Is The Athenaeum Society Living Up to Its Name? By Elmo Bender Self 3 March 1977 It was William Shakespeare who asked, "What's in a name?" He answered his own question, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Shakespeare correctly determined that there is not necessarily a connection between an object and the name given to it. The appellation assigned truly does not affect the olfactory qualities of the flower in question. Shakespeare, however, was far better at composing poetry than he was at linguistic analysis. If he ad looked up more examples, he might have found that sometimes there IS a definite connection between something and the name given to it. Pets above all others should be familiar with onomatopoeia, which is the forming of a name and then the use of the name tht sounds like what is being named. Consider words such as "hiss", "pop", "crack", and "boom". In the case of these words, something of the basic nature of the things named is expressed by the names. Not always but sometimes, names given to individual persons are intended to convey definite information about the people. Baker, Butler, Cook, and Smith are obvious examples, in their original use, of associations between the names of individuals and the work that they did. Medival names which impart information include Charlemagne (meaning, of course, "Charles the Great") and less flattering but descriptively accurate name of Charles the Bald. Although unknown to Shakespeare, the American Indian names of Sitting Bull nand Crazy Horse were apparently given to designate some qualities about the men so called. In the above examples there was first the perception of one or more qualities and then the selection of the name. It sometimes happens that a name is selected with the hope that whatever is named will eventually display the qualities already associated with the name. Babies are sometimes namewd in this fashion. How many American infants have been assigned one or more names from such leaders as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Douglas MacArthur? The giving of biblical names is so common as to be almost unnoticed. Infant organizations are sometimes started with carefully selected names. Great hopes are obvious if a new business is given a name such as Worldwide Wicket Company. No one would expect that the founders of the firm would be satisfied with local sales only. The question arises as to whether or not there is any particular connection between the Athenaeum Society and its name. If there is an intended connection, then is the Athenaeum Society living up to its name? No doubt, the Athenaeum Society could change its name and, like the rose so to speak, still emit the same fragrance. The group could, for example, be called the Christian County Men's Literary Society without changing the basic nature of the membership or the quality of the group's activitiues. Are there, though, characteristics associated with the name of Athenaeum that give rise to expectation of fulfillment? If not, there is no problem. The name may then be no better and no worse than any other name. If, however, there are definite associations with the name "Athenaeum", then a group bearing the name should try to reflect those qualities or else, to prevent misunderstanding, change its name to something more appropriate. This paper intends to suggest that the Athenaeum Society would be well advised to consider and adapt itself more nearly to characteristics associated historically and linguistically with the name of Athenaeum. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "Athenaeum" is a late Latin word referring to a Roman school of art but is derived from the Greek word "Athenaion", which designates the temple of Athena in Athens. Athena, of course, was the Greek goddess who was associated chiefly with wisdom and the arts. Philosophy, one meaning of which is love of wisdom, was taught in the temple of Athena. Perhaps it is a common human tendency to select for treatment and emphasis what one is concerned about and to minimize or completely neglect other considerations. Thus, whatever other associations there may be with the name Athenaeum, this paper will concentrate on only two basic points. First, the Athenaeum Society would live up to its name more than it does already if it deliberately emphasized wisdom at least as much as knowledge. The attribute that Athena was noted for was wisdom, not knowledge alone. Yet, after specifying the name for the group, the Conswtitution of the Athenaeum Society states, "It shall have for its objective the increase of knowledge and information among its members on the subjects relating to the Arts, Biography, History Literature, and the Sciences." Although there may be some question as to how seriously the constitution is taken by members of the society, the constitution does emphasize knowledge not only by mentioning it but also by giving it a synonym, information. It is not necessary to decry knowledge in order to decry the omission of wisdom. However desirable it may be to have knowledge on the subjects mentioned in the constitution, it is also desirable and in keeping with the name of the society to give open and sincere acknowledgment to wisdom. Although wisdom is difficult to define, it has to do with insight and understanding. It is concerned with perspective, application, and evaluation. It is concievable that one may have knowledge, even extensive information, and yet not realize the significance of the knowledge. Wisdom then would at least be the quality of having insight with regard to knowledge and being able to assess meaning. There can be no wisdom without knowledge, but wisdom goes beyond knowledge in determining significance. Is it not poossible to know a painting in the sense of an awareness of having colors and shapes before one's eyes and yet, especially with modern art, be unable to assign a meaning, at least initially? May one not know what he hears in music in the sense of high notes and low notes together with some awareness of their tempo and yet at first fail to comprehend whether or not there is a narrative structure? Is it enough to know basic biographical data without at least trying to understand what a man valued and what he sought to do with his life? To all but a dedicated few, history can be tiresome if it is nothing but names, dates, events, lists of kings and battles. When, however, a historian is gifted with insight and deals in addition with sometimes debatable but lively forces and trends and patterns, then even non-historians can be caught up in a sense of a significant undertaking. Students of literature have realized probably from the beginning that almost any creative writing has different levels of interpretation. A short story can be enjoyed for its own sake, but it can also be explored for underlying meanings that usually are implied rather than directly stated. Interpretations of literature certainly do not all have to agree in order to be, without exception, in pursuit of wisdom. One also wonders how many scientific researchers throughout history have amassed knowledge without being able to tell if such knowledge would ever be a significant benefit to anyone. Then perhaps the same researchers or others were able to evaluate the information and, in some cases, mike amazing applications. Even in high school chemistry, it can be exciting not merely to know the steps of qualitative analysis but to try to figure out why a particular liquid becomes clear or cloudy or why a Bunsen burner flame or a piece of litmus paper takes one color or another. A brief recall of papers presented and of remarks made concerning them will reveal that members of the Athenaeum Society are not lacking in either knowledge or wisdom. It is true that some of the wisdom displayed in comments upon papers (and during business sessions) is in the form of wit, often uproariously delightful even if not always strictly related to a constructive understanding of the matters at hand. In any case, there's no question of the enormous gifts that members of the Athenaeum Society process. What the name of the society does call for is a conscious and deliberate, as well as effective, commitment to both knowledge and wisdom. A minor change in the constitution of the society would be an appropriate beginning for a greater emphasis upon the Athenian ideal. The objective of the society as stated in its constitution could be slightly revised. The word "wisdom" could be substituted for the superfluous word "information". The objective of this society would then read, in part, as follows: "It shall have for its objective of the increase of knowledge and wisdom among its members… " No one should be so naive as to think that a constitution is easily changed. Nor should one expect that a constitutional change, even if that occurred without exceptional difficulty, would necessarily and immediately bring about a change in fundamental outlook and behavior. Nevertheless, the desire for consistency between the society's name and its objective is reason enough to ask for a change in the constitution. Second, the Athenaeum Society would live up to its name more than it does already if no subjects were automatically excluded from consideration. The constitution of the society specifically mentions "the subjects relating to the Arts, Biography, History, Literature, and the Sciences." All of the subject mentioned are excellent subjects and provide virtually inexhaustible material for exploration. Moreover, members of the Society do not feel overly restricted by the constitution as they proceed to choose subject for their papers. The more conscientious members will find at least a tangential relationship between their papers in the subject mentioned in the constitution. The difficulty, however, is that the constitution also states, "The Subject of the paper, to be presented to the Society by any member, may be of his own choosing from the areas named in Article one. It shall not be written on Politics or Religion." If a group is truly dedicated to wisdom, and wisdom should be desired in relation to any or all subjects, perhaps especially including politics and religion. Someone else may wish to speak in favor of the inclusion of politics as a constitutionally poossible subject for a paper in the society. The subject of investigated further at this time is the subject of religion. Let it be remembered that Athena, whatever may have been the degree of belief accorded to her, was a Greek goddess. It was the temple of Athena in Athens that was given the name of Athenaion, a derivative of which is the name of this society. How is it possible for the society to have chosen and to maintain a name with definite religious associations and yet reject the subject of religion as a possible subject for a paper? It is true that words acquire and change their meanings through usage. If usage changes, then, of course, the meaning changes. It is very strange, however, for the word "Athenaeum" to acquire a meaning that is completely contradictory to the original associations of the word. The explicit prohibition of religion was certainly not Athenian ideal. The reported trial of one of the most famous man in history provides an example of Athenian thinking about religion. It was Plato who reported the trial of Socrates in the dialog The Apology. According to the dialog, Socrates had two sets of accusers with two accusations each. The first set of accusers charged Socrates with investigating things up in the heavens and under the earth and also charged him with making the weaker argument the stronger. Socrates acknowledged that people so accused were often thought to be a atheists as well. Socrates replied to his first accusers by saying that their accusations were stock accusations against philosophers, that he was not really interested in natural philosophy or what we would call physical science, and that he did not wish to be associated with the Sophists, who unlike Socrates, took money for their teaching and, according to some, made their pupils worse men rather than better men. As Socrates thought further about the accusations, he concluded that some people were prejudiced against him because he had been going around revealing the ignorance of many, especially those who were openly convinced that they knew something. The oracle of Apollo at Delphi had said that no one was wiser than Socrates. Although Socrates respected the oracle, he at first did not think that the oracle was right in this instance. Socrates believed that he had a divine mission to prove the oracle to be wrong. When, however, Socrates tried to find someone wiser than he, he found no one. Those who claimed to know something thought they knew but, under Socrates' questioning, revealed that they did not know. Socrates realized that no one was wiser than he only because he did not know and admitted that he did not know. Instead of thanking Socrates for helping them toward wisdom, those who were shown to be ignorant resented Socrates and became angry at him. Socrates' concept of wisdom has aroused much discussion, but the most relevant point for present purposes is that his view of wisdom has definite religious associations, specifically with regard to the oracle of Apollo. The second set of accusers charged Socrates with not believing in the gods of the state but with believing in other spiritual things and also charged him with corrupting the youth. Again, there was the underlying charge of atheism, made explicit at this point by one of the accusers. Socrates believed that the prejudice against him from a revealing ignorance would probably keep his judges from listening carefully to him and from giving him a fair trial. Nevertheless, he tried to dismiss the charge of corrupting the youth by pointing out that no young person claimed that he had been corrupted by a Socrates nor did any relative of a young person make such a claim in reference to a specific youth. Socrates said that the other charge of the second set of accusers was self- contradictory. He did not specifically acknowledge belief in the gods of the state and may well have had considerable skepticism in this area. However, Socrates' point was that he could not consistently be charged with being an atheist and with being a believer in some spiritual realities. Although Socrates' religious beliefs are not completely clear, it is evident that religion was important for both Socrates and his accusers. Their disagreement does not diminish the importance of their concern and perhaps even emphasizes it. Another example of Athenion thinking with regard to religion comes from a Christian source. Almost five centuries after the time of Socrates, the writer of the book The Acts of the Apostles (generally acknowledged to have been the physician Luke) refers to the visit of Palau of Tarsus to Athens. According to the account given, Paul was disturbed by the numerous idols in the city and began to express his views. Some considered him to be a preacher of foreign divinities. Paul was taken to the Aeropagus, the highest council of the city, was asked to explain his new teaching. With what appears to be great exaggeration, Luke states: "Now all the Athenians & the foreigners who lived there spent their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new. (Acts 17:21 RSV). Paul stood in the middle of the Aeropagus and cited as evidence of the religious nature of the Athenians the various objects of their worship that he had observed. He also referred to an altar dedicated to an unknown god. Paul took the occasion to proclaim that the unknown god of the Athenians was, as he said, the god who made the world and everything in it. In addition to other teachings, Paul said that this deity would judge the world by a man that he had raised from the dead. Since the prevailing, although certainly not unanimous, view in ancient Greece was that of the immortality of the soul, it is understandable that Luke reports that some mocked when they heard of the resurrection of the dead. Luke also states that some expressed their wish to hear from Paul again about this matter. Yet others, according to Luke, believed what Paul had said. While it is obvious that everyone in Athens did not agree on concepts of the deity or on the form of life after death (or perhaps even on the reality of these matters), it is also clear that the subject of religion was not automatically excluded from consideration. The intent of this paper is not to advocate religious or any other kind of propaganda. There's certainly no wish to provoke religious or any other kind of disagreements on a personal level. The desire is that any subject, including religion, be a possible subject for paper. If any subject were allowed and no one ever chose to speak on religion, it would still be good simply to know that the opportunity would be permitted. Further, if any one did speak on religion, that subject, as well as any other subject, should be approached in a spirit of wisdom, that is, not only with the intention to present information but also with the attempt to experience insight, to assess meaning, to evaluate, and possibly to apply. The spirit of wisdom would be appropriate for listeners as well as speakers on any subject. Whatever intellectual disagreements there might be, there would be no need for personal disparagement. Good natured joking and sincere criticism are obvious exceptions. However, anyone who would be unable to bring some degree of courtesy to the discussion of any subject might be considered inappropriate for membership in this society. A matter of treatment of a subject is always open to legitimate criticism, but a subject itself should not be prohibited. Thus a second revision of the constitution is desirable. The following sentence in reference to a paper should be eliminated entirely: "It shall not be written on politics or religion." Other provisions of the constitution then would not prevent a member of the society from legitimately presenting a paper on any subject that he considered to be worthwhile. This procedure would be in keeping with the highest ideals of ancient Athenians. Is the Athenaeum Society living up to its name? To a great extent, it is. It could do even better by emphasizing wisdom at least as much as knowledge and by not automatically excluding any subject from consideration.