JYV ASKYLA STUDIES IN THE ARTS 62 Jan Blomstedt Shame and Guilt Diderot' s Moral Rhetoric Esitetaan Jyvaskylan yliopiston humanistisen tiedekunnan suostumuksella julkisesti tarkastettavaksi yliopiston vanhassa juhlasalissa (S212) helmikuun 14. paivana 1998 klo 12. Academic dissertationto be publicly discussed, by permission of the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Jyvaskyla, in Auditorium S212, on February 14, 1998 at 12 o'clock noon. UNIVERSITY OF � JYV.ASKYLA JYV.ASKYLA 1998 Shame and Guilt Diderot' s Moral Rhetoric JYVASKYLA STUDIES IN THE ARTS 61 Jan Blomstedt Shame and Guilt Diderot' s Moral Rhetoric UNIVERSITYOF � JYVASKYLA JYVASKYLA 1998 Editors Matti Vainio Department of Musicology, University of Jyväskylä Kaarina Nieminen Publishing Unit, Univesity Library of Jyväskylä URN:ISBN:978-951-39-7880-8 ISBN 978-951-39-7880-8 (PDF) ISSN 0075-4633 ISBN 951-39-0073-8 ISSN 0075-4633 Copyright© 1998, by University of Jyväskylä Jyvaskyla University Printing House, Jyväskylä and ER-Paino Ky, Lievestuore ABSTRACT Blomstedt, Jan Shame and Guilt: Diderot's Moral Rhetoric Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla 1998, 148 p. (Jyvaskyla Studies in the Arts, ISSN 0075-4633; 61) ISBN 951-39-0073-8 Diss. The subject of this dissertation is the implicit and explicit morality of Denis Diderot's fiction, his novels and stories, with regard to two moral traditions, defined as shame morality and guilt morality. The social framework of the French Enlightenment was the Republic of Letters, which emphasized the importance of habits and public opinion, and favored shame morality over guilt morality. Guilt morality is primarily concerned with individual conscience, and shame morality with social esteem. The 'philosophes' of the Enlightenment were most often critical towards religion. Moral sentiments, such as guilt and remorse, were seen as relics of Christianity. As the liberation of the individual is an important aspect of Diderot's fiction and characterology, the problem of guilt, which in Diderot's case can be called enlightened guilt, becomes an implicit and essential part of his moral rhetoric. This 'rhetoric of distance' frequently resorts to irony and challenges the reader to independently judge the ambiguities presented, according to his/her moral values and identity, or conscience. Key words: Blind spots, character, dialogue, Direct/Indirect View, moral irony CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION . 11 II IN THE REPUBLIC OF LETTERS . 27 1 The Republic of Letters . 27 1.1 Power versus manners . 27 1.2 The undercurrent of malaise . 28 1.3 Public and private sphere . 29 2 The moral system in the republic ............................ 30 2.1 Habit .............................................. 31 2.1.1 Politeness .................................... 31 2.1.2 Tolerance ..................................... 32 2.1.3 The ambiguity of habits . 33 2.2 Law, social and natural . 34 2.3 Moral sentiment . 35 2.4 Virtue . 36 2.4.1 Generosity .................................... 37 2.4.2 Reputation . 37 2.4.3 Reciprocity . 38 2.4.4 Friendship . 38 3 Moral freedom . 39 3.1 Free will . 39 3.2 Determinism ........................................ 41 4 'Betweenness': the intermediary zone ......................... 42 4.1 Mediocrity . 43 4.2 Necessary luxury ..................................... 44 III MORALITY, OBSTACLES, AND CHARACTER . 47 1 Organs and obstacles . 47 1.1 Blind language . 47 1.2 Blindness as an obstacle . 49 1.3 Saunderson, hero and monster . 50 2 Obstacles and organization ................................. 51 2.1 Overcoming dualism .................................. 51 2.2 Irony and the unthinkable . 52 2.3 Metaphors and levels of organization .................... 53 3 On Diderot's characterology ................................ 54 3.1 Unity of character . 54 3.2 Character and blind spots .............................. 55 3.2.1 Naive characters ............................... 56 3.2.2 Shrewed characters . 58 3.2.3 Other types of character . 59 4 Forms of inner resistance . 60 4.1 Forgiveness . 60 4.2 Remorse ............................................ 61 4.3 Shame and guilt . 62 4.4 Detours of representation . 63 IV RHETORIC AND DIALOGUE ................................... 66 1 Interpretations of rhetoric .................................. 66 1.1 The art of persuasion . 66 1.1.1 Arousing passions .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 68 1.1.2 Argumentative figures .......................... 69 1.1.3 Persuasion and morality ......................... 71 1.2. The art of distance . 72 1.2.1 Three authors, three centuries . 73 1.2.2 Paradox . 75 1.2.3 Digression . 76 1.2.4 Opacity . 76 1.2.5 Irony and polytropy . 77 2 Questions concerning dialogue . 78 2.1 Dialogu e and determinism . 79 2.2 Ideas and beliefs ..................................... 81 V MORALITY IN TWO CULTURES ................................ 85 On Supplement au Voyage de Bougainville . 85 1 Background . 86 2 The Direct View on the text . 87 2.1 The trial and failure view . 87 2.2 The trial and error view . 87 3 The Indirect View on the text . 89 3.1 Rhetorical structure . 89 3.2 The old man's speech . 90 3.3 Orou: Tahitian 'universalism' . 91 3.4 Recognition ......................................... 92 3.5 Demystification . 93 3.6 Transgression . 94 4 Reader and writer ......................................... 95 4.1 Double-meanings ..................................... 95 4.2 The non-Platonic strategy . 95 4.3 Persuasion and distance . 96 5 Tahitian beliefs . 98 5.1 Beliefs confronted .................................... 98 5.2 Logic and levels of discourse . 98 6 Guilt and shame . 99 VI IDENTITY AND ALIENATION ................................. 103 On Le Neveu de Rameau ...................................... 103 1 Belonging and strangeness . 103 1.1 Types and individuals ................................ 104 1.2 Public and private self . 105 1.2.1 The split . 106 1.2.2 Character on stage . 107 2 Contrast and convergence . 109 2.1 A dialogic portrait ................................... 110 2.2 The carnival aspect . 111 2.3 The semi-discharge .................................. 113 3 Virtue at stake ........................................... 114 3.1 Virtue and pleasure .................................. 115 3.2 Conscience ......................................... 116 VII RESISTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY . 118 1 Novels .............................................. 118 1.1 Les bijoux indiscrets . 118 1.2 La Religieuse . 122 1.3 Jacques le fataliste ................................... 125 2 Stories . 129 3 Plays ................................................... 132 VIII CONCLUSION . 137 YHTEENVETO . 142 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study would not have been possible without the financial support from This Wihuri Foundation, to which I wish to express my gratitude. I am also endebted to my supervisor Professor Tarmo Kunnas for his many advices and remarks, to Professor Eero Tarasti for his encouragement and moral support, and to Dr Timo Kaitaro for our enlightening conversations on Denis Diderot's philosophy. Dr Joanna Zach-Blonska kindly accepted to be my first reader and was always swift in giving her spontaneous and insightful comments, which were of great inspiration to me. Last but not least, I wish to thank Dr Kathy Badigan for reading the first draft of my text and for correcting my language. She is not, of course, responsible for the possible errors I may have made in rewriting certain parts at a later stage. Helsinki, November 1997 Jan Blomstedt I INTRODUCTION The intention of this study is to examine the aspects of shame and guilt in the literary work of Denis Diderot as well as the moral conceptions of his epoch, the 18th century. As Diderot was one of the great 'philosophes' of the French Enlightenment, the question arises, whether a literary study can add anything to what philosophers have hitherto discovered in his work. If we assume that Diderot's fiction was the laboratory of his ideas, the answer could well be no. But if we hold that fiction often generates new meanings to the ideas it is presumed to express by the aid of narration and figural language, then a literary study should try to bring out those meanings. Its aim would not be to reconstruct an ideology, but to respond to the ways in which a text allows - or negociates -possible interpretations, through clues, situations, tropes, characters, and irony. The basic assumption of this study is that morality is not only about moral ideas. What Diderot made of his ideas in his literary work (his stories, novels, plays) certainly requires an understanding of those ideas, but not at the expense of seeing beyond them and relating them to the traditions and patterns of morality, and to the changing rhetoric of shame and guilt. Diderot was a writer of a special kind, a 'philosophe'. Its English equivalent 'philosopher' does not quite render the 18th century meaning of the French word. The philosopher is one who constructs or criticizes systems of thought; his interests are more theoretical than practical. The 18th century philosophe was not indifferent to theory, but theory was only one facet of his social engagement. Philosophe, says Peter Gay, "is a French word for an international type", and for the use of the French word.