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.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
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.
-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'
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.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
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.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
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.
-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.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)