On Parallelisms between Falstaff's and Socrates' Deaths
john_baker
I was mulling over these parallelisms while I swam my noon mile and
thought to post them before we take off for a summit attempt on St.
Helens, since one never knows if one will return from such adventures
or like the Ice Man, be found in the distant future...good news for
the group...I''m sure. (I hit 90 seconds for a hundred meters, not
bad for an old man...I like to hit 80 seconds, but I've had the flu
recently and it shows on my stopwatch.)
Anyhow if I read Robert Stonehouse correctly, he's willing to concede
that Jowett sensed the parallels and its to Jowett's sense of these
analogies that we owe the striking similarity in language between the
two accounts.
I'm entirely peaceful with this, Jowett certainly knew his
Shakespeare.
But this means, and this was my whole point, that there is an
underlying relationship or an unexpected parallelism between the death
of Socrates and Falstaff. One that Jowett either explicitly or
implicitly sensed.
In any case it seems to me we are obligated to explain it.
We can avoid this by saying its purely coincidental, however, this
will not do for several reasons. First death is a very individual
sort of process. These two deaths are, medically speaking, so
overwhelmingly similar as to rule out coincidence.
Moreover Falstaff cannot have died of the plague, let alone of a
"fever" as it was rumored. The Hostess' account is far to detailed to
allow us that option. She says nothing at all about a "fever."
So Falstaff's death is overwhelmingly similar to the death of
Socrates, a death we know was caused, rather than natural, and
accomplished by hemlock.
I suppose we should consider the possibility that Price Hal, then King
Henry V, had his old teacher poisoned. Bloom is correct to note the
Prince has become "murderous" towards Falstaff and we know he hangs
poor Pistol. King James was suspected of poisoning Prince Henry...by
his wife and Coke no less. So we can hardly rule it out.
On the other hand, its far less complicated to simply suppose
Shakespeare was alluding to the death of Socrates. This is indeed a
powerful and enriching allusion, one that would expand our knowledge
of the text and cast considerable light on the character of Falstaff
or rather on its foregrounding. It would make Bloom's hunch that
Falstaff was intended to be an Elizabethan Socrates entirely correct.
However this leads us to the problem of how the Author came by such a
detailed knowledge of Socrates' death?
Xenophon's account of Socrates' final moments includes a jest that
Shakespeare seems to know, about which I shall speak later, but it
does not give the detailed clinical account that is to be found, so
far as I know, only in the *Phaedo.*
It is thus to the *Phaedo* to which scholars must look for the
Author's knowledge of Socrates' manner of death, which he so closely
models Falstaff's death upon...so closely that English translators of
the *Phaedo* working nearly four centuries later will find themselves
obligated to.
There are numerous examples of the Author's translations catching the
ear of subsequent translators, including William Warner and the
mysterious "T. S.," who frequently finds Shakespearisms on the tip of
his tongue and, depending on date, may have borrowed from Shakespeare
in his treatment of *Cardenio.*
In any case, the way is clear enough. Shakespeare knew, in
considerable detail, the circumstances of Socrates's death and he drew
deliberate parallels or allusions to them in the writing of *Henry V,*
where he suggests, nearly in the clear, that the manner of Falstaff's
death was the same as Socrates'. What is not clear is how he came by
this knowledge. I know there were Latin translations of Plato, I even
know that John Gresshop, Marlowe's headmaster at the Kings School, had
such a translation...but judging from its value it cannot have been a
"complete works." Anyone know an Latin editions of the *Phaedo* from
the period?
john
John Baker
Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
"Chance favors the prepared mind." Louis Pasteur
Robin Hamilton
> the period?
There were at least two complete Latin translations of Plato at this time.
The best-known would be that of Marsilio Ficino in the lateish 15thC (I
don't have the exact date to hand). There was also one by Serrerius (I'm
not sure if that spelling is accurate!). Both would be in print, and
probably fairly widespread in England, by Shakespeare's time.
Socrates and Falstaff, of course, were both accused of corrupting the
youth -- Falstaff of Hal, Socrates of Athens; and Falstaff is arraigned by
the lord Chief Justice, Socrates by the Laws of Athens.
Robin Hamilton
wryan
Just a small point -- in an era when the polemics of religion were more
popular than today, Plato would have been know and discussed, even by
people who had no Greek and little Latin. I would suspect that segments of
Plato were available in translation (and even, if not, there was no
shortage of Classicists who could read an interpret the texts) and were
discussed in conjunction with Christian theology by Christians of all
stripes and beliefs. Plato was considered to be a pre-cursor of Christ by
some Christians. There were even sects of Plato-Christians who pushed for
his canonization, and almost succeeded (There was a precedent. The Jewish
priest who circumcised Christ-- whose name I can't recall -- was canonized.)
Really, the Platonic notions of "soul" and the "ideal of the good" are not
incompatible with Christian belief. Mix that with a little Mithras and
Judaism, and a touch of Herculean mystery, and you're 7/8 of the way towards
Christianity. In any event, Plato contributed heavily to the evolution of
Christian belief, and Platonic ideas were insinuated into Christian
theology.
I think comparing the Death of Falstaff to that of Socrates is a bit of
stretch, if you're arguing that some philosophical point was being made by
WS. Personally, although I was supposed to be profoundly moved by the
tale, I never found the Death of Socrates to be as touching as that of fat
old Falstaff, heartbroken when abandoned by the prince. In fact, I always
found Plato more than a little dissatisfying. (This probably means I'm a
barbarian at heart, but really, his condemnation of Euthyphro was rather
stupid, and all that nonsense about creating the ideal society led by
philosopher-kings with the people stratified into implacable castes and held
there by a myth, is a bit silly, isn't it?) B.F Stone argues rather
persuasively that Socrates was, more or less, a fascist who had supported a
brutal dictatorship that had recently been overthrown by the Athenians.
He was condemned not just for philosophizing, but for continuing to preach
the efficacy of dictatorship over democracy. That was how he was "corrupting
the youth of the city." To the Athenians, it was a legitimate accusation
since two of his former students and associates, Critias and Charmides, had
been responsible for heading a coalition of the rich and powerful (the
Thirty) that overthrew Athenian democracy in 404. The citizens of the
restored Democracy in 403, who had suffered under the iron rule of The
Thirty, while they offered amnesty to collaborators, were properly
incensed by the unrepentant fascism of Socrates.
They didn't condemn him to death, by the way. Socrates, by arguing for a
"punishment" that would have given him a place of honor and put him on the
city's largesse for the rest of his life, affronted the jurors with his
arrogance and complete lack of repentance, and left them little choice.
(Imagine how the citizens of, say, Boston, would have felt if, after 1783,
a powerful and persuasive Tory minister had remained in one of their richest
churches and had continued to preach that British monarchy was God's way
while American patriots were the spawn of Satan. That wouldn't have
happened, though, since after Yorktown we exiled all the prominent Tories
who hadn't had the sense to flee.) The Athenians offered Socrates exile or
death (as we did with Tories). What else could they do? If he remained, the
poison of his continued teaching would be an ever-present danger, and
Athenians, who had lost their democracy twice, in 411 and 404 (and had a
nearly did so again in 401), had had enough of rule by thugs. Socrates
could have gone to Sparta, where he would have been welcomed, since he had
been a vocal admirer of the Spartans. Instead (if, indeed, the story is
true) he took the hemlock, dramatically dying in the company of his friends
and students, allowing his wife and children only the briefest, and
coldest, visit.
There is something about the Death of Socrates that seems anachronistically
to invoke Fascist (or for that matter, Communist -- totalitarian regimes all
tend to adulate the same kinds of heroes and martyrs) tacky
sentimentalities, isn't there? The tight circle of friends, the immensely
brave self-sacrificial act, the very masculine final environment, the
disdain for family, the self-murder as the ultimate act of unrepentant
aggression against one's enemies, the striving for martyrdom and
immortality, the theatrical quality of it all, Socrates consoling his
cohorts while his limbs grow cold and tears stream down their faces. Where
do we find all this artificiality and staginess in the death of Falstaff? In
my opinion, WS was more honest a writer than Plato, and more worthy. This
sort of propaganda was beneath him.
Will
"Robin Hamilton" <robin.h...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:979j7n$2mf$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
alkibia...@my-deja.com
wrote:
Will,
A few comments:
>Robin:
>
>Just a small point -- in an era when the polemics of religion were more
>popular than today, Plato would have been know and discussed, even by
>people who had no Greek and little Latin. I would suspect that segments of
>Plato were available in translation (and even, if not, there was no
>shortage of Classicists who could read an interpret the texts) and were
>discussed in conjunction with Christian theology by Christians of all
>stripes and beliefs. Plato was considered to be a pre-cursor of Christ by
>some Christians. There were even sects of Plato-Christians who pushed for
>his canonization, and almost succeeded (There was a precedent. The Jewish
>priest who circumcised Christ-- whose name I can't recall -- was canonized.)
>Really, the Platonic notions of "soul" and the "ideal of the good" are not
>incompatible with Christian belief. Mix that with a little Mithras and
>Judaism, and a touch of Herculean mystery, and you're 7/8 of the way towards
>Christianity. In any event, Plato contributed heavily to the evolution of
>Christian belief, and Platonic ideas were insinuated into Christian
>theology.
Saying Plato contributed heavily to Christian belief is like saying
Shake-Speare contributed heavily to Victorian sentimental-secular
post-Christian morality.
>
>I think comparing the Death of Falstaff to that of Socrates is a bit of
>stretch, if you're arguing that some philosophical point was being made by
>WS. Personally, although I was supposed to be profoundly moved by the
>tale, I never found the Death of Socrates to be as touching as that of fat
>old Falstaff, heartbroken when abandoned by the prince. In fact, I always
>found Plato more than a little dissatisfying. (This probably means I'm a
>barbarian at heart,
Plato would have respected that, of course.
but really, his condemnation of Euthyphro was rather
>stupid,
Didn't he condemn him for not knowing what is piety? Or did you think
he was condemning him for prosecuting his father's murder of the
slave?
and all that nonsense about creating the ideal society led by
>philosopher-kings with the people stratified into implacable castes and held
>there by a myth, is a bit silly, isn't it?)
Sure, easy to say -- but pretty accurate, no?
B.F Stone argues rather
>persuasively that Socrates was, more or less, a fascist who had supported a
>brutal dictatorship that had recently been overthrown by the Athenians.
Yeah. Socrates was out in front on all the charges against those
manning the barricades... Read the Charmides and tell me how thrilled
Socrates was up in Thrace, freezing his ass off, and then coming back
and finding Critias, one of the ones who pulled the strings to get him
and the others up there in the first place, hanging out in the steam
room with all the young boys...
>
>He was condemned not just for philosophizing, but for continuing to preach
Preach? Preach??
>the efficacy of dictatorship over democracy. That was how he was "corrupting
>the youth of the city."
Not by a long shot. It's exactly the opposite. Who are the ones in
the Apology he says are against him? The high and mighty, the wise,
the ones he's been questioning since he received his instructions from
the CIC up at Delphi.
To the Athenians, it was a legitimate accusation
>since two of his former students and associates, Critias and Charmides, had
>been responsible for heading a coalition of the rich and powerful (the
>Thirty) that overthrew Athenian democracy in 404.
Where exactly do we know that Critias and Charmides were "associates"?
The Platonic dialogs on this, at least, are pretty clear about their
not being in full sympathy with Socrates. Consider how Charmides, for
example, ends. Critias and Charmides get together and make the old
argument from authority on him...
The citizens of the
>restored Democracy in 403, who had suffered under the iron rule of The
>Thirty, while they offered amnesty to collaborators, were properly
>incensed by the unrepentant fascism of Socrates.
Yeah, right.
>
>They didn't condemn him to death, by the way. Socrates, by arguing for a
>"punishment" that would have given him a place of honor and put him on the
>city's largesse for the rest of his life, affronted the jurors with his
>arrogance and complete lack of repentance, and left them little choice.
"Complete lack of repentance" I can agree with; but arrogance?
Arrogance??
>(Imagine how the citizens of, say, Boston, would have felt if, after 1783,
>a powerful and persuasive Tory minister had remained in one of their richest
>churches and had continued to preach that British monarchy was God's way
>while American patriots were the spawn of Satan.
Art: He's bad-mouthing Lord Verulam again.
That wouldn't have
>happened, though, since after Yorktown we exiled all the prominent Tories
>who hadn't had the sense to flee.)
They promptly crossed the border into Canada and opened up strip
joints to corrupt the newly founded American youth...
The Athenians offered Socrates exile or
>death (as we did with Tories).
Socrates was a long cry from being an Athenian Tory. Look at how
forced the conversation is in, for example, Laches. Note how in
Symposium he is said almost never to be seen bathed and well shod. A
Tory? A Tory??
What else could they do? If he remained, the
>poison of his continued teaching would be an ever-present danger, and
>Athenians, who had lost their democracy twice, in 411 and 404 (and had a
>nearly did so again in 401), had had enough of rule by thugs. Socrates
>could have gone to Sparta, where he would have been welcomed, since he had
>been a vocal admirer of the Spartans.
Not quite.
Instead (if, indeed, the story is
>true) he took the hemlock, dramatically dying in the company of his friends
>and students, allowing his wife and children only the briefest, and
>coldest, visit.
It's pretty clear that Plato was the dramatic one, not Secartes.
If memory serves me, the Phaedo says something like 'he spent a pretty
long time with his wife and kids', so to say it was brief has no
textual backing (and there are varying aural traditions); and I'm not
sure where you think you have support in asserting that he was cold
toward them, though it could very well be the case.
>
>There is something about the Death of Socrates that seems anachronistically
>to invoke Fascist (or for that matter, Communist -- totalitarian regimes all
>tend to adulate the same kinds of heroes and martyrs) tacky
>sentimentalities, isn't there? The tight circle of friends, the immensely
>brave self-sacrificial act, the very masculine final environment, the
>disdain for family, the self-murder as the ultimate act of unrepentant
>aggression against one's enemies, the striving for martyrdom and
>immortality, the theatrical quality of it all, Socrates consoling his
>cohorts while his limbs grow cold and tears stream down their faces. Where
>do we find all this artificiality and staginess in the death of Falstaff? In
>my opinion, WS was more honest a writer than Plato, and more worthy.
Worthy of what?
This
>sort of propaganda was beneath him.
Beneath? Beneath??
>
>Will
- Al
wryan
<alkibia...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:5rsi9t0ae25ij4can...@4ax.com...
I'm not going to belabor the point, but Christian theology is heavily
dependent on Platonic concepts. This is no original observation, and
vitually anyone who studies the history of Christian thought encounters it.
The bald fact that there was a movement to canonize Plato, and a
"monastery" of Christian devotees to Plato existed in Italy, attests to the
compatibility of certain Platonic ideas and those of Christians. The
argument for his canonization claimed that he was inspired by God to help
prepare the world for Christ by introducing the concepts of the immortal
soul, and the ideal of the "good," which was interpreted by them to apply
to an all- good, single God. I'm not arguing their viewpoint, just
restating it from remnants of memory that adhere from an undergraduate
studies.
>
> >
> >I think comparing the Death of Falstaff to that of Socrates is a bit of
> >stretch, if you're arguing that some philosophical point was being made
by
> >WS. Personally, although I was supposed to be profoundly moved by the
> >tale, I never found the Death of Socrates to be as touching as that of
fat
> >old Falstaff, heartbroken when abandoned by the prince. In fact, I
always
> >found Plato more than a little dissatisfying. (This probably means I'm a
> >barbarian at heart,
>
> Plato would have respected that, of course.
>
> but really, his condemnation of Euthyphro was rather
> >stupid,
>
> Didn't he condemn him for not knowing what is piety? Or did you think
> he was condemning him for prosecuting his father's murder of the
> slave?
No. The argument degenerated into one of Plato's typically sophomoric
digressions. Instead of focusing on the inherent evil of the father's
actions, Plato diverts the conversation into an impossible discussion about
the nature of piety and the concept of what is good and moral, a discussion
he knows is endless and confusing. (Incidentally, one doesn't need an
absolute definition of Piety or goodness to condemn murder. The purely
pragmatic argument that society would unravel if murder were condoned is
good enough.) His contempt for the young man's case is evident, as is his
open disdain for the worker who has died. There is not one whisper of
compassion for the victim or outrage at the father's act of manslaughter,
only an incessant attempt to invert the situation, and blame and confuse the
youth, whom he portrays as stupid and a bit pompous, rather than sincere
and concerned.
For me, I could live with the Euthyphros of this world. Plato's callous
manipulation of the argument, however, chills me.
>
> and all that nonsense about creating the ideal society led by
> >philosopher-kings with the people stratified into implacable castes and
held
> >there by a myth, is a bit silly, isn't it?)
>
> Sure, easy to say -- but pretty accurate, no?
Pardon? Accurate? In what sense? Where and when have there ever been poor
philosopher-kings who justly ruled a society happily bound into rigid
castes?
>
> B.F Stone argues rather
> >persuasively that Socrates was, more or less, a fascist who had
supported a
> >brutal dictatorship that had recently been overthrown by the Athenians.
>
> Yeah. Socrates was out in front on all the charges against those
> manning the barricades... Read the Charmides and tell me how thrilled
> Socrates was up in Thrace, freezing his ass off, and then coming back
> and finding Critias, one of the ones who pulled the strings to get him
> and the others up there in the first place, hanging out in the steam
> room with all the young boys...
>
> >
> >He was condemned not just for philosophizing, but for continuing to
preach
>
> Preach? Preach??
Yeah, preach. Whether it's through direct exhortation or by creating a
funnel of logic through which you draw people -- the Socratic method -- the
effect is to put forward an uncontested viewpoint. I've know a few Jesuits
who were pretty good at using the Socratic technique to paint a young
scholar into a philosophical corner. It's really a rather dishonest and
insidious technique. Socrates used it to contrive a path toward a conclusion
he had already made. He starts with the conclusion then funnels one toward
it in his dialogues, ignoring or avoiding any discussion that would lead to
a conclusion other than his. For a few years I taught a seminar, Readings
in Literature and Management, for evening students in a business program
(they were seeking a degree). The first reading was Plato's "Republic."
It's one thing to sit in a class full of adolescents who are in awe of a
teacher and who greedily devour the stock discussion of Justice. It's quite
another to sit in a class with jaded adults who can raise a thousand
questions Plato never considered, or, in all likelihood, simply ignored
or avoided. The shallowness and contrivance of much of his argument become
evident.
>
> >the efficacy of dictatorship over democracy. That was how he was
"corrupting
> >the youth of the city."
>
> Not by a long shot. It's exactly the opposite. Who are the ones in
> the Apology he says are against him? The high and mighty, the wise,
> the ones he's been questioning since he received his instructions from
> the CIC up at Delphi.
>
That's what Plato put in his mouth. Stone argues rather well -- from other
contemproary sources -- that the outrage of the citizens toward him was
probably well-deserved.
> To the Athenians, it was a legitimate accusation
> >since two of his former students and associates, Critias and Charmides,
had
> >been responsible for heading a coalition of the rich and powerful (the
> >Thirty) that overthrew Athenian democracy in 404.
>
> Where exactly do we know that Critias and Charmides were "associates"?
> The Platonic dialogs on this, at least, are pretty clear about their
> not being in full sympathy with Socrates. Consider how Charmides, for
> example, ends. Critias and Charmides get together and make the old
> argument from authority on him...
Look, I don't dispute this, but you're only using Plato's sources, and he
had an interest in portraying only one side of the story.
>
> The citizens of the
> >restored Democracy in 403, who had suffered under the iron rule of The
> >Thirty, while they offered amnesty to collaborators, were properly
> >incensed by the unrepentant fascism of Socrates.
>
> Yeah, right.
>
> >
> >They didn't condemn him to death, by the way. Socrates, by arguing for
a
> >"punishment" that would have given him a place of honor and put him on
the
> >city's largesse for the rest of his life, affronted the jurors with his
> >arrogance and complete lack of repentance, and left them little choice.
>
> "Complete lack of repentance" I can agree with; but arrogance?
> Arrogance??
What is it when you're condemned and instead of allowing at least a sliver
of compromise which could save you, you insist you are right and you should
be given a place of honor and fed every day? Is that humility?
>
>
> >(Imagine how the citizens of, say, Boston, would have felt if, after
1783,
> >a powerful and persuasive Tory minister had remained in one of their
richest
> >churches and had continued to preach that British monarchy was God's way
> >while American patriots were the spawn of Satan.
>
> Art: He's bad-mouthing Lord Verulam again.
>
> That wouldn't have
> >happened, though, since after Yorktown we exiled all the prominent
Tories
> >who hadn't had the sense to flee.)
>
> They promptly crossed the border into Canada and opened up strip
> joints to corrupt the newly founded American youth...
>
They were ORDERED out, and their property was confiscated. If I'm not
mistaken almost 100,000 were ordered to leave.
> The Athenians offered Socrates exile or
> >death (as we did with Tories).
>
I didn't call him a Tory. I'm just demonstrating that the choice between
exile and death (or at least utter misery), isn't a strange or unusual
punishment when tyrrany is overthrown, not even in the history of this
country.
> Socrates was a long cry from being an Athenian Tory. Look at how
> forced the conversation is in, for example, Laches. Note how in
> Symposium he is said almost never to be seen bathed and well shod. A
> Tory? A Tory??
OK. He wasn't a Tory. I never said he was a Tory.
>
> What else could they do? If he remained, the
> >poison of his continued teaching would be an ever-present danger, and
> >Athenians, who had lost their democracy twice, in 411 and 404 (and had
a
> >nearly did so again in 401), had had enough of rule by thugs. Socrates
> >could have gone to Sparta, where he would have been welcomed, since he
had
> >been a vocal admirer of the Spartans.
>
> Not quite.
Not quite? He found a great many things about them to be admirable. But
Sparta is just one of the places he could have gone.
>
> Instead (if, indeed, the story is
> >true) he took the hemlock, dramatically dying in the company of his
friends
> >and students, allowing his wife and children only the briefest, and
> >coldest, visit.
>
> It's pretty clear that Plato was the dramatic one, not Secartes.
Yes, of course. Plato was the myth maker, and Socrates, as we know him,
was largely his creation.
>
> If memory serves me, the Phaedo says something like 'he spent a pretty
> long time with his wife and kids', so to say it was brief has no
> textual backing (and there are varying aural traditions); and I'm not
> sure where you think you have support in asserting that he was cold
> toward them, though it could very well be the case.
>
If memory serves me, they stood outside the door all day long and Socrates
only reluctantly admitted them after being urged by the others to do so.
They seem to have said very little to one another, and Socrates dismissed
them well before he died. In any event, they didn't seem to figure into his
decision to martyr himself, as they should have.
> >
> >There is something about the Death of Socrates that seems
anachronistically
> >to invoke Fascist (or for that matter, Communist -- totalitarian regimes
all
> >tend to adulate the same kinds of heroes and martyrs) tacky
> >sentimentalities, isn't there? The tight circle of friends, the
immensely
> >brave self-sacrificial act, the very masculine final environment, the
> >disdain for family, the self-murder as the ultimate act of unrepentant
> >aggression against one's enemies, the striving for martyrdom and
> >immortality, the theatrical quality of it all, Socrates consoling his
> >cohorts while his limbs grow cold and tears stream down their faces.
Where
> >do we find all this artificiality and staginess in the death of Falstaff?
In
> >my opinion, WS was more honest a writer than Plato, and more worthy.
>
> Worthy of what?
Reading and contemplation. I must admit I've never found Philosophy to be
either consoling or stirring, and, as for deepening my understanding of God
and the universe, it's done little. At least in WS I find the timeless
problems of man depicted with honesty, beauty and profound compassion, and,
God knows, I'd rather read the hundred pages of Hamlet for the thousandth
time than a single page of Kant.
But that's just my opinion.
Will
alkibia...@my-deja.com
wrote:
Yes, the pragmatic argument is as said. I will have your observations
in mind when I go back and read the dialog again. I tend to agree
that Plato evinces contempt for the pompous prosecutor. But one thing
that, in my opinion, makes Plato worth reading is the fact that he
portrays the scene in such a way as to suggest that Socrates indeed
had a somewhat different opinion regarding the crime.
(This is perhaps too much of a tangent, but it seems worth mentioning
that Dostoevsky's father was allegedly murdered by one of his serfs.)
>
>For me, I could live with the Euthyphros of this world. Plato's callous
>manipulation of the argument, however, chills me.
As Plato was likely chilled by the inferences following from the
argument of Euthyphro.
>
>>
>> and all that nonsense about creating the ideal society led by
>> >philosopher-kings with the people stratified into implacable castes and
>held
>> >there by a myth, is a bit silly, isn't it?)
>>
>> Sure, easy to say -- but pretty accurate, no?
>
>Pardon? Accurate? In what sense? Where and when have there ever been poor
>philosopher-kings who justly ruled a society happily bound into rigid
>castes?
Nowhere, of course. Accurate in the sense that it is precisely
nonsense, serving an ironic point being made in the Republic. I am
sure Plato felt this irony in the events surrounding the demise of
Dion. This is further irony, where the writing resonates with the
life.
Did the jaded adults have any interest in reading Plato? I find that
hard to believe unless they were engaged in tearing him down and
showing up his arguments -- a self-congratulatory exercise (and quite
possibly a good deal of fun for them) which would not have been
possible at the time he wrote. Yet another irony, of course.
>> >the efficacy of dictatorship over democracy. That was how he was
>"corrupting
>> >the youth of the city."
>>
>> Not by a long shot. It's exactly the opposite. Who are the ones in
>> the Apology he says are against him? The high and mighty, the wise,
>> the ones he's been questioning since he received his instructions from
>> the CIC up at Delphi.
>>
>That's what Plato put in his mouth. Stone argues rather well -- from other
>contemproary sources -- that the outrage of the citizens toward him was
>probably well-deserved.
I'll have to take a look at this book sometime. I'm curious if he
discusses the citizens as if they all had the same point of view on
the matter. After all, there aren't many who have the high spirit of
an Anytus.
>
>> To the Athenians, it was a legitimate accusation
>> >since two of his former students and associates, Critias and Charmides,
>had
>> >been responsible for heading a coalition of the rich and powerful (the
>> >Thirty) that overthrew Athenian democracy in 404.
>>
>> Where exactly do we know that Critias and Charmides were "associates"?
>> The Platonic dialogs on this, at least, are pretty clear about their
>> not being in full sympathy with Socrates. Consider how Charmides, for
>> example, ends. Critias and Charmides get together and make the old
>> argument from authority on him...
>
>Look, I don't dispute this, but you're only using Plato's sources, and he
>had an interest in portraying only one side of the story.
Fair enough. I will try and have a look at the I.M. Stone book.
>
>>
>> The citizens of the
>> >restored Democracy in 403, who had suffered under the iron rule of The
>> >Thirty, while they offered amnesty to collaborators, were properly
>> >incensed by the unrepentant fascism of Socrates.
>>
>> Yeah, right.
>>
>> >
>> >They didn't condemn him to death, by the way. Socrates, by arguing for
>a
>> >"punishment" that would have given him a place of honor and put him on
>the
>> >city's largesse for the rest of his life, affronted the jurors with his
>> >arrogance and complete lack of repentance, and left them little choice.
>>
>> "Complete lack of repentance" I can agree with; but arrogance?
>> Arrogance??
>
>What is it when you're condemned and instead of allowing at least a sliver
>of compromise which could save you, you insist you are right and you should
>be given a place of honor and fed every day? Is that humility?
No. Pride.
>
>>
>>
>> >(Imagine how the citizens of, say, Boston, would have felt if, after
>1783,
>> >a powerful and persuasive Tory minister had remained in one of their
>richest
>> >churches and had continued to preach that British monarchy was God's way
>> >while American patriots were the spawn of Satan.
>>
>> Art: He's bad-mouthing Lord Verulam again.
>>
>> That wouldn't have
>> >happened, though, since after Yorktown we exiled all the prominent
>Tories
>> >who hadn't had the sense to flee.)
>>
>> They promptly crossed the border into Canada and opened up strip
>> joints to corrupt the newly founded American youth...
>>
>
>They were ORDERED out, and their property was confiscated. If I'm not
>mistaken almost 100,000 were ordered to leave.
Yes, among whom were the Shippens of Philadelphia.
>
>> The Athenians offered Socrates exile or
>> >death (as we did with Tories).
>>
>
>I didn't call him a Tory. I'm just demonstrating that the choice between
>exile and death (or at least utter misery), isn't a strange or unusual
>punishment when tyrrany is overthrown, not even in the history of this
>country.
Agreed, and a point well made.
>
>> Socrates was a long cry from being an Athenian Tory. Look at how
>> forced the conversation is in, for example, Laches. Note how in
>> Symposium he is said almost never to be seen bathed and well shod. A
>> Tory? A Tory??
>
>OK. He wasn't a Tory. I never said he was a Tory.
>
>>
>> What else could they do? If he remained, the
>> >poison of his continued teaching would be an ever-present danger, and
>> >Athenians, who had lost their democracy twice, in 411 and 404 (and had
>a
>> >nearly did so again in 401), had had enough of rule by thugs. Socrates
>> >could have gone to Sparta, where he would have been welcomed, since he
>had
>> >been a vocal admirer of the Spartans.
>>
>> Not quite.
>
>Not quite? He found a great many things about them to be admirable. But
>Sparta is just one of the places he could have gone.
Yes. Crete is another.
>
>>
>> Instead (if, indeed, the story is
>> >true) he took the hemlock, dramatically dying in the company of his
>friends
>> >and students, allowing his wife and children only the briefest, and
>> >coldest, visit.
>>
>> It's pretty clear that Plato was the dramatic one, not Secartes.
>
>Yes, of course. Plato was the myth maker, and Socrates, as we know him,
>was largely his creation.
Yes. But it is worth noting that Plato left hints throughout his work
that he had mixed feelings about this role, you know. It's funny, but
I can just see Plato sitting across the table from Socrates over a cup
of coffee and having on the tip of his tongue (but never saying it),
"God dammit! I'm not going to be your Plato!" Plato was a proud man,
you see.
>
>>
>> If memory serves me, the Phaedo says something like 'he spent a pretty
>> long time with his wife and kids', so to say it was brief has no
>> textual backing (and there are varying aural traditions); and I'm not
>> sure where you think you have support in asserting that he was cold
>> toward them, though it could very well be the case.
>>
>If memory serves me, they stood outside the door all day long and Socrates
>only reluctantly admitted them after being urged by the others to do so.
>They seem to have said very little to one another, and Socrates dismissed
>them well before he died. In any event, they didn't seem to figure into his
>decision to martyr himself, as they should have.
Touche'.
>> >
>> >There is something about the Death of Socrates that seems
>anachronistically
>> >to invoke Fascist (or for that matter, Communist -- totalitarian regimes
>all
>> >tend to adulate the same kinds of heroes and martyrs) tacky
>> >sentimentalities, isn't there? The tight circle of friends, the
>immensely
>> >brave self-sacrificial act, the very masculine final environment, the
>> >disdain for family, the self-murder as the ultimate act of unrepentant
>> >aggression against one's enemies, the striving for martyrdom and
>> >immortality, the theatrical quality of it all, Socrates consoling his
>> >cohorts while his limbs grow cold and tears stream down their faces.
>Where
>> >do we find all this artificiality and staginess in the death of Falstaff?
>In
>> >my opinion, WS was more honest a writer than Plato, and more worthy.
>>
>> Worthy of what?
>
>Reading and contemplation. I must admit I've never found Philosophy to be
>either consoling or stirring, and, as for deepening my understanding of God
>and the universe, it's done little. At least in WS I find the timeless
>problems of man depicted with honesty, beauty and profound compassion, and,
>God knows, I'd rather read the hundred pages of Hamlet for the thousandth
>time than a single page of Kant.
Yes, philosophy can be and is different things to different people. I
was quite surprised when I discovered I had a taste for Kant. Never
thought I would.
>
>But that's just my opinion.
Which I respect, as your opinion.
>
>Will
>
- Alkibiades
John W. Kennedy
> Saying Plato contributed heavily to Christian belief is like saying
> Shake-Speare contributed heavily to Victorian sentimental-secular
> post-Christian morality.
He contributed _very_ heavily to Christian thought prior to the 12th
century, when Aquinas and others put the Western church into a more
Aristotelian way of thought.
--
John W. Kennedy
(Working from my laptop)
John W. Kennedy
> (Incidentally, one doesn't need an
> absolute definition of Piety or goodness to condemn murder. The purely
> pragmatic argument that society would unravel if murder were condoned is
> good enough.)
No it isn't. First you have to demonstrate that society unraveling
would be a Bad Thing.
> Pardon? Accurate? In what sense? Where and when have there ever been poor
> philosopher-kings who justly ruled a society happily bound into rigid
> castes?
It would be an improvement on a government by a spoiled rich kid with no
education to speak of....
William Tenn's classic satire, "Null-P", seems nearer and nearer to
straight reportage (Oh, look, I've just paraphrased Jowett's "Phaedo"!)
every day.
> Yes, of course. Plato was the myth maker, and Socrates, as we know him,
> was largely his creation.
Plato's Socrates does not seem to differ all that much from Xenophon's.
John W. Kennedy
> >They were ORDERED out, and their property was confiscated. If I'm not
> >mistaken almost 100,000 were ordered to leave.
>
> Yes, among whom were the Shippens of Philadelphia.
The Shippens were, after all, rather a sore point.
john_baker
Thank you Robin Hamilton...I'll see how they read....but perhaps
someone on line has access to them and will give us a hand here...
john_baker
wrote:
>Robin:
This I will not let pass without a remark. Stone is a fool regarding
Socrates and Plato...he's a supporter of the opinion that the state
can kill whoever it pleases and doesn't have the least conception of
Platonic or Socratic irony. I've addressed this before, so its always
good to readdress it. Stone doesn't even understand that in the Laws,
Plato sets up a government that would not have the power to deal the
same with Socrates for the same crime...because it draws a line
between those who converse with young men for the own good and those
who use young men as sexual objects or who turn young men against
their cities....read Strauss' commentary on the Laws here if you have
trouble with the original...
>
>He was condemned not just for philosophizing, but for continuing to preach
>the efficacy of dictatorship over democracy. That was how he was "corrupting
>the youth of the city."
bs. see above. Euthyphro turned his own father in....
>To the Athenians, it was a legitimate accusation
>since two of his former students and associates, Critias and Charmides, had
>been responsible for heading a coalition of the rich and powerful (the
>Thirty) that overthrew Athenian democracy in 404. The citizens of the
>restored Democracy in 403, who had suffered under the iron rule of The
>Thirty, while they offered amnesty to collaborators, were properly
>incensed by the unrepentant fascism of Socrates.
If you think Socrates was a fascist you don't know beans about this
subject...
>
>They didn't condemn him to death, by the way. Socrates, by arguing for a
>"punishment" that would have given him a place of honor and put him on the
>city's largesse for the rest of his life, affronted the jurors with his
>arrogance and complete lack of repentance, and left them little choice.
>(Imagine how the citizens of, say, Boston, would have felt if, after 1783,
>a powerful and persuasive Tory minister had remained in one of their richest
>churches and had continued to preach that British monarchy was God's way
>while American patriots were the spawn of Satan. That wouldn't have
>happened, though, since after Yorktown we exiled all the prominent Tories
>who hadn't had the sense to flee.) The Athenians offered Socrates exile or
>death (as we did with Tories). What else could they do? If he remained, the
>poison of his continued teaching would be an ever-present danger, and
>Athenians, who had lost their democracy twice, in 411 and 404 (and had a
>nearly did so again in 401), had had enough of rule by thugs. Socrates
>could have gone to Sparta, where he would have been welcomed, since he had
>been a vocal admirer of the Spartans. Instead (if, indeed, the story is
>true) he took the hemlock, dramatically dying in the company of his friends
>and students, allowing his wife and children only the briefest, and
>coldest, visit.
what bunk...try reading the Republic over...you must have been reading
Conford's translation that leaves out the meat of the discussion
because he like Stone believes Plato and Socrates believed in
censorship!!!!
>
>There is something about the Death of Socrates that seems anachronistically
>to invoke Fascist (or for that matter, Communist -- totalitarian regimes all
>tend to adulate the same kinds of heroes and martyrs) tacky
>sentimentalities, isn't there? The tight circle of friends, the immensely
>brave self-sacrificial act, the very masculine final environment, the
>disdain for family, the self-murder as the ultimate act of unrepentant
>aggression against one's enemies, the striving for martyrdom and
>immortality, the theatrical quality of it all, Socrates consoling his
>cohorts while his limbs grow cold and tears stream down their faces. Where
>do we find all this artificiality and staginess in the death of Falstaff? In
>my opinion, WS was more honest a writer than Plato, and more worthy. This
>sort of propaganda was beneath him.
bs. Sk never says a word. Just like Plato. So both are "dishonest"
in the sense of Aristotle's use of the nature or irony...and irony, as
I have pointed out is the wise man's guise...the way they walk among
us without making the rest of us look like fools...and dullards...and
they way the save their necks in totaltarian societies....where guys
like you would vote for their deaths.....and both of their
deaths...you'd kill Socrates and Falstaff for the same
reasons...right?
john
>
>Will
>
>
>"Robin Hamilton" <robin.h...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:979j7n$2mf$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>> > Anyone know an Latin editions of the *Phaedo* from
>> > the period?
>>
>> There were at least two complete Latin translations of Plato at this time.
>> The best-known would be that of Marsilio Ficino in the lateish 15thC (I
>> don't have the exact date to hand). There was also one by Serrerius (I'm
>> not sure if that spelling is accurate!). Both would be in print, and
>> probably fairly widespread in England, by Shakespeare's time.
>>
>> Socrates and Falstaff, of course, were both accused of corrupting the
>> youth -- Falstaff of Hal, Socrates of Athens; and Falstaff is arraigned
>by
>> the lord Chief Justice, Socrates by the Laws of Athens.
>>
>> Robin Hamilton
>>
>>
>
>
John Baker
john_baker
Right on Al!!!!
But I suppose we shouldn't be too hard to an intellegent well read guy
who just isn't the type to understand these things....as Socrates
said..there are places these sorts can't go....and both the dialogues
of Plato and the plays of Shakespeare were designed to give this sort
a slack sail, while giving us a billowed sail....but it is fun to put
a little hot air in thier pipes...
john
John Baker
wryan
"John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:3A9A8984...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net...
> wryan wrote:
> > (Incidentally, one doesn't need an
> > absolute definition of Piety or goodness to condemn murder. The purely
> > pragmatic argument that society would unravel if murder were condoned is
> > good enough.)
>
> No it isn't. First you have to demonstrate that society unraveling
> would be a Bad Thing.
God! What a nihilist. For heaven's sake, John, the New Jersey Shakespeare
festival wasn't good enough to engender all that bitterness. (I saw them do
a few things -- Two Gentlemen from Verona, the history play medley, and
Macbeth back in the 80s. It was in Madison, NJ, if I'm not mistaken.
Millicent Fenwick and I had a smoke together.) Hell, I fought in the only
war America ever lost and I'm less bitter and disappointed than you. I
think. At least most days.
>
> > Pardon? Accurate? In what sense? Where and when have there ever been
poor
> > philosopher-kings who justly ruled a society happily bound into rigid
> > castes?
>
> It would be an improvement on a government by a spoiled rich kid with no
> education to speak of....
Baby Bush, our C-in-C? But he's a Yale man. And he's proven that even a
kid with limits who tries like hell can get an Ivy League education (and a
direct commission in the famed Texas Air Nat Guard) in this great land of
ours. He's an inspiration to everyone with low SATs, a shaky command of
English grammar and vocabulary, and no desire to travel outside the ranch.
And he was elected by a lot of the people.
>
> William Tenn's classic satire, "Null-P", seems nearer and nearer to
> straight reportage (Oh, look, I've just paraphrased Jowett's "Phaedo"!)
> every day.
>
Got me. Never saw or read it.
> > Yes, of course. Plato was the myth maker, and Socrates, as we know
him,
> > was largely his creation.
>
> Plato's Socrates does not seem to differ all that much from Xenophon's.
>
I. F. Stone make a good case. I could never understand the Death of
Socrates. I don't pretend to read Greek, but I must have read and studied
a half dozen different translations of the Death, seen the play both on
stage and on television, and had it thrust at me in four different classes
in high school and college. The accusation, the trial, and the suicide
just made no sense until I read Stone, to whom Socrates is no hero and
Plato a myth-maker. The bare fact that Stone makes sense to an untutored
fool like me doesn't mean that he's right, of course. I just found his
viewpoint more satisfying than that of professors who idolized Socrates.
You may now condemn me for a boor and catalog all of Stone's errors.
Will
wryan
<john baker> wrote in message news:3a9a90bb...@News.localaccess.com...
> in the sense of Aristotle's use of the nature or irony...and irony, as
> I have pointed out is the wise man's guise...the way they walk among
> us without making the rest of us look like fools...and dullards...and
> they way the save their necks in totaltarian societies....where guys
> like you would vote for their deaths.....and both of their
> deaths...you'd kill Socrates and Falstaff for the same
> reasons...right?
>
You may right about Plato's use of irony. Any time I've tried to argue
irony in defense of an author, however, I've been shouted-down, even if,
to me, irony was apparent from the context of the quotation or to whom the
speech is directed. The problem with arguing irony is that you can't prove
it; you can only assert it. Fine, I've been too dense to recognize the
rich irony in Plato's dialogues. Condemn me for a fool.
Socrates, you may recall, was not sentenced to death. As was Athenian
tradition, he was given the chance to advocate for himself and suggest a
suitable punishment, which might have been as simple as a public apology.
Instead, he claimed he should be put on the dole and given a place of honor
in the city (Bloom, incidentally, thinks this should be the way society
treats all philosophers -- with reverence and hand-outs. Or is he just
being ironic?) . Even then he wasn't executed. He was given the choice
between exile and death. He chose death.
As for "guys like me" -- you know nothing about me. You're obviously
intelligent and knowledgeable, so why make a silly ass of yourself with ad
hominem arguments?
wryan
> alkibia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Saying Plato contributed heavily to Christian belief is like saying
> > Shake-Speare contributed heavily to Victorian sentimental-secular
> > post-Christian morality.
>
> He contributed _very_ heavily to Christian thought prior to the 12th
> century, when Aquinas and others put the Western church into a more
> Aristotelian way of thought.
>
> --
regarding Plato and Christian Theology). As a footnote, I remember reading
an article once in which it was claimed that Plato's loathing of interest
(the "earning of money on money") was taken whole into Christian thought,
which condemned money-lending for profit as a sin, although there was no
Biblical basis for such condemnation (there is even a substantial New
Testament argument against any such prohibition.) The result was to inhibit
the growth of commerce and suppress the rehabilitation of the West for
centuries. The Italian Renaissance, the author claimed, was spawned more
by a relaxation of this prohibition than by anything else. Italian bankers,
free to ply their trade (and their swindles) eventually pulled all of Europe
into a new era. By the time of Thomas More, there were so many of them in
England, that citizens rioted against the "Lombards," to whom, it was
thought, all England owed money. I think the case was overmade -- it was
more a confluence of events that made the Renaissance -- but had interest
continuted to be condemned and the condemnation enforced, the Renaissance
would have been a much different thing, if anything at all.
Will
john_baker
I stewed over your account of Socrates' life and final days, which I
gather you garnished mainly from Stone's very biased account.
For a brief overview of Socrates I suggest the Encyclopedia
Britannica's essay by A. E. Taylor.
Taylor assures us that Socrates was not a member of the Thirty, that
Socrates did indeed risk his life when he had alone resisted the
unconstitutional condemnation of the generals by a collective verdict
and "he showed the same courage two years later in the "Terror" of
404. The "thirty" wishing to implicate honorable men in their
proceeding, instructed Socrates, with four others to arrest Leon, one
of their victims. Socrates disobeyed, and says, in Plato's Apology,
that this might have cost him his life but for the counter-revolution
of the next year." (He was once a member of the 500, see Plato
Gorgias 474a...)
The claim was also made that Socrates could easily have escaped his
death by simply submitting to the charges against him, since the
charges weren't of a capital nature. This is also false, just as it
is false to suppose that an exposed author of Richard II could have
survived the Essex Rebellion.
As Taylor notes, "the prosecutors had asked for the penalty of
death..."
So it is quite clear the charges against Socrates were of a capital
nature, just as were the charges against Marlowe in May 1593.
Greek legal tradition allowed the accused to make a
counter-proposition, but this involves capitulation to the charges.
Socrates did not feel he was guilty of either of the two charges,
i.e., "corruption of the young" and "neglect of the gods..."
So he scoffed at a counter-proposal, which did anger the "jury" and
the second vote, this time for the punishment phase, went even further
against him.
It is true that Crito and other others urged Socrates to escape into
exile, but Socrates did not wish to be exiled from the city he loved.
So he stayed and when the month was over and the ship returned, he
took the poison though the "verdict was contrary to fact, because it
had been rendered by a lawful court..."
Socrates knew he was older and that a slower death awaited him. He
choose to use his death as an example for the kind of life he had
lived. An honorable life...a life of the mind as well as arms, for we
know Socrates was brave beyond the average in the military battles of
his City. Socrates never held public office because he believed it
would "compromise his principles."
I hope this factual account will offset the biased and factually false
account offered by Stone. The real picture is clear enough. Socrates
was falsely condemned to death because he was unpopular among the
ruling elite of his City and his unpopularity traced directly to his
courage to call a spade and spade and to resist unconstitutional
authority.
If these are traits that should be punished by death, then, I would
not want to live in such a City or under such a constitution.
Will
rates, more like loan-sharking than banking, although the KJV doesn't seem
to make any distinction between usury and any other form of lending for
interest. In any event, the parable of the rich man who leaves his
servants with money ("talents') would seem to condone it. Quoth I from Mat.
25-27 (King James Version) "Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to
the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with
usury . . ." says the lord to the unworthy servant. The lord, of course, is
The Lord. Is it likely the Messiah would use a sinful practice to
illustrate God's justice? As for the unworthy servant, who didn't invest
with the "exchangers," "And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer
darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." I can't find the
epistle you mention, but in reading the OT texts I think you have to be
carfeful of the context in which the word "usury" is used. Usury seems to be
referred-to in the OT as a common business practice, factoring and
mortgaging being necessary to sustain agriculture and business in a society
of even modest size and complexity. [Isa 24:2] "And it shall be, as with the
people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with
the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as
with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with
the giver of usury to him." Extorting usury from widows and orphans is, of
course, abominable.
Will
"John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:3A9BC5E2...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net...
> wryan wrote:
> > Thank you, John. I thought I was entirely alone in this (at least
> > regarding Plato and Christian Theology). As a footnote, I remember
reading
> > an article once in which it was claimed that Plato's loathing of
interest
> > (the "earning of money on money") was taken whole into Christian
thought,
> > which condemned money-lending for profit as a sin, although there was
no
> > Biblical basis for such condemnation (there is even a substantial New
> > Testament argument against any such prohibition.)
>
> That's not so; there's a very plain OT prohibition, and "usury" appears
> in a long list of sins in one of the epistles. But I have no doubt that
> Plato (and Aristotle after him) provided a philosophical basis for the
> Church; the OT prohibition is a bald one.
>
> Actually, most moral philosophers before Calvin condemn interest.
> Hillel's adroit maneuver that effectively erased the OT law for Jews was
> an exception.
Will
[Deut 23:20.8] Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy
brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee
in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to
possess it.
Will
"Will" <wr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ta3offp...@corp.supernews.com...
Charles Gillen
>Mat. 25-27 (King James Version) "Thou oughtest therefore to have put my
>money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received
>mine own with usury . . ."
Speaking as an old translator (though not of scripture) I feel strongly
the above "usury" is a bald mistake for "interest" since in the context
above the sense is clearly benign rather than malign.
Whatever the original word was, it has to be translated _in context_ and
only be called "usury" when the rate is excessive. Many foreign words
_can_ include a broad spectrum of meanings and the choice of the
appropriate equivalent in another language _must_ depend on context rather
a blind one-for-one equivalency regardless of context.
--
NoSpam address: gillenc at home dot com
Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA
Will
Thank you for the reply. This is departure from Shakespeare, but I'll stay
in it for a little while anyway. My guess is that the translators (perhaps
because of the original text) used "usury" to represent different things,
depending on the context in which it was used. In some cases it's just
business and morally neutral, and in other cases -- e.g. in lending to
widows and orphans -- it's what we would call today "loan-sharking,"
exploitative and abominable. In the Middle Ages, the Christian theory was,
if I'm not mistaken, that loans should be acts of charity, not sought
frivolously nor made with the intent of profiting, a fine theory when the
West was isolated and the Manor system prevailed. As trade recovered,
however, a distinction had to be made between business lending -- factoring
and investing -- and the letting of unsecured personal loans at very high
interest rates.
Will
"Charles Gillen" <see-m...@below.com> wrote in message
news:Xns905A87DC65...@24.2.2.74...
John W. Kennedy
>
> Usury, however, commonly refers to loans made with excessive interest
> rates, more like loan-sharking than banking,
As the republican gondolier said when he found out that he was the lost
son of the King of Barataria, "When I say I detest kings, of course I
mean that I detest _bad_ kings."
> although the KJV doesn't seem
> to make any distinction between usury and any other form of lending for
> interest. In any event, the parable of the rich man who leaves his
> servants with money ("talents') would seem to condone it.
It's a BIG mistake to draw any off-point conclusions from Jesus's
parables. What, after all, about the Unjust Steward? does it mean that
Jesus condoned fiduciary misconduct?
John W. Kennedy
>
> "Will" <wr...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >Mat. 25-27 (King James Version) "Thou oughtest therefore to have put my
> >money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received
> >mine own with usury . . ."
>
> Speaking as an old translator (though not of scripture) I feel strongly
> the above "usury" is a bald mistake for "interest" since in the context
> above the sense is clearly benign rather than malign.
Not a mistake. The meaning of the English word has been altered by
those in whose interest it lay to alter it.
Charles Gillen
>Charles Gillen wrote:
>> Speaking as an old translator (though not of scripture) I feel strongly
>> the above "usury" is a bald mistake for "interest" since in the context
>> above the sense is clearly benign rather than malign.
>Not a mistake. The meaning of the English word has been altered by
>those in whose interest it lay to alter it.
OK, the _contextual_ meaning of the term remains "interest" buttressed by
the understanding that such was also the _original_ meaning of the term,
despite the unfavorable connotation currently attached to it.
Dictionary definition of USURY:
1. The act or practice of lending money at an exhorbitant or illegal rate
of interest.
2. Such an excessive rate of interest.
3. Archaic: The act or practice of lending money at any rate of interest.
4. Obsolete: Interest charged or repaid on such a loan.
[Middle English, from Norman French usurie, from Medieval Latin usuria,
from Latin usura, use of money lent, interest, from usus, use.]
A modern bible version (http://www.ebible.org/bible/WEB/Matthew.htm) also
uses that original meaning: "You ought therefore to have deposited my money
with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received back my own with
interest."
King James: "Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the
exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with
usury."
wr...@gw.total-web.net had introduced "usury" into this thread; on re-
reading his earlier posts I was struck by the thought that perhaps
Christians put an unfavorable spin on that term when they realized how much
they owed to the Jews... which brings us back to Shylock rather than
Falstaff :^)
This thread provides a good reminder that when researching Elizabethan
texts the modern reader must beware of words whose meaning may have changed
with time or place.