Current Seminar:
• Voegelin's History of Political Ideas
5/20/2006
Voegelin, Vol. 1 – History of Political Ideas, Hellenism, Rome, and Early Christianity
Joanne Tetlow
Voegelin’s signature talent of distilling central features of a vast
quantity of historical material is evident in these three small, dense chapters
about the philosophic, political, and spiritual precursors to Christianity. I
will frame my analysis within this idea that what was antecedent to the
Christian revelation was providentially ordered. What were these necessary
elements? (1) myth, (2) Orientalism, (3) cosmopolitanism. The second of these
was the most surprising to me. It makes sense as far as Voegelin’s work is
concerned and reveals another way he is helpful in addressing the problematics
of interfaith conflict among world religions, and the typical idea of an
East-West divide.
First, though, Voegelin discusses a main idea in all of his writings: the
idea of “myth” which serves as an explanation for political phenomena that
cannot be explained any other way. In this instance, it is Alexander who
acquires divine kingship as the “son of God” through the myth told by
Callisthenes that Alexander was anointed by God as his mythic “son” to
create a new empire. Interestingly, Voegelin points out this was a Persian
influence of proskynesis (prostration before the king) which when
implemented did not work for the Macedonians, who laughed at this notion. Thus,
a fundamental difference between the East and the West is noted which continues
today. This flippant attitude toward authority or royal kingship can be seen in
the U.K. and some Americans attitude toward the President. I recently heard
someone call President Bush “stupid” which offended me greatly, moreso
because it was such a disrespectful comment. If Bush was a tyrant this would be
justified, but he still would not be stupid, he would be a corrupt, degenerate
ruler. The adjective “stupid” reveals the Macedonian contempt for authority.
Alexander created this mythic personality allowing him to head a military empire
without political ideas. There was no need for political ideas, all of political
reality was contained within his god-king like rule. Contrast this with the
Greeks who did not have the idea of kingship in the polis as did the
Macedonians. But this was no better, because the Greeks did not care since
religion had dissolved in the polis. An important point is the difference
between the Macedonians, Greeks, and Persians. That the Greeks were
non-monarchical is clear in historical studies of the “demos” of the
Greek polis, e.g. assemblies, juries, etc.
Secondly, the Stoics provided a spiritual substance to the external
imperial framework established by Alexander. Oriental ideas are infused into the
West by the Stoics (Zeno and his successors) in two ways: (a) the idea of
equality, and (b) natural law and cosmopolis. Another very interesting point is
Voegelin’s noting the Semitic Stoics incorporation of the idea of a
“mother-cult” which is another myth that all men are equal because all
children born to the mother are equal. In Justinian’s Digest this notion is
found derived from a Phoenician, Ulpian that children are born “free” and
“equal” – a common formulation among all political theorists. The other
idea is that natural law and the divine logos is living in each man as part of a
collective mind. Stoics saw this not as an act of creation but a homonoia
which already existed in the cosmion. No king was needed like Alexander to
create this universal community as it was a given in the order of reality. But,
only the wise men could see this. Even though egalitarianism was propounded, the
Cynic aristocratic element was present in the exaltation of wise men—the moral
personality who could understand the universal logos and was detached from the
community below. It took Cicero to find a way to link the community with
politics—via “duties.” Still this did not provide the spiritual aspect of
community needed, and the aristocratic wise men remained alone unbounded to the
community.
Both of these aspects of egalitarianism and individualized, solitary
aristocracy prepared the way for Christianity. And despite the Stoic
contribution, the substance of political reality was still lacking. The “dark
ages” between the Fall of Rome and the Renaissance cannot be overlooked simply
because politics had do with imperial kingship and not constitutional
democracies. Divine kingship, the prominent idea during this time, also arose
from the Orient—Ptolemy II of Egypt in 270 B.C. Voegelin points out even
Plato’s analogy of the “cave” and “sun” had oriental origins. After
the demise of the Greek polis, the people receded into the background, and
politics was about rulers and dynasties. The philosopher-king in Plato’s
Republic constitutes the nomos empsychos (living law), an idea promoted
by Diotogenes. As king is to the polis so God is to the world; as the polis is
to the world, the king is to God. The divine king is self-sufficient symbolic of
what the community seeks to become.
This sets the stage for the logos made flesh in Jesus Christ.
1. How does the Hellenic and Roman periods provide the necessary precursors to
Christianity?
2. Is there more common ground between East and West than typically thought?
3. Does political reality in its origin rest on “myth” as Voegelin
articulates?
|
