without moderation. He is finally not a political man since he desires to be Roman Cor
without the approval of his fellow citizens. Coriolanus does not aim to be a tyrant but by
going beyond politics he, like tyrants ancient and modern, undermines the vital preconditions
of political liberty. He does not know how to “put reasons and actions in common” in
Aristotle’s inimitable words.
Manent suggestively compares him with modern statesmen who were also “great
citizen(s),” namely Lincoln and de Gaulle. These two great statesmen fully appreciated that
“the test of the republic lies in the almost impossible task of joining speech to deed and deed
to speech, each to each aptly and justly.” The eloquence, “rarity,” and “brevity” of Lincoln's
Gettysburg Address, that noble testament to those who gave “the last full measure of
devotion” to a political order, “conceived in liberty,” and “dedicated to the proposition that
all men are created equal” could survive and experience a “new birth of freedom,” testifies to
‘statesmanship at the service of human freedom. De Gaulle’s lucid call on June 18, 1940, for
his compatriots to rally behind him to defend the liberty, honor, and independence of France,
even after the Nazi conquest of the homeland, crystallizes every sentiment of noble or
honorable resistance. As Manent puts it elsewhere, authentic republican heroism depends on
a “more than human blending of pride and humility.” In this weaving together of noble action
and speech which rallies all the resources of the soul, in this unforced melding of
“magnanimity and moderation,” lies true human greatness. Such greatness transcends
democratic categories and conventions even as it elevates democracy through the sheer fact
of being itself.
Manent’s treatment of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is equally insightful. I will allow the
reader the pleasure of making his way through both Manent’s and Shakespeare’s texts. But
let me highlight a few particularly evocative points that Manent makes along the way.
Manent shows how apolitical the Stoic Brutus’s virtue really is: he cares far more about
appearing virtuous than in doing what is necessary to root out Caesar’s despotism and to
revivify the Roman Republic. In particular, he resists Cassius’s suggestion that the
conspirators kill Marc Antony, too, since his survival surely means the survival of Caesarism.
Manent also respectfully but firmly resists René Girard’s suggestion that Cassius, the true
“initiator” of the conspiracy against Julius Caesar, the one who “pushes against all the
others,” is first and foremost a “mediator of hate.” Manent suggests that Girard’s
interpretation of the play is far too apolitical and fails to recognize “that there are noble and
base hatreds.” As Manent writes, “a very honorable and moral tradition, one, I must
emphasize, that is Christian as well as pagan, holds that hatred for the tyrant is a noble
hatred, and that it belongs to the virtue of the good citizen.” As Manent argues in his
autobiographical book of interviews Seeing Things Politically, Girard is wrong to believe
that “all political situations come down to the same situation.” Girard sees only
undifferentiated violence where there remain meaningful moral and political distinctions.
Girard’s anthropology of the human condition risks giving rise to passivity and civic
indifference, all in the name of a misunderstanding of both Christianity and political life.
“Mimetic desire” does not provide the key for understanding political life. “Mimetic desire”
does not provide the key for understanding political life.
Let us return to Patrick Deneen’s accurate evocation of the centrality of the cardinal