The true turning point, however, was the twentieth century, with its massive upheavals of everything from literature to technology. Many of these were driven by the horrors of World War I, the Holocaust, Hiroshima, and Vietnam. As historian Paul Fussell notes, these events “reversed the idea of progress.” Philip Gibbs, World War I journalist and correspondent, puts it another way: “[We] had been taught to believe that the whole object of life was to reach out to beauty and love, and that mankind, in its progress to perfection, had killed the beast instinct, cruelty, blood-lust, the primitive savage law of survival by tooth and claw and club and ax. All poetry, all art, all religion had preached this gospel and this promise. Now that ideal had broken like a china vase dashed to hard ground.”
In these tragedies, the world saw triumphant empire after empire broken to pieces. Leaders that had once been followed with near-religious fidelity were unmasked as self-serving, incompetent, or fallibly human. The sheer scale of our ability to destroy each other—with mustard gas, nuclear weapons, machine guns, napalm—was staggering and unabsorbable. In the trenches of World War I, in Dachau, there was no glory, no drums and trumpets. The dream of a golden age was gone.
And with it went the old traditions of Virgilian scholarship. As the great classics scholar Bernard Knox tells it, he rediscovered Virgil as an Allied soldier serving in Italy during World War II. He was taking shelter in an abandoned building when he saw a copy of the poet’s works amid the rubble and flipped it open. His eye fell upon a passage that read, “A world in ruins
For right and wrong change places; everywhere/So many wars, so many shapes of crime.” Knox was not part of the original Harvard school, but he was emblematic of a new engagement with Virgil—a sudden ability to see him fresh, wiped clean of his obscuring traditions.
Canadian subscribers add $10; All other international subscribers add $40.
Comments Post a Comment »
Great article on the Aeneid.
There is something quite similar in Plato's Republic. It is a dialogue about Justice, yet the supposedly ideal republic with its Guardians is based on land theft, that is injustice. (It should have sounded especially unjust to Greeks whose concept of morality is based on respecting boundaries.) When the dialogue is viewed as a whole, there is evidence that Plato's fictional Socrates is using irony to ridicule the views of justice expressed by the Athenians in the dialogue. Socrates demonstrates that a polis featuring tyranny, lying, censorship, elitism, and communism is the logical implication both of the Greek characters' ill-formed ideas of justice and of their undeveloped love of justice. It appears to be a reductio ad absurdum, though few think it absurd.
http://mises.org/daily/4201
Francis Neilson's discussion of Plato's Republic in his book The Eleventh Commandment makes the same point.
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/neilson-francis_on-plato.html
Posted by Anders Mikkelsen on Mon 23 Apr 2012