Current Announcements

Aug 25

The Human Event.

We will be introducing the class, discussing my expectations, and providing some of the keys to successfully completing the course.

After class, please closely read the syllabus, these policies, these guidelines for seminar participation, and this advice from past students. By attending our next class, you are signifying to me that you have read and understood these documents and will not be able to claim ignorance of their contents in the future.

Aug 27

Hesiod, Works & Days (handout from first class) .

Sep 1

Homer,  Iliad (pp. 1 - 79).

Both Homer and Hesiod are writing in the early years of the Archaic period (750 - 480 BCE). As such, their writings represent our first extant writings after the "Dark Ages" from which no written texts survive. Preceding this was the Mycenaean period (1600 - 1150 BCE) and it is of this distant age that Homer is telling. Indeed, it appears that the Fall of Troy (see below) was itself relatively rapidly followed by the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization (maybe within as little as 50 years).

Homer is most likely telling the tale of the historic fall of Troy (Ilium - hence the name, Iliad) around 1200 BCE. At that time, Troy was a city of around 6,000 people who - while not themselves Greek - shared a certain outlook with the Greeks and certainly traded with them. The position of Troy made it a central area for shipping and indeed there is evidence that the Trojans charged merchants to use their safe harbor. Troy's other main source of income appears to have been horse trading (the used-car salesmanship of the Mycenaean period!).

Our knowledge of the Trojan War comes from a combination of archeological sources and literary ones. Homer is not the only poet to have written about the event and we have reference to a number works (no longer extant) that offer further details (albeit in the same mythological style as Homer's writings). Homer's own Odyssey deals with the Fall of Troy and the events that surrounded Odysseus' return home to Ithaca. Subsequent dramatists in the Classical Period (480 - 323 BCE) also added to the narrative - for example, Aeschylus' trilogy Oreseia deals with the aftermath of Agamemnon's return to his wife Clytemnestra (whom, you will read, he sees as being inferior to his war-prize Chryseis).

Famously, the Trojan War is said to have occurred over a ten year period. This is not likely to be literally true (obviously), and we should perhaps interpret Homer's use of time as somewhat mythological. Whether the war itself was long or not, the Iliad takes place over a relatively short period - Books 2 through 22 occupy less than a week, with Books 11 - 18 encompassing a single day - after a long and tiring campaign. We are dropped into the action, and at the tail-end of a narrative that the audience, of course, would have been familiar with. So it is probably best to briefly outline that narrative. (It should be noted that there are differing versions of this story and the one I am recounting isn't necessarily canonical, but should suffice for our purposes.)

Troy was ruled by Priam & Hecuba who had two sons, Hector and Paris, and a daughter Cassandra (among some 50 offspring!). Somewhat embarrassingly for him, Paris' own mother prophesied that he would lead to the destruction of Troy. His sister, Cassandra was given the gift of prophesy by Apollo but, when she spurned his advances, was cursed with never being believed.

The history of the House of Atreus - to which Agamemnon and Menelaus belonged - was steeped in blood. The founder of the lineage, Tantalus (a Lydian, i.e. not from the Greek mainland) offended the gods by offering his son Pelop's flesh to them to feast upon. The victim was ressurected by the gods only to go on to murder his father-in-law in a chariot race that may have been the origin of the games at Olympia. Pelops had two sons, Atreus and Thyestes, and the latter seduced the former's wife before being banished by his father. Atreus (who would father Agamemnon & Menelaus) lured his brother back and feasted him on the flesh of his offspring. Horrified, Thyestes cursed the House of Atreus and escaped into exile with his remaining son, Aegisthus (whose mother was Thyestes' own daughter).

The goddess Eris ("Discord" or "Strife") directly initiated the events that lead to the Fall of Troy. Excluded from the (forced) wedding of Peleus and Thetis (who would eventually be Achilles' mother), she arrived with a golden apple inscribed Kallisti ("for the fairest") over which Hera, Aphrodite and Athena quarreled. Paris was asked to choose the winner and after bribery attempts from the three goddesses, eventually chose Aphrodite, who had promised him the most beautiful woman in the world. The stage was set for the fall of Troy.

Helen of Lacedemon was the daughter of Leda & Zeus and as such she was indeed the most beautiful woman in Greece. While she was pursued by a number of the Greek heroes (Achilles and Odysseus, among others), she eventually married Menelaus largely as a political action, resulting in his eventually becoming King of Lacedemon. The other heroes agreed to respect the wishes of Helen's father (Tyndareus) and agreed, somewhat hesitantly, to defend the marriage no matter what happened in the future. Agamemnon (King of Argos & Mycenae) subsequently marries Helen's sister, Clytemnestra (who unlike Helen was not fathered by Zeus but by Tyndareus).

With time, Paris found himself in Lacedemon and he wooed Helen away from Menelaus. In so doing, he committed two serious crimes: adultery and abuse of the hospitality of a host. These actions lead Menelaus (and Agamemnon) to call together the Greek warlords. Somewhat hesitantly they group together (there are stories of both Achilles and Odysseus actively trying to avoid joining the fight) and set off for Troy. Chalchas the Seer predicted that Troy would fall in the tenth year. The Greek fleet becomes becalmed at Aulis because they incurred the wrath of the goddess Artemis. Unable to leave the Greek mainland, Agamemnon - following consultation with Calchas - coldly sacrifices his own virgin daughter, Iphigenia, after luring her to her death with the promise of marriage to Achilles. The winds pick up and the fleet sails for Troy. In a famous passage, called the "Catalogue of the Ships" (Bk II: 522-872), Homer outlines the Greek contingent of "a thousand ships". One should note that Achilles' kingdom of Hellas and Phthia was not very large and his contribution of 50 ships wasn't outstanding; what made the Myrmidons special was the fighting ability of their leader.

(One version of the myth has the Greek fleet leaving Aulis only to get scattered and finally regrouping after eight years. In this version, the actual fighting around Troy would have lasted less than a year although the fleet would have been travelling for eight years.)

Once on the mainland, the Greeks set up camp after establishing a beachhead following a bloody battle against Trojan defenders who soon retreated behind the city walls. It is clear from Homer's tale that the Greeks did not attempt to engage in siege warfare. Using their ships, they ranged far, plundered the surrounding lands, conquering cities and taking crops and livestock for their own use. One such city was Chryse. As with any victory, the spoils of war were distributed among the heroes and although it was Achilles who would have lead the assault on Chryse, Agamemnon (as leader) would have recieved his choice of the spoils; he chose Chryseis, the daughter of Chryses, a priest of Apollo. It is the fallout from this choice that initiates the Iliad.

The reading itself is straight forward and Lombardo's translation is excellent in bringing the emotion of the Iliad to life. As I said, try to read a little of the work aloud. Note that there is a map at the very beginning to help you with the geography and a useful glossary of major characters at the back (pp. 158 - 165).

Sep 3

Homer,  Iliad (pp. 79 - 157)

So what happens after the events of the Iliad? Again, what follows is not necessarily canonical but is woven together from differing tales. In particular, Aeschylus' version of the fate of the House of Atreus is certainly a post-Homeric invention.

After the death of Hector, Penthesilea the queen of the Amazons leads her forces in aid of the Trojans. She is killed by Achilles, who falls in love with her after her death. Thersites mocks Achilles for his love and gouges out Penthesilea's eyes, a desecration for which he is killed by Achilles. After a series of battles, Achilles enters the city of Troy. The gods, having decided that he has killed too many Trojans, decide that it is Achilles' time to die and he is slain by a poisoned arrow shot by Paris but guided by Apollo. This act was seen as cowardly and Achilles' reputation of never having been defeated on the battlefield remained intact. His bones were mingled with those of Patroclus. Paris himself is later killed by Philoctetes.

Prophesy decreed that the Greeks would have to posess the bow of Hercules and the bones of Pelops before they could defeat the Trojans. These they gain and Odysseus eventually comes up with the plan that would give the Greeks access to Troy. A hollow horse was filled with soldiers and left behind while the remaining Greeks burned their camps and left for the island of Tenedos. The Trojans, thinking that the Greeks were returning home, dragged the horse into their city and debated what to do with it. Cassandra warned against keeping the horse but, of course, she was ignored (see above). The horse was kept and a night of celebration erupted. The Greeks emerged from the horse, killed the guards, signalled for the fleet to return, and opened the gates of the city. A massacre followed. Lesser Ajax raped Cassandra before she was given to Agamemnon as a prize. The city - including its temples - was burned, an act of desecration which gave much displeasure to the gods and was the fault of Agamemnon as war-chief.

To vent this displeasure, the gods split up the fleet and only Nestor (who didn't take part in the looting) got home easily. Lesser Ajax never returned, having been drowned by Athena & Posidon. Odysseus' ten-year voyage home is famously recounted in Homer's Odyssey. Upon arrival home, Odysseus kills the suitors of his faithful wife, Penelope, and is reunited with his son, Telemachus, only to eventually die at the hands of his bastard-son by the witch Circe.

The House of Atreus also suffered. It took Menelaus and Helen eight years to return to Lacedemon. Agamemnon returned to Argos relatively quickly and his death forms the basis for the first part of Aeschylus' Orestia. Upon his return, Agamemnon is killed by his wife Clytemnestra for his murder of Iphigenia. Cassandra - who foretold the death of Agamemnon - was also killed by Clytemnestra who then proceeded to rule Argos with her lover Aegisthus (Thyestes' son and thus Agamemnon's cousin). This tyranny was brought to an end when Clytemnestra's son, Orestes, returned to avenge his fathers death. This act of matricide eventually - according to Aeschylus - lead to the formation of the Aeropagus, the law court in Athens, in an attempt to prevent such tit-for-tat justice.

Some Trojans managed to survive, and lead by Aeneas, they fled to Crete and then onto Carthage (where Aeneas has a passionate affair with Dido who commits suicide when he leaves). The Trojans arrived at the mouth of the River Tiber (in modern Italy) where Aeneas was taken to the Underworld by a sybil and shown the majesty of the future Rome. Three hundred years later - according to Roman legend - his descendants, Romulus and Remus founded Rome.

Sep 8

Genesis (Alter, pp. 3 - 49): The Primeval Accounts.

Tradition holds that the Old Testament Genesis (Bereshit as it is called in Hebrew) was composed as a single narrative by Moses. However, over two hundred years of historical and textual scholarship have indicated that it is more likely that the account the product of an editor (Redactor) working in the Fifth century BCE who pieced together a number of older narratives.

Note that the first chapters provide two differing - and mutually exclusive - accounts of the creation. The first account appears to date from the period during or after the exile of the Jewish people in Babylon (i.e. around 550 BCE). In this account, God is always referred to as ‘Elohim’ and the account presents a radically different set of events than the second narrative (which is actually older). This first account is referred to as the ‘P’ or ‘Priestly account after its presumed author(s). Elsewhere in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), the Priestly author(s) deal with rites, ceremonies, priestly duties, and genealogy.

The second account dates from the period surrounding 950 BCE, i.e. approximately 400 years before the Priestly account, and thus at the time of the Kingdom of Solomon, a period in which the Jewish people were wandering shepherds living on the semi-arid fringes of fertile plains to the east. In this account, God is referred to as YHVH which is transliterated as ‘Jehovah’ ( ‘JHWH’) in German. Hence, the account is referred to as the “J” account, and would have been the original creation narrative.

Similarly, the rest of our reading selection contains J and P elements often woven together.

• Creation of world (1:1 - 2:42) - J & P
• The Fall (3:1 - 24) - J
• Cain & Abel (4:1 - 16) - J
• Genealogy of Cain (4:17 - 26) - J
• Genealogy of Adam to Noah (5:1 - 32) - P
• Prologue to Flood (6:1 - 22) - J & P
• Flood (7:1 - 8:22) - J & P
• Covenant with Noah (9:1 - 17) - P
• Sons of Noah (9:18 - 27) - J
• Peopling of the Earth (10:1 - 32) - J & P
• Tower of Babel (11: 1 - 9) - J
• Concluding genealogies (11:10 - 32) - J & P

Be careful in reading Genesis in that you don't smuggle your cultural preconceptions into the text. For example, the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is not an apple and the serpent is just a serpent, albeit a talking snake, not Satan.

Some things to consider regarding the two creation accounts:

• How does the nature of God differ between the two accounts? How does the creation accounts differ? What do these difference say about the time and place of composition?
• How did the Hebrew people see the relationship between God and man?
• How omnipotent (“all-powerful”) is God in these two accounts? Is He flawed?
• Why does the Redactor preserve often contradictory narratives?
• Do the creation accounts agree with the findings of modern science? Should they?

Sep 10

Genesis  (Alter, pp. 50 - 102): The Story of Abraham

Abraham (Abram) is the founding patriarch of the Israelites. He was brought by God from Mesopotamia to Canaan, traditionally around 2000-1700 BCE. There he entered into a covenant with God by recognizing YHWH as the one true god, thus ushering in monotheism. For this, it was promised that he would become the father of a great nation.

Genesis  (Alter, pp. 103 - 107): The Story of Abraham

God's promist to Abraham would eventually manifest itself through Isaac, the son whom God demands Abraham sacrifice for no apparent reason. We will be particularly concentrating on this narrative thread.

Some questions to consider:

• Why did God command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?
• What options did Abraham have?
• If God already knew Abraham's response, why did he make the command?
• What must the trip to and from the mountain have been like?
• Does this trial have any effect on Abraham? On Isaac?
• Do you personally approve of Abraham's actions? Why? Why not?
• What appears to be the overall message of this episode? Is it an acceptable one?

Sep 17

The Book of Job (pdf)

Sefer Iyov (The Book of Job) is a didactic poem, a meditation on the presence of evil and why God permits such suffering. The narrative framework is provided by a probably older tale that recounts the suffering that the righteous Job endures at the hands of the Accuser (satan) before having it removed (somewhat) by Yahweh. The majority of the book is a contemplation of this suffering as Job is lectured to by three friends (Eliphaz, Bildad & Zophar) as well as a fourth individual, Elihu. Finally Yahweh himself makes an appearance.

Job is a difficult work that requires some thought to understand. To help you, consider the following questions both as you read and when you finish:

• This is a classic tale of undeserved suffering. How do you (if at all) justify such occurrences?
• What historical or current examples of disaster, cruelty, or loss come to mind most powerfully when you read Job? Does your reading shift, change, or deepen your perspective on these events? If so, how? If not, why not?
• How do you react to Yahweh's assertion that Job (and thus by extension, the reader) is just a minute and insignificant piece in the Creation?
• Why does Job accept Yahweh's assertion of divine power and not press for an answer to his question of "why"? Is Yahweh's answer satisfactory to you? Is the ending - in which Job receives twice what he lost - sufficient?
• How does your reading of Job and Genesis change your assumptions about the nature of the divine?

Sep 22

Writing a Paper for the Human Event

A workshop on structuring argumentative papers for this class. After class, please read

• Guidelines for writing an argumentative paper.
• Formatting and submitting papers for this class.
• A guide to citing individual works within a paper.

Sep 24

We are going to read extracts from works by one of the earliest historians, Thucydides. Please make sure you read the background material below - it will greatly enhance your understanding of the assignment.

• Thucydides, extracts from History of the Peloponnesian War [pdf & pdf]

Herodotus' Histories offer an account of the conflicts between Persia and Greece that occurred in 490 and 480-479 BCE. The conflict itself started when the armies of Darius the Great invaded the Greek lands, culminating in the Battle of Marathon where 20,000 Athenians (and Plateans) repelled up to 70,000 Persians. The battle was the first defeat of Persian forces since the reign of Cyrus two generations earlier, and resulted in the withdrawal of the invading forces. In addition, a number of Greek cities which had "Medized" renounced their allegiance to Darius.

In 486 BCE Darius died and left control of his empire to his son, Xerxes. After four years of preparation the Persian force of approximately 200,000 land troops stood ready to invade Greece again. The Battle of Thermopylae (480 BCE) saw a Greek army (numbering between five and six thousand troops and under command of the Spartan Leonidas) attempt to slow the Persian juggernaut while the Greek forces were amassing further south. Famously, the Persians had problems defeating the Greeks and resorted to Ephialtes' treachery to win the battle after three days. By this time, Leonidas had a reduced force of 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians, 900 helots (Spartan slaves) and 400 Thebans (who had Medized and were being pressed into service).

The delay at Thermopylae failed to stop the Persian army and Athens was soon abandoned. Miraculously, the Greek fleet routed the Persians at Salamis, an embarrassing defeat which resulted in Xerxes not being able to supply his land army. Historians generally consider the battle at Salamis to be the single most important engagement in human history - a victory for the Persians would have resulted in Xerxes conquering Greece and eventually the rest of Europe, thus preventing the rise of Athenian democracy and everything that was to follow.

After the defeat, the bulk of the Persian army withdrew to the Hellespont (in modern Turkey). Xerxes himself returned to Persia, leaving his general Mardonius in charge of the conquered Greek territories. An amassed Spartan force of some 45,000 men caused Mardonius to abandon Athens (but not before destroying it). Eventually, the two sides engaged at the Battle of Plataea (479 BCE), where an estimated 120,000 Persians were defeated by perhaps 40,000 Greeks. The Persian army retreated back to Asia Minor, never to invade again.

In the aftermath of this defeat of the Persians, 150 city states came together to form the Delian League, whose purpose was to continue the defense of their lands with member cities providing funds. In 454 BCE, Athens moved the treasury of the League from Delos to Athens and began to use the fund for other purposes (such as building the Parthenon and strengthening the Athenian navy). The Delian League had turned into the Athenian Empire, and the Peloponnesian War between the Empire and the Peloponnesian League (Sparta and her allies) would soon follow in 431 BCE. It would be 404 BCE before there would be peace again and the end of the war would see both Athens and Sparta much depleted.

The Peloponnesian War (431-404 BCE), fought between Athens and Sparta (and their respective allies), brought suffering and disaster to Greece. In the years following the victory over the Persians, the democratic city-state of Athens expanded into an imperial power by using the financial contributions from other members of the Delian League, contributions intended for the common defense of Greece, to build up the powerful Athenian navy and its own economic prosperity. Thus, the conflict with Sparta, which had the stronger army, was "inevitable" (Thucydides tells us) because of "the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta."

The task of recording and analyzing this bitter struggle of Greek against Greek fell to Thucydides (ca. 460- ca. 400 BCE). Born in Athens to an aristocratic and wealthy family, he was chosen in 424 BCE to command a fleet against the Spartans in the northern Aegean Sea. For allowing himself to be outmaneuvered and defeated by the enemy, he was exiled and did not return to Athens until 404. Thucydides thus had ample opportunity to observe the Peloponnesian War from both sides; he spent his twenty years of exile in various parts of Greece, recording the tragedy of his own times. Behind his narrative lay the deeper purpose of searching for an answer to the following question: "Why, had Athens, with the fairest prospects of victory, been beaten?" Thucydides' History is, in essence, an analysis of the causes of the Athenian defeat; hence, it has often been described as a study in the pathology of imperialism and war.

Thucydides' own reflections on issues and motives are found in the forty or more "set speeches" for which the History is famous. These speeches – which appear as direct quotations from the individual participants, but were actually written by Thucydides – represent a common device in ancient Greek literature. Like the oration and the dialogue they must be accounted for by the importance of the spoken word in Greek culture. Thucydides, describing his method, stated that "while keeping as closely as possible to the general sense of the words that were actually used, [I] … make the speakers say what, in my opinion, was called for by each situation."

The first selection we will be reading is the most famous speech of the History; the "Funeral Oration" by Pericles, the leading Athenian statesman, in honor of those who had died in the war's first campaign. Pericles praises the dead and Athens while at the same time exhorting the living to continue on living by the standards set by the departed. Historian Gary Willis has noted significant parallels between this speech and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

Our second selection describes the plague that swept Athens in 430 BCE, a year after Pericles' speech. As a strategy, Pericles had suggested that the inhabitants of the lands surrounding the city retreat behind the city walls so as to resist the superior Spartan land forces while the Athenian navy harassed the Spartan supply ships. This, of course, resulted in the Athenian farm lands being pillaged by the Spartan forces. A plague (traditionally considered to be be the bubonic plague but now considered more likely to be typhus) broke out and spread rapidly in the crowded city, resulting in the death of approximately one-third of the Athenian citizens, many warriors, and most drastically, Pericles himself. This latter loss would prove disastrous as Pericles was succeeded by a series of weak leaders.

Our third selection (which is actually contained in the second PDF) describes the civil war between populists (who sided with Athens) and oligarchs (who were eager to receive support from Sparta) that erupted in Corcyra (modern Corfu) in 427. The chaos that ensued is typical of that which occurs when the balance of power is shifted in a region. Thucydides uses the example of Corcyra to outline his bleak view of human nature. Indeed, Thucydides says he composed his History so that its readers could "understand clearly the events which happened in the past and which (human nature being what it is) will, at some time or other and in much the same ways, be repeated in the future." It is notable that the gods play no part in Thucydides' narrative. Chaos and suffering is due to human action not divine intervention.

The final excerpt is "The Melian Dialogue" (416/15 BCE) in which the monstrous realities of the conflict are stripped bare. To the question "Why was Athens beaten?" Thucydides implies the answer that Athens, deprived of Pericles' strong but humanely moderate leadership, pursued a policy of barbarous extremism. At Melos, after some fifteen years of brutal war, the Athenians justified their actions solely on the grounds of raw power. This episode - and that at Corcyra - illustrate what the war had become - a far remove from the tragic beauty of Homer's Iliad.

A disastrous Athenian expedition to Sicily in 415 (advocated by Alcibiades, a student of Socrates) began the final decline of Athens. In 404 Athens was occupied by the Spartans and the rule of the Thirty Tyrants began. One of these tyrants was Critias, uncle of Plato and friend of Socrates. After nine months, the Tyrants were overthrown and an amnesty was offered.

Sep 29

Aristophanes, The Clouds

For futher details on the staging of dramas at the Theatre of Dionysus (above) see the Wikipedia entry on Greek Theatre.

Oct 1

Plato, Euthyphro (Reeve, p. 3 - 25)

For our examination of Classical Greek philosophy, we will concentrate on Socrates as depicted by his student, Plato. To begin with, please read this brief introduction to Plato.

Euthyphro is a Socratic discussion of the concept of piety. Socrates' method is known as the elenchus ( ελεγχος ) and usually ends in aporia (απορiα, a seemingly insoluble impasse). It works as follows:

1. Socrates' interlocutor asserts a thesis which Socrates considers false and targets for refutation.
2. Socrates secures his interlocutor's agreement to further premises.
3. Socrates then argues, and the interlocutor agrees, that these further premises imply the contrary of the original thesis.
4. This cycle is repeated until aporia is reached.
   

There are also other notable aspects of Socrates' modus operandi that we will discuss in class, but for the moment just note that his method involves a search for the underlying assumptions, or axioms, which may subconsciously shape the interlocutor's opinion, and to make them the subject of scrutiny to determine their consistency with other held beliefs.

At the time of his discussion with Euthyphro, Socrates is himself under charges of impiety (so the issue of piety was very much relevant). The following is taken from Diogenes Laertius and are the charges that Socrates is facing:

"This indictment and affidavit is sworn by Meletus, the son of Meletus of Pitthos, against Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus of Alopece: Socrates is guilty of refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state, and of introducing new divinities. He is also guilty of corrupting the youth. The penalty demanded is death".

Oct 6

Plato, Apology (Reeve, pp. 26 - 61 & 84 - 87)

When we first met Socrates he was beginning his hearing before the King Archon. By the time of the Apology he is defending himself against the charges of impeity (see above) that Meletus has put forward. Meletus was a poet and religious fanatic who participated in the arrest of Leon of Salamis under the rule of the Thirty Tyrants (something Socrates refused to do). His co-accusers, Anytus and Lycon, represented the politicians and professional speakers - two groups that Socrates challenged along with the poets regarding their knowledge. Note that Socrates' feels that the depiction of him - in 423 - by the comic dramatist Aristophanes is one of the reasons why he is on trial. We are not reading The Clouds for this class but it is in Reeve and is worth a skim through if you want to experience Athenian comedy; as a minimum have a quick read of Reeves' introduction (pp 84 - 87) to the play.

The longest part of the reading (pp. 26 - 53) presents Socrates' initial defense. He is eventually found guilty by 280 - 220 vote and he proposes a counter-penalty to death (pp. 53 - 56). This proposal backfires on Socrates and he is sentenced to death. His reply forms the last part of the reading (pp. 56 - 61).

Study questions:

1. Socrates speaks of two sorts of accusers the old and the recent. Which does he think are the more dangerous? Why?
2. What (and where) are the main charges against Socrates? What is his answer to each charge? How are his answers typical of the Socratic method?
3. Socrates says at 30c that if the Athenians kill him they will be harming themselves more than him. What do you think are his reasons for saying this ?
4. Why does Socrates accept the penalty of death rather than recant his transgressions?
5. Why does Socrates refer to himself as a gadfly? What do you think he means by this metaphor

Oct 8

Plato, Crito (Reeve, pp. 62 - 78) & Phaedo (79 - 83)

Oct 13

Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus

Part of the context for Sophocles' tragedy is the development of Athens. Here is a brief timeline of some important events. For background on Sophocles, Athenian drama & Oedipus, I'm going to assume you have read pp. ix - xvii of the text. For futher details on the staging of tragedies (literally "goat-songs") at the Theatre of Dionysus (above) see the Wikipedia entry on Greek Theatre.

Some questions to consider while reading the text:

• What was Oedipus' crime? What ultimately brings about his downfall?
• What was fated to occur in the play? What was due to human free-will? What is the role of the gods or the oracle in the plot?
• Is Oedipus basically good or evil? What are his admirable traits? What are the ones that make him less admirable? In what ways - if any - does he resemble Pericles?
• Aristotle in his Poetics suggested that the main protagonist in a tragedy should have a "fatal" flaw or make a mistake (in both cases termed hamartia) that leads to their down-fall. Does Oedipus have such a flaw or make such a mistake?

Buddhism [pdf] [pdf] [pdf] [pdf]

Our first reading offers the legendary life of the Buddha, an account which was composed centuries after the death of the Buddha and is thus largely apocryphal. The second reading briefly details the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, and the Buddhist view of 'self' - concepts which are central to Buddhist practice and philosophy. The third reading offers a brief extract from The Questions of King Milinda in which the (non-Buddhist) king questions the Buddhist monk Nagasena. The last reading is The Ox-Herding Poems of K'uo-an which features metaphors for the process and practice of Buddhism.

Oct 20

The Tao Te Ching

Lucretius, On The Nature of Things (Bks 1 & 2)

Do you want to be happy? Of course you do! Then what is standing in your way? Your happiness is entirely up to you. This has been revealed to us by man of divine serenity and wisdom who spent his life among us, and showed us, by his personal example and by his teachings, the path to redemption from unhappiness. (Hutchinson, 1994).

Sound familiar? Interesting? The "man of divine serenity and wisdom" is not Jesus, not Buddha, but the Greek philosopher Epicurus who in 306 BCE formed a school/commune in Athens called "The Garden." Epicurius' followers were a radical bunch: they argued for withdrawal from public life, engagement in philosophical discussion, and an egalitarianism that allowed men, women and slaves interact as equals. Epicureanism would become a popular philosophy in the Hellenistic world, competing with the ideas of the Stoics and those of the Academics. Much of what we know about Epicureanism comes from Titus Lucretius Caro's poem De Rerum Natura ("On the Nature of Things") which offers an extended examination of Epicurean epistemology, ethics and natural philosophy. The latter in particular - expanding on Democritus' atomism - would influence the development of seventeenth century physics.

Epicurus overall view is easy to grasp:

a) The universe consists of matter and void.

b) Matter consists of indestructible and indivisible atoms which have a variety of shapes and sizes.

c) Atoms and their movement are a single ultimate fact about how things are and each atom is susceptible to unpredictable "swerves" which introduce randomness.

d) No atom is ever brought into being or put out of existence by divine or any other power.

e) The universe is eternal and infinitely extended.

f) All agglomerations of atoms are of finite duration.

g) [from e & f] There are many worlds and this one will ultimately disperse.

h) Life is a complex of atoms which from both body and mind in a single natural entity for which death represents a dispersal.

i) The gods are inactive and distant, "blessed" and long enduring. We have nothing to fear from them.

j) In such a universe, humankind is delivered from superstitious fear: death is nothing.

k) The good life is secured by kindness, friendship and moderation of appetite.

The result of this can be easily summarized Philodemus' "four part cure";

Don't fear god, don't worry about death; What us good is easy to get, What is terrible is easy to endure.

For background on Epicurus, it is suggested that you read pp xviii - xxxi of the introduction. Our reading, Books I & II, deal with Epicurean atomism and the nature and size of the universe.

Oct 27

Lucretius, On The Nature of Things (Bk III)

Book III deals with mind, spirit and body and draws out the ultimate implication of Epicurean naturalism - as Lucretius famously declares "Death, then, is nothing to us" (Lucr, III, 830).

Some questions to consider:

• What does Lucretius see as the nature of mind, body, spirit & soul? How do these things differ from each other?
• On what does life depend, according to Lucretius?
• Identify two each (of the 20'sih) arguments for the mortality of the soul that seem to be most and least convincing? Why are they?
• Does mortality have its advantages?
• What is the significance of the underworld to Lucretius? What off the sufferers he explicitly mentions?

Oct 29

Lucretius, On The Nature of Things (Bk V)

The last two books deal with natural philosophy. We will just read book V which deals with the origin of the heavens and the Earth, and the history of life upon the latter. Pay particular attention to lines 772 to the end.

Some questions to consider:

• How is it that Lucretius seems to have gotten so much right? Was it sheer dumb luck, or is there something else going on?
• What are the implications of taking Lucretius seriously?
• What has been your favorite passage from your reading of On The Nature of Things? Why?

Nov 3

Virgil

Nov 5

Virgil

Nov 10

Aquinas, Proofs for the existence of God (pdf)

Nov 12

Workshop: Thesis and Topic Sentences

Nov 17

Peer Review for Paper 2

Instructions for peer review are here. You need to bring two printed copies of your review to class.

Nov 19

Dante, Inferno, Cantos I-XI

The Wikipedia articles on Dante and on the Divine Comedy (of which Inferno is the first part) are useful enough should you want further background. Please use the notes that Musa provides at the end of each canto - they will greatly aid your understanding of the poem.

While we will be dicussing a number of issues (in particular in relation to Cantos I, III, IV, V & X), the following is worth considering in relation to Francesca's speech in Canto V:

1. How or why does her speech evoke such pity in the pilgrim Dante?
2. Are we, as readers, also supposed to pity the lovers?  If so, why are they being punished in Hell? 
3. If, on the other hand, your analysis suggests that we are not supposed to pity them, then what does that say about the pilgrim Dante's character at this point in his journey?

Nov 24

Dante, Inferno, Cantos XII, XIII, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XXIV, XXVII, XXVIII, and XXXI - XXXIV. Please also read the summaries for the cantos we will not be reading in full.

Again, there will be a lot to discuss, but particularly think about the following:

1. Pay particular attention to pilgrim's changing attitudes toward the sinners he encounters, and to Virgil's reactions to Dante's attitudes.  We know that the pilgrim was astray, and that he has something to learn if he's going to get back on track.  What must he learn?  Does he learn it? 
2. For which types of corruption are members of the clergy punished in the Inferno?  Which level(s) house them?  Note their contrapassos.
3. Watch closely how the pilgrim reacts to the sinners he meets (Ugolino, Bocca, Satan).  Has he learned what he set out to learn? 
4. Also, who does Dante put with Satan, and what does this placement imply?

Nov 26

No Class - Thanksgiving

Dec 1

Las Casas, Destruction of the Indies (pdf)

Bartolomé de las Casas (1484 - 1566) had direct experience of the conquest of the Americas. In 1502 he took part in the colonization of Hispaniola and he would spend much of his life in the New World. He took holy orders in 1510 and became a Dominican monk in 1522. His Destruction of the Indies offers his indictment of the treatment of the natives by the Spanish colonists.

Destruction is a relatively easy read in the sense of De Las Casas' prose is clear and uncomplicated. His content, however, is anything but "easy".

While reading, consider the rhetorical strategies that De Las Casas uses to convince the reader of his case. What is his message? How does he make it? How would a reader in the 1550s react? How does a modern reader react? Is De Las Casas merely engaging in polemic? Other questions to consider include: What was the attitude of the Spanish to the natives? How did they see them in relation to the rest of humanity? In relation to the rest of nature?

Dec 3

Montaigne, Of Cannibals [pdf]

This short piece is one of Montaigne's Essays (1580).

Some questions to consider:

1. How does Montaigne define and redefine the word "barbarism" (along with "barbarian") throughout the essay?
2. In his contrasts between the "natural" world and the "civilized" world, which does Montaigne seem to prefer?
3. For Montaigne, how does cannibalism compare to European practices?
4. What do you think is the main point Montaigne wants his readers to take from this essay?
5. How would Las Casas respond to Montaigne's piece?

Dec 8

Final discussion and evaluations