idea "justice

as

value of and that an individualistic leads to valuing associative activities (p. 264). Here the question is what kind of community results from an Enlightenment idea of the individual. What seems decisive is the way Rawls contrasts the right and the good (pp. 446-52), holding all to the right but not to the same

community is developed fairness has a central place for the

on pp.

258-65

and

395-587.

Clearly

geometry he holds that

community,"

conception of justice

good.

See further

pp.

520-29. It is
a somewhat

clear that

Rawls holds for the

"conventional"

complementariness of
positions.

human

society:

this commonly is not at issue between

"natural"

and

Cf. George

Grant (pp. 16

ff.) for

different
see

account of

the significance of the state of nature

for

Locke,

and

the suggestion that

criticism of

Rawls'

position

is

generated

by

the desire to avoid the "naturalistic

fallacy."

For

the

fallacy,

Veatch.
Conquest"

Correctness,"

13. Hacker (p. 18) in regard to Schlesinger. I will consider political correctness in "Political and have considered or will consider multiculturalism in "Ethics of and 14. Olsen, "Christian
Culture,"

"1492."

Deconstructing,

"Morality."

and

also contains an attack on

the Enlightenment model of community, found throughout

Olsen, "Catholic Rawls,

Moment,"

as a

kind
the

of

"debating

society."

Lasch describes

an earlier criticism of

both

church-state separation and

civil religion.

Wood (p.

26) describes

the manner in which liberal democratic historians even wrote

contains an amusing attack on the left from the left for excluding the scholarship of conservatives on the place of religion in the American founding: "However much some of us may wince, the conservatives who our profession is treating as sons are publishing much of the work that promises to provide the basis for an intellectually

Puritans

out of

American history. Genovese

nonper-

and

politically honest 15. One wonders

reassessment of our constitutional whether

history
not

"

(p. 338).
what

in

Rawls'

spite of

tolerance of

"religion,"

he really
of

aims at

is

Kantian "religion

within

the limits of reason

alone."

Is this

the force of "If a religion

is denied
(p.

its full expression, it is presumably because it is in violation of the equal liberties 370)? Rawls hopes for some forms of the moral unanimity (pp. 263-64) natural-law

others"

societies

have

hoped for, but

seems

to

lay

the burden of the achievement of such on persons acting rationally,

of

rather than on all the

force

tradition that natural theories

of

society have tended to

assume of

reeds."

necessary to shape thinking is the lowest form

authority"

of

This is particularly a sense of justice.

evident
Rawls'

in

chapter

8,

where

the

"'morality
from

whole schematic movement

morality of authority to the higher senses of justice again embodies an Wolfe (pp. 123-24, 223) notes the influence of Lawrence Kohlberg here, Deconstructing, p. 15. It seems to me that societies as a whole never rise morality
of authority.

"Enlightenment"

ideal.

on whom see

Olsen,

above a preponderant

Sometimes,
"man in

as

in the
there

following
comes a

quotation, Rawls strikes me as

some

touchingly

naive and

ignorant
view of

history,"

of

as well as

retaining

traces of a progressive

(culturally

Protestant)
beyond
on."

history:
special

"Eventually
of

time in the

history
takes

of a well-ordered

which

the

form

the two

principles

[of

justice]

over and
.

society holds from then

can see

for the

activities and

position goes

equal capacity why Rawls has to say, "One must suppose [that individuals have] (p. 210), but what if such a interests of men as progressive beings against observation? If "equal justice is owed to those who have the capacity to take
.

"

432
part

Interpretation
and act

in

in

accordance with majority?

the public understanding of the initial

situation"

(p. 505),

would

it

even

be

owed

to a

16. Rawls (p.

with

528) specifically rules out the idea of a society having a dominant end. I agree him that dominant-end views are vague and do not give much information on how precisely to

rank social activities, but I do not see that this should be called a weakness if the purpose of the dominant end, say to know God, is a way of announcing that man's final ends lie beyond politics and philosophy, but have some implications for both. Because what Rawls says in criticism of teleological theories (p. 560) might be taken to apply to natural-law moral theories, demur from his analysis arrive at

is in
the

order.

He believes teleological theories (of the

are misconceived

because they first try to

life"

good

independently
attempt

right),

and then

try "to

give

form to

our

by

the good.

This,

if intended

also as a criticism of natural-law

theories,

seems to me

to confuse two

issues.

Such theories only

"form"

to decide how to act in each choice

not give a

by

reference
life"

to an objective defini
sense.

tion of good: the sum of such choices does

that natural-law moral theories give to

"'plan of

in

Rawls'

The only
refusing
at

life is that

which comes on pp.

from

accumulated choices of even

the good (character or habit). The discussion of

liberty

201-5 is inadequate, is
not concerned with
"

to define the meaning of the term. In saying "The controversy between the proponents of negative
and positive

liberty

as

to how freedom should be defined

relative values of

definitions

all, but

(p. 201), Rawls shows little sense of the difference between, say, the Augustinian liberum arbitrium and libertas (this despite his discussion on p. 202).
rather with

the

the several liberties

went

17. Volume 1, pp. 17 and 63 show that the Carlyles knew that the idea of the social contract Herodotus' back to Plato. Arguably, although I do not know that anyone has pointed this out, story of Deioces (Histories, Bk. 1, chaps. 96 ff.) is also an early example of the formation of a "Social
Contract."

18. For

disapproving

view of

Voegelin's

"gnosticism,"

use of

see

Dupre. I thank Professor

Dupre for calling this article to my attention. The contrast between the natural and conventional is a contrast between tendencies or models, and especially in conventional positions we find fragments of the opposite tendency. Rawls (pp. 108-17, 333-91), for instance, retains the notion of natural

duties,
point,

such

as not

being

cruel, while
of

principle of

fairness. The idea

the nature

although

is

deriving notions of obligation from the contract or the beginning with an order of nature is retained to a certain (unclear) (p. 115). Rawls fairly clearly already one of "equal moral
persons"

understands what

is

at

issue between

a natural and a conventional view,

but

of

course, as at pp.

328-31

can reject

the natural because it leads to a drastic alteration of the original position. See in

addition

to n.

canonistic association of common

9 above, Raz. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II, II, 66, 2, reads the patristic and property with the natural law in such a way as to avoid specula
not mean

tion about man's first state: he holds that community of goods in the natural law does
common which

possession, but the

absence of

distinction

of

possessions, that is

regulation of

property,

is in the
am

province of positive

law.
of an

19. I
without not

falling

in sympathy with Stout's attempt to overcome the tradition into an unqualified historicism (pp. 3 ff.). Clark's work is

Descartes

and

Kant

important

challenge

only to 20. On

views
pp.

like that of Rawls, but implicitly to the historical argument of Stout. 73-75, Rawls attacks the Aristotelian idea of the family, but I cannot discover
(see index
of under and

coherent position

the

irrationalites

history,
of

contractual.

Liberalism

Rawls'

definition limit autonomy and embody especially from the child's point of view, cannot be viewed as kind tends to avert its eyes from them. Locke of course had

"Family"). Families

by

already attacked the patriarchal family: see Bellah, 193. On p. 512 Rawls suggests that his whole theory

"Church,"

and
of

Wolfe,

pp.

101, 108-9, 123-26,

have to be
revised

justice

as

fairness

might

philosophers, Rawls uses such words with virtually no regard for their original meanings, and very little meaning at all "view of the world"? Whatever it means in this context it has little to do with ontology ) I could not agree more. In regard to his statement "I assume that a state of near justice
modern requires a

if

"metaphysics."

one should attempt a more complete

(Like many

democratic

regime"

(p. 363),

one might ask

if there

are ever

"near

just"

regimes

in

history

21. The

world

of

Bozeman, Wood, Hughes,

scholarship on primitivism in American history may be entered through and Hughes and Allen. Bellah describes the "ontological individualism"

John Rawls
of

and the

Flight from

Authority

433

Americans

order, derived
successor

writing that "the individual has a primary reality whereas society is a second(p. 334). This is pursued, especially in regard to Locke, in a book Good Society (see above n. 20). For primitivism and "misguided in

by

construct"

or artificial

utopianism"

European
and the

history, see Buruma, Social Contract, see Berlin,

remarks of

"Hirohito,"

pp. an

32, 45,

and

for

ferocious
uneven

attack on primitivism

essay

marred

by

the author's

historical knowledge.

22. What Garver recognizing that

system and

the

relation

between
of

reflection and action

said of reason's critique of myth:

"The possibility

being

a part and yet

in society might also be apart from a society, of

one cannot stand outside

to

recognize

its

incompleteness"

own

society yet can still be critical, depends on the ability of a (p. 161). On myth as always with us, see Blumenberg
has to say
of

Kolakowsi. In

addition

to what

Blumenberg

Freud, Balthasar (pp. 508-13) lays

bear the

primitivist core of

Freud's thought.

REFERENCES
House."

The New York Review of Books 36, no. Ascherson, Neal. "About the European 14 (September 28, 1989): 13-15. Balthasar, Hans Urs von. Theo-Drama: Theological Dramatic Theory. Vol. 1, Prole gomena. Translated by Graham Harrison. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988. New Oxford Re Bellah, Robert N. "The Church in Tension with a Lockean view 57, no. 10 (December, 1990): 10-16. et al. The Good Society. New York: Knopf, 1991.
Culture."

et al.

Habits of

the

Heart: Individualism

and

Commitment in American Life.

II."

New York: Harper

and

Row, 1985.

The New York Re Berlin, Isaiah. "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism: view of Books 37, no. 15 (October 11, 1990): 54-58. Blumenberg, Hans. Work on Myth. Translated by Robert M. Wallace. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985. Boas, George. Essays on Primitivism and Related Ideas in the Middle Ages. Baltimore:

The Johns Hopkins Press, 1948.

Bozeman, Theodore Dwight. To Live Ancient Lives: The Primitivist Dimension in Puri tanism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988. Brown, Peter. The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. Budziszewski, J. The Nearest Coast of Darkness: A Vindication of the Politics of Vir
tues.

Ithaca: Cornell

University Press,

1988.

The Resurrection of Nature: Political Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986.

Theory

and

the

Human Character.

Buruma, Ian. "From Hirohito to (October 26, 1989): 31-45.

"There's No Place Like
(December

Heimat."

The New York Review of Books 36,

The New York Review of Books

no.

16 20

Heimat."

37,

no.

20, 1990): 34-43.

and and

Carlyle, R. W.
Edinburgh

A. J. A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West. 6 London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1903-62.
and

vols.

Clark, Stephen R. L. Civil Peace and Sacred Order: Limits Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Dupre, Louis. "A Conservative Anarchist: Eric Voegelin,
423-31.

Renewals. Vol. 1.

1901-85."

Clio 14 (1985):

434

Interpretation
Bewildered."

The New York Review of Donoghue, Denis. "Bewitched, Bothered, and Books 40, no. 6 (March 25, 1993): 46-53. Elliott, Alison Goddard. Roads to Paradise: Reading the Lives of the Early Saints. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1987. Ethics 99, no. 4 (July 1989). Frank, Robert H. Passions Within Reason: The Strategic Role of the Emotions. New York: Norton, 1988. Galston, William A. Liberal Purposes: Goods, Virtues, and Diversity in the Liberal State. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Garver, Eugene. Machiavelli and the History of Prudence. Madison: University of Wis consin Press, 1987. Gauthier, David. Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. Reviews in Ameri Genovese, Eugene D. "Religious Foundations of the
Constitution."

can

History 19

(1991): 338-46.

Glendon, Mary Ann. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York: Free Press, 1991. Grant, George Parkin. English-Speaking Justice. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985. Grant, Ruth W. John Locke's Liberalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Gunn, L. Ray. The Decline of Authority: Public Economic Policy and Political Devel opment in New York State, 1800-1860. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988. The New York Review of Books 38, no. 17 Hacker, Andrew. "Playing the Racial (October 24, 1991): 14-18. Hacking, Ian. The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas
Card."

Probability, Induction, and Statistical Inference. London: Cambridge Univer 1975. Press, sity Herberg, Will. Protestant-Catholic-Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology.
about

With 1983.

a new

introduction

by

Martin G. Marty. Chicago:

University

of

Chicago Press,

Hughes, Richard T., ed. The American Quest for sity of Illinois Press, 1988.
and

the

Primitive Church. Urbana: Univer

ica. Chicago:

C. Leonard Allen. Illusions of Innocence: Protestant Primitivism in Amer University of Chicago Press, 1988.
and

Kass, Leon. "Man

14-26.

Woman: An Old

Story."

First Things,

no.

17 (November 1991):

Kolakowski,
cago:

Leszek. The Presence of Myth. Translated

of

by

Adam Czerniawski. Chi

Chicago Press, 1989. University Kukathas, Chandran, and Philip Pettit. Rawls: 'A ford: Polity Press, 1990.

Theory

Justice'

of

and

Its Critics. Ox

Lasch, Christopher. "Orestes Brownson's Christian New Oxford Review 56, no. 7 (September, 1989): 4-8. Lemer, Gerda. The Creation of Patriarchy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Lovejoy, Arthur O., and George Boas. Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1935. Maclntyre, Alasdair. Whose Justice Which Rationality? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988.
Radicalism."

John Rawls Menand, Louis. "The Real John (June 25, 1992): 50-55. Morgan, Edmund S. "The Fiction of 'The no. 8 (April 23, 1992): 46-48.
Dewey."

and the

Flight from

Authority
39,

435
no.

The New York Review of Books

12

People.'"

The New York Review of Books 39,

Inventing
ica. New York

the
and

People: The Rise of Popular London: Norton, 1988.

Justice."

Sovereignty

in England

and

Amer

Nagel, Thomas. "Rawls Neal, Patrick. "Justice

(1990): 24-50.

on

Philosophical Review 82 (1973): 220-34.

Metaphysical?"

as

Fairness: Political
Moment?"

or

Political

Theory 18

Olsen, Glenn W. "The Catholic

Communio 15 (1988): 474-87.

Thought 66 (1991): 259-78. in Commu

City Deconstructing

"The

in Christian
the

Thought."

University. The 52nd Annual Frederick William Reynolds

a

Lecture. Salt Lake City, 1991. Republished in nio 19 (1992): 226-53.

..

slightly

revised version

"The Ethics
World."

of

Conquest: The European Background

the
Nations."

of

Spain's Mission in the

in

New

Communio 19 (1992): 619-34.

of

'1492 in the Judgment

of

To be

published

a volume of papers

the Second Conference on European

Culture, October 28-31, 1992, Pamplona,

View."

Spain.
"The

Meaning

of

Christian Culture: An Historical

on

In Catholicism

and

Secularization in America: Essays

'Political
Correctness."

Nature, Grace, and Culture, edited by David L. Schindler. Notre Dame, IN: Communio Books, 1990, pp. 98-130.
To be
published

by

the

University

of

Utah Humanities

Center.

"Recovering
nard's

the Homeland: Acts 4:32 and the Ecclesia Primitiva in St. Ber the

Sermons

on

Song

Songs."

of

Word

and

Spirit: A Monastic Review 12

Bromide."

(1990): 92-117. "You Can't Legislate Morality': Reflections (1975): 148-62.

on a

Communio. 2
The New

Paul, Ellen Frankel, Fred D. Miller, Jr., Jeffrey Paul,

Social Contract: Essays
on

and

John Ahrens,

eds.

Gauthier. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988. Plato. Great Dialogues of Plato. Edited by Eric H. Warmington and Philip G. Rouse. New York: New American Library, 1956. The Republic of Plato. Translated by Francis Comford. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1945; and W. H. D. Rouse. Pogge, Thomas W. Realizing Rawls. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989. Rapaczynski, Andrzej. Nature and Politics: Liberalism in the Philosophies of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987. (unpublished). Rawls, John. "Justice as Fairness: A Guided "Justice as Fairness: Political not Philosophy and Public Affairs
Tour" Metaphysical."

14(1985): 223-51.
Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia
..

"The

Priority

of the

Right

and

Ideas

of

the

University Press, 1993. Philosophy and

Good."

Public

Affairs 17 (1988): 251-76.

A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971. Raz, Joseph. The Morality of Freedom. New York: Clarendon Press, 1986.
..

436

Interpretation

Reiman, Jeffrey. Justice and Modern Moral Philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Sandel, Michael J., ed. Liberalism and Its Critics. New York: New York University Press, 1984. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press,
1982.

Sandoz, Ellis. A Government

of Laws: Political

Theory, Religion,

and

the

American

University Press, 1990. Schlesinger, Arthur, Jr. The Disuniting of America. New York: Norton, 1992.
Founding. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State

Shapiro, Ian. The Evolution sity Press, 1986. Sommerville, J. P. Politics

1986.

of Rights in Liberal Theory. New York: Cambridge Univer

and

Ideology

in England, 1603-1640. London:

Longman,

The New York Review of Books 36, no. 13 (August Steel, Ronald. "Guest of the 17, 1989): 3-5. Stout, Jeffrey. The Flight from Authority: Religion, Morality, and the Quest for Auton omy. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981. Veatch, Henry B. Swimming Against the Current in Contemporary Philosophy: Occa sional Essays and Papers. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1990. Eric. The New An Science Politics: Introduction. Chicago: University of Voegelin, of Chicago Press, 1952. New Vree, Dale. "Communism: from Modernity's Vanguard to History's Oxford Review 56, no. 10 (December 1989): 2-4. Weinreb, Lloyd L. Natural Law and Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
Rearguard."

Age."

1987.

Wood, Gordon S. "Struggle Over the 17 (November 9, 1989): 26-34. Wolfe, Alan. Whose Keeper? Social Science sity of California Press, 1989.

Puritans."

The New York Review of Books 36,

no.

and

Moral Obligation. Berkeley: Univer

Book Reviews

The Roots of Political Philosophy: Ten Forgotten Socratic Dialogues, edited by Thomas L. Pangle (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), xii + 406 pp., cloth $44.50, paper $12.95.
Will Morrisey

Perplexingly inconclusive,
little
promise understand

Plato's
The

short

Socratic dialogues

appear

to offer

to those who ask, How did the founder of political philosophy

own enterprise?

his

scholarly here?

neglect seem all

the

more

genealogy of the dialogues makes reasonable. Is there really anything to leam

suspect

As it happens, there is, and this collection of careful translations makes the learning easier to begin and, better, harder to conclude. "To confront, to take
seriously, to become
captivated a

by,

these

dialogues,"

shorter

Professor Pangle many of our Plato might have

to take these
of

writes, "is to discover

thought."

Socrates

who shakes

the

foundations
and

conventional assumptions about what and

how Socrates
scholarly
may

It

might

be

noted that some of the

refusal

dialogues seriously
cal evidence

as authentic

Platonic

works

stem

from

a reluctance

to

take seriously certain Socratic challenges to

conventions.

Whatever the histori

authentic
'pure'

may

be,

a willingness

to

read

these dialogues as

begins

to separate thoughtful or potentially thoughtful students from

scholars.

The

contributors to this volume combine

scholarship
an

with thoughtfulness.

Allan Bloom finds in the Hipparchus

and a

a confrontation

between

a philosopher

democrat
a

the latter
or

no

fanatic, but simply

way.

money in

'decent'

lawabiding
to the

The dialogue

shows

ordinary man who loves how such decency

poses a serious threat

philosopher
gainful.

love

gain.

They

way of life. Both democrat and differ radically in their conceptions of what is truly
philosopher's of

The

conventional

decency

law,

upon which

money rests,

concerns

Socra
also

tes in the Minos. Leo Strauss

shows

that

law,

associated with opinion

but

intended to
the same

guide

opinion, is

highly

problematic with respect

to knowledge. At

time, "The Minos

raises more questions

than it

answers,"

thereby
neither of which

offering

readers not so much

knowledge

as

doubt

and

wonder,

conduce to

lawmaking
one of

This leads
without a

in any ordinary sense. to the quest for knowledge,

a quest

that cannot be sustained the

love

knowledge. Christopher Bmell

emphasizes

distinction, in

interpretation,

Spring 1994,

Vol. 21, No. 3

438
the
of

Interpretation
well-bom, the
useful.

Lovers, between the noble, which attracts Athens, and the good, associated more with
of

honor-loving

youths

Political philosophy
than noble.
political

requires

study When the noble know their

the noble,

although

the study itself

is

more good mere

own

nobility,

they

transcend

nobility;

philosophy constitutes "a needed preliminary to decent political life provides the necessary but not sophic life, which nonetheless is in tension with it.

philosophizing."

sufficient ground

In this sense, for philo

Given this dispensable

pher or anyone else promote

indispensability of decent that life by teaching

one of

political virtue?

life,

can a philoso

Clifford Orwin 's words, depicts

statesman."

Plato,

an encounter with a

practicing

The Cleitophon, in "those surprisingly rare occurrences in The statesman charges Socra
tension
others."

tes with the

"between Socrates
tude

inability to teach citizen virtue. Orwin finds in the dialogue doing what is good for oneself and doing what is good for
answering Cleitophon's charge; this is "one
perhaps
of

avoids

the

few"

dia
He

logues "that

philosophy,"

never mentions

because Cleitophon's
cannot

certi

with respect

to the unmitigated goodness of

while

justice

be

shaken.

requires

clarity, answers,

Socrates

would raise

perplexities,

questions.

Does
siders

wisdom consist of answers or of questions?

Thomas L. Pangle
collection.

con

the

Theages,

one of

the two central

dialogues in the

The

conversation, held in the portico of Zeus the Libera between Socrates and a father who is also a democratic statesman, under tor, As Pangle remarks, standably worried that his son wants "to become
a private
wise."

Theages depicts

wisdom

may tempt

men

"to try to

escape

from the
himself

constraints of conventional

fair

play."

Theages,

the son,

soon reveals

as a wouldbe

tyrant; tradi
a child
who

tional

democratic statesmanship has

of

'naturally'

brought forth

threatens the tradition and the democracy. Socrates

tactfully

shows that philoso

phy, the love

wisdom,

cannot offer a science of politics to wouldbe mlers.

It

can nonetheless strengthen

the necessary pieties of

political

life

by

showing
and
self-

"how the traditional

conscious"

virtues can
of

be

made more

consistent,

intelligible,
itself
a

in the face

democracy's tendency to
ambition.

undermine

by

unre

fined

eroticism and

immoderate

The Theages is

Platonic

answer

to

Aristophanes'

charges

in the Clouds. young democrat

par excellence was

The in the

erotic and ambitious

Alcibiades. In

the Alcibiades I Plato

dialogues,"

"depict[s]

the profound transformation of an

interlocutor

course of a single

conversation"

in the

words of

an event "almost unique among the Steven Forde. Socrates takes a thumotic soul and

arouses

for his
of

self-perfection."

its latent eroticism, particularly "to The private, though

yields

[Alcibiades] to care earnestly still social, "peering into the soul

get

another"

self-knowledge,

which

includes

moderation or good order of

"soul

and

ogy but

body and the parts of the soul within also by contrast, "is the proper ordering
regards this apparent resolution as
of

itself."

of

the things

Statesmanship, by anal belonging to

and given

many."

Forde

problematic, given "the ques

the political

tionable proofs

the

soul"

that are

its

foundation,

Book Reviews
career of pelled

439
re

Alcibiades,
again

whose

less-than-Socratic

eroticism

fascinated then

the Athenian demos.

Thumos

figures in the Laches, the dialogue

that
Laches'

on courage. political

James H.
of

Nichols, Jr.,
courage
all
. .

observes rests on

"commonsense,
are more

conception

preserving the opinion that ridicule and

disgrace,
of

above

for

not

fighting bravely for the city,

thus

terrible than the risk

death."

Political
the

courage

differs profoundly from

philosophic

courage,

which

risks

city's antagonism

cause
with

"we humans

are complex

by unflinchingly challenging beings, compounded

life,"

opinion.
of

Nonetheless, be soul and body, faced

we need to know how to varying situations in apply intellectual virtue. True courage requires both natural and pmdence; political cour bravery

age, substituting
ther
philosophic
thought"

venerated opinions nor

political,

for pmdence, divination the

will not always suffice. product

or of

Nei

"anxious fore

will not suffice

for

either

the philosopher

the statesman.
of

A discussion

of pmdence

leads naturally to the topic

lying,

of

attempting to be pmdent. Lying also relates to poetic the Lesser Hippias, James Leake notes that "To
or

myths.

way of In his discussion

as

one

regard

lying

morally
that the

defensible
good ages

is

of

necessary limited

to

bring

about

the good, one must

recognize

efficacy"

a recognition resisted

by

earnest youth of all

"not simply triumphant in human affairs or the This knowl edge of limits, an instance of pmdence and of moderation, forms "a necessary part of the art of politics or mling insofar as it enables one to deal with those
cosmos."

who are

incapable

of

listening

to

reason"

enemies and

friends

alike.

In this

philosophy needs to be politic. Is beauty a kind of lie, or deception,

and truth

(like

Socrates)

ugly?

It

would

be Epicurean to say so. One might read David R. Sweet's commentary on the Greater Hippias as a suggestion that Plato anticipates Epicurus to some degree.
In the

dialogue,

the unnamed stranger, who is

Socratic, distinguishes

precise

speech and

knowledge from

conventional speech and

beautifully"

"knowing

beautifully."

"Hippias knows precisely how to speak The charm of beautiful things "acts as
a man such as
beneath."

and a

that is all

he knows.

deterrent to knowledge

and prevents

Hippias from seeing beneath the surfaces of things to the intel ligible structure The dialogue thus serves as "a chastening supple ment to the which shows how beautiful things can lead the soul
Symposium,"
'upward.'

Allan Bloom
which so

writes

dialogues,
tan;

many of the Ion presents the

opinion

last commentary, thus framing a book to his former students have contributed. One of the funniest
the
collection's spectacle of an

utterly

conventional cosmopoli

panhellenic

of

antiquity, like 'global

common

thought'

guide itself by book-bound; by questioning him, Socrates tests the claims made for authorita tive books, specifically Homer's books, as worthy educators of the Greeks.
a rather

low

today, may well denominator. Bloom describes Ion as

gods."

Socrates tests "the Greek understanding

of

things, particularly

of

the

His

440

Interpretation
possession"

"divine

argument amounts

to "a tale designed to

appeal

to Ion's

needs and an

art,

an

is wishes"; small wonder Shelley took it seriously. In fact poetry intelligible activity concerned with intelligible subjects. Ion's
of political

self-

misunderstanding somewhat resembles that dei in himself, but it is only the vox

men; "he
so

senses

the vox

populi."

Like

many

political

men,

he half knows this, manipulating the passions of his audience people voice their fears and desires, especially with respect to their

for

gain. own

The

fu

"Overcoming Philosophy requires a concept Philosophy permits the mind

tures.

this concern with oneself is

of

philosophy's

precondition.

nature, permitting

meaningful general speech.

to see a cosmos or
stops at

harmony,
the

kind

of peace.

Poetry,

a veil

for

chaos or

war, ultimately

political

level,

the

high

est particularism.

Plato's Socrates carefully distinguishes the city from the philosopher. Gainas-moneymaking versus gain-as-learning; decent laws versus knowledge,
wonder,
and

doubt; love

of

honor, nobility

versus

love

of wisdom and

the

things useful to the quest

versus versus

for wisdom;

citizen virtue versus

questioning; politics

self-perfection;
pmdent

political courage versus philosophic

courage;

poetic

lies

lies;

apparent

beauty
city.

versus

intelligibility; divine

possession
while

versus reason: never

Socrates

explores

these antinomies,

defending

philosophy

forgetting

the need for the

Interpreting

Tocqueville'

age, MD: Rowman &

"Democracy in Littlefield, 1991), xii

s

America."

Ken

Masugi,

editor

(Sav

+ 526

pp.

John C. Koritansky
Hiram College

The

new

book

of essays on

Tocqueville
America,"

edited

by

Ken Masugi,

Interpreting
articles,

Tocqueville's

"Democracy

in

is

collection

of original

most of which

were prepared

for

a conference and

sponsored

Institute for the

Study

of

Statesmanship

Political

by the Claremont Philosophy and held in

The idea for the
con

1985,

the

sesquicentennial of

Tocqueville's

masterpiece.

ference

and

for the book

utors acknowledge a

was to pay homage to Tocqueville. All of the contrib debt for Tocqueville's remarkably persuasive demonstra

tion that the problem of despotism

has

not

been

solved or rendered passe

still

by

the

victory
all

of

contemporary democratic thought. Despotism is

possible, in fact

too

and
a

likely, in a form that may accommodate itself to democratic conditions prejudices. Nevertheless, for many of the contributors, Tocqueville is like
whom one

may find some reason for disappointment the better one gets to know him. Masugi 's own introduction states quite clearly a quarrel with Tocqueville, and that quarrel is resumed in several of the contributions, most

friend in

fully by
most

Thomas G. West

and

the late John Adams Wettergreen. To state

it

stances,
the

broadly, the quarrel is that Tocqueville concedes too much to circum i.e., to the roughly egalitarian social state that has been produced by movement of history, and correlatively, Tocqueville appears either to
soft-

pedal or
ral

implicitly

to

deny

that there are any transhistorical principles, of

natu

human rights, that can be known and used as the basis of a genuine state craft. Perhaps the shortest formula for the criticism would be to say that Tocqueville bows too The
at
much

to the contemporary fact of equality and not

enough to the timeless principle of equality.

enormous

outpouring

of

least

one general consequence

Tocqueville scholarship in recent years has had for which we can all be grateful. It has shown

that Tocqueville has to be

appreciated as a political

thinker; he

means

to be

Professor nineteenth-century modem harbinger of a Axon's treatment of sociology seems quite dated today. Nevertheless, Tocqueville does present his "new political in terms that insist on being relevant to and even limited by contempo
read as a
of

giving instruction to "the historical interpretation

legislator."

Democracy

in America

can no and

longer be

America,

Tocqueville

as

science"

historical movement rary social conditions. The social state of equality and the Christendom are facts to which throughout in the direction of further equality

interpretation,

Spring 1994,

Vol. 21, No. 3

442
he

Interpretation
have
us

would

be

reconciled.

To that extent, he does

social science and or

at

least

appear

to move

in the direction
manding

of

procedure

contemporary of, say, Aristotle

best.

away from the is

more com

Montesquieu,
is
a

who consider a whole most conducive

range of possible circumstances and show us which

notion of what

to their

is

ideally

Equality

fact just like

some revelation of

divine Providence, and Thou Shalt Not Question Whether It Deserves To Be. From the fact of equality as the social state derives a major, ambiguous conse
quence.

Equal human beings love

equality.

It

is,

at

least in the

public

realm,

the single

everything else is There are, though, two forms of the love of equality which differ primarily in the mode through which the passion is acted upon. The nobler form of the

dominating

passion

to

which

reducible.

love

of

equality is
elevates

acted upon

in

common

life,

when

shoulder

their civic duties the

in direct

collective action.

self-governing citizens In this form the love of

great."

equality

ordinary

person

to "the

rank of

the

In the

absence public

of such active common spirit sickens

life, however,

the love of equality is

"debased";

into jealousy

to their

level."

By

jealousy,
in former

a new

and "leads the weak to want to drag the strong down offering to take care of people, especially against the pain of form of despotism can come into existence which is softer than more

ages

but

insidious because
solution

more

thoroughly enervating
depends
on

of

any
the

potential resistance.

The

Tocqueville

offers

there

being

right kind

of social and political

institutions through
are

which equal citizens can

develop
point

stronger-souled

habits. Such institutions

on

by

no means self-sustain mores

ing, however. Ultimately everything depends

to a need
onciled with ville's

mores, and good

in

rum

for religion, a civil religion, whereby our social duties are rec the Will of God. If we reflect back to the beginning of Tocque
civil religion.

work, it is quite clear that the tenet of the

itself
to be
to

character of democracy is Tocqueville, therefore, intends his own book

"providential"

an example of

how

one must allow one's public

duty

to

determine

what

is

be

said about religious matters. organized

Masugi has
ville and
Mores."

the

essays

in his book into three

Politics,"

groupings:

"Tocque
and

Political One
of

Thought,"

"Tocqueville

and

and

"Tocqueville
part

the
of

major questions

that comes up in the

first

has to do

Tocqueville's thinking; specifically, how deeply was he indebted to Rousseau? The contributors to this section are not all of one mind
with

the

sources

on

this

issue.

Jean-Claude

Lamberti

implicitly

opposes

the

connection.

Catherine H. Zuckert thinks that the connection is important, but she asserts that Tocqueville must oppose Rousseau at the critical point regarding Rous
seau's civil religion

(p. 134). Wilhelm wholly

of

Hennis, however, intends

the orbit of
not refer as a

to show that
understand

Tocqueville's

work operates

within

Rousseau's
to
of a

ing

of

human
in the

freedom;

and

though he does

Rousseau

by

name,
Kind"

Brace James Smith's description

points and same essays

Tocqueville
opinion of

"Liberal

New

direction. In the

this reviewer at

least,

Hennis'

Smith's

fully

decide the issue, but

even

if

someone else might dis-

Book Reviews
agree about

443

that, it is surely the case that what Hennis and Smith show about Tocqueville's departure from classical Lockean Liberalism is grist for those
most

sugi's

strongly worded and sweeping book, "Tocqueville and

there

criticisms of

Tocqueville in Part 2

of Ma-

Politics."

Naturally,
there

is

a range of opinions

is in

the

book
a

as a whole.

among the six essays in Part 2 just as James T. Schleifer argues that Tocqueville and regarding human
more even

Jefferson

share

very

considerable measure of agreement

of

nature and and more

the meaning

freedom,
went

though Tocqueville sees

deeply

into the dangers

of

the

tyranny

of the majority.

clearly John Marini

also shows

how Tocqueville

understanding
"new

of a specific problem of

beyond any of the American framers in his democratic society, the danger of the
Professor Marini 's
careful and

despotism"

of centralized administration.
of

searching discussion
vations about our

this too often oversimplified theme contributes strongly

obser

to the value of this volume. James W. Ceasar offers some very sensible

contemporary
the role

have

underestimated

how Tocqueville may democracy of the intellectual in his analysis of democratic

that
suggest

political culture.

The
and

other

three essayists in Part 2 are closer in

of

agreement with one another

with
of

the editor

the volume.
regime and

They
all

all

contrast

Tocqueville

and

the

framers

the American

they

find that Tocqueville

"The Illiberal

suffers

in the

contrast.

Thus Edward C. Banfield

the benefit of

Tocqueville,"

writes of

taking
Banvalues of

him to task for his field

argues

criticism of materialistic

individualism in democracy.
we can see of

that

with

hindsight
not

that "It is the

(Tocqueville's) saintly

grandmother,

those

the despised moneymaker,

that supported the Nazi regime, that

are exploited much of

by

the Soviet one, and that

world"

fire the fanaticism that is field

says

endemic
would

in

the third

(p. 253).

Ban-

that Tocqueville

have done better to follow the likes

that good institutions can preserve
of

of Man-

deville

and

Adam Smith,

who saw

freedom
at

through the checking

and

balancing

petty

passions more

reliably than

tempting

to elevate

or enoble

the passions.
name of a sort of self-interest and

If Banfield

attacks

Tocqueville in the

liberal him for

ism,

the heavier artillery is fired

by

West

Wettergreen,

who attack

misunderstanding the

principle of

the equal right of all human beings at birth to

of

liberty

as proclaimed of as a

in the Declaration

Independence
to

and refined

through
misses

the statesmanship

Abraham Lincoln. he
considers

According

West, Tocqueville
fact
of passion.

something insofar
and

equality primarily

as a

the social state

the object of

vague,

fundamentally

ambiguous,

He

misses

the

fact that equality, properly understood, is a fundamental principle of right. As such, it entails its own defense of the rights of the minority and is therefore the
best
indeed the only ultimate bulwark against tyranny of all forms, egalitar ian tyranny included. Moreover, West argues that Americans in general under
and

stand

this about equality;

we

know the basic

goodness of our regime

better than
proven

Tocqueville, despite his insightfulness. Therefore Tocqueville has been

444

Interpretation
of

wrong in thinking that the love

citizens would pose

equality among the majority

there not

of

American
stands

the greatest dangers of tyranny. "If America

today

on

the

edge of

despotism, it has been brought

by

the

people corrupted

by equality, but We suffer from

standing.

by
a

politicians

imbibing
is

the doctrines of
of what

intellectuals"

(p. 169).
to
our

willful,

sophistical

distortion

equality
natural

meant

framers. What is

most needed

a return

to the

core of their original under

Tocqueville, because
the beacon for

of

his
as a

abstraction

from

rights

and

his
we

equivocal endorsement of

equality

fact

with which we must

do the best

can, is

not

these times.
says

In

a similar vein,

John Adams Wettergreen

modem

that Tocqueville misin the solution. Wet

terpreted the real danger of

despotism

and obscured

tergreen takes Tocqueville to task for his fears regarding the enervating effects of modem industrialism. In fact, argues Wettergreen, we have less to fear from

industrialization than Tocqueville supposed, and the reason is that human na ture is stronger than he supposed. This is ultimately because a corollary of the equal right of all human beings to freedom is that human beings have natures strong
enough

to be

capable

of self-government

and

not

to

yield

it

easily.

Therefore,
mudlike,
grant

the
a

problem of modem

despotism is

as

debased form

of

the love of

due to anything equality. Wettergreen

not
under

so

soft, so
to

refuses

that human beings are turned into cows or sheep

conditions. changes

contemporary

democratic

Despotism

remains what of

it

always

has

been, something
must

hard. All that

is the fashion

its

velvet glove.

And because he thinks

of

this, Wettergreen insists that the contemporary friends (p. 238); pare to give moral and economic
reasons"

freedom

"pre
are

appeals to

interest

insufficient
point.

attempts, like Tocqueville's, to redirect passions are beside the Wettergreen means are the same ones The "moral and economic
and
reasons"

West
of

points

towards: Adam Smith's capitalism and Abraham Lincoln's reading

the Declaration of Independence.

West
ville's

and

Wettergreen intend their

which

chapters

to expose something of Tocque

thought
not

they

are convinced

is

unflattering.

This is fair enough,

the heart of Tocque

but it is
even

necessarily the case that everyone who shares the suspicion, or

the conviction, that Rousseauan radicalism

lies

at

ville's

sobriety

would consider

it

as a

indicated, is
classical

a case

in

point.

At the deepest

discredit. Professor Hennis, as I have level, the issue here is whether the
"refined"

liberalism

of

Locke, however

by Lincoln,

can

withstand

Rousseau's massively weighty critique (cf. Social Contract, especially book 1, chapters 3-5). Is it tme, as Rousseau charges, that liberalism's attempt to pre
serve a viable appeal to natural rights compromise
resistance? complaints point

in society
tacit

ends

up

with an untenable

between the despotism

West

If Rousseau's
of and

critique of

the anarchy of active liberalism is sound, then it is probably the Wettergreen, and Banfield too, that are beside the
of consent and

or at

least they

point

in the direction

of an

issue that

requires more

direct treatment.

Book Reviews One

the
of

445
Rous-

the

implications
of of mores.

of

the criticism of Tocqueville for his implicit

seauism

in Part 2

this collection is that Tocqueville may have

overestimated

importance
and

sive

For Tocqueville, mores are of fundamental importance ultimately because the difference between the
the
"debased"

and

deci
of

"noble"

love
put

equality
other
a

form is

altogether a question of mores.

To

it in

words, what Tocqueville

of mores.

and

Rousseau
own

mean

by

freedom is
about

altogether

question

Masugi has his

misgivings

this feature of

Tocqueville's thought, but that does not prevent him from recognizing its prominence. The third, and longest, section of his book, on mores, contains

fine contributions that add substantially to its value. Some of these es like William D. Richardson's on Tocqueville's treatment of race in Amer says, ica or William Kristol's on the education of women, intend mainly to explain
some some aspect of

the

contributors, like Delba

more

Democracy that is particularly subtle or complex. Other Winthrop and George Anastaplo, raise the question
of

explicitly

of

the adequacy
self-interest

Tocqueville's analysis; their

to operate among

chapters

both

concentrate on

how

is

said

equal persons.

Ralph
appro

C. Hancock
priate

writes a

fine his

statement

that shows how Tocqueville tried to

Christianity
project

to

own purposes and

how,

given subsequent

develop

ments, his

may have fallen short. The observation made by both West and Wettergreen that

goes

farthest to
the sort

wards

joining

an argument on the philosophical grounds of

given a somewhat

Tocqueville's book
of

is that Tocqueville has in fact despotism

of

distorted

picture of

modem nations would and not

have to fear. Our

experience of
of

the latter

part

the nineteenth century

modem

especially the first half

the twentieth shows us

that

debased love
communism

necessarily the soft thing that is produced by a equality among people at large. Nazism, fascism, and Soviet were more openly hard and cmel than Tocqueville thought likely.
of a perverse

despotism is

They

were

also, in

way, more intellectual. These monstrous regimes

analysis of

are apotheoses of modem mind and

ideas. If Tocqueville's

the proclivities of

heart

of people

living

understanding these ysis is but partly tme. Of

all

modem

equality despotisms, then it has to be

under

of conditions

is

relevant

to our
anal

granted

that that

the

contributions

to this collection, the one that presents the most

what

satisfying

effort on

towards re-examining

Tocqueville in Part 1

says about

the effect of
on

democracy

thought is the superb piece

by

Peter Lawler

"De

Pantheism."

mocracy and democratic thought

mate or oppressive

Lawler

reads

Tocqueville to hold that "The

core of

theory is the use of reason to destroy allegedly illegiti distinctions. This destmction in thought is both caused by,
or
action"

and

is the

cause

of, democratic
things that

political

atic view of all

democracy inevitably
of

(p. 96). Therefore, the system tends towards is pantheism.

Pantheism is human

a great

danger for Tocqueville, since, in his words, it "destroys

individuality."

The friends

freedom

ought

to unite

in their

opposition

to it. Lawler is persuaded, though, that if the democratic tide is

as pervasive

446

Interpretation
Tocqueville
says

and powerful as

it is, then to

resist pantheism

is probably

hopeless. Ultimately, the repudiation of distinctions of rank among human be ings as being arbitrary, which produces democracy, entails the repudiation of
the distinctiveness of human

being as such as similarly arbitrary. Lawler writes, "Tocqueville indicates that partisanship on behalf of man's greatness or free dom as something which is choiceworthy for human beings in its own right is

fundamentally
has
no part

a product of pride.
it.'

...

It is
the

'something

one mast

feel

and

logic for

in

This

'feeling'

is

not

most powerful cause of animation

most

human beings. Consequently,

nature of man's
'art'

the project of Tocqueville and others who

'appreciate the

greatness'

is

an aristocratic of

one; to

oppose as and prac

far

as possible with

the

'natural'

direction

democratic thought

tice"

(pp. 118-19). This way

and

hopeless,
how

someone

putting it makes the project look desperate, even recklessly irrational. From this one can see, incidentally, like Professor Banfield would be wary of a connection between
of
own

Tocqueville's

thought and the

specific

character

of

twentieth-century
own

despotism.
Lawler
this is
would

surely

not quarrel with

the observation that

his

Tocqueville's

argument as

is

much gloomier

than Tocqueville presents it.

reading of Maybe

because,

Richard Herr is

quoted as

saying

elsewhere

in this volume,

Tocqueville is
explicitly"

"temperamentally
n.

incapable

of

(p. 253

78). Then again,

maybe

stating a pessimistic conclusion not. Tocqueville does assert that

pantheism

has

a certain charm

for democratic
very
general

citizens which

derives from their

of

tendency
as

to think

in terms

of

ideas;

this is a habit

their

minds

which stems

from the

ease with which

they

think of themselves and each other

pretty much equivalent. It is not so clear as Lawler takes it to be, though, that Tocqueville thinks that democracy itself derives from reason's own ten

dency
cedes

to dissolve arbitrary distinctions. Nor is it

so clear

that

Tocqueville is the

con

implicitly
not

and

ultimately that pantheism is the

real of

truth of

democracy.
non-

Might

greatness? Might he not actually think that the energizing idea of the indefinite perfectibility of man, which he sets up in contrast to enervating pantheism, is even closer to the truth
of

rational

idea

Tocqueville actually think that at the heart of humanity as locus of freedom and

democracy

democracy
8)?
we

than is pantheism (cf.

Democracy

in

America,

vol.

2,

part

1,

chap.

life has been very much by philosophy, philosophy has been politicized into ideology. The democratic tide is suffused with the modem philosopher's demand for a universal and homogeneous society. This being so, then it would seem that our
a world which our political

Today

live in

in

penetrated

and

not this necessary task today is to revive the honor of philosophy philosophy that, but the genuine activity of philosophizing, for what else is there that could reveal ideology in its tme ugliness? Grant that this is not the task to

or

which

Tocqueville

commends our proclivities of

attention; still,

we

may turn to his

minds and

observa
order

tions regarding the

democratic

citizens'

hearts in

Book Reviews
to

447

help

ourselves

think about

whether our

task is even possible in democracy.

If Tocqueville is the

sort of proto-Hegelian that

Lawler

reads

him

as

being,

then Tocqueville makes our prospects

look very dark. If, on the other hand, Tocqueville can back up his statement that the love of equality admits of a form whereby the weak need not "want to drag the strong down to
"nobler"

their

level,"

then we may take more heart. We may thank the editor and the

contributors

to this

volume

for redirecting

our attention

to Tocqueville's De

mocracy in America and for the have brought to bear.

appreciative

but

also critical

reading that they

PUBLIUS:
THE JOURNAL OF FEDERALISM
Published
and

by

the

Center for the

Study
of

of

Federalism

University

North Texas
and

Editors: Daniel J. Elazar

John Kincaid

PUBLIUS is a quarterly journal now in its twenty- fourth year of publication. It is dedicated to the study of federal principles, institutions, and processes. PUBLIUS publishes articles, research notes, and book reviews on the theoretical and practical dimensions of the American federal system and intergovernmental relations and other federal sys
tems throughout the
world.

Forthcoming topical

issues

will

feature

articles on

interstate

rela

tions, cities in the federal system, federalism and economic development,

state-local relations, federalism in Spain, and much more, as well as the PUBLIUS Annual Review of American Federalism edited by Ann O'M. Bowman and Michael A. Pagano.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD: Ladipo Adamolekun, Thomas J. Anton, Samuel H. Beer, Diane D. Blair, C. Lloyd Brown- John, Lewis A. Dexter, Max Frenkel, Robert B. Hawkins, Jr., A. E. Dick Howard, Irving Kristol, Sarah F. Liebschutz, William S. Livingston, Donald S. Lutz, Alexandre Marc, Richard P. Nathan, Elinor Ostrom, Vincent Ostrom, Neal R. Peirce, Cheryl A. Saunders, Stephen L. Schechter, Harry N. Scheiber, Ira Sharkansky, Vojislav D. Stanovcic, David B. Walker, Cliff Walsh, Ronald L. Watts, Murray L. Weidenbaum, Frederick Wirt, Deil S. Wright, Joseph F. Zimmerman.
ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTIONRATES: Individual

$25; Institutional $35.

(Add $5.00 for foreign postage.)

Subscriptions

and manuscript submissions should

be

sent

to:

PUBLIUS: THE JOURNALOFFEDERALISM

c/o Department of Political

Denton,

Texas

Science, University of North Texas 76203-5338 (817) 565-2313

ISSN 0229-7051 ISBN 0-919491-18-9

Price $22.00 (Cdn.) $22.00 U.S. (Foreign)

a priori
Ml
Edited

by

Philip
This
volume contains

Hanson

and

Bruce Hunter knowledge by

and authors

ten

new essays on a priori

from Canada,
introduction

the United the

States, Australia,
Topics

Europe,

with an

by

editors.

addressed

include the nature,

explanation, and
with analytic

indispensability of a priori knowledge, its connection

place contribution of

truth, its

theory, and the focus is on twentieth century

essays also address earlier

in mathematics, in logic, and in empirical Kant and Quine to these topics. The
contributions

to these

discussions

at some

issues, but most length, and the essays

discussions.

that focus

on

Kant

also relate

his

views

to

more recent

Canadian Journal
of

Contributors include:

Philosophy

Philip Hanson and Bruce Hunter,

Laurence Bonjour, James Van Cleve,

Supplementary Volume 18

Albert Casullo, John Bigelow, AH

Orderfrom:

University of Calgary Press 2500 University Drive N.W.

Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4
The Canadian journal of Philosophy is published quarterly, in March, June, September and December. In addition to these regular issues, the C./.P. publishes annually a supplemen

Kazmi, Graciela De Pierris, J.A. Brook, James Robert Brown, A.D. Irvine, Barry Smith
University of Calgary Press University Drive N.W.
CALGARY, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
Individual

2500

tary volume of original papers on a selected theme of con temporary philosophical interest. This supplementary
is free to individual and student subscribers to the journal in that year. Supplementary volumes may also be
volume
purchased separately.

Student

Supplementary Volume 18
Postage Please send me information on C.J.P. Supplementary Volumes Name

Q Q

x
x

Correspondence regarding subscriptions, renewals, single issues and supplementary volume orders should be addressed to Canadian Journal of Philosophy, c/o University of Calgary Press, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N1N4.
1993 volume/four issues:

Institutions Individuals Students Single issues Return of the

a priori

Canada Cdn. $40.00 25.00 15.00 9.00

Foreign US$40.00 25.00 15.00 9.00

Address_

City

Country
Visa No.

Postal Code Mastercard

Qj
Expiry Date
_

$22.00

$22.00

Postage: Canada/US: $2.50 first book, $1.00 each addl. book. Outside North America: $4.00first book, $2.00 each addl. book. Canadian residents add 7% GST. Price outside Canada in US dollars.

CAHIERS

de philosophie
a adresser aux

politique et

juridique
-

Presses Universitaires de Caen, Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen Cedex France

La

pensee

de Leo Strauss

France

=>

130 FF (port compris)

Etranger
*

=>

150 FF (port compns)

Sauf

pour

les

aerienne. expeditions par voie

1993

N23

Presses Universitaires de Caen

INTERPRETATION
A JOURNAL OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Queens College, Flushing, NY 11367-1597 U.S.A. (718) 997-5542

Subscription

rates per volume

(3 issues): individuals $25 libraries and all other institutions $40 students (four-year limit) $1 6

U.S.: Canada $4.50 extra; elsewhere $5.40 extra by surface longer) or $1 1 by air. Payments: in U.S. dollars and payable by a financial institution located within the U.S. or the U.S. Postal Service. Postage
outside
mail

(8

weeks or

.00

Please

print or

type

ORDER FORM FOR NEW SUBSCRIBERS (NOT

I
wish FOR RENEWALS CURRENT SUBSCRIBERS WILL BE

BILLED)

to subscribe to INTERPRETATION.
name

?
?

bill

me

student

payment enclosed

address

ZIP/postcode

air mail

country (if

outside

U.S.)

GIFT SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM

Please

enter a subscription

to INTERPRETATION for
.

name

student

address

ZIP/postcode

? ?

air mail

country (if
from:

outside

U.S.)

? bill

me

name

payment enclosed

address
.

ZIP/postcode

INTERPRETATION
you

will send an announcement

to the recipient and

acknowledgment

to

RECOMMENDATION TO YOUR LIBRARY

to: the

Librarian,
that our library subscribe to INTERPRETATION, a journal of polit [ISSN 0020-9635], at the institutional rate of $40 per year (three
signature

recommend

ical philosophy

issues).

date

position

INTERPRETATION, Queens College, Flushing, New York 1 1 367-1 597, U.S.A.

Forthcoming
David C. Innes
Colin D. Pearce Joseph Gonda
David Bolotin

Bacon's New Atlantis The Wisdom

of

Exile

On Jacob Klein Leo Strauss

Classical Political

and

Philosophy

ISSN 0020-9635

Interpretation, Inc.
Queens College

Hushing

N.Y. 11367-1597
U.S.A.

-o

r
3
O
C/5

r*

03

z
o 3
i

i.
Z
o
K>

bo
*0
O
r-

C
r
50

"0

3
o
ffl
era

f-

TJ

(TO
O

>