Courses:

• Paper Assignment 1 (PDF)
• Paper Assignment 2 (PDF)
• Paper Assignment 3 (PDF)

Over two and one half thousand years ago, at about 750 B.C., in Ionia, a region on the eastward side of the Mediterranean sea, a Greek-speaking bard, a minstrel or singer of songs, composed a lengthy narrative poem about the difficulties and adventures of a warrior named Odysseus as he struggled to come home from a great war, supposedly (as the bard supposed) the largest war that the world had ever seen. The bard did not write his poem down to begin with or even use writing in its composition, but composed it orally, probably running through several versions over the course of many years. Still, at some point soon after its composition either the bard or someone else put his poem into writing, and we may say that not a year has gone by since, and very probably not a day, when no one has been reading of it. This makes the Odyssey, together with its companion-poem, the Iliad, the world's longest-lived narrative with a continuous history of readership. Parts of the Bible may be older, but the Old Testament did not become a single narrative in anything like the form in which we now have it until long after Homer's time; other lengthy narrative poems went out of readership and were forgotten entirely or had to be revived by scholars, or else they came later, like Virgil's Aeneid and Milton's Paradise Lost, and were modeled on Homer.


Who was Homer? Conjectures abound, of course; for the longest time, no one doubted that there was a single author of both the Iliad and the Odyssey, that he was a man, and that his name was Homer, but more lately, some began to suspect that the two major poems were by different hands, if not by several, and there is always someone about willing to defend Samuel Butler's contention that the author of the Odyssey was a woman. Today, most scholars are of the opinion that the two poems have different authorship, but the evidence for this rests only upon differences between them that might be accounted for by the difference in subject-matter and artistic intention and is therefore far from conclusive. In the light of our ignorance on the subject, one scholar (Eric Havelock) proposes that we simply use the name "Homer" to designate not a person at all but the process of composition and transmission that issued in the poems as we have them.

1. Homer's poem begins with an invocation to the Muse. What is the point of this opening passage? It seems to provide some kind of summary of the story that is to come. How adequate is this passage as a summary?
   
   
2. Home was conventionally admired in the ancient world for beginning both the Iliad and the Odyssey "in media res" (Latin for "in the middle of things"), plunging his audience into a dramatic episode in a much larger course of action and only subsequently interpolating information about the larger business of which the episode is a part. Thus the action of the Iliad takes place during the last year of the ten-year seige of Troy, when a quarrel breaks out between two rival commanders on the Greek side, which nearly thwarts the purposes of the war; but the chief episodes of the war get mentioned or alluded to, one way or another, during the course of the poem's limited scope of action. And so (it was said) of the Odyssey, which begins in the tenth year of the wanderings of Odysseus, when the gods decide at last to let him come home from the war, but which, nonetheless manages to recall a good deal of the homecomings of all the heroes at Troy. How adequate is this ancient idea to your sense of the Odyssey? Does it beginning in the middle or at the beginning? How conclusive is its ending? Does it induce a sense of closure?
   
   
3. The Odyssey was divided, long after Homer's day, into six sections of twenty-four "books", one book for each letter of the ancient Greek alphabet. Does the division capture anything of the poem's structure? If you were assigned the task of naming each of the six sections, what title would you assign to each?
   
   
4. It has often been said that with some modest rewriting, one could get rid of the gods in the action of the text, letting (for example) Telemachos make up his mind to search for his father rather than by having Athena put the idea into his head. What would be gained or lost by such a revision? What episodes would present particular difficulties in executing this scheme?
   
   
5. What is the situation in Odysseus's household at the outset of the story? Who are the suitors and what are they doing there? Are the circumstances quite clear or have some assumptions at work in story been lost, due to the passage of time, that would make the initial situation more intelligible? What is the point of Athena's inspiring Telemachos to look for his father? (After all, the search is bound to be unproductive; Odysseus, as we learn, is beyond the power of anyone to find him-he is literally at the end of the world.)
   
   
6. Is Odysseus "fated" to come home? If so, why should he struggle to do so? How does Zeus, in the assembly of the gods, justify the notion that human beings deserve what happens to them?
   
   
7. Do you think that Homer believed in his gods? Questions of atheism to one side, does it make any more or less sense to believe in the existence of the Homeric gods rather than in gods or a God of another kind?
   
   
8. Most people are familiar, at least by hearsay, with the part of the Odyssey comprised by the third section of four books-the so-called "Wanderings of Odysseus". This part of the epic is narrated by Odysseus himself. What difference does it make that he tells the story and Homer reports the telling, rather than using his own words. How does the material in this section-filled with creatures of fantasy-differ from the material in the rest of the epic narrative?
   
   
9. Among his other achievements, Odysseus visits Hades, the land of the dead, and returns alive. Here he meets, among others, the specter of Achilles, who could have had a long but obscure life or a brief but glorious one and chose the latter. What does he think of his choice now that he is in Hades? How would you contrast the two great Homeric heroes, Achilles and Odysseus-the great warrior and the great home-comer?
   
   
10. Plato reports that many admire Homer as "the educator of Hellas and say that he deserves to be taken up as an instructor in the management and culture of human affairs, and that a man ought to regulate the whole of his life by following this poet." (Republic, 606E) Does this opinion make any sense to you? (It seemed foolish to Plato.)
    
    /div>
11. The great critic, C. S. Lewis once tried to contrast the Odyssey unfavorably with both the Iliad and Milton's Paradise Lost by arguing that action of these epic poems made a difference to the world, which was changed forever and all its possibilities refigure by the fall of Troy (in the one case) or the fall of mankind (in the other). It made no difference to the world or even to Greece, argued Lewis, whether Odysseus ever got home or not, and therefore, he thought, the poem was not really epic in its implications. (T.S. Eliot held much the same view.) What is your opinion of Lewis's position?
    
    
12. The world of which Homer speaks is not the world of his audience but a world distant in time, where life is lived differently. Here are some of the differences: Homeric figures do not have any iron weaponry, as Homer's contemporaries did; they use only bronze. They have no cavalry, no systems of writing, they live in vast palaces (on this point, Odysseus is more like Homer's audience; he lives in an ordinary-sized house), they do not colonize neighboring territories and they act rather like pirates - the sea-faring hero's occupation in Homer is looting, not trade. In our own time, we are familiar with kinds of stories that take place in a world permanently gone by-for example, in Western movies and pirate films. What is the function of such recreated past in our own day? How important is it for the story to get the details right in describing such recreated pasts? Why does Homer set his story in a time that is gone forever?

Lecture 6: Two plays by Sophocles : Aeschylus. Agamemnon. Aeschylus. The Oresteia.

The major Greek tragedies were written for a festival taking place at Athens about the time of our Easter. The festival was in honor of Dionysus, a god of ecstatic possession, whose celebrants, touched by the spirit of the god, were supposed to behave in frenzied ways-dance madly, see visions, writhe upon the ground, perform various licentious or destructive acts, and generally act in ways that threaten civic order. In actuality, of course, the worshipers of Dionysus only mimicked such things; they perform rituals-closed to the public-which mimed the deeds of the god, who was (like other gods associated with the advent of Spring) a god of resurrection, having been torn to pieces as a child at the instigation of Hera and been reconstituted and brought to life again by his grandparents, who hid him away, safe from Hera's wrath, for many years. Dionysus's early experiences were said to have driven him periodically mad and initiated a period of wanderings, in which he ranged from Egypt and Libya to India, wreaking much destruction in his madness; in this character he is referred to as Bromius, and he can be (hopefully) propitiated by adopting his worship and miming his madness. It was also said of him that he invented wine, unsurprising in a god whose effects upon his worshipers was much like inebriation.


The festival in Dionysus's name was a festival, accordingly, in which the capacity for visionary or ecstatic experience was associated with destruction, and the theater of which the major Greek tragedies were a part was an expression of homage to it. We are sometimes annoyed that the choral odes seem to interrupt the narrative line of the drama, but for the original audience the choral odes were central moments, expressions of ecstatic response to the episodes of the story. They were both sung and danced, by a chorus made up of the sons of the best aristocratic families of the time, and they were as essential to the dramatic experience as music is to grand opera. Indeed, when grand opera was, so to speak, first invented in Renaissance Italy, its proponents thought that they were re-introducing ancient Greek tragedy.


The stories forming the bases of the plots were versions of myths and legends well known to the audience-a vast body of religious materials which differed from the materials that ultimately formed the bases of the Judeo-Christian religion in that they existed only as versions and never assumed a definitive form. There was no pre-eminent version of a standard narrative, no authorized text, no "Bible" of the Greek gods. The poet could juggle detail or revise the implications of character within certain limits, set by fidelity to the general outlines of the story-for the story, despite the existence of differing versions was still sacred and an attitude of reverence for the accepted outline of events was a necessary requirement.


The events in the background of the Oresteia are briefly these: Agamemnon and Atreus were both descendants of the house of Pelops, whose children, Atreus and Thyestes, were rivals for the throne of Mycenae. Atreus defeated Thyestes and drove him into exile, then pretended to forgive him and called him back, giving a great feast in Thyestes's honor, at which, unknown to Thyestes, he was served up his sons as the main course. After the feast, Thyestes was imprisoned for life, but one of his sons, Aegisthus, had escaped the horrors of the feast, and when he came to manhood he rescued his father, vowing to honor his obligation to destroy the house of Atreus. His chance came after the death of Atreus, when Atreus's son, Agamemnon, acting at the behest of the Father of the gods, Zeus, gathered together the great expedition that sailed against Troy. Agamemnon was seeking revenge upon Troy for harboring Paris, the Trojan Prince, who had seduced Helen, the wife of Menelaus, Agamemnon's brother, and run off with her. (Whatever the Trojans thought of this deed, they were bound to defend Paris, just as Agamemnon was bound to revenge Helen's abduction and Atreus was bound to revenge the feast of Thyestes.) The siege of Troy took ten years, during which Atreus came to Mycenae, seduced Agamemnon's wife, Clytemnestra, and with her plotted Agamemnon's destruction upon his return.


Clytemnestra had her own motive to abet this deed: In order to get his army to Troy, Agamemnon had to appease the goddess Artemis, who had becalmed the fleet at Aulis and would not release the winds unless Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter, Iphigenia. To pacify the goddess, Agamemnon persuaded Clytemnestra to send Iphigenia to Aulis, allegedly to be betrothed to the hero Achilles. Clytemnestra complied and Iphigenia was sacrificed. When the play opens, the ten years have passed. News arrives at dawn in the form of a beacon of light to announce that Troy had fallen that very night.

Topics for Discussion

1. The first choral ode recounts much of the material antecedent to the story but not in a manner immediately accessible to anyone not already familiar with it. How does it compare in this respect with the ballads "Edward" and "Sir Patric Spens"? In some versions of the myth, Artemis interrupts the voyage of the army because Agamemnon had insulted her in some fashion. What seems to be the reason here? What sense does the chorus communicate about their attitude towards the expedition against Troy?
   
   
2. Pay careful attention to the stanza of the chorus in which Agamemnon is described as "slipping his neck into the bridle of Fate" (translations may vary). Explain the alternatives facing Agamemnon. Did he have a choice? Are there important moral occasions in which one can truly say, "I had no choice"?
   
   
3. Before this stanza there are stanzas dealing with Zeus, the Father of the gods. What character does he seem to have?
   
   
4. What hints do we get about Clytemnestra's feelings for Agamemnon in her exchange with the chorus? The audience, of course, knows full well how this play will come out, enabling a play of ironies-secondary meanings latent in what is said (or sung), which the audience will catch but of which the characters in the play will be unaware. Are there any ironies of this sort in Clytemnestra's description of the fall of Troy?
   
   
5. How valid is the motive of revenge? "Whosoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Capital punishment is one form of revenge, which seeks adequacy for the offence, closure for those bonded to the victims. Do those who are bonded to the victims obliged to revenge? Can one inherit an obligation of this sort? Can one inherit the guilt that has gone unpunished when those who have committed the crime are not available for punishment? Is one complicit in a crime when one forestalls or impedes punishment (as in not revealing the whereabouts of a malefactor to the police, for example)?
   
   
6. Is it worse to sacrifice a daughter than, say, a bystander? Is it worse to kill one person (in particular) than another? Is it better to kill one person than another? Are these last two questions different questions?
   
   
7. Clytemnestra persuades Agamemnon to expend public wealth by treading upon delicate, invaluable fabrics, thereby destroying them, as a token of his triumph. How does she persuade him? What is the significance of his action?
   
   
8. Apollo is the god of healing and disease (he is called "the far-darter" in this capacity). He is also the god of prophecy-possibly because being possessed means ranting and raving, which is akin to being struck by a disease. Cassandra is his victim. Why is Apollo punishing her? We are not shown the slaughter of Agamemnon but we hear about it through the prophetic ravings of Cassandra, which are not understood by those who hear it on stage. The audience, however, understands it well. Cassandra goes to her slaughter in a way like Iphigenia before her-the chorus tells us that her mouth was stopped, to prevent her from cursing those who took part in her sacrifice. What can be said of Cassandra's display of agony? Is it for herself? For Agamamnon? What can be said of her as a representative of something decisive about the human condition?
   
   
9. Clytemnestra makes a speech near the end of the Agamemnon about standing in a shower of blood. What is the purport of the speech? How does she think of herself and her deed? The chorus regards her with a horror that did not color their regard for Agamemnon, whatever he had done. Is it worse for a wife to kill her husband than for a father to kill his daughter?
   
   
10. Most of the Coephori (English: The Libation-Bearers) is occupied with the central act of libation-a ritual of drinking which is begun by pouring drink upon the ground. What is the point of the ritual here? How does the way in which Orestes carries out the obligation of revenge differ from the way in which Agamemnon killed Iphigenia? the way in which Clytemnestra killed Agamemnon?
    
    
11. Most of the Eumenides (English: The Blessed Ones) consists of a trial in which the Erynes (English: the Furies) debate with Apollo about the guilt of Orestes. How does Athena persuade the Furies to submit their case to this newly-created tribunal of Justice? What will follow if the tribunal judges badly? Is Athens undertaking a risk in empowering such a tribunal? What is the character of the Furies? They refer to themselves as "the mind of the past" (at least in some translations). What do they mean by the phrase? How important is it to honor the mind of the past? How important is it to disavow obligation to it? What is the character of Apollo? How does his character here reflect the character of the god who inflicted prophetic agonies on Cassandra in the Agamemnon?
    
    /div>
12. The case is finally decided by an argument about paternity. Can we accept this argument today, while knowing its biological invalidity? In the play, it is offered as a religious principle, not a scientific one. How does it reflect the themes of the play? How are the Erynes persuaded to become Eumenides-the Blessed Ones? What will their function be in Athens?

Lecture 8: Two plays by Sophocles: Sophocles. Antigone. Sophocles. Oedipus Rex.
Euripides. Hippolytus.

The poets who wrote the plays performed during the Dionysiac festival at Athens were not craftsmen but members of aristocratic households who competed for the honor of having their work performed. Works to be performed were chosen by a committee appointed by the assembly of citizens. Each poet had to submit three plays to be performed over the course of a single day; these might form a trilogy, in the manner of the Oresteia, or they might be unrelated works. Sophocles wrote three plays about Oedipus but they were each presented as part of a grouping of independent plays and they were written at different points in his lifetime. The Antigone was a work of his youth, the Oedipus Rex of his middle years and the Oedipus at Colonnus, which deals with the death and transfiguration of the aged Oedipus, was written near the end of Sophocles's life. The writing of the plays, therefore, does not follow the chronological order of the episodes that they represent-the Antigone, for example, the first to be written, takes place after Oedipus's death-and one cannot assume that the same characters were conceived in the same way in any plays in which they reappear. This is consonant with the way in which the body of myths upon which the plays were based was conceived in ancient times; as we have noted, there was no received version of the details in any story, and Sophocles may well have rethought the materials at different points in his lifetime.


In this connection, we should also note again a feature that results from the conventions of representation and performance. The chorus sings and dances; the intervening moments of action in play consists of dialogue sung in recitativo, once again like grand opera today. Accordingly, set speeches have something of the character of arias in grand opera. We should not look to them for the realistic exchange that characterizes actual conversation but rather for the kind of exchange that characterizes performance of a ritual-the sort of thing, for example, when recipients for medals of honor are presented to the dignitary who has been authorized to award them. To take a representative instance: mid-way in the Oedipus Rex, Oedipus turns to his wife Jocasta and tells her about the details of his history relevant to the present situation. ("My father was the king of Corinth . . .") We should not suppose that it is important to worry why he has never told her these things during all their years of marriage. The speech is, of course, addressed to his wife, but its real target is the audience, who is completely familiar with the myth and knows how the story will come out overall, but needs to be informed about the play's "take" on the events preceding the action-the way in which the play understands the predicament of the hero and the details of the history leading up to it.

Topics for Discussion

I. Sophocles. Antigone.

The subject of this play is represented in the text by the Greek word philia, whose root appears in such words as "philosophy" and "Philadelphia". Most texts translate it as "love", and so "love" figures prominently in your translation of the Antigone. (Thus "philosophy" is supposed to mean "love of wisdom", since "sophia" means wisdom; and Philadelphia was named in honor of "brotherly love".) But "philia" does not have a direct English equivalent; it means the deepest and most important bonds that tie you to another person or group of persons. The English word "loyal" derives from the Latin "ligare", which meant "to bond, to tie down", and Creon is talking about "philien" when he talks about loyalty (or allegiance).


The background of the play is this: Some time after Oedipus was banished from Thebes, his two sons, Eteocles and Polyneices, quarreled over the rightful succession. The kingship went to Eteocles, rightfully; Polyneices fled to Argos, the traditional enemy of Thebes, and returned with seven armies, each of which attacked Thebes at one of its seven gates. The battle took place in darkness; the play begins with dawn, when it is discovered that at six gates, the enemy was defeated and the enemy general killed. At the seventh gate the enemy general, Polyneices, was also killed, but so was the Theban general, Eteocles. As the nearest male kin, their uncle, Creon, is now king of victorious Thebes.

1. What is Creon's position at the outset of the play? In answering, bear in mind (a) that it is the very next day after an unsuccessful attempt to conquer his city; (b) the usual attempts at conquests always tried to enlist the aid of any group within the city who were disaffected or at odds with the leadership and normally secured this aid before any campaign was launched (modern equivalents are called "fifth columnists" and "traitors within"), so that Creon's fears about traitors within are not entirely unreasonable; (c) the person whose burial he forbids (Polynices) is his own nephew, who has turned against his family, and the duty to bury such a person would normally fall upon him.
   
   
2. What is Antigone's position at the outset of the play? Granted that the ritual burial of kin is a sacred obligation, but only a ritual (it need only be a token sprinkling, which is all that Antigone can supply), why is it so important to her? Is Ismene (caught-in-the-middle Ismene) an ethical weakling, a mere fence-sitter, or does she represent a reasonable position? Is it ever a good idea to say about someone that they are either a part of the solution or a part of the problem?
   
   
3. Antigone represents "family values" but at the same time something "deeper" (if not higher), connected with religion-the unwritten dateless laws. Why unwritten? Why dateless? Explore the connection between family values and "greater", other-than-general values-for example, the way in which Take a modern case of the quarrel between the duties of office and the imperatives of religion: a doctor is devoted to reducing pain and preserving life but Christian Science parents refuse permission to let the doctor give a necessary bone-marrow transplant; in their view, faith alone does the healing and what is more, permitting the treatment would endanger the child's life because it would issue from lack of faith. (A case of this sort was in the papers about a three years ago. In this case, the child died and the parents were tried by the law for criminal neglect.) Is the doctor being stubborn, or betraying weakness, or is he just being a doctor? How about the other side? One wants to follow the precepts of "getting to yes" by giving each side their due, but to compromise here by giving half a transplant would defeat both sides and accomplish nothing.
   
   
4. Consider three kinds of loyalty: (1) To an absolute or transcendent obligation. Abraham was instructed by God to sacrifice Isaac, his son, as a test of faith, and Abraham proceeded to do it. Did he do well? Compare his response to Antigone's (2) To a group and (perhaps) to the values that it stands for. Would you die for America? Democracy? Your home town? Your dorm-group? (3) And finally: To one's history. How important is it to defend the values of our ethnic origins?
   
   
5. The play ends by seeming to validate Antigone. Is it possible to ignore the way in which any work of narrative distributes rewards and punishments at its conclusion and take a stand against the suggestion that this distribution represents poetic justice?

II. Sophocles. Oedipus Rex.

1. What has been happening at Thebes that requires an appeal to Oedipus? In what capacity is he supposed to act?
   
   
2. Consider the way in which the mythic story is presented. It does not begin with Oedipus receiving the prophecy. All that is in the past. How would you characterize the general nature of the action as it unfolds during the course of the play?
   
   
3. Why did Oedipus consult the oracle at Delphi? What was Oedipus's response to the prophecy, as he relates it to Jocasta? Did he behave properly? What alternatives did he have? 
   
   
4. What alternatives does Oedipus have during the course of the play? Is he resolute in pursuit of truth? "Know the truth and the truth shall set you free." How important is the revelation of truth? Under what circumstances can truth be harmful-not just to oneself but to many affected by knowledge?
   
   
5. Jocasta urges Oedipus not to worry about prophecies, for there is no truth in them. What are her motives for saying this? How does the chorus respond to the idea?
   
   
6. When Oedipus at last comes in sight of the truth, he gains its admission by twisting the arm of an old man. "I am on the point of speaking horrors," cries the old man. "And I of hearing them. But I must hear," says Oedipus. Was he right to persist? Jocasta has urged him to let the matter drop, but he will not. What can be gained by following her advice?
   
   
7. Tiresias has been summoned and arrives, wishing that he has not done so. He is reluctant to speak; would his silence have made a difference. Compare his reluctance here with his announcement of a prophecy at the climax of the Antigone. Could what he prophesies there have been avoided?
   
   
8. "Judge not, lest you be judged." Could this be the moral of the Oedipus play-if the play has a moral?
   
   
9. The presence of Apollo is experienced in the central moment of the Agamemnon-namely, the agony of Cassandra. At the end of the trilogy, he appears in his person, and so does another god, Athena. But in both plays of Sophocles, the gods do not put in an appearance. What difference does this make to the way in which the audience might understand the influence of the gods upon human affairs in this play?

Lecture 9:  Euripides. Hippolytus.

Topics for Discussion

1. Euripides plays are notable for the fact that the gods generally put in an appearance, both at the beginning and at the end of the play, although they do not generally appear during the course of the intervening action. At the outset, as in this play, a god appears to "set the stage" for the ensuing action, and at the end, a god appears to tidy things up or bring them to a sense of conclusion. The actors playing the gods made their appearance in Greek drama, evidently, hoisted and lowered by some sort of machinery whose details have not come down to us, but the use of the gods in this Euripidean way has been designated by a Latin phrase, "Deus ex machina" (English=God from the machine), which has become a term of contempt, designating the unartful way that a dramatist may wind up plot when unable to bring the story to a reasonable conclusion-as in some cheap films, where everything that has gone before turns out to be a dream. What difference do the gods make as determinants of action in this play as compared with the plays by Sophocles? It has been observed of the Hippolytus, in particular, that with some slight revision, you could have the same play and omit the gods entirely. Is this observation just? What difference would the removal of their actual presence make to the effect of the whole?
   
   
2. What kind of a goddess do you suppose Artemis to be? Her worship seems to be hostile to sexual experience-that is, Hippolytus has privileged access to her-he can speak with her but cannot see her-and this access seems to be connected with the virtue of chastity. Is chastity a virtue? By whom should it be practiced and for what reason? The old man urges Hippolytus to worship Aphrodite as well, so as not to offend the goddess, but Hippolytus refuses. Why does he refuse? Can one worship both goddesses?
   
   
3. The opposite of sacred speech, which is silence to the impure, is speech which should not be spoken. Phaedra desires Hippolytus-not her offspring but nonetheless her son (by marriage). This is a "love that dare not speak its name." The nurse insists that nothing can be so bad that it cannot be spoken, but when she guesses the truth she is so horrified that she runs from the presence of her mistress. Are there things that are rightly never to be spoken? What danger is there, if any, in speaking of them?
   
   
4. Is Phaedra to blame for this passion? (Of course, you might say that Aphrodite has inflicted her, but anyone who actually believed in the goddess would say that all sexual passions come from her, and the question would still stand: can one be blamed for one's passions?) "My mind is impure but my hands are still pure," she says before the nurse understands what is going on. Compare the blame that attaches to impurity of mind-to unacted but vile longings-with the blame, if any, that attaches to Oedipus, who acted without knowing what he was doing and who might have said, "My hands are impure but my mind is still pure."
   
   
5. Actually, Hippolytus says something close to this: "My tongue swore," he says, when he promised to keep the nurse's secret before he knew what it was, "but my mind did not." Is this a reasonable sentiment? Despite this expression, he keeps his pledge, even in the face of Theseus's accusation. Why does he do so? Is one bound to a promise when one is ignorant of its import?
   
   
6. How admirable is Hippolytus as a character? He has odd fancies about women and their artful tongues and seems to regret deeply that the only way to reproduce humankind requires females as well as males; when accused he wishes he had another Hippolytus, who could hear his case and know that he was innocent of the charge leveled against him.
   
   
7. Theseus, too, says that Hippolytus's crime is unmentionable, but then he announces it anyway. He is accused at the end of intemperate speech, resulting in the death of his innocent son. What is the power of speech in life? Can one transform a life-one's own or another's-simply by speaking?
   
   
8. The nurse argues that speech in private is harmless-what one says or does in private need not be the same as what one says or does in public. Does the play agree with her?
   
   
9. What view of the gods seems to be expressed by the conclusion of the play? What view of humanity seems to be expressed by the reconciliation of Theseus and Hippolytus?

Lecture 11: Thucydides. Excerpts from The Peloponnesian War.

Topics for Discussion

1. The word history is based upon the ancient Greek word historien, which means "to look into, to inquire". It is ambiguous in English, since it refers not only to a written account of what happened or was done but also to the events themselves. (A relatively new word, historiography, resolves the ambiguity by referring exclusively to the written account, leaving history to refer to what historiography is about.) Is there a natural connection between the two meanings? Are certain kinds of deeds or events "more historical", so to speak, more suited to a written record, than others? What sort of events should a written history be about?
   
   
2. Thucydides was preceded in his enterprise by Herodotus, the so-called "Father of History", because he wrote the first account of what seemed to him a major event, the war between the city-states of Greece and the Persian empire. Herodotus wrote his book "to preserve the memory of the deeds of the Greeks and the non-Greeks" in what he took to be the largest armed conflict that the world had ever known. What is the value of the memory of past deeds? Does the magnitude of deed-the sheer weight of the numbers of people involved in them-qualify an event as historical? Herodotus clearly meant his history to glorify the deeds of both the Greeks and their adversaries. Is Thucydides interested in glorifying the deeds of those about whom he writes?
   
   
3. Herodotus notoriously relied upon hearsay in detailing the background of the Persian wars and the overall course of the wars itself. His books survives as a repository of exciting or intriguing anecdotes-mini-dramas-illustrating the differing characters and customs of the peoples involved in this extensive event and describing what his contemporaries thought its most significant or remarkable episodes, so that the memory of them would be preserved for future generations. Thucydides pays Herodotus the compliment of beginning where his predecessor left off but he differs in procedure and judgment from Herodotus in some ways, three of which lead many to regard him as "The Father of Modern History." The first has to do with his regard for hearsay, the second with the purpose of written history, the third with the reason why some events are more qualified to be written up as history than others. Judging by Thucydides's opening remarks and also by the course of his narrative, what do you think are his views on these three issues?
   
   
4. In point of the importance of past events, Thucydides singles out poets and tellers of tales who write about subject-matter which, "owing to the passage of time, is mostly lost in the unreliable streams of mythology". Among other things, he is clearly thinking of Homer at this point, and the phrase in quotation marks represents a Greek phrase difficult to translate, for it might also mean "has been largely shaped by story-telling". Is Thucydides's narrative (although not mythological, in our modern sense) "shaped by story-telling"? Does "story-telling" shape or does it mis-shape events?
   
   
5. For those who want a dramatic and clearly-shaped narrative, the lengthy speeches in Thucydides always pose a distraction. Why does Thucydides spend so much time on them? Thucydides says of these speeches that it is difficult to remember the exact words used, and so he has kept as close as possible to the general sense of the speech, while making the speakers say what in his view was called for by the occasion. Are these two criteria compatible? A good historian sticks to what people actually did, not what the historian thinks was called for by the occasion. Why should it be different when it comes to what people said? What is the meaning of the phrase "what was called for by the occasion"?
   
   
6. Thucydides says that his work will not be an easy read, but it will be judged useful by those "who want to understand clearly the events which happened in the past." In the light of this claim, he says that it is designed "to last forever", since, "human nature being what it is", the past will be repeated in the future at some time or other and in much the same ways. Comment on this passage. Is the past bound to be repeated and if so, what is the good of understanding it? How does this view inform Thucydides's selection of events and his presentation of them?
   
   
7. Describe the characters of Athens and Sparta, drawing upon the ways in which some of the speeches in the book describe the contrast between them. Does Thucydides accept the contrast as it is drawn in the speeches? Thucydides is an Athenian but was not well-treated by Athens during the course of the war. Is his treatment of the two sides in the conflict even-handed or partial?
   
   
8. In the final paragraph of his introduction, Thucydides draws a contrast between the acknowledged causes of complaint between Athens and Sparta and the "actual cause" or "real reason" which compelled them to go to war against each other. How meaningful is this contrast in Thucydides? How meaningful is it in understanding historical events today?
   
   
9. Track the course of debate in two or three major episodes: the speech of the Corinthians at Sparta, the debate over Mytelene, Pericles's speech against conciliation, the Melian debate, among others. Why did Thucydides, uniquely, write out this debate as a dialogue?
   
   
10. Compare the account of the plague at Athens with the account of the revolution and its aftermath on Corcyra. In the latter, Thucydides says that certain features of human nature are more clearly visible when circumstances force them to do what they do not want to do. What does he have in mind? Are they permanent features of human nature? Are the remarks about the Corcyrian revolt borne out by the description of the plague?

Lecture 14: Plato. Republic.

Topics for Discussion

Plato's dialogue, The Republic, dates from his middle years and was probably written about 365 BC. It is a lengthy work, of striking originality and awesomely rich in themes. Its central interlocutor and narrator is Socrates, Plato's mentor, who was executed by the Athenian citizenry in 399 BC, ostensibly for impiety but actually for practicing a free and open inquiry among his peers and stirring the youth of his day to doubt the virtues of traditional thinking. The participants of the dialogue include two of Plato's brothers and other leading citizens known to Plato's audience, most of whom, in one way or another, had subsequently come to untimely ends, often at each other's hands during the course of civil conflict. The subject of the dialogue is Dikaiosyne, a word usually translated as "justice", but its meaning is less legal than ethical and refers to what is proper and fitting in dealing with one's fellow human beings--what you owe them if you wish to act ethically. The word is sometimes translated as "righteousness".

(a) 327a-376c:

1. 1. What sort of a man is Cephalus? A good man, perhaps, but is he wise? What is his view of the passions?
   
   
2. A definition of what is right, borrowed from a poet. Are poets good sources for knowledge? When trying to discover what is the right thing to do, do we crave a definition?
   
   
3. Justice seems to come from a kind of practical knowledge [the Greek word is techne], how to act in this or that circumstance. The question has shifted from "what sort of a thing is justice" to "what sort of knowledge produces justice". Are the questions more or less equivalent? Does knowing what justice is carry with it the knowledge of how to act justly?
   
   
4. Can it be just to harm one's enemies? Harming someone or something, says Socrates, means making it to conform less to its "standard of excellence" making it, in other words, less exemplary of what it is. (Harming a horse makes it less of a horse.) What objections can be made to this turn in the argument? The knowledge that goes into caring for horses cannot have as its function making horses worse; in like fashion, the exercise of justice cannot ever function to make human beings worse. What objections can be made to this point. Why does Socrates think it follows naturally from his argument?
   
   
5. Thrasymachus interposes. Socrates takes it for granted that justice is "human excellence" [the word for "excellence" and "virtue" are the same in ancient Greek]. Thrasymachus challenges this assumption. How good are is arguments? How does Socrates defeat them? Is the conclusion-justice is not a form of human excellence, not a virtue"-attractive nonetheless?
   
   
6. The challenge of Glaucon: what is his account of the nature and origin of justice? Would you wish to possess the ring of Gyges? Why? What is the nature of the challenge that he poses to Socrates?
   
   
7. Adeimantus says that Glaucon has left out the most important point. What is it?
   
   
8. What are the essential points in Socrates's account of the character of a community? How will talking about the character of a viable community aid in discovering whether justice is an excellence or not in individuals?
   
   
9. Glaucon insists that a community cannot confine itself only to necessities-it must have some luxuries as well. What does their admission do to the analogy between the community (as Socrates is outlining its nature) and the individual member of the community?

(b) 403d-445d:

1. How well does Socrates locate in the commuity the four "classical" virtues-Wisdom, Courage, Temperance (or self-control or self-discipline; the Greek word is sophrosyne), and Justice. As Socrates describes them, the last two sounds somewhat alike. How do they differ?
   
   
2. How well does he align the three elements or classes of people to be found in any community with the alleged three parts of the human psyche? The Greek word has got into our language; what other word(s) might be synonymous with it?
   
   
3. Socrates says that two of the elements must be in charge of the third, which is appetite. Why should the element responsible for "courage" be in charge of appetite? How can reason control appetite? Is appetite, as Socrates says, "the greater part of everyone's make-up and naturally insatiable? Is, for example, thirst an appetite; and is it always insatiable?

(c) 471c-521b, 576c-592a:

1. How good is Plato's argument that it does not invalidate an ideal pattern of a state to show that it cannot possibly exist? Does the defense of the validity of an ideal pattern (a "paradigm"; Greek=paradeigma) extend to other things?
   
   
2. If appetites are insatiable, so (says Socrates) is reason-insatiable for knowledge of all sorts. What the philosopher craves is not instances or examples but the paradigm itself-the standard of excellence by which something is judged to be good or bad of its kind. Most people are incapable of grasping these standards, which do not change with time or circumstance. How is the distinction between the few and the many here correlated with a distinction between universal knowledge and random, changeful "opinion" or "belief". How valid do you think the assertion that there is no universal knowledge, only relative belief?
   
   
3. How does the parable of the Cave fall in with the distinction between knowledge and belief? with the exposition of the divided line? Why, in the parable, do those who have never seen the source of all light turn on the one who has and kill him?
   
   
4. The rich, the brave and the wise each maintain that their way of life is best, but the wise are right and the other two wrong. How do we know this?

Lecture 17: Aristotle. Excerpts from the Nichomachean Ethics.

Topics for Discussion

1. Glaucon (in the Republic) said that there were three kinds of good things-things good as means, things good in themselves, and things good both as means and as good in themselves. Give some examples of these three kinds. Which of the three do you think Plato values most? Which does Aristotle value most?
   
   
2. Aristotle says in effect that all things add up-that there must be some overall good that is the end of every other good. What is his argument? He also says that if we desire only means, we do not desire anything. Is he correct?
   
   
3. How does the view that ethics is a subject that can be taught only to those who are already ethical (not, therefore, to young or to the incontinent-those who cannot control themselves) fit in with Aristotle's general viewpoint? Is he right? If so, what is the use of "preaching to the converted"?
   
   
4. Is it possible, asks Aristotle, that a carpenter or tanner has a function (Greek=ergon) but a human being, considered just as a human being, has no appropriate function? Is this a sensible question? Aristotle thinks that it a good question and that he knows the answer. Do you agree?
   
   
5. Aristotle says (I, 8) that one who does not enjoy acting well cannot be good. What would Plato say? He employs an example here-in competitions, it is not those most qualified to win who win. Is this a good example to make the point? Why does he use it?
   
   
6. How does Aristotle understand eudaimonia--happiness or well-being? Does he mean by it what the writers of the Declaration of Independence meant when they spoke of "the pursuit of happiness"? Why does Aristotle reject pleasure and honor (the esteem of others) as the end of life?
   
   
7. Virtue (or excellence; as with Plato, the word arete means both) is a state of being or an aspect of character (ethós) and does not come by nature. Is it unnatural, then? How are the virtues acquired, in Aristotle's view?
   
   
8. Why does Aristotle think that virtues, as aspects of character, are dispositions to act? Explain the notion that virtues are means between extremes. Can you give examples from your own observations that would support this view?
   
   
9. Plato was much concerned with deciding whether we think that something is good because we wish for it or we wish for it because we think it is good. What do you think Aristotle would say? How does Aristotle (III, 4) deal with the notion that no one can really wish for what is bad, but one deceives onself about what one wants when one craves bad things? How does his view here differ from Plato's?
   
   
10. Aristotle says repeatedly that we do not deliberate about ends but only about the means to ends. Is this a peculiar use of the notion of deliberating-making a self-determined choice? Or is he right about this? How does the opinion fit into his general viewpoint?
    
    
11. Aristotle says (VI, 13) that there are natural virtues and the virtues appropriate to "practical reason" (phronesis). Does this contradict what he said at the outset of Book I? He also seems to say that you cannot have one virtue without having them all. How does this follow from his general view? Does it seem a valid opinion?
    
    
12. Which is better, in Aristotle's view, a life of contemplation or of action? What was Plato's view on this point? What advice does Aristotle offer us in choosing one or the other?

Lecture 20: The Book of Genesis.

Topics for Discussion

1. Describe the order of Creation in chapter 1. Does the order make sense? What principle do you think underlies it? God creates by speaking. Is speech creative? In what sense? What might the presentation of the creative act as one of speech imply about the Creation?
   
   
2. Contrast the story of Creation in chapter 1 with the story in chapter 2. How do the two accounts differ? Why, do you suppose, the redactors of the text as we have it did not smooth out the differences so that they would be less notable?
   
   
3. The serpent tells Eve that she will not die if she eats of the Tree of knowledge. He also tells her that if she eats she will be like gods and know good from evil. Is he right or wrong on these points?
   
   
4. Why does God forbid Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Is knowledge a bad thing? Eating, they discover that they are naked and hide themselves. Is their response to knowledge appropriate? Why did they not know until this point that they were naked?
   
   
5. What are the terms of the curse upon Adam and Eve? Are they still in effect?
   
   
6. What do you take to be the point of the story of Babel?
   
   
7. Compare the blessing pronounced by God upon mankind after the Creation with the blessing pronounced by God (ch. 9, verse 1-5) after the Flood. What is the significance of the differences between them?
   
   
8. Throughout the early part of the text, God makes promises and also covenants with his people. On the evidence of the text (not a dictionary), what do you suppose a covenant is?
   
   
9. Discuss chapters 18-19, where God appears to Abraham as three wayfarers and Abraham argues with God about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Why does Abraham stop at the figure of ten? What do you think is the significance of the fate of Lot's wife?
   
   
10. Discuss the "sacrifice of Isaac" (chapter 22). It is described as a "test" or a "temptation", depending on the translation. What is the point of the test. Compare it with "testing" that go on in the Odyssey, where Athena lies to Odysseus to test his mettle or Odysseus lies to his father. Compare it with the injunction given to Agamemnon by the priest at Aulis, that he must sacrifice his daughter, Iphigenia, if he is to get his army to Troy. What are the significant differences in these occasions? Should God have tested Abraham in this way? What is the meaning of Abraham's reply when Isaac asks him what he is doing? The original audience for this story knew perfectly well that Isaac would not be sacrificed because they were all descendants of Isaac. Does this knowledge make any difference to the way in which the story is understood?
    
    
11. What is the character of Jacob? Is he worthy of Isaac's blessing? What, in the eyes of the text, is a blessing, and why cannot Isaac, after he has discovered that he has been tricked, shake free of an obligation incurred in ignorance and give the blessing to Esau?
    
    
12. The story of Joseph is the longest continuous narrative in Genesis and seems to be the one on which the most careful literary attention has been lavished. Why did the original redactors of the text choose to conclude the first of the sacred writings with this story? Does it have any summative force in relation to what precedes it?

Lecture 21: The Gospel according to St. Matthew.

Topics for Discussion

1. Gospel is commonplace Greek for "Good News". What is the news and why is it good?
   
   
2. Why does the text begin with genealogies?
   
   
3. What is the significance of each of the three temptations in the Wilderness? What is the meaning of each of Jesus's answers? What is a "wilderness" and why is it the appropriate setting for the temptations?
   
   
4. The sermon on the Mount prompts a series of questions. What is meant by "the poor in spirit" who will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Is it a good thing to be "poor in spirit"? In the light of what immediately follows (the injunction not merely to avoid adultery but also to avoid lust, the injunction not merely to refrain from murder but also to avoid hostile feeling, the injunction not to resist the wicked but to offer like the wicked strike you again, the injunction to love not just your neighbor but also your enemy), what does Jesus mean when he says that he has not come to abolish the Law and the prophets but to "fufill" (or "complete" or "perfect") them.
   
   
5. In pursuing his ministry, Jesus cures a number of people afflicted with ailments and disabilities, and then urges them to say nothing about this. Why does he enjoin them to silence?
   
   
6. Jesus speaks of the kingdom of heaven in parables at several place in the text. In the light of the text (and not a dictionary), what would you say a parable was? Asked for an interpretation by the disciples, Jesus supplies one. Do they seem appropriately interpreted in every case or are there cases in which you can suggest an interpretation that suits the parable better? Jesus is asked by the disciples (ch. 13, v. 10) why he speaks in parables. Explain his answer.
   
   
7. Consider the parable (ch 19, v. 16) of the rich young man. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that it is impossible to serve both Mammon (the god of money) and God. Here, he tells the young man to give away all he possesses to the poor, "if he wishes to be perfect" (or "fulfilled" or "complete".) Compare the response of the young man with the response of Amphinomos in the Odyssey. The disciples cannot understand the point about the camel and the eye of the needle. What puzzles them?
   
   
8. Consider the parable (ch. 20) of the vineyard laborers. How satisfying is the story? Do you agree with Jesus's interpretation of it?
   
   
9. Consider the similarities and differences in the behavior of the recipient of a prophecy in the case of Peter (ch 26, v 33-5) and of Oedipus in Oedipus Rex. Could what had been prophesied been avoided in either case? If the prophecy fail, does it bring the religious force of prophecy into discredit in the case of Peter? Unlike the prophecy about Oedipus, he prophecy about Peter is specific about time. Can Peter avoid the prophecy? There is a Biblical antecedent for some of the issues raised by this passage. God brought the plagues to Egypt because Pharoah would not accede to Moses request to let his people go, but the text tells us that God had hardened Pharoah's heart so that he would not listen to Moses. Can Pharoah be blamed for this?

Lecture 22: St. Augustine. The Confessions.

Topics for Discussion

1. What in your view (not the dictionary's) is confession. What is its function in religious life, if any? What function does Augustine seem to ascribe to it? (For the record, Augustine defines it in the opening section of Book X.)
   
   
2. Augustine's confessions are in the form of address to God, that is, largely in the form of a prayer. The classification of various forms of speech (and writing) which links characteristic surface features of a text to its function as a whole and gauges its effectiveness is the province of rhetoric, one of the staples of ancient Latin education, and Augustine made his living before his conversion to Christianity as a professor of rhetoric-something loosely equivalent to the practice of literary studies today. He would have been especially aware of the uniqueness in his time, and perhaps of the oddity as well, of making a lengthy public prayer out of the materials of one's own life. What difference does it make to review one's history in the form of prayer, rather than in autobiographical narrative (not addressed to God), personal reflections or argument?
   
   
3. In our time, it is the case that an attempt to reach the truth about one's inner nature-the self unavailable to the public eye and often unavailable to one's own awareness-is generally supposed to aim at liberating that self and rejoicing in it as a source of authentic being; but for Augustine one's inner nature is not a source of redemption but of fear. Can you comment on the difference? Is Augustine's fear of his inner nature irrelevant to the modern world?
   
   
4. We said that Augustine address God throughout his confessions, but there are two points at which he does not. At one point he addresses a crime that he committed (II, 6), at another (IV, 11) he addresses his soul. What sense does it make to address an action (the sin) and what sense does it make to address one's own agency as a human being?
   
   
5. As an autobiography, Augustine's Confessions might be regarded as a wash-out; the autobiographical materials are absorbed in the act of confessing his sins to God in the presence of other human beings-that is, in making public what should be most intimate and private. What do you think the motives are for making public the intensely and properly private in this way?
   
   
6. As a confession, Augustine's account of his history is mostly concerned with grappling with puzzles about knowledge and about the ways in which knowing can outrun expression. The questions that Augustine teases his way through overtly in his prayers are versions of questions that involved the most important thinkers in the ancient world. The first two paragraphs of Book I are good examples of this. What question does each address and how is the question answered in these two cases?
   
   
7. In Book II, Augustine compares his boyhood prank, the theft of some unripe and inedible pears from a neighboring farmer's orchard, to the crimes of Cataline, who believed that he had to be ever-ready to act with brutality if he wanted to become Emperor of Rome and who regularly committed monstrous deeds simply to prevent himself from lapsing into soft-heartedness-keeping in practice for cruelty, so to speak. What view does Augustine take of the difference between his boyhood prank and Cataline's acts? Can you justify Augustine's view?
   
   
8. Much of the issues raised by the Confessions turn on the difference between a crime and a sin, the ancient Greek word for which was hamartia, which meant simply "a mistake". A good deal of the thinking in Augustine's works reflects (as does the thinking of his time) the concerns of ancient philosophy, in particular the concerns of Plato and Aristotle. Plato in particular subsumed what we would call ethical values into the category of justice, thereby giving ethical issues a marked legal character. How does the notion of sin fit into this conception of ethics? What do you take to be the difference between a crime and a sin?
   
   
9. Consider the pass in Book VI, chapter 8, when Alypius fails in his resolve to avoid looking at a fight to the death between gladiators in the Arena. How does it reflect the major themes of the book? In one way, the passage turns upon the issue of incontinence-an overcoming of resolve by temptation. How does the passage compare with Aristotle's treatment of incontinence in the Nicomachean Ethics?
   
   
10. Much of Augustine's concern with himself turns upon a kind of willful yielding to incontinence, as when someone who eats compulsively says, AI must diet and I will start-but not today. I will start tomorrow." Augustine expends a good deal of thought on this issue-he continually postpones converting to Christianity, and his most famous prayer in the Confessions is "Lord, make me chaste-but not yet." What is meant by chastity? Is it a good thing or not? Is the continual postponement of a fixed resolve an oddity about the human will or is it simply that the resolve is not fixed but only seems to be-one is lying to oneself about one's weakness? Or both? What is Augustine's view of this matter? (Book VIII, chapters 8 and 9 are especially relevant to this issue.)
    
    
11. Consider the passage in which Augustine describes the moment of his conversion to Christianity (Book VIII, chapters 11 and 12) and explain how it reflects the major themes of the book. Why does Augustine resort to an allegorical figure-the image of Continence, stretching out her loving hands to him-to characterize his psychological state at this moment? How would you characterize the idea of conversion? Is your idea suitable to characterize Augustine's in this book?
    
    
12. Much of Augustine's text is concerned with the nature of evil: What is it? Where did it come from? If God created everything, is he responsible for the existence of evil? One answer to these questions turns upon the notion that evil and good are both positive things and that God permits evil to exist in order to test and strengthen human resolve. A version of this was supplied, famously, by the Manichees, to whom Augustine was attracted. What account does Augustine give of Manicheism and why does he finally reject it? Are there any parallels between the notion of evil as it is bandied about by politicians in our day and the Manichean notion of evil?
    
    
13. An alternative account of evil is the one ultimately embraced by Augustine, who was one of its earliest sponsors. In this account, evil does not exist; since God created everything that exists and everything that exists is good, evil must be an emptiness, a lack of being, a nullity. Can you draw any parallels between this notion of evil and the contemporary idea that those who commit themselves to false beliefs live in a world that does not exist?

Topics for Discussion

1. The general scheme of the Inferno derives from Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, Bk VII, chapter 1, where the ethical states to be avoided are divided into incontinence, viciousness, and mad brutishness. Do the types here represent what Aristotle was talking about? What has Dante added by way of circles in Hell to Aristotle's scheme and why has he added it?
   
   
2. The place most like the conventional image of Hell as Dante inherited it is Malebolge, which comes complete with devils and pitchforks. How are the punishments endured by the damned in areas above and below Malebolge different from the punishments endured within it?
   
   
3. What, in your view, is the dark wood? What is the mountain that Dante is trying to climb? Why, in the poem, is Dante required to pass through Hell to get to Paradise?
   
   
4. "Love made me," says the inscription on the gates of Hell. How is Hell an expression of divine Love?
   
   
5. Does the punishment in Hell always suit the sin? Are the characters in Hell fully defined by the sin that has determined their position in Hell or do they exhibit traits that might be termed "redeeming", were it not for the fact that they did not effect the redemption of the person who bore them? Find three cases in which the latter is true and try to account for the portraits of the sinner in each.
   
   
6. There are transitions in the journey from circle to circle, but major transitions from group to group. One of these is the battlements and defenses of the city of Dis. Hell is a city, then? The Erynes or Furies are there, and Dante is protected from looking at them. Virgil is denied entrance and appears to be angered and perplexed. How would you interpret the symbolism here?
   
   
7. Those in Hell know the future and the past but not the present. What does this mean?
   
   
8. There is a two-fold division within Aristotle's category of the vicious-what does it signify? Comment on the three-fold division of the violent, who occupy the outer and higher half of the realm of the vicious. Does it seem sensible? Dante is moved to scorn in the innermost circle of the incontinent; he displays anger at numerous points in the circle of the vicious; and he is downright cruel in the circle of the treacherous. How would one account for the appropriateness of this behavior?
   
   
9. Dante's geography of Hell obviously admits of a hierarchy of sins, from least to most sinful. However, his arrangement is sometimes puzzling to modern eyes. For example, he places the prodigal higher than the spendthrift, murderers higher than the noble Ulysses, and counterfeiters right next to the bottom, wherein are placed the worst of the lot. Can you explain this? There are also judgments upon sins that we might not share. How would you explain the condemnation of usury-the sin of making money by the use of money? How would you explain the condemnation of Ulysses, who urged his men never to stop searching for knowledge? How does Dante's Ulysses differ from Homer's Odysseus?.
   
   
10. Except for the few cases where loss of personality is part of the punishment, Dante's figures are deeply personified in very few strokes of his pen. Yet they are also meant to be allegorical-to stand for something. What does it mean to say that one "stands for something"-has become an emblem, so to speak? Do you stand for something in this sense? Certainly, we are familiar with figures who stood for something in history-Lindburgh, for instance, or Nathan Hale. Does this "standing for" carry a judgment on features of one's character?