Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Around the year 1707, when the English won the battle of Saragossa, made themselves Protectors of
Portugal, and for a while gave a king to Spain, Milord Boldmind, a general who had been wounded in
combat, was taking the waters at Barèges. There he met Count Medroso <1> , who, having fallen off his
horse at the rear of the supply lines a league and a half from the battlefield, had come to take the waters as
well. He was a familiar of the Inquisition <2>. Milord Boldmind was familiar only in conversation; one day,
after drinks, he and Medroso had the following exchange.
BOLDMIND
So you're a sergeant for the Dominicans <3>. That's a vile job.
MEDROSO
That's true, but I'd rather be their valet than their victim, and I've preferred the misery of burning my
neighbor to that of being cooked myself.
Apparently we enter into the conversation just after the beginning. Boldmind
identifies his opponent as a "sergeant for the Dominicans." So our Portuguese
friend is in the service of the Inquisition. By the word Sergeant or familiar -
referring to a bewitched pet - characterizes Medroso as a tool, rather than a
thinking, autonomous agent. The conversation now gets under way by the
characterization of that position as a" vile job."
Medroso freely admits that fear motivates him, and that he is a rather the
"valet" of the Inquisition, as he euphemistically calls it, than its victim.
BOLDMIND
What a horrible choice! You'd be a hundred times happier under the yoke of the Moors <4> , who let you
freely rot in all your superstitions, and who, conquerors though they may have been, never arrogated to
themselves the unheard-of right to keep souls behind bars.
1
The Philosophy of German Idealism - B. the texts - Robbert Veen
MEDROSO
What do you expect? It is not permitted us neither to write, nor to speak, nor even to think. If we speak, it is
easy to interpret our words, and still easier our writings. In sum, since no one can condemn us to an auto da
fé for our secret thoughts, they threaten us with eternal burning by the order of God Himself, if we don't think
like the Jacobins <5>. They have persuaded the government that if we were to have common sense, the
whole state would be in flames, and that the nation would become the most miserable on earth.
BOLDMIND
Do we strike you as unhappy, we English who cover the world with ships and who've just won battles on
your behalf all over Europe? Do you see that the Dutch, who have taken from you nearly all your discoveries
in India and who today rank as your protectors, are accursed of God for having afforded complete freedom to
the press and for doing business in men's thoughts? Was the Roman Empire any the less powerful because
Cicero wrote with liberty?
MEDROSO
Who is this Cicero <6>? I've never heard speak of any such man? It's not a matter of Cicero; it's a matter of
our Holy Father the Pope and of Saint Anthony of Padua, and I've always heard say that the Roman religion
is doomed if people start thinking.
Boldmind then gives three examples of states that do without common sense
and nevertheless do not suffer a destruction of the state. The English have
won battles all over Europe but allow freedom of thought; the Dutch, that have
given complete freedom to the press, have built a huge empire. The third
example is from antiquity: Cicero could write with liberty in the Roman empire,
without it losing its power. Medrosos has to express his lack of knowledge
here. He hasn't heard of Cicero which means that he has had no formal
education with the same standard as Boldmind. That is a nice literary device,
to show the lack of education on the part of Medroso, implying that the lack of
liberty in speech and thought would lead to this ignorance. The importance of
education is hinted at here.
Again the count recites ideology: the Roman (-Catholic) religion is doomed if
people start thinking. Of course the very manner of formulating this already
presupposes a dismissive point of view. But it does go to the heart of the
matter. The Roman Catholic tradition does not encourage any free use of
reason, which of course to Voltaire is the only possible use of reason. This
identification of thought with free thought, this characterization of reason as
standing in principle separate from reveals and traditional truths, furthermore
this basic opposition to every argument based on authority, characterizes a
2
The Philosophy of German Idealism - B. the texts - Robbert Veen
turn to complete autonomy. I think that this is the birthmark of the
Enlightenment in the proper sense of the word. This identity of reason with
autonomy, freedom, this separateness and opposition of human reason over
against faith, the wisdom of the collective, tradition and authority and so on, is
actually a new idea.
BOLDMIND
It's hardly for you to believe that. [First argument] For you are sure that your religion comes from God,
and that the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against it. If that's true, nothing will ever destroy it.
MEDROSO
No, but it might be reduced to little, and it's for having thought, that Sweden, Denmark, your whole island,
and half of Germany are groaning in the horrible misery of no longer being subject to the Pope. It is even
said that if men keep on following their false lights, they will eventually end up in the simple worship of God
and virtue. If the Gates of Hell every prevail that far, what will become of the Holy Office?
BOLDMIND
[Second argument] If the first Christians had not had the freedom to think, is it not true that Christianity
itself would never have come into being?
MEDROSO
What are you saying? I don't understand at all!
BOLDMIND
I believe you. I mean that if Tiberius <7> and the first emperors had been Jacobins who had prevented the
first Christians from having pen and ink, if it had not been long permitted within the Roman Empire to think
freely, it would have been impossible for Christians to establish their dogmas. So if Christianity emerged
only in virtue of freedom of thought, by what contradiction, by what injustice would it annihilate today this
liberty upon which it is itself founded?
[Third argument] When somebody proposes something to you on a matter involving your interests, don't
you look it over a good while before you arrive at a decision? What greater interest have we in this world
than our eternal happiness or our eternal misery? There are a hundred religions on earth that condemn you
for believing in your dogmas, which they call absurd and impious. Then look into these dogmas.
MEDROSO
How can I look into them? I'm no Jacobin.
BOLDMIND
You're a man, and that's enough.
The next element of importance seems small and insignificant at first. When
Medroso states that he cannot look into the other religions and other dogmas a
declaration in a way that he cannot do comparative religion - he gives as his
argument that he cannot do so because he is not a Jacobin (Dominican). That
implies two things: (1) that only the Dominicans have the authority to
investigate dissenting opinions and therefore Medroso is not allowed to do so.
And (2) that any research into these dissenting opinions would have to be like
that of the Dominicans, i.e. with the purpose of defending the own truth
against the evil outsider.
And then Boldmind states: "You're a man and that's enough." Isn't it
wonderful? Boldmind is here referring to now to the fact that Medroso has the
authority and the competence to examine other religions from his own
perspective - i.e. the search for eternal life - simply because he is a human
being! In the world of the Dominicans the notion of humanity means nothing in
itself. It's the universal category of human beings in distinction to animals and
4
The Philosophy of German Idealism - B. the texts - Robbert Veen
plants. The universal category is meaningless, the specific distinction on the
basis of nationality and faith are important however. And now the word "man"
is used to denote something which has a meaning in itself. Humanity is the
basis for the faculty of reason, the search for eternal happiness and the
rational means to inquire into that is not any kind of particular procedure,
already embedded in human institutions that grant a full or limited permit for
the use of reason. (It is forbidden to think!) Now the use of reason is an
universal trait of mankind, and therefore something like a basic right with
which you are born. As Boldmind says: "You are born with a mind." The second
image he uses stresses even more that the use of reason is not something
relative and cultural, and certainly not derived from institutional authorities.
His "wings are clipped, but they can grow back." Not being able to use reason
as autonomous, individual and free is a cultural deformation that can be
undone. "Every man can tutor himself." Note also that Voltaire does not say
that he, Medroso is himself fully responsible for this. Kant seems to imply that
it is, the tutelage is humanity's own fault, both collectively and individually.
Well, I should say, he doesn't say that yet, but he reserves that for the final two
lines.
MEDROSO
Alas! You are more man than I.
BOLDMIND
It rests entirely with you to learn to think. You're born with a mind. You are a bird in the cage of the
Inquisition: the Holy Office has clipped your wings, but they can grow back. Whoever doesn't know
geometry can learn it; every man can tutor himself: it's shameful to put your soul in the hands of those to
whom you'd never trust your money. Dare to think for yourself.
MEDROSO
They say that if everyone thought for himself, there would be a strange confusion.
5
The Philosophy of German Idealism - B. the texts - Robbert Veen
confusion, this lack of knowledge would make people to be like strangers to
one another? Is it a confusion of "strangeness" because even if we're to find
out what other people think, we would not arrive at a common understanding?
It is easy to see that some level of consensus is necessary for many communal
enterprises. Maybe that is why Boldmind's answer uses the realm of aesthetic
appreciation to make the point that there is no such thing as a "strange
confusion."
BOLDMIND
On the contrary. When one attends a play or ballet, everyone freely states his opinion, and the peace is not
disturbed. But if some arrogant patron of a bad poet tried to force all people of taste to find good what
seemed bad to them, well, whistles and boos would arise, and the two parties might start throwing fruit at
each others' heads, as once happened in London. Such are the tyrants of the mind who have brought about
a good share of the world's sufferings. We are not happy in England until each freely enjoys the right to
express his opinion.
MEDROSO
We're also very peaceful at Lisbon, where no one can express his.
BOLDMIND
You are peaceful, but you aren't happy. That is the peace of the galley-slaves, who row in cadence and in
silence.
MEDROSO
You believe then that my soul is in the galleys?
BOLDMIND
Yes. I should like to deliver it.
MEDROSO
But if I feel fine in the galleys?
BOLDMIND
In that case, you deserve to be there.
What if someone accepts the power of tradition and does not want to be
delivered? The ultimate proof that the Enlightenment is an expression of
freedom, is that it cannot use force to achieve its goals. In Plato's Parable of
the Cave the philosopher's education is likened to a forced liberation from the
shackles inside the Cave. The force referred to of course is the force of
argument. What fi someone does not want to be free? From the perspective of
the Enlightenment it can only be said, what Boldmind says here at the end:
Then you deserve to be there. He does not say: then you have chosen to be
like this. The choice to be a slave is not a free choice at all. It is an
acquiescence in how things are. Nevertheless, there can be no forced
deliverance from such a state.
The apparent contradiction is not resolved we must say. How is it possible to
understand that one is not free and nevertheless to 'feel fine" in that context?
This ability to accept servitude is actually a scandalous one for the
Enlightenment project. How is it possible that men seem to choose freely - on
the assumption that every human condition is ultimately a matter of free
choice - and yet elect to be in a situation in which this very freedom is not
exercised in free speech and public dissent? What can only be described as
hypocrisy from the point of view of the Enlightenment, is actually the preferred
condition of men like Medroso - even if they do express fear as one of their
motivating factors. The opposition, strongly expressed in Kant's Practical
reason, between the egotistical private interest that make us seek pleasure
and fulfillment of our desires, is put in opposition to the "true" interests of a
person, seeking the common good and universal reason, including the true
interests of others. The notion of the autonomy of Reason actually demands
the idea that autonomy is defined as liberation from basic emotions like fear
and pleasure. It involves the identification of humanity with reason. Maybe that
implies the inability of understanding humanity at all.
7
The Philosophy of German Idealism - B. the texts - Robbert Veen
Original notes on the translated text of Voltaire.
8
The Philosophy of German Idealism - B. the texts - Robbert Veen
like Julius Ceasar and Augustus. He was eventually assassinated by the forces
of Marcus Antonius in the power struggle that turned into the Civil War which
brought an end to real republican government. The fact that Medroso has
never even heard of Cicero means that the Inquisition has successfully
prevented the Renaissance from ever taking hold in Portugal, or rolling it back
if it ever made any successful inroads in the first place.
(7) Tiberius: Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus (43 BC - AD 37) was the
successor (14-37) to Augustus as Roman Emperor. His reign thus
encompasses the career of Jesus. Return.