Aristotle's theory of Slavery

Aristotle claimed that people who are inferior are natural slaves, and those superior are naturally free. He explains his theory as follows:

"Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature. Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle; they obey their instincts...

And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace. But the opposite often happens--that some have the souls and others have the bodies of freemen.

And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. And if this is true of the body, how much more just that a similar distinction should exist in the soul? But the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right."

I do not think this is an accurate theory, since it does not make much sense to me. There can be many factors that determine if one is a slave or is free. Someone could be sold as a slave based on the needs of their family. Slaves can also rebel and break free, as was the case in the film Ben-Hur, when Judah survived the Galleys and extracted revenge on the tyrant prince.

I believe that one's destiny is not predetermined at birth, it all depends on whether or not one has the moral strength to survive slavery, or the courage to begin a revolt and fight for freedom. This idea is suggesting that some people deserve to be slaves, which I do not think is a justifiable idea by any means. Some people may be more suited for slavery based on stature, but these people would be better off as gladiators, since serving a nation is morally permissible in my mind, while serving a wealthy individual is a waste of a strong willed person.

Spartacus as a Messiah?

This image attests to the claim made by scholars of the messiah-like portrayal of Spartacus in the 1960 film.  It is in alignment with Plutarch's view of Spartacus as a man more compassionate and more intellectual than his social status would ever show. I feel this image ties so many ideas together: cross societal interpretations of the same person.  The differences in the interpretations Spartacus between Plutarch and Suetonious, the modern image of Spartacus, and the character of Nat Turner between primary sources such as the Richmond Enquirer and Ebony magazine represent countless parallels in differing values and differences in class, income, social status, and race.

The Apology, Socrates, and Freedom of Speech

"Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty without Freedom of Speech"
-Benjamin Franklin, The New England Courant, Jul. 9, 1722



Freedom of speech has been a central notion to the concpet of democracy, and remains a hotly contested point even now. Perhaps the most famous case involving freedom of speech is Plato's Apology, an account of the trial of Socrates. In the Apology, Socrates is brought before a large jury (501 citizens) to defend himself against the charges of Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon that he is not worshipping state sanctioned gods and is corrupting the youth. Socrates explains that he has made many important people uncomfortable with his intense questioning in the search of wisdom, and that he suspects this is much of the real reason for the accusations brought against him.

Though this work is called "Apology" it is not an apology in the sense that we usually use the word. Socrates does not express regret or remorse about the things he is accused of. Instead, "apology" here means a defense or a formal justification. Throughout the work, Socrates goes to great lengths to express that he is not afraid to die, and in fact would rather do that than have his free speech restricted.

"if you say to me, Socrates, this time we will not mind Anytus, and will let you off, but upon one condition, that you are to inquire and speculate in this way no more, and that if you are caught doing this again you shall die;- if this was the condition on which you let me go, I should reply: Men of Athens...I shall never cease from the practice of teaching philosophy, exhorting anyone whom I meet after my manner, and convincing him..."

"Someone will say: Yes Socrates, but cannot you hold your tongue, and then you may go into a foreign city, and no one will interfere with you?...if I tell you that this would be a disobedience to a divine command, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say again that the greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living - that you are still less likely to believe"

Plato's Socratic dialogues, particularly Apology, Crito, and Phaedo are full of passages like these that have helped establish Socrates as a martyr for philosophy and for the idea of freedom of speech. It would be easy to condemn the Athenians for what seems to us a tragic example of democracy gone wrong. However, I believe we would do better to examine the thoughts of Saxonhouse in her Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens when she contrasts the ideas of Thomas Jefferson ("It does me no harm for my neighbor to say that there are no gods or twenty gods; it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg.") with an Athenian society in which freedom of speech and religion were entirely separate concepts. The reason for this refers us back to a running theme throughout this blog, that the modern US separation between the pubilc and private life make our democracy drastically different from that of the Athenians, for whom being a citizen, and tending to public affairs, was essentially a full time job. For us, and many of the Founders, religion was a private matter, not one pertaining to public affairs, which is why the very beginning of the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prophibiting the free exercise therof". However, this does not work in the Greek system where private matters are essentially public matters. While the Greeks understood the need for freedom of speech as it pertained to politics and government, they did not consider religious beliefs to fall within that scope.

This difference in meaning of freedom of speech can be seen in a detailed reading of the Apology by the fact that Socrates, for a man being accused of atheism, references the gods consistently throughout the work, as if to show the jury that he does in fact believe in them. He relates his mission to find the meaning behind the oracle at Delphi and he defends himself directly against the charge that he does not believe in the proper gods in his (extremely one sided) dialogue with Meletus. So, I think we can conclude that Saxonhouse has an interesting and worthwhile point in her statement that "for Athenians freedom of speech could not be uttered in the same breath as the totally alien notion of freedom of religion"

Interestingly, in the modern world, many of the regions most in need of freedom of speech are also regions where religion plays a major cultural and governmental role. In the middle east, where religious views are already highly charged, protests about religion or freedom can easily shift from one to the other. As citizens in countries such as Libya, Egypt, and Bahrain seek more freedom, it will be interesting to see whether they develop governmental systems that support freedom of religion in addition to freedom of speech and freedom from tyranny or whether they will mandate a state religion like the Athenian government did. This will depend on the roles of citizens in those countries and their relationship to the state. It also of course depends on the cultural background of the people in the political system. The US, being founded by people who fled other countries, often because of religious persecution, is in a unique situation which has led to a unique system of government.

Public Perception of Nat Turner in the Richmond Enquirer, Virginia, 30 August 1831

Newspaper article on Nat Turner from Virginia, 30 August 1831 

Throughout this blog, I have focused on exploring the public opinions and perceptions of two great slave revolt leaders, Spartacus and Nat Turner, across different cultures: ancient Rome, the US Civl Rights Movement Era, and now, pre-Civil War US South. The perception portrayed of Nat Turner in the Richmond Enquirer can be best summarized by a short phrase used in the beginning of an article on the rebel slave leader:

What strikes us as the most remarkable thing in this matter is the horrible ferocity of these monsters. They remind one of a parcel of blood-thirsty wolves rushing down from the Alps; or rather like a former incursion of the Indians upon the white settlements'

This depiction shares tones with the way Suetonius refers to Spartacus in the Life of Augustus, but takes a very different tone than that of Plutarch, who makes Sparacus really seem like a celebrity.  So this makes me wonder about Nat Turner: were there mixed thoughts and perceptions of his revolt from the time it took place like that of Spartacus?  The answer to this is difficult to find in literary sources from the era because, like Spartacus, his biggest fans were probably slaves, and lacked access to the media.  I still think some slave owners would be in awe of what he accomplished, and thus drawn towards respecting him.  The parallels between this and say Plutarch, a slave owner who was in awe with Spartacus, is astounding, and attests to the celebrity statuses of both Nat Turner and Spartacus.

Close Reading of Plutarch's Crassus

Plutarch Crassus

8. The insurrection of the gladiators and the devastation of Italy, commonly called the war of Spartacus, began upon this occasion. One Lentulus Batiates trained up a great many gladiators in Capua, most of them Gauls and Thracians, who, not for any fault by them committed, but simply through the cruelty of their master, were kept in confinement for this object of fighting one with another. Two hundred of these formed a plan to escape, but being discovered, those of them who became aware of it in time to anticipate their master, being seventy-eight, got out of a cook's shop chopping-knives and spits, and made their way through the city, and lighting by the way on several wagons that were carrying gladiators' arms to another city, they seized upon them and armed themselves. And seizing upon a defensible place, they chose three captains, of whom Spartacus was chief, a Thracian of one of the nomad tribes, and a man not only of high spirit and valiant, but in understanding, also, and in gentleness superior to his condition, and more of a Grecian than the people of his country usually are. When he first came to be sold at Rome, they say a snake coiled itself upon his face as he lay asleep, and his wife, who at this latter time also accompanied him in his flight, his country- woman, a kind of prophetess, and one of those possessed with the bacchanal frenzy, declared that it was a sign portending great and formidable power to him with no happy event.

This passage by Plutarch begins to paint a picture of the Roman perception of Spartacus.  It is special in the sense that it, in contrast to the subtle undertones Suetonious makes towards Spartacus, represents him in seemingly positive light.  It may just represent flattery in a relative sense, ie relative to other Thracians, but regardless of this, Plutarch’s comment on Spartacus’ degree of “Grecian” is flattering and much different in nature than the fierce machismo portrayal that Suetonious attests to in The Life of Augustus.  This raises some questions about Rome’s general consensus of Spartacus.  Was it one of ferocity and ruthlessness?  Or one of wit and intellect common in a Grecian?  In reality, I would imagine it to be a mixture of both.  An opening scene of the film Spartacus makes a claim that Spartacus, even before his time as leader of the slave rebellion, showed signs alluding to future greatness.  Not dissimilarly, Plutarch speaks of a telling sign of Spartacus’ future:

When he first came to be sold at Rome, they say a snake coiled itself upon his face as he lay asleep, and his wife, who at this latter time also accompanied him in his flight, his country- woman, a kind of prophetess, and one of those possessed with the bacchanal frenzy, declared that it was a sign portending great and formidable power to him with no happy event.

This foreshadowing of Spartacus’ future bears a striking resemblance to that as depicted in the film.  After all the reading of other primary and secondary sources I have done for this blog, the contradiction Plutarch creates here with the portrayal by other ancient historians is extremely interesting and important in forming a comprehensive answer to the question of the public perception’s view of Spartacus in antiquity.

Citizenship Bibliography

Primary Sources:
-Aristotle (Translated by Benjamin Jowett); Politics

Aristotle's Politics is divided into eight books addressing a variety of topics, briefly described as follows. Book I defines a political communitiy and compares it to the community of a household. Book II addresses ideal states, particularly those discussed by Plato, and then considers the well run states of Sparta, Crete, and Carthage. Book III considers citizens and the civic body, how to classify constitutions, and various forms of monarchy. Book IV focuses on variations of the main types of constitutions. Book V discusses revolutions, their causes, and how to avoid them. Book VI examines the organization of democracies and oligarchies. In Book VII, Aristotle relates his ideas of what is best for individuals and states, including many details regarding the best state such as the size of the population, territorial concerns, the best types of citizens, and the education system. Book VIII continues Aristotle's discussion of education of citizens.

The most relevent Book for my topic was Book III, as it considers citizens and the civic body. Therefore, that is the section that is cited in my discussion of Aristotle's Politics.

-Plato (Translated by Benjamin Jowett); Apology

Apology is Plato's version of Socrates's speech as he defends himself against the charges Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon have brought against him. His accusers claim that he has been corrupting youths and that he does not believe in the gods that the rest of the city believes in. Socrates does not apologize in the modern sense of the word, but rather explains that the claims are mistaken. He also questions Meletus and shows his arguments to be contradictory. Even when the jury finds him guilty, Socrates refuses to beg for forgiveness, and instead proposes his punishment be a small fine. The jury, likely angered by this proposition, sentences him to death and Socrates continues to assert his preference for death over dishonor until the end of the work.

-Plato (Translated by Desmond Lee); The Republic

Plato's Republic explores the concept of justice in societies and individuals. In order to examine these ideas, Plato proposes a city ruled by philosopher-kings. This is in contrast to the democratic ideas that fit the Athenian government of the time, but this disparity is significant because it confirms that the ancient Greeks questioned the entire concept of democracy, unlike most modern western societies. This examination of the various forms of government (albeit an idealized one) has laid the groundwork for numerous studies over the course of history and has made The Republic one of the most influential works of both political theory and philosophy.

-Thucydides (Translated by Richard Crawley); The History of the Peloponnesian War

The History of the Peloponnesian War is a major historical work in which Thucydides chronicles the 27 year war between Athens and Sparta. Despite the fact that Thucydides is an Athenian, this work is often held to be a fairly objective. This image of a scientific history is aided by the work's structure, which contains many first hand accounts, lists events in chronological order, and does not reference the gods the way many other works (like those of Herodotus) do.

Since The History of the Peloponnesian War is a lengthy work and not entirely related to the subject of this blog, my focus was on Pericles' Funeral Oration in Book 2. This funeral speech is significant in that it is a traditional public funeral for soldiers killed in battle, but the speech itself is not of the traditional form. Rather than simply honoring the dead and the ancestors, Pericles uses it as a platform to honor Athens and to push Athenians to strive for higher achievement. This includes interesting persepctives about the state, its citizens, and their rights and responsibilities

-United States Declaration of Independence
http://www.archives.gov/

The Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence as a statement of why the American colonies were justified in separating themselves from England. The document lists 27 specific abuses that King George III was guilty of inflicting on the colonists along with general abuses of the colonists by the government authorities of England as well as its citizens

This document is important background reading for this blog because it lays out what releatively modern Americans considered inalienable rights and unacceptable trespasses. This was an important starting point to see where these ideas of individual and government rights overlapped or diverged from those of the ancients

-United States Constitution
http://www.archives.gov/

The US Constitution is the fundamental legal document of the United States by which all other laws are measured. It consists of a Preamble, 7 Articles, and 27 Amendments. The Preamble explaines why the Constitution was created, but it has no legal force. The first 3 articles establish the structure for the 3 branches of government (legislative, executive, and judiciary). Article 4 addresses the states and the relationships between their governments. Article 5 explains the process of amending the Constitution, while Article 6 establishes it as the supremem law of the land, and Article 7 outlines the process required to ratify/accept it.

I will not list all of the amendments here, but will mention that for the purposes of this blog the First Amendment is particularly important. The First Amendment includes the rights to free speech, free assembly, free press, free religion, and petition of the government. This is particularly important to our comparison of citizen rights and responsibilities across times and cultures because most Americans would agree that these are the most crucial and basic rights an individual should have.

Secondary Sources:

-Ehrenberg, Victor; The Greek State; Oxford, Blackwell, 1960

The Greek State considers mainly the origin, structure, and functions of the Hellenic and Hellenistic states. Following Ehrenberg's definitions of these two states, the ancient Athenian democracy falls into the Hellenic state, so I did not consider the Hellenistic portions of the book. The detailed section on citizenship proved especially useful as background studies for this blog.

-Gunnell, John; Imagining the American Polity: Political Science and the Discourse of Democracy; University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press

In Gunnell's own words, Imagining the American Polity is "primarily a study of the evolution of the vision of democracy in American political science". It is important to know how democracy has been defined/redefined over time because Americans consider the United States to be the ideal model of democracy without always knowing what that entails. Gunnell traces what exactly democracy means through the relationships between the concept of democracy and those of the state, liberalism, and pluralism.

-Loizou, Andros and Lesser, Harry (Editors); Polis and Politics: Essays in Greek Moral and Political Philosophy; Avebury, England; Gower Publishing Company Limited, 1990

This book contained several articles by separate authors on different ancient political topics.

-Richard, Carl; The Founders and the Classics: Greece, Rome, and the American Enlightenment; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994

The Founders and the Classics gives an in depth explanation of the widely known fact that the Founding Fathers were very knowledgable about and interested in classical works. Richard explains how the Founders originally became interested in the classics through their education, the way that they appropriated various symbols and models based on their knowledge of ancient history, and their interaction with classical philosophy.

-Richard, Carl; Greeks and Romans Bearing Gifts: How the Ancients Inspired the Founding Fathers; Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008

Greeks and Romans Bearing Gifts lays out a number of ways in which the Founding Fathers were influenced by Sparta, Athens, the fall of Greece to the Macedonians, Early Rome, the Roman Republic, and the Roman Emperors. Richard formats each chapter as a brief overview of the events of the era folowed by the lesson the Founders would have taken away from the classical records of those events. Since my focus is on the ancient Athenian democracy that we view as a sort of golden age, I paid particular attention to th chapter on "Athens and the Perils of Democracy"

-Saxonhouse, Arlene; Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens; Cambridge University Press; New York City, 2006

In this book Saxonhouse explores the practice and limitations of free speech in ancient Athens through a wide variety of primary sources. She also compares and contrasts the modern concept of free speech and the tools required to achieve it with those of the ancient Athenians. This book was used to study free speech, which is one of the most important rights of citizens in a democracy.

-Woodruff, Paul; First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea ; Oxford University Press; New York City, 2005

In First Democracy Woodruff discusses what real democracy is compared to common imitations of democracy like voting, majority rule, and the presence of elected representatives. He then explains what he considers to be the seven essential characteristics of democracy, freedom from tyranny, harmony, rule of law, natural equality, citizen wisdom, reasoning without knowledge, and education. Finally, Woodruff assesses whether Americans are ready for a true democracy. This book proved very useful in comparing and contrasting our modern political culture and the ancient Athenian political culture against an idealized concept of democracy rather than against each other, which provided a unique perspective on both states.

Cross cultural discourse between Spartacus and Nat Turner

In the October 1968 issue of “Ebony Magazine”, Lerone Benett, Jr., and 10 other African-American Scholars argue that the portrayal of Nat Turner, the leader of the greatest slave uprising in the United States, in William Styron’s “Confessions of Nat Turner” is racially influenced and inaccurate.  I find this to be an excellent cross cultural discourse between the portrayal of Spartacus in the 1960 film, because 1968, the date of publication of this essay, was still in the midst of the civil rights movement.  The 1960 film represents Spartacus as a larger than life character and a visionary, even asserting that Spartacus sought an end to “the wrongs of slavery,” as opposed to simply wanting his own freedom and getting lucky with the circumstances.  Bennett, Jr. and the other scholar’s view of Styron’s portrayal of Nat Turner represents an anthesis of the portrayal of Spartacus in the film.  They assert Styron’s background as a wealthy, Virginia-born White, not only taints his view of Turner, but offends the African-American community.  They claim that Styron strips Turner of his courage, masculinity, leadership, intellect, and other admirable qualities.  What accounts for the disparity between the portrayal of two of History’s most successful leaders of slave rebellions?  I argue that the main deviation of the portrayal is racially influenced; the civil rights movement was still very active.  Furthermore, the idea that History remembers people more fondly could apply: Spartacus lived over 2000 years before his portrayal in the 1960 film, Turner only about 110 years.  I maintain that this huge difference in the length of time could account for the variance in portrayal.  What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

If you care to read  the article, I have attached a link to it at the Google Books site:

http://books.google.com/books?id=RNsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=%22a+deliberate+attempt+to+steal+the+meaning+of+a+man%27s+life&source=bl&ots=B1Gz4fhryQ&sig=OnmV0BfqEUl_ZR3VXtxMshLlv_Q&hl=en&ei=YdABS_mpNYqesgPTmIyICw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22a%20deliberate%20attempt%20to%20steal%20the%20meaning%20of%20a%20man%27s%20life&f=false

European Slavery & Middle Eastern Slavery

I have been focusing on Roman slavery in particular, and I have gone into detail regarding the cultural aspect of Roman slavery. I have not explored Arab slavery, which had several differences and similarities to Roman slavery. A main difference between the two slavery cultures was that Middle East slavery was governed by religious law, rather than state law. The slaves were of many different racial and religious backgrounds as opposed to just one culutre in European Slavery. This led to the beginning of African Enslavement, since the Arabs began to control slave empires in Northern Africa. This continued until the 18th century, where the Arab Slave Trade became violent. Lynch mobs would hunt Africa for black slaves and capture them, since the demand had gotten so high.

Christian and Judaic law permitted the use of slavery, but the Judiac law gave strict guidelines for selling and treatment of the slaves. Because of this acceptance, slavery boomed in the Middle East until the transatlantic slave trade, where the black slaves were brought to America.

Bibilography

1) Aristotle, Politics. Translated to English by Ernest Barker.

This is a long text that explains in detail Aristotle's view on politics, including his stance and theory regarding slavery. He also focuses on the concept of a city as a basis for a community, and claimed that "man is a political animal."

2) Ben-Hur. Dir. William Wyler. Warner Brothers, 1959. DVD.

A 1959 slave film about a Jewish Slave named Judah Ben-Hur, whose good friend Messalla had been named commander of the Roman garrison of Jerusalem. Their friendship soon dissolved, as Messalla had become an arrogant tyrant. When Judah expresses his opposition to Messalla, he responds by making Judah a galley slave and imprisoning his mother and sister. Judah makes it out of the galleys, and is hell bent on revenge against Messalla.

3) Bradley, Keith. Slavery and Society at Rome New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Print

This is a book that gives an in-depth perspective of Roman Slavery from 200 BCE - 200 AD, and goes into detail about the cruel treatment of these slaves, and how they were viewed in society. It captures how slaves dealt with slavery, and shows how as time progressed, opression to slavery grew.

4) Dubois, Page. Slaves and Other Objects. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Print.

In this book, Dubois looks at Greek Slavery in antiquity, and examines various pieces of literature to examine the difference between a slave and someone who is free. She argues that ancient slavery has been overlooked, and highlights the significance of that time period through literary analysis.

5) Gaius Petronius Arbiter. Satyricon. Translated by Michael Heseltine.

A latin work of fiction, this is narrated by Encolpious, a former gladiator, who follows the life of his 16-year old slave Giton. This is a strong and accurate portrayl of the life of a Roman Slave. Since the story revolved around one person, it was effective in giving an insight on the life of a slave, and his place in culture.

6) Hornsby, Alton Jr., "Slavery and Servitude." Laughter Genealogy Reference and Research Center. Concord Learning Systems, 2008. Web. Accessed 5 April 2011.

This was the webpage that gave a chronological overview of ancient slavery.

7) Joshel, Sandra R. Slavery in the Roman World New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print.

If I had to identify my most important source for this blog, I would choose this book. Sandra Joshel gave a complete picture of slavery in Rome, using literature and law. This gave a perspective to the rights of slaves, the relation between slaves and their owners, plus it showed the tasks that these slaves had to do. After reading this book, I gained a complete understanding of Slavery's place in Roman Culture.

8) Plautus, Titus Maccius. The Comedies of Plautus. Translated by Henry Thomas Riley.

A moving story in which Saturio, a poor free man, had to resort to selling his own daughter into slavery in order to pay his debt. This follows the life of the daughter after she was sold, which goes into graphic detail about her time as a sexual slave.

9) Shahadah, Owen Alik. "The definitive History of the Arab Slave Trade in Africa." Arab Slave Trade. African Code, 2011. Web. Accessed 31 March 2011. http://www.arabslavetrade.com

This webpage was a key component of my blog, as it examined the Arab Slave Trade, showing many differences between Western Slavery and North African/Middle East Slavery. The most striking thing I learned from this was that Middle Eastern slavery was permitted under Islam, Christan, and Judaic law. As a result, the demand for slaves grew, and led into the transatlantic slave trade.

Beginnings of Bibliography

Bibliography (In Work)
DuBois, Page. Slavery: Antiquity and Its Legacy. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.

Spartacus. Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Perf. Kirk Douglas, Laurence Oliver, and Jean Simmons. Universal Pictures Co., 1960. DVD.

Thucydides, Rex Warner, and M. I. Finley. History of the Peloponnesian War. Harmondsworth, Eng.: Penguin, 1972. Print.

Urbainczyk, Theresa. Slave Revolts in Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California, 2008. Print.

Original Intent: the Battle for America (1)

Double click to play movie
You must be a member of this course to view this movie



The video above is taken from the documentary film "Original Intent: The Battle for America". This documentary addresses the debate over the meaning of the US Constitution and the original intent of the Founders. Politicians and judges often debate whether the Constitution should be interpreted according to what the Founders' words meant, literally, when the document was written or whether we should make our own decisions with reference to what principles we think the Founders were trying to protect when they wrote the Constitution.

In this clip we see former President George Bush explain several times that he will appoint judges that "strictly interpret the Constitution" and don't allow their personal opinion to shape their interpretation. (He is naturally overlooking the fact that being an originalist is also a personal opinion that is being used to interpret the Constitution.) We then see Justice Antonin Scalia explain that "There is indeed no reason to have a Constitution except to establish a fundamental framework that cannot be departed from"

Whether the originalists have it right or wrong, their attitude of reverence and strict adherence to a document written roughly 200 years ago is drastically different from the democracy of ancient Athens.The Athenian democracy had a smaller jurisdiction both geographically and in population, than our own. This allowed for, and in fact demanded, much more active citizens. In order to facilitate this sort of government, the citizens had to be free to make decisions, and so their rules were less restrictive in this sense than our Constitution is. The Athenians would certainly not have held reverently to a 200 year old document if the various citizen bodies found it out of date and absurd. The issue of what exactly a word meant 200 years ago, would not be an issue, because they would not have been bound by such documents. Even the judiciary branch of Athenian democracy relies far more on the common man than our own, as decisions were often made by panels or large juries (because large juries are harder to bribe) rather than by individual judges or a relatively small number of judges like our Supreme Court.

Interpretation of Slavery: Spartacus & a Disaster Called Human Enslavement

Spartacus (1960)

This video is the property of Universal Pictures, and its use on this blog is for educational purposes.  This adheres to US Copyright Law, Section 107.

I chose to share this clip because I feel like it highlights some of the prevalent themes that are incorporated into the film Spartacus through the Director's and Writer's literary privilege.  The film makes some over arching assertions and insinuations about Spartacus' character.  For example, the narrator makes the claim that Spartacus wanted to end slavery because of moral concerns.  Could this have been true?  Absolutely, but more likely is the scenario that Spartacus merely wanted his own freedom, and after a few successes, ran with the momentum he had built up.  I really felt this 'over-extension' of literary privilege in the when the narrator basically says that Spartacus' ideals were 2000 years before his time.  What do you think? Leave a comment below.

Ben-Hur

You must be logged onto CTools to view this video




I chose this video clip to illustrate how brutal slave punishments can be. What I found very powerdul about this clip was that two men looked on emotionally as three slaves were crusified. This scene shows the pain and suffering that slaves felt as they watched another slave be punished. Also, watching a man be crusified brought emotional suffering equal to a slave being split from their family, since it generally always meant that they would never see them again.

Relationships Between Slavery and Citizenship

Up to this point, my posts have focused on the relationship between governments and their citizens. However, it is important to note that one of the factors that strongly influenced the form of Athenian democracy was the fact that the economy ran on the labor of slaves. Athenian laws and social rules demanded high time investments in governing by the citizenry. This direct democracy would not have been able to function in a non-slaveholding society, as many of these men would have had to spend much of the day working. Later in Athenian democracy, men were paid about half a day's pay for their participation in the government, but on the whole, a direct democracy would prove too expensive without the availability of slave labor.

From a modern persepective, this is one of several reasons why we cannot simply copy the Ancient Greek system as our own system of government. While the largest problem with a direct democracy from an American perspective has more to do with the number of citizens in the country, the lack of institutionalized slavery also contributes to the infeasibility of this system.

Questions for further research:
-How could citizens become slaves or lose citizenship status?
-How could slaves become "free" and what was that freedom worth?
-Did slaves really revolt for the purpose of (re)gaining citizenship status or was it simply an emotional response to poor treatment without this clear and definite goal?

Gladiators as Slaves

Gladiators did not necessarily have to be slaves to fight in the arena; many were criminals, freemen and prisoners of war. Though they may not have originally been labeled as slaves before joining the fighting men, once an individual became a gladiator he relinquished an rights he had as a citizen of Rome. They took an oath that they swore to endure being burned, bound, beaten, and slain by the sword (“uni, vinciri, verberari, ferroque necari patior.”) They were at the service of their master, just as a slave would be to his master. By becoming a gladiator these men became the highest level of social disgrace in the Roman society known as infamia.

As I talked in my midterm blog post I mentioned how despite the fact that gladiators had the rights of slaves and were socially the same, there is a major difference between a slaves and gladiators. Gladiators, though infamia, were idolized by the Roman people including certain Emperors (Caligula and Commodus both fought in the arena). Gladiators had the capacity to become heroes to the people. Cicero used the gladiator to represent his “good man” in Tusculanae Disputationes. He described the gladiator as a soldier soldier/philosopher who through his consistent and unflinching fierceness in the face of death and his complete collusion (and even pressure) in his own powerlessness couples his slavery with honor.

Lukas Varney

Comments on Timeline

In the timeline below, the events surrounding the 3rd Servile War, led by Spartacus are laid forth in detail.  An interesting piece of information which I would like to divulge into more would be the use of  "decimation" by the Roman army.  The word decimation is derived from Latin, meaning roughly "elimination of 1/10".

Plutarch writes on decimation in his "Life of Antony":

"Antony was furious and employed the punishment known as 'decimation' on those who had lost their nerve. What he did was divide the whole lot of them into groups of ten, and then he killed one from each group, who was chosen by lot; the rest, on his orders were given barley rations instead of wheat."

Why is this significant to slave revolts and the public perception of Spartacus?  I argue that Crassus' use of this on his troops in the 3rd Servile War actually made them fear him more than the rebel Spartacus.  They would not be cowardly or mutinous if the threat of decimation wars real.  Thus, Crassus garnished more fear, from his own troops, than did Spartacus.

Timeline of Spartacus and the 3rd Servile War

Important Events and Dates in the History and Timeline of Spartacus
Timeline Dates	Timeline of Spartacus and the Third Servile War
135 - 132 BC	Slave revolts in Sicily. (1st Servile War).
104 - 100 BC	Second Sicilian slave war (2nd Servile War).
c109BC	Spartacus is born in Thrace
c78BC	Spartacus serves as soldier in the Roman Army as an auxiliary
73 BC	Spartacus was trained at the gladiatorial school (ludus) near Capua belonging to Lentulus Batiatus, the slave trader and lanista.
73 BC	Spartacus trained as a lightly armed Roman gladiator referred to as a Thracian. A Thracian gladiator wore a helmet, padded leg protection and would have carried a circular or quadrangular small shield called a parmula
73 BC	Spartacus escapes from the gladiator school with 70-80 slave gladiators
73 BC	The gladiator band take refuge on the side of Mount Vesuvius (near modern day Naples) led by Spartacus with his aides Crixus, Castus, Gannicus and Oenomaus.
73 BC	The small group of gladiators plunder and pillage around the area and are quickly joined by large numbers of slaves, who flock to him from all quarters. He is soon at the head of a formidable slave army
73 BC	Outbreak of Third Servile War, led by the slave and gladiator Spartacus
73 BC	The praetor Clodius Glaber, with 3,000 soldiers, are sent by the Senate from Rome to quell the slave revolt. The over confident Glaber and his troops are defeated by the slave army
72 BC	After the success over Glaber many more runaway slaves join Spartacus and his gladiator army swelling the number to 30,000 escaped slaves. The slave army splits, separating into ranks according to their natural languages.
72 BC	The Senate sends the two consuls (Gellius Publicola and Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus), each with two legions, against the rebel slave army.
72 BC	Battle at Picenum. Many Gauls and Germans are defeated by Publicola. Their leader, Crixus, is killed. Spartacus then defeats Lentulus and then Publicola
72 BC	Battle at Mutina. The slave army defeats another legion under Gaius Cassius Longinus, the Governor of Cisalpine Gaul. Spartacus counsels escape via the Alps but the Gauls and Germans refuse to go, wanting to the opportunity to rob and pillage more Romans
72 BC	Crassus is appointed to the supreme command of the war
72 BC	Spartacus keeps the slave army together moving to southern Italy where they can hire pirate ships to Sicily (the location of the first 2 Servile Wars). The slave army defeats two more Roman legions under Marcus Licinius Crassus
72 BC	Crassus inflicts the punishment of Decimation, where 1 out of 10 soldiers is beaten to death by his comrades, on his Roman soldiers for cowardice - this results in the Roman soldiers becoming more afraid of Crassus than of the gladiator army of Spartacus
72 BC	By the end of 72 BC, Spartacus is encamped in Rhegium near the Strait of Messina.
72 BC	Spartacus is then betrayed by the Cilician pirates and his plan to transport the slave army to Sicily falls through
71 BC	Crassus tries to trap Spartacus and his slave army at Calabria by building a ditch with a wall, nearly sixty kilometers long and five meters wide across the 'toe' of Italy from sea to sea
71 BC	Spartacus manages to break through Crassus's lines and escapes towards Brundisium
71 BC	Battle at the River Silarus. This is believed to be the final battle and the death of Spartacus. The body of Spartacus is never found
71 BC	Crassus wreaks a terrible revenge on the slave army and orders that 6,000 slave captives are crucified along the Appian Way from Brundisium to Rome. Their bodies are left to rot as an example to all slaves who rebel against Rome
71 BC	5,000 slaves escape capture and flee north. The remainder of the slave army is destroyed by Pompey
71 BC	Pompey claims credit for ending the slave war and is granted a triumph. Crassus is given just an ovation
71 BC	The Third Servile War (also referred to as the Gladiator War and The War of Spartacus) is crushed by Pompey and Crassus
<http://www.roman-colosseum.info/gladiators/spartacus-timeline.htm>

Midterm

I am researching slave revolts in antiquity and their public perception.  I have tried to answer a few main research questions: 1).  What were the circumstances surrounding slave revolts in antiquity?, 2). How were the leaders of slave revolts, and powerful slaves in general viewed by the public?, 3).  How do the findings from the previous questions relate to that of a) enslaved Africans in North American in the 18th and 19th centuries, and b) present day slaves in America (specifically sex slaves), c) the present day portrayal of ancient slave revolts and and slave leaders such as Spartacus.

A secondary source that has provided much insight is Theresa Urbainczyk's "Slave Revolts in Antiquity."  Urbainczyk, a professor at the University College in Ireland, focuses on addressing the social and political context in which the revolts took place.  The book is unique because the academic following of ancient slave revolts has been neglected.  In her book, Urbainczyk hypothesizes that there is a clear explanation for the lack of scholarship on the subject.  She argues that although slaves did revolt in antiquity, in some instances by the thousands, and sometimes in revolts lasting for years, but the key fact that they all eventually ended and slavery persisted.  She also claims that the slaves did not really have a chance of succeeding.

Crucial though to Urbainczyks theory is the significance of studying slave revolts in giving an understanding of the societies they took place in.  Additionally, studying earlier ancient slaves revolts give insight into later revolts.

Urbainczyk points out many similarities between more recent revolts and revolts in antiquity, but in my opinion needs to expand her theory to include other aggravating factors when examining the cause of slave revolts: a prime example of this highlights a primary source I have been using--Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War".  In Book one Thucydides' credits the earthquake of 464 BCE with the uprising of the Helots to Mt. Ithome.
 http://books.google.com/books?id=SY0HIF40LxsC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=Thucydides+helot+uprising&source=bl&ots=IeEbJS_wk5&sig=huIiKpPp3URa9SFsary-Gq8Z7o4&hl=en&ei=DLlmTeuQHIT7lwfp3_n-AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=earthquake&f=false


In addressing the modern portrayal of ancient slave revolts and leader's, Page DuBois' "SLAVERY: Antiquity and its Legacy" has really helped put the public view into perspective.  She claims that film makers in such films as 'Spartacus' (1963) and 'Gladiator' (2003) reveal the film makers' "hatred of slavery, a desire for freedom, and an identification with the heroic slaves that is universalized.  The situation in these ancient settings is allegorized to encompass what the American directors assume is a natural hunger for freedom and to escape bondage...the myth of escape from oppression, the huddled masses yearning informs profoundly these accounts of antiquity on film." (duBois 163).  Dubois makes a sound point: The portrayal of antiquities' slave leaders, who are household names even in 2011, such as Spartacus (both in the 1963 film and the 2010 Starz series, and Maximus (even though fictional), embody American ideals of freedom from oppression.  Please view the following clips:

Gladiator.  The quote from this clip, "Win the crowd, win your freedom," indicates this is Maxivus' (and presumably all slaves') underlying desire.  I question the validity of this on the grounds that many gladiators loved being gladiators for the fame and honor that went with it.  It was like being a professional athlete:

 

 Here is a clip of Spartacus, from the Starz series, giving a speech on freedom after he kills his master.  He says, "Your lives are now your own."  This is a very Americanized view to freedom--the rights of an individual. Please click the link.

http://www.twitvid.com/WRW5M



My third secondary source, American Negro Slave Revolts by Herbert Aptheker, addresses revolts of slaves such as Nat Turner and how American slavery faced constraints limiting the successes and opportunities of slavery: fear of rebellion, the machinery of control, and the exaggeration, censorship and distortion of their portrayal.  I found many parallels between both the constraints on revolts, and the mitigating opportunities for them in Aptheker's book and that of Urbainzcyk.  It seems to me that each time a major uprising took place, there were circumstances which aided in the success of the revolt.  Urbainszcyk capps this on the social and political issues, but I would expand this to include other issues, such as the earthquake of 464, of the severe maltreatment of American slaves such as Nat Turner.  Aptheker gives strong credence to the latter.

In Suetonius' "Life of Augustus", he cites Augustus' stopping Spartacus' followers as a major accomplishment.  This is significant because Suetonius generally focuses on the character of his bibliographies, not a tedious list of accomplishments and historical background.  For Suetonius to include this detail, it represents the Roman public's fear of Spartacus, as it must have been a "great" task for August to suppress him:
"After his praetorship, he became governor of Macedonia, having crushed a group of outlaw slaves who, having fought under Spartacus and Catiline, were now holding possession of the district...he governored Macedonia courageously and justly winning a big battle..."  (Suetonius 3.1)

As I presented in class and have previously cited, Theresa Urbainczky argues in "Slave Revolts in Antiquity" that many successful slave revolt took place concurrent with other social and political unrest.  In a modern context, the success of slaves' escapes is also increased by social factors.

Four years ago a 20-year-old university student signed up with a friend to study English abroad in a program that involved waitressing in Virginia Beach, but the girls would never reach Virginia. And they wouldn't be waitresses. Instead they ended up being forced to work as sex slaves at the Cheetah Club in Detroit.  They eventually escaped from the traffickers holding them against their will, and were eventually represented by a University of Michigan Law School Clinic Professor.

I argue that the girls were successful in their escape, similar to the heightened success of ancients revolts concurrent with social upheavals, because of a) An increased public awareness of human trafficking in the U.S., and b) Publicity of the incident. Here is a link of a transcript from an MSNBC interview with one of the victims:   
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22056066/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/

Finally, I would like to show the dichotomy between then present historical portrayals of leaders of slave revolts in antiquity and 19th century America.  The two are very different in their portrayal of the subject:

Spartacus: Proud and Noble.

And

Nat Turner: Portrayed as weak and ragged.

Slavery as a part of culture

Slavery is a practice that has dated all the way back to ancient Rome, and over time, the way it is perceived in culture and the way it is administered has evolved over time. I have done readings and gathered information on the cultural aspect of slavery, both in ancient Rome and in the modern world. To gain a broad perspective of slavery as a whole, I have looked into how the slaves were treated, what power they had, what their morale was, and what they symbolized.

Roman slavery was prominent by the end of the second century BCE, when the Romans controlled the states and all citizens of Italy south of the Po River. However, as Sandra R. Joshel states in Slavery in the Roman World, it is difficult to label this ancient society in Rome as a "slave society" as opposed to a society that have slaves. She notes that "Generally, historians define a slave society in quantatative terms: How many slaves? What proportion of the population were slaves?" (7) If a "slave society" is defined by a proportion of slaves greater than 20 percent of the population, only five slave societies have existed in human history, which include ancient Rome, Greece, and United States during the Civil War.

However, from my readings, I believe that ancient Rome was indeed a slave society, but not based on numbers. The reason it was a slave society is because it was culturally accepted in society, and there were explicit laws permitting slavery in ancient rome. Joshel explains that "if we rely solely on law and literature for our understanding of Roman society, we rely on a story that excludes for the most part the positions of slaves and lower-class Romans. Law maps the boundaries within which action took place and the roles determined by rights and privleges from the perspective of jurists that owned property, including slaves." (14) To me, this suggests that many of the wealthy owners often overlooked the harsh treatment of slaves, and very few literary works accurately capture the grueling conditions that the slaves work through. As Keith Bradley puts it in his 1994 book Slavery and Society at Rome, "Traditionalists will object that to try to penetrate the psychological world of the Roman slave is beyond the historian's sphere, especially if the attempt leans heavily on support from other times and places...But objections are inadmissible when founded on defective knowledge or false, and even arrogant, beliefs that the unique character of the classical world somehow renders it incapable of profitable comparison with other historical societies." (180) These slaves were used so that those who owned them could prosper, and the free people saw nothing wrong with this.

To capture the perspective of what the lives of these ancient slaves were like, I read a novel entitled The Satyricon, which was written by Petronius, an active senator and consul in the mid-first century CE.
One key part that stood out to me was the excerpt about a dinner party by Trimalchio, a wealthy free Roman. He would frequently hold such dinner parties, and the slaves were ordered to labor to his every command. Petronius wrote "Trimalchio had now stopped his game, and asked for all the same dishes, and in a loud voice invited any of us, who wished, to take a second glass of mead. Suddenly the music gave the sign, and the light dishes were swept away by a troop of singing servants. An entrée-dish happened to fall in the rush, and a boy picked it up from the ground. Trimalchio saw him, and directed that he should be punished by a box on the ear, and made to throw down the dish again. [34] This shows that having slaves is a symbol of wealth in Roman society, since these slaves would labor to a wealthy free person's ever need. Trimalchio spoke down to the slaves, instructing “Now tell me, my dear friend: you will erect a monument as I have directed? I beg you earnestly to put up round the feet of my statue my little dog, and some wreaths, and bottles of perfume, and all the fights of Petraites[p. 139] so that your kindness may bring me a life after death; and I want the monument to have a frontage of one hundred feet and to be two hundred feet in depth." By being ordered to do these tasks, it shows that the motivation for owning slaves is to have a sense of superiority, and not to help produce income, the way it was during the United States Civil War when slaves would cultivate and harvest crops and perform field labor so that their masters could sell these goods.

Plautus wrote a variety of plays during the late third and early second centuries BCE which aimed at capturing the essence of the physical and psychological toll the slaves had to go through. A moving scene was that when Saturio, a free Roman living in poverty, had to resort to selling his own daughter into slavery in order to support the family. Saturio declared "May this same matter turn out well for me, and for yourself, and for my stomach, and for everlasting victuals for it as well for all time to come...to you I have communicated all my designs. For that reason have I dressed you out after this fashiton; young woman, to-day you are to be sold." (3.1.1-5)

Today, although its place in culture has changed as well as the way it is administered, slavery is still a symbol of power for the wealthy that take ownership of the underprivleged, and the underprivleged in America today are generally illegal immigrants. Knowing that they have no rights in the United States due to lack of citizenship, wealthy restaurant owners or farmers take in illegal immigrants and their families, and pay them well below minimum wage to bus tables and clean dishes, or in the case of farmers, give them virtually inhospitable conditions while they work in the field, and provide them with little food and water. In the following video, it is revealed that Adkin's Blueberry Packing Company in South Haven, MI had employed young illegal immigrants and their family. Among these immigrants were eight and seven year olds.

As stated in the video, the family offered their children into labor because they had low income, similar to the conflict inthe play written by Plautus, when Saturio had to subject his daughter to slavery. Although slavery is illegal in society today, it has taken on new forms. This slavery is used for wealthy people, like this farm owner, to produce more income while undercutting the costs of labor by employing illegal child immigrants. But as it has been made clear, slavery still exists today.

Government and Citizenship

I have been exploring the relationship between the structure of governments and the way that it affects the beliefs and values of its citizens. In order to explore such a broad topic, I have limited the scope of my discussion to ancient Greek democracy, particularly fifth century Athens and the relatively modern US "democracy". In the interest of exploring the roots of our democratic principles and due to the founding fathers' interest in classical civilizations, I will consider their views and writings in addition to contemporary US views. I hope that this will demonstrate some of the persistent strengths and weaknesses of societies ruled by the people, recognizing these similarities between ourselves and the ancients can provide guidance in our own growth as citizens and as a culture.

Secondary Sources:

First Democracy - Paul Woodruff

Greeks and Romans Bearing Gifts: How the Ancients Inspired the Founding Fathers - Carl J. Richard

Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens - Arlene W. Saxonhouse

The review of the three secondary sources has exposed me to three completely different perspectives. First Democracy focuses on the question of what democracy actually is, stating "We are too close to our own experience of democracy...to see clearly what are the essential features." Accordingly, Woodruff spends most of the remainder of the book exploring what he considers the seven fundamental concepts that define democracy: (Note that they are NOT voting, majority rule, or electing representatives)

1) Freedom from tyranny
2) Harmony
3) The rule of law
4) Natural equality
5) Citizen wisdom
6) Reasoning without knowledge
7) General education

Woodruff also has a chapter at the end of the book where he asserts that the US is not yet ready for a true democracy, and is in fact moving away from one. One of the main reasons for this is the two party system that limits the rights of the citizen to choose candidates and results in a winner-takes-all style of government that is not conducive to the values of true democracy.

I think Woodruff has an excellent point that the Greek system, based on oral tradition, was much more flexible and direct than our own, and as such allowed for a more accurate portrayal of the will of the people. Our system, with its rigidly reverent attitude towards the Constitution, does not allow for drastic changes in form. While the Founders saw this as a safety feature, I believe that it has helped lead to voter apathy, as those living in "locked" districts know their vote does not matter. You can understand the frustration for many voters by looking at the two charts below. Over time the parties have become increasingly polarized (this is a huge problem in the harmony category) and the large number of moderate voters are left without candidates to vote for. I believe this contributes to much of the apathy felt by today's voters, especially the younger generations wihtout a lifetime of voting experience, because they feel that their voice is not being heard. They feel forced to choose between the lesser of two evils put forth by the parties and so they have no desire to vote. Perhaps by studying ancient (or other modern) forms of democracy we could get ideas to remedy this problem, but that would require us to address education (#7) and to free ourselves from the tyranny of a two party system (#1)







Richard also asserts that the Founders did not intend for the country to be a democracy, much as we may refer to it as that now. He explains that the founders, with their thorough knowledge of the classics, saw the accounts of Thucydides and Plutarch as warnings about purely democratic forms of government. The Founders were interested in a sort of mixed government from the beginning, where the common people held some of the power and a more educated/aristocratic class held some. This was intended to balance the foolishness of the mob and the often greedy interests of the wealthy. One can see Richard's assertions in the language and form of the Constitution which makes distinctions between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House (which is elected by the people) has the exclusive right to initiate Bills to raise revenue. The Senate, though now elected directly by the people, was the more aristocratic/elite group and was chosen by the legislature of the state (Article 1, Section 3)

These points about the Founders are interesting because many Americans consider the US to be a excellent example of democracy, when in fact it isn't really a democracy and was never intended as one. In fact, many Americans refer to the Founding Fathers or cling to the Constitution as the primary sources of democracy, which is ironic because the Founders, with their more extensive classical education, knew that they were no such thing.

Saxonhouse writes specifically about free speech. The first chapter of her book explores the difference between our view of free speech, aimed at protecting citizens from opression by the government, and the Greeks who viewed it more as a great equalizer. The Greeks were not concerned about repression from the government in the way that we are because they ARE the government, while we elect officials and need to control them from applying laws that might repress certain groups. For more on this topic see my previous post.

On the topic of direct democracy, below you can see a kleroterion, which was a device used in Athenian democracy to randomly select members for several of the political groups. Each citizen placed his token in a slot and a system of dice indicated which tokens would be chosen. This lottery system is an interesting feature of Greek democracy which made it considerably more direct than our own. Among other things, it eliminated the advantages of being wealthy that are present in our elction based system.

Primary Source #1: Aristotle
As I mentioned in a previous post, Aristotle devotes several chapters of politics to the idea of civic virtue. From his writings we can see a definition of a citizen that is more stringent than our own and is tied much more closely to the state than our own, as he explains that a citizen's "special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices" or more broadly, that a citizen is "He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state".

Continuing Aristotle addresses whether those who hold no share in office can be true citizens. He concludes that they are not as "he is a citizen in the highest sense who shares in the honours of the state" and "he who is excluded from the honours of the state is no better than an alien". This shows a consistent and firm belief that the rights and responsibilities of citizens were firmly linked to their participation in public life, and that it was not sufficient to be born a citizen if you did not fulfill these public duties. This is not a belief that we currently hold, as large numbers of Americans that are eligible to vote show little interest in doing so and are not reviled by the rest of society for that choice.

Primary Source #2: Thucydides
While Aristotle's writing highlights a difference between ancient Greek beliefs and our own, Pericles' funeral oration in Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War" sounds very smilar to the values America professes to have. These are called out in detail in my previous post: "The Modern Link: Excerpts on Democratic Government" so I will not explore them further here.

These two primary source examples show both similarities (Thucydides) and differences (Aristotle) between our views and those of the ancient Greeks. As I mentioned previously, exploring both the simlarities and differences allows us to identify with and learn from the Greeks, both in their successes and their failures.



Image of slavery in Rome

Methods of modern slavery and how it differs from ancient slavery

In today's world, slavery still does exist in various forms, although it goes under the radar a majority of the time. Common forms of slavery in the modern world include human trafficking, and sex slaves. The technology that is present in todays world, particularly websites like Craigslist and Facebook allow for an abundance of advertisement over the internet, which poses a problem for the United States department of defense. Many of these ads are clear ads for prostitution, with claims such as "Find hot singles tonight in your area." This leads to abuse of many women who are involved with these advertisements, and goes unnoticed most of the time.

Another form of slavery, which has become a growing problem in America, is the slavery of illegal immigrants. There are households who take in illegal aliens, and agree to keep them in their house to prevent them from being deported in exchange for labor, or sexual favors. This type of slavery very closely resembles a conflict faced in ancient slavery, since these slaves, like ancient slaves, were stuck between a rock and a hard place. They were subject to poor treatment by the household that kept them, but escape was not a viable option, since they could not live on their own without a visa. This shows that although slavery is no longer accepted nor legal in society, it still exists by means of underground forms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeMGPP_GgKo

The Modern Link: Excerpts on Democratic Government from Pericles' Funeral Oration

[Primary Source Excursus]

Thucydides was an Athenian historian who lived from 460-395 BC. His great contribution to Classical Studies was "The History of the Peloponnesian War", a large record of the war between Sparta and Athens that took place in his lifetime. The war lasted approximately 30 years, and Thucydides considered it to be of enormous historical importance. Accordingly, he gives detailed accounts from eyewitnesses or recounts events or speeches he witnessed himself. Unlike Herodotus, Thucydides does not regularly reference the will of the gods, and so many scholars consider his work to be a relatively objective account of the war.

The excerpts in the post below come from Book 2 of this work, a section known as Pericles' Funeral Oration. In this passage, Pericles, a famous Athenian politician, is giving a speech at a customary public funeral for Athenian soldiers killed during the war (as seen in the painting below). Pericles starts his speech in the customary way, by refering to the glory of the ancestors. However, he soon deviates from this and focuses instead on praising Athens and exhorting the living to continue to live up to the reputations of tose who have been killed in battle.



These public funerals and Pericles' interest in the city rather than individual glories show us a culture that is shifting away from individual glory towards a more democratic, egalitarian death ritual. It is interesting that the 5th C Athenian form of democracy, which is more interested in equal rights among different classes, applies this group death ritual, while in current United States culture death is viewed as a very private and isolated affair.

There are several passages from Pericles' Funeral Oration (Thucydides, "The History of the Peloponnesian War") that espouse what I would consider typical middle class American beliefs. In fact, I would say that it is only the rhetoric, rather than the content that allows us to detect the difference between Pericles' statements and some of our own. However, the fact that these are what we would consider national ideals does not mean that we always act on them. This can be seen from some of the controversial topics below. Based on the controversies within our own society, it seems safe to assume that the ancient Greeks also had similar conflicts within their society.

Example 1: Immigrants

" We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occaisionally profit by our liberality; trusting less in system and policy than to the native spirit of our citizens"
-Pericles

It is important to note here, that though Pericles claims that Athens is a worldly city, and is highlighting the opportunities available to foreigners, he is simultaneously distinguishing them from citizens. He is not claiming that foreigners can come to Athens and be equal to citizens, but simply that there are opportunities here for them in addition to citizens.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
-Inscription from the Statue of Liberty

This inscription from the Statue of Liberty depicts a US that professes to be a melting pot, a country where nearly everyone came from somewhere else and all are welcome. However, in reality the US, like so many other places has struggled to accept foreigners and grant them full citizen rights. Two fairly modern controversies involving immigration/foreignes can be seen in the videos below.

Rush Limbaugh on illegal immigration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHPm_TEQ0PA

PBS on Manzanar internment camp: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgmY2P-xT_Y

I see a strong parallel between Pericles' assertion that the Athenians have a worldy city where people can come from all over and be given all kinds of opportunities, and the US's similar assertion that it is a country where anyone who is downtrodden or persecuted can go. Regardless of both cultures' insistence on openess and opportunity, it appears that we still struggle with the same concerns and issues the Greeks did over 2000 years ago.

Example 2: Privacy

"The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbor for doing what he likes.."
-Pericles

Many Americans consider privacy a crucial right, and would like to think that Pericles' statement above applies to the current government of the United States. However, as can be seen in the pictures below, there are still groups of citizens and even government agencies that "excercise jealous surveillance" and are "angry with our neighbor for doing what he likes". So, here again we can see a parallel between the current United States and the ancient Greek culture.


Members of Westboro Baptist Church


Senate Subcommittee on Investigations - McCarthy Hearings

Example 3: Equal Rights

"If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition"
-Pericles

"The Department of Education— enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal funds and ensures equal access to education for every individual.
The Department enforces five civil rights statutes to ensure equal educational opportunity for all students, regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, disability or age. These laws extend to all ... entities that receive U.S. Department of Education funds." (http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/what_pg2.html#howdoes)

While the United States has consistently moved towards equal justice for all citizens, there are undeniably some areas where discrimination still exists. Sometimes this discrimination is personal and intentinal, but more often it is unintentionally integrated into a system, such as the public school system, where it cannot be easily eradicated. While the Athenians worked hard to ensure that class/economic differences did not influence their political system, they were not concerned about eliminating discrimination against women, slaves, or foreigners. So, when Pericles says that the laws afford equal justice to all, he means al citizens, not all people. It is important to note this difference between the Athenian culture and our own, because it has a strong effect on the governmental structure and its success.

Pericles' statements rendered here by Thucydides speak to fundamental ideas of democracy still deemed important today. This is augmented by the complexity of the details surrounding these statements and the controversy that is generated by said details. While most of us would agree that the points layed out here by Pericles are excellent qualities to have in a democracy, we often disagree when weighing between qualities and settling details and policies.

The Revolt of Modern Day Slaves

Theresa Urbainczky argues in "Slave Revolts in Antiquity" that many successful slave revolt took place concurrent with other social and political unrest.  I would add to this definition the inclusion of other events that stirred unrest, specifically the Helot Uprising in the 5th Century BC.  Thucydides, in "The History of The Peloponnesean War" adds an earthquake to this list of factors encouraging success.  In a modern context, the success of slaves' escapes is also increased by social factors.

Four years ago a 20-year-old university student signed up with a friend to study English abroad in a program that involved waitressing in Virginia Beach, but the girls would never reach Virginia. And they wouldn't be waitresses. Instead they ended up being forced to work as sex slaves at the Cheetah Club in Detroit.  They eventually escaped from the traffickers holding them against their will, and were eventually represented by a University of Michigan Law School Clinic Professor.

I argue that the girls were successful in their escape, similar to the heightened success of ancients revolts concurrent with social upheavals, because of a) An increased public awareness of human trafficking in the U.S., and b) Publicity of the incident. Here is a link of a transcript from an MSNBC interview with one of the victims:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22056066/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/

Citizenship: The Public vs Private Life

In a democratic government the role of a citizen must be clearly defined. What makes one a citizen? What rights and responsibilities does that include? Can citizenship or the associated rights be stripped if the person does not meet the requirements set forth by the society? These questions were perhaps even more important to the Greeks than they are to us today since their government was run directly from the citizens rather than through representatives.

Aristotle addresses The citizen, civic virtue, and the civic body in Politics, Book III, Ch 1-5. In Chapter 1, he explains that in a democracy a citizen is not a complete citizen just because they live in a certain place, or are born in a certain place, or even because they have access to the courts. Rather that "his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices" or more broadly, that "He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state".

So here we can see a definition of a citizen that is more stringent than our own and is tied much more closely to the state than our own. Our relationship with the state involves almost entirely receiving rights, with the only societal expectation of responsibility being that we obey the laws. The Greek relationship between the citizen and the state involved more responsibilities for the citizens, like active political involvment and the willingness to participate in military campaigns.

Finally, in Chapter 5, Aristotle addresses whether those who hold no share in office can be true citizens. He concludes that they are not as "he is a citizen in the highest sense who shares in the honours of the state" and "he who is excluded from the honours of the state is no better than an alien". Aristotle states that "It must be admitted that we cannot consider all those to be citizens who are necessary to the existence of the state; for example, children are not citizens equally with grown-up men, who are citizens absolutely" This shows a consistent and firm belief that the rights and responsibilities of citizens were firmly linked to their participation in public life, and that it was not sufficient to be born a citizen if you did not fulfill these public duties.