Greece Books

Dr. Darling starts the book with the phrase "This is a book about fragments" and she is right. Our knowledge of ancient Greek architecture is and will always be, fragmentary. She draws you in from this first sentence, and the book gets better and better from there. Dr. Darling makes you think and her book is full of stories and anecdotes which make the subject matter come alive. A must-read for those interested in Greek architecture.

This collection of excerpts from ancient sources concerning
athletes, athletic contests, skills, prizes, and the
athletic "mystique" is excellent. For it gives a
generous overview from different sources, from different
ancient venues, and from different time periods. The
reader gains a growing sense of the awe and reverence
in which skilled as well as beautiful athletes were
held, both by spectators at the events as well as
through the fame which they gained that was passed
down in inscriptions, statues, poetry, and the
memories of those who heard of their skills and
victories even in distant places.
The excerpts are not excessively long, but they are
highy interesting and instructive. The topics covered
by chapters are: the Earliest Days of Greek Athletics/
Nudity and Equipment/ The Events at a Competition
(Running, Wrestling, Boxing, Pankration, Pentathlon,
Equestrian, Music, Poetry and Prose Composition, Acting,
Painting)/ Organization of a Panhellenic Festival/ Local
Festivals/ Role of the Games in Society/ Women in
Athletics/ Athletes and Heroes/ Ball Playing/ Gymnasion,
Athletics, and Education/ Spread of Greek Athletics in
the Hellenistic Period/ Greek Athletics in the Roman
Period/ Amateurism and Professionalism/ Nationalism
and Internationalism/ Our Ideal and the Reality.
As the author, Stephen Miller, explains in the
"Introduction": "A definition of -arete- would
include virtue, skill, prowess, pride, excellence,
valor, and nobility, but these words, whether taken
individually or collectively, do not [completely]
fulfill the meaning of -arete-." *** "...the word
-arete- still carries with it a notion of ephemeral
excellence and of transient triumph that make its
translation an exceedingly risky business."
In any particular chapter, the sources cited
may include: Pausanias (author of the famous Guide
Book to Greece), statue inscriptions, Athenaeus
(author of the multi-volume -Deipnosophists-,
Scholars at Dinner), Diodorus Siculus, poetic
excerpts from the -Greek Anthology-, Plutarch,
the ancient poet Pindar, Plato's dialogues, Aristotle's
treatises, as well as many other Greek and Roman
sources.
The title which I chose for this review comes from
the chapter titled "The Events at a Competition"
and shows both the striving for excellence,
and the transience of the accomplishment (if
not the fame). The 3 excerpts concern the
athlete Phayllos of Kroton, who was a pentahlete.
Some of the ancient writers thought the pentathlete
was the physically most perfect and beautiful
of the athletic competitors. The excerpts come
from "The Suda", "a lexicon compiled toward the end
of the 10th century after Christ and based upon a
variety of earlier material" [Miller]. As "The
Suda" says: "Beyond the dug-up area": beyond
measure. A metaphor from the pentathlon [jumping
pit]. It is said to come from the pentathlete Phayllos
of Kroton who, when the skammata used to be 50 feet,
first exceeded them with his jumps, as the epigram
on his statue says: 'Five and fifty feet flew Phayllos'."
The transience and the agony of ancient competitions,
for they were even more brutal in some physical
aspects than any modern events, come in the 3rd
excerpt: "'To jump beyond the dug-up area': with
reference to doing something hyperbolically, because
Phayllos jumped more than 50 feet and tore up his
leg."
-- Robert Kilgore.

The Argive Heraion, by Christopher Pfaff, is excellent because the detail is quite comprehensive. The author not only describes the general appearance of the temple, but even provides various cross-sections of such temple design as the tiles of the roof of the temple! It's a beautifully presented book, and I cannot wait for Part 2 which I believe is due for completion in 2008!

This study on the transition between the Middle Bronze Age and the Late Bronze Age at Argolid, is complete. Soren Dietz has done an exhaustive enquiry of material from Asine, Mycenai, Argos, Prosymna and Miloi creating a more detailed sequel of style to the already existing one. Moreover, all the burial contexts are discussed and dated thoroughly. As a result the hole period is divided to subperiods, more accurate than before and more detailed (for example MHII Late,MHII Final, MHIIIA and MHIIIB). One more example Dietz's good work is that he adopts the "high chronology" for the Aegaean Bronze Age, dating the Thera eruption at c. 1645 B.C. consequently reforming all the existing middle helladic and early mycenaean dates. Anyone interested seriously in the Bronze Age of Greece should read this book!

The Aristocratic Ideal And Selected Papers is the long-awaited reissue of Donlan's seminal work on Greek social history and thought from Homer to the end of the fifth century BCE and includes The Ideal of the Warrior-Aristocrat; The Old Ideal Under Challenge; The Crisis of Identity: Theognis and Pindar; The Aristocratic Ideal in the Classical Period; and Aristocratic Life-Style in the Fifth Century. This new edition updates the original with reprints of eight related scholarly works spanning the years 1970-1994 including Changes and Shifts in the Meaning of Demos in the Literature of the Archaic Period; The Tradition of Anti-Aristocratic Thought in Early Greek Poetry; The Structure of Authority in the Iliad; The Unequal Exchange Between Glaucus and Diomedes in Light of the Homeric Gift-Economy; The Pre-State Community in Greece; Homeric temenos and the Land Economy of the Dark Age; Duelling with Gifts in the Iliad: As the Audience Saw It; Chief and Followers in Pre-State Greece. The Aristocratic Ideal And Selected Papers is a scholarly and valued contribution to the study of antiquarian Greek thought, politics, economics, ideals and society.

The legend is that when the comedy "The Clouds" by Aristophanes was first performed in Athens in 423 B.C., his target, Socrates, stood throughout the performance so that everyone in the audience was aware that he was there and hearing what was said of him. The portrait of Socrates clearly satirical and most critics consider it to be inaccurate. But Aristophanes is making fun of Athens' renowned "Think-tank" the "Phrontisterion," the school where the rich young men of Athens were taught the fine art of rhetoric. Instead of anything lofty the comic poet suggests the primary purpose of such an education is to be clever and out-reason greedy creditors. This is an especially good translation of the play, which includes insightful notes and essays on both Old Comedy and the Theater of Dionysus that helps readers understand the conventions of staged comedy at the time of Aristophanes.

In this comedy Socrates is consulted by an old rogue, Strepsiades (sometimes translated as "Twisterson"), who is upset with the mountain of debts his playboy son Phidippides, who loves fast horses and fast living. Phidippides agrees to go to Socrates' school of logic where he can learn to make a wrong argument sound right. After graduation is able to use the system of "unjust logic" to outwit his father and kick him out of the family home. The Chorus of Clouds comments on the proceedings and in the end the Phrontisterion is burned to the ground by Strepsiades.

The flaw of the play is Aristophanes is trying to satirize the Sophists, who were popularizing a new philosophy that denied the possibility of ever reaching objective truth, he picked the wrong target. The Sophists were mostly teachers who were not native to Athens, such as Isocartes and Gorgias. "Sophist" basically meant teacher, so while Socrates was a "sophist" he was not a "Sophist." Twenty-four years later, when Socrates was condemned to death for "corrupting the youth of Athens," the only accuser he said he could name was a certain "comic poet." For contemporary audiences who are untutored in the traditions of classical Greek philosophy it is easy to see Socrates as the prototype for the absent-minded professor, but historically that is, of course, far from the truth. Ironically, even today, Socrates is still one of the few "sophists" that a contemporary audience would recognize by name if not by reputation.

The version of "The Clouds" that has passed down to us is not the original version, which was defeated by Cratinus' "Wine Flask" at a comedy competition during the Great Dionysia celebrations. We know this is a revised version because the Chorus complains about Aristophanes finishing third in that competition. However, critics assume it is essentially the same play, albeit a more polished version. Once you forgive Aristophanes for his unfair characterization of Socrates, "The Clouds" is a great comedy employing all of his standard tricks of the trade from fantasy and ribaldry to funny songs and obscene words.

Apologies for the commentary, but I thought it important enough for the unsuspecting to mention that this edition is in Attic Greek; it is not translated as the other reviewer states. In fact, if you do an search on Amazon for "Thesmophoriazusae" you'll find he pasted the beginning of his review on every edition on offer--are we to believe that he's compared every edition and found no differences worth mentioning?

Perhaps it's a ridiculous endeavor to warn other readers of this since few would shell out 90+ dollars for a translation, but I thought it might be helpful nonetheless.

This book, the fourth in Dr. Henderson's fine series of parallel translations, is perhaps the best of the series, containing as it does the comic masterpiece "Frogs," in my opinion the finest of Aristophanes' works. Henderson's translations are crisp, clear, and hilarious, and his extensive use of vulgarity is always textually and philologically sound (as a few comparisons of Liddell-Scott and the OED will surely reveal). In short, it is the definitive edition of Aristophanes' works, and the only translation accurate enough to be worth having on your bookshelf (and believe me, I've read quite a few).

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. Politics is one of Aristotle's most prescient works that had a profound impact on our Founding fathers.

Nicomachean Ethics (EN) is part of political knowledge. Politics regulates when virtue does not. Laws are created for people who are not virtuous. Polis= "city or state." Humans live in society, so virtue ethics is not just for individual living, community is a shared project for the good. Aristotle starts with his method, a phenomenological attitude. He starts with pairs, male and female, builds up to ruler and subject, master and slave as a natural relationship, the 1st social community thus is the household. Household is an economic relationship and has monarchy of patriarch. Villages are a collection of households with a king. Then you have a Polis, a fulfilled complete community formed from several villages. Self-sufficiency is the mark of a Polis. An organized social relationship is Polis and a reason is being able to take care of needs of life and promote living well. Only in a Polis can you have art, philosophy, etc. All these are actualized in a Polis. Politics is natural to human life. We are meant to be social. According to Aristotle, "If you don't want to live in a state you are either a God or a beast."

Logos= "rationality or language" is what helps us to be political animals. Rational language expands capacity in human life. Since Aristotle thinks the Polis has a telos or an end then the Polis as potential comes even before the household. This is similar to the acorn having the telos to become a mighty oak tree. Politics completes the human condition for Aristotle. Need a Polis to develop other human capacities.

Aristotle's hierarchy. Slaves are a living tool for Aristotle. Aristotle argues that some people are meant to be slaves right from birth. "Born to be ruled." Slavish person does not have enough rationality to rule themselves. Aristotle says not every form of actual enslavement is justified according to him. He justifies the human use of animals as a natural act.

Aristotle now wants to find what kind of government is best. In a Polis citizens have things in common. Aristotle criticizes Plato's Republic, he finds it to be overly controlling. Socrates says the soul has 3 aspects and so does the Polis. The Soul has:

1. Reason
2. Passion
3. Appetite
The Polis has:
1. Philosopher King.
2. Guardians, (military).
3. Commoners.

Both are a hierarchal ordering. Socrates and Plato talk about the state holding all property in common. This includes the state raising children after birth instead of the parents, thus there will be no family clans trying to better themselves over their neighbors. Aristotle criticizes this idea. Aristotle says a Polis is a plurality of people thus people are not all the same and a Polis must accommodate differences in people, which actually makes a Polis better. Aristotle criticizes Socrates and Plato's idea of a Polis needing to have "unity" of people. This is a contrast to the Polis of Sparta. Aristotle says the best way to integrate citizens to the Polis is to allow them taking turns in ruling it. Aristotle believes that holding property or rearing of children in common as in the Republic is wrong no one really loves children like their own and communal property never gets really taken care of. Love is diminished the less nuclear family we are.
Aristotle says you need a mix of private and public property. Thus, the best kind of Polis is a combination of a governing element. Aristotle affirms a constitutional democracy or Polity. A citizen participates in government by definition for Aristotle.

Comparison of virtue and the good citizen. Excellence of virtuous man not the same as a good citizen. There will be few virtuous men, but good citizens just have to follow the law. Aristotle says good political virtue and good moral virtue don't have to go together. "Living finely then most of all is the goal of the city."

Aristotle classifies 3 types of government which occur naturally in nature and 3 types of deteriorations of those governments, they are:

1. "Monarchy," rule by one man a king, this is a top down rule. The deterioration is a "Tyranny," who is a ruler who rules for his own benefit.
2. "Aristocracy," rule by the best few men in the Polis, also this is a top down rule. The deterioration is an "oligarchy,' which he defines as rule of the rich who want to perpetuate themselves.
3. "Polity," All citizens participate in government with a constitution set above them to guide them instead of a king or aristocracy. The deterioration is a "democracy or what today we call mob rule or tyranny of the majority. He calls it rule of the poor.

Aristotle does a good job of looking at states and how they can be corrupted. Aristotle's concept of political justice and what is the best concept. What does justice mean? Not necessarily equality for all. Not all people are equal. He implies sometimes it is unjust to treat people equally. Justice is not necessarily equality for all; sometimes it would be unjust to treat all people equally. Politics is rated high by Aristotle as a human good. Education is a central feature of political life for Aristotle. "But we must find the relevant respect of equality or inequality; for this question raises a puzzle that concerns political philosophy." First, because someone is unequal on hierarchy that means better than others like more virtuous. This is like "distributive justice" who gets what goods. Do you give the best flute to the best flute player which is based on merit or to the richest or best looking person? Aristotle says inequality should tip towards those who earn it on merit. His concept of equality and inequality is based on merit. Another philosopher coined a famous formula for this based on Relevant Respect:

P= Person, Q= Quality, C= Context.
It would be just to treat P1 + P2 equally or unequally if P1 + P2 are equal or unequal in Q (quality) relevant to C (content). This is a formula on how to treat people relevant to goods. This is context dependent. Allot of empirical work to be done before we use the formula.

People who fight wars control politics in the Polis. The more people who have weapons in a civilian army is a guarantee that a small group of people will not take control of the government and democracy grows, like our 2nd amendment, this is a historical perspective of the idea that works.
Democracy spreads power to citizens a bottom up structure. Expertise in relation to politics. Many professions we tend to defer to the experts for judgment, physicians, lawyers, etc. Plato's Republic does this with his advocacy of Philosopher king running government. Aristotle says the judgment of the many combined as acting as one is better then a monarch or a few wise men to run the government. In principle, pooling of multiple people to run Polis is good. Politics by nature is a communal effort so you should use all the people's expertise. Aristotle is against letting experts running the Polis they are not always the best of judges. The best judge of the function of a house is the owner, not the builder. In addition, Aristotle says there may not really be any such thing as a political expert, like a philosopher king. Aristotle advocates for a constitutional democracy a written set of laws to protect Polis from a tyranny of the majority. "Law is reason unaffected by desire." A government of laws not men. A living being as the last word is not good.

Role of education in politics. Politics is coming together to foster human development and happiness for community, citizens, and improving human life like education. Aristotle says it should be public education.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

I read these works for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.

Soul- De Anima Latin for Greek word Psuche=Life. It is a Phenomenology of Life. Living things are Aristotle¡¦s primary interest. Renee Descartes says thinking is only aspect of soul, not life. For Descartes the soul is the mind. Aristotle classifies features of living things. A soul can¡¦t be a body, (like a corpse). Psuche=life is a living form of the body, the phenomenon of life. Capacity to live is what he means. Ergon=function or work, thus when he talks about soul it is a body¡¦s function. Thus, a corpse is a deactivated body. Dunamis=capacity, Energia= actuality, thus both words are active words and can be seen as ¡§activating capacity.¡¨ Like a builder while building a house, past potential but not actual until the house is complete.
Entelecheia=¡¨living things have their ends inside them.¡¨ A living being has an end in itself.

What is the soul? Psuche= soul is being working toward ends of a self-moving body having the capacity to live. This is another way of talking about desire (like an animal that is hungry). Desire-animals have this as we do. Orexis=desire. The phenomenology of desire is to be motivated towards something that is lacking at the time, hunger, etc. Pleasure and pain.
Desire and action there are 3 kinds of desire.

1. Appetite like hunger and sex.
2. Emotion-like love not on crude level as appetite.
3. Wish-desire of the mind, (I want a good job).

All three strive towards something that is lacking. ¡§Desire is movement of the soul.¡¨ Human life is a set of desires. Human desires are more complicated. Desires clash like dieting and appetite.

¡§All humans desire to know.¡¨ This is the first line of the Metaphysics. Knowledge examined in terms of distinction between matter and form, perception has to do with intelligible form. Perception takes in visible form of something without the matter. Like imagination, an animal and human can do this. All knowledge starts with perception thus memory. Ultimate knowledge is intelligible form from visible form but mind is also using abstractions, this is a human capacity only. Humans use language to do this. Animals have image of a cat, word ¡§cat¡¨ is an abstraction for us. True knowledge organizes language.

Seing<³being seen. Two beings, seer and seen, this is act of vision it is only one actuality and two potentialities. In effect, Aristotle is saying that the capacity to see can only be actualized by seeing something. However, he goes the other way as well; something seeable only actualizes its seeability by being seen. One actuality, two potentials, the potential to see, the potential to be seen. In the modern world since Descartes, it is spoken as two actualities, the mind, and the outside world and there is a split between the two, two actualities, the mind as a separate thing and the object as a separate thing being seen. This is the source of the classic problem of skepticism. When there is seeing obviously you have two beings, the seer and the seen, but the act of vision is one actuality. Aristotle does not have this skeptical problem because he seems to stipulate this idea of single actuality and the whole point of the capacity to know is meant to hook up with things known. The whole point of knowable things is to be known by knower¡¦s, that is what he means by one actuality, thus there is no split between the mind and the world. There is no purely inside and outside. It isn¡¦t that minds are in here and the world is out there, and we might wonder about how they hook up. The nature of things and the nature of the mind are meant to hook up. Thus, Aristotle is not a radical skeptic like Descartes or Hume. Act of seeing the desk is joint actuality of seer and seen.

Actual hearing and actual sounding occur at the same time. Berkeley¡¦s famous question¡K¡¨If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? For Berkeley, to be is to be perceived. Aristotle answers Berkeley¡¦s question that it does make a sound, but you have to have the capacity to hear, it is a joint venture. The mind and the world are not separated like for Descartes. Aristotle doesn¡¦t buy the idea that ¡§everything in my mind can be false¡¨ like the skeptics argue, Aristotle would say this is impossible. Getting things true and false are part of what the mind has to do, but the possibility that the whole mental realm could be put into question is impossible. Thus, he doesn¡¦t have to answer the question put to skeptics. ¡§If you are right that there is a radical doubt about the possibility of our knowledge hooking up with reality, why would the human situation ever come to pass in this way that it is possible that we could be totally wrong.¡¨ The skeptics answer we are not sure that we are wrong, they are saying we can¡¦t be sure that we are right. If that were the case then Aristotle can say, well is this a recipe for the human condition? One can be skeptical about this or that, but not about everything.

Aristotle moves from perception to thought. The thinking of the world and world to be thought is actualization. Nous=highest capacity of intellect for Aristotle. Mind is potential and until it thinks isn¡¦t actualization. The implication of this the world wants to be known according to Aristotle. The world also activates our desire. One actualization of two potentialities. Taking in form without matter that is what knowledge is. A knowing soul cannot be separation from the body. The mind has built in capacity to understand for Aristotle, no actual knowledge until intellect engages with objects. ¡§Actually thinking mind is the thing that it thinks. In this respect the soul is all existing things.¡¨ Soul is capacity to think the world in the passage.

I recommend Aristotle¡¦s works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.