哲学、文学和政治 369页

\nPhilosophy,Literature,andPolitics\nThispageintentionallyleftblank\nPhilosophy,Literature,andPoliticsEssaysHonoringEllisSandozEditedbyCharlesR.EmbryandBarryCooperUniversityofMissouriPressColumbiaandLondon\nCopyright©2005bytheCuratorsoftheUniversityofMissouriUniversityofMissouriPress,Columbia,Missouri65201PrintedandboundintheUnitedStatesofAmericaAllrightsreserved543210908070605LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataPhilosophy,literature,andpolitics:essayshonoringEllisSandoz/editedbyCharlesR.EmbryandBarryCooper.p.cm.Summary:“FestschrifthonoringEllisSandoz,directoroftheEricVoegelinInstituteforAmericanRenaissanceStudiesandeditorofCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin.Essaysexplorephilosophy,literature,andpolitics,andfocusonXenophon,Natsume,Freud,RobertPennWarren,andGeorgeSantayana”—Providedbypublisher.Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.ISBN0-8262-1592-0(alk.paper)1.Voegelin,Eric,1901–I.Embry,CharlesR.,1942–II.Cooper,Barry,1943–III.Sandoz,Ellis,1931–B3354.V884P452005190—dc222005005401™ThispapermeetstherequirementsoftheAmericanNationalStandardforPermanenceofPaperforPrintedLibraryMaterials,Z39.48,1984.Designer:JenniferCroppTypesetter:PhoenixType,Inc.Printerandbinder:TheMaple-VailBookManufacturingGroupTypefaces:MinionandCocktailTheUniversityofMissouriPressoffersitsgratefulacknowledgmenttotheEarhartFoundation,theLSUAlumniAssociation,andtheOfficeoftheDeanofGraduateStudiesandResearchatTexasA&MUniversity–Commerceforgenerouscontributionsinsupportofthepublicationofthisvolume.\nContentsPublisher’sNoteviiBeverlyJarrettPrefacexiCharlesR.EmbryandBarryCooperI.Philosophy1.TheTurntowardExistenceasExistenceintheTurn3DavidWalsh2.HuntingandPoliticalPhilosophy:AnInterpretationoftheKynegetikos28BarryCooper3.The(Anti-)EschatologicalPerspectiveinSigmundFreud’sPsychoanalysis54GilbertWeiss4.EricVoegelin’sDefenseofHumanDignity74GlennHughes5.EricVoegelinandaNewScienceofPolitics91JamesL.Wiser6.TheBigMystery:HumanEmergenceasCosmicMetaxy102BrendanPurcellII.Literature7.ADisciplineoftheMindandHeart:VoegelinandSantayanaasPhilosophersofExperience129ElizabethCoreyv\nviContents8.Compactness,PoeticAmbiguity,andtheFictionofRobertPennWarren146StevenD.Ealy9.BiographiesofConsciousness:PéterNádasandEricVoegelin170CharlesR.Embry10.ImaginingModernJapan:NatsumeSoseki’sFirstTrilogy188TimothyHoyeIII.Politics11.TheConceptof“thePolitical”Revisited209JürgenGebhardt12.EricVoegelinontheNatureofLaw223TimothyFuller13.AClassicalPrince:TheStyleofFrançoisMitterrand234TiloSchabert14.CommonSenseandtheRuleofLaw:ReturningVoegelintoCentralEurope258MartinPalous15.CivilizationalConflictandSpiritualDisorder285MichaelFranz16.Voegelin’sPuritanGnosticismandBacon’sGreatInstauration302StephenA.McKnight17.HistoryasOpenHorizon:EricVoegelin’sSearchforaPost-ImperialOrder325ThomasHollweckContributors341Index345\nPublisher’sNoteIntrepid.IfIwereobligedtoselectasinglewordtodescribeEllisSandoz,that’sthewordI’dchoose:Intrepid.Throughoutthethirty-someyearsI’veknownhim,andinallthekindsofworkwe’vedonetogether,thisuniquescholarhasneverfalteredinanytaskheconfronted.Asteacher,asscholar,asfriend,EllisSandozisoneofthosespecialindividualswhowillwalktheextramilewithyouandforyou.WithconsiderableassistancefromEllisSandoz,Ihadtheprivilegeofserv-ingascopyeditorforEricVoegelin’slastthreepublications:TheEcumenicAge(1974),InSearchofOrder(1987),andAutobiographicalReflections(1989).Itwasduringthisfifteen-yearperiodthatIfirstcametoknowEllisSandoz,whorecordedandthentranscribedAutobiographicalReflections,andwhoaidedmeandVoegelin’swidow,Lissy,aswereadiedInSearchofOrderforpost-humouspublication.IntheyearsfollowingVoegelin’sdeathinJanuary1985,Sandozledtheedi-torialboardandmeaswelaidoutplansforpublicationofthethirty-four-volumeCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin.Anyscholarwhohaseverparticipatedinsuchagargantuanprojectknowsofthemanydifficultiestheeditorsandpublishershaveconfronted.Thisisnottheplacetoitemizeallthosedifficulties.Itis,however,appropriatetorecordthefactthatEllisSandozwastheonehumanwhoworkedhardesttoassurethatTheCollectedWorkswasnotallowedtofalter.Whetheritwasvolumeeditors,translators,adedicatedpublisher,ormoneythatneededtobesecured,itwasEllisSandozwhoworkedtirelesslytolocatethosenecessities.Icanspeakonlyaspublisher—bothoriginallyatLSUPressandfinallyattheUniversityofMissouriPress—regardingtheinvaluableserviceofSandozinseeingthatTheCollectedWorkscametoameaningfulend.InorderforMis-souri’spresstocompletetheworkbegunatLSUPress,fundstosupplementthepurchaseoftheLSUPressvolumeswereprovidedbytheEricVoegelinInstitutethatSandozhadestablished.Inaddition,eachvolumepublishedbyMissourihasbeensubsidizedbytheEricVoegelinInstitute.vii\nviiiBeverlyJarrettWhenonevolumeeditorcouldn’t,foronereasonoranother,completetheeditorialwork,Sandozlocatedanother.Whendeadlinesweren’tmet,Sandozhelpedmovetheworkalong.Whateverstrugglesindividualvolumeeditorscon-fronted,Sandozhelpedtosolvethem—withmoney,coeditors,translators,copyeditors.WeattheUniversityofMissouriPresshavehadthedistinctplea-sureofworkingwithascholarwhobelievedinthevalueofTheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelinandwhohelpedusateverystage.Alwaysoptimistic,neversuc-cumbingtodefeatordelay,Sandozdeservesultimatecreditforoursuccessingettingsomanyimportantbookspublishedexpeditiously,makingthemavail-abletoalargeaudience.InadditiontotheimmeasurableserviceSandozhasprovidedforthesuccess-fulpublicationoftheVoegelinvolumes,hehasbefriendednumerousyoungscholarsinabroadrangeofintellectualinquiry.Heisadedicatedteacher,onewhoexcitesyoungstersastheybegintheirstudies(myeldestgrandson,MatthewJarrettGibson,amongthem).Andhehasaidedmoreadvancedschol-arsastheyproduceddissertationsandlaterworksthatmeritedpublication.Toomanyestablishedscholar/teachersloseinterestinwhatyoungerthinkersaredoing.NotEllisSandoz;hestaysintouchwithnewthinkers—bothhisownstudentsandthosecomingfromotheruniversities.Heencouragesandguidesthemastheylocatepublishinghomesfortheirownwork.TheaccomplishmentsofEllisSandozaseditorandteacherhaveinnowaydiminishedhisownacademicachievements.ThisvolumeofessayshonoringSandozisdividedintothreesections—philosophy,literature,andpolitics—becausethosearethethreelargeareaswithinwhichSandozhasworkedhim-self.HisearlybookonDostoyevskyremainsaclassic.Hismassivecompendium,PoliticalSermonsoftheAmericanFoundingEra,servesthecommunityofschol-arsinvestigatingearlyAmericanhistory,justasAGovernmentofLawspro-videsaprofoundlyknowledgeableinterpretiveinvestigationoftheAmericanfounding.SandozprovidedthefirstandbestintroductiontoEricVoegelinwithhisTheVoegelinianRevolution.AndEllisSandozisstillhardatwork,withanewvolumeon“republicanismandreligion”expectednextyear.ThedistinguishedscholarswhohavecontributedtothisvolumehonoringEllisSandozknowtheyarecelebratingahero.Allofusknowhowlargehavebeenhiscontributionstoacademicdiscourse.ItistheUniversityofMissouriPress’shonortopublishthesetributestoEllisSandoz.Toendonasomewhatpersonalnote,ImustsaythatbutforEllisSandozI’dneverhavebeenintroducedtoEricVoegelin.IwouldnothavehadthejoyofgettingacquaintedwithLissyVoegelin,amagnificentladywhounderstoodherhusbandandhisworkbetterthansomehavegivenhercreditfor.NorwouldIhavecometoknowandrespectthemanyindividualswhohaveedited\nPublisher’sNoteixspecificvolumesinTheCollectedWorksorthosewhosebooksinpoliticalphi-losophycametoMissouribecauseSandozsteeredthemthatway.Allofthesepeoplehaveenrichedmylifeinpublishing,andEllisSandoz,mostespecially,hashelpedmecontinuetoknowhowimportantistheworkofauniversitypress.Anoutstandingphilosopher,literarycritic,studentofpolitics—nottomen-tionasplendidhumanbeing—EllisSandozhasbeenandcontinuestobeascholarwhosegiftsasteacher,student,andfriendmakehimtheverydeservinghonoreeforwhomthisbookwasprepared.Ijointheessayistsincelebratinghisplaceinourlives.BeverlyJarrettP.S.Andhemakesameanjaroffigpreserves!\nThispageintentionallyleftblank\nPrefaceWearepleasedtopresentthissetofessaystoProfessorG.EllisSandoz,HermannMoyseJr.DistinguishedProfessorofPoliticalScienceandfoundingdirectoroftheEricVoegelinInstituteforAmericanRenaissanceStudiesatLouisianaStateUniversity,aninstitutiondevotedtoresearchandpublicationinthefieldsofpoliticalphilosophyandconstitutionalism.HeisanativeofLouisiana,whosefamilyfirstcametothestatein1829fromSwitzerland,andaveteranoftheU.S.MarineCorps.HewaseducatedatLSU,theUniversityofNorthCarolina,Georgetown,Heidelberg,andtheUniversityofMunich,wherehewasthesoleAmericantocompleteadoctorateunderthesupervisionofEricVoegelin.EllisSandozhasplowed,sowed,pruned,andharvestedthegrovesofaca-demeformorethanfortyyears.Hehasservedthreedifferentuniversities—LouisianaTechUniversity,TexasA&MUniversity–Commerce(formerlyEastTexasStateUniversity),andLouisianaStateUniversityinBatonRouge.HeisaspecialistinAmerican,European,andRussianpoliticalphilosophy,andhehaswrittenextensivelyonpublicpolicyfromtheperspectiveprovidedbyhisstudyofthegreatworksinpoliticalscience.Hehasdonehisdutyasadepart-menthead,servedasaleaderontheEditorialBoardforthepublicationoftheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin,raisedfinancialsupportfortheCollectedWorks,theEricVoegelinInstitute,andtheEricVoegelinInstituteSeriesinPoliticalPhilosophy(UniversityofMissouriPress).Mostimportant,hehasencouragedandsupportedtheworkofotherscholars.PresidentRonaldReaganappointedhimtotheNationalCouncilofHuman-itiesin1982forasix-yearterm.In1987hewasappointedbytheBoardofForeignScholarshipsasFulbright40thAnniversaryDistinguishedAmericanScholartorepresenttheUnitedStatesinItalyandtolectureontheAmericanConstitutionduringthebicentennialyear.AftertheVelvetRevolutionin1989heconductedaseriesofconferencesinthenewCzechRepubliconAnglo-Americanconstitutionalism,liberty,andWesternpoliticalphilosophy.Helec-turedaswellinSlovakiaandPoland.Fortheseeducationalactivitiesinthexi\nxiiCharlesR.EmbryandBarryCooperformerEastBloccountrieshewasawardedtheUniversityMedalandRector’sCertificatebyPalackyUniversityatOlomouc,CzechRepublic,andin1995hereceivedanhonorarydoctoratefromPalacky.AmidallthisactivityEllisSandozexecutedasubstantialandvariegatedresearchagenda.Hehasauthoredandeditedmorethanadozenbooks,includ-ingPoliticalApocalypse:AStudyofDostoevsky’sGrandInquisitor;ConceivedinLiberty;AGovernmentofLaws;TheVoegelinianRevolution:ABiographicalIntroduction;andThePoliticsofTruthandOtherUntimelyEssays:TheCrisisofCivicConsciousness.HisworkasgeneraleditorofTheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelindoesnotbegintoindicatetheefforthehasexpendedinanimatingthisenormouspublicationproject.Herecruitededitorsandthenkeptthem,moreorless,toanagreed-upontimetable.Heeditedandintroducedseveralofthevolumeshimself.ItisaltogetherfittingthathewasawardedachairinpoliticalscienceendowedbyHermannMoyseJr.,amemberofthefirstclasstaughtbyEricVoegelinatLSU.Allofusrepresentedinthiscollectionhavebeenbeneficiariesofhissupport,generosity,andfriendship.Wehopethatthiscollectionwillnotonlyacknowledgehismanifoldcontributiontocontempo-rarypoliticalsciencebutgivehimenjoymentinthereadingthereof.EachofushashisorherownstorytotellaboutEllis.Butoneoftheper-quisitesofeditorshipisthatwegettotellourstoriesandhopetheywillstandasexemplaryforothers.CharlesEmbryfirstknewofEllisin1962whileenrolledasahistorymajoratLouisianaTechUniversity.Allhistorymajorswererequiredtotaketwopoliticalsciencecourses:AmericanGovernmentandComparativeEuropeanGovernment(thelattertaughtbyProfessorSandoz).IhadheardthroughthestudentgrapevinethatoneshouldpostponetakingSandozuntiltheeleventhhourbecausehewasimpossiblydifficult.FoolishlyIfollowedthemass.Bythespringof1964theLouisianaLegislaturehadpassedalawthatallcollegestu-dentsmusttakeaone-hourcourseentitled“Americanismvs.Communism,”andEllishadbeenassignedthiscourse.SoasagraduatingseniorIhadmyfirsttwoclasseswithhimatLouisianaTech.Ellislectured(inbothcourses)onpoliticaltheory,testingusbothonhislecturesandontherequiredreadings,whichhedidnotovertlycoverinclass.Hisinspiringlecturesintroducedmebothtotheperennialquestionsthathumansaskandtothewaysinwhichphilosophersandpoliticaltheoristsgrapplewiththesequestions.Neartheendofthesemester,Ellispersuadedmetoentergraduateschoolinpoliticalscience,eventhoughIhadtakenonlytwopoliticalsciencecourses.Itwasnotahardsell.Tohelprectifymylackofworkinpoliticalscience,hesuggestedalistofbooksformetoreadduringthesummerbeforegraduateschoolinthefall.\nPrefacexiiiTherewereeightorsobooksonthelist,includingAristotle,JohnHallowell’stextonpoliticalphilosophy,andtwoofVoegelin’sbooks:TheNewScienceofPoliticsandPlatoandAristotle.IwillalwaysbegratefultoEllisforintroducingmetothegrandtraditionofpoliticalphilosophy,ingeneral,andtotheremark-ableworkofEricVoegelin,inparticular.Whenin1968IwasofferedateachingpositionatEastTexasStateUniversity,whereEllishadbecomeheadofthede-partmentofpoliticalscience,Iwasagaingrateful—thistimetobecomethecolleagueofmymentor.BarryCooperfirstmetEllisSandozinAtlantaatEmoryUniversityin1967whenEricVoegelindeliveredhisWalterTurnerCandlerlectures.Mysuper-visoratDuke,JohnHallowell,suggestedthatitwouldbeasplendidopportu-nitytoseeVoegelininaction.Itwas,thoughIrecollectbeingbaffledatthetimebythesubjectmatterofhistalks,“TheDramaofHumanity.”FortunatelyGregorSebba,hisfriendofmanyyears,organizedaseminarintheafternoonwhileVoegelinnapped,andpeoplewhoactuallyunderstoodVoegelindidtheirbesttoexplainhimtoagroupoftwenty-somethinggraduatestudents.Ellisled.IwasastonishednotsimplywithhiscommandofVoegelin’spoliticalsci-encebutathisabilitytopresentitinawaythatwefoundintelligible.IwasinthepresenceofamasterofSocraticrhetoric.OvertheyearswewouldmeetattheannualAmericanPoliticalScienceAsso-cationmeetings.OnceIrecallluringhimtotheCanadianPoliticalScienceAssociation.Itwasnotuntilthe1980s,withtheestablishmentoftheEricVoegelinSociety,thatwemetregularly.AndthenIdiscoveredthathisgreatestaccom-plishmentwasnothisscholarship,impressivethoughthatremains,butthathewasacrackwingshot.ForseveralyearsduringthefallhevisitedeithertheUniversityofCalgaryortheUniversityofSaskatchewaninSaskatoon,whereJenePortertaughtformanyyears.Hisofficialpurpose,ofcourse,wastoat-tendascholarlyconferenceortodeliverguestlectures.Inaddition,assoonashisdutieswereperformedwewouldrepairtoarusticmotelorhotelinStettler,Alberta,orRoseValley,Saskatchewan,tocommencewhatwecalled“fieldwork.”ThereisamagnificenceaswellasanexcitementthatcomesfromhuddlinginagoosepitasaflightofgreaterCanadageesesettheirwingstoglidetowardyourhidingplace.JustbeforetheylandtheyarethesizeofB-52s.Butthatisnotwhypoliticalscientistshunt.Itisfortheconversation.VisualizedrivingthroughthecoldprairienightwithEllisinapickup,discussingVoegelin’spolit-icalscience.Whatcouldbebetter?AbouttheonlythingcomparableinmyexperienceisdrivingfromhisgooseblindintheLouisianadeltatohuntquailintheTexaspanhandle.\nxivCharlesR.EmbryandBarryCooperMichaelOakeshottusestheimageofaconversationtoexpresswhatisessen-tialconcerningourhumanity.Itisagreatblessingtohavebeenabletocon-versewithEllisonsomany,manyquestionsovertheyears.TheeditorswishtoexpresstheirthankstoCarolynAndres,UniversityofCalgary,whotransformedthemanydifferentessaysintooneuniformtextfortheUniversityofMissouriPress,andtoJulieSchorfheide,copyeditor,forexcel-lentworkinpreparingthisbookforpublication.CharlesEmbryalsowishestothankthefollowingpersonsatTexasA&MUniversity–Commerce,whoinvariouswaysprovidedtimefromteachingdutiesthatpermittedhimtocom-pleteworkonthisproject:PresidentKeithMcFarlandandDr.JoyceScott,provostandvice-presidentforacademicaffairs,forapprovalofmyFacultyDevelopmentLeavegrant;theFacultyDevelopmentLeavecommittee,forrecommendingmyleaveapplicationforapproval;BenDoughty,interimdeanofartsandsciences,forapprovalofreleasetime;PaulLechner,professorandheadofpoliticalscience,forrecommend-ingreleasetimeandforhiscontinualsupportofmyresearchactivities.\nIPhilosophy\nThispageintentionallyleftblank\n1TheTurntowardExistenceasExistenceintheTurnDavidWalshThecrisisofmeaningthathasconfrontedmodernityisinseparablefromthedrivetotechnology.Notonlycannaturenolongerprovideaguidewhenwesubjectittouniversaldominion,buteventhecoherenceofnatureasaconceptbeginstofallapart.Naturemaybethemeansbywhichwedominatenature,buttheboundarybetweenthenaturalandtheartificialcanthenscarcelybemaintained.Allbecomesrawmaterialforhomogenizationandmanipula-tion.Nothingissimplygivenasafixedorpermanentform;everythingisdrawnintotheprocessoftransformation.Thedreamofuniversalmasteryfindsnolimitexceptone.Masterycannotmasteritself.Intheendthevastexpansionofpowerisitselfunmasteredbecauseitisleftwithoutpurposeorguide.Tech-nologyhasnogoal.Butinthisrealizationourphilosophicalreflectionhasatthesametimeilluminatedtheself-limitationofallinstrumentality.Nothingcanreallybeaninstrumentunlessitsomehowservesagoalthatisnotinstru-mental.Justasineachcasetheobjectpursuedisregardedasarelativeend,sotheschemeofinstrumentalityassuchcanonlyfunctionifitisembeddedinanorderofthingsthatlimitsitsexpansion.Theprocesscannotcontinueindefi-nitely.Itisonlyfromtheoverwhelmingpoweroftechnologicaldevelopmentthatwegaintheimpressionofitsomnivorousness.Therealityisthatthewholestructurequicklycrumblesunlessitissustainedbyanorderoflimitsthatdefineandguideit.Formalrationalitymayseemtoexerciseunchallengeddominance,butwithoutasubstanceofendsitfallsapart.Thepursuitofmeansisalwaysstructuredbyends.3\n4DavidWalshCorrelativewiththisphilosophiccritiqueofinstrumentalizationisthegrowthofthealternativebywhichitisjudged.Thestillincompletelyrealizedrevolutioninmodernphilosophyconsistsintheprogressivearticulationofsub-stantivereason.Modernsciencemayhavesucceededbyvirtueofitsrestric-tiontotheworldofphenomena,butmodernphilosophyhascorrespondinglyfounditselfwithinarealitythatitknowsfromwithin.Technologytooisulti-matelyknownfromtheinnerperspectiveofparticipation,andthisinturniswhatenablesourphilosophicalreflectiontoescapetherealmoftechnique.Unlikethesuperficialexpectationthatatechnicalsolutionmaybefoundtoalltheproblemsoftechnology,ourphilosophicalmeditationunfoldsattheheartofthetechnologicalproject.Refusingtobelimitedtotherealmofappearance,thephilosophicalpenetrationoftheunderlyingrealityisanopeningtowardbeingassuch.Itisadisclosureofrealityfromwithin,incontrasttotheillu-sionofdominationfromwithout.Inplaceofthesubjectstandingoveragainstaworldofobjects,weexpandthemeditativeknowledgeofourparticipationwithinexistence.Illusorysuperiorityisreplacedbysubmissiontotruth.Thisistheshiftofperspectivethathasbeenunderwayinmodernphilosophyasitstruggledagainstthesubject-objectmodelwhosedominancehasbeensogreatthatthecountermovementhasscarcelybeennoticed.Toreallycomprehendthefar-reachingimplicationsofthisphilosophicrevo-lution,arevolutionthatdoesindeedreturnustotheverybeginningofphi-losophy,wemustbepreparedtofollowoutthemanythreadsbywhichitisunfolded.Allthatcanbeattemptedhereisasketch,butitcannotbeonlyasketch.Inkeepingwiththeexistentialshiftinphilosophyitselfwecannotavoidanactualbeginning.Philosophycannolongerbetalkedabout;itcanonlybediscussedfromwithin.Anon-philosophicaccountofthemovementofmod-ernphilosophywouldbelikedescribinganeventofwhichwehadnoexperi-ence.Nodoubtmuchusefulinformationcouldbeassembledbysuchastrictlyhistoricalapproach,butitwouldmissthecorethatalonejustifiesattentiontotheperiphery.Philosophycanonlybeunderstoodbyparticipatinginit.Thisisaprinciplethatincreasinglyinformsandidentifiesthephilosophicrevolu-tionofthemodernperiod.Oncewebecomeself-consciousinourdiscourseattentionturnstowardtheconditionsofphilosophicalreflectionitself.Amongtheconditionsthatcannotbeoverleapedistheexistenceofthephilosopherhimself.Itisinthiswaythatphilosophyreturnstoitsclassicalconceptionasawayoflife.Butmerelyrecognizingtheindispensabilityoftheexistentialper-spectivedoesnotmeanthatathinkerwillfullyrecognizetheimplicationsoftheshift.Indeedoneofthepatternswewilldiscernisthatthemodernphilo-sophicrevolutionisoftencharacterizedbythestruggle,notalwayssuccessful,toremaintruetoitself.Ifwearetouncoverthefulldimensionsofthismove-\nTurntowardExistence5mentwecannotremainatthelevelofintellectualformulations.Wemustreachbeyondwhatwassaidtothedynamicofquestioningthatinmanycasesyieldeddevelopmentsneverfullyacknowledgedandsometimesevendistortedbythethinkersthemselves.Giventheinconclusivestateofmuchcontemporaryphilo-sophicaldiscussionthenotionthataunifyingpatternexistsatallisaclaimrequiringjustification.Fornowallwecandoispreparethewaybytakingnoteofthefundamentalconditionforperceivingitsplausibility.Wemustbepreparedtoexistwithinthemodeofphilosophy.Tounderstandthosewhoworkedtowardthisnewwayofconceivingphilosophywemustplaceour-selveswithinthesamedynamic.Wemustbepreparedtophilosophizeaboutphilosophy.Therecognitionofthisnecessityisslowtoemergeinthehistoryofmodernthoughtbutitclearlyantedatestheso-called“existentialists”ofthetwentiethcentury.ApersuasivecasecanbemadethatKantmarksthebeginningofthereturnofphilosophy,moreexplicitlythanwiththeclassicalthinkers,totheprimacyofexistence.TheshiftisproclaimedinKant’sassertionofthesuperi-orityofpracticalreasonforthedisclosureofbeing.1God,theimmortalityofthesoul,andtherealityofhumanfreedomarepostulatesofthemorallife,andKantisverycarefultoemphasizethatthisprovidesnotheoreticalknowledgeoftheirtruth.Sinceallofourknowledgecomesthroughoursensibleintu-itions,thatofwhichwecanhavenoexperiencecanneverbecomeanobjectofknowledge.Thisisthefamousendofmetaphysicsinthesenseofaclaimtoknowentitiesthatexistinsomeabstractrealmapartfromallpossibilityofexperience.KantinauguratestheliberationfromunrealentitiesthatNietzschecontinuestocelebrate.RelieffromtheburdenofunrealityisseenasabreakfromalongimpositiondatingtoPlato.YetaseveryreaderofKantcanrecog-nize,hedoesnottherebyabandonhisconcernwithfaithormetaphysics,forhebringsthemtoadeeperlevel.Thisisnotmerelyahauntingofthepast.BothintoneandinsubstanceKantdisplaysthenewseriousnessaboutgettingattherealtruthofthings,eventotheextentofproclaiminghisownsearchforthepureaprioriofreasontobetheonlyadequatemetaphysics.Whatmakeshimsanguineaboutthepossibilityoftherebybringingaboutafundamentaladvanceinphilosophyishisconvictionthatthecritiqueofpurereason,boththeoret-icalandpractical,putsusintouchwiththethinginitself.Itisrealityknownfromwithin,knowledgeofthenoumenonratherthanthephenomenon.Inreflectingontheaprioriofpurereason,whetherinitstheoreticalorpractical1.ThisisaviewofKantthatisgraduallycomingintofocus.SeeRichardVelkley,Free-domandtheEndofReason:OntheMoralFoundationofKant’sCriticalPhilosophy(Chi-cago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1989).\n6DavidWalshmode,wearenolongerapprehendingtheappearanceofwhatisintendedbutknowitasitis.Thismeansthatwhatisdiscoveredinthisnoumenalreflectionoftheselfonitselfcarrieswithitaforceofrealitythatbreaksthroughthebar-rierofthephenomenal.WestillhavenophenomenalbasisforourassertionsconcerningGod,immortality,orfreedom,butweareprofoundlyconvincedoftheirreality.As“postulates”ofpracticalreason,theyaretheindispensablecontinuitiesfromtherealitythatismostpowerfullyevidentinourownexis-tence.TotheextentthatKantstrugglestoheightenthehumandignitythatrealizesitselfexclusivelythroughtheexerciseofself-responsibility,heatthesametimeintensifiestheawarenessofthedimensionsofrealityintowhichhumanbeingextends.ThisistheexcitementthattookholdofphilosophyinthemovementknownasIdealism.AwholegenerationofthinkerslookedonthecompletionofKant’sphilosophicalrevolutionastheirproject.TheyunderstoodthatKanthadplacedthesubject,thetranscendentalego,atthecenterofrealityandhadtherebyresolvedthegulfthatseemedirresolvablewithinallcorrespondencetheoriesofknowledge.Bymakingknowledgeoftheworldderivefromthesubjecthehadredefinedthenatureoftheproblem.Knowledgenowmeantthecategoriesweimposeonsensibleinstitutions,whichremovesentirelythemysteryofhowtheyconnectuswiththeworldoutsideourselves.Ratherthanconceiveknowl-edgeassomethingthatcomesfromasourceoutside,heshowedthatitisessentiallytheorderweimposeontheworldofourexperience.Thatleft,ofcourse,thegreatproblemoftruth.Ifknowledgeconsistsoftheimpositionofcategoriesondata,howdoweknowifourimpositionistrueinsomesense?Whatdoestruthmeaninthiscontext?ThesearethequestionswithwhichKanthimselfstruggledinhislastgreatcritique,TheCritiqueofJudgment,whichwasthepointofdeparturefortheIdealists.Comprehensionofrealitybymeansofourcategoriesistrueonlyifourreasonisitselfcontinuouswiththestructureofrealityitself.RecoursetoapostulateofteleologyisagainthewayinwhichKantformulatedthisderivation,buttheIdealistsmadetheexis-tentialleaptograspthatthisisnolongeraclaimaboutknowledgebutabouthumanbeing.Ourcategoriescancomprehendreality,notbecausewecanbridgetheseparationofsubjectandobject,butbecauseourbeingisalreadytheunityofthetwo.Humanexistenceisneversimplyafactwithinaworldofotherdiscretefacts,butisalreadythatwhichcanseefactsasfacts.Thewaytounderstandreality,theIdealistsconcludedfromKant,wasnottocontemplateitasawholeoutsideofthesubjectbuttorecognizethatthesubjectwasalreadythewholeorthepointthroughwhichitsself-disclosuretookplacemostcom-pletely.Theysawthatitispracticalreasonthatholdsthekeytotheoreticalreason,andtheyturnedtheirattentiontotheprocessofhistoryinwhichtheself-realizationofmanunfoldsintotheself-disclosureofreality.\nTurntowardExistence7Whenhumanself-consciousnessoccupiedsuchapivotalrole,thetempta-tiontoclaimpossessionofabsoluteknowledgeproved,ofcourse,irresistible.Butthisdistortionshouldnotdevaluethephilosophicshifttowardexistencethatliesbehindit.BeforeHegel’sclaimtoabsoluteknowledgecouldberen-deredplausibletherehadtobethepriorrecognitionofman’sopennesstowardtheabsolute.Itisnotourknowledgethatmakesthisrelationshippossible,butourparticipationintheabsolutemodeofbeingthatmakestheknowledgeofitpossible.Hegelgavevoicetotheturntowardexistenceasthemodeofknow-ingbyhisinsistencethatknowledgecouldnolongerbeapprehendedasaresult.2Propositionshadtobereplacedbythemovementthatcatchestruthasitdisclosesitselfintheunfoldingmovementofreality.Weknowourselves,notbycontemplatingtheselfobjectively,butbytheprocessofself-realization.Truthisinthemovement,neverinthedeadresult.Itisunfortunatethatthisprofoundinsight,whichsoughttorestorephilosophytoitsoriginalunder-standingoftheloveofwisdom,wasovershadowedbythecounterpullwithinHegeltobringthemovementtoitscompletionwithinhissystem.Heisthusthefirstoftheironicexemplarswhoseintentionofcounteringtheobjectifyingtendencyofthoughtissubvertedbyhisowninclinationtocommitthesamemistake.Nevertheless,Hegeldoesstampthehistoryofphilosophywiththediscoveryofitsdynamicquality.Realityisnotafixedconditionbutonethatdisclosesitselfthroughitsmovement.Thisistheturningpointinwhichphi-losophybecomeshistorical.Theentireempiricalcourseofeventsbecomesmaterialforphilosophicreflectionbecauseitisinthisexistentialcoursethatthetruthofbeingemerges.CorrectingfortheHegeliandistortions,whileithastakenmuchofthesucceedingtwocenturies,doesnotentailarejectionofhisfundamentalproject.ItwashiscolleagueSchellingwhofirstseparatedwhatislivingfromwhatisdeadinHegel.Whileneverbringinghisownprojecttoasatisfactoryconclu-sion,Schellingdirectedsingle-mindedattentiontothepointfromwhichhedepartedfromHegel.Itisanissueoffundamentalimportancethatutterlyeliminatesthepossibilityofphilosophycollapsingbackintothedeadnessofasystem,andtherealpointofdepartureforthehistoryofcontemporaryphi-losophy.Schellinghasquiterightlybeenhailedasthesourcebothfortheexis-tentialturnandforthepostmodernemphasisonthedynamic.3Heistheone2.SeeinparticulartheprefacetothePhenomenologyofSpirit.3.AusefulaccountinthisregardisAndrewBowie,SchellingandModernEuropeanPhilosophy(NewYork:Routledge,1993),whileSchelling’sownself-locationisprobablybestindicatedbyhislecturesOntheHistoryofModernPhilosophy,trans.AndrewBowie(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1994).ThecentralityoffreedominSchelling’sthoughtisthecoreofhisrefusalofsystematization.SeehisPhilosophicalInquiriesintotheNatureofHumanFreedom,trans.JamesGutman(LaSalle,IL:OpenCourt,1936).\n8DavidWalshwhoinsiststhatrealityalwaysescapesspeculation.Nomatterhowcomprehen-sivethespeculativegraspmaybeitcannotincludetherealityfromwhichititselfisderived.Assoonasitmakesanattempttoincludethatwhereinititselfstands,ithasmerelyrendereditsowngroundasnolongeritsground,onlythemarkerofwherethegroundhadbeen.Speculationthatattemptstoincludethelivingprocessinwhichitexistsisleftonlywiththedeadremains.Livinglifealwaysescapestheattempttocaptureit;totheextentitiscaptureditisnolongerliving.SchellingunderstoodthatthishadbeenthetragicflawofHegel’stemptationtoyieldtothedefinitivenessofsystem.Existencealwaysliesoutsideofthatwhichithascreated.Philosophymustthereforebowtothisnecessityandconcedethatitcanbenomorethantheloveofwisdom.WhileSchellingdidnotembracethefullexistentialimplicationsofthisrecognition,andtherebyprovedbothaninspirationandadisappointmenttoKierkegaard,hediddem-onstratetheinabilityofspeculationtooverleaptheboundarythatincludesitself.Thebestthatphilosophycoulddothenwastoturntolife,tocatchthedisclosureofbeinginact,andtorespectthenarrativeofmyth,whichisthemodeofdiscourseconcerningwhatisbeyondalldiscourse.Thepriorityofexistentialknowledgeisinescapable.Unliketheconventionalnotionthatwerecognizeourselvesinamirrorbyseeingourreflection,itisdoubtfulthatwewouldknowwhoitisweseethereunlesswehadaprereflec-tiveknowledgeoftheself.Wecannotclaimtohaveseenourselvesbefore,sinceitispreciselythatclaimtoself-recognitionthatisinquestion.Atbesttheimagewecontemplateinthemirrorisonlyanimage.Itisnevertheselfthatdoesthecontemplating,whichremainsradicallybeyondtheboundary.Thisiswhattheinfinitemeans.Itcanneverbefullyunfoldedintoitscreations.Schellingsawthistruthwithablindingclarity,whileHegelperiodicallylostsightofit.WhereHegelallowedthepossibilityofself-consciousnessreachingitsculmination,Schellinginsistedthatthegoalcouldneverbeattained.ThisiswhySchellingcouldinsistthathistorycanneverbereducedtotheinnerdynamicsofcon-sciousness.Thereisalwaystheirreduciblebeyondoftheprocess.Theironicconsequenceisthatthispreserveshistory,whiletheattempttodrawevery-thingintohistoryabolishesit.Nowexistenceisnotmerelyaphaseinthepro-ductionoftheend,butanirreplaceableexpressionofwhatcanneverbefullyexpressed.Historyasthetraceoftheinfiniterendersallexistenceasalumi-noussign.Thepossibilitythathumanconsciousnesscouldcapturethatbywhichitisheldisanutterimpossibility.Onlythemovementofexistentialdis-closure,respondingtotheinvitationofbeing,revealswhatiscontainedfromthebeginning.Schelling’sinsistenceontheunsurpassabilityoftheorderinwhichhumanconsciousnessisembeddedisthepointatwhichtheprimacyofexistentialdisclosureisestablishedwithinmodernphilosophy.\nTurntowardExistence9NotallofthesubsequentturntowardexistencetookitsleadfromSchelling.Muchofthemovementfloweddirectlyfromthereactiontotheself-enclosureoftheHegeliansystem.MarxisthemostfamousamongaverytalentedgroupofYoungHegelianswhosawratherclearlythattheirmasterhadcomprehendedeverythingexceptlifeitself.Thescandalwasthatthegreatculminationofphilosophyhadnoteffectedtheslightestchangeinhowmenlive.Philosophyhadbeenseducedbytheperfectionofthesystem.Nowthetaskwastomakephilosophyrealagainbyengaginginthestruggletotransformtheconditionsinwhichhumanbeingsfoundthemselves.Ratherthanpermittheoreticalrec-onciliationtoconcealtheextentofrealsocialandeconomicconflict,theorymustnowbedirectedtowardtheunremittingdialecticofhistoryitself.Nomorewouldphilosophyallowitselftobeusedasatoolofoppression.Unfor-tunatelyMarxistphilosophyendedbylegitimizingafarmoreextensiveregimeofoppression.Theunmaskingofideologyrecurrentlygiveswaytoamoreextremeideology.Whenphilosophyhasembarkedonanactivistcourse,therelapseintosystematizationcanprovedeadly.Solongastheorysoughtonlyacontemplativetransfigurationofallthings,theresultwasrelativelyharmless.Oncethesamedrivewasmanifestedamongindividualsbentontherealtrans-figurationofrealityweendwiththetotalitariannightmare.Thetheoreticalimpulsetomasterbeingendsintheactivistdrivetoremaketheworld.Butthisperversiondoesnotminimizetheinitialrealizationthattheoryhadfailedtotransformreality.Thetotalitariandebaclesimplyrevealsthatthereisalsonoreasontoexpectrevolutionaryactiontoaccomplishthesamegoal.Wearethrownbackontheonlyrouteoftransformationthatremains.Theindividualcanworkonhimselfandfromtherebegintoeffectsomewidersocialchange.ThisisthepathofMarx’sgreatunknowncontemporary,Kierkegaard,whounderstoodtheproblemsoprofoundlythathehopedhisbookswouldnotbecomepopular.4Iftheydidthentheywouldbesweptupinasocialmove-mentandwouldnolongeraddresstheirrealtarget,thesolitaryindividual.InmanyrespectsKierkegaardhadunderstoodthemodernconditionofphiloso-phymostcompletely.Ithadtoremainaphilosophyofexistence,neitherforget-tingitselfintherealmofconceptsnorimaginingitssuperioritythroughsys-tems.Yetdespitehisuniquepositionand,perhaps,becauseofit,Kierkegaardistheleastunderstoodofmodernphilosophers.Heisfamiliarthroughafewslogansabouttheabsurdandtheleapoffaithwhich,whenoneactuallyreadshim,onefailstorecognize.Eventheubiquitousthreestagesturnoutnotto4.Kierkegaard,Appendix,“AnUnderstandingwiththeReader,”inConcludingUnscien-tificPostscripttoPhilosophicalFragments,ed.andtrans.HowardandEdnaHong(Prince-ton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1992).\n10DavidWalshfunctionassuchwithinhisthought.WhatKierkegaardfearedinhiscultivatedobscurityhasindeedhappenedtohim.Bybecomingpopularhehasbecomemisunderstood.Thefirstwaveofthatpopularitywashisidentificationwiththetwentieth-centuryexistentialists.Oncesuchamovementhastakenshapeitisinevitablethatitsmembers,includingitsputativeantecedentslikeKierke-gaard,areallreworkedtofitthemold.Whattheyactuallysaidbecomesfarlessimportant.ThishascertainlybeenthefateofthepseudonymousDanewhosestrategyofpublishingunderothernameswasintendedtowarnofthedifficultyofunderstandingexistentialphilosophy.Onlynowwiththepassageoftimehashebeguntobereadmorecarefullyandinhisownright.Theresulthasbeenarenewedappreciationofhisstatusasathinkerthathasplacedhimattheverycenterofthepostmoderndebate.ThefailuretorecognizethefullmeasureofKierkegaard’sachievementcuriouslybeginswithKierkgaardhimself.Hisownfocusontheexistential,onthestruggleoftheindividualtolivethelifeoffidelity,tendedtoforgettheim-plicationsofthisnewapproachforphilosophy.SocratesandJesusbothfigureprominentlyinhiswritings,butthenotionthathewassettingbothphilosophyandChristianityonthecourseofrenewingtheirfoundationsemergedonlyoccasionally.Kierkegaardwouldnodoubthaveseensuchaperspectiveasatemptationawayfromhisexistentialtask.Tothisextent,however,onemightsaythathedidnotfullyunderstandhisrole.Itwasnotsimplytobecomeabetterperson;thatcouldhavebeenaccomplishedwithoutallthevoluminouswrit-ings.Itwassurelytochartapathofmeaningwithinthemodernworld,wherethehistoricalsymbolsofphilosophyandChristianityhadbecomeopaqueandmodernmenseemedcapableofonlyconstructingevermorehorrificschemesofinstrumentalization.Kierkegaardcanrightlyberegardedasthefirstpost-modernthinkerbecauseheisthefirsttotakeupthechallengeofmeaninginacontextwhereallmeaninghascollapsed.Heknowsthatalltalkoffindingabeginningisnotonlyinterminablebutismerelyawayofdeferringabeginning.Thereisnobeginningfordiscourseoractionbecausewehavealreadybegun.Weareinexistence.Ourtaskistoremainfaithfultothetruththatdisclosesit-selfwithintheprocessandresistthepullofuntruth.Amongthelatteristhetemptationtocontroltheprocessinwhichwefindourselves,tomakeitinstru-mentaltoourownpurposesratherthantosubmittoitsexigencies.Commu-nicationaboutthisconditionisitselfoneofthevariantsofthetemptation.Bytalkingweavoiddoing.Howcanwetalkaboutlivingwithoutsidesteppingwhatwewanttocommunicate?Howdowecommunicatethatwhichcannotbecommunicated,whichcanonlybeshown,butreallyonlydiscovered?Apro-foundunderstandingoflanguageliesbehindKierkegaard’sextensiverumina-tionsonhowonetalksaboutChristianitywithinasocietyofChristians.\nTurntowardExistence11Theattempttoseizeexistenceontherunisalsowhatanimatedtheothergreatnineteenth-centuryloner,FriedrichNietzsche.ItiswellknownthatNietz-scheexaltslifeoveritsconceptualization.HeabandonedartintheWagneriansensebecause,althoughitbroughtusclosertoheroiclife,ittooservedonlyasanotherformofescape.Ifhewasgoingtoarriveattruthitwouldhavetobebylivingit.ForthisreasonhisZarathustracanneverbeanymorethanabridgetowardthegoalthatliesbeyondallwriting.Thebestthatliteraturecancaptureistheradiancefromlife,andforthisNietzschedevelopedtheaphoris-ticstyle.Wemightviewhim,therefore,notasthetheoristofnihilismbywhichheisconventionallyidentified,but(asheviewedhimself)thefirstEuropeantohavegonebeyondnihilism.ThetorturedqualityofhisthoughtarisesasmuchfromNietzsche’sowninabilitytounderstandthenoveltyofhisprojectasfromthefailuretobreakthroughtheboundaryoftheself.Nietzscheisleftrailingagainsttruthintheobjectivistsensewhileunabletorecognizehisownachieve-mentoftruthintheexistentialsense.Itisbecausehecannotbringthetensionbetweenthemtoanyresolutionthathesufferstheconflictsointenselyandbe-comes,asaconsequence,theparadigmaticfigureofmodernandpostmodernphilosophy.Inretrospectwecansee,asHeideggerobserves,thatNietzschehadthoughtthroughametaphysicsbeyondmetaphysics.5ThedeathofGodhadneverreallymeantthedeathofGod.Itonlymeantthataspatiallyimagineddivinitywasnolongercredible,notthatNietzschehimselfwasnolongerheldbyamysteriousfullnessoflife.Indeeditisthecontrastbetweenthedenunci-ationoftruthandthelivingcommitmenttotruththatatteststheutterlyexis-tentialcharacterofhisfaith,afaiththatwouldnotevenpermititselfthelux-uryofacknowledgingitself.Thesamefearofbetrayingtheexistentialquestmarkstheunremittingstrug-gleofHeideggertounfoldtheNietzscheanproject.Itisalsouncleartowhatextenttheobstaclesareself-created,towhatextenttheveryintensityofthebattleeachofthemwagesforfidelitytotheluminosityofexistencemasksanunwillingnesstofollowthefulllogicofopennesstowhichtheyhavecommittedthemselves.Thisinscrutabilityhasmadebothofthemnotoriouslydifficulttointerpret.Butinanothersensesuchcontestedinterpretationsremainbesidethepoint.Ifwehavelearntanythingfromeitherofthemitisthatthevalueofathinkerisnotdefinedbywhereheendsup.Itiswherehisthoughtleads.Thisisforustheprimaryconcern,althoughitcanbeexpectedthatextendingthedirectioninwhichtheymovewillprovideauniquevantagepointforanoverallassessmentofwhattheyaccomplished.Itmayindeedturnoutthatit5.Heidegger,Nietzsche,vols.1–4,trans.DavidFarrellKrell(SanFrancisco:HarperSanFrancisco,1979–1987).\n12DavidWalshwasthetenacityoftheirblindspotsthataccountsforthedepthofthestruggleinwhichtheyarticulatedtheexistentialexigencyoftruth.Athinkerwithfewerpersonalhangupswhoreachedthegoalofexistentialdisclosuremoreeasilymighthavebeenlessusefultous.Inphilosophytheresultsarebestwhentheydonotcomereadily.Thosewhopresentthemselvestouswithalloftheiroftenhorribleflawsnotonlycompelthemselvestowrestlewiththeblockagesbut,moreimportant,imposeonustheobligationofextendingtheirthoughtintoregionstheywerethemselvesnotalwayspreparedtogo.Thismustsurelybeourattitudetowardthegreatflawedgeniusoftwentieth-centuryphilosophy.Likeitornot,Heidegger’stoweringpresencearisesfromhisextendedmeditationonwhatphilosophymustbewhenithasdefinitivelyadoptedtheoriginaryperspectiveofexistence.Eveninhisearlier“existential-ist”phaseHeideggershiedawayfromthelabel,knowingthatitstillpreservedtoomuchoftheisolatedsubjectforwhomthewholeofbeingcouldbecomeanobject.Heideggercontinuouslyworkedtoeliminateanysuchsuggestionofsubjectivityfromhisthought.ItwasatthecoreofhisfamousturnfromtheexistentialphenomenologyofBeingandTimetothemeditativeopeningtowardBeingthatmadeallreflectionpossible.ItwasthetruthofBeing,ratherthantheintentionalityofthesubject,thatmadehumanknowledgeandexistencepossible.BeingandTimecouldstillsuggestaself-containedsubjectwhomustanxiouslyprojectordecidethemeaningofitsexistencewithoutresorttoanydisclosurebeyondtheself.Later,Heideggercametoseethateventheself-contemplatingsubjectwasneverlockedwithinitself.FromtheverybeginningitstoodwithintheopeningofBeingthatmadeallcontemplationpossible.Inorderforustobecomeconsciousofanythingwemustfirstbeabletothinkaboutitassuch,thatis,asstandinginthelightofBeing.Notonlydoesevery-thingthatexistsparticipateinbeing,withoutbeingBeing,butitisthatrelation-shipthatenablesustoknowwhatexists,aswhatisinbeing.Humanbeingenjoysthespecialprivilegenotonlyofparticipatinginbeingbutofseeingthatitdoesso.Fromthisallofthespecialfeaturesofhumanexistencefollow.Animalsmayliveintheworld,existintime,andendindeath,butitisonlyformanthattheworld,time,anddeathexist.HealoneconfrontsthemassuchbecausehealonebeholdstheminthelightofBeing.6ButthisdoesnotmeanthatmancontainsorcomprehendsthelightofBeing.HeideggermightilyopposesthetendencytoobjectifyBeing,whichheregardsasthefatalmisstepwithinthehistoryofphilosophy,aderailmentthatbegins6.Heidegger,TheFundamentalConceptsofMetaphysics,trans.WilliamMcNeillandNicholasWalker(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1995),onthepovertyoftheanimals’world.\nTurntowardExistence13almostassoonasthedifferencebetweenBeingandbeingsisfirstencoun-tered.Themodernrevolutionistoreturntothatfirstmomentwithanewself-consciousnessoftheimperativeofresistingtheassimilationofBeingtobeings.Thisso-called“ontologicaldifference”becomesthecoreofHeidegger’sproject.Inthiswayhesoughttomakethemodernshiftfromintentionalitytoluminositydefinitive.Notonlywouldphilosophynotreverttoanobjectivistmetaphysics,butthemoderncrisisofmeaningwouldhavereachedadecisiveturningpoint.Theenthronementofinstrumentalrationality,asconfirmedbythetechnologicalsuccessofthecontemporaryworld,wouldnolongerprevailunchecked.Man’scapacitytodominaterealitywouldbeseenasitselfdependentontheprioropennesstowardBeingthatenableshimtocontemplatethingsastheyare.Thegreatproblem,offurnishingtheregimeofinstrumentalizationwithanendthatwouldnotitselfbeinstrumentalized,hadbeensolved.Being,inHeidegger’sarticulation,couldneverbeabsorbedintothestreamofbeingsavailableformanipulationandcontrolbecauseitwasitselfwhatmadesuchprocessespossible.Technologicalrationalityisitselfamodeofbeing,anditisthehistoryofman’sengagementwithBeingthatisbeingrealizedwithinthismodernmanifestation.Historyis,inthissense,notthehistoryofmanbutthehistoryofBeinginwhichmanisthepointatwhichtheprocessbecomesself-conscious.HegelhadmadethemistakeofclaimingthatBeingitselfhadbecomeself-conscious,butHeideggerunderstoodthatitisonlytheparticipationofbeingsinBeingthatreachesluminosity.Beingitselfcannotbecomeself-consciousbecauseitcannotbeinthemodeofabeing.ThisiswhatturnsHeideggeragainstallformsofonto-theologythatassimilateBeingtoGod.OfcoursethisdoesnotmeanthatHeideggerwasanatheist.Hecouldmoreaccuratelybedescribed,asheoccasionallyadmitted,asanegativetheologian.7OutoffaithfulnesstoGod,wemightsay,herefusestonamehim.IfBeingisthatinthelightofwhicheverythingelseisseen,thenBeingitselfcannotbeilluminated.Beingiswhatbringsbeingsintounconceal-mentbutremainsitselfinconcealment;otherwiseitwouldbecomeabeing.Heideggerresolutelystrugglesagainsttheconventionalunderstandingofreve-lationbecausehesoughttounderstandhowthetranscendentcouldbeknownastranscendentonceithadbeenmediatedbytheimmanent.HowcanBeingberevealedthroughabeing?Beingiswhatcanneverberevealednomatterhowmanybeingscomeforwardtodiscloseit.Sohowthendoweknowabout7.HeideggerappearstobeunderlininghisagreementwithNietzschewhenheremarks:“WhatNietzscheispracticingherewithregardtotheworldtotalityisakindof‘negativetheology,’whichtriestograsptheAbsoluteaspurelyaspossiblebyholdingatadistanceall‘relative’determinations,thatisallthosethatrelatetohumanbeings.”Nietzsche,2:95.\n14DavidWalshBeingatall?OurknowledgederivesfromthetraceofBeingthatremainsinbeings,fortheypointbeyondthemselves.Onlyinman,however,doesthisdirectionalitybecomeknowledge.Healonenotonlypointsbutisawareofit.ItisforthisreasonthatmanplaysaspecialroleinrelationtoBeing.Heisthe“shepherd”or“guardian”ofBeingbecauseitisonlyinhimthatBeingisdis-closedandnowhereelseinexistence.Allotherbeingsprovideamutetesta-menttoBeing,thatbywhichtheyaredisclosed,butonlymancangivevoicetothatawarenessthroughlanguage.Thisspecialrelationship,however,isnotmadepossiblebecausemanhasthecapacityforarticulation;rather,hehasthecapacityforspeakingbecauseofhisrelationshipwithBeing.ThisisapointthatHeideggerstruggledmightilytomakeclearashesoughttocompletetheshiftfromaself-containedsubjecttoasubjectalreadyconstitutedbyitsopennesstowardBeing.ThequestionofBeingcannotbeseparatedfromthequestionofman.Inhisexplorationofthedynamicsofrevelation,Heideggershows,the“revela-tion”ofBeingispossibleonlybecausemanisalreadyconstitutedbythereve-lationofBeingfromthebeginning.ProblemsariseforHeideggerwemightsaybecauseoftheveryrelentlessnessofhispursuitofrevelationintheoriginarysense.HecannotabideanyofthestoppingpointsalongthewayinwhatJudaismorChristianitycallrevelation.Noneofthesesatisfytherequirementthatrevelationmustbenditseffortstowardwhatcannotberevealed.Theresultisanintoxicatinganddisorientingpursuitofwhatcannotbereached.InthenameofsustainingatensionthatisunsustainableHeideggerlosesallpointsofreferencewithinexistence.Hisnotoriouspoliticalmisjudgmentsarenotthecauseofthis;theyareitssymptom.Nordotheblundersrepresentonlyanoccasionallapse.Theyseemtoformapatternthathisbestcriticshavediscernedasthebetrayalofhisownfundamentalimpulse.ItseemsasiftherefusalofallintermediariesmakesthetensiontowardarevelationofBeingthatcannotberevealedsounsupportablethatitcollapsesintosomeintramundanemanifes-tationsasanalltoowelcomesubstitute.Thedangerofapocalypticthinkingisthatittendstowardvariousformsofanimmanentapocalypse.Itisforthisreason,Heidegger’scriticshavesuggested,thatallofhisstricturesagainstthemetaphysicsofpresencehavenotbeenenoughtopreventhimfromfallingvictimtothesametendency.8TheBeingthatliesperpetuallybeyonddisclo-sureisincreasinglyburdenedwiththeexpectationofitsdisclosure.Oncethatpressurehasmountedthedangerofoptingforasubstitutebecomesalmostirresistible.8.JacquesDerrida,OfSpirit:HeideggerandtheQuestion,trans.GeoffreyBenningtonandRachelBowlby(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1989).\nTurntowardExistence15ThescandalofHeidegger’sdalliancewithNazismhasbeenthemostno-toriouscase.Apocalypticthinkingveersprecipitouslyclosetothepseudo-apocalypse.ThefactthataHeideggerwasrepeatedlypreparedtoruntherisksayssomethingabouttheholdofsuchthinkingonthemodernimagination.Inmanywaysthestyleofimmanentapocalypsecanbeseenastheculmina-tionofthemoderndriveformastery.What,afterall,couldbemoregratifyingthantobetheindividualorthegenerationthatextendsitscontroloverrealitytotally?Behindtheurgefortechnicalcontrollurksthedreamofcomprehen-sivedomination.Theimpulsecanbesooverwhelmingthatitblocksoutallotherconsiderations,includingtherealizationthattheachievementoftotalcontrolabolishesanyfurthertechnologicalprogress.Awillingnesstoobliter-atetheveryprocessfromwhichscienceitselfhasderivedismirroredinthewillingnesstoobliteratetheplanetinthenameofthefinaltransfigurationofallthings.WhatisfascinatingaboutHeidegger’scaseisnotthebanalityofevilintowhichhewasdrawnbutthefactthathewassusceptibletothelureofthefalseapocalypsedespitethecontraryimplicationsofhisownthought.Publicattentionhasnaturallybeendrawntothespectacleofhisastonishingpoliticalcollaborationwiththeworsttotalitarianregimeofthecentury,asifonemoretaleofhumanwickednesswouldsomehowinsulateusfromtheenormityoftheevents.ThechallengebycontrastistounderstandhowamanlikeHeideg-gercouldyield,indeedcheer,theadventofevildespitehisownabilitytounmaskit.ItissurelynotourplacetositinjudgmentonHeidegger,sincewearenotprivytohissoul.Wedo,however,haveaccesstohisthought,wherethetaskismorestraightforward.Itistounderstandhowevenaphilosophicmindthatstrainsagainsttheclosureofexistencecanneverthelesssuccumbtopre-ciselythesametemptation.HowwasitpossibleforHeideggertoperceivetheparousiaofBeinginthebeingsoftheThirdReich?ThejournalisticsideofphilosophyhasbeenpreoccupiedperiodicallywithHeidegger’sfailureasaman.9Philosophyitselfhasalwaysneededtopursuethemoreindispensablequestionofthefailureofhisphilosophy,forthereitisourhumanitythatisatstake.IfHeideggerrepresentsthelimitofphilosophywehavetoaskwhetheritissufficientforthetaskithassetitself.IsthecaseofHeideggermerelythefailureofthemanorisphilosophyitselfimplicated?Thisisthequestionwithwhichphilosophyhaswrestledincreasinglyasithascometorecognizethestatureofhisachievement.Itwouldhardlybeanexaggera-tiontosaythathehascarriedthemodernphilosophicrevolutionthefurthest.Theshiftfromsubjectivitydominatingaworldofobjectstotheluminosityof9.AusefulupdatedaccountisRüdigerSafranski,MartinHeidegger:BetweenGoodandEvil,trans.EwaldOsers(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1998).\n16DavidWalshexistencethatneversucceedsingroundingitselfhasbeenbroughttoitsfullestrealizationinhisthought.Manyothershavemadetheleapintuitively,butHei-degger,perhapsbydintoftheobstinacyofhisstrugglewithobjectification,hasmadethetransitiontotheperspectiveofparticipationinescapablyarticu-late.Thisiswhyheisthedefiningphilosophicmindofthecentury.Withoutdisplayinganextensiverangeofphilosophicinterests,Heideggerhasneverthe-lesscompelledustorecognizethenecessityofmovingfromthecontempla-tionofrealitytotherealityofcontemplation.Priortoallknowledgethereistheexistencethatthereforecanneverbefullyknownbutcanbecomelumi-nous.HowthenwasitpossibleforHeideggertofallbackintotheclaimoftheprimacyofknowledge?Ifwetakeseriouslythedirectiononwhichhehadsetphilosophythenwemusttakeequallyseriouslythenecessityofpreservingphi-losophyfromthepitfallsintowhichphilosopherstoomayfall.InsteadofsimplydismissingHeideggerasa“historicist”ora“decisionist,”themostacutereadershaveacknowledgedthenecessityofgoingbeyondhimbygoingthroughhim.TheissuebecomesthatofcarryingHeidegger’sprojectbeyondhimselfbymountingacritiquefromwithin.Inthiswaythetransfor-mationofphilosophythathadbeenunderwayiscarriedforwardbyarguingthatHeideggerhadnotbeenHeideggerianenough.ThisiswhytheleadingpostmodernthinkersarebothundertheshadowofHeideggerandhismostvigorouscritics.Theytakehimtotaskforcapitulating,despitehisprotesta-tions,toanimmanentapocalypse.HistalkoftheconcealmentofBeingthatmakesallunconcealmentortruthpossiblestillsuggeststheparousiaofBeing.Inpartthisisaninevitableconsequenceofthelanguageheemploys,whichisstillverymuchtiedtoametaphysicsofpresence,asifanobjectwerepresentbeforethesubject.Forallofhiseffortstoresistsubjectivity,Heideggerstillthinksofphilosophyinacontemplativemodethatprivilegestheperspectiveofthecontemplator,whoisthusoutsideofBeing.TheconsequencewasnotonlythetilttowardtheintramundaneapocalypseofNationalSocialism,butthemoreprofoundclosuretowardexistenceoncethetensiontowardBeinghadbeenabolished.Whentheeschatonisdrawnintotimethereisnomorepossi-bility.Existenceisclosedbyitscompletion.ThistotalizingtendencyofevenHeideggerisperceptivelydiscernedbyLévinasandDerrida,bothofwhomintheirrespectivewaysinsistonanon-attainableeschatonastheonlyadequatehorizonforhumanity.Whatan“apocalypsewithoutapocalypse”meansinitsspecificsmaynotalwaysbeclearfromtheirformulations,butitdoesmarkadefinitiveturnawayfromanypossibilityofrevelation.Theapophaticqualityofthisorientationhasoftenbeenviewedasmerelyinscrutablerhetoric.Suchanaccusation,however,missesthecrucialadvance\nTurntowardExistence17thatathinkerlikeLévinasintroducesintothetheoreticalcomplexdelineatedbyHeidegger.Lévinasrepresentsashifttowardamoredecisivelyexistentialperspective.WhereHeideggerhadusedtheexistentialemphasisasastartingpointforaphilosophicmeditationthatultimatelyremainedcontemplative,Lévinasinsiststhattheextractionofacontemplativefruitconstitutesabetrayaloftheexistentialimpulse.Hisfamousformulationthatheisprioritizingethicsoverontologycapturestheessenceofthemove.Lévinasleavesthephiloso-phernoroomforrelaxation.Thereisneveramomentofescapeinwhichhewouldbefreetocalculateorcontemplate,becausethereisneverapointatwhichthedebtofmoralobligationhasbeensatisfied.Whereverweconstructacompoundofprivacythefaceoftheotherisalreadytherebeforeus.Respon-sibilitytowardtheotheristheconditionofourexistencethatcanneitherbeabandonednorabolished.Philosophybecomesthereforenotadisclosureofexistence;butratherexistenceisitselfthedisclosureofphilosophy.Thereisnoindependentmodeofphilosophyapartfromtheimperativeoflivingouttheimperativesofourmorallife.Lévinasthusbringstheturntowardexistencetoitscompletionbyshowingthatamerelytheoreticphilosophyhasbecomeimpossible.Itisnoaccidentthatthecontemplativemodehasderailedintothetotalizing,becauseithasturneditsbackontheprimordialstructurethatistherebeforeallpossibilityofstructure.Inthissenseweneverfindwhatwearelookingforinphilosophy,accordingtoLévinas,butarealwaysonthewaytowardit.Eventhewaycannotbehypostasizedbecausethenitwouldceasetobethewayandbecomeareststop.10ToaccuseHeideggerofsuchreificationmaybeabitdisingenuoussinceheistheonewhomostemphasizesthedynamiccharacterofphilosophy,butthecri-tiquedoescallattentiontothedifficultyofmaintainingthepurityoftheevent.IfevenHeideggercouldendbytiltingtowardanexternalperspectiveonitthenthedangerofdominatingtheotherisveryreal.Lévinasfindsacrucialsafe-guardagainstthistendencybygoingbehinddominationitself.Thepossibilityofdominationarisesfromitsimpossibility.Wecandominatetheotheronlybecausewearealreadyinarelationofresponsibilitytowardhim;wecanturnourbacksonthepersonwhocallsusbyturningawayfromtheface.Whatwecannotdoiseliminatetherelationthatmakesdominationpossible.Withoutthepriorityofthefaceoftheother,placingusunderobligationbeforeall10.Thisisalineofreflectiondevelopedinhistwogreatworks,TotalityandInfinity,trans.AlphonsoLingis(Pittsburgh:DuquesneUniversityPress,1969),andOtherwisethanBeingorBeyondEssence,trans.AlphonsoLingis(Pittsburgh:DuquesneUniversityPress,1998).\n18DavidWalshfreedom,therewouldnotbethepossibilityofrejection.Lévinashasthoughtthroughtheprimordialcharacteroftranscendenceinawaythatismoreorig-inarythanHeidegger’sexplorations.WhereHeideggerhadsoughttheopennesstowardBeingbygoingthroughbeings,LévinasfocusedonthebeingoftheotherasthemovementbeyondBeing.Nowitmaybethatthedifferencebetweenthemisnotlarge,anditmayturnoutthatLévinas’s“otherwisethanBeing”overlapswithHeidegger’s“Be-ingbeyondbeings,”butthedynamicofresponsibilitytowardtheothermoreadequatelymarkstheexistentialcharacterofthedisclosure.LévinaseliminatesthepossibilitythatwemightwithdrawtoaviewpointoutsideofBeingbyiden-tifyingtherelationshipasoneofresponsibility.Wearealreadycalledtoactonbehalfoftheotherbeforewecaneventhinkofwhoweare.Thereisnoselfthatispriortotherelationtotheother.Itistheunsurpassabilityofthisrelationshipthatmakesitimpossiblefordominationtosucceed.Wecannevergetbacktothepointatwhichtheselfexistsinsplendidisolation,asiftherecouldbeamomentatwhichthedemandoftheotherceasedtobe.Isiteverpossibletomaintainwehavegivenenough?Surely“enough”ismeasuredbytheneedoftheotherratherthanourinclina-tionorcapacityforsacrifice.Beforeandbeyondanystatefromwhichdomi-nationcouldbeimposedthereisthefaceoftheother.Weareneverfreetodominate.Thatrealization,however,isnotreachedfromwithinsomeinde-pendentperspective,itselfsuggestingasuperiorstartingpoint.Ourinvolve-mentisratherdisclosedwithinthemovementinwhichwearealreadyengaged.Existence,inwhichwearealreadyrelatedthroughthefaceoftheother,willnotleaveusalone.ThevantagepointoftheoryonwhichWesternmetaphysicshasbeenbasedformorethantwomillenniaispermanentlydisplaced.Nohigherviewpointisavailablethanthetruthofethicsthat,asAristotleempha-sized,takespriorityoverallgeneralpropositions.ThisisalsotheculminationofHeidegger’sresistancetoallformsofthemetaphysicsofpresence.BeingasLévinasconceivesitisnothingatalllikeapresencebutisratherwhatdrawsusintopresence.Wedonotbeholdarealitybeforeusbutareourselvesbroughtintoafullerrealitythanweare.Luminositydoesnotprecedeourexistencebutisitsunfoldingdirection.TheefforttoreverseapatternofthoughtthatassimilatesBeingtobeingsorthatremainstiedtoaworldofobjectsisinlargemeasureastruggleagainstlanguage.Metaphoristhetrapthatlanguagesetsforus.PerhapsnoonehasdevotedmoreattentiontotheconstrictionsoflanguagethanJacquesDerrida.Inmanyrespectshispreoccupationwiththelimitsofsemiologycanbeviewedasacontinuationofthecritiqueofametaphysicsofpresenceonwhichtheconventionalconceptionoflanguageisbased.Namingisthepreeminent\nTurntowardExistence19modelfromwhichthismisdirectionoriginates,fornothingseemsmoreobvi-ousthanthatdenominationisawayofmakingpresentthatwhichisnot.Iteasilymisleadsusintothinkingthatthemerepracticeofnamingconjurestherealitytowhichitrefers,ratherthanmerelyrepresentingwhatcannolongerpresentitself.Thecritiqueoflanguage,especiallyoftheprivilegethatthespo-kenwordalwaysseemstoexerciseoverthewrittenone,isacontinuationoftheassaultontheobjectificationofBeing.DerridatakesovertheindicationsofHeideggerandLévinaswhilegivingtheirexistentialshiftanessentiallylin-guisticapplication.Thisisnomeresidetrackbutanessentialcompletionoftheprojectofremovingthecentralityoftheall-seeingsubject.Withoutthelinguis-ticinstrumentsofitsdominationofrealitythesubjectisleftforlorn,longingforapresencethatitcannolongermakerealbecausetheverymeansofitscontrolhavebetrayedit.Derridashowsthatlanguage,farfromdeliveringonitspromiseofmakingpresentwhatisabsent,isitselfaresponsetotheprob-lemofabsence.Nounscannotprovidethesecurityweseek,forweareadriftinaseaofverbsandadverbsthatmovesusalong.ThefinalchapterforthedislocatedsubjectissurelyprovidedbyDerrida’sanalysisoftheincapacityoflanguagetorefertowhatwethoughtitrefers.Inplaceofreferenceheemphasizesdifférance,aneologismthatcombinesthesensesofdifferenceanddeferral.11Thattowhichlanguagerefersisbothdifferentfromitanddeferredbyitatthesametime.Thisfailureofintention-alitytoachieveitsobjectisnot,however,asheernegative,foritalsoopensupthespaceforelaboration.Withoutthegapbetweensignifierandsignifiedtherewould,accordingtoDerrida,hardlyberoomforanunfoldingofthelanguagerelationshipwithinreality.Iftheprojectofdefinitionhadsucceeded,thendis-cussionwouldcease.AbsoluteknowledgeintheHegeliansensehastheperverseconsequenceofterminatingthesearchforknowledge,andwithoutthesearchforknowledgewenolongeractuallyknow.Derridathusemphasizesthepenul-timatecharacteroflanguageastheindispensableopennessthatmakesthesearchforknowledgepossible.Ofcoursemanyreadershaveconcludedthatherendersallknowledgeultimatelyinconclusive.Hisownstyleofreflectionoftensuggestsaninterminabledigressivenessthathascometotypify“post-modern”thought,althoughthisissurelyamisimpression.ItwouldbemoreaccuratetosaythatDerrida’smainconcernhadbeenwithpreservingthespaceforsignificationevenatthecostofdevaluingitsprovisionalcharacter.The11.JacquesDerrida,MarginsofPhilosophy,trans.AlanBass(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1982);WritingandDifference,trans.AlanBass(Chicago:UniversityofChi-cagoPress,1978);OfGrammatology,trans.GayatriChakravortySpivak(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1974).\n20DavidWalshdifficulty,asmanycommentatorshavenoted,isthathehadtouselanguageinordertodiscussthelimitsoflanguage.Howcouldherefertoanabsenceinthelanguageofpresence?Hisprojectwouldhavebeenbetterservedifhehaddis-tinguishedmoreclearlybetweentheordinarycontextoflanguagethatreferstotheworldofobjectsandtheexistentialcontextinwhichthatordinaryuseoccurs.Thedifficultyisatthispointalong-standingoneinthehistoryofmod-ernphilosophyandisattheheartofthereorientationonwhichithasbeenengaged.Derrida’sworkisonemoreaspectofthemultifacetedshiftfromintentionalitytoluminosity.Thecentralissuemaybeidentifiedastheabsencethatmakesallmovementtowardpresencepossiblebutwhichisitselfneitheranabsencenorapresence.InhislaterworkDerridausedthelanguageofreligionasthemostsuitablemodeofdiscourse.Hehadalwaysalludedtothetheologicalparallelswithde-construction,declaringthatitwasaformofnegativetheology,butinthelateworkheadoptedthefull-blownlanguageofrevelation.Messianic,apocalyp-tic,andeschatologicalvocabulariesfigureprominentlyinhisthoughttosuchanextentthathemightberegardedasareligiousthinker.Thisisastrangeturnforathinkerwhoacknowledgedthathewasnotquiteabeliever,althoughcer-tainlynotadisbeliever.HiswasareligionwithoutGod,anapocalypsewith-outapocalypsethatwasmorethanasubstitutionalpiety.ItisanattitudethatariseswhenGodisnolongerbelievableasaprojectionofspatio-temporalimagination,yetremainsindispensableastheassuranceofpossibilitybyvirtueofitsimpossibility.12Withouttheunreachablehorizonoftranscendencethemovementofdifférancecouldnotevenbegin,butifthedivinewerereachedthemovementcouldnolongercontinue.Derridahimselfremainedpuzzledbythestatusofhisfaith,andweseeinthisbewildermenttheincompletelyunder-stoodcharacteroftheexistentialturninphilosophy.Evenathinkerofhistheo-reticalacuitycouldnotadequatelylocatehisprojectsolongasheremainedtiedtotheunderstandingofpresenceasobjective.Hisrailingagainstobjectivesignificationdidnotsavehimfromcaptivationbythesamemodel.Derridahaddifficultyconceivingofapleromaticmodeofpresence,thatis,ofapresencethatissocompletethatitdrawsallelseintopresenceandcannotthereforebeoneofthethingsthatbecomepresent.Wecannotknowaboutitasanobjectoutthere.Ratherwearealreadyconstitutedbyitspullbeforeweevenbegintosearchforit.Wearetheoneswhoaredifferedanddeferreduntil12.JacquesDerrida,ActsofReligion,ed.GilAnidjar(NewYork:Routledge,2002);TheGiftofDeath,trans.DavidWills(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1995).ForagoodoverviewofthisphaseofDerrida’sprolificdevelopmentseeJohnCaputo,ThePrayersandTearsofJacquesDerrida:ReligionwithoutReligion(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1997).\nTurntowardExistence21wehavebeguntoattuneourexistencetowarditsluminosity.Itisnotabsent;weare.Thisisthemeditativeunfoldingarticulatedbythefirstexistentialist,SaintAugustine.HisdevelopmentofthelanguageofinterioritywasinresponsetothediscoverythathehadfoundhimselfonlywhenhefoundhimselfinGod.Theprocessdidnotconsistofthesubjectturninghislightinward,althoughitprovidedthelanguageofintrospection,butofrealizingthattheinteriorityinwhichhewascontainedwasnothisown.“Whereelse,then,didIfindyou,tolearnofyou,unlessitwasinyourself,aboveme?”13TheabsencetowhichDer-ridaandHeideggerreferisnotanabsenceassuchbutourinabilitytoevercatchupwiththatwhichissofullypresentwecanneveroutrunit.Thisbetterexplainshowthatwhichisabsentcanexertsuchapowerfulpulltowardpres-ence,forifitwereasheerabsenceitcouldneverexerciseanendlessfascination.Onlythatwhichissomehowmorepresentthanthethingsthatarepresentcandothis,asHeidegger’slifelongoccupationwiththemysteryofBeingattests.Sowhilethetranscendentcannotbepresentinthemodeofathing,orelsere-alitywouldshrinkintoablackholewithoutmovementorlight,itcannotbesotranscendentthatitfailstodrawallthingstowarditself.TheonlywaytoconceiveofGodis,notaslyingoutsideofus,butasthatoutsideofwhichwelie.Godisnottheproblem;weare.Thetheoreticaldead-endintowhichdeconstructionseemstoleadmodernphilosophyarisesfromthesearchforatheoreticalresolution.Oncewerealizethatpracticeresolveswhatintheoryremainsimpenetrable,theimpasseisremoved.Thisdoesnotmeanthatpracticehasbecomeaninstrumentforatheoreticalgoal,butratherthereverse,thatinabandoningtheinsistenceonachievingatheoreticalsolutionwehaveopenedthewayfortheluminosityoflifeitself.Aprofoundrevisionoftheprevailingprimacyoftheoryiscontainedinsuchamove.Weseemtobeturningourbacksonthecontemplativelifeasitwasexaltedbytheclassics,inwhichtheoriaisalonepursuedforitsownsake,buttheshiftcanalsoberegardedasamoreprofoundappropriationofphi-losophy.Incontrasttotheconventionalconceptionofphilosophyasaresultwebegintoseethatthereisnophilosophyapartfromtheappropriationofit.Thisisthedirectionofthemodernexistentialrevolution,tocatchphilosophyinlivinglife,onlynowwiththerealizationthatthisbringsusbacktothebeginning.Itisnot,asDerridasuggests,thatweexpecttoarriveatabeginningbeforephilosophy,onlythatwerecognizethatphilosophyhasnobeginningbeforeitself.Thetheoreticalenterprisethatextendsitsreachtoincludethebirthofphilosophyitselfisalreadyamisstep.Philosophyisinact,notintheory.Plato13.SaintAugustine,Confessions,trans.R.S.PineCoffin(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1961),x,26.\n22DavidWalshandAristotlebothstruggleindifferentwaystomaintainthetruthofactionratherthanthediscursivemovementawayfromdoing.Thelifeofvirtueliesinactivityratherthanindiscussion,whichthusmakesphilosophyamodeofdiscussionthatmustconstantlymovebeyonditself.Paradoxisthestructureofphilosophy,notamoderndiscoveryaboutit.Thederailmentintothesup-plementarityoftheorizingisnotanaccidentaldevelopmentwithinthehistoryofphilosophybutthecentraldangeragainstwhichthediscoursemustperpet-uallystruggleifitisnottolosetheexistentialdirectionitseekstoarticulate.Themodernrevolutioninphilosophydoesnotsomuchintroducesome-thingnewasbringusback,inthemannerofrevolutions,tothepointfromwhichitbegan.Returnisinthissenseneversimplyareturntothebeginning.Itisanewbeginning,areappropriation,madeallthemorenecessarybythedefectivenessofthefirstbeginning.Are-initiationofphilosophyisagenuinelyphilosophicalact.Derrida’sfamousremark,“nothingoutsidethetext,”leavesitselfopentoanumberofpossibleinterpretations.Amongthemostcompellingistheexistentialonethatinsiststhereisnopointofreferencethatwouldrelieveusofresponsibilityorpermitustodominatethemeaningitprovides.Wecannotabandonourexistencetoatotalitythatwouldencloseit,notwithoutceasingtoexistentirely.Itisnotthatweare,inthecruderformulationofSartre,“condemnedtobefree,”butthatwearecondemnedtoexistinopennessbe-causethatisthemodeofhumanexistence.Notonlyistherenothingoutsidethetext,wearenotevenoutsideofit.Thetextisourexistence.Wecanonlygetoutsideofitbyexisting,thatis,byextendingthetextofourlives.Arestingpoint,asecuritynook,couldonlybeafallingawayfromthetask.Sleepinter-ruptsourconsciousness,butwecanhardlyregarditasanythingmorethananecessaryandinevitablebreakintheendeavoroffreelyandhumanlybecom-ingwhoweare.Thereisnopointbeforethebeginningthatwouldmakethebeginninghappenandrelieveusoftheburdenofbeginningourselves,justasthereisnoendpointthatwillallowustorestintheeasyreleasefromalleffortbyhavingbecomeallthatispossible.Humanexistenceisamysteryor,rather,sinceitisnotathing,humanexistenceiscaughtwithinamysterythatcanbeneitherfathomednorexhausted.Forthisreasonthereisnothingoutsidethetext,sincethetextencompassestheunreachablewhole.Ifitdidnot,thenwewouldbeconstantlytempted,asindeedweare,tosettledowninthesatisfac-tionofachievingourgoal.Allthatsavesusfromspiritualsuicideistheim-possibilityoffindingadefinitivepointofreferenceoutsidethetext.Wearethetext,asKierkegaardinsisted,andtheefforttostandoutsideofitistherefusalofexistence.Hemaynothaveexplicatedthefullextentoftherevolutioninphilosophythatthisrecognitionimplied,butheisprobablytheonewhocarrieditoutmostcompletelyinhisownlife.Itmaybethatitwas\nTurntowardExistence23Kierkegaard’swillingnesstothinkthroughtheissueswithinChristiancategoriesthatsavedhimfromthetentativenessthatcharacterizesmostofhissuccessors,justasitisthesameopenly“religious”characterofhisthoughtthatremainstheprincipalobstacletotheappreciationofhisphilosophicachievement.ButifDerrida,Lévinas,andHeideggerarecorrectinseeingphilosophyasimplicatedinthedramaofrevelation,thenKierkegaardmaybeoneofthemostunder-appreciatedcontributorstothediscussion.ForKierkegaarditwasnoscandalthatrevelationhadoccurred.Thiswaswhatenabledhimtosurmounttheobstaclethatloomedsolargeformanyothers.Ahistoricalrevelationseemedsoabsurdbecauseitcouldnotbeassimilatedwithinanyconceptualscheme.Kierkegaardevenembracedthecategoryoftheabsurdtotalkaboutrevelation,althoughhetherebyalsolefthimselfopentothelongstandingmisimpressionthatheregardedrevelationasirrational.Whathereallymeantwasthatreve-lationescapedthecategoriesofhumanreason.Itdefinitivelydemotedreasonfromitscentraltheoreticalroleandmadereasonitselfdependentontheopen-ingtowardwhatisbeyondit.Byacknowledgingrevelation,reasonwassavedfromitself.Inplaceoftheillusionofacontrolthatcouldbeimaginativelyprojectedoverthewholeofreality,reasonnowhadregainedtherationalityofitseverincompletecapacitytocomprehendreality.Thekeyistheexistentialsubmissionofreasonitself.Onlybyabandoningtheimpulsetodominatecouldreasonavoiditsowndistortionsandobtaintheonlyaccesstorealityavailabletoit.14ByacceptingtheparticipatoryrequirementofknowledgeKierkegaardover-cametheobstaclesthatstillstoodinthewaysolongasthinkersheldontothemodeloftheoreticintentionality.Intheprocessheintroducedafar-reachingrevisioninthelanguageofphilosophythathasstillnotbeenabsorbed.Ithasprovedmoreconvenienttoclassifyhimasan“irrationalist,”a“decisionist,”oran“existentialist,”ratherthangrapplewiththeprofoundchangesheintro-duced.Westillhavenotunderstoodhisinsistencethatwedonotreallyliveintimebutthat,forthemostimportantrelationships,ourcontextisalreadyeternity.Whileweconventionallyimagineeternityassomethingotherthantime,Kierkegaardisalreadyshowingusthattimeisitselfaderivativeofeter-nity.Ahumanbeingisnotreallyacreatureoftimeanditseffects.Ineveryimportantrespectwearetransactinganeternalreality,ofwhichthetemporalpassageisjustaseriesofattenuations.ThisiswhyKierkegaardcanassertthat14.AlongwithConcludingUnscientificPostscript,seeTheConceptofAnxiety,trans.ReidarThomteandAlbertB.Anderson(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1980),TheSicknessuntoDeath,trans.HowardandEdnaHong(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1980),andEighteenUpbuildingDiscourses,trans.HowardandEdnaHong(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1990).\n24DavidWalshthereisnobeginningbeforethebeginningofdecisionitself,whichoftenmakeshimsoundlikeanadvocateofarbitraryleaps.Inrealitywhatheissayingisthattheleaphasalreadytakenplace.Thecommitmenttomarriage,whichseemssoimprobablefromtheperspectiveofcreaturesthatarethecontingentplaythingsoftime,makesperfectsensewhenweseethatthedecisionwasneveractuallymadeintime.Howcanyoumakeacommitmentataparticularpointintimetoremainsteadfasttowhatalsodissolveswithtime?Thetaskseemsnonsensicalandfutile,aswedailyacknowledgeinfacilitating“nofault”divorce.Yetwealsoinsistonretainingthefigleafofmarriageasalifelongcommitment.Thereason,Kierkegaardexplains,isthatweknowthatnothingthatisdoneintimecanbeserious.Itisonlyifweinvesttheresolutionwitheternitythatitcanencompassallthatweare.Weknowthatwelive,ineverydimensionthatmatters,ineternityratherthanintime.Itiseternitythatmakeseverypresentpossible.15Contingencyisnotitselfcontingent.Oncewerealizethatwhatcharacterizestheflowofthingsdoesnotnecessarily,andcannotnecessarily,beextendedtothewholeitself,wearenolongersolostinthecosmos.Kierkegaard,whowasagreatstudentofirony,wouldsurelyhavedelightedintheironyofthelimitsofirony.16Therehasalwaysbeenanelementofthisrecognitionintheobjec-tionthatskepticismdependsonnotextendingtoitself,butthereismoretoitthanmerecleverness.Aphilosophicalrevolutionofthekindthathasbeentwomillenniainthemakingdoesnotresultfromabrilliantturnoflogic.Afardeepermeditationisinvolvedinwhichwelayholdoftheutterlynon-contingentrealityofourlives.Whenweacknowledgethatthevalueofahumanbeingoutweighsalltheprogressofhistorywearenotsimplyvoicinganaspi-ration.Wearegivingexpressiontoarealitythatmakespossiblethewholeofhistoryintheinexhaustibilityofeachhumanbeing.Humanbeingshavehis-torybecausetheyarenothistorical.Theyarenevercapturedbythefinitudeofhistorybecausetheyexistinrelationtotheeternal.Howevermuchtheymayforgetthatparticipationintheeternal,fallingintotheinauthenticamnesiaoftime,theycannotsevertheremembranceofthepullthatmakesthisaware-nesspossible.Kierkegaardwastheonewhodefinitivelyeliminatedtheimagi-naryspaceandtimethatattachedtothediscussionofsoulsandtheirafterlife.HemadeitclearthatthelanguageofChristianspiritualityhaditssourceintheexistentialnow.Wecouldconceiveofanafterlifeonlybecausewealreadylive15.Kierkegaard,Either/Or,parts1,2,trans.HowardandEdnaHong(Princeton:Prince-tonUniversityPress,1987),andStagesonLife’sWay,trans.HowardandEdnaHong(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1988).16.HisdissertationwasTheConceptofIrony,trans.HowardandEdnaHong(Prince-ton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1989).\nTurntowardExistence25inrelationtoeternity.Humanlife,everyhumanlife,iscrucialbecauseitisthearenainwhichgoodandevilareirrevocablychosen.ReadingKierkegaardweexperienceashudderofthenuminouswhich,whileitmayhavebeenreinforcedbyhispersonalsensitivities,findsaresonanceinusbecauseitisaninescapabledimensionofeveryhumanexistence.Weknowthatwhatwedomattersmorethanlife.WhatwasanantinomyforKanthadbecometransparentforKierkegaard.Kantstruggledwiththeimpenetrabilityoftheoppositionbetweenhumanfree-domandspatio-temporalcausality.Ifhumanactionwassubjecttothecausalexigenciesofeverythingwithinthisworldthenitcouldnotbefree;yettheessenceofhumanactionisautonomousself-determination,whichcanneverbesubjecttoextraneousfactors.Heresolveditbymaintainingthathumanfreedomdoesnotoccurinspaceandtimebuthasitslocusineternity.Thedecisiontoactinacertainwaycouldnotbesubjecttocausalnecessitiesbecauseithadalreadyoccurredbeforeoroutsideofthatrealm.Kant’sproblem,asmostofhisreadersrecognized,wasthathehadmadethespatio-temporalrealmsorealthatanythingbeyonditseemedpeculiarlyattenuated.Kierkegaardhadreversedthisemphasisbycontemplatingtherelativityofthespace-timecon-tinuum.Bybeginningfromtheperspectiveofeternityhehadbeenabletoseetheconditionalityoftime.Withouttheoverarching-never-movingcontextofeternitytherewouldnotevenbetime.Heideggerwouldlatermakeagreatdealoftemporalityaswhatcanbegraspedassuchonlyfromtheperspectiveofnontemporality,butKierkegaardhadexemplifiedthisunderstandingthroughhisexistence.InthissenseKierkegaardhadleaptoverthetemptation,stillpresentinHeidegger,toturnthisconditionalityoftimeintoanewmodeofpresence.Withoutreallyexplainingthatthiswouldbetomakeeternityan-othermodeoftime,Kierkegaardignoredthesuggestionbyvirtueofhisexis-tentialstruggletoliveoutthemeaningofeternity.Oncewetakeseriouslytherevolutionaryinsightthatthereisnowayofsteppingoutsideofourselvestoviewthewholeinwhichweare,thenwerecognizethattheonlyperspectiveavailableisthroughourparticipationinexistence.Kierkegaardresolutelyin-siststhatthatparticipationrequiresourall.Therecanbenoholdingback,asifwemightyetbeabletosecureacornerofdetachmentfromwhichourcontemplativedominationcouldexpand.Wemustnotyieldtothefinaltemptationofdoingtherightthingforthewrongreason.EversinceHegelthephilosophicrevolutionhaswaveredaroundthepossibilityofturningtheexistentialmovementintoamodeofabsoluteknowl-edge.ItisnoaccidentthatKierkegaardtookHegelasthegreatotherofhisstruggleandconsequentlymanagedtoextricatehimselffromthefascinationmoresuccessfullythanmostwhohavetried.Heacknowledgedhisdebtto\n26DavidWalshHegelbyrefusingtobecomeaHegelian.Absoluteknowledgemustremainabsolute,evenwhileitprovidesthepossibilityofallotherknowledge.Whatmakespossiblethewholemovementofexistencecannotbecomeanobjectofattentionwithoutceasingtobethesourceofall.Thisisthekeychallengewithinthemodernphilosophicshiftawayfromthemodelofintentionality.Fidelitytothebasicinsightthattheprocesscannotbeapprehendedfromwithinitexceptthroughthemovementitselfrequiresaresoluteavoidanceoftheattemptsurreptitiouslytoreintroduceitsobjectification.Hegelhadseenthatwhatprovidesthepossibilitymustbebeyondthepossible,buthepersistedindream-ingthatheneverthelesscouldcomprehendit.ItwasbecauseKierkegaard’sresolvewasmorewholehearted,informedlessbythecontemplativequestthanbytheneedforexistence,thathecouldprovethemoreexemplaryfigureofthemodernphilosophicrevolution.Bybeinglessofaphilosopherhebecamemoreofone.Theexistentialshiftmeansthatphilosophyitselfmustbecomesomethingofanaftereffect.Kierkegaardshowsthatitisonlybybecomingamanthatonecanbecomeaphilosopher.Ofcourseitispossiblethathealsoshowsthatthedemandistoogreat.Itmaywellbethatthemodernshiftofprimacytowardexistencewillthereforemeanthattherevolutionwillalwaysremainincomplete.Thatwouldnotbeasurprisingoutcome,especiallygiventhatphilosophyitselfispeculiarlyimpli-catedintheeternal.Weshouldperhapsbemorecautiousaboutattributingsotemporalametaphortoitsmovementsand,asaconsequence,entertainsomesecondthoughtsconcerningthepresentsketch.Theburdenofdemonstratingthattherehasbeenarevolutionaccomplishedbymodernphilosophyisnottheessentialpoint.Itisratherthatphilosophyinthemodernerahassetitselfthetaskofrevolutionizingitself.Byshiftingtheburdentophilosophythetaskofscholarshipislightened.Butthisisinnowaytoinsuretheprojectagainstfailure.Scholarshipaboutphilosophycannotultimatelyshrinkfromthechal-lengeofphilosophyandphilosophy,asKierkegaardandhiscollaboratorshavetaughtus,cannotabsolveusoftheobligationofbeinghuman.Therevolutioninphilosophyistrulyrevolutionary,touchingallaspectsofthediscipline.Eventheaccountofthechangecannotignorethelogicofwhatitcontains.Oncewehaveeliminatedthepossibilityofcontemplationfurnishingthemeaninginwhichwelive,weundertakethetaskoflivingfirstinthemeaningfromwhichcontemplationcanfollow.Byacknowledgingtheprimacyofexistencewehaveacceptedtheimpossibilityofreflectionapprehendingitinadvance.Philos-ophycannowonlybeamatterofcatchingrealityonthewing.Participationmeansthereisnothinglivingbeforehandandnothinglivingafterward.WemaybereleasedfromthemillennialillusionthatwecouldcontemplatethewholefromtheperspectiveofGod.ButwenowmustmovetowardGodasthe\nTurntowardExistence27onlymodeinwhichthewholeisatallapprehensible.Thesecurityofmeaningistradedforameaningthatseekssecurity.Wemaybeanimatedbythebondsoffaithandtrustthatsupportus,butwecannotreachanysuretywithoutgivingourselvestothem.Totheextentthatthenatureofphilosophyhasnowcoin-cidedwiththenatureofhumanexistencewemaybesureonlyofonething:thegoalofeachcannotbereachedintime.Thismakesthembothimpossibleandpossible.\n2HuntingandPoliticalPhilosophyAnInterpretationoftheKynegetikosBarryCooperPerhapsonlyacountry-bredmancouldcomprehendlovingthelifehespills.—WilliamFaulknerIntroductionXenophon,“slayerofforeigners,”wasnotblessedbythegodseitherinhisowndayorinours.HewasexiledfromAthensandwasneverathomeinxeno-phobicSparta.Todayjudgmentismixed.Guthrie,whosebigbook,AHistoryofGreekPhilosophy,attemptedtogainajudiciousbalance,remarked:“Xeno-phonmightbedescribedasagentlemanintheold-fashionedsenseoftheterm,implyingaswellacertainnotignobletypeofcharacter,ahighlevelofeducationandgeneralculture.”But,usingametaphorappropriatetobookkeepers,Guthriecontinued,“onthedebitsidewemustputacertainliteral-mindednessandtendencytoprosiness,apedestrianoutlookwhichissometimesfranklydull,andlittlesignofanycapacityforprofoundphilosophicalthought.”11.Proietti,Xenophon’sSparta:AnIntroduction(Leiden:Brill,1987);W.K.C.Guthrie,AHistoryofGreekPhilosophy(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1969),3:334–35.ThisviewwasrepeatedinJ.K.Anderson’ssemi-popularwork,Xenophon(NewYork:Scribner’s,1974),45.28\nHuntingandPoliticalPhilosophy29ChristopherBruell,morecircumspectthanGuthrie,suggestssomethingsimi-larinhiscomparisonofXenophonandPlato.WernerJaeger’smagisterialworkofagenerationagodeclaredthat“inspiteofhispleasantstyle,[he]appear[s]tobeintellectuallytrivial.”RetreatingfurtherintothepastwefindGomperz’spronouncementthat“heremainedforthewholeofhislifeadilettanteinGoethe’ssenseoftheword,thatis,amanwhoisalwaysventuringontasksforwhichheisnotfullyequipped.”2Withfewexceptions,respectforXenophon’swisdombythe“highercritics”ofthenineteenthcenturywassimilarlyre-strained.Someofthem,asLeoStrausshaspointedout,allowedtheirjudg-mentstobecoloredbytheirdisapprovalofXenophon’sapparentlackofpa-trioticsentiments.3ThereappeartobetwogeneralreasonsforthislowestimationofXenophon’sintellectualpower.Thefirstisaconsequenceofmodernattitudestowardtheclassicalwriters.RomanticismexaltedphilosophysofarbeyondeverydaylifethatitbegantoresembleAristophanes’Phrontisterion.Moreover,theroman-ticnotionthatartiscreationratherthanimitation,whichiswhatitwasforXenophon,almostinevitablydevaluedhisartas“unoriginal.”Arelatedprob-lemhasbeentheinvasionofphilosophicaldiscoursebylanguageanalysisandvariouskindsofsubjectivism,providingphilosopherswithahighlytechnicallinguisticmediatingapparatustostudyeverydaylife.Eitherway,discussionofordinarymattersinordinarywayscametobeviewedas“unphilosophic”atbest,andmoreoftenasnaïveorsimple-minded.Thisisnottosaythatphiloso-phyissimplyordinarylanguagesomuchasitistosuggestthatclassicalpolit-icalphilosophyatleastbeganinanordinarywaywithacommonsensical“itseemstome.”ThesecondreasonwhyXenophonhasfallenfromthefavorofmodernaca-demicopinion-leadersisaconsequenceofhisrhetoric.InantiquityhewasknownasXenophontheorator,inordertodistinguishhimfromthreeotherXenophons.Now,rhetoricisanartthathasfallenoutoffavor,andasHarryNeumannhasobserved,“Xenophonpracticesarhetoricwhichrefusesenlight-enmenttothosewhomitwouldonlybarbarize....Obviouslyliterarytastes2.Bruell,“Xenophon,”inHistoryofPoliticalPhilosophy,ed.LeoStraussandJosephCropsey,3rded.(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1987),91–92;Jaeger,Paideia:TheIdealsofGreekCulture,trans.GilbertHighet(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1944),3:156;TheodorGomperz,GreekThinkers:AHistoryofAncientPhilosophy,trans.G.G.Berry(NewYork:Scribner’s,1905),2:118.AcontemporaryhasopinedthatXenophonwas“aconceitedloverofdisplay,ahypocriticalteacherofmorality,aninsincerehistorian,aflat-tererofthestrongman,aseekerofgloryandapostateofhiscountry,aself-centredindi-vidual,”andnothinglessthan“the‘hippie’ofthefourthcentury.”E.M.Soulis,XenophonandThucydides(Athens:Privatelyprinted,1972[Ph.D.thesis,UniversityofBristol]),189.3.LeoStrauss,Xenophon’sSocrates(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1972),179.\n30BarryCooperformedbythebrutalsentimentalityofcontemporarymoralitiesarepoorlyequippedtograspthereasonforXenophon’ssoberrhetoric.”4Soberrhetoriclookedsimple-mindedtothehighercriticism.ForXenophon,however,soberrhetoricservedtocatchpotentialphilosophersbyintroducingthemtotheexcitementofdetectingtheindirectcommunicationofthemeaningofatext.Becauseitwasindirectlycommunicated,itwasnecessarytopayattentiontosmalldetails.Oncethehuntformeaningison,thepotentialphilosopherwillhavebecomeanunreservedparticipantintheactualprocessofthinking,ifnotof“philosophizing”inamodernprofessionalsense.InrecentyearsXenophonhasbeenstudiedagainwithsomecare.In1957EduardDelebecquepublishedalengthyandcarefulstudyofXenophon’slifeasitappearedthroughhiswritings.TenyearslateracautiousrevisionofXeno-phon’scompetenceasahistorianappeared;tenyearsafterthat,W.E.HigginswroteafinestudycenteredonXenophon’sunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweentheindividualandthepolis.TherehavealsoappearedanumberofmorefocusedstudiesononeoranotheraspectofXenophon’sworkandsev-eralanalysesofhisrelationshiptothePersians.5PoliticalscientistshavealsoturnedtheirattentiontoXenophon.NealWoodintroducedhisstudyofleadershipinXenophon’swritingwiththeremarkthat“nowhereisneglectofXenophonmorenoticeablethaninthehistoryofpoliticalthought.”6ThemostimportantstudentofXenophon’spoliticalphi-losophy,andonewho,sotospeak,hadnothingincommonwithWood,wasLeoStrauss.StrausshasleftusseveralXenophonticstudiesofXenophon’stexts,withtheresultthathisworkhasbeengreetedwithobloquynearlyequaltothatgainedbytheoriginal.7Asmoststudentsofpoliticalphilosophyknow,Strausswasacarefulreader.Hisinterpretativeprinciple,whichIbelievecanbe4.ReviewofLeoStrauss,Xenophon’sSocraticDiscourse(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1971),inJournaloftheHistoryofPhilosophy9(1971):241.5.Delebecque,EssaisurlaViedeXenophon(Paris,Klinckseick,1957);W.P.Henry,GreekHistoricalWriting:AHistoriographicalEssayBasedonXenophon’sHellenica(Chicago:Argonaut,1966);Higgins,XenophontheAthenian(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1977);RainerNickel,Xenophon(Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,1979);JohnDillery,XenophonandtheHistoryofHisTimes(London:Routledge,1995);God-freyHutchinson,XenophonandtheArtofCommand(London,Greenhill,2000);StevenW.Hirsch,TheFriendshipoftheBarbarians:XenophonandthePersianEmpire(Hanover,NH:UniversityPressofNewEngland,1985);JamesTatum,Xenophon’sImperialFiction:OntheEducationofCyrus(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1989);BodilDue,The“Cyropae-dia”:AStudyofXenophon’sAimsandMethods(Aarhus:AarhusUniversityPress,1989);ChristopherNadon,Xenophon’sPrince:RepublicandEmpireintheCyropaedia(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2001).6.Wood,“Xenophon’sTheoryofLeadership,”ClassicaetMedievalia25(1964):38.7.AfineexampleisbyTerrenceIrwinintheClassicalReview83(1974):409–13.\nHuntingandPoliticalPhilosophy31appliedtoXenophon,wasthat“ifinagivencasehe[Xenophon]apparentlyhappenstodoabadjobasawriter,orasathinker,heactuallydoesitdeliber-atelyandforverygoodreasons.”EvencommentatorsunsympathetictoXeno-phon’srhetorichavesuspectedthattheremaybemoretohis“deceptions”and“falseimpressions”thanmeetstheeye.8Themostobviousexample:Xenophon’stitles.InhisintroductiontotheLoebeditionoftheKyropaideia(xi),WalterMillerwrotethatthetitleofthebookwasmisleadingbecauseitincluded“thewholelifeandcareerofthegreatcon-queror,”notjusthiseducationorformation.Similarly,theMemorabiliaisnotaboutmemorableeventsinXenophon’slifebutconsistsentirelyinrecollectionsaboutSocrates.TheKyrouAnabasisisnotabouttheascentofCyrus,whichterminatedinbook1withhisgoingdownatthebattleofKunaxa.ButifXeno-phonmeantustothinkabouttheappropriatenessofhistitleswemightbeledtoconsiderthatthelifeofCyrustheGreatwasacontinuouspaideia,orthatthemostmemorableeventsofXenophon’slifeconsistedinhisbeinginthecompanyofSocratesandnotofhiswarriorassociatesor,indeed,thattheanabasisintheAnabasiswasXenophon’s,astoldbyanotherwiseunknownauthor,ThemistogesofSyracuse(Anab.3.1.1–2).Strausshasshown,moreover,that“theConstitutionoftheLacedemonians,farfrombeinganencomiumofSparta,isactuallyamosttrenchant,ifdisguised,satireonthatcityanditsspirit.”9AcarefulreadingoftheKyropaideiainlightofPlato’sRepublicwould,Ibelieve,showthattheGreatKingandhispaideiamockedmuchofPlato’saccountoftheformationofthephilosopher-king.Attimes,thatis,Xenophonseemstobeacomicwriter.Hissenseofhumor,however,isnotalwayscom-patiblewiththatofmodernscholarswhotend,byandlarge,tobeveryseriousaboutcomedy.Xenophonhasalsobeencalledanironicwriter,10whichisaccu-rateenoughifbyironyonemeansakindofdouble-ormultiple-visionwherebythesurfacemeaningofastatementisuntruebutmeantforthecredulousandtheimplicitmeaning,whichmustbediscoveredbyinterpretation,istruethoughnotobvious.LikemanyofXenophon’stexts,theKynegetikoshassufferedfromneglectandfromunsympatheticreaders.Acarefulreading,however,indicatesthatithasbeenveryskillfullycomposed.TheassumptionwithwhichIbeginbutthatcanbejustifiedonlyattheendoftheanalysisisthatXenophonwasaphilo-sophicalwriterofastaturecomparable,ifnotequal,tothatofPlato.Atthe8.Strauss,“TheSpiritofSpartaortheTasteofXenophon,”SocialResearch6(1939):503;Gomperz,GreekThinkers,122.9.Strauss,“TheSpiritofSparta,”528.10.Strauss,Xenophon’sSocraticDiscourse,114.\n32BarryCoopersametime,however,heisalsoawriterwhoismoredifficulttointerpret,atleastinoneimportantsense.Platoisdifficult,andheappearstobedifficult;thatis,Platoletsyouknowwhenyouhavenotunderstoodhimbecauseyouremainpuzzled.Xenophonisdifficult,butheappearseasy.ButasZenosaidtoSocrates(Plato,Parm.128c),wemustpickupthescentofhisdiscourselikeLaconianpuppies.WhattheKynegetikossaysexplicitlyofhuntingcanbeunder-stoodasanimplicitaccountofpaideiaand,accordingly,oftherelationshipbetweenphilosophersandpolitics.Thisessaybeginswithasummaryoftheclassicalunderstandingoftherelationbetweenhuntingandpaideia,followedbyananalysisofseveralPla-tonictextsonthetopicofhunting;Xenophon’swritingsotherthantheKynege-tikosprovidethecontextforanalysisofhisdiscussionoftheartofhunting.SomeofthesethemeshavebeendevelopedinconversationwithEllisSandozingoosepitsoutsideRoseValley,Saskatchewan,andAbbeville,Louisiana.HuntingandPaideiaInGreekliterature,huntingappearedintextsasearlyasthoseofHomer.Notsurprisinginaheroicagethatpraisedphysicalcourage,greaterpromi-nencewasgiventohuntingdangerouslions,wolves,boars,andbullsthantohuntinghares,thechieftopicofXenophon’sstudy.Thereisonlyonementionofhare-huntingintheIliad(10.360–62)butatleasttwenty-threereferencestobig-gamehunting.IntheOdyssey(11.372),OrionengagedinposthumoushuntingasaHomericinhabitantofthehappyhunting-ground.InAristophanes’Knights(1832–33),huntingwasconsideredpartoftrainingoreducation,paideia;thereafterhuntingbecameafamiliartopicfordispute,mostnotablybyIsocrates,Plato,andXenophon.Becausehuntingwasdiscussedinconnec-tionwithpaideia,itwasanactivitysurroundedbyrulesthatdiminishedtheefficiencyofslaughter.Inmodernlanguage,huntingwassport.11TherelationshipofPlatoandXenophon,bothofwhomdeeplyadmiredSocrates,wascomplex.StoriesoftheirrivalrybeganinRomanantiquity.Sofarashuntingisconcerned,theyhelddivergent,thoughnotnecessarilyopposed,views.IntheSophist,Plato’sdiscussionendedwiththecomicdescriptionoftheanglerasthepractitionerofthesecretandcoercivekindofacquisitiveart,namely,thedaylighthuntingofwateranimalsofthefishkindbystrikingfrombelowwithabarb(219a–221c).11.ConsiderthesplendidworkbyJoseOrtegayGasset,MeditationsonHunting,trans.HowardB.Wescott(NewYork:Scribner’s,1972).\nHuntingandPoliticalPhilosophy33IntheLaws(822d–824c),huntingandsimilarpursuitswereconsideredafterthediscussionoflawsgoverningthetopicsoflearning(mathemata)thatarepartofpaideiahadcometoanend.Whatfollowedwasconcernedwithpaideiabutnotwithmathemata.Theregulationsgoverninghuntingwouldbedrawnupwithaneyetotheirabilitytoimprovethesoulsoftheyoung.Therewasashortdiaeresisthatdividedgameintothingsthatmovedbywater,bywing,orbyfeet.Beaststhatmovedbyfeetwereagaindividedintowildbeastsandhumanbeings.Humanbeings,inturn,mightbehuntedinwar(cf.Arist.,Pol.1255b37–39,1256b23–26)andinfriendship(cf.Plato,Sym.203d7),bothofwhichmaybepraisedorblamed.“Andplunderingsbyrobbersandarmiesagainstarmiesarehunts”(Laws823b8–9).Theexhortationofhuntingthatfollowedintheformofaprayerwasintendedtoexpressindetailhowtoimprovethesoulsoftheyoung.Huntingontheseaforwateranimalswasblamedbecauseitinducedlazi-ness;man-huntingbyseaandpiracyrenderedthehuntercruelandlawless.Bird-hunting,whichnecessarilyincludesgeese,becauseitrelieduponcrafti-ness,wasunsuitable.Night-huntingoflandanimalswasequallytobeblamedbecauseitwasundertakenonlyintermittentlyandsoalsowasaninducementtolaziness.Similarproblemsarosewithmethodsthatreliedontheuseofnetsandtrapsinsteadofuponvictorygaineddirectlybyatoil-lovingsouloverthestrengthofwildbeasts.Accordingly,onlythehuntingoffour-footedbeastswithhorses,hounds,andthearmsofthehunterhimself,bringingdownbeastsbymeansofthehunter’sownrunning,hitting,andthrowing,wouldbepraised.Onlysuchhuntingenableddivinecouragetogrowandwasbestforeveryone.Youngpeople(neoi)whopracticesuchhuntingaregenuineandsacredhunters.Followingthatlengthyprooimion,thelawwasdrawnup:trueorsacredhunterscouldhuntwithhoundsanywhere;night-hunters,snare-users,andnet-users,nowhere.Bird-huntingwouldbeallowedonmountainsandfallowlandbutnotintilledfieldsorsacredplaces.Fish-hunterswereforbiddenfromharborsandsacredplacesandcouldnotusepoisonoustinctures.Thislawfinallyendedallthelawsonpaideia.EndingthediscussionofpaideiaintheLawswithhunting,ratherthanwithdialecticorphilosophy,asintheRepublic(531d–e),wasanindicationofthedifferentspiritualheightsatwhichthetwobooksaimed.Inaddition,itindicatedaconnectionorcontinuitybetweenhunt-ingandphilosophy.ThisconnectionwassuggestedintheLawsbyanobserva-tionthatthehuntingofhumanbeingsunderconditionsoffriendshipaswellasofwardeservesthought(axionennoein).Someofthefriendlyhuntingofhumansdeservespraise,possiblybecauseoftheAthenianstranger’sunusualappealtogobeyondmereobediencetothelaw(822d–823d).Inthelanguageofhunting,theAthenianstrangerappealedtothehunterstobesportsmen.\n34BarryCooperHuntingwasintroducedseveraltimesintheRepublic;oneachoccasionthesignificanceseemedtobethatitwasbothunavoidableandnotfullytobedesired.Inbook2,afterGlaukon,whoownedhuntinghoundsandnoblecocks(459a),objectedtothetrueandhealthycityasbeingaswinishcity,asecondandluxuriousorfeverishcitycameintoexistence.Itwasfilledwithchairsandcouchesforcomfort,andnewtastes,smells,andpleasuressuppliedbyrelishes,perfumes,andtarts(bothhetairaiandpemmata).Embroiderygavethingsafancylook,whichmeantthatothernon-necessarythingsandoccupationsmustalreadybeinthiscity.Evenbeforethepoets,thefirsttobeidentifiedwere“huntersandimitators”(373b3).SinceSocratesandhiscompanionsneverreturnedtotheplacidvegetarianismofthehealthycitybutratherreformedthefeverishone,theimplicationwasthatharmtoanimalsisconnectedtopoliticaljustice,howeverundesirablesuchharmingmightbe“initself,”orconsideredabstractly.Itisnotimmediatelyclearwhyhunterswerejoinedwithimitators.IntheEuthydemus(209b–e),huntingwascomparedtotheartofthegeneralandofthegeometerbecausetheyhandedoverwhatwasgainedbytheirart—game,victory,andknowledge—toothers,thecooks,statesmen,andpractitionersofdialectic,inorderforthelattertouseoruseupwhathadbeengainedbytheinferiorart.Imitatorsmaybeakintohuntersinthesensethatbothdependonothersfortheexerciseoftheirarttomakesense.Thismaybetrueofotherartsaswell.Inbook3oftheRepublic,oncetheoutlineofthepaideiathatbreedshar-monybyapropermixtureofmusicandgymnastichadbeenattained,therewouldbenoneedtopracticethedancesofcitizens,norhunts(theras),norhuntingwithhounds(kynegesia),norgymnasticcontests,norhorseraces.Onthecontrary,thesemethodsofpaideiawouldbemodeledaftermusicandgymnastics(412a–b).MattersareneversimpleintheRepublic,andjustastheswinishhealthycitywasforgotten,sotoothecitymodeledonmusicalandgymnasticharmonygrewdiscordantinaccordwiththeinstabilityofthecosmositselfandtheimpossibilityofperfectlyjusttuning(546a).Thedanger,however,seemedtobepresentevenbeforetheinvocationofthemusestoaccountforthedeclineorfailureofkallipolis(527c)inbook8.Afterhavingestablishedthecontentsofthephilosophicalpaideia,SocratesandGlaukonturnedtothequestionofdistributingeducationamongcitizens.Philosopher-citizensmustbecoura-geous,especiallyinmathemata,becausesoulsaremorelikelytobecowardlyinthatpracticethaningymnastics;theymustbeloversoftoil(ponos)andhavegoodmemories,perhapsbecausethelaboriouspaideiaPlatohadinmindexercisedthememory(535b–d).Suchpeople,Socratessaid,wouldbe\nHuntingandPoliticalPhilosophy35genuinephilosophers,notbastards.Glaukonaskedhimwhathemeant,andSocratesrepliedthatthephilosophermustnotlimpinhisloveoftoil,lovingonlyhalf,whichisthecasewiththeloverofgymnasticsandtheloverofthehunt,thephilotheros.Bothlovedonlytoilconnectedwiththebodyandwerenotloversofmathemataoroflisteningandenquiring;onthecontrary,theyhatedthetoilassociatedwiththosethings.Similarly,ifone’sloveoftoilwasexercisedexclusivelyinmathemata,listeningandenquiring,onealsowouldlimp(535d).Loveofhuntingandgymnasticsandofunnecessarybodilytoilseemedtobeatemptationtoimbalance.And,ofcourse,limpersmakepoorhunters.Thetimocraticman,whoinsomerespectsresembledGlaukon(548d–e),gaveintothetemptation.Hewasstubborn,aloverofmusicandspeechbutapoormusicianandorator;hedidnotsimplydespiseslavesasagentlemanwould,butwasharshwiththem;hewastamewithcitizensandobedienttorulers.Helovedrulingandhonorandclaimedhisplaceonthebasisofhisdeedsinwarandhistrainingforwar,andnotonspeech.“Heisaloverofgymnasticsandaloverofthehunt,philotheric”(549a).TheplaceofhuntinginPlato’sphilosophicalpaideiawas,likewar,ambigu-ous.12Itwasusefulintrainingthebody,butifnotbalancedbythetoilcon-nectedwiththesoul,itwouldleadthephilothericmantoinjustice.AccordingtoXenophon,thepracticeofhuntingdidnotleadtoinjusticebutinducedpiety.Onemayconclude,therefore,thatinthisrespectXenophon’steachingappearsclosertoPlato’steachingintheLawsthanitistotheteachingoftheRepublic.BothXenophonandPlatosawhuntingasapartofpaideia,buttheformeralsoconsideredhuntingtobeanimageoriconofphilosophy.MuchofwhatXenophonsaysexplicitlyabouthuntingisalsoanimplicitdiscussionofphilosophyandofpoliticsortherelationofthephilosophertothepolis.XenophonandHuntingTexts,andespeciallydialogues,maybereadfromtwocontrastinginterpre-tativestances.Thedramaticperspectiveconsidersitasaworkofart,apoesis,inwhichthespeakerandthecircumstancesofthespeechareimportantinunderstandingthesignificanceofthediscourse.Incontrast,theprimarycon-cernoftheanalyticalperspectiveisatechnicalcritiqueofthecontentofthetext“asitstands,”namely,aloneandwithoutrelationto“literary”matters.12.SeeLeonHaroldCraig,TheWarLover:AStudyofPlato’sRepublic(Toronto:Uni-versityofTorontoPress,1994).\n36BarryCooperSometextsseemtolendthemselvestooneapproachmoreeasilythantotheother.Interpretationofaplayorofadialoguecanhardlyignorethedramaticelements;interpretationofatreatisewouldseemtoinvolvenomorethanacriticalanalysis.IninterpretingXenophon’sdiscourseonhuntingwemustkeepbothperspectivesinmindbecausehisteachingwaspresentedinbothforms.Xenophonwrotetwodialoguesandtwotreatisesonthearts:theOikono-mikos,ontheart(techne)ofhouseholdmanagement;theTyrannikos,ontheartoftyranny,whichwasakindofexpansionoftheeconomicarttothepolis;theHipparchikos,ontheartofthecavalrycommander;andtheKynegetikos,ontheartofhunting,chieflywithhounds.Thetopicsconsideredinthedia-loguesweremoreobviouslyphilosophicalthanthoseconsideredinthetrea-tisesbecausetheformlentitselfmoreeasilytoindirection.Huntingandmat-tersrelatedtohuntingappearedinallthesetextsaswellasintextssuchastheAnabasisandtheKyropaideia,theliterarygenreofwhichisindeterminate.Webeginanalytically.Xenophon’streatiseonhuntinghasbytraditiontwotitles,KynegetikaandKynegetikos.Thesecondispreferablenotonlybecauseitisattestedbyancientauthoritiesbutbecausethesuffix,whenjoinedtotheimplicitnoun,aner(manlyman),servestoclassifythepractitionerofanart,asinsimilartermssuchaspolitikosandhipparchikos.Theonewhopossessestheartofhuntingisbythatfactagoodhunter.Thefeminineform,asinthetitleofXenophon’streatisePeriHippikeswouldrefertoatechnewithoutregardtoitsuse.Wecon-cludethathuntingis,inXenophon’sview,akintotheartsofhouseholdman-agement,oftyranny,andofcavalrycommand.Unlikehorsemanship,therefore,andliketheotherarts,theartofhunting,wearemeanttobelieve,iscon-cernedchieflywithtrainingmen,perhapsevenmenintheguiseofhounds(cf.Rep.375e–376b).ThetextoftheKynegetikoshasasurfacemeaningthatfallsintothreeorperhapsfourparts:(1)anintroductionthatconsideredtheoriginofhuntinganditsoriginalheroicpractitioners,(2)a“practical”accountofcontemporaryhuntingthatdealtmostlywithhuntinghareswithhoundsandnets,and(3)aconclusionthatexplainedthebenefitsofhunting,followedbyanattackonsophists.Theseeminglydisparatetopicsintheseveralpartsforalongtimeledclassicalphilologiststodoubtitsauthenticity.13Moreover,therearetwover-13.Higginsstilldoes;seeXenophontheAthenian,xiii.Areviewofthemajorpointsofdispute,whichdidnotchangeduringthetwentiethcentury,isH.Richards,“TheCyne-geticus,”ClassicalReview12(1898):285–92.Seealso:GustavKoerte,“ZuXenophonsKynegetikos,”Hermes53(1918):317–23;W.A.Baehrens,“DeKynegetikoXenophonteo,”Mnemosynen.s.54(1926):130–45.\nHuntingandPoliticalPhilosophy37sionsofchapter1,traditionallycalledAlphaandSigma.Alphaisshorterandmoreelegantandwasprobablythelaterversion.14“Firstoftheinventionsduetothegods,ApolloandArtemis,wasthatofgameandhounds.”Ifonegivesdueweighttothat“first,”proton,themeaningofthefirstsentenceisnotsimplythathuntingwasthefirstoftheinventionsofApolloandArtemisbutthathuntingwasthefirstthingthegodsdidtobenefitman,thisparticularbeneficencebeingtheworkofApolloandArtemis.TheygavethearttoCheiron,honoringhiminthiswaybecausehewasthemostjustofallthecentaurs(Il.11.832;cf.Pindar,Nem.3).Thisseemstoimplythat,atleastforcentaurs,justiceispriortothepracticeofhuntingratherthanaproductofhunting.Inanyevent,thishalf-brothertoZeusthengainedaspupilsinhuntingandotherfine(kalon)disciplinesseveralheroesanddemigodswhoweretothepresentdaylovedbythegoodandenviedbythebad.TheyweremadesofinebyCheiron’sartsthattheywereabletoridcitiesandkingsofanyevil;theybroughtinternalpeacetotheGreeksandtriumphoverthebarbarians.Accordingly,“Imyselfchargetheyoungmennottoscornthethingsconnectedwithhuntingnoranyotherpaideia.Foritisbythemthatyoungmenbecomegoodinwarandinotherthings,onthebasisofwhichthinking,speaking,anddoingarenecessarilydonehonorably”(1.18).Theuseofthefirstpersonpronoun,ego,indicatesboththatXenophonisspeakinginhisownnameandthatheisemphatic.Heisalsoclaimingagreatdeal.Wewonderwhetherhuntingcandosomuch,whichmaybeanindicationthatXenophonisalsodiscussinggreaterthings.Closerinspectionofthelivesoftheheroesindicatesthatsomethingotherthanhuntingisinvolved.15WeareledtoconsiderthedetailsofthelivesofexemplaryheroesbyaremarkofXenophonthatindicatedthattherewasnoth-ingtobewonderedatthatmostofthemdied(Sigma);infact,theyalldied,manyofthembadly.Noroughtwewonderthattheydidnotallliveduringthesametime,Xenophonsaid,becauseCheironlivedlongenoughtoinstructthemall,includingAchilleus.InabookonhuntingwemaywonderwhetherXenophonwasfromthestarttryingtoputusoffthescentbyinformingusthatwehavenocausetowonder.Ofcourse,Cheironandhispupilswerenec-essaryforthetransmissionofthisarttohumans,butattheveryleast,thecom-positenatureofcentaursandtheidentificationofthemwithbarbaricpractices,14.AfulldiscussionofthispointisfoundinthecriticaleditionintheBudecollection,editedbyEdouardDelebecque,Xenophon,L’ArtdelaChasse(Paris:BellesLettres,1970),39ff.15.Seethebrieflivesintheappendixtothischapter.\n38BarryCooperwithrapeanddrunkenness,indicatesthat,asmediatorsofthedivineinven-tions,theyareofquestionablestatus,likehuntingitself.Oneofthevirtuestaughtbyhuntingwasendurance,especiallyenduranceofpainandtoil,ponos.Cheiron,havingbeenwoundedinthekneebyHerakles,agreedtogiveuphisimmortalityinreturnforrelieffromthepaininducedbyHerakles’poisonedarrows.The“fatherofmedicine,”Asklepios,wastaughtbyCheiron,andAsklepiosinturntaughthispairedHomericsons,MachaonandPodaleirios.Noneofthesethreeisinanywayconnectedwithhunting.TwootherpairsofheroeswerealsoconnectedbyXenophon.OdysseusandDiomedeswerelinkedtoanotherhero,Palamades,becausetheymurderedhim.CastorandPollux,thefinalpair,wereconnectedtoTheseusbecauseoftheirpiraticalhuntingabilityinrescuingHelenfromAthens.TheseuswasconnectedtoHippolytos,hisson,whomhekilled;Nestor’sson,Antilochos,waskilledde-fendinghisfather;Aeneas,theTrojan,wasagoodson,butonedefeatedinwar.Theotherwarriorson,Achilleus,wasthesonofamurderer,Peleus,whoalongwithTelamonhadkilledtheirhalf-brother.TheplacingofAeneasandAchilleusattheendofthecatalogueofheroesenhancedthecontrastbetweenthem.16PerhapsweweremeanttocompareAeneasandAsklepiosaswell.Oftheotherwarriors,AmphairoswasacowardandNestorandMenestheuswereoldsol-diersfilledwithineffectiveandobsoleteopinions.Inotherwords,honorableheroesarelessassociatedwithhuntingthanwithhealing.Noneoftheothers,sofarastheyareassociatedexplicitlywithhunting,areparticularlyhonorable.Perhapshonorablehuntingisakindofhealing,butnoheroespracticeit.Turningtotheheroesknownchieflyashunters,onefindssimilarproblems.Kephalos’shuntingskillsenabledhimaccidentallytospearhiswife,Prokris(cf.13.18),andhavehisremarkablehound,Laelaps,turnedtostone.Meilaniondefeatedagenuinehunter,Atalanta(cf.13.18),byatrickandwaslaterturnedintoananimal.Meleager,whoorganizedthefamousCalydonianboarhunt,whichsevenoftheotherheroesattended,wasslainbyoneoftheco-patronsofthehunters,Apollo,afterhisfatheroffendedtheother,Artemis.Inshort,whenoneconsiderstheobviousorexternaldivisionsofthislistofheroestaughtbyCheiron(thatis,bylookingatpairedheroes,therelationsoffathersandsons,ortheactionsofbrothers),onlyAsklepiosandhissonsareun-ambiguouslypraised.Andtorepeat,theyhadnothingtodowithhunting.16.AlphaomittedOdysseus,Diomedes,andMenestheus.AccordingtoDelebecque,L’ArtdelaChasse,40–42,thiswasbecauseXenophonwishedtodiminishthestatureoftheheroesinordertoexaltthegodsApolloandArtemis.ThisinterpretationdependsforitspersuasivenessonacceptingDelebecque’sviewoftherelationshipofXenophontoApolloandArtemis,indicatedbelow.\nHuntingandPoliticalPhilosophy39Thegods,ArtemisandApollo,werealsopaired,bothbeingoffspringofTitanicLeto.Artemis,“ladyofwildbeasts”(Il.21.470),wasmentionedoralludedtofivetimes,whichisnotsurprising.Shewasapre-Hellenicearthorfertilitygoddessconcernedchieflywithuncultivatedpartsfilledwithwildanimals.IntheKynegetikosshewasidentifiedasthepatronofhunters(13.18)andtheprotectorofyounghares(5.14).HerprincipaladventurewasthatsheslewOrion,agiganticandunsportsmanlikehunter,andtheex-loverofEos,who“carriedoff”Kephalos,aeuphemismforsuddendeath.Apollowasmen-tionedtwice,eachtimealongwithArtemis.AlthoughhewasthefatherofAsklepios,itisnotclearwhathisrelationshiptohuntingmightbe.ItistruethathekilledthePythonandTityos,agiantwhorapedhismother,butheismainlyassociatedwithmusic,medicine,thecareofdomesticanimals,andarchery,whichwasnotahuntingtechnique.ApollodidfeatureimportantlyintwoepisodesofXenophon’searlylife,neitherofthemparticularlypraiseworthy.First,whenhisguest-friend,Prox-enos,askedhimtojointhearmyofCyrustheYounger,XenophonaskedtheadviceofSocrates.SocratesthoughtthatXenophonmightbecourtingpoliticaltroublewiththeAtheniansbecauseCyrushadsupportedSpartainthewar;butSocratesdidnotknowthefuture(cf.Apol.Soc.,29–31)andsuggestedthatXenophonenquireatDelphi.Xenophonthenaskedtheoracletowhatgodheshouldprayandsacrificeinordertomakethejourneyinthebestandmostsuccessfulwayandtoreturnsafelyafterperformingsuccessfuldeeds.Apollotoldhimtowhatgodshemustsacrifice(nothingwassaidofprayer).WhenXenophonreportedtoSocrates,theoldmanfoundfaultwithhimbecausehedidnotfirstaskwhetherheshouldgo;headdedthatXenophonmustdowhathewasbid(Anab.3.1.4–8).ImmediatelyafterrecountinghowhesomewhatdeceptivelyarrivedinAsia,XenophonremarkedthatCyrushaddeceivedProxenosbynotindicatingthetruepurposeoftheexpedition.Deceptionwasinvolvedinthesecondepisodeaswell.IntheAnabasis,aftertheGreekarmyhadsuccessfullyreachedtheseacoast,theystoppedatKera-sountostodividethebootytheyhadgained,settingasideatitheforApolloandArtemis.ApollohadhissharededicatedatDelphi,butArtemisdidnotreceivehersuntilXenophonhadreturnedfromAsiaandwaslivinginexileatSkillous.HebuiltanaltarandatempleataspotappointedbyApolloandcre-atedaHellenicgamepark,aparadeisos(cf.Kyro.1.4.5–6).Eachyearatthefes-tival,Xenophonandhisguestswouldhaveahuntingexpeditionandafinecelebration(Anab.5.3.7–13).DelebecquehasinterpretedtheKerasountosepi-sodetosuggestthatXenophondefraudedthetwogodsoftheirshareofthespoilsandthereaftercontinuedtomakehonorableamendstothegodofthe\n40BarryCooperhuntbyconvenientlyassociatingbrotherandsister.17Thatinterpretationmaywellbesound.Whatalsoseemstrueisthatheroichuntingisnotpraiseworthy.Thedivineinventionofhuntingismostproperlyemployedagainstanimalsandmenbymenandnotbyheroes.Thereiseven,perhaps,asuggestionthathunting,whichnecessarilyinvolvesdeception,canleadtoimpietieswhenthespiritofhuntingdirectshumanactivityconcerningthegods.Hunting,onemaysay,isapaideia,butonedirectedsimplyatthehumanandsubhumanthingsandnotattheheroicordivinethings.Intermsofthepresentinterpretivehypothesis,thathuntingaspaideiaisalsoanimageoftherelationshipofphilosopherstopolitics,theimplicationseemstobethatthisrelationshipmustbeworkedoutonthebasisofartsgivenbythegodsbutnotonthebasisofdivineinterventionorofdirectdivineactions.Xenophonbeganchapter2withanotherproton,thistimelessambiguousthaninchapter1.Thissecondprotonmarkedthebeginningofthetenchaptersdevotedtohuntingproperlyspeaking.Exhypothesiitmarkedthebeginningofhisdiscussionofpaideiaphilosophy,andpolitics.Firstofthethingsunder-takenbyayoungmanwhenleavingboyhoodandenteringuponadolescenceishuntingwithhounds,followedlaterbyequallyhonoredpaideiai.Providedhecanaffordit,theyoungmanshouldspendasmuchonhuntingaspossiblebecausethebenefitswillbecorrespondinglygreat.Ifhehasfewmeans,hemustspendmoreenthusiasm.Xenophon’spointwasthatwhateverwasspentonhuntingwouldbeworththevaluereceived,namely,thereceiptofthemostimportantpaideia.Xenophonbeganthedescriptionproperofhuntingwithanaccountofthenecessarykitortackle.18Includedherewerethenet-keeper,thenetsandstakesforsettingthem,acalfskingamebag,andtwotypesofwell-trainedLaconianhounds(chaps.2,3).Thepreferredmobiletackle,thelargerCastorianhound,wasthendescribedinmoredetail(4).NextXenophonturnedhisattentiontothequarrytobetackled,thehare,andhowshewasfound(5).19Inchapter6thetacklewasputintomotionandthequarrystarted.Thecentralchapterdealtwiththegenesisofmobiletackle,thatis,thebreeding,raising,naming,andtrainingofhounds(7).Becausetraininghoundswassimilartotrainingsol-17.Delebecque,Essai,179.18.Thewordused,paraskeusis,isoftenusedtodescribemilitaryequipmentandarmor.SeeAges.1.13;Hell.5.2.33.19.PossiblythemostunusualinformationXenophonimparted,atleastforcontempo-raryhunters,wasthatharessleptwiththeireyesopen,whichwasoneofthereasonswhytheyhadpoorsight(5.11,27),andthattheysteeredthemselveswiththeearsratherthanbythetail,which,ofcourse,wastooshort(5.32).\nHuntingandPoliticalPhilosophy41diers(Kyro.1.6.19)orhumanbeings(Mem.4.1.3),thereasonforitscentralityseemsplain.Moreover,thereareobviousparallelsindetail:somehoundsspeakorgivetonguewithnoreasonandtrytomakethefalseseemtrue,whileoth-ersabandonthehuntfromhatredofhunting,misotherony,orfromloveofhumans,philanthropy(3.9–10).Likewise,theheadstrongoughtbepraisedsparingly,thephilanthropiconesmore,andthemiddleonesmoderately(5.25).Chapter8dealtwithtrackingtheharewithouthoundsinsnow.Thenextthreechaptersconsideredthehuntingofanimalsotherthantheharewithhoundsotherthan,orinadditionto,theLaconian.Reddeer(elaphos)requiredlargeIndianhoundswithkeepers,javelins(akontia),andgreatcraft.20Forhunt-ingwildboars,thetacklewaslargeragain.CretanandLocrainhoundsaswellasIndianandLaconianwereusedalongwithnetsandfootsnares,long-shaftedjavelinsandspears(proboliaoi)thickasahardwoodmilitaryspear(kraneia).Keeperswereagainrequiredforthehounds,andtherehadtobeseveralhunterstoaparty.Thestrategywasalsomorecomplex;thedangerandexcitementinfacingthequarry,especiallyaboar,wascorrespondinglyincreased.21Lessde-mandingmethods,whichreliedmoreonnetsandsnaresthanoncourageandastoutspear,werebrieflyexplained(10.19–22).Anevenbrieferaccountofhowbigcatsandbearswerecaptured(aliskomai)inforeignpartsfollowed(11).ItseemsthatXenophondidnotconsiderthislastactivityhuntingatall,butcap-turing.Persianbig-gameexpeditionswerewellknowntohim.22Thebrevityofhistreatmentofwild-boarhunting,hissilenceconcerningthePersians,andhisrefusaleventousetheverbtohuntwithregardtowhatwentoninforeignpartsmayindicatethatXenophonconsideredallthebenefitsofbig-gamehuntingtobepresentinharehunting.Beforeturningtothethirdmajorsection,onthebenefitsofhunting,weshouldconsiderthestructureofthiscentralsection,chapters2through11.Thefirstsubsection,chapters2to4,dealtwithstaticandmobiletackle;thesecondwiththemainquarry,thehare;thethirdcombinedthefirsttwo:thetacklewasmobilizedinpursuitofthequarry.Thecentralpartofthiscentralsectionwasconcernedwiththebreeding,naming,training,andfeedingofhounds.Mattersofdecliningimportancefollowed:huntingtheharewithouthounds,20.Fawnsmightbecapturedwheretheylayandusedtodrawbackthedamtobedis-patchedwithajavelin,orfootsnaresmightbeemployed.21.TheaccusativeGreekforthewildboar,tonhuntonagrion,is,inpronunciation,closetothe“metaphysicallydangerous”notionofthewildbeing,indicatingtherebyagaintheconnectionbetweenhuntingandphilosophy.Immediatelyfollowingthefirstmentionoftheboar(orbeing)isacomplexandambiguousnumericaldescriptionofthenetsandspears,aparody,perhaps,onwhatPlatocalledarithmeticorgeometricthinking.22.Kyro.1.2.9,4.2.10;Anab.1.5.2–4,1.9.6;Plato,Alk.1,121e;Hdt.1.37.\n42BarryCooperhuntinganimalsotherthanthehare,foreign(orbarbaric)pseudo-hunting.Ifourinterpretativehypothesisissound,thefollowingconclusionsmaybedrawn.Thephilosopher-huntermustshowthegreatestcareforhistackle,bothinan-imatenets,gamebag,ropes,etc.,andanimatehounds.Insomerespectstheanimatetackle,becauseitisgeneratedandtrainedbythephilosopher-hunter,ismoreimportant.Ordinaryhuntingofharesamountstoordinaryphiloso-phizinginthecity.Thephilosopherreliesonhoundstohelphim;thesemaysimplybeothercitizenswhomhehelpstothetruthor,asintheRepublic,theymaybeguardiansofthetruth.Butwhenthemostdangerousordifficultquarry(ortruth)isruntoground,namely,thewildboar(orbeing),thehuntermustrelyequallyonhounds,net,andhisownstrength.Barbariansneitherhuntnorphilosophize.Thebenefitsforthosewhopracticehuntingdiligentlyaremany.Toalargeextenttheyarethebenefitsofphilosophizing.Fortheindividual,themostobviousadvantagescometothebody,whichremainshealthy.Sightandhearingimprove,andtheonsetofoldageisdelayed(12.1).Otherbenefitstotheindi-vidualaremediatedthroughthebenefitsthathuntingbringstothepolis.Firstofallitisthebestpaideiaforwar.Victoryinwar,weknow,isextremelyimpor-tant.Itbringsglorytothevictor,andusuallythegodsgranthappiness(eudai-monia)tovictoriousstates.Accordingly,thedisciplines(askeses)associatedwithitshouldbemostpracticed(Hipp.8.7).IntheKyropaideia,warwasthesinglethingtowhichCyrusdevotedhimself(2.1.21),andhuntingwasitsplayfulimage.23Bothactivitiesweremanifestationsofaloveofvictory,apartofaman’snaturesobasicitcouldsurvivecastration(Kyro.7.5.64).Aloveofvic-torywasperhapsevensharedwithhorses(P.Hipp.9.2,10.14).Specifically,huntingaccustomedmentotravelwithweapons,tosleepontheground,andtoattackandgiveordersatthesametime(theharehunterracedbehindanddirectedthehounds).Huntingtrainedmeninenduranceandspeedandaccus-tomedthemtoworkthewoodsandtotraveloverbrokenground;incaseofdefeatinbattle,thisskillmightenablethemtosavethemselveshonorably.Manytimes,infact,asmallnumberoffitandcourageousmenhaveralliedtodefeatalargerenemyondifficultground(12.2–5).Thechiefbenefits,however,combinedphysicaltrainingwithspiritualvir-tues.Intheolddaysmenknewthisandencouragedhuntingamongtheyoung:“Itmakesthemmoderate(sophronas)andjustbecausetheirpaideiaisinthetruth”(12.7).Tosuchmenisowedvictoryinwarandinotherthings,because23.CompareKyro.1.6.39–40withthehuntingoftheArmenianking,whichusedpre-ciselythetacticsemployedinharehunting(2.4.22–29).\nHuntingandPoliticalPhilosophy43effort(ponos)hasremovedwhatisshamefulandhubristicfromthesoulandfromthebodyandhasreplaceditwithadesireforvirtue.Theyarethetruearistoibecausetheydonotpermittheirpolistosufferinjusticeorwrong(12.8–9).TheimagehereisnotsoelevatedasthatofaPlatonicphilosopher-king,whichwasnotaseriouspossibilityinanycase,butwasconsiderablymorethanrulebygentlemen.Likephilosophers,Xenophon’sguardiansareedu-catedinthetruththroughthepaideiaofhunting.Politicallyspeaking,justiceandmoderationmaybesaidtobethemostimportantvirtues.Accountingforthosevirtuesmaybetakentobethemarkofwisdom;takenbythemselvesandwithoutappearinginspeech,theyareinonesenseinternal;butinanothersensetheyappearascharacteristicactivities,especiallywarandpolitics.Xenophongaveseveralexamplesofhowangeroralackofmoderationledtodisasterinwar.TheSpartansweredefeatedbytheOlynthiansbecauseofit(Hell.5.3.6–7);CyrustheYoungerlosthislifeatKunaxabecauseofit(Anab.1.8.24–27);thestupidityoftheAtheniandemosinthetrialofthegeneralsvictoriousafterArginousaiwasalsoaconsequenceoftheirlackofmoderation(Hell.1.7.8–35).Ontheotherhand,youngPersiansweretaughttopraisemoderation,andhuntingwasanintegralpartoftheirpaideia(Kyro.1.2.10–11).Theyweresomoderatethatitwasconsideredshame-fultospit,toblowthenose,tobreakwind,ortobeseenpreparingtomakewateroranythingsimilar(Kyro.1.2.16).Whatwasinsideremainedinside.Mostoftheirbodilywastes,apparently,weresweatedoutinvisibly(Kyro.1.2.16;cf.5.2.16).Indeed,whenthePersiansbeganagaintospitandblowtheirnoses,itwasclearevidenceoftheirdegenerationfollowingthedeathofCyrus(Kyro.8.8.8;cf.8.1.42).Xenophon’speculiarobservationofthePersianhabitsconcerningbodilydischargeshassometimesbeencalledajoke.CertainlyXenophonwasfondofmakingjokes;indeed,someofwhathasbeenexplicatedinthepresentessaylookslikeajokeatPlato’sexpense.Butifitisajoke,itisnot,onthesurface,verywitty.Supposing,however,thatspitting,farting,andsoonisinterpretedbyanalogywithbeingvirtuousandaccountingforvirtue.If,then,whatisinsidecomesoutinvisiblywhenthePersiansarewellordered,thismaymeanonlythatthePersiansdonotaccountforwhattheyareinside,namely,moderateandjustthroughhunting.Butthen,barbariansneverphilosophize,whichisawayofgivinganaccount,eventhoughtheymaybegentlemen.BynaturethePersianscannotproperlyaccountforwhattheyare,whichiswhytheGreekXenophongaveanaccountofthem.XenophonwasmoretolerantofnighthuntingthanwasPlato.Night-huntersofanimals,accordingtotheXenophonticSocrates,mightinstructyoungmen\n44BarryCooperinastronomysufficienttolearnthetimeofnight,themonth,andtheyear,knowledgeofwhichwouldbeusefulwhenplanningajourneyorsettingawatch(Mem.4.7.4).Wenotethatthisastronomicalknowledgewaspracticalandwaslearnedfrompracticalmen.Moreover,itwaslearnedfromgazinguponthefixedstarsandthepoleoftheeclipticandnotuponthewanderingunstableplanetsorirregularcomets.Withsuchthings,Socratessaid,wehavenoneedtobeconcerned.Rudimentaryastronomywasuseful;anythingfurtherwasimpious,nottosayinsane(Mem.4.7.6).Theonlynight-hunterXenophondiscussedwasalsoahuman-hunter,thehetairaTheodote,whowasalsotheonlywomanwithwhomtheXenophonticSocrateswasdirectlyreportedashavingconversed(Mem.3.11).WhatXeno-phonthoughtofherformofnighthuntingmayhavebeenindicatedbythepositionoftheaccountofherconversationintheMemorabilia.EarlierinthebookSocrates’conversationsandsayingswithsoldiersandpoliticianshadbeenreported;theyhadconversedaboutmilitaryandpoliticalthings.Healsocon-versedwithGlaukonandCharmidesaboutpoliticalthings.XenophonalludedtothepossibilityofaconversationwithPlato(Mem.3.6.1)butreportedaconversationwithAristippos,whowasaphilosopherbutnotofPlato’scaliber.AsStrausspointedout,“thepeakismissing,”andtheconversationsreportedsubsequentlyareinthenatureofadescentfromapossiblephilosophiccon-versation.24Socratesthenwasreportedasconversingwithmaleartisanswhoimitatedbeautybutwhowerenotthemselvesmanlymen(andres).Artisansmadelikenessesofthings,especiallyofbeautifulthings,butforthatreasonwereinferiortothebestthings,whichcameintosightonlythroughspeech(cf.Kyn.12.19).Socrates’conversationwithTheodotewasaconversationwithalivemodel,amodelimitatedbyartisanswhosebeautywas“beyondspeech”aswellas“god-given,”asisindicatedbyhername.LikeSocrates,Theodotelivedongiftsgiventoherbyfriends;likeSocrates,shewould“bewith”thosewhoper-suadedher;likeSocrates,her“beingwith”peoplewaserotic.AsSocratessaid,havinglookeduponher,heandhiscompanionsdesiredtotouchwhattheyhadseen,andwouldleavehercompanysecretlyexcited(hypoknizomenoi)andwithlongingforher.Socratesthennoticedtherichclothesandfurniturenearbyandhermother’sjewelryandcomelyfemaleattendantsandconcludedthataherdoffriendswasmuchmorevaluablethanaherdofgoatsorsheeporoxeniftheycouldfitheroutsowell.ButSocrateswonderedwhetherherfriendssettledonherlikefliesorwhethershecontrivedlikeaspider.Theodoteclaimedignoranceof24.Strauss,Xenophon’sSocrates,74.\nHuntingandPoliticalPhilosophy45friendhunting,andSocratesexplainedthatitwasmuchmorecomplexthanharehunting.25Sincehareswerenighteaters,speciallytrainednighthoundswererequiredfornighthunting.26Theodotewaslikewiseinneedofanight-huntinghoundwhocoulddrivewealthymenwholovedbeautyintohernets.ShethenaskedSocratestobecomeherpartnerinfriendhunting(cf.Symp.3.10).Socratesagreeduponconditionthatshepersuadehim,butTheodotedidnotknowhow.Hersoleattempt,“comeandseemeoften,”wasdismissedbySocrates,anotoriousvoyou,onaccountofhisbeingtoobusy.ItwouldseemthatTheodote’sgod-givenbeautyandherlackoftechniqueineroticthingsmadeherunabletoaccountforhernighthunting.Weare,perhaps,meanttoreflectontherelationshipofsilenteroticbodiesandarticulateeroticsouls:relyingovermuchondivinegifts,herbeautywasbeyondbothspeechandtechne.Huntingofanimals,itappears,isinthemiddleorismoderate,notgivendirectlybythegodsbutindirectly,throughCheiron.Ittakesplaceindaylight,ispracticallyarticulate,and,beinguseful,iscapableofpersuasion.Thisspecificinterpretationaddsweighttothegeneralone,thathunting,forXenophon,isanimageofphilosophizing.Yet,huntinghaditscriticseveninXenophon’sday.Wehavebeenpreparedforthem,however,bytheknowledgethatthepaideiaofhuntingisinthetruthandbytheknowledgethatmostmendonotwalkthedifficulttrailoftruthorthatmostmenarenotphilosophers.Criticsofhunting,weexpect,willbeinuntruthordelusion.Oneofthetimelesscriticisms,andsopresenteventoday,ofthosewholovehunting,aswellasofthosewhophilosophize,isthattheyneglecttheirhouse-holdaffairs.Xenophoncounteredthisremarkfirstbydeclaringthatthosewhocareforthepolis(andthehunters,thosearistoi,certainlydo)couldnotpossiblyneglecttheirdomesticaffairsbecausethepoliswasconcernedwithdomesticprosperity.Second,eveniftheydoseemtoneglecttheirhomelife,itwasjustifiedbythegreatpoliticalservicetheyrendered.Anycriticismofhunt-ingthatignoredthelargerpoliticalcontextwasthereforeworthless.Havinginthatwaydismissedthecriticsastrivial,Xenophonturnedtotheattack:why,thehunter-philosopheraskedhimself,dosomepeopleattackthetruepaideia?Manyofthosewhotalkbadlyofhuntingaremovedbyenvy(phthonos)andthoughtlessnessandprefertoberuinedbytheirownbasenessthanbesaved25.Thewordforform,eune,isalsothewordforsleepingplaceorbed(cf.Plato,Rep.415e);perhapsthisiswhySocratesfoundasimilaritybetweenharehunting(thehareiscaughtmostoftenwhenshereturnstoherformwherethenetsaresetup)andTheodote’skindofnighttimefriendhunting.26.InKyro.1.6.40,nothingwassaidofnighthoundsfornight-feedinghares.\n46BarryCooperbythevirtueofothers(12.12).Theirbasenesswasspecificandantitheticaltohunting:theyhatetoiloreffort,ponos.Theyarenotmerelyunphilosophicbutantiphilosophic.SeveraltimesXenophonremarkedonthebeneficialeffectsoftoilinteach-ingvirtueandespeciallyinteachingmoderation.27Wearenotsurprisedtolearn,therefore,thatmostpleasureswerebaseandthatthosewhoyieldedtothemweremadeworseintheirwordsandintheirdeeds.Theirbasenessinfectedtheirchildrenandfriends;bytheirwordstheymadeenemies.Accordingly,theywereuselesstosavethepolis(12.13).SuchbasethingswouldbeshunnedbyonewhofollowedthenoblepaideiaXenophonrecommended,becausethatpaideiataughtobediencetothelawsandthespeakingandhearingofjustice.Foronewhofollowedthestrenuouspaideiatherewascontinuoustoil;forthepolis,however,therewassalvation(cf.Plato,Rep.621b–c).Thosewhoavoidedtoilinordertopursuepleasure,ontheotherhand,wereworstofall(kakistoi)becausetheyobeyedneitherthelawnorgoodwords.Theywereunabletodis-covervirtueontheirownbecausetheywerelazyandsowereneitherpiousnorwise.“Andbeingwithoutpaideiatheygreatlyblamethosewhohavegainedpaideia”(12.16).Thetensionbetweenhuntersandnon-orantihuntersisindis-tinguishablefromthetensionbetweenthephilosophersandtheantiphiloso-phers.ThetruthofXenophon’sformula,thattoilledtovirtue,hesaid,hadbeenshownintheexamplegivenearlier,ofCheiron’spupils.ItiscertainlytruethatnoneoftheheroesmentionedbyXenophonwaslazy.InlightofthefateofCheiron’spupils,itmaybequestionedwhetherapaideiaoftoilaloneledtovirtue.All,however,lovevirtue,Xenophonsaid;butbecausethegainingofitrequiredeffort,itwasnotwidelypursued.“Foracquiringvirtuebylaborisunseenbutthetoilsinvolvedinthepursuitshowforth”(12.19).PerhapsifthebodyofVirtuewerevisibletotheeye,menwouldcaremoreforher,knowingthattheywouldbeseenbyVirtueasclearlyastheyseeher,justasundertheeyeofaloveramanrisesabovehimselfandavoidswhatisbase.Butthelazy,whoassumetheyarenotseenbyVirtue,domanybasethings.Yet,Virtueisimmortalandpresentineveryplaceandhonorsthosewhoaregoodtowardherandgetsridofthebase.Accordingly,ifmenknewVirtuehadhereyeonthem,theywouldgladlyundertaketheponoiandthepaideiabywhich,withdifficulty,shemaybewon.Andtheywouldwinher(12.20–22).ThediscussionofVirtueremindsusofSocrates’accountintheMemorabiliaofProdikosaccountofHerakles’paideiabyVirtue(Mem.2.1.21–34).Accord-ingtoXenophon’sversion,HerakleswasofferedpleasureandeasebyVice,27.Mem.2.1.1–34;Kyro.1.3.10–11,4.2.38–45,7.5.75–76,8.1.30–32.\nHuntingandPoliticalPhilosophy47whomherfriendscallHappiness.VirtuetoldHeraklesshehopedhewouldbecomeadoerofgoodandnoblethings,providedheactedinthewaythegodshaddisposed:“Forofallgoodandnoblethingsthegodsgivenothingtohumanbeingswithouttoilandeffort”(Mem.2.1.28).ViceandVirtueappearedtoHerakles;therestofmankindmustmakedowiththeikonofProdikosorwithXenophon’sstory.Virtuenonethelessisthecommonaimofhuntersandphilosophers.Startinginchapter12.10,Xenophonengagedtheenemiesofhuntinginthegeneralguiseof“somepersons”whotellliesabouthunting.Inchapter13theywereflushedintotheopen:sophists.“Iwonder(thaumazo)atthosewhobearthefairnamethewiseones(hoisophistai).”Hiswonderwaspromptedbytheobservationthatmostofthemsaythattheyleadtheyoung(neoi)tovirtuebutdotheopposite.Theyhavenevercausedamantobegoodnorhavetheyproducedwritingsthatmightinstructmeninhowtobegood;infact,theirbooksarefrivolous,offeringemptypleasuresandteachingbaseness.“Imyself,”saidXenophon,“amapri-vateperson,butIknowthemostimportantthingistobetaughtwhatisgoodby[orfrom]nature,andsecondfrommenwhotrulyknowwhatisgoodandnotfromthosewhopracticetheartofdeception”(13.2–5).Incontrasttothedeceivers,Xenophontriedtowriteplainlyforthosewhoseekpaideiainvirtue.Likethephilosopher,theprivateperson,Xenophonthehunter,mindedhisownbusinessandlivedaccordingtonature.Xenophon’sfirstcriticismofthesophistswasthattheyweredeceptive,“cleverwithwords,notwiththoughts,”andconcernedwithseemingratherthanbeing(13.6–7).Now,weknowthathuntinginvolvesdeception.Thisisemphasized,forexample,inthebookXenophondevotedtothepaideiaofCyruswho,asayoungman,wastaughtonlyhonesty(1.6.27–40).Likewiseinwar,towhichhuntingwascloselyallied,thegreatSpartangeneralAgesilaoswasamasterofdeception(Ages.1.17),for“nothingismorebeneficialinwarthandeception”(Hipp.5.9).Tissaphernesalsopracticeddeception,buthedidsobybreakinghisoaths,whichistosayhedeceivedthegods;forthathegainedtheirenmity(Ages.1.13).Agesilaosneverpracticeddeceptionuponhisfriends(Ages.6.6;cf.Oec.10);thefirstdutyofacommander,Xenophonsaid,wastosacrificetothegods(Hipp.1.1;cf.3.1)andhisgreatestmistakewastodisregardomens(Kyro.1.6.45).Xenophon’steachingaboutdeceptioncenteredonfriendsandenemies,bothhumananddivine.Cyrus,however,practicedamoderatedecep-tiononhissubjectsandhissoldiers(Kyro.7.1.10–20,8.3.13–14).Wearepre-pared,therefore,tolearnthatsophistsarehunterswho,likeTissaphernes,gainedtheenmityofthegods.\n48BarryCooperThemanyblamethesophists,Xenophonsaid,soitwasimportanttodis-tinguishthemfromthephilosophers.Thesophistsspeakinordertodeceiveandnotforthesakeofjustice,fortheirowngainandnottobeuseful.Thisiswhytheyhuntdownrichyoungmen,unlikethephilosophers,whoarefriendstoallandareindifferenttowealth(13.8–9;cf.Plato,Soph.231d).Sophistsarehuntersofwealthwhouseemptywordstoinstillbasenessinthesoulsofyoungmen;Xenophon,authoroftheKynegetikos,wouldhuntthemdown.Theyarethemostdangerousquarry,moredangerouseventhantheboar,becausetheyarethemselvesdeceptive,orrather,treacherous,hunters.Moreover,theygoafterthemostvaluablegame,thesoulsoftheyoung,andruinthem.Theresultofsophistryistheproductionofmenwhoseektogetmore,whoareinfectedwithpleonexia(13.10;cf.Plato,Rep.344a).Thetwotypes,onewhopleonizesinprivatethingsandtheotherwhodoessoindemoticthings,arebaseeveniftheyaresuccessful;iftheyarenotsuccessful,theyarestillbase.AsMenckensaid,ifabadthingisnotworthdoing,itisnotworthdoingwelleither.Thepleonizersstealeitherprivatepropertyorstatetreasureand,lookingonlytothemselves,areuselessforthedefenseofthepolis.Sincetheyavoidtoil,theyhavebodiesthataredisgracefullyunfit,andtheymakethegreatestcontrastwithhunters:“theonesundertaketohuntgame,theotherstheirfriends”(13.12).Theappropriatepersonalqualitiesofthesetwokindsofhunterwerethendetailed:thegamehunterswereimprovedbytheirhunting,benefitedthepolis,andlearnedpiety;thefriendhuntersweremadeworse,werebadforthepolis,andwereimpious.“Oldstoriestellthatthegodslovethosewhoundertaketheworkofgame-hunting;theylovetoparticipateinsuchhuntsandtolookuponothershunting”(13.17).Thisisyetanotherrea-son,Xenophonsaid,toconsiderhiswords,followhisadvice,andgrowinpiety,foragodseeswhatmendo.Ifthatisdone,theyoungmanwillbegoodtohisparents,goodtothepolis,andgoodtohisfriendsandfellowcitizens.“Fornotonlyhaveallthosemenwholovedhuntingbeenvirtuous,sotoohavethefemalestowhomthegoddess[Artemis]hasgiventhislove,Atalanta,Prokris,andperhapsothers”(13.18).Urbanesophistsclaimedtoteachpaideiaonthebasisofwordsalone,butitcannotbedone;theymisleadtheyoungwithdeceptionsthatcamouflagetheirtrueappearance.Atbestthesophistswouldleadtheyoungmentotemporarysuccess,therewardforwhichwasnomorethantheenvyoftheunsuccessful.Xenophon,thecountrydweller,taughttruepaideiawithharddeedsinthemidstofnatureandwithplainwords.Histeachingofvirtueintruthwasnottemporarybutstable,everlasting,andirrefutable,likethelaw(13.7).InthisrespectheagreedwithPlatoandIsocratesonthedetestabilityofsophists.UnlikePlato,however,hedidnotdistinguishsosharplybetweenbodyandsoul.Hunt-\nHuntingandPoliticalPhilosophy49ingforXenophonwasalsoamoralart:awell-trainedbodywouldconformthesoul.Abodyinnuredtotoilshowedevidenceofself-ruleandtherebywaseligibletoruleothers.Forthesereasons,huntingwasalsoakindofphiloso-phizing,or,rather,theconsequencesofhuntingsofarasthebodyandsoulareconcernedarethesameasthepoliticalconsequencesofphilosophizing.ConclusionThesimilarityofwarandhuntingseemstohelpsustainthechargeofLaconismagainstXenophonandjustifySocrates’fearsthathewouldbeexiledbythetypeofAthenianshedescribedin12.15asdemoticpleonizers.Inaddi-tion,XenophonpraisedLaconianhoundsandwrotetheKynegetikosforyoungmenofgoodfamilyandsufficientwealth(2.1)whowerecapableofremem-beringmaxims(gnomai)notsayings(onomata)(12.5).ThelaconicSpartanswerefamousfortheirgnomicspeech.IfweignorethefactthatProkriswasskeweredbyherhusband’sspearandthatAtalantaendedupasawildbeast,andifweinterpretthatlastsentenceofthetextimaginatively,itcouldmeanthatXenophonadvocatedthatitwouldbegoodforfemalestohuntoratleasttotakephysicaltrainingwithmen(cf.Lak.Pol.1.4).Suchanopinion,ifindeeditwasXenophon’s,couldbeinterpretedaspraiseofSparta.28Ontheotherhand,wemayrecallthatintheOikonomikosyounggirlsweretobe“watched,”notexposedtopaideiai(Oec.7.5–7;cf.Mem.1.5.2).Inanycase,wemightwonderwhyXenophonbotheredtodiscusssophistsifhewereconcernedwithSparta,forthatpoliswouldprovebarrengroundfortheirhunt-ing.LeavingasideStrauss’spersuasivecontentionthattheLakedaimonionPoliteiawasasatire,wecannothelpbutnoticethatatthetimeoflifewhenXenophonthoughtthatyoungmenshouldbemostfullyengagedinhunting,atSpartatheywereunderthestrictestcontrol(Lak.Pol.3.1–4).Despitethelibertytouseothermen’shounds(Lak.Pol.6.3),theonlypeopleabletodosowere“beyondthevigorofyouth”(Lak.Pol.4.7).Forthem,huntingwasthefinestoccupationunlesstheyhadotherpublicduty,whichistosaythathunt-ingwas,ineffect,apublicdutyforoldmen(cf.Lak.Pol.10.4;10.7).Andoldmenarenotverygoodatchasinghares.WesuspectanotherXenophonticjoke.WhatthesuspicionofXenophon’sLaconismmayindicatewithmorejustifi-cationwasthathewasnotasimpleAthenianpatriot.IntheKynegetikos,forexample,hementionedthewordshomelandorpolisatleastninetimes,butneverAthens;TheseuswasidentifiedbyXenophonwithallGreece,notjust28.See,forexample,Delebecque,Essai,176.\n50BarryCooperAthens.Higginsarguedforcefullythat“Xenophonthewriteris...notthemanwhohuntedandfarmedabroadinSkillous,muchlessthemanwhofoughtforCyrus,butthereturnedSocraticadvisinghisfellowAthenians(andany-oneelsewhocaredtoread)whathethinksbestforthecity.”29Ifweemphasizetheabilityofa“Socratic,”orbetter,ofaphilosopher,totranscendthecaresofthepolisofhisbirth(cf.Plato,Rep.592a–b),thenXenophon’sdepreciationofhisfatherlandwasintelligible.30Ifvirtuewasthehighestthing,thenunlessthefatherlandwasvirtuousitcouldnotproperlyexpecttogaintheundividedloyaltyofthevirtuousman(cf.Aristotle,EN1129b12).AndXenophon’slifewasformanyyears,notallofthemcompulsory,thelifeofaxenos,astranger,thoughhardlyunconnectedwithpolitics.InthisrespecthislifewasnotunlikethatofSocrates.31SofarastheteachingofXenophon,thephilosopher,regardinghuntingandpaideiaisconcerned,onemightsaythathuntingisnecessaryfortruepaideia,butitisnotacompletepaideia.IntheKyropaideia,Medianjustice,whichCyruslearnedfromhisgrandfather,dependedonlyonthesoulofthekingandwasunreliable,whereasPersianjustice,beingtraditionalandcentereduponthepracticeofhunting,wasuprightandsteady.32OnlyCyruscouldholdthemtogether.Hisownsoldiers,wellschooledintheartsofhuntingandofwar,mayhavebeenovertrained,havinglostthecapacityforwonder(8.1.42).Toomuchself-disciplineachievedonlybyenduringtoilasproofofvirtuewouldbreedcynicism,atermderivedfromtheGreekwordforhound.ItishardtothinkthatXenophonwouldhavehadafundamentaldisagreementwiththeopinionofPlatoreportedearlier(Rep.549a).Accordingly,thereismuchtocommendthesuggestionofDelebecquethattheKynegetikoswaswrittenbyXenophonforhisownsons;aftertheyhadlearneditslessonstheyleftSkillousforAthens.Politically,huntingmaybeaprophylacticagainsttyranny.OneofthethingsthatdistinguishedAgesilaosthekingfromHeirothetyrantwasthathekepthoundsandHeirodidnot(Ages.9.6;Heiro.2.2).Bothkepthorses,whichwasevidenceonlyoftheirprosperity,nottheirvirtue(Poroi4.8),whateverthevirtueofthehorses(Oec.11.3–6).AccordingtoStrauss,oneofthemeaningsofpoliticalphilosophyisthatitis“thepolitical,orpopular,treatmentofphilosophy,orthepoliticalintroduc-tiontophilosophy—theattempttoleadthequalifiedcitizens,orrathertheir29.Higgins,XenophontheAthenian,132.30.IntheAnabasis(5.6.15–18),Xenophonwassuspectedofwantingtofoundapolis,asPlatosaid(Rep.499c),“insomebarbaricplace.”31.Strauss,Xenophon’sSocrates(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1972),38.32.ConsiderCyrus’sdiscussionwithhismotheroverwhetherheshouldstaywithherfather,1.3.13–18.\nHuntingandPoliticalPhilosophy51qualifiedsons,fromthepoliticallifetothephilosophiclife.”33Xenophonhastaughtthathuntingisapracticeofmoderation.Beingahunterandamoder-ateman,beingaphilosopheraswell,hehaspracticedpoliticalphilosophybypracticingtheartofmoderatediscourse.IftheconsequencesofhuntingareasXenophonindicated,thenformosthumanbeings,includingthosewhosesoulsaredisposedtowardphilosophizing,thepracticeofhuntingisakindofphi-losophizing,andhisstudy,theKynegetikos,isanexampleofSocraticrhetoric,whichsometimesinvolvesdeception.Onemayalsodrawaconclusionusefulforcontemporarylife.HerodotosdistinguishedGreeksandbarbarians,amongotherways,byemphasizingthehomogenizingtendenciesofthebarbarians:whatcountedwerenumbersofbodiesinstandardizedcircles(Hdt.7,60).Morephilosophically,barbarianscouldseenodifferencebetweenhumanandsubhumannature;oriftheydid,theywouldstrivetoignoreit.Morephilosophicallystill,barbarianconscious-nessexistsinacosmologicalorderwheretheseveralrealmsofbeingarenot,orarenotsufficiently,differentiated.Astheysay,“Theworldisfilledwithgods.”Contemporarysophisticbarbarianswhoopposehuntingaresimilartoancientbarbariansintheirlackofdiscriminationbetweenhumanandsubhu-man.Ontheonehand,theydegradethehumantothesubhumanandspeakabout“ecosystems.”Ontheotherhand,theyendowsubhumananimalswithwhattheycallrights.Inthiswaytheyidentifythemselveswiththehunted,whomtheycallvictims.Itgoeswithoutsayingthattheyhavenonotionofthesuperhuman,whichiswhatredeemedtheancientbarbarians.Nothing,sofarasIcansee,redeemsthecontemporarybarbariansintheiroppositiontohunt-ing,especiallynottheirmoralism.Appendix:BiographicAllusionsKephalos,Xenophonsaid,wasabductedbyagoddess;hewasabductedbyEos.Tobeabductedwasaeuphemismforsuddendeath.Nothingwassaidofhishuntingprowessnorofhisremarkabletackle,ahound,Laelaps,thatneverlostitsquarry,andaspearthatnevermisseditstarget;nothingwassaidoftheresentmentofhiswife,Prokris,norhow,asaresultofit,shewasaccidentallyspearedbyKephalos.XenophonwasalsosilentaboutthefateofLaelapswhenheencounteredtheuncatchableCadmeanvixen—Zeusturnedbothhoundandfoxtostone.Asaresultofhunting,Kephaloslostthreethings:hismostfamousquarry,hishound,andhiswife.33.WhatIsPoliticalPhilosophy?(Glencoe:FreePress,1959),93–94.\n52BarryCooperAsklepiosinSigmawasabletoraisethedead;inAlphahewasableonlytocurethemoribund.InSigmahewasagodandamongmenthepossessorofimmortalglory;inAlphahewasnolongeragod.HewasapupilofCheiron.MeilanionwasaloveroftoilwhoeventuallymarriedAtalanta,whowasahuntress.XenophondidnotmentionthathedidsoonlyundercompulsionfromAphroditenorthathewonherbytrickery,northathedidnotfulfillhisvowtoAphroditeandthatasaconsequencebothheandAtalantawereturnedintolions.Nestorwassofamous,Xenophonsaid,thathehadnoneedtotellofhisrenown.Thereason,perhaps,isthatNestorwoulddoithimself(cf.Il.23.624ff.).AmphiaraoswasagreatwarrioragainstThebes;Xenophonissilentastothefactthat,foreknowingtheoutcomeofthefamousexpeditionagainstthatpolis,hedeclinedtovolunteer,waseventuallycompelledtofight,andthenfledtobeswallowedbyacleftintheearthmadebyZeus’sthunderbolt.Peleuswasadmiredbythegodsforhisself-controlandothervirtues;SigmaindicatedaswellthathemarriedThetis,motherofAchilleus.NothingissaidoftherejectionofThetisbyZeusandPoseidonbecauseofaprophecythathersonwouldbegreaterthanthefather,norofPeleus’sbetrayalonahuntwhenhisspearwasstolen,norofthesubsequentattackbycentaursandhisrescuebyCheiron,norofhisaccidentallykillingEurytion,whohadpreviouslypurifiedhimafterheandTelamonhadkilledhishalf-brother,Phocos,onaboarhunt.NothingissaidaboutThetisleavingPeleus.Telamonwaspraisedforhisvirtue,hismarriagetoPeriboea,andhisbeinghonoredbyHerakles.NothingwassaidofhisbeingthebrotherofPeleusnoroftheirjointmurder.Meleagerwaswellknownandfamed,Xenophonsaid,andhismisfortunewasnothisfaultbutthefaultofhisfather,Oeneus.OeneusneglectedtosacrificetoArtemis,andshesentawildboartoravagethecountryside.Meleagerthencollectedahuntingparty,whichincludedCastorandPollux,Atalanta,Amphi-araos,Peleus,Nestor,Telamon,andTheseus.Nothingwassaidofhisdeath,ofwhichthereweretwoversions.InonehewaskilledbyApollo;intheotherbyhismother.Theseuswasadmired,accordingtoXenophon,forenlargingthecountrycontrolledbyhishomelandandforsingle-handedlyslayingtheenemiesofalltheGreeks.Nomentionismadeofthenameofhishomeland,whichwasthesameasthehomelandofXenophon,theexile;nothingwassaidofhisgreathunts,norofthemorerecentresultsofAthenianimperialhunting.HippolytoswashonoredbyArtemisandspokewithher.InSigmahewascelebratedforhischastityandpiety;inAlphahewascelebratedforhischastity.\nHuntingandPoliticalPhilosophy53NothingwassaidofhisbetrayalbyPhaedratoTheseus,whodoubtedhischas-tity,norofTheseus’scausinghimtodie.PalamedeswasdescribedinSigmaassurpassingbyfarhiscontemporariesinwisdom,butbeingunjustlykilled,heobtainedfromthegodsanunprece-dentedrevenge;inAlphaheobtainedunprecedentedfame.Nothingwassaidabouthowhedied,norwhathisrevengewas;XenophonseemstodisputetheversionthatOdysseuswasresponsibleforhisdeath(butcf.Mem.4.2.33).Menestheus,throughhisloveofhuntingandhisdevotiontotoil,wasadmittedbythefirstoftheGreekstobethebest,exceptforNestorwhorivaledhim.MenestheuswasnotidentifiedbyXenophonasleaderoftheAtheniansbeforeTroy,norwasitpointedoutthatNestorcouldchallengehimonlybecausehewasfarolderandcoulddosoonlyindrawingupsoldiersandhorses(Il.2.552–56).Nothingwassaidoftheeffectivenessofthese“Nestorian”tac-tics(cf.,Il.2.296–301).Therefollowedthreepairofheroes:OdysseusandDiomedeswerefamousforeverydeed;tothemwasowedthefallofTroy.NothingwassaidofthedeedofPalamades’murder.CastorandPolluxinSigmawereimmortalbecausetheyshowedtheGreekstheartstheylearnedfromCheiron;inAlphatheyhadlosttheirimmortalityandwererememberedtogether.NothingwasmentionedoftheirhuntingskillsinrecapturingHelenafterTheseuskidnappedhernorofthehuntingexpedi-tionwiththeArgonauts.MachaonandPolaleirioswereschooledinthehealingartstaughtbyChe-iron.ItwasnotmentionedthattheyweresonsofAsklepiosnorthattheywerethesurgeonandphysicianoftheGreekforcesatTroy.Antilochoswaskilleddefendinghisfather,Nestor,andreceivedthenamePhilopator.AeneasaccordingtoSigmagainedrenownforhispietybysavingthepater-nalandmaternalgodsaswellashisfather;forthatreason,aloneoftheTro-jans,hewasnotstrippedofhisarms.AccordingtoAlpha,hegainedanameforpietysimplyforsavinghisfather,nothingbeingsaidofthepenates.Achilleuswasbroughtupinthispaideiasowellthatnoonegrowswearyofhearingandtellingofhim.\n3The(Anti-)EschatalogicalPerspectiveinSigmundFreud’sPsychoanalysisGilbertWeissIntroductionWhenSigmundFreud’sDieTraumdeutungcameoutin1899,thescientificandphilosophicaldiscourseofthetimewasdominatedbyaconfigurationofideasthatcouldbedescribedasaimingatthe“discoveryoftherealreality.”Epigrammaticallystated,thepurposewastoliberaterealityfromtheconfinesandrestrictionsofreasonthatoriginatedinGermanIdealism.Itwasintendedtofindthewaybackfromtherealityofabsolutereason(absoluteVernunftwirk-lichkeit)totherealityofthenaturalworld(naturaleWeltwirklichkeit).Asaresult,agreatvarietyofnewphenomenawerediscovered:theeconomy,whichlaybehindspirit(Marx),themortalityofhumanexistence,whichlaybehindspeculation(Kierkegaard),thewill,whichlaybehindreason(Schopenhauer),thewillforpower,whichlaybehindknowledge(Nietzsche),andbiology,whichlaybehindhistory(Darwin).SigmundFreudispartofthistraditionoffindesièclediscovery.Thenewworldhemadeaccessiblebroughttolighttheuncon-scious,whichlaybehindconsciousness,andtheinstinct,whichlaybehindculture.Whatiscommontoallofthesevoyagesofdiscoveryis—asEricVoegelinhaspointedout—theturntothatsphereofhumanexistencethatinClassicalandChristianethicsfellwithinthetitleofpassiones,concupiscentiae,andlibidines.Theworldlyimmanentandnaturalexistenceofmanwasdeclaredtobethe“realreality.”WiththisturnthespeculativeflightsoffancyofGermanIdealismwereprovisionallygrounded,butinsteadofcontinuingtheunfetteredsearch54\n(Anti-)EschatologicalPerspective55forrealitythathadbecomelost,newfetterswereplaceduponit:materialistic,naturalistic,psychologisticfetters.Inshort,the“escapefromthenoeticstruc-tureofreality”1continued.WithNietzsche,therevoltagainstGodculminatedinanexplicitdeicide.Inthiscontext,SigmundFreudwasanallyofNietzsche.Byattributinganillusionarycharactertoreligion,whichthepsychoanalyticmethoddisclosedtobetheUrneurosederMenschheit,hereachedaclimaxofmodernatheism.ForthephilosopherEricVoegelin,FreudbelongsinacategorywithgnosticspeculatorssuchasHegel,Marx,andComte.Inhisview,theFreudianuncon-sciousisanideologicaldeformationofhumannatureequaltoHegel’sWeltgeist,Marx’sProduktionsverhältnisse,orComte’sphysiquesociale.2Accordingly,Freu-dianpsychoanalysiswouldpresentagnosticconstructionofhistorythat,aswithallformsofmodernGnosticism,ischaracterizedinitsinnerlogicasanimmanentisteschatology,thatis,asanintramundanestoryofsalvation.InthefollowingessayIwillinvestigatewhetherthiscondemnationofFreudasagnosticrevolutionaryisjustified.DoesFreudianpsychoanalysisactuallyproclaimaworldlyimmanentredemption?Canitbeclassifiedaccordingtoitstheoreticalsubstanceasanintramundaneeschatology;orisitnotrathertheotherwayround,insofarastheFreudianmanremainsunredeemedandnosocialformation,neitherhistoricalnorutopian,isimaginablewherethiscon-ditionwouldchange?DoesFreudappearasaprophet?Doespsychoanalysisfulfiltheprogressivistichopesinarevolutionarytransformationofhumannature?OrisitnotratherthatFreud’sanalysisunmasksnotonlythereligiousmessageofsalvationasanillusionbutalsotheMarxistmessagealongwitheveryotherchiliasticone?Ifso,whatwouldbethepoliticalandsocialconse-quencesofsuchananti-eschatologicalconception?Inordertosketchpossibleanswerstothesequestions—morecannotbeachievedintheformofthispaper—itis,firstofall,necessarytoindicatethekeyelementsoftheFreudianapproach.Theseare:(1)thehistoryoftheindividual(Individualgeschichte)asthemirrorofthehistoryofmankind(Menschheits-geschichte),(2)Sinnverstehenastheanalyticalmethod,and(3)remembranceandrecollectionoftheforgottenastheanamneticprincipleofinvestigation.Then,toenterintotheheartofthematter,onemustconsiderFreud’slastandphilosophico-historicallymostimportantwork,MosesandMonotheism.Itisthisbookthatshowstheeschatologicalperspectiveofhistheoryofcivilization1.EricVoegelin,“Reason:TheClassicExperience,”inTheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin(hereinafter,CW),vol.12,PublishedEssays,1966–1985,ed.EllisSandoz(1990;availableColumbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,1999),278.2.Cf.EricVoegelin,“Immortality:ExperienceandSymbol,”inCW,12:69.\n56GilbertWeissmostclearly.Finally,Iwillbrieflysketchthepoliticalandsocialconsequencesofthisperspectiveinasomewhatpictorialwaybyreferringtosurrealism.IndividualTherapyandTheoryofCivilizationToday,theworkofSigmundFreudpresentsitselfintwoways:ontheonehandasatherapeutic-clinicalapproach,asaspecifictechniqueforthemed-icaltreatmentofpsychiccomplaints,andontheotherhandasalarge-scaletheoryofcultureandcivilization.Inthefurtherdevelopmentofpsychoanaly-sisafterFreud’sdeathwiththefoundationofnumberlessschoolsthesetwoaspectsofhisworkhavebeenwidelyseparatedfromeachother.Thepsycho-analyticalorthodoxy,todayrepresentedprimarilybytheAmericanPsychoan-alyticAssociation,hasdevoteditselfentirelytothetherapeutic-clinicalaspectandhasmoreorlessshelvedthepartofculturaltheory.Thishasledtowhatmaybecalledthephenomenonof“medicocentrism”withinpsychoanalysis.Furthermore,thepeculiarunionbetweenpsychoanalysisandMarxism,whichbecamepopularduringthe1960s,diditsparttoevokeacertainnot-unjustifiedskepticismagainstFreudasaculturaltheorist,especially,intheacademicworld.3ForFreudhimself,thepsychoanalyticalmethodasaninstrumentofculturalandhistoricalanalysiswasofnolessimportancethanitstherapeutic-clinicalapplication.Onecanevensaythat,withadvancingyears,Freud’sinterestturnedmoreandmoretocultureandhistory.Thus,hismostimportantlatewritings,fromTotemundTabutoMoses,areratherofametapsychologicalnatureanddeterminedbythedesirefortheoreticaluniversalism.Thereareseveralreasonsforthischange.Freud’smedicalpathosandsenseofvocationwerenotpartic-ularlystrong.Passagesfromhiscorrespondenceillustratethatverywell.Fromthebeginninghewasopposedtothemedicalizationofthepsychoanalyticalmethod.Inordertopreventthetransformationofpsychoanalysisintoa“SpezialfachderMedizin,”4healsotriedtokeeptheWienerPsychoanalytischeVereinigung(foundedin1908)opentonon-physicians,to“laymen,”ashecalled3.TheunionbetweenpsychoanalysisandMarxismwas,aboveall,initiatedbyformermembersoftheFrankfurterInstitutfürSozialforschung,particularlybyHerbertMarcuse.Althoughthisuniondidnotlastlong,becauseitwasbuiltonadubiousbasis,itcausedakindofallgemeinerIdeologieverdachtthatlargelyblockedseriousscientificdiscussionofthesociologicalandphilosophicalimplicationsofFreud’swork.Inthe1980sitcametoarevivalofFreud’sideasinthesocialsciencesthroughstructuralismandpoststructuralism.Ofcourse,theFreudthatwaspresentedtherewasmainlyaLacanianone.4.SigmundFreud,“ZurFragederLaienanalyse,”inhisGesammelteWerke(hereinafter,GW)(Frankfurta.M.:S.Fischer,1961),14:289.\n(Anti-)EschatologicalPerspective57them.Before1914,aboutathirdofthegroupthatcametogetherforthefamousPsychologicalWednesdayEveningswerenon-physicians.5ApartfromthebiographicfactthatFreudlackedatherapeuticvocation,histurntothequestionsofculture,society,andhistoryhadreasonsthataretobefoundinthetheoreticalapproachitself.AlreadyinDieTraumdeutung,Freuddiscoveredaphenomenonofgraveconsequence:thewishesthatmanifestthemselvesindreamsgivenotonlyinformationabouttheontogenesisoftheindividualbutalsoaboutthe“phylogeneticchildhoodofmankind.”6NotleastbecauseoftheinfluenceofHaeckel’sbiogenetics,Freudregardedtheonto-genesisastherepetitionofthephylogenesis,theindividualasamirrorofthehistoryofmankind.Thisphenomenon,appliedtothestructureofdreams,ledtotheimmigrationofphylogeneticelementsintotheindividualunconsciousand,therewith,totheassumptionofuniversalsymbolicconstants.7Thesesym-bolicconstantsintheunconscious,the“seelischenAltertümer,”thatinterestedFreudmostand,fromhisearlydayson,werehistruepassion.Withtheindividualasamirrorofhistory,asadepositofgenericsedimentsofmankind,theuniversal-historicalperspectiveofpsychoanalysiswasalreadygivenattheverybeginningofFreud’sdevelopment.Butonlyinhislatewritings,particularlyinMoses,thisperspective,aswewillseebelow,findsitssystematicformulation.InthisregardananecdoteprovidedbyTheodorReikisquiteillu-minating:inoneoftheWednesdayeveningdiscussionsReiktooktheviewthatthefutureofpsychoanalysiswouldlieinthestudiesofhistoryandanthropol-ogyandthat,intheyear2000,theanalyticaltherapyofneuroticandpsychoticcomplaintswouldbeconsideredasanantiquatedenterprise.Tothegreatas-tonishmentofthepeoplepresent,Freudentirelyagreedwithhisstatement.8SinnverstehenastheMethodofPsychoanalysisFreudianpsychoanalysis,bothasaclinical-therapeuticprocedureandasmetapsychologicaltheory,uses,notacausal-scientificmethod,butratherageisteswissenschaftlich-verstehendeone,thatistosay,ofinterpretativeunder-standing.Inspiteofcertainterminologicalborrowingsfromthenaturalsciences,5.Amongthem,peoplesuchasOttoRank,TheodorReik,HansSachs,andSiegfriedBernfeld.Incidentally,AnnaFreudwasnotatrainedphysician,butwasoriginallyateacher.6.Freud,GW2/3:554:“diephylogenetischeKindheit...desMenschengeschlechts.”7.Thenotion“SymbolischeKonstante”wasfirstusedwithreferencetoFreudbyHansBlumenberg.SeehisDieLesbarkeitderWelt(Frankfurt:Suhrkamp,1986),354.8.SeeTheodorReik,DreißigJahremitSigmundFreud(Munich:Kindler,1976),41.\n58GilbertWeisswhichforreasonsofacceptanceinthescientificcommunityattheturnofthecenturywasunavoidable,itsmethodologicallyguidingprinciplewasSinnver-stehen,thatis,theinterpretativeunderstandingofpsychicdispositions.Simi-larlytohisgreatcontemporariesMaxWeberandEdmundHusserl,Freudre-gardedthedecodingofprocessesofmeaningtobethekeytoknowledge.Forthatreasonhetookashisstartingpointthedream,understoodasameaning-fulpsychicdisposition(sinnvollespsychischesGebilde)9ofwhichcertainsymp-tomscanbepickedout.Strictlyspeaking,itwastheseemingmeaninglessnessofthemanifestcontentsofdreams(manifesterTrauminhalt)thatpressedFreudtosearchfortheirhiddenqualityofmeaning.Freudalwayslookeduponpsy-choanalysisasan“artofinterpretation”(Deutungskunst)10thattriedto“under-stand”themeaningofthepsychicambivalenceofclosureanddisclosure,ofcoveringanduncovering.Acausalexplanationofpsychiclifewasnotthegoal,butrathertheconstitutionofmeaningasaprocessofcommunicationbetweentheanalysandandtheanalyst.Accordingly,FreuddidnotwriteabookcalledTheExplanationofDreams,butinsteadwroteonewiththetitleTheInterpreta-tionofDreams.Philosophicalcriticismofpsychoanalysishasrepeatedlymis-takenthispoint.Evenafirst-ratephilosophersuchasKarlJaspers,whohimselfhadcometophilosophyfromthefieldofpsychopathology,misjudgedthemethodicalprincipleofpsychoanalysis.Inhis1950essay“DieForderungderWissenschaftlichkeit,”Jaspersclaimedthatpsychoanalysisisbasedon“kausalemErklären”andnoton“Sinnverstehen,”11whichisacompletemisinterpretationofthespecificcharacterofthepsychoanalyticalprocedure.ThesignificanceofFreud’sapproachis,however,preciselytheovercomingofthemechanisticnineteenth-centurypsychology,inwhichallpsychicphenomenaareexplainedbyphysiologicalcauses.Thus,itischaracteristicthatinhiswritingsFreudneverused,forexample,thetermhormone,which,afterall,hadexistedsince1902.12RadicallyresistingthematerialismoftheHelmholtzschool(whichhehimselfhadpassedthrough),hereplacedthebiochemicalmethodoftreatmentofsymptomsbyahermeneuticaskingforthemeaning-contextsofpyschicdisorder.Bysearchingbehindthesymptomstothegenesisofsymptoms(Symp-9.Freud,GW,2/3:1.10.“JenseitsdesLustprinzips,”inDasIchunddasEs:MetapsychologischeSchriften(Frankfurt:FischerTaschenbuch1992),203.11.“SinnverstehenvollziehtsichinGegenseitigkeitderKommunikation,Kausalitätistsinnfremd.”KarlJaspers,VernunftundWidervernunftinunsererZeit(Munich:Piper,1950),18.12.WilliamMaddockBaylissandErnestHenryStarling,“TheChemicalRegulationoftheSecretoryProcess,”ProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondonser.A,73(1904):310–22.\n(Anti-)EschatologicalPerspective59tomgenese)and,finally,tothebiographyofthepatient,hegraduallyuncou-pledpsychologyfromphysiology.Wemustimaginethisprocessofuncoupling,notasanunproblematicoreasyone,butratherasoneconditionedbyagoodmanyinternalandexternalobstaclestobeovercome.ThefactthatFreudhadthestrengthtoovercomeallthoseobstacles,thehostilityoftheVictorian-bourgeoisenvironment,thedis-missalofhisideasbythescientificestablishment,andlastbutnotleasthisownfearsoftheresultsofself-analysis—allthatisattributabletoanenor-mouswillforknowledge(Erkenntniswille).RemembranceoftheForgottenastheAnamneticPrincipleofInvestigationInthelanguageofEricVoegelinwecansaythatpsychoanalysisdoesnotconstruct“causalconnections”(Kausalzusammenhänge)butrathertriestounderstand“connectionsofsymptoms”(Symptomzusammenhänge).13Symp-tomsarethentoberegardedasformationsofmeaningthatcanbedecodedbyfurtherinquiryintothebiographicalandcultural-historicalcontextsoftheiremergence.Freudisageneticthinker;hismethodis“throughandthroughhis-torical.”14Insearchingfordisplacedandrepressedlife-historicalandcultural-historicalorigins,Freud’sanalysisdoesnotessentiallydifferfromotherher-meneuticapproachesofthetime.Hisinterpretationofthe“texts”oftheunconsciousproceedsinasimilarwayas,forinstance,Heidegger’sinterpreta-tionofphilosophicaltexts.Inbothcasestheaimistotraceoutthe“unsaid”(Ungesagte)beyondthe“said”(Gesagte),the“absent”(Abwesende)beyondthe“presence”(Anwesenheit)ofthetext,andtosavetheforgottenfromoblivion.15BothFreudandHeideggerstrovefortheremembranceoftheforgotten,or,asthelattersays,forthe“EntbergungdesSich-Verbergenden.”16Ofcourse,therearestillimportantdifferencesbetweentheanamneticapproachofpsychoanalysisandthatofDaseinsanalyse,butevensothebasicattitudeofinterpretationas13.Cf.GilbertWeiss,Theorie,Relevanz,undWahrheit:EineRekonstruktiondesBriefwech-selszwischenEricVoegelinundAlfredSchütz(1938–1959)(Munich:WilhelmFink,2000),158f.14.JacobTaubes,“PsychoanalyseundPhilosophie,”inVomKultzurKultur:BausteinezueinerKritikderhistorischenVernunft(Munich:WilhelmFink,1996),360.15.MartinHeidegger,WasistMetaphysik(Frankfurt:VittorioKlostermann,1943),12.16.See,forinstance,EinführungindieMetaphysik(Tübingen:Niemeyer,1953),15f.,andWasistMetaphysik,particularlythe“Einleitung.”\n60GilbertWeissanactofuncovering(Enthüllung)showssignificantparallels.Inthisconnec-tion,itisalsoworthwhiletoconsiderEricVoegelin’sAnamnesis.IntheVor-wort(1966),hedescribeshisconceptionoftheanamneticprocess:Aphilosophyoforderistheprocessthroughwhichwefindtheorderofourexistenceashumanbeingsintheorderofconsciousness.Platohasletthisphilos-ophybedominatedbythesymbolof“Anamnesis,”remembrance.Remembered,however,willbewhathasbeenforgotten;andweremembertheforgotten—sometimeswithconsiderabletravail—becauseitshouldnotremainforgotten.Theculpablyforgottenwillbebroughttothepresenceofknowledgethroughremembrance,andinthetensiontoknowledgeoblivionrevealsitselfasthestateofnon-knowledge,oftheagnoiaofthesoulinthePlatonicsense.Knowledgeandnon-knowledgearestatesofexistentialorderanddisorder.Whathasbeenforgotten,however,canberememberedonlybecauseitisaknowledgeinthemodeofoblivionthatthroughitspresenceinoblivionarousestheexistentialunrestthatwillurgetowarditsraisingintothemodeofknowledge.Oblivionandknowledgearemodesofconsciousnessofwhichthefirstcanberaisedintothesecondthroughremembrance.Rememberingistheactivityofconsciousnessbywhichtheforgotten,i.e.,thelatentknowledgeinconsciousness,israisedfromunconsciousnessintothepresenceofconsciousness.IntheEnneads(4.3,30),Plotinushasdescribedthisactionasthetransitionfromnon-articulatethinkingtoarticulatethinkingthatperceivesitself.Throughanactofperceivingatten-tion(antilepsis),thenon-articulatedknowledge(noema)istransformedintoconsciousknowledge;andthisantilepticknowledgethenbecomesfixedthroughlanguage(logos).Remembrancethus,istheprocessbywhichnon-articulated(ameres)knowledgecanberaisedintotherealmoflanguage-images(tophan-tastikon)sothat,throughexpressionintheprecisesenseofbecomingathingintheexternalworld(eistoexo),itwillbecomelinguisticallyarticulatedpresenceinconsciousness.17Tobesure,therealmVoegelin’sanamnesisopensdiffersradicallyfromthecontentsofknowlegdeFreudwantstomakeaccessible.Forthemoment,how-ever,letusconsidersolelythebasicrhythmoftheanamneticprocess.Inordertodistinguishthetwoconceptionsbetterfromeachother,Iwillinthefollow-ingspeakofAnamnesis(forVoegelin)andanamnesis(forFreud).ThegoaloftheAnamnesisisto“bringtheculpablyforgottentothepres-enceofknowledgethroughremembrance.”ExactlythesamealsoappliestoFreud’sanamneticprocedure.OnecouldevensaythatVoegelin’ssentenceisoneofthemostconcisesummariesofthepsychoanalyticalmethod,especially17.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.6,Anamnesis:OntheTheoryofHistoryandPolitics,trans.M.J.Hanak,ed.DavidWalsh(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2002),36–37.\n(Anti-)EschatologicalPerspective61becauseitincludestheaspectofguilt,whichisofgreatimportanceforFreud.TheproblemofguiltinFreudwilloccupyusfurtherbelow.FollowingVoegelin’stext,thenextessentialelementisthatoblivionisa“stateofnon-knowledge”thatcanonlyberealizedinthe“tensiontoknowl-edge.”Hence,therehastoexistaknowledgebeforewecanspeakofanon-knowledge.Thenextstepisinteresting:theforgottenisitselfaknowledge,namely,one“inthemodeofoblivionthatthroughitspresenceinoblivionarousesanexistentialunrest.”Theforgotten,theabsent,isstillpresentinitsabsence;otherwisetherewouldnotbeaproblem.Thatthisisaperfectdescrip-tionofwhathappensinthepsychoanalyticalanamnesisisinstantlyevidentwhenweputintheFreudianterms(although,sincethemeaningremainsthesame,suchchangesarenotevennecessary):therepressedinsteadofthefor-gotten,theunconsciousinsteadofknowledgeinthemodeofoblivion,con-sciousnessinsteadofknowledge,andneurosisinsteadoftheexistentialunrest.Evenmoresignificantaretheterminologicalequivalencesinthefollowingsentences:“Oblivionandknowledgearemodesofconsciousnessofwhichthefirstcanberaisedintothesecondthroughremembrance.”Andfurther:“Re-memberingdesignatestheactivityofconsciousnessbywhichtheforgotten,i.e.,thelatentknowledgeinconsciousness,israisedfromunconsciousnessintothepresenceofconsciousness.”InFreudianlanguagethisstatementwouldberenderedfamously:“Wheretheid(‘it’)was,thereshallbecomeego”(woEswar,sollIchwerden).ThesimilaritiesbetweenFreudandVoegelinareindeedsig-nificant,andtheyarenotonlylinguistic—unconsciousness,latentknowledge,themetaphoricsofraising—butalsocanbefoundinthecategorialstructure.Letustake,forinstance,Voegelin’sdescriptionofoblivionandknowledgeas“modesofconsciousness.”ForFreud,also,theunconsciousisnotahinter-world;howeveritmaybenatured,itisnotasomethingthathidesitselfbeyondconsciousness,butratheritisamodeofconsciousnessitself,awayconscious-nessis.Thatiswhyonecanspeak,asFreuddoes,ofanunconsciousconscious-nessor,asVoegelindoes,ofaconsciousnessinthemodeofoblivion.Thisleadstoanonsequituronlyifwearenotwillingtotakethestepfromthemecha-nisticideaoftheunconsciousasadarkworldbehindconsciousnessorevenasasecondconsciousnesstowardtheunconsciousasa“modeofbeing”(Seins-modus)ofconsciousnessitself.Voegelin’stextdrawsthefollowingconclusion:“Remembrance,thus,istheprocessbywhichnon-articulated...knowledgecanberaisedintotherealmoflanguage-images...sothat,throughexpressionintheprecisesenseofbecomingathingintheexternalworld...,itwillbecomelinguisticallyartic-ulatedpresenceinconsciousness.”Nothingotherhappensinpsychoanalysis.\n62GilbertWeissAllessentialelementsoftheFreudiananamnesisaregivenbyVoegelin,uptothenecessityofthelinguisticexternalizationoftheforgottenorrepressed.Asweknow,Freud’scrucialprogressindevelopinghistherapeuticapproachwasthestepfromhypnosistonarration,thatis,tothenarrativemethod.Inhisstudiesonhysteriaherealizedthatthroughhypnosisthehystericsymp-tomsdisappearonlytemporarily.Butinorderreallytodissolvethem,there-membranceofthetraumatizingeventanditscommunicationtothetherapistarerequired.Thepatienthastounderstandwhyhehasbeenrepressingthetraumatizingevent,becausethemomentaryecstasythroughhypnosisisnotenough.Andhecanonlyunderstandbyrememberingandbylinguisticallyarticulatingtherememberedtothetherapist.Thatistheonlywaythatthefor-gottencanbebroughttothepresenceofconsciousness,theonlywaythatthesymptomsdisappear.Remembrance(Er-Innerung)andlinguisticexternaliza-tion(Ent-Äußerung)areboundtoeachotherintheFreudiananamnesisaswellasinVoegelin’sAnamnesis.Themethodicalrhythmisthesameinbothcases.TheforegoingremarksweresolelyintendedtopointtoproceduralparallelsbetweenVoegelinandFreud.Thephilosophicalfundamentalsoftheirap-proachesareofcoursequitedifferent.Voegelin’ssymptomatologyisbasedonthedifferentiationbetweenknowledgeandoblivionasconditionsof“existen-tialorderanddisorder.”Thecriterionisnotpsychopathological,asinFreud,butpneumopathological.Thestateofoblivionrepresents,notapsychicillnessinthenarrowsense,butadiseaseofspirit.Whenconsciousnessfallsbackontheshadowplaysofthecave,thenitsspiritualstructureiseclipsedandmanlosesthecenterofhisreality.TheclinicalpictureofneurosisthatFreuddescribesandtheVoegeliniandiagnosisofastateofexistentialdisorderhavenomoreincommonthanthetherapeuticnecessityofanamneticretrospectionintotheforgotten.Theydodifferfromeachothernotonlywithregardtotheevaluationofthediseasedstatebutalsoconcerningthesourcesandthetherapeuticconclusionsofthe“illness.”WhereasforVoegelintheessenceofhumannatureliesinthenoetic-pneumaticopennesstowardthetranscendentalgroundofbeing,Freudlooksuponmanasacavemanwithnochanceofeverleavingthecave.Maniscaughtinthedarknessofthecave.Thereisnowayout.Thedarknessofhumanexis-tenceischaracterizedbyboundlessurges,fear,aggression,anddestruction.Althoughthereissomesortofreasonthattriestomaintainorderinthejun-gleofinstincts,itonly“succeeds”tothedegreethatisnecessaryformantosurvive.Itspowerofilluminationissmall.Likeaflashlight,itprovidesonlyaminimumoflightthatperhapslightsupthecorridorsofthecavebutneverhastheluminouspowertoshowthewayoutofthecave.ThemanweencounterinFreud’swritingsissimilartotheHobbesianone,acreaturecaughtinhis\n(Anti-)EschatologicalPerspective63owninstincts.Atbest,hecantamehisinborndispositiontoevilbuthecanneverovercomeit.Thecauseofhissufferingdoesnot,asinVoegelin,lieinadeformationofhumannaturebutratherinhumannatureitself.Asaconse-quence,thedividinglinesbetweenpathologyandnormality,illnessandsan-ity,becomeeffaced.Thisiswhyastatementsuchasthefollowingwillcomeasnosurprise:Bydemonstratingthepartplayedbyperverseimpulsesintheformationofsymptomsinthepsychoneurosis,wehavequiteremarkablyincreasedthenum-berofpeoplewhomightberegardedasperverts.Itisnotonlythatneuroticsinthemselvesconstituteaverynumerousclass,butitmustalsobeconsideredthatanunbrokenchainbridgesthegapbetweentheneurosesinalltheirmanifesta-tionsandnormality....Theconclusionnowpresentsitselftousthatthereisindeedsomethinginnatelyingbehindtheperversionsbutthatitissomethinginnateineveryone,thoughasadispositionitmayvaryinitsintensityandmaybeincreasedbytheinfluencesofactuallife.18ThereisnodoubtthatFreudsucceedsinde-demonizingmentalillness;but,ontheotherhand,hedoessobydemonizinghumannature.Ultimatelyhisproclaimedgoal—wheretheidwas,thereshallbecomeego—revealsitselfasanillusion,atragicillusion.Thecarnalforcesoftheunconsciousaretoopower-fultobemasteredbyconsciousness.Theratioistooweaktoovercomeman’sinborndeficiencies,thatistosay,theanimal-likeurges.Allthatcanbeachieved,underanalysis,isabriefflickeringoflightintheeverlastingdarkness.Theanamneticprocess,afterall,brings,notarealhealingofthenatural-bornill-nessofman,butonlyashort-termsoothingofhisworstpain.Humannatureremainsimprisonedinthemiseryofitsimmanentexistence.Itis“ground-less,”inthesenseofVoegelinianpneumopathology.Whythisisso,willbeshowninthefinalpartofthispaper.ManandHistoryinFreud:EschatologyorAnti-Eschatology?Asnotedabove,overtheyearsFreudturnedmoreandmorefromtheclinical-therapeuticrealmtothequestionsofculture,society,andhistory.Theclimaxofthisdevelopmentisrepresentedbyhislastwork,MosesandMono-theism.Itcameoutin1939,oneyearafterhisemigrationtoLondonandjustafewmonthsbeforehisdeath.Since1913hehadbeenworkingonthisbook.18.Freud,“ThreeEssaysonSexuality,”inTheStandardEditionoftheCompletePsycho-logicalWorksofSigmundFreud,vol.7(London:HogarthPress,1953),171.\n64GilbertWeissItisnotonlyhislastbook,butalsohisphilosophicaltestimony.Nowhereelsedidhereachasimilarphilosophicaldepth.Mosesis,asistrueofalmostallthebooksofFreud,firstofallaprovocation.Inthiscase,itresultsfromthehistoricalthesisthatservesasthespringboardofhisargument.Insummaryhisthesissays:MoseswasnotJewish,butanEgyptian;helivedasanobleandhigh-rankingmanatthecourtofAkhenaton(1375–1358..)who,originally,hadbeenbornasAmenothepVIandwhosubsequentlythrewofftheofficialreligionofhispredecessor,theAmon-cult,andinstitutionalizedwiththesun-godofAtonthefirstmonotheisticreligionintheexpandingEgyptianempire.19Akhenaton’sreign,however,didnotlastlong.Shortlyafterhisdeath,themonotheisticreligionwasagainabolishedandformercultswerere-established.MoseswasaconvincedadherentofthemonotheisticAtonreligionandrefusedtoacceptitsabolition.Thus,hedecidedtorealizehisidealsinanotherpeopleandtofoundanewrealmwiththem.ThesepeopleweretheJews.HeintroducedthemtotheAtonreligion,leftEgyptwiththem,madethemholybythemarkofcircumcision,andgavethemlaws.Oneday,theJews,who“wereheadstrongandunrulytowardstheirlaw-giverandleader,roseagainsthim,killedhim,andthrewoffthereligionoftheAtonwhichhadbeenimposedonthem,justastheEgyptianshadthrownitoffear-lier.”20LatertheyunitedwithcloselyrelatedtribesintheregionbetweenPalestine,theSinaiPeninsula,andArabia;andundertheinfluenceoftheAra-bianMidianites,theytookonanewreligion,theworshipofthevolcanogodYahweh.ThentheycametoCanaan.BetweenthemurderofMosesandthefoundationofthenewMidianiticreligion,presumablyfiftytosixtyyearselapsed.Inthis“latentperiod,”theviolentcrimehadbeen“repressed,”butwiththefoundationoftheYahwehreligion,the“greatliberatorMoses”wasre-memberedagain.TheywantedtopreservethisremembrancewithinthenewreligionalongwiththeliberationfromEgypt.ThustheMosaicleadership—butnot,ofcourse,thelatercrime—wasintegratedintotheJewishhistoriog-raphy.Beyondthat,substantialelementsofmonotheismandparticularlytheexternalmarkofMosaicreligion,circumcision,weremaintained.21ThuswentFreud’sMosesthesis.Thereisnotmuchtosayaboutitbeyond19.InThePoliticalReligions(1938),Voegelin,bytheway,calledAkhenaton“thefirstgreatreligiousindividualityinworldhistory.”InCW,vol.5,ModernitywithoutRestraint,ed.ManfredHenningsen(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),38.20.“MosesandMonotheism,”inTheStandardEditionoftheCompletePsychologicalWorksofSigmundFreud,vol.23(London:HogarthPress,1964),60.21.Cf.alsoJanAssmann,MosestheEgyptian:TheMemoryofEgyptinWesternMono-theism(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1997);RenéGirard,ThingsHiddensincetheFoundationoftheWorld(Stanford:UniversityPress,1987),65.\n(Anti-)EschatologicalPerspective65theobviousfactthatitisnothistoricallytenable.This,however,isnotdecisive.AsJacobTaubesputit,theFreudiancultural-historicalanalysisisnotfoundedonthisthesisofMosesbeinganEgyptian,althoughitdoesuseitasasup-port.22Ontheotherhand,onecannotsimplysaythatthe“EgyptianMoses”isofnorelevanceforfurtheranalysis,asTaubesdoesinhisreadingofFreud.Freud’sturningMosesintoanEgyptiandoesindeedsaysomethingfunda-mentalabouthiscultural-historicalpositioningeneralandhisrelationwithJudaisminparticular:thegenealogyofthepeopleIsraelwhomFreudiscall-ingintoquestionbyhisEgyptianizingofMosesis,needlesstosay,hisownpeople.Forhim,thisgenealogy,notleastbecauseofhisbitterexperiencesofanti-Semitism,impliesadangerofbeingexcludedfromEuropeancivilization.SinceheconsidersOldEgypttobetheoriginofEuropeancivilization,hebyallmeanswantstoshowthathisownrootsasaJewareEgyptian.Asaconse-quence,hehastodenytheconvenantbetweenGodandthePeopleIsrael:itwasnotGodwhochosetheJewsasHispeople,itwasthemanMoses,ahumanbeing,andnotevenaJew.InalettertoErnestJonesdatingfrom1939,FreudexplicitlycallshisMosesthesisadeliberate“denialoftheJewish-nationalmyth”(Sagengeschichte).23HisfearofbeingexcludedfromEuropean/Egyptiancivi-lizationdrovehimintoagenuineEgyptomaniathatfoundabsurdexpressioninhishugecollectionofEgyptiansymbolsandstatuettes,theso-called“Freudiana.”Inrecentyears,manyarticlesandbookshavebeenwrittenaboutFreud’sMosesandhisJudaism.Moseshasbecomeafashionabletopic,asPeterGayputit.Someauthors,suchasY.H.Yerushalmi,inhismostremarkablebookFreud’sMoses:JudaismTerminableandInterminable,haveseeninFreud’slateinterestinMosesareturnofpsychoanalysistothereligioustradition.OthershavebeenscandalizedathisefforttodissociatehimselffromJudaism.AndagainothershaveconsideredMosestobeFreud’s“Ichideal”andhisworkonthebookasa“day-dream.”24Inonewayoranotheralloftheseinterpretationscanclaimsomeplausibility.Nevertheless,noneofthemgetsthevitalpointoftheMosesbook.ItsimportancedoesnotlieinFreud’sattitudetowardJudaismorMosesasaperson,whateverthisattitudemaybe,butratherinthefactthatitisthemostpronouncedformulationofhiscultural-historicalandeschatological22.JacobTaubes,DiepolitischeTheologiedesPaulus(Munich:WilhelmFink,1993),123.23.SigmundFreudtoErnestJones,inTheCompleteCorrespondenceofS.FreudandE.Jones,1908–1939(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1993),2:101.24.PeterGay,“Freudverstehen:ZueinemEssayvonIlseGrubrich-Simitis,”Psyche47(1993):973–83;P.Gay,Freud:EineBiographiefürunsereZeit(Frankfurt:S.Fischer,1989),726ff.;IlseGrubrich-Simitis,FreudsMoses-StudiealsTagtraum:EinbiographischerEssay(Frankfurt:FischerTaschenbuch,1994).\n66GilbertWeissperspective.InordertounderstandtheessentialfeatureofthisperspectiveitisnecessarytogobeyondtheprovocativeMosesthesisthathascaptivatedsomanyinterpreters.Indoingso,IamfollowingJacobTaubes,whosereadingofFreud,inmyopinion,isfarmoreilluminatingthanthatofmostpsychoanalyticinterpreters.Finally,weshouldremembertheadviceofWalterBenjamin,namely,thatthelateFreudhaddeveloped“hisgreatestideas”moreorless“inpassingby”(imVorbeigehen).25AtthecoreofMosesandMonotheismwefindaprofounddiscussionoftheproblemofguilt.ThisisanythingbutnewinFreud.Sincehisearlydayshehadbeendealingwiththequestionofrepressionandremembranceofguilt.Butnowheraiseditinamoredirectwaythaneverbeforebyaskingtheques-tionIstherehopeofredemptionfromguilt,eitheractuallyorpotentially?Canmaneverfreehimselffromthebondageofguilt?Freud’sanswerisdefinite:no,thereisnoliberation,noescape,notevenareconciliationthroughatone-ment.Allthatcanbeachievedisanacknowledgmentofguilt,whichisnotmuchfortheemancipatoryhopesofmodernman.Freudisarepresentativeofso-calledtragichumanism,forwhichnotonlyisanyhopeofliberationillusionarybutonthewholesoishopeforthefuture.Thefuturecanonlyrepeatthepast,perhapsonamoreconsciouslevel,butinprinciplehistoryisaneverlastingrecurrenceofthesame.Mancannotbreakthiscircularcourseofhistory,leastofallbytheimaginativeconstructionofan“endofhistory.”InMoses,Freudadoptedguiltastheuniversalcategoryofhistory.Inthiswayreligionplaysanimportantroleinthegenealogyofguilt.Inhisopinion,religionisnotsomuchamatteroftraditioninthesenseofaconscioustech-nique,asitisamatterofamemoryoftheunconsciouspsychiclifeor,toputitinamorespiritualway,amemoryoftheseelischenAltertümerofhumanhis-tory.InthewordsofYerushalmi,thegenealogicalforceofreligionlies“intherecurrenceoftherepressed,intheactivationoftheunconsciousreminiscencesofrealeventsofthedistantpast.”26ForFreud,allhistoryisprecededbytheprehistoricaltragedyoftheoriginalcrime:themurderoftheprimalfather,therepentance,andtheconstitutionofthebrother-clan.Fromtheverybegin-ning,thisoriginalguiltastheprimordialeventcastsashadowoverthehistor-icalprocess,ashadowthatcanneverbeshakenoff.Humansocietyisfoundedonthe“primalfathertragedy”intheforgottenprehistory.Thisprehistoricaltragedyfatefullyrecursinhistory,anditalsodoessointheassassinationof25.WalterBenjamin,GesammelteSchriften,vol.6,Werkausgabe(Frankfurt:Suhrkamp,1980),953.26.YosefHayimYerushalmi,FreudsMoses:EndlichesununendlichesJudentum(Berlin:Wagenbuch,1992),58.(ThetranslationbackintoEnglishismyown.—G.W.)\n(Anti-)EschatologicalPerspective67MosesbytheJews:“Fatehadbroughtthegreatdeedandmisdeedofprimevaldays,thekillingofthefather,closertotheJewishpeoplebycausingthemtorepeatitonthepersonofMoses,anoutstandingfather-figure.”27WiththemurderofMosesthereemergesaconsciousnessofguiltthatasaconstituentofthereligiousmemoryforcesanincessantrecurrenceoftherepressedcrime,notonlyinthefather-religionofJudaismbutintheson-religionofChristianityaswell.Atthispoint,SaintPaulenterstheFreudiansceneandbecomesthemanFreudismostinterestedin.ItisSaintPaul“inwhosespirittherealizationfirstemerged:‘thereasonwearesounhappyisthatwehavekilledGodthefather.’”ForFreud,SaintPaulwas“amanofaninnatelyreligiousdisposition:thedarktracesofthepastlurkedinhismind,readytobreakthroughintoitsmoreconsciousregions.”ItwashewhoseizedupontheJewishconsciousnessofguiltfixedonthepredominantfatherand“traceditbackcorrectlytoitsoriginalsource:”28Hecalledthisthe“originalsin;”itwasacrimeagainstGodandcouldonlybeatonedforbydeath.Withtheoriginalsindeathcameintotheworld.Infactthiscrimedeservingdeathhadbeenthemurderoftheprimalfatherwhowaslaterdeified.Butthemurderwasnotremembered:insteadofittherewasaphantasyofitsatonement,andforthatreasonthisphantasycouldbehailedasamessageofredemption(evangelium).AsonofGodhadallowedhimselftobekilledwith-outguiltandhadthustakenonhimselftheguiltofallmen.Ithadtobeason,sinceithadbeenthemurderofafather.”29Inordertoelucidatethereligion-historicaldimensionoftherelationtothefather,Freudisoperatingwithanalogiesbetweenneuroticdispositionsandreligiousevents,thatis,heistransferringsymptomsfromthehistoryoftheindividualtothehistoryofcivilization.Accordingly,thebasicsituationisthatoftheOedipuscomplex:thesonhasamurderouslyambivalentstandagainstthefather.Hefeelsguiltyandgetsmoredeeplyinvolvedinguiltthroughthedeadfather,whohasanevenmorepowerfuleffectonthesonthanthelivingonewhomhewantedtokill:Theambivalencethatdominatestherelationtothefatherwasclearlyshown,however,inthefinaloutcomeofthereligiousnovelty.Ostensiblyaimedatpro-pitiatingthefathergod,itendedinhisbeingdethronedandgotridof.Judaismhadbeenareligionofthefather;Christianitybecameareligionoftheson.TheoldGodtheFatherfellbackbehindChrist;Christ,theSon,tookhisplace,justas27.Freud,S.,StandardEdition,23:89.28.Ibid.,135,87,86.29.Ibid.,86.\n68GilbertWeisseverysonhadhopedtodoinprimevaltimes.Paul,whocarriedJudaismon,alsodestroyedit.Nodoubtheowedhissuccessinthefirstinstancetothefactthat,throughtheideaoftheredeemer,heexorcizedhumanity’ssenseofguilt;butheoweditaswelltothecircumstancethatheabandonedthe“chosen”characterofhispeopleanditsvisiblemark—circumcision—sothatthenewreligioncouldbeauniversalone,embracingallmen.30Inintegratinganimplicitconfessionofguiltintothemessageofredemption,SaintPaulisestablishing—throughtheideaoftheoriginalsin—aremarkableconnectionwiththetragedyofprimordialhistory.Althoughforhimthecon-fessionisofsecondaryimportancetotheideaofredemption,theoriginalguiltandthetragicstartingpointofhumanhistorybecomeconstitutionallyanchored:OriginalsinandredemptionbythesacrificeofavictimbecamethefoundationstonesofthenewreligionfoundedbyPaul....AftertheChristiandoctrinehadbursttheframeworkofJudaism,ittookupcomponentsfrommanyothersources,renouncedanumberofcharacteristicsofpuremonotheismandadapteditselfinmanydetailstotheritualsoftheotherMediterraneanpeoples.ItwasasthoughEgyptwastakingvengeanceoncemoreontheheirsofAkhenaton.Itisworthnoticinghowthenewreligiondealtwiththeancientambivalenceintherelationtothefather.Itsmaincontentwas,itistrue,reconciliationwithGodtheFather,atonementforthecrimecommittedagainsthim;buttheothersideoftheemo-tionalrelationshoweditselfinthefactthattheson,whohadtakentheatone-mentonhimself,becameaGodhimselfbesidethefatherand,actually,inplaceofthefather.Christianity,havingarisenoutofafather-religion,becameason-religion.Ithasnotescapedthefateofhavingtogetridofthefather.31Nodoubt,forFreud,thePaulineideaofredemptionisanillusion.Basingitselfuponatonement,theson-religionalsoblocksremembranceandthusremainscaughtinthetraumaoftheprimordialcrimeanditsendlessrecurrenceinthehistoricalspiralofguiltandatonement.ThatiswhyChristianitycannotescapetheeliminationofthefathereither.Theeschatologicaldoctrineofsalvationbywayofatonementonlyenlargesman’spainbecauseguiltcanneverbeatoned.Itcanonlybeadmitted.Thisistheonlychanceofhealingman’spain.Itisimportanttopointout:healing,notsalvation.Thatmeansasoothingofpain,atherapeuticmaking-bearableofthetragicconditiohumana,andnothingmore.Theeschatologicalideaofultimate,transcendent,aswellasimmanent,30.Ibid.,87f.31.Ibid.,136.\n(Anti-)EschatologicalPerspective69liberationis,however,anillusion.Manremainsunredeemed.Thewayoutofthecaveis,andwillalwaysbe,blocked.Tobesure,itiseasytocriticizeFreud’sanalyticalapproachtothemonothe-isticfather-andson-religion.Hehasnosensibilityforthepneumaticforceofrevelation.Heisunabletounderstandreligiousexperiencesasexistentialexpe-riences,forexample,intheclassicalsenseofhelkeinandkinein,nottomentionthathislinkingoftheindividualwithcivilizationisbasedonratherdubiousphylogeneticspeculations.Nevertheless,thecrucialpointofinteresthereistheeschatologicalperspectiveprovidedbyFreud.Withregardtothelatter,theconclusionisthathedoesnotpresentaninnerworldlyersatzreligion;heisnotagnosticprophet,nosecularReligionsstifter.AshiscorrespondentArnoldZweigoncelapidarilysaid,hesimplyhadnotdiscoveredZarathustrabutthepsy-choanalyticmethod.32Freud’sconceptionofhistoryisdirectedtowardthepast,nottothefuture.Nothopebutguiltistheuniversalcategory.Incontrasttohispamphletonreligionof1927,inwhichhestillspokeoftheFutureofanIllusion,inMoseshemakesclearthatthefutureinthesenseofaprogressivetransformationofthepastisitselfanillusion.33Thereisnoescapefromtheoppressiveguiltofthepast,leastofallarevolutionaryone.Marxismandeveryotherchiliasmareasmuchillusionaryprojectsasarethereligioushopesofsalvation.ForFreud,theparadiselostisthetragicconditionthatcannotbeovercome,neithertodaynortomorrow.Thetherapeuticoptimumthatcanbeachievedthroughtheanamneticactisatemporaryreliefofpainthroughtheacknowledgmentoftheconstitutionalguilt.Résumé:TragicHumanism,Thanatocracy,andSurrealismAsdidmanyofhiscontemporaries,SigmundFreudhopedtodiscovertherealreality.And,aswithmanyofhiscontemporaries,hedidnotdiscoverit;onthecontrary,realitybecameevenmorecloaked.True,thenaturaleWeltwirk-lichkeitcameagaintolightbehindthespeculativeVernunftwirklichkeitofGer-manIdealism.Butatwhatprice?Whatwasclaimedtobetherealreality—inMarx,Comte,Schopenhauer,andNietzscheaswellasinFreud—turnedouttobeadramaticallyreducedsphereofhumanexistence:thedomainofthecarnal,theinstinctive,thelibidines,intheclassicalsense.32.SeeSigmundFreudandArnoldZweig,Briefwechsel,ed.E.L.Freud(Frankfurt:Fis-cherTaschenbuch,1984),85.33.Freudoncecalledthispamphlet“hisworstbook.”SeeRonaldW.Clark,SigmundFreud(Frankfurt:FischerTaschenbuch,1981),530.\n70GilbertWeissWhatseparatedFreudfromothervoyagersofdiscoverysuchasMarxandComteisthathedidnotreplacethereligious-transcendentalmessageofre-demptionwithaworldlyimmanentideaofpseudo-redemption.ForFreud,manisnotonlyunredeemed,butunredeemable.Hedidnotconstructanimma-nentmessageofsalvation;indeedhistheoryissubstantiallyanti-eschatological.Asarepresentativeoftragichumanisminitsmostradicalform,helooksuponmanasamiserablecreaturewithnochanceofbeingredeemed.ItseemsthatFreudcannotbeclassifiedasaGnosticinVoegelin’sterms,sinceatleastonecri-terionofVoegelin’scategoryofGnosticismisabsent,namely,animmanentistic-eschatologicalelement.This,however,cannotbethefinalconclusionofareadingofFreud,becausealthoughthetermtragichumanismreferstoacertainimageofman,itdoesnotsaymuchaboutthepoliticalandsocialconsequencesofthatimage—exceptthattheyareprobablynotsimilartothoseofMarxismorComteanpro-gressivism.IfFreud’santi-eschatologicalconceptiondoesnotleadtoprogres-sivism,socialism,oranotherchiliasm,wheredoesitthenlead?Whatdoesthefatefulimpossibilityofliberationfromguiltmeanforthesocialandpoliticalorderofasociety?Canmanlivewithouthope?Moreover,canhedosoinapeacefulcommunitywithothers?Issuchahopelesslifeworthlivingatall?WefindtheanswerinFreudhimself:suchalimitedexistenceisnotworthliving;strictlyspeaking,itisonlyworthdying.Toputitsomewhatoversubtly,manisnotalivingbeingbutadyingbeing.Accordingly,theorganizingandstructuringprincipleofhumanexistenceisnotthe“lifeurge”butthe“deathurge.”ThisbecomesmostclearinFreud’sessayfrom1920,“JenseitsdesLust-prinzips,”whichrepresentsaturningpointinhistheoreticaldevelopment.Fromthisessayonward,thebasicideaofanalysishaschangedfromthe“plea-sureprinciple”tothe“Nirvanaprinciple,”fromthesexualurgetothedeathurge:“Thegoalofalllifeisdeath....Thelifelesswastherebeforetheliving.”Furthermore:“Theroundaboutwaystodeath...representthephenomenaoflife,today.Iftheconservativenatureoftheurgesistobeaccepted”—andaccordingtoFreudithastobeaccepted—“thenonecannotcometoanotherpresumptionconcerningtheoriginandthegoaloflife.”34Themeaningofhumanlife,inspiteofalargenumberof“diversions,”istheapproachingofdeath.Consequently,the“wholelifeofurgesservesfortheattainmentofdeath.”35Eventhesexualurges,formerlyintroducedasoriginallifeurges,nowbecomeintegratedintothedeathurges,whicharealsocalled34.“JenseitsdesLustprinzips,”inDasIchunddasEs:MetapsychologischeSchriften(Frankfurt:FischerTaschenbuch,1992),223f.35.Ibid.,224.\n(Anti-)EschatologicalPerspective71“satellitesofdeath.”Thereisnowaybutto“believe”indeath.36Freudsolvesthepuzzleoflifebylettingitdisappearbehindtheubiquityofdeath.Thehumanbeingsheistalkingaboutarenolongerlivingsoulsbutwalkingcorpses.Theworldtheyare“living”inisarealmofthedead,athanatocracyruledbythedemonsofdeath.Now,thecaveinwhichtheFreudianmanisplacedwithoutanychanceofeverleavinggainsamoreconcreteform.ItrevealsitselfasanEgyptianburialchamber,asamysticalresidenceformummies.Freud,theEgyptian,theEgyptomaniac,followingthejackal-headedgodofthedead,Anubis,adoptstheartofembalmingasthehighestart.Thepicturetakesshape:theburialchamberistheplacetowhichhehadbeendrawnfromtheverybeginning,theplacewherehehadbeenhopingtofindthe“psychicrelictsofthepast.”Alreadyasateenagerhefeltlikebeingsurroundedbyan“Egyptiandarkness.”37Freud’smethodofanamneticrecoveryoftheoriginsofmanandmankindisalarge-scaleattempttotransformthecaveintoaburialchamberandmanintoamummy,acolossalfuneralceremony,unprecedentedinmodernity.ThuswasitsaidinMoses:“ItwasasthoughEgyptwastakingvengeanceontheheirsofAkhenaton.”Indeed,FreudappearsasavengerwhoisascendingfromtheEgyptiandarknesstocalltheescapedandilluminatedreasonbackintothetomb,whoistryingtoundoMoses’experienceoftheburningbushandthepneumaticopeningofthehumansoul.Inordertosketchthesocialandpoliticalconsequencesofthisuniversalmummification,itmightbehelpfultodosoinasomewhatfigurativewaybytakingashortlookattheavant-gardemovementofthetwentiethcenturythatmorethananyothermovementofarthasgivensymbolicexpressiontotheFreudianrealmofthedead,namely,surrealism.Letus,forinstance,lookatthemysteriouspaintingsofGiorgiodeChiricowiththeirtimelessbuild-ings,darkvaults,portals,arcades,statues.AppolinaireoncecharacterizeddeChirico’sworkasasortof“dreamwriting.”Thisdreamwriting,withitsar-chitecturalandperspectiveofplayfulness,producestheimpressionofloneli-ness,immobility,andtorpidity.OndeChirico’ssquares,plungedingloomyclair-obscure,wemeet,nothumanbeings,butbeingsofwhichweknownotwhethertheyaresuper-orsubhuman,beingswithoutfacesleaningtowardeachotherinsecretmeetingsandperformingobscuregestures.Withregardtotheseimages,PatrickWaldberghasspokenof“walkingghosts,”“jointeddolls,”36.Seealso“ZeitgemäßesüberKriegundTod”(1915),inDasUnbehageninderKultur:UndanderekulturtheoretischeSchriften(Frankfurt:FischerTaschenbuch,1994),151.37.SigmundFreud,JugendbriefeanEduardSilberstein,1871–1881,ed.W.Boehlich(Frankfurt:FischerTaschenbuch,1989),45.\n72GilbertWeissand“phantoms.”38Inthebuildings,inthesestrangeandtimelessvillaswiththeirblackaperturesandfacades,nohumanexistenceeverseemspossible.Whatwefindarestatuesandsilhouetteslivingintheirownshadows.Thesestatues,withtheirthreateningandlongshadows,seemlikemummiesthathavejustemergedfromtheirsepulchres.OneofdeChirico’sdreamdescriptionssays:Iamstandingonasquareofgreatmetaphysicalbeautynow...ontheoneside,onecanseearcades,abovethem—roomswithclosedVenetianblindsandmajes-ticbalconies.OnthehorizonIperceivehillswithvilla.Theskyisclear,white-washedthroughathunderstorm;atthesametimeInoticethatthesunissinkingbecausethehousesandthefewpassers-bycastlongshadowsuponthesquare....[T]hevillasarewhiteandsomehowceremonious;infrontoftheblackcurtainofthesky,theylooklikesepulchres.39DeChirico’smysteriouspicturesarescenariosfortherealmofthedead.Thereisapeculiarthreatcomingfromhisburialchamber–likevillaandfromtheshadow-castingmummieswhoaretheirinhabitants.Thisthreatisdifficulttodescribe.Itissimilartothethreatproducedbythedeathcultofcommunism.ThinkoftheLeninmausoleum,forinstance.Itssymbolicmonstrosityliesintheexerciseofpowerbeyonddeath.Thethreatcontinuesevenifthethreatenerhasalreadydied.Moreover,onlythroughthephysicaldeathofthethreatenerandhismummificationitgainsaspecial“religious”power.WiththeLeninmausoleumweprobablyhavethetwentieth-centuryprototypeoftheinstalla-tionofdeathasanabsorbinginstrumentofpower.Thistotalityofdeath,itsextensivedominationoverlife,isthedefiningchar-acteristicofthanatocracy.Itspowerisbasedonaparadoxicalprinciple:ontheonehand,itdeclaresdeathtobetheoverallprincipleoflife;ontheotherhand,inordertobeabletodoso,itmustmakethedeadappearasliving.Processesofdecayandputrificationmustgivetheimpressionoflife.Thatiswhytheactofmummificationisnecessary.Ithelpstotransformlifeintodeathanddeathintolife.Asaconsequence,wecannotdifferentiateanymorebetweenlivingbeingsanddeadones.Weareratherdealingwith“un-deads.”Thestatue-likefiguresindeChirico’spicturesaresuchun-deadswhoneutralizealldiffer-encesbetweenlifeanddeath.IntheSurrealisticPapillons,acoproductionofthegroupsurroundingBreton,thefollowinginterrogativesentenceistobefound:“IsSurrealismthegeniusof38.P.Waldberg,“DieEntstehungdeMetaphysik:GiorgiodeChirico,”inDerSurrealis-mus,ed.R.Lebel,M.Sanouillet,andP.Waldberg(Cologne:Taschen,1987),8–33.39.GiorgiodeChirico,“Erfolgloskämpfeich:EineTraumerzählung,”inSurrealismusinParis,1919–1939(Leipzig:Reclam,1990),151.(ThetranslationintoEnglishismyown.—G.W.)\n(Anti-)EschatologicalPerspective73communism?”40Wecouldanswer:yes,andpsychoanalysisisthegeniusofsur-realism.FreudistheréveurdéfinitifinBreton’ssense.This,needlesstosay,doesnotmeanthattheFreudianpychoanalysis,surrealism,andcommunismshallbelumpedtogether.Inthisessay,Ihavetriedtoshowhoweschatologi-callydifferent,forinstance,psychoanalysisandMarxismare.Whatallthreeofthesemovements,nevertheless,haveincommonisamoreorlessstronglypronouncedaestheticsofthanatocracy.Letuslistentothesurrealistsagain:“L’amourmortevaembellirlepeuple.”Thisistheepigramofthedeathcult—inFreudaswellasinthesurrealisticstagingofdeathandinthecommunistven-erationofLenin;unsurprisingly,itisfoundinthepoem“ExquisiteCorpses.”41Sinceloveisthestrongestforcetoovercomedeath,itisonlylogicalthatithastobedeclareddead.Whenloveisdead,thenthetriumphofthethanatocratsisabsolute.FreudisnotagnosticagitatorlikeMarxorComte.Butheendsupwheretheydo,inapneumopathologicalvacuumwhereeverythingispossible.True,Freuddoesnotconstructaworld-immanentmessageofredemption,butthisdoesnotalterthefactthathedeprivesmanofthegroundofhisbeing.Howshallmanbeabletostandthis?Doestheanti-eschatologicaltragichumanismnotnecessarilyendupinadeathecstasy,beitasymboliconelikethatofthesurrealists,orarealtotalitarianecstasythatwassobitterlyexperiencedduringthetwentiethcentury?Themanwhohasbeendeprivedofhisgroundhasnoreason/groundnottokilleither:“Absorbedbytheeverlastingnightandthrowntotheotherendofthecave,”heendsupwhere“wildaffinities[are]gnawnwithnothingness,coveredwithmurders.”42SigmundFreud,Viennese,Egyptian,geniusofsurrealism:ifmodernitywereputinthedock,asrequiredbyLeszekKolakowski,43Freudperhapswouldnotbeconvictedofgnosticagitation,butneitherwouldhegounpunished.40.DeChirico,“SurrealistischePapillons,”ibid.,212.41.DeChirico,“ErleseneLeichen,”ibid.,210.42.TristanTzara,“AnnäherungandenMenschen,”ibid.,386.(ThetranslationintoEnglishismyown.—G.W.)43.LeszekKolakowski,DieModerneaufderAnklagebank(Zurich:Manesse,1991).\n4EricVoegelin’sDefenseofHumanDignityGlennHughesCurrentpoliticaldebateispermeatedbyreferencestoahumandignitythatisuniversalandinalienable.Thetermdignityismeanttoconveyadistinctiveworthorvalue—specifically,thevalueofbeingarational,free,andmorallyself-governingcreature.Allhumanbeingsaredeclaredtobeequalintheirbasicdignity,andsoequalintheirpossessionofcertainfundamentalrightsandintheirdeservingofarangeofpoliticalandlegalprotections.TheUni-versalDeclarationofHumanRights,adoptedbytheUnitedNationsin1948partlyinresponsetothesystematizedhorrorsofNaziGermany,containsthemostwell-knownpoliticalarticulationofthisidea:“Recognitionoftheinher-entdignityandoftheequalandinalienablerightsofallmembersofthehumanfamilyisthefoundationoffreedom,justiceandpeaceintheworld....Allhumanbeingsarebornfreeandequalindignityandrights.Theyareendowedwithreasonandconscienceandshouldacttowardsoneanotherinaspiritofbrotherhood”(preamble,article1).InthehalfcenturysincetheUniversalDeclarationwaswritten,referencestothisideaofinnatehumandignityhavebecomeubiquitousinpoliticaldebate,journalism,andeverydaydiscourse.Butthereislittlepopularquestion-ingandunderstandingofitsorigins.Justasonecanprotestthefactofone’sfreewillwithlittlegraspofwhatfreedomontologicallyisorwhatitmorallyimplies,soonecaninsistuponaninherentanduniversalhumandignitywith-outanyclearunderstandingofwhatitactuallyconsistsofandwhatitsfoun-dationsmustbe.Ifwewishtocredittheconceptofhumandignitypervading74\nDefenseofHumanDignity75contemporarypublicdiscourse,wewillwanttohavesomeunderstandingofitsexperientialandhistoricalorigins.ThemostimportantmodernsourceisthephilosophyofImmanuelKant.Kantascribesdignitytohumanexistenceonthebasisof“moralpersonality”—thatis,onthefreedomofarationalbeingtomakemorallaw.Theuniversalityofsuchlawmorallybindsthepersonwhowillsit,explainsKant,sothatexer-ciseofthiscapacityconstitutesmoralautonomy,orsubjectiontoself-madelaw.Itisthisautonomy,groundedinrationalfreedomandregulatedbycon-science,hedeclares,thatgiveseachpersonanintrinsicdignity,thetermdig-nitydenotingavalue“infinitelyaboveallprice.”Athingcanbesaidtohaveaprice,hewrites,“ifanysubstituteorequivalentcanbefoundforit,”butithasdignityonly“ifitadmitsofnoequivalent.”Arationalbeingthatcanmakemorallawisofpricelessandirreplaceablevalue,of“unconditionalandincomparableworth,”andshouldneverbetreatedmerelyasameanstosomeend,becausesucharationalwillconstitutesan“endinitself.”Thelaw-makingcapacityofeachhumanbeing,therefore,isdueanappropriate“reverence.”1WeshouldnoteKant’suseofthewordreverence.ItissuggestiveofthetwointertwiningWesterntraditionsthatunderlieandnourishhisideaofdignity(althoughKant’sideaisdistinctivelymodern,particularlyinitsemphasisonhumanautonomy).ThefirstoftheseisthebiblicaltraditionthathasissuedintoChristianteaching,bothCatholicandProtestant,onthedignityandsanc-tityofthehumanpersonasmade“intheimageofGod,”thatis,asreflectingdivinebeinginsofarasapersonisfree,moral,andloving.ThesecondtraditionflowsfromGreekphilosophy,withitsconceptionofthehumanasarationalbeing,abeingwhosereason(nous)consistsinparticipationinthedivineRea-son(Nous)thatordersandgovernsthecosmos,makinghumanscapableofboththerationalapprehensionofrealityandthemoralorderingofselfandsociety.2BothofthesetraditionspresentanunderstandingofthehumanbeingasimagoDei—asmanifestingalikenesstothedivinethroughparticipationinthetranscendentdivinenature.InsofarasthecreatedpersonintheChristiansenseproperlyexerciseshercapacitiesforresponsiblefreedom,reasonedself-governance,andlove,sheisattunedtoandcarriesoutGod’swill.Insofaras1.ImmanuelKant,GroundworkoftheMetaphysicofMorals,trans.H.JPaton(NewYork:Harper&Row,HarperTorchbookedition,1964),36,102–3,106–7.2.OntheGreekphilosophicaldiscoveryof“reason”(nous)asconstitutinghumanitythroughthehumanpsyche’sparticipationindivineNous,seeEricVoegelin,“Reason:TheClassicExperience,”inVoegelin,TheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin(hereinafter,CW),vol.12,PublishedEssays,1966–1985,ed.EllisSandoz(1990;availableColumbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,1999),265–91.\n76GlennHugheshumannousorientspersonalexistencethroughrightactionandwisecontem-plation,itconcretelyenactstheorderingwisdomoftranscendentdivineNous.Humandignityisthevalueofthepresenceofthedivine“form”ofbeinginhumanconsciousness.3TheWesternconceptionofhumandignitythusoriginatedas,andremains,aninescapablyspiritualconception,andtheequalityofhumandignityisper-forceaspiritualequality.Respectforhumandignity,therefore,cannotbesep-aratedfromakindofreverence:the“unconditionalandincomparable”worthofapersonishisorhertransparencyforparticipationinthetranscendentvalueofthedivinenature.Anydenialofthesacralqualityofhumanexistence,ofthe“mysteriousprinciple”ofdivinepresenceatitscore,wouldthereforecon-stitute,howeverunintentionally,arepudiationofthefoundationsofthemod-ernprinciplesofequalhumandignityanduniversalhumanrights.4Theseobservationssuggesttwofurtherfacts.Afirstisthatthereissomethingofametaphysicalparadoxinvolvedinaperson’ssuccessfulrealizationofdig-nitythroughreasonedjudgmentandresponsibleaction.Ifdignityliesinexer-cisingtherationalfreedomofmoralautonomy,thisisdonepreciselytothedegreethatfreedomsuccessfullyattunesitselfwiththedivinereasonandlovethatispresenttoconsciousnessasitsinspirationandground.Rationalfreedom3.OnthebiblicalsourcesandmeaningofthesymbolofimagoDei,togetherwithdis-cussionsofhowthatmeaningwasaffectedbytheincorporationofGreekphilosophyintoChristiantheology,Kant’sviewofdignityinthiscontext,andpoliticalimplications,seeRobertP.Kraynak,“‘MadeintheImageofGod’:TheChristianViewofHumanDignityandPoliticalOrder,”inInDefenseofHumanDignity:EssaysforOurTimes,ed.RobertP.KraynakandGlennTinder(NotreDame:UniversityofNotreDamePress,2003),81–118.Kant’sviewdoesconstituteinsomerespectsanimportantbreakwithearlierWesterncon-ceptionsofhumandignity.DistinctivelymodernisthewayinwhichKantisolateshumanautonomy,sharpeningtherepresentationofindividualwillasthegroundofitsownlawseparatefromGod,andgroundingdignityanditsrightsexclusivelyintheindividual’sfreedomandcapacitytoreason.FromatraditionalChristianperspective,thisraisesaconcernbothaboutaneclipseofthedivinerealitythatbestowshumanfreedomandaboutthedignityofthosepersonsincapableofthesignificantexerciseofreason.OnKant’sideaofhumandignity,seeinthesamevolumeSusanM.Shell,“KantonHumanDignity,”53–80;foranevaluativecomparisonbetweenthebiblical(andmedieval)viewofhumandig-nity,ontheonehand,andthe“Kantian-Christian”view,ontheother,seeKraynak,“‘MadeintheImageofGod,’”107–15.4.GabrielMarcel,TheExistentialBackgroundofHumanDignity(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1963),128:“Tomymind,therecanbenoquestionofchalleng-ingthelegitimatevalueof[Kant’s]interpretation[ofhumandignity]....[Yetit]ismyownprofoundbeliefthatwecannotsucceedinpreservingthemysteriousprincipleattheheartofhumandignityunlesswesucceedinmakingexplicittheproperlysacralqualitypeculiartoit.”\nDefenseofHumanDignity77consists,paradoxically,inobediencetothedivinegroundmademanifestinconscience.5Asecondfactisthatfulfillingone’sdignitythroughactuallydevelopinghabitsofreasonablenessandlovingactionisnotthatcommonanachievement.Adistinctionmustbemade,therefore,betweendignityasagiven,innatecapac-ityofrationalandspiritualconsciousness—whatmightbecalledelementaldig-nity—andthedignitythatconsistsintherealizationofthiscapacityinsofarasoneactuallyisreasonable,responsible,andloving—whatmightbecalledachieveddignity.Withthisdistinctioninmind,wecanunderstandhowdignityinonesensemaybeviewedasinnateandinalienable,whileinanothersenseitmayberegardedassomethingonecan“win”or“lose.”Elementaldignityisthedivinepresenceinconsciousnessthatestablishestheaptitudeforrationalandlovingthoughtandaction,apresencethatmaybeundeveloped,beleaguered,distorted,orabused,butstillisalwaysduereverenceasanelemental“imageofGod.”Achieveddignityistheenacted,performative“imageofGod,”thedynamicfulfillmentofthecapacityforrationalandlovingfreedom.Bearingthisdistinc-tioninmindhelpsustorememberhowitisthat,whereasourfreeandra-tionalcapacitiescanbesquanderedanddegraded,ourelementaldignityaspersonsisinviolableandcanneverbetakenawayevenbyourselves,consist-ingasitdoesinthegiftoftranscendentdivinepresenceinconsciousness.Amongtwentieth-centuryphilosophers,EricVoegelinisoneofthestrongestdefendersofthistruthconcerninghumandignity.True,hiswritingsincludenoextendedanalysisoftheconceptofdignityperse,noessayorchapteronthetopic,andthewordscarcelyappearsinthethirty-oddpublishedindexesoftheCollectedWorks.ButimportantpassagesmakeclearVoegelin’scommit-menttothetruthofhumandignityasfoundedintherealityofhumanityasimagoDei.Thesepassages,togetherwithappreciationofthecentralitytoVoe-gelin’sworkofatheoryofconsciousnessatthecoreofwhichisatheoreticalclarificationofhumanconsciousnessasaparticipationindivinetranscen-dence,encourageustoseehisphilosophy—indeedhislife’swork—asservingtherecognitionandprotectionofthosetruthsuponwhichWesternconceptsofinnatehumandignityanduniversalrightsarebased.Thisfacetofhiswork5.Thisparadoxhelpstoexplainanother,pertainingtopersonalidentity.Asaperson,Ibecomemydistinctiveselfonlythrougha“becomingonewith”thedivineabsolute.Throughunitingmyintentionwiththatofthedivineabsolute,myownselfemergeswithanabsolutelyindividualidentity.Paradoxically,then,tobeamemberofthehumanspeciesistobeunique,oneofakind.Cf.EmmanuelLévinas,“TheRightsofManandtheRightsoftheOther,”inLévinas,OutsidetheSubject(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1993),117–18.\n78GlennHughesiswellworthexplicating,andbytracingasequenceoffundamentalVoegelinthemesitwillbepossibletodelineatethedistinctivefeaturesofVoegelin’sdefenseofhumandignityinawaythatsuggestsitsunusualpowerandscope.Suchistheaimofthepresentessay,whichbeginswithalookatVoegelin’saffirmationofthenotionofimagoDeiandproceedsbyconsideringpertinentaspectsofhisreflectionsontheobligationofthephilosopher,onhumancon-sciousnessashuman-divineparticipation,onopenversusclosedexistence,andonthevalueofphilosophyaslamentationandwitness.VoegelinandImagoDeiOntheinfrequentoccasionsinhiswritingswhenVoegelinfocusesexplicitlyontheconceptofdignity,heisemphaticaboutitscoremeaning:thedistinc-tivedignityofhumanexistencepertainstothefactthathumanconsciousnesssharesinthedivineformofexistence.“Thespecificdignityofman,”hewrites,“isbased...onhisnatureastheomorphic,asintheformandintheimageofGod.”6Intheproperfunctioningofhumanreason,moralself-determination,andlove,consciousexistenceistransparentforthedivinetranscendencethatgroundsexistence.Thisunderstandingofthehuman,Voegelinexplainsrepeat-edlyinhiswritings,iscentralbothtothePlatonic-AristotelianphilosophicaltraditionandtotheChristianvisionofexistence.Thelifeofreasonasunder-stoodbythephilosophersistheeffectivepresenceofdivineNousintheorder-ingofexistence;andthelifeofChristianexistenceistheeffectivepresenceinconsciousnessoftheGodrevealedthroughJesusandtheprophets.Thelifeofreasonandthelifeofthespiritarethetwomeans,thetwomodes,intheWest-erntradition,ofhumannaturereachingitsproperfulfillmentoractualiza-tion;andnotonlyshouldtheybeunderstoodtobecomplementary,Voegelinexplains,butshouldberegardedasfunctionallyequivalent:“ThepracticeofphilosophyintheSocratic-PlatonicsenseistheequivalentoftheChristiansanctificationofman;itisthegrowthoftheimageofGodinman.”7Still,Voegelinasserts,theGreek“theomorphic”understandingofthehumanisnotequaltotheChristianvisionwithrespecttothedegreeofitsdifferenti-atedinsightintothecharacterofdivinetranscendence.TheChristianvisionadvancesbeyondthePlatonic-Aristotelianfieldofconception,Voegelinstates,initsrecognitionoftheabsolutelyfree,absolutelycreative,andabsolutely6.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.31,HitlerandtheGermans,trans.anded.DetlevClemensandBrendanPurcell(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,1999),87(emphasisadded).7.EricVoegelin,“OnHegel:AStudyinSorcery,”inCW,12:223.\nDefenseofHumanDignity79lovingnatureofdivinereality.8TheChristianvisionliberatesdivinerealityfromallintrinsicandnecessaryassociationwithpre-existingmatterorlimi-tationsof“nature”andsoliberatestheideaofthehumanessence—ofthedivine“form”inhumanconsciousness—fromallvalue-determinationsasso-ciatedwithnaturalstructures,qualities,talents,ordispositions.ThusitisonlytheChristianvisionofimagoDeithatestablishestheabsolutespiritualequal-ityofallhumanbeings.This,writesVoegelin,isauniqueachievementofChris-tianity:therecognitionnotjustthat“manismaninsofarasheisimagoDei”butalsothat“insofarasheisimagoDeiareallmenequalasparticipatingintherealityofGodandthusunitedwithGod.”Centeredonthe“experienceofanextraordinarydivineirruptionintheexistenceofJesus”andontheexegesisofthemeaningofthatexperienceastheclimaxofa“millennialprocessofreve-lation,”ChristianitytaughttheradicalanthropologicaltruththatlaterbecamefoundationalforWesternpoliticalthought,thatof“theequalspiritualdignityofallmen.”9Voegelin’sembraceoftheconceptofhumanbeingasimagoDeimaybetracedtothebeginningofhiscareer.WilliamPetropuloshasdetailedthisfactinhisaccountoftheinfluenceofAugustineandMaxScheleronVoegelin’searlywork.AndVoegelin’searliestwritingsonthesubjectalreadyshowhimemphasizingtheexperientialoriginsofthisconcept,asheexplainsthatitscriticalvalidationliesinan“openingofthesoul,”inpersonalmeditation,toa“borderexperience”oftherevelationoftranscendentreality.10ThroughouthiscareerVoegelincontinuedtoinsistthatonlyinone’sownmeditativeexpe-riences—inactsofself-discoverythatrevealone’sconsciousnesstobeatrans-actionofdivinepresenceandhumanresponse—canoneverifythesubstan-tialtruthoftheimagoDeisymbolization.Voegelinrepeatedlydeclaredtohisreadersthatsuchmeditativeactsareessentialtoaphilosopher’sdevelopment,sincewithoutthemtheclassicalGreekandChristiananthropologicalinsightswouldremainunclearand,morethanlikely,unconvincing.Withoutsuchexpe-riences,andconsequentsensitivitytotranscendenceas“thedecisiveproblemofphilosophy,”thinkersofinfluencecaneasilymisunderstandandmisrepresent8.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.17,TheEcumenicAge,vol.IVofOrderandHistory,ed.MichaelFranz(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),314–16.9.Voegelin,CW,31:205(emphasisadded);EricVoegelin,“TheGospelandCulture,”inCW,12:192,196,198;“SigerdeBrabant,”inVoegelin,CW,vol.20,TheMiddleAgestoAquinas,vol.IIofHistoryofPoliticalIdeas,ed.PetervonSivers(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,1997),192.10.WilliamPetropulos,“ThePersonasImagoDei:AugustineandMaxSchelerinEricVoegelin’sHerrschaftslehreandPoliticalReligions,”inThePoliticsoftheSoul:EricVoegelinonReligiousExperience,ed.GlennHughes(Lanham,MD:Rowman&Littlefield,1999),87–114.\n80GlennHughestheessentialcharacterofhumanexistence,particularlyinthedirectionofimag-iningapurely“immanentist”humannature.11Sowecanreadilyunderstandwhy,asPetropulosstates,thethemesof“meditationasthebasicformofphi-losophizing,andthepersonasimagoDei,remainoffundamentalimportancethroughoutVoegelin’sphilosophicalcareer.”12Voegelinisagainemphaticonwhathappenswhentheawarenessofhuman-kindasimagoDeiceasestobeeffectiveinpersonalandsociallife,whetherthroughinabilitytograspitsmeaningorthroughadeliberateclosingofffromthedivine.Theresultisadefectionfromthetruthofhumanexistenceaspar-ticipationinGod,and“[this]defectionatitscorealwaystakestheformofalossofdignity.”Toobscurethedivinepresenceinrationalandmoralcon-sciousnessistodebaseanddegradetheveryideaofthehuman.“Thelossofdignitycomesaboutthroughthedenialoftheparticipationinthedivine,thatis,throughthededivinizingofman...[andone]cannotdedivinizeoneselfwithoutdehumanizingoneself—withalltheconsequencesofdehumaniza-tion.”13Duringthelastcentury,theconsequencesofthisdenialofhumanparticipationinthedivinehasextended,mostnotoriously,totheembraceofimmanentistpoliticalideologiesleadingtopoliciesthathavesystematicallydeniedtoentiregroupsofpeoples—specifiedethnicities,“races,”nationali-ties,andeconomicorsocialclasses—themostbasicrights,includingtherighttobealive.(AcommentofLeonTrotsky’sisilluminating:“Wemustputanendonceandforall,”hewrote,“tothepapist-Quakerbabbleaboutthesanctityofhumanlife.”14)Thepoliticaldisastersandbarbarismsflowingfromtwentieth-centuryideologicalmassmovementssuchasNationalSocialismandSovietMarxism-Leninism,movementstowhichVoegelin’sworkconstitutesamonu-mentalretort,areintimatelyconnectedwiththeproblemoftheeclipseofrev-erenceforthehumanbeingasexisting“intheformandintheimageofGod.”11.Voegelindescribestheproblemoftranscendenceas“thedecisiveproblemofphi-losophy”inaletterofSeptember17,1943,tohisfriendandcolleagueAlfredSchütz,inwhichhealsodescribesastheprincipaltaskofthephilosophicalhistorian“topenetrateeveryhistoricalspiritualpositiontoitsownpointofrest,i.e.,towhereitisdeeplyrootedintheexperiencesoftranscendenceofthethinkerinquestion.Onlywhenthehistoryofspiritiscarriedonwiththismethodologicalaimcanitattaintoitsphilosophicalaim,whichistounderstandthespiritinitshistoricityor,formulatedinanotherway,tounderstandthehistoricalformsofthespiritasvariationsonthethemeofexperienceoftranscen-dence.”TheletterappearsinPeterEmberleyandBarryCooper,trans.andeds.,FaithandPoliticalPhilosophy:TheCorrespondencebetweenLeoStraussandEricVoegelin,1934–1964(UniversityPark,PA:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1993),19–34(29–30,34).12.Petropulos,“ThePersonasImagoDei,”109.13.Voegelin,CW,31:87.14.QuotedinMartinAmis,KobatheDread:LaughterandtheTwentyMillion(NewYork:TalkMiramaxBooks,2002),35.\nDefenseofHumanDignity81Tomakethissortofconnectionapparent,Voegelinstates,ispartofthedutyofaphilosopher.Agenuinephilosopherhastheobligationtorecognizesocialdisorderandcorruptionforwhatitis,todiagnoseitscausesasfaraspossible,andtosuggestremedialperspectivesandinsights.Philosophyisalwaysastrug-glefortrueunderstandingandrightorderthroughexposureoftheevilsandfalseopinionsofsociety.Inthisstruggle,however,amotivatingconcernalwaysremainsthestateofthephilosopher’sownsoul,whichcannothelpbutresonatewiththedisorderingtendenciesofthetimes.“Societycandestroyaman’ssoulbecausethedisorderofsocietyisadiseaseinthepsycheofitsmembers,”Voege-linwrites.Successfulresistancetodisorderbegins,therefore,withunderstand-inghowone’sownconsciousnessmanifestscontemporaryformsof“thetensionbetweenexistenceintruthandthedeficientmodesofexistence.”15Voegelinwasledtothemeditativerecognitionofhisownparticipationindivinetran-scendence,hemakesclear,aspartofhisefforttoresisthisowndehumaniza-tionunderthepressuresofforcesinhissocialandpoliticalworld.Hisarticu-lationofinsightsdiagnosingtheconnectionbetweentheeclipseofimagoDeiandforcesofdegradationhadrootsinhisdesiretoprotecthisowndignity.Ifoneisachildofone’stimes,however,howdoesonerisetoanexistentialorientationthatallowsgenuinediagnosticinsightsintoillsofone’sownsoci-ety?Itisonlypossible,Voegelinexplains,byvirtueofthegrowthofone’ssoulthroughproductiveencounterwiththebestoftradition.Inopeningoneselftotheclassics,tothemostprofoundthathasbeenthoughtandsaid,oneencountersthroughtheirvariousarticulationstheexperiencesandinsightsthathavefoundedphilosophicalandspiritualwisdom.Theeffectiveenlarge-mentofone’sownhorizonthroughsuchencountersenablesonegraduallytoadvanceincriticaldiscernmentoftheconditionsofpersonalandsocialorder.Andthisgrowthis,again,aphilosopher’sobligation,foranexampleofwhichVoegelincouldpointtohisownconstantwillingnesstobeeducatedbytheauthorityofwisdom:Thestudyoftheclassicsistheprincipalinstrumentofself-education;andifonestudiesthemwithlovingcare...oneallofasuddendiscoversthatone’sunderstandingofagreatworkincreases(andalsoone’sabilitytocommunicatesuchunderstanding)forthegoodreasonthatthestudenthasincreasedthroughtheprocessofstudy—andthatafterallisthepurposeoftheenterprise.(Atleastitismypurposeinspendingthetimeofmylifeinthestudyofprophets,philosophers,andsaints.)....Thebasisofhistoricalinterpretationistheidentity15.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.16,PlatoandAristotle,vol.IIIofOrderandHistory,ed.DanteGermino(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),123–24;“Immortality:Experi-enceandSymbol,”inCW,12:66.\n82GlennHughesofsubstance(thepsyche)intheobjectandthesubjectofinterpretation;anditspurposeisparticipationinthegreatdialoguethatgoesthroughthecenturiesamongmenabouttheirnatureanddestiny.Andparticipationisimpossiblewith-outgrowthinstature(withinthepersonallimitations)towardtherankofthebest;andthatgrowthisimpossibleunlessonerecognizesauthorityandsurren-derstoit.16ThevisionandunderstandingofthehumanasimagoDei,andasensitivityforwhatitslosshasmeantforcontemporarytheoryandpolitics,isavailabletoanyonecapableofundergoingthetutelageofculturethat,asV.I.Ivanovremarks(inphrasingmuchlikeVoegelin’s),“isnotonlymonumentalbutini-tiatoryincharacter,enablingtheservantsofmemory—whichisindeedtherulerofallculture—torenewtheirforebears’experience.”17OpenandClosedExistenceVoegelin’sphilosophicalgrowthmadecleartohimboththeextenttowhichmodernthoughtandpoliticalideologyweredeficientanddestructivethrougheclipseofthetruthofhumanityasimagoDei,andthathisowncorrectivephi-losophyofexistencewouldrequireasophisticatedrearticulationofthattruth.Thushismatureworkiscentereduponadetailedtheoreticalanalysisofhumanconsciousnessinitsstructureasaparticipationinthedivinepresencethatgroundsandtranscendstheperceivableuniverse.The“participatoryillumi-nation”ofhumanconsciousness,heexplains,isagiftofluminousself-presenceanddisclosureofmeaningstructuredbythedesiretoknow;andthedivinere-alitythatistheultimateconcernofthatdesireisalwaysimmediatelypresenttoconsciousnessasitsground,inspiration,orderingforce,anddeepestidentity.18Humanconsciousnessisthus,initsveryconstitution,aprocessofhuman-divineencounter.Itdoesnothavethebeingofamerelyworld-immanentthing.Itexists,asitwere,“in-between”worldlyrealityandnonspatial,non-temporaldivinepresence.Voegelin’sadoptionofPlato’stermmetaxy,or“in-between,”asastabilizingsymbolforhisphilosophyofexistenceismeanttokeeppermanentlyinview16.FromVoegelin’sletterofAugust22,1956,tohisfriendandcolleagueRobertB.Heilman,inRobertB.HeilmanandEricVoegelin:AFriendshipinLetters,1944–1984,ed.CharlesR.Embry(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2004),157.17.V.I.IvanovandM.O.Gershenzon,CorrespondenceacrossaRoom,trans.LisaSergio(Marlboro,VT:MarlboroPress,1984),27.18.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.18,InSearchofOrder,vol.VofOrderandHistory,ed.EllisSandoz(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),30;“Reason,”265–73.\nDefenseofHumanDignity83thetruththatahumanbeingexists“intheformandintheimageofGod,”notinthemannerofsomesortofextrinsicreflectionofthedivine,butratherthroughimmediateparticipationandresponsivecommunion.Themetaxyofconsciousnessisneitherthefiniterealmofthingsnortheunconditionedbeingofdivinetranscendence,butthenon-imaginable“locus”oftheirco-presence,“themeetinggroundofthehumanandthedivineinaconsciousnessoftheirdistinctionandinterpenetration.”Movedinitsquestioningbytheillumina-tionofmeaningthatisalwaysalreadydivinepresence,andstructuredbytheunrestrictedscopeandrationalnormsofquestioning,humanconsciousnessconsists,ontologically,initsrelationshiptothefullnessofdivinemeaninginwhichitparticipates:“Man’sconsciousnessistherealityoftensiontowardthedivinegroundofhisexistence.”Aperson’sfulfillmentlies,consequently,infidelitytothisrelationship.Howisthisfidelityrealized?Throughrationalandlovingthoughtandaction.Innately,apersonisalreadyimagoDeithroughthedivinepresenceinconsciousnessthatmakespossiblesuchthoughtandaction.Thisisaperson’selementaldignity.Butthroughexistentiallyenactedreasonandlove,“manactualizeshispotentialtopartakeofthedivine,”andsorisestothesubstantiatedfreedom,theachieveddignity,of“theimagoDeiwhichitishisdestinytobe.”19Everypersonisfacedwiththebasicexistentialchoiceofeitherstrivingtobefaithfultothenormativedirectionaltensionofconsciousness,inopennesstowardthedivinelytranscendentgroundofexistence,oravoidingthiseffortoffidelityandturningawayfromthedivineground.AdaptingHenriBerg-son’slanguageofthe“opensoul”andthe“closedsoul”(l’âmeouverteandl’âmeclose),Voegelinrepeatedlyanalyzesconsciousnessintermsof“thevirtuesofopennesstowardthegroundofbeing”and“thevicesofinfoldingclosure,”andportraystheimpactsofbothoftheseonselfandsociety.20AmongthevirtuesofopennessVoegelinincludesthelifeofreasonproperlyunderstood.Heexplainsthathumanreasoncanonlyberealisticinitspursuitofpersonal19.Voegelin,“OnHegel,”233;“Immortality,”72;“TheGermanUniversityandtheOrderofGermanSociety:AReconsiderationoftheNaziEra,”inVoegelin,CW,12:7(emphasisadded).Ontheunrestrictedscopeofhumanquestioninganditsintrinsicorientationto-wardthedivineultimacythatgroundsit,seeBernardLonergan,Insight:AStudyofHumanUnderstanding,vol.3ofTheCollectedWorksofBernardLonergan,ed.FrederickE.CroweandRobertM.Doran(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,1992),372–75,555–58,569–70,659–62.20.EricVoegelin,“EquivalencesofExperienceandSymbolizationinHistory,”inCW,12:119.ForBergson’sdescriptionofthe“opensoul”andthe“closedsoul,”seeHenriBergson,TheTwoSourcesofMoralityandReligion,trans.R.AshleyAudraandCloudesleyBrereton,withtheassistanceofW.HorsfallCarter(GardenCity,NY:Doubleday,AnchorBooksedi-tion,1954),37–39,52–66.\n84GlennHughesandpoliticalgoodsifitunfoldswiththefreedomthatcomesfromacknowl-edgingitsowndynamicorientationtoanunrestrictedandtranscendentgood.Ifreasonresiststhemeaningfulnessofitsownpulltowarditsdivineground,itwillnotreasonwellaboutthehumansituationinreality,abouthumanhappi-ness,abouttherangeofvalues,theirpursuitandachievement.Humanreason,inotherwords,cannoteffectivelybeitselfunlessitisorientedanddirectedbyloveforthedivineReasonthatisitsownmostfundamentalidentity.Ifreasoninitsdynamiccore“isexistentialphilia[love],ifitistheopennessofexistenceraisedtoconsciousness,thentheclosureofexistence,oranyobstructiontoopenness,willaffecttherationalstructureofthepsycheadversely.”21Theachieveddignityoftheopensoulisindeedlocated,asKantemphasized,intherationalexerciseoffreedom;whatVoegelinmakesclearisthatthisexercisewillbewarpedormisguided,tosomeextent,unlessitisnourishedbyanaware-nessofitselfasagiftofparticipationintranscendentreasonandfreedom.Openexistenceisdifficulttomaintain.Asaresponsetotheappealofatranscendentgroundofmeaning,theopensoulmustsufferthevicissitudesoffaith:ofaffirmingthatitsownmeaningdependsuponanintangible,unpos-sessable,essentiallymysteriousreality.Thedifficultiesoffaith—notfaithasafideisticassenttodoctrinalpropositions,norcertainlyasafundamentalistorabsolutistassumptionofthecertitudeofGod’sfavor,butasanexistentialfaithoflovingopennesstothedivinemysteryencounteredinilluminedconscienceandgraciouspersuasion—arenotoriouslydaunting.Basictofaithistheuncer-taintyinvolvedinunderstandingthatwecannotunderstand,inanysubstan-tiveway,theanswerstoourmostsearchingquestions:whyweexist,whatourperformancesinlifeaddupto,thedirectionofhistoricalprocess,themysteryofevilandofitslonged-forresolution.Alsobasictoitisanxiousawarenessofthefragilityofgenuinecommitment,ofhoweasilyforgetfulnessandself-delusionenterintotheeffortofopenness,andoftheunendingnessofthetask,aslongasweremainalive,ofrecoveringandreestablishingourexisten-tialorientationthroughloveoftranscendentreality.Whilethedignityofexis-tenceonlyflourishesthroughtheopensoul’sresponsivebondwithtranscen-dentmeaning,“[this]bondistenuous,indeed,anditmaysnapeasily,”writesVoegelin.21.Voegelin,“Reason,”274.Oneofthediagnostictermsforthepostureofclosingoneselfofftothenormativedirectionalityofone’sreasonisstupidity.SeeVoegelin,CW,31:89:“Stupidityshallmeanherethataman,becauseofhislossofreality,isnotinaposi-tiontorightlyorienthisactionintheworld,inwhichhelives.Sowhenthecentralorganforguidinghisaction,histheomorphicnatureandopennesstowardreasonandspirit,hasceasedfunctioning,thenmanwillactstupidly.”\nDefenseofHumanDignity85ThelifeofthesoulinopennesstowardGod,thewaiting,theperiodsofaridityanddullness,guiltanddespondency,contritionandrepentance,forsakennessandhopeagainsthope,thesilentstirringsofloveandgrace,tremblingonthevergeofacertaintythatifgainedisloss—theverylightnessofthisfabricmayprovetooheavyaburdenformenwholustformassivelypossessiveexperience.22Aboveall,thedifficultyofopennessisremainingopentotheunpossessabletranscendenceoftranscendence.Fortranscendence,althoughinasenseitcanbesaidtobeexperiencedasthedivinepresenceinthe“in-between”ofconsciousness,isthroughthatsameexperiencedisclosedalsotobe,initsultimacy,amystery“beyond”allhumanexperience.Transcendenceasasymbolexpressesthe“directionalcharacter”ofthetensionofquestioning;andthatwhichweareultimatelydirectedtoward,inthesearchingandgrowthofconsciousness,isadivineself-sufficiencyorperfectionthatradicallytranscendsallthatwecanexperienceorknowofit.Ontologically,weexperiencetranscendenceas“theBeyondofconsciousnesswhichconstitutesconsciousnessbyreachingintoit,”arealitythat“incompre-hensiblyliesbeyondallthatweexperienceofitinparticipation.”Epistemo-logically,weknowthegrounditselfonlyas“animpenetrablemysteryevenifitreceivesthenamesofNousorGod.”Thechallengeofexistentialopennessistocontinuallylongforandgrowintofullerparticipationinarealitybeyondanythingconsciousnesscouldeverexperienceorunderstand—achallengethat,asthegreatreligionsandwisdomtraditionshavedeclared,canonlybemetthroughtherespondingguidanceoflove.Divinetranscendenceconstitutes,asVoegelinstates,apermanentappeal“towhichmancanlovinglyrespondornotsolovinglydenyhimself.”23Arefusaloflovingopennesstowardtranscendence—arefusaltoletamorDei,intheAugustiniansense,becomethesoul’scompassandbalance—istrulyadenialofone’sself.Forapersonisparticipationindivinefreedomandknowl-edge—apersonisimagoDei.Theclosureofconsciousnesstoitsownsub-stantiatinggroundistherejectionbyapersonofhisorherownpersonhood,22.EricVoegelin,TheNewScienceofPolitics,inCW,vol.5,ModernitywithoutRestraint:ThePoliticalReligions;TheNewScienceofPolitics;andScience,Politics,andGnosticism,ed.ManfredHenningsen(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),187–88.23.Voegelin,“TheGospelandCulture,”188;“WhatIsPoliticalReality?”inVoegelin,CW,vol.6,Anamnesis:OntheTheoryofHistoryandPolitics,trans.M.J.Hanak,ed.DavidWalsh(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2002),396;“AnxietyandReason,”inVoegelin,CW,vol.28,WhatIsHistory?andOtherLateUnpublishedWritings,ed.ThomasA.Holl-weckandPaulCaringella(1990;availableColumbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,1999),89,105;“RemembranceofThingsPast,”inCW,12:312.\n86GlennHugheswhichconsistsinhuman-divinerelationship.“Thedenial...oftranscendingtowarddivinebeingdestroystheimagoDei,”Voegelinwrites,meaningthatapersoncan“rejecthisownidentity”asimagoDeiandindoingso“deformhishumanity.”24Closedexistenceispersonaldeformation,resultingfromthefrightened,ordespairing,orlazy,orrebelliousrefusalonthepartofcon-sciousnesstoorientitselfonthebasisofitsinnateawarenessofitsowndivinegroundandthroughtheculturallegacythatexploresthemeaningofhuman-divinerelationship.Closedexistencediminishesthepsyche,Voegelinasserts,throughitschosenpostureofimperviousnesstodivinepresence.Hedescribesitasa“contrac-tion”thatreducesconsciousness“toaselfimprisonedinitsselfhood,”adenialbythesoulofitsownconstitutivedepth,resultinginself-excommunicationfromthedivineground—a“sealingofthespiritbyreflection,”inV.I.Ivanov’swords,“intothesolitarycellofindividualpersonality.”Andfromsuchactsofexistentialclosurethereemergeintopublicdiscoursedeformedimagesofwhatahumanbeingis—imagesthat,whenacceptedandinternalized,underminehumandignitybyeclipsingitsbasisintranscendence,bydistortingthesearchformeaning,andbydisruptingthesenseofhumansolidarity.ImagesofthehumanthatpubliclyreplacetheparticipatoryimagoDeiwithimagesofacom-pletelyworld-immanentor“absoluteSelf”arenotharmless,becausefromthemflowambitions,decisions,actions,habits,andpolicies.Dehumanizedself-interpretationissuesintodehumanizingbehavior.AsGabrielMarcelhasstated:“Mandepends,toaverygreatdegree,ontheideahehasofhimselfand...thisideacannotbedegradedwithoutatthesametimedegradingman.”25Thedeformationofclosedexistence,Voegelinexplains,leadsnowhere.Therejectionbytheselfofthedivinegroundoftheself—notasamatteroftheavowalordisavowalofconcepts,butasaprocessofexistentialrefusalofattune-mentandresponsivegrowth—leavesitwithoutconvincingandconsolingfoundationandwithoutrationallypersuasiveorfulfillingdirection.Becauseconsciousnessistheencounterbetweenimmanenceandtranscendence,anyattemptbyconsciousnesstoestablishitsownmeaningandvaluesolelyonsomematerialbasis,oronsomeworldprocessordynamism,oronitsownknowl-edgeandwill,createsavacuumofsubstanceandpurposeatthecenteroftheself,avacuumtypicallysensed,Voegelinstates,inanxiousapprehensionsthattheexistentialprojecthasbecomenothingmorethan“aconfusedstirring24.Voegelin,CW,31:263;“TheGospelandCulture,”175;EricVoegelin,“TheEclipseofReality,”inVoegelin,CW,28:137.25.Voegelin,“EclipseofReality,”111;IvanovandGershenzon,Conversations,44;GabrielMarcel,ManagainstMassSociety,trans.G.S.Fraser(SouthBend,IN:GatewayEditions,1978),20.\nDefenseofHumanDignity87aboutinthenothingnessofabandonedreality.”Thegreatestclarityaboutthistruthhasemerged,heinsists,intheChristiantradition.“Theinsightthatmaninhismerehumanity,withoutthefidescaritateformata[faithformedbylove],isdemonicnothingnesshasbeenbroughtbyChristianitytotheultimatebor-derofclarity.”26Andthedemonicnothingnessof“merehumanity”hasrevealeditselfspec-tacularlyinthepoliticalmadnessesandintellectualnihilismsofthetwentiethcentury.AnalyzingthemodernWestinlightoftherealitiesofopenandclosedexistence,VoegelinexplicatestheripeningofWesternmodernityasshowingalltooclearlythedeformingeffectsofagrowingclosuretowarddivinetran-scendenceandanaccompanyingabsolutizationoftheSelf.Thecenturiesofmodernity,herelates,havebeenincreasinglydominatedbyworldviewsandideologiesofareductively“immanentist”characterthatportraythewholeofrealityasaworldprocesswithnotranscendentgroundofmeaning,withhumanbeingsimaginedaspurelyimmanent,self-containedentitieswithinthatprocess.Thesevereironyofmodernity,ofcourse,isthatithasbeenthestaggeringsuccessesofscientificandhistoricalknowledge,togetherwithanintensifyingappreciationofhumanpsychologicalinteriority,thathavecon-tributedmosttoawidespreadeclipseofthetruthofthedivinelygroundedcosmos.Westernmodernityhasbeenanastonishingstoryoftechnologicaladvanceandeconomicproductivity,expansivehistoricaldiscoveryandschol-arship,andwideningpromotionofsocialandpoliticalidealsbasedonrecog-nitionofhumanlibertyastheprincipleofprogress—andatthesametimeithasproducedfreneticaimlessness,irreverentconsumption,andtotalitarianambitionspropelledbylossofcontactwiththedivinetruthandgoodnessthatgroundsreality.Drainedofanorientingandhumblingawarenessofthedivinemeasureofactionandtruth,unabletoconfrontmystery,andchargedwiththeaggressiveassuranceofitsownultimatevalue,modernitymaybecred-ited,Voegelinwrites,with“havingunifiedmankindintoaglobalmadhouseburstingwithstupendousvitality.”27ThemodernWestistheeraoftheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights,anditislikewisetheeraofHitlerandStalinandMao,whoseexplicitcontemptofideasofthesanctityofhumanlifeandofuniversalhumanrightsandobli-gationsissuedintothecentury’smostexpansivenightmaresofinhumanityandbarbarism.Theideasofrespectformoralpersonality,ofuniversalhumandignity,andofsharedhumanitycanalltooobviouslyremainineffectiveifthereisnogroundingvision,existentiallyformativetoasufficientlywidespread26.Voegelin,“WhatIsPoliticalReality?”386;NewScienceofPolitics,151.27.Voegelin,“Immortality,”55.\n88GlennHughesdegree,ofthesacralvalueofthehumanasaparticipantinatruthoftranscen-dentbeingandvalue.Voegelin’sphilosophicalcritiqueofhisowntimeisdrivenbyhiscarefulandpersistentdistinctionbetweentheformativewisdominthetraditionsofWesternculturethathavegivenrisetothestableWesterndemoc-raciesandtheirdefenseofhumandignityandliberties,ontheonehand,andthedeformativeideasandimagesofimmanentistphilosophiesandideologiesthathaveresultedinenforcedsystemsofhumandegradationunparalleledintheirextentandinstrumentalefficiency,ontheother.Andheisimpeccablyclearaboutthewayinwhichclosedexistence,withitsdreamsofabsoluteSelvesinfullcontrolofmeaning,hasfedtheforcesofdeformation.“Thedeforma-tionofwhichIamspeaking,”hewrites,isthefatefulshiftinWesternsocietyfromexistenceinopennesstowardthecos-mostoexistenceinthemodeofclosureagainst,anddenialof,itsreality.Astheprocessgainsmomentum,thesymbolsofopenexistence—God,man,thedivineoriginofthecosmos,andthedivineLogospermeatingitsorder—losethevital-ityoftheirtruthandareeclipsedbytheimageryofaself-creative,self-realizing,self-expressing,self-ordering,andself-savingegothatisthrowninto,andcon-frontedwith,animmanentlyclosedworld.28Closedselvesinventtheclosedworld,which,astheimaginarysettingofhumanaction,eclipsesthetranscendentfoundationofhumandignityandsomakesplausibleideologiesreliantuponmassdehumanization.LamentationandWitnessAcontemporaryphilosopheroranyoneelsecommittedtoopenexistence,however,isinnopositiontocondemnthetemptationsanddeformationsofexistentialclosureassomethinginwhichheorshehasnopart.Existentialopennessandclosuredonotdescribefixedandmutuallyexclusiveposturesbutratherindicateopposite“idealtypes”thathelptoilluminateacomplexfieldofpsychologicalenergies.ThetermsnamewhatVoegelinwouldcall“poles”or“indices”ofapermanenttensionofexistence.Ineverypersonthe“fluxofexistence,”hewrites,“[has]thestructureofatensionbetweentruthanddefor-mationofreality.Notthepossessionofhishumanitybuttheconcernaboutitsfullrealizationisthelotofman.”Onealwaysremainstosomedegreeshapedbyandcomplicitinthedeformativeforcesofone’ssocietyandculture,justasoneremainssubjecttotheperennialself-deformationsofhumanbiasorsin.28.EricVoegelin,“OnHenryJames’sTurnoftheScrew,”inCW,12:151.\nDefenseofHumanDignity89Thevirtuesofopennesstowardthegroundofbeing,ofthoughtandactionguidedbysoundreasonandgenuinelove,are,evenforthesaintsandmuchlessfortherestofus,onlyapartialandprecariousaccomplishment.Tosomesignificantextentonealwaysremainsturnedawayfrom,unfaithfulto,thedivinerealitythatconstitutesconsciousnessbyreachingintoit.Opennesscon-sistsinarecurrentstruggletowithdrawfromthatestrangement,a“perma-nenteffortatresponsiveopennesstotheappealofreality.”29Thedignitythathumanbeingspossess,then,isalwaysthedignityoftheimperfectandwayfaringcreature.Humanconsciousnesshasnootherexis-tencethanthatbetweenformationanddeformation,moralityandimmoral-ity,reasonandunreason,loveandself-excommunication,divineplenitudeanddemonicnothingness.VoegelinwouldagreewithJohnWitte,Jr.’scom-mentthatineachpersonsanctityisblendedtosomedegreewithdegradation,andthat“[a]theoryofhumandignitythatfailstotakeintoaccountthecom-bineddepravityandsanctityofthehumanpersonistheologicallyandpoliti-callydeficient,ifnotdangerous.”30Wecanunderstand,andthereforeaccu-ratelydiagnose,thefurthestexcessesofdehumanizingbehaviorbecausetheforcesofevilliveinus,too,howeverwellcontainedtheymaybethroughhabitsofreasonandlove.Thepurposeofsuchdiagnosis,andofeveryeffortatrightorder,istobringtheelementaldignityofourmixedstateasfaraspossi-bletoanachieveddignity,towardgreaterfulfillmentofourpotentialasimagoDei,throughincreasingattunementwiththedivinegroundofbeing,aneffortinwhichwearealwaysonly“ontheway.”Openexistence,then,isstillestrangementfromahoped-fordeeperattune-ment,andinspeakingtrulyforitselfmustrecognizeandarticulatethatestrangement.SoVoegelin’sphilosophicalwork,asanexaminationofexistenceinopennesstowarddivinetranscendence,containsabundantremembranceofitsownoriginsinthetensionbetweenestrangementandbelonging,andtotheroleplayedbytherapeutichopeandloveintherationalunfoldingofitsownhistoricalandphilosophicalexegeses.LikethephilosophiesofPlato,Augustine,29.Voegelin,“Equivalences,”119.Onthebasicandrecurrentformsofhumanbias,seeLonergan,Insight,223–31,244–67.Voeglin,“Remembrance,”305.BernardLonerganmakesthesamepointinexplainingthattheauthenticityofself-transcendencetowardthegen-uinelytrueandthegood“iseverprecarious.Ofitself,self-transcendenceinvolvestensionbetweentheselfastranscendingandtheselfastranscended.Sohumanauthenticityisneversomepureandsereneandsecurepossession.Itiseverawithdrawalfrominauthenticity,andeverysuccessfulwithdrawalonlybringstolighttheneedforstillfurtherwithdrawals....Sowearebidtowatchandpray,tomakeourwayinfearandtrembling.”Lonergan,MethodinTheology(NewYork:HerderandHerder,1972),110.30.JohnWitteJr.,“BetweenSanctityandDepravity:HumanDignityinProtestantPer-spective,”inInDefenseofHumanDignity,130.\n90GlennHughesandKierkegaard,thatofVoegelinisaprayeronthepartofphilosophicalrea-sonfordeepeningcommunionwiththemysteryoftranscendentmeaningandvalue.Andassuch,itisatypeoflament.Foralamentintheprecisesense,asVoegelinpointsoutinapassageonThomasMann’sDoctorFaustus,isalit-erarygenrethatexpressesatonceanawarenessofhumandistancefromthedivine,amovementofreturnintakingupone’sdestinyasimagoDei,andajoyinthehopeanddignityofreturn.OnecouldarguethatVoegelin’sphilos-ophyasawholeisamajesticlamentatio—anoftensorrowing,frequentlycel-ebratory,recoveryoflanguageandvisioninphilosophicalreturntowardthedivinegroundofmeaning,suffusedthroughoutwith“thedignityofthehopetobedeliveredfrom...estrangement.”31Finally,Voegelin’sphilosophyoffersitselfalsoasanactofwitness.Indirectly,itwitnessestoVoegelin’sdefenseofhisowndignitythroughlivingandwrit-inginconsciousacknowledgmentofhisownexistenceasimagoDei.Butmostimportant,itstandsasaneruditeandprofoundwitnesstothemodesandmeaningsofexistenceintruthandexistenceinuntruth,seekingtherapeuticeffectivenessby“makingpeopleawareoftheevil”insocialandpersonallifeandby“openingthesituationuptopublicdiscussion.”Perhapstosomedegree,Voegelinwrites,“itspersuasioncanhelptorestoretheruleofreason.”Noth-ingispredictableinthatregard,butatleastthetruthofhumandignitywillhavebeenservedtothebestofthephilosopher’sability:Nobodycanhealthespiritualdisorderofan“age.”Aphilosophercandonomorethanworkhimselffreefromtherubbleofidolswhich...threatenstocrip-pleandburyhim;andhecanhopethattheexampleofhiseffortwillbeofhelptootherswhofindthemselvesinthesamesituationandexperiencethesamedesiretogaintheirhumanityunderGod.3231.Voegelin,“TheGermanUniversity,”16–18.32.Ibid.,35;“TheGospelandCulture,”212;“OnHegel,”231–32.\n5EricVoegelinandaNewScienceofPoliticsJamesL.WiserInhisstudyoftruthandrepresentation,whichwaspublishedasTheNewScienceofPoliticsin1952,EricVoegelincalledfora“restored”politicalsciencethatwouldbecharacterized,inpart,byitsreturntoaconsciousnessofprin-ciples.Inparticularherecommendedthatweseekto“rediscovertherational-ityofmetaphysicsingeneralandphilosophicalanthropologyinparticular.”1Indescribingwhatsucharediscoveryofrationalitywouldentail,Voegelinspecifiedthreeelements.First,itwouldrequireanadequateunderstandingofthenaturalstructuresofhumanconsciousness.Second,giventhetemporalcharacterofhumanexistence,itwouldnecessitatethedevelopmentofanappropriatetheoryofhistory.Andfinally,inordertocomprehendtherela-tionshipbetweenhumanorderandsocialorder,suchaprojectwouldincludeananalysisofthoseformsofsociallyrelevantirrationalitythathaveemergedthroughouthistoryandcanbebestunderstoodasactsofresistancetothedemandsofreasonitself.Inshort,Voegelin’sprojectimpliesmuchmorethanwhatistypicallyunderstoodtobewithinthedomainofacademicpoliticalscience.Asaconsequence,hiscallforarestoredpoliticalsciencehasproducedbothconfusionandoppositionwithinthediscipline.Inanefforttoaddressthisconfusion,IproposetoexamineVoegelin’sunderstandingofa“renewed”oradequatepoliticalscience.Indoingso,Iwillfocusuponthefollowing:1.EricVoegelin,TheNewScienceofPolitics(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1952),23.91\n92JamesL.Wiser1)ananalysisofVoegelin’scritiqueofaxiomaticorpropositionalpoliticalscience;2)adiscussionofVoegelin’sappealtotheClassicalGreekformofpolitikeepisteme;and3)aninvestigationofhisunderstandingofcommonsense.IVoegelin’sbest-knowncriticismofaxiomaticorpropositionalpoliticalsci-enceisdevelopedwithinhisdiscussionofpositivismintheintroductiontohisNewScienceofPolitics.Theseargumentsarefairlywellknownandthusdonotneedtoberepeatedhere.Itisimportant,however,toemphasizetheprecisenatureofhisconcern.InTheNewScienceofPolitics,positivismisintroducedonlyasaparticularexampleofalargerintellectualtendency,therootsofwhichcanbetracedbacktothesixteenthcenturyandwhosegeneralprinciplesareoperativeinsuchdiversetraditionsasBritishempiricism,Cartesianrationalism,andEnlightenment“humanism.”ThusinTheNewScienceofPolitics,VoegelinisnotconcernedwiththespecificteachingsofsuchpositivistsasHenrideSaint-SimonorAugusteComte2butratherwiththosemoregeneraltheoreti-calprinciplesofwhichpositivismisonlyaparticularexpression.Positivismisofinteresthereonlyinasmuchasitisoneexampleofamoregeneralattempttorealize“theintentionofmakingthesocialsciences‘scientific’throughtheuseofmethodswhichascloselyaspossibleresemblethemethodsemployedinsciencesoftheexternalworld.”3Voegelinreferstothislargerintentionas“scientism”anddefinesitasthedoctrinethatassumesthatthemethodsofthepropositionalsciencesthatinvestigatethephenomenaoftheobject-worldshouldalsoserveasthemodelforallinquiriesingeneral,andforpoliticalscienceinparticular.4Theprob-2.Itisinterestingtonote,however,thatwhenVoegelindoesexaminetheparticularteachingsofthepositivists,hetreatsthemasatotaldoctrineconcerningthenatureofGod,man,andhistory.ForVoegelinthetrueimportanceofpositivismbecomesapparentonlywhenitisviewedasacomprehensivepoliticaltheoryandnotsimplyasacontribu-tiontothephilosophyofscience.SeehisFromEnlightenmenttoRevolution,ed.JohnH.Hallowell(Durham:DukeUniversityPress,1975),74–194.3.Voegelin,NewScience,8.4.AmorerecentexampleofscientisticthinkingisfoundinthefollowingstatementbyDavidEaston:“Inthesecondplace,aspartofthis[demandforself-consciousattentiontoempiricaltheory],thesocialscienceshavebeencompelledtofaceuptothetheoreticalproblemoflocatingstableunitsofanalysiswhichmightpossiblyplaytheroleinsocialresearchthattheparticlesofmatterdointhephysicalsciences.”DavidEaston,AFrame-workforPoliticalAnalysis(EnglewoodCliffs:Prentice-Hall,1965),13.\nVoegelinandaNewScienceofPolitics93lemwiththisdoctrine,accordingtoVoegelin,isfoundinitsassumptionthatpoliticalrealityisanessentiallyphenomenalobjectandthusonethatiscapableofbeingunderstoodaccordingtothecategoriesofapropositionaloraxiomaticscience.Voegelin,onthecontrary,findsthisassumptionuntenable.Indeed,forhimpoliticalrealityandthetensionofconsciousnessthatprovidesitsorder“isnotathingaboutwhichobjectivepropositionscouldbeformed,”5becauseitismorethansimplyanexternalobjectinthematerialworld.AshewritesinTheNewScienceofPolitics:Humansocietyisnotmerelyafactoraneventintheexternalworldtobestudiedbyanobserverlikeanaturalphenomenon.Thoughithasexternalityasoneofitsimportantcomponents,itisasawholealittleworld,acosmion,illuminatedwithmeaningfromwithinbythehumanbeingswhocontinuouslycreateandbearitasthemodeandconditionoftheirself-realization.6AccordingtoVoegelinanessentialaspectofpoliticalrealityisfoundinthatspecificcosmionofmeaningthatiscreatedbyconcrete,sociallyembeddedindividualswhoattempttogroundtheirexistencewithinthecontextoftheirownhistoricalsituation.Aparticularpoliticalrealityis,amongotherthings,anexpressionofaspecificformofhumanconsciousness.Assuch,aknowl-edgeoftheprinciplesinformingthatpoliticalrealitywouldrequireanunder-standingofthesustainingformsofconsciousness,andsuchanunderstand-ing,inturn,canonlyemploythoseinsightsthatemergefromwithintheactivityofconsciousnessitself.FromVoegelin’sperspective,anadequatepoliticalsci-encecannotbesatisfiedwiththesimpleenumerationofobjectiveproposi-tionsbecausetherealityitstudiestranscendsthephenomenalorder,assuch.IIInhiscallforarenewedpoliticalscience,Voegelinrepeatedlyoffersasexam-plesthetraditionsofPlatonicandAristotelianpolitikeepisteme.Accordingtohisreading,intheirapproachtopoliticalinquirybothPlatoandAristotleunder-stoodthepriornecessityofdevelopinganadequatetheoryofhumancon-sciousness.InhisScience,Politics,andGnosticism,VoegelindescribedPlato’sunderstandingofscientificpoliticalinquiryinafewshortparagraphs.Begin-ningwithsociety’sownself-interpretationsconcerningtheprinciplesofa5.EricVoegelin,Anamnesis,trans.GerhartNiemeyer(NotreDame:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1978),147.6.Voegelin,NewScience,27.\n94JamesL.Wiserproperhumanandsocialorder,Platosoughttopassbeyondtherealmofimageandopinion,whichsupportedsuchinterpretations,andachieveinsteadanoeticapprehensionoftheorderofBeingitself.Ofcourse,eachofthevariousopin-ionsbeingtestedclaimeditsownintrinsiclegitimacy,andthevalidityofthePlatonicchallengepresupposedthatitwasactuallypossibletogainthatnoeticinsightthatwouldthenbecapableofvalidatingthosesubsequenteffortstoarticulateitsmeaning.AccordingtoVoegelin’sinterpretation,theeventualvalidityofPlato’sassumptionwasnotestablishedthroughapriorlogicalargu-ment.Rather,itscorrectnesswasaffirmedinthecontextofanactualevent.ThusVoegelinwrites:Andindeed,Platonic-Aristoteliananalysisdidnotintheleastbeginwithspecu-lationsaboutitsownpossibility,butwiththeactualinsightintobeingwhichmotivatedtheanalyticalprocess.Thedecisiveeventintheestablishmentofpoli-tikeepistemewasthespecificallyphilosophicalrealizationthatthelevelsofbeingdiscerniblewithintheworldaresurmountedbyatranscendentsourceofbeinganditsorder.Andthisinsightwasitselfrootedintherealmovementsofthehumanspiritualsoultowarddivinebeingexperiencedastranscendent.7ForVoegelin,Platonicpolitikeepistemecanonlybeunderstoodintermsoftheparticularexistentialeventormovement,whichPlatoexperiencedasthenec-essaryconditionforreasonitself.ForPlato,reason,orNous,emergedinanactofresistancetodisorder.Asaresponsetodisorder,itwas,atthesametime,anarticulationoforder,inasmuchasitrepresentedtheintimationofanoeticcoherencebeyondtheimmediaciesoftimeandplace.Thustheeventofacon-creteindividual’sresistanceandresponsetodisorderservedtoestablishtheactualcriterionoforderagainstwhichthevariousopinionsaboutordercouldthenbemeasured.PolitikeepistemefirstbecamepossibleonlywhenPlatoself-consciouslyengagedinthatnoeticactivitywhichenabledhimtoresistthespiritualdeformationofhisage.ToabstracthispoliticalprinciplesfromtheirengenderingnoeticeventwouldnotonlyfalsifyPlato’steachings,butatthesametimeobscurethesourceoftheirlegitimacy.ForPlatotheprinciplesofpoliticalorderareanexpressionofthe“clearpatterninthesoul”8thatresultsfromthephilosopher’sencounterwiththeGood.Theradicalnatureofthisanalysisshouldbeclear.Byassociatingtheprac-ticeofpoliticalsciencewithaparticulareventinthehistoryofconsciousness,7.EricVoegelin,Science,Politics,andGnosticism,trans.WilliamJ.Fitzpatrick(Chicago:HenryRegnery,1968),17–18.8.Plato,TheRepublic,trans.AllanBloom(NewYork:BasicBooks,1968),484c.\nVoegelinandaNewScienceofPolitics95Platoestablishestheexistentialprerequisitesforanyanalysisofpoliticalorder.AsVoegelinwrites,“Thereforeaninsightconcerningbeingmustalwaysbereallypresent.”9Withouttherealpresenceofsuchaninsight,thepoliticalsci-entistisincapableofachievingthatontologicalgroundingthatwouldallowonetolegitimatelyjudgetheopinionsofothers.Astheaboveanalysisindi-cates,however,suchaninsightisnotthelogicalornecessaryresultofsystem-aticargumentation.Rather,itisthecognitiveandpsychologicalconsequenceofaparticularexistentialevent.Inshort,forPlato,onlythephilosophercanactuallypracticepoliticalscience,andtobeaphilosopheristoexperienceaturningofthehumansoulawayfromtherealmofappearancesandtowardthatofthetranscendentGood.MuchofVoegelin’sworkhasbeenconcernedwithanattempttoilluminatetheClassicalunderstandingofthisturning.Todoso,hehaswrittenextensivelyonsuchsymbolsas“nous,”“ratio,”and“metalepsis.”Indeed,thesecondarylit-eratureonVoegelinhasfocuseduponthiseffort,andthusitisnotnecessarytorepeathisanalysishere.10ExperiencingtheirownignoranceanddrawnbythedesiretoknowthegroundoftheirownBeing,individualsseektoencounterthatdivinepresencewhoserealityisfirstexperiencedastheterminusadquemofthissearch.Participatinginboththeworldandthetranscendent,whilefullybelongingtoneither,theopenhumansoulachievesastateofexistence-in-tensioninwhichtheverystructureofBeingitselfisrevealed.11Thisperspec-tive,inturn,ispreciselytheachievementthatallowsthephilosophertojudgetheopinionsofothers.ForPlato,then,politikeepistemeisnottheproductofadisinterestedoruniversalconsciousness-at-large.Rather,itisthepoliticalwis-domofonespecificformofhumanconsciousnessinparticular,i.e.,thenoeticconsciousnessofthephilosopher.9.Voegelin,Gnosticism,17.10.See,forexample,thevariousessaysinStephenA.McKnight,ed.,EricVoegelin’sSearchforOrderinHistory(BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUniversityPress,1978),“ASym-posiumonEricVoegelin,”DenverQuarterly10,no.3(Autumn1975),andPeterOpitzandGregorSebba,eds.,ThePhilosophyofOrder:EssaysonHistory,Consciousness,andPolitics(Stuttgart:Klett-Cotta,1981).11.Summarizingthe“Metaphysical”insightthatisgainedbyachievingexistence-in-tension,Voegelinwrites:“Oncethefallaciesareremoved,thehierarchyofbeingcomesintoview,notasanumberofstrataonepiledontopoftheother,butasmovementofrealityfromtheapeironticdepthuptoman,throughasmanylevelsofthehierarchyascanbediscernedempirically,andasthecountermovementofcreativeorganizationfromthedivineheightdown,withtheMetaxyofman’sconsciousnessasthesitewherethemovementoftheWholebecomesluminousforitseschatologicaldirection.”EricVoegelin,TheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin,vol.17,TheEcumenicAge,ed.MichaelFranz(1974;Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),409.\n96JamesL.WiserIIIAlthoughmostcommentatorshavefocusedonVoegelin’sappropriationoftheClassicalGreekformofpolitikeepisteme,itis,nonetheless,importanttorealizethatVoegelinhimselfhasofferedasecondpossibilityfortherenewalofpoliticalinquiry.Specifically,inhisessay“WhatIsPoliticalReality?”Voegelinreferstotheinsightsofcommonsenseasprovidingtheessential“propositions”foratruepoliticalscience.Commonsense,inturn,“mustbeunderstoodinthesenseoftheScottishSchool,especiallyofThomasReid.”12Voegelin’sattempttospecifytheprecisetraditionofcommonsensephi-losophythathehadinmindwasnecessaryinasmuchasthetermitselfhasacquiredavarietyofmeaningsthatdonotserveVoegelin’spurpose.Forexam-ple,withintheEnlightenmenttraditionthetermconnotedabasicandelemen-talresponsetoimmediateempiricalevidence.Ononehand,personsofcom-monsensewerethosewhoreliedupontheinformationoftheirsensesratherthanupontheauthorityandprejudicesofaparticularhistorical—especiallytheological—tradition.Atthesametime,suchindividualswerealsopor-trayedasbeingcharacterizedbyacertainnaïvetéandsimplicity.ThusVoltairewrote:“‘Thatamanhasnocommonsense’isacoarseinsult.‘Thatmanhascommonsense,’isaninsulttoo;itsuggeststhatheisn’texactlystupid,andthathelackswhatiscalledwit.”13FollowinginthetraditionofbothCiceroandReid,however,Voegelindoesnotintendsuchameaning.Indeedforhim“commonsense...doesnotcon-noteasocialdeadweightofvulgarideas,noranyidéesreçuesor‘relativelynat-uralworldview,’butratheritisthehabitofjudgmentandconductofamanformedbyratio.”14ItispossibletomorefullydevelopVoegelin’sunderstandingofcommonsensebyreferringdirectlytotheworkofThomasReid.InhisAnInquiryintotheHumanMind(1764),Reidofferedhisowntheoreticalalternativetotheskepti-cismpresentedinDavidHume’sTreatiseonHumanNature(1739).Through-outthisanalysis,ReidpresentedHume’sworkasthelogicalconsequenceofthosefundamentalassumptionsthathaddominatedmodernphilosophysincethetimeofDescartesandLocke.Specificallyinassumingthattheobjectsofperception,memory,andconceptionexistedessentiallyasideaswithinthehumanmind,post-Cartesianphilosophywasfacedwiththechallengeofjus-12.Voegelin,Anamnesis,211.13.Voltaire,PhilosophicalDictionary,trans.PeterGay(NewYork:Harcourt,Brace&World,1962),467.14.Voegelin,Anamnesis,212.\nVoegelinandaNewScienceofPolitics97tifyingitsbeliefintheactualexistenceofthephysicalworld.Hume’sadmis-sionthatsuchachallengecouldnotbemetonlyconfirmedtheforceofthoseoriginalassumptionswhichhadsucceededinsettingthecategoriesforallsub-sequentanalysis.Reid,onthecontrary,simplyrefusedtograntthemodernistassumptionthattheobjectsofthemind’sactivityweremerelymentalimagesand,therefore,proceededtodevelopatheoryofsensationandperceptionthatacknowledgedtheintuitivecognitionofrealprinciples.Forourpurposes,themostimportantpartofReid’sargumentisconcernedwithhisunderstandingofcommonsense.FirstforReid,commonsensewasnottobeunderstoodincontradistinctiontophilosophy.Whereasthetheoristmayconceiveofcommonsenseasthesourceofthatnaïvetéagainstwhichallphilosophymuststruggle,Reiddescribedthefundamentalcommonsenseapprehensionofrealityasactuallyprovidingthenecessarymaterialforalllegit-imatephilosophicalspeculation.ForReid,commonsensewasthatparticularfacultybywhichoneintuitsthenondemonstrableandthusnecessarilyself-evidentfirstprinciplesasthefirstmomentwithinacomplexactofreason.Assuch,itprovidesboththema-terialandtheontologicalgroundingfordiscursivereasoning.ForReid,thealternativetocommonsenseisfound,notinphilosophy,butratherinlunacy.15Reid’sunderstandingofcommonsensewasfurtherdevelopedinbothhisEssaysontheIntellectualPowerofMan(1785)andhisEssaysontheActivePowersoftheHumanMind(1788).Intheformerwork,Reidonceagainreferstocommonsenseas“thefirst-bornofreason”andsuggeststhatreasonandcommonsenseareactuallyinseparableintheirnature.IndeedforReid,com-monsenseisonlyanothernameforaspecificandnecessaryoperationwithinreasonitself.Thushewrites:Weascribetoreasontwooffices,ortwocharges.Thefirstistojudgeofthingsself-evident;thesecondtodrawconclusionsthatarenotself-evidentfromthosethatare.Thefirstoftheseistheprovinceandthesoleprovinceofcommonsense;andisonlyanothernameforonebranchoronedegreeofreason.16InhisEssaysontheActivePowersoftheHumanMind,Reidarguedthattheabilityofcommonsenseto“judgeofthingsself-evident”appliesbothtotheprincipleoftruthandtotheprincipleofgoodness.Thus,forhim,commonsensereasonisequallycapableofregulatingouractionsaswellasourbeliefs.15.ThomasReid,AnInquiryintotheHumanMind(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1970),268.16.ThomasReid,EssaysontheActivePowersoftheHumanMind(Cambridge:MITPress,1969),567.\n98JamesL.WiserWithintherealmofaction,commonsenseallowsonetograspthosefirstprin-ciplesofhappinessanddutyfromwhichallsubsequentmoralargumentsmustproceed.Withoutsuchaprimaryapprehensionofthegood,allmoralreason-ingisnecessarilywithoutfoundation.Unlessindividualscanagreeastothedesirabilityofhappinessandduty,appealstothoseprinciplesasstandardscapableofinformingone’smoraljudgmentsarewithouteffect.Onemustfirstknowthegoodasgoodbeforeonecanattempttoresolvewhatgoodnessrequiresataparticulartimeandinaparticularsituation.17Forexample,Reidwrites:Itisfirstaprincipleinmorals,whichweoughtnottodotoanother,whatweshouldthinkwrongtobedonetousinlikecircumstances.Ifamanisnotcapa-bleofperceivingthisinhiscoolmoments,whenhereflectsseriously,heisnotamoralagent,norishecapableofbeingconvincedofitbyreasoning....Torea-sonaboutjusticewithamanwhoseesnothingtobejustorunjust;oraboutbenevolencewithamanwhoseesnothinginbenevolencepreferabletomalice,islikereasoningwithablindmanaboutcolor,orwithadeafmanaboutsound.18Inemphasizingthatcommonsenseistheapperceptionofself-evidentfirstprinciples,itisimportanttodistinguishReid’sunderstandingfromthatofDescartes.ForDescartes,self-evidenttruthwasthattruthwhichwasapparentbeforeatrulyvirginmind.Thusonewascapableofachievingscientificinsightonlyafterstrippingawayalltheeffectsofeducation,culture,andtraditionthrougharigorousapplicationofCartesiandoubt.ForReid,ontheotherhand,thecapacitytoreasoncorrectlyrequiresbothcareandnurture.Consequentlythepowerofreason,likeallotherhumanpowers,mustbedeveloped;andtheinsightsofwhichcommonsenseiscapableofachievingareinsightsthatappearnottothea-historicalmind,buttothemind“whenwecometoyearsofunderstandingandreflection.”19ThusReidwrote:Thefacultiesofmanunfoldthemselvesinacertainorder,appointedbythegreatCreator.Intheirgradualprocess,theymaybegreatlyassistedorretarded,improvedorcorrupted,byeducation,instruction,example,exercise,andbythe17.HereagainthereisanobvioussimilaritybetweenthethoughtofReidandofAris-totle.AristotleintroduceshisEthicswiththewarningthattheargumentsthatfollowwillnecessarilybeunpersuasivetothosewhoareethicallyimmatureandhavenothadthebenefitsofapropermoraleducation.Aristotle,Ethics1095a–1095a–15.ThusunlikePlato,whoseRepublicisanattempttodemonstratethatjusticeisagood,Aristotlebeginswiththeassumptionthatsuchisthecaseandproceedstowriteaboutthoseconditionsthatwillpromoteitsrealization.18.Reid,ActivePowers,234.19.Ibid.,231.\nVoegelinandaNewScienceofPolitics99societyandconversationofmen,whichlikesoilandcultureinplants,maypro-ducegreatchangestothebetterortotheworse.20ThusitisthatwhenReidspeaksofcommonsense,hedoesnotintendtosuggestthatitisacertainspontaneouswisdomthatallenjoysimplybecauseoftheirnaturalcondition.Itisratherfoundin“differentpersonstodifferentdegrees,”21andthefactthatitrequirescultivationandnurtureimpliesthat(thepowerofreason)springsup,byinsensibledegrees,aswegrowtomaturity.Butitsstrengthandvigourdependsomuchuponitsbeingdulycultivatedandexercised,thatweseemanyindividuals,nay,manynationsinwhichitishardlytobeperceived.22Commonsense,then,isnotagiven.Itisratherapotentialthatmustbedeveloped.Inmoretraditionalterms,commonsenserepresentsthatminimalstageofdevelopmentinthelifeofreasonwhichisnecessaryifthereistobepoliticalandsocialorder:Thereisacertaindegreeofit[commonsense]whichisnecessarytoourbeingsubjectsoflawandgovernment,capableofmanagingourownaffairs,andanswerableforourconducttowardsothers.Thisiscalledcommonsense,becauseitiscommontoallmenwithwhomwecantransactbusiness,orcalltoaccountfortheirconduct.23InhisreadingofThomasReid,Voegelinreachesasimilarconclusion.Ratherthancontrastingcommonsenseandreason,hereferstotheformeras“acom-pacttypeofrationality.”24Specifically,itisaformoftherationallifethatcanbedifferentiatedfromphilosophyintermsofthedegreeofluminositywithwhichitcomprehendsitsownsituation.Likethephilosopher,thepersonofcommonsenseparticipatesinBeingbecauseasahuman,he/sheistheepit-omeofBeing.Unlikethephilosopher,however,thepersonofcommonsensehasnotachievedthatdegreeofself-consciousinsightthatallowsonetoartic-ulateafullydifferentiatedunderstandingofthenoeticexperience.Intermsofpoliticalknowledge,thepersonofcommonsenseismorelikethematureindi-vidual(spoudaios)ofAristotle’sEthicsandPoliticsthanlikethephilosopherofPlato’sRepublic.20.Ibid.,247.21.ThomasReid,EssaysontheIntellectualPowersofMan(Cambridge:MITPress,1969),559.22.Reid,ActivePowers,247.23.Reid,IntellectualPowers,559.24.Voegelin,Anamnesis,211.\n100JamesL.WiserConclusionThisexaminationoftheClassicalGreekpolitikeepistemeandThomasReid’sunderstandingofcommonsensehasattemptedtoclarifyVoegelin’sexpecta-tionsforarenewedpoliticalscience.Politicalscienceistheexaminationoftheproblemsofpoliticalandhistoricalorderfromtheperspectiveofnoeticcon-sciousness.25Thatperspective,inturn,admitsofvariousdegreesofdevelop-ment.Atthestageofcommonsense,noeticconsciousnessallowsonetoavoidthe“lunacy”ofattemptingtoorderhumanexistencewhileignorantoftheencompassingorderofrealityitself.Atthestageofphilosophy,however,whereonehasgainedafurtherinsightintotheverystructureofnoeticconscious-ness,anindividualisabletoanalyzenotonlythoseexampleswhereindividu-alsareoblivioustotheorderofBeing,butalsothosecaseswhere,oncehavingrecognizedtheorderofBeing,theymovetorejectit.AccordingtoVoegelin,thefirstproblem,i.e.,humanignoranceoftheorderofBeing,isbestconfrontedwhencommonsenserealismopposestheharden-ingofrationalinsightintothetenetsofadogmaticsystemandrefersoneinsteaddirectlytotheparticipatoryexperienceofreason’sfirstmoment.Thesecondproblem,i.e.,therejectionofthealreadyrevealedorderofBeing,ismoredifficult.AccordingtoVoegelin,inasmuchastheideologicalmovementsofmodernityaroseafterthehighlydifferentiatedarticulationoftheorderofBeingfoundinbothGreekphilosophyandJudaeo-Christianrevelationthesemovementsareanexampleofaself-imposedwillfulignorancebroughtaboutbyadeliberaterejectionofhistoricallyavailableinsights.26Commonsensecanovercomeinnocentignorancebyintroducingonetothefundamentalprin-ciplesaboutwhichheorshewaspreviouslyunaware.Butwheresuchprincipleshavealreadybeenacknowledgedandthenrejected,itispointlesstoappealtotheiravailabilityinourcommonsenseexperience.Somethingmoreradicalisrequiredtoconfrontthephenomenonofwillfulignorance.OnemustfirstcometoanunderstandingofwhyonewouldrejectthestructureofBeingonce25.OfcoursetheentireweightofVoegelin’sargumentistoinsistthattheparticularperspectiveavailabletonoeticconsciousnessistheperspectiveofthesoulassuch.Inachiev-ingthestateofmetalepticexistencethephilosopherdoesnotleavebutrathermorefullyentersthehumancondition:“Thetermperspectivemustnotbeunderstood,orrathermis-understood,inasubjectivesense.Thereisnotamultitudeofperspectives,butonlytheoneperspectivethatisdeterminedbytheplaceofmaninreality.”Voegelin,Anamnesis,164.26.“Ratherweareconfrontedherewithpersonswhoknowthat,andwhy,theiropin-ionscannotstandupundercriticalanalysisandwhothereforemaketheprohibitionoftheexaminationoftheirpremisespartoftheirdogma.Thispositionofaconscious,deliber-ate,andpainstakinglyelaboratedobstructionofratioconstitutesthenewphenomenon.”Voegelin,Gnosticism,22.\nVoegelinandaNewScienceofPolitics101itstruthhasbecomehistoricallyexplicit.WhatisitaboutthetruthofBeingthatissoobjectionabletosome?Theanalysisofadecisiontocloseaprevi-ouslyopenformofconsciousnessrequiresalevelofself-awarenessastothestructureofconsciousnessitselfthatisproperonlytophilosophy.CommonsensemayallowustoconsciouslyparticipateintheorderofBeingbyallowingustoapprehenditsself-evidentprinciples;butitisonlyphilosophythatseekstomaketheveryactofparticipationitselfaproperobjectofinquiry.PlatounderstoodthisactofparticipationasaturningtowardthetranscendentgroundofBeing.Onlywhenthisisunderstoodcanonethenunderstandthedecisiontorejecttheprinciplesofcommonsenseasresultingfromapriorde-cisiontorejectone’sparticipationinBeingbyturningawayfromitstranscen-dentground.AccordingtoVoegelin,nothingdemonstratestheneedtobasepoliticalscienceuponanadequatetheoryofhumanconsciousnessmoreclearlythanthepeculiarcharacterofmodernideologicalpolitics.\n6TheBigMysteryHumanEmergenceasCosmicMetaxyBrendanPurcellMichaelRuse,whohaswrittenextensivelyonevolutionandphilosophicalissues,notedafewyearsagothat“unfortunately,thereissimplynothingintheliteraturebyphilosophersonhumanorigins.”1Thereareenormousmoundsofdata,bothonprehumanandarchaichumanmaterials,allwiththecapacityforexpandingourunderstandingofhumanemergence,butphilosophyhasnotkeptup.Certainly,Voegelinwasconcernedwiththisissue,devotingseveralpagesofnotesinthelate1960sto“ThePhylogeneticField,”reflectingbothonevolutionandonthehominidsequenceleadinguptohumanemergence.2Inhis“Nachwort”totheGermaneditionofTheEcumenicAge,ManfredHen-ningsenquotesTiloSchabert’srecollectionofVoegelin,afterhisencounterwithMarieKönig’spaleolithicstudies,remarkingthathewouldneedtowritea“VolumeZero”tohisOrderandHistorythatwouldtakeintoaccountthelat-eststudiesintheearliesthumansymbolizationsoforder.31.SeeMichaelRuse,“PhilosophyandPaleoanthropology:SomeSharedInterests?”inConceptualIssuesinModernHumanOriginsResearch,ed.G.A.ClarkandC.M.Willermet(NewYork:AldinedeGruyter,1997),426f.2.Cf.hisundatedsix-pagetypescript,“DasPhylogenetischeFeld—Daten,”inEricVoegelinPapers,box88,file1,HooverInstitutionArchives,Stanford,CA.ThereisalsohiscorrespondencewithMarieKönig,aspecialistinarchaicsymbolizations,inbox21,file15,inthesamearchive,alongwithhisanswerstoquestionsonhumanoriginsandearlysym-bolizationsinConversationswithEricVoegelin,ed.EricO’Connor(Montreal:ThomasMoreInstitutePapers,1980),75–89.ConversationswithEricVoegelinnowavailableinVoegelin,TheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin(hereinafter,CW),vol.33,TheDramaofHumanityandOtherMiscellaneousPapers,1939–1985,ed.WilliamPetropulosandGilbertWeiss(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2004),243–343.3.TiloSchabert,“DieWerkstattEricVoegelins,”ZeistschriftfürPolitik49(2002):92.102\nTheBigMystery103Perhapswecantakeasastartingpointtowardaphilosophyofhumanori-ginsVoegelin’sremarkinhisforewordtoAnamnesis:Consciousnessistheluminouscenterradiatingtheconcreteorderofhumanexistenceintosocietyandhistory.Aphilosophyofpoliticsisempirical—intheprecisesenseofaninquiryintotheexperienceswhichpenetratewiththeirorderthewholeareaofrealitythatweexpressbythesymbol“man.”Theworkofthisphilosophyrequires,aswesaid,theconstantexchangebetweenstudiesoncon-cretecasesoforderandanalysesofconsciousnessthatmakethehumanorderinsocietyandhistoryintelligible.4Someofwhatistobediscussedinthepresentessayissimplytopresentthedatarequiredtoindicatetheemergenceofconcretecasesoforderthatcanthenbeanalyzedintermsofhumanconsciousness;withoutthatpreliminarycompilation,thelateranalysiscanbesohinderedbymethodologicalconfu-sionsthatitcanhardlybecarriedoutatall.Nonetheless,inrecentyearsIhavebeenstruckbytheconsensusamongthemostprominentBritishandAmericananthropologiststhatanadequateunderstandingoftheemergenceofHomosapiensrequiresaradicalshiftinintellectualperspective,althoughtheydonotthemselvesdealwiththephilosophicalimplicationsofthatshift.DrawingparticularlyonEricVoegelin’sphilosophicalanthropologyandBernardLonergan’sphilosophyofscience,whatIintendtodohereissimplyapreliminarymappingoftheterrainrequiredforaphilosophyofhumanori-gins.IwouldliketobeginwithwhatseemstomeamagisterialstatementofVoegelin’sattheendofTheEcumenicAge:Thedivine-humanIn-Betweenofhistoricallydifferentiatingexperienceisfoundedintheconsciousnessofconcretehumanbeingsinconcretebodiesontheconcreteearthintheconcreteuniverse....Thevariousstrataofrealitywiththeirspecifictimedimensions...arenotautonomousentitiesbutform,throughtherelationsoffoundationandorganization,thehierarchyofbeingthatextendsfromtheinorganicstratum,throughthevegetativeandanimalrealms,totheexistenceofmaninhistensiontowardthedivinegroundofbeing....ThereisnofluxofpresenceintheMetaxywithoutitsfoundationinthebiophysicalexis-tenceofmanonearthintheuniverse.Byvirtueoftheirfoundingcharacter,thelowerstratareachintothestratumofhumanconsciousness,notasitscausebutasitscondition.Onlybecausethestrataofrealityparticipateinoneanother,throughtherelationsoffoundationandorganization,intheorderofthecos-mos,canandmustthetimedimensionsofthestrataberelatedtooneanother,withthetimedimensionoftheuniversefurnishingtheultimatelyfoundingmea-sure....Thephysicaluniverseastheultimatefoundationforthehigherstratain4.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.6,Anamnesis:OntheTheoryofHistoryandPolitics,trans.M.J.Hanak,ed.DavidWalsh(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2002),34.\n104BrendanPurcellthehierarchyofbeingcannotbeidentifiedastheultimaterealityoftheWhole,becauseinthestratumofconsciousnessweexperiencethepresenceofdivinerealityastheconstituentofhumanity.Inman’sconsciousness,thefoundationalmovementwithinrealityfromthephysicaldepthbecomesluminousforthecre-ativeconstitutionofallrealityfromtheheightofthedivineground....Oncethefallaciesareremoved,thehierarchyofbeingcomesintoview,notasanumberofstrataonepiledontopoftheother,butas[the]movementofrealityfromtheapeironticdepthuptoman,throughasmanylevelsofthehierarchyascanbediscernedempirically,andasthecountermovementofcreativeorganizationfromthedivineheightdown,withtheMetaxyofman’sconsciousnessasthesitewherethemovementoftheWholebecomesluminousforitseschatologicaldirection....TheMysteryofthehistoricalprocessisinseparablefromtheMysteryofarealitythatbringsforththeuniverseandtheearth,plantandanimallifeonearth,andultimatelymanandhisconsciousness.5Therearetwolevelsdiscerniblehere:(1)theintramundanesequencecul-minatinginahumanconsciousnessthatarticulatesthetransfinitethrustoftheentiresequence;and(2)thereinterpretationofthatsequenceinthelightofourexperienceofourselvesasoccurringwithinthedivine-humanIn-Between.However,beforecomingtotheMysterybothofthehistoricalprocessandofitsengenderingreality,itwillbehelpfultoarticulateaphilosophicalframe-workfortheintramundanesequenceofstrata.Thatsequencecanbeunder-stoodintermsofAristotle’sownhylemorphiccontext,whereeach“step”rep-resentsanewformalorganizationofthematerialprovidedbythepreviouslyhigheststep.Sowecangivearoughoutlineofthehierarchyofbeing,tobereadupwardfromitsfirsttoitssixthsteps,withafewintermediatestagesaddedin:6THSTEP,c.45,000yearsago:Firsthumanlife—HomoSapiensskeletalremainsinAfrica,Europe,Asia,andAustralia,accompaniedbyanexplo-sionofsymbolizationsofexperiencedattunementwithtransfinitereality4.5millionyearsago:Firsthominids5THSTEP,c.530millionyearsago:Firstmulticellularanimallife—BurgessShale(Canada),Ediacara(Australia),Tommotian(Russia)fauna4THSTEP,c.600–550millionyearsago:Firstcomplexbotanicallife1.5billionyearsago:Complexeukaryoticcells—algae3RDSTEP,c.3.5billionyearsago:Firstbiologicallifeonearth—pro-karyotic(thatis,withoutnucleus)bacterialcells,includingarcheabacte-ria,andfirsteukaryoticcells4.5billionyearsago:Formationofoursolarsystem5.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.17,TheEcumenicAge,vol.IV,OrderandHistory,ed.MichaelFranz(1974;Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),407–10.\nTheBigMystery10510billionyearsago:Formationofgalaxies13billionyearsago:Formationofquasars,stars,proto-galaxies2NDSTEP,c.15billionyearsminus35minutesago:Firstchemicalelements—heliumandhydrogen15billionyearsminus1/100thofasecondago:Firstsubatomicparticles1STSTEP,c.15billionyearsago:Firstphysicalexistence:BigBangDrawingonLonergan,wecantrytoarticulatetheintramundanesequence.OneofLonergan’scriticismsofDarwinisthathisnotionofscientificexplana-tiondependsonaperceptualratherthananintellectualepistemology.Accord-ingly,Darwin’snotionthatthebasicunitisthespecies(evenifitischangingallthetime),ratherthanthespeciesininteractionwiththeenvironment,andhisfocusingonagradualaccretionofminorchangesasaninsightintomacro-evolutionarydevelopment,dependonanotionthatscientificknowledgemeanstakingagoodlookatwhatishappeningratherthanemployinganotionofexplanationintermsofcorrelationsbetweenthedata.Itisaquestion,notoflookingforvisible,gradualchanges,butofunderstandingtherelationsbetweenvariousspeciesovertime.InInsight,Lonerganhasformulatedanopenframeworkfordealingwiththesequenceoflevelsofbeingintermsofwhathecalls“emergentprobability.”Heseesemergentprobabilityasaccountingforworldprocessesintermsofsixgenericnotions:(1)spatialdistribution;(2)largenumbers;(3)longintervalsoftime;(4)selection;(5)stability;and(6)development.Itsopennessisaresultofitsradicallynondeductivenature,acceptingasamatteroffactthatloweraggregatesofexistencemakemateriallypossibletheemergenceofthenextlevel,butthattheyneitherexplainitnornecessitateit.Asaheuristicframe-work,itisnotahypothesistobeverifiedorfalsifiedwithinanyofthenaturalsciences,butanintellectualcontextwithinwhichthevariousfindingsofthenaturalsciencescanbedrawntogether.Itstheoreticalclarityisphilosophical,anditsgreaterorlesserrelevancetotheconcreteuniversedependsonitsbeingintouchwiththefullrangeofempiricalnaturalsciences.ThebasicbuildingblockofemergentprobabilityiswhatLonergancallsa“schemeofrecurrence”:IfAoccurs,Bwilloccur;ifBoccurs,Cwilloccur;ifCoccurs...Awillrecur.Buildingonthatnotion,therecanbeenvisagedaconditionedsequenceofschemesofrecurrence.So,wecansaythatP,Q,R...formaconditionedseries,ifallthepriormembersoftheseriesareactuallyfunctioningforanylatermembertobecomeaconcretepossibility.ThenP(say,thephysicalandchemicallevelsofexis-tence)canfunctionwithoutQ(say,thebiologicallevelofexistence)orR(say,thezoologicallevelofexistence);QcanfunctionwithoutR;butQcannotfunctionwithoutP,norcanRfunctionwithoutPandQ.\n106BrendanPurcellTotiedownintellectuallytheseessentiallydifferentstepsorlevelsorstrata,wecanuseLonergan’snotionofthething,whichisaconcretereformulationofAristotle’snotionofsubstance.ForLonergan,itisanintelligible,concreteunity,differentiatedbyexplanatoryparts,implyingthepossibilityofdifferentkindsofthings.Sinceexplanatorypartsaredefinedbytheirrelationstooneanother,thereisthepossibilityofdistinctsetsofsuchparts—wehavealreadysuggestedphysical,chemical,biological,botanical,zoological,andintellectualsets.Therefollowsthenotionoftheexplanatorygenus,wheregenushererefersintheontologicalsensetogenericallydifferentlevelsorkindsofbeing.Lonergan’sexampleofthesetofexplanatorygeneraorkindsisprovidedbythesciences:wherethelawsofphysicsholdforsubatomicelements,thoseofphysicsandchemistryholdforelementsandcompounds;thoseofphysics,chemistry,biology,andbotanyholdforplants,andsoon.“Asonemovesfromonegenustothenext,thereisaddedanewsetoflawswhichdefinesitsownbasictermsbyitsownempiricallyestablishedcorrelations.”Lonerganlinksthemaindepartmentsofsciencewithhisunderstandingofsuccessivehigherviewpointsandnotesthat“itisbecausenewinsightsinter-vene”thatthehigherscienceisessentially,orgenerically,differentfromthelower.Correlativetothesequenceofstrataofthingsistheseriesofautono-moussciencesashigherviewpoints,physics,chemistry,biology,botany,zoology(attheexplanatorylevelofsensory-perceptualpsychology),philosophicalan-thropology(attheexplanatorylevelofintellectualorrationalpsychology).Sincetheproblemofreductionismbedevilsdiscussionofhumanemergence,itwillbeusefulheretoindicateLonergan’scriterionfortherelativeautonomyofhigherfromlowersciences:ifthelawsofascienceatalowerlevelhavetoregardrangesofoccurrences“asmerepatternsofhappycoincidences”theredevelopsanautonomoushigherscience.Heargues,“Nordoestheintroductionofthehigherautonomousscienceinterferewiththeautonomyofthelower;forthehigherentersintothefieldoftheloweronlyinsofarasitmakessys-tematiconthelowerlevelwhatotherwisewouldbemerelycoincidental.”6Lon-ergannotesthat“thecontentionthatthingsareallofonekindhasrested,notonconcreteevidence,butonmechanistassumption.”7Discussingthereduc-tionistfallacyof“thingswithinthings,”Lonerganpointsout:6.BernardLonergan,Insight:AStudyofHumanUnderstanding(London:Longmans,1961),122–23,118–19,255,257,256.7.Ibid.,257.Cf.Voegelin’scommentthat“thepopularassumptionthatmathematicalnaturalscienceisthemodelofscienceparexcellence,andthatanoperationnotusingitsmethodscannotbecharacterizedasscientific,isneitherapropositionofnaturalscience,norofanysciencewhatsoever,butmerelyanideologicaldogmathrivinginthesphereofscientism”(Anamnesis,376).\nTheBigMystery107thefactthatthelawsofthelowerordersareverifiedinthehighergenusprovesthat[correlations]ofthelowerorderexistinthingsofthehighergenus.Butitisonethingtoprovethat[correlations]ofthelowerordersurvivewithinthehighergenus;itisquiteanothertoprovethatthingsdefinedsolelybythelower[corre-lations]alsosurvive.Toarriveat[correlations],abstractiveproceduresarenor-mal;oneconsiderseventsundersomeaspectsanddisregardsotheraspectsofthesameevents.Buttoarriveatathing,onemustconsideralldatawithinatotal-ity,andonemusttakeintoaccountalltheiraspects.Onecannot,therefore,concludefromtheexistenceofanaggregateofevents,whichcanbeunderstoodintermsofthelower-orderlaws,theexistenceofthingsofthelowerorder,“forthiswouldbetoabstractfromtheaspectoftheaggregatethatcannotbeaccountedforonthelowerviewpointandthatjustifiestheintroductionofthehigherviewpointandthehighergenus.Accordingly,ifthereisevidencefortheexistenceofthehighergenus,therecannotbeevidenceforthingsoflowergenerainthesamedata.”8Asimpleexamplewouldbeafieldofbuttercups,showingslightspeciesvariationdependingontheirpositioninwetterordrierpartsofthefield.How-everexhaustivelythebiochemicalchangesinthebuttercupswereregistered,nosuchaccountwouldyieldthespecificallybotanicalinsightintothekindofthingsbuttercupsare.9Norarethemillionsofcellsineachbuttercupseparate“things,”sinceintrinsictotheconstitutionofeachcellisthattheyarebutter-cupcells.Voegelinputsthisveryconcretely:Aplantisaplant.Youseeit.Youdon’tseeitsphysical-chemicalprocesses,andnothingabouttheplantchangesifyouknowthatphysical-chemicalprocessesaregoingoninside.Howtheseprocesseswillresultinwhatyouexperienceimmediatelyasaplant(aroseoranoaktree),youdon’tknowanyway.Soifyouknowthesesubstructuresinthelowerlevelsoftheontichierarchy(beyondtheplantwhichisorganism)andgointothephysical,chemical,molecularandatomicstructures,everfartherdown,thegreaterbecomesthemiraclehowallthatthingisaplant.Nothingisexplained.Ifyoutrytoexplainitintermsofsomemechanism,youhavecommittedthefallacyofreduction.10(1)Fromhisnotionofathing,Lonerganformulatesthelogicalpostulatethatifthereexistcorrelationsofahigherorder,therewillexistthingsofthesamehigherorder.8.Lonergan,Insight,258.9.IowethisexampletoPhilipMcShane’sdiscussioninhisRandomness,Statistics,andEmergence(Dublin:Gill&Macmillan,1970),71–76,andhisargumentsforthespecificdifferenceofbotanyoverbiochemistryinhisPlantsandPianos:TwoEssaysinAdvancedMethodology(Dublin:MilltownInstitute,1971).10.Voegelin,ConversationswithEricVoegelin,93.\n108BrendanPurcell(2)Thisisfollowedbytheprobabilitypostulatethatifthereexistthingsdif-ferentiatedbyexplanatorycorrelationsandfunctioninginschemesofrecur-rence,thereexiststhepossibility,andsomeprobability,ofanonsystematicoccurrenceofanotheraggregateofeventsthatwouldoccurregularlyonlyifthingsofahigherorderexisted.(3)Athird,evolutionarypostulatewillbethatifnonsystematicallythereoccursuitableaggregatesofevents,thentherewillemergecorrelationsofahigherordertomaketherecurrenceoftheaggregatessystematic.Bythefirst,logicalpostulate,therewillfollowtheexistenceofthingsofthehigherorder.Byemergentprobabilitytherewillariseschemesofrecurrencethatde-pendupontheclassicallawsthatdefinethenewcorrelations.Thisevolution-arypostulateisequivalenttotheoldaxiommateriaedispositaeadvenitforma(formaccruestorightlyarrangedmatter).Boththepostulateandtheaxiomhavethesamecomponents,of“alowerorderofthings,theoccurrenceofasuitabledispositioninthelowerorder,andtheemergenceofacomponentthatpertainstoahigherorder.”ThediscussionbyStephenJayGouldandothersofwhatiscalledbelow“exaption”or“co-option”ispartofthislevelofanalysis.(4)Afourth,sequentialpostulatewouldeffecttheextensionofemergentprobabilitytothings.Itaffirmsthepos-sibilityofaconditionedseriesofboththingsandschemesofrecurrencerealizedcumulativelyinaccordwithsuccessiveschedulesofprobabilities.Thusthese-quentialpostulatepresupposestheotherthree;itaddsanaffirmationofthepos-sibilityofapplyingtheotherthreepostulatesoverandoversothatonecouldbeginfromthesimplestthingsandproceedtothemostcomplex.11ThisisnotunlikeDanielDennett’snotionofevolutionaryalgorithms,thoughwithouthisdeterministcontext.12Lonergannotesthatthesequentialpostulateisneitherahypothesisofempiricalsciencenorascientifictheorythatcanbeverifiedorrefuted,butaheuristicassumptionthatcanonlybeempiricallytestedthroughspecificdeterminationsandapplications.Asimilarphilosophicalcontextisneededforunderstandingthehominidsequence,includingNeanderthalsandtheemergenceofhumans,asweshallsee.Lonergangivesexamplesfirstoftwolevelsofthingsinchemistry:both(1)thechemicalelements,whichmeansthateachoftheseelementsmaybeseenasroughlyequivalentatthechemicalleveltoabiologicalspecies,and(2)theircompounds.Likewiseinbiology,wherethethingsaretheseriesofbiological11.Lonergan,Insight,260.12.DanielC.Dennett,Darwin’sDangerousIdea:EvolutionandtheMeaningsofLife(London:AllenLane,1995).\nTheBigMystery109species,both(1)atthecellularlevel,analogoustoelements,onefindsthethreemajortypesofbacteria,and(2)analogoustocompounds,onefindsmulti-cellularlivingthings:“Thethingsaretheseriesofbiologicalspecies.Theyarethehighersystemsthatmakesystematicthecoincidentalaggregatesatthechemicallevel.Thusthebiologicalspeciesareaseriesofsolutionstotheprob-lemofsystematizingcoincidentalaggregatesofchemicalprocesses.”Suchmulticellularorganismswouldrepresentplantlife,fromthesimplestalgaetothemostcomplexangiosperms.Thethirdapplicationofthekeynotiontakesthebiologicalorganismasitslowerlevelandanimalsensitivityasitshighersystem.Thehighercorrelationsnowaredefinedbythelawsofpsychicstimulusandpsychicresponse,andthesecorrelationsmakesystematicotherwisemerelycoincidentalaggregatesofneuralevents.However,theseneuraleventsoccurwithinanalreadyconsti-tutednervoussystemwhich,ingreatpart,wouldhavenofunctionifthehigherpsychicsystemdidnotexisttoinformit.Lonergannotestheincreasingsignificanceof“immanentintelligibilityorconstitutivedesign”asonemovesfromsubatomicentitiestoanimals.Thussubatomiclimitationsdecreasethevastdiversityofchemicalcompounds;themulticellularplantexploitsthatincreasingdegreeoffreedom,since“notonlyisitanaggregateofcells”butitis“determinedbyitsownlawsofdevelopmentandgrowth.Athirddegreeoffreedomappearsintheanimal,inwhichthesec-onddegreeisexploitedtoprovidethematerialsforthehighersystemofbio-logicalconsciousness.”13Ineachcase,thereistheevidencethatisnecessaryandsufficienttoaffirmtheexistenceofahighersetofcorrelationsdefininganotherlevelorgenusofthings.Andthispossibilityisrecurrent.Therecanbeaseriesofgenera,andwithineachgenustherecanbedifferentspecies,forthethingsaredefinedbytheircorrelationsorwhatAristotlewouldcalltheiraccidentalforms,andthesedifferinasmuchastheysystematizedifferentlytheirdifferentunderlyingmani-foldsoflower-orderactivities.Aswehaveseen,inthingsofanyhighergenus,theresurvivelowercorrela-tions,buttheredonotsurvivelowerthings.Thelowerconjugatessurvive,forwithoutthemtherewouldbenothingforthehighersystemofcorrelationstosystematize.Ontheotherhand,lowerthingsdonotsurvivewithinhigherthings.Almostasareductioadabsurdumofthenotionofthingswithinthings,thereisRichardDawkins’sTheSelfishGene,whereheaccuratelysummarizeshisargument:“Ourgenesmadeus.Weanimalsexistfortheirpreservationandarenothingmorethantheirthrowawaysurvivalmachines.”1413.Lonergan,Insight,261,263–64.14.RichardDawkins,TheSelfishGene(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1989),19–20.\n110BrendanPurcellCorrespondingtothesuccessivegenera,therewillbedistinctandautono-mousempiricalsciences.Andthesuccessive,distinctautonomousscienceswillberelatedassuccessivehigherviewpoints.Lonergannotesthat“ifmetaphysics[orinotherwords,aphilosophicalanthropology]aimsatintegratingtheem-piricalsciencesandcommonsensetoyieldasingleviewoftheuniverseofproportionatebeing,thenithastodealwithfacts.”Inthisnondeductivistphilosophicalformulationofacosmological-anthropologicalviewoftheworld,eachlevelasitweremakesagiftofitselftobeusedbythenexthighestlevel,andwhenwearriveathumanexistencetheentiresequencemaybeunderstoodasahylemorphicsequencedynamicallyorientedbeyonditself.Voegelin’snotionofamovementoffoundationalandorganizationallevelsissurelyequivalenttoLonergan’s,eventhoughLonergandoesnotyetmaketheshifttoexternalcausation.Lonerganarguesthathisevolutionarypostulateistobeunderstoodwithinthelimitsofempiricalsci-ence.“Asempiricalscienceitprescindsfromefficient,instrumental,andfinalcauses,whichrefertodistincttypesofintelligibilityandliebeyondthequalifi-cationsofempiricalmethodeithertoaffirmortodeny.”Withregardtounderstandingtheintelligibilityimmanentintheuniverseofdata,whichconsidersthingsnolessthaneventsandschemesofrecurrence,Lonerganwrites:“forthingsaretobegraspedindata;theirnumbersanddif-ferentiation,theirdistributionandconcentrations,theiremergenceandsur-vival,giverisetoquestionsthatrequireananswer.Onedoesnotescapethatrequirementbyappealingtodivinewisdomanddivineprovidence,forthatappealreinforcestherejectionofobscurantismandprovidesanotherargu-mentforaffirminganintelligibleorderimmanentinthevisibleuniverse.”15Sinceweneedaphilosophicalcontexttohandlethenotionofhumanemer-gence,itisnecessaryfurthertodrawonLonergan’sexpansionoftheAris-totelianheuristicthatVoegelinuseswhenhespeaksoftheordersoffounda-tionandoforganization,whichIbelieveisequivalenttoLonergan’snotionofemergentprobability.Voegelinassertsthataswemovefromtheconsciousnessofexistentialtensiontothecorporealfoun-dation,weencounter,intherealmofman’sbeing,thesyntheticnatureofmanasdefinedbyAristotle,withitslevelsofhuman-psychic,animal,vegetative,andinanimatebeing.Theselevelsofthehierarchyofbeingarerelatedtooneanotherin(a)thegroundingofthehigherontheloweronesand(b)intheorganizationofthelowerbythehigherones.Theserelationsarenotreversible.Ontheonehandthereisnoeuzen,nogoodlifeinAristotle’ssense,withoutthefoundationofzen;ontheotherhand,theorderofthegoodlifedoesnotemergefromthe15.Lonergan,Insight,438–39,441,260–61.\nTheBigMystery111corporealfoundationbutcomesintobeingonlywhentheentireexistenceisorderedbythecenteroftheexistentialtension.16Lonerganspeaks,first,oftheprincipleofemergence,equivalenttoVoegelin’sorderoffoundation:“otherwisecoincidentalmanifoldsoflowerconjugateactsinvitethehigherintegrationeffectedbyhigherconjugateforms.”Second,andequivalenttoVoegelin’sorderoforganization,istheprincipleofcorre-spondence:“significantlydifferentunderlyingmanifoldsrequiredifferenthigherintegrations.”Forexample,chemicalelementsdifferbyatomicnumbersandatomicweights,“andthesedifferencesaregroundedintheunderlyingmani-fold.”Third,thereistheprincipleoffinality,whichIwouldsuggestisequiva-lenttowhatL.BergandColinGrovesbelowcall“nomogenesis.”Theunder-lyingmanifoldisanupwardlybutindeterminatelydirecteddynamismtowardeverfullerrealizationofbeing.Anyactualrealizationwillpertaintosomedeterminategenusandspecies,butthisveryindeterminacyislimitation,andeverylimitationistofinalityabarriertobetranscended.Fourth,thereistheprincipleofdevelopmentitself.Itisthelinkedsequenceofdynamichigherintegrations.Fifth,thecourseofdevelopmentismarkedbyanincreasingexplanatorydifferentiation.Sixthly,thecourseofdevelopmentiscapableofminorflexibilityinasmuchasitcanpursuethesamegoalalongdifferentroutes....Seventhly,thecourseofdevelopmentiscapableofamajorflexibilitythatconsistsinashiftormodifi-cationoftheultimateobjective.Inbiologythisisthefamiliarfactofadapta-tion....Inthelightoftheforegoingconsiderations,adevelopmentmaybedefinedasaflexiblelinkedsequenceofdynamicandincreasingdifferentiatedhigherintegrationsthatmeetthetensionofsuccessivelytransformedunderlyingmanifoldsthroughsuccessiveapplicationsoftheprinciplesofcorrespondenceandemergence.17VoegelinspokeinhisforewordtoAnamnesisabouttheconstantinter-changebetweenthestudyofconcretecasesoforder(hererepresentedbyaphilosophicalheuristicforcosmology)andanalysesofconsciousness.Sobe-foregoinganyfurtherinexploringtheemergenceofthehuman,itwillbehelpfultoseehowthesequenceofprehumanlevelsareinfactimplicitlycon-nectedtothemetaxicissue.In“TheMovingSoul,”Voegelinnotedthatconstructsconcerningthestructureofthephysicaluniverseasawholecannotbeempiricallyvalidated.Why,then,dophysicistsengageagainandagainintheirconstruction?Theonlypossibleanswertothisquestionseemstobethat16.Voegelin,CW,6:407.17.Lonergan,Insight,451–54.\n112BrendanPurcellphysicistsaremenwhoashumanbeingsfeelobligedtodevelopanimageoftheuniverse.Theyfeelobligedtoengageinthecreationofamytho-speculativesym-bolthatwillsatisfyourdesiretoknowthestructureoftheuniverseinwhichwelive.18Othersworkingintheareaofphilosophicalanthropologyhaveintroducedthenotionof“boundaryquestions,”thatis,questionsthatarisewithinthedomainofthenaturalsciencesbutcannotbeansweredbythem.Thoseques-tions,asVoegelinhasnoted,areraisedbythescientistashumanbeing,eventhoughhemayelsewhere,asscientist,appeartosternlydenyhisownhuman-ity.Infactsuchboundaryquestionscaneasilybetrackedasarisingonatleastfourlevels:astrophysics,biology,zoology,andanthropology.Althoughhehaslaterbecomenotoriousforwishingtodenytherelevanceoftheboundaryquestionofastrophysics,19StephenHawkinginanearliercollaborationwithGeorgeEllisadmittedthekeyboundaryquestionposedbyBigBangtheory.“ThecreationoftheUniversehasbeenargued,indecisively,fromearlytimes....Theresultswehaveobtainedsupporttheideathattheuni-versebeganafinitetimeago.Howevertheactualpointofcreation,thesingu-larity,isoutsidethescopeofpresentlyknownlawsofphysics.”20Itisbeyondmycompetencetosayonewayoranotherthattheemergenceofthebiologicallevelofexistenceposesaboundaryquestioninbiology,equiv-alenttothequestiontheBigBangposestoastrophysics.Still,somebiologistscomeclosetosayingsomethinglikethis.Forexample,in1953,thesameyearthatStanleyMillerandHaroldUreytriedtoproducelifeexperimentally,JamesWatsonandFrancisCrick’sdiscoveryoftheroleoftheDNAmoleculeinalllivingthingsindicatedanextraordinarycomplexityinlivingcells,makingtheirchanceemergencefromchemicalsappearlesslikely.NobelPrize–winningbiologistJacquesMonodremarkedthatthesimplestcellsavailabletousforstudyhavenothing“primitive”aboutthem...[T]hemajorproblemistheoriginofthegeneticcodeandofitstransitionalmechanism.Indeeditisnotsomucha“problem”asaveritableenigma.Thecodeismeaninglessunlesstranslated.Themoderncell’stranslatingmachinery18.EricVoegelin,“TheMovingSoul,”inCW,vol.28,WhatIsHistory?andOtherLateUnpublishedWritings,ed.ThomasA.HollweckandPaulCaringella(1990;availableColum-bia:UniversityofMissouriPress,1999),168.19.Inhismostpopularbook,StephenHawkingproposedaviewoftheuniverseashavingnoboundaryoredge,nobeginningorend(onanalogywithasphere),andremarkedofsuchaworld:“Itwouldneitherbecreatednordestroyed.ItwouldjustBE.”ABriefHis-toryofTime(London:BantamPress,1988),136.20.StephenHawkingandGeorgeEllis,TheLargeScaleStructureofSpace-Time(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1973),364.\nTheBigMystery113consistsofatleastfiftymacro-molecularcomponentswhicharethemselvescodedinDNA:thecodecannotbetranslatedexceptbyproductsoftranslation.Itisthemodernexpressionofomnevivumexovo.Whenandhowdidthiscirclebecomeclosed?Itisexceedinglydifficulttoimagine.21AndFrancisCrick,co-discovererofthestructureofDNA,notedthat“anhonestman,armedwithalltheknowledgeavailabletousnow,couldonlystatethatinsomesense,theoriginoflifeappearsatthemomenttobealmostamiracle,somanyaretheconditionswhichwouldhavehadtohavebeensatis-fiedtogetitgoing.”22Theemergenceofsentient-perceptual,orzoological,lifehasbecomeahotissuebecauseoftherecentlydiscoveredcommonbodyplanforallanimalsdatingfromaround550millionyearsago.Whatisrelevanthere,ofcourse,isthepsychiclifeforwhichthatbodyplanisthefoundation.AsLonergannotesofthatpsychicactivity,“elementaryknowingvindicatesitsvaliditybythesur-vival,nottomentiontheevolution,ofanimalspecies.”AndhegoesontomaketheAristotelianpointthatanexplanatoryaccountofanimalspecieswilldifferentiateanimalsnotbytheirorganicbutbytheirpsychicdifferences...[T]heanimalpertainstoanexplana-torygenusbeyondthatoftheplant;thatexplanatorygenusturnsonsensibility;itsspecificdifferencesaredifferencesofsensibility;anditisindifferencesofsensibilitythataretobefoundthebasisfordifferencesoforganicstructure,sincethatstructure,aswehaveseen,possessesadegreeoffreedomthatislim-itedbutnotcontrolledbyunderlyingmaterialsandoutercircumstances.23Thefactthatsentientanimallifemoreorlesssuddenlyappearswouldseemtounderlinetheissueoftheappearanceofanother,animal-psychologicallevelofbeing,asaboundaryquestion.Whileitisnotpossibleheretogointothedramaticshiftfromnonperceptuallifetolifethatisperceptuallyorganized,itisnosecretthatthegapsinthefossilrecord,whichDarwinpresumedwouldsoonbefilled,haveremained.Asaresult,NilesEldredgeandStephenGouldin1972proposedwhattheysawwasanimportantmodificationtogradualistDarwinianevolution,intheirground-breakingarticle,“PunctuatedEquilib-ria:AnAlternativetoPhyleticGradualism.”24Succinctly,Eldredgeexplains:21.JacquesMonod,ChanceandNecessity:AnEssayontheNaturalPhilosophyofMod-ernBiology(London:Collins,1979),134f.(author’semphasis).22.QuotedinMichaelDenton,Evolution:ATheoryinCrisis(London:BurnettBooks,1985),268.23.Lonergan,Insight,252,265–66.24.ReprintedinNilesEldredge,TimeFrames:TheRethinkingofDarwinianEvolutionandtheTheoryofPunctuatedEquilibria(London,Heinemann,1986),193–223.\n114BrendanPurcellifevolutionarychangedoesn’tsimplyaccumulateoverthecourseoftime,thequestionbecomes,Whenandunderwhatconditionsdoesevolutionarychangeoccur?...[N]ewspecies...tendtoshowupabruptlyinthefossilrecordastheoverwhelmingrule....Punctuatedequilibriaisacombinationofempiricalpat-tern(stasisinterruptedbybriefburstsofevolutionarychange)coupledwithpreexistingbiologicaltheory.25Themorerecentbreakthroughintheearly1990s,called“evolutionary-developmental,”or“evo-devo,”seemsinmanywaystocorrespondatthemolec-ularleveltoEldredgeandGould’spunctuatedequilibriumhypothesis,whichinturnissupplementedbytheinsightsofBergandGroves26intonomogene-sisasunderlyingthemacro-evolutionaryshiftsEldredgeandGouldweretry-ingtodealwith.Gould’slastgreatwork,TheStructureofEvolutionaryTheory,isamassiveattempttomarryhisrevisionistDarwinismwithevo-devo.27Thebasicdiscovery,madeintheearly1990s,wasthatthesuddenemergenceofthirty-fivephylaormajorzoologicalgroups(chordates,crustaceans,mol-lusks,etc.)around550millionyearsagoshowedacommondeepgeneticstruc-ture.Eachphylumhadthesamegeneticinstructionsforitstop/bottomaxis,front/backpolarity,head,andsensoryorgans.WallaceArthurgiveshisopin-ionthattherewasnomulticellularanimallifepriorto600millionyearsago;therewasanexplosionofbodyplansinEdiacarantimes,withmanybecomingextinct,andasecondbody-planexplosionintheearlyCambrian;evolutioninVendianandCambriantimeswasmuchmore“experimental”thanitisnow;andinternalfactorssuchasdevelopmentalconstraint(orearlylackofit)areimportantinevolutionaswellasconsiderationsaboutnichespaceandexternaladaptation.28Whatisamazingarethejellyfish,orcnidarians,belongingtoathirty-sixthphylum,whichmayhaveoriginatedwiththefirstEdiacaranfaunaoriginating50millionyearsearlierwithoutthebody-plansoftheotherthirty-fivephyla:theystillseemtohavethesamegeneticplanforeyesthattheysharewiththeotherphyla.2925.NilesEldredge,ReinventingDarwin:TheGreatEvolutionaryDebate(London:Phoenix,1995),94,104.26.Cf.L.Berg,NomogenesisorEvolutionDeterminedbyLaw,trans.J.N.Rostovson(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1969);ColinP.Groves,ATheoryofHumanandPrimateEvolution(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1989).27.StephenJayGould,TheStructureofEvolutionaryTheory(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2002).28.WallaceArthur,TheOriginofAnimalBodyPlans:AStudyinEvolutionaryDevelop-mentalBiology(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2000),81.29.RudolfA.Raff,TheShapeofLife:Genes,Development,andtheEvolutionofAnimalForm(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1996),376f.\nTheBigMystery115RudolfRaffprovidestheflavorofevo-devoissuesinTheShapeofLife:Genes,Development,andtheEvolutionofAnimalForm:highertaxonomicgroups,mostnotablyphyla,possesssuitesofanatomicalfea-turesthatdistinguishthemfromothergroups.Suchanunderlyinganatomicalarrangementiscalledabodyplan...[N]onewphylaappeartohaveoriginatedsincetheCambrian....[B]ecauseallbilaterian[two-sided]animalsshareacom-monancestor,theyarosefromacommonbilaterianbodyplan.Theinterestingquestionthenbecomeswhetherthereisasetofgeneticrulesthatbilateriananimalsshare.Ifthereis,thediversebodyplansofbilaterianphylahavebeenbuiltuponshareddevelopmentalgeneticthemes,whichmightconstituteacon-servedgeneticbodyplan.Slackandco-workershavecalledthishypotheticalHoxgene-centeredgeneticbodyplanformostanimalphylathe“zootype.”...Ifeachnewspeciesrequiredthereinventionofcontrolelements,therewouldnotbetimeenoughformuchevolutionatall,letalonethespectacularlyrapidevolutionofnovelfeaturesobservedinthephylogeneticrecord.Thereisakindoftinkeringatwork,inwhichthesameregulatoryelementsarerecombinedintonewdevelopmentalmachines....InternalrulesshouldnotbeexpectedtosupersedeDarwinianselection,butrather,tocomplementitinpredictingthebehaviorofevolvingontogenies.30EricDavidsoncallsthetakingoverbyahigherlevelofactivityofalowerform“cooption”andnotesthat“cooptiveprocesses...havebeenresponsiblefortheevolutionofnewbodypartsduringthedivergenceoftheBilateria.”31Notonlythesuddenemergenceofsentient-perceptualanimallife—focusedonbyGouldinhisWonderfulLifestudy32—buttheequivalentlysuddenemer-genceofthesequenceofspecieswithinthevariouszoologicalgeneraseemstomake“boundaryquestions”relatingtotheemergenceofeachspeciesines-capable.ItisnoharmtoremindourselvesofVoegelin’swarningregardingall“emergences”ateverylevel:“theepiphanyofstructuresinreality—betheyatoms,molecules,genes,biologicalspecies,races,humanconsciousness,orlan-guage—isamysteryinaccessibletoexplanation.”33SinceGouldhasbeenfiercelyattackedbythosehewouldbedriventocall“DarwinianFundamentalists,”34thereasonagradualist,asopposedtoasalta-30.Ibid.,xiv,26,27,324.31.EricH.Davidson,GenomicRegulatorySystems:DevelopmentandEvolution(SanDiego:AcademicPress,2001),158.32.StephenJayGould,WonderfulLife:TheBurgessShaleandtheNatureofHistory(London:HutchinsonRadius,1990).33.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.18,InSearchofOrder,ed.EllisSandoz(Columbia:Univer-sityofMissouriPress,2000),31.34.StephenJayGould,“DarwinianFundamentalism,”NewYorkReviewofBooks64,no.10(June12,1997):34–37.\n116BrendanPurcelltory,approach—whereboundaryquestionsbecomemoreinsistent—toevo-lutionwasadoptedisperhaps,asThomasNagelseemstothink,becauseofaressentimentnotonlyagainstGodbutagainstphilosophy,thatillservesbiol-ogyasanaturalscience:Myguessisthatthiscosmicauthorityproblemisnotarareconditionandthatitisresponsibleformuchofthescientismandreductionismofourtime.Oneofthetendenciesitsupportsistheludicrousoveruseofevolutionarybiologytoexplaineverythingaboutlife,includingeverythingaboutthehumanmind.Dar-winenabledmodernsecularculturetoheaveacollectivesighofrelief,byappar-entlyprovidingawaytoeliminatepurpose,meaninganddesignasfundamentalfeaturesoftheworld.Insteadtheybecameepiphenomena,generatedinciden-tallybyaprocessthatcanbeentirelyexplainedbytheoperationofnonteleolog-icallawsofphysicsonthematerialofwhichweandourenvironmentsareallcomposed.Theremightstillbethoughttobeareligiousthreatintheexistenceofthelawsofphysicsthemselves,andindeedtheexistenceofanythingatall—butitseemstobelessalarmingtomostatheists.35Asweknow,Voegelintoo,inhisHitlerandtheGermanslectures,com-mentedonthenonobservationalcoreofDarwin’sevolutionarytheory.36Whathehascalled“theepiphanyofstructuresinreality,”accompaniedbyapneumopathologicalfearoftheunderlyingmystery,isatleastoneofthefac-torsmakinganydebateonbiologicalorzoologicalemergencesuchaheatedoneinourculture.37ThegreatclaimofDarwinismasanideologyisthatitanswersthequestionofexistenceregardingalllivingreality.Butsincethereisnothinginbiologicalmethodologythatcandealwiththequestionofexistenceassuch,ascreeningdevicehadtobedevelopedtopreventtheemergenceatthebiologicalandzoologicallevelsofbeingofAristotle’s-Aquinas’s-Leibniz’s-Schelling’s-Heidegger’squestion:Whyistheresomethingratherthannoth-ing?Whyarethethingsthatarethewaytheyare?3835.ThomasNagel,TheLastWord(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1997),131.36.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.31,HitlerandtheGermans,ed.andtrans.DetlevClemensandBrendanPurcell(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,1999),144f.37.However,NealC.Gillespie,inhisCharlesDarwinandtheProblemofCreation(Chi-cago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1979),amplydiscussestheanti-intellectualismDarwinhadtodealwithincertainreligiouscircles,alongwithhisowninternalreligiousstruggle—astruggleperhapsmoreculturalthanreligious,infact.Thewholeissueofclosuretosci-entificinquirybyaschoolofapologistsinthenameofaliteralizingreadingofScripturemakesoneonprinciplesympathetictotheexasperateddesiretofendthemoff,howeverpolemically,bywriterslikeDennettandDawkins.38.Cf.Voegelin’scriticaldiscussionofLeibniz’sformulationofthesequestionsinInSearchofOrder,95–101.\nTheBigMystery117InrecentbookslikeStephenJayGould’sRocksofAgesandMichaelRuse’sCanaDarwinianBeaChristian?thereseemstobeanewopennesstoacceptingtypesofinvestigationthataredifferentratherthanopposed.39Typicallythesetypesofinvestigationarenatural—scientificandreligious;surprisingly,philo-sophicinvestigationneverseemstobegiventhesameattention.Evenso,how-everlimitedthisbreakthroughmaybe,itdoeshavesomeculturalimportance.Brooklyn-bornStephenJayGouldgrewupinasecularJewish,evenMarx-ist,background.Buthisrecentwritingshaveshownhimopentoreligion,evenifheconsidershimselfanagnostic.ThecentralideainhisRocksofAgesisthatsciencetriestodocumentthefactualcharacterofthenaturalworld.Religionoperatesintheequallyimportant,bututterlydifferent,realmofhumanpurposes,meaningsandvalues.Iproposethatweencapsulatethiscentralprincipleofrespectfulnon-interference—accompaniedbyintensedialoguebetweenthetwodistinctsubjects—byenunciatingtheprincipleofNOMA,orNon-OverlappingMagisteria.Later,GouldjustifiesNOMAasasimple,humane,rational,andaltogetherconventionalargumentformutualrespect,basedonnon-overlappingsubjectmatter,betweentwocomponentsofwisdominafullhumanlife:ourdrivetounderstandthefactualcharacterofnature(themagisteriumofscience),andourneedtodefinemeaninginourlivesandamoralbasisforouractions(themagisteriumofreligion).40Bycontrast,Ruse,whocomesfromaQuakerbackground,dealswithhowthecontentofthetheoryofevolutionshouldnotpreventaDarwinianfrombeingaChristian.Hewrotethat“naturalselectionistheonlysignificantcauseofpermanentorganicchange....Iamanenthusiasticreductionist.”YethedoesnotacceptthataDarwiniancannotbeaChristianandwritesthat“SaintAugustineandSaintThomasAquinaswouldbeappalledatsuchapresump-tion.”RusecriticizeswriterssuchasDawkinsandWilsonforanatheismthatis“smuggledin[toDarwiniantheory]andthengivenanevolutionarygloss.”Hisrejectionofanintrinsicoppositionbetweenscienceandreligionindicatesanewtoneinthiswholedebate,andanewreadinessbyDarwiniansofreasonably39.StephenJayGould,RocksofAges:ScienceandReligionintheFullnessofLife(Lon-don:JonathanCape,2001);MichaelRuse,CanaDarwinianBeaChristian?TheRelation-shipbetweenScienceandReligion(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001).40.Gould,RockofAges,4–5,175.\n118BrendanPurcellstrictobservance,suchashimself,ortheexplicitlyrevisionaryGouldtoreflectcarefullyonreligiousquestions.Foraphilosopher,thatisprobablyasnearastheygettoarecognitionofthemysteryoftheepiphanyofzoologicalstruc-turesinreality.Furthermore,RuseagreeswithErnanMcMullin’sviewthat“Godisnotsimplyforecastingonthebasisofwhatwillhappen.Thereisanactofcreationwhichunfurlsthroughtimeforus,butwhichisoutsidetimeforGodandhenceforwhichbeginning,middleandendareallasone.”ThusRuse(quotingMcMullin)pointsoutthat“thecontingencyorotherwiseoftheevolutionarysequencedoesnotbearonwhetherthecreateduniverseembodiespurposeornot.AssertingtherealityofcosmicpurposeinthiscontexttakesforgrantedthattheuniversedependsforitsexistenceonanomniscientCreator.”41ToparaphraseVoegelin,thezoologistwhoconstructsthestructureoftheuni-verseisnotsatisfiedwithhisroleasanobserverofzoologicalrealitybutexertshisprerogativeasmantocreatesymbolsexpressiveofexistentialtension.42OnewayofexaminingtheboundaryquestionposedbyhumanemergenceistoseewhethertheNeanderthals,43thehominidsclosesttohumans(atleastinEurope)inthehominidsequence,requireustomovetoalevelofinquirygenericallydifferentfromzoologyoranimalpsychology.Inhisunpublishedmanuscript“ThePhylogeneticField,”Voegelinhasjotteddownthecheerfulnote:“HistoryofMankindv.HistoryofMonkeykind,”butcouldtherebeaHistoryofNeanderthalkind?44Letuslimitourreflectionstotheissueofsymbolization,onthegroundsthatwithoutacapacityforsymbolizationitishighlyunlikelythatNean-derthalswereabletothink,askquestions,reachoutbeyondthemselvesinten-tionally,orexperiencewhatVoegelincallsluminosity.SomehaveclaimedforNeanderthalmantheactivityofsymbolizationbaseduponarguingthatthesitesindicateritualburials.Inhisstudy“GraveShortcomings:TheEvidence41.Ruse,CanaDarwinianbeaChristian?ix,128,87–88.42.Voegelin,“TheMovingSoul,”169.43.Recentsurveysinclude:PaulMellars,TheNeanderthalLegacy:AnArchaeologicalPerspectivefromWesternEurope(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1996);IanTat-tersall,TheLastNeanderthal:TheRise,Success,andMysteriousExtinctionofOurClosestHumanRelatives(Boulder,CO:WestviewPress,1999);IanTattersallandGeoffreyH.Schwartz,ExtinctHumans(NewYork:WestviewPress,2000).44.HeexpandsonasimilarcommentinTheEcumenicAge:“Withoutuniversality,therewouldbenomankindotherthantheaggregateofmembersofabiologicalspecies;therewouldbenomoreahistoryofmankindthanthereisahistoryofcatkindorhorsekind.Ifmankindistohavehistory,itsmembersmustbeabletorespondtothemovementofdivinepresenceintheirsouls.Butifthatisthecondition,thenthemankindwhohashis-toryisconstitutedbytheGodtowhommanresponds”(377).\nTheBigMystery119forNeanderthalBurial,”RobertGargettexaminesallthesitesatwhichitisclaimedNeanderthalburialstookplace.AtTeshik-Tashhefindsnoevidenceofadeliberategrave,andthatso-called“ritual”assemblageofgoathornscouldbetheresultofpredatoractivity.“Goatremainsmakeuproughly85%ofthefaunalassemblageatTeshik-Tash,and,sincehornisthemostlikelyskeletalparttosurvive,theprobabilityofsixhornsbeingpreservedinthisareaofthesitebychanceishigh.”AtShanidar,perhapsthemostreferencedsite,henotesthatitwasonlysevenyearsaftertheoriginalinvestigationofthesitethattheconclusionwasdrawnthatNeanderthalremainsatShanidar4wereburiedwithflowers,indicatingceremonialactivity,althoughearliertheinvestigatorhadconsideredShanidar4,6,8,and9tohavebeenkilledbyrockfalls.“NoclearevidenceforpurposefulburialexistsintheShanidardeposits.Therearenogravepits,nonon-naturallyoccurringprotectivestrata.”Gargettconsidersthatbecausetheinvestigatorswereinclinedtobelievethatpurposefulburialwasapossibility,theythoughtthepresenceofanunusuallyhighnumberofpollengrainsindicatedthatflowershadbeenburiedwiththedead.Hesug-gests,rather,thattheywereblownbythewind.Andthereseemsdoubtastoinwhichlevelthepollenwasfound.Heconcludesthat“theremovalofmortuaryritualfromthebehavioralrepertoireofNeanderthalmaymaketheobserveddiscontinuityinmaterialcultureattheMiddle/UpperPaleolithicboundaryalittleeasiertounderstand.”Inthe“DiscussionandCriticism”oftheGargettstudy,L.P.Kooijmansetal.agreewithGargettandnotethat“archaeologistsmustfirstruleoutnaturalcausesforthesedimentstheyrecoverbeforecon-cludingthathominidsproducedthem.”45PaulMellarsbroadlyacceptsGargett’sdemolitionofmanyclaimedNean-derthal“burials,”butwheretherearelargenumbers,sevenatLaFerrassie,nineatShanidar,includingtheverydelicatebonesofyoungchildren,hestillarguesthat“thecasefordeliberateintermentofmostoftheseskeletonsappearsvirtuallybeyonddispute.”YetforMellars,too,theevidencefordeliberategraveofferingsaremuchweaker.Heconcludes:“intheabsenceofeitherclearritualorunambiguousgraveofferingsassociatedwiththedocumentedrangeofNeanderthalburialsinEurope,itmustbeconcludedthatthecaseforasym-boliccomponentinburialpracticesremainsatbestunproven.”Withregardtoclaimedsymbolismandstyleintoolmanufacture,MellarsfindsthatthekeycontrastbetweenNeanderthalandspecificallyhumanUpperPaleolithictoolsliesinthenotionofdeliberately“imposedform.”Evenmoretellingthanthe45.RobertH.Gargett,“GraveShortcomings:TheEvidenceforNeanderthalBurial,”CurrentAnthropology30(1989):169,175–77;L.P.Kooijmansetal.,“OntheEvidenceforNeanderthalBurial,”CurrentAnthropology30(1989):329.\n120BrendanPurcellstonetoolsofUpperPaleolithicareitsboneandantlertools,occurringinhighlystructuredlivingsites,withtherecognizableregularityandstandardi-zationofUpperPaleolithicartanddecorativemotifs.Mellarsconcludesthat“itisthisdramaticandwelldefinedshiftintoolproductionpatternsthatsug-geststhattherewasindeedamajorchangeinthesymbolicandcognitiveprop-ertiesoftoolmanufacturebetweentheMiddleandUpperPalaeolithicperi-ods,whichmayhaveequallysignificantimplicationsforthegeneralmentalandcognitivedimensionsofthepopulationsinvolved.”RegardingtheclaimsaboutNeanderthalsymbolizationin,forexample,rockart,Mellarsnotesthatthesespecimensareveryrare.ThefactthatallegedMousteriansymbolicobjectstendtobeuniquecastsfurtherdoubtontheiractualsymboliccontent,fortheyprovidenoevidenceforasharedsystemofmeaning....Althoughthepersis-tenceofMiddlePaleolithicartifactformsisstriking,itisnotwithoutprecedent:relativetechnologicalstasishasbeentheruleinhumanevolutionfor2millionyearsormore.OnthequestionofNeanderthallanguage,Mellarsnotesthedichotomybetweenevolutionaryandcatastrophicviewsoftheemergenceoflanguage.Forthosewhoargueforapunctuatedformoflanguageemergence,sucharelativelyabruptshift“mighthelptoexplainsomeoftheradicaltransformationsinhumanbehavioralpatternsoverthisperiod,documentedinthearchaeologi-calrecords.”46WehavealreadydiscussedLonergan’sviewontheneedtomovetoahigherlevelofexplanationwhenapile-upofmeaningfuldataexiststhatisrandomintermsofalowerlevelofexplanation.ThisdoesnotarisewiththeNeanderthaldatabutitdoeswithregardtothese“radicaltransformationsinhumanbehavioralpatterns.”HeagreeswithPhilipLiebermanonNean-derthalincapacityforlanguage.Liebermanwrites:TheproblemarisesbecausethelengthoftheNeanderthalmouthisoutsidetherangeofmodernhumanbeings....NeanderthalspeechanatomywasmoreadvancedthanthatofHomoerectusorhumannewbornsbutstillincapableofproducingthefullrangeofhumanspeechsoundswiththestabilityandformantfrequencystructureofsoundslikethe“supervowel.”LiebermannotesthatNeanderthalretentionofaprimitivefaceprominentlyextendedaboutthemouth,typicalofearlierhominidswherethelowerfaceispositionedinfrontofthebrain,“clearlyindicateslessefficientspeechcom-munication.Theyrepresentanintermediatestageintheevolutionofhuman46.Mellars,TheNeanderthalLegacy,379,381–83,146,151,388.\nTheBigMystery121speech.Althoughtheirbrainwasaslargeasourown,theneuralsubstratethatregulatesspeechproductionmayalsohavebeenlessdeveloped....Nean-derthalswereinherentlyunabletoproducehumanspeech.”47WehavealreadynotedthatMellarspointsoutthatatthearchaeologicallevelthereisa“virtuallackofconvincingevidenceforsymbolicbehaviourorexpressioninNeanderthalcontexts.”Whateverismadeofthis,noonewouldquestion“thatelaboratesymbolicthoughtandexpressionisoneofthedefininghallmarksofallfullydevelopedlanguages.”ForMellars,thelackofconvincingevidenceforsymbolisminNeanderthalcontextsisatleastconsistentwiththelackofahighlydevelopedNeanderthallanguage,evenifitisnotconcreteproof.Mellarsholdstheview“thataradicalrestructuringoflanguagepatternswouldnotonlybeconsistentwiththeavailablearchaeologicalrecordsofbehav-ioralchangesovertheperiodoftheMiddle-UpperPaleolithictransitionbutmightprovidethemosteconomicalsingleexplanation.”HeisinclinedtoagreewithlinguistssuchasNoamChomsky,StevenPinker,andDerekBickertonthattheemergenceoflanguagemusthavebeenacatastrophicratherthanagradualprocessofmentalandlinguisticevolution.Ifso,weshouldexpecttofind“afairlydramaticreflectionofthistransitionintheavailablebehaviouralrecordsofhumandevelopment”acrosswholespectrafromtechnologythroughsubsistenceandsocialpatternstothemoreovertlysymbolicpatternsofthehumangroup.Mellarsconcludes:“Thequestioniswhere,intheavailablearchaeologicalrecordsofEurope,mightweidentifysuchawatershed,ifnotovertheperiodtotheMiddle-to-UpperPaleolithictransition?”48WalkerPercy’spungentreflectionontheimplicationsofhumanlinguistic(whathecalls“triadic”orreflective)activity(asopposedtonon-self-conscious“dyadic”activity)bringsouttheneedtoexplorewhatgroundsthehumandifferenceatthat“transition”point—where,precisely,theissueof“transition”comesup.“Thus,thereisasense,”heargues,“inwhichitcanbesaidthat,giventwomammalsextraordinarilysimilarinorganicstructureandgeneticcode,andgiventhatonespecieshasmadethebreakthroughintotriadicbehaviorandtheotherhasnot,thereis,semioticallyspeaking,moredifferencebetweenthetwothanthereisbetweenthedyadicanimalandtheplanetSaturn.”49Bearinginmindtherecentprofound,ifnotfatal,revisionofthestandardDarwinianevolutionaryparadigm,itseemsatleastlikelythatacombinationofgenomic47.PhilipLieberman,EveSpoke:HumanLanguageandHumanEvolution(NewYork:Norton,1998),92–97.48.Mellars,TheNeanderthalLegacy,388–89,391.49.WalkerPercy,LostintheCosmos:TheLastSelf-HelpBook(NewYork:WashingtonSquarePress,1984),97(emphasisinoriginal).\n122BrendanPurcellregulatorysystemswithenvironmentalinteractionandadaptationwillprovidethebestheuristicforunderstandingthehominidsequence.Thatsequenceprovidesauniquelywell-documentedseriesofbodyplansculminatinginourown.50Andanyargumentforthekindofanti-humanracismthatVoegelinopposedinhistwoso-calledracebookshasbeenscuttledatthebiochemicalleveloverthelasttwentyyearsorso.WhenRebeccaCannandherassociatesattheDepartmentofHumanBiol-ogyattheUniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeleystudiedthemitochondrialDNAvariationindifferentspecies,theydiscovereda5percentvariationbetweenthetwoslightlydifferentorangutanspeciesinBorneoandSumatra,a0.6per-centvariationamonggorillas,andanastonishinglylow0.3percentvariationamonghumansofallraces.ChrisStringerandRobinMcKieremarkthatitisnotthegorilla,northechimpanzee,northeorangutan,thatisunusual....Eachenjoysanormalspectrumofbiologicalvariability.Itisthehumanracethatisodd.Wedisplayremarkablegeographicaldiversity,andyetastonishinggeneticunity....Therealisationthathumansarebiologicallyhighlyhomoge-neoushasonestraightforwardimplication:thatmankindhasonlyrecentlyevolvedfromonetightlittlegroupofancestors....Weareallmembersofaveryyoungspecies,andourgenesbetraythissecret.51Moreover,IanTattersallandGeoffreySchwartzhavenotedthatparalleltothematernalmitochondrialDNAsequenceisthemorerecentlydiscoveredpaternalYchromosomesequence,withtheoriginofbothnowbeingdatedtoc.50,000BP.Theypointoutthat“recentcomparativestudiesofthehumanYchromosome(uniquelypassedalongbymen,presumablyfroman‘AfricanAdam’)suggestapatternsimilartothatsuggestedbythematernallyderivedmtDNA.EvenmoreinterestingisthatinChina,onceahotbedofmultiregionalthinking,arecentstudyofmicrosatellites(repeatsofshortnuclearDNAseg-ments)hassuggestedaderivationoftheHanChinesefromanultimatelyAfricanancestry.”52However,Voegelin’swarningoftheboundaryquestionposedbyhumanemergence,whenhesaidthattheepiphanyofstructuresinrealitywasamys-teryinaccessibletoexplanation,becomesacutewhenthe“structures”wearedealingwitharethoseofhumanconsciousnessanditsexpressioninlanguage.WhileLonergan’sapproachcomesattheissuefromadifferentdirection,it50.AnexcellentrecentsurveycanbefoundinRogerLewin,PrinciplesofHumanEvo-lution:ACoreTextbook(Oxford:Blackwells,1998).51.ChrisStringerandRobinMcKie,AfricanExodus:TheOriginsofModernHumanity(London:Pimlico,1997),113.52.TattersallandSchwartz,ExtinctHumans,230.\nTheBigMystery123seemstobeinsubstantialagreementwithVoegelin’s.Heseesinquiryandin-sight,reflectionandjudgment,deliberationandchoiceas“ahighersystemofsensitiveprocess.”Butinquiryandinsightarenotsomuchahighersystemasaperennialsourceofhighersystems.Therecanbeinmanaperennialsourceofhighersystemsbe-causethematerialsofsuchsystematizationarenotbuiltintohisconstitution....Ananimalspeciesisasolutiontotheproblemofliving,sothatanewsolutionwouldbeanewspecies;forananimaltobegintoliveinanewfashion,therewouldberequirednotonlyamodificationofitssensibilitybutalsoamodificationoftheorganismthatthesensibilitysystematizes.Newdevelopmentsinhumansarebasednotinanewsensibility,withitscor-respondingneuralbasis,butinquiringandunderstandinghavetheirbasis,notinaneuralstructure,butinan[intellectual]structureofpsychiccontents....Intelligenceisthesourceofasequenceofsystemsthatunifyandrelateotherwisecoincidentalaggregatesofsensiblecontents....Man,then,isatonceexplanatorygenusandexplanatoryspecies.Heisexplanatorygenus,forherepresentsahighersystembeyondsensi-bility.Butthatgenusiscoincidentwithspecies,foritisnotjustahighersystembutasourceofhighersystems.Inmanthereoccursthetransitionfromtheintelligibletotheintelligent.53WemaysaythattheentirethrustofVoegelin’sexplorationinphilosophicalanthropology,wherehetechnicallycorrelateswhatLonergan,interminologythatwouldcertainlysetVoegelin’steethonedge,callsthe“highersystems”ofMyth,Philosophy,Revelation,andIdeology,areinfactsystematizationsororderingsofrangesofourexperienceofhuman,social-historic,cosmic,anddivineexistence.54Itistheseoverarchingordersofhumanexperiencethatexpressthehumanspecificdifferencesthataregroundedinthehumangenericdifferenceofreason.53.Lonergan,Insight,266–67.54.Havingnotedthat“mankind,”asauniversalidea,doesnotexist,Voegelinsuggeststhatthesubjectofhistory“canonlybeBeinginthemostgeneralsense,Beingitself.”Hecomparesthesituationofauniversalhistoryofmankindtocontemporarytheoreticalphysics,where“wehaveallsortsofrelationaldiscoveries,whicharesothoroughgoingthatthesubjectmatter,thetermsoftherelations,disappears....Wehavefoundasimilarprobleminthetheoryofhistory:thesubjecttowhichallthesethingshappenisdisappear-ing,andwehavethuscomebackpracticallytoacosmology,aphilosophyofthecosmos.”SeeEricVoegelin,“EquivalencesofExperienceandSymbolizationinHistory,”inCW,vol.12,PublishedEssays,1966–1985,ed.EllisSandoz(1990;availableColumbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,1999),113,114.\n124BrendanPurcellWhatwereceivefromanthropologists,however,isatbestarecognitionofthesingularityofthehuman.AsTattersallandSchwartzputit:ourpatternhasessentiallybeenoneofbusinessasusualforthenaturalworld:astoryofrepeatedevolutionaryexperimentation,diversification,and,ultimately,extinction.Anditwasclearlyinthecontextofsuchexperimentationratherthanoutofconstantfinetuningbynaturalselectionovertheeons,thatourownamazingspeciesappearedonEarth.Albeit,intheend,withadifference:forunlikeevenourclosestrelations,Homosapiensisnotsimplyanextrapolationorimprovementofwhatwentbeforeit.Forreasonswewillexplore,ourspeciesisanentirelyunprecedentedentityinthelivingworld,howevermundanelywemayhavecomebyourunusualattributes.55Asaresultofthisvaluablebutstillmerelydescriptiveawareness,wemustturntophilosophyfortheanthropologicalarticulationthatwilladequatelyconveythegenericdifferenceofthehuman.Atthemateriallevel,Aristotlewasawarethathumanparentscouldnotadequatelyaccountforthecomingintoexistenceofhumanchildren.InTheGenerationofAnimals,hewrites:“Thatiswhyitisaverygreatpuzzletoansweranotherquestion,concerningReason.Atwhatmoment,andinwhatmanner,dothosecreatureswhichhavethisprincipleofReasonacquiretheirshareinit,andwheredoesitcomefrom?Thisisaverydifficultproblemwhichwemustendeavortosolve,sofarasitmaybesolved,tothebestofourpower.”56VoegelinhasbroughtoutwhatAristotlemeantbyreason,asthebasisofmankind,inAristotle’sMetaphysicsbookA.57Asweallknowtoowell,Aristo-tleopenshisMetaphysicswiththeprogrammatic:“Allmenbynaturereachoutforknowledge,”conventionallytranslatedmoreblandlyas“Allmenbynaturedesiretoknow.”Voegelinfirstlookedatthesecondpartofthisstate-ment,regardingwhatallmendo:toueidemioregontai,whichseemstodeservethemoreactive“reachoutforknowledge”thanthemoreusual“desiretoknow.”Healsorefersto982a32,whereAristotleusespursueorseizewithregardtoknowledge.InMetaphysics981a13–982a20theknowledgeturnsouttobeques-tioning,fromminormatterstothegroundofthecosmos.In982b12f,wearetoldthatphilosophybeginsinwonder,andin983a14f,hespeaksof“awonderingwhythingsshouldbeastheyare.”So,thaumazein,wondering,impliesthequestfortheground,aquestundertakenbecauseof55.TattersallandSchwartz,ExtinctHumans,9.56.Aristotle,TheGenerationofAnimals736b5,trans.A.L.Peck(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,LoebClassicalLibrary,1990),167.57.Voegelin,“ConfigurationsinHistory,”inCW,28:99–110.\nTheBigMystery125man’sconsciousnessofignorance,agnoein,982b18.Consequently,VoegelinsuggestsparaphrasingthefirstlineoftheMetaphysicsas:“Allmenarebynatureinquestoftheground.”NowVoegelinturnstothatfirstpartoftheopeningsentence,“Allmenarebynature...”Aristotleidentifiestwostylesoftruth,philosophyandmyth.Hecharacterizeswhatbothstyleshaveincommon:wonderaboutthegroundofbeing.Sohecanwrite,in982b18f,“thephilomythos(loverofmyth)isinasenseaphilosophos(loverofwisdom),formythiscomposedofwonders.”Finally,weknowthathecouldidentifywiththeloverofmythfromaletterwritteninhisoldage:“themoresolitaryandisolatedIam,themoreofaloverofmyth(philomythoteros)Iambecoming.”WhatisrelevantforusisthatAristotlehadcometoagraspofwhatthetwoculturalforms—mythandphilosophy—withwhichhewasacquaintedheldincommon:bothweresymbolizationsofthequestfortheground,whichremainsanimpenetrablemystery.VoegelincouldthusseethatAristotlehadgraspedthekeyprincipleofequivalence,thatistosay,“therecognizableidentityoftherealityexperiencedandsymbolizedonthevariouslevelsofdifferentiation.”58Equivalencereferstothisawareness,thatinhistoricalrealityeachperson’sandeachsociety’squestforthegroundistheirexegesisoftheirexperienceofparticipationinthatground.Howevercompactlyandincompletelytheymayarticulatethatexperience,andhowevermuchinneedoffurtherrevisiontheirexperienceandsymbolizationofrealitymaybe,ithasitsdignityasarealper-son’sorsociety’simageofthemysteryofrealitysurroundingandembracingthem.AnditisbecauseofthisdignitythatthefundamentalhermeneuticprincipleforVoegelincouldbestatedthusly:“therealityofexperienceisself-interpretive.Themenwhohavetheexperiencesexpressthemselvesthroughsymbols;andthesymbolsarethekeytounderstandingtheexperienceexpressed.”59Itisatthislevel,characterizedbythereflectivequestfortruthexpandedinhismagnificentchapter7,“UniversalHumanity”inTheEcumenicAge,thatVoegelinhasdevelopedthecoreofaphilosophicalanthropologythatwillenableourgenerationtocarryoutwhathehimselfcalled“asearchofthesearch”60notonlyofhumanoriginsbutofthewholeofhumanhistory.58.EricVoegelin,AutobiographicalReflections,ed.EllisSandoz(BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUniversityPress,1989),108.59.Ibid.,81.60.Voegelin,“EquivalencesofExperience,”116.\nThispageintentionallyleftblank\nIILiterature\nThispageintentionallyleftblank\n7ADisciplineoftheMindandHeartVoegelinandSantayanaasPhilosophersofExperienceElizabethCoreyAllseriousreadersofVoegelinareawarethatheconsideredthephilosophyofGeorgeSantayanatohavebeenaformativeinfluenceonhisearlyintellec-tualdevelopment.InOntheFormoftheAmericanMind,VoegelinanalyzesseveralaspectsofSantayana’sphilosophy,commentingonhispoetryandonhisideaof“essence.”HeseesthatSantayana’sphilosophyispoetic,mystical,andskeptical,andthatitisatthesametimegroundedincommonsenseexpe-rience.Voegelinmightwellbedescribinghimselfwhenhewritesthat“philos-ophyisnotatopicthatengagesSantayanaonlyonoccasion;itisanecessityoflife,hisdailyanswertoeverythingheencounters.Helivesbythinking.”Voe-gelin’sinformalcommentsinAutobiographicalReflectionsexpressclearlythereasonsforhisinterestinSantayana.“Tome,Santayanawasarevelationcon-cerningphilosophy,comparabletotherevelationIreceivedatthesametimethroughcommonsensephilosophy,”writesVoegelin.“Herewasamanwithavastbackgroundofphilosophicalknowledge,sensitivetotheproblemsofthespiritwithoutacceptingadogma.”1However,studentsofSantayanawilldoubtlessbeawarethatheconsideredhimselfamaterialist.Andmaterialism,ashecommentsinDominationsandPowersis“themostbrutalform”ofnaturalism.Voegelin,ofcourse,iswell1.EricVoegelin,TheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin(hereinafter,CW),vol.1,OntheFormoftheAmericanMind,trans.RuthHein,ed.JürgenGebhardtandBarryCooper(1995;availableColumbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,1999),84;EricVoegelin,Autobio-graphicalReflections,ed.EllisSandoz(BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUniversityPress,1989),31.129\n130ElizabethCoreyknownforhisantipathytowardallreductionisticphilosophies,materialismfeaturingprominentlyamongthem.SowhywouldVoegelinhavebeenattractedtoathinkerwhoprofessedsuchadoctrine,muchlesshavepraisedhimassomeone“sensitivetotheproblemsofthespirit”?Moreover,toengageSanta-yana’scriticsistobefacedwithamountainofevidencethatcharacterizesSantayana’swritingsasincomprehensibleandunintelligible.WilliamJames,attimesinclinedtobesomewhatmoreindulgentofSantayana,criticizedhisLifeofReasonasthe“perfectionofrottennessinaphilosophy.”2AndwhilehiscriticsadmitthatSantayanaisindeedapoetandaphilosopher,mostcon-cludethatthesetwoendeavorsshouldremainseparateandthatSantayanasucceedsbrilliantlyatneitherone.Soagain,whatwouldVoegelinhaveseeninsuchathinker?“Tobegreatistobemisunderstood,”writesEllisSandozinTheVoegelinianRevolution,andofSantayanaitcanbesaidthathewasmisunderstoodbymany.3ButhewasnotmisunderstoodbyVoegelin,inwhomhefoundasupremelysympatheticaudience.AndalthoughscholarshaveoftennoticedVoegelin’sinterestinSantayana,noonehasyetconsideredthereasonsforthisinterest.Toanticipatemyconclusion,IsuggestthatVoegelinregardsSantayanaasamodelphilosopher—someonewhounderstandsthatphilosophy,poetry,andmysticismspringfromthesamesourceandapprehendthesamereality.Thisconclusionmaynotseemimmediatelyapparent,however,forseveralquestionsariseforthestudentofboththinkers:WhydidVoegelinsoadmireamaterial-istphilosopher?HowcanVoegelin’sgreatadmirationforSantayanaberecon-ciledwiththeoverwhelminglynegativecriticismsofSantayana’swork?Andfinally:InwhatspecificwaysareVoegelinandSantayanaengagedinthesamequest?Theanswerstoallthesequestionsmustbeginwithaproperunder-standingofSantayana’sconceptionofmaterialism.Santayana’sMaterialismMaterialismis,ofcourse,anotoriouslyslipperyword.ItmaysignifytheEpi-cureanandLucretianideasofatomsfallinginavoid,conceptionsthatdenyacosmicorganizingprincipleandaimatalleviatingthefearofdeath.Oritmayappearasthe“dialectical”materialismofMarxandhisfollowers.Incommon2.GeorgeSantayana,DominationsandPowers(NewBrunswick:TransactionPublish-ers,1995),18;TheLettersofWilliamJames,ed.H.James(Boston:AtlanticMonthlyPress,1920),2:122,quotedinAnthonyWoodward,LivingintheEternal:AStudyofGeorgeSan-tayana(Nashville:VanderbiltUniversityPress,1988),6.3.EllisSandoz,TheVoegelinianRevolution(NewBrunswick:TransactionPublishers,2000),12.\nDisciplineoftheMindandHeart131parlance,itmaymeansimplythedoggedpursuitofwealthandcomfort.Onethingiscertain:Santayanathoroughlyrejectedthislattervarietyofmaterial-ism.Theaccumulationofwealthwasnotsomethingtowhichheaspired.San-tayanastood,indeed,outsidethemainstreamofanagethatconcerneditselfwithprogressandprosperity,preferringthepursuitofaestheticandphilosoph-icalendeavorstotheworkadayoccupationsofthosearoundhim.DuringhisyearsatHarvardheearnedthereproofofhisteacherWilliamJames,whoadvisedhimthathisphilosophywasabit“toomuchlikeapoem”andtoolittleliketheworkofthemore“serious”philosopherswhowouldbeevaluatinghisdoctoraldissertation.ButtheaestheticsensibilitywasprimaryforSantayana.Onemayaswellcallhimapoet-philosopherasaphilosopher-poet.ForSan-tayanathesetwodisciplinescouldnotbedisentangled.SuchaestheticandphilosophicalconsiderationsareatthecoreofthefamouscriticismsofliberalismthatappearthroughoutSantayana’scorpus.Liberalism,hebelieves,doesnotelevatethehumanspiritbutbringsitdowntoalow,vulgarlevelwhereeventhesought-afterrewardsareultimatelyunsatisfactory.Itis,toputitquitesimply,uglyandinadequate.Hewritesthefollowingversesin1896:Myheartrebelsagainstmygeneration,Thattalksoffreedomandisslavetoriches,And,toiling’neatheachday’signobleburden,Boastsofthemorrow.Nospacefornoondayrestormidnightwatches,Nopurestjoyofbreathingunderheaven!Wretchedthemselves,theyheap,tomakethemhappy,Manypossessions.Eventheprizesofferedbyliberalsociety—wealth,politicaloffice,fame—bringwiththemendlessworries.“Ihearnolaughteramongtherichwhichisnotforcedandnervous,”writesSantayanainanessayfromabout1920.“Ifindnosenseofmoralsecurityamongstthem,nohappyfreedom,nomasteryoveranything.”4TheliberalconditioncouldneversatisfySantayana’sphilosophicandaestheticlongings.Materialismasaphenomenonofliberalsociety,then,wasnopartofhisconstitution.ButwhileSantayanarejectedthevulgarmaterialismofmanyofhiscon-temporaries,henonethelesslocatedhisworkfirmlywithinthephilosophicalmaterialisttradition.Indeed,inDominationsandPowersheacknowledgesthat4.PoemsofGeorgeSantayana,ed.RobertHutchinson(NewYork:Dover,1970),63;GeorgeSantayana,SoliloquiesinEnglandandLaterSoliloquies(NewYork:Scribner’s,1922),185.\n132ElizabethCoreyhehasrepeatedlyconfessedtobeingamaterialist.5Thisavowalraisestwoim-portantquestions.First,whatdoesSantayanameanbymaterialist,andsecond(forourpurposes),whywouldVoegelinhavebeenattractedtothethoughtofsuchaperson?Voegelin,ofcourse,isacutelysensitivetothetendencyofmod-ernthinkerstoexcisevarioussectorsofexperienceinordertobolstertheirphilosophicalapparatus.Andmaterialistphilosophers—HobbesandMarx,forexample—arethesubjectsofsomeofVoegelin’smostincisiveattacks.IfSantayanaisindeedamaterialist,whywouldhecaptureVoegelin’sattentionandmerithispraise?AnanswertothisquestionrequiresacarefulsensitivitytowhatSantayanameansbymaterialism.Standarddefinitionsofmaterialismdescribeitasadoctrinethatplacesphys-icalmatterinaprimaryposition,relegatingconceptssuchas“mind”or“spirit”tosecondarypositionsoreliminatingthemaltogether.SomesuchmaterialismisfoundinHobbes,whoobservesthattheoriginofallthoughtissense:“thereisnoconceptioninaman’smindwhichhathnotatfirst,totallyorbyparts,beenbegottenupontheorgansofsense.”AndMarxmakesarelatedpointwhenhewrites,famously,thatitis“nottheconsciousnessofmenthatdeter-minestheirbeing,but,onthecontrary,theirsocialbeingthatdeterminestheirconsciousness.”6Materialconditionsmakeusentirelywhoweare.Materialismwouldthusseemtobeanespecially“worldly”philosophy.Sinceitisconcernedwiththingsthatcanbeobservedandmeasured,itlendsitselfwelltoempiricalstudies,promisingtoprovidegreatercertaintyinoutcomesandstrongerlinkagesbetweencauseandeffect.Itfallseasilyinlinewiththemoderntrendtowardmethodologicalempiricism.Moreover,indenyingorredefiningthespiritualrealm,materialistphilosophiesattenuatethosefearsaboutdeathanddivinepunishmentthataresuchtroublesomeandpersistentpartsofthehumancondition.Butallthesecharacteristics—sopraiseworthyintheeyesofempiricistsandmaterialiststhemselves—areofcourseanathematoVoegelin’sconceptionofphilosophy.Whatisit,then,aboutSantayana’savowedlymaterialistphilosophythatVoegelinfindssocompelling?TheanswerliesinSantayana’sconceptionofmatter,spirit,andessence.ThefoundationofSantayana’smaterialismisnotanabstracttheoryaboutthenatureofmatterbutratherasimpleassumption,madeevenbychildren(andpoets),thathumanlifetakesplace“inanexistingandpersistingworldinwhichtherearerocksandtrees,menandanimals.”Matteris“whatsoeverinnature,byitsmotionsandtensions,causesalleventstotakeplaceandall5.Santayana,DominationsandPowers,18.6.ThomasHobbes,Leviathan,ed.EdwinCurley(Indianapolis:Hackett,1994),6;TheMarx-EngelsReader,ed.RobertC.Tucker(NewYork:Norton,1978),4.\nDisciplineoftheMindandHeart133appearancestoappear.”AtthebeginningofDominationsandPowersSantayanaassertsthefirstpresuppositionofhisinquiryquitefrankly:“mankindisaraceofanimalslivinginthematerialworld.”Thereforenothingcantakeplaceentirelyoutsidetherealmofmatter.Adoctor’scureiseffectivepreciselybe-causeitisadministered,notmerelybecausethedoctorpossessestheintellec-tualexpertisetoknowwhattodoinagivensituation.Matteristhusthemin-imumconditionforlife,theconditiosinequanonofhumanexperience.Itdeterminesnaturalexistence,delineating“relationsinspaceandtime...dura-tionanddisappearance.”7Santayanaiscarefulnottosaythatmatteristheonlythingthatexists,forhebelievesinaconcomitantrealmof“spirit.”Buthedoesbelievethatspiritisintimatelyinvolvedwithmatteranddependsuponit.Withrespectto“essence”or“spirit”(thetwotermspointtowardthesamekindofexperience)Santayanameanstodemonstrateanidealformofbeing—idealnotinthesenseof“best”butof“idea.”Essencesareobjectsofpuresenseorpurethoughtthatflashoutintemporaryappearancesbutcannotbecap-turedorheldimmobile.“By‘essence,’”Santayanawrites,“Iunderstandauni-versal,ofanydegreeofcomplexityanddefinition,whichmaybegivenimme-diately,whethertosenseortothought.”8Thecrimsonofthesunsetisanessence,andassuchitdoesnotdecaywiththefadinglightbutsimplyceasestobevisible.Essencesarenotthemselvesmaterial,buthumanbeingscanper-ceivethemwhentheyare(temporarily)embodiedinmatter.ThisdescriptionofessencessoundsremarkablyPlatonicforanavowedmaterialist.AndyetSantayanabreaksdefinitivelyfromPlato,sinceheassertsthattheexistenceofessencesdoesnotthereforeimplythattheycouldbecountedorclassifiedinsomekindofhierarchy.ItisworthquotinginfullSan-tayana’sviewofessences.Thequalityorfunctionthatmakesallshepherdsshepherdsorallgoodsgoodisanessence;butsoarealltheremainingqualitieswhichmakeeachshepherdandeachgooddistinguishablefromeachother.Farfromgatheringupthefluidityofexistenceintoafewnormsforhumanlanguageandthoughttobefocusedupon,therealmofessenceinfinitelymultipliesthatmultiplicity....Mydoctrinelendsnocountenancetothehumanpresumptionthatwhatsoevermannoticesornamesorlovesoughttobemoredeeplyseatedinrealityormorepermanentthanwhatheignoresordespises....[Moreover]therealmofessenceisnomorelimitedtothesefewidealschosenandprojectedheavenwardsbytheaspirationoflivingcreatures,thanthecelestialgalaxyislimitedtothenorthstar.97.Santayana,DominationsandPowers,19,18,6,12.8.GeorgeSantayana,“ThreeProofsofRealism,”inSantayana,EssaysinCriticalRealism(NewYork,1920),168n,quotedinVoegelin,CW,1:73.9.GeorgeSantayana,ScepticismandAnimalFaith(NewYork:Dover,1955),78–79.\n134ElizabethCoreyEssences,forSantayana,areinfiniteinnumberandhavenospecificmoralcontent.Theyneverappear“ontheirown”becausetheycannotbeapprehendedatallbutfortheirembodimentinmatter.AsSantayanacontinuallyempha-sizes,matteristhepreconditionforallappearancesandevents.ThuswhileSantayanainsiststhatwearealways—inescapably—embodied,healsopointsustowardarealmofpermanent,unchangingessences.Howexactlydoeshereconcilethesetworealms?InfactSantayanadoesnotreconcilematerialismandessenceinawaythatissatisfactorytomanyphilosophers.Hisworkhasbeendescribedaseloquentbut“atbottomunintelligible.”Anothercriticdescribeshismergingofthetworealmsas“amysterythatnoamountofanalysisiseverlikelytodissolve.”Nevertheless,itisclearthatSantayanahimselffoundtheconjunctionofthesetworealmsquiteplausible,anditispreciselythisinterminglingofessenceandmatterthatliesatthecenterofhisthought.ForashewritesinDominationsandPowers,todenythatspiritcouldbetheefficientcauseofsomethingisnottodenyspiritaltogether:“thematerialistdoesnotdenythatmaterialagenciesmaybeatthesametimeanimatedbyidealmotivesandmoralpurposes.”Thedoctorwhoseintelligencealonecannotcureapatientmayneverthelessactsothathispatientseeshimas“bathed...inthelightofspirit.”10Unlikemostmaterialists,therefore,Santayananeverdeniesarealmof“essence”or“spirit.”Hedoes,however,assertthatthesedependuponmatter.“Mere”materialism,accordingtoSantayana,isinadequate,sinceitconsistssolelyinobservationofthe“hopelessfluxandthetemporalorderofthings.”11Yetfrommatterthereemergesaperceptionofanimmaterialworld.Matteraffordsusglimpsesofessences,flashesofillumination.Toorientoneselfto-wardessencesis“toliveintheeternal.”Itistoforgoouraccustomedimmer-sioninpracticalaffairsandtoengageintheworldofideas:Tosubstitutethesocietyofideasforthatofthingsissimplytoliveinthemind;itistosurveytheworldofexistenceinitstruthandbeautyratherthaninitspersonalperspectives,orwithpracticalurgency.Itisthesolepathtohappinessfortheintellectualman,becausetheintellectualmancannotbesatisfiedwithaworldofperpetualchange,defeatandimperfection.Itisthepathtroddenbyancientphilosophersandmodernsaintsorpoets;not,ofcourse,bymodernwritersonphilosophy(exceptSpinoza),becausethesehavenotbeenphilosophersinthevitalsense;theyhavepracticednospiritualdiscipline,sufferednochangeofheart,butlivedonexactlylikeotherprofessors.1210.EdwardL.Shaughnessy,“Santayana:Latter-DayJanus,”JournalofAestheticsandArtCriticism33(1975):310;Woodward,LivingintheEternal,85;Santayana,DominationsandPowers,19.11.Woodward,LivingintheEternal,2.12.Santayana,SoliloquiesinEngland,120(emphasisadded).\nDisciplineoftheMindandHeart135Tobeaphilosopher“inthevitalsense”isthus,accordingtoSantayana,todomuchmorethanengageinempiricaloranalyticresearch.Itistotakeone’sownexperienceasastartingpointforreflection,toconsiderthatexperienceinlightofwhatothershavesaidaboutthehumancondition,andtocultivateanopennesstowardallrealmsofbeing.ForSantayana,nothingliesoutsidetheboundsofseriousreflection.Andyetheremainsfirmlygroundedinhisconvictionthathumanbeingsliveinamaterialworldandthatnoonecanachieveawhollycontemplativelife.Itispreciselythisintellectualandspiritualopennesscombinedwithagroundedmatter-of-factnessthatVoegelinfindssocompellinginSantayana’swork.Farfromviewinghimasagarden-varietymaterialist,VoegelincommentsthatSantayana’sapproachmaybeseenas“analmostmysticalskepticismthatinfactisnotmaterialismatall.”13HowexactlydoesthisopennesstoexperiencemanifestitselfinSantayana’scorpus?Inthefirstplace,itisapparentevenfromacursoryinspectionofSantayana’spublishedwork(poetry,essays,philosophicaltreatises,anovel)thathisinterestsareextraordinarilybroad.Hetakesupsuchtopicsasarchi-tecture,nationalcharacter,manners,andpoetry,anditseemsthereisnothingaboutwhichSantayanadoesnothaveaconsideredopinion.ButitisnotjustthatSantayanahadmanyinterests;this,ofcourse,isnotunusualandeventobeexpectedofanyonewhocallshimselfahumanist.WhatisremarkableaboutSantayanaishisintellectualandspiritualdepth.Hereisnosuperficialjournal-istorpolemicist,butafirst-rankphilosopher.Santayanaissaidtohaveunder-stoodthehistoryofphilosophyaswellasanyofhiscontemporariesatHar-vard—probablybetter.Yetitwasasapoet-philosopherthathemosteffectivelyconveyedthemanifestationsofspiritthatheobservedandfeltintheworldaroundhim.Voegelin,ofcourse,devotesconsiderableattentiontoSantayana’spoetryinOntheFormoftheAmericanMind.NoteveryoneisasinclinedasVoegelintoindulgeSantayana’spoeticinclinations,buttherewardsofsuchin-dulgenceareprofound.SantayanaandHisCriticsManyofSantayana’scriticscomplainthathispoeticstyle—eloquentthoughitis—obscureshisphilosophy,renderingitatbottomunintelligibleandcon-fusingto“laymanandprofessionalphilosopheralike.”Itisadilemmathatoneofhismostsympatheticreadershascharacterizedsimplyasthe“Santayanaprob-lem.”14Butaconsiderationofthesubstanceofthesecriticismsmayprovidea13.Voegelin,CW,1:xxxvii,quotingAutobiographicalReflections,31.14.Shaughnessy,“Latter-DayJanus,”310,311.\n136ElizabethCoreyclearerpictureoftheprecisewaysinwhichSantayanadepartsfromorthodoxyandfindshisownuniquevoice.ItshouldalsohelptoexplainVoegelin’sinterestinSantayana.ForeventhemostabsurdmisrepresentationsofSantayana’sproj-ectmaybevaluableinbringingparticularfacetsofSantyana’sthoughttothefore,inthesamewaythat“acaricaturerevealsthepotentialitiesofaface.”15ManycriticsfindSantayana’sworkdifficulttograspbecauseofwhatisper-ceivedasanoveremphasisonaesthetics.Therealmofaestheticshasitsplace,saysuchcritics,butitmustnotrangetoowidely.Aestheticconsiderationsareadelightfulholidayfromtheseriousbusinessofphilosophizing,butplacingaestheticsatthecenterofone’slifeisbothimpracticalandirresponsible.“San-tayanahashadnoconcentratedcontinuationinAmericanthought,”writesJohnE.Smith,becauseaphilosophy“souncompromisinglyaestheticatitscoreandsofilledwithOlympiandistancefromtheplanewheremeremor-talsliverunscountertotheseriousnessandevenmoralismoftheAmericantemper.”16OthersbelievethatSantayana’semphasisonspiritandonaestheticsisapur-poseful(orperhapsdeluded)misrepresentationofhistruedoctrine:material-ism.Theysimplycannotunderstandhiscontinualfocuson“spirit.”AndthusHerbertSchneiderwritesofSantayanathat“whenhissensesandmemoriesbegantofailhiminhisItalianseclusion,”Santayana“imaginedhis‘real’beingtobethatofhisspirit.”17Schneider’sviewisthatthismustbeamistakenself-understanding,forwasnotSantayanadecidedlya“naturalist”and“realist”?Materialism(naturalism)impliesadenialofspirit;andsoifSantayanaisatruematerialistthenthislatefocusonspiritiseitherdisingenuousormereconfusion.ThesecriticismspointtowhatremainsacentralissueinSantayanascholar-ship:histendencytotreatphilosophyandpoetryassymbolsofwhatisfun-damentallythesamereality.Andwhilesomecritics(likeVoegelin)praisehimforthisapproach,manyfindhimconfusingandcontradictory.Santayanaiseclecticandunorthodox,notclear,logical,andanalytical.LiketheskylarkshecelebratesinSoliloquiesinEngland,Santayanaiswillingtospend“hiswholestrengthonsomethingultimateandutterlyuseless,amomentaryentrancingpleasurewhich(beinguselessandultimate)isverylikeanactofworshiporofsacrifice.”1815.MichaelOakeshott,RationalisminPolitics,ed.TimothyFuller(Indianapolis:Lib-ertyPress,1991),58.16.JohnE.Smith,ThemesinAmericanPhilosophy(NewYork:Harper,1970),128.17.Sandoz,TheVoegelinianRevolution,15–16.Forthecontextofhisremarks,seeHer-bertW.Schneider,AHistoryofAmericanPhilosophy(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1963),508.18.Santayana,SoliloquiesinEngland,109.\nDisciplineoftheMindandHeart137ButoneofthemostsignificantcriticismsofSantayana,forthepurposesofthisessay,hastodowiththefactthathewasinclinedtoconsider“spirit”anintegralpartofhumanexperience.HerbertSchneiderisobviouslyquiteuncom-fortablewithSantayana’sconfessionlateinlifethathecouldidentifyhimself“heartilywithnothing...exceptwiththeflameofspirititself.”19Butitispre-ciselythissensitivityto“spirit”thatmakesSantayanaworthyofVoegelin’sattention.Indeed,bothVoegelinandSantayanaarecriticizedandmisunder-stoodfortheirprofoundinterestintranscendentexperience.Itisworthnot-ing,however,thatdespitetheofficialphilosophicalandacademicdiscomfortwithSantayana’swide-rangingwork,hehasalwaysbeenextraordinarilypop-ularwiththeeducatedpublic.Ifthereisno“Santayanaschool,”millionsofpeople“havereadhimforpleasure.”20Hisreadershaveneverabandonedhim;forSantayanacapturesthediversityanddepthofhumanexperienceinawayfarmorecompellingthanthevastmajorityofwhatoftenpassesforphiloso-phy.Santayanahimselfunderstandstheproblemwellenough.“Menoftheworld,”hewrites,“find[mybooks]consistent...[and]totheladieseverythingiscrystal-clear;yetthephilosopherssaythatitislazyandself-indulgentofmenottotellthemplainlywhatIthink,ifIknowmyselfwhatitis.”21Santayana’spoeticsensibilityrelatestoanotherimportantaffinitywithVoegelin.Fromthepointofviewof“professionalphilosophy”Santayanaisfrustratingaboveallbecauseofhisrefusaltouselanguageobjectively.Inshort,his“doctrines”areunclear.InthewordsofRichardButler,“theprimaryintrin-sicdifficultyincriticizing[Santayana]ishisornamentedliteraryform,asourceofartisticcharmandscientificconclusion.Ascientificthinkercannotaffordtheluxuryoflush,floridproseandhopetoexpresshisthoughtwithprecision.”Moreover,continuesButler,Santayana“unfortunately...preferredfancytoreasonandtheimpulsiveflightofimaginationtotheplannedplod-dingofdemonstration.”22Santayana’s“failing,”however,reflectsaconsciousdecisiononhispart,andhisexpressaimistouselanguagedifferentlythanhisfellows.Althoughheiswellawarethatwordsareoverwhelminglyusedtoconveyinformationinprac-tical,everydayendeavors,heisinterestedinemployingtheminother,morecreativeways,asapoetdoes.InInterpretationsofPoetryandReligionhespeaksdirectlytothisissue.Whenweuselanguage,believesSantayana,wearecon-cernedmostoftenwithitsuseasacurrency.Wordsaresymbolsorcountersthatconveyanagreed-uponvaluebetweenpersons.Mostofusare19.Schneider,HistoryofAmericanPhilosophy,509.20.Shaughnessy,“Latter-DayJanus,”313.21.Santayana,SoliloquiesinEngland,255(emphasisadded).22.RichardButler,TheMindofSantayana(NewYork:GreenwoodPress,1968),133.\n138ElizabethCoreyaccustomedtothinkentirelyinsymbols,andnevertobeinterruptedinthealgebraicrapidityof[our]thinkingbyamoment’spauseandexaminationofheart,norevertoplungeforamomentintothattorrentofsensationandimageryoverwhichthebridgeofprosaicassociationshabituallycarriesussafeanddrytosomeconventionalact.23Yetthelanguageofpoetrycandomuchmorethanmerelykeepussafeanddry.Itspurposeisoftentobringaboutavisionofjustthat“torrentofsensa-tionandimagery”thatweseektoavoidinordinarylife.Languagethusshedsitspreconceivedsymbolicvalueandtakesonnewmeaningsgivenbythepoet.Ahiddenlightilluminesallourseeing,Anunknownloveenchantsoursolitude.WefeelandknowthatfromthedepthsofbeingExhalesaninfinite,aperfectgood.24Whatcouldaphilosophicanalysisofthisverseaddtoareader’sintuitiveunderstanding?Verylittle,andyettheverseclearlycontainsphilosophicalideas.HereisSantayanathephilosopher-poet.Hislanguageisevocativeandaffec-tive,nottechnicalandprecise,andthefunctionofhispoetryisto“buildnewstructures,richer,finer,fittertotheprimarytendenciesofournature,truertotheultimatepossibilitiesofthesoul.”25IdonotmeantodismissSantayana’scriticsoutofhand,fortheyaskthemostreasonableofallquestions:WhatexactlyisSantayanasaying?Isittoomuchtoaskthatareaderbeabletosummarizethesalientpointsand“mostimportantdoctrines”fromwhathehasread?Atleastthismuchisrequiredofallundergraduateswhostudyphilosophy.Thereare,however,certainphiloso-pherswhoseworkemphaticallydoesnotlenditselftosummaryortoabbre-viatedexplanation—indeed,suchanendeavorrunscountertothespiritofthesethinkers.Suchauthorsmustbereadintheirentiretyor,attheveryleast,insizableportions.BothVoegelinandSantayanaareincludedamongsuchthinkers.Admittedly,philosophersdoattimessetoutsparklinglycleardoctrines:Locke’steachingthat“thepurposeofgovernmentistopreserveproperty”issuchanexample,andithelpstocategorizehimasaliberaltheoristinthetra-ditionofother“stateofnature”theoristswhoformarecognizableclass.Never-23.GeorgeSantayana,InterpretationsofPoetryandReligion(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1989),156.24.PoemsofGeorgeSantayana,81.25.Santayana,Interpretations,161.\nDisciplineoftheMindandHeart139theless,wewillbesorelydisappointedifweaskthesequestionsaboutSanta-yanaorVoegelin.Neitherthinkerisinterestedinbuildingasystemfromthegroundup.Instead,bothwanttoexploretheideasthatariseasaresultoftheirownencounterswiththeworldandtofollowthoseideaswheretheymaylead.Santayanahasbeencriticizedforbeginninghisphilosophyinmediasres,buthebelievesthisistheonlyvalidstartingpointforthought.Itisthereforequitelegitimatetoarguethat,fromacertainpointofview,itmatterslittleifSantayana’sreadersdonotdisplay“aclearunderstandingofhisphilosophicaldoctrine.”26ForSantayana’sworkisaboutmuchmorethanphilosophy,nar-rowlyunderstood,anditisatadistantremovefromtheanalyticphilosophyofhiscontemporaries.Myphilosophyneitherisnorwishestobescientific;noteveninthesenseinwhich,intemperandmethod,theSummaofSt.Thomasmightbecalledsci-entific.Myphilosophyislikethatoftheancientsadisciplineofthemindandheart,alayreligion.27Hisphilosophyispoetic,andhispoetryisphilosophical.AsVoegelinobserves,forSantayana“broadknowledgeisindispensable,asisthephilosophicstance.Bothareusednottoteachorpersuadebuttocommunicate.”28Trueappreci-ationofSantayana’sprojectrequiresnothingelsebuttotalimmersioninhiswork.ADisciplineoftheMindandHeart:PhilosophyasExperienceandParticipationBasedonthecriticismsenumeratedabove,Santayanamightbejudgedasanimprecisephilosopherwhoseflowerylanguagegetsinthewayofintelligi-bility.Alternatively,hecouldbeseenasathinkerinclinedtowardpoetryasawayofexpressingthediversityandbreadthofexperience,havingrealizedearlyonthatthelanguageofmodernphilosophyhasdistinctlimitations.Voegelinadoptsthelatterview,perceivingSantayana’smergingofphilosophyandpoetryasoneofhisgreatestvirtues.Theradicalseparationofphilosophyfromall“ordinary”experienceisapathologythatVoegelinrecognizesasaparticularlymodernproblem.Voegelinremediesthisinhisownworkbyemphasizingtheexperientialspringsofphilosophy,notingthatphilosophyproperlyunderstood26.Butler,MindofSantayana,xi.27.GeorgeSantayana,RealmsofBeing(NewYork:Scribner’s,1942),827.28.Voegelin,CW,1:85–86.\n140ElizabethCoreyistheattempttoanswerexistentialquestionsthatariseinthecourseofalifethoughtfullylived.InAnamnesishewritesthattheradicalismofphilosophizingcanneverbegaugedeitherbytheresultsorthecriticalframeworkofasystembutrather,inamoreliteralsense,bytheradicesofphilosophizinginthebiographyofphilosophizingconsciousness,i.e.,bytheexperiencesthatimpeltowardreflectionanddosobecausetheyhaveexcitedconsciousnesstothe“awe”ofexistence.29LikeSantayana,Voegelinunderstandsthatemotionandintellectarenotcategoricallydistinctpartsofexperiencebutexisttogetherinthesamereality.Philosophy,forboththinkers,mayoriginateasaresponsetoaflashofintuition,modulateintothekeyofsystematicphilosophicalinquiry,andultimatelyresolveintosomethingpoeticormystical.Buttherootsofthephilosophicalquestlieineveryday,commonsenseexperience.Inthisvein,Santayanacom-mentsthatheis“contenttostandwherehonestlaymenarestanding,andtowriteasImighttalkwithafriendinacountrywalkorsittingatatavern.”30Hisworkismeanttoappealtoallreaders.Voegelin,however,ismostinterestedinSantayanabecauseofwhathere-gardsasSantayana’s“opensoul,”toborrowatermofBergson.Santayana’sphilosophicalquestiswithoutlimit,althoughitisatthesametimegroundedinfrankself-examination.Aboveall,itemergesoutofconcrete,livedexperi-ence.LikeVoegelin,Santayanaengagesinanamneticmeditation,recallingtheexperiencesofhisearlylifeandtheinfluencesthatthesehaduponhisideasandemotions.31Heconsiderssuchreflectionessentialtounderstandingotherhumanbeings.Moreover,herecognizesquiteclearlythatactualexperiencesnevertakeplaceinneatphilosophicalcategories(onecannotsaythiswasapurelyintellectualexperienceandthatwasanemotionalone).Experiencescomealljumbleduptogether,andthesorting-outtakesplaceonlylater,atasuitabledistancefromtheevent.Thuseverythingispotentiallyfodderforphi-losophy.VoegelinobservesthatinSantayana’sviewnorealmofbeinghasbeenassignedtophilosophicalmethodasitsspecialfieldofinvestigation.Likeart,philosophycanuseallthingsforitsmaterial....Everysubjectmatterforphilosophicaldiscourse—anartisticorreligiousexperience,astatementinlogicorthemathematicalsciencesofnature—canthereforebeapossiblestartingpointforanalysis.3229.EricVoegelin,Anamnesis,trans.GerhartNiemeyer(NotreDame:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1978),36(emphasisadded).30.Santayana,DominationsandPowers,7.31.SeeparticularlySantayana’sPersonsandPlaces(NewYork:Scribner’s,1944).32.Voegelin,CW,1:66.\nDisciplineoftheMindandHeart141Suchanalysismayconsistinarigorous,analyticprocedureoritmaybesug-gestiveandintuitive.ButitisclearthatdogmaticphilosophicalsystemsinsistonvocabulariesandmethodstootechnicalandrestrictiveforSantayana’stastes.Indefendinghimselfagainstcriticshehaswritten:Yousayyoufindin“PoetryandReligion”nodefinitestatementofacreed.ThereasonisthatIhavenone,ifbyacreedwearetounderstandsettledconvictionsuponmattersofwhichwecanhavenorealknowledge.Butmyphilosophicatti-tude,ifImaycallitso,isdefiniteenough,andIshouldthinkwouldhaveappearedclearlyonalmosteverypage.Myfeelingisthatweknowandcanknownothingbutourexperience—ourexperienceasitcomes.33ForSantayana,philosophyisaboveallawayoflife,anditrequiresactivepar-ticipationintheorderofbeing.Whatexactlydoesthis“participatory”characterofrealityentail?Humanbeings,Voegelinobserves,donotpossesstheabilitytoremovethemselvesentirelyfromthefluxoftheirownexperience.Weparticipateinexperience;hence“thestorycannotbeginunlessitstartsinthemiddle.”34Inmediasres:thisisalsoSantayana’sfundamentalinsight.Humanbeingsareembodiedcrea-tureslivinginamaterialworldandparticipate(potentially)inalllevelsofbeingfromapeirontonous.Mostoftenweapproachtheworldintentionally,thinkingintermsofsubjectandobject,butmaynowandthenbecomeawareoftheluminosityofIt-reality.35Santayanawasmoresensitivetothislumi-nositythanmost.Hispoeticexpression,“affective”language,andhisrefusaltoplaybytherulesofconventionalphilosophicdiscoursepointtotheexperi-encesofluminositythatheattempted,asbesthecould,toexpressinwords.Herecognizes,asdoesVoegelin,thatthereisnoArchimedeanpointfromwhichtoconsiderexperience,becausenohumanbeingcaneverescapehisownnature.Nophilosophercantheorizeasanabsoluteoutsider.Participationinrealityisnotamerelyindividualisticactivity.Itdoesnotim-plyakindofarbitraryself-creation,butisadiscoveryofarealitythattranscendsindividuality.Thesubstanceofphilosophicalreflectionisthustoexpresstruthsthatarepotentiallyaccessibletoeveryperson.Itstaskistoarticulateasharedreality,andparticularlythehigherrealmsofspiritthatarepartofthisreality.Thedoctrinesofphilosophersdisagreewheretheyareliteralandarbitrary,—mereguessesabouttheunknown;buttheyagreeorcompleteoneanotherwheretheyareexpressiveorsymbolic,thoughtswrungbyexperiencefromthehearts33.Santayana,Interpretations,xxiv.34.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.18,InSearchofOrder,vol.VofOrderandHistory,ed.EllisSandoz(1987;Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),41.35.Seeibid.,28–32,whereVoegelinexplainsthemeaningoftheseterms.\n142ElizabethCoreyofpoets.Thenallphilosophiesalikearewaysofmeetingandrecordingthesamefluxofimages,thesamevicissitudesofgoodandevil,whichwillvisitallgener-ations,whilemanisman.ThequoteisfromSantayana,whocontinuesinasimilarveinelsewhere:“itisnotIthatspeakbuthumanreasonthatspeaksinme.”36ThedifficultyforbothSantayanaandVoegelinliesinthetaskofconveyingtheirexperiencesofluminositytoothers.Thepotentialforluminositytobe“deformed”intointentionalityisoneofVoegelin’smostabidingconcerns,sinceherecognizesthatcontemporaryphilosophicaldiscoursealmostalwaysspeaksintermsof“thing-reality.”Buthoweversuchexperienceisdesignated—luminosity,“thespirituallife,”theapperceptionofessences—itissupremelydifficulttoconvey.Itdoesnotlenditselfeasilytoanalyticalexposition.Itmaybebetterunderstoodinmystical,poetic,orreligiousterms,allofwhichmod-ernphilosophywouldratheravoid.HereiswhereSantayanasucceedsbrilliantlyandbefuddleshiscritics.Sincetherealmofspiritisavitalpartofhumanexperience,itisthedutyofathinkertoreport,asbesthecan,hisexperienceofthesehigherrealms.Santayanadoesthispoetically,andhispoetryrevealsthespiritualquestofaconcretecon-sciousness,expressingthequestsothatothersmayshareinit,insofarastheyareable.“Poetryhasitsjustificationintheserviceofrevelation;poeticdictionalwaysremainslinkedwithholy,archaicexperiences...[T]hereisnootherexpressionfortragicfinalitythanpoetry,”writesVoegelin.Thustheso-calledambiguityofSantayana’slanguageandhis“lush,floridprose”arenottokensofSantayana’sphilosophicalfailurebutofhispoeticandspiritualsuccess.Atcertainmomentspoetrymayoffer“aglimpseofthedivineandanincitationtoareligiouslife.”37Santayanabelievesthatpoetryenlargesunderstandingandevokesthefullnessofexperienceinawaythatpurelyanalyticallanguagecannot.InhispoetrySantayanais“franklymakingconfessionofanactualspiritualexperience.”38Voegelinadmiresthisspiritualsensitivityaswellastheattempttoexpressittoothers.Finally,however,itshouldbenotedthatSantayana’sinterestinpoeticexpres-siondoesnotprecludehisalsobeingaseriousphilosopher.Itisnotthatheisprimarilyapoetandsecondarilyaphilosopher;heisbothatonce.This,ofcourse,makeshimunintelligibletomodernphilosophyandaccountsforthe36.GeorgeSantayana,ThreePhilosophicalPoets(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1945),70;Santayana,Interpretations,xvi.37.Voegelin,CW,1:86,Santayana,Interpretations,171.38.GeorgeSantayana,Poems:SelectedbytheAuthorandRevised(NewYork,1923),91,quotedinShaughnessy,“Latter-DayJanus,”318.\nDisciplineoftheMindandHeart143widespreadcriticismofhiswork.ButitdoesplacehimfirmlywithinatraditionofphilosophythathasitsrootsinPlato,akindofphilosophythataspirestothegoalofcontemplationbywhatevermeanspossible.Santayanawritesofhisownproject:Inphilosophyitselfinvestigationandreasoningareonlypreparatoryandservileparts,meanstoanend.Theyterminateininsight,orwhatinthenoblestsenseofthewordmaybecalledtheory...asteadycontemplationofallthingsintheirorderandworth.Suchcontemplationisimaginative.Noonecanreachitwhohasnotenlargedhismindandtamedhisheart.Aphilosopherwhoattainsitis,forthemoment,apoet;andapoetwhoturnshispracticedandpassionateimag-inationontheorderofallthings,oronanythinginthelightofthewhole,isforthatmomentaphilosopher.39Onceagain,Santayanaemphasizesthecloseconnectionbetweentwoenterprisesthatareoftenseparated.Whilemanymodernphilosophersrefusetoaccepttheviewthatphilosophyandpoetryarealliedinsignificantways,Voegelinrecognizesthevirtueofsuchanunderstanding.Hesees,asdoesthemanofcommonsense,thatexperiencedoesnotorganizeitselfintoarbitrarycategoriesimposedfromtheoutside.Ittendstocomeasagreatwelterofthoughts,emo-tions,impulses,andintuitionsthatmayoftenbebestexpressedinthelanguageofpoetry.ConclusionInTheVoegelinianRevolution,EllisSandozeloquentlyandpointedlyaddressestheissueofVoegelin’sreceptionbymodernphilosophers.“BothobscurityandmisunderstandingarisefromthedriftofVoegelin’sphiloso-phy,”Sandozwrites,“foritfirmlyaddressesthewholehistoryandhierarchyofhumanexistencewithspecialemphasisuponthemodesofman’sparticipa-tioninthedivineasreflectedindocumentedexperience.”40HeobservesthatthesamemaybesaidofHenriBergsonandparticularlyofSantayana.Thepres-entessayhasemphasizedtheparticularlynegativecriticalreactiontoSantayanaasameansofansweringthequestionWhywasSantayana—anavowedlymate-rialistphilosopher—soimportanttoVoegelin?Theanswertothisquestionhasseveralparts.First,aproperdefinitionoftermsisrequiredtoclarifytheissueofmaterialism,forSantayana’smaterialism39.Santayana,ThreePhilosophicalPoets,11.40.Sandoz,VoegelinianRevolution,15.\n144ElizabethCoreyisunlikeanyother.Itconsistsofthecommonsenseassumptionthathumanbeingsarefundamentallyembodiedandthatweliveinamaterialworldwherenothinghappensabsentsomematerialcause.Atthesametime,thereexistessencesthathumanbeingsmaynowandthenapprehend.Bothmatterandessencearevitalpartsofexperience,anddespitemuchphilosophicalprotest,inSantayana’smindtheydoexisttogether.Oneisleftwithamaterialismthat—farfromdenyingtheperfectandeternal—strivestoapprehendit.Inshort,Santayanaisnotagarden-varietymaterialistbutmayevenbe,asVoegelinsuggests,a“mysticalskeptic.”ButthequestionofwhyexactlySantayanawassoimportanttoVoegelincannotbeproperlyanswereduntilonefacesthequestionofwhatitisinpar-ticularaboutSantayana’sworkthatsoappealstohim.Santayana,ofcourse,wasnoorthodoxChristian.Eventhoughhewasnotorthodox,henonethelesswasintenselyspiritual,alivetothehigherrealmsofbeing,andwillingtoattempttoexpresstheseinhiswork.Voegelin’sownreligiousviewsarethesubjectofsomecontroversy,andyetwhatisobviouslybeyonddebateishischaracterasamystic-philosopherwhostrivestoapprehendandexpresstran-scendenceinwhateverwayitmaycome.Inbrief,then,VoegelinisattractedbySantayana’sopennesstoexperienceandbyhissensitivitytotranscendence.Finally,VoegelinseesinSantayanasomeonewhoisafull-fledgedphiloso-pher,notmerelyanacademic,aprofessor,or,perhapsworstofall,an“intel-lectual.”Santayanaisatrueloverofwisdom,someonewhocouldnotavoidthephilosophicalquestineveryaspectofhislife.Formostpersonswhocallthemselvesphilosophers,“philosophyisavocationtheyprofess,askillorexper-tiseinajobatwhichtheyearntheirlivings,notalifetheylive.”ButforSan-tayana,“hislifewashisphilosophy;hisphilosophywashislife.Inourmodernworld,therehavenotbeenmanyofwhomthiscouldbesaid.”41Itcan,how-ever,alsobesaidofVoegelin,forwhomphilosophyis“notabodyof‘ideas’or‘opinions’butaman’sresponsivepursuitofhisquestioningunresttothedivinesourcesthathavearousedit.”42In1928,VoegelinwrotehisanalysisofSantayanainOntheFormoftheAmericanMind.Atthattimehewasayoungman,justembarkingonwhatwastobealongandextraordinarilyproductivecareer.Butseveralobserva-tionsinthisearlybookprefigurehismostmatureunderstandingofphilosophy.Perhapsthismaybeexplainedbyobserving,withMichaelOakeshott,thataman’s“greatestworksdifferfromhislesserworksindegreeandnotinkind:theymaybemoreperfect,buttheyexpressthesameidea.”Inotherwords,the41.HoraceKallen,“TheLaughingPhilosopher,”JournalofPhilosophy61(1964):20.42.Voegelin,Anamnesis,96.\nDisciplineoftheMindandHeart145fundamentalinsightsthatVoegelinwouldexpressoverthecourseofhiscareerwereprobablypresentattheverybeginning.WhatisbeyonddoubtisthatVoegelinsawSantayanaasamodelforthekindofphilosopherhehimselfwouldbecome.Voegelinwritesadmiringlythatphilosophyisnot“atopicthatengagesSantayanaonlyonoccasion;itisanecessityoflife,hisdailyanswertoeverythingheencounters.Helivesbythinking,andheisconstantlyamazedattheoddnessofthisworldandofhispersoninit.”43PreciselythesamemaybesaidofVoegelin,andofallthosewhoarephilosophersinthevitalsense.43.MichaelOakeshott,“ShylocktheJew:AnEssayinVillainy,”Caian30(1921):62;Voegelin,CW,1:84.\n8Compactness,PoeticAmbiguity,andtheFictionofRobertPennWarrenStevenD.EalyThefollowingepisodefromC.S.Lewis’sTheSilverChairprovidesanentreeforaconsiderationofEricVoegelin’sanalysisofsymbolization.AgnomebythenameofGolginvitesthechildrentocomewithhimtothelandofBism,deepinthecenteroftheearth.“Downthere,”hetellsthem,“Icouldshowyourealgold,realsilver,realdiamonds.”Jillrepliesthattheyarealreadyfarbelowthedeepestminesmanknows.Golgresponds,“IhaveheardofthoselittlescratchesinthecrustthatyouTopdwellerscallmines.Butthat’swhereyougetdeadgold,deadsilver,deadgems.DowninBismwehavethemaliveandgrowing.ThereI’llpickyoubunchesofrubiesthatyoucaneatandsqueezeyouacupfulofdiamondjuice.Youwon’tcaremuchaboutfingeringthecold,deadtreasuresofyourshallowminesafteryouhavetastedtheliveonesinBism.”1ButratherthanjoinGolgonajourneytoBism,thechildrendecidetoreturntotheOverworld—theworldofthesurface.OnewaytounderstandVoegelin’swritingonsymbolizationsuggeststhat“ideas”arelikethedeadgoldandsilverofsurfacemines,whilesymbolsarethelivinggemsfounddeepwithintheearth.VoegelinassertsinAutobiographicalRe-flections,“Ideastransformsymbols,whichexpressexperiences,intoconcepts—whichareassumedtorefertoarealityotherthantherealityexperienced.”2He1.C.S.Lewis,TheSilverChair(NewYork:CollierBooks,1970),182.2.EricVoegelin,AutobiographicalReflections,ed.EllisSandoz(BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUniversityPress,1989),78.146\nFictionofRobertPennWarren147thenadds,“Thisrealityotherthantherealityexperienceddoesnotexist.Hence,ideasareliabletodeformthetruthoftheexperiencesandtheirsymbolization.”BeforecontinuingImustreturntoLewis’schildrenmomentarily.UnlikethegnomeGolg,Jillandtheotherchildrencannotliveatthebottomoftheworld,takingtheir“diamondjuice”straight.Thestrainofsuchanattemptper-hapswouldbetoogreatonthem—justasthetensioninvolvedin“borderexperiences”thatputusindirectcontactwiththetranscendentisunbearableformosthumanbeings.3InthisessayIbeginwithanexaminationofVoegelin’sdiscussionofsym-bolsinoneofhismostimportantessays,“EquivalencesofExperienceandSym-bolizationinHistory.”Ithensuggestthatpoeticsymbolizationhascertainad-vantagesoverphilosophicalsymbolization,advantagesthatVoegelinrecognizedbuttendedtodownplay.Finally,Iconcludewithaconsiderationofthecogni-tivedimensionsofpoetryintwonovels—AlltheKing’sMenandWorldEnoughandTime—byRobertPennWarren.VoegelinonSymbolizationVoegelinbeginshisessay“EquivalencesofExperienceandSymbolizationinHistory”withtheclaimthat“thesearchfortheconstantsinhumanorderinsocietyandhistoryis,atpresent,uncertainofitslanguage.”Astheessaypro-ceedsVoegelinprovidesanumberofstatementsandrestatementsofwhatthoseconstantsare—orwhattheconstantis—andwewillbeginwithasur-veyofthesestatements.Hisfirstformulationtellsusthat“whatispermanentinthehistoryofmankindisnotthesymbolsbutmanhimselfinsearchofhishumanityanditsorder.”Thenextformulationappearstobeextremelyprovisional:“ifanythingisconstantinthehistoryofmankinditisthelan-guageoftensionbetweenlifeanddeath,immortalityandmortality,perfectionandimperfection,timeandtimelessness;betweenorderanddisorder,truthanduntruth,senseandsenselessnessofexistence”—whathecalls“tensionalsymbolisms.”43.SeeEricVoegelin,Science,Politics,andGnosticism(Washington,DC:RegneryPub-lishing,GatewayEditions,1997),75–77.AvailableinVoegelin,TheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin(hereinafter,CW),vol.5,ModernitywithoutRestraint:ThePoliticalReligions;TheNewScienceofPolitics;andScience,Politics,andGnosticism,ed.ManfredHenningsen(Colum-bia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000).4.EricVoegelin,“EquivalencesofExperienceandSymbolizationinHistory,”inVoegelin,CW,vol.12,PublishedEssays,1966–1985,ed.EllisSandoz(1990;availableColumbia:Uni-versityofMissouriPress,1999),115(emphasisadded),119,120.\n148StevenD.EalyVoegelin’sthirdformulationseemstomovethefocusawayfromman:“Whatisconstantinthehistoryofmankind...isthestructureofexistenceitself.”Hethenproceedstoenunciateanumberofpropositionsregardingthisstructure,beginningwiththeproposition“Manparticipatesintheprocessofreality.”Voegelinaddssixmorepropositions,threepositiveandthreecaution-ary.Thethreecautionarycorollariesarethatrealitycannotbeobservedfromtheoutside,thattheexperienceofrealityisnevertotalbutalwaysperspectival,andthat“theknowledgeofrealityconveyedbythesymbolscanneverbecomeafinalpossessionoftruth”becauseexperienceandthesymbolsitgenerates“arepartofrealityinprocess.”5Hethenattemptstopushthesearchfurtheranddeeper:fromsymbolstotheoriginatingexperiences,and“fromtheexperiencesfurtherbacktothedepthofthepsyche.”6Buttherearedangersintreatingpsycheastheconstantofmankind’shistory,mostnotablythedangerofabsolutizingitintosomethingthatstandsoutsideofhistoryandexperience.Voegelinconcludes,inhisfirstconclusion,“Thereisnoconstanttobefoundinhistory,becausethehistoricalfieldofequivalentsisnotgivenasacollectiveofphenomenawhichcouldbesubmittedtotheproceduresofabstractionandgeneralization.”Butthisconclusionisimmediatelysupercededbyanother,how-evertentativelyitmaybestated:“Ifanythingthathasturnedupinthecourseofoursearchdeservesthenameofaconstant,itistheprocessinthemodeofpresence...[W]ehavenotfoundaconstantinhistorybuttheconstancyofaprocessthatleavesatrailofequivalentsymbolsintimeandspace.”ThisappearstobeVoegelin’sfinalunderstanding(inthisessay,atleast),asheconcludeswithanaffirmationof“theprimordialexperienceofrealityasendowedwiththeconstancyandlastingnessofstructurethatwesymbolizeastheCosmos.”7Voegelin’svariousformulationsoftheconstantsofhistoryarenotrandombutinvolveaprogressiverefinementarticulatingVoegelin’sunderstanding.Thus,astheessayprogresses,weseemtobemovingcloserandclosertothetruthofrealityuntil,finally,wehaveitinourgrasp.Thisgraspingoftruth,however,ismerelyanillusionorself-deception,asVoegelinhimselfhasalreadytoldus—“theknowledgeofrealityconveyedbythesymbolscanneverbecomeafinalpossessionoftruth.”Noneofthoseformulationsisrealityorcapturesreality;theyareallsymbolicrepresentationsthathavedevelopedoutofVoe-gelin’sexperienceofreality—orrather,hisparticipationinreality—andhisefforttoarticulatethatexperience.5.Ibid.,120,121.6.Ibid.,128.7.Ibid.,131,132,133.\nFictionofRobertPennWarren149TheConfusionofSymbolandRealityManisnotamereobserverofreality;rather,heisanactiveparticipantinit.Bothman’sconsciousnessofrealityandrealityitselfaretensionalandpara-doxical.Thestructureofman’sconsciousness,asVoegelinconceivesit,containsbothadimensionofintentionalityandadimensionofluminosity.“Intention-ality”presentsconsciousnessasembeddedinman’sbodilyexistencepointingtoorinsearchofexternalobjects.“Luminosity”presentstheself-referentialdimensionofconsciousnessthatallowsconsciousnessitselftobelocatedasapartofreality,thusplacingemphasisonsubject.8Thesearenotalternativemodesofconsciousnessbutstructuresofconsciousness,andbotharealreadyandalwayspresent.Realityitselfalsohasadualstructurethatisinsomewayrelatedtothepolesofhumanconsciousness:“thing-Reality”and“It-Reality.”Thing-RealityandIt-Realityarenotseparaterealitiesbuttwofacesofthesamecoin,twofacesalwayspresentandalwaysheldintension.Thesetwofacesofrealityarealsorelatedtoman’sconsciousness:intentionalityisat-tunedto“thing-Reality,”whileluminosityisattunedto“It-Reality.”Thusman,whileactingintentionally,apartfromexternalreality,isalsoactingluminously,asapartofreality—realityinprocess.Onepartofman’sresponsetotheexperienceofrealityistoarticulateitssignificance,andthishedoesthroughthecreationofsymbolsthatrepresentexperienceanditsunderlyingreality.Symbolsare“thelanguagephenomenaengenderedbytheprocessofparticipatoryexperience.”Thereis“apluralityofsymbolisms9thatmanhasemployed,includingmyth,revelation,science,phi-losophy,andpoetry.Anumberofproblemsmaydevelopinthissymbolicactivity,andmuchofVoegelin’sanalysisisdesignedtoidentifytheseproblems.OrperhapstheissuesIshalldiscussareactuallyvariationsonasingletheme:theconfusionoflan-guagesymbolwithreality.Thefirstprobleminvolvesthetransmutationofsym-bolintoconceptandtheconfusionofconceptwithreality.Tobevital,symbolsmustremaintiedtotheiroriginatingexperiences;butthetransmutationintoconceptsinvolvesaseveringfromthoseexperiencesandtheconvertingofthemintoobjectsthatarereifiedandtreatedasiftheyhavealife,andacausalpower,oftheirown.ThisisthegroundforVoegelin’scritiqueofhislengthyand,inhisownlifetime,unpublishedHistoryofPoliticalIdeas:“Theconception8.EricVoegelin,“TheBeginningoftheBeginning,”inCW,vol.18,InSearchofOrder,vol.V,OrderandHistory,ed.EllisSandoz(1987;Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),28–31.AlsoseeRobertMcMahon,“EricVoegelin’sParadoxesofConsciousnessandParticipation,”ReviewofPolitics61,no.1(Winter1999):118–29,esp.119–26.9.Voegelin,AutobiographicalReflections,74,79.\n150StevenD.Ealyofahistoryofideaswasanideologicaldeformationofreality.Therewerenoideasunlessthereweresymbolsofimmediateexperiences.”10Aseconddangeris“emptysymbols”—“thetransformationoforiginalexperiences-symbolizationsintodoctrinesentailedadeformationofexis-tence,ifthecontactwiththerealityasexperiencedwaslostandtheuseofthelanguagesymbolsengenderedbytheoriginalexperiencesdegeneratedintoamoreorlessemptygame.”PerhapsafruitfullineofinvestigationinregardtothelifeofemptysymbolswouldbetoconsiderHusserl’sdiscussionofthesedi-mentationthattakesplaceintheworldofmathematicsandscience,aphe-nomenonthatseparatesthesciencefromitsoriginatinglifeexperience.11Thisseparationdoesnotunderminetheabilityofsciencetoproceed,however,forthesuperstructureofsciencecontinuestofunctioneveniftheoriginalfoun-dationsofscientificactivityarenolongerunderstood.Emptysymbolsmayalsocontinuetohaveatremendousimpactonsocialandintellectuallifelongafterthelivingexperiencestheyweredesignedtosymbolizearelost.Infact,emptysymbolsbecomeapartofthelandscapeofhumanactivityandarethere-foreapartofnewexperiencesthatleadtofurthersymbolization.Athirddifficultyencounteredintherealmofsymbolizationhastodowithman’sroleasparticipantinrealityandcreatorofsymbols.AsVoegelinwritesin“TheBeginningoftheBeginning,”“Inthedepthofthequest,formativetruthanddeformativeuntrutharemorecloselyrelatedthanthelanguageof‘truth’and‘resistance’wouldsuggest.”12Thisisanextraordinary,andanextraordinarilyimportant,statement,foritappearstobeatoncephilosophicalanalysisandself-disclosure.Thereasonfortheclosenessoftruthanduntruth,Voegelingoesontoargue,isthat“truthhasitsrealityinthesymbolsengenderedbythequest,”buttheagentofcreationofthosesymbolsisman’simaginativecapac-ity.Whatmayleadtheimaginativecapacityastrayhasbeenknowneversinceantiquityas“hybris...prideoflife,libidodominandi,andwilltopower.”13Both10.Ibid.,63.11.Ibid.,79;EdmundHusserl,“TheOriginofGeometry,”appendixvi,inTheCrisisofEuropeanSciencesandTranscendentalPhenomenology,trans.DavidCarr(Evanston:North-westernUniversityPress,1970),353–78.12.Voegelin,“TheBeginning,”51,emphasisadded.“For‘truth’isnot,asthesurfacelan-guagesuggests,asomethinglyingaroundtobeaccepted,rejected,orresisted;imagining‘truth’asathingwoulddeformthestructureofconsciousnessinthesamemannerasdoesthetransformationofthesymbols‘reality’and‘Beyond’intothingsforthepurposeofmanipulation”(ibid.,51–52).13.Ibid.,52,53.CompareSartre’sdiscussionofwhythewritercannotreadhisownwork:“Nowtheoperationofwritinginvolvesanimplicitquasi-readingwhichmakesrealreadingimpossible.Whenthewordsformunderhispen,theauthordoubtlessseesthem,buthedoesnotseethemasthereaderdoes,sinceheknowsthembeforewritingthemdown....Thus,thewritermeetseverywhereonlyhisknowledge,hiswill,hisplans,in\nFictionofRobertPennWarren151resistancetotruthandresistancetountruthcanthusbetracedtothesameground:“theassertiveimaginationofmanasaforceinreality.”Withhisusualself-awareness,Voegelinrecognizesthathisownworkissubjecttothesametemptationtoimpose“adefiniteformonreality.”14OntheSuperiorityofPoetryThe“oldwarbetweenphilosophyandpoetry”wasalreadyoldinSocrates’time,sincethatishischaracterizationoftherelationshipbetweenthem,anditcontinuesinvariousformstoday.Oneskirmishinthisongoingwar—oftenfriendly,oftenfierce—isfoundinVoegelin’sanalysisofthemovementfrommythtophilosophy.Thecoreofthismovement,touseVoegelin’sownterms,isfromacompactarticulationofexistencetoadifferentiatedarticulation.Voegelinis,inmanyways,abenigncriticofpoetry.Heassumesthatadiffer-entiatedsymbolizationissuperiortoacompactsymbolization,andthusthatphilosophyissuperiortomythorpoetry—superiorinsomeways,butnotnecessarilyinall.Theclaritythatphilosophyachieves,inpartthroughman’sself-consciousrecognitionofhimselfasbothobserverandparticipantinreal-ity,mayalsobecometheverygroundforconfusingsymbolwithrealityitselfandthusleadtoadeformationofunderstanding.IcallVoegelinabenigncriticofpoetrybecauseherecognizes,alongwithAristotle,thatmancanusebothmythandphilosophyequallywellaslanguagestoexpressthetruthofreality.15Voegelinfurtherunderstandsthevalueofmythicarticulations—symboliza-tions—ofrealityasrichlodesofexperientialorethatcanbeminedfruitfullybyphilosophy,andmakesuseofmythicandsacredtextsinhisownwork.However,IwouldperhapsgofurtherthanVoegelininpointingtoafewwaysinwhichmythopoeticsymbolismmaybeactuallysuperiortoitsphilosophi-calheir.ThethreepointsIwanttoconsiderarethese:first,mythopoeticsym-bolizationisnotassusceptibleto“ideologicaldeformation”asisphilosophy.Second,poeticsymbolsaremorecomprehensivethanphilosophicalsymbols.Finally,poetryinvitesopennesstoexperienceandanopportunityforenactedexperiencethatphilosophydoesnot.Voegelin,Itakeit,wouldbeawareof,oratleasthospitableto,theseconcerns,eventhoughtheyarenotstressedinhisownwork.short,himself.”Jean-PaulSartre,WhatIsLiterature?(RoutledgeClassics,2001),30.Foranalternativeunderstandingofwritingthatemphasizeswritingasamodeofself-education,seeStevenD.Ealy,“TheStruggletoWriteastheCreationoftheSelf:RobertPennWarrenon‘AVisionEarned,’”rWp:AnAnnualofRobertPennWarrenStudies3(2003):93–103.14.Voegelin,“TheBeginning,”54,47.15.Voegelin,“Equivalences,”125.\n152StevenD.EalyPhilosophicallanguageisdifferentiatedcomparedtopoetry’scompactsym-bolism.Voegelinseesthatasanadvance,evenwhileacknowledgingtheearliermythicsymbolization,andseesthephilosophicalstatementas“adifferenti-atedandthereforesuperiorinsight.”16Butthismovetowarddifferentiationmayalsobeakeyweaknessinphilosophy’sactivity,inthatphilosophy’sdif-ferentiatedvocabularymaybemoresusceptibletothe“conceptualsubver-sion”—thetransmutationofsymbolsintoconcepts,whicharethenreified—discussedearlier.AsVoegelinnotedinhisdiscussionoftheparadoxicalnatureofrealityandconsciousness,“Thereisnoautonomous,nonparadoxiclan-guage,readytobeusedbymanasasystemofsignswhenhewantstorefertotheparadoxicstructuresofrealityandconsciousness.”17Philosophicalsymbolshavetherhetoricalforceofsuggestingthatthe“objects”(concepts)pointedtohaveanindependentlifeapartfromthesymbolizationitself,thatis,theseconceptsarethingsthatcanbemanipulated.Mythopoeticsymbols,ontheotherhand,havetherhetoricalforceofbeingcreatedandofhavingtheirexis-tenceonlywithinacreatedartisticorspiritualworld.Thus,thedangerofcon-fusingcreationandrealityislesssevereintheworldofpoetrythanintheworldofphilosophy.OnVoegelin’saccountrealityandhumanconsciousnessisinherently,un-avoidably,andineradicablyparadoxicalinitsstructure.Paradox,ambiguity,contradictorypositionsthatareequallytrue,istheworldofpoetry,andthelanguageofpoetryiscapableofholdingtensionalrelationshipstogether.Theworldoflogic,clarity,andsystematizationistheworldofphilosophy,andthelanguageofphilosophyisdesignedtoclassify,demystify,andarticulatedif-ference.Inaparadoxicalworldaparadoxicalmodeofsymbolizationthatallowsforambiguity,tension,andincommensuratecompetingtruthsmaybeabetterguideandinterpreterthanamodeofsymbolizationthatorganizesandorders.Voegelinrecognizesthatdifferentiation’sdisplacementofcompactsymbol-izationmaynotbean“unqualifiedgood.”InhisdiscussionofEgyptianmyth,Voegelinwrites:Theverycomparisonthatrevealsthelimitationsofthemythalsopointstowardthesourceofitsstrength.Forthefactthatthespeculationonbeinghasdifferen-tiatedoutofthelargercomplexofcosmogoniessuggeststhatthemythismuchricherincontentthananyofthepartialsymbolizationsderivedfromit.Thisrichercontentmayconvenientlybesubdividedintwoclasses:Themyth,first,contains16.Ibid.17.Voegelin,“TheBeginning,”31.NotethatVoegelindoesnotexempthisownanaly-sisfromtheparadoxicalnatureofhumanexistence:“Theanalysisitselfisparadoxicinstructure”(ibid.,41).Onthispoint,seeMcMahon,“Voegelin’sParadoxes,”132.\nFictionofRobertPennWarren153thevariousexperientialblocsthatseparateinthecourseofdifferentiation;andit,second,containsanexperiencethatweldstheblocsintoalivingwhole.18Finally,themythopoeticenterpriseinvitesopennesstoandanactivepartic-ipationinexperienceonthepartofitsreadersthroughimaginativereenact-mentinawaythatthephilosophicalenterprisedoesnot;thephilosophicmodeoftenmovesfartoorapidlytochallengeandcritique.Butforaworkofarttobeaconduittoexperienceitmustbereceived(attendedtoonitsownterms)ratherthanusedfornon-poeticpurposes(attemptingtofititintophilosophicalcategoriesorsystems).C.S.Lewishighlightstheproblemof“using”literature:“Toformulate[aworkofart,aplay]asaphilosophy,andregardtheactualplayasprimarilyavehicleforthatphilosophy,isanoutragetothethingthepoethasmadeforus.”Lewiscontinues,Whatguardsthegoodreaderfromtreatingatragedy—hewillnottalkmuchaboutanabstractionlike“Tragedy”—asamerevehiclefortruthishiscontinualawarenessthatitnotonlymeans,butis.Itisnotmerelylogos(somethingsaid)butpoiema(somethingmade).Thesameistrueofanovelornarrativepoem.Theyarecomplexandcarefullymadeobjects.Attentiontotheveryobjectstheyareisourfirststep.Tovaluethemchieflyforreflectionswhichtheymaysuggesttousormoralswemaydrawfromthem,isaflagrantinstanceof“using”insteadof“receiving.”19Whatandhowwelearnfromworksofartrevolvesaround“imaginativeenact-ment.”Theoutcomeofthisenactmentisnotasetofconceptsorsymbolstodescriberealitybutanexperience,whichisman’sfundamentalrelationshiptoreality.RobertPennWarren,quotingHenriBergson,arguesthat“fiction‘bringsusbackintoourownpresence’—thepresenceinwhichwemustmakeourfinaltermswithlifeanddeath.”Theknowledgewegaininthisencounterwithfic-tionisnotpropositional—“doesnotordinarilycometouswithintellectualla-bels,”inWarren’swords—rather“knowledgecomesasenactment.”20Receiving18.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.14,OrderandHistory,vol.I,IsraelandRevelation,ed.Mau-riceP.Hogan(1956;Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2001),123(seealso240–41).19.C.S.Lewis,AnExperimentinCriticism(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1961),82–83.InalettertoRobertHeilmaninwhichVoegelinexplorestheconnectionbetweenworksofartandtheinquiryintothenatureofman,herecognizestheneedforatleastatemporarysurrendertoauthorityifgrowthistotakeplace.SeetheletterdatedAugust22,1956,inCharlesR.Embry,ed.,RobertB.HeilmanandEricVoegelin:AFriendshipinLetters,1944–1984(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2004),156–59,andEmbry’scommentonthisletterinhisintroduction,19–20.20.RobertPennWarren,“WhyDoWeReadFiction?”inRobertPennWarren,NewandSelectedEssays(NewYork:RandomHouse,1989),60,61.WarrenquotesfromBergson’sTimeandFreeWill,trans.F.L.Pogson(1910;rpr.London:GeorgeAllen&Unwin,1959),134.\n154StevenD.Ealyaworkofliteratureprovidesmanwithanadditionalmodeofparticipationinreality,butIwouldemphasizethatthisparticipationisnotpossiblewhenlit-eratureishijackedbyphilosophersfortheirulteriorpurposes.TheNovelsofRobertPennWarrenVoegelinacknowledgesthedepthofmanyancienttexts,bothsacredandsecular,assourcesformythopoeticsymbolism.TherealtestoftheargumentIammaking,however,wouldrequireadiscussion,notofaclassictext,butofacontemporaryworkofart.Suchatestwouldalsoreversetheorderwithwhichphilosopherstendtoapproachliterarytexts—thatis,ratherthanusingaphilo-sophicalframeworkasaguidetointerpretingandcritiquingtheworkofart,theworkofartwouldbetreatedasprimary.Wewouldlistentothepoem,ratherthantellingthepoemwhatitsmeaningandsignificanceis.InthisregardIwillturntotwonovelswrittenbyRobertPennWarrenasillustrativeofthepowerofmodernpoetry.RobertPennWarren’sJeffersonLectures,publishedin1975underthetitleDemocracyandPoetry,areanextendedmeditationonthediminishmentofselfinmodernAmericaandthepossibilityoftherenewalofselfhood.Thecoreoftheself,accordingtoWarren,is“thefeltprincipleofsignificantunity.”This“significantunity”entailstwoelements:“continuity—theselfasadevel-opmentintime,withapastandafuture;andresponsibility—theselfasamoralidentity,recognizingitselfascapableofactionworthyofpraiseorblame.”21ThecreationoftheselfisakeycomponentofallofWarren’swrit-ings—hisprotagonistsseektoanswerthequestionofself,andonadeeperlevel,Warren’swritingishisowneffortatthecreationofhisself.22InthispaperIexaminetwoofWarren’snovels,AlltheKing’sMen(1946)andWorldEnoughandTime(1950),inrelationshiptothesecomponentsofself,continuity,andresponsibility.Inbothnovelstheprotagonistsstrugglewiththeperennialhumanquestion,“WhoamI?”2321.RobertPennWarren,DemocracyandPoetry(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1975),xii,xiii.22.Onthepoet’sself-creationseeDemocracyandPoetry,especially67ff.,and“TheUseofthePast,”inRobertPennWarren,NewandSelectedEssays(NewYork:RandomHouse,1989),46–53.ForWarren’sdiscussionofthisnotioninrelationtootherwriters,seehisHomagetoTheodoreDreiserontheCentennialofHisBirth(NewYork:RandomHouse,1971),and“‘TheGreatMirage’:ConradandNostromo,”inNewandSelectedEssays,137–61.23.TheopeninglineofWarren’snovelBandofAngels(NewYork:RandomHouse,1955)isemblematic:“Oh,whoamI?forsolongthatwas,youmightsay,thecryofmyheart.”\nFictionofRobertPennWarren155AlltheKing’sMenJackBurdenisthenarratorofandanactorinthestoriesrecountedinAlltheKing’sMen.24Thefirstmajorstoryrelatestheorigin,rise,andfallofWillieStark.ThesecondmajorstoryofthenovelrelatesthetaleofJackhimself.AsJack’snarrativeofWilliedevelopswelearnaboutJack’soriginanddevelop-mentaswell.Themovementofthenovelthustakesplaceontwolevels:theriseandde-miseofGovernorWillieStark,andtheself-discoveryofnarratorJackBurden.Asnarrator,Jackprovidesan“objective”orexternalviewofWillieStarkinwhichweareleftwiththequestionsaboutStarkthatBurdenisleftwith,andaninternalor“subjective”viewofJackBurdenashetraceshisownpsycho-logical/moraldevelopment.Thesetwolevelsareintimatelyrelated,forJackBurden’s(internal)journeyofself-discoverycouldneverhavebeenmade,oratleastnotmadeinthesamemanner,ifhisstoryhadnotatpointsconnectedtoandoverlappedwiththe(external)storyofWillieStark.AsJackhimselfsays,“ThestoryofWillieStarkandthestoryofJackBurdenare,inonesense,onestory.”25ThereciprocalrelationshipbetweenthestoriesofWillieandJackishigh-lightedbythemannerinwhichJackrelatesthetale.Jack’snarrationispre-sented,notinastraightforward,chronologicalmanner,butthroughaseriesofdiscretevignettesthatareheldtogetherina“medievalinterlacestructure,”26whichmovesbetweenthestoriesofJackandWillieandwhichultimatelyintertwinesthem.AsJackunfoldshisstory,welearnabouthislifeandfamilyinadisjointedfashionthatrequiresustoreconstructthetimelineofhislife.Overthecourseofthenovel,weseeJackaschild,adolescent,graduatestudent,reporter,andpoliticalhenchman.WealsolearnofJack’sreflectiveunder-standingofhisviewsduringtheseperiodsofhislife.ThroughoutthenovelJackcharacterizeshimself,attimesseriouslyandattimesfacetiously,asastudentofhistory.Herecountstwoimportantepisodesinhislife,whichrevolvearoundhis“excursion[s]intotheenchantmentsofthepast”:27thestoryofCassMasternand“TheCaseoftheUprightJudge.”Thefirstexcursionwasthesubjectofhisdoctoraldissertation,adissertation24.RobertPennWarren,AlltheKing’sMen(SanDiego:HarcourtBrace,1982).Here-inafterthisreprinteditionwillbeidentifiedasAKM.25.AKM,157.26.LillianNoblesWooley,“TheMedievalInterlaceStructureinAlltheKing’sMen,”in“ToLoveSoWelltheWorld”:AFestschriftinHonorofRobertPennWarren,ed.DennisL.Weeks(NewYork:PeteLang,1992),313–25.27.AKM,157.\n156StevenD.Ealywrittenbutneverdefendedbecause,inJack’swords,“Itriedtodiscoverthetruthandnotthefacts.Then,whenthetruthwasnottobediscovered,ordis-coveredcouldnotbeunderstoodbyme,Icouldnotbeartolivewiththecold-eyedreproachofthefacts.SoIwalkedoutofaroom,theroomwherethefactslivedinabigboxofthree-by-five-inchnotecards,andkeptonwalking.”28Jack’ssecondmajorpieceofhistoricalresearch,“TheCaseoftheUprightJudge,”wasapoliticallymotivatedjobdoneforWillie,ajobthatwouldhavebothpersonalandpoliticalramifications.InJack’sownappraisal,“Ihadeveryreasontocongratulatemyselfonajobwelldone.Itwasaperfectresearchjob,marredinitstechnicalperfectionbyonlyonething:itmeantsomething.”29EventhoughJackcharacterizeshimselfasastudentofhistory,hedoesnotseehistoricalresearchasadefiningpartofhislife—hedoesnotseeaskingandansweringhistoricalquestionstobeanessentialcomponentofhismakeup.Jackdoesnotseeanythingasanessentialcomponentofhismakeup,whichatanearlystageappearstohimtoberandomlyformedthroughdriftandinertia.JackcontrastshimselftoWillieandfailstoseeinhimselftheinnercom-pulsionthatseparatesWilliefromthemasses:peoplelikeWillie“arewhattheyarefromthetimetheyfirstkickinthewombuntiltheend.Andifthatisthecase,thentheirlifehistoryisaprocessofdiscoveringwhattheyreallyare,andnot,asforyouandme,sonsofluck,aprocessofbecomingwhatluckmakesus.”30Jack’sfailuretoseea“metaphysicalself”whenhelookedathim-selfwaspartlybecauseoftheamazingpullthatWillieStarkcametohaveonhim.Ironically,itwasthroughWilliethatJackwasgivenaglimpseofthe“meta-physicalself”ofJackBurdenthatJackhadtriednottoown.“IhadaskedtheBossaboutsomethingelseonce,”Jackrecalls,recountingthenightthattheimpeachmentattemptagainstWilliefellthrough.Latethatnight,backattheMansion,afterhehadthrownTinyandhisrabbleoutofthestudy,Iaskedhimthequestion.Iasked,“Didyoumeanwhatyousaid?”Proppedbackonthebigleathercouch,hestaredatme,anddemanded,“What?”“Whatyousaid,”Ireplied,“tonight.Yousaidyourstrengthwastheirwill.Yousaidyourjusticewastheirneed.Allofthat.”Hekeptonstaringatme,hiseyesbulging,hisstaregrapplingandprobingintome.“Yousaidthat,”Isaid.28.Ibid.29.Ibid.,191.30.Ibid.,63.\nFictionofRobertPennWarren157“Goddamnit,”heexclaimedviolently,stillstaringatme,“Goddamnit—”heclenchedhisrightfistandstruckhimselftwiceonthechest—“Goddamnit,there’ssomethinginsideyou—there’ssomethinginsideyou.”Heleftthewordshangingthere.Heturnedhiseyesfrommeandstaredmoodilyintothefire.Ididn’tpressmyquestion.31Willie’sresponsetoJackatfirstsoundsasifhewerereflectingonthat“somethinginside”everymanthatmotivateshisbehavior.Ithink,however,thatWillieismakingacommentspecificallyaboutJack’sinquisitiveness.AttimesWillieisabletolaughatJack’scharacteristicquestioningofevents.EarlyinthenovelJackrecountsaconversationhehadwithWillieaboutthefirsttimetheymet.WillieshookJack’shandandthenwinkedathim,oratleastJackthoughtthathehadwinkedathim,buthewasnotsure.YearslaterJackaskedWillieifhehadwinkedathim,andWilliereplied,“Boy,ifIwastotellyou,thenyouwouldn’thaveanythingtothinkabout.”32Butontheoccasionafterthespeech,JackisprobingWillie’sdepths,andWillieisirritatedbyJack’sdesiretoknow.ThisreadingofJack’sconversationwithWillieisreinforcedbyJack’slaterencounterwithSadieBurkeatasanatorium.That“something”inJack,whichWilliepointedtoandreactedagainst,sentJacktoSadie,Willie’spoliticalstrate-gistandsometimesgirlfriend,afterWillie’sassassination.Sadie,too,pointsJacktothethingthatdriveshim,anditisnotluck:“GoddamnyouJackBur-den,whatmadeyoucomehere?Whatalwaysmakesyoumessinthings?Whycan’tyouleavemealone?Whycan’tyou?Why?”33JackdoesnotanswerSadie’squestion,butthereissomethinginhimthatmakeshimpushonuntilhehasalloftheinformation,allofthefacts.Jackhasalwaysbeengoodatgatheringfacts;itisthematteroftruththathefindssoconfusing.ItistheelusivenatureoftruththatmakesJack’sself-characterizationasastudentofhistorysoten-tative.SomehowJackknows,butwillnotembracetheknowledge,thathistoryisaquestforsomethingbeyondmerefacts,whetherwecallittruth,meaning,orsignificance.Jackfailedtoperceivehismetaphysicalselfpartlybecauseoftheoverwhelm-ingpowerofWillie’spresenceandpartlybecauseofJack’sdesiretoavoidre-sponsibility.Intheend,Jacklearnedtopointtotheinnerdrivethatmotivatedhim,eventhoughhepresenteditasauniversaltruthratherthanastheinnerforceinhisownlife.“Theendofmanisknowledge,”musesJack,lookingbackonallthathadoccurred,31.Ibid.,261–63.32.Ibid.,16.33.Ibid.,410.\n158StevenD.Ealybutthereisonethinghecan’tknow.Hecan’tknowwhetherknowledgewillsavehimorkillhim.Hewillbekilled,allright,buthecan’tknowwhetherheiskilledbecauseoftheknowledgewhichhehasgotorbecauseoftheknowledgewhichhehasn’tgotandwhichifhehadit,wouldsavehim.There’sthecoldinthestomach,butyouopentheenvelope,youhavetoopentheenvelope,fortheendofmanistoknow.34Jackwas,then,anaturalstudentofhistory,drivenbyadesiretoknow,adesirethathehimselfdoesnotcompletelyrecognizeatthetime,andaidedbythe“luck”ofjobsthatallowedhimtopracticehiscraftofhistoricalresearch.ButJack’spracticeofhistorywasinformedandtemperedbyprinciplesthatheabsorbedinhisformaleducation.JacklearnedtwothingswhileatStateUni-versity.Thefirst(acquiredasaundergraduate)wastheprincipleofidealism.Jackwrylydescribedhimselfasa“brass-boundIdealist”whileworkingforWillieandelaboratedonthepragmaticimportanceoftheprincipleofIdeal-isminhislineofwork:Iheardsomebodyopenandshutthegatetothebarnlot,butIdidn’tlookaround.IfIdidn’tlookarounditwouldnotbetruethatsomebodyhadopenedthegatewiththecreakyhinges,andthatisawonderfulprincipleforamantogetholdof.IhadgotholdoftheprincipleoutofabookwhenIwasincollege,andIhadhungontoitforgrimdeath.Iowedmysuccessinlifetothatprinciple.IthadputmewhereIwas.Whatyoudon’tknowdon’thurtyou,foritain’treal.TheycalledthatIdealisminmybookIhadwhenIwasincollege,andafterIgotholdofthatprincipleIbecameanIdealist.Iwasabrass-boundIdealistinthosedays.IfyouareanIdealistitdoesnotmatterwhatyoudoorwhatgoesonaroundyoubecauseitisn’trealanyway.35ThesecondprincipleJacklearnedatStateUniversity(acquiredasaPh.D.studentinhistory)wasavariationonNietzsche’sreflectionsinTheUseandAbuseofHistory.InJack’swords,“Ifthehumanracedidn’trememberany-thingitwouldbeperfectlyhappy.”36TheseprinciplesfunctiontogetherinawaythatenablesJacktotakeupjobsasjournalistandpoliticalhenchmen,andbothprinciplesallowedJacktomaintainatunnel-visionfocusonhisjobwithoutconsideringthelargerimpli-cationsofwhathewasdoing.Inanefforttoheadoffimpeachmentproceed-ingsagainstGovernorStark,Jacktrackeddowntheleaderoftheanti-StarkforcesintheHouseofRepresentatives.JackshowedLowdananenvelopefull34.Ibid.,9.35.Ibid.,30,106.36.Ibid.,40.\nFictionofRobertPennWarren159ofdocumentssignedbymembersoftheHousewhohadbeensupportingim-peachmentbutwhohadchangedtheirminds.“It’sblackmail,”Lowdansaid,veryquietly,buthuskilyasthoughhedidn’thavethebreathtospare.Then,seemingtogetalittlemorebreath,“It’sblackmail.It’scoercion.Bribery,it’sbribery.Itellyou,you’veblackmailedandbribedthosemenandI—”“Idon’tknowwhyanybodysignedthisstatement,”Isaid,“butifwhatyouchargeshouldhappentobetruethenthemoralstrikesmeasthis:MacMurfeeoughtnottoelectlegislatorswhocanbebribedorwhohavedonethingstheycangetblackmailedfor.”37Asjournalistandhenchman,Jacknotonlymaintainedhisidealismandpresentismasprotectivedevicesbutheactivelysoughttolimithisknowledge.AtonepointhecutsoffSadieBurkebyaverring,“‘Idon’twanttolisten.IknowtooGod-damnedmuchnow.’AndIwasn’tjoking.Ididn’twanttolisten.TheworldwasfullofthingsIdidn’twanttoknow.”DuringanargumentwithhismotheroverhisjobwithWillie,Jacktoldher,“Idon’tknowwhatthosepeople,asyoucallthem,do.I’mverycarefulnottoeverknowwhatanybodyanywheredoesanytime.”38Bythejudiciousapplicationoftheseprinciples,Jackwasabletodescribehimselfvariouslyas“apieceoffurniture,”a“hiredhand,”andan“officeboy.”39Hewasabletocarryoutassignedtaskswithoutremorseorevenpangsofcon-sciencebecausehewasabletoblockfromhisfieldofvisionknowledgeabouttheoriginsorimpactoftheitemshehappenedtobeworkingonatthetime.WhileJackwasabletoapplyhisprinciplesofIdealismandignoranthappi-nessinsuchawayastogivehimselfwhattodaywouldbecalledplausibledeniability,theseprinciplesactuallyrancountertoJack’sdeeperinclination,thenecessitytoknow.Jack’sstorycanbeseen,then,asaworkingoutofthetensionbetweenhistwoself-consciouslyheldprinciplesofhistoryandhumanexis-tenceandthedemandofhismetaphysicalselftopursueitsendofknowledge.Atthepracticallevel,Jackattemptedtolivehislifeoperatingonthebasisofthesetwo(related)principles,hadtodealwiththeirlimitationsasafounda-tionforactionandunderstanding,andthenhadtofindareplacementforthemwhentheyfailed.ThecollapseofJack’scarefullyconstructeddefensiveposition,whichprotectedhimfromallresponsibility,beganwith“TheCaseoftheUprightJudge.”JudgeIrwin,themanwhohadbeenmoreofafathertoJackthanJack’sstepfathers,37.Ibid.,149.38.Ibid.,142,126.39.Ibid.,52,113,23.\n160StevenD.EalytookapositiononapoliticalissueinoppositiontoGovernorStark.Willieor-deredJacktogetthedirtonJudgeIrwin.Jackdeniedthattherewasanydirttobegot,butJack,theresourcefulstudentofhistory,gotthedirt.ThedirtonJudgeIrwinhadimplicationsthatanapplicationoftheprincipleofIdealismcouldnotconcealfromJack.JudgeIrwinwasafriendofJack’s,andJackdidnotwantittobetrue;additionally,thedirtsulliedthereputationofGovernorStanton,fatherofJack’sfriendsAdamandAnneStanton.Finally,thedirtaf-fectedJack’smotherandJackhimself,fortheJudgecommittedsuicide,andJackthenlearnedthatJudgeIrwin,notEllisBurden,washisfatherandthemanthathismotherhadalwaysloved.ThisknowledgewascontainedinametaphoricalenvelopeJackmightneverhaveopenedbutforWillieStark.WhenJacktoldusearlyinthestorythatman’sendisknowledgeandthatwemustopentheenvelopewhenitishandedtous,hewasspeakingfromexperienceandnotidlespeculation.Hehadhandedenvelopestomanypeople,andtheyhadalwaysopenedthoseenvelopes.WhenJackwantedtoconvinceAdamStantontobecomedirectorofthenewstatehospitalagainsthisownwishes,JackgaveAdamanenvelopewithdocumentsrelatingtohisfather’scomplicityinJudgeIrwin’sonebadact.Thismaterialwasdesignedto“changethatpictureoftheworldhecarriesaroundinhishead.”40Inthesameway,theknowledgethatcamefromthe“envelope”WilliegavetoJackbegantochangeJack’sviewoftheworld.WillieStark’sstoryisanarchetypaloneoftherise,corruption,andfallofapoliticalfigure.Jack’sisoneofmoresubtledevelopment,ofthechangesinthepictureoftheworldthatJackcarriesaroundinhishead,andtheeffectthesechangeshaveonhislifeandthelivesofthosearoundhim.JackhadwalkedawayfromhisdoctoraldissertationonCassMasternbecausehecouldnotunderstandMastern.Lookingbackonthatdecision,Jackreflectedonhisear-lierself:IhavesaidthatJackBurdencouldnotputdownthefactsaboutCassMas-tern’sworldbecausehedidnotknowCassMastern....JackBurdendidnotsaydefinitelytohimselfwhyhedidnotknowCassMastern.ButI(whoamwhatJackBurdenbecame)lookbacknow,yearslater,andtrytosaywhy.CassMasternlivedforafewyearsandinthattimehelearnedthattheworldisallofonepiece.Helearnedthattheworldislikeanenormousspiderwebandifyoutouchit,howeverlightly,atanypoint,thevibrationripplestotheremotestperimeterandthedrowsyspiderfeelsthetingleandisdrowsynomorebutspringsouttoflingthegossamercoilsaboutyouwhohavetouchedthewebandtheninjecttheblack,numbingpoisonunderyourhide.Itdoesnotmatterwhetherornotyoumeanttobrushthewebofthings.Yourhappyfootoryourgaywing40.Ibid.,248.\nFictionofRobertPennWarren161mayhavebrushediteversolightly,butwhathappensalwayshappensandthereisthespider,beardedblackandwithhisgreatfacetedeyesglitteringlikemirrorsinthesun,orlikeGod’seye,andthefangsdripping.ButhowcouldJackBurden,beingwhathewas,understandthat?...Theycouldonlybewordstohim,fortohimtheworldthenwassimplyanaccumula-tionofitems,oddsandendsofthingslikethebrokenandmisusedanddust-shroudedthingsgatheredinagarret.Oritwasafluxofthingsbeforehiseyes(orbehindhiseyes)andonethinghadnothingtodo,intheend,withanythingelse.41Butslowly,overtime,Jackcametoholdadifferentpictureoftheworldinhishead.Thestudentofhistorycametoseethat“ifyoucouldnotacceptthepastanditsburdentherewasnofuture,forwithoutonetherecannotbetheother,and...ifyoucouldacceptthepastyoumighthopeforthefuture,foronlyoutofthepastcanyoumakethefuture.”Jackcametoseethis,notbecausehehadbeenarguedintoit,butbecausehehadseentoomanyliveslivedinwaysthathadnothingtodowiththedeterminismof“theGreatTwitch.”Evenhisfriendswhohadkilledtheother,WillieandAdam,“lived[theirdoom]intheagonyofwill,”notmindlessnecessity.42JackBurdencametounderstandtheconceptofpersonalresponsibilityforone’sactions,andwiththatunder-standingcamehisacceptanceofhisownresponsibility.ThuswasJackBurdenasa“moralidentity”born.WorldEnoughandTimeWorldEnoughandTime43tellsthestoryofJeremiahBeaumontandRachelJordan.AsinmuchofWarren’sfiction,nothingispresentedinasimpleandstraightforwardmanner.Thestoryunfoldsthroughthevoiceofacontempo-raryhistorianruminatingovertherecords,papers,andotherephemerarelatingtothetaleofJeremiahBeaumont,butsupplementedwithgenerousexcerptsfromthejournalofBeaumonthimself.Thestoryisthustoldbytwovoices:JeremiahBeaumont,idealistandparticipant,andthenarrator,skepticalanddetached.ThestoryofJeremiahBeaumontrevolvesaroundhisrelationshipwithRachelJordan,amaidenhethoughthadbeenabusedandwasinneedofagal-lantchampion,andWilkieBarron,afriendwho(forhisownpoliticalpurposes)41.Ibid.,188–89.42.Ibid.,435,436.43.RobertPennWarren,WorldEnoughandTime:ARomanticNovel(NewYork:Ran-domHouse,1950).HereinaftercitedasWE.\n162StevenD.EalysetsthetrajectoryofBeaumont’slife.ThepictureoflovepaintedbyBeau-mont’srelationshiptoRachelcanbeseenasasend-upoftheromanticvisionoflovecapturedintheworldofmedievalchivalryandtransplantedintotheKentuckybackcountryofthe1820s.Itis“ataleofselflesspassion,innocenttrust,anddarkbetrayal”44mixedwithgenerousdosesofdeception,manipu-lation,andmelodramaticretribution.JeremiahBeaumontlearnedoftheplightofRachelJordan,ayoungwomanwhohadbeenseducedbyherlatefather’sattorney,ColonelFort,fromhisfriendWilkieBarron.AlthoughBeaumontdidnotknowJordan,andithap-penedthatColonelFortwasBeaumont’smentorandbenefactor,BeaumontdeterminedthathewouldpunishFortforhisindiscretion.Fromthebegin-ningBeaumont’sreactionwasextremelyromanticized:hedesiredtoenactinhisownlifethestoriesofvalorhehadlearnedinhisownearlystudyofRome.HeacceptedatfacevalueWilkieBarron’saccountofeventsandneversoughttoconfirmthestorywithFort,eventhoughhehadhadacloserelationshipwithFortuptothispoint.Instead,heinformedFortbyletterthathewouldnot“connive”withhisbaseness,andthat“hewouldturnfromthefaceofthebetrayer,andseektruthinthefaceofthebetrayed.”45WhileBeaumont’searlyeffortstobefriendJordanwererebuffed,hewassopersistentinhispursuitthatfinallyshegavein,atleasttothepointofallowingBeaumonttobeinherpresenceonaregularbasis.Beaumont’sactionsweremotivatedbythebeliefthathe“hadtocreatehisworldorbethevictimofaworldhedidnotcreate.Outofhisemptiness,whichhecouldnotsatisfywithanyfullnessoftheworld,hehadtobringforthwhateverfullnessmightbehis.”46Howonecancreateafullworldoutofone’sownemptinessis,atbest,problematic.Akeypartofcreatinghisownworld,inBeaumont’smind,wasfoundinestablishingagroundforactionoutsidethestandardsoftheworldofsociety.Hecouldonlybetruetohis“deeperself”byactingapartfrom—orinviola-tionof—thestandardsofthecommunity.Byactingbeyondthestandardsofthecommunity,Beaumont’sconductwouldsetanotherstandard—astan-dardthatwouldforcetheworldtorecognizehim.Beaumontdecidedthathemustactinordertocreatehisworldandthustocreatehis“deeperself,”and44.WE,55.45.Ibid.,62.46.Ibid.,115.Thisisstandardromanticfare.CompareBeaumont’sattitudewiththeviewexpressedbyLosinWilliamBlake’sJerusalem:“ImustCreateaSystem,orbeenslav’dbyanotherMans/IwillnotReason&Compare:mybusinessistoCreate”(plate10,lines20–21).SeeThePoetryandProseofWilliamBlake,ed.DavidV.Erdman(NewYork:Double-day,1965),151.\nFictionofRobertPennWarren163thatthegroundforthisactionmustbethe“greatpurpose”thatunitedhimwithRachelJordan.Their“greatpurpose”wasthemurderofColonelFort.IntryingtosortoutthejumbledreasoningthatseemedtomotivatebothBeaumontandJordanitbecomesclearthatBeaumontisdrivenbyconflictingimagesofhisrelationtothelargersocietyaroundhim.Ontheonehand,hestoodaloofandsawhimself(andRachelJordan)asthecenterandcreatorsofhisuniverse.Ontheother,allofhisplans—allofhiseffortstoachievethegreatpurposeofthehumiliationofColonelFort—revolvedaroundthepub-licnatureoftheaction:onlyifFortweretobehumiliatedinpublicwouldthisgreatpurposebeachieved.ThusBeaumontwasdependentontheattention,ifnottheinterest,oftheworldbeyondhiscontrol.Beaumontappearedtobeobsessedbythediscovery—orcreation—ofwhathevariouslycalled“thetruthwithin,”“thehonestywithin,”andthe“justicewithin”himself.47Thistruth,orhonesty,orjusticethatJeremiahBeaumontsoughtwithinhimselfwas,insomecrucialway,unconnectedtotheworldthatswirledaroundhim.ThefollowingentryappearsinBeaumont’sjournal:“Iseemedtoliveoutsideoftime,andnothingaboutmewasrealbutthethoughtinme.WhatwasrealwasthemomentIstrovetoward,whichwasnotyetintime.Whenthatmomentshouldfallintothestreamoftime,Ithoughtthatagaintimeandtheworldwouldberealtome.Butnotbefore.”48Duringhisfirstface-to-facemeetingwithRachelJordan,JeremiahBeaumonttookfromherthebookshewasreading—Plato’sSymposium—andreadaloudfromthepageshehadmarked.InBeaumont’sownaccountofthispassagehewrites:“Ibegantoreadinthemiddleofasentenceatthetopoftheleft-handpage,andIreadoflove,andhowamanofhighsoulmayusethebeautiesofearthasaladderbywhichhemountsforthesakeofhigherbeauties,restingatlastinthesingleIdeaoftheabsoluteBeautyinthatlifewhichaboveallothersamanshouldlivetobefullyman,thecontemplationoftheBeautyAbsolute.”49SetagainstthisPlatonicidealismistherealityofthetrajectoryofBeau-mont’sownlife.Ratherthanmovinghigherinthecontemplationofbeauty,Beaumontwasinvolvedinadescent.HesimultaneouslybecameengagedtomarryJordanandforcedademandfromherthathe“KillFort.”50Whenheultimatelycarriedoutthis“command,”hedidsonotpubliclyandinaway47.WE,63,65,98,122,152,163.48.Ibid.,137.49.Ibid.,69.ComparethestoryofPaoloandFrancescainTheInferno(cantoV,lines73–142),inwhichtheloversenteredintoanadulterousrelationshipwhilereadingthestoryofLancelot.50.WE,114.Beaumont’sattitudetothemurderresemblesthatofRaskolnikovinDos-toevsky’sCrimeandPunishment.\n164StevenD.Ealythatannouncedtotheworldthejusticeofhisaction,butindisguiseandatnight.Whenarewardforthecaptureofthemurdererwasoffered,Beaumontwasselectedbyagroupofpeople,whodidnotknowthathewasactuallythemurderer,tobethefallguyintheirplantoobtainthereward.ThusathistrialBeaumontwascaughtinawebofliesthathecoulddisprovebytellingthetruth,withtheironicresultthathewouldcondemnhimself,forhisdefensewasalsobuiltonawebofdeceit.AfterBeaumontwasconvicted,hisoldtutorDr.Burnhamvisitedhiminjail,andBeaumontbrowbeatBurnhamintoprovidinghimwithlaudanumsothathecoulddefeattheexecutionerbytakinghisownlife.Thisattemptatsuicidefailed,andWilkieBarronaffectedBeaumont’sescapeonthedayofhisscheduledexecution.HeandRachelendedupinthelawlesskingdomof“TheGrandBoz,”anoldriverpirate.WitheachstepalongthewayBeaumontbe-camemoreandmoredegraded,untilneartheendofthestory(bothfigura-tivelyandliterally)heconcluded,“ThecrimeforwhichIseekexpiationisneverlost.Itisalwaysthere.Itisunpardonable.Itisthecrimeofself,thecrimeoflife.ThecrimeisI.”51TounderstandBeaumont’sdownwardspiralwemustreflectonhisstartingpointandonwhatheaffirmsanddeniesinhislife.WhileBeaumontinitiallysawthepassagefromPlatoasconfirmationofhishigh-tonedviewoflife,hedidnotstart,asDiotimadid,withaloveofphysicalbeauty,whichpreparestheascenttoeternalbeauty.Rather,Beaumontbeganwithadetachedviewof“theidea,”pureinitself,setapartandincontrastwiththeevilhefoundintheworldasitexisted.Beaumontneverexperiencedtheloveoftheworld—orofthebeautyofalover—directly,butonlythroughtheveilofhisromanticvision.Thisvisionprovedtobeaninadequatefoundationuponwhichtobuildeitherloveoralife.Beaumont’sdescent,ashehimselfrecounted,involvedthreestagesintherelationshipofIdeaandWorld.Inthefirststage,“theideaisall,”andtheworldwillberedeemedbytheidea,butthisledBeaumonttoascornoftheworld.ItwasduringthisperiodthatBeaumonttalkedofthe“truthwithin”andthe“justicewithin.”ForBeaumont,separationfromtheworldwasitselfaformofpurity,anditwasthispurityhesoughttosecure.HowBeaumontcouldenterintotheactionoftheworld,andintotime,andmaintainthisdetachedpurityremainedunresolved.WhatinfacthappenedwasthatBeaumontwasbecom-ingmoreandmoresettledintohismarriedlifewithRachel,andtherealityofthislifethreatenedtodisplacehis“greatpurpose,”themurderofColonelFort,51.WE,458.\nFictionofRobertPennWarren165fromthecenterofhislifeandthought.Inanyevent,whentheideafailedtoredeemtheworld,Beaumontcametobelievethat“theworldmustredeemtheidea,”andthisledtotheefforttoachieveidealendsthroughworldlyaction—inBeaumont’scase,therealizationofapurelovethroughthemurderofColonelFort.ThuswehaveareversalfromBeaumont’soriginalunderstand-ingofideaandworld—atthisstage,worldbecomesdominantandideacon-tingent.Inthefirststage,somehow,thecontemplationofthemurderofFortwassufficient,andintheseconditwasnecessarytoactuallycarryoutthemurder;onlythemurderitselfcouldprovethepurityofhisloveforRachel.Thisstageisthefoundationofmostofthepoliticalterrorwefindunleashedintheworld.PerhapsthismovementcanbeunderstoodasthemovementfromaHegelianpositionofideadeterminingmaterialtoaMarxianviewofmaterialdeterminingtheidea.Inanyevent,accordingtoBeaumont,thisrever-salwasfollowedbyathirdstage—thedenialoftheideaandtheembraceoftheworldasall.52NolongerdoesBeaumontpursueanobleideal;ratherhewal-lowsinthedegradedstatehefindshimselfinthekingdomoftheGrandBoz.Accompanyingthischangingunderstandingofideaandworld,andkeytoBeaumont’sdevelopment—actually,lackofdevelopment—isanaffirmationandarejection.Theaffirmation,timeandagain,isoneofbetrayal.Henotonlybelievedthathehasbeencontinuallybetrayedbythoseclosesttohim,heusedthisargumenttoforcetheircompliancetohiswill.AtthesametimeBeaumontaffirmedbetrayal,hedeniedhisownresponsibilityforanyofhisactions.Thus,whenDr.Burnhamcametoseehiminjail,BeaumontforcedBurnhamtoagreetosupplylaudanumbyblamingBurnhamforhissituation:“Youoweittome.Foritwasyouthatplantedtheseedofall.Ifithadnotbeenforyou,Iwouldnotbehere....Underthemapletree,youreadmetheGreeksandtheRomans.Youtaughtmethenoblenessoflife.AndIsweartoyou,ifIhavebotchedandblundered,allbeganinwhatyoutaught.ForIyearnedtodoathingnobleandworthy,andallbeganinthatthought.Anditwasyou.”53BytheendofWorldEnoughandTimeJeremiahBeaumonthascometounderstandthat,ratherthancreatingaworldthatunfoldedoutofhis“trueself,”hehasbeenmanipulated,forpoliticalreasons,byWilkieBarron.WhileBeaumontdesiredto“createhisworld,”intheendhebecame“victimofaworldhedidnotcreate.”54Whilehedesiredtoachievetheimpossible,thecreationofaworld,Beaumontsteadfastlyrefusedthecreationthatwasalways52.Ibid.,459.53.Ibid.,396.54.Ibid.,115.\n166StevenD.Ealywithinhisgrasp,thecreationofhisownself.Beaumontdeniedboththeconti-nuityofhislifeandthesenseofresponsibilitynecessaryforaselfinWarren’ssense.Helookedbackonhislifeasaseriesofdiscreteepisodes,eachepisodedisconnectedfromallothers.Thus,whilehelongedtounderstandhis“trueself,”heneverconnectedthedotsthatwouldhavemadehis“trueself,”andthenmadethatselfvisible,bothtoBeaumonthimselfandtothosearoundhim.Liv-ing“outsidetime”preventedthecontinuitynecessarytodevelopatruesenseofself.Tiedcloselytothisfailureofcontinuitywashisunwillingnesstoacceptresponsibilityforanyofhisactions.Beaumontcontinuallysoughttoshiftresponsibilityforeventstoexternalcauses—eitherthenatureoftheworldortheunwillingnessofotherstosupporthiminhisactions.IncontrasttoJackBurden,whowasreadytoactintheworldattheconclusionofAlltheKing’sMen,JeremiahBeaumontcouldonlyask,attheconclusionofhisjournal,“Wasallfornaught?”Thenarratorofthebookimmediatelyconcludedbyre-peatingBeaumont’squestion—“Wasallfornaught?”55ThisdoublingofBeaumont’sfinalquestionsuggestsadoublingoftheanswer,andtheansweris“yes”andtheansweris“no.”JamesJustushasarguedthat“thestatementsandcounterstatements,theassertionsandchallengesformtheheartofthenovel.Itslifeconsistsneitherintheromanticposturingofadeludedyoungidealistintheearlynineteenthcenturynorintheskeptical,inquiringintelligenceofatwentieth-centurymanofreason,butratherintheengagementbetweenthesetwosensibilities.”56Thisisillustratedbythedou-blingofthequestionandthedifferinganswersgivenbyprotagonistandnar-rator.PerhapsJeremiahBeaumontmustanswerthisquestion,“No,allwasnotfornaught.”WhatBeaumontfinallygainedintheendwasknowledge—some-thingevenbetterthanredemption,hesuggests—butknowledgeofaparticu-larkind.Beaumontlearnedhowtoactbyreflecting,notonhisexperience,butonhowhewasacteduponbythosewhodesiredtousehimfortheirownpurposes.Thenarrator,ontheotherhand,perhapsmustanswer,“Yes,Beau-mont’sfreneticactivitywasallfornaught.”ThenarratorhadopenedthestoryofJeremiahBeaumontbysuggestingthatperhaps“amancannotliveunlesshepreparesadrama”andconcludesbyobservingthat“allmenbelieveinjus-tice.Otherwisetheywouldnotbemen.”57Ultimately,however,fromthenar-rator’sperspective,thesetwoclaimsareperhapsoneandthesame.55.Ibid.,465.56.JamesH.Justus,TheAchievementofRobertPennWarren(BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUniversityPress,1981),224.57.WE,5,463.\nFictionofRobertPennWarren167ImaginativeEnactmentandPoeticCognitionInhisessay“TheUseofthePast,”Warrenwrotethat“inaway,[thepast]‘gives’usnothing.Wemustearnwhatwegetthere.Thepastmustbestudied,workedat—inshort,created....Increatingtheimageofthepast,wecreateourselves,andwithoutthattaskofcreatingthepastwemightbesaidscarcelytoexist.Withoutit,wesinktothelevelofaprotoplasmicswarm.”Throughhisencounterwithhispersonalhistory,JackBurdenhasbeguntocreatehim-self,apersonableto“gooutofthehouseandgointotheconvulsionoftheworld,outofhistoryintohistoryandtheawfulresponsibilityofTime.”58JeremiahBeaumont,attheendofhisstory,standsinmarkedcontrasttoJackBurden.Beaumonthasrejectedhisownfamily,hisownpast,hiscommu-nity,andhasattemptedtocreateaworldoutofnothing.Indoingso,Beau-montultimatelylostthechancetocreatehisselfandtoconnectbothback-wardandforwardinhistory.Beaumontendswithknowledgeofhisstory,ofhowhewasmanipulatedbyBarronandSkrogg,butitremainsunclearthatBeaumontevenunderstandshisownroleinhisownstory,andthusevenhisknowledgeattheendislimited.JackBurdenfinallycametotermswithhisownpast,andthuspreparedhimselftoliveintheworldofthefuture.ThestoriesofboththeseprotagonistsofferevidenceinsupportofBurden’scon-clusionthat“ifyoucouldnotacceptthepastanditsburdentherewasnofuture,forwithoutonetherecannotbetheother.”59TheresponsibilitythatWarren’sfictiveworldleadsustoisnotacommit-menttogranduniversalprinciplesbutratherachallengethatwe“acceptthepastanditsburden.”Thismeansthatweeachhaveourownuniquechallengeofresponsibility;foreachofushasauniquepastthatwemustcometotermswith.InWarren’sworldwediscoverourlibertyonlyintensionwithourdes-tiny,notasafatedorpredeterminedoutcometoourlife,butasourstartingpointintheworld—thefamily,community,classandnationandepochthatweareborninto.Whilewehavenochoiceinthematterofourdestiny,weareabletodecidehowtorespondtothecircumstanceswefindourselvesin.Thepolarityoffreedomanddestinyallowsustomediatebetweenblindobeisanceandblindrejectionofthepast.Itisinthisfieldoftensionthatthepossibilityofresponsibleactionarisesandthateachpersonisgiventheopportunitytocreatehisownself.6058.Warren,“TheUseofthePast,”50–51;AKM,438.59.AKM,435.60.Warrentalksofthepolesoflifeandfictionin“LoveandSeparatenessinEudoraWelty,”inRobertPennWarren:AReader(NewYork:VintageBooks,1987),201,205.On\n168StevenD.EalyThereismuchintheworldsofJackBurdenandJeremiahBeaumontthatWarrenhasimaginativelycreatedthatresonateswiththeconcernsEricVoegelinspenthisphilosophicallifeinvestigating—thenatureofself,thestrugglesoflifeinthemetaxy,thisin-betweenexistenceinwhichmanfindshimself,thecorrosivedesiretoconstructa“secondreality”thatthenbecomesourgroundforaction.Thereisadanger,however,inattemptingtoreducethe“enactedknowledge”ofaworkoffictionto“ateaching”oraproposition.Suchanattemptisanexampleofthetemptationtoreplace“uncertaintruth”with“certainuntruth.”61AsVoegelinarguedforcefullyin“EquivalencesofSym-bolizationandExperienceinHistory,”symbolsnevercapturethetruthinfinalformbecauseexperienceanditssymbolsare“realityinprocess.”Theworkofartallowsustoimaginativelyenterarealityinprocess,tolearnaboutthemotivesandexperiencesofothers,andinsodoingtolearnsomethingaboutourselves—orasWarrenwouldputit,tocreateourself.Warrenoffersadescriptionofthe“philosophicalnovelist”thatisworthreflectingon.InanessayonJosephConrad,hewrites:Thephilosophicalnovelist,orpoet,isoneforwhomthedocumentationoftheworldisconstantlystrivingtorisetothelevelofgeneralizationaboutvalues,forwhomtheimagestrivestorisetosymbol,forwhomimagesalwaysfallintoadialecticalconfiguration,forwhomtheurgencyofexperience,nomatterhowvividlyandstronglyexperiencemayenchant,istheurgencytoknowthemean-ingofexperience.Thisisnottosaythatthephilosophicalnovelistisschematicanddeductive.Itistosayquitethecontrary,thatheiswillingtogonakedintothepit,againandagain,tomakethesameoldstruggleforhistruth.62ThusforWarren,the“philosophicalnovelist”isonewhokeepsincreativetensionthevariousandcompetinghumandispositionsthatwefindinlifeasweliveit,evenwhilerecognizingthatoneofthestrongestofthosedisposi-tionsistounderstandthemeaningofourexistence.Therobustworkofartismultidimensional,allowingustoexaminethecompetingforcesatplaywithinhumanaction,includingthecompetingclaimsforultimatesignificance.Whetherthroughtheself-interrogationofJackBurdenorthroughtheon-goingdebatebetweenJeremiahBeaumontandthecontemporarynarratorofhistale,thedialecticaltensioncreatedbythemovementofthestoryisthepath-thepolarityoffreedomanddestiny,seePaulTillich,SystematicTheologyI(Chicago:Uni-versityofChicagoPress,1951),182–86.Ontheroleofliteratureinshapingtheindividualself,seeStevenD.Ealy,“OntheCreationoftheSelfintheThoughtofRobertPennWar-ren,”ModernAge43,no.3(Summer2001):202–10.61.Voegelin,Science,Politics,andGnosticism,75.62.RobertPennWarren,“‘TheGreatMirage,’”160.\nFictionofRobertPennWarren169wayalongwhichonemaybegintoglimpsethemeaningofthenovel.Or,tousetermscurrentlypopularinsomecircles,itisthroughthedialecticalengage-mentofthenovel’scompeting“teachings”(the“lessonstobelearned”fromtheperspectiveofeachofthenovel’smajoractors)thatthenovel’smeaningmayberevealed.Forthistooccur,thereadermustbeanactiveparticipantinevaluatingthesecompetingclaimsandresolvingtheminhisownmind.Perhapsbothpoetryandphilosophymakethesameoldstrugglefortruth,evenastheystrugglewitheachother.Asabenigncriticofpoetryinthebattlebetweenphilosophyandpoetry,Voegelinmightseesomemeritintheargu-mentofthispaper,fortheadvantagesofpoetryIhavediscussedareatleasttacitlyrecognizedbyVoegelinhimself.OnecouldmakeacasethatPlatoisatleastasmuchapoetasaphilosopher—rememberthatPlato’sSocrateshadrecourseto“likelystories”ormythsatkeypointsintheGorgias,Phaedrus,andtheRepublic.Finally,asVoegelinnotes,“Inalateletter...Aristotleadmitstobecomingphilomythoterostheolderhebecomes.”6363.Voegelin,“Equivalences,”126.\n9BiographiesofConsciousnessPéterNádasandEricVoegelinCharlesR.EmbryAnovelisanexceedinglyordinarything:itwadesthroughlivedexperience.—PéterNádas,“TheNovelistandHisSelfs”Betweenbirthanddeaththebodynotonlydetermines,asthesensorium,whatpartoftheworldmayenterconsciousnessthroughit,butalsoisoneofthemostimportantdeterminants(althoughnottheonlyone)fortheinnertensionsandrelationsofrelevanceoftheworldofconsciousness.—EricVoegelin,AnamnesisThestatement“Anovelisanexceedinglyordinarything:itwadesthroughlivedexperience”conveysmetaphoricallythecomplexitythatliesattheheartofanyendeavortoexplorehumanconsciousness,thebodyasthesensoriumofthatconsciousness,andthebodyasthesourceofthebiographyofcon-sciousness.ToamplifyandprobethesethemesPéterNádasreliesuponhisownbiographicalexperiencesfilteredthroughhisimagination.InthecaseofABookofMemories,heusesfirst-personnarrationvoicedby“otherselfs.”Hewrites:“Thistime,withtwocutsIdividedmyselfintothree.IsaidIhaveatleastoneselftocontendwith,butinmyimaginationtheremayberoomforasmanyasthreepersonae,whowillspeakconcurrentlyforthemselvesandforme....Thefirst-personnarrativeinvariablysteeredmetowardconfession,so170\nBiographiesofConsciousness171Ihadtokeepexaminingtheeventsofmyownlife,anduseonlyasmanyofthemasthesepersonaewouldallow.”1Withhiscreationofthesenarrativeselfs,Nádasexploredandamplifiedwhatitmeanstosaythatconsciousnessisem-bodiedandthatthroughthesensoriumofthebodyconsciousnesstranscendsintotheworld,especiallytheworldofotherhumanbeings.Thenarrativeselfs,thus,wadethroughthat“exceedinglyordinarything”—“livedexperience.”Theconsciousnessofthesenarrativeselfs,completewithrobustbodies,transcendsintotheworldofotherhumanbeingsintentuponfindingandestablishingmeaningfulrelationshipsthatcansustainlifeandcommunity.EventhoughABookofMemoriescontains,fromtimetotime,discursionsonconsciousnessorinternalmonologuesoraccountsofwalksthroughforestsandbythesea,thestoriestoldbythenarratorsareprimarilystoriesthatartic-ulateeventsbetweenandsharedexperiencesofhumanbeings.DiscussingthecapacityourconsciousnesshasfortranscendingintotheworldtofindotherslikeourselvesVoegelinasserted:“Thefactthatconsciousnesshasanexperi-enceatallofanotherhumanbeing,asaconsciousnessoftheother,isnotaproblembutagivenofexperiencefromwhichonemayproceed.”Discoveringafellowhumanbeingintheworldleavesonlytheproblemoffindingasym-boliclanguageinwhichtheotherpersoncanbeacknowledgedassuch.2Asolu-tiontothisproblemofasymboliclanguageissuggestedinthecreationbyNádasof“narrativeselfs.”AlthoughtheobviousconnectionbetweenVoegelinandNádasistheirem-phasisuponrecollectionandremembrance,3Isuggestthattheirtreatmentsofconsciousness,especiallytheembodimentofconsciousnessthatresultsinabiographyofconsciousnessandthetranscendenceofconsciousnessintotheworldthroughthebodyasthesensoriumofitself,offermorefruitfulmaterialforexplorationandcomparison.Inthe“PrefatoryRemarks”to“Anamnesis”1.PéterNádas,“TheNovelistandHisSelfs,”NewHungarianQuarterly33,no.127(1992):20–21.Hereinaftercitedas“Selfs.”2.EricVoegelin,CollectedWorksofEricVoegelin(hereinafter,CW),vol.6,Anamnesis,ed.DavidWalsh(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2002),71–72.HereinaftercitedasAnamnesis.3.Eventhoughbothareengagedinrecollecting,VoegelininordertodevelopatheoryofconsciousnessandNádasinordertowriteanovelthatexploresrelationsbetweenhumanbeings,Voegelinlimitshisrecollectionstothefirsttenyearsofhislifeandrecordsonlymemoriesofthoseexperiencesthatopenedtohimsourcesofexcitationleadingtofurtherphilosophicalreflection.SeeAnamnesis,84.Nádas,ontheotherhand,remembers“his”biographyprimarilyfromtheperiodofhisadolescenceandyoungadulthoodthatwaslivedduringtheHungarianCommunistregime.TheEndofaFamilyStory,translatedbyImreGoldstein(NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,1998),byNádas,mayprovideabetterdirectcomparisonwithVoegelin’sanamneticexperiments,sincethatnovelfocusesonpre-adolescentchildhood.\n172CharlesR.EmbryVoegelinliststheassumptionsthatunderliehisanamneticexperiments,i.e.,therememberingofthosechildhoodexperiencesthatexcitedthe“aweofexis-tence”inhisconsciousness,anexcitementthatculminatedinhisphilosophi-calvocation.TwooftheseassumptionsareimportantforrelatingVoegelin’sworkonconsciousnesstothenovelofPéterNádas.Voegelinargues“thatinitsintentionalfunctionconsciousness,infiniteexperience,transcendsintotheworld,andthatthistypeoftranscendenceisonlyoneamongseveralandmustnotbemadethecentralthemeofatheoryofconsciousness;[and]thattheexperiencesoftranscendenceofconsciousnessintothebody,theexternalworld,thecommunity,history,andthegroundofbeingaregivensinthebiographyofconsciousnessandthusantecedethesystematicreflectiononconsciousness.”TheseassumptionsalsounderlieVoegelin’smeditation“WhatIsPoliticalReal-ity?”First,consciousnesstranscendsintothebodyaswellasthedifferentiatedworldthatisexternaltothebody.Second,“theexperiencesoftranscendenceofconsciousness”intovariouslevelsofrealityconstituteabiographyofacon-sciousnessthatisalwaysrootedintheconsciousnessofaparticularperson.Third,theoccasionsofthetranscendenceofconsciousnessintothevariouslevelsofrealityaregivenstoconsciousnesspriortoanyreflectionsuponcon-sciousness.Afourthestablishesforthebodyitselfacrucialroleinthebiogra-phyofconsciousness.Inhisessay“OntheTheoryofConsciousness,”Voegelinassertsthat“theconnection[betweenthebodyandconsciousness]issointi-matethatbetweenbirthanddeaththebodynotonlydetermines,asthesenso-rium,whatpartoftheworldmayenterconsciousnessthroughit,butalsoisoneofthemostimportantdeterminants(althoughnottheonlyone)fortheinnertensionsandrelationsofrelevanceoftheworldofconsciousness.”4InABookofMemories,Nádasfocusesthereader’sattentiononthebodyveryearlyinthebookbyusingastheepigraphforthenovelapassage—“Buthespokeofthetempleofhisbody”—fromtheGospelofJohn(John2:21KJV).Thereafter,everynarratorandeverystorylineaffirmstheimportanceofthebodyforconsciousness.ThroughthevoiceofNarratorC(tobeidenti-fiedbelow),NádasapproachesVoegelin’sphilosophicalprinciples.Callinghisfather’sbody“adarkhoaxofnature,”Cassertsthat“thebody,thehumanform,howeverdevoutlywemayexpoundinourChristianhumilityontheexternalityofthefleshandtheprimacyofthesoul,issopotentagiventhatalreadyatthemomentofourbirth,itbecomesanimmutableattribute.”54.Anamnesis,84,65(emphasisadded).5.PéterNádas,ABookofMemories,trans.IvanSanderswithImreGoldstein(NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,1997),166.MihálySzegedy-MaszákreferstothetitleofthisbookasABookofMemoirs.SeeMihálySzegedy-Maszák,“PéterNádas,”HungarianP.E.N.27(1986):44–45.HereinafterthebookiscitedasMemories.\nBiographiesofConsciousness173ABookofMemorieswillservetoillustratethecomplexitiesthatareinvolvedinexploring“thebiographyofconsciousness”withitsdependenceuponthebodyasthesensoriumofconsciousness.Voegelinrecognizedthedifficultyinherentinthebiographyofconsciousnessanditsexplorationthroughsuchanamneticexperimentsasheconductedonhisownbiographyofconscious-ness.Warningthattheprocessoftryingtorememberearlyexperiencesofanelementalnature,experiencesthatare“onlypartlytransparent,”Voegelinsug-gests“itwouldbeanimmensetasktoinvestigatethevariousgradesofthiscomplication.”Theexperiencesofatimelaterthanthefirsttenyearsorso(addingpresumablythetraumaofadolescence)entail“furthercomplicationsforananalysis.”6ABookofMemoriesisanovelisticanamneticexperiment.ItprojectedPéterNádasontothestageofEuropeanliteraturewithpublicationsinGerman(1991),English(1997),andFrench(1998)quicklyfollowingitsHungarianpublica-tionin1986.EssentiallyABookofMemoriesisanovelaboutanovelistwhoiswritingbothanovel(aboutanovelistwritinganovel)andhismemoirs.Thefinalversionofthisnovel/memoircumnovelisassembledbyKrisztiánSomiTót,afriendofthenovelist/memoirist,fromamanuscriptthathefoundinthenovelist’sdeskayearandahalfafterhisdeath.Hewrites:Ifoundtheindividualchaptersofhislifestoryinseparatefolders.Mostofmytimewastakenupwiththecarefulstudyofhisnotes.FromthegeneraloutlinecoveringtheentiremanuscriptIcoulddeterminethesequenceofchapters,butevenafterathoroughreviewofhisnotes,Ihaven’tbeenabletodecideinwhatdirectionheintendedtosteerhisplot.However,Ididfindoneadditionalsketchychapter,afragmentreally,thatIcouldnotplaceanywhere.Itdoesn’tappearinanyoftherepeatedlyrevisedtablesofcontents.Yethemayhavemeantittobethekeystoneofthewholestory.Myworkisdone.Theonlythingleftformetodoistoappendtothetextthislastfragment.7Asnotedearlier,NádasfocusedtheBookwiththeepigraphfromtheGospelofJohn:“Buthespokeofthetempleofhisbody.”Thischoiceresultsinatleasttwodiscernibleemphases.Ontheonehand,hisattentivenesstothe“templeofthebody”leadstographicdescriptionsofthevarioussensual-eroticactiv-itiesinwhichthenarrativeselfsengage.Throughthesesensual-eroticcompo-nentsthedeceptionsandliesofthechild-adolescentnarrator(C)arelinkedwiththedeceptionandfalsityofthehistoricalZeitgeistandtheCommunist6.Anamnesis,85,86.7.Memories,681.\n174CharlesR.EmbryregimesofMátyásRákosi(1949–1953and1955–1956)andJánosKádár(1956–1988)inHungary8viatheliesanddeceptionsthatpermeatehisfamilyrelation-ships,especiallywithhisfatherandmother.Moreover,thesensual-eroticismpermeatingthestories(story)inturndirectsattentiontothehumanbodyasthemediumofcontactwiththeworldofotherpeople,asthesensoriumofconsciousnessinwhichtheexperienceoftheexternalsocialworldoccurs.Ontheotherhand,itleadsthe“narrativeselfs”toincludemeditationsonconscious-nessthatexposeconnectionsbetweenthebodyandtheconsciousnessoftheparticularnarrativeself;thesemeditationselaboratethelivedexperienceofanarrativeself.Afterhehadwrittenthisnovel,NádasdivulgedthathehaddividedhimselfintothreenarrativeselfsforABookofMemories.Theseselfsproducethreenarrativesthatalternateregularlybychapter:A,B,C,A,B,C,etcetera.Thepenultimatechapterintroducesafourthnarrativeself,KrisztiánSomiTót.Thefinalchapter,toldbyA,revealsthatCwashisbiographical/historicalprecursor.TheconsiderationofABookofMemoriesasananamneticexperimentneces-sitatesfocusonthefollowing:anintroductionandbriefsynopsisofnarrativeA,writtenbyathirty-three-year-oldman;alengthierreviewofnarrativeCthatfocusesontheadolescenceandearlyadulthoodofnarratorA/Cwithparticu-laremphasisuponC’sfamilyandfriendsandtherelationshipofbothtotheregimesoftheHungarianCommunists;aquicklookatKrisztián,thefourthnarrator,andhisrelationshiptoA/C;andfinallyanepisodeinthebiographyofAthatpromptsadescriptionofconsciousnessintermsofthebodyandtheworldexternaltoconsciousness.In“TheBeautyofMyAnomalousNature,”Abeginsthenovelwithadescrip-tionofthelastplacethathelivedinEastBerlin.Hereflectsonwhatheisbeginning.CertainlyIdon’twanttowriteatraveljournal;Icandescribeonlywhatismine,let’ssaythestoryofmyloves,butmaybenoteventhat,sinceIdon’tthinkIcouldevertalkaboutthelargersignificanceofmerepersonalexperiences,andsinceIdon’tbelieveor,moreprecisely,don’tknow,whetherthereisanythingmoresignificantthantheseotherwisetrivialanduninterestingpersonalexperi-ences(Iassumetherecan’tbe),I’mreadytocompromise;letthiswritingbeakindofrecollectionorreminder,somethingboundupwiththepainandplea-sureofreminiscence,somethingoneissupposedtowriteinoldage,aforetasteofwhatImayfeelfortyyearsfromnow,ifIlivetobeseventy-threeandcanstillreminisce.98.AlthoughImreNagyassumedpowerin1953,heldituntil1955,andresumedpowerbrieflyin1956,heisnotmentionedinABookofMemories.9.Memories,3–4.\nBiographiesofConsciousness175ThuswelearnthatA,nowthirty-three,iswritinghismemoirs.WhileinBerlinAisalsowritinganovel,andwhenhemeetsMelchiorThoenissen,apoet,throughanactressnamedTheaSandstuhl,theprimarystorylineoftheAnarrationisestablished.ThenarratorfallsinlovewithMelchior,whoisalsolovedbyThea.SinceAcomestobelievethatTheacanonlyrelatetoMelchiorthroughhim,hefindsitnecessary,astheagentthatbindstogethertheménageàtrois,toconsummateasexualliaisonwithThea.MelchiorandAhaveanaffairthatendsinfailure.MelchiorescapesfromEastGermanytoFrance,andAreturnstoHungarydestituteandbereftofemo-tionandpurpose.A’srelationshipwithMelchiorfailedinpartbecauseitwasassaturatedwithliesastheEastGermanpoliticalregime.MelchiortellsAinoneoftheirconversationsthatheistiredoflivinginaplace“whereastateofemergencyhadbeenineffectforfiftyyears!...whereforhalfacenturynotonehonestwordhadbeenutteredinpublic,notone,notevenwhenyouweretalkingwithyourneighbor.”Intheirhopeof“complementingthecontactoftheirbodieswithsignsbeyondthephysical,”MelchiorandAeachfeverishlytelltheirstoriesandeagerlylistentotheother’s.Yet,Melchiorconfessesthatthe“urgetolie,tocoverup,tobesecretiveandsly,wasatleastasstrongastheurgetobesincere,open,andaboveboard,toseektheso-calledtruth.”Infact,headmittedtoAthat“itwasgoodtolie,itwasnecessaryandpleasurable”;andsinceheliedallthetime,Ashouldnot“takeanythinghesaidseriouslybutjustasajoke.”Beginninghisreminiscences,ArecallsthathisrecentpastinEastBerlincontainedonly“memoriesoftastesandsmellsofaworldtowhichInolongerbelong,oneImightcallmyabandonedhomeland,whichIlefttonopurposebecausenothingboundmetotheoneIfoundmyselfin,either;Iwasastrangerthere,too,andevenMelchior,theonlyhumanbeingIloved,couldnotmakemebelong;Iwaslost,Ididnotexist,mybonesandsolidfleshturnedtojelly.”10Thefinalchapterofthenovel,“Escape,”isalsonarratedbyA.Heresumesthestory—beguninthefirstchapterofthenovel—ofhisjourneytoHeiligen-dammafterMelchiorhasfledEastGermanyandofhowhewaspickedupbythepoliceandtakentoBadDoberanandhelduntilhispaperswereseentobeinorder.Afterhisreleasebytheauthorities,andwhilewaitingforatraintoreturnhimtoEastBerlin,heremembersanearliervisitinEastBerlintoMáriaStein,hisfather’sformerlover.ThevisitwasmadebyA/CostensiblytoaskMáriawhetherJánosHamarorthemanheknewasFatherwashisfather.Heremembersthatshetoldhimaboutherimprisonment—alongwithJánosHamarshetoowasdenouncedbyC’sfather—andaboutherlifewithC’sfather10.Ibid.,207,205–8,8.\n176CharlesR.Embryafterthedeathofhismother.Finally,shetoldhimhowhisfatheraskedhertolookathimoutthewindow;whenshelooked“heshothimselfthroughthemouth.”Cleft,closedthedoor,andranoutofthebuilding.Heneveraskedwhohisfatherwas.11NarrativeCrevolvesaroundtheadolescentyearsofnarratorC,thesonofaStaliniststateprosecutorinHungaryduringtheCommunistregimeofMátyásRákosi.Thisnarrativegraphicallydemonstratesacentralprincipleofpoliticaltheory—discoveredbyPlatoandadoptedandamplifiedbyVoegelininhisownwork.ThePlatonicanthropologicalprinciple,“thestateismanwritlarge,”ispremisedontheassumptionthatpoliticaltheorymustbegroundedinaphilo-sophicalanthropologyandatheoryofconsciousness.Eventhoughonlyonepoliticaleventisnarrated—thepopulardemonstrationinBudapestonOcto-ber23,1956,inwhichbothCandhisfriendKálmanweresweptup,anddur-ingwhichKálmaniskilled—thestorytoldbyCdemonstrateshowthestoriesoffamily,friends,andloversaresimultaneouslyreflectionsofthestoryofthedeceptionsoftheRákosiregimeandtheZeitgeistitself.Cwriteshismemoirsattheageofthirty-three,focusingonhisadolescenceandyoungadulthoodin1950sHungary.ForthemostpartCtellsthestoryofhisadolescence:(1)theexploitsof,andrelationshipsamong,hiscircleoffriends,threegirls—HédiSzán,LiviaSüli,andMajaPrihoda—andthreeboys—KrisztiánSomiTót,KálmanCsúzdi,andPrém;(2)hisrelationshipwithhisfatherandmother;and(3)hisandMaja’sspyingupontheirfathers,whoworktogether.ThestorybeginsonthedayofStalin’sfuneral,withthethirdchapter,entitled“TheSoftLightoftheSun.”Ciswalkinghomefromschoolthroughthewoods;Krisztiánappearsandtheywalktowardeachother.TheappearanceofKrisztiánevokesC’s“mostcontradictoryandsecretfeelings”:“Krisztián!”Iwouldhavelovedtocryout...[but]sayinghisnameoutloudwouldbeliketouchinghisnakedbody,whichiswhyIavoidedhim,alwayswait-inguntilhebeganwalkinghomewithotherssoIwouldn’twalkwithhimorhisway;eveninschoolIwascarefulnottowindupnexttohim,lestI’dhavetotalktohimor,inasuddencommotion,brushagainsthisbody;atthesametimeIkeptwatchinghim,tailedhimlikeashadow,mimickedhisgesturesinfrontofthemirror,anditwaspainfullypleasurabletoknowthathewascompletelyunawareofmyspyingonhim;...inreality,hedidn’tevenbothertolookatme,Iwaslikeaneutral,uselessobjecttohim,completelysuperfluousanddevoidofinterest.Ofcourse,mysoberselfcautionedmenottoacknowledgethesepassionatefeelings;itwasasiftwoseparatebeingscoexistedinme,totallyindependentofeachother:attimesthejoysandsufferingshismereexistencecausedmeseemedlike11.Ibid.,692,700.\nBiographiesofConsciousness177nothingbutlittlegames,notworththinkingabout,becauseoneofmytwoselveshatedanddetestedhimasmuchasmyotherselflovedandrespectedhim.12Krisztiánhadarrangedthistête-à-têtetoaskCnottoreporthimtotheprincipalforaderogatoryremarkaboutStalinthatChadoverheardhimmakeintheschoolbathroom.TheremarkincreasedC’sanxietyoverhisgrand-father’sderogatoryremarkthesamedayabouttheplantoembalmStalin’sbodyforpublicdisplay.TheencounterwithKrisztiánendswithCshouting:“Itneveroccurredtometodoit,believeme!”InanswertoKrisztián’s“No?”Cwhis-pered,“No,notatall.”AtthispointCimpetuouslykissedKrisztián.Cremem-bersthekissasverysensualbut“free—andthismustbeemphasized,itwaspurelyfree—ofanyulteriormotiveswithwhichadultlove,initsownnaturalway,complementsakiss;ourmouths,inthepurestofpossibleways,andre-gardlessofwhathadgonebeforeorwhatwouldfollow,restrictedthemselvestowhattwomouthsinthefractionofasecondcouldgiveeachother:fulfillment,comfort,andrelease.”13Cwalkshomealone,seesastrangecoathanginginthehallway,butentershismother’sroomanyway—bythistimehismotherissickwithcancer(whichhasbeenhiddenfromCbyhisfamily)andstaysinbedmostofthetime—theretoencountera“stranger”whohadearlierdisap-pearedfromthefamily’slives.Later,welearnthatthevisitorisJánosHamar,formerintimatefriendofhisparentswhowasdenouncedbyC’sfatherandisjustreturningfromafive-yearprisonterm.Inthechapterentitled“GrassGrewovertheScorchedSpot,”Cwritesthat“anotinsignificantdetailofouremotionallifewasthefactthat,asaresultofourparents’politicaltrustworthiness,wewereprivilegedtoliveadjacenttotheimmense,heavilyguardedareathatcontainedtheresidenceofMátyasRákosi”andreflectsthat“thewholeprotectedareabecamesomethinglikeafocalpoint,thelivingnucleusofallmyfears.”WhenCrefersto“ourparents’politicaltrustworthiness,”heisreferringtohisadolescentfriendMajaPrihoda’sfather,chiefofmilitarycounterintelligence,andhisownfather,astateprose-cutor,whosometimesworktogether.MajaandCagreetoconductregularpe-riodicsearchesoftheirfathers’deskstodetermineiftheymaybetraitors,in12.Ibid.,39–40(emphasisadded).13.Ibid.,47(emphasisadded).Krisztián,thereceiverofthekissandthereporterofthepenultimatechapterofthenovel,recallsthekiss:“WhatshouldbeunderstoodfromallthisisthatnoeventinmylaterlifecouldinducemetothinkthatthatkisswasreallyakissandnotsimplythesolutiontoanexistentialproblemIhadatthetime.Icouldn’tallowmyselftobecaughtupindangerouspsychologicalpredicaments,IhadallIcoulddotowardofftangibleexternaldangers.Icametoappreciatetheadvantagesofpsychologicalself-concealment,andwiththeyearsIcontinuedtoavoidambiguoussituationsandjudg-mentsthatdidn’tsquareexactlywithmywishesorinterests.”Memories,594.\n178CharlesR.Embrywhichcasetheywoulddenouncethemtotheauthorities.Cwrites,“Wewerenotawareofwhatweweredoingtoeachotherandtoourselves”:Becauseitwasn’tjustofficialandwork-relateddocumentsthatwecameacrossbutallsortsofothermaterialthatwedidnotmeantofind,likeourparents’extensivepersonalromanticcorrespondence;here,thematerialdiscoveredinmyfather’sdrawerswasunfortunatelymoreserious,butonceweputourhandsonitandwentoveritthoroughly,painstakingly,withthedisinterestedsternnessofprofessionals,itseemedthatbyferretingoutsininthenameofidealpurity,invadingthemostforbiddenterritoryofthedeepestanddarkestpassions,pene-tratingthemostsecretregions,we,too,turnedintosinners,forsinisindivisible:whentrackingamurdereronemustbecomeamurderertoexperiencemostprofoundlythecircumstancesandmotivesofthemurder;andsowewererighttherewithourfathers,wherenotonlyshouldwenothavesetfootbut,accord-ingtothetestimonyoftheletters,theythemselvesmovedaboutstealthily,likeunrepentantsinners.ThereisprofoundwisdomintheOldTestament’sprohibitionagainstcastingeyesontheuncoveredloinsofone’sfather.ThelettersunearthedbythepairofspiesrevealthatMaja’sfatheriscontin-uinganaffairthoughtbyhermothertohavebeenendedsometimeearlier;thus,Majabecomesanunwillingaccompliceinherfather’songoingdecep-tion.TheyalsodiscoverthatC’sfatherandmothereachhaveloverstheyknewbeforemarriage,thattheseaffairshavesincecontinuedapace,thattheirrespec-tiveloversarethemselveslovers,andfinallythatallfourofthem—MáriaSteinandJánosHamaraswellasC’sparents—knoweverything:“myfatherandmotheralsowroteletterstoeachotherinwhichtheydiscussedtheirfeelingsaboutbeingcaughtupinthisinextricablycomplicatedfoursome.”14Asathirty-three-year-oldadultlivingandwritinginasmallHungarianvillage,Casks:Howcouldwe[MajaandI]haveknownthenthatourrelationshipreenacted,repeated,andcopied,inaplayfullyexaggeratedform...ourparents’idealsandalsotheirruthlesspractices,andtosomeextentthepubliclyproclaimedidealsandruthlesspracticesofthathistoricalperiodaswell?...[W]ecouldcall...it...somethingreal...moreprecisely,forusitwasturningtheiractivitiesintoagamethatenabledustoexperiencetheirpresentlifeandwork—whichwethoughtwaswonderful,dangerous,important,and,what’smore,respectable....[W]elovedbeingserious,webaskedinthegloryofourassumedpoliticalrole,notonlyfilledwithterrorandremorsebutbestowingonusagrandsenseofpower,afeelingthatwehadpowerevenoverthem,overtheseenormouslypowerful14.Ibid.,270,271,341,342.\nBiographiesofConsciousness179men,andallinthenameofanethicalpreceptthat,againintheirownviews,wasconsideredsacred,nothinglessthantheideal,self-abnegating,perfect,immacu-lateCommunistpurityoftheirwayoflife;andwhatacruelquirkoffateitwasthatthroughitalltheyweretotallyunsuspecting,andhowcouldtheyhaveguessedthat,whileintheirpuritanicalandalsoverypracticalzealtheywerekillingscoresofrealandimaginedenemies,theywerenurturingvipersintheirbosom?Oursecretscarriedusintotheworldofthepowerful,initiatedusintoadult-hoodbymakingusprematurelymatureandsensible,andofcoursesetusapartfromtheworldofordinarypeople,whereeverythingworkedmoresimplyandpredictably.Theselovelettersreferredopenlyandunequivocallytothehoursinwhich,bysomepeculiarmistake,wehadbeenconceived—bymistake,becausetheydidn’twantus,theywantedonlytheirlove.Cwouldwritelater:“IimaginethearchangelscoveredGod’seyeswhileweporedovertheseletters.”Thistextureofliesanddeceptionsconstitutesthenexusofhisrelationships,especiallyathome,“wherepeoplelivingunderthesameroofgrewsofarapart,weresoconsumedbytheirownphysicalandmoraldisintegration,werelefttofendforthemselves,andonlyforthemselves,thattheydidnotnotice,orpretendednottonotice,whensomeonewasmiss-ing,theirownchild,fromtheso-calledfamilynest.”15Thisall-too-briefglimpseofnarrativeCprovidesthecrucialinsightsintoC’slife:thatheexperienceshimselfasdivided,incomplete,andmorallyrepul-sive;thatheyearnsforthefulfillment,comfort,andreleaseprofferedbyhiskissofKrisztián—ayearningthatthereafterhewillseektofulfillthroughhetero-sexualandhomosexualloveaffairs;thathewasobsessedwithspyingandsur-veillanceandthatconsequentlyheknewthathisrelationshiptohisparentswassuffusedwithliesanddeception.Creflected:“Iftherewasawayformetoknowwhenthismutuallyeffectiveandmultifaceteddisintegrationhadbegun,whetherithadadefinitebeginningorwhenandwhythiscommodiousfamilynesthadgrowncold,IwouldsurelyhavemuchtosayabouthumannatureandalsoabouttheageIlivedin.”16ThecharactersoftherulersofHungaryduringtheperiodofC’spre-adolescentandadolescentyears—approximately1949to1958—aremirroredinthecharacterofC/A.Andthepracticesofdeceit,spying,denouncement,andlyingthatcharacterizesuchastatesaturatethelivesofthecitizenry,pre-cludingthepossibilityofphiliapolitike,theloveofthegoodbetweenmenthatcreatesthecommunity.15.Ibid.,342–43,344,288.16.Ibid.,288.\n180CharlesR.EmbryWhilethedirectlinkagebetweenCandthestateishisfather,thelinkageextendstohismotherandtohisparents’lovers—MáriaSteinandJánosHamar.Sincethatfoursomeisboundtogetherbythesensual-erotic,andsincethatsensual-eroticleadstodeception(ofC)andultimatelybetrayal(C’sfatherdenouncesMáriaSteinandJánosHamar,whoaresentencedtofiveyearsinprison),IthinkthattheprimarylinkagebetweenC’sdeceptive,dividedselfandthedeceptivenatureofthestate(throughthedeceptivefamily)istheeroti-cismthatpermeatesthenovel.17Infact,alargeportionofthenovelitselfisdevotedtodescribingthevariouseroticactivitiesinwhichthecharactersengageandthroughwhichtheyrelatetoeachother.Forexample,andmostimportantforthedevelopmentofC’scharacter,Cremembersseveraleroticallychargedencountersbetweenhispre-adolescentself(theseepisodesaretheonlypre-adolescentmemoriesrecalledbyC)andhisfather,ontheonehand,andhismother,ontheother.EarlyonemorningCcrawledintobedandfondledhisstill-sleepingfather,whoshouted,kickedhimoutofbed,nevertouchedhimagain,andwasalwaysonthe“lookoutforanyeffeminatebehaviors”fromhim.TheencounterwithhismotherseemstobearecurringoneinwhichCsitsbyhismother’sbedandcaressesherarmandkissesthecrookofherneckandthecrookofherelbow.Ononesuchoccasion,C’smotherdreamilyrecountsatimewhenshewaspicnickingwithtwomen(C’sfuturefatherandJánosHamar),andthey(thethreeofthem)couldnotdecidetowhomshebe-longed,whichbecomesC’squestionalso,butheneverasksit.18Aswehaveseen,theadolescentCdiscoversthelayersofliesanddeceptions—offorbiddensexandofpoliticaldenunciation—thatpermeatetherelation-shipsbetweenhisparentsandtheirlovers,aswellasbetweenhisparentsand17.Krisztiánalsoengagesinpromiscuouseroticaffairstofindinthemahoped-forsatisfactionofhisneed(anddesire)todominateandmaintainauthorityoverothers.Seenote13.Nádasisnottheonlynovelisttolinkeroticismwithpoliticaloppression.TwootherCentralEuropeannovelistswhohavewrittencreativelyandimaginativelyaboutthisrelationshipareMilanKunderainTheBookofLaughterandForgetting,trans.AaronAsher(NewYork:HarperPerennial,1996),andPéterEsterházyinALittleHungarianPornogra-phy,trans.JudithSollosy(Evanston:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1995).SeealsoHeimitovonDoderer,“SexualitätundtotalerStaat,”inDieWiederhehrderDrachen:Aufsätze/Trak-tate/Reden(Munich:BiedersteinVerlag1970),275–98.InTheDemons,oneofthenarrators,KajetanvonSchlaggenberg,states:“IhadtorealizethatIhadlostmysexualimpartialityandwaslivinginasecondreality...aseveryonewhopursuesa‘type’becomestheidioticscarecrowofhisowndisplacedsexuality:aconstantanticipationthatisneverattained....Forsexisthegreatestwindowofourapperception,andifthiswindowclouds,alltheotherswillsoonsufferfromcataracts.Halfblind,youwillpeeroutatallthingsonlythroughthenarrowslitofsomeprogramorother,alwaysanticipatingwhatoughttobe.”HeimitovonDoderer,TheDemons,trans.RichardandClaraWinston(NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1961),1077.18.SeeMemories,151–71,342.\nBiographiesofConsciousness181himself.Indeed,byengaginginthetypesofactivitiesthattheirfathersper-formfortheRákosiregime,heandMajaaredirectlyimplicatedinthecharac-teristicsoftheregime.RecallC’sowndescriptionofhisandMaja’sspyingactiv-ities:“Wecouldcallitaping,butwecouldalsocallitsomethingreal...moreprecisely,forusitwasturningtheiractivitiesintoagamethatenabledustoexperiencetheirpresentlifeandwork—whichwethoughtwaswonderful,dangerous,important,and,what’smore,respectable.”19ThedeceptionandliessaturatingthesocietyoftheRákosiregimealsoaffectedKrisztián’sadultlife.Livinginalovelessmarriage,hecheatsonhiswife.Althoughhehasbeenquitesuccessfulmaterially,heisnothappy.Hissuccesshasdependeduponhisskillindeceivingothers,andhenotesthatevenasayoungchild,hehad“tothinkcarefullyaboutthewaysofthinking,orrathertobecarefulandnotnecessarilyreallythinkthethingsIsaidoutloud.”Afewlineslater,hesays:“Ican’tclaimthattoomanypeopleloveme,butmostcon-sidermeafair-mindedperson.Yetinviewofmyfriend’spoignantanalysis,Iamcompelledbyfair-mindednesstoaskwhetherImaynotappeartobefair-mindedbecauseIalwaysmanagetokeepmydistancefrommyownendeavorsaswellasfromthepeoplewholoveme,sothatIcanavoidhavingtoidentifywiththemwhilestillretainingmycontroloverthem.”20However,duringthethree-yearperiodthatClivedandwroteinthehouseofKrisztián’saunts,KrisztiánandChaveestablishedafriendshipbaseduponneitherthepleasuresofthebodynormutualutilitythatleadshimtointroducehischapter“NoMore”withtheconfessionthat“Iamarationalman,perhapstoorational.Iamnotinclinedtoanyformofhumility.Still,Iwouldliketocopymyfriend’slastsentenceontothisemptypage.Letithelpmefinishthejobnoone’scommissionedmetodo,whichshouldmakeitthemostpersonalundertakingofmylife,theoneclosesttomyheart.”Laterinhisnarrative,butstillinaconfessionalmode,Krisztiántellsusthataftertwentyyearswedidreturntothatmutualattractionwhichhadoncetran-scendedourdissimilaritiesandwhichwedidn’tknowwhattomakeofaschil-dren.Thisreversionmayhavehadtodowiththefactthatslowlybutsurelymysuccesseswereturningintofailures,andthatheneveragainwantedtobeunitedwithanyoneonanylevel.Notwithme,either.Heremainedattentive,sensitive,butshutupinhimself.Turnedcold....Myexperiencesinhumanrelationshavemademeseeeverythinginthisworldastemporaryandephemeral.WhatIperceivetodayasloveorfriendshipcanturnouttomorrowtobenothingbuttheneedtogratifyaphysicalurge,oramovepromptedbycrassorslyself-interest.Iacknowledgethiswiththegreatest19.Ibid.,596.20.Ibid.\n182CharlesR.Embryofequanimity....IntheforegoingpagesIhavealreadypreparedmybalancesheet.Noloves,nofriends....Ihaven’tyetsunkintototalapathy.AndthatisprobablythereasonwhyduringthosethreeyearsitbecameavitalnecessitytohavetheattentivenessandsensitivityofsomeonewhomIdidn’tneedto,wasn’tallowedto,touch.Andhehimselfnolongerhadsuchdesires.Still,hewasclosertomethananyonewhosebodyIcouldpossess.Bothmenhavebecomevirtuallyemotionlessandcold,andyetpenetratingthiscoldnessthemutualattraction—reallyanallusiontothatlongsincefor-gottenattractioninchildhood—re-emerged.AfterC’sviolentdeath,KrisztiánconfessesthatittookhimayearandahalftosummonthestrengthtositdownatC’sdesk.AndinC’sdeskhefoundthepresentmanuscriptthathecarefullypreparedforpublication.WasittheZeitgeistthathadcorruptedandemptiedKrisztiánandC?WasitC’svoracioussearchforhumancontact—“Iwantedeveryonetoloveme,”hesaid,“andIcouldn’tloveanyone”—thatlefthimapatheticandcold?21WasC’ssearchforthishumancontactaresultofhisparent’sobsessionwiththeirown“physicalandmoraldisintegration”andtheconsequentfailuretonoticethechildmissingfromtheso-calledfamilynest?DidKrisztián’ssuccessandhisultimatefailurederivefromthenecessitysincehisyouthandC’skissofhisnotreallythinkingthethingshesaidoutloud?Movingfromthesocial-politicalworldofNádas’snarrators,wenowturnonceagaintoAandhisexplorationofhisownconsciousnessafterthefailureofhisrelationshipwithMelchior.Inachapterentitled“LosingConsciousnessandRegainingIt,”Aretellshisexperienceofconsciousnesstranscendingintothebodyandthroughthebodyintotheworld.Thewritingofhismemoirsrepresentsa“kindofrecollectionorreminder”thatconsciousnesshasacon-tentderivedfromtheexperiencesofhisbodyandoftheworldoutsidethisbody;thatrecollectionandremembranceenablethenovelistinthevoiceofA(whoisalsoC)toprobethenatureofhisconsciousnessanditscontactwiththeworldthroughhisbodyasthesensoriumofthatconsciousness.AhastraveledtoHeiligendamm,aresortonthecoast.Walkingalongthecoastonastormynight,hewasknockedunconsciousandonlyremembersregainingconsciousness.Describingwhatwasnotthereduringthetimeofunconsciousnessandwasthereduringtheverybriefmomentofregainingconsciousness,hewritesthat“myconsciousnesswaslackingallthoseinnerflashesofinstinctandhabitthat,relyingonexperienceanddesires,evokeimagesandsounds,ensuretheunbrokenflowofimaginationandmemorythatrendersourexistencesensibleandtoanextentevenpurposeful,enablesustodefineourpositionintheworldandestablishcontactwithoursurroundings,ortorelin-21.Ibid.,592,672–73,45.\nBiographiesofConsciousness183quishthisconnection,whichinitselfisaformofcontact.”22Thiscompactstate-mentsuggeststhatforAconsciousnessishistorically,i.e.,biographically,con-stitutedinpairslike“instinctandhabit,”“experiencesanddesires,”“imagesandsounds,”“positionintheworld”andcontactwithit,allofwhichfore-groundtheroleofthebodyinconsciousness.Also,onemaysaythatthecapac-itiesforimaginingandrememberingareensuredbythesesensualpairs,andthatthroughtheflowofthisimaginationandmemorythusensuredourexis-tenceisrenderedsensibleand“toanextentevenpurposeful.”A’sremem-branceandarticulationof“LosingConsciousnessandRegainingIt”atHeili-gendammillustratesthecomplexityoftheconnectionbetweenthebodyandconsciousnessandthedifficultyofunderstandingtheembodimentofcon-sciousness.ItisthecomplexityofthisgivennessofembodiedconsciousnessthatVoegelinincludesamongtheassumptionsthatunderliehisphilosophicaleffortstorecollecttheearlybiographicaleventsthatformedhisownconsciousness.ButasAremembersthemishapontheembankmentatHeiligendamm,herememberssomethingelse.Thefirstwhispersofreturningconsciousnessmadehimawarethathisbodysensedtherocksandthewater,butitwas,asAwrites,“nothingmorethansensingexistenceinpure,disembodiedform.”Attendingtohisawakening,hecontendsthat“whatlittleIdidperceiveofwater,stones,myskin,andbody,wrenchedasitwasfromacontextorrelationship,alludedrathertothatintangiblewhole,thatdeeper,primevalcompletenessforwhichweallkeepyearning,awakeorinourdreamsbutmostlyinvain;inthissense,then,whathadpassed,thetotalinsensibilityofunconsciousness,provedtobeafarstrongersensualpleasurethanthesensationofrealthings.”23Inhismeditation“WhatIsPoliticalReality?”Voegelinassertsthat“real...istheparticipationofthingsinoneanotherwithinthecomprehendingreality....Fromtheexperi-ences,recollections,phantasmata,andsymbolizationsofconsciousnessarecompoundedtheconceptionsofreality,inwhichtheterminiofparticipation—i.e.,therealitiesofGodandworld,ofotherpeopleandoftheconcretelypar-ticipatingman—findtheirplace.”24AsAstrivestoarticulatethesensualplea-sureof“thatdeeper,primevalcompleteness”thatprovedtobefarstrongerthan“thesensationofrealthings,”heseemstosymbolizehowtheconscious-nessof“theconcretelyparticipatingman”experiencestheunconsciousworld—sourceofallthematterfromwhichthebodyisconstituted.Sincethissenseperceptionoftheworldlacksthenormal“flowofimaginationandmemory,”lacksthenormal“trackofrememberingandcomparing”thatischaracteristic22.Ibid.,94(emphasisadded).23.Ibid.,93–94(emphasisadded).24.Anamnesis,361.\n184CharlesR.Embryofconsciousness,Acanonlyallude“tothatintangiblewhole,thatdeeper,primevalcompletenessforwhichweallkeepyearning.”Theallusivenatureof“thatintangiblewhole,”theparadisethatislostwiththerecoveryofconscious-ness,seemstobeanattempttoarticulatenotonlytheregainingofconscious-nessbyAbutalsothebeginningorbirthofconsciousnessitself.Alaments:“Itseemedthatbycomingbacktoconsciousness,bybeingabletothinkandtoremember,Ihadtoloseparadise,thestateofblisswhosefragmentaryeffectsmightstillbefelthereandtherebutasacompletewholehadgoneintohiding,leavingbehindonlyshredsofitsrecedingself,itsmemory,andthethoughtthatIhadneverbeen,andwouldneveragainbe,ashappyasIhadbeenthenandthere.”25Hecannotstopinthatunconsciousstate,forhisbodyinsiststhathebecomeconsciousagain,andwiththereturnofconsciousnessAreturnstothehumanconditionandtheattendantrealizationthattheperfectionofstrengthandgoodnessisnomoreattainableforhimthanthepossibilityofthetotalfreedomtobe“infinitelymeanandwicked.”Isthissymbolizationoftheregainingofconsciousnessnotametaphorforthebirthofconsciousness?CanthelongingfortheparadiseofunconsciousnessnotbeassociatedwiththeworldandwithmanbeforetheFall,shroudedasitisinthemistsofthebeginning?IsnottheallusivenatureofA’sattempttosym-bolizethesensualpleasureofunconsciousnessarecognitionofthemiststhatshroudtheBeginning?Isnotthelongingforthesensualpleasureofunconscious-nessandthedreamofparadise,“thestateofblisswhosefragmentaryfrag-mentsmightstillbefelthereandtherebutasacompletewhole”thathasgoneintohiding,theideologue’sdreamof“stallingthecontinualdelicatevacilla-tionsofreality”?26DoesnotA’slongingexpressthedesirefortheprelapsarianparadisethatisabsenttheknowledgeofgoodandevil,ofconsciousness?A’slongingforthe“intangiblewhole,”forprimevalcompleteness—experi-encedatHeiligendammandarticulatedshortlyafterhehasfailedtosustainarelationshipwithMelchior—appearstobealongingfortheoblivionthatchar-acterizesunconsciousness.Atthesametimeitappearsasawishandadreamtorenouncehisconsciousnessandthushishumanity.ItisindisputablethatAhasarrivedatthepointinhislifewherehewishestoforget,tobeabsorbedinsomevast,primevaloblivionbecausehefailedtofindorsustainamean-ingfulrelationshipwithanotherhumanbeing.Infact,afterMelchiorescapedfromEastBerlintoFrance,Adeclared,“Iwaslost,Ididnotexist.”Andyethe25.Memories,95.26.HeimitovonDodererwrote:“Peoplewhowishedtoseetherigidconcretechannelsoftheirlivesextendedintotheinfinitefuturewereinfactdoingnothingbutstallingthecontinualdelicatevacillationsofreality.Andthemomentthatvibrantequilibriumwashalted,asecondrealitycameintobeing.”InvonDoderer,TheDemons,1237.\nBiographiesofConsciousness185alsodeclaresinthesamesentencethat“Icouldstillperceivemyselftobesome-thing:atoadpressingheavilyagainsttheearth;aslimy-bodiedsnailunblink-inglyobservingmyownnothingness.”27Anddespitethefleetingdesireforthe“totalinsensibilityofunconsciousness”A’sbody,withitssensingofthefamil-iarlytangibleworld,recallsAtoconsciousness.UltimatelyitistheembodiedconsciousnessofAthatsitsatthedeskinasmallroominthehouseofKrisz-tián’sauntsinasmallHungarianvillagethatretrievesAfromoblivion,whichreturnshimtotheworld,andsaveshimtowritehismemoirandhisnovel.ButAiscrippled.Hehasbecomecold.“IfIwasn’tfamiliarwiththepainfulreversesideofthiscoldness,”commentsKrisztián,“I’dbetemptedtosaythathebecameanaccurate,intelligentlyresponding,preciselycalibratedmachine.”Inhisshortlifespentsearchingfor“fulfillment,contact,andrelease,”splitintotwoselvesbythedeceitsofhischildhood,A—awarethattherewasaselfthatlongedfora“harmoniousexteriorthatshieldedstrengthandgoodness...inotherwords,Ilongedforperfection”—couldfinallyonlyhopefor“atotalidentificationwithmytrueself,forthefreedom...tobeinfinitelymeanandwicked.”28Ahasalmostlost(itseems)contactwiththeselfthatmakespossiblethehumancommunityfoundeduponthePlatonicphiliaorthehomonoiaofAristotle,andhavinglosthiscontactwiththegoodinhimself,hecanonlylongfortotalidentificationwithwhathethinksishistrueself,hiswickedself.Inthispassagewewitnessatransvaluationofthephilosophicandpoliticalvirtues,forthetrueselfbecomesassociatedwiththetotalfreedomtobe“infinitelymeanandwicked.”Thelongingforinnerstrengthandgoodness,however,isnotdestroyedbytheinfinitelymeanandwicked,andAremainsadividedself,“shutupinhimself.”MyintentionhasbeentodemonstratethattheassumptionsthatunderlieVoegelin’stheoryofconsciousnesscanbedevelopedmorecompletelythroughanexaminationofABookofMemoriesbyPéterNádas.InthisbriefreviewofselectedportionsofthenovelIhaveemphasizedhowtheembodiedconscious-nesstranscendsintotheworldofotherhumanbeings,howthebodyofthenarratorsproducesabiographyofconsciousnessinitssocial-politicalrela-tions,andhowthebodyfunctionsasthesensoriumofconsciousnessandtherebyrootingconsciousnessintheconcreteworld.Theradicalismofbasingthetheoryofconsciousnessonthegivenexperi-encesofanembodiedconsciousnessofaconcretehumanbeing,experiencesthatresultinabiographyofconsciousness,mustlead,itseemstome,tochargesthattheseexperiencesareafterallonlytheexperiencesofaparticularhuman27.Memories,8(emphasisadded).28.Ibid.,672,45.\n186CharlesR.Embrybeing.Howcantheexplorationsbyapersonofhisownbiographyofcon-sciousnessculminateinfindingsthattranscendtheparticularexperiencesofaconcretehumanbeing?Althoughtheyhavebeencalledtodifferenttypesofendeavor—philosophyandfiction—bothVoegelinandNádashaveaddressedthisconcernandbothfinallyrelyupontheircapacityashumanbeingstoimagine.Inthefinal,posthumouslypublished,volumeofOrderandHistory,InSearchofOrder,Voegelinarticulatedhisdiscoveryof“thedimensionofconscious-ness,”inwhichthephilosopherbecomes“consciousofhisparticipatoryroleintheprocessofexperience,imagination,andsymbolization.”Hecallsthis“thereflectivedistanceofconsciousnesstoitsownparticipationinthing-realityandIt-reality.”Thissymbolwasformulatedinthesymboliccomplex:ReflectiveDistance—Remembrance—Oblivion.Voegelinwrotethat“thepowerofimag-ination,however,whileassertiveoftruth,isnotnecessarilyself-assertive.Thethinkerengagedinthequestfortruthcanremain,orbecome,awareofthestructureofhisquest.”Whenthephilosopherbecomesawareoftheparadoxofhisconsciousnessstructuredbyintentionalityandluminosity,thisawarenessmaybecharacterizedasareflectivelydistancingremembrance.Withoutsum-marizingthemeditationinwhichVoegelinexpressesthesefindingsofhislife-longsearch,anendeavorthatwouldincreasethedimensionsofthispaper,Iwillsimplypointoutthatthereflectivelydistancingremembranceanditssym-bolizationdependsupontheimaginationofthephilosopher.Thisimaginationisnecessaryforboththeanamnetic,remembering,searchandforthearticula-tionoftheresultsofthesearch.Theimaginationofthephilosophermustnot,inturn,becomeself-assertive;thephilosophermustrememberthathisimagi-nationalonedoesnot“functionautomaticallyasaformativeforceintheexis-tentialquestfortruth,”29forthephilosopherisonlyhumanandthereforepar-ticipatesinthevariousrealmsofbeingofwhichhisnatureisacomposite.Thephilosophermustrememberthat“reality...isnotathingconfrontingman,butthecomprehendingrealityinwhichhehimselfisrealbyparticipatinginit.”30Inthephilosopher’ssymboliclanguagewefindthetruththattranscendsbutisaccessibletotheindividualconsciousnessofanembodiedhumanbeing.Nádasalsofindsawaytocreateimaginativelyadocumentthatexpressesatruththattranscendshisownparticularbiography.In“TheNovelistandHisSelfs,”Nádasassertsthathis“first-personnarrativeinvariablysteeredmetowardconfession,29.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.18,InSearchofOrder,vol.V,OrderandHistory,ed.byEllisSandoz(1987;Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),54,55,54,55.30.Anamnesis,361.\nBiographiesofConsciousness187soIhadtokeepexaminingtheeventsofmyownlife,anduseonlyasmanyofthemasthesepersonaewouldallow.Inthelittleopeningsandcrevicesbetweenthemandmyownself,imaginationcouldfreelydoitswork,anditdid,pushingmyegoasideintheprocess.Thelogicofmyownlifehistorycouldremaininthedark,thoughitscontourshadtobevisible.Ididn’tknowwhythingshappenedthewaytheydid,butIcouldmoreorlesstellwhatbelongedandwhatdidn’t.Itwasthelogicofimaginationandnotofexperiencethatshowedmetheway.Thepromptsdidnotcomefromme.31The“logicoftheimagination,”Isuggest,isthenovelist’sequivalentofwhatVoegelinhascalled“reflectivedistance.”Bothdependuponthe“powerofimag-ination,”andyetbotharedependentuponthebiographyofaparticularem-bodiedconsciousness.WhileNádasrelieduponthe“contours”ofhisown“lifehistory,”his“imagination”pushedasidehis(self-assertive?)ego.“Thelogicofimagination”andnothisownexperiencesshowedhimtheway,and“thepromptsdidnotcomefromme,”hewrote.EricVoegelinarticulatedthemovementtowardanamneticremembranceinhisconsciousnessanddiscoveredthat“thethinkerengagedinthequestfortruthcanremain,orbecome,awareofthestructureofhisquest,”32whileNádashassimplyattemptedtotellthestoryofthatmost“exceedinglyordinarything”—“livedexperience.”Yetisitnotthe“reflectivedistance”ofthephiloso-pherandthe“logicoftheimagination”thatpreventphilosophyandliteraturefrombeingrelevantonlytotherespectiveselfs?ForasNádassays,thenaïveexpressionoftheimagination—“MadameBovary,c’estmoi”—“istheonlypos-siblemeansbywhichtheage-oldneedtorelateeventsoccurringbetweenpeo-plecanstillbesatisfied.”3331.“Selfs,”20–21.32.Voegelin,CW,18:54.33.“Selfs,”20.\n10ImaginingModernJapanNatsumeSoseki’sFirstTrilogyTimothyHoye“Theworldwasinanuproar;hewatchedit,buthecouldnotjoinit.Hisownworldandtherealworldwerealignedonasingleplane,butnowheredidtheytouch.Therealworldwouldmoveoninitsuproarandleavehimbehind.Thethoughtfilledhimwithagreatunease.”—NatsumeSoseki,Sanshiro,1908TheroleoftheliteraryartistinJapan’slonghistoryisanhonoredoneinlargemeasurebecauseofthepoweroflanguageandliteraturetoliftconscious-nessthroughimagination.AmongJapan’smostgiftedliteraryartistsisNat-sumeSoseki(1867–1916),regardedbyNobellaureateOeKenzaburoasJapan’s“nationalwriter.”1Soseki2resignedhispositionasprofessorofEnglishlitera-tureatTokyoImperialUniversityin1907inordertodedicatehimselftowrit-1.KenzaburoOe,“OnModernandContemporaryJapaneseLiterature,”inJapan,theAmbiguous,andMyself:TheNobelPrizeSpeechandOtherLectures(Tokyo:KodanshaInter-national,1995),44.2.Natsumeisthefamilyname.NatsumeSoseki’sgivennameisKinnosuke.Hechose“Soseki,”whichmeans“torinseone’smouthwithstones.”ItisunusualinJapanesetradi-tiontorefertosomeonebytheirgivenname,butNatsumeSosekiisalwaysreferredtoassimplySoseki.ThroughoutthisessayJapanesenameswillbepresentedinthetraditionalindigenousstyleoffamilynamefirst.Also,withrespecttoputtinghiragana,katakana,andkanjiintoromaji,orEnglish,termsreadilyidentifiable,suchasbushido,thewayofthewar-rior,willconformtowidelyacceptedusageinwhichtheoisnotlengthenedphonetically188\nImaginingModernJapan189ingfictioninvariousgenres.AmonghisearliesteffortswasatrilogythatfirstappearedasserializednovelsintheAsahinewspaper,forwhichSosekiwrote.ThefirststoryinthistrilogyisentitledsimplySanshiro,whichreferstoayoungman’sname.ThesecondintheseriesisSorekara,whichmeans“andthen.”ThelastintheseriesiscalledMon,or“gate.”WhatfollowsisastudyofthesethreenovelsasrepresentingSoseki’sefforttounderstandandcommunicatethroughhisuniqueapproachtofictiontherapidlychangingdynamicsinthe“commonnous”3ofJapanesesocietyandcultureduringtheMeijiperiod(1868–1912).Throughhis“sketches”Sosekiexploredthemythic,political,andphilosophicaldimensionsofaverywell-orderedsocietyrushingperhapstooquicklytowardsomethingcalledmodernJapan,aJapanthatwasforSosekiverydifficultindeedtoimagine.InhisattempttoimaginesuchaJapan,SosekisawtheerosionnotonlyoffundamentaltruthsasexpressedintraditionalJapa-nesemythandzenBuddhistteachings,butalsooffundamentaltruthsofthehumancondition.ThePoliticalLandscapeinLateMeijiInmostaccounts,thestoryofmodernJapanbeginswiththearrivalofCom-modoreMatthewC.PerryinEdoBayinJuly1853,andPerry’sdemandsthatJapan“open”itsportstoAmericanshippingneedsandtotrade.Thesubse-quentMeijiera(1868–1912)broughtenormouschangestoJapan,notleastofwhichwasanewformofgovernmentnominallyanchoredbytherestoration(go-isshin)oftheemperorandlegallydefinedbytheMeijiConstitutionof1889(dainipponteikokukempou).TheMeijileadershiptookastheirguidingthemetheideaoffukokukyohei(richcountry,strongmilitary),athemeinspiredbyWesternmodelsofthemodernstate.Tokyo,whichmeans“easterncapital,”becamethenewcapitalofJapanatthebeginningoftheMeijieraandcametotooutosuggestthelong“o”soundoftheoriginal.InwritingnamessuchasSosuke,inMon,thesameapproach,usedintheofficialtranslations,willbefollowed.Whendrawingattentiontoindividualcharacterswithinnames,however,suchassoinSosuke,themoreaccuratesou,toindicatethelong“o”sound,willbeused.ThisistofacilitatethosewhowishtolookupthecharactersinAndrewNathanielNelson,TheModernReader’sJapanese-EnglishCharacterDictionary(Tokyo:CharlesE.Tuttle,1994).3.InalettertoRobertHeilmanfromMunichin1959,EricVoegelin,followingAristo-tle,definedthe“essenceofpolitics”asthe“philiapolitike,thefriendshipwhichinstitutesacooperativecommunityamongmen.”Further,this“friendshipispossibleamongmeninsofarastheyparticipateinthecommonnous,inthespiritormind”(CharlesR.Embry,ed.,RobertB.HeilmanandEricVoegelin:AFriendshipinLetters,1944–1984[Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2004],194).\n190TimothyHoyesymbolizea“westering”Japan.AllthreeofthenovelsconsideredherearesetinTokyo,ormostlyinTokyo,andallincludenumerousreferencestopoliticaleventsbothoftheperiodinwhichthestoriesareset,roughly1908to1910,andoftheMeijieraasawhole.Foronescholar,Soseki’sworkreflectsthevery“spirit”ofMeiji.4Butthatspiritwasfarfromone-dimensional.AsJosephPittauhaspointedout,thefirstfewyearsofMeijiweredominatedbyadesireforallthingsWest-ern,“notonlytechniquesbutalsocustoms,ideasandvalues.”Inasecondphase,however,duringthe1870sand1880s,thehungerforreformalongWesternlinesslowedandtherewasadesireamongtheleadershipfora“newidentityinpol-itics”andalso“inideologyandmorals.”Duringthislaterphase,theemphasiswasmoreonbuilding,notjusta“modern”state,buta“modernJapanesestate.”Threefieldsofendeavorweregivenpriorityduringthistime:thepolitical,themilitary,andtheeducational.Outoftheendeavorsinthesefields,theJapa-neseleadershipwovetheframeworkofamodernJapanthat“keptthecountryuniteduntiltheendofthesecondworldwar.”5AmongthemostimportantfiguresinthemakingoftheMeijiConstitutionof1889wereItoHirobumi,InoueKowashi,andIkebeYoshitaka.6ItowasJapan’sfirstprimeministerandiswidelyregardedastheprincipalarchitectoftheconstitution.HewasamongtheyoungmenfromChoshuinwesternHon-shuwhostudiedwithYoshidaShoin7atthefamousshokasonjukuschoolinHagi.HisCommentariesontheConstitutionoftheEmpireofJapanisconsideredessentialreadingonthepoliticalandlegaldynamicsoftheMeijiperiod.HewasamongthosewhowentonthefamousIwakuraMissiontotheWestin1871tostudyeveryaspectofWesterncivilizationinelevendifferentcountries.In1882,ItotraveledtoEuropetostudyWesternconstitutionalism,especiallyinGermany.HewasJapaneseresidentgeneralinKoreawhenhewasassassinatedinManchuria,in1909,byaKoreannationalist.ThiseventisfeaturedinSoseki’sMon.InoueKowashistayedinJapanwhileItowasoverseasstudyingconstitu-4.IsamuFukuchi,“KokoroandtheSpiritofMeiji,”MonumentaNipponica48,no.4(1993):469–88.5.JosephPittau,“InoueKowashi,1843–1895,andtheFormationofModernJapan,”MonumentaNipponica20,no.3/4(1965):253–82.6.Therewere,ofcourse,manyothers.AdditionalnotablesoftheperiodincludedFukuzawaYukichi,SaionjiKimmochi,ItagakiTaisuke,OkumaShigenobu,SaigoTakamori,OkuboToshimichi,KidoTakayoshi,andtheGermanscholarCarlFriedrichHermannRoessler.7.YoshidaShoin(1830–1859)wasanenormousinfluenceontheyoungmenofWest-ernHonshuduringtheearlyyearsofMeiji.HeearlyenvisionedaJapanwiththeemperorrestoredtothecenterofpowerandauthority.Hewastried,convicted,andexecutedbytheTokugawashogunatein1859andbecamesomethingofarallyingsymbolfordissatisfiedsamuraiwhowantedto“honortheemperor,andexpelthebarbarian”(sonnojoi).\nImaginingModernJapan191tionalismsothat“thefutureconstitutionwouldnotbecontrarytothefunda-mentalnationalpolity.”Inthiseffort,InouewasgreatlyassistedbyIkebeYoshi-taka,who“wasafamousscholarofJapaneseclassicsandpoetry.”InouesummeduphisviewsonthechallengeofforgingamodernJapanesestateinapoem:“SpinningthreadfromthousandsofforeignherbstoweaveitintoafineYamatodress.”ForInoue,thechallengewastoaccept“modern”ideas“without,however,changingthehistoricalkokutai,8whichwasuniqueandbasedonatraditionof2,500years.”9ThecharacterSanshiro,inthestoryofthatnameandfirstinSoseki’strilogy,capturesthepoliticallandscapewell:“MeijithoughthadbeenrelivingthreehundredyearsofWesternhistoryinthespaceofforty.”10Philosophical“Sketches”TwoparticularlyimportantcharacteristicsofSoseki’sliteraryartderivefromhisearlydedicationbothtothephilosophicalbasisoftheliteraryartandtoanapproachtowritingcalledshaseibun,or“sketching.”Inbothrespects,Soseki’sapproachtothemodernnovelasartwasgenerallycountertothedominanttrendsamongtheJapanesewritersofhistime.Heresistednaturalism,forexample,thatstylecharacteristicofWesternwriterslikeFlaubert,Turgenev,Tol-stoy,andDostoevskysopopularamongmostaspiringJapanesewritersofthetime.Someconsiderthisnaturalistapproachtobethereal“father”ofmodernJapaneseliterature.11Soseki,onthecontrary,wasmuchtakenbyChineseandJapaneseclassics.AccordingtoThomasRimer,Sosekigrewupduringatimewhenitwas“stillpossibletoreceiveaneducationthatinvolvedthestudyoftraditionalChineseandJapaneseliterarytexts.”12ThisisnodoubtpartofthecontextofSoseki’sresistancetothegenbunitchi,orthemovementtobasewrit-tenJapaneseonspokenJapanese.ToencouragethiswastoencouragewhatKarataniKojincalls“theinventionofanewconceptionofwritingasequivalentwithspeech.”ForKaratani,thismovementwashighlyideologicalandwasalwaysmotivatedbyadesirefor“theabolitionofkanji.”ForanartistlikeSoseki,8.KokutaireferstoamysticbondbetweentheJapanesepeopleandtheemperorandisusuallyassociatedwiththeperiod1890–1945,thatis,theperiodduringtheMeijiConstitution.9.Pittau,“InoueKowashi,”266,267.10.SosekiNatsume,Sanshiro:ANovel,trans.,withacriticalessay,byJayRubin(Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress,1977),18.11.OscarBenl,“NaturalisminJapaneseLiterature,”MonumentaNipponica9,no.1/2(1953):1–33.12.J.ThomasRimer,ModernJapaneseFictionandItsTraditions:AnIntroduction(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1978),38.\n192TimothyHoyehowever,suchamovementcouldonlyobscureandperhapsintimedestroywhatsomescholarscallthe“fadedmythologies”imbeddedintraditionallan-guages.Thisisespeciallytrueinthehighlyideographicstyleofexpressioninkanjithatcametobeusedforsophisticatedexpressionintheevolutionofmod-ernJapanesesociety.ConcernsoversuchconfusionwouldbeespeciallycentraltoascholarsuchasSoseki,whowishedto“probethepsychologicaloriginsofliterature,”tounderstand“whatledtoitsappearance,development,anddecline,”andalsowhat“socialfactors”broughtliteratureintotheworld“andcausedittoflourishorwither.”13BeforeSosekiwrotenovels,infact,andcontinuingthroughouthiscareerasaliteraryartist,hewroteandlecturedonsuchtopicsasthe“PhilosophicalBasisofLiteraryArt,”“SubstanceandForm,”and“LiteratureandMorality.”AtTokyoImperialUniversityfrom1903to1907,Sosekialsogavelecturesentitled“OnLiterature,”“TheGeneralConceptofLiterature,”and“Eighteenth-CenturyEnglishLiterature.”Sosekiwasespecially“earnest”amongJapanesewritersinhissearchfor“answerstoquestionsonthenatureofliterature.”14Amongcon-stantsforSosekiasartistwashisbeliefthatoneofthedutiesoftheliteraryartistwasto“impactonthefutureofthehumanrace.”Amongtechnicalprior-itieswastocultivate“characterandtechnique.”15Inhiswork,SosekirevealsanincreasingsensitivitytotheecumenicpressuresemanatingfromtheWest,asensitivitythatmayhelptoexplainhisturningtothewritingofnovelsasopposedtohisprevioustheoreticalstudiesinsearchofthetruemeaningofliterature.AmongexamplesofWesternpressurewasthegenbunitchimove-mentnotedabove.KarataniKojinemphasizesthatSosekiwasgreatlyinfluencedinhisstylebyanapproachtowritingcalledshaseibun.SosekiwasaclosefriendduringhisstudentdayswithMasaokaShiki,whohaddevelopedthisapproachtowriting.SosekiandShikihadlongpracticedcomposinghaikupoetrytogether.SosekihadinfactapparentlyintendedWagahaiwanekodearu(IAmaCat)asanexperimentin“sketching,”withpublicationexpectedinahaikujournalcalledTheCuckoo(Hototogisu).Thisstyleofwritingwas“anattempttorevitalizelan-guageinallitsdiversity.”ForSoseki,thistechniquemeant“theliberationofdiversegenres.”Bythisstyle,forexample,writersavoidthepasttenseandwrite13.KojinKaratani,OriginsofModernJapaneseLiterature,trans.anded.BrettdeBary,withaforewordbyFredricJameson(Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,1993),12–51.Onthegenbunitchimovement,seeNanetteTwine,“TheGenbunitchiMovement:ItsOri-gins,Development,andConclusion,”MonumentaNipponica33,no.3(1978):333–56.14.MakotoUeda,ModernJapaneseWritersandtheNatureofLiterature(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1976),1.15.BeongcheonYu,NatsumeSoseki(NewYork:Twayne,1969),60.\nImaginingModernJapan193inpresentandpresentprogressivetensesonly.Sosekireliedheavilyonanar-ratorinhisnovels.Thisistrue,accordingtoKaratani,forallofSoseki’snovelsexceptthelasttwo—Michikusa(GrassbytheWayside)andMeian(LightandDarkness).Sosekilikenedthisapproach“ineveryway”tothatofhaikupoetry,makingthisstyledistinctive,thatis,notborrowedfromtheWest.16AllthreeofthestoriesinSoseki’sfirsttrilogymaybeconsideredas“philosophicalsketches.”TheWomanintheWoodsInSanshiro,theprincipalfocusoftheyoungmanprotagonist’sattentionisayoungwomannamedMineko.SheisamonganensembleofcharactersinTokyo,around1908,inlateMeiji,allofwhomareeitherinoraroundTokyoImperialUniversity,Japan’smostprestigiousinstitutionofhighereducation.SanshirofirstseesMinekowhilesheiswalkingwithanurseatthepondinthecenteroftheuniversitycampus.AsSanshirobecomesincreasinglyfascinatedbyMinekothroughaseriesofmostlyunplannedencountershealsolearnsthatsheisposingforacertainartistnamedHaraguchi,whosepainting,unveiledattheendofthenovel,iscalled“WomanintheWoods”(morinoonna).17Intheconcludingsceneofthestory,Sanshiro’sfriendYojiroaskshimwhathethinksofHaraguchi’spainting.Sanshiro’sresponseisthatthetitleiswrong.AndSoseki’slastlineinthenovelreads:“tadakuchinonaidemayouhitsuji(sutoreishiipu)tokurikaesushita.”18The1977Englishtranslationis:“tohimselfhemutteredoverandover,‘Straysheep.Straysheep.’”19ThereisaworldofmeaninginSoseki’slastline.Itispowerfullysuggestiveofa“cosmion,illuminatedwithmeaningfromwithinbythehumanbeingswhocontinuouslycreateandbearitasthemodeandconditionoftheirselfrealiza-tion,”20andofthefadedmythologiesimbeddedinlanguage.21Thelanguage16.Karatani,Origins,179–82.17.JayRubintranslatesthephrasemorinoonnaas“GirlintheForest”intheEnglishtranslationofSanshiropublishedin1977.SeeNatsume,Sanshiro(1977),210.Amongtheprimaryargumentsinthisessayisthatthereisaparticulardepthandmysterytothesym-bolofmorinoonna,whichiscapturedmorebythetermwomanthangirlandthatthisdepthisclearlyintendedbySoseki.18.SosekiNatsume,Sanshiro(Tokyo:ShueishaBunko,1993),312.19.Natsume,Sanshiro(1977),212.20.EricVoegelin,TheNewScienceofPolitics:AnIntroduction(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1969),28.AvailableinVoegelin,TheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin(here-inafter,CW),vol.5,ModernitywithoutRestraint:ThePoliticalReligions;TheNewScienceofPolitics;andScience,Politics,andGnosticism,ed.ManfredHenningsen(Columbia:Univer-sityofMissouriPress,2000).21.SeeErnstCassirer’scommentsonF.W.J.SchellinginErnstCassirer,LanguageandMyth,trans.SusanneK.Langer(NewYork:Dover,1953),85.\n194TimothyHoyeaswrittenbySosekiisparticularlytransparentinevokingJapan’suniquemythictraditionsand,indeed,aJapanesehistoriogenesis.22Withinthestory,Soseki’slastlinepointsbacktotwoearlier“sketches.”ThefirstofthesesketchesisanencounterwithMinekoinaquietplacewithinTokyoonthebanksofalittleriver,theOgawa,whichisalsoSanshiro’sfamilyname.There,MinekoasksSanshiroifheknowshowtosay“lostchild”(maigo)inEnglish.Hedoesnot.Minekoinstructshimthatonewouldsay“straysheep.”AndthisisexactlyhowherwordsarewritteninthepublishedEnglishtranslationbyJayRubin.23IntheoriginalJapaneseversion,however,Sosekiwritesthewords“mayoeruko,”accompaniedbythekatakana“sutoreishiipu.”Katakanaisaphoneticsyl-labaryforforeigntermssuchastheEnglishstrayandsheep.Katakanaandtheindigenoushiraganasyllabariesarefrequentlyplacedimmediatelybesidepar-ticularlydifficult,unorthodox,orsomewhatarchaicChinesecharacters(kanji).WhenMinekofirstasksSanshiroifheknowshowtosay“lostchild,”Sosekiwritesmaigo,whichconsistsoftwoChinesecharactersandclearlymeans“lostchild.”24Butwhensheanswersherownquestion,notedabove,Sosekiwrites“mayoeruko.”Theverbmayouhereiswritteninthepotentialformandisbesttranslated“mightbelost.”Andthekatakanaaccompanyingthesewordsis“sutoreishiipu.”Inotherwords,asintheEnglishstray,theuseoftheJapanesemayoeruplacestheemphasisonthe“potential.”WhereasthereisastronglyChristianconnotationtotheEnglishphrase“straysheep,”whichevokesthestoryinMatthewoftheonewhowillbefound,25thatis,saved,thereisonlythepotential“mightbelost”inSoseki’sJapaneseoriginal.Attheendofthisscene,Minekoiscrossinganarrow,shallowbrookandlosesherfootingonarock.ShefallsagainstSanshiro,andSosekiwrites“mayoeruko(sutoreishiipu)toMinekogakuchinonaideiitta.”ThepublishedEnglishtranslationis:“‘straysheep,’shemurmuredtoherself.”26ButSoseki’smeaningisclearly“mightbealostchild,”or,moreclearly,“‘maybe(I)amalostchild’(sutoreishiipu),she22.HistoriogenesisisaconceptdevelopedbyEricVoegelininhislaterworks,particu-larlyinTheEcumenicAge.There,Voegelindefineshistoriogenesisas“aspeculationontheoriginandcauseofsocialorder.”Itisa“rathercomplexsymbolism”anditincludes“histo-riography,mythopoesis,andnoeticspeculation”as“components.”SeeEricVoegelin,CW,vol.17,TheEcumenicAge,vol.IV,OrderandHistory,ed.MichaelFranz(1974;Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),108,109.23.Natsume,Sanshiro(1977),94.24.Natsume,Sanshiro(1993),136.25.TheparableofthelostsheepreadsasfollowsintheKingJamesVersionoftheBible:“Howthinkye?Ifamanhaveanhundredsheep,andoneofthembegoneastray,dothhenotleavetheninetyandnine,andgoethintothemountains,andseekeththatwhichisgoneastray?”(Matt.18:12).26.Natsume,Sanshiro(1977),95.\nImaginingModernJapan195murmuredtoherself.”Thisnuancebecomesparticularlysignificantatthenovel’send,whereMinekohasjustmarriedaChristian.Theother,orsecond,earliersketchisthenarrationofHirotasensei’sdream.SanshirohasgonetovisithisfriendHirotasensei,whoistakinganap.Uponwaking,Hirotasenseiexplainsthathewasdreamingofagirlofmaybetwelveorthirteenwhomhehadonlymetoncetwentyyearsbeforeandtowhomhehadneverspoken.Inthedreamheiswalkinginthemiddleofalargewood(“ookinamorinonakaoaruiteiru”)whenheencountersher.27Herecog-nizesherfromthefuneralin1889,theyearoftheMeijiConstitution,ofMoriArinori,whohadbeenassassinated.Hirotasenseiwasthenastudentattachedtoaguardunitforthefuneralparaderoutewhenthegirlpassed.Inthedream,shesaysthathehas“changed.”Herepliesthatshehasnot.Healsosaystoher,“Youareapainting.”Sherepliestohim,“Youareapoem.”Eachofthesetwosketchesiscriticaltotheconcludingsceneinthenovelanditsmeaning.Regardingthefirstscene,withMineko,oneneedstobeawarebothofthemeaningssuggestedbytheChinesecharactersusedinherfullnameand,also,ofatendencyintheJapanesenovelingeneraltoportray“types”ratherthan“livingindividuals.”28Mineko’sfullnameisSatomiMineko,Satomibeingthefamilyname.Thetwocharacterssatoandmi,together,mean“toseeone’shomevillage.”Yet,satohasamorepowerfulconnotationthantheEnglish“homevil-lage”andmaybetranslatedalsoas“thecountry”or“parents’home.”29TherearefewimagesmoreevocativeofstrongfeelingwithinJapanesetraditionthanthatoffurusato,or“oldhomevillage.”Eventoday,apopularfolksongofthatnameissungatvirtuallyanygatheringwherenostalgicfeelingforJapanandJapanesenessissought.ThenameMineko,similarly,evokesdeepstirringsofancientJapan.Thethreecharactersmean,respectively,“beauty”(mi),“ancestralaltar”(ne),and“child”(ko).So,asa“type,”Minekoembodiesthearchetypalsuggestion,somethingofa“picture,”ofthefoundingdeityofJapan,amaterasuomikami,andofthetraditionaltaletaketorimonogatari,thetaleofthebam-boocutterandhisdaughterkaguyahime,theshiningprincess.WithintheJap-aneseliterarytradition,thetaleofthebamboocutterisconsideredthe“mostfamousoftheearlyJapanesetales”30andthe“ancestorofallromances.”31Minekosymbolizes,inshort,nothinglessthanthecommonnousoftraditional27.Natsume,Sanshiro(1993),283.28.MasaoMiyoshi,AccomplicesofSilence:TheModernJapaneseNovel(Berkeley:Uni-versityofCaliforniaPress,1974),xi–xvi.29.SeeNelson,CharacterDictionary,902.30.Rimer,ModernJapaneseFiction,66.31.HelenCraigMcCullough,ClassicalJapaneseProse:AnAnthology(Stanford:Stan-fordUniversityPress,1990),28.\n196TimothyHoyeJapanesesocietywithadeeplyfeltaestheticsenseatitscenter,asensesome-timesconceptualizedasmononoaware(akindofdeeppathos).SanshiroexpressesthissensemostclearlyinhisthoughtswhileonedaywatchingHaraguchiashepaintsMineko’sportrait.ForSanshiro,Minekoisherself“apicture”and“sealedinsilence.”ItwasasifHaraguchiwas“notpaint-ing”Minekoatallbut“copyingapaintingofmysteriousdepth,usingallhisenergytomakeamediocrepicturethatlackedpreciselythisdepth.”Andsome-howitwasasifthesecondMinekowereslowlymergingwiththefirstsuchthatsoon,onthevergeof“meldingintoone,”the“riveroftimewouldsud-denlyshiftitscourseandflowintoeternity.”32Later,atthemuseum,withknowledgethatMinekohassincemarriedaChristian,SanshirotellshisfriendYojirothatthetitleofthepaintingiswrong,andwereadSoseki’slastline,quotedabove.Itisthesame“inner”speechasMineko’satthelittleriver.San-shiroistalkingtohimself.ButSoseki,forthefirsttime,doesnotwritemay-oeruko;instead,hewritesmayouhitsuji,usingtwocharactersthatliterallymean“lostsheep.”Thereisnodoubtinhismindthata“sheep”(hitsuji)is“lost.”AndthepowerfulsuggestionisthatitisnotonlyMinekowhoislostbutallthatsherepresentsinarchetypalterms.Theradical,orroot,33intheChi-nesecharacterforbeauty,themiinMineko,means“sheep,”hitsujiinJapanese.Thecompletecharacterformi,orutsuku(shii)—themorecommon(kunyomi),traditionalJapanesefor“beautiful”—isacombinationofthecharactersfor“sheep”and“big.”SowhatSanshiroisreallysayingtohimselfisthatthepic-tureissurely“big,”butwithoutthe“sheep.”Hence,histitleof“lostsheep.”WhenSanshirofirstseesthepictureinHaraguchi’sstudiohesaysonly“naruhodoookinamonodesuna“(itreallyisbigisn’tit.)34Notonlyisthepicturenotbeautiful,itisadepictionofhavinglosttherootsoftheverycommonnousthatistheuniqueJapaneseaestheticsensibility.Thiscommonnousisreflectedinnumerousconceptsthatbuildfromtheradicalfor“sheep.”Forexample,inJapanesetheconceptgi,meaning“justice”or“righteousness,”isusedtocreateotherconceptssuchasgijin,“righteousman”;gishi,meaning“loyalretainer”andhighlyevocativeofthefamousforty-sevenroninoftheChushinguratale;gimu,“duty”or“obligation”;giri,“senseofduty”;seigi,anotherwayofreferringtojustice;andevengikai,thenationalassembly.ThisisthecontextofnotedJapanscholarGeorgeSansom’spointintheinaugural32.Natsume,Sanshiro(1977),171.33.Aradicalisoneof214basicelementsusedtoclassifybothChineseandJapanesecharactersindictionaries.Itisthebasisforlookingupcharactersinthesedictionaries.Thecharacterfor“sheep,”hitsuji,isradicalnumber123inNelson,CharacterDictionary,720.34.Natsume,Sanshiro(1993),250.\nImaginingModernJapan197articleforMonumentaNipponica,publishedin1938.Henotedtherethegreatdifficultyinfinding“equivalenceinterminology”whentranslatingbetweenEnglishandJapanese,adifficulty“notonlyinphilosophybutineverydaydis-cussion.”Healsoobserved,inthesamearticle,thatoneofthemostinterest-ingproblemsfortheWesternstudentofJapanesehistoryandcultureis“howtoexplainthegrowthandpersistenceofastrongaestheticbentthroughoutallJapanesehistory.”35DonaldRichie,notedfilmcriticandlongtimeobserverofJapaneseculture,hasmadetheobservationthat“aestheticqualificationsbecomemoralqualificationsinJapan;beautybecomeshonesty.”36InSanshiro’stitleforMineko’sportrait,“lostsheep,”thereaderisremindedofacommentbyHirotasensei,whoalwaysseemedtoSanshirosomethingofa“Shintopriest”:“Japanisgoingtoperish.”37Andthispointstoareconsiderationofthesecondearlierscene,inwhichHirotasenseihadadream.Hesaidtotheyoungfemaleinthewoods,“Youareapainting.”Thisisthetruepictureofthe“womaninthewoods”forSoseki,anditisthepictureoftheshiningprincessarchetypedeepwithinHirotasen-sei’spsycherevealedonlyinadreamand“shaped”byavisionatafuneralatten-danttothebirthofamodernJapanesestatetwentyyearsearlier.Haraguchi’spaintingistoo“large”and,assymbol,opaque.ThegirlinHirota’sdream,assymbol,istransparentbutdeepwithinthesubconscious.TheartistHaraguchihasmidwifedonlythe“big”fromallthatissuggestiveintheChinesecharacterforbeauty.Theroot,orradical,ofthecharacter,the“sheep,”is“lost.”SosekihastakenaChristianparable,thatofthe“lostsheep”inMatthew18:12,andgivenitadistinctivelyJapanesereadingwithdeeplytragicovertones.Hirotasenseiisa“poet,”notapainter,whois“madeofphilosophy”suchthatwhenhesmokedhe“blewfromhisnostrils”the“smokeofphilosophy.”Buthisnicknamerevealsaproblem.Hewasknownasthe“greatdarkness.”38ThecommonnousshapedbyahistoriogenesisuniquetoJapanandevolvedovercenturieswasfadingdeeperintothesubconsciousofsenseilikeHirotaandliteraryartistslikeNatsumeSoseki.WhatwouldthepsychicsubstanceofasocietywithoutthepsychicmooringsofShintomythtorestrainaslideinto“bigness”fromWestern,ecumenicpressurelooklike?ThisisthesubjectofSorekara(AndThen).35.GeorgeB.Sansom,“SomeProblemsintheStudyofJapaneseHistory,”MonumentaNipponica1,no.1(1938):43–46.36.DonaldRichie,ALateralView:EssaysonContemporaryJapan(Tokyo:JapanTimes,1987),79,80.37.Natsume,Sanshiro(1977),10–15.38.Ibid.,60,97.\n198TimothyHoyeTheManintheMirrorTheChinesecharactersinthenameforSanshiromean,respectively,“three”(san),“four”(shi),and“person(s)”(ro).TheclearsuggestionisthattheyoungmannamedSanshiroisthreeorfourpersonsandnotanintegralpersonality.Heisayoungmaninsearchofanidentityamidthe“urgentlifeforceofachangingsociety.”39TheprotagonistinSorekara,bycontrast,isalittleolder,alittlemoresettled,inamaterialsense,andiscalledDaisuke.Daimeans“period”or“generation”andsukeliterallymeans“assistant”orhelper.Itisthesamecharacterusedin“assistantprofessor”or“assistantdirector.”Moreimpor-tantly,duringMeiji,itwasacommonsuffixinmen’snamesandhighlysug-gestiveoftherisingmiddleclass,orbourgeoisie.ThemaincharacterinMon,thethirdnovelinthetrilogy,isthesimilarlysuffixedSosuke.Daisuke,then,issomewhatsymbolicofeverymanintheJapanesesocietyof1909,andthesenseinwhichhe“helps”unfoldsinthestory.HecouldbeconsideredanolderSanshiro,accordingto“type,”butnarroweraccordingtodevelopment.WhereSanshiroisastudentwithabeginner’smindwhoexploresthecom-monnousofMeijisocietybefittingastudentatthecountry’smostpresti-giousinstitutionofhighereducation,Daisukeisabachelorpreoccupiedwithhisphysicalcondition,hisfather’sinfluence,andacertainyoungladynamedMichiyo.ThereaderisdrawnfromacollectivesubconsciousofthecommonnousinSanshiro,toapersonalworldoftheegoinSorekara.ThestorybeginswithadreamsequenceinwhichDaisukehearstheapproachofstepstohisgateoutsideand“sees”a“pairoflargeclogssuspendedfromthesky.”Whenthefootstepsgrowdim,theclogsdisappearandDaisukeawakes.Thisisnotthedreamofsensei.Itisthedreamofaveryself-consciousman.Itistheconsciousnessofamanforwhomimmediatephysicalstimuliareallimportant.Thereseemstobenoparticularsignificancetothevisionofthewoodenclogsbeyondthefactthattheyare“large.”Similarly,acamelliablos-som,a“largeblossom,whichwasnearlyaslargeasababy’shead,”hadfallentothefloorduringthenight,makingasoundlike“arubberball”thathad“bouncedofftheceiling.”Justtomakesureallwaswellamidthesenightsounds,Daisukeplacedhishandoverhishearttofeel“thebloodpulsingcor-rectlyattheedgeofhisribs.”Thenhewentbacktosleep.Daisukewasobsessedwithhisphysicalhealth.InShinto,themirrorisapowerfulsymbolforself-reflection.Inliterature,infilm,intheartsingeneral,mirrorsoftensignalpoignantmomentsofdeepreflection.InShintomythology,thesacredmirror39.Ibid.,37.\nImaginingModernJapan199yatanokagamiwasusedtolureAmaterasuomikamioutofthecaveintowhichshefled,causingchaosanddarknessintheworld.Thismirror,withsomesacred,curvedjewelsandasacredswordarethethreesymbolsofauthor-ityfortheJapaneseemperor.InSorekara,however,whenDaisukestandsbeforethemirror,heseesonlyhimself:Daisukepeeredintothemirror.Hismotionswerepreciselythoseofawomanpowderingherface.And,infact,hetooksuchprideinhisbodythathadtherebeentheneed,hewouldnothavehesitatedtopowderhisface.Morethanany-thinghedislikedtheshriveledbodyandwizenedfeaturesofaBuddhistholyman,andwheneverheturnedtothemirror,hewasthankfulthatatleasthehadnotbeenbornwithsuchaface.Ifpeoplecalledhimadandy,hewasnotintheleastdisturbed.TothisextenthadhemovedbeyondtheoldJapan.40NeitherShintonorBuddhistinfluencesmovedDaisukebeyondhisimmedi-atereflectioninthemirror.IntraditionalJapaneseculture,inthe“oldJapan”ofJapanesehistory,theimportationofBuddhismfromKoreainthesixthcenturyrepresentedlessarivalrywithnativeShintoismthanacomplement.Overtime,andthroughthedevelopmentsofTendai,Shingon,Jodoshu,Shinshu,Nichiren,andZenschools,BuddhismandShintobecamesomewhatsyncretistic.EventhestrongConfu-cianinfluenceoftheEdoperiodandthekokugaku(nationallearning)move-mentoflateEdofaileddramaticallytoalterwhatwascalledtheryoubuShinto,or“dualShintosystem.”UnderthissystemBuddhistpriestswouldoftencon-trolShintoshrines.ButallofthischangedwiththeMeijirestoration.In1868,theremovalofallBuddhistimagesfromShintoshrineswasdecreed.Amove-mentcalledhaibutsukishaku,“abolishtheBuddha,destroySakyamuni,”fol-lowed.TheseeventsledtothedeclineofBuddhistinfluenceinJapanduringMeiji.Thesewereculturaldevelopmentsofenormousconsequence.AsDaisetzT.SuzukipointsoutinZenandJapaneseCulture,theBuddhisttraditioninJapan,particularlytheZeninfluence,wascentralinshapingJapaneseculture,thearts,thedevelopmentofthebushido(wayofthewarrior),interpretationsofConfuciusinJapan,andparticularlyuniqueartistictraditionssuchassado(thewayoftea)andhaikupoetry.TheZeninfluenceisalsoevidentintheevolu-tionofdistinctivelyJapaneseaestheticconceptssuchaswabi(subduedtaste),sabi(elegantsimplicity),andmononoaware(akindofdeeppathos).Zenteachings,overthecenturies,cametopermeatereligious,moral,aesthetic,40.SosekiNatsume,AndThen,trans.,withanafterword,byNormaMooreField(NewYork:PerigreeBooks,1982),1–3.\n200TimothyHoyeandepistemologicaldimensionsofJapaneselife.ForSuzuki,Zen“hasenteredinternallyintoeveryphaseoftheculturallifeofthepeople.”41Forthecharac-terDaisuke,noneofthisisofimportance.Thereisonlythe“wizenedfeaturesofaBuddhistholyman.”Similarly,Michiyo,whoisthewifeofDaisuke’sbestfriend,Hiraoka,per-sonifiesnothingoftheshiningprincessarchetyperootedinShintomyth.Sheissomethingofanobsession:“OnlyMichiyoweighedonhismindsomewhat.”HehadfailedtoacknowledgehisfeelingsforMichiyoyearsearlierandhadhelpedencouragetheweddingwithHiraoka.Butwhenthetwoofthemreen-terhislife,DaisukebeginstonurturetheoldfeelingsforMichiyo.Shehasaheartproblemand,likeOyoneinMon,ischildlessandwillprobablynothavechildren.Yet,Daisukeisconsumedwithherlove.Everyoneelseinhislife—hisfather,hisbrother,hissister-in-law,infact,“allofsociety”—were“hisenemies.”Daisukewasnotcompletelywithoutinterestinthelargersociety.Hewascon-sciousofthefactthatcivilizationhadtakenthe“collectivewe”and“trans-formeditintoisolatedindividuals.”Also,modernsdidnot“weep.”Daisuke“hadyettomeettheindividualwho,ashestoodgroaningbeneaththeop-pressionofOccidentalcivilizationintheseethingarenaofthestruggleforsurvival,wasstillabletoshedgenuinetearsforanother.”Intheplaceofaca-pacitytoweep,thelifeappetiteshadgrowntoprominence.Daisukeunder-stoodthat“thestrikinggrowthofthelifeappetiteswas,ineffect,atidalwavethathadsweptfromEuropeanshores.”42Butheisunabletomakeconnec-tionswithalarger,commonnous.Thereislittleaestheticsensibilityandnoconsciousnessofa“womaninthewoods.”Daisukeisrepresentative,instead,ofegophanyanda“refusaltoapperceive.”43“Sketches”featuringthecolorredplayalargeroleinbothSorekaraandSanshiro.Inperhapsthemostdramaticexample,Sanshiroisinhisroomlook-ingoutthewindowatafireinthedistance.Ononelevel,thefirewithitsredflaresymbolizesanxietyandalarm.ButitalsosignifiesforSanshirosome-thingofa“reddestiny.”Thereisasensethattheanxietyandalarmismoredeeplyrootedand,morespecifically,rootedinthelong,complexexperienceinJapanwithMahayanaBuddhism.Thereisaneschatologicalcomponenttothistradition,accordingtowhichtherearethreeages,thatoftheBuddha,that41.DaisetzT.Suzuki,ZenandJapaneseCulture(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1973),21.42.Natsume,AndThen,92,255,102,104.43.ThisisEricVoegelin’stranslationofHeimitovonDoderer’sApperzeptionsver-weigerungintheDaemonen.SeeEricVoegelin,CW,vol.18,InSearchofOrder,vol.V,OrderandHistory,ed.EllisSandoz(1987;Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),46,47.\nImaginingModernJapan201ofthedharma,andthatofdecayanddestruction.Thelastperiodiscalledmappo,andtherewasawidespreadbeliefduringthelateHeianandearlyKamakuraperiodsthattheageofmappohadarrived.ThisisthecontextforthefloweringofBuddhismduringtheearlyKamakuraperiod,aperiodthatwitnessedthecomingofseveralreformmovementsandseveralheroicleadersinthehistoryofJapaneseBuddhism.AmongthedominanttrendsinKamakuraBuddhismwasthereturntotheLotusSutraasasourceofinspirationandguidance,atrendmostpronouncedintheteachingsofNichiren(1222–1282).Nichirenalsostressedtheperiodinwhichhelivedandtaughtasrepresentingthelastdays,mappo.ThereisafamoussceneintheLotusSutraofa“burninghouse,”whichsuggeststhecomingofmappo.ItisnotinconceivablethatSosekiwasconsciousofhisowntimessharingfeatureswiththelateHeian,earlyKamakuraperiodsandthattheburninghouseinSanshirosymbolizesthisconnection.AttheconclusionofSorekaraDaisukehimselfis“burning.”The“reddestiny”ofwhichSanshirobecomesconsciousinthenovelSanshirobecomesexplicitinthefinalsceneofthesequel,Sorekara.There,whileridingonastreetcarinTokyo,Daisukeessentiallygoesmad,hisheadburntawayinredvisions:“Finally,thewholeworldturnedred.AndwithDaisuke’sheadatthecenter,itbegantospinaroundandaround,breathingtonguesoffire.Daisukedecidedtogoonridinguntilhisheadwascompletelyburntaway.”44BeyondtheTempleGateTheprotagonistinMon(Gate)isNonakaSosuke.TheChinesecharactersforNonakamean“afield”(no)and“inside”(naka).45ThecharactersforSosukearesou,meaning“religion,”andthesamesukeasinDaisukeinSorekara.AsDaisukeisakindofbourgeoisexemplarwritlarge,Sosukeisasomewhatsim-ilartypeconfrontedwithreligion.SosukeisaminorcivilservantonamodestincomewhoismarriedwithnochildrenandlivinginTokyo.AswithSanshiroandDaisuke,Sosuke“breathedtheairofTokyo.”Unliketheothertwoprotag-onists,however,Sosukewas“alwayssofatiguedinmindandbodythathetraveledinadaze,completelyunawareofhissurroundings.”WhenridingthestreetcarforMarunouchieveryday,whereheworked,hewould“inhisdis-gust”becomethesameasthosearoundhim,thatis,“likeamachine.”Inhis44.Natsume,AndThen,257.45.Thefirstcharactercanalsobereadasya,asinyajin,meaning“rusticperson”andhighlysuggestiveof“commonpeople.”Seecharacter4814inNelson,CharacterDictio-nary,903.\n202TimothyHoyeearlierdays,heusedtolovebooks,butthatwaspartofalife“thathadpassedforever.”Sosukeliveswithhiswife,Oyone,inahousethatissetfarthestbackfromthestreetinthelittleareaofTokyowheretheylive.Thehousealsosym-bolizestheirisolationfromthelargersociety,anisolationbroughtonbyanindiscreteactseveralyearsbeforewhenSosukewasastudentinKyoto.Everyeveningtheywouldsittogetherbyalampinthelightofwhich“SosukewasconsciousonlyofOyone,andOyoneonlyofSosuke.”46ThecharactersforOyone’snamesignify“narrow”and“child.”AndinthenarrowingcirclethatdefinedhislifeandOyone’s,Sosukebecameindifferenttothelargerpoliticalworld,ofwhichheandOyonewereapartundertheMeijiConstitution,andforgetfulevenofthemostbasicelementsofaconsciouslife.Withrespecttopolitics,SosukewasawareofthegreatstatesmanItoHirobumi’sassassinationinManchuriaonOctober26,1909,butwas“unmoved...bythewholeaffair.”47Withrespecttoconsciousness,hesometimeshadtroublerememberingevenbasicChinesecharacters.HeaskedOyoneoncewhatthecharacterwasforkininkinrai(thesedays;oflate).Hecouldnotevenremem-berthecharacterforkoninkonnichi,whichisthelargestpartofkonnichiwa,themostcommongreetinginJapan,mostoftentranslatedassimply“hello.”Thisexperiencewithanoia48didnotseemtotroublehimorOyone,who“passedtheincidentoffcasually.”Oyonewasverysicklyandhadlostthreechildren.Sheblamedherself,oftenfeltherlifeoneof“tortuousendurance,”and“didnotrevealthesefeelingseventoherhusband.”Sheoncewenttoafortune-teller,whotoldher,“Youcanneverhaveachild.”Thereason,shewastold,wasthatshehaddonea“terribledeed”toanotherand“thesinisstillworkingitselfout.”Together,SosukeandOyone“keptthesoulsofmountainhermits.”SosukeandOyone“hadnofaithwithwhichtorecognizeaGodortoencounteraBuddha.”They“kepttheireyesfixedoneachotherinstead.”49ThoughSosukelivedanarrowexistence,hisyoungerbrotherKorokuremindedhimofhisold,livelyself.Asayoungman,Sosukewasself-indulgent,a“perfectexemplaroftheyoungmanoftheworldofthatday.”Hewas“quickwitted,buthadlittleinclinationtostudy.”Hewasalwaysseekingsomenewpleasureandhadmanyfriends.HisbestfriendwasYasui,anditwasthroughYasuithatSosukemetOyone,theeventthatchangedhislife.SosukebetrayedhisbestfriendtosecureOyone’saffectionsforhimself.Thisexperiencein46.SosekiNatsume,Mon(TheGate),trans.FrancisMathy(NewYork:PerigreeBooks,1982),11–14,61.47.Natsume,Mon,21.48.Anoia“mostclearlyexpressesthestateofoblivionasadeformationofnoeticcon-sciousness.”SeeVoegelin,CW,18:45.49.Natsume,Mon,6,7,130–34,169.\nImaginingModernJapan203KyotodrainedSosukeofallvitalityandchangedhimintotheparticularlynarrowmandescribedabove.Overtime,Sosukedevelopedasenseof“thedeepchasmthatseparatesselfandother.”50Oneday,totallyunexpectedly,thebetrayedfriendYasuiappearsatthehousenextdoortoSosukeandOyone.Yasuiisunawareofthiscoincidence.SosukedecidestoescapetoKamakurainsearchofsomepeaceofmind,insearchofsomereligiousanswertohistorments.ThetempletowhichhegoesbelongstotheRinzaisectofZenBuddhism.ItwasattheRinzaitemplesinKyotoandKamakurathatthe“creativeassimilation”ofa“newculturalsubstanceanditsindependentdevelopment”(fromChina)begantotakeplaceinJapanduringtheearlyKamakuraperiod.51Sosuke’sguideatthetempleisGido.AmongGido’sgiftstoSosukeisalittlebookthatdescribes“thestagesamanpractic-ingZenmustpassthrough,fromtheshallowesttothemostprofound,”aswellasthepsychologicalstatesateachstage.GidotellsSosukethestoryofthemonkwhowas“toosinfulevertoreachsatori,”whofelt“lowerthandung.”Andyet,Gidoadds,“Lookattheenlightenmenthefinallyachieved!”Sosuke,however,felt“ignorantandimpotent.”Hehadcometothetempleto“havethegateopenedtohim.”Theonlygreetinghereceived,however,was,“It’snouseknocking.Openthegateyourselfandenter.”Sosukeseemedtohavebeen“fatedfrombirthtostandforeveroutsidethegate,unabletopassthrough.”52Exile,Anamnesis,andtheStorytellerInJapanesehistory,SugawaranoMichizanehassymbolizedthescholarinexileforathousandyears.53AsHirotasenseiisexiled,inSanshiro,fromthecenterofintellectuallifeatTokyoImperialUniversity,soalsoareliteraryartistslikeNatsumeSosekiexiledfromthelargerlifeofJapanesesociety.Asthecom-monnousofthelargersocietyquickenedinitsdissolutioninlateMeiji,SosekiabandonedhisteachingpostattheuniversityandbegantowriteserializednovelsfortheAsahinewspaper—aneffort,perhaps,tobringtheliteraryartbackintothemainstreamandtheliteraryartistoutofexile.Sosekibelievedthattheartistmustalwaysseekthrougharttorender“thebeautiful,thetrue,50.Ibid.,136,74.51.HeinrichDumoulin,AHistoryofZenBuddhism,trans.PaulPeachey(Boston:Bea-conPress,1969),149.52.Natsume,Mon,200–204.53.SugawaranoMichizane(845–903)wasacourtscholarintheHeiancourtwhowasexiledtoKyushuinsouthernJapanbyajealousmemberoftheFujiwarafamily.Todayheisreveredasagodofscholarshipandlearningtowhomstudentsprayforhelponexams.\n204TimothyHoyethegood,andthesublime.”54AmonghisearliesteffortsinthisregardwereSanshiro,Sorekara,andMon,hisfirsttrilogy.Sanshiroisthemostanalyticalinitsexplorationofmythandlegend,oftheoriginandcause,orhistoriogenesis,ofJapanesesocialorder.The“womaninthewoods”ofHirota’sdreamisatransparentsymboloftheshiningprincessarchetypeofJapanesetradition,whichexpressestheaestheticcenterofJapaneseconsciousnessandsocialorder,acenterinstitutionallyrepresentedbytheemperorandtheimperialhouse.The“womaninthewoods”ofHaraguchi’sartisopaque,exceptasanover-sizedcorruptionofJapanesesensibility.Thepropertitleforthepieceis“lostsheep,”apreciserenderingofthekanjicharacterfor“beauty”reducingthemeaningtosimply“big.”Sorekaraismoreexploratorythananalytical.Itprobesthecornersofconsciousnessinwhatisleftwithoutthetraditionalcommonnous.ItexploresthemindofDaisuke,preoccupiedwiththenuancesofphys-icalexistence,politicalpressuresfromtheWest,andpressuresfromhisfatherasrepresentativeofanoppressiveJapanesepast,andMichiyo,whoisrepre-sentativeonlyofDaisuke’spersonallostopportunities.Thismind,intheend,burnsawayinareddestiny,suggestingthecomingofmappo,thefinaldaysofBuddhistteaching.InMon,wehaveaturntoreligionbysomeonenotunlikeDaisuke.Butthereisnothingbeyondthetemplegateforonewhocannotevenopenit.Intheend,Sosuke,likehispredecessorinSorekara,remainspri-marilyconsciousonlyofhisphysicalreality.Atstory’send,hehaswinteronhismindashe“continuedtocuthisnails.”55Mon,initsprobingofconnectionsbetweenegophanyandtheologyisthemostphilosophicofthethreestories.InthesestoriesNatsumeSosekiexaminestheerosionofJapanesecivilization’scommonnous,explorestheconsequencesofthaterosion,andseeksanswersforthefutureofthatcivilization.Ultimately,however,Sosekihasgreatdiffi-cultyimaginingamodernJapan.Theprospectseemstoliebeyondhisimagi-nation.Twoyearsbeforehisdeathin1916,Sosekipennedhismasterpiece,Kokoro,anenormouslydelicatestory.Thereisnothingof“size”init.Inthestory,thecharacterSenseitakeshisownlife;butSosekileavesjusttheslightestroomtoimaginehope.Senseimakesofhisyoungfriendadyingrequest:“Myfirstwishisthathermemoryofmeshouldbekeptasunsulliedaspossible.Solongasmywifeisalive,IwantyoutokeepeverythingIhavetoldyouase-cret—evenafterImyselfamdead.”56Perhapsbyprotectingojosan,Sensei’swifeandarchetypalsymbolinthestory,thereisthehintofaprospectforre-54.Yu,Soseki,60.55.Natsume,Mon,213.56.SosekiNatsume,Kokoro,trans.EdwinMcClellan(Washington,DC:RegneryPub-lishing,1999),248.\nImaginingModernJapan205ducingthepressureofthe“large”inlifeandmakingroom,atleast,forthe“womaninthewoods”andthemissing“sheep”tobefoundthroughanamnesis,notforgetting.JustbeforethesceneinSanshiroinwhichMinekosaystoherselfthatshe“might”belost,SanshiroandMinekoareinfactabitlostinthemiddleofTokyo.Theyhavejustleftadollshow.Sheaskshim,“Wherearewenow?”Hesaystheyare“onthewaytoTennojiinYanaka.It’sexactlytheoppositedirec-tionfromhome.”Shesays,“Idon’tfeelwell,”and“Isn’ttheresomequietplacewecouldgo?”Theycan’tgoforwardandcan’tgoback.Andthisiswheretheyfindaplacetorestandspeakof“straysheep.”Inalaterscene,astudentstandstomakeaspeechatalargedinnergathering.Hesaysthattheyouthoftoday“cannolongerendurethenewoppressionfromtheWest”northe“oppressionoftheoldJapan.”57Theytoocannotseemtogoforwardorback.ThesescenesdramatizetheprimaryissueforSoseki:howtopreservethehard-wonmiddleway,orchuuyouofJapanese,largelyZenBuddhist,tradition.58Sanshiroseesthelossofacommonculture,Daisukegoesmadunderthepressure,andSosukevirtuallylosesconsciousnessofanythingbeyondhislengtheningnails.WhatemergesfromSoseki’sfirsttrilogyis,evenforJapan’sbeststoryteller,thevir-tualimpossibilityofevenimaginingsuchamiddlewayinapost-Meiji,mod-ernJapan.57.Natsume,Sanshiro(1977),90,108.58.Nelsondefineschuuyouas“mean,goldenmean,moderation,middlepath;DoctrineoftheMean.”SeeNelson,CharacterDictionary,57.Accordingtoonescholar,Sosekiunder-stoodthis“way”tobeoneinwhichman“becomespresenttoheavenandheaventoman.”SeeWardWilliamBiddle,“TheAuthenticityofNatsumeSoseki,”MonumentaNipponica28,no.4(1973):393.ThisconceptofchuuyoumightbefavorablycomparedtoPlato’sconceptofmetaxy.OnthePlatonicmetaxyseeVoegelin,CW,18:27,28.\nThispageintentionallyleftblank\nIIIPolitics\nThispageintentionallyleftblank\n11TheConceptof“thePolitical”RevisitedJürgenGebhardtOnOctober1,1808,thefamousencounterofJohannWolfgangvonGoetheandtheEmperorNapoleontookplaceinErfurt.Napoleondisapprovedofdra-matictragediesthathingeduponfate:“Whybeconcernedwithfatetoday(WaswillmanjetztmitdemSchicksal)?Politicsisfate.”Nolongertheunfath-omablegods,asinclassicaldrama,butdaimonicpersonalitiessuchasNapoleonhimselfweavethethreadsofhumandestiny,asGoethe’sfriendEckermannopined.1Thisopaqueformulaof“politicsasdestiny”withits“tragic”undercur-rentbecamequitepopularinGermandiscussions.HegelexplainedNapoleon’sdictuminmoregeneralterms:humanbeingsarenolongersubjecttothefatumoftheancients,becauseithadbeenreplacedbypolitics,whichbringsaboutanewtragedyinsofarastheirresistibleforcesofcircumstancesdominateallhumanindividuality.BothGoetheandHegelconsideredNapoleona“world-historicalindivid-ual.”ToHegelthismeantthatNapoleonwasamanageroftheworldspirit(GeschäftsführerdesWeltgeists).LikeAlexanderorCaesartheyweredestinedtousherinaneweraofworldhistory,elevatingittoahigherdegreeofuni-versality.Theseheroesaregreatdestroyersofoldorders,andbythecunningofreasoncreatorsofthenew.InHegel’sviewofworldhistorytheyareagentsofprogress,understoodintermsofconsciousnessoffreedom,whichisthesubstanceofthenewfatumofpolitics.Itisanemphaticnotionofpolitics1.JürgenGebhardt,“AufderSuchenachdemPolitischen,”inBürgersinnundKritik,ed.MichaelTh.Grevenetal.(Baden-Baden:NomovVerlag,1998),15–27.209\n210JürgenGebhardttranscendingtheeverydaybusinessofgovernmentalandpublicaffairsinthatitreferstothemovementofthehistoricalprocessperse.TheissuehereisnotanexegesisofHegelsomuchashisinsistenceontheagencyofpoliticsinshapinghumandestiny.Indeed,NapoleonwasfatepersonifiedforthewholecontinentandespeciallyforcentralEurope.AttheFürstentagofErfurtNapoleonwasattheheightofhispower.HehadreshapedthepoliticallandscapeofEurope:between1803and1806theancientorderoftheHolyRomanEmpirebrokeasunder,andmorethanathousandyearsofhistorywasovercomeandextinguished.Peoplelivedthroughacriti-calepochoffar-reachingchange.Thedisruptionoftraditionalwaysoflifeforcedthemtoconfrontthequestionastowhichforcesactuponthefateofsocietiesandhowtomakesenseofaseeminglyamorphousreality.Napoleon’sperfunctoryremarkbroughttotheforethetruthofthemodernera:politicsisdestiny.Thiscomprehensiveideaofpoliticsarticulatesafundamentalexperienceoftheinterplayoforderanddisorderinourtime.Thereflexivequestforration-alitythatwoulddissolvethiscompactandtopicalnotionofpoliticsasdestinycanonlybeansweredintermsofatheoreticallygroundedconceptofthepolit-ical.CarlSchmitt,undertheimpactofthepostwarcrisisofthetwenties,setouttorethinkthenatureofpolitics.Heaccordedprimacyandautonomytopolitics,whichisimpliedintheHegelianphrase“politicsisfate,”andhedis-tinguishedpoliticsinthesenseof“thepolitical”assemanticallydistinctfromtheindeterminatemeaningofpoliticsprevalentincommonparlanceandinpoliticaldiscourse.Thisterminologywasnot,however,ofSchmitt’smaking.Thesemanticcoinage,sofarasIcansee,belongstoHegel.HeseemstohavebeenthefirsttointroducethisexpressionintotheGermanvocabulary.Atleastinonecaseitcanbeassumedthathegavethisfigureofspeechaspecifictechnicalmeaning.InhisHistoryofPhilosophyhepointedoutthatforAristotle“thepoliticalisthehighestbecauseitspurposeisthehighestinrespecttothepractical....ThepoliticalisthereforeasinPlatotheprimordial.”2Hegeltiedtheemergenceofphilosophytotheprincipleoffreedomasitmaterializesin“thepolitical”oftheHellenicpolis-culture.Hegeldidnotsystematicallyexplicateacategoricaldifferencebetweenpoliticsandthepoliticalbecausetohimonlythe“state”istheobjectofworldhistory,beingthedivineideaonearththatbestowsspiri-tualrealityuponhumanbeings.HegelremainedinhiswritingsunderthespellofthetraditionoftheEuropeanstate-centerednotionofpolitics.2.GeorgWilhelmFriedrichHegel,VorlesungenüberdiePhilosophiederGeschichte,vol.2(Frankfurt:Suhrkamp,1971).\n“ThePolitical”Revisited211OnecanspeculatehowHegelcametospeakofthepoliticalinreferencetotheancientphilosophers.ObviouslyhewasverymuchawareoftheHellenicoriginofthisneologism.Thesubstantiationoftheadjectivepolitikostrans-formeditintoanabstracttermtopolitikon,whichdesignatesanobjectofthoughtdenotingtheessenceofthepolis-order.This“essentialization”ofpolis-affairs(tapolitika)intermsoftheconceptoftopolitikonsignifiesthegenerallinguisticturnofHellenicthoughttowardareflexivecomprehensionofreal-ity,whichinturnconstitutesthebirthofscientificlanguage.Thisconceptual-izationcanbetracedtoHerodotus’sHistories(6.57).Intheirreflexive,thatis,philosophical,inquiryintotheworldofcitizen-man,Plato(Laws757c–e)andAristotle(Politics1253b)refertotopolitikoninordertoexpressconceptuallytheverysubstanceofhumanorder,namely,justice.Thisconceptofthepolit-icalblendstheanalysisofpolisaffairswithanormativeparadigmofhumanexistenceinsociety.Hegeldidnotexplicatethismeaningofthepolitical.TohimitwassupersededbytheabstractuniversalityofthestatederivedfromtheRomanideasofrespublicaandimperium.InthisheremainedtruetotheRomanlegacytransmittedto,andabsorbedby,latemedievalandearlymod-ernEuropeanstate-building.Fromtheperiodofstateformationonward,Europeandiscoursesfocusedonthestate-andpower-centerednotionofpoliticsasrepresentedbythepro-totypicalcentralizedmonarchy.Itwastobecomethefoundationalconceptofpoliticalandscientificself-understanding,gaininguniversalrecognitioninthescienceofMaxWeberandsubsequentlyinmodernsocialscience.Weber’sunderstandingofpoliticsisintrinsicallyboundupwithhisnotionofthe“polit-icalassociation”thatsuccessfullyclaimsthemonopolyoflegitimateuseofphysicalforcewithinagiventerritory,thestatebeingconsideredasthesolesourceoftherighttocoercioninmodernity.“Politically”orientedactionissocialactioninsofarasitaimsatinfluencingtheleadershipofapoliticalasso-ciationintermsofappropriation,expropriation,redistribution,orallocationofgovernmentalpowers.3TalcottParsonshelpedWebercrosstheAtlantic,andthenewpostwarAmericanpoliticalsciencesubjectedhimtosemanticAmer-icanization,althoughitretainedhiscentralideaofpoliticalrule:theauthori-tativecommandoftherulerovertheruled.Intheparlanceoffunctionalisticsystem-analysis,thepoliticalaspectofasocialactiscontingentupontherela-tionoftheacttotheauthoritativeallocationofvaluesforthewholesocietyasitisinfluencedbythedistributionanduseofpower.4DavidEaston’ssomewhatdemocraticallymoderatedWeberianismistodate3.MaxWeber,WirtschaftundGesellschaft(Köln:KiepenheuerandWitsch,1956),39.4.DavidEaston,ThePoliticalSystem(NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1953),134–35.\n212JürgenGebhardtstillthetheoreticalmainstayofconventionalAmericanpoliticalscience.Thecommitmenttoliberaldemocracyrequired,however,areintegrationoftheconceptofaself-governingcitizenryintothepower-centeredparadigmofpol-itics.Weber’sstatewasthebusyactivityofthepower-hungryinthefaceofablindcrowdofsubjects;thepoliticalagencyofcitizensremainedinacategor-icalnoman’sland,andthetypologyofthelegitimacyofthepower-holderscontainsnomentionofdemocraticself-rule.Thatiswhytheprevalentpara-digmofpoliticsinmodernpoliticaldiscoursesisJanus-faced:thebottomlineispower-baseddecision-making,butmitigatedbyamodicumofmoralcivil-ity.Thislatterimportsthenotionofcivilgovernment,asdistinguishedfromallothermodesofruleordomination.Itpointstoadifferentunderstandingofwhatpoliticsisallaboutandrevealsthatthediscourseofpowerdoesnottellthewholestory,becauseanother,competingvisionofpoliticscameintoplayinpost-medievalpoliticalthought.Theideaofpoliticsresurfacedinthemanifoldmodesofneoclassicalpolit-icalthoughtfocusingontherediscoveryofthescientiacivileofScholasticismandRenaissancehumanism.5Theself-understandingofrepublicancity-regimes,foremostinItaly,wastunedtothecitizen-centerednormsofpoliticsinthatitlegitimizedtheclaimtoself-government:“Etsinonestcivisnonesthomo,quia‘homoestnaturaliteranimalcivile.’”6The“Italianization”ofAnglo-SaxonpoliticsinthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturiesinjectedagoodportionofthisunderstandingofpoliticsintoEnglishthought.AlreadyinthefifteenthcenturyFortescuedistinguishedbetweentheregimenpoliticumoftheconsen-sualagreementof“kinginparliament”andtheregimendespoticumofFrenchmonarchy,adistinctiontakendirectlyfromTolomeoofLucca.IntheEnglishRevolutiontheneoclassicalrepublicansadvancedthecom-munitariannotionofpoliticsthatfinallywaslinkedtoconstitutionalism.Itpreservedananti-statistbiasrightuptomodernthinkerssuchasOakeshott,Crick,orArendt,whoallchallengedtheprevalenceoftheWeberianparadigminintellectualdiscourse.“Itisonlyafteroneeliminatesthisdisastrousreduc-tionofpublicaffairstothebusinessofdominationthattheoriginaldataintherealmofhumanaffairswillappearorratherreappearintheirauthenticdiversity.”75.JürgenGebhardt,“DerbürgerschaftlicheBegriffdesPolitischen:UrsprüngeundMetamorphosen,”inGeisteswissenschaftlicheDimensionenderPolitik,ed.RolandKleyandSilvanoMöckli(Bern:PaulHaupt,2000),146–54.6.Remigiode’Girolami,“Debonocommuni,”inLateologiapoliticacommunalediRemigiode’Girolami,ed.MariaConsigliadeMatteis(Bologna:Patron,1977),3–51.7.HannahArendt,“ReflectionsonViolence,”JournalofInternationalAffairs23,no.1(1969):1–35.\n“ThePolitical”Revisited213Thisclashoftraditionsaccountsfortheabove-statedambivalenceofthemodernWesternideaofpolitics:therepublicanversiontendstobeconsen-sualandcitizen-centered,whereasthemonarchicalorstateversionfocusesonpoweranddomination.Neither,however,transcendedtheimpliedbifurcationofpoliticalrealityintermsofareflexivecomprehensionofthewholeofhumanbeinganditsorder,aswastheintentionoftheancientpoliticalscien-tists.Amodernquestforatheoreticallygroundedconceptofthepoliticalcannolongerbeginfromdefinitepoliticalpointsofreference,whethertheybethecity,thestate,ortheempire,andthenexplicatenormativelytheirself-interpretativemeaningoforder.Thehistoricalrealmhasbecomeglobal,andthedynamicprocessesofchangeunleashedbyhumanagencyevokedtheques-tionofwhoispullingthestringsofhumandestinyinthefaceofthefadingawayofunfathomablegods.Ifthemoderntragedyisenactedbyhumanagencywrestingorderfromthechaoticforcesofdisorder,itmustbestagedinthearenaofpolitics.Itreflectsthestructuralmakeupofthesocio-historicalworldinitsentiretyasitrevealsitselfinthemanifoldformsofsymbolicself-representationandsocio-politicalmodesoforder.Butthephenomenonofthepoliticalthusdelineateddoesnotbyitselfanswerthequestforanunderstandingofforcesthatshapehumandestinyinthearenaofpoliticsoncethesymbolicimagesofthepasthavebeendissolved.Thedramatispersonaeofthenewtragedyarticulatenolessthantheonesofoldtragedytheexperientialbasisofthemotivatingexperiencesattherootofanystrugglefororder,anissueconsid-eredbelow.Germandiscourseuptothetwentiethcenturystayedwithinthestate-centerednotionofpolitics.Publicsemanticsinsistedontheprimacyofthestatewheneverpoliticsorthepoliticalwasthematized.AnditmightbeaddedthatnootherWesternpoliticallanguagegeneratedasemanticequivalenttotheGermandasPolitischebeforethetwentiethcentury,whichisbeforeCarlSchmitt.WorldWarIbroughtmorethanmilitarydefeattoGermany.Itmeantthebreakdownofapoliticalwayoflifecomparabletothedownfalloftheancientregimein1803.Thestate,thatis,culturalandpoliticalorderincarnate,lostits“politicalcharacter”andmetamorphosedintoablendofstateandsocietythatsubordinatedthepoliticalentityto“nonpolitical”societalforces(parties,tradeunions,businessassociations,churches,etc.).Thisdiagnosiswassharedbymanystate-consciousconservativeintellectualsintheWeimarrepublic.Butifthestateisnolongertheepitomeofpoliticalagency,andifhumandes-tinyisdeterminedbyapluralityofpoliticalpowersandactors,whereispoli-ticslocated?Thistheoreticallydiffusesituationofapoliticalagencythathadturnedintoananonymouspoweroperatinguponthesocietyatlargegavetheexpressionof“thepolitical”anewrelevance.\n214JürgenGebhardtAmongthenumerouswritingsonthissubjectSchmitt’sTheConceptofthePoliticalbecamethemostinfluential.InretrospectSchmittobservedthat“theclassicalprofileofthestatewasshatteredasitsmonopolyonpoliticswaned.New...politicalprotagonistsassertedthemselves....Fromthisfollowedanewdegreeofreflectionfortheoreticalthought.Nowonecoulddistinguish‘politics’from‘political.’Thenewprotagonistsbecamethecoreoftheentirecomplexcalled‘political.’Hereliesthebeginningandthrustofeveryattempttorecognizethemanynewsubjectsofthepolitical,whichbecomeactiveinpoliticalreality,inthepoliticsofthestateornonstate,andwhichbringaboutnewkindsoffriend-enemygroupings.”8HisexperientialpointofdepartureistheGermanconditionin1919—theoreticallyinthatthesymbolicunityofstateandpoliticsischallengedbytheliberalizationofpoliticsandpoliticallyinthatGermansovereigntyandinternationalstatushadbeengrosslydiminishedbytheTreatyofVersailles.Thismyopicviewpointalongwithhisunderlyinganti-liberalperspectiveandcultural-pessimisticpolemicsmartheintellectualqualityofSchmitt’sstudyconsiderably.Butwearenotconcernedwithanexe-gesisofSchmitt.Thefollowingremarkspertainonlytothepointofgeneraltheoreticalrelevance.Sensitivetothecrisis,Schmittreactedtotheerodingefficacyoftraditionalsocio-culturallyconditionedmodesofsocialintegration.Heobservedthatsoci-etalexistenceundermodernconditionsisdeterminedbypoliticalagencyrep-resentingthesocietyasawhole.Ittranscends,therefore,state,government,orthepoliticalsystem.Schmittrelocatedpoliticalagencyinanygroupofactorswhoactastheultimateanddecisivepoliticalentityindeterminingwhoisfriendandwhoisenemy.Thepoliticaldenotestheultimateformofsocietalexistenceinsofaras“everyreligious,moral,economic,ethical,orotherantithesisistrans-formedintoapoliticaloneifitissufficientlystrongtogrouphumanbeingseffectivelyaccordingtowhethertheyarefriendorenemy.”Thisdistinctionexplicates“theutmostdegreeoffriendandenemyofintensityofaunionorseparation,ofanassociationordissociation.”9Thus,communityformationisinprinciple“political,”butitisgroundedontheexistentialexperienceofabsoluteconflictthatisinthelastanalysisbasedontheexperienceofwar.Theomni-presenceofthepoliticalreflectstheomnipresenceofwar.SchmittisthustheheirofMaxWeber’sextremestatism,whichclaimedthattheemotionalbasisofapoliticalassociationderivesfromthewarfrater-nity(Kriegsbrüderlichkeit)experiencedonthebattlefieldinthesacrednessof8.CarlSchmitt,TheConceptofthePolitical(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1996),13.9.Ibid.,37,26.\n“ThePolitical”Revisited215sacrificingone’sownlifeforthecommoncause.SuchaphenomenologyofthepoliticalisbaseduponSchmitt’stheologicallygroundedcrypto-Hobbesiananthropologyoftheabsolutesinfulnessofhumanbeing.Thedisjunctionoffriendandenemyhypostasizestotalconflict(spiritagainstspirit,lifeagainstlife)thusreducinghumanaffairstoaneffectivestruggleagainstaneffectiveenemy.Thefriendisbutacomradeinarms,andthereisnoindicationofanycommunity-creatingqualitiesinhumanbeingsthatletthembefriendeachother.Schmittremainsfirmlyattachedtothestate-andpower-centerednotionofpolitics.Thepolitical,inhisview,isadeadlypowergame.Whoeverrefusestoplayitloseshissocietalbeing.Schmitt’shistoricalandtheoreticalanalysisinprincipleeclipsesthedimensionofthepoliticalthatisreflectedinthecitizen-centeredcommunitariannotionofpoliticsandtheideaofhumanitybasedonhumanreason.Moreover,histheologyoforiginalsininspiresaradicalpoliti-calAugustinianismandpreventshimfromanyphilosophicalreflectiononthegroundoforderbeyondthebattlegroundwherethelibidinousforcesofhumanself-empowermentclash.Schmitt’sanalysisofthepoliticalpurportedtobeaninquiryinto“theorderofhumanthings,”butthequestionoforderwasdissolvedintothequestionofdisorder.InPlatonicparlanceheinvestigatedthestasioteiainsteadofthepoliteia.Hewas,however,righttodisengagethepoliticalfromthestate.Indeed,thepoliticalcomprehendsandstructuresthedifferentspheresoflife:econom-ics,culture,religion.Thatis,thepolitico-historicalworldispervadedbytheorderinglogicofthepoliticalinsofaraseverypolitico-symbolicformoforderrepresentstheexistenceofhumanbeinginitsentirety,fromthematerialtothespiritual.ForthisreasonSchmitt’sobservationiscorrect:Allconflicts,whetherethical,economic,orethnic-cultural,mayturninto“political”conflictsiftheorderofthesocietyatlargeisatstake.Butwhenthistransformationoccurs,conflictsarethenmotivatedbythequestionoftherightorderofsociety;theyarestrugglesforordercausedbyexperiencesofdisorder.Theconceptofthepoliticalrightlyunderstoodexpressestheformativeprincipleofhumanexis-tenceinsocietyandhistorybothwithrespecttopoliticalagencyintheVoege-liniansenseoftheexistentialrepresentationofthesocietyandwithrespecttoitsorderinglogicinthesenseofacomprehensivemeaningandtruthrepre-sentedbythewholeofsociety.ThisargumentreflectsVoegelin’stheoryofrepresentation.Itdoesnot,however,dealwiththequestionofthepolitical,butratheritcanbereadasacontributiontotheproblemsraisedbytheaporeticcharacterofSchmitt’spresentationofthepolitical.Intheaftermathofthedeeprupturesinthepoliticalworldofthelatetwen-tiethandearlytwenty-firstcentury,internationaldiscussionhasturnedwithanewurgencytoreconceptualizingpolitics.Schmittandtheconceptofthe\n216JürgenGebhardtpoliticalhavebeenaddedtotheintellectualagendaofthecontemporarysci-entificandpoliticalcommunity.ThesemanticdifferentiationofpoliticsandthepoliticalhasenteredallWesternandevenmanynon-Westernlanguages.Arichliteraryproductionhasarisen,withtitlessuchasthe“returnofthepolit-ical,”the“challengeofthepolitical,”the“inventionofthepolitical,”the“trans-formationofthepolitical,”the“thinkingofthepolitical,”andthe“perma-nenceofthepolitical.”Butmostofthisproductiondoesnotliveuptoitstitles.Theconceptualizationsofferedarefuzzy.Often“thepolitical”turnsouttobeahighbrowsynonymfor“politics.”10Comparedtothisliterature,theArendtianrestitutionoftheclassicaltraditionofthepoliticalremainstheo-reticallysuperior.ArendtanamneticallyrecoveredtheoriginalmeaningofthepoliticalintheGreekpolis,whichinfactunfoldedtoitsfullestonlyintheclassicalcitizen-polisofAthens.Herparadigmofthepoliticalmeasurespolit-icalphenomenaagainstthenormativestandardoftheclassicalcitizen-centeredideaofpolitics.Butthisallegedsingularityofauthenticpoliticsneglectedthewholerangeofhumanself-interpretationandactualizationasithasemergedintheglobalecumene.Theomnipresentquestforthepoliticalsignalsanin-tellectualturntowardanewunderstandingofpoliticsbeyondtheconfinesofpowergamesandgovernmentalagency.TheproblemissummedupbyDavidHeld:“Todaythetraditionaltermsofreferenceofpoliticsasadiscipline,andofpoliticaltheoryinparticular,appearunderstrain.Morethaneverbeforetherearereasonsfordoubtingwhetheraprimaryfocusonthenatureandproperformofpoliticsofgovernmentandstatescanlegitimatelyremainthebasicsubjectmatterofpoliticaltheory.Atissueisthecoherenceofthepolitical.”11Acoherentconceptofthepoliticalpresupposesacoherentphilosophyofthepoliticalthatsubstantiatestheprimacyofthepolitical.InthissenseVoegelin’snewscienceofpolitics,whichdevelopedoverseveraldecadesoftheoreticalandempiricalresearch,unfoldedaconceptofthepoliticalwithintheinter-pretiveframeofascienceoftheorderofhumanexistenceinsocietyandhis-tory.Voegelinhimselftalkedonlyoccasionallyofthepolitical,eveninthoseearlywritingswherehearguedcriticallywithSchmitt.InhisfragmentaryRegierungslehreoftheearlythirtieshedealtwiththefirstversionofTheCon-ceptofthePoliticalof1927,buttheretheissuewasnotthequestionofthepoliticalbutSchmitt’stheoreticalcontributiontothecentralsubjectofVoe-10.ArminNassehi,“DerBegriffdesPolitischenunddiedoppelteNormativitätder‘soziologischen’Moderne,”inDerBegriffdesPolitischen,ed.ArminNassehiandMarkusSchroer(Baden-Baden:NomosVerlag,2003),133–86.11.HannahArendt,WasistPolitik?(Munich:Piper,1993),36–42;DavidHeld,“Editor’sIntroduction,”inPoliticalTheoryToday,ed.DavidHeld(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1991),16.\n“ThePolitical”Revisited217gelin’sstudy,namely,thegovernanceofonehumanbeingoveranotherandtheidentificationofthesourceofpower.InthisrespectVoegelinwasinter-estedonlyinSchmitt’sdescriptionofthesubstanceofpower“thatispriortoandtranscendsitsphenomenalforms”inthatitbindshumanexistenceintothewholeofthegovernmentalorder.12NeitherherenorinhislaterreviewofSchmitt’sVerfassungslehredidVoegelintakeuptheissueofSchmitt’sconcep-tualizationofthepoliticalperse.ButwecanassumefromthetenorofthatreviewthatheconsideredSchmitt’sexplorationofthepoliticalasmarredbytheauthor’sblendingtheoreticalanalysiswithhispracticalpoliticalinten-tions.Forthisreason,Voegelinabstainedfromanyreferencetotheconceptofthepoliticalandapproachedthepoliticalintermsofpoliticalreality.Voegelin’sfar-reachingstudyofthepredicamentofhumanityextendsinscopeandsub-jectmatterbeyondtherealmofthepoliticalproper.Theproblemunderdis-cussionhereaddressesthequestionofwhetherVoegelin’sscienceofpoliticsintroducesatheoreticalgroundingforaconceptofthepoliticalthatsquareswiththehumanexperienceoforderanddisorderinitsglobalbreadthandtemporaldepth.13IntheNewScienceofPolitics,politicalsocietydenotesacosmionofmean-ing,illuminatedfromwithinbyitsownself-interpretation.Thetypesoforderandtheattendantsymbolsofself-expressionthatcanbefoundinhistoricalpoliticalsocietiesaretheobjectofstudyinOrderandHistory.Thesecosmioiarenot,however,self-containedandclosedpoliticalentities.Theyconstitutethehistoricalfieldthatreflectsthe“patternsofmeaningastheyrevealedthem-selvesintheself-interpretationofpersonsandsocietiesinhistory.”Thesepat-ternsofmeaningemergefrom“man’sconsciousnessofhishumanityasitdif-ferentiateshistorically”inthatthenatureofhumanbeing“unfoldsitspotentialitieshistorically.”14Fromthisvantagepointpoliticalrealityisnolongerlimitedtopoliticallyorganizedsociety,beitthecityorthestate.Thewholeofhumanexperienceofexistenceinsocietyandhistorycomesintoview,whichistosaythehumansearchforhumanityanditsorder.Humanself-interpretationisthepivotofthishermeneuticalapproachtopoliticalrealityinthatitbringsforthsymbolswherebyhumansexpresstheir12.EricVoegelin,TheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin(hereinafter,CW),vol.32,TheTheoryofGovernanceandOtherMiscellaneousPapers,1921–1938,trans.SueBollansetal.,ed.WilliamPetropulosandGilbertWeiss(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2003),361.13.JürgenGebhardt,“WasistderGegenstandeinerempirisch-hermeneutischenThe-oriedesPolitischen,”inPolitischeTheorie-heute,ed.MichaelTh.GrevenandRainerSchmalzBruns(Baden-Baden:NomosVerlag,1999),101–19.14.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.17,OrderandHistory,vol.IV,TheEcumenicAge,ed.MichaelFranz(1974;Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),106,373.\n218JürgenGebhardtexperiencesoforder.“Theseexperiences,”Voegelinexplains,“onecouldexploreonlybyexploringtheirarticulationthroughsymbols.Theidentificationofthesubject-matter,andwiththesubject-matter,ofthemethodtobeusedinitsexploration,ledtotheprincipleatthebasisofallmylatterwork:thereal-ityofexperienceisself-interpretive.”15Themeaningofthisstatementisinitselfinneedofhermeneuticalclarification.Therealityinquestionistheexpe-rientialfieldencompassingtherealmofhumanbeinginitsmodalityofsocie-talexistence.Itmanifeststhehistoricalunfoldingofthepotentialitiesofhumannaturearticulatingthehumanquestfororderandtruthintimeandspace.Itisbecausehumanbeingsareself-interpretinganimalsthattherealmofhumanbeingisself-interpretive.Inthiswayahermeneuticalscienceofpoliticsthattranslatesthemeaningofself-interpretationintothelanguageofrationaldis-coursebecomespossible.Whatnowiscalledthe“hermeneuticalturn”inthesocialscienceshasbeenpractisedbyVoegelinfromthebeginningofhisschol-arlywork,whichwasinanycaseinformedbythehermeneuticparadigmofGermanGeisteswissenschaftingeneral,andespeciallybyitsfoundation,philo-sophicalanthropology.Thisphilosophicalhermeneuticsaimedtoweldanewthephilosophicaltotheempiricalintermsofamodernmodeofhumanself-understanding,anditproclaimedanthropologythephilosophicalcenterpieceofhermeneuticalresearch.WhileVoegelin’simplementationofthisprogramunderwentshiftsandchanges,heremainedsteadfastinhisprincipledherme-neutics.Inordertoilluminatethemeaningfultextureofthesocio-historicalworld,Voegelinfocusedontheinterplaybetweenthecognitiveexplorationofthephenomenaoftheexperientialworldasrevealedinhumanself-explicationandthereflexiveanalysisofthehumancondition.16Voegelin’sempiricallyorientedhermeneuticsofpoliticshasbeenformu-latedinhisearlystudyofpoliticalideas:“Itisourbeliefthatthesphereofpol-iticsistheoriginalsphereinwhichthefundamentalchangesofsentimentsandattitudesoccur,andthatfromtherealmofpoliticsnewforcesradiateintotheotherspheresofhumanactivity—thatis,intotherealmsofphilosophy,thearts,andofliterature.”Hedidnotpostulatea“simplisticcausalrelationshipbetweenpoliticalinstitutionsandothercivilizationalphenomenaofanage.But,inkeepingwithourtheoryoftheevocativecharacterofthepoliticalcos-mion,itmeansthatinthepoliticalevocationonprinciplemanisengagedwiththewholeofhispersonalityandthatallcivilizationalcreationsofacom-15.EricVoegelin,AutobiographicalReflections(BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUniver-sityPress,1989),80.16.JürgenGebhardt,“TheVocationoftheScholar,”inInternationalandInterdiscipli-naryPerspectivesonEricVoegelin,ed.StephenA.McKnightandGeoffreyL.Price(Colum-bia:UniversityofMissouriPress,1997),20–28.\n“ThePolitical”Revisited219munitymustbeartheimprintofthecomprehensivewhole.”17Theunderstand-ingofpoliticalcommunityintermsofapoliticalcosmionbringsitsmainfunctiontothefore,namely,to“assuagetheexistentialanxietyofmanbygiv-ingtohissoul,throughthemagicevocationofthecommunity,theassuranceofhavingameaningfulplaceinawellorderedcosmos.”Inthissense,asVoe-gelinindicatedinthesurvivingfragmentoftheintroductiontothestudy,“theproblemofpoliticshastobeconsideredinthelargersettingofaninter-pretationofhumannature”18asexplicatedinOrderandHistory.ThecondiciohumanaremainedthereflexivecenterofVoegelin’sinquiryintotheproblemsofhumanexistenceinsocietyandhistory.Itprovidedtheanthropologicalbasisofthepoliticalinthatthemeaningofpolitico-symboliccomplexesoforderemergefromconcretehumanexperiences.Forthisreason,allmodesofexperiencehavetocomewithinthepurviewofinquiry.Thisrefersspecificallytothemethodologicalpractiseofexcludingso-calledreligiousideasfrompoliticalanalysis.Voegelinalwayscomplainedaboutpoliticalscientistslacking“themostelementaryknowledgeofreligiousexperiencesandtheirexpression,theyareunabletorecognizepolitico-religiousphenomenawhentheyseethem;andareunawareoftheirdecisiveroleintheconstitutionofpoliticalsociety.”19“Humansliveinpoliticalsocietywithalltraitsoftheirbeing,fromthephysicaltothespiritualandreligioustraits,”andhumanspir-itualityisthecreativespringofanyworld-buildingimagination.Empirically,visionsofordercomefromthemostfundamentalexperienceofhumanexis-tence:finitenessandcreatureliness.Humanbeingsexperiencetheirexistenceasbeingcreaturelyand,therefore,questionable.Fromthisconditionarisestagesofagitationthatvaryinformandcontentbutthatcanbedescribedasthe“experienceofbeingboundtoasuprapersonal,all-powerfulsomething”artic-ulating“afeelingofsimpledependency”onsomeintangiblegroundbeyondone’sownfiniteexistence.Whereverthis“beyond”disclosesitselfasultimateandsacredinspiritualexperiencesitbecomestherealissimumaroundwhichvisionsofordercrystallize.20Suchananthropologicalapproachtothemeaning-creatingagencyofhumanbeingshasbeenoutlinedinthePoliticalReligions17.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.20,HistoryofPoliticalIdeas,vol.II,TheMiddleAgestoAquinas,ed.PetervonSivers(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,1997),107–8.18.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.19,HistoryofPoliticalIdeas,vol.I,Hellenism,Rome,andEarlyChristianity,ed.AthanasiosMoulakis(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,1997),81,231.19.EricVoegelin,“ThePeopleofGod”(I),50–51,inEricVoegelinPapers,box58,file4,HooverInstitutionArchives,Stanford,CA.20.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.5,ModernitywithoutRestraint:ThePoliticalReligions;TheNewScienceofPolitics;andScience,Politics,andGnosticism,ed.ManfredHenningsen(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),70,31,32.\n220JürgenGebhardt(1938)aswellasinhislaterwritingswhereVoegelinreturnedtothiskeyideaofhisresearch.Sinceallhumanexistenceisnecessarilysocial,allsocietalorderfeedsonthevisionaryimaginationoforderarisingfromconcretehumanconsciousnessintheever-presentfaceofchaos.“Bytheexperienceofsocialdisorderhumanmindisprovokedtocreateorderbyanactofimaginationinaccordancewithitsorderingideaofman.”21Noteveryexperienceofthetranscendentinvolvessocialexistence;experiencemaybesensustrictu,apolitical,asinsolitarymys-ticism.Buteveryorderisgroundedintranscendentexperiencesoforderasexplicatedsymbolicallyintermsofthe“truth”ofsociety.Whereverhumanbeingsengageinreflectiveactivityandstriveforanorderedcommunity,the“religious”momentintheexperienceoforderhasbecome“political.”Allsymbolicinterpretationsofsocietalorderjustifytheirlegitimacyinref-erencetoanultimategroundoforder.Thevariousmodesofexperience,withtheirmultiplicityofsymbolicexpression,allrevolvearoundthefoundingofrightorderthroughinsightintothegroundoforder.ThesociologistSamuelEisenstadtspeaksofthe“charismaticvision”attherootofanyinstitutionaliza-tionofsocietalorder,22whichdeterminesthepoliticallogicoftheorderthatstructuresthewholeofapoliticalculture,providesitwithcoherence,anddefinesitsoverallidentity.Thefoundationofallevocationofsymbolicformsofself-interpretationisthedialecticalinterplayofthehumancapabilityforself-transcendencewiththeexperiencedfinitenatureofhumanlife.Itreferstothemysteriousreci-procityofreasonandanxietythatVoegelinemphasizedinalatefragment:“Anxietyistheresponsetothemysteryofexistenceoutofnothing.Thesearchoforderistheresponsetoanxiety.”Hefurthergeneralizes:everysymboliza-tion“expressingthetensionofexistencehasitscomponentoftruthasitcon-veysaninsightintotheLogosofthistension.”Andeveryactofsymbolization“hasthepurposeandeffectofbringingforth,maintaining,orrestoringtheorderofexistence,personalandsocial.”Accordingly,everyactofsymboliza-tion“expressingthetensionofexistencehasthefunctionsbothofassuaginganxietyandpreservingorder.”23Sincesymbolizationdisclosesthelogosof21.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.27,TheNatureoftheLawandRelatedLegalWritings,ed.RobertAnthonyPascal,JamesLeeBabin,andJohnWilliamCorrington(1991;availableColumbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,1999),108.22.SamuelN.Eisenstadt,Power,Trust,andMeaning(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1995),35–36.23.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.28,WhatIsHistory?andOtherLateUnpublishedWritings,ed.ThomasA.HollweckandPaulCaringella(1990;availableColumbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,1999),71,87.\n“ThePolitical”Revisited221thistensionbetweenmanasanexistentthingandthegroundofhisexistence“thereisreasoninsearchoforder.”ThehumanquestforhumanityanditsorderandthehistoricalresponsestothisquestintheformofsymbolicandsocialcreationsmirrorintheirmodalitiesthecomprehensiverealityofGodandhumanbeing,worldandsocietyinvariedstatesofhistoricaldifferentiation.Thecreativearticulationofhumanpotentialitiesexpressedintherespectivecategoriesoftheorderofparticularhumansocietiesare,accordingtoVoegelin,tobestudiedhistoricallyandcomparativelyonthebasisofa“generalontol-ogyoforder.”Suchastudywouldhavetodealwiththeproblemsoforderinhistoricalsocietiesinrespect“togeneralcategoriesofordersofbeing(allge-meineOrdnungskategoriendesSeins).”24InthecourseofhisworkVoegelin’sunderstandingoftherealmofpoliticsexpandedfromthepoliticalcosmiontothehistorico-politicalworldinitsglobalbreadthandtemporaldepth.But,Isuggest,politicsremainedthecen-tralsphereofsymbolicandsocietalevocation.“Thetensionsinpoliticalrealityoriginate,”hestatesinAnamnesis,“inthedynamicsoftryingtofindtherightarticulationoforder.”TothequestionWhatispoliticalreality?heresponds:“Theorderofman’sentireexistence”isthesubjectmatterof“atheoryofpol-itics.”Politicalrealityismappedundertheexperientialhorizonoftheessen-tialinterrelationbetweenthehumananditsorder.Analyticallyexplicated,itrangesfromtheorderofaconcretehumanconsciousnessthroughtheordersofhumanandsocialexistenceinhistory.Fromthisresultsthemethodologicalconclusionthata“philosophyofpoliticsisempirical—intheprecisesenseofaninquiryintotheexperienceswhichpenetratewiththeirorderthewholeareaofrealitythatweexpressbythesymbol‘man.’Theworkofthisphiloso-phyrequires,aswesaid,theconstantexchangebetweenstudiesonconcretecasesoforderandanalysesofconsciousnessthatmakethehumanorderinsocietyandhistoryintelligible.”25Politicalrealitycoincideswiththerealmofhumanbeingproper,thatis,insofarasitmanifestsitselfinthedimensionofspiritandfreedombeyondmereanimalexistence.Voegelin’sconceptofpoliticsassketchedouthereisnotlimitedtothesphereofpowerandrulership,whetherstate-orcitizen-centered.Thisisnottosaythatpoliticalrealityisvoidofpower:thestruggleforsymbolicsupremacy,forthetruthoforder,isbesetwithpowerandderailsalltoooftenintopurepowerstruggle.Becauseoftheultimateintangibilityofthistruth,thereisanongoing24.EricVoegelin,“Diskussionsbeitrag,”inDasNaturrechtinderpolitischenTheorie,ed.MartinSchmölz(Wien:Springer,1963),140–41.25.EricVoegelin,Anamnesis(Munich:PiperVerlag,1966),288,8.Myowntranslation.SeealsoCW,vol.6,Anamnesis:OntheTheoryofHistoryandPolitics,trans.M.J.Hanak,ed.DavidWalsh(Columbia:MissouriUniversityPress,2002),345,399,34.\n222JürgenGebhardtcompetitionandstruggleoverthemeaningsofsymbolsandcontroloftheinstitutionsthatdefineandarticulatetheleadvaluesofpublicorder.Histori-callyandinthepresent,strugglingforthetruthoforderhasoftenbeenaques-tionoflifeanddeath.Butthemomentofpowerandrelatedhumandrivesisnotthesoledeterminantofthesocialfigurationshumanbeingsareengagedin.CarlSchmittwassaidtohaveexploredtheorderofhumanthingsintermsofthepolitical,buthisinvestigationfocusedonthedisordersofthemodernworld.ThecurrentandongoingdiscussionofthemeaningofthepoliticalsuggestsacomprehensivenotionofthepoliticalthatbringstotheforethelogicoforderinherentinallsocietalformsasindicatedbyVoegelin’sconceptofpoliticalreality.Thequestfororderandthecreativeresponsestoitspringfromtheexperientialgroundofexistencethatrevealsitselfinthetensionalstructureofhumanexistenceinthein-betweenoflifeanddeath,truthanduntruth,perfectionandimperfection,orderanddisorder.Theomnipresenceofthisquestisreflectedinthephenomenalworldofpoliticsandpointstowardatranscendentpointofreferenceofthepoliticalintermsofthecommonhumanityofallhumans.Accordingly,politicalrealityisco-extensivewiththeunfoldingofhumanbeinganditsordersothatthepoliticalsignifiesthefun-damentalmodalityofhumanexistence:thepoliticalistheepitomeofhumanbeingintheworld.\n12EricVoegelinontheNatureofLawTimothyFullerMan’sexistenceisnotprimarilyanexternalorphenomenalrealitybutrathertheIn-Betweenexistenceofparticipation.Heisstrungbetweenmortalityandimmortality.Heiscapableofvirtueandfaithbutinclinedtoviceandsin.Heaspirestodivinitybutknowsthatheisindeedlowerthantheangels.Heisa“mixedbag,”wemightsay.Maniscapableofnobilitybut,asSørenKierkegaardremarks,he(whocanlivealmostattheleveloftheangels)moreoftenthannotliveslikehisdog.ThispungentstatementexpressesanunderstandingofthehumanconditionastheIn-Betweenreality,i.e.,asthepermanentstateofmanseekingimmortalitybutnotfindingperfectioninthisworld.—EllisSandoz,AGovernmentofLaws:PoliticalTheory,Religion,andtheAmericanFoundingWeoweagreatdealtoEricVoegelinforbringingnewlighttonumerousfieldsofinquiry.HismonographTheNatureoftheLawinvolume27ofTheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelinisacaseinpoint.1WhatIhavetosaywillbe1.EricVoegelin,TheNatureoftheLaw,inTheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin(here-inafter,CW),vol.27,TheNatureoftheLawandRelatedLegalWritings,ed.RobertAnthonyPascal,JamesLeeBabin,andJohnWilliamCorrington(1991;availableColumbia:Univer-sityofMissouriPress,1999),1–70.223\n224TimothyFullerbasedprincipallyonmyreflectionsonthatwork.First,however,amongthemanyinsightswehavegainedfromVoegelininthestudyofpoliticalandsociallife,Iwanttomentiontwoinordertoputthediscussionoflawincontext:1)hisidentificationofGnosticism,continuallypresentinthetensionsoftheChristiantradition,asafundamental,thoughoftenunrecognized,featureofthemodernsituation,and2)hisinsistencethatthetheoreticalconceptsweemployforanalysismustbereferableto,andnotdisconnectedfrom,actual,concreteexperience.Hence,forexample,Voegelinremarksthatthereisan“intrinsicinconsis-tency”inan“attitudethattendstoseparatetheideaoforderfromtherealitiesofpower....Itseemstobeoneofthemostdifficultthingsforapoliticalthinkertoseparateclearlytheproblemofthecontentsofanorderfromtheproblemofenforcingit.Thequestionofrightentersintotheprinciplesonwhichanorderisbuilt;themaintenanceofanorderwillhavealways,humannaturebeingwhatitis,torelyontheinstrumentofforce.”2Therearenumerouswaysofanalyzingmodernpoliticallife,andoftheideaoflawandtheruleoflaw,whichhavebeenofferedtous.Withinthisvarietyitis,nevertheless,apparentthatmodernpoliticsproducesatensionbetweenutopianisminvaryingdegreesofintensity,ontheonehand,anddespairanddisillusionmentinvaryingdegrees,ontheother.Expressionsoftensionbetweenidealisticaspirationandcynicalreductiontostrugglesforpowerareobviousandwidespread.Thedynamicsofmodernpoliticsshowthecharactertheydobecausetheexperi-enceisconstitutedintermsofsuchtensions.Intheremarkquotedabove,Voe-gelinspeaksofmaintainingawarenessofthetensionbetweenideasoforderandtherealitiesofpower,andofacceptingthefactofsuchtensionasthecontextofanalysis.FollowingVoegelinwecouldsaythatGnosticlongingtoendthetensionorresolveitinonedirectionoranothersuffusesthemodernWesterntraditionbutnotwithoutattendant,powerfulinstitutionalformsofrestraintonthepursuitofthoselongings.Henceindifferenttimesandplacesutopianism,abstractidealism,rationalism,perfectionism,appearwithgreaterorlesserintensityandactivism.Inturn,claimstoorhopesforenlightenment,whendisappointed,arevisitedbydisillusionmentanddespair.Amongtheinstitutionsthatofferresistanceto,orputrestraintsupon,thesepowerfultendenciesareconstitutions,legalsystems,andestablishedpracticesoftheruleoflaw.TheUnitedStatesisanextraordinaryexampleofallthesetendenciesandtensionsandhasthusbeendescribedasa,orthe,laboratoryofmodernity.TheAmericanpolityexhibitsbothextraordinaryaspirationsonaglobalscale—onecouldmentionproclaimingthenovusordoseclorum,acen-2.EricVoegelin,“RightandMight,”ibid.,86.\nVoegelinontheNatureofLaw225turyofWilsonianforeignpolicycoupledwiththeurgetoeconomicglobaliza-tion—alongwithaconstitutionaltraditionbasedonlimitedgovernment,theruleoflaw,dueprocess,decentralizedpower,andarealisticestimateofhumannatureanditslimitations.ThedebateoverNationorEmpireisperenniallycarriedonintermsofrecoveringorrestoringourtruepurpose,recallingustothefoundingprinciplesandtheirmeaningforusnow.Wefindourselvesspec-ulatingonthe“endofhistory”andalsoonthe“clashofcivilizations.”Wecan-notavoiddebatingtheriseandfallofnationsandempires,bothhistoricallyandpresently.WerelivetheantagonismbetweentheancientAugustiniande-preciationofworldlinessandProtestantmillennialistexpectationsoftheheavenlykingdomonearth.WearecompelledtoquestiontheEnlightenmentclaimthatthedeclineanddisappearanceofreligioninfavorofsecularismmusttriumph,facingthefactthatreligionnotonlyhasnotdeclined,letalonedisappeared,buthasshownitselftobeacentralandpowerfulpresence,andinmanyplacesdominant.Andsoweseethatwhilewemayseparatechurchandstate,wehavenoprospectwhateverofseparatingreligionfrompolitics.Voegelinprovidesoneofthemostsatisfactoryanalysesofthissituation.SinceitwasprominentamongVoegelin’sintentionstoidentifyanddemys-tifymodernGnosticismbyexplainingitssourcesanddynamics,itisofcon-siderableinteresttoexaminewhathehastosayaboutthenatureoflawinamonographthatreliesheavilyonthecharacteroftheAmericanlegalandcon-stitutionalexperience.HisfocusontheAmericanexperiencemaynotbesur-prising,sincehewaslecturingtoAmericanstudentsoflaw,andtheessayonwhichwefocusherewasoriginallyaninformalpaperwrittenfortheuseofstudentsofthelaw.Butitissignificantinitsimplications,asweshallsee.VoegelinknewthatwehavebeenlivinginarevolutionaryeraofWesternhistorythathasbeenunderwayforseveralhundredyears.Heknewalsothattheextremesoftyrannyandtotalitarianisminthetwentiethcenturyweretobeunderstoodintermsofvirulentaspectsofouragethatwerenotwellunder-stoodandoftenmisinterpretedbecauseofdefectivephilosophicalandpoliti-calanalysesthathadlostconnectiontoancientsourcesofinquiryintothehumanconditionorhadwillfullydeniedtheirrelevancetoourtime.Never-theless,thesesourcesandexperiencesremainavailabletousifweknowwhatwearelookingforandifweareabletodisengagefromhistoricalimmediacy.Also,wecoulddependtoadegreeonthepersistenceofinstitutions,asinAmer-icanconstitutionalorder,whichcarriedforwardresidualwisdominouractualpractices.WithintheWesterntraditioningeneralthereisarespectforlawandtheruleoflawthatissalutaryandanindispensablefeatureofthemodernconsti-tutionalstateanditsconspicuouseconomicsuccess.Manythinkers,inrespond-ingtotheriseoftotalitarianism,twoworldwars,theadventofthenuclearage\n226TimothyFullerandthecoldwar,andthebipolardivisionbetweenEastandWest,soughtwis-dominreturningtotheancientsources.Voegelinwasbynomeansuniqueinthisrespect,eventhoughhisprojectofrecoveryhaddistinctivefeatures,whichinsurethatthestoryoftherevivalofpoliticalscienceandpoliticalphilosophyinthelatetwentiethcenturycannotproperlybetoldwithoutunderstandinghisroleinit.What,then,canwelearnfromexaminingVoegelin’sreflectionsonthenatureoflaw?First,asnoted,theessayonthenatureoflawisadecidedlyAmericandocu-mentinwhichVoegelinfreelyusesAmericaninstitutionsandpracticestoana-lyzewhatlawisandwhattheruleoflawmaybe.Hedoesthiswhileinsistingthatitisnotclearwhetherlawhasanessence.TheAmericanexperienceisimportantbutwillnotturnouttoexhaustthesourcesofinsight.ThereisnodoubtthathehasAristotle’spoliticalphilosophyandThomasAquinas’sanaly-sisoftheessenceoflawinthebackofhismindinthisdiscussion.Heknowsthatithasbeenacommonfeatureoflegalphilosophytotrytodeterminetheessenceoflaw,butheresistseasydefinitions,notquestioningthequestionitselfbutquestioningwhetherdefinitivenessisfinallypossible.ButwherethendoesVoegelinendup?Thatiswhatremainstobeseen.Hepointsoutthatthereisnosimpleorconvenientwaytodistinguishbetweenthe“essential”andthe“non-essential”ruleswithinalegalsystem,andyetwecannotidentifythenatureofthelawsimplybyreferencetotheaggre-gateofallrules.Moreover,the“essence”or“definition”oflawmightseemtorequireafixed,permanentanswer;butifwerefertoouractualexperience,aswemust,wecanseethatrulescomeandgoandthattheinterpretationoftheirmeaningchangesthroughtime.Alegalsystemgainsandlosesrules.Legalorderscontinuallytransformaslawscomeandgo,constitutingwhatVoegelincallsa“sequenceofaggregates.”Whatmakestheserulesvalid?Onemightanswerthatquestionbypointingtotheundergirdingofferedbyaconsistentrule-makingprocedure,oraconstitutionalorder,aprocessandsystemthatstructuresthecontent.Whatthenactivatestheprocess?Thatis,howistheruleconnectedto,derivedfrom,theunderlyingprocedure?Dowehavetosaythatvalidityisonlymomentaryortransitory?Byfocus-ingonthetemporalityoflawVoegelintriestoshowthatlawiseitherwhatwasvalidorwhatiscomingtobebutisnotyetvalid.Thiswouldcertainlyreflectthepolitical/practicalexperienceofalwaysbeingcaughtbetween“whatis”and“whatoughttobe.”ButthisreflectionallowsVoegelintoposetheques-tionWhereisthatpresencethatwouldrevealtheessenceoflawandnotjustwhathasbeencharacteristicofalegalsystematdifferentmoments?Onemightliketosaythatthereissomethingthatpersistswhileotherthingschange.Buttodistinguishinthiswayisnoteasy.Thequestionofhowtheun-\nVoegelinontheNatureofLaw227changing,howeverstipulated,isconnectedtothechangingremainsunset-tled.But,further,constitutionsandproceduresalsochangeandcanbeamendedsothateventhecontinuityofprocesscannotescapetherealmofchangingness.Essenceseemsevertowithdraworretreatinthecourseofanalysis.Onemustthenlooktothelargersocietyofwhichalegalsystemispartwhereonemightidentifysocialpurposeordirectionthatinformsalegalsys-temasaninstrumentservingsuchpurposeordirection.Butthedifficultyhereisthatwebuttupagainstthedistinctionbetweenlawasastructureforlivingtogetherinmodusvivendiandlawasbindingustoadirection,oranend,definingusasfunctionalcontributorstoacorporateenterprise.Ifourexperiencetellsusthatashumanbeingswearerealindividuals,thenwemustquestionwhetherthepurposeofthelawistooverrideourrealindividuality;butyetwemustwonderalsoifwearemerelyindividualssuchthatcommonpurposeisillusory.Tobesure,werecognizerulesandjudgments,andwemakeuseoftheminourchosentransactionswithoneanother.Voegelinthussuggeststhatwearealllawmakersatsomelevel.Thatis,alegalsystemcannotfunctionifthosesubjecttoitarenotsomehowabletoappropriatetherulestothem-selvesandvoluntarilydeterminetheiruseinspecificinstances.Thenatureoflawisconcernedwiththiswidespreadlaw-acknowledgingactivity;wemustwanttoberelatedtoeachotherincertainlawlikewaysthatweacknowledgetobebeneficial.Thereare,then,common,moreorlessformalrulesforthewholethathavetoproceedfromsomerecognizedauthority,andthereisthevastarrayofmoreorlessinformalrulesforusinparticular.Inordertoflourish,individualsmustbeorientedtolaw-abidingconduct.Individualsmustwantthattobethecase—theymustchooseit—andthuswedistinguishbetweenlaw-abidingandlaw-breakingconduct.Thisdoesnotyettellusifthereisanessenceoflaw,butVoegelinseemstobetellingusthattherearefeaturesofhumaninteractionthatemergesoastopointtowardthedesirabilityoflaw-fulness,suggestinganas-yet-undefinedessencebutestablishingforsurethatthenotionoflawlikeconductiscontinuouslyaccessibletohumanbeingsingeneral.Arule-orientedsocietyreinforcesthisdistinctionbetweenabidingbyandbreakingthelawthroughoutthesocietytoitsmembers:wecande-scribethisasself-regulationandself-rulewithinasystemofrules.Onecoulddescribethisasacommonalitythatcohereswithastrongsenseoftherealityofindividuality.Self-ruleisthusnotaliberationfromrulesbutacollabora-tionintheextensionofrule-boundbehaviorbeyondwhatthegenerallegis-lativerulescanaccomplish.Indeed,thelawmakersaredependentuponthisdiffusionfortheirsuccess.Thatis,arule-of-lawsocietyarticulateslaw-basedrelationshipsallthewaydownandthroughoutthesocialorder.Thisalsoseemstomeanthatrulersandruledalikeparticipateinrecognizingandinstantiating\n228TimothyFullerlawlikeorder.Toachievesuchanorderrequirescollaborationandnotmerelyimposition.Voegelinseessomeversionofthisrequirementasbeinguniver-saltomankindbecausethereisnonaturalbarriertoincreasingdifferentiationanddiversificationinhumanself-awareness.Lawlikeconductcannotthenmerelybeimposed;lawisnotmerelyadecree,andtheelementofrecogni-tionandacceptancemustbepresent.Sofartheargumentseemstobecom-patiblewiththeuttertemporalityofrulesthemselvesthatVoegelinhasearlieracknowledged.Butwhatarealltheselawsfor?Aretheyforconvenience?Formaximizingfreedom?Forsecuringpeacewithoutuniformityofbeliefsorvalues?Forseek-ingsalvation?Istheresomesubstantive,commonendservedbylaw?Obviouslymanyversionsofallthesepositionsareofferedtousallthetime.OneclassicexampleofthetensioninthisisfoundinLocke’sSecondTreatise.Chapter7oftheSecondTreatiseiscalled“OfPoliticalorCivilSociety.”Initsfirstparagraph,paragraph77,Lockesays:GodhavingmadeMansuchacreature,that,inhisownJudgment,itwasnotgoodforhimtobealone,puthimunderstrongObligationsofNecessity,Con-venience,andInclination,todrivehimintoSociety,aswellasfittedhimwithUnderstandingandLanguagetocontinueandenjoyit.3InthefirstparagraphofChapter8,“OftheBeginningofPoliticalSocieties,”paragraph95,Lockesays:Menbeing,ashasbeensaid,byNature,allfree,equalandindependent,noonecanbeputoutofthisEstate,andsubjectedtothePoliticalPowerofanother,withouthisownConsent.TheonlywaywherebyanyonedivestshimselfofhisNaturalLiberty,andputsonthebondsofCivilSocietyisbyagreeingwithotherMentojoinanduniteintoaCommunity,fortheircomfortable,safe,andpeace-ablelivingoneamongstanother,inasecureEnjoymentoftheirProperties,andagreaterSecurityagainstanythatarenotofit.4Lockehasexpressed,first,theideaofnaturalsociality—adispositiontocivility—intermsreminiscentofAristotleandtheBible,andthenlaterthestrongsenseofindividualliberty,equality,andindependence,whichareinte-graltoasocietythatmaybecalledpoliticalasopposedtotyrannical.Thereisanaturaldispositiontopoliticalorcivilsociety,butthereisanactionofthehumanwillthatisrequiredtobeginitorrealizeit.Thefulfillmentofthedis-3.JohnLocke,TheSecondTreatiseofGovernment,rev.ed.,ed.PeterLaslett(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1963),361–62.4.Ibid.,374–75.\nVoegelinontheNatureofLaw229positionrequiresconsciousconsentofindividualstoacommonlyacknowl-edgedruleoflaw.Inhisessayonlaw,Voegelinbrieflyreferstoseveralsignificantresponsestothisdispositiontolawlikerelations.OneistheAristotelian,inwhichtheattempttodefinethepolisshowsthetensionbetweenfocusonthepersonswhomakeupthepolisandtheformofthepolisinvolvinganidealofcitizen-shiporasharedwayoflifeindependentoftheparticularindividualmembers:formvs.multiplicity.AsecondistheAmericanapproachinwhichtheDecla-rationofIndependenceexpressestheanimating“idea”ofproperorder,andtheconstitutioninstantiatesitsothattheconstitutionalformisin-formedbythe“idea.”VoegelintakestheAmericanapproachtorepresentaconservativever-sionofmodernity,whichpreservesstandardsthatareaboveprocedureswhileacknowledgingtheuniversalityofhumanagencythatisprotectedthroughalegalsystemthatemphasizesprocedure.Thisestablishestheconnectionbe-tweenLocke’spositionandtheAmericancombinationofrevolutionaryactionwithconstitutionmaking.Finally,VoegelinreferstotheNationalSocialistversion,whichhedescribesas“intrasystematicproceduralism.”Inthisthereisaninternalconsistencyofruleswithoutreferencetoasubstantialorder,ortranscendentstandardsofright,fromwhichitinsulatesitselfbydenyingthatthereisasubstantialuncho-senorder,orthattranscendentstandardsofrightexist.TheAristotelianandtheAmericanresponsesinacknowledginglawarealsoresponsestothequestionofthemeaningorpurposeoflaw,henceimplyingtherealitythatlawmayreflectbutthatisaboveandbeyondthelaw.TheNationalSocialistisaninward-lookingsystemthatsuppressesthequestionofrealityforitssubjects.Inthisthirdcase,thetensionbetweentheprevailinglawandtheideaoridealoflawfulnessisresisted.OnemightthinkVoegelinissuggestingthatreflectionontheexperienceoflawmusteventuallyproducetheexperienceoftensionbetweenthechangingandtheunchanging.Ourresponsetothisten-sion,althoughnotnecessarilyansweringthequestionofessence,neverthelessimpelsustobemorethoughtfulabouthowweunderstandourselves,anditdoessoinwaysallowingforwidespreadparticipationinthedeliberationoverwhetherweareyetfullyrealizinglawfulness.ItbecomesclearerthatallalongVoegelinispointingtowardalargerordertranscendingallregimes,eventhoughlegalsystemsareinadequatetoshowitinuniversaltermsandmay,byproclaimingtheirautonomy,obscureordenyit.Legalsystemscannotbewhollyadequatebecausetheymustbeparticulartotimeandplaceandtheymustmovewiththeunavoidablehumantemporaltransitions.Buttheyareperfectlyadequatetopointtothattowhichtheyareinadequateandmutable,butreal,responses.\n230TimothyFullerFollowingVoegelin’sreflectionssofar,wehavebeenledfromthelegalordertothelargersocial/politicalordertothequestionofthestructureofreality.Voegelin’smethodhereistomovefromthebottomup,notfromthetopdown.Hehasavoidedusingthetraditionalterminologyofnaturallawtheory,butitwouldbehardtodenythatthereisanaffinity,especiallyatthepointwherelawlikerelationsareseentobeanimplicationofallhumaninteraction,nomatterhowwellorbadlycarriedout.Politicalrevolutions,forinstance,cannotalterthestructureofrealitybutonlytheexpressionofandresponsetothatstructurewithinparticularorders.Thedispositiontomovetowardthelaw-likerelationship,withallitstensionbetweenindividualandcollective,cannotbeeradicatedortransformedsothatthetensioniseliminated.Thereisa“con-cretenessoflastingorderinthedailyactionsofeveryhumanbeing.”5Theorderdoesnotexistindependentlybutconcretelyineveryhumanparticipant.Theconcretenessoforderisfoundinandamidthemultiplicityofconduct.Alegalordermustsomehowbeusable,nonarbitrary,compatiblewithhumaninteraction,andconstructivenotdestructive.Validity,whichwenotedearlier,isachievedwhenindividuals,asindividuals,canactuallymakethelegalorderconcreteintheirinteractiveconduct.Procedureisnecessarybutnotsufficient.Therewillalwaysbethequestionofwhetherouruseofproceduresreinforcesthesenseofrightnessorjusticethataccompaniesouractinginaccordwiththeprocedures.Technicalcorrectnessisnoteverything.Thusacollectionofpersonscannotbeorderedmerelybytheimpositionofnorms.Rather,therehastobereciprocitybetweenthelawsmadeandthedif-fusedenactmentoflawbyindividualsandgroupsintheirvaryingparticularcircumstances.Formandcontentarenotindependent.The“lastingorder”thusbothpersistsandaltersinamannerthatcannotbecapturedbyanalogytomechanismororganism.6Orderisdiscoveredthroughtrialanderrorintheinevitabletensionbetween“whatis”and“whatoughttobe.”AndatthispointVoegelinintroducesthegreatOught,whichisimpliedinthedailyoughtsoflife.Itwouldseemthatalegalorderistobeexaminedintermsofthedegreetowhichitencouragesordiscouragesattunementtothelargerstructureofrealitythatitimperfectlyrepresents.Thetensioninthisquestforattunement,unlesssuppressed,mustleadtoreferencebeyondtherulesthemselves,andevenbeyondthemererevisionoftherulesfortemporal,practicalpurposes.Whatsortoforderdowecompose?Howbestdoweexpressit?Howshallwesuccessfullypromulgateit?Lawthus,forallthereasonsgiven,cannotbereducedtocommand.Lawdemandsaconstantinterpretativedebate,5.Voegelin,CW,27:40.6.Ibid.,43.\nVoegelinontheNatureofLaw231andindividualsmustsubscribetothelaw.Attheimmediatelevelofthisexpe-rienceVoegelinfindsreasontopraisethelegalprofession.Itislawyerswhoaretrainedandattunedtotheseissueswhohavenecessaryexpertise,anditestab-lishestheirspecialvocation.Yetbeyondthelawyersthereisstillafurtherspecialcategoryofthephiloso-pher,whosequestisforinsightintotheOughtabovealloughts.Thephilos-opheracutelysenseswhatispresenttoallinsomedegreeandispotentiallythelawmakerofthetrueorderofthings.Voegelinmakesthesepointsinparttoestablishthedistinctionbetweenwhathecallsthe“trueorderofsociety,”whichisaparticularorderinfruitfultensionwiththelargerstructureofreal-ity,andanideologicalortotalitarianorder,whichseekstosubstituteanim-manentpictureofrealitythatwillcloseoffthetension.Nomatterhowlegalisticorprocedurallyconsistentsuchanordermaybe,itisnotatruelegalorder.Keepingthedistinctionaliveisthespecialfunctionofthephilosophicalman,whoallowsreflectiontoleadtoencounterwiththedivine,whoknowsthatthereisaiusdivinumetnaturale,andwhoestablishestherebytherequiredcritiqueoftheiussocialeethistoriale.Forwhileitistruethatonemustalwaysbeinaconcrete,actualsociety,andwhileitisalsotruethatthetruthofordermustbesoughtwithinparticularsocialorders,andwhileitisfurthertruethatsocialordersvarywithrespecttothedegreetowhichpersonsareenabledtoordertheirlives,neverthelessalltheseconsiderationspointbeyondthem-selves.Atthesimplestlevel,individualscannotdenytheexistenceofotherindi-viduals;societiescannotdenytheexistenceofothersocieties,ofotherpurposesor,perhaps,ofthepossiblepurposeoflife.VoegelinoncemoredistinguishestheAristotelianfromtheAmericanap-proach:ForAristotlethebiostheoretikoscanbepursuedinphilosophywithinthewell-orderedcity;inAmericaitis“life,libertyandthepursuitofhappiness”thatestablishestheideaofself-developmentcoupledwithself-regulationorself-restraint.Inbothcases,despiteobviousdifferences,thereisopennesstoalargertruthaboutman,whichhedidnotmakeandwhichhecannotavoid.Thisawareness,whichisunsoughtandunavoidable,alwaysandeverywhereisnat-ural.Aristotlehadnodoubtthatindividualsarereal.TheAmericanFoundershadnodoubtthatthereisastructureofrealitythattranscendspolitics.Theargumentallowsustothinkthattherearebothancientandmodernmodesofrecognizingthetruthaboutreality,involvingtheideaofanOughtthattranscendsalltheoughtsbuttowhichallthemundaneoughtstend,whethertheyareacknowledgedtobedoingthisornot.Theanalysisascendsonlytoencounterthatwhichtheanalyticalascentpresupposesbeforeitrec-ognizesit.InAmericantermsthismeansweacceptarule-makingauthoritybecausewenotonlyneedrulestomakeourmultiplicitycoherentandsafe,\n232TimothyFullerbutwereallywantthemasfactorsinhumanwell-being.Convenienceandself-interestinevitablyplayapart,buttheyarenotbythemselvesadequatetothepurpose,norcantheyprovidethefullexplanationofwhatweareabout,becausethereisalwaysmoretoself-understandingthanknowingyourmomen-taryinterest.Wearecontinuallyremindedoftheinformingideaofourorderthatexistsaboveallprocessesandprocedures,andthuswearenotpermittedtoforgetthedistinctionbetween“socialtruth”and“truthassuch.”Humanbeingsliveintensionbetweentheconventionalwisdomandwisdomwithoutqualification.Theacceptanceoftherule-makingauthoritydoesnotimplythesuperiorwisdomofthatauthorityconcerningtheorderoftheAmericanpolity,since,aswehaveseen,theinstantiationoftheorderbyallofusinourpartic-ularcircumstancescannotbeamatterofspeculativewisdomandcannotbeinthecontrolofanyonepersonorgroup.Moreover,nosingledescriptionoftheorderisabletodescribeitinitsentirety,andeverypartialdescriptionchangesinsomedegreethepicturewehaveofthatwhichwearetryingtounderstand.Again,thereisanaffinitybetweentheAmericanapproachandAristotle’srecognitionthatatheoryofpracticaldecision-makingisneverasub-stituteforadequatejudgmentinpracticaldecision-makingitself.HereVoege-linoffersawaytoovercomeamereconflictbetweenancientandmodernideasoflawwithoutdenyingthattheyhavetheirdifferences.Wemustseektheperennialintheintersticesofourpractices.BybringingtheAristotelianandAmericanapproachesintocontact,however,IbelieveVoegelinisalsodoingsomethingelseofsignificanceforourthinking:Ifbothapproachesarevalidresponses,itmayfollowthatthedifferencesbetweentheancientsandourselvesarenotconstitutedinthegreaterwisdomofoneortheother.Inotherwords,forVoegelinreflectiononthenatureoflawleadstoanappreciationofdifferentpolitiesnotintermsofearlierorlaterbutintermsoftheirrelativeopennesstothegreatOught.Or,toputitanotherway,Voegelinisnotadvocatinghistoricismorprogressivism.HeisnotsayingthattheAmericanorderhassimplyadvancedbeyondtheAristotelian,eventhoughhedoesacknowledgewhatisdifferentandappropriatetous.Thisisimportantbecauseitallowshimtodefendtheruleoflawinitsmodernformwithoutdefendingmodernityaltogether,whichhecertainlywouldnotdo,andwith-outsuggestingasimplesupersessionofantiquity,asifwehadnothingtolearnfromthatquarter.Hisrefusaltoendorseprogressivismisalsotobeseeninhisjustificationforthecontinuedneedofforceandenforcement,aswesawattheoutset:Perfec-tionisimpossible,truthisalwaysindispute,socialorderitselfisacompulsiontotheextentthatthereisnospontaneousorautomaticorder.LegalrulesareneithermerepersonalexperiencesnortheDecalogue.Debateandcompromise,\nVoegelinontheNatureofLaw233proceduressuchasadjudicationandvoting,areproperresponsestothecon-ditionunderwhichweachieveandseektomaintainorder,thatorderinwhichweallwillinglyparticipatewithouttruncatingorsacrificingourthoughtastowhatliesbeyondit.Yetthereareforcesinthesoulthatdisruptattunementandareineradicable.Voegelinallowsthatenforcementoflawimposesmaturityonthenotfullyma-ture,onthenotfullythoughtful.Thuslawhasaneducativefunction,nottoreplacethetensionsofexistence,buttobringclarityandmanageabilitytothem.Wemayagreetothiswhileremembering,asVoegelinwouldwantusto,thatthetensionsbetweenvoluntarytransactionandself-regulationand“edu-cative”enforcementandpunishmentarethemselvesoccasionsforreflectingonthedifferencebetween“socialtruth”and“truthassuch.”\n13AClassicalPrinceTheStyleofFrançoisMitterrandTiloSchabertPoliticalClassicismWhydoIspeakofFrançoisMitterrandasaprince?Why“prince”?Andwhytheepithet“classical”?Iampracticingpoliticalscience,andIreachedthisappraisalbypracticingthisactivity.AtthebeginningofmystudyofMit-terrand,therewasonlytheroutineofnewspaperreadingand,quiteprelimi-narytoanyscholarlyeffort,theperceptionthathewasbutonepoliticianamongmany.Attheend,everythingwasdifferent.The“onepoliticianamongmany”haddisappeared.InhispersonappearedthepoliticalfigurewhomwetraditionallyassociatewiththeclassicalnotionofaPrinceps,Principe,Prince.Indeed,princelyfiguresinpoliticsbelongtohumansocietiesinanessentialway.Theyhaveappearedatalltimesandatallplaces,andtheyrepresentinonepersontheclassicalfeaturesofpoliticalleadershipor,touseaclassicalterm,ofstatecraft.HumanbeingsdonotlivewithoutaPrincipe,evenifthepersongoesbyanothername,orgovernsnotalonebutinconjunctionwithothers.ThereisevenaPrincipeifthe“prince”iscontortedridiculouslyintoacaricature,orviciouslybentintoamonstrousrepresentation.WhathappenedbetweentheperceptionofFrançoisMitterrandas“onepoliticianamongmany”andtheinsightthatinFrançoisMitterrandtheclas-sicalandparadigmaticfigureoftheprincehadagainbecomereal?Whattookplacewasthatanexperimentinpoliticalsciencehadbeenundertaken,insev-eraldifferentlaboratories.Theexperimentwasconductedcomparatively;labo-234\nClassicalPrince235ratorieswerethosefieldsofhumanconductcalledgovernments.Politicalsci-ence,too,canbeasobjective,as“empirical”andas“hard”andexperimentalasthenaturalsciences.Strictlyconsidered,politicalscienceisevenmoreexperi-mentalthannaturalsciencebecause,touseVico’swords,the“politicalworldsurelywasmadebymen,anditsprinciplesthereforecanbefoundinthecon-structivelifeofourhumanmind.”1Ingovernmentpracticescanbefoundtheessentialfeaturesofgovernments.Theyweremadebypeople,andthewaysbywhichgovernmentsaremadethereforecanbeunderstoodbythewaysinwhichpeopleinprinciplemakeagovernment.Therelevantfindingsarefullyobjective;somethingconstitutedbypeopleisgraspedthroughtheforms,throughthestructuresandlawsbywhichpeopleconstituteit.Astudyofthefieldofgovernmentsis,afterall,astudyofhumanbeingsascreativebeings.Inthelaboratoryoftheresearcher,politicallycreativehumansappearinaction;theresearchercanobservehowgoverningisconductedandhow,inthisway,apoliticalworldiscreatedandsustained.Thequestionsoundssimple:Whatisitthatiscalledgovernment?Theanswer,however,isanythingbutsimple,becauseitentailsunderstandingthecomplexitiesandsurprisesofhumansengagedinpoliticalcreativity.Thisunderstandingofgovernmentwasconfirmed,experimentally,andinanentirelyunintendedway.FrançoisMitterrand,thepresident,wasourwitness.TheexperimentbeganinanAmericancity:Boston,Massachusetts.Iwishedtoknowhowthiscitywasgovernedandwhattherebywascreatedinthewayofgovernment.Thefindings,producedbytheresearchundertakenandlaterpre-sentedinabook,2convergedonthisinsight:Governingiscreativity,anencom-passingandincessantprocessofcreation.Itistheprocessofcreativitythatappearsasgovernment.Thegovernment,however,whilebeingindeedtheformoftheongoingcreativity,isbynomeansidenticalwithit.Thecreativitygoverns,notthegovernment.Theparadigmofgoverning,Idiscovered,isafluidstatebetweenchaosandform.Ateachoftheseextremes,thecreativeactivityorgoverningwouldperfectlybefulfilledifmatterscouldbedecidedonthebasisoflogicalreasoningalone.Completeaschaos,creativegoverningwouldremainutterlyfreeuntoitself;completeasform,itwouldhavecomeintoitsfullreality.Thepoliticalworld,however,organizesitselfdifferently;there,chaosandformfluidlychangeintoeachother,Theyformachaosmos,asIcallit,inborrowingthewordfromJamesJoyce.31.Cf.GiambattistaVico,Lanuovascienza,1.3.2.TiloSchabert,BostonPolitics:TheCreativityofPower(NewYork:W.DeGruyter,1989).3.JamesJoyce,FinnegansWake(London:FaberandFaber,1971),118,line21.\n236TiloSchabertTheempiricalresearchinBostonledmetothesetheoreticalconclusions.However,ascompleteasitwasinitself,thestudyofthecreativityofpower,basedonananalysisofthegoverningsystemandthepoliticsinBostonunderMayorKevinWhite,wasnottheendofthematterbutonlythebeginning.Theinnerworldoftheworldofgoverninghadofferedtoowideanopeningtotheo-reticalcuriosity.Nowknowingbetterwhattherewastoexplore,mycuriositywasdirectedtowardthispoliticalworldwithgreaterintensity.Itestedthepar-adigmdevelopedinthestudyonBostonpoliticsbyexaminingthegoverningstylesandpracticesoffourAmericanpresidents—FranklinD.Roosevelt,HarrySTruman,DwightD.Eisenhower,andLyndonB.Johnson—andtwoGermanchancellors—KonradAdenauerandHelmutKohl.OneoftheresultswasthatmyinterestinFrançoisMitterrand,presidentofFrance,becamegreaterandgreater.4FrançoisMitterrandknewnothingaboutthewaybywhichRoosevelthadgoverned,yethismodeofgoverningwasverysimilar.FrançoisMitterrandknewnothingaboutAdenauer’sstyleofgoverning,yethisstylewasinmanyrespectsthesame.AndMitterrandhadneverheardofBoston’sMayorKevinWhite,yetwithrespecttotheirartofgovernment,thetwocouldhavebeentwins.5Adenauer,again,didnotknowofthegovernmentalstyleofRoosevelt,nordidKevinWhiteknowthatofMitterrand.AndyetBoston’smayorhadshownhimselftobeamasteringoverningcreatively,ataboutthetimetheFrenchpoliticianwasbeginningtorevealhimselfasanothermasterinstatecraft.PresidentsTruman,Eisenhower,andJohnsoncouldbeincludedintothispeculiarconfigurationofsimilaritiesbecausetheywereakintoeachotherintheirpracticeofgovernmentaswellastotheotherleadersalreadynamed;andyeteachofthem,aseachoftheothers,hadadoptedthispracticeashisveryownandnotasacopy.Whatdothesesimilaritiesinstylethattranscendedspaceandtimemean?Howdidithappenthatthesamepeoplewhomadethesesimilaritiesvisiblewerecompletelyunawareofthemthemselves?Howdidtheyexpressanequiv-alentstyleonthebasisofawayofgoverningthattheyundoubtedlyunder-stoodastheirown?WhatcouldRooseveltandMitterrandandWhiteandJohn-sonandEisenhowerandAdenauerhaveincommon,aseachofthemwas4.ItledeventuallytoastudyofMitterrand’sleadershipandpoliticsundertaken—empiricallyagain(byinterviewsandarchivalresearch)—attheElyséePalacebetween1992and1995.Seetheauthor’sbook,WieWeltgeschichtegemachtwird:FrankreichunddiedeutscheEinheit(Stuttgart:Klett-Cotta,2002).5.FrançoisMitterrand,interviewwithauthor,atElyséePalace,June15,1993,quotingfromauthor’snotes.\nClassicalPrince237entirelyforhimselfonlyRoosevelt,onlyMitterrand,onlyWhite,onlyJohnson,onlyEisenhower,onlyAdenauer?ThePrecedingMorphogeneticStructuresWhattheyhadincommonwasthateachgovernedinthewayoftheclassi-calprince,andeachwasforthatreasonoriginal.Thisisnotacontradiction.MitterranddidnotgoverninawaysimilartoRooseveltbecausehemayhavewishedtoimitatethelatter.Theastoundingsimilaritycamefromanothersource.MitterrandattainedinhispracticeofgoverningaclassicismintheartofgovernmenttowhichRoosevelthadcomebyhispracticeofgoverning.NothingconnectedMitterrandwithRooseveltbutthecommonclassicism.ViewedfromtheperspectiveofthisclassicalunderstandingofThePrince,however,theyweresimilartoeachother:inMitterrand’sconductofgovern-mentwefindRoosevelt’sartofgoverning,andinRoosevelt’sconductofgov-ernmentwefindMitterrand’sartofgoverning.Thisstatementconveysastructuraldiscovery:togovernistogovernwithinclassicalstructures.Thesemorphogeneticstructuresareputinactionbyprinceswhiletheygovern,andatthesametimetheythemselvesmaybeperfectlyunawarethatthesestructuresexist.Thestructuresprecedepoliticalleadersinsofarastheleadersenteruponthembyactuallygoverning.Thatis,politicalleadersexecute,withtheiractualleadership,structuresofgoverningthatexistpriortotheirowngovernment.Theyproduce,inageneralenactmentofforms,theformthatisenactedbytheirownconductofgovernment.Thisform,theirown,is,alongmorphogeneticlines,structuredinaclassicalway.Thereexists,then,forscholarlyinquiriesintotheactivityofgoverning,acoherentfieldofanalysis.Thisfieldisconstitutedbythematterunderscrutiny(governments)andnotbytheinquiry(science).Whatpresentsitself,theafore-mentionedsurprisingsimilaritiesinstyle,directsthescholartowardshisorherfield;throughtheunityofthefieldameaningfulparadigmemergesthatallowsustospeakofdifferentthingsasiftheywereone.Suchanunderstand-ingofunityindiversityinformsthelong,butatpresentlargelyforgottentraditionoftheMirrorofthePrince.Againandagainthesamemirrorwasasked:Whatmakesagoodprince?6Similarly,thefieldofpresidentialstudies6.Cf.WilhelmBerges,DieFürstenspiegeldeshohenundspätenMittelalters(Leipzig:K.W.Hiersemann,1938);Hans-OttoMühleisenandTheoStammen,eds.,PolitischeTugendlehreundRegierungskunst(Tübingen:M.Niemeyer,1990).\n238TiloSchabertaspursuedinmodernAmericanpoliticalscience,whichhasnothingequaltoitinanyEuropeancountry,7focusesuponaconstantquestion:HowdoAmer-icanpresidentsexertleadership?8ThediscoveryaboutwhichIspokepresentedastillgreaterchallenge.Ittouchedupontheprocessofcreativitythatproducesagovernment.Anditpointedtothefieldofferedbythisprocessinviewofananalysisoftheactivityofgoverning.Withthefieldofparadigmswithinwhich,andaccordingtowhich,governingoccursasaprocessofcreativity,ascienceofgovernmentfindsthefieldforitsinquiries.Inshort,governingfollowslawsofcreativity.Intheanalysisofthecreativitythatallgoverningis,onecandiscernascienceofgovernmentanddefinethelawsofcreativity.Byhisconductofgovernment,FrançoisMitterrandproducedanidealmodelforapprehendinginaprocessofgoverningthecreativenatureofthisprocess.Inmakingthemodel,hewasmovedbythevoiceofwisdom:“IhavefoundrecentlyabookbyPlutarchwhosetitle,intheAmyotcollection,is—intheway,youknow,astheancientGreeksconsidered:‘Whethermaninoldagestillshouldcareaboutpublicaffairsandtakepartinthem’.Thatisthetitle.Andhegivestheanswer,he,Plutarch...Hesays:‘Yes’.And,doyouknowonwhichprinciplehebuildsitfromthebeginning?Hesays:‘Becauseoldageneverwasseentotransformabeeintoabumble-bee.’”9TheFrenchpresidentproducedhisidealmodelbystrivingtowarditusingcertainstrategiesfortheexerciseofpower.Aswillbeshownpresently,heundertookapractiseofexertingpowerthatwasalreadypresentparadigmatically,althoughhedidnotnecessarilyknowit.IntheElysée,Mitterrandmaintainedhisownprimacyofpoweramongthosewhoparticipatedinhisadministrationbychangingtheirassignmentsfrequentlyandsokeepingthingsfluid.Heactedasifherepeatedlyhadsaidtohimself,“Everytwoorthreeyearstheclerksandthevassalsoughttobereplaced,sothattheydonottakeroots,growstrongorgivemereasontoworry.”ThisisadvicewhereonecaneasilyrecognizethestyleofMitterrand;yet,theadvicefoundinthisformulationis,notamonghisstatements,butinabookontheartofgoverningpublishedinPersiaintheeleventhcentury.107.TherelevantstudiesofWilhelmHennisinGermanyandofSamyCoheninFrancestillareisolatedphenomena.8.Cf.forinstance,thebibliographicaldatapresentedinStephenSkowronek,ThePol-iticsPresidentsMake:LeadershipfromJohnAdamstoGeorgeBush(Cambridge,MA:Bel-knapPress,1993).9.InterviewwithFrançoisMitterrandatFrenchTelevision(TF1),September17,1987.IquoteafterthetextoftheinterviewasgiveninLeMonde,September19,1987,p.7.10.Nizamulmuk,Siyasatnama—DasBuchderStaatskunst,trans.fromPersian(intoGer-man)byKarlEmilSchabinger,ed.KarlFriedrichSchabinger(Zurich:Manesse,1987),213.\nClassicalPrince239Mitterrandalsoknewhowtokeeppeoplewhobelongedclosetohiminanetofcomplicitunderstanding.Eventhoughtheymighthavebuilttheirownprovinceofpartiallyindependentpower,stilltheycontinuedtodangleonhisstrings.Hisrelevantcounselmighthavebeenarticulateddifferently,butitscontentwouldhardlyhavedifferedfromtheonegivenbyachancellorofthePersianEmpireinhisMirrorforPrinces:“Theruleroughtnevertoceasetohaveaneyeontheaffairsofhisadministrators.Hemustcontinuallybeinformedaboutalltheirbearinganddoings.Doesheentrustsomeonewithanimpor-tantbusiness,hemusthavewatchedhimsecretly,inawaythatthepersoncannotnoticeit.”Andwhenthepenofthisremoteprinceleftusthesentence“Negligenceabductspower,”heconveyedaninsightthatMitterrandintheElyséeconscientiouslyapplied.11But,ofcourse,hefollowedhisownwisdomwhenhepreservedbyhisdiligencethefoundationofhispoweronadailybasis.12FrançoisMitterrandcreatedbyhisownvirtuosityanidealmodelfortheapprehensionofthecreativityofgovernment.Todothis,hedidnotneedanexampletoemulate;andyetheactualizedapatternofexamples.Indeed,itevencouldbesaidthathefollowedsuchexamples.Butthen,“tofollow”wouldnotmeansimplytoimitate,tocontinue,tojoin.Rather,itwouldhavetobeunder-stoodbywayofalawofstructuralsimilarity.Mitterranddidnotfollowexamples,butinthecreativeformofhisownpracticeofgovernment,hefol-lowedageneralparadigmofgovernmentalcreativitythatothershadfollowed,too.Hence,theycouldappearonthesurfacetohavebeenhisexamples.ThesimilaritybetweenMitterrandandotherprincesemergedfromasimilarprac-ticeofgoverning(andonlyonthislevelofappearancescanexamplesbeassumed),butitsvalidityderivesonlyfromtheunityoftheparadigm.Eachprincethuscreatedinthisgeneral,paradigmaticformhisownformofgov-erningandbecame,inhisfollowingtheparadigm,similartootherswhofol-loweditaswell.Politiciansassimilatethefigureoftheprincebyactualizingacreativitywithintheformsofgovernmentalcreativity.Theyarebothcreativeandnot.Theyarenotcreative,insofarastheyfollowantecedentsinenactingtheformsthroughwhichgovernmentalcreativityoccurs.Buttheyaredecidedlycreativebyproducingthemselvesastheembodimentofforms,bystaginganddirectingthemselvesandthusmakingvisiblewhatcanonlybecomevisiblethroughan11.Ibid.,196f.,193.12.Mitterrandreadeveryday,whenhewasworkinginhisofficeintheElysée,200–250pagesofnotes,memosonagreatvarietyofsubjects,writtenforhimbyhisaides.Usually,hereturnedthesenotesonthesameday,oftenwithannotations.\n240TiloSchabertenactmentonstage.Mitterrandknewthisgenerallawofcreativityappliedtopoliticalcreativityaswell.Heknewthatonewouldbemistaken,asPaulValéryobserved,whenonewould“gobacktotheauthorinsteadofgoingbacktothemachinerythatdidallthework.”Wearriveatourownwork,Mitterrandsaid,onlybyworkingaccordingtotherules:“Ithinkthatadelicacyofstyle,ofex-pressions,ofwriting,canbefoundonly,asalways,ifonerespectstherulesoflanguage.It’sthesameinpolitics.”Valéryunequivocallyarticulatedthisessentialinsight.Thereisthereforeathirdplayerinthecreativeprocessbetweenworkandauthorthatimposesitselfupontheauthorpursuinghiswork:“Onecan-notproducetheworkswhichonewantedtoproduce—oneobeyssomethingquiteotherthanoneself.”13Whoorwhatisit,then,whomoneobeys?Mitter-randansweredfortherealmofpoliticsthatoneobeysthelawofcreativity.Everycreationhasitsform,andonlythroughformcantherebecreation:“Thereisnoliberty,”Mitterrandsaid,“withoutanorganizationofliberty.”14TheThreeParadoxesThissoundsparadoxical.Islibertyorganized—thatis,libertydemarcatedandsubjugated,notlibertydenied?Andyet,doesnotliberty,too,needtocomeintoaforminordersimplytoexist?Mustanorderoflibertyandthefruitionofliberty,althoughoppositetoeachother,notnecessarilyformaunion?WasitthisthatMitterrandwantedtosay?Inanycasehewasreferringtotheparadoxicalwayinwhichthelawofcreativityinpoliticsbecomesman-ifest.Tohomopoliticusappliesatalltimesandatallplacesthisfirstprinciple:oneisnotfreetogovernasonemightwish;oneisgovernedasonesetsouttogovern.TheParadoxofPowerWhathappensthentoaprincewhodesirestogovern,asheproceedstodowhathedesires,namely,togovern?Theprincewillencounterthefirstparadoxinthenatureofpoliticalgovernment,theparadoxofpower.Letusimaginethesituationmoreconcretely.AsinglepersonsitsatthedeskintheOvalOffice13.PaulValéry,Cahiers(1973;rpr.,Paris:Gallimard,1983),1:253;interviewwithFrançoisMitterrand,inLePoint,no.970,April22,1991,p.49;PaulValéry,Cahiers,1:49.14.InterviewwithFrançoisMitterrand,inLibération,no.923,May10,1984,p.6.Con-sideralsoMitterrand’ssimilarstatement:“Societiesexistonlybyinstitutions.Thereisnolibertywithoutinstitutions”(InterviewwithFrançoisMitterrand,inL’Express,July21,1994,p.22).\nClassicalPrince241intheWhiteHouse:theAmericanpresidentwhosefirstdayinofficehasbegun.Everythinghereisstillquitenewfortheincomingpresident.Appropriatetothespecialmomentofanewbeginning,thepersonatthedeskharborsgreatplansanddesirestomusterasmuchpoliticalenergyaspossible.Indeed,theAmericanConstitutionbestowsagreatdealofpoweronthecountry’spresi-dent.ThepersonsittingatthedeskintheOvalOfficeisfullywillingtoexertthispowerandtostartnowwiththebusinessofgoverning.Forexample,onMarch5,1933,suchasituationexisted.FranklinD.Roose-velthadtakentheoathofofficeaspresidentandonthatdayhehadcometotheOvalOfficeforhisfirstdayofwork.Hesatdownatthedeskofthepresi-dentforthefirsttime,andhedesiredtobegingoverningasthenewpresident.However,hewasunabletodoso.Hispredecessor,HerbertC.Hoover,hadclearedouteverything.Thedrawersinthedeskwereempty,nopieceofpaper,nopencilcouldbefound.Roosevelt,withimpairedlegsthatmadeitimpossi-bleforhimtowalk,aloneintheoffice,calledthroughtheopendoortowardthehallway,demandingthatsomeonebringhimsomethingwithwhichtowrite.IttooksometimeuntiltheyellingofthepresidentoftheUnitedStateswasheardandastaffmemberarrivedtoprovidethepresident,thispowerfulman,withtheelementaryinstrumentsheneededforgoverning:paperandpencil.15MitterrandfoundhimselfinasimilarsituationinthefirstdaysafterhiselectiononMay10,1981.HewasthenewpresidentoftheFrenchRepublic,andhehadassumedfromhispredecessorallthecorrespondingpower.Indeed?Allthepower?UponhisarrivalattheElyséePalacetheofficeswereempty.Alltherecordsandfileshaddeparted,too.Whenpowerisassumed—thisistheparadox—thepowerisnotthere.Rather,thecircumstancesaredesignedinsuchawaythatadeploymentofpowerishamperedorevenobstructed.Thisisparticularlytrueregardingthearrangementsgoverningthewieldingofpoliticalpowerinmodernconstitu-tionalstates.Constitutionalgovernmentiserectedasthefoeofpower;itmis-trustspowergenerallyandinprincipleandowesitsorigintothismistrust.Theobjectofconstitutionalgovernmentisliberty,soitspurposeistoestablishtheruleoffreedomandtosecurefreedombyconstitutionalrule.Allpowerthereforeisdissolvedbytheconstitutionalorderandtransposedintoaplayofpowersothatonepowerwithitsnaturalpassiontoexpandmeetsanother,equallyexpansivepower.Thuseachrestrainstheotheranddoessoasinvol-untarilyaseffectively.Thelogicofthisarrangementamountstoaparalysisof15.Cf.ArthurM.SchlesingerJr.,TheAgeofRoosevelt:TheComingoftheNewDeal(Boston:HoughtonMifflin,1958),p.2f.\n242TiloSchabertpower,whichis,fromtheperspectiveoffreedom,preciselythedesiredresult.Butwhatstrength,then,islefttotheruleanddominionoffreedom?WhilespeakingtojournalistswhomhehadinvitedforaNewYear’scele-bration,Mitterrandreflecteduponhisownexperienceofparadoxicalpowerinthecontextofconstitutionalism.“Ontheoneside,”hesaid,“aPresidentoftheFrenchRepublic,evenundertheFifthRepublic,ownsmuchlesspowerthanonethinks;ontheotherheownsmorethanmostofthedemocraticheadsofstates.”Andheraisedthequestion:“Howtoreconcilethesecontrasts?”andsetouttoformulatearesponse.TheFrenchpresident“ownsmuchlesspowerthanonethinksbecausefortunatelythereareinstitutionsandtraditions;and[for]aheadofstateamusinghimselfwithignoringtheinstitutionsandtraditions,thiswouldnotgoonforverylong.”Mitterrandexplainedthatanyonewhoinholdingpower—intheoffice,forinstance,oftheFrenchpresident—deemshimselfpowerfulmakesamistake:“Powerspillsoutoveralledges,likeanover-filledcasserole.Nothingreallyispossibleinthelongtermifitstemsfromfan-tasyorarbitrariness.”Yet,inevokingtheblack,power-swallowingholethatloomsbeforetheeyesoftheprince,heisstillaprinceofpowerand,Mitter-randcontinuestoexplain,shouldnotfoolhimselfintothinkingotherwise.Thereisallthepoliticalworkthattheprincecanclaimashisown.Eventhoughpowerescapes,creativityremains:“Whatissomagnificentaboutpower—alwaysalimitedpower,inmyview—isthis:powerallows[one]tohaveaneffectonthingsandlife.”16TheParadoxofCreativityTheprinceisboundandtheprinceisfreetoproducepower.Howwilltheprincedoit?Thequestionisputprematurately,fortheprincewillbeobligedbeforehecandoanythingtowrestlewithasecondparadox,theparadoxofcreativity.Again,creativityresultsfromtheproblemofgoverning,becausethehumanbeingswhomtheprincedesirestogovernhavenotwaitedforhisdesiretogoverntomanifestitselfinordertogoabouttheirlives.Onthecon-trary,theyhavebeenpursuingtheirlivesallalongandtheytoohavebeencre-ativewithrespecttotheformsbywhichtheyshapedthem,andtheyremainthatwayevenastheprincearrives.Thecreativeintentionsoftheprincedonotencounteranemptiness,anothingness,fromwhichhisinterventionfor16.PrésidencedelaRépublique,ServicedePresse,Documentàusageinterne,Allocu-tionprononcéeparMonsieurFrançoisMitterrand,PrésidentdelaRépublique,lorsdelaprésentationdesvoeuxdelapresse,January6,1995,p.2.\nClassicalPrince243thefirsttimeproduces,makes,andconstructssomething.Theconditionispreciselyreverse.Thecreativeintentionsoftheprinceareopposedbyaworldfullofthingsalreadycreated,fullofexistentformsandanongoingcreativityentirelyindependentofthecreativeintentionsoftheprince.Theroomwherethecreationsoftheprincearetoappearisalreadyoccupied.Sowhereisthereroomforthepersoncalledontogovern?Mitterrandandhisadministrationencounteredthisdifficultyinamostinstructivewayduringthefirsttwoyearsaftertheycametopower.TheywishedtotransformtheeconomyofFranceaccordingtotheirideasoneconomicpolicy.However,theroomforeconomiccreationswasoccupied.TheeconomyofFrancefollowedotherlawsthanthoseofsocialistplanningandprovedtobequiteresistanttoplansofsocialistreform.Theprojectofeconomicsocial-ismencountered,notanemptyorunorganizedreality,butareplenishedandhighlyorganizedrealitythateludedgovernmentalintervention.Wasanycre-ativeeffectpossible?Haditnotbetterbeabandoned?Ontheotherhand,diditnotoriginateinageneralmandateforcreativity,namely,thewillofthepeopletohaveasocialistgovernment?Infact,ittookalmostthreeyearsforMitterrandandhisadministrationtofindawaybeyondthiscontradictiontodeviseaneconomicpolicythatpermittedacreativeapproachwithinthepara-doxofcreativity.ThedifficultiesofthesocialistprojectarousedbytheconflictitengenderedwerecausedbythesamenewbeginnningthatwassupposedtohavebegunwithMitterrand’selection.ForthecrowdcelebratinghisvictoryattheeveofhiselectiononthePlacedelaBastille,anewpoliticalcreationwasunderway.Inspiteofitspassingawayasaswiftlyshadowymetaphor,thereisnootherwaytounderstandthechantwithwhichtheircrowdwelcomedthenewmaster:Mitterrand—Soleil!Therewasareasonforthis.Everyonewhowantstogovernandhencetobeelectedortoreceiveunderanotherformtheconsentofthosetobegoverned,willpromiseagoodgovernment;andthushepromisessomethingfalse.Agovernmentmadebyhumanbeings(whoarenotonlygoodbutalsobad)inaworldofhumanbeings(whoarenotonlygoodbutalsobad)canatbestbeabeneficial,butnotagood,government.Thevisionofthegoodisnotanem-piricalreality;itwouldnotevenbeneedediftheworldofhumans—despitealltheirgoodintentions—werenotanythingbutgood.Andyet,thepersonwhowantstogovernwilldoverylittlewithoutarousingthepeoplebyavi-sion—bypromisesmadeinelectoralcampaigns.Falsethingswillbesaid.Withoutmakingfalsepromisesacandidateforapoliticalofficeisnotreal.Thismatterofeverydaypoliticsisevidenceoftheparadoxofcreativity.BeforehiselectioninMay1981Mitterrandpromisedthesocialistheaven.Atthesame\n244TiloSchaberttime,however,heremainedthemasterinhisartwhoknew“powerisnottheLordofallthethingsthatoccurintheworldandaffecteverycountryofwhichtheworldexist.”17TheParadoxofPoliticsItsufficestostepontotheChamps-ElyséesintheearlyeveningafteradayofworkintheElyséePalacetorecognizethemostelementaryofourthreeparadoxes:theparadoxofpolitics.Afewstrides,andtheexperienceofatran-sitionmaybemadebywhichoneimageoftheconstitutionofthehumanworldabruptlygiveswaytoanother,quitedifferentone.Onehasdonenomorethanleaveanofficeinthepalaceanditisasifallrealityhadbeenoverturned.Wherestillafewmomentsagoallthingsintheworldhadbeenperceivedinthemodeofaunity,thereappearsnowadiversityconspicuouslyevidentandsplitintothousandsofparts.Whathadbeenthoughttobethere,asoneglancedoutofthewindowsoftheElysée,dissipateslikeadelusion.ThatthepeopleoutthereweregovernedfrominsidetheElysée?Howwasitpossible?Howcouldoneevenhaveentertainedsuchanidea?Aprincecannotaskhimselfthisquestionorhisactionswouldlosepur-pose.ItisnotpossibletogovernintheElyséeandbeoverwhelmedbythetruthtaughtoutsideontheChamps-Elysées.Therealityofpoliticsisthatofthemany,eachofwhomhashisownwillandintentions,hisownroutesandaims,hisownprojectsforactionsandnotionsoflife,personalitinerariesandstationsintheworld,infinitepossibilitiesinaninfinitelyfreeplayofhumanconnections,engagements,configurations,attachments,dissolutions,agree-ments,enmity,collisions,conflicts,friendliness,estrangement,dissension.AwalkfromtheElyséedowntheAvenuedeMarignytoitsintersectionwiththeChamps-Elyséesisaveryshortwalk,andeveryonecanperceivethetableau:thechaosofhumanwhirls,formingitselfincessantlyintoachaos.Thisisthetableautheprinceneedstobeholdcontinuouslyifhewantstobeprinceandtogovern.Andtheprincemustalsobeholdcontinuously,will-fullyandmeticulously,anotherpicture,ifhisgoalistrulytogovern.Withintheimageofaprincetheactualprincemustholdtogetherwhatotherwisewouldscatter,namely,therealityoftheoneandthemany,ofhumanbeingsincommunityandhumanbeingsindispersion,ofthepolisandchaos.Sinceitarisesfromthediversityofhumanbeings,thereexistsaworldentirelydiffer-entfromtheonewithinwhichgovernmentexists.Thelatterpresentsorder;17.Ibid.,6.\nClassicalPrince245theformerisfullofconfusion.Here,stabilityistheprinciple,thereallisever-lastingfluidity.Thisworldisdestinedforaconstructionofunity.Thatworldisalwaysbutaworldofparts.Theprincegovernsinviewofaworldtherealityofwhichisonlyassumed.ConsiderthedayofPresidentMitterrand’sinauguration:theworldofthepresi-dentappearstoabidewithinthefirmfabricoftheceremonialoftherepublic.Francelives.Itfindsitsincarnationinthenewpresident.Towardhim,thesummit,andaroundhim,thecenter,theFrenchstateorganizesitself,withallitspowerinternallyandexternally.Ofthistheceremonialistheapparentsym-bolization.AsthelimousineinwhichthepresidentisridingproceedsalongtheviasacraoftheFrenchRepublic,thepassengercouldbethoughttoembodythespectacleofaworldgovernedbyhim.Heistheprinceofpower,andthroughhimFranceisagreatpower.Francelives,andsheispowerful.Shelives,yes,andsheisalsoaplaythingoftheforcesofspeculationintheinternationalfinancialmarkets.Insidethelimousinesitsapresidentwhowastoldthatspec-ulationagainsttheFrenchfrancistakingplaceandthatitsvalueonthemar-ketscannotbemaintainedunlesshedoessomethingveryquickly.Interventionstosupportthefranchaveprovenfutile,andthereservesofFrancewillbeex-haustedwithinoneortwodays,afterwhichtherateofexchangeforthefrancwillbedictatedbyinternationalspeculators.SuchaneventwouldchangenotonlythestatusofFranceonthecurrencymarketsbutitsgeneralpositionintheareaofforeignpolicyaswell.Inotherwords,victoryofthespeculatorswouldmeanadefeatofthesovereignstateofFrance.ThereareseveraloptionsfortheFrenchgovernmenttoexerciseinresponsetothemonetarycrisis,whichisinrealityapoliticalcrisis.However,hisadvis-ershaveprovidedPresidentMitterrandwithcontrasting,conflictingcounsel.Thus,thechallengeofthespeculationisexacerbatedbyconflictingopinionsamongthepresident’sadvisers.Andtimeisrunningout.Outsidethepresiden-tiallimousineeverythingproceedsastheceremonialofpowerhasprescribed.InsidesitsMitterrand.Heissupposedtocapturebyanactofwillthevanish-ingsovereigntyofFrance.Outside,theworldofthepresidentappearstobestableandordered.Insideallisfluid,andthepresidentmusterectagainstitthedamofhisdecision.Hemayconsiderwhatisgoingonoutsideandactinsideasifheweretheprinceofpower,asifFranceweresovereign.Thenhewouldwanttoseizeinarealityofpurelyfluidthingsafirmandfixedpowerthatisnotthere.HemayfollowtheleadinsideandactoutsideasifheweretheprinceofpowerandallFrancethestageofhismight.Thenhewouldwanttodisplayhispowerbypursuingarealitythatcontinuestoescapehim.Whatwillhedo?Supremepowerflewtowardhimtoday,andhelackedprecisely\n246TiloSchabertthepowerofwhichtodayhewassomuchinneed.Andthiswasonlythefirstday.TheLogicofCreativityinPoliticsIncharacterizingMitterrand,oneofhisformercollaboratorsintheElyséeremarked:“Thedifficultyingoverningisthis:Youmusthaveahighlydevel-opedsensitivityforthecomplexityofthingsandyoumustbeableneverthelesstoreachadecision.MalrauxshoweditverywellinL’Espoir:therehedrawsacharacterwhosenameisScaliandbywhomitismaintainedthatyoucannotbeapersonofactioninbeinganintellectual,fortheintellectualhasbyneces-sityasenseofcomplexity,andbecauseapersonofactioncannotbeotherthanManichaean,andmustbethoughtofassomeonewhobelievesthatallothersareentirelywrongandhealoneisentirelyright.ThatisthereasonwhypeoplelikeMitterrandaresointeresting.Heisanintellectualwhohasahighlydevelopedsensitivityforthecomplexityofthingsandbeingsandonewhoneverthelessmakesdecisions.Thatis,youhavetooverlookthecomplexityofthingsatacertainmoment.”18Mitterrandenduredalltheseparadoxes.Hegovernedbyactingwithinthem,andthushereallygoverned—withinchaos,andnotagainstit.Andhegov-ernedbyactingwiththem.Sohegovernedbybeingcreative,byembracingchaosandproducingithimself.MitterrandresistedtheforcesofrealitythatlikeMachiavelli’sfortunathreatenedtooverwhelmhimandmakehimtheplaythingofitscaprices.Heresistedfascinationwithpowerthat,likeerosinPlato’stheoryofconstitutionalcycles,soughttoseducehimtoaloveoftheworldsogreatthathewanteditmoreandmoretohisliking.Headjustedhimselfmidway,remainedinthemiddle,preparedforrealityandreadyforpower,inthemidstofaplaybetweenchaosandform.Heextractedstructuresfromfluidityandforcedstructuresbackintofluidity.HewastheFrenchpresi-dentintheElysée,andhewastheprinceofchaosmos.Forthereisinthemor-phogenesisofgoverning,inadditiontotheparadoxes,alogicthatthepersonwhowantstogovernmayfollow—willfollow—tothedegreethatthepersonreallywishestogovern.Thislogicdescribesthewayofcreativityinpolitics.Itcomesintoeffectwhenapersonformswithotherpersonsagovernmentthatisthoughttobeacreativegovermentthatexistsinafluidstatebetweenchaosandform.Ifcreativityisintendedtooccurinpolitics,itdemandsaprincewho18.MauriceBenassayag,inLeCercledesintimes:FrançoisMitterrandparsesproches,ed.CarolineLang(Boulogne:EditionsLaSirène,1996),91.\nClassicalPrince247asagovernmentcreatesachaosmosandthusthepossibilityofgoverninginthemodeofcreativity.InMitterrand’smindthereexistednoelaboratetheoryofparadox.Whenhewasaskedaboutit,heansweredempiricallywithobservationsfromalifeinpolitics.19Hethoughtintermsofeverydaylife,notpoliticalscience,andhetrustedwhathesaw.Hefeltnoneedtoconceptualizehisinsightsintothereal-ityofhumanbeingnortheproceduresthataccountfortheoperationsofgov-ernment.TherewasnoreasonforhimtobefamiliarwiththedebateontheproblemofgoverninginthetraditionofAmericanpoliticalthoughtandnoreasonforhimtohaveencounteredpoliticallylike-mindedconfrèreswho—likeJamesMadisonintheFederalistPapers—spokenodifferentlythanheoftheneedtofindamodefortheoperationofgovernmentwherecontradictorythings,thingsarrangedandthingsfluid,“stability”and“liberty,”aremingled.InformedbytheliteratureofBaudelaire,headoptedalinefromLesFleursduMaltodescribehismodeofgoverning.“Ihatethemovementthatshiftsthelines,”Baudelairewrote.FromthislineMitterrandtookuponeelement.Hedroppedtheverbandtherebyimpartedacausal,intentional,trulycreativepowerintothenoun.Thiswasthepowerhespokeabout,thiswasthepowerhereferredtowhenheexplainedhisideaofgoverning:“Themovementshiftingthelines.”20Hedefinedthenatureofgoverningbysimpleformulasandofferedtheadvice:“Youhavetoavoidhabits.”Generally,hebehavedinsuchawaythatpeoplecouldlearnfromhim.Notonlythecouncilofministerswastrans-formedoccasionallyintoanacademyofhisteaching,butagroupoffellow-travelerswastransformedintoacircleoffriendsorcollaboratorsaswell.Heissaidusuallytohavearticulatedhimselfwithgreatambiguityandthustohavepracticedanelusivemodeofthinking.Theechoofhisthoughtinthepercep-tionofotherssuggests,however,thatheknewclearlywhathethought:“IdonotsaythatthereisnoingenuityinMitterrand—aningenuitythatissoaptthatitcanhurt.Butatthesametimeand,aboveall,itshowsacertainviewofthenatureoflife:ambivalence....Thismakesitsointeresting....Thisambiva-lenceinduceshimtorelativizeeverythingandineveryregard,toseeineverysituationbutanotherstageonaninterminableway,becausenothingisdefini-tive,ever.Ihavelearnedfromhimthatyouhavetojudgelifeatitsendandthatsomethingcanbeunderstoodonlyafterhavingrunitscourse.Thereisnoend,thewayistheend.”2119.FrançoisMitterrand,interviewwithauthor,March17,1994.20.TheFederalist,No.63;CharlesBaudelaire,Lesfleursdumal,chap.17,“Labeauté”;Mitterrandinterview,inLibération,no.923,May10,1984.21.“LesréflexionsdeM.Mitterrandentredeuxposes,”inLeMonde,February4,1986;LaurentFabius,inLeCercledesintimes,105f.\n248TiloSchabertThePrimacyofPersonsMitterrandnotonlytaughtthelogicofcreativityinpolitics,hepracticedit.Heembracedcreativitycompletely,fromthefirstprinciple.Andthisprinciplereads:togoverncreativelyistoheedtheprimacyofpersons.Mitterrandthere-forehadverylittleinterestinorganizations.Whatinterestedhimwerepeo-ple.22Hedevelopedasenseofrealitythatmadehimintheordinaryworldofpoliticsaphenomenonofaparticularkind,boundtobemisunderstoodandmisinterpreted.Inthisworld,artifactsoflanguagelikethenotions“state”or“government”arepairedupwitharealityoftheirownasiftherewereindeedthestateorthegovernmentinthemodeofrealitiessuigeneris.Supportedandseeminglyconfirmedbytheappearanceofrealitythateffectivelysurroundspoliticalinstitutions,thishypostatizedviewofthepoliticalworldisverycom-mon.Aworldofinstitutionsisabstractedfromtherealityofhumanbeings:nooneeveractuallyhasseensuchaninstitutionasagovernment,andallwhohavelookedhaveseenonlythepersonsofwhomitissaidthattheyarethepersonsformingtherespectivegovernment.Asitishypostatizedintoaworldofinstitutions,thetruthofthehumanworldisperceivedonlypartially.Every-oneknowsthatthisworldconsistsofhumanbeings,butfewcaretoconsiderandtolookatthisworldmoreclosely,todiscernthelogicinherentinwhattheysee.Thosewhodoconsiderandlookmorecarefully,andthusstayintouchwithpoliticalrealityinitsunfoldingaspoliticalreality,areledtotheinsightbywhichthetruthofthehumanworlddisclosesitselfcreatively.Theyexperiencethewholehumanworldandviewitthennotonlyinthemodeofitsconstitution—itcompriseshumanbeings—butalsointhemodeofitscre-ation:itismadeofhumanbeingsinbeingmadebyhumanbeings.These,thehumanbeingsmakingit,areinthisworldthechiefcreativeandworld-formingelement.Or,formulatedinpoliticalterms:inaworldofhumanbeings,humanbeingsholdthepowertocreateandtoformthisworld(ofpolitics).Agather-ingofpeopleisagatheringofpower.Foritconstitutesinthehumanworldpreciselytheelementofwhichthisworldexists:itsformativeelement.Whenhumanbeingsgather,purposingtheirpoliticalworld,theyareascreativeastheycanbe:theycreatethepowerforthecreationoftheirworld.Allgoverning,then,beginswiththepeoplewhohavegatheredtogovern.“Tohavefriends,isPower,”ThomasHobbeswroteintheLeviathan.Asinglepersonhastheuseofhis“NaturallPower,”suchasextraordinarystrength,prudence,eloquence,ornobility.Inhavingfriends,however,thenaturalpowerofthisonepersonisaugmentedbythepowerofhisfriends:“Fortheyare22.Cf.JeanVédrine,inLeCercledesintimes,21.\nClassicalPrince249strengthsunited.”23InMitterrand’slifefriendshipswerethestrongestandmostconstantelement.Hislifecanbereadasabookoffriendship,towhichfromhisearlyyouthheaddedchapterafterchapter,onecircleoffriendsaftertheother,evernewthrongsoffriendswovencontinuallyintoeachother.Hewasamasterintheartoffriendship,andhecultivateditwiththeutmostcare.Formanyyears,hemaintainedfriendshipsfromtheolddayssimplyoutoffidelity.Underthechangedcircumstances,oflivingintheElyséeaspresi-dentoftherepublicandthusseparatedfromthemodestconditionswheremanyofhisfriendsremained,hedidnotforgetthem.ThepresidentofFranceremainedthefriendofhisfriends.Forexample,inthemidstofmeetingswithotherprincesofthisworldhewrotepostcardstohisfriendsintheMorvan(Burgundy),simplepeople,butthepeoplewithwhomhehadmadefriendswhenhehadbeenactiveamongthemasmayorofasmallvillage.24InthecourseofhislifeMitterrandcreatedmoreandmorehisownparty—thepartyofhisfriends.Hisfriendsunitedtheirstrengthsintoone,namely,thepowerofFrançoisMitterrand.Withthemanifoldnetworksandconfigurationsofsupportandloyaltythatheconstructedthroughhisfriendships,Mitter-randcollected,accordingtoaclassicalpattern,allthepowerheneededtoattainhisgoal,namely,toascendtothepositionofprince.HedemonstratedthetruthofthedoctrineformulatedbyThomasHobbes,andhebecamesimilartootherprinceswhopracticedtheartofgovernment.Hedrewhispowertogovernfromthepowerofthepeoplewhohadbroughttheirstrengthstohim.Withinaverylongtradition,heformedanewexampleoftheparadigmaticrelationbetweengovernmentandtheassociationsoffriendship.AlookintoRolandSyme’sclassicstudy,TheRomanRevolution,illustratesthecreativelogicMitterrandfollowed,asdidAugustusorCaesar.“TheruleofAugustuswastheruleofaparty,”wereadthere—andthewordpartydoesnotmeanapoliticalpartyorganizationinthemodernsense,butanassociationoffriends.OrwelearnthatCaesarmade“plansanddecisionsinthecompanyofhisinti-matesandsecretaries.”Furthermore,wefindthestatement:“Withoutapartyastatesmanisnothing.”Concerningtheethosofpoliticalinterestsoffriends,Symetellsus:“Loyaltycouldonlybewonbyloyaltyinreturn.Caesarneverletdownafriend,whateverhischaracterandstation.”25SymecouldhavefoundinMitterrandhisCaesar,soidenticalappearthepoliticsoffriendshippracticedbytheFrenchandtheRomanprince.But23.ThomasHobbes,Leviathan(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1972),part1,chap.10,p.150.24.Cf.vsd,numérospécial,January11–17,1996,p.68.25.RonaldSyme,TheRomanRevolution(1939;rpr.,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1960),7,55,60,121.\n250TiloSchabertMitterrand,naturally,didnothavesuchamodelinmind,somuchasastrat-egyofpowerofhisownchoosing,whenhemadedecisionsforFranceinthe“companyofhisintimatesandsecretaries”orrefusedtodesertcertainfriends,“whatevertheircharacterorstation,”totheconsternationandbewildermentofothers.Forhecouldnotdistancehimselfintheslightestdegreefromthebondoffriendship,becausebondsofthiskindwerethestuffofhispower:friendshipwasthehighestgood,thewellspringandthemodeofthecreativityofpower.Fromanassociationofindividualpersonsinthisorthatconstella-tionarosethepowertobepowerful,thepowertogovern;ortoputitinoneofthoseterseexpressionsthatcharacterizethepoliticallanguageoftheAmeri-canpoliticallandscape:“Personnelispolicy.”26TherecenthistoryoftheAmericanpresidencyprovidesadditionalproofforthewisdomofMitterrand.ConsiderthequestionsWhygiveunconditionaladherencetotheprimacyofpersons?Dointerestsoffriendsreallypavethewayinpolitics?Inthesummerof1979theNewYorkTimesanalyzedthesitu-ationofPresidentJimmyCarterintheWhiteHouse.ThreeyearshadpassedsincehehadbecomethepresidentoftheUnitedStates,andhewasstillunsuc-cessfulinthepower-basedplayofAmericanpolitics.Hehadproventobeaweakactorwhoranwithhisplansandinitiativesdirectlyintothepowerwallserectedbyotheractors,theCongressespecially.Why?TheanswerfoundbytheNewYorkTimeswassimple,significant,andinstructive.Carter,yes,waspresi-dent.Buthewasnoprince.“Theresponse,quitesimply,isthathehasnofriendsonCapitolHill.‘Hedoesnothavethiscapitalofloyaltyuponwhichhecoulddraw,’aSenatorfromtheSouthsaid.‘Ifyouareintrouble,youneedfriendsforyourdefense,andthat’sexactlywhathedoesnothave.’”27CreatingPoliticalPower:ProblemsandStrategiesWhoeverwantstogoverncreativelyproducescreativity,whichistosay,hispower,bywayofotherpeople.Theyaretheelementsofthemovementbywhichpowerswellsandbecomestheeffectthatitis.Peopleprolongthemovementthroughwhichpower—creativity—occurs,movementsofpersonsamongper-sonstowardpersonsthatarecalledgovernment.Thesemovementsarenot,however,freemovementsundertakenwithinavacuumofcreativity.Thepolit-icalworldwhichaprincegovernsisanythingbutaformlessvacuumwaiting,26.EdwinJ.FeulnerJr.,asquotedbyRonaldBrownstein,“JobsAretheCurrencyofPolitics,andtheWhiteHouseIsonSpendingSpree,”NationalJournal15,no.50–51(December15,1984):2386.27.Cf.StevenV.Roberts,“CarterAccordwithCongress:PresidentIsApparentlySeek-ingtoEaseStrains,”NewYorkTimes,June5,1979.\nClassicalPrince251asitwere,forthecreativeactsoftheprince.Itismoulded,fashioned,carvedthroughout.Itis,tobeprecise,fullofforms:allthatisformedhereinthemodeofpowerisbutoneformationofpoweramongmanyothers.Thepolit-icalworldisnewcomparedtoeverythingelsethathasexistedalreadyinthisworldasafirmlyentrenchedformofpowerthatresistspressureforchange.Anyorganization,anyinstitution,isdefinitivelyhuman:aformmadeofhumanbeings.Yet,anorganizationorinstitutionisalsolikeablockthatoneseemstocrashintoandhitwhenonecomesuponitfromoutside.Itisamassofresis-tancewithitsowngravityandweightofpowerthatappearstobemuchstrongerthanthecombinedoreventheindividualstrengthofthepersonswhomaketherespectiveorganizationorinstitution.Ifonewishestohaveanimpactonaninstitution,itislikecollidingwitharock.Alessforcefulbutequallydis-couragingexperienceistohaveanyattemptatchangebeabsorbedbythehouseofpoweranddigested,withoutanyvisibleconsequences.Togovernmeanstocreatepower,throughpersons,ontheonehand,andthroughformsofpower,ontheotherhand,thatallowcreativitytobreaktheinstitutionalresistanceencounteredintheformationofpower.Ifthisisnotdone,nothingisdone.Trumanhadaccumulatedtheexperi-enceofeightyearsasAmericanpresidentwhenjustbeforehisdepartureherespondedtoaquestionconcerninghissuccessor,president-electDwightD.Eisenhower.Whatdidhethink,hewasasked,aboutthewayEisenhowermightgoabouthisnewtask?“Hewillsitthere,”Trumananswered,pointingatthepresidentialdesk,“andhewillsay:Dothis!Dothat!Andnothingwillhappen.”FranklinD.Rooseveltmadesimilarremarksaboutthefrustrationsofpower.28Mitterranddidnotescapetheproblem,either.Toexemplifyhisrelevantexpe-riences,helikedtorefertothedifficultiesheencounteredinadvancinghisarchitecturalprojectsasthegrandstravaux.Hedescribedeloquentlytheinsti-tutionalresistancethathadbuiltupagainsttheprojects.29Buthesurmounteditcreatively,byformingwithinandagainsttheapparatusofthestateallthepowernecessaryfortheimplementationofhisprojects.“Youknow,”hetoldjournalists,“Ihadtodefendthegrandstravauxlikeacatandadog.”30Thenheelaboratedinorderto“illustratethelessonofpower”thathehadtoimpart.“ThepowerofthePresidentoftheRepublicdoesnotallowhimatanytimetodecidethatconsiderablesums,abillionfrancsforinstance,aretobeallocated,withoutseveralcontrolsofsuchadecision.”Buttheprinceforms28.Cf.RichardE.Neustadt,PresidentialPower:ThePoliticsofLeadership(NewYork:Wiley,1961),9;cf.FredI.Greenstein,LeadershipintheModernPresidency(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1988),27f.29.InaninterviewwiththeauthoronJune15,1993.30.AllocutionprononcéeparMonsieurFrançoisMitterrand,January6,1995,p.7.\n252TiloSchabertpowerandextractsfromthiscreationofpowerthenecessarypowerforhim-selftobemorepowerfulthanothersinthecontestofpower.Iwaspresentandthiswasmypower.Itwas,aboveall,adurablepowerandIprolongeditabit...andIhadthetime,thankstothiscondition.Theadminis-trationofthestate,undeniably,hasitsownqualitiesandinotherrespectsissolidandpresentallthetimetoo.Butthosewhoarepoliticallyinchargechangecontinuously.AndnowIwasPresidentoftheRepublic,electedforsevenyears.Andyoumultiplythisbytwoandthenyouwillseewhatyoureallyhaveinmind!Isaidthen,eachtimewhenJacquesDelorsorPierreBérégovoy[ministersoffinanceintwosucceedingFrenchgovernments]cameandstated:Wemustreducethebudgetaryallotments,wecutthembysomanypercent....ThenIsaid,No,nottheseappropriations.Certainly,thisisthepoweroftheprince,Iadmitit!Sowhat?ThereneverwouldbeanarchitecturalpolicyinFrance,ifthebudgetwereestablishedonanannualbasis.Itwouldbeimpossible.Thenecessarybillionswouldalwaysbemissingbecausethereisalwaysadeficit.HenceIheldmyground.31“Iheldmyground.”Thisisaplainstatement.Butpreciseasitis,itisagaininexact.Anystorythattellsuswhatpoweris,drawstheveilofthestoryoverpower.Thetransparencytowhichpoliticspretendsisamaskofpolitics.HowindeeddidMitterrandholdhisgroundinthecontestofpoweroverthegrandstravaux?Theimageofthecatandthedogisrevealinglyexpressive.Hecouldscratchandbitenowandthen.Buthow?Withwhat?Powerisnotmetaphori-cal,itrecognizesonlyitsownkind.TherewasbutonewayforMitterrand:inordertoadvancethegrandstravaux,aswitheverythingelsehewantedtoeffect,hehadtobepowerful,hehadtobeabletoexerthispoweragainstandwithinthegovernmentalapparatusoftheFrenchstate.Hecontrolledpara-constitutionalconfigurationsofpersonalpowerthatformedwithintheFrenchpoliticalsystemandbeyondithissecondgovernment,andintermsofpowerthissecondgovernmentformedhisrealgovernment.32Mitterrand,ofcourse,wasnotthefirsttohavefoundasaresponsetotheproblemofpowerthenecessityofforminghisowngovernmentalpowerwithinanexistingsystemofgovernmentinordertocommandit.ThisresponsewasknowninChina1200yearsago.33Still,itwasdiscoveredinthetwentiethcenturyasmovementstowardcentralinstitutionsthateventuallywerenormalizedandformallyestab-31.Ibid.,7,8.32.Onthemaskofpolitics,cf.Schabert,BostonPolitics,171ff.,261ff.,andSchabert,“WiewerdenStädteregiert?”inDieWeltderStadt(Munich:Piper,1991),170ff.Ontheconceptofasecondgovernment,cf.BostonPolitics,53f.,andDieWeltderStadt,178ff.33.Cf.TiloSchabert,DieArchitekturderWelt:EinekosmologischeLektürearchitek-tonischerFormen(Munich:WilhelmFink,1997),30f.\nClassicalPrince253lishedunderthenamestheElysée,theWhiteHouse,ortheBundeskanzleramt(federalchancellery).Theseofficialagenciesrepresentthepoweroftheprinceswhogovernustoday.Rooseveltwasthefirsttoovercometheresistancewithwhichtheexistingadministrativeapparatusopposedhispoliticalplans,whenhecreatedonenewgovernmentorganaftertheother,eachdesignedinlinewithhisprojectsandeachorganizedaroundhispositionofpower.HespreadoverthesystemofAmericangovernmentanincreasingnumberofpersonalconfigurationsofexecutivepower,organsofgovernmentalpowerofwhichhewasthecontriv-ingandcontrollingcenter.Andheexpandedbeyondhimself,thepresidentintheWhiteHouse,agrowingcenterofhispersonalgovernment.IntheAmeri-canConstitutionnothingistobefoundaboutaWhiteHouse,noraboutthemightyagencyofpowerthatoperatestodayinWashingtonunderthisinnocentname.OriginallytheAmericanpresidentwassupposedtogoabouthisbusi-nessassistedbyasecretaryortwo,anduntiltheadministrationofFranklinD.RooseveltthebehaviorofAmericanpresidentsdidnotcontradictthisidyllicimage.WithRoosevelt,however,thenatureoftheofficechanged.Heexpandeditbyincreasingthenumberofpersonsemployedintheexecutiveandbythegrowingnetofinstitutionalorgansthatenlargeditintoacomplexofpowerthatfurnishedwhathehadsought:thepowertogovern.ThesuccessorsofRooseveltintheofficeofAmericanpresidenttookoverthisheritage,asifitwerethemostnaturalthingintheworld,andmostofthem—Eisenhower,Kennedy,Johnson,andNixon,inparticular—madeitlargerstill.TheWhiteHousetodayisanenormousagencyofpoweravailablefortheuseoftheprince;numerically,itssizeisontheorderof5,000to6,000persons,andinsti-tutionally,itrangesoveramultitudeoforganizationalunitsthatisasim-menseasitisunfathomable.IntheBasicLawoftheFederalRepublicofGermanyafederalchancelloryisnotmentionedeither,justasonewouldlookinvainintheConstitutionoftheFrenchFifthRepublicforanyreferencetotheElysée.Andyet,inbothcases,theseconstitutionallyunknowntermsdenoteanessentialorganofgovernment,ifnottheverycenterofpoliticalpower.InGermany,thechancellorrepresentsaconstitutionalorgan,butnotthechancellery;theFrenchpresidentrepresentsaconstitutionalorgan,butnottheElysée.Yettodaybothinstitutionsoccupyaparaconstitutionalstatus.TheyshapepreeminentlytheconstitutionwithinwhichGermanyandFranceexist.Theyare,inGermanyasinFrance,instru-mentsoftheprince,agenciesofthepredominantpowerreigninginthecountry.Mitterrandcouldnothavefoundabetterprearrangement.Itsuitedhimexceedinglywell.Bythenatureofhisownpoliticalexistencehewasperfectlypreparedtoassumeanofficethatwaspreordainedtobethecenterofasecond\n254TiloSchabertgovernment,ofpersonalconfigurationsofexecutivepower.Employingthepowerofthepresidentinaccordancewiththeestablishedconventionifitseemedusefultohim,hedidnothesitatetoprovideaministerwithajuniorministerwhoseloyaltydidnotbelongtotheministerbuttohim,thepresi-dent.Thushewouldruletheministerwho,inpublic,wouldstillappeartobehisownman.Asstrategistofaplenitudeofpowerwhomadehisformalpre-rogativeseffective,Mitterrandwascontinuinglypreoccupiedwithacquiringpower.Hedevotedaconsiderableamountofhistimeandenergytotheorga-nizationofhisinfluenceandtotheconfigurationsofpowerthatsustainedit.Hetriedincessantlytocontroltothegreatestextentpossiblethepeopleandinstitutionsofgovernment,inordertoextractfromhisofficialruletheper-sonalpowerthataloneenabledhimtogovernwiththisgovernmentindeed.Thisiswhathealludedtobutdidnotsayexplicitlywhenhecomparedhim-selftoacatandadog.PoliticalPower:HowIsthePowerfulPrincePowerful?Thelogicofcreativityinpoliticsinducesprincestocreateapartyoffriendsandtheparagovernmentalconfigurationsofasecondgovernment.Anditcom-pelsthemtodosomethingmore.Asmuchpowerashemayaccumulate,theprincecanneverstopandrest;forthepowerofaprinceisanythingbutcon-stant.Itisindefinite,uncertain,fluid.Dependingupontheintensitywithwhichtheprincecreatesit,powerismorepresentatonetimeandmuchlessatanother.Itisnotenoughthattheprinceispowerfulor,toputitmorepre-cisely,thattheprincehasbecomepowerfulinacquiringpower.Theprincemustdomore.Theprincemustcontinuetobepowerfulandmaintainallthepoweraccumulatedinthestateofpower.Question:Howdoesthepowerfulprinceremainpowerful?Answer:Theprincekeepsbeingpowerfulinrulingthepeoplewithwhomtheprincerules.Tocompelotherstodowhatonewantsthemtodo,thisisthetasktheprinceneedstoperformunremittingly,andevenmoresoashecontinuestoacquiremorepower.Itisataskbywhichtheprinceunwittinglyreviewstheprinceinexamininghisowncapacitytocreateagainandagainallthepowerheld.Theprinceissubmittedtoatestasrelentlessasitiscontinuous.Istherestillenoughofone’sownpowerlefttomakeothersdowhatonewantsthemtodoandthustohaveinthemsourcesforpowertofeedon?Thereisnochoice,becausewho-evergovernscannevergovernwithoutthehelpofothers.Theresponsibilitiesfortheconductofgovernmentalaffairshavetobecarriedbymany.Butisitnottheprincewhowantstogovern?Yes,andconsequentlytheprincemustdistributefunctionsofauthorityinsuchawaythatitisstillhisownperson\nClassicalPrince255whogoverns,evenifmanyothersgovernforthispersontoo.Butinwhichwayscanthisbearranged?TheGermanchancellorKonradAdenauerusedtowithholdinformationfromthemessengersbringingit;innotshowinganyparticularreaction,herefusedtheinformantanyopportunitytoknowwhathethoughtabouttheinformationgiven,orwhetherithadanyeffectuponhim,andifso,ofwhatkind.InhispracticeofpowerMitterrandappliedpreciselythesameplan.Itwasoneofthemodesbywhichhepursuedthepreservationofhispower.Also,heseducedwhomeverhecouldandthusinvolvedmanypeopleinatrustthatrestrainedthem,whilehisownlibertyonlygrew:“Hehasaknackintalkingtopeople.It’sallcharm,hiswayofspeaking,hiswholemanner,hiswholelanguage.Hesays:‘Betweenus,...dearfriend....’AndtheinterlocutoralwayshasthefeelingtohaveaspecialrelationshipwiththePresident,tobeinhisconfidence.”34InthiswayMitterrandspun,intheElysée,threadsofpowerbywhich,knottingvariablythenetofhisrule,hecouldkeephiscollaboratorsinaconstantmovement;theyfollowedthemovementofhisdesigns.Heinvolvedhiscollaboratorsinthedynamicsofadistantintimacy,bywhichtheywerebothclosetoandremovedfromhimandthus,inanycase,alwaysuncertainastotheirexactplaceinthecircleofallhisconfidants.AnothertoolinthepracticeofpowerwasdevelopedandrefinedbyPresidentRooseveltwhenhehabituallydrewhisknowledgefromavarietyofsources.Frequentlyhebroughtseveralofthemtobearonthesamepolicymatter.Bythismethodhereceiveddifferentreports,enablinghimtouseeachreporttocheckthequalityoftheothers.Hecouldalsocontrolthecollaboratorspro-ducingthereportsand,ifnecessary,correctandcriticizeeachofthembyvirtueoftheeffortsoftheothers.MitterrandalsosystematicallyarrangedtheworkofhiscollaboratorsinthiswayandtherebyavoidedwhatRoosevelthadlike-wiseavoided:becomingtheprisonerofoneparticularview,orofonepartic-ularadviser.Sinceitwasimpossibletoobtainbyhimselfallthedata,docu-ments,ideasthatheneeded(orwished)toknowandtoconsider,hehadtorelyonotherstoresearchandinquireforhim.Suchasystemofdelegation,however,broughtwithitthedangerthathewouldbecomesubordinatetothechoicesandorientationsofsubordinates.Inordertoavoidthispossibility,Mit-terrand,inthecontinuingcreationofhispower,wascompelleddeliberatelytothwartandtoconfusetheworkofhisadvisers.Thusheremainedmasteruntohimselfanduntotheadvisers,beingablestilltodeterminewhatheknew,thought,anddecided.3534.RolandDumas,inLeCercledesintimes,53.35.Cf.MauriceBenassayag,ibid.,91f.\n256TiloSchabertRooseveltdrewaroundhimself(topresentafurthertechniqueintheprac-ticeofpower)innumerablecirclesofauthoritythatoverlapped,infringeduponeachother,andformedachaoticmaze.Noneofthepersonsassistinghimingoverningescapedthismaze.Toeachheassignedanareaofauthoritythatencroachedupontheresponsibilityofothers,leavingeveryoneunawareoftheoverallplan.Whenhiscollaboratorsrealizedthattheyhadsteppedoutofbounds,oftenafterquitesometime,theystilldidnotknowuponhowmanyareasofauthoritytheyinfringednoruponwhoseareastheyhadencroached.Inaddition,Rooseveltstatedhisviewsquiteambiguouslywhenhechargedsomeonewiththeresponsibilityforacertainmatter.Tobeabletoact,hiscol-laboratorswereobligedtodefineforthemselvestherangeoftheiractions,andinsodoing,theyinevitablycollidedwitheachother.Butthishadbeenpre-ciselyRoosevelt’saim:whoeveremergedatthetopprovedtheyhadthetalentsRooseveltwishedtopromoteandattracttohimself.Furthermore,theconflictsamonghisaidesandadvisersenabledhimtoassumeamongthemtheroleofthesuperiormediatorandarbiter.IninterviewingthecollaboratorsofMitterrand(intermittentlyduringtheperiod1992–1995)Ipursuedagainmyexperimentinatwofoldway.IdescribedinsomedetailthechaoticmazebywhichRoosevelthadgoverned,andateachparticularpointmyinterlocutorsrespondedwithamixtureofamazementandamendment,exclaiming:“Butthis,ofcourse,thisisMitterrand!Themethodofthepresident,perfectly!Thatishewhorulesthisway,andhasdoneitallthetime,Iknownooneelsebeingsogoodatit.”Iwascorrected,butthecor-rectiondidnotrefertotheparadigmofgoverningthatIdescribedsomuchastheidentityofthepersonofwhomIspoke.AndIdidnottalkaboutRoose-velt,butaskedmyinterlocutorsinthewayofsomeonewhoisignoranthowtheywoulddescribeMitterrand’smethodsofgoverning.Theyweretheguides,Iwasthenovice.AndasIlistenedandtookinthedetails,certainfamiliarfea-turesweredrawninmymindinthemirrorofthestatementsmadeaboutMitterrand:thiswasRoosevelt.Therehewas,intheWhiteHouse,inthemidstofhismazeofpower.No,thistime,itwasMitterrand.Hegatheredaroundhimaides,advisers,associates,who,simplybecauseofthediversityoftheirdispositions,origins,andprofessionalexperiences,couldnoteasilygetalong:theseniordiplomatdressedinthediscreetsuitofalightblue,quiteinthestyleofhiscaste,perenniallypunctual,exquisitelycourteousandcorrect;theyoungsocialactivistinherraggedjeansandwashed-outparka,superblylaxinkeepingherofficehoursandappointments,storingherfilesinherbackpackonthefloorofheroffice;theboringfellowfromthesocialistparty,exiledintoanofficeattheElyséemuchtoobigforhim,notreallyknow-ingwhathewassupposedtodothere;theextremelycompetentandbeautiful\nClassicalPrince257woman,expertineconomicsandgiftedwithanoverpoweringanalyticalintel-ligence,withwhichshepromotedherowndisturbingambitions;theclownishgrassrootspolitician,subservienttohismaster,theprince,andotherwisefilledtothebrimwithpower,puttingonforeveryonethemasqueradeofhisjest-ing.Theyallwerethere.Throwntogetherastheywere,theycouldnothelpirri-tating,fascinating,repelling,alienating,captivating,motivating,andfightingeachother,organizingthroughthemselvespreciselythechaosMitterrandde-sired.Intothiscollection,whichcanonlybesketchedhere,letusintroducetheonepersonwho,owingtoaparticularcharacter,wouldconstituteamostexemplaryelementofdisorder(andwasit),meddlingineverything,puttingonairstowardeveryone,jealouslyseekingtheexclusivefavorofthemaster,commentingincessantlyonallthemaster’swordsanddeeds,soliciting,en-treating,posinghimselfasthemirrorofhisprinceinthatfigureformerlyemployedatnoblecourts,theFouduRoientitred’office.Waitingfortheself-organizationofchaos—thecat!—anewstructure(foranotherstretchoftime),thatwouldadvancehisrule,inhavingasitsconstituentspeoplewhohadenduredthechaosandhadfoundinitaplace.Ademonstrationofpowerinawithdrawalofpower.Thispleasedtheprince.Itreleasedthepowerthathesought.AndMitterrandappropriatedtheoutlinesofpowerthuspresented,untilthemomentinvariablyarosewhenhefelttheneedtohavesuchoutlinesarrangedinanew,different,transformingconfiguration.Thenheagitatedthechaosandunhingeditsequilibrium.Andchaos,organizingitselfagain,cre-atedhisruleanew.\n14CommonSenseandtheRuleofLawReturningVoegelintoCentralEuropeMartinPalousATHANATOITHNETOITHNETOIATHANATOI—Heraclitus(Mortalsareimmortalsandimmortalsaremortals.—JohnBurnettranslation)Anelementaryfactinthehistoryofthoughtistheemergenceofphilosoph-icalschoolsaroundprominentthinkers.Thedisciplesofamasterstrivetopreservehisworkforthefuture,tocarrythroughhisbasicintention,andtocontinueintheimplementationofthetaskpursued,butunattainedbyhim,inhislifetime.Suchschoolsdonotusuallylastmorethanageneration.Afterawhile,themosttalenteddisciplesstartseeingbeyondthelimitationsofthestandpointfromwhichtheirteacherapproachedphilosophicalproblemsandcometorealizetheunattainabilityofthetaskshehadsetforhimself.Atacer-tainmoment,theycometotheconclusionthatitisnolongerpossibletocon-tinueontheroadmarkedoutbyhim,thattheyareatacrossroadswheretheyTheprincipalsourcesofthesetextsarethedraftsoftwopapersIpresentedatannualmeetingsofEricVoegelinSocietyin2000(“EricVoegelin,‘CommonSense,’andCentralEurope,”presentedinWashington,DC,2000,and“TheRuleofLawandCommonSense:ReturningVoegelintoCentralEurope,”presentedinPhiladelphia,2003).258\nCommonSenseandtheRuleofLaw259havetotakenewdecisions,tounveiltheopenquestionsandissuesbehindalltheanswersthemaster’sphilosophical“teaching”contained.Paradoxically,however,thismomentofdestructionoftheteacher’slegacydoesnotneces-sarilymeanitsabsoluteend,itsretreatfromthehumanworld,anditspassageintooblivion.Onthecontrary,itisexactlyherethatwecanfindthekeytohispotentialimmortality.Onlywhenheisovercomeandproblematized,whenheisremovedfromheaventotheearth,doesthephilosophergainhisplaceinthedialogueofgreat,“immortal”thinkersacrossthebordersofcivilizationsandcenturies.ToguessnowwhatplaceintheoverallspiritualcontextofthetwentiethcenturywillbelongtoEricVoegelin(1901–1984),whetherhewillbeseentohaveaffectedafundamentalshiftinthesphereofpoliticalthinking(ashisdisciplesandfollowersseemtobelieve)ispremature.Atthesametime,how-ever,itisclearthattheopen-endedprocessofVoegelin’spossibleimmortaliza-tionhasstarted.Voegelinisundoubtedlyoneofthosecontemporarythinkerswho,probablyagainsthiswillandinspiteofhisownwarningthatphilosophywillnotallowitselftobeclosedintoanysystematicphilosophicalteaching,didcreateakindofphilosophicalschool.DuringhisacademiccareerintheUnitedStatesandlaterinGermany,Voegelininfluenceddecisivelyasignificantgroupofphilosophers,theologians,politicalscientists,andculturalanthropologistswhonowfindthemselvesatthesummitoftheirprofessionalcareersandwhoareconvincedthattheprincipaltaskoftheirownworkistokeepVoegelin’sphilosophicallegacyalive.TheyhavepublishedTheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin,theyorganizeVoegelinconferencesandwritestudiesandmonographsonhim.TheyhavefoundedtheEricVoegelinSociety,which,since1985,holdsitsannualmeetingsasapartoftheconventionsoftheAmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation.AllthisclearlydemonstratesthatVoegelinwasindeedanexceptionallysuc-cessfulandinfluentialteacherandthathislegacyrepresentsaverypowerfulinspiration.Inafewyears,aglobalnetworkofVoegelinianshasbeencreated,achainofpeopleasifunitedbyasinglephilosophicalwill,sharingVoegelin’sfundamentalconvictionthatitisstillPlato,Aristotle,andotherclassicalthinkerswhoshouldteachuswhatis(andwhatisnot)philosophy,andthatitisphilosophyinthisclassicalsensethatremainsduringthistimeofcrisisthesinglemostimportantweapontobeused“indefenseofcivilization.”TheaimthesecontemporaryPlatonists(akindofPlatonicAcademiaoperatinginthepostmodernenvironmentoftoday’sglobalizingworld)striveforseemstobeguidedbyasingleintention:toinitiateaRenaissanceofclassicalpoliticalthought,torediscovertheliberatingpowerofclassicalpoliticalideas,toretrievethedimensionofphilosophicaldialogueforourcurrentpoliticaldiscourse.\n260MartinPalousNevertheless,timeandtidewaitfornoman.First-generationVoegelinianshavealreadyreachedtheir“acme,”andonemightraisethequestionofthefutureoftheirproject.WhatwillbecomeofVoegelin’slegacyinthelongterm,fromthepointofviewofthedialogueofmankindacrossthebordersofcivi-lizationsandcenturies?Despitethedisciples’effortsatdisseminatingtheideasofthemaster,the“Voegelinianrevolution”inpoliticalthought,asannouncedin1982inabookofthesamenamebyEllisSandoz,1oneofthemostpromi-nentAmericanfollowersofVoegelin,seemsyettobecompleted.ItisrealisticandfairtoadmitthatVoegelin’sinfluenceonthemainstreamofcurrentpoliti-calthoughtremainslimited.ThisstateofaffairsisillustratedbythefactthattextsonVoegelinianthemespresentalmostexclusivelyapositiveandaccordantinterpretationofhisteaching.ThefactthatVoegelinisusuallypresentedasanunrivaledmasterinmattersofpoliticalthoughtdemonstratesthatthedestruc-tive,criticalphaseofworkonhisphilosophicallegacy,whichmaywellbethetruetestofhisactualgreatnessandkeyphaseoftheprocessofhis“immortal-ization,”hasnotyetbegun—orifithas,thenitevidentlyremainsatatimid,initialstage.WherewilltheVoegeliniandebateandresearchbe,letussay,thirtyyearsfromnow?Canweimaginethat?WillVoegelinstillberecognizedasagreat,truly“revolutionary”philosopheroftheperiod?Orwillthisimagebereducedbythepassageoftime,andVoegelin“only”rememberedasoneofthoseeducatedCentralEuropeansbornatatragictime,uprootedfromtheirdomesticenvironment,livingtheirlivesontheperipheryofthebigworld,leavingbehindonlyfadedphotographs,collectedvolumesoftheirworks,andgraduallydisappearingtracesoftheirpersonalstruggles,whichwerenodoubtheroicandrespectablebutdidnotmakearealdifferencefromthepointofviewoftheuniversalhistoryofthespirit?AnamnesisInraisingalltheseessentiallyunanswerablequestions,IamwellawareoftheseriouslimitationsofmycontributiontoanyongoingVoegeliniandebate.Toclarifymyperspective,Iwillrecallmyownanamnesis.Iwillbegininthe1980sinsocialistCzechoslovakia,whenmyownintroductionintotheworldofWesternphilosophyandmyfirstencounterswithEricVoegelin’sthoughttookplace.ThenIwillfocusontheradicalchangebroughtbytheVelvetRevo-lutionof1989,whichreopenedoursociety,asocietythathadbeenkeptclosed1.EllisSandoz,TheVoegelinianRevolution:ABiographicalIntroduction(BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUniversityPress,1981).\nCommonSenseandtheRuleofLaw261formorethanfourdecades,andofferedtoallitsmembersanopportunitytotakepartinthepoliticalprocessofrebuildingdemocracy.Inthelightofnewexperience,Ihavebeenforcedtoreexaminemyapproachesto,andmyread-ingof,thefundamentalproblemsofclassicalpoliticalphilosophy,notleastofallbecauseIhavebeenabletostartcommunicatingwiththeinternationalPlatonicAcademiaofVoegelinians.IranacrossthenameofEricVoegelinforthefirsttimeintheearly1980s,inmeetingsof“Kampademia,”asmallgroupoffriendswhogottogetherwithaboldandsomewhatquixoticintentionto“revive”thetraditionofSocratic/PlatonicthoughtinthemidstofasmallCzechsocietystrickeninthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturybythetotalitarianplague.OurcommonteacherwasJanPatocˇka,oneofthelaststudentsofEdmundHusserlandundoubtedlythegreatestCzechphilosopherofthetwentiethcentury.Hedecidedtotakeabold,genuinelySocraticsteptowardtheendofhislife.Almostseventyyearsold,hebecameoneofthefirstthreespokespersonsofCharter77.2Hediedonlytwomonthsafterthecharter’soriginaldeclaration,onJanuary1,1977,ofaheartattacksufferedafteraseriesofprolongedpoliceinterrogations.Patocˇka’sphenomenologicalresearchonthe“naturalworldofhumanexistence”(Husserl’sLebenswelt)3andespeciallyhisphilosophyofhistory,whichwaselaboratedstepbystepinhisprivatelecturesin1970andfinallysketchedintheformofsix“hereticalessays,”4representedtheprincipalpointsofdepartureandperhapsthemostfrequenttopicofourdisputesandconversations.Through2.Charter77waspublishedonJanuary1,1977,andpubliclyaskedthegovernmentofsocialistCzechoslovakiatorespecthumanrightsofitscitizens,rightsguaranteedbytwointernationalUNCovenants(theInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRightsandtheInternationalCovenantonEconomic,Social,andCulturalRights)that“weresignedonbehalfofourRepublicin1968,confirmedinHelsinkiin1975andcameintoforceinourcountryon23March1976.”Charter77wascreatedas“afree,informal,opencom-munityofpeople”thatexpresseditswish“toconductaconstructivedialoguewiththepoliticalandstateauthorities”aboutvariousmattersofpublicconcernandauthorizedthreepeopletoserveasitsfirstthreespokespersons:JanPatocˇka,philosopher;VáclavHavl,playwright;andJir˘íHájek,internationallawyer,whowasforafewmonthsin1968theCzechoslovakministerforforeignaffairs.3.TheNaturalWorldasaPhilosophicalProblemwasthetitleofPatocˇka’sdissertation.FirstpublishedinCzechasPr˘irozeny´sve˘tjakofilosoficky´problem(Prague:UNKUC˘,1936);2nded.,TheNaturalWorldinItsAuthor’sReflectionsafterThirtyThreeYears(Prague:Cˇeskoslovensky´spisovatel,1970),withanewintroduction.TheEnglishtranslationdoesnotyetexist.ThebookisavailableinGerman:DieNaturlicheWeltalsPhilosophischesProbleminJanPatocˇka:AusgewahlteSchriften,vol.1,ed.KlausNellen(Stuttgart:Klett-CotaVerlag,1989);andinFrench:Lemondenaturelcommeunproblèmephilosophique,trans.JaromírDane˘kandHenriDecleve,Phaenomenologica68(TheHague:MartinusNijhoff,1976).4.TheEnglishversionisavailableasJanPatocˇka,HereticalEssaysinthePhilosophyofHistory,trans.ErazimKohák,ed.JamesDodd(Chicago:OpenCourt,1996).\n262MartinPalousPatocˇka,andunderhisguidance,wewereallintroducednotonlytothebasicideasofphenomenologyformulatedbyhisgreatteacherbutalsototheworksofmanyothercontemporaryphilosophersandpoliticalthinkers:HannahArendt,EugenFink,MartinHeidegger,KarlJaspers,EmanuelLévinas,PaulRicoeur,LeoStrauss,andEricVoegelin.IrememberwellthelivelyexchangesafterthepresentationsofPavelBratinka,whogaveusanintroductiontoTheNewScienceofPoliticsorofZdenekNeubauer,whotalkedaboutTheVoegelinianRevolution,inspiredbytheabove-mentionedbookbyEllisSan-doz.Ialsomademyowncontributionstothisdebate,beingfortunateenoughtoownthefirstfourvolumesofOrderandHistory.Ireceivedthem,thankstotheJanHusFoundation,whichnotonlysentusmanybooksduringthe1980sbutalsosponsoredvisitstoPragueofdozensofrenownedWesternscholars(includingCharlesTaylor,RogerScruton,DavidLevy,JürgenHaber-mas,ErnstTugendhat,RichardRorty,NormanPodhoretz,JacquesDerrida,Jean-PierreVernant,Jean-FrançoisLyotard,EmmanuelLeRoyLadurie,AndréGlucksmann,AlainFinkelkraut,Pierre-JeanLabarrière)togivelecturesandtochallengeournaïveandsometimesuninformedenthusiasmforphilosophy,whichweconceivedfollowingPatocˇkaasa“newpossibilityoflife”ina“shakensituation.”5HowthendidVoegelin’sthoughtfitintoour“academic”contextatthattime?Whatwerewesearchingforinourongoingdialogue(s)?WhatwerethemainquestionswithwhichwewereoccupiedduringthelastyearsofEuropeancommunism?RecentlyIre-readthepublicationofsomeofourseminarsfrom1983and1984thathadbeenrecordedandtranscribed.6Withallthereserva-tionsanddoubtsthatsucharecherchedutempsperducanraisetwentyyearslater,itwas,indeed,aninterestingexperience.Tocharacterizetheinquisitiveatmosphereofourseminarsandthefundamentalaimofour“philosophiz-ing,”IcanusethebluntformulationemployedbyVoegelinasthetitleofoneofthechaptersofhisAutobiographicalReflections:“WhyPhilosophize?ToRecaptureReality!”WeallwouldhavesubscribedtoVoegelin’sequallybluntstatementthatthemotivationsofhisworkarose“fromthepoliticalsituation”:AnybodywithaninformedandreflectivemindwholivesinthetwentiethcenturysincetheendoftheFirstWorldWar,asIdid,findshimselfhemmedin,ifnotoppressed,fromallsidesbyafloodofideologicallanguage—meaningtherebythelanguagesymbolsthatpretendtobeconceptsbutinfactareunanalyzed5.JanPatocˇka,“TheBeginningofHistory,”ibid.,41.ThePragueactivitiesoftheJanHusFoundationinPraguearedescribedbyBarbaraDaysinherbookTheVelvetPhiloso-phers(London:ClaridgePress,2000).6.T.R.Korder,“VoegelinaPatocˇka,”AthanaeumRozmluvy45(1988).\nCommonSenseandtheRuleofLaw263topoiortopics.Moreover,anybodywhoisexposedtothisdominantclimateofopinionhastocopewiththeproblemthatlanguageisasocialphenomenon.Hecannotdealwiththeusersofideologicallanguageaspartnersinadiscussion,buthehastomakethemtheobjectofinvestigation.Thereisnocommunityoflanguagewiththerepresentativesofthedominantideologies.Hence,thecom-munityoflanguagethathehimselfwantstouseinordertocriticizetheusersofideologicallanguagemustfirstbediscoveredand,ifnecessary,established.7Wecertainlywereresistingnotonly“afloodofideologicallanguage”butalsoitspoliticalincarnationintheformofan“advancedtotalitarianregime.”8ThisregimetrieddesperatelytopreserveitspowerinthefaceofachanginginternationalenvironmentinEuropeinitiatedbytheso-calledHelsinkiprocessand,after1985,bythepoliciesofperestrojkaofthenewSovietleader,MichailGorbac˘ev.IntheCzechcontext,theregime’sattempttosurvivemeantat-temptingtodestroyour“parallelpolis,”whichhadbeenfoundedbythedecla-rationofCharter77.9Nomatterhowcomplicatedandevendramaticthecir-cumstancesmighthavebeen,weweretryingtodoinourregularacademicmeetingswhatVoegelinsuggestedintheabove-quotedpassage:todiscoverand,ifnecessary,toestablishanalternativecommunityoflanguageinordertounderstandourselvesandourcurrentsituationintheworld.Wedidthisinordertorecoverandexploreourplaceonthespiritualmapofanemergingglobalmankindandtoconnectourpersonalstories(undertheinfluenceofPatocˇka)tophilosophyandphilosophyofhistory.ThereasonIthrewmyselfintothestudyofVoegelin’sOrderandHistorywasclearandsimple:IwasstruckfromitsopeningpagesbythepowerofVoe-gelin’sargumentsandfoundthewayheworkedwiththeclassicaltextsandideascongenialwithandcomplementarytothestyleofphilosophicalworkofourteacher.BothPatocˇkaandVoegelinpursuedtheirownphilosophicalproj-ectsbysummoningalltheireducationandspiritualstrength.Theybothfor-mulatedtheirbigquestionsandproceededmethodicallyonoriginalpathsofthoughtthatran,nevertheless,paralleltoeachother.Atthesametime,thankstotheirunusualseriousnessandtheexistentialurgencyoftheirrespectivesit-uations,theymoved,inthewordsofParmenides,“farfromthebeatenpaths7.EricVoegelin,AutobiographicalReflections,ed.EllisSandoz(BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUniversityPress,1989),93.8.Thebestanalysisofhowan“advancedtotalitarianregime”worksandhowitkeepstheenslavedpopulationunderitscontrolcanbefoundinVáclavHavel’sessay“StoriesandTotalitarianism,”inVáclavHavel,OpenLetters,SelectedWritings,1965–1990,ed.PaulWilson(NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1991),328–50.9.Moreinformationaboutthedissidents’“parallelpolis”canbefoundinCivicFree-dominCentralEurope:VoicesfromCzechoslovakia,ed.H.GordonSkillingandPaulWilson(NewYork:MacMillan,1991).\n264MartinPalousofhumans.”10Nonetheless,asgenuinephilosophers,theybothwereexcellentinterpretersofthehistoryofideas,trueguardiansoftheauthenticityandintegrityofphilosophicallanguage,whichoriginatedintheeffortsofconcretemenandwomeninthepasttoarticulatetheirfiniteexperiencesofencounterswiththetranscendentsourceoforderwithintheirconcretehistoricalsoci-eties.Undertheirguidance,wewerebeingintroducedintoaphilosophythatwaslessametaphysicaldoctrinemadeupoftruepropositionsabouteternalandunmovableBeing,andmoreawayoflifeandakindofmovementofhumanexistence,theaimofwhichwasto“liveintruth,”tokeepopenthepossibilityofhumanlifeto“escapeone’sownignorance.”EvenforalaymanordilettantesuchasI,bothPatocˇkaandVoegelinwereabletoopentheforgottenandlargelyunnoticedlayersoftheWesternspiritualtradition.Theyhelpedmetorediscoverthemeaningofbasicconceptsandsymbolsusedinphilosophicaldiscourse.Theyshookmeoutofmyshellofpresumedcertaintiesandevokedformethemetaphysicaldepthsthatlaybeneaththesurfaceoffactsanddatathathadtobeexploredandknownbyanyonewhowishedtounderstandandtoarticulatemeaningfullyourconcretesituationwithintheuniversalhorizonofhumanhistory.ReexaminingthecontributionsImadetoourseminarsduring1983and1984,Ihavenoillusionsabouttheirqualityoreventheoriginalityoftheirmessage.Onthecontrary,theirlanguagebetraysnotonlythelackofskillandexperienceofthecontributor,butthepoweroftheBaconian“IdolsoftheMar-ketPlace”—when“theillandunfitchoiceofwordswonderfullyobstructstheunderstanding”11—nomatterhowstrongwasmydesiretoovercomethemoratleastgetthemundercontrol.Beinginspiredandtaughtbygenuinephiloso-pherssuchasPatocˇkaorVoegelin,wewereinviteddespitetheflaws,imperfec-tions,andevidentamateurismofouracademicconversations,andinthecon-textthatwasdeterminedbyourcurrentpoliticalexistenceinCentralEurope,intothesocietyofclassicalthinkers,includingSocrates,Plato,Aristotle,andmanyothers.Thankstothisapprenticeship,wecouldparticipate,inourownway,usingourmodestresourcesandcapabilities,inthenever-endingdialogueofmankindinitiatedinancientGreeceandothercentersofthecivilizedworldmanycenturiesago.TheSocraticappealtocarenotsomuchabout“moneyandhonorandreputation”butratherabout“wisdomandtruthandthegreatest10.“Parmenides:PeriFyseos,”inHermanDiels,DieFragmentederVorsokratiker,English,ed.AllanF.Randal,quotedfromTheClassicInternetLibrary,http://home.ican.net/~arandall/Parmenides/.11.FrancisBacon,TheNewOrganon(OnTrueDirectionsConcerningtheInterpreta-tionofNature),43,inSelectedWorksofFrancisBacon,available,http://www.constitution.org/bacon/bacon.htm.\nCommonSenseandtheRuleofLaw265improvementofthesoul”12meantintheinterpretationofPatocˇkaorVoegelinmuchmorethanasuperficialinvitationtotakeup“dieMoralphilosophie”caricaturedbyHegelinhisVorlesungenüberdieGeschichtederPhilosophie.13WhatwasclearlyatstakehereforuswasthefutureidentityoftheheartofEuropeandthepowerofthegreatideasandsymbolsofthepasttobemobi-lizedintheconcretesituationofour“polis”thatwasfindingitselfinthe1980sinoneofitsworstcrises.TheVelvetRevolutionofNovember1989broughtaradicalchangetoourworld.Thankstothecollapseofcommunism,CentralEuropereemergedasanactiveplayerinthefieldofinternationalrelations.Thedecadesofthecoldwarhadcreateda“frozen”systemofnationalsocieties,whichnowhadgivenwaytoanewopportunitytosetoutonajourneyfromtotalitarianismtodemocracy.Thenewsituationterminatedforobviousreasonstheexistenceofthedissidents’“parallelpolis”andbroughtanewchallengetowhatIhavealwaysconsideredthemostimportantpartofmypublicengagement:toassistintherebirthofclassicalpoliticalideasinourcurrentcontextandtoenhancewiththeirhelpourcapacitytounderstandourworld.Whileourphilosophical“Kampademia”stillexists,holdingitsregularquarterly“conventions,”itsorig-inalpathosofresistanceisirretrievablylost,andouragingconversationsaretakingplaceintheclimateofideasthatisnotsoconducivetothe“remem-branceofthethingspast”astorealizingagainandagainthedangerouslygrow-inggapbetweenpastandfuture.ThenewsocialandpoliticalcontextshapedbyournewlygainedfreedomdidnotleavemyreadingofVoegelinuntouched.Ontheonehand,IhavehadthechancetobecomeacquaintedwiththeactivitiesofaglobalnetworkofVoe-geliniansandhavebenefitedgreatlyfromit.IhavegainedanopportunitytostudyVoegelin’sOperaOmnia,volumeaftervolume,toreadtheabundanceofthesecondaryVoegelinianliterature,toparticipateintheongoingVoegeliniandialoguewithinagroupofdistinguishedscholars,andtopresentmyowninsights,comments,andeventualdiscoveriesattheregularannualmeetingsoftheEricVoegelinSociety.Ontheotherhand,beingpushedforwardbytheirreversibilityofhistoricaltime,growingolder,andbecomingmoreandmore12.Cf.Plato,Ap.30a–30b,quotationfromtheEnglishtranslationbyBenjaminJowett,TheInternetClassicalArchive,“ApologybyPlato,”available,http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html.13.“IndemSokratesaufdieseWeisederMoralphilosophieihreEntstehunggab(wieersiebehandelt,wirdsiepopular),hatihnAlleFolgezeitdesMoralischenGeschwatzesundderPopularphilosophiezuihremPatronundHeligenerklart,undihnzumrechtfertigen-denDeckmantelallerUnphilosophieerhoben;wozunochvollendskamm,dassseinTodihmdaspopularruhmendeInteressedesUnschuldigLeidensgab”(G.W.F.Hegel,SamtlicheWerke,Band18,ZweiterBand,ed.HermannGlockner[Stuttgart,1959],47).\n266MartinPalousperplexed,notonlybyallthedifficultiesofourowntransitiontodemocracy,butbyalltheintricaciesoftheNewWorldOrderemergingfromtheruinsoftheOldOne,Irealizedthatmyperceptionofpoliticalideashasalsobeenchanging.IhadtoadmitthatinthecurrentsituationIamsimplyunabletoreadVoegelininthewayIhadoriginally,thatIhavesomedifficultieswithmyoriginalunderstandingoftheVoegelinianprojectaimedatthe“defenseofcivilization,”andthatdespitethefactthatitisamongVoegelinianswhereonecanfindalivingpoliticalthoughttoday,thereissomethingproblematic,atleastfrommyownpointofview,intheprevailingfocusandstyleofcurrentVoegelinianresearch.Strugglingwithmypersonallossofdirection,Ihavestartedlookingforanewpointofdeparture.Surprisingly,Ididnotfinditintherealmofideas,amongVoegelin’sfascinatinginsightsintotheirhistory,thatmadehimwith-outanydoubtoneofthegreatestphilosophersofthetwentiethcentury,butinhisAutobiographicalReflections.TheVoegelins’escapefromCentralEurope,andhisencounterwithAmerican“commonsense,”haveledmetoraisethefollowingquestions:Isitnothere,inCentralEurope,whereVoegelin’sanaba-sis,whichbeganinthe1930swhentotalitarianism,oncecharacterizedbyhimasa“cadavericpoisonofWesterncivilization,”14wasontherise,mustcometoitsend?Isnotthispotentialhomecomingratherthanalltheseeffortstosum-marizetheresultsofVoegelin’sHerculean“searchfororder,”andtheattemptstocompareorconfrontthemwiththeproductsofotherphilosophicalschoolsandtraditions,thebiggestchallengefortheVoegelinianlegacyatthebeginningofthetwenty-firstcentury?Isitnotinthemidstofsingular,passinghumanmatters,andeventuallynotonlyinCentralEurope,whereweshouldbelookingforVoegelin’sproverbialRhodosandwherethequestionofpotentialimmor-talityofhisteachingmustbetested?Havingraisedthesequestions,myplanforthisessayistoattempttoanswerthemasfollows:insection3,IwillreflectuponhowVoegelin’sencounterwiththepragmatismofWilliamJames,withitsemphasisuponpluralismandtherejectionofthe“monistic”epistemologyoftheneo-Kantianprovenance,unconnectedwithsomeestablishedEuropeantradition,couldinspireVoegelintorediscoverthelosttreasureofclassicalphilosophy,tragicallyabsentintheEuropeanpoliticaldiscourseofthetime.Insection4,IbeginbydiscussingtheconcreteproblemfacedbyVoegelininhissixteen-year-longteachingexpe-rienceatLouisianaStateUniversityinBatonRouge,thatis,howtoexplainwhat14.EricVoegelin,“TheOriginsofTotalitarianism,”inTheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin(hereinafter,CW),vol.11,PublishedEssays,1953–1965,ed.EllisSandoz(Columbia:Uni-versityofMissouriPress,2000),15.\nCommonSenseandtheRuleofLaw267isthenatureoflawtohisAmericanstudents.IwillarguethatitisVoegelinianjurisprudence,informedbyclassicalpoliticalphilosophyandinfluencedbytheAmericantraditionof“commonsense,”thatshouldinspiretheCentralEuro-peansearchforanewidentityintheworldafter11/9and9/11.15EscapefromCentralEuropeandDiscoveryofAmericanCommonSenseLetusbeginwiththefactsofVoegelin’sbiography.BornonJanuary3,1901,inCologne,Germany,in1910hemovedwithhisparentstoVienna,wherehereceivedhiseducation:firstatthegymnasiumandthenattheUniversityofVienna,wherehestudiedpoliticalscienceattheFacultyofLawwithHansKelsen.InternationaleventsledtoaradicalchangeoftheViennesescenedur-ingthecourseofVoegelin’sstudies.Duringthemonarchy,Viennaenjoyedtherelativelyliberal,cosmopolitanatmosphereofaworldmetropolis.Defeatinwar,however,resultedinthedisintegrationoftheempireandintheemergencefromitsruinsin1918ofarepublic,albeitonelackingthefreerepublicanspirit.TheliberalismtypicaloftheVienneseimperialerawasreplacedbypetitbourgeoisnarrow-mindednessandageneralsenseofgrievanceabouthistor-icalinjustice.Insteadofcosmopolitantolerancetypicalofthe“worldofyes-terday”oftheformerrulersofCentralEurope(describedsopersuasivelyfromaJewishperspectiveinStefanZweig’sautobiography),therewastheriseofpettyAustrianchauvinism,xenophobia,ideologicallymotivatedencountersofantagonisticsocialclasses,andgeneralspiritualdeclineandlossofdirection.Therewere,ofcourse,deeperreasonsforthistransformation;itwasnotmerelythehangoverofmilitarydefeatandadeclineinpower;itwasalsoanomenofadeepspiritualandsocialcrisisthatinthepostwarperiodbegantoengulfthewholeEuropeancontinent,culminatingintheassumptionofpowerbytotali-tarianpoliticalmovementsandasecondworldwar.ThisshiftframedVoe-gelin’spoliticalexperienceandtheelementaryexistentialpointofdepartureofhisphilosophy.Theacademicenvironment(andVoegelinmovedaroundalmostexclusivelyinthatenvironment)wasmoreresistanttothegeneraldecline.Readingofthewayheplannedhisacademictraining,thenamesofthepeoplewhotaught15.OnNovember9,1989,thefalloftheBerlinWallendedthe“shorttwentiethcentury,”the“ageofextremes”(EricHobsbawn,TheAgeofExtremes:TheShortTwentiethCentury,1914–1991[Harmondsworth:Penguin,1994]);andonSeptember11,2001,Islamicter-roristsattackedNewYorkandWashington,remindingmankindwhatkindofthreatsandchallengesarecominginthedawnofanewglobalizedageofthethirdmillennium.\n268MartinPaloushim,theplaceswherehestudied,andthedifferentdisciplinesheencoun-tered,onecannotbutbeamazedbythewiderangeofpossibilitiesavailabletotheyoungscholar,bythequalityofcontemporaryspirituallife,andbythehighstandardsofuniversityeducationinAustriainthosedays,notwithstand-ingthepoliticalandspiritualdeclineofthecountry.Nevertheless,the“declineoftheWest,”asisclearlyimpliedinVoegelin’sreflection,wasnotonlyfeltasapoliticalproblembutwasbecomingincreasinglyapparentintheintellectualmilieuaswell.PerhapsthatisonereasonwhyVoegelin’sintellectualstrivingwassoinseparablylinkedtotheprivateseminarsheldamongacircleoffriendscalledtheGeistkreis.ItincludedAlfredSchütz,withwhomVoegelinexchangedawrittendiscussionofHusserl’sphenomenology,aswellasanumberofotherswhomVoegelinlatermetagaininAmericanexile.TheGeistkreiswasagroupofyoungenthusiastswhodiscussedeverythingthatarousedtheirinquisitiveminds.Evenso,theveryexistenceandmissionofthegroupreflectedtheshiftsoccurringintheworldofAustrianacademia.Althoughitsbeginningswereinconspicuous,graduallythecenterofauthenticintellectuallifemovedintotheprivatesphere,whereitremainedfreefrommanipulationbythestate.DespiteVoegelin’sreceivinghisintroductiontotheworldofEuropeanlearn-ingfromanimpressivelineofGermanandAustrianprofessors,amajorinfluenceinVoegelin’sacademicdevelopmentwashistriptotheUnitedStatesin1924–1925.AsaLauraSpellmanRockefellerFellow,VoegelinwasgivenhisfirstopportunitytobecomeacquaintedwiththeAmericanuniversityenvi-ronmentandtocompareitwithhisEuropeanexperience.TheencounterwithAmericabecamehisdestiny.Thisiswhereheencountered“commonsense,”which“spoiled”him,ashesaid,tosuchadegreethatfromthenonhewasunabletoexistnon-problematicallywithintheframeworkofthevenerableandcultivatedphilosophicaltraditionsofCentralEurope.WhereastheEuro-peandiscussionofpoliticalandsocialphenomenamovedwithinaviciouscircleofcontendingphilosophiesandschools(mainlyofneo-Kantianprove-nance)andthusneglectedtheincreasinglygloomycontemporarypoliticalsituation,theAmericanwayofpoliticalthinkingwasquitedifferent.Itdidnotleanprimarilyononeoranotherphilosophicalschoolandtraditionbutwasinspiredbyconcretepoliticalevents,namely,thefoundationoftheAmericanrepublic,theadoptionofitsConstitution(thathenceforthwasunderstoodasthesourceofthe“goodlife”ofAmericancitizens),anditsfurtherdevelopmentandprotection,whichweregenerallyperceivedasthebasicguaranteeoffree-domandhumandignity.Inbrief,AmericapresenteditselftoVoegelinasanamazingsynthesisofclassicalthought,whichhehadstriveninvaintorestoreinhisCentralEuropeanenvironment,andthebestcomponentsoftheChris-tiantraditionthat,inhisview,wasalsodesperatelylackingfromEuropean\nCommonSenseandtheRuleofLaw269modernism.ThepragmatismofWilliamJamesandJohnDewey,thephiloso-phyofGeorgeSantayana,Whitehead’slecturesatHarvardUniversity,andalsothesolidAmericantheoryoflawandgovernment,whichexistedindependentoftheintellectualheightsofphilosophy,allthathadsuchastrongimpactonVoegelinthathereturnedtoEurope,ashesaid,achangedman,unableanylongertoexistinanincreasinglyrestricted,narrow,andphilosophicallysterileEuropeanenvironment.Voegelin’sphilosophicaldiagnosisofthecrisisofEuropeancivilizationinthetwentiethcenturytransformedhimintoanuncompromisingcriticofemerg-ingtotalitarianmovementsandespeciallyofNationalSocialism.Hisopposi-tion,however,placedhiminimmediatejeopardyfollowingtheAustrianAnschluss.OriginallyhisconversiontoAnglo-Saxon“commonsense”madeVoegelin“unfitforfurtherexistenceinCentralEurope,”butGermanNazisandtheirprojectoftheThousandYearReichforcedhimtoleaveViennaandbecomeanexile.InMarch1938,hefledunderdramaticcircumstancestoSwitzerland,andshortlythereafterheleftfortheUnitedStates.WhydidAmerican“commonsense”alienateVoegelinnotonlyfromcon-temporaryEuropeanpoliticsbutalsofromthedominantmoderntraditionofEuropeanpoliticalthought?WhywasitintheUnitedStatesofAmerica,inademocraticrepublicoftheNewWorld,whichtookuponitselfmorethanonceinthetwentiethcenturytheburdenofdefendingWesterncivilizationagainsttotalitarianbarbarityhavingitsoriginonthe“oldcontinent,”thatVoegelinrediscoveredtheliberatingpowerofclassical,pre-modern,politicalthought?Toanswerthesequestions,letuslookbrieflyatthewaytheproblemof“com-monsense”wasapproachedbyoneofthegreatfiguresofAmericanpragma-tism,WilliamJames.Inhislecturesof1906–1907(publishedin1907underthetitlePragmatism:ANewNameforSomeOldWaysofThinking),16Jamesstatedclearlywhatheunderstoodtobe“commonsense.”Itwas,hesaid,“ourfundamentalwayofthinking,”discoveredalreadyby“exceedinglyremoteancestors,whichhavebeenabletopreservethemselvesthroughouttheexpe-rienceofallsubsequenttimes,”thatforms“onegreatstageofequilibriuminthehumanmind’sdevelopment.”17ThefundamentalphilosophicalquestionanalyzedbyJameswastheprob-lemofnoesis,theproblemofknowledgeandknowing.Whatdoesitmeantoknowsomething?Whatkindofrelationshipisestablishedbetween“knower”16.WilliamJames,Pragmatism:ANewNameforSomeOldWaysofThinking(NewYork:Longmans,Green,1907).AllquotationsintheseessaysarefromTheWritingsofWilliamJames:AComprehensiveEdition,ed.withanintroductionbyJohnJ.McDermott(NewYork:ModernLibrary,1968).17.Ibid.,420.\n270MartinPalousand“thingstobeknown”?Whatontologyiscommensuratewiththeworldinwhichmanisabletoliveasarationalbeing?Cantheclassicalphilosophers,whoforthefirsttimeformulatedthegreatontologicalquestionsanddiscov-eredthefundamentalideasofWesternthought,helpusinoureffortstounder-standbetterourcontemporarysituationandimproveourcapacitytouseourown“commonsense”?AccordingtoJames,therearetwoapproachestotheproblemofnoesis:monism,whichcorrespondstotheperennialphilosophicalquestfortheunityoftheworld,orpluralism.Inhislecture“TheOneandtheMany”Jamessays:ThegreatmonisticDenkmittelforahundredyearspasthasbeenthenotionoftheoneKnower.Themanyexistonlyasobjectsforhisthought—existinhisdream,asitwere;andasheknowsthem,theyhaveonepurpose,formonesys-tem,tellonetaleforhim.Thisnotionofanallenvelopingnoeticunityinthingsisthesublimestachievementofintellectualistphilosophy.18Thehypothesisofthe“oneness,”oftheuniverse,ofoneworldconsistingofthingsseenbyanomniscientknower“asformingonesinglesystematicfact,”thehypothesisoftheactualworldbeingpresenttothesensesofahumanspectatoralwayswithinthefinitehorizonofhismortality,but“completeeter-nally,”hasimportantimplications.Itsdiscoveryandconsciousacceptancesignalagenuinerevolutioninthehistoricalprocessofhumanself-understanding.Fromthismomenton,anytheoryofknowledge,anyplausibleanswertoallconcretequestionsemergingfromthefactthatmanisendowedwiththecapacityofreasoning,thatheisabletodistinguishinhisownnoeticactivitiesbetweenpurereason(dealingwithmattersoftruthanduntruth),ethicalorpracticalreason(workingprimarilywiththedistinctionbetweengoodandbad),andaestheticreason(attributingthequalityofbeautifulanduglytothethingsinthehumanworld),hasnootherchoicebutsimplytotakethe“monis-tic”hypothesisintoconsideration.The“knowing”manmustgetridofevery-thingthatdoesnotcomplywithit.Hehastoleave,asifforcedbyitscoercivepower,hispre-criticalpastbehindandenterintoanewuniversalisticeradom-inatedandpermeatedbymodern“science.”Inshort,thenecessaryconsequenceofthe“Copernicanrevolution”madeinEuropeanhistorybyImmanuelKantisthebirthofthemodernEuropeanspiritwithitsprogressivistunderstand-ingofhumanhistory,themostimportantimplicationofwhichistheonto-logicaldegradationoreventheconsciousdenialofallhumanknowledgethatpreviouslyhelpedmantoorienthimselfintheworld,namely,his“commonsense.”18.Ibid.,411.\nCommonSenseandtheRuleofLaw271ThestanceofpragmaticAmericanphilosophersmustbeseenasagentleandthoughtfulrejection,notofthevalueofKantianarguments,whichwerepraisedhighlybyWilliamJames,butofthatabsolutenesswithwhichthemonisticphilosophywaspresented.AgainsttheontologicalhypothesisthatenthronestheoneKnower“conceivedeitherasanAbsoluteorasanUltimate,”theprag-matistsraisethecounterhypothesisthatthewidestfieldofknowledgethateverwasorwillbestillcontainssomeignorance.Somebitsofinformationalwaysmayescape.Thisisthehypothesisofnoeticpluralism,whichmonistsconsidersoabsurd.Sinceweareboundtotreatitasrespectfullyasnoeticmonism,untilthefactsshallhavetippedthebeam,wefindthatourpragma-tism,thoughoriginallynothingbutmethod,hasforcedustobefriendlytothepluralisticview.Itmaybethatsomepartsoftheworldareconnectedsolooselywithsomeotherpartsastobestrungalongbynothingbutthecopula“and.”Theymightevencomeandgowithoutthoseotherpartssufferinganyinternalchange.Thispluralisticview,ofaworldofadditiveconstitution,isonethatpragmatismisunabletoruleoutfromseriousconsideration.Butthisviewleadsonetothefurtherhypothesisthattheactualworld,insteadofbeingcomplete“eternally,”asthemonistsassureus,maybeeternallyincompleteandatalltimessubjecttoadditionorliabletoloss.19Whenweadoptapluralisticviewoftheworld,severalfundamentalthingschange.Firstofall,welosethesystematicandstaticconceptionofnoesisasseenbytheoneomniscientknowerandconsistingofindividualpieces,thevalidityofwhichhasbeen“scientifically”testedandassembledintoacoherentandnon-contradictorywhole.Instead,wefocusmoreontheproblemofnoesisasaprocess,onthedynamicaspectsofthelifeofmindwearepartofinspiteofourfinitebodilyexistence.WestartdiscoveringthetemporaldimensionsofafundamentallyhumansituationthatwasdiscoveredfirstbySocratesandtwogenerationslaterphilosophicallyanalyzedbyAristotle,whodefinedhumansasthosewhodonotpossessthedivineknowledgeoftheOneKnowerbutarealwaysstrivingtoescapetheignorancetheyareawareof,because“bynature(they)desiretoknow.”20Ourminds[orourknowledge,asJamessometimesstated]thusgrowinspots;andlikegreasespots,thespotsspread.Butweletthemspreadaslittleaspossible:wekeepunalteredasmuchofouroldknowledge,manyofouroldprejudicesandbeliefs,aswecan.Wepatchandtinkermorethanwerenew.Thenovelty19.Ibid.,418.20.Pantesanthrópoitoueidenaioregontaifysei(Allmenbynaturedesiretoknow).Aristotle,Metaphysics980a21,trans.W.D.Ross,TheClassicalInternetLibrary,available,http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphzsics.l.i.html.\n272MartinPaloussoaksin;itstainstheancientmass;butitisalsotingedbywhatabsorbsit.Ourpastapperceivesandco-operates;andinthenewequilibriuminwhicheachstepforwardintheprocessoflearningterminates,ithappensrelativelyseldomthatthenewfactisaddedraw.Moreusuallyitisembeddedcooked,asonemightsay,orsteweddowninthesauceoftheold.21Thisfigurativedescriptionoftheprocesswithinwhichhumanknowledgeisacquired,grows,andisalteredinthecourseoftimeclearlyimpliesadiffer-ent,andmuchmorepositive,attitudeofthe“pragmatist”toward“commonsense”thanwasthepositionofmonism.Atthesametime,pragmatismhasanincomparablyhigherappreciationforsingularfactsthataregivenintheimme-diateexperienceofindividualhumanbeingswholiveinthepresenceoftheknownpastbutwhoareopentowardtheunknownfuture.Inshort:pragma-tismasanoeticstanceismuchmoreembeddedintheconcretenessofhumanlifethaninabstractgeneralitiesapprehendedbythosewhosubscribetoamonisticschoolofthought.Itrespectsthemostfundamentalfactofournoesis,thatthebulkofourknowledgeisinheritedfromourancestors,fromourfam-ilyortribe,fromthesociety,culture,andcivilizationintowhichwewereborn.Atthesametime,however,pragmatismisreadytotestthetruthswereceivedfromthepastandstillbelieveinagainstthechangingrealitiesofourlife,againstallthesechallengestowhichweareexposed,asfreehumanbeings,beingswhohadnochoicebuttoactontheirown,tousetheirowncapacityofjudgment,andtomake,attherighttime,therightdecisions.Inthisregard,thedistinctionmadebyJamesbetweentheuseof“commonsense”inpracticaltalk,asman’s“gumptionandgoodjudgment,”andinphilos-ophy,whichunderstandsby“commonsense”the“useofcertainintellectualformsandcategories”inheritedfromthepast,isnotasgreatasitmightseemfromhisowndistinctionsanddefinitions.Pragmatistsareindeedinterestedinandwanttoexplorewhatmaybe“ourfundamentalwaysofthinking,whichhavebeenabletopreservethemselvesthroughouttheexperienceofallsubse-quenttimes,”ascustoms,habitsofthought,orbeliefs.Theyarewellawarethatwithoutthesediscoveries,sometimesofour“exceedinglyremoteancestors,”ourcapacityofgoodjudgmentandgoodactionwouldbedamagedandpara-lyzed.Truthasthesupremenoeticcategoryand“good”asthebasicorientationpointofourpracticallifecometogetheragaininthepragmaticperspective,bridgingthegapbetweenthemandothertranscendentalia(esse,verum,bonum,pulchrum)thatbeganinWesterncivilizationwiththeadventofthemodernage.Truthisonespeciesofgood,andnot,asitisusuallysupposed,acategorydis-tinctfromgood,andcoordinatedwithit.Thetrueisthenameofwhateverproves21.James,Pragmatism,419.\nCommonSenseandtheRuleofLaw273itselftobegood,inthewayofbelief,andgood,too,fordefinite,assignablerea-sons.Whatwouldbebetterforustobelieve?Thissoundsverymuchlikeadefinitionoftruth.Itcomesveryneartosayingwhatweoughttobelieve:andinthatdefinitionnoneofyouwouldfindanyoddity.Oughtweevernottobelievewhatisbetterforustobelieve?Andcanwethenkeepthenotionofwhatisbet-terforus,andwhatistrueforus,permanentlyapart?22Inshort,theshiftfromthe“monistic”perspective,whichhaslongdominatedmodernEuropeanthought,tothepointofviewadoptedbyAmericanprag-matismcanhealourcontemporaryspiritualdisease,accordingtoVoegelin.Becausethemovefrommonismtowardpragmatismopensthedooragaintoclassicalpoliticalthought,itcanhelptorestoretheimpairedbalanceoftheEuropeanpoliticalmind.Fromthepragmaticperspective,onecanrediscoverundertheconditionsofmodernitytheclassicalSocraticquestionconcerningthehumangoodandthequestionofhumans“givinganaccount”oftheirlives,andthequestionofcaringabout“thegreatestimprovementofthesoul,”torepeatoncemoretheabove-quotedpassagefromPlato’s“Apology.”Onecanrecaptureforcontemporaryusethemeaningoftheclassicalconceptofpoliticsasaformoflifeoffreehumanbeings,themeaningoftheclassicalconceptoflaw,thatonlytheruleriscapableofmakingallcitizensequal,andthemeaningandscopeofnaturalrights,whichareinalienablebecausetheyarenottheproductofhumanactivitybuthavebeenestablishedbyGod.Allthisexplainswhy“pragmatism”isagenuineAmericanphilosophyandwhyapragmaticattitudecharacterizesmorethananythingelsetheframeoftheAmericanpoliticalmind.Thereismore:therediscoveryandnew“prag-matic”readingofAristotleandoftheotherclassicalpoliticalphilosophersbytheAmericanfoundingfathersservedasoneofthemajorspiritualinspirationsfortheAmericanRevolution.AlthoughthefundamentalorientationofVoegelin’sphilosophyremainedasitwasinhisVienneseperiod,thepoliticalcircumstancesofhisworkdra-maticallychanged.VoegelinbecameanAmericancitizenin1944.TheUnitedStates,accordingtohim,wastheonlycountrythatcouldsaveWesternciviliza-tionpolitically;atthesametime,itofferedasolutionforitsspiritualrebirth.Lifeincrisis-strickenCentralEuropemayhavecalledfortheexistenceofaSocraticVoegelin,butlifeinAmericaenabledhimtoadoptaPlatonicper-spective.HetriedtoexplorethephenomenonofthecrisesofEuropeancivi-lizationintheirfullamplitude,takingnoteofalltheontologicalimplicationsandpenetratingtotheveryheartofcontemporaryproblems.Inordertounder-standtheblindalleywheremankindfounditselfinthemiddleofthetwentieth22.Ibid.,388–89.\n274MartinPalouscentury,andtohelpcurethediseasedestroyingtheEuropeanspirit,Voegelinwasreadytostudythevastamountofmaterialbelongingtothediscardedspiritualheritage,bothEuropeanandnon-European.HewouldusenotonlytheinstrumentshebroughtwithhimtoAmericafromhisCentralEuropeanpastbutalsotheAmericaninspirationof“commonsense,”whichhadservedhimasabeamoflightintheDarkTimesoftheEuropeancivilization.Histask,however,wasenormous.Notbeingdesignedasaregularacademicprojectbutratherasanemergencyoperationindefenseofcivilization,itcanevokeinthemindofapessimistthememoryoftheeternalpunishmentofthemythicalkingSisyphus,orperhaps,foramoreoptimisticobserver,oneoftheheroictasksofHeracles.Relentlesslyandearnestly,Voegelinstruggledthroughthehistoryofmankindinordertocompletehisworkonthenewscienceofpoliticsandthenewphi-losophyofhistory,thecentralthemeofwhichisthenever-endingstrugglewithinhumansocietybetweentheforcesoforderanddisorder.Whatwesee,however,whenweexaminetheresultsofhisefforts,isnottheheroreturningvictoriousfromhisbattles,butaphilosopherwhoseresultshavethepowertogenerateinsights.Butalas,whentheywereerectedintoanopus,theyseemtodisintegrateintheauthor’shands.Voegelinreturnedhumbly,againandagain,tohispointofdepartureandtriedtoembracetheaccumulatedmaterialmas-teredwithsuchunparalleledeffortintohisgrandiosethought-construction.Insteadoftheoriginallyplannedhistoryofpoliticalideas,heproducedastudyoftherelationbetweenhistoryandorder.Buteventhisprojectremainedunfinished.Thenever-endingsearchforordergrewincreasinglydistractedbytheclassicalphilosophicalthemeofpreparationfordeathandmeditationthataimedbeyondthesphereofephemeralhumanaffairs.CommonSenseandtheRuleofLawLetusreconsiderVoegelin’sintellectualbiographywithspecialfocusonthequestionofthelaw.IcontendthatreflectiononVoegelin’slifeexperienceandhis“return”toCentralEuropeisespeciallyimportant.ItisintherealmofjurisprudencewhereVoegelin’sideasshouldfirstbestudiedandpossibly“applied”ifCentralEuropeansaretounderstandtheirtotalitarianpast,re-examinetheirhistoricalidentityandtheirvisionoftheworld,andreformu-latetheirpoliticalprogramsforthetwenty-firstcentury.VoegelinstudiedlawattheUniversityofViennaunderHansKelsen,undoubt-edlyoneofthemostimportantEuropeanjuristsofthetwentiethcentury.Hewastheauthorofthe“puretheoryoflaw”andthefounderofanenormously\nCommonSenseandtheRuleofLaw275influentialschooloflegalthought,especiallyinCentralEurope.23SharingwithVoegelinthefateofthepoliticalrefugee,KelsenalsospentthesecondhalfofhislifeinAmerica,althoughintellectuallytheirpathsdiverged.Kelsenrepre-sentedforVoegelintheendofacertainEuropeantradition,atraditionthathadtobeproperlyunderstoodandseenwithinitsownhistoricalcontextandalsowithinitsownlimits.ThelimitationsofKelsen’s“puretheoryoflaw”providethereasonswhy,accordingtoVoegelin,weshouldstartthesearchforthewayoutofthecurrentimpasse.WeshouldstarttestingourcapacitytounderstandourownsituationasfarastheideaoflawanditsplaceinhumansocietyisconcernedwithKelsen,andweshouldbelookingtohimfor“apointofdepartureforanadvancementtowardthereconstructionofacompletepoliticalscience.”24In1927,VoegelinwroteasmallarticlewiththeaimofintroducingKelsen’sAllgemeineStaatslehretotheAmericanpublic.25FromtheAmericanperspec-tivetheleastcomprehensibleaspectofKelsen’slegalthoughtisitsfoundationsinneo-Kantianpositivisticlogic,althoughhisbasicargumentsdepartfromtheMarburgschoolofSimmelandWindelband.Whatdeterminesthecharacterofthelegalmaterials—legalcodesorstatutes,proceduralrules,case-law,andsoon—isnottheiractualcontent,buttheforminwhichtheyaregiven,theirspecificapriori,inKantianterminology,thatisantecedenttoallformsofexperience.Beforestudyingorconstructinganypositivelegalsystemonemustbeawareofthefundamentaldistinctionbetweenthe“originalcategories”ofSein,Being,orExistence,whichrefertotherealmofwhatis,andSollen,ought,orEssence,whichreferstotherealmofwhatshouldbe.Thisbasicdistinctionbecomesclearerwhenwemovefromtheontologicaltotheepistemologicallevel:thedistinctionbetweenSeinandSollenistranslatedintothedistinctionbetweenthecausalmethodofnaturalsciences,whichconsidersthecausalrelationsamongexistentthings,andthenormativemethodappliedinculturalsciences,whichdealswithallvariousaspectsofculturalobjectification.ThebasicaimofKelsen’s“puretheory”istoapproachthelawstrictlyasa23.IntheCzechRepublic,Kelsen’sstudents(FrantisˇekWeyr,OtaWeiberger,VáclavChytil,VladimírKubesˇ,Zdene˘kNeubauer,KarelEnglish,JaroslavKaláb,JaroslavKrejc˘í,JosefKepert,AdolfProcházka,JaromírSedlác˘ek,justtonamethemostaccomplishedonesamongthem)formedtheso-calledBrnoSchoolofTheoryofLaw(Brne˘nskásˇkolaprávníteorie).Itsinfluenceisstillremarkableandhasaprofoundeffectonourcurrentpost-communistjurisprudenceandconstitutionaldiscussion.(Cf.,forinstance,“Brne˘nskásˇkolaprávníteorie,”UniversitaKarlovavPraze,Karolinum,2003.)24.EricVoegelin,“PureTheoryofLawandofState,”inCW,vol.7,PublishedEssays,1922–1928,trans.M.J.Hanak,ed.ThomasW.HeilkeandJohnvonHeyking(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2003),98–99.25.Voegelin,“Kelsen’sPureTheoryofLaw,”ibid.,182–91.\n276MartinPalouspositivelygivennormativesystem,thatis,asastructured,hierarchicallyorgan-ized,andcompletewhole,composedofelementarylegalrules(maxims)derivedfromthebasicnorm(DieGrundnorme),whichisthefirstandsupremelegalmaximthatarticulatestheprimordialwillofthesovereign,namely,thestate.Thesimplestanalyticalelementofthissystem,thenorm,musthaveaclearformalstructurecorrespondingtothenormativeaprioriofSollen.Thenorm,Rechtsatz,mustbe,VoegelinexplainstohisAmericanreaders,composedoftwoparts:Thefirstcontainsastatementconcerningunqualifiedhumanbehavior,thesecondmakesastatementconcerningthecoercivebehav-ior[Zwangsakt]ofthestateofficial.Thecompleteruleisahypothesismakingthecoercivebehaviorofthestateofficialdependentonthepreviousoccurrenceofthebehaviorsandeventsstatedinthefirstpartoftherule.26Asaresultofthisformulation,Kelsen’sconceptofthestate,whichisdevel-opedinhisStaatslehre,departsfromtheneo-Kantianparadigm.ForKelsen,thestateisfullyidentifiedwithitslaw.Itisconceivedasthematerializationofthewillofaconcretehumansocietycreatedbyraisingprotectivewallsoflegalorderaroundallthemanifoldformsofitslife.Thestateshouldnotbebuilt,justified,orexplainedasashelterofitsnational,religious,cultural,orlinguis-ticidentity,butonlyasthesolesourceofitslawandtheguarantorofitssov-ereignty.AccordingtoKelsen,thetheoryofstatehastocopefirstwiththequestionofitsoriginanditspositionwithininternationalsocietyunderinternationallaw;thenitproceedstoitsbasiclaw,thestateconstitution,thepurposeofwhichistoprovidetheoverallcompositionoranatomyofstate.NextKelsendiscussesthestateorgansthatperformtheirdiversefunctionsintheprocessofthecreationofnormsandtheirenforcement;finallyhecon-sidersallconcreteformsandproceduresthatexplainhowtheprincipleofRechststaatisrealizedinalldiverserelationsbetweenthecitizensandthestateandamongthecitizensthemselves.Fromthebeginning,however,itisevidentthatthereductionoflegalordersto“asystemofpostulatesintherealmofSollen”canindeed“surprisetheAmericanlawyerwhoisaccustomedtoawealthofrights,duties,privileges,powers,liabilities,anddisabilities.”27Itwas,moreover,problematicandinawayself-defeating.NomatterhowpurifiedKelsen’stheorycouldbeofnon-normativecontentandtheremnantsofstatedoctrinesoriginatinginnaturallaw,itnevercouldbefullydissociatedfromtherealityofthehumansociety26.Ibid.,185.27.Ibid.,184,185.\nCommonSenseandtheRuleofLaw277thatitwassupposedtoformandorder.Thelegaltheoriesofhispredecessors,GermanjuristssuchasvonGierke,Laband,Gerber,orJellinek,reflectedtheriseofBismarcktopowerandagreedwithhisambitiontounifyGermanyandrebuilditasamodernconstitutionalfederalstate.ForKelsen,themainpointofreferencewastherealityofthedismembermentoftheAustro-HungarianEmpire,followingitsdefeatintheGreatWar,1914–1918.His“puretheoryoflaw”basedonthecategoricaldistinctionbetweenSeinandSollen,whichpre-tendedtoisolatethenormativelegalorderfromanyundesiderableinterfer-encefromthehigherechelonsof“naturallyordered”humansociety,simplycouldnotremainisolatedfromrealeventshappeninginthehumanworld.Canoneimagineabetterillustrationofthefundamentalproblemoftheneo-KantianfoundationsofKelsen’slegaldoctrinethanthefactthatKelsen,whohadbeenaskedtodraftthenewAustrianconstitutionandwhoproceededtodosoasmuchaspossibleinconformitywiththeprinciplesofhis“puretheory,”sawhisfinishedworkinfluenced,changed,andforcedtoconformtotheempirical,historicallydeterminedAustrianpoliticalreality?Nonetheless,nomatterwhethertheAustrianconstitutionwas“pure”or“tainted,”in1927Voegelinstillspokeaboutitinunambiguouslypositiveterms.HeconsideredKelsen’spracticalachievementsnotonlyas“themostimpor-tanteventinthemodernhistoryofconstitutionsfromthepointofviewoflegaltechnique,”but“withitsbackgroundofthepuretheoryoflaw,”as“aremarkablecontributiontothedevelopmentofdemocracy.”28HeconcludedhisarticlewithakindofsummaryofKelsen’spositionthatshowednosignoftheapproachingspiritualcrisis:Bytransferringthelegalsystemintoanidealrealmofmeaningsandreducingittoaninstrument,Kelsendestroysanyunduerespectforexistinglegalinstitu-tions.Thecontentoflawisshowntobewhatitis:notaneternal,sacredorder,butacompromiseofbattlingforces—andthiscontentmaybechangedeverydaybythechosenrepresentativesofthepeopleaccordingtothewishesoftheirconstituencieswithoutfearofendangeringadivinelaw....Nostateentityhidesbehindthelawandissuesthelegalrules;everyrulecanbetracedbacktoitsorigininadefinitegovernmentalagency,whichagainisbutapartinthemachin-erysetupforturningoutlegalrulesinaccordancewiththedesiresofdifferentsocialgroups.Thepuretheoryoflawthussignifiesnotonlyanimportantprog-ressinlegalanalysisandtechnique,butalsoadevelopmentfromthehalf-absolutisticphilosophyoftheGermanempiretowardthespiritofthenewdemocracy.2928.Ibid.,190.29.Ibid.,190–91.\n278MartinPalous“Thespiritofthenewdemocracy”thatprevailedintheyearsrightafterWorldWarIdidnot,however,longendure.TotalitarianmovementsseizedpowerfirstinItaly,theninGermany,andinbothcountriesprofoundchangesintheformofgovernmenttookplacebymeansofconstitutionalamendments,andsoincontinuitywiththeexistinglegalorder.Austriawasfirsttransformedfromademocraticrepublictoanauthoritarianstateand,afewyearslater,annexedtoGermany.BothKelsenandVoegelinhadtoescapefromCentralEuropeandfoundtheirnewhomesinAmerica.KelsendevotedhistimetothenewinternationallawinitiatedbythecreationoftheUnitedNations.Voegelinfocusedonthehistoryofpoliticalideasandelaboratedthefoundationsofhis“newscienceofpolitics.”Hereturnedtothefundamentalquestionsconcern-ingthenatureofthelawandjurisprudenceinhiscoursestaughtatLouisianaStateUniversityfrom1954to1957.ThehistoricaleventsthattookplaceintheworldduringthethreedecadesthatpassedbetweenthepublicationofVoegelin’sarticleaboutKelsenin1927andtheappearanceofthemimeographed“temporaryeditionexclusivelyfortheuseofstudents”registeredinVoegelin’scourseonthenatureofthelawin1957changedsubstantivelythesituationofmankindandheavilyinfluencedthedevelopmentofVoegelin’sthought.30TheworldafterAuschwitzcouldnot,aswasplainlystatedbyKarlJaspers,becomethesameasithadbeenbeforetheGermanReichstartedimplementingitshegemonicplansandwagedthewaruponanyonewhodaredtoopposethem,eventuallyagainstthewholeworldofWestern,Judaeo-Christiancivilization.TheunprecedentedcrimesagainsthumanitycommittedbytheNaziregime,whichshowedrespectneitherforelementaryhumandecencynorfor“commonsense,”hadamobilizingeffectandcatalyzedastronginternationalresponse.AsVoegelinputitinhisfamousreviewofHannahArendt’sOriginsofTotalitarianism:“Whatnoreligiousfounder,nophilosopher,noimperialconquerorofthepasthasachieved—tocreateacommunityofmankindbycreatingacommonconcernforallmen—hasnowbeenrealizedthroughthecommunityofsufferingundertheearthwideexpan-sionofWesternfoulness.”31Butwhathappenedafterthewarwasalsofarfromsatisfactory.Ontheonehand,themainwarcriminalsweretriedbeforeanInternationalCourtofJus-ticeandanewinternationalorganization,theUnitedNations,wascreatedwiththeintentionofeliminatingwarsandenhancingpeacefulrelationsamong30.“Editors’Introduction,”inEricVoegelin,CW,vol.27,TheNatureoftheLawandRelatedLegalWritings,ed.RobertAnthonyPascal,JamesLeeBabin,andJohnWilliamCorrington(1991;availableColumbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,1999),xiii.31.EricVoegelin,“TheOriginsofTotalitarianism,”inCW,11:15.\nCommonSenseandtheRuleofLaw279allnationsoftheworld.Theproblem,however,wasthattheSovietUnion,oneofthevictorsinthewar,wasoneofthemainvectorsofthetotalitariandisease.ThenewinternationalismundertheaegisoftheUnitedNations,whichraisedhopesinmanypeoplethatmankindwasfinallyfindingitselfonthewaytotherealizationoftheKant’soldprojectof“perpetualpeace,”wassim-plynotbasedonarealisticassessmentoftheemerginginternationalsituationbecauseitdidnotreflectatallitscrucialaspect,namely,theSovietthreat.Forapoliticalrealist,suchasGeorgeKennan,whowasthefirsttomakethispointinhisfamouslongtelegramfromtheAmericanEmbassyinMoscowandwhowaslaterassignedtoformulatethebasicprinciplesofU.S.postwarforeignpolicy,therightresponsetotheemergingchallengewasnotautopianbeliefinthepersuasivepowerofKantianideals.HewouldsendaveryclearmessagetotheSovietenemiesofAmericanvaluesandWesterncivilization:thepolicyof“containment.”Theresult,whichwasrealisticallyachievable,the“bipolarpoliticalarchitecture”inEurope,hadthefollowingimplicationforEuropeans:theinhabitantsoftheWesternhalfenjoyedfreedomandgraduallyprogressedfromthepainfulpostwarreconstructiontowardprosperityundertheAmeri-cansecurityumbrella.ThenationsofEurope’sEasternhalf(includingasub-stantivepartofwhatusedtobeCentralEurope)weredeprivedoffreedomandunitedwiththeSovietUnion“forever,”asoneofthefavoriteideologicalslogansoftotalitarianrulerswent,andsosentencedtolifeinthetotalitarianprisonunderSovietdomination.Inshort,observingtheinternationaldevelopmentsinthe1950swhenVoe-gelinwasteachinginBatonRouge,therewasonlyoneobviousconclusionunderpainofrenouncingtherequirementsof“commonsense”:WorldWarIIclearlydidnotbringthesolutiontotheworldcrisiscausedbytheemergenceoftotalitarianism.SovietcommunismwasdefinitelynotapartnerwiththecountriesoftheFreeWorldtobeappeasedandinvitedtoparticipateinadia-logueconcerningthenewworldorder,adialoguethathadbeenconstituted“throughthecommunityofsufferingundertheearthwideexpansionofWest-ernfoulness.”Onthecontrary,theriseoftheSovietUniontothepositionofaworldpowerwasanominoussign,demonstratinghowchallengingitwouldbetoprotectthespiritualfoundationsofWesterncivilizationinthefuture.Ifin1924Voegelinwasayoung,talented,andwell-educatedmanwhosebasicaimwastobuildabridgebetweenhisCentralEuropeanbackgroundandthenewlydiscoveredAmericanexperience,andwhostillcouldbelieveoptimisticallyaftertheGreatWarof1914–1918that“thepuretheoryoflaw”couldprovideahistoricalbridgeto“thespiritofthenewdemocracy,”thirtyyearslaterasanaccomplishedandrespectedscholarinthefieldofpoliti-calscienceandphilosophyhisownlifeexperiencehaddemonstratedmore\n280MartinPalousforcefullythedepthofthecurrentspiritualandpoliticalcrisisofEuropeanhumanity.Voegelinwasaboveallaclassicistwhosefundamentalobjectivewastoreexaminetherichnessofclassicalpoliticalideasandsymbolsandrestorethemtolife,tostartwiththeirhelpanewchapterinthedialogueofmankind.HewasinthemiddleofasuccessfulacademiccareerinAmerica,wherehehaddiscovereda“promisedland”ofpluralisticcommonsensepracticedinAmericanpoliticsandjurisprudence.Beingconfrontedwithvariousaspectsoflifeinhisnewhome,Voegelingained,hesaid,“anunderstanding...ofthepluralityofhumanpossibilitiesrealizedinvariouscivilizations,asanimmediateexperience,anexperiencevécue.”32ThisenlargedunderstandingofAmericancommonsenseopenedbeforehimavastandnever-endingsearchfororderasitunfoldsandexistsinhumanhistory.Whenhedistributedthemimeographedsynopsisofhiscourseamonghisstudents,“Voegelin’sonlycomprehensiveandsystematictextonlaw,”healreadyhadacquiredanarticulateknowledgeofboththemethodandtheobjectiveofhisownresearch.Asitisstatedclearlyintheeditors’introductiontovolume27ofVoegelin’sCollectedWorks:ItisaproductofthematureVoegelin.Hewroteitatatimewhenhehadsettleduponthenecessityofabandoninghisoriginalplanofwritingahistoryofpolit-icalideas,publishedTheNewScienceofPoliticsandthefirstthreevolumesofOrderandHistory,andtaughtthecourseofjurisprudencefouryears.Hehadcometorealizethatideasdonothaveahistory,thatonlypeopledo,andthattheirhistoryconsistsoftheirsuccessesandfailuresinthedifferentiationoftheirnoeticandpneumaticexperienceoflifeunderGod.Forthesamereason,hehadtocometorealizethatlawcannothaveahistoryapartfromthehistoryofthesocietywhoseorderitarticulates,andthatitsessence,ornature,ispreciselythestructureofthesocietywhoselawitis.33ThewayVoegelinopenedhisinquiryintothenatureofthelawhadtobesurprisingfortheaverageAmericanstudentunpreparedforphilosophicalargumentsandaccustomedtothestandardpragmaticAmericanjurisprudence,wherethemeaningandcontentofallconceptswereperceivedprimarilyinrelationtotheirabilitytoorganizethethoughtofpracticinglawyers.Voegelinasked:Whatmakesthelaw,law?Whatisitsessence,inspiteofthefactthatthereis“apluralityoflegalordersacceptedasvalidinacorrespondingplural-ityofsocieties”?34Inordertoanswerthosequestions,wedonotstartbycom-32.Voegelin,AutobiographicalReflections,33.33.“Editor’sIntroduction,”CW,27:xiii–xiv.34.Voegelin,TheNatureoftheLaw,ibid.,7.\nCommonSenseandtheRuleofLaw281paringdifferentlawsandlegalsystems.Ratherwemustdepartfromthephe-nomenaoflawastheyaregiveninourdaily,pre-analyticalexperience,astheyexistintheworldinwhichweliveandunderstandourselveswiththehelpofour“commonsense.”VoegelinstartedhisquestbyprovisionallyacceptingKelsen’sviewthatthelawisasystem,“anaggregateofrules,”enforcedinaconcretehistoricalsoci-etyandcharacterizedbytheirtimelessvalidity.Observinghowalegalsystemfunctions,weseeimmediatelythatthevalidityofitsrulesdoesnotstaythesamebut“comesandgoes,”appearsanddisappearsintime.Thelegalorderisnotastaticsystembutanentitythatfindsitselfinapermanentprocessofchange.Itobviouslycannotchangeallitspartsatonce.Whenwesay“itchanges,”wenecessarilymeanthatitsown“essence”isofa“historical”nature,that“thereremains,fromonechangetoanother,anunchangedcorpusofrulessufficientlylargetoretaintheidentityoftheorder.”35Formerlyvalidrules(rulesthathavebeenderogatedorabrogatedbynewones)andrulesthataregoingtobevalid(rulesdelegeferenda)simplycannotbetreatedasinvalidruleswithoutfurtherqualification,arguedVoegelin.Theidentityoflegalorder,thesourceofthevalidityofitsnormsisinseparablyconnectedtothefunda-mentalfactthatithasnotonlyapresenceas“anaggregateofrules,”butalsoapastandafuture.Thetemporalcharacteroflegalorderbecomesevenmoreobviouswhenweraisethequestionofitsvalidity,notintheabstract,butinthecontextofaconcretelegalaction,letussaythespecificdecisionofsomecourt.“Thecourtdecisionisthepointatwhichthelawbecomesvalidfortheconcretecase.”Webeganwiththelawas“anaggregateofvalidnorms”andthenhadtodealwiththeproblemofchange;nowweareconfrontedwiththeproblemthatremindedVoegelinofthe“Zenonicparadoxa”:Ifweremembertheauraofuncertaintythatsurroundseveryseriouslitigation,wemustadmitthatweneverknowwhattheaggregateofvalidrulesreallyisaslongasthecourthasnothandeddownitsdecisionintheconcretecase.Oncethecourthasreacheditsdecision,theparticularaggregatewhosevalidityhasbecomecompletewiththedecision,andtherebyincorporatesthedecisionintoitself,belongsalreadytothepast.If,therefore,validityis“oftheessenceofthelaw,”andifeveryaggregateofrulesintheseriescalledlegalorderbelongseithertoapastinwhichitisnolongervalidortoafutureinwhichitisnotyetvalidinthedecisiveconcretecase,then“thelaw”seemstohavedisappearedaltogetherfromtherealmofexistents.3635.Ibid.,12.36.Ibid.,16–17.\n282MartinPalousSo,whatisthelaw?TosummarizeagainVoegelin’sanswertohisAmericanstudents:thelawcannotbeconceivedasaseparateentitybutmustbeana-lyzedandunderstoodinthecontextofsocialorder.Theattentionthatisusu-allypaidonlytothecontentofnormsoreventuallytotheirpracticaluseinconcretesituationsshouldbedirectedalso,andperhapsprimarily,tothosestructureswithinwhichthelawisgiventousonthepre-analyticallevelofourexperience.Thelawinthesenseoftheaggregateofvalidrulesthathascomeintoexistenceintheprocessoflawmakingdefinedandregulatedbythehighest,namely,constitutional,normsmustbereconnectedwiththepre-analyticalunderstandingofthelawwithinaconcretehistoricalsocietythatisbeingorderedbythelawinsuchafashionthatitrespectsandguardsthelawastheverysubstanceofitsorder,asitsfundamentalvalueandconditiosinequanonofitsownexistence.Suchareconnectionbetweenthelawandthepre-analyticalexperientialbasisinthecontextofwhichthelawisoriginallygivenopensanewfieldofinquiryandgeneratesanewsetofquestions.Iftheabove-mentionedZenonicargumentbringstoourattentionthetemporalityofthelaw,thefactthatitisnotprimarilyastaticaggregateofnormsbutaprocesswhosefundamentalobjectiveistoorderasocietyandtomakeitsindividualmembersfreeandequal,theemphasisonthephenomenologicalapproachinthefieldofjurispru-dencepointstotheproblemtobesingledoutinVoegelin’sexamination:theequivocaluseof“thelaw”inthesenseofvalidrulesmadebyorgansofgov-ernmentand“thelaw”thatsomehowpervadestheexistenceofmaninsociety.Whatispreservedinthispaleequivocationofoureverydaylanguageisthepro-foundinsight,rarelytobefoundincontemporarylegaltheory,that“thelaw”isthesubstanceoforderinallrealmsofbeing.Asamatteroffact,theancientcivili-zationsusuallyhaveintheirlanguageatermthatsignifiestheorderingsubstancepervadingthehierarchyofbeing,fromtheGod,throughtheworldandsociety,toeverysingleman.SuchtermsaretheEgyptianmaat,theChinesetao,theGreeknomos,andtheLatinlex.37IdonotneedtokeepfollowingVoegelin’strainofthoughttopointoutthecentralmessageofhisjurisprudencecourse:torealizethatonecannotinquireintothenatureofthelawwithoutbeingabletoraisethefundamentalques-tionsconcerningWesternhistorythatcanbeformulatedonlywiththemeansofWesternphilosophy.IhavenowayofknowinghowVoegelin’sAmericanstudentsreactedtothisturnfromtherealmofexperiencetheycouldexaminewiththehelpoftheAmericanbrandof“commonsense,”tothevastareaof37.Ibid.,24.\nCommonSenseandtheRuleofLaw283ontologicalproblemsthatcanbeidentifiedonlywithintheopenfieldoftheuniversalhistoryofmankind.Nonetheless,whatisevidentisthattheirteacherwasagenuinephilosopherwhodidnotwanttomissasingleopportunitytochallengethewaythatthepeoplewhomheencounteredperceivedandunder-stoodtheirownaffairs,toshakethemoutoftheirshells,tolurethemfromtheterrafirmaoftheirallegedcommonsensicalcertaintiestothedepthsthatopenbythevirtueofraisingfundamentalphilosophicalquestions,totellthemthattheyshould“carefortheirsouls,”andthusnotbesatisfiedwithopinionsonly,butseektrueknowledgeiftheywantedtoactprudently,toservethe“commongood”oftheirsocieties,andtokeepthemopentorealityandfree.LookingbackonwhathashappenedinandwithCentralEuropeinthepastfifteenyears,onehastoadmit,firstofall,thatthesituationhasgrownmuchmorecomplicatedbecausetheimpactofthecollapseofCommunismhasbeenmuchwiderandmorefar-reachingthanitseemedtobeduringtheearlierdaysoftherevolutionsthatsetthewholeregiononthepathofdemoc-ratization.Wecertainlyneedtoacceptthe“ruleoflaw”asthemainprincipleuponwhichtorebuildourstatesandthewholeregionandtocompleteourreturnfromourBabyloniancaptivitytoEurope,toreintegrateourselvestothetransatlanticcommunityofopensocieties,respectingunalienablehumanrightsandfreedoms,allowingoureconomiestoberegulatedbymarketforcesandnotbygovernments,andacceptingthecultureandformofdemocracy.Wecertainlyneed“commonsense”toovercomeoratleasttoreconcileour-selvestoalltheseunfortunateCentralEuropeantraditions,whicharedyinghardandchangingslowly,thatcausedusmanytroublesandmuchindividualsufferinginthepastcentury.Wedesperatelyneedtomaketherightchoiceshereandnow,atthecurrenthistoricalcrossroads,inthecontextofthenewthreatstoWesternfreedomwithwhichglobalmankindisconfrontedinthebeginningofthenewmillennium.However,toabsorband“metabolize”thenoveltyofoursituationweneedarenaissanceofclassicalphilosophyinCen-tralEurope,asitisgravelyneededintherestoftheworld.Aboveall,weneedtolistenattentivelyandrespondtothecallthatiscon-nectedwiththegreatCentralEuropeanphilosophersofthetwentiethcentury,suchasJanPatocˇkaandEricVoegelin.TheirgreatnessandtheirpotentialimmortalizationisbasedonthefactthatbothwereclassicistsandunderstoodthemessagethatisconveyedinthefragmentofHeraclitusthatisusedasepi-graphinthisessay:mortalsareimmortalsandimmortalsaremortals.Howshouldweunderstandthiscrypticstatement?Whatdoesitmean?Itturnsourattentiontothemiddletermbetweenmortalityandimmortality.Itdoesnotturnusawayfromourtransientpoliticalmatters.Itjustremindsus,asoldSocratesdid,thatweshouldcarefirstforsomethingthatismoreimportant\n284MartinPalousthan“thegreatestamountofmoneyandhonorandreputation...wisdomandtruthandthegreatestpossibleimprovementofthesoul.”WhetherthismessageispersuasiveenoughtobetakenseriouslybyasufficientnumberofCentralEuropeanstodayremainstobeseen.SocrateshimselffailedtopersuadetheAtheniansathistrial.Butitiscertainthatifitweremissedaltogetherandfellonlyondeafears,ourhopesforfreedomandtheeffortstoreintroducedemocracytoourregionafterthecollapseofCommunismin1989wouldalikebeinvain.\n15CivilizationalConflictandSpiritualDisorderMichaelFranzIDuringthelate1990s,theclashofcivilizationswasadebatablepossibility.Today,theclashisanongoingrealitythatdominatesglobalpolitics,andindeedtheeventsof9/11maysomedaystandasatearinthefabricofhistorydivid-ingtwodistincteras.Thatremainstobeestablished,ofcourse,andsincethefutureisopenandunknowable,speculationaboutitscourse—muchlessitsend—isnotaproperobjectforphilosophicalorscientificanalysis.Neverthe-less,itisclearthatthecourseoffutureeventswillbeaffectedinpartbyhowpolicymakers,politicalscientists,andtheattentivepublicconceivetheconfigu-rationsoforderanddisordersurroundingusduringthepresentperiodofcross-civilizationalconflict.Democraticsocietiesactdifferentlyunderdiffer-entconceptionsoftheforcesarrayedagainstthem,andconceptionsoftheforcesarrayedagainsttheWestareprobablyingreaterfluxatthemomentthantheyhavebeenatanytimesinceideologicalblocsbegantorivalindivid-ualnation-statesasactorsinworldpolitics.Ifitisdifficulttorecallatimewhenconceptionsofourpoliticalcircum-stanceswerebothasimportantandunstableastheyareatthemoment,itisalsodifficulttorecallatimewhensuchconceptionswereinfluencedasstronglyastheyarenowbyasinglebook,namely,SamuelP.Huntington’sTheClashofCivilizationsandtheRemakingofWorldOrder.1Huntington’sbook,published1.SamuelP.Huntington,TheClashofCivilizationsandtheRemakingofWorldOrder(NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1996).AllcitationshereafteraretotheTouchstoneBookspaperbackedition,1997.285\n286MichaelFranzin1996,isamuch-expandedtreatmentofideasHuntingtonintroducedinawidelyreadandhighlycontroversialarticlepublishedin1993inForeignAffairsunderthe(somewhatmoretentative)title,“TheClashofCivilizations?”2Thebookbecameanationalbestsellershortlyafterpublicationin1996(whichisalreadyremarkableforaseriousworkinpoliticalscience)andthenregainedbestsellerstatusaftertheattacksof9/11.AsIwritethisinApril2004,itsphe-nomenalsalessuccesscontinues,anditremainsthelodestarfordiscussionsofchangingpoliticalconfigurationsinthewakeoftheColdWarbothwithinandbeyondtheacademyintheUnitedStates,continuingtospurdebatearoundtheworld.3Myobjectivesherearesimpleandstraightforward:toassessthisremarkablebook’smostprominentstrengthsandweaknessesandtoconcludebysuggestingseveralwaysinwhichitsargumentcanbeaugmentedbyEricVoegelin’sworkonpoliticaldisorderandcross-civilizationalconflict.AsreadersacquaintedwithVoegelin’sworkaresurelyaware,hewasconcernedwiththeseproblemsinadeepandsustainedway.Voegelinoftendescribedhislifelongphilosophi-calsearchfororderashavingbeenpromptedbythedirectexperiencesofspir-itualandpoliticaldisorderthatmarkedhisearlyyears,andhesustainedanefforttoidentifyandunderstandformsofspiritualandpoliticaldisorderthroughouthislife.Healsoanalyzedconflictsbetweencivilizationsovermanyyears,asinhisfascinatingearlystudyoftheMongolordersofsubmissiontotheEuropeanpowersandinhislateworkontheclashesandconquestsof“theEcumenicAge.”4ItwillobviouslybeimpossiblewithintheconfinesofasinglechaptertoanalyzebothHuntington’sbookandVoegelin’srelatedworkinadetailedmanner,andsinceIhavewrittenextensivelyonVoegelin’sanalysisofdisorderelsewhere,5Iwillpursuethefairlymodestobjectivehereofaddressing2.SamuelP.Huntington,“TheClashofCivilizations?”ForeignAffairs(Summer1993):22–49.3.Thebookremainsapowerhouseinsalesterms.Aftereightyears,itstillranks820insalesonamazon.com,showingthatthebookisnotjustbeingassignedtostudentsorpur-chasedfromuniversitybookstores,butisstillinfluencingthegeneral,politicallyattentivepublic.ForasamplingoftheearlyroundsofdebatesurroundingHuntington’sthesis,seeTheClashofCivilizations?TheDebate(NewYork:W.W.Norton,1996).4.SeeEricVoegelin,“TheMongolOrdersofSubmissiontoEuropeanPowers,1245–1255,”inTheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin(hereinafter,CW),vol.10,PublishedEssays,1940–1952,ed.EllisSandoz(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),76–125;CW,vol.17,TheEcumenicAge,vol.IV,OrderandHistory,ed.MichaelFranz(1974;Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),esp.167–302.5.MichaelFranz,EricVoegelinandthePoliticsofSpiritualRevolt:TheRootsofIdeology(BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUniversityPress,1992);“Voegelin’sAnalysisofMarx,”Occa-sionalPapers,EricVoegelinArchive,UniversityofMunich,August2000;“BrothersundertheSkin:VoegelinontheCommonExperientialWellspringsofSpiritualOrderandDisorder,”\nCivilizationalConflict287thestrengthsandshortcomingsofHuntington’sbookandpointingtowardhowitcanbeaugmentedbyVoegelin’swork.IIHuntington’sanalysisexhibitsfourimportantstrengths:asober,clear-sightedphilosophicalanthropology;afreedomfrompartisanorideologicalattach-ments;animmunityto“culturalneutrality”;andawillingnesstoaccordanimportantplacetoreligioninhisapproachtocivilizations.Ishalladdresseachofthesestrengthsinturn.TheClashofCivilizationsisinformedbyaphilosoph-icalanthropology(oratleastasetofassumptionsabouthumannature)thatisadmirablysoberandclear-sighted.Huntington’sassessmentsofhumanbeingsintheirpoliticalmodearedownrightgrimand—thoughabundantlysupportedbydispassionatehistoricalanalysis—arehardlywhatoneexpectstoencounterinbooksthatbecomebestsellers.Tocitebutafewexamples,hecontendsearlyonthathumanbeings“knowwhoweareonlywhenweknowwhowearenotandoftenonlywhenweknowwhomweareagainst”andthat,consequently,“enemiesareessential”(21,20).Continuingalongthisline,heseekstoexplainwhyculturaldifferencespromotecleavagesandconflictbyobservingthat“identityatanylevel—personal,tribal,racial,civilizational—canonlybede-finedinrelationtoan‘other’”andthat“thecivilizational‘us’andtheextracivili-zational‘them’isaconstantinhumanhistory”(128–29).Contrarytothepleas-antlyoptimisticbuthistoricallybaselessviewsofthosewhoregardwarfareasalearned(andthereforeeradicable)behavior,Huntingtonpointsto“theubiquityofconflict”andconcludesflatlythat“itishumantohate”(130).Hisviewofhumanbeingsisnotcynical,butneitherisitpronetopleasingillusions.6Huntington’sanalysisisinformedbysobercommonsenseandahealthyappre-ciationfortheconstancyofhumanbehavioracrosshistoricalepochs,enablinghim,forinstance,todismissnonsenselikeFrancisFukuyama’s“endofhistory”thesislongbeforeitwasrenderedmanifestlynonsensicalbyworldevents.7inThePoliticsoftheSoul:VoegelinandReligiousExperience,ed.GlennR.Hughes(Lan-ham,MD:RowmanandLittlefield,1999),139–61;“GnosticismandSpiritualDisorderinTheEcumenicAge,”PoliticalScienceReviewer27(1998):17–43.6.NoteinthisconnectionHuntington’seffectivecriticismsofthenotionsthatworldpeaceandglobalculturalhomogenizationmaycomeaboutbyanexpansionoftrade(67),aspreadofWesternconsumptionpatternsandpopularculture(58),orawidespreadadop-tionofEnglishasalinguafranca(59–64).7.Seep.31.ReadersofVoegelinwerepreparedtoseethisthesisnotonlyasnonsensebutalsoasapneumopathologicaldeformationofrealitystemmingfromarevoltagainsthumanmortalityandtheprospectofamysteriousfuturethatwilldepartfrom—and\n288MichaelFranzSecond,Huntingtonrepeatedlyconfoundsthosewhowouldpigeonholeanddismisshimbydevelopingnuanced,balancedpositionsthatarefreeofpar-tisanorideologicalattachments.Anexamplewillservetoillustratethepoint.HuntingtoncriticizesmulticulturalismintheUnitedStatesinthestrongestterms,identifyingitas“culturalsuicide”(304).MulticulturalistshaveattackedtheidentificationoftheUnitedStateswithWesterncivilization(305),therebythreateningtheentirecivilizationwithdeprivationofleadershipfromtheonlynationcapableofkeepingitcohesiveandpowerful.InthisargumentHunt-ingtonobviouslydoesnottakethepartofadisinterestedscholarlyobserver,butratherwritesasaWesternadvocateforthemaximalmaintenanceofWesterncohesionandpower.However,thosewhowoulddismisshimasanAmericanorWesternchauvinistmustovercomehissharpcriticismofWest-ernuniversalism.Huntingtoncontendsthat“WesternbeliefintheuniversalityofWesternculturesuffersthreeproblems:itisfalse;itisimmoral;anditisdangerous”(310).8HewarnsthatWesternnationscannotsimultaneouslypursuepoliciesintheirowninterestwhilealsomaintaining“universalistpre-tensions”withoutfallingintohypocrisyandimposingdoublestandardsthatwillinflameanti-Westernsentimentaroundtheglobe.Iwilltrytoshowbe-lowthathisadvocacyinthisproblemareaconfrontsseriousdifficulties,but,nevertheless,hisbalancedcriticismofmulticulturalism“athome”anduni-versalismabroadstandsasanexampleofthenon-ideologicalcharacterofhisapproach.9Third,Huntington’sworkstemsfromhisapparentimmunitytothebland“culturalneutrality”thatafflictsmanyscholarlytreatmentsofdifferentciviliza-tionsandcultures.Hemovesunflinchinglyfromthefactofculturaldifferencesacrosscivilizationstotheobservationthatthepeculiaritiesofculturesarere-latedtothequalityandcharacteroflifewithincivilizationalzones.Thus,therebyunderminetheimportanceof—everyparticularpresent.Huntingtonpresumablydevelopedhisimmunitytothe“endofhistory”thesisnotfromareadingofVoegelinbutfromacommonsenseunderstandingofhistory.8.Huntingtonarguesthatitisfalsebecauseglobalculturaldiversityisnotgivingwaytoacommon,Western-oriented,Anglophoneworldculture.Itisregardedasimmoralbecausetheonlywaynon-WesternsocietiescouldbeshapedbyWesterncultureisbyaresumptionofthebare-knuckleimperialismthataccomplishedthisinpriorcenturies(“imperialismisthenecessarylogicalconsequenceofuniversalism,”310).Finally,univer-salismis“dangeroustotheworldbecauseitcouldleadtoamajorintercivilizationalwarbetweencorestatesanditisdangeroustotheWestbecauseitcouldleadtothedefeatoftheWest”(311).9.AnotherexampleisprovidedbyHuntington’seven-handedrelationtothe“realist”theoryofinternationalrelations,whichheadoptswhenitprovesusefulandrejectswhenitshowslimitations—sometimesdoingbothonasinglepage(e.g.,34).\nCivilizationalConflict289Huntingtoncontendsthat“themajordifferencesinpoliticalandeconomicdevelopmentamongcivilizationsisclearlyrootedintheirdifferentcultures”:EastAsianeconomicsuccesshasitssourceinEastAsianculture,asdothedifficultiesEastAsiansocietieshavehadinachievingstabledemocraticpoliticalsystems.IslamiccultureexplainsinlargepartthefailureofdemocracytoemergeinmuchoftheMuslimworld.DevelopmentsinthepostcommunistsocietiesofEasternEuropeandtheformerSovietUnionareshapedbytheircivilizationalidentities.ThosewithWesternChristianheritagesaremakingprogresstowardeconomicdevelopmentanddemocraticpolitics;theprospectsforeconomicandpoliticaldevelopmentintheOrthodoxcountriesareuncertain;theprospectsintheMuslimrepublicsarebleak.(29)Huntington’sanalysisisenhancedimmeasurablyinitsforcefulnessbythisaspectofhisthinking(whichisratherrareamongacademics,butforwhichreadersofVoegelinwillbewellprepared).Thus,aproposofourcurrentcrisis,Huntingtoncouldseein1996thattheunderlyingproblemfortheWestisnotIslamicfundamentalism.ItisIslam,adifferentcivilizationwhosepeopleareconvincedofthesuperiorityoftheircultureandareobsessedwiththeinferiorityoftheirpower.TheproblemforIslamisnottheCIAortheU.S.DepartmentofDefense.ItistheWest,adiffer-entcivilizationwhosepeopleareconvincedoftheuniversalityoftheircultureandbelievethattheirsuperior,ifdeclining,powerimposesonthemtheobliga-tiontoextendthatculturethroughouttheworld.ThesearethebasicingredientsthatfuelconflictbetweenIslamandtheWest.(217–18)10Bydintofhisunsqueamishrejectionofculturalneutrality,Huntingtonisoftenabletomovequicklyandincisivelytotheheartoftheissueathand.1110.RegardingthepropensitiesofIslam(asopposedtoIslamicfundamentalism),Hunt-ingtonnotesthat“whereveronelooksalongtheperimeterofIslam,Muslimshaveprob-lemslivingpeaceablywiththeirneighbors.Thequestionnaturallyarisesastowhetherthispatternoflate-twentieth-centuryconflictbetweenMuslimandnon-Muslimgroupsisequallytrueofrelationsbetweengroupsfromothercivilizations.Infact,itisnot.Muslimsmakeupaboutone-fifthoftheworld’spopulationbutinthe1990stheyhavebeenfarmoreinvolvedinintergroupviolencethanthepeopleofanyothercivilization.Theevidenceisoverwhelming....Therewere...threetimesasmanyintercivilizationalconflictsinvolvingMuslimsastherewereconflictsbetweenallnon-Muslimcivilizations”(256–57).ForHunt-ington’sconsiderationofpossiblecausalfactorsbehindIslam’spropensityforviolence,see262–65.11.Forexample,hecutsthroughthenotionthatthespreadofWesternpopularcultureisequivalenttoglobaladoptionofWesterncultureperse,recognizingthatnon-Westernap-petitesforWesternfilmsorfastfoodsimplyhavenoimplicationsfornon-Westernaccep-tanceofcorefeaturesofWesterncivilizationsuchassocialpluralism,theruleoflaw,or\n290MichaelFranzFinally,Huntingtonistobecreditedforhiswillingnesstoaccordanimpor-tantplacetoreligioninhisapproachtocivilizationsandinhisunderstandingofhumanpsychologyandpoliticalbehavior.Thisisnottosaythathishan-dlingof“religious”phenomenaisadequate,asweshallsee.Nevertheless,heproperlyrecognizesthatreligionisnotonlyanelementincivilizationsbutusuallythemostimportantoftheobjectiveelementsthatdefinethem(42;seealso267).ThisrecognitionenablesHuntingtontoavoidthe“secularmyopia”thatcanpreventanalystsfromseeingthevolatilitythatreligiousdifferencesaddtoconflictsalongthefaultlinesthatseparatecivilizations:Whilefaultlinewarssharetheprolongedduration,highlevelsofviolence,andideologicalambivalenceofothercommunalwars,theyalsodifferfromthemintwoways....[C]ommunalwarsmayoccurbetweenethnic,religious,racial,orlinguisticgroups.Sincereligion,however,istheprincipaldefiningcharacter-isticofcivilizations,faultlinewarsarealmostalwaysbetweenpeoplesofdiffer-entreligions.Someanalystsdownplaythesignificanceofthisfactor.Theypoint,forinstance,tothesharedethnicityandlanguage,pastpeacefulcoexistence,andextensiveintermarriageofSerbsandMuslimsinBosnia,anddismissthereli-giousfactorwithreferencestoFreud’s“narcissismofsmalldifferences.”Thatjudgment,however,isrootedinsecularmyopia.Millenniaofhumanhistoryhaveshownthatreligionisnota“smalldifference”butpossiblythemostpro-founddifferencethatcanexistbetweenpeople.Thefrequency,intensity,andvio-lenceoffaultlinewarsaregreatlyenhancedbybeliefsindifferentgods.(253–54)12SinceHuntingtonrecognizesthatmyopiathatcanstemfromsecularism,hedoesnotfollow“twentiethcenturyintellectualelites”who“generallyassumedthateconomicandsocialmodernizationwasleadingtothewitheringawayofreligionasasignificantelementinhumanexistence”(95).Huntingtonseesa“revanchedeDieu”thathas“pervadedeverycontinent,everycivilization,andvirtuallyeverycountry”inthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury(95–96).OnecanquestionwhetherHuntingtonhasdrawnthedimensionsofthisrevivalaccurately,andIwillquestionwhetherhehasadequatelyunderstooditswell-individualism(see69–72).Thus,inanillustrationthatistrulyeerieinitsclosenesstotheconductofthe9/11terroristswhileresidingintheUnitedStatespriortotheattacks,Huntingtonwrites:“SomewhereintheMiddleEastahalf-dozenyoungmencouldwellbedressedinjeans,drinkingCoke,listeningtorap,and,betweentheirbowstoMecca,put-tingtogetherabombtoblowupanAmericanairliner”(58).12.TheparticularanalystsHuntingtonhasinmindinthiscontextareRichardH.SchultzJr.andWilliamJ.Olson,andhecitestheirEthnicandReligiousConflict:EmergingThreattoU.S.Security(Washington,DC:NationalStrategyInformationCenter,1994),17ff.,aswellasH.D.S.GreenwayandanarticlefromtheBostonGlobe,December3,1992,p.19.\nCivilizationalConflict291springs,butthereisnoquestionthatbytakingreligionintoaccountHunting-tonhasshownhimselfamoreseriousthinkerthanmanyofhiscritics.IIIDespitetheseadmirablestrengths,Huntington’streatmentofthecomplexofproblemsentailedincivilizationalclashesisnotbeyondcriticism,forTheClashofCivilizationsismarredbysignificantshortcomings,includingsomeinvolvingmattersofdeeptheoreticalimportance.Iwilladdressfouroftheseinparticular.1)First,manyspecificquestionscanberaisedregardingtheexistenceandboundariesofthecivilizationsHuntingtonidentifies,whichistosaythatthebasicunitofanalysisonwhichthebookisestablishedisquestionable.Forexample,ata“macro”level,itisnotclearthatLatinAmericaorAfricaareself-consciouscivilizationsatall.Intheso-calledOrthodoxworldonemightfindsomecentripetalforceexertedbyreligiouscommonality,butthegeneralcohe-sivenessandself-consciousnessonewouldexpecttofindinsomethingprop-erlycalledacivilizationisnotclearlyevident.13Moreover,atthe“micro”level,therearemanycasesofdoubtfulinclusiononthemarginsofHuntington’sallegedcivilizations.Turkeyiscertainlyoneofthese(asHuntingtonrecognizes),butwemightalsoask,IsGreecereallymoremeaningfullyOrthodoxthanWestern?WheredothePhilippinesbelong?Wecouldmultiplyexampleswith-outmuchdifficulty,butmypointisnotthatHuntington’sschemeisimper-fectorthathisunderstandingofthisorthatplaceislacking.TherealissuehastodowiththeanalyticalmodeinwhichHuntingtongoesaboutestablishinghisframeworkofcivilizations,inwhichtheframeworkitselfoftenseemstotakepriorityovertherealityitissupposedtoilluminate.Forexample,whenitturnsoutthattheliteratureoncivilizationsshowsaconsensusononlyfivecontemporaryinstances(Chinese,Japanese,Indian,Islamic,andWestern),Huntingtonaddsthreemore(Orthodox,LatinAmeri-can,andAfrican)thatenablehimtocovervirtuallyalloftheglobewithhisframework.Tellingly,perhaps,theseadditionsaremadewiththebriefestpos-siblejustification,involvingonlyoneword:Huntingtonwritesthatadding13.Conversely,Japanishighlycohesiveandintenselyself-consciousbutdoesnotclearlyhaveabaseofanyrealconsequenceinreligion,asShintoismoreatraditionalandceremonialextensionofnationalismthanareligionfulfillingthepsychologicalandsocio-logicalfunctionsstressedbyHuntington.\n292MichaelFranzthemis“useful”(45).Usefulforwhat?Forunderstandingpoliticalreality,orforlendingplausibilitytoananalyticalschemebyachievingseeminglycom-prehensivecoverageoftheglobe?Ifrealityistoocomplexand“messy”tosup-portaframeworkbuiltuponasingleunitofanalysis,isathinkernotobligedtosimplyacknowledgethis,andtosaysomethinglike,“Myapproachworksforthisplacebutnotthatone,andcanhelpexplainthisphenomenonbutdoesn’tapplytotheseotherphenomena”?Attheriskofseemingnaïve,arewenotsupposedtofirstfigureoutwhatistrueandthenmakewhatuseofthatwecan,ratherthanadoptingapproachesbecausetheyareusefuldespitefind-ingthatrealityresiststhem?Tobefair,Huntingtonisnoideologist,buttheimportancethatheplacesupondevelopingaframeworkthatis“easilygrasped”and“intelligible”doesputawhiffoftheideologist’sprocedureintotheair(36).Andwhenhistreatmentseemsmoreattentivetotheneedsofhisframe-workthantotheobstreperousfactsthatresistit,itisdifficultnottorecalltheoperationsofideologistsandhistoriogeneticspeculators.142)AlthoughHuntingtonshouldbecreditedforhiswillingnesstoaccordanimportantplacetoreligioninhisapproachtocivilizationsandhumanpsy-chology,hemustbefaultedforfailingtotakereligionseriouslyonitsownground.Hisapproach,whichisessentially“sociological,”isarguablyatheoret-icalshortcominginitsownright;butonemustconcludethat,beyondmethod-ologicaldisputes,Huntington’sexternal,functionalistapproachrendershimincapableofilluminatingthemotivationalwellspringsatthecoreofciviliza-tionalconflictsandreligiouslyinspiredterrorism.15Huntingtonnevertreatsreligiousphenomenaastheexternalmanifestationsofinwardorspiritualexperience.Henevertreatsthemasahumanresponsetothemysteryofexistenceorregardsthemasamodeofparticipationintran-scendentreality.Rather,histreatmentalwaysapproachesreligioninamodethatwemightcall“immanentistfunctionalism.”Thatis,healwaysspeaksofreligionassomethingthatfunctionsinwaysthat“meetthepsychological,emotional,moral,andsocialneeds”ofpeople(65).Religionservesthefunc-tionofprovidingan“identity,”and,assuch,itcompeteswithothersourcesofidentity,includingone’stribeorraceoroccupationorregionorideologyor14.Inthisconnection,seeVoegelin,CW,17:47.15.Thisistruenotonlyofthespecificallyreligiousmotivationalwellspringsbutalsoofsecularandpoliticalones.AsBarryCooperhaswritten,“Inonewayoranother,allpoliticalorders,includingthoseoftheWest,areintegratedandjustifiedbysymbolicnar-rativesthatconnectpoliticalpracticesinthepragmaticandevensecularsensetoalargerorderofmeaning.Thusitisimpossibletounderstandcontemporaryterrorismwithoutpayingcloseattentiontothereligiosityorspiritualitythatterroristsexperienceascentraltotheirownactivities.”NewPoliticalReligions,orAnAnalysisofModernTerrorism(Colum-bia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2004),7.\nCivilizationalConflict293civilization(128–29).Hisaccountof“larevanchedeDieu”inthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturyhasnothingwhatsoevertodowithanythingbeyondtheimmanentneedsaddressedbyreligiouscommunities:Intimesofrapidsocialchangeestablishedidentitiesdissolve,theselfmustberedefined,andnewidentitiescreated.ForpeoplefacingtheneedtodetermineWhoamI?WheredoIbelong?religionprovidescompellinganswers,andreli-giousgroupsprovidesmallsocialcommunitiestoreplacethoselostthroughurbanization....Morebroadly,thereligiousresurgencethroughouttheworldisareactionagainstsecularism,moralrelativism,andself-indulgence,andareaffir-mationofthevaluesoforder,discipline,work,mutualhelp,andhumansolidar-ity.Religiousgroupsmeetsocialneedsleftuntendedbystatebureaucracies.Theseincludetheprovisionofmedicalandhospitalservices,kindergartensandschools,carefortheelderly,promptreliefafternaturalandothercatastrophes,andwelfareandsocialsupportduringperiodsofeconomicdeprivation.(97–98)Healsonotesthatreligionmayprovide“themostreassuringandsupport-ivejustificationforstruggleagainst‘godless’forceswhichareseenasthreaten-ing”(267).Nowheredoesheaddressreligiousbeliefasaphenomenonthatconnectstoanythingbeyondthepsychologicalorworldlyneedsofthebeliever.AndthoughHuntingtonlookslikeheistakingreligionseriouslywhenhearguesthat“millenniaofhumanhistoryhaveshownthatreligionisnota‘smalldifference’butpossiblythemostprofounddifferencethatcanexistbetweenpeople”(254),heisreallyonlysayingthatreligiousdifferencesrundeep—notthatreligionitselfissomethingprofound.TheimmanentistcharacterofHuntington’sapproachisapparentthrough-outthebook,anditwillsufficetoexemplifyitwithregardtoasingledimen-sionofthevolume.Whenseekingtogettothe“heart:ofathinker,i.e.,toseehowheorsheismostfundamentallyorientedtowardreality,itisoftenquiteilluminatingtoexaminehowheorsheconceiveshistoryasawhole.Topro-videapointofcomparison,Voegelinwritesthat“historyisnotastreamofhumanbeingsandtheiractionsintime,buttheprocessofman’spartici-pationinafluxofdivinepresencethathaseschatologicaldirection.”16ForHuntington,1.“Humanhistoryisthehistoryofcivilizations.”(40)2.“History...consistsofchangesinhumanbehavior.”(56)3.“Populationmovementsarethemotorofhistory.”(198)Thecontrastherespeaksforitself,andnocommentaryisrequired.Ofcourse,tofindfunctionalismandimmanentisminasocialscientist’sapproach16.Voegelin,CW,17:50.\n294MichaelFranztoreligionishardlyshocking,andmypointhereisnotthatIhavereadSamuelHuntingtonandhavediscoveredthatheisnotEricVoegelin.Rather,thelargerpointisthatHuntington’sabilitytoconveywhatishappeningwhenviolencebreaksoutalongthefaultlinesrunningbetweenreligionsisinherentlylimitedbyhisfailuretoaddresswhatisreallyatstakeinreligionfortheauthenticbeliever.Humanbeingsdonotlaunchholywarsbecausethepresenceofotherreligionsintheneighborhoodthreatenstheir“identities.”Theydonotputinfidelstothesword—orflyairplanesintobuildings—outofaconvictionthattheirownreligionbettermeetstheirpsychologicalandsocialneeds.Theydothesethingsbecausethetruthofexistenceisatstake,andananalystwhocannotorwillnotapproachreligioninthatlightisseverelylimitedinwhathecanteachusaboutthephenomenonofreligiouslychargedpoliticalfanaticism.WeshouldalsonotethatHuntington’ssociologicalorfunctionalistapproachseverelylimitsourabilitytodiagnosethedisorderedactivitiesstemmingfromsuchfanaticism.Thediagnosticpovertyofthefunctionalistapproachisclearlyapparentwhenoneconsiderstheeventsof9/11.Fromthestandpointofthisapproach,onecanonlyjudgeparticularactionsasbeingfunctionalordys-functional,notgoodorevil.Certainly,mostobserverswouldfinditwhollyunsatisfactorytoassesstheactionsofthe9/11terroristsasmerely“dysfunc-tional.”Insuchacase,wecansensethataninsufficientmethodispreventingusfromcallingthingsbytheirtruenames.Thatisaproblemofrealsignificance,yettheproblemsrunevendeeper.Infact,oncloserscrutiny,wecanseethatthesociologicalapproachforcesustocalltheseactionsbynamesthatarefalse—andappallinglyso.Ifwearelimitedinourapproachtoreligiontoregardingitasasourceofpersonalidentityandgroupcohesiveness,howmustweevaluatetheactionsofthe9/11terrorists?TheseactionscertainlyhadagalvanizingeffectonthefanaticalfringeofIslam,enhancingcohesionwithinAlQaedaandenlargingitsmembershipaswellasthatofassociatedterroristorganizations.17ForcountlessIslamicfundamentalists,thespectacle17.InvideotapedremarksfromNovember9,2001,OsamabinLadennotes:“Thoseyouthwhoconductedthe[9/11]operationsdidnotacceptanylawinthepopularterms,buttheyacceptedthelawthattheProphetMuhammadbrought.Thoseyoungmen[inaudi-ble]saidindeeds,inNewYorkandWashington—speechesthatovershadowedallotherspeechesmadeeverywhereelseintheworld.ThespeechesareunderstoodbybothArabsandnon-Arabs,evenbyChinese.Itisaboveall—themediasaid.SomeofthemsaidthatinHolland,atoneofthecenters,thenumberofpeoplewhoacceptedIslamduringthedaysthatfollowedtheoperationsweremorethanthepeoplewhoacceptedIslaminthelast11years.IheardsomeoneonIslamicradiowhoownsaschoolinAmericasay:‘Wedon’thavetimetokeepupwiththedemandsofthosewhoareaskingaboutIslamicbookstolearnaboutIslam.’”TranslatedtranscriptreleasedbytheU.S.DepartmentofDefenseandexcerptedintheNewYorkTimes,December14,2001.\nCivilizationalConflict295oftheproudesttowersofthesatanicWestbeingreducedtorubblebyacorpsofjihadistmartyrswasaformidablereinforcementoftheirpersonalidenti-ties,whichareforgedincontradistinctiontoacapitalist,Christian“other.”Thus,ifweweretoadheretoHuntington’sapproach,wecouldnotevenjudgetheactionsofthe9/11terroristsas“dysfunctional.”Infact,wewouldbecom-pelledtosaythattheactionsfunctionedverywellindeed.3)JustasHuntingtonapproachesreligioninaninsufficientlypenetratingmode,hisaccountofthetiesbindingindividualstocivilizationsisbothcon-fusingandconfused,aswellaspsychologicallyandspirituallysuperficial.Wecanpointtotheseshortcomingsbyconsideringthefollowingpassage:Everycivilizationseesitselfasthecenteroftheworldandwritesitshistoryasthecentraldramaofhumanhistory.ThishasbeenperhapsevenmoretrueoftheWestthanofothercultures.Suchmonocivilizationalviewpoints,however,havedecreasingrelevanceandusefulnessinamulticivilizationalworld.(54–55)Workingbackward,onemustpointoutthat—byHuntington’sownrea-soning—theworldhasalwaysbeenmulticivilizational,sinceheregardscivi-lizationsasentitieswithwhichhumansidentifyanddefinethemselvesincon-tradistinctionto“outsiders.”HuntingtonmaintainsthatInthepost–ColdWarworld,themostimportantdistinctionsamongpeoplesarenotideological,political,oreconomic.Theyarecultural.Peoplesandnationsareattemptingtoanswerthemostbasicquestionhumanscanface:Whoarewe?Andtheyareansweringthatquestioninthetraditionalwayhumanbeingshaveansweredit,byreferencetothethingsthatmeanmosttothem.Peopledefinethemselvesintermsofancestry,religion,language,history,values,customs,andinstitutions.Theyidentifywithculturalgroups:tribes,ethnicgroups,religiouscommunities,nations,and,atthebroadestlevel,civilizations.Peopleusepoliticsnotjusttoadvancetheirinterestsbutalsotodefinetheiridentity.Weknowwhoweareonlywhenweknowwhowearenotandoftenonlywhenweknowwhomweareagainst.(21)Thus,thereisnoreasontobelievethat“monocivilizationalviewpoints”becomeanymoreorless“relevant”or“useful”atanyparticulartime.Ofcourse,the“relevance”and“usefulness”ofamonocivilizationalviewpointwillbedifferentforthesocialscientist,ontheonehand,andfortheindividualwhoisabsorbedinalivingidentificationwithaparticularcivilization.18From18.And,attheriskofbelaboringtheobvious,wemustnotethatthisisalmostper-fectlyanalogoustothedifferencebetweenreligionasitexistsforthesociologicalobserver,ontheonehand,andreligionfortheindividualwhoisanimatedbyalivingfaithinGod.\n296MichaelFranzHuntington’spositionasasocialscientist,hoveringabovesuchparticularciv-ilizations,amonocivilizationalviewpointisanalyticallyunsoundandthere-foreneitherrelevanttonorusefulforhispurposes.Byhisownaccount,how-ever,meremortalsinthecivilizationalrankandfile“areattemptingtoanswerthemostbasicquestionhumanscanface”byidentifyingwithacivilization;andsincethisattemptcanonlyfulfillthefunctionheascribestoitiftheyidentifywithaparticularcivilization,amonocivilizationalviewpointispro-foundlyrelevantandextremelyusefulforthem.Naturally,thisiswhyitmakessensetosaythat“everycivilizationseesitselfasthecenteroftheworldandwritesitshistoryasthecentraldramaofhumanhistory.”(Strictlyspeaking,ofcourse,thisdoesnotquitemakesense,sincecivilizationsneither“see”nor“write”anything;theirviewsandwritingsflowfromparticularindividualsengagedinadirect,personalencounterwithreality,andtheseviewsandwrit-ingsexpandfrombeingpersonallymeaningfultobeingcivilizationallycon-stitutivetotheextentthattheyresonatewithandrendermeaningfulthelivingexperienceofothers.)194)TheconfusionspresentinHuntington’sunderstandingofthetiesbindingindividualstocivilizationsalsoafflicthisunderstandingoftheimplicationsofhisanalysis.Ashesummarizestheupshotofthebook:ThesurvivaloftheWestdependsonAmericansreaffirmingtheirWesternidentityandWesternersacceptingtheircivilizationasuniquenotuniversalandunitingtorenewandpreserveitagainstchallengesfromnon-Westernsocieties.Avoidanceofaglobalwarofcivilizationsdependsonworldleadersacceptingandcooperatingtomaintainthemulticivilizationalcharacterofglobalpolitics.(20–21)GivenwhatHuntingtonhastoldusaboutthefunctionthatcivilizationalidentificationsserveforhumanbeings,isitconsistentandreasonabletoask19.Huntingtongivesusreasontodoubthisunderstandingofhowcivilizationscomeintoexistence,coalesce,andmaintainthemselvesinhistoryagainstexternalrivalsandinternalcentripetaltendencies.Morespecifically,hesometimesseemstoimplythatcivi-lizationalexistenceisa“bottom-up”ratherthana“top-down”phenomenon.Noteinthisconnectionhisdismissalofthepossibilityofauniversal“DavosCulture”takingroot,onthegroundthat“outsidetheWest,itisprobablysharedbylessthan50millionpeopleor1percentoftheworld’spopulation”(57).HegoesontoquotewithapprovalHedleyBull’sobservationthat“thiscommonintellectualcultureexists...onlyattheelitelevel:itsrootsareshallowinmanysocieties”(58),andtodismissthepossibilitythatEnglishwillbecomeagloballanguagebecauseitsuseinmanycountriesislimitedtoelites(61).Dociviliza-tionsoriginatebythecountingofnosesortakingofvotes?Docivilizationsspringfromtheworldwithdeeprootsalreadyset?Dotheybubbleupfromspontaneousgroupingsofcommonpeoplewhothenhireelitestofashioninstitutionsforthem?\nCivilizationalConflict297Westernerstoaccepttheircivilizationasuniquenotuniversal?If“everycivi-lizationseesitselfasthecenteroftheworld,”isn’tthereanimportantsenseinwhichallcivilizationsnaturallyregardtheirownviewsandbeliefsandmodeoflifeasinherentlyuniversal?20Specifically,don’tmembersofallcivilizationsregardtheiroutlookandreligionandwayoflifeasbeingnotjustoptimalforthemselvesbutforhumanbeingsperse?Andevenifweweretograntthatthismaynotbecharacteristicofallcivilizationstothesamedegree,isn’titataminimumstronglycharacteristicofWesterncivilization(withitsfoundationssetinclassicalphilosophy’steachingabouthumannatureandthehumangoodandChristianity’smissionofsalvationforasinglehumanityunitedunderGod)?ItclearlycannotmakesensetoaskWesternersto“accepttheircivilizationasuniquenotuniversal”ifitsuniquenessconsistspreciselyinitsuniversality.Asnotedabove,Huntingtonsharplycriticizesany“WesternbeliefintheuniversalityofWesternculture”onthegroundsthat“itisfalse;itisimmoral;anditisdangerous”(310),butnoneofthesepointsaddressWesternuniver-salityinthesenseIwishtoemphasizehere.HecontendsthatWesternuniver-salityisfalsebecausethoseoutsidetheWestarenotgravitatingtoward“acommon,western-oriented,Anglophoneworldculture.”Thismayormaynotbetrue,butitdoesnotmeanthatWesterncivilization’skeyfeaturesarenotuniversalisticinthebreadthoftheirscopeorintheirpotentialapplicability.21HecontendsthatWesternuniversalityisimmoralbecauseitcouldnotbecomeactualexceptbyforce,yetnon-Westernunwillingnesstoadoptelementsliketheruleoflaworsocialpluralismdoesnothing—logically—toinvalidatetheclaimsofWesternerswhomightbelievetheseareoptimalarrangementsforhumanbeingsperse.Finally,whileitmaybetrueinanabstractsensethat,asHuntingtonsuggests,anattempttoimposeWesternelementsbyforceupona20.Huntingtonseemstowishtodenythiswhenarguingthat“theconceptofauniver-salcivilizationisadistinctiveproductofWesterncivilization.”Hegoesontoexplainthat“inthenineteenthcenturytheideaof‘thewhiteman’sburden’helpedjustifytheextensionofWesternpoliticalandeconomicdominationovernon-Westernsocieties.AttheendofthetwentiethcenturytheconceptofauniversalcivilizationhelpsjustifyWesternculturaldominanceofothersocietiesandtheneedforthosesocietiestoapeWesternpracticesandinstitutions.UniversalismistheideologyoftheWestforconfrontationswithnon-Westerncultures”(66).21.ThiswouldbetrueforsevenoftheeightelementsthatHuntingtonidentifiesasthe“distinguishingcharacteristicsofWesternsociety”:theClassicallegacy,CatholicismandProtestantism,separationofspiritualandtemporalauthority,ruleoflaw,socialpluralism,representativebodies,andindividualism.Noneofthesearerestrictedinscopeorapplica-bilityasaresultofbeingfundamentallyshapedbypeculiaritiesofEuropeorNorthAmericaand,forthisreason,unsuitableforpotentialexportandadoptionbeyondthegeographicalboundariesoftheWest.Theeighthelement,Europeanlanguages,presentsdebatableissues.\n298MichaelFranzrecalcitrantnon-WesternworldwouldriskcausingawarthattheWestmightlose,thisisessentiallyastraw-manargument.Theonlypersonintheworldwhoexplicitlyadvocatesdoingthatsortofthing(e.g.,invadingArabcountries,killingtheirleaders,andconvertingtheirpeopletoChristianity)isAnnCoul-ter—andevenNationalReviewfoundthissufficientlyrepellenttofireherforsuggestingit.22Huntington’sprescriptionforwhatshouldbedoneonthebasisofhisanalysis(bycommonpeopleandbyleaders)isstrikinglybifurcated.Rank-and-filemembersofWesterncivilizationarecalleduponto“renewandpreserveitagainstchallengesfromnon-Westernsocieties,”whichinthebroadercon-textofthebook(withitsemphasisonhowcivilizationalattachmentconsistsinestablishmentofapersonalidentityincontradistinctiontoan“other”)meansdisregardingthesirensongofmulticulturalisminfavorofaproudWesternparticularism.Leaders,ontheotherhand,arecalledupontoacceptandcooperatewithoneanother“tomaintainthemulticivilizationalcharacterofglobalpolitics.”Thisamountstocallingforaparticularisticconsciousnessamongmassesandapluralisticconsciousnessamongleaders,whichisquitecuriousifnotquitecontradictoryorinconceivable.Oneimaginesthatapop-ulaceengagedinrenewingandpreservingWesterncivilizationagainstchal-lengesfromnon-Westernsocietiesmightwishtoberepresentedandledbyindividualswhoarealsoengagedinthateffort.Iftheygottheirway,Huntingtoncouldnotgethis.Forhimtogethisway,leaderswouldberequiredtomain-tainatwo-facedposture,fanningtheflamesofproudparticularismamongthepeopleonthedomesticfrontwhilepursuinganon-judgmentalforeignpolicythatprudently,politelyavoidsoffendingothercivilizationswhileco-operatingtomaintainamulticivilizationalorder.23ItisfarfromclearthatWest-erndemocracieswould—orshould—findthisanacceptableorderofaffairs,orthatitcouldprovetobeworkable,giventherealitiesofhumanpsychologyandmasscommunications.22.Huntingtonprovidesnocitationtoshowthatanyonehasactuallyadvocatedimpos-ingWesterncultureontherestoftheworldbymeansofforce.Seehisdiscussiononp.310.RegardingtheAnnCoulterepisode,seetheWashingtonPost,August15,2002,p.A25.23.Abifurcatedpoliticsofthissortisnotquiteunknownhistorically,asnineteenth-centuryEuropeanleaderswouldsometimesencouragejingoismagainstarivalwhilepolitelyplayingthegameofdiplomacywithcounterpartsfromabroad.Theywerealsoablesome-timestoshiftpopularantagonisms,affections,andalliancesaftershiftsinthebalanceofpowerrequiredanalterationofalliances.However,nineteenth-centuryEuropeanpoliticswereconductedpredominantlybyaristocratswithrelativelyweaktiestocommonpeopleandintheabsenceofinstantmasscommunications,makingsuchatwo-facedproceduremucheasiertomaintainthanitwouldbetoday.\nCivilizationalConflict299IVWehaveseenthatHuntington’sanalysisisnotwithoutitsvirtues,butalsothatitisseriouslyunderminedbyatruncatedtreatmentofreligionandaninadequateunderstandingofthepsycho/spiritualtiesconnectingindividualstocivilizations.Thesetwoshortcomingsconspiretoproduceasurprisingresult:Huntington’sbookhasalmostnothingvitallyimportanttosayaboutthehor-ribleeventsof9/11thatreturnedittobestsellerlists.True,thebookpredictsthatglobalconflictwillincreasinglyoccurbetweencivilizationalentitiesratherthannation-statesorideologicalblocs.Andthatisindeedwhathappenedin2001.Also,Huntingtonpointsinanot-too-subtlewaytowardIslamicciviliza-tionasthemostlikelysourceofserioustroubleinthenearterm,andthoughthiswasnotquiteafeatofclairvoyance,wemustsay:correctagain.WhileHuntington’sbookholdssomepredictivepowerregardingwhathappenedon9/11,however,ittellsuslittleaboutwhyithappened.Thatis,thebookdoesnotaddress—andbecauseofitsshortcomingsofapproachcannotaddress—thecorecausalissuebehindtheterroristattacks:Whywouldapparentlyintelli-gent,competent,andsanepeopledeliberatelymurderthousandsofinnocentcivilians,andhowcouldtheypossiblyunderstandthisasaheroicactconform-ingtothewillofGod?WhenInotethatthebook’sshortcomingsofapproachpreventHuntingtonfromadequatelyaddressingthisissue,Imeantwothings.First,Imeanthatbecausethebookisbuiltuponatruncatedtreatmentofreligion,itdoesnotaddressauthenticreligiousexperienceorexpressionandthereforecannotaddressreligiousexperienceorexpressionintheirdeformedmodes.Bycon-trast,Voegelinoffersaremarkablyprofoundaccountofspiritualor“religious”experienceandexpressioninallofitsmainhistoricalforms(i.e.,cosmologi-cal,philosophical,ortheological;mythic,mystical,revelational,anddoctrinal,etc.)and,asadirectconsequence,wasalsoabletoofferaccountsofthede-formedmodesoftheseformsofexperienceandexpression.Voegelin’sunpar-alleledanalysesofspiritualdisorder(orGnosticism)arefoundeduponhissymbolicandhistoricalanalysesofauthenticspiritualexperience,justashiscritiqueofideologyandpoliticalreligionisfoundedonhisintricateunder-standingofphilosophyandauthenticreligion.ThereareseveralwaystoexpressthisinVoegelin’srichterminology:sincehehasanalyzedthevariousmodesofexistenceintruth,hecanspecifyanddiagnosethevariousmodesofexistenceinuntruth;sincehehassetouttheparticularaspectsofahealthyspiritualorder,hecandiagnosethesymptomsofspiritualdiseaseanddisorder;sinceherecordsandexplicatesthesymbolshistoricallydevelopedtosymbolizespiritual\n300MichaelFranzopeningtothetranscendentBeyondofexistence,hecanrecordandexplicatethesymbolsexpressingspiritualclosureandimmanentism;sinceheeluci-datesthesymbolsconveyingtheexperienceof“existence-in-tension”towardthegroundofbeing,hecanelucidatethesymbolsthatbetray“existence-in-revolt”againstthecontingencyandimperfectionofaworldthatcannotbeitsownground,andsoforth.24Conversely,sinceHuntingtonisunwillingtopressbeyondaflat,functionalist,exteriorviewofreligion,hecannotilluminatethevitalwellspringsofreligiousfanaticismintheiroperationsonthelevelofthehumanspirit.Second,whenIsaythatthebook’sshortcomingsofapproachpreventHunt-ingtonfromadequatelyaddressingthe“why”of9/11,Imeanthatbecauseitisbuiltuponasuperficialunderstandingofthepsycho/spiritualtiesconnectingindividualstocivilizations,itcannotilluminatethedeeppsychicforcesthatcanturnmembersofonecivilizationmalevolentlyagainstthoseofotherciv-ilizations.Bycontrast,Voegelinshowsthatsocietiesandcivilizationsareenti-tiesthataremuchmorethancollectivitiesofferingindividualsanidentityandasenseofbelonging.AlthoughHuntingtonapproachesthemthisway,Voegelinshowsthatahumancivilizationorsociety“isnotmerelyafact,oranevent,intheexternalworldtobestudiedbyanobserverlikeanaturalphenomenon....[I]tisawholelittleworld,acosmion,illuminatedwithmeaningfromwithinbythehumanbeingswhocontinuouslycreateandbearitasthemodeandconditionoftheirself-realization.”25Byextension,wecanseethatanindivid-ualabsorbedinalivingidentificationwithacivilizationwillperceivethreatstoitasthreatsnotonlytohis“identity”butalsototheverymodeandconditionofhisself-realizationwithinaparticularconceptionoftheorderandmeaningofdivineandworldlyreality.26Conversely,sinceHuntingtonisunwillingor24.ThatVoegelin’sanalysisofspiritualdisordercanaccomplishtheseobjectiveshasbeenclearforsometime,butithasalsobeenprovedrecentlythathisanalysisholdsgreatexplanatorypowerforreligiouslyinspiredterrorisminparticular.BarryCooperhasdemon-stratedthisinhisbookNewPoliticalReligions,orAnAnalysisofModernTerrorism.CooperdrawsuponVoegelin’sanalysisofpneumopathology(aswellasHannahArendt’sworkonideologyandonothersources)toilluminatethecharacteristicsoftheconsciousnessofreli-giouslyinspiredterrorists,carefullydistinguishingthespiritualdimensionsoftheir“moralinsanity”fromordinaryinsanityormadness.Hisaccountoftheterrorist’simaginativeexis-tencewithina“secondreality”projectedby“scotosis”issetforthingeneraltheoreticaltermsbutalsoappliedtospecifichistoricalsourcesandcontemporarycasesfromtheIslamicworld.25.Voegelin,TheNewScienceofPolitics:AnIntroduction,inCW,vol.5,Modernitywith-outRestraint:ThePoliticalReligions;TheNewScienceofPolitics;andScience,Politics,andGnosticism,ed.ManfredHenningsen(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),109.26.ItisworthnotingthatVoegelinclearlyunderstoodthatspecificactsandeventsinthephysicalworldwillbeperceivedasthreatstoacivilization’sprovisionofpersonalmeaningandasenseofcosmicordertoindividuals.Thisisimportantforunderstanding\nCivilizationalConflict301unabletopressbeyondaflat,functionalist,exteriorviewofcivilizationalpar-ticipation,hecannotilluminatethevitalwellspringsofcross-civilizationalatrocities.Inclosing,wemaybalanceouraccountsomewhatbynotingthatHunting-ton’sTheClashofCivilizationsandtheRemakingofWorldOrderisanimpor-tantbookmarkedbysignificantvirtuesinapproachandexecution.IthashelpedmanythousandsofcitizenreadersseepasttheconfigurationsofpowerthatmarkedtheColdWareraandhashelpedmorethanafewpoliticalscien-tiststoappreciatetheculturalandreligiousforcesatworkinworldpolitics.Althoughthebookismarredbysignificantshortcomings,thereisagreatdif-ferencebetweencomingupshortandheadinginthewrongdirection.Hunting-tonisnot,inthemain,headedinthewrongdirection.Restoringanemphasisoncivilizationalattachmentsasactuatingfactorsinpoliticalbehaviorisamoveintherightdirection,asithelpstorestorequestionsofpersonalandpublicmeaning,identity,andreligiousstrivingtoacentralplaceinpoliticalanalysis.AlthoughwemustconcludethatHuntingtonhasnotshownanadequateapproachtosuchquestions,heisnottheonlyguideatourdisposal,andwecanhopethatamodestpercentageofthereadersheturnsintherightdirec-tionwilltrytopressbeyondthepointwhereheleavesthem.howsomeonemightperceive,say,thespreadofspokenEnglishorthepresenceofAmeri-cantroopsinSaudiArabiaasanabominablethreatrequiringterribleretribution.Voegelinwrites:“Thecosmionhasitsinnerrealmofmeaning;butthisrealmexiststangiblyintheexternalworldinhumanbeingswhohavebodiesandthroughtheirbodiesparticipateintheorganicandinorganicexternalityoftheworld.Apoliticalsocietycandissolvenotonlythroughthedisintegrationofthebeliefsthatmakeitanactingunitinhistory;itcanalsobedestroyedthroughthedispersionofitsmembersinsuchamannerthatcommuni-cationbetweenthembecomesphysicallyimpossibleor,mostradically,throughtheirphys-icalextermination;itcanalsosufferseriousdamage,partialdestructionoftradition,andprolongedparalysisthroughexterminationorsuppressionoftheactivememberswhoconstitutethepoliticalandintellectualrulingminoritiesofasociety.”Ibid.,112–13.\n16Voegelin’sPuritanGnosticismandBacon’sGreatInstaurationStephenA.McKnightEricVoegelindevotedconsiderableefforttotheanalysisofmodernhistori-ogeneticmyths,whichofferavisionofanew,world-immanentorderthatistheculminationandfulfillmentofhumanhistory.InTheNewScienceofPoli-ticsheidentifiestwoprimarytypesofthismoderndeformation.ThebetterknownishistreatmentofMarx’srevolutionaryidea.Lesswellknown,thoughequallysignificant,ishisanalysisofPuritanGnosticism.WhileMarx’srevoltisadeliberaterepudiationofclassicalphilosophyandChristianity,VoegelinsawinPuritanGnosticismanequallydisturbingdegenerationwithinthemain-linesofpoliticalandreligiousorder,whichresultedinthetransformationofthetranscendentKingdomofGodintoaworld-immanentHeavenonEarth.VoegelinidentifiedfourcharacteristicelementsofPuritanGnosticism:1.thesuccessfulinversionandtransformationofWesternreligiousandpoliticalsymbolsandinstitutionstocreateaworld-immanentapoca-lypticoreschatologicalfulfillmentofhistory;2.thesystematicformulationofanewdoctrineinscripturaltermsthatsanctifiedandlegitimatedtheGnosticcallfortransformationoftheexistingpoliticalorderandtheintellectualandinstitutionalfounda-tionsonwhichitrested;3.anattackon“classicphilosophyandscholastictheology,and,sinceunderthetwoheadscamethemajorandcertainlythedecisivepartofWesternintellectualculture,”thisculturereceivedadestructiveblowfromwhichithasbeenunabletorecover;302\nVoegelin’sPuritanGnosticism3034.finally,the“GnosticRevolutionhasforitspurposeachangeinthenatureofmanandtheestablishmentofatransfiguredsociety.”1Thisessayunderscorestheimportanceofthissecondformofhistorio-geneticdeformationthroughacasestudyofFrancisBacon’svisionofa“GreatInstauration”whereinEnglandwouldbetransformedintoautopiathroughreligiousreformandthescientificmasteryofnature.2BeforeturningtoanexaminationofBacon,however,itisimportanttonotethatVoegelinmakesnoreferencetohiminhisdiscussionofPuritanGnosticism.Thisessayintendstodemonstrate,however,thatBacon’sworkdevelopedinthereligiousandpoliticalclimatethatculminatedinthePuritanrevolutionandoffersaclear,concisearticulationofthefeaturesVoegelinidentifiesascharacteristicofPuri-tanGnosticism.3Moreover,itwillarguethatananalysisofBaconmakesafundamentalconnectionwithVoegelin’sinvestigationofthetransformationofscienceintoscientism,anothercentralthemeinTheNewScienceofPolitics.Thepurposeofthiscasestudyistwofold.First,itintendstochallengepre-vailingnotionsofBaconasafoundingfatherinthemodernrejectionofreli-gioninfavorofscience.Bacon’svisionofagreatinstaurationisgroundedinhisapocalypticandmillenarianinterpretationofscriptureandofprovidentialsigns.Thesecondandbroaderpurposeistodemonstratethatmodernformsofdisorderdonotalwayshavetheirorigininan“egophanic”rebellion.AsVoegelinindicatesinTheNewScienceofPoliticsandinmanyofhissubse-quentwritings,moderndreamsofinner-worldlyfulfillmentalsooriginatewithinthemainlinesoftraditionalphilosophyandtheology.TodevelopthisanalysisIwillfocusontwoofBacon’sworks,TheGreatInstauration(InstauratioMagna)andTheAdvancementofLearning.TheGreatInstaurationTheGreatInstaurationwaspublishedin1620whenFrancisBaconwaslordchancellorandattheheightofhispoliticalpower.Originally,Baconenvi-sionedasix-partmagnumopus.Althoughthepublishedtextfallsshortofits1.EricVoegelin,TheNewScienceofPolitics(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1952),133–61.Seeesp.138,140–41,152.2.ThetermGreatInstaurationis,ofcourse,thetitleofoneofBacon’skeytexts;andtheLatintermsinstauroandinstauratioappearregularlyinBacon’sotherwritings.3.Voegelin’stermPuritanGnosticismwouldbeproblematicbycontemporarystan-dards.Theconceptof“Puritanism”hasbeenthesubjectofextensivedebate,andthetermGnosticismisproblematic.Thesehistoriographicalandconceptualproblemsarenotdirectlyrelevantinthiscontext,however.WhatisbeingexaminedisthecorrespondencebetweenBacon’sworkandthefourelementsofmodernthought,whichVoegelindescribes.\n304StephenA.McKnightoriginaldesignandintent,itneverthelesspresentswhatBaconregardedashismostessentialcontributiontolaunchingtherehabilitationofknowledge.TheusualfocusofscholarlyanalysisisBacon’scritiqueofclassicalphiloso-phyandscholastictheology.Thematerialsthatprecedethiscritique,thatis,thetitlepage,theProemium,andthededicatoryletter,areoftenignored.ThesesectionsofthetextarefilledwiththemesofprovidentialinterventionandapocalypticdeliveranceanddemonstratethatBacon’sinstaurationhasasitsprimaryaimtherestitutionofhumanitytoaprelapsarianrelationwithGodandnature.Thematerialsmustbecloselystudiedinordertoallowthesethemestounfoldandtoestablishhowtheopeningsectionssetacontextforunder-standingthenatureofhisepistemologicalrevolution.Inthesecompact,con-centratedvenuesBaconintroducesthekeyimageoftheinstaurationofknowl-edgeandestablishesitsconnectionstoprovidentialdesign.TheTitlePageTwoelementsofthetitlepageareimportanttonote.Thefirstisthetitleofthebook,InstauratioMagna.AlthoughtheterminstauratiowasnotingeneralusageinBacon’stime,hisreaders,nevertheless,wouldhaveknownthetermandrecognizedthecontextforitsuseinJacobeanEngland.AsCharlesWhit-neyhasshown,theprimarymeaninginBacon’sagederivesfromtheVulgateeditionoftheBible,wherethetermoccursinmorethantwodozenpassagesalludingtotheapocalypticrestorationofJerusalemandthegoldenageoftheDavidic-Solomonickingship.4ThisthemeisparticularlysignificantintheJacobeanperiod,becauseKingJamesIwasheraldedasthenewSolomonwhowouldrestoreJerusalem.Thetermisalsousedinabroaderapocalypticmean-inginseveralVulgatepassagesreferringtoChrist’sredemptionandrestora-tionofhumanitytoitsprelapsariancondition,priortoOriginalSin.5So,thistitle,InstauratioMagna,wouldhavesignaledtoBacon’sreadersthatthistexthadtodowithapocalypticrestorationandrenewal.Thesecondelementofthetitlepagetonoteistheepigramappearingnearthebottomofthepage.Thisinscriptionreads,“multipertransibuntetauge-4.CharlesWhitney,FrancesBaconandModernity(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,1986),and“Bacon’sInstauration,”JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas50(1989):371–90.5.TheVulgatealsousestheverbinstaurotodescribeGod’srenewaloftheworldandtheapocalypticChrist’srenewaloftheworldandthefulfillmentoftime.AccordingtoWhitney,“TheVulgateineffectcreatesatypologyorsymbolismofinstaurationbylexi-callyconnectingthearchitecturalinstaurationofSolomon’sTemplebothtoaprophetic‘rebuilding’ofIsraelandtoaChristianinstaurationofallthingsintheapocalypse.”ThistypologicalconnectiondoesnotexistintheHebrewandGreekoriginals.Cf.Whitney,“Bacon’sInstauration,”377.\nVoegelin’sPuritanGnosticism305biturscientia”(manyshallgoforthandknowledgewillbeincreased).Bacon’smottoisamodificationoftheVulgateversionofDaniel12:4.ThecontextisapropheticvisioninwhichtheArchangelMichaelrevealsGod’splantodeliverIsraelandinstalltheKingofGodonearth.BaconpreservestheapocalypticthrustandrelatesittotheopeningofthenewworldthroughtheColumbianvoyages.ButBaconalsotransfersthefocusfromtheopeningoftheterrestrialworldtotheexpansionoftheintellectualhorizons.Thetitlepage,then,sig-nalsthatthetextoffersacriticismoftheparametersofthecurrentstateofknowledgeandarguesthattheboundariesareasfalseandinhibitingastheancientprohibitionagainstterrestrialexploration.Knowledgecannotbebuiltupontheseoldfoundations—theyareasirrelevantasancientgeography.Thefoundationsmustbebuiltfresh,fromthegroundup.Thetitlepage,then,doesindeedsignalthesubjectmatterofthetextintwoimportantways.First,theopeningofthenewworldunderminestheauthor-ityoftraditionalknowledgebyexposingitsfundamentalerrors.Atthesametime,itshowstheextraordinarypotentialofnew,unexpecteddiscoveries.Sec-ond,thequotationfromthebookofDanielindicatesthatthepursuitofnewknowledgeisdivinelysanctioned;itisnotanactofarroganceorofhubris.Theexplorationofthenewworldisnotapridefuldefianceofthewarningsofthegods;itisthefulfillmentofdivineintentandlinkshumanefforttodivinedesign.TheProemiumThetitlepageisfollowedbyBacon’sProemium,whosemainthemeisstatedinthefirstsentence.Beingconvincedthatthehumanintellectmakesitsowndifficulties,notusingthetruehelpswhichareatman’sdisposalsoberlyandjudiciously;whencefol-lowsmanifoldignoranceofthings,andbyreasonofthatignorancemischiefsinnumerable;hethoughtalltrialsshouldbemade,whetherthatcommercebetweenthemindofmanandthenatureofthings,whichismorepreciousthananythingonearth,oratleastthananythingthatisoftheearth,mightbyanymeansberestoredtoitsperfectandoriginalcondition,orifthatmaynotbe,yetreducedtoabetterconditionthanthatinwhichitnowis.6IntheveryfirstphraseBaconcontendsthatthehumanintellectisrespon-siblefortheignoranceanderrorsthatabound.Thesecondphraseassertsthat6.FrancisBacon,ThePhilosophicalWorksofFrancisBacon:ReprintedfromtheTextsandTranslationswithNotesandPrefacesofEllisandSpedding,ed.JohnM.Robertson(Freeport,NY:BooksforLibrariesPress,1970),241.Subsequentcitationsaregiveninthetext.\n306StephenA.McKnightthisisbecausetheintellectstubbornlyrefusestouseresourcesatitsdisposal,whichcouldcorrecttheerrorsthatexist.InthenextphraseBaconexplainswhyhehasundertakenhispresentproject.“Hethoughtalltrialsshouldbemade,whetherthatcommercebetweenthemindofmanandthenatureofthings...mightbyanymeansberestoredtoitsperfectandoriginalcondi-tion.”Thereferencetorestorationisimportanttonote.TheLatininstaurohasthedoublemeaningofbuildingandofrebuilding.Accordingtothisstatement,Baconintendstoattempttorebuildthecorrespondencebetweenthehumanintellectanditsproperobjectofstudy—thenaturalworld;andthegoalistorebuildittoits“perfectandoriginalcondition.”Restitutioncannotbeaccom-plished,however,untilthecurrentcausesofepistemologicaldisorderhavebeenpurgedandanewstartingpointorfoundationhasbeenestablished.AsBaconputsit:“Thereisbutonecourseleft,therefore—totrythewholethinganewuponabetterplan,andcommenceatotalreconstructionofsciences,arts,andallhumanknowledge,raisedupontheproperfoundations”(241).InthesecondparagraphoftheProemiumBaconexplainswhyheischosentoundertakethisproject.First,itfallstoBaconbecausenoothermanseemsreadytotakeonthetask.Moreover,Baconregardsthisasthemostworthylegacyhecouldleave,becauseitwillprovidethemostbenefittothehumanrace.Baconiscarefultopointout,however,thatitisnotpersonalambitionthatmotivateshim;ratheritistheworthinessofthegoal—charitableservice.TheemphasisonGod’smercyandonhumanity’sneedforcharitableconcernforothersisathemealsofoundinthededicatoryletter,thenextsectionoftheGreatInstaurationtobeexamined.Dedication,orEpistleDedicatoryBacon,whowaslordchancelloratthetime,beginshisdedicationbytellinghismonarchthatthekingmightfeelthatBaconhasbeenneglectinghisresponsibilitiestothestatewhilehehasbeeninvolvedinworkingonthisproject.Baconassurestheking,however,thattheworkitselfisaservicebothtothekingandtothenation.WhileBaconstressestheimportanceofthework,whichisasuitableprojecttodedicatetoagreatking,heclaimsthattheprod-uctisnottheresultofhisownwitbutisinstead“achildoftime.”Suchmod-estymightbeattributedtostylisticconvention;buthereBaconminimizeshisownroleinordertoaccenttheroleofdivineProvidence.HereBaconindicatesthathisbook“maybeascribedtothemercyandgoodnessofGod,andtothefelicityofyourMajesty’stimes.”BaconthenaddsthatbecauseGod’shandisintheproject,theworkthatheisdedicatingtoJamesIwillmaketheking’sreign“famoustoposterity”as“timesofthewisestandmostlearnedofkings”\nVoegelin’sPuritanGnosticism307inwhichthe“regenerationandrestorationofthesciencesoccurred.”BaconthenlinksthereignofJamesItotherecoveryandadvancementoflearningbyassociatingJameswithSolomon:“youwhoresembleSolomoninsomanyways”(242).HereBaconisnotonlyemphasizingGod’smercy;heisalsoiden-tifyingthereignofJamesIwithanapocalypticmoment.ThisapocalypticperiodisassociatedwiththerestorationofknowledgebylinkingJamesItoSolomon,andthis,inturn,linksGod’snewmerciestotherestorationofknowledgethroughBacon’sprogramofinstauration.7ItshouldalsobenotedthatBacondepictshimselfasonewhohasbeenchosenbyGodtobetheinstrumentforbringingrelieftoman’sestatethroughhisadvancementofknowledgethatwillcorrecttheignoranceanderrorsthathaveaccumulatedoverthecourseofhistory.Anditshouldalsoberemem-beredthatthisinstaurationwillrestorethecorrespondencebetweenthemindandthenaturalworldtoits“originalcondition.”Asweshallsee,BaconisreferringtotheoriginalconditionofAdambeforetheFall.ThePrefaceIntheprefaceBaconindicatesthatheintendstoanalyzewhy“thestateofknowledgeisnotprosperousnorgreatlyadvancing.”Baconidentifiesthefirstproblemobstructingtheadvancementofknowledgeasanunduereverenceforthepast.Becausemenhaveoverestimatedthevalueoftheartsthattheyalreadypossess,theseartsbecome“pillarsoffatesetinthepathofknowledgeformenhaveneitherdesirenorhopetoencouragethemtopenetratefurther”(243).Thefirsttaskthenistobreakthroughthebarriersthatobstructtheadvanceoftruthandpreventthemind’sauthorityovernature.Ashebeginshiscriticismoftheunduereverenceforclassicallearning,particularlyofnat-uralphilosophy,Baconintroducesanothermemorableimagewhenhecom-paresclassicalphilosophytoanadolescentboy:botharesterileandincapableofproducingorgenerating.Thisis,ofcourse,aninversionoftheRenaissancereverencefortheclassicalageasaperiodofmaturityandexcellence,whichmustberecoveredandemulatedifhumanityistoadvance.Bacon,bycontrast,7.BaconalsolinksJamesItoSolomoninTheNewAtlantisandTheAdvancementofLearning.ForadiscussionofBacon’sequationofJamesandSolomon,seeTheOxfordFran-cisBacon,vol.4,TheAdvancementofLearning(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2000),35ff.;foradiscussionof“BaconandtheBritishSolomon,”seexxxviiiff.Thethemeofrestora-tionorregenerationwasprominentintheiconographyofJamesIcourtpageantry.SeeJonathanDollimore,RadicalTragedy:Religion,Ideology,andPower(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1984);JonathanGoldberg,JamesIandthePoliticsofLiterature(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1983),esp.chap.2;andStephenOrgel,TheIllusionsofPower(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1975).\n308StephenA.McKnightportraystheclassicalperiodashumanity’schildhoodanddisparageshiscon-temporaries,whoholdsuchavaultedopinionofthephilosophyofPlatoandAristotle.AccordingtoBacon,thewisdom“whichwehavederivedfromtheGreeksisbutliketheboyhoodofknowledgeandhasthecharacteristicprop-ertyofboys:itcantalkbutitcannotgenerate”(243).Asweshallsee,Baconwillemploytheassociationoftrueknowledgewithproductiveknowledgeandwillcontraststerile,emptyknowledgewithutilitarianknowledge.8AsBaconreachestheendofhispreface,heswitchesthetoneofhisnarra-tiveandoffersaprayerthatGodwillblesstheworkheisundertakingandthroughhishandsGod“willprovidethehumanfamilywithnewmercies”(246).Thisprayerrecallsthededication,wherehesuggeststhathisworkwouldprovidegreatblessingsforthehumanracebecauseitistheworkofdivineProvidence.WhilemanyworksconcludewithapetitiontoGodtoblesstheworkthatisbeingofferedanduseitforsomedivinepurpose,theportionofBacon’sprayerthatimmediatelyfollowsthiscommonmotifisnotsoconven-tional.Hepraysthat“thingshumanmaynotinterferewiththingsdivine,andthatfromopeningthewaysofthesenseandtheincreaseofnaturallighttheremayariseinourmindsnoincredulityordarknesswithregardtodivinemys-teries”(246).Itwouldbefairlystandardtodifferentiatenaturalphilosophyfromtheologyorreasonfromrevelation,butBacongoesfurther.Heismoredirectlyconcernedwiththeequationofknowledgewithsinortheequationofthehumanefforttomasternaturewithpridefulrebellionagainsthumanity’screatureliness.InthemedievalandearlymodernperiodsOriginalSinwasfrequentlyequatedwithprideandwithrebellionagainstone’screatureliness.ThetemptationbySatanwastoobtaintheknowledgenecessarytoovercomedependenceonGodandbeabletosurpassthecreature’sdebttotheCreatorand,thereby,becomelikeGod.9BacontakespainstoclarifyorredefinetheconnectionbetweenOriginalSin,pride,andknowledgebylinkingpridewithseekingknowledgethatisproperlytheprovinceofGodalone.Hespecificallyidentifiesthisknowledgewiththedivinemysteryofsalvationandgrace.AccordingtoBacon,thedesireforknowledgeofthenaturalworldisnei-therforbiddennorsinful;andtheproperremedyforsinisindirectingthequestforknowledgetoitspropersubjectandinusinghumanreasonandartasGodintended:“foritwasnotthatpureanduncorruptednaturalknowl-8.IntheseconddedicationtoJamesIinTheAdvancementofLearning,BaconcontraststhebarrennessofElizabethtoJames’spotencyandurgeshimtocreateknowledgethatcangeneratebenefitsforhumanity.SeetheusefuldiscussioninSamuelG.Wong,“SomeBaconianMetaphorsandtheProblemsofPureProse,”TexasStudiesinLiteratureandLan-guage36(1994):233–58.9.Gen.3:5.\nVoegelin’sPuritanGnosticism309edgewherebyAdamgavenamestothecreaturesaccordingtotheirpropriety,whichgaveoccasiontotheFall.Itwastheambitiousandprouddesireofmoralknowledgetojudgeofgoodandevil,totheendthatmanmayrevoltfromGodandgivelawstohimself,whichwastheformandmannerofthetempta-tion”(247).Thiscompactstatementispregnantwithmeaning.Itassertsthatman’sknowledgeofnatureisnotsinful.Godchargedmanwiththedutyandprivilegeof“naming”thelessercreatures.“Naming”meansdefiningtheessen-tialtraitsofthecreatedworldinrelationtohumanneedsandconcerns.Thisbriefpassagealsocontainsacompactdescriptionofthepropertaskofnaturalknowledge.HumanbeingsaretobeactivelyinvolvedinexploringtheCre-ation,seekingoutitscharacteristictraitsandputtingthemtouse.ThisbriefreferencetotheFallandtoOriginalSinalsohelpstomakeclearthefullscopeofBacon’sprogramofinstauration.BaconwantstorestoreknowledgetoitsoriginalconditionbeforetheFall.HewantstoreturnhumanitytoitsdutyofobtainingatrueanduncorruptedknowledgeofthecreationaccordingtoitsGod-givenproperties.Furtheron,Baconwillarguethathumanbeingscannotsavethemselvesfromtheprofoundalienationthattheyhavecaused.TheonlywayhumanitycanbesavedisifGodgrantsmercyandoffersguidancethatcanleadhumanbeingsbacktotheirunalienatedstate.ThisisthecontextforunderstandingBacon’sproject.InBacon’sview,Godhaschosenthepresentageforgrantingnewmercies,andBaconisthemeans.AfterthisprayerBaconaddresseshim-selftohisreadersandexhortsthemtojointheinstaurationofthefounda-tionsoftrueknowledge.ThenBaconurgesthemtohavehopeandtoexpectdramaticresults.So,theprefaceconcludeswiththesameemphasisonhopeandapocalypticexpectationthatispresentintheotherpartsoftheGreatInstaurationthatwehaveexaminedthusfar.Aswenotedattheoutset,thepublishedtextisonlyasmallportionofthesix-volumeworkBaconintendedtoprepare.AnalysisofthesesectionsofthetextmakesitclearthatBaconthoughtthisabbreviatedworkdeservedtobepub-lishedimmediately,becausehewasconvincedthatthetimewasrightandthatdivineProvidencewasworkingthroughBacontobringaboutarestorationofhumanitytoitsprelapsarianstate.Bacon’semphasisonrecoveryandrenewalisgroundedinhisconvictionthatGodprovidesguidancethatpermitsrecoveryandrestitution.BaconispersuadedthatGodisactivelyopeningnewvistasinBacon’sageandthathehasbeenchosentohelppointthewaytowardrecovery.ThisanalysisdemonstratestheinadequaciesofinterpretationsoftheGreatInstaurationthatfocusonlyonBacon’sepistemologicalcritiqueorthepre-sentationofhisownnewepistemology.Thesettinginwhichtheseepistemo-logicalprinciplesarepresentedisoneofprovidentialinterventionthatcreates\n310StephenA.McKnightanapocalyptichopeofrestoringhumanitytoitsproperrelationtonatureandtoGod.Therootmotifofthistextisexactlywhatthetitleindicates—aninstauration.Thisinstaurationismorethantherebuildingofknowledge;itisalsoaspiritualrejuvenationandrestorationinitiatedbyGod’sprovidentialactionandbyhumanity’sresponsetotheapocalypticopportunitythatProvi-denceprovides.ThisanalysisalsodemonstratesthatBacon’sepistemologyisnew,abreakfromAristotelianandScholasticepistemology,butalsothatitisarestorationoftheinquiryintonaturethatbeganwithAdam.SoitiswrongtocharacterizeBaconasamodernwhobreaksentirelywithreligionandphilos-ophy.BaconunderstandshiscontributiontobeareturnofhumanitytotheconditionthatGodintended.Inthisconditionmanlivesinharmonywithnature,derivesbenefitsfromnaturethroughhisinvestigationoftheCreation,andlearnsofGod’sloveandmercythroughthediscoveryofthebenefitsGodprovidesintheCreation.ThisanalysishasalsoshownthatBaconisconvincedthatGodisactingtocreatetheconditionsunderwhichhumanitycanberestoredtoitsprelapsariancondition.OnlyGodcancreatethisopportunity;humanitycannot.Ontheotherhand,theinstaurationrequireshumanitytobeactivelyinvolvedintherestoration;andthisactiveinvolvementrequiresaspiritualregenerationthatwillcleansehumanityofitsarroganceandpride.ThisbriefanalysisoftheGreatInstaurationsuggestsequivalencesbetweenBacon’sprogramandVoegelin’sdescriptionofPuritanGnosticism.Baconisconvincedthathisageistheappointedtimeofapocalypticrestorationthatwouldendthelonghistoryofhumanignoranceanderrorandusherinthemil-lennialageofpeace,harmony,andprosperity.Beforedevelopingthiscompari-sonfurther,however,itwillbeusefultoexamineTheAdvancementofLearning.TheAdvancementofLearningTheAdvancementofLearningwaspublishedin1605,somefifteenyearsbeforetheGreatInstauration.ThelatterworkwastreatedfirstbecauseofitscompactpresentationofBacon’smillenarianvisionofagreatinstauration,whichhelpstohighlighttheapocalypticthemesinTheAdvancementofLearn-ing.ScholarsusuallyconcentrateonthesecondpartofTheAdvancementofLearning,whichoffersBacon’scritiqueofPlatonicandAristotelianspecula-tivephilosophyandpresentshisepistemologicalreform.Lessattentionhasbeengiventobook1,andlittleornoattentionhasbeengiventothededica-tionstoJamesIatthebeginningofeachofthetwobooksandtotheirallu-sionstotheJacobeanperiodasanageofProvidence.TheanalysisofferedherewilldevelopasitdidwiththeGreatInstaurationbymovingcarefullythroughthetext,allowingBacon’sargumenttounfoldashehimselfpresentedit.\nVoegelin’sPuritanGnosticism311Thefirstthingtonoteisthefulltitleofthetext:TheTwoBooksofFrancisBacon:OftheProficiencieandAdvancementofLearningDivineandHuman.Theabbreviatedtitle,TheAdvancementofLearning,andtheanalysisusuallygivenfocusprimarilyonareformofphilosophyandignoreBacon’sreferencetodivinelearning.Carefulreadingofthetext,however,makesitclearthatBaconregardsbothascrucialelementsoftheinstauration.ThenextfeaturetonoteisthatbothpartsofthetextarededicatedtoJamesI,whowasinaugu-ratedin1603,twoyearsbeforeitwaspublished.Aswehavealreadyseen,thecourtpageantrysurroundingJamesIassociatedhimwithSolomonandEnglandwiththeNewJerusalem,andcourticonographyassociatedtheruleofJamesIwiththeSolomonicvirtues—justice,peace,charity—andwithSolomonicwisdom.Bacondrawsuponthesethemesandaddshisownspecialemphasisinrelationtohisprojectfortheadvancementoflearning.TheFirstBookWhiletheentirebookisaddressedtotheking,thefirstparagraphcontainsBacon’sactualdedication.BaconbeginsbyestablishingacorrespondencebetweentheoblationsofafaithfulservantofGodtotheofferingsofafaithfulsubjectofaking.10Aloyalsubjectmustfirstofallmakeanoblationinrecog-nitionofbenefitsgained.Thesecondofferingisnotanextensionofhisduty;itgrowsoutoftheloveandaffectionthatasubjecthasforhislord.Baconaddsthathehopestodischargethefirstdutythroughhisdirectservicethroughofficialappointment.Thesecondpartofhistributearisesfromhishighregardforthepersonoftheking,especiallyforhisexcellenceinlearning.Leavingasidetheotherpartsofyourvirtueandfortune,Ihavebeentouched,yeaandpossessed,withanextremewonderatthoseyourvirtuesandfacultieswhichthephilosopherscallintellectual;thelargenessofyourcapacity,thefaith-fulnessofyourmemory,theswiftnessofyourapprehension,thepenetrationofyourjudgment,andthefacilityandorderofyourelocution:andIhaveoftenthoughtthatofallthepersonslivingthatIhaveknown,yourMajestywerethebestinstancetomakeamanofPlato’sopinion,thatallknowledgeisbutremem-brance,andthatthemindofmanbynatureknowethallthings,andhathbutherownnativeandoriginalnotions...againrevivedandrestored:suchalightofnatureIhaveobservedinyourMajesty,andsuchareadinesstotakeflameemploysfromtheleastoccasionpresented,ortheleastsparkofanother’sknowl-edgedelivered.1110.BaconisbasingthisonlawsfoundinNum.28:3andLev.22:18.11.ThePhilosophicalWorksofFrancisBacon,42.Subsequentcitationsappearinthetext.\n312StephenA.McKnightThisopeningisinmanywaysconventionalandformulaic.ParallelswereregularlydrawnbetweenGod’sruleoftheuniverseandtheking’sruleofhisterrestrialrealm.ItwasalsoconventionaltoassociateJamesIwithwisdom,andabookaboutthestateofknowledgewouldappropriatelyfocusonthatreputation.ButBacon’stributeismoresubtleandnuancedthanthis.First,itassertsthattrueknowledgeisremembrance,aconceptthatPlatodevelopstoexplainthedifferencebetweentheconfusedstateofopinionheldbymostpeo-pleandthephilosopher’struth.AccordingtoPlato,thesoul,beforebeingbornintotheterrestrialrealm,participatesdirectlyindivineknowledgeandhasaperfectunderstandingofreality.Thisunderstandingiscompromisedandfrag-mentedbybeingimmersedintothephysicalworldanddistortedbythesenses.12Throughtheuseofdisciplinedreason,thesensescanbebroughtundercontrol,andrecollection(anamnesis)ofthetruestateofexistencecanberecalled.BaconthenusesthisallusioninordertopraiseJamesIasonewhohasbeenabletoovercomethelimitationsthatplaguedmostpeopleandtorecovertrueknowledge.ThismannerofpraisingJamesintroducestheprimarymotifofBacon’stext.Theadvancementoflearningdependsonbeingabletomoveawayfromtheprevailingignoranceanderror;moreover,thisadvanceisatthesametimearecoveryandrestoration.Baconnextturnsfromthepersonalvirtuesofthekingtohiscivilorpolit-icalvirtues,whichhelinkstotheportentouscircumstancesofthetime.AsinyourcivilestatethereappearstobeanemulationandcontentionofyourMajesty’svirtuewithyourfortune;avirtuousdispositionwiththefortu-nateregiment;avirtuousexpectation(whentimewas)ofyourgreaterfortune,withtheprosperouspossessionthereofinthatyourtime;avirtuousobservationofthelawsofmarriage;avirtuousandmostChristiandesireofpeacewiththefortunateinclinationinyourneighborprincesthereunto;solikewiseintheseintellectualmatters,thereseemstobenolesscontentionbetweentheexcellencyofyourMajesty’sgiftsofnatureandtheuniversalityandperfectionofyourlearning.(42–43)TheimplicationofthispassageisthatJames’svirtuesareaugmentedbyprov-identialgrace,whichcreatesatimeofpeaceandprosperity.Baconthenreturnstohispraiseoftheking’sknowledgeandassertsthat“therehasnotbeensinceChrist’stimeanykingortemporalmonarchwhichhasbeensolearnedinallliteratureanderudition,divineandhuman.”AfterdelineatingtheaspectsofJames’sextraordinarylearning,Baconaversthattheking’sremarkableachieve-mentshavetobeconsidered“almostamiracle.”ThisassociationofJames’swisdomwiththeageofChristandtheclaimthatthisisalmostamiracleis12.ThemythisfoundinPhaedo75e.\nVoegelin’sPuritanGnosticism313anotherwayinwhichBaconlinksthereignofJamesIwithProvidence.Con-tinuinghispraiseofJames’seruditioninbothdivineandhumanspheresoflearning,Baconclaims:“thereismetinyourMajestyarareconjunctionaswellwithdivineandsacredliteratureasprofaneandhuman;soasyourMajestystandsinvestedofthattriplicitywhichingreatvenerationwasascribedtotheancientHermes;thepowerandfortuneofaking,theknowledgeandillumi-nationofapriest,andthelearninganduniversalityofaphilosopher”(43).ThereferencetoHermesTrismegistusservestwopurposes.ItaugmentsBacon’semphasisontherecoveryandadvanceofbothhumananddivinelearning,butitalsoidentifiesthecharacteristicsofthelearningtoberecovered.HermesTrismegistuswasbelievedtohavehadacompleteunderstandingofthework-ingsofnaturethatallowedhimtodrawbenefitswhichhegavetohissubjects.Hiskingdom,therefore,livedinpeace,harmony,andprosperity.Thisrefer-encetoatheoreticalunderstandingofthefoundationsofnaturethatpro-ducesusefulknowledge,ofcourse,anticipatesBacon’scritiqueoftraditionalspeculativephilosophyandhisadvocacyofarecoveryoftheunderstandingofnaturethatprovidesusefulresults.Wefind,then,intheopeningparagraphsacompactpresentationofseveralkeythemes.First,Bacon’sreferencestoPlatonicanamnesislinksBacon’sad-vancementoflearningwiththerecoveryoftrueknowledge.Thisemphasisonthetwoaspectsofinstauration—recoveryandadvance—isaugmentedthroughthereferencetobothSolomonandHermesTrismegistus.So,thethemeofescapingfromthepresentstateofignoranceisprominentintheopeningparagraphs.AsecondprominentthemeistheallusiontothebeginningofJames’sreignasanepochalturningpointorthebeginningofaprovidentialage.Baconcatalogsthecharacteristicsofthisprovidentialage:first,thereignismarkedbyhumanexcellenceanddivinefavor;second,thereisbothinternalstabilityandinternationalpeace;andthird,thereisacessationofreligiousstrifebothwithinthecountryandabroad.HavingofferedhisextensivepraiseofJames’svirtueandwisdom,Baconreturnstohisstartingpoint,thatis,thegifthewishestomake:“ThereforeIdidconcludewithmyself,thatIcannotmakeuntoyourMajestyabetterobla-tionthanofsometreatisetendingtothatend[alastingmemorialtothevirtuesandwisdomofJames];whereofthesumwillconsistofthesetwoparts:theformerconcerningtheexcellencyoflearningandknowledge,andtheexcel-lencyandthemeritsofthetruegloryintheaugmentationandpropagationthereof”(43).Baconthenindicatesthatthefirsttaskofatreatiseonlearningistoestablishtheproperscopeandboundaryofknowledge.Whilethiswouldbeanappropriatebeginningforanytextofthekind,itisespeciallyappropriatenow,becausethepurposeandthescopeofknowledgehavebeenmisunder-\n314StephenA.McKnightstoodforsolong.Thefirststep,then,isto“cleartheway”sothatthe“truetes-timoniesconcerningthedignityoflearning”canbeheardwithouttheinter-ruptionoftacitobjections.ThispointinthetextmarksatransitionfromBacon’sdirectaddresstohiskingtothebeginningofhisphilosophicalcritique.Thefirstobjectiontobeclearedawayistheerroneousclaimthat“theaspiringtoover-muchknowledgewastheoriginaltemptationandsin,whereuponensuedtheFallofman;thatknowledgehathinitsomewhatoftheserpent,andthereforwhereitenterthintoamanitmakeshimswell”(43).Baconthencitesbiblicalfigures,includ-ingSolomonandSaintPaul,whohavebeenusedtosupporttheviewthatapreoccupationwithknowledgeleadstoanxietyandtoalienationfromGod.ButBaconmaintainsthatthenatureofOriginalSinhasbeenmisinterpretedandthatthecautionsofSolomonandPaulagainstapreoccupationwithknowledgehavebeenmisused.TheFallfromgracewasnotprecipitatedbythepursuitof“thepureknowledgeofnatureanduniversality,aknowledgebythelightwhereofmandidgivenamesuntothecreaturesinParadise,astheywerebroughtbeforehim”(44).Thesourceofman’sFallwasthepursuitof“theproudknowledgeofgoodandevil,withanintentbymantogivelawsuntohimselfandtodependnomoreuponGod’scommandments”(44).Thispridefulattempttobecomeautonomouscausesmantoswellupwithprideandtofallfromgrace.BaconthenreturnstoclaimthatGodintendshuman-itytohaveafullandcompleteunderstandingofnature.“Godhasframedthemindofmanasamirrororglasscapableoftheimageoftheuniversalworld...ifthensuchbethecapacityandreceiptofthemindofman,itismanifestthatthereisnodangeratallintheproportionorquantityofknowledge,howlargesoever,thatshouldmakeitswellorout-compassitself”(44).Baconthenaffirmsthatcharity—compassionforothers—isthecorrectiveagainstpride.HequotesSaintPaul:“knowledgeblowsup,butcharitybuildsup”and“ifIspokewiththetonguesofmanandangels,andhadnotcharity,itwerebutasatinklingcymbal.”AccordingtoBacon,theerrorisnotinspeakingwiththetonguesofmanandangels;theerrorisinpursuingknowledgewithoutcharity.HavingmadethisclarificationheexplainsthatthecautionsofSaintPaulandSolomonarenotagainstpursuingknowledgebutinpursuingthewrongkind.Attheconclusionofthisparagraph,Baconaddsthefollowingstatement:letnoman,uponaweakconceivedsobrietyoranill-appliedmoderation,thinkormaintainthatamancansearchfororbetoowellstudiedinthebookofGod’swordorinthebookofGod’sworks;divinityorphilosophy;butratherletmanendeavoranendlessprogressorproficienceinboth;onlyletmanbewarethattheyapplybothtocharity,andnottoswelling;touseandnottoostenta-tion.(45–46)\nVoegelin’sPuritanGnosticism315Thesestatementsreflectanowfamiliartheme.HumanityhasaGod-givenorGod-imposedobligationtoknowHimandtoknowthenaturalworldasHiscreation.ThesourceofsinisnottoomuchknowledgebuttherebellionagainstGodandtheefforttobecomeacreatorratherthanacreature,thatis,tobecomeautonomous.Thesafeguardagainstpridefulrebellionistoallowcharitytobethemotiveforthepursuitofknowledge,becausetheefforttogainknowledgeinordertohelpotherspreventsapreoccupationwiththeself.Bacondevotesthenextseveralparagraphstoaninventoryofthefieldsofknowledge,whatispropertothem,andwhereandhowknowledgehasbecomederailed.Heidentifiesthreeprimarysourcesoferror,or“distemper.”ThefirstBaconcalls“fantasticallearning”;thesecond,“contentiouslearning”;andthethird,“delicatelearning.”Hetakesupthethirddistemperfirst,citingasanexamplethevainlearningoftheChurch,whichstudieswordsratherthanthings.ThereferenceistoScholasticphilosophyandtheology,whichBaconcontendshaslostsightofthetruthofscriptureandhasdevoteditseffortstoitsownelaboratearguments.ProofthatScholasticlearninghasbeenpreoccu-piedwith“vainimaginations”isfoundintherecentrecoveryofancientscrip-turaltextsandthestudyofancientlanguagesofthetexts,whichmakecleartheignoranceanderrorsoftheSchoolmen.MartinLuther,conducted(nodoubt)byanhigherProvidencebutindis-courseofreasonfindingwhataprovincehehadundertakenagainsttheBishopofRomeandthedegeneratetraditionsofthechurch,andfindinghisownsoli-tude,beingnowaysaidedbytheopinionsofhisowntime,wasenforcedtoawakeallantiquity,andtocallformertimestohissuccorstomakeapartyagainstthepresenttime;sothattheancientauthors,bothindivinityandinhumanity,whichhadlongtimesleptinlibraries,begangenerallytobereadandrevolved.Thisbyconsequencediddrawonthenecessityofamoreexquisitetravailsandthelanguagesoriginalwhereandthoseauthorsdidwrite,forthebetterunder-standingofthoseauthorsandthebetteradvantageofpressingandapplyingtheirwords.(53–54)Theseconddistemper,contentiouslearning,islearningthathassomebasisinempiricalanalysis,usuallybytheoriginalthinkerorfounderofthatsystemofthought,butmostofthesubsequenteffortofthefollowersofthisschoolaredevotedtofurthersystembuilding.Thatis,moreeffortisputintothesys-temofargumentationthanintoadditionalempiricalinvestigation.Thiskindofdegeneratelearningdidchieflyreignamongtheschoolmen;whohavingsharpandstrongwits,andabundanceofleisure,andsmallvarietyofreading;buttheirwitsbeingshutupinthecellsofafewauthors(chieflyAristotletheirdictator)astheirpersonswereshutupinthecellsofmonasteries\n316StephenA.McKnightandcolleges;andknowinglittlehistory,eitherofnatureortime;didoutofnogreatquantityofmatter,andinfiniteagitationofwit,spinoutuntousthoselaboriouswebsoflearningwhichareextantintheirbooks.(55)Baconcomparessuchefforttothatofthespider,whichspinswebsoutofitsownsubstance.Healsodescribessucheffortassterileandusesthenow-familiarreferencetoScyllaasamonsterincapableoftheproduction“sothatgeneralitiesoftheschoolmenareforawhilegoodandproportionable;butthenwhenyoudescendintotheirdistinctionsanddecisions,insteadofafruitfulwombfortheuseandbenefitofman’slife,theyendinmonstrousaltercationsandbarkingquestions”(56).Thethirddistemperisavainfantasythathasnotruth.HereBaconrefersspecificallytodocumentsthatpurporttobenaturalhistoriesbutare“fraughtwithmuchfabulousmatter,agreatpartnotonlyuntriedbutnotoriouslyuntrue,tothegreatderogationofthecreditofnaturalphilosophy”(57).Havingidentifiedthediseasesthatarethecausesoftheepistemologicaldisorder,Baconcontendsthatareturntotruephiloso-phyrequiresareturntofirstprinciples,ortoprimaphilosophia.AccordingtoBacon,thepurposeof“primaryphilosophy”isfor“thegloryoftheCreatorandthereliefofman’sestate.”Itsaimisto“separateandrejectvainspecula-tionsandwhatsoeverisemptyandvoid,andpreserveandtoaugmentwhat-soeverissolidandfruitful;thatknowledgemaynotbeasacourtesan,forplea-sureandvanityonly,orasabond-woman,toacquireandgaintohermaster’suse;butasaspouse,forgeneration,fruits,andcomfort”(60).Havingproposedtherestorationofthedignityofknowledge,Baconpre-sentsalistingofsubjectsappropriatetoprimaphilosophia.Bacon’sdescriptionofthesubjectsofhumanknowledgeisarrangedinahierarchy.Thehighestsubject,knowledgeofGod,isacquiredinoneoftwoways:throughthescrip-turesanddirectrevelationorthroughthestudyofthecreation.Nextinorderofworthinessarespirits,orangels,whichBaconusesasanopportunitytostresstheimportanceofloveandcharityoverpower.“TothefirstplaceordegreeisgiventotheangelsoflovewhicharetermedSeraphim;thesecondtotheangelsoflight,whicharetermedCherubim;andthethirdandsofollowingplacestothrones,principalitiesandtherestwhichareallangelsofpowerandmin-istry;soastheangelsofknowledgeandilluminationareplacedbeforetheangelsofofficeanddomination”(61).Fromtherealmofspiritsthenextstageorcategoryistheintellectualrealm,therealmofforms,andthenthecreation.Remindingthereaderoftheprimordialstateofcreation,Baconnextturnstohumanity’sprelapsarianpursuitofknowledge.“Afterthecreationwasfinished,itwassetdownuntousthatmanwasplacedinthegardentoworktherein;whichworkssoappointedtohimcouldbenootherworkthancontemplation;\nVoegelin’sPuritanGnosticism317thatis,withtheendoftheworkisbutforexerciseandexperiment,notfornecessity”(61).Man’sworkcouldbenothingmorethancontemplationbecausethecreationwasperfectandreadilyrevealeditspurposeanditsbenefitstohumanity.Humanitycarriedoutempiricalinvestigationsandanalysis,butthiswasnotlabor;itwasratherthepleasureofintellectualdiscovery.AftertheFall,however,humanitywasalienatedfrombothGodandnatureandwasrequiredtolaborinordertodiscoverthebenefitsofthecreation.Asaresult,humanity’sprimarytaskwasnotsimplecontemplationbutalaboriousefforttoattainwhathadbeenpreviouslyreadilyrevealed.BaconmovesfromthisaccountoftheprimordialstatetothehistoryofhumanityaftertheFallandtoadiscussionofrepresentativefigureswhowereabletoescapehumanprideanditsconsequencesandtorestore—atleastinpart—humanity’srelationtoGodandnature.Mosesisdescribedasthelaw-giverandthepossessorof“allthelearningoftheEgyptians,”whichmadehimwiseintheology,moralphilosophy,andphilosophyofnature.ThesecondpersoncitedisSolomon,whowas“enablednotonlytowritethoseexcellentparablesoraphorismsconcerningdivineandmoralphilosophy,butalsotocompileanaturalhistoryofallverdure”(62).BacondescribestheageofChristasoneinwhichknowledgewasperfected.“Oursaviorhimselfdidshowhispowertosubdueignorancebyhisconferencewiththepriestsandthedoctorsofall,beforeheshowedhispowertosubduenaturebyhismiraclesandinthecomingoftheHolySpiritwaschieflyfiguredandexpressedinthesimilitudeandgiftoftongues,whicharebutcarriersofknowledge.”ThegiftsoftheSpiritwerecontinuedby“theancientbishopsandfathersofthechurchwhowereexcellentlyreadandstudiedinallthelearningoftheheathenaswellastothescriptures.”Baconthenarrivesathisownageandtherestorationoflearningthatisunderway.“Andweseebeforeoureyes,thattheageofourselvesandourfathers,whenitpleasedGodtocallthechurchofRometoaccountfortheirdegeneratemannersandceremonies,andsundrydoctrinesobnoxiousandframedtoupholdthesameabuses;atoneandthesametimeitwasordainedbytheDivineProvidencethatthereshouldattendwithalarenovationandnewspringofallotherknowledge”(63).Hereagaintherecoveryofknowl-edgeincludesarestorationofbothdivineandhumanknowledge,atopicdevelopedmorefullyintheNovumOrganum.InthattextBaconalludestotherestorationofscripturalauthorityandtooverseasexploration,whichadvancesknowledgeofthenaturalworld.ThiscompactstatementinTheAdvancementofLearningisclearlyintendedtohavethesamedualemphasis.Havingrecitedtheseinstancesinwhichrecoveryofthedignityofknowledgeandthepropersubjectsofstudyhaveoccurred,Baconagainsummarizesthetwotasksofknowledge.Godhaslaid“beforeustwobooksorvolumestostudy,\n318StephenA.McKnightifwewillbesecuredfromerror;firstthescriptures,revealingthewillofGod,andthenthecreaturesexpressinghispower”(64).Baconthencontendsthatthehistoricalrecorddemonstratesthatthetwofoldadvanceinknowledgeoccursmostoftenwhenitissupportedbylearnedprinces.Bacongivessixexamples,endingthelistwithQueenElizabeth,whomhecreditswithre-establishingthetruthofreligion,establishingpeaceandsecurity,theadminis-trationofjustice,andcreatingaflourishingstateoflearning(67).BaconstatesthatJamesIhastheopportunitytofurtheradvancethepursuitofknowledgeandcreateanimmortalreputationforhimself:bylearningmanascendethtotheheavensandtheirmotions,whereinthebodycannotcome;andthelike;letusconcludewiththedignityandexcellencyofknowledgeandlearningandthatwhereinman’snaturedothmostaspire;whichisimmortalityorcontinuance;fortothistendethgenerationandtheraisingofhousesandfamilies....Weseethenhowfarthemonumentsofwitandlearningaremoredurablethanthemonumentsofpowerorthehands.(73)Baconhasreturnedtohisstartingpoint.Hebeganbysayingthathewishestoofferthekinganoblationoutofloveanddevotion.Themostenduringgifthecanofferistoprovidethemeansfortheadvancementoflearning,whichwillbecomeahallmarkofthereignofJamesI.ThisanalysismakesitobviousthatthepurposeofthefirstbookofTheAdvancementofLearningistoofferJamesItheopportunitytocreatealegacyoftherestorationofthedignityoflearning.Thisrestorationentailsarecoveryandadvanceintheologyaswellasinnaturalphilosophy.Baconmaintainsthatspiritualrecoveryisalreadyunderwaythroughthestudyofancientlan-guagesandtherehabilitationofscripturaltexts,andtherestitutionofnaturalphilosophyhasbegunthroughtheopeningoftheterrestrialrealmtooverseasexploration,whichunderminestheauthorityofancienttextsandpavesthewayforanewbeginning.TheadvancewillbeacceleratedbyBacon’scontri-butionofhisnewmethodology,andthisrecoveryandadvancewillcontributetotheprovidentialrestorationofhumanitytoitsproperrelationshiptoGodandnature.TheSecondBookMuchofthesecondbookistakenupbyapleaforthekingtoprovideresourcesfortheadvancementoflearning.HereBaconaddressesverypracticalmattersofestablishinglibraries,researchlaboratories,andfundingforschol-ars.Thisisfollowedbyacatalogoraninventoryofthevariousdivisionsoflearning,whichistheonethatisusuallygivenmostattention.Theanalysis\nVoegelin’sPuritanGnosticism319providedherewillfocusbrieflyontheelementsofbook2,whichreinforceBacon’smainthemesandintroduceneworcomplementarymotifs.Neartheendofbook1,BaconofferedhighpraiseforQueenElizabeth.Theopeningparagraphofthesecondbook,however,pointstoashortcomingofthequeennotfoundinJamesI.QueenElizabethwasunmarriedand,there-fore,couldnotgenerateorcreatealineofdescendants.JamesI,asarespecterofmarriage,iscapableofgeneratingorprocreating.Baconthennotesthatthebestlegacythekingcancreateisnotfoundinfamilylinesoringovernmentaladministrationbutinthosethingsthatarepermanentandimmortal.InthiscontextBaconremindsthekingthattheadvancementoflearningwouldbethemostpermanentlegacyhecouldcreate.Forthereisnotanymoreworthythanthefurtherendowmentoftheworldwithsoundandfruitfulknowledge:forwhyshouldafewreceivedauthorsstanduplikeHercules’sColumnsbeyondwhichthereshouldbenosailingordiscover-ing,sincewehavesobrightandbenignastarasyourMajestytoconductandprosperus.(75)BaconishererepeatingthereferencetothePillarsofHerculesasafalseboundaryandnowdepictsJamesIasapolestartoserveasthereferenceorguidetotheopeningoftheintellectualglobe.Thisopeningisfollowedbysev-eralparagraphsthatoutlinethepracticalneedsentailedintheadvancementoflearning.Baconbeginshisdescriptionofthecomponentsofhumanlearn-ingbydiscussingnaturalhistory.Heproposesthataninventorybemadeoftextsandinventions,whichcouldserveasthebeginningpointforassessingthefurtherworkthatneedstobedone.Heconcludesthisdiscussionwithref-erencetotherecentvoyagesthathaveopenedtheterrestrialglobeandshownthelimitationsanderrorsofancientteachings,andheonceagainlinkstheopeningoftheterrestrialrealmwiththeexpansionoftheintellectualterrainandassociatesbothwithdivineProvidence.Andthisproficienceinnavigationanddiscoveriesmayplantalsoanexpecta-tionofthefurtherproficienceandaugmentationofallsciences;becauseitmayseemtheyareordainedbyGodtobecoevals,thatis,tomeetinoneage.ForsotheprophetDanielsaysofthelattertimesfortelleth...manyshallpasstoandfro,andknowledgeshallbemultiplied.(86)WhilethisisthefirstappearanceinprintofthequotationfromDaniel,weknowthatitisrepeatedseveraltimesinhislaterwritingsandisoneofthekeymotifslinkingoverseasexpansionwiththeexpansionofknowledge,bothofwhicharetheresultofhumaneffortandprovidentialdesign.\n320StephenA.McKnightBaconthenmovesfromadescriptionofnaturalhistorytoecclesiasticalhistory.Onthesurfacethismayappeartobeanunusualshiftinsubjectmat-ter,whichhasnoconnectiontotheprecedingdiscussion.Baconexplainsthatecclesiasticalhistoryhasthreeparts:thehistoryofthechurch,thehistoryofprophecy,andthehistoryofProvidence.ItisthisthirdcomponentthattiesBacon’sdiscussionofnaturalhistorytohisecclesiasticalhistory.AccordingtoBacon,thehistoryofProvidencecontainsthecorrespondencebetweenGod’srevealedwillandhissecretwill.InmostinstancestheworkingofdivineProvi-denceremainshiddenfromtheunderstandingofphilosophersandtheolo-gians,althoughthereareextraordinarytimesandcircumstancesinwhichGodrevealshissecretdesigninobviousways.Bacon’smeaningisclearinthiscon-text.Theprecedingreferencetotheprovidentialadvancementoflearningthroughoverseasexplorationistheprimaryevidencethathisisanextraordi-narytime.Baconthenturnstoadiscussionofthethreeaspectsoftheoneuniversalscienceorprimaphilosophia:divinephilosophy,naturalphilosophy,andhumanphilosophy.ThethreecontributetoaunifiedsciencebecausetheircommonpurposeistoknowGodthroughHisrevealedwordandthroughHiscreation.InprimaphilosophianatureisthesubjectthatlinksGodandman.Baconcau-tions,however,thatnaturalphilosophycannotbroachaspectsofthedivinethatarebeyonditsscope.Herehehasinmindspecificallyarticlesoffaith,whichtranscendthereachesofhumanreason.Thethirdtopicconsideredpartofuniversalscienceisthephilosophyofhumannatureoranthropology.Baconexaminesthephysicalandthespiritualcomponentsofhumannatureanddiscussestheindividualandhislifeinsociety.Heidentifiesthecapacityforlanguageasoneofthemostdistinctiveattributesofhumanityandcontendsthatlanguageisnotahumaninventionbutisrathertheresultoftherecollectionofknowledgethathumansalreadypossess.Thisstatementwouldbeconfusingwereitnotforthediscussioninpart1whereBaconindicatedthatallknowledgeisremembranceratherthaninvention.Therehemadethepointthattrueknowledgeandauthenticlan-guageareanarticulationoftheproperunderstandingofnature,whichispro-videdmanbyGod.AftertheFall,however,thisclearunderstandingwaslostandhumanlanguagewasconfounded.Baconrepeatsthispointhere.BecauseoftheFall,“themindofmanisfarfromthenatureofaclearandequalglass,whereinthebeamsofthingsshouldreflectaccordingtotheirtrueincidents;nay,itisratherlikeanenchantedglass,fullofsuperstitionandimposture”(118).Becauseofhisfallenstate,manmustbereeducated,andBacondescribesvariousrhetoricalmeansfortrainingthemindanddirectingthewilltowardthepursuitofthehighestgood.Whilethepresentstateofdisordermakesthis\nVoegelin’sPuritanGnosticism321difficult,itisnotanimpossibletaskbecausehumanitycanbereawakenedtoitspropernatureandtothepropersourceofmeaning,purpose,andultimatesatisfaction.InthisdiscussionBaconmaintainsthattheresultsofmisfortuneandofhumanity’sfallennaturecanbeovercomethroughhardworkor,tobemoreprecise“throughsuffering,”areferencethatrecallsintheopeningsec-tionsofpart1whereBacondescribestheconsequencesoftheFallandidentifieshardworkasthewayforrepairingthedamage.Havingpromotedthebenefitsoftherestorationoftrueknowledge,Bacononceagaincautionsagainstthesinofprideandtheattempttoknowdivinemysteriesbeyondthescopeofhumanreason.Weconcludethatsacredtheology...isgroundedonlyuponthewordandOracleofGod,andnotuponthelightofnature....Thisholdsnotonlyinthosepointsoffaithwhichconcernthegreatmysteriesofthedeity,ofthecreation,oftheredemption,butlikewisethosewhichconcernthelawmoraltrulyinter-preted:loveyourenemies:dogoodtothemthathateyou;beliketoyourheav-enlyFather,thatsuffershisraintofalluponthejustandtheunjust.(168)Furtheroninthisdiscussion,Baconagainsaysthatthesourceofknowledgeofmattersoffaithrests“uponthetrueandsoundinterpretationofthescrip-tures,whicharethefoundationsofthewateroflife”(171).Towardtheendofthisdiscussion,Baconcontendstherestorationofdivineknowledgehasalreadybegun.ForIampersuaded,...thatofthechoiceandbestofthoseobservationsupontextofScriptureswhichhavebeenmade...andsermonswithinyourMajesty’sislandofBritainbythespaceofthese40years...hadbeensetdowninacontinuance,ithadbeenthebestworkindivinitywhichhadbeenwrittensincetheapostles’times.(174)Thisspiritualrenewalofferstheprospectsfortheadvancementofdivinelearning,andBacon’sproposalsfortheadvancementofnaturalphilosophyservesasitscomplement.ThesecondpartofTheAdvancementofLearningendswiththisdiscussionoftherecoveryofdivinetruththatservesasaguardagainstvariousformsofsin,idolatry,andfalsereligion.ItalsosetsBacon’sworkwithinthecontextoftheprovidentialrenewalandrestorationofknowledge.ConclusionWiththisanalysisinmindwecannowturntothecorrelationbetweenBacon’svisionoftheGreatInstaurationandVoegelin’scharacterizationofPuri-tanGnosticism.ThefirsttraitofPuritanGnosticismthatVoegelindescribesis\n322StephenA.McKnighttheinversionandtransformationofreligiousandpoliticalsymbolstocreateworld-immanentapocalypticoreschatologicalfulfillmentofhistory.Ouranalysishasshownthatworld-immanent,eschatologicalexpectationwasanintegralpartofthepoliticalandreligiousclimateofBacon’sage.DuringtheJacobeanperiod,thisapocalypticexpectationfiguredprominentlyincourticonogra-phy,whichportrayedJamesIasthenewSolomonandEnglandasthenewZion.Bacondrawsuponthismillenarianatmosphereandaddsanimportantnewelement.InBacon’svisionofinstaurationthenewageofpeace,harmony,andprosperityrequiresthathumanitybecomeanactiveagentforinner-worldlyfulfillmentthroughthemasteryofnature.Bacon,therefore,isanimportantfigureatthethresholdofmodernity,whoprovidesavisionofhumanity’sredemptiveroleincreatingparadiseonearth.ScholarswhohavestudiedtheoriginsofmoderndisorderhavefrequentlypointedtoJoachimofFlora’sapoc-alypticvisionasakeysourceforathree-stageprogressivistconstructionofhistory,whichislatersecularizedintheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies.OtherscholarshavepointedtotheEnlightenmentasthestageinwhichsalva-tionhistory(Heilesgeschichte)becomessecularizedandmanratherthanGodbecomestheagentforredemption.OuranalysishasshownthatBaconisanotherkeyfigureforunderstandinghowapocalypticyearningbecomesimmanentized.ApocalypticexpectationishighinBacon’sage,andheaddstothisapocalypticyearningtheinstrumentalmeansforhumanitytocreatepara-diseonearth.ThesecondcharacteristicfeatureofPuritanGnosticismisasystematicfor-mulationofnewdoctrinesinscripturalterms.Aswehaveseen,Baconrepeat-edlystatesthattherecoveryofspiritualtruthisunderwayinhisownage,andhedrawscomparisonswiththisspiritualrecoveryinhisowntimetothatoftheperiodofgospelChristianity.Baconfrequentlycreditsothersforthisspir-itualrecoveryandsaysthatheisfocusinghisattentionontheothercrucialphaseofinstauration—thereformofnaturalphilosophy.Infact,Baconfre-quentlyoffershisowninterpretationofkeyscripturalpassages,whichhemaintainsmustbeproperlyunderstoodinorderforspiritualrecoverytobeachieved.OnseveraloccasionsBaconreinterpretstherelationofpridetotheconceptofOriginalSin.Baconcontendsthatitwashumanity’sprideandarro-ganceinseekinginappropriateknowledgeofspiritualmattershavingtodowithcoredoctrinesofthefaiththatalienatedmanfromGod.InBacon’sinter-pretationthereisnosinfulprideinattemptingtomasternatureand(re)createparadiseonearth.Sucheffortsareinfactdivinelycommissioned,andhuman-itywouldbesinfulifitfailedtorecognizeprovidentialintent.WehavealsoseenBacon’sfrequentuseoftheapocalypticvisionofDanielasevidenceforprovidentialactioninhisownage.Inparticular,helinksitwiththedual\nVoegelin’sPuritanGnosticism323advancesintherecoveryofdivineknowledgeandintherecoveryofnaturalphilosophy.SohereagainBaconisformulatinghisvisionofinner-worldlyfulfillmentinscripturalterms.Finally,wehaveseenthatBacon’skeyconceptofinstaurationisitselfbasedonanapocalypticreadingofscripturalpassagesinordertolinkJamesIwithSolomonandportrayEnglandasthenewZion.BaconcombinesthesepassageswithhisnewinterpretationofOriginalSintocreatehisownvisionoftherestorationofhumanitytoitsprelapsarianstate.ThethirdfeaturethatVoegelinidentifieswithPuritanGnosticismistheattackonclassicphilosophyandScholastictheology.Baconrepeatedlycriti-cizesclassicalphilosophyandScholastictheologybecausethesesystemsareabstractandimpotent.Theyfailtoprovideusefulknowledgethatallowshumanstotransformtheworldandrestoreanearthlyparadise.Baconis,there-fore,aprincipalsourceforthemodernnotionthatknowledgeispowerandfortheclaimthatthepurposeofphilosophyisnottounderstandtheworldbuttochangeit.WhilethislatterphraseisusuallyassociatedwiththeMarxistrevolutionaryidea,itisalreadypresentinBacon’swritingsometwohundredyearsbeforeMarx.ThefourthcharacteristicofPuritanGnosticismisthetransformationofthenatureofmanandthetransfigurationofsociety.TheultimategoalofBacon’sinstaurationisthetransformationofhumannatureor,moreprecisely,therestorationofhumanitytoitsprelapsariancondition.ThisrestorationwouldpurgehumanityofitsprideandcreateacommunitythatactualizestheChris-tianvirtuesoffaithandcharity(hopeisnotneededbecauseapocalypticfulfillmenthasalreadybegun).Thetransformationofhumannatureisalsothetransformationofsociety.Whenhumanityrecoversitsprelapsariancon-dition,humanitywilllivetogetherinpeace,harmony,andprosperity.WhileBaconconceivesofhisapocalypticvisioninChristiancategories,hisEnlight-enmentfollowerspurgethevisionofitsbiblicalreferences.Nevertheless,theyretainthefundamentalvisionofhumanityactivelytransformingthehumanconditionandcreatingaparadiseonearth.13HavingidentifiedthecorrelationsbetweenBacon’svisionofinstaurationandVoegelin’scharacterizationofPuritanGnosticism,itisappositetoreturn13.KarlLöwith,MeaninginHistory(Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress,1949),andothershaverightlynotedthattheEnlightenmentisaprimarysourceforasecularizedconstructionofthesalvationhistoryinwhichmanratherthanGodistheagentofsalva-tion,andthetranscendentkingdomofGodisreplacedbyaworld-immanentparadise.TheinfluenceofBaconontheEnlightenmentisunquestioned.WhiletheEnlightenmentphilosophiespurgeBacon’svisionofinstaurationofitsreligiouslanguage,thereisnodoubtofhisinfluenceontheEnlightenmentvisionofinner-worldlyfulfillmentthroughthemasteryofnature.\n324StephenA.McKnighttothebasicquestionofthesignificanceofPuritanGnosticismasaformofmoderndisorder.Asnotedattheoutset,Voegelinoffers,inTheNewScienceofPolitics,twocasestudiesofmoderndeformation:theMarxistrevolutionaryideaandPuritanGnosticism.Onthesurfaceitmightappearthatthisisanunusualandunevencomparison.PuritanGnosticismasapoliticalmovementisnotcomparabletoMarxism;itwasshort-livedandaffectedonlyBritain.Voegelin,however,usesPuritanGnosticismasacasestudyofthedegenera-tionwithinthemainlinesofpoliticalandreligiousorderthatleadstomod-erndreamsofinnerworldlyfulfillmentthatareascorrosiveanddestructiveastheMarxistrevolutionaryidea.ThepurposeofthisexaminationofFrancisBaconistodemonstratethattheapocalypticandmillenarianfermentthatleadstoPuritanGnosticismisdirectlyconnectedtotheriseofscientismanditscoreconvictionthathumanityiscapableofmasteringnatureandperfect-ingsociety.TheessentialpointthatVoegelinwasmakinginhiscasestudyofPuritanGnosticismisthatmoderndisorderisnotalwaystheresultofanego-phanicrevoltoftheMarxisttype.Disorderalsoemergesfromwell-intentionedeffortswithintheWesternphilosophicalandtheologicaltraditions.FrancisBaconisanimportantcaseinunderstandingthelinksbetweenseventeenth-centuryapocalypticandmillenarianfermentwiththeriseofscientismandthesecularizedvisionofsalvationhistorythatemergesintheEnlightenment.ButBacon,ofcourse,isnottheonlysourceforthesemoderndeformations.Medievalandearlymodernhistoryisfilledwithothercasesinwhichdisorderemergesfromwithinthemainlinesofphilosophyandtheology,andthesedevelopmentsareasdestructiveastheegophanicrevoltagainstclassicalphi-losophyandtheology.\n17HistoryasOpenHorizonEricVoegelin’sSearchforaPost-ImperialOrderThomasHollweckIThirtyyearsago,whenthefourthvolumeofOrderandHistoryappearedunderthetitleTheEcumenicAge,seventeenyearshadpassedsincethereflec-tionontheskepticPyrrhowithwhichEricVoegelinhadconcludedPlatoandAristotle.HismonumentalanalysisofPlatonic-Aristotelianphilosophyhadended,somewhatanticlimactically,withabriefchapter,“OnTypesofCharac-terandSkepticism,”whichalreadyin1957shouldhaveraisedthequestioninthereader’smindhowthehistoryofordercouldcontinueafterhavingreacheditsculminationinPlato’sandAristotle’snoesis.Pyrrho’sphilosophyandthatofhisschool,relatedcenturieslaterbySextusEmpiricus,himselfadenizenofaworldshapedbythemostsuccessfulempireofall,theRomanEmpire,wasoneofthemoreplausibleresponsesto“thesuddenexpansionoftheciviliza-tionalhorizon,whichsweptthepolisintoacorneroftheknownworld,”asVoegelinpoignantlyformulateditatthetime.1Withtheintroductionofthe“manifoldofsocieties”inthewakeoftheconquestsofAlexander,the“scienceofskepticism”successfullychallengedthe“Truth”ofthesagesasananachro-nisminaworldthatsubsequentlyexperienced“thereductionofthewholemanifoldofsocieties,withtheircivilizationalcontent,toafieldofappearances1.EricVoegelin,TheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin(hereinafter,CW),vol.16,PlatoandAristotle,ed.DanteGermino(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),427.325\n326ThomasHollweckthatcouldbeneitherasourcenoravesselofTruth.”2WhatVoegelinseemedtosignalherewasthepossibilitythatthetwodifferentiationsthatoccurredinIsraelandHellasmightnotbefollowedbyanotherdifferentiation;thatanewsituationhadbeencreatedbytheimperialconquestsinwhichlaterphilosoph-icalschools,betheyPlatonic,Stoic,orSkeptic,coulddolittleelsethanadjustandadapttotherealityofthenewempires.ThustheSkepticwouldreverttoa“simpleconservatism,”andhe“acceptedthecustomsandconvictionspreva-lentinthesocietythatsurroundedhimbytheaccidentofhisbirth,andhelethistorybetransactedoverhishead,asitbefittedthesubjectofanEmpire.”3Therewas,however,anotherendingtothisstory,andthatendinghappenstobetheonewithwhichVoegelinconcludedthefirstofthethreevolumesofOrderandHistory,IsraelandRevelation.Itisthestoryoftheexodusfromthecosmic-divineorderofempireastoldbytheprophets,thestoryoftheSuffer-ingServantinthe“livingtraditionofDeutero-Isaiah.”Thisstoryfindsitsdra-maticconclusionintheproclamationofanewbeginninginActs8,wheretheEthiopianeunuchofthequeenisreadingIsaiahandponderingonthepas-sage:“Likeasheephewasledawaytoslaughter.”TheeunuchasksPhilip:“‘Tellme,ofwhomistheprophetspeaking?ofhimself,orofsomeoneelse?’ThenPhilipbegan,reportsthehistorianoftheApostles,andstartingfromthispas-sagehetoldhimthegoodnewsaboutJesus.”4Thesetwoendingsformaseeminglyunbridgeablegulfopenedupbytheeventsoftheecumenicage.Voegelin’sattempttobridgethisgulfnotonlylastedseventeenyearsbutalsoismarkedbyaprecarioustension,tostaywiththeimageofthebridge,whichmakesitselffeltineverysentenceofvolumeIVofOrderandHistory.Atthesametime,thistensionclearlysetsitapartnotonlyfromthephilosophiesofhistoryofaJaspersoraToynbeebutalsofromatheologyofhistorysuchasthatofHansUrsvonBalthasar,letaloneaSeins-geschichteàlaHeidegger.ThethrustofVoegelin’sworkgoesinadirectionthatdiffersfromthoseofhis“competitors”inonefundamentalway,anditiscontainedinthefamousopeningsentenceoftheprefacetoIsraelandReve-lation:“Theorderofhistoryemergesfromthehistoryoforder.”Whateverthisemergingorderturnsouttobe,itwillmostlikelynotbetheorderofan“axistime”orthesequenceofcivilizationalcourses,orthehistoryofBeing(Sein)forgotteninthecourseofthehistoryofbeing(Seiendes),onlytorevealitselfagaininthefutureofitsparousia.Norcoulditbetheorderevokedin2.Ibid.,427.3.Ibid.,428.4.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.14,IsraelandRevelation,vol.I,OrderandHistory,ed.Mau-riceP.Hogan(1956;Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2001),570.\nHistoryasOpenHorizon327Balthasar’stheodramaticsoteriology,eventhoughtherearepointsofintersec-tionbetweenthisworkandthatofVoegelin.InVoegelin’sownaccount,attheendofthoseseventeenyearsofexpandinghisownhistoricalhorizon,history“conceivedasaprocessofincreasinglydifferentiatedorder”couldnolongerbeplacedontheoriginaltime-linethatwastoextendfromtheimperialcivi-lizationsoftheNearEasttothemodernnationalstate,andtotheemergenceofmodernGnosticismasthesymbolicformoforder.Voegelin’sabandonmentoftime-linesasthecarriersoftheimportantlinesofmeaninginhistoryapparentlydidnotoccurasasuddenflashofinsightbutwastheresultofaseriesofindividualstudiesfurtherexploringareasofmeaningthathadoccupiedhimalreadyduringtheworkonthefirstthreevol-umesofOrderandHistory.Thevisibletracesofthisprocess,thepaperscol-lectedinthevolumesPublishedEssays,1953–1965andPublishedEssays,1966–1985,aswellasinAnamnesis,firstpublishedinGermanin1966,presentthemostaccuratepictureoftheexpansionofthishistoricalhorizon,butthereisperhapsanevenmoretellingaccountofthedevelopmentsleadingtoTheEcu-menicAgeinthecorrespondencesbetweenVoegelinandthedirectorsofLouisi-anaStateUniversityPress.Herethereaderencountersaphilosopherandscholarwhostruggleswiththesteadilygrowingrecognitionthatpronouncementsabouttheprocessofhistoryarealwaystentativeatbestandthatitisnotper-missibletotakeshortcutsinthepursuitofthelinesofmeaningthatconstitutewhatisconventionallycalled“history.”IIIhavegivenamoredetaileddescriptionofthegenesisofTheEcumenicAgeelsewhere,asitcanbereconstructedfromVoegelin’sletterstoLSUPressandfromthepapersanddraftspublishedintheCollectedWorks.5TheprocessthatultimatelyledtothepublicationofvolumesIVandVisoffargreatersignifi-cancetothehermeneuticsoftheprojectasawholethanthetextsthemselvesrevealtothereaderunacquaintedwiththisprocess.TheyearsbetweenthefirstthreevolumesandvolumeIVcanwellbecalledthemostproductiveand—5.SeetheGermantranslationofpartsIandIIofTheEcumenicAge.Part1,DieLegit-imitätderAntike,ed.ThomasHollweck(Paderborn:WilhelmFinkVerlag,2004),containsmypostscriptwithafullerdiscussionofthefrequentchangesthevolume’sconceptionunderwentduringthe1960sandearly1970s.ThepostscriptbyManfredHenningsentopart2,DasÖkumenischeZeitalter,ed.ManfredHenningsen(Paderborn:WilhelmFinkVerlag,2004),representsanimportantrevisionistreadingofthebookbysomeonewhohadsharedmanyofVoegelin’sthoughtsatthetimeduringwhichvolumeIVevolved.\n328ThomasHollweckwithsomereservations—thehappiestofVoegelin’slife.OrderandHistoryhadmadehimaninternationallyknownscholar.ThedevelopmentoftheMunichinstitutewithwhichhewasnowentrustedpresentedawelcomechallengetohiscreativeimagination;hewasabletosurroundhimselfwithagroupofintellectuallyalertyoungscholars;andhewasabletospendguestsemestersintheUnitedStatesatsuchinstitutionsasNotreDame,Harvard,andtheUni-versityofMichigan.Thisisnottosaythatthebiographicalchangesareinanywayresponsibleforthefamous“break”intheprogram,mentionedinthefirstsentenceoftheintroductiontoTheEcumenicAge,butthereissufficientevi-dencethatVoegelinmadethefullestpossibleuseoftheopportunitiesfordevelopingallaspectsofthequestionofhistoryandorderwithoutregardtothedemandsoffinishinga“work.”AnadditionalelementthatshouldbetakenintoaccountwhenwelookattheevolutionofvolumeIVisthatVoegelin’smovetoMunichenabledhimtocreatehisinstitute’sresearchlibraryintheimageofwhatheconsideredWissenschaft,ashewrotetoDonEllegood,thedirectorofLSUPress,asearlyas1959.6(Ichoosetocalltheyettobewrittensequel“volumeIV,”becausetheleastcertainthingaboutitwasitstitle,asthecorrespondencealltooclearlyreveals.)InthebeginningVoegelinstillenvisagedathree-volumecontinuationofOrderandHistory,withafourthvolume,underthetitleEmpireandChristian-ity,dividedintotwoparts.Thefirstpartwastotreattheecumenicempires,whilethesecondwoulddealwithJewishapocalypse,Gnosticism,andChris-tianityuptoca...800.7AsfarashistreatmentofChristianitywascon-cerned,Voegelinwasquiteawareoftheresonanceitwouldreceive,andalreadyintheMarchletterhehadwrittenEllegood:“Wemustconsiderthatthevol-umeonChristianitywillattractparticularattention,andcomeunderfirefromallsides.Itmustbeimpeccable—orelse.”Thiswouldturnouttobethecor-rectassessmentoftheissue.Thepointthatneedstobemade,though,isthatthedecisiontoreducethenumberofvolumesfromsixtofivewasbeingmadealreadyatthattime.Itwouldthenbeonlyamatteroforganizingthemateri-alstobeincludedinsuchawaythattheyleduptowhathealreadyatthattimeconceivedasthepointofdestinationofthewholeprocessunderthetitle“TheGlobalExpansionofWesternSocietyandtheFormationofaGlobalSoci-ety.”8Theyearsbetween1959and1961werealsothetimewhenVoegelin,insteadofdevotinghimselftotheimpeccabletreatmentofChristianity,made6.Cf.VoegelintoEllegood,March9,1959,inEricVoegelinPapers,box23,file28,HooverInstitutionArchives,Stanford,CA.7.VoegelintoEllegood,October27,1959,ibid.8.Ibid.\nHistoryasOpenHorizon329twoveryimportantscientificadvances,whichfoundtheirpreliminaryformu-lationsinthearticle“Historiogenesis”(1960)andthelecture“World-EmpireandtheUnityofMankind”(1961).9“Historiogenesis”isundoubtedlythemoreimportantofthetwo,asisevi-dentfromtherepeatedrevisionsitunderwent.Asearlyas1960itsauthorwentasfarastowritetoEllegood:“Ihavehitonsomethinglikeatheoryofrelativityforthefieldofsymbolicforms,andthediscoveryofthetheoreticalformulathatwillcoverallformstowhatevercivilizationstheybelonghasmadepossibleanabbreviationofthewholepresentationwhichIhadnotdreamtofbefore.Hence,inspiteoftheenormousamountofmaterialscovered,VolumeIVwillnotbeatallfat.”Ellegood,inhisreply,soundedequallyenthusiastic,referringto“yourbrilliantfirstchapter”andstatingthat“thischapteraloneshouldmakeVolumeIVoneofthemostimportantintheentireseries.”10Voegelin’sassessmentofhisdiscoveryas“atheoryofrelativity”shouldbynomeansbereadasamereboldmetaphor.Forthetermhistoriogenesisreferstonothinglessthanamytho-speculativetypethatextrapolatespragmatichis-torybackwardtomythic,ontologicaloriginsindivinereality,aprocedurethatbeginswiththeSumerianKingListsandextendsasfarastheChristianandlatermodernspeculationsontheoriginsofhistory,summarizedinthesen-tencethatrecursinallfourversions:“Historiogenesisisoneofthegreatcon-stantsinthesearchoforderfromantiquitytothepresent.”ThesecondimportantstatementoriginatinginthoseearlyyearswasthelectureVoegelingaveattheLondonSchoolofEconomicsinMarch1961.Inithetoucheduponthemajorthemeoftheprojectedvolume,thequestionofthepluralityoftheso-calledworld-empiresfromantiquitytomodernity,andtheaccompanyingproblemsofecumeneandtherepresentationofmankindthroughempire.VoegelinalreadyatthattimemadeaconvincingcaseagainsttheinstrumentalizationoftheideasofworldandmankindthathadrecentlyreacheditsgrotesqueclimaxinthetotalitarianempiresofNaziGermanyand9.“Historiogenesis”firstappearedsimultaneouslyinPhilosophischesJahrbuch57(1960):419–46,andPhilosophiaViva,ed.M.MüllerandM.Schmaus(FreiburgandMunich,1960).TherevisedversionpublishedinAnamnesis(1966),andthedraftofamoreextensiveversionunderthetitle“AnxietyandReason,”inEricVoegelin,CW,vol.28,WhatIsHis-tory?andOtherLateUnpublishedWritings,ed.ThomasA.HollweckandPaulCaringella(1990;availableColumbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,1999),finallyledtochapter1ofTheEcumenicAge.“World-EmpireandtheUnityofMankind:TheStevensonMemorialLecture,no.11,1961,”InternationalAffairs38,no.2(April1962):170–83,reprintedinEricVoegelin,CW,vol.11,PublishedEssays,1953–1965,ed.EllisSandoz(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000).10.VoegelintoEllegood,July21,1960,inVoegelinPapers,box23,file28;EllegoodtoVoegelin,August17,1960,ibid.\n330ThomasHollwecktheSovietUnion.Hetoldhisaudiencethatboth“world”and“universalman-kind”arecomplexsymbolsratherthanthingscapableofpoliticalorganiza-tionthroughdomination—for“theorderoftheworldisnotof‘thisworld’alonebutalsoofthe‘worldbeyond.’”11Likewise,“mankindisthesocietyofmaninhistory,extendingintimefromitsunknownorigintowarditsunknownfuture.Moreover,nocrosscutatanytimerepresentsmankindbyvirtueofacommonpowerorganization.Forthelivingcanrepresentmankinduniver-sallyonlybytheirrepresentativehumanity;andtheirhumanityisrepresenta-tiveonlywhenitisorientedtowardtheeschatologicaltelos.”Theseinsightsputanendtoafive-thousand-yearseriesof“attemptstorepresentmankindbymeansofafiniteorganizationinthepresent,”Voegelinconcluded,andhecalledourtime“anepochintheoriginalsenseofsuspense,”whenweknowthatoldformsaredyingbutdonotknowmorethan“prefigurations”ofthenewforms.12Byallappearances,VoegelinhadestablishedthepatternthatvolumeIVwouldfollowandthusbereadyfortheanticipatedcompletionintheearly1960s.Therewashistoryastheontological“index”intheequivalencebetweenthemodernconstructionoftheHegelianBewußtseinsgeschichteandtheSumer-ianKingLists,andthentherewasthepenetratinganalysisoftheultimateinsufficiencyoftheecumenicenterprisesthatfindsitsterseexpressioninthesentenceattheendofthefirstsectionofchapter3ofTheEcumenicAge:“Philosophically,theecumenewasamiserablesymbol.”13BothanalysesweretocarryoverintotheconcludingvolumeV,asVoegelinindicatedinhislettertoEllegoodofOctober1961wherehespecificallymentionsthelectureonworld-empireastheanswertoaproblemtoberaisedinvolumeIVandtobeansweredinvolumeV,“thatveryintricateproblemofwhatmakesourtimean‘epoch’inpoliticsandhistory.”Atthesametime,Voegelinexpressedhiscon-cernthat“agiganticwork”suchastheconcludingvolumesofOrderandHis-tory,“withentirelynewideas,”cannotbewrittenwithout“beingsupportedconvincinglybythesources,sinceotherwisetheuproarwillbeunpleasant.”Inordertounderlinethepointmadeinthisletter,VoegelinsentanotherlettertoEllegoodonlythreeweekslater,accompaniedbyasynopsisofwhatwasnowcalledEmpireandChristianity.Therehespeaksof“fourlinesofmeaningwhichhadtoberepresentedwithoutmakingamessofthebook.”These“lines11.“World-EmpireandtheUnityofMankind,”144.12.Ibid.,155.13.EricVoegelin,CW,vol.17,TheEcumenicAge,ed.MichaelFranz(1974;Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2000),230.\nHistoryasOpenHorizon331ofmeaning”permitaninsightintothestructureofthefinalversionofvol-umeIVinsofarastheyshowhowVoegelinintendedtoapproachtheproblemwithwhichhewasconfronted.Theyconcern(a)theparallelismbetweenthecivilizationsoftheEcumenicAge,(b)theinternalmeaningofeachcivilization,(c)“thelineofmeaningwhichstarts2000yearsbeforetheEcumenicAge,runsthroughit,andgoesintothepresent,”and(d)“themainlineofhistoricalmeaningrunningfromtheAncientNearEastthroughRomeandChristianityintoourWesternpresent—alinebywhichthedevelopmentsinIndiaandChinaappearassidelines.”14Thissomewhatabstractdescriptionoftheproj-ectwasclearlymeanttoassuageanyfearsEllegoodmayhavehadabouttheeventualpublicationoftheremainderofOrderandHistory,butwecanbecertainthattherecipientoftheletterremainedinthedarkaboutthemeaningofthelinesofmeaning,justasanyreaderwouldtoday,unlesshemadetheheroiceffortofthinkingthroughtheseissuesforhimself.TheonethingthatdoesaidusinunderstandingwhatVoegelinhadinmindistheexplicitcom-parisonbetweenhisworkandthatofToynbeewithwhichheendedtheletter.Toputitbluntly,VoegelinthoughtthatToynbeehadmadeamessofhisStudyofHistorybypursuinghisown“linesofmeaning”insteadofseeingthemainline,thelinethat“runsfromIsraelandHellasintotheWest.”ThusforToynbee,contemporarycivilizationshad“novisiblemeaning”becausewithoutthatmainlinethehistorianwillendupindulgingin“ahappyfraternizationwitheverybodywholivestodayasequals.”ItisworthnotingthatToynbee’sStudyofHistorybecameakindofcountermodelduringtheseyearsofstrugglingto-wardatenableconceptionofvolumeIVandablueprintofhownottowriteaphilosophyofhistory.15ButthisbynomeanseasedVoegelin’sowndilemma,asbecomesevidentfromanotherlettertoEllegood,writteninFebruary1963.TryingtoreassureEllegoodthatprogressisactuallybeingmade,Voegelinlistseightproblem-complexesheclaimstohavesolved.Theywere,inVoegelin’sorder:(1)theques-tionofnaturallaw;(2)thequestionof“Whatisthenatureofmanandsoci-ety?”(3)thequestionof“Whatishistory?”(4)thenatureofphilosophy;(5)thegreatestpestofall,i.e.,theterminologyofAsiaticcivilization;(6)thequestionof“Whatdoesreasonmeaninscholasticism?”(7)thecomplexofApocalypse,14.VoegelintoEllegood,October21,1961,inVoegelinPapers,box23,file28;VoegelintoEllegood,November13,1961,ibid.15.WhatbetterillustrationofmypointthanVoegelin’scontributiontoEdwardT.Gargan’svolumeTheIntentofToynbee’sHistory,whichappearedunderthetitle“Toynbee’sHistoryasaSearchforTruth”in1961,reprintedinPublishedEssays,1953–1965,100–112.Thearticleisaperfectexampleofdeconstruction,beforethewordhadevenbeeninvented.\n332ThomasHollweckChristianity,andGnosis;and(8)thecontinuityoftheGnosticmovementfromantiquitytothepresent.16Again,ashehadalreadydoneafewyearsearlier,Voegelinemphasizedtheimportanceofestablishingthecontinuitybetweenthetimeoftheecumenicempiresand“contemporarypoliticalproblems.”Theletterendswithaninteresting,evenrevealingsentence:“Asamatteroffact,thegreatestobstaclehasbeenovercome,thatistheobstacleofwritingearlierpartswithoutknowinghowthestorywillend.”DidVoegelinreallybelieveforamomentthathisstorycouldhaveanendinginanyothersensethanthatofleadingtothepresentandreinterpretingthispresentinthelightofboththeecumenicpastandtheirreversibledifferentiationsthatmarkthetransitionfromcosmologicaltoecumenicempires?ThefollowingtwoyearsbroughtfewvisibledevelopmentsasfarasvolumeIVwasconcerned,eventhough1964sawtheveryimportantandsuccessfullectures“HitlerandtheGermans,”addingtoVoegelin’sstatureasapoliticalscientistinGermany.Laterthatyearandintoearly1965Voegelinhadavisit-ingprofessorshipatHarvard,duringwhichhegavetheIngersollLectureonimmortalitythatwouldbepublishedintheHarvardTheologicalReviewin1967.WhenVoegelinfinallyhadtorespondagaintoaninquiryfromthepress,itwastheyear1966;Anamnesishadappeared,andVoegelinwasnoclosertoadefinitivestructureofvolumeIVthanhehadbeenin1963.WhetherhewouldneedoneortwovolumestoconcludeOrderandHistory,andwhatthetitle,ortitles,shouldbe,werequestionsthatremainedunanswered.Atthesametime,VoegelincontinuedhisworkonquestionsthathehadnotevenmentionedinhislettertoEllegoodof1963.AsthereaderofAnamnesisknows,Voegelin’sprimaryconcernhadbecomethephilosophyofconsciousness,andsohecouldcomfortablyreporttoRichardWentworth,Ellegood’ssuccessoratLSUPress,thatworkontheconcludingvolumeInSearchofOrderwasprogressing“inamostsatisfactorymanner,”butthevolumemighthavetobedividedintotwo,oneunderthetitleTheLanguageofConsciousnessandtheothercontainingthewordEmpireinitstitle.17Voegelin’sothercorrespondences,especiallythatwithManfredHenningsen,keepusinformedabouthisresearchpriorities,whichelsewherefoundtheirformulationinthreeotherpapers,“ConfigurationsinHistory”(1968),“Equiv-alencesofExperience”(1970),and“TheGospelandCulture”(1971).WhenWentworthagainraisedthequestionoftheunfinishedbusiness,itwaslate1969,andVoegelinwasanemeritusandHenrySalvatoriDistinguishedScholar16.VoegelintoEllegood,February13,1963,inVoegelinPapers,box24,file1.17.VoegelintoRichardL.Wentworth,October14,1966,ibid.\nHistoryasOpenHorizon333attheHooverInstitution.“WhatheldupthefurthervolumesofOrderandHistoryandpracticallyexplodedthem,”Voegelinthenwroteinreply,“is,asIhavedetailedinearliercorrespondence,thevastamountofmaterialsthathadtobereworkedinordertoarriveatthetheoreticalconclusionsthatwouldhavetoformtheskeletonofthewholework.Duringthelast10years,Ihavedoneonesuchstudyafteranothertobesureofmyground.”18WhatVoegelinnowproposedasthetableofcontentsofInSearchofOrderwasnothinglessthanalistofvirtuallyallthepublishedandunpublishedpiecesthathadbeenwrittensince“Historiogenesis,”comprisingavolumethatheestimatesataboutsevenhundredmanuscriptpages.Thisvolume,dividedintosixteenchaptersandanintroduction,wastocontain,amongthepublishedpapers,the“Histo-riogenesis”publishedinAnamnesis,followedbyanexpandedversionof“Anx-ietyandReason”aswellasthepapers“TheMovingSoul”and“TheEclipseofReality,”allpublishedinvolume28ofTheCollectedWorks,and,mostimpor-tant,theSchellingchapterfromtheHistoryofPoliticalIdeas,followedbythemanuscripts“NietzscheandPascal”and“OnHenryJames’sTurnoftheScrew.”ItishardtoimaginesuchavolumeastheanswertotheissuesraisedintheactualvolumeIV,butitisequallyhardtoimaginethelatterwithoutpreciselyalltheseindividualstudies,whethertheyfoundinclusioninthefinaltextornot.VoegelinhimselfwasonlytooawareofthewholenewslantthisproposalgavetotheoverallconceptionofOrderandHistory.WhathesuggestedtoRichardWentworthwasthefollowing:“ThereshouldbeavolumeentitledInSearchofOrder,whichIcanofferyounowforpublicationasthevolumethatwillconcludetheworkIstartedinOrderandHistory,thoughIwouldnotconsideritafourthvolume,butanindependentworkunderthetitlegiven.”ThispassageseemstosaynothinglessthanthatthegrandprojectofOrderandHistorywouldnotbeconcludedatall,thatinsomewayVoegelinfoundhimselfinapredicamentcomparabletothatofToynbeeattheendofhisStudyofHistory,evenifforcompletelydifferentreasons.Voegelinsimplyseemedtohaveoutgrowntheplanofhisopusmagnum,justastwentyyearsearlierhehadoutgrowntheprojectoftheHistoryofPoliticalIdeas.Heonceagainhadreachedapointofcrisis;andjustastheyoungerVoegelinhadfoundaspring-boardforovercomingthecrisisbyworkingontheWalgreenLectures,“TheNewScienceofPolitics,”theolderVoegelinfoundafocaloutletinhisworkonwhatwastobecalledTheDramaofHumanity,begunastheCandlerLecturesatEmoryUniversityinthespringof1967.Yetthistime,thecrisiswasofadif-ferentnature.Insteadofbeingcausedbythetheoreticalinsufficienciesthat18.VoegelintoWentworth,December12,1969,ibid.\n334ThomasHollweckmadethemselvesmoreandmorefeltinthewritingofahistoryofpoliticalideas,thereasonsforthedelaysinfinishingOrderandHistoryaretobesoughtintheever-increasingabundanceof“thematerials,”whichitselfwastheresultofbotharealimprovementinthewaythelatestscholarlyresearchcouldbecommunicated(thiswas1969,not1949)andVoegelin’senormouslyincreasedabilitytotapintothisdevelopment.Giventhisnewsetofconditions,publish-ers’deadlinesbecamealimitationratherthananopportunity.TheDramaofHumanitywasatlasttobehiswork,ashewouldtellWentworth’ssuccessor,CharlesEast,onlysevenmonthslaterwiththesewords:“AsfarasTheDramaofHumanityisconcerned,Idonotwanttomakeanycommitmentsatthemoment.Thereasonwhyisthatmyworkisalwaysseriouslyhamperedbydeadlines,andforonceinmylifeIwanttowriteabookinpeace.”19Ifonehadtocharacterizethegistofthisbook,onecouldperhapssay,andIdosowithsometrepidation,thatitrepresentedVoegelin’sExodusfromEmpireand—tosomedegree—fromthehistoryrepresentedbyempire.Forworkonthisbookcoincideswiththealmostyouthfulinteresthebegantotakeinpre-history,thePaleolithicandNeolithicAges,aidedbyhismostfruitfulacquain-tancewiththeindependentscholarMarieKönig,whointroducedhimtoherextensiveresearchonprehistoricsymbolsandthusgavehimevidenceofahumandimensionbeforewrittenhistorythatalsoconstitutesapermanentpresenceinhistory.20WhatevertheuncertaintiesregardingthefinalformofvolumeIVwere,astheywerebeingdiscussedwithLesliePhillabaum,thenassistantdirectorofLSUPress,theybegantogivewaytoagenuineconceptionofthebookwenowknowasTheEcumenicAge.TheideaoftheecumenicageitselfbegantoyieldresultsthatVoegelinhadnotbeenabletoanticipateearlier,foritenabledhimtoovercomethe“departmentalization”ofthepeoplesaroundtheMedi-terraneanandintheAncientNearEastandtounderstandfullytheissuesofthatepochasadevelopingfundamentalstrugglebetweenpragmaticexpan-sionandspiritualexodus.21Beginningatthelatestin1971,Voegelin’scorre-19.VoegelintoCharlesEast,July,14,1970,ibid.20.Cf.theaccountgivenbyTiloSchabert,“DieWerkstattEricVoegelins,”ZeitschriftfürPolitik49(2002),andManfredHenningsen’spostscripttotheGermaneditionofpart2ofTheEcumenicAge,mentionedabove.21.Cf.aletterVoegelinwrotetoManfredHenningsen,March24,1971,whileworkingonthechapterontheEcumenicAgeofvolumeIVduringspringof1971atNotreDameUniversity.There,hepointstothefactthatthe“departmentalization”intoGreeks,Per-sians,andJewsdoesnothelpinunderstandingeitherAristotleorPaul,foritwasonlythepragmaticexpansionthatbeganwithCyrusthatgaveanecumenicmeaningtotheideaofthespiritualexodusthathadbeguninIsraelandcouldnowbeseeninPlato’sandAristo-tle’sconstructionsoftheparadigmaticpolis.\nHistoryasOpenHorizon335spondenceswithLSUPressrevealanauthorworkingonabook,exceptthatthebookheisworkingonisnotTheDramaofHumanitybuttheEcumenicAge—or,shallwesay,abookthatwastobeboth.Forintherelativepeaceful-nessofhisnewStanfordsurroundings,thequestionsandproblemsthathadtobedealtwithinvolumeIVbegantomergeintoaphilosophyofconscious-nesswhichwouldbebothaphilosophyofhistoryandaphilosophyofman.Thereadermayatthispointbesparedafurthernarrationofwhichearlierpiecesweretobeincorporatedintothisbook,andwhichwerenot.Voegelinwasnowabletosynthesizeandcondensehisearlierstudiesintoacoherentsummaryoftheproblemshehadencounteredontheway,andintoasuccinctstatementofwhichproblemswerecapableofasolutionandwhichwerenot.IIIInthecontextofthisaccountofthegenesisofTheEcumenicAgeitwouldbepresumptiveofmetogivemyinterpretationofthistext,especiallyafterIhavetriedtoargueuntilnowthatitsstructureowesagreatdealtotheinter-veningexistentialandintellectualhistoryofitsauthor.Thishistory,Iargue,leftindelibletracesonboththestructureandthecontentofVoegelin’slastbook.ThesetracesnotonlybecomevisibleinVoegelin’sownintroductoryremarksabouthavinghadtoabandontheoriginalplanofOrderandHistoryinfavorofadifferentpattern“thatdidnotrunalonglinesoftime.”Hisadmis-sionthat“theoriginallistoffivetypesoforderandsymbolizationturnedouttoberegrettablylimited”hasbeenquotedsooftenthatitalmostbearsnorepeating.Almost!ForwhileitmakessomuchsensetorepeatthatsomeonewithVoegelin’sbreadthofknowledgewouldeventuallyhavetoleavebehindtheunilinearladderthatmadehisascenttotherevelatoryandnoeticdiffer-entiationsofIsraelandHellaspossible,onewonderswhyhedidnotdosoearlier.MysuspicionisthatwehaveintheseintroductoryremarksofVoegelinthenoeticequivalenttotheconclusionofWittgenstein’sTractatuswithoutWittgenstein’slogicalpurism.ThrowingawaytheladderthatmadetheascentpossiblewasnotVoegelin’swayofdoingWissenschaft.Hewasabletoleavetheladderinitsplaceandtomoveontothenewplateauhehadbeenabletoreachbymeansoftheladder.Thereasonhewasabletodosoistobefoundinthedifferentnaturesofthetwoladders.WhileWittgenstein’sladderwastheladderoflogic,Voegelin’swasakindofspiralladder,thatof“eternal-being-realizing-itself-in-time,”ashehadformulateditintheabandonedchapter“WhatIsHistory?”andinthechapterofAnamnesisentitled“EternalBeinginTime.”MyuseofWittgenstein’sladderisbynomeansametaphoricalwhim.Onthe\n336ThomasHollweckcontrary,IamtryingtomakesenseofsomethingthathaspreoccupiedseriousreadersofOrderandHistoryforalmosthalfacentury—thequestionofthedifferentiationofconsciousnessanditsdirection,whichmayalsobethedirec-tionofhistory.ButthisquestionwasaskednotonlybyVoegelin’sreadersbutwasforemosthisownquestionaswell.TheopenendingofPlatoandAristotlewithitsskepticalPyrrhonicacceptanceofthepragmaticsituationcreatedbyecumenicconquest,andthehopefulendingofIsraelandRevelationwiththegoodnewsaboutJesusChrist,mightleadevenseriousreaderstoaskforaconnectionbetweenthosestatesofconsciousnessandtheirown.Andtheywould,moreoftenthannot,bewillingtotaketheshortcutsofskepticismorbelief,inordertoconnectthepresentwiththepastofthesetwoendings.WhenonelooksbackattheproblemsthatoccupiedVoegelin’sthinkingduringthecourseoftheseventeenyearsleadinguptoTheEcumenicAge,onefindsthattheconceptofthe“ecumenicage”andtheideaofa“universalman-kind”thataccompaniedtheecumenicagewerethecatalystsforsolutionsthatVoegelinmightnothavefoundhadhestubbornlyclungtoansweringthequestionoftheplannedopeningchapterofvolumeIV:“WhatIsHistory?”Thisisvividlydemonstratedbyhisreflectionsonthe“ConfigurationsofHistory,”“TheEquivalencesofExperienceandSymbolization,”andbyhisvaliantattempttobringAthensandJerusalemtogetherintheirunderstandingoftheophany,in“TheGospelandCulture.”Alloftheseareissuesofsymbolicequivalencesagainstthebackdropoftheprimaryexperienceofthecosmos.IsuspectthatVoegelinowedtheabilitytopenetratemoredeeplyintothereasonsfortheseequivalencestotheseminaldiscoveryoftheequivalencebetweenthemytho-speculativeextrapolationofpragmatichistoryintoadivineoriginandthemodernsystemsthattrytogivemeaningtopragmatichistorythroughspecu-lationonthedialecticalprocesseseitherofGeistorofProduktionsverhältnisseorevenofSein.WhenVoegelincoinedthetermhistoriogenesis,herealizedthathehadfound“amillennialconstant”aswellasanentirelynewaccesstoatheoryofsymbolizationinhistory;hencethealreadyquotedremarkabout“somethinglikeatheoryofrelativityforthefieldofsymbolicforms.”Thepersistenceofthechapter“Historiogenesis”inalltablesofcontentsforvol-umeIVservesasanotherindicationofitsoverallimportance.Butwhatistheconnectionbetweenatheorythatdetectstheequivalenceofarranginghetero-geneouselementsofrealityonatime-lineandVoegelin’sphilosophyofhis-toryandconsciousness?Voegelin’sanswers,giveninthebeginningsectionsof“Historiogenesis,”maketheconnectionabundantlyclear,anditissomewhatsurprisingthatithasfoundrelativelylittleattentionsofar.“Themythicalpartofhistoriogeneticspeculationisnotapieceofunhistoricalfabulationbutanattempttopresentthereasonsthatwillraisetheresgestaeofthepragmatic\nHistoryasOpenHorizon337parttotherankofhistory”22isonlythefirstinaseriesofstatementsestab-lishingtheconnection,whichoriginatesintheexperienceofhistoryandtheanxietythataccompaniesexperienceincosmologicalcivilizations,aswellasinso-calledmodernones,whenitbecomesawareofrealityasatensionbe-tweenexistenceandnonexistence.Voegelin’sdiscussionofthe“cosmologicalstyleoftruth”intheEcumenicAgeshouldbereadtogetherwiththeevenmoreextendeddiscussionthecomplexreceivedinthedraftoftheextendedversionof“Historiogenesis”knownas“AnxietyandReason.”23WhatemergesfromaparallelreadingisamuchclearerunderstandingoftheimportanceVoegelinattachedinhislateryearstothesymbolismofthe“beginningandthebeyond.”Thereisaclearshiftofemphasisintheearlysec-tionoftheintroductiontoTheEcumenicAge,entitled“TheBeginningandtheBeyond,”whereVoegelinmakesreferencetotheconnectionbetweenaban-doningtheideaofhistoryasameaningfulcourseofeventsonastraighttimelineasanIsraeliticandChristiandiscovery.The“BeginningandtheBeyond”hasbecomethenewsymbolicformulaforthepolesofrealitythathadbeenslantedall-too-muchtowardthebeginninginhistoriogeneticspeculation.TheexperienceofdivinerealityisequivalentinbothcosmologicalsocietiesandtheHellenic,Jewish,Christianformsofexodus—butanewdirectionhasbeenadded,thatofthehorizonofhistoryandtheBeyond.Howmajorthelong-termreflectionsontheimplicationsofhistoriogenesiswereisdocumentedinaremarkVoegelinmadetoHenningsenalreadyin1967,whileworkingon“TheEclipseofReality”:24“Historymustneitherbeconstructedhistoriogenet-ically—fromthepresentbacktoabeginning(ideologically,aswithSchiller),nor‘systematically’fromanabsolute‘Being’throughdialectics,aswithHegel.Itmustrathersetoutfromtheexistentialsituationofthehistorian,providedhehasone.Theexistentialsituation,however,isnotonlyhistorical,butisalsointensiontoeternity.”25Moreover,Voegelin’sdiscussionofJesusandtheUnknownGodin“TheGospelandCulture”aswellasthemagnificentanalysisoftheopeningoftheGospelofJohnandtheGnosticpossibilitiesembeddedinit,wouldnothavehadtheprecisionofthoughtrequiredforanunderstandingofthe“Iam”–relationtotheincarnationintheSonofGodorSonofMan.AsVoegelinwrotetoHenningsenduringhisworkonthefinalversionofvolumeIV:“IamnowworkingontheMSforthe4thvolume.Quiteabitofwork,sincetheolder22.Voegelin,CW,17:113.23.Cf.CW,vol.28,esp.75–78.24.Ibid.,111–62.25.VoegelintoHenningsen,September29,1967,inVoegelinPapers,box17,file14.\n338ThomasHollweckpieceshavetobebroughtuptothelevelofthenewerones.Alothastobepiecedtogether.Iamjustnowintheprocessofpatchingpiecesfromthelatertheoreticalstudy[“AnxietyandReason”—T.H.]into‘Historiogenesis’.Onoccasionofthiswork,onecomesacrosssomeverypleasantfinds,suchastheolderanalysisofanxiety[originalinEnglish—T.H.],which,asIseeonlynow,recognizedtheproblemofthebreakthroughfromcosmologicalpluralismtotheunityoftheUnknownGodthathadoccupiedmeintheGospel-Study[“TheGospelandCulture”—T.H.].Bysettingafewaccents,theconnectionbetweenthetwopiecescanbeestablished.Acohesivebookwillcomeoutofthisafterall.”Henningsen,inhisresponseto“TheGospelandCulture,”hadpickedupontheseconnections,whenhewrotetoVoegelinjusttwoweeksearlier:“Thelastpagesofyour‘Gospel’-articlereallymakethisessaythecenterofthefourthvolume.Whatcomesafterthatis,inanexistentialsense,the‘DramaofHumanity’.This,inmyopinion,shouldbecomeoneofthemainpointsoftheintroduction.WhatIfindexcellentisthediscussionofthe‘UnknownGod’andtherejectionoftheattemptsathistoriogeneticinterpre-tationinit.”26Havingestablishedtheuniquepositionofthehistoriogenesis“find,”thereremainsforusonlythequestionofhowVoegelinmanagedtobringaboutthe“cohesiveness”towhichheaspiredinwritingthefinalmanuscript.Raisingthisquestionreturnsustothebeginningofthisessayanditstitle.IfweacceptVoegelin’sthesis,volumeIVisofcourseforemostastudyoftheecumenicageanditsepochalimpactonthehistoryofthecivilizationsthathavebeenwithinthehorizonsofthatepochthathasnowcometoanend.Conquestandspiri-tualexoduswerethedefiningmarksofthisepoch,andonecanofcourseargue,asdidVoegelin,thatoneofthecentralevents,ifnotthecentralevent,was“theepiphanyofChrist,”“thegreatcatalystthatmadeeschatologicalconsciousnessahistoricalforce,bothinforminganddeforminghumanity.”27Theoverarch-ingrealityoftheecumenicageisfoundinthebreakingupofthecosmologicalwholeness,symbolizedintheexperienceofthedualityofoikoumene-okeanosthroughwhich“thehabitatofmanhasbecometheopenfieldoftheimperialdrive,andthedivinemysterythathadsurroundedthelimitedterritoryanditspeoplehasbecomeluminousasthedivinepresenceinatransfiguringprocessinwhichallmenatalltimesandallplacesparticipate.”Butevenmoreimpor-tant,thedissociationoftheprimaryexperienceofthecosmosintoexpansionandspiritualexodusdoesnotbecomeanunbridgeablegulfwhenitisunder-26.VoegelintoHenningsen,December6,1970,ibid.;HenningsentoVoegelin,Novem-ber25,1970,ibid.27.Voegelin,CW,17:66.\nHistoryasOpenHorizon339stoodthat“thebondthatpreventsthetwopiecesofrealityfromfallingapartintothetworealitiesofapocalypticandGnosticthinkersisfoundinhistory.”28ThehistoryofwhichVoegelinisspeakinghereisonethathasleftitshistori-ogeneticlimitationbehindandhasindeedassumedan“epochal”dimension.Thisdimensioninvolvesthestructureofhumanconsciousnessitself.“Thestructureofhumanconsciousnessasitbecomesluminousforitsownhistoric-ityisobscuredifnotdestroyed,ifoneisolatestheeventsofthespiritualexo-dusfromtheeventsofhistoriographythatariseinitswake,andifoneignoresthefactthatthehistoriansdealwiththedisturbanceoforderthroughtheconcupiscentialexodusinthelightoftheinsightgainedbythespiritualout-burst—beitHerodotusandThucydides,orPolybiusandLivy,ortheIsraelitehistoriansfromtheauthoroftheDavidMemoirstotheChronicler,ortheChinesehistorianSse-maCh’ien.”ThisisVoegelin’sfinalcritiqueofJaspers’s“axistime.”Onlythroughanunderstandingoftheunityofecumeneandexo-duscanwehopetofindtheopenhorizoninhistoryandinourconsciousnesstowhichthetitleofthisessayalludes.“The‘epoch’involves,besidesthespiritualoutbursts,theecumenicempiresfromtheAtlantictothePacificandengen-derstheconsciousnessofhistoryasthenewhorizonthatsurroundswithitsdivinemysterytheexistenceofmaninthehabitatthathasbeenopenedbytheconcupiscenceofpowerandknowledge.”29Onemaydowelltoreadthisasthegoodnewsmentionedatthebeginningofthisessay.Torecitethegoodnews,however,willnotbeenough;aswithallgoodnews,weshouldstrivetolivebywhatittellsus.Forthescholarandsci-entist,thismeansthepracticeofgenuineecumenicthinking.28.Ibid.,380.29.Ibid.,384–85.\nThispageintentionallyleftblank\nContributorsBarryCooperisprofessorofpoliticalscienceattheUniversityofCalgary.Histeachingandresearchhasfocusedtheinsightsofpoliticalphilosophersoncontemporaryissues,includingthesignificanceoftechnologyandthemedia,theconstitutionalstatusofQuebecandAlberta,Canadianmilitarypolicy,andmodernterrorism.Cooper’smanypublicationsreflectthedualfocusofhiswork.HepublishesaweeklycolumnintheCalgaryHeraldandoftenhashuntedwithEllisSandoz.ElizabethCoreyreceivedherPh.D.inpoliticalsciencefromLouisianaStateUniversityin2004,undertheguidanceofProfessorEllisSandoz.CurrentlysheteachesintheInterdisciplinaryCoreandGreatTextsprogramsatBaylorUniversityandisworkingonamanuscriptthatfocusesontherelationsamongaesthetics,religion,andpoliticalphilosophyintheworkofMichaelOakeshott.StevenD.EalyisaseniorfellowatLibertyFund.HeisauthorofCommunica-tion,Speech,andPolitics:HabermasandPoliticalAnalysis(1981).Ealyedited“JosephConrad:MasterofIllusion,”apreviouslyunpublishedessaybyRobertPennWarren,forpublicationintheAmericanOxonian,andco-editedtheEricVoegelin–WillmooreKendallcorrespondenceforthePoliticalScienceReviewer.CharlesR.Embryisprofessorofpoliticalscience,TexasA&M-Commerce.HewasanundergraduatestudentofEllisSandozatLouisianaTechUniversity,1964,andcolleagueatTexasA&M-Commerce(formerlyEastTexasStateUni-versity),1969–1977.HeistheeditorofRobertB.HeilmanandEricVoegelin:AFriendshipinLetters,1944–1984(UniversityofMissouriPress).MichaelFranzisprofessorofpoliticalscienceatLoyolaCollegeinMaryland.Hisscholarshipfocusesonpoliticalproblemsinthephilosophyofhistory.Inadditiontonumerousscholarlyarticles,heistheauthorofEricVoegelinandthePoliticsofSpiritualRevolt,andtheeditorofEricVoegelin’sTheEcumenicAge,vol.17ofTheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin.341\n342ContributorsTimothyFulleristheLloydE.WornerDistinguishedServiceProfessorandprofessorofpoliticalscienceatColoradoCollege.HehaswrittenonliberaleducationandontheBritishintellectualtradition,especiallyThomasHobbesandMichaelOakeshott,andrelatedtopics.HehaseditedseveralvolumesofOakeshott’spapersandiscurrentlyatworkonashortvolumeonOakeshott’sthought.HehasstudiedandtaughttheworkofEricVoegelinformorethanthirtyyearsandisamemberoftheEricVoegelinSociety.JürgenGebhardt,emeritusprofessorofpoliticalscienceatFriedrich-AlexanderUniversity,Erlangen-Nuremberg,completedhisdissertationunderthedirec-tionofEricVoegelin.HehastaughtatseveraluniversitiesintheUnitedStatesaswellasinBeijing.HehasbeenactiveintheGermanpoliticalsciencecom-munityandtheBavaria-AmericaAcademy.HehaspublishedmajorstudiesinEuropeanandAmericanpoliticsandpoliticalthought.ThomasHollweckisprofessorofGermancultureandliteratureattheUni-versityofColoradoatBoulder.HeisamemberoftheEditorialBoardoftheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin.HeistheauthorofabookonThomasMannandofnumerouspublicationsonGermanliteratureaswellastheworkofVoegelin.MostrecentlyheeditedDieLegitimitätderAntike,part1ofTheEcu-menicAge.TimothyHoyeisprofessorofgovernmentatTexasWoman’sUniversity.HisdoctorateinpoliticalscienceisfromDukeUniversity,wherehestudiedwithandwasanassistanttoJohnH.Hallowell.HehasservedasaFulbrightexchangescholaratHiroshimaUniversityinJapanandistheauthorofJapanesePolitics:FixedandFloatingWorlds.EllisSandozdirectedhisundergraduateandmas-ter’slevelstudiesinpoliticalscience.GlennHughesisprofessorofphilosophyatSt.Mary’sUniversityinSanAnto-nio,Texas.Heistheauthororeditorofseveralbooks,includingMysteryandMythinthePhilosophyofEricVoegelin(1993)and,mostrecently,Transcen-denceandHistory:TheSearchforUltimacyfromAncientSocietiestoPostmod-ernity(2003).HehaspublishednumerousarticlesonVoegelin’sthoughtaswellasonthatofthephilosopherandtheologianBernardLonergan.StephenA.McKnightisprofessoremeritusofEuropeanintellectualandcul-turalhistoryattheUniversityofFlorida.Heisauthor/editorofsevenbooks,includingSacralizingtheSecular,TheModernAgeandtheAncientWisdom,\nContributors343andScience,Pseudo-Science,andUtopianisminEarlyModernThought.In2002hewasappointedbyPresidentGeorgeW.Bushtoafour-yeartermontheNationalHumanitiesCouncil.MartinPalous,oneofthefirstsignatoriesofCharter77,servedasspokesmanforthisdissidenthumanrightsgroupin1986.HeiscurrentlyambassadoroftheCzechRepublictotheUnitedStates.Hehasbeenactiveinseveralnon-governmentalorganizationsinEuropeandtaughtatCharlesUniversity,Prague.HehaspublishedextensivelyoncontemporaryEuropeanpoliticsandpoliticalphilosophyandtranslatedtheworksofHannahArendtintoCzech.BrendanPurcellisseniorlecturerinphilosophyatUniversityCollegeDublin.HeistheauthortoTheDramaofHumanity:TowardsaPhilosophyofHumanityinHistory,and,withDetlevClemens,hetranslatedandeditedEricVoegelin’sHitlerandtheGermans.TiloSchabert,professorattheFriedrich-AlexanderUniversity,Erlangen-Nuremberg,hastaughtandlecturedextensivelyinEurope,America,andAus-tralia.HehasbeenafilmmakerforBavariantelevision,thedirectoroftheannualERANOSconferencesinAscona,amemberofseveralacademiccoun-cils,aswelltowncouncillorinBaierbrunn(Munich),andwasrecentlyawardedtheGerman-FrenchParliamentaryPrizebytheGermanFederalParliamentandtheFrenchNationalAssembly.Hehaswrittenextensivelyonpoliticalphi-losophy,religion,andarchitecture,andhisworkhasbeentranslatedintoPor-tuguese,Croatian,Arabic,Hindi,andChinese.DavidWalsh,professorofpoliticsatTheCatholicUniversityinWashington,DC,istheauthorofanumberofworks,includingAfterIdeologyandTheGrowthoftheLiberalSoul.Heispresentlycompletingathirdvolumeonmoder-nity,TheLuminosityofExistence:AnOutlineofthePhilosophicRevolutionoftheModernWorld.EllisSandozwasthepersonwhowelcomedhimtotheUnitedStateswhenhearrivedfromIreland.GilbertWeissteachespoliticaltheoryandEuropeanUnionstudiesattheUni-versityofSalzburg.HeistheeditorofTheorie,RelevanzundWahrheit.EineRekonstruktiondesBriefwechselszwischenEricVoegelinundAlfredSchuetz(1938–1959),severalvolumesofTheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin(withWilliamPetropulos),and,withRuthWodak,wroteCriticalDiscourseAnalysis:TheoryandInterdisciplinarity.\n344ContributorsJamesL.Wiserhasbeentheprovostandvice-presidentofAcademicAffairsattheUniversityofSanFranciscosince1998.From1989to1998heservedastheseniorvice-presidentanddeanoffacultiesatLoyolaUniversityofChi-cago.HereceivedhisB.A.degreeingovernmentfromtheUniversityofNotreDameandhisM.A.andPh.D.inpoliticalsciencefromDukeUniversity.Wiserhaspublishedthreebooksandnumerousscholarlyarticlesinthefieldofpolit-icalphilosophy.\nIndexAdenauer,Konrad,236,255—TheAdvancementofLearning:apocalypticAkhenaton(AmenothepVI),64,68themesin,310;oncharityandpride,314;Alexander,325critiqueofPlatonicandAristotelianAlQaeda,294philosophyin,310;critiqueofScholasticAmericanpolity,224,225learningin,315;dedicationtoJamesI,AmorDei,85310;depictionofJamesI,312–13,319;onAnamnesis(remembrance/recollectionorfieldsofknowledge,315–16;FirstBookof,notforgetting),205;inBacon,312;in311–18;hierarchyofhumanknowledgein,FreudandHeidegger,59;inFreudand316;history,naturalandecclesiastical,320;Voegelin,60–63;personal(Palous),260–onhumannature,320;onknowledgeand67;Platonic,313;principleofinvestigationsin,315;Moses,317;onoriginalsin,314;(Freud),59primaphilosophia,316,320;SecondBookAnamneticmeditation,140of,318–21;Solomon,317;onSolomonAnoia,202andPaul,314;spiritualrenewal,321;trueAnschluss,269philosophy,316Apollinaire,Guillaume,71—GreatInstauration,303;apocalypticArendt,Hannah,212,262;OriginsofTotali-restorationofJerusalemin,304,310;tarianism,278;on“thepolitical,”216dedicationof,306–7;knowledgein,309;Aristophanes:Knights,32prefaceof,307–10;titlepageof,304–5;Aristotle,22,228,259,271;TheGenerationrestorationofhumanityin,309;workingofAnimals,124;homonoiaof,185;hyle-ofDivineProvidencein,309morphiccontextof,104;onphilomythos,Balthasar,HansvonUrs,326,327125;asphilomythoteros,125,169;onBaudelaire,Charles,247philosophos,125;topolitikon,211Being:eternalandunmovable,264;groundArthur,Wallace:TheOriginofAnimalBodyof,101,300;hierarchyof,104–5;human,Plans,114intension,232;mysteryof,21;objectifica-Augustine,79,89,117tionof,19;openingof,12;parousiaof,16;Augustus,249realmsof,135,186;truthof,7,12Auschwitz,278Berg,L.:NomogenesisorEvolutionDeterminedbyLaw,114Bacon,Francis:ageofChristin,312;apoca-Bergson,Henri,83,140,143,153lypticvisionofDaniel,322;fallofman,Bickerton,Derek,121314;“GreatInstauration”comparedwithBigBangtheory,105,112Voegelin’sanalysisofGnosticism,321–24;Bismarck,Ottovon,277“GreatInstauration,”303–21;immanen-Body,170–73passim,181,199,318;commontizationofapocalypticlearning,322;planof,113,114,115;andconsciousness,NovumOrganum,317;onknowledgeas172,174,183,184,185;andcontactwithrecollection,312,320world,174;andhunting,34,35,42,43;345\n346Indexmindand,201;newpartsfor,115;asConsciousness:biographyof,140,172;birthsensoriumofconsciousness,170,185;andof,184;bodyassensoriumof,170;soul,48,49;ofVirtue,46;well-trained,49concretehuman,220,221;ofembodiedBratinka,Pavel,262humanbeing,186;embodimentof,171;Breton,André:mentioned,72andexperienceofanother,171;historyof,Bruell,Christopher:onXenophon,2994;intentionalityof,149;luminosityof,Butler,Richard:TheMindofSantayana,137149;“modesof,”60,61;noetic,95;openformof,101;paradoxicalstructureof,152;Caesar,249particularistic,298;pluralistic,298;asCann,Rebecca,122processofhuman-divineencounter,82;Carter,Jimmy,250reflectivedistanceof,186;roleofbodyin,Cartesian:doubt,98;rationalism,92183;structureof,101,339;theoryofCentralEurope,265,266,267,268,274,human,93,101;transcendenceof,171278,283Cosmion:political,93,219,221,300;societyChaosmos,235,246,247as,193Chomsky,Noam,121Cosmos:primaryexperienceof,336;Chushingura,196dissociationof,338Christ,304,312,317,336;epiphanyof,338Coulter,Ann,298Christian,117,195,196;anthropologicalCreativity:actualizationof,bypoliticians,insights,79;categories,23;connotation239;generallawof,240;andgoverning,of“straysheep,”194;discovery,337;243;logicof,inpolitics,246–48,254;ethics,54;formsofexodus,337;“humil-paradoxof,242–44;political,235;processity,”172;parable,197;spirituality,24;of,235;asresultofgoverning,242teaching,75;tradition,87,224,268;Crick,Bernard,212virtues,323;visionofexistence,78;Crick,Francis,112,113visionofimagodei,79Czechoslovakia,260Christianity,10,14,67,68,79,87,298,302,322,328329,331,332;missionofsalva-Darwin,Charles,54,105,113,116tion,297Darwinian:evolutionaryparadigm,121;Cicero,96fundamentalists,115;theory,117Civilization(s):boundariesof,291;clashof,Darwinism,114,116285;Islamic,299;literatureon,291;psycho-Davidson,EricH.:GenomicRegulatoryspiritualtiesto,299;Western,288,298Systems,115Closure:ofexistence,15,16;spiritual,300.Dawkins,Richard,117;TheSelfishGene,109SeealsoOpennessDeChirico,Giorgio,71–72;“ExquisiteCommonnous,200,203;ascollectivesub-Corpses”(poem),73conscious,198;ofJapan,189,195,197;ofDeconstruction,21Meijisociety,198Delebecque,Eduard:onXenophon,30Commonsense,268,279,283,287;American,Democracies,Western,298266,267,269;Anglo-Saxon,269;compactDennett,Daniel:notionofevolutionaryrationalityof,99;pluralistic,280;realism,algorithms,108100;reasonand,97;ofScottishSchool,96;Derrida,Jacques,18–22,23,262;constric-andself-consciousinsight,99;traditionof,tionsoflanguage,18;différance,20;96;andVoegelin’srestoration,100;Voltaireexistentialturnof,20;andHeidegger,21;on,96influenceofonpostmodernthought,19;Communism:collapseof,265,283,284;onlanguage,18–19;languageofreligion,Soviet,27920;longingforapresence,19;religionComte,Auguste,55,69,73,92withoutGod,20;shiftfromintentionalityConflict(s):coreofcivilizational,292;cross-toluminosity,20civilizational,285,286Descartes,René,96,98Conrad,Joseph,168Dewey,John,269\nIndex347Dignity,77,89.SeealsoHumandignityobedience,77;ofbeing,75;rational,75,76;Disorder(s):ofmodernworld,222;political,andrationality,77;spiritand,221;sub-286;resistanceto,94;spiritual,286,299stantiated,83;unalienablerightsand,283Friendship(s),181;artof,249;asthehighestEaston,David:Weberianismof,211good,250;inMitterrand’slife,249;asEgophany,200,204objectofhunt,33;politicsof,249;andEisenhower,DwightD.,236,251,253power,250Eisenstadt,Samuel,220Freud,Sigmund:DieTraumdeutung(TheEldredge,Niles,114InterpretationofDreams),54,58;elements11/9,267ofFreudianapproach,55;FutureofanEllis,George,112Illusion,69;andguilt,66;andHelmholtzEnactment/reenactment,153,167school,58;historyofindividual/historyEnlightenment,322,324;claimaboutreli-ofmankind,55,56–57;“Jenseitsdesgion,225;“humanism,”92;tradition,96Lustprizips,”70;MosesandMonotheism,EricVoegelinSociety,259,26563–69;and“Nirvanaprinciple”(deathExistence:authenticspiritual,299;closureurge),70;Oedipuscomplex,67;andtoward,15,16;“deficientmodesof,”81;religion,55;Sinnverstehen(interpretation)deformationofclosed,86;dignityofasmethodofpsychoanalysis,57–58;human,78;experientialgroundof,222;surrealismasFreudianrealmofdead,71;“fluxof,”88;luminosityof,11,16;modesandthanatocracy,69–73;TotemundTabu,of,90;asmystery,22,292;“naturalworld56;tragichumanismof,66,69–70ofhuman,”261;opennessof,84;primacyFunctionalism,292of,26;questionsof,116;“inrevolt,”300;Fukuyama,Francis,287“intension,”300;transcendentgroundof,83;intruth,299;truthof,atstake,294;inGargett,Robert:“GraveShortcomings,”untruth,299118–19Experience(s):biographical,170;“border,”Gay,Peter,65147;commonsense,140;concrete,lived,Geist(ofHegel),336140,187,224;enacted,151;expressedinGeistkreis,268poetry,139;ofhelkein,69;ofkinein,69;Genbunitchi,191ofluminosity,142;modesof,220;origi-Gerber,C.F.von,277nating,148,149;ofothers,296;participa-Gierke,OttoFriedrichvon,277tory,149;pre-analyticallevelof,282;Glucksmann,André,262religious,69,299;spiritaspartofhuman,Gnosticism,299;featureofmodernity,224,137;spiritual,292;transcendent,220,137225;Puritan,elementsof,302–3;Puritan,andBacon’sGreatInstauration,310,Faith,5,11,223;articlesof,320;existential,322–2484;fidescaritateformata(faithformedbyGoethe,JohannWolfgangvon,29,209love),87;leapof,9;statusof,20;vicissitudesGomperz,Theodor:onXenophon,29of,84;andtrust,27;anduncertainty,84Good,94,98,204;common,283;thehighest,Fanaticism:religiouslycharged,294;320;human,273,297;loveofthe,179,wellspringsof,300185;aperfect,138;transcendent,84,95Fink,Eugen,262Gorbac˘ev,Michail,263Finkelkraut,Alain,262Gould,StephenJ.,113;on“exaption”or“co-Fortescue,212option,”108;RockofAges,117;TheFreedom,18,228,241,279,284;StructureofEvolutionaryTheory,114;consciousnessof,209;dominionof,242;WonderfulLife,115exerciseof,84;“God,immortality,or,”6;Governing:classicalstructuresof,237;andhuman,5,25;andhumandignity,268;creationofpower,251;andfriendship,increasingdegreeof,109;“justice,and249;“iscreativity,”235;andparadoxofpeace,”74;longingfortotal,185;andpower,240–42;stylesandpracticesof,236\n348IndexGovernment,235;civil,212;good,243Hume,David:TreatiseonHumanNatureGreatWar,1914–1918,277,279(1739),96Groves,ColinP.:ATheoryofHumanandHunting:ancientcriticsof,45;artof,32;ofPrimateEvolution,114biggame,32;ofbirds,33;comparedtoartGuthrie,W.K.C.:AHistoryofGreekofthegeneral,34;indaylight,ofwaterPhilosophy,28animals,32;ofhares,32;andhounds,34;ofhumanbeings,33;aniconofphilos-Habermas,Jürgen,262ophy,35;inducedpiety,35;languageof,Haiku,19233;loveof,andgymnastics,35;atnight,Havel,Václav:“StoriesandTotalitarian-33;offour-footedbeasts,33;onthesea,ism,”26333;andphilosophy,33;posthumous(ofHawking,Stephen,andGeorgeEllis:TheOrion),32;andsophism,47–49;inLargeScaleStructureofSpace-Time,112Xenophon,35–51.SeealsoPaideiaHegel,GeorgWilhelmFriedriech,25,55,Huntington,SamuelP.,TheClashofCivili-209;Bewusstseingeschichteof,330;HistoryzationsandtheRemakingofWorldOrder,ofPhilosophy,210;andSchelling,7–8;285–301;civilizationsin,291;“TheClashVorlesungenüberdieGeschichtederofCivilizations?”286;criticismofmulti-Philosophie,265culturalism,288;criticismofWesternHeidegger,Martin,12–18,25,262;Beinguniversalism,297;functionalismin,293;andTime,12;Daseinsanalyseof,59;andgeneralassessmentof,301;immanentismmodernphilosophicrevolution,15;of,293;andmonocivilizationalviewpoints,mysteryofBeing,21;onNietzsche,11;295,296;philosophicalanthropologyof,andpoliticalmisjudgments,14;post-287;rejectionof“culturalneutrality,”287,modernthinkersundershadowof,16;288,289;onroleofreligionincivilizations,Seingeschichteof,326287,290,292,293;shortcomingsof,291–99Held,David:PoliticalTheoryToday,216Husserl,Edmund,58,150;Lebensweltof,261;Henningsen,Manfred,102phenomenologyof,268Heracles,274Heraclitus,283Identity,82,84,86,276,295,300,301;atHermesTrismegistus,313anylevel,287;futureidentityofEurope,Herodotus,339;Histories,211265;andgroupcohesiveness,294;oflegalHiggins,W.E.:XenophontheAthenian,30order,281;personal,298;searchfor,Historiogenesis,197,204;Japanese,194;198,267;selfasmoral,154,161;ofsub-mytho-speculativetype,329;mythicalstance(psyche),81–82;sourcesof,292;partof,336Western,296Hitler,Adolf,87Ideologist(s),292Hobbes,Thomas,132,248,249IkebeYoshitaka,191Homer,32Imagination,170,171,205,220;“assertive,”Hoover,HerbertC.,241151;creative(ofVoegelin),328;“flightof,”Humanbeings:ascreative,235;deformed137;liftconsciousnessthrough,188;logicimagesof,86;asequalindignity,74;andof,187;“andmemory,”182;modern,15;government,248“passionate,”143;ofthephilosopher,186;Humandignity:andChristianteaching,75;“powerof,”186;spatio-temporal,20;asexerciseofrationalfreedom,76;andworld-building,219Greekphilosophy,75;asimagoDei,75;asImagoDei,78;asparticipationintranscen-spiritualequality,76;astheomorphic,78dent,75;Christianvisionof,79Humannature:classicalteachingon,297;InoueKowashi,190,191deformationof,63;demonizingof,byIntentionality:andluminosity,13,149,186;Freud,63;fulfillmentof,78;imaginativeandthing-Reality,149capacityof,150;noetic-pneumaticopen-InternationalCourtofJustice,278nessof,62Islamicfundamentalists,94\nIndex349ItoHirobumi:CommentariesontheConsti-Kierkegaard,Søren,8,23–26,54,90;andthetutionoftheEmpireofJapan,190absurd,23;andChristianity,10;andcontin-IwakuraMissiontotheWest,190gency,24;asfirstpostmodernthinker,10;Ivanov,V.I.,andM.O.Gershenzon:andirony,24;andlanguage,10,23,24;CorrespondenceacrossaRoom,82participationandexistence,23,25;andphilosophyofexistence,9;postmodernJaeger,Werner:onXenophon,29debatearound,10;timeandeternity,23JamesI(England):comparedwithSolomon,Knowledge,60–62,270,272,304–24passim;307,311;contrastedwithQueenElizabeth,absolute,7,19,25,26;correspondence319;EpistleDedicatory(GreatInstauration)theoriesof,6;derivationof,fromBeing,to,306;linkedwithProvidence,313;14;divine,271;“theendofmanis,”157,opportunityprofferedbyBaconto,318160;asenactment,153,168;existenceJames,William,269,271–73;“TheOneandpriorto,16;existential,8;freedomand,theMany,”270;pragmatismof,266;86;ofgoodandevil,184;historical,87;Pragmatism,269;onSantayana’sLifeofhuman,272;asimpositionofcategories,6;Reason,130instaurationof,304;keyto,58;limited,JanHusFoundation,262167;meditative,ofparticipation,4;“menJapan:mythictraditionsof,194reachoutfor,”124;ofnoumenon,5;ofJaspers,Karl,262,278,326;“axistime”of,paideiaofhunting,45;participatory339;“DieForderungderWissenschaftlich-requirementof,23;philosophical,125;keit,”58political,99;powerand,339;prereflective,Jellinek,Georg,2778;andpride,308;problemof,269;asJoachimofFlora,322questioning,124;ofreality,148;searchfor,Johnson,LyndonB.,236,25319;andsensibleintuitions,5;rehabilita-Jones,Ernest:mentioned,65tionof,304;of“religiousexperiences,”219;Joyce,James,235scientific,105;andsin,308;theoryof,270;Judaeo-Christian:revelation,100;civiliza-andwill,86;willfor,59tion,278Kohl,Helmut,236Judaism,14,68;father-religionof,67;Freud’sKokutai,191relationwith,65Kolakowski,L.,73Jurisprudence:Americanpoliticsand,280;König,Marie,102,334course(ofVoegelin),282;realmof,274Justus,James:TheAchievementofRobertLaband,Paul,277PennWarren,166Labarrière,Pierre-Jean,262Ladurie,EmmanuelLeRoy,262Kádár,János,174Language,263,264.SeealsoDerrida,Jacques;“Kampademia,”261,265Kierkegaard,Søren;Santayana,GeorgeKant,Immanuel,25;“CopernicanRevo-Law:American,225;ofcreativityinpolitics,lution”of,270;TheCritiqueofJudgment,240;educativefunctionof,233;natural,6;critiqueofpurereason,6;anddis-276;natureof,227,267;pre-analyticalclosureofbeing,5;onhumandignity,75;experientialbasisof,282;roleofindivid-onmoralautonomy,75;“perpetualpeace”ualsin,227;ruleof,224,225,232,283;andof,279;andprimacyofexistence,5;andself-regulation,227;ofstructuralsimi-rationalexerciseoffreedom,84;superi-larity,239;temporalityof,226,282orityofpracticalreason,5Leadership:political,234;studyof,238KarataniKojin,191Lenin,73;mausoleum,72Kelsen,Hans,267,276;AllgemeineStaats-Lévinas,Emmanuel,23,262;ethicsandlehre,275;“puretheoryoflaw,”274,275,ontology,17;existenceasdisclosureof277;viewoflaw,281philosophy,17;onHeidegger,16;andKennan,George,279luminosity,18;andtheother,17;truthKennedy,JohnF.,253ofethicsin,18\n350IndexLevy,David,262Materialism:ofEpicurusandLucretius,130;Lewis,C.S.:AnExperimentinCriticism,153;ofHobbes,132;andliberalism,131;ofTheSilverChair,146–47Marx,130,132;asnaturalism,129;ofLiberty,49,87,255;individual,228;inten-Santayana,130–35sionwithdestiny,168;andorganization,McMullin,Ernan,118240;asobjectofconstitutionalgovern-Meiji:era,189;“spirit”of,190ment,241;andstability,247Mellars,Paul:TheNeanderthalLegacy,119,Lieberman,Philip:EveSpoke,120–21120,121Life:animal,104,113,115;biological,104;Metalepsis,95botanical,104;ofChristianexistence,78;Metaxy(in-between),103,168;assymbolinandcommunity,171;contemplative,135;Voegelin,82–83;Cosmic,102;ofdailyoughtsof,230;anddeath,73,147,153,consciousness,83222;offidelity,10;finitenessofhuman,Miller,Stanley,112220;good,107;human,25,104,132;in-Miller,Walter:onXenophon’sKyropaideia,31betweenofhuman,222;luminosityof,21;MirrorofthePrince:traditionof,237meaningof,70;minimumconditionfor,MirrorforPrinces(Nizamulmuk),239133;modernpolitical,224;moral,5,17;Mitterrand,François:onambiguityandmysteriousfullnessof,11;originof,113;ambivalence,247;andartoffriendship,Nietzscheexalts,11;originatingexperience,249,254;andartofgoverning,237–40;as150;philosophical,51;philosophyaswayclassicalPrince,234–57passim;comparedof,4,141;plant,109;political,51,213,withRoosevelt,255–56;andcreationof247;possiblepurposeof,231;psychic,58,chaos,256–57;creativityof,243,254;and63,113;ofreason,78,83,99;religious,theElysée,253;governing,245,246,255;142;sanctityofhuman,87;of“soulinonparadoxofpower,242;asprinceofopennesstowardGod,”85;spheresof,215;chaosmos,246;secondgovernmentof,252ofspirit,78,142;ofvirtue,22Modernity,232;andtechnology,3;Gnosti-Livy,339cismasfeatureof,224;ironyof,87;Locke,John,96,138;andcivility,228;SecondWestern,andprogress,87Treatise,228Monism,270Logos,60,153;divine,88Monod,Jacques:ChanceandNecessity,Lonergan,Bernard:“emergentprobability”112–13of,105–13;comparedwithVoegelin,102–MoriArinori,19512,122–23;criticismofDarwin,105;andMulticulturalism,288,298notionofexplanatorygenus,106;“schemeMystery:ofengenderingreality,104;ofepiph-ofrecurrence”in,105;philosophyofanyofstructures,118,122;ofhistoricalscience,103;onreductionistfallacy,106–7process,104;oftranscendence,85Love:ofdivineReason,84Myth:asarticulationofexistence,151;Luminosity,99;andIt-Reality,141,149;Egyptian,152;andphilosophy,151;Plato’sexperiencesof,142;oflife,21“likelystories,”169Lyotard,Jean-François,262Nádas,Péter,ABookofMemories,170–87;Machiavelli,246comparedwithVoegelin,185–87Madison,James,247Nagel,Thomas:TheLastWord,116Malraux,André,246Napoleon,Emperor,209Mann,Thomas,90NationalReview,298MaoZedong,87NationalSocialism,269Marburgschool,275NatsumeSoseki,188–206passim;MeianMarcel,Gabriel,86(LightandDarkness),193;MichikusaMarx,Karl,54,55,69,73;andYoung(GrassbytheWayside),193;Mon(Gate),Hegelians,9;revolutionaryideaof,302189,190,201–3;Sanshiro,189,193–97;Marxistphilosophy,9Sorekara(AndThen),189,198–201\nIndex351NaziGermany,74101;perspectiveof,16;inreality,148,154;Neanderthals,108,118andresponsivecommunion,83;terminiNeubauer,Zdenek,262of,183;inthing-realityandIt-reality,186;Neumann,Harry:onXenophon,29ofthingsinoneanother,183;andtran-NewWorldOrder,266scendentground,75,101;intranscendentNichiren:teachingsof,201reality,292Nietzsche,54,55,69;andexistentialtruth,Patocˇka,Jan,261,263,264,265,283;“The11;TheUseandAbuseofHistory,158;BeginningofHistory,”262Zarathustra,11Percy,Walker:LostintheCosmos,1219/11,267,285,286,294,299,300Perestrojka,263Nixon,RichardM.,253Perry,MatthewC.,189Noesis,269;ofPlatoandAristotle,325;asPetropoulos,William,79process,271Philia,Platonic,185Nous:transcendentdivine,76,78Philiapolitike,179Philosophicalanthropology,112;andOakeshott,Michael,144,212Voegelin,103,123OeKenzaburo,188Philosophicalschools,258;Platonic,Stoic,Openness:towardBeing,14;challengeofSkeptic,326loving,85;existential,andclosure,88;toPhilosophy:inclassicalsense,259;asexperience,144,151;togreatOught,232;differentiatedarticulationofexistence,intellectualandspiritual,135;tolarger151;asexperienceandparticipation,139–truth,231;logicof,11;inLonergan’s43;experientialspringsof,139;and“emergentprobability,”106;loving,tohunting,42–45;andinstrumentality,3;anddivinemystery,84;asmodeofhumanparadox,22;asparticipation4;philoso-existence,22;ofmythopoeticenterprise,phizingabout5;ofPlatoandAristotle,153;noetic-pneumatic,62;asstruggle,89;308;andpoetry,151,169;postmodern,11;totranscendentgroundofbeing,83;returnof,5;asstrugglefortrueunder-virtuesof,83,89standing,81;aswayoflife,141Order(s):ofBeing/being,94,100,221;Philotheros(loverofthehunt),35concretenessof,230;configurationsof,Pinker,Steven,121anddisorder,285;ofexistence,220;forcesPittau,Joseph,190of,anddisorder,274;groundedintran-Plato,21,89,169,176,246,259,264,312;scendentexperience,220;humanityand,Apology,273;Euthydemus,34;Gorgias,221;ideaof,224;largersocial/political,230;169;Laws,33,35;Nousorreasonof,94;multicivilizational,298;politicalquestfor,Phaedrus,169;Republic,34–35;Sophist,222;right,220;totalitarian,231;tran-32;Symposium,163;topolitikon,211scendentsourceof,264;truthof,221,231Platonicanthropologicalprinciple,176Plotinus,60Paideia,31,37,46;andhunting,32–35,40–Pluralism,270;cosmological,338;noetic,42,43,45,50;andwar,42271;social,297Parmenides,263Plutarch,238Parsons,Talcott,211Pneumopathological:fear,116;vacuum,73;Participation,4,26,85,141;active,incriterioninVoegelin,62,63experience,153;active,inorderofbeing,Podhoretz,Norman,262141;being,7;ofbeingsinBeing,13;inPoiema,153deliberation(onlawfulness),229;denialPolitics:global,285,298;ideological,101;asof,indivine,78;inthedivine,75,76,77,destiny,209,210;monarchicalversion,82,143;indivinefreedomandknowledge,213;paradoxof,andthePrince,244–46;85;intheeternal,24;inexistence,25;inandpowerinElyséePalace,244;realityof,God,78;giftof,84;“ingreatdialogue,”82;244;republicanversion,213intheground,125;asobjectofinquiry,Politikeepisteme,92–96passim;100\n352IndexPolitische,das,213SaintAugustine.SeeAugustinePolybius,339SaintPaul,67,68;andSolomon,314Pragmatism,271;asnoeticstance,272;asSaint-Simon,Henride,92genuineAmericanphilosophy,273;ofSaintThomasAquinas,117,139,226JohnDewey,269;ofWilliamJames,Sandoz,Ellis:TheVoegelinianRevolution,266,269130,143,262Presence,18,19,21,153,226,281;incon-Samsom,George:“SomeProblemsinthesciousness,60,62,78,80;divine,76,77,StudyofJapaneseHistory,”19779,82,83,85,86,95,338;ofdivineNousSantayana,George,269;aestheticdimensionsinorderingexistence,78;ofdivinereality,of,136;criticismsofliberalism,131;and104;fluxof,103,293,334;ofknowledge,critics,135–39;DominationsandPowers,60;languageof,20;metaphysicsof,14,16,129,131,134;InterpretationsofPoetryand18;modeof,20,25,148Religion,137;andlanguageofpoetry,138;Produktionsverhältnisse(ofMarx),336manofcommonsense,143;materialismPyrrho,325of,130–35passim,143;matter,spirit,andessencein,132–35;mergingofphilosophyRaff,Rudolf:TheShapeofLife,115andpoetry,139;mysticalskepticismof,Rákosi,Mátyas,174135,144;philosophybeginsinmediasres,Reality:ofabsolutereason,54;Austrian,277;139;andPlato,133;aspoet-philosopher,deformationof,150;ofexperience,125;of135–37,138;andpoeticexpression,142;humanityasimagoDei,77;mysteryof,84,SoliloquiesinEngland,136;anduseof125;ofnaturalworld,54;participationinlanguage,137;Voegelin’sviewof,130;transcendent,292;participatorycharacterwithintraditionofmaterialism,131of,141,148,154;personalencounterwith,Schabert,Tilo,102296;philosophy,poetry,andmysticismSchneider,Herbert,136,137rootedin,130;ofpolisandchaos,244;Scheler,Max,79political,92,221,248;primordialexperi-Schelling,FriedrichWilhelmJosephvon,enceof,148;tensionalandparadoxical,116,333;andexistentialturn,7;and149,152;transcendsindividuality,141;philosophy,8transcendspolitics,231;truthof,148,231Schmitt,Carl,210,213,222;TheConceptofRechtsatz,276thePolitical,214–16;influenceof,215Reid,Thomas:oncommonsense,96–99Schopenhauer,Arthur,54,69passim;EssaysontheActivePowersoftheSchütz,Alfred,268HumanMind(1788),97;EssaysontheSchwartz,Geoffrey,122,124IntellectualPowerofMan(1785),97;andScruton,Roger,262goodness,97;AnInquiryintotheHumanSein(Being,Existence),275,277,336Mind(1764),96;andtruth,97Self:and“otherselfs,”170;and“significantReik,Theodor,57unity,”154;creationof,154Richie,Donald:ALateralView,197SextusEmpiricus,325Ricoeur,Paul,262Shaseibun,191–93Rights:human,74–90passim;natural,273Shinto:shrines,199;mythandshiningRimer,Thomas:ModernJapaneseFictionandprincessarchetype,200;mythologyandItsTraditions,191mirrorimagery,198–99RomanEmpire,325Simmel,Georg,275Roosevelt,FranklinD.,236,241,251;andSisyphus,274artofgoverning,237;comparedwithSmith,JohnE.:ThemesinAmericanMitterrand,255;andtheWhiteHouse,Philosophy,136253Socrates,264,271,284Rorty,Richard,262Socraticquestion,273Ruse,Michael,102;CanaDarwinianBeaSollen(ought,Essence),275,277Christian?117SovietUnion,279,289,330\nIndex353Spinoza,Baruch,13484,95;groundofbeing,101;groundofSse-maCh’ien,339existence,83;groundofmeaning,84;Stalin,Joseph,87KingdomofGod,302;mysteryof,90;State,the,176,180,211,213,214,215,217,pointofreference,222;reality,79,292;248,251,252,268,276,306reason,84;sourceofbeing,94;sourceofStatecraft,234order,264;standardsofright,229;the,13,Strauss,Leo,262;onXenophon,29,3021,95,147;valueofdivinenature,76Stringer,Chris,andRobinMcKie:AfricanTrotsky,Leon,80Exodus,122Truman,HarryS.,236,251SumerianKingLists,330Truth:“cosmologicalstyleof,”337;formative,SurrealisticPapillons(co-productionaroundanddeformativeuntruth,150;ofhumanBreton),72–73existence,80;reflectivequestfor,125;Suzuki,DaisetzT.:ZenandJapaneseCulture,“social,”233;to“livein,”264;and199,200untruth,150Symbol(s):creationof,149;empty,150;Tugendhat,Ernst,262equivalent,148;andideas,146;language,149,150;philosophical,152;poetic,151UnitedNations,278,279Symbolism(s):compact,ofpoetry,152;UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights,74;mythopoetic,151;tensional,147eraof,87Symbolization:issueof,118;mythic,152;Universalism,288,297mythopoeticand“ideologicalUrey,Harold,112deformation,”151;paradoxical,152Syme,Roland:TheRomanRevolution,249Valéry,Paul,240VelvetRevolutionof1989,260,265Tattersall,Ian,andGeoffreySchwartz:ExtinctVernant,Jean-Pierre,262Humans,122,124Vico,Giambattista,235Taubes,Jacob,65Voegelin,Eric,90,96,264,265,269,273,281,Taylor,Charles,262282,283,300;anabasisof,266;onAris-Tension(s):in“borderexperiences,”147;totle’sMetaphysics,124–25;biographyof,creative,of“philosophicalnovelist,”168;of267;andboundaryquestion,122;andexistence,88,220,233;“existencein,”300;commitmenttohumandignity,77;con-existential,symbolsof,118;Gnosticlong-ceptofpoliticalreality,222;correspon-ingtoend,224;inpoliticalreality,221;dencewithEast,334;correspondencelogosofexistential,220;ofquestioning,85withEllegood,328–29,330–31,331–32;Terrorism/terrorists:9/11,294,295;correspondencewithHenningsen,332;religiouslyinspired,292correspondencewithWentworth,332–33;Thaumazein(wondering),124critiqueofideologyof,299;ondehumani-Thaumazo(Iwonder),47zation,80;Herculean“searchfororder”of,ThomasAquinas.SeeSaintThomasAquinas266;hermeneuticalscienceofpolitics,218;Thucydides,339andimagoDei,78–82;influenceofTophantastikon,60AugustineandSchellingon,79;IngersollTotalitarianism,225,265,266,279Lectureof,332;intellectualhistoryof,335;Toynbee,Arnold,326;StudyofHistory,331;interestinPaleolithicandNeolithicAges,Voegelin’sassessmentof,331334;legacyof,260,266;lettertoHeilmanTragichumanism,69–70quoted,81–82;lifeexperienceof,274;andTranscendence:asdecisiveproblemofmeditativerecognitionofparticipation,philosophy,79;sensitivityto,14481;onmystery,115;andphilosophicalTranscendent:Beyond,300;divinenature,anthropology,218;philosophicallegacyof,75;divineNous,76;divinepresence,77;259;philosophicalsearchfororder,286;experience,137;experiencesoforder,220;onpragmaticexpansionandspiritualfoundationofhumandignity,88;good,exodus,334;andSantayana’spoetry,135;\n354IndexandSchmitt,216–17;scienceofpolitics,216;Science,Politics,andGnosticism,93;217;onsymbolization,147;theoryof“WhatIsPoliticalReality?”87,96,183;consciousness,77,171–73,183,185–86;“World-EmpireandtheUnityoftheoryofrepresentation,215;WissenschaftMankind,”329of,328Voegelinians,266;globalnetworkof,259,—Writings:“Anamnesis,”171;Anamnesis,260;PlatonicAcademiaof,259,26160,103,110–11,140,327,332,335;“AnxietyandReason,”220,337;Auto-Waldberg,Patrick,71biographicalReflections,129,146,149–50,Warren,RobertPenn:AlltheKing’sMen,218,262–63,280;“TheBeginningandthe154–61;DemocracyandPoetry,154;“TheBeyond,”337;“TheBeginningoftheGreatMirage,”168;“TheUseofthePast,”Beginning,”150;CandlerLectures,333,167;“WhyDoWeReadFiction?”153;334;CollectedWorks,259;“ConfigurationsWorldEnoughandTime,161–66ofHistory,”336;“ConversationswithEricWatson,James,112Voegelin,”107;“Diskussionsbeitrag,”221;Weber,Max,58,211;statismof,214TheDramaofHumanity,333;TheEcu-White,MayorKevin(Boston),236menicAge,104,217,286,293,325–40;Whitehead,AlfredNorth,269EmpireandChristianity,328,330;“Equiva-Whitney,Charles:cited,304lencesofExperienceandSymbolizationinWindelband,Wilhelm,275History,”123,147,168,169,336;“TheWitte,John,Jr.:“BetweenSanctityandGospelandCulture,”336,337;HitlerandDepravity,”89theGermans,116;“HitlerandtheGermans,”Wittgenstein,Ludvig,335332;“Historiogenesis,”329;HistoryofWood,Neal:onXenophon,30PoliticalIdeas,149,333;InSearchofOrder,186,332–33;IsraelandRevelation,326,336;Xenophon:Anabasis,31,36,39;andhunting,“TheMovingSoul,”111–12;TheNatureof35–49;ConstitutionofLacedemonians,31;Law,223–33,280–82;TheNewScienceofHipparchikos,36;Kynegetikos,31–53Politics,91–101passim,193,217,262,300,passim;Kyropaideia,31,36;KyrouAnabasis,302–3,321–24;OntheFormoftheAmer-31;lifeof,31,39,50;Memorabilia,31,44;icanMind,129,145;“OnHenryJames’smodernwriterson,28–31;Oikonomikos,TurnoftheScrew,”88;“OntheTheoryof36;PeriHippikes,36;reasonsforlowConsciousness,”172;OrderandHistory,estimationsof,29;Tyrannikos,36217,262,263,336;“TheOriginsofTotalitarianism,”266,278;“ThePeopleofYerushalmi,Y.H.:Freud’sMoses,65–66God,”219;PlatoandAristotle,325–26,326;YoshidaShoin,190“ThePhylogeneticField,”102,118;“ThePureTheoryofLawandofState,”275,ZenBuddhism,199–201276,277;PoliticalReligions,219;PublishedZweig,Arnold:cited,69Essays,327;Regierungslehre(fragmentary)Zweig,Stefan,267