Fifth Anniversary Celebration

Our Fifth Anniversary Celebration took place on November 30th. It featured charades led by Carolyn Hasler, a poetry slam, and a new-fangled game we called "Who Said It?"

Lisa Gasstrom read an original anniversary poem. Its final stanza:

I do have one request, though, (from this not-very-faithful bookie).
When we come out on Monday nights,
Could we please have a better cookie?

We were honored to have with us the president of the Long Island Great Books Council, Mr. Grahme Fischer. Grahme has been involved with Great Books for some forty years, and he organizes the annual Long Island Great Books Spring Institute, a day-long event of discussion and ingestion.

To everyone, a joyous holiday season!

[Photos by Jim Shea.]

Questions about "The City of God" (Book XIV) by St. Augustine

Interpretive Questions

Is there a necessary connection between Original Sin and the Two Cities (p. 171)?

Why does Augustine state (p. 172) that both the Epicureans and the Stoics live after the flesh?

What does Augustine mean by the statement (p. 175), "For he who extols the nature of the soul as the chief good, and condemns the nature of the flesh as if it were evil, assuredly is fleshly both in his love of the soul and hatred of the flesh, for these his feelings arise from human fancy, not from divine truth." Is being "fleshly" necessary a bad thing?

P. 177: "And generally in respect of all that we seek or shun, as a man's will is attracted or repelled, so it is changed and turned into these different affections. Wherefore the man who lives according to God, and not according to man, ought to be a lover of good, and therefore a hater of evil." Is it possible to live "according to man" and still be a lover of good?

Why does Augustine consider "impassibility" of spirit but not of body -- a freedom from those emotions which are contrary to reason and disturb the mind -- a "good and desirable quality, but ... not one which is attainable in this life" (p. 181)

What is "clean fear" (p. 181)?

Did Adam and Eve feel sinful inclinations before they committed Original Sin? (p. 183)

Augustine says (p. 184) that God foresaw the Fall. Did he also ordain it?

Why are Adam and Eve both to blame for the fall (p. 187)?

What role did pride, defined as "the craving for undue exaltation" play in the Fall (p. 188)?

Is Augustine being reasonable in asserting that a "friend of wisdom and holy joys" would prefer to beget children without lust, thereby commanding his sex organs with the same "volition" with which he commands other parts of his bodily apparatus (p. 194)?

What does Augustine mean (page 195) when he states that Adam and Eve became ashamed of their nakedness after eating the forbidden fruit because they were "stripped of their garment of grace" and "there began in the movement of their bodily members a shameless novelty?"

Augustine states that the fact that the sex act, even if conjugal, is universally performed in privacy is proof that it's "accompanied by a shameful begetting of sin" (p. 197) Is this an adequate proof?

Is anger also, along with lust, something that did not exist before Original Sin and needs to be restrained by reason "posted as it were in a kind of citadel (p. 197)?

What's the significance of the fact that the injunction "increase and multiply and replenish the earth" occurred before Original Sin and the advent of lust (p. 198)? Could children have been begotten in Paradise before the Fall?

What is the meaning of Augustine's statement (p. 202), "Yet there is less shame when the soul is resisted by its own vicious parts than when its will and order are resisted by the body, which is distinct from and inferior to it, and dependent on it for life itself."

Evaluative Question

How according to Augustine's "thought experiment," would humans procreate without lust? Is this reasonable to believe this could really happen?

P. 189: "There is something in humility which, strangely enough, exalts the heart, and something in pride which debases it." Your thoughts about this?

P. 208: "Why then, should God not have created those who he foresaw would sin, since he was able to show in and by them both what guilt merited, and what His grace bestowed, and since, under His creating and disposing hand, even the perverse disorder of the wicked could not pervert the right order of things?" Why indeed (cf. the next long paragraph).

Textual Analysis

173-74, From "But if anyone says that the flesh is the cause of all vices" ... to ... "the first who lied and the originator of lying as of sin."

184-85, paragraph beginning "But because God foresaw all things ..."

197-98, paragraph beginning "Hence is is that even the philosophers who have approximated..."

201-202, beginning "And therefore that marriage ... to "but these members, like all the rest, should have obeyed the will."

209, Last paragraph of the selection (a summary)

Augustine's City of God

St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, was born Aurelius Augustinus in 354 in Thagaste, in current-day Algeria. Although his mother, Saint Monica, was a devout Catholic, his father converted to Christianity only one year before his death. Augustine received a rigorous education that prepared him well to be a man of letters and rhetorician. He tells in his Confesiones ("Confessions"), considered to be the first-ever autobiography, how he joined the Manichean sect in Carthage and had a son with a woman to whom he was not married.

In 387 he was baptized a Catholic in Milan under the auspices of St. Ambrose, and entered a monastic order. He was later called to the public service of the Church as Bishop of the city of Hippo (modern-day Annaba, also in modern-day Algeria, near Tunisia). Even in this highly visible role Augustine accomplished an impressive amount of literary production.

Our reading this month comes from the City of God ("De civitate Dei" in Latin). It is also known by a fuller name, The City of God against the Pagans. In 410, the Visigothic leader Alaric sacked Rome. Augustine's work can be read as a polemic against both Rome's "barbaric" adversaries and those Romans who believed the state's adoption of Christianity under the emperor Constantine to have been a cause of the humiliation at the hands of the Visigoths. The City of God in the 1993 Modern Library edition runs almost 900 pages, but our portion contains only excerpts from Book 14 in which Augustine offers his discussion of the "two cities" :

The one consists of those who wish to live after the flesh, the other of those who wish to live after the spirit; and when they severally achieve what they wish, they live in peace, each after their kind.

A sinner and saint, monk and bishop, thinker and activist, Augustine achieved a reconciliation of opposites throughout his life. He died in 430.

"Caesar and Cleopatra" : Questions for Discussion

Interpretive Questions

Which Prologue do you prefer? Could you envisage the play produced with both of them?

Why does Cleopatra cry of "sob of relief" at the end of Act I (p.82) when she realizes she's been speaking with Caesar himself?

Why does Caesar rebuke the Egyptian courtiers and Lucius Septimius (p.95) for the murder of Pompey?

Apollodorus says (p. 110) that his motto is "Art for art's sake." Does his character seem out of place in this play? What is the significance of his line "Who says artist, says duelist" (p. 115). What about of his songs "My heart, my heart spread out thy wings/Shake off thy heavy load of love" and "My heart, my heart, be whole and free/Love is thine only enemy" and "Aloft aloft, behold the blue/That never shone in women's eyes" on pp. 120-126?

After Cleopatra has been smuggled out of the palace to the lighthouse in a carpet by Apollodorus, why does Caesar say he is glad, but describes Rufio as "very angry" and Britannus as "shocked." (p. 128).

Cleopatra tells Pothinus (p. 137, Act IV) "We are all Caesar's slaves -- all we in this land of Egypt -- whether we will or no. And she who is wise enough to know this will reign when Caesar departs." How does this jibe with the ending of the play?

In Act IV Caesar and Cleopatra indulge in a fantasy with Apollodorus (p. 149) about establishing a kingdom at the source of the Nile, which leads to a sphinx being consulted. What is the significance of this interlude?

Why does Cleopatra have Ftatateeta kill Pothinus?

Why does Rufio kill Ftatateeta?

Is the news of Ptolemy's death ("the little King Ptolemy was drowned," p. 162) intentionally meant to lack dramatic impact?

Caesar (p. 167) explains why he supports Rufio's action because it was done with dispatch and without lengthy legal process. Do you agree or disagree with Caesar?

Why does Cleopatra laugh (p. 167) when Caesar mispronounces Ftatateeta's name (and not for the first time!)?

Why does Caesar promise at the end of the play (p. 168) to send Mark Antony to Alexandria?

Is Cleopatra's swooning reaction to this a satisfactory ending to the play?

Evaluative Questions

How does Shaw characterize Caesar's relationship with Cleopatra? Is it that of parent to child? Teacher to student? Lover to lover? Does it change during the course of the play?

If Shaw's Caesar is notable for his clemency (e.g, he throws the letters of treachery against him into the sea, and he is revolted by the news of Pompey's murder), how do you account for his endorsement of Rufio's summary justice to Ftatateeta (calling it a "natural slaying" in which he feels "no horror" -- p. 167). What is Shaw's final assessment of Caesar's leadership skills?

Does Shaw's editorializing in his stage directions serve a worthwhile purpose? (cf. pp. 60, 83, 91, "anticipating a later statesman", 105)

Why does Shaw title the play "Caesar and Cleopatra : A History"?

For Textual Analysis

The Prologue (pp. 55 to 60)

Pages 71 to 72, Caesar's soliloquy to the Sphinx

Pages 155 to 57, Caesar's speech beginning, "If one man in the world can be found ... "and ending with "... looks his fate in the face."

Pages 165 to 167, dialogue between Cleopatra and Caesar, beginning, "Has Cleopatra no part in this leavetaking" to "Have I not made a woman of you after all"?

"G.B.S."

There's a famous cartoon by E. Reed that depicts a giant Bernard Shaw standing alongside a much smaller William Shakespeare. They are both pointing towards a pedestal bearing the words "Man and Superman," one of Shaw's best-known plays. The pedestal rests on a base labeled "All the World's a Stage Society." The latter alludes of course to Jacque's line from "As You Like It," and my take on the cartoon is that it implies Shaw surpasses Shakespeare as the master playwright of the English stage.

Shaw began writing "Caesar and Cleopatra" in 1898, but nine years passed before a full production was performed in England. The play was actually published before that production, in a volume entitled Three Plays for Puritans with two other Shaw plays, "The Devil's Disciple" and "Brassbound's Conversion." Shaw himself wrote an informative preface about each of the plays, which you can read in an electronic book version of the 1906 edition of Three Plays for Puritans by clicking here. Note that Shaw's own title for this preface to "Caesar and Cleopatra" is "Better than Shakespear." Does Shaw mean to corroborate the above-mentioned view of his lofty stature among playwrights? (Whether he did or not, I am at a loss to explain why Shaw dropped the final "e" in Shakespeare.)

Shaw once wrote of his life, "Things have not happened to me; on the contrary it is I who have happened to them; and all my happenings have taken the form of books and plays. Read them, or spectate them; And you have my whole story : the rest is only breakfast, lunch, dinner, sleeping, wakening and washing, my routine being just the same as everyone's routine."
[Quoted in Peters, Sally, Bernard Shaw: The Ascent of the Superman (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), p. ix].

My "Takeaway" from Last Evening's Meeting on "Utilitarianism" by John Stuart Mill

I would like to thank the eighteen participants in last night's discussion. We seem to have touched on all of Mill's parries against the anti-Utilitarians. Mill wrote the piece in order to refute, one by one, the major objections to Utilitarian philosophy. Those objections are:

(1) Won't most people inevitably prefer the lower pleasures to the higher ones?
(2) How do you measure pleasure and pain?
(3) What good is self-sacrifice if it doesn't help anyone?
(4) Isn't Utilitarianism "too high a standard for humanity"?
(5) Is Utilitarianism a "godless doctrine"?
(6) Is it a merely an expedient one?
(7) Who has time to "calculate and weigh effects" of actions?

Mill can be tough sledding. He writes extremely systematically and to miss the point of one sentence in his singularly long-winded paragraphs is to miss his entire argument. I commend all of you for persevering.

Questions about "Utilitarianism," by John Stuart Mill

Now it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying both [i.e., two different pleasures], do give a marked preference to the manner of existence which employs the highest faculties (p.35, all citations from the Great Books Reading and Discussion Program, Fourth Series, Volume 2)

--Do you agree with Mill that this is an "unquestionable fact"?

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides (p.36)

--Is Mill saying that every human knows what it's like to be a fool? A pig?

Men lose their high aspirations as they lose their intellectual tastes, because they have not time or opportunity for indulging them; and they addict themselves to inferior pleasures, not because they deliberately prefer them, but because they are either the only ones to which they have access or the only ones which they are any longer capable of enjoying. It may be questioned whether anyone who has remained equally susceptible to both classes of pleasures ever knowingly and calmly preferred the lower, though many, in all ages, have broken down in an ineffectual attempt to combine both (p.37)

--How does one maintain enthusiasm for "high aspirations"?

Unquestionably it is possible to do without happiness, it is done involuntarily by nineteen-twentieths of mankind, even in those parts of our present world which are least deep in barbarism (p.39) .

--Does Mill equate unhappiness with barbarism?

The Utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself a good. A sacrifice which does not increase or tend to increase the sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted (p. 40).

--Is self-sacrifice only justified if it leads to greater societal happiness?

The objectors to utilitarianism cannot always be charged with representing it in a discreditable light. On the contrary, those among them who entertain anything like a just idea of its disinterested character sometimes find fault with its standard as being too high for humanity (p.42)

--Does utilitarianism really set a standard that is too high?

Is utilitarianism, as Mill states (p. 43), like religion in that rather than telling people what is right and wrong, it merely equips them to judge between right and wrong?

Do you agree with Mill's argument (p.44) that lying is always inexpedient?

Does Mill draw a reasonable analogy (p. 45) when he compares utilitarianism to Christianity in stating that just as a good Christian doesn't need to read through the Bible everytime he must make an ethical judgement, the good Utilitarian needn't weight every single possible consequence of his actions on the common good?

We are told that a utilitarian will be apt to make his own particular case an exception to moral rules, and when under temptation, will see a utility in the breach of a rule, greater than he will see in its observance (p. 47).

--Would a utilitarian be more likely to commit such a breach of a rule than a follower of a religion that believes in an afterlife?

The desire of virtue is not as universal, but it is as authentic a fact as the desire of happiness. And hence the opponents of the utilitarian standard deem that they have a right to infer that there are other ends of human action besides happiness, and that happiness is not the standard of approbation and disapprobation (p.49).

--How might virtue take priority over happiness?


For Textual Analysis

pages 35-37, from Now it is an unquestionable fact to ... in an ineffectual attempt to combine both.

pages 41-42, from I must again repeat ... to giving effect to their mandates.
pages 43-45, from Again utility is often summarily stigmatized to one or the other preponderates.
pages 45-47, Again, defenders of utility to as absurdity has ever reached in philosophical controversy.

From Futility to Utility

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) has given us his Autobiography, in which he describes his rigorous early classical education under the tutelage of his father James, an eminent author and philosopher in his own right. As a result of his hermetic upbringing, John suffered a mental breakdown at the age of 20. He recovered and had a productive life both in the world of commerce, as a career employee of the British East India Company, and the world of ideas, as author of numerous articles and books. He also served as a Member of Parliament and as Lord Rector of the University of St. Andrews. The irony of the latter is that as a young man Mill had foregone a traditional "Oxbridge" (Oxford/Cambridge) education.

A seldom appreciated aspect of Mill's work is that he advocated for equal rights for women. He did so in his essay "The Subjection of Women" (1869), and credited his wife Harriet Taylor Mill as a co-author. Mill was alone among the famous social theorists of his era -- all of them male -- in holding this position.

Our selection this month is taken from Mill's essay "Utilitarianism," first published as a series in three parts in Fraser's, a popular literary magazine. "Utilitarianism" was published in book form in 1863 by Parker, Son and Bourn of London in 1863.

The text begins, "The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals 'utility' or the 'greatest happiness principle' holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." The work can be profitably read either as a survey of the Utilitarian school of political philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and others OR as Mill's personal critique of that school. One of Mill's biographers has called him "a thinker who fuses logic and imagination to depict a vision of the world" (1).

(1) August, Eugene, John Stuart Mill, a Mind at Large, New York : Scribner's, 1975.

Questions re: "Job"

Why does God let Satan torment Job (p.1)?

-- Why is Satan called the "son of God" (p.1)

When Job's friends showed up to comfort him in his affliction, why did they sit with him but not speak to him, "for they saw that his affliction was very great?" (p.3)

Do the statements of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar represent separate and distinct points of view?

Interpret the line "So these three men [Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar] ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes" (p. 21).

-- At this point Elihu appears and we are told his "wrath" was kindled against Job. Does Elihu's appearance represent a significant turning point in the narrative? Why?

-- Interpret Elihu's statement, "My desire is that Job may be tried unto the end because of his answers for wicked men. For he addeth rebellion unto his sin, he clappeth his hands among us, and multiplieth his words against God (p. 24)"

Why does God become angry with Eliphaz and the other two friends (viz. p. 29: "for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job has")

Why in the end is Job exonerated?

Would you consider God as portrayed in the Book of Job to be fair? What other attributes would you ascribe to Him?

For Textual Analysis

Page 7: "Therefore I will not refrain my mouth" ... to ... "but I shall not be."

Pages 10-11: "What ye know, the same do I" ... to ... "as a garment that is moth eaten."

Pages 11-13 : "Man this is born of woman" ... to ... "the way whence I shall not return."

Page 28 : "Moreover the Lord answered Job" ... to ... "thine own right hand can save thee."

You and the Text

The book of Job holds a unique place in the Old Testament canon. Job is not considered a Prophet, and the book is grouped in the "wisdom writings" (along with Psalms, Proverbs, the Song of Songs, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, and others). Its literary form is unusual : much of the book consists of a philosophical dialogue among Job and his friends Eliphaz (the Temanite), Bildad (the Shuhite) and Zophar (the Naamathite).

Here is a suggestion as you approach the book of Job. Stick to the text at hand (in this case, the King James Version ; you may need to brush up on your early Modern English). Resist the temptation to reach for one of the numerous biblical commentaries available. Why not take a pencil in hand and write in your own chapter headings?

Build on what you already know about the book of Job. You are probably familiar with some of these famous passages that have become part of our common culture:

From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it (spoken by Satan).

Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord (spoken by Job)

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil (the very first lines).

Let the text do its work on you.



Satan afflicts Job with boils (from William Blake's edition of the Book of Job).

Questions about "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," by Edward Gibbon

For Discussion, July 28, 2009

Chapter XV: "The Progress of the Christian Religion, and the Sentiments, Manners, Numbers, and Condition of the Primitive Christians"

Gibbon writes (p. 195): "From the first of the fathers to the last of the popes, a succession of bishops, of saints, of martyrs, and of miracles, is continued without interruption; and the progress of superstition was so gradual and almost imperceptible, that we know not in what particular link we should break the chain of tradition." In this statement and in the subsequent discussion, does Gibbon imply there was a "golden age" of miracles, and that the Church needed to sustain its traditions regardless of whether evidence supported a continued succession of miracles (cf. end of paragraph, p. 196)?

When Gibbon writes, "According to the more rigid doctors, the moral virtues, which may be equally practiced by infidels, are destitute of any value or efficacy in the work of our justification" (p. 217), does he imply that Christianity doesn't value moral actions?

Gibbon writes (p. 231): "Such is the constitution of civil society, that, while a few persons are distinguished by riches, by honors, and by knowledge, the body of the people is condemned to obscurity, ignorance, and poverty." He then states that as a natural consequence, the Christian religion recruited many from the lower orders of society into its ranks. Does he consider this form of social hierarchy to be the natural order of things?

Re: Gibbon's discussion of the "love of pleasure" and the "love of action" (p. 200): Does his sentence "The character in which both the one and the other should be united and harmonized would seem to constitute the most perfect idea of human nature" ring true? Is it a helpful distinction in his discussion of the "primitive" Christians?

Page 201: "In their censures of luxury the fathers are extremely minute and circumstantial; and among the various articles which excite their pious indignation, we may enumerate false hair, garments of any color except white, instruments of music, vases of gold or silver, downy pillows (as Jacob reposed his head on a stone), white bread (!), foreign wines, public salutations, the use of warm baths, and the practise of shaving the beard .... " Do you agree with Gibbon when he says it was easier for the poor than for the rich to accept privation, and with it a sense of moral superiority?

Chapter XVI: "The Conduct of the Roman Government Towards the Christians, from the Reign of Nero to that of Constantine"

Gibbon writes of the Jews, "Their irreconcilable hatred of mankind, instead of flaming out in acts of blood and violence, evaporated in less dangerous gratifications. They embraced every opportunity of overreaching the idolators in trade, and they pronounced secret and ambiguous imprecations against the haughty kingdom of Edom [Rome]" (p. 240). How does this jibe with Gibbon's belief that the Jews of the diaspora "assumed the behavior of peaceful and industrious subjects"?

Why did the enemies of the Christians portray them as a "society of atheists" (p. 241) ?!?

Do you buy Gibbon's conclusion at the end of his description of the persecution of Cyprian (pp. 264-269) that the fact that we don't have more accounts of funerals of Christian martyrs is evidence that there was an "inconsiderable number of those who suffered and died for the profession of Christianity"?

Does Gibbon support his argument that "the Christians, in the course of their intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greater severities on each other than they had experienced from the zeal of the infidels"? (p. 302)?

Does Gibbon allow for the possibility that the persecutions of the Christians may have been a factor in the growth of their numbers?

History's Greatest Cautionary Tale

Our "author of the month" is Edward Gibbon (1737-1794). Gibbon composed his magnum opus, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (often simply referred to as the Decline and Fall) over a time period of almost 20 years.

When the first volume was published in the eventful year of 1776, it went through three editions in a short span of time. In addition to being an undeniably great and influential work, the book represents a milestone in the craft of historical writing. Peter P.Witonski, in Gibbon for Moderns, an annotated and abridged version of the Decline and Fall, remarks that Gibbon combined the "renewed historical perspective" of the Renaissance -- i.e., that contemporary authors were capable of writing histories superior to the first-hand accounts of classical authors -- with the scientific mindset developed in the 17th century.

Gibbon was unusual among British intellectuals of his time in that he was educated abroad (in Lausanne). Gibbon tells us that he conceived of The Decline and Fall "among the ruins of the Capitol" in Rome. The work is a product of Gibbon's formidable linguistic skills and his prodigious study of history. In his book The Ruins of the Roman Empire, James J. O'Donnell writes, "No page of Gibbon is not worth reading; few of his footnotes are not worth considering carefully."

It his difficult to imagine a contempory historian undertaking a work quite as massive in scope as Gibbon's. In our selection this month, we read two chapters from The Decline and Fall, which discuss the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire.

Every subsequent age has seen a mirror of itself in the story of cycles of growth and decay of ancient Rome. Gibbon's account, written during an age of Empire and so-called Enlightenment, stands as perhaps the best.

The L.I. Great Books Council Spring Institute

On Saturday, June 13th, I was excited to participate in the annual day-long Long Island Great Books Council Spring Institute. About 40 "great bookies" convened in Garden City for two discussion tracks, one on the subject of "Money," the other on "Love."

The "Love" track discussed the stories of Grace Paley, the "Money" track Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money: a Financial History of the World and Jerry Sterner's play "Other People's Money".

I joined the "Money" group, led by a thirty-year veteran of Great Books discussion groups. Mary launched the discussion with three guidelines, "Please stick to the question at hand, don't talk over one another, and please listen carefully to each other." I could tell Mary was a stickler about the "Shared Inquiry" discussion technique, and had honed her skills as a leader over many years. Her interest lay solely in helping us to understand better the ideas in the texts.

Perhaps you notice that the books under discussion were not part of the "Great Books" canon. At the end of our discussion of "Other People's Money," however, Grahme Fischer, the President of the Long Island Great Books Council (and leader of a Great Books group at the Commack Public Library), posed the question, "Do you think this is a great book?" The consenus was no, although Sterner's comedy about a corporate raider with a "Mom and Pop" New England cable and wire company in his sights does raise a lot of questions about the U.S. financial system. Grahme then averred that sometimes less lofty works stimulate more spirited discussions. (Maybe ones that are too perfectly beautiful leave us speechless!)

I was pleased to discover there are still a lot of serious readers out there who have chosen to affiliate themselves with the loosely organized network of Great Books Councils around the country. Upcoming events include the 53rd Annual Wachs Great Books Summer Institute on the "Art of War" at Colby College in Maine the week of August 2-8 (contact Tom Beam at agreatbook@aol.com) and the Philadelphia council's Fall Institute weekend on the "Aesthetic Dialogue" in the Poconos the weekend of November 6-7 (contact John Dalton at JD5258875@aol.com)

Discussion Questions for "The Misanthrope"

Interpretive Questions

I. Is Molière's intent to expose the hypocrisy practiced in the social circles of his time and all times?

A. Are his characters created to fulfill that purpose? Do they each represent some human trait and therefore behave in stereotypical ways or do we sometimes get a glimpse of multidimensional characterization?

B. Does he present any of these characters as worthy of admiration?

C. If we all acted like the Alceste the Misanthrope, would we even have a society (p. 105, ten lines from bottom)?

D. Same question re: Philinte (p. 108, ten lines from top and p. 155, eight lines from top) or to any of the other characters.

II. Is this play funny and if so, why?

A. Is there a scene you find particularly comical?

III. Express in a few words Molière's views on love and courtship.

A. Do you think Alceste is capable of love? At the end does he give Célimène a test which she will probably fail? (Act V, Sc. 7 & 8)

B. Is Célimène totally shallow?

i. If so, why is Alceste in love with her when he strives to be so "authentic"?

C. Do Philante and Eliante, at least in part, stand for moderation and good sense? Is there a certain poetic justice when they are matched up at the end of the play?

Speculative Question

I. What possibilities would you develop if you were to write a sequel to this play?

For Textual Analysis

Act I, sc. i

Act II, sc. ii

Act V, sc. i

Castigat Ridendo Mores : "It Corrects our Manners with Laughter"

Our featured author this month is the great French comic playwright Molière (1622-1673), the stage name of Jean-Baptiste Poquelin. On June 22nd we meet to discuss his Misanthrope.



Molière rose to fame under the patronage of Louis XIV. One often hears him spoken of in conjunction with the other two towering figures of the French stage of the era, Racine and Corneille. Of the three, however, Molière is the only one renowned for comedies.

Many of Molière's theatrical works, including The Misanthrope, are considered "comedies of manners" and set in Parisian salons. The Misanthrope follows Alceste as he tries to achieve the seemingly impossible task of both shunning all social pretense and winning the heart of Célimène.

Questions re: "The Spirit of Capitalism," by Max Weber

1. How does Kürnberger's statement, "They make tallow out of cattle and money out of men" summarize for Weber a philosophy of avarice (p. 69)?

2. Weber ascribes to Pieter de la Court the belief that "people only work because and so long as they are poor (p. 75)." Agree or disagree?

3. Weber writes (p.76), "Today, capitalism, once in the saddle, can recruit its laboring force in all industrial countries with comparative ease. In the past this was in every case an extremely difficult problem. And even today it could probably not get along without the support of a powerful ally along the way, which, as we shall see below, was at hand at the time of its development." Who is that "powerful ally"?

4. "To speak here of a reflection of material conditions in the ideal superstructure would be patent nonsense," he writes on page 80. What is the "ideal superstructure"?

5. In the section entitled "Asceticism and the Spirit of Capitalism," Weber writes (p. 85), "True to the Puritan tendency to pragmatic interpretations, the providential purpose of the division of labour is to be known by its fruits." What is the "providential purpose" of the division of labour, and what are its fruits?

6. Page 85, "A man without a calling thus lacks the systematic, methodical character which is, as we have seen, demanded by worldly asceticism." Does this statement hang together?

7. Weber summarizes John Wesley's belief that wealth accumulation inevitable undermines religious belief. Does what Weber calls the "secularizing influence of wealth" really occur? (p.94)

7A. If so, why does Wesley nevertheless say, "we must exhort all Christians to gain all they can, and to save all they can; that is, in effect, to grow rich."? (p. 95)

8. Why does Weber consider the seventeenth century to have bequethed "an amazingly good, we may even say, a pharisaically [emphasis added] good conscience in the acquisition of money" to its "utilitarian successor."? (pp. 95-6)

9. Weber on p. 100 quotes Baxter to the effect that material acquistion should rest on a man's shoulder like a "light coat." In the modern age, however, "Fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage." How do you interpret this portentous line?

10. In the last paragraph of the selection Weber dismisses both the one-sided "materialistic" interpretation and the one-sided "spiritual causal" interpretation of the roots of capitalism. He calls either a "preparation" and not a "conclusion" of an investigation. If he's correct, then what's the next step in the "investigation."?

Weber's "Iron Cage"

Our reading this month was first published not as a book but as a two-part scholarly article. Max Weber (1864-1920), one of the founders of modern sociology, published The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism in 1904-05 in the journal Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik (The Archive of Social Science and Social Politics).

Weber's interests lie in the parallel developments of Calvinist religious sects and the capitalist economic system in 16th-century Europe.

One of the surprise joys of exploring the classics comes when we chance upon a famous buzz line of the western tradition. Such a moment occurred for me upon revisiting The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber contends that whereas the English Puritans wanted to work in a "calling," we moderns work because we simply have no other choice. He quotes the Protestant theologian Richard Baxter, who wrote that the desire for material goods should only rest on the shoulders "like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment." Then comes Weber's zinger on the modern condition: "But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage [emphasis added]." (See p. 100, Great Books Reading and Discussion Program, Series 4, Vol. 1).

According to Wikipedia's article on Weber's "iron cage," the original German might also translate as "steel-hard housing." Either way, it doesn't sound pleasant, and the meaning seems pretty clear. Modern, materialistic, ultra-rational society makes us all cogs in a wheel.

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism dazzled me upon my first encounter with it as a college freshman, but I still find it difficult to classify this text. Is it sociology? History? Philosophy? A political tract? An academic essay punctuated with occasional romantic/lyrical flights?

In the end it doesn't matter what you call it. A great scholar and writer produced The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, a work that offers up a great chicken-and-egg riddle:

What comes first, how we do or how we think?

Questions re: "Medea," by Euripides, for Monday, April 27th

I. Is the major theme of this play the emotion of love vs. the emotion of hate?

A. The timelessness of Greek tragedy seems to lie in its ability to portray human emotions that do not change. Frequently one reads in today's papers about the tragedy of a parent who kills his spouse and children and then kills himself. Euripides creates in Medea a character so consumed with hate that she will murder her own children to avenge herself against her husband. Yet she provides an "escape hatch" for herself: she wants to live! Why is this so?

1. If Medea had not been a woman, would she have turned to such violent actions for her revenge? Could she have acted differently as a man?

2. Is there anything to admire in the character of Medea?


B. This play seems to conform to the classic requirements for a Greek tragedy in that it involves the fall of a character of "high estate" due to a "fatal/tragic" flaw in a drama taking place within 24 hours (what a difference a day makes!). In this case it seems to involve two characters: Jason and the King.

1. What are the tragic flaws that bring each one down?

2. Does Euripides's treatment of persons of lower estate (viz., the nurse and attendant, pp. 24-27) give a message to the audience that all things considered it's better to be born low than high?

3. What is the role of the chorus in this particular play and why do they seem to "befriend" Medea?

Some Key Passages to Reread

Medea's speeches on pp. 30-31; 46-47

Four chorus stanzas on pp. 35-36

Medea's speech and choral response, pp. 53-56

April the Cruelest Month?

In the fall of 2006, our group read and discussed Euripides's Iphigenia at Aulis. That play portrayed a key lead-in to the Trojan War, the sacrifice of the princess Iphigenia to gain favorable winds for the voyage of the Greek fleet.

This month we are reading another Euripides play, Medea. The plot of the Medea comes not from the long saga of the Trojan War but from another great Greek mythic cycle, that of Jason, the Argonauts, Medea, and the Golden Fleece.

Medea was a princess in the far-eastern land of Colchis. In her lineage there was a strong predeliction for sorcery and witchcraft. She assists Jason and the Argonauts in the quest for the Golden Fleece, then returns to Greece as Jason's wife. A string of heroics (with an atrocity or two mixed in) leads them to Corinth in the Peloponnese. There Jason aspires to wed King Kreon's daughter, but is faced with the inconvenient fact that he's already married to Medea and has two sons by her. Medea exacts her vengeance on Jason in an unspeakable fashion, which may or may not have been Euripides own elaboration of the story.

Medea was first performed in 431 B.C. in an Athenian playfest. It took last place. The winning plays, by Euphorion, are lost, as is the Sophoclean trilogy that took second place. The Medea survives both in physical form and in popularity. According to scholar Richmond Y. Hathorn, "[w]ith the enactment of the struggle in Medea's breast between her feelings as spurned wife and as loving mother, the audience was presented with the first complete revelation of inner conflict in world literature."

Some Reflections on Last Evening's Discussion

Kudos to our sixteen discussants who braved chilly March winds to attend last night's Schopenhauer discussion.

The group had a mixed verdict on "Schopy." Based on the biographical information given in the reader (for example, when he died Schopenhauer left a substantial legacy to his poodle), many felt his philosophy was too metaphysical and ignored our need for human attachments.

We talked quite a bit about fear of death vs. the knowledge of death. The former is what animals possess as a basic instinct, the latter a realization humans attain through our mental faculty. The knowledge of death sets us apart from the animals and creates what many call "the human condition."

Our reading was an excerpt from the chapter "On Death and Its Relation to the Indestructibility of our Inner Nature," from Schopenhauer's voluminous philosophical tract The World as Will and Representation.

Schopenhauer considered the will, and specifically the "will-to-live" to be a powerful motivating factor in our lives. The capstone question of our discussion was "What, according to Schopenhauer, should be our proper attitude to the will-to-live, since we all have to die?" The group concluded that Schopenhauer's answer would be we give up the will-to-live, just as it gives us up. We thereby achieve a state of nothingness, nonbeing, extinction, nirvana.

Is there consolation in this grim scenario? One of our participants took heart from Schopenauer's lovely ode-in-prose to the cycles of nature. We are each of us like a leaf on a tree, he says, "[f]ading in the autumn and about to fall, this leaf grieves over its own extinction, and will not be consoled by looking forward to the fresh green which will clothe the tree in spring, but says as a lament: 'I am not these! These are quite different leaves' Oh foolish leaf! Whither do you want to go? And whence are the others supposed to come? Where is the nothing, the abyss of which you fear? Know your own inner being, precisely that which is so filled with the thirst for existence; recognize it once more in the inner, mysterious, sprouting force of the tree."

My next-door neighbor puts it another way. Every year he stands on his back deck and makes what I call "the announcement":

"Spring, sprang, sprung!"

Discussion Questions for "The Indestructibility of Our Inner Nature," by Schopenhauer

Interpretive Questions

Does Schopenhauer contradict himself when he says (p.1) that lower animals don't have a "knowledge of death," but then says (p. 3) they and we also have a fear of death?

What does he mean (p.2) when he says that "according to natural consciousness" man fears death more than anything? What is "natural consciousness"?

Is our "whole being-in-itself" the "will to live" (p.4)?

How does knowledge conflict with will (p.5)?

Do you agree that "to mourn for the time when we shall no longer exist is just as absurd as it would be to mourn for the time when we did not as yet exist" (p.6)?

How about with the notion that death is terrible because it represents the death of the will? (p.7)

Is the moment of dying really "similar to that of waking from a heavy nightmare" (p. 9)?

Does the life force endure after death (pp. 9-12)?

If we saw "deeply enough," would we agree with nature and "regard life or death as indifferently as does she" (p. 13)?

Does nature (p.12) really consider the life and death of the individual to be of absolutely no consequence?

Schopenhauer writes (p.17), "In spite of time, death, and decay, we are still all together." What does he mean?

What of the man (p.18) who says of the game "I no longer like it."?

Who is "the lord of the worlds" (p.19)?

What is "the grand disillusionment"?

Why is the death of every good person "peaceful and gentle"? (p.20)


Evaluative Questions

Are all "religions and philosophical systems," as Schopenhauer writes (p. 1), aimed at consoling us concerning death?

Why does he state that "one" religion will enable man to look death calmly in the face, but then speaks of two different religions, Brahmanism (Hinduism) and Buddhism.

On p. 4 he writes, "If we knocked on the graves and asked the dead whether they would like to rise again, they would shake their heads." Agree or disagree?

Schopenhauer writes (p. 1), "Death is the real inspiring genius or Musagetes of philosophy, and for this reason Socrates defined philosophy as 'preparation for death'. Indeed, without death there would hardly have been any philosophizing." Is he really saying that death inspires philosophy, or that philosophy "inspires" death.

"Arthur, Arthur!"

Our featured author this month is Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), a German philosopher known for his pessimistic view of life. The reading selection, "On the Indestructibility of our Inner Nature," comes from his magnum opus The World as Will and Representation, first published in 1819. The World as Will and Representation did not reach a wide audience at the time.

Schopenhauer did, however, attain literary fame with his 1851 book Parerga and Paralipomena (loosely translated from the Greek as "Bits and Pieces"). It contains a multi-part essay, "The Art of Literature," with subsections entitled "On Authorship," "On Style," "On Thinking for Oneself," and "On Books and Reading." In "The Art of Literature," Schopenhauer critiques the dilettantish literary culture of his day. He spares neither the producers nor the consumers of that culture. He berates readers who read so much they never have time to think, for example. Such men, he says, "read themselves stupid."

Could the author of The World as Will and Representation, which weighs in at 700+ pages, have come to believe that thoughtful reading of expository prose was not a worthy pursuit? Schopenhauer's real beef is with those who live entirely inside a book of text instead of what he calls the "book of nature." The former are mere "men of learning," whereas the latter "have enlightened the world and carried humanity further on its way."

Still and all, Schopenhauer gives us license to indulge the reading habit, but with a caveat.

In "On Books and Reading," Schopenhauer enjoins "[B]e careful to limit your time for reading and devote it exclusively to the works of those great minds of all times and countries, who o'ertop the rest of humanity, those whom the voice of fame points to as such. These alone educate and instruct. You can never read bad literature too little, nor good literature too much. Bad books are intellectual poison ; they destroy the mind. Because people always read what is new instead of the best of all ages, writers remain within the narrow circle of the ideas which happen to prevail in their time; and so the period sinks deeper and deeper into its own mire."

Was Schopenhauer a pessimist with a capital "P" or just a curmudgeon? Read "On the Indestructibility of Our Inner Nature," which examines the theme of death we found last month in Tolstoy's "The Death of Iván Illých," and decide for yourself.

Discussion Questions for "The Death of Ivan Ilych"

The Shared Inquiry discussion technique employs two kinds of questions to spur thoughtful analysis. Interpretive questions address problems having to do with the text itself. Often they concern the relation of characters, the reader, or the author vis à vis that text. Evaluative questions treat larger philosophical themes. In either case, a good question is one for which there is no one right answer!

Interpretive Questions

After viewing Iván Ilých's body, why does Schwartz say to Peter Ivánovich, "Iván Ilých has made a mess of things, not like you and me"? (p. 241)

As Peter Ivánovich views the body, it appears to him that Iván's face wears a "reproach and a warning to the living." What is the reproach and the warning? (p. 243)

After the incident of the creaky pouffe (p. 244), why does Praskóvya Fedorovna take out a clean cambric handkerchief and start to weep?

P. 248: Why does Chapter 2 begin "Iván Ilých's life had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible."?

P. 250: Why does Tolstoy throw in the detail about Iván Ilých having done things at school he knew was wrong, but forgiving himself because they were also done "by people of good position."?

On p. 253 Tolstoy writes: "To say that Iván Ilých married because he fell in love with Praskóvya Fedorovna and found that she sympathized with his views of life would be as incorrect as to say that he married because his social circle approved of the match." What is he saying about Iván's reason for marrying.?

P. 254: He writes, "from the first months of his wife's pregnancy, something new, unpleasant, depressing, and unseemly, and from which there was no way of escape, unexpectedly showed itself." What was that "something"?

Why do you think Iván's son was a "subject of dissension." (p. 257)

Why does he care so much about the home furnishings of his new abode?

As he advances in his career it seems he is able to separate his private and public lives. Why, however, does Tolstoy say that he could "in the manner of a virtuoso ... even allow himself to let the human and official relations mingle." (p. 263?)

Why in the early stages of his disease does he start to find fault with things (a chipped plate, his daughter's hair not to his liking, etc.): p. 266

Why does his daughter find the details of his medical diagnosis "tedious." (p.268)

Why (p. 274) does Iván go to the doctor with Peter Ivánovich?

Why, when his wife suggests he see the famous specialist Leschetítsky (p. 277) does he demur and feel hatred towards her?

P. 279: What is the meaning of the"It" that would stand and look at him. Can it mean anything other that death?

What is the significance of the picture album, described on p. 280, which seems to disturb the perfect beauty of the room he had decorated?

When he asks Gerásim if he's busy, and Gerásim replies "not at all, sir," what does Tolstoy mean when he says that he was "one who had learnt from the townsfolk how to speak to gentlefolk?" (p.283).

Is it realistic for a dying person to want to be "petted and cried over" (p. 285)?

Why does his wife think he's "not doing something for himself that he ought to do and was himself to blame "? Why at this point in his illness does he "hate her with his whole soul" (p. 289)?

Why (p. 299) does he wonder , "What if my whole life really has been wrong"?

Why (p. 300), after his confession, does he start to think about correcting his vermiform appendix and tell his wife he feels better? Why at that point does his screaming begin?

P. 302: "He felt that his agony was due to his being thrust into that black hole and still more to his not being able to get right into it. He was hindered from getting into it by his conviction that his life had been a good one. That very justification of his life held him fast and prevented his moving forward, and it caused him most torment of all." Can you unpack this?

Evaluative Questions

Was the life that Iván Ilých led a good or a bad one? If bad, how could it have been lived more rigteously? What were obstacles to its being lived righteously?

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross describes the process of death as consisting of five stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Does Tolstoy portray some or all of these stages accurately?

>Did Iván Ilých die at peace? If so, why?

>Tolstoy in several places describes Ilých's life in terms of backward and forward or up and down. What did he mean?

Names in Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilych"

Since "The Death of Iván Ilých" is a novella not a drama, it doesn't come with a printed list of characters. That seems a shame. The text contains a number of "triple-decker names" and characters who are sometimes identified by nicknames. Therefore, in the hope of promoting a better understanding of Tolstoy's work, I offer below a list of characters, grouped in terms of their relationship to the tragic Iván. Feel free to print it out. By the way, the name Iván Ilých is comparable to the English "John Doe. [Note: diacritical marks in Russian transliterations denote a stress; so, for example, "Iván" is pronounced "ee-VAHN."]. Pictured above is Count Tolstoy.

Characters in "The Death of Iván Ilých"

Family

Iván Ilých Golovín (sometimes called "Jean" by wife, known as "Vanya" in childhood)

Praskóvya Fedorovna Goloviná [née Mikhel], wife
Lisa, daughter
Vladímir ("Vasya") Ivánich, son
Feodor Petrovich, "Petríshchev," Lisa's fiancé, an "examining magistrate" (as had been Iván)
Ilya Epímovich Golovín, father, a Privy Councilor
Iván's two brothers ("Mitya" and "Volódya", cf. ch. 6?)
one sister ("Kátenka", again cf. ch. 6, married to Baron Greff)

Legal Colleagues (and Other Fellow Government Functionaries)

Iván Egórovich Shébek
Fedor Vasílievich
Peter Ivánovich
Ivan Semenovich
Alexéev
Vínnokhov
Shtábel
Schwartz
Mikháil Mikháylovich
Happe
F. I. Ilyín
Peter Petróvich
Zachár Ivánovich

Domestic Help

Sokolóv, butler
Gerásim, butler's assistant
Peter the footman
Dmítri

Doctors

Nicoláevich
Leshchetítsky
Mikhail Danílovich

"Outliers"

Princess Tráfonova ("sister of the distinguished founder of the Society 'Bear my Burden'")
Emile Zola, as author of Iván's pleasure reading
Sarah Bernhardt (in town for a show!!)

See you on the 23rd.

Discussion Questions for "The Prince," Monday, January 26th

Interpretive Questions

Do you agree with Machiavelli's statement (p. 201) that "though one may have the strongest of armies, one always needs the backing of the inhabitants to take over the province?"

Why does Machiavelli say (p. 205) that in order successfully occupy a province, one must keep the "weaker powers" in check?

What does Machiavelli mean when he writes (p. 206) of the Romans, "Nor did they ever like what is constantly on the lips of our sages today, to enjoy the benefits of the present time, but rather enjoyed the benefits of their ingenuity and prudence; for time brings out everything, and it can bring with it the good as well as the bad and the bad as well as the good."

Machiavelli says (p. 207), "The desire to acquire is truly a very natural and common thing; and whenever men who can, do so, they are praised and not condemned; but when they cannot and want to do so just the same, herein lies the mistake and the condemnation." What does he mean by "the mistake and the condemnation"?

Is Machiavelli correct when he assets (p. 209) that "whoever is the cause of another's coming to power ruins himself"?

Machiavelli says (p. 209) that "a prudent man should always take the path trodden by great men ... so that, if his own ingenuity does not come up to theirs, at least it will have the smell of it." How will he or his public know that he's treading such a path?

Machiavelli says (p. 211) there are princes who are "obliged to beg" and others who are "able to use force." The first "always come to a bad end and never achieve anything," the latter "seldom find themselves in danger." Agree or disagree?

Does Machiavelli's recounting of the biography of Agathocles the Sicilian bear out his statement (p. 214) "that in capturing a state the conqueror should consider all the injuries he must inflict, and inflict them all at once, so as not to have to repeat them daily, and in not repeating them to be able to give men a feeling of security and win them over with the benefits he offers."

"A prince can never be safe when the common people are his enemy, for there are so many of them; he can be safe with the nobles, for there are so few of them." (p. 216). Does this mean a prince can afford to have some of the nobles be his enemies?

Machiavelli states (p.220), "I say that it would be good to be thought of as generous; however, generosity employed in such a way as to give you a reputation for it harms you; yet if it is employed virtuously, and as one should employ it, it may not be recognized and you will not escape the infamy of its opposite." If this is true, why be generous?

On pages 223-224 Machiavelli puts forth the proposition that it is better to be loved than feared, but one must not be hated. What is his logic and do you agree?

In the paragraph beginning "A prince must nevertheless make himself feared ..." (p. 224), is Machiavelli saying that it's better to take life or property?

In his chapter "How a Prince Should Keep his Word" (p. 225ff) what is Machiavelli's position on a what a prince's regard should be for the truth?

What does Machiavelli say (p. 227) that nothing is more essential for a prince than to have a regard for religion?

In the chapter "How a Prince Should Act to Acquire Esteem (p. 233), " Machiavelli makes statements such as "Nothing makes a prince more esteemed than great enterprises and evidence of his unusual abilities" and "a prince should strive in all his actions to give the impression of the great man of outstanding intelligence." In doing this, does he run the risk of appearing to lack humility?

"And the irresolute princes, in order to flee present dangers most often follow the neutral road, and most often they ruin themselves. " (p. 234). Does Machiavelli make a convincing case in this section against maintaining neutrality?

"A prince ... should always seek advice, but only when he wishes and not when others wish it ; indeed he should discourage everyone from giving him advice on any subject, unless he asks for it (p. 236)." Does Machiavelli go overboard here in counseling a prince to be so picky about how he receives counsel?

Evaluative Question

Is Machiavelli, as many have maintained, evil?

What profit, if any, might our new president gain from Machiavelli's text?