VOEGELIN -- RESEARCH NEWS 
 
====================================================================== 
Volume V, No. 1                                          February 1999 
====================================================================== 
 
In this issue:  a)  Bibliographic Update #12 
                b)  "Political Science and the Intellectuals," a paper 
                    presented by Eric Voegelin at the APSA meeting of 
                    1952, with an Introduction by Geoffrey L. Price. 
 
 
                              ============= 
 
                        Bibliographic Update #12 
                               compiled by 
                         Prof. Geoffrey L. Price 
 
                             In this issue: 
 
        New Essay Collection on Voegelin and Religious Experience 
                         edited by Glenn Hughes 
 
         Voegelin - Research News:  Listing of items published,  
                           Vols. 1-4, 1995-98 
 
                                  ==== 
 
Beam, David. "Introduction to Eric Voegelin, `Clericalism'."  
     _Voegelin Research News_ 4, no. 7 (November 1998). Archived at  
     vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
"Bibliography:  Primary Works of Voegelin; Selected Secondary Works on  
     Voegelin and Religious Experience."  In _The Politics of the Soul:  
     Eric Voegelin on Religious Experience_. Edited by Glenn A.  
     Hughes, pp. 207-19. Lanham, Maryland:  Rowman and Littlefield,  
     1999. 
 
Buijs, Govert J. _Tussen God en Duivel. Totalitarisme, politiek en  
     transcendentie bij Eric Voegelin._ Amsterdam:  Boom, 1998a. ISBN  
     90 5352 501 7. 
 
---. "Tussen God en Duivel. Totalitarisme, politiek en transcendentie  
     bij Eric Voegelin."  Ph.D. Dissertation, Amsterdam:  Free  
     University of Amsterdam, 1998b. [Note:  this dissertation was 
     passed by the examiners _Summa cum Laude_] 
 
Farrell, Thomas J. "The Key Question:  Response to Eugene Webb, Review  
     of Michael G. Franz. _Eric Voegelin and the Politics of Spiritual  
     Revolt - The Roots of Modern Ideology_. Baton Rouge, Louisiana,  
     Louisiana State University Press, 1993."  _Voegelin Research News_  
     3, no. 2 (April 1997). Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
Franz, Michael. "Brothers under the Skin:  Voegelin on the Common  
     Experiential Wellsprings of Spiritual Order and Disorder."  In  
     _The Politics of the Soul:  Eric Voegelin on Religious  
     Experience_. Edited by Glenn A. Hughes, pp. 139-62. Lanham,  
     Maryland:  Rowman and Littlefield, 1999. 
 
Hughes, Glenn A. "Balanced and Imbalanced Consciousness."  In _The  
     Politics of the Soul:  Eric Voegelin on Religious Experience_.  
     Edited by Glenn A. Hughes, pp. 163-84. Lanham, Maryland:  Rowman  
     and Littlefield, 1999. 
 
Kunz, Hans. "Review of Eric Voegelin. _Die politischen Religionen._  
     Stockholm:  Bermann-Fischer, 1939."  _Mass und Wert_ 3 (1940): 272- 
     274. 
 
Lami, Gian Franco. "Il mistero dell' Ordine."  _Percorsi di politica,  
     cultura, economica_ 2 (1998): 53-58. 
 
McKnight, Stephen A. "Voegelin's Challenge to Modernity's Claim to be  
     Scientific and Secular:  The Ancient Theology and the Dream of  
     Inner-Worldly Fulfillment."  In _The Politics of the Soul:  Eric  
     Voegelin on Religious Experience_. Edited by Glenn A. Hughes,   
     pp. 185-207. Lanham, Maryland:  Rowman and Littlefield, 1999. 
 
Morrissey, Michael P. "Voegelin, Religious Experience and  
     Immortality."  In _The Politics of the Soul:  Eric Voegelin on  
     Religious Experience_. Edited by Glenn A. Hughes, pp. 11-32.  
     Lanham, Maryland:  Rowman and Littlefield, 1999. 
 
Noetzel, Th. "Eric Voegelin:  Episteme und Doxai - eine  
     Verfallsgeschichte des politischen Wissens."  In _Macht, Freiheit,  
     Demokratie. Anfaenge der westdeutschen Politikwissenschaft.  
     Biographische Annaeherungen_, pp. 137-52. Marburg:, 1991. 
 
Petropulos, William. _Offene Gesellschaft geschlossene Seele. Zum  
     Glaubenssymbol einer zeitgenoessigen Popularphilosophie._  
     Germering:  Polis, 1998. ISBN 3 933195 00 4. 
 
---. "The Person as _Imago Dei_:  Augustine and Max Scheler in Eric  
     Voegelin's _Herrschaftslehre_ and _The Political Religions_."  In  
     _The Politics of the Soul:  Eric Voegelin on Religious  
     Experience_. Edited by Glenn A. Hughes, pp. 87-114. Lanham,  
     Maryland:  Rowman and Littlefield, 1999. 
 
Pitamic, L. "Review of Eric Voegelin. _UEber die Form des  
     amerikanischen Geistes_. Tuebingen:  J.C.B. Mohr, 1928."   
     _Zeitschrift fuer oeffentliches Recht_ 8 (1929): 637-639. 
 
Planinc, Zdravko. "Introduction to transcript of Eric Voegelin,  
     `Structures of Consciousness.' York University, Toronto:  
     Conference:  `Hermeneutics and Structuralism:  Merging Horizons,'  
     22-24 November 1978. Includes:  Conference programme; Transcript  
     of Voegelin's lecture outline."  _Voegelin Research News_ 2, no.  
     3 (September 1996a). Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. "The Uses of Plato in Voegelin's Philosophy of Consciousness.  
     Remarks Prompted by Voegelin's lecture `Structures of  
     Consciousness,' York University, Toronto:  Conference:  
     `Hermeneutics and Structuralism:  Merging Horizons,' 22-24  
     November 1978."  _Voegelin Research News_ 2, no. 3 (September  
     1996b). Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
Poirier, Maben Walter. "Voegelin:  A Voice of the Cold War Era...?   
     Reply to Eugene Webb, Review of Michael G. Franz. _Eric Voegelin  
     and the Politics of Spiritual Revolt - The Roots of Modern  
     Ideology_. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Louisiana State University  
     Press, 1993."  _Voegelin Research News_ 3, no. 5 (October 1997).  
     Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
Price, Geoffrey L. "The Language of Political Diagnosis:  Voegelin's  
     Portrayal of Social Decline."  _Voegelin Research News_ 3, no. 5  
     (October 1997). Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. "The Epiphany of Universal Humanity."  In _The Politics of the  
     Soul:  Eric Voegelin on Religious Experience_. Edited by Glenn A.  
     Hughes, pp. 65-86. Lanham, Maryland:  Rowman and Littlefield,  
     1999. 
 
Ranieri, John J. "Grounding Public Discourse:  The Contribution of  
     Eric Voegelin."  In _The Politics of the Soul:  Eric Voegelin on  
     Religious Experience_. Edited by Glenn A. Hughes, pp. 33-64.  
     Lanham, Maryland:  Rowman and Littlefield, 1999. 
 
Rotholz, Walter. "Die Universalisierung westlicher Politik und  
     Zivilreligion."  In _Ende der Geschichte oder Kampf der Kulturen?  
     Der Universalismus des Westens und die Zukunft der   
     internationalen Beziehungen_, pp. 42-55. Greifswald:, 1997. 
 
Sandoz, Ellis. _Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730- 
    1805._ Indianapolis:  Liberty Press, 1991a. 
 
---. "The Politics of Poetry."  _Modern Age_ 18 (1991b): 16-23.  
     Symposium:  "The End of Socialism," edited by Stephen Tonsor. 
 
---, ed. _The Roots of Liberty:  Magna Carta, Ancient Constitution and  
     the Anglo-American Tradition of Rule of Law._ Columbia, Missouri:  
     University of Missouri Press, 1993. 
 
---. "Philosophical and Religious Dimensions of the American  
     Founding."  _Intercollegiate Review_ 30 (1995): 27-42. 
 
Thompson, William M. "Philosophy and Meditation:  Notes on Eric  
     Voegelin's View."  In _The Politics of the Soul:  Eric Voegelin on  
     Religious Experience_. Edited by Glenn A. Hughes, pp. 115-38.  
     Lanham, Maryland:  Rowman and Littlefield, 1999. 
 
Trimpi, Helen. "For Lissy Voegelin:  Words spoken at the Memorial  
     Service on October 12, 1996 in Palo Alto, California."  _Voegelin  
     Research News_ 2, no. 4 (November 1996). Archived at  
     vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
Voegelin, Eric. "`General talk.' Bennington, Vermont:  Jewish  
    Fraternity."  Title only:  recorded on manuscript list of lectures,  
    September 1939a. 
 
---. "`N[ational] S[ocialist] practices and politics.' Bennington,  
    Vermont:  Women's Club (Mrs Smith)."  Title only; recorded on  
    manuscript list of lectures, September 1939b. 
 
---. `Crisis of Democracy.' Speech. Manuscript outline. Date  
    approximate. 1940. Transcript in ---. "`War and the Crisis of  
    Europe. Early Speeches in the United States, 1939-1942. Part 1.'  
    Texts, outlines and title-lists. Transcribed by Geoffrey L.  
    Price."  _Voegelin Research News_ vol. 4 no. 3, August 1998.  
    Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
   
---. `Democracy and the Individual.' Evanston, Illinois:  NBC-WMAQ  
     Radio Station. Typescript paper and transcript of interview. 7  
     July 1939. Transcript in Voegelin, Eric. "War and the Crisis of  
     Europe. Early Speeches in the United States, 1939-1942. Part 2.  
     Transcribed by Geoffrey L. Price."  _Voegelin Research News_ 4,  
     no. 6 (August 1998): 1-10. Archived at  
     vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. "University Women Hear Dr. Voegelin on Problems confronting  
     Civilization."  _Selma Times_ (1941): n.p. 
 
---. "`Structures of Consciousness.' Transcript of video recording of  
     lecture. York University, Toronto:  Conference:  `Hermeneutics and  
     Structuralism:  Merging Horizons,' 22-24 November 1978. Includes  
     comments in question period and in subsequent panels. Transcribed  
     by Zdravko Planinc with transcription assistance from Oona  
     Ajzenstat and technical assistance from Gerald Day. Based on  
     earlier draft transcript by Maben Poirier."  _Voegelin Research  
     News_ 2, no. 3 (1996). Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. "`Ancient Gnosis and Modern Politics.' Outline of lecture.  
     London:  University of London, 1962. Transcribed and with an  
     introduction by Geoffrey L Price."  _Voegelin Research News_ 3,  
     no. 1 (February 1997). Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. "`The Church.' Typescript, 1949. Transcribed by Maben W.  
     Poirier."  _Voegelin Research News_ 4, no. 8 (November 1998a).  
     Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. "`Clericalism.' Typescript, ca. 1946. Transcibed by David Beam."  
     _Voegelin Research News_ 4, no. 7 (November 1998b). Archived at  
     vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. "`War and the Crisis of Europe. Early Speeches in the United  
     States, 1939-1942. Part 1.' Texts, outlines and title-lists.  
     Transcribed by Geoffrey L. Price."  _Voegelin Research News_ vol.  
     4 no. 3, August 1998c. Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. `Modern Politics and the Decay of Christianity.' Outline of  
      speech, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 1 August  
     1939. Transcript in ---. "`War and the Crisis of Europe. Early  
     Speeches in the United States, 1939-1942. Part 1.' Texts,  
     outlines and title-lists. Transcribed by Geoffrey L. Price."  
     _Voegelin Research News_ vol. 4 no. 3, August 1998. Archived at  
     vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. `Attack on Scandinavia.' Excelsior Radio:  radio broadcast.  
     Manuscript outline. 10 April 1940. Transcript in ---. "`War and  
     the Crisis of Europe. Early Speeches in the United States, 1939- 
     1942. Part 1.' Texts, outlines and title-lists. Transcribed by  
     Geoffrey L. Price."  _Voegelin Research News_ vol. 4 no. 3,  
     August 1998. Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. Letter to Elizabeth de Waal. 11 February 1954. Transcript in  
     Price, Geoffrey L. "The Language of Political Diagnosis:  
     Voegelin's Portrayal of Social Decline."  _Voegelin Research  
     News_ 3, no. 5 (October 1997). Archived at  
     vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. `Political Religions.' Seminar, Bennington College,  
     Vermont, 13 March 1939.  William Y. Elliot Seminary, Harvard  
     University, 22 March 1939. 13 March 1939. Transcript in Voegelin,  
     Eric. "`War and the Crisis of Europe. Early Speeches in the  
     United States, 1939-1942. Part 1.' Texts, outlines and title- 
     lists. Transcribed by Geoffrey L. Price."  _Voegelin Research  
     News_ vol. 4 no. 3, August 1998. Archived at  
     vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. `Propaganda and Opinion.' Speech, Harvard Sociology Club.  
     Manuscript outline. 16 February 1939. Transcript in ---. "`War   
     and the Crisis of Europe. Early Speeches in the United States,  
     1939-1942. Part 1.' Texts, outlines and title-lists. Transcribed  
     by Geoffrey L. Price."  _Voegelin Research News_ vol. 4 no. 3,  
     August 1998. Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. "`Rauschning's view of destruction.' Bennington, Vermont:  
     International Relations Club."  Title only; recorded on manuscript  
     list of lectures, 16 March 1940. 
      
---. `Some Problems confronting Civilization.' Selma, Alabama:  
     American Association of University Women. Summary of speech,  
     _Selma Times_, 17 September 1941. 17 September 1941. Transcript  
     in ---. "`War and the Crisis of Europe. Early Speeches in the  
     United States, 1939-1942. Part 1.' Texts, outlines and title- 
     lists. Transcribed by Geoffrey L. Price."  _Voegelin Research  
     News_ vol. 4 no. 3, August 1998. Archived at  
     vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. "`Time and the infinite in the eighteenth century.' Tuscaloosa,  
     Alabama:  University of Alabama, Mathematics Club."  Title only;  
     recorded on manuscript list of lectures, 18 March 1941. 
 
---. `Discussion [American War Strategy].' University of Alabama:  
     American Association of University Women. Manuscript outline.  
     Appended:  Examination Paper, Politics 108, n.d. with questions on  
     the Neutrality Act of 1939 and the Declaration of Panama of 2  
     October 1939. 19 February 1941. Transcript in ---. "`War and the  
     Crisis of Europe. Early Speeches in the United States, 1939- 
     1942. Part 1.' Texts, outlines and title-lists. Transcribed by  
     Geoffrey L. Price."  _Voegelin Research News_ vol. 4 no. 3,  
     August 1998. Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. "`Roots of American Foreign Policy since 1938.' Tuscaloosa,  
     Alabama:  University of Alabama, International Relations Club."  
     Title only; recorded on manuscript list of lectures, 21 April  
     1941. 
      
---. `In the Totalitarian Climate.' Typescript of broadcast, 21 July  
     1939. 21 July 1939. Transcript in ---. "`War and the Crisis of  
     Europe. Early Speeches in the United States, 1939-1942. Part 1.'  
     Texts, outlines and title-lists. Transcribed by Geoffrey L.  
     Price."  _Voegelin Research News_ vol. 4 no. 3, August 1998.  
     Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. "`The continental lawyer.' Law Fraternity [Bennington  
     College,Vermont]."  Title only; recorded on manuscript list of  
     lectures, 22 November 1939. 
      
---. `State and Church.' Manuscript outline of speech at Methodist  
     Forum, Bennington, Vermont. 22 October 1939. Transcript in ---.  
     "`War and the Crisis of Europe. Early Speeches in the United  
     States, 1939-1942. Part 1.' Texts, outlines and title-lists.  
     Transcribed by Geoffrey L. Price."  _Voegelin Research News_ vol.  
     4 no. 3, August 1998. Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. `N[ational] S[ocialist] occupation of Vienna.'  
     Bennington,Vermont:  Venner High School Parent Teacher  
     Association. Typescript. 23 February 1940. Transcript in ---.  
     "`War and the Crisis of Europe. Early Speeches in the United  
     States, 1939-1942. Part 1.' Texts, outlines and title-lists.  
     Transcribed by Geoffrey L. Price."  _Voegelin Research News_ vol.  
     4 no. 3, August 1998. Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. `The Plight and Problem of Refugees.' Speech, Boston Community  
     Church. Manuscript outline. 23 January 1939. Transcript in ---.  
     "`War and the Crisis of Europe. Early Speeches in the United  
     States, 1939-1942. Part 1.' Texts, outlines and title-lists.  
     Transcribed by Geoffrey L. Price."  _Voegelin Research News_ vol.  
     4 no. 3, August 1998. Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. "`Talk on present war situation.' Bennington, Vermont:  Delta  
     Zeta Sorority."  Title only; recorded on manuscript list of  
     lectures, 24 April 1940. 
 
---. `British War Aims.' Baton Rouge, Louisiana:  Louisiana State  
      University, Graduate School and Department of Government.  
      Typescript. 24 February 1942. Transcript in ---. "`War and the  
      Crisis of Europe. Early Speeches in the United States, 1939- 
      1942. Part 1.' Texts, outlines and title-lists. Transcribed by  
      Geoffrey L. Price."  _Voegelin Research News_ vol. 4 no. 3,  
      August 1998. Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. `Religion in the European War.' Bennington, Vermont:  Y.M.C.A.  
      Lecture outline. 25 September 1939. Transcript in ---. "`War  
      and the Crisis of Europe. Early Speeches in the United  
      States, 1939- 1942. Part 1.' Texts, outlines and title- 
      lists. Transcribed by Geoffrey L. Price."  _Voegelin  
      Research News_ vol. 4 no. 3, August 1998. Archived at  
      vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. "`European Youth Movements.' Freshman Y.M.C.A. [Bennington,  
     Vermont]."  Title only; recorded on manuscript list of lectures,  
     26 November 1939. 
 
---. "`Veterans of the Foreign Wars:  general talk.'  
     [Bennington,Vermont]."  Title only; recorded on manuscript list of  
     lectures, 26 October 1939. 
 
---. "`German Economic Problems.' Bennington, Vermont:  Rotary Club."  
     Title only; recorded on manuscript list of lectures, 27 November  
     1939. 
 
---. "`Excelsior Literary Society.' Radio Broadcast, Excelsior  
     Radio."  Title only; recorded on manuscript list of lectures, 28  
     February 1940. 
 
---. "`The Law of the Empire Builders.' Bennington, Vermont:  
     International Relations Club."  Title only; recorded on manuscript  
     list of lectures, 28 October 1940. 
 
---. "`German Hegemony.' Baton Rouge, Louisiana:  Louisiana State  
     University."  Title only; recorded on manuscript list of lectures,  
     3 March 1941. 
 
---. `The technique of N[ational] S[ocialist] conquest.' Birmingham,  
     Alabama:  Rotary Club. Manuscript outline. 30 October 1940.  
     Transcript in ---. "`War and the Crisis of Europe. Early  
     Speeches in the United States, 1939-1942. Part 1.' Texts,  
     outlines and title-lists. Transcribed by Geoffrey L. Price."  
     _Voegelin Research News_ vol. 4 no. 3, August 1998. Archived at  
     vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. "`Nazi techniques of conquest.' Bennington, Vermont:  Lambda  
     Sigma Phi."  Title only; recorded on manuscript list of lectures,  
     4 April 1940. 
 
---. `Some elements of the European situation.' Bennington, Vermont:  
     Y.M.C.A. and Y.W.C.A. Manuscript outline. 4 December 1939.  
     Transcript in ---. "`War and the Crisis of Europe. Early  
     Speeches in the United States, 1939-1942. Part 1.' Texts,  
     outlines and title-lists. Transcribed by Geoffrey L. Price."  
     _Voegelin Research News_ vol. 4 no. 3, August 1998. Archived at  
     vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. `World Politics and the Decay of Christianity.' Evanston,  
     Illinois:  First Methodist Church, Young People's Fellowship.  
     Outline of Speech. 6 August 1939. Transcript in ---. "`War and  
     the Crisis of Europe. Early Speeches in the United States, 1939- 
     1942. Part 1.' Texts, outlines and title-lists. Transcribed by  
     Geoffrey L. Price."  _Voegelin Research News_ vol. 4 no. 3,  
     August 1998. Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. "`Causes of National Socialist Influence in Europe.' Bennington,  
     Vermont:  Episcopal Women's Club (Mrs Morton)."  Title only;  
     recorded on manuscript list of lectures, 6 November 1939. 
 
---. `Democracy and the Individual.' Radio Talk, NBC-WMAQ, Evanston,  
     Illinois, 7 July 1939. Paper and broadcast interview:  
     typescripts. 7 July 1939. Transcript in ---. "`War and the  
     Crisis of Europe. Early Speeches in the United States, 1939- 
     1942. Part 2.' Texts, outlines and title-lists. Transcribed by  
     Geoffrey L. Price."  _Voegelin Research News_ vol. 4 no. 5,  
     November 1998. Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. `Balkan Problems.' Bennington, Vermont:  Civiteus. Manuscript  
     outline. 9 February 1940. Transcript in ---. "`War and the Crisis  
     of Europe. Early Speeches in the United States, 1939-1942. Part  
     1.' Texts, outlines and title-lists. Transcribed by Geoffrey L.  
     Price."  _Voegelin Research News_ vol. 4 no. 3, August 1998.  
     Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
---. "`Isolation and World Revolution.' Tuscaloosa, Alabama:  American  
     Association of University Women."  Title only; recorded on  
     manuscript list of lectures, 9 February 1941. 
 
de Waal, Elizabeth. Letters to Eric Voegelin. 23 July 1938; 3  
     February 1954. Transcript in Price, Geoffrey L. "The Language of  
     Political Diagnosis:  Voegelin's Portrayal of Social Decline."   
     _Voegelin Research News_ 3, no. 5 (October 1997). Archived at  
     vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
Webb, Eugene. "`Persuasion and the Problem of Polarizing Rhetoric.'  
     Response to articles by Thomas J. Farrell, Maben W. Poirier and  
     Geoffrey L. Price."  _Voegelin Research News_ 4, no. 4 (August  
     1998): 1-10. Archived at vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews. 
 
Winkler, Guenther. "Geleitwort."  In __Eric Voegelin_. Der autoritaere  
     Staat. Ein Versuch ueber das oesterreichische Staatsproblem_, pp. v-

     xxii. Vienna, New York:  Springer, 1997. 
 
 
             ============================================== 
 
 
               _Political Science and the Intellectuals_ 
                             Eric Voegelin 
                                     
           Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the  
                American Political Science Association, 
                           26-28 August 1952. 
                                     
                                                    
                        1. _Introductory notes_ 
 
    This paper, written in the same year as the publication of _The New
Science of Politics_, should be of interest to students of Voegelin's 
thought as a brief and clear statement of his diagnosis of the imma- 
nentist character of contemporary "intellectual life", and its rela-
tionship to the outlook of ancient gnosticism.  
 
    For further study:  
     
* Voegelin's diagnosis of the sources and outlook of such immanentist 
perspectives in the modern world, may be usefully compared with the 
discussion of "gnostic systems of identity" in the work of Max Scheler. 
See: 
 
      Max Scheler _On the Eternal in Man_, London:  SCM Press, 1960, 
      pp. 130-134; 178-179; original text in _Vom Ewigen im 
      Menschen_ _Gesammelte Werke_, Bd. 5. Zuerich und Muenchen: 
      Francke Verlag, 1954. 
 
* For Voegelin's detailed examination of the work of Arnold 
Toynbee (p. 10), see: 
 
      _Israel and Revelation_; _The World of the Polis_; _The 
      Ecumenic Age_.  _Order and History_, vols. 1, 2, 4. Baton 
      Rouge, Louisiana:  Louisiana State University Press, pages as 
      indexed; 
 
      "Toynbee's History as a Search for Truth."  In _The Intent of 
      Toynbee's History_. Edited by Edward T. Gargan, pp. 183-98. 
      Chicago, Illinois:  Loyola University Press, 1961. 
 
      "Les perspectives d'avenir de la civilisation occidentale."  
      In _L'Histoire et ses interpretations. Entretiens autour de 
      Arnold Toynbee_. Edited by Raymond Aron, pp. 133-51. The 
      Hague:  Mouton, 1961. [Transcript of dialogue. 
      Cerisy-la-Salle, 1958]. 
 
* For the significance of the brief reference on p. 16 of this  
paper to "the contemporary democratic creed (Lindsay)", see the  
discussion by Voegelin of A.D. Lindsay's _The Modern Democratic  
State_ in: 
 
      "The Oxford Political Philosophers", _Philosophical 
      Quarterly_ 3 (1953):97-114, at 108-110. 
 
* To examine further Voegelin's estimate of More's _Utopia_, to  
which this paper refers on p. 19, see:  
 
      "The Order of Reason:  Erasmus and More."  In _Renaissance and  
      Reformation_ edited by David L. Morse and William M. 
      Thompson. _History of Political Ideas_ vol. 4. Columbia, 
      Missouri:  University of Missouri Press, 1998, pp. 88-130;  
 
      _"Die Spielerische Grausamkeit der Humanisten."  Niccolo 
      Machiavelli and Thomas Morus_. Aus dem Englischen und mit ein 
      Vorwort von Dietmar Herz. Muenchen:  Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 
      1995. 
 
      "More's Utopia."_Oesterreichische Zeitschrift fuer 
      Oeffentliches Recht_ N.F. 3 (1951) 451-68;  
 
* The diagnosis of the dream-world in the Utopia of More, and of  
progressivism in D'Alembert, given in this paper (p. 19) , can be  
found in a slightly shortened form in _The New Science of Politics_.  
See: 
 
      _The New Science of Politics:  An Introduction_ Chicago: 
      University of Chicago Press, 1987, p. 121; translation _Die 
      Neue Wissenshaft der Politik:  Eine Einfuehrung_. Muenchen: 
      Karl Alber, 1991, S. 177. 
 
* For the issue of the sophist-intellectuals as "sleepwalkers",  
taking their dreams for reality, confined to their own worlds of  
passion and imagination (p. 20), see: 
 
      _Anamnesis_, partial translation by Gerhart Niemeyer. 
      Columbia, Missouri:  University of Missouri Press, 1990, pp. 
      80, 98; _Anamnesis:  Zur Theorie der Geschichte und Politik_. 
      Muenchen:  R. Piper Verlag, 1966, S. 143; _The World of the 
      Polis_. _Order and History_ vol. 2. Baton Rouge:  Louisiana 
      State University Press, 1957, pp. 233, 241; _Plato and 
      Aristotle_. _Order and History_ vol. 3. Baton Rouge: 
      Louisiana State University Press, 1957, p. 107.  See also 
      Hermann Broch _The Sleepwalkers:  A Trilogy_. New York:  Random 
      House, 1996; _Die Schlafwaendler:  Eine Trilogie_. Frankfurt 
      am Main:  Suhrkamp, 1982. 
 
* For an extended treatment of the prospects for the re- 
establishment of rational communication in the contemporary situation  
- the issue with which this paper concludes on p. 21 - see: 
 
      "Necessary Moral Bases for Communication in a Democracy."  In 
      _Problems of Communication in a Pluralistic Society_.  
      Milwaukee, Wisconsin:  Marquette University Press, 1956, pp. 
      53-68 
 
Page numbers in the original are given in square brackets:  [].     
     
                                                 Geoffrey Price 
 
                      ============================= 
 
                           2. _Text of paper_ 
 
             [1]  _Political Science and the Intellectuals_ 

 
    When for this occasion we have chosen the relation between politi-
cal science and the intellectuals as the subject of our discussion, we
have returned to the oldest topic of our science.  It is the oldest 
topic because it is the oldest pragmatic issue.  The political science
that was created by Plato and Aristotle was established in opposition 
to the opinions held by the intellectuals of their time, by the sophists.
And the conflict with the intellectuals, the revolt against the intel-
lectuals, from which emerged our science, is monumentally commemorated 
to this day in the political dialogues of Plato's early and middle years.
From its origins the science of politics is a militant enterprise, a 
defense of truth both political and practical.  It is a defense of true 
knowledge about human existence in society against the untrue opinions 
dispensed by intellectuals:  and it is a defense of true human being 
against the corruption of man perpetrated by the intellectuals. 
 
    That much is clear.  As soon as we get beyond this point, however, 
when we try to act as militant scientists in the Platonic sense in our 
time, we encounter difficulties -- difficulties of a semantic nature.  
The semantic conventions have moved a considerable distance from the 
Platonic situation.  When Plato created his science, his _episteme_, he 
meant by this word the knowledge of the essence of things; and the man 
who [2] was capable to penetrate the essence of things, was the philo- 
sopher.  Philosophical and scientific knowledge were synonymous.  Today, 
under the influence of the natural sciences, we conventionally distin- 
guish between science and philosophy; a political scientist is not in 
the habit of thinking of himself as a political philosopher; the theory
of politics is set aside, not to say brushed aside, as something a
political scientist can do without.  The reasons for the distinction 
will occupy us a bit later on.  For the moment we must be aware that 
our conventions make the distinction.  And it will be a first step to-
wards our subject to break with the convention, to accept the Platonic
notion of science as a search for truth concerning the essential in
matters of politics, to conceive again of science as a philosopher's
knowledge about things. 
 
    The second semantic difficulty arises from our lack of adequate con- 
cepts for designating the position of the intellectual.  Plato, in his 
situation of conflict, has developed parallel terminologies for the 
philosophical and sophistic attitudes.  But most of his terms for the 
sophistic side have fallen into desuetude.  Even his primary pair of 
terms -- _philosopher - sophist_ -- is today only used by professional 
philosophers.  We are not in the habit of referring to the intellectual 
confusion of the age as a sophistic confusion; we use the term "intel- 
lectual" instead of sophist, and intellectual has not the precise mean-
ing which Plato gave to this term.  Plato, furthermore, created the 
pair _episteme-doxa_ in order to distinguish between the philosopher's
and the sophist's knowledge; but again, our [3] equivalent for _doxa_,
opinion, does not have the Platonic precision.  And finally he created
the pair _philosophos - philodoxos_, the lover of wisdom and the lover 
of opinion, in order to distinguish between the two types.  But only 
the philosopher has survived -- though certainly we have no lack of
philodoxers.  The intellectual confusion has even reached the point of
inverting the meaning of the terms science and doxa.  Perhaps fortu-
nately the field of sophistries has become so rich, that the various
sophists expose one another; one ideologist points his finger to the 
next and calls him an ideologist.  We are in the situation which Karl
Mannheim has characterised as the "general suspicion of ideology".  And
this suspicion has, indeed, become so general that our sophists treat 
the classical philosophers as ideologists and "expose" them, while
presumably claiming for themselves the dignity of scientists.  We have
books today which treat Plato and Aristotle as a sort of Fascist intel-
lectuals, while the liberal sophists who write them off cast themselves
in the role of philosophers.  As you see, we are right in the middle of
the subject, not to say of the brawl.  And you will discern, at least in
outline, one of the reasons for the contemporary convention of distin-
guishing between political science and political philosophy.  The rea-
son is that a good deal of what conventionally we call political science
is not science at all but sophistic opining; when our sophists draw the
line, as they love to do, between their science and philosophy, they are
well justified, though not in the  sense which they intend; for what they
produce is really not philosophy -- but by [4] the same token neither is
it science. 
 
    From semantic preliminaries let us now turn to the conflict itself.  
Again Plato will be our guide.  But the limits of a paper will compel 
rigid selection from his ideas.  I shall begin with his distinction 
between the philosopher as a man who lives in contact with reality, and 
the sophist as a man who has lost his grip on reality and lives in a 
dream-world of his own making.  The distinction goes substantially back 
to Heraclitus and Xenophanes.  The philosopher is the man who lives in 
partnership with what is common to all men, that is, with the divine nous
or reason that transcends them all.  Through participation in what is 
common men become a community; and since the transcendent nous is the  
universally common, men through participation in it become members of 
universal mankind.  With regard to the universal common, before God, all 
men are equal; through participation in the common, man gains the essence
of his humanity; he realizes himself as a finite being capable of trans- 
cendence.  He discovers that through the experience of transcendence, 
through the opening of his soul toward divine reality, he has entered 
what Henri Bergson has called the "open society".  The philosopher who 
orders his own life, as well as his relations to his fellow-men, by this 
experience of the common, is in fact every man who has achieved full 
actualization of his manhood.  A political science which bases itself on 
this conception of man, thus, becomes a science of the true order of 
human existence in society. 
 
    Against this fully developed manhood, the manhood of the philosopher,
literally:  of the lover of wisdom, stands the [5] sophist.  He is the
man who does not want to live in harmony with transcendent reality.  He
opposes his defiant "Man is the Measure" to the Platonic "God is the Mea-
sure".  The order, in which after all he also must live after a fashion, 
must be nourished from the resources of empirical, immanent man, without 
recourse to transcendental orientation.  This creation of immanent worlds
out of the passions and desires of empirical man is the creation of 
dream-worlds.  Heraclitus speaks of such private dreamers as the sleep- 
walkers; and the term has remained in use to the time of Marcus Aurelius.
 
    Let me give you a modern example of what such dreaming means.  
Condorcet, in the eighteenth century, conceived the idea of progressive 
immortality for man.  He knew from statistics that the life expectancy of
man was going up; and he asked himself, why shouldn't it go up indefi- 
nitely?  He combined the idea with the assumption, considered scienti- 
fically established at the time, that acquired characteristics could 
become hereditary features.  The men with their higher life expectancy 
would transmit this quality to their children; they in their turn could 
build still higher on what they had inherited; and something like prac- 
tical immortality was on the cards for mankind.  Here you see intellec- 
tual dreaming in the raw.  There is a solid basis in so-called science, 
even in statistics; and what could be more respectable, than actuarial 
tables of life-insurance companies; accepting that empirical observation,
Condorcet extrapolates it quite consistently into the future.  We know 
that the speculation is ridiculous; but we know it only because we know 
about [6] our human finiteness through experience of transcendence.  If 
we do not accept the reality of the rhythm of life and death; if we do 
not experience death, as Socrates and Plato so strongly did, as an 
essential ordering, cathartic forces within our lives; if we do not 
experience that without death life makes no sense; then the speculation 
of Condorcet is not ridiculous at all.  And that is what makes this type 
of dreaming so dangerous.  On the assumptions of the dreamer, we have no 
argument against him.  If essential sectors of reality are declared to 
be non-existent, the dreamer is free to develop, with rigid logic[al]
consistency, the most atrocious nonsense on the basis of his fragmentary 
reality. 
 
    Moreover, this sort of nonsense that we see in the case of Condorcet 
is not a curiosity without practical importance.  In one form or another,
on various levels of consciousness, this particular dream is rather per- 
vasive in our society.  You may remember Aldous Huxley's amusing novel 
_After Many a Summer Dies the Swan_.  It could become a best-seller 
because Huxley was hitting at a state of mind that his readers immedi- 
ately recognized from numerous personal experiences in their environment 
-- and perhaps in themselves.  And as far as the heredity of acquired 
characteristics is concerned, I have only to remind you of the Lysenko 
affair. 
 
    A further instance of sophistic dreaming, given by Plato himself, is 
the conception of order in terms of agreement or contract.  Here again 
the reality of common order that constitutes fellowship among men is 
denied.  The sophist is unable to [7] see that agreement, contract or 
promise concerning anything concretely is impossible, unless the meaning 
of agreement is understood.  The common bond between men must exist in 
reality, and be experienced as existing, in order to make mutual declara-
tions concerning future conduct intelligible as agreements with binding 
force.  The binding force of specific agreement derives from the onto- 
logically pre-existence common bond; one cannot derive the common bond 
from agreement.  From his analysis, Plato draw the conclusion that a 
"theory" which lets order originate in agreement, is not a "theory" 
since it misses the essence of the bond of order; it is a doxa, an
opinion.  It is the typical doxa of the immanentist intellectual who,
since he has no experience of the transcendental sources of order, must
let the phenomenon of order originate in actions of individuals who want
to avoid the disadvantages of disorder. 
 
    I consider the Platonic analysis and conclusion valid, and shall 
therefore draw the following further conclusions:  There is not such 
thing as a contract-theory of government.  What goes under the name is 
a sophistic doxa concerning the origin and meaning of order.  There is, 
furthermore, no history of a contract-theory, ranging from the sophists 
of antiquity to the modern intellectuals.  There only recurs in our 
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries a situation of civilizational crisis 
which produces phenomena comparable to those of the Greek fifth and 
fourth centuries.  The culture of common humanity breaks down; and the 
order of the community is torn by formidable wars of the sleepwalkers who
want to substitute their private dream [8] worlds for the common public 
world.  In this Hobbesian war of all against all, when the common source 
of substantive order in transcendent reality is lost, a sort of negative 
order must be established as a mutual agreement to hold one's peace under
governmental sanction.  When the _summum bonum_ is denied its ordering 
function in the soul of men and of society, when its very existence is 
denied -- as it was denied by Hobbes --, then the _summum malum_, the 
fear of physical death[,] becomes the force that imposes peace.  We can 
generalize the insight gained by Plato in his situation and say:  that
the appearance of the contract-doxa is the symptom of civilizational
crisis. 
 
    Equipped with this knowledge, we can form a clearer view of the 
problems presented by the intellectuals.  Intellectuals are immanentists.
To be an immanentist means to have suffered the loss of an important 
segment of reality, of the experiences of transcendence, and consequently
to be unable to order one's own personality through orientation to trans-
cendent reality, as well as to cooperate with fellow human beings in 
establishing a social order which expresses the common humanity.  In his 
spiritually crippled condition the intellectual can only produce an order
which expresses the limited empirical content of his passions and 
desires, of his aspirations and personal value dreams.  This does not 
mean that the intellectual cannot gain adherents; his fellowship, indeed,
may be large, as for instance the Marxist followership.  But however 
large it may become it cannot achieve essential humanity through multi- 
plication of cripples; a large followership only means that a great 
number [9] of human beings have followed the intellectual into the pri-
son of his dreams.  This is the practical aspect of the problem. -- As
far as the theoretical aspect is concerned, we can now see why a great
deal of what is conventionally called political science does not qualify
as science in the strict, philosophical sense.  Most of what we indiscri-
minately call political ideas, of which I have given the so-called con- 
tract theory as an instance, are _doxai_ expressing the dream position of
this or that immanentist intellectual.  They do not approach the subject 
of science, that is, the essence of social phenomena.  Since however we 
live in a predominantly sophistic civilization the doxic symbolism has 
penetrated our language, and especially our language of political dis- 
course.  And the area of science in this _melee_ of doxic debate has 
become exceedingly small. 
 
    The relation of science to sophistic pseudo-science also had worried 
Plato.  Again he resumes ideas that had been suggested already by 
Heraclitus.  Both identify the sophists with the development of poly- 
history (in Greek:  polymathie).  The matter deserves a moment's
attention because in this point as in others, the intellectuals of our
time have managed to turn the tables by accusing the scientists of
polyhistory, while claiming true pursuit of science for their own
polyhistoric efforts.  By polyhistory both Heraclitus and Plato means the
accumulation of variegated knowledge without reference to essence.  They
stigmatized the unrestrained accumulation of factual knowledge without
theoretical penetration oas a hindrance to science rather than an
advance.  In our contemporary situation the issue has been obscured by
the farflung ramification [10] of science which permits the individual
scholar to specialise only on a comparatively limited sector.  This
situation, which in itself is inevitable and beyond criticism, is put to
good use by the intellectuals for the purpose of preventing science. 
Take the case of Toynbee's _Study of History_, one of the great attempts
to submit the phenomenon of history, and especially of political history,
to theoretical exploration.  As far as our political scientists and
philosophers do not simply ignore the work, as mostly they do, they are
rather inclined to criticize it as a polyhistoric attempt that did not
succeed too well because in our age of specialization one man cannot know
everything.  Such critics fail to see that Toynbee's work is not a 
one-man _Cambridge History_ but a theoretical work which tries to bring 
out the essence of the historical processes, using the materials at the 
level of digestion available in the most recent standard treatises by 
specializing authorities in the various historical fields - which 
inevitably entails the absorption of all errors of fact and judgement at 
the level of the specialist literature used.  But I suspect that the 
critics do not fail to see the point; they rather do not want to see it 
because what they really do not like is the theory itself.  Toynbee is a 
classical scholar and a conscious Christian, and his strongest modern 
influence stems from Bergson's _Deux Sources_.  Toynbee, whatever the 
shortcomings [11] of his theory may be, is really a theorist in the 
Platonic sense.  And his establishment of standards of relevance casts a 
light on the irrelevance of a good deal of specialized work; and that 
light is experienced as uncomfortable by the critics.  For under the 
cover of specializing respectability there has grown like a cancer in our
academic world the methodical accumulation of irrelevant facts -- which 
apparently even its authors are ashamed to call science, for they prefer 
to call it research.  Polyhistory is with us today as it was present in 
the time of Plato.  But today it takes cover under specialization which 
on the surface seems to be the opposite of polyhistory.  I shall, there-
fore, take the liberty of redefining specialization as polyhistory 
aggravated by division of labour.  Understood in this sense, special- 
ization, unless severely disciplined by the solid theoretical training 
of the specialist, has become one of the most serious obstacles to the 
advancement of science in our field. 
 
    Up to this point I have tried to elucidate the relation between 
political science and the intellectuals by means of the critical instru- 
ments placed at our disposition by Plato.  These instruments, as you have
seen, carry a long way; but they will not carry all the way.  One can 
classify the modern intellectual as a variant of the sophistic type, but 
the classification does not exhaust his nature.  There is an ingredient 
in the modern intellectual that was not, and could not be, present in the
sophist; for the Hellenic civilization of Plato's time had not yet ex- 
perienced the impact of Near Eastern religiousness, of [12] Christianity 
and Gnosis.  With the expansion and consolidation of the Roman Empire, 
the religions of the East moved westward, and especially the complex of 
Christianity and Gnosis began to form the spiritual environment in which 
Western thought in the more restricted sense developed. 
 
    Christianity and Gnosis must be treated as one complex of religions. 
Gnostic elements are strongly present in the writings of the New Testa- 
ment, in the Letters of St. Paul, in the Gospel of St. John, and espe- 
cially in Revelation.  The intellectual history of Christianity in the 
early centuries is to a large extent the struggle for clarifying the 
meaning of Christianity proper and to eliminate the Gnostic elements from
Christian doctrine.  This struggle is substantially concluded, with 
success, in the work of St. Augustine.  As a result we have a division of
religions which both can base themselves on parts of the New Testament 
writings.  It is the division which either can be described as orthodoxy 
and heresy, or as the Christianity of the Church and sectarian Christ- 
ianity, or as apocalyptic and eschatological Christianity, or -- as I 
prefer to call the difference -- as Christianity and Gnosis. 
 
    The issue relevant for our present purpose is the division concerning
the state of perfection.  Orthodox Christianity has decided that Christ 
is present, through the Spirit, in the Church right here and now in 
history.  That is the so-called apocalyptic attitude.  The Spirit is 
revealed in history through the Church.  The state of perfection is 
transcendent, following the end of history, with its eschatological 
events of the [13] appearance of the Antichrist, the Parousia, and the 
last Judgement.  The Gnostic branch assumes that the Church is transitory
in history, and that a state of perfection will be achieved in history 
through the coming of Christ according to Revelation.  That is the 
so-called eschatological attitude, which expects a millennium on earth.  
The terrestrial paradise, furthermore, can be advanced through human 
action.  The new carriers of the New Realm are the saints of the Lord, 
who can be recognized as such even now.  They are the elect, who there- 
fore should separate from the transitory and at least partially corrupt 
Church, and prepare themselves in special communities for the coming of 
the millennium, and - in radical forms of the creed -- even take a hand 
in bringing it about -- though Revelation 20 has preserved the bringing 
about to an angel of the Lord.  Both branches of religiousness, as you 
can see, can draw on texts of the New Testament, and are therefore able 
to vituperate each other as the corrupters of the true message -- which 
they have lustily done, and are still doing. 
 
    Let us now relate the division of religiousness to the Platonic divi-
sion of philosopher and sophist.  This requires a rough simplification of
a complex matter -- but it will have to do for the present.  The philo- 
sophers, we may say, as far as they have absorbed the religiousness of 
the New Testament, have become Gnostic intellectuals.  The fundamental 
distinction between the two types, however, has remained, under the new 
[14] dispensation, the same as developed by Plato:  the philosopher is 
still the transcendentalist, the intellectual the immanentist.   
 
    The typical content of the modern intellectual doxa can be ascer- 
tained comparatively easily.  For the principal doxic symbols which have 
come to dominate the so-called modern period were systematically 
developed by Joachim of Flora in the last decade of the twelfth century. 
Joachim broke with the Augustinian orthodox conception of a Christian 
society; and applied to his new philosophy of history the symbol of the 
Trinity.  In his speculation the history of mankind had three periods, 
corresponding to the three persons of the Trinity.  The first period of 
the world was the age of the Father; with the appearance of Christ began 
the age of the Son; but the age of the Son will not be the last one; it 
will be followed by a third age of the Spirit.  The three ages were 
characterized as intelligible increases of spiritual fulfilment.  The 
first age unfolded the life of the layman; the second age brought the 
active-contemplative life of the priest; the third age would bring the 
perfect spiritual life of the monk.  Moreover, the ages had comparable 
internal structures and a calculable length.  From the comparison of 
structures it appeared that each age opened with a trinity of leading 
figures, that is, with two precursors, followed by the leader of the age 
himself; and from the calculation of length it followed that the age of 
the Son would reach its end in 1260.  The leader of the first age was 
Abraham; the leader of the second age was Christ; and Joachim predicted 
that by 1260 there would appear the _Dux e Babylone_, the leader of the 
third age. 
 
    [15] In his trinitarian eschatology Joachim created the aggregate 
of symbols which govern the intellectualist interpretation of politics 
and history to this day. 
 
    The first of these symbols is the conception of history as a se- 
quence of three ages, of which the third age is intelligibly the final 
Third Realm.  As variations of this symbol are recognizable the human- 
istic and encyclopaedist periodization of history into ancient, mediae- 
val, and modern history; Turgot's and Comte's theory of a sequence of 
theological, metaphysical, and scientific phases; Hegel's dialectic of 
the three stages of freedom and self-reflective spiritual fulfilment; the
Marxian dialectic of the three stages of primitive communism, class 
society, and final communism; and finally the National Socialist symbol 
of the Third Realm.    
    
    The second symbol is that of the leader.  It had its immediate 
effectiveness in the movement of the Franciscan spirituals who saw in St.
Francis the fulfilment of Joachim's prophecy; and its effectiveness was 
reinforced by Dante's speculation on the Dux of the new spiritual age.  
It then can be traced in the paracletic figures, the _homines spiritu- 
ales_, and _homines novi_, of the late Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and 
Reformation; it can be discerned as a component in Machiavelli's _prin- 
cipe_; and in the period of secularization it appears in the superman 
ideas of Condorcet, Comte and Marx; until it dominate the contemporary 
scene through the paracletic leaders of the new realms.    
 
    [16] The third symbol, sometimes blending into the second, is that of
the prophet of the new age.  In order to lend validity and conviction to 
the idea of a final Third Realm, the course of history as an intelligi- 
ble, meaningful whole must be assumed accessible to human knowledge, 
either through a direct revelation or through speculative gnosis.  Hence,
the Gnostic prophet, or, in the later stages of secularization, the 
Gnostic intellectual, becomes an appurtenance of modern civilization.  
Joachim himself is the first instance of the species. 
 
    The fourth symbol is that of the brotherhood of autonomous persons. 
The third age of Joachim, by virtue of its new descent of the spirit, 
will transform men into members of the new realm without sacramental 
mediation of Grace.  In the third age the church will cease to exist 
because the charismatic gifts that are necessary for the perfect life 
will reach men without administration of sacraments.  While Joachim 
himself conceived the new age concretely as an order of monks, the idea 
of a community of the spiritually perfect who can live without insti- 
tutional authority was formulated on principle.  The idea was capable of 
infinite variations.  It can be traced in various degrees of purity in 
medieval and Renaissance sects, as well as in the Puritan churches of the
saints; in its secularized form it has become a formidable component in 
the contemporary democratic creed (Lindsay); and it is the dynamic core 
in the Marxian mysticism of the realm of freedom and the withering-away 
of the state. 
 
    The four symbols just described determine the general structure of 
the modern intellectual doxa.  Before engaging in [17] a little further 
differentiation, we must, however, consider what is wrong with the 
Joachitic construction on principle.  Why do we classify this aggregate 
of symbols as doxic in opposition to theoretical or philosophical; why as
Gnostic in opposition to Christian?  The reason is that Joachim has 
immanentized the idea of transcendent perfection.  From the Joachitic 
immanentization a theoretical problem arises which does occur neither in 
classical antiquity nor in orthodox Christianity, that it, the problem of
an essence, or eidos, of a meaning of history.  In Hellenic speculation, 
to be sure, we also have a problem of essence in politics; the polis has 
an essence, or eidos, for both Plato and Aristotle.  But the actualiza- 
tion of this essence is governed by the rhythm of growth and decay; and 
the rhythmical embodiment and disembodiment of essence in political 
reality is the mystery of existence; it is not an additional essence.  
The soteriological truth of Christianity, then, breaks with the rhythm of
existence; beyond temporal processes and reverses lies the supernatural 
destiny of man, the perfection through grace in the beyond, the beatific 
vision in death.  Man and mankind now have a fulfilment, but it lies 
beyond nature, beyond immanent experience.  Again there is no meaning of 
history, because the eschatological supernature is not a nature in the 
philosophical sense.  The problem of an eidos, of a meaning in history, 
hence arises only when the Christian idea of transcendental fulfilment 
becomes immanentized.  Such an immanentist hypostasis of the eschaton, 
however, is a theoretical fallacy.  Things are not things, nor do they 
have [18] essences, by arbitrary declaration.  The course of history as a
whole is no object of experience; history has no eidos, because the 
meaning of history extends into the unknown future.  The meaning of 
history, thus, is an illusion; and this illusionary eidos is created by 
treating the symbol of faith as if it were a proposition concerning an 
object of immanent experience. 
 
    The Gnostic intellectual, thus, like the sophist of antiquity, denies
the existence of a transcendent order of being; and replaces the trans- 
cendent order by an order of his own making.  And in particular, he draws
the Christian transcendent perfection into his reach, and tries to do 
God's work by himself, by creating the perfect order in history.  The 
perfection through divine grace in the beyond becomes perfection through 
the activity of the intellectual.   
 
    This peculiar result of the intellectual's doxa will become even 
clearer, when now we examine the process of immanentization in some of 
its details.  The Christian symbolism of supernatural perfection has in 
itself a theoretical structure, and this structure is reproduced in the 
variants of Gnostic immanentization.  The pilgrim's progress, the sanc- 
tification of life, is a movement towards a telos, towards a goal; and 
this goal, the beatific vision, is the state of perfection.  Hence, in 
the Christian symbolism, one can distinguish the movement toward the goal
as its teleological component, from the state of highest value as the 
axiological component. -- The two components reappear in the variants of
immanentization; and they [19] can accordingly be classified as variants 
which either accentuate the teleological or the axiological component, or
combine them both in their symbolism. 
 
    In the first case, when the accent lies strongly on the movement, 
without clarity about the final state of perfection, the result will be a
progressivist interpretation of history.  The aim need not be clarified, 
because progressivist thinkers, men like Diderot or D'Alembert, select 
what they consider desirable factors from their immediate environment; 
and erect the selection into a standard.  Progress then will be a quali- 
tative and quantitative increase of what is considered presently as good 
-- the "bigger and better" of our simplifying slogan.  Progressivism in 
this sense, odd as it may sound, is essentially a conservative attitude 
because it is based on a historical situation which soon will be super- 
seded; and it easily may become a reactionary attitude unless the ori- 
ginal standard is adjusted to the changing historical situation.  If you 
remember the manner in which our old liberals are branded as reaction- 
aries by our new liberals, you will see the catch in progressivism. 
 
    In the second case, when the accent lies strongly on the state of 
perfection, without clarity about the means that are required for its 
realization, the result will be utopianism.  It may assume the form of an
axiological dream-world, as in the Utopia of More, where the thinker is 
still aware that the dream is unrealizable.  Or, with increasing theore- 
tical illiteracy, it may assume the form of various social idealisms, 
such as the war to end wars, the abolition of unequal distribution of 
property, the freedom from want and fear, and so forth. [20]  
 
    And, finally, immanentization may extend to the complete Christian 
symbol.  The result will then be an activist mysticism of perfection, to 
be achieved through a revolutionary transfiguration of the nature of man.
Such as mysticism of the "new man", through participation in violent 
revolutionary upheavals, we find, for instance, in Marxism. 
 
    Our survey of the main symbols and principal variants of modern, 
Gnostic intellectualism, has served two purposes; it has elucidated both 
the theoretical and practical problem which confronts the political 
scientist in our time.  The theoretical problem is relatively simple.  We
know what an intellectual is:  He is a sleepwalker, cooped up in the 
dream-world of his Gnostic fallacies.  And we have a fairly good knowl- 
edge of [sc. the] nature and content of the dreams.  There is a volumi- 
nous, and still strongly growing, literature in existence, which deals 
with the various historical and systematic aspects of Gnostic dreaming.  
Nobody who claims to be a political scientist has today an excuse not to 
know what the theoretical problem is. 
 
    The practical problem is quite a different matter.  From the survey 
it is obvious that our political environment, on the world scale, is 
dominated by Gnostic ideologies.  Most of what we call political litera- 
ture is exposition or apology of this or that Gnostic dream, or an attack
on it.  Political science in the strict sense leads a precarious exist- 
ence in this sea of Gnosticism.  And there is no hope that the situation 
will change [21] substantially in any visible future.  The only symptom 
that the days of the Gnostic nightmare are numbered is the existence of 
the literature to which I referred.  This literature did not exist at the
turn of the century.  It has grown during the last fifty, and most 
intensely during the last thirty years.  We can speak today of a revival 
of political science; and the clear understanding of the nature of 
intellectualism, as a first condition of the revival, is achieved.  
Beyond this point nobody can venture a prediction. 
 
    In conclusion let me refer to the topic that appears in the title of 
our Panel:  Communication between American and European Intellectuals.  
This certainly is a sore practical issue.  But I take it, you will have 
gathered from this paper, that it is rather incidental to the main topic 
treated here.  Communication is difficult, if not impossible, between any
types of intellectuals -- whether American or European, or French and 
German, or Liberals and Fascists -- because the interruption of communi- 
cation, and the closing up in a dream world, is the essence of intellec- 
tualism.  The various types of intellectuals are prone to hate each other
quite as much as they hate the philosophers.  They all are inclined to 
see the world as a conspiracy against their private dream.  In illustra- 
tion of this point I like to confront two characteristic utterances of 
intellectuals in power.  During the war Goebbels in one of his speeches 
spoke of the three great Communist conspirators against the glory of 
National Socialism; the three Communist conspirators were Roosevelt, 
Stalin and the Pope.  [22] After the war, Stalin in one of his speeches 
referred to three great Fascist conspirators against the glory of 
Communism; the three Fascist conspirators were Truman, Attlee and the 
Pope. 
 
    Such pathological idiocy, which is the consequence of self-imprison- 
ment in a dream-world, leaves not much hope for the establishment of 
rational communication. 
 
    Is there no solution to this practical impasse of communication at 
all?  Of course, there is one; and it should be obvious.  The solution is
that the intellectuals stop being intellectuals; that the sleepwalkers 
awake from their dream and re-enter the community of mankind.  But it is 
doubtful whether this solution has much chance to be realized.  For, to 
awake from the dream requires more than brains -- of which the intellec- 
tuals have quite enough.  It requires the spiritual stamina to face rea- 
lity; it requires faith and trust in transcendent reality, the _pistis_ 
in the Pauline sense.  And faith and trust, the spiritual guts -- that is
what the intellectuals don't have. 
 
 
                              _____//\_____ 
                                   \// 
 
 
====================================================================== 
---------   Archive Address:  vax2.concordia.ca/~vorenews   ---------- 
====================================================================== 
Dr. M.W. Poirier                  | Dr. Geoffrey L. Price 
Dept. of Political Science        | Dept. of Religions and Theology 
Concordia University              | University of Manchester 
Loyola Campus                     | MANCHESTER M13 9PL 
7141 Sherbrooke Street W.         | United Kingdom 
MONTREAL, Quebec                  | 
H4B 1R6                           | 
E-Mail: poirmw@Vax2.Concordia.Ca  | E-Mail: g.price@manchester.ac.uk 
======================================================================