No more protests at Balliol

 

It took me quite a time – if I count it from Aril 12 1980, i.e. from the visit of Dr Kenny, the Master of Balliol, in my seminar - to realise, that when I addressed Oxford Dons with my 'Let us discuss Plato', I was asking an impossibility.

What has helped me to see the light? A sombre re-evaluation of all my life spent with the Greeks, and Plato in particular, seen against the background of my relationship with Oxford.

I just needed a nudge.

I addressed Oxford Dons with a request: ‘I should like to present at the Faculty of Classics 'Dating and interpretation of Plato's Meno'. Would you support my request?’

Professor Coope replied: “I'm sorry. I have no role in decisions in relation to the Classics Faculty. I do have a role in these decisions in the Philosophy Faculty, but I'm afraid we always have a much larger number of suggested speakers than we can invite, so I don't think I'd be able to support such a request in relation to the Philosophy Faculty.”

Professor Coope was one of those whom I informed about Diogenes Laertius ii. 38, a passage that shows that the Meno was written by Plato while Socrates was still alive. Until then, everybody who wanted to study Plato was ‘informed’ that Plato began to write his dialogues only after Socrates died.

Let me quote the passage as it stands in R.D. Hicks’ translation: ‘Socrates would take to task those who thought highly of themselves, proving them to be fools, as to be sure he treated Anytus, according to Plato’s Meno. For Anytus could not endure to be ridiculed by Socrates, and so in the first place stirred up against him Aristophanes and his friends; then afterwards he helped to persuade Meletus to indict him on a charge of impiety and corrupting the youth.’ (Diog. Laert. Ii. 38)

What was the result of my pointing Professor Coope (and sixteen other Oxford Dons) to this passage? The ‘information’ that Plato began to write his dialogues only after Socrates died disappeared from the Wikipedia items on Plato, but without any reference to the passage that shows that Plato wrote the Meno, and presumably other dialogues, while Socrates was still alive. Wikipedia articles on Plato thus present the readers with a very distorted picture of Plato. This is what I would like to talk about in 'Dating and interpretation of Plato's Meno', and until this morning I just did not believe that my request could be ignored or rejected. But then I looked to Professor Coope’s response again: ‘I'm afraid we always have a much larger number of suggested speakers than we can invite, so I don't think I'd be able to support such a request’.

The passage which shows that the Meno was written prior to the accusation of Socrates puts into question everything written under the aegis of ‘Plato began to write dialogues after Socrates died’. Plato must be rethought. There is nobody at Oxford University who could undertake this task, and there is no college division or department that would allow me to present this matter for reflection and discussion.

 

To the Editors of Cherwell Magazine

 

Dear Editors,                                                                         16 May, 2320     

Until recently - until yesterday, in fact, if I am not mistaken - if you Googled Julius Tomin, the references under my name ended with an item from the Cherwell Archive. Let me quote the last paragraph:

"Tomin's connection with Oxford is complicated. In 1979, responding to an invitation from Tomin, several academics travelled to Prague (in solidarity with him) to lecture at Tomin's unofficial seminars. These were repeatedly disrupted by the police, and some of the academics interrogated and expelled, though not injured. Tomin alleges that even at this early stage some of the visitors were keen to expose his ability to translate and read aloud in Greek, in an effort to discredit him." 

The last sentence does not make sense as it stands, but it can be elucidated. In April 1980 Dr Anthony Kenny, the Master of Balliol, was to give a talk in my seminar on Aristotle's Ethics. Accompanied by his wife, he came to my seminar at about 5'30; the seminar began at 6 pm. Kenny said that his talk was going to be focussed on a passage from the Nicomachean and the Eudemian Ethics. He wanted me to translate these two passages for the students into Czech at the beginning of the seminar. I never read the Eudemian Ethics, wanted to read the Eudemian passage at least once, and so I left Kenny and his wife with my wife, and retired into the kitchen. I barely managed to read the text once when my wife summoned me to open the seminar: 'The room is packed! You must come!'

Kenny opened his talk by addressing the audience: 'My talk will be focussed on two passages from Aristotle; one from the Nicomachean and one from the Eudemian Ethics. In the Nicomachean passage happiness consists in contemplative activity, and philosophy is therefore the primary source of happiness. In the Eudemian passage happiness consists of an ideal functioning of every part of soul. I shall argue that the Eudemian passage is critical of the Nicomachean passage. A person who organized his life entirely with a view to the promotion of philosophical speculation, unless called upon to do so, would not be wise but cunning. The type of person whom many regard as the hero of the Nicomachean Ethics turns out, by the standards of the Eudemian Ethics, to be vicious and ignoble character. The two Ethics have three books in common. These three books are printed only within the framework of the Nicomachean Ethics, which is generally viewed as the product of Aristotle's mature thought. By stylometric investigations I proved that these three books were originally published as part of the Eudemian Ethics. I view only the Eudemian Ethics as Aristotle's.'

After this introduction Kenny turned to me: 'Julius, would you translate these two passages into Czech?' I replied: 'I shall read each sentence in the Greek original, then give its meaning in Czech.'

After I finished reading the two passages, I opened the discussion by opposing Kenny: 'In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle views the life in philosophy as the source of happiness because the activity of intellect is the highest one. Why should I see it as opposed to the Eudemian passage? May not Aristotle be pointing to the theory fully developed in the Nicomachean Ethics when he says in our Eudemian passage that the end is the best as being the guiding and governing principle, since it is the best and ultimate, for the sake of which one must live in order to attain happiness? In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle gives reasons why philosophy is the source of good life; it is most continuous and independent of external circumstances. Even if deprived of exchanging ideas with his colleagues, a philosopher may continue to do philosophy. This is especially important for us in Prague who may face imprisonment any day. It further reminds me of Socrates. In the Apology he says: "as long as I live and as long as I am able, I will not stop doing philosophy".'

Kenny did not oppose my 'Socratic' interpretation, but questioned instead the philosophic credentials of Socrates: 'Wouldn't you consider Socrates a good man, but poor philosopher, Plato a questionable character, but a great philosopher?' I could not accept this: 'You appear to be drawing a dividing line through Plato works; what is below that line is not worth being called philosophy, and it's Socrates, what is above that line is philosophy, is Plato. I do not draw any such dividing line through Plato's dialogues.'

At that moment the police marched in.

In what way this elucidates the Cherwell Archive claim 'Tomin alleges that even at this early stage some of the visitors were keen to expose his ability to translate and read aloud in Greek, in an effort to discredit him.'?

Let us see what Kenny's idea did to me, and what it did to him. To me he gave a chance to do something I never did before, something I really enjoyed, But what did he do to himself? 

Obviously, it never occurred to him that what I did could be done. He addressed me with the task of translating those two passages as if it was something regularly done in the seminars of classicists and classical philosophers; I was to be exposed as someone who pretends to be able to do classical philosophy when in fact I do not even understand the Greek original.

Is this an unwarranted speculation on my part?

Let me end by two quotations from The Velvet Philosophers of Barbara Day:

1/ 'Part of the purpose of Anthony Kenny's visit to the Czechoslovak Embassy on 19th March had been to ask for clear guidelines as to what was and was not permitted to academic visitors to Czechoslovakia. Dr Kenny also needed to know on his own behalf, as he and his wife were due to leave for Prague in the second week of April.

2/ Anthony Kenny and his American-born wife, who had been the first to be driven off to the police headquarters, were held until three in the morning and interrogated in separate rooms ... The Kennys were delivered to the border-crossing with West Germany, and carrying their luggage, walked through the woods of Rozvadov in the frosty dawn of an April morning.'

...

I would like to present at Oxford 'Dating and interpretation of Plato's Meno'. I hope that I will be given an opportunity to do so, and that no more of my protests will have to take place. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

face imprisonment any day. It further reminds me of Socrates. In the Apology he says: "as long as I live and as long as I am able I will not stop doing philosophy".'

Kenny did not oppose my 'Socratic' interpretation, but questioned instead the philosophic credentials of Socrates: 'Wouldn't you consider Socrates a good man, but poor philosopher, Plato o questionable character, but a great philosopher?' I could not accept this: 'You appear to be drawing a dividing line through Plato works; what is below that line is not worth being called Philosophy, and it's Socrates, what is above that line is philosophy, is Plato. I do not draw any such dividing line through Plato's dialogues.'

At that moment the police marched in.

In what way this elucidates the Cherwell Archive claim 'Tomin alleges that even at this early stage some of the visitors were keen to expose his ability to translate and read aloud in Greek, in an effort to discredit him.'?

Let us see what Kenny's idea did to me, and what it did to him. To me he gave a chance to do something I never did before, something I really enjoyed, But what did he do to himself? Obviously, it never occurred to him that what I did could be done. He addressed me with the task of translating those two passages as if it was something regularly done in the seminars of classicists and classical philosophers; I was to be exposed as someone who pretends to be able to do classical philosophy when in fact I do not even understand the Greek original.

Is this an unwarranted speculation on my part?

Let me end by two quotations from The Velvet Philosophers of Barbara Day:

1/ 'Part of the purpose of Anthony Kenny's visit to the Czechoslovak Embassy on 19th March had been to ask for clear guidelines as to what was and was not permitted to academic visitors to Czechoslovakia. Dr Kenny also needed to know on his own behalf, as he and his wife were due to leave for Prague in the second week of April.

2/ Anthony Kenny and his American-born wife, who had been the first to be driven off to the police headquarters, were held until three in the morning and interrogated in separate rooms ... The Kennys were delivered to the border-crossing with West Germany, and carrying their luggage, walked through the woods of Rozvadov in the frosty dawn of an April morning.'

...

I would like to present at Oxford 'Dating and interpretation of Plato's Meno'. I hope that I will be given an opportunity to do so, and that no more of my protests will have to take place. 

Best wishes,

Julius Tomin

  

Why now?

 

In May 1980 Kathy Wilkes – who in April 1979 opened the visits of Oxford philosophers in my seminar – arrived to Prague, interested to learn what actually happened during Kenny’s visit in my seminar. Why didn’t she simply accept what Dr Kenny was saying about it?

Dr Kenny prepared his visit in cooperation with the Czechoslovak Embassy in London. Barbara Day says in The Velvet Philosophers: ‘Part of the purpose of Anthony Kenny’s visit to the Czechoslovak Embassy on 19^th March had been to ask for clear guidelines as to what was and was not permitted to academic visitors in Czechoslovakia. This was part of the policy of openness pursued by Tomin on the basis of Charter 77’s insistence on the right of assembly. Dr Kenny also needed to know on his own behalf, as he and his wife were due to leave for Prague in the second week of April.’

Contrast these preparations with how the affair ended. Barbara Day writes, quoting Anthony Kenny: ‘We had more than an hour reading Aristotle together … We were discussing the passage where Aristotle says that philosophy is the most noble of all pursuits when the police came in.’ Then she says: ‘Anthony Kenny, his American-born wife and Jacque Laskar, who had been the first to be driven off to Bartolomějská were held until three in the morning and interrogated in separate rooms … The Kennys were delivered to the same border-crossing with West Germany as Newton Smith, and carrying their luggage, walked through the woods of Rozvadov in the frosty dawn of an April morning.’

…

While the continuation of my seminar was prevented by the police, other seminars were opened in cooperation between Oxford dons and Czech dissidents. Let me quote the visits in 1980, from Oxford or mediated by Oxford, as recorded by Barbara Day: “January: Kathy Wilkes, February: Roger Scruton, March: W. H. Newton-Smith, April: Anthony Kenny, Pat Kerans, David Cooper, May: Kathy Wilkes, Roger Scruton, July: David Armstrong, Christopher Kirwan, Roger Scruton, Tom Nagel and Anne Hollander, August: Kathy Wilkes, Alan Montefiore, Catherine Audard, October: Roger Scruton (LH), Kathy Wilkes (LH).” (LH stands for ‘the seminar of Dr Ladislav Hejdánek‘.)

Let me add the next year, when I was safely out of the way, having arrived at Oxford with my wife, my two sons, accompanied by Kathy Wilkes, in the car she rented: 1981 January: Christopher Kirwan (LH), Roger Scruton (LH), February: John Procopé (LH), J.R.Lucas (LH), March: Jack Scorupski, Dan Dennett (LH), April: Roger Scruton (LH), Gwill Owen (LH), Heather Allen (proposed setting up of ELT seminar), June: Roger Scruton (LH), July: Richard Rorty (LH), September: Alan Montefiore & Catherine Audard (LH), Ralph Walker (PR), October: Dorothy Edgington (PR: Analytical Philosophy), November: Roger Scruton (LH).

PR stands for Petr Rezek; it needs explaining. Roger Scruton wrote in ‘A catacomb culture’ (TLS February 16-22 1990): ‘We won the confidence of a large network of people, none of whom knew the full extent of our operations … Hejdánek’s bravery was of inestimable benefit. So long as the authorities believed that our interest lay in Hejdánek’s eye-catching gatherings, they assigned to us a merely symbolic function. We appeared as a quixotic group of Western academics, making periodic protests on behalf of human rights, and choosing the eccentric means provided by Hejdánek through which to do so. Behind this cover we were able to set up a network of secret classes – not only in Bohemia, but also in Moravia and Slovakia. We began with philosophy, a field in which our original trustees were most expert, and in which we enjoyed the self-sacrificing co-operation of Peter Rezek – a night-watchman-cum-concierge, and the most open and learned of Czech philosophers.’

…

I told Kathy how my wife, Zdena, took Kenny and his wife for a walk around Prague in the afternoon; they came to our flat about half an hour before the beginning of the seminar. Kenny said that his lecture was going to be focussed on a passage from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and a passage from his Eudemian Ethics: ‘Would you translate these two passages to your students at the beginning of the seminar?’ I was relieved when I saw the Nicomachean passage (10^th book 1177a12-1177b6); although I had not read it for years, I underlined it sentence by sentence with red pencil, marked the whole passage with a double line on the side, and marked it with an exclamation mark. But I began to sweat when I saw the lengthy passage in the Eudemian Ethics (1248a12-1249b25). I said I must read the passage at least once, excused myself, and retired into the kitchen. I barely managed to read the text once when my wife summoned me to open the seminar.

The room was packed, Kenny was sitting in the chair – most students sat on the floor – I came to sit beside him. Kenny opened the proceedings by addressing me: ‘My talk will focus on two passages from Aristotle, one from the Nicomachean Ethics and one from his Eudemian Ethics. Would you translate these two passages for your students?’ I replied: ‘I will read the passages sentence by sentence in Greek, each time explaining what the sentence means in Czech.’ In the excerpt from Barbara Day’s book, quoted above, Kenny described this as follows: ‘We had more than an hour reading Aristotle together.’

…

I cannot remember what I was telling Kathy verbatim, but the following three paragraphs from ‘Pursuit of philosophy’ give the gist of it: ‘Kenny began with the Nicomachean passage. There, he argued, happiness consists in contemplative activity, and philosophy is the primary source of happiness. For the Eudemian Ethics, to which he then referred, happiness consists of an ideal functioning of every part of soul. Kenny argued that the Eudemian conception is critical of the Nicomachean conception. Let me quote from his book The Aristotelian Ethics (Oxford, 1978, p. 214): ‘A person who organized his life entirely with a view to the promotion of philosophical speculation would be not wise but cunning, not phronimos but panourgos. The type of person whom many regard as the hero of the Nicomachean Ethics turns out, by the standards of the Eudemian Ethics, to be a vicious and ignoble character.’

After I finished reading the two passages in the original and putting them into Czech, I opened the discussion by directly opposing Kenny: ‘In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle considers the life in philosophy to be the source of happiness because the activity of intellect is the highest one. Why should I see it as opposed to the Eudemian passage? May not Aristotle be pointing in the direction of the theory fully developed in the tenth book of the Nicomachean Ethics when he says in our Eudemian passage that the end is the best as being the guiding and governing principle (to archon), since it is the best and ultimate, for the sake of which one must live (dei dȇ pros to archon zȇn, 1249 b 6-7)’? In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle puts forward reasons why philosophy is the accomplished source of good life; he points to its being most continuous and independent of external circumstances. Even if deprived of exchanging ideas with his colleagues (sunergoi) he may continue to do philosophy. This is especially important for us in Prague who may face imprisonment any day. It further reminds me of Socrates. In the Apology he says: ‘as long as I live and as long as I am able I will not stop doing philosophy.’ (29d)

Kenny did not oppose the ‘Socratic’ interpretation of the Nicomachean passage. He questioned instead the philosophic credentials of Socrates. Wouldn’t I consider Plato a much better philosopher?

I could not accept that Plato was a better philosopher. Plato is full of Socrates: ‘You obviously draw a dividing line through Plato’s dialogues. What you view as being bellow that which you consider as philosophy, you identify it with Socrates. What you view as philosophy, that’s Plato. I do not draw any such dividing line through Plato’s dialogues.’

When I came to this point in my narrative, I said. ‘Kathy, you know that passage in Diogenes’ Life of Plato, in which it is said that according to tradition the Phaedrus is Plato’s first dialogue? In all my reading of Plato I never came across anything that I could view as standing against this ancient tradition.’

…

It was at this moment, in this rather hesitant way, that I expressed my adherence to this ancient tradition on the dating of the Phaedrus. This event has marked all my subsequent existence, such as my exclusion from academic circles. This is why it is in May that I intend to ask again for permission to present my views on Plato at Oxford University, and if stonewalled again, to protest again in front of Balliol.

…

Kathy exclaimed: ‘Julius, it can’t be.’ And so, I asked her to come to Prague for a month so that we could read the dialogue together. It was during that joint reading that I proposed the first positive argument for regarding the Phaedrus as Plato’s first dialogue. Socrates ends his Palinode with a prayer to Eros, the God of Love, towards the end of which he says: ‘turn Lysias to philosophy as his brother Polemarchus has been turned to it’. (256b) Plato must have written these lines before the Thirty imprisoned and executed Polemarchus.

…

It may be argued that the quoted line from Socrates’ prayer to Eros entitles me to view the Phaedrus as written prior to Polemarchus’ imprisonment and execution by the Thirty tyrants, but that nothing in it entitles me to view it as Plato’s first dialogue. But the Polemarchus passage throws light on the Palinode passage in which the Forms are introduced by Plato to his readers: ‘Of that place beyond the heavens none of our earthly poets has yet sung, and none shall sing worthily. But this is the manner of it, for assuredly we must be bold to speak what is true, above all when our discourse is upon truth. It is there that true Being dwells, without colour or shape, that cannot be touched; reason alone, the soul’s pilot, can behold it, and all true knowledge is knowledge thereof.’ (247c-d, translation R. Hackforth). In the light of the Polemarchus passage this introduction to the Forms is what it says it is: the first introduction to the Forms.

Let me add that the Phaedrus presents itself as Plato’s first dialogue. This is a point that transcends the framework of this post; it is one of the points I should like to discuss in the talk on Plato, which I am proposing.

One more protest at Balliol?

 

I began to write to the Cherwell Archive on my intention to take recourse to one more protest at Balliol, if my intended request for a lecture on Plato is to be stonewalled again. Unfortunately, as often, my computer has been interfered with as I was writing the piece. I am printing here the mutilated piece in the hope that the interference stops when I return to it:

"One more protest at Balliol?

The Cherwell Archive opens its issue on ‘Julius Tomin protests in Oxford’ as follows:

Cherwell learned of the visit after several of our staff received unsolicited invitations via email to an online lecture in lieu of one Tomin had been hoping to host in Balliol. He said in the email, addressed to Oxford students, “May I appeal to you: Would you raise your voice in support of my request?”

The Cherwell Archive closes it as follows:

Tomin’s connection with Oxford is complicated. In 1979, responding to an invitation from Tomin, several academics travelled to Prague (in solidarity with him) to lecture at Tomin’s unofficial seminars. These were repeatedly disrupted by the police, and some of the academics interrogated and expelled, though not injured. Tomin alleges that even at this early stage some of the visitors were keen to expose his ability to translate and read aloud in Greek, in an effort to discredit him.

The last sentence does not make sense as it stands, but it can be elucidated. The History of political thought published my article ‘Pursuit of philosophy’ in its Winter issue of 1984. In the article I wrote about the visit of Dr Anthony Kenny, the Master of Balliol in my unofficial philosophy seminar. Kenny chose to talk about the pursuit of happiness in Aristotle’s Nicomachean and Eudemian Ethics". 

...

As often, my computer is interfered with. This time it does not allow me to continue normally. Instead, it jumps. Perhaps it will get better tomorrow or later today. If not, I shall write it and send it to Cherwell in its mutilated form.