Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
A JOURNAL
2002
loF
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Volume 29 Number 3
Spring
241
Quentin P. Taylor
Public Deliberation
and
Popular
Susan D. Collins
The Problem
of
Law in
265
281
Bagby Understanding
v.
"Dogmatici":
Through Hobbes
Book Reviews
299
311
Kalev Pehme
Mark Lewis
and
Harrison Sheppard
Civilians: Storm
over
the
Harry
V. Jaffa
Response to Lewis
and
Sheppard
Interpretation
Editor-in-Chief
Executive Editor General Editors Hilail Gildin, Dept. Leonard
of
Grey
Seth G. Benardete (d. 2001) Charles E. Butterworth Hilail Gildin Robert Horwitz (d. 1987)
Howard B. White (d. 1974) Christopher Bruell John Hallowell (d. David Lowenthal (d. Joseph
Consulting
Editors
1992)
Cropsey Hairy V.
Muhsin Mahdi
Harvey C.
Mansfield
1987)
Michael Oakeshott
1990)
Ellis Sandoz
1973)
Kenneth W. Thompson
Maurice Auerbach
Amy
Bonnette
Patrick
Coby
-
Morrisey
Martin D. Yaffe
Susan Orr
Charles T. Rubin
Leslie G. Rubin
Bradford P. Wilson
Catherine H. Zuckert
(3 issues):
institutions $48
(four-year
limit) $18
Single
Postage
or
elsewhere
$5.40
or
longer)
$1 1
by surface by air.
(8
weeks
and payable
within
by
the U.S.A.
Theology, Literature,
and
as
Well
as
Those
contributors
or manuals
should
based
on them.
system
follow The Chicago Manual of Style, 13th or later Instead of endnotes, the journal uses the
of
editions
"reference-list"
(or
the
"author-date")
described in these manuals, illustrated in cur discussed in a sheet available from the Assistant to Editor (see below). Words from languages not rooted in Latin should be trans
notation,
journal,
and
literated to English. To
of
ensure
impartial judgment,
code
their other publications and put, on the title page only, their name,
address
with
any
affiliation
desired,
Please
entire
postal
send
four
clear
and
telephone number.
double space the
and
Composed
and printed
by
Inquiries:
Editor
E Mail:
interpretation
Interpretation
A JOURNAL
XOF
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Number 3
Sprhifi 2002
Volume 29
Quentin P. Taylor
Public Deliberation
and
Popular
241
of
Jules Gleicher
265
281
Laurie M. Johnson
v.
"Dogmatici":
Bagby
Understanding
Hobbes
the
Book Reviews
Kalev Pehme
299 311
Mark Lewis
and
Harrison Sheppard
Harry
Harry
V. Jaffa
Response to Lewis
and
Copyright
No
2002
the
by
rights reserved.
part of
contents
may be
reproduced
in any form
the publisher.
ISSN 0020-9635
Interpretation
Editor-in-Chief
of
Leonard
Grey
Charles E. Butterworth Seth G. Benardete (d. 2001) Hilail Gildin Robert Horwitz (d. 1987)
Consulting
Editors
Christopher Bruell
Joseph
Cropsey
Ernest L. Fortin
John Hallowell (d. 1992) Harry V. Jaffa Muhsin Mahdi David Lowenthal Harvey C. Mansfield Michael Oakeshott Arnaldo Momigliano (d. 1987)
(d.
1990)
Ellis Sandoz
Maurice Auerbach
Amy
Bonnette
Patrick
Coby
Thomas S. Engeman
Will
Morrisey
Martin D. Yaffe
Charles T. Rubin
Leslie G. Rubin
Bradford P. Wilson
Catherine H. Zuckert
Subscriptions
(3 issues):
institutions $48
(four-year
limit) $18
Single
Postage
elsewhere or
U.S.: Canada $4.50 extra; $5.40 extra by surface mail (8 longer) or $1 1.00 by air.
and payable
within
weeks
by
the
U.S.A.
in
Political Philosophy
as
Well
as
Those
Theology, Literature,
and
Jurisprudence.
contributors
or manuals
should
based
on them.
(or
"author-date")
follow The Chicago Manual of Style, 13th or later editions Instead of endnotes, the journal uses the system of notation, described in these manuals, illustrated in cur
"reference-list"
rent numbers of
the
journal,
and
discussed in
to
literated to English. To
ensure
in Latin
be
trans
contributors
should omit
mention
any
affiliation number.
desired,
Please
address
with
postal
zip
in
full, E-mail
not
address,
and
telephone
double
send
four
clear
copies,
which
will
be returned,
and
space
the
list.
Composed
and printed
by
Inquiries:
to the
Editor
E Mail:
interpretation
called to the
following
changes
in format:
adopted
the
"reference-list,"
"author-date,"
or
system of nota
endnotes.
This
system
is
now
in
by
cited or
mentioned, headed
"References,"
with
full
publi
information,
is
in the
manner of a
bibliography. Quotations
last name,
are
followed
by
the author's
Thus, list:
Kojeve, Alexandre. Introduction to the Reading of Hegel. Translated by J. H. Nichols, Jr. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1969. Text: (Kojeve, 1969, p. 27)
Citations to
year are
more
than
one work of
distinguished
by
"b,"
Thus, "(Kojeve, 1969b, "Kojeve, Alexandre. Introduction to the Reading Nichols, Jr. New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
p.
27)"
1969b."
Discursive
would
matter
formerly
be
placed
in
notes
is to become 'part
of
Discursive
notes
matter that
placed
is to be
all
formerly
would
be
placed
in
authors, works,
by
.
.
list is
also unnecessary. or
Evil, Nietzsche
Thus, "In sec. [or aph.] 188 of Beyond "(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 11 34b
encourage
It is
not the
journal's intention to
Only
formerly
in
notes will
Additional discussion
ments may be found in The Chicago Manual of Style, 13th ed., sec. 15.4, pp. 400 ff.; 14th ed., sec. 16.1, pp. 640 ff., and in K. L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, 4th ed., sec. 12.6, pp. 181
ff.; 5th
FOUR
ed.,
sec.
8.3,
pp.
112 ff.
that all manuscripts submitted use this system, that
that text and reference
The journal
copies
requests
be sent,
and
Public Deliberation
and
Popular Government in
Aristotle's Politics
Quentin P. Taylor
Rogers State
University
Aristotle is
not
appreciation
of
contrary, it is generally held that the Greek philosopher was a confirmed elitist,
and
insofar
as
he
all, it
are
was
but to
express
his low
opinion
attaining true knowledge, genuine virtue, main political implication of this view is aristocracy
"illiberal"
"many"
reflected
"bias,"
for
or
"the
rule of the
best."
This
conjunction with
his
other
Aristotle's
political
(Have-
thought as
"reactionary,"
"authoritarian"
and
lock,
pp.
chapters
on
Aristotle's Ethics
and
Politics
Greek
much
political thought.
Aristotle in
and
Popper
tarian"
read
Society
"authori
proponent of the
"closed
society"
(Popper,
appears
12). A
more
recent, if less
where
polemical,
critique
of
Aristotle
in Ellen
and
Neal Wood,
and
the
conservatis
"anti-democratic
a more
balanced
view see
Thomas
Lindsay
(1992b).
While there is
indeed,
distorted
view of
Aristotle's
was
teaching. In
far
more
fact, fair reading of the Politics progressive than his critics suggest. See Fred
a
tradition"
Miller, Jr.,
and
who
identifies Aristotle
as
"an
"a forerunner
of modern theorists of
(1996,
pp.
meticulous analysis
a year after
has had
a remarkable
impact
on
its
publication
elitist,
and
elitism and
liberality
may,
Jacob Burkhardt
are
notable examples
contemporaries
have in
even
to
defend
totle,
elitism
is generally tempered
with
liberality, dogmatism
with
dialectic.
interpretation,
Spring 2002,
242
Interpretation
notorious
Even his
defense
"natural"
of
feature slavery
of
so qualified that
it
can
be
as
existed
and
Ambler).
the
case
such considerations
in mind, it
remains
that Aristotle's
political
thought should not be confused with contemporary democratic liberalism. He would women, laborers, mechanics, and those engaged in commerce full
deny
citizenship
"ideal"
and
participation
state, but
in the
"better"
forms
of
in
public
life,
in
individuals,
the Politics
women,
stipulation crucial
to
of citizenship.
On the
other
hand,
is
that,
when viewed as a
more positive
attitude
political capacities of
the average
citizen.
"good"
Indeed, if
or
one recalls
Aristotle's (1)
mixture of of
characterization of
"uncorrupted"
forms
(a
government as
virtually unattainable,
and
"good"
"polity"
oligarchy
is the "most
attainable"
the three
"perverted"
oligarchy
and condemnation of
tyranny
forms
(the
forms
aristocracy
and
monarchy),
(4)
dominated
by
(5)
appreciation
for the
"better"
that Aristotle
government.
is best
understood as a support
Additional
for this
rule of
reflections on
this
conclusion
law,
can
be
read as qualified
defense
of moderate as the
democracy, it is
progenitor of
implausible to
identify
Aristotle
in
political thought.
There is
nothing particularly
another a number of
in making this connection, which in one form or scholars have done. J. G. A. Pocock placed Aristotle at the
Tradition,"
fount
of
which
Florence
from Machiavelli
and
Guicciardini to the
century English republicans and the American Founders. The link is also made, if only implicitly, by writers who look to Aristotle in constructing arguments in
defense
and
liberalism, communitarianism, and social democracy (see Rasmussen Uyl, Salkever, Swanson, Yack, and Nussbaum). While wholly different in
of
approach
"neo-liberal"
interpretation
"applied"
of
Aristotle
on
justice lends
support
to such efforts at
communitarian
Aristotelianism. It
social
republican readings of
1996;
and
Mulgan, 2000).
the claim that Aristotle
Establishing
democratic be
subject
bears
an ancestral
and
lengthy
detailed
analysis.
(as
suggested
above) to
a number of
important
simply
wish
Public Deliberation
such an
and
243
interpretation. At
the many
political
poor opinion of
in
friendship. The
well
implications
hardly
seem
to bode
for democracy,
of the
of
best"
moderate or otherwise.
Moreover, Aristotle
"many"
"rule light
are
or
aristocracy (while
not
not
In
ones
have
struck
heresy
first
order? of
Yet this is precisely what he says in book 3 of the this doctrine has not escaped the notice of contemporary
principal with whom
scholars, but the argument itself has rarely received close scrutiny. The
exception whose
is
Lindsay
(1992a),
concur
"rhetorical"
Moreover, he does
chapter
link Aristotle's
"defense"
the many
in Politics book 3,
to the
13
in book 3,
chapter
later
books to
with
support
his
contention
that "Aristotle's
'defense'
democracy
chapter
damns 13 but
that
faint
praise"
(p. 101).
Jeremy
Waldron
also examines
book 3,
fails to
tical"
difficulties in Aristotle's
terms, is
argument.
His
suggestion
Aristotle
deliberation in "synthetic
an
or even
dialec
as opposed to
interesting hypothesis,
but ignores
In fine, Waldron is
of
more
interested in
argument
application
"summation"
his reading
the
of
in
several
directions, including
not
an
Aristotelian defense
action."
"affirmative
Exploring, if
totally
resolving,
status as a proponent
follows.
this point paradoxical
appear on
considered
finding
on
is
concedes that
it "would
to be a strange
(bk
3,
chap.
1 1. On
occasion
I have
modified
Jowett
recent
does he
provide
to
resolve
How is it
"[t]hat inferior
persons
should
in
"answer"
epieikon)"!
the context of a
many? with
discussion
"what is to be the
supreme power
in the
the wealthy? the good? the one best man? or the tyrant?
Our
is
the
first
of
these, "[fjhe
principle
that the
multitude
supreme rather
titude"
then the
oligous)."
aristous
is
e.g., ho
"many."
something of a technical term, although he uses a variety of words, pleistoi, hoi polloi, to plethos, hoi fauloi, ho demos, to describe the
a
Here the
"many"
refers to the
the
majority of citizens, both as members of body. For an analysis of the meaning and
observes
significance
of these
terms,
see
that this
principle, "though
truth."
not
seems
to contain an
element of
The
wholly
is
a trademark of
Aristotle,
yet
it
244
does
Interpretation
not
fully
prepare
revelation which
is to follow. In devel
of whom each
oping
vidual
"many
(tons pollous),
indi
ordinary person (on spoudaios aiwr). when they meet together may very likely be better than the few good, if regarded not individually but (p. 270). David Keyt calls this "the famous
an
collectively." 'summation'
is but
but the
relative
lack
of attention
it has
received
suggests
neglect
rather than
notoriety.
contribute
Here Aristotle inserts the analogy of a feast, which is better when many to its provision than only one. The connection? "For each individual
among the many has a share in virtue and prudence, and when they meet together, they become in a manner one man, who has many feet, hands, and senses, and who is a figure of their mind and Delba Winthrop hints at an ironic
disposition."
reading
with
of this
reference
many hands
feet
suggests
be
monstrous"
(p.
1 59n.).
"Aristotle has
not
described
a man
here
so much as
lacking
"many"
either
council, assembly,
or
sense, that
jury. Second, he is taking the in the a group. It is important to note that Aristotle
when
how
"ordinary"
can a combination of
operating in this capacity. This aside, judgments issue in decisions which The analogy
of the
are superior
to those
the
few
"good"
ones?
feast
appears
ill
suited to
Lindsay
made
maintains
shedding light on the matter: it is to confuse quantity with quality. that Aristotle ultimately rejects this argument and "denies the
transformation on which the defense of the multitude
p.
quantitative-qualitative
is
to depend
(1992a,
proof about
"[n]o satisfactory
sound
is
105). As for the analogy itself, Winthrop observes that given that they [the many] either have good taste or
(p. 159).
judgment
Moreover,
and
as
Mary
Nichols writes,
or
"[a]
direction
planning"
the resulting
mixture of
foods (as in
Aristophanes'
Assembly
(1992,
pp.
the
next
of Women) may prove revolting passage, Aristotle suggests that the virtue
one of the
and prudence of
few,
truly
combines,
"good."
of
If Aristotle is simply pointing to the superiority of the many on the basis sheer numbers, there would be no confusion. But clearly this is not the case.
appears to
capable
What he
viduals
is
be saying is that the virtue and prudence of discrete indi of a kind of synergistic aggregation, something like a class
six-year-olds
room of
finger-painting
producing
Renoir.
the example
suspect.
appear as spurious as
Aristotle's, but
it
somewhat
he
uses
passage makes
less
He
asserts
judges than
a single man
of music and
In this
assertion
Aristotle
of
directly
contradicts
Plato,
who, in the
Laws,
Public Deliberation
and
245
to the
sort
democracy
he
was an
in Athens,
which
blaming the
poets
'theatrocracy,'"
"proved to be the
on
starting-point of everyone's
authority
attributes
everything,
and of a general
disregard for
the
law."
Andrew Lintott
public
many,
him (p. 1 17). This reading fails, however, to account contradicts himself on this very point. Later in the Politics, for example, he says "[i]t is difficult, if not impossible, for those who do not perform to be good judges
of
the performances of
others"
(bk 7,
chap.
the experts
in
judge its is
"
achieved
by
9). I
see no
way to
chapter
11
by Aristotle,
but
represents an
the
democratic disciple (see Lord). Naturally, the truth of this claim will depend on identities of the many and the one, yet on face it would appear that more
frequently
just the
opposite
attempts
to explain: "some
understand the
each of
understand one
whole."
they
the the
many
work
understand a
group they
whole.
Assuming
makes
it
equally
misunderstands
the
of
judgment
the group is superior without specifying some way in which the good qualities of
each coalesce
into does
a collective
do"
judgment
p.
while
rejected.
(1977,
of
105). The
deliberation)
a process
consultation,
including
the exchange of
anticipated this
mean
discussion,
be
view
Aristotle
democracy "simply
any
is
a process of government
by
On the
other
hand,
which
'come together',
a vague
description
would cover
public
decision-making
possessed of
lectively)
matter. who
(p. 105). The implication for assembly or is obvious, and it may well be that the many are (col more information and insight than the few on a given
aggregation"
Accordingly,
a
deliberating
man"
is
"figure
disposition,"
should not
be
read as an adum
bration
good.
of
Rousseau's
will, that
is,
(Moreover, Rousseau
with one
another.) Rather it
of the
serves as a metaphor
many
246
Interpretation
As Mulgan notes, "[t]he
still
unified manner.
sum
.
addition
is
a metaphorical, not a
literal,
fair to ask,
and
as
Lindsay does,
(1992a.
"how does
p.
physical
accretion
104).
come
The preceding
to exercise a
to the
Aristotle is
in
not
finished
with
individual judgments
of the
few
citizens
not provide a
Aristotle does
direct answer,
combination
of
he does say is puzzling. He does recognize "a similar qualities in good men (hoi spoitdaioi). who differ from any
pollon)"
individual individual
of
but the
combination
in
question
is in the
man
("in
whom
individually
of the principle all
good men.
Still,
was aware
difficulties
of the
"[w]hether this
bodies
[of the superiority of the many] can apply to every democracy, and to of in doubt. In fact, the entire basis of the argument is placed in
men"
serious
brutes";
The
and
other
hand,
"there may be
true."
some
bodies
of men
about whom
statement
is
nevertheless
alleged
superiority
virtue and charitable
of the
prudence,
reading
of
of collective wisdom.
This
"many"
is developed
by
Ernest
Barker
who
writes, "[e]ach
the
mass
has its
meeting
of
the mass
is
not
bodies in
a single
place, but
also a confluence of
many has
intellects in
stream. no
Each intellect
acts as complement to
of a problem
its
defect.
Every
facet
some
fellow,
until
finally
by
a whole
intelligence,
which
judge securely, because it judges every faculty, on every variant of this interpretation is made by Patrick Coby, who
Aristotle "[t]he only
to
multitude represent a great warehouse of some organization and
point"
claims
for
human virtue needing assembly in order to become politically useful; they everything in the play but who require a theater critic
observations"
bring
coherence
to their
is that it
goes well
about
beyond
what
reading he
the
not
does say
on
other occasions.
Moreover,
political equivalent of
in the Politics. It is
implausible, however,
multitude would
by
the
supply this function. Thus it may be argued, as Nichols does, that "Aristotle's argument in favor of the many points to the need for states
.
.
manship, that
some
is, for
form,
good"
judgment to
p.
individual
suggested
(1992,
66). It may
be
that the
institutional
procedures
governing
Public Deliberation
and
247
and
Ober).
not
Aristotle does
simply
suggests
explicitly
of
make
here. Rather, he
original
the
foregoing
to the
the multitude, as
the related
question of
query "what
be
freemen
and citizens
(tons
clcutherous
kai to
have
merit."
no personal
Aris
latter is
an
important
part of
it is
superior
in their
collective
hand. The many, Aristotle continues, may prove (deliberative) capacity, but "[t]here is still a danger in
allowing them to
error, and their
for their
folly
will
dishonesty
into
crime."
This
individually,
possess
but
"dishonesty,"
and
paradox of their alleged
of the
many simply
recapitulates
superiority
alluding ally
point.
occasion
Aristotle's
that
argument on
this
that "Aristotle
forgets
bad
qualities will
be
a
thrown
similar
common stock no
less
(pp. 256-57). In
Lindsay
basis
rather than
its defects, to
"[t]he
of the
fore?"
to the to
(1992a,
establish
p.
Winthrop
and
writes.
arguments made
judgment
many, as distinguished
are said
obviously
we can
to
be
able
for
knows
a part well.
Not
only
result will
be the
judgments, but
is
not more
its
maintaining
yet
We have
provide a
seen
he has
to
satisfactory dilemma that arises from excluding the many from the higher offices of state. Undoubtedly it is dangerous to allow average citizens to occupy such offices, but
"there is
a
For the
moment
he is
concerned with
resolving the
danger
also
in
not
letting
will
them share,
for
a state
in
which
men necessarily be full of solution, Aristotle avers, is the one instituted by Solon and namely, to "assign to them some deliberative and judicial
enemies
are excluded
from
office
other
legislators,
such as
functions,"
power of
magistrates
to
should
not,
however, be
resorts
eligible
for
offices
held
singly.
account.
trine, Aristotle
the many,
when
imperfect
judgment,"
is
suffi
ciently
qualified
together their
248
Interpretation
"
.
The
addition comes
in the
next clause:
better
class
are useful
to the
ver
state."
'rehabilitated.'
Lindsay
a
refers to this
formulation
and reads
"the second,
or
superiority,"
sion of collective
qualifications
as
constituting
of
"radically diluted
form"
of
his
argument
many.
On the basis
this
modification,
Lindsay
contrasts modern
of
participatory democracy,
which rests on
inclusion
version of
democ
participation,"
limited
virtue granted
the
'certain'
multitude
(1992a,
fense
of
was no
pp.
participatory democracy originally intended by modern political theory less qualified than (p. 171). Is Aristotle now saying that the
Aristotle's"
judgment
of
of
the many is
valuable
as
it
combines with
the
judgment
the "few good"? The analogy used to illustrate this point, that a
and pure
mixture of
impure food
pure
food is be
wholesome"
often
alone, could
that the
hardly
more unfortunate.
. .
contra
that a mixture is only necessary and just Lindsay, analogy "implies when the few best are not good enough to have control all by themselves for if
they
well.
were good
Further,
in this
the example also shows that the sort of regime Aristotle has in
mind
chapter
is
not
democracy
proper
but the
and
mixed regime of
"democracy"
(p.
168).
Observing
the
distinction between
to understanding
"polity"
in the Politics
for
is certainly
the
relevant
Aristotle's thoughts
yet
on
Lindsay
overlooks,
argument
use of
in book 3,
which
chapter
11. Part
as
the
difficulty
resides
in
Aristotle's
tion for
analogies,
may indicate,
Nichols notes,
an apprecia
"heterogeneity,"
but
by
"ambiguity"
(1992,
pp.
66, 67-68, 70). The issue of the many and the few appears to have become more, rather than less, opaque. In characteristic fashion, Aristotle recognizes the inadequacy of this reasoning
and
its
negative
popular
form
government."
of
If governing
unskilled
is
a skill
sit
(techne)
"For
(episteme) like
medicine, how
can
the
many (ton
in judgment
the skilled
few? Is this
in the
case of
elections?
ergon),"
eidoton
(doxa
alethes)"
at
only be made by those who have knowledge and the many do not possess knowledge, but "true opinion best. Earlier in book 3 Aristotle writes, "[fjhe virtue of the
not
subject
p.
opinion"
(chap. 4. See
also
Davis,
similar
difficulty
in Aristotle's
tendency
to equate political
seems
different from
Aristotle"
virtue, though
it is
by
(p.
348). And
while there
in
which private
persons share
in the
abilities
they certainly
of
cannot choose
better than
those who
know (ton
eidoton)."
On the basis
Public Deliberation
election of
and
249
magistrates,
nor
the calling
the
plethos)."
view of name.
not
by statesmanship as a strict science, insisted that the reviewing authority must be greater than the authority reviewed. Claiming in the Laws that "the office of Scrutineer is the single most crucial factor determining whether a state survives or Plato lamented how
who
Plato, Plato,
whom
viewed
disintegrates,"
"desperately
authority
difficult [it
is]
to
find
...
someone of
"
high
moral standards
to exercise
Aristotle
audit officials,
it
could
along be entrusted,
the power
of
election, "the
all,"
least
under
For
skill or
science,
perform a skill
is,
accordingly,
that
function
knowledge,
is
it is the
a
presence of
a
knowledge (phronesis)
a
determines
whether one
truly
doctor,
"the
musician,
pilot,
or a statesman.
Plato's
political
dialogues, but
nowhere more
contains
(Rowe,
vital
p.
uncompromising statement of the idea in the Platonic 18). The difference between Plato and Aristotle on this issue,
most
and
its
importance in
their political
deftly
actual
summarized
by
Shel
retains a portion of
with
it in
First he
argu
(Platonic)
if the
may be
a
objections are
people
largely
answered
by
the earlier
(to plethos)
are not
although
individually they
(ton eidoton)
explicit what as
worse
who
knowledge
makes
body they
better."
or
Here Aristotle
ity)
of
he had only intimated before: the deliberative superiority (or equal the many assumes a relative soundness in their (moral-cognitive) consti
tution.
Second, he
the artists
of
realm
of politics,
for "there
judged
not the
of
solely, or
best, by
themselves,"
by
other artists.
Will
homeowner
judge better
the house than the builder? the pilot better of the rudder than the
better
of
the
food
Aristotle's
examples
less than compelling, but they do comprehend (if only partially) the
are
more solid and
speak
"products"
He
would
have been
on
ground,
of right
interest,
"a
Mulgan,
from
who
finds in Aristotle's
much
the art
of politics
is
not exempt
lay
control
better
argument"
than the
one
doctrine
of collective
superiority, hints
at a similar solution.
On the
to
as a whole
other and
is
likely
have
few. On the
decisions
which affect of
the population
ought
if the individual is
assumed to
how he
to be
much
for democratic
is
250
Interpretation
"products"
stronger
(1977,
p.
106). The
which
may fall within the ken of the many, but it is and interests that constitutes the foundations
judgment.
returns
Having "sufficiently
the original
answered"
to
paradox as expressed
in the
scrutiny
of magis
thing"
greatest of
is it
not
"a
strange
matters"
than the
few?
Yet
as
Aristotle observes, in
a popular
some
existing
duties to the
people
as constituted
assembly,
which
is
supreme
in
such matters.
Typically
re
these states place a low property qualification for membership in the assembly,
while a
high
qualification
is
attached
to the
state,
thereby
solving authority over the most important general matters (which they are most qualified to judge), and the few are entrusted with the high executive offices (which they
are most qualified to claim to
few. In
have
judgment
numbers.
when
hold). However, the "reason the many (to plethos) may higher authority than the is not owing to their superior assembled, but to the superiority of their collective wealth and
few"
While
may have
the many
constituted
many's claim
to govern, it
was not
Isocrates,
on
sided with
rely
the
opinion
orator
against of
experts. more
Similarly, Demosthenes,
finest
his time,
that he was
likely
to be
mistaken
than
his audience,
a popular
in judgment. Athenagoras,
of
"intelligence"
preten
rich, maintaining in
Thucydides,
best
at
Ober, in citing these listening was examples, avers that the "Athenian faith in group decision making grounded in the assumption that the collective wisdom of a large group was
inherently
greater than
the wisdom
of
of
its many (p. 163). the few breaks off, and Aristotle
parts"
proceeds
to consider generally the other claims to political authority. His these claims
discussion
of
is
aperotic and
informed
by
in
(bk 3, chap. 13). While his remarks in this chapter center strictly issue of the right to rule, he does make a passing reference to the
considered collectively.
the
"many"
In
response
the basis of authority, he notes that "the many (to plethos) might that
fairly
answer
few (to oligon) I do not This but reference sheds no additional light on the individually, say summation argument but does indicate that Aristotle has not abandoned it. It also
they
better
the
collectively."
judgments
of the
many
are
best
in
ten
those of the
book 3.
chapter
13 in the form
"Suppose the
(hoi
Public Deliberation
areten
and
251
in
number:
relation
duties,
they
are enough
Again, Aristotle does not provide a direct many as will make up a answer, but it may be reasonably inferred that in such a case it will be necessary to include the many, who collectively "are often better and richer than the few
or so
state?"
(ton
oligon)."
This
would appear
Aristotle's final
word on
the matter,
reappears
particularly in
determine
(bk
a point at
decide?"
3,
chap.
mentators
analogy
of the
why "a
multitude
feast, but Aristotle does provide some additional (ochlos) is a better judge of many things than any
few (ton
. .
reasons
individual."
First,
oligon
for
Second,
while
is less easily corrupted than a "[t]he individual is liable to be overcome by anger or some
other
be
it is
hardly
to
a passion and go
object to
claim.
it
are
of their
the few
"wise"
(as
Aristotle indicates),
more, if the many
not
are
they
not
largely
immunized from
Further
are prone
to
"folly,"
"error,"
"dishonesty,"
"crime,"
is it
likely
conclusion
they
to
never
Aristotle "assume[s] that they are act in violation of the law, but fill up the
not
the law
is
obliged
leave."
But is this
for Aristotle
(pollois)."
concedes that
"such
need
virtue
is scarcely
attainable
by
the multitude
Accordingly, "we
(agathoi andres) be
more
only (agathoi
suppose
politai)."
In
such a
case, "which
will
good?"
incorruptible,
The
second argument,
contemplate
but
fails to istotle
a phenomenon not
the group dynamic popularly known as "mob foreign to ancient Greek politics. On the other hand, if Ar
psych
"collective
objected against
may be duly countered. As Miller notes, "[i]t might be Aristotle's summation argument that it fails to take into account
problems of collective
irrationality, but it
can
be
replied
tution provides
a check on
irrational
democracy
recalled
(1995,
p.
262).
chapter
In considering these
it
should
be
that
in book 3,
15
252
Interpretation
not
Aristotle is
the few
per se.
primarily interested in the deliberative abilities of the many and The original query was: who is better qualified to determine a
process
matter which
of
answering,
however, Aristotle
his
assertion
in book 3,
the
chapter
1 1
regard
ing
the collective superiority of the multitude over the few. He then turns to the
of corruption as the
perceived need a
issue
is the
key
factor in
determining
of the reason
matter.
What is
curious
superiority to
single
The
in the
ruler,
"true"
concluding is good in an
passage.
Here
man, the
royal
absolute sense.
in the many,
This is
parties
evident
from Aristotle's
response
correctly least a majority of them. to the objection that "there may be the one man is not divided against
or at
to judge
as
the
himself."
is
his,"
as good as
suggests
that the
applies
many in
truly
The
suspicion
is
confirmed
where
them good
(agathon)"
aristocracy is defined as "the rule of many men, who And in keeping with his notion that two good
concludes that
heads
states
are
"aristocracy
will
be better for
than royalty
found."
In light
abandoned the
ment
argument chapter
in book 3,
chapter
1 1 ? Or does the
argu
in book 3,
15 simply
represent a variation?
The
has
attempted to
.
integrate defended
judgment is
a
aristocratically,"
democratic
argument
to defend
aristocracy"
(Coby,
p.
solution
would seem
to run counter to
Aristotle's clearly
possibility of merging the two on the condition that magistrates may in no way profit from office, thereby insuring the rule of the well off and relieving the poor from service, while guaranteeing the integrity of the
public coffers
(book 5,
chap.
8). This
clever construction
would appear
does
not
fully
resolve
the
the charge of
Having
doctrine dubious
points
of summation.
Aristotle's reasoning in detail, we may now summarize his As is often the case in Aristotle, what begins as a rather far
more coherent and plausible claim.
noted.
The
weak
in his
have been
case
duly
Far
more
interesting
of
are
Aristotle's
than
it
appears
the many
less
"mitigating"
additions
include his
edge and
(1) understanding
not
knowl
of
skill, but is
comprehension
Public Deliberation
its products)
and
253
(2)
assumption
lectively
corrupt or
when
incontinent; (3)
blended
suggestion
many is best
individually
few; (4)
exclusion
of members of the
many from the higher offices of state on the basis of their limited capacity, qua individuals, for virtue and prudence, and (5) claim that the
the many to rule
right of
is but
a partial
right, limited
of other claimants
With these
takes
on a
qualifications
superiority
far
more
judicious
him in the
mainstream of modern
republican
theory.
of
A democratic reading
Aristotle's doctrine
of political
deliberation
speaks to of this
implications
status
as
In fine, is his
Aristotle's
scope.
teaching
remarks
democratic
detailed
rule or representative
democracy? A
on
analysis of
the
forms
of
present
Another way of pursuing this question is to compare Aristotle's view of popular deliberation with that of the moderns, particularly those who made an important
contribution to the
liberal
republican
Machiavelli, Locke, Montesquieu, Hume, Rousseau, Madison, and Burke would show that Aristotle was no less, and often more, trusting of the many than most of his more successors, (See Machiavelli, Discourses, bk 1, chaps 47, Second Treatise 58; Locke, of Government, sees. 140, 149; Montesquieu, Spirit
"liberal"
2, chaps. 6, 7; Madison, Federalist, nos. 10, 51, 55, 63; and Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, Pocock, 1987, pp. 36^-0.) Fortunately, Aristotle provides a concise discussion of public deliberation as it relates to these forms in book 4,
chapter
of the Laws, bk 1, chap. 6; Hume, "That Politics May Be Reduced to a and "Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth"; Rousseau, Social Contract, bk
Science,"
element"
"has authority in matters of war and peace, in making and un making alliances; it passes laws, inflicts death, exile, confiscation, elects mag It is clear that Aristotle is now using istrates and audits their
stitution which
accounts."
"deliberation"
in
the
broader
sense
commonweal. are
The decisive
all
issue, however, is
democracy,
"pure"
the manner
distributed:
to
all? all
arrangement a
is
characteristic of
fusion
of
the two. In a
with no
democracy,
the
assembly determines
when a selected
all public
matters,
interference from
of
although
elected
form
democracy."
Con
versely,
only
law, "the
does
government
is
oligarchy,"
a pure
similarly
perverted
approve of moderate
democracy
oligarchy,
in
which some
deliberative
to the
few,
some elected
by
254
Interpretation
vote others
by
lot. And
while
of
in
citizenry,
individually
and collectively,
directly
and
indirectly, will have a hand in decision-making. For Aristotle, the key is not so much the particular
citizens
arrangements
whereby
dispose
of public matters as
(except in
of
war,
which require
as
"special
knowledge")
of
the principles
balance
inclusion. Just
he
argued
that of the
"better
attendance of advise
he
now calls on
democracies to
the rich
adopt measures
for
insuring
the
both the
all
poor and
at public
assemblies; for
citizens
"will
better if they
deliberate together
the people
(gnorimon) and the notables with the people larly, where decision-making is entrusted to a
good plan that out of the
vital
. . .
(plethous)"
council
(demos) with the notables (bk 4, chap. 14). Simi or smaller body, "[i]t is a
elected
by
vote or
by
lot in
equal numbers
even more
different
classes."
need
for balance
and
inclusion is
prone
inherently
be
to faction and
injustice. In
opted
to avert this
tendency, "either
be
co-
appointed
who are
law;
and
exclusively
demos)
will
have
deliberated."
In
of the
we
constitution."
principles of
Here
find
but
"some
deliberative
as
judicial
functions,"
auditing magistrates,
individuals
for
are unqualified at
Aristotle's
views on
the distribution
a
decision-making
a
"democracy"
precisely,
supports
democratic (or
The been
more
political thought.
confusion surround
ing
the use of
"republic"
has
never
fully
resolved.
Madi
the
son's
famous
39
remains
for using
was
"democracy,"
both in the
elsewhere, to define
usage.
governments
based
Aristotle
faced
dif
ficulty,
based
many
and
like Madison
redefined a
term
(politeia)
"polity"
to
distinguish
a government
on the and
many ("democracy") from one combining the the few ("polity"). And while a is more democratic than a
rule of the as
"republic,"
defined
by Madison,
methods.
principles considers
with
republican
both may be said to combine democratic The similarity is even closer when one
the use of
initiative,
referendum, and
ballot
may be found in his remarks (or and constitutional middle-class government) polity democracy made ear lier in book 4. The term as a distinct form of government, is first defined
politics.
Additional
support
"polity,"
as a regime common
in
which
"the
citizens
interest (koinon
(plethos) at large administer the state for the (bk 3, chap. 7). Polity, then, is at once a
Public Deliberation
descriptive
and normative term
and
255
in Aristotle's
it is
not
merely
popular
Later, polity is
described "as
term
democracy"
fusion (mi.xus)
democracy,"
of
definition,
be
is tempted to
For Aris
equate
would
a mistake.
totle polity
is
Even the in
class
moderate
variety of democracy, but a distinct type, a hybrid as it were. forms of democracy (and oligarchy) are governments rooted
interest,
whereas
institutional
governments
of the
rich."
wealth of the
Again, polity is
"admixture"
a coherent
of
parts of an
democratic
indenture"
(bk 4,
9).
Hence, in "a
applied
constitutional
element will
be taken from
public
each,"
and as
of qualifications
for
office, requires
or
taking
"from oligarchy the principle of electing to offices [as opposed to lot and from democracy the disregard of qualification [for holding
means a
rotation],
office]."
"true
union"
of
use of
union
interchangeable
"the fusion is
"democracy"
and
("Polity"
complete."
Indeed,
so complete
is simply the generic name for "constitution.") fusion that the parts form an integrated and seamless
polity (te
politeia te memigmere
well-tempered
kalos)
there
be both
neither."
Since
poor,
most
Greek
states are
it
form
of government
best
suited
to
He does
not
by
logic. Moreover,
categorical
imperative both in
Confusion
and
however,
and
when
he distinguishes
as
middle-class rule
from
democracy
(bk 4,
identifies it
mean that
"the best
constitution
for
states"
most
chap.
synonymous
polity and the "middle constitution (mese for Aristotle? But how can this be if polity is
can the middle-class regime
rich and poor?
politei
are
a
fusion
of
And how
be best for
most states
divided between
Unfortunately, Aristotle
no real
does
not
relation
between the two constitutions, but there is Curtis Johnson finds Aristotle
polity,"
inconsistency
scurity in the
"coherence"
classification.
"guilty
a
of ob
extreme when
it
comes to
but
also
discovers
fundamental
his
identify polity inconsistency and confusion, Johnson demonstrates that polity is a mixed regime (combining the rich and poor), whereas the middle constitution is a popular regime dominated by the middle class. (See also Yack,
In
contrast
simply
accuse
Aristotle
of
pp.
231-39.) The
solution
to the
apparent
confusion
is found in Aristotle's
the best state in the
definition
of political
science,
which aims
to
identify (1)
256
Interpretation
"absolute"
"abstract"
or
sense;
(2)
"that
which
is best
relative
to
';
and
(3)
that "which
relative
is best-suited to
states
in
general"
(bk 4,
chap.
1 ). Polity, then,
is best in
is best
to circumstances in
Greece,
general.
Both
are
go\ eminent
is
distinguished from oligarchy and democracy, but constitutional fusion, a fusion deemed unnecessary in a state dominated by the
arrangements will
middle class.
The institutional
be
quite similar
in both
states
(bk 5,
classes.
chap.
6):
the
key
social
composition
of political
Aristotle
citizens
why
a state
"composed
of middle-class
is necessarily
equality,
well
moderation, stability,
views on
justice (bk 4,
and
chap.
not
his
decision-making
endorsed a
polity, are
only
his
remarks on
of
Aristotle familiar
theory
of government not so
different from
our own.
Anyone
with
in the Constitution
Politics
without
noting
kinship
between the
Aristotle
and those
rule of
law
(bk
2,
chap.
2; bk 3,
chap.
1 1 ; bk 5.
chaps
chap.
7), his
repeated
equation of nition
justice
with
3,
of constitutional rule as
"a
government of
freeman
and
(bk 1
chaps
chap.
4),
and
of popular
the
list
of shared
monia as
life, he is
also committed
a mixed
to "the
pursuit of
happi
(bk 2, chap. 11), marked by a wide distribution of power and property (bk 2, chaps. 6, 7, 1 1; bk 4, chap. 1 1 ). and designed to balance various interests (bk 4, chaps. 8, 9, 11), a position
of government chap.
middle class
form
(bk 4,
embraced
by
ciples
already in
noted
his strong
of
preference
for
blending
democratic
and
matters
elections, office-holding,
Founders, he
often
was animated of
by
the
desire to
accommodate the
and order. state
legitimate, but
Aristotle
.
.
competing, claims
liberty,
property, equality,
even
American be
for "[t]he
is
plurality
united"
(bk 2.
chap.
no
constitution,
classes
of
however
citizens
well
constructed,
chap.
can
survive
of all
(bk 4,
9)
by
the
Revolutionary
generation.
To take
but
one
barriers"
created
by
the
Constitution
only as good as the people's willingness to support them. For instance, Hamilton observes that "whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it [liberty of the press], must altogether depend on
opinion"
public
(Federalist 84),
whereas
"
.
Madison
acknowledged
that
ultimately
"all
(Federalist 49).
Public Deliberation
There
can
and
257
are a number of
interesting
between Aristotle
and the
Ameri
re
Founders, but
Indeed,
given
this fact it is
markable
how little
Aristotle's influence
upon
they have received. While often noted in passing, the American Founders, and the republican tradition
escaped
which
written on
Adams'
"Aristotle
American Classical
and
critique of
pher's
Aristotle,
top
teaching
on popular at the
use
examining John his qualified acceptance of the philoso noting government. Miller also observes (1) that Madison
of a
placed the
Politics
(nonalphabetical) list
of
books he
recommended
with
for
congressional
Sidney, Locke,
company Declaration
and others
of the
(3)
"harmonizing
of the
to the
Independence. Far
investigation
more substantial
Founders'
is Paul Eidelberg,
science
who pro of
vides a sustained
political
in terms
Aristotelian
mittedly derstood
regime analysis.
was ad
marginal and
derivative)
applied
in
a shared approach
to political
inquiry,
un
Eidelberg
provides a
detailed
and
properly
to the American
of that
profoundly
enrich our
founders"
ship
of the
contributors
honoring
Harvard
professor
Harvey Mansfield
government
and
between Aristotle's
mixed
a systematic comparison of
Aristo
that
teaching
reveal
with that of
the American
Founders;
a comparison
would, I
believe,
the remarkable
degree to
which
Aristotle
anticipated the
Founding
for
Fathers. Recent
enlist
efforts
by
commu
nitarians,
revived of
liberals,
and
social
democrats to
and
this we should
be thankful. In his
review never
we still
have
no account
that
is
Dif
The
"agenda"
examine
Aristotle's
his
the
Viewed
against the
Politics,
supremacy"
is
an anomaly.
Rather it is
fully
consistent with
his
leading
ideas
on the
structure,
composition,
genitor
and ends of
government, ideas
which mark
Aristotle
one
of the
tendencies contained
in the Poli
Aristotle
with of
Locke
or
can
hardly
be
denied that
a plain
reading
258
Interpretation
political
author s
interested in their
Politics But this is
civic
to Americans and
others
the
what makes
teachings.
politics which
is
no strange
thing
at all.
REFERENCES
on
Nature
and
Slavery."
of
Political
Theory
by
by
W. D. Ross. Chicago:
Benjamin Jowett (1885). In Great Books of the University of Chicago Press, 1952.
Vol.
.
9,
pp.
445-548.
Ethics, Translated by J. A. K. Thomson, New York: Penguin, 1953. Barker, Ernest. The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. London: Dover, 1906. Blitz, Mark,
and
William Kristol,
eds.
Educating
and
the Problem of
Faction."
Davis, Michael. The Politics of Philosophy: A Commentary ham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996. Eidelberg, Paul. A Discourse
American Polity. Urbana:
on
on
and
Transformation of the
University
of
'the
Many7
Journal of the
History
of
Philosophy 31
(1993): 171-89.
Hamilton, Alexander, et al. The Federalist Papers. Edited by Isaac Kramnick. New York: Penguin Books, 1987.
Havelock, Eric A. The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics. New Haven: Yale University
Press. 1957.
Henry, William. In Defense of Elitism. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Johnson, Curtis. "Aristotle's Polity: Mixed
Thought 9 (1988): 189-204.
Constitution?"
or
Middle
History
and
of Political
University
Press.
In A Companion to Aristotle's Keyt, David. "Aristotle's Theory of Distributive Politics, edited by David Keyt and Fred Miller, Jr. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Pp. 238-78.
Justice."
of
Democracy
through
'Political Mix
Essay.'
"
and
Anti-Democratic?: A Review
Review
Democracy."
and
Public Deliberation
Lord, Carnes. "The Character
9 (1981): 459-78.
and
and
259
Composition
Aristotle's
Politics.'
Political
Theory
and
American Classical
Republicanism,"
in Justice
v.
Law in Greek
Political Thought,
Pp. 183-94.
edited
by
Leslie Rubin.
University
Press. 1977.
Ethics 111 (2000): 79-101.
Social
Democrat?"
and the
of Po-
Machiavellian
Moment."
Newman, William. The Politics of Aristotle. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1887.
and
Citizens
Statesmen: A
Study
of Aristotle's Politics.
et
al., eds.,
and
and the
Power of
Plato, The Laws. Translated by T. J. Saunders. New York: Penguin Books, 1970. Pocock, J. G. A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and lantic Republican Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975. Pocock, J. G. A.,
ed.
At
Reflections
on
the
Society
and
University Press,
1943.
Rasmussen, D., and D. Den Uyl. Liberty and Nature: An Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1991.
Rowe, Christopher.
1995. Pp. 1-20.
"Introduction."
and
Philipps,
the
Mean:
and
Reason in Aristotle's
Simpson,
Peter. A Philosophical
of
Commentary
on
Chapel Hill:
University
1990.
Stockton, David. The Classical Athenian Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
Swanson, Judith A. The Public
versity Press, 1992.
and
of
the
on
Book 3, Chapter
Aristotle's
Politics."
Political
Theory
23 (1995): 563-84.
260
Interpretation
on
Participatory
Democracy."
Political
Theory 3
(1975):
Wolin, Sheldon S. Politics and Vision: Continuity Theory. Boston: Little, Brown, 1960. Wood, Ellen,
and
and
Neal Wood.
Ideology
and
and
University
Press. 1978.
and
Yack, Bernard. The Problems of a Political Animal: Community, Justice, Aristotle's Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
Conflict in
The Problem
of
University
of Houston
In his
Politics."
article
"Public Deliberation
seeks
and
Quentin Taylor
to defend Aristotle as a
of the
liberal
Aristotle's thought is
dogmatic,
of
reactionary,
hierarchical,
15,
and
Aristotle
"progressive"
relies on a
"democratic"
book 3.
chapters
1 1
and
book 4,
chapter a
Politics,
this reading,
"doctrine
deliberation"
of political
rule or representative
"inclusion"
many "modern
conceptions of
democratic
Among
doctrine
comprises are
and
and
stability,
the
balancing of class interests with a view to justice. Indeed, with help from Aristotle's discussion of polity and the "middle
Taylor
suggests
some additional
constit
Mr.
Founders
share
many ideals,
and not men
including "[Aristotle's]
(bk 2,
chap.
law
2; bk 3,
chap.
11; bk 5,
and
chap.
7), his
(bk 1,
3,
chaps.
of constitutional rule
chap.
'a
government of
freeman
chaps.
7, 12; bk 3,
4),
on
and
of popular
sovereignty (bk
the
3,
chaps.
1,
7)."
Based
his
the
admittedly
partial
number of parallels
not
of
encouraged
by
American Founders to
of
conclude
only that
we can
find in Aristotle
but
also that
"progenitor
against the
the liberal-democraticof
tradition,"
republican
"viewed
balance
the
Politics,
the
doctrine
anom supremacy'
of
'collective
is
Without
denying
like to focus my
response
to Mr. Taylor
on a problem
agenda obscures:
culmination of
what
Mr. Taylor
to defend: the
collective
superiority
the many. In
more
brief,
of
of
justice in book 3
a
of
broadly,
the regime,
leads to
searching
limits
of
law. This
interpretation,
Spring 2002,
262
Interpretation
that law is
analysis underlines
bound
by
the principle
grounded.
of
equality
quest
democratic,
un
oligarchic,
or aristocratic
on which
it is
In its
for justice
derstood
"class
different
interests"
"the
advantage of
the city as a
(1283b40-42). but it
threatens its own principle
interest that
fundamentally
"interest"
if this is
would constitute
for
the
law's
or
remedy.
This
as
difficulty
as much a problem
"exclusive"
inclusive,
To
it is for
more
regimes such as
uses:
and aristocracy.
Even
should one
demonstrate the
"democratic"
superiority
eration
involves
"synergistic
one
of the
"virtue and
the
prudence of
dis
individuals,"
crete
is
book 3
and
culminates.
This
both the
regime and
by difficulty difficulty is that law is always a reflection of a regime, law, by their very nature, are grounded in a principle of
nonetheless confronted
with which
equality that has only a partial claim to justice and yet must be absolute in political authority. (Since I can offer a mere sketch of this difficulty, I refer the
reader
to the related
of
discussions
of
Problem
Monarchy
in Aristotle's
Western Political
Quarterly 40
versus
Man'
the
'Best Laws': Politics and Religion in Aristotle's Review of Politics 53 [Summer 1991]: 488-509; Robert C. Bartlett, "Aristotle's Science of the Best
Regime,"
Bekker
Texts]
unless
otherwise noted.
Translations
are
my
own).
Showing
the Politics
more
fully
the relevance of this problem to Mr. Taylor's reading of the main points
requires a sketch of
leading
question of
city?"
identifying
one who
in
an office of
deliberation
or
decision
(1275M8-19), 36;
cf.
is to say one who shares in the honors of ruling (1278a341281a31). As we learn both here and in the Nicomachean Ethics, these
distributed in
"equality"
honors
are
accord with
the
different
regimes:
birth;
virtue"
aristocrats,
the Politics that Aristotle sorts through the various claims of merit, most
the claims of the two most common regimes,
"authoritative"
importantly
garchy.
democracy
and oli
dispute among the claimants is the true end of the city: living well, defines as a life of "noble (1280a25, 1280b39-1281a4).
standard, then, the principle
most authoritative claim of merit associated with
he
By
the true
to rule.
Yet,
while virtue
263
dispute, Aristotle
which must settle
emphasizes also
that
partial,
every regime,
the question of
rule
in
accord with
its
own
principle of merit,
3,
chap.
necessarily excludes other just claims to rule (1280a7-25; bk 10 all; Mr. Taylor briefly notes this difficulty but seems untroubled by
as
Professor Taylor
of
might
mixing"
the most authoritative claim, or of the best simply, but of this very mixing. It is
worth
noting,
however,
that
inasmuch
as
collectivity,
as
it
seems to
do in both Aristotle's
account and
Mr. Taylor's (
1286a24-b7),
prove to
the proponent of
democracy
perior virtue.
right
to rule of the
few
or
they
be
of
truly
in
superior
Aristotle first
principle of
every
regime
is
grounded
a specific chap.
13). But
as
equality by he proceeds to is
the
"just"
practice of ostracism
(bk 3,
conclude the
investigation
be
of
book 3, he
arrives at the
more advantageous to
ruled
by
by
the
the
best
laws"
indeed,
arrangement of equals
ruling
and
being
ruled
in turn is
only
"already
law"
( 1287a 16-
18;
see also
bk 3,
chap.
10)
it
also represents
a partial claim
to
justice. The
problem,
however, is
not
simply
that the
law
nature, falls
in
fundamental
For
by
5). To
seek
its very nature, law "seeks the which is equality (1287b4the mean is to seek justice in one sense, but to fail it in another.
asks whether one who
mean,"
Aristotle
be
governed
finally by
is
so preeminent as to
have
no equal can
law (bk 3,
16-17). In answering this question, Aristotle of ostracism and observes that "it is left only for a person
chaps
and
be obeyed,
to
have
power not
can
by
turns but
simply"
(1288a28-
29). No
regime or
law,
one might
say,
do justice to
such a person.
Aristotle
of of
says next
his
superior virtue.
us
Nonetheless,
more
the
difficulty
book 3 helps
another simply.
leads to the
This
fundamental
question of
the
limits
of
law
or politics
it is
one
from
which we are
better
able to evaluate
position that such a reading seeks to defend. That Aristotle is willing to think through each of the claims to rule, to give each its proper due, while also seeing the limits of all of them is testimony to his
the very
political
seriousness
and
his
open-mindedness.
It is
possible
also to
Aristotle's
seriousness about
is
the reason
be
seen
as
friend
of
264
Interpretation
held
principles reason
by
open-mindedness.
however,
is
the
he
cannot
finally
be
said to
alone
the progenitor, ol
s
any
regime.
In
fact, I have
of
Aristotle
Politics.
as reac
it
his
thought.
If 1
am correct
in
this argument, for which I have offered only a preliminary defense, then Aris totle's democratic defenders and his democratic
accusers
may
yet
be
persuaded
to
read
him from
new, if at
first perplexing
or strange,
perspective.
The
subject of
quintessentially
public office or
political
Plutarch's Life of Caesar is the career and character of a man, one whose every act is directed toward obtaining
political
exercising
authority, in a corrupt
note of what are of
political community.
(By
as a case
lack
either
the talent or the taste buds to pore over mounds of quantitative data
of social science
or to navigate the
terminology.
The Life of Caesar divides thematically into five unequal parts: The first fourteen sections deal with Caesar's early career. The next thirteen describe the
are
dominated
by
his rivalry
with
Pompey
as
ruler
rule.
A brief
account
of
his
projects
and
accomplishments
occupies sections
57
through
leading
up
to, through,
what
and after
his
assassination.
following
disproportionately
The opening
and psychological
eighteen years of explanation
economy the political, moral, follows. that material for the Concerning the first setting account. The simplest Plutarchian Caesar's life we have no
as
edition
ing
paragraphs of
lost"
Life, describing
nl).
birth
and
boyhood
Caesar, have
author
been
(1971,
442
On
the other
hand,
we recall
that the
begins
by
in
case
I do
not
tell of all the famous actions of these men, nor even speak exhaus case,
tively
plain.
at all
in
but in
epitome
for the
.
most
. .
For it is
Histories that I
am
writing,
but Lives.
Accordingly, just
the
expression of
likenesses in their
portraits
and
the
This article was previously presented at the 1999 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. I am grateful for the helpful suggestions I received on this topic from my students Bonnie Anderson, Marilu Bechard, and Nilay Sarai.
interpretation,
Spring 2002,
Vol.
29, No. 3
266
Interpretation
itself, but
make
very little
account of
the
other
body,
and
p.
so
must
be
permitted to
devote
the
myself rather
to the
signs of
the
in men,
by
means of these to
portray
life
of each.
(Plutarch, Alex
ander,
1.1-3,
225).
It is
perhaps
he is
is missing from Sueto of this gap is that Caesar's story begins when Alexander was when he succeeded to the Macedonian
of the same material
Caesar's
biography
is
not
graced, or encum
bered, by II-III.4, pp. 225-29; XXVII.5-7, p. 305; but cf. Plutarch, Pompcy, LXVIII.2, p. 293.) A later anecdote, in which Caesar, then thirty-nine years old, laments that "while Alexander, at my age, was already king of so many peoples, I have as yet
achieved no
brilliant least
cf.
success,"
Alex
ander was at
an occasional p.
feature
of
Caesar's
p.
self-assessment
(Caesar,
first had
XI.6,
p.
469;
Pompey, II.2,
119; XLVI.l,
advantage of not
having
also
begins
at a crucial point
in the life
of
the Roman
Republic,
that
when
master of regular
443). In
whose
contrast
magistrates,
authority
coexisted with
that of
the various assemblies, the dictator was an occasional officer, summoned into
being
to deal
with some
implies,
pressing emergency, such as a war or a rebellion, whose was law. Previously, dictatorships were limited in
crisis that provoked
position
them,
or at most
to six months. In
(Sulla, XXXIV. 3,
for less than three years, then abruptly willingness of the Romans to grant
character effective
jealously
the
extraordinary power, whose temporary guarded, may well be regarded as the Republic (Plutarch, Sulla, XXXIII, text,
use
pp.
beginning
to
of
the
end of
present
the word
diktator
with
treats
Caesar's
being
proclaimed
dictator for
innovation (Caesar, LI.l, p. 563; see also Cicero, III.3, p. 86; but cf. Sulla, XXXIII. 1, p. 430; Pompey, IX. 1, p. 134). His later appoint ment as dictator for life seems almost anticlimactic (Caesar, LVII.l, p. 575).
constitutional, or at least a factional, danger in the young Caesar and contemplating his execution (Caesar, 1.3^4, p. 443). Caesar therefore went into hiding, first on the outskirts of Rome, then, after
reports as
year, in 47 B.C.,
Plutarch
Sulla
seeing
bribing
our
one of
whose
to set
him free,
of
first
glimpse
corruption,
at
King Nicomedes
extraneous to
not mention
of a
because
his
be-
by Suetonius,
homosexual relationship
of
Caesar
267
Nicomedes
and
Caesar. Does he
implicitly
discountenance
time,"
such talk
by
where Suetonius characterizing Caesar's stay there as only for "a short emphasizes its length? [Caesar, 1.8, p. 445; cf. Suetonius, II, p. 5; XLIX, pp. 65-69].) Then, on his way back to Rome, he was captured by pirates. (On the
problem of remained
he,
his
as a
piracy at this time, see Pompey, XXIV-XXV1II, pp. 173-87.) He in their custody for 38 days, while his followers raised a ransom, which mark of his importance, had voluntarily increased to 50 talents from the
captors
20 that his
watchers,
During this
body-guard,"
he joined in their
gymnastic
exercises,
spoke
condescendingly to them,
jest,
with
execution
manned a
fleet,
governor,
who was
apparently
holding
out
for
punishing them,
qualities of
maneuver, self-assurance,
blood that
would characterize
his
career are
apparent
lawlessness,
his
determined
own
hands. Less
evident
is
whether
robbers
how
valuable
he
impressing upon
of reckless
the
bravado
exhibited on the
fatalistic
living. It
he
was
destined for
harmed,
life is
not worth
would appear
from Plutarch's
toward
account of
the regional
pirates'
insolence, especially
quite
Romans,
pp.
in fact
risky (Pompey,
XXIV. 2-8,
173-77). Or
this
and
episode was a
ruthlessness needed
first test, in which he himself discovered for success in this rough milieu.
right
equipment: a public
that
he had the
daring
But he
He therefore
of
Apollonius
of
the
degree
for
one
be built primarily
another
military
Apollonius'
(Cicero
was
of
students
about the
same
time
[Cicero, IV. 5,
p.
91].) Following
officials,
the death of
Sulla, Caesar,
now about
twenty-
returned
popular
favor
by bringing
to antiquity,
and public
displays
of conspicuous consumption, p.
449; V.8-9,
He
p.
next
fifteen
he
served
of
were rungs on
the conventional
politicians.
Gaius
Marius,
public
leader
of the
appropriating for himself leadership Marian faction (Caesar, V.2-3, p. 451; VI. 1-5, pp. 453-55).
enemy,
in
effect
the moribund
268
Interpretation
of
At the time
motion a
the
opposed
in the Senate summarily to execute two of the conspirators, staking kind of due process position. (For an extended description of this episode,
pp.
out
see
10541
.)
Plutarch's Roman
account provides a
how
volatile and
how
deadly
politics
[A]fter they had been overwhelmingly convicted in the senate, and Cicero the con to give his opinion on the manner of their punishment, the down to Caesar, delivered
without urged
rest,
and
that
they be
high
put
to
death, but
He
Caesar
rose
in his
put
place
long
or
pleaded
that to
to
opin
death
legal trial
brilliant lineage
was not,
in his
ion,
until
traditional
and
just,
bound
kept in custody, in
necessity; but that if they should be Italy as Cicero himself might elect,
a successful end, the senate could
vote upon
afterwards, in
of
leisure,
one
them.
This
such
humane,
and
the speech
in
support of
it
power, that
also of
many
only those who rose to speak after Caesar sided with him, but those who had preceded him took back the opinions which they had
to
his,
until
the question
and
came round
to
Cato
and
Catulus.
opposed
Caesar's proposal, he
said.
Cato
even
helped to handed
a
raise suspicion
by
what of
As
over
to the ex
many
the young
men who at
that time
formed
as
body-guard for
was
Cicero
senate.
while
ran
together with
drawn
swords and
threatened Caesar
round
he
leaving
his
the
But Curio,
as we are
when of
Caesar
and got
him away, be
Cicero himself,
either
a sign, shook
head,
through
fear
the people,
or
murder would
and justice.
(Caesar. VII.7-VIII.3,
459-61)
like putty
The image
a
of
the great
republic's sovereign
body being
manipulated
by
few
able
forth like
corks on
contrary
rhetorical
waves, or of
cloak
Caesar
being
be merely
high.
Nor is Plutarch's
after this
incident, he
aroused
reports, Caesar
speech.
by Cato's
rounded the
a revolution
Senate house
and
fearing harm to their current favorite, sur loudly demanded Caesar's release. Cato, to avert
a
by
monthly
grain
7,500,000 drachmas
expenditures.
power was pp.
By
means
of this and
mass
bribe, "the
The
greatest
time"
Caesar's
broken down
are no
dissipated in
the nick of
The up for sale. And even defenders of the Republic, like Cato (Marcus Porcius Cato, Caesar's approximate contemporary and great-grandson of the
aristocrats are craven. plebs are more
461-63). There
heroes in
this vignette.
famous
censor and
implacable enemy
of
Carthage
of
On Plutarch's Life
of
Caesar
269
Cicero,
p.
cannot avoid
dirty
(see
also
133).
The
next
year,
Caesar's
Pompeia
patrician,
was
caught
Publius Clodius,
reports
a rakish
young
during
a religious
festival. Plutarch
that
at
he
was summoned
to
testify
at
[Clo
trial
for
sacrilege!,
he
he knew nothing
Clodius
asked,
was charged.
thought my
wife?"
"Because,"
suspicion."
Perhaps the
most
interesting
Clodius
feature
of
which
has
bequeathed to Caesar
was
us a common
later,
when
consul,
was elected
Caesar's
close
ally in his
XXVIII-
relation symbi
Clodius'
Cicero,
XXXV, 151-73; Pompey, XLVI.3-5, pp. 233-35; XLVIII-XLIX, pp. 23947.) Pompeia, let us note, was Caesar's third wife, and all of his marriages gained
for him
either wealth or political connections.
mentions
who
is
Caesar"
s second
marriage, to
The very first matter that Plutarch "Cornelia, the daughter of the Cinna
and
had
once
held the
or
dowry"
Rome,"
sole power at
either
by
promises
her away,
confiscated
443). His first wife, Cossutia, was the (Caesar, 1.1, daughter of a wealthy Roman knight (Plutarch, 1971, p. 453 n2). Pompeia was a distant relative of Pompey. And Lucius Calpurnius Piso, the father of his fourth
wife,
her
Calpurnia,
was
an
as
a provincial
governor,
p.
"plundered his
editor's note).
province
Macedonia
made
shamelessly"
(Plutarch, 1971,
"just
sex."
621,
him
eligible
for
Among
it seems, is
never
In 61 B.C., he
wealth and power mulated
during
his first military command, the gateway to the late Republic, over Spain. But Caesar had
major accu
living
that ingratiated
him
with
the Roman
prevented
him from
leaving
Rome. He
Licinius] Crassus,
fire for his
p.
Romans,
against
had
need
of
Caesar's
vigour and
[Gnaeus]
Caesar
Pompey"
(Caesar, XI. 1,
partner
469). Crassus
Pompey
for
were
arguably
the two single most influential Romans at this time, and Crassus was
on as a
taking
(cf.
and
junior
p.
in his rivalry
with
Pompey
preeminence
Cicero, VIII.6,
free. As
103). Crassus
seemed risk
himself; he
for
not
enrichment
270
Interpretation
would
be
content
to play a
subordinate role.
Lest
Crassus'
Caesar's
following
We
which
are
told
that,
as
he
was
and
passing
by
barbarian
village
mirth and
had very few inhabitants and was a sorry sight, his companions asked with laughter, "Can it be that here too there are ambitious strifes for office, for primacy, in
and mutual
struggles
said
jealousies
of powerful
Whereupon Caesar
Rome."
to them
second at
(Caesar, XI.3^1,
469)
years old.
Caesar
was
38
or
39
past
its
chronological midpoint.
This
there
was not
as
Caesar's first
quaestor
sojourn
in Spain. Six
years
briefly
back
(financial magistrate),
a position which no
moved
doubt
al
lowed him to he
was
see at close
in the
provinces.
Now
military and judicial office, charged with the peace and disputes. In this capacity he quickly "subdu[ed] keeping settling the tribes which before were not obedient to Rome, established] concord
as praetor, a combined
.
and of
heal[ed]
the
and credi
After
stay
probably only
as an
a year
(certainly
and a
no more than
two), he left
administrator,
wealthy
man
(Caesar, XII,
469-71).
Plutarch does
not
explain
how
provincial
administration
could
make
one
wealthy but
or resistant
provides a
tribes no
tantalizing hint. While outright pillaging of the rebellious doubt played a part, he directs the reader's attention espe
the
cially to Caesar's
adjudication of
ordained and
that
was
the owner of the property should use the rest, and so on until the
cancelled"
debt
(Caesar, XII. 3,
creditors,
471). If this
back his
settlement seems at
glance
unduly
generous to the
were of
we might
bear in
for
rulings with at
debt slavery
to
allowed the
and
debtors to
remain
free,
keep a substantial
fraction
of
their produce,
eventually to become wholly restored, thus giving them some incentive to be productive in the interim, may indeed be generous by comparison. Conversely,
have ended up in the short run with less than meets the easily imagine the grateful creditors, with only minimal prompting, siphoning half (or more) of their two-thirds of the first year's profits back to the praetor, who would in turn keep his troops happy by letting half (or less) of his
the creditors might well
eye.
One
can
of
Caesar
271
his
down to them. In
effect,
Caesar had
The highest rung on the conventional political ladder was the office of consul, for which Caesar stood upon his return from Spain. Cato, who emerges from this
account as a
kind
of prophet of
by
(Cf.
Pompey, XLVIII.4,
the office
and
241; LX.5,
p.
Crassus
peacemaker
between
kindness,
which placed
sought to
aristocracy
as
step
now
on
his
own
autocratic
rule,
step
which
they
least
could
both
pursue
having
from
the other.
Conversely, fear
p.
of an aristocratic restoration
strategy once war erupted 289). Caesar seems, with respect to his ambition, to have been the LXVII.1-2, most outstanding specimen of a small breed. But for the fact that Crassus died
Pompey 's
first,
than
and
Pompey
and
proved
less able, or perhaps just less lucky, on the battlefield, have styled themselves Crasses and Pomps rather
"caesous"
Kaisers
a moral
might
have
and
Pompey flanking
him
on either side,
Caesar
appealed
subsidies and
exile, and
assembly for the enactment of land distributions for the plebs, neutralized Cato, drove Cicero into ultimately subdued the Senate by intimidating most of its contrary
popular
minded members
sessions
(Caesar, XIII-XIV,
of
pp.
471-77). Cae
Plutarch
sar's order
feature
this
temporary
alliance,
betrothal
by
his daughter Julia to Pompey, which was followed in short the awarding of Pompey's daughter to Julia's disappointed former Caesar's
own marriage
fiance,
and
of
her
father Piso. In
means of
addition
to the
trafficking
"powers
by
women,"
which
Cato,
marriage p.
alliances also
involved the
have
confusion of generations
given
(Caesar, XIV. 8,
so
475).
Pompey
be the
reports
could as well
other's
father-in-law,
Julia died
or one a
his
sons
that,
when
few
years
later, Caesar, in
in
relation with
Pompey, did
propose an arrangement
which
he
would
marry
Pompey's daughter, presumably after divorcing Calpurnia, and Pompey would marry Caesar's sister's granddaughter! He also notes that Pompey was available
to marry Julia because he had divorced his
with
wife
Mucia
on account of
her adultery
p.
37; L.l,
p.
69;
see also
Plutarch, Pompey,
XLII.6-7,
may
make
with
the natural order is of a piece with the the natural claim that age
subversion of
Senate,
whose not
very
name suggests
to rule. This
is
to
deny
middle-aged
men, or that
philosophic arguments
272
Interpretation in
their defense (see
are available
Plutarch
seems
to regard them
p.
as
political!)
dubious (Pompey,
p.
XLIV.2-L XLI.
pp.
p.
229: XLVIII.5.
241; LIII.1-2,
aunt
261; Cicero.
Cornelia,
ancient
187-89). Generational
years
Caesar
gave
earlier,
it
was
Roman
usage
to
pronounce
funeral
orations over p.
was not
in the
case of
young
assigns
(Caesar, V.4,
to him on the
night
451). Is it
also echoed
that Plutarch
before he
crossed
the
Rubicon, "that
he
p.
was
having
incestuous intercourse
with
his
own
(Caesar, XXXII. 9,
commander
523)?
was
made
military
over
the
got
Gaul
on
both
sides of
the Alps
for
a period of
another
Plutarch is
explicit
that the
five (Caesar, XIV. 10, p. 475: XXI. 6, p. 495). Gallic campaign marked for Caesar "a new begin
all rivals as a man of unique
ning"
that distinguished
him from
pp.
military
accom
plishment
(Caesar. XV.
477-79).
By implication,
politicians.
his
career of
up to this
appreciate
point
was,
if noteworthy,
any
of a number
Roman
We
can
thus
why top,
Crassus
could
and
Pompey,
men who
regard
him
as
had already risen to one step short merely a useful instrument in their
of the
own plans.
want or
having
attained
the
top"
also an
"the
the
conventional
in
some
detail, but
we need
only
note a
few He
The hallmarks
mixed
of
Caesar's military
daring
and speed.
had the
fortune
of
Roman
often at unfavor
odds,
by
The glory moving in quickly and exploiting the victories, his ability to rally the troops through battlefield rhetoric,
element of surprise.
his
willingness
to share
in their labors
physical
and
deprivations,
made more
impres
men
by
his
own somewhat an
fragile
constitution, endeared
him to his
and
inspired in them
intense
personal
pp. 479-
85).
Notwithstanding
him his due
his
deep
criticism of
gives
chronicles
800
cities
taken, 300
nations
killed
(Caesar, XV. 5,
of
later
passage
170,000
calamitous
years
(Caesar, LV.5-6,
571).
while
By
so
56 B.C.,
full
in
he
was
stationed at
his
northern
Italy, Caesar's
200
had
increased that he
in
effect
hold
court to
senators at
Luca, parceling
(Caesar,
acting
as power
and
Pompey
of
Caesar
273
495).
By
mutual agreement,
command
in Gaul
was prolonged or
for five
years.
con
tinued to underestimate
Caesar,
hoped that he
would
eventually
string
himself
killed in
clothed
one or another
daring
attack.
Instead, his
so
unbroken
of victories returned
adver
him
invincibility,
his
that when he
finally
to confront
sary's
Pompey
his
better
equipped
forces into
disarray (Caesar,
and
Midway
child campaign
troubled,"
her
newborn
time, Crassus
of
killed in battle
and
of
while on were
military
Pompey
dissolved"
Caesar
"greatly
state
may Two
"they felt that the relationship which alone kept the distempered (Caesar, XXIII. 6, p. 501). We harmony and concord was now take this as an index of how brittle the Caesar-Pompey alliance had become.
in
years
later,
the
was a coalition at
Gallic leader Vergentorix (sic) was rousing all of Gaul to Rome against (Caesar, XXVI. 1,
Caesar"
505 ).
By
decided to
completely subdued, Caesar and Pompey had each which Caesar had formed "from the
also
Cicero, XX.6,
p.
131).
Ill
As Caesar
approached
Rome, in 49 B.C.,
into
antagonistic
was
hopelessly
sunk
in
[Candidates for
office set
up
counting-tables
in
public and
under
behalf
slings.
but
with
bows
and arrows,
would
defile the
rostra with
blood
and corpses
before they
steersman,
worse
separated,
leaving
drifting
about without a
so that men of
understanding
if
matters
issued in nothing
for
pp.
511-13)
sole
[Pompey]
tried to
reduce
p.
bring
Cicero
by
their respective
and
519). Caesar's
find terms
of
mutual accommodation,
disarm Caesar,
XXXI. 1, 2,
p.
or at
least to
but probably in bad faith. Pompey was determined to reduce his numbers to decisive inferiority (Caesar,
offered that sight
lay
519). Caesar, apparently more conciliatory, down their arms, but had kept most of his forces out of
274
Interpretation
forward
at
to be summoned
p.
p.
5 17; XXXII. 1
supporter
on two ot
Caesar's
them to
backers, Antony
Curio, driving
inducing
the
flee the city, Caesar gathered the men he had on hand and River, that is, he brought provincial troops into the area
where
crossed
Rubicon
proximate
to
Rome,
war
forbidden
and
so
launched the
civil
The ensuing
except against
four
places
ironically
outside
for
"civil"
war, all of
them,
first
for
some
initial
skirmishing,
of
Italy. Caesar
against
proceeded
Pompey himself
his
rare
in Dyrrhachium
and
(present-day Albania),
where
where
he
suffered one of
defeats,
pursued
Thessaly,
where
at
Pharsalus. He
by
agents of
King Ptolemy,
event, their
pp.
Caesar. In the
actual
(Pompey, LXXVII-LXXX,
got embroiled
317-25;
conflict
in the
Ptolemy
and
his
of
Roman
attention
by
by
Caesar
suppressed
in 47 B.C. Finally, he
associates
of
tions
against
Pompey's former
Cato
Pompey's
sons
in Spain. Much
his
soldiers'
of
fought
at unfavorable odds.
Along
the way, Plutarch notes certain episodes that bear on Caesar's charac
once mentions
his displays
(Caesar, XXXIV.5-9,
pp.
557). There may have been as much calculation as generosity in this policy, which he exercised especially in the early phases of the civil war, when the outcome was uncertain and he arguably needed all the support he could get. This
not
quality had
been
prominent
during
where
his
merely Barbarians,
celebrated a p.
nor was
it
later,
when
he defeated Scipio
and
Pompey's
Romans
Caesar
his fellow
citizens
(Caesar, LIII.7,
his involve
569; LIV,
569; LVI.7-9,
pp.
573-75).
war
Similarly
in
ambiguous was
Egypt]
was not
But
others
it,
and
especially the
eunuch
Potheinus,
court,
secretly plotting
against
behaved
insultingly
toward
him,
importantly,
depth
and
procrastinated
pp.
(Caesar, XLVIII.5-9,
some
that
is,
him
susceptible
to a one-dimensional
complexity interpretation.
plausibly
of
Caesar
275
set out
Pompey, his
began to grumble,
only momentarily,
pp. 533-
being
(Caesar, XXXVII3-9,
unusual,
Dyrrhachium, he
succumbed to an
also momen
of self-doubt and
Caesar himself
come
despair (Caesar, XXXIX.8-11, pp. 539-41). Had to believe the myth of invincibility that he carried into
success?
By
the time of
Munda, his
earlier elan
had become
to his
"[ w]ith
As he
was
going away after the battle he victory, but now first for his
old; he had just less than
friends
that
p.
he had
for
(Caesar, LVI.3-4,
left to live.
573). Caesar
55
years
a year
IV
The
career.
turning
point
in Caesar's
for
be his fatal
willingness to
accept the
ers and conduct we
heaped
him, both by
obsequious
follow
by during
fashioning
was
an excuse to strike
his last
other
year of
life
575). As
learn from
the
Senate, decreed
[t]hat he
should
be
sole censor
Patriae"
. . .
and
his image be
stamped on
public named
his
coins
a symbol of month of
his
birthday
which
be
celebrated
by
re
Quintilis [July], in
he
was
born, be
"Julius",
in the
he
appeared
in the Senate he
kings had formerly worn. [The censorship was a presti honorific office, usually held by former consuls, chosen every five largely years for a term of eighteen months, whose duties consisted of maintaining the lists of citizens and senators and on of matters public morals.] Further, it pronouncing
chair and
gious
but
his decrees,
past and
future,
were
binding,
and
that magistrates on
assuming
sanct,
and
by
person was sacro them; bound themselves to protect his life. "And finally
and ordered a
that
his
they
addressed
him
outright as
Jupiter Julius
temple to
be
conse
pp.
crated to
him
and
to his
priest."
as their
(Fuller,
not
identify
See
Suetonius, LXXVI.l,
99.)
Plutarch
credits
with which
him betoken
a change
in his
feated foes
sonal
and
only in his circumstances? Concerning his generosity toward de others, for instance, Plutarch notes the same ambiguity of per
and calculation that
disposition
he had
shown
in granting clemency
during
276
Interpretation
(Caesar, LVII.4-6.
a
p.
the wars
575: LVIII.l,
p.
this respect
acting in
power
way that
was
deliberately
contrary to Sulla's
exercise of autocratic
Sulla, XXXI-XXX1I,
pp.
425-31)? More
of
generally, he explains
competitive
Caesar's
peacetime accomplishments
in terms
the same
spirit,
even
in the
Caesar's many
successes,
however, did
not
divert his
he had
laboriously
used of
achieved,
plans
but
served as
fuel
and
achievements, and
as
begat in him
what
for
greater
deeds
and a passion
though
he had
he felt
other
was
man,
rivalry between
p.
what
he had done
he
purposed
to
577)
Considering
reform of
the
detail into
which
Plutarch
enters on
Caesar's
battles, he
says
remarkably little
scarcely begun
glory;
about
his final
year of
dictatorial
governance.
the calendar, all the other matters mentioned were either mere plans or
projects, and all would
have been
a grand
conspicuous monuments
to his
conquest of
the
Parthians; making
as
tour of his
imperium;
and
big
public works
projects, such
digging
canals,
draining
swamps, and
another
rivers
(Caesar, LV11I.6-10,
dream
about
pp.
pre-Rubicon a
big
committing incest with his mother, i.e.. by plowing, in way, his Mother Earth (Caesar, XXXII. 9, p. 523 and n2)? Among the many
filling vacancies in the Senate that were occasioned by the civil war, enlarging the body from 600 to 900, and bringing in new members from the provinces; increasing the number of
measures that
not mention are
Plutarch does
Caesar's
and
priests;
practitioners;
court
ordering
and
that
and
the
and
people's
be
recorded
published; establishing
public
library,
collecting and classifying Greek and Latin texts for it; imposing a tariff on foreign manufactures and enacting sumptuary laws; and partially canceling debts, lowering interest rates, and placing more money into general circulation (Suetonius. XLI-XLIV,
other pp.
57-63;
could
see
also
hand, he did
not establish
cabinet or
advisory
council
new offices.
inconvenienced
Caesar due
(Storch,
p.
51).
of
the calendar,
Plutarch
gives
credit
had baffled
others, the
between lunar
the
solar year
(Caesar, LIX,
months civil
81). He
in
doing
Caesar took
from the
previously would arbitrarily insert intercalary time. It is not difficult to imagine such actions
priests, who
from time to
matters, e.
affecting
of
Caesar
277
timing
hence forth be the merely ceremonial one of the sacrificial feasts and announcing festivals at their appointed times. The calary reform thus did to the priesthood what his earlier activities had done to the Senate, demoting them from decision
would
of religious ceremonies.
as well as the
making bodies to ratifying and implementing entities. Plutarch's fulsome account of the events surrounding Caesar's assassination is replete with dreams and portents (Caesar, LXIII, pp. 589-93; LXVI.1-3,
pp.
595-97). However seriously Plutarch may have taken these things, he reports knew of or strongly suspected the existence of a conspiracy, Caesar himself (Caesar, LXIV.6, pp. 591, 593). On the
which the as p. other
including
p.
dangerous profession, in
that required the same
fatalism
custody.
possibility of murder was ever present, and may have guided his conduct as a youth when
he
was
in the
Officially,
(or
the royal
perhaps more
aptly, just
"kingship"
[basileias]),
him"
which produced p.
"the
deadly
of
hatred toward
had
(Caesar, LX.l,
other
openly.
At
largely quibbling over a title, since the Romans had already acquiesced in his being dictator for life, and may even have been willing to proclaim him in the provinces outside of Italy king
(Caesar, LVII,1,
p.
issue
kingship
by
then become
575; LXIV.3,
of
p.
seem
intent to
establish a
dynasty,
one
hallmark
would
Marcus Brutus
legitimate kingship, but rather to have assumed that be his successor (Caesar, LXII.6, p. 587). Unlike Sueto
hint
at the rumor that
not
Brutus
was
Caesar's
natural son,
he discusses
p.
Brutus'
lineage
and p.
LXII.1-5,
mention a
587;
cf.
Suetonius, L.2,
69; LXXXII.2,
p.
bill that Caesar had supposedly ordered drawn up "making it lawful for Caesar to marry what wives he wished, and as many as he wished, 'for the
children'
"
purpose of
begetting
noteworthy figures
(Suetonius, LII.3,
pp.
71-73). He
shows no such
reticence
in commenting, both
favorably
of
and
critically,
Pompey, II. 2-5, pp. 119-21; XXXVI.2-6, pp. 211-13; XLVIII.4-5, p. 241; LIII.1-4, pp. 253-55; Crassus, I, p. 315; V, pp. 325-27; Sulla, II.3 4, p. 329; XXXV.3-XXXVI.1, pp. 437-39). Still, Plutarch makes clear both that Caesar wanted this title and that the Romans
some other
were reluctant
to
grant
it. Thus, he
was
twice vexed
king
did
(Caesar, LX.3, 583; LXI.5-10, Christian, Caesar, whose name would come to signify something more than king, lived within the horizon of received categories (cf. Strauss, pp. 96-98).
Upon his assassination, the people, though
Brutus'
585-87). Just
perhaps
initially
saddened
by
his
death,
justification:
278
Interpretation
On the
next
day
Brutus
came
down
and
held
discourse,
and
what
appearing to
approve of
while
they
pitied
their
deep
silence, that
to make a
and not to
too,
trying
general
amnesty
and
reconciliation,
voted
to give
disturb
while
insignificant
partisans
measure which
in
power;
to
Brutus
and
his
it distributed
honours.
possible
so that
matters were
decided
in the best
manner.
LXVII.7-9,
will
pp.
601-3)
public, the
amount of
Only
after
Caesar's
his
legacy
to
every
Roman
citizen
disclosed,
on
his
wounded
corpse
displayed, did
on
the people
become
exercised p.
his behalf
and
seek
revenge
LXVIII.1-2,
on the one
hand
Brutus
Roman
people,
long
bribery
and
manipulation,
were
in the
end moved
only by money and sentimentality. By contrast, Suetonius reports the reading of Caesar's will as a private event that took place in Antony's house and treats the
mob's
incitement
a matter of
thing,
other
as virtually an accident, or, what may amount to the same divine intervention (LXXXIII-LXXXIV, pp. 1 13-15). At the makes
extreme,
Shakespeare
art, the
pivotal event
achievement, Plutarch concludes that "of the power and dominion which
sought all
he had
no
of
his life
barely
last,"
achieved at
awakened
he "reaped
on
name of
it only,
glory
which
had
envy
the part
citizens"
(Caesar, LXIX.l,
simplify,
p.
605).
of politics,
disciplines in
order
sionally
exhorted to
"simplify,
simplify,"
to
their lessons
Plutarch's Life of Caesar takes this counsel to heart, as it its subject's career along the line of a single trajectory. While
Plutarch's Caesar (in contrast, for example, to his or Cicero) is not a study in complexity, but rather functions
of a single
repre
Pompey
a man
moral
fundamental
choice,
a
declares,
I
am
"I
rather
fear d / Than
fear,
for
Caesar,"
always
he aptly
his
Plu-
REFERENCES
Fuller, Major-General J. F. C. Julius Caesar: Man, Soldier, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1965.
Plutarch's Lives. Vol.
and
Tyrant. New
Brunswick,
Library. Reprint
3, Crassus. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. 1916. Loeb Classical Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951
of
Caesar
279
by
University Press, 1950. by Bernadotte Perrin. 1917. Loeb Classical Library. Reprint Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. Plutarch's Lives. Vol. 7, Caesar, Alexander, Cicero. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. 1919. Loeb Classical Library. Reprint Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1971.
and the
Ides
of
Murder."
The
History
Bulletin. 9 (1995): 1.
on
Xenophon's
Hiero."
and
Other Studies. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 1975. Suetonius. The Deified Julius. In The Lives of the Caesars, Vol. 1. Translated Rolfe. New York: G. P Putnam's Sons, 1928. Yavetz. Zvvi. Julius Caesar
1983.
and
by
J. C.
University Press,
"Mathematici"
v.
"Dogmatici":
Understanding
the
INTRODUCTION
Hobbes's
political
tradition in
international
relations.
His
view of
human
nature
is somber,
his
state of
imagery
for
realists'
the
are
Realists
such as
Iain McLean
quences that
state of nature
anarchy among sovereign attracted to the logical conse very scenario and are impressed with the
realists are
view of
timeless quality
correct to on
Hobbes's
observations
(McLean). While
generally
most
find in Hobbes
a source of
inspiration, they
how it
tend to concentrate
his
observations of
the state
of nature and
applies to relations
among
nations.
Yet there
into
richer understanding
of
the project
shed
light
on
have been his theory of international relations, had he chosen to treat that theory fully. All three aspects of Hobbes's thought coalesce around the question What causes human conflict?
First there is Hobbes's
state of relations use of the state of nature
imagery
also
to describe the
among nations. Hobbes applies his reasoning concerning the law of nature to the "law of There are reasons for returning to this familiar territory. Many realists or critics of realism who use Hobbes's state of
nations."
nature
analogy do
so
in
fairly
limited
way.
not give
Hobbes's
the analogy,
or coop do indicate the possibility of some "international among states due to the differences Hobbes does acknowledge between and states
individuals
worth while
commonly known references to international relations in Hobbes. Next, I examine another line of reasoning, less familiar in international
For Hobbes, human
that situation
conflict stems
rela
from the
situation
human
beings logical
are
in, but
is
caused
partly
by
attributes.
The differences in
by
physical
interpretation,
Spring 2002,
282
Interpretation
are great enough
differences,
level
which
to cause communication
can
problems on
the
domestic
scientific
Hobbes thinks
Here is
where
methodology.
"mathematici,"
the
ideologies
and
inflame the
it
was possible
for the
mathematici
to
bring
peace
to the domestic
seemed
level, but
the
differences
contract at
caused
by
linguistic
and cultural
diversity
to make a social
the international
observation
simply
as
strengthens
Hobbes's
conviction
is
possible
is
domestic
peace and
stability, through
a proper
understanding
domestic level.
Finally,
and civilized
caused within
by
the advent of
intellectualism, theology,
foundation
of government was
was
the brute
indeed the desire for security and force of kings. With the
sophistication,
its inevitable
political
real
however, lead
party
or
purpose
for
"trifles"
such as political
due to the
prevalence of
"good
days"
old
in
which
by
ity)
a
could
be
used
to create
lasting
People
must
be taught
doctrine
and
internalize
a rationale
for their
political
loyalty
their
consciously theory,
understood self-interest.
promotes
his
sci
entific
grounded
in the reality
of
human
history,
as a political
"doctrine"
doctrines that
adopted
and
doctrine, if successfully
by
society,
as
will
bring
in
domestic tranquility
stability
is
possible
an anarchical world.
Chapter 13
on
of
Leviathan is
conflict.
famously
to
taken as
Hobbes's definitive
of
statement
international
course, domestic
conflict, it
international
relations.
"state
nature"
of
but
rather
mankind."
He begins in
nature
basically
become
prudent
in time. Out
man acquires
him. In
other
many things, others will try to overpower because some want too much, all must words, try to subdue each in order to survive. Morgenthau echoes this idea when he suggests that an
other
"Mathematici"
"Dogmatici"
v.
283
unlimited
desire for
power
of
described
by
Hobbes in
chapter
1 1
of
Leviathan is
held only
by
handful
international leaders,
pp.
men
Napoleon,
and
233-35). Hobbes
causes of conflict as
So
that
in the
nature of
man,
we
find three
First;
competition; secondly,
diffidence; thirdly,
vol.
glory. second
The
first,
maketh men
for safety;
and the
third, for
reputation.
(Leviathan,
112)
Hobbes
goes on
to explain that
by
war, he
does
not
just
lence, but
has
in
in his
assessment
is
Then he
provides us with
imagery
of
anarchy that
resounded
In
is
no place
the
fruit thereof is
un
certain: and
modities
that
no culture of
no navigation or use of
the com
of
by
sea; no commodious
as require much
building;
no
no
instruments
of
force;
no
knowledge
the
face
time;
(P.
no arts; no of violent
letters;
death;
society; and
which
is
worst
of all, continual
fear,
and
danger
and the
life
of man, solitary,
short.
113)
Hobbes tells
of the
primeval
state, there
are
may instances
not
of
be
able
something close to the natural One such instance is, of course, Hobbes adds, however, that
relation
Hobbes
is
kings in
115). This
statement
has been
used
to apply Hobbes's laws of nature to the laws to equate the two. He writes in The
of nations, and
indeed he
sometimes seems
Elements of Law that "As for the law of nations, it is the same with the law of Hobbes continues: "For that which is the law of nature between man and
nature."
constitution of
law
of nations
p.
between
after"
vol.
4,
228).
account
observations about
international
war when
trying
law
Hobbes tells
kings in
relation
to each other
differs in
a crucial
moves
him to
downplay
diffidence
as a cause of war
among
nations.
Kings
can
keep
able
their
people
in the
the
state of nature.
whereas
individuals
politic
is numerous;
much
but
not
body
as a whole
less
chance of such
284
tune).
Interpretation
Thus,
and
there is less anxiety in the state of nature among kings. If there is less
anxiety in the
fear,
there will
be less
compulsion
enter
into
a social will
in the
manner vol.
in
p.
which
expects
individuals
(Leviathan,
3,
points out
that "the
state of
war,
by
upholding the
industry
of the citizens of a
nature
state,
to their and its strength, whereas the state of the establishment of any kind of
industry"
Hobbes's further
law
law
of nations
is
of
called
into
question
by
the
fact that he
states.
nations"
to describe
relations
among
right of nature
law
of nature.
The right
amounts a rule
to
doing
state
it takes to
preserve
oneself, while a
law
is
discovered
In the
whatever
is destructive to
a man's preservation.
hence,
there
is
no security.
So the
first law
vol.
is to
seek peace,
of
ourselves
(Leviathan,
because
3,
is
p.
heeding
until
first law is
of nature exists
man
a rational
capable of
seeing the
contract
for
But
that contract
beings,
law
of nature
is known
by all
be
binding
The
practice.
After the
social
contract
is made, the
other
laws
of nature,
known
by
in
law.
What
about the
law
nations,
law that
be
made
into
civil
law
because it
can never
law among
sovereign nations
clarifies
the status of
Again,
nations,
alike.
the natural
of
hath
ob
of but vulgarly it is termed the right of nations. The precepts of both are But because cities once instituted do put on the personal proprieties of man,
which
may be
called that
that to
law,
speaking
of the
duty
being
applied
nations, is
called
the
right
same elements of
natural
law
of,
being
transferred to
and right
nations,
elements of the
laws
of
(P.
275)
This distinction is
law
of
in Leviathan, where Hobbes again equates nations, but goes on to explain that every
the same
right to have
protect
his
forming a social contract with other sovereigns has body politic as the individual in the state of nature
same
has
a right to preserve
no civil
law,
men that
they
ought to
do,
and what
regard of one
is,
to the
"Mathematici"
"Dogmatici"
v.
285
being
3,
p.
no court
justice, but in
find that
are
the conscience
only
(Leviathan,
vol.
342).
that
So
we
laws
of nature
follow from it
fairly
condition of
kings in
relation
to one
they
since
they do
the
level
of
state of nature.
Kings
They
p.
retain
the right
of
nature, to
do
whatever
the state,
including
the infliction
men
(Leviathan,
all
vol.
3.
in the
the laws of nature, but cannot reasonably act upon them. The same would be
kings, but
security
which
strictly
likely
Hobbes's
reference
to
"contracts] between
sovereigns"
concerning
point
ambassa
dorial
immunity
in
chapter
that agreements
among
sovereign states short of world government are possible, and are more state of nature.
unless
steady than would be agreements among individuals in the person in a foreign land is subject to the laws of that land
privilege
A
a
"he have
by the
He
amity
of the sovereigns, or
by
licence"
a special
possibility of covenants with foreigners in times writes in Behemoth, "It is indeed commonly seen that
war, or
neighbour
envy one another's honour, and that the less potent bears the greater but that hinders them not from agreeing in those things which their common ambition leads them (Behemoth, vol. 6, p. 203). As we have seen,
malice;
to"
Hobbes
"consciences
(Leviathan,
vol.
3,
p.
342). The
is the only court of justice available in the international state of nature. Hence, the laws of nature, known to all in the state of nature, are matters of conscience among sovereigns. But they are capable of some application, at the
pleasure of
sovereigns.
Hobbes adds that even in the state of nature there are "natural
that might apply also to kings in relation to each other. These might further
encourage cooperation and steadiness of conviction
in international
relations:
And
eases;
with
hereby
it
comes
punished with
dis
injustice,
with
the
violence of
enemies; pride,
princes, with rebel
government of
lion;
(Leviathan,
vol.
3,
pp.
356-57)
that might come from
natural punishments
the Peloponnesian
War,
trade
would
286
the
Interpretation
condescended to suffer the
Athenians have
Megareans,
begun"
their neighbours, to
4,
pp.
101-2).
we see some
Already
tions.
He
acknowledges
complexity in Hobbes's thinking on international rela the different situation of states in international relations
state of nature.
compared to the
individual in the
He
than
realizes
forceable
covenants more
are
likely
and more
capable
steady
of
in the
state of nature.
conscience
He
thus more
exercising their
than
individuals. While kings may not answer to world government for their misjudgments because of rashness and pride, they must keep in mind those
natural punishments
would stand
to reason that
are
further
removed
from fear be
all
of violent
nature, that
they
should
What
role
do the
of
state of
nations
play
we
in the entirety
must turn
Hobbes's
thought? To
help
answer that
with
question,
implications for
international theory.
Hobbes's theory concerning human difference and the problem disputes the Aristotelian notion that outward objects send forth in
own
of perspective
"species"
their
idea that
some action of an
outward object.
our
human sensing must be understood as an internal activity, a separate phenomenon from the outward object. In other words, in the case of vision, what
we see
is
"apparition"
an
thing itself. There is a difference between what all we can know about it is what our senses tell
which
the
us.
As Hobbes is
same
to
point
The
is true
we
hearing,
is nothing if
Things
think are in
distorted
"apparitions"
in
our minds.
"motion"
as the
pp.
3-8).
say that we see wholly different things, in which case no be possible, but that there are subtle differences in our
consequences
of
for
our
ability to
communicate
course, has
various
political consequences. of
While
Hobbes's may
not
mechanistic explanation
for
kinds
be completely satisfactory, it is evident that he believes that human beings cannot easily know the world as it truly is. It also follows from the above
"Mathematici"
"Dogmatici"
v.
287
observations that
with precision.
human beings
each man each
will
have
a
difficulty
communicating to
each other
As
lives in
use
highly likely
that
will
slightly different perceptual world, it is words in a way tainted with his individual
vol.
4,
p.
25). One
can
affect and
individuals to
coalesce around
different
ideologies
treatment of "the
a restless
of vol.
Chapter 11 in Leviathan is remarkably effective if not systematic in its Difference of among men. While human beings share
Manners"
desire for
and
they
in
pursue
it in the
name of a
"diversity
and
passions"
and opinion
(Leviathan,
the same
3,
p.
85). Because
different
diversity
physical
attributes, experience,
in
an
inconstant manner,
and
by
names.
The
may hint
even call of
its
solution
is
found in the
following
lines:
We
how
men
first
grounds of
knowledge
and sense
because
of
the "de
they
are
how unconstantly names have been settled, and to equivocation, and how diversified by passion, (scarce two
and also
agreeing
what
what
is
to
be
liberality,
what prodi
gality;
valour, what
. . .
temerity)
how
vol.
fal
lacy
In
in reasoning
(Human Nature,
4,
p.
26)
does
to
order
to establish
truly
scientific
reasoning, Hobbes
senses.
not
need
divorce
science
totally from the evidence of the is defined as evidence of truth from some
reason vol.
Indeed, he
claims that
beginning
be
able
or principle of sense
(Human Nature,
world with
4,
p.
28). While
we
may
not
perfectly, using
scientific of our
reasoning
we can
theories and
hypotheses is
The
they
work.
Hence,
we can overcome
rigor in
not
problem
is easy
to
diagnose,
difficult to solve,
men, could be
and
it is
expected
mathematici, those who start their reasoning from humble principles, and
dog
matici, those who hold maxims learned from authority or custom, and that the blame for
confusion must
he
allows
be
on
the
latter,
who
wish
to
have their
vol.
4,
pp.
73-74).
solution of the scientific method seems
Hobbes's
at the
what
difficult
enough
to achieve
domestic level, but if it is difficult but hope is there that the differences
linguistic divides
problem
possible
cultural and
can
be
by
a similar science?
hints
at
this
in his biblical
that man
"diversity
tongues."
He
speculates after
invented
for things,
without
the assis
tance of
God,
the initial
but
minimal
instruction in the
garden of
Eden. Man
288
Interpretation
names, for instance. But
all that
previous
at the
tower
of
Babel, because
of man's
from God,
was of
language
from there
the
language
human invention
time. The mother of all inventions is need, and so languages grew to the extent
of
human need,
which varied
from
place to place.
(Leviathan,
vol.
3.
p.
19).
Hobbes
in Elements of Philosophy:
diverse
names are
daily
ones
names, and
how impossible it is
a name and a
either
militude,
any
comparison
betwixt
thing, how
natures?
can
any
man p.
(Vol.
1,
16)
Hobbes depicts
world
in
which
international
communication would
be especially problematic. While there is plenty of evidence in his act of phi losophizing itself that Hobbes thought it was possible through strict use of the
scientific method
to
no
overcome
in his
own
country, there
is
similar evidence
teaching
could
follow his
in
order
to obtain
he
was
alone.
In
fact, he
that
he
writes
upon
in Latin in
the
order
Considerations
Reputation,
Loyalty, Manners,
"Being
at
Religion of Thomas Hobbes, Hobbes says about himself: Paris, he wrote and published his book De Cive, in Latin, to the end
that all nations which should hear what you and your
Con-Covenanters
were
doing
in England,
might
detest you,
which
this
is beyond
the
I believe they do; for I know no book (vol. 4, p. 415). Obviously, Hobbes
thought his books would be enlightening to those in other lands. But that nations
could come
into
binding
above,
of
cooperative or
legalistic
is
as we
have
now
seen
dismissed for
nations, and
because
linguistic
and cultural
possible
domestic felic
ity
insecurity
is
made clear
in the
following
passage:
L. You
are not
between
two nations;
because there is
no
injustice. Mutual fear may keep them quiet for a time; but upon visible advantage every they will invade one another; and the most visible advantage is then, when the one nation is obedient to their king,
common power
in this
But be
peace at
home may then be expected durable, when the com benefit they shall receive by their obedience harm they
must suffer
by taking
part
with
them,
who
by
promises of
vol.
reformation,
or change of
government, deceive
them. (A
Dialogue,
6,
pp.
7-8).
"Mathematici"
"Dogmatici"
v.
289
the
Hobbes is simply arguing that international breakdown of domestic order. The corollary
mestic peace and
conflict of
is
made more
likely by
this observation
is that, if do
security
is
at
less
risk of
invasion. The
we can expect
fear to
"keep them
can contribute
he
might put
it,
the always
temporary
cessation
same
of
his
a
being
If
king
is
not so
right to levy money for the maintenance necessity for the security of the nation (vol. 6, p. 18). armed, Hobbes reasons, his lack of power may be a temptation
a
to his neighbors. If
he is
his
prosperous, the
temporary
cessation of
hostilities is
less
conflict.
likely
to last
longer. A
world of such
strong
Hence,
can
the
international
spread of
of absolute
only
make
spread of
his doctrine
hence
less tempting to would-be conquerors, an international situation which might still be a state of war, but at least it would be a state of war less likely to turn into open
conflict.
But there is
of
no evidence
that
peace"
dreamed
by
philosophers such as
Kant.
We have
of the
seen
in this
section
discussion
con
internal
mechanisms of the
human
body
and
brain
when
explaining
flict among human beings, but went impact of peculiarly human defects on
between the him
with
dogmatici. It is the
Now
hope
domestically, but
international level
by
producing
and
a sort of
balance
of power.
we must
ment of
history
to understand
much
fully
this distinction
between
dogmatici his
world.
how
Hobbes
attributes to
dogmatici the
DOCTRINAL WARS
Kraynak'
examines
well the
overlooked
such as
A Dialogue be
Kraynak
(Kraynak,
as
some
Student of the Common Laws of England, of which p. 10). When seen in the light of these less
less familiar passages in his more widely has known treatises, Hobbes's theory strongly historical elements. He traces the advancement of the English people from the "most primitive condition [where]
celebrated
works, as
well
of
authority
and
was
by
"natural
over
families
tribes,"
domination,
when
England
290
Interpretation
written
developed
laws
to
a
and customs,
but
where
it
was still
kingdoms,"
petty "established
finally
a great
(Kraynak,
pp.
monarchy 13-14).
stage of civil
science, and
society itself
are
only
possible at
condition of civilization
achievement
has been
But
by
successful
conquest
and
subsequent
of peace.
Rousseau,
whose environmentalism
reflections on
is
often
thought to
be the
opposite of
Hobbes's timeless
his scathing attention to the ideological corruption produced by that very civili zation. For even though civilization produced advances in science and technol
ogy, it also produced leisure for the philosophers, orators,
with rule pursuit of
the speculative
replaced
sciences.
Priests,
force
lawyers,
Wars for
and
intellectuals
rule
by
natural
by
opinion.
territory
need
by
wars over
doctrine. No longer
competed
knowledge"
motivated
by
(the first
things'
like
"titles,"
"symbols,"
"claims to
out, Hobbes
as
Kraynak
points
fellow
civilization.
The
ultimate goal
safety, but establishing the primacy of their developed to a level unknown to barbaric men.
opinions.
Cruelty
and
hatred
Kraynak
even
historical
periodization
that
he finds
in De Cive
age,"
Leviathan. He
sees
Hobbes
dividing history
phetic
represented
by
the ancient kingdoms of the near east and charac the kings were themselves prophets; the "philo
and
terized
sophic
by
relative
peace,
where
age,"
represented
by
Greece
Rome,
where
turmoil;
rope, erful,
and the
"doctrinal
age,"
represented
by
feudal
contemporary Eu
where
philosophy,
once
is now widely diffused among all kinds of people. According to Kraynak, Hobbes believed that "the advent and popularization of philosophy has been the
civilization"
ruin of
(Kraynak,
p.
18).
periods of time
Perhaps the best way to understand Hobbes's comments about these different is to simply say that Hobbes showed that, as civilization ad
vances,
related
becoming
to
man's
leisurely,
so
do the
causes of quarrel
vanity increase. In this way it is possible, by comparison, to see why Hobbes would have referred to the earliest times as the "golden In this golden age, kings established through force and ruled unques with the security
age."
backed
by
religion.
was
unquestioned.
independent
Hobbes
But this
golden age
did
age
not of
Greece
Rome
as
full
of
sedition caused
by
do
their
bidding (Behemoth,
6,
p.
252)
In the
introductory
remarks
to his
"Mathematici"
"Dogmatici"
v.
Thucydides'
291
translation of
ancient
people.
History of
as
the
Athens
full
of
hubris-plagued demagogues
calls
Cleon
"most
the
violant
who was
"thereby
people"
(p. 15).
any means relieve the ancient philosophers of their responsibility for the factions and strife of their times, but he also seems to distinguish their approach to philosophizing from that of the intellectuals of his
own time.
pose so
Hobbes does
by
Plato, Aristotle,
of
ignorant
admired
of
time of
his translation
Thucydides, Hobbes
write, (though in
this trait
the ancients,
"for
words understood
by
all
men), that
wise men
only
should
be able to commend (p. 25). This ability and desire obscurely had sadly disappeared in Hobbes's day. In his day, the common people had to be fully taken into account when
theory.
places much of
him"
devising
any
political
Of course, Hobbes
own time at the
doctrinal
chaos of
his
doors
of
academia, but
especially those of the Reformation. In Behemoth, he accuses the churchmen such as Presbyterians and Independents of leading the people to dislike the
established
Church
urged
of on
England
and
favor
a more
democratic
church government.
They
as
were
Aristotle
and
by those, inspired by the writings of philosophers like Cicero, who desired popular government in the civil state as much
men made
the people
"in
love
with
democracy by
against
was
their
discourses
harangues in the Parliament, and by their people in the country, continually extolling
liberty
6,
p.
and
inveighing
tyranny
of
tyranny,
leaving
(Behemoth,
ambition and
vol.
192). All
by
of
envy, in
Hobbes's
the
opinion.
The
bishops
democratic
men envied
they
less
wise
than
themselves"
less than to
change
the government
from
of the causes of
quarrel, it is difficult to
who
agree
tells us that
dismissed from
as
God's
'natural'
world
in which,
and
nothing other than Hobbes tells us, man's life was in fact
we
short"
brutish,
we
look
at
Hobbes's
historical treatment,
was
prophetic
indeed
a paradise, at
by
Hobbes's
measurements.
Kings
the
authority
of gods, their
laws
and
their doctrines were not questioned, and so more prevailed, according to Hobbes's
nations.
Because
logic,
must
have
prevailed
among
paradise
have taken
place
during
fully by
the
292
Interpretation
age.
doctrinal
All
of
this
would seem
to
suggest
that Hobbes's
theory is
not as
blind to
it first
appears.
W. A. Lund
Hobbes
acknowledged
that the
familial.
Society
originated
in
acqui
sition,
not
in
agreement.
But these
incon
argu
The two
purposes. not
Hobbes
constructs what
his theory
p.
of natural
right
"precisely
firm
because he does
believe that
. .
happened in the
past ought
to
discussions
(Lund, 1988,
226). These
were not
foundations for
sound and
lasting
government
in Hobbes's times, in
which government's
Hence
in Hobbes's
Both his
appear
"sedition''
and
his
of
account of
"sedition"
English
particulars
lies in
universal
truths
about
human
its
penchant
for
"discontent."
However,
of
timeless and
largely ineradicable,
he
factors for
which
had
make
up
the
full "concourse
causes"
civil war,
elimination."
(Lund, 1992,
p.
67)
We
need
must remember
that at
its very
is based
on
the
and
security
as well as a
desire for
In this way,
reality.
of nature-social contract
roots
in historical
is that the
natural
original
government,
the
when
kings "ruled
by
into
account
by
advanced
civilization, especially
observations relate
by
civilization's
As far
as
to
international
also gone
of men
from
an era of relative
simplicity to
In his discussion
individuals in the
are moved to
natural not
condition, Hobbes
fight
because
of endless
of a need
for
security.
This
doubt the
original motivator of
kings
and subjects.
Nevertheless,
"ease
some
Hobbes
attributes new
to
conquest,"
and sensual
"admira
mind"
or
being
"flattered for
excellence
art,
or other
ability
of the
(Leviathan,
envy
vol.
3,
6,
one another's
vol.
86). "It is indeed commonly seen that neighbour nations honour, and that the less potent bears the greater malice
p.
.
(Behemoth,
create a
p.
cannot
theory
that can
be
absorbed
by
foundation
legitimate
"Mathematici"
"Dogmatici"
v.
293
government,
new
now
and religious
theory
which can
be
understood
by
everyone
authority are not enough. This includes the state of nature and
CONCLUSION
Since it is Hobbes
saw
obvious that
Hobbes
it,
theologians
his primary task as finding a way to save it from the intellectuals, and other ideologues it naturally breeds. Hobbes's new science for
all establish the rational
basis for
of
government upon a
footing
people
so
firm
and so
being
fooled
by
in
the past
deceived
create a
doctrine that
would
bring
doctrinal
his
(Kraynak,
new
p.
63). As Lund
order
puts
philosophy in
to ground politics on
teaching
rather
than
history,
and
and to replace
the
interminable
son'
'dogmatici'
'rules
infallibility
of rea
"
(1992.
54-55). He
solution of
the use of
force to
create
domestic
on
order would no
longer
understanding based
paramount. as
education, a
new
ideology
if
you will,
but based
upon
discovered
by
scientific reason
in
which survival
is indeed
For the
average
person, Hobbes's
be
passed on
beliefs,
or good
laws
of nature
59-60). To human
ground
his teaching in
asked people to
nature.
his basic
Johnston
reason, but
argues
powerful political
be
to
tween
history
assert the
flaws
is
reading
By the history
"The
writing
or
of
come
deriving
between
than'
sound what
conclusions.
acquiring Hobbes learns to distinguish sharply be, the more the ideal character of the 'Levia
more
him"
forms
of experience
for
becomes
p.
in his mind, the less significance has history for 97). But this distinction between history and theory indicates,
history,
in
scientific
fact,
certainly not a rejection of the idea of but the desire to vigorously promote his
and
conclusions.
For
purposes of
inculcating
of
history,
be very
the chronicle of
294
Interpretation
Incorrect conclusions,
points such as admiration of vainglorious ancients, might
readers'
useful.
be drawn. As Strauss
heads
from vanity to fear (p. 149). For this task, the freewheeling study history be very detrimental, given most people's notoriously flawed reasoning powers.
of
might
and reason
is
not the
description
of the state
prescription
ideological
and
have
plagued
society for
states.
ideology
with
among
his doctrine to No
deal
under
different
circumstances.
social contract
is
possible
security
more
international
peace and
nations as opposed
to the
security
will
are
to be brought
Hobbes's theory,
which
transform domestic
consequently transform international relations. The stronger and is, the less tempting it is to invade. Hobbes writes that "no
nor
king
can
be rich,
subjects
are either
poor,
or
dissention,
to
war
to
(Leviathan,
the
vol.
3,
p.
174). The
will go
interests,
less
likely
kings
in
order
to glorify them
insult,
and the
less
likely
that
lesser leaders
be indulged.
Are these not similar to the thoughts of contemporary realists, who write because they know leaders too often do not conform to their vision of rational action? They put forward ideas such as the balance of power, or the effects of the international
should structure of under
as
standards we
heed
They
advocate a
strong defense as a means to deter conflict: "peace through One can see in this line in Hobbes's thought a source of inspiration for
E. H. Carr
or
strength."
realists
such as
Hans Morgenthau,
with
their critique of
ideological
politics.
For them,
as well as
human realities,
not over
which can
for Hobbes, it is ideological zealotry, truly out of touch with lead to the most dangerous doctrinal warfare, warfare
security (which in the realist's view is the only legitimate reason for war) but over ideas. Hence they prescribe a rational, sober foreign policy that
avoids
largely
to
do
with
highly
be
civilized,
and
therefore
an
highly
contentious,
insult. Hobbes's
situation
prescription
made aware of
their
make a
bodily leap
in their minds, away from the delusions of doctrinal differences, fear. His depiction of the state of nature
"reality
grounded
they
need.
It
might
be seen, then,
doctrine, but
doctrine
in reality
"Mathematici"
"Dogmatici"
v.
295
human beings really want and need. It is this doctrine, supported by scientific method and by human introspection, that should be taught in schools and pulpits. Inasmuch
as
tion of current
charge of not
contemporary realists in international relations confuse descrip international reality and prescription, they are vulnerable to the being realistic enough, not taking into account the impact of so
within
"irrationalities"
main
ethnic
ideology,
regimes,
national and or
identity,
the role of
international
Realists
the
impact
of
international law
and ethics.
sometimes
fight
against
these charges
by
arguing that these irrationalities really have little impact in the final analysis, or
that underlying all other activity and rhetoric
repudiation
is
power politics.
(For
a classic
v
3. "The Repudiation
of
Also
see the
theories"
in Kenneth Waltz's
Theory
on
of International
Politics.) But
continually
while
they
attempt to
defend themselves
this
basis, they
are
vulnerable
See for
example and
William C. Wohlforth,
(1994-
95)
See
and
also
and
theory, or its separability from description. But in effect, like Hobbes, they are obtain certain attempting to develop standards of behavior that will hopefully
goods:
relative
perfectly conscious and known is that realist certain kinds of dispute, mentioned above. The drawbacks
edgement would
realists would
be
perceived as
less
scientific
orientation.
This
perception might
be unfair,
since
Hobbes's,
would
indeed be
grounded
experience, but
means what
in
political science
ence"
realists would
recent return
is clearly quantifiable, this remains an obstacle. Second, invite a different kind of disputation, more so than they have in the
of ethics and philosophy.
To do this,
perhaps
they
could
study
international thought,
since earlier
to
Morgenthau,
with
Hobbes
and
the state of
ethical
competing
Morgenthau
confirms
like
a state of nature,
since
but, in his
and
Hobbes describes,
ethics, mores,
laws do limit
pp.
for
power
(Morgenthau, 1960,
accuses
Power Politics
Morgenthau
amoral
Hobbes
of scientism
argues
by nature.
Morgenthau
for claiming that political society is that it is impossible to separate the political
p.
act
from its
ethical
implications ( 1974,
normative
296
Interpretation
of realist thought
dimension A study
is
still needed of
in contemporary lead
us
realist scholarship.
of the
different dimensions
Hobbes's thought,
to
a
and
their
various
purposes within
his
overall
doctrine,
can also
better understanding
of
REFERENCES
and
International Relations.
University Press.
1979.
and/or
of
American National
Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory 15, nos. 1-3 ( 1991): 191-209. Interna Elman, Colin, Miriam Fendius Elman, and Paul Schroeder.
tional Security 20, no. 1 (Summer 1995): 1 82-95. Hobbes, Thomas. Behemoth. Vol. 6, The English Works
"Correspondence."
by
Sir
and
Citizen. Edited
by
lis: Hackett
.
Publishing Co.,
upon
1991.
Considerations
the
and
Religion of Thomas
Hobbes. Vol.
worth.
4, The
by
Sir William
Moles-
by
4, The English Works of Thomas Sir William Molesworth. London: John Bohn Reprint, 1962.
a
A Dialogue Between
Philosopher
and a
England. Vol. 6, The English Works of Thomas Holmes. Edited worth. London: John Bohn Reprint, 1962.
.
by
by
Elements of Philosophy. Vol. 1, The English Works of Thomas Hobbes. Edited Sir William Molesworth. London: John Bohn Reprint. 1962.
.
by
gers
Human Nature. Vol. 4, The English Works of Thomas Hobbes. Edited William Molesworth. London: John Bohn Reprint, 1962. Leviathan. Vol. 3, The English Works of Thomas Hobbes. Edited Molesworth. London: John Bohn Reprint, 1962.
.
by
Sir
by
Sir William
Johnston, David. The Rhetoric of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes and the Politics Transformation. Princeton, N.J. Princeton University Press, 1986. Kraynak, Robert P. History
Cornell
and
of Cultural
Modernity
in the Thought
of
University
Press. 1990.
In
Lebow, Richard Ned, John Mueller, and William C. Wohlforth. ternational Security, 20. no. 2 (Fall 1995): 185-87.
Lund, W. A.
"Hobbes on
no.
and
Civil
War."
History
of Political
Thought, 13,
.
(Spring
1992); 51-72.
Certainty."
"Hobbes
on
Presumption
and
History
of Political Thought,
9,
no.
and the
pp.
29,
no.
3 (September 1981):
339-51.
"Mathematici"
"Dogmatici"
v.
297
edition,
revised.
Scientific Man
University
of
Chicago Press,
Midway
Strauss. Leo. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis versity of Chicago Press. Midway Reprint, 1984.
Vincent, R. John. "The Hobbesian Tradition in Twentieth Century International Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10, No. 2 (1981).
lishing
no.
Co.. 1979.
and
the
End
of the
Cold
War."
Book Reviews
Russian]
par
Nina Ivanoff,
par
du texte
presentation
et
revision
Laurent
paper.
It is
Sunday
and
there is
no
god.
Kojevnikoff
sonal
(Kojeve'
s pre-French
name)
on a per
Saturdav
evening.
Only
la lutte
pour
la
reconnaissance work
struggle
for
le
as
outside of
Systetne du
savoir
(the
system of
knowledge),
that culminates
the centuries. It is
Hegel's dimanche de la
(the
state
is
by
is published,
even though
it to
see the
light
of public
postmodern world we
have
pornographic of
imagination,
and we want
the philosophers, even to the most trivial letters of the correspondence between
and
Kojeve
and
failed Kojevnikoff
We
effort now
is
afforded to our
it is
are told
in the
Alexandre Kojevnikoff y
Kojeve"
cherche
searches there
for Kojeve). In
de la
other
words,
his
work
is
raisonnee
philosophie pai'enne
(Essay
on a
History of Pagan Philosophy). It is a preface to a larger work that us, in a small part, to see the historical or perhaps existential develop
was
ment of a thinker.
That Kojeve
read.
young in 1931 does not mean that L'atheisme is a youthful The text is dense, dark, and difficult as the subject matter demands, with
copious
footnotes that
are often
long
and
in this
very intriguing. It requires an analysis follows are a number indicate that Kojeve's
seems to
literary
style
is
in
of
place
in Russian,
words
including
special
his
penchant
for
special and
foreign
into
ones of
his own,
symbols.
It is
years after
he finished
interpretation,
Spring 2002,
300
this
Interpretation
book, Kojeve
whose
will
of
the Systcmc de
savoir
in his
seminars
notes
be
collected
by
a
the
Kojevean
novelist
Raymond
to
Queneau
the
Introduction
Reading of Hegel). It contains the definitive teaching, sagessc, on that is missing in this book. And it must be said that not only is there is
Kojeve'
atheism no god,
but le rien,
nothing,
soi
Conscience de
suicide).
s wisdom, the fully realized very core of (consciousness of self la liberie, freedom, in the context of
is
at the
Traditionally, it is impossible
senses.
to say "god
ground
exists"
except all
in the loosest
"outside"
of
God is the
other
metaphysical
for
(en
we
a
dehors)
(autre)
depend. No develops
matter
how
relationship
man
with god as
in
apart
man
nature,
all that
is imperfect le
and mortal.
This
view established
and
apophatically
is
what
Kojeve
calls
theisme pur
(pure theism)
that
that he negates.
we are
forced to
and
conclude that
any
as
effort
to establish a thing-in-itself
past,
Heidegger,
ask
book,
asserted.
As Kojeve is
historicist,
one
is tempted to
man who
accept received
thousands of years of
(theological)
Is this
youthful work
theoretical,
of
debate,
by
different thinkers.
In the
temporality
being,
Kojevnikoff
offers
this statement:
Et l'indubitable fait de la
est aussi
homme dans le
dans le
monde
donne
lui-meme
y
syl-
mourant; l'homme
du
logisme,
phasis
on prefere parler
de Socrate
ou
de
soi-meme).
(P. 122,
em
added)
of
death is
given to
not
"man in the
as
world"
is
only present [an sich], it is also given (fur himself not only as living in the world, but
mortal
or
equally
dying
in it;
man
knows he is
of
Socrates
well
known
The
parenthetical admission
is that the is
not
emotional and
intellectual
condition
for
philosopher makes
from the very character of man qua man's own being. The young here is not writing some abstract dissertation, but it appears that he the claim to have experienced the very angoisse (anguish), terreur (ter-
Book Reviews
ror), and the tranquil lite
man and edge of
301
(tranquility)
that arises
his
environment, there
his
own
being
is
not
are
is
settled
a
in the very
temporal the
being
of this
young
man.
And it
must
isolated
existential
hero,
the man
L'atheisme, then, is
mental experience of
funda
more
it is final
nothing
than error or
atheist
illusion, especially in
the
face
of the
is
aveuglc,
voie,
death, la
mort, which, like life, simply is donne, to man. This fatality is not a passage to something else; it is the portal to nothing itself. Human death is no different from the breaking of a plate, even if suicidal (perhaps an answer to the unmentioned
"given,"
Kirilov).
Prenons
un exemple simple:
je brise
une assiette.
Nous
avons
ici
sans aucun
doute
quelque chose
d'analogue
assiette).
au meurtre
(bien
du
qu'un
meurtre
d'une
L'evenement du
consiste
individu
concret cesse
1'
d'exister. II
ne s'agit pas
d'une
simple modification
de la
forme (spatiale) de
n'a rien
(disons metallique)
de
II
de la destruc
ne
tion de
se
d'existant reellement,
la
en
matiere
de l'assiette brisee y
une
distingue
. . .
de
celle
de l'assiette entiere;
dif
ference
joue
(P.
144)
a
(Let's take
a simple example:
I break
a plate.
Without
one
doubt
we
have something
the
murder of a ceases
here
analogous
to
murder
[although obviously
consists
doesn't
speak of
plate].
The
"murder"
here
of the
fact
that a concrete
thing
of
to exist.
It does
in
[spatial] form
the
plate, because
bending
the
plate
[assuming
the broken
even
common with
its
"murder."
It is
destruction
existent,
because the
whole;
the
at
plate as a
in any event,
anything whatever that is really is in no way different than that of it plays no role if there is a difference
plate
...
present.)
That the
nor
plate
is destroyed has
no effect on
wreaths;
plate is broken. anything more or less than that the But it is a bloodless and bodiless death. There are no bereaved relatives; no funeral weapons of war; no avenging Dons with knowing smiles carrying with doctors even not the to earth; long faces no errant asteroids
does it
mean
hurtling
news.
Death
is
an abstraction
death
of the concrete
and
reality
as
it is
"lived,"
the
particularized
destruction
of
the
body
its
social associations
(the
slave
inevitably
in any
comes
to clean up the
broken
porcelain).
It may be that
man
has
no soul
of
also removes
the
body, biological
social, diseased
302
Interpretation
or aging,
from life
The terror
and
death. Man is
not a
natural
being. Instead,
although
of nothingness
is
insomnia in the
take the
night.
Suffering
traditional view
whose
the young
subtle:
however, is
more
If there is
being, then
esoteric contemplative
pp.
151-52; De la
tyrannic, pp.
Instead,
is
sagesse affords us
whatsoever about
qualms only tranquility. As such, Kojevnikoff has no that there discussing atheism openly. For as the intuition that
intuition is
shared
by
normal people
is
erroneous,
as
to be
an
atheist or
to speak of
it does
not make
him
blind "moral
the theist
restraint such as we
find in does
some
philosophers, most
moral significance
notably when it
appears,
not
have
is
an
indifference to traditional
moral considerations
discovery
of man's radical
temporality, intel
of the
the
certitude
that
any
thing-in-itself that
is
perfected with
ligence
or
any
other attributes
projected
imagination
is
what
rhetorically
fetichisme, Kojevnikoff s
word
the
with the young Heidegger as well, the least imaginative of writers in the
"whole"
production of
images.) While
there
man
is
soi, there
is
no
or cosmos
who of
separate
from it.
for
Outside,
all
there is nothing.
and even
beings
Pure theism
only
a ground
order as well.
Le
neurit
(nothingness)
man
removes even
insures that
is
separate
from the
world
(monde),
however,
To
retreat
into many
given
more contradictions:
Although
man
the world,
he
is
world, the not man, in that he has the to him. The world is alien to
with remarkable
freedom
life,
and
death
him,
it
provides
him
interests.
monde ne s'epuise pas
avec
le
dans le
cette
derniere
est
donnee
(par
sique et
travailleur manuel
exemple un
sauvage)
devant le
verbe et
de
son
interaction
Le
avec eux.
II faut done
comprendre
le
plus
large de
terme.
monde
[sic]
de Heidegger),
etc. enfin
beau, interessant,
connaitre.
je le
l'aime,
monde
fait
Ainsi,
non seulement
des
oiseaux et
des
pierres m'est-il
familier,
(P.
des
cen-
94)
Book Reviews
(This interaction
tion:
of man with the world
303
does
not exhaust
itself in
physical
interac
in the latter
man
is
given and
manual
letter,
when
labor (for example, the savage) suffers a mystical fear before speech and he does not have consciousness of his interaction with them. It is thus
necessary to understand the interaction in the broadest sense of the term. The world is close to me not only because it exists for me [Heidegger's Welt des Vorhan-
denen, the world at hand], but also because it is beautiful, interesting, because I love it, etc. finally simply because it is knowable. So, not only is the world of
birds
and rocks
familiar
to me,
of centaurs,
logarithms,
squared
circles, etc.)
The
world
mental ones.
It
is knowable generally in all its aspects, including its imaginary or even inspires a love and caring. While the world can make some
of the world
fear,
is
the
familiarity
That
alien
is benign in
comparison to
a god.
inspires
anguish.
De
ce point
de
vue,
le theiste
sphere
donne
un quelque chose
angoissant,
d'etranger,
n'est
ou
hors de
d'action,
tandis
que
l'athee
de
tel
donne. (P.
95)
is
the one who
(From this
alien,
is
given
or outside of
ing
of the sort
is given.)
world
is
a given
in
which
he lives in
relative
homo
geneity, for the theist there is something that is excluded from interaction with the world over which he cannot rule, whether it be physical or nonphysical. The
origin of even
is here,
as
he develops
"fetishes,"
idols,
perhaps
Platonic ideas,
inevitably
progresses
his way to the most sophisticated the apparently strange forces that move the
and common
even well
in the is
This century
explanation
before the
times. The
neant.
twentieth
be found in
forms
in
ancient
difference,
It is
worth
however,
repeating:
back to the
problem of
il y a Pour l'athee, il n'y a rien en dehors du monde, ou, si Ton veut, Le monde entier dans son ensemble s'oppose en tant que quelque chose
et
le
rien.
a ce rien,
dans
cette opposition
il
la
est
fini de bout
et,
en
bout
et
homogene dans
cette
finitude.
qualita-
Tous
tives
sont egaux
face
mort
opposees au
neant, toutes
les differences
tout se
(existentielles) des
quelque choses
de
ce monde
disparaissent;
fond
en
de
quelque
facon
existe et qui se
diffefencie du
neant.
(P.
95)
of the world, or,
opposes
(For the atheist, there is nothing outside nothing. The whole world in its entirety
if
"is"
itself
as
something
this
304
Interpretation
opposition
it is finite from
of
start
to
finish
and
homogenous
with
finitude. All
into
are equal
in the face
death and,
the
[existential]
melts
qualitative
differences
of somethings of
the world
disappear; everything
differentiates
in its
own
way
Everything
"is"
opposes
there
and
only nothing that makes all the difference in the world. Nothing is final nothing can deny it or fill it up, not even infinity, as nothing does not sustain What the theist believes is
a god
anything.
is
nothing, and
death is its
whether
prophet.
work with
the question of
there can
with
Buddhism,
a religion without a
god.
Obviously, if
if there is
is
are atheistic as
even
well,
no
albeit
that
"religiosity"
god,
man
intellectual
embedded
along with it. There is a more intriguing question in Buddhism, however, the so-called atheistic religion. Because this
properties that go
who studied
religions
Buddhism. There is
bit
of
legitimate
Death
While there is
no god
is
not
final,
and
the
fleeting
is illusory. More
critically,
pain
and
suffering, from
which
all
caused
by
to the other as a
out
deadbeat
never pays.
life
of this
debt,
as well as
finalizing life
i.e.. Nirvana,
images,
he is illuminated
the world, particularly the by suffering suffering caused by the fear of death (that life goes on and on is the cure to this fear). In turn, there is a constant monotony of repetition where temporal mental the
objects possess our
lives,
a possession a world
needing to be mostly
of
emptied
by
renunciation and
detachment
by
inversion into
reduced
thinking
without restraint.
The
laws
and elements or
or more
dharma that
empties religious
life
its
a
misery.
law in
very
strange
East
and
L'etre
n'est
pur
se
se
distingue
pas
de lui. II
l'etre
qu'en
different du
l'etre donne,
comme
Dharma: l'etre
("Pure"
+ non-etre +
la difference
(P.
as
227,
93)
not
being
from it. It is
it does
distinguish itself
as
not
being
+ the
as
different from
nonbeing, as given
being,
Dharma: be
ing
non-being
Book Reviews
The trail
of uncertainties
305
is
that remains
from
a continuous
destruction
of what
by
apparently determines the character of morality and thus order. For the theist, death is something real, while for the atheist, strictly speaking, there is no death as it is nothing more than the termi nation of his temporality, not a doorway or border between life and death. Man
each other
what
is
not
substituting for
is
given
death
as
his
nothing.
The theist
sees
that his
death
affirms the
other,
including
of
whatever moral
laws he
beginning
to man,
however, is
what
is
given
(donne). The
at the
given of the
of what
given
donne)
exists
independently
and
it is
foundation
The only difference there is between life and death is the difference in the way death is given to man, if there is a difference to speak of (pp. 133-34). This is the dharma that is defined above, albeit it does not seem
man.
is different from
very much like the way a Buddhist would look at it. It is immediately unclear how the dilemma and the
views of
conflict
death
can
be
is dharma. Kojevnikoff s answer, however, is very much like that of the Bud dhists themselves while not being Buddhist. While the Buddhist might take a
theist'
and
Kojevnikoff, thus,
atheist
implies
well as
kind
of
(as
lacking
vit
in Buddhist
Le theiste
peut vivre
dans le
monde
theiste, l'athee
vit
dans
un monde
athee,
et chacun
principale-
dans
(bien
ment)
comme savant,
[the
Par
exemple
le theisme du
(pour le savant)
le theisme de
Yhomo
religiosus;
le Dieu de la
la
le Dieu de la differentes
tou-
meme
de Dieu. De la
laquelle
meme
facon,
en ses
toujours le meme,
mais
il
s'agit
tout
de
meme
raison pour
on a pu parler
ici de theisme
d'atheisme
et
evide-
concepts
de theisme
general et
et
sont
des
abstractions:
ils
sont seulement
le fond
le tonus des
conceptions
formels,
ceux-ci se remplissant
parfois
du
differentes
Si
Je debat du theisme
par exemple
de l'atheisme (qu'il
soit oral ou
et
ecrit) se tient
sur un plan
abstrait,
du finitisme ontologiques, il y a en hommes vivants, dont chacun, quoi qu'il en soit, est etabli dans son
comme
debat de l'infinitisme
arriere-plan
propre
des
monde;
et
il
n'a
de
vivants.
(P.
205)
lives in
an atheistic
live in his
man of
[of course,
not exclusively,
but mainly]
of
scientist,
religiosus, etc.
coincide with
the scien
religiosus: the
God
of science
is
not
God
of religion;
the same
it is
about
306
Interpretation
same way,
God. In the
all
atheism
is
not always
the
same,
but
and
the same
it is
about atheism.
reason
speak of
theism
atheism
in
general.
concepts of
theism and
and the
atheism are
obviously
ab
stractions;
they
are
general
foundation
dynamism
of
formal
schemes, which
fill themselves
sometimes
the
living
content of
different theist
If
the
debate for
of
theism and
atheism
is held
on an abstract
and
plane,
example as
ontological on the
infinitism
finitism,
living
men,
world; and
it is only
of value
if it has
living
tion.)
One
necessity for
of a
demo
cratic
way
of
life that
recognizes
that all men live with the anguish and fear of it. The theist and the other, as
they
Toler
would avoid
the problem of
having
someone
indict
an
atheist
for First
comes
to the
including
the Brahmans of
India, imply
that
man's anguish
regarding death
is both the
product of
social realization.
Although this book is very abstract because man here is more abstract than nothing, Kojevnikoff insists that in the end to understand the theist and the
atheist,
we
have to
understand men as
they
are
in these
states.
Perhaps, then,
does
this
provides a other
basis for
some
kind
homogenously,
very
is missing
Yet,
atheist,
we
have it
an
indication in the
of
and
comes
There
non-
is
always that
nagging
in the back
of
the mind of
philosophers whether
philosophy is
or
atheistic.
For there is is
an overall
impression
means
beginning
by
beyond himself to
There is
neither
one without
other can never be a something; is nothing and so on. This is not to say that the argument is trivial, but that there is a built-in frustration in the argument when theist and atheist stand
God is
the other,
hence the
other
opposed
in the logical
formality
we
of philosophical a good
have
idea
of what
does
notion of the
can
nothing be questioned,
and of negation
in the
quest
that nothing is
Book Reviews
sacrosanct enough to avoid questioning.
theist'
307
This
philosophical principle
is
at odds
with
the
is simply blind to
the
or of
any questioning
his intuition
anything
following
from
to a qualified
form, he
cannot accept
any doute [doubt], for to do so would mean 194-95). The theist must see god as purely
hence,
of negation as
logically
(blind)
or
morally
itself does
the
not preclude
that man
wrong simply hidden from deficient. Nevertheless, the divine mentally can with the freedom of his mind truly question
legally
or
divine,
whether
it
exists or not.
(See
pp.
also
Leo Strauss's
of the
Perplexed,"
1980,
is
58-59,
in
resists
the reality of
what
Kojevnikoffs dharma
is is
indistinguishable from
not
intuition
by
the next.
god cannot
Hence,
the theist.
the
belief that
be
negated
is
"illusion"
an
constructed
by
Aux
yeux
large du mot,
et
c'est a
dire
du
monde
combinees
d'une
maniere ou
monde .
Pour
monde est
et ce neant
donne
cette
dans le
athee
lui de
sa
finitude
absolue.
admet
le
presence
de
intuition
le theiste,
alors
le theisme de
de
cette
dernier
d'autre
qu'une
interpretation
(In the
erronee
intuition. (P.
199)
in the broad
sense of
is
anthropomorphism
world of
the
beyond the
in
one
way
or
out
is nothingness, finitude. If he
end
is
"given"
to
him in the
his
absolute
admits
in his
eyes theism
is nothing
other
than an
interpretation
of
this
intuition.)
The theist
"other"
misunderstands
his
own
intuition, because he
He fails to
misunderstands
the
(autre)
and
and
his
other worldliness.
is final is the he
sees
nothing,
his
anguish relieved
by
death
leading
and
he has.
anything
it is nothing
except the
that there
no outside.
outside of
Just
as a theist views
so
is something outside of something that has the world in which he is as something other
a world outside of outside
himself,
him
and
the
world.
something
308
Interpretation
of the nothing,
intuition
something
with which
is his fundamental
understanding.
It turns
normally
division between
atheist and
theist is not
what we would
expect.
En realite, il n'y
a pas
de
11 n'y
done
de
savant
seulement, de
l'homme
concret
dans le
doivent
tout
la Ibis
d'une
orientation sur
etre
les
autres).
En
et
consequence,
la description
plenitude
et
I'analvse de l'atheisme
concret
la description
monde
l'analyse de la lui-meme
du donne
de 1
homme dans le
athee a
comme tel.
(P. 196)
religion, a
atheism,
but
a science alone, a
philosophy, etc.
merely
same
philosopher
Nor is there in reality any merely scientist alone. alone, but only concrete man in the world who is all this at the
of one orientation over
the others]. As a
and
description fullness
be the description
"man in the
world"
the
of
the
concrete given of
the
atheistic
himself
as
such.)
It thus
appears
that the
science
is truly
in the
god.
That
alone
is the
genuine
final
science
that
of
is
atheistic,
explaining both
replaced
atheism and
theism. The
imagery
du
and
imagination
not
the theist is
by
the final
scientific realization
of nothing.
savoir.
We do
find this
science outlined
needs
This book is too subjective; it is amazing how much the young atheist to evoke Napoleon shouting orders to Marshal Ney on the battlefield of
we
Jena.
Already
definitive
wisdom,
sense.
find that philosophy is something less than science in the most The theist and the atheist both have philosophy, a love of
atheist will
have
and, presumably,
an
And yet, it is
based
on nothing.
It is
not a
mere
play
himself is
nothing as if it were something it is neither paradoxical nor a failure language. It is how nothingness presents itself to lis. makes itself known,
with us.
While this science may be entirely truthful as to the condition of necessarily good in any final sense as what is good or as the good has traditionally been understood metaphysically is negated along with what is god. While this science may a bring man tranquility, there is a noticeable absence of le bonheur, happiness, in the discussion.
man, it is not
is
The
is
at
science
rate.
involved
nevertheless
is the future
or a
futurity,
must
as much as
death
any
the mature
anticipates the
of
future, it
be
assumed that
transformed
the true
of
dharma,
the Svsteme du
Book Reviews
savoir.
309
Needless
the
the
ticipating
where
godless universal
postmodernity in which we live, an homogenous state that is fast becoming the world
required
reading in
Sunday
school.
REFERENCES
raisonnee
de la
philosophie pai'enne
I, les
preso-
Paris: Editions
Gallimard, 1968.
Strauss, Leo. De La Tyrannic Translated from English by Helene Kern. Preceded by Xenophon's Hiero and followed by Alexandre Kojeve, Tyrannic et Sagesse. Paris:
Editions Gallimard, 1954.
.
and
Expanded Edition,
and
including
the
Strauss-Kojeve Cor
respondence.
by
Victor Gourevitch
Press. 1991.
.
Persecution
and the
University
of
Chicago Press,
1980.
and
Civilians
cloth,
$22.95
paper.
Harrison Sheppard
Storm Over
the
presents a
remarkably heated debate between two conservative schools of thought on the as a guiding principle of United States constitutional meaning of "original interpretation. It addresses the conflict between legal positivists on the one hand
and proponents of natural
right
and natural
law
on
foundations
his
of the
following Lincoln,
Declaration
of
law
and natural
right
principles of the
Independence
implicitly
Constitution
to be carried
and
original
intent is
in
faithfully. The contrary excoriating writings Charles J. Cooper, supporting Judge Bork's position,
afterword.
of
Lino A. Graglia
a
are presented
lengthy
intent
They
criticize and
Jaffa's
challenge
(along
with
Justice
Scalia)
interpreting
argue
including
instead that only a democratic majority has the right They to determine what binds (or liberates) its citizens. The debate is introduced with
a
Independence.
Arnn
and a
lengthier introduction
by
Edward
J. Erler, placing the debate in its philosophical context. The educated intelligence and depth with which Jaffa asserts and defends his basic position make it highly
persuasive. position
Jaffa's
antagonists score
telling
points
in the
vigorous
joust, but
their
is
internally
inconsistent
and seems
position,
spirit
flaws,
seems,
on the
in
conceived,
debated,
and
adopted.
The
the
reader
principles ciliation
supporting
each position.
Accordingly,
we suggest a
basis for
recon
per-
closer examination of
the Enlightenment
interpretation,
Spring 2002,
Vol.
29, No. 3
312
Interpretation
intent"
spectives of
thus
more precisely, and framers. ascertaining their "original helping judges resolve inconsistencies in the Constitution while insulating it
the
activism.
in Storm Over
the
Constitution,
be distracting,
and
its
contents.
The debate
ment
ism"
presented
an
initial
agree activ
his
"judicial
that a
judge's
"refined"
personal
may properly be
used
to modify and
and practical
update
the
Constitution to
ings
necessities).
They
also
agree
constitutional
interpretation be
resolved
by
recourse to the
"original
intent"
of
its
framers
published writings
by
and
1 differ is in
was
the
intent
of those who
framed
In exploring this issue, much of Storm Over the Constitution is devoted to Chief Justice Roger Taney's opinion in the Dred Scott case (Dred Scott v.
and the
Borkians
agree
in
an
improper
holders into
federal territories, but they hold opposite views on the significance of Taney's reasoning in construing the original intent of the Constitution's framers and
ratifiers.
In light
of this
intent
as
it
issue
of slavery.
Woe For
lawyers! burdens
grievous to
ye
load
men with
be borne
burdens
fingers.
The heart
of
Jaffa's
position
is
(without
detailing
his sup
Book Reviews
A
genuine
-313
jurisprudence
of
"original
intent"
Constitution
would
have to
Declaration
of
Independence
as the prin
ciples of the
Constitution. (P. 3)
in the Declaration Fathers. It
of
The
statement of principles
of
Independence is
It
in
a compressed
summary
vv ould
God."
represents
the
convictions
Founding
consists
an articulation goes
and,
contend,
a perfection
of a natural
back
at
least to
Aristotle,
well.
Judeo-Christian
tradition as
(P.
51)
represented natural right, more than
...
the
American Revolution
any
regime
that
had
preceded
it,
ancient or modern.
was
(P.
65)
The Constitution
law had
as
framed
and ratified
by
those who
believed
its purpose, to
human beings
little in
intent
of those who
framed
46)
Jaffa
not
In asserting these
of constitutional
propositions.
interpretation, but
also
Blackstone,
of
ascertaining
surely influenced the Founding Fathers. On the role intent in constitutional interpretation, Jefferson urged
that:
On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead
of
trying
what
conform
meaning may be in
the text,
or
invented
against
p.
it.
it
was passed.
(Jefferson, 1986,
322)
em
Speaking
ments:
more
broadly
the
of
legislators'
intent in
interpreting
their enact
The fairest
interpret the
will of
the
legislator, is by
signs
by
the most
subject-
matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the
are
law.
Words
not so
. .
generally
to
be
understood
in their
known signification;
much
But,
lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or
the cause
which moved
Second,
In the
emphases
in original)
words of
of com
It is filled
terms that
require
interpretation.
314
Jaffa
Interpretation
agrees with
where
Lincoln that, it is
where the
Constitution is
clear,
it is
sufficient unto
itself. But
it
requires
interpre
original
intent. Jaffa,
original
necessity
of
ascertaining the
Founders'
to their writings
time.
Jaffa's
central argument
is that
without an
understanding
the
natural
law
principles summarized
of
Independence,
we cannot understand
Using
platforms.
Supreme
Court majority and dissenting opinions, and other ing period, Jaffa argues persuasively that (1) the
was
seminal writings of
the
found
constitutional vision
deeply
of
Declaration
ratifiers
Independence;
and
(2)
the original
intent
of
the
framers
and
rights
while
creating
In light
of
this, Jaffa
suggests
that the
Borkians'
litical importance
immoral betrayals
and ratifiers.
framers
betrayals,
and
at
that,
of
the
original
intentions
the
Constitution's framers
as are
we, that
refusal
importance
of
of
the
Founders'
moral principles
by
interpretation
unfaithful to
the
Constitution is
Founders'
a subversion of the
intent
which
is is
moral righteousness
is politically imprudent,
perhaps
uncharitable,
and contributes
to his
being
misunderstood
by
his
antagonists
as more prophet
than philosopher.
"When I
word,"
use a
Humpty Dumpty
"It
means
said
in
a rather scornful
tone,
less."
just
what
is,"
choose
it to
mean
"The
question
said
Alice,
many different
things."
"The
is,"
question
said
master
Humpty Dumpty,
all."
"which
is to be
that's
the
(Lewis
Carroll, Through
to
Looking Glass,
chap.
6)
Borkians'
In
response
Jaffa's
moral
righteousness, the
accuse
importing
beliefs into
principles of constitutional
interpretation
and charge
him
Book Reviews
with
-315
without
of
arguing issues in
their views
theory
141).
Na
immoral"
and
(Jaffa, 1999,
of
p.
significance
Jaffa finds in
and of
Independence's
to "the
laws
Nature
ture's
Borkians'
The
plete
be simply
or
stated:
com
in itself. It does
or natural right
Independence
any
other
document be
read
Constitution's
activism.
By
evidently aims to insulate the from liberal interpretation, that is. judicial integrity contaminating thus insisting on internal sufficiency as the basis for proper con
sufficiency,"
struction of original
intent,
best)
seek to create an
partisan
impenetrable
distortions promoting
of constitutional
eral) interests.
The Borkian
remain yields
conception
interpretation
requires
.
judges to
hurts"
law."
faultlessly
p.
Hence,
"
a good originalist
it
(Jaffa, 1999,
139)
or violates
his
moral sensibilities.
The Borkians
maintain
is
not
endowed
with
They
are strict
The
words of
their
position succinctly:
a society adopts a constitution and incorporates in that constitution safeguards for individual liberty, these safeguards do take on a generalized moral Tightness or assume a general social acceptance neither because of any intrinsic goodness.
If
...
They
because of any unique origins in someone's idea of natural justice but instead simply because they have been incorporated in a constitution by the people. It is the fact of their enactment [i.e., ratification] that gives them whatever moral have upon us as a society, however, and not any independent virtue claims
worth nor
(Jaffa, 1999,
p.
22)
Borkians'
It is, therefore,
position
that there
is
no
intrinsic morality
natural rights
or goodness
protected
by
the Consti
or
to "natural
are
law"
to
our
happiness,"
of
values."
dices
dicial
the
of one
"particular
scale of
constitutional
interpretation based
on such values
argue
is properly
Jaffa "bad
activism.
that,
although
original
principles
of original
to be using because he
rejects the
principle of
internal sufficiency
original
and goes
corners of
that Jaffa's
moral
repeated reference
to Revela
Judeo-Christian
316*
Interpretation
interpretation. Professor Graglia, arguing in the
as
to
constitutional
lawyer,
rejects
Jaffa's
moral righteousness
following
terms:
discussion is beyond my ken, law is my field of professional ex pertise. The only useful contribution I can hope to make in a discussion on natural law created by a government law or law is to point out that it is not While
theological
"real" "legal"
and
properly
enforceable
by
government officials
that
is
being
discussed
| by
Jaffa]. (Jaffa.
1999,
p.
135).
V. THE PHILOSOPHERS
anyone
to believe
thing
to
be
and not to
says.
be
as some think
Heraclitus
For
and at
he does
that
not
necessarily believe;
attributes should
if it is impossible
contrary
belong
time
same
subject,
same
obviously it is impossible for the same man at the to believe the same thing to be and not to be.
chap.
3)
The
central
difficulty
with
the
position
is that it
offers
no set of
principles
by
which
compr
in
the
gaps, the
need
for judicial is
interpretation
to
inevitable. Without
by
judges to those
they
are compelled
to look for
some
principle(s) to
of values extrinsic of
This necessarily opens the door to importation to the intent of the Founders. This is the ironic consequence decide
cases.
By divorcing
an
understanding
of original
intent from
historical
law,
judicial
As the
of
following demonstrates,
evitable
in
judicial
activism.
Jaffa African
stitution returned
legal
status of
slaves: were
they
"persons"? On the
escaped
hand,
the Con
(1)
had
into free
states were to
be
to their owners
slave trade
for
in slaveholding states and (2) permitted the international specified time. On the other hand, it referred to the slaves as
Book Reviews
"persons"
-317
for
purposes of rule).
determining
population
for
representation
negroes
in Congress
as
(the three-fifths
inconsistently:
property in some respects, and as persons in others. Taney, Calhoun, and the South chose to rely on the articles that treated negroes as property, while Lincoln
and the
North focused
on
persons.
There
of
was no
inconsistency by
to express provisions
the Con
itself. In this situation, the doctrine of internal sufficiency posed a dilemma for the Justices deciding Dred Scott. They had to decide the case
without unambiguous guidance
exist
discern
ible
as
principles of constitutional
the natural
right
principles as stated
in the Declaration
effect
Independence)
or
to
which
decision, in
supporting
rejecting
Taney,
of
to understand the Negro as property rather than person, and returned Dred Scott
his
owner.
points
positivists of
doctrine of internal sufficiency deprives for basis any antislavery sentiments before adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment. If a different majority had obtained and an amend
out, the positivist
constitutional ment
As Jaffa
had passed,
demanding by their
logic, have
law
was
"morally
that
Similarly, if
a constitutional
amendment
somehow
adopted
ownership of all property, repealed the first Ten Amendments, or altered the foundations of the United States Constitution, the Borkians
compelled to support
be
both the constitutionality of that any position that leads to such but
preamble
is
not
only
fundamentally flawed,
in the
. . .
to the
Constitution,
namely, to "establish
Justice
Blessings
Liberty."
of
The Borkian
of
is
also
in
President
the United States and chief author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas who, in
Jefferson,
All, too,
is in
will
bear in
mind
this
sacred principle,
be
rightful must
be
ity
possess
their
equal
rights,
which equal p.
law
must
protect, and to
be
oppression.
(Quoted in
Jaffa, 1999,
116)
In fact,
by
reducing
all moral
arguments,
including
natural
law,
to
personal
biases,
the
positivists
deny
the
relevance of
the
intentions
and
stated
by
framing
Constitution. As Jaffa
of
what were
the
of
intentions
the
Founding Fathers,
we are
asking
what principles
318
Interpretation
them"
Borkians'
philosophy
guided
(1999,
p.
xxxiv).
The
them
internally sufficient original intent actually inquiry into the actual original intentions of
so
precludes
Constitution. In
doing, they
way,
not
only
cripple our
ability to
the
a principled
they
American
experiment.
As Jaffa
it:
rooted
in the
convictions
that there
is
non-arbitrary
just
in
being. (P.
65)
The
voted
disbelief that,
even
if
majority
for it,
Borkians
would
in fact
Rights,
property,
even
though
be
required
by
he does
believe."
not
necessarily
no support
Indeed,
consider
as one such
Borkian (Cooper)
puts p.
it, "There is
among decent
people"
for
147),
and
concept of
decency is
have
broad
the
Borkians, by
basic
reasoning, virtue, or
no rightful
recourse.
justice,
any
Their instinct to employ such standards is, standable. Without rational moral concepts
among Fathers
other classical would
justice,
virtue,
liberty,
or
ideas,
polity
by
our
Founding
Whether consciously
morality
that
as the
governmental
reason
implicitly
support
and
explicitly, to
nality
decency,
to
their position,
inconsistency
that the
more or
of
doing
They
it,
political
less
mind,"
and
ments most
"the
harmonizing
sentiments of the
(1984,
1501),
senti
"decent"
As
a matter of
preceding the
framing
the political
Constitution that
ratification.
was emphasized
by
its
advocates to promote
The
the
Borkians
probably
intent
of those
involved in
Constitution.
Book Reviews
The
challenges points
-319
however,
go even
As Jaffa
Constitution is
themselves in
great
when
attempting
to
deal
its intrinsic
Nowhere is
in their difficulties
with the
reservation of rights to
Amendment,
which reads as
follows:
The
or
enumeration
in the Constitution
be
construed to
deny
disparage
others retained
by
the people.
This
statement
ates"
certain
manifestly presupposes, first, that the Constitution "enumer rights that the Federal Government is forbidden to infringe upon or
not positively confer those rights upon the people; and, second, rights not enumerated in the Constitution that the people have and
prohibit; it does
that there exist
retain.
credited
as
by
responsibility for
author
ship
of the
Constitution
James
Madison,
of
acknowledged the
not against
proposition ment):
against a
Bill
Rights (but
Who
will
be bold
people?
And
when
is made, it
not
must
be
remembered.
is
not
complete, everything
omitted.
be purposefully
So it
must
be
with a
be
government
is
not so
dangerous
as an
by
Wilson,
as
in The Debate
Constitution,
vol.
1,
808)
most
reasonably understood,
founding
was
inalienable
rights as argued
clearly understood, to refer directly to the tradition of in hundreds of documents throughout the period and
eloquently summarized in the Declaration of Independence. If, however, the Borkians are correct and all of the rights possessed by United States citizens are positively
non
conferred
by
the
Constitution,
comprehend and
therefore,
is
quoted as
'inkblot'"
a meaningless
for
interpreting
world
libel
of
be the
most
deliberatively
constitution
in
history. Is this
not
itself a
in
effect
writing the
Ninth Amendment
out of the
320
Interpretation
Jaffa does
to engage,
in
rational
discourse,
as
in
134)
There
are
to reconcile and
integrate
In
law"
the process of
defining
original
uses
"natural
and
"Judeo-Christian
text of the
ethic"
in
he
not
Founders, commonly implying that they are one and the same. In fact. only implies but suggests it directly, as in his discussion of the Reverend
Samuel Chase:
the
dictates
of reason are
the
dictates
of
God
as much as
those revealed
in the
oracles."
"sacred
(P.
66,
emphasis supplied)
Although Jaffa
a
at one point
(see
pp.
55-67)
law, he
offers a reasonable
seems more
foundation for
on
purely
rational equal an
justification
of natural
intent
proving that
reason reason
is
to
than
demonstrating
might
the sufficiency of
for
understanding
of natural
law. This
be
useful
in persuading
creates tremen
dous difficulties in persuading the nonreligious minded. In reference to human will and the human mind's ability to abstract, Jaffa asks, "What difference does
it
make whether we call are
it
'God'
or
'agent
intellect?'"
(p. 62). We
(along
with
the
Borkians)
In the
forced to
answer
world."
the
law,"
the original
of the Constitution, from the positivism of the lawyers, Jaffa unnecessarily provocatively opens the door to religious debate. By conflating Christian dogma and Enlightenment conceptions of natural law, he mistakenly, and, in our
intent
and
doctrines
of revealed religion
into
secular
interpre
As
a
we suggest
below,
or
natural
law
for
foundation
to
do
so
compromises
its legitimacy.
not
deny
or repudiate
suggests
of
In fact, he correctly
minds of
that
law
notions were
"in
the
and
in the
the
Constitution's framers
and ratifiers:
It is
not
therefore mysticism,
but the
voice of reason
itself that
says
the law
of na
God is
self-government,
and the
law. (P.
65)
Book Reviews
321
Rather, Jaffa's
and the
with all
natural
natural
law tradition
law tradition
secular
defiles the
political
natural and
law-natural
universality.
right
conception,
and compromises
both its
utility
its
When Jaffa
all
suggests
he
immediately
alienates
dogma in
basis for
legitimacy
of the rational
importantly
attribute
for the
purposes of
uni
Many
of
stem
directly from
of natural
law
Judeo-Christian
appear to
identify
law
claims
and
lightenment
Part
exclusively with a religious tradition and overlook their En Deist foundation and roots (see, for example, Professor Graproblem
Jaffa's
is that, in
discussing
law
Founders, he fails to
which
Deist
conception of nature on
Enlightenment
and
God"
largely founded.
"the Laws
of
of
Without Nature
clari
fication
understanding
as
Deist
conception of
and of
Nature's
referred to
in the Declaration
significance.
Independence,
and a
we cannot
rightly
of
understand their
intended
a
We therefore turn to
consideration conception
the
specifically Judeo-Christian
Deist
of natural
During
of
the world
undergoing
radical changes.
provided what
remarkably complete explanation hensible forces of nature; knowledge was being tied
science; the literature
appeared to
be
the previously
incompre
increasingly
to experimental
rise; the Divine Right of Kings and the divine order of social ranking were being discredited; and a rational critique of the truth of the Bible and Christianity was
becoming
expressed
commonplace.
In light
of
being formulated. This understanding was widely humanists in the philosophy and theology of Enlightenment among
terms, Deism
or
Deism. In
able
simple
as most
widely
created
can
understood
holds
(1)
that an unknow
God, Creator,
First Cause
the
universe and
from earthly involvement; (2) that we from the rational study of creation,
deduce the
natural
laws
of existence of
or
nature,
including
precepts
human
322
Interpretation
and
morality
just civilization,
which are
truth"
intrinsic to the
nature of
human beings;
know ledge
(3)
rational
is thereby A
demonstrably
list
of
such arguments as a
Deist denial
divinity
Jesus.
not
expressly or implicitly includes Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, and Benjamin Franklin,
common
only
Deist, but
"One
also
Madison. The
as
of
Deism among the Founders has been characterized for the early nineteenth century champions embarrassing the Christian faith [because] not one of the first six Presidents of the United
prevalence of
of the
problems
States
a
Christian"
was an orthodox of
(Adler,
p.
420). This
assertion
is founded
"Creator"
on
variety
contemporary Nature
and
near
contemporary
sources
Remsburg,
"the Laws
pp. of
119-22). We
and of
must
interpret the
God"
references
to the
of
Nature's
in the Declaration
Independence in
this Deist context if we are to interpret them with historical accuracy and to the
Founders'
integrity
original
intent.
natural
Unfortunately, by slighting the Deist context of Enlightenment conceptions of law, while suggesting that the references in the Declaration of Indepen
"Creator"
dence to the
tian
and
"Nature's
the
God"
Revelation, Jaffa
In
so
"natural"
confuses
doing, he
conflates
his
is
with
the
thinking
and compromises
as an
of this
objective,
that
rational guide
to constitutional interpretation. An il
relates
suggestion that
would
homosexuality
is
"unnatural,"
and
natural
law tradition
mosexuality may be unnatural to Judeo-Christian sensibilities, but it be demonstrated whether it is in conflict with natural right. In
our
to
in
the
Deist
law
and
challenges
in
interpretation
Jaffa's
while
follow from
Another
most
essentially,
a sin of omission.
of
While Jaffa
to natural law
principles
Declaration
use
Independence, he does
if some
not
define
natural
law
suf
ficiently
for
as
standard
to apply to constitutional
notion of natural
interpretation. The
was
Borkians rightly
Founders'
law
original
intent,
laration
of
judicial
poorly defined that it opens the door wide to be used (as it has been used) to support contradictory
positions on
Book Reviews
Although he
to the
at refers
323
constantly
law, Jaffa
never under
or even
.
define
few
phrases quoted.
from
the
least,
this
is
highly
unsatisfactory.
To
constitute effective
judicially
enforceable
133).
meaning limit the discretion of
ful
they
apply, and
they
those who
apply them. Nothing could be clearer, it seems to me, than that the from the Declaration do not do this; they may be useful as exhorta tions or aspirations, they the core of religious may embody tradition, but they are not useful as rules of law. (P. 131)
quoted phrases
Now that
of
we
have
restored
the
Enlightenment
define the be
used
and
Deist
the
Founding Fathers,
we
can
principles
law
more
specifically into
a set of standards to
in
constitutional
interpretation.
,4.
,4
Return to Fundamentals
be
lawyers
by rigorously
law,
Jaffa,
who wishes
to
We have
seen that a
cannot resolve
purely positivist position on constitutional interpretation inconsistencies within the Constitution itself nor adequately re
original
intent
effect
of the
framers
and ratifiers.
To
adapt
Lewis E. Lehrman's
formulation (in
such cases
following Chief Justice John Marshall), "judges cannot what the positive law of the Constitution is unless they know
(Foreword to
what natural
law
also
is"
Jaffa, 1994,
p.
7).
We have
seen
law,
while essential
to
an
understanding of original intent, may be abused New Age, Christian, Socialist, or partisans of any
by
judicial activists,
whether
other
dogmatic
or
fashionable in their
doctrine, if
actual
natural
law
clearly defined
or understood
Enlightenment
and
Deist
context.
It becomes critical, therefore, if any civil reconciliation of the debate in Storm Over the Constitution is possible, to define the Enlightenment view of natural
right sufficiently that it can be used to guide constitutional interpretation. We attempt to do so here. We believe that a Deist formulation of natural right is (1)
sufficiently
and the
well
defined to
and
by
both Jaffa
Borkians,
not claim
(2) "provide[s]
apply,
and
limit[s]
We do
is
to those to whom
324
Interpretation
working hypothesis as to how more exact inquiry into, and consideration of, the political meaning intended by the Founders in their references to natural law and
natural right
basis for
issues
raised
in Storm
analysis
by
restating Jaffa's
significance,
republic
original thesis
that if the
original
phrase
"original
of
is to have any
inquiry
into the
intentions
the Founders in
forming
this
must,
inescapably, begin
of
with exami
America"
nation of gress
by
in Con
out,
assembled: of
pointed
writing
Jefferson
Madison:
ex-presidents and
and recommended
to the
both
Jefferson tions,
of
the "best
to the
the
principles of
the
Constitu
of
Virginia,
and of
the United
act of
States,
Union
first
was
"the Declaration
Inde
cit
pendence as
the fundamental
States."
of
these
(Jaffa, 1994,
p.
22.
ing
vol.
9,
p.
221,
and
The Complete
Jefferson,
1112)
declaration is its
historical
The
world
proposition:
equal, that
they
are
by
their
Creator
Rights,
that
among
these are
Life, Liberty,
ments are
and the
Pursuit
Happiness. That, to
....
secure
these rights.
Govern
instituted among
men
(emphasis added)
words
of
Independence
sum
informing
con state
the
Revolutionary
science.
(and post-Revolutionary) American moral and political Similar lists of inalienable rights are to be found in numerous
constitutions and
bills
of rights of
formulation (see, for example, Jaffa, 1994, p. 31), especially as specifically enumerated in the first ten amendments. As Jefferson described his intent in drafting these words:
general, acceptance of this
This
was
Declaration
never
of
ciples,
or new
arguments,
said
merely
to
say things
had
never
been
before; but to
firm
before
of the
our
subject,
selves
in terms
so plain and
as to command their
assent, and to
justify
in the independent
of principle or
Neither aiming
at origi
nality
sentiment,
to
writing,
it
was
intended
be
an expression
of the American
by
its
author-
Book Reviews
325
con
ity
harmonizing
sentiments of the
day,
whether expressed
in
versation, in
letters,
printed essays, or
of public right, as
emphasis
added)
John Adams
what
pp.
pendence] but
quoted
put it, "there is not an idea in [the Declaration had been hackneyed in Congress for two years
of
Inde
before"
(as
by Boaz,
43-44).
At the heart
sense of the
of the
Declaration
is
of
Independence's summary
of
"the
common
subject"
an assertion of
human
being
free from coercion, described perhaps most definitively by the secular spiritual father of the Founders, John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Civil Government:
To
we must con
sider what state all men are order their actions and
naturally in, and that is a state of perfect freedom to dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit.
law
.
Within
will of
the
bounds
of the
. .
of nature, without
asking leave
or
depending
upon
the
any
other man
(Sec.
4)
a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone; law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, (Sec. 6, emphasis added) liberty or possessions
. .
The
state of nature
has
is that
If,
that
is,
constant
fear
a constant
fear
being of being
such
is sufficiently established to free us from the force of others, we are freed from life
referred to
murdered, which,
right
"state
of
to
was
the
of
Inde
pendence.
our own
circumstances,
we are
free to free
decisions,
as we see
our right to
liberty,
all
and, therefore,
who are not
happiness essentially
fit. Because
"men"
"men"
capacities,
all
enjoy such liberty. Hence, when people voluntarily form political communities, they institute governments specifically designed to protect these liberties for each
individual in
Justice."
establish are
happiness
self-evident,
are
self-
inalienable, fundamental,
because they
are
They
immediately
coercion.
universally
experienced
is free from
The
central
feature
of
thought, according to the ability goods they cherish. They are natural because they describe attributes and ca pacities intrinsic to the very consciousness of mentally competent human beings.
to choose their course of action
a process of
by
They
are
inalienable
because,
will
even
if
nature of a
human
being
be to
he determines to be
most
326
Interpretation
We
cannot contract are
valuable.
These rights
also
away our essential nature, even if we want to. fundamental because our ability to realize our human
above
capacities most
fully depends,
all,
being
prevented
from
exercising
these
such
wealth, and
freedoms. Without these rights, all happiness are in constant jeopardy. The
happiness
"higher"
forms
of
health,
rights
creates
lives,
the acquisition
are
They
individual
makes
being
that lives or
ends
dies, thinks,
of each
determines the
he
How
government can
best
secure the
liberty
and
happiness
individual
was the
focus
of
Enlightenment
political thought.
As Jaffa
There is
no
lawful
power
would
jeopardize the
And
of
lawful
this is
religion, or property.
less that
is
meant
by
the natural
law foundation
the
Constitution. (1999,
67)
the
view
of all
Founders,
vidual
"rights"
these are
because
an
inherent equality
exists
among
indi
in their capacity to choose their own course of mentally competent action. This fundamental equality means that no one, neither king, nor bishop,
nor
"men"
legislator,
can
justly
be
of
their
freedom to
exercise this
protect
life,
except to
government
nor
was
to be
kings, by leader, but by the collective will of the individual citizens who ordain it. Again, "to secure these rights [of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], Governments are instituted among men deriving their just
ordained strength of a conqueror or powers
the superior
from the
governed."
consent of the
It is the focus
on this
intrinsic
of
concept
of
justice
as understood
Enlighten
ment political
original
theory
and
directly
ratifie
and
intent.
natural
In applying these
law
principles of original
intention to determine
the
constitutionality
of
any
particular piece of
legislation, it is important
character.
to recognize
essentially
negative
in
They
life, liberty,
and
ability to pursue
happiness. The
the United
purpose of government
is to
secure us against
interference
put
by
acting to violate
not
these rights. Or to
it
another way,
to
individuals
or groups
but
In sum, it is
that
individuals from
tradition. As the
external coercion
forms
the
heart
in its
of the natural
law
political
Constitution's
preamble states
beginning
and conlusion:
Book Reviews
"We the
people of the
327
United States, in do
order
blessings
of
liberty
When
the
Constitution."
created a government of
limited
powers.
the
Constitution,
of
we
It does
behavior
cally, it
of
its
Specifi
its
citizens and
limits the ability of government to violate those rights. This is the understanding of natural law stated in various forms in hundreds
of
documents,
is
philosophy
so
that the
framers
embodied
tution and used to promote its ratification. We suggest that these principles of
natural
rights
and natural
law.
understood,
of of
clear
to
accord
the
Founders.
B.
Civility
distracting feature
As
of
be
condescending
attempting
discussion,
down,
and
the participants were more eager to demonstrate the mistakes and ignorance of the other party. In the process, the quality of communication breaks
more
dogmatic
and
focused
around positions.
Experienc society is
ing
such an uncivilized
discourse
about
the
foundations
of a civilized
breakdown in discussion
and
on such a
fundamental issue
security
of our
first
modern
political
enduring
Machiavelli, predicted was the potentially tragic fate of long In book 3, chapter 1 of his Discourses on the First Books of
wrote:
Livy (1521),
.
.
Machiavelli
And those
are
the
best
constituted
[political] bodies,
and
have
the
longest
exis
tence, is
which possess
the
intrinsic
means of
frequently
is to
renewing themselves.
And it
light that,
means of
without such
renovation, these
bodies
cannot con
origi
tinue to exist;
nal principles.
the
renewing
them
bring
them
back to their
Storm Over
the
Constitution, in
in his description of the degeneration exactly the kind Machiavelli wrote about of (and means of restoration) longstanding republican regimes. The debate in Storm Over
the
of
328
Interpretation
founded. As
we
republic was
have
argued, we
believe that
a proper understand
ing
of
the Enlightenment
principles of natural
law
and negative
individual
rights.
divorced from religion, may furnish a means for renewing our republic and a potential common ground between Professor Jaffa and the Borkian positivists. Their
affairs acceptance of
does
men,
nor
not rely upon the workings of Div ine Providence in the does it exclude it. Renewal of recourse to those original
provide
principles
would, moreover,
republic.
healthy
renewal
to the
of
vitality
of our
as a
long-enduring
prudent
Acceptance
of the
Declaration
Independence
summary
Constitution
an
of
was
founded
Justice"
instrument
Liberty
to
Our
Posterity."
"Why
framers
should
general
same
(1999,
p.
67)
VII. CONCLUSION
a significant
records
is
immediate, important,
republic and
and
has
crucial
American
concerns,
have
which must
country is to continue a second two hundred years. One might say, in fact, that since its central subject is the very nature of our civil government as regulated by our Constitution, the debate calls for noth
be integrated if
our
ing
the
among the
con
and
tending
security
of our rights
to
life, liberty,
pursuit of
happiness
are at stake.
We have
between Jaffa
and
intent
and constitutional
interpretation may be
principles of well-defined
We
can
law
and
the
bridge the gap between Jaffa's desire to use the insistence on a nonreligious and
Borkians'
law, specifically
a consideration of negative
individual
rights.
The
potential
hardly
be doubted: It
could provide
of the
principles that
have
made
endure
precise
for
as
long
as
it has. It
justices
with a
sufficiently
and principled
terpretation where
intent to
cases
guide
its judicial in
of ambiguity,
because
inconsistency,
principles
or omission.
of government
Without searching and serious consideration of the the Founders and ratifiers actually intended tor our
Book Reviews
constitutional system,
as
329
the
a
they
understood on
construction
of
original
to
us
to
become
REFERENCES
and
Religious Groups in
America."
Vol. 2.
chap.
22 in Great
Constitution.
Library
of
Literary
Classics
of the
with
and
Framers of the Constitution A Disputed Question. Washington: Regnery Publishing. 1994. Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Henry Lee, May 4. 1825. In Thomas Jefferson, Writings.
and the
Library
.
of
Literary
Classics
of the
United
States, 1984.
Letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823. In The Complete Jefferson. Edited
by
Remsburg, John E. Six Historic Americans. New York: Truth Seeker, 1906.
Response to Lewis
Harry V. Jaffa
and
Sheppard
am
grateful
critique of
have been
even more
thoughtful
had they read it as the record of debates occasioned by its predecessor, Original Intent and the Framers of the Constitution. I heartily concur with the negative
things
they say
about the
"original
intent"
jurisprudence
of the
dominant
elite
among conservative jurists, as represented by Judge Robert Bork, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justice Antonin Scalia. Let me, however, dispose
of their one objection to
say consists of an improper attempt into the morality of the Constitution. I have, they say, imported "doctrines of revealed religion into the secular interpretation of a civil This is not
true. What I maintained was that according to the Founders
intent"
constitut
whose
"original
of
of
American
constitutionalism were
doctrines
Declaration
Independence
as
in
perfect
harmony
I
or agree
quoted at
ment with
they
length from
by
governor and
Commonwealth
sion of the
inauguration
(largely
Adams)
We
on
that
passage:
need
not,
indeed,
from heaven
born
equal and
free;
that
has
a natural claim to
. . .
dominion
over
his
neigh
bors,
any
There follows
said to
doctrines
of the
Declaration. These
are then
be
the plain
men
dictates
the
common parent of
everlasting
men
equity
confirmed and
impressed
the
consciences of
by
the
instructions,
precepts,
in the
sacred oracles
....
We
human
reason
is
said to
be
a sufficient ground
for
wisdom
to be the voice of
oracles."
moral-political
horizon,
from
all other
worldly
doctrines, is substantially
interpretation,
Spring 2002,
Vol.
29, No. 3
332
and
Interpretation
Sheppard
attribute
they
attribute and
to Deism is
agreement
in fact
the
ground with
Chase,
and
is in
with
intent I have
propounded.
Lewis
Sheppard have
corrected me with
Our
generous authors
have
"reconciliation"
proposed a
and myself.
This is
s
absurd.
The heart
on
and soul of
of a
Borkianism is
be found in
a
Rehnquist"
Justice
passage of which
essay
quoted
"The Notion
Living
and
Constitution,"
key
It
is
by
Lewis
and
Sheppard,
not
in
which
it is
asserted
liberty"
do
have
"any
or
intrinsic
be
pointed out
safeguards
for individual
liberty
do
not
is utterly incompatible
and
with
any
school, make
minority rights, if there are any, are simply the gift of the majority. But uncon ditional majority rule leads to the plebiscite, which has been the instrument of
legitimacy
from the We
and
Stalin.
Majority
be
rule apart
natural rights of
free
is
meaningless.
On this
there
can
no compromise.
asserted
passage
.
that
liberty
people."
simply because they have been incorporated in a constitution by the It happens, however, that in the original constitution there were safe
.
guards
with
the safeguards
for liberty.
They
were
incorporated
premises the
Tightness or
into
by
By Rehnquist's
identical
moral
safeguards
goodness.
the
and
safeguards
for slavery to be, at best, necessary evils, that eleven slave states seceded from the Union in 1860-61, formed the Confederacy, and brought on the Civil War.
The idea
at
of a constitutional moral position of
bottom the
neutrality as between slavery and freedom is John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis. For our Borkians
what
Mark Lewis
and
Harrison
Shep
INTERPRETATION
A JOURNAL OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Queens College, Flushing, NY 11367-1597 U.S.A. (718) 997-5542 Subscription
rates per volume
(3 issues): individuals $29 libraries and all other institutions $48 students (four-year limit) $18
.00
Postage outside U.S.: Canada $4.50 extra; elsewhere $5.40 extra by surface mail (8 weeks or longer) or $1 1 by air. Payments: in U.S. dollars and payable by a financial institution located within the U.S. or the U.S. Postal Service.
Please
print or type
FOR RENEWALS
BILLED)
to subscribe to INTERPRETATION.
name
address
? bill
me
student
payment enclosed
ZIP/postcode
air mail
country (if
outside
U.S.)
Please
enter a subscription
to INTERPRETATION for
name
address
.
student
ZIP/postcode
?
?
air mail
country (if
from:
outside
U.S.)
bill me
payment enclosed
name
address
.
ZIP/postcode
our
library
subscribe
[ISSN 0020-9635],
signature
at
to INTERPRETATION, a journal of polit the institutional rate of $48 per year (three
issues).
_
name
date
position
3
c
C/i
=r
TO
z
CO go
k
a
-
Z
o o
O
-a
ft
?
rs
ai
i_o
>
o
o
ty.
a>
Od
On
o 3
UJ
sD oo -J (D
ET
o
C
o
Lo
o
Z
o
zi
3
Z
o
4^
"0
o
>
_
0Q O
-J
"D
DJ
o
OQ
UJ L-i
Cl