Rameau’s Nephew—Passages and Themes

http://books.openedition.org/obp/3202?lang=en#bodyftn188

TEAM 1
§§23—48. Theme: Genius, Utilitarianism, Amoralism, Necessity.
“I can’t remember now exactly how he proved it, but the obvious conclusion was that geniuses
are an odious lot, and that if any child should come into the world bearing the mark of this
dangerous gift of nature on its forehead, it should either be suffocated or thrown in the gutter
forthwith.” (The genius sees the truth and disseminates it through great works; in doing so
the genius proves deleterious to human well-being. Why?)

“With all due respect to that sublime minister you were talking about, I believe that even if lies
can be useful in the short term, they are necessarily harmful in the long term, whereas on the
contrary, the truth is necessarily useful in the long term, although it can turn out to be harmful
in the short term. All of which leads me to conclude that the man of genius who denounces
some widely held view as false, or who helps demonstrate some great truth, will always be
worthy of our veneration.” (Do we have evidence that Diderot actually holds this view as
expressed by “Me”?)
“Of Socrates and the judge who made him drink the hemlock, who is dishonoured today?”
“But what about Racine? He was a genius, no doubt about it, and he’s not supposed to have
been a particularly nice man.”
“Doubtless, it would have been better if nature had endowed him with the virtues of a good
man and the talents of a great one. He is a mighty tree who starved some other trees growing
nearby and stifled the plants at his feet, but his own crown reached the sky; his branches
stretched out wide; he provided welcome shade for those who came, still come and always will
come in search of rest by his majestic trunk; the fruits he gave were exquisite, and they keep
growing back.”
“So let’s accept things as they are. Let’s see what we lose and what we gain in doing so, and
let’s leave aside the big picture which, in any case, we don’t have a clear enough view of to be
able to apportion praise or blame, and which may in itself be neither good nor bad, but simply
necessary, which is what many respectable people think.” (Diderot seems to have in mind
here a specific philosopher—can you fathom who it is? Would “Him” agree with “Me” on this
point?)
What philosophical conclusions can we draw from this part of the conversation?
TEAM 2
§§63—89. Theme: The Source of “Him’s” Dignity

“So, at the time, I was living with some people who took to me precisely because I was
exceptionally gifted at being all those things.” (To what “things” is he referring?)

“And putting his right hand on his chest, he added: I sense something here rising up and telling
me: Rameau, you’ll do nothing of the sort. There should always be a certain dignity bound up
with the nature of man, which nothing can stifle.” (Is “Him” alluding to the same “dignity”
that the philosophes appeal to, the dignity of independence and self-sufficiency?)
“Hide them from oneself — is that possible? . . . Despise them in others?” (What is “Him”
referring to by “them.” How does he refuse “Me” in this part of their conversation?)

“And then there’s the self-hatred; it’s unbearable. ME — You mean you’ve had that feeling?”
(Me seems shocked that Him should experience shame, or self-loathing for what he has
reduced himself to. But what is the basis of “Him’s” self-hatred?)

“I was dumbfounded by how insightful and at once how sordid what he said was, by how right
and then how wrong his ideas were, by how totally perverse his sentiments were, by the
spectacle of such utter depravity, and by how uncommonly open about it he was.”

Your commentary? What should we make of “Me’s” reaction to “Him” in the above
narration?

TEAM 3
§§188—236. Theme: Debating the human good: the virtue of the philosophers versus the
pleasures of luxury; hypocrisy

“And then there’s the abject poverty. The voice of conscience and honour can barely be heard
over the sound of hunger gnawing at the guts. Suffice it to say, if ever I get rich, I’ll have to
redistribute, and I am completely determined to do my redistribution in every possible way, by
eating, gambling, drinking, and womanizing.”
“We will prove that De Voltaire has no genius; that Buffon is just stuck up and nothing more than
a sermonizing old windbag; that Montesquieu is merely a wit; we’ll send d’Alembert back to his
sums; we’ll give all you little Catos a good thrashing for looking down on us when really all you
are is envious, your modesty merely a mask for pride, and your sobriety simply the dictate of
necessity. And will there be music? Absolutely, and we’ll be the ones making it.” (Which anti-
philosophe household is “Him” now partisan to?)
ME — Given the noble use you’d put your wealth to, I can see what a great pity it is you should
be poor. Living that way, you’d do great credit to the human race, be of great use to your fellow
citizens and earn great glory for yourself.
“You believe happiness is made the same for everyone. What a strange vision! Your happiness
presupposes a certain romantic turn of mind that we do not have, a singular soul, a peculiar
taste. You confer the title of virtue on this weirdness; you call it philosophy. But are virtue and
philosophy made for everyone?” (The Enlightenment philosophes were cosmopolitans, as the
Stoics were, holding that knowledge and virtue were universal goods. Does “Him’s”
skepticism about this claim to universality have merit?)
“What! What about defending one’s country? . . . And serving one’s friends? . . . Having a position
in society and fulfilling its duties? . . . Attending to the education of one’s children? (“Me” is
appealing to one’s general “duties” or “obligations” as traditionally enumerated by the Stoics
(see e.g. Cicero, De Officiis. What does “Him” have to say about these?)
“They wear everything out. Their souls stagnate. Boredom takes hold of them. Hemmed in as
they are by an overwhelming abundance of riches, anyone who does away with them would be
doing them a service. The only aspect of happiness they recognize is the bit that froths up
quickest. I don’t look down on sensory pleasures. . . . But I will not conceal from you that I find
it infinitely more delightful to come to the aid of someone in need, to bring a fraught situation
to an end, to give a salutary piece of advice, to read something pleasant, go for a walk with a
man or woman dear to my heart, spend a couple of instructive hours with my children, write a
good page, fulfil the duties of my position, say some tender loving words to the one I love and
receive her embrace in return. There are some things I would give anything to have done. . . . A
man I know of fled to Carthagena. . . .” (Summarize the story about this man. What general
argument does the example support? Do you find “Me’s” argument compelling?)
“We praise virtue but in fact we hate it and run away from it because it’s freezing cold, and in
this world you need to keep your feet warm. On top of that, it would put me in a foul mood,
inevitably — why else do we so often see the pious being so harsh, irritable, and unsociable?
It’s because they have inflicted on themselves a task which isn’t natural to them. . . . That
Chevalier de La Morlière, with his hat cocked over one ear and his head held high, looking down
his nose at you as you go by, with his great long sword smacking against his thigh as he strides
about and an insult ready for anyone not carrying one, who looks ready to jump down
everyone’s throat, what’s he actually doing?” (What point does “Him” go on to make in
connection to the Chevalier?)
Who in your view “wins” this argument?
TEAM 4
§§245—271. Theme: “Him’s” Indignities, his Talents and Aspirations

“ME — Yes, your dignity makes me laugh. HIM — Everyone has their own; I’m happy to forego
mine, but at my discretion and not at someone else’s command. Should people be able to say to
me: Crawl, and then I have to crawl? It’s what worms do, it’s what I do; and that’s what we both
do when left to our own devices, but we rear up when people step on our
tails.”
Who does “Him” compare to “some paralyzed puppet”?
“And then people come and sob to us about the beauties of experience, study,
thought, education, and a whole load of other nonsense. Bowing ten times a
day, one knee bent in front of the other, the other leg stuck out behind, arms
outstretched towards the goddess, trying to read her every look, hanging on her every word,
awaiting her command, and shooting off in a flash. What sort of a person is it who can subject
themselves to such a role, if not the wretch who has no other way of appeasing the torment of
his intestines two or three times a week.” (Who and what has “Him” been talking about just
before the quoted words? What does he mean by the first sentence in the above quote?)
“I am far from having invented it, but nobody has surpassed me in its execution.” (What is “Him”
describing?)
“ME — What do you mean, the little dog?” (What does “Him” mean by “the little dog,” i.e. what
story does he go on to tell?)
There are people with the Cross of Saint-Louis who’ve got nothing to eat; so what’s the point of
going all out for a cross and risking a broken back, when you can choose a walk of life that
doesn’t put you in danger and is never without its recompense? Now that’s what I call aiming
high. But role models like these are depressing. (Commentary?)

If it were ever written down, I believe people would acknowledge I had some genius. (What
evidence has “Him” provided in support of his claim to possess genius?)
Is there a theme that ties this section of the conversation together? What does Diderot
appear to be exploring?
TEAM 5
§§333—371. Theme: Specimens may be despised, but they are blameless; we admire sublime
evil
“There is a tacit agreement that they will be good to us, and that sooner or later, we will repay
them for it by doing them harm.”
“No, it is not Palissot, but Helvétius who’s at fault.”
“Honourable people do what they must, and so do specimens, and you’re the one who’s at
fault for welcoming them in.”
“If there’s one genre it’s worth being sublime in, it’s evil. . . . We value unity of character in all
things.”
“The Renegade had initially managed to inspire him with compassion, then with kindness, and
finally with complete confidence; for that’s the way it always goes: we value our good deeds so
highly that we rarely keep a secret from those to whom we give generously.”
“Can a wicked man keep to a single tone?”
“Can’t you hear how affected all this repetition of ‘done for’ is?”
“During the night, the Renegade gets up, relieves the Jew of his wallet, purse, and jewels,
boards the ship, and off he goes. And if you think that’s the end of it, well, just you wait and
see. When I first heard this story, I worked out what was really going on, but I’ve kept it from
you to see how sharp you are. You were right to be an honourable man because you’d have
been a lousy crook. So far, the Renegade is nothing more than that. He’s a contemptible little
cheat whom nobody would want to resemble. What’s truly sublime about his wickedness is . . .”
(Clarify what “Him” is asserting here.)
“But that’s the point: the atrocity of his actions takes you beyond contempt, and that’s why I
am perfectly sincere in my admiration.”

“Him” seems to be invoking an argument that we can trace back to Thrasymachus as

portrayed in Plato, Republic I 344c. Does the argument persuade in your opinion?
See also Plato, Republic III, 397-398a, on the dangers of the poet skilled at imitating or
pantomiming a great diversity of natural and human types. Judging from “Him’s”
contributions to this part of the conversation, is “evil” consistent with “unity of character”?