THE POETICS OF EVIL : A STUDY OF THE AESTHETIC THEME IN THEODICY Philip Tallon A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St. Andrews 2009 Full metadata for this item is available in the St Andrews Digital Research Repository at: https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/744 This item is protected by original copyright UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS THE POETICS OF EVIL A STUDY OF THE AESTHETIC THEME IN THEODICY A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF DIVINITY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ST MARY’S COLLEGE BY PHILIP TALLON JANUARY 2009 1 ABSTRACT This work proposes to look at the role of aesthetics within Christian theodicy. Though the recent theodicy literature has often displayed suspicion toward the inclusion of aesthetic criteria, I will argue that theological aesthetics can enrich the theodicy discourse and therefore should be used as a resource in responding to the problem of evil. In Part I, I will attempt to lay a foundation for an aesthetically informed theodicy by examining some of the philosophical frameworks that lie behind Christian theodicy, and seeking to illuminate a framework that allows theological aesthetics to helpfully contribute to the task of theodicy. By offering a preliminary account of theological aesthetics, I will aim to further lay a foundation for how the two areas of theology can interact. In Part II, I will look at three distinct aesthetic motifs or “themes” as they are developed by three different theodicists (one ancient and two contemporary): Augustine, Wendy Farley, and Marilyn McCord Adams. Each of the themes developed by these theodicists offers a different example of how aesthetics can reorient and enrich our perspective on theodicy. Though each, in and of itself, is incomplete, I will argue that they complement and critique one another in helpful ways, and therefore that all of them are useful for Christian theodicy. 2 THE POETICS OF EVIL: A STUDY OF THE AESTHETIC THEME IN THEODICY PHILIP TALLON 3 DECLARATIONS I, Philip Tallon, hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately 107,000 words in length, has been written by me, that it is the record of work carried out by me and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. I was admitted as a research student in September 2003 and as a candidate for the degree of Ph.D. in Theology in May 2005; the higher study for which this is a record was carried out in the University of St Andrews between 2003 and 2009. Date ________ Signature of Candidate _____________________ I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and Regulations appropriate for the degree of Ph.D. in the University of St Andrews and that the candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that degree. Date ________ Signature of Supervisor _____________________ In submitting this thesis to the University of St Andrews we understand that we are giving permission for it to be made available for use in accordance with the regulations of the University Library for the time being in force, subject to any copyright vested in the work not being affected thereby. We also understand that the title and the abstract will be published, and that a copy of the work may be made and supplied to any bona fide library or research worker, that my thesis will be electronically accessible for personal or research use unless exempt by award of an embargo as requested below, and that the library has the right to migrate my thesis into new electronic forms as required to ensure continued access to the thesis. We have obtained any third-party copyright permissions that may be required in order to allow such access and migration, or have requested the appropriate embargo below. The following is an agreed request by candidate and supervisor regarding the electronic publication of this thesis: Access to Printed copy and electronic publication of thesis through the University of St Andrews. Date ________ Signature of Candidate _____________________ Date ________ Signature of Supervisor _____________________ 4 INSCRIPTION: Beauty is an option for art and not a necessary condition. But it is not an option for life. It is a necessary condition for life as we would want to live it. ARTHUR C. DANTO The Abuse of Beauty DEDICATION: To my wife, an argument for theological aesthetics in the unity of her beauty and goodness. And to my mother, who has endured many agonies with patience and love. TABLE OF CONTENTS: INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................6 PART I: THE FOUNDATIONS OF AESTHETIC THEODICY CHAPTER 1: AESTHETICS AND THE SCOPE OF THEODICY.............38 CHAPTER 2: AESTHETICS AND THEOLOGICAL INSIGHT.................88 PART II: TOWARD AN AESTHETIC THEODICY CHAPTER 3: FEARFUL SYMMETRY: THEODICY AND AUGUSTINE’S VISION OF COSMIC HARMONY..........................................................146 CHAPTER 4: POETIC INJUSTICE: THEODICY AND WENDY FARLEY’S TRAGIC VISION....................................................................................217 CHAPTER 5: THE MONSTERS AND THE CRITICS: THEODICY AND MARILYN MCCORD ADAMS’ VISION OF HORRENDOUS EVILS...275 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................324 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................................................330 5 INTRODUCTION: 1. Musical Prelude: Mozart and the Shattenseite What role does the artist play in the world of theology? What can art show us about God’s goodness in the midst of evil? In the small print of Church Dogmatics III, 3 Karl Barth takes time to focus on a part of this larger query, in reflecting on the role of Mozart in theology. His question: Why is it possible to hold that Mozart has a place in theology, especially in the doctrine of creation and also in eschatology, although he was not a father of the Church, does not seem to have been a particularly active Christian, and was a Roman Catholic, apparently leading what might appear to us a rather frivolous existence when not occupied with his work?1 Barth’s answer to his own question is this, In the face of the problem of theodicy [the Lisbon earthquake], Mozart had the peace of God which far transcends all the critical or speculative reason that praises and reproves… He heard, and causes those who have ears to hear, even to-day, what we shall not see until the end of time - the whole context of providence.2 Barth’s appraisal of Mozart’s music here is striking. Through Mozart, Barth proclaims, those with ears to hear can get an auditory sense of God’s providential master plan. If this were so, if we could hear in Mozart God’s providence, even in the midst of evil, then this would indeed give Mozart a very prominent place within theology! Given this, it is worth looking a little more closely at Barth and Mozart, to hear what both are ‘saying’. First we must ask: What is the problem of theodicy Mozart faced, and what peace does Mozart pass on to us as we face it as well? 1 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol III, 3, The Doctrine of Creation, trans. G. W. Bromiley and R. J. Ehrlich (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1960), 297-8. 2 Ibid., 298. 6 The virtual destruction of Lisbon in 1755 was no mere natural cataclysm, but a catastrophe of–as they say–biblical proportions. Lisbon first shook with the earthquake, then flooded with a tsunami, then burned in a raging fire. That so many died in church, celebrating All Saint’s Day mass, further added to the confusion about the significance of the event. The Lisbon earthquake was the great disaster to which minds as diverse as Rousseau, Kant, and Voltaire turned their attention. As Susan Neiman writes, “The eighteenth century used the word Lisbon much as we use the word Auschwitz today.”3 Naturally, philosophers found different meanings in the event. Rousseau, characteristically emphasizing the goodness of uncorrupted nature, suggested, in a letter to Voltaire, that nature herself is not to blame for the catastrophe but rather the close proximity in which the citizens were living.4 Kant, uncharacteristically still in the thrall of rationalism, attempted a justification of earthquakes fitting with Leibniz’s optimism.5 Standing apart from both thinkers, Voltaire rejected any attempt to see the good in Lisbon’s destruction. Writing poetically, he penned these words, Leibniz can’t tell me from what secret cause In a world governed by the wisest laws Lasting disorders, woes that never end With our vain pleasures, real sufferings blend.6 3 Susan Neiman, Evil in Modern Thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 1. 4 Hence, Rousseau: “Without departing from your subject of Lisbon, admit, for example, that nature did not construct twenty thousand houses of six to seven stories there, and that if the inhabitants of this great city had been more equally spread out and more lightly lodged, the damage would have been much less and perhaps of no account.” (Roger D. Masters, and Christopher Kelly, eds. The Collected Writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, vol. 3 [Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 2004], 110). 5 Martin Schönfeld, The Philosophy of the Young Kant: The Precritical Project (New York, NY: Oxford University Press US, 2000), 74-76. 6 Ben Ray Redman, ed. The Portable Voltaire (New York, NY: The Viking Press, 1949), 567. 7 These thinkers all tried to make sense of this catastrophe, each within their philosophical frameworks. ‘Lisbon’ challenged God’s goodness by calling into question the good order of creation. Each resolved the problem by fitting the destruction of Lisbon into what they believed about the world, though with far different conclusions. It was into this philosophical world - a world dominated by ‘Lisbon’ - that Mozart was born in 1756.