Hamartia: The Concept of Error in the Western Tradition : Essays in Honor of John M. Crossett (Texts and Studies in Religion ; V. 16) [1 ed.] 0889468052, 9780889468054

Citation preview

HA MA R T l A The Concept of Error in the Western Tradition

Essays in honor of John M. Crossett

Edited by

Donald V. Stump James A. Arieti Lloyd Gerson Eleonore Stump

Texts and Studies in Religion Volume 16

The Edwin Mellen Press New York and Toronto

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Hamartia : the concept of error tradition

in the western

Includes index. 1. Error— Addresses, essays, lectures. 2. Crosset John M . — Addresses, essays, lectures. I. Stump, Donald V. , 1946. II. Crossett, John M. BD171.H28 1983 128'.4 83-13087 ISBN 0-88946-802-8

Texts and Studies

Copyright

©

in Religion

ISBN 0-88946-976-8

1983, Donald V. Stump

All rights reserved.

For more information contact:

The Edwin Mellen Press P.O. Box 450 Lewiston, New York 14092

Printed

in the United States of America

T o th e m em ory o f Jo h n M. C ro s s e tt

Ye sh a ll know th e t r u t h , and th e t r u t h sh a ll make you fre e . (Jo h n 8 :3 2 )

CONTENTS

PREFACE pa g e x i

ACKNOW LEDG M ENTS pa g e x v

James A . A r ie t i H IS T O R Y , H A M A R T !A , HERODOTUS pag e 1

N o rm an K re tz m a n n A B R A H A M , IS A A C , A N D E U TH Y P H R O : GOD A N D TH E B A S IS OF M O R A L IT Y pa g e 27

C a ro l L in d s a y A P H R O D IT E A N D TH E E Q U IV O C A L AR G U M ENT HAM A R T ! A IN TH E H IP P O L Y T U S pag e 51

J a n e t E . S m ith TH E H A M A R T IA OF M IS O LO C IA pag e 73

H ip p o c ra te s C . A p o s tle AN A R IS T O T E L IA N ESSAY ON ERROR pag e 97

L lo y d C e rso n IS A T A H A M A R T E M A T A : TH E S T O IC D O C T R IN E " A L L ERRORS AR E E Q U A L" pag e 119

E le o n o re S tu m p H A M A R T IA IN C H R IS T IA N B E L IE F : B O E T H IU S ON TH E T R IN IT Y pa g e 131

S te v e n B a ld n e r TH E USE OF S C R IP T U R E FOR TH E R E F U T A T IO N OF ERROR AC C O R D IN G T O S T . TH O M AS A Q U IN A S pag e 199

C a ro ly n n V a n D y k e T H E ERRORS OF GOOD MEN: H A M A R T IA IN TWO M ID D LE EN G LIS H POEMS pag e 171

S . P . Z itn e r H A M L E T A N D H A M A R T IA pag e 193

D o n a ld V . S tu m p GREEK A N D S H AK ESP EA R EA N T R A G E D Y : FOUR IN D IR E C T ROUTES FROM A T H E N S T O LONDON pag e 211

James S . C u ts in g e r ERROR IN C O LE R ID G E pa g e 297

E liz a b e th H o ltze A R IS T O T L E A N D GEORGE E L IO T : HAM A R T ! A IN A D AM BEDE pag e 267

JOHN M. C R O S S E T T : pag e 281

EULOGY pag e 289

IN D E X pag e 293

A MEMOIR

PREFACE

T h e e d ito rs o f th is b oo k o r ig in a lly c o n c e iv e d th e idea o f a f e s t s c h r if t f o r Jo h n C ro s s e tt a f te r re m in is c in g one e v e n in g a b o u t how m uch he had g iv e n to u s , h is fo rm e r s tu d e n ts , a n d how l it t le we had re p a id him . A t t h a t tim e , we hoped to be a b le to ha n d him a c o p y o f th is b oo k on his s ix tie th b ir t h d a y a n d , b y t h a t to k e n o f o u r a ffe c tio n a nd a d m ira tio n , to m ake him some sm all r e tu r n f o r th e e nd le ss e f f o r t he la v ­ is h e d on u s , b o th d u r in g and a f te r th e tim e we w e re his p e r v e r s e a nd o b s tre p e ro u s s tu d e n ts . We w e re to o slo w ; he is now d e a d . In s te a d o f b e in g a g i f t f o r h im , th is vo lu m e has become a m em orial to him . It is , h o w e v e r, n o t h is o n ly n o r his b e s t m em o rial. A ll o f us w h o w e re in flu e n c e d b y his p e c u lia r c o m b in a tio n o f se lfle s s d e d ic a tio n to t r u t h a nd w a rm c a re f o r o th e rs a re his t r u e m e m o rial. In th e b e s t o f o u r w o rk a nd c h a r a c te r , h is s p i r i t liv e s o n . In p la n n in g th e b o o k , we d e c id e d to look f o r a u n ify in g them e t h a t w o u ld h o n o r C ro s s e tt a nd also e lic it f r u i t f u l new s tu d ie s fro m h is fo rm e r s tu d e n ts and co lle a g u e s . T h e c la s ­ s ica l c o n c e p t o f h a m a rtia seemed an ideal ch o ice f o r b o th p u rp o s e s . C ro s s e tt had w o rk e d o u t an e x t r a o r d in a r ily u s e fu l d e fin itio n o f h a m a rtia as d o u b le -m in d e d n e s s (a d e fin itio n e x p la in e d a t le n g th b y James A . A r ie t i in th e f i r s t essay o f th e v o lu m e ). W ith th is id e a , C ro s s e tt had h e lp e d to e lu c i­ d a te th e g e n re o f tr a g e d y as i t was p r a c tic e d in a v a r ie ty o f c u ltu r a l s e ttin g s . A t th e tim e o f his d e a th , he had n e a rly co m p le te d his s h a re o f th e c o m m e n ta ry a nd tr a n s la tio n f o r a new e d itio n o f A r is to t le 's P o e tic s , w h ic h he was p r e p a rin g jo in t ly w ith H ip p o c ra te s G . A p o s tle . He had also w r itte n e x te n s iv e re s e a rc h notes and essays on th e fu n c tio n o f h a m a rtia in th e w o rk o f d ra m a tis ts as d iv e r s e as S o p h o cle s, S h a k e s p e a re , and A n o u ilh , and he had exam ined th e n o tio n o f tr a g e d y e v id e n t in th e n o n -d ra m a tic w o rk s o f poets such as G e o ffre y C h a u c e r and E dm und S p e n s e r. He had also e x te n d e d his re s e a rc h on th e te rm to in c lu d e its ro le in e th ­ ical and th e o lo g ic a l c o n te x ts . In p a r t ic u la r , he had c a r rie d

o u t e x te n s iv e p h ilo lo g ic a l and th e o lo g ic a l s tu d ie s o f th e New T e s ta m e n t in o r d e r to tra c e th e s h if t in m eaning fro m " e r r o r " in o ld e r G re e k w r itin g s to " s in " in C h ris tia n d o c u m e n ts . U n fo r tu n a te ly , m ost o f C r o s s e tt’s re s e a rc h on h a m a rtia s u r v iv e s o n ly in ro u g h d r a f t a nd w ill n e v e r see p r in t . T h e re fo r e , it seems all th e m ore a p p r o p r ia te f o r us to e x te n d th e in v e s tig a tio n h e re , k n o w in g t h a t no o th e r to p ic c o u ld have pleased him m ore. A s we d is c o v e re d w h e n we f i r s t s e n t o u t le tte r s o f in q u ir y to p o te n tia l c o n t r ib u to r s , th e c o n ­ c e p t is also g erm ane to th e s c h o la rs h ip o f m any o f h is c o l­ leagues a nd fo rm e r s tu d e n ts . L ik e lo g o s a nd e ro s , h a m a rtia has had a p ro fo u n d a nd p e rv a s iv e in flu e n c e on W estern c u l­ tu re . I t has p la y e d a p a r t in areas as d iv e r s e as G re e k h is to r y and R enaissance d ra m a , H e lle n is tic th e o lo g y a nd V ic ­ to ria n f ic t io n . Because o f its s ig n ific a n c e in G re e k p h ilo s ­ o p h y and lit e r a r y c r itic is m , th e te rm has been m ost in flu e n ­ tia l in th o s e s u b s e q u e n t ages w h ic h s e lf- c o n s c io u s ly r e tu r n e d to th e s ta n d a rd s o f a n t iq u it y , m ost n o ta b ly th e R e naissance and th e e ig h te e n th c e n t u r y . B u t even in th e M id d le A g e s , w hen th e G re e k c la ssics w e re l it t l e k n o w n , a nd in th e n in e ­ te e n th c e n t u r y , w hen m any w r ite r s w e re t u r n in g aw ay fro m th e n e o -c la s s ic is m o f th e p re c e e d in g c e n t u r y , th e n o tio n o f h a m a rtia o fte n p ro v e s u s e fu l in in t e r p r e t in g w o rk s o f p h ilo s ­ o p h y and lit e r a tu r e . N e a rly h a lf th e essays in th is vo lu m e d is c u s s h a m a rtia in c o n n e c tio n w ith G re e k a n t iq u it y . James A . A r ie t i in v e s t i­ gates its im p o rta n c e as th e p r im a r y u n if y in g them e in th e w o rk o f th e G re e k h is to ria n H e ro d o tu s . Norm an K re tz m a n n c o n s id e rs th e te rm in its New T e s ta m e n t d e fin itio n and exam ­ ines th e o ld p ro b le m c o g e n tly posed b y P lato in th e E u th y p h r o : Does God d is a p p ro v e o f a t h in g because it is b a d , o r is a th in g bad because because God d is a p p ro v e s o f it? C a rol L in d s a y and J a n e t S m ith b o th in v e s tig a te h a m a rtia as a th r e a t to ra tio n a l th o u g h t and d is c o u r s e - -a n a b ro g a tio n o f th e a ll- im p o r ta n t G re e k com m itm ent to lo g o s . L in d s a y in te r p r e ts E u rip id e s 's H ip p o ly tu s as a p la y a b o u t e r r o r s o f th e to n g u e , and S m ith d is c u s s e s th e im p o rta n c e o f th e idea o f t r a g ic m iso lo g ia in th e d ia lo g u e s o f P la to , p a r t ic u la r ly in th e P h aedo . H ip p o c ra te s G . A p o s tle b r in g s to g e th e r in one essay a v a r ie ty o f A r is to te lia n d is tin c tio n s b etw e en th e v a r ­ ious fo rm s o f e r r o r , and L lo y d G erso n d is c u s s e s th e O ld S to ic p a ra d o x " A ll e r r o r s a re e q u a l," p o in tin g o u t th e p s y ­ c h o lo g ic a l and e th ic a l a ssu m p tio n s t h a t u n d e r lie i t a n d m ake i t alien to th e p h ilo s o p h y o f Plato a nd th e M id d le S toa.

P re fa ce

T h e n e x t tw o essays in th e b oo k c o n s id e r th e c o n c e p t o f e r r o r in m edieval th e o lo g y . E leon ore S tu m p 's a r tic le d is ­ cusses B o e th iu s ’ s a tte m p t to p r o v id e a s in g le -m in d e d ly lo g ica l e x p la n a tio n o f th e C h r is tia n d o c tr in e o f th e T r i n i t y . She a rg u e s t h a t B o e th iu s fa ils , and t h a t th e d o c tr in e re q u ire s o f th e hum an m ind an in e v ita b le and u ltim a te ly b e n e fic ia l fo rm o f h a m a rtia --a d o u b le -m in d e d n e s s t h a t re v e a ls r a th e r th a n o b s c u re s t r u t h . S te ve n B a ld n e r exam ines A q u in a s 's s o lu tio n to a d i f f i c u l t e p is te m o lo g ic a l p ro b le m : how m ay a th e o lo g ia n a rg u e fro m th e re v e a le d t r u t h o f S c r ip tu r e in o r d e r to r e fu te th e e r r o r s o f th o s e w h o may n o t a c c e p t k e y a r tic le s o f th e C h r is tia n fa ith ? T h e fin a l g r o u p o f essays in th e b oo k e x p lo re s th e c o n ­ c e p t o f e r r o r in E n g lis h lit e r a tu r e fro m th e fo u r te e n th to th e n in e te e n th c e n tu r ie s . James S. C u ts in g e r exam ines th e r a d ­ ical s h if t in th e n o tio n s o f t r u t h and e r r o r t h a t accom pany th e a d v e n t o f R o m a n ticism , p a r t ic u la r ly in th e w o rk s o f C o l­ e r id g e . T h e o th e r f o u r essays a ll e x p lo re th e a p p lic a b ility o f A r is to t le 's th e o r y o f tr a g e d y to th e w o rk o f E n g lis h a u th o r s . C a ro ly n n V an D y k e a rg u e s t h a t , even th o u g h m edieval C h r is tia n n o tio n s o f e r r o r a re based on d iff e r e n t e th ic a l a s s u m p tio n s fro m th o s e o f th e a n c ie n t G re e k s , A r i s ­ to tle 's th e o r y o f tr a g e d y is u n iv e rs a l and may be a d a p te d to illu m in a te w o rk s such as C h a u c e r's T r o ilu s a n d C ris e y d e and th e ano nym ous poem S ir C aw ain a n d th e G ree n K n ig h t. S. P. Z itn e r and D onald V . S tum p b o th exam ine th e p ro b le m o f a p p ly in g A r is to t le to S h a ke sp e a re . Z itn e r a rg u e s th a t A r is to te lia n c r itic is m was "in th e a ir " in E liz a b e th a n E n g la n d and th a t each o f S h a k e s p e a re 's m ajo r tra g e d ie s in v o lv e s a h a m a rtia . Z itn e r th e n p ro v id e s a re a d in g o f H am let exam ­ in in g th e im p o rta n c e o f e r r o r in th e d e s ig n o f th e p la y . S tum p seeks to s u p p ly w h a t s c h o la rs have lo n g been u n a b le to p r o v id e : a s e t o f in te rm e d ia rie s fro m whom S h a ke sp e a re c o u ld ha ve le a rn e d th e s t r u c t u r e o f th e a n c ie n t G re e k h a m a r tia - p \a y . F in a lly , E liza b e th H o ltze d is c u s s e s G eorge E lio t's a d a p ta tio n o f A r is to tle 's th e o r y to th e dem ands o f th e n o v e l, p o in tin g o u t th e in flu e n c e o f G re e k tr a g e d y upon v a r ­ ious p lo t- lin e s in A dam B e de. A ll th e essays in th e volum e a re , in one w a y o r a n o th e r, in d e b te d to Jo h n C ro s s e tt's o r ig in a l re s e a rc h on th e c o n c e p t o f h a m a rtia , and th e ra n g e o f s u b je c ts t h a t th e y r e p r e s e n t s u g g e s ts s o m e th in g a b o u t th e g r e a t b re a d th o f his ow n in te re s ts and th e ric h n e s s o f h is le a r n in g . I f th e book

has s h o rtc o m in g s , th e y s h o u ld be fa c t th a t he d ie d b e fo re he kn e w liv e d to see th e m a n u s c rip t b e fo re u n d o u b te d ly have made a b e t t e r been o u r s te rn e s t c r it ic .

a t tr ib u t e d o n ly to th e sad o f its e x is te n c e . Had he its p u b lic a tio n , we w o u ld b o o k , f o r he w o u ld have

ACKNOW LEDG M ENTS

In b r in g in g to g e th e r th e s e essays in h o n o r o f John C ro s s e tt, th e e d ito rs have e n jo y e d th e a s s is ta n c e o f a n u m b e r o f g o o d -h e a rte d p eo ple and b e n e v o le n t in s tit u tio n s . F ir s t th a n k s m u st go to o u r k e y b o a rd o p e r a to r , Rebecca C o x, w h ose p a tie n c e and in d u s t r y n e v e r fa ile d , even w hen th e s o ftw a re in th e c o m p u te r and th e f o r e s ig h t o f th e e d ito rs d id . A sp e cia l a c k n o w le d g m e n t s h o u ld also be g iv e n to W il­ liam D u g g in s and Rosie H ig d o n f o r e n a b lin g us to ru n a f u ll ra n g e o f fo re ig n a cce n ts on a syste m t h a t had n e v e r b e fo re p r in te d so m uch as a c irc u m fle x . F in a lly , we a re g r a te fu l to th e P h ilo s o p h y D e p a rtm e n t a t S t. M ich a e l's C ollege o f th e U n iv e r s ity o f T o r o n to and to th e E n g lis h D e p a rtm e n t o f V i r ­ g in ia P o ly te c h n ic I n s tit u te and S ta te U n iv e r s ity f o r u n d e r ­ ta k in g th e c o m p u te r co sts a sso ciated w ith th e p r o je c t.

James A . A r ie ti

H IS T O R Y , H A M A R T !A , HERODOTUS

T o some re a d e rs , H e ro d o tu s 's H is t o r y seems to be a c o lle c ­ tio n o f s to rie s h a v in g no in te g r a te d aim o r p u rp o s e . The s to rie s a p p e a r to th e m s tr u n g to g e th e r w ith a fo n d s t o r y t e ll­ e r 's lo v e . O r if H e ro d o tu s does have a c e n tra l them e o r p u rp o s e , it is d iffu s e and f r e q u e n t ly v io la t e d . 1 O th e rs m a in ­ ta in th a t H e ro d o tu s is c h ie fly c o n c e rn e d w ith c a u s a lity , w ith th e a t tr ib u t io n o f r e s p o n s ib ility , w ith th e d is c o v e r y o f a itia e , b u t th e y e ith e r do n o t s ta te o r do n o t see th e u n d e r ly in g u n it y to th e a itia e o f h is h is to r y ; so w h ile th e s e re a d e rs and s c h o la rs o f H e ro d o tu s a re to be p ra is e d f o r t h e i r in s ig h t in to H e ro d o tu s ' q u e s t f o r a itia e , th e y a re to be blam ed f o r seeing p lu r a lit y w h e re th e y s h o u ld f in d u n it y and chaos w h e re th e y s h o u ld f in d o r d e r . 2 I sh a ll exam ine h a m a rtia in H e ro d o tu s , n o t because it its e lf is th e u n ifie d a itia w h ic h we a re s e e k in g , b u t because b y e x a m in in g h a m a rtia we can d is c o v e r a g lim p s e o f th e u n d e r ly in g a itia o f H e rod otean h is t o r y , and p e rh a p s o f h is to r y in g e n e ra l. I t w ill be u s e fu l f i r s t to in v e s tig a te th e n a tu re o f h a m a rtia . T h o u g h th is to p ic is d e a lt w ith b y o th e rs in th is vo lu m e , a fe w w o rd s may help o u r a rg u m e n t h e re . P ro fe s s o r C ro s s e tt's own c o n tr ib u tio n to o u r u n d e rs ta n d in g o f h a m a rtia is e s s e n tia l to m y re m a rk s . A r is to t le d e fin e s h a m a rtia in his R h e to ric (1 3 7 4 b 1 -1 0 ), w h e re he d is tin g u is h e s it fro m m is fo rtu n e s a nd w ro n g a c tio n s . A m is fo rtu n e ( a tu c h e m a ) is u n e x p e c te d a nd is n o t v ic io u s ( th a t is , it o c c u rs as a s u r p r is e b u t does n o t a ris e fro m v ic e ) ; a m is ta k e ( h a m a rte m a ) is e x p e c te d a n d is n o t v ic io u s ( th a t is , it is n o t a s u r p r is e , f o r men a re w o n t to com m it e r r o r s , b u t it does n o t a ris e fro m v ic e ) ; a w ro n g a c tio n ( a d ik e m a ) is b o th e x p e c te d and v ic io u s ( th a t is , i t is n o t a s u r p r is e and does a ris e fro m v ic e ) . W hile A r is to t le 's com m ents do n o t fo rm a d e f in it io n - - f o r th o u g h th e y d iff e r e n t ia te h a m a rtia fro m m is fo rtu n e and w ro n g a c tio n s , th e y do n o t p lace h a m a rtia in to a g e n u s and s p e c ie s - - t h e y a re n e v e rth e le s s v e r y u s e fu l. T h e c o n fu s io n o f m is fo r tu n e w ith m is ta k e is v e r y r a re . I f , f o r e xa m p le , a b r ic k fa lls fro m a b u ild in g and in ju re s someone w a lk in g

b e lo w , we do n o t say th e p e rs o n made a m is ta k e ; r a th e r we w o u ld s a y t h a t he s u ffe re d a m is f o r t u n e . 3 B u t t h e r e is an easy c o n fu s io n betw e en a m is ta k e a nd a w ro n g a c tio n . T h u s , we o fte n spe a k o f someone as h a v in g made m is ta k e s in his y o u th , w hen in fa c t th e a c tio n s he p e rfo rm e d w e re v ic io u s and v o lu n t a r y . W hat w e re p e rfo rm e d in h is y o u th w e re w ro n g a c tio n s , n o t m is ta k e s . T h is d is tin c tio n is v e r y im p o rta n t. We m u s t now exam ine th e s o r t o f th in g s a b o u t w h ic h one can m ake a m is ta k e . I f a s tu d e n t is aske d w ho th e 6 3 rd pope w a s, if th a t s tu d e n t has n e v e r s tu d ie d th e p a p a c y and has n e v e r le a rn e d a b o u t th e 6 3 rd p o p e , he c a n n o t m ake a m ista ke a b o u t th e 6 3 rd po p e . S im ila r ly , if one is a s k e d th e n u m b e r o f auto m o b ile s in U p p e r V o lta , b u t t h a t p o o r fe llo w has n e v e r h e a rd o f U p p e r V o lta , w h ile he m ay g u e s s a t th e a n s w e r, and he m ig h t be w r o n g , we w o u ld n o t s a y t h a t he has made a m is ta k e . T o m ake a m is ta k e , one m u s t have k n o w le d g e a b o u t th e m a tte r in q u ir e d a b o u t. T h u s , a s tu d e n t o f A m e rica n H is to r y w ho has been a s k e d th e name o f th e f i r s t p r e s id e n t m ig h t c o n c e iv a b ly a n s w e r - - b y m is ta k e --J o h n A dam s. B u t in o r d e r f o r him to m ake th is m is ta k e , he m u s t a lre a d y know t h a t G e o rg e W a s h in g to n was th e f i r s t p r e s i­ d e n t. In s h o r t, i t is im p o s s ib le to m ake a m is ta k e a b o u t so m e th in g c o n c e rn in g w h ic h one has no k n o w le d g e . O ne can e r r o n ly if he has p r io r k n o w le d g e . P la to , in th e T h e a e ­ te tu s , an a p o re tic d ia lo g u e , a d m its so m u c h , even th o u g h he n e v e r does w o rk o u t th e n a tu re o f h a m a r tia . u D. W. Lucas says in his e d itio n o f th e P o e tic s , "T h e essence o f h a m a rtia is ig n o ra n c e co m b in e d w ith th e abse nce o f w ic k e d in te n t. M ere la c k o f k n o w le d g e is a g n o ia ; h a m a rtia is th e la c k o f kn o w le d g e w h ic h is needed if r ig h t d e c is io n s a re to be t a k e n . " 5 Lucas h e re fa ils to m ake an im p o rta n t d is tin c t io n . He seems to a c c e p t th e P la to n ic idea t h a t to know th e r ig h t is to do th e r ig h t and t h a t no one e r r s wi 11i n g l y - - t h a t if one e r r s , he is ig n o r a n t o f w h a t he s h o u ld do. T h is is to s a y , o f c o u rs e , t h a t a h a m a rtia is in v o lu n t a r y . Now A r is to t le , whom Lucas is in t e r p r e t in g , has a lre a d y said t h a t a h a m a rtia is to be e x p e c te d (m e p a ra io g e ) , a n d , as we have show n e a r lie r , a m is ta k e has its essence in k n o w le d g e , n o t ig n o ra n c e . W ith k n o w le d g e comes r e s p o n s ib ilit y . T h e m ost f r e q u e n t ly c ite d e xa m p le o f e r r o r in G re e k l i t ­ e r a tu r e , p o s s ib ly because A r is to t le h im s e lf g iv e s i t ( th o u g h w ith o u t e x p la n a tio n ) , is O e d ip u s . B u t w h a t O e d ip u s ’ s e r r o r

was is th e s u b je c t o f m uch d is p u te . Some t h in k h is e r r o r is in n o t k n o w in g w h o h is p a re n ts w e re a nd in t h in k in g his C o rin th ia n g u a rd ia n s to be h is t r u e p a re n ts .® A n d y e t how is th is m is ta k e a h a m a rtia ? O e d ip u s m ay be w r o n g , as -he m ost c e r ta in ly is , b u t , as we o b s e rv e d , th e r e is a d is tin c tio n b etw e en b e in g w ro n g and m a kin g a m is ta k e . T h o se w ho b e lie v e d , b e fo re C o p e rn ic u s , th e e a rth to be th e c e n te r o f th e u n iv e rs e and th e sun to ro ta te a ro u n d th e e a rth w e re s u r e ly w r o n g , b u t th e y w e re n o t m is ta k e n . F o r th e y w e re in ig n o ra n c e , a n d , as we ha ve s h o w n , one m u s t possess kn o w le d g e to m ake a m is ta k e . I t is im p o ssib le to e r r a b o u t w h a t one ‘ does n o t k n o w , th o u g h it is p o s s ib le to be w ro n g a bo ut it. We c a n n o t m iss a m a rk un le ss we know w h e re th e m a rk is . I f a s c ie n tis t fo rm u la te s a th e o r y a b o u t b io lo g y , he may be w r o n g , f o r he m ig h t ha ve th e w ro n g e v id e n c e . But he w ill o n ly be m ista ke n w hen he has m is in te rp re te d th e d a ta . N ow , to b e lie v e y o u know s o m e th in g w hen y o u do n o t kn o w s o m e th in g is to be w ro n g , b u t it is n o t th e same as to m ake a m is ta k e . T o make a m is ta k e yo u m u st be w ro n g a b o u t s o m e th in g w h ic h yo u do k n o w . One d i f f i c u lt y in e x p la in in g th is is th e d e fic ie n c y o f th e v o c a b u la ry . P e rhaps th e fo llo w in g c h a r t w ill h e lp : exam ple

name

k n o w in g and b e in g r ig h t

4 + 4 = 8

c o rre c tn e s s

k n o w in g and b e in g w ro n g

4 + 4 = 9

m is ta k e (1 )

c o n d itio n

n o t k n o w in g and b e in g w ro n g

b e lie v in g a n d b e in g w ro n g

V o lta C ity is th e c a p ita l o f U p p e r V o lta

w ro n g guess

2s = 64

m is ta k e (2 )

T h e re a re s e v e ra l w a ys o f b e in g w r o n g , b u t i f we a d m it th e v a lid it y o f th e d is tin c t io n s , we o u g h t to a s sig n d if f e r e n t names to th e m . A gu e ss w hen one know s he is ig n o r a n t is v a s t ly d if f e r e n t fro m a m is ta k e , w h e re one know s th e t r u t h . S im ila r ly , i f one has o n ly a b e lie f a b o u t a m a tte r, his c o n d i­ tio n w h en he m akes a w ro n g s ta te m e n t is d if f e r e n t fro m th a t o f one w h o kno w s w h a t is th e case. F o r exa m p le , if one

know s th a t th e su n is s h in in g b u t says i t is r a in in g , i f he is s e rio u s , he is a b it d a ft. B u t i f one m e re ly b e lie v e s t h a t it is r a in in g , s a y , because i t was r a in in g w h e n he e n te re d th e b u ild in g , and says i t is r a in in g even th o u g h th e su n has b e g u n to s h in e , we sa y m e re ly t h a t he is w r o n g . 7 O e d ip u s was f r e q u e n t ly w r o n g , b u t he was n o t a lw a ys m is ta k e n . W hat was his m ista ke ? P ro fe s s o r C ro s s e tt used to a rg u e th a t O e d ip u s 's m is ta k e was s im u lta n e o u s ly to b e lie v e and to d is b e lie v e th e D e lp h ic O ra c le . T h e O ra c le to ld O e d ip u s th a t he w o u ld m u rd e r h is f a th e r a nd m a rr y his m o th e r. B e lie v in g th e O ra c le , he ra n fro m C o r in t h . B u t if he re a lly b e lie v e d th e O ra c le , w h y s h o u ld he ha ve ru n ? He m u s t have b e lie v e d t h a t th e o ra c le c o u ld be a v e r te d . B u t if he b e lie v e d th e o ra c le c o u ld be a v e r te d , he d id n o t b e lie v e th e O ra c le . He b o th b e lie v e d and d is b e lie v e d th e O ra c le s im u lta n e o u s ly : h e re la y h is m is ta k e . M is ta k e s , C ro s s e tt has a rg u e d , a re a ll o f t h is n a tu r e . T h e y c o n s is t e ith e r o f a s im u lta n e o u s b e lie v in g a n d d is b e ­ lie v in g o r o f a s im u lta n e o u s k n o w in g and n o t k n o w in g . B e lie v in g and d is b e lie v in g is a species o f k n o w in g a nd n o t k n o w in g , f o r one w h o b e lie v e s in c o n tr a d ic to r ie s k n o w s t h a t he c a n n o t be r ig h t b y b e lie v in g in b o th . When we add tw o fig u r e s and g iv e 9 as th e sum o f 5 a nd 6 in s te a d o f 11, we b o th know and do n o t know th e a n s w e r. I f we w e re w r it in g 9 and someone in te r r u p t e d us to a sk w h a t w e w e re d o in g , we w o u ld have to say we w e re m a k in g a m is ta k e , t h a t o f c o u rs e we knew 5 and 6 to be 11. O ne c a n n o t use as an e x c u s e th a t one fo r g o t f o r th e m om ent o r t h a t one d id n o t have th e kn o w le d g e o f th e t r u e a n s w e r. T h e a c tio n was a h a m a rtia , a m is ta k e . W ith o u t k n o w le d g e , th e m is ta k e w o u ld n o t have been p o s s ib le . I f a c h ild w h o had n o t y e t le a rn e d his n u m ­ b e rs im ita te d th e p e rs o n m a k in g th e e r r o r , th o u g h th e c h ild co p ie d s o m e th in g fa ls e , we w o u ld n o t say t h a t th e c h ild also made a m is ta k e : f o r to make a m is ta k e , one m u s t have kn o w le d g e . T h u s , th e p e rs o n w h o adds 5 and 6 know s th e sum to be 11; y e t a t th e in s ta n t w hen he w r ite s " 9 " he does n o t kn o w . O r p e rh a p s we s h o u ld sa y t h a t he kno w s in one s e n s e --n a m e ly , he c a n , if he p a ys a tte n tio n , re c a ll th e c o r ­ re c t s u m --a n d he does n o t know in a d if f e r e n t s e n s e - - fo r how can he k n o w i f he w r ite s th e w ro n g sum? Now, w h a t does it mean b o th to b e lie v e and d is b e lie v e o r to know a nd n o t kn o w th e same t h in g s im u lta n e o u s ly ? A c c o rd in g to th e law o f n o n c o n tra d ic tio n , i t is im p o s s ib le f o r s o m e th in g to be b o th t r u e and u n tr u e s im u lta n e o u s ly . To

b e lie v e a n d d is b e lie v e , to kn o w a n d n o t k n o w , is to v io la te lo g ic a nd to be ir r a t io n a l. T h e h e a rt and s o u l, th e r e fo r e , o f a m is ta k e is ir r a t io n a lit y . I f th e ir r a t io n a lit y is p ro lo n g e d o v e r a s tr e tc h o f tim e , we say th e one m a k in g th e m is ta k e is mad o r in s a n e . H e nce, one w h o t h in k s h im s e lf N apoleon o r J e su s b e lie v e s and s im u lta n e o u s ly d is b e lie v e s th a t he is N apoleon o r J e s u s , f o r to know a b o u t th e w h o le life o f one o f th e s e people is to know th a t one is an e n t it y s e p a ra te fro m th e m . T o b e lie v e t h a t one is s e p a ra te and n o t s e p a ra te is ir r a t io n a l. 8 T h e re a re a n u m b e r o f im p o rta n t im p lic a tio n s in c o n s id ­ e r in g ir r a t io n a lit y to be th e s o u rc e o f m is ta k e s . F ir s t , it s u g g e s ts th a t th e u n iv e rs e is a place o f o r d e r , w h e re no p ro p o s itio n o r fa c t c o n tr a d ic ts a n y o th e r p ro p o s itio n o r fa c t. I t s u g g e s ts t h a t ir r a t io n a lit y w o rk s a g a in s t th e o r d e r . But it also s u g g e s ts , n o t o n ly t h a t ir r a t io n a lit y e x is ts , b u t th a t it e x is ts o n ly in m an. F o r o n ly m an, th e lone anim al capa ble o f m a kin g ju d g m e n ts , is ca p a b le o f k n o w le d g e . S ince k n o w l­ ed g e is a p r e r e q u is ite f o r m is ta k e s , man is th e o n ly anim al ca p a b le o f m a kin g m is ta k e s . O f c o u rs e , n o t all m ista ke s are o f th e same m a g n itu d e . In a d d in g fig u r e s in c o r r e c tly , th e ir r a t io n a lit y in v o lv e d - - t h e in s a n ity , if yo u w iII — is te m p o ra ry . B u t if one w ho know s th e sum o f 5 and 6 c o n s is te n tly and w ith o u t la rc e n o u s m o tiv e w r ite s th e w ro n g sum , we can ju s t l y q u e s tio n his s a n ity . W hat w o u ld it mean if th e w o rld w e re a p lace o n ly o f r a tio n a lity ? W ould i t n o t mean t h a t th e b e h a v io r o f men w o u ld be p re d ic ta b le ? F o r i f men a re g iv e n t r u e pre m ise s and i f th e y fo llo w lo g ic w ith p e r fe c t r a tio n a lity , th e y w ill re a ch t r u e c o n c lu s io n s , and in a n y g iv e n s itu a tio n , s h o u ld th e y n o t be a b le to m ake th e p r o p e r ju d g m e n t? A P la to n is t w o u ld a d m it as m uch b u t w o u ld a r g u e , no d o u b t, t h a t th e y c o u ld make a p r o p e r ju d g m e n t o n ly i f th e y had s u f fic ie n t kn o w le d g e a b o u t th e c irc u m s ta n c e s a nd c o n d itio n s s u r­ ro u n d in g th e q u e s tio n . B u t s in c e men a re m o rta l, he w o u ld c o n tin u e , th e y c a n n o t e v e r have com plete in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e c irc u m s ta n c e s a n d , th e r e fo r e , because o f ig n o ra n c e may come to th e w ro n g c o n c lu s io n . T h e P la to n is t w o u ld , o f c o u rs e , be r ig h t , f o r i f s u f fic ie n t k n o w le d g e is la c k in g , i t is im p o s s ib le to ju d g e c o r r e c t ly , even i f lo g ic is used p r o p e r ly , th o u g h we m ig h t g u e s s c o r r e c t l y - - b u t a g u e ss is n o t a j u d g ­ m e n t. So if men w e re t o ta lly r a tio n a l, w h ile ig n o ra n c e m ig h t r e s u lt in w ro n g g u e s s e s , th e r e w o u ld be no m is ta k e s .

I r r a t io n a lit y is a cause o f u n p r e d ic t a b ilit y . F o r w h e re m ista ke s a re m a d e --m is ta k e s in th e sense o f a s im u lta n e o u s b e lie v in g and d is b e lie v in g - - p r e d ic tio n is im p o s s ib le . O th e r cases o f ir r a t io n a lit y w o u ld also r e s u lt in u n p r e d ic t a b ilit y . F o r e xa m p le , i f someone k n o w in g ly a n d w illin g ly chose th e le s s e r r a th e r th a n th e g r e a te r g o o d , we c o u ld sa y w ith all fa irn e s s th a t he was b e h a v in g ir r a t io n a lly . I r r a t io n a li t y , b y its v e r y n a tu r e , is b o th th e cause o f u n p r e d ic t a b ilit y and is its e lf u n p re d ic ta b le . L e t us t u r n now to h is to r y . L e t us assum e f o r a moment t h a t , in s te a d o f w h a t has a c tu a lly been th e case, all men had a c te d c o r r e c tly on a ll occasions and t h a t no w ro n g d e c is io n s had e v e r been m ade, n e ith e r th o s e g e n e ra te d b y ig n o ra n c e n o r th o s e g e n e ra te d b y m is ta k e s o r o t h e r fo rm s o f ir r a t io n a lit y . T h e re w o uld be no ta le s o f v e n g e a n c e , o f b ro k e n tr e a tie s , o f g re e d y im p u ls iv e m en, o f h e ro ic b a ttle s , o f a n y th in g , in s h o r t , o f w h a t we s tu d y w h en we s tu d y h is ­ to ry . We o fte n h e a r th a t t h e v a lu e o f h is to r y is to te a ch th e m ista ke s o f th e p a s t in o r d e r th a t men a v o id m a k in g th e m a g a in . O f c o u rs e , since m ista ke s a re o n ly one fo rm o f w r o n g - d o in g , we sh o u ld p e rh a p s c o r r e c t t h a t s ta te m e n t to read " to te a ch th e v a rio u s fo rm s o f w r o n g - d o in g in o r d e r to a v o id them ag a in in th e f u t u r e . " W h e re , i f a ll a c tio n s had been c o r r e c t, w o u ld o u r h is t o r y be? W hat w o u ld p e rh a p s s u b s titu te f o r h is to r y w o u ld be lo n g lis ts o f r u le r s w hose a ctio n s w e re r ig h t , whose w o rd s w e re g o ld e n , w h ose c h a ra c ­ te rs w e re s t e r lin g . I f th is had been th e case, th e r e w o u ld have been no w a rs m o tiv a te d b y th e base p a s s io n s ; th e r e w o u ld have been no o p p o r tu n itie s f o r o v e rc o m in g e v il o r s p re a d in g h a vo c. In s h o r t, th e re w o u ld have been n o th in g th a t c o u ld n o t have been p r e d ic te d , w ith th e sole e x c e p tio n o f n a tu ra l d is a s te rs . ( A n d , o f c o u rs e , if th e r e had been p e r fe c t k n o w le d g e o f n a tu r e , even th e s e c o u ld ha ve been p r e d ic te d .) Thus, human ir r a t io n a lit y p ro v id e s h is to ric a l ch a n g e : i t ca u se s, among o t h e r t h in g s , w a rs , and w a rs , as P ro fe s s o r C ro s s e tt used to s a y , a re th e p r in c ip a l s o u rc e o f ch a n g e in th e human w o r l d . 9 E u sebius w ro te t h a t dogma has no h is to r y ; o n ly h e re s y has a h is to r y , f o r do g m a , a c c o rd in g to E u s e b iu s , is a lw a ys r ig h t , alw ays c o n s ta n t. O n ly h e re s y , fa ls e c h o ic e , can have a h i s t o r y . 10 T r u t h is e te r n a l, it s ta n d s o u ts id e tim e ; f a ls it y , h o w e v e r, is g lu e d to tim e , and th e a c c o u n t o f w ro n g d o in g a n d f a ls it y is h is t o r y .

I f a w ro n g a c tio n is p e rfo rm e d because o f ig n o ra n c e , th e r e s p o n s ib ility o f th e w ro n g d o e r is n o t so g r e a t as i f he had b e h a v e d ir r a t io n a lly . N o t to kn o w all th e fa c ts o f a n y se t o f c irc u m s ta n c e s is a c o n d itio n o f hum an e x is te n c e a nd o f th e f in it u d e o f hum an m in d s . P e rh a p s b e fo re a c tin g one s h o u ld do w h a t he can to kn o w e v e r y t h in g , b u t i t is , o f c o u rs e , an end im p o s s ib le to a c h ie v e . I f one has don e w h a t he c o u ld to le a rn th e fa c ts o f a case, he may be p a rd o n e d if th in g s do n o t t u r n o u t as he w is h e d - - if he has b e h a ve d r a tio n a lly and has made th e p r o p e r ju d g m e n ts g iv e n w h a t he kn e w . W hen, th o u g h , a w ro n g a c tio n a ris e s o u t o f i r r a t io n ­ a lit y , th e r e s p o n s ib ility f o r th e a c tio n is g r e a t. W hen, to ta k e a t r i v ia l e xa m p le , one sh o o ts a t a t a r g e t and m isses, if th e r e is no e x te r n a l cause f o r th e m is s --a lo u d n o ise , th e s u n , th e w in d , e t c . - - t h e r e s p o n s ib ility f o r th e m iss re s ts s q u a re ly on th e a g e n t. I f , as we h a v e , I ho p e , s h o w n , th e a g e n t in a m is ta k e has k n o w le d g e and w h a t c o n s titu te s th e m is ta k e is ir r a t io n a lit y , it is im p o s s ib le to place th e re s p o n ­ s ib ilit y e ls e w h e re th a n on th e a g e n t o f th e m is ta k e . When we come to a s s ig n r e s p o n s ib ility , i t is c le a r w h e re th e r e s p o n s ib ility l i e s . 11 H e ro d o tu s o f H a lic a rn a s s u s , th e F a th e r o f H is to r y , has made it his ta s k to a s sig n r e s p o n s ib ility . H is c o n c e rn is a lw a ys w ith a itia , w h ic h p o in ts to th e b e g in n in g o f a c h a in o f e v e n ts . F or it is a t th e b e g in n in g t h a t we can place r e s p o n s ib ility . H e ro d o tu s s ta te s h is c o n c e rn fo r t h is r e s p o n s ib ility in h is v e r y f i r s t s e n te n c e : T h is is th e p u b lic a tio n o f th e in q u ir y o f H e ro d o tu s o f H a lic a rn a s s u s , in o r d e r t h a t th e a c tio n s o f men may n o t be e ra s e d b y tim e , n o r th e g r e a t and w o n d e r fu l a c tio n s o f th e G re e k s and B a rb a ria n s be u n s u n g , and e s p e c ia lly on a c c o u n t o f w h a t a itia th e y w a rre d a g a in s t each o th e r . F o r H e ro d o tu s , ir r a t io n a lit y is th e m o v in g cause o f hum an h is t o r y . I t is th e b e g in n in g o f th e ch a in o f e v e n ts . T h e tw o g r e a te s t m a n ife s ta tio n s o f ir r a t io n a lit y a re m ista ke n in te r p r e ta tio n s o f omens o r o ra c le s and w r o n g fu l s e xu a l c o n ­ d u c t: b o th ha ve t h e i r o r ig in in ir r a t io n a lit y . T h e H is t o r y o f th e P e rs ia n W ars b e g in s its se a rch f o r a itia in a s e rie s o f ra p e s . F ir s t , H e ro d o tu s te lls u s , th e P h o e n icia n s la n d e d a t A rg o s and c a r rie d o f f a n u m b e r o f

w om en, in c lu d in g Ιο ( I , 1 ). L a te r , some G re e k s , p r o b a b ly C re ta n s , la n d e d a t T y r e a nd c a r r ie d o f f th e k in g 's d a u g h te r E u ro p a ( I , 2 ) . T h e n some G re e k s , in th e e x p e d itio n o f Jason and th e A r g o n a u ts , s a ile d to Aea a nd c a r r ie d o f f Medea ( I , 2 ) . In th e n e x t g e n e r a tio n , P a ris A le x a n d e r , th e son o f P riam , came to G reece a nd s to le H e le n , a nd th e T ro ja n W ar began ( I , 3 ) . 12 T h u s , a c c o rd in g to th e o ld ta le s , th e e n m ity betw een G re e ks and A s ia n s is v e r y a n c ie n t, g o in g b a c k alm o st to th e daw n o f h is t o r y . H e ro d o tu s s a y s , h o w e v e r, t h a t he c a n n o t v e r if y a n y o f th e s e ta le s , b u t he does k n o w th e A s ia n w h o f i r s t a tta c k e d th e G re e k s , and he was C ro e s u s , K in g o f L y d ia ( I , 5 ) , w h o la te r fe ll to th e a rm y o f C y ru s th e G re a t o f P e rs ia . S ince H e ro d o tu s is c o n c e rn e d w ith a itia e , he te lls us how C ro e s u s 's fa m ily a c q u ire d s o v e r e ig n ty ( I , 6 - 1 4 ) , f o r in t h a t a c q u is itio n b e g in s th e c h a in o f e v e n ts w h ic h e n d s in P e rs ia ’s d e fe a t in th e w a r w ith G ree ce. T h e fa m ily o f C ro e su s a c q u ire d th e th r o n e fro m th e H e ra c lid a e , d e s c e n d e n ts o f H e ra c le s . H e ro d o tu s is c a r e fu l to re c o rd th is d e ta il, f o r d e s c e n d e n c e fro m a h e ro o r g o d is a s u r e s ig n o f le g itim a c y , a nd th e H e ra c lid a e w e re a b s o lu te ly le g itim a te . C a n d a u le s , th e la s t o f th e H e ra c lid a e , lo s t th e c ro w n by ir r a tio n a l lu s t. H e ro d o tu s w r ite s o f him b e m u s e d ly , "N o w th is C a n d a u le s was in lo v e w ith his ow n w ife ! A n d lo v in g h e r he b e lie v e d h e r to be th e lo v e lie s t o f a ll wom en" ( I , 8 ) . C a ndau les d e s ire d to show h e r n a ke d to h is b o d y g u a rd G y g e s . F o r a lo n g tim e G yges r e fu s e d , s a y in g : S ir , w h a t an u n h e a lth y p ro p o s a l (lo g o s ') yo u m ake, u r g in g me to see my q ue en n a k e d . W ith h e r c lo th e s a woman p u ts o f f h e r m o d e s ty . W ise m axim s have been la id dow n b y men o f o ld ; fro m th e s e i t is o u r d u t y to le a rn : le t e v e r y man look to th in g s th a t c o n c e rn h im s e lf. I am p e rs u a d e d t h a t she is th e m ost b e a u tifu l o f h e r s e x , b u t I beg yo u n o t to r e q u ir e w h a t is w ic k e d . G y g e s 's speech is m a g n ific e n t in its b r e v it y a n d com ­ p le te n e s s . G yges f i r s t appeals to h is ow n p la ce in th e h ie r a r c h y - - t h e fa c t th a t C a n d a u le s 's w ife is his q u e e n - - f o r C a n ­ d a u le s s h o u ld rem em ber th e p r o p e r o r d e r o f t h in g s . He n e x t app eals to n a tu re ( p h y s is ) a nd e x p la in s t h a t a woman b y

n a tu r e shed s h e r m o d e s ty w ith h e r c lo th e s . He th e n appeals to c u s to m , to nom os, (a n d th u s c o v e rs h im s e lf on b o th sides o f th e n o m o s-p h y s is c o n tr o v e r s y , w h ic h w ill ra g e in H e ro d o ­ t u s 's tim e ) r e f e r r in g to m axim s h a n d e d dow n b y th e men, o f o ld . A n d f in a lly , he concedes t h a t th e Q ueen is th e most b e a u tifu l o f women so th a t th e r e is no need f o r him to see h e r naked. T h e a rg u m e n t is th o r o u g h and c o m p e llin g . If C a n d a u le s is ra tio n a l, he o u g h t e ith e r to r e fu te th e a rg u m e n t o r to abandon h is d em an d. B u t H e ro d o tu s c o n tin u e s : "T h e o th e r [C a n d a u le s ] r e p lie d : 'C h e e r u p , G y g e s , a nd d o n 't be a fr a id t h a t I'm te s tin g y o u . '" In o th e r w o rd s , C a ndau les n e i­ t h e r r e fu te s n o r even p a ys a tte n tio n to th e a rg u m e n ts . H e s io d , in th e W o rks a n d D a ys had w r it t e n : T h a t m an's c o m p le te ly b e s t w h o o f h im s e lf T h in k s o f all t h in g s , . . . a n d he is also good Who t r u s t s a good a d v is o r ; b u t th e man Who n e ith e r f o r h im s e lf can t h in k n o r , lis te n in g , T a ke s w h a t he h e a rs to h e a rt, th is man is use le ss.

(293-97) H e re we have such a m an, C a n d a u le s , w h o re je c ts w ith o u t reason a good a rg u m e n t. G yges obe ys his k in g ’ s b e h e s t. W hile fro m a s e c re t h id in g place b e h in d a d o o r he w a tch e s th e Q ueen u n d re s s , she sees him , b u t f o r th e m om ent rem ains calm a nd in no w a y re v e a ls h e r k n o w le d g e . L a te r she re q u ire s G yg e s to v i s it h e r in h e r ro y a l a p a rtm e n t. When he com es, she g iv e s him an u n h a p p y c h o ic e : e ith e r k ill h im s e lf im m e d ia te ly o r k ill th e K in g , h e r h u s b a n d C a n d a u le s , and become h e r h u s ­ b a n d and K in g o f L y d ia . He chooses th e la tt e r c o u rs e . W hen th e p eo ple p r o te s t th e a s s a s s in a tio n o f t h e ir k in g , it is a g re e d to le t th e D e lp h ic O ra c le d e te rm in e th e b e s t c o u rs e . I t d e cid e s in G y g e s 's f a v o r , b u t a dd s t h a t v e n g e a n c e f o r th e H e ra c lid a e w ill come in th e f i f t h g e n e ra tio n . C ro e s u s was th e f i f t h g e n e ra tio n . Now w h a t was G yg e s d o in g w hen he lo o ke d a t C a n d a u le s 's w ife ? A n d w h a t was g o in g th r o u g h C a n d a u le s 's m in d w hen he r e q u ir e d such o u tra g e o u s c o n d u c t fro m his lie u te n a n t? I t is c le a r t h a t G yges kn e w he was e n g a g in g in w r o n g fu l c o n d u c t, f o r we h a ve h is e lo q u e n t speech p r o ­ te s tin g C a n d a u le s 's w is h . Yet he w a tc h e d th e Q ueen

H ama r t i a

u n d r e s s . 13 D id G yges fe e l a c o n f lic t o f o b lig a tio n s : one o b lig a tio n to o b e y th e a n c ie n t laws a nd a llo w a n o th e r m an's w ife h e r m o d e sty and a t th e same tim e a n o th e r o b lig a tio n to o b e y a m onarch? I f one m u s t p e rfo rm a w ro n g a c tio n (lo o k in g a t th e q u e e n ) in o r d e r to p e rfo rm a r ig h t a c tio n (o b e y in g a k in g ) , is one m a kin g a m ista ke ? I w o u ld a rg u e t h a t he is n o t, f o r th e r e is no s im u lta n e o u s b e lie f a n d d is b e ­ lie f. I f lo o k in g a t th e n a ke d Q ueen was n o t G y g e s ’ s m is ­ ta k e , d id he make a m istake? C o u ld h is m is ta k e h a v e been in k illin g C a ndau les r a th e r th a n h im se lf? P e rh a p s . For by o b e y in g C a ndau les even to th e p o in t o f v io la tin g th e a n c ie n t la w s, G yges was a c k n o w le d g in g th e o b lig a tio n s o f a s u b je c t to h is m o n a rc h , an o b lig a tio n w h ic h e x te n d e d eve n to w r o n g fu l a c tio n s . When he k ille d C a n d a u le s , h o w e v e r, he was d e n y in g th e o b lig a tio n s o f a s u b je c t to h is m o n a rc h . H e ro d o tu s says t h a t G yges f e lt th e fo rc e o f c o m p u ls io n , b u t , as M ilto n sa n g , n e c e s s ity 's th e t y r a n t ’ s p le a . G y g e s ’ s m is ­ ta k e , th e n , was to b e lie v e and s im u lta n e o u s ly to d is b e lie v e in th e o b lig a tio n s to a k in g . A n d w h a t o f C a n d a u le s , w h o lo ve d his w ife ? He w a n te d to show his t r u s t e d f r ie n d s o m e th in g w h ic h th e f r ie n d d id n o t w is h to see. He re je c te d a d v ic e fro m a man w h o se re la ­ tio n s h ip to him was based on a d v ic e : he b o th b e lie v e d and d is b e lie v e d in G yges as an a d v is o r ; to th e e x te n t t h a t he d id n o t t r u s t G y g e s 's a d v ic e , he s h o u ld n o t ha ve w is h e d to s h a re his in tim a te p riz e w ith him ; s in c e he re je c te d G y g e s ’ s a d v ic e , he sh o u ld also have re je c te d th e b o n d w h ic h tie d him to G y g e s . I f C a ndau les had e ith e r a c c e p te d G y g e s 's a d v ic e o r re je c te d him as an a d v is o r , he w o u ld h a ve d o n e no w ro n g . B u t C a n d a u le s 's ir r a t io n a lit y c o s t him h is th r o n e and g e n e ra te d th e sequ e n ce o f e v e n ts w h ic h led to C ro e s u s s a tta c k on Persia a n d th e P e rsia n a tte m p ts on G re e c e . 14 Im p ro p e r s e x u a l b e h a v io r has g rim co n s e q u e n c e s in o th e r H e ro d o te a n s to rie s . T h e m ost c o n s p ic u o u s exam ple o c c u rs a t th e v e r y e nd o f th e h is t o r y , a f t e r X e rx e s has been d e fe a te d b y th e G re e k s . H a v in g r e tu r n e d to P e rs ia , X e rx e s d e v e lo p s an e r o tic f ix a tio n on h is b r o t h e r M a s is te s 's w ife and t r ie s to e n te r in to a lia is o n w ith h e r , b u t she a lw a y s r e ­ fu s e s . A t le n g th X e rx e s a rra n g e s a m a rria g e b e tw e e n his son and a d a u g h te r o f M a s is te s , h o p in g som ehow to f u r t h e r h is chan ce s o f a s e xu a l u n io n w ith M a s is te s 's w ife ( I X , 1 0 8 ). We a re n o t to ld how he e x p e c ts su c h a m a rria g e to h e lp him , b u t p e rh a p s he b e lie v e s h is s is t e r - in - la w (M a s is te s 's w ife )

w ill be g r a te fu l f o r h e r d a u g h te r 's sake, because th e d a u g h te r has m a rrie d th e P rin c e , o r p e rh a p s he th in k s th a t t h e r e w ill be m ore o p p o r tu n it y f o r s e d u c in g h e r . In a n y case, on ce h is son m a rrie s , X e rx e s t r a n s fe r s h is lu s t fro m h is s is t e r - in - la w to h is new d a u g h t e r - in - la w . T h e d a u g h te r is less v ir t u o u s th a n h e r m o th e r and v e r y soon g r a n ts X e rx e s h e r fa v o r s . X e rx e s 's w ife , A m e s tris , d is c o v e rs th e a f f a ir a n d c o n tr iv e s to g e t re v e n g e . She looks upon M a s is te s 's w ife as th e g u ilt y p a r t y , even th o u g h th e woman is in t r u t h in n o c e n t, and d u r in g th e occasion o f a p u b lic b a n q u e t, asks h e r h u s b a n d to g iv e h e r th e w om an. S ince X e rx e s is c o n s tra in e d b y th e r itu a l o f th e b a n q u e t to g r a n t w h a te v e r a p e titio n e r s e e ks, he has no ch o ice b u t to g iv e th e in n o c e n t woman to A m e s tris , h is w ife . X e rx e s t r ie s to s o fte n th e loss o f a w ife to M a s is te s , and g e n tly a sks him to s u r r e n d e r his w ife , a s s u rin g him t h a t he w ill re c e iv e one o f X e rx e s 's own d a u g h te rs to m a r r y . M asistes re fu s e s , and X e rx e s , f u ll o f ra g e , te lls his hapless b r o t h e r t h a t h e n c e ­ f o r t h he w ill liv e w ith o u t his own w ife and w ith o u t th e p r o f ­ fe re d re p la c e m e n t. A m e s tris m e anw hile has cause d th e w ife o f M asistes to be m u tila te d b y h a v in g h e r b r e a s ts , nose, e a rs , and lip s c u t o f f ; h e r to n g u e is r ip p e d o u t b y th e ro o ts . T h u s m u tila te d , she is allo w ed to go home ( IX , 1 0 8 -1 1 3 ). X e rx e s , at s e v e ra l p o in ts in th e s to ry , h im s e lf e x p re s s e s h o r r o r a t v a rio u s r e q u e s ts , b u t com plies w ith them n e v e rth e le s s and becomes e n ra g e d w hen o th e rs a re slow to c o o p e ra te . His a c tio n s , his w ife 's r e q u e s ts , a re s t ir r e d b y e r o s , t h a t same s o r t o f ir r a t io n a lit y w h ic h led him to a tta c k G reece in th e f i r s t p la c e . 15 He b e lie v e s w h a t he is d o in g to be w r o n g ; s t ill he b e lie v e s i t to be th e r ig h t c o u rs e o f a c tio n ; su ch s im u lta n e o u s b e lie f in c o n tr a d ic to r ie s c o n s titu te s his h a m a rtia . H e ro d o tu s is n o t th e o n ly a u th o r in whom s e x u a lity is th e s o u rc e o f ir r a t io n a lit y . E ro s , H esiod had s u n g , is " th e m ost b e a u tifu l o f th e im m ortal g o d s , w ho in e v e r y man and e v e r y g o d s o fte n s th e sinew s a nd o v e rp o w e rs th e p r u d e n t p u rp o s e o f th e m in d " ( T h e o g o n y , 1 2 0 -1 2 2 ). A u g u s tin e , th e C h r is tia n P la to n is t, e x p la in s th e ir r a t io n a lit y o f s e x u a lity in h is e x p lic a tio n o f th e s t o r y o f Adam and E ve. "S o p o s ­ s e s s in g in d e e d is t h is p le a s u re t h a t , a t th e m om ent o f tim e in w h ic h i t is co n su m m a te d , a ll m ental a c t iv it y is s u s p e n d e d ." 16 So g r e a t is th e d e s ire f o r s e x u a l u n io n t h a t i t som etim es

o c c u p ie s th e m in d w hen th e b o d y is n o t e a g e r f o r i t ; a t o th e r tim es d e s ire f ills th e b o d y and th e soul has to f ig h t a g a in s t it . How much b e tte r it w o u ld be, A u g u s tin e e x c la im s , e ch o in g H ip p o ly tu s , if men c o u ld p ro p a g a te w ith o u t se xua l re la tio n s . Now, a c c o rd in g to A u g u s tin e -- b e c a u s e o f o r ig in a l s in - - b u t a c c o rd in g to P la to --b e c a u s e o f th e e v il in h e r e n t in m a tte r and th e b o d y - - th e o rg a n s o f p r o c re a tio n e x e rc is e an in d e p e n d e n t m ovem ent, re g a rd le s s o f th e w ill o f t h e ir p o s s e s s o r .17 I t is th is in d e p e n d e n c e o f s e xu a l d e s ire s w h ic h causes th e d is tr e s s . H ere is a p a r t o f m an's anim al n a tu re w h ic h m an, f o r all his r a tio n a lity , c a n n o t c a s t o f f . N ow , w h en a man looks a t h im s e lf and re a lize s t h a t he is s e x u a lly a ro u s e d , d e s p ite o r even a g a in s t his own w ill, he becomes a w are o f th e s e p a ra tio n o f h im s e lf fro m his b o d y . No m a tte r how la te n tly , he has b e g u n to see a d iv is io n in h is b e in g ; in a m ore p h ilo s o p h ic a l t u r n o f p h ra s e , he has been a w akene d to th e m in d -b o d y p ro b le m . W ith th is a w a re n e ss comes th e n o tio n o f tw o s e lv e s , a s e lf w h ic h is s u b je c t to th e ra tio n a l w ill, and a second s e lf w h ic h is n o t. T h u s , w h en a man o p e ra te s a c c o rd in g to th e d e s ire s o f h is lu s t, he may a c t a g a in s t his own ra tio n a l w ill. Y e t he c o u ld a t a n y tim e , a t a n y m om ent, s to p h im s e lf, r e s tr a in h im s e lf, and s u b ju g a te his se xua l p a ssio n s to his re a so n . T h is d iv is io n o f w ills , th e ra tio n a l and th e s e x u a l, c re a te s a s itu a tio n w h e re h a m a rtia can t h r iv e . I t c re a te s in a v i v id , s t r ik in g w a y th e o p p o r tu ­ n it y f o r a c o n flic t o f s im u lta n e o u s ly d if f e r e n t w ills , f o r a b e lie v in g and d is b e lie v in g , f o r a k n o w in g a n d n o t k n o w in g . When some r a tio n a lity g o v e rn s s e x u a l c o n d u c t, H e ro ­ d o tu s is la v is h in h is p ra is e . When e x a m in in g th e custo m s o f th e B a b y lo n ia n s , he fin d s b o th t h e ir b e s t and w o r s t custom s to c o n c e rn s e x u a lity . T h e ir b e s t cu sto m ( I , 196) sees to i t t h a t u g ly g ir ls a re p r o v id e d w ith d o w rie s b y th e a u c tio n o f b e a u tifu l g ir ls a t an a n n u a l v illa g e sa le . T h is b e s t cu sto m was no lo n g e r p ra c tis e d in th e tim e o f H e ro d o tu s , th e h is to ­ ria n s a y s , because p o v e r ty a fflic te d them a ll, on a c c o u n t o f th e c o n q u e s t o f B a b y lo n ; in s te a d , th o s e now la c k in g a liv in g made t h e ir d a u g h te rs p r o s t it u t e s . The w o rs t custom r e q u ir e d e v e r y woman once in h e r life to s it in th e te m p le o f A p h ro d ite and have in te rc o u rs e w ith a s tr a n g e r ( I , 1 9 9 ). 18 I r r a t io n a lit y in H e ro d o tu s is n o t fo u n d o n ly in im p ro p e r se xu a l c o n d u c t. T o be s u r e , H e ro d o tu s m u s t fe e l th a t se xu a l im p r o p r ie ty is a g r e a t a itia o f h is to r ic a l c h a n g e , f o r he seems to use i t as a s t r u c t u r a l d e v ic e in his w o r k . (He

b o th b e g in s a nd e nd s his h i s t o r y w it h ta le s o f sexua l m is ­ c o n d u c t.) B u t i r r a t i o n a l i t y g e n e ra te s h i s t o r y b y some p u r e l y in te lle c t u a l h a m a rtia e as w e ll. T h e p r in c ip a l c h a r a c t e r o f t h e f i r s t h a lf o f Book I o f t h e P e rs ia n W ars is C ro e s u s , w ho H e ro d o tu s te lls us was th e f i r s t to commence h o s t ilitie s a g a in s t t h e G re e k s . C ro e su s s u f f e r s tw o c h ie f m is f o r t u n e s : t h e d e a th o f his son A t y s and t h e loss o f his L y d ia n E m p ire to C y r u s . Both m is f o r ­ tu n e s in v o lv e i n te lle c t u a l h a m a rtia e . In t h e f i r s t case, C ro e su s dream s t h a t his son A t y s w ill d ie b y b e in g s t r u c k w it h an iro n w e apon . T o a v e r t t h is d r e a m - p r e d ic t e d d e a th , C ro e su s compels his son to m a r r y , removes all d e c o r a t iv e weapons fro m t h e palace w a lls , and p ro h ib its A tys fro m e n g a g in g in m ilita ry a ffa irs . By a t te m p t in g to a v e r t t h e c a la m ity p r e d i c t e d in t h e dream , C ro e s u s shows t h a t he believes t h e dream is f a l s e - - f o r if t h e c a la m ity is a v e r t e d , t h e p r e d ic tio n o f dea th b y an iro n weapon is n o t r e a liz e d ; i f n o t re a liz e d , n o t t r u e . Y e t, if C ro e s u s d id n o t b e lie v e t h e dre a m , t h e r e w o u ld be no p o in t in t r y i n g to a v e r t its f u l f i l l m e n t . So C roesu s m u s t b oth b e lie v e and d is b e lie v e t h e d re a m ’ s p r e d i c t i o n . T o b e lie v e and to d is b e lie v e t h e same t h i n g is to v io la te t h e law o f n o n - c o n t r a d i c t io n a nd hence to be i r r a t i o n a l . L a t e r , C ro e s u s receives t h e o r a c le t h a t , " i f he a tta c k e d t h e P e rs ia n s , he w o u ld d e s t r o y a m ig h t y e m p ire " ( I , 5 3 ). T h e n t a k i n g t h e o ra c le in t h e w r o n g sense , m is ta k in g t h e o r a c le , he leads his fo rc e s in to C a ppod ocia ( I , 7 1 ). W here is C ro e s u s 's h a m a rtia ? C le a r ly he b o th know s and does n o t know th e fu tu r e . I f one w e re to i n t e r r u p t him and ask him, " C r o e s u s , do y o u k n o w w h ic h e m p ire y o u a re g o in g to d e s t r o y ? " he w o u ld a n s w e r t h a t he d id n o t. B u t no one a s k e d , and so he b o th kn e w and d id n o t k n o w . He b o th k n e w and d id n o t k n o w w h a t he k n e w , a n d kn e w and d id n o t k n o w w h a t he d id n o t k n o w . In b o th cases o f p r e d ic t io n C ro e s u s e r r e d : w h en he t r i e d to a v e r t t h e d re a m 's f u l f i l l ­ m ent a nd w hen he t r i e d t o liv e in a c c o rd a n c e w it h t h e o r a c le . B oth m is ta k e s w e re ro o te d in his p e r v a s i v e , u n d e r ­ ly in g ir r a tio n a lity . When C ro e s u s , h a v in g lo s t his e m p ire , send s a message r e b u k i n g t h e o r a c le , t h e o ra c le says in its d e fe n s e t h a t A p o llo d id w h a t he c o u ld f o r C ro e s u s : he p o s t ­ p o n e d f o r t h r e e y e a r s t h e f a ll o f L y d ia , a nd he s e n t C ro e su s t r u e o ra c le s . T h e blame b e lo n g s t o C r o e s u s , "w h o n e it h e r u n d e r s to o d w h a t was s a id , n o r to o k t h e t r o u b l e to seek f o r e n l i g h t e n m e n t . " 19

In w rite s ,

his

c o n c lu d in g

p a ra g ra p h

on

L y d ia ,

H e ro d o tu s

T h is was th e a n s w e r o f t h e p r ie s te s s . T h e L y d ia n s , h a v in g r e t u r n e d to S a r d is , t o ld i t to C r o e s u s , w ho a d m itte d t h a t th e m is ta k e was h is , n o t t h e g o d 's . Such was th e w a y in w h ic h Ionia was f i r s t c o n q u e r e d , a nd so t h e e m p ire o f C ro e s u s e n d e d . ( I , 91) I t seems c le a r t h a t H e ro d o tu s in te n d s us t o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t i t was C r o e s u s ’ s se rie s o f h a m a rtia e w h ic h p a r t ic i p a t e d in t h e c a r r y i n g o u t o f his f a t e . W hat was f a te d t o o k pla ce because o f h a m a rtia e ; had C ro e s u s n o t made so m a n y h a m a rtia e , i t is d i f f i c u l t t o see how a n y o f t h e e v e n ts c o u ld h a ve ta k e n place. S in c e , as we have o b s e r v e d , w a r is p r o b a b ly t h e g r e a t e s t s in g le s o u rc e o f h is to r ic a l c h a n g e , i t is f i t t i n g t o look a t t h e a itia e o f t h e v a r io u s p r in c ip a l w a rs in H e ro d o tu s in o r d e r t o see w h e t h e r a n y k in d o f h a m a rtia o r o t h e r i r r a ­ t i o n a l i t y f i g u r e s in th e m . T h e p o w e r o f i r r a t i o n a l i t y t o g e n e r a te h i s t o r y is show n in t h e v i c t o r i e s a nd d e fe a ts o f C y r u s , t h e n e x t g r e a t f i g u r e in H e ro d o tu s . T h e v i c t o r y w h ic h makes Persia w e a lt h y and t h e r e f o r e g r e a t is t h e v i c t o r y o v e r C r o e s u s ; t h e d e f e a t w h ic h d e s t r o y s C y r u s is his loss t o t h e M assagetae. H e ro d o tu s r e c o r d s C y r u s 's m o tiv a tio n s f o r a t t a c k in g t h e M assaetae t h u s : M any s t r o n g m otive s u r g e d him o n - - h i s b i r t h e s p e ­ c i a ll y , w h ic h seemed s o m e th in g m ore th a n h u m a n , and his good f o r t u n e in all his f o r m e r w a r s , w h e r e in he had alw ays f o u n d t h a t a g a in s t w h a t e v e r c o u n t r y he t u r n e d his a rm s , i t was im p o s s ib le f o r t h a t p e o p le to escape. ( I , 204) A b i t l a t e r , w hen c o n s id e r in g w h a t s t r a t e g y t o use, a d v is e s him:

C ro e s u s

I f y o u deem y o u r s e l f an im m o rta l, a nd y o u r a r m y an a rm y o f im m o rta ls , m y co un sel w ill d o u b tle s s be t h r o w n aw ay upon y o u . ( I , 207) C y r u s fo llo w s t h e a d v ic e o f C ro e s u s a nd c ro s s e s t h e r i v e r to a t t a c k t h e Massagetae ( r a t h e r t h a n w a it in g f o r t h e Mas-

sagetae to c ro s s t h e r i v e r a nd a t t a c k h im ) . We s h o u ld rem e m b e r one la s t b i t o f in fo r m a t io n . When C ro e s u s was ta k e n o f f t h e p y r e on w h ic h t h e P e rsians had placed him , a f t e r C ro e s u s had e x p la in e d his reasons f o r i n v o k i n g Solon, a nd had e x p la in e d how his " h a p p in e s s " had p r o v e n b r i e f , C y r u s , d e b a tin g w h a t to d o , is d e s c r ib e d t h u s b y H e r o ­ d o tu s : T h e n C y r u s , a f t e r h e a r in g fr o m t h e i n t e r p r e t e r s w h a t C ro e s u s had s a id , r e le n te d , t h i n k i n g t h a t he to o was a m an, and t h a t i t was a fe llo w m an, one w h o had once been as b lessed b y f o r t u n e as h im s e lf, and he was b u r n i n g a liv e ; he was a f r i a d , to o , o f r e t r i b u t i o n , and was f u l l o f t h e t h o u g h t t h a t w h a te v e r is human is in s e c u r e . ( I , 86) K e e p in g t h is h i s t o r y in m in d , w h a t shall we make o f C y r u s 's m otive s f o r a t t a c k in g t h e Massagetae? His m o tiv e s , a c c o r d in g to H e r o d o tu s , w e re his b i r t h and his good f o r t u n e ; th e a d v ic e he fo llo w e d fro m C ro e su s was to be fo llo w e d c o n t i n ­ g e n t on his b e in g a m ere m o r t a l : 20 in d e e d , C y r u s kn e w he was m o rta l w hen he f r e e d C ro e su s fro m t h e p y r e ; y e t his v e r y reason f o r f o llo w in g C ro e s u s 's a d v ic e w o u ld r e q u i r e him to g iv e u p his a t ta c k on th e M a s s a g e ta e .21 I f C y r u s agree s to fo llo w C ro e s u s 's a d v i c e - - a d v i c e p r e d ic a t e d on C y r u s 's b e in g a m o rta l man s u b je c t to t h e v a g a rie s o f f o r t u n e - - t h e n his m o tiv e s f o r t h e a t t a c k d i s i n t e g r a t e . I f , in f a c t , C y r u s is a g o d o r in posse ssio n o f u n c h a n g in g good f o r t u n e , t h e n he need n o t and s h o u ld n o t fo llo w C ro e s u s 's a d v ic e : to fo llo w t h e a d v ic e ( a d v ic e p r e d ic a t e d on C y r u s 's m o r t a l i t y ) a nd to go on w i t h his p la n n e d cam paign (a cam paign p r e d ic a t e d on C y r u s ’ s d i v i n i t y ) a re c o n t r a d i c t o r y . C y r u s m u s t c l e a r ly b e lie v e t h a t he is b o th m o rta l a nd im m ortal s im u lta n e o u s ly : he com mits a h a m a rtia ; he v io la te s t h e law o f n o n c o n t r a d ic ­ tio n : he is i r r a t i o n a l . T h e i r r a t i o n a l i t y causes him to a t t a c k t h e M assagetae. H e ro d o tu s em phasizes C y r u s ’ s m istakes w h en he r e c o r d s t h e P e rsia n m o n a rc h 's m is in t e r p r e t a t io n o f a d re a m . In s te a d o f seeing t h a t t h e v is io n w a rn s him o f his d e a th a t th e hands o f t h e M assagetae and p r e d i c t s t h e accession o f D a r iu s , C y r u s t h i n k s t h e v is io n to w a rn t h a t D a riu s is p l o t t i n g a g a in s t him . I t is as t h o u g h his b e lie f in his own d i v i n i ­ t y — a b e lie f re p e a te d e ven in t h i s dre a m e p iso d e (h e says th e

god s a re always p r o t e c t i n g h i m ) - - k e e p s him fr o m s e e in g t h e t r u t h ( I , 2 0 9 -2 1 0 ). A n d t h e r e a d e r c a n n o t he lp b u t re a liz e t h a t H e ro d o tu s is r e m in d in g us o f t h e f a c t t h a t , a lth o u g h C y r u s seems to a c k n o w le d g e his own h u m a n ity b y fo llo w in g C ro e s u s 's a d v ic e , he n e v e r t h e le s s b e lie v e s he is d i v in e . T h e most c o n s p ic u o u s exam ple o f i r r a t i o n a l i t y in T h e P e rs ia n Wars is th e insane C a m b yse s, w ho m u r d e r s his s i s t e r and b r o t h e r and t h e son o f his most t r u s t e d c o u n s e lo r , and a tte m p ts to m u r d e r C ro e s u s w hen C ro e s u s has g iv e n him some good a d v ic e . H e ro d o tu s re m in d s us o f C a m b y s e s 's madness f r e q u e n t l y ( I I I , 25, 29, 30, 3 4 - 3 8 ) . Cam byses s la y s th o s e w h o t e ll him t h e t r u t h , th o se w h o a p p e a r t o s l i g h t him e v e r so s l i g h t l y , as well as m any w ho h a ve do n e n o t h in g a t all t o p r o v o k e him . As Im m e rw a h r o b s e r v e s , C a m b yse s, w h o h o ld s in esteem t h e ideas o f lo y a l t y t o d y n a s t y a nd le g itim a te s u c c e s ­ s io n , comes t o p o llu te b o th c o n c e p t i o n s . 22 A fe w exam ples w ill i l l u s t r a t e t h e n a t u r e o f his m ad n e ss, w h ic h r e p e a te d ly keeps him fro m a d m itt in g t h e t r u t h - - a n d i t is f a i l u r e to a c k n o w le d g e t r u t h w h ic h is C a m b y s e s 's u ltim a te u n d o in g . O n ly when Cambyses is d y i n g does he come to his w it s a nd see all t h e e r r o r s he has made ( I I I , 6 4 - 6 5 ) . When a t t a c k in g t h e E th io p ia n s , f o r exam ple, b e f o r e he is o n e - f i f t h o f t h e w a y to his t a r g e t , he r u n s o u t o f p r o v i s io n s ( I I I , 2 5 ) ; r a t h e r th a n a c k n o w le d g e t h e t r u t h , t h a t he has made a m is ­ t a k e , he presses o n w a r d and o n l y r e t r e a t s a f t e r his men r e s o r t to c a n n ib a lis m . He r e fu s e s to b e lie v e E g y p tia n p r ie s t s ( I I I , 27-29) and slays one o f t h e i r g o d s , A p is , t h e c a lf o f a cow w ho n e v e r a f t e r w a r d s is able t o b e a r y o u n g . He th e n has a dream in w h ic h a c e r ta in S m e rd is is to ta k e o v e r his t h r o n e , b u t w i t h o u t t a k i n g t h e t r o u b l e t o f i n d o u t w h ic h S m erdis i t is, he k ills his f u l l b r o t h e r w ho b e a rs t h e name. H e ro d o tu s th e n te lls us o f C a m b y s e s 's q u e s tio n in g o f P r e x aspe s, his most t r u s t e d a d v i s o r , t h e v e r y man w ho had been e n t r u s t e d w ith t h e k i l l i n g o f C a m b yse s's b r o t h e r . W hat, Cam byses a s ks, do th e P e rsia n s t h i n k o f him? When P r e x aspes re p lie s ( I I I , 34 -3 5 ) t h a t t h e P e rs ia n s t h i n k he p e r h a p s d r i n k s a b i t too m uch, Cam byses rem e m be rs e a r l ie r re s p o n s e s w h ic h w e re m ore f a v o r a b l e , among w h ic h was t h a t of C r o e s u s , w ho in c o m p a rin g Cam byses t o his f a t h e r C y r u s , said t h a t Cambyses had n o t s u r p a s s e d C y r u s because he had n o t had a son so g r e a t as t h e one C y r u s h a d . Cam byses, r e c a llin g th e se re s p o n s e s , is e n r a g e d a t P re x a s p e s a nd

shoo ts P re x a s p e s 's son t h r o u g h t h e h e a r t , m a in ta in in g t h a t a man to o m uch in his c u p s c o u ld n o t h ave such a good aim. C ro e s u s re b u k e s Cam byses f o r his h o t t e m p e r , a nd Cambyses o r d e r s his s e r v a n t s to sla y C r o e s u s . T h e se n te n c e is n o t c a r r i e d o u t , f o r t h e s e r v a n t s f e a r t h a t Cam byses w ill c h a n g e his m in d and r e p e n t o f his d e c is io n . He does c h a n g e his m in d , a nd is g la d t h a t C ro e s u s is s t ill a liv e , b u t , a n g r y at his s e r v a n t s f o r t h e i r f a i l u r e t o c a r r y o u t his p la n , he has th e m s la in . T h e r e is, t h e n , a p le th o r a o f s to rie s c o n c e r n in g Cam­ b y s e s , w h o , H e ro d o tu s s a y s , is a f f l i c t e d w it h e p ile p s y , t h e sa c re d d isease . T h e y i l l u s t r a t e C a m byse s's i r r a t i o n a l i t y . 23 He w a n ts to k ill th o s e w hose o p in io n s he like s one m in u te , b u t does n o t lik e t h e n e x t . He re fu s e s t o a c c e p t t h e s t a t e ­ m ents o f th o s e whom he f in d s m ost t r u s t w o r t h y . He b o th s u s p e c ts and s im u lta n e o u s ly t r u s t s t h e same men. He slays his s i s t e r f o r h e r b r i e f la m e n ta tio n a t h e r b r o t h e r 's d e a th . T o be re m in d e d o f his own a c tio n s d r iv e s him in to a ra g e . Y e t i t is p e r h a p s b y v i r t u e o f his in c o m p a ra b le m adness t h a t Cam byses a ch ie ve s a c e r ta in g r e a t n e s s - - n o t in a n y moral sense , b u t t h e g r e a tn e s s o f a p la g u e o r an e a r t h q u a k e - - a n d becomes a th a u m a , a w o n d e r , a nd hence w o r t h y o f in c lu s io n in a h i s t o r y . T h e p r in c ip a l actio n o f t h e P ersian Wars is X e r x e s 's in v a s io n o f G re e ce . W hat a re X e r x e s 's m otives? Is X e r x e s moved b y i r r a t i o n a l i t y ? T h e e v id e n c e seems to show t h a t h e re too H e ro d o tu s o b s e rv e s t h e i r r a t i o n a l i t y o f men and its g r a v e co n s e q u e n c e s . D u r i n g a c o u n c il M a rd o n iu s u r g e s X e r x e s to c o n q u e r G re e ce ; X e r x e s 's w ise un cle A r t a b a n u s w a rn s him n o t t o , f o r t h e G re e k s are a b le r th a n t h e y a p p e a r , and god loves to s t r i k e dow n t h e l a r g e r anim als: l i g h t n i n g s t r i k e s dow n th e la rg e b u t leaves alone t h e small ( V I I , 1 0 ). X e rxe s in itia lly is a n g r y w it h A r t a b a n u s f o r t h is a d v ic e b u t soon b e g in s to see its w isdo m , and a f t e r an e v e n in g 's t h o u g h t he decide s it is b e t t e r to fo llo w th e good a d v ic e o f A r t a b a n u s and cancel his plan to a t t a c k G ree ce. D u rin g th e n ig h t, th o u g h , X e r x e s has a dream in w h ic h a t a ll and b e a u tif u l man te lls him to go f o r w a r d w i t h t h e plan to a t ta c k G reece ( V I I , 12). T h e n e x t d a y , X e r x e s has t h e dream a g a in . T e r r i f i e d , he c o n s u lts his u n c le . A r t a b a n u s c o r r e c t l y e x p la in s to him th e n a t u r e o f dream s and w h y t h e y s h o u ld n o t be b e lie v e d . " W h a te v e r a man has been t h i n k i n g d u r i n g th e d a y is lik e l y

to h o v e r ro u n d him in th e v is io n s o f his dream s a t n i g h t " ( V I I , 16) . zu X e r x e s in s is ts t h a t A r t a b a n u s w e a r X e r x e s 's clo th e s and fool t h e dream in to t h i n k i n g A r t a b a n u s is X e r x e s so t h a t A r t a b a n u s may h im s e lf h e a r t h e d re a m . Though A r t a b a n u s says i t is im p o ssib le to fool a d re a m , he is p r e ­ v a ile d upon b y X e r x e s to t r y t h is e x p e r im e n t . T h e same dream comes to him d u r i n g t h e n i g h t , re c o g n iz e s him , and scolds him f o r t r y i n g to d is s u a d e X e r x e s fro m t h e expe­ d itio n . D e sp ite his e a r lie r w a r n in g s c o n c e r n in g t h e n a t u r e o f d re a m s , A r t a b a n u s accepts t h e dream and u r g e s X e r x e s to a tte m p t t h e h o p e d - f o r d e s t r u c t i o n o f G r e e c e . 25 I r r a t i o n a l i t y h e re is m a n ife s te d less b y t h e h a b it u a l l y s u p e r s t it i o u s X e r x e s th a n b y his w ise u n c le A r t a b a n u s . A r t a b a n u s , i t a p p e a r s , b e lie ve s in t h e p o w e r o f dream s w hen he u r g e s X e r x e s o n ; y e t when he g a v e X e r x e s a d v ic e , he d is c o u n te d t h e p o w e r o f d re a m s: to b e lie v e and d is b e lie v e in t h e p o w e r o f dream s is s u r e l y a h a m a rtia . A n d y e t one may a r g u e t h a t A r t a b a n u s has s im p ly c h a n g e d his m in d ; i f he has, p e rh a p s H e ro d o tu s is s u g g e s tin g t h a t his good a d v ic e was b e t t e r b e fo r e his mind was c h a n g e d . B u t as is m ore l i k e l y , H e ro d o tu s is s h o w in g t h e fo o lis h n e s s o f even t h e w is e s t o f t h e P e rs ia n s . Since t h e y do n o t r e ly on good c o u n s e l, t h e y m u st r e ly on f o r t u n e . B u t as A r t a b a n u s s a y s , good counsel is s u p e r i o r to f o r t u n e ( V I I , 10). I t is t h e episod e w it h t h e dream t h a t g iv e s X e r x e s his zeal to c o n tin u e to w a r d s E u ro p e . Had t h e r e been no d re a m , he w o u ld have fo llo w e d t h e soun d a d v ic e o f A r t a b a n u s and s ta y e d in A sia . T w o o t h e r actio n s show X e r x e s 's irra tio n a lity q u ite c l e a r ly . T h e c r o s s in g o f th e H e lle s p o n t and t h e p r e p a r a t io n s f o r it are s u r r o u n d e d b y m any p o r t e n t s and w a r n i n g s . For t h e r e a d e r o f H e ro d o tu s th e s e w a r n i n g s show c l e a r l y how X e r x e s 's b e h a v io r g e n e ra te s t h e f lo w o f e v e n ts . A n e c lip s e alarm s t h e Persian a rm y ( V I I , 3 7 ) . A n i n t e r p r e t e r re a s s u re s X e rxe s: "G od is fo r e s h a d o w in g to t h e G re e k s t h e d e s t r u c ­ t io n o f t h e i r c itie s ; f o r t h e sun f o r e t e l l s f o r them and t h e moon f o r u s . " H e ro d o tu s c o n t in u e s , "So X e r x e s , th u s i n s t r u c t e d , p ro ce e d e d on his w a y w i t h a g la d h e a r t . " But j u s t as th e a rm y reaches th e o t h e r side o f t h e H e lle s p o n t, t h e r e a re o t h e r p o r t e n t s ( V I I , 5 7 ): a m are g iv e s b i r t h to a h a r e ; and H e ro d o tu s re m in d s us o f a s im ila r p o r t e n t w h ic h had o c c u r r e d e a r l ie r in S a r d is : a m ule d r o p p e d a foal w it h d o u b le sexua l o r g a n s . B u t X e r x e s ig n o r e s th e s e om ens. As

H e ro d o tu s says ( V I I , 5 8 ): "So X e r x e s , d e s p is in g omens, m a rc h e d f o r w a r d s . " T h e s i m i l a r i t y o f e x p r e s s io n and th e p r o x i m i t y o f th e s e tw o e p is o d e s , t h e gla d h e a r t a t good omens ( t h e e c lip s e ) and th e i g n o r i n g o f bad omens ( th e o d d b i r t h s ) , r e q u ir e s t h a t we c o n s id e r them t o g e t h e r . What is X e r x e s d o in g e x c e p t b e lie v in g and d is b e lie v in g in th e p o w e r o f omens? Why s h o u ld he b e lie v e one omen and n o t a n o th e r? T h e o n ly p r in c ip le o f b e lie f o r d is b e lie f seems to be w h e th e r o r n o t t h e omen be f a v o r a b le . A f in a l exam ple o f X e r x e s 's i r r a t i o n a l i t y o c c u r s in one o f th e lo v e lie s t passages in th e e n t i r e h i s t o r y . As X e r x e s looks o v e r th e H e lle s p o n t, b u s y w i t h his f le e t , he c o n g r a t u ­ lates h im s e lf, th e n w e eps. He e x p la in s to his un cle A r t a b a n u s - - t h e v e r y same man, H e ro d o tu s rem ind s us, w ho spoke so f r e e l y when he a d v is e d t h e k in g n o t to in v a d e G re e c e -t h a t he is sad a t t h e s h o r tn e s s o f man's lif e . A rta b a n u s re p lie s t h a t , as sad as t h a t s h o r tn e s s o f life is, s a d d e r s t ill is t h e f a c t t h a t d e a th is o f te n p r e f e r a b le to lif e . X e rxe s a g re e s w it h his u n c le b u t s a y s , " F o r t h is v e r y re a s o n , let us n o t t a l k a b o u t i t " ( V I I , 4 7 ) . X e r x e s re m in d s him o f t h e i r m u tu a l dream and asks w h e t h e r A r t a b a n u s is s t ill a n x io u s . T h e K i n g ’ s uncle th e n re p e a ts his e a r l ie r o b je c tio n s to t h e a tta c k . X e rx e s i n t e r r u p t s , " T h e r e is reason , A r t a b a n u s , in e v e r y t h i n g you h a ve s a id ; b u t I p r a y y o u , do n o t f e a r all t h i n g s a lik e , n o r re c k o n e v e r y r i s k . For i f in e v e r y m a tte r t h a t comes b e fo re us yo u lo o k to all p o s s ib le c h a n c e s , yo u w ill n e v e r achie ve a n y t h i n g " ( V I I , 5 0 ). In s h o r t , X e r x e s re p e a ts w h a t he said e a r l ie r : let us n o t t a l k a b o u t t h e d i f f i ­ c u ltie s o r o b s ta c le s . I t seems a r e p e t it io n o f " l e t us n o t p a y a t t e n t io n to u n f a v o r a b le o m e n s ." A n d y e t is t h is n o t t h e v e r y h e a r t and soul o f i r r a t i o n a l i t y : to a c k n o w le d g e th e t r u t h o f a b e t t e r w a y and to choose th e worse? F o r i t is c e r t a i n l y one t h i n g to choose t h e w o rs e co u rs e o u t o f ig n o ­ ra n c e , b u t to a c k n o w le d g e t h a t one actio n is b e s t and n o t to do i t is n o t in k e e p in g w it h reason . A n d y e t , is t h e r e n o t t r u t h in w h a t X e rx e s says? Is it n o t t r u e t h a t , i f all o b s ta c le s are c o n s id e r e d , n o t h in g w ill e v e r be accom plished? A r e th e s e n o t t h e v e r y w o rd s th e mad m echan ic uses in R asselas w h en he d e fe n d s his f l y i n g machine? In d e e d , w h a t w o u ld be t h e conse quen ces o f f o l ­ lo w in g A r t a b a n u s 's advice? H e n ry Im m e rw a h r o b s e r v e s , " T h e r e a re in f a c t m any w a r n e r s in H e ro d o tu s a c c o m p a n y in g k in g s and t h e i r a d v ic e is a lw a ys s o u n d , b u t i t is u s u a lly also

n e g a t i v e . " 26 Can t h i s be t h e reason f o r its n e g a tiv e q u a l i t y : h i s t o r y w o u ld n o t be d r i v e n f o r w a r d - - n o t h i n g new w o u ld h a p p e n - - i f men fo llo w e d good a d v ic e ? Good a d v ic e is alw a ys c o n s e r v a tiv e . Is i t p o s sib le t h a t , in H e r o d o tu s 's v ie w o f t h e i r r a t i o n ­ a l i t y o f k i n g s , we have an a n s w e r to th e Ionian p h ilo s o p h e r s w h o m a in ta in e d t h a t c h a n g e was im p o s s ib le in t h e o r d e r e d u n iv e rs e ? P erhaps i f th e u n iv e r s e was as P a rm enides d e s c r ib e d i t - - a n d t h e laws o f reason f o l l o w e d - - t h e r e w o u ld be no c h a n g e o f a n y k i n d , not least h is to r ic a l c h a n g e . But n a t u r e is f u l l o f d is o r d e r e d e v e n ts a n d so is t h e lif e o f m en. Men are i r r a t i o n a l , and t h e i r i r r a t i o n a l i t y is w h a t g e n e ra te s h is to ry .

NOTES 1 Am ong t h is g r o u p o f s c h o la rs is H e rm ann F r a n k e l , w h o says t h a t th e H is t o r y has " k e in e n e i n h e it lic h d u r c h g e f U h r t e n Plan" ( " E in e S t ile ig e n h e it d e r f r i i h g r i e c h i s c h e n L i t e r a t u r " in C o ttin g is c h e g e le h rte N a c h ric h te n [1 9 2 4 ], p. 8 7 ). A lb in L e s k y a g re e s , s a y in g t h a t th e w o r k fo llo w s " a r c h a ic n o tio n s o f a r t , t h a t is, i t goes b y a sso cia tio n o f t h o u g h t " ( H is t o r y o f C re e k L ite r a t u r e , t r . J. W illis New Y o r k , [1966] p. 3 1 0 ). T h e b u l k o f re c e n t s c h o la r s h ip on H e ro d o tu s has e n d e a v o r e d to show t h a t t h e r e is in r e a l it y a s o p h is t ic a te d o r d e r to th e w o rk. J . L. M y re s ( H e r o d o tu s : F a th e r o f H is t o r y [ O x f o r d , 1953], p p . 7 9 f f . ) m a in ta in e d t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e o f c o n s t r u c ­ tio n in th e w o r k is c i r c u l a r o r p e d im e n ta l, as d id W. A . A . V a n O t t e r lo ( " U n t e r s u c h u n g e n Uber B e g r i f f , A n w e n d u n g u n d E n ts te h u n g d e r g r ie c h is c h e n R i n g k o m p o s it i o n , " M e d e d e e iin g e n d e r K o n . N e d e rla n d s e A ka d e m ie v a n W e te n s c h a p p e n , A f d . L e tte rk u n d e , nieuw e R eeks, Deel 7, No. 3 [A m s te r d a m : 1944], p a ssim ) . Seth B e r n a r d e te (H e ro d o te a n in q u ir ie s [ T h e H a gue, 1969], p . 4) belie ve s t h a t H e ro d o tu s lays o u t an a rg i)m e n t in Books I - 1V w h ic h is s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v id e n c e o f Books V I - I X , w it h Book V I s e r v i n g as a t r a n s i t i o n . 2 O f a u th o r s c o n c e rn e d w it h H e r o d o t u s ’ s se a rch f o r a itia e , th e most t h o r o u g h is H e n r y R. Im m e r w a h r , whose b oo k F orm a n d T h o u g h t in H e ro d o tu s (A m e ric a n P h ilo lo g ic a l A s s o c ia tio n

M o n o g ra p h s , 23, [ 1 9 6 6 ]) and a r t i c l e " A s p e c ts o f H is to ric a l C a u s a tio n in H e r o d o t u s " ( T ra n s a c tio n s o f th e A m e ric a n P h ilo ­ lo g ic a l A s s o c ia tio n , 76 [1 9 5 6 ], p p . 241-80) a re among t h e m ost im p o r t a n t on t h i s s u b je c t . Im m e rw a h r a rg u e s t h a t , s in c e H e ro d o tu s 's o b je c t is t o r e p o r t t h e t r u t h , t h e r e c a n n o t be " to o s t r i c t a p a t t e r n i n g o f c a u s a tio n " ( " A s p e c t s , " p. 2 7 7 ); t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e of c a u s a tio n in t h e H is t o r y is o r i ­ e n ta l e x p a n s io n is m , b u t o t h e r a itia e a re in c lu d e d w it h in i t ; and t h a t t h is e x p a n s io n is m is c o n t r o lle d b y th e d i v in e . I t h i n k Im m e rw a h r is r i g h t in m a in ta in in g a d i v in e i n t e r v e n ­ t i o n , b u t w h a t is i m p o r t a n t in H e r o d o tu s , I w o u ld a r g u e , is t h e w a y men r e a c t to t h e d i v in e i n t e r v e n t i o n , f o r in t h is lies human c h o ice , and in t h a t choice we can speak o f hum an h i s t o r y as d i s t i n c t fro m t h a t imposed b y t h e g o d s . 3 N e v e r th e le s s , so e m in e n t a s c h o la r as D. W. Lucas has said f A r is to t le 's P o e tics [ O x f o r d , 1 96 8], p. 3 0 2 ), " I n th e P o e tic s h a m a rtia is n o t to be r e g a r d e d as a te c h n ic a l te rm , and t h e d i s t i n c t io n betw een h a m a rtia p r o p e r and atuchem a has no re le v a n c e . U s u a lly t h e t r a g i c h a m a rtia leads to an a tu ch e m a caused b y e s s e n tia l k n o w le d g e . " Lucas is n o t w i l l i n g even to g r a n t A r i s t o t l e ’ s own d i s t i n c t io n s . 4 Plato's i n q u i r y in to e r r o r o fte n helps his a rg u m e n ts a lo n g , as, f o r e x a m p le , in R e p u b lic 1, w h e r e T h r a s y m a c h u s s tu m b le s because he re fu s e s to a c k n o w le d g e t h a t a t r u e r u l e r can com m it an e r r o r ( R e p u b lic , 3 4 0 d - e ) . E r r o r is exam ined in g r e a t e s t d e ta il in t h e T h e a e te tu s a nd its com panion th e S o p h is t, b u t w i t h o u t s u c c e s s - - b o t h d ia lo g u e s a re a p o r e tic . 5

L u ca s, p. 302.

6 A c c o r d i n g t o Jo h n D e nnis ( c it e d b y Luca s) in T h e Im p a r tia l C r it ic (1 6 9 3 ), O e d ip u s is to be blamed f o r v a in c u r i o s i t y , p r i d e , r a g e , and v io le n c e . A c c o r d i n g to Lucas ( p . 3 0 4 ) , im p r o v id e n c e in m a r r y i n g an o l d e r woman s h o u ld be a d d e d . Lucas also says O e d ip u s 's h a m a rtia is b e lie v in g he know s w ho his p a r e n ts a re w h en he does n o t. See also J . A . W ald o ck, S o p h o cle s th e D ra m a tis t ( C a m b r id g e , 1951), p p . 151-60; C. H. W h itm a n , S o p h o cle s ( C a m b r id g e , M a s s ., 1951), p p . 129-33; G. M. K i r k w o o d , A S tu d y o f S o phoclean D ram a ( It h a c a , N . Y . , 1958), p p . 172-76; J . S h e p p a r d , T h e O e d ip u s T y r a n n u s o f S o p h o cle s ( C a m b r id g e , 1920), c h . 2;

M a u ric e 166-76.

B o w ra ,

Sophodean

T ra g e d y

(O x fo rd ,

1944),

pp.

7 We m ig h t in actu a l la n g u a g e say "h e is m is t a k e n , " f o r t h e common la n g u a g e does n o t d i s t i n g u i s h b e tw e e n w r o n g f u l s ta te m e n ts made when t h e r e is k n o w le d g e a nd w r o n g f u l s ta te m e n ts made when t h e r e is b e lie f. I h a ve c a lle d t h e f i r s t " m is ta k e ( 1 ) " and th e second " m is ta k e ( 2 ) . " 8 I n s a n i t y o f t h is k in d was k n o w n in a n t i q u i t y . In t h e B ib le , in s a n it y is a d i v in e p u n is h m e n t m eted o u t t o th o s e w h o d is o b e y G od's laws ( D e u te r o n o m y 2 8 :2 8 ) a nd is a t t r i b ­ u te d to a s p i r i t s e n t b y God ( e . g . , I Samuel 1 6 :1 4 ) . M ost medical w r i t e r s a t t r i b u t e d in s a n i t y t o an im ba la nce o f t h e h u m o rs , to f e v e r , t o e p ile p s y . A c c o r d i n g t o S o cra te s in X e n o p h o n 's M e m o ra b ilia , t h e m any call him mad w h o is ig n o ­ r a n t o f w h a t most people k n o w ; b u t S o c ra te s calls him mad w h o is ig n o r a n t o f wisdom ( 3 . 6 ) . 9 I t is f o r t h is reason t h a t h is t o r ia n s a r e p r i m a r i l y c o n ­ c e r n e d w it h w a r , n o t least H e ro d o tu s and T h u c y d i d e s , w h o w r o t e on th e Persian Wars and t h e P e lop onne sian W ars. 10 E u s e b iu s 's s ta te m e n t was p o in te d o u t t o me b y my f r i e n d P r o fe s s o r William C a r r o l l. 11 T h is a r g u m e n t d e p e n d s , o f c o u r s e , on i r r a t i o n a l i t y ' s b e in g s u b je c t to t h e w i l l. T h e q u e s tio n o f w h e t h e r we k n o w o r b e lie v e b y v o lit io n has t r o u b l e d me now f o r some tim e . S u ff ic e i t to say h e re , h o w e v e r , t h a t i r r a t i o n a l i t y seems to be s u b je c t to th e w i l l , t h o u g h t h a t w ill m ig h t be p e r v e r s e . 12 Mable L. L a n g , "W ar and th e R a p e - M o tif, o r W hy Did Cam byses In v a d e E g y p t , " P ro c e e d in g s o f th e A m e ric a n P h ilo ­ s o p h ic a l S o c ie ty , 116 (1 9 7 2 ), 41 0 -1 4 , claims t h a t s in ce women w e re g e n e r a lly ra p e d when a c i t y was s a c k e d , b y a r e v e r s a l woman became t h e cause o f th e s a c k in g : " i t seems lik e l y t h a t th e r a p e - m o tif was in o r i g i n s im p ly a b a c k - c a s t in g fro m r e s u l t to p u r p o s e . " T h e q u e s t io n , o f c o u r s e , is w h y su ch a " b a c k - c a s t i n g " s h o u ld t a k e place. T h e a n a ly s is h e re w ill seek a moral e x p la n a tio n .

13 F o r B e r n a r d e t e ( p p . 2 1 f f . ) , G y g e s 's dilemma is c re a te d by th e L y d ia n law t h a t one m u s t n o t look a t w h a t is a n o t h e r 's . His a r g u m e n t is som ewhat c o n f u s in g w hen he says t h a t t h e " u n i v e r s a l law" is t h a t one s h o u ld o n ly look at o ne 's o w n . I t leads him to say t h a t " H e r o d o tu s w i l l i n g l y v io la te s t h e u n iv e r s a l p r o h i b i t i o n w h ic h G yges h im se lf has f o r m u la t e d . T h e In q u ir ie s o f H e ro d o tu s c o n t i n u a l l y show him lo o k in g a t alie n t h i n g s . " lk A n o t h e r s t a r k exam ple o f r e je c tin g a d v ic e o c c u r s in V I I I , 69, w h en X e r x e s re c e iv e s a d v ic e fr o m v a r io u s o f his l ie u t e n ­ a n ts . H e ro d o tu s r e p o r t s : B u t X e r x e s , w h en th e w o rd s o f se v e ra l s p e a k e rs w e re r e p o r te d to him , was pleased b e y o n d all o t h e r s w it h th e r e p l y o f A r te m is ia ; and w h e re a s , even b e fo r e t h i s , he a lw a ys esteemed h e r m u c h , he now p r a is e d h e r m ore th a n e v e r . N e v e r th e le s s , he g a v e o r d e r s t h a t t h e a d v ic e o f th e g r e a t e r n u m b e r be fo llo w e d . ( T r . G e o rg e R a w lin s o n , in T h e C re e k H is to r ia n s , ed. F ra n c is R. B. G o d o lp h in [N ew Y o r k , 1 9 4 2 ]. ) Since Persia is a m o n a rc h y and s in c e , m o re o v e r , X e r x e s has n e v e r r e s p e c te d m a jo r ity ru le b e fo r e , he has no good reason to b e g in no w . As i t t u r n s o u t , he s h o u ld have fo llo w e d A r t e m is ia 's a d v ic e , f o r t h e co n se quen ces o f n o t fo llo w in g th e a d v ic e are f o r him cala m ito u s. 15

See below f o r a d is c u s s io n o f X e r x e s 's h a m a rtia e .

16 A u g u s t in e , 1952) 1 4.16.

The

C it y o f G od, t r .

M a rcu s

Dods

(C h ic a g o

17 A u g u s tin e , 14.17. Plato argues, e s p e c ia lly in th e P h a e d o , t h a t t h e soul is im peded b y t h e b o d y and c a n n o t a c h ie v e in d e p e n d e n c e . T h e r e S o cra te s says t h a t t h e d e s ire s f o r f o o d , d r i n k , and sexual e n jo y m e n t make i t im p o ssib le f o r t h e soul to be in d e p e n d e n t and u n c o n ta m in a te d ( P h a e d o , 81b ); e a r l i e r t h e p h ilo s o p h e r was p r a is e d f o r d e s p is in g t h e b o d y , f o r t h e b o d y f i l l s us w i t h d e s ir e s w h ic h make it im p o s s ib le to t h i n k o f a n y t h i n g else ( 6 5 - 6 6 ) . See also C ra t y lu s , 404a a n d T im a e u s , 70e. F o r a f u r t h e r d is c u s s io n o f t h i s p o i n t , see t h e a r t i c l e b y C a ro l L in d s a y on E u r ip id e s 's H ip p o ly tu s in t h i s volu m e .

18 For a d i f f e r e n t a c c o u n t o f th e s e c u s to m s , w i t h o u t t h e H e rod otean b a la n ce , see S t r a b o , 745. B e rn a rd e te , pp. 26-27, a rg u e s t h a t t h e law " le v e ls as i t p r e s e r v e s t h e n a t u r a l d iff e r e n c e s in b e a u t y ; t h e u g lie s t law . . . h e ig h te n s as i t d e s t r o y s t h e same n a t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s . " 19 A p o llo seems t o be a b o ve ).

re fe rrin g

to H e sio d 's d ic tu m

( q u o te d

20 C f . Im m e rw a h r ( " A s p e c t s , " p . 2 5 9 ): "T h u s C y r u s ’s d i v in e f o r t u n e becomes t h e cause o f his d o w n f a ll, f o r it arouse s in him t h e b lin d b e lie f t h a t he is n o t s u b je c t to m is ­ fo rtu n e . " 21 Η. P. S ta h l, " L e a r n in g T h r o u g h S u f f e r in g ? C ro e s u s ' C o n v e r s a tio n s in t h e H i s t o r y o f H e r o d o t u s , " Y ale C la s s ic a l S tu d ie s , 24 (1 9 7 5 ), 1-36, m a in ta in s t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t n e i t h e r C y r u s n o r Cam byses can b e n e f it fro m C r o e s u s 's a d v ic e show s t h a t man has b u t a n a r r o w c a p a c ity f o r le a r n i n g . 22

Im m e rw a h r, F orm a n d T h o u g h t, p p .

168-169.

23 J. A . S. E va n s, in " T h e Dream o f X e r x e s a n d t h e 'N o moi' o f t h e P e r s ia n s , " C la s s ic a l J o u r n a l ( 1 9 6 1 ), 109-111, a rg u e s t h a t Cam byses is mad because he d e r id e s t h e nom oi o f t h e P e rs ia n s . H e ro d o tu s ( 3 .3 8 ) a g r e e s , b u t c ite s t h i s as m e re ly one m a n ife s ta tio n o f C a m b yse s's m adne ss. 2I> A r t a b a n u s 's t h e o r y is o u t o f t h e G re e k r a t i o n a li s t t r a d i ­ t io n . T h is v ie w a b o u t dream s also a p p e a rs in E m pedocles, f r a g . 108, a nd H ip p o c r a te s , De M o rb o S a c ro , 17. 25 T h is is one o f th e w o r l d 's m ost s t u d ie d d re a m s . Evans (in " T h e Dream o f X e r x e s " ) says t h a t t h e dre a m keeps X e r x e s a c t in g in a c c o rd a n c e w i t h t h e nom oi o f P e rs ia , w h ic h make Persia w a r l ik e . In a lo n g a r t i c l e , " A Dream on a K a iro s o f H i s t o r y : A n A n a ly s is o f H e ro d o tu s V I I 12-19; 4 7" (M n e m o syn e , 23 [1 9 7 0 ], 2 2 5 -2 4 9 ), R. G. A . V a n L ie s h o u t co n c lu d e s t h a t A r t a b a n u s 's "g o o d and s e n s ib le a d v ic e is im m oral, because i t ig n o re s d o o m ." A man, he s a y s , is o b lig e d to meet his doom, and is " m o r a l" in so d o i n g , even if such " m o r a l i t y " r e q u i r e him to be " u n e t h i c a l , " t h a t is, u n j u s t to fe llo w hum a n s.

26 Im m e rw a h r, " H is t o r ic a l A c tio n in H e r o d o t u s , " T r a n s ­ a c tio n s o f th e A m e rica n P h ilo lo g ic a l A s s o c ia tio n , 85 (1954 ), 37. See also R ichm ond L a ttim o r e , " T h e Wise A d v is o r in H e r ­ o d o t u s , " C la s s ic a l P h ilo lo g y 34 (1 9 3 9 ), 2 4 -3 6 , esp. 25-28. See also S ta h l, " L e a r n in g T h r o u g h S u f f e r in g ? "

Norman K re tz m a n n

ABRAHAM,

IS A A C , A N D E U T H Y P H R O :

GOD A N D T H E BA S IS OF M O R A L IT Y

H a m a rtia in its New T e s ta m e n t sense o f moral f a u l t r e ta in s t h e f l a v o r o f its o ld e r sense o f m is s in g t h e m a rk . A n d i f we a sk a g a in s t t h a t b ib lic a l b a c k g r o u n d , 'Who sets u p t h e moral m a rk t h a t h a m a rtia is t h e m is s in g o f ? ', t h e q u e s tio n a n s w e rs its e lf. M y main c o n c e rn in t h is p a p e r g r o w s n a t u r a l l y o u t o f t h a t q u e s tio n and its o b v io u s a n s w e r , f o r I w a n t t o c o n s id e r j u s t w h a t is in v o lv e d in G od's e s t a b lis h in g o f m oral p r i n c i ­ p le s . E v e r y r e p l y t o th is q u e s tio n is a t least t h e b e g in n in g o f a t h e o r y o f r e lig io u s m o r a li t y , and a t least t h r e e such t h e o r ie s w ill be exam ined in t h is p a p e r . 1 T h e r e la t io n s h ip I w a n t t o e x p lo r e betw een God and m o r a lit y is e s p e c ia lly w e ll-e n d o w e d w it h c o n c r e te exam ples in t h e w o r l d 's g r e a t l i t e r a t u r e , and t h e s t o r y o f A b ra h a m and Isaac is s u r e l y t h e m ost f a m ilia r o f th e m . B u t because I w ill w a n t to r e f e r to one o r tw o o f its d e t a ils , I w ill r e f r e s h th e r e a d e r 's m em ory b y p r e s e n t in g t h e w h o le s t o r y h e re : T h e tim e came when God p u t A b ra h a m to t h e t e s t . 'A b r a h a m ', he c a lle d , and A b ra h a m r e p lie d , 'H e re I a m .' God s a id , 'T a k e y o u r son Isaac, y o u r o n ly son, whom yo u lo v e , and go t o t h e land o f M o ria h . T h e re yo u shall o f f e r him as a s a c r if ic e on one o f t h e h ills w h ic h I w ill show y o u . ' So A b ra h a m rose e a r ly in th e m o rn in g and s a d d le d his ass, and he to o k w it h him tw o o f his men and his son Isaac; and he s p l i t th e f ir e w o o d f o r t h e s a c r if ic e , and set o u t f o r t h e place o f w h ic h God had s p o k e n . On t h e t h i r d d a y A b ra h a m looked up and saw t h e place in th e d is ta n c e . He said to his m en, 'S ta y h e re w it h t h e ass w h ile I and th e b o y go o v e r t h e r e ; and w hen we have w o r s h ip p e d we w ill come b a c k to y o u . ' So A b ra h a m to o k t h e wood f o r t h e s a c r if ic e and laid it on his son Isaac's s h o u ld e r ; he h im s e lf c a r r i e d t h e f i r e and t h e k n i f e , and t h e tw o o f th e m w e n t on t o g e t h e r . Isaac said to A b ra h a m , 'F a t h e r ', and he a n s w e r e d , 'W hat is i t , my son?' Isaac

s a id , 'H e re a re t h e f i r e a nd t h e w o o d , b u t w h e r e is the young b e a st fo r th e s a c r if ic e ? ' A b ra h a m a n s w e r e d , 'God w ill p r o v i d e h im s e lf w i t h a y o u n g bea st f o r a s a c r if ic e , my son. A n d t h e tw o o f them w e n t on t o g e t h e r and came to t h e place o f w h ic h God had s p o k e n . T h e r e A b ra h a m b u i l t an a l t a r and a r r a n g e d t h e w ood. He b o u n d his son Isaac a nd laid him on t h e a lt a r on to p o f t h e w o od. T h e n he s t r e t c h e d o u t his hand and to o k t h e k n ife to k ill his son; b u t t h e angel o f t h e L o rd calle d to him fro m h e a v e n , 'A b ra h a m , A b r a h a m . ' He a n s w e r e d , 'H e re I a m .' T h e A n g e l o f th e L o rd s a id , 'Do n o t ra ise y o u r hand a g a in s t t h e b o y ; do n o t to u c h him. Now I kn o w t h a t you a re a G o d - f e a r in g man. You have n o t w i t h ­ held fro m me y o u r son, y o u r o n ly s o n . ' A b ra h a m looked u p , and t h e r e he saw a ram c a u g h t b y its h o rn s in a t h i c k e t . So he w e n t and to o k t h e ram and o f f e r e d it as a s a c r if ic e in s te a d o f his son. A b ra h a m named t h a t place J e h o v a h - ji r e h [ t h a t is, t h e L o r d w ill p ro v id e ]. 2 I t is c le a r t h a t A b ra h a m loved his s o n - - n o t o n ly fro m G od's r e fe re n c e to Isaac as " y o u r o n ly so n , whom y o u l o v e , " b u t also, I t h i n k , fro m A b ra h a m 's a n s w e r to Isa a c’ s q u e s ­ t i o n , an a n s w e r t h a t seems in te n d e d to s h ie ld Isaac as lo n g as p o s s ib le . B u t i t is e q u a lly c le a r t h a t A b ra h a m was p r e ­ p a re d to c a r r y o u t God's command: "h e s t r e t c h e d o u t his hand and to o k t h e k n ife to k i l l his s o n . " How a re th o s e tw o f a c ts to be re conciled? I w a n t to c o n s id e r j u s t t h r e e a n s w e rs t h a t m ig h t be d r a w n fro m t h e s t o r y . One o f them f i t s t h e s t o r y b e s t, b u t n e i t h e r o f t h e o t h e r s is w i l d l y im p la u s ib le at f i r s t g la n c e . T h e f i r s t o f th e s e a n s w e rs is t h a t A b ra h a m was p r e ­ p a re d to k ill his o n ly son, whom he lo v e d , because he was a f r a id o f w h a t God w o u ld do to him i f he d is o b e y e d o r h o p e fu l o f some r e w a r d f o r his o b e d ie n c e . A n d in f a c t th e s t o r y goes on to t e ll t h a t A b ra h a m was r e w a r d e d , g l o r i o u s l y : T h e n t h e angel o f t h e L o rd called fro m heaven a second tim e to A b ra h a m , 'T h is is t h e w o rd o f t h e L o r d : B y m y own s e lf I s w e a r: inasm uch as y o u h a ve done t h is and h ave n o t w i t h h e l d y o u r s o n , y o u r o n ly so n , I w ill bless you a b u n d a n t l y and g r e a t l y m u l t i p l y

y o u r d e s c e n d a n ts u n t i l t h e y a re as nu m e ro u s as t h e s t a r s in t h e s k y and t h e g r a in s o f sand on t h e sea­ shore. Y o u r d e s c e n d a n ts shall possess t h e c itie s o f t h e i r enemies. A ll n a tio n s on e a r t h shall p r a y t o be b le sse d as y o u r d e s c e n d a n ts a re b le s s e d , and t h is beca use yo u h a ve o b e ye d m e . ’ (G e n e sis 2 2 :1 5 -1 8 ) T h e r e a r e good p h ilo s o p h ic a l reasons t o d e n y t h a t even God c o u ld k n o w ahead o f tim e w h a t A b ra h a m w o u ld f r e e l y d e cid e to d o , 3 a n d i t s h o u ld be n o te d t h a t in t h e s t o r y God s a y s , " N ow I k n o w . . . . " 1* B u t t h e r e is no reason to s u p p o se t h a t God w o u ld n o t k n o w w h a t A b ra h a m was t h i n k i n g s im u lta n e ­ o u s ly w i t h A b ra h a m 's t h i n k i n g i t . A n d so i f t h is f i r s t a n s w e r is to be ta k e n s e r io u s l y , God is s h o w e r in g A b ra h a m w i t h in co m p a ra b le b le s s in g s f o r o b e y in g him w h ile t h i n k i n g a lo n g th e s e lin e s : " I k n o w t h a t w h a t I ’m a b o u t to do is h o r ­ r ib l e , b u t w h o know s w h a t a w fu l t h i n g m ig h t happen to me i f I d o n ’t do i t , o r w h a t m a rv e lo u s t h i n g s God m ig h t do f o r me i f I go t h r o u g h w i t h i t? " God need n o t even be p a r t i c u l a r l y goo d t o be re p e lle d b y such a c h a r a c t e r , and i t is s t r i c t l y i n c r e d i b le t h a t A b ra h a m s h o u ld be s in g le d o u t f o r such a b le s s in g on t h e basis o f o b e d ie n c e r e n d e r e d in such a s p i r i t . B e h a v io r o f th e s o r t a t t r i b u t e d to A b ra h a m in t h i s f i r s t a n s w e r is p r u d e n t , a nd t h e r e a re o f c o u r s e m any c i r c u m ­ stances in w h ich p r u d e n t b e h a v i o r is j u s t w h a t's w a n te d . B u t p r u d e n t b e h a v io r is n o t t o be c o n fu s e d w it h moral b e h a v io r , and when a moral issue as s t a r k as t h e one in t h is s t o r y is o v e r r id d e n b y c o n s id e r a tio n s o f p r u d e n c e , p r u d e n t b e h a v io r is immoral b e h a v io r . I t seems c le a r to me, t h e n , t h a t t h e v e r y f a c t t h a t th e s t o r y ends w i t h G od's r e w a r d in g A b ra h a m as he does is p o w e r fu l e v id e n c e a g a in s t t a k in g t h is f i r s t a n s w e r s e r io u s ly . A n d , a n y w a y , since o b e y in g com­ m ands, even d i v in e com mands, o u t o f f e a r o f p u n is h m e n t o r hope o f re w a r d c a n n o t c o u n t as m o ra l b e h a v io r , t h e f i r s t a n s w e r w o u ld make th e s t o r y o f A b ra h a m and Isaac i r r e l e v a n t to o u r i n v e s t ig a tio n o f th e r e la t io n s h ip between God and m o ra lity .5 A second i n i t i a l l y p la u s ib le a n s w e r to t h e q u e s tio n w h y A b ra h a m was p r e p a r e d to k ill his b e lo v e d son at G od's com­ mand is t h a t he b e lie v e d t h a t t h e h o r r i b l e a c t had been made m o ra lly r i g h t s im p ly b y th e f a c t t h a t God had commanded it. T h is a n s w e r is r e le v a n t to o u r p u r p o s e s as t h e f i r s t one is n o t, and I w ill have a good deal m ore to say a b o u t i t and a b o u t t h e t h e o r y o f r e lig io u s m o r a lit y i t r e p r e s e n t s . I t is

also h a r d e r to r e je c t as an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s t o r y ; t h e r e is , f o r in s ta n c e , n o t h in g in t h e f a c t t h a t God blesses A b ra h a m t h a t is o b v io u s ly a t v a r ia n c e w i t h t h is a n s w e r . It w ill be e asier to say w h a t I t h i n k is w r o n g w i t h t h is a n s w e r in th e l i g h t o f a c o n s id e ra tio n o f a t h i r d a n s w e r , w h ic h I t h i n k is t h e r i g h t one. T h e t h i r d a n s w e r is t h a t A b ra h a m was p r e p a r e d to k ill Isaac beca use, t h r o u g h o u t his o r d e a l, A b ra h a m f i r m l y held all f o u r o f th e s e b e lie fs : God has commanded me to k ill my so n ; God is good and a lto g e t h e r w o r t h y o f my o b e d ie n c e ; f o r me to k ill my so n , even as a s a c r if ic e to G od, w o u ld be h o r ­ r i b l y w r o n g ; God is good and w ill n o t a llo w me to do some­ t h i n g h o r r i b l y w r o n g in o b e d ie n c e t o his com mands. Those f o u r b e lie fs c e r t a i n l y s t r a in a g a in s t one a n o t h e r , b u t t h e y a re n o t in c o m p a tib le . A b ra h a m co u ld ho ld them all w i t h o u t b e in g in c o n s is te n t, and if he d id hold th e m a ll, his t r u s t in God was u n c o n d itio n a l. T h a t i t was in d e e d u n c o n d itio n a l can be seen in t h e lin e "h e s t r e t c h e d o u t his ha n d and t o o k th e k n i f e to k i l l his s o n . " O b v io u s ly A b ra h a m 's s ta te o f m ind was n o t t h a t o f an o r d i n a r y d e c e n t G o d - f e a r i n g f a t h e r , w ho on f i n d i n g h im s e lf in such h a r r o w i n g c irc u m s ta n c e s m ig h t t h i n k " S u r e l y God w o n 't le t me a c t u a l ly do t h i s h o r r i b l e t h i n g ; so I 'll go along w it h his com m and, a t least u n t i l t h e la s t m in u te . B u t i f t h e r e 's no d i v in e r e p r ie v e b y t h e n , I 'll k n o w God w a s n 't good a f t e r a ll, and I 'll save Isaac m y s e l f . " A c o n d itio n a l t r u s t o f t h a t s o r t w o u ld h ave been s e n s ib le as well as d e c e n t, b u t i t w o u ld have fa lle n f a r s h o r t o f t h e r e lig io u s heroism w it h w h ic h A b ra h a m was c r e d it e d b y S t. Paul and St. J a m e s . 6 So i f A b ra h a m t r u s t e d G od's g o o d n e s s , he t r u s t e d u n c o n d it io n a lly : he to o k t h e k n if e to k ill his son, n o t m e re ly to raise his arm as i f to k ill his son. B u t w h e re is th e e v id e n c e t h a t he d i d , in f a c t , t r u s t God to save Isaac (a n d t h e r e b y to save Isaac's f a t h e r fro m w r o n g d o i n g ) ? When i t was all o v e r , A b ra h a m named t h e h i ll t o p w it h a name t h a t means 't h e L o r d w ill p r o v i d e '; I t h i n k t h a t t h a t name was in te n d e d to blazon o u t in t r i u m p h w h a t he had been s te a d ­ f a s t l y , s i le n t l y s a y in g to h im s e lf f o r t h r e e w h o le d a y s : " T h e L o rd ,w/// p r o v i d e . " A n d f o r f u r t h e r e v id e n c e o f his t r u s t in G od's g o o d n e s s , look again a t t h e e x c h a n g e b e tw e en t h e b o y and his f a t h e r : Isaac said t o A b ra h a m , 'F a t h e r ', W hat is i t , m y son?' Isaac s a id ,

and he a n s w e r e d , H e re a re t h e f i r e

and t h e w o o d , b u t w h e re is t h e y o u n g b ea st f o r th e s a c r if ic e ? ' A b ra h a m a n s w e re d , 'God w ill p r o v i d e h im ­ s e lf w i t h a y o u n g bea st f o r a s a c r if ic e , m y s o n . ’ T h e w r i t e r o f t h e s t o r y leaves i t t o us t o u n d e r s ta n d th e em otions in t h is scene , and s u r e l y all o f us can do so. But w h e n t h i s scene is v ie w e d a g a in s t t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f t h e se c o n d a n s w e r , a c c o r d in g t o w h ic h A b ra h a m t h i n k s t h a t he w ill in f a c t be s a c r if i c in g his son q u i t e soon, t h e f a t h e r ’ s r e p l y is n o t o n l y in te n d e d t o s h ie ld t h e b o y f o r a fe w more m in u te s , i t is also a l i t t l e }o k e - -a jo k e t h e p o i n t o f w h ic h w ill be t h e la s t t h i n g Isaac e v e r sees. C r u e l i r o n y a t t h e b o y 's e x p e n s e is in c o m p a tib le w ith A b ra h a m 's love f o r him , h o w ­ e v e r , a nd so A b ra h a m 's r e p ly m u s t be no jo k e b u t r a t h e r th e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d e x p r e s s io n o f his t r u s t . O n ly t h e t h i r d a n s w e r p r o v id e s an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t f i t s t h e s t o r y , one t h a t also p r o v id e s a basis f o r P aul’ s assessm ent o f A b ra h a m as " t h e f a t h e r o f all w h o have f a i t h . " M ore im p o r t a n t f o r my p u r p o s e s is t h e f a c t t h a t t h is t h i r d a n s w e r p r o v id e s us w ith an in s ta n c e o f a second t h e o r y o f r e lig io u s m o r a l i t y - - t h e v ie w t h a t C o d 's g o o d n e ss ( to g e th e r w ith h is k n o w le d g e ) e n ta ils t h a t th e a c tio n s he a p p ro v e s o f a re m o ra lly r i g h t a n d th e a c tio n s he d is a p p ro v e s o f a re m o ra lly w r o n g . B e fo re th e s e c o m p e tin g t h e o r ie s ( e n c o u n te r e d in t h e second a nd t h i r d i n t e r p r e t a t io n s o f t h e s t o r y ) can be e v a l u ­ a t e d , t h e y need t o be m ore f u l l y p r e s e n te d and m ore c l e a r ly d is tin g u is h e d . H a p p ily , t h e c la s s ic c l a r i f ic a t i o n and d i f f e r ­ e n t ia tio n o f v ie w s lik e th e s e ta k e s place in t h e s e t t i n g o f a n o th e r good s to ry , the one t o ld in Plato's d ia lo g u e E u th y p h r o . S o c ra te s meets E u t h y p h r o o u t s id e one o f t h e A t h e n ia n c o u r t s o f law and le a rn s t h a t E u t h y p h r o is t h e r e t o p r o s ­ e c u te his own f a t h e r on a c h a r g e o f m u r d e r . S o cra te s is s h o c k e d : "m o s t m e n , " he s a y s , "w o u ld n o t kn o w how t h e y c o u ld do t h i s and be r i g h t . " 7 A n d so he supp o se s t h a t t h e e x p la n a tio n f o r E u t h y p h r o 's o t h e r w is e b i z a r r e b e h a v io r m u s t lie in t h e f a c t t h a t t h e v i c t i m , to o , was a m ember o f E u t h y p h r o 's f a m ily . H e re is E u t h y p h r o 's r e p l y : I t is r id i c u l o u s , S o c ra te s , f o r y o u t o t h i n k t h a t i t makes a n y d i f f e r e n c e w h e t h e r t h e v ic t im is a s tra n g e r o r a r e la t iv e . One s h o u ld o n ly w a tch w h e t h e r t h e k i l l e r acted j u s t l y o r n o t ; i f he a cted

j u s t l y , le t him g o , b u t i f n o t, one s h o u ld p r o s e c u te , even if t h e k i l l e r sh a re s y o u r h e a r th and t a b le . The p o llu tio n is t h e same if yo u k n o w i n g l y keep com p a n y w it h such a man and do n o t cleanse y o u r s e l f and him b y b r i n g i n g him to ju s t ic e . T h e v ic tim was a d e p e n ­ d e n t o f m ine , and when we w e re f a r m in g in Naxos he was a s e r v a n t o f o u r s . He k ille d one o f o u r h o u s e ­ hold slaves in d r u n k e n a n g e r , so m y f a t h e r b o u n d him han d and f o o t and t h r e w him in a d i t c h , th e n s e n t a man h e re to e n q u i r e fro m t h e p r i e s t w h a t s h o u ld be d o n e . D u r i n g t h a t tim e he g a v e no t h o u g h t o r c a re to t h e b o u n d m an, as b e in g a k i l l e r , and i t was no m a tte r i f he d ie d , w h ic h he d i d . H u n g e r and co ld and his b o n d s cause d his d e a th b e fo r e t h e m e sseng er came b a c k fro m t h e s e e r. Both my f a t h e r and m y o t h e r r e la tiv e s a re a n g r y t h a t I am p r o s e c u tin g my f a t h e r f o r m u r d e r on b e h a lf o f a m u r ­ d e r e r , as he d id n o t even k ill him . T h e y say t h a t such a v ic tim does not d e s e rv e a t h o u g h t and t h a t i t is im pious f o r a son to p r o s e c u te his f a t h e r f o r m u rd e r. B u t t h e i r ideas o f t h e d i v in e a t t i t u d e to p ie t y and im p ie ty are w r o n g , S o c ra te s . (5B -E ) W ith o u t s u g g e s tin g t h a t I know a n y t h i n g a b o u t A th e n ia n law o r even much a b o u t law g e n e r a ll y , I t h i n k E u t h y p h r o 's c h a r g e o f m u r d e r w o u ld be d is m is s e d , a nd I t h i n k E u t h y p h r o t h o u g h t so, t o o . 8 W hat m a tte r s to E u t h y p h r o is n o t t h a t his f a t h e r s h o u ld be c o n v ic t e d , o r even t h a t he s h o u ld be t r i e d ; w h a t m a tte r s is t h a t E u t h y p h r o s h o u ld , b y b r i n g i n g t h e case to t h e ju d g e s , p u b l i c l y a c k n o w le d g e t h a t an in ju s t i c e has been p e r p e t r a t e d b y his f a t h e r (a n d t h a t m uch is o b v i o u s ly tru e ). A n d a lth o u g h he is i n d i g n a n t t h a t S o cra te s s h o u ld t h i n k t h a t t h e r e la tio n s h ip o f t h e v ic tim t o E u t h y p h r o m ig h t m o tiv a te his p r o s e c u t in g his f a t h e r , t h e p e r p e tr a to r 's r e la ­ t io n s h ip to E u t h y p h r o c le a r ly does m o tiv a te him. He says t h a t if t h e k i l l e r acts u n j u s t l y "o n e s h o u ld p r o s e c u te , even i f th e k i l l e r sh a re s y o u r h e a rth and t a b l e , " b u t he has no d o u b t fa lle n in to t h e h a b it o f p u t t i n g i t t h a t w a y because o f th e fla m in g row he's h a v in g w it h his f a m i l y , w h o p l a i n l y c lin g to t h e a n c ie n t G re e k p r i n c i p l e o f f il ia l p i e t y . 9 T h e w a y E u t h y p h r o t h e m oral in n o v a t o r sees i t , one s h o u ld p r o s e c u te e s p e c ia lly i f t h e k i l l e r s h a re s o n e 's h e a r t h a nd t a b le ; f o r w h a t w o r r ie s E u t h y p h r o m ost is n o t t h e v io la tio n o f t h e c r im -

inal code o r even t h e in ju s t i c e , b u t " th e p o llu tio n " to w h ic h yo u a re s u b je c te d " i f you k n o w in g ly ke e p c o m p a n y w ith such a man and do n o t cleanse y o u r s e l f a n d him b y b r i n g i n g him to j u s t i c e . " W hat d r iv e s E u t h y p h r o , t h e n , is t h e ideal o f m oral o r s p i r i t u a l p u r i t y , a nd he u n d e r ta k e s t h e legal case a g a in s t his f a t h e r in t h e s e r v ic e o f t h a t ideal and w i t h a ca re f o r his f a t h e r ’ s p u r i f i c a t i o n as well as his o w n . Poor E u th y p h ro ! People who h ave h e a rd w h a t he's u p to t h i n k he's c r a z y , as he h im s e lf r e p o r t s t o S o crates ( 4 A ) , b u t i t is t h e a t t i t u d e o f his own f a t h e r and fa m ily t h a t is e s p e c ia lly h a r d t o b e a r. " T h e y s a y . . . t h a t i t is im p io u s f o r a son to p r o s e c u te his f a t h e r f o r m u r d e r , " t h e r e b y r e v e a lin g t h a t t h e y h a ve c o m p le te ly missed t h e sp e c ia l, even r a d ic a l, f il ia l p i e t y u n d e r l y i n g E u t h y p h r o 's a d m itt e d ly b i z a r r e b e h a v io r as well as f a i l i n g u t t e r l y to u n d e r s ta n d t h e n a t u r e o f r e lig io u s p ie ty : " B u t t h e ir ideas o f t h e d i v in e a t t i t u d e t o w a r d p i e t y and im p ie ty a re w r o n g , S o c r a t e s . " S o cra te s p ic k s u p t h e im p lic a tio n : "W h e re a s . . . yo u t h i n k t h a t y o u r k n o w le d g e o f t h e d i v i n e , and o f p i e t y and im p ie t y , is so a c c u r a te t h a t . . . y o u h ave no f e a r o f h a v in g acted im p i­ o u s ly in b r i n g i n g y o u r f a t h e r t o t r i a l ? " (5E) A n d E u t h y p h r o re s p o n d s in t h e e x p e c te d w a y , in t h e w a y t h a t in v it e s a S o c ra tic e x a m in a tio n : " I s h o u ld be o f no use, S o c ra te s , and E u t h y p h r o w o u ld n o t be s u p e r i o r to t h e m a jo r ity o f men, i f I d id n o t have a c c u r a te k n o w le d g e o f all such t h i n g s " ( 4 E - 5 A ) . " T e ll me t h e n , " says S o c ra te s , " w h a t Is t h e p i o u s . . . ? " (5 D ) L ik e most o f S o c ra te s's in t e r l o c u t o r s in s im ila r c i r c u m ­ s ta n c e s , E u t h y p h r o f in d s i t v e r y h a rd to sa y w h a t he t h o u g h t he knew p e r f e c t l y w e ll, and he makes a c o u p le o f fa ls e s t a r t s along t h e w a y to e x p r e s s in g his v ie w in a d e f i n i ­ t io n t h a t S o crates ta k e s to be w o r t h e x a m in in g as a t least the b e g in n in g o f a th e o ry of p ie ty . But th ro u g h o u t E u t h y p h r o 's t r i a l b y d ia le c tic all his a tte m p ts t o say w h a t he t h o u g h t he knew s t a y close to t h e idea a lr e a d y s u g g e s te d in his r e p u d ia t io n o f his f a m ily 's a t t i t u d e : th e k n o w le d g e of w h a t is pious a nd w h a t is im pious re s ts on a k n o w le d g e of " t h e d i v in e a t t i t u d e . " T h u s , his t h i r d a n s w e r , t h e one t h a t re c e iv e s S o c ra te s 's most d e ta ile d p h ilo s o p h ic a l a n a ly s is , is t h a t " t h e pious is w h a t all t h e gods lo ve " ( 9 E ) - - a n a n s w e r w h ic h m ig h t as w e ll be e x p r e s s e d m o n o t h e is t ic a lly , f o r p u r ­ poses o f t h e d is c u s s io n in t h e d ia lo g u e as w ell as f o r o u r purpo ses: P ie ty is w h a t Cod a p p ro v e s o f.

P ie ty is one o f th e v i r t u e s r e g u l a r l y re c o g n iz e d b y S oc­ rate s and th e people w it h whom he t a l k s , t h e o t h e r s b e in g ju s t i c e , w isdo m , c o u r a g e , a n d m o d e ra tio n ( o r t e m p e r a n c e ) . A n d since p ie t y is th e v i r t u e s p e c if ic a lly a p p r o p r i a t e t o a human b e in g 's r e la tio n s h ip t o G od, i t is n e i t h e r s u r p r i s i n g n o r illu m in a tin g t o be t o ld t h a t p i e t y is w h a t God a p p ro v e s o f. B u t Socrates d ra w s a d i s t i n c t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h i s d e f i n i ­ tio n w h ic h is i ll u m in a t in g , as well as p e r f e c t l y g e n e r a l in its a p p l i c a b i l it y to d e f i n it i o n s o f t h a t s o r t . S o cra te s in tr o d u c e s his d i s t i n c t io n in t h e fo rm o f a q u e s tio n ( 1 0 A ) , w h ic h I can p a r a p h ra s e in t h is w a y : Does Cod a p p ro v e o f w h a t is p io u s because i t is p io u s , o r is i t p io u s beca use C od a p p ro v e s o f it? T h e e f fe c t o f t h a t q u e s tio n on E u t h y p h r o 's d e f i n it i o n o f p ie t y is m arve lo u s t o see (as long as you ha p p e n n o t to be E u t h y p h r o ) , b u t we are n o t g o in g t o look a t i t now . The drama o f th e s t o r ie s , even th e d ia le c tic a l dram a o f th e d i a ­ lo g u e , m u st now be le ft b e h in d so t h a t we can g e t down to w o rk. I can make S o c ra te s 's d i s t i n c t io n more d i r e c t l y r e le v a n t to o u r c o n s id e ra tio n o f G od's role in t h e basis o f m o r a lit y b y a p p ly in g i t to E u t h y p h r o 's a n s w e r g e n e r a liz e d fro m a s in g le v i r t u e to m o ra lity in g e n e r a l: M o ra l g o o d n e ss is w h a t God a p p ro v e s o f. I w ill call t h is claim t h e g e n e r a l th e s is o f re lig io u s m o r a lity . I t is t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d in t h e s to rie s o f A b ra h a m and his son a nd o f E u t h y p h r o a nd his f a t h e r : in b o th s to rie s God a p p ro v e s o r d is a p p r o v e s o f c e r t a in human a c tio n s , a nd human b e in g s h ave w a ys o f k n o w in g w h ic h ones he a p p ro v e s o f a nd w h ic h ones he d is a p p r o v e s o f . A n d we a re , o f c o u r s e , n o t t a l k i n g a b o u t j u s t th o s e t w o s t o r i e s ; th e g e n e ra l th e s is o f r e lig io u s m o r a lit y has been in c o r p o r a t e d in to t h e d o c t r in e o f m o s t - - p e r h a p s a l l — o f t h e w o r l d ’ s t h e i s t i c r e lig io n s . I w a n t t o a p p ly S o c ra te s 's d i s t i n c t i o n t o t h e g e n ­ era l th e s is in o r d e r t o e x t r a c t c l a r i f i e d v e r s io n s o f t h e tw o th e o r ie s o f re lig io u s m o r a li t y we h ave e n c o u n t e r e d in o u r d is c u s s io n o f th e s t o r y o f A b ra h a m . ( T h e y a re p r e s e n t also in P lato's d ia lo g u e , b u t n o t n o tic e a b ly in E u t h y p h r o 's s t o r y , th e o n ly p a r t o f t h e d ia lo g u e p r e s e n te d in d e ta il h e r e . ) It w i l l / b e c o n v e n ie n t t o w o r k w i t h a f u l l e r v e r s io n o f t h e g e n ­ eral th e s is a p p lie d t o a c tio n s alone : R ig h t a c tio n s a re a ll a n d o n ly th o s e Cod a p p ro v e s o f , a n d w ro n g a c tio n s a re a ll a n d o n ly th o s e Cod d is a p p ro v e s o f . A p p l y i n g S o c ra te s 's d i s t i n c ­ tio n t o t h a t g e n e ra l th e s is o f r e lig io u s m o r a l i t y , we can e x t r a c t fro m i t tw o t h e o r ie s o f r e lig io u s m o r a li t y . For e ith e r

f T O ) God a p p ro v e s o f r i g h t a c tio n s j u s t because t h e y a re r i g h t and d is a p p r o v e s o f w r o n g a c tio n s j u s t because t h e y a re w r o n g ; o r (T S )

R ig h t a c tio n s a re r ig h t ju s t because God a p p ro v e s o f them a nd w r o n g a c tio n s a re w r o n g j u s t because God d is a p p r o v e s o f th e m .

I call th e s e tw o th e o r ie s th e o lo g ic a l o b je c tiv is m f T O ) and th e o lo g ic a l s u b je c tiv is m ( T S ) , f o r reasons t h a t w ill em erge if t h e y a re n o t a lr e a d y o b v io u s . We h ave seen an in s ta n c e o f T S in t h e second p o s s ib le e x p la n a tio n we c o n s id e r e d o f t h e f a c t t h a t A b ra h a m was p r e ­ p a re d to k ill Isaac, whom he lo v e d : A b ra h a m m ig h t h ave b e lie v e d t h a t t h e h o r r i b l e deed was made m o ra lly r i g h t j u s t beca use God com m anded i t . A n d i f t h i s A b ra h a m was a th o r o u g h g o in g a d h e r e n t o f T S , he w o u ld h ave b e lie v e d t h r e e d a y s l a t e r t h a t t h a t same deed was th e n made m o ra lly w ro n g j u s t b e ca u se t h e n , at t h e last p o s s ib le m oment, God p r o h ib ­ ite d i t . F o r reasons I have a lr e a d y g i v e n , I t h i n k t h a t t a k in g A b ra h a m to h ave been an a d h e r e n t o f T S d o e s n 't f i t the s to ry . B u t to r e je c t TS as an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f A b r a ­ ham's s ta te o f m ind is n o t ( y e t ) to r e je c t T S as a t h e o r y o f r e lig io u s m o r a li t y , and so I w a n t now to c o n s id e r th e t h e o r y its e lf. T h e r e a re good p h ilo s o p h ic a l reasons f o r r e je c tin g T S as a basis f o r m o r a li t y , tw o o f w h ic h I w ill be m e n tio n in g s h o rtly . B u t i t w o u ld be a shame to p e r m it T S to p e r is h p e a c e fu lly o f r e f u t a t i o n alone w hen i t r i c h l y d e s e rv e s e x e c r a ­ t io n . F o r t a k in g TS s e r io u s ly means t a k i n g s e r io u s ly t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t a b s o lu te ly a n y a c tio n c o u ld be made m o ra lly r i g h t s im p ly in v i r t u e o f G o d ’ s com m a nding o r a p p r o v in g o f it. I f a f a t h e r ' s k i l l i n g his in n o c e n t s o n , whom he lo v e s , is n o t an exam ple h o r r i b l e e n o u g h f o r y o u , y o u may be l e f t to y o u r d a r k e s t im a g in in g s . B u t do n o t su p p o s e t h a t t h e a d h e r e n t o f TS can e x t r i c a t e h im s e lf fro m t h is t e r m in a l e m b a r ra s s m e n t w it h t h e pio u s r e jo in d e r t h a t God is good a nd so can be re lie d on n o t to a p p r o v e o f m oral e v i l. T h e o n ly s ta n d a rd o f m oral goodness s u p p lie d by TS is God’s a p p r o v a l; and so to say w i t h in t h e c o n t e x t o f T S t h a t God is good comes to n o t h in g m ore th a n t h a t God a p p ro v e s o f h im s e l f - - w h i c h is easy to g r a n t b u t im p o s s ib le to d e r i v e a n y r e a s s u r a n c e fr o m .

T h e e x e c r a tio n T S d e s e rv e s was n e v e r m ore f o r c e f u l l y d e liv e r e d th a n b y Jo h n S t u a r t M ill, w h o , h a p p i ly f o r p h i l o ­ soph ica l polemic a nd E n g lis h p ro s e b u t u n h a p p i l y f o r M r. M ansel, e n c o u n te r e d in t h a t M r. Mansel an a d h e r e n t o f a v e r s io n o f T S . H e re is p a r t o f w h a t M ill has t o s a y a b o u t M r. Mansel and his t h e o r y o f r e lig io u s m o r a li t y : I f in a s c r ib in g goodness to God I do n o t mean w h a t I mean b y g o o d n e s s ; i f I do n o t mean t h e g o o d n e ss o f w h ic h I h ave some k n o w le d g e , b u t an in c o m p r e h e n ­ s ib le a t t r i b u t e o f an in c o m p r e h e n s ib le s u b s ta n c e , w h ic h f o r a u g h t I kn o w may be a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t q u a l i t y fro m t h a t w h ic h I love and v e n e r a t e - - a n d even m u s t, i f M r. Mansel is to be b e lie v e d , be in some im p o r t a n t p a r t ic u l a r s op p o se d to t h i s - - w h a t do I mean b y c a llin g i t goodness? a nd w h a t reason h ave I f o r v e n e r a t in g it? I f I k n o w n o t h in g a b o u t w h a t t h e a t t r i b u t e is , I c a n n o t te ll t h a t i t is a p r o p e r o b je c t o f v e n e r a tio n . T o say t h a t G o d 's go o d n e ss may be d i f ­ f e r e n t in k in d fro m m an's g o o d n e s s , w h a t is i t b u t s a y in g , w it h a s l i g h t c h a n g e o f p h r a s e o lo g y , t h a t God may p o s s ib ly n o t be good? T o a s s e r t in w o r d s w h a t we do n o t t h i n k in m e a n in g , is as s u ita b le a d e f i n it i o n as can be g iv e n o f a moral fa ls e h o o d . B e s id e s , s u p ­ pose t h a t c e r ta in u n k n o w n a t t r i b u t e s a re a s c r ib e d to th e D e ity in a r e lig io n t h e e x t e r n a l e v id e n c e s o f w h ic h are so c o n c lu s iv e to m y m in d as e f f e c t u a l l y to c o n v in c e me t h a t i t comes fr o m G od. U n le ss I b e lie v e God to possess t h e same m oral a t t r i b u t e s w h ic h I f i n d , in h o w e v e r i n f e r i o r a d e g r e e , in a good man, w h a t g r o u n d o f a s s u ra n c e h ave I o f G o d ’ s v e r a c i t y ? A ll t r u s t in a R e ve la tio n p re s u p p o s e s a c o n v ic t io n t h a t G od's a t t r i b u t e s a re t h e same, in all b u t d e g r e e , w ith t h e b e s t human a t t r i b u t e s . / I f , in s te a d o f t h e " g la d t i d i n g s " t h a t t h e r e e x is ts a B e in g in whom all t h e e xce lle n c e s w h ic h t h e h ig h e s t human m in d can c o n c e iv e , e x i s t in a d e g re e in c o n c e iv a b le t o u s , I am in fo rm e d t h a t t h e w o r ld is r u le d b y a b e in g w h ose a t t r i b u t e s a re i n f i n i t e , b u t w h a t t h e y a re we c a n n o t le a r n , n o r w h a t a re t h e p r in c ip le s o f his g o v e r n m e n t , e x c e p t t h a t " t h e h ig h e s t human m o r a li t y w h ic h we a re cap a b le o f c o n c e iv in g " does n o t s a n c tio n th e m ; c o n ­ v in c e me o f i t , and I w ill b e a r my f a t e as I m ay.

B u t w hen I am to ld t h a t I m u s t b e lie v e t h i s , and at t h e same tim e call t h is b e in g b y th e names w h ic h e x p r e s s and a f f i r m t h e h ig h e s t human m o r a lit y , I say in p la in te rm s t h a t I w ill n o t. W h a te v e r p o w e r such a , b e in g may h ave o v e r me, t h e r e is one t h i n g w h ic h he shall n o t do: he shall not compel me t o w o r s h ip him. I w ill call no b e in g go o d , w h o is n o t w h a t I mean w h en I a p p ly t h a t e p i t h e t to my f e ll o w - c r e a t u r e s ; and i f such a b e in g can s e n te n ce me to hell f o r n o t so c a llin g him , t o hell I w ill g o . 10 T h e r e is good a r g u m e n ta tio n in t h i s passage along w it h t h e d e n u n c ia t io n , b u t M ill's vehem ence in t h e second h a lf o f i t s t r i k e s me as a lt o g e t h e r w a r r a n t e d . A l t h o u g h he was n o t a t h e i s t h im s e lf, t h e p a ssio n a te ton e s o f his co n d e m n a tio n o f TS o u g h t t o re s o n a te in th e h e a r t o f e v e r y s e l f - r e s p e c t in g th e is t. S u b m it tin g to t h e m oral a u t h o r i t y o f God as e n v i ­ saged in TS w o u ld be in a d e q u a te ly r id ic u le d as a case o f b u y in g a p ig in a p o k e , f o r it a m oun ts to s e llin g y o u r s e lf to a p ig in a poke. I t is n o t o n ly f o r t h e damage i t does t o t h e c o n c e p t o f God t h a t TS is to be r e je c te d , b u t also f o r its d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e basis o f m o r a lit y . F o r p r e s e n t p u rp o s e s I w ill have to c o n t e n t m y s e lf w i t h s im p ly m e n tio n in g tw o o f th e m ore im p o r ­ t a n t , m ore o b v io u s f a il i n g s o f TS as a p u t a t iv e basis f o r m o r a li t y . In t h e f i r s t pla ce , and m ost i m p o r t a n t ly , m o r a lity r e s ts on o b j e c t i v i t y . P a rt o f w h a t t h a t means is t h a t i f an i n d i v id u a l actio n is r e a lly r i g h t a t some tim e o r o t h e r , th e n i t a lw a ys was and w ill be r i g h t . 11 B u t T S does n o t p r e s e r v e o b j e c t i v i t y , as can be seen fr o m t h e T S - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e A b ra h a m s t o r y . In m y v ie w , t h i s c o n s id e ra tio n alone is e n o u g h t o d i s q u a l i f y T S as a t h e o r y o f r e lig io u s m o r a li t y . In t h e second p la c e , i f T S is c o n jo in e d w it h a d o c t r i n e o f d i v i n e r e w a r d s and p u n is h m e n ts , as t h e o r ie s o f r e lig io u s m o r a li t y u s u a lly a r e , i t w ill be d i f f i c u l t o r im p o ssib le t o d i s ­ t i n g u i s h m o r a lity fro m p r u d e n c e in t h e c o n t e x t o f T S . If G o d 's command is all t h a t makes t h e actio n r i g h t and I b e lie v e t h a t God w ill p u n is h me f o r d is o b e d ie n c e , how can I c o n v in c e m y s e lf t h a t I p e r f o r m t h e a c tio n because i t is r i g h t r a t h e r th a n s im p ly o u t o f f e a r ? 12 B y t h i s p o in t T S s h o u ld look d i s i n t e g r a t e d in d is g r a c e , and t h e keenness o f t h e r e a d e r ’ s a n t ic ip a tio n o f T O m u s t be alm ost p a i n f u l ; so I w ill d e la y t h e c o n s id e ra tio n o f T O no

lo n g e r th a n i t ta k e s t o a n n o u n c e t h a t , in c r e d i b le as i t seems, T S w ill ris e a g a in . T O , th e t h e o r y w h ic h d id seem t o f i t t h e s t o r y o f A b ra h a m , o b v io u s ly has t h e s t r e n g t h s c o r r e s p o n d in g t o t h e s h o r tc o m in g s o f T S : TO does p r o v i d e t h e o b j e c t i v i t y n e ce s­ s a r y f o r m o r a lity , and i t does p r e s e r v e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f d r a w i n g a c le a r d i s t i n c t io n betw een m o r a li t y a nd p r u d e n c e . F u r t h e r m o r e , in M ill's a t ta c k on M r . M ansel's v e r s io n o f T S , t h e t h e o r y o f r e lig io u s m o r a lit y t h a t is c l e a r ly ( i f i m p l i c i t l y ) a d v o c a te d b y Mill is T O . A c c o r d i n g to T O , God d is a p p r o v e s o f t r e a c h e r y j u s t because i t is r e a lly w r o n g t o b e t r a y someone w h o t r u s t s y o u . A c c o r d i n g t o T S , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , i f i t is w r o n g to b e t r a y someone w h o t r u s t s y o u , i t is so o n ly because and o n ly as lo n g as God d is a p p r o v e s o f tre a c h e ry ; and i f we s h o u ld le a rn to m o r r o w t h a t i t is a p p r o v e d o f b y G od, th e n to m o r r o w i t w ill have become r i g h t to b e t r a y someone w h o t r u s t s y o u . A n d so i t looks as i f e v e r y s e l f - r e s p e c t in g t h e i s t s h o u ld , w it h a c le a r m in d a nd an easy h e a r t , r e p u d ia t e T S and em brace TO w it h t h e sense t h a t a d a n g e r to r e lig io u s m o r a lit y has been a v e r t e d a nd a f i r m f o u n d a tio n f o r i t has been s e c u r e d . B u t now c o n s id e r T S and TO in t h e l i g h t o f o u r main q u e s tio n : What does God h ave t o do w i t h m o ra lity ? These tw o th e o r ie s o f f e r tw o r a d i c a l ly d i f f e r e n t a n s w e rs t o t h a t q u e s t io n , and th o s e a n s w e rs a re 'N o th in g e s s e n tia l' a nd ' A b ­ s o lu t e ly e v e r y t h i n g . ' B u t 'A b s o l u t e ly e v e ry th in g ' is t h e a n s w e r p r o v id e d b y th e j u s t - r e p u d i a t e d T S , and 'N o t h in g e s s e n tia l' is t h e a n s w e r e n ta ile d b y T O , w h ic h has been lo o k in g lik e t h e t h e o r y t h a t w o u ld e x p la in how m o r a li t y c o u ld be based on r e lig io n . T h i n k o f t h e s t o r y o f Moses and t h e T e n C om m and­ m e n ts . Moses is o f te n ca lle d t h e l a w - g i v e r , b u t s in c e t h e s t o r y has him r e c e iv in g t h e Com m andm ents fr o m G od, t h a t e p i t h e t is m is le a d in g ; Moses was o n l y t h e \ a w - tr a n s m itte r . God is t h e one w h o is p r o p e r l y d e s c r ib e d as t h e la w - g iv e r . B u t is he? A c c o r d i n g to T S he is , b u t a c c o r d in g t o TO God h im s e lf is r e a lly o n l y a l a w - t r a n s m i t t e r . F o r a c c o r d in g t o TO c e r t a in a c tio n s a re r e a lly w r o n g and God know s w h ic h t h e y a r e ; and so, w hen he t e ll s Moses t o t e ll t h e peo p le n o t to s te a l, he's n o t le g is la tin g , he's te a c h in g . O f c o u r s e su ch t e a c h in g on t h e b asis o f d i v i n e l y e x p e r t a u t h o r i t y may w e ll h a ve been in v a lu a b le a t an e a r l y s ta g e in t h e m oral d e v e lo p ­ m e n t o f m a n k in d , b u t if TO is r i g h t , t h e r e is e v e r y reason

t o s u p p o s e t h a t t h e o b je c t iv e t r u t h a b o u t m o r a lit y is t h e r e to be d is c o v e r e d in m ore and m ore d e p th a nd d e ta il b y human b e in g s u s in g t h e i r re a s o n , w i t h o u t t h e aid o f f u r t h e r r e v e la ­ tio n . I f TO is r i g h t , G od's " g i v i n g " t h e T e n Commandments t o t h e peo ple t h r o u g h Moses is j u s t w h a t i t w o u ld have been f o r God to h ave " g i v e n " them t h e p r in c ip le s o f a r i t h m e t i c - - n o t to d is c lo s e to them his s o v e r e ig n w i l l, b u t to p r o v i d e th e m w it h a s t a r t e r - k i t f o r t h e d is c o v e r y o f g r e a t t r u t h s . A n d so, i f TO is r i g h t , t h e a n s w e r to t h e q u e s tio n 'What does God h ave t o do w it h m o r a lity ? ' is 'N o th in g e s s e n t ia l. ' O f c o u r s e , n o t h in g e s s e n tia l need n o t be n o t h in g a t a ll. The p e rs o n w h o f i r s t t a u g h t yo u a r it h m e t ic c e r t a i n l y has some­ t h i n g to do w i t h a r it h m e t ic , b u t n o t h in g e s s e n tia l; t h e r e w o u ld be a r it h m e t ic e ven i f t h a t p e rs o n had n e v e r e x is te d . A n d , even m ore o b v i o u s ly , y o u r f i r s t a r it h m e t ic te a c h e r has s o m e th in g t o do w it h y o u r k n o w in g a r it h m e t ic b u t , a g a in , n o t h in g e s s e n tia l; y o u c o u ld h a v e le a rn e d a r it h m e t ic fro m someone else, a nd y o u c o u ld even h ave f i g u r e d o u t q u i t e a lo t o f i t b y y o u r s e l f as yo u g r e w o l d e r and d is c o v e r e d th e need f o r i t . A n d so, i f TO is r i g h t , i t is j u s t as a b s u r d to c o n s id e r God to be even a p a r t o f t h e basis f o r m o r a lit y as i t w o u ld be f o r you t o e x p e c t t o f i n d a d is c u s s io n o f y o u r f i r s t a r it h m e t ic t e a c h e r in a b oo k e n t i t l e d F o u n d a tio n s o f M a th e m a tic s . T O , w h ic h made its e n t r a n c e in to t h i s d is c u s s io n lo o k in g l ik e t h e o v e r w h e lm in g ly p r e f e r a b l e t h e o r y o f r e lig io u s m o r­ a l i t y , t u r n s o u t to be n o t r e a lly a t h e o r y o f re lig io u s m o r ­ a l i t y a t a ll, e v i d e n t l y c u t t i n g o f f a n y need m o r a lity m ig h t h a v e been t h o u g h t to h ave f o r a fo u n d a tio n in r e lig io n . And T S , its o n l y r iv a l on t h e scene, has a lr e a d y p r o v e d n o t to be a t h e o r y o f m o r a lity a t a ll. A t t h i s s ta g e o f o u r i n v e s t i ­ g a tio n re a s o n a b le peo p le m ig h t be e x c u s e d f o r t h i n k i n g t h a t , s in c e t h e one t h e o r y o f r e lig io u s m o r a lit y g iv e s God e v e r y ­ t h i n g to do w it h w h a t t u r n s o u t n o t to be m o r a li t y , w h ile t h e o t h e r t h e o r y p r e s e r v e s t h e essence o f m o r a lit y a t t h e c o s t o f g i v i n g God a w a lk - o n p a r t t h a t c o u ld e a s ily be w r i t t e n o u t o f t h e p la y , r e lig io u s m o r a lit y has been show n t o be, a t b e s t, n o t w o r t h a n y f u r t h e r s e rio u s t h o u g h t . B u t even such re a ­ s o n a b le peo p le o u g h t to be a t le a st v a g u e ly w o r r ie d b y th e f a c t t h a t t h e c o n c e p t o f G od, w h ic h I began b y d e s c r i b i n g as an e s s e n tia l i n g r e d i e n t in t h is d is c u s s io n , has so f a r been g iv e n no a t t e n t i o n . O f c o u r s e , I h ave said q u i t e a lot a b o u t G o d , b u t God as I h ave been t a l k i n g a b o u t him is God as he

a p p e a rs in t h e s to rie s we h a ve been lo o k in g a t and in t h e b i t o f r e l i g i o u s - c u l t u r a l b a c k g r o u n d we all s h a r e . I t is tim e now to c o n s id e r t h e c o n c e p t o f G od. My reason f o r d o in g so in t h i s p a p e r is t h a t I t h i n k t h e r e is a n o t h e r t h e o r y o f r e lig io u s m o r a li t y to be c o n s id ­ e r e d , t h e o n l y one t h a t has a ch a n c e o f m a k in g r e lig io u s m o r a lit y w o r t h y o f a n y f u r t h e r s e rio u s t h o u g h t . The con­ c e p t I w a n t t o p r e s e n t looks c o m p le x , s u b t l e , and a b s t r a c t - - n o t m uch lik e t h e p i c t u r e o f God t o be seen in t h e s t o r ie s . I t c e r t a i n l y is co m p le x , s u b t le , a n d a b s t r a c t ; and y e t I t h i n k i t is p o s s ib le to show t h a t t h e God d e lin e a te d in t h is m e ta ­ p h y s ic a l c o n c e p t can be u n d e r s to o d as id e n tic a l w it h t h e God o f t h e s t o r i e s - - a t least o f t h e b ib lic a l s t o r i e s . I c e rta in ly c a n n o t u n d e r t a k e to show t h a t in t h i s p a p e r . In f a c t , I am n o t even g o in g to t r y to la y o u t all t h e i n g r e d i e n t s o f t h is c o n c e p t o f G o d - - j u s t en o u g h t o p r o v i d e an o u t l in e o f a t h i r d t h e o r y o f r e lig io u s m o r a lity . Some o f w h a t I w ill now sa y a b o u t t h e c o n c e p t o f God is lik e ly to seem e x o t ic , even t o i n t e l l i g e n t , s o p h is t ic a te d th e is ts . T h a t is n o t because t h i s c o n c e p t o f God is f o r e ig n to r e lig io u s t h o u g h t , b u t because r a tio n a l t h e o lo g y is f o r e ig n t o most c o n t e m p o r a r y r e lig io n . T h e c o n c e p t o f God t h a t in te r e s t s me is e s s e n tia lly t h e c o n c e p t o f God t h a t in t e r e s t e d Philo t h e Je w , A u g u s t in e , A n s e lm , Ib n -S in a , Moses ben Maimon, and Thomas A q u in a s , fo r in s ta n c e . And y e t, d e s p ite such u n im p e a c h a b ly r e s p e c ta b le a n te c e d e n ts among t h e p h ilo s o p h e rs o f th e t h r e e g r e a t m ono th e ism s, in f i n d i n g t h a t c o n c e p t v ia b le as a s t a r t i n g - p o i n t f o r r e lig io u s t h o u g h t I am b u c k i n g a p o w e r fu l t r e n d in c o n t e m p o r a r y t h e o lo g y , e s p e c ia lly in c o n te m p o r a r y C h r i s t i a n i t y . T h e o p p o s itio n to t h is c o n c e p t o f God is ca lle d d e h e l le n iz a t i o n , because th e c o n c e p t p l a i n l y has its ro o ts in G re e k p h i l o s o p h y . 13 B u t because I t h i n k 'd e h e lle n iz a tio n is ts ' is to o cum bersom e a d e s ­ ig n a tio n f o r m y o p p o n e n ts , I p r o p o s e to r e v e r t to w e l l - e s t a b ­ lis h e d t e r m in o lo g y . T h o se w h o t h i n k as I do a b o u t ra tio n a l t h e o lo g y can be calle d th e G r e e k s , and t h e d e h e lle n iz a t io n is ts can be t h e b a r b a r ia n s . , T h e b a r b a r ia n s are m o tiv a te d p r i m a r i l y b y t h e i r c o n v i c ­ tio n t h a t t h e c o n c e p t o f God w h ic h d r a w s upon t h e p h i l o ­ soph ica l a ch ie ve m e n ts o f Plato, A r i s t o t l e , a nd P lo tin u s is in c o m p a tib le w it h t h e c o n c e p t o f God t h a t can be d e r iv e d d i r e c t l y fr o m S c r i p t u r e . I h ave a lr e a d y s u g g e s te d t h a t t h a t c o n v ic t io n o f t h e i r s can be d is p e lle d , b u t t h e e n t e r p r i s e o f

su ch a d i s p r o o f is en o rm o u s. I t is to o com plex even to be s k e tc h e d h e r e , and I am n o t s u r e how all o f i t w o u ld g o ; so I am u n p r e p a r e d to a t ta c k t h e b a r b a r ia n s head o n . N e ver­ t h e le s s , i t may be p o s s ib le , even in t h e r e m a in d e r o f th is lim ite d space , to make t h e i r p o s itio n less a t t r a c t i v e to them if I can manage to show t h a t th e o n ly t h e o r y o f re lig io u s m o r ­ a l i t y t h a t has a hope o f s u g g e s tin g t h a t God does have s o m e th in g e s s e n tia l to do w ith m o r a lit y is one based on th e c o n c e p t o f God t h e y a re o p p o s in g . T h a t c o n c e p t o f G od, t h e one in w h ic h I am in t e r e s t e d , is t h e c o n c e p t o f an a b s o lu te ly p e r f e c t b e i n g . 1 Q u e s tio n s h a v e , of course, been ra ise d a b o u t th e i n t e r n a l c o h e re n ce o f t h i s c o n c e p t. F o r p r e s e n t p u rp o s e s I can s a y o n ly t h a t I have no e v id e n c e t h a t th e c o n c e p t is i n c o h e r e n t , and t h a t su ch p u t a t iv e e v id e n c e as I have come a c ro s s has t u r n e d o u t n o t to be w h a t i t p u r p o r t e d to be; see, e . g . , my a r t i c l e "O m n is c ie n c e and I m m u t a b i l i t y , " J o u rn a l o f P h ilo s o p h y , 63 (1 9 6 6 ), 338-59 and t h e c o r r e c tio n o f it in t h e a r t i c l e c ite d in n. 3 ab o ve . More i m p o r t a n t , th e r e is th e q u e s tio n o f th e c o m p a t ib ilit y o f th e e x is te n c e o f such a b e in g

w ith t h e e x is te n c e o f th e w o r ld as i t a p p e a rs to b e - - t h e pro b le m o f e v il. T h a t p ro b le m does n o t seem to me to be in s u p e r a b le ; t h a t is, th e a r g u m e n t fro m e vil ( to t h e c o n c lu ­ sion t h a t no a b s o lu te ly p e r f e c t b e in g e x is t s ) seems to me not to succee d. B u t , a g a in , f o r p r e s e n t p u r p o s e s I need o n ly rem ind th e re a d e r o f w h a t I said at th e b e g in n in g o f t h is p a p e r (in η. 1 a b o v e ) : I am n o t now c o n c e rn e d w i t h t h e e x is te n c e o f God. 15 See e s p e c ia lly "O n Sense a nd R e fe r e n c e ," in P e te r Geach and Max B la c k , T ra n s la tio n s fro m th e P h ilo s o p h ic a l W ritin g s o f G o ttlo b F re g e ( O x f o r d , 1952), p p . 56-78. 16 T h i s p a p e r is a s l i g h t l y r e v is e d v e r s io n o f a p u b li c le c ­ t u r e p r e s e n te d u n d e r th e a usp ice s o f th e R e lig io u s S tu d ie s P rogram at C o rn e ll U n i v e r s i t y in A p r i l 1982. I am v e r y g r a t e f u l to Eleonore Stum p f o r h e r h e lp fu l comments and to Donald Stum p f o r o f f e r i n g me t h e o p p o r t u n i t y to c o n t r i b u t e to t h is volum e h o n o r in g John C r o s s e t t , whom I d e e p ly a d m ire d .

C a rol L in d s a y

A P H R O D IT E A N D TH E E Q U IV O C A L AR G U M E N T: H A M A R T ! A IN T H E H IP P O L Y T U S

" T h e to n g u e is n o t to be t r u s t e d " ( 3 9 5 ) , 1 d e c la re s Phaedra as she d e s c r ib e s h e r in te n tio n to h id e h e r love f o r h e r ste p -so n . "B e c a r e f u l t h a t y o u r t o n g u e does n o t t r i p yo u u p , " H ip p o ly t u s w a rn s his old s e r v a n t ( 1 0 0 ), and se v e ra l scenes l a t e r , he makes a s im ila r s ta te m e n t to his f a t h e r ( 9 2 4 ) . Y e t P haedra has made h e r s ta te m e n t to o late : she has a lr e a d y co n fe s s e d h e r love f o r H ip p o ly t u s to th e N u rs e a nd t h e C h o r u s . H i p p o ly t u s , to o , is t r i p p e d up b y his own t o n g u e in an a n g r y e x c h a n g e o f w o r d s w it h t h e N u rs e . A ll o f t h e c h a r a c t e r s in t h e p la y , in f a c t , do a g r e a t deal o f t a l k i n g . 2 T h e y s p e a k w h en t h e y s h o u ld n o t, t h e y spea k to whom t h e y s h o u ld n o t, t h e y sp ea k in w a ys t h e y s h o u ld n o t; y e t, f o r all t h e t a l k i n g , com m u n ica tio n is v e r y p o o r. T h r o u g h o u t th e p la y , t h e c h a r a c t e r s use bad a r g u m e n ts , make am biguous s ta te m e n ts , e q u iv o c a te , sp ea k in r id d le s , make fa ls e a c c u s a tio n s , te ll lie s , a nd c u r s e each o t h e r ; in s h o r t , th e c h a r a c t e r s are c o n t i n u a l l y m is u s in g lo g o s . We see th e t r u t h d i s t o r t e d b y th e misuses o f th e lo gos u n til th e shape o f th e t r u t h is c o m p le te ly lo s t, to be r e s to r e d o n ly b y th e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f th e goddess A r t e m i s . 3 The w o rd , /ogro5--w hich in c lu d e s such m eanings as ra tio n a l a c c o u n t, reason , w o r d , la n g u a g e , and a r g u m e n t - e x ­ p re s s e s th e p r i n c i p l e t h a t th e w o r l d is o r d e r e d in such a w a y as to be u n d e r s to o d b y men. B y th e tim e o f th e New T e s ta m e n t, logos had become th e p r i n c i p l e o f th e o r d e r ; in cla ssica l times lo g o s was b oth th e a b i l i t y to c o m p re h e n d th e o r d e r and th e e x p r e s s io n o f o r d e r in w o rd s and se n te n c e s , sp o k e n and w r i t t e n . A r i s t o t l e says in th e P o litic s (1253a9) t h a t man is th e o n l y animal endow ed b y n a t u r e w it h lo g o s . Log os sets f o r t h " t h e e x p e d ie n t a nd in e x p e d ie n t , and t h e r e ­ f o r e lik e w is e th e j u s t and th e u n j u s t . . . . " h T h e te rm "s e ts f o r t h " d e s c rib e s lo g o s b oth as th e ra tio n a l f a c u l t y w h ic h d e te rm in e s and d is t in g u is h e s th e j u s t and u n j u s t and as th e e x p r e s s io n in w o rd s o f th e e x p e d ie n t , th e j u s t , and so fo rth .

H ama r t i a

Logos can be m isu se d , h o w e v e r . In s te a d o f u s in g lo gos to m a n ife s t o r make c le a r t h e o r d e r in t h i n g s , w o rd s can be used to clo u d th e t r u t h , to conceal i n t e n t i o n s , and to c o n ­ fu s e t h e d i s t i n c t io n s between good and b a d , and t h e lik e . Logos can "g o w r o n g " at t h e level o f b a s ic m is u n d e r s t a n d in g ; madness o r w ic k e d n e s s o r i r r a t i o n a l passion s can r e n d e r a man t e m p o r a r i l y o r p e r m a n e n tly in c a p a b le o f d i s t i n g u i s h i n g betw een good and bad and r i g h t and w r o n g . I t is also p o s ­ s ib le f o r a man to fa il to use his lo g o s in a p a r t i c u l a r in s ta n c e ; a norm al human b e in g o r d i n a r i l y a c tin g in a c c o r ­ dance w it h reason can s u d d e n ly do s o m e th in g i r r a t i o n a l . A man c a n n o t g iv e a reason f o r his s u d d e n in s ta n c e o f i r r a ­ t i o n a l i t y ; i f he c o u ld , t h e a c tio n w o u ld n o t be i r r a t i o n a l . B u t he can g iv e his i r r a t io n a l a c tio n a name. T h e G re e k s called i t h a m a rtia , and we t r a n s l a t e t h e w o r d " m i s t a k e . " I r e f e r t h e r e a d e r to o t h e r a r t i c l e s in t h i s volum e f o r a m ore t h o r o u g h d is c u s s io n o f t h e t e r m . 5 I em p h a size , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e v e r y w o r d , " m is t a k e , " o r h a m a rtia , can o n ly be used o f s o m e th in g w r o n g done b y one w h o was cap a b le o f d o in g t h e r i g h t t h i n g in th e s i t u a t i o n ; one c a n n o t be said to miss t h e t a r g e t i f one does not k n o w how to s h o o t. So also a madman, whose a c tio n s a re u s u a lly i r r a t i o n a l , c a n n o t be said to e x p e rie n c e one su dd en in s ta n c e o f i r r a t i o n a l i t y . A man m u s t be r a tio n a l in o r d e r to m ake a m is ta k e . One c a n n o t be said to have made a m is ta k e , f u r t h e r m o r e , i f one is f o r c e d to do t h e w r o n g ; t h a t is, i f t h e t a r g e t - s h o o t e r is bum pe d as he is s h o o tin g , he does not miss his t a r g e t b y m is ta k e . The r e s p o n s ib i l it y f o r a m ista ke can r e s t o n ly w it h t h e one w ho makes t h e m is ta k e . T h e e x is te n c e of h a m a rtia makes tra g e d y p o s s ib le . A r i s t o t l e d e s c r ib e s t h e most t r a g i c s t o r ie s as th o s e in w h ic h a c h a r a c t e r goes fro m good to bad f o r t u n e , not because he is w ic k e d o r base, b u t because he has made some m is ta k e (see t h e P o e tic s , 1453a8-10). T h e s u f f e r i n g o f a c h a r a c t e r as th e r e s u l t o f his own e r r o r arouse s p i t y ; t h e r e c o g n itio n t h a t all men commit h a m a rtia i and a re t h u s s im ila r ly s u s c e p tib le to s u f f e r i n g arouse s f e a r . H ip p o ly t u s 's t r a g e d y is t h e s t o r y o f a c h a s te y o u t h w hose r ig h te o u s h o r r o r at t h e r e v e la tio n o f his s t e p - m o t h e r 's passion f o r him p ro m p ts P h a e d ra , t h e s t e p - m o t h e r , to b r i n g on H ip p o ly t u s 's d e s t r u c t i o n at t h e ha n d s o f his f a t h e r b y a c c u s in g H i p p o ly t u s f a ls e ly o f r a p e . Now, P r o fe s s o r C r o s s e t t's s p e c ific d e f in it io n o f h a m a rtia is sim u lta n e o u s b e lie f

and d is b e lie f in t h e same t h i n g in t h e same r e s p e c t a t th e same tim e . In t h e H ip p o ly t u s , we can see t h a t m isuses o f lo g o s lead to a c o n fu s io n in w h ic h t h e t h r e e m a jo r c h a r a c te r s com mit h a m a r tia i. P h a e d ra , e x h a u s te d b y h e r n u r s e 's p e r ­ s i s t e n t a tte m p ts to le a rn P h a e d ra 's s e c r e t a ilm e n t, becomes c o n fu s e d and f a ils t o make a d i s t i n c t io n betw e en g i v i n g th e s u p p li a n t N u rs e w h a t she w a n ts and g i v i n g t h e N u rs e w h a t is good f o r h e r . T h e r e s u l t is t h a t P haedra t r i e s s im u lta n e ­ o u s ly t o confe ss and n o t to confe ss h e r love f o r H i p p o ly t u s . H i p p o ly t u s makes a fa ls e d i s t i n c t io n betw een his t o n g u e and his m ind in an a tte m p t to a d m it and d e n y s im u lta n e o u s ly t h a t he has s w o rn an oath o f s e c re c y a b o u t t h e N u rs e 's im p r o p e r p r o p o s a l. In f a c t , H ip p o ly t u s 's d e c la r a tio n t h a t he w ill not m a in ta in s ile n c e a b o u t t h e N u rs e 's r e q u e s t is n o t t r u e , b u t t h e u n t r u t h moves Phaedra h e r s e lf to lie in t h e fo rm o f a s u i c id e - n o t e a c c u s in g H ip p o ly t u s of rape. H ip p o ly t u s 's f a t h e r T h e s e u s , t h e n , p r e s e n te d w it h v a r io u s fo rm s o f e v i ­ d e n ce , commits his h a m a rtia in s im u lta n e o u s ly b e lie v in g and d is b e lie v in g t h a t he c o u ld be d e c e iv e d b y fa ls e w o r d s . The­ se u s's h a m a rtia makes com plete his d e c e p tio n , t y i n g in to a k n o t so m any t a n g le d lie s , fa ls e a s s u m p tio n s , e q u iv o c a tio n s , and a m b ig u itie s t h a t o n ly b y t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f A r te m is h e r ­ s e lf can t h e t h r e a d s be s e p a ra te d and T h e s e u s see his own m is ta k e . A p h r o d i t e i n tr o d u c e s th e p la y o f lies and d e c e p tio n ; she a d d uces t h e p la y a b o u t to be p r e s e n te d as p r o o f o f h e r o p e n in g s ta te m e n t t h a t she " t r i p s u p " th o s e w ho contem n h e r power (6 ). She e x p la in s how she has s e t u p t h e s itu a tio n b y w h ic h she w ill g e t r e v e n g e on H i p p o ly t u s , w h o says t h a t she is t h e w o r s t o f t h e d i v i n i t i e s . Since she is a g o d d e s s , o f c o u r s e , she has b o th t h e p o w e r t o make i t p o s s ib le f o r H i p p o ly t u s to be r u in e d and t h e fo r e k n o w le d g e to d e s c r ib e his r u i n , w i t h o u t , in e i t h e r case, i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h his f r e e w ill. A ls o , s in ce she is a g o d d e s s , she does n o t lie ; p r e ­ s u m a b ly , t h o u g h , as g o d s p r e d i c t i n g t h e f u t u r e a re w o n t to d o , she p r o v id e s us w i t h a c o m p le te ly a m b ig u o u s s ta te m e n t. P h aedra s u f f e r s h e r love f o r H ip p o ly t u s in s ile n c e , A p h r o d i t e t e lls u s , b u t t h e love m u s t n o t end in t h is w a y ( 4 1 ) . "A n d I shall s h o w , " she says n e x t , " t h e b u s in e s s t o T h e s e u s and i t w ill be b r o u g h t to l i g h t " ( 4 2 ) . 6 W hat b u s in e s s w ill she show? What w ill be b r o u g h t t o lig h t? I f we su p p o s e t h a t A p h r o d i t e in te n d s to m ake kn ow n to T h e s e u s P h a e d ra 's lo ve , we m u s t e x p la in w h y A p h r o d i t e w o u ld c la im , in lin e 47, t h a t P haedra w ill d ie w it h h e r good r e p u t a t io n sa fe . B e sid e s, b y

th e second scene o f th e p l a y , we k n o w t h a t A p h r o d i t e does n o t re ve a l P h a e d ra 's love t o T h e s e u s ; he n e v e r know s o f i t , in f a c t , u n t il A rte m is te lls h im , a f te r A p h r o d i t e has a c h ie v e d her revenge. What b u s in e s s , t h e n , w ill be b r o u g h t to lig h t? W hat co u ld p o s s ib ly p r o m p t T h e s e u s to c u r s e his son w it h d e s t r u c t i o n fr o m Poseidon? A p h r o d i t e has p ro m is e d to show us th e t r u t h o f h e r o p e n in g s ta te m e n ts ( 9 ) ; w h a t we w ill see b r o u g h t to l i g h t is th e d a r k e s t o f lies. T h e actio n b e g in s and we meet H i p p o l y t u s , as is f i t t i n g , s in g in g a hym n to A r t e m is . He is so c h a s te , we le a rn fro m H i p p o ly t u s h im s e lf, as to be t h e o n ly man t o h ave t h e p r i v i ­ lege o f e x c h a n g in g w o rd s w i t h t h e g o d d e s s ; s u r e l y his is th e m ost noble use o f th e logos t h a t can be. T h e n we see him e x c h a n g in g w o rd s w it h a fe llo w man. W hat h a p p e n s in th e f i r s t scene, s im p ly s p e a k in g , is t h a t H i p p o ly t u s 's o ld s e r v a n t w a rn s th e c h a s te H ip p o ly t u s a g a in s t i g n o r i n g A p h r o d i t e , a nd t h a t H i p p o ly t u s re je c ts th e a d v ic e . W hat also h a p p e n s in th e f i r s t scene is t h a t n e it h e r o f th e c h a r a c t e r s s p e a ks s im p ly . T h e old s e r v a n t b e g in s his a d v ic e c a u t i o u s l y , b u t w it h g r e a t p ro m is e ; n o t o n ly does he claim his a d v ic e is g o o d , b u t he has also, in his v e r y f i r s t w o r d s , made a d i s t i n c t i o n . He calls a t te n tio n to t h e f a c t t h a t he is d i s t i n g u i s h i n g betw e en " p r i n c e " a n d " l o r d " in a d d r e s s in g H i p p o ly t u s (8 8 ); o b v i­ o u s l y , one c h o o s in g his w o r d s so c a r e f u l l y is g o in g to g iv e good a d v ic e . T h e s e r v a n t q u e s tio n s H i p p o ly t u s c a u t i o u s l y , t r y i n g to b u i l d a d ia le c tic a l a r g u m e n t f o r H ip p o ly t u s 's need to h o n o r A p h r o d i t e , b u t n e i t h e r does th e a n s w e r e r in t h is a r g u m e n t seem w i l li n g s im p ly to a f fir m o r d e n y , n o r does th e q u e s t io n e r seem able to a s k p re c is e q u e s tio n s . H a v in g e s ta b lis h e d t h a t t h e r e is a p r e c e p t (nom os') to hate one who is p r o u d o r h a u g h t y (s e m n o s ) a n d n o t f r i e n d l y to a ll, th e s e r v a n t asks w h e t h e r th e same holds f o r t h e g o d s ( 9 7 ) . The r a t h e r v a g u e q u e s tio n e lic its an e q u a lly v a g u e re s p o n s e fro m H i p p o ly t u s : " I f , in d e e d , m o rta ls make use o f t h e laws o f th e gods" (9 8 ). H i p p o ly t u s , a c le v e r b o y , is n o t g o in g to be p in n e d dow n b y an a m b iguou s q u e s tio n , n o r does he miss th e e q u iv o c a tio n in t h e s e r v a n t ’ s n e x t q u e s t io n . "H o w is i t , now , t h a t y o u do n o t a d d re s s a h a u g h t y , g r a n d (s e m n e ) goddess? ( 9 9 ) " As W. S. B a r r e t t e x p l a i n s , 7 s e m n o s , m eaning " r e v e r e n d " o r " a u g u s t , " comes to be u sed o f someone w ho c o n s id e rs h im s e lf a u g u s t o r w o r t h y o f r e v e r e n c e , h a v in g t h e n e g a tiv e sense o f " h a u g h t y " o r " p r o u d . " "W h a t god dess? Watch o u t t h a t y o u r to n g u e does n o t g e t y o u in to t r o u b l e , "

H i p p o ly t u s w a r n s , and w it h good reason . The s e rva n t, u s in g sem nos w i t h o u t a s p e c ific nou n as th e o b je c t o f th e v e r b in 93, has c o n fu s e d t h e m a tte r b y u s in g t h e w o r d s , " t h e s a m e ," again w i t h o u t a s p e c ific noun in 97, and novy in 99 he demands t h a t H i p p o ly t u s hold c o n v e rs e w it h a goddess w ho is sem nos. T h e s e r v a n t is e i t h e r e q u iv o c a tin g o r m a k in g t h e c o n t r a d i c t o r y dem ands t h a t H ip p o ly t u s hate one w ho is sem nos and be f r i e n d l y to one w h o is sem nos. H ip ­ p o ly t u s seems n o t to have been t a k in g t h e s e r v a n t v e r y s e r io u s l y to b e g in w i t h , b u t a t t h is p o in t he becomes q u it e f l i p p a n t ; when t h e s e r v a n t f i n a l l y names A p h r o d i t e as th e g o d d e s s to be held in r e v e r e n c e , H i p p o ly t u s jo k e s , " O h , I kiss t h e god dess b y lo n g d is ta n c e " ( 1 0 2 ). O fte n t r a n s la t e d "g re e t," aspazom al d e s c r ib e s g r e e t in g someone w it h an em brace and a k is s . H i p p o ly t u s is n o t an i d io t ; he knows w h a t re s p e c t f o r A p h r o d i t e e n t a ils , and he has chosen a f i t ­ t i n g w o r d f o r a d d r e s s in g A p h r o d i t e . He is cla im in g t h a t he does a d d re s s ( p r o s e n n e p e in ) t h e g o d d e s s , b u t s in ce t h e p h r a s e "I em brace fro m a f a r " is o b v i o u s ly an o x y m o r o n , he a c t u a lly denies h a v in g a n y t h i n g to do w it h A p h r o d i t e . H ip ­ p o l y t u s c o n tin u e s t o e n jo y his ow n c le v e r r e m a rk s , a n d , w it h a f in a l careless " t a - t a " to " y o u r C y p r i s , " as he r e fe r s to A p h r o d i t e , he is o f f , le a v in g t h e s e r v a n t in f e r v e n t p r a y e r to A p h r o d i t e f o r H i p p o l y t u s ’ s s a k e , and le a v in g us w o n d e r in g w h e t h e r th e s e r v a n t o r H i p p o ly t u s is m ore in need o f th e w a r n i n g to w a tc h his t o n g u e . T h e f i r s t scene is o v e r . We k n o w t h a t , j o k in g asid e , H i p p o ly t u s a c t u a lly claim s t h a t A p h r o d i t e is t h e w o r s t o f g o d desses (13) and t h a t he is t o d ie f o r t h e sta te m e n t " t h i s d a y " (22, 5 7 ). We also kn o w t h a t he is t o d ie b y t h e c u r s e o f his f a t h e r . We kn o w t h a t , som ehow, P h a e d ra 's s e c re t love f o r H ip p o ly t u s w ill c o n t r i b u t e to his r u i n , a nd so t h e s t o r y b e g in s . P h a e d ra 's passion f o r h e r s te p - s o n c re a te s f o r h e r a m ost d i f f i c u l t s it u a t i o n . H e r d u t y as a woman is to avo id d i s g r a c i n g h e r h u s b a n d o r h e r y o u n g sons and to m ain ta in h e r own h o n o r and d i g n i t y . Since i t is as d is h o n o ra b le to h ave t h e passion as to act upo n i t (see 4 0 5 ), t h e o n ly way Ph aedra can m a in ta in h e r h o n o ra b le r e p u t a t io n is to conceal th e t r u t h a b o u t h e r p a s s io n . In a d d it io n , t h o u g h A p h r o d i t e has t o ld us t h a t P h aedra s u f f e r s in s ile n ce ( 4 0 ) , we see, as t h e second scene o p e n s , a P haedra f a r fro m s ile n t. Phae­ d r a 's old n u r s e is t r y i n g to s to p h e r m is tre s s 's mad r a v in g s

on the ve ry groun ds th a t P h a e d ra 's w ild w o rd s are u n s e e m ly . We re c o g n iz e also, as t h e N u rs e c a n n o t, t h a t P haedra is v e r y close to t e l l i n g h e r d is h o n o r a b le s e c r e t w it h h e r w ild w o r d s ; in h e r l o n g in g f o r t h e g r a s s y m eadows, th e d o g s , t h e h u n t , and horses on t h e s t r a n d , we r e c o g n iz e t h e h a u n ts o f H i p p o ly t u s . Phaedra soon gains c o n t r o l o f h e r s e lf and e x p re s s e s shame f o r w h a t she has said in m adne ss. As she c o n s id e rs r u e f u l l y h e r a l t e r n a t i v e c o n d itio n s o f madness and s t r a i g h t t h i n k i n g ( 2 4 7 - 4 9 ) , she in d ic a te s t h a t she is in h e r r i g h t m in d . H e r e x p r e s s io n o f shame is , in f a c t , a s s u r a n c e o f h e r s a n i t y ; she ta k e s r e s p o n s ib i l it y f o r w h a t she has s a id , r e c ­ o g n ize s t h a t she has v io la te d a s t a n d a r d o f b e h a v io r (2 4 4 ), and is c o n c e rn e d f o r o t h e r s ' c e n s u r e . 8 I t is n e c e s s a ry f o r us to see h e r ga in c o n t r o l o f h e r m ind so t h a t , w h en she does commit h e r h a m a rtia , we k n o w t h a t i t is t r u l y a case o f " m is s in g t h e m a r k " and n o t ig n o r a n c e o f " t h e m a r k " - - t h e f a i l u r e to d i s t i n g u is h j u s t fr o m u n j u s t and r i g h t fr o m w r o n g w h ic h c h a r a c te r iz e s t h e madman. T h e C h o ru s in s is ts t h a t t h e N u rs e d is c o v e r P h a e d ra 's a ilm e n t, so t h e N u rs e em ploys lo g o s to c o n v in c e Ph aedra to speak. She a rg u e s v e r y r e a s o n a b ly t h a t P h a e d ra 's disease m u st be know n b e fo r e it can be c u r e d , b u t , o f c o u r s e , t h e N u rs e p r e s u p p o s e s , as P haedra does n o t , t h a t t h e "d is e a s e " can be c u r e d . Phaedra m a in ta in s h e r sile n c e . T h e N u rs e 's n e x t a p p e a l, to P h aedra as a m o th e r , is more e f f e c t i v e . A p p a r e n t l y , she has re a liz e d t h a t P haedra does in te n d to die o f h e r d is e a s e , so she d e c la r e s , " I f you d ie , you b e t r a y y o u r so n s, w h o m ig h t n o t h ave a s h a r e in t h e i r in h e r ita n c e b u t be r u le d b y t h e son o f T h e s e u s a n d t h e Am azon, t h e b a s ta r d who acts as t h o u g h he c o n s id e r s h im s e lf a le g itim a te so n --yo u know whom I m e a n --H ip p o ly tu s " (3 0 5 -3 1 0 ). Q u ite b y a c c id e n t, t h e N u rs e has named a "c a u s e " o f P h a e d ra 's illn e s s , and she i n t e r p r e t s P h a e d ra 's c r y o f d is tr e s s as a c r y f o r t h e sake o f h e r c h i l d r e n , a c r y w h ic h w o u ld be p r o o f t h a t b o th P h a e d ra 's h e a r t a nd h e r m ind a re in t h e r i g h t place. , T h e silen ce is b r o k e n a t la s t. P haedra w ill o b s e r v e t h a t t h e t o n g u e is n o t to be t r u s t e d ( 3 9 5 ) ; t h e a m b i g u i t y in t h e immediate lines d e m o n s tra te s t h e o b s e r v a t i o n . Lines 315-35 a re f u l l o f p la y s on w o rd s as P h a e d ra , d r a w n in to an i n t e r r o g a t i o n a f t e r h e r o u t b u r s t , t r i e s to a n s w e r t h e N u r s e 's q u e s tio n s w i t h o u t g i v in g h e r a n y i n fo r m a t io n . T h e N u rs e

fin a lly goes so fa r as to seize P h a e d ra 's ha n d in s u p p li c a t io n , p r o m p t i n g P haedra t o com plain t h a t t h e N u rs e is f o r c i n g h e r s e c r e t f r o m h e r . T h e N u rs e d e c la re s t h a t she i n te n d s t o c lin g t o P h a e d ra 's knees as well as h e r ha n d u n t il P h a e d ra te lls h e r w h a t she w a n ts t o k n o w . P h a e d ra , p r o ­ t e s t i n g r e p e a te d ly t h a t t h e k n o w le d g e o f h e r s e c r e t w ill o n ly b r i n g t h e N u r s e ’ s r u i n , t a lk s e n t i r e l y to o m u c h ; t h e N u rs e seizes on h e r comments and t w i s t s th e m , c o n f u s in g Phaedra a n d w e a k e n in g h e r r e s o lv e n o t t o con fe ss h e r love. P haedra reache s t h e b r e a k i n g p o in t and begs t h e N u rs e to le t go o f h e r h a n d . T h e N u rs e r e fu s e s , i n s is t i n g t h a t P h a e d ra m u st g r a n t t h e r e q u e s t o f h e r s u p p li a n t , and P h a e d ra g iv e s i n , o u t o f r e v e r e n c e , she s a y s , f o r t h e s a c re d n e s s o f a s u p p li a n t ha n d (3 3 5 ) . " I 'm a lr e a d y s i l e n t , " says t h e N u r s e , w h o h a s , a f t e r a ll, been t a l k i n g alm ost c o n ­ s t a n t l y since t h e b e g in n in g o f t h e scene; " t h e lo g o s fro m h e r e is y o u r s . " P haedra c e r t a i n l y does say t h i n g s to t h e N u rs e a t t h is p o i n t , b u t she t e ll s t h e N u rs e n o t h in g as she makes o b liq u e r e fe r e n c e s to t h e u n f o r t u n a t e lo ve a f f a i r s o f h e r female r e la ­ tiv e s . "W ould t h a t y o u c o u ld say w h a t I m u s t s a y ! " she s ig h s . F in a lly d r o p p i n g e n o u g h h in t s f o r t h e N u rs e to r e a liz e t h a t P haedra is in lo v e , she d e s c r ib e s h e r b e lo ve d as t h e son o f t h e Am azon. " H i p p o ly t u s ? " gasps th e h o r r i f i e d N u rse . P h a e d ra 's a n s w e r : "Y o u h e a rd th e s e t h i n g s fro m y o u rs e lf, not fr o m me" (3 5 2 ). T h e c ir c u m lo c u t io n s , t h e h i n t s , t h e o b liq u e r e fe r e n c e s , w e re all P h a e d ra ’s a tte m p ts , on t h e one h a n d , to a v o id s a y in g w h a t w ill r u in h e r and t h e N u rs e . P h a e d ra , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , has g r a n t e d th e N u r s e 's r e q u e s t; h e r s e c r e t has been re v e a le d . H e r claim in 352 is t h a t t h e N u rs e has, in f a c t , said " w h a t I m u st s a y . " P h a e d ra is c la im in g n o t to h ave t o ld h e r s e c r e t. How can she a d m it t h a t o n l y she can t e ll h e r s e c r e t and y e t claim t h a t she is n o t t h e one w ho has re v e a le d h e r secret? H a m a rta n e i. P h a e d ra , cap a b le o f re a s o n , in f u l l command o f h e r w i t s , has co m m itte d a h a m a rtia . P haedra c o n s id e rs t h e p ro b le m o f w r o n g d o in g in h e r n e x t sp e e ch . Men do w r o n g , she claim s, n o t fro m i g n o ­ r a n c e , b u t fr o m lazin ess o r b y p r e f e r r i n g some p le a s u re to r i g h t a c tio n . Nam ing some s p e c if ic p le a s u re s , she o b s e rv e s t h a t p le a s u re s a r e d o u b le and t h a t o n ly one " h a l f " o f t h e d o u b l e t is b a d . O d d ly e n o u g h , she in c lu d e s in h e r l is t o f p le a s u re s a id o s , t h e sense o f shame o r f e a r o f d is a p p r o b a tio n t h a t keeps one fro m d o in g w h a t is bad o r u n s e e m ly . We

m u st rem e m be r t h a t she has cla im e d , in 335, t o g iv e in to th e N u rs e because she feels a id o s . T h e N u rs e has m anaged t o em phsize P h a e d ra 's o b lig a tio n t o g iv e in t o t h e dem ands o f a s u p p li a n t . U n fo rtu n a te ly f o r P h a e d ra , t h e s u p p li a n t 's demand is such t h a t P h a e d ra 's r e s p e c t f o r t h e s u p p li a n t 's r e q u e s t in v o lv e s n o t o n l y b r i n g i n g shame on h e r s e l f , b u t also, as P haedra h e r s e lf has o b s e r v e d (327, 3 2 9 ) , b r i n g i n g r u in on t h e s u p p li a n t . In t h e c o n fu s io n o f t h e w o r d p la y s between P haedra and th e N u r s e , P haedra has chosen to g r a n t t h e N u rs e 's r e q u e s t as a s u p p li a n t r a t h e r th a n to a v o id h a r m in g t h e s u p p li a n t . Now r e f l e c t in g on t h e d o u b le n a t u r e o f a id o s and t h e " o t h e r " p le a s u r e s , P haedra d e c la re s t h a t th e d i s t i n c t io n betw een t h e good and e v il " h a lv e s " is a d i f f i c u l t one t o m ake. I f t h e k a iro s w e re c le a r , t h a t is , i f i t w e re e a sy t o j u d g e th e r i g h t moment a t w h ic h t h e a id o s ceases t o be t h e r i g h t one and becomes t h e w r o n g o n e , th e n th e d i s t i n c t io n betw een t h e good a nd bad " h a l v e s " w o u ld be r e fle c te d in t h e la n g u a g e : t h e r e w o u ld be tw o d i f f e r e n t w o rd s (3 8 7 ). B u t as i t is , P h aedra has been t r i p p e d u p b y a f a i l u r e o f th e lo g o s ; she com p la in s t h a t t h e lo g o s has masked r a t h e r th a n made c le a r an e s s e n tia l d i s t i n c t i o n . P h aedra fa lls s i le n t a t la s t, b u t n o t so t h e N u r s e . Her s t u n n e d h o r r o r upon P h a e d ra 's r e v e la tio n is re p la c e d b y " w is e r second t h o u g h t s " ( 4 3 6 ). In a speech f u l l o f e q u iv o ­ c a tio n s , g e n e r a liz a tio n s i n a p p r o p r i a t e to t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , and bad a d v ic e , she t r i e s to c o n v in c e P haedra t o s u b m it to h e r p a s s io n , seduce H i p p o ly t u s , and t h e r e b y save h e r lif e . T h e N u rs e in s is ts t h a t P h a e d ra 's b e in g in love is c o m p le te ly n a t u r a l , and d e c la re s t h a t t h i n g s have come t o a p r e t t y pass i f people in love m u s t die f o r i t . P haedra s h o u ld have been b o rn u n d e r o t h e r gods in a d i f f e r e n t w o r l d , i f she f i n d s th e idea o f sex so d i s t u r b i n g . The N u rs e 's a rg u m e n t, of c o u r s e , does n o t ta k e in to a c c o u n t t h e f a c t t h a t th e o b je c t o f P h aedra's love is th e son o f h e r h u s b a n d . T h e N u rs e w a rn s Phaedra t h a t A p h r o d i t e abuses th e m o rta l w h o t r i e s t o be special and has h ig h t h o u g h t s ; i t is a w a r n i n g o f om inous i r o n y , r e c a llin g A p h r o d i t e 's own w o rd s r e g a r d i n g h e r t r e a t ­ ment, o f m o rta ls ( 5 - 6 ) . T h e N u rs e claims t h a t , among th e w is e , " t h i n g s t h a t are n o t noble escape n o tic e " ( 4 6 6 - 6 7 ) . T h e s ta te m e n t is n e a r ly an e x a c t q u o ta tio n o f P h a e d ra 's w ish t h a t w h a t is n o t noble in w h a t she does m ig h t escape n o tic e ( 4 0 3 ). B u t th e N u rs e has e q u iv o c a te d on ia n th a n o (escape n o t ic e ) . P haedra m eant, o f c o u r s e , t h a t she w o u ld n o t have a n y w itn e s s e s o f h e r base deeds o r t h o u g h t s ; th e N u rs e

claim s t h a t w ise men p r e t e n d n o t to h ave seen t h e base deeds o f th o s e to whom t h e y a re close ( p h ilo i) . T h e N u rs e 's c o n c lu s io n is t h a t P haedra d a r e to love s in c e a g od has w ille d i t (4 7 6 ) . T h e C h o ru s and Phaedra rem ain u n c o n v in c e d , a n d Phaedra d e liv e r s a s h o r t s ta te m e n t o f t h e d a n g e r o f " t o o - f i n e l o g o i T h e N u rs e c o n tin u e s to w o r k on P h a e d ra , a c c u s in g h e r o f p r e t e n t io u s n e s s (4 9 0 ) , and i n s is t i n g t h a t Phaedra does n o t need w o rd s now, b u t th e man. T h e N u rs e does f i n a l l y "c a ll a spad e a s p a d e , " a d m it ­ t i n g t h a t she s u g g e s ts a c o u r s e o f a c tio n t h a t is s h a m e fu l, b u t n e c e s s a ry i f P h a e d ra 's lif e is to be s a v e d . P haedra f i n a l l y begs t h e N u rs e t o s to p m a kin g im p r o p e r s u g g e s tio n s , a d m it t in g t h a t h e r own re s o lv e is w e akene d and she is a f r a id t h a t she w ill do w h a t she has been a v o id in g w it h su ch e f f o r t . T h e N u rs e s e e m in g ly h o n o rs P h a e d ra 's r e q u e s t , s a y in g , " i f i t seems b e s t to y o u " (5 0 7 ). She la u n ch e s in to a s e rie s o f s u g g e s te d p r e s c r ip t i o n s f o r c u re s o f P h a e d ra 's a ilm e n t. B u t all o f h e r t a l k o f charm s a nd spells a nd p u t t i n g an end to t h e passion is c o m p le te ly a m b ig u o u s ; th e N u rs e co u ld mean e i t h e r t h a t she p la n s to c u r e Phaedra w it h some a n t i - a p h r o d i s ia c c h a rm , o r t h a t she i n t e n d s , b y means o f some a p h r o d is ia c , to sedu ce H i p p o ly t u s to go t o bed w it h P h a e d r a . 9 T h e e x h a u s te d P haedra t r i e s to f o r c e t h e N u rs e to make c le a r h e r in te n tio n s b y a s k in g s p e c ific q u e s ­ tio n s a b o u t t h e c h a rm , b u t t h e N u rs e evades h e r q u e s tio n s . P haedra voices h e r f e a r t h a t t h e N u rs e w ill b e t r a y h e r to H i p p o ly t u s , b u t she is ig n o r e d b y t h e N u r s e , a nd t h e second scene ends as t h e f i r s t scene d i d , w i t h a p r a y e r to A p h r o ­ d it e . We learn v e r y q u i c k l y in t h e t h i r d scene t h a t P h a e d ra 's fe a r s a re re a liz e d . Soon H i p p o ly t u s h im s e lf b u r s t s upon t h e scene s h o u tin g t h a t he has h e a rd t h e u n u t t e r a b l e u t te r a n c e (6 0 1 -6 0 2 ). T h e N u rs e fo llo w s , p le a d in g f o r s ile n c e . " I t is n o t p o s s ib le f o r me to be s i l e n t ! " c r ie s H i p p o ly t u s , " I have h e a rd d r e a d f u l t h i n g s ! " We f i n d o u t l a t e r t h a t i t is p o s s ib le f o r him to be s ile n t , even w h en his s ile n c e w ill b r i n g a b o u t his r u i n , b u t in his a n g e r now , he spea ks as i f he in te n d s to b r o a d c a s t his i n fo r m a t io n ; in e f f e c t , he lie s . T h e scene h e re w it h t h e N u rs e e n jo in in g H i p p o ly t u s t o be s ile n t m ir r o r s t h e p r e v io u s scene w i t h t h e N u rs e e n jo in in g P h aedra t o s p e a k ; h e r e , as w it h P h a e d ra , t h e N u r s e reaches f o r H ip p o l y t u s ' s han d in s u p p li c a t io n , b u t H i p p o ly t u s s p u r n s th e N u rs e as P haedra d id n o t. We a re re m in d e d also o f H i p p o ly -

t u s 's e n c o u n t e r w it h his own s e r v a n t ; H i p p o ly t u s shows th e same p e n c h a n t f o r w o r d - p l a y , b u t h e re he is m uch f i e r c e r . " D o n 't r u in m e !" begs th e N u rs e (6 0 7 ). "W h y w o r r y , if in d e e d , as yo u claim , you h ave said n o t h in g e v il? " H ip p o ­ ly tu s responds. T h e N u rs e 's d e fe n s e is t h a t t h e m a t t e r is n o t such as to be o r d i n a r y d i n n e r - t a b l e c o n v e r s a tio n ( 6 0 9 ). " B u t f in e t h in g s a re made f i n e r w h en sp o ke n o f among m any m e n , " is H ip p o ly t u s 's r e p l y , based on t h e e r r o n e o u s a s s u m p ­ tio n t h a t t h in g s t h a t are n o t base o r e v il a re n e c e s s a r ily f in e and noble. T h e N u rs e ta s te s a b i t o f h e r own m e d ic in e as H ip p o ­ l y t u s a n g r i l y t w i s t s h e r w o rd s to use th e m a g a in s t h e r , b u t we learn t h a t she is s t ill "o n e up o n " H i p p o ly t u s . She has s w o rn him to silen ce w ith an o a th : "O h m y c h i l d , do n o t d is r e g a r d y o u r o a t h s ! " ( 6 1 1 ). H i p p o ly t u s 's a n g r y a n s w e r : " T h e t o n g u e s w o re , b u t t h e m in d is n o t b o u n d " (6 1 2 ). P h ae d ra , r e f l e c t in g on h e r h a m a rtia ( 3 7 2 - 8 7 ) , has d e c id e d t h a t she made h e r m ista ke because she had fa ile d to m ake a d i s t i n c t io n betw een "g o o d " a nd " b a d " a id e s . H i p p o ly t u s is c e r t a i n l y in no d a n g e r o f f a i l i n g to make d i s t i n c t i o n s . H ere we see him make a s u b tle d i s t i n c t io n b e tw e en his m ind C p h re n ) and his t o n g u e , a d i s t i n c t i o n so s u b t le as to allow him to a d m it t h a t th e oath was s w o rn ( " t h e t o n g u e s w o r e " ) , b u t t h a t he w o u ld n o t have s w o rn t h e o a th i f he had a c t u a l ly know n a b o u t w h a t he was s w e a rin g to be s ile n t . The d is ­ t in c t i o n is fa ls e , o f c o u r s e ; in no w a y can his t o n g u e be d i s t i n c t fro m h im s e lf. In m a k in g su ch a d i s t i n c t i o n , H ip p o ­ l y t u s is t r y i n g a t t h e same tim e to claim t h a t he d id t a k e t h e o a th and t h a t he d id n o t t a k e t h e o a th . As we h a v e seen, he is a c le v e r fe llo w w it h a good command o f t h e lo g o s . Even in his a n g e r , he is s h r e w d e n o u g h to m ake d i s t i n c ­ t io n s , b u t a d i s t i n c t io n b y w h ic h he s im u lt a n e o u s ly a d m its a nd d en ie s t h a t he sw o re is n o t a d i s t i n c t i o n . I t is a h a m a r tia . U n lik e P h a e d ra , H ip p o ly t u s is u n a w a re o f his m is ta k e . T h e N u rs e q u e s tio n s him a b o u t his i n t e n t i o n s , t r y i n g to c o n ­ v in c e him n o t to r u in h e r a n d P h a e d ra . H i p p o ly t u s evades h e r q u e s tio n s b y e q u iv o c a tin g on h e r w o r d s . She asks w h e t h e r he in te n d s to d e s t r o y p h i l o i . In s te a d o f u n d e r ­ s t a n d in g t h e w o r d in t h e sense o f " k in s m e n " ( th o s e w it h whom one is associated b y tie s o f blood o r m a r r i a g e ) , H ip p o ­ l y t u s uses t h e w o rd s in a n o th e r sense , a n s w e r in g t h a t no f r i e n d o f his is u n j u s t (6 1 4 ). T h e N u r s e , in good r h e t o r ic a l

f a s h io n , d i s t i n g u is h e s betw een w r o n g d o in g [ a d ik e in ) and m a k in g a m is ta k e [h a m a r ta n e in ) , c la im in g t h a t H i p p o ly t u s s h o u ld f o r g i v e h e r and P h a e d ra , s in ce men te n d to make m i s t a k e s . 10 H i p p o ly t u s p r o m p t l y e q u iv o c a te s on t h e w o r d f o r man ( a n th r o p o s ) w h ic h t h e N u rs e has used g e n e r ic a l l y , and b e g in s to d e n o u n c e women as a s o u rc e o f e v il f o r men [ a n t h r o p o i) , in t h e s p e c ific sense. He does f i n a l l y p ro m is e to keep his o a th , b u t w it h t h e a d d itio n a l a s s u ra n c e t h a t he w ill w a tc h in h o ly and ch a s te sile n ce w h ile th e women, h id in g t h e ir d is g u s tin g s e c r e t , e n c o u n t e r T h e s e u s face to face ( 6 6 0 -6 3 ). H i p p o ly t u s e x i t s , e n r a g e d . P haedra is l e f t w o n d e r in g how she can f i n d a logos to deal w it h t h e s it u a t io n . But w h a t is t h e s itu a tio n ? H i p p o ly t u s , in his a n g e r , has a t d i f ­ f e r e n t tim es r e fu s e d and p ro m is e d to keep s i le n t . Phaedra assumes t h a t he w ill n o t be s ile n t ( 6 8 9 - 9 2 ) . O n ly la t e r do we f i n d o u t t h a t h e r a s su m p tio n is fa ls e . Now we are in c lin e d t o a g re e t h a t H ip p o ly t u s is a n g r y e n o u g h to b r e a k his o a th ; he has, a f t e r a ll, com m itted a h a m a rtia r e g a r d i n g his s w e a rin g o f t h e o a th . His a b u s iv e speech and his o r i g ­ inal a n g r y o u t b u r s t a re t h e r e s u l t o f his fa ls e a s s u m p tio n t h a t Phaedra has s e n t t h e N u rs e to make t h e r e q u e s t. His a s s u m p tio n is n o t u n r e a s o n a b le . T h e N u r s e co u ld n o t kn o w o f P h a e d ra 's passion i f Phaedra had n o t ta k e n t h e N u rs e in to h e r c o n fid e n c e , a n d , i f Phaedra had n o t w a n te d th e N u rs e to make an im p r o p e r s u g g e s tio n , she c o u ld , as t h e N u rs e 's m is­ t r e s s , s im p ly have f o r b id d e n t h e N u rs e to do so. H ip p o ly t u s c a n n o t kn o w t h a t Phaedra t o ld t h e N u rs e " b y m is t a k e . " H ip p o ly t u s also c a n n o t know t h a t P haedra co u ld n o t be s u re o f t h e N u rs e 's i n t e n t i o n , couch ed as it was in a m b ig u itie s , and t h a t she allow ed t h e N u rs e to ta k e c o n t r o l o f t h e s i t u ­ atio n because she was d e s p e r a te f o r some k in d o f c u r e f o r h e r p a ssio n . H i p p o ly t u s 's reason able t h o u g h fa ls e a s s u m p tio n of P h a e d ra 's c o m p lic ity has p ro m p te d his n a t u r a l b u t u n r e a s o n ­ able a n g e r . Now P h a e d ra 's re ason able t h o u g h fa ls e a s s u m p ­ tio n t h a t H i p p o ly t u s w ill m align h e r name p r o m p ts h e r n a tu r a l b u t u n re a s o n a b le d e s ir e f o r r e v e n g e . T h e N u rs e 's lo g o i h a v in g p r o v e d d i s a s t r o u s , Phaedra seeks new lo g o i. She sile n ce s t h e N u r s e and sends h e r a w a y , sw e ars t h e C h o ru s to s ile n c e , and a n n o u n ce s h e r in t e n t io n to d ie f o r t h e sake o f h e r c h i l d r e n 's h o n o r . She also a n n o u n c e s h e r i n t e n t io n to d e r i v e some b e n e f i t fro m t h e p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n . H e r la st

w o r d s , in re sp o n se to th e C h o r u s 's q u e s tio n s , a re r id d le s : "M y d e a th shall p r o v e someone else's m is f o r t u n e ; he w ill know b e t t e r t h a n to be h a u g h t y o v e r m y m is f o r t u n e s ; s h a r in g th e disease in common w it h me, he w ill le a rn to be m oderate ( s o p h ro n , t e m p e r a te ) " ( 7 2 8 -3 1 ). We k n o w to whom she r e f e r s , a lth o u g h o f c o u rs e she has n o t named him. How can H ip p o ly tu s s h a re h e r disease? Nosos is th e w o rd used so f a r to name P h a e d ra 's p a s s io n ; w h a t does she mean here? Is nosos m e ta p h o ric a l f o r d e a th , o r f o r t h e "d is e a s e " o f b e in g accused o f a la ck o f c h a s t i t y , o r even s im p ly t h e " d i s ­ ease" o f b e in g f a ls e ly accused? L ik e w is e , t h e d e c la r a tio n t h a t he w ill learn to be s o p h ro n r e q u ir e s one t o u n d e r s t a n d s o p h ro n to mean som e th in g o t h e r th a n " c h a s t e , " t h o u g h it has meant " c h a s te " t h r o u g h o u t t h e p la y so f a r . T h e w o rd has th e g e n e ra l sense o f " m o d e r a t e " , " d i s c r e e t , " " s e l f - c o n ­ t r o l l e d " ; is he g o in g to learn s e l f - c o n t r o l w it h re s p e c t to a n g e r , o r d is c r e tio n in k e e p in g sham eful k n o w le d g e to h im ­ self? T h e s ta te m e n t is an i r o n ic echo o f H i p p o ly t u s 's own in s is te n c e t h a t women be t a u g h t s o p h ro s y n e (m o d e ra tio n o r te m p e ra n c e ) b e fo r e he w ill s to p i n s u l t i n g th e m (6 6 7 - 6 8 ) . Phaedra e x its a f t e r h e r r i d d l i n g lin e a n d , one c h o r a l ode l a t e r , she is dea d. T h e t r u t h a b o u t h e r d e a th lies b u r ie d b en eath e q u iv o c a tio n s and a m b ig u itie s , tw o h a m a r tia i, tw o fa lse a s s u m p tio n s , tw o oaths o f s ile n c e , and a c o u p le o f lie s , and a f in a l lie is tie d in a d e lto s (a w r i t i n g - t a b l e t ) t o P h aedra's life le ss w r i s t . Theseus e n te rs , to ta lly u n s u s ­ p e c tin g o f a n y m ischa nce. T h e C h o r u s , d e n y in g f u l l k n o w l­ edge o f th e c irc u m s ta n c e s , m u s t lie to keep its oath o f silen ce, and soon en o u g h T h e s e u s f in d s t h e u ltim a te lie: Phaedra has tie d a note to h e r w r i s t , in w h ic h she accuses H ip p o ly t u s o f r a p in g h e r . Q u a lis f i l i u s , ta lis p a t e r . The­ seus im m ediately exp lo d e s in a n g e r , c a llin g dow n upon H i p ­ p o ly t u s one o f t h r e e c u rs e s once g r a n t e d to T h e s e u s b y Poseidon. He has a s t r a n g e w a y o f c u r s i n g , h o w e v e r . He p r a y s to Poseidon n o t to le t H i p p o ly t u s o u t l iv e t h e d a y , th e n a d d s , " i f , in d e e d , you p rom ise d me t h r e e r e lia b le ( s a p h e /s ) p r a y e r s " (8 9 0 ). S aphes means " c le a r , d i s t i n c t , s u r e , c e r ­ t a i n . ' ' 11 T h e s e u s is h e re q u e s tio n in g t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f Posei­ d o n 's p ro m is e , s u p p o s in g t h a t he may have been d e c e iv e d b y Poseidon. When t h e h o r r i f i e d C h o ru s b id s T h e s e u s call b a c k th e p r a y e r , he even adds e x ile to H ip p o ly t u s 's s e n te n c e , a second sente n ce " j u s t in case" t h e f i r s t one does n o t t a k e e ffe c t. T h e C h o ru s has w a rn e d T h e s e u s to call b a c k t h e

p r a y e r because he is f a ll i n g s h o r t , o r m a kin g a m ista ke (892). T h e y k n o w , of c o u r s e , t h a t th e d e lto s is a lie, and o b v i o u s ly t h e y a c c e p t as t r u e Poseidon's p ro m is e to g r a n t th e cu rses. T h e s e u s , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , s u s p e c ts t h a t he co u ld be d e c e iv e d b y t h e pro m ise o f Poseidon, a g o d , b u t has no d o u b ts a b o u t t h e d e lto s . H i p p o ly t u s a p p ro a c h e s and th e C h o ru s, r e lie v e d , o b s e rv e s t h a t he comes a t t h e k a ir o s . A c c u r a t e ju d g m e n t o f t h e k a ir o s , t h e " r i g h t m om ent" o f an a c tio n o r p r o c e s s , is t h e d i f f e r e n c e betw e en h i t t i n g o n e ’ s m a rk and c o m m ittin g a h a m a rtla . Ph aedra a t t r i b u t e d h e r f a i l u r e to d is t i n g u is h betw e e n good and bad a id o s t o t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f re c o g n iz in g t h e ka iro s ·, t h e k a iro s was n o t c le a r , she says ( 3 8 6 ). In d e e d , a t t h e k a iro s o f h e r e n c o u n t e r w i t h t h e N u r s e , when th e N u rs e claim ed t h a t P h a e d ra 's o b lig a t io n was t o g iv e in to h e r s u p p li a n t (3 3 4 ) , Phaedra fa ile d to re a lize t h a t a v o id in g t h e shame o f d e n y in g a s u p p li a n t m eant i n c u r r i n g t h e d o u b le shame o f h a rm in g h e r s u p p li a n t and r u i n i n g h e r own r e p u t a ­ t i o n ; she a g re e d to g iv e in and com m itted t h e h a m a rtia o f t r y i n g a t once to t e ll and n o t to t e l l . So h e re , t h e C h o ru s re c o g n iz e s t h a t , w i t h H ip p o ly t u s s t ill a liv e , T h e s e u s can s t ill call b a c k t h e p r a y e r ; s u r e l y T h e s e u s w ill q u e s tio n H ip p o ly t u s a b o u t t h is m ost u n l i k e l y a c c u sa tio n and be c o n v in c e d o f H ip p o l y t u s 's in n o ce n ce . T h e s e u s , h o w e v e r , w ill n o t even look a t H i p p o ly t u s . Once a g a in , we see one c h a r a c t e r q u e s t io n in g a n o th e r whose re s p o n se s a re v a g u e o r o b liq u e . T h e i r o n y o f t h e s itu a tio n is n o t lo s t upon us, when t h e e x a s p e r a te d H ip p o ly t u s accuses his f a t h e r o f lo g ic - c h o p p in g and g iv e s to his f a t h e r a f a m i l ia r w a r n i n g to b e w are le s t his t o n g u e t r i p him u p . T h e s e u s 's re s p o n s e is t o w is h t h a t men had tw o v o ic e s , one o f w h ic h w o u ld a lw a ys t e ll t h e m an’ s t r u e in te n tio n s so t h a t men w o u ld h a v e c e r ta in e v id e n c e o f t r u e f r i e n d s and n e v e r be d e c e iv e d (9 2 5 - 3 1 ) . T h e s e u s p r e s e n ts t h e d e lto s and d e c la re s t h a t H ip p o ly t u s is t h u s " c l e a r l y accused b y t h e deceased as t h e b a s e s t o f m en" (9 4 4 - 4 5 ) . T h e s e u s pro ce e d s to denounce his son b itte rly ; fin a lly , he a s k s , "B u t n o w - - w h y do I s t r i v e a g a in s t y o u r a r g u m e n ts when t h e r e is a c o r p s e p r e s e n t , t h e m ost r e lia b le w itn e s s ? G et o u t o f t h is l a n d . . . " ( 9 7 1 -7 3 ). H i p p o ly t u s 's in it ia l r e p ly to such a v e h e m e n t a ccusa tion is t h e o b s e r v a t i o n , " F a t h e r , t h e a n g e r and h a rs h n e s s o f y o u r m in d is awesome" ( 9 8 3 - 8 4 ) . In d e e d , T h e s e u s is so

a n g r y as to be r a t h e r im p re c is e . He seems to have f o r g o t t e n all a b o u t his o r ig in a l p r a y e r t o Poseidon to d e s t r o y H ip p o ­ ly tu s t h a t v e r y d a y ; he d w e lls o n l y on th e se n te n c e o f e x ile w h ic h he h im se lf w ill e n fo r c e . He re fu s e s to c o n te n d w it h " y o u r a r g u m e n ts " (9 7 1 ), r e f e r r i n g n o t to a n y real a r g u m e n ts o f H ip p o ly tu s b u t to th e " s t r a w m en" T h e s e u s h im s e lf has set up. More i m p o r t a n t ly , tu rn in g fro m H ip p o ly t u s 's lo g o i, w h ich a re not r e a lly H i p p o ly t u s 's , T h e s e u s appeals to a w i t ­ ness ( m a r ty s ) w h ic h is not r e a lly a w it n e s s : " A c o rp s e is p r e s e n t, th e most r e lia b le w it n e s s " ( 9 7 2 ) . 12 T h e s e u s has been p r e o c c u p ie d w it h th e r e l i a b i l i t y o f evid e n ce e v e r since his s ta te m e n t o f d o u b t c o n c e r n in g Posei­ don's p ro m is e . He has lam ented t h e la ck o f a re lia b le p r o o f o f one's t r u e f r i e n d s . He has d e f ie d H i p p o ly t u s to p r o d u c e e v id e n ce in his d e fe n s e s t r o n g e r th a n t h e e v id e n c e o f th e d e lto s a g a in s t him. Now he t u r n s to a c o r p s e , d e c la r in g n o t j u s t t h a t i t is r e lia b le e v id e n c e ( te k m e rio n o r m a r t y r io n ) , b u t t h a t i t is th e m ost re lia b le w itn e s s . In his g r i e f and his a n g e r a t th e t h o u g h t o f his u t t e r d e c e p tio n b y his s o n , T h e ­ seus has become c o m p le te ly c o n fu s e d as to th e n a t u r e o f his e v id e n c e . H i p p o ly t u s , b o u n d b y an oath o f s ile n c e , m u st d e fe n d his innoce nce b e fo r e a c o n fu s e d and a n g r y ju d g e . He r e s o r ts to a s o r t o f r id d le : " C e r t a i n l y , t h e b u s in e s s has f in e lo g o i, b u t i f someone s h o u ld u n f o ld i t , i t is n o t f in e at a ll" (9 8 4 -8 5 ). T h e o b v io u s d i s t i n c t i o n h e re is betw e en lo g o i and th e t r u t h o f th e m a tte r . T h e main lo gos is t h e d e lto s ; w it h o u t a c tu a lly s t a tin g t h a t th e d e lto s is a lie , H ip p o ly t u s t r ie s to s u g g e s t to T h e s e u s t h a t T h e s e u s may be d e c e iv e d . "Y o u t h o u g h t to catch me o f f g u a r d w it h n o t h in g to say in my d e f e n s e , " H i p p o ly t u s b e g in s ( 9 9 2 - 9 3 ) , and he p ro c e e d s to make th e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d s ta te m e n t o f th e t r u t h t h a t no man on e a r th is more cha ste t h a n he. He p ro c e e d s to a t w o - p a r t e x p la n a tio n o f his a s s e r t io n . F i r s t , he claims to know how to w o r s h ip th e gods and to have as f r i e n d s th o s e who do n o t a tte m p t to do w r o n g , b u t w o u ld be ashamed b o th to send e v il messages and to p e r f o r m sham eful s e r v ic e s as a fa v o r. T h e comments seem s t r a n g e u n t i l , re m e m b e rin g t h a t , in t h e p r e v io u s scene , H i p p o ly t u s has j u s t re je c te d th e N u rse and Phaedra as f r i e n d s , we re c o g n iz e t h a t he is h e re d e s c r ib in g w h a t he assumed was t h e case w h en P haedra " s e n t " t h e N u r s e , who a g re e d to " h e l p " Phaedra seduce H i p ­ p o ly tu s . "I am c o m p le te ly i n n o c e n t , " H i p p o ly t u s says in th e second p a r t o f his e x p la n a tio n , " o f th e one t h i n g in w h ic h

y o u t h i n k yo u c a p t u r e me. I do n o t kn o w t h e deed e x c e p t in h e a r in g i t in speech (lo g o s') and lo o k in g on i t in w r i t i n g ( g r a p h o s ) ” (1 0 0 4 -1 0 0 5 ). G eneral as th e s ta te m e n t is , we re a liz e h e re t h a t H i p p o ly t u s has j u s t hea rd " t h e dee d", in speech and seen i t in w r i t i n g ; t h a t is, T h e s e u s has j u s t accused him o f i t in speech because t h e a c c u s a tio n was w r i t t e n in t h e d e lt a s . I f T h e s e u s w e re in a n y c o n d it io n to p o n d e r t h e s ta te m e n t, m o re o v e r , he w o u ld re c o g n iz e , in H ip p o l y t u s 's d e n ia l o f e x p e r ie n t ia l k n o w le d g e t h e s u g g e s tio n t h a t lo g o s and g ra p h o s a re n o t a lw a ys s u f f i c i e n t f o r k n o w le d g e o f a th in g . F in a lly , a f t e r c h a lle n g in g T h e s e u s to p r o d u c e a m o tiv e f o r P h a e d ra ’ s r a p e , H i p p o ly t u s s w e a rs an oath t h a t he is in n o c e n t. T o t h e e nd o f his s p e e c h , H ip p o ly t u s c o n tin u e s to h i n t t h a t t h e m a t t e r r e q u ir e s m ore c a r e fu l s c r u t i n y , and he closes his speech w i t h a r id d le : "S h e was te m p e ra te w h o d id n o t have i t in h e r to be t e m p e r a te , b u t I, h a v in g t e m p e r ­ ance, d id n o t use i t w e ll ( k a lo s ) . " From t h e o p e n in g p la y on k a lo s lo gos to t h e la s t r i d d l e , H ip p o ly t u s has chosen his w o rd s so as to s u g g e s t w h a t has hap p e n e d w i t h o u t a c t u a lly s t a t in g t h e t r u t h a nd b r e a k i n g his o a th . He is , in e f f e c t , t r y i n g to te ll and n o t to te ll t h e same t h i n g s im u lta n e o u s ly , t h o u g h he is q u i t e aw are t h a t he c a n n o t do b o th . His s i t u ­ a tio n , in w h ic h he uses a m b ig u ity to t r y to say w h a t he m u s t n o t, is th e in v e r s e o f t h e s itu a tio n in w h ic h P h aedra uses a m b ig u ity to a v o id s a y in g w h a t she m ust n o t. The N u rse , on t h e c o n t r a r y , has used a m b ig u it y to avoid s a y in g w h a t she s h o u ld ; t h a t is, Phaedra needed to know t h e N u r s e ’ s in te n tio n r e g a r d i n g H ip p o ly t u s . In each case, t h e use of a m b ig u ity is an i r r a t i o n a l use o f t h e lo g o s , an a tte m p t to speak and n o t to s p e a k a t t h e same tim e. H ip p o ly t u s has don e his b e s t to s u g g e s t to T h e s e u s t h a t t h e s itu a tio n is n o t w h a t i t seems, and th e C h o ru s p o in t s o u t t h e s t r e n g t h o f an oath as an o b je c t o f b e lie f ( p i s t l s ) . The­ seus, i t seems, has p e r c e iv e d t h e a m b ig u itie s in H i p p o l y t u s ’ s d e fe n s e , b u t his a n g r y actio n is to accuse H ip p o ly t u s of b e in g a w itc h w it h w o r d s , t r y i n g to charm T h e s e u s and w in him o v e r w it h e u o rg e s ia , ( g e n t le n e s s , or m ild n e ss of te m p e r). C h a lle n g e d b y H ip p o ly t u s to k ill him on t h e s p o t if he is c le a r ly g u i l t y , T h e s e u s re s p o n d s t h a t q u i c k d e a th is too e a sy; he has f o r g o t t e n , as we h ave n o t, t h a t he h im se lf has p r a y e d to Poseidon to k ill H i p p o ly t u s t h a t d a y . E v i­ d e n t l y , th e a n g r y T h e s e u s is t h o r o u g h l y c o n fu s e d , and a

s ta te o f c o n fu s io n , as we have seen, is c o n d u c iv e to t h e commission o f h a m a rtia !. H ip p o ly t u s has come a t t h e k a ir o s , as th e C h o ru s has p o in te d o u t , a n d , h a v in g g iv e n his d e fe n s e , he asks in his la s t d e s p e r a te q u e s tio n s w h e t h e r T he seus in te n d s to c a r r y o u t t h e se n te n c e w i t h o u t a n y t e s t o f t h e e v id e n c e (1 0 5 1 -5 6 ). T h e s e u s claims s im p ly t h a t " t h i s d e lto s h e re " is all t h a t is n ee ded, and t h u s he com mits his h a m a rtia . He has d o u b te d t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e g o d 's p ro m is e ; he has lam ented t h e la ck o f a t r u e v o ic e in men to r e f u t e th e voice t h a t lie s ; he has accused H i p p o ly t u s o f t r y i n g to d e ce ive him in w o r d s . T h r o u g h o u t t h e scene , he has been obsessed w it h t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f g e t t i n g a t t h e t r u t h o f a lo g o s . Y e t h e re he holds t h e d e lto s , a w r i t t e n lo g o s , b e fo r e H ip p o ly t u s as a b s o lu te p r o o f o f his g u i l t , p r o o f w h ic h adm its o f no t e s t , no d i v in a t i o n s , no c o n t r a r y o a t h ; i t is a t r u e s ta te m e n t to w h ic h t h e w itn e s s is a c o r p s e . H ip p o ly t u s know s a t t h is p o in t t h a t he is lo s t. He b r i e f l y c o n s id e rs b r e a k i n g his o a th , b u t he rea lize s th a t T h e s e u s , h a v in g com m itted such a h a m a rtia as he has, w ill not b e lie ve him a n y w a y . H i p p o ly t u s d e s p a i r i n g l y calls on t h e house it s e lf to b e a r him w it n e s s , and T h e s e u s t a u n t s him w it h t h e sta te m e n t t h a t i t is a c le v e r idea to call vo ice le ss w itn e s s e s , b u t t h e deed i t s e l f re v e a ls him as an e v il man. T h e jib e is all t h e m ore t e r r i b l e f o r its u n w i t t i n g i r o n y ; n o t o n ly is t h e r e no " r e v e a lin g d e e d , " n o r has T h e s e u s c a u g h t H ip p o ly t u s in t h e a c t, b u t also T h e s e u s is t h e one w ho has called a voiceless w itn e s s . A f t e r t h e C h o ru s lam ents H ip p o l y t u s 's d e p a r t u r e , we learn t h r o u g h a m e s s e n g e r o f t h e s u f ­ f e r i n g s o f H ip p o ly t u s u n d e r t h e c u r s e o f Poseidon. Though T h e seus is now c o n v in c e d t h a t he has been v i n d i c a t e d , he is m in d fu l o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e man he has c u r s e d is his own son, and t h e scene ends as T h e s e u s b id s t h e m e s s e n g e r b r i n g t h e d y i n g H i p p o ly t u s b e fo r e him . T h e f in a l c h o ra l hym n to A p h r o d i t e is fo llo w e d im m edi­ a te ly b y t h e e n tr a n c e o f A r t e m is . A r te m is has come to reveal a ll, to c le a r up t h e c o n f u s io n , to u n t a n g le t h e lie s. She p rocee ds to lay o u t t h e s t o r y fro m b e g in n in g to e n d , f i n a l l y r e p r o a c h in g T h e s e u s f o r n o t r e a liz in g , on t h e one h a n d , t h a t Poseidon's p ro m ise to g r a n t his p r a y e r s was r e l i ­ able (1 3 1 5 ), y e t , on th e o t h e r h a n d , t h a t t h e d e lto s was u n r e lia b le (1 2 8 9 ). A r te m is says t h a t , beca use T h e s e u s n e i­ t h e r se a rch e d f o r more b e lie v a b le p r o o f n o r c o n s u lt e d a seer n o r allowed tim e f o r an i n v e s t ig a t i o n , she a nd Poseidon b o th

c o n s id e r T h e s e u s a base man (1 3 2 0 -2 4 ). "I am r u i n e d , " moans T h e s e u s (1 3 2 5 ). Here is t h e essence o f t r a g e d y . 13 T h e s e u s , t h o u g h he is n e it h e r mad n o r w ic k e d , has d e l i b e r ­ a te ly k ille d his own son. He is r u in e d because o f th e h a m a rtia he com m itted in a n g e r . His actio n was i r r a t i o n a l - - a s o r t o f in s ta n ta n e o u s i n s a n i t y - - b u t i t was his own a c tio n ; o n ly he can ta k e t h e r e s p o n s ib i l it y f o r i t . A r te m is has made c le a r t h a t t h e gods c o n s id e r T he seus r e s p o n s ib le f o r t h e d e e d , b u t , in h e r n e x t sp e e c h , she says t h a t T h e s e u s 's ig n o r a n c e f r e e s his h a m a rtia o f e v i l. She adds t h a t , s in c e P haedra had k ille d h e r s e l f , i t was im po ssib le to exam ine t h e m a tt e r w i t h lo g o i, and so T h e s e u s was p e r ­ suaded. T h e s ta te m e n ts c o n c lu d e h e r e x p la n a tio n t h a t , t h o u g h T h e s e u s has do n e a t e r r i b l e t h i n g , f o r g iv e n e s s is p o s s ib le s in c e A p h r o d i t e w a n te d t h i n g s to happen in t h is way. A ris to tle w rite s , in Book I II o f t h e N icom achean E th ic s , t h a t on v o l u n t a r y p a ssion s and a c tio n s p r a is e and blame a re b e s to w e d , on th o s e t h a t a re i n v o l u n t a r y p a r d o n , and sometimes also p i t y . . . . T h o s e t h i n g s , t h e n , a re t h o u g h t i n v o l u n t a r y , w h ic h t a k e place u n d e r c o m p u l­ sion o r o w in g to ig n o r a n c e ; and t h a t is c o m p u ls o r y o f w h ic h t h e m o v in g p r i n c i p l e is o u t s id e . . . . la A r te m is has n o t, in a n n o u n c in g th e w ill o f A p h r o d i t e , d e n ie d T h e s e u s 's f r e e w i l l . Pardon is p o s s ib le because o f his ig n o ­ ra n ce and n o t because he was com pelled b y A p h r o d i t e . 15 H ip p o ly t u s is b r o u g h t in at t h is p o i n t , and A r te m is reveals to him also t h a t A p h r o d i t e has set up t h e s itu a tio n in w h ic h th e s e t e r r i b l e t h i n g s have hap p e n e d (1 4 0 0 ). A r t e m is , H ip ­ p o l y t u s , and T h e s e u s t o g e t h e r c o n s id e r T h e s e u s 's h a m a rtia and t h e f a c t t h a t t h e gods can t r i p u p men in t h e i r t h i n k i n g (1 4 1 3 ). A r te m is te lls T h e se u s t h a t he has k ille d his son i n v o l u n t a r i l y , and she b id s H ip p o ly t u s f o r g i v e his f a t h e r . As she p o in ts o u t , " I t is reaso n a b le to e x p e c t men to commit h a m a rtia i w h en th e gods g iv e them th e o p p o rtu n ity " ( 1 4 3 3 -3 4 ). A r t e m is m u s t leave t h e d y i n g H i p p o ly t u s t o avo id t h e t a i n t o f m o r t a l it y in t h e a i r , and t h e p la y ends as H ip ­ p o ly t u s fre e s T h e s e u s o f th e g u i l t o f t h e m u r d e r a nd dies in his f a t h e r ' s a rm s. B oth P haedra and H ip p o ly t u s have com m itted h a m a rtia i in t h e i r i r r a t io n a l a tte m p ts to speak and n o t to speak a t th e

same tim e . A ll uses o f a m b ig u ity and e q u iv o c a tio n have such i r r a t i o n a l i t y in common, and t h e p la y d e m o n s tr a te s t h e c o n ­ fu s io n re s u ltin g fro m m isuse o f t h e lo g o s . T h e s e u s 's h a m a rtia , th e la s t h a m a rtia to be com m itted in t h e p l a y , is q u it e n a t u r a l l y , t h e n , a h a m a rtia c o n c e r n in g t h e n a t u r e o f e v id e n c e . Once t h e d i s t in c t io n betw een t r u t h and f a l s i t y has been lo s t, o n ly a g od is able to r e s to r e o r d e r . In a d d it io n , o n ly a god can t r u l y kn o w to whom f o r g iv e n e s s is d u e . H i p p o ly t u s has r e fu s e d to lis te n to t h e N u r s e 's plea f o r f o r ­ g iv e n e s s ( 6 1 5 ) , b u t he f o r g i v e s his f a t h e r a t t h e b i d d i n g o f A rte m is (1 4 4 2 -4 3 ). H y p o c r is y c a n n o t t r u l y be d e te c te d b y men; because i t is p o s sib le to lie, o n ly a god can d i s t i n g u i s h s i n c e r i t y fro m h y p o c r i s y . B u t A rte m is te lls us t h a t men commit h a m a rtia i in s i t u ­ a tio n s s e t up b y th e g o d s . She says r e p e a te d ly in t h e fin a l scene t h a t t h e s itu a tio n has come a b o u t as A p h r o d i t e d e s ir e d i t t o . W hy w o u ld a god w a n t men t o lie to each o t h e r and to m isuse t h e lo g o s as th e c h a r a c t e r s do h e r e ? 16 A p h r o d i t e is t h e god dess o f sexu a l p a s s io n ; t h e C h o r u s , s in g in g a b o u t Eros in t h e f i r s t sta s im o n , t e lls us t h a t Eros ho ld s t h e k e y to A p h r o d i t e 's b e d - c h a m b e r ( 5 4 0 ) . Sexual passion is n o t j u s t a p o w e r fu l f o r c e ; i t is a f o r c e e s s e n tia l to lif e . A p h r o d i t e 's sole c o n c e r n , as t h e g u a r d ia n g o d d e s s o f such an im p o r t a n t f o r c e , is t h a t sex t a k e p la c e . A p h ro d ite ’s goal is accom plished q u it e e f f i c i e n t l y b y means o f t h e i n s t i n c t to mate w h ic h e x is ts in all anim als. B u t man is an e x c e p ­ tio n a l anim al. U n lik e a n y o t h e r anim al, man can choose n o t to act upon th e im pulse o f th e sexua l d r i v e . T h e r a tio n a l f a c u l t y u n iq u e to man enables him to c o n t r o l th e im p u lse s o f th e animal p a r t o f his n a t u r e , so t h a t he can s u b o r d in a t e his i n s t in c t u a l d r iv e s to o t h e r e n d s . Man has a c i v i l i z a t i o n , in f a c t , because he has s u b o r d in a te d animal im p u lse s t o o t h e r ends. T h e r e are r u le s g o v e r n in g human s e x u a l i t y , t h e n ; i t is sometimes a p p r o p r i a t e and sometimes i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r men to a c t upon t h e d e s ir e to h ave s e x . Man d e c id e s w h e t h e r o r n o t his d e s ir e is a p p r o p r i a t e b y u s in g lo g o s . B u t , as we h ave seen, lo g o s can be m is u s e d . Men can make m is ta k e s in u n d e r s t a n d in g a r g u m e n ts , and men can m isuse t h e la n g u a g e , l y i n g o r e q u iv o c a tin g in s te a d o f d e s c r i b i n g t h i n g s as t h e y t r u l y a re . For A p h r o d i t e , t h e w a y to in s u r e t h a t t h e ra tio n a l animal s u b m its t o i r r a t io n a l sexu a l passio n is t o see t h a t lo g o s is m isused so t h a t t h e d i s t i n c t io n betw e e n p r o p e r

a nd im p r o p e r sex is b l u r r e d . W hat is s e d u c tio n , a f t e r a ll, b u t t h e p ro c e s s o f c o n v in c in g a n o t h e r p e rs o n to en g a g e in sex i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y , a t t h e w r o n g tim e , f o r in s ta n c e , o r w ith t h e w r o n g pe rso n ? T h e ra tio n a l f a c u l t y b y w h ic h one a p p r e ­ h e n d s lo g o i ( a r g u m e n t s ) a g a in s t sex u n d e r c e r ta in c i r c u m ­ s ta n c e s can also m is t a k e n ly a c c e p t f a ls e lo g o i, e q u iv o c a l a r g u m e n ts in f a v o r o f sex u n d e r i n a p p r o p r i a t e c irc u m s ta n c e s . P h a e d ra , f o r e x a m p le , a c ce p ts t h e lo g o s t h a t one s h o u ld n o t com m it a d u l t e r y . T h e N u rs e , s e e k in g to c o n v in c e Phaedra to r e je c t t h e lo g o s , b e g in s w ith t h e p re m is e t h a t one s h o u ld n o t t h r o w away o ne 's lif e . P h aedra, t h e N u rs e a r g u e s , is d y i n g because she is n o t i n d u l g i n g h e r d e s ir e to have sex w ith H ip p o ly t u s . T h e N u rs e co n c lu d e s t h a t Phaedra m u st have se xu a l i n t e r c o u r s e w it h H i p p o ly t u s to save h e r life and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , Phaedra s h o u ld commit a d u l t e r y . T h e N u rs e e q u i ­ v o c a te s on " s h o u l d " ; t h e " u t i l i t y " o f t h e a d u l t e r y does n o t j u s t i f y t h e actio n a n y more th a n t h e o b v io u s " u t i l i t y " o f t h r o w i n g away o n e 's arm s and f le e in g fro m b a t t le j u s t i f ie s su ch a c tio n . H i p p o ly t u s , t h e one man in T ro e z e n who has chosen to a b s ta in fro m sex a l t o g e t h e r , has n a t u r a l l y i n c u r r e d t h e w r a t h o f A p h ro d ite . He w o u ld also seem to be t h e o n ly man who is im p e rv io u s to h e r p o w e r , s in c e he has d e c id e d a lw a ys to m a s te r t h e animal im p u ls e o f se xu a l passio n b y means o f his r a tio n a l f a c u l t y . A p h r o d i t e does o v e r p o w e r H i p p o ly t u s ; in f a c t , she d e s t r o y s him , b u t n o t d i r e c t l y b y means o f sexua l p a s s io n . I t is P haedra w ho s u f f e r s f r o m sexua l passion in th e s itu a tio n th a t A p h ro d ite a rra n g e s. H ip p o ly t u s is d e s t r o y e d b y lo g o s : T h e s e u s 's c u r s e in re sp o n se to Phae­ d r a 's lie , w h ic h lie is i t s e l f a re s p o n s e to H i p p o l y t u s ’ s own m isuse o f th e lo g o s in m a k in g t h e fa ls e d i s t i n c t io n betw een his m ind and his t o n g u e . T h e v e r y f a c i l i t y w it h lo g o s w h ic h ena bles H i p p o ly t u s to r e s is t passio n is f i n a l l y r e s p o n s ib le f o r his d e s t r u c t i o n . T h e p a ra d o x o f H i p p o l y t u s ’ s t r a g i c s itu a tio n is t h e p a r ­ adox o f t h e human c o n d it io n . M an, t h e o n l y animal capa ble o f re a so n , is t h e o n ly animal c a p a b le o f a c tin g c o n t r a r y to re a so n . S e x u a l it y , t h e s o u rc e o f m an's lif e , is a n a tu r a l f u n c t io n o f his animal n a tu re , b u t sexua l p a s s io n , an i n s t i n c t i v e f o r c e o v e r w h ic h man m u s t e x e r c is e his c o n t r o l, is c o n t r a r y to his r a tio n a l n a t u r e . O n ly f o r man is i t t r u e t h a t sex is i r r a t i o n a l , a n d y e t i t w o u ld be i r r a t io n a l to d e n y t h a t s e x u a l i t y is a n e c e s s a r y and n a t u r a l e lem ent o f m an's n a t u r e .

T h e r a tio n a l animal is , at t h e v e r y base o f his e x is te n c e , i r r a t i o n a l , and he is i r r a t io n a l b y v i r t u e o f his r a tio n a l n a tu re . Men alone are " m a s te r e d " b y p a s s io n ; o n l y men can e q u iv o c a te ; men alone commit h a m a r tia i.

NOTES 1 Lines q u o te d fro m th e H ip p o ly tu s a re m y t r a n s la t i o n s o f G il b e r t M u r r a y 's t e x t f o r t h e O x f o r d C lassical S e rie s : E u r i­ p id is F a b u la e , re c o g n o v it C ilb e r tu s M u r r a y ( O x o n ii, 1902), T om us I . 2 B e r n a r d K n o x has also d is c u s s e d t h is speech in t h e H ip ­ p o ly tu s in Y ale C la s s ic a l S tu d ie s , 13 (1 9 5 2 ), 3-31. He o b s e rv e s t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s , f o r each c h a r a c t e r , "a choice betw een silence and s p e e c h ." He c o n c lu d e s , h o w e v e r , t h a t speech is im p o r t a n t in th e p la y as a " m e ta p h o r f o r t h e o p e r ­ atio n o f human f r e e w i l l, th e f u t i l i t y o f th e m oral c h o ic e " ( p . 6). I do not s h a re th e c o n c lu s io n . 3 I am in d e b te d to James A . A r i e t i , p r o f e s s o r o f C la ssics at H a m p d e n -S y d n e y C o llege , f o r t h e re a liz a tio n o f t h e i m p o r ­ ta n c e o f t h e m isuses o f lo g o s in t h e p la y . * A r i s t o t l e , P o litic a , 1253a13-14, t r . Benjam in J o w e tt in th e B a s ic W orks o f A r is t o t le , e d . R ic h a rd McKeon (N e w Y o r k , 1941), p . 1129. 5 J.

See e s p e c ia lly t h e d i s t i n c t io n s in t h e o p e n in g pages A . A r i e t i s a r t i c l e , " H i s t o r y , H a m a rtia , H e r o d o t u s . "

of

6 W. S. B a r r e t t , in his t e x t o f t h e H ip p o ly t u s , seems c e r ­ ta in o f 'T h e s e i p r a g m a ,' t h o u g h G i l b e r t M u r r a y labels th e w o rd s c o r r u p ta in t h e O x f o r d t e x t . 7 W. S. B a r r e t t , co m m e n ta ry on line s 9 3 -9 9 , in E u r ip id e s , H ip p o ly tu s , ed. W. S. B a r r e t t ( O x f o r d , 1964), p p . 177-78. 8 See A r i s t o t l e 1383b12-1385a15.

on

shame

( a is c h u n e )

in

th e

R h e to r ic ,

9 For a th o ro u g h sp e e c h , see W. S. ( p p . 2 5 3 -5 6 ).

d is c u s s io n o f a m b ig u ity in t h e N u rs e 's B a r r e t t 's c o m m e n ta ry on lines 507-24

10 See A r i s t o t l e , R h e to r ic , 137 4b5ff. m achean E th ic s , 113 5b12 ff.

and 1405a26, and N ic o -

11 See W. S. B a r r e t t on saph es in th e note on lin e 346, p p . 223-24 o f his c o m m e n ta ry . 12 Though A t h e n ia n la w - c o u r t s p e r m it te d as e v id e n c e w r i t t e n d e p o s itio n s fro m w itn e s s e s w ho had d ie d , T h e s e u s is s t r e t c h i n g t i g h t l y t h e w o rd m a rty s to make i t f i t a c o r p s e ; at b e s t, his use o f t h e w o r d is m e ta p h o r ic a l. F o r a d is c u s s io n o f t h e use o f w itn e s s e s in f i f t h - c e n t u r y A t h e n s , see R o b e rt J . B o n n e r a nd G e r t r u d e S m ith , T h e A d m in is tr a tio n o f J u s tic e fro m H om er to A r is t o t le , 3 v o ls . (C h ic a g o , 1930), I I , 117-44. B o n n e r a nd S m ith 's e x p la n a tio n o f th e use o f w itn e s s e s and o t h e r uses o f t h e w o r d m a rty s lead me to c o n c lu d e t h a t a m a rty s is t e c h n i c a l ly a b e in g (g o d o r man) capa ble o f s p e a k in g . I am g r a t e f u l to Edw in C araw an o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f N o r th C a ro lin a a t Chapel Hill f o r his help in my i n v e s t ig a ­ tio n o f t h e w o rd m a r ty s . 13

A r i s t o t l e , P o e tic s , 1453a10.

lk A r i s t o t l e , N icom achean E th ic s , 1109b31- 1 1 10a2, t r . W. D. Ross in t h e B a s ic W o rks o f A r is t o t le , e d . R ic h a rd McKeon (N ew Y o r k , 194 1), p p . 964-67. 15 A r i s t o t l e says l a t e r in t h e same c h a p t e r o f t h e N icom a­ ch e a n E th ic s t h a t " a c ts done b y reason o f a n g e r o r a p p e tite a re n o t r i g h t l y c a lle d i n v o l u n t a r y " (1 1 1 1 a 2 1 ff. ) . Theseus, h o w e v e r , has n o t k ille d his son because o f his a n g e r b u t because he has j u d g e d t h a t H ip p o ly t u s is g u i l t y . His i n it ia l a n g e r a t t h e t h o u g h t t h a t H ip p o ly t u s 's d i s p la y o f te m p e ra n c e has been an e la b o ra te d e c e p tio n makes i t more l i k e l y t h a t he w ill com mit t h e h a m a rtia w h ic h he f i n a l l y does com mit c o n ­ c e r n i n g t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f his e v id e n c e . Since T h e s e u s c o u ld h ave c a lle d b a c k t h e c u r s e a n y tim e b e fo r e c o m m ittin g t h e h a m a rtia ( i . e . m is t a k e n ly j u d g i n g t h a t H i p p o ly t u s is g u i l t y on t h e e v id e n c e o f t h e d e ito s a lo n e ), he has, in t h e f in a l a n a l­ y s i s , k ille d H i p p o l y t u s , n o t on a c c o u n t o f his a n g e r , b u t on

a c c o u n t o f his m istaken idea a c t u a lly an e c h th ro s ( e n e m y ).

th a t

a

p h ilo s

(h is

son)

is

16 I am, a g a in , v e r y g r a t e f u l to P r o fe s s o r James A r i e t i f o r p r o v i d i n g me w it h th e lin k betw een s e x u a li t y and t h e m isuse o f logos w h ich s e rv e s as th e a n s w e r to t h e q u e s tio n .

J a n e t E. Smith

T H E H A M A R T IA OF M ISOLO G1A

In his d ia lo g u e t h e P h aedo , Plato p r e s e n ts S o crates and his f r i e n d s on t h e la s t d a y o f S o c ra te s 's lif e . Phaedo te lls o f t h e em otions f e l t on t h a t d a y : I m y s e lf was c u r i o u s l y a ffe c te d w h ile I was t h e r e : it w a s n 't p i t y t h a t v is it e d me, as m ig h t have been e x p e c te d f o r someone p r e s e n t at t h e d e a th o f an i n t i ­ mate f r i e n d ; because th e man seemed to me h a p p y , E c h e c ra te s , b o th in his m a n n e r and his w o r d s , so f e a r le s s l y and n o b ly was he m ee tin g his e n d ; and so I f e l t a s s u r e d t h a t even w h ile on his w a y to Hades he w o u ld n o t go w i t h o u t d i v in e p r o v id e n c e , and t h a t w hen he a r r i v e d t h e r e he w o u ld f a r e w e ll, i f e v e r a n y man d i d . T h a t 's w h y I w a s n 't v i s it e d at all b y th e p i t y t h a t w o u ld seem n a t u r a l f o r someone p r e s e n t at a scene o f s o r r o w , n o r again b y t h e p le a s u re fro m o u r b e in g o c c u p ie d , as u s u a l, w it h p h ilo s o p h y - - b e c a u s e th e d is c u s s io n w as, in f a c t , o f t h a t s o r t - - b u t a s im p ly e x t r a o r d i n a r y fe e lin g was upo n me, a s o r t o f s t r a n g e m ix t u r e o f p le a s u re a nd pain c o m b in e d , as I r e fle c t e d t h a t S o crates was s h o r t l y g o in g to d ie . (Phaedo, 5 8 d f f . ) x Phaedo's s u r p r i s e t h a t he d id n o t feel p i t y and t h a t S o crates was n o t f e a r f u l s u g g e s ts t h a t Phaedo was in c lin e d to v ie w S o c ra te s ’ s d e a th as a t r a g i c e v e n t . 2 T h e r e a d e r o f th e d i a ­ logue may also f i n d t h e p o r t r a y a l o f t h e e v e n t to resem ble a t r a g e d y in s e v e ra l r e s p e c ts , f o r t h e d ia lo g u e p r e s e n ts th e d e a th o f a h e ro in w h a t seem to be e p i s o d e s . 3 T h e r e is also a s m a tt e r in g o f d r a m a tic d e ta il w h ic h seems to g iv e th e p r e s ­ e n ta tio n a t r a g i c c a s t: f o r in s ta n c e , t h e co m parison o f Soc­ r a te s 's b e h a v io r w it h t h e T h e s e u s le g e n d ( 5 8 a 1 0 ff .) g iv e s th e dram a o f his la s t d a y t h e k in d o f m y th o lo g ic a l status'* d e s i r ­ able in a t r a g e d y . Y e t , as we shall see, P la to ’ s p r e s e n ta tio n o f S o c ra te s 's d e a th w i t h a h i n t o f t r a g e d y a b o u t i t has t h e o d d e f f e c t o f d e s t r o y i n g th e n o tio n t h a t S o c ra te s 's d e a th is

tra g ic . A g a in , t h e above q u o ta tio n in d ic a te s as m u c h , f o r , in s p ite o f e x p e c ta tio n s , S o c ra te s 's d e a th d id n o t e v o k e t h e emotions associated w ith t r a g e d y . Plato p o r t r a y s S o cra te s on his la s t d a y in such a w a y t h a t we le a rn t h a t S o cra te s s h o u ld n o t be p it ie d , s in c e d e a th , f o r him a t le a s t, is n o t fe a rfu l. Since t h e hero o f t h e d ia lo g u e s u f f e r s no f e a r f u l o r p itia b le m is f o r t u n e , t h e d ia lo g u e on t h is level is v e r y u n tra g ic .5 T h e r e is, t h o u g h , a n e a r - t r a g e d y in th e P h a e d o . And th is n e a r - t r a g e d y goes b e y o n d t h e som ewhat s u p e r f ic ia l resem blances to a t r a g e d y noted a b o ve . A r i s t o t l e d e fin e s a t r a g e d y as an im ita tion o f a noble and com plete a c tio n w h ic h , t h r o u g h t h e r e p r e s e n ta tio n o f p it i a b l e a nd f e a r f u l i n c id e n t s , achieves t h e c a th a rs is o f f e a r and p i t y . He d e fin e s a p i t i ­ able and f e a r f u l in c id e n t as t h e f a l l i n g o f a good man in to a m is f o r tu n e t h r o u g h some h a m a rtia . 6 In t h e P haedo t h e p a r ­ t ic ip a n t s o f t h e dialogue n e a r ly com m it t h e h a m a rtia o f m iso lo g ia , o r t h e h a t r e d of a r g u m e n t , w h ic h w o u ld r e s u l t in w h a t Plato c o n s id e re d to be t h e w o r s t p o s s ib le e v i l: t h e f a i l u r e to become p h ilo s o p h e r s . B y k e e p in g t h e em otions asso cia te d w it h t r a g e d y in t h e f o r e f r o n t , Plato te a ch e s t h a t t h e em otions w h ic h m any feel in re s p o n s e to S o c ra te s 's d e a th a re m ore p r o p e r l y f e l t in response to m is o lo g ia , an e v il g r e a t e r th a n d e a th . T h e f i r s t p o r tio n o f t h is s t u d y w ill e s t a b lis h th e c e n tr a l role o f f e a r and p i t y in t h e d ia lo g u e and a n a ly s e how Socrates t r a n s fo r m s o u r c o n c e rn w it h t h e a p p a r e n t t r a g e d y o f his d e a th in to a c o n ce rn f o r w h a t he p o r t r a y s as t h e t r u e t r a g i c m is f o r t u n e , y ie ld in g to m is o lo g ia . T h e second p o r t io n w ill d is c u s s th e n a tu r e o f m iso lo g ia and how S o cra te s p u r g e s th e i n t e r l o c u t o r s o f it. A r i s t o t l e te lls us t h a t f e a r is t h e pain o r c o n fu s io n w h ic h one s u f f e r s in th e face o f an im p e n d in g d e s t r u c t i v e o r p a in fu l e v i l . 7 T h e p e c u lia r t h i n g a b o u t t h e P haedo is t h a t S o c ra te s , t h e one whom we w o u ld m ost e x p e c t to be f e a r f u l because o f his coming e x e c u tio n , e x p re s s e s o n l y c o n fid e n c e in t h e face o f d e a th . S t i l l , a lth o u g h S o crates f i r s t s p e a ks o f w h y a p h ilo s o p h e r not o n l y does n o t f e a r d e a th b u t is in f a c t e a g e r f o r i t , u n d e r ly in g his d is c u s s io n is an aw a re n e ss t h a t most men do f e a r death (67e9, 68b6; c f . 8 4 b 5 f f . ) . And c e r­ t a i n l y t h e r e s t o f his c o m p a n y seem to h ave t h is f e a r . Sim mias and Cebes speak o f th e f e a r o f d e a th s e v e ra l tim es at f a i r l y c r it ic a l p o in ts of t h e d ia lo g u e ( e s p e c ia lly w hen t h e y e x p re s s a d i f f i c u l t y in a c c e p tin g t h e p r i o r a r g u m e n t ) . Cebes

at 70a m ention s t h e f e a r t h a t th e s o u l, w hen s e p a ra te d fro m t h e b o d y , no lo n g e r e x is t s . Simmias a t 77b5 r e it e r a t e s t h is " p o p u l a r " f e a r (see also 8 8 b 2 ff , 9 1 c 7 ). S o crates t h e n makes Simmias and Cebes a d m it t h a t th e f e a r t h e y speak o f is one th e y sh a re --a n d lik e n s th e ir fe a r to t h a t of c h ild r e n (7 7 d 5 ff.). Cebes l a u g h in g ly adm its t h is and asks Socrates to r e a s s u r e " t h e c h i l d " w i t h in so t h a t t h e y may s to p b e in g a f r a id o f death as o f a bogeym an ( 7 7 e 5 ) . S o crates in te n d s to o b lig e . T h e f e a r o f t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r s is n o t o n ly in r e fe r e n c e to t h e i r ow n d e a th s ; t h e y also e x p r e s s f e a r f o r th e m s e lv e s and p i t y f o r th e m se lve s at th e im p e n d in g loss o f t h e i r f r i e n d S o c ra te s . A r i s t o t l e te lls us t h a t p i t y is a pa in e x p e rie n c e d in t h e fa ce o f some d e s t r u c t i v e o r p a in f u l e v il t h r e a t e n in g one w h o does n o t d e s e r v e t h e e v i l — e s p e c ia lly one close to o n e s e l f . 8 We re ca ll a ga in t h a t Phaedo re m a rk e d t h a t he d id not feel p i t y f o r S o c ra te s . Y e t t h e p a r t ic i p a n t s do spea k o f a f e a r w h ic h am ounts to s e l f - p i t y . Simmias a t 76a10 m ention s his f e a r t h a t , on t h e n e x t d a y , t h e r e w ill be no man w h o can p r o p e r l y d is c u s s t h e s u b je c t o f k n o w le d g e . Cebes in d ic a te s at 78a7 t h a t he b e lie v e s S o crates t o be t h e o n l y one w ho can f r e e th e m o f t h e i r f e a r s ; at 116a5, Phaedo r e p o r t s t h a t t h e c o m p a n y sp oke o f t h e i r m is f o r t u n e as i f t h e y w e re b e in g d e p r i v e d o f a f a t h e r a n d w o u ld become o r p h a n s . X a n th ip p e ’s o n ly w o r d s also e x p r e s s p i t y a t t h e s e p a ra tio n o f S o crates and his f r i e n d s : "So t h is is t h e v e r y la s t tim e , S o c ra te s , t h a t y o u r good f r i e n d s w ill spea k to y o u a nd yo u t o th e m " ( 6 0 a 5 ) . As Phaedo te lls o f t h e o t h e r s ' t e a r s a n d his o w n , he adm its t h a t , in t h e e n d , t h e la m e n ta tio n s w e re a p r o d u c t o f p i t y m ore f o r t h e i r own m is f o r t u n e t h a n f o r t h a t o f S o c ra te s : In my own case, t h e te a r s came p o u r i n g o u t in s p ite o f m y s e lf, so t h a t I c o v e re d my face and w e p t f o r m y s e l f - - n o t f o r him , no, b u t f o r my own m is f o r tu n e in b e in g d e p r i v e d o f such a man f o r a com pan ion . ( 1 1 7 c 7 -d 1 ) So, a lth o u g h S o c ra te s 's b e h a v io r k e p t Phaedo and com pan y fro m e x p e r ie n c in g f e a r and p i t y on his b e h a lf, non e th e le ss t h e y d id e x p e r ie n c e th e s e em otions l a r g e l y in r e fe r e n c e to th e m s e lv e s . I t is also im p o r t a n t to keep in m ind t h a t n o t all was la m e n ta tio n ; as Phaedo's o p e n in g re m a rk s in fo rm u s , th e i n t e r l o c u t o r s f o u n d th e m se lve s e x p e r i e n c i n g b o th p le a s u re

and p a in , b o th la u g h in g and w e e p i n g . 9 T h e s e re s p o n s e s in d ic a te t h a t t h e y had made some p r o g r e s s in c o n q u e r in g t h e i r fe a r s b u t had n o t y e t o b ta in e d S o c ra te s 's s ta te o f p h i l ­ o s o p h ic calm. A n d t h a t is o n ly r i g h t , f o r , as we shall see, o n ly t h e p h ilo s o p h e r can and s h o u ld be fe a r le s s in t h e fa ce o f d e a th . Is Socrates j u s t i f i e d in e x p e r ie n c in g t h i s hope? W hat is th e s o u rc e o f his fe a r le s s n e s s in t h e fa c e o f d ea th? Simmias and Cebes have q u i t e d e f i n i t e n o tio n s a b o u t how one is to be f r e e d fro m t h e f e a r o f d e a th , t h a t is , how one is to j u s t i f y c o n fid e n c e in t h e fa ce o f d e a th . S o c ra te s s ta te s t h e m a tt e r w h ic h most c o n c e rn s his i n t e r l o c u t o r s in t h i s w a y : T h e sum and s u b s ta n c e o f w h a t y o u ' r e a f t e r is s u r e l y th is : you w a n t i t p r o v e d t h a t o u r soul is im p e r i s h ­ able and im m o rta l, if a p h ilo s o p h ic man a b o u t to d ie , c o n f i d e n t ly b e lie v in g t h a t a f t e r d e a th h e 'll f a r e much b e t t e r y o n d e r th a n if he w e re e n d in g a lif e liv e d d i f ­ f e r e n t l y , i s n 't to be possessed o f a senseless a nd fo o lis h c o n fid e n c e . (9 5 b 9 -c 4 ) S o cra te s state s t h e p ro b le m w e ll, f o r t h r o u g h o u t t h e d i a ­ lo g u e , Simmias and Cebes h ave e x p r e s s e d t h e v ie w t h a t a n y s e n s ib le man s h o u ld f e a r d e a th and t h a t o n ly a d e m o n s tr a tio n t h a t t h e soul is imm ortal and im p e ris h a b le w o u ld s e r v e to e x p la in c o n fid e n c e in th e fa ce o f d e a th . Now m any who have s tu d ie d t h e P haedo seek to d i s c o v e r i f , in f a c t , S o crates has p r o v i d e d su ch a d e m o n s tr a tio n . Yet is t h e d e m o n s tra tio n o f t h e im m o r ta lity o f t h e soul S o c ra te s 's aim in t h e dialogue? Does he t h i n k such a p r o o f w o u ld be t h e b e s t w a y to b a n is h t h e f e a r o f dea th? We re c a ll t h a t , in t h e A p o lo g y , S o crates has a lr e a d y in s is t e d t h a t one s h o u ld be h o p e fu l in th e face o f d e a th : L e t us c o n s id e r in a n o th e r w a y also how good reason t h e r e is to hope t h a t i t is a good t h i n g . F o r th e s ta te o f dea th is one o f tw o t h i n g s : e i t h e r i t is v i r ­ t u a l l y n o t h in g n e s s , so t h a t t h e dead has no c o n ­ sciousne ss o f a n y t h i n g , o r i t is , as peo ple s a y , a c h a n g e and m ig r a tio n o f t h e soul fro m t h is to a n o t h e r place. A n d i f i t is u n c o n s c io u s n e s s , lik e a sleep in w h ic h t h e s le e p e r does n o t even d re a m , d e a th w o u ld be a w o n d e r f u l g a in . ( 4 0 c ) 10

S o cra te s c l e a r ly does n o t s h a re t h e f e a r o f Simmias and Cebes t h a t d e a th is a k in d o f n o t h in g n e s s . N o r does he re c o g n iz e t h is as a le g itim a te f e a r ; i f dea th w e re a n o t h i n g ­ ness, i t w o u ld be a b le s s in g , n o t a m is f o r t u n e . A n d , s in ce , in t h e A p o lo g y , S o cra te s spea ks o n l y o f w h a t good men w ill e x p e r ie n c e i f t h e soul s h o u ld e x i s t a f t e r d e a th , he f i n d s th e second p o s s i b i l i t y a b le s s in g as w e ll. T h e r e is , t h o u g h , a h i n t e a r l ie r in his speech t h a t he t h i n k s t h e im m o r ta lity o f th e soul to be a f e a r f u l p r o s p e c t f o r w ic k e d men: he says t h a t d e a th is n o t a d i f f i c u l t t h i n g to escape b u t t h a t i t is much m ore d i f f i c u l t to escape w ic k e d n e s s ( 3 9 a 6 ) . S t i l l , t h is is o n l y a h i n t o f w h a t is r e a lly to be f e a r e d . I t is in th e o p e n in g w o rd s o f th e m y th o f t h e Phaedo w h e re S o crates s ta te s c l e a r ly how one o u g h t to re a c t to t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e soul is im m o rta l: B u t t h is much is f a i r to keep in m in d , f r i e n d s : if a soul is im m o rta l, th e n i t needs c a r e , n o t o n l y f o r t h e sake o f t h is tim e in w h ic h w h a t we call " l i f e ” la s ts , b u t f o r th e w h o le o f tim e ; a nd i f a n y o n e is g o in g to n e g le c t i t , now t h e r is k w o u ld seem f e a r f u l . Because i f d e a th w e re a s e p a ra tio n fro m e v e r y t h i n g , i t w o u ld be a g o d s e n d f o r t h e w ic k e d , w h en t h e y d ie d , to be s e p a ra te d a t once fro m t h e b o d y and fr o m t h e i r own w ic k e d n e s s a long w it h th e so u l; b u t s in c e , in f a c t , it is e v i d e n t l y im m o rta l, t h e r e w o u ld be no o t h e r r e fu g e fr o m ills o r s a lv a tio n f o r i t , e x c e p t to become as good and w ise as p o s s ib le . ( 1 0 7 c 1 - d 3 ) 11 T h is passa ge and p a r t s o f th e re m a in d e r o f t h e m y th s u g g e s t t h a t , in f a c t , t h e w ic k e d s h o u ld f e a r d e a t h - - n o t i f t h e soul d is in t e g r a t e s at d e a th b u t i f t h e soul is i m m o r t a l . 12 E a r lie r in t h e d ia lo g u e S o crates lis ts some o f t h e ills t h r e a t e n in g n o n - p h ilo s o p h ic men: he e x p la in s t h a t t h e y m u s t p a y th e p e n a lty f o r t h e ir fo rm e r n a t u r e and e v e n t u a ll y become im p r is o n e d in a b o d y again ( 8 1 c f f . ) , and he e la b o ra te s on t h e f a te o f t h e w ic k e d in t h e m y th . In sum, th e im m o r ta lity o f t h e soul is n o t a s o u rc e o f hope f o r a ll; i t is, in f a c t , a s o u rc e o f f e a r f o r t h e w ic k e d . T h u s , S o cra te s c a n n o t (a n d does n o t) r e ly upo n a p r o o f o f th e im m o r ta lity o f t h e soul as a means o f f r e e in g his f r i e n d s fro m t h e f e a r o f d e a th . Soc­ ra te s a r g u e s t h a t goo dness w h ic h is t h e p r o d u c t o f a p h i l o ­ s o p h ic lif e is t h e s o u rc e o f hope in th e fa ce o f d e a t h . 13

S o c ra te s , o f c o u r s e , claim s and e x h i b i t s such h o p e 1*1 and r e p e a te d ly e x p la in s t h e s o u rc e o f h is ho p e ; i t d e r iv e s fro m t h e f a c t t h a t he has p u r i f i e d his i n t e ll e c t t h r o u g h p h i ­ lo s o p h y (see 6 7 b 8 -c 3 ; c f . R e p u b lic , 485c, 4 8 6 b ) . In t h e m yth he s u g g e s ts t h a t t h e p u r i f i e d h ave hope t h a t t h e y w ill meet w it h a g lo r io u s fa te (1 0 7 c 9 -d 5 , 1 1 4 b 6 -c 9 ). So, i f Soc­ rates t r u l y w a n ts t o f r e e his f r i e n d s fro m t h e f e a r o f d e a th , he m u s t prom ote t h e i r go o d n e ss and w is d o m , w h ic h is t h e i r t r u e s a lv a tio n (1 0 7 d 1 ). I f he is t o g i v e th e m t r u e ho p e , Socrates m ust help them t e n d t h e i r s o u ls . In S o cra te s's m a n n e r o f a c c o m p lis h in g t h i s t a s k we sense some of t h a t k i n d lin e s s upo n w h ic h Phaedo r e m a rk s e a r ly in th e d ia lo g u e ( 8 8 e 4 f f . ) . S o cra te s e x h i b i t s t h i s c o n ­ cern f o r th e i n t e r l o c u t o r s a t t h e o u t s e t ; he i n i t i a l l y deals w ith t h e in e v ita b le to p ic o f d e a th in w h a t can even be c o n ­ s id e re d a hum orous f a s h io n . Simmias a nd Cebes m ost l i k e l y e x p e c t Socrates to e x p la in w h y one s h o u ld n o t f e a r d e a th . S o crates t w is ts t h e m a tte r a r o u n d a nd a sks w h y a p h ilo s o ­ p h e r , w h o s h o u ld be e ag er f o r d e a th , does n o t com mit s u i ­ cide. A d ra m a tic d e ta il s m o o th ly in t r o d u c e s t h i s p o i n t : S o crates sends a message t o E v e n u s , one o f th o s e i n q u i r i n g a b o u t S o c ra te s's a c t iv it ie s on his la s t d a y . He a d v is e s E ve nus to fo llo w him q u i c k l y . Because Simmias i n t e r p r e t s t h is a d v ic e to mean t h a t E v e n u s s h o u ld com mit s u ic id e , he exclaim s t h a t E ve nus is u n l i k e l y to be w i l l i n g t o o b e y his r e q u e s t. Socrates th e n a s k s a q u e s tio n w it h a s u r p r i s i n g im p lic a tio n : he a s k s , " I s n ' t E ve n u s a p h ilo s o p h e r ? " t h e r e b y im p ly in g t h a t a p h ilo s o p h e r s h o u ld be e a g e r t o d ie . T h is l i t t l e e x c h a n g e places th e fo c u s w h e re S o c ra te s w is h e s i t to be: t h e q u e s tio n o f t h e d ia lo g u e becomes n o t w h y men s h o u ld n o t fe a r dea th b u t w h y t h e p h ilo s o p h e r is c o n f i d e n t in t h e face o f d e a th . A n d t h e n S o crates h a n d le s t h e t o p i c in a f a i r l y u n c h a r a c t e r is t ic m a n n e r: he does n o t b e g in b y q u e s tio n in g his i n t e r l o c u t o r s ; in s te a d , he k i n d l y o f f e r s a d e fe n se o f h im se lf: Now t h e n , w it h you f o r my j u r y I w a n t to g iv e my d e fe n s e , and show w ith w h a t good re a s o n , as i t seems to me, a man w h o has t r u l y s p e n t his lif e in p h i l o s ­ o p h y feels c o n f id e n t w h en a b o u t to d ie , and is h o p e fu l t h a t , when he has d ie d he w ill w in v e r y g r e a t b e n e fit s in t h e o t h e r w o r l d . So I 'll t r y , Simmias and C e bes, to e x p la in how t h i s c o u ld be. (63e)

T h is d e fe n s e , a k in d o f sermon w it h a fe w w e ll- g u id e d a s s e n tin g re spon ses fr o m Simmias i n t e r s p e r s e d , is v e r y i m p o r t a n t , p e rh a p s m ore im p o r t a n t th a n all t h e a rg u m e n ts of t h e d ia lo g u e , f o r i t a n s w e rs t h e q u e s tio n p e r t u r b i n g Simmias and C e b e s - - h o w one can be c o n f i d e n t in t h e fa ce o f d e a th . In t h i s d e fe n s e S o cra te s makes t h e s t a r t l i n g ( a n d even la u g h a b le ) s ta te m e n t t h a t p h ilo s o p h y is n o t h in g o t h e r th a n t h e p r a c t ip e o f d y i n g (6 4 a 5 ). S o cra te s d e fe n d s t h i s s t a t e ­ m e n t t h r o u g h an e q u iv o c a tio n : he d e fin e s d e a th as t h e s e p ­ a r a t io n o f t h e soul fr o m t h e b o d y b u t em ploys t h is d e f i n it i o n in an id io s y n c r a t i c w a y . Now, t h e common u n d e r s t a n d in g o f t h i s p h r a s e w o u ld be t h a t , w h ile w it h d e a th t h e s e p a ra te d s o u l, in some sense , s u r v i v e s , t h e b o d y , a t least, d i s i n t e ­ g ra te s. B u t in t h is d is c u s s io n , S o cra te s spea ks o f t h e se p a ­ r a tio n o f t h e soul fro m th e b o d y , w h a t he has d e fin e d as d e a th , as p o s s ib le w hen t h e b o d y is s t ill l i v i n g . T h is se p a ­ r a tio n is t h e lib e r a tio n o f t h e soul fro m all t h e dem ands of t h e b o d y a n d , as we learn e ls e w h e re and have a h i n t of h e r e , i t is t h e com munion o f t h e soul w it h th e W orld of Id e a s, o r w it h t h e d i v i n e . 15 T h is s e p a ra tio n is a k in d o f p u r i f i c a t io n e ffe c te d th ro u g h the v irtu e s . S o crates in s is t s t h a t t h e v i r t u e s , and w isdom in p a r t i c u l a r , f r e e men fr o m p le a s u re s , p a in , and f e a r ( 6 9 c 6 f f . ) and p e r h a p s fro m t h e f e a r o f d e a th in p a r t i c ­ u l a r ( 6 7 e 5 ) . T h is s e p a ra tio n o f t h e soul fro m t h e b o d y - - t h i s s o r t o f " d e a t h " - - i s , o f c o u r s e , n o t to be fe a r e d b u t to be d e s ir e d b y one s e e k in g w isd o m . Y e t S o cra te s does seem to e x t e n d t h i s c o n t a c t o f t h e p u r e w i t h t h e p u r e to a p p ly to b io lo g ic a l d e a th as well and s u g g e s ts t h a t , a f t e r t h e i r bodies h a ve d i s i n t e g r a t e d , t h e souls o f t h e good w ill e n jo y e v e r ­ l a s tin g c o n t a c t w i t h t h e p u r e ( 6 7 a 5 ) . N e v e r th e le s s , we m u st keep in m in d t h a t S o cra te s does n o t claim to d e m o n s tra te t h a t t h e soul has t h i s i m m o r ta lity , a n d m ore i m p o r t a n t ly , we m u st re m e m b e r t h a t t h i s im m o r ta lity is n o t t h e s o u rc e o f t h e p h i ­ l o s o p h e r ’ s hop e. W h e th e r d e a th be d i s in t e g r a t i o n o r w h e t h e r i t be a k in d o f e v e r l a s t i n g l if e , t h e p h ilo s o p h e r has no reason to f e a r . T h e r e a re v a r io u s s y m b o lic r e fle c t io n s o f t h e l i b e r a t i n g p o w e r o f p h ilo s o p h y (see 8 2 d 9 - 8 3 a l) , p a r t i c u l a r l y in S o c ra ­ t e s 's rem oval o f his f e t t e r s a nd in t h e ch o ice o f Phaedo as t h e n a r r a t o r and namesake o f t h e d ia lo g u e . D o r t e r makes t h e p r o p e r c o n n e c tio n s :

H a m a rt i a

T h e one t h i n g no ta b le a b o u t Phaedo is, p e r h a p s , his b io g ra p h y : a n a tiv e o f E lis , he was ta k e n p r i s o n e r b y t h e A th e n ia n s and became a s la v e ; t h r o u g h S o c r a ­ te s ' e f f o r t s he was rele a se d fr o m b o n d a g e , a n d was c o n v e r t e d b y Socrates t o p h ilo s o p h y . Phaedo t h u s e x p e rie n c e d release fro m b o n d a g e in t h e lit e r a l s e n se , as well as in th e m e ta p h o ric a l sense o f t h e a l le g o r y o f t h e C a ve; and th e d ia lo g u e is p r e - e m i n e n t l y a b o u t bon d a g e and l i b e r a t i o n - - t h e them e r u n s t h r o u g h th e w o rk: S o cra te s' lite r a l im p r is o n m e n t, t h e i m p r i s o n ­ m ent o f t h e soul w it h in t h e b o d y , t h e im p r is o n m e n t o f reason b y p le a s u re and p a in , t h e c o n fin e m e n t o f man to hollows in t h e e a r t h , his im p r is o n m e n t in t h e s u b ­ te r r a n e a n r i v e r s , and t h e modes o f lib e r a tio n fro m th e s e b o n d a g e s , as well as S o c ra te s ' a c c o u n t o f his a s c e n t to p h ilo s o p h y , w h ic h p a r a lle ls t h e lib e r a t io n fro m t h e C ave as p o r t r a y e d in R e p u b lic V I I . 1e S o cra te s hopes t h r o u g h p h ilo s o p h ic d is c u s s io n to he lp t h e o t h e r i n t e r l o c u t o r s as he h e lp e d Phaedo. T h e p r o c e e d in g s of t h e P haedo h a ve m any h i n t s w h ic h s u p p o r t t h e o b s e r v a tio n t h a t p h ilo s o p h y was t h e main b u s i ­ ness o f t h e d a y . In d e e d , Phaedo at 59a5 ( c it e d a b o v e ) re m a rk s t h a t t h e d is c u s s io n was a p h ilo s o p h ic o n e . Phaedo also r e p e a te d ly e xp re s s e s t h e w o n d e r he f e l t (58a3, 58e1, 88e4, 8 9a 2), t h e sensation w h ic h S o cra te s e ls e w h e re c a lls t h e b e g in n in g o f p h ilo s o p h y { T h e a e te tu s , 1 5 5 d ). S o cra te s t e lls Cebes t h a t he m ig h t f in d i t a m a tt e r o f w o n d e r t h a t i t is b e t t e r f o r a man to be dead b u t n o t r i g h t to k i ll h im s e lf (62a2, 5 ) , and o u t o f t h is w o n d e r g ro w s t h e main lin e o f a r g u m e n t o f t h e d ia lo g u e ( c f . C ebes's e x p r e s s io n s o f w o n d e r a t 95a9, b 3 ) . A t 84c9 S o crates senses t h a t his i n t e r l o c u t o r s u n d e r g o a usual re a ctio n to t h e p h ilo s o p h ic e x p e r ie n c e a t his hands: he senses t h a t t h e y a re in a p o ria , a s ta te o f c o n f u ­ sion in w h ic h t h e r e seems to be "n o w a y o u t . " Simmias e x p re s s e s a p o ria at 84d5 and 85c1 a f t e r t h e f i r s t p r o b le m a tic d is c u s s io n s . F u r t h e r m o r e , S o cra te s seems to be g i v i n g le s ­ sons on how to be a p h ilo s o p h e r n o t o n ly b y d e m o n s tr a tio n p r o v i d e d b y his own b e h a v io r b u t also b y his e x p l i c i t v e r b a l i n s t r u c t io n s on t h e t r u e aim and m ethod o f p h ilo s o p h y . In his " d e fe n s e " he te lls how g e n u in e p h ilo s o p h e r s m u s t become f r e e fro m th e senses ( 6 6 b f f . ) . A n d a long w it h his a u t o b i o ­ g r a p h ic a l s ta te m e n t he g iv e s i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l

m ethod w h ic h a p h ilo s o p h e r o u g h t to use. A ls o , as u s u a l, S o crates manages to w o r k se v e ra l o f his c e n tr a l d o c t r in e s in to th e d is c u s s io n : f o r in s ta n c e , in t h e Phaedo he a rg u e s f o r t h e t h e o r y o f anam nesis and t h e t h e o r y o f F o r m s . 17 T h e p h ilo s o p h ic lif e ta k e s on a special a t t r a c t iv e n e s s when p r o ­ moted as t h e s a lv a tio n o f t h e soul and in c irc u m s ta n c e s w h e r e d e a th is im m in e n t. W ith t h is u n d e r s t a n d in g o f t h e d ia lo g u e , t h e n a t u r e o f t h e " t r a g e d y " o f t h e P haedo c h a n g e s . Death i t s e l f is n o t t h e f o c u s , p h ilo s o p h y is . Fear o f d e a th t u r n s o u t to be a k in d of bogus fe a r: t h e t r u e t h i n g to f e a r is n o t becom ing a p h i ­ lo s o p h e r. A n d t h is becomes a b u n d a n t l y c le a r at t h e p iv o ta l p o in t o f t h e d i a l o g u e - - a t t h e t r u e m id d le . T h e r e Socrates w a rn s a g a in s t t h e w o r s t e v il w h ic h can b e fa ll man. In a w e ll - c o n s t r u c t e d t r a g e d y th e h a m a rtia o c c u r s at o r n e a r t h e m i d p o i n t . 18 T h e d ra m a tic (a n d m ath e m a tica l) m id ­ p o in t o f t h e P haedo is a p p r o x im a t e ly 88c, t h o u g h t h e m id ­ se ctio n e x te n d s fro m 84c to 95a. T h e silen ce w h ic h fa lls o v e r S o c ra te s , t h e e x p r e s s io n s o f d o u b t b y Simmias and Cebes a b o u t t h e a d e q u a c y o f th e p r e c e d in g a r g u m e n ts , and t h e i n t e r m is s i o n - l ik e i n t e r r u p t i o n o f E ch ecra tes in d ic a te a c r it ic a l p o in t in t h e p r o c e e d in g s , f o r h e re is w h a t may be ca lle d a t u r n i n g p o in t in th e q u e s t f o r a r g u m e n t s , th e d i s ­ missal o f th o s e a r g u m e n ts w h ic h seem in a d e q u a te and a renew ed se a rc h f o r b e t t e r one s. A t t h is m id - p o in t th e i n t e r l o c u t o r s , E c h e c ra te s and Phaedo, e x p e rie n c e a new f e a r : A ll o f us w h o h e a rd them w e re d is a g r e e a b ly a ffe c te d b y t h e i r w o r d s , as we a f t e r w a r d s t o ld one a n o th e r : w e 'd been c o m p le te ly c o n v in c e d b y t h e e a r l ie r a r g u ­ m e n t, y e t now t h e y seemed to d i s t u r b us a g a in , and make us d o u b t f u l n o t o n l y a b o u t t h e a rg u m e n ts a lr e a d y p u t f o r w a r d b u t also a b o u t p o in ts y e t to be r a is e d , f o r f e a r t h a t we w e re in c o m p e te n t ju d g e s o f a n y t h i n g , o r even t h a t th e s e t h i n g s m ig h t be i n h e r ­ e n t l y d o u b t f u l . (8 8 c 1 -7 ) T h is f e a r is n o t lim ite d to t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r s o n l y . E ch e cra te s re s p o n d s to t h e f e a r e x p r e s s e d b y t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r s b y n o t in g t h a t he too sh a re s i t and b y a s k in g how S o crates p u r s u e d t h e d is c u s s io n . He w a n ts to k n o w w h e t h e r S o crates became v i s i b l y u p s e t o r came q u i c k l y to t h e h e lp o f th e a r g u m e n t and w h e t h e r t h a t h e lp was a d e q u a te o r d e f i c ie n t .

E c h e c ra te s made a s im ila r r e q u e s t at t h e o p e n in g o f t h e d ia lo g u e . He w a n te d to know w h a t was said and do n e (58c6) and w a n te d a f u l l r e p o r t (5 8 d 7 ). B u t we s u s p e c t i t is now t h e f a te o f t h e a r g u m e n t w h ic h c o n c e rn s E c h e c ra te s m ore th a n t h e fa te o f S o c r a t e s - - s o s u c c e s s f u lly has S o c ra te s s h ifte d th e fo cu s. A n d i t is even m ore r e m a rk a b le t h a t , w h e re a s Socrates has re s is te d a n y s u g g e s tio n t h a t he o r his f r i e n d s s h o u ld m o u rn f o r his d e a th , he says t h a t he and Phaedo s h o u ld go in to m o u r n in g i f t h e a rg u m e n t d ie s ( 8 9 b 9 ) . S o cra te s a p p ra is e s t h e i r t r u e s itu a tio n f o r Phaedo: " . . . l e t ' s t a k e ca re t h a t a c e r ta in f a te d o e s n 't b e fa ll u s ." "W h a t's t h a t ? " I a s k e d . " T h e fa te o f becom ing " m is o lo g is t s " , j u s t as some become m is a n th r o p is t s : because t h e r e 's no g r e a t e r e v il t h a t co u ld b e fa ll a n y o n e t h a n t h i s - - t h e h a t in g o f a rg u m e n ts . (89c1 1 -d 3 ) S o crates f u r t h e r d e s c rib e s t h e fa te o f th o s e w h o become m is o lo g is ts as lam entable (90c8) and o b ta in s Phaedo's a g r e e ­ m ent ( 9 0 d 8 ) . 19 B oth th e d r a m a tic d e ta il and e x p l i c i t s t a t e ­ m e n t, t h e n , c o n fir m t h a t t h is was t h e c r u c ia l p o i n t in t h e d a y 's p r o c e e d in g s : i t is at t h is p o in t t h a t S o c ra te s t h i n k s th e com pany is most in d a n g e r o f e x p e r i e n c i n g a t r u l y f e a r f u l and lam entable m is f o r tu n e . B y r e je c tin g death as a t r a g i c m is f o r t u n e a nd b y f o c u s in g upon m iso lo g la as a t r u e r t r a g i c m is f o r t u n e , S oc­ ra te s changes th e " te r m s o f t h e t r a g e d y , " so t o speak. H ere and in o t h e r d is c u s s io n s o f m is o lo g ia , Plato in d ic a te s t h a t he t h o u g h t i t to be a t e r r i b l e e r r o r in j u d g m e n t , w h ic h i t seems r i g h t to call a h a m a rtia . In t h e P haedo S o cra te s e x p la in s t h a t m iso lo g ia is v e r y l ik e m is a n t h r o p y , s in c e i t a ris e s fr o m t h e same s o u rc e ( 8 9 d 3 ) . A f t e r r e p e a te d d i s a p ­ p o in tm e n t in t h e t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s o f men o r a r g u m e n t s , one t e n d s to b e lie ve t h a t all men and a r g u m e n ts a r e u n t r u s t ­ w o rth y (8 9 d 3 ff.). T h is d i s t r u s t leads a man to f i n d f a u l t , n e i t h e r w ith h im s e lf n o r w it h his la c k o f s k i l l , b u t w i t h a r g u m e n ts ( 9 0 d 2 ) . T h e n o tio n o f m is o lo g ia a p p e a r s t w ic e e ls e w h e re in P lato's w o r k s . In t h e t h i r d book o f th e R e p u b lic , d u r i n g t h e d is c u s s io n o f t h e p r o p e r e d u c a tio n f o r th e g u a r d ia n s , S o crates d e s c r ib e s t h e man w h o has no c o n ­ t a c t w it h th e M use, and w h o as a r e s u l t n e v e r d e v e lo p s a

love o f k n o w le d g e in his s o u l. T h r o u g h la ck o f e d u c a tio n , d is c u s s io n , o r c u l t u r e he becomes w e a k , d u m b and b l in d , because his soul is n e i t h e r a ro u s e d n o r n o u r is h e d , n o r does i t have its p e r c e p tio n s p u r i f i e d ( 4 1 1 e 9 f f . ) . Such a man becomes a m is o lo g o s . Laches, in th e d ia lo g u e b e a r in g his name, e x p re s s e s his in c lin a tio n to seem lik e a m isologos i f a man's w o rd s do n o t c o r r e s p o n d to his deeds ( 1 8 8 c f f . ) . (It is w o r t h n o t in g t h a t Laches does n o t say t h a t he becomes a m is o lo g o s . His a n g e r o n l y makes him seem lik e o n e . ) T h e re a re , t h e n , t h r e e d i f f e r e n t so u rc e s g iv e n f o r m iso lo g ia in th e d ia lo g u e s : in t h e P h aedo , i t is d i s t r u s t a r is i n g fro m th e e x p e rie n c e o f a r g u m e n ts w h ic h sometimes seem t r u e and sometimes fa ls e ; in th e R e p u b lic , it is a g e n e ra l la ck o f e d u ­ ca tio n and a c o n s e q u e n t i n a b i l i t y to a r g u e c o r r e c t l y ; and in th e L a c h e s , i t is th e in c o n s is te n c y betw een w o rd and deed. A ll lead to m is o lo g ia , w h ic h , in th e P h a e d o , S o crates calls th e g r e a t e s t e v il since i t leads a man to liv e o u t his life " h a t i n g and m o c k in g a r g u m e n ts and b e in g d e p r i v e d o f t r u t h and k n o w le d g e o f t h in g s t h a t a r e " ( 9 0 c ) . T h r o u g h o u t th e d ia lo g u e s , o t h e r t h i n g s beside m iso lo g ia b e a r th e label " t h e g r e a t e s t e v i l , " a lt h o u g h , I b e lie v e , in th e f in a l a n a ly s is , all are some fo rm o f m is o lo g ia o r lead to m iso ­ lo g ia . In th e P h a e d o , S o crates says t h a t t h e g r e a t e s t e v il is b e lie v in g t h e s e n s ib le w o r ld to be t h e t r u l y real w o r ld ( 8 3 c 2 - 9 ) ; in th e L a w s , i t is s e lf - lo v e ( 7 3 1 d 6 f f . ) w h ic h th e A t h e n ia n says is t r u l y t h e cause o f all h a m a rte m a ta (731e 3), th e e v il deeds w h ic h r e s u l t fro m a h am artia·, and in th e G o r­ g ia s , S o cra te s c a lls b o th h o ld in g a fa ls e o p in io n (458a) and d o in g --n o t s u ffe rin g --in ju s tic e , t h e g r e a t e s t o f all e v ils ( 4 6 9 b 8 ) . G allo p o f f e r s a r e c o n c ilia tio n t o th e p ro b le m o f tw o d i f f e r e n t " g r e a t e s t e v i ls " m e n tio n e d in t h e P haedo w h ic h also s e rv e s to sh o w how all th e s e d i f f e r e n t " g r e a t e s t e v i ls " are re la te d : T h e s e a lle g e d e v i ls , a lth o u g h s u r e l y n o t th e same, may in P lato's v ie w , be r e la te d . One w ho has lo s t all f a i t h in r a tio n a l a r g u m e n t w ill n o t r e c o g n iz e Forms as t h e t r u e r e a lit ie s . He w ill assume t h a t t h e se n s ib le w o r l d alone is r e a l, and w ill t h u s be 'd e p r i v e d b o th o f t h e t r u t h a n d o f k n o w le d g e o f t h i n g s t h a t a r e . ’ 20 M is o lo g ia , a tta c h m e n t to th e p h y s ic a l w o r l d , s e l f - l o v e , fa lse o p in io n , and d o in g i n ju s t i c e , all cause t h e d e p r i v a t io n o f t r u t h a nd k n o w l e d g e - - w h i c h is t h e g r e a t e s t e v i l. W h a te v e r

d e p r iv e s one o f t r u t h and k n o w le d g e , t h e n , is t h e g r e a t e s t evil a n d , since i t is p h ilo s o p h y w h ic h s e rv e s th e a c q u is itio n o f t r u t h and k n o w le d g e , w h a t e v e r opposes p h ilo s o p h y can also be called th e g r e a t e s t e v il. T o d e s c r ib e t h i s , one m ig h t w ish to coin t h e w o rd " m i s o s o p h i a b u t m is o lo g ia s e rv e s v e r y w e ll. A f t e r a ll, f o r S o c ra te s , love o f a r g u m e n ts and love o f p h ilo s o p h y w e re one and t h e same a n d , in f a c t , in th e R e p u b lic he speaks o f t h e p h ilo s o p h o s and t h e p h ilo lo g o s as one: "...th e t h in g s a p p r o v e d b y t h e lo v e r o f w isdom ( p h ilo s o p h o s ) and d is c u s s io n ( p h ilo lo g o s ) are most v a l id and t r u e " (5 8 2 e 8 -9 ). We m ig h t also note t h a t , in th e D e fin itio n s , th e u n p h ilo s o p h ic d is p o s itio n is d e f in e d as t h a t w h ic h c h a r ­ a c te riz e s th e m isologos (415e4). As th e above a n a ly s is d e m o n s tr a te s , m is o lo g ia is a fe a rfu l th in g a n d , in d e e d , t h e o n l y t h i n g w h ic h f r i g h t e n s S o cra te s. In th e d ia lo g u e s , i t is o n l y in s itu a tio n s w h e re m isolog ia t h r e a te n s t h a t S o crates e x p re s s e s f e a r . In th e f i r s t book o f t h e R e p u b lic S o cra te s e x p e rie n c e s f e a r in th e face o f T h r a s y m a c h u s 's v i o le n t i n t e r r u p t i o n o f th e c o n v e r s a ­ tio n ( 3 3 6 d ). T h r a s y m a c h u s dem ands t h a t S o crates c o n d u c t th e a r g u m e n t in a w a y w h ic h S o c ra te s c o n s id e rs in im ica l to th e search f o r t r u t h . A t 336d T h r a s y m a c h u s te lls S o cra te s t h a t he may n o t say t h a t ju s t i c e is " t h a t w h ic h o u g h t to be, o r th e b e n e fic ia l o r th e p r o f i t a b l e o r t h e a d v a n ta g e o u s , b u t e x p re s s c l e a r ly and p r e c is e ly w h a t e v e r [h e m e a n s ]. For I w o n 't t a k e . . . a n y such d r i v e l as t h a t . " Since S o c ra te s allow s t h a t one o f th e s e may be t h e t r u e d e f i n it i o n ( 3 3 7 b ) , he c a n n o t y ie ld to such a dem an d. S o c ra te s , a man o f k n o w n c o u ra g e , feels f e a r f u l and tre m b le s in t h e face o f T h r a s y m a ­ c h u s 's d e m an ds, I s u s p e c t, n o t beca u se he f e a r s w h a t T h r a ­ sym a c h u s 's v io le n c e may do to him p e r s o n a lly , b u t w h a t it w ill do to th e search f o r t r u t h . M o r e o v e r , in t h is same p a s ­ sage, S o crates s u g g e s ts t h a t p i t y is t h e p r o p e r em otion in respon se to f a i l u r e to a c q u ir e t h e t r u t h , f o r he te lls T h r a s y ­ machus to p i t y him s h o u ld he be m is ta k e n a b o u t t h e n a t u r e o f ju s t ic e (3 3 7 a ). In t h e T h e a e te tu s ( a n d e ls e w h e re ) we see Socrates a v o id in g t h e e r i s t i c te n d e n c ie s associated w i t h m is o ­ lo g ia as he d e c lin e s to c r i t i c i z e P a rm e n id e s ; he fe a r s le s t t h is and th e o t h e r a rg u m e n ts r u s h i n g in up o n them keep him fro m w h a t is most i m p o r t a n t : t h e t o p i c a t h a n d , th e n a t u r e o f kn o w le d g e (183e ). F in a lly , a lt h o u g h t h r o u g h o u t t h e d i a ­ logues S o crates te lls his i n t e r l o c u t o r s to be b r a v e a nd n o t to lose c o u ra g e in t h e face o f t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s o f t h e a r g u m e n t ,

he in d ic a te s t h a t he, as le a d e r o f th e d is c u s s io n , g r e a t e r reason to f e a r :

has even

"M y good fe llo w , is t h a t r e m a rk in te n d e d to encourage' me?" " I t i s , " he s a id . "Well t h e n , " said I, " i t has j u s t th e c o n t r a r y e f f e c t . F o r, i f I w e re c o n f id e n t t h a t I was s p e a k in g w ith k n o w le d g e , i t w o u ld be an e x c e lle n t e n c o u ra g e m e n t. For t h e r e is b oth s a fe ty and b o ld n e ss in s p e a k in g th e t r u t h w it h know le d g e a b o u t o u r g r e a t e s t and d e a re s t c o n c e rn s to tho se who are b o th w ise and d e a r. B u t to speak when one d o u b ts h im s e lf and is s e e k in g w h ile he t a l k s , as I am d o in g , is a f e a r f u l and s l i p p e r y v e n t u r e . T h e f e a r is n o t o f b e in g la u g h e d a t, f o r t h a t is c h i ld is h , b u t le s t, m is s in g th e t r u t h , I fa ll dow n and d r a g my f r i e n d s w it h me in m a tte rs w h e re i t is m ost im p o r ta n t n o t to s tu m b le . So I s a lu te Nemesis, G la u co n , in w h a t I am a b o u t to sa y . For in d e e d , I b e lie ve t h a t i n v o l u n t a r y hom icide is a le s s e r f a u l t th a n to mislead o p in io n a b o u t th e h o n o u r a b le , th e g o o d , and th e ju s t." ( R e p u b lic , 450d5-451a7) A n o t h e r passage fro m th e R e p u b lic in d ic a te s th e emo­ tio n s a llie d w it h m is o lo g y . S o crates t e lls o f y o u n g s t e r s who t r e a t t h e s t u d y o f w o rd s as a game and become more i n t e r ­ este d in re fu tin g o th e r s th a n in fin d in g th e tru th (5 3 9 b 2 -d 1 ). S o cra te s says t h a t th e s e y o u n g s t e r s w h o a rg u e f o r th e sake o f a r g u m e n t , not f o r th e sake o f t r u t h , f a ll in to a n t i lo g y (5 3 9 b 4 ), w h ic h is t h e a t t i t u d e o f d is p u t a t io u s n e s s . T h e s te p to m iso lo g y is a small one , f o r , w e re one t o b e lie v e a r g u m e n t to be a f u t i l e e x e r c is e , one co u ld e a s ily come to hate a r g u m e n t . In d e e d , it may be said t h a t a n t ilo g y is a m a n ife s ta tio n o f m is o lo g y ; in t h e P haedo S o crates spea ks o f t h e m iso lo g o i as s p e n d in g t h e i r tim e in a n tilo g ik o u s a r g u ­ m ents (9 0 c 1 ). In th e R e p u b lic he te lls w h a t a p i t y (539a7, 8) i t w o u ld be f o r o ld e r men to s u f f e r t h is fa te and speaks o f t a k i n g p r e c a u tio n s a g a in s t i t ( 539b 1 ) , a sign o f f e a r . M is o lo g y , t h e n , f o r S o c ra te s , is a p r o p e r s o u rc e o f f e a r and p ity . L e t us r e t u r n to th e P h a e d o . H e re , as th e i n t e r l o c u ­ t o r s v e r g e on g i v i n g w a y to th e d i s t r u s t o f a r g u m e n ts , Soc­ ra te s h im s e lf seems, in an iro n ic a l w a y , to d is p la y one o f th e

c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f a m iso lo g o s: th a t of a rg u in g f o r purpo ses o t h e r th a n t r u t h . He e v a lu a te s his own b e h a v io r : . . . I may n o t be fa c in g d e a th as a p h ilo s o p h e r s h o u ld , b u t r a t h e r as one b e n t on v i c t o r y , lik e th o s e q u i t e d e v o id o f e d u c a tio n . T h e y , to o , w hen t h e y d is p u t e a b o u t s o m e th in g , ca re n o t h in g f o r t h e t r u t h o f th e m a tt e r u n d e r d is c u s s io n , b u t a re e a g e r o n ly t h a t th o s e p r e s e n t shall a c c e p t t h e i r own t h e s i s . I t seems to me t h a t on t h is occasion I shall d i f f e r fr o m th e m o n ly to t h is e x t e n t : m y c o n c e rn w ill n o t be, e x c e p t p e rh a p s in c id e n t a l ly , t h a t w h a t I say shall seem t r u e to th o s e p r e s e n t, b u t r a t h e r t h a t i t s h a ll, as f a r as p o s s ib le , seem so to m y s e lf. Because I r e c k o n , my d e a r f r i e n d - - w a t c h how a n x io u s I am to s c o r e - - t h a t if w h a t I say p r o v e s t r u e , i t 's s u r e l y well to have been p e r s u a d e d ; w h ere as i f t h e r e 's n o t h in g f o r a dead man, s t i l l , a t least d u r i n g t h i s v e r y tim e b e f o r e my d e a th , I 'll d is t r e s s th o s e p r e s e n t less w i t h la m e n ta ­ t i o n , and t h i s ig n o r a n c e o f m ine w ill n o t p e r s i s t - - t h a t w o u ld be a bad t h i n g - - b u t in a l i t t l e w h ile be e n d e d . (91a1 -b7 ) S o crates seems to be a t t r i b u t i n g to h im s e lf t h e v e r y v ic e w h ic h he den ounce s in o t h e r s . W hy do I s u g g e s t t h a t Soc­ ra te s 's a ttrib u tio n of m iso lo g y to h im s e lf is i r o n ic a l? 21 In d e e d , I read t h e d ia lo g u e in such a w a y t h a t I n e a r ly h e a r hoots in th e b a c k g r o u n d as S o cra te s says t h a t he may n o t be fa c in g dea th as a p h ilo s o p h e r s h o u ld , f o r w h o m ore th a n S o crates face d dea th as a p h ilo s o p h e r sho u ld ? Even more ir o n ic is his im p lic a tio n t h a t he d i f f e r s fro m lo v e rs o f v i c t o r y o n ly s l i g h t l y in t h a t he is n o t c o n c e rn e d t h a t w h a t he says seem t r u e to th o s e p r e s e n t b u t o n l y to h im s e lf. A g a in , who w o u ld be a s e v e r e r ju d g e th a n S o crates? Who w o u ld be less in c lin e d to allow h im se lf to be p e r s u a d e d o f w h a t was not tr u e ? F in a lly , in his w o rd s to Simmias a nd Cebes im m edi­ a te ly fo llo w in g t h is " a d m is s io n " o f b e in g a l o v e r o f v i c t o r y , he u n d e r c u ts t h e f o r c e o f his f o r m e r r e m a r k s : T h u s p r e p a r e d , Simmias and C e bes, I a d v a n c e a g a in s t t h e a r g u m e n t ; b u t f o r y o u r p a r t , i f yo u t a k e my a d v ic e , y o u 'll care l i t t l e f o r S o cra te s b u t much m ore f o r the t r u t h : i f I seem to yo u to say a n y t h i n g t r u e ,

a g re e w it h it; b u t i f n o t, r e s is t i t w it h e very a r g u m e n t y o u c a n , t a k i n g c a re t h a t in m y zeal I d o n 't d e c e iv e y o u a n d m y s e lf a lik e , a nd go o f f lik e a bee le a v in g its s t in g b e h in d . (9 1 b 7 -c 5 ) T h i s is h a r d l y t h e a d v ic e o f a m is o lo g o s . W hat p u r p o s e can S o cra te s h a ve in p o r t r a y i n g h im s e lf, e ve n i r o n i c a l l y , as a m iso lo g o s? B y p r e t e n d i n g t h a t he, to o , is s u s c e p tib le to t h i s v ic e , S o cra te s em phasizes t h e s u s c e p t i ­ b i l i t y o f all to t h i s f a il i n g a n d , p e r h a p s even m ore im p o r ­ t a n t l y , places h im s e lf on t h e same p la n e w it h his m is o lo g y p ro n e in te rlo c u to rs . As A r i s t o t l e t e lls u s , a t r a g i c h e ro c a n n o t be e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y g o o d , f o r t h e n t h e a u d ie n c e , s in ce t h e y c o u ld n o t t r u l y i d e n t i f y w i t h him , c o u ld n o t e x p e r ie n c e f e a r and p i t y . S o c ra te s 's b io g r a p h ic a l s ta te m e n t, to a d e g r e e , s e rv e s t h e same p u r p o s e o f m a k in g S o cra te s j u s t "o n e o f t h e g u y s . " T h e r e he a t t r i b u t e s to his y o u t h f u l s e lf m a n y o f t h e c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f a m is o lo g o s . A t 96a11 Soc­ r a te s s p e a ks o f c h a n g in g his m in d m a n y tim e s . A t 9 6 cl he e x p r e s s e s t h e d o u b ts t h a t t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r s e x p e rie n c e d e a r ­ lie r ( 8 7 c f f. ) : . . . I f i n a l l y j u d g e d m y s e lf to h a ve a b s o lu te ly no g i f t f o r t h i s k in d o f i n q u i r y . I 'll t e ll y o u a good e n o u g h s ig n f o r t h i s : t h e r e had been t h i n g s t h a t I p r e v i ­ o u s ly d id k n o w f o r s u r e , at least as I m y s e lf and o t h e r s t h o u g h t ; y e t I was th e n so u t t e r l y b lin d e d b y t h i s i n q u i r y , t h a t I u n le a rn e d even th o s e t h i n g s I f o r m e r l y su p p o s e d I k n e w . (9 6 c 1 -6 ) S o c ra te s , t h o u g h , r e c o v e re d fr o m his d i s il l u s io n i n g asso cia ­ t io n w i t h A n a x a g o r a s ; he g a v e u p on t h e m ethod w h ic h seemed c e r ta in to lead t o m is o lo g y . S o c ra te s 's own m e th o d , d i a l e c t i c , since i t o f f e r s a means o f t e s t i n g h y p o th e s e s and d i s c o v e r i n g w h ic h is t h e t r u e one , seems to be d e s ig n e d as a re m e d y a g a in s t m is o lo g y . He says as much w h e n , at 101 e l , he e x p r e s s l y s ta te s t h a t his m ethod does n o t allow t h e c o n ­ f u s io n to w h ic h t h e a n tilo g ik o i a re p r o n e . So we see, in t h is m id - s e c tio n o f t h e P h aedo , t h a t Soc­ ra te s a le r t s th e y o u n g men to t h e e v il o f m is o lo g y , t h a t he, in a sense , s u ccu m b s to it h im s e lf, and t h a t he o f f e r s d i a ­ le c tic as a means o f f r e e in g o n e s e lf fr o m i t . T h e same te rm s r e a p p e a r in th e S o p h is t, w h e r e t h e E leatic S t r a n g e r spea ks

o f t h e s o p h is ts as a n tilo g o i (232b 6) w ho make o t h e r s a n tilo g o i as well (232b 12). T h e s o p h is t , t h e a n tilo g o s , s u f f e r s t h e w o r s t o f e v ils ( 2 2 5 c 5 ) : he seems to be w ise a l th o u g h he does n o t t r u l y possess k n o w le d g e (233c1 0). T h e E leatic S t r a n g e r m ain tains t h a t t h e w a y t o re m e d y t h i s ig n o r a n c e , t h is d e f o r m it y o f t h e s o u l, is t h r o u g h d ia le c tic . A n d he calls d ia le c tic th e t r u e fo rm o f c a t h a r s is : T h e y q u e s tio n a man on some s u b je c t a b o u t w h ic h he fa n c ie s he has s o m e th in g to say w hen he r e a lly has n o t h in g . As he is q u i t e at sea, t h e y f i n d i t easy to r e f u t e his n o tio n s . F in a lly t h e y c o lle c t his v a r io u s d e liv e ra n c e s and c o n f r o n t them w it h one a n o t h e r , and b y d o in g so show them to i n v o l v e t h e s im u lta n e o u s a s s e r tio n o f c o n t r a d ic t io n s a b o u t an id e n tic a l s u b j e c t m a t t e r , in id e n tic a l r e la tio n s , u n d e r id e n tic a l c o n d i ­ t io n s . When t h e v ic tim sees t h i s , he feels e x a s p e r a ­ t io n w it h h im s e lf, but in c re a s e d c i v i l i t y to w a rd o th e rs . In t h is w a y he is d e l i v e r e d fro m t h e sw o llen and s t u b b o r n co n c e its w h ic h b e s e t him , b y a p ro c e s s as s i n g u l a r l y e n t e r t a in i n g to t h e s p e c t a t o r as p e r m a ­ n e n t in its e f f e c t on t h e s u b j e c t . . . [ t h e s o u l] w ill g e t no b e n e fit fro m th e le a r n in g a p p lie d to i t u n t i l a c r o s s - e x a m in e r has p u t t h e p a t i e n t to shame and e x p e lle d th e n o tio n s w i t h in him w h ic h o b s t r u c t his l e a r n in g , t h u s r e d u c in g him to a p u r i f i e d c o n d it io n in w h ic h he believes h im se lf to k n o w j u s t so m uch as he r e a lly knows and no m ore. ( 2 3 0 b 4 - d 4 ) 22 T h e d e s c r ip tio n o f th e t r u e e d u c a to r, who p u r g e s his c h a rg e s o f th e ig n o r a n c e w h ic h was t h e p r o d u c t o f a n t i lo g y and w h ic h leads to a n t i lo g y , f i t s S o c ra te s 's s ta te m e n t o f his own m ethod in t h e P h a e d ru s [ W O a ff.) and his b e h a v i o r in t h e P haedo (and o t h e r d ia lo g u e s as w e l l ) . T h e notion o f c a th a rs is also a p p e a rs in S o c ra te s 's p r o ­ m otion o f th e p h ilo s o p h ic lif e in t h e P h a e d o .23 A t 6 1 a ff. fo rm s o f th e w o rd " c a th a r s is " a p p e a r r e p e a te d ly as S o cra te s speaks o f th e one who has w r e s t e d his soul aw ay fro m th e b o d y and managed to become p u r e , w h e r e b y he m ig h t be in t h e p u r e com pany o f t h e g o d s . He also speaks o f t h e v i r ­ tu e s o f te m p e ra n c e , j u s t i c e , c o u r a g e , and wisdom in p a r t i c ­ u l a r as a k in d o f p u r i f y i n g r i t e (69c1, 69c2) and t e lls us t h a t o n ly th e p u r i f i e d ( 6 9 c 6 ) - - t h a t is , o n ly th o s e w h o p r a c -

t ic e p h ilo s o p h y c o r r e c t l y ( 6 9 d 2 ) - - d w e l l w it h t h e gods ( c f . 8 2 b 1 0 ). A n d a t 82b5 he sp ea ks o f p h ilo s o p h y as t h e t r u e release a n d p u r i f y i n g r it e . T h u s , in t h e S o p h is t and th e P h a e d o , we f i n d t h r e e a c t iv i t ie s la b e lle d " c a th a r s is " (as we f o u n d s e v e ra l t h i n g s called t h e g r e a t e s t e v i l ) : t h e e x p e llin g o f fa ls e o p in io n s , t h e f r e e in g o f t h e soul fro m a tta c h m e n t to t h e b o d y , t h e a tta in m e n t o f v i r t u e s e x c h a n g in g fa ls e p le a s ­ u re s a n d pa in s f o r t r u e ones. T h e d e f in it io n o f c a th a r s is as th e s e p a ra tio n o f t h e w o rs e fr o m t h e b e t t e r ( S o p h is t, 2 2 7 d 5 f f . ; c f . D e fin itio n s , 415d4) e x p la in s t h a t i t is a p p r o ­ p r i a t e t o a p p ly t h e te rm t o all th e s e a c t iv it ie s s in ce all do t r a d e t h e b e t t e r f o r th e w o r s e . P h ilo s o p h y , o f c o u r s e , em braces all th re e and th u s is the tru e s t fo rm of c a t h a r s is . 2 u T h e p u r p o s e o f t h e a r g u m e n ts o f t h e d ia lo g u e w o u ld b e , t h e n , t o p e r f o r m a c a t h a r s is . Can t h e y be said t o d o so? Y e s , b u t p e rh a p s in an u n e x p e c te d m a n n e r. In d e e d , in one sense i t seems u n l i k e l y t h a t a c a th a r s is s h o u ld be n ee ded, fo r, s in c e Simmias a nd Cebes a re P y th a g o re a n s and t h u s h ave a c o n v ic t io n in th e im m o r ta lity o f t h e s o u l, t h e y w o u ld n o t be in need o f a c a th a rs is o f fa ls e o p in io n . N e v e r th e le s s , t h e ch o ic e o f P ythagoreans" f o r i n t e r l o c u t o r s makes good sense : t h e y are t h e ones w h o seem to k n o w t h a t t h e soul is i m m o r t a l - - b u t t h e y do n o t. T h is t h i n k i n g t h a t one know s w hen one does n o t is a h a m a rtia fa ta l to t h e p h ilo s o p h ic lif e ; we saw i t as one o f th e c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f t h e m iso lo g o i (P h a e d o , 8 9 c l and L a w s , 7 3 2 a 4 f f . ) . I t co u ld be said t h a t S o cra te s s p e n t his life t r y i n g to p u r g e men fro m t h is h a m a rtia ( c f . th e A p o lo g y ) . Simmias and Cebes a re a good exam ple o f th e f a c t t h a t e ven th o s e in posse ssio n o f t r u e o p in io n may need a c a th a rs is ( i . e . , d ia le c tic a l t r e a t m e n t ) . O p in io n s , even t r u e o ne s, a re d a n g e r o u s : S o c ra te s in t h e R e p u b lic te lls how m any t h in g s can cause t h e man o f o p in io n t o c h a n g e his m ind ( 4 1 2 e 1 0 f f . ) . Simmias and Cebes a c t v e r y m uch lik e men w it h o p in io n o n l y . Faced w it h c irc u m s ta n c e s w h ic h f o r c e them t o exam ine t h e i r b e lie f in t h e im m o r ta lity o f t h e s o u l, t h e y g iv e w a y to d o u b t ; as t h e y d is c u s s d e a th w it h S o c ra te s , t h e y do n o t p re s s t h e i r b e lie f b u t r e p e a te d ly v o ice d o u b ts a b o u t th e im m o r ta lity o f t h e so u l. O p in io n , t h e n , t u r n s o u t t o be o f l i t t l e v a lu e . C o n c e iv a b ly , S o cra te s c o u ld h ave w o r k e d t o r e in f o r c e t h e i r t r u e b e lie f a nd c o u ld h ave w o r k e d t o c o n v e r t t h e i r t r u e o p in io n in to k n o w le d g e b y h e lp in g th e m f i n d v a l id reasons f o r i t . M any re a d e rs e x p e c t

such an a p p ro a c h and t h e r e f o r e exam ine t h e a r g u m e n ts f o r th e ir v a lid ity . B u t , as we h ave seen, S o cra te s has a v e r y d iffic u lt ta sk: he w ishes to f r e e f r i e n d s fro m t h e f e a r o f d e a th , b u t th e t h i n g t h e y a re d e m a n d in g , t h e p r o o f o f th e im m o r ta lity o f t h e s o u l, w o u ld n o t be t r u l y c o n s o li n g - - u n l e s s t h e y w e re p h ilo s o p h e r s . T h e a r g u m e n ts , t h e n , h ave as t h e i r p u r p o s e c a th a rs is in a b ro a d sense: t h e y are t h e p u r i f y i n g r i t e o f p h ilo s o p h y . A g a in , we m ig h t t h i n k t h a t t h is r it e w o u ld i n v o lv e t h e p r e s ­ e n ta tio n o f v a lid a r g u m e n ts , s in ce m o derns t h i n k t h e p r e f e r ­ r in g o f v a lid a r g u m e n ts to be t h e b u s in e s s o f p h i l o s o p h e r s . 25 I t seems t h a t Plato d id n o t . 25 In s te a d , he p e r f o r m s th e p r o p e r f u n c t io n o f a d ia le c tic ia n b y u s in g a m u l t i p l i c i t y o f means t o d r i v e t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r s t o e xam ine t h e i r v a r io u s a s s u m p tio n s a nd h y p o th e s e s . We s h o u ld n o t be m isled b y t h e f a c t t h a t S o crates claims " t r u t h " f o r m any o f his a r g u ­ m e n ts; as a n y s u p e r f ic ia l r e a d in g o f t h e a r g u m e n ts sh o w s , t h e r e a re so m any w o rd s l e f t u n d e fin e d a n d used e q u iv o c a lly t h a t we have l i t t l e idea in w h a t sense S o c ra te s c o n s id e r e d them to be t r u e . We are v i r t u a l l y l e f t to f i g u r e i t o u t f o r o u r s e l v e s - - a s , we c a n n o t h e lp b u t b e lie v e , Plato m u s t h ave i n t e n d e d . 27 T h e o b je c tio n s w h ic h Simmias and Cebes make in t h e d ia lo g u e in d ic a te t h a t S o cra te s is a c h ie v in g his p u r p o s e : he w a n ts his in te r l o c u t o r s t o p r o b e t h e p r o p r i e t y o f his images and th e c o n s is te n c y o f his r e a s o n in g ; he has s p u r r e d them to q u e s tio n and answei— in his v ie w , t h e a c t i v i t y v i t a l to p h ilo s o p h y . T h is is not to s a y , o f c o u r s e , t h a t t h e a r g u ­ ments have no v a l i d i t y o r a s s is t n o t at all in p r o v i n g t h e im m o r ta lity o f th e so u l. I f n o t h in g else, t h e y a re at least an exam ple to us o f t h e s o r t o f q u e s tio n s one m ig h t a s k in o r d e r to a r r i v e at a p r o o f . Simmias and Cebes a r e , t h e n , in need o f c a th a r s is f o r se v e ra l re a s o n s ; i n i t i a l l y , t h e y ho ld a b e lie f t h a t t h e y kn o w w hen t h e y do n o t; th e n t h e y e x p r e s s a fa ls e o p in io n t h a t d e a th is f e a r f u l ; a nd f i n a l l y , t h e y d i s p l a y a p r o c l i v i t y t o m is o lo g y . P h ilo s o p h y is t h e c a t h a r t i c a g e n t f o r all th e s e m a la d ie s . A p p r o p r i a t e l y , t h e e n d in g o f t h e P haedo in c lu d e s a s y m b o lic c a th a r s is . Much as t h e d ia lo g u e b e g in s w it h S o c ra ­ te s 's s y m b o lic actio n o f f r e e in g h im s e lf fro m his b o n d s , so it ends s y m b o lic a lly w it h Socrates t a k i n g a b a t h . E v i d e n t l y , it was c u s to m a ry f o r women to b a th e t h e b o d y o f men w h o had d ie d . S o crates bathes h im se lf b e fo r e he d ie s . Is t h is t o say

a n y t h i n g o t h e r th a n t h a t , u n lik e o t h e r men w ho a re p u r i f i e d a f t e r d e a th , S o crates p u r i f i e s h im s e lf b e fo re h a n d ? A f t e r S o crates p ro cla im s t h a t he is a b o u t to b a th e , C r i t o asks w h a t i n s t r u c t io n s S o crates has f o r t h e o t h e r s and h im s e lf so t h a t t h e y m ig h t be o f s e r v ic e to S o c ra te s . S o c ra ­ t e s ’ s fin a l a d v ic e to his f r i e n d s is n o t h in g ne w ; i t has been t h e message o f his f in a l d a y 's d is c u s s io n ; i t is his c o n s ta n t m essage: " t a k e ca re o f y o u r s e lv e s " ( 1 1 5 b 6 ), w h ic h , as we u n d e r s ta n d in t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e d ia lo g u e , means "become Phil o s o p h e r s . " S o cra te s has s p e n t his life in th e s e r v ic e of p h ilo s o p h y and even on t h is his la s t d a y has e n d e a v o re d to f r e e his f o llo w e r s fr o m t h e i r o p in io n s and lead them to k n o w le d g e . Plato in w r i t i n g t h e d ia lo g u e does t h e same. As he d ra m a tiz e s S o c ra te s 's d ic tu m t h a t no good man s h o u ld f e a r d e a th ( A p o lo g y , 4 1 c ) , he fre e s S o c ra te s 's f o l l o w e r s - - t h a t is, all r e a d e rs o f t h e d ia lo g u e , fro m t h e fa ls e o p in io n t h a t Soc­ r a te s 's d e a th was t r a g i c , a n d , even more i m p o r t a n t ly , he in d ic a te s a t r u e s o u rc e o f t r a g i c m is f o r t u n e : m is o lo g ia , o r t h e f a i l u r e to become a p h ilo s o p h e r . I n s o f a r as Plato's " t r a g i c d ra m a " p r o m p ts r e a d e rs to e x p e r ie n c e t h e same emo­ tio n s and c a th a r s is as th e i n t e r l o c u t o r s , i t w o r k s to make p h ilo s o p h e r s o f th o s e r e a d e rs . T h u s , Plato, in c o n t in u in g t h e w o r k o f his te a c h e r S o c ra te s , pays g r e a t t r i b u t e to him. A n d h e re in ends my hum ble t r i b u t e to a n o th e r g r e a t te a c h e r w h o made p h ilo lo g o i, o r lo v e r s o f t h e w o r d , in all sense s, o f his s t u d e n t s .

NOTES 1 T r a n s la t io n s fr o m t h e Phaedo a re b y P h a e d o , ( O x f o r d , 1975).

D a v id G a llo p , P la to :

2 T h e n o tio n o f t r a g e d y w h ic h g o v e r n s t h is and fo llo w in g re m a rk s is t h a t f o u n d in A r i s t o t l e . He a rg u e s t h a t t r a g e d y , t h r o u g h t h e r e p r e s e n t a t io n o f p i t i f u l o r f e a r f u l in c id e n t s , a ch ie ve s a c a th a r s is o f such p it i a b l e and f e a r f u l in c id e n ts (P o e tic s , 1449b24). Now, some m ig h t o b je c t t h a t i t is h i s ­ t o r i c a l l y in a c c u r a t e to claim a c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e tw e en Plato's P haedo and A r i s t o t l e 's n o tio n o f t r a g e d y , s in c e t h e P o e tics p o s td a te s t h e P h a e d o . V e t , m ost l i k e l y , A r i s t o t l e was n o t

t h e f i r s t to pose th e q u e s tio n o f t h e n a t u r e o f t r a g e d y ; i t is p r o b a b le t h a t t h e G re e k s in t h e i r p h ilo s o p h ic a l assem blies had c o n s id e re d t h e q u e s tio n . Jan M. B r e m e r , in his boo k H a m a rtia (A m s te rd a m , 1969), s u g g e s ts t h a t t h e d e f i n it i o n o f t r a g e d y as an im ita tio n o f f e a r f u l a nd p i t i f u l t h in g s e x is te d b e fo r e A r i s t o t l e and m ention s t h e v ie w o f G o rg ia s in p a r t i c ­ u la r . (See p. 6, note 6 f o r c ita t io n o f o t h e r s w ho a d v a n c e t h is v i e w ) . In d e e d , t h e c r it ic is m s o f p o e t r y in t h e R e p u b lic and S o c ra te s ’s c o n v e rs a tio n w it h P r o ta g o r a s in t h e P h ife b u s ( 4 8 a f f . ) a b o u t th e p le a s u re s and p a in s w h ic h s p e c t a t o r s feel in re spon se to a t r a g e d y a re e v id e n c e o f i n t e r e s t in t h e n a tu re of tra g e d y . M o re o v e r, A r i s t o t l e 's w o r k s u g g e s ts t h a t t h e q u e s tio n was " in th e a i r , " and p e r h a p s we may also assume t h a t A r i s t o t l e , as was his p r a c t ic e in his N icom achean E th ic s and e ls e w h e re , i n c o r p o r a t e d much o f c u r r e n t t h o u g h t in to his w o r k on t r a g e d y . S t i l l , w e re t h e f o r e g o in g s p e c u la ­ t io n p r o v e d to be w r o n g , t h e r e rem a in s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t A r i s t o t l e ’ s d e f in it io n o f t r a g e d y is , in f a c t , c o r r e c t and t h a t t h is t r u t h a b o u t t r a g e d y was n o t in a c e s s ib le t o Plato o r to a n y man who reasoned a b o u t t h e n a t u r e o f t r a g e d y . 3 M any s c h o la rs have n o te d t h e resem blance o f P lato's P haedo to a t r a g e d y . T h e them e o f d e a th o f a h e ro d r a w s t h e a tte n tio n o f most to t h e t r a g i c c a s t o f t h e P h a e d o . In f a c t , S ocrates at one p o in t q u o te s a t r a g i c h e ro w h o s a y s , "W hat is fa te d aw aits me" (115a5 ) . See e s p e c ia lly D. D. Raphael, T h e P a ra d o x o f T r a g e d y , ( B lo o m in g to n , In d ., 1960), p . 8 3 f f . Raphael sta te s ( p . 8 2 ) , " T h e r e is a ' p r o ­ l o g u e ,' set o u ts id e t h e actio n i t s e l f , and 'e p is o d e s ' o r 'a c ts ' o f d ia lo g u e on a g r e a t s u b je c t , i n t e r r u p t e d tw ic e b y i n t e r v a l s o f f la s h - b a c k to th e 'C h o r u s , ' one m em b er o f whom has seen w h ile t h e o t h e r now lis te n s t o , t h e dram a o f th e d e a th o f S o c ra te s ." Raphael re je c ts A r i s t o t l e 's n o tio n o f t r a g e d y and See also H e n r y s t ill f in d s much o f th e Phaedo to be t r a g i c . G. Wolz, " T h e P h a e d o : Plato and t h e D ra m a tic A p p ro a c h to P h ilo s o p h y , " C ro ss C u r r e n t s , 13 ( S p r i n g 1963), p p . 163-86 and R. S c h a e re r, La Q u e s tio n P ia to n ic ie n n e , ( N e u c h a t e l, 1969), p p . 220-34, p p . 250-51. u See K e nneth D o r t e r , "T he D ra m a tic A s p e c ts o f t h e P h a e d o ," D ia lo g u e , 8 (1 9 7 0 ), p p . 56 4 -8 0 : he f i n d s n u m e ro u s p a r a lle ls betw en S o c ra te s 's b e h a v i o r in t h e d ia lo g u e a nd T h e ­ s e u s ’ s h e ro ic s la y in g o f t h e M in o t a u r ( p . 5 6 9 ).

5 H e lm u t K u h n 's " T h e T r u e T r a g e d y : On th e R e la tio n s h ip betw e en G re e k T r a g e d y and P la t o , " H a r v a r d S tu d ie s o f C la s ­ s ic a l P h ilo lo g y , 52 (1 9 4 1 ), p p . 1-40 a nd 53 (1 9 4 2 ), p p . 3 7 -8 8 , o f f e r s an e x c e lle n t a n a ly s is o f t h e re la tio n o f P la to ’ s t h o u g h t t o G re e k t r a g e d y and a r g u e s t h e f o llo w in g p o in t (52, p. 2 0): " . . . P l a t o ’ s p h ilo s o p h y is n o t o n l y u n t r a g i c in t h a t i t d e n ie s t h e r e a l i t y o f t h e t r a g i c e v e n t , b u t a n t i t r a g i c , a c o n ­ s c io u s c o u n t e r t h r u s t to th e p h ilo s o p h y o f lif e c o n v e y e d b y tra g e d y ." In b r i e f , S o cra te s f in d s t h a t o n l y t h e i n d iv id u a l can be t h e s o u rc e o f t r u e e v il to h im s e lf. M is f o r tu n e s e n t b y g od s o r f a te c a n n o t t r u l y harm a good man. And f u r ­ t h e r , K u h n s ta te s (53, p . 5 1 ) , " P la t o ’ s own p o e t r y , t h e p la y o f t r u e h a p p in e s s and t r u e m is e r y , is n o t w i t h o u t its d r e a d . T h e d r e a d f u l , h o w e v e r , does n o t l u r k in t h e c o n tin g e n c ie s of lif e b u t in t h e ig n o r a n c e and f o r g e t f u l n e s s o f th e s o u l . " My r e a d in g o f t h e P haedo c o r r e s p o n d s c lo s e ly w it h t h is v ie w . 6 T h i s is a p a r t ia l s ta te m e n t o f A r i s t o t l e 's P o e tic s , 1449b24 and 1453a4. 7

R h e to r ic ,

8

R h e to r ic , 1383b1.

d e fin itio n .

See

1382a.

9 In t h e P h lle b u s , S o crates r e m a rk s upo n t h e a b i l i t y o f th e s p e c t a t o r s o f a t r a g e d y to feel p le a s u re and to weep all at once (48a, 5 0 b ). 10 A p o lo g y , t r . Η. N. F o w le r, in A p o lo g y , C r it o , P h a e d o , and P h a e d ru s r p t . , 197 7), p . 141. 11

P la to : E u th y p h r o , (N ew Y o r k , 1919;

See also t h e L a w s , 9 5 9 a ff.

12 G allo p sees t h a t t h e m y th is n o t v e r y c o n s o lin g ( p . 2 2 4 ): " One s h o u ld re p e a t such t h i n g s t o o n e s e lf lik e a s p e ll' (d 6 -7 ). T h i s re c a lls S o c ra te s ' e a r l ie r i n ju n c t io n s to s in g s p e lls ' t o c h a rm aw ay t h e f e a r o f d e a th ( 7 7 e 8 -9 ) . B u t th e m y th j u s t c o n c lu d e d w o u ld be m ore l i k e l y , one w o u ld t h i n k , t o h ave th e o p p o s ite e f f e c t on a n y o n e w h o re p e a te d i t to h im s e lf, un le ss his con scie n ce was u n u s u a l ly c le a r . C f. R e p ., 3 3 0 d -4 3 3 1 a 1 ."

13 R e g in a ld H a c k f o r t h , P la to 's P h a e d o , ( C a m b r id g e , 1972) to a f a i r d e g re e sh a re s my u n d e r s t a n d in g o f t h e d ia lo g u e . He, to o , denies t h a t t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e d ia lo g u e is to p r o v e t h e im m o r ta lity o f t h e soul. N e v e r th e le s s , H a c k f o r t h a r g u e s t h a t S o c ra te s 's a d v o c a c y o f th e p h ilo s o p h ic lif e d e p e n d s upon t h e im m o r ta lity o f t h e so u l; t h u s , he b e lie v e s S o crates m u s t o f f e r p r o o f f o r its im m o r ta lity ( p . 17). I f i n d no e v id e n c e t h a t Socrates w o u ld n o t have a d v o c a te d t h e p h ilo s o p h ic lif e even w e re t h e soul to p e r is h w it h d e a th . F o r w h ere as he t h i n k s t h a t t h e p h ilo s o p h e r need n o t f e a r d e a th , t h e fre e d o m fro m t h is f e a r is s u r e l y n o t th e c o m p e llin g a t t r a c t io n o f t h e p h i l o ­ s o p h ic l if e ; s u r e l y t h e a t t r a c t io n is t h a t t h e p h ilo s o p h ic lif e allows t h e soul to be in c o n ta c t w it h t h e d i v in e f o r h o w e v e r b r i e f a tim e . R. S. B lu c k also seems to hold t h e v ie w I h ave a d v a n c e d ; see his P h a e d o , ( L o n d o n , 1955), p . 35. ^ P ie rre -M a x im e S c h u h l, E tu d e s P ta to n ic ie n n e s ( P a r is , 1960), p . 120, f in d s a them e o f hope in S o c ra te s 's r e p e t it io n o f th e w o rd " h o p e " in his o p e n in g " d e f e n s e . " 15

See S ym p o siu m , 212a.

16

D o rte r,

p. 567; c f .

p.

588.

17 R. D. A r c h e r - H i n d , T h e P haedo o f P la to , ( L o n d o n , 1883) f in d s a p r e s e n ta tio n o f th e t h e o r y o f Ideas to be t h e main p u r p o s e o f th e d ia lo g u e ( p p . 5 - 6 ) . He f in d s t h e p r o o f f o r t h e im m o r ta lity o f t h e soul to " d e r i v e its sole v a lu e fr o m its b e a r in g on th e c o g n itio n o f id e a s" ( p . 7 ) . 18 H a c k fo r t h w r i t e s ( p . 1 0 7 ), "P la to has chosen a f i t t i n g place f o r his d ig r e s s io n on m is o lo g y . . . alm ost e x a c t ly a t t h e m id d le o f th e d i a l o g u e . . . " M a rv in F ox, in " T h e T r i a l s o f S o c ra te s: An I n t e r p r e t a t io n o f t h e F i r s t T e t r a l o g y , " A r c h iv f u r P h ilo s o p h ie , 6 (1 9 5 6 ), p p . 226-61, also senses t h e i m p o r ­ ta n c e o f t h e pla ce m e n t o f th e m is o lo g ia i n c id e n t ( p . 242, note 41). He r i g h t l y ta k e s e x c e p tio n to t h e v ie w , e x p r e s s e d abo ve b y H a c k f o r t h , t h a t t h i s passage is a d ig r e s s i o n . Of all t h e c o m m e n ta to rs , he is t h e o n l y one w h o sh a re s m y v ie w t h a t t h is passage is c e n tr a l n o t o n l y in pla ce m e n t b u t also in im p o rta n c e ( p . 2 45 ).

19 I t r a n s la t e o ik tr o n as " la m e n ta b le " ; m any t r a n s la t e i t as "p itia b le ." I t is c lo s e ly r e la te d t o p i t y , o f c o u r s e , b u t seems t o be an even more in te n s e s o r r o w . Perha ps th e w o rs e t h e im p e n d in g e v il and t h e more t h r e a t e n i n g , th e more p i t y becomes lam e nt. 20

G a llo p , p .

154.

21 D o r t e r ta k e s s e r io u s ly ( t h a t is, n o n - i r o n i c a l l y ) S o c ra te s 's claim s t o be a l o v e r o f v i c t o r y r a t h e r th a n a p h ilo s o p h e r (p p . 5 7 1 ff.). He f i n d s th e a r g u m e n ts o f th e d ia lo g u e to be a tte m p ts at p e rs u a s io n and c o n s o la tio n . B u t see T h e a e te tu s , 164c7 f o r S o c ra te s 's o p in io n o f such b e h a v io r . 22 T r . A . E. T a y l o r , P la to : T h e S o p h is t a n d th e S ta te sm a n , ( L o n d o n , 1961), p . 114. Note t h a t th e E leatic S t r a n g e r m e n tio n s th a t th e sp e cta to r may e x p e rie n c e th e same c a t h a r t i c e f fe c t as th e one q u e s tio n e d . T h is is, I b e lie v e , a good in d ic a tio n t h a t Plato in te n d e d his re a d e rs to re s p o n d as th e in t e r l o c u t o r s do. See R e p u b lic , 539b1 f o r d ia le c tic as th e a n t id o t e to a n t i lo g y . 23 D ouglas J . S t e w a r t , in " S o c ra te s ' L a st B a t h , " J o u rn a l o f th e H is t o r y o f P h ilo s o p h y , 10 (1 9 7 2 ), p p . 253-59, f in d s t h a t t h e P haedo "e m p lo y s a f a i r l y c o n s t a n t p a t t e r n o f re fe re n c e s t o t h e O r p h ic ideas o f p u r i f i c a t i o n and release t o c o n v e y its p a r t i c u l a r th e s is on t h e f u n c t io n o f p h ilo s o p h y as t h a t w h ic h s u s ta in s t h e s o u l . . . " ( p . 2 5 5 ). See p a r t i c u l a r l y p . 256, n ote 9. 2