The Importance of Shaftesbury.Jstor

7/29/2019 The Importance of Shaftesbury.Jstor

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-importance-of-shaftesburyjstor 1/34

The Importance of ShaftesburyAuthor(s): Ernest TuvesonSource: ELH, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Dec., 1953), pp. 267-299Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2871968

Accessed: 21/10/2010 16:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

ELH.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2871968?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2871968?origin=JSTOR-pdf




THE IMPORTANCE OF SHAFTESBURY

By ERNEST TUVESON

1

It has generally een acknowledged hat the thirdEarl ofShaftesburyxercised n immense nfluencen theeighteenthcentury.1 is collectedworks, heCharacteristics,ent hrougheleveneditionsbetween1711 and 1790; and thelist ofauthorswhodemonstratedhe nfluencefShaftesbury ould ncludemajorityof thosepublished n the eighteenth entury. Yetthere s a puzzleaboutShaftesbury'sffect nhisownand latertimes. It was longassumedthat this nfluenceonsisted nhisoriginality,henewnessofhis theory fthe" moral sense" inparticular, s wellas his" preromantic andsupposedly riginalglorificationfexternal ature.The notablegrowthnaltruismin eighteenthentury iterature,ays ProfessorC. A. Moore,"is to be traced argely, think, o theCharacteristics . . ofLord Shaftesbury,"nd he adds, "It has longsincebeenestab-

lished hathissystem fphilosophy onstitutes turning ointin thehistory fpure speculation, specially n ethics." Inmorerecentyears,however, hisview has beenchallenged.Pro-fessorR. S. Crane has shown hat theessentials f the" moral

1Two recentbooks deal with Shaftesbury nd his influence: A. 0. Aldridge,Shaftesburynd the Deist Manifesto (Transactionsof the American PhilosophicalSociety,1951); and R. L. Brett, The Third Earl of Shaftesbury London, 1951).

Since these studies,as well as the still essential book of Fowler, Shaftesbury ndHutcheson, give detailed accounts of this author's life and writings, am notrepeatingthis material. I am trying only to suggest a new interpretation fShaftesbury's elationship o his own time, especially to the CambridgePlatonistsand to Locke, and to suggest ome new lines which study of his influencemay take.In suggesting hese lines I am not trying o definedirect and exact " sources,"butrather ignificant hanges which the kind: f thinking haftesbury ioneeredhelpedto produce. It is to be remembered, owever,that we can assume nearly everyeducatedman of the eighteenth entury ad someacquaintance withthe Character-istics of Lord Shaftesbury,ust as nearly every educated persontoday has someacquaintancewiththe writings f, say, JohnDewey.

2 " Shaftesburynd LheEthical Poets in England, 1700-1760,"PMLA, 31 (1916),

264 ff.;and see also W. E. Alderman, Shaftesbury nd the Doctrine of MoralSense in the EighteenthCentury,"PMLA, 46 (1931), 1087ff.

267



268 THE IMPORTANCE OF SHAFTESBURY

sense theory were being preached by "Latitudinarian"divines ven before haftesburywas born. He writes:

If we wish o understandhe origins nd the widespread iffusionin theeighteenthentury f the deaswhich ssued n the cult ofsensibility,emust ook, believe, o a period onsiderablyarlierthanthat n which haftesbury rote nd take into account hepropaganda f group fpersonswhose pportunitiesormouldingthethoughtsfordinary nglishmen eremuch reater han hoseofeven hemost ristocraticfdeists.3

It can be shownas well that the exaltationand adorationofexternal aturewas anticipatedby and reflected complexofideas that the new sciencein combinationwith religionhadalreadyprepared.4

Mustwe,then, ive up Shaftesburys " original ? And fwedo, how are we to account forthe astonishingnfluencewhichheexerted?The answers o thesequestions, believe, ie alongother inesthan have usually been suggested. n theworldof

thought, hewhole s greater hanthe sum oftheparts;and ifthe age thatfollowed haftesbury as to a considerable xtentCharacteristical,t was not because his ideas separatelywerenew orstartling, ut because he constructed fmanyelementsa complete nd artisticallyonsistentwhole, n a settingwhichhad notpreviouslyxisted.

As to the " moral sense" theory. There was as ProfessorCrane indicates, cloud of divineswho to some extentad-vanced thepropositionshat virtue s centeredn a natural m-

pulsetowards umanitarianeeling or ndsympathy ith ne'sfellows,nd that theexercise fthisvirtue s accompaniedbyan inward eeling f satisfactionnd joy,while hespectacleofdistress roduces ympathetic ain. Yet,however trikinghesestatementsmaybe in themselves, emustrememberhattheywereembedded n a contextwhich did muchto reducetheirrevolutionaryffect.

Let us consider s examples wo nfluential embers fwhat

3 Suggestions oward a Genealogyof the 'Man of Feeling,'" ELH, 1 (1934),207.'See F. E. L. Priestley, Newton and the RomanticConcept of Nature," UTQ,

17 (1948), 323 ff.;Miss Marjorie Nicolson's books, especiallyThe Breakingf theCircle Evanston, 1950); and an article of the writer, Space, Deity, and the'Natural Sublime,'" in MLQ, March 1951.



ERNEST TUVESON 269

is loosely called the "Cambridge Platonist" group. John

Norris's The Theory and Regulation of Love (1694) postulatesa " moralGravity ofthe soul, mpressed n it by God Him-self. This gravity

will be its Connaturality o all Good,or Good in general,hat sto God as its primary dequateObject, nd to particular oodsonly o far s theyhavesomethingfthecommon ature fGood,somethingf Godinthem.5

The imageborrowed rom he new philosophy,which makesgoodness eem as inevitablen menas the operation f naturallaw in the cosmos, s striking nd apparently adical enough;yet the theorys not what t seems to be. For Norris till seesgood as merelyparticipationn a transcendentalGod. The"moral gravity,"t appears, s theresultof a spiritual scent."From the OriginalPravityand Degeneracyof our Nature,amongall these particularGoods, thatwhichwe most eagerlypropend o, s sensual Good." 6 The " Animal impressionsreformed irst, Sensuality omes to be Adult andMature, when

our discourses re butyoung and imperfect." Whenwe arriveat an age for reflectionwe have, therefore,o " unravel thePrejudices of our Youth, and unlive our former ife . . . ," andwe are assuredthat it is not an easy job. This curious heory,with ts mixture fnew science,psychology,nd old theology,representsnsum a partly cientific,artlyNeoplatonicversionofthedoctrine f original in. At no time did Norris,despitehis seemingly adical phrase "moral gravity,"really absorbmoralityntonature, ridentifyhe end ofexistencewithcon-

duct in thisworld. Againstthis view Norris'sfriendHenryMore advanced another ccountof moral ction, lso seeminglyradicalin its imagery.

For, s theeye, .. if tbe vitiatedn t self, annot ightlyiscernthe Condition f thevisibleObject t fixes tsSightupon;so theMind ofMan, et him ethimself ever odiligentlyocontemplateany Moral or IntelligibleObject, f she be made dimby MoralCorruptionsnd Impurities, illnot be able orfree o close withwhat s best n the Circumstanceshat yebefore er,beingheldcaptiveby the VicesthePartyhas notyet purified imself rom

... ourbeing edeemednto nAbility rfreedomfchusingwhatis best, s notfrommereattentionto theObject,but from urifi-cation,llumination, ndrealRegenerationnto heDivine Image.7

5Pages 9-10. 6P. 55. 7Ibid., pp. 156-8.

3




Here are two liberalclergymenwho speak indeed, f " good-ness" as " natural," s natural s gravityn thephysicalworld,oras seeingnthe animal;yet the mages ertainlyre notto betakenbythemselves.PlatonizedChristianity,houghmodifiedbyCartesianismnd earlyNewtonianism, evertheless idnotlose sightof " Purification,llumination, nd real Regenera-tion as essentialbefore he" divine mage " can be complete.

Otherpreachers, f a later generation, o in fact carrythenaturalizingendency urther;utwe see, fwe readtheworksofthesedivines, hat the basic Christian attern s always tobe discerned n thebackground. saac Barrow, neof themostextreme f themall, can exclaim:

In fine,hewisest bserversf man'snaturehavepronouncedimto be a creature entle nd sociable,nclinableo and fitfor on-versation,pt to keepgoodorder, o observe ulesof justice, oembraceny sortof vertue,f wellmanaged;f nstructedygooddiscipline,fguidedby goodexample,f iving nder he nfluenceof wise awsand virtuous overnours. ierceness,udeness,raft,malice, llperversend ntractable,ll mischievousnd vitious is-positions o grow mongmen (likeweeds n any,even the bestsoil) andoverspreadheearth rom eglectfgood ducation; romill conduct,ll custome,ll example; 'tis thecomparisonfSaintChrysostome,ndofPlutarch.) 8

The combination f a Father and a pagan philosopher s au-thoritieshouldremind s that such deas goback veryfarandderive fromthe amalgamationof classical philosophywithChristianity hichearlybegan to take place. That man hassome-perhaps a fairlyarge-capacity forgoodnesswas partoforthodox hristian heology.But wemustalwaysviewsuchstatementsgainst hewholebackground.Barrow, ornstance,frequentlyointsout that the soul mustundergoa spiritualawakening eforetsgoodness an be released:

If also being, hrough ivinegraceawakened utof thatdrowsiestate (which aturallyngreatmeasure ath eisedupon llmen)he discoverethismoral r spiritualwants, nd imperfections;e

is then pt to breathe nd endeavour nearer imilitudeo God.9

8 Worksof Isaac Barrow,ed. Tillotson (London, 1696), II: 107-8.9 Ibid., 105.



ERNEST TUVESON 271

The sacrifice f the Cross is essentialto that " rousing."Wemust seekdivine llumination to enflame s with ardent oveunto thee,and to directour steps in obedienceto thyLawsthrough he gloomy hades of thisworld, nto that regionofeternal ight ndbliss,where houreignestnperfectGlory ndMajesty,. 10 n thefamous ermon The Nature,Proper-ties and Acts of Charity,"whichhas been considered veryclose approachto the theory f naturalbenevolence,we findhimtellinghis hearers hat we cannot disregard ny man as" contemptible,"or hereasonthat" Everyman is of a divineextraction,nd alliedto heavenby nature nd by grace, s theSon ofGod, and Brother f God Incarnate." - Such a theoryof altruism, version fthe great radition fChristian harityand brotherhood,s still some distance froma consistentlynaturalistic ne. On otheroccasionshe showshis remotenessfrom he" social" doctrine fShaftesburynd the eighteenthcenturywhenhe praises the virtuesof solitudequite in the

old tradition,mplyinghat in it is to be foundthe climax of

religion;man s " social" bynaturebecauseofhispotentialitiesas a son ofGod,but hemanifestshetrueglory fhis nature nhis solitarymmediate elation o God.

It wouldbe a fatalmistake o assume thattheChristianndotherworldly lements n thethinkingfthesepreachersweremere vestigialremains, o to speak, hangingon to a new,secular, optimisticopinion about human nature. Howevergreattheir latitude -and ofcourseto such conservatives s

Swift t seemeddangerouslywide-they were neverreallyoutof touchwith hegreattraditional elief hatmenaredestinedto recover, y supernatural id, from disastrous osmicfallintoa transcendentaltate. Thus itwould be easy,onthe basisof isolatedpassages alone,to place Samuel Parkeramongthemost completelynaturalisticbenevolists. In attempting odefend heexistence fa divinely rdainedaw ofnature gainstthe attacksof skepticism, e cites such facts as strength fparentalfeeling,nd that" as for heGenerality f Men their

hearts re sotender nd theirnatural ffectionsohumane, hattheycannotbutpityand commiseratehe afflicted itha kind

0Ibid., I: 11-12."Ibid., I: 356.




offataland mechanical ympathy."2 Beforewe conclude hatsuch a remarkanticipatesthe man of feeling,however,weshouldrecallthat elsewhere e veryemphatically ssertsthatthe instinctsre insufficientuides.

God maypossibly aveput some ecretNotices ntotheMindsofMen for hegreaterecurityfJusticendHonestyn theworld;butthen,besidethatthere s no way to prove theCertaintyrdemonstrateheObligationfany such nward ecord, hisplainlyresolves heAuthorityf theLaw of Nature ntouncertainnd

unaccountablerinciples,r suchas maybe pretendednd,whenthey re,ought o be admittedwithout nyProof r EvidenceofReason.. 13

Many other xamplesmight e cited.14 ut in sumtheywould.I think,how hat,while he Latitudinarian reaching ertainlyhad much to do with bringing bout a new emphasis onaltruism,t did not presenta reallynew concept of humannature.

TheAnglican pologistswereon thequi

viveagainstopinionsofmanykindswhich heyregarded s erroneous.Theystronglyemphasized reewilland thepossibility fthegeneral ccess tograce, nopposition o theextreme f" totaldepravity."Theywereaware of the fact that forsome time therehad been atendency o depreciate rightreason as a reliablegovernorofpersonal onduct.Montaigne ouldremark hat reason, ikewax,takesanyformmposedon it. Such skeptical dealistsasRochesterwere ed intoan attituderesemblingomantic rony,

" A Demonstration f the Divine Authority f the Law of Nature, and of theChristianReligion (London, 1681), 55.

13 Ibid., 5.14 Archbishop enison,for example,contrasts he " generousSpirit of Charity,"

a soul that animatessocietyand makes it possible,withthe self-lovewhich is be-coming ll too prevalent;but this state of affairss to be expectedsince St. Paulpredicted hat" the nigher men]are to the Last Judgment,hemoreCriminal heygrow."A Sermon gainstSelf-Love (London,1689), 192. t is Christian harity, otbenevolence, f whichhe speaks, and it cannot be equated'with the social feelingof Shaftesburyr Rousseau. The idea that the growthof self-interestrgues theapproach of the Judgment, urthermore,s a very old one among theologians.

Again,we find ne of themost" liberal of the Latitudinarians,ArchbishopTillot-son,describing owGod in His mercyhas provided,by the " abundance and Graceof the Gospel, so powerful Remedy forthis hereditaryDisease of our corruptand degenerateNature." Six Sermons, d ed. (London, 1694), 51. It is " commonhumanity," o be sure, that makes us concernedforthe welfareof our families,etc.,but thisfactdoes not argueinnate goodnessofmen.



ERNEST TUVESON 273

seeing n reason facultywhich ervesonlyto make men worsethan the animals whose impulses they share; as Mackenzie,much ater,putstheview:

Men musthave passions; aint hem, f you can;Where ess the brute njoys, ndmore he man.To combatpassionwhenour reasons ise,Reasons rebetter assionsndisguise....The world's ullreason, ober, ool, nd pure,The world's ullreason s a knave demure.15

To combat this attitude, destructive like of belief in thedivinepossibilities fthesoul and ofthe conceptof the " dig-nity of man," it was necessary o show that the universe s awhole is " rational and that humanbehavior,even thoughman standsin need of assistancefrombeyond himself,s nottruly narchic.

The schoolofHobbes, of course,powerfully einforcedhetradition fdoubt, nd it was said that every spiring achelorof divinity rokea spear againstthe steelcap of the sage ofMalmesbury. He representedwhat was thought of as the" naturalistic school, and the culmination f the skepticismabout reason. But he was more easily condemnedthan an-swered.The powerful ealism r apparent ealism, fhis demon-stration hat crassself-interest,owever ressedup,is thetruemotive fall actions, ould notbe answered xceptbydescend-ing into the deep subrational drives of human nature. ToanswerHobbes involved howing hat this subrational art of

ournaturehas morethan one drive, hat it can be good and" social" insteadof warringnd chaotic.In answeringhese and otherattacks,theAnglicandivines

werepolemicists,t mustbe remembered,nd thepolemicistsnotoriously rone to exaggerate n makingwhateverpointheimmediately as in hand. Defending religiondid formanyreasons involve defending he relative natural goodness ofhuman beings;but whilethis fact certainly s important,tshould not obscureourrecognitionhat thepolemical reatises

and sermons renotrepresentativefthewholeviews of bothpreachers nd congregations.A most important esultof thecomplex f thoughtnthistimewas a largely nconscious rift

15 The PursuitsofHappiness (London, 1771).




among hesepreachers owards kind of Pelagianism: the pro-

position hat the potentialities f human nature remain, ndthatcorruption as entered rom longaccumulation fpejora-tive changes in customs, educations, etc. Yet theologicalPelagianism, lthough a heresy,remainswithinreligion, ndimpliesneed for grace and redemption; nd one can say nomore han that thovered n the air, and was hardlymorethana vague omen of what was to come.16 t is undoubtedly rue,however, hata vague Christian elagianismcould easily pre-paretheway for he powerful eculardevelopment f Pelagian-ism which s dominant n our own time. Contributing o thedriftwas the great mass of new information bout othercultures hat had been reachingWestern urope since the timeofHenry heNavigator,whichwasmakingpeoplerealizemoreand morethe real importance f environmentnd training npersonality;hiswas theage of Locke,and theold faith n in-nate ideas went out with astounding apidity.

Before a new sensibility ould arise, however,a kind of

catalytic agent was necessaryto precipitate hese undefinedand unintegrated lements.That agent was supplied, n con-siderablepart, by Shaftesbury.He did it by combining hespiritualdealism of the divineswiththe " naturalistic viewofthepsychologists,nd by applying onsistentlyhe full m-plicationsof the new world-viewn scienceto the problemsof ethics. It is usuallysaid that he defends he" naturalgood-ness" of man. In a generalway this is true,but only ifwerememberhat" goodness has forhima newkindofmeaning.

It wouldbe more accurate to say that Shaftesbury epresentsthehumanbeingas naturally dapted,witha kindofpsycho-logical ethical fitness, o live in his surroundings.The newphilosophy epicteda universe fa myriadofparts,harmoni-ouslyoperating ccordingo immutableaws; t s not a universein needoftransformationrsalvation, utoneperfectndcom-plete. The sum oftheseoperations epresenthe raison d'etreofthewhole:theprocess s the final ause,not eternal rinciplesrising bove theflux.

16 It is interesting o note that Tillotson carefullyguards himself gainst theimputationof this heresyby emphasizingthat the " disease of the depravityofhuman nature is transmitted y traduction,fromparent to child, and not byimitation.His studentThomas Burnetwas one of the first o go the wholewayin sayingthat the fall was a gradual affair, eally consisting n the corruption fsociety.



ERNEST TUVESON 9275

It is logical o assume, herefore,hatthehumanbeing, s anoperating artof thegreatWhole,mustbe so constructedhatin all his actionhe will, fhe behaves " naturally,"do thosethingswhichwillpromotehis happinessand thehappinessoftheuniverse.WithShaftesbury e take the difficulttepthatthis conclusion nvolves: with Shaftesburywe begin to seeconduct nterms fwhatweshouldnowcall " normal insteadof in termsof obedienceto divine or natural law; and withShaftesbury e beginto think fdepartures rom esirablebe-

havioras the" abnormal and " maladjustment rather hanCC sin." The villainsbecomeenvironmentnd training, atherthan the hereditary degeneratenature of man," as Swiftputs it.

Yet Shaftesbury as intenselywareofthefactthat,to thehumanviewat least,societynhistimewas far from eingtheidealharmoniousystemt shouldbe. Mandevilledid Shaftes-burya great njusticeby caricaturing imas a retiring atri-cian, favoredby a gentle education,viewingthroughrose-

coloredglassesa worldwhichhe didnotunderstand.The truthisthatthenoblephilosopheremarkablynticipatedRousseau'spassionate indictment f the social order,as we see in suchpassages as this:

Thohowever emay, npassing y,observe,hatwhilstweseeinall otherCreaturesroundus so great proportionableness,on-stancy nd regularitynall their assions nd affections;o greata harmony,ndsuch n adherenceoNature;nofailurenthecareof the Offspring,r of the Society (if living n Society). . . . Man

in themeantime,vicious nd unconsonant an, ives out ofallrule nd proportion,ontradictsisPrinciples,reaks heOrderndOeconomy f all his Passions, nd livesat oddswithhis wholeSpecies, ndwithNature:so that t is next o a Prodigyo seeaMan intheWorldwho ivesNATURALLY, and as A MAN.17

The lastclause,ofcourse,has thestinger, or n it Shaftesburyuncompromisinglysserts hat t is comingback to nature,notrising bove her,thatwillsolvetheethicalproblem.

Why,then, s there n air ofhope about the wholeworkof

17 Inquiryconcerning irtue, . 99. This first, imperfect edition,now extremelyrare, published though it was without Shaftesbury'sknowledge,often gives usmore mmediatelynd more mpressivelyheveryspiritof its author than does thelater, " polished Inquiry concerningVirtue, or Merit as published in theCharacteristics.




Shaftesbury,n airof" enthusiasm whichwas to infectuture

generations?Here the real purposeof the moralisthas beenmisunderstood.t seemsthathe was notwriting merecom-placentdefense f the universe, r seeking o rehabilitate heaesthetic ideof ife s against mechanism."His real goalwasmuch arger.Shaftesbury,heheirto thegreatWhigtraditionofhis grandfather,houghtof himself s carrying n, in thefieldof morals,the workof the reformer.n The Moralists(1709) he speaksofthe

Grace rBeauty nthatoriginal ativeLiberty, hich etsus freefrom omanynborn yrannys,ivesus thePrivilegefOurselves,and makesus our own, nd Independent.... A sortof Property,which,methinks,s as material o us to the full, s thatwhichsecures s ourLands,orRevenues.18

Now thatsecurity f estate and freedomfthoughthave beenestablishedfter heGloriousRevolution, nd thewayis clearto removefanaticism romreligion, greatprospectfor thebettermentf life s openingup; theway is open to freemen

from heperversionsngendered yreligious ogmasand zeal,fromalse, erogatorydeas ofhumannature, nd fromrtificialcustomswhichseparateman fromnature,God fromnature,andall three rom heunity nwhich hey houldexist. Aboveall, fmen re to be " natural and thereforeappy, heymuststop connectingmoralitywithmeretriciousdeas ofthefuturelife,which emove heemphasisfrom ature and itsharmony.But argumentand attack were not Shaftesbury'smethod;rather, e envisioned omethingiketherapy, he treatment f

an urbane and insinuating tyle,the application of railleryrather hanthe traditional atire, he artisticpresentation fexternalnatureand encouragementf the communion f themindwith andscapeuntouched yman.

In an age intoxicated y thewonders fmechanism,t wasnecessary o showhowthisadaptationofthe moral nature toenvironmentouldwork. Ifman s to be representeds merely" natural howcan thepresence ftheimpulse o goodwithinthemindbe explainedwithoutresortingo some suchhypo-thesis s thatreason s the " candleofthe Lord"? Andifgoodbehavior s" natural,"howcan it be reconciledwith o abstrusea faculty s advanced ogicalthought?

18 CharacteristicsLondon,1737), II. 252.



ERNEST TUVESON 277

I have suggested hat Shaftesbury ombined tradition fspiritual dealism with naturalisticpsychology.The firstheinherited rom he Cambridge latonists, t least in largepart.We have seen howHenry More reducedthemoral action to akindof process, hus showing he influence f thenew philoso-phy. n theEnchiridion thicum,he describes irtue s " rathera Power than a Habit." 19 This " power is manifested n a" boniformaculty,"whichMore calls, borrowingut changingin connotation n Aristotelian hrase, the " veryEye of theSoul." This boniformacultys themanifestationn action of" right eason,"but-most importantly-itdoes not consistofinnate propositions, r reasoning therefrom. ndeed, thesethings re at best crutches or he numerous ace in whomtheboniformaculty s regrettably eak. The highest indof moraljudgment onsists n a kind of super-intuition,ut one whichis emphatically ot a purelynaturalendowment. t has affini-ties with the " mens or " intellectus ngelicus of Ficino's

ChristianNeoplatonism, nd More once definest as a divinepower by whichwe arelifted p and cleaveuntoGod,"whichproducesa " ravishing" and supra-worldly leasure in thoselofty piritswhohave it. Those whobelongto thisgroupcanperceive " symmetry fthepassions" as immediatelys theaverageman perceives parallelism f lines. It appears thatMore describes kind of " moral sense"; his emphasison a" power rather han a reasoning aculty s part of his move-mentaway from he " clear and distinct deas" ofDescartes,

thatphilosopher hocameto seemtohim an ignisfatuus, ndthismovementMore sharedwithhis age. The idea, neverthe-less,remains irmlymbedded na conceptofthe universe othotherworldly nd aspirational.The processofmoral ntuitionis the resultof an extensivepurificationf the soul from tscorruption ymatter.

Shaftesbury'snnovationwas thenaturalization fthismoralfaculty. The moral intuition, n the successfuldevelopedpersonality,s the original,not final state of man. In other

words, he ancientpicture s turnedupsidedown: the task ofthe humanbeing s toretain natural nd originalmoral ense,

19 An Accountof Virtue:Or, Dr. HenryMore's Abridgment fMorals, Putt ntoEnglish,tr. Edward Southwell (London, 1690), 11.




insteadofto attain t by a longcourseofredemption. xactlyhow could such a natural moral sense be shown to exist?Fortunately,herewas available a means ofimplementingheidea interms fthe masterof thenewpsychology imself.

The older deathatLockewas a complete mpiricist as beenchallenged nrecentyears.20n saying hatthesoul at birth slike a blanksheet ofpaper,he meantonlythat ideas are notsomehowmysteriouslyresent nus beforewehave anycontactwiththeoutsideworld. He did not,however,mean to imply

thatourideas are formed y a purelypassive action,throughthe automaticeffect f sense impressions. n fact the mindplays thedecisivepart ncognition. t is autonomous. he everalertobserver,ombining,eparating,reating rder ut ofthechaosofsensationswhich onstantly reborne nupon t. Firstit is an observer:all mentalaction,to Locke, is ultimatelymatterof " perceiving."He reduces the whole of thought othreekindsof " perception:

1. The perceptionf deas n ourminds.2. The perceptionf thesignificationfsigns. 3. The perceptionftheconnexionrrepug-nance,greementrdisagreement,hat here sbetweennyofourideas.21

Certainlyhe ndependent ower f the mind n thesecond ndthird indsofthinkingannotbe denied, nd it is possiblethatit has some creativefunction ven withregardto the first;and whensensations ssociate themselves rbitrarily, ithoutthe mind'sordering ontrol,we have " association of ideas,"

themanifestationf rrationalitynd even nsanity.By identi-fying"perception and " understanding,"herefore, ockeplaced thepivot of intellectual ction n the imagination,ndnotwithout easondid Berkeleyobject to Locke's attempt o

20 This assumptionmay be the most serious fault n Mr. Brett's recent book onShaftesbury-which therwisehas many acute insights.To oppose Shaftesbury sthe champion of the belief that perception nvolves a " creative process overagainst Locke as the philosopher f " passive association seemsto me misleading.The close connection f Shaftesbury's heorywithLocke's epistemology as not, sofar as I know, been pointed out. Locke in fact is the fountainhead of the twogreat schools of thought about the mental life; on one side, he leads to theromanticpsychology nd ethics inauguratedby Shaftesbury-on the other,to theHartley associationist school, depending on which element in his thought isstressed t the expenseofthe other.

21 An Essay concerningHuman Understanding,d. A. C. Fraser (Oxford,1914),II: xxi: 5.



ERNEST TUVESON 279

showthat abstractions an be made, independent f any oneimage. The image, ndeed, s the verycenter of the mentalprocess.A constant rocession f magespass before hemind,evenwhen t is not experiencingirectly,nd even in sleep.22

If Locke had presented convincing pistemology, e had,it was feared, etforth wholly nadequatesystem fethics-or, somethought, one in factat all. Practicalmorality, c-cordingto him,dependson the fear of eternalpunishmentthreatened y the SupremeBeing forthosewho disobeyHisrevealedwill.23Shaftesbury,he disciple of the CambridgePlatonists,objectedto theproposition hat good and evil arenot absolutes but rathermere arbitrary ommandments fGod, which to be known,must be revealed. Certainly tseemed, urther,fgood and evil are absolutes, heymusthavetheir representative aculty n man's mind;he surely s notlefthelpless o driftwithout moralrudder.Much ofShaftes-bury'saversionto his teacherLocke arises fromhis horror f

Locke's callousedattitude owards hemoralproblem.Yet the

calm confidencewhich earlier philosophers, uch as LordHerbert of Cherbury, ad displayed n. nnateideas, was nomore. How, without nvokinga supernatural nd mysticalpower,could the absolute standard of rightand wrongbebroughtntorelation ohuman ife?

22 The implications or iterature f this yokingof the image to thoughtare ofcourse incalculable. Shaftesburyand Addison immediatelyshow the results.Philocles,in Shaftesbury'sThe Moralists, says that he must have a "kind of

materialObject,"an " Image " inmind beforehe can love a personor an abstraction;he has been in love, forexample,withthe " People of old Rome" underthe formofa beautifulyouth" call'd theGENIUS ofthe People." Characteristics,I: 242 ff.This should be the lower rung of the Platonic ladder of beauty, which shouldascend to the immaterial ureIdea, but the ladder is nevercompleted.Later,whenShaftesburypresentshis very important dea of the organic unity of the uni-verse,he citesas an authority ocke's Essay, IV:, vi: 11,where t is shownthat wecannotunderstand heessenceof any object unlesswe perceive ts intricate hysicalintegrationnto the workings f the universalmachine;we perceivea collectionofrelated images. See The Moralists, n ed. cit., II: 285 ff. And in one of the mostsignificantassagesof all Shaftesbury's orks, n the late MiscellaneousReflections,he sets forth is versionof the " scale or catalogue, f beauty" (the equivalenceof

the terms s interestingor Platonist) in the form fgreater nd greater ombina-tionsof images nto patterns, n both the animateand inanimateworlds. Ed. Cit.,III: 182-3,footnote.The spirit, he enthusiasm,he language,are Neoplatonic,butthe substancehas much of Locke in it.

23 On the objections to Locke's ethics, see my article " The Origins of the'Moral Sense,'" in HLQ, XI (1948), 241-59.




The solution ay at hand in the adaptationof Locke's ownsystem o moral dealism f thekindHenryMorehaddisplayed.If themindperceives he connection, epugnance, tc,,of deasderivedfrom ensation,whyshouldnot thisprocessapply tomorality s well? Whyshouldnot themindperceive he har-mony r repugnance f magesof actionand passions, ust as itperceives he differenceetweena triangle nd a circle? Andso Shaftesbury,n the nquiryconcerning irtue, ombines hetwo:

In a Creature apableof formingeneralNotions f things, otonly hesensible hingshat offerhemselveso the sense, re theobjects f theAffections;ut thevery ctions hemselves,nd theaffectionsfPity,Charity,indness, ustice,ndso their ontraries,being roughtnto heMindbyreflection,ecomeObjects; ... 24

The imagination, s in Locke, makespossiblethe action;thesimilarityoLocke's " perception is evident.

Andthus he severalMotions,nclinations,assions, ispositions,

and consequent arriagendBehavior f Creaturesn thevariousPartsof Life,being n several cenesrepresentedo the Mind,which eadily iscernshegoodand the ll towards hespecies rPublic; t proves fterwards new workforthe affection,ithervirtuouslynd soundly o incline o,and affectwhat s just andright;nddisaffect hat s contrary;r,vitiouslynd corruptlyoaffect hat s ill,and disregardrhate what s worthynd good.

The actual " moralsense " is not in itself n emotion. t is anaction of the mind in viewingthe " several scenes of be-

havior, tc.; the affectionsollow, nd shouldbe properly e-lated as effect o cause. Shaftesbury mpliesthat the actualrecognitionf goodand evil s in itself ound. The processgoeswrongwhen he affectionsetout ofkilterwith heperceptions,and thewrongpassion,or theright assionto excessbecomesattached o an intuition.But a powerful atural mpulse houldproduce henormalkind of reaction:the reflex ctionmustbedistorted y longhabit before t goeswrong.The affectionnturn s a driveto action. Here of course something ike in-

strumentaleasonhas itsplace. The affection ay produce heright ntention ut, because of poor judgment, nappropriateactionmaybe taken. It is important, evertheless,o recognize

24P. 27.



ERNEST TUVESON 281

that " reason here s a meansofimplementationather hanthe udicialgovernor f basic decisions.Shaftesbury'sonception f the affectionslso clearly hows

theinfluencefLocke. The latterreduced motion o pleasureand pain,whichhe identified ithgood and evil forthe indi-vidual.25Things,whetherxperiencednthe present r onlyasimages nreflection,roduce houghts fpain andpleasure, nd" our ideas of love and hatredare but the dispositions f themind,nrespect fpleasure nd painin general, owever aused

in us." The various emotions-love, joy, sorrow, tc.,-arestatesofmind, easiness or " uneasiness." These consciousstatesofpleasureorpain enableus, amongother hings, o besure that we existseparatelyfrom he objectswhichwe per-ceive. Locke even hintsat a kind ofmoral sense: shame,hesays," is an uneasiness f theminduponthe thought f havingdone somethingwhichis indecent,or will lessen the valuedesteemwhich thershave forus," and a father elightingnthewell-being f his childrenneed only call up that idea into

reflectiono have pleasure.Locke, however, ad separatedknowledge rommoraldeci-

sions. Morality,he did admit,maybe theoreticallys certainas knowledge-but onlywhenmoralpropositions re abstrac-tions.

Andhence t follows hatmoralknowledges as capableofrealcertaintys mathematics. or certaintyeingbut theperceptionoftheagreementrdisagreementfour deas, nd demonstrationnothinguttheperceptionfsuchagreement,ythe ntervention

ofotherdeasormediums;urmoraldeas, s well s mathematical,being rchetypeshemselves,nd so adequateand completedeas;all theagreementrdisagreementhichweshallfind n themwillproduce eal knowledge,s wellas inmathematicaligures.26

But of course Locke is speakingonly of " archetypes." b-stracted romoncrete vents. The kindofadaptationofarche-type to experiencewhichKant was to make lay far in thefuture, ut Shaftesburys well as otherphilosophers ropedfor omethingf the kind. Theythought heyhad foundwhat

theywanted n the seeming act that men have a capacityforobservingthe "harmony" among images of passions andactionsas certainas theircapacityforknowing he existence

25 Essay, I: xx. 2 Essay, V: iv: 7.




and differencesetweenthingsof the outsideworld. Such abelieffitted n perfectlywith the risingconviction hat theuniverses a great ystemn which ach smallestpart operatesin perfectmathematicalharmonywith all the otherparts. Itis not surprising hat Shaftesburyhought herecould be an"arithmetic of themoral sense.

The laterversions fthe nquiry and otherworks, owever,contain a very importantmodificationf the " moral sense."At first haftesbury eemedto identifyt withLocke's third,

" complex formof understanding. ater he suggested hatmoral deas are more ike Locke's first lass of perception,oimmediate nd directare the impressions heymake on themind.

Is there hen, aid he,a naturalBeautyofFigures, nd is therenot as natural one ofACTIONS? No sooner heEye opensuponFigures,the Ear to Sounds, than straightthe Beautiful results,andGrace ndHarmony re knownnd acknowledged. o soonerareACTIONS view'dno sooner hehumanAffectionsnd Passions

discern'dand they remost f emas soondiscern'ds felt)thanstraight n inward EYE distinguishesnd sees the Fair andShapely,the amiable and Admirable, part from he Deform'dtheFoul, the Odious, or the Despicable. . . .27

The additionof the analogywithaestheticexperiencemakesit evenclearer hat the " moral sense is a naturalized spiri-tual eye" of the kind More and others had described. Thepoint s evenmore mphaticnthe atereditions f the nquiry,whichhave three dded paragraphs, eginnings follows:

TheCase is the ame n themental rmoral ubjects,s in theordi-naryBodys,or common ubjectsofSense. The Shapes,Motions,Colours,ndProportionsfthese atter eing resentedo ourEye;therenaturally esults Beautyor Deformity,ccording o thedifferent easure,Arrangement,nd Disposition f their everalParts... 28

In thenextoftheseaddedparagraphs,haftesburyellsus thatthemind scontinually bserving therminds; n thethird,hatas the forms nd imagesofthings ontinuallymove before ursenses," even when we sleep" (a statementobviouslysug-gestedby Locke) so the forms nd imagesof the " moraland

27 The Moralists, n Characteristics,I: 414f.28 Characteristics,I: 28 ff.



ERNEST TUVESON 283

intellectual ind" continuallymovebefore hemind, venwhenthe objectsthemselves re absent.The extremely aesthetic" form f themoralsense theory,

then,was an afterthoughtn Shaftesbury,ut it is the formnwhichhistheorys best known.He was notthe first o suggestsuch an analogy.29 heremaybe severalreasonsfor hedesireto reducethemoral senseto a reflex o immediate.For onething, he age increasingly as impressed y the essential m-portanceof the direct ense mpression.The fashion or tudy

ofepistemologytself etrays hispreoccupation,s wellas thecentralplace given mages n thinking.Again, n this timethestandards ftaste,at least on the level offorms,eemedabso-lutelydecisive;More, to take one example,often appeals toaestheticcomparisons o make morenebulousmattersseemclear-cut.Finally, he desire o take the moral ntuition ut ofthefield f" ratiocination altogether,o remove t from nypossiblecontamination y innateideas, would tend to maketheanalogywith mmediate ensation empting.

Many questions remainedunanswered. There was, mostdifficultf all, still the problemof relativism.Grantedthatthere s somekind ofinnatepotentiality orsensinggood andbad,are tscontents eally bsoluteand immutable,venwheredevelopment f the personalityhas been " natural ? Theseissues,as we shall see,wereto provemore than troublesome.But Shaftesburyad made his contributiony combiningn asystemthe deepest desiresand beliefs of his age. He hadeffectuallyeveredmoralityfromrighteousness; he super-

naturalhad been absorbed ntothe natural. He had furtheredthe process ywhich, s Panofsky as said,the dualismbetweenChristian and clasiscal " ceased to be real, . . . because thevery principle frealitywas shifted o the subjectivehumanconsciousness."3c

29 Thomas Burnet, n threepamphletsdirected gainstLocke (first n 1697, thesecondand third n 1699), appearsto have originated he comparison.He wrote n1697: " This I am sure of, that the Distinction, uppose of Gratitudeand Ingrati-tude, Fidelity, and Infidelity,. . and such others, is as sudden without any

Ratiocination,and as sensible and piercing,as the difference feel fromtheScentofa Rose, and ofAssa-foetida.... " For an accountof these pamphlets ndof Locke's reactionthereto-a reactionwhich may be assumed in large part toShaftesburylso-see my article,cited above.

30 Studies in Iconology (New York, 1939), 229. It may be well to say a littleabout the questionof Shaftesbury'sttitudetowardsreligion, problemwhichhas




2

Consequencesof the firstmportance ollow from he newkindofthinkingboutmanand society nd theuniversewhichI have sketched, nd in no fieldmorethan in literature. nthissection shall tryto outlineverygenerally few of theresults of the position Shaftesbury epresents thoughnotnecessarily haftesbury's irect nfluence), s we see them nsome ighteenthenturywriting. he full onsequences fgreatchanges n thought do not become evidentuntil some timeafter heyhave taken place, and the examplescitednot un-naturally omeseveraldecades afterShaftesbury'seath.

Attention as been so completely oncentrated n Shaftes-bury's" natual goodness theory hat fewrealize how muchof his work is devoted to the studyof the " ill" in humannature (the veryterm s significantn that he does not use" evil" or" sin") . A readingof the Inquiry,however, evealsa catalogueof something ike case studies in abnormalpsy-chology,presentedwith an acuteness of insight nd a sym-patheticpowerwhichdeserverecognition.Perhaps it was inthisfield hatShaftesbury as most" original."His twomaincontributionsmay be, first, he conception of undesirablebehavioras " maladjustment- to use a modernterm;andsecond, he call for tudyof states ofmind n themselves,m-partially nd so to speak fromwithin.

rather nnecessarilyexedhis critics nd biographers romhis own century nwards.

Of his dislikefor and fear of any strong religiousbelief involving any formof" mystery or supernaturalfaith there can be no doubt. It is true that in thepreface o Whicbcote's ermons, nd in some lettershe speaks of the Anglican tatechurchin respectful nd even affectionate erms; but careful reading of thesepassages will show, think, hat it is the absenceof " zeal " and the generally oodtherapeutic ffectwhich belief in providence may have that he means. Of hiscertainty hat the universe s God's creation, n which He is imminent, here s nodoubt,either. But no onewho takes revealedreligion eriously an look on Shaftes-buryas a confrere. he reallygoverning act is that, as I have tried to point out,his basic assumptions bout the natureof man rule out originalsin and the beliefin a supernatural estiny s the true goal of life. And as Swiftsays, " So I affirmoriginal in,and that men are now liable to be damned forAdam's sin, to be thefoundationf the whole Christianreligion." t mustbe added that Shaftesbury asnot argumentative.To attack religion dogmaticallywould be a manifestation fthat very "zeal" which he felt had produced so much damage. Better is theconvincing resentation,n imaginativeform, f the truth bout men, accompaniedby a raillery gainst superstition.Shaftesbury's rtistic achievement n the latterformhas neverbeen studiedsatisfactorily.



ERNEST TUVESON 9285

The cause of" unsocial" behavior, s we seen, s describedas the disharmonyfthemoralperceptionwith the drivestoaction. Shaftesbury'smmediatepurpose was to show, byimaginative resentationfstatesofmind, hatthesedisloca-tionsof thepersonalityroduce n " uneasiness suchas Lockedescribes. Thus Shaftesbury epartedfromthe traditionofmoralityhandbooks,with their istingsof virtuesand vicesconsideredwithrelation o a givennaturalor divine aw. Hedid preserve henamesof the virtues nd vices,but theyare

onlyspecialized orms f twogreatbasicimpulses. n a broadersense Shaftesburyttempted o studythe personality o findwhat causes produce such results logicallyenough if thevillain is not the will but the external factorswhichhavewarped hegrowth fthemind. Thus he stands n the traditionof objective studyof nature which fromBacon's time onincludedas a desideratum he natural historyof man. Thereformfan ill societywouldrequirefirst f all clearing waythe falsenotions bout manwhichhave caused nfinite ischief.

The principalsource of " ill" states of mind is the unduestrengtheningf man'snatural nd in itsplacewhollydesirableimpulseof self-interest.haftesbury,escribinghe basic im-pulses as self-love nd the social sense, combinedthe twogreatviewsof ethics n the Restoration eriod:theHobbesianand the Latitudinarian.His style s adaptedto thegradationsof this self-interest:s he proceedsthrough he formswhichitsexcessmaytake,ranging rom heslight o thepathological,there s an increasingmotional ension; nd at the last,with

the " unnatural" emotions,we experienceunrelievedhorror,whicharisesfrom articipationwiththeexperiencingmind t-self. No one can read these descriptions nd feel that theauthor s thecomplacent ristocrat f fable.

The progresss fromomethingike" neuroses to the" psy-chopathic." Locke pointedout, as he discussedassociationofideas, thatwe all have vagaries n ourthinking;hedifferencebetweenour everydayeccentricitiesnd madness is one ofdegree.Much the samekindofdistinctionppliesto Shaftes-

bury'sdivisionofthe " ill" emotions nto those whichmerelyrepresent ver-action f self-interestnd those in whichthedrivesto actionhave becometwisted ntosomething ragicallyself-defeating.

4




Now ifthese SELFISH PASSIONS, besideswhat other ll theyare theoccasionof,are withal the certainmeans of losingus our naturalAffections;hen tis evident,That theymustbe the certainmeansof losingus the chiefEnjoymentof Life, and raising n us thosehorridand unnatural Passions, and that Savageness of Temper,whichmakes the GREATEST OF MISERIES, and the most wretchedState of Life.31

Shaftesbury'sisolation of sadism as a psychopathological con-

dition and his serious interest in it, which anticipates later

developments in literature, s an example of hismethod:

To see theSufferancef an Enemywith CruelDelightmayproceedfrom heheightof Anger,Revenge,Fear, and otherextendedSelf-Passions: But to delight n theTorture nd pain of otherCreaturesindifferently,atives or Foreigners,of our own or of anotherSpecies,Kindred or no Kindred,knownor unknown; o feed, s itwere,on Death, and be entertain'dwith dying agonys.... 32

He asks whetherthe unnatural passions may not carrywith

thema sortof pleasure, barbarous as it is - neverthelessa real

kind of satisfaction, from tyranny,sadism, and the like. Hegrants that this is the fact, but going in subtlety far beyond

the crude analysis of Hobbes, finds t is the very perversion of

the mind that produces the pleasure:

For as the cruellestbodilyPains do by Intervals ofAssuagement,produce (as has been shewn) the highestbodily Pleasure; so thefiercest nd most ragingTormentsof the Mind, do, by certainMoments of Relief,afford he greatestof mental Enjoyments,tothosewho know littleof the truerkind.33

Such a theory is susceptible of other interpretations,however,and this fact perhaps as much as anythingillustrates the real

weakness in an ethics groundedon the subjective consciousness.

The pleasures of perversitywere to provide material for the

"Satanist" school of writers. The parallel of physical and

mental pleasure and pain, and the obvious implication that the

most intensepleasure can derive from he extremepathological,

could have startlingresults. How can we distinguish " true"

from" false " pleasure if the test isthe

quantityof sensation:

how can one be " falser" than the other? Shaftesbury's own

31 Characteristics,I: 163.32Ibid.,I: 164.3 Ibid.,I: 169.



ERNEST TUVESON 287

"arithmetic ofthemoralsensewouldbetrayhimhere. Notwithout easondidArchibaldCampbellridicule hepretensionsof those " refined pirits who affect o followonly a " dis-interestedmoral ense,"for, s Campbell ays,theself-approvalwhichfollows generous ctionprovides pleasureand is therealmotiveofaction,however oftily isguised.34

Shaftesbury'shetoricn his character ketches ften ntici-pateslaterdevelopmentsn literature.His subsequent horten-

ing and smoothingf the following assage fromthe 1699

edition fthe nquiry,for xample, bscure tskinship fmoodand languageand imagerywithdescriptions f heroicvillainswe find n laterromantic iction:

How thorow nd deepmustthatMelancholy e, where here snothingoftningr pleasing rom he sideofFriendshipo allayordivertt when nce risen:no flatteringiewor imaginationfkindness,r affectionromnypart;butwhere very hing roundis gastly ndhorrid,very hingn appearance ostile,nd,as itwere,bent gainst privat nd single eing,who s divided rom,andat warwith he rest f Nature,na disagreementndirrecon-ciliationwith very hing,nd with heOrder ndGovernmentfthe Universe?Tis thus t lastthata Mindbecomes Wildernesswhere ll is laid waste, verythingair nd goodly emov'd, ndnothingxtant utwhat s dismal nd horrid.Now ifanythingthatbut ooksdesert,rthatfeelsikebanishmentrexpulsionromhuman ommerce,e soheavy obear;whatmust t be tobe thusestrangedromMankind, ndtobe after hismannerna Desert,and n thehorridestfSolitudes,venwhennthemidst fSociety;and to ive withMankind s with forenpecies ndas with hose

Creatureshatare most emote romMan,andsuchas hehasthemostcauseto fear?5

But there s a deep contradictionn the veryuse of " un-natural to describepathologicalstates of mind. How, in auniverse erfectlylanned ndoperating,an therebe anythingnotultimately armonious?Shaftesbury as one of the philo-soperswhoencouraged hat ntoxicationwith heWholewhichwas to lead to Voltaire'sbitterprotest n the letteron theLisbon earthquake. There must be a "Resignation, . . . a

34An Enquiry ntotheOriginal fMoral Virtue Edinburgh, 733), 324 if.35 Pp. 193-4. The psychological tate,the warfare f the mindwithitself, s the

essenceof the horrorn this passage, ratherthan pride,a sense of disobedience o

God, orremorse,s inMilton'sSatan, orMarlowe'sFaustus.




Sacrificend mutualyielding fNaturesone to another," ndall " InferiourNatures" mustbe subjectedto the " SuperiourNatureof theWorld." "The CentralPowers,whichhold thelastingOrbs in their ust Poize and Movement,mustnot becontroul'do save a fleetingorm, ndrescuefromhePrecipicea puny Animal. . . ." Some such scheme, it appears, operatesin thehumanas wellas all other ystems, nd theintersectionofthemajestic, mpersonal orces an producethere, oo,whatseemto finiteyesdisasters.He does suggest,witha slytrace

of raillery,hat even thosewho see natureas imperfectmayhave theiruse. "'Twas not its [nature's] ntention o leave uswithout omePatternof Imperfection;uch as we perceive nMinds ike these,perplex'dwithfrowardhought."

The theory as,however, very mportant otentiality. hestudy f the" ill" in all its varieties s a meansofdetermining,bycontrast,what s " natural." Literary heory oonreflectedtheconcept.But thetheory,ikeothers fShaftesbury's,ouldbe carried o lengths fwhichthemoralistneverdreamed. It

is one thing o riseto the level ofthe greatover-allPlan andask withPope

If plagues r earthquakesreaknotHeav'n's design,Why hen Borgia, r a Catiline?

It is quiteanother o look at thematterfrom heviewpoint ftheBorgia or the Catiline, s we do in this passage from heMarquisde Sade:

C'etaient es monstres, 'objectentes sots.Oui,selonnosmoeursetnotre agon e penser;maisrelativementux grandes ue de lanature urnous, lsm'etaientue les instrumentse ses desseins;c'etaitpouraccomplires lois qu'elleles avait douesde ses car-acteres erocest sanguinaires.

Is notthe " monster,"n beinga monster,ivingaccording ohisnature, nd is he notthereforemongthe newenlightenedwho seek the " natural ?

The necessity or ympathetic,maginative epresentationf

themindand experiences a vital part of Shaftesbury's hi-38 Characteristics,I: 214-15.37 Ibid., I: 283.38 Quoted by Mario Praz, The Romnantic gony,tr. Angus Davidson (London,

1951), 98. Diderot,as is well known, xpressed imilar deas.



ERNEST TUVESON 289

losophy. Of the early philosophical writingswhich Horacementions n theAr3Poetica, he says:

'Twas not enoughthat these Pieces treated fundamentallyfMorals, and in consequence pointed out real Characters nd Man-ners: They exhibitedem alive, and set the Countenances ndComplexionsf Menplainlynview. And by thismeans heynotonly taughtus to know Others; ut, what was principal nd ofhighest irtue n em,they aught s to knowOur-selves.39

The best poet,Shaftesburyells n author o whomhe addresses" Advice,"

describes o Qualitys r Virtues; ensures oManners:makesnoEncomium,orgivesCharacters imself;utbrings isactors tillin view. Tis theywho shew hemselves. or thepoet s a secondMaker: a justPROMETHEUS, underJove.40

He is a maker,because, iketheDeity,he is a " moralArtist,"and it is a fundamental rinciplen Shaftesburyhattheworldis to be considered s a workof art. The creation fthepoet

presents hrough he imagination seriesof scenes,appealingthrough rtful rrangemento the moral sense; the businessofthepoet is to present he scenes so effectivelyhat thesensewilloperateofitself, nd he shouldnot tell in so manywordsand abstractionswhat the " moral" is. Distinguishing he" unnatural" fromthe "natural" therefores a matterofarousing esponse nd notgiving ormalnstruction.Aestheticform s inseparablefromtruthas images are fromthought.One of Shaftesbury's rincipaldifferencesromhis old tutor

Locke is the fact that the one was by nature aesthetic inresponse, he othernot; but it was, as we have seen,Locke'sown epistemology, ith ts basis of " perception," hat did avitalservice npromotinghe cultof theimagination.Shaftes-buryhereas elsewhere eganto drawout the consequences fthisepistemology.

Theseforms f artsupplementnd extend urprimaryource

3 Ibid., I: 194. And so Shaftesburyasts his own work n artisticforms,uch as

dialoguesand " soliloquies," factwhichaccountsat once for ts suggestivenessndits vagueness. One must always remember hat Shaftesburywas, by choice, no

systematizer,nd that,not isolatedstatements, ut as in creative works, he effectofthewhole s whatcounts.

40 Ibid., I: 92007.The applicability f this statement o Shaftesbury'swn work,even the nquiry, s worthnoting.He is not a judicialmoralist.




of knowledge bout man-ourselves. Even that " rectifica-tion" ofsocietywhich omuch concerned haftesburys foundto depend n considerable art on introspection.

But theknowledgfourPassions n their ery eeds, hemeasuringwellthe Growth nd Progress f Enthusiasm, nd the judgingrightly f its natural Force . . . may teach us to oppose moresuccessfullyhoseDelusions which . . comearm'd with the speciousPretext f moral ertainty. . . 41

ThusShaftesburyasthis Advice toan Author s a " soliloquy,"a form o whichhe givesthehighestpraise. He expands theSocratictradition of "Know thyself." Not meditationsoressayswrittenwithone eyeon theaudience,he says-but truesoliloquy, elf-examinationo the verydepthsof the soul, iswhatis needed. One thinks nvoluntarilyfRousseau's Con-fessions.He praisesHamlet in a significantutneglected ieceof criticism s " one continu'dMoral: a Series ofdeep Reflec-tions,drawnfrom ne Mouth, upon the Subject ofone single

Accident nd Calamitynaturallyfittedo

moveHorrour ndCompassion."2 Here, tmay be, s thebeginningfthechangein the tradition f Hamlet criticism,wherein he play movesfrom tragedyof actionto that of an inwardand subjectiverevelation,he " one" absorbing verything.

In this traditions the criticWilliamRichardson,who camemuch ater n thecenturynd was influencedysuchfollowersofShaftesburys LordKames and Reid (althoughhe refersoShaftesburyirectly, oo) . In the ntroduction o theLectures

on Shakespeare'sDramatice Characters,he dilates upon thepointsmade brieflyn Shaftesbury.Our " internalfeelingsare thebeginning fourunderstandingfhumannature. Buttheyare farfrom ufficiento giveus theinsightweneed.

41 bid., I: 43. Professor . D. Havens has pointedout thatas earlyas 1725 HenryBaker wrotea " natural Historyof myself, ruly pointingout the Turn and Dis-position fmySoul at theTime it gave them thepoemshe was publishing] irth."The shift o introspection,s ProfessorHavens indicates, s noteworthy. t comesfourteenyears afterthe publicationof the Characteristics,when the reading ofShaftesbury as ubiquitous. " Unusual Opinions n 1725 and 1726," PQ, 30 (1951),447. In linewiththischangein presentation f character, ttentionmay be calledto ProfessorEdward Hooker's article "Humour in the Age of Pope," HLQ, 11(1948), 361ff. The attitude changes fromone of condemnation ccording to anobjectivestandard, o sympathetic epiction fdiversity.This change is entirelynaccordwith Shaftesbury's rinciple.

42 Ibid., : 275-6.



ERNEST TUVESON 291

Wejudgeofmankind y referringheir ctions othepassions ndprincipleshat influenceur ownbehaviour.We have no otherguide, incethenature f thepassions nd facultiesf themindare sic]not discernibley the enses.43

Shaftesbury ad lightly ssumedthat we continually bserveotherminds, recreating heir experience s our innersenseobservesthe " scenes representingheircharacteristicsndqualities. But this simple idea, like so many derivedfromLocke,had all manner fcomplexitiesurkingn t. Shaftesbury

himself uggested hatwe need the secondmakerunderJoveto extendour knowledge.Richardsonexplainsthat therearemanybarriers etween urminds nd thoseofothers.We our-selves are seldom " indifferentwhilewe observeothers;weare biassed,and we can seldomsee all that is goingon fromexternal ctions and signs;ourmemories re fallible; nd theemotionswhichare weak in us are strong n others, nd viceversa, so that we unconsciously istortour pictureof others'characters.

If we measure the mindsof otherspreciselyby our own, . ourtheoriesmustnecessarilye inadequate.But, by consideringhecopy ndportraitfminds ifferentromurown, ndby reflectingon these atent nd unexertedrinciples,ugmentedndpromotedbyimagination,emaydiscovermanynew tints,nduncommonfeatures. ow, hatclassofpoeticalwritershat xcelby mitatingthepassions,might ontributen thisrespectorectifyndenlargethesentimentsf thephilosopher;nd ifso,theywouldhavetheadditionalmerit f conductings to thetemple ftruth, y aneasier ndmore greeable ath, hanmeremetaphysics.44

Thus carrying bservers,o to speak, intothe verymindsofother ersonalities as widea rangeofpersonalitiess possible

becomesa primaryfunction f art. This vicarious ntro-spection ets,moreover, new task for iterature, ne whichpowerfullyncourages " psychological approach.

It was inevitable hat Shakespeare houldbecomethe idealpoet of thisnew ideal kind. His principal haracters ometo

43 (Sixthedition,London,1812). For an accountof this book and its evolution,see R. W. Babcock, " WilliamRichardson'sCriticismof Shakespeare,"JEGP, 29(1929), 117ff.

44 Ibid., pp. 19-20. On the history f thesympatheticmagination,ee W. J. Bate," The Sympatheticmagination n EighteenthCenturyEnglishCriticism," LH, 12,(1945), 144 ff.




beseenas types f herelations etween he socialpassions, elf-interest,ndsociety; ismethodspraised s thepattern fthatsympatheticmaginationwhichwas essentialto the poet. Anewschoolofcriticismame intobeing: " An exerciseno lessadaptedto improve heheart, hanto informheunderstand-ing,"Richardsonboasts ofhis essays. The kind of effecthepoet stoproduce s indicated na famous assagefromnotherpioneer ritic fthisgroup:

The reader willperceivethat I distinguish etweenmental mpres-

sionsand the understanidng.... There are noneofus unconsciousofcertainfeelings r sensationsofmind,whichdo not seem to havepassed through he understanding; he effects, suppose,of somesecret nfluences romwithout, ctingupon a certainmentalsense,and producingfeelings nd passions in just correspondence o theforce nd varietyof those influences n the one hand, and to thequicknessof our sensibility n the other.45

The conception that poetry may produce " certain feelingsorsensations of mind, which do not seem to have passed through

the understanding" owes much, I think it is clear, to the kindof thinkingShaftesbury did so much to inaugurate.

The new critical method may be seen at work in relation toa peculiar problem which arose from the new secularizedPelagianism. If the fall is really the fall of society, whatbecomes ofthose rare spiritswho seeminglycannot do anythingother than live according to nature - what becomes of them

in a world where the great majority live ' out of all rule and

proportion ? That there is an aesthetic value in this situation

Shaftesburyhimselfhinted.

The veryDisturbanceswhich belong to natural Affection,houghtheymaybe whollycontrary o Pleasure, yieldstilla Contentmentand Satisfactiongreaterthan the Pleasures of indulg'dSense....We continuepleas'd even with this melancholyAspect or SenseofVirtue. Her Beauty supports t-self ndera Cloud, and in themidstofsurrounding alamitys.46

The problem is twofold. There is the conflictof the natural

man with an unnatural world,and there is the difficulty f

ascertaining a desirable balance between sensibility and self-

45 Maurice Morgann,An Essay on the Dramnatic haracterof Sir JohnFalstaff

(London,1825), 6-7.41 Op. cit., I: 106.



ERNEST TUVESON 293

interest.Shaftesburynmistakablymplies hat in somecasesunbalance of the moral sense and the emotions s due totemperament;heremay be need forpatterns fimperfection,and he suggests, gain,that the moral ensemaybe too tender.May therebe need, also,forpatterns fperfection?

Hamlet soon becametheimage ofthisdilemma.Mackenzie,whoprobably ed theway in the" sentimental" nterpretationofthishero, xplains hat

Naturally fthe mostvirtuous ndmost miabledisposition,hecircumstancesnwhich e wasplacedunhingedhoseprinciplesfactionwhich,nanotherituation, ouldhavedelightedmankind,and made himself appy.Finding ucha characternreal ife, fa person ndowed ith eelingsodelicate s toborder nweakness,with ensibilityooexquisiteo allowof determinedction, e hasplaced twhere t couldbe bestexhibited,n scenes fwonder,fterror,nd of ndignation,here tsvaryingmotions ight emoststrongly arked midst heworkingsf magination,nd thewarofthe passions.47

Hamlet is, ndeed, s Mackenziesays,a newkindoftragedy fweacceptthis nterpretation.he plotandtheother haractersare reduced to merecontrasting scenes against which thesensibility fthehero s exhibited.

In MirrorNo. 39 Mackenzie goes so faras to suggest hatthefallofsociety s responsible ormany of themost affectingtragedies. Unfortunately,honestambition" forrecognitionis accompaniedby " delicacyof taste and sentiment out ofplace in the presentworld. In earliertimes, whenmankindwas uncorrupted y excessiveluxuryand refinement,herecould be confidencehat recognitionwould be given where twas due; but nowa man of trueworth, eeinghimselfet asidein favor of the worthless nd contemptible, ives way todespair, and is " in danger of changing . . . into a morose andsurlymisanthrope."Mackenzieimplies hatreason s a powerofthemind, ne ofmanypotentialities hich an be " broughtintoactionas chance or circumstances irect." In the imper-fect state of society n whichwe findourselves, t is the partof prudenceto adjust ourselves with cheerfulnessnd goodhumor (the Shaftesburianone s obvious in the emphasison

7 Mirror,No. 99.




thesequalities) and " firmlyiseabove injustice, nd refuse oretreatntothepassivevirtues."Perhaps tis the absenceoftherevolutionaryrevenreform-

ing spirit hat s thekeynote o Mackenzie'spuzzling ombina-tionof dealistic ensibilityndhard-headed rudence.He con-demns t once the unnatural ociety nd thefine piritwho istoo" natural for t. The story fEmilia (MirrorNo. 101), agirlwhose" delicacy and fineness f feeling"lead her to anirreconcilableonflictwith Mrs. Grundy,producesno more

thanan effect fhystericalmotion; he difficultyrisesfromthe ambivalenceof the author's attitude,which is at oncepassionately ympatheticwiththe sensitiveheroineand con-demnatoryfherperfect ensibility.We missthesingleeffectofmelancholy eautywhichunfallen oodnessna fallen ocietycould produce. The Man of Feeling himselfrepresents hedilemma.He has had, significantly,shelteredife,hisremark-able moralsensehas unfoldedwithoutobstacle,and fromhisconflictwith a selfish nd cruel societyMackenzie tries to

extractthe essence of tragedy. The situation is presentedduring hestagecoach onversationfchapter 3. The strangerenthusiastically aintains hat the " poetical nclination hasat least one advantage " the causes of human depravityvanishbefore he romantic nthusiasmthepoet] professes,ndmanywho are not able to reachtheParnassianheights,mayyetapproach onearas tobebettered ytheairoftheclimate."To which he nowdisillusioned arleyreplies: " I have alwaysthought o; but this s an argument ftheprudent gainst t;

theyurge hedanger funfitnessor heworld."The suggestionthatthe poet, althoughhopelessly neffectualn the worldasit is,mayyethave his function s a " patternofperfectionboth etherealizesthe nature of poetry and emphasizes itsevocativerather han ts communicativespect.

Richardson'sessay on the characterof Hamlet shows therelation fhis viewto theShaftesburychool:

Onreviewingheanalysis owgiven, sense fvirtue,f mayuse

the anguage fan eminent hilosopher,ithout rofessingyselfofhis sect,seemsto be the ruling rinciplen the characterfHamlet. In othermen, t may appearwiththe ensigns fhighauthority:n Hamlet, t possesses bsolute ower.48

48 Op. cit., 117.



ERNEST TUVESON 0295

So delicate is this sense of virtuethat it governshis everyaction, his everypersonalrelation:

It even sharpens is penetration;nd, f unexpectedlye discernsturpituder improprietyn any character,t inclines imto thinkmoredeeply f their ransgression,han f his sentimentsere essrefined.... As it excites ncommonain and abhorrencen theappearance f perfidiousnd inhuman ctions, t provokes ndstimulates is resentment;et, ttentiveo justice, nd concernedin the interestsf humannature, t governs he impetuosityf

thatunruly assion.Hamlet's sufferingsaused by this acute sensibility ccupyanessay devotedto the paradox of the pathological amiable."The whole play takes on a new character, nd to go fromJohnson's riticism, ith ts concern bout plot, characteriza-tion and outcome, o thatofRichardson s to go from ne ageto another. n Richardson's nalysis s thegermof themelan-choly of Werther,nd there s the anticipation fhis death:one can hardly escape the suspicion that Richardson andMackenziesecretly eelthat suicide would have been a reallyappropriate ndingto the play. Strangedilemma! That themost "natural,"the most harmonious nd sensitive o moralbeauty,should so fail, so come to cross purposeswith theorderof theworld! " We love,we almostrevere he characterofHamlet; and grieveforhis sufferings.ut we must at thesame timeconfess, hat his weaknesses, re the cause of hisdisappointmentsnd earlydeath."

That a strongsensibility roduces " weakness in actionbecame a commonplace. n Thomas Whately'sRemarks onSome of the Charactersof Shakespeareit even transformsMacbeth. This critic, ignificantly,ellsus that the emphasison " fable in criticisms erroneous,nd that " character istherealcenter fa play.49n linewith hisprinciple, e studiesMacbeth and Richard II. The former erohe finds o be a" man of sensibility led astrayby what Shaftesburywouldhave called the " zeal " introducedby the weirdsisters'sug-

gestions.He shows ndecisionnd feareverywhere,s is to beexpected from a man of "gentle and amiable qualities."Richard,on the otherhand, shows firmness nd courage,for

9 (London,1785), Introduction.




he " is totallydestituteof every softer eeling." Irresolute,showing he" symptoms f a feeblemind,"Macbeth is yet, nan absolute sense, by far the more admirable,for he has astrong ense of virtue,whereasRichard has none. It is notmerelyhe conflict ithin imself hatweakensMacbeth,more-over; it would be easy to turnhimthe otherway and see aHamlet n him. The conclusion s thatthenoblestof men areby a strangeparadox the weakestofmen, and that a strongmoralsense means an inevitably ragic ife.

More celebrated heories fHamlet carry on thesethemes.The sense of the fatal conflict f highlydevelopedsensibilitywith real facts underliesGoethe's account of the hero, inWilhelmMeister. " The feelingforthe good and graceful,"welearn, had unfolded nhimtogetherwithhis consciousnessof his highbirth." The naturaldevelopments strongly m-phasized; he was " polished by nature,courteous fromtheheart." But such a soul, so perfectn itself, omes ntoinevi-table conflictwiththenecessity or ction,forhe " is endowedmoreproperlywith entimenthanwith character."Hamletis,whenwe consider he setting f thediscussion n thenovel,plainlythe image of that conflictwhichMackenzie's strangerinthestagecoach uggests.

Coleridge'sview is more purely psychological, nd morestraightforwardlynalyzes Hamlet in termsgoing back toShaftesbury'smodification f the Locke expistemology. heremust, n thehealthymind,be a balancebetween theimpres-sions of outward

objectsand the inward

operationsof the

intellect: if there be an overbalance in the contemplativefaculty,manbecomesthecreature fmeditation,nd loses thepower faction." 1 TheNoteson theTragedies fShakespearemakestheprocessmoreexplicit." In Hamletthisbalancedoesnotexist histhoughts,mages ndfancybeingfarmorevividthanhisperceptions,nd hisveryperceptionsnstantly assingthro'themediumof his contemplations,nd acquiring s theypass a form nd color not naturally heirown." 2 It is logical

thatthe streamofimagespassingbefore he inner ensecould50 bid., 15.51BristolLecture II, in Coleridge's hakespeareanCriticism,d. Raysor (London,

1930), II: 272." Ibid., I: 37.



ERNEST TUVESON 297

be too vivid and be transformedoo much in the process ofimaginativeworking.

The function f Shakespeare thus appeared in a new light.Coleridge sees Shakespeare as providing hose "patterns ofimperfection"which the new philosophyof man called for:" conceiving haracters ut of his own intellectual nd moralfaculties, y conceiving nyone intellectual rmoral faculty nmorbidexcess and thenplacing himself, hus mutilated anddiseased, under givencircumstances."Amongthe importantresultsof this new criticismwere lifting haracters out ofplays and making hem, s it were, ivingbeings representedby the tendencyto writeseparate studies of Shakespeare'sdramatispersonae; and the increasing ecline of emphasisondramatic ction as such, mplicit n Shaftesbury'semark boutHamlet'sbeing long oliloquy nd culminatingntheromanticaversion o seeingShakespeare'splays performed. he distantdescendant f thetheory f thefunction f thepoet is, perhaps,to be seen n T. S. Eliot's theory f the" objectivecorrelative,"inhis remark hat

IfyouexaminenyofShakespeare'smore uccessfulragedies, ouwillfind his xact quivalence; ouwillfind hat hestateofmindofLady Macbethwalkingnher sleep has been communicatedoyou bya skilfulccomulationf magined ensorympressions;hewords f Macbethon hearing f his wife'sdeathstrike s as if,given the sequenceof events, hesewords were automaticallyreleased ythe ast event ntheseries.

Communication f a state of mindby " imagined ensorym-pressions" s indeed nkeepingwithShaftesbury'sisionof thepoet as a "second makerunderJove ; vicarious xperiencesthepurposeof poetry.

If Hamlet was the supreme ymbolof the tragedy of thenatural n a degenerateworld, herewas another igurewho asa kindoffoilwas to loomespecially arge n romanticiterature.WilliamRichardson dumbrates he typein describing aquesas thefrustratedenevolist, ut one whose mentalhistory as

beendifferentrom hat of Hamlet. Even theprince,nwhomthe conflict f his sense of virtuewith society s the rulingprinciple, ventuallys led intoviolence;buthis hesitationsre" amiable." In Jaques,on the otherhand,theresult f frustra-tion of a keen sense of benevolencehas been less amiable.




Richardson tartsfrom he doctrine f the " rulingpassion."What if the dominatingmpulse n a person s the" social andbeneficentffections,"ndwhat fthoseaffectionsre so strongas to be irresistible and then, s theycome nto conflict ithan uncongenial,elfishworld, re twisted ntoevil ways? Theresult f thisthwartingfthe " natural will be misanthropy.The social affectionsead men to society,and societybeingwhat it is, to dissipationsand regrets.Jaques accordinglyturned nto a " dissipatedand sensual libertine," nd, like la

Rochefoucauld'sold roue (but fordifferenteasons) into agloomymoralist s well. This " white melancholy as dis-tinguished rom he " black" melancholy f the truevillain)is,then,reallya good impulseperverted y its contactwithaworld o which t shouldbe suited,but,because ofthe evil ofsociety,s not.53

The Byronichero, might uggest, ften howsthiskindofthwartingfthe exceptionalmoralsense.

Withmore apacity or ovethanearthBestows nmost fmortalmould ndbirth,His earlydreams fgoodoutstripp'dhetruth,Andtroubledmanhood ollow'd affledouth;Withthoughtfyears nphantomhasemisspent,And wastedpowers orbetter urposeent; ..Too high or ommonelfishness,e couldAt times esign isownfor thers' ood,Butnot npity,not becausehe ought,But in somestrange erversityfthought,That sway'dhimonwardwith secret ride,To do what fewor none would do beside.... 5

The few examples sketchedabove give some idea of thechanges which the complex of thoughtwhich Shaftesburypioneeredcould produce. All of them assume the continuedexistence fthe system fsociety s it exists. Obviously, ow-ever,anotherroad was open. Could it be that a " root andbranch reformationf the socialorder s necessary o releasethe supposednormalstate of mankind? It would be outside

" Richardson, p. cit.,168 if." Lara, I: xvii. The last four ines recall Richardson'sanalysisof that supreme

exampleof misanthropy, imon at Athens,whosemorbidcondition s supposedto

resultfrom combination f a rulingpassion-desire foreminence-witha strongsense ofbenevolence.The new casuistry ould indeedadopt manyforms!



ERNEST TUVESON 299

the limits f this paper to show that there s little n Rousseauthat is not in Shaftesbury lso, but that the French moralist

carries hingsmuch farther han does the English one. Bothwere optimists n a deeper sense; t is not that all is well, butthat all can be well in society. They both declare the eternalpossibility f living" NATURALLY, and as a MAN." The en-chanting rospect heyoffers thatnature s always before ndwithinmen,divinely armonious,eautifulnd serene, ndthatevery generation,f it will only awaken from he nightmaredreamsof thepast, can findhappiness nd freedom n this ifeand on this earth.

University f California,

Berkeley,California

Documents

The Importance of Shaftesbury.Jstor