0

Of Pantomimes, Dialogues,
Art and Philosophy

Diderots use of dialogue in portraying a

Platonic-Dionysian dichotomy in Rameaus Nephew

Philosophy and Literature - D. Wright

Jake Hirsch-Allen 991502502
March 29th, 2004

0
 1

This essay is intended as a sequel to my previous paper on Oscar Wildes essay, The Decay of
Lying entitled Art not Argument (attached at end) and should be read with it in mind.
Instead of answering one of the prescribed essay topics, I have attempted to continue my
analysis of the Platonic-Dionysian dichotomy raised in Oscar Wildes essay and applied this
framework to Denis Diderots Rameaus Nephew. The related questions I seek to answer are
a) how do the style/ form of the authors writing and his characters actions shape his
argument and b) how are the authors actions in accordance with his arguments, that is how
does his life serve as evidence for his contentions or visa versa?

I
n the Decay of Lying, Oscar Wilde describes nature imitating art and lying as the

creation of beauty. His writing is an example of the art he proclaims; his ironic lies

depict his argument through their rhetoric, that is, their substance or message, as

well as their form. Most importantly, Wilde himself modeled the position he espoused.

He was his own best example, valuing art above nature and lies above truth, in

opposition to Platos argument about the imitative arts.

Two hundred years earlier, Diderot put forth a similar argument through the

farcical and outrageous dialogue of his fictional character, Rameaus nephew. The

nephew plays the part of a debauched dilettante, free of moral qualms or social

obligations in a heated conversation with the narrator, an Enlightened philosophe. Like

Wilde, each is acting the role he espouses, modeling his point: the Neveus unruly body

challenges the philosophes rational mind [in] a debate between the philosophes

Cartesian idealism and the Neveus eighteenth century materialism.1 All told,

however, Diderots dialogue is Platonic in its conclusion. Though Rameaus nephew (the

He character) and the narrator-philosophe (the Myself character) may be two

aspects of the author Diderot, the philosophes part is understandably more persuasive. 2

Despite using fewer words and less drama, the philosophe is the only character who

describes ideals by which one could actually run ones life. Yet Diderots argument in
1
Zahi Zalloua, The Mind-and-Body problem in Diderots Le Neveu de Rameau, Symposium
Winter 2003 v56 i4: 198.
2
Diderot himself was a philosophe. It would be hypocritical for him to denounce philosophy,
especcialy in light of the statements by both of his characters in support of confidence in
oneself and ones occupation and against hypocrisy. See Denis Diderot, Rameaus Nephew,
Rameaus Nephew and Other Works trans. Jacques Barzan, Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001: 16, 39,
74.

1
 2

opposition to Wildes is not nearly as clear as the latters. The French philosophers

rhetoric, like his irony, is more subtle and conflicted. More representative of human

thought patterns than Wildes highly stylized essay, Rameaus Nephew shows

Diderot to be torn between the first and second order attractions of bodily pleasure (the

belly) and intellectual satisfaction (the mind). He is questioning of the arts (writing and

music more particularly), of society (his place in it, its parasitic nature and self-righteous

pretensions, etc.) and of its notions of genius, morality and aestheticism. Diderots

unstable probing is possible because Rameaus nephew remains a remarkably

compelling character. His pragmatism and candidness make the discourse believable

and balanced. This essay will show that Diderot is portraying a personal conflict

through the nephew and the philosophes positions. In Rameaus Nephew he

synthesizes the Dionysian-Apollonian dichotomy, combining Plato and Wildes stances.

The nephew ironically represents the artists sensual perspective, 3 the narrator signifies

the philosophers point of view, and Diderot questioning, conflicted and modern is a

fusion of the two.

W
hether Diderot, as seen through Rameaus Nephew, is described as

having a dissociative identity disorder or as listening to a devil and an

angel on each of his shoulders, his choice of occupation and his having

written the novel both demonstrate that the angel is victorious: the philosopher rules. In

the words of Jacques Barzun, Diderot-He and Diderot-Myself are two halves of the

same man, or as is it has been put by several critics, Diderot the successful man of ideas

discovers within himself the shameless sensualist and failure that was Rameau. 4 The

author survives as a sane and brilliant individual specifically because one of these two

aspects is dominant resulting in coherent personality and in a story that sides more with

the philosophe than the nephew.

3
Despite his frequent denigration of his more famous uncle the musician.
4
Diderot 5-6.

2
 3

Diderots use of dialogue allows him to vacillates between his two characters

arguments, which is why his depiction is so honest and so provocative. Unlike a Platonic

or Socratic dialogue, his characters both make compelling cases. The incompatibility of

these cases, however, enacts a carnivalesque disruption of the conventional

philosophical dialogue, replacing it with an intercourse that is both fantastic and

believable.5 At times, the nephew is more pragmatic and realistic about societys

customs, desires and actions than his partner in dialogue, and is therefore more

persuasive prompting the philosophe to note his surprise at the justness of my

madmans remarks on men and manners.6 Similarly, the narrator, like Diderot, is

frequently torn between enjoying the nephews antics and being repulsed by his stories.

His description of the nephew is at some points an accurate portrayal of Diderot: The

fellow is a compound of elevation and abjectness, of good sense and lunacy. 7 Yet there

is no balance in the nephew, unlike in Diderots piece as a whole. The authors choice of

absurd dialogue as a format for his discourse thus provides for the pieces balance, in

addition to its honesty, the questions it raises and its ability to portray multiple

paradoxical perspectives.

Diderot is also similar to the nephew character in his ability to simultaneously

maintain and represent extreme and divergent views: Diderots figure of the Neveu is a

complex being who is made to maintain paradoxical, if not contradictory, outlooks. 8

The philosophes statement that the nephew has no greater opposite than himself is

equally true of Diderot.9 This results in writing and acting which at times appears

inconsistent but neither the character nor the author is very attached to such superficial

coherence. Rather, both are more interested in attaining happiness.10 The philosophe

5
Zalloua 200.
6
Diderot 49.
7
Diderot 8.
8
Zalloua 200.
9
Diderot 9.
10
Though for Diderot, this pursuit involves inquiry into philosophic truths like those sought by
the philosophe, truths that the nephew would find immaterial.

3
 4

describes the nephew as one who says what others act on: There was in all he said

much that one thinks to oneself and acts on, but that one never says. This was in fact the

chief difference between my man and the rest of us. He admitted his vices, which are

also ours: he was no hypocrite.11 In this sense, Diderot seems to envy his own character.

He wishes he could be as free with his words (and perhaps his actions as well) as is

Rameaus nephew.

Yet Diderot always remains a philosopher, as faithful to philosophys abstract

questions and aloof lifestyle, as he is to its clear manner of expression. The narrator,

exhibiting clear Socratic tendencies, proudly describes the philosopher as the one human

being who has nothing and asks for nothing, and is therefore exempt from the

pantomime of parasites and submissiveness that is Parisian society performed by the

nephew.12 Diderot and his narrators argument can also be seen to be clearly in line with

the Platonic schools teachings when the philosophe requests that the nephew, talk

plainly and leave [his] art outside.13 Despite this bold statement, the dialogue is

frequently art blended with argument, a mix of Wilde and Platos discourses.

D
iderots characters fit their arguments and so their arguments must fit their

disposition. Rameaus nephews lack of morals is tied by necessity to his

freedom and his artistic creativity just as Wildes lies result from, and result

in, his liberty. Similarly, the freedom of expression and passion involved in music

transcends the norms and laws of civilized society touching something deep and

physical unlike cold abstract philosophy. Music represents the medium through which

Rameaus nephew can express his emotions. He describes it as a transformation of

passion into a different form and, it, in addition to his remarkable acting, is an extension

of his character as evidence for Wildes side of the dichotomy:

11
Diderot 74.
12
Diderot 84.
13
Diderot 46.

4
 5

Unlike [the philosophes] Cartesian body...[the nephews] body emerges as a

semiotic system to decode; his corporeal being becomes a medium for artistic
self-expressionAs a performing subject, the nephews mind and body [are]
fused together his moving pantomime has blurred any clear-cut delineation
between mind and body.14

Like language, music is made up of idioms, and in this way, it is the perfect mirror for

the nephews words and actions, Diderot and Wildes writing and beliefs. Replete with

exceptions, they are nevertheless passionate in their opposition to the status quo. As

Rameaus nephew tells his Master Philosopher, it is with universal morality just as with

universal grammar: there are exceptions in each language that you learned people call

idioms.15 These exceptions define the nephews existence. Every aspect of each of

Diderots protagonists is designed to compliment and accentuate their argument. They

are mirrors of the latent psychological conflict which Diderot is engaged in daily and

which he makes public through this story.

B
ecause Diderots argument is not as clear-cut as Wildes, because his irony is

harder to unravel from his truth and his position more subtle, when the

philosophe asks the nephew, How do you mean all this truthfully or

ironically?16, we are left wondering the same thing of Diderot. This confused message is

evident in Rameaus discussion of fools. His willingness to be described as a

scoundrel, but not a fool, is in stark contrast with the way he later praises fools

more generally.

In the first instance he describes the fool, as the man who feeds us in exchange

for our deceiving him.17 With regard to his patrons guests, Rameaus nephew says that,

their mirror should have told them that it is as easy to be intelligent and look foolish as

14
Zalloua 208.
15
Diderot 32.
16
Diderot 45.
17
Diderot 46.

5
 6

it is to be a fool behind a bright exterior and the narrator agrees. 18 Yet later the nephew

explains that

there is no fitter role in high society than that of a fool. For a long time the Kind
had an appointed fool. At no time was there an appointed sageA real sage
would want no fool; hence he who has a fool is no sage; and if no sage, must be a
fool.19

In these last few words, Rameau mocks the philosophes position as a sage and elevates

his own as his fool (and then he questions who is whose fool). He also calls into question

the earlier assumption that it is bad to be a fool leaving the reader uncertain of Diderots

position as an unstable sage.

The authors arguments weave their way through discussions of morals, genius

and aesthetics. Throughout he wavers between his two characters beliefs: Diderot is

ironic in both his guises.20 This uncertainty is most poignantly evident in the discussion

of a topic Diderot shares with Wilde: art as imitation of, or subject for, nature. The

philosophe states: Every imitative art finds its models in nature.21 This is the opposite

of what Wilde is saying and exactly what Plato says. Surprisingly, the nephew agrees:

We shall all become accustomed to the imitation of passionate accents or of natural

phenomena by means of voices and instruments which is the whole extent of musics

purpose, defining music as the imitation of nature.22 Earlier the nephew had vacillated

on the same issue:

A melody is a vocal or instrumental imitation using the sounds of a scale

invented by art or inspired by nature, as you prefer; it imitates either physical
noises or the accents of passion. You can see that by changing a few words in this
definition it would exactly fit painting, eloquence, sculpture or poetry. 23

Through all of these reversals, Diderot is not attempting to be consistent. Instead he is

satisfied with if questioning of his position as a philosopher, and takes advantage of

18
Diderot 49.
19
Diderot 50.
20
Diderot 5.
21
Diderot 62.
22
Diderot 65.
23
Diderot 63.

6
 7

the distinct voices of his two characters to enumerate a personal debate. Like the

nephew, Diderot puts into question the very nature of philosophical discourse.24 His

contentedness with inconsistency is evident in the nephews rhetoric as it is in Wildes

and is summarized by the latters protagonist Vivian:

Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people
who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad
absurdum of practice. Not I. Like Emerson, I write over the door of my library
the word Whim.25

So too, it would appear, does Rameaus nephew and occasionally Diderot himself.

T
he debate between corporeal pleasure and abstract intellectual stimulation,

represented by Diderots nephew and philosophe, spans a broader scholarship

than the four authors mentioned above. Most prominently, Diderots

contemporary Descartes extensive writings on the mind-body dichotomy profoundly

altered the course of philosophy. This topic has been the subject of the most academic

analysis of Diderots book yet too few authors have examined the medium by which it is

being expressed. Too few have seen its implications for Diderots intellectual

innovativeness. Instead critics frequently take the two-sided argument as evidence of the

authors psychological dissonance.26

While the mind-body split is illustrated through the nephew and the

philosophes animated discussion, we see an alternative to their harsh dichotomy

peaking through the nephews sarcasm. Diderots position lies somewhere between

those of his two characters and it is in this grey area that he is most modern. Because he

questions the existing social structure without abandoning it, Diderot is breaking new

ground. By employing wit, sarcasm and absurd behavior to illustrate his arguments,

Diderot is taking Wilde, Descartes and Platos eternal debate to a new level, allowing the

24
Zalloua 203.
25
Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying, Intentions, New York: Brentano's, 1905. (this edition
unknown 57-87).
26
Zalloua 197.

7
 8

mind and body to operate in a synthesis without clear divisions between the artist and

the philosopher, the individual and society, or personal and universal morality.

T
he dialogue stretches across the ages: Diderot reinforces Platos argument on

art as imitative beauty and for the philosopher as isolated and supreme;

Rameaus nephew acts out the response in the form of the genius fool; and

Wilde portrays it supremely as the artistic dandy par excellence. Classical philosophers

first raised the possibility of a soul distinct from the body and ever since philosophers

have debated the division between our sensual and intellectual desires. In Rameaus

Nephew, Diderot does not solve either of these debates. Instead he puts them in a new

context. Defining the opposition less rigidly, he creates space for middle ground in order

to satisfy his personal need for artistic and intellectual satisfaction and self-acceptance.

In other words, the self-referential elements of this piece are only the most obvious signs

of a deeply personal debate. The authors vacillation his wavering between views,

open ended questions and ambiguous answers is what makes him modern. He is

playful, witty and self-mocking because he must be in order to avoid offending, even in

the revolutionary environment of eighteenth century France, while still remaining true

to himself. Diderot admits, unlike most philosophers, that he does not have all the

answers. Like an artist he is posing questions.27 Just as Wilde was his own best example

and his writing exemplified the ironic lies he described, so Rameaus nephew performs

his argument, fantastically, dramatically and captivatingly. He lives the rollercoaster

that is his dream life and compresses it magnificently during his dialogue with Diderot.

The Master Philosopher, on the other hand, is successful as a thinker abstracted from

society. Aloof from chaos and corporeal grime, from human deprivation and societal

immorality, he lives and debates in terms of metaphysical ideals. Diderot lies in

27
For instance, see the nephews statement quoted earlier which suggests that a melody can
be invented by art or inspired by nature, as you prefer [emphasis added]. 63.

8
 9

between, a pragmatic idealist, he is modern and honest, revolutionary and realistic. In

one man, he combines his characters attributes and their arguments.

9
 10

Works Cited
Diderot, Denis. Rameaus Nephew. Rameaus Nephew and Other Works trans.

Jacques Barzan. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001: 3-87.

Wilde, Oscar. The Decay of Lying. Intentions. New York: Brentano's, 1905.

(this edition unknown 57-87).

Zalloua, Zahi. The Mind-and-Body problem in Diderots Le Neveu de Rameau.

Symposium. Winter 2003 v56 i4: 196-210.

10