Course Review Full 132 page explanation of Thucydides' work, The Peloponnesian War. This set of notes was compiled by the professor who is a leading scholar in the study of Thucydides. This is the most thorough set of notes on Thucydides you will find.

114 Pages
Unlock Document

Political Science
Clifford Orwin

Lecture Notes POL 430Y/2021Y WINTER SESSION 2010-11 FIRST SEMINAR SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 INTRODUCTORY SEMINAR, THUCYDIDES 1-11. My apologies for a beginning both late and shaky. Man proposes but God disposes. My thanks for both the condolences and the congratulations. This is POL 430Y/2021Y, Comparative Topics in Jewish and Non-Jewish Political Thought, a rubric that leaves the instructor plenty of latitude. Its existence expresses my intention, conceived too late in life, but better late than never, to explore the Biblical tradition on an equal footing with the classical and modern ones. But while there are clearly classical and modern traditions of political thought, it is by no means clear that there is a Biblical one. The Biblical tradition might be better understood as prepolitical and even antipolitical. For politics, like philosophy, is an Hellenic notion, not an Hebraic one. As for modern politics, it arises out of a transformation of the classical one. Now there are some people around their epicenter is the Shalem Centre in Jerusalem who hold that something called political Hebraism exerted an influence on the origins of modern political thought comparable to the classical and Christian ones. Yes, there are people who think that, but theyre wrong. There were indeed various Christian antiquarians in the 16th and 17th Centuries who were poring over the Biblical texts with an eye to extracting a politics from it. But Christian antiquarians is what they were, who as such exerted little influence on the development of modern thought. One thing that they have in common is that you will never have heard of them. If the thinkers of whom you have heard, such as Hobbes, Locke, and Spinoza, busied themselves interpreting the ancient Hebrew commonwealth, it was with the intention of demonstrating the ultimate irrelevance of its practices to the modern world, to a political project constructed on the basis of rational principles. At best they offered an historical vindication of the laws of the Hebrews as necessary for a people as slavish and barbarous as the Hebrews had been on leaving Egypt. Only in Puritan New England had the attempt been made to introduce select Biblcial laws into a quasi- modern polity. (Those of you enrolled in Prof. Balots seminar will encounter a discussion of this in Tocqueville.) But this attempt foundered: within a very few generations, the Puritans had become Congregationalists, and then the Congregationalists Unitarians. Burning witches was strictly pass. This isnt to deny a profound indebtedness of the modern tradition to the Biblical one. But it has nothing to do with political Hebraism. I spoke earlier of the modern tradition having emerged from a transformation of the classical one. It is here that certain elements of the Biblical tradition entered, themselves transformed to serve as agents of this other transformation. In particular the notion of an omnipotent deity, as a model for the will of man as newly conceived, and of the non-human world not a nature in the classical sense but as a flux subject now to the will of man rather than of an omnipotent creator God. In this years version of the course we will dwell primarily on the classical and Biblical traditions, with the modern making only a cameo appearance. Certainly no-ne would deem the brief and mostly obscure Levite of Ephraim as a representative of the modern tradition as weighty as Thucydides of judges. The work does offer, however, a fascinating example of a great modern mind at work on a Biblical text, precisely the final episode of the Book of Judges itself. The glaring juxtapositions of one work that I used to know well with two others that like most of you I will be learning for the first time. The second of these situations appears to me less problematic than the first. Ignorance is readily sensed as such and just as easily discounted, but a lot of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Of course, a lot may be an exaggeration because Im not sure how much is still left after nearly 20 years away from Thucydides. I could refer to my book, of course, to learn what I used to know, but that would make for stale teaching, which is why I stopped teaching Thucydides upon completing the book. As for my old teaching notes, they are stored in an obsolete electronic medium, so I would have to take them to our Dept computer technician to decode them. But Im not inclined to do that, either. My present intention is to reprepare Thu from the ground up. In so doing I will inevitably be jogged from time to time to remember what I used to think. In all likelihood, however, Ill recall only a small percentage of it, so as far as Thucydides is concerned you may do better just to read my book. [Note negotiations with Princeton editor.] When it comes to Judges and The Levite of Ephraim, theres an entirely different reason for you not to take the course, namely that, as already mentioned, I dont yet know squat about either. Our theme: piety and strife, both foreign and domestic. It is an unfortunate fact about strife that even if the existence of a foreign threat may begin by bolstering domestic unity, the strain of coping with it, especially at length and at a steep cost, works to subvert such unity. Harsh times make for harsh politics. So civil strife, if not the inevitable consequence of foreign strife, is a highly likely one. Civil strife in its turn invites foreign intervention, just as the threat of foreign intervention is bound to aggravate civil strife. So theres a circle thats vicious indeed. Its hardly an exaggeration to say that where you find one you will find the other: that there is no major foreign war unaccompanied by civil strife, and no major civil war free of rival foreign interventions. Both in Thucydides and in Judges well view the interactions of different levels of conflict, which is a very neutral way of stating that well learn that war is one hell piled on top of another. But war is also a pious hell, or at any rate a hell in which the issue of piety figures largely. Here I want to begin with a piece of American folk wisdom: there are no atheists in foxholes. This statement seems to imply that during war piety enjoys a field day, and that all concerned with fostering piety should therefore wish for it. War makes people more pious; whats not to like about that? Response? The truth of the adage: that war intensifies mens natural concern with their own fates and those of their loved ones, friends, and fellow countrymen, and with it a longing for some indication of divine protection, a longing to find a meaning or pattern in life and even in its most insignificant details. (Superstitions of all kinds multiply among soldiers, much as they do among athletes. So and so caught a bullet because he wasnt wearing his charmed socks that day.) As human beings become more needy and imperiled, so they become more prayerful (i.e., hopeful) and thankful. War increases attendance at church and synagogues; this was observed after 9/11. The divine becomes more visible in wartime; in the sense that there are more sightings of it in wartime (cf. Herodotus). But is this the whole story? For war, for the same reason that it subverts domestic tranquility, places piety under great strain. The most terrible atrocities, including the grossest profanations of the sacred, are also characteristic of wartime. Moreover, war doesnt simply strengthen faith; it also challenges it, sowing doubt where there was none before. There turns out then to be a complex interplay between strife and piety, and this interplay will furnish our general theme. I want to stress, however, that I have no conclusions that Im planning to purvey in this course. These brief and inadequate remarks have been intended as only the most provisional guidelines to reflections. The books will speak for themselves, and we will listen. If I were confident of my understanding even of Thucydides, I wouldnt teach him. It would be a waste of my time to do so. How we will proceed. My distribution of my notes, to relieve you of the burden of excessive note taking. Going around the room. TURNING TO THUCYDIDES By most traditional accounts of the divine, at what stage of human time is the divine and its works most visible? In the beginning. The gods as the (beginnings, first principles), as the (rulers). The gods as the first lawgivers; and as the teachers of the arts, and thereby the sources of human progress. Yet that progress is ambiguous (hence Zeus prohibition against giving fire to man, flouted by Prometheus), because in possessing these divine gifts men become less dependent on the gods and in departing from their original simplicity become vicious (cf. here the agreement between the classical and the Biblical traditions). The ancestors, in their turn, as the human beings closest to the divine, and as superior in virtue as a result. (Here too there is agreement, mutatis mutandis, between the classical and the Biblical traditions.) According to the classical view the ancestors were even the children of the divine (i.e. heroes in the original sense or demigods) whose prowess approached that of the di
More Less

Related notes for POL101Y1

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.