Introduction
The following
presentation of John Colet’s (1466-1519) lectures on Romans[1] covers his arguments in
some detail for Romans 1-11. Colet, an
English priest and professor who advocated for Church reform, produced these
lectures about the year 1497. One can
find in his work on Romans a basis for theological reform in his day, although
he does not engage in contemporary theological discussion. Nor does he engage much in standard Church
teaching but determines to understand the Biblical text before him. He turns to recently made available works on
Plato or Platonic philosophy, but he does so in an attempt to explain Paul’s
‘inner man’ and ‘outer man’ teaching.
Colet is considered a humanist, acquainted with Erasmus and perhaps influencing
him, and significantly affected, after studies in Florence, Italy by Renaissance
scholarship and reforming preachers like Savonarola.[2]
Colet’s understanding of
Romans focuses on God’s grace alone as the means of salvation, a discovery that
Martin Luther would make as he began his lectures on Romans in 1515. There is much in Colet’s interpretation of
Romans that rings true with teaching from the later Reformers, which is why his
earlier work is so interesting. Also,
his understanding of God’s grace did not focus on ‘justification’, although what
he says about justification is in line with Reformation teaching. Rather, he explicates grace as covering what
I would call, for want of concise terminology, both forgiving grace and
transforming grace. Indeed, he devotes a
considerable amount of his study of Romans 5-7 to an understanding of God’s
grace as a healing of the soul. One
might wish he had spent more time on Romans 3.21-5.21—his coverage is all too
brief—but his understanding of Romans 5-7 seems well in line with Paul’s
points, and his focus on the power of God’s grace to transform, not just
justify, the sinner, was something the Lutheran and Calvinist wings of the
Reformation might have benefitted from in their exposition of Paul in order to
oppose Roman Catholic teaching on works righteousness. In this way, Colet holds justification and
sanctification more closely together under the teaching of God’s grace.
As little interpretation
or comparison as seems possible of Colet’s lectures on Romans will be offered
here. My purpose is to let Colet speak
in his own words, transled by J. H. Lupton.
The Human Condition
Colet interprets Romans
7.7-25 in terms of the human condition, not the state of the Christian
struggling with sin:
Now
all the evil that man has, springs up from him out of that lower part of his
nature, which may be called … the animal and bestial part of man (Chapter VII).[3]
Adam’s transgression was
a revolt against God when he ‘chose to be the slave of his beguiling
senses.’ His transgression ‘has born
sway in man’s estate, and so to speak in the human commonwealth.’ Human sin is not merely like Adam’s but is a
result of Adam’s sin. It is not a debt
passed on to subsequent generations but a condition that Colet describes as
follows:
From
its violence and tyranny the soul, that is, the poor inner man, being weak and
powerless by reason of Adam’s unhappy fall, has been incapable, with all its
efforts, of releasing and liberating itself (Chapter VI).
Slavery or Bondage, and
the Work of Christ
Colet uses two images for
this human condition: bondage and sickness.
The image of bondage comes from Paul himself (cf. Romans 6.16-18). In Romans 6, Paul’s discussion of the human
condition is not in terms of sin as a debt that needs to be repaid but in terms
of a power that a master has over a slave.
From this power, believers are set free, says Paul, and they are now
slaves of obedience leading to righteousness leading to sanctification leading
to eternal life (vv. 16, 19, 22)[4] and God (v. 22). Paul conceives of the Christian partly as
being a free agent choosing to do the right thing.[5] This is only possible once Christ has freed
Christians from the rule of unrighteousness.
The human condition, however, is conceived more in terms of two types of
slavery: to sin or to obedience. Roman
slavery was defined as ‘being in the power of another’. The condition of slavery to sin as understood
with reference to Adam in Romans 5.12ff was that his choice brought the human
race into the condition of slavery to sin.
The condition of slavery to obedience was brought about by Christ, whose
death was a death to sin whose (resurrection) life he lives to God (Rom.
6.10)—and we participate in his death to sin and resurrection to newness of
life by being baptized into Christ Jesus (Rom. 6.3-4).
Returning to Colet, we
note that his discussion of these matters in Chapter VI, with Romans 6 in view,
focuses on the bondage under which fallen humanity serves and from which they
have been freed to serve God. When we
conceive of the human plight as a debt that needs repayment, as the sinner’s
need for justification before a righteous judge, we conceive of Christ’s death
as the required payment on our behalf, or as a satisfaction. This is true, but it is not the full
understanding. Indeed, Colet does
understand Christ’s death in both ways.
He articulates the work of Christ as forgiveness and justification in
Chapter VII in regard to Romans 7.24-25, where Paul asks, ‘Wretched man that I
am! Who will deliver me from this body
of death?’ The answer is Jesus Christ
our Lord (v. 25). Colet writes,
For
if Jesus Christ had not died, as a sufficient satisfaction for our state, and
recompense for sin, then, without further delay, all the ungodly, each for his
own transgressions, would themselves have perished, and been hurried away to
death and punishment. But Jesus alone
suffered that to be inflicted unjustly on himself, which would justly have been
inflicted upon all…. (Chapter VII).
He further says,
By
the death of Christ, therefore, which was gone through for all, men are
retained in life, by the marvelous grace of God; that their sins may be blotted
out by the death of Christ, even as by their own, and that in all the rest of
their life they may strive after virtue, and aspire until God (Chapter VII).
Another view he affirms
is that Christ redeems humanity from the power of the devil (Chapter III). But he also understands that the work of
Christ was a healing from sin. Colet
does not follow only one understanding of Christ’s death, justification or
satisfaction, redemption from the power of the devil, or the overthrow of the
power of sin brought about through Adam’s sin.
He holds these together. Nor does
he separate salvation by grace from moral responsibility. Christ accomplishes a blotting out of sins and
a purification of men and a reconciliation to God—all that the Law
in its powerlessness could not accomplish.
The Law could arouse ‘the soul to some faint light and knowledge of
good, but did not also inflame it deeply with the love of goodness and of God.’ This God did through Jesus Christ. A Christian is now, through Christ, able to
burst ‘the bonds of his sins’, to
come
forth free, and live in the presence of God; and regard the Law no more, which
regarded sin; but trusting in God, hoping in God, and loving God alone, might
finally be in terror of no condemnation at all [Romans 8.1], so long as he
followed Christ, and fashioned himself to the best of his power after the
pattern of his Master, and exhibited the form of Christ.’
Colet continues by
saying, with reference to Romans 8.1 (that there is now no condemnation for
those in Christ Jesus), that we have an assurance that God will not condemn
us. Without drawing out the significance
of this himself for his day, we might say that this was one of the key teachings
that the Reformation would affirm. Once
justification was understood as God’s gift of grace and not human effort, one
could have assurance of salvation. Yet,
the magisterial reformers would argue this on the grounds of Christ’s
justification of the sinner—Martin Luther in particular. Colet never separates Christ’s work of
justification from His work of transformation.
In this, he follows Paul more carefully.
Thus, earlier in his
commentary on Romans, Colet discusses the effect of God’s love and grace—in
reference to Romans 5.1-11 (and also noting 1 John 4.10). God’s gracious love of those not worthy of
love, the ungodly and unjust, ‘is itself their calling and justification and
glorifying’ (Chapter V). Furthermore,
…
when we say that by grace men are drawn, are called, are justified, are
glorified; we signify nothing else than that men return the love of a loving
God. In this love and return of love
consists the justification of man. And
this reciprocal love in us is joined with hope, and needs to be steadfast, as
that which will not be made ashamed. For
we are beloved by God, that we should in turn love and hope in him; because,
in the words of St. Paul, the charity and love of God is shed abroad in our
hearts [Romans 5.5] (Chapter V).
Later reformers might be
nervous about so close a drawing of human reciprocity into God’s work of grace,
but Colet does not here advocate Aquinas’ view of an enabling grace that gives
sinful humanity the boost it needs to do good works. At least, it seems he is closer to
Augustine’s fides quae per dilectionem operatur, faith working through
love (cf. Galatians 5.6). As Alister
McGrath explains Augustine’s view, ‘faith alone is merely assent to revealed
truth, itself inadequate to justify.’[6] Using the parable of the Good Samaritan
allegorically, Augustine held that ‘justification is a process of
transformation by which sinners are healed and renewed within the community of
faith.[7] Colet, like Augustine, is
saying that the grace of God that saves us is also transformative, using
the metaphor of healing. It remains
divine grace at work within us, a love of God shed abroad in human hearts. He notes that there was a force in sin and
that there is a ‘greater force and power in grace, for quickening men, and
restoring them to an entire and sure salvation’ (Chapter V). For Augustine before him, justification was
‘both the event of justification (brought about by operative grace) and
the process of justification (brought about by co-operative grace).[8] In sixteenth century Protestantism, these two
aspects of justification would be distinguished more sharply in an effort to
counter a ‘works-righteousness’ theology.
Augustine, however, not only considers justification as a process but
also as an eschatological judgement by God based on the believer’s good
works. These works are effected in the
believer by God; they are His works in the believer and so are ‘imputed’ (inputantur)
to him or her (De civitate Dei XXII, 30).[9] Later Reformation theology would speak of
imputed righteousness in the sense of Christ’s righteousness being imputed to
the sinner. Augustine’s view is that
righteousness is inherent in the believer, since justification entails God
making the believer righteous. McGrath
writes,
Justification
is therefore essentially a ‘making right’, a restoration of every facet of the
relationship between God and humanity. Iustitia
is not conceived primarily in legal or forensic categories, but transcends
them, encompassing the ‘right-wising’ of the God-human relationship in its many
aspects: the relationship of God to humankind, of humans to their fellows, and
of humans to their environment.[10]
This Augustinian view,
while not referenced in Colet, appears to help us to understand Colet’s
interpretation of grace in Romans.
Christ the Healer
As already noted, to capture
this understanding of grace, another metaphor than slavery or bondage is
helpful: the metaphor of disease and health.
As Alister McGrath says,
The
idea of Christus medicus—Christ as the authentic healer of the human
soul—was used extensively by Ambrose: ‘We have found shelter with the
Physician, who has healed our former wounds. We have received the great
medicine of His grace; for great takes away great sins’.[11]
This metaphor was typical
in Greek philosophies, for they sought to provide the medicine necessary to
heal the soul from its debilitating desires and appetites.[12] Christ’s work was not simply a forgiveness of
sins and a justification of the sinner but a life-giving healing of the
sinner. Colet says,
…
whatever grew from one sin, for destruction (and there did grow sin
manifold and infinite), when the tale thereof was all made up, and the
virulence of the disease, as it were, at fever height, then at the same time
all-powerful grace, by its prevailing and marvellous force, dispelled it, and
destroyed all the sin…. Sin is indeed a
violent and aggressive thing; but the glorious power of sweet and pleasant
grace, that works softly and marvellously, and with a secret and wonderful
effect, nothing can resist. Wherefore we
must believe that grace, which reconciles to God, has far more power in the
world than sin, which estranges from God.
And hence, that the righteousness and obedience of Christ has far more
power to recall to God men who are to be recalled, than the sin and
disobedience of Adam had to call them away from God (Chapter V).
Still with Romans 5.12ff
in view, Colet writes,
And
so, as sin grew and gathered strength, it was needful, for the healing of
mankind, that saving grace should then much more increase and abound; that men,
being justified by it, might be able through Jesus Christ to attain eternal
life (Chapter V).
Later, he calls sin the
sickness and grace the medicine:
…but
once for all, according to the will of God, had medicinal grace been given in
the death of Christ for healing the disease of sin (Chapter VI).
The Law
This metaphor of sickness
and healing explains Colet’s understanding of the Law, the failure of Judaism,
the work of God’s grace through Christ, and the transformation of persons
receiving God’s grace. Colet says that
the Law, instead of bringing healing, ‘exposed and aggravated the disorder’
(Chapter VI). He says that ‘Christ,
however, brought healing, making any further taking of the medicine of the Law
unnecessary.’ The metaphor of disease
explains, for Colet, the limitation of the Law and how Christ’s work was a
healing of the soul to ‘liberty and goodness’.
This lengthy quotation offers a full use of the metaphor to explain sin,
the Law, grace, and sanctification (the last word not being used here):
As
with sick persons, whom a dangerous disease has long been weakening, and whose
life has been despaired of, it profits not to apply a medicine to expel the
disease, but does them much more harm, though the medicine be a most approved
one, because through their weakness they cannot bear it; so also with the Jews,
the Jewish Law profited them not; not because it was not good in itself, but
because the Jews were bad, and on account of their inveterate malady of
disobedience, unfit to obey good precepts.
And, as with sick persons, whose bodily strength has been almost wholly
exhausted by a long disease, if there be any hope of recovery, it must needs be
only in giving and increasing strength, to the intent that an invigorated
system may escape from the bonds of disease; so was it with the Jews, when
their weakness had been detected by the laws, through which they could not be
roused to heal and justify themselves.
For the disorder did so gain strength more and more in succession from
Adam, and the taint and foul contagion of the mischief did so deeply penetrate,
that by human strength there could be no healing. In this state, I say, in so great infirmity,
the only hope left for the Jews, was this, that by grace their strength might
be increased, and when increased and invigorated might quickly escape from its
ills, and carry that inner man away from its bad and slavish condition
to liberty and goodness. And
furthermore, just as the physician, who has applied a good and suitable remedy,
is not to be accused, nor deemed unskilful, albeit his remedy has not healed;
nor the remedy to be despised, although it has not restored health, the man
being radically incurable; but rather the physician is to be commended, and the
remedy approved, which has disclosed the greatness and peril of the disorder;
that, warned by it, the man may betake himself to a more skilful
physician;--so, assuredly, in the same manner, neither is God nor the Law of
Moses to be taxed, although by it man has not recovered his ancient goodness
and righteousness; but thanks are to be given to God and the Law, for that,
admonished through it, men fly for refuge to a more efficacious remedy, even to
God himself, and to his grace. For
thereby at length, being set free and restored to health, they may rest in saving
grace alone, and think no more of the Law, now that the sinful character, to
which it had regard, has been laid aside; nor deem that it concerns them, any
more than the sick man we supposed, who has now by admirable skill been
restored to health, deem that he has any concern with the remedy, which in his
own case, by reason of his weakness, he found to be powerless and
ineffectual. For being released from the
condition, on account of which the remedy was devised, he has nothing further
to do with the remedy in question, since by other ways and means he has
attained the object sought by it (Chapter VI).
In the same lecture,
Colet explains that all healing is by God’s grace (and so not by works):
The
Jews had the Law given them for the sake of pointing out their iniquity, that
they might openly acknowledge both the greatness of the disorder under which
they suffered, and their own natural powerlessness; and when at length they
were healed by grace, might ascribe all to grace, and feel unmistakably that it
was through grace alone that they had recovered health and life. For it is God’s will that his lovingkindness
and mercy and benefits should be acknowledged to proceed wholly and manifestly
from himself; that men may have no room for either pride or idle questioning;
but may own that nothing is of themselves, everything of God; and so, as St.
Paul bids them, may joy in God [Rom. 5.11] alone (Chapter VI).
Justified by ‘the
marvellous and wonder-working grace of God’ and not by the Law, there is no
further reason to keep administering the medicine of the Law, which was meant
for sinners. Regarding Romans 10.4,
which says that Christ is the end of the Law, Colet understands this both as
bringing the Mosaic Law to an end and that Christ is the one to whom all that
Moses wrote points. That is, Christ is
both the terminus of the Law and the fulfillment of the Law. Also, this points to the coming of the law of
Christ, the law (‘word’) of faith (cf. Romans 10.8 (Chapters IX and X). Earlier, Colet affirmed a threefold purpose
of the Law: to point out sin, to define boundaries, and to threaten
transgressors (Chapter IV). Grace, on
the other hand, takes away the fault, ‘draws man out of his strait,’ and
‘graciously cherishes and sustains him,’ and so people are able to trust (put
their faith) in God alone (Chapter IV).
Continuing his explanation of Romans 4, Colet says that the Jews,
however, claimed happiness by virtue of being workers of the Law rather than
imitating the faith of Abraham.
Moreover, the Jews rejected faith in Christ (Chapters IX and X). (There is no indication that he derives this
point by responding to the works-righteousness of Catholicism in his day; his
view is drawn from the text of Romans and is, as Paul’s, a corollary of what is
taught about divine grace. Nor is there
any thought in Colet that the problem for the Jews lay in their claim to a
special covenant status that excluded Gentiles, as some ‘New Perspective’
interpretations have taught.)
Predestination and Love
A key passage in Romans
for later Reformers’ views on God’s work of salvation is Romans 8.28-30:
And
we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for
those who are called according to his purpose.
:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to
the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many
brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he
called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
If salvation is by God’s
grace and not works of the Law, is it not, then, wholly a work of God in the
sense that those who are God’s are His because He has predestined them unto
salvation and secured them eternally in it?
Such is the logic in later Reformed theology. Later, regarding Romans 9, Colet says,
‘whatever you will and do is known by God [foreknowledge], and also whatever he
has known and determined, that must needs be done [predestination]’ (Chapters
IX and X). God decrees people ‘to be
faithful and believing’ (Chapters IX and X).
This means that God’s counsel and purpose are not dependent upon human
will and deeds. He reads Romans 9, then,
as a defense of God’s sovereignty. At
this point, Colet emphasizes that humans are not in a position to understand this
by virtue of God’s exalted position and our humble condition.
Colet seems, however, to
say two things that, taken on their own, could lead to conflicting
theologies. First, Colet rejects an
eternal security theology. He says,
But
if, neglecting the love and attractive influence of God (ensnared, it may be,
by the allurements of the body or deterred by violence), they have fallen from
God, and lived again after the flesh and fleshly appetites, which are opposed
and hostile to God, and destructive to men themselves;--if, shame to tell it,
there has been this inexpressible wickedness in any man, after God has loved
him so greatly, then for certain will be deserted by divine grace, and fall
headlong into a state far more miserable than before.
Second, however, Colet
speaks approvingly of predestination.
How can this be? The key appears
to be his distinction between faith and love.
Faith can falter and lead one to reject God, but love is of a higher
order. Note that he does not simply
locate predestination in a theology of God’s sovereignty, although he does
affirm this. Predestination is, however,
especially related to the relationship of love between God and the
Christian. He does say, at the end of
Chapter VIII, that ‘according to the purpose and voluntary predestination of
God, and, as it were, by his immoveable decree, men are called by God himself
to believe and trust in Him.’ Earlier in
the chapter, he said that the Spirit of God ‘does not dwell in and enlighten
all, but only those who are predestined by the divine counsel to be
enlightened.’ The Spirit ‘works
pleasantly and sweetly,’ and so forth.
With that so clearly
stated as an interpretation of Romans 8, Colet’s greater attention is drawn to
an explication of love. Love is, indeed,
important in the theology of Romans 8.28-39.
Paul says that nothing ‘will be able to separate us from the love of God
in Christ Jesus our Lord’ (v. 39). Faith
leads to salvation, but love,
which
takes possession of the soul along with Faith, and rarifies it, so to speak,
and expands it, is that whereby, so far as can be done by man, God and his
Christ are received and worshipped (Chapter VIII).
Faith and love are
related. Faith is a ‘more diffused
love’, whereas love is ‘a more condensed and united faith.’ (He does not expand on what he means by
this.) With 1 Corinthians 13.13 in mind,
Colet sees love as a power surpassing faith.
It ‘seizes on the soul of man, influence, disposes and forms it’
(Chapter VIII). With reference to 1 John
4.7, he says that our love for God is kindled by God’s love for us. He makes a further distinction between
knowing God and loving God: the former is not completely possible, but one
might love God in whatever capacity he is able to do so. Thus, ‘it is beyond doubt more pleasing to
God himself to be love by men than to be surveyed; and to be worshipped, than
to be understood’ (Chapter VIII). By
this route of argument, Colet then comes to Romans 8.28: ‘And we know that for
those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called
according to his purpose.’ The
relationship of love is sometimes missed in renderings of this verse, whereas
Colet makes it the key factor.
Colet continues his emphasis
on the priority of love by contrasting knowledge and love, saying, ‘…the soul
is rendered divine, not from studying, but from loving God’ (Chapter
VIII). Indeed, he reasons, ‘…weak men
know but as much of God as they can contain; which is little indeed: but they
love, not only as much as they know and behold, but also as much of the divine
goodness as they conjecture to remain over, which they cannot know’ (Chapter
VIII).
The case of the Jews is a
case in point (Romans 9-11). They served
as an example to all that humans cannot rise from the load of sins without
divine grace (Chapters IX and X).
Perhaps still thinking of Romans 8.28, Colet says, ‘though not the cause
of evil, [God] yet appeared as the marvellous author of good out of evil’
(Chapters IX and X). The problem the
Jews illustrate is not said to be pride in their covenant status (as advocated
in the so-called ‘New Perspective on Paul’) or in their trust in their own good
works (as advocated by the Reformers).
They illustrate the problem of sin.
Their problem is not pride in their covenant status or the effort of
achieving salvation by works but their belief that they were not so sick with
their sins as to need God’s saving grace in Christ Jesus’ sacrificial death on
the cross.
A qualification of a
predestinarian theology—which Colet strongly affirms—nevertheless comes when
Romans 11 is under consideration. Colet
says,
…
as regards those whom He wills to recall to himself out of the whole lost race
of men, to serve and believe in Him, those who are not yet called may be
called, whilst those who are called, may still be rejected; that, in the
wonderful dispensation of events, the Jews were suffered to wander away from
God, that so by a just occasion grace might be offered to the gentiles….
(Chapters IX and X).
Regarding Romans
11.25-27, Colet takes ‘all Israel will be saved’ to mean that
God
will draw to himself as many as shall be deemed sufficient…. he chooses out of the whole world and
multitude of men, whom, and when, and how He will; and that He will accomplish
all that he has fore-known and predestined touching the salvation of men and
the number of the faithful… (Chapter XI).
Conclusion
John Colet’s lectures on
Romans demonstrate a firm grasp on Paul’s theology of salvation by grace. One might, perhaps, be able to explain his
teaching as a ‘salvation by healing grace through love’ to give his primary
points their due. He also affirms
justification by grace through faith, but the former phrasing of his theology
seems to be where his primary focus lies.
Even his teaching on predestination focuses this doctrine not only on
God’s sovereignty but also on God’s love.
His interpretation of Romans requires an understanding of Paul’s
theology not in static terms but in dynamic terms: God’s salvation is not
simply a transfer from one state into another but is far more a matter of a
dynamic, divine power at work to make sick sinners healthy by curing the
soul. He further sees the problem with
the Law to lie primarily in sin—in the inability of near-death souls to obey
it. Sin, not ethnic pride or works righteousness,
is the main issue. In much of Colet’s
teaching, I would suggest, Colet has captured Paul’s teaching rather well. (His understanding of predestination may be
where I would part the most.) This is
especially true in his focus on God’s grace as an active power at work within a
weak and sickly person languishing near death and not just a transaction by
which the sinner is justified.
[1]
John Colet, Dean Colet’s Lectures on the Romans, trans. J. H. Lupton
(London: Bell and Daldy, 1873); available online at: https://www.google.com/books/edition/An_Exposition_of_St_Paul_s_Epistle_to_th/cZlJAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover.
[2] A more detailed biography can be
found in the introduction of the translation used here (cf. footnote 1).
[3][3] This is a Platonic view of the human condition, as in
Phaedro, where the charioteer (reason) struggles to control the two
horses (passion and appetite). Colet’s
understanding of this comes through his reading of Plotinus, made available
through Focino in 1492. See Plotinus, Ennead
I.1. Paul’s ‘inner man’ and ‘outer
man’ distinction is interpreted through Plotinus’ understanding of the
animate—living organism—made up of the ‘couplement’ of the soul and body. In I.1.12, Plotinus discusses the notion that
the soul in itself is sinless, but insofar as it couples with the outer part it
becomes sinful.
[4] Paul keeps adding to what this new
service leads to in a progression laid out over these verses.
[5] He does urge believers to consider
themselves ‘dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus’ (Rom. 6.11). He next exhorts them not to allow sin to
reign in their mortal bodies, to ‘obey its passions’, or present their ‘members
to sin as instruments for unrighteousness’ (Romans 6.12-13).
[6] Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei:
A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 4th ed. (Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 2020), p. 45.
[7] Ibid., p. 48.
[8] Ibid., p. 49.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid., p. 50.
[11] Ibid., p. 48. See Ambrose, De Helia et ieiunio xx.75,
CSEL 32.2.257-8.
[12] Martha C. Nussbaum, Therapy of
Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics, Rev. ed. (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2018).
No comments:
Post a Comment