Of Pantomimes, Dialogues,
Art and Philosophy
Diderot’s use of dialogue in portraying a
Platonic-Dionysian dichotomy in “Rameau’s Nephew”
Philosophy and Literature - D. Wright
Jake Hirsch-Allen – 991502502
March 29th, 2004
1
This essay is intended as a sequel to my previous paper on Oscar Wilde’s 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 Wilde’s essay and applied this
framework to Denis Diderot’s “Rameau’s Nephew”. The related questions I seek to answer are
a) how do the style/ form of the author’s writing and his characters’ actions shape his
argument and b) how are the author’s actions in accordance with his arguments, that is how
does his life serve as evidence for his contentions or visa versa?
n the “Decay of Lying,” Oscar Wilde describes nature imitating art and lying as the
I
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 Plato’s 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, Rameau’s 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 Neveu’s unruly body
challenges the philosophe’s rational mind [in] a debate between the philosophe’s
Cartesian idealism and the Neveu’s eighteenth century materialism.”1 All told, however,
Diderot’s dialogue is Platonic in its conclusion. Though Rameau’s nephew (the “He”
character) and the narrator-philosophe (the “Myself” character) may be two aspects of
the author Diderot, the philosophe’s part is understandably more persuasive.2 Despite
using fewer words and less drama, the philosophe is the only character who describes
1
Zahi Zalloua, “The Mind-and-Body problem in Diderot’s 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 one’s occupation and against hypocrisy. See Denis Diderot, “Rameau’s Nephew,”
Rameau’s Nephew and Other Works trans. Jacques Barzan, Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001: 16, 39,
74.
1
2
ideals by which one could actually run one’s life. Yet Diderot’s argument in opposition
to Wilde’s is not nearly as clear as the latter’s. The French philosopher’s rhetoric, like his
irony, is more subtle and conflicted. More representative of human thought patterns
than Wilde’s highly stylized essay, “Rameau’s 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. Diderot’s unstable probing
is possible because Rameau’s 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
philosophe’s positions. In “Rameau’s Nephew” he synthesizes the DionysianApollonian dichotomy, combining Plato and Wilde’s stances. The nephew ironically
represents the artist’s sensual perspective,3 the narrator signifies the philosopher’s point
of view, and Diderot – questioning, conflicted and modern – is a fusion of the two.
hether Diderot, as seen through “Rameau’s Nephew,” is described as
W
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
3
4
Despite his frequent denigration of his more famous uncle the musician.
Diderot 5-6.
2
3
aspects is dominant resulting in coherent personality and in a story that sides more with
the philosophe than the nephew.
Diderot’s 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 society’s
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
madman’s remarks on men and manners.”6 Similarly, the narrator, like Diderot, is
frequently torn between enjoying the nephew’s 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 Diderot’s piece as a whole. The author’s choice of
absurd dialogue as a format for his discourse thus provides for the piece’s 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: “Diderot’s figure of the Neveu is a
complex being who is made to maintain paradoxical, if not contradictory, outlooks.”8
The philosophe’s 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
5
Zalloua 200.
Diderot 49.
7
Diderot 8.
8
Zalloua 200.
9
Diderot 9.
6
3
4
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
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
Rameau’s nephew.
Yet Diderot always remains a philosopher, as faithful to philosophy’s 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 narrator’s argument can also be seen to be clearly in line with
the Platonic school’s 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 Plato’s discourses.
D
iderot’s characters fit their arguments and so their arguments must fit their
disposition. Rameau’s nephew’s lack of morals is tied by necessity to his
freedom and his artistic creativity just as Wilde’s 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
10
Though for Diderot, this pursuit involves inquiry into philosophic truths like those sought by
the philosophe, truths that the nephew would find immaterial.
11
Diderot 74.
12
Diderot 84.
13
Diderot 46.
4
5
physical unlike cold abstract philosophy. Music represents the medium through which
Rameau’s 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 Wilde’s side of the dichotomy:
Unlike [the philosophe’s] Cartesian body...[the nephew’s] body emerges as a
semiotic system to decode; his corporeal being becomes a medium for artistic
self-expression…As a performing subject, the nephew’s 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 nephew’s words and actions, Diderot and Wilde’s writing and beliefs. Replete with
exceptions, they are nevertheless passionate in their opposition to the status quo. As
Rameau’s 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 nephew’s existence. Every aspect of each of
Diderot’s 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 Diderot’s argument is not as clear-cut as Wilde’s, 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 Rameau’s 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.
14
Zalloua 208.
Diderot 32.
16
Diderot 45.
15
5
6
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, Rameau’s nephew says that,
“their mirror should have told them that it is as easy to be intelligent and look foolish as
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 sage…A 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 philosophe’s 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 Diderot’s
position as an unstable sage.
The author’s 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 music’s
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
17
Diderot 46.
Diderot 49.
19
Diderot 50.
20
Diderot 5.
21
Diderot 62.
22
Diderot 65.
18
6
7
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
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 nephew’s rhetoric as it is in Wilde’s
and is summarized by the latter’s 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 Rameau’s nephew and occasionally Diderot himself.
he debate between corporeal pleasure and abstract intellectual stimulation,
T
represented by Diderot’s nephew and philosophe, spans a broader scholarship
than the four authors mentioned above. Most prominently, Diderot’s
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 Diderot’s book yet too few authors have examined the medium by which it is
being expressed. Too few have seen its implications for Diderot’s intellectual
innovativeness. Instead critics frequently take the two-sided argument as evidence of the
author’s psychological dissonance.26
While the mind-body split is illustrated through the nephew and the
philosophe’s animated discussion, we see an alternative to their harsh dichotomy
23
Diderot 63.
Zalloua 203.
25
Oscar Wilde, “The Decay of Lying,” Intentions, New York: Brentano's, 1905. (this edition
unknown 57-87).
26
Zalloua 197.
24
7
8
peaking through the nephew’s sarcasm. Diderot’s 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 Plato’s eternal debate to a new level, allowing the
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.
he dialogue stretches across the ages: Diderot reinforces Plato’s argument on
T
art as imitative beauty and for the philosopher as isolated and supreme;
Rameau’s 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 “Rameau’s
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 author’s 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 Rameau’s nephew performs
27
For instance, see the nephew’s 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
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 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. “Rameau’s Nephew.” Rameau’s 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 Diderot’s Le Neveu de Rameau.”
Symposium. Winter 2003 v56 i4: 196-210.
10