In Search of Humanity Essays in Honor of Clifford Orwin Edited by Andrea Radasanu LEXINGTON BOOKS Lanham + Boulder + New York * LondonPublished by Lexington Books, ‘nimi’ of Te Rowan & Litlefilé Publishing Grou, ne. 44501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Mayland 20706 Unie A, Whitacre Mews, 26-34 Stannary Stet, London SE11 4AB, Copyright ©2015 by Lexington Books All righs reserved. No pat of this book may be reproduced in any form oe by any Glecuemic or mechanics! means nelading information storage and reeval ftom, ‘without writen permission from the publisher, except by aeviewer who may quote pastages in areviw Brish Libeary Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging i Publaton Dat {$0978 6.7991-816-5 handbck ak paper) aNgreo-rotanrTatebeon ome, Pope wen his pblicatin meets the minimus equzemnts of American Matera, ANSENISO 23048419920 a ENS Printed inthe United States of America Contents Introduction Andrea Radasam Part Ai 1. Civilization an the Gods in the Eumenides Mark J Lutz 2 Philosophy and “Humanity”: Reflections on Thueydidean Piety, Justice, and Necessity Ryan Balor 3 Preliminary Observations on the Treaties in Thucydides’ Work Robert Howse and Noah Lawrence 4 Reflections on the Humanity (and Inhumanity) of Thucydides SN Jaffe 5 ‘The Spartan Alcibiades: Brasias and the Prospect of Regime Change in Sparta in Thucydides’ War Michael Palmer 6 ‘The Tragedy of Demosthenes in Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War Andrea Radasanu 7 Moral Indignation, Magnanimity, and Philosophy in the Trial of the Armenian King Lorraine Smith Pangle {8 Humanity and Divinity in Xenophon's Defense of Socrates Thomas L. Pangle 9. Education ater Freedom Michael S. Kochin t Inquiries into Humanity 7 37 31 6s 87 101 us 129Chapter Nine Education after Freedom Michael S. Kochin 1 know that if mankind in genera is destined to reach tue flict within the hraon ofthis word, there will come about that concord and order which I shall describe. Happy i he who ses the resplendence of thal day when men will agree to constiute one rule and one kingdom. They wil cease from wars sau strife, and devote themselves to that which promotes their welfare andthe ‘wolfe of their cities and countries. They wil ll enjoy safety and quiet, dividing thei day into parts, part forrest and welfare ofthe body, part fr lucation and attention to that noble pursuit, pilosophy—stying what has ‘oon achieved and seeking whats not bees atained, I would love to remain alive and se tat age—if not all, atleast par of it—Psevdo-Aristlle, Leer to Alexander! [have long been suspicious of cultural nationalism. Partly, no doubt, that is Jewish selhatred. German cultural nationalism was invented by Jews who wished to be Germans: as Vietor Klemperer put it, “the Jews invented Goethe"? Arab nationalism was invented by Christians, but modern Arabic music was invented by Jews (such as Dawood Hosni, Laila Mourad, and the al-Kuwaiti brothers, Saleh and Daud) who wished to create an urban Arab caltue into which to assimilate I understand political nationalism because it is based on freedom, the desire for self-determination in a political commu- nity defined according to loyalties to shared institutions. 1 understand ethni rationalism because it is based on kinship—we all understood Parizeau back in 1995, those of us who were old enough, when he said, “Si vous voulez, on ‘va esser de parler des francophones duu Québec, voulez-vous? On va parler de nous.” What stands as the basis of cultural nationalism? What is sup- posed to be valuable about culture that can make it serve as the basis of polities? 190 Michael. Kochin In honor of Clifford Orwin, my postdoctoral supervisor at Toronto in 1996-1998 when the national conflict in Canada was much closer to tearing that country apart than itis today, I would like to diseuss two writers who search for a basis for polities that is other than freedom—namely, Aristotle and Josephus. For Aristotle, the bass for polities isthe correct understanding of virtue, and the practice of polities is the cultivation of that understanding through lifelong education. For Josephus, the basis for polities is the correct understanding ofthe nature of God, and the practice of politics isthe cultiva- tion of that understanding in an entire people through education in God's (or Moses’s) Torah. I have no understanding of cultural nationalism because While T understand what itis to have a shared culture, I do not understand ‘what arguments the cultural nationalists offer for thinking that a shared cul- ture is important. I do not understand what the cultural nationalists are putting forward as the basis for the kind of polities they would like to see. EDUCATION AFTER FREEDOM IN ARISTOTLE ‘What is Aristotle's Politics about? What expectation does that title set up in us, and how is that expectation transformed by frustration into enlighten- ‘ment? John Adams famously wrote to his wife Abigail from Paris in the ‘midst ofthe War ofthe American Revolution: ‘The Science of Government itis my Duty wo study, more than al ther Sei- ences: the Art of Legislation and Administration and Negotiation, ought 10 lake Place, indeed to exclude ina manner all other Ars. mist study Politcks sand War that my sons may have liber to study Mathemticks and Philoso- ply. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Pilesophy, Geography, natu ‘al History, Naval Archtecure, navigation, Commerce and Agricul, ia order to giv ther Children right o study Painting, Petry, Music, Archites- ‘ure, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelain. 1 propose that we should come at Aristotle's Politics with the expectation that by “politics” he means something closely associated with war, some- thing like “legislation and administration and negotiation” with a view to war. We should start with the expectation that politics is something other than philosophy, and most distant from “painting, poetry, music, architec ture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.” This should be our expectation be- ‘cause “legislation and administration and negotiation” with a view t0 war is the principal content of Greek writing about polities in Herodotus, ‘Thucy- dides, Xenophon, and Demosthenes. Only by putting forward such an expec- tation can we reflect on our engagement with Aristotle's inversion of this expectation, in which by the end of Aristotle’s work, “polities” turns out 10 ‘mean at core legislation and administration witha view to poetry and music. Bitcation ater Predom br I propose to track Aristotle's frustration of what should be our expecta: tion about what a book about polities should be about with attention to one sspittion of polities in the sense John Adams certainly meant it in 1780: freedom from foreign rule. There are degrees of foreign rule, and hence, by regation, degrees of freedom from foreign rule. There is a difference be- tween external domination (in the etymological sense of unaccountable rule of master) and external hegemony, between, say, occupied Japan of 1945 and sovereign, semi-armed Japan still atleast declaredly an American protec tomate in 2015. There is, moreover, a difference between being led in a ‘begemony and being a hegemon oneself: between Japan of 2015 and (local- ly) hegemonic Japan of 445. These are differences to which citizens and statesmen appear to assign a great deal of importance, but to whose evalua: tion Aristotle devotes precious litle attention, This is a great puzzle if we realize that hegemony and freedom from it ae, in fact, Key ideas if not she ‘ey ideas in the literature ofthe extemal relations of the polis that proceeds Aristotle, whether one looks at Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon's Helleni- a, or Demosthenes. Hegemony is not so much a new idea, as, seemingly, ‘one Aristole chooses to downplay and pretty much ignore. Hegemony, I ‘ote for subsequent purposes, is the word Josephus uses in Greek to express hhow the Romans refer to their own empire (see, for example, Jewish War 6342).6 At one level this is familiar: Leo Strauss and Thomas Pangle, among ‘others, have emphasized that Aristotle teaches the primacy of Innenpolitk, of ‘lations of rule, including domination and leadership, within the city, over relations of rule between the city and other cities. Yet at least in the expos: tions familiar to me, the contrast is between Aristotle and Machiaveli, or Aristotle and various neo-Machiavellians. My goal here isto remind us that this stress on Jnnenpolitk is just as novel with respect to the Greek politcal literature that preceded and followed Aristotle. Even Plato, whether we think of his Socrates in the Republic or his Athenian Stranger inthe Laws, is not so ‘wedded to the primacy of internal relations of rule in thinking about politis.® The best city is armed, Aristotle admits, but i is armed to prevent any on- comers from enslaving it (Politics 1291a6-8). Iti armed to resist attack lke the atempt to conquer the island of Sark undertaken by a single Frenchman ‘with an automatic rifle in 1990.° The best city is armed sufficiently so as not tobe by nature enslaved. This does not mean that it must be self-sufficient in the sense of being capable of defying all potential foes. That i to say, it snot necessarily armed and powerful enough to make it capable of defying would ‘behegemons, or of being hegemonic itself. ° Aristotle acknowledges that ifa city i to live @ hegemonic and politcal life it must have the land and naval capacities that are relevant (1327bS-6), but he argues at length that one cannot assess the goodness of a regime or its legislator based on whether it has educated citizens for hegemony or empire (13330S-1334629), 1937na Michael S.Kochin We all know the first few words ofthe Politics, “since every polis, as we see, is some kind of partnership, and every partnership is established for the same of some good, for everybody does all the things they do for the sake of that which they deem good” (1252a13). What is the relation of freedom from extemal hegemony, or freedom to lead or dominate foreign political ‘communities, 1 the good?” What is good about freedom? We also know the Aristotelian answer, one he got from Plato: freedom is good for one who ‘knows his or her own good and is intrinsically capable of acting on that knowledge." What we do not give attention to isthe relation between that Platonic-Aristotelian answer that subordinates freedom to the good, and a ‘more familiar political thinking, more familiar both to us and to Aristotle's ‘contemporary audience, which is centered on freedom. There isa future for politics after freedom, and Aristotle shows, there is content to politics after freedom. Indeed, because freedom does not appear to be on an ontological level withthe various human goods, because freedom is good only for one ‘who has the knowledge and ability to pursue the human goods strictly speak ing, to claim thatthe city is a partnership directed at some good is already to direct us away from what might otherwise seem to be the primary purpose of the ety. !? Itis startling how litle Aristotle has to say about eleutheria ({reedom), Acistotle has alot more to say about liberality than about freedom or liberty (see 1263b). Indeed, he nowhere says what he understands elewtheria to be, part from liberality, but speaks about what other people say or think elewthe- ria to be (eg, 1317b10-11, 131888-9). What those partisans of the demos ‘mean by freedom is freedom from internal domination. One sign of freedom, according to the popular paty, is the power of the people to administer the regime free ftom domination by the rich (1317a40-1317b12, and see 131828-9), What eleutheria might be, understood as some quality of the individual, Aristotle does not even define positively in his own name, but only asserts negatively that it isnot, as democrats say, “for each to do as he wishes” (1310232). Instead of giving extended space to freedom from extemal domination or hegemony as a goal of political life, Aristotle discusses its corollary, the power to dominate others despotically as a goal of politcal life (132411325016, but most centrally 1333b5~1334a16). For Aristotle, war {is most importantly an occasion for the expression of virtue (1278-11), but itis nota central or essential occasion for the expression of the virtues of a well-ordered political eommunity (see 127220 fT). Indeed, itis possible for there to be a polis existing by itself without neighbors where everything having to do with wari irelevant (1325). “Aristotle has virtually nothing to say about fiting the polis for leading other cites hegemonically, though hegemony is a key term in Greek thinking, about inter-polis relations. Perhaps there is no way to distinguish the eapacity Euucation after Freedom 133 tole forcgnersdespotically, the capacity to lead them hegemonically, the capaciy to resist foreign despotic domination, and te capacity to rest feregn hegemony. In any event ti alvayson the capacity o amas that Atte wants st ix ou gaze (1326a13). ‘ne might think there simple analogy: hegemony isto despotic ue over eines what rule over fiz men win the poi is to despotic re win the pols. Arsolle does asure us tha “here is no less difference Tetween ule over the fre and rule over slaves as thee is between the fe by pat and the slaves by nate” (13254280) I necessary thatthe pols be made up of fee men (1283419 MI the polis is erally esaved ton tuside force, presumably Aristotle would agree with Demosthenes that it an hardly be sid to have a regime of is ovm at all One might add hat in onsequenc is inhabitant, ruled despotclly, tht so sy, enslaved by an tuside power, are likely to develop slavish habits Yeti does mot appest ually ncesary forthe flourishing ofthe pit thatthe polis be ee of ‘Stemal hegemony. Moreover, the prespiating causes of exter tere nce in the pols sem in general oe internal and ot simple weakness fn the fice of more powerful encmics.¥Arsol gives thee sentences to exter pal uses of evolution a 1307620-24, and even Here, oe eta sence hat the etal cases are external interferences in ens divided polis. Ht could tetat Aristotle is simply only intrested in the internal cases of touble for pokes We als know the old crux about Aristotle's Polis: why write a bok about the esate, wen the ciysate was freting i primacy 25 the vehicle of Geek history in fivor ofthe Hllenizing Kingdon of Macedonia 2nd the Kingdoms tat woud be carved out of Alexanders Hellenzing con Guess? This cnx apears even in Pangle's book on Aristotle's pits pb- Ted in 201." Yet foro purposes, the most wef fon ise to Brendan Nagle, in his fine but seemingly neglected study of The Household csthe Foundation of aries Polis Nagle writes ‘Alter the Macedonian and Roman conquests, it was hard to make the ease hat the pots bag paricolry significant or orginal claim to politcal, social and ‘moral primacy. The connection between the household andthe pols tht was ‘of such unique importance in the Classical Age, and which had distinguished the pois household from the non polis household, no longer held tue, The polls household ofthe earlier period ditfered from the non-polis household prciely because it was the basic unit ofan independent pol. Thus, when the atr f the pole changed, 0 did the nate a it oko.” Nagle begs an important question, in a fashion surprising ina book on Aris- toll: Does the nature ofthe polis, and thus the nature ofits constituent parts, the household and the citizen, depend on whether the polis is independent of foreign hegemony? We can grant thatthe nature of the polis does depend on. akeaty4 Michael. Kochin the freedom of the polis from direct foreign domination, for once again, as Demosthenes says, a city directly and despotically dominated by foreigners ‘can scarcely be said to have a regime of its own at all.'® To ensure that ‘everybody understands me I will translate this into Canadian: Did something essential change in the meaning of being Canadian from the period 1930-1962, when Canada was at its most independent of first British and then American hegemony, to the period 1962-present, when Canada has largely abdicated responsibility for its own defense to the United States, and only exceedingly marginally tried to maintain a foreign relations posture distinct from that ofthe American hegemon? ‘When we attend to the actual day-to-day practice of rule ofthese Helle- nistic kingdoms—and even their imperial, national, and ethnic successors from Rome down to the present day—we discover that in my part of the world, the Mediterranean world clockwise from the Adriatic to the Maghreb, people live their lives in civic or sub-civie communities witha high degree of civic identity not necessarily civic self governance. ” As Stern writes, “tis hard to believe that a Greek author would have considered as desirable, or even conceived the idea ofthe disappearance ofthe city-states at any time— inthe time of Alexander or afterwards." "Nagle himself suggests that Aristotle is writing mainly with an eye on the average polis, and virtually all poleis were too small to think seriously of dominating even their immediate neighbors." The polis had a future for centuries after Aristotle, not, of course, as the center of a polis-based empire like tha offifth-century Athens or republican Rome, but a future as subordi nated to a larger, pethaps polis-based, perhaps tribal or even national, ‘multi-polis hegemony. This does not mean that inter-polis war disappeared, ‘but that it was carried on in the awareness that the imperial hegemon's interference would be the decisive factor. Political life, bion politikon, in the sense of Aristotle's Politics (see 1265424), continued for centuries after Phil> lip and Alexander. 11 put on for & minute one of my other hats and speak as diplomatic historian of North America, a close look at the history of native setler relations reveals that clashes of arms have not disappeared completely there either. Yet at Oka in 1990, none ofthe three armed parties, the Mohawk Wartior Societies, the Province of Quebec, or the Canadian Federal Govern- ‘ment, contested their allegiance to the Imperial sovereign, Elizabeth I. ‘The polis did not have a future of freedom from extemal hegemony, but it had a future. In particular, the polis was notin all places so dominated by foreign rule as to have no paideia but foreign despotism. As Clifford Bates \writes of Greek cities under pagan Roman rule: “the Empire kept the peace and kept the local authorities from challenging imperial hegemony, but the local authorities continued to form the moral character of the subjects."= For Aristotle, the pois isa sharing of households and clans forthe sake of 8 complete, autarkic, life (1280a33-S), not a life of freedom. Indeed, as we Education afer Freedom bs have seen, itis possible for there to be a polis existing by itself without neighbors where everything having to do with war is excluded (13251) Aaistotle argues that there is a kind of internal political activity that ean go ‘on, abstracting from all questions of inter-polis relations (1325b23~30). The internal activity of the polis depicted in Aristotle's Politics is the internal adjustment ofthe shares in that activity of different citizens and clases. That adjustment is carried out primarily through paideia or education The city is made one common thing through paideia (126311), and the retest thing of all for preserving the regime is an education suited for the regime, one suited for the particular division of activity in the polis that is that polis's particular poitefa or regime (1310a13~36, ef, 1337a10-19). Even, women and children must be educated with al view to the regime (126001517) Aristotle does speak about “liberal” education at 133842, when diseussing the aspects of education that go beyond the useful and the necessary, but be does not discuss what positive characterization makes these aspect liberal ‘This may be another example of the Aristotle three-step, two positive catego- ries, the useful and the necessary, followed by a third category, the liberal and noble, which is never positively defined. Acistote didnot invent the centrality of paideta. Nagle tells us, “Citizen ship was primarily an achieved social and cultural status involving identifi- able stages of progression through ever higher levels of involvement in the polis on the part of citizen candidates."® Aristotle innovates primarily inthe content of the education that he wishes to give, wherein the city educates citizens for peace and leisure rather than war will argue that this is the principal content of politics after freedom, of | politics under hegemony: education. By education, I mean what the Greeks ‘meant by paidea, in the primary sense, education of the free-born young to pursue the good life, and to pursue the good of the ety asa partnership inthe taining of future and current citizens in the good life. Aristotle does not think, of cours, that paideta stops when the citizen (or his wife) ceases to be apais. TWO SENSES OF EDUCATION AFTER FREEDOM We need to distinguish, though, between two senses of education after fee om. First, there is the education of the young to be citizens of a fee and independent city or nation. This education can be carried on, to some extent, ven when the city, or the nation, is not free and independent, whether in ‘exile, or more interestingly, under the nose or even with the conscious spon- sorship of the conqueror. *136 Michael. Kochin We can understand the importance of such an education insofar as we ‘break with Aristotle and Plato and put freedom as a goal alongside the good of the citizens or the politcal community as a whole. Ths isthe kind of ‘education that Fichte recommends in his Addresses 10 the German Nation given in Berlin under the French occupation after Napoleon defeated Prussia in 1806, “What I am proposing isthe complete reform of the current educa- tional sytem as the only means of preserving the existence of the German nation. Education—and nothing ese—is the only possible means of ecover- ing German independence.” This isin part because education is left alone by the French occupier: “If our external activity is clapped in chains.” Fichte declims, “then let us raise our spirit all the more boldly tothe thought of freedom, to life in this thought, to the wish and desire for this one thing only." Fichte i often, and pechaps rightly, considered an ethnie nationalist, and therefore distant from the civic nationalism or patriotism that some have found in Greek or Roman political thought Yet Fichte cannot help but Speak pois talk, fr example, “the German nation isthe only modem Euro- pean nation tat has for centuries shown by the deeds of its burgher {that is, ‘ty dwelling} class that itis capable of supporting the republican constinx tion.” The ethic, religious, and linguistic commonalities that Fichte appeals to ae intended to form one German nation despite class and corresponding educational differences, "Wherever a particular language is found, there is also a particular nation which has the right to its own affirs and to govern itself” To tur that right into a capacity is the goal of national education as Fichte conccives it?” Fora more concrete, if therefore more visionary scheme of this kind of| cxueaton for national Iiberation, we should tur to the education that Rous- seau recommends to the Poles in The Government of Poland. In that work, Rousseau plans for the future liberation of Poland even before free and {independent Poland is partitioned off the face ofthe earth: By what means the are we to move men's hearts and bing thet to Jove their fatherland and is laws? Dae say? Through the games they pay as children, through stations that, dough a superficial man would deem them poitess, ‘velop habits that abide and attachments tht nothing can dissolve. Rousseau sketches a plan under which being Polish means being, a student and teacher of Polishness. The regime described in The Government of Po- land consists of a concourse of tests of educational competence, that is to say, competence as a student or a teacher. This is the plan for step-by-step promotion Rousseau put forward in chapter XIU? Rousseau, unlike Aristotle, distinguishes between the capacity for free- dom and the capacity for conquest. While the needs of national self-defense Education after Freedom ra are calculable, foreign policy decisions made by states bent on conquest are made irrationally. Thus, in Rousseau’s view, the rational requirements of freedom have little to do with the “frivolous” political science of courts." The second sense of “education after freedom” is the education of the young with a view to ends other than freedom and independence of the collective from external hegemony. The importance of such an education depends on the importance of the ends it has in view. For a contemporary example, one could think of the cultural aims advocated by my Tel Aviv colleague Chaim Gans, who calls himself a cultural nationalist and opposes “statist nationalism,”®! The philosophers, in general, and to this day, remain skeptical about the value of collective freedom except as a means of pursuing separately defined goods.” To interrogate the value of freedom T would suggest that we tur to the ancient text that most thoroughly interrogates the possibilities for freedom and after freedom ina city or ethnic group dominat- edby an alien empire JOSEPHUS Its appropriate for me to pay tribute to Professor Orwin by speaking about Josephus. Josephus is a presence for any traditional Jew who comes from a family sophisticated by liberal, that is to say Hellenized, education. In my ‘ase, though, it was Professor Orwin who pointed me to Josephus asa think ‘ron politics. It was hearing him talk perhaps ten years ago about Josephus and his altemative to the regime types available in Aristotle or Polybius when I realized that the whole philosophical encounter with politcal life eliberately and explicitly sets out to devalue freedom, and to find a way of going on together after freedom is lost. Josephus is not closed to the value of freedom as independence from foreign hegemony, nor is he deaf to hopes of the restoration of Jewish free dom. At the most basic level, Josephus understands freedom not only as fieedom from literal Roman enslavement but even as freedom from Roman hegemony, which both he and the people he writes about equate with slavery Uewish War 2.264-65, Ananus at 4175-79, 4.246). Josephus is proud o say that he fought against Rome. One can see this by inferring his own sense of values from his attack on Romanizing Sepphoris in Vita 348, and his con- demnation of Simon who sided with the Seythopolitans against his fellow Jews Jewish War 2.469-16). “The Tiberians and many of thse best reputed among the Galileans have betrayed our liberty,” Josephus quotes himself as, having said (Vita 386). Josephus condemned the Galileans befote, of course, hehimself went aver to the Roman camp. [Nor are the prospects, as Josephus sees them for Jewish freedom impos- sibly bleak. Jerusalem fell to stasis or evil strife, not tothe Romans (Jewishbe Michael Kochin War 5.257, ef, 6.109). Without stasis the Jews might have withstood the Romans, a view with Which the Rabbis concur. Josephus's hopes include the hope for the messiah, as we shall see, but they also rest on the position that he is careful to emphasize ofthe Jews as a significant if not the primary force on the ever-contested boundary of two empires, Parthia and Rome.#$ Even Julius Caesar, Josephus claims, was affaid of Herod (Jewish War 1,386). Both he and his hero Agrippa (the Second) are careful to maintain their estimation for feedom (see, for example, Against Apion 2.125 ff; Jew- ish War 5.365), and even Jewish empire over Gentiles. Writing in defense of the Jews, Josephus says, “May we not speak of our kings, David and Solo- ‘mon, who subjugated many nations?” (Against Apion 2.132) Tosephus was, of course, no Zealot, and he portrays himself as a most reluctant rebel against Rome. He says repeatedly that there is no present hope for liberation from Rome. Agrippa says at Jewish War 2.346 thatthe rebels hhave only an irrational hope (alogistas elpis), and that even God is on the side of the Romans (Jewish War 2.390). Josephus echoes this claim about God, in his authorial persona (Jewish War S.365-66, 5.378, $.400-412). Yet itis not Josephus's professions of Roman or Flavian sympathies that are worthy of note, but rather his statement and even magnification of his own importance in the failed war of Jewish independence. True manliness, says Josephus about Saul, isto fight knowing you are going to lose (Antiquities 6348), THEOCRACY The regime type that Josephus introduces, as Professor Orwin has taught us, is theocracy.» Theotvatia is a word that, according to Per Bilde, “does not ‘occur in any other place in all ofthe Greek literature.”>? Theocracy, Josephus says, isthe regime that puts God at the head of the whole and the priests to administer the most important affairs of the community (Against Apion 2.185). Josephus’s “theocracy” thus appears to be a form of aristocracy. It is aristocracy, not monarchy, that is the best regime for keeping the Jews in order (Jewish War 1.170). Jews, says Achashverosh in Josephus's version of his frst dectee, are insubordinate to kings.» Preaching against kingship, Samuel says: “Aristocracy is the best, and the life under it” (Antiquities 4.223). Aristocracy is the Greek name, Josephus implicitly claims, for the kingship of God. Under Moses and Joshua, who was sirategos, the Hebrews ‘were aristocraticaly ruled (Antiquities 6.84). The judges, too, served an aristocratic polity (6.85), though at 11.112 Josephus speaks of the form of politeia after the death of Moses and Joshua the (or “his") general asthe rule of judges and “monarchs.” Monarchy, as Josephus understands it, is some- how compatible with aristocracy. *” ‘Education afer Freedom b9 | want to suggest that one should distinguish between the theocracy prop- erly so called, in which priests administer only the greatest things of the common with a high priest over them, described in Against dpion (2.185), andthe regime in which the high priest governs affairs simply, which regime Josephus calls in Antiquities 11 “aristocratic with oligarchy" (Antiguites IIIT, Oligarchy is, atleast in Aristotle's Politics, a bad, self-interested regime, In the regime described at Antiquities 11.111, the high priest rules cover more than merely the highest affairs, and apparently without the author- itive participation of the ordinary priests. The Hasmonean revolt began with aristocratic hopes: Mattathias asks his sons to restore the Jews? ancient politeia (12.280). Mattathias orders his sons to recruit “the righteous and pious.” whether priest or not, in order, according to the manuscripts, t0 increase the power ofthe righteous and pious (12.284). In the purest "theoc- racy,” or in “aristocracy” without oligarchy, the high priest governs the most Jmportant things with the help of those priests, Levites, and Israelites who excel in the virtues as the Jews conceive them. Its Aristobulus the Hasmonean, no fit ruler, who changes the form of rule into kingship (13.301). Yet because Aristobulus relies on a fortress and bodyguards (13.307) and his kingly successors depend on a fortress to secure theirnule, they seem more like tyrants than like kings.*! ‘Asked by Pompey in 64 BCE to choose between Aristobulus and Hyrea- rus, the Jewish nation says, “We do not like to be ruled by a king.” A generation later (c. 38 BCE), Some Jews even prefer death to submission to Herod, which they call slavery."? By that point, some Jews are so far de= graded that itis not of hatred for kings but out of affection for the Hasmo- ‘ean Antigonus that they refuse to proclaim Herod king even when tortured (159-10). ‘Yet we should not think the degeneration into despotism or tyranny began only with the Hasmoneans. Even Solomon was a tyrant (Against Apion 1.114), though Fosephus carefully attributes this to Dios the Phoenician. In his own name, though, Josephus says that Solomon the King rebuilt Gezer as ‘refuge against sudden change (Antiquities 8.148), so it seems safe to de- scribe Solomon a tyrant seeking a fortress to protect him fiom his people. Solomon was not, therefore, “a philosopher andthe ideal prince of peace.”* Herod, Josephus does not hesitate to acknowledge, aimed for tyranny from his youth (Antiquities 14.165). Herod was in the decisive sense, utterly unlike his father Antipater in character, who Josephus admits was “distin- ‘ished for piety, justice, and devotion to his country” (14.283). Herod has bodyguards the classical sign of the tyrant (17.398). There is full-blown tends (lewish War 2206, Antiquities 19.236), and once finly seated mss the Jews and condemns the madness of Caligula, and like Ahasve- fos, writes in favor of the Jews to all the provinces of his empite (19.284-92). ‘The Great Revolt of 66-73 was an excessive and feed response o Ro- man miggovemment. The resistance, one is tempted to say, the nonviolent ‘eitance, to Caligla was retained, snd thanks to God or frtne, sucess fi With God's help the Jewish people will survive, Josephus promises, to ‘ear witness even under Roman domination, No perscaton wil sway them forthe Hebrews have never from constant rnspressed any of Gods a nrgutes 3223). Even if some Jews Hellenize (eg. Antiquities, 12240-41, 18.141, others choose martyrdom (12.284-56). God has always rade it possible for them to obey his laws: the Romans do not (sual) requir the Jews to erect statues ofthe emperors (Agcinst Apion 275-78), tn He ied Caligula who did so insist, for Caligula “had rected God as tni-cllaboraor, as foretold by Philo not inexperienced in philosophy." Even after the destmaction ofthe Temple, Josephs hols out the hope hat the Jews can move from Roman domination back to Roman hegemony and restore ther bes politi, theoeracy. No passage in Josephus is mre famous than the noble speech of Elazar Ben Yair on Masada, but losephusdiferen- fates himself rom Elazar who urges his poople to suicide. God says lazr, ‘has condemned his formerly chosen people (Jewish War 7.327). Josephus, «)18 Michael 8 Kochin ‘unlike Elazar, has not abandoned his faith in the saving providence of God, Individual Jews may and will suffer for their most just faith, but the Jews will survive as a people both within and beyond the Roman Empire to beat witness to the true nature of God. That miraculous survival isthe truest sign of His providential care for His people Israel CONCLUSION: EDUCATION AFTER FREEDOM Both Aristotle and Josephus make paideia the center of politics. Aristotelian education is education in the true conception of virtue: it teaches that the vires of war are subordinate to those of peace, and thatthe Virtues of even the active life of peace are subordinate to the theoretical virtues exercised in leisure, The Aristotelian political education inculcates this doctrine, as CCames Lord argues, primarily through lifelong engagement with tragic and comic drama, When young, the son of citizen parents serves as choral per- former, when adult, as spectator informed by his youthful experience of performance, To be a spectator of tragedy and comedy is a form of theoreti- cal engagement in imitation and judgment of character and action, * Nothing about this political or limited version of the contemplative life requires that the city be independent of external hegemons. Jewish paideia, Josephus shows, is paideia for martyrdom. The Jew aims to live, but to live in observance of God’s law, in witness ofthe true concep- tion of God. It is Elazar, who denies that Jewish collective survival is pos- sible, who proclaims the superiority of the next life to this one. With God’s help, the Jews will survive to make this an eternal martyrdom (see Moses's promise at Antiquities 4.183). God always makes it possible for the Jews ta obey His la, they choose.** It is not for the Flavian Freedman Josephus to remind his Hellenized Roman readers that the Jews have a stronger basis for faith in their etemal mission than do they, citizens though they be of their “eternal city.” Those ‘who wish to learn the fate of Rome, “let him endeavor to read the book of Daniel, he will find itin the sacred writings." NOTES ‘An calievcson ofthis chapter was presented at pane! in honor of CIT Orin the 2014 ‘Midwest Poliseal Science Association Than to Alex Orin, Nathan Tacoy, and member of the abdience for heir elf comments woud also Tike to tank my we Anna fo reding sever dt, 1 Tense fom Arabic in. M, Stem, Aristotle om the Worl Sae (Oxford: B. Casi 1888), 78 2 Visto Klemperer, The Language ofthe Tint Reich: LTI-Lingua Tort Imper: A Phiologe Notebook ae Mac Baty (Landon: Athlone, 2000, ‘Education afer Freedom us 4, “Ifyou ae wing, let's sop talking about the Francophones of Qusbos, alight? Let's rakaoat” "2 For the political nana, a share culture i important insofar sit promotes the etioning and preservation ofthe inetton nesesay for ellesive freedom. Fo the nic ‘als shared clues importa nota it pra fe survival ofthe be ater from John Adame to Abia! Adams. post May 12, 1780 eleronie etn), admit Fomiy Papers” an Elecronie Archive, Masachusets Historia Society, bp diriseshst onpligialatma! See also Anse, Retort For fosephas and oer clei! work, Ihave red on the texts in the Loe foe ss, ine references arto the teat in W-L. Newman, The Poles of drt, 4 vl (Gxt Oxford University Press, 1902; reprint 200), Citations from Fosephs's works wil {poealy be given parethticlly by tl, boo, and hope, Citations om Aistole's Plies ‘ile given parenthedaly by standard Beker numbers, 1 See Leo States, The Cip and Mon (Chcaen Universi’ of Chicago Press 1978; ‘wigoaly published 1966, 27; Thomas Pane, “ster among Nations in Plt and Ato ‘dan PlicalPitsophy American Journal of Politea Setnce 42 (1998) 377-97, On the Republi see Miche! 8. Kochi, “War, Class, and Justice in Plato's Repub” eo of Metaphysics $3 (1999) 403-28 on the Laws see Angela Doll Dori, “Haw the bien of War Shapes Plto's ‘Laws (PRD. dis, Univers of Chicago, 2004). "Grave Allur” The Economist September 1, 1990, avaible at hap! wo bighbeam com/doel1G1-939001 hoa To. CE Thomas L- Panle, drs’ Teaching tv the Potes (Chagos University of. hago Pres, 2013), 173-78 TL CE Gregory Viastos, Slavery in Plt's Thought," in Platonic Shes, ed. Prine tog: Princeton Univesity Pres, 1981), 147-63 Ta ALTist lance, the city appears asa preeship ia securing feedom and independence fn external domination, which Arise admits i the fist purpose of military tinng (ism39"4. 13. Demosthenes, On he Crown B65 16. CLD. Brendan Nagle, The Houachold ax the Fowsdation of Aritl's Polis (Ca tag: Cambridge Univers Press, 208), 173-16 for avid depcon of how enslavement to fran rae produces slavish sul, se Georses Simnn's 1948 novel The Stain onthe ‘ror oats. Jahn Pete (Loncon:Pengu, 1964), TS: Police 1304, 150743440. In Thacydes, notoriously iis the mere weakness of the ls thar isthe explanation the Athenians aniclate at Moos inte Metin dialogue (539). 16" Pane, Arse Teaching nh oles, 270-73, 1 Nagle, Howsohold. 316-17 18, Demstnes, Othe Crown 56S [9 done knoe who es the fit modern scholar to ez thi, bt I eamed hs fom aero, esecally Te Boy a Soe (New York Cumbia University ress, 1988, 1. Stes, Arte on te Wor Sate, 3-88, 21 Nagle, Houehold 45-58 22. cited Angell Bates I, Arse’ “Best Regime”: Kingship, Democracy, ad the ‘ale of Law (Baton Rouge! Louisiana tt University Pres, 2003), 1 2. Nagle, Household 222 2A, Stents of pon Soviet nationalism sich as Davi Lain have pointed ot hat many of Se ngunges of the subject peoples of Stalin's (spot) empire were made io langues Sable forthe administration of mode tte wth the dle encouragement of te ‘Shit adh ta 25 Johann Gotie Fiche, Adresses tothe German Nation, tans. Gregory Moote (Cam eg: Cambridge University Press, 2008), Fest Address, 17; Ninth Address, 16) Eleventh Aes, 145; TwelRh Ares, 55. 18 See Arash Abizadel, "Was Flee an Ethnic Nationalist? On On Cultural National tnd is Dahle History of Potten! Though 26 (2005): 334-8; Maaco Vi, For Lov ofM6 Michael. Kochin Coury: Esse on Patriousm and National (Oxfor: Oxford University Press, 1995), “Michael. Kostn, “The Constitution of Nations,” The Good Sate 14 (2003) 88-76 17. Feb, Addresses, Sith Adare, 83: Teh Adres 16 28, Jean-Jacques Rosca, The Government of Poland ens. Wilmoore Kendall (In smuols: Haske 1985), chapter ep 128. Rouseay, Government of Poland chaptr IV, p20; chapter XI, 59. P. 9 5a, Rousseau, Gernment of Poland chapter Xp As chapter XV, p11 31 Cir Gans, The Limits f Natwonalsme (Cambridge? Cambridge Univesy Pes, 2003), 52, See Avishal Margalit and Josep Raz, Self Determination” Journal of Pilosopy 67 (2990) 35-61 35, Ofcourse, even Romans can expres esteem for love liberty in Jews; Jews War 2.29, 1. Soe Babylonian Talmud Gtin 3; Avot de Rab Nafan A63. 38. Jewish War 15-66 1.284, 6 342-43, dngutie 14.30, 18102, 2017-96 56, Cito Onin, “Flavia Josephus on Presthod,” in The Jewich Poca Trastion voli, authori od Michal Walz, Menachem Larberbaum, and Noa. Zaha, creed ‘by Var Loeetoum, (New Haven, Cand Logon: Vale Uniersty Press, 2000), 191-35. 31 Per Bld, Flue Josepha between Jerazalem and Rome His Lif, Works, and Their Importance Shel: SOT Press, 1988, 16 38 anger 1-27, eating ompotaton with LSI 38, The Rats, by coats a) that Moses and shun ruled as kings (ce Iba za and (Chizku on Deteronomy 335) 1 Eek, following Schwan, explains this seeming ody by releence to Plyits's inci between “monarchy” and "ue Kingship" (Poyblus 66-7), Daniel R. Schwartz “sep onthe Jewish Contato and Comma,” Sopa Caso lralitca 7 (1983) 1984 30-82. M.Eestln, “Josephs and Polyus & Recnsdeatin,” Classica Arig 1790980) 175-208, 178-78. 41 For Alexandra's ones strategy, see Antiques 13.400, 13.408 ‘2. dmigater 141 Daniel Sere cnims tat for Josep elutara comes to mean onomy: Stwart dass nit recognize tht in Joep lethoia aways means Heed from ieanay, even Eeedom Gom Jewish tram atthe pice (as offered here) of Roman ‘omistion, se Dail R, Schwa, "Rome and the ews: separ on Freedom” and “Autor ‘omy in Rererettion of Empire: Rome and he Mterrancan Word el Ala K. Bow ‘mu Hata Cou, Maria Goodman and Sion Pie, Proceedings of he Bris Acad im Ls Pabishe for he rich Academy Oxford University Pres, 2002), 65-8 "Argun 1429-30, Jewish War (311-13 44, Bile, Mavis Josephs, 10, from whom these words are quoted Judas Maceabeus who fried Beth gant any neseaty ete Wythe enemy (12326 is aon the Ist Ineaation ofthe primitive monary compatible with arsoray. Matahis's hopes (12288) sere not yet bled “5. Though isi how Hebrews or Jews spesk before shes hing atleast when they want someting (Perhaps mor srkingly at 1 Kings 119), and how the pret of Jesh igs, ‘aid spoke of tno in slaton to God ace BT Sanhesin 1073), 6, aiqutics 20.181, tans. Feldman. As Feman pons ou a oe his sony was so otis that even made ie io the Babylonian Talmud at Pesactm 57a of. Testa Ment Shot 1321; Tera Raith, Joephar” Th Historian and His Society (London Duckworth, 1983), 22-23, "2 This ot the aw as obperved by Jews toy, 438, Amiguties 8.338, Pus 20d and perhaps unfortunate loco o apy tout God whos alas what he and is ot "theogeerted.” Compare Exodus 318, on which Jose hus sya “Concerning et is ot in accowdance with vine a forte to pea” Ania 102290) "devi War 2184-203; Anite 18.2618; the most perceptive discussion ofthis base cen in Bile, Flovie Joop, 186-87 's. CLELR. Motving, Joseph Ben Mathis nd Flav oseplus: The Jewish Prophet nd Roman Hisrian.” in Aue und Nidergang der Romschon Welt. Pripa, vl 212, 08 Education ater Freedom ur ‘Wong laze (Bertin and New York Waher de Grater, 1988), 885 on Joephar's view of ‘herevol agaist Antiochus Epphanes “Once te ory suv ofthe Jesh a senda {pee aly esitance by any means posible ale for” ‘Sh dius 6217. ase nt bn Thackeray and Marcus a Aniutis 5.178 52, Se nate cad dgutier 8.79 inthe Thackersy/Marcn tanto, Philo sity sss over the cheats i his account of the martyrdom under Cali it The is Par! of {berate on Pre or the Emhaso to Gah “S. Argues 9198-95. 162 Chronicles 25:14 they ae called the gos of the cen of ‘Seti Josephs who ascribed them othe Isler’ wore ail enemy "SH. agin dpion 2238, and for an expe ee the martyrdom of the Essen a Jewish "5. Ariguties 18298-301. Pio, who went to Rome to plead with Cali pr of an ‘Aes Jewish embry gives comtemporary acca in The First Part of he Teaver Fie oF the Embassy to Gaur Phil's version mich moe explict abou God's oe reeling the tert sos Sos Phil's view 57. dmimuries18,199-200; ee Bide, Fleviu loses, 211. Smal, acating to ose phos, bu ashe admits, ot according to Polyive, asthe fte of ious wigs Bsr, 538 Cames Lor, Education and Cul nthe Political Thog of drs (hace, NY: (eral University ress, 1982), 103-4, 196-98, 02:50 also Nagle, Hower. 010 5, See digs 5223.0 providence in loves sale Rat, Josep, 9,7, 6, Angus 10210 and se #11417, 128, 314; Mare a oes Ble 1988 18; Rab, buephs, 212; John MG. Barly, “The Empire Waites Back. Jossun Rta in Fava iene" in Flavius Josephus In Flivion Rome, ed. Jonathan Edmondson, Seve Miso, oad James Rives Oxford: ord University Pes, 2005), 33017; Pal Spur, “Reais the Bie in Rome: Josephus andthe Contains of Empire," in Joseph and wish History Faian Rome ad Beyond, oneph Sievers and Gia Lem (Leen: il, 003), 225-2; Eich Grin, “Polybivs and Josepbus on Rome,” In Flavus ose Ineprettion and iaore. Menahem Mer, Pra Str and Jack Pastor (Leben il, 201), 139-6 CE. David Babe, “Typology in Josephus," Journal of Jewish Ses 31 (1980: 1836, 36:"Ae- coring Josep, the Rama] rl by the wil of God, his Gd the Go oe os, ho, 'S mmy aime inthe pas, enraged by the dsbotioce othe pope gies the Over fo 8 fongoeorutil they fepet" For those of you who calles sich things, the lion foe feu epic in Dane approximately inthe mide ofthe ges. ‘SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ‘Abia, Arch “Was Fiche an Enis Nationalist? ON Cull Nalini an its Doe Te Histor Pole Tout 26 (2005) 33458 ‘acl, John MG, “The Enpire Writes Bask Joephan Rhetoric in Flavin Rome.” In ius Josephs in Flovion Rome, elites by Jonathan Eamondson, Steve Ma, sd Sames Rives, Oxford: Oxford University ress, 2005, Baie Cliford Ang, I. dratoe's “Best Regime" Kingshp, Democracy, and the Rule of ‘Law. Baton Rouge: Lousiana Sate Univesity Press, 203. Ble Pex Fleas Jospin bere Jerualer ad Rome: He Le Work, ans Thee Inpor ance, Sef SOT Pres 1988 Bron, Per The Body an Soci New York Columbia Univers Pes, 1988. Dashes Davi. “Typolgyin seas" Journal of ech State 31180) 18-36, Denohenes: On the Crown and nS. Uster Londo: Ars i Phi, 1993, Brin, Angela Dol “How the Problem of War Shapes Pato’ Laws "PD de, Univ. Sy o Chiesa, 2005 Eaten, AM. Slosephus and Ply: A Reconsderion” Classical Agu 9 (19H): Tis 308Ms Michael S Kachin Fide, Johann Gotieb. Adresses 1 the German Nation, Translated by Gregory Moot ‘Cabrige: Cambridge Universty ress, 2008 ‘Gan, Chin The Limit of Natnaon. Cambie: Cambridge Universi Press, 200, Grin, Esch, “Polyiae and Josephus on Rome” In Fawr Joop Iwerpretation ond Hision: Ete by Menaers Mer, Pina Stem and Jack Pastor. Lede: Beil 201 Josep orks, 9 ale, Loeb Cli Libary, 1926-1985 ‘Klemperer, Vielor. The Language ofthe Third Reick LTI-Linga Ter Imperit:& Phiolo {fas Notebook. Taplte by Mar Brady London: Aloe, 200, ‘Kotha, Michael S. "War, Class and Jase in Plato's Republe” Review of Metaphysics $3 (0999) 408-2, the Castintion of Nations” Phe Good Seca 14 (2008) 68-76 ‘Lora, Cames. Eduction and Calaren the Plitcal Thought of drs ithaca, NY: Comell ‘Univer Pres, 1982 Maga, AVishal, and Joseph Raz “09-61 “Moeting HR. “Jouph Ben Matis and Flavius Josephus The Jewish Prophet and Roms isorian” i ting nd Morgan der Romiohon Welt Principat Vol 21.2 Ete by ‘Wollgng Hause erin and New York Walter de Grute, 1988 Je, D. Brean. The Household asthe Foundation of Arist’ Polis. Cambridge: Cam ridge University Pres, 2008. Newman, W- L. The Pais of drstoe, 4 vols, Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press, 1905 epi 2000 Crvin, ifr, “Favas Josep on Prestioo." la he Jewish Paitical ration. Va. tthriy, ete by Nichoe! Walt, Menachem Lorbeteaum, and Noatn J. Zohar, 2 ‘tel y Yair Lobia New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Pres, 200, Patgl, Tomas. “Tutie among Nations in Platonic and Atolls PolitalPilosopby.” “American Journal of Poliiea Setence 42 (1988) 377-397 “Ariste's Teaching in th Polis. Chicago: Univesity of Chicago Press, 2013, Philo Works Vl. 10, The Fiat Par of he Treatise on Voweor the Embassy to Gat, Eed ‘and tansted by FH, Colon Lob Clase Library repent, 1991 Raja, Tees Josphas: The Hetoron and Hi Soci, Lota: Duckworth, 1983 Rousscau Jean-Jacques. The Goverment of Poland. Tears. Wilknore Kendal ndanapotis: Hack, 198 Schwartz Daniel R “Josephus onthe Jewish Consttuions and Community.” Scripta Casea Teresa? (1963/1884) 30-52 “Rome and the evs: Fosephus on Fredo” and "Autonomy." In Representation of| npire: Rome an the Mediterranean Word, edited by Alan K. Bovatan, Hasta M (Coton, Marin Goodman, snd Simon Price. Procedings ofthe Bish Academy 114.0% fo Paid forthe rsh Academy by Oxford University ress, 2002 Simenoa, Geog. Te San onthe Show. Translated by John Pee, London: Penguin, 164 Spilsby, Pas. "Rending the Bible in Rome Josephus snd the Constraints of Expire” Ia vsuphas and Jewish History in Flavan Rome ant Beyond, ded by Joseph Steves and ‘Gin Lamb Leiden Beil, 200. Sur 8M drs on the World Sate. Oxfoed:B. Cast, 1968. ‘Seuts, Leo, The Ci and Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Pres, 197; originally pub Tished 1964, “Teves ity of te Peloponnesian War, Lach Classical Liter, repint, 1992-1998 ‘Vol, Mazi. For Lave of Coury An Essay on Paitom and Naionalism. Oxf ‘Oxi University Pres 995. ‘Vass, Gregery "Slavery in Plato's Thought" In Pltoic Ses, 2d ed. Pinson, NE: Princeton Universi Press, 1S Determination” Jownal of Pilosophy 87 (1990) N Part II The Taming of Mother Teresa: From Charity to Modern Visions of Humanity