08.27.08
Patrisitic Theology 3
Diakrisis offers some perspective in the comments regarding Father John Romanides’ statement against contemporary Russian theologians and my reaction to it. I have not extensively read the theologians in question so I’ll have to take his word for it. I see the need for a clear method rather than speculation so I’m all for learning more about that. Please forgive me for being disrespectful, but I do seek the truth so I expect to be humbled and impressed and guided the closer I get to it.
Perelandra 2 and Patristic Theology 2
I have said before that I am a disillusioned optimist. I keep believing that there is an answer and a fix to all the mess. I can’t help myself. And I have found answers, and when I do, like in Out of the Silent Planet, I hitch my wagon to the horse from whose mouth it came. Every time. I can’t help myself. Then the horse stumbles – how could he not? C.S. Lewis did not become an Orthodox Christian, but I so wanted someone in the western tradition to speak Orthodox, and I think he comes close many times because Orthodoxy is the language we were all meant to speak and lies in potential in all of us. What is not Orthodox is foreign, and sometimes we develop foreign habits. In Perelandra, Lewis shows his Protestantism in that he believes that Christ was incarnated because of the Fall, instead of the Orthodox belief that Christ’s intention in creation was to join with us in the Incarnation from the beginning and would have happened without the Fall. So on Perelandra when the unfallen Green Lady and the King get married, it is seen as a less great thing than what happened on earth as a result of the Fall.
Then Ransom’s sacrifice is seen as an unmeritorious act I assume because of the Protestant creed of Glory to God Alone. But this causes him confusion when he sees the King’s face who is created in the image of “Maleldil”.
“You might ask how it was possible to look upon it and not to commit idolatry, not to mistake it for that of which it was the likeness. For the resemblance was, in its own fashion, infinite, so that almost you could wonder at finding no sorrows in his brow and no wounds in his hands and feet. Yet there was no danger of mistaking, not one moment of confusion, no least sally of the will towards forbidden reverence. Where likeness was greatest, mistake was least possible.”
He continues to struggle with idolatry when he talks about man-made images,
“A clever wax-work can be made so like a man that for a moment it deceives us: the great portrait which is far more deeply like him does not. Plaster images of the Holy One may before now have drawn to themselves the adoration they were meant to arouse for the reality. But here, where His live image, like Him within and without, made by His own bare hands out of the depth of divine artistry, His masterpiece of self-portraiture coming forth from His workshop to delight all worlds, walked and spoke before Ransom’s eyes, it could never be taken for more than an image. Nay, the very beauty of it lay in the certainty that it was a copy, like and not the same, an echo, a rhyme, an exquisite reverberation of the uncreated music prolonged in a created medium.”
His iconoclasm is showing, but he knows that there is something to marvel at in humanity. It is so hard when converting from Protestantism to be able to make peace between the Creator and the created. We have been so conditioned to believe that it is a sin to appreciate the greatness of creation. Proper veneration has become foreign. We are more afraid of committing idolatry than to venerate man’s intended end, and that which represents and communicates those who have accomplished deification, or theosis – icons.
But it is because of Christ’s and the Saint’s union with God that venerating them is not idolatry. God is in them, unseparated, unmixed, distinct, and undivided. To venerate the Saints is to worship God and His intention in Incarnation. Perelandra is full of What Would Jesus Do? Instead of God filling His Saints so that they can reach their potential – deification. Lewis presents a copy, but not the real thing.
Back to disillusioned optimism, less than perfect people can still impart improvements to where we are at present, so I’ll not give up on Professor Lewis. And I’ll not give up on Father John Romanides who has also let me down with this unsubstantiated ad hominem on page 90 of Patristic Theology, “If we use the criteria of the Apostle Paul and the Church Fathers such as St. Symeon the New Theologian regarding who is truly a theologian, we will see that contemporary modern Orthodox theology, under the influence of Russian theology, is not Patristic theology, but a distortion of Patristic theology, because it is written by people who do not have the above-mentioned spiritual prerequisites [that they be in theosis].” This is all he says about Russian “theologians”. I’m very disappointed and now will have to force myself to finish this book as I did with Perelandra.
I struggle with disillusionment a lot, but I know I can’t keep retreating forever from the less than perfect. Part of it is dealing with being offended and learning to forgive and have a humble attitude about how much I fail myself and require patience and forgiveness from others. But also I have read that love requires perfection, so it is ok to notice when something is not perfect and to bring it to attention when it is presented as the truth. We are easily deceived and must fight it in ourselves and others. Father John Romanides is motivating me to seek theosis through purification and illumination by prayer and repentance, so I will keep reading him even though he must be one of those ethnocentric Greek Orthodox. It just takes some of the fun out of it is all.
08.25.08
Perelandra
I finally finished book 2 of C.S. Lewis’ space trilogy last night. I’m sorry to all the fans out there, but I am disappointed. You can blame it on my PMS if you want to, it wont hurt my feelings. I liked Out of the Silent Planet much better.
*Spoiler Warning*
I was going along with all the surreal floating jungle stuff and the magnificent and sweetly innocent Green Lady until … Weston showed up. At first it seemed Ransom would have a nice challenge on his hands, but then Lewis conveniently de-humanized Weston. Even calling him an “Un-Man”. The device was cheap I thought. Before Weston, in serpentine style, even tries to seduce the Eve-like Green Lady, we are manipulated into being completely incensed and incited by his cruel torture of the large frog-like creatures. He leaves hand-splayed, not quite dead carcasses all over the beach. (I think Steve Carell, Michael Scott in The Office, must have read the scene where Ransom tries to put one of the frogs out of his misery. He very similarly describes, in the deleted scenes of the Halloween episode in season 2 how it took him an hour to kill a deer with a shovel after he had shot it in the leg.) I know that there are people who enjoy being cruel to animals, and it is most heinous, but I’d prefer a deeper psychological look into the roots of that behavior (history of abuse where nobody cared about them?) rather than that they are demon-possessed. It is assumed that Weston already deserves to die. But then the Venusian half of the story went sour when the Green Lady apparently doesn’t notice all the mostly-dead frogs strewn all over the beach. How clueless is that? I’m really tired of women being presented as stupid creatures so out of touch with reality. Yes I understand that men want to protect women from the harsher realities of the world, but women are responsible to protect at least children too, so we are obligated to notice when they are cutting up frogs with their bare hands. Get real. I think Eve may have had her guard up more if the original snake had done such things before even talking to her. I have more confidence in her than Lewis apparently.
I liked the idea of an A.D., or should I say, C.E. Christian being present though, even if the Adam character was gone, which he shouldn’t have been if you want to be truly Edenesque. But I didn’t think he should have been so ineffectual, and almost wimpy. The seduction was spot on however. To arouse a superiorly noble self-concept in Eve to convince her that disobedience was the martyr thing to do was very believable. Been there, done that.
And then what Ransom has to do to pump himself up enough to do Weston in. This is where Lewis’ experience in both World Wars could play a part as I believe he was on the front lines in WWI when he was wounded. A common motivation to kill one’s enemy is to present them as the devil incarnate. Then the “hate” that gave him superior strength seemed wrong on my reading. His writing this during WWII could also explain his very dark view of earth.
I’m now rethinking Sarah Smith’s husband and the tragedian in The Great Divorce. I do believe that demons can become stronger than the person’s identity as one created in God’s image. Sarah’s husband completely disappeared though, and I’m not sure that that happens. Weston similarly lost his identity. I hope that even the worst criminal can be reached. Hitler and Judas killed themselves rather than face who they were and seek redemption. I’ve heard at least one Church Father say that giving up was Judas’ worst sin.
So because of how these three main characters were presented, when Ransom finally “enters into his rest” I was too disconnected to enjoy it. The heavenly scene seemed contrived as well and based on imagination rather than a true vision. If I were more versed in philosophy, I would say that there were too many elements of Platonic Forms in there. Shadowy shapes and “you can’t handle the truth” were too apart from our real existence. I believe that when we see things as they really are that we will be surprised, but mostly I think things that we know will be glorified and not altered in their fundamental nature. Christ’s body was still human after His resurrection, but departed souls who have not experienced the resurrection of their bodies probably are different at present than we can imagine. Still, Saints who have had visions recognized them, seemingly visually, but whether this was for the seer’s benefit or if they actually maintain an incorporeal appearance of their earthly bodies, I don’t know. And the descriptions of actual angels that I’ve heard of weren’t all that bizarre either.
And lastly, when the King finally emerges, his decrees and intentions seemed pretty childish or too domination centered. The various prophetic praises also seemed too abstract and surreal. But like I said, maybe I was in a bad mood.
08.22.08
Gladsome Light
My blogging friend, Clement, has a new blog called Gladsome Light, one of my favorite hymns, by the way. He has a very interesting perspective with his background in Buddhist studies, so check out his Reflections on Conversion and the rest!
08.20.08
Plato 10, The Proposed Necessary Balance of Music and Gymnastics
Continuing in Book 3, Plato explains the special nature of music and how it can affect how one sees the world,
And therefore, I said, Glaucon, musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful, or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful; and also because he who has received this true education of the inner being will most shrewdly perceive omissions or faults in art and nature, and with a true taste, while he praises and rejoices over and receives into his soul the good, and becomes noble and good, he will justly blame and hate the bad, now in the days of his youth, even before he is able to know the reason why; and when reason comes he will recognise and salute the friend with whom his education has made him long familiar.
Socrates then says that the virtuous soul, formed in beauty and grace, will have non-sensual relationships, as that between father and son. I wonder if this is where “Platonic” comes from.
Next, he switches to “gymnastic”, or care of the body. He says the virtuous soul, already trained in music, will influence the body. A guardian must not become intoxicated. His food must consist of simple fare, like roast, without sweet sauces or delicacies.
He goes on to lament the time and energy doctors and lawyers have to waste on people who by their self-indulgence and trickery invent new problems. He also seems to suggest that debilitating illnesses should not be aggressively treated. This line of argument is disturbingly utilitarian, seeming that a person is only worth while if he is doing a task for society. However, he does go on to attribute worth to the rich man who has no occupation but to acquire virtue. Cannot a sick man do the same? He argues that a sick person is too self-absorbed. That is a temptation to be sure, but not an inevitable outcome.
He states that it is best if a doctor has first-hand experience with illness which his “mind” has overcome, thus proving his ability to cure. I assume this means that he figured out how to be well, rather than that he practiced “mind over matter”. But a judge should not have first-hand knowledge of corrupting vice, but learns about it second hand through observation only.
He then observes that properly trained, healthy individuals who are steeped in a virtuous environment will not want to be doctors or judges who are exposed to the ills of society. They will be content with improvement of their own souls. They will not become soft and effeminate by neglecting gymnastics, nor harsh by neglecting training in beautiful, but simple music. Thus the proper guardian is a balanced gentleman, or philosopher who has a habit springing from his youth in the described training of virtue.
Next he explores why some people are not virtuous. He says the truth of virtue was stolen, forced, or enchanted from them against their will. This can occur through forgetting, and through argument.
Those again who are forced are those whom the violence of some pain or grief compels to change their opinion.
I understand, he said, and you are quite right.
And you would also acknowledge that the enchanted are those who change their minds either under the softer influence of pleasure, or the sterner influence of fear?
Yes, he said; everything that deceives may be said to enchant.
Therefore, as I was just now saying, we must enquire who are the best guardians of their own conviction that what they think the interest of the State is to be the rule of their lives. We must watch them from their youth upwards, and make them perform actions in which they are most likely to forget or to be deceived, and he who remembers and is not deceived is to be selected, and he who falls in the trial is to be rejected. That will be the way?
He devises a lie to test prospective statesmen which, if I were more trained in communism or socialism, I might recognize better.
Thus ends Book III of The Republic.
Orthodox/Catholic Discussion
A few weeks ago I learned about a blog dedicated to “Orthodox-Catholic Reconciliation” called Eirenikon. There are two long but very educational discussions that have now been closed about the Immaculate Conception, in which the eastern view of grace, articulated by St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Basil, and St. Maximus, and the western view, influenced by St. Augustine, are compared. I ventured into the second one over the weekend. It reminded me how engaging these back and forths can be. Towards the end, it seemed that people “on both sides” had pretty positive responses to it despite our differences. I’m adding Eirenikon to “Reconciliation Conversations” to the right.
08.19.08
Relationships and Maleness and Femaleness in the Ordo Theologiae
Pardon my aloof, but not really, analysis. I spend considerable time thinking about relationships and will explore some of my observations and theories here. We expect a lot from our relationships. How a mother, father, sister, brother, friend, spouse, daughter, or son, or even ourselves in our male or femaleness or simple humanity should act and be. It seems to me that Plato’s “necessity is the mother of invention” might indicate where we have gotten off track. I believe Father Stephen has written (somewhere) about the fallen state of working from deprivation instead of fullness. In a needy, needs-based culture, the simple motivator for action and feeling is that I lack, or even someone else lacks something. And it must be given to me/them now, and I/they must feel really satisfied afterward. This action/reaction mode begins when we are babies crying from hunger and discomfort and expecting our mothers to fix it, as she should. But still we recognize that a baby in complete control of his mother by this perceived need based one-way street is an imbalanced relationship. And if a mother needs to be needed in that way she is labeled co-dependent. Hopefully we begin to train our children in infancy that some of their desires can wait while others’ are being taken care of. And children can learn to divert themselves. I almost said pacify, but I think that needs further consideration. Pacification is when we become satisfied with less than we truly need. A band-aid instead of healing. We accept substitutes. I’m not going to say pacifiers have no use though. It is painful for a child to learn to give his mother space and to get his needs taken care of elsewhere, so an intermediate device can help ease the trauma. Always there must be balance though. A child should be moving in a healthy direction where he doesn’t need a pacifier any more. Over-dependence on pacifiers may indicate that some of his real needs may not be being met, or maybe there is a certain disposition for needing them. Either way, the child must be wisely and gently guided towards independence.
The most important thing to make a child happily independent, is to know that he is loved. This is where we get confused. We think it is unloving to deprive a child of his original object that he perceives he needs. I haven’t read that much about James Dobson’s tough love, but I do believe constant attention must be paid to guiding a child step by step towards happily meeting his own needs according to the proper order. Where he doesn’t panic if someone is not meeting them for him, and where he remains secure of his parent’s love and their confidence in him. Which leads to another issue. How much confidence to place in one’s child. We can be naive that a child can handle things before he is truly ready. We put too much trust in him that he will make the right decisions and follow through with them. So we have the delicate balance of letting go of them while maintaining close tabs and accountability under our ever-watchful gaze. It can wear a person out. We must continually gauge their reaction to new situations and decide if they are duly stressed, or if it is too much and they need additional help. And this may last forever. Hopefully not if we do our job right, and hopefully we wont just dump a dependent personality on an unsuspecting friend or spouse.
Therefore a healthy balance of independence with love and joy around others seems the way to be. Happy alone, happy together. Perhaps this unilateral sense of calm and peace is what helps us have healthy expectations in relationships. Hopefully children can learn this early on, but I don’t think it’s ever too late. I hope not or I’m in trouble. Perhaps not learning it is the reason for all of the problems people have in relationships and in society. We panic and start to grasp for substitutes to pacify us and then need more and more – food, alcohol, drugs, sex, entertainment, affirmation, and other things I’ve mentioned in other posts. Of course there’s a healthy balance of when to use these, but, I’ll risk sounding even more trite, we should control them, they shouldn’t control us. And many things are given for our enjoyment and we receive them in thanksgiving, offering them back up to God, while not demanding more and more.
____________
I meant to get into the Ordo Theologiae of Person -> Activity -> Nature, but I still haven’t been able to think that through in regards to the distinctions between the sexes. I believe I dealt with common human nature, which is sexless, here. Mothers were singled out, but sometimes men nurture children by necessity or even by preference, and I don’t know how much difference that makes. A man will still nurture a child in a male way, even if he is holding a bottle, and a woman will do it in a female way, even if she is holding a bottle. Their postures will be slightly different, the ways their bodies are distributed will feel different to the baby, but so will the way other men and women who hold the baby. The parental bond affects how we hold babies. We can’t say that being raised without either parent makes no difference, but surely substitutes can raise healthy children. That would fall under economeia, I guess. There is an order, but there are always exceptions and alternate provisions. And in those exceptions, the substitute is having to behave as a mother, if she is absent, not that all men holding babies are being motherly. There is a male or fatherly way to hold babies. I think it is more physically protective and somewhat more adventurous, while a mother’s is more nurturing and escapist, though these overlap. And this overlap is because being human is ultimately sexless. If people are innately gendered though, what we all have in common is being human, but a male or female person defines how this will look, be, and act.
There are rules, which we tend to look to the Bible and the Church to define. Hair length is discussed, but hair length does not a sex make. (I’ve learned on Energetic Procession and Wikipedia that ‘gender’ is more of a sociological word, and that ’sex’ is more about innate male and femaleness, so I’m trying to be correct even though it makes me a little uncomfortable.) We have a basic structure that men are the leaders and women take care of the kids. But in the Bible we also have men interceding for their sick children, women commanding nations and being sermon-giving missionaries (but no Orthodox female priests – ever). I surmise these overlapping functions to still be done in a male or female way, which puts person first in regard to how something is done, and indeed what they choose or feel “lead” to do, but what is done is ultimately sexless – living and moving and having our being in Christ.
Deviant behavior is another matter, where someone assumes or tries to recreate themselves according the opposite sex. The wikipedia article talks about people who feel trapped in the wrong body. I assume that male and femaleness goes beyond bodies, but is of course not disconnected from it. I believe these confused people are just that, confused. And maybe “gender” roles and pressures has something to do with that confusion. Men make the best cooks and artists for example, but boys are sometimes teased and made fun of if they choose these fields. This may cause them to doubt their male identity. I want to switch gears to family though. I think there is an order in the family that provides the most peace, typically men earning the living and women raising the children. I do not rule out exceptions, take child-actors for example who support their families. But there is a way to keep the parental order intact even in those situations, where the child’s childhood is not taken away from them. It is more of a challenge in these situations though. This puts these distinctions on a more internal level. Does the child feel like he is playing, or that he is responsible for his family’s well-being? If a mother is supporting the family, does she feel like she is being protected and provided for by her husband – that she is perhaps being given freedom to explore her creativity. Some children and women would not feel burdened in that instance, though it seems rare. But that may be because of too strict societal gender rules.
I think I’ll leave it at that for now.
08.18.08
Patristic Theology
I’ve been trying to find good in Plato, and have so far. Simultaneously, I’m reading Father John Romanides’ Patristic Theology, which is hopefully putting Plato’s philosophy in perspective.
So far he has some very good things to say about noetic prayer, revelation, philosophy, and language. He draws from Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, among others, to describe the stages of purification, illumination, and theosis.
So far here’s what he’s warned against Plato.
An Orthodox theologian is under no obligation to take the existence of a Platonic-style Frankish soul into consideration, because unlike the Franks who were followers of Plato on the question of the soul, the Fathers refused to follow Plato on this topic. (p. 65)
On language he says that it is an invention of humans, and not God. “People formed it in order to help them communicate and interact.” (p. 81) He then explains the platonic idea of archetypes/forms and how they lead to idolotry (p.82). The Hebrew Bible uses inanimate creation to describe God like “mountain, rock, stone, water, river, sky, sun, and so on.” Platonic expression are abstract like “nous, logos, intellect, hypostasis, substance, trinity, unity, and so forth.” “The energy of God is described as a cloud, fire, light, and so forth.” (p. 83)
We are free to borrow any name or concept and to attribute it to God as long as we do so on an apophatic way, because God does not have any likeness in the created world and because there are no concepts in the created world that can be attributed to God as a way of identifying Him. So on the one hand, we do attribute a name to God, but only if, on the other hand, we also take it away from Him. For example, although we say that God is Light, we negate this at the same time by saying that God is also darkness. We do not add this qualification because God is not Light, but because God transcends light. God does not lack anything but He exceeds everything.
He criticizes Western Scholastics because “for them these names are not taken away from God in order to avoid attributing them to Him, but in order to purify the names of their imperfections. But you will not find such a thing in the Church Fathers [...] Names are given and they are taken away. In other words, they make use of opposites. But when the Fathers speak about God and attribute opposites to Him, they negate Aristotle’s law of contradiction and in so doing overturn the entire edifice of Aristotelian philosophy. (p. 84-85)
[...] rules of logic are valid, in so far as they are valid, only for God’s creation. The rules of logic or philosophy are not applicable with God. There is not any philosophical system or system of logic that can be applied to God. The Fathers consider those who think that they can approach God via pure mathematics to be terribly naive, simply because there is no similarity between created and uncreated. (p.85)
He is saying that God can only be known through theosis, though words can motivate or point a person in that direction. I do not think that he means logic is wrong, but that it can only describe the created. The Incarnation united the created and uncreated maintaining the distinction yet without confusion or separation. Mysterious indeed.
Plato 9, Harmony, Rhythm, and Words
In the second half of Book 3 in the Republic, the dialogue takes on music more specifically. I have not formally studied music, therefore some of the terms escape me, but I understand him to say when discussing harmony, that minor keyed lamentations are to be purged. Again I see both sides of this issue. One can be lulled to laxity and depression by escaping to a sad place too often. I personally love minor keyed music. Maybe it’s my low-blood sugar and sometimes melancholy personality, I don’t know. Someone told me once, my memory is hazy so I may misrepresent, that Plato discussed catharsis vs. influence in the arts. I think it is both. If our heart is sad or mourning then minor-keyed music can echo it and give it expression in order to ease the tension. But then we must guard against escapist self-pity where one wallows in emo. The Orthodox practice of prostrations presents a healthy balance. We bow in lamentation for our sins and sorrows, and we rise in the resurrecting, healing, loving power of Christ. This way we do not lose faith and hope in the midst of sorrow.
This section seems a little contradictory,
I answered: Of the harmonies I know nothing, but I want to have one warlike, to sound the note or accent which a brave man utters in the hour of danger and stern resolve, or when his cause is failing, and he is going to wounds or death or is overtaken by some other evil, and at every such crisis meets the blows of fortune with firm step and a determination to endure; and another to be used by him in times of peace and freedom of action, when there is no pressure of necessity, and he is seeking to persuade God by prayer, or man by instruction and admonition, or on the other hand, when he is expressing his willingness to yield to persuasion or entreaty or admonition, and which represents him when by prudent conduct he has attained his end, not carried away by his success, but acting moderately and wisely under the circumstances, and acquiescing in the event.
I think I get the above distinctions, but how does that mesh with the next sentence,
These two harmonies I ask you to leave; the strain of necessity and the strain of freedom, the strain of the unfortunate and the strain of the fortunate, the strain of courage, and the strain of temperance; these, I say, leave.
Perhaps defeat and triumphalism are too extreme, and the beginning part of the paragraph describes a healthier disposition. A steadier, more maintainable harmony. Which leads to rhythm. Again leaving aside some of the unfamiliar terms, I gather that he says that rhythms should also seek a harmonious balance,
making the rhythms equal in the rise and fall of the foot, long and short alternating; and, unless I am mistaken, he spoke of an iambic as well as of a trochaic rhythm, and assigned to them short and long quantities.
To achieve a good style, we must turn to words,
And also that good and bad rhythm naturally assimilate to a good and bad style; and that harmony and discord in like manner follow style; for our principle is that rhythm and harmony are regulated by the words, and not the words by them.
I wonder at this heirarchy. Eastern Orthodox music is indeed word based with interchangeable harmonies and rhythms. Western classical music can be wordless, and very melancholy or triumphalistic. Not that all of it is. So we’ll continue with the ideal.
Then beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity, –I mean the true simplicity of a rightly and nobly ordered mind and character, not that other simplicity which is only an euphemism for folly?
Plato 8, Be ye single of mind
Book 3 of Plato’s Republic continues on the subject of education that censors inacurate representations of the gods. First, a god must not be afraid of hades, and thus must not be afraid to die. All records of excessive lamentations over death should be removed, and are classified as effeminate. A person should choose death over slavery for instance, and that men afraid of death are of little use in war. On one hand of course this sounds dangerous – what about suicide and recklessness and disregard of one’s family’s state if one dies? Not to mention dying before one has repented of sins. But on the other, I think there is another kind of fear of death that leads to losing one’s soul to cowardice, fear of personal pain, hard work, and struggle. One can let oneself become a slave of the passions, or become co-dependent in another’s passionate pursuits because one is afraid to resist and suffer being cut off. Doing the right thing often has deadly consequences, and fear of that stifles the practice of virtue.
Plato, or rather Socrates, instructs that references to gods being silly or laughing uncontrollably are to be cut as well. Then he moves on to discuss the heinousness and subversiveness of lying. Temperance, obedience to those in command, and self-control over sensual pleasures should be exemplified. Strike also references to gods being overcome by their lustful appetites for food and sex.
But any deeds of endurance which are done or told by famous men, these they ought to see and hear; as, for example, what is said in the verses,
He smote his breast, and thus reproached his heart,
Endure, my heart; far worse hast thou endured!
Ill-gotten gain is next scorned. Gods should not be controlled by love of money, meanness, nor contempt, practicers of rape or other evil deeds, and neither shall those who do such things be portrayed as happy.
Now he brings the subject back to justice and injustice. Poets are guilty if they mistakenly say
that injustice is profitable when undetected, but that justice is a man’s own loss and another’s gain –these things we shall forbid them to utter, and command them to sing and say the opposite.
He discusses styles of storytelling and convinces that staying with one style is preferable just as he also convinced that people should concentrate on one labor and skill earlier.
If then we adhere to our original notion and bear in mind that our guardians, setting aside every other business, are to dedicate themselves wholly to the maintenance of freedom in the State, making this their craft, and engaging in no work which does not bear on this end, they ought not to practise or imitate anything else; if they imitate at all, they should imitate from youth upward only those characters which are suitable to their profession –the courageous, temperate, holy, free, and the like; but they should not depict or be skilful at imitating any kind of illiberality or baseness, lest from imitation they should come to be what they imitate. Did you never observe how imitations, beginning in early youth and continuing far into life, at length grow into habits and become a second nature, affecting body, voice, and mind?
He also says statesmen should not imitate women, not sure if he is qualifying the next or portraying all women as quarrelsome, grasping at happiness, and carried away by sorrows. Neither should he imitate any of the sins previously discussed, nor madness.
He moves on to project singleness of imitation to occupation as well. That each person should imitate only one job and that a jack of all trades is to be expelled from the community. Interesting.
