Plane of possibility?
“The World Before Darwin” – Lecture 1 of “Origin of Species” 150th Anniversary Lecture Series
Research Professor of the History of Science
He is the founder and former editor of the Journal of the History of Biology and a founder of the yearbook Sociology of the Sciences. He serves(d) on the editorial boards of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Social Science and Medicine, Social Epistemology, Social Studies of Science, and Fundamenta Scientiae, among others.
He is past president of the International Council for Science Policy Studies and has been deeply involved in the relations between science and modern war as a founder of the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Committee on Science, Arms Control, and National Security, and the American Academy of Arts and Science’s Committee on International Security Studies. He was a founder and first president of the Cambridge based Institute for Peace and International Security. He was awarded the Gregor Mendel Medal of the reorganized Czechoslovak Academy of Science in 1991. During 1994 he held the Olof Palme Professorship in Sweden. He received recognition for his teaching when awarded the Phi Beta Kappa Teaching Prize in 1996.
Among recent publications are the jointly edited volumes, The Practices of Human Genetics (1999); Biology as Society, Society as Biology: Metaphors (1994); Technology, Pessimism and Postmodernism (1993);Science, Technology, and the Military (1988). He has also written recent articles including: “Thinking Like a Mountain: The Epistemological Puzzle of Environmentalism;” “The Politics of Pessimism: Science and Technology Circa 1968;” “Prophet of Our Discontent, Lewis Mumford Confronts the Bomb;” “The Social Locus of Scientific Instruments;” “Religious Fundamentalism and the Sciences;” and “Grasping the Elusive Peace in the Middle East.”
Virtual tour American Museum Natural History Center for Conservation Genetics and Genomics
Virtualtour of the Center for Conservation Genetics, Sackler Institute of Genomics andthe Ambrose Monell Cryo-Collection for Molecular and Microbial Research byDr. George Amato, Director.
Hostedby The Reading Odyssey and the Darwin Facebook project.
Backgroundon Dr. George Amato
George Amato is Director of the Center forConservation Genetics at the American Museum of Natural History. This programlinks efforts in the Museum’s Center for Biodiversity and Conservation (CBC),Sackler Institute for Comparative Genomics (SICG), and Ambrose MonellCryo-Collection for Molecular and Microbial Research (AMCC) in efforts toconduct research and training in this expanding area of biologicalconservation. Current conservation genetics research areas include systematicsand units of conservation, population level issues due to fragmentation ofhabitats and over-harvesting of wildlife, molecular ecology, and wildlifeforensics. There are also formal graduate student training and informaleducation programs.<o:p></o:p>
Dr.Amato received his B.S from the University of Connecticut and Ph.D. in Biologyfrom Yale University. In 1989 he began research in conservation genetics at theWildlife Conservation Society (formerly the New York Zoological Society) basedat the Bronx Zoo. In addition to creating and directing the WCS ConservationGenetics Program, he was also the Director of the WCS Science Resource Centerand was Director of Conservation and Science for the WCS Living Institutionsuntil 2005. Dr. Amato is also an adjunct associate professor at Columbia andFordham universities and a research associate in the Ecology and EvolutionaryBiology Department of Yale University.
His current research interests include genetic issues associated with fragmentation in endangered parrots and crocodilians, taxonomic and phylogenetic questions related to the discovery of new species of mammals in Southeast Asia and Crocodiles in Africa, non-invasive sampling techniques for endangered species, and monitoring the trade in endangered species products using DNA based forensic science. Dr. Amato has participated in research activities worldwide, including research in Cuba, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Madagascar, South Africa, Tanzania, Malaysia, China, and Peru. He has published and lectured extensively on conservation strategies for endangered species and especially on using molecular analyses to determine conservation priorities.
When did Thucydides write his History?
We didn’t get to one of Dan Gabree’s questions on the last call. I wouldn’t mind addressing it on our next call next month. Here is the essence of Dan’s inquiry:
But the one other thing that came up for me was a question of when T wrote this history. Throughout it has appeared (at least to me) as if he were perhaps recording the many years of war as a news reporter might today… live, as it happens. But seeing the outcome in Sicily and thinking back to his idea that this was to be the war of wars that future generations would learn from, I wonder when he actually realized that it was indeed such a war and that the history of it were worth writing down for posterity.
And if there is a chance that he did decide at the end to write this record, how old was the information for the early years some decades before?
Truly a remarkable story. His vantage point must have been incredible. Or did he interview soldiers (both sides?) like a reporter after the fact? As was pointed out earlier, how did he know what Nicias’ letter said?
Thucydides May 2009 Book 7 – audio recording
Here’s the audio recording for the Book 7 call. Listen online or download the mp3 file and listen to it as a podcast on your ipod.
Thucydides Book 7 preliminary comments
These ARE indeed a fantastic way to prepare for tonights discussion. I, too, side with Paul’s observations of Nicias, although this chapter was written in such a way as to make it impossible not to feel the pain that the Athenians were going through, and not merely physical pain. Let the empathy roll! They left Athens as Rulers of the World and now found themselves on the brink of defeat, and death.The actions of the generals and the soldiers were all incredible to read and imagine. What went through their minds during the long silent march, after leaving friends behind?
But the one other thing that came up for me was a question of when T wrote this history. Throughout it has appeared (at least to me) as if he were perhaps recording the many years of war as a news reporter might today… live, as it happens. But seeing the outcome in Sicily and thinking back to his idea that this was to be the war of wars that future generations would learn from, I wonder when he actually realized that it was indeed such a war and that the history of it were worth writing down for posterity.And if there is a chance that he did decide at the end to write this record, how old was the information for the early years some decades before?Truly a remarkable story. His vantage point must have been incredible. Or did he interview soldiers (both sides?) like a reporter after the fact? As was pointed out earleir, how did he know what Nicias’ letter said?I can’t wait to hear your ideas this evening.
Dan G.
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Janicki, Jim <Jim.Janicki@invitrogen.com> wrote:
What a warm-up for tonight calls, which I think is going to be exciting.I saw things more similar to Paul’s comments and it takes a lot of effort for me to immerse myself in Nicias’s context, which is what I think Paul is doing well for us below. The one thing I kept coming back to is what “virtues” was T really referring to? I suppose the obvious is that Nicias tried to keep Athens from over stretching its reach and when he didn’t succeed he still laid down his life for his men and his country. He also stuck it out even when he was injured enough that he thought he should be removed from the battle and Athens refused. Alcibiades gave Nicias something to really think about. Look what happened to him? Also, remember that the Spartans were the ones seen observing the old traditions in strict form even though it hurt their war strategies. Remember that it’s why the “300” were left out there on their own by Sparta. And Sparta was seen as holding a higher ideal because of things like this. So, it would have been seen as virtuous to wait after the eclipse. But, which “virtues” is T really referring to? Is it all of them or are some more important than others? Or, does T know of other things Nicias did and wants to represent him in a good light for some other reason?
Jim J.
While it may appear to us that Nicias was more interested in his reputation, I tend to think he is more concerned about public opinion. Knowing what we know about Athenian Democracy, specifically that poor public opinion can result in exile, and that (much like today) the Athenians were very interested laying blame for unfortunate circumstances, he was, in actuality, concerned about his very life.
3. A cursory glance shows instances where it is clear (to me) “his life was regulated with strict attention to virtue.” (At least the virtue of the time), he surrenders himself in exchange for the life of his soldiers
4. Since when is the virtue of a man based on whether or not his one or more of his efforts were a success rather than the motivation and intention with which he acted? (his failure to motivate the troops, troops who were so stunned they walked away from their dead – something that happened at no other time so far in the history)
I just kept tossing and turning thinking, “What a predicament he was in. There was no way he could win, no matter what, but he had to keep the troops moving. In truth, it would be far better for him to die in a vain battle than return in defeat. After seeing how previous battles had ended, he was probably fairly certain he would be killed, not ransomed, if handed over to enemies.” So my perception was that he was an honorable man, who at the very least, made very valiant efforts to minimize the loss of life among his troops, knowing full well that if he ever returned home, it would be to dishonor and possible exile from the very country he served so well.
Paul G.
Hi Gang,
1. Book 7 is among the most “dramatic” we’ve read.
The most “dramatic” example is the final retreat and slaughter of the Athenians in the river Assinarus near the quarries. This was heartbreaking for me to read. The Athenians have lost their naval fleet (and superiority), burned their own ships, left their fallen dead behind, and are retreating desperately. As they reach the river, they are reduced to drinking the foul and bloody water as the Syracusans “butchered them” (7.84.5). This phrase struck me so much that I looked up the Greek. Thucydides writes “malista esphagon” which, more literally, means that they violently cut their throats like sacrificial animals; the same verb is used in sacrifice and the noun form of esphagon is the bowl used to catch the blood of sacrifice. It’s pretty chilling in the Greek. There are other examples, but the language suggests the complete breakdown of Athenian moral and human standing. The great Athenians are reduced to animals driven off cliffs and impaled on their own spears.
2. I see T. using parallelisms to his reports of Corcyra and Pylos.
In a way, Thucydides seems to outline why Athens lost instead of why Syracuse won the Sicilian front. In my thinking, there are echoes of the Athenian’s past actions at Corcyra and Pylos. Some thoughts:
- The Athenians get stranded in a port and have to get all supplies (if there are any) by sea which is also compromised at this point (7.28). The structure and remoteness of the port even remind me of Pylos (could be wrong).
-
3. Thucydides’ comment that Nicias “least deserved his fate” (7.86.5) doesn’t seem to match his own narrative of Nicias’s actions. I have to wonder if the overall story of Nicias serves Thucydides as a canvas for commenting on the Athens from which he was an exile. Nicias always seems to be worried more about his reputation (cf., 5.16.1) and the let
ter (7.8.2 – 3; how did T. learn the contents?) he writes seems to prove this (to me).
- Nicias opposed the expedition initially but the Athenians misunderstood his speech and sent a huge fleet.
I’ll talk more about Alcibiades during our call. I sense that T. is also using his story to some “interpretive” means. There’s lots more, but this was all I could get down in email. See you all tonight.
Tim A.
Thucydides Book 4 – Audio Recording, March 2009
Here’s the audio recording for the Thucydides Book 4 call. Listen online or download the mp3 file and listen to it as a podcast on your ipod.
Thucydides Books 5 & 6 – audio recording, April 2009
Here is the recording for the Thucydides Books 5 & 6 call. Listen online or download the mp3 file and listen to it as a podcast on your ipod.
Thucydides Book 7 Questions
1. As you read Book 7, it becomes clearer and clearer that the Athenian expedition is turning into tragedy. What was your experience of reading this book? It does contain some of Thucydides’ best writing – and I hope you enjoyed his majestic command of the narrative. Even as you enjoyed the pace and command of the story did you also find it simply hard to read as the tragedy unfolded?
2. Let’s review some of the important details of the book:
2.a In the first three chapters of Book 7, what are the main
differences:
in leadership of the Athenian and Syracusan force?
How are the actions of Gylippus and Nicias contrasted?
How does this foreshadow the turning point of the war?
2.b What role does “time” play? Was “time” strategically against the Athenians? Why?
2.c Focus on chapters 11-15, Nicias’ speech – what does the tone say of the mood of the army?
2.d The incident at Mycalessus is terrible and tragic. How does it relate to the telling of the Sicilian campaign?
2.e The arrival of Demosthenes from Athens complicates the Athenian command structure. How does the shared leadership between Nicias and Demosthenes fail? How could it have worked better?
2.f How did the Athenians’ failed assault on the Syracusan wall (chs. 43-44) seem to hurt the Athenians and help the Syracusans?
2.g Why was the first major naval defeat so devastating to the Athenians? How could the Syracusans take advantage of it?
2.h In chs. 63-68, how do Nicias’ words fail in his attempt to rally the Athenians? How is his own physical condition symbolic of the Athenian situation as a whole? Why, in chs. 66-68, are Gylippus’ words more effective? What does his speech have that Nicias’ doesn’t?
2.i How does Thucydides describe defeat in ch. 71 in this crucial sea & land battle? How does it evoke the pathos of other great historical turning points that you can think of? (I personally liken this to Stalingrad, the Tet Offensive, and even Hemingway’s description of the retreat from Caporetto in A Farewell to Arms always comes to mind.) How does Thucydides evoke pity for the Athenians out of their former pride in the final surrender?
3. How are Nicias’ last encouragements to his troops, an appeal to mercy from the gods, ironically related to the Athenian demands at Melos three years earlier in the war? Is this Thucydides’ way of implying that Athens got what it deserved?
Paul Cartledge comments on when Thucydides wrote his History
The standard current view is that Thucydides did what he says he did – started writing up, not just taking notes, from the late 430s on, i.e. probably before war actually broke out in spring 431. But it was only after his exile in 424 that he could (i) see things more from the Spartan side than he’d been able to up to that point and so (ii) reconsider what he’d written so far, which might also have encouraged some rewriting, esp. of a set piece like the Mytilene Debate in Book 3.
However: a famous passage in Book 2 – the obituary notice of Pericles in ch. 65 – must have been at least reworked in or after 404, in the light of Athens’s eventual defeat, since it not only refers to the final defeat but actually explains the defeat in part in light of the death of Pericles (as long ago as 429!) and Athens’ failure to find a worthy successor to him as Leader.
However that is not the only passage that either was reworked or was written up substantially for the first time in or after 404, in the wake of or in the light of Athens’s defeat. The best scholarly discussion of all such passages, and of the ‘composition problem’ in general, is to be found in an Appendix by Andrewes at the end of the 5th volume of the Commentary by A.W. Gomme, A. Andrewes and K. Dover (Oxford 1981). This has not been superseded, I think, though there is a new Commentary, by S. Hornblower, in 3 vols (1991-2008). The older ‘analyst’ position, which tried to identify ‘layers’ of composition, has now been abandoned, but it remains a question when precisely any particular passage was written or written up, as opposed to when it was ‘thought’.
At any rate, when he died, he was only in the middle of the summer of 411, though we know he lived at least 7 years after that, and Book 8 has several marks of incompleteness, which suggests that as the war went on, so Thucydides fell more and more behind the actual events in his writing of them up.
Paul
27. May 2009 by Arrian
Categories: Commentary, Thucydides | Tags: Paul Cartledge, Thucydides | 1 comment