674. The Swerve by Stephen Greenblatt. There are two parts to this review. First part. The author shows in a very engaging way how the search for ancient Roman texts began and how it was pursued by the likes of Petrarch, Poggio, Salutati and others. It was also interesting to see the road blocks to the survival of texts. One was lack of interest in what ancient books had to say, another was out right hostility to what the books had to say and another just as dangerous (and more permanent in a way)were book worms. Now I know from my own reading of ancient Roman libraries that they developed ways to preserve books besides the obvious method of making new copies. They used cedar oil to repel insects, developed a special brick which reduced the amount of moisture which penetrated the walls of a library, they also used papyrus made from plants which grow in Egypt and vellum which is animal skin or even intestines. These methods must have ceased to play a part on library book maintenance. Many books were vellum (animal skin) which is a very durable material. However many books were lost because vellum was highly prized and expensive, consequently ancient texts served another purpose which was very destructive- the script of an ancient text was scraped off and the vellum reused for another purpose. Makes me , a Classicist, very sad even to say these words let alone type them. So the door through which Latin texts survived was rather slim. But some did survive.
He also covers the internal argument early Christians had with reading pagan literature. They admired the charm of classical literature but in many cases despised the thoughts or views. Ancient Romans had few thoughts or views which had to be kept secret. So their minds ranged far and wide on a number of topics and many invigorating ideas were written down to be shared with others. In early Christianity dogma was the main thrust of religion- the ruling class of priests gave instruction on what was to be learned and understood, maintained strict control over the flow of ideas and restriction to sources of knowledge such as libraries. Hence libraries were located in monasteries. There the books were kept and not just anyone was allowed to visit the books. But blessing upon blessing (in a way) it was felt that monks should either farm or other such labor or copy texts if they had the skill. So into the scriptorium they went and copied texts- In some areas books were very scarce, so books were copied again and again, the same books. The mere task was sufficient. So books in one sense were valuable, even ancient texts. These too were copied. Then placed on shelves and restricted to qualified visitors. Must have been a lonely life being a book. Into this world enters Poggio Bracciolini. He was not a priest but worked for the Vatican/Popes in various capacities- eventually as Apostolic Secretary to the Pope. Here he had access to money and connections. When he lost his job because the Pope for which he was secretary was forced to resign he began his search for texts; ancient Roman texts. In 1417 at the monastery at Fulda he pulled the long neglected and thought lost volume of De Rerum Nature by Titus Lucretius Carus.
I only mention in passing the grim tales of punishment and torture meted out to those who denied church authority or remarked on forbidden topics. A review of such things tends to give the impression that there may be pleasure in the telling. So go else where if those things interest you (some are detailed in The Swerve). But all these things - difficulty of access to monasteries and their libraries, molding and rotting books, suppression of ideas and lack of interest in search for the new Poggio ignored or overcame and off he went and brought back to the world De Rerum Natura. This part of the book I enjoyed very much.
2nd part.
The basic tenets of Epicureanism/Lucretius are, according to Greenblatt:
Everything is made of invisible particles
the elementary particles of matter are eternal
the elementary particles are infinite in number but limited in size and shape
all particles are in motion an infinite void
the universe has no creator or designer
everything comes into beginning as a result of a swerve
the swerve is the source of free will
nature never stops experimenting
the universe is not created for or about humans
humans are not unique
human society began not in a Golden Age of tranquillity and plenty but in a primitive battle for survival
the soul dies
there is no afterlife
death is nothing to us
all organized religions are superstitious delusions
religions are invariably cruel
the highest goal of life is the enhancement of pleasure and the reduction of pain
the greatest obstruction to pleasure is not pain but delusion
Greenblatt then says that understanding the nature of things generates wonder and the other philosophical systems do not generate this wonder. By wonder I think he means asking questions.
There are some problems here.
These problems lead me to another author which Greenblatt mentions but only is a minor way- Marcus Tullius Cicero. Cicero wrote a work entitled: On the Nature of the Gods. Three philosophical systems (Epicurean, Stoic, Academic) present their view of divinity and the part divinity plays in our lives. Then one of the members of the discussion group finds as many flaws in that argument as possible. The dialog is very interesting because the conclusion is left somewhat open at the end. Cicero says that the Stoic view seems the best but clearly indicates that he is open to further discussion and perhaps maybe a different conclusion. To avoid going on too long, Cicero's arguments against Epicureanism are so powerful that it seems strange that none of these criticisms of Epicureanism are addressed. One of the biggest is this: What caused this swerve? After all luck is what science has striven to eliminate from an understanding of nature. Greenblatt mentions it and then lets it drop and then claims that Lucretius' system of thought promotes wonder. Well, what about the wonder involved in the swerve? What caused that? A cough? Sneeze? A temporary bleep in the powers of the universe? An eternal particle got confused? I am being silly but I hope for a purpose. A fundamental problem of Epicureanism is swept aside and then lack of wonder is heaped upon other systems of thought. As a Phd in Humanities at Harvard I think that he has/had an obligation to address the issue.
Greenblatt seems devoted to piecing together his puzzle without any spare pieces left. In other words all has to fit tightly together. He completely ignores the tendency of Epicureanism to be dogmatic. He does say so in one short sentence but the subject is dropped and dogmatism is leveled at the Catholic church. I am convinced that the Catholic Church once was dogmatic, more or less published a list of rules and attempted to enforce their acceptance. I admit that this was wrong. I also insist that the tense I am using should mean something. BUT Epicureanism as Cicero makes very clear in his on the Nature of the Gods and in his work On Moral Ends, Epicureanism had a strong tendency to be dogmatic, too. Epicurus was so sure that he was right that as a result he did not see a need for any other system of though or approach to the argument but his own. Any system which disputed his was not just wrong but foolish. Now we could go on and on- for each system is convinced it is right. But a good test question would be this: If Epicureanism reached supremacy and had power of enforcement behind it, would it be tolerant of different views? Does dogma see any need for dispute? Does it not have the tendency to say- they debate is over- we have the answer? Lucretius does not say that it seems his argument is correct- he says it is correct. Cicero says that the argument he accepts appears to be correct but perhaps later after further review another argument may prevail. This may seem petty and picky but it seems to me that a large ocean separates the two. And leads in different directions- Cicero's argument drives one to search and wonder looking at any system of thought which may spread light on the situation, Epicurus sees no need to consult any one else. It would be difficult to argue and be convincing that Cicero's way would lead to dogma. But one can say that Epicureanism has a tendency for dogma. I wonder too, if Epicureanism had triumphed at the end of antiquity, would it have had devotees driven to find lost texts which disputed Epicurean views?
It is also a tad bothersome to me when Greenblatt says that Lucretius was the only philosopher who despised enforcement of ideas via nightmares of the afterlife as was done apparently by the early Catholic Church. Cicero spends much time debunking such things in his Tusculan Disputations.
Greenblatt ignores the problem that if all things change all the time and only things exist, how can one define courage? Love? Justice? Does these exist only in so far that they serve the interests of pleasure?
Much of Epicureanism involves withdrawal from society. To them the material world is meaningless- acquisition of property, valuable. I have no problem with someone's right to do so but just exactly who will provide the wealth needed for such a person to withdraw to? To put it another way to what would they withdraw if everyone withdraws? Does it not seem odd that a philosophy says that only things exist, yet things are meaningless? It just may be that Epicurus had answers but Greenblatt does not.
He also does not discuss the problem created by Lucretius-if Epicureanism is a release from the fears of life is it also in some way a release from the obligations of life? - by obligations I mean to the needs of others if we are busy seeing to our own pleasure?
There may be answers to these questions and perhaps can thoroughly refuted, but they are not present in this work.
At the end Greenblatt suggests that Thomas Jefferson was guided by Epicureanism when he wrote that we have a right to the "pursuit of happiness". It appears that what he did was take the word happiness which Epicurus used and assumed that the same word was used by Jefferson in the same way. However, this completely denies or ignores that all the ancient philosophical systems wrestled with what happiness was and how to achieve it. Greenblatt also seems to ignore those words which precede these- "endowed by their creator". It seems to me that first Greenblatt must prove or demonstrate that Jefferson put those words in as a flare or fanciful flourish. Then he must show that Jefferson meant a reference to Epicurus by the words- "pursuit of happiness". He does not. And from a prof from a great institution I expect more.
No comments:
Post a Comment