PREFACEAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Aquitefavourablerecentreviewof abookIwrotenotedthattherewas nonoticeofanysecondaryliterature atitsstart,andnorhadIwrittenany introduction.Obviouslythiswillnotdo:itiscustomarytostartwith explanationsratherthanhope,asItendtodo,thatthese,andtheterms ofreferencewillemergeandbefound,ratherthanbeingprede fi ned. Thisparticularlyappliestoabookonthedevilwheretherecanbenoset termsofreference.Thispresentbookcomesoutofmyuniversityteaching,usingsomeofwhatIwantedtosayinlecturesorseminars,andsince itfollowsthat,itreferencesmywritingatthetime,soIhopethereader willforgivetheautocitations,whos eassociatedegocentrismIregret. (Inoticeinpassinghowmywritingkeepscomingbacktocertain Shakespeareplays:thoughIhopeIhavenotrepeatedmyselfthesame Shakespeareplaysrecurthroughoutthisbook.)Thisbook fi ndsthedevil inliterature,perhapsasawayofthinkingwhatliteratureis:butitalso worksasa ‘ historyofthedevil ’ (titleofastudybyDefoe),andthatidea challenges,perhapsuniquely,positivistassumptions:ahistory?Andwhy thedevil?Thisisnotahistoryofideas,norofaconcept:Iaccept Nietzsche ’ sviewthat ‘ onlythatwhichhasnohistorycanbede fi ned ’ (Nietzsche1956:212),whichretroactively – sincethings are de fi ned, andthatusuallygivesthemtheirhistory – meansthatanappealtohistory isalwaysmetaphysical:attemptingtocreatesomethingde fi nitethatthere canbeahistoryof:believinginidentity,continuity,andtheidenticaland ineitherprogressorculturaldecline.Namesendure,butthatdoesnot guaranteeahistorywhichlinksthem.ThoughImaynotescapegeneralisation,IhavetriedtoavoidpottedhistoriesofZoroastrianism,or
Manicheism,orCatharism,orcombatmyths,assomanypreviousbooks onthedevil,someacademic,haveengagedwith.Iassumethereisno singlethingtobesaidaboutanyofthesehypostatisations,andnothing outsidethetext – nothingthatcanbediscussedwithoutcloseattention tospeci fi ctexts.Inthe ‘ minuteparticulars ’ oftextsandquestionsofhow toreadanddiscussthem,auniversalisinghistorymayperhapsbe avoided:textswillperhapsformaconstellationwitheachotherasthey arebroughtintoassociationwitheac hother;theseconstellationsallow foralternativehistories,waysofreading.Intheseproblemsofreading literarytextsoraskingwhatatextmaybe,OldNicklurks,thedevilbeing inthedetail;andmyusesofFreudandofDerrida,inparticular,willdraw outtheinherencyofwhatDerrida(1978:61)callsthe ‘demonic-hyperbole ’ withinliterature.
IdonotfollowtheargumentthatthoughChristianitymayhave tendedtogiveuponbeliefinaliteraldevil(Pope ’ scleric ‘ never mentionsHelltoearspolite ’ ),itremainsausefulsymboltothink aboutevil.Manyofthebook ’ stextsareinformedbyCatholicismor Protestantism,butitssubjectisnottheChristiandevil,noryet,quite, thedevilsofotherfaiths.Thebooktakestheologyseriously,asa disciplineofthought,andIhopewillbereadbytheologians;itadmits itsfascination,especiallynegativetheology,butis, fi nally,Ithink,antitheological.Anditisnotabout ‘ evil ’ ,atermperhapsbetterdispensed with,forreasonswhichwillbecomeapparent,butwhichstartwiththe pointthatthepersonwhoclaimstoknowwhatevilismaynotknow whatheorsheistalkingabout.AlthoughIhopetheologiansand philosophersofreligionandhistorianswillenjoyit,thebook ’ slikely readershipwillbethoseinterestedi nvisualimages,orliterature,both Englishandcomparative,orcritical theory,orpost-Nietzscheanphilosophy.Somerecurrentkeywordsmaybe fl agged:e.g.nothing, das Ding ,soliloquy,allegory,folly,andmadness;geniusandthedaemon; carnivalandmelancholiaandabjection; différance ,nihilism,poverty, law,thedouble,laughter,temptatio n,banality,thedeath-drive,and theaesthetic.Inhowthesefamiliartermsareusedliesasenseofwhat ‘ thedevil ’ includes.Scholarlybooksarew rittenforpeoplewithspecialistinterests,whichmeansthatre aderswillcuttoonlythebitsthey wanttoread:quiterighttoo,andIdoitmyself,butnonethelessthe bookthinksofitselfashavinganargumentperseveringandinterweavingfromendtobeginning,andthebestreaderwillforgetthatsome bitsarenotherspecialism,andwillreaditall.
ThisPrefaceannouncesthebook’sintentions,buttheIntroduction plungesinwithdiscussionoffourofthebook’stheoreticalassumptions, ondualism,ontheimplicationsofthesoliloquy,andwhatismeantby genius.Italsocommentsonallegory,duringthecourseofstudyingthe shadowy figureofSimonMagus, firstmentionedintheNewTestament, andpartoftheprehistoryoftheFaustidea,astarting-pointforthisbook, asitssubtitleindicates.ThemodernhistoryofFaustemergesinGermany inthesixteenthcentury,anditisdiscussedherethroughMarlowe,in DoctorFaustus (thesubstanceofthe firstchapter),andtheninlater chaptersonGoethe’stwo Faust plays,andinalastchapteronBulgakov, andThomasMann.OtherexfoliationsfromGoetheinparticularinvolve therewritingsof Faust inTurgenev,andDostoevsky.
AsecondstartingpointisAugustine(CE 354–430)onaccountofhis contestwiththeManichees.Theybelievedintwoopposingprinciples,of lightanddarkness,andconfrontedhimwiththechallengetodenythe existenceofevilasapositiveandactiveforce,orprinciple.DidGodcreate theworldfromnothing? – akeywordforusthroughout.Butnothingwill comeofnothing.DidGodcreatetheworldfromsomething?ThensomethinghasequalstatuswithGod,aseternal – Aristotlebelievedinthe eternityoftheworld – andifweaskabouttheexistenceofevil,thenthat musteitherbeidentifiedwithGod,ifhecreatedtheworldfromnothing, orfromasomethingwhichhecannotexclude.Augustine’s Confessions say thatafterhisconversion,hewrotethe Soliloquies;thelatterwasthenanew word,whichliesattheheartofthisbook,andisdiscussedin Chapter1, ‘TheTempterortheTempted,WhoSinsMost?’ inrelationtoMarlowe andShakespeare,sincesoliloquymarksthespeechofMarlowe’sFaustus, orthoseotherMarlovianorShakespearianLucifer-likeoverreachingselfasserterswhobecomeincreasinglyawareofthemselvesasdividedsubjects, sothattowhomtheyspeakwhentheysoliloquisebecomesambiguous. Soliloquyrisksthedevil.Itbringsinsomeoneelseastheinterlocutor:the daimon,ordaemon,perhapssomethingotherthantheChristiandemon, andtheGenius.TheIntroductionand firstChaptertracesoliloquy through DoctorFaustus,andintoShakespeare,while Chapter2, ‘MedievalandEarlyModernDevils:NamesandImages’ approaches ShakespeareviathediabolicalwithinDante,andChaucer,andmedieval drama,i.e.withinearlymodernliterature,definingthisaswhatiswritten inthevernacular.Withthesetextsitbecomesobviousthatthedevil cannotbethoughtofinChristiantermsonly,orthatChristianityenacts arepressionofanotherforcewhichexceedstheplaceitgivestothe
diabolical,andwhoseinstability,whetherasasnature-spirit,orFollyor Vicerunsthroughoutthetextsdiscussed.Italsoshowsitselfin Chapter3, onfolly,andonfools,inSebastianBrantandBoschandBruegel.I continuefromtherewithRabelais’ carnival,hisfolk-devils,Pantagruel andPanurge,andwiththebodywhosegrotesquerieisthreatenedby newersixteenth-centurydiscourses,whichmakefollydiabolicalbylabellingitmadness.Suchnormalisingforcesexcludethe picaro,therogueand peasantslave,likePoorTomin KingLear,thelasttexttobediscussedin thisChapter,whichdrawsmuchofitslanguageofpopulardevilsfrom thencontemporaryargumentsaboutexorcism.Butcarnival,asthesphere ofwhatcannotbecontrolled,withdiabolicalpotential,offersanewand revolutionarypossibilityforthemodernworld,andextensionsofcarnivalthinkingthereforerunthroughouttherestofthebook.
Chapter4,concentratesonBlakeandMilton,initiallyviaFreud’sessay ‘ASeventeenth-CenturyDemonologicalNeurosis’ (1923),aboutthe Bavarianpainter,ChristophHaizmannwhobelievedthathehadsoldhis soultothedevil.ItalsoincludesdiscussionofthecaseofdemonpossessionatLouduninFrance,approachingthisthroughMicheldeCerteau, whosewritingsontheheterologicalwithinhistoryareevokedseveral times,informingwhatissaidaboutBoschandHaizmann,andpicking upontheambiguityofagodwhomaybeconceptualisedasawandering ‘poordevil’ . ParadiseLost isanalysedalongsideBlake,whoalsogivesthe opportunitytodiscusstheBookofJob,sinceheillustratedit.Here,the doublenessofBlake’sownthoughtsaboutthedevilemerge:asrebel, poet,hermaphrodite,and figureoftheaccusingconsciencetogether.
Chapter5, ‘Masks,Doubles,andNihilism’ concentratesontwoother writersparallelwithBlake,bothfascinatedbythedouble:JamesHoggin ThePrivateMemoirsandConfessionsofaJustifiedSinner (1824),andE.T.A. Hoffmann(1776–1822).Thelatter’swritingsonthedevil,andondouble psychicstatesandmusicattractedtheattentionofBaudelaire,whoseessay onlaughtertakesthatasadevilishgoing-on.Baudelairestartsthechapter andinformsitsinterestincomedy,whichisexploredespeciallythrough Molière.Hereagain,carnivaliscentral,asismasking,dissimulation,activitieswherethediabolicalmayormaynotbepresent.Hoffmannbecame awareofcarnivalthroughGoethe,inthe ItalianJourney,notpublished until1816–1817,butaninfluenceonHoffmann’sfantasticshortstory PrincessBrambilla (1820),atextImakecentralforconsideringrelationshipsbetweenthecomicandthediabolic,asIdowithhisnovel, TheDevil’s Elixirs (1815).
Ifmeetingwiththedouble – whichthreatensthesubject’sverysenseof beinganautonomousoriginal – meansmeetingthedevil,then Mephistophelesthreatenswithnihilism,ashappensin Faust,thesubstance of Chapter6.Herethediabolic – whetherinFaustorinMephisto –becomesthespiritofmodernity,whichisGoethe’ssubject. Chapter7 extendsthoseissuestoDostoevsky,andtohisdialogic,polyphonicnovels, which,followingBakhtin’sarguments,reworkcarnival:Bakhtinisas relevanthereashewasin Chapter3.Theemphasisfallsonthedouble, andonfeelingsofdevil-possession,andonsuicide,takingthesefrom A Writer’sDiary,Demons,and TheBrothersKaramazov.Russiaremains prominentin Chapter8,with TheMasterandMargarita,whileasection on DoctorFaustus engageswithMann’ssenseofGermancultureas diabolical,andwithmusicasitshighestexpressionasmuchasNazism threatenstobeitslogic.Thequestionablenessofthisthesis,anditsasking, likeAdorno,collaboratoronMann’stext,aboutwhatartcouldbewritten afterAuschwitz,bringsthebooktoaclose,thoughnotbeforeanoteon Rushdie’s SatanicVerses.
ThematerialofthisbookstartedwithacourseIdevisedoncarnival andtragedy.Duringitsmetamorphosings,intheon-offperiodswhen Itaughtit,whenIcouldnotrememberwhetherthetitle’scopulawas ‘and’ or ‘or’ or ‘versus’– werecarnivalandtragedyopposites(soBakhtin) oreventhesame? – Ibegantothinkthedevilwouldmakeagoodfootnote tobothterms.Thatproducedalatter-daycourseonthedevil.Thanks toallstudentswholistenedanddiscussedboth,oreither,andespecial thankstothosewhoencouragedmetowritethematerialup.Much readinghasgoneonsincethen,thoughIcannothopetohavemastered thesecondarymaterialonany,andespeciallyonRabelais,orGoethe,or Dostoevsky.Partsof Chapters3 and 5 formedlecturesattheNational TaipeiUniversityofTechnology,andtheNationalTaiwanUniversity inNovember2014;partof Chapter1,onsoliloquy,toHangSeng ManagementCollegeinHongKongthesameweek.TheE.T.A. Hoffmannmaterialon TheDevil’sElixir’s revisesanarticlein Forumfor ModernLanguageStudies 51(2015):379–393:IthankRobinMackenzie, theeditorforhishelp,andalsothankhimandOUPforpermissionto reprint.YetmoreonHoffmanncomesfromaconferenceonoperaand textatStAndrewsin2013,whereIcompared DonGiovanni and Undine: thankstoEmmaSuttonforherorganisation!WorkonMann’s Doctor Faustus,whichIhavebeenwantingtowriteonsinceIexcludedachapter onitfrommy OperaandtheCultureofFascism (1997),appearedin
ForumforModernLanguageStudies,48(2012):208–221:phrasesfrom thatreappearhere.IthankalsoBarbaraHardy,forconversationabout GoetheinGeorgeEliot;sadlyshediedaweekbeforeIcompleteda first draftofthemanuscript,soendinganexchangeofemailsabout Daniel Deronda.IthankChrisTerryformuchhelponGoethe,andJonathan HallforwhollyinspirationalthinkingaboutcarnivalandRabelaisand Dostoevsky,andcommentsonthedraft.ThankstoPriscillaMartinfor mosthelpfulcomments,toBrianWorthingtonforShakespeare,and RichardHeapfor Chapter4.ThankstoJamesSmith,LouisLo,andIan Fong,andJackSullivanforeditorialassistance,BenDoylefortakingon thebookforPalgrave,andlastly,toChrisBarlowforwonderfullycritical, exciting,andexactingcommentsonthebook’s firstdraft.
Twolastdetails.AllthatIhavereferenced,andmorethatIhaveused butnothadoccasiontocite,appearsintheBibliography;footnotesgive onlysupportingmaterial.IhaveusedtheKingJamesBible(1611),and quotedextensivelyfromBenjamin(SW – SelectedWritings)andFreudas SE:i.e. StandardEdition,theonlyexceptionstotheauthor-datesystemof referencingusedelsewhereandusedsparingly,oftenwithjustthe first citation,toavoidclutteringthepagewithnumbers.Andforcapitalisation andspelling:Ihavespelleddaemon/daimon/demoninterchangeably, andthecontextmustcommandthemeaning; ‘devil’ Ihaveonlycapitalisedwhenitseemedright,ratherthanfollowingconsistency.Itdoesnot seempossibletobemoreprecise,bearinginmindthedifferentirreconcilableusagesfromdifferentauthors,andthepointholdswithspellings, especiallywiththosewhichinvolveworkingacrosslanguages.EvenwhenI couldworkwithaparticularlanguage,Ihavedependedmuchforreassuranceongoodtranslations,butthedevilhasanaffinityfortranslation, startingwithPuckchangingBottom’sheadin AMidsummerNight’s Dream,evokingthehorrifiedreaction, ‘BlesstheeBottom,thouart translated’ (2.2.124–125).Themalapropismtranslatestransformationas does: ‘byfaith,Enochwastranslated,thatheshouldnotseedeath,and wasnotfound,becauseGodhadtranslatedhim’ (Hebrews11:5). Translation:transformation:thereisnoproperplace,orproperword, norevenapropertypeofhead:thedevilsecuresallthat.
4InConclusion:Mann,TheSatanicVerses,and
LISTOF FIGURES
Fig.1LucasCranach, AdamandEveattheFatefulMomentofthe Temptation.ACTIVEMUSEUM/AlamyStockPhoto134
Fig.2HansBaldungGrien, Eve,theSerpent,andDeath,classicpaintings/ AlamyStockPhoto135
Introduction:Litera tureandManicheism
InAugust2014,newsbrokefromIraqandSyriaofanewIslamist insurgentgroup,ISIS,takingontheShiasinnorthernIraq,andpersecutingtheYezidiminority,northofMosul,killingorforciblyconvertingthe mentoIslam,sellingwomenandchildren.Whowere – andare – the Yezidis,theseapparentanachronismswithinmodernity,threatenedwith genocide,theirtotalnumberperhapsnomorethan300,000?Theywill helpinapproachingwhatismeantbythedevil,andleadintofourrelated conceptswhichunderdifferentheadingsIwanttodiscussinthischapter, andwhichinformthebook.
1DUALISM
In1849,theAssyriologistHenryLayarddescribedtheYezidi,notingtheir ‘quietandinoffensivedemeanour’:
andthecleanlinessandorderoftheirvillages ... theirknownrespectorfear fortheevilprinciplehasacquiredforthemthetitle ‘Worshippersofthe Devil’.Manystoriesarecurrentastotheemblemsbywhichthisspiritis represented.Theyarebelievedbysometoadoreacock,byothersapeacock, buttheirworship,theirtenets,andtheiroriginwerealikeasubjectof mystery (quoted,Kreyenbroek 1995:2).
Amain figureinYezidireligionseemstobeSheyk ‘ArdiibnMusafir,who washistoricallyoftheeleventhcentury,butreappearsasthePeacock
©TheAuthor(s)2016
J.Tambling, HistoriesoftheDevil, DOI10.1057/978-1-137-51832-3_1
Angel,theexecutorforGodontheearth(Awn 1983:196–198). AssociatedwithSatan,hetaughtthatevilandthedevilwerecreatedby God.Thatideaisakeytoalltheologiesdescribedinthisbook.1 Acertain venerationforIblis,anameofSataninIslam,wasnotunknowninSufism; IblisbeingboththejinncreatedthousandsofyearsbeforeAdam,who wouldnotbowtoAdam,andalsoamodelforself-sacrifice(Awn 1983: 151).AndMithra,theZoroastriandemiurge,wasidenticalwiththedevil, ‘thedevilbeingbetterequippedthanGodtodealwiththeimperfections ofthisworld’ (Kreyenboek 1995:3,46,47,60).As ‘poordevils’ atthe bottomofthepileinthepoliticsatworkinSyria,Iraq,andTurkey,the Yezidimmayquestionthebeliefsystemsofthreereligionsassertingthemselvesasmonotheisms,andeachwithcovertothersecularagendas.Tobe monotheisticmaynameadesire:topossessoneGod,onetruth;impossible,sincethiscanonlybebyrepressingthepresenceofany ‘other’ force againstthemonotheism,andtherearetoomanyoftheseothers.
LayardthoughttheYezidibeliefswerepartofaManicheanviewofthe world,i.e.onewhereGoodandEvil,LightandDarkness,playoutanequal oppositiontoeachother.Thisbookis not abouttheYezidis,butdoestakeup theideaofthedevilembodyingevil/darknesswithinthatpolariseddivision, thoughremembering – tofollowDerridaon ‘supplementarity’– thatcreatinganypolarityorbinaryoppositioninvolvesassigninganideologicalprioritytothe firstterminthedivide:theopposedtermsareneverequally balanced.Iassumethatmaintaininganysenseofidentitydependson attemptstolocate,define,andcontrolasenseofthe ‘other’,evenwhen claimstoidentityaremadefromanembattledposition.Whilecriticalwork on ‘theother’ hasexpanded,asinthemodernistMarxismofBenjaminand Adorno,orinpsychoanalysis,orinthepost-Nietzscheancriticaltheory associatedwithFoucaultandDerridaorKristeva,andintheformsofhistory writtenbyMicheldeCerteau – allessentialforthisbook – modernity,inspite ofthat,tendstowardsapoliticalrefusalofthat ‘other’.Itrequiresasometimesviolentassertionofthevaluesofaparticularidentity.Globalisation discardstheotherthroughanintenseManicheism,aswhenGeorgeBushJr in2002definedUSforeignpolicyasworkingagainstan ‘axisofevil’
WhilethenineteenthcenturyrelatedYezidismtoManicheism,the twentiethcenturyrelatedittoZoroastrianism.Zoroaster(hisGreek name)orZarathustra(hisPersian,andNietzschean,name)livedbetween c.1500–1200 BCE (Cohn 1993:75–104),orbetweenthesixthandseventh centuries BCE (West 2010:4).ZoroastriancultsinWesternIransurvivedin theisolationoftheKurdishmountains,astheyalsosurvivedinParsi.
BeyondZarathustra,Zoroastrianismdevelopedanintense ‘dualism’,a wordapparentlyattributabletotheOrientalistscholarThomasHyde (1636–1702)(Duchesse-Guillemin 1958:10).Suchdualismaccepted twoprinciples,AhuraMazda(LordWisdom – OhrmazdinPahlavi), whoformsaHeptad,bywhichtheworldwascreated;andAngra Mainyu,orAhrimaninPahlavi,whoistheLie,orFalseness,hisdestiny aplaceof ‘WorstExistence’,anequivalenttohell(Boyce 1984:35).
DualismreappearedintheParthian-bornMani(CE 216–c.276),aware ofBuddhism,ofZoroaster,ofJudaism,andJesusofNazareth,andthe GreekGnosticMarcion,(d. c.160);whoseparatedtheGodoftheOld fromthatoftheNewTestament.Manicheism’stwoprinciplesareLight andDarkness,thelatterbeinganactiveforce,notwhatMilton,whorefers to ‘unessentialnight’ (ParadiseLost 2.439),callsdarkness:
Privationmereoflightandabsentday (ParadiseRegained,4.400, Milton 1998:456)
Thatline,bywhichMiltonmeant,reassuringly,todefangManicheism, uncannilymakesnothingnessandabsencethreatening,apointobservable throughouttheexamplesinthisbook.
ManithoughtLightandDarknesscomprisedaneverlasting,eternal duality: ‘therewasnoneedtoaccountfortheoriginofevil’ (Gardnerand Lieu 2004:11).Lightbeingtrappedinmatter,demonsappearfromthese mixtures,and ‘mankindhasbeendeliberatelyfashionedbydemonicforces inanattempttopreventtheredemptionofthelight’.Howdoesthis happen?Verysimply: ‘throughtheurgeforsexhumanswillmultiply,and furtherentrapthedivineSoulinmultitudesofmaterialbodies’ (Gardner andLieu 2004:16).Thehumansoulisarepositoryofthetrappeddivine andneedssaving;Jesususingforthissalvationthe ‘LightMind’,who transformsandenlightensthehumansoulbyfreeingitfromthebody, whichistheGnosticaspectofManicheebelief.Manicheesdeniedthat Christwashuman;hewasnotbornofMary.LikePlotinus(c.205–270) theNeoplatonistphilosopher,forwhommatterwastheprincipleof evil,andlikeGnostics,theyappealedtoanasceticismwhichbelieved thatthesexualurgecouldbewhollytranscended,apositionresistedby StAugustineofHippo(Lieu 1985:117–153).Gnosticsthoughtthat creation,becausematerial,andthereforeimperfect,camefromalesser demiurgethantheNewTestamentGod:thatviewmightcommand
supportfromStJohn’sGospel,whichseparatesGodandtheLogos, sayingofthelatter,notofGod: ‘Allthingsweremadebyhim,andwithout himwasnotanythingmade’ (John1:3).
Manicheism’s ‘negativeaccountofcreation,and fierceantipathytomatter andsexualityasintrinsicallydemonic’ andofmarriage(GardnerandLieu 2004:21),affectedAugustine(CE 354–430),whowasaManicheeinhis hometownCarthage,until,increasinglyuneasy,heleftforRomein383,for aChairofRhetoricinMilan(Brown 2000:35–49).Convertedto Christianityin386,hespenttherestofhisliferesistingManicheedualism, asinthe Confessions (Augustine 1992:398),assomethinghecouldnotdeal withcompletely,butwhosesenseofevilasanactiveforcethreatenedhim,as whenhehadengagedinCarthagewithFaustusofMilevisinNumidia, ‘a greattrapofthedevil’ saysAugustine(1992:73).ThisFaustus
firstofmany inthisbook – callinghimselftheapostleofJesusChrist,acceptedtheNew, butrejectedtheOldTestament(whatwouldbebettercalledtheHebrew Bible)foritsimmorality,anditsadherencetomatter,thusforcingChristians intoareaction:thatofspiritualisingawaythematerialitypraisedintheOld Testamentbyallegorisingit,aninterpretationwhichwhilecedinggroundto Manicheism,causedAugustinesomerelief(Confessions 5.14.24,Augustine 1992:88).Inaway,Faustus,andthespiritofMarcion,hadwon:theOld Testament,theJewishBible,haditsunacceptablepartsturnedintothe reverseofwhattheymeant,soignoringitsalterity:so Dedoctrina Christiana mustholdthat ‘anythinginthedivinediscoursethatcannotbe relatedeithertogoodmoralsorthetruefaithshouldbetakenas figurative’ because ‘scriptureenjoinsnothingbutlove,andcensuresnothingbutlust [cupidity]’ (Augustine 1997:75–76,Robertson 1962:295–300).
AugustinehadtoarguethatmatterwasnotindependentofGod,but hadbeencreatedbyGodoutofnothing,andthatevilwasnothing,the privationofgood.ButhowdidthisaccountforthefallofAdam,ifhehad noevil?Augustinewascompelledintoholdingthattherewasaweakness inunfallenman,that:
thesoul qua ‘free’ createdbeing,ratherthan qua materialisjustnotstrong enoughtostandout.Itsweakness,whichisaweaknessofthewill isdue totheveryfactofitsbeingcreatedfromthatnothingtowhichallcreated oppositestend.(Rist 1994:106)
ForRist(1994:282),Augustine’s CityofGod (post- CE 410),comesclose to findingthefallofAdaminevitable.AsAugustinewrites:
onlyanaturecreatedoutofnothingcouldhavebeendistortedbya fault ... althoughthewillderivesitsexistence,asanature,fromitscreation byGod,itsfallingawayfromitstruebeingisduetoitscreationoutof nothing.(Augustine 1972:14.3.571)
Thequestionwhethermattercouldeverbefullyjustifiedwasonethat Augustineneversolved;hencehisdualism.Inhisbinaryview,spiritswere angelicordemonic(Augustine 1972:5.22). ‘Darkness’,asopposedto Light,becomessomethingsubstantial,becauseitmapsontothecharacter ofEvilAngels,asopposedtoGood(Augustine 1972:11.33,11.18): darknesssupportsacovertManicheeposition,whichcontradictsthe senseofevilasnegation.Augustine’sdualismleadshimintothree positions:
1)Denyingtherealityofevilbutmakingit ‘nothing’; 2)Denyingdarknessassomething,butmakingitreal; 3)DenyingthatmattercanbeotherthantendingtowardsaFall;hence committinghimselftonegationofthematerial,especiallythebody.
AugustinegivespointtoWalterBenjamin’s TheOriginofGermanTragic Drama,astudywhichisbasictothisbook.Benjamincallsthedevil ‘the originalallegorical figure’,aphrasetobeexpandedon(Benjamin 1977: 228)butatitssimplest,meaningthatallegoryacceptsandanimatesthe unreal.Evenpersonification-allegory,aswhenacharactercalledLoveor Timeappearsonstage,doesthat:itgivesamask,aface(Greek prosopon) towhathasnoexistenceotherthanasaconcept.Manicheedualism compareswithYezidism:thesearereligions – theyincludethesmall printofAugustine’sChristianity – whichincorporatethedevil,either withinadualisticandadversarialrelationshiptoGodandLight,orby comingneartoascribingmattertohim,andmakingmatterevil,however muchevilmaybeseenasanegation.
Thatiswherethisbookstarts,thinkingdualistically, ‘thinkingwith demons’:thetitleofStuartClark’sbookonwitchcraftinEuropeanlate medievalandearlymodernconditions.LiketheYezidim,witchcraftisnot thisbook’ssubject,butClark’s ThinkingWithDemons (1997)considers the ‘conditionsofdiscourse’ withinearlymodernEuropewhichallowed suchanapparentspiketheninconceptualisingthevisiblepresenceof demonsandwitchcraft.ForClark,toimagineaworldwheredemons anddemonologywereacceptedaseveryday,andwheredemonologywas
partofascientificmodeofthoughtwhichpersisteduntiltheeighteenth century,requiresconceptualisingadifferentworld,whoselanguageand assumptionsaredifferentfromthepresent,thoseofmodernity,butbased onthedominanceoftwotropeswithinitsdiscourse.Oneis inversion and reversibility,andtheother, contrarieties.
The fi rsttwoofthesesupportstheideathattheworldis,ormaybe, upsidedown.Thatimpliestheworldascontainingitsowncarnival, andthatisatopicwhichIdiscussin Chapters3 and 5 ,thoughitis implicitelsewhereinthisstudy,subverting,likewitchcraft,theorder oftheworld. Reversibility evokesDerrida’ sconceptof ‘supplementarity ’ ,where,assaidbefore,thesecondterminanybinaryopposite (e.g.man/woman;reason/emotion)issubordinated,orminoritised, sothatthe fi rsttermdominates:manover woman,reasonoveremotion (Derrida 1976 :141 –164).Uncoveringthesupplement,withinthe projectofdeconstruction,asapoliticalanddiscursivemove,allows thepriorityofthesubordinated termtoemerge,andtobeseenas essentialintheconstitutionofthe fi rstterm,whichisactuallyits supplement.
‘ Inversion ’ meansthatinrepresentationsofwitchcraft,womenwill dominate:ridinghorses,orgoats,backwards,asinsuchartworkas Dürer ’ sengraving TheWitch,c. 1502,orHansBaldungGrien ’ s Witches ’ Sabbath (1510).Witchcraftbecomes anewsubjectforartists (MarrowandShestack 1981 :114 – 119;Zika 2007 :11 – 35).Clark followsFoucaultinconsideringtheearlymodernasaseparable ‘ episteme ’ ,whoseconditionsfordiscoursebroughtdemonsand witchcraftintoanewvisibilitywhichthenbecomesessentialfor explainingmentalillness(Clark 1997 :179).Thisistheterritoryof Foucault ’ s Histoiredelafolie (2006:(HistoryofMadness)),again,a topicwithin Chapter3 ;Foucault ’ ssubjectwastheconstructioninthe seventeenthcenturyofanewdiscourseof ‘ madness ’ ,astheotherside of ‘ folly ’ : folie meansboth.Madnessmorphsasthediscursiveconditionsofthe ‘ episteme ’ alsoshiftintoanother ‘ episteme ’ ,discontinuouswiththeonebefore,andmakingany ‘ history ’ oneof interruptions,anddifferencesfro mwhathasgonebefore,theterms ofreferencebeingonlyapparentlythesame.A ‘ historyofthedevil ’ mustshowadeepeningmarginalisationandsilencingofthemad; makingmadnessappearinmorevirulentandmorbidformsinmodernity;asseenin Chapters7 and 8 ,whichpayattentiontosuicide,and toschizophrenia.
INTRODUCTION:LITERATUREANDMANICHEISM
Clarkperhapsdoesnotaccountforthepotentialityoftheseliterary tropes.Oneexplanationforthespringinessoftheterms ‘inversion’ and ‘reversibility’,whichrelatestocomedy,isthattheypresupposeaprior demonismwithinlanguage,destabilisingconceptsandcreatingoppositions toeach.InFreud’sessay ‘TheAntitheticalMeaningofPrimalWords’ (1910, SE 11.154–161),everysignificantwordmeansitself and itsopposite.Clark’s contrarieties,asantitheses,apparentlyseparateinabinaryopposite,already containtheir ‘other’ insideeachterm.Conceptualthoughtworksinbinary pairs,suchas ‘good/evil’– termswhichrecallthat ‘thedevilisareligious entity’ (Clark 1997:437),sinceonlyGodisgood(Matthew19:17).Talkof thedevilmustthenbetheological,since ‘evil’ presupposesthatthereisa sovereigncentringgoodness,whosesupremacyandactionsmustbejustifiable – despitetheevidence – asinMilton,ortheBookofJob,oneofthose whichexcitedeighteenth-centurytheodicies(see Chapter4).
Thinkingwithdemons,whohadbeenseen,inAugustinianstyle,as devilish,wasaworkoflatemedievalism,butGnosticismthoughtinterms ofarangeofspiritsbetweentheangelicanddemonic,aviewpersisting intoGoethe;andsometimesthatviewcouldbetoleratedofficially.Such spiritscouldbecontrolledbywhatChaucer’s ‘TheFranklin’sTale’ (c.1390)in TheCanterburyTales criticisesunderthenameof ‘magyc natureel’,whichtheFranklin,thenarrator,saysleadsto ‘illusion’ (1988, FragmentV.1125,1134).Themagicianwhowillremovetherockssothat thesquireAureliuscanclaimDorigen,marriedtotheknightArveragus,is foundontheroadtoOrleans,andentertainsAureliuswithsucceeding scenes,thelastshowinghim ‘hisladyonadaunce’:
Onwhichhimselfhedaunced,ashymthoughte. Andwhanthismaisterthatthismagykwroighte Saughitwastyme,heclaptehishandstwo, Andfarewell!alourerevelwasago.
(Chaucer, 1988, CT FragmentV.1200–1204)
ThegestureandwordsanticipateProsperodismissingtheMasquein The Tempest: ‘ourrevelsnowareended’.Thatmasquewasperformedby ‘spirits’ impersonatinggods(TheTempest,4.1.148,120–122),ascene whichwillberecalledin Faust PartTwo.
Thecontextin TheTempest (1611)istherevivaloverahundredyears previouslyofneo-PlatonicmagicwithinItaly, first,throughtheFlorentine MarsilioFicino(1433–1499),translatingthe CorpusHermeticum for
Cosimode‘ Medici.ThiscomprisedGnostictexts,actuallywritten between CE 100and300,butattributedto ‘HermesTrismegistus’ who wasconsideredtheEgyptianequivalenttoMoses,himself ‘learnedinall thewisdomoftheEgyptians’ (Acts7:22),which,therefore,madethat EgyptianhermiticismolderthanMoses,andthePentateuch.Withinthis Hermeticliterature,the CorpusHermeticum andthe Asclepius,wasconsideredtolieamysticalknowledge(gnosis):thebasisofFicino’sbeliefin ‘naturalmagic’,andthatofPicodellaMirandola(1463–1494).ItcontestedAugustine’sattackonHermesTrismegistus(Augustine 1972: City ofGod Book8.13–22),andonthesupposedLatintranslatorofhis Asclepius,ApuleiusofMadura(born c.CE 123:authorof TheGoldenAss, asourcefor AMidsummerNight’sDream).Suchneo-Platonismshows toointhecontroversialGermanCorneliusAgrippavonNettesheim (1486–1535),authorof DeOccultaPhilosophia,whoseearlyformthe arthistorianErwinPanofskyconsideredasourceforDürer’sprint MelencoliaI (c.1513):Dürer’sprimetreatmentoftheearlymodernsubjectassplit,dividedfromtheactivelife,andreducedtofruitlesscontemplation,bythepowerofmelancholy.Rabelais(born c.1483–1494, d.1553),intheThirdBookof GargantuaandPantagruel,satirised Agrippaas ‘HerrTrippa’,acuckoldedsagecrazilyunconsciousofthatdetail ofhislife,butwhoassuresPanurge,whoisuncertainwhethertoget married,thatmarriagemeanscuckoldry(Pantagruel (1546),ThirdBook, Chapter25).AsGoethereadCorneliusAgrippaandusedhimin Faust, perhapsevenadoptinghis firstname,Heinrich,forFaust,soAgrippa influencedMarlowe’s DoctorFaustus (Traister 1984:12–15;Nauert 1965:330–331).Faustus’ magicwillmakehim:
ascunningasAgrippawas WhoseshadowsmadeallEuropehonourhim. (DoctorFaustus A1.1.119–120)
Anotheroftheseneo-Platonicbelieversinnaturalmagic,whichmightalso involveinvocationofdemons(Marlovian ‘shadows’),GiordanoBruno, burnedinRomein1600,maybetherivalPopein DoctorFaustus’ Act3 Scene1(BText).BrunowasthesubjectofFrancesYates’ ambitious, sometimestendentious,researches,aswasJohnDee(1527–1608),satanic predecessorofMelmothinMaturin’sRomanticanddemonicnovel MelmoththeWanderer (Yates 1964;Maturin 2000:556).Inthese figures, whose ‘naturalmagic’ madedemonologyitsanalogue,theuniverse
connectsthroughspiritualessencesrunningthroughoutit,whichcould bemastered.Demonscouldbeboundbycertainritestodothemagus’ bidding,andnotdoharm.
Yet ‘naturalmagic’ forAgrippaandBrunotendedtowardsthedemonic (Nauert 1965:269–273).Deewantedto findfromangelsthesecretsof nature(Yates 1964:149,265).PicodellaMirandola,likeParacelsus (1493–1541),nameoftheSwissphysicianTheophrastusvonHohenheim, tooktheJewishKabbalaasmotherandoriginofastronomy,andasvirtually synonymouswithmagic.ParacelsusbelievedintheLightofNature,which wasbothreason,andatranscendentalforcewithastatusakintoangels,even asapersonalprotector,ordomesticgodorangel(Webster 2008:155–159). ComplementarytotheLightoftheFather,whichcommunicatedwiththe soul,itregulatednaturalforces.SinceSatanandevilspiritswereKabbalists, KabbalisticpowersderivedfromharnessingtheLightofNature:inthe ‘applicationofkabbalisticormagicalartsthepractitionerwasrightlycalled amagus’ (Webster 2008:153–156).
FrancesYates( 1964:160 –161)emphasisesthedifferencebetween KabbalismandRenaissanceHuman ism.Thelatterwasinterestedin literatureandrhetoricandstyle,andindiscardingScholasticauthorityboundmedievalisminfavourofthinkingwhichwasunconfi nedby thoserules.ThisdifferenceappearswithAgrippa,whosescepticism aboutRenaissanceintellectualismNauretstresses:reasonwasfallen withAdam,whosesinwasgivingplacetothe fl esh:i.e.,insexual intercourse.Agrippafeltthelimitationsofcorporealityandofmaterial nature,whichpulleddownreason;hemustseekoutesotericrevelation.Hismagic,then,tendstowardsthenihilistic;unsurprisinglyhis magnumopuswas Devanitate (1526),whichsettheyoungGoethe ’ s brains ‘ inaconsiderablewhirlforalongtime ’ (Goethe1900:1.135). Goetheinthemid-eighteenthcenturyreaditundertheauspicesofa tutorwhotoldtheyoungman ‘ EveninGodIdiscoverdefects’ ,and severalfeaturesof Faust derivefromAgrippa,notleasttheblackdog (the schwarzePudel )whichAgrippahadashisfamiliar,andinwhich formMephisto fi rstappears.Agrippa’ santi-clericalismandhatredof monks(thedevilworeacowltotemptChrist)madehimsomeone whobelievedtherewasnorationalb asisforfaith;natural,orwhite magicistheprivilegedaccesstoknowledge,viathemagus(Nauert 1965:175–177,327,330 –331).Agrippawasaccusedofatheism afterhisdeath(Nauert 1965:195);PaolaZambelli,callingAgrippa a ‘ magusturnedsceptic’ in Devanitate,quotesFrancesYateson
DrFaustus asarefusalofeverythingoftheRenaissance, ‘ anechoof Agrippa’ s Devanitate’ (Zambelli 2007 :116).Andindeedthereseems nothingforMarlowe’ sFaustustodooncehehastradedhissoul.
PlatonicphilosophywasawareofZoroastrianpriestsas ‘magi’,which the OED derivesfromanOldPersianword; ‘magi’ wastheVulgate’s translationofthewordfortheWiseMenatChrist’sNativity(Matthew 2:1,2).ParacelsussawtheMagiasKabbalists,notastrologers,possessed ofasecret, ‘other’ wisdom(Webster 2008:64–68).TheymustbecomparedwithSimonMagus,theNewTestamentsorcerer,whothoughtthat theHolySpiritwaspurchasablebymoney(Acts8:9–24).Ifbuyingand sellingisthewaytodivinepower,SimonMagus,whoisincludedinthe Legendaaurea (‘TheGoldenLegend’)oftheGenoveseDominican, JacobusdeVoragine(c.1280–1298)givessomethingtothesixteenthcenturyMasterDoctorFaustusintheGerman Faustbuch,whobuysby sellingthesoul,inadevilishpact. TheGoldenLegend’s ‘LifeofSaintPeter, Apostle’ recordsSaintPeter’scontestationsbeforeNeroinRomewiththe diabolicallyaidedSimon(Voragine 1993:1.340–350).IraneusofLyon (died c.202)hadcalledSimonaGnostic(Ferreiro 2005:35–54).Legends accretingaboutSimonsaidheattemptedto fly(thelatterwasamarkerof Faust,devils,ofwitches,andtheAntichrist,withwhomSimonwasalso identified(Emmerson 1981:27–30)),andthatheassociatedwitha womancalledHelena,whowastobeidentifiedwithHelenofTroy.She wasapurespiritinGnosticthought,oneofaseriesofemanationsofthe feminineprinciples,emanatingfromDeity(Brown 1939:93).ThePope (88–99),ClementofRome,inhisapocryphalwritingsthe Recognitions andthe Homilies,describedhowhehadbeenseducedbySimonMagus; thathisownfatherwasFaustinianus,andhisbrothersFaustinusand Faustus,orelsethathisfatherwasFaustus,andindistinguishablefrom SimonMagus(Brown 1939:89;Voragine 1993:2.324).Nottheleast fascinationinFaustishowtraditionsalmostasoldasChristianityturnout tobeproductiveofa figurewhoinGoetheandMann,ifnotinMarlowe, isentirelya figureofanaggressiveforward-pressingmodernity.
2SOLILOQUYANDTHE GENIUS
Thunder.EnterLuciferandFourDevils,FaustustoThemwithThisSpeech.
W.W.Greg,editorofMarlowe’splayin1950,withapreferencefortheB text,wrotethisstagedirectionfortheopeningofAct1Scene3,when
Faustusconjuresupthedevils.2 Itisevidentthattheyarelisteningkeenly toFaustus:Mephistophelessaysso(A.1.3.48–50),andperhapsthatstage directionhasageneralvalidityfordrama.Whoistalking,andwhois listeningtoasoliloquy?ForKenFrieden,inmedievalpageantplays, soliloquyis ‘aconcomitantofsinandseparationfromGod.Asdrama develops,soliloquyappearsasthedevicebywhichprayercanovercome thedistancebetweenhumananddivinerealms’ (Frieden 1985:133).That theologicalsituation,whereasoliloquyisprayer-like,meansthataMarlovian orShakespeariansoliloquymaybecomeanengagementwiththedaimonor genius,whowasclassicallyconsideredtheinseparableotheroftheself. Socrateshadspokenofhis daimonion whospoketorestrainhim(Phaedrus 242, Apology 40,Nietzsche 1956:77,84).InHeraclitus,earlier, ‘aman’s characterishis daimon’ (Barnes 1987:125).Thatchangesbytheeighteenth century:theEarlofShaftesbury(1671–1713),in ‘Soliloquy,orAdvicetoan Author’ (1710)identifiestheGreek daimon andtheLatin genius withthe effectsofindividualintelligence,andsoliloquyintheAgeofReasonislessa relationshipwiththedaimon,thananexpressionoftheself,nolonger namingatranscendingbeing,orpower. ‘Asanindividualhasapersonality, soindividualsarecharacterizedbyacertainkindofgenius’;aspecialcapacity. Shaftesburysaysthattheancientauthorsmeantthat,throughsoliloquy, ‘we discoveracertain Duplicity ofSoul,anddivideour-selvesinto twoPartys’.In thisdualiststate,a ‘genius’ becomesnosupernaturalagency,butratherour ‘self-dissecting’ partnerin ‘the ‘Home-Dialect of Soliloquy’ . 3
Thegenius,orthedaemonic,isalwayslikelyinChristianitytobe limitedtothedemonic,inarejectionofpaganismordemandformonotheism,andwithinapost-Shakespearianincreasingemphasisonthe speakerasthesinglesubject;apointwhichwouldsilencesoliloquy,so thatitbecomes,asnow,whenseenonstage,awayofaddressingan audience.Shouldthedistinctionbetweenthedaemonandthedemonbe maintained?Lukacher’s DaemonicFigures,whosesubtitleis Shakespeare andtheQuestionofConscience,intentionallymisleadsonthewordswhen renderingStPaul’swordstotheCorinthianChristians, ‘Iwouldnotthat yeshouldhavefellowshipwithdevils[RV:demons]’ (ICorinthians 10:20)as ‘Iamunwillingthatyoushouldbepartnerswithdaemons’ , forthoughtheGreekisthesame(Lukacherwittilycomparesitssilent a withthe a ofDerrida’s différance),heisdrawingouthowStPaulhas attempted,perhapsunsuccessfully,sincethedaemonicremains,toenact thecharacteristicclosureofmonotheismwhichcouldnotadmitthe daemonicbutwhichcreatesthecategoryofevil(Lukacher 1994:29,30).
AngusNicholl’scomprehensivestudy, Goethe’sConceptofthe Daemonic:AftertheAncients maintainsthatthedaemonicforGoethe (1749–1832)meanttheclassical,nottheChristianconcept;thisiscontestedbyKirkWetters,whoseviewisthatwhenGoethespeaksmost comprehensivelyaboutthedaemon,itisastheGerman ‘etwas’,i.e.,as somethingundefinable,a ‘something’:Goethenotbeingconfinedtothe ancients’ definition.InGoethe’sautobiography, DichtungundWahrheit (PoetryandTruth),hespeaksofwhatEgmont,heroofhistragedyof 1788discovers:
[Egmont]thoughthecoulddetectinnature ... somethingwhichmanifestsitselfonlyincontradictions,andwhich,therefore,couldnotbe comprehendedunderanyidea,stilllessunderoneword.Itwasnot godlike,foritseemedunreasonable;nothuman,forithadnounderstanding;nordevilish,foritwasbene fi cent,norangelic,foritoften betrayedamaliciouspleasure.Itresembledchance,foritevolvedno consequences;itwaslikeProvidence,forithintedatconnection.All thatlimitsusitseemedtopenetrate ...
Tothisprinciple,whichseemedtocomeinbetweenallotherprinciplesto separatethem,andyettolinkthemalltogether,Igavethenameof Daemonic. ... (Goethe1900:2.157)
Wettersseemsrightin fi ndingthisdaemonicanon-nameableprinciple,which,sinceitconcludesGoethe’sautobiography,bringsinto questionitsentireproject,andconteststhethoughtthatlifecanbe articulatedbiographically,inanon-ambiguous,single-mindedsequentialclarityobeyingchronologicaltime.Goethesaysthat ‘ withman, especiallydoes[thisdaemonicpower]standinamostwonderful connection,forminginhimapowerwhich,ifitbenotopposedto themoralorderoftheworld,neverthelessdoesoftensocrossitthat onemayberegardedasthewarp,andtheotherasthewoof ’ (Goethe 1900:2.158).4
Thedaemonic’ssignificancetoGoethecomesoutinhisconversations withJohannPeterEckermann.5 On11March1828,Napoleon – whom GoethemetatErfurtin1808 – ispronounced ‘daemonic’;thisisalliedto ‘genius’ asthe ‘productivepower’ (Eckermann 1970:245–253, Blumenberg 1985:465–522).ItmaybenotedthatforNietzsche, ‘the eventthatmade[Goethe]rethinkhis Faust,indeedthewhole “human”
problem,wastheappearanceofNapoleon’ (Nietzsche 1999:135).Similar discussionsofgeniuswithEckermannappearon2,8and30March1831, whenthedaemonicisfoundwithinpoetry, ‘especiallythatwhichis unconscious,beforewhichreasonandunderstandingfallshort,and whichthereforeproduceseffectsfarsurpassingallconception’.The ‘daemonic’ andthe ‘genius’ resistassimilationtoChristianity,andtothetheological.WalterBenjamincontendsthatitsidea ‘accompaniesGoethe’s visionallhislife’ (Benjamin SW1:316),anditsdoublenessofmeaning needstobestressedforGoethe:itistobediscussedwithinthelanguageof Christiantheology,anditisoutsidethat.
Inanearlypoem, ‘MahometsGesang’ (ASongtoMahomet,1772–1773), Goethe’stributetoareligionofgenius,the ‘genius’ isthemountaintorrent thatleapsforthwithoutanorigin – forgeniuscanhavenohistoricalorigin –whichpoursforthinphallicpowerand lackofrestraint,andtakesother tributaryriverswithit,whicharefearfulofdeath(Middleton 1983:22–27; Wellbery 1996:130–147).Butinalatersonnet, ‘MächtigesÜberraschen’ (ImmenseAstonishment,1807–1808),whoseclassicalformcontrastswith theviolentPindaricfreeverse-formofthe ‘SongtoMahomet’ anditsevocationofanoriginlessabsolutelynewthingemerginginIslam,thelanguage reappearsofariverpouringforth:butthesecondstanzainterceptsit:
DämonischaberstürtzmiteinemMale –IhrfolgenBergundWaldinWirbelwinden –SichOreas,Behagendortzu finden UndhemmtdenLauf,begrenztdieweiteSchale. (Middleton 1983:176–177)
(YetsuddenlyOreaswithdaemonicswiftness,hillsideandforestfollowing herinwhirlwinds,slidesdownandsettlesthere,hemsinhisrun,setting boundstothewidebowl.)
Oreaswasamountainnymph,attendantonArtemis,whowasherselfa goddessofrestraint.Theforceofthedaemonicgeniushereistocheckthe wildrunoftheriver,containitinabowl.The ‘astonishment’ comesfromthe interruptionofonedaemonicforce,theriver,byanother.Goethecomes backtothedaemonicin ‘Urworte – Orphisch’ (PrimalWords – Orphic 1817),wherethe ‘Dämon’ is firstof fiveforces,expressedin fiveprime words,attendingthechildatbirth,theothersbeingChance(Tyche),Eros (Liebe),Necessity(Anagké – Nötigung),andHope(Elpis – Hoffnung)
WieandemTag,derdichderWeltverliehen, DieSonnestandzumGrussederPlaneten, Bistalsobaldundfortunddortgediehen NachdemGesetz,wonachduangetreten. Somusstdusein,dirkannstdunichtentfliehen, SosagtenschonSibyllen,soPropheten; UndkeineZeitundkeineMachtzerstückelt, GeprägteForm,dielebendsichentwickelt.
(Middleton 1983:230–231)
(Astotheday,whichgaveyoutotheworld,thesunstoodtothegreeting oftheplanets,soquicklyandstronglyyoubegantogrowandhave continuedtodosoaccordingtothelawthatprevailedoveryourbeginning.Somustitbe,youcannotescapeyourself,sosaid,completely,the SibylsandtheProphetsandnotimeandnomightcandestroythe minted/printedform,sostampeduponlife.)
AsthesybilsandprophetsintheSistineChapelwatchoverthebirthof Adam,andhisfall,sotheatricallydisplayedinMichaelangelo’sceiling, so ‘du’– thereader,thepoet – startsoutlifeundera ‘Gesetz’ (law)which imposesan ‘esmusssein’ (itmustbe)uponthehumanformwhichhas beensoimpressed.Thedaemonisthelawallottedtotheindividual;it bothsetsfreeandlimits,beingthusabsolutelyequivocalincharacter.Itis notidentifiable,intheselasttwopoems,withtheword ‘genius’ asthisis currentlyusedwhenShakespeareiscalledagenius.Itisbothinsideand outsidethesubjectivitywhichitquestionsandqualifiesandproducesto ambivalenteffect:itisSocrates’ Daemonasarestrainingforce.And Chance,Eros,Necessity,andHope,areallpartofit;perhapsthepoem ‘Urworte – Orphisch’ movesinacircularform.TheDaemonandTyche seemopposed(maletofemale);ifso,perhapstheyopposeeachotherin art,asLukácsthinks(Wetters 2014:135–159).ThereisnoRomanticism hereinthissenseofthedemonic,asintheideaofaromanticevilsuchasI thinkEuanFerniecontendsforinclaimingfor ‘evil’‘sheervitality’ and ‘ambivalence’ whichintrudesonto ‘theGood’ (Fernie 2013:21–22,33). Thedemonic,asIshallcallboththedaemonicanddemonic,names theunreadable,theambiguouswhichGoetheseesasoutlining,inthe ‘Urworte’ , ‘auniversalworldofcharacterdevelopmentandsocialisation, whereas PoetryandTruth presentsthedemonicastheinabilityof retrospectiveknowledgetogiveunivocalmeaningtoabiographicaldevelopmentalnarrative’ (Wetters 2014:136).Withthiscontradiction
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
Swords, 275, 314, 329
Symbols, 271, 272.
Tabako bon, 87.
Tabi, 9, 301.
Tacoma, 358.
Tai, 301.
Taiko, the, 91, 251, 296, 297, 334.
Tairo, 292.
Taizan, 277.
Tajima, 345.
Takada, 273.
Takara Buné, 272.
mono, 272.
Takashima, 367.
Takatsukasa, 130.
“Tales of Old Japan,” by A. B. Mitford, 292.
Talisman, 272.
Tan, 261.
Tanzan, 277.
Tapestry, 259.
Taro of Urashima, 29.
Tateba, 31, 165.
Tateno, Governor, 19.
Tatsu, 24, 201.
Tattoo, 354.
Tayema, 268
Tea, 63, 91, 94, 95, 190, 199, 200, 286, 287, 300, 307, 320, 340, 350-358
Tea-houses, 96, 102, 140, 142, 144, 145, 167, 173, 177, 187, 192, 193, 204, 222, 323-325, 332, 346. tasters, 353, 354.
⸺ tremens, 300.
Teak-wood, 335.
Teapot Hill, 228, 229.
Telegraphs, 23, 371.
Temple services, 21, 135, 138, 139, 154, 230, 237, 238, 315, 319, 327, 328, 339.
Tenabe Gengoro, 22.
Tennoji, 338-340.
Theatre, 15, 96-111, 224, 283-285, 337.
Theine, 351.
Theosophy, 241.
Thor, 272.
Throne, 126, 247.
Tokaido, 7, 12, 28, 175, 189-206, 277.
Tokio, 43-135, 237, 244, 268, 275, 291, 294, 300, 327, 334, 365.
Tokugawa, 56, 96, 111, 125, 131, 150, 197, 249.
Tombs, 49, 157, 244, 328, 343.
Tooth-brushes, 167, 203.
Torii, 34, 149.
Tosa chickens, 52, 285.
Totomi, 200.
Tourists, 28
Toyohashi, 203.
Trade, foreign, 256, 340, 350, 357.
Treaties, 120, 372.
Trieste, 336
Tungchow, 353.
Turtle, 271, 339.
Tussores, 264.
Typhoon, 7, 331, 340
Uchiwa, 281.
Uji, 286, 296, 304.
Ukata, 204, 205.
Umagayeshi, 177-179, 187.
Ume Yashiki, 69.
Unitarian, 241.
University, the Imperial, 57, 131.
Uraga, 37.
“Usurper, the,” by Judith Gautier, 334.
Utsonomiya, 140, 141.
pass, 198.
Uyéno, 47, 50, 51, 70, 78.
Vancouver, 3
Vanity Fair, 52, 284.
Vassar College, 132.
Velvet, 261
“Venice of Japan,” the, 331.
Vienna, 208, 336.
Volapuk, 296.
Volcanic eruptions, 179
Votive offerings, 137, 158, 166, 229, 329, 338.
Wages, 23, 146, 205, 206, 256, 355.
Wakamiya, 316.
Walters, Mr. W. T., 51.
Waraji, 9.
Waseda, 134.
William Tell, 197.
William the Conqueror, 292.
Wistaria, 77, 309.
Women’s dress, 16, 63, 90, 119, 123, 214, 283, 303.
Wrestlers, 337.
Xavier, St. Francis, 363.
Yaami, 221, 222, 227, 292.
Yabashi, 221.
Yabunouchi, 92
Yamamai, 263, 264.
Yamanaka, 192.
Yamashiro, 340.
Yamato, 268, 313
Yanagiwara, 64.
Yasaka pagoda, 227, 228.
Yashiki, 44, 97, 245.
Yeddo Bay, 3, 8, 35, 36
Yellowstone, the, 346.
Yesso nishikis, 64, 259.
Yodogawa, 331.
Yokkaichi, 208, 209
Yokohama, 2-4, 7, 36, 208, 281, 294, 340, 352, 353, 365.
Yokosuka, 3, 36.
Yoritomo, 39.
Yoshida, 235
Yoshimasa, 250.
Yoshiwara plain, 195.
Yumoto, 162, 167-170, 173, 174.
Yuoki, 160
Zipangu, 251.
Zukin, 16.
THE END
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGESExcept for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
