<<

Macquarie University Department of Ancient History. 1st Semester, 2011. AHIS 202 / 302

TheThe ClassicalClassical TraditionTradition ofof ThoughtThought

Unit Outline and Weekly Study Guides: Reading Lists and Lecture Materials

AHIS 202 / 302, The Classical Tradition of Thought, 3 credit points Semester 1, 2011.

1 Students in this unit should read this unit guide carefully at the start of semester. It contains important about the unit. If anything in it is unclear, please consult the teaching staff in the unit. Unit Convenor: Dr. Chris Forbes [email protected] (02) 9850 8821 W6A 536 Consultation hours: Tuesday 12-1, Thursday 12-1. General Enquiries: Ms. Raina Kim, [email protected] (02) 9850 8833 W6A 540

Document Contents: Unit Introduction and Requirements: p. 3 Grading and Academic Honesty Statements p. 6 For External Students: N.B.! p. 8 Unit Schedule: p. 9 Journals; abbreviations and availability p. 11 Essay Topics: p. 12 What you need to do during the first Week: p. 14 Questions on Thucydides (work for Week 2's Tutorial) p. 15 Lecture Topics, weekly Bibliographies and Tutorial questions: Week 2: Presocratic : Monists and Pluralists p. 20 Early Greek Philosophy: a rough Chronological Outline and map. pp. 22-3 The Development of : an Outline Chronology. p. 24 Week 3: and his World p. 25 Week 4: Socrates and Moral Optimism; and the Theory of Forms p. 27 Week 5: Plato p. 29 Week 6: p. 31 Week 7: Alexander the Great; p. 34 Maps of Alexander's Conquests and the Hellenistic Kingdoms pp. 35-6 Week 8: Hellenistic Philosophy 2, the coming of Rome p. 38 Week 9: Later Hellenistic and Early Roman Philosophy p. 40 Week 10: Trends in Roman philosophy, and the Clash of World-Views p. 42 Week 11: The Classical Tradition and the Judaeo-Christian Tradition p. 44 Extra Documents for Week 11 p. 46 Week 12: The Beginnings of ; the Classical Response p. 48 Week 13: St. Augustine p. 50

2 Macquarie University Department of Ancient History 2011 AHIS 2/302 The Classical Tradition of Thought. Week 1

Unit Outline.

Introduction to the Unit In the Sixth Century B.C. on the Greek mainland and the Aegean islands an intellectual revolution took place which determined the whole style of ‘western thought’ down to the present. In the generations that followed the early Greek philosophers about the investigation of the ethical, political and metaphysical questions that have dominated European thinking ever since. In this Unit we examine the beginnings and development of this ‘Classical Tradition’, as well as a number of the philosophical issues with which it dealt, and the people who formulated, elaborated and refined it. Issues dealt with will include: whether visible has some kind of foundations in a different kind of (non-visible) reality, the nature of love, the nature of the ‘ society’ and the definition of , the relationship between the individual and society, and between art and society, the moral nature of human , and the relationship between and emotion. This Unit, the scope of which is indicated in the Handbook of Undergraduate Studies, is of the ‘General Education’ type, and the presentation will bear this in throughout. No background in ancient world studies or philosophy will be required or assumed, though it will be of assistance if you have it. The Unit should not, however, be thought of as merely a brief survey of the subject, because many topics will be thoroughly explored and much attention will be given to the analysis and interpretation of ancient writers. The Unit will move from an introduction to Presocratic Philosophy, through Socrates and Plato, including their ethical, metaphysical and , to Aristotle. Then will follow a treatment of and in the context of later Greek and early Roman thought. Roman culture will be discussed, with emphasis on the Roman response to Greek philosophical thinking and Greek culture. We will also deal with the rise of the importance of early Christian thinking, and its main similarities to and differences from Greek and Roman thought. For the period of the Roman Empire, Seneca and St. Augustine will be studied, together with other representatives of the Classical Tradition.

Introductory Reading: For those with no historical background in the 6th and 5th centuries B.C., A.R. Burn, The Pelican History of Greece, N.B. pp. 63-141, or J.K. Davies, Democracy and Classical Greece, are recommended as , readable introductions to the period. Other older works, such as J.B. Bury's A History of Greece, and N.G.L. Hammond's A History of Greece, may be useful if you have them, but do not buy them specially.

Prescribed Texts: The modern work set as a textbook is T. Irwin, Classical Thought, Oxford, 1989. Though it does not cover the whole of the content of the unit, it comes closer than any comparable book. It will be referred to regularly in lectures and tutorials. The required ancient authors are all available in Penguin translations or other inexpensive editions. You are not required to use any particular version, but for ease of use in groups (so we can all turn to the same page!) we suggest: (over)

3 Prescribed Ancient Texts: The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and , ed. R. Waterfield, Oxford, 2000. Plato – and Meno, trans. A. Beresford, Penguin, 2005, and The Symposium, trans. R. Waterfield, Oxford, 1994. Aristotle – The Politics, trans. T.A. Sinclair, Penguin, 1962. – On The Nature of the Universe, trans. R. Melville, Oxford, 1997. Seneca – Letters from a Stoic, trans. R. Campbell, Penguin, 1969. St Augustine – Confessions, trans. H. Chadwick, Oxford, 1991. (All these books may be obtained from the University Co-op Bookshop. N.B. all except The First Philosophers, Plato's Symposium, Lucretius and Augustine's Confessions are the Penguin translation.) Recommended General Reading: F. Copleston – A History of Philosophy, Book 1. E. Brehier – The Hellenistic and Roman Age. J.V. Luce – An Introduction to Greek Philosophy. H. Chadwick – Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition. For students with some in philosophy: R.W. Jordan – Ancient Concepts of Philosophy. Unit Webpages The Unit has two web pages; (a) the normal Blackboard page, at https://learn.mq.edu.au, and (b) a public web page which duplicates this document and adds extra features, accessible at www.anchist.mq.edu.au/202/202frames.htm. Unit Requirements. In addition to attending the lectures (Internal students: Externals can download them from iLecture and receive them on CD) and doing the reading associated with weekly tutorial discussion topics, you will be required to hand in written work as specified below. For each Tutorial you are set a particular passage of one ancient author to read. A series of questions are given, which are intended to guide your thinking as you prepare for the Tutorial. They are also the basis for the Short Paper for that week, if you decide to do it. To pass this Unit you must simply achieve a passing grade (50%) overall. The University suggests that you should be doing approximately 9 hours’ work per week (averaged over the semester, including the two weeks of the break) for a 3 credit point Unit. Assessment: All students are required to complete three pieces of written work and a two hour examination, and participate in the Online Forum. The written work is made up of two short papers (12.5% each) and one major essay (30%). Participation in the Online Forum is worth 15%. Details of the exam (worth the remaining 30%), will be available later in the term. Task Weight Due Date Linked Unit Outcomes Linked Graduate Capabilities Short Paper 1 12.5% Variable 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 1, 2, 3, 5 Major Essay 30% 26/04/2011 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Short Paper 2 12.5% Variable 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 1, 2, 3, 5 Online Forum 15% Exam Date 4, 6, 7 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9 Examination 30% Exam Period 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 1, 2, 3, 5, 9. The topics for the two short papers may be selected from the weekly Tutorial topics. You may not do more than one from each broad section of the Unit: the sections are Weeks

4 3-6, Weeks 7-10, and Weeks 11-13. They are to be of approximately 1,000 words, in essay form based around the guide questions, and are to be heavily based on your understanding and explanation of the particular piece of ancient writing, not merely the collection of the opinions of others. They must be submitted by the time of the following Tutorial. Short papers need not refer to any secondary (i.e. modern) literature, though such reference is certainly not discouraged if you wish to go into greater depth. Bibliographies are not necessary, though footnotes must be used if you do make use of the work of modern scholars. N.B. If you do a short assignment and are dissatisfied with your mark, you may elect to do three; if you do so, you will be assessed on the best two. This ‘safety net’ is designed to help those who are only feeling their way into the subject. The major essay, of approximately 2000-2500 words (2000 if you are doing the Unit at 200-Level; 2500 if you are doing it at 300-Level), is due at Macquarie on Wednesday April 27th. Topics are to be selected from the list on p. 10 of this booklet. The essay will require much more detailed use of both the ancient evidence and the modern scholarly discussion than do the short papers: footnotes to opinions cited and a full bibliography are required, as set out in “Essay Presentation and Conventions: Style Guide”, which is available from the Departmental office (W6A 540), and online at http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/ documents/EssayPres.pdf . Please note that in all work for this Unit, it is your own understanding of the ancient writers, based on a careful reading of what they actually say, that . Repetition of the opinions of learned commentators, even with full footnotes, is of very limited . May I also strongly suggest that, to avoid unnecessary despair and hair-tearing in the event of an assignment going astray, you should make and keep a backup copy and/or photocopy of all assignments. PLEASE ALSO NOTE: Written work must be submitted through the Arts Student Centre (via the appropriate assignment box) on Level 1, W6A (for internal students) or via COE (for external students). Internal students must print and attach a completed coversheet to all submitted work. A personalised assignment coversheet is generated from the student section of the Faculty of Arts website, at: http://www.arts.mq.edu.au/current_students/undergraduate/ admin_central/coversheet. Please provide your student details and click the “Get my assignment coversheet” button to generate your personalised assignment cover sheet. No other coversheets will be provided by the Faculty. By special arrangement, work can also be emailed in; the coversheet is still required. All written work submitted should conform to the specifications laid down in “Essay Presentation and Conventions: Style Guide” (above). In particular, modern works should be cited (in both footnotes and Bibliographies) with full publication details (author, title, place and date of publication, page). In the case of printed rather than handwritten material submitted, some slight variation in the specifications will be accepted (for example, 1½ spaced text instead of double spaced, if 12-point type is used), provided that you must allow space for the marker to insert comments. Work that is handed in late without an extension having been specifically granted in advance will normally incur a penalty of 2% per day. Extensions and Special Consideration The University’s policy on Extensions and Special consideration can be found at http://www.mq.edu.au/policy/docs/special_consideration/policy.html Students can apply for Special Consideration due to unavoidable disruption of three (3) consecutive days’ duration within a study period, and/or preventing completion of a formal examination. They must apply by submitting an on-line application with the Faculty of Arts. For an application to be valid, it must include a completed Application for Special Consideration form and all supporting documentation. The on-line Special Consideration application is found at:

5 http://www.arts.mq.edu.au/current_students/undergraduate/admin_central/special_consideration.

6 Return of Marked Work: Marked work will be returned to students via tutorials or lectures, or through COE. Residuals will be available for collection from the Arts Student Centre (W6A Foyer). Examination Important: The University Examination period in First Half of 2011 is from Monday June 6th to Friday June 24th. You are expected to present yourself for examination at the time and place designated in the University Examination Timetable. The timetable will be available in Draft form approximately eight weeks before the commencement of the examinations and in Final form approximately four weeks before the commencement of the examinations at: http://www.timetables.mq.edu.au/exam. The only exception to not sitting an examination at the designated time is because of documented illness or unavoidable disruption. In these circumstances you may wish to consider applying for Special Consideration. Information about unavoidable disruption and the special consideration process is available under the Extension and Special Consideration section of this Unit Guide. If a Supplementary Examination is granted as a result of the Special Consideration process the examination will be scheduled after the conclusion of the official examination period. Individual Departments should contact the Associate Dean Learning and Teaching to confirm when Supplementaries are scheduled. You are advised that it is Macquarie University policy not to set early examinations for individuals or groups of students. All students are expected to ensure that they are available until the end of the teaching semester, that is the final day of the official examination period. University Grading Policy The University Grading Policy can be found at http://www.mq.edu.au/policy/docs/grading/policy.html The grade a student receives will signify their overall performance in meeting the learning outcomes of a unit of study. Grades will not be awarded by reference to the achievement of other students nor allocated to fit a predetermined distribution. In determining a grade, due weight will be given to the learning outcomes and level of a unit (ie 100, 200, 300, 800 etc). Graded units will use the following grades: HD High Distinction 85-100 D Distinction 75-84 Cr Credit 65-74 P Pass 50-64 F Fail 0-49 Academic Honesty Academic honesty is an integral part of the core values and contained in the Macquarie University Ethics Statement. Its fundamental is that all staff and students act with integrity in the creation, development, application and use of ideas and information. This means that: • All academic work claimed as original is the work of the author making the claim. • All academic collaborations are acknowledged. • Academic work is not falsified in any way. • When the ideas of others are used, these ideas are acknowledged appropriately. /over

7 The link below has more details about the policy, procedure and schedule of penalties that will apply to breaches of the Academic Honesty policy. http://www.mq.edu.au/policy/docs/academic_honesty/policy.html

Student Support Services Macquarie University provides a range of Student Support Services. Details of these services can accessed at: http://www.deanofstudents.mq.edu.au/ or http://www.campuslife.mq.edu.au/campuswellbeing Arts Student Centre Phone: +61 2 9850 6783 Email: [email protected] Office: W6A, Foyer Centre staff are there to smooth the way into university life; answer questions; give informed advice; provide a sympathetic ear; de-mystify uni ways and procedures.

Learning Outcomes: All academic programmes at Macquarie seek to develop graduate capabilities. These are: 1. Discipline-specific and skills; 2. Critical, analytical and integrative thinking; 3. Problem-solving and research capability; 4. Creative and innovative; 5. Effective communication; 6. Engaged and ethical local and global citizens; 7. Socially and environmentally active and responsible; 8. Capable of professional and personal judgement and initiative; 9. Committment to continuous learning. Note: The numbers listed at the end of each Learning Outcome indicate how it is aligned with the Graduate Capabilities. The learning outcomes of this unit are: 1. learning from a variety of ancient text types about the varieties of ancient philosophical thinking 2. gaining a comprehension of ancient world-views and cultural concepts 3. contextualising particular ancient documents within their wider cultural environment 4. gaining an awareness of the complexity of ancient accounts of past events and 5. conducting independent research on a chosen topic 6. engaging with and responding critically to a variety of scholarly opinions 7. formulating an independent view in dialogue with both ancient evidence and modern interpretations.

8 Lectures and Tutorials: For lecture times and classrooms please consult the MQ Timetable website: http://www.timetables.mq.edu.au. This website will display up-to-date information on your classes and classroom locations. As at February 10th, 2011, Lectures will be held on Tuesday at 3pm in W5C 220, and on Thursday at 3pm in W5C 320. Tutorials are held on Tuesday at 5pm in W5C 203, on Thursday at 4pm in W5C 202, and on Thursday at 5pm in W5C 202. Attendance at lectures is expected, and attendance at tutorials (for Internal students) is compulsory. If you miss more than two tutorials you will need to explain your absence to your tutor in writing. Medical certificates or photocopies of them should be attached where appropriate. Failure to meet these requirements may result in failure of the unit.

Contact times: Dr. Forbes will announce his contact times (i.e. the times he guarantees to be available for telephone calls or visits) in the first week or so of lectures. Meanwhile his number is (02) 9850 8821, and there is voicemail: you should have no trouble leaving a message even if he is speaking to someone else. Leave a message with your name, phone number, and convenient times for a return call. Alternatively he may be emailed at [email protected]. Do feel free to drop in to discuss Unit topics or other matters in Contact times, or catch me after the Lectures or Tutorials!

Online Forum: In this Unit we will be running an Online Forum, an electronic ‘Bulletin Board’ where issues related to the Unit can be discussed. To gain access to this system you will need a computer capable of running one of the common web-browsers, and you will need to make sure it is correctly configured. For more information, see the Online Browser Tune-up, at https://learn.mq.edu.au/. The Forum will provide two basic facilities: the ‘Bulletin Board’, where issues can be publicly discussed and ideas or references can be shared (N.B., your participation in the Forum is assessable; see below), and Email, so that you can send one another private notes. I will take part in the public discussions, and can also be reached by Email. Further details will be announced in the first week of term; they will also be available online at the Unit Web site: http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/202/202frames.htm. We hope that this Online Forum will be of particular value to external students.

For External Students: N.B.! The dates that follow are dates at Macquarie. The iLectures are normally available for download within an hour of the live lecture. Your lecture CDs will normally arrive early in the week after that. Please keep this time-lag in mind. If you do not download and listen to the lectures immediately, but wait for the CDs, your lectures will be “out of synch” with the tutorials by a week or so. Dates for the submission of written work for External students follow the same pattern as for Internal students. Please consult the Unit Schedule, over the page, very carefully. External students do not normally come to Tutorials (though if you can, you are very welcome). You do the same work, however, week by week, in your own time, after you have listened to the lectures. (There is not always a close link between lecture and tutorial topics, but there sometimes is.) If you have problems with the work you are always welcome to contact me. This work (plus your own questions and ideas) is what you bring to the External Students’ On Campus Session, on Saturday April 9th.

9 AHIS 2/302 Unit Schedule, 1st Semester, 2011.

Week 1 (Mon. February 21st.) Lectures: 1. Introduction: the Classical Tradition. 2. Presocratic Philosophy: Thales, , Anaximenes. Tutorial: Discussion of Unit requirements, assessment, etc. See also “What you need to do during the first week” on p. 12.

Week 2 (Mon. February 28th.) Lectures: 3. Heracleitus and ‘’; and the Philosophy of ‘’. 4. Zeno, , and . Tutorial: Read the extract from the “History” of Thucydides attached. What are the leading ideas of this speech? (See Guide Questions)

Week 3 (Mon. March 7th.) Lectures: 5. The intellectual context of Socrates. Socrates the man. 6. The ‘’. Tutorial: Plato's Protagoras forms the basis of the Tutorial for the next two weeks. Please read it all, if possible, but for this week read particularly 320D to 334C, on whether ‘’ (arete) is teachable.

Week 4 (Mon. March 14th.) Lectures: 7. “No-one errs willingly”: Greek moral optimism. 8. Plato: the man and the theory of ‘Forms’. Tutorial: This week we continue with Plato's Protagoras, reading 339A to 346E.

Week 5 (Mon. March 21st.) Lectures: 9. Plato and the ideal state: the Republic and the nature of justice, and the critique of art. 10. Platonic Love and the Theory of Knowledge. Tutorial: Symposium 1. The speeches of Pausanias and Aristophanes (180-185, 189- 194).

Week 6 (Mon. March 28th.) Lectures: 11. Aristotle 1. and Ethics. 12. Aristotle 2. From Ethics to Social Theory Tutorial: Symposium 2. Sections 201-212, the reported speech of Diotima.

Week 7 (Mon. April 4th.) Lectures: 13. Alexander the Great and the spread of Greek ideas: the wider Greek world of the ‘Hellenistic’ age. 14. Hellenistic . (1) Stoicism: physics and ethics. Tutorial: Aristotle 1: Aristotle's Politics will be studied over two weeks. Please read it all, if possible, but for this week read particularly Book 1, on the idea of ‘nature’ (i.e. the nature of women, slaves, etc.).

EASTER BREAK

Saturday April 9th: External Students’ On Campus Day, 10 am.

10 Week 8 (Wednesday April 27th.) N.B. MAJOR ESSAY DUE by this date for both Internal and External students. Lectures: 15. Hellenistic Philosophies. (2) Greek Epicureanism: Physics and . 16. The Roman response to Greek culture Tutorial: Aristotle's Politics Book 4: systems of government, the middle classes, and moderate democracy, and 5.9 on the principle of the ‘middle way’.

Week 9 (Mon. May 2nd.) Lectures: 17. Lucretius and Roman Epicureanism 18. Seneca and Stoicism Tutorial: Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, Book 1: freedom from superstition, and the atomic theory.

Week 10 (Mon. May 9th.) Lectures: 19. Scepticism, Later and other developments 20. The Creation of the World according to Plato and Genesis Tutorial: Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, Book 5, on the origin of the world, the gods, species, and human society: compare Protagoras.

Week 11 (Mon. May 16th.) Lectures: 21. Early Christian thinking. 22. Beginnings of Christian philosophy: response to the Classical Tradition. Tutorial: Seneca, Letters from a Stoic, Letters 2, 3, 5 and 6. What attitudes are typically Stoic? In what important ways do they contrast with our own?

Week 12 (Mon. May 23rd.) Lectures: 23. The Classical response to Christianity. 24. The Development of Christian philosophy. Tutorial: Augustine, Confessions, Book 2, concentrating on the ‘theft of the pears’ incident and the attractiveness of moral .

Week 13 (Mon. May 30th.)

Lectures: 25. St. Augustine: his background and ideas. 26. St. Augustine and Unit Summary. Tutorial: Augustine, Confessions, Book 7: the contrast between ‘the books of the Platonists’ and those of the Christians.

The Date for the Examination in this Unit has not yet been set. The Examination period begins on Monday June 6th and runs until Friday June 24th.

11 Journals: Common Abbreviations and availability A.J.P. or A.J.Ph. American Journal of Philology MUL, E (JStor) Anc. Phil. Ancient Philosophy E (Ingenta) Anc. W. Ancient World MUL Antichthon MUL, E (Informit) Apeiron MUL, E (Ingenta) C. J. Classical Journal MUL, E (JStor, Ingenta) C. Phil. Classical Philology MUL, E (JStor, Chicago) C.Q. Classical Quarterly MUL, E (JStor, CJO) G. & R. Greece and Rome MUL, E (JStor, CJO) G.R.B.S. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies MUL, E (PAO) H.S.C.P. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology MUL, E (JStor, Ingenta) H.T.R. or Harvard Theological Review MUL, E (JStor, CJO) H.Th.R. Hermes E (JStor, Ingenta) Hist. Historia MUL, E (JStor, Ingenta) History and Theory MUL, E (JStor, Ebsco) H.Ph.Q. History of Philosophy Quarterly MUL J.E.C.S. Journal of Early Christian Studies MUL, E (Muse) J.H.S. Journal of Hellenic Studies MUL, E (JStor) J.H.I. Journal of the History of Ideas E (JStor, Muse) J.J.S. Journal of Jewish Studies MUL Mnemosyne MUL, E (JStor, Ingenta) O.S.A.Ph. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy MUL Phil. Q. Philosophical Quarterly MUL, E (JStor, Blackwell) Phoenix MUL, E (JStor) Phron. MUL, E (JStor, Ingenta) Prudentia MUL S.J.Th. Scottish Journal of Theology MUL, E (CJO) T.A.P.A. or Transactions of the American Philological MUL, E (JStor) T.A.Ph.A. Association Vig. Christ. Vigiliae Christianae MUL, E (JStor, Ingenta)

12 Major Essay Topics: (choose one). Due Wednesday April 27th for both Internal and External students.

1. Examine the views of Empedocles and Anaxagoras on how the world as we know it came into . On what points of method and on what results do they agree?

2. Why did Socrates claim that he knew nothing? What did this claim mean, and how seriously should we take it? Which of the theories put forward to explain it do you find most persuasive?

3. Compare Plato's critique of art (Republic, Book 3.392c ff., Book 10) with Aristotle's in the Poetics generally, referring particularly to the idea of catharsis in Poetics 1449b; (= Chapter 6.2).

4. In what ways do the moral doctrines of Stoicism depend upon its physics?

5. How did their Graeco-Roman philosophical inheritance affect the earliest Christian philosophers? In what areas did they accept, and in what areas did they resist its influence? Refer in your answer to at least two of the 2nd and 3rd century “apologists”.

6. Did Graeco-Roman philosophers attempt to change their social world? If so, which of them, and in what ways? Were their methods limited to individual moral exhortation?

7. Another topic by negotiation with Dr. Forbes.

(Suggested reading for these topics will come later.)

13 Plagiarism: The University defines plagiarism in its rules: “Plagiarism involves using the work of another person and presenting it as one’s own.” Plagiarism is a serious breach of the University's rules and carries significant penalties. Information about plagiarism can be found in the Handbook of Undergraduate Studies, on the web at http://www.mq.edu.au/policy/docs/ academic_honesty/policy.html, and on the Faculty cover sheet, which you must sign before you submit your assignments. If you are in doubt consult your lecturer or tutor.

14 Week 1 Introduction.

Lectures: 1. An Introduction to the ‘Classical Tradition’. 2. The first Greek Philosophers: Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes.

Suggested Reading:

For these first lectures, you will not need to do any specific background reading beyond that mentioned below, under “What You Need to Do During the First Week”. Simply make sure you bring your copy of Waterfield, The First Philosophers, with you to the lectures.

What You Need to Do During the First Week:

In the first week, we recommend that you do the following (once you have the necessary books, of course):

(1) If you have little or no background in the history of Ancient Greece, do some general reading (from Burn, Davies, etc., above) first.

(2) Read Chapter 3, “The Naturalist Movement”, from Irwin, and the introductory chapters of Robin Waterfield's The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and Sophists, and/or one or more of the general books under “Recommended General Reading” on page 4 of this booklet. This will begin to give you a feeling for the kind of terminology used.

(3) Read the extract from Thucydides’ History over the page. This passage, along with the Guide Questions that follow, form the basis of the first Tutorial. Naturally, the material is introductory, but it will provide an important orientation for the rest of the Unit.

(4) Look at the Tutorial / Short Paper questions and decide soon how early you want to do your first one. It is a good idea to do one early in the Unit, particularly if you are unfamiliar with the material, to get an idea early as to whether you're ‘on the right track’. As was mentioned in the section on the Short Papers, if you find you have done one particularly badly, you can do three, and you will then only be assessed on your best two.

Questions on Thucydides:

In reading the attached passage, consider the following issues:

The speech is given at the conclusion of a national festival in honour of the Athenian war dead. The festival was an annual affair, and the bones of the dead were carried through the city in ten coffins, one for each Athenian tribe, along with one empty coffin for those “missing, presumed dead”. After the burial ceremony itself, the speech was given. /over

15 Guide Questions: 1. Given all the qualms the speaker has (or pretends to have) about his own fitness to glorify the dead, what is the reason he gives for going ahead and speaking none the less? What does it tell you about the society's values? 2. For what particularly does he honour the previous generation? What does this tell you about Athens’ current political situation? 3. What are the balances he claims to be inherent in the Athenian political system of which the speaker is most proud? 4. What is the origin of the prosperity and elegance of the Athenian that the author praises in (38)? 5. What is the speaker's attitude to participation in government business? 6. How does he sum up his feelings about the particular excellence of the Athenian culture? 7. What attitude of the dead does he most praise? What attitude does he urge on his hearers? 8. To what portion of the audience has all this been addressed?

Overall question: What are the leading ideas of the speech? How would you describe Athenian institutions and attitudes, on the basis of this information?

If you would like to do some further reading on the context of this speech, see either P. Walcot, “The Funeral Speech, a Study of Values”, G. & R. vol. 20, 1973, pp. 111-121, or A.B. Bosworth, “The historical context of Thucydides’ funeral oration”, J.H.S., vol. 120, 2000, pp 1-16. The fullest treatment is probably N. Loraux, The Invention of Athens, Harvard U.P., 1986.

The “Funeral Speech of Pericles” in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 2. (adapted from P.J. Rhodes, Thucydides’ History II, Warminster, 1988, pp. 77-93.)

(34) In the same winter the Athenians, in accordance with their traditional institution, held a public funeral of those who had been the first to die in the war. The practice is this. Two days before the funeral they set up a tent and lay out in it the bones of the deceased, for each man to bring what offerings he wishes to his own kin. On the day of the procession, cypress-wood coffins are carried on wagons, one for each tribe, with each man's bones in his own tribe's coffin. In addition there is one empty bier carried, laid out for the missing, that is, for those whose bodies could not be found and recovered. Every man who wishes joins the procession, whether citizen or foreigner, and the women of the families are present to lament at the grave. In this way the dead are placed in the public tomb, which is situated in the most beautiful suburb of the city. Those who die in war are always buried there, apart from those who fell at Marathon, whose virtue was judged outstanding and were given a tomb on the spot. When they have been covered with earth, appropriate words of praise are spoken over them by a man chosen by the state for the intelligence of his mind and his outstanding reputation, and after that the people depart. That is how the funeral is conducted: this institution was followed throughout the war when occasion arose. Over these first casualties, then, Pericles son of Xanthippus was chosen to make the speech. When the time arrived, he came forward from the grave on to a high platform which had been erected so that he should be as clearly audible as possible to the crowd; and he spoke on these lines.

16 (35) The majority of those who have spoken here before have praised the man who included this speech in our institutions, and have claimed that it is good that they should make a speech over those who are buried in consequence of war. However, I should have thought that when men have been good in action it is sufficient for our honours of them to be made evident in action, as you see we have done in providing for this public funeral, and that the of many ought not to be put at risk by being entrusted to one man, who might speak well or ill. It is hard to speak appropriately in circumstances where even the appearance of can only with difficulty be confirmed. The listener who knows what has happened and is favourably disposed can easily think that the account given falls short of his wishes and knowledge, while the man lacking in experience may through jealousy think some claims exaggerated if he hears of things beyond his own capacity. Praise spoken of others is bearable up to the point where each men himself capable of doing the things he hears of: anything which goes beyond that arouses envy and so disbelief. Nevertheless, since in the past this has been approved as a good practice, I too must comply with our institution, and try as far as I can to coincide with the wishes and opinions of each of you. (36) “I shall begin first of all with our ancestors. It is right, and on an occasion like this it is appropriate, that this honour should be paid to their memory for the same race of men has always occupied this land, as one generation has succeeded another, and by their valour they have handed it on as a free land until the present day. They are worthy of praise; and particularly worthy are our own fathers, who by their efforts gained the great empire which we now possess, in addition to what they had received, and left this too to us of the present generation. We ourselves who are still alive and have reached the settled stage of life, have enlarged most parts of this empire, and we have made our city's resources most ample in all respects both for war and for peace. The deeds in war by which each acquisition was won, the enthusiastic responses of ourselves or our fathers to the attacks of the barbarians or our Greek enemies, I do not wish to recount at length to those who already know of them, so I shall pass them over. What I shall expound first, before I proceed to praise these men, is the way of life which has enabled us to pursue these objectives, and the form of government and the habits which made our great achievements possible. I think in the present circumstances it is not unfitting for these things to be mentioned, and it is advantageous for this whole assemblage of citizens and foreigners to hear of them. (37) We have a constitution which does not seek to copy the laws of our neighbours: we are an example to others rather than imitators of them. The name given to this constitution is democracy, because it is based not on a few but on a larger number. For the settlement of private disputes all are on an equal footing in accordance with the laws, while in public life men gain preferment because of their deserts, when anybody has a good reputation for anything: what matters is not rotation but merit. As for poverty, if a man is able to confer some benefit on the city, he is not prevented by the obscurity of his position. With regard to public life we live as free men; and, as for the suspicion of one another which can arise from daily habits, if our neighbour behaves with a view to his own pleasure, we do not react with anger or put on those expressions of disgust which, though not actually harmful, are nevertheless distressing. In our private dealings with one another we avoid offence, and in the public realm what particularly restrains us from wrongdoing is fear: we are obedient to the officials currently in office, and to the laws, especially those which have been enacted for the protection of people who are wronged, and those which have not been written down but which bring acknowledged disgrace on those who break them. (38) “Moreover, we have provided the greatest number of relaxations from toil for the spirit by holding contests and sacrifices throughout the year, and by tasteful private provisions, whose daily delight drives away sorrow. Because of the size of our city,

17 everything can be imported from all over the earth, with the result that we have no more special enjoyment of our native than of the goods of the rest of mankind. (39) “In military practices we differ from our enemy in this way. We maintain an open city, and do not from time to time stage expulsions of foreigners to prevent them from learning or seeing things, when the sight of what we have not troubled to conceal might benefit an enemy, since we trust not so much in our preparations and deceit as in our own inborn spirit for action. In education, they start right from their youth to pursue manliness by arduous training, while we live a relaxed life but none the less go to confront the dangers to which we are equal. Here is a sign of it. Even the Spartans do not invade our territory on their own, but with all their allies; and we attack our neighbours’ territory, and for the most part have no difficulty in winning battles on their land against men defending their own property. No enemy has yet encountered our whole force together, because we simultaneously maintain our fleet and send out detachments of our men in many directions by land. If they come into conflict with a part of our forces, either they boast that they have repelled all of us when they have defeated only some, or if beaten they claim that it was all of us who defeated them. Yet if we are prepared to face danger, though we live relaxed lives rather than making a practice of toil, and rely on courageous habits rather than legal compulsion, we have the advantage of not in advance for future pain, and when we come to meet it we are shown to be no less daring than those committed to perpetual endurance. In this respect as well as in others our city can be seen to be worthy of admiration. (40) “We are lovers of beauty without extravagance, and of wisdom without softness. We treat wealth as an opportunity for action rather than a for boastful words, and poverty as a thing which it is not shameful for any one to admit to, but rather is shameful not to act to escape from. The same men accept responsibility both for their own affairs and for the state's, and although different men are active in different fields they are not lacking in understanding of the state's concerns: we alone regard the man who refuses to take part in state affairs not as non-interfering but as useless. “We have the ability to judge or plan rightly in our affairs, since we think it is not speech which is an obstacle to action but failure to expound policy in speech before action has to be taken. We are different also in that we particularly combine boldness with reasoning about the business we are to take in hand, whereas for other people it is ignorance that produces courage and reasoning produces hesitation. When people have the clearest understanding of what is fearful and what is pleasant, and on that basis do not flinch from danger, they would rightly be judged to have the best spirit. “With regard to displays of goodness, we are the opposite of most people, since we acquire our friends not by receiving good from them but by doing good to them. If you do good, you are in a better position to keep the other party's favour, as something owed in gratitude by the recipient: if you owe a return, you are less alert, knowing that when you do good it will not be as a favour but as the payment of a debt. We alone are fearless in helping others, not calculating the advantage so much as confident in our freedom.

(41) “To sum up, I maintain that our city as a whole is an education to Greece; and I reckon that each individual man among us can keep his person ready to profit from the greatest variety in life and the maximum of graceful adaptability. That this is not just a momentary verbal boast but actual truth is demonstrated by the very strength of our city, which we have built up as a result of these habits. Athens alone when brought to the test proves greater than its current reputation; Athens alone does not give an enemy attacker the right to be indignant at the kind of people at whose hands he suffers, or a subject the right to complain that his rulers are unworthy of their position. Our power does not lack witnesses,

18 but we provide mighty proof of it, to earn the admiration both of our contemporaries and of posterity. We do not need the praise of a Homer, or of any one whose poetry gives immediate pleasure but whose impression of the facts is undermined by the truth. We have compelled the whole of sea and land to make itself accessible to our daring, and have joined in setting up everywhere undying memorials both of our failures and of our successes. Such is our city. These men fought and died, nobly judging that it would be wrong to be deprived of it; and it is right that every single one of those who are left should be willing to struggle for it. (42) “That is why I have spoken at length about our city, to instruct you that the contest is not on the same terms for us and for those who do not similarly enjoy these advantages, and to give a firm basis of proof to my praise of the men for whom I am now speaking. The greater part of this praise has been uttered already. When I have lauded the city, it has been for qualities bestowed on it by the virtues of these men and of men like them, and there could not be many Greeks of whom it is true, as it is of these, that what is said of them is equalled by the facts. “I believe that the way in which these men have died is a proof of their virtues, whether it was the first indication of them or the final confirmation. For even if men have been less good in other respects, it is right to give priority to the courage which they have displayed for war on their country's behalf: they have wiped out the evil by good, and the harm which they did as individuals is outweighed by the benefit which they conferred together. None of these was led into cowardice by the hope that he might continue to enjoy his wealth; nor did a poor man's hope that he might yet escape and grow rich prompt any one to delay the dreadful encounter. They accepted that the punishment of our enemy was more desirable than these things; and, reckoning this to be the noblest of dangers, they were willing at the price of this danger to forsake wealth and punish the enemy, to entrust to hope the uncertainty of success while thinking it right to rely on themselves in the action already before their eyes. They thought that safety lay more in the act of resistance and in suffering than in submission, and so, avoiding a disgraceful reputation and enduring bodily action, in a very brief moment, at the turning point of fortune, they were delivered not from fear but from glory. (43) “These men met their fate in a manner worthy of our city. The rest must judge it right to adopt an equally daring attitude towards the enemy, though you may pray for a safer outcome. You must not consider the advantages of this simply as a theoretical matter. I could spell out at length what benefits there are in resisting the enemy, but you know them as well as I. In your actions you must every day fix your eyes on the strength of our city; you must become lovers of it. When it appears great to you, you must realise that men have made it great, by daring, by recognising what was needed, and by acting with a sense of honour; and when they failed in any attempt they still did not think it right to deprive the city of their good qualities, but they offered them to it as the finest kind of free contribution. Together they offered their bodies; individually they received eternal praise, and the most distinguished of tombs – not the one in which their bodies lie but rather the one in which their glory remains recorded for ever on every occasion for word or deed. For the whole earth is the grave of distinguished men: they are commemorated not only by the inscription on the tombstone in their own land, but even in foreign territory there lives in every man's heart an unwritten memorial, of their purpose rather than their accomplishment. “You now must emulate them, judging that depends on freedom, and freedom on a good spirit, and not looking anxiously at the dangers of war. It is not the victims of misfortune, men with no hope of a good outcome, who are most justified in being generous with their lives, but those who risk a great downfall if their life continues, and the greatest reversal of fortune if they fail. For a man of spirit the arrival of misfortune attended by

19 cowardice is more distressing than a barely perceived death attended by firmness and hope for one's country. (44) “For that reason, to those of you who are here now as the parents of these men I wish to offer encouragement rather than sympathy. You know that you were brought up in a world of changing fortune. It is success to achieve the most honourable end, as these men have now done (though it is a source of grief to you), and to have one's happiness in life measured out to the moment of death. I know it is hard to convince you, when you will often have reminders of your grief as you see others enjoy the good fortune which you once enjoyed, and sadness comes not from missing the good things that one never had but from losing those to which one was once accustomed. Those of you who are still of an age to have children must be stouthearted in the hope of having other sons: for you as individuals, the new children will help you forget those who are no more; and for the city there will be a double benefit, deliverance from shortage of men, and a source of safety, since men who do not contribute children and so run the same risks as the others cannot be fair or just in their deliberation. Those who are past that age must reckon that the longer period of life in which you have had good fortune is a gain, and that the life still to come will be short and will be lightened by these men's fame. Love of honour is the only thing that does not grow old; and it is not profit, as some say, but honour which gives pleasure in the useless time of life. (45) “For those of you who are here as sons or brothers of the dead I see there will be a great contest: every one tends to praise those who are no more, and you will find it hard to be judged only a little inferior to these men, let alone equal to them, as their virtues come to be exaggerated. Among the living, rivalry arouses jealousy, but what is no longer present is honoured with a good will free from competition. “If I am to say anything to those who have now been widowed, about the virtues of a wife, I can convey my whole message in a brief exhortation: your glory is great if you do not fail to live up to your own nature, and if there is the least possible talk of you among men either for praise or for blame. (46) “So in this speech I have said in my own way what appropriate things I could, in accordance with our institution. In our actions these men have been honoured by their burial now; and hence forward the city will undertake the upbringing of their sons until they grow up, thus conferring a valuable crown on them and on the survivors of conflicts like these. Where the prizes for valour are the greatest, there the men will be the best citizens. Now make your lament for your own dead, and go your way.” (47) Such was the funeral in this winter. When that was over, the first year of this war came to an end.

20 Week 2 ‘Monists’ and ‘Pluralists’ Lectures: 3. Heracleitus and Parmenides. 4. The ‘Eleatics’, Pythagoras, Empedocles and Anaxagoras. Suggested Reading: T. Irwin, Classical Thought, chs. 3-4, G. Vlastos, Plato's Universe, Washington, 1975, Chapter 1, C.J. Emlyn-Jones, The Ionians and Hellenism, London, 1980, chs. 5-6, and any of A.H. Armstrong, An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy, A.R. Burn, The Lyric Age of Greece, E. Brehier, The History of Philosophy, vol. 1, “The Hellenic Age”, F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. 1, K. Freeman, Companion to the Presocratic Philosophers, E. Fraenkel, Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy, W.C.K. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, and R. Waterfield, Before Eureka: the Presocratics and their Science. For more detail see R.W. Jordan, Ancient Concepts of Philosophy, London, 1990, chapter 1, D. Furley, The Greek Cosmologists, vol. 1, Cambridge, 1987, pp. 16-57, and Cosmic Problems, Cambridge, 1989, Edward Hussey, The Presocratics, London, 1972, J. Barnes, The Presocratic Philosophers, London (2nd edition), 1982, F.M. Cleve, The Giants of PreSocratic Philosophy, The Hague, 1973, vols. 1-2, M.C. Stokes, The One and the Many in Presocratic Thought, New Haven, 1971, and K.R. Popper, The World of Parmenides, London, 1998, esp. the essay “Back to the Presocratics”. Three excellent collections of essays on various aspects of the Pre-Socratics are R.E. Allen & D.J. Furley, eds., Studies in Pre-Socratic Philosophy, London, 1975, A.P.D. Mourelatos, ed., The Pre-Socratics, New York, 1974, and J.P. Anton and A. Preus, eds., Essays in Philosophy, vols. 1 & 2, SUNY Press, 1971. Recently see K. Algra, “The Beginnings of ”, in A.A. Long, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy, Cambridge, 1999, and E. Hussey, “The Beginnings of Science and Philosophy in Archaic Greece”, in M.L. Gill & P. Pellegrin, eds., A Companion to Ancient Philosophy, Blackwell, 2006 (both in the Library and online). For the claim that Greek thought was in many ways dependent on Near Eastern ideas, see particularly M.L. West, Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient, Oxford, 1971, and The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth, Oxford, 1997. See also S.M. Burstein, “Greek Contact with Egypt and the Levant: ca. 1600-500 BC. An Overview”, The Ancient World, 1996, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 20ff. Specifically on see G.S. Kirk, Heraclitus: the Cosmic Fragments, Cambridge, 1954, and C.H. Kahn, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus, Cambridge, 1979, and K. Pritzl, “On the Way to Wisdom in Heraclitus”, Phoenix vol. 39, 1985, pp. 303-316. On Parmenides and his followers, the ‘Eleatics’ see D. Gallop, Parmenides of Elea, Toronto, 1984, and the collections of essays above, K. Popper, “How the Moon might throw some of her light upon the Two Ways of Parmenides”, C.Q. 42.1, 1992, pp. 12-19, and A.P.D. Mourelatos, “Parmenides and the Pluralists”, Apeiron vol. 32 no. 2, 1999, pp. 117ff. On Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans see F.L. Vatai, Intellectuals in Politics in the Greek World, W. Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient , Cambridge, Mass., 1972, pp. 166ff., pp. 299ff., and D. Furley, cited above. On Empedocles see B. Inwood, The Poem of Empedocles: a text and translation with an introduction, Toronto, 2001, F.M. Cleve, The Giants of PreSocratic Philosophy, The Hague, 1973, vol. 2, pp. 329ff., D. Furley, The Greek Cosmologists vol. 1, p. 79ff., and in detail, M.R. Wright, Empedocles: the Extant Fragments, New Haven, 1981, and D. O'Brien, Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycle, Cambridge, 1969, Allen and Furley, vol. 2, pp. 221-274, Mourelatos, p. 397ff., and C. Osborne, “Empedocles Recycled”, C.Q. vol. 37,

21 1987, pp. 24-50, and D.W. Graham, “Symmetry in the Empedoclean Cycle”, C.Q. 38.2, 1988, pp. 272-312. On Anaxagoras see also F.M. Cleve, The Philosophy of Anaxagoras, The Hague, 1973, and M. Schofield, An Essay on Anaxagoras, Cambridge, 1980, and D. Furley, “Anaxagoras in Response to Parmenides”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, supplementary vol. 2, pp. 61-85; or see it reprinted in J.P. Anton and A. Preus, eds., Essays in , vol. 2, Albany, SUNY Press, 1971. See also D.W. Graham, “The Postulates of Anaxagoras”, Apeiron vol. 27, 1994, pp. 77-121, and A. Drozdek, “Anaxagoras and the Everything in Everything Principle”, Hermes, 133.2, 2005, pp. 163-177.

Tutorials: In this, the second week of Term, we will be discussing the ‘Funeral Speech of Pericles’ on pp. 11-15 of this Unit Outline. Plato's Protagoras forms the basis of the Tutorial for the next two weeks. Please read it all, if possible, but for next week read particularly sections 316 to 334C (pp. 14-39 in the Penguin), on whether ‘virtue’ is teachable. See the questions, below. If you wish to do some reading in this area, a good place to start might be B. Hubbard and E. Karnofsky, Plato's Protagoras: a Socratic Commentary, Chicago, 1982. If you are interested in his view of punishment and the nature of justice, see R.F. Stalley, “Punishment in Plato’s ‘Protagoras’”, Phronesis 40.1, 1995, pp. 1-19. If you are interested in his view of human cultural development, as expressed in his ‘myth’, see R.A. McNeal, “Protagoras the Historian”, in History and Theory vol. 25, 1986, pp. 299-318. See also W. Prior, “Protagoras’ Great Speech and Plato’s Defence of Athenian Democracy”, in V. Caston and D.W. Graham (eds.), Presocratic Philosophy. Essays in Honour of Alexander Mourelatos, 2002, pp. 313-326. Suggested Points for consideration in the Protagoras: Protagoras himself was an historical character, as (most probably) are all those who take part in the dialogue. He was one of the class of ‘sophists’, celebrity philosophers and educators who became common in the mid-fifth century in Greece, but most especially in Athens. They were at their best men of wide education, specialising in eloquent argument on a multitude of topics. They formed the vanguard of the ‘new education’ with its critique of traditional culture and values. As professionals, they naturally tended to offer their services to the educated wealthy elite, where new ideas were most welcome and men had leisure for education. They were treated with suspicion by the ordinary population, for whom they appeared dangerously ‘advanced’ and radical. 1. What precisely does Protagoras claim he is able to do for his students? What is his particular specialisation? 2. The claim “you can’t make someone good by teaching them” in 320 B (p. 19) translates the general Greek term arete. The word can mean ‘skill’, ‘prowess’ or ‘excellence’ in a general sense, or it can mean the particular property that fits an item for its own use: i.e. the arete appropriate to a knife would be sharpness. We still say that a person particularly skilled in, say, music, is a ‘virtuoso’ in this sense. When applied to people, it can mean their vocational skills in particular, or their ‘excellence’ at the broadest level, encompassing personal and political ‘virtues’. In Protagoras’ speech, it means “those skills and attitudes which make a person a good (or even virtuoso) citizen”: we might say ‘social skills’, or ‘citizenship skills’, provided we understand there are intellectual, emotional and social aspects to this arete. ‘Excellence’ is the normal translation, though perhaps ‘quality’ in English comes closer. ‘Quality’ has the same ambiguity: it can mean the property of a thing that makes it what it is (“the quality of mercy is not strained”) or it can mean ‘high quality’ (“a person of quality”). Given all this: what are the

22 contrasting views of Protagoras and Socrates about the teachability of ‘virtue’? What qualities of human beings is Protagoras’ speech most concerned with? What examples does Socrates use to illustrate his view, and what two (different) points do they make?

3. Why does Protagoras frame his first argument in terms of a deliberate piece of mythology? Is it perhaps not so much a myth as what we would call a ‘conceptual model’, for interest rather than as proof (or is this distinction between myth and conceptual model a false one)? What does he attempt to prove with it? Does his argument prove what he wants it to?

4. With what arguments does he follow up his story? Do they improve the case? What do they attempt to prove?

5. Is there a tension in Protagoras’ case between the universal giving of basic social skills in the myth and the differing levels of skill that people actually display? What does Protagoras offer to explain this? How persuasive is it?

6. Note that the suggestion that even the least capable Athenian is more skilled in arete (civic virtue) than any barbarian is utterly culture-bound. Among such non-Greeks an Athenian would not know how to live properly, and as such would lack arete for that culture. But those present, fully confident of the superiority of their own culture, feel no qualms about the argument.

7. What “one little thing” does Socrates want explained?

8. Note that Socrates here raises one of his most characteristic questions: that of the definition of moral and ethical qualities. By what argument does he attempt to persuade Protagoras that ‘the virtues’ are all closely related, or even that they are the same thing, in 332-333A? What do you think he means?

Map of Southern and Greece adapted from J. Barnes, Early Greek Philosophy, Harmondsworth, 1987.

23 Early Greek Philosophy: a rough Chronological Outline.

24 The Development of Ancient Philosophy: an Outline Chronology.

Date Major Characters Area and World Events c.625 B.C. The Pre-Socratic Philosophers. Greece, Ionia, S. Italy.

490-479 The Persian Wars. c.479-399 The first ‘Sophists’ The great age of the city-states. Socrates The ‘Classical’ period. c.427-348 Plato Rise of Macedon. c.384-322. Aristotle Alexander the Great: Massive expansion of Greek horizons. The ‘Hellenistic’ period.

370-270. , Crates, Proliferation of differing schools , , of thought. Zeno, .

150-50. Steady rise of Roman power. Roman absorption of Greek culture. ‘Republican’ period.

49-28 B.C. , Lucretius. Roman Civil Wars

28 B.C.-64 A.D. Judaeus, Seneca Julio-Claudian Emperors.

64-c.180 Musonius Rufus, , Flavian and Antonine Emperors , , Beginnings of Early Christian Celsus philosophy.

180-350 Tertullian, Flowering of Christian philosophy , . Neo-Platonism.

354 St. Augustine. The Late Roman Empire.

25 Week 3. Socrates and his World

Lectures: 5. The Intellectual World of Socrates. 6. Socrates and the ‘Socratic Method’.

Suggested Reading: Most general Greek histories will have a section on the intellectual and cultural environment of the late fifth century. Most will also give a brief outline of the facts of Socrates’ career and death. For more detail, see Irwin, Ch. 4, “Doubts about ”, pp. 43ff., and Ch. 5, “Socrates”. On the Atomists, see any of the general works on the Pre-Socratics from last week's Study Guide, and D.J. Furley, The Greek Cosmologists, vol. 1, pp. 122ff., and “The Atomists’ reply to the Eleatics”, in A.P.D. Mourelatos, ed., The Pre-Socratics, New York, 1974, pp. 504ff. See also A.T. Cole, and the Sources of Greek Anthropology, Cleveland, 1967, and A. Pyle, and its Critics, Bristol, 1995. On the Sophistic movement and the intellectual world of Socrates see any of the following: E. Brehier, The Hellenic Age, pp. 72-86, (brief only), and the other introductory works noted in the Unit Outline. See also R.S. Brumbaugh, The Philosophers of Greece, London, 1966, pp. 112-132, G.B. Kerferd, The Sophistic Movement, Cambridge, 1981, J. de Romilly, The Great Sophists in Periclean Athens, Oxford, 1992, and G. Striker, “Methods of Sophistry”, Essays on Hellenistic and Ethics, Cambridge, 1996, p. 1-21. On Socrates himself the most important ancient sources are found in (a) Plato's Dialogues and (b) the writings of , for which see the Loeb edition, or R.C. Bartlett, Xenophon: The Shorter Socratic Writings, Ithaca, 1996, or H. Tredennick and R. Waterfield, Xenophon: Conversations of Socrates, Harmondsworth, 1990. For reconstructions of Socrates see T.C. Brickhouse and N.D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, Oxford, 1994, B.S. Gower and M.C. Stokes, Socratic Questions, London, 1992, containing essays on “Socrates’ Mission”, “Socratic Questions”, “Socrates versus Protagoras” and “Socratic Ethics”, N. Gulley, The Philosophy of Socrates, London, 1968, W.K.C. Guthrie, Socrates, Cambridge, 1971, or, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 3, part 2, Cambridge, 1969 (the same material, published in two different forms), C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis, 1989, J.W. Roberts, City of Sokrates, 1984, pp. 209-249, G.X. Santas, Socrates: Philosophy in Plato's Early Dialogues, London, 1979, A.E. Taylor, Socrates, New York, 1953, G. Vlastos, The Philosophy of Socrates, New York, 1971, containing essays on: “The Paradox of Socrates” (Vlastos), “Our knowledge of Socrates” (A.R. Lacey), “Socrates in the Clouds” (K.J. Dover) and several other important topics, G. Vlastos, Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher, Cambridge, 1991, R.W. Jordan, Ancient Concepts of Philosophy, London, 1990, chapter 2, B. Huss, “The dancing Sokrates and the laughing Xenophon, or the other ‘Symposium’”, A.J.Ph., vol. 120 no. 3, 1999, pp. 381ff., R. Waterfield, “Xenophon’s Socratic Mission”, in C. Tuplin, ed., Xenophon and his World, Stuttgart, 2004, pp. 79-114, and T.C. Brickhouse and N.D. Smith, “The Origin of Socrates’ Mission”, Journal of the History of Ideas, 44.4, 1983, pp. 657-666. For a detailed discussion of the historical problem of Socrates, see also D.W. Graham, “Socrates and Plato”, in Phronesis, vol. 37, 1992, pp. 141-165.

All of the above are to be found in Reserve / eReserve: several are also on the open shelves and available for borrowing.

26 Tutorials: In this, the third week of Term, we will be discussing the section of Plato's Protagoras from 320D to 334C. Questions on this passage are to be found above. For next week's Tutorials see the questions which follow.

Suggested Points for consideration in the Protagoras, 339A to 346E, for Week 4.

Note that questions 1-4 deal with something of a diversion from the topic of the teachability of arete. Socrates has had his chance to ask questions: now Protagoras has his opportunity to show his critical skills. It is taken for granted that any educated Athenian would know the poem of Simonides in question.

1. Precisely what is the point on which Protagoras attempts to catch Socrates in the interpretation of Simonides’ poem (339 B)?

2. What is Socrates’ reply? How serious is it, in the light of developments in 341 D-E?

3. Socrates’ full exposition of Simonides’ poem follows. What is the point of the satirical references to the Spartans as philosophers? What particular features of the Spartan way of life are forced into service for his argument by Socrates?

4. In what ways does Socrates change the sense of the poem for his own purposes? (344 C- D, 346D-E. Note that not every detail of his exposition is clear: much of it depends on nuances of Greek word order and emphasis.) Note also that this digression on poetry has not been completely off-topic: it has still been about “ a good man”, and whether, once one has achieved this, one can be deflected from it.

5. In the light of the remainder of the Protagoras, how might Socrates justify the claim (at 345 E) that “no one who knows anything believes that people ever make mistakes wilfully or do things that are wrong, or bad for them, wilfully”?

6. Is it possible to reconcile this point of view with our own ‘common-sense’ view, that many people wilfully commit actions which they themselves believe to be wrong? Is there simply a different cultural point of view here, or are the reasons stronger than that?

7. How is this statement, that no-one wilfully acts wrongly, related to Socrates’ suggestion that ‘virtue’ (arete) is all one thing, noted above in Question 8 of the set work for Week 3?

27 Week 4.

Socrates and Plato

Lectures: 7. “No-one errs willingly”: Greek moral optimism. 8. Plato: the man and the theory of ‘Forms’.

Suggested Reading:

Lecture 7: Virtually any of the works referred to in last week's Study Guide will have sections on the moral optimism implicit in Socrates’ famous paradox. See also Irwin, pp. 75ff., and T.C. Brickhouse and N.D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, Oxford, 1994.

Lecture 8: On Plato and Forms see Euthyphro 5-7 (pp. 23-28), Major 287c-d, Phaedo 65dff, Symposium 211-212, Republic 502d-521b (pp. 299-325), Parmenides 126-135, 245ff; see also Irwin, Chapter 6, “Plato”, R.E. Allen, “Plato's Earlier Theory of Forms”, in Vlastos, The Philosophy of Socrates, New York, 1971, pp. 319- 334, and contrast J.M. Rist, “Plato’s ‘Earlier Theory of Forms’”, Phoenix 29, 1975, pp. 336-357, and W.C.K. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. IV, pp. 188-191; see also for the fully-developed theory pp. 340-365, 503-518, D. Bostock, Plato's Phaedo, Oxford, 1986, pp. 194-213, R.W. Jordan, Ancient Concepts of Philosophy, London, 1990, chapter 3, and K.R. Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies (vol. 1): the Spell of Plato, 5th edition, 1966, pp. 18-34.

Tutorials:

Plato's Symposium will be studied over the next two weeks. Please read it all if possible, but for next week read specifically the speeches on Love (Eros) by Pausanias and Aristophanes (180-185, 189-194).

1. Note that the setting, a meal and subsequent drinking party, is not merely conventional. Among the Athenian elite, drinking parties were regularly the scene of long political or philosophical debates. Note that the group agrees together that the subject is important enough to warrant not getting too drunk, and sending away the flute-girl, the hired entertainer. The chief pleasure of the evening will be the conversation. (176)

2. What is the distinction between the two sorts of Love that Pausanias suggests? On what mythological point does he base it?

3. Give a brief description of the two kinds of Love he brings forward.

4. What appear to have been the conventions about courtship relevant to male love affairs in Athens?

5. What kinds of considerations are used in the of love in this speech?

6. Aristophanes’ speech begins, like that of Protagoras, with a myth. Apart from the sheer joy in fantasy displayed here, what serious points about Love is Aristophanes out to make? Does he also distinguish between higher and lower forms of Love?

28 7. What further evidence does this speech give us about the prevalence of male homosexuality in Athens? Does it suggest that it was widespread?

8. Is there a distinction being made between ‘the lover’ and ‘the beloved’? Are they merely reciprocal terms, or do they imply differences of status?

9. If we discount the emphasis on homosexuality, how similar or different are the attitudes to Love (Eros) displayed here to those of our own culture?

10. Thinkers have often distinguished between (a) love as desire, and (b) love as the wish to please the Beloved, as well as (c) altruistic or ‘disinterested love’. To what extent is each of these three under discussion in these two speeches?

If you wish to read further on Symposium in the context of either this or the next Short paper, you may find some of the following interesting:

T. Gould, Platonic Love, London, 1963. K.J. Dover, “Aristophanes’ Speech in Plato’s Symposium”, J.H.S. 86, 1966, pp. 41-50. G. Vlastos, Platonic Studies, Princeton, 1973 (collected essays): particularly Vlastos, “The Individual as Object of Love in Plato”. R. Mortley, “Love in Plato and Plotinus”, Antichthon vol. 14, 1980, pp. 45- 52. A.W. Price, “Loving Persons Platonically”, Phronesis vol. 26, 1981. F.C. White, “Love and Beauty in Plato's Symposium”, J.H.S. vol. 109, 1989, pp. 149-157. A. Nye, “The Subject of Love: Diotima and her Critics”, Journal of Value Inquiry, 24.2, 1990, pp. 135-153. G.R.F. Ferrari, “Platonic Love”, in R. Kraut, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Plato, Cambridge, 1992. M. Nussbaum, “The Speech of Alcibiades: a reading of the Symposium”, in The Fragility of Goodness, Cambridge, 1986. Upheavals of Thought: the Intelligence of Emotions, Cambridge, 2001, Part 3 chs. 9- 10. W.A. Johnson, “Dramatic Frame and Philosophic Idea in Plato”, A.J.Ph. 119.4, 1998, pp. 577-598. R.G. Edmonds III, “Socrates the Beautiful: Role Reversal and Midwifery in Plato’s Symposium”, T.A.Ph.A. vol. 130, 2000, pp. 261-285. F.C. White, “Virtue in Plato’s Symposium”, C.Q. vol. 54.2, 2004, pp. 366-378. D.C. Schindler, “Plato and the Problem of Love: On the Nature of Eros in the Symposium”, Apeiron 40.3, 2007, pp. 199-220. J.H. Lesher, D. Nails & C.C. Frisbee, eds., Plato’s Symposium: Issues in Interpretation and Reception, Sheffield, 2006. L. Secomb, “Sapphic and Platonic Erotics”, in his Philosophy and Love: from Plato to popular culture, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 2007. S. Obdrzalek, “Moral Transformation and the Love of Beauty in Plato’s Symposium”, Journal of the History of Philosophy 48.4, 2010, 415-444.

29 Week 5. Plato. Lectures: 9. Plato and the ideal state: the Republic and the nature of justice, and the critique of art. 10. Platonic Love and the Theory of Knowledge. Suggested Reading: Lecture 9: Republic books 1-7; see also Irwin, Ch. 6, Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, pp. 439-486, R.W. Jordan, Ancient Concepts of Philosophy, London, 1990, chapter 3, K.R. Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, vol. 1 generally, R. Bambrough, ed. Plato, Popper and Politics, Cambridge, 1967, R. Robinson, Essays in Greek Philosophy, Oxford, 1969, Chapter 4, “Dr. Popper's Defence of Democracy”, R.B. Levinson, In Defence of Plato, and the reply of Popper, op. cit., pp. 323ff, and G. Vlastos, “The Theory of Social Justice in the Polis in Plato's Republic”, in Interpretations of Plato, ed. H.F. North, Leiden, 1977. See also B. Williams, “The Analogy of City and Soul in Plato's Republic”, in E.N. Lee, A.P.D. Mourelatos & R.M. Rorty, eds., Exegesis and Argument, Assen, 1973, pp. 196-206, M.F. Burnyeat, “Utopia and Fantasy: the Practicability of Plato's ideally just city”, in J. Hopkins and A. Savile, eds., Psychoanalysis, mind, and art; perspectives on Richard Wollheim, Blackwell, 1992, pp. 175-187, and L. Brown, “How Totalitarian is Plato’s Republic?”, in E.N. Ostenfeld, Essays on Plato’s Republic, Aarhus University Press, 1998, pp. 13-27. On the whole work see the essays in G. Ferrari, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Plato's Republic, Cambridge, 2007. Lecture 10: Theory of Knowledge, Meno 81-86, Phaedo 73-75c; other sources are gathered in D.J. Herrmann and R. Chaffin, eds, Memory in Historical Perspective, 1988. See also N. Gulley, Plato's Theory of Knowledge, London, 1962, J.L. Ackrill, “Anamnesis in the Phaedo: Remarks on 73c-75c” in Exegesis and Argument, ed. E.N. Lee, A.P.D. Mourelatos and R.M. Rorty, Assen, 1973, pp. 177-195, and J. Moravcsik, “Learning as Recollection”, in G. Vlastos, ed., Plato: a Collection of Critical Essays, Indiana, 1971. See also W.C.K. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 4, pp. 249-254, pp. 329-330, pp. 342-346. On Platonic Eros, see the Symposium, the Phaedrus, N.B. 246ff., G. Vlastos, “The Individual as Object of Love in Plato”, in Platonic Studies, Princeton, 1973, A.W. Price, “Loving Persons Platonically”, Phronesis vol. 26, 1981, pp. 25-34, G. Santas, “Passionate and Platonic Love in Phaedrus”, Ancient Philosophy, 1982, pp. 105-114, A.B. Palma, “Socrates: Love, Irony and Philosophy”, Prudentia, vol. 18, no. 1, 1986, pp. 15-30, S. Rosen, “The Role of Eros in Plato's Republic”, and “Socrates as Concealed Lover”, both in his The Quarrel between Philosophy and Poetry, London, 1988, D.M. Halperin, “Why is Diotima a Woman?”, in One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, London, 1988, pp. 113ff., E.E. Pender, “Spiritual Pregnancy in Plato's Symposium”, C.Q. vol. 42, 1992, pp. 72-86, A. Cavarero, In Spite of Plato, Cambridge, 1995, Chapter 4, “Diotima”, and M. Nussbaum The Fragility of Goodness, Cambridge, 1986, ch. 6 pp. 165ff. See also, for social background, P. Green, Classical Bearings, London, 1989, chapter 9, “Sex and Classical Literature”, pp. 130ff., K.J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality, 1978, and D.M. Halperin, “Sex before Sexuality: Pederasty, Politics and Power in Classical Athens”, in Hidden from History, ed. M.B. Duberman, et al., New York, 1989, pp. 37-53. On the contrast with the Christian ideal of love, see A. Nygren, Eros and Agape, trans. P.S. Watson, London, 1953, A.H. Armstrong, “Platonic eros and Christian agape”, in Plotinian and Christian Studies, London, 1979, J. Rist, “Some Interpretations of Agape

30 and Eros”, in Platonism and its Christian Heritage, London, 1985, and the full discussion in C. Osborne, Eros Unveiled: Plato and the God of Love, Oxford, 1994.

Tutorial: Symposium 1. The speeches of Pausanias and Aristophanes (180-185, 189-194). For next week: Symposium 201-212, the reported speech of Diotima and the interruption of Alcibiades.

1. The previous speech, that of Agathon, had raised the question of the nature of Eros. It had done so mythologically, by treating it, in personified form, as a god (195-197). Socrates pronounces himself vastly impressed, but his irony is as usual pronounced: he has “a few small questions”. He then proceeds to turn Agathon's speech on its head. His central question is: is Love (Eros) a desire for something? and if so, for what?

2. In what way does the argument of Diotima's reported speech (202-3) go beyond the “argument about opposites” we saw Socrates use in the Protagoras? What are the consequences for the view that Love is a God?

3. What is the meaning of Diotima's myth of the birth of Eros?

4. Likewise, what is the point, at the level of human experience, of Eros “within a single day … being full of life in abundance, when things are going his way, but then he dies away … only to take after his father (‘Plenty’) and come back to life again”?

5. In sections 205b-c Diotima comments that “there are all kinds of creativity. It's always creativity, after all, which is responsible for something coming into existence when it didn't exist before. And it follows that all artefacts are actually creations or poems and that all artisans are creators or poets.” The point of this is that the Greek term poiesis was used for making: it could be equally used of making shoes or making verse. Poiesis was a term that could be used of any ‘creative process’, but ‘poetry’ in our sense had become its dominant meaning. How does she use a similar argument to ‘broaden’ the nature of ‘Love’? What does she mean?

6. What, according to Diotima, is the true aim of all love, whether ‘merely’ physical, or ‘true’ love? In what ways is it expressed, at these different levels?

7. What, according to Diotima, are the stages through which Love ought to pass in its ascent?

8. What, in the context of the theme of the Symposium, is the dramatic point of the drunken speech of Alcibiades?

31 Week 6 An Introduction to Aristotle

Lectures: 11. Aristotle 1: Metaphysics and Ethics 12. Aristotle 2: From Ethics to Social Theory

Suggested Reading:

On Aristotle see Irwin, Chapter 7, J.L. Ackrill, Aristotle's Ethics, B. Baumrin, “Aristotle's Ethical Intuitionism”, New , vol. 42, 1968, pp. 1-17, A. Grant, The Ethics of Aristotle, 2 vols., A.O. Rorty, Essays on Aristotle's Ethics, J. Lear, Aristotle and the Desire to Understand, Cambridge, 1988, R.W. Jordan, Ancient Concepts of Philosophy, London, 1990, D. Furley, The Greek Cosmologists, Cambridge, 1991, vol. 1, and W.C.K. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 6. See also, for more detail on other questions, J. Barnes, Articles on Aristotle, vol. 2, J.M. Cooper, Reason and Human Good in Aristotle, J.B. Morrall, Aristotle, and W.D. Ross, Aristotle, N.D. Smith, “Aristotle's Theory of Natural ”, Phoenix vol. 37, 1983, pp. 109-122, P.S. Hasper, “Aristotle’s Diagnosis of Atomism”, Apeiron 39.2, 2006, pp. 121-155, R. Cameron, “Aristotle’s Teleology”, Philosophy Compass 5/12, 2010, pp. 1096-1106, and I. Jordović, “Aristotle on Extreme Tyranny and Extreme Democracy”, Historia 60.1, 2011, pp. 36-64.

Tutorial: Aristotle 1: Aristotle's Politics will be studied over two weeks. Please read it all, if possible, but for next week read particularly Book 1, on the idea of ‘nature’ (i.e. the nature of women, slaves, etc.). 1. Aristotle gives a schematic outline of the growth of communities in 1.2. What points convince him that the city state is the most natural form of community? 2. How does Aristotle use the category (though not the term) of “management” to organise his discussion of social roles and institutions (i.e. marriage, government, slavery)? 3. In what sense can someone be described as a slave ‘by nature’? (1.4-5) How does Aristotle justify slavery? 4. Does Aristotle have any arguments specifically to justify the enslavement of barbarians? (1.2, 1.6, 1.8) 5. What is Aristotle's point about the naturalness and unnaturalness of various forms of economic life in 1.9-10? Does it conflict with his views about the naturalness of polis life in 1.2? 6. Notice the personification of ‘nature’ in these chapters. Does Aristotle's argument depend on this? 7. What are the differences between the three kinds of authority that Aristotle distinguishes in 1.12? 8. To what psychological theory does Aristotle link his view of natural social roles in 1.13? Note how this theory is linked to the definition of the ‘arete’ of particular classes of people.

32 Diagrams used during the first Aristotle lecture:

Plato's View of Political Systems

Good Bad

Rule of One Monarchy Tyranny

Rule of Few Aristocracy Oligarchy

Rule of Many Polity / Democracy Ochlocracy / Democracy

Characteristics of Differing forms of Governments according to Aristotle

Oligarchy Polity Democracy

1. High property Moderate property No property qualification qualification qualification

2. Rich fined for not Rich fined, Poor paid for participating poor paid participating

3. Election to office Higher offices Offices chosen elected, others by lot. chosen by lot.

Note that the three forms are distinguished by term of office, repetition of office-holding, the extent of direction of officers by the Assembly, relationships between the Assembly and the Council, and the form of selection for office.

Aristotle's own eventual scheme:

Oligarchy  Aristocracy Polity  Democracy (mixed)  

Tyranny   Tyranny

33 Diagrams used during the second Aristotle lecture:

Aristotle's understanding of Virtues and the Mean (adapted from W.D. Ross, Aristotle, London, 1949, p. 203)

Feeling Action Excess Mean Defect or Lack

Fear Cowardice Courage Not named Confidence Rashness Courage Cowardice Certain pleasures Profligacy Temperance Insensibility of touch Generosity Giving money Prodigality Liberality Meanness Accepting money Meanness Liberality Prodigality Large-Scale Vulgarity Magnificence Meanness Generosity Claiming Honour Vanity Self-respect Humility (large scale) Claiming Honour Ambition Not named Lack of ambition (small scale) Anger Irascibility Gentleness Meekness In social relations Truthfulness Boasting Truthfulness Self-deprecation Amusing people Buffoonery Wit Boorishness Pleasing people Flattery Friendliness Sulkiness Shame Bashfulness Modesty Shamelessness Pain at good or Envy Righteous Malevolence bad fortune of indignation others

34 Week 7

Alexander the Great: the ‘Hellenistic Age’.

Lectures: 13. Alexander the Great and the Spread of Greek Culture. 14. Stoicism: Physics and Ethics.

Lecture 13: On Alexander himself see any of the biographies of A.B. Bosworth, A.R. Burn, P. Green, U. Wilckens, R.D. Milns, N.G.L. Hammond, I. Worthington, P. Cartledge or W.L. Adams. See also The Impact of Alexander, ed. E. Borza, which collects together several important interpretative essays by various scholars. For an introduction to the wider Hellenistic world see M. Grant, From Alexander to Cleopatra, London, 1982, F.E. Peters, The Harvest of Hellenism, New York, 1970, chapters 7 and 8, J. Ferguson, The Heritage of Hellenism, or F.W. Walbank, The Hellenistic World. For more detail in a straightforward narrative see E. Cary, The History of the Greek World, or G. Shipley, The Greek World after Alexander, London, 2000. For fanatics only: see the massive work of P. Green, From Alexander to Actium: the Hellenistic Age, London, 1990.

Lecture 14: See first of all Irwin, ch. 9. Primary Sources: A.A. Long and D.N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, vol. 1, Cambridge, 1987, pp. 158ff, or J.L. Saunders, Greek and Roman Philosophy after Aristotle, New York, 1966, pp. 59ff., Plutarch, Moralia, Loeb vol. 13 part 2, Epictetus (Loeb edition: 2 vols). Secondary Sources: see the up-to- date surveys of R.W. Sharples, “Philosophy for Life”, in G.R. Bugh, ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 223-240, and P. Mitsis, “The Institutions of Hellenistic Philosophy”, in A. Erskine, ed., A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Oxford, 2003, pp. 464-476. On particular topics see E. Bevan, Stoics and Sceptics, M. Colish, The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, Leiden, 1985, pp. 21-60, J.B. Gould, The Philosophy of , Leiden, 1970, pp. 18-27, pp. 31-37, D.E. Hahm, The Origins of Stoic Cosmology, Ohio, 1977, H.A.K. Hunt, A Physical Interpretation of the Universe, Melbourne, 1976, L. Edelstein, The Stoic Concept of Nature, London, 1966, G. Watson, The Stoic Theory of Knowledge, Belfast, 1966, A.A. Long, Hellenistic Philosophy, and A.A. Long, Problems in Stoicism, London, 1971, S. Sambursky, Physics of the Stoics, London, 1971, J. Rist, Stoic Philosophy, Cambridge, 1969, and F.H. Sandbach, The Stoics, London, 1975, A.C. Lloyd, “Emotion and Decision in Stoic Psychology”, in J. Rist, The Stoics, Berkeley, 1978, and N.P. White, “The Basis of Stoic Ethics”, H.S.C.P., vol. 83, 1979, pp. 143-179, now reprinted in T. Irwin, ed., Classical Philosophy: Collected Papers, New York, 1995, A.A. Long, “Epicureans and Stoics”, in A.H. Armstrong, ed., Classical Mediterranean Spirituality: Egyptian, Greek, Roman, New York, 1986, R.W. Sharples, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics: an Introduction to Hellenistic Philosophy, London, 1996, T. Brennan, The Stoic Life: emotions, duties and fate, Oxford, 2007, E. Asmis, “Myth and Philosophy in Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus”, G.R.B.S., vol. 47, 2007, pp. 413-429, and T.H. Irwin, “Stoic Inhumanity”, in J. Sihvola & T. Engberg-Pedersen, eds., The Emotions in Hellenistic Philosophy, Springer, 1998, pp. 219-240, L.C. Becker, “Stoic Emotion”, in S.K. Strange & J. Zupko, eds., Stoicism: Traditions and Transformations, Cambridge, 2004, pp. 250-275, M. Graver, Stoicism and Emotion, Chicago, 2007, and R. Sorabji, “Did the Stoics value Emotion and Feeling?”, Phil. Q., vol. 59, no. 234, 2009, pp. 150-162.

35 36 37 Tutorial: Aristotle 2. In our second Tutorial on Aristotle we will be studying Book 4 on systems of government, the middle classes, and moderate democracy, and Book 5.9 on the principle of the ‘middle way’.

1. The Greek term politeia is used by Aristotle in two ways. It can mean either the constitution of any city, regardless of its type, or that form of constitution of which Aristotle most approves: moderate democracy.

2. Is Aristotle committed to describing and recommending the best possible constitution, regardless of the practical difficulties that might stand in the way of setting it up, as was Plato?

3. What basic types of constitution does Aristotle describe?

4. How convincing is Aristotle's critique of Plato in 4.2? How convincing is his alternative point of view?

5. What categories of people does Aristotle think are necessary for the basic state?

6. What kind of democracy is, in Aristotle's view, not a constitution at all? What other kind of government fails to qualify as a constitution, for similar reasons?

7. In 4.6 Aristotle notes another common characteristic of this kind of democracy, which was in fact the form in classical Athens. What is it?

8. What differing ways does Aristotle suggest for producing ‘polity’ in 4.9?

9. What, in Aristotle's view, are the political virtues of the ‘middle class’? How does he seem to define this category? Is his definition (implicit or explicit) similar to modern definitions?

10. In what kinds of ways, according to Aristotle, may a democracy or an oligarchy moderate its less acceptable features?

11. According to 4.14ff, what are the minimum functions of the state?

12. Do you get the impression that the ‘Law of the Mean’ (Book 5.9) has been somewhat arbitrarily imposed on Aristotle's discussion of politics, or is it reasonably grounded in argument?

38 Week 8 Hellenistic Philosophy: the Epicureans, and the coming of Rome

Lectures: 15. Epicureanism: Physics and Hedonism. 16. The Roman Response to Greek Culture.

Suggested Reading: Lecture 15: Primary Sources: A.A. Long and D.N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, vol. 1, Cambridge, 1987, pp. 25ff., and J.L. Saunders, Greek and Roman Philosophy after Aristotle, New York, 1966, pp. 47-57. Secondary Sources: B. Farrington, The Faith of Epicurus, London, 1967, A-J Festugiere, Epicurus and his Gods, Oxford, 1965, J.M. Rist, Epicurus: an Introduction, Cambridge, 1972, C.C.W. Taylor, “All Perceptions are True”, in Doubt and Dogmatism, Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology, ed. M. Schofield, M. Burnyeat and J. Barnes, Oxford, 1980, A.A. Long, “Epicureans and Stoics”, in A.H. Armstrong, ed., Classical Mediterranean Spirituality: Egyptian, Greek, Roman, New York, 1986, W.G. Englert, Epicurus on the Swerve and Voluntary Action, Atlanta, 1987, T. O’Keefe, “Does Epicurus Need the Swerve as an arche of Collisions?”, Phronesis vol. 41, 1996, pp. 305-317, G. Striker, “Epicurus on the Truth of Sense Impressions”, in T. Irwin, ed., Classical Philosophy: Collected Papers, New York, 1995, D. Sedley, “Epicurus’ Refutation of ”, in the same collection, and D. Sedley, “Epicurean Anti-Reductionism”, in Barnes & Mignucci, eds., Matter and Metaphysics, Naples, Bibliopolis, 1989, pp. 297-327, and D.C. Russell, “Epicurus and Lucretius on saving ”, Phoenix 54.3-4, 2000, pp. 226-243. On a wider front, see A. Pyle, Atomism and its Critics, Bristol, 1995, R.W. Sharples, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics: an Introduction to Hellenistic Philosophy, London, 1996, and the various articles in The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism, ed. J. Warren, 2009 (online only). On Epicurean social theory see P.A. Vander Waerdt, “The Justice of the Epicurean Wise Man”, C.Q. 37.2, 1987, pp. 402-422, D.R. Blickman, “Lucretius, Epicurus and Prehistory”, in H.S.C.P. vol. 92, 1989, pp. 157ff., T. Brennan, “Epicurus on Sex, Marriage, and Children”, C. Phil., vol. 91 no. 4, 1996, pp. 346ff., J.M. Armstrong, “Epicurean Justice”, Phronesis vol. 42, 1997, 324-334, and S.E. Rosenbaum, “Epicurean Moral Theory,” H.Ph.Q. vol. 13.4, 1996, pp. 389-409. On Epicurean views of the gods, see Long and Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, D. Obbink, “The of Epicurus”, G.R.B.S. vol. 30.2, 1989, pp. 187-223, “‘All Gods are True’ in Epicurus”, in D. Frede & A. Laks, ed., Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath, Leiden, Brill, 2002, pp. 183-221, and J. Mansfeld, “Aspects of Epicurean Theology”, Mnemosyne 46.2, 1993, pp. 172-210. On later Epicureanism see B. Frischer, The Sculpted Word: Epicureanism and Philosophical Recruitment in Ancient Greece, Berkeley, 1982, and C.W. Chilton, of Oenoanda, the Fragments, Oxford, 1971, or, more recently, M.F. Smith, Diogenes of Oinoanda: The Epicurean Inscription, and A.S. Hall, “Who was ?”, J.H.S. vol. 99, 1979, pp. 160-163, and J. Warren, “Diogenes Epikourios: keep taking the tablets”, J.H.S. 120, 2000, 144-148. See also E. Asmis, Epicurus’ Scientific Method, Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, vol. 42, Ithaca, 1984. A recent survey of Epicureanism and its long-term influence is H. Jones, The Epicurean Tradition, London, 1989.

Lecture 16: see A. Wardman, Rome's Debt to Greece, London, 1976, E. Rawson, Intellectual

39 Life in the late Roman Republic, London, 1985, and H. Guite, “Cicero's attitude to the Greeks”, G. & R., 2nd Series, vol. 9, 1962, pp. 142-159. On specifics, see E. Rawson, Cicero, a Portrait, London, 1975, A.E. Douglas, “Cicero the Philosopher”, in T.A. Dorey, ed., Cicero, London, 1964, pp. 135-170, B.F. Harris, Cicero as an Academic, Auckland, 1961, P. MacKendrick, The Philosophical Books of Cicero, London, 1989, R. MacMullen, “Hellenizing the Romans (2nd Century B.C.)”, Historia vol. 40, 1991, pp 418-438, S. Laursen, “Greek Intellectuals in Rome – Some Examples”, in Aspects of Hellenism in Italy, ed. P.G. Bilde et al., Copenhagen, 1993, pp. 191-211, G. Striker, “Cicero and Greek Philosophy”, H.S.C.P. vol. 97, 1995, pp. 53-61, J.G.F. Powell, ed., Cicero the Philosopher: Twelve Papers, Oxford, 1995, A. Henrichs, “Graecia Capta: Roman Views of Greek Culture”, H.S.C.P. vol. 97, 1995, pp. 243-261, and M. Morford, The Roman Philosophers: from the time of Cato the Censor to the Death of , Routledge, 2002, A.A. Long, “Roman Philosophy”, in D. Sedley, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosophy, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 184- 210, and D. Sedley, “Philosophy”, ch. 44 of A. Barchiesi and W. Scheidel, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Roman Studies, 2010, pp. 701-713.

Tutorial: For the next two weeks we will be dealing with the Roman Epicurean, Lucretius. For next week you should read Book 1, on freedom from superstition, and the atomic theory. If you would like to do some extra reading on aspects of this topic, see either of W.J. Tatum, “The Presocratics in Book One of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura”, T.A.Ph.A. vol. 114, 1984, pp. 177-189, or D. Solomon, “Lucretius’ Progressive Revelation of Nature in DRN 1.149-502”, Phoenix vol. 58 no. 3-4, 2004, pp. 260-283.

1. Given what we know of the Epicurean attitude to , what is the irony of the extended mythological introduction to book 1?

2. What is Lucretius most concerned might dissuade Memmius from his study of Epicurean philosophy? What is his reply?

3. What is Lucretius’ first “great principle”? How is it supported?

4. Likewise, what is his second “great principle”, and how does he support it?

5. How convincing are his proofs of the atomic theory (i.e. that everything is made of particles and the spaces between them)? N.B. how valid is his argument for the indestructibility of the atoms (1.482ff., p. 17-20)?

6. How fair is his critique of Heraclitus on pp. 21f.? What principle of knowledge does he adopt as part of this critique?

7. Likewise, how fair is his critique of Empedocles and Anaxagoras (pp. 23ff., pp. 26ff.)?

8. What convinces Lucretius of the infinity of both space and matter?

9. Why does Lucretius shy away from a theory of gravitation in our modern sense?

40 Week 9

Later Hellenistic and Early Roman Philosophy

Lectures: 17. Lucretius: Roman Epicureanism. 18. Scepticism, Later Platonism and other developments

Suggested Reading:

Lecture 17: for general background see E. Rawson, Intellectual Life in the late Roman Republic, London, 1985. For the text itself C. Bailey, Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, Oxford 1966, is indispensable. See also D.R. Dudley, ed., Lucretius, New York, 1965, including especially O.E. Lowenstein, “The Pre-Socratics, Lucretius and Modern Science”; see also A.J. Kenney, Lucretius, J.D. Minyard, Lucretius and the Late Republic, Leiden, 1985, and J.H. Nichols, Epicurean Political Philosophy, New York, 1976. See also S. Gillespie and P. Hardie, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius, 2007, and E. Asmis, “Lucretius’ New World Order: Making a Pact with Nature”, C.Q. 58.1, 2008, pp. 141-157. On Lucretius’ view of human motivation, see J. Jope, “Lucretius’ Psychoanalytic Insight: his notion of unconscious motivation”, Phoenix vol. 37, 1983, pp. 224-238. On Lucretius’ views on the evolution of human society, see C.R. Beye, “Lucretius and ”, C. J. vol. 58, 1963, pp. 160-69, D.J. Furley, “Lucretius the Epicurean: on the History of Man”, in Lucrèce, Entretiens Hardt vol. 24, Geneva, 1977, pp. 1-27, and D.R. Blickman, “Lucretius, Epicurus and Prehistory”, H.S.C.P., vol. 92, 1989, pp. 157- 191.

Lecture 18: For the primary sources on the Sceptics and later sceptical Platonists see A.A. Long and D.N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, vol. 1, Cambridge, 1987, pp. 438ff., and for Plotinus, J.L. Saunders, Greek and Roman Philosophy after Aristotle, New York, 1966, pp. 229ff. On the sceptical tendency in Platonism and the reaction against it see F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. 1 part 2, chapter 38-43, and chapter 45, and J.M. Dillon, The Middle Platonists, London, 1977. On the Platonism of the second century A.D. generally see J.M. Dillon, and R.L. Fox, Pagans and Christians, pp. 184-188, and on Plutarch in particular see R.H. Barrow, Plutarch and his Times, Indiana, 1967, D.A. Russell, Plutarch, New York, 1973, and J. Dillon, “Plutarch and Platonist Orthodoxy”, Illinois Classical Studies, vol. 13 No. 1, 1988, pp. 357-364. On Neo-Platonism see Irwin, Classical Thought, ch. 10, pp. 185ff., F. Copleston, op. cit., chapter 45, pp. 207ff., and R. Mortley, From Word to Silence, Bonn, 1986, vol. 2, chapter 3, pp. 45-62. On the whole question of ‘eclecticism’ see J.M. Dillon and A.A. Long, The Question of ‘Eclecticism’: studies in later Greek Philosophy, Berkeley, 1988.

41 Tutorial: Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, Book 5, on the origin of the world, the gods, species, and human society and culture.

1. What negative factors convince Lucretius that the world must one day end, contrary to both the common opinion and most philosophy of his day (5.92, p. 139)?

2. Note that the translation ‘thin’ as an adjective describing the material of which the gods and their world is made (p. 141) may be misleading. Lucretius means us to understand that they are of a very fine, almost intangible form of matter, but he certainly does not mean that it would be easy to destroy: quite the contrary!

3. On pp. 141-143 Lucretius criticises a ‘teleological’ view of nature, which suggests that things that happen in nature for man's benefit happen because they were designed to. What alternative view does he substitute for this?

4. What three main arguments does he use to dismiss the idea that the earth was created by the gods for mankind's benefit?

5. Lucretius now proceeds (pp. 143ff.) to his main positive arguments for the limited life span of the world. What are these?

6. Outline the stages of the ‘creation’ of the physical world, according to Lucretius. (Note that he presumes a limited sphere, beyond which other ‘worlds’ may exist, beyond our observation.)

7. How does Lucretius justify his claim that the whole world hangs freely in space, without a modern concept of gravity (p. 152)?

8. Note how cautious Lucretius is on several points of cosmology: the causes of the movements of the stars, the seasonal change of the angle of the sun, and even its daily reappearance, and the luminescence, phases and eclipses of the moon. Why is he happy to leave such matters undecided?

9. How does Lucretius explain the origins of living things from non-living material (pp. 159ff.)? How does he explain why this no longer appears to happen?

10. How close does Lucretius come to a Darwinian theory of evolution (pp. 160-161)?

11. Is the passage about the early stages of human existence a myth? i.e. does Lucretius give us any hints as to how he knows such things? Has the story a moralising purpose, or is it purely explanatory?

12. What factors was it that first produced human society? How did it evolve?

13. How does Lucretius account for the beginnings of religion (p. 169-170)?

14. What general principle does he draw out of human social development, in the final paragraphs of Book 5?

42 Week 10

Trends in Roman philosophy, and the Clash of World-Views

Lectures: 19. Seneca and Roman Stoicism. 20. Creation According to Plato and Genesis

Suggested Reading:

Lecture 1: C.D.N. Costa, Seneca, London, 1974, especially chapter 1, on Seneca's life, and chapter 3, on the Letters to Lucilius themselves, M.T. Griffin, Seneca, a Philosopher in Politics, Oxford, 1976, B. Inwood, Ethics and Human Action in Early Stoicism, Oxford, 1985, S. Gersh, and : the Latin Tradition, vol. 1, Indiana, 1986, pp. 155ff., and B. Inwood, “Seneca in his Philosophical Milieu”, H.S.C.P. vol. 97, 1995, pp. 63-76. For Stoic contemporaries of Seneca with contrasting views see the Loeb translation of Epictetus, or A.C. von Geytenbeek, Musonius Rufus and Greek Diatribe, Assen, 1962.

Lecture 2: On Plato's Timaeus see G. Vlastos, Plato's Universe, Seattle, 1975, and “Creation in the Timaeus: is it a Fiction?”, in R.E. Allen, ed., Studies in Plato's Metaphysics, London, 1965, pp. 401-419, F.M. Cornford, Plato's Cosmology, London, 1937, W.C.K. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 5, pp. 241ff., and M.K. Muntz, The Question of Reality, New Jersey, 1990, chapter 1, pp. 23ff. On Genesis see N. Sarna, Understanding Genesis, New York, 1966. On the concept of creation in Greek and early Christian thinking generally see A. Ehrhardt, The Beginning, Manchester, 1968, and D. Sedley, Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity, Berkeley, 2007. On the developing relationship between the Jewish and Greek traditions see J.F. Finamore, “Platonism, Paganism, and Judaism: Borrowings and Evolutions”, The Ancient World, 1995, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 123ff., and J. Pelikan, What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Timaeus and Genesis in Counterpoint, Ann Arbor, 1997.

Tutorial: Seneca, Letters from a Stoic, nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9. What attitudes are typically Stoic? In what important ways do they contrast with our own?

Letter 2 (and general). (a) What, for Seneca, would appear to be the reason for studying philosophy? (b) What are the prime Stoic virtues in this letter and the later ones?

Letter 3. (a) For what purposes does Seneca quote earlier thinkers? Compare p. 40. Is he a systematic thinker? (b) How does Seneca sum up the attitude of mind of the philosopher? (c) What other philosopher/s we have studied appears to have influenced Seneca's attitude to friendship (and other ethical issues) in the second half of this letter?

Letter 5. (a) What features of the common portrait of the philosopher does Seneca object to? What kind of figure does he seem to be attacking?

43 (b) In what ways does Seneca interpret Stoic for his own (and his readers') circumstances? What do his motives seem to be? What logical and practical problems are involved in his view? (c) On p. 38, Seneca quotes the Stoic Hecato: “Cease to hope and you will cease to fear”. What does he mean? In your view, would this be worthwhile, or is the price too high? Letter 6. (a) Note the introspective approach that characterises Seneca's writing here. Does Seneca's idea of philosophical friendship show any signs of being based on Plato's view of Eros? Compare p. 50.

Letter 7. (a) What is the basis of Seneca's angry critique of Roman popular morality in the first part of this letter? (b) Is there a contradiction between the attitudes to publicity on letters 5 and 7? If there is, how serious is it?

Letter 9. (a) What new light does this letter throw on Seneca's conception of the basic Stoic virtues? (b) Why, according to Seneca, does the philosopher want friends?

44 Week 11 The Clash of World-Views: the Classical and the Judaeo-Christian Tradition Lectures: 21. Early Christian Thinking: Three New Testament Writers. 22. The Beginning of Christian philosophy: response to the Classical Tradition. Suggested Reading: Lecture 1: For a good introduction to early Christianity see Irwin, Classical Thought, ch. 11, pp. 202ff. On St. Paul see any of the standard New Testament Introductions, such as R.M. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament, London, 1963, or G.E. Ladd, The Theology of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1974, and either of B. Rigaux, The Letters of Paul, Chicago, 1968, and C.J. Roetzel, The Letters of Paul, Atlanta, 1991, and Paul: the Man and the Myth, 1999. See also A.D. Nock, Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment, 1964. On the ‘Logos’ concept in John's Gospel, see the New Testament Introductions cited above, F.E. Peters, The Harvest of Hellenism, New York, 1970 (see the index) or any of the many commentaries on the Gospel: our library has (among others) commentaries by L.L. Morris, R.E. Brown, C.K. Barrett and B. Lindars. On the “Letter to the Hebrews” see again the Introductions, and the Commentaries of F.F. Bruce and H.W. Montefiore. On the cultural and religious gap between Judaea and the wider Graeco- Roman world see P.R.L. Brown, The Body and Society, New York, 1988, chs 1-2. Lecture 2: Primary Sources: for Justin, Clement, Origen and Tertullian see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Roberts and Donaldson, vols. 1, 2 and 3. For Justin see now D. Minns & P. Parvis, eds., Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies, Oxford, 2009. Secondary Sources: A.H. Armstrong, ed., The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early , H. Chadwick, The Early Church, Harmondsworth, 1967, and Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition, M. Colish, The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, vol. 2, Leiden, 1985, N.B. pp. 9ff on Tertullian, J. Danielou, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture, trans. J.A. Baker, London, 1973, and The Origins of Latin Christianity, London, 1977, N.B. chapters 5 and 7, S.R.C. Lilla, Clement of Alexandria, a study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism, London, 1971, R. Mortley, “The Problem of Knowledge in Late Antiquity”, Protocol of the 33rd Colloquy, vol. 33, 1978, pp. 1-31, Centre for Hermeneutical Studies, Berkeley, and From Word to Silence, vol. 2, R.A. Norris, God and World in Early Christian Theology, London, 1966, E.F. Osborn, The Beginning of Christian Philosophy, J. Shiel, Greek Thought and the Rise of Christianity, London, 1968, H.B. Timothy, The early Christian apologists and Greek philosophy, Assen, 1973, and J. Moorehead, “The Greeks, Pupils of the Hebrews”, Prudentia, vol. 15, no. 1, 1983, pp. 3-12, and S. Parvis & P. Foster, eds., Justin Martyr and his Worlds, Minneapolis, 2007. See also the clear summaries in F.E. Peters, The Harvest of Hellenism, New York, 1970, pp. 619ff. See, on particular topics, J.D.B. Hamilton, “The Church and the Language of Mystery: the first four centuries”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, vol. 53, 1977, pp. 479-494, J.L. González, “Athens and Jerusalem Revisited: Reason and Authority in Tertullian”, Church History 43.1, 1974, pp. 17-25, P. Ciholas, “Plato: the Attic Moses? Some Patristic Reactions to Platonic Philosophy”, C.W. 72.4, pp. 217-225, R.D. Sider, “Credo Quia Absurdum?”, C.W. 73.7, 1980, pp. 417-419, L. Bouyer, The Christian Mystery: from Pagan Myth to Christian , trans. I. Trethowan, Edinburgh, 1990, and E. Osborn, “Arguments for Faith in Clement of Alexandria”, Vig. Christ. vol. 48, 1994, pp. 1-24., C.J. de Vogel, “Platonism and Christianity: a Mere Antagonism or a Profound Common Ground?”, Vig. Christ. vol. 39, 1985, pp. 1-62, J.A. Goldstein, “Creation ex

45 Nihilo: Recantations and Restatements”, J.J.S. vol. 38, 1987, pp. 187-194, Frances Young, “Creatio ex Nihilo”, S.J.Th. vol. 44, 1991, pp. 139-151, and A. van den Hoek, “The ‘Catechetical’ School of Early Christian Alexandria and Its Philonic Heritage”, H.Th.R., vol. 90 no. 1, 1997, pp. 59ff. In E. Livingstone, ed., Studia Patristica vol. 15, 1984, see the following: C. Andresen, “The Integration of Platonism into Early Christian Theology”, pp. 399-413, E. Osborn, “Paul and Plato in Second Century Ethics”, pp. 474-485. The 1989 volume has E. Osborn, “Early Christian Platonism”, pp. 109-120. The 1993 volume has N.J. Torchia, “Theories of Creation in the Second Century Apologists and their Middle Platonic Background”, pp. 192-199. See also M.J. Edwards, “Justin's Logos and the Word of God”, J.E.C.S. vol. 3, 1995, pp. 261-280, E. Osborn, “The Platonic Ideas in Second Century Christian Thought”, Prudentia vol. 12, 1980, pp. 31-45, and A.Y. Reed, “The Trickery of the Fallen Angels and the Demonic Mimesis of the Divine: Aetiology, Demonology, and Polemics in the Writings of Justin Martyr”, J.E.C.S., vol. 12 no. 2, 2004, pp. 141-172. Tutorial: St. Augustine, Confessions, Book 2, concentrating on the ‘theft of the pears’ incident and the attractiveness of moral evil. 1. Why does Augustine choose this incident to focus on rather than any other? 2. What is the point of Augustine's emphasis (in section 4 of Book 2) on the fact that he had no need whatever for the fruit he and his friends stole? 3. What is the theme of section v(10) of book 2, with its catalogues of various motives

for action? 4. What is it about his teenage theft that so puzzles Augustine, as he looks back on it with the perspective of adulthood? 5. Augustine held to the theory that evil was not ‘a thing in its own right’, but rather the absence of or perversion of goodness. (Section vi (12-14)) This might be compared to the idea that darkness is not a ‘thing’ with its own existence, but simply the absence of light. He also elaborates a distinction between ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ forms of goodness. How does he try to use these ideas of the nature of to understand his own motives, in the final parts of section vi? 6. Augustine protests a number of times during this section of the Confessions that he cannot understand what his own motives were. Is this rhetoric (he understands, but dislikes what he sees so much he wants to deny it), or does he mean it seriously? 7. Note that Augustine in Sections vi(13-14) poses the paradox that even in the act of rebellion against God people merely imitate him, but perversely instead of sincerely. 8. What is it about the possibility that he might have enjoyed “doing wrong for no other reason than that it was wrong” that so baffles Augustine, at a philosophical level? What, as far as we can see, would Socrates (as Plato presents him in the Protagoras) have made of such a notion? 9. The concept of evil as a negation or ‘privation’ of goodness is again in Augustine's mind in the beginning of section viii(16), when he refuses to call his thieving and his desire for companionship a ‘thing’. Why does he not find the idea of “peer pressure” (that he com- mitted the prank because he wanted the approval of his friends) a sufficient explanation? 10. Is it possible to reconcile Augustine's view of the paradox that evil is attractive with the general Graeco-Roman philosophical view, derived from Socrates and Plato, that people desire only what they perceive to be best for themselves, or is there a straightforward contradiction here?

46 Extra Documents for Lecture 2.

Paul's Letter to the Romans, ch. 1.18 - 2.1 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal men and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the creator - who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They became filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things, but also approve of those who practice them. You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things …

Romans chapter 7: … We know that the Law is spiritual; But I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not know what I am doing. For what I want to do I do not do; but what I hate, I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I am agreeing that the Law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but sin, which lives in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil that I do not want to do is what I keep on doing. Now, if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but rather sin living in me.

So I find this law to be at work: when I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's Law, but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's Law, but in my flesh a slave to the law of sin.

47 Paul's Letter to the Galatians, Chapter 5.16-23. So, I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under Law.

The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual , impurity and debauchery; idolatry and sorcery; hatred, jealousy, discord, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissension, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

An extract from John's Gospel, Chapter 1. In the beginning was the Logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through him; nothing that has been made was made without him. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it … (v.9) The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognise him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. The logos became flesh and lived for a while among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who comes from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The “Letter to the Hebrews”, chapter 8.3ff. Every High Priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one (Jesus) to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the Law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the Tent of Meeting: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown to you on the mountain.” But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

48 Week 12 The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy and the Classical Response

Lectures: 23. The Beginnings of Christian philosophy: the response to the Classical Tradition. 24. The Classical Response to Christianity Suggested Reading: Lecture 23: Primary Sources: for Justin, Clement, Origen and Tertullian see The Ante- Nicene Fathers, ed. Roberts and Donaldson, vols. 1, 2 and 3. Secondary Sources: A.H. Armstrong, ed., The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, H. Chadwick, The Early Church, Harmondsworth, 1967, and Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition, G.R. Evans, ed., The First Christian Theologians, Oxford, 2004, chapters 8-13 (on Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian and Origen), M. Colish, The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, vol. 2, Leiden, 1985, N.B. pp. 9ff on Tertullian, J. Danielou, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture, trans. J.A. Baker, London, 1973, and The Origins of Latin Christianity, London, 1977, N.B. chapters 5 and 7, S.R.C. Lilla, Clement of Alexandria, a study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism, London, 1971, R. Mortley, Colloquy vol. 33, Centre for Hermeneutical Studies, Berkeley, and From Word to Silence, vol. 2, R.A. Norris, God and World in Early Christian Theology, London, 1966, E.F. Osborn, The Beginning of Christian Philosophy, J. Shiel, Greek Thought and the Rise of Christianity, London, 1968, and J. Moorehead, “The Greeks, Pupils of the Hebrews”, Prudentia, vol. 15, no. 1, 1983, pp. 3-12. See also the clear summaries in F.E. Peters, The Harvest of Hellenism, New York, 1970, pp. 619ff., and see, on particular topics, J.D.B. Hamilton, “The Church and the Language of Mystery: the first four centuries”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, vol. 53, 1977, pp. 479-494, L. Bouyer, The Christian Mystery: from Pagan Myth to Christian Mysticism, trans. I. Trethowan, Edinburgh, 1990, E. Osborn, “Arguments for Faith in Clement of Alexandria”, Vig. Christ. vol. 48, 1994, pp. 1-24, and L.H. Martin, “The Hellenisation of Judaeo- Christian Faith or the Christianisation of Hellenic Thought?”, Religion and Theology 12.1, 2005, pp. 1-19. Lecture 24: See the excellent survey of S. Benko, “Pagan Criticism of Christianity During the First Two Centuries A.D.”, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, vol. 23, part 2, pp. 1055-1118, which has the texts in question up to and including Celsus, as well as a detailed discussion and bibliography, W.R. Schoedel and R.L. Wilken, eds., Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition, Paris, 1979, pp. 117-134, and R.L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, New Haven, 1984, chs. 4, 5 and 6, which goes down to and includes . See also the works of Armstrong, Chadwick and Shiel from Lecture 23, and H. Chadwick, Contra Celsum, Oxford, 1953, and R.J. Hoffmann, Celsus: On the True Doctrine, Oxford, 1987, E.R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety, New York, 1965, using the index for the pagan authors in question, P. Courcelle, “Anti-Christian Arguments and Christian Platonism: from Arnobius to St. Ambrose”, in A. Momigliano, ed., The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, Oxford, 1963, pp. 151-192, W. den Boer, “A Pagan Historian and His Enemies: Porphyry Against the Christians”, C. Phil., vol. 69, 1974, pp. 198-208, R.M. Grant, “Porphyry among the Early Christians”, in Romanitas et Christianitas, ed. W. den Boer, et al., Amsterdam, 1973, pp. 181-188, and more recently, R.L. Fox, Pagans and Christians, Harmondsworth, 1986, using the index for the pagan authors in question.

49 Tutorial: St. Augustine, Confessions, Book 7: the contrast between “the books of the Platonists” and those of the Christians.

1. This book of the Confessions tells us about Augustine's resolution of several of the key intellectual problems standing between himself and orthodox Christianity. He is clearly bordering on Christianity: his conversion follows in Book 8, but most of this book is written from his mature Christian perspective. What was the view of God that Augustine held at this time, even though he knew that it was problematic? What was his (admittedly unsatisfactory) solution to it? (Compare section 5 of the Penguin, or section v(7) of Chadwick.) What clue, from his later perspective, had he failed to pick up? 2. What was the Manichean view about the nature of God and the soul that Augustine rejects in section 2 (Penguin) or section ii.3 (Chadwick)? What was this view an attempt to explain? 3. In Section 3 (Penguin) or section iii(4) (Chadwick) he describes the Manichees as preferring “to say your substance suffers evil (rather) than that their own substance actively does evil”. Likewise at the end of 3 he says that, for all his errors he “was not brought down to that hell of error where no-one confesses to you, because people suppose that evil is something that you suffer rather than an act by humanity”. What, in his view, was the logical and moral error of Manichean beliefs? 4. In section 3 (Penguin) or section iii(5) (Chadwick) Augustine explains what it is about the question of the origin of evil that puzzled him most. Put his problem into your own words. 5. How are the two problems (the origin of evil and the nature of God) related in section 5 (Penguin) or section v(7) (Chadwick)? 6. How logically compelling is Augustine's critique of astrology in section 6 (= vi(8- 10)? 7. What major new ideas did Augustine discover in “the books of the Platonists” that he came into possession of? What ideas, however, were not there, according to Augustine? Either make a list of the points or attempt a summary, or both. 8. What is the intellectual breakthrough recorded in section 10 ( = x(16-17)? (Compare section 17, = xvii(23).) Note that it is not first of all a mystical experience Augustine is recording, though his language might suggest that it is. What is his new solution to the dilemma of Question 1? 9. Likewise, what is the new concept of evil that he expounds in section 12? Does it sufficiently explain the origin of evil? 10. What central Christian ideas does he note as being missing from Platonism, that he now began to find in the New Testament (21, = xxi(27ff.))?

50 Week 13

St. Augustine

Lecture 25: The Debate between the Traditions, continued. Background to St. Augustine. Lecture 26: St. Augustine, and Unit Summary.

Suggested Reading:

Irwin's brief introduction to Christian thought is concise and clear: see Chapter 11, pp. 202- 221. St. Augustine's works have been variously translated: both Confessions and the massive City of God are available in Penguin editions, and H. Chadwick has recently published an excellent translation of the Confessions for Oxford University Press. Other translations of a wide range of his works are available as well. See the list on p. 17 of P.R.L. Brown, Augustine of .

Secondary Sources: See first the classic biography of P.R.L. Brown, , London, 1967, and his Religion and Society in the Age of St. Augustine, London, 1972; see also J.J. O'Meara, The Young Augustine, London, 1954, and D. Bentley-Taylor, Augustine: Wayward Genius, London, 1980, H. Chadwick, Augustine, Oxford, 1986, J. Rist, Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized, Cambridge, 1994, and, for a general introduction, H. Chadwick, The Early Church, chapters 9, 10 and 15. On particular topics see S.N.C. Lieu, Manichaeism, Manchester, 1985 (or the good summary in F.E. Peters, The Harvest of Hellenism, New York, 1970, pp. 663-670), G. Evans, Augustine on Evil, Cambridge, 1982, and J. Torchia, “Creation, Finitude and the Mutable Will: Augustine on the Origin of Moral Evil”, Irish Theological Quarterly, vol. 71, 2006, pp. 47-66, J. van Oort, “The Young Augustine’s Knowledge of Manichaeism”, Vig. Christ. vol. 62, 2008, pp. 441-466, R. Russell, “The Role of Neo-Platonism in St. Augustine's De Civitate Dei”, in H.J. Blumenthal and R.A. Markus, eds., NeoPlatonism and Early Christian Thought, London, 1981, pp. 160ff., or A.H. Armstrong, “St. Augustine and Christian Platonism”, in his Plotinian and Christian Studies, London, 1979, H.I. Marrou, St. Augustine and his Influence through the ages, trans. P. Hepburne-Scott, New York, 1957, E.H. Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of St. Augustine, trans. L.E.M. Lynch, New York, 1960, A.H. Armstrong, ed., The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, Cambridge, 1967, pp. 341ff., R.E. Meagher, An Introduction to Augustine, New York, 1978 (a collection of texts arranged thematically, with commentary), and F. LeMoine & C. Kleinhenz, St. Augustine the Bishop: a book of essays, New York, 1994. Biographies of Augustine are surveyed by N. Baker-Brian, “Modern Augustinian Biographies: Revisions and Counter-Memories”, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 11.1, 2007, 151-167. Augustine actually has his own Journal, the Revue des Études Augustiniennes, though the great majority of articles are written in French, and in fact extend to other early Church Fathers as well.

There is no reading list for the Unit Summary in the final lecture, which will attempt to sum up various features of the Unit, and raise several general questions concerning the course content. There will also be an opportunity for questions and general discussion.

51