Dear André Rehbinder,
Would you
send me your paper on Le rôle du caractère dans l’initiation amoureuse
du Phèdre : étude du passage 252c4-253c6? I should like to read it before the
Symposium. I can read French, but I can’t speak or write it. And yet, French
language played a very important role in my life. After the Soviets with their
Warsaw Pact ‘allies’ ended the Prague Spring of 1968 – socialism ‘with a human
face’ – by military occupation in Czechoslovakia, I worked as a turbine
operator in Prague ancient powerplant. My job was the lowest paid job; I worked
at the bottom of the powerplant, and had practically no responsibility. I just
had to keep awake, or if I fell asleep, I had to be alert enough in my sleep to
wake up when the (well paid) operator on the floor above banged on a metal
tube, through which we communicated. With all the noise the turbines were
creating, it was quite a task. Having the job with almost no responsibility was
essential; it was during those five years that I read for the first time Plato,
Aristotle, Homer, some Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, in the powerplant.
And I must not forget, in the last two years I studied Descartes, in Latin what
he wrote in Latin, and in French what he wrote in French, carrying the heavy volumes
of the original edition of Adam & Tannery in the rucksack, each time I went
to work. It was there that I wrote my first book, on Descartes, entitled I
think I am. This title had a personal significance to me: ‘As long as I can
think, I pretty well am’. It was thanks to Le Mond and to Sartre
that Descartes’ logos Je pense donc je suis sarx egeneto, for me.
Let me explain. In my free time, I visited the French
Library. At the top floor on the upper shelf were all the classics in Budé edition. (But the only available newspaper
was the Communist Party l’Humanité.) One day, early in July 1975, as I was descending the steps,
I saw a door open to a room where there were some black people, obviously
students, and a pile of newspapers. I entered the room, and for the first time
in my life I saw Le Mond. I took one of the top issues in my hand,
opened it, and there I read: A la suite de la confiscation par la police d’une
partie de ses manuscrits Le philosophe tchécoslovaque Karel Kosík écrit à J.-P. Sartre << Mon existence a pris deux forms:
je suis mort et an mȇm temps je vis. >>
Kosík’s
letter was followed by La réponse de Sartre: si Kosík est coupable, alors tout homme qui pense à ce qu’il
fait est coupable.
Let me quote the last paragraph:
Je ne puis m’angager pour personne sauf pour moi: mais j’ai assez
souvent et longuement discuté de votre
cher et malheureux pays pour vous affirmer que nombreux sont vos amis qui
crieront avec moi: << Si Karel Kosík était coupable, alors tout homme (non
seulment les intellectuels, mais les paysans, les ouvriers) qui pense à ce q’uil
fait est également coupable. >> C’est à partir
de cette idée simple qu’il faudra envisager les actions
par lesquels, en vous aidant, nous nous aiderons nous-mȇmes.
Je vous assure, mon cher
ami, de mes sentiments fraternels.
Jean-Paul Sartre
And so, after coming
home, on 4 July 1975, I wrote to Rudé Právo, the Czechoslovak equivalent of l’Humanité: ‘In Le Monde of Sunday 29 – Mondey
30 June I read a letter addressed to J-P Sartre by a Czech philosopher Dr Karel
Kosík. Karel Kosík in his letter points to several
disturbing things. 1/ For years, he has been deprived of work that would
correspond to his professional abilities. 2/ He is excluded from our scientific
institutions. 3/ He can’t publish, his books were taken out from all public
libraries. 4/ 1000 pages of his manuscripts, which form the basis of the two
works he is working on: On Practis and On Truth.
Firstly, I should like to know, whether all this is true. If
it is true, I should like to know whether it is in agreement with our laws. If
it is not in agreement with our laws, what can I do as a citizen of our
Republic to promote the restoration of legality in our country. If it is in agreement
with our laws, what can I do as a citizen of this land to promote a change in
our laws, so that citizens in our country may not be treated in this way in
future.
I am looking forward to your reply, your reader, Julius
Tomin’
My ‘Letters to Rudé Právo’ form
the first part of my Questionnaire, published in Samizdat Petlice in
1975.
My Questionnaire catapulted me overnight into the front
ranks of the ‘undesirables’. In 1977 I opened a seminar for young people, like
my son Lukáš, who were deprived of higher education because of their fathers’
involvement in the Prague Spring of 1968. At the end of the first year, in June
1978, I told my students that I should like to invite to my seminar academics
from four universities: Oxford and Harvard, Heidelberg and Freie Universität Berlin:
‘Would you agree for me to do so?’ They agreed enthusiastically. It took Oxford
dons almost a year of deliberation, but in April 1979 Dr Wilkes commenced the visits
of Oxford academics in my seminar.
***
Paradoxically,
nowadays I am not allowed to present my views on Plato at the Arts Faculty of
Charles University. Can the invitation to the Phaedrus on-line Symposium
be viewed as an amend?
Mr
Krása, the organizer, gave my paper a wrong title on the Programme: 'Dating of
the Phaedrus'. On what basis he did so, without consulting me? He
reminded me of the e-mail I sent to him on 22 April, in which I informed him
that I had just put on my blog a draft of the paper for the Symposium, which I
entitled 'Dating of the Phaedrus'. I looked at my post of that date, but
the title is different: 'A paper on Plato for the XIII Symposium Platonicum
Pragense'.
And
then it all came to my mind. As soon as I pressed the 'Send' button, thus
sending my e-mail to Mr Krása on 22 April, two incidents came to my mind.
1/ Early
in this century, 2002 or 2003, I came to Oxford to protest at Balliol College
LET US DISCUSS PLATO. A representative of the student magazine Isis asked
classical philosophers why they refused to discuss Plato with me. The reply he
got was the following: 'Tomin is dating the Phaedrus as Plato's first
dialogue; why should we waste our time?’
2/ In
the early 1990s I got a letter from the Head of the Philosophy department at
the Faculty of Arts at Charles University in Prague. The Head, Mr Hejdánek,
informed me that I was given a post at the Department, just for a year, during
which I was expected to write a Professorial Thesis. I accepted the offer,
informed Mr Hejdánek that my views on Plato’s Phaedrus differed
from any views accepted by academics, and that I shall go to Prague only after
discussing Plato with British classical philosophers. Hejdánek promptly
replied that the post was given to someone else.
At
the next SAAP conference, which took place at Corpus Christi College in Oxford,
I asked, why could I not present at the Conference my views on the dating of
Plato' Phaedrus. And so, I was invited to give my paper on the
dating of the Phaedrus at the next conference, at Cambridge
University. Christopher Rowe was entrusted with the opening of the discussion.
I sent him my paper several months before the conference, hoping to get from
him his critical response as soon as possible. I waited in vain; Christopher
gave me his 'critical response' just before I was to read my paper. He found
fault with my reference to Denniston concerning the kai gar in
Diogenes Laertius’ dating of the Phaedrus. Mistakenly, he
thought that I derived my interpretation of this collocation of particles from
Denniston; in fact, on Kenneth Dover's advice, I studied for years the way
these particles were used in every text I read, not only Plato.
Rowe
devoted the rest of his lengthy 'response' to a witty criticism of
Schleiermacher's dating of the Phaedrus as Plato's first
dialogue.
If I
participate in the on-line Symposium, I shall be collaborating on burying any
proper discussion on Plato’s Phaedrus in the Czech Republic.
In
the Attachment, I am sending you my paper:
'The Phaedrus and
the Charmides – Plato in Athens 405-404'.
With Best wishes,
Julius Tomin
PS
I wrote about some of these things on my Web-site and on my
Blog. My writing to you inspired me to put it in a new way. This is why I’ve put
it on my Blog with a question mark: ‘Shall I collaborate?’
No comments:
Post a Comment