Breeding the Aristocracy
Plato, Theognis, and Thomas Jefferson
Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed it is exactly its counterpart. It is the sole antagonist of virtue, leading us constantly by our propensities to self-gratification in violation of our moral duties to others. Accordingly, it is against this enemy that are erected the batteries of moralists and religionists, as the only obstacle to the practice of morality.
Thomas Jefferson, 1814
There has been a recent uproar condemning monogamous “traditional” marriage as being the fate of the Plebians, and rather, presenting polygamy to varying degrees as the path of the Aristocratic race of men. Genghis Khan, Caeser, and Alexander the Great are upheld as the great men of a time past; and if we hope to rebuild from the ashes the world they had, we must spread the seed of the great men of our era. After all, Plutarch recounts for us the great polygamy from which the ancient Greek and Roman heroes were fruits of. This is not the first time Americans have had such a debate, and as we “know of no other way of judging the future but by the past,”1 we can be sure this debate will continue until Christ returns.
On October 28, 1813, Thomas Jefferson sent a letter to John Adams in reply to a question regarding aristocracy. Adams referenced a passage by Theognis which reads that “Nobility in men is worth as much as it is in horses, asses, or rams; but the meanest blooded puppy in the world, if he gets a little money, is as good a man as the best of them.” John Adams comments further that “Yet birth and wealth together have prevailed over virtue and talents in all ages…” These quotes present us with two forms of Aristocracy: the first natural and good, the second unnatural and viscous.
As regards the natural aristocracy, Thomas Jefferson says “For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds for this are virtue and talents.” And of the unnatural he says, “There is also an artificial aristocracy, founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents.” Jefferson concludes that “The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, trust, and government of society.” This is in-keeping with Aristotle who says “For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule… for tame animals have a better nature than wild… Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.”2 These proofs, for any reasonable man, ought to be mere superfluity; a brief look around should make it readily apparent that the idea of a natural aristocracy is confirmed.
Being that we are all agreed that a natural aristocracy exists and is inevitable, then, “May we not… say [with Jefferson],3 that that form of government is the best, which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?” If we may, then we must, before ever entering into a discussion of politics, admit that the way of life is the best, which provides most effectually for the creation and rearing of these natural aristocrats.
Commenting directly on the aforementioned Theognis passage, Jefferson says, “The whole piece is a moral exhortation… and this passage particularly seems to be a reproof to man, who, while with his domestic animals he is curious to improve the race, by employing always the finest male, pays no attention to the improvement of his own race, but intermarries with the viscous, the ugly, or the old, for considerations of wealth and ambitions.” The moral exhortation, Jefferson says, would be “The selecting the best male for a Harem of well chosen females also, which Theognis seems to recommend from the example of our sheep and asses, would doubtless improve the human, as it does the brute animal, and produce a race of veritable [aristocracy].” Now, Jefferson does not give either assent or dissent to the rightness of this exhortation; he merely expounds the meaning of the passage. However, in a later letter to Thomas Law, I do believe we can infer his dissent from such polygamy when he says: “Accordingly, it is against this enemy [of self-love and immorality more broadly] that are erected the batteries of moralists and religionists…”4 If one was to presume that the Colonial flavor of “moralizing” was substantially different than the moralizing of Southerners today, they would be correct: It was far stricter. But lest this is still found to be too much inference, in 1779 Thomas Jefferson wrote that “Whosoever shall be found guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting through the cartilage of her nose…” This binds us to believe that when Jefferson uses the word “vice” in his letter to John Adams, polygamy is undeniably included in the indictment.
The intention of this essay is not to be an exposition of Jefferson’s letter, and I must apologize to the reader for the space that I have dedicated to doing just that. But I do not believe it was a fruitless endeavor. What, I hope, I accomplished was proving that Jefferson saw an incompatibility between vice and the natural aristocracy; an incompatibility confirmed by Plato’s notion of the Philosopher-King who spends his entire life learning to subjugate the passions of the flesh to the reason of the mind; a virtual pre-figuring of a Hesychast in his conquering the flesh.
In one sense it is undeniably true that the Theognis method of breeding an aristocracy may prove successful in the development of some physical attributes; but I am sure that Nebuchadnezzar looked like an archetypal aristocrat before he was made a beast by his sin. And herein lies the irreconcilable difference between the “moralists and religionists” and the polygamists: we are unwilling to lose our souls to gain even the whole world.5
With that said, the physical world is good, and there an ideal for us to strive for. We don’t desire dysgenic offspring; we don’t even want to rear children doomed for a life of political slavery. We can fully concur with Plato when he says that “The bride and bridegroom should consider that they are to produce for the state the best and fairest specimens of children which they can. Now all men who are associated in any action always succeed when they attend and give their mind to what they are doing, but when they do not give their mind or have no mind, they fail; wherefore let the bridegroom give his mind to the bride and to the begetting of children, and the bride in like manner give her mind to the bridegroom, and particularly at the time when their children are not yet born.”6 But, we also agree with Plato that there is a “bride and bridegroom” in the singular; the monogamous implication is further confirmed by a set of laws regarding divorce. One such law being that “Let the begetting of children and the supervision of those who are begetting them continue ten years and no longer, during the time when marriage is fruitful. But if any continue without children up to this time, let them take counsel with their kindred and with the women holding the office of overseer and be divorced for their mutual benefit.”7 This law is particularly telling by its assuming that the bride and bridegroom only have each other to rely on for the creation of children.
It is most desirable, for both the individual and the common good, to marry and have children with someone who will produce the best offspring; I would even argue that we have a moral obligation to such strict standards. Just as polygamy could, potentially, produce a larger pool of natural aristocrats, so could the method that Plato presents in opposition to Theogin. In this principle and goal, we find common ground.
And so, we return to the heart of the matter: that of morality. Those who I have seen promoting such polygamy appear to have no moral standard whatsoever, and if they do, it is arbitrary. We religionists of course, hold morality to be an objective truth. A truth which is not magically revealed to us in Holy Baptism. Thomas Jefferson says “Some have made the love of God the foundation of morality. This, too, is but a branch of our moral duties, which are generally divided into duties to God and duties to man. If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist.” We can, for our present inquiry, exchange “atheist” for “Plato.” This line of reasoning can very quickly pull us off course, but if indulged for a brief moment, may prove fruitful.
Contrary to much popular opinion: morals, ethics, and virtue are not synonymous. Aristotle says that “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good…”8 The Good is the moral standard by which all actions are judged, this good being unchangeable. Ethics are how we, as individual people, act in accordance with the goods in particular circumstances.9 Virtue or virtues are the habit(s) we form which condition us to act morally in any particular case. In other words, the virtues are habits which are themselves aimed at the Good and condition us to act morally at all times; the moral status of any particular act at any particular time is the realm of ethics.
For Plato as for Aristotle and the Church Fathers, the Good (or moral standard) was God; and this was unchangeable. Life’s goal is, perhaps, most concisely summed up in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave which is, essentially, a telling of the fall of man and his salvation.10 We can imagine that every rock grabbed which is stable enough to drag our bodies closer to the light is an ethical action; our hand should, after practice, instinctively reach for stable handholds as the habit of the virtues are developed through education. Thomas Jefferson says:
“The want of perfection of the moral sense in some men… is no proof that it is a general characteristic of the species. When it is wanting, we endeavor to supply the defect by education, by appeals to reason and calculation, by presenting to the being so unhappily conformed, other motives to do good and eschew evil, such as the love, or the hatred, or rejection of those among whom he lives… and ultimately the prospects of a future state of retribution for the evil as well as the good done while here. These are the correctives which are supplied by education, and which exercise the function of the moralist, the preacher, and legislator…”11
For us moralists and religionists, we believe that monogamous “traditional” marriage is the best way to supply future generations with an aristocracy capable of leading it. There is a whole slew of pragmatic issues that could be examined, but those would not get to the heart of the issue at hand. Ultimately, we must ask the question “what is Good”? It would appear that when tried by the tribunal of the two great classical political philosophers, and the whole corpus of the Western world since it was Christianized, they have no ultimate Good. And in like manner, they condemn us as moralists for believing that man or woman can be reduced to that of a beast by immorality and likewise be incapable of producing offspring of a contrary nature. Thomas Jefferson again says, “the moral and physical qualities of a man, whether good or evil, are transmissible in a certain degree from father to son,” I propose we emphasize the moral qualities, namely: a disposition that is opposed to the addiction of pleasing the flesh. Those most fit to rule others, must first get their own house in order and rule themselves; who wants a negro that abandoned his baby-mommas and bastard children ruling a nation?
To convince those who prioritize material gain over spiritual that such is disorder, is a topic for another day. All I hope to accomplish here is to prove that the chasm between these sides of the debate is so vast that it cannot be bridged without one side surrendering its soul. Just as they furnish Khan and Ceaser, so we are guided by Emperor St. Constantine and King St. Alfred. Earthly success is hardly a metric that they would enjoy considering if forced to recognize that, for the last two-millennia, the civilization which gave birth to the aristocracy they so admire, would have hung them for promoting polygamy. At its root, this is a spiritual issue, and the immorality they desire is not for the sake of political success, it is done at the behest of the princes and principalities of the world.12
Sincerely,
John, Son of Dick
Patrick Henry
Aristotle, Politics: Book I: Chapter 4
Blocks mine.
Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
“For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?” Mark 8:36, NKJV
Plato, The Laws
ibid.
Aristotle, Ethics Book I
Unless you are a Kantian, and then, well I just don’t care
St. Gregory of Nyssa is famous for employing this allegory
Letter to Thomas Law
Ephesians 6:2
Excellent post. 👍