|
by
Edward Spence
1.
Introduction
Let me begin
at the
end where
all good beginnings
should start:
in the Epilogue,
the
author informs us that the “book had its origins
in a love
of myth”
(256) However, given
the
title,
I want
to
even
go further and suggest
that
Luke’s
book is
in its essence
more
than
a
love of
myth
– its about
love itself, in
particular,
the Platonic
myth
of love in which Aphrodite
is
presented by
Pausanias
as having not one
but
two diametrically
opposing
aspects:
the
heavenly
as instantiated
by Aphrodite
(Ourania)
and the pandemic,
as instantiated
by Aphrodite
(Pandemos).
The wise
man
who knows
what’s
good for him should
choose, according to Pausanias,
Ourania over Pandemos.
If there is
one essential theme that
characterises
the
whole of Luke’s book is
the attempt
to synthesise if not exactly
reconcile
opposing binaries.
Apollo with Dionysus
(the
orderly
rational
and
the
exuberantly
passionate),
Alexander
with
Aristotle
(the active
and
the
contemplative)
,
Achilles
with
Hector
(the
individualistic
anarchic
with
the civilised
communal),
the human
with
the
divine (Alexander
asserting
his
divinity
and God
through Christ
claiming
humanity)
, monotheism with
pantheism
(arrogant
dogmatism
and tolerant
pluralism),
a
life
of reason
with
a life
of
pleasure
(both
elements
reconciled in Epicurus
philosophy
of pleasure),
Eros with Agape (
a transcendence
from
sex to friendship
and
ultimately
love
of the Good
in Plato’s
Symposium),
philosophy with
passion
(ataraxia
achieved
through
regulating
our desires as
in
Epicureanism,
subjugating our
passions as
in Stoicism,
and
suspending
all judgement
about things
we
can
never
be certain,
as in Scepticism); and
finally, individuality
with community
( self-cantered
local
individualism
with
an
other-
centred
global
community).
______________________________ |
|
2.
Aim and Composition
In
the Introduction of the
book, Luke tells us that
the aim
of the
book is “to
bring
the
past
home
to
the present;
to evoke the
presence
of the past”
(xiii).
He
does so admirably
through
an intricate
but harmonious and
colourful quilt comprising history,
mythology,
philosophy, literature,
art, religion and popular
culture, with a
wry
sense
of humour
that is absent
of the phlegmatic
detached
observation that we come
to expect
from a mere
reporter. Instead,
the
book is infused with
a knowing ironical
passion
not
unlike
that
of Socrates in
Plato’s dramatic
dialogues. Though
erudite and
informed,
it reads more
like
a
narrative
poem
than
a dry scholastic
treatise drawing
us in not as
readers
or students but
as
companions
on a journey
of wonder,
reflection
and nostalgia. This
is, however, as the author tells
us, a
“good
nostalgia”, one that
seeks to bring the past
home to the
present
- a “nostalgia
that conducts
us to the past
but does not abandon
us there” (244).
Like
rowers in a boat
we
look back as we move
forward. This
is one of
many
original metaphors
that
animates
Luke’s narrative and
instils
in it a poignancy
of
vision
that not unlike
good poetry and philosophy,
enables
us to transcend
the
narrow boundaries
of the present-
actual
and
allows
us to explore
the extrapolated
present and future
possibilities
of
the
past.
Socrates
like
Apollo holds a special place in Dating
Aphrodite. As
the author
relates in the Chapter
on Apollo’s
Victory,
“Socrates
summoned
Apollo to
his
defence;
Philosophy
was
nothing if
not a form of obedience
to
the
god of light”
(88).
Luke interestingly
relates Socrates
to Apollo
through the
Oracle of Delphi
which lies adjacent
to
Apollo’s ancient
temple.
Invoking
Socrates’ defence
at
his trial
where he told the
jurors
that
his
reputation
for being
wise came
not from
self-conceit,
as
he considered
himself
ignorant,
but
from an
intriguing
pronouncement
of the
oracle
that
declared
him the
wisest of men,
Luke goes
onto say
that “Apollo
was Socrates’
personal
demon
– his guardian
angel”. The
Apollonian
demonic
Socrates is also characterised
by
the epigram
at
the
god’s
temple
at
Delphi
, “know
thyself”.
This imploration reflects also a
characteristic
of the narrative
style of the
book which is more
meditative
than instructive more dialectical than rhetorical more contemplative
that descriptive.
If Socrates was alive today
he would be a journalist; a journalist
who like Luke doesn’t merely
wishes to
report
facts or offer opinions
but
seeks
instead to engage
with
his audience
in
a dialogue
of discovery – and does so with a passionate
conviction that comes
from
a deep
love of what really
matters
or in
other words,
that comes from a
love
of wisdom or philosophy.
_______________________________ In
order to read the rest of this inspiring article please
write to: editor@sahs.com.au |
