Bioethical Motifs in the Literary Work of Karel Čapek

                                           Petr Jemelka



Abstract

This text presents an assessment of the literary work of Karel Čapek from a perspective that has
not yet been discussed. It focuses on analysing Čapek’s works from the viewpoint of their possible
inspiration by bioethical issues. Čapek’s philosophy and the powerful ethical charge of his texts
tend to be associated with his interest in pragmatism, a subject to which, however, he took an
individual and critical approach. One of the most important categories of his way of thinking is
life. In his prose works and plays we therefore see motifs that may be associated with the thematic
definition of bioethics. These are questions concerning the value and quality of human life,
problems of the dehumanizing impact of science and technology, as well as reflections upon the
moral dimension of man’s relationship to nature and also to the relationship between people and
animals. Čapek’s work may therefore provide inspiration from the perspective of the history of the
gradual formation of the bioethical point of view.

Keywords

bioethics, literature, life, humanity, science


The literary work of Karel Čapek (or both Čapek brothers) is undoubtedly of lasting value, in many
ways extending beyond the framework of our national spiritual culture. Another highly apt
characteristic is the title of the film version of the close of Čapek’s life – “Člověk proti zkáze”
[“Man versus Ruin.”][1]  By this we mean that Čapek’s setting in the period situation of interwar
Czechoslovakia and Europe and his awareness of the gradually intensifying crisis and the threat of
a breakdown in values, enabled the creation of literary works that embody a timeless humanism.
Their artistic value is a lasting cultural mainstay supported by a remarkable philosophical base
and moral appeal.

These aspects have of course already been the focus of interest and research. Even so, in this
article we want to justify the view that even today there are sides of Čapek's literary legacy that
have not yet been the focus of adequate attention. Specifically, this study will attempt to answer
the question of whether we are right in also considering Čapek’s texts as an interesting incentive
to reflect upon the development of bioethically motivated thinking. It seems that this point is
still hampered by a certain simplifying schematic interpretation, one that merely evaluates
potential “biologizing” motifs as allegories (particularly the impending rise of totalitarian
regimes at the time) without exploring the matter any more deeply. We are therefore faced with the
question of whether we can reveal Čapek’s more specific interest in working with themes that entail
scientific and technological development in the category of life in its deepest meaning.
Incidentally, Čapek came from a doctor’s family.

However, let us also bear in mind that “… the philosophical interpretations of fiction should
always take account of Mukařovský’s words that the search for the philosophy of a certain work of
art is actually the conversion of a work of art into conceptual language, which entails the risk of
a subjective interpretation.” (Zouhar, 2008, p. 194)


                                  Philosophy, Ethics and Fiction


We could base our considerations on an evaluation of the potential offered for philosophy (and
ethics) by an area of non-theoretical work – fiction. Here we realise that philosophy should not
limit itself to a certain interpretation of the world, but that its true purpose is to strive to
understand the relationship between the world and man. Therefore, it should not only say “this is
how it is,” but should also be able to explain how it came to this conclusion and also show what
that means for us. How we should deal with the world and ourselves, what to do and why, and, on the
other hand, what to avoid – which is now axiology and ethics: “… philosophy has resolved and
continues to resolve a more or less constant set of questions that keep returning – the problem of
existence, space and time, movement and development, truth and truthfulness, values and evaluation.
On the other hand, philosophy is bound to a certain era, expresses its questions and responds to
them in a manner conditioned by the time … it reflects and also helps to shape the spiritual
atmosphere of the age.” (Zouhar, 2008, p. 192)

It is here that we find points of contact between science, philosophy and the artistic message of
literature. Incidentally, we know from history that many philosophers opted to express their ideas
in an artistic form (Nietzsche, Sartre …). If we consider the Czech author at this point, we can
also fully concur with the following statement: “For Czech thinking it is then even more true that
particular thought tendencies are not necessarily expressed in philosophy, but in certain contexts
may be updated in art … And thus it is incontestable that certain leading figures in the history of
Czech literature and art have at the same time played a major role in shaping the thought
atmosphere of Czech society. Their works of art, and also their essays and theoretical works, deal
with serious philosophical questions aimed at understanding and grasping the subjectivity in modern
society, at reflecting upon period social and political problems, at discussing the philosophy of
Czech history and seeking a relationship with religion.” (Zouhar, 2008, p. 191)

Basically, it may be said that the literary form is one important way of preserving that human
dimension of the philosophical message. And that is what it is all about, we can say with the now
unjustly forgotten philosopher V. Gardavský, whose philosophical, religionist and artistic texts[2]
reflect the spiritual atmosphere of another key era in our history – the atmosphere of the nineteen
sixties.


                            Brief Note on the Philosophy of Karel Čapek


Karel Čapek is not considered merely as an artist and publicist; frequent reference is also made to
his long-standing interest in philosophy (which, incidentally, he had a university degree in). In
this context it is also usual to draw attention to Čapek’s tendency towards pragmatism. This is
derived from Čapek’s professional study on this topic, which was later reflected in his literary
work (the one that particularly tends to be mentioned is the “Noetic” trilogy - Hordubal, Povětroň
[Meteor] and Obyčejný život [Ordinary Life]).

On the margins of this interpretative tradition, however, a more specific note should be made. That
study on pragmatism was originally just Čapek’s student seminar work in 1914. It came out as a book
entitled Pragmatismus čili Filosofie praktického života [Pragmatism or, The Philosophy of the
Practical Life] in 1918, followed by an extended edition in 1925. Čapek completed his studies in
1915, with his doctoral dissertation focused on the methodology of visual art aesthetics. (Zouhar,
1998, pp. 79-81) Čapek’s study of philosophy was definitely strongly influenced by the positivist
atmosphere that was prevalent in this country at the time (incidentally, he presented his work on
pragmatism at Fr. Krejčí’s seminar). However, during his time spent studying in Berlin and Paris,
he also came across other stimuli (Bergson’s vitalism, the civilizational scepticism of O. y
Gasset). Pragmatism itself (as pointed out by K. Vorovka in his Americká filosofie [American
Philosophy] from 1929) was for Europe a surprising manifestation of new philosophical
possibilities. All of this combined to shape Čapek’s path to his highly specific critical adoption
of pragmatism. After all, Čapek did not become a mere epigon. He did not stop at pragmatic noetics,
but constantly called for compliance with the criterion of rationality in the field of knowledge.
What he mainly drew from pragmatism were its moral dimension and the refocusing of attention from
abstract topics to everyday life. Incidentally, Čapek’s distaste for the subordination of the value
of authentic human life to the abstract values of so-called ideology can be seen very early, before
he began to take an active interest in pragmatism. Back in 1910 he wrote the following on the
unfortunate patriotic idealization of national history and particularly figures in that history:
“There exists something like a Czech demon or some sort of curse. Imagine a very strange cruelty
here: removing man from our history and stuffing him with ideas, ideology, moralism, virtue and
politics; but alas! That man was alive until then, and died only when he was stuffed. But that is
not cruelty; is it not perhaps a lack of feel for life, for temperature, for uncooled organisms? It
is a kind of Czech demon (and now there may follow a series of translations from yesterday and
today). It is strange what is being done with history in this country: it is like a revaccination
of national ideas; and as a result of this vaccination they generally come some sort of
sacrificial, altar animals…” (Čapek, 1910, p.75)

For K. Čapek the most valuable thing about pragmatism was that it aspired to be a philosophy in the
service of life: “For Čapek, ´his´ pragmatism was one way to express his affinity with life and
people, an affinity that was certainly benevolent and kind, but also responsible, and thus, if
necessary, also critical and implacable.” (Gabriel, 2002, p. 33)

And so, in Krakatit for instance, we first find this appreciation of the simple life, when Prokop
wants to give up reason:

“But here, here I started to be happy. Here I found that perhaps … there is nothing better than to
think. Here one just lives …and sees that it is something tremendous … simply to live … Every
animal has the ability … and it seems to me so tremendous, as if I had never lived before now.”
(Čapek, 1989, p. 69) However, at the close of this novel he is corrected by Grandfather[3], warning
of the importance of reason for life, for human action:

“Grandfather,” wailed Prokop, squinting his eyes in pain, “have I done wrong?”

“What is right and wrong?” said the old man after some thought. “You have hurt people. With reason
you would not have done it, there must be reason; and a man must think what each thing is for …”

“Have I done wrong?”

“What?”

“Have I been bad?”

“… You were not clean inside. A man … should think more than feel. And you hurled yourself headlong
into everything like a madman.” (Čapek, 1989, p. 303)

And from that life-targeting aspect of pragmatism, emphasised even further by Čapek, we can derive
a certain argument to support our exploration of the bioethical dimension of Čapek’s work.
Incidentally, at roughly the same time the topic of the value of life (not only human) becomes the
focus of attention for other authors. For instance, A. Schweitzer’s ethic of respect for life
appeared, while in the thoughts of the German pastor F. Jahr we find the term bioethics; A. Leopold
comes up with a new categorical imperative in his The Land Ethic. Not even vitalism (neovitalism)
had said its last word – in fact, (in Lessing’s work) it had found a new motif criticising
civilisation. Fr. Mareš shaped his philosophy of respect from a vitalistic perspective. In fact, we
could even consider the praise for the traditional peaceful peasant life in rural form[4] and
similar motifs expressed by Heidegger (and also, however, in the in the terrible mysticism of the
Blut und Boden [Blood and Soil] ideology).

In addition to this, Čapek also evidently followed developments in interwar science, both Czech and
foreign. Biological disciplines were a remarkably expanding component in science during this time.
Efforts to penetrate through to the essence of life (physiology, genetics) also led to the
emergence of so-called marginal scientific disciplines (biophysics, biochemistry) – and we may then
see R.U.R., for example, as one outcome of this interest of Čapek’s, as “biochemical theatre”. In
the inanimate nature sciences, the inspiration for this lay in the completely new results of
quantum and relativistic physics; Krakatit is entirely based on the notion of the amazing and
terrifying potential of nuclear fission. In this, Čapek even soon (Krakatit is from 1924, Továrna
na Absolutno [The Absolute at Large] is even two years later) showed a greater degree of
clairvoyance than our positivists, who generally rejected modern tendencies in physical theory as
mere speculation.

However, Čapek did not view the development of science and subsequent new technological
possibilities with naive optimism.[5] His works warn against unleashing the dehumanized destructive
forces of technology and science, and the terrors of this new power. This, for example, is the
(Nietzschean) argument put forward by Daimon Prokop in Krakatit: “Do not count lives; work on a
large scale, and the whole world has billions of lives… You are the first man in the world who may
consider the whole world his laboratory … a creator who is not a supreme lord and ruler, but is
merely a fool” (Čapek, 1989, pp. 267-268)

Through his work Čapek was thus anchored firmly in the growing problems of his age. However, in
those problems he found not only partial questions that varied over time, but above all painfully
perceived a threat that would affect the very value of humanity and life. This is another reason
why we make so bold to find themes in his works that rightfully belong to bioethics.


                                         Utopia and Ethics


Despite recognising the importance of Čapek’s literary legacy, certain doubts may still arise –
whether it is truly appropriate to seek such serious motifs in a literary genre that is considered
by many to be marginal literature, if not pulp fiction.[6] Such a view could raise the question of
whether the moral importance of many of Čapek’s utopian works may truly be compared with the moral
charge of the novels of Balzac, Dickens or Kundera.

A positive answer may be given to this question in at least two ways. Firstly, we may argue
generally in favour of the sci-fi genre in the sense that it cannot be reduced to mere shallow
entertainment. After all, this genre also reflects serious themes that are so new and surprising
that “more serious literature” has not yet managed to take over, as, for example, they are linked
to specific and highly specialised information on developments in research and technology.
Incidentally, back in 1962 the value and importance of sci-fi literature for ethics was
acknowledged by J. Popelová, even though she did take a somewhat biased and ideologically-based
view in comparing the literary works of Western authors and authors from the Eastern Bloc.
According to her, some form a pessimistic anti-Utopia, while others offer optimistic and inspiring
ideas of a bright future. (Popelová, 1962, pp. 225-227)

The second means of defending the deep moral importance of Čapek’s work could start with the
following question – what does the Utopian nature of Čapek’s works actually involve? And here we
find that in each case these are texts with a powerful and exciting story, sometimes action-packed,
sometimes set in exotic locations. So far, marginal literature. Válka s mloky [War with the Newts]
may thus be reminiscent of the adventures of Biggles. One remarkable match in the case of Válka s
mloky [War with the Newts] is that the same year (1936) saw the publication of H. P. Lovecraft’s
famous horror novella The Shadow over Innsmouth, which is also about an invasion of aquatic
monsters. However, there is one significant difference. Lovecraft’s text is nothing more than an
undoubtedly good, suggestively written and well-structured horror. In contrast, Čapek’s tale takes
the form of an adventure story to reflect on the real rise of a totalitarian regime, and is thus a
kind of easily understandable allegory or parable.

In the more general sense we can say that the Utopian nature of Čapek’s works stems from his use of
a common imagination that extends beyond inspiration drawn from science and technology. However,
Čapek did not abandon his imagination for vague and expansive excursions, but is always well
grounded in the real form and direction of research and technical development. He thus elaborates
on questions already raised by science. Yet he does not stop there; his works are not engaging for
their futuristic view in the style of J. Verne. Čapek’s (not only) Utopian work presents
significant, primarily moral questions – human values, the possibilities and limitations of freedom
and decision-making and always the eternal cost of life. “In all works a Utopian (fantasy) object –
subject becomes a principle that unveils reality, revealing its contradictions, differentiating
human characters, unmasking all spheres of human activity.” (Hodrová, 1987, p. 86) Those fantasy
motifs and backdrops are thus primarily means of obtaining readable forms and particularly
surprising perspectives, which explore moral issues that are both traditional and may be expected
to arise in the future. A gripping and readable powerful story with a humanistic message – that is
what cannot simply be dismissed by a contemptuous reference to mere Utopianism: “… In the works of
Karel Čapek Utopia gradually ceased to be … something separated from fact by a Utopian distance as
in the classic Utopia, and became ever more markedly the thing through which fact passes, what is a
hidden reality.” (Ibid., p. 103)


                          The Three Pillars of Bioethics in Čapek’s Texts


Let’s now attempt to take a more specific and summary look at the individual aspects that make up
bioethics as a whole (human life and health, environmental ethics and issues of so-called animal
ethics) in Čapek’s work. His anti-Utopia[7] and other formats of his literary work reflect all
these three areas of bioethics in a certain manner. We are not interested in providing an
exhaustive list of all such texts and seeking out all the slightest allusions they contain.
Instead, we will try to offer a selection of texts in which bioethical motifs feature most
distinctly.

Even so, let us start our selection with texts whose true meaning, although evidently inspired by
biology, lies in other of the author’s motivations. So, we may say that the play Ze života hmyzu
[The Insect Play], as well as his later novel Válka s mloky [War with the Newts] use animals in a
surrogate sense. The aforementioned play is a genre fable (or band of fables) that highlights
morally problematic forms of human behaviour. Although Válka s mloky [War with the Newts] works
with the idea of the environment having been extensively devastated by an invasion of an aggressive
species of animal, its message is allegoric. It is a warning against the threat of the expansion of
a specific totalitarian regime, which soon proved to be particularly topical and tragic. It is thus
a warning against defeatist inaction or, on the other hand, against the active support of evil.
“Čapek clearly sees this ´other´ being as the result of human activity, as something that has
unleashed itself from man or which, through man’s actions, has developed into an independent
existence, on that it dangerous to man.” (Hodrová, 1987, p. 91) The novel also has a very valuable
dimension – humour.[8]  By this means Čapek (like Hašek before him) faces the brutal threat of
violence and war: “Chief Salamander is a man. His name is Andreas Schultze and during the world war
he was a Master-Sergeant somewhere.” (Čapek, 1953, p. 268) And another more general ironic barb:
“Have you ever come across anything so terrible and murderous that an intellectual wants to use it
to revive the world?” (Ibid., p. 266)

Motivated in a similar manner was Čapek’s older Krakatit, which mostly warns against the abuse of
science for the purposes of war. Here we can draw analogies with Utopias presented along similar
lines by Troska. However, those are considerably naive in their means, optimistic in their
consequences and problematic in their overall tone. Nemo's realm watches out for world peace, which
it can also bring about by force. However, this is simply another form of society-wide totalitarian
control. Troska’s ambitions as an author never went beyond the bounds of adventure literature for
youngsters.

However, the situation is entirely different in the case of Čapek’s Bílá nemoc [The White Plague].
Once again, the main motif there is the threat of another world war. In the foreword to this play
Čapek wrote: “One of the characteristics of post-war humanity is its retreat from what is
sometimes, almost with contempt, called humanity.” (Čapek, 1956, p. 265) Čapek associates this
departure from the traditional value of human life and human rights with the rise of totalitarian
ideologies. In the name of class, the state, the nation or race, these ideologies strive to
establish an autocratic regime, in which man is wholly and violently subordinate to those so-called
higher units: “… this is a conflict between the ideals of democracy and the ideals of unrestricted
and ambitious dictatorships.” (Ibid., p. 266)

In this play the reversal in values is symbolised by a pandemic of an incurable disease, the
symptoms of which resemble leprosy. With this theme Čapek again stressed the threat of a crisis to
humanity, as “… a sick and wretched person is compulsively and typically a subject of humanity.”
(Ibid., p. 266) Here, drawing on a bioethical problem (medical ethics), Čapek escalated an entire
conflict between a fierce "craving for power" and the humanitarian ideal. Doctor Galén has
discovered an effective drug to treat the white plague. As an idealist, he wants to use his
discovery to force the preservation of peace. In the name of humanity and as a token of respect for
human life he therefore “… refuses to help the suffering, as he himself fatally accepts the
inexorable morality of the struggle.” (Ibid., p. 267) He is consciously compromising the original
mission of a doctor – in his hope of saving world peace. However, he meets with a tragic end (he is
trampled by a crowd), thus bringing an end to hope. Čapek adds: “However the war ends, a war whose
tumult is brought to a close by the white plague, what is certain is that in his suffering Man has
remained unsaved.” (Ibid., p. 267) Čapek points out that this tragic conclusion is no solution. He
did not want to offer any false hope of a miracle in a situation of real escalating threat. Ending
like this, the play is supposed to be a call to fight a real battle, one which affects everyone not
as members of the theatre audience, but as those who really will have to go through that battle, “…
those who must know on which side of the global dramatic conflict lies the whole right and the
whole life of a small nation.” (Ibid., p. 268)

Human life and its value and quality also form part of another of Čapek’s well-known plays – Věc
Makropulos [The Makropulos Affair].[9] However, it was written a long time before Bílá nemoc [The
White Plague] (in 1922), specifically inspired by science, and Čapek described it as a comedy. One
again, the central motif is a bioethical matter – the possibility of prolonging human life. After
drinking a certain alchemical potion, the main character lives for more than three hundred years,
during which time she has to change her identity. She is worn out and sick of living so long and
eventually decides to forego the elixir. Eventually, the final conflict shows that a long life it
itself is not necessarily attractive or happy, and so the formula for the potion is destroyed.

Čapek offered a remarkable reason to justify such an ending (which is otherwise typical for a great
deal of fantasy prose). The author compares his allegedly pessimistic stance with the opinions of
G. B. Shaw, who saw the potential for prolonging human life as offering a very valuable objective,
i.e. the establishment of a kind of future paradise. In his play, however, Čapek “… depicts
longevity in a very different light, as something far from ideal and even very undesirable. It is
hard to say what is right; unfortunately, there is a lack of experience on both sides.” (Čapek,
1956, p. 185) He therefore defends himself against accusations of pessimism: “I don’t know if it is
optimistic to claim that living for sixty years is bad, yet living for three hundred years is good;
I just think that declaring an (average) sixty-year life as reasonable and pretty good is hardly
criminal pessimism.” (Ibid., p. 186) After all, it is not merely the length of one’s life that is
important, but the quality of that life: “If we say that one day in the future there will be no
illness, poverty or dirty toil, that is pure optimism: yet to say that our life today, rife as it
is with illness, poverty and toil is not so bad or damned and possesses something incredibly
valuable, that is – what exactly? Pessimism? I don’t think so. Perhaps it is double optimism: one
that turns away from bad things to something better, perhaps even a dream; the other, which seeks
at least something a little better in every bad thing … The first is seeking nothing short of
paradise: there is no more beautiful aim for the human soul. The second is seeking here and there
for at least morsels of relative good.” (Ibid., p. 186) In the spirit of Šrámek “life of misery,
yet how I love you” Čapek is expressing his pure love for life – no matter how difficult and
painful it can be. One has to live. This is not resignation, Čapek rejects that: “Believe me, there
is one true pessimism, and that is the one that folds its arms; I’d say, ethic defeatism.” (Ibid.,
p. 186) He also rejects this defeatism in his Kalendář [Calendar], in the part entitled Solace:
“Whatever we say, we're heading for foul weather; but hey, we are already ready to grow and get
stronger … something might freeze and dry out, but no loss can thwart our grand and carefully
prepared programme: to be even stronger and more alive.” (Čapek, 1983, p. 362)

The play R.U.R. occupies a wholly specific place in our evaluation of Čapek’s work. It is forever
ingrained in the world’s spiritual culture for first using the word robot (which, however, came
from the writer’s brother Josef). It is also an important contribution to world science fiction,
which took a major change in direction and the form of human ideas about the future a hundred years
ago.

This play tends to be interpreted not only as a warning against the discharge of technology turning
upon its creators. It also tends to be seen as symbolising the threat of the massification of human
civilization, the tyranny of the crowd and also a warning reflection on the Russian Bolshevik
Revolution.[10] We will deliberately set aside these ideological interpretations, in order to
emphasise that bioethical aspect. Once again, it is the importance of the category of life[11] in
Čapek’s overall concept of this play. Although it is anti-utopian in the true sense of the word,
ending with the destruction of mankind, Čapek again associated it with the comedy genre. The close
of the play bears a message of hope that life similar to human life will continue. Čapek did not
want to write a play about robots, but primarily about people, about the lasting value of humanity,
which can also achieve miracles – the humanization of those new beings originally created by
humans. (Čapek, 1968, p. 302)

Also associated with this is the author’s remarkable initial concept of artificial beings. In
Čapek’s work, robots are the product of scientific research, not technical development. To be
specific, this means that they are not mechanical structures, but are essentially biochemical.
Incidentally, Čapek was very unhappy about how other authors usurped his thoughts when they offer
the idea of robots as mechanical constructs. (Čapek, 1968, p. 304) In the general framework of
Čapek’s view of the phenomenon of life this means that  the author is basing his work on our
persistent ignorance of the secrets of the nature and origin of life – which would not be possible
in the case of mechanical constructs. And a magical solution (Golem) is also unacceptable for a
modern audience. In this way Čapek bows before the mysteries of life, when he writes the following
about himself (as an author) and about the scientific basis for his thoughts: “Perhaps as a
scientific layman he would be tempted to impute this patient and ingenious scientific task, that
one day he makes an artificial living cell in a test tube; but for many reasons, including respect
for life, he could not bring myself to treat this mystery so lightly.” (Ibid., p. 304)

Čapek’s robots did not originate in a complete revelation of the essence of life. They originated
from artificially synthesized organic matter, which is not the same as the substances on which
terrestrial life is based, but even do, it does behave as though it were alive. “… it is something
like a different alternative to life, a material substrate in which life could develop, if another
way had not been taken from the beginning… a new substrate was created, which could become a
vehicle for life – but life which remains an inexorable and incomprehensible secret.” (Ibid., p.
304)

Here praise is due for Čapek’s inventiveness as an author, which rejected a simple and superficial
literary solution (either a machine or a crucial – although unexplained – breakthrough in our
understanding of the essence of life). This rejection stemmed from the author’s desire to warn
against the reckless use of incomplete fragments of knowledge.[12] In this context, it can be noted
that R.U.R. does not yet reflect environmental risks. Nevertheless, Čapek's concept implicitly
solves a serious ecological problem - the introduction of a synthetic species into natural
ecosystems and the evolutionary impacts. The robots do not reproduce.

In 1935 Čapek returned to his critical view of the further fate of robots. This time, however, he
set that rejected shift towards a mechanical concept of robots within a civilization framework and
the value transformations it produced: “However, it proved that the modern world is not interested
in his scientific Robots and it replaced them with technical Robots. The world … believes in
machines more than in life; it is more fascinated by technical wonders than by the miracle of life.
So the author, who wanted to use his rebellious soul-seeking robots to protest against the
mechanical superstition of our time, eventually claims something that no one can deny him: the
honour of being defeated” (Ibid., p. 305)

Čapek’s literally initiatory play may thus be interpreted as a remarkable attempt at a warning that
is seriously linked to the problem of the value of life, questions concerning the essence of
humanity and responsibility for the consequences and products of scientific advancement.[13]


                                                ***


To conclude this study we will now focus briefly on another aspect of bioethics that can also be
traced in Čapek’s work. These are environmental matters and so-called animal ethics. “In fact, his
Utopias are an indirect means of defending nature against industrialisation ad absurdum.”
(Bartůšková, 1990, p. 127)

In his famous texts Zahradníkův rok [The Gardener's Year] and Kalendář [Calendar] (summary edition
of Čapek's newspaper columns) we see the author as an avid gardener, who loved the beauty of nature
(and was directly involved in helping to protect it). Although Čapek was not a fervid
environmentalist, we do find this comment on how people behave in the countryside: “Don’t we know
everything about the mysterious symbiosis of the forest, don’t we know how the lives of fungi and
the lives of trees are connected? And even if they were not: it is a sin to strip the forest of its
gnomic fungal life, and to rob the meadows and the elves of the life of flowers; and people who do
not leave a piece of untouched natural poetry behind them wherever they go do not belong in the
woods and deserve to be chased by the gamekeeper, with tongues of flame and a knotty stick. Some
preaching in school could help here; and mainly – it is, I’d say, a matter of democratic sentiment:
to avoid as much as possible denying things outside us the right to life, even if such things are
merely forest gnomes.” (Čapek, 1983, p. 317). Čapek holds nature in high regard, appreciates its
beauty and from it draws relaxation and inspiration for his thoughts, which occasionally extend as
far as philosophical and ethical questions. And regarding man’s relationship with the world he
notes: “We imbued with value the snow and water, the sun and the air and movement; we have made the
world more beautiful and more precious. Mastering the forces of nature is a great gain; yet the
same great gain lies in the appreciation of natural forces.” (Ibid., p. 253)

Living with animals also became a source of inspiration for Čapek – in his work for children
(Dášeňka), as well as that for adults (Měl jsem psa a kočku [I Had a Dog and a Cat]). His affinity
with animals is imbued with a loving understanding and a gentle humour, with which he describes the
experiences of dog and cat owners and the characteristics of the nature and behaviour of those
animals: “There is much truth in the saying that people get a dog so as not to be alone. A dog
really does not want to be alone.” (Čapek, 1983, p. 127) A dog and man basically belong together:
“A dog alone is as serious as a lion, a snake or an office manager; his humour and playfulness only
emerge when in company with a person, knowledge of which fact belongs to the natural history of the
dog and to the natural history of humour.” (Ibid., p. 147)

This is pleasant reading, very adroitly portraying a situation anyone who has ever owned a pet will
be familiar with. Čapek has respect for living things, holds their lives in esteem and is able to
write about them very convincingly. This is obviously not theoretical animal ethics, but more of an
applied philosophy of practical life.[14]

Čapek is convinced that our animal companions play an important cultivating role in our lives.
Through our love for animals, we also become better people. And, what is more, that love is
lavishly reciprocated: “However, there is one unwritten dog commandment that says: You will love
your master. – Some serious people, such as Otokar Březina, see a dog’s devotion as a sign of a low
and slave-like nature. I object to this too, as from the term slave-like nature we can hardly
imagine something as bursting with life and enthusiastic as the nature of a dog … More than all
animals and people the dog is gifted with a special power of joy and grief.” (Ibid., pp.133-134)
And we should not forget that – Čapek’s apocryphal Bratr František [Brother František] (Čapek,
2016, pp.134-138) is therefore a call to empathise with the suffering of the dog’s soul. What a
difference this is compared to another text from the same time – the novel Čutora – pes
s charakterem [Čutora – a Dog with Character] (1932) by S. Márai. The failure to understand the
dog’s nature and especially the incredible brutality at the end is entirely opposite to Čapek’s
loving view of the co-existence of man and animal, and even of some of their similarities: “The cat
is mysterious as an animal; the dog is naive and simple as a man. The cat is something of an
aesthete. The dog is like an ordinary person. Or like a creative person. It has something that
turns to someone else, to everyone else; it does not live solely for itself.” (Ibid., p. 213)

Although with Čapek this is relaxing reading, it in no way reduces the quality or thoughtfulness of
the positive effect it has on whole generations of readers.


                                                ***


In this study we have attempted to present a hitherto unseen perspective on the literary legacy of
Karel Čapek. We trust that we have managed to convincingly show that this work is relatively rife
with questions that we consider to be legitimate bioethical problems. The themes of human life and
health, man’s relationship to the environment and animals – these are all (obviously to a varying
degree) featured in Čapek’s work. The central concept of Čapek’s philosophy and his entire literary
work is, after all, life. Karel Čapek took up a task for himself – to serve life throughout all his
work. And as he writes in his Kritika slov [Critique of Words]: “However, I am approached by the
spirit of the tempter, who asks: Do you consider life to be something perfect, or imperfect? – Very
imperfect. – Do you acknowledge and believe that there is something more perfect and higher than
life, something above life, or not? – Yes, I do; I acknowledge and believe this. – So why do you
not want to use this reason of yours to serve this perfect and higher calling? – Because I would
like to serve life in some way. – And why do you want to serve life in some way? – Because it is
very imperfect. – The spirit of the tempter laughed at this and said: This shows you are going
round in vicious circles. – Yes, mischievous spirit, but noli tangere circulos meos. Touch not my
vicious circles.” (Čapek, 1969, p. 117)



References


BARTUŠKOVÁ, S. (1990): Příroda v díle Karla Čapka [Nature in the Works of Karel Čapek]. In: L.
Vacina (ed.): Karel Čapek. Sborník příspěvků z Národní konference k stému výročí autorova narození.
Hradec Králové: State Scientific Library.

BRANDBROOK, B. R. (1961: The Literary Relationship between G. K. Chesterton and Karel Čapek. In:
The Slavonic and East European Rewiew, 93, pp.327-338.

ČAPEK, K. & ČAPEK, J. (1910): Poznámky o Jánošíkovi [Notes on Jánošík].  In: Přehled 3(9), pp. 73 –
75.

ČAPEK, K. (1953): Válka s mloky [War with the Newts]. Praha: Československý spisovatel.

ČAPEK, K. (1956): Hry [Plays]. Praha: Československý spisovatel (ed. M. Halík).

ČAPEK, K. (1968): R. U. R. In: M. Halík (ed.): Divadelníkem proti své vůli. Recenze, stati, kresby,
fotografie [A playwright against His Will. Reviews, Essays, Drawings, Photographs]. Praha: Orbis,
pp. 296–305.

ČAPEK, K. (1969): V zajetí slov: kritika slov a úsloví [Captivated by Words: Critique of Words and
Sayings]. Praha: Svoboda (ed. M. Halík).

ČAPEK, K. (1983): Spisy XII. Zahradníkův rok, Měl jsem psa a kočku, Kalendář [Writings XII. The
Gardener’s Year, I Had a Cat and a Dog, Calendar]. Praha: Československý spisovatel.

ČAPEK, K. (1989): Krakatit. Praha: Československý spisovatel.

ČAPEK, K. (2016): Kniha apokryfů [Apocryphal Stories]. Praha: Vyšehrad.

DINAN, M. (2017): The Robot Condition: Karel Čapek´s R.U.R. and Hannah Arendt on Labor, Technology
and Innovation. In: Perspectives on Political Sciences 2, pp.108-117.

FISCHER, J. (1921): Nová utopie. Sociálně-filosofické poznámky k R.U.R. [New Utopia.
Socio-philosophical remarks on R.U.R.] In: Jeviště. Divadelní týdenník, 5, pp.73-75.

GABRIEL, J. (2002): Karel Čapek a pragmatismus [Karel Čapek and Pragmatism]. In: J. Šmajs (ed.):
Bratislavské přednášky. Brno: Masaryk University, pp. 25-33.

HARKINS, W. E. (1992): Čapek´s Early Work Revisited. In: M. Makin, J. Toman (eds.): On Karel Čapek.
Michigan Slavic Colloquium. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 43 – 50.

HARKINS, W. E. (1962): Karel Čapek. New York and London: Columbia University Press.

HARKINS, W. E. (1960): Karel Čapek´s R.U.R. and A. N. Tolstoj´s Revolt of the Machines. In: The
Slavic and East European Journal, New Series, XVIII, pp. 312 -318.

HARKINS, W. E. (1958): Pragmatism and the Czech „pragmatist Generation.“ In: American Contributions
to the fourth international Congress of Slavistics, Moscow, September 1958. ´S-Gravenhage: Mouton &
Co (zvl. ot.).

HODROVÁ, D. (1987): Utopie. In: col.: Poetika české meziválečné literatury (Proměny žánrů) [Poetics
of Czech Interwar Literature (Transformations of Genres)]. Praha: Československý spisovatel, pp.
80-104.

KINYON, K. (2014): The Phenomenology of Robots. Confrontation with Death in Karel Čapek´s R.U.R.
In: A. B. Evans (ed.): Vintage Visions: Essays on Early Science Fiction. Middletown, Connecticut:
Wesleyan University Press, pp. 240-266.

NĚMEC, B. (1921): Umělí lidé. [Artificial People] In: Česká revue, 1, pp. 40-42.

POPELOVÁ, J.: Etika. K historické a současné problematice mravní teorie [Ethics. On Historical and
Contemporary Problems of Moral Theory]. Praha: Nakladatelství ČSAV.

ZOUHAR, J. (1998): Karel Čapek. In: J. Gabriel (ed.): Slovník českých filozofů. Brno: Masaryk
University, pp. 79-81.

ZOUHAR, J. (2008): Ke vztahu filozofie a krásné literatury [On the Relationship between Philosophy
and Fiction]. In: I. POSPÍŠIL & J. ZOUHAR (ed.): Literatura a filozofie (Zdeněk Mathauser). Brno:
Masaryk University, pp. 191-194.



Selected bibliography[15] of English translations of the works of K.  Čapek


Apocryphal Stories, tr. Dora Round. London: George Allen & Unwin 1949.

Four Plays: R.U.R., The Insect Play, The Makropulos Case, The White Plague, tr. Peter Majer and
Cathy Porter. London: Methuen, 1999.

I Had a Dog and a Cat, tr. Marie and Robert Weatherall. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1940.

Krakatit, tr. Lawrence Hyde. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1925.

The Gardener´s Year, tr. Marie and Robert Weatherall. London: George Allen & Unwin 1931.

War with the Newts, tr. Marie and Robert Weatherall. London: George Allen & Unwin 1937.


________________________________

[1] 1989, directed by Štěpán Skalský.

[2] E.g.  Naděje ze skepse [Hope from Skepticism], Bůh není zcela mrtev [God Is Not Yet Dead], Já,
Jákob [I Jacob], Anděl na hrotu meče [Angel on the Tip of a Sword], etc.

[3] This character is a certain personification of God.

[4] See e.g. Čep’s Dvojí domov [Double Being].

[5]  In the period between the wars, for instance, Husserl brought to philosophy a sceptical view
of the problems of science and its influence on man and his world.

[6] The Czech literary Karel Čapek Prize for sci-fi works is a statue of a black newt.

[7] Čapek was sceptical in his portrayal of ideas concerning the possible conquests of human
science and technology. In the context of the growing crisis in interwar society his view explores
the problematic consequences and impending risks and so here it is entirely appropriate to refer to
the genre as being anti-Utopian.

[8] Rather surprisingly, Čapek also described some of his plays as comedies: “I stand up for
everyone; perhaps that is why I write comedies instead of dramas. That is the insatiable emotion in
my life…“ (Čapek, 1968, p. 298)

[9] This play also served as the basis for a musical work – Leoš Janáček is the composer of an
opera of the same name (he also wrote the libretto to it, with Čapek’s permission). Given our
topic, for the sake of interest we should add that Janáček’s work also contains other bioethical
motifs – see another of his operas, Její pastorkyňa [Her Stepdaughter] (the murder of a newborn
child), Káťa Kabanová [Katya Kabanova] (suicide) and Příhody lišky Bystroušky [The Cunning Little
Vixen] (man’s relationship towards animals, and also age); of his piano works, see Sýček neodletěl
[The Barn Owl Has Not Flown Away] (illness and death).

[10] In his review, J. Fischer pointed out that R.U.R. it is not a response to the current
political situation, but rather deals with social rebellion in a general sense (Fischer, 1921, p.
74).

[11] Biologist B. Němec therefore writes about Čapek's vitalist tendency (Němec, 1921, p. 42).

[12] In real life this hasty applied optimism can be found in the theory and horrific practice of
eugenics (Nazi Germany and other countries).

[13] In this respect this play is an unquestionable source of inspiration not only for sci-fi
itself, but also for philosophically and ethically formulated questions. Subsequent development
also led to deeper thinking in sci-fi – e.g. in Asimov’s formulation of the laws of robotics, in
the themes of the determination of humanity and responsibility in B. Aldiss’s story Super Toys Last
All Summer Long (the basis for Spielberg’s film A.I.) or in E. Bondy’s Nepovídka.

[14] From our modern-day perspective we might find certain problematic moments in Čapek’s texts
(e.g. taking rare species of plants from the countryside and replating them in a garden, or the
killing of unwanted puppies). However, this was normal practice for the time.

[15] Not all of Čapek’s works used in this text are available in English translation.