"DivineMadness" JOSEFPIEPER ''DivineMadness'' Plato 5CaseagainstSecularHumanism TranslatedbyLotharKrauth IGNATIUSPRESSSANFRANCISCO Titleof theGemunoriginal: "CottlicherWal111sinn" Ei11ePlaton-lmerpretation 1989SchwabenverlagAG Ostflder/Stuttgart,Gennany CoverbyRoxanneMeiLum 1995IgnatiusPress,SanFrancisco Allrightsreserved ISBNo-8987o-557-6 Libraryof Congresscataloguenumber95-75667 PrintedintheUnitedStatesof America Contents EstablishingtheTheme 7 Prophecy I I "Catharsis" 2I Poesy 29 Eros 37 Conclusion 57 Translator'sNote 59 ESTALISHINGTHETHEME "THEHIGHESTGOODScometoUSinthemannerof themania,inasmuchasthesameisbestowedonus asadivinegift."ThispronouncementbySocrateswithitscentraltermmaniaremaininguntranslated fornow-containsanentireworldview;itproclaimsaboveallafundamentalopinionaboutthe meaningofhumanexistence.Itshowsthatmanis indeedof suchakindastopossesshisownselfin freedomandself-determination,thatheisableand alsoobligedtoexaminecriticallyeverythingheencounters,thatheisaboveallableandobligedto determine,basedoninsight,hisownlife. Yetitfurtherindicatesthatman,atthesametime,isinhis personalselfoodintegratedintothewholeof realityinsuchawaythathecanverywellbeshaken outofhisself-possession,andthisnotonlyinthe formofforcedoppressiOnbutpossibly,solongas 7 8 DIVINEMADNESS" manonhispartdoesnotbarricadehimself inrefusal,alsoinsuchaformthatintheverlossof selpossession thereisbestowedonhimafulfllmentnot achievedinanyotherway. Thisconceptofman, withthetensionofits structure,canof courseneverbecapturedinsome smoothformula;itsinherentexplosivepotential indicates, rather,animplacableanddisturbingchallenge.Andthisconceptofman, inauniqueway, occupiedPlato'smindallhislife. Yethewasfar fromplacinghisemphasisonthesameaspect. Like everytruephilosopher,hewasconcerednotso muchwithfndingsomesatisfingandhandyformulaaswithnotoverlookinganything. Thushe neverdeniedordisregardedthefactthatbothaspects areessentialtoman, self-possessionaswellasitsloss throughtheirruptionof ahigher power.Buthewas notalwaysdisposedtointerpretsuchlossofselfdirectedautonomyasagain.Inhisearlierwritings,heseemsinclinedtocall thestateof "being-beside-oneself-in-enthusiasm"a "sickness",eventhoughhewouldhaveconsidered itaworsesicknessnottobeabletobe"sick"in suchaway.("Thesicknessthatconsistsintheinabilitytobesick"-thisexpressionofmodernpsychologycomestomind.) ESTABLISHINGTHETHE ME 9 ThefollowingrefectionsareanattempttointerpretprimarilythelateDialoguePhaedrus.Inthis Dialogue,Socratesdiscussesfourdiferentformsof thetheiamania,bywhichhemeanspreciselythis god-givenstateof "being-beside-oneself". PROPHECY THEFIRSTDISCUSSIONconcernspropheticecstasy, "divination"inthestri ctsense,thetrnsportprophetique.Threefguresareidentifedbyname: the prophetessatDelphi,thepri estessesof Dodona,and theSibyl.Theyallhaveincommonthat, while theywerei nastateof ecstaticfrenzy,theyaccomplishedgreatthingsthroughtheirutterances, but, whentheywereofclearmindandcalmselfpossession,theywereunabletosayanythingimportant. Atthetimeof Socrates, Delphihadbeenasanctuaryformorethanathousandyears,extendingits infuencefarintoAsiaandEgypt.Regardlessofthe interpretationofdetails,wenowknowthatthe efectsoftheDelphianOracle, especiallywhen aimedatthepoliticalarena,canhardlybeoverestimated.Itsoraclescontainedreligi ousandethical I I 12 "DIVINEMADNESS" demandsfoundpracticallynowhereelseinthepreChristianworldformulatedwithsuchconsistency andintensity.Forexample,notonlyistheinviolablerighttoasylumproclaimedhere,andnotonlyis thecustomof thebloodfeuddenounced,butthe earliestrulesforamorehumaneconductofwar, indeedforsomekindof"internationallaw",can alsobetracedback totheDelphianOracle. Themostancientformlaichymnicwisdomof theGreekreligionoriginatedwiththepriestessesof DodonainnorthernGreece:"Zeus was, Zeus is,and Zeuswilleverbe-0Zeus,thouartmostpowerful!"Alltooeasilydowetendtooverlooksuch thingsinfavorof thoseentertainingstoriesaboutthe godsof theHomericmythology,storiesthatPlato dismissesasaperversionofthetruedivinedoctrine-according totheGreek concepti on,of course. Andfnally,theSibyl.Themostancienttestimonyknowntousderivesfromoneofthegreat pre-Socraticphilosophers,Heraclitus;itisitselfcast inSibyllineobscurity:"TheSibyl,withraginglips utteringthingsunamusing,andunadorned,and unanointed,resoundsthroughthemillennia,driven by the god. " Plato'scontemporariesaresofamiliarwithallthis thatthetextstatesexplicitly:Letusnottalkat PRO PHECY13 lengthaboutthingsknowntoeverybody. And then,recapitulating,thetextsaysitwouldbegood torefectonthefactthattheancients,whogave namestoallthings,assignedtothisoracularartof theseer-priestessandtheSibylthenamemaniaasa nameofhonor.Afewlineslater,thistitleisconfrmedonceagain:theancientonestestifedthat morevenerablethanhumanreasonablenessisthe theiamania,thegod-givenandenthusiasticstateof bei ng-beside-oneself Welatter-dayreadersof Platoareatfrstinclined toconnectthePlatoniccommentaryontheprophetictranceonlywithDelphi,Dodona,andthe Sibyl,thereforewiththe"historyofGreekreligion"-andthustoletitrest.SurveyingtheacademicliteratureonPlato,wearelargelyconfrmed andencouragedinthisapproach.Buti ndoingthis wedepriveourselvesof thegenui negainwemight verywellderivefromstudyingPlato'swordsor evensimplyreadingthemattentively.IamremindedhereofC.S.Lewis'ScrewtapeLetters.A devilcalled"Screwtape",grown"wise"through extensiveexperience,impartsinstructionsandadvicetohisnephew,inexperiencedinthewaysof humans,inlettersexpressingaphilosophicalanthropologyaltogetherashumorousasitisprofoundbut, I4 "DIVINEMADNESS" ofcourse, turnedupsidedown.Oneof Screwtape's lettersdealswithstudyingtheancients: "Onlythelearnedreadoldbooks, andwe[the uniteddemonsof hell]havenowsodealtwiththe learnedthattheyareofallmentheleastlikelyto acquirewisdombydoingso.Wehavedonethisby inculcatingTheHistoricalPointofView. Put briefy,TheHistoricalPointofViewmeansthat whenalearnedmanispresentedwithanystatement inanancientauthor,theonequestionheneverasks iswhetheritistrue. Heaskswhoinfuencedthe ancientwriter,andhowfarthestatementisconsistentwithwhathesaidinotherbooks , andwhat phaseinthewriter'sdevelopment, or inthegeneral historyof thought, itillustrates,andhowitafected laterwriters,andhowoftenitwasmisunderstood (speciallybythelearnedman'sowncolleagues) . . . ", andsoforth. ButassoonasI,inviewof Plato'scommentson thefrstformofenthusiasticbeing-beside-oneself, posethequestionwhethersomethingisstatedhere thatdescribestherealityofasituation;whether somethingcomestotheforeherethatinactualfact isfoundintherealityofthehumanessence-then itimmediatelybecomesimpossibletoconfne Plato'stestimonymerelytothehistoryofGreek PRO PHECY15 religion.Suchaquestionrightawaysweepsaside thenarrow categoryof beingmerelysomethi ngof the past.Forexample,althoughthemoder-dayChristian hasencounteredtheSibylinthesequenceDies!rae, rightinthemiddleof theChurch's[former]funeral liturgy,wheresheismentionedi nonebreathwith thebiblicalkingDavid,bothpropheticallytestifing tothecatastrophicendofhistory(testeDavidcum Sibyl/a),thisconnectionmaystilbetakenasa quaintfoweryornamentwithoutanyparticular implication. Inordertoaddressseriouslythequesti onofthetruthofitall,wehavetotranslate Plato'swordsandmeaningmoreresolutelyintoour ownmentalframework.Incidentally,theredoesexistsucha"translation", datingfrompre-Christiantimes,intoalanguage closertoours: thelanguageof theRomans,Lati n.Int hesixthbookof t heAeneid,whichcontainsa descriptionofAeneasconsultingtheSibylof Cumae,thetheiamaniaisindeedpresentedas "sacredfrenzy":IntheenormouscavernofCumae, perforatedahundredtimesandhavingahundred mouthsthatcarry"withrushingvoices"the responsesof theSibyl,theresheherself stoodatthe entrance,and,asshespoke, I6 DIVINEMADNESS" ...neitherherface Norhuewentuntransformed,nordidherhair Stayneatlybound;herbreastheaved,herwildheart Grewlargewithpassion.Tallertotheireyes Andsoundingnownolongerlikeamortal Sinceshehadfeltthegod'spowerbreathingnear ...Apollo Pulledherupraging,orelsewhippedheron, Diggingthespursbeneathherbreast. Evenso, Iwouldnotyetcallthisatranslation intotermsfamiliartous.Instead,thisisaccomplishedthroughonesinglewordusedbyVirgil.It appearsinthefrstversesof thesamebook, where itissaidabouttheSibylthattheDeliangodApollo "breathedintohertherichnessof thespirit".The nameforthis"breath",of course, isinspiratio,inspiration! Inreferencetothiswordwearenowabletotake thetestimonyfoundinthePlatonicDialoguePhaedrusandreformulateitincontemporaryandmore specifcterms.Humannatureissopositioned withinitsexistentialrealmastobeessentiallyopen towardthesphereof thedivine.Manisconstituted insuchawaythat,ontheonehand,heneedstobe forced,throughinspiration, outoftheself-PRO PHECYI7 sufciencyofhisthinking-throughanevent, therefore,thatliesbeyondhisdisposingpower,an eventthatcomestohimonlyintheformof somethingunpredictable.Ontheotherhand,itispreciselyinthislossofrationalsovereigntythatman gainsawealth,aboveall,of intuition,light,truth, andinsightintoreality,allofwhichwouldotherwiseremainbeyondhisreach.Hereweareexplicitlylookingnotattheresultsofhumangeniusbut attheefectsof adiferent,aloftier,adivinepower . Suchoverwhelminginspirationispossiblenotonly intheabstract;itreallyhappenseverynowand then. Wheneveritdoeshappen,ithappensinsuch awaythatthesophros}c[self-possession],aswel l as everythingimpliedbyit,isbeingforcefullysuspended,nomatterhowmuchthedignityofthe humanpersonisordinarilybasedonit.Inspiration asaneventoccursintheformofbeing-besideoneself,atheiamania-hencethatinspirationlikewiseappearsto"themultitude"asmadness. Itisimmediatelyobviousthatsuchastatement invitesdiscussionofthemetaphysicalstructureof man'snature,whichliesallbutbeyondthegraspof "science".Hewhowoulddiscussthetruthof this discoursehastobepreparedtodeclarehisultimate convictions.Thatis,toputitbriefyandinblunt !8 "DIVINEMADNESS" terms,aChristian,confrontedwithsuchstatements andpursuingaphilosophicalinterpretationof Plato, cannoteasilyescapethenecessityofincludingin thediscussionteachingsoftheChristianfaith.Theseteachings, fortheirpart, clearlyagreewith Platothat,indeed, thelimitationsofman'snature,aswel l asitsinfniteopennessandcapacity-both together-aremanifestintheoccurrenceof revelatorydivineinspiration.Thequestionremains,ofcourse, whetherthis agreementmightalsoextendtothespecifcways andmeansofrevelationandinspiration. Coulda ChristiantheologianreallyacceptPlato'stalkof enthusiasticbeing-beside-oneself orevenhistalkof mania,nomatterhowoftenitbedeclareda"divine madness"?How, inanycase,doesChristiantheologyconceiveofrevelationandinspirationasan eventhappeningtothefrst recipient? IhavetoadmitthatIexpected,comparedwith Plato'sdescriptionofthetheiamania,ananswer muchmorecomposedand,asitwere,moredetached, morerationallyunimpassioned.ButthenI encountered, tomysurprise, almostliterallythe samedescriptionof therevelatoryevent,asfoundin Plato'sPhaedrus,inThomasAquinas,whomnoone couldaccuseof alackof sobriet. PRO PHECY19 Thomasdiscussestheinstanceofrevelationand inspirationunder theheadingof prophetiaandraptus. Theverytermraptus,havingaclearlydiscernible connotationofsomethingintrusiveandviolent,is obviouslynotfarremovedfromtheiamania.This connectionisconfrmedimmediatelybyScholasticism'sdefnition, quotedbyThomas:"beinglifted up throughahigher power,awayfrom thosethings thatpertaintonature,andtowardthosethingsthat areagainstnature"(inidquodestcontranaturam). Prophecyaswell,seenasaneventinthemindof theonewhoexperiencesrevelationandinspiration,isdescribedbyThomasintermsnotonlyof passio butevenof"failure,givingway".Heasks ,for instance, whetherprophetiaisahabitus,belongingto the"prophet"likeapossession, atalent, askill. He answers:No, thepropheticlightappearsinthe prophet'ssoulasareceptionora"feetingengraving. . . .Prophecy, insofarasitreferstotheseeing onthepartoftheprophet,isinacertainsense admittedlyamentalaction;butinreferencetothe lightthatisreceivedsuddenlyandinthemannerof somethingpassingthrough('likethesun'slightin theatmosphere') ,it issomethingreceived. .. ."Intheprocessofpropheticrevelation, the prophet'smindisbeingmovedbytheHolySpirit 20 "DIVINEMADNESS" likeaninstrumentthatsubmits . . . . "And,fnally,it isanentirelyunexpecteddiscoverythatThomas, theacceptedmodelofthemostunimpassioned rationality,declarescognitionduringsleeptobe morepowerfulasregardsreceptivitythanthecognitionof onewhoisawake-thuspositioninghimself byonesinglesurprisingstepsquarelyonPlato's side.Rationalism,however,becauseitdistortsthe entirerealityofhumanlife,necessarilyfndsboth thinkersequallyincomprehensibleand inaccessible.''CATHARSIS'' THESECONDFORMofdivinelycausedbeing-besideoneself discussedbySocrateshasbeencharacterized as"catharticmania". Anycomparisonandconnectionwithcertaintenetsweourselvesdeemtrueis possible,ofcourse, onlyif weholdanopinionatall regardingthetopicconsideredhere.Atfrstsight, weseemnottohavesuchanopinion.What,then, ismeantbytheterm"catharticmania"?Firstofall , whatdoesthetextsay?ThepassageintheDial ogue Phaedrus readsthus : Again,forthosesoreplaguesanddireafictions, whichyouareawarelingeredincertainfamiliesas thewraithofsomeoldancestralguilt,maniadevised aremedy,afterithadenteredintotheheartofthe properpersons,andtotheproperpersonsrevealed itssecrets;foritfedforrefugetoprayerandservicesofthegods,andthenceobtainingpurifcations 21 22 "DIVINEMADNESS" andatoningritesmadeitspossessorwholefortime presentandtimetocome,byshowinghimtheway ofescapefromtheevilsthatencompassedhim,if onlyhewererightlyfrenziedandpossessed. Onthispoint, theliteratureonPlatoofersonly someextremelymeagerand stammeringwords . Wilamowitzcandidlydeclaresthistobe"notunderstood"asyet:"NowheredidIfndanexplanation,andIamat aloss myself."Of course,onecouldproposesimplytodisregardthismatteraltogetherifit werenotrathervexingthatweshouldbesoutterly incapableofrecognizingasmeaningul,thatis, as connectedtoreality,athesispronouncedbyPlato withobviouslyseriousintent. This wouldbedisturbingnotsomuchbecauseof the gap ininterpretation,irkingtothehistorianandphilologist,butrather becausewewouldhavereasontosuspectthatwe have developedablind spotasregardsreality,if wei n fact-confrontedwithsuchaspecifcpronouncement,whichPlatoevidentlydeemed fundamentaldonotunderstandatallwhatheis talkingabout.Atthispoint,twoquestionsshouldbeasked.First:Lookingatourcurrenttotalknowledgeof man, isthereinitsomethingthatcorrespondsto whatPlatocalled"thosesoreplaguesanddire afictions",rooted"insomeoldancestralguilt"? "CATHARSIS" 23 Sometranslations(e.g.,K.Hildebrandt)alsosay, "fowingfromanancientcurse";menima,indeed, meansboth:guiltand(divine)wrath.Themost appropriateterm,combiningbothelements,maybe theGermanVerhangnis[doom] . Thesecondquestion: Lookingatourknowledgeofman,istherei n itsomethingthatcorrespondstowhatPlatosays aboutthedivinelyappointedmania,whichhe declarestobealoneabletorelievemanof suchan ancientburden?Onyifsuchcorrespondingelementsexistwillwebeatallpreparedtounderstand whatPlatoistalkingabouthere;aboveall,only thencanweapplyPlato'sdiscoursetothosenotions weourselvesdeemtrue. Concerni ngthefrstquestion,weshouldrecognizeatoncethattheailments,burdens,aficti ons, plagues,andmiseriesmentionedbyPlatoareobviouslynot,ornotprimarily,tobeseenasphysical infrmities,suferings,andwoundsbutratherasburdensof thesoul,which oppressanddarkentheheart. OnecontemporarycommentaryonthePhaedrus DialogueholdsthatPlatoprobablywasthi nkingof somethinglikethestoryof Orestes,whoishaunted bytheavengingspecters,theEumenides[Erinnyes] . Butitisnotonlyinthetragediesofantiquitythat weencountertheseEummides.Themodern-day 24 "DIVINEMADNESS" spectatorcanwatchthemappear,inT.S.Eliot's FamilyReunion,asthechorussteppingoutofthe windowalcovesof acontemporaryEnglishcountry manor : AndwhetherinArgosorEngland, Therearecertaininfexiblelaws Unalterable,inthenatureofmusic. Itis,of course,lessimportanttofndagreementi n vocabularythaninthematteritselfRegardingthe subjectmatterhere,weshouldrecall,fori nstance, thefndingsofmodernpsychoanalysis. These fndings,indeed,didnotbringtolightanytotally independentand"new"insights.Onthecontrary, theysimplyconfrmedtoalargeextentthosethings alreadyknownandutteredsinceancientdaysby renownedauthoritiesonthehumanheartandin sapientialtraditionsofnati ons. Thesefndingsconfrmthis,too:Inthelifeof thesoulthereareindeed burdens,tribulations,andailmentsthatcanbe showntofow"fromancientdoom",i nwhi chthe afictedindividualsthemselves,aswellaspreceding generations,arecaughtupinsomeunspecifedparticipation,andinwhich,moreover,acertaini nner corruption,impossibletodefne,coincideswithan inescapableandfatefulexternaldestiny.Inshort,any "cATHARSIS" 25 refectiononthetotalityofman'sexistencewill eventodayleadtotheinsightthatsuchburdens, fowingfromsuchroots,arereal. Furthermore,thisinsightsuggeststhatmanis unabletofreehimself fromtheseburdensbymeans ofmererationaltechnique;that,onthecontrary, suchanattemptwouldrendertheburdenevenmore burdensome. Liberationcanoccuronlythrougha processofhealingcharacterized, atleastnegatively, bythenecessityfortheonedesiringhealing to relinquishtemporarilythesteeringwheelof rationalselfcontrolandself-possession. Indeed,itisnotsome busilypursuedactivitythatishereinorderbut,on thecontrary,awilingness tosubmittobeingledand afected-forinstance, bydelvingtothedomainof theunconsciousandof dreams. PlatowasnodoubtawarethatAscl epius'healing artoriginallyhadamagicalcharacter,oferingthe supplicantadviceandhealingindreams. Adream,however,issomethingwedonotoriginateourselves. "Wesuferadream."Thissentenceisnotan ancientpronouncement;itsauthorisnoneother thanC.G.Jung. LikePlato,hetoomentionsthe necessity,forthesakeof healingandrestoration, of abandoningoneselftoastateofbeing-besideoneself,ofmania;andhequotesherethe"ancient 26 "DIVINEMADNESS" oracle:' Letgoofwhatyoupossess,andsoyoushall receive.' "Thegiftofreceiving,then, hasbeen giventhesamenameinmodernpsychologyasin Platonicteaching:thegiftof cleansing,catharsis. Againstthisattempttodrawananalogybeteen Platoontheonehandandmodernpsychoanalysis ontheother,onecouldcertainlyobjectasfollows: Nomatterhowmuchthe"liberationofthesubconscious"inmodernparlancemightresemblethe "being-beside-oneself"ofthePlatonicmania,the decisivepointforPlatoconsistsinitsbeinga divinelycaused "being-beside-oneself",atheiamania; andregardingthisthetheoryofthesubconscious doesnot utteraword! Asmuchasthisobjectionisjustifedinviewof theexplicitlydeclaredor, rather,explicitlyundeclaredpositionofmodernpsychoanalysis,Iwould trytocounteritwith thisquestion:Inasmuchasthe soulitself certainlyknowsitswantsandneeds ,does notthissoul'sexistentialfoundation, lyingbeyond anyrationalcalculation, atleastsilentlyintimatethe possibilityof asupernatural ,divinelycreatedorigin alsoofthehealingprocess?Man, bylettinggoof himself,doesnotatallabandonhimselfintothe realmof whatismerely"irrational".Heentersthe healingdarknessof hisowndivineorigin."cATHARS IS" 27 Onemoreaspectshouldbementionedhere.Plato,if herealyhadinmi ndthestoryof Orestes, thematricide,couldhaveunderstoodtheburden "rootedinancestralguilt"specifcallyasguiltinthe literalsenseofthewordor,atleast,asincluding suchpersonalguilt.Inthatcase,histhesiswould assertthatguilt,crime,andsincannotbeundone andthatwecannotgetridof suchburdenssimply througharati onalprogramofinnerdisciplineor throughsomeexternalregimen,nomatterhow sublime.Guiltiswipedoutbymeansofthetheia mama. Contemporaryman,however,if heisaChristian (onceagain,heretheultimateexistentialrootshave tobebroughtintothediscourseandnotonlywhen agreementprevailsbutalsointhefaceof disagreement!),canhardlyavoidtakingPlato'ssideand speakingofhisownconviction,whichlikewise assertsthatguiltcanbeabsolvedonlythrough metanoia,throughrepentanceandconvers1on. Metanoiameans,frst,thatonesurrendersandabandonstheself-sufciencyofamindthatclaimstotal independence. Metanoiaispreciselytheoppositeof theattitude,defnedbySenecaandspanningthe centuries,that itisthefruitof philosophy"neverto regretanythi ng".Second,thenotionofmetanoia "D IV INEMADNESS" impliesthatsuchconversioncanneverbefully decidedbyamereactofthewill;rather,itis bestowedonmanasadivinefavor. POESY THETHIRDFOR Mofdivinelypromptedbeingbeside-oneselfdiscussedbySocratesisthepoetic mania, theecstasyinspiredbytheMusesandseizing "uponatenderandvirginsoul,stirringittorapturousfrenzy".Andaclearnoteofcautionisadded immediately:Genuineandgrandpoetryisnot possibleunlessbornoutofdivinemadness. Whosoever wishestobeapoetbyhisowndeviceswillnever experience theblessed initiation. The poetryof those whoarereasonableandsensiblefadesintoobscurity beforethepoetryof thosewhospeakintheecstasy of being-beside-oneself "Howcanthisrecognitionofpoetry. . . stand sidebysidewiththecondemnationfoundinthe Republic,whichwouldbanHomerandTragedy fromtheidealcommonwealth?"Thisobservation ( byWilamowitz)appearsagainandagaininthelit-29 30 "D IV INEMADNESS" eratureonPlatoindiferentvariations. Theremay benorealproblemlurkinghereatal.A along,as intheDialogueMeno,whichwaswrittenmuchearlierthantheRepublic,Platodistinguishedbetween "divinepoets"andthosewhohavenoclaimtothis title.Amongthoseother,non-divine, poets, heevidentlycountsalsoHomer,becauseHomerattributesungodlythingstothegods. Genuinepoesy,then, originateswithdivineinspiration;itfowsfromaconditionof thesoulcloser toastateofbeing-beside-oneselfthanpossessingoneself;andthisbeing-beside-oneselfisnotthe resultofwine, poison, orsomeotherdrugbutis causedbysomehigherpower.Poesy,ifitistrue poesy,fowsfrom "enthusiasm"inthestrictsenseof theword. CanwemodernslookatthisPlatonicthesisin anywayotherthanmerelyhistoricaly?Afterwe considereverythingweknowscientifcallyabout psychologicalrequisitesandotherrelevantconditionsforpoeticcreationandartisticproductionas such, canwestillseriouslyassertthatpoetryfows fromdivineinspiration? Inthiscontext,"we"doesnotmeansimplycontemporarymaningeneralbut,aboveall ,theChristian.CanaChristianacceptathesisthatputspoesy POESY 3 I onthesamelevelasrevelationandinspiration?Ina biographyonRilkeweread:"Rilkeisthequintessentialfgureof apoet,inthesimplesenseof being avesselfordivineinspiration.Onenecessarilyhasto believethisinordertodojusticetoRilke." Youdo nothavetolackapoeticinclination,afteral,orbe specifcallyunsympathetictowardRilke,toconsider suchwordsas,attheleast,romanticexaggeration,if notsimplyblasphemy.Andyet,doesnotPlatosay theverysamething? Therefectionherepointsoutthesaddefciency of ournothavingavailableanytheologicalorphilosophicaldoctrineonthenatureofthefnearts, whichwouldprovidetheframeworkfordiscussing Plato'sthesisinmoreadequatecriticalterms.Sucha theologyorphilosophyofpoetics,incidentally, mighthavetobereconstructedeveranew,accordingtothediferentspiritualconditionsofeach epoch;andthiswouldprobablyturnouttobe,like theologyandphilosophyingeneral,ataskbecomingevermoredifcult. ReinholdSchneider,shortlybeforehisdeath, statedthatheneverceasedsearchingforthenature of poesybutthat,inhisexperience,"astheyearsgo by,itbecomesmoreandmoredifculttofndan answer".Topursuethisquestionhereis,of course, 32 "D IV INEMADNESS" impossible. Atthispointof ourPhaedrsinterpretation,however,wemustemphasizeoneparticular aspect:Inspiteof all"scientifc"analysesof poetry; inspiteof allthesuperfcialpopularsuccessof manifestpseudo-poetry(nomatterwhetheritpresents itself asliteraryartorpoliticallyengaged propaganda or"entertainment");inspiteof thefactthatweno longerhaveanyillusionswhenweconsiderpersonagessuchasBrechtorBenn-inshort,withinthe frameworkofourspontaneousattitudetoward poetry,thereremainsneverthelessoneelement entirelyunafected,anelementclearlytendingto sidewithPlatoandhisthesis .Thiselementobviouslycannotbeattackedandeliminatedeither throughouracquaintancewithdegeneratepoetry orthroughanydoseofanalyticalandcausticcriticism.Inalltherefectivemeditationonpoetry,even asitsresult,thiselementeverynowandthencomes tothefore. Thisfact,indeed,mustmostfrcefully becalledtomind,topreventusfromgivinginto ourimmediatereactionof takingPlato'sthoughtas merelyhistoricalandthusdismissingit. Thisparticularelementisattestedhundredsof timesintheworksof suchpoeticmastersasNavalis orHolderlin.Itissoself-evidentthatweseeno needtobelaboritatanylength. Itisappropriate,at PO ESY 33 anyrate,t oconsidertheunromanticprecisionof t hefollowingsentencei nHolderlin's"Comments onAntigone": "Itisofgreatbenefttothesoul, workinginsecret,thatattheheightofconsciousnessitmovesawayfromconsciousness ...."Butit isaltogethermoresurprisingtoheararational thinkersuchasLessingdeclareabouthisowncreationsthatitwouldbetoomuchofanhonortocall them"poetry"andhimself"apoet": "Thatliving spring-Idonotfeelitinsidemyself .. . . "Similar utterancescamefromAdalbertStifter,alwaysso level-headed;hesaysthat"atnotimedid[he] regard[his]ownwritingsaspoetry",norwouldhe "everpresume. . . tocallthempoetry.Thereare veryfewpoetsinthisworld."TheimpressiverealismofGoethe,thegreatwriterofletters,isnot contentwithsuchmerelynegativecharacterizations.HeofersallbutPlatonicformulations: "The poetisinfactoutofhissenses";and"inkeeping withthehumbletruth,hehastoadmitthathisconditionisaltogetheratrancebetweenwakingand dreaming;inefect,Idonotdeny thatmanyathing appearstomelikeadream. . .."Asthe"mainprerequisitefortruepoesy"helists"anoverwhelming nature,anirresistibleurge,aninsistentpassion". Is notallofthissimplyanotherdescriptionofthe 34 "D IV INEMADNESS" samepoeticmaniadiscussedbyPlatomhisPhaedrus? Andyet,thereisnoneedtodigi ntothepast. EvenapoetsuchasGottfriedBenn, whoclearly lovedtodestroy,withaheavyhandandwithhis Berlinesquedicti on, anyromanticatmosphere("a poemveryrarely'comesabout';apoemismade") , evenBenniscompletelyawareofthecompulsion involvedinpoeticcreation, acompulsionthatcan neitherbecontrolledrati onallynoravoided. Many explicitremarkstothecontrarynotwithstanding,he expressesinspecifcwordstheveryelementsof the theiamania,thebeing-beside-oneself rootedatleast beyondthehumansphere: "Theessenceof poetryis perfectionandfascination. . . thatsuchperfection existsinandof itself,thisIdonotaffrm."Itsounds rathergrotesque, really,whenMaxRychnerdeclares ,i nhisepiloguetoGottfriedBenn'sSelected Letters:" . . . hiseveningritualofwalkingtothe neighborhood tavern, withits lowly,populousloneliness,resultedinsomekindof incantati on,whenhe, totallyabsorbedintohimself,becameamysti c, and hisbeersteinachalice."Nevertheless,Ithinkthisis probablyanaccuratedescriptionof theinnerreality. Afterall , thisisanexperiencethatmighthappen toanybody;attheverymomentwearetouched POESY 35 andmovedbythevoiceofgenuinepoesymthe creationsofGottfriedBenn, orFranzKafa,or GeorgesBernanos, weknowthatitisnotthetwo insuranceagentsKafaandBernanostowhomwe ascribeanysuchauthority.Thecliche-staleby now-ofsaying"accordingtothepoet"isnot entirelymistaken!Ofcourse, whowouldthis "poet"be, ifnotthedermatologistDr.Benn?We willcertai nlynotgosofarastoclaimadivinevoice speakingsimplyanddirectlythroughthemedium ofthepoet.Andyet,wouldweconsiderourselves tobecompletelycorrectifweafrmedthatthe intenseemotionalpowerof greatpoetryisentirely withoutanyconnectiontotheultimate, allembracingdivinefoundationoftheworld?This preciselyisthequesti onPlatochallengesustoface whenhespeaksof the poet'sdivinemania. EROS FINALLY,SocRATESS PEAKSoftheeroticexperience, throughwhichwehumans,ifcircumstancesare rightlyorderedand favorable,canalsoencounterand expectsomething healing,enriching,evendivine. Thismeans,notthateveryinfatuationbetween any JackandJilliseo ipsoadivinegift,butthatin everyeroticemotion there iscontainedthepossibility,thecontext,andthepromiseofsomething reachinginfnitelybeyonditsimmediatesignifcance.Yetmanwilltrulypartakeof thepromised giftonlyonconditionthat,whenreceivingthe impetusbornof emotion,heacceptsandsustainsit inlastingpurit.Inthiscontext,thepossibilitiesof corruption,adulteration,dissimulation,pretension, andpseudo-actualizationliedangerouslyclose-as theydo,incidentally,inthecaseof theprophetic, thecathartic,andthepoeticmania. 37 "DIVINEMADNESS" Muchworse,ofcourse, andmorehopelessthan anhonest"No"isafaked"Yes",whenperhapsthe semblanceofinneremotionisbeingdeceptively upheld,perchanceevendeceivingone'sownthinki ng,asiftherewereenchantmentwithbeauty whereasinrealitythereisnothingbuttotalyunemotional, calculatingcravingforpleasure.Nonetheless, Platoholdsthatforthetrueloveragift awaitsthatisentirelycomparabletowhatman receivesindivinerevelation, incatharsis,andin poeticinspiration. Goethe, afterhavingdiscussed, inDichtungund Wahrheit[PoetryandTruth] ,hisowneroticexperiences,statesthesame:"Thesincerelovingyearnings ofuncorruptedyouthtakequiteaspiritualturn. Natureseemssotoarrangethingsthatonegender wouldsensiblyperceiveintheotherwhateveris goodandbeautiful.ThuswhenIbeheldthis maiden, whenmyheartyearnedforher,awhole newworldofbeautyandexcellenceunfolded beforeme."Itisanevilthingwhenlustfuldesire comesbeforeeroticemotion, sufocatingit!"As soonaslustintrudes,lovecannotclaimpermanence"-sowroteAndreGideinhisdiary. Tomakethis pointevidentistheintentof thediscoursethatnowfolowsinPlato'sPhaedrus.Atthe EROS 39 outset,however,hestatesthatthisdiscoursewill indeed soundconvincing tothewiseyetunconvincingtothe"clever".TheGreektermemployedhere isdein6s,whichinourdictionariesisrenderedas "dreadful,terrible,tremendous",aswellas"powerful,efcient,exceptional".Obviously,somethingis meantherethatisatoneandthesametimeadmirable,astonishing,andterrifing;andsuchcanindeed beascribed,justifably,tothe"purelyrational mind".Acleverman,Socratesstates,willalways considerunconvincingthenotionthattruel overs, intheirbeing-beside-themselves,arepromisedand might receiveadivinegift. Butthen,Socratesstartsalloveragain,andthe themeof "Eros"seemsatfrsttogethopelesslylost. "Beforeanythingelse,"hesays,"wemustinvestigatethetruthwithregardtothenatureof thesoul, byobservingitsconditionsandpowers."Someone elsehadoncebegunadiscourseon Eros in thesame manner-namely,Aristophanes,inPlato'sSymposium:"Beforeanythingelse",thatis,beforeyoucan sayanythingsubstantialaboutEros,youmustknow thenatureof manandrefectonallthathasafected it( pathemata). Toanswerthequestionraisedherecanneverbe easy.AndPlato'smulti-layeredexplanationmakes 40 "DIVINEMADNESS use,of course,of the"ancientlore",preservedinthe mythicaltradition."ThusdoIbeginmydemonstration",wereadinPhaedrus;"everyspiritualbeingis immortal".Thethingswearefamiliarwithdonot prepareusforPlato'snotionof immortality,which refersnotonlytothefuturebuttothepastaswell. Thehumansoul-thisishismeaning-isnotonly withoutendbutalso without beginning,agenetos. Wearewonttodisregardthisidea,foritappears alientousandoutsideourcustomarythinking,as somethingaboveall incompatiblewiththeChristian andWesternconceptof thehumansoul .Andyet, doesnottheChristiandoctrineintheendagree withthisPlatonicnotion?We,too,conceiveof the spiritualsoulassomethingthat,strictlyspeaking, doesnot"become".Thetheologicalteachingthat thehumansoul,likeeveryspiritualbeingcoming intoexistence,isdirectly"created"containswithout doubtthecorrectinsightthat,unlikeeverything else,which"develops"and"unfolds",thesouldoes notactually"originate".A"genesis"ofthesoul wouldbe inconceivable.Thisthesis,bytheway,hasadirectcontemporary relevance;itdoesnotmerelyapproximatePlato's concept,itobviouslyexpressestheverysame thought!Thissamenessisbeingunderlinedherenot EROS forthepurposeof forcingitintosomemodernpertinency,butinordertopreventthecontemporary studentofPlatofromthinkingthatsuchreading exercises,perhapsdealtwithtothepointofweariness,arebynowonlyofhistoricalinterestand hencenolongerrelevant.Plato'sgeniusmanifests itselfintheveryfactthathisinsightscannoteasily bedismissed,eventhoughtheirverbalexpression mayseemquestionable.Theyhavekepttheirrelevance,andweareunabletoreplacethemwith insightsmorepertinent. ThesameappliestoPlato'sphilosophicaldictum thatthenaturalhabitatof thesoulistheuniverseof allthatexists.Eventhoughwedonotappropriate Plato'sformulationthatthesoul"reignsthroughout theentirecosmos",wecannot,ontheotherhand, bringourselvestounderstandanddescribethespirit asanythingbutanessencewhosenatureincludes existingwithintheuniversalhorizonof allthereis. "Tobeendowedwithspirit"meansspecifcallythis: tobedealingwithallthereis.AsThomasAquinas formulatedit:thenatureof thisspiritismanifested frstandforemostinitsconvenirecumomniente (afnitywithallthatis). Platotri edtogainsomeinsightintotheprimordialaccidentsandfatesthatbefellthesoulby 42 "DIVINEMADNESS" employingseveralillustrations, which, intheend, all bringoutthesameidea:thatmanhaslost,through hisownofense,theperfectionoriginallyreserved forhimaspartof hissupernaturaldestinyandthat, inconsequence, heisnowincessantlychasingafter theoriginalidealform. Theprimordialconditi on,beingatthesameti methetruegoalandendof humanexistence, constitutestheobjectofman's remembrnceaswellashislonging.However,both remembranceandlongingcanunfoldonlyif man, beiteversobriefy,leavesbehindthebusynessof hisactivitiesandstepsoutsidetheconcernsofhis workadayworld. Andso,fnally,weshallspeakof eros,theerotic mania,thebasicformof man'sbeing-beside-himself occurringspecifcallyinhisencounterwithsensual beauty.Forbeauty,specifcallyphysicalbeauty,if manapproachesitreceptively,canafectandstrike himmorethananyother"value",canpushhim outsidetherealmofhisfamiliarandcontroled environment,outsidehis"neatlyexplainedworld", inwhichhedeemshimselfratherconfdentlyat home, asRilkeputsit. Commonlanguageinformsus, furthermore,that beautyisaboveall"attractive"."Attracted",then, is hewhohaslost,beitonlyforamoment, thecalm EROS 43 contentednessofhisself-possession;heis,aswesay, "moved"bysomethingelse-hehasto"sufer"all this.Thisstate,inwhichallorderlyfamiliarity (togetherwithone'sself-possession)vanishes,Plato describesagainandagainwithevernewexpressions: adesiretosoaronwingswhilebeingutterly unabletodoso;beingbesideoneselfwhilenot knowingwhatisgoingon;ferment,restlessness, helplessness.Wealsofndrather"unpoetic"comparisons;forinstance,Socratesspeaksof theuncomfortableconditionofachildwhoisteething.The lovers-thiswereadi nAristophanes'speechinthe Symposium-donotknowwhattheyultimately desireofeachother;itisratherevidentthattheir soulsyearnforsomethingotherthanthemere pleasuresoflove. This"other",however,thesoulis unabletoname: "Ithasonlysomevagueideaabout thetrueobjectofitsdesire,anditsownexplanationsarebutriddles." Atthispointsomethingimportantcomesinto view:thediferencebetweendesireandl ove.He whodesiresknowsclearlywhathewants;atheart heiscalculating,entirelyself-possessed. Yetdesireis notthesameaslove;theonebeinglovedis,ina strictsense,nottheonewhoisbeingdesiredbut theoneforwhomsomethingisdesired.Hewho 44 "DIVINEMADNESS" lovesinsuchanon-desiringway,however,doesnot determinehisactionsorinitiativesallbyhimself; rather,heis"beingmoved"whencontemplating thebeloved. Whateverisbeinglovedmostand movesusmost, asPlatostates,isbeauty,forwhich reasonthosewholovebeautyarecalledsimply "lovers". Welatter-day,enlightenedreadersof Platoareall tooreadytoconsidersuchadiscoursetobeoverly emotional, unrealistic, andromantic. YetIbelieve thiswouldbeamistake. Plato'sdiscourseisentirely rational;hehasnoillusionsaboutthefactthat much, ifnotmost,ofwhatgenerallypassesfor "love"isnothingbutdesire. Heknowsthattrue raptureenticedbybeautyoccursonlyrarely.Plato insists ,however,thatthisrareeventaloneactualizes theessentialpurposeofallhumanencounterwith beauty."Fewtherearewhoremember. . . the sacredthingstheyoncebeheld." Nothingevokesthisremembrancemoreintensely thanbeauty;thisisaspecifccharacteristicof beauty. Initspowertoleadtowardarealitybeyondthehere andnow,beyondimmediateperception, itcannot becompared toanythinginthisworld.Anyonewho hassomeunderstandingofPlato'sphilosophywill knowthat,inhisconception, whateverweexperi-EROS 45 encemthisworldasreal,true,andgoodisbuta refection,thatis,somethingpointingtoanarchetypenotdirectlyobservable.Still,wemayencounter embodimentsofgoodness,justice,orwisdom-no mattertowhatdegreeof perfection,perhapsinthe personof ajustruler-suchthatitwouldbealmost impossiblenottoreactwithadmirationanddevotion.Suchexperiencesnonethelessdonothavethe powertoenraptureus;theydonottransportus beyondthehereandnow. Beautyalonecanaccomplishthis;onlytheencounterwithbeautyevokes remembranceand yearning,prompting intheoneso touchedthedesiretogetawayfrom thecourseof all thosethingsthat usually absorbthehumanmind. Thisdistinctiveessenceof beautyisdescribedby Platoontwolevels:thelevelof otherworldlyexperience( beauty"beyond"thisspaceandtime)and thelevelof thepresentexistence( beautyhereand now). Platoisobviouslyunwillingtoconceiveofthe ultimateperfectioninstoreformanintermsother thantheencounterwithdivinebeauty,notas encounterwiththeideaofthe"good",orof "being",orof anythingelse.Toillustratethispoint, wehaveonlytoquoteafewlinesfromDiotima 's speechintheSyrposium:Towardthisendofhis "DIVINEMADNESS" journey,hewillsee "awondrousvision, beautifulin itsnature. . . ";beautifulnot"intheguiseofaface orof handsoranyotherportionof thebody . . .",butasprimordialbeauty,"existingeverinsingularityof formindependentbyitself. . . "!Areyounot convincedthatatthatpointhe"isdestinedto becomethebelovedof thegods"?AndintheDialoguePhaedrusweread: "Atthattime"(linguistically,thisexpressiondenotesthepast,includingthe primordialpast,aswellasthefuture, includingthe eschatologicalfuture) ,"atthattime, we, forour part,followedinthisbandof Zeus. . .andbeheld thatblissfulsightandspectacle,andwereinitiated intothatmystery,whichbyeternalrightispronouncedthemostblessedofallmysteries. . . beauty,beheldatthattimeinitsshiningsplendor." Evenonthelevelof ourearthlyexistence, beauty issomethingincomparablyexceptional. Itistheone thingmosteminentlyvisible;weperceivebeauty throughoureyes, themostlight-flledof oursenses. Pulchrum est quodvisuplacet-beautifulisthatwhich pleasestheeyeofthebeholder.Thisisastraightforwardanswer;neitherascent,norataste, noranythingtangible,notevenaspecialsoundcan,inthe strictsense, becalledathingof "beauty".Noother spiritualrealitcomesbeforeoureyeswithsuch EROS 47 immediatevisibility.Wisdom, forinstance, cannot be"seen". Platoaddshere,if wisdomwereasvisible tooureyesasbeautyis, "thenafearsomelove wouldnighbeenkindled",aloveapttoupsetand destroyourexistentialstructure, totransportusin totalraptureoutsideourearthlyexistence. Neither wisdomnoranythingelseworthyof l ovebut"only beautywasdestinedtobemostvisibleandmost lovableatthesametime". Plato,torepeat,doesnotholdthatbeautymoves man'sinnercoreinevitablyand, asitwere, automatically,withoutfail;noteventhatthishappenswith regularity-heisverymuchawarethatbeautymay wellawakenanirreverent,selfshdesire.Onlythose whoopenuptoremembrancewillbeshakento theircore.Likegentlerainpassing throughthewindowsof theeyes,beautypromptsthesoultosprout wingsagain, tosoartothedwellingofthegods,fromwherethesouloriginated. Inthis veryexperience, intheopinionofPlato'sSocrates, thenature of Erosisexperiencedandactivated.Forthisreason dothegodscallErosnotthe "wingedone"butthe "wing-giver",anexpressionPlatoquotesfroman ancientpoem. Theessenceof beauty,therefore,if whathasbeen saidhereistrue,preciselydoesnotconsistinpro-"DIVINEMADNESS" vi dingsatisfaction, likesomethingthat"gratifes", nomatterhowhighlyspiritualagratifcationitmay be.Goethe, rathersurprisingly,capturedthisPlatonicnotioninanadmirablysuccinctsentence:"Beautyisnotsomuchafulfllmentasrathera promise."Inotherwords,byabsorbingbeautywith therightdisposition, weexperience, notgratifcation, satisfaction, andenjoymentbutthearousal ofanexpectation;weareorientedtowardsomething"not-yet-here".Hewhosubmitsproperlyto theencounterwithbeautywillbegiventhesight andtastenotofafulfllmentbutofapromise-a promisethat,inourbodilyexistence, canneverbe fulflled. Thislastformulationinturncloselyechoesa quotationfoundinPaulClaudel'swritings:Woman is"thepromisethatcannevercometopass :this veryfactconstitutesmygrace."Claudel'sstatement,aswellasGoethe's,seemstoexpressaccuratelythe thoughtofPlato,whoholdsthatthedeeperotic emotiontiedtotheencounterwithbeautyisa formoftheiamania,thegod-givenbeing-besideoneself,insofarastheactualoccurrencedoesnot producea"fulfllment"-anysatisfactionindwellinghereandnow-butinsteadenticesourinner existentialspacetoreachforsomeinfniteful-EROS 49 fllmentnotavailablehereandnowexceptbyway of yearningandremembrance.Hewhoincontemplationofearthlybeautyrememberstheonetrue beauty"againsproutswings. . .";andthusthetrue lover,longbeforeourcommonexilehaslapsed,is transportedintocommunionwiththegods. Andthis,indeed,issaidnotonlyof theloverbut ofthephilosopher!Thisconnection,atfrstsight ratherpuzzling,isfoundalsointheSymposium. This isnottheplacetodiscussitindetail,yetatthevery leastwemustnoticethatPlatohereisnotthinking atallofsomethingnon-committalandpoetic;on thecontrary,heenvisionssomethingveryspecifc.Loversandphilosophersareconnectedbyspecial ties,insofarasbotheroticexcitementandgenuine philosophicalquesttriggeramomentumthat,in thisfniteexistence,canneverbestilled.Inan encounterwithsensualbeauty,ifmanopensup totallytotheobjectoftheencounter,apassionis bornthat,intherealmof thesenses,whichatfrst wouldseemtobetheonlyadequaterealm,can neverbesatisfed. Thesameholdstrueforthefrst momentof philosophicalwonder(thewonderthat arisesfromourcontactwith"reality");aquestion arisesthat,inourfniteworld-whichmaymean, forexample,withthetoolsof"science"-willalso 50 "DIVINEMADNESS" neverreceiveananswer.Thephilosopherandthe truelover-neitherwillfndfulfllmentexcept throughadivinefavor. If, inretrospect,youconsiderthecoreof whathas beensaid,youmaybetemptedtoconcludethatall this,whileadmittedlyimpressive,isatthesametime an"ideal"conceptthathardlyappliestothereality of anylivingandbreathinghumanbeing.Itispointlesstoarguewithsuchanimpression. Everything dependsonhowonedefmeshuman"reality"anda "genuine"humanbeing. Incidentally,Platodoesnot infactmakeaseriesof apodicticassertions .He simplydescribesapossibility. Hisownconviction, however,isclear:Manhasthe capacitytoexperienceineroticemotion, accepted andsustainedwithpurity-andpossiblyinnoother context-auniquepromisepointing toafulfllment moredeeplysatisfingthananyfulfllmentinthe realmof thesenses .And this,too, is asserted in Plato's Phaedrus asindisputablefact:onlywhenthishappens has the true meaning of "eros" become manifest. HowlittledangerthereisforPlatotostrayand lose touchwithreallifeisshown,inthePhaedrus, in theclosingpassagesof Socrates'speech.Thistextis soastonishingthatWilamowitzhimselfisataloss forwordstoexpresshissurprise;theseclosingpas-EROS 5I sages,hesays,simplyrepresentacontradictionto everythingPlatohasotherwisetaught. AclosescrutinyofthetextshowsthatSocrates ( Plato)speaksof fourdiferentexperiencesinwhich eros isfguredordisfgured. Thefrstformhementionsisthebrutalityof the manywhodesirenothingbutpleasureinthemost vulgarsenseof theword. Notracehereof romanticizinganddisregardingreality! Insecondplacehediscussestherefnedsensuality ofarationalhedonism,whichinessenceaimsat pleasurealone. Thethirdformisanersthatrenouncespleasure, beingl ove'sheroicfullnessanditsmostblessedreality.Thosewhoseloveisof thiskindwill,upon their death,leavethisearthlylife,"asifonwingsand withoutoppressingburden";theywillbeableto riseatoncealofttothedivinesphere,againtoparticipateintheheavenlyprocessionandthegreat banquetof thegods. Mostastonishing,however,isthePlaedrus'discussionof thefourthformof eros.Socratesspeaksof lovethatisnotentirelycontinent,yetatthesame timeisnotmerecravingbuttruelovingyearning, enchantment,self-giving,andnon-calculatingrapture.Thosepossessedbythiskindoflove,weare "DIVINEMADNESS" told,willgainnomeanvictorytrophy,thanksto theirmania,theirreadinesstoriseabovetheirown selfshness .Whentheydie,thesoulwillleavethe bodynotwithperfectwingsbut,atleast,with sproutingones.Becausethesoulhadalreadysetfoot onthepathoftheheavens,itwillnotgetlostin darkness.Mostclearly,thisismeantinaneschatologicalsense;thenotionof "salvation"isi nvolved; and"salvation"takesplaceonly-butalsoalwaysincircumstanceswheretrueloveispresent. Cast i ntoperdition,intodarkness,isthatformof "rationality"which,"greedilycalculating,assignsearthly andimperfectthingstothesoul,thusbreedinginit onlyvulgarity". ThelearnedliteratureonPlatoasksinamazement whereelseinthePlatonicDialogues"wecanfnd suchleniencytowardtheweaknessesof thefesh". Thisquestion,Ithink,entirelymissesthesubstance of thediscussion. ThepointisnotthatPlatowould haveexcusedheresins stemming fromtheweakness of thefesh.Rather,itisstatedthatsuchweakness canbecompensated,eventransformed-through thewing-giving powerof truelove.Modernman,aChristianespecially,mayatfrst fnditratherstrangethatthepowersattributedto "truelove"-namely,theabilityto"remember"and EROS 53 thewing-g1vmgcapacityoferos,leadingbackto thedwellingofthegods-shouldresideinsuch closenesstowhatisphysical,sensual,evenbiological.Andyet,thisPlatonicthoughtisnotreallyforeigntoChristi anity'straditionalmoralnotions;on thecontrary,wefndthereitsclearparallel. Thomas Aqui nasisequallyconvinced thatneither"elevated" nor"spiritual"love-neitherdilectio,resultingfrom aconsciouschoiceof thewill,norcaritas,basedon divinegrace-canbecomealivingrealitywithout thepassioamoris,thatis,withoutthesoul'sbeing movedbyaconcretesensorypresence. True,this viewdoesnotnecessarilyimplythatelevatedand spiritualloveisnomorethantheprogressionor "subli mati on"oftheeroticpassio;withoutdoubt, Thomaswouldinsistratherthatanelevatedand spiritualloveiscapableof purifingandcontrolling thispassioamoris.Still,thisgreatmagisterofChristianity,notunlikePlato,isof theopinion(difcult toexplaintoa"Christian"consciousnessproneto embraceManichaeismandspiritualism)thatcaritas, whencutoffromthevitalrootof thepassioamoris, canneithercomeaboutasatrulyhumanactnor endureinlivingexpression. Thisconvictionisbynomeansonlyof theoreticalimportanceforaconceptualdefniti onof human 54 "DIVINEMADNESS" nature.Indeed, itfndsitsclearverifcationtimeand againintheexperiencesofthepsychoanalytical profession. Suchexperiences, forinstance, reveal thattheaggressivesuppressionof aperson'spotentialforsensual ,eroticemotionsmakesloveassuch impossibleandalsosufocatesdilectioandcaritas. Similarly,theintolerance, theharshness, andthe stubbornnessoftenfoundinpeoplewhoclaimto bevery"spiritual"couldwellbetheresultofan unnaturalsuppressionof the passioamoris.Man, even inhismostsublimespirituality,isalwaysanincarnatebeing.Thisbodilyreality,whichmakeseach personeitheramanorawoman,evenonthehighestlevelof spirituallife, doesnotconstitutesimplya barrierandalimitation;itisatthesametimethe beautifulwellspringof allhumanactivity.Onthis, ThomasAquinasandPlatothoroughlyagree. Oneother"discrepancy", muchdiscussed, betweenPlato'sconceptof eros andwhattheChristian seesasthetruthturnsouttobe, whenclosely examined, of noconsequence. Plato'snotionof eros, itissaid,amountsinthisendtonothingmorethan aselfshnessthataimstoenrichandsatisftheself, whiletheChristianideaof caritasandagape,incontrast,meansalovethatisgenerous,unselfsh, and giving.Toconstructsuchacontrast,initselfalready E R O S55 analmostinadmissiblesimplifcation,invitesready challengesfrombothsidesof thequestion.Forone, eros,ascendingtothecontemplationofarchetypal beauty,willalso,inPlato'sconception,betransformedintoanattitudethatleavesfarbehindall selfshdesiresandismostappropriatelycalleda formof"worship".TheconclusionofDiotima's discourseintheSymposiumcanhardlybeinterpreteddiferently. Aboveall,moreover,itisquestionablewhether manisatallcapableofatotally"unselfsh"love. Christiantheol ogy,too,defnesthehighestformof caritasasthatstateinwhichGodisl ovedasthe sourceof allbliss.Suchbliss,however,whichultimatelyisthequestof alllove,isnothingotherthan thefnalquenchingofman'smostprofoundthirst. Manisbynatureabeingthatthirstsandyearns,and notonlybecausehe"movesintheworldofthe senses",asKanthasit,butpreciselyinsofarasheis spirit.Tobeso"unselfsh"astobereadytorenouncetheultimatefulfllment,eternalbliss,is entirelyimpossibleforus.Ourwill,asThomas Aquinashasformulatedmanytimes,isunable110fto desiresuchbliss. CONCLUSION ITISEASYtoseethatourdiscussionherecovers questionsofstrikingrelevance.Toappreciatethis point,onehasonlytofocusonacertainunderstandingofmanthatalreadyappearsonthehorizon of ourpossibilities,atypeof manwhosays :Wedo notneedanysupernaturalanswers;weourselves takecareof anypsychologicalproblemsthatcallfor reliefany"art"thatneithersatisfesaspecifcneed, evenifthisneedisonlyentertainment,norserves thepoliticalandtechnologicalcontrolof theworld isnotwelcome;andaboveall,sexualitymustnotbe hinderedinitsexpressionsoridealizedromantically. Itisquiteevidentthatthepresenttimeespecially criesoutforakeenerawarenessoftheSocraticPlatonicwisdomasdiscussedinthisessay.Itcries outforresistancetotheattemptandthetemptation toestablishtheautocraticruleof man,whodeludes 57 "D IV INEMADNESS" himself thathepossessessovereignpowersoverthe worldandoverhimself andthussquandershisreal existentialpatrimony. Suchpatrimonyisachievedandpreservedonly throughawillinglyacceptedopenness:opennessfor divinerevelation, forthesalutarypainofcatharsis, fortherecollectingpowerofthefnearts,forthe emotionalshockbroughtaboutbyerosandcaritasinshort, throughtheattituderootedinthemysteriousexperiencethatPlatocalled theia mania. Translator'sNote Ihavetriedtorenderdirectquotationsaccordingto anacknowledgedEnglishsource, therebyattimes slightlydeviatingfromtheGermantext.Englishversionsused:Plato, Symposium,trans .W. R.Lamb(Cambridge,Mass. /London, r 97 5) Plato, Phaedrus,trans.J.Wright Virgil ,Aenead,trans .RobertFitzgerald T.S.Eliot, TeFamilyReunion, inTheComplete Poems andPlays :1 909-1 950(New York,1952) C. S.Lewis, TheScrewtapeLetters(NewYork, 1944) 59