Richta’s
Letter to Professor Diemer was introduced in Tvorba by a lengthy article by Kořínek and Pulcman entitled ‘How a
Campaign of Provocation is produced’. The authors wrote:
‘Tomin
organized in his flat several “unofficial lectures” on ancient philosophy … He
sent letters to four universities in the West which contained, beside stupid
slanders against the Czechoslovak state authorities as allegedly “usurping” the
right to determine who is to lecture in science and what the students must
study, haughty calls to Western intellectuals – from natural historians to
theologians – to come and see his “lectures” and to witness how he was
persecuted by the authorities … And so Radio Free Europe and the Voice of
America hurried to give support to Mr Tomin … And then there began a wild
campaign to which the press in the West devoted dozens of pages, and the
broadcasting stations hours of time: behold, in the CSSR philosophers are
allegedly “persecuted”, “interrogated”, “detained” and even “deported” (e.g. New Statesman 30.5.1980). They allegedly
created under the leadership of Mr Tomin an “unofficial university” (The Times 10.10.1979, based on
information from Reuters), an “underground university” (The Guardian 10.10.1979) a “parallel university” or “university of
Jan Patočka” (New Statesman
7.3.1980) a “secret university of Jan Patočka” (Le Monde 5.8.1980), which has its counterpart in the “flying
university of Poland, even though it is less formal and less-well developed” (The Times 15.8.1980), To crown all these
falsehoods Die Welt (23.9.1980 talks
of Tomin as a “professor at Charles University” … Some English, French,
American, and West German bourgeois philosophers began to write protests and
even put pressure on the President of the International Federation of
Philosophical Societies (FISP), Professor A. Diemer, to “interfere”. But it
sufficed for the president of this international association to do the most
natural thing, viz. to inform himself by asking the competent representatives
of Czechoslovak philosophy, and the “bubble of the “Tomin case” burst
immediately.’
The article
was introduced with an eloquent call for international cooperation:
‘The
necessity for international cooperation, the exchange of scientific knowledge,
and a dialogue are generally acknowledged by honest and respectable scientists
throughout the world. This constitutes
an important part of the endeavours to maintain and strengthen peace around the
world. In the spirit of the stimuli provided by the Final Act at Helsinki, the
scope for cooperation and exchange of knowledge grows and intensifies even in
social sciences. The steadily increasing importance of scientific contact is
expressed and actively endorsed by representative forums in the social
sciences; and the stream of world congresses of philosophers, sociologists,
political scientists, economists and historians has convincingly showed the
advantages of this permanent dialogue … Side by side with this undoubtedly
fruitful and beneficial policy, which is the only policy possible for the
future, we have been confronted, particularly in recent years by the efforts of
militant anti-communist forces to stop, prevent and reverse the hitherto
positive development … In the last two years a provocative action against the
CSSR, artificially raked up around the so-called “Tomin case”, acquired such a
character.’
There is
quite a lot of truth in what the authors say. Shortly after the publication of
their article I was invited to the Oxford Union. The Oxford Union wanted to
invite me to give a talk, but on this occasion they want me to take part in a
debate. I was invited to speak on the motion ‘The price of détante is too high’. I was expected to talk for the motion, which
I could not do, for any positive development that had taken place in
Czecholovakia in 1960s happened in the atmosphere of détante. I spoke against the motion; it was comprehensively
defeated. I was never invited to the Oxford Union again.
***
During the
past thirty five years I made many attempt to enlist the support of British
Mass Media in my effort to engage Oxford dons in discussing Plato, in vain. Let
me quote from a letter I wrote to the Editor of The Independent on November 17, 1994:
‘Five years
ago, on November 18, 1989, The
Independent Magazine published “The Pub philosopher” in which Nick Cohen
described me as ‘the “pub philosopher” whose poverty forced him to earn a
living by delivering lectures in a Swindon saloon bar’. Is it a mere coincidence
that since then I have not been allowed to lecture at the Swindon saloon bar,
my three years contract with the publican having been broken without a word of
explanation?
The gist of
Nick Cohen’s article is as follows: “The judgments passed by Oxford dons on
Julius Tomin seem outrageously brutal … Jonathan Barns, Professor of Ancient
Philosophy at Balliol College, Oxford … said: ‘He would not be accepted as a
graduate here, let alone be given a teaching job. He’s like a recalcitrant
student who can’t admit he’s wrong’ … Barnes thinks that even if Tomin’s views
were not ‘baloney’, there are no interesting consequences. Tomin believes that
they could change utterly philosophers’ understanding of Plato.”
In response
to the article I wrote to Professor Barnes and asked him to encounter me in an
open public discussion on Plato. He refused. I renewed the challenge to him
year by year, in vain.
Charles’
University in Prague has recently given me a post of a tutor in Ancient
Philosophy. Delighted, I had accepted the post, but I wrote to the Dean of the
Faculty of Philosophy at Charles University that before leaving Oxford I would
seek an opportunity to present the main results of fourteen years of my
research at Oxford to Oxford philosophers and students for critical scrutiny.
With this in
mind, I offered to the Sub-Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford University a series
of 8 lectures on Plato, seven of which I presented to them in written form, so
that they could prepare well their criticism of my exposition of Plato. In my
invitation I wrote to them: “If the discussions on my lectures prove my views
to be wanting, I shall openly admit in Prague that for thirty years of my study
of Plato I had been blind, until Oxford philosophers opened my eyes. If our
views on both sides remain unshaken, at least I shall be better qualified to
present to students in Prague not only my views, but the opposing views as
well. If my views prevail, it will be the beginning of a rethinking of Plato
that will require international cooperation.”
This appeal
of mine has been answered only negatively. An Oxford don wrote to me: “I do not
think you are being fair to the philosophers in Oxford. You were admitted to
the Oxford Aristotle Reading Circle, and used to attend regularly, and often
were able to have your say about the text we were reading. You are wasting your
effort trying to get people in Oxford to spend time discussing your ideas with
you: they just have not got any time to spare.”
It seems to
be indeed the case that Oxford dons “have not got any time to spare”. The
Oxford Aristotle Reading Circle had been dissolved four years ago, after many
years of uninterrupted existence. Oxford dons seem to have no time any more to
engage each other in stimulating discussions with the texts in the original in
their hands. This closure has inflicted a wound on Ancient Philosophy that
nothing can heal but the reopening of the Oxford Aristotle Reading Circle. I
had the privilege to attend it for more than ten years, until its dissolution,
and I enjoyed every minute of it, although I regretted that Plato was never
chosen for discussion. We read and discussed Plotinus, Aristotle, St Augustine,
Lucretius, Sextus Empiricus, and Alexander Aphrodisias.’
***
I received
no reply to my letter, but shortly after my sending it to The Independent the Dean of the Faulty of Philosophy at Charles
University informed me that my place of a tutor in philosophy was given to
someone else. It surprised me, for I was given no date by which I should get to
Prague; the place offered to me was just for a year, no dates specified.
On March 19,
1995 Hester Lacy wrote in The Independent
on Sunday: ‘Philosophy has not always been the people’s choice, as landlord
Noel Reilly discovered when he engaged the dissident Czech academic Dr Julius
Tomin to deliver nine half-hour lectures in the Beehive pub in Swindon in 1988.
“his great interest was Plato, though he disagreed with his fellow philosophers
about the chronological sequence of Plato’s works,” explained Reilly at the
time. Unfortunately, Dr Tomin delivered only four lectures [as far as I
remember, I delivered only three lectures, J.T.]. “He was a nervous man. I
think the hurly-burly of the public house upset him,” said Reilly, whose
attempts to turn his pub into a “place of culture” sadly ended in bankruptcy.’
By
coincidence, I met Reilly at Oxford early in March of that year. I hailed him:
‘Hello Noel, how are you? How is the Beehive doing?’ – Reilly told me: ‘I am no
longer in the Beehive. I was given a grant to study English literature at
Oxford University.’
***
Concerning
Hester Lacey’s claim that Reilly’s engaging me in his pub ‘sadly ended in
bankruptcy‘, let me refer to Nick Cohen’s ‘The Pub Philosopher’:
‘Last year
the Department of Social Security cut off his [Tomin’s] benefit of £67 a week
because he refused to take a job as anything other than a philosopher. He is
able to continue his work in Oxford’s libraries solely because Noel Reilly, the
landlord of the Beehive pub in Swindon, read of his plight and decided to pay
him £5,000 to deliver three lectures a year to regulars. The talks are very
popular. About 350 came to the last lecture at the Beehive.’
***
Let me yet
quote the last paragraph from Cohen’s article. Written on the eve of the Velvet
revolution, it chimes well with the Tvorba
article: ‘Last October Rude Pravo,
the mouthpiece of the Czech Communist Party, happily reported Tomin’s story.
Under the headline PAID TO MAKE SPEECHES, it said: “Even in a public bar words
can earn money, or rather make money. The recipy for this was found in Britain
by the Czech emigrant Julius Tomin. Since 1980, when he emigrated, he has
struggled as hard as possible to keep going since no university has shown any
interest in him. Only now has he found an audience interested in his
disputations – namely a public house in Swindon. No other milieu will put up
with him.”’
No comments:
Post a Comment