20 Tuesdays

Lesson 20: We can always begin again.

Dear Reader,

Here we are! We have reached the end.

How are you feeling today?

Tonight, I will teach The Origins of Totalitarianism. We will talk about propaganda. We will talk about mass movements. We will talk about ideology. We will talk about terror. We will talk about abandonment. We will talk about the desire for simple solutions to complex political problems.

But right now, we are going to talk about endings and new beginnings. Because that is where Hannah Arendt ends her book. Against radical hope and radical despair, there is the simple fact that new beginnings are always possible.

Thank you for reading.

Thank you for spending these past twenty weeks with me.

Please vote today.

Next up: I hope you will join me on a journey up to Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain. Details soon.

Until Tuesday,

Sam

---

Lesson #20: We can always begin again.

---

Key quote:

But there remains also the truth that every end in history necessarily contains a new beginning; this beginning is the promise, the only “message” which the end can ever produce. Beginning, before it becomes a historical event, is the supreme capacity of man; politically, it is identical with man’s freedom. Initium ut esset homo creatus est— “that a beginning be made man was created” said Augustine. This beginning is guaranteed by each new birth; it is indeed every man.

We are free to change the world and to start something new in it.

---

Core idea:

Hannah Arendt returns to this idea of beginning from Saint Augustine throughout her work. It provides the foundation for her concept of natality, which is the root of action. It is the idea that every action sets something new into motion.

---

---

The Many Endings of Origins (From an older post)

• Conclusion #1 (The original, now deleted conclusion from 1951):

When Hannah Arendt pitched her manuscript in the late fall of 1943 the war was still ongoing. She wrote as she read and changed the outline of her book as new information became available. By the time she finished a first draft in 1949, Hitler was dead, but Stalin was still alive. The final chapter on “Totalitarianism in Power” ends with a forewarning that the elements of totalitarianism will continue to exist in the world:

Totalitarian solutions may well survive the fall of totalitarian regimes in the form of strong temptations which will come up whenever it seems impossible to alleviate political, social, or economic misery in a manner worthy of man.

The conclusion to the first edition of The Origins of Totalitarianism was deleted from subsequent editions. It was titled “Concluding Remarks” and Arendt described it as “consciously inconclusive.” One of the issues she wrestled with while writing was the changing state of totalitarianism itself, as new information became available. She was unhappy with the word “origins” in the title, and thought the book would need to be revised at least every seven years.

The original, now deleted conclusion reads:

For those who were expelled from humanity and from human history and thereby deprived of their human condition need the solidarity of all men to assure them of their rightful place in ‘man’s enduring chronicle.’ At least we can cry out to each one of those who rightly is in despair: ‘Do thyself no harm; for we are all here.’ (Acts, 16:28)

---

• Conclusion #2 (The conclusion to the revised and expanded 1958 edition, deleted in subsequent printings):

In the revised and expanded 1958 edition, Arendt included two new chapters, “Ideology and Terror,” “Epilogue: Reflections on the Hungarian Revolution.” These sections were later retracted after more information about the Hungarian Revolution and workers’ councils became available.

The 1958 conclusion reads:

Still, the danger signs of 1956 were real enough, and although today they are overshadowed by the successes of 1957 and the fact that the system was able to survive, it would not be wise to forget them. If they promise anything at all, it is much rather a sudden and dramatic collapse of the whole regime than a gradual normalization. Such a catastrophic development, as we learned from the Hungarian revolution, need not necessarily entail chaos—though it certainly would be rather unwise to expect from the Russian people, after forty year of tyranny and thirty years of totalitarianism, the same spirit and the same political productivity which the Hungarian people showed in their most glorious hour.

In a short reflective essay written for The Meridian, on the occasion of the publication of the revised edition, Arendt reflects on her new conclusion:

Thus, the last chapter of the present edition is an Epilogue or an afterthought. I am not at all sure that I am right in my hopefulness, but I am convinced that it is as important to present all of the inherent hopes of the present as it is to confront ruthlessly all its intrinsic despairs. In any event, to a political writer, this must be more important than to present the reader with a well-rounded book.

---

• Conclusion #3 (The end of the book as it stands today after Arendt retracted her writing on the Hungarian Revolution):

When Arendt deleted the original conclusion, the additional chapter on the Hungarian Revolution, she let “Ideology and Terror” stand as the new end to the work.

The end of “Ideology and Terror” reads:

But there remains also the truth that every end in history necessarily contains a new beginning; this beginning is the promise, the only “message” which the end can ever produce. Beginning, before it becomes a historical event, is the supreme capacity of man; politically, it is identical with man’s freedom. Initium ut esset homo creatus est— “that a beginning be made man was created” said Augustine. This beginning is guaranteed by each new birth; it is indeed every man.

Even in 1958, Arendt thought this was the appropriate end for her book even though it was the penultimate chapter. In “Totalitarianism” she describes her frustration with the 1951 conclusion:

The book originally ended with certain suggestive but consciously inconclusive ‘Concluding Remarks’ that are now replaces with a much less suggestive and more theoretical chapter on ‘Ideology and Terror: A Novel Form of Government.’ This chapter seemed to me the book’s paper conclusion; but from a more aesthetic viewpoint, it may be argued that the very inclusiveness of the original ending, showing the extent to which the author was involved and prepared to remain engaged in her subject matter, was better attuned to the mood and style of the whole book.

Table of Contents for the 1968 edition.

---

Question for Conversation:

1. What new conclusion/s might Arendt write today?

---

Comments are open! Let me know how you’re feeling.

Until soon,

Sam