I do not feel healthy comparatively. I am healthy, absolutely. For a long time I knew that my health could reside only in my own conviction, and it was foolish nonsense, worthy of a hypnagogue dreamer, to try to reach it through treatment rather than persuasion. I suffer some pains, it’s true, but they lack significance in the midst of my great health.
Thus concludes the self-assessment of Zeno, the vice-ridden, spineless, hypochondriac narrator of Italo Svevo’s modernist classic Zeno’s Conscience, a fictional psychological memoir that drags the reader through four hundred pages of mental blind alleys, rabbit trails, and switchbacks, following one of literature’s most unreliable narrators as he traces the sordid topography of his mind.
Idle, wealthy, and incompetent in early twentieth-century Trieste, Zeno has little to occupy his time, money, and mind. As often happens to such men, he takes to considering himself the victim of circumstance and physiognomy, concocting fantastic ailments to explain his lack of willpower and success. For instance, he chalks up his inability to abandon his despised cigarette habit to a systemic mental flaw, but simultaneously flatters himself with pseudo-philosophical speculations about the great strength of character he shows with each “last cigarette,” paired with the inexpressible delight of each subsequent “first cigarette.”
Desirable women and enviable men awaken in him the longing to conquer and best, but his lack of real talent frustrates his efforts; each successive defeat results in more crippling imaginary ailments and mental gymnastics, driving him further and further into the labyrinth of excuses and manipulative tactics that he calls his mind. Even when he ends up more or less happily married, he spends his time pursuing mistresses and prostitutes, all the while convincing himself that his betrayals enable him to show a greater fidelity to his wife than he otherwise could.
Zeno is obsessed with health, a concept he invests with Nietzschean import, suggesting not only bodily integrity but indomitable will. Zeno only feels “great health” when he makes a bold act of the will that frees him from his internal mental prison, a power that he finds in flagrantly immoral, selfish, or debased acts. Thus his first encounter with his mistress leaves him temporarily free of his usual limp, just as abandoning a dying friend’s bedside enables him to buzz with life, and skipping his close relative’s funeral to speculate on the market earns him his first real economic success.
Only irrational acts invest Zeno with great health. In the novel, the intellect is a Moebius strip of endless manipulation, fantasy, and self-delusion; only acts of pure will, stripped of all intelligibility, give vigor to his feeble character. As he reflects in the quote above, he becomes free of his debilitating mental and physical sicknesses not through a doctor’s ministrations, but by the sheer conviction that he is no longer ill. Only in will is there power.
Having come up for air after finishing Svevo’s tome, we may be tempted to write off Zeno as a pathetic, deluded worst-case scenario, a bizarre outlier in the post-Freudian age. Yet to do so would be a tremendous mistake, for Zeno commits one of the contemporary age’s most common—and egregious—errors.
Zeno errs in dividing the intellect from the will, acting as if the two basic aspects of the human mind are in fundamental conflict with one another. To Zeno, the intellect and its capacities are dangerous pits for the unwary, and those who fall into them crawl out crippled and battered, if at all. Only acts of unreflective, spontaneous will are truly free and therefore truly human.
Many of the cultural factors feeding into this bifurcated life that Svevo describes have only grown in the intervening 88 years since his book was published. Skeptical psychological and epistemological models deny the ability of man to know anything. Freedom is seen nearly ubiquitously as following the dictates of my will, without any input from outside.
These ideas have contributed to a widespread embrace of, for example, deconstructionist “play” in the academy that pits the intelligibility of a text against the will of the reader, and in the wider culture a dominant relativism based not on respect for the truth, but on the inviolability of the will. Why, for instance, someone would want to get a sex change cannot be questioned. The desire, the will, is its own justification.
The end result of these attitudes is what could be called a confrontational solipsism—simply put, the belief that only my problems are real. Zeno exemplifies the tendency perfectly, as he shows by his actions that he believes himself to be the only genuine human, and everyone else he encounters is merely a walking crisis in potentia that he must navigate away from disaster and towards his own pleasure. Lacking any common intelligible ground with other people, he and we are free—or forced—to use others as it suits our fancies, whether that takes the shape of Zeno’s infidelities and shameless manipulation or our blasé embrace of pornography and embryo-destroying research.
The modern age did not create Zeno—surely the temptation to live as if only my will really matters is as old as sin itself—but we live with him in a particularly intense way as we place more and more emphasis on will, whim, and predilection, seeing intellect and will as mortal enemies. Svevo’s novel ends with Zeno proposing the only reconciliation between intellect and will he can imagine: that one normal man, sick with the will to power, will use his intellect to build a bomb of unprecedented size, and that another normal man, sicker yet, will detonate it. After that “the earth, once again a nebula, will wander through the heavens, freed of parasites and sickness.”
Writing in the long shadow of World War I, Svevo’s pessimism is understandable. We, too, standing in the longer shadow of the twentieth century, could be tempted to join his despair. But we always have reason to hope in the central, uniting facet of human life that is conspicuous by its absence from Svevo’s novel: love. In love the will embraces what the intellect sees, and in love we are freed from our solipsism, able to regard other people honestly and without manipulation. By love alone are we healed—this may be the most important thing Zeno’s conscience had to tell him.
Gabriel Torretta, OP, is studying for the priesthood in the Dominican Order. He is the associate editor of Dominicana, a journal of literature, commentary, and opinion from a contemplative, Dominican perspective.
RESOURCES
Italo Svevo, Zeno's Conscience: A Novel
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
Empathy is one of the things that separates us from the beasts. It is what draws us together as a society. Letting us think of how someone would feel in our shoes or thinking of how we would feel in their is very important and one of the best ways to relieve pain in the world and instead bring peace.
I can't find your quote - "by love alone we are healed" - in any Bible whatsoever. Can you cite the source? In the meantime, I'm going with God. Who says, after all, "The heart is deceitful above all things."
What separates us from the beasts, both theology and anthropology, is greater intelligence. Aquinas referring for example, to the "rational soul." Lionessess probably "love" their cubs; but they are still animals.
The problem with "love," and the "heart," is that people love the wrong things, often. They love drugs; or a false idea of God. Women love bad men, often. Therefore? We need a critical mind - or what the Church calls critical intellectual "discernment." And not just an indiscriminate and lying "heart," but also the "mind of CHrist." To make sure that what we love, really is good; really is God.
Love therefore, is not the answer, as many have wrongly imagined.
And so? Let's deal with Post-Modernism, on its own terms; on more intellectual grounds.
It's been a long while since I read it, though (nearly 10 years) so maybe I remember wrong.
It seems to me that the so-called "avante-garde" artisitic ideas of Svevo, like those of many of his comtemporaries (e.g. Pirandello), became fertile ground for the full-blown fly-in-the-face-of-reality Facism that came to Italy and beyond during his life.
The Moderns achieved little by placing the will over the intellect, and it seems to me that the Post-Moderns are trying to get along without either.
To be sure, love abides!!!
Also, thank you for your absurd and uncharitable dismissal of the Dominican order courtesy of one verse from Jeremiah. That's some impressive Bible skills there.
Speaking of charity or the lack thereof, did you forget those inspired words from the most popular and most quoted chapter in the Bible?
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. . . . And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."
Or that greatest commandment from the lips of Our Lord:
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
Even in Jeremiah we are told: "And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."
I think it's rather obvious that you're battling some bogey off stage, not speaking to Gabriel's article at all, and that you've committed a few fundamental category confusions to boot.
Understanding the Hebrew understanding of "heart" would be a good place for you to start if you're at all interested in trading in your egregious eisegesis for better Bible reading and a more authentically Christian vision for which charity is, well, rather at the heart of things.
Post-Modernism is an all-too-easy/cliched target these days for conservatives. But suppose we look in a little more depth?
Remember first, especially that Hegel, then Freud, Lacan and others, suggested that we tend to project our own anxieties and sins, on other people: on the "Other." And the case of your piece, it's clear to me that you are projecting some of the sins of Catholicism on modern secular culture.
First? 1) Post Modern culture is thought at times, to have a preoccupation with material things. But? Classic Catholicism also promised huge physical, material miracles, "prosperity," to those who followed it.
Then? 2) Post Modernism is sometimes accused of slipping out of material reality, into a fantasy world of fantasies, signs, mental significations. But? In a very real sense, Pauline Christianity especially also did exactly that too: interpreting all promises of material things, as being merely metaphors, "figures," for mental/"spiritual" things.
So that? If Moses and even Jesus at times, promised us real, physical, literal, material "bread"? Eventually, Christianity slipped that into the world of mere signs; construing it as a mere metaphor, for mental/spiritual reality. For example? Though the OT clearly promised us real physical material "bread," in the NT, the mere mental sensations/spiritual ideas of Jesus, are said to be spiritual food; "bread indeed."
The chief error of all-too-common, facile conservative criticisms of post-modernism - aside from mere self-satisfied sentimentality - is ... projecting your own traditional sins, on others.
Follow God: and "look for the beam in your own eye," before you criticize the Other.
ummm...what are you talking about?
Prosperity gospel in "classical Catholicism?"
1) I've never seen any promise of material wealth in Catholicism. I'm pretty sure this is a strain of American evangelicalism- nothing "classic" about it.
2) What is "classical" Catholicism? Ante-Nicene? Medieval? I'm not sure that is the right designation for any period of the church.
And what are you talking about with your second criticism? There is this sacrament called the Eucharist...it's a pretty big deal, and it's very material and very real....
Yes we should follow God but maybe we should keep an eye out on where we are going to make sure we don't lose Him.
Thanks Jo, for the laugh. Keep it up!
1) Material wealth or success: the Bible - upon which Catholicism is at least partially based (according to the Catechism) - promised prosperity, but also another form of physical rewrards. That is, it promised big physical miracles - to those that followed Jesus.
Catholicism may have - or might have after all, in selling indulgences -stressed monetary prosperity. But it did build huge material churches; and promised huge material miracles. Incredible healings of the physical body, and so forth; the ability to move real, physical "mountains" and so forth.
2) Classic, conservatism Catholicism did this; defining "classic" as normative, mainstream Catholicism historically, over the last 2,000 years.
THe basic appeal of much of Christianity, was therefore in part, promises of very, very physical rewards: Physical miracles. Touch the bones of a saint, and be cured of your physical disease.
3) But then? In many elements, Christianity/Catholicism, began to speak more about mental or "spiritual" rewards. Yet? When our church shifted from physical things to somewhat, spiritual or mental rewards? In effect, it shifted into the mental/spiritual world, where thoughts, spirits satisfy; or to translate into the language of Post-Modernism, the world of mental ideas, or "signs."
To be sure, the Eucharist is today said not to be just a "sign" of Jesus; but the real body. At the same time however? Religion of course, began to emphasize the spiritual, not the physical. Which in Modern language was "ideas," or in Post Modern language, "signs."
So that? Ironically, religion, Catholicism, long ago committed the two "sins" that the author describes: 1) materialism (material miracles) at first. But also then the opposite extreme: making the transition far too much, into an 2) economy of signs. Into what in Modernism would be called mental - and in religion, spiritual - entities.
Ironically, Christianity in fact became essentially Post Modernist long ago.
So that when our author condemns Post Modernism? Ironically, he condemns himself.
Sometimes I get this feeling that brainy people don't allow themselves to have any fun - everything must be so serious all the time. Wouldn't it be nice if there was an amusement park, or a small travelling carnival, that would appeal to the intelligentsia among us, and allowed them at least a temporary escape from "the mind"?
Here is one ride that might offer such an escape: "The Freudian Slide". Isn't it amazing what one can throw up on this ride?
For the less adventurous, there is the "Carousel of Meaninglessness". Not exactly an escape, but there is some repeating motion involved;
And for the complete wimps, there is always the "House of Phobias".
The music for this park would be provided by the Polkaholics, with the "Existentialist Polka" as the theme song.
Aren't there even MORE serious problems, in turn, with anti-intellectualism? Or even being anti-intelligence?
Let's have, after all, not just an over-sentimental and easily-deceived "heart"; but also the "mind of Christ."
MES:
No doubt the Bible itself often supported love; but it often often warned about it. As for the specific quote offered above? "By love alone we are healed"? I could only find it in references of the Buddha; and Raiku (SP).
Actually, the all-too-common and simple attachment to "love" and the "heart," is not really a fully Christian idea. The idea our good future father is citing as his ultimate value, and anti-intellectual weapon, is not really, exactly, from God.
Pretty funny, eh?
"What separates us from the beasts, both theology and anthropology, is greater intelligence. Aquinas referring for example, to the "rational soul." Lionessess probably "love" their cubs; but they are still animals."
There are numerous articles that discuss emotional intelligence, empathy, and how it can sometimes be a more important trait than book smarts. Being able to picture the power of being rebellious, or the power of love, is very important to understanding the world around us. The lioness doesn't understand why she loves her cubs, but she does. Empathy is understanding how people will feel when they are put in certain situations.
Do you think it would be fair to say that we are healed by and through God alone? It looks like this:
1)We are healed by and through God alone
2)God is Love (Jn 4:8)
3)We are healed by and through Love alone
A little exegesis can go a long way.
And, though it is funny, I don't think we're laughing at the same thing.



Regarding love, the Bible that "the heart is deceitful above all things" (in Jeremiah).
Contrary to Dominicanism, mere sentiment will not suffice.